• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Therapist says if you're an atheist you should lie to your kids about God.

"Promote this religion by violating one of its commandments" is a weird strategy.
This isn't exactly a "Lying for Jesus" moment though. It's saying that it's good for non-believers to lie for Jesus.

Or at least that's DOC's spin. I'm still trying to figure out why it necessarily has to be the Jehovah/Jesus combo platter for this to work (not that I necessarily agree that it would work, but I'm sure the therapist has her reasonings that I just cannot be arsed to go and research until I get my fundamental question of why it has to be Christianity that's pushed).
 
This isn't exactly a "Lying for Jesus" moment though. It's saying that it's good for non-believers to lie for Jesus.

Or at least that's DOC's spin. I'm still trying to figure out why it necessarily has to be the Jehovah/Jesus combo platter for this to work (not that I necessarily agree that it would work, but I'm sure the therapist has her reasonings that I just cannot be arsed to go and research until I get my fundamental question of why it has to be Christianity that's pushed).

He's trying to queue up in two checkout lines at the same time. The article in the OP is strictly utilitarian: Children get benefits from theism, regardless of its truth. But then when questioned on which branch of theism one should pick, DOC states that the one that appears to be the most true* should be preferred. So, should we prioritize the benefits, or the evidence? I'll let DOC decide which line he stands in.

Personally, I find it to be extremely rare that the truth is in conflict with utility. In this case, I can confidently state that Christianity is certainly false, and its evangelical form is morally abhorrent and detrimental to societies the world over. Promoting it to your children can result in lasting harm. Just don't do it.

*While this particular point is highly debatable, this is not the thread for that debate.
 
We never introduced God to our kids and my wife and I are former Catholics. Their maternal Grandmother made some attempts to get the kids properly churched up but they didn’t take. Probably because they weren’t reinforced at home.

My kids asked tricky questions when they were young. I remember my son telling me his friend said he was going to hell because he didn’t go to Church. I remember saying something to the effect of: “You know we aren’t a religious family. We just think the best thing we can do is try to be good people. We don’t think a God who created us as we are would put us here in this crazy world only to punish us forever for not being perfect. So don’t worry about Hell; just try to be a good person.”

So we never really refuted God, we just, when the subject came up, put God into a context that neutralized him...if that makes sense. Not really saying yes or no, just making it a matter they didn’t have to worry about.
 
He's trying to queue up in two checkout lines at the same time. The article in the OP is strictly utilitarian: Children get benefits from theism, regardless of its truth. But then when questioned on which branch of theism one should pick, DOC states that the one that appears to be the most true* should be preferred. So, should we prioritize the benefits, or the evidence? I'll let DOC decide which line he stands in.



Personally, I find it to be extremely rare that the truth is in conflict with utility. In this case, I can confidently state that Christianity is certainly false, and its evangelical form is morally abhorrent and detrimental to societies the world over. Promoting it to your children can result in lasting harm. Just don't do it.



*While this particular point is highly debatable, this is not the thread for that debate.



The religion that is most true should be obvious: Xjxianism. I am the living embodiment of God, talking to you now. What more proof could you need?
 
This is just the Third Person Pascal Wager "Oh oh oh well then answer me this you evil, evil, evil atheist.... if there's a person in front of you dying and they want you to comfort them by telling them there's a God waiting for them what do you tell them?" from yet another angle.

It's a trap question. We say no we're cruel, we say it's proof we really lack strength of conviction. And it's trying to manufacter another "Atheists really deep down know they don't believe what they say and change their tune whenever life gets hard" argument like all the "Famous atheist really converted on his death bed really honest" arguments.
 
This isn't exactly a "Lying for Jesus" moment though. It's saying that it's good for non-believers to lie for Jesus.

Or at least that's DOC's spin. I'm still trying to figure out why it necessarily has to be the Jehovah/Jesus combo platter for this to work (not that I necessarily agree that it would work, but I'm sure the therapist has her reasonings that I just cannot be arsed to go and research until I get my fundamental question of why it has to be Christianity that's pushed).

That makes me wonder, what about telling the child that grandma has reached Nirvana now? Or that her soul has passed into another being but doesn't remember anything about her previous life? Sounds good? Or does it have to be that she is in Paradise and is waiting for us to join her there?
 
That makes me wonder, what about telling the child that grandma has reached Nirvana now? Or that her soul has passed into another being but doesn't remember anything about her previous life? Sounds good? Or does it have to be that she is in Paradise and is waiting for us to join her there?

Don't waste your breathe. People who demand atheists entertain hypothetical scenarios where they are "forced" to promote religion never seem to interested in entertaining hypotheticals where they have to promote a mythology not their own.
 
That makes me wonder, what about telling the child that grandma has reached Nirvana now? Or that her soul has passed into another being but doesn't remember anything about her previous life? Sounds good? Or does it have to be that she is in Paradise and is waiting for us to join her there?
AIUI Christianity teaches that grandma's mouldering in her grave and will continue to do so until the second coming, when she'll be resurrected right here on earth. Or something.
 
Man but I get tired of repeating this: the only thing religion is good for is comforting the dying. Would I lie to a dying person to afford him or her solace? Of course I would! So would you!

Would I lie to a child in the April of life on the recommendation of some ******* shrink? Or to please some droning evangelical? Never! And neither would you!

Are you there, DOC?
 
No old person who I know would believe for a moment that I was now suddenly a believer in the afterlife. I might tell them to try to send me a message from the beyond on the off-chance that I was wrong, though. Perhaps that would give them a sort of final purpose? :)
 
Quote: ...Which gods should atheists lie about the existence of to their children?


But at least there is some historical evidence that he was God, so even though the parents might believe they were lying, there is some evidence that what they said was truthful if they were talking about the Christian God. The parents and many others believe they don't have proof he is God but there is some evidence he is God. I've talked about that evidence in several threads.

If the parents are Greek atheists, should they lie to their children about the existence of Apollo, Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Ares, Athena, Artemis et al?

If the parents are Norse/German atheists, should they lie to their children about the existence Wōden, Odin, Thor, Freya, Rindr, Nerthuz, Hariasa, Loki et al?

I think this is the question RoboTimbo is asking, you know, the question you are avoiding.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the parents are Greek atheists, should they lie to their children about the existence of Apollo, Zeus, Hera, Poseidon, Demeter, Ares, Athena, Artemis et al?

If the parents are Norse/German atheists, should they lie to their children about the existence Wōden, Odin, Thor, Freya, Rindr, Nerthuz, Hariasa, Loki et al?

I think this is the question RoboTimbo is asking, you know, the question you are avoiding.
Belief in the Greek and Roman gods eventually subsided as Christianity took hold in the Roman Empire. So it would seem better for those Greek and Norse parents to go with the Christian God.

Edited by Agatha: 
This is an edited copy of the original post sent to AAH. On request, I have copied the post back into the thread with the off-topic material removed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Edited by Agatha: 
removed offtopic material sent to AAH


You are dodging again. Answer the bloody question!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not defending the OP, but teaching the belief in a god that is consistent with the contemporary culture's belief should be taken as a given, commonly the Abrahamic god. Invoking Aztec deities smacks of strawmanning.

It's not a bad idea to encourage belief in god to children, much as telling them about Santa is not lying and malicious. These are kids, not doctoral candidates. Like Santa, they will come to conclusions in their own time, and along the way perhaps come to understand metaphors and altruism, before they can intellectually grasp the words or concepts. Mom wasn't lying about a magical Santa, she was encouraging wonder at the unseen, and the revering of goodness and giving and all that. And when they realize it was their parents all along, they might get that parents didn't want credit and reciprocity, just encouraged the innocent joy and awe.
 
The therapist in the below cited article believes that if you don't believe in God or heaven you should lie to your kids (about God) to promote better mental health.

He might be right. Most humans seem to have an emotional need for supernatural beliefs.

That's why my children will worship the Outer Gods and the Great Old Ones.
 

Back
Top Bottom