My kids were always encouraged to explore the worlds of religion. I answered their questions honestly and without prejudice. They had various friends from all religions, many sects and some wack jobs.
I took them to synagogues, temples, monasteries, convents, abbeys, retreats…wherever they wished to go.
Not one of them is a theist. Even every one my foster kids are all atheist. It is the power of enquiry that made them so. Not me, not my partner. A couple of them dabbled in Scientology but woke up very quickly to that BS. They worked it out.
Unlike their religious friends they were never pressured or threatened.
My boys were raised to explore religions and encouraged to question.
Their grandparents exposed them to JW (my side) and Orthodox (his), we visited churches. They went to a Catholic school system when young. My oldest dated a Muslim girl for a year and looked into the religion.
They all, right now, haven’t chosen any religion or god. They’re in their late teens, except for the oldest who’s now 20. If they ever do, that’s their decision and I would love them the same.
You don’t need to teach anyone including children not to hold a belief they weren’t born with, just teach the facts, they usually see through the unevidenced bs themselves.
No, by definition religious faith is indoctrination, and your posts have shown you can’t objectively evidence or explain your beliefs, and won’t allow any part of them to be subjected to critical scrutiny, like failing to acknowledge your relentless use of known logical fallacies in support of those beliefs on here for example, or failing to evidence at all or offer any rational explanation for your claim that love is a reason to believe in a deity as another example.
Indoctrination
noun
the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
You can’t have it both ways, either you want to submit your beliefs to critical scrutiny and not use religious faith, or it is by definition indoctrination.
I know it’s problematic for you, but words have meaning, and your use of them as rhetoric won’t wash here, because many people here have critically examined such arguments for years, and understand what it means when an argument is irrational, poorly reasoned and unsupported by objective evidence.
It depends upon your rules for a logical discussion.
If we don’t require evidence, then what’s the difference between claiming God exists and claiming that leprechuans exist?
We can’t (or shouldn’t) interpret reality just by how we feel . . . as the Universe seems to be indifferent to our wants and desires . . . otherwise, we would live in a perfect world.
So . . . I want leprechauns to exist so that I can be wealthy by stealing their pots of gold, and you want God to exist so that your life can have meaning.
If I’m going to claim that leprechuans exist, then I should show evidence.
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
You have already accepted you can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity.
Why is love (as you claimed) a reason to believe in any deity?
If you can’t evidence the claim or even explain it rationally, then there is no decision for those who choose not to hold irrational unevidenced beliefs.
You use this standard with all claims? For example a Nigerian Prince needs money to get his locked funds released. Upon receiving your money, he promises to reward you with millions.
History of humanity shows Princes exist, Nigeria exists, money exists, funds can be locked (or held).
Frankly, just this alone doesn’t give you a good measure for determining whether his claim is true or not
Well that I suspect is why @Whitefire13 is asking him what his criteria is for believing or disbelieving a claim.
For all claims, a belief is the affirmation of a claim, if you state a belief publicly then the only way to determine if it is true is by the amount of objective evidence that supports it. That is why science has been so spectacularly successful in such a short space or time.
Can anyone offer a single objective fact about reality that religions have taught us ever, that we couldn’t have uncovered without religion?
The very thing that helped convert me was visiting every church in my town. When I thought I wanted to be a preacher, I thought I should explore all the churches. Within a month I was cured of the theology virus. I would also encourage my kids to explore all the crazy shit out there calling itself religion, truth, and god.
Rubbish example
Humanity from the beginning of recorded history right up to the present believes in transcendence in some form or another .
So who determines what evidence is admissible and which isn’t ?
@Sid, I think you’re terrible at this sort of informal debate. You seem evasive, stingy with your thoughts, reticent to define terms, and you resist answering direct questions.
What I haven’t decided yet is if I think you are purposefully terrible at it or legitimately terrible. I’m leaning towards the former.
If you are legitimately terrible at it, education might help but you would have to set aside some ego for that, and have a desire to improve.
If you are purposefully terrible at it, I think you are either not as slick and crafty as you consider yourself or don’t care to be.
Either way, this conversation with you is like running really fast but having one foot nailed to the floor. Guess I’m among the first to ask, “Da fuq?” and stop.
(or held).