Atheism ends today

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I doubt very much that there are many children brought up as apatheists Vlad. There are plenty brought up in non-religious households, but that is an entirely different matter from being brought up as apatheists.

I disagree, If religion or the latest thoughts from Dawkins came on the TV the parents might be apt to say ''Let's turn this crap off'' then we would have a case of monkey see, monkey do. I think you are too optimistic concerning neutrality in religious matters.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is all well and good, but let's review where we are:

• The Christian god loves us and wants us all to get the gift of eternal life
• To get the gift of eternal life, you can't be an atheist because that would mean not worshipping Jesus as a god
• God would therefore prefer everybody not to be atheists
• If Christians ask God asked to end atheism, he would be only too delighted to grant their request because then all ex-atheists (whom God loves) would be saved

God did not end atheism when requested so we can only assume he does not exist, or if he does exist, he is not the Christian god.

How are you conceiving ''eternal life''? How are you conceiving ''Love''? How are you conceiving worship? And how are you conceiving God?

God isn't going to force anybody to love him. Were he to give everybody eternal life that would mean that those who reject God are stuck forever with the very thing they have not wanted to be anywhere near.

Those Christians should have remembered all of this. Perhaps they did and you have misinterpreted their motives and ideals and perhaps most importantly there timeline or perhaps they didn't.

[Outrider]

Not sure, your spiritual father

Really? 'Spiritual'? Is that the best you can manage?

Richard Dawkins thinks there are no such people as Christian children or moslem children or Jewish children etc, and I can imagine at hearing that you were among those who nodded sagely in agreement.

Christian or Muslim I suspect he'd agree with you - Jewish he'd likely ask you to clarify if that was an ethnic, national or religious designation; he's made that distinction before.

I didn't say all were like that because apostasy is recorded in the letter to the Hebrews but many make a lasting commitment at an early age and many just slip into apatheism which only optimistic atheists might term actual atheism

How can children, with insufficient maturity, context or comprehension, make an informed and valid commitment to anything? As to apatheism - if you genuinely believe in God, and the significant implications of such a being existing, I'm not sure you could be apathetic about it, could you?

However there are other Christianities that would argue that endurance is the mark of true christianity and I suspect you really want that to be so of atheism too eh, Davey.

There's a Christianity for everything, it seems; must be a consequence of the incredible precision and detail with which it's been communicated.

O.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really? 'Spiritual'? Is that the best you can manage?

I think it rather apt for a ''stealth religion'' manifestation of atheism in which Dawkins holds a position of de facto leadership.

Christian or Muslim I suspect he'd agree with you - Jewish he'd likely ask you to clarify if that was an ethnic, national or religious designation; he's made that distinction before.

Who in a conversation about religion would think that jewish would mean anything other than the religious designation?

How can children, with insufficient maturity, context or comprehension, make an informed and valid commitment to anything?

My answer is that it depends on the whos and the whats of the matter. Professor Davey thinks it's possible for children to be genuine christians and to reject it as an adult so against two of the most brilliant minds on this thread, mine and Daveys, what do you think your mere thinkings are worth?

As to apatheism - if you genuinely believe in God, and the significant implications of such a being existing, I'm not sure you could be apathetic about it, could you?

My point is that apatheists don't even make it as far as atheism which to them is an unecessary position to profess since for an atheist such as yourself religion is still an important topic.

There's a Christianity for everything, it seems; must be a consequence of the incredible precision and detail with which it's been communicated.

Have to disagree with that. There are aspects of christianity which christianities have a different view or emphasis on.

Namely  The nature of Jesus Christ
             Sin
             Salvation
             What happens after death
             Eschatology

and that's about it.
             

[ProfessorDavey]

Professor Davey thinks it's possible for children to be genuine christians and to reject it as an adult ...

I never said that - there will come a point in the development of a child where they have sufficient intellectual maturity to be able to make a conscious decision as to their beliefs. Up to that point a child saying they are a christian, praying to Jesus, having knowledge of bible stories told in picture-book fashion isn't real belief merely doing what you are told. I guess the point at which that happens is similar to the point at which we would recognise a child is genuinely able to consent (the key being having the capacity to consent). In ethical terms this is individual and circumstance dependent (i.e. Gillick competence), but as a rule of thumb we'd likely suggest that a intellectually mature 14 year old child may have capacity for a complex issue (eg. medical care or a religious belief), but a 6 year old child most certainly wouldn't.

But in a respect you are correct Vlad and that is why I never said that they were rejecting their religious belief, but rejecting the religion of their upbringing. Those are different matters. So an 18 year old who rejects their christian upbringing may have had a genuine belief at 14 (and then rejects it), or they may simply have been following their upbringing up to that point and when they reject that upbringing that may be the first time they have really addressed the matter seriously.

I also used the word 'rebel', and this is important too. We are well aware that many people in their teens/early 20s simply reject what they were taught as part of their upbringing in a rebel against parents/adults/authority manner. This is part of developing independence. So a 17 year old who rejects the christianity of their upbringing may be genuinely rejecting a belief they'd previously held, but they may simply be rejecting what their parents believe regardless of their own underlying belief. Hence the person who 'rebels' at 17-22 but is comfortably back with their parental belief at 25 - effectively always believed what their parent's believed (from the point at which they have capacity and belief becomes meaningful) but rejected to for a while as part of a more general 'rebel against my parents' common approach against young people. I suspect someone like that might make a non-sense comment about 'being an atheist' which demonstrates very, very clearly that they never were - perhaps a comment that no atheist would make such as 'being angry at god for not existing'.

So Vlad, it is complicated - one size does not fit all and you need to understand the belief journey of each individual. So for me I was brought up in a broadly non religious household although I did go to Sunday school for a while, but with actively religious grandparents and other relatives. I was also brought up in the UK in the 70s where there was a general mood music of the importance of religion (well christianity) and a kind of default orthodoxy and acceptance that god existed. Through my childhood (from when such matters made any kind of sense) I kind of default accepted that god existed (as that was what you did), in my later teens and early 20s I knew quite a lot of actively religious people, largely university friends and tried really hard and really thought I believed that god existed. However I was deluding myself. At the age of 22 something happened which made be come to realise that I did not believe that god exists and indeed it was crystal clear to me that I never actually believed that god existed. I was for a while, let's call it, an atheist in denial. That's my journey, others are different. What I don't think is correct is to assume that all people who profess or identify with a particular belief do so on the basis of a genuine belief, nor that it is correct for me (or you) to dictate to others what a 'true' atheist or a true 'christian' looks like, albeit sometimes individuals come out with comments that seems so implausible for someone professing to hold a particular belief that you have to question (see above).

so against two of the most brilliant minds on this thread, mine and Daveys,

Crikey Vlad, 50% correct - that's an amazingly good hit rate for you.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I never said that

Why did you accuse me then of a new true Scotsman fallacy when I suggested that children may not be rejecting their own faith? Caught Davey....Bang to rights

- there will come a point in the development of a child where they have sufficient intellectual maturity to be able to make a conscious decision as to their beliefs. Up to that point a child saying they are a christian, praying to Jesus, having knowledge of bible stories told in picture-book fashion isn't real belief merely doing what you are told. I guess the point at which that happens is similar to the point at which we would recognise a child is genuinely able to consent (the key being having the capacity to consent). In ethical terms this is individual and circumstance dependent (i.e. Gillick competence), but as a rule of thumb we'd likely suggest that a intellectually mature 14 year old child may have capacity for a complex issue (eg. medical care or a religious belief), but a 6 year old child most certainly wouldn't.

That is you hedging.....again why did you accuse me of a No True Scotsman fallacy when I said children may not be rejecting their own faith?

But in a respect you are correct Vlad

I was right , you are hedging

and that is why I never said that they were rejecting their religious belief, but rejecting the religion of their upbringing.

You accused me of a no true scotsman fallacy when I suggested this.

I think it all depends on what the nature of the commitment is and the individual making it.

[ProfessorDavey]

That is you hedging.....again why did you accuse me of a No True Scotsman fallacy when I said children may not be rejecting their own faith?

I was right , you are hedging you accused me of a no true scotsman fallacy when I suggested this.

My accusation at you of no true scotsman was one of double standards - you threw this accusation at me in an attempt to discredit me, but then came up with the most achingly 'no true scotsman' argument yourself.

But you seem unable to understand what this argument actually represents - a no true scotsman argument is about a person dictating to others what characteristics are required to be a 'true' scotsman, usually to dismiss people from that category whose views or actions they don't want to accept. That is not the same as recognising that not all people are scotsmen and that might include some people who profess to be scottish (albeit it isn't for me to dictate the terms that define scotsmen).

I haven't made a no true scotsman argument, albeit I have recognised that the complexity of belief journeys may need that there will be cases where professed or identified belief and actual belief do not concur. On the other hand you made an achingly no true scotsman argument:

...many who claim to have lost a deep christianity didn't have a deep one to begin with and certainly not one distinguishable with those ignorant of aspects of faith due to lack of effective and affective exposure to it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I never said that - there will come a point in the development of a child where they have sufficient intellectual maturity to be able to make a conscious decision as to their beliefs. Up to that point a child saying they are a christian, praying to Jesus, having knowledge of bible stories told in picture-book fashion isn't real belief merely doing what you are told. I guess the point at which that happens is similar to the point at which we would recognise a child is genuinely able to consent (the key being having the capacity to consent). In ethical terms this is individual and circumstance dependent (i.e. Gillick competence), but as a rule of thumb we'd likely suggest that a intellectually mature 14 year old child may have capacity for a complex issue (eg. medical care or a religious belief), but a 6 year old child most certainly wouldn't.

That is if we are discussing some issue which is merely an intellectual issue since mere intellectual assent maketh not a committed Christian. The question then moves onto... are children natural atheists or do they have a more unhindered apprehension of Divinity?

But in a respect you are correct Vlad and that is why I never said that they were rejecting their religious belief, but rejecting the religion of their upbringing.

I have spoken to many people who have experienced this[quote} Those are different matters. So an 18 year old who rejects their christian upbringing may have had a genuine belief at 14 (and then rejects it), or they may simply have been following their upbringing up to that point and when they reject that upbringing that may be the first time they have really addressed the matter seriously.

And that can be true of an avowed atheist upbringing, the extremist of examples i've heard is atheist parents wanting psychiatry for there religious questioning offspring or an apatheist upbringing where religion and antireligion talked is shunned.

I also used the word 'rebel', and this is important too. We are well aware that many people in their teens/early 20s simply reject what they were taught as part of their upbringing in a rebel against parents/adults/authority manner. This is part of developing independence. So a 17 year old who rejects the christianity of their upbringing may be genuinely rejecting a belief they'd previously held, but they may simply be rejecting what their parents believe regardless of their own underlying belief. Hence the person who 'rebels' at 17-22 but is comfortably back with their parental belief at 25 - effectively always believed what their parent's believed (from the point at which they have capacity and belief becomes meaningful) but rejected to for a while as part of a more general 'rebel against my parents' common approach against young people. I suspect someone like that might make a non-sense comment about 'being an atheist' which demonstrates very, very clearly that they never were - perhaps a comment that no atheist would make such as 'being angry at god for not existing'.

No true Scotsman fallacy again.

So Vlad, it is complicated - one size does not fit all and you need to understand the belief journey of each individual. So for me I was brought up in a broadly non religious household although I did go to Sunday school for a while, but with actively religious grandparents and other relatives. I was also brought up in the UK in the 70s where there was a general mood music of the importance of religion (well christianity) and a kind of default orthodoxy and acceptance that god existed. Through my childhood (from when such matters made any kind of sense) I kind of default accepted that god existed (as that was what you did), in my later teens and early 20s I knew quite a lot of actively religious people, largely university friends and tried really hard and really thought I believed that god existed. However I was deluding myself. At the age of 22 something happened which made be come to realise that I did not believe that god exists and indeed it was crystal clear to me that I never actually believed that god existed. I was for a while, let's call it, an atheist in denial. That's my journey, others are different. What I don't think is correct is to assume that all people who profess or identify with a particular belief do so on the basis of a genuine belief, nor that it is correct for me (or you) to dictate to others what a 'true' atheist or a true 'christian' looks like, albeit sometimes individuals come out with comments that seems so implausible for someone professing to hold a particular belief that you have to question (see above).
Crikey Vlad, 50% correct - that's an amazingly good hit rate for you.

[Outrider]

I think it rather apt for a ''stealth religion'' manifestation of atheism in which Dawkins holds a position of de facto leadership.

So a made up notion for your made up scenario - there is a symmetry there, I guess.

Who in a conversation about religion would think that jewish would mean anything other than the religious designation?

In a conversation that's taking in the notion of cultural claimants of religious status, probably everyone with a semblance of nuance.

My answer is that it depends on the whos and the whats of the matter. Professor Davey thinks it's possible for children to be genuine christians and to reject it as an adult so against two of the most brilliant minds on this thread, mine and Daveys, what do you think your mere thinkings are worth?

I think, as I've always thought, that arguments stand or fall on their own merits, not on the self-aggrandisement of their adherents - so, again, given the immaturity of children, can their probably quite genuine commitment be thought to necessarily be any indication of anything significant? Kids are irretrievably devoted to pokemon, power rangers and paw patrol, until suddenly they aren't, it's the nature of children.

My point is that apatheists don't even make it as far as atheism which to them is an unecessary position to profess since for an atheist such as yourself religion is still an important topic.

Religion can be an important topic regardless of your particular stance on it. When religions are actively campaigning to restrict gay rights and women's rights around the world, it doesn't matter where you stand on the individual issues, it's an important topic. Yes, you can be apathetic about that, as well, but I fail to see (and, as an atheist, I appreciate I might lack insight here) how you could genuinely believe in a god and be apathetic about it.

Have to disagree with that. There are aspects of christianity which christianities have a different view or emphasis on.

Namely  The nature of Jesus Christ
             Sin
             Salvation
             What happens after death
             Eschatology

and that's about it.     

So it's been so well communicated by an allegedly all-knowing, all-powerful deity (over, if I'm interpreting your position fairly, at least two iterations) that there are fundamental disagreements about whether the pivotal figure is actually an avatar of god or not, what the purpose of us being here is, and if/how we might get anywhere else... Not the most coherent policy statement, I'd say.

O.

[ProfessorDavey]

And that can be true of an avowed atheist upbringing,

If you mean children rejecting a non religious or even atheist upbringing, then indeed it can. I've no doubt that this does occur, however once adult views become settled it is exceptionally unlikely that the rebelling teen will settle on a religious path as an adult. Many studies have demonstrated that children brought up in a non religious household almost never become religious as adults. Of course the reverse happens all the time - with nigh on half of children brought up in a religious household choosing to be non religious as an adult.

But I would argue that it is much less likely to happen on the basis of rebellion - kids rebel against things (views, behaviours, actions) actively imposed on them as kids. In most cases a non religious household simply represents a lack of religion in the life of that family, there is no active element to it. So it would be somewhat odd to rebel against something that is a lack of imposition. While kids might rebel against parents bringing up their children to love curling, opera or fishing, how many kids rebel against their parental lack of exposure to curling, or opera, or fishing having been brought up in a non-curling, non-opera-living or non-fishing household - very few I'd suspect.

[ProfessorDavey]

... the extremist of examples i've heard is atheist parents wanting psychiatry for there religious questioning offspring ...

Really - evidence please, not just some token anecdote, but statistical evidence of prevalence please.

And of course no such thing occurs in reverse - no evidence of religious families looking for psychiatric 'conversion' therapies if their children do not adhere to what their religion dictates in terms of, for example, sexuality. No need for legislation to prevent such 'conversion' therapies is there.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So a made up notion for your made up scenario - there is a symmetry there, I guess.

I didn't make up the notion. See the Wikipedia entry for New Atheism. It was the atheist biologist David Watson who, in this matter , I wholeheartedly agree with and who should be made Simonyi Professor of the public understanding of Clinton Richard Dawkins

In a conversation that's taking in the notion of cultural claimants of religious status, probably everyone with a semblance of nuance.

Only if they thought they were speaking to an audience to which some explanation were owed and whom you considered naturally thick. A fine description of Dawkins perhaps?....

[/quote]

[ProfessorDavey]

or an apatheist upbringing where religion and antireligion talked is shunned.

An apatheist is someone who is disinterested in whether god exists or not, they simply don't care. Why would they take active steps to close down arguments - they'd simply not be interested. If they are taking such active steps then that indicates that they do case, they are not disinterested and de facto cannot be apatheist. Your argument simply makes no sense. You seem to confuse disinterest with negative interest.

To use an analogy - if I was an aparappist (someone disinterested in rap music) and my kids liked rap music, it would be (by definition) of no interest to me (as a aparappist). If I dissuaded them from listening to rap music that would demonstrated that rather than not caring, I did care, was not disinterested and considered rap music to be wrong in some manner perhaps because of the lyrics or just didn't like listening to it when played by the kids. That would mean I was an anti-rappist, not an apa-rappist.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Really - evidence please, not just some token anecdote, but statistical evidence of prevalence please.

you aren't building up to another no true Scotsman fallacy again are you?

And of course no such thing occurs in reverse - no evidence of religious families looking for psychiatric 'conversion' therapies if their children do not adhere to what their religion dictates in terms of, for example, sexuality. No need for legislation to prevent such 'conversion' therapies is there.

Monstrous whataboutery perhaps?

[ProfessorDavey]

you aren't building up to another no true Scotsman fallacy again are you?

No - I am asking you for evidence of the prevalence of what you claim and its significance as an issue.

Monstrous whataboutery perhaps?

Not at all - this is entirely relevant - it involves religious organisations using psychiatric approaches to 'convert' people who it perceives have strayed from what it considers to the appropriate path according to their religion. And it such an important issue the the UK government is bringing forward legislation to deal with it. And yes there are statistics on its prevalence, and they aren't pretty.

[jeremyp]

How are you conceiving ''eternal life''?

You tell me. It's your religion.

How are you conceiving ''Love''?

You want me to explain what the words "love" and "worship" mean? Are you not a native speaker of English?

God isn't going to force anybody to love him.

Is showing up forcing people? If anybody can end atheism without forcing people, it's God.

Were he to give everybody eternal life that would mean that those who reject God are stuck forever with the very thing they have not wanted to be anywhere near.

If God ended atheism, there would be nobody who rejects God.

Those Christians should have remembered all of this. Perhaps they did and you have misinterpreted their motives and ideals and perhaps most importantly there timeline or perhaps they didn't.

It seems to me that your post was just dissembling because you don't have any real arguments. Asking people to define common English words is not an honest tactic.

[ProfessorDavey]

I disagree, If religion or the latest thoughts from Dawkins came on the TV the parents might be apt to say ''Let's turn this crap off'' ...

Then they wouldn't be apatheistic, would they as they would not be disinterested and simply not care, they would be openly antagonistic meaning they do care and don't like. An apatheistic response wouldn't be ''Let's turn this crap off'' ..., but "I wonder if there is anything more interesting on the other side". Quite likely they simply do a bit of channel hopping, without comment.

