• 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.

This is actually a question I'm considering now. I'm an atheist, my wife a Christian, and we live in a (legally secular, but in practical terms) Muslim country. In future, when I am asked by my daughter why mummy doesn't have to cover her hair but her teachers do, just how much of a dick is it going to be acceptable for me to be?

'Should I cover my hair, because all my classmates do'?
'Aina says mummy is going to hell because she eats pork, is she really'?

It's also tricky in that if she tells her classmates they're wrong, she'll probably get into a lot of trouble.

I did think I might go for the Dawkins 5000 gods answer, but not sure.
 
DOC said:
Well if you are an atheist and you think you'd be lying to your child if you chose any God it seems it would be better to at least choose the God (like the Christian God) that has some historical and other evidence to apply to it. Then as the child got older, they would at least have some historical and other evidence to back up their belief if they did indeed choose to disagree with you and believe in God.

Of course if you don't want your child to believe in God as an adult it would be better to promote a God that doesn't have much evidence to support the belief in it.
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense. The "historical and other evidence" for every god is of the same quality. The Christian gods have a huge volume of evidence AGAINST their existence.

No wonder Christians think it necessary to lie about their gods' existence. Are those the only gods whose existence you think needs to be lied about? You think the existence of other gods is more likely?
 
If we are now lying to children because "reasons", where does it stop?

"Why do I have to use a wheelchair daddy?"

"God hates you."

"Why does mommy have cancer daddy?"

"God hates your mom, too."
 
Steve said:
Evidence for existence of any god you could name is exactly the same - zero. Christian god included.
Click to expand...
I would have to disagree, there might not be proof for a lot of people, but there is evidence for the Christian God. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. As stated before, there is enough evidence out there for skeptic Bart Ehrman to say "Jesus certainly existed". And Christians believe Jesus is part of the Godhead (or Trinity) so a Christian can say I have historical evidence for my concept of God.

Also, in my lifetime I have seen countless people on TV (the latest being Kanye West) who have said Christianity has completely changed their lives. So we have some evidence for the power of Christianity. That power supports the existence of the being behind that power.

Also there is the evidence that it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to be in existence without a resurrection since the resurrection is the central focal point of the religion. How could a small group of scared followers on the outskirts of the Roman empire (whose leader was brutally executed) end up being the official religion of the mighty Roman Empire. It doesn't make sense without a resurrection added into the equation.
 
Last edited:
DOC said:
As stated before, there is enough evidence out there for skeptic Bart Ehrman to say "Jesus certainly existed". And Christians believe Jesus is part of the Godhead (or Trinity) so a Christian can say I have historical evidence for my concept of God.
Click to expand...

Fallacy of equivocation. It has been claimed by some non-religious people that a real, human person called Jesus existed, and was involved in a significant part of the actions attributed to the character in the Bible described as Jesus, a part of the Trinity. This is in no sense evidence that the said character was in fact a part of the Trinity.

DOC said:
Also, in my lifetime I have seen countless people on TV (the latest being Kanye West) who have said Christianity has completely changed their lives. So we have some evidence for the power of Christianity. That power supports the existence of the being behind that power.
Click to expand...

Selection bias, and non sequitur. There are many Christians, most of whom would presumably claim that Christianity has changed their lives for the better irrespective of whether this is in fact true; those of them who are successful will no doubt attribute their success to Christianity whether or not it has any relevance. And even if this effect were proven - which it is not - there are many other, far more trivial, reasons why a particular set of beliefs might lead to personal success.

DOC said:
Also there is the evidence that it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to be in existence without a resurrection since the resurrection is the central focal point of the religion. How could a small group of scared followers on the outskirts of the Roman empire (whose leader was brutally executed) end up being the official religion of the mighty Roman Empire. It doesn't make sense without a resurrection added into the equation.
Click to expand...

Survivorship bias, pure and unembellished.

All in all, nowhere near strong enough evidence to make me want to lie to my children.

Dave
 
DOC said:
I would have to disagree, there might not be proof for a lot of people, but there is evidence for the Christian God. Evidence and proof are not the same thing. As stated before, there is enough evidence out there for skeptic Bart Ehrman to say "Jesus certainly existed".
Click to expand...
So we're talking about a mortal, non-divine Jesus then?

And Christians believe Jesus is part of the Godhead (or Trinity) so a Christian can say I have historical evidence for my concept of God.
Click to expand...
Stay on topic, DOC. This isn't about which gods Christians invent.

Also, in my lifetime I have seen countless people on TV (the latest being Kanye West) who have said Christianity has completely changed their lives. So we have some evidence for the power of Christianity. That power supports the existence of the being behind that power.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't at all. You'd have to speak to a billion Chinese to figure out why. Again, stay on topic.

Also there is the evidence that it doesn't even make sense for Christianity to be in existence without a resurrection since the resurrection is the central focal point of the religion. How could a small group of scared followers on the outskirts of the Roman empire (whose leader was brutally executed) end up being the official religion of the mighty Roman Empire. It doesn't make sense without a resurrection added into the equation.
Click to expand...
Well, if you consider that the entire resurrection was invented, it makes sense that Christianity was founded on invented stories and plagiarized fables. Certainly not the kind of gods I'd want to lie about the existence of. I don't see how Christians can stomach lying about them.
 
DOC, I think you're missing the point. You presented us with an article stating that non-believers should lie to their kids and promote a deity in times of great stress (death being the example given, but one can assume that it could be argued for other cases). What you have failed to do is satisfactory explain why it necessarily has to be the god of the Christians, other than the fact that it's the belief system (BS) that you happen to adhere to. What if a person followed a different BS? Should a Muslim also use Jehovah/Jesus? A Taoist? A Buddhist? A follower of a cargo cult?
 
This thread is about the suggestion that non-Christians should lie to their children, not about evidence for the veracity of the events recounted in the Bible. Please stay focused if you can, or take the discussion of evidence for Christianity to another thread if you cannot.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
We can't pretend like the Bible is a bunch of unsupported nonsense isn't at least a factor in whether or not it's some "valid opinion we have a moral duty to introduce our children to."

I'm not telling my (hypothetical) children about vaccine denial, flat eartherism, of 9/11 truther conspiracies in neutral terms and "let them figure out the truth from themselves" either.

Parents aren't morally required to "Teach the controversy."
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom