Question:
Atheists: Would it be indoctrination to teach a child that... (think and read, read and think)...?
2011-05-07 14:58:41 UTC
Would it be indoctrination to teach a child that...

Stealing is wrong?
Lying is wrong?
Rape is wrong?
Murder is wrong?
Disbelieving in God is wrong?

And of course, why?

And, before you say there is no proof for God (of course I would beg to differ), I would ask, what proof do you have that stealing, lying, murder, or rape are wrong? Because society says so? Because you feel it? What factual, tangible evidence do you have for saying it is wrong to murder... steal... lie... etc... more than I have to say it is wrong to disbelieve in God?

Now, again, before you say "Because the above things hurt someone else," I retort that it is your opinion then that hurting someone else is what defines something as wrong. And, I again beg the question, what tangible factual evidence do you have for believing that hurting someone else means something is wrong? And, furthermore, is it always wrong to hurt someone else or are there certain situations where hurting someone else might be right?

Again, what factual and tangible evidence do you have the factually state the teach that lying, stealing, murder, or rape are wrong? What evidence do you have that is greater than my belief in teaching that it is wrong to disbelieve in God? When in fact I do say, it is wrong to teach people to disbelieve in God. If you believe contrary, you are wrong.

Do you believe teaching this is indoctrination? Do you believe what you teach about morals, is not indoctrination? Is it possible it is because you are yourself, indoctrinated?
Fourteen answers:
2011-05-07 15:07:31 UTC
All of those things are wrong except for disbelieving in God. It's deceitful and illogical to group them together. Imagine if I asked you the following,

Stealing is wrong?

Lying is wrong?

Rape is wrong?

Murder is wrong?

Liking chocolate is wrong?

The idea that this last question is linked to the others is a non-sequitur

You should be telling me how belief is linked to morals
?
2011-05-07 15:06:46 UTC
Who said there is any proof for rape/murdering/lying being wrong or even right? Ever hear of Nihilism? the burden of proof lies on the person making the existantial claim ie that Morales exist & arent just human constructions. I'm not a nihilist, it is an interesting concept & i won't for a minute think that i can prove to a nihilist that morals do exist. I simply prefer that line of thought as of this moment until i can research furhter



Why do i believe i should teach my children the above things as being wrong? Well because the golden rule of do unto others is actually a genuinely smart idea to keep around. I'm sure there is some hypothesis of why morales evolved in humans to such an extreme extent (other animals show loyalty etc) something to do with our social structure & how helping one another helped us survive in tribes.

You go on to think that morals either exist universally for all times/situations (ie something akin to socratic belief) or that they don't exist at all, they can be subjective too that is the flaw in your logic. You've failed to take subjective morality into account



As for belief in God, you again are the one making the existantial claim that he exists. I'm asking you to prove it, morals can be observed & their effects observed. You can hardly say God can be observed & his effects or ''superpowers'' observed. If that was the case there would be no debate between his existence
Elsie Treize
2011-05-07 15:21:08 UTC
We should live by the Golden Rule. That is an idea from the human mind, not from any god, (there are no gods). Treat others as you would wish to be treated. I know I do not want to be a victim of theft, murder, etc. therefore I know not to do those things to others. We are all human and we more or less know how these things affect others.



So if putting people inside metal capsules, as in the movie, The Matrix, increased their lifespan, then that would be the right thing to do?



"Murder is wrong" is not indoctrination.

And can you answer this?
Dreamstuff Entity
2011-05-07 15:09:53 UTC
It's the old "all morals come from a god, and specifically my god".



If you found out tomorrow that no gods have ever existed, would you start killing, raping and stealing? Is your belief the only thing preventing you from doing that right now?



If so, are you really a moral person?



If theists believe they are rewarded for doing good, it's only atheists who only do good because they are good, not because they believe they will be rewarded.



And let me point out that your god is not somebody I'd consider moral - sending bears to kill kids for making fun of a bald guy, murdering babies, drowning kittens...



And why, do you think, are atheists underrepresented in prison population?



Here's a hint:



hurting others = bad

helping others = good

no gods needed.



And by that standard, the Christian god is one of the most immoral villains in literature.



Of course, this argument makes even less sense since many christians believe they are not required to actually *DO* anything, since they are "no longer under the law".





P.S. The bible doesn't speak against slavery - how did you determine it's wrong? What about genocide? Is it always wrong, or were the god-ordered genocides in the bible justified?
?
2011-05-07 15:52:34 UTC
Stealing is wrong?



Stealing is immoral, as it is causing harm to another by depriving them of what is rightfully theirs. This is not indoctrination.



Lying is wrong?



Lying is wrong only when done for purposes that lead to harm to another. It can also prevent such harm, such as telling the Nazis that there are no Jews in your attic. Teaching a child that lying is ALWAYS wrong is indoctrination.



Rape is wrong?



Rape is immoral, as it violates the victim's free will. This is not indoctrination.



Murder is wrong?



Murder is immoral, as it violates the victim's free will and causes pain in the lives of their loved ones. This is not indoctrination.



Disbelieving in God is wrong?



There is nothing inherently moral or immoral about believing in a god. It would be indoctrination to teach that either is wrong.



Morality comes from empathy. Things are wrong because they harm others, we know they are wrong because we wouldn't want them to be done to us. The Golden Rule, is basically empathy put into words. Jesus was not the first to do this, he most likely got it from Rabi Hillel who was an old man during the time of Jesus. "That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn." However, this idea has also existed in many other cultures long before Rabi Hillel ever spoke these words. Confucius, who died in 479 BC said, among other things, "Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself."



You can say that it's only my opinion that harming others is wrong, but that would be incorrect. It's a long established tradition, that spans nearly every culture. It benefits the culture as a whole, as it creates an environment where you and your loved ones can be safer. The legal system is a reflection of this, as it's primary purpose is to deter those who would harm others via punishment, thereby making our society a better place to live.



You can still say, well that's just society's opinion. But this would be as wrong as saying that believing that I have hazel eyes is opinion. It's an observable fact that I have hazel eyes, and it's also an observable fact that refraining from harming others creates a society where everyone benefits.



"If it's wrong to hurt someone, and you are someone yourself, it would be wrong to disbelieve in God because studies show doing so, decreases length of life."



I found the study that I believe you are referring to and it has nothing to do with a belief in a god but only attendance of church services. Atheists were not a part of the study. The study was about churchgoers and non-churchgoers, both of theistic beliefs. The shorter life-span of those theists who do not attend church could be due to stress caused by the guilt of not going to church. Atheists would not be affected by this stress as they would not have that guilt. However, I admit this is speculation on my part, but it's very reasonable to assume this.



And besides, what I do to myself, while it may be unwise, has nothing to do with morals. Morality has to do with causing harm to another person. Take rape and S&M for instance. Rape is always wrong as it violates the will of the victim weather it causes physical harm or not. S&M, on the other hand can cause pain, subservience, humiliation, etc. but it is always consensual. No ones will is being violated, hence there is nothing immoral about it.
Gaius P
2011-05-07 15:25:51 UTC
In many cases what is right or wrong is self evident to most people. However, if you ask people where their morality comes from it is not that easy. To me there is no mystery as I do know scientifically where my morals probably come from. You on the other hand think morals come from your mythical God - Right? If so you've actually no ideas have you?? You don't have a clue where your God (and your morals with Him) come from...



I'll do you a deal. You tell me where your God comes from and then I'll tell you where morals come from scientifically speaking...
2011-05-07 15:26:20 UTC
Stealing, lying, rape, and murder are counterproductive to society. A society functions better to increase the happiness and quality of the lives of everyone in that society when theft, lying, rape, and murder are less frequent.



No, there's not much tangible, infallible evidence for morals such as these. They are - to an extent - subjective. However, there are very real and clear reasons that these things are considered wrong by society. It's commonly accepted that the goal of society is to increase the quality of life of a group beyond what an individual could attain by acting independently (the idea that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts). Anything that interferes with the goals of society is thus undesirable for society, and labelled as "wrong."



Teaching children that stealing, lying, rape, and murder are wrong is part teaching them to be functional members of society. This is good for society as a whole, and is thus not "indoctrination."



Teaching children that disbelieving in God is wrong, on the other hand, impairs their ability to be functional members of society, because it reduces their tolerance for people who disbelieve in God and thus reduces the ability of members of a society to cooperate with each other. Thus, it is wrong to teach children that disbelieving in God is wrong, because that's teaching intolerance, which is counterproductive for society. It's just as undesirable in society as racism.



There is no difference between teaching children that disbelieving in God is wrong and teaching people that being black is wrong.



Teaching people about morals is indeed indoctrination. This indoctrination is beneficial for society and is thus good, because it teaches people to be more functional and productive members of society, and to refrain from doing things that detract from society's ability to fulfill its goals.



Teaching people morals that aren't truly morals - such as teaching intolerance for non-religious people - is also indoctrination. This type of indoctrination, however, is wrong, because it's teaching people to do things that are wrong. It's counterproductive for society.



That said, there's nothing wrong with teaching children about your religion. Actually, there's much to be said in favor of parents teaching their children their religion. As long as parents don't force their children into religion (e.g. punishing children for choosing another religion), it's beneficial for society for parents to teach their children their religion, as religion is one of the many paths to lead a moral life. It's only when the teaching of religion comes with the teaching of intolerance of other religions (i.e. that it is wrong to believe in other religions or to disbelieve in God) that it becomes a problem.



Religion is not detrimental to society. In fact, it can be a highly positive force in society. Intolerance, on the other hand, is detrimental to society.
2011-05-07 15:21:42 UTC
"If it's wrong to hurt someone, and you are someone yourself, it would be wrong to disbelieve in God because studies show doing so, decreases length of life."



Citation needed.



Somehow, I get the feeling that you're not going to read what Dreamstuff Entity posted (as it answers your question perfectly), and are going to post this question again as if it has gone unrefuted.
?
2011-05-07 15:11:12 UTC
Something called 'common sense'. To me it is common sense that murder and rape is wrong. It is also common sense, for ME, that there is no guy up there on a fluffy cloud.



Don't take that last part literally. You know what I mean.
2011-05-07 15:04:07 UTC
More of these crimes are done by christians than atheists



Supposed Christians do a whole lotta rape murders and stealing.
sundaymorning
2011-05-07 15:06:26 UTC
No one can properly explain why they and humanity have morals, unless there is a universal standard to base them on, like um, God. But they will not get it, I pray for them to come to TRUTH, but It is the work of the Spirit to show them the way.

God Bless!
2011-05-07 15:01:35 UTC
Society and common sense say those things are wrong. Why does that have less weight than an old story book?
?
2011-05-07 15:02:08 UTC
No it not.

It is indoctrination to tell someone and teach them what to think all their life.

Stop posting this question.
?
2011-05-07 15:02:53 UTC
The bible also teaches incest and the majority of christians are okay with that.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...