[ProfessorDavey]

... then we would have a case of monkey see, monkey do.

But when we talk about parents 'bring up their children' in a particular belief we aren't talking about some passive observation, we are talking about a conscious decision on the part of the parents followed up by active, direct and directed promulgation of that view within the child.

So parents 'bringing up their children' don't simply rely on passive observation by the child of the parent perhaps going off to church (while the child remains at home) or perhaps praying. If that was all that happened the catholic church would be horrified. Nope it involved all sorts of direct and active engagement of the child in the religion, with the specific purpose of ensuring that the child understands the religion and accepts it. So let's have a look at the kind of things:

1. Expectation that the child is baptised, during which the parents and godparents promise to bring up the child 'in the faith'
2. Expectation that the child attends church regularly along with the parent
3. Expectation that the parents will teach the child about the religion at home and likely teach them to pray, and expectation that the child will also engage in prayer
4. Expectation that the child attends church-based liturgy studies
5. Expectation that the child attends a catholic school
6. Expectation that at the tender age of 7, that the child will have their first communion and will have instruction leading up to this over the previous year.
7. Expectation that the child will, at the still pretty tender age of 14, that the child will be confirmed and again will need to attend instruction leading up to this.

That's what bringing up a child in a particular religion looks like (some of the elements may be softened by the basic concept that is an active direct process remains).

You don't bring up a child to be musical by simply know that dad likes music and seeing that he sometimes plays the violin - you bring up a child to be musical by actively involving them in music, by starting lessons on an instrument at an early age and insisting they practice and don't give up, by expecting them to take exams, by expecting them to be involved in extracurricular music groups at school and outside etc etc.

'Bringing up' is an active and directed approach not a passive observational one.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You tell me. It's your religion.
You want me to explain what the words "love" and "worship" mean? Are you not a native speaker of English?
Is showing up forcing people? If anybody can end atheism without forcing people, it's God.
If God ended atheism, there would be nobody who rejects God.
It seems to me that your post was just dissembling because you don't have any real arguments. Asking people to define common English words is not an honest tactic.

I know you don't have any arguments. The universe ''just is'' isn't an argument.

I recognised God... eventually...after God dodging. It may be that years of resistance blinds the person to God. Philosophical empiricism slavishly and fetishly adhered to? I don't know. I am not you.
He has turned up in the person of Christ.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You tell me. It's your religion.
You want me to explain what the words "love" and "worship" mean? Are you not a native speaker of English?
Is showing up forcing people? If anybody can end atheism without forcing people, it's God.
If God ended atheism, there would be nobody who rejects God.
It seems to me that your post was just dissembling because you don't have any real arguments. Asking people to define common English words is not an honest tactic.

I think you are second guessing God's agenda here. What does God want more. People who love him properly by not being forced or the extinction of those who don't intellectually assent to theism??

You are merely expressing what you would do if you were God. What a mind boggling manifestation of self assessment.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then they wouldn't be apatheistic, would they as they would not be disinterested and simply not care, they would be openly antagonistic meaning they do care and don't like. An apatheistic response wouldn't be ''Let's turn this crap off'' ..., but "I wonder if there is anything more interesting on the other side". Quite likely they simply do a bit of channel hopping, without comment.

When somebody turns the JW's from their doors they do it because they are not interested. Then after they do it repeatedly so even the kids have got the hang of it then the Kids won't be interested. They will turn out and turn off anything to do with religion and let's face it no one has banged on about religion more that Clinton Richard Dawkins.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But when we talk about parents 'bring up their children' in a particular belief we aren't talking about some passive observation, we are talking about a conscious decision on the part of the parents followed up by active, direct and directed promulgation of that view within the child.

So parents 'bringing up their children' don't simply rely on passive observation by the child of the parent perhaps going off to church (while the child remains at home) or perhaps praying. If that was all that happened the catholic church would be horrified. Nope it involved all sorts of direct and active engagement of the child in the religion, with the specific purpose of ensuring that the child understands the religion and accepts it. So let's have a look at the kind of things:

1. Expectation that the child is baptised, during which the parents and godparents promise to bring up the child 'in the faith'
2. Expectation that the child attends church regularly along with the parent
3. Expectation that the parents will teach the child about the religion at home and likely teach them to pray, and expectation that the child will also engage in prayer
4. Expectation that the child attends church-based liturgy studies
5. Expectation that the child attends a catholic school
6. Expectation that at the tender age of 7, that the child will have their first communion and will have instruction leading up to this over the previous year.
7. Expectation that the child will, at the still pretty tender age of 14, that the child will be confirmed and again will need to attend instruction leading up to this.

That's what bringing up a child in a particular religion looks like (some of the elements may be softened by the basic concept that is an active direct process remains).

You don't bring up a child to be musical by simply know that dad likes music and seeing that he sometimes plays the violin - you bring up a child to be musical by actively involving them in music, by starting lessons on an instrument at an early age and insisting they practice and don't give up, by expecting them to take exams, by expecting them to be involved in extracurricular music groups at school and outside etc etc.

'Bringing up' is an active and directed approach not a passive observational one.

Matter of opinion. Parents are bringing up their children to the time they go to school and the time school finishes and during that time the teacher is in loco parentis.
Nobody in education believes they are not teaching by example when they are not teaching by other methods. When school finishes and dad is repeatedly late picking the kid up a lesson is still being taught to that child by the fathers absence. The message is we aren't interested in religion or antireligion in this house. Goodbye.

[ProfessorDavey]

When somebody turns the JW's from their doors they do it because they are not interested. Then after they do it repeatedly so even the kids have got the hang of it then the Kids won't be interested. They will turn out and turn off anything to do with religion and let's face it no one has banged on about religion more that Clinton Richard Dawkins.

The kind of people who give short shrift to JW at the door will likely do the same to political canvassers, door to door salespeople etc etc. I suspect their kids (if they even notice, I doubt mine would ever notice that I'd even answered the door) would probably conclude that their parent doesn't like to be disturbed unannounced and uninvited by people wanting something at the door. I doubt they'd conclude that they are being brought up non-JW and therefore decide to shun religion.

When they rebel they might end up with a lot of double glazing though (if that is even sold door to door any more).

[ProfessorDavey]

Matter of opinion. Parents are bringing up their children to the time they go to school and the time school finishes and during that time the teacher is in loco parentis.

Do you have kids Vlad - the notion that parents only bring up their children until they go to school at the age of 4 is bonkers. I think many parents still think they are bringing up their children well into their 20s and beyond.

Nobody in education believes they are not teaching by example when they are not teaching by other methods. When school finishes and dad is repeatedly late picking the kid up a lesson is still being taught to that child by the fathers absence. The message is we aren't interested in religion or antireligion in this house. Goodbye.

But there is a difference between teaching directly, teaching by example and teaching by lack of interest. Of those three the last is by far the weakest. So if I think it is important that my child plays the piano, which do you think would be the most effective:

1. Actively encourage them to learn the piano, pay for lessons, encourage them to practice etc (the equivalent of how most religious people bring up their child in a particular religion)
2. Regularly play the piano and hope they will become interested one day but don't actively push them until or unless they express an interest (not how most religious people bring up their child in a particular religion but potentially a little effective).
3. Deliberately ignore/show no interest in playing the flute in the hope that my offspring will interpret my anti-flutism or apa-flutism as a subtle message that they should play the piano.

[jeremyp]

I know you don't have any arguments. The universe ''just is'' isn't an argument.

I am not arguing about the Universe on this thread, I am arguing about God: your god in particular.

I recognised God... eventually...after God dodging.

Since we have clearly established that the Christian god doesn't exist, what god do you suppose it was that you "recognised"? In fact, how do you know it was a god at all?