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:
I Am The Scum said:
"Promote this religion by violating one of its commandments" is a weird strategy.
Click to expand...
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).
 
kmortis said:
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).
Click to expand...

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.
 
I Am The Scum said:
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.
Click to expand...



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.
 
kmortis said:
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).
Click to expand...

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?
 
Ulf Nereng said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Ulf Nereng said:
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?
Click to expand...
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? :)
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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:
smartcooky said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DOC said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom