That man Dawkins

I am with you, when!

Agreed, excellent discussion. I haven't got involved but have been reading with great interest. Bag has represented what I would have said so much better. Thank you.

I've just got round to watching the Sacks/Greenfield/al Khalili/Dawkins programme. Thank you for the link. Some of the regular posters will not be astonished that my impression was of a very muted, inconclusive discussion on everyone's part. But good-tempered and pleasant. Dawky thrashed his usual hobby-horse that children shouldn't be 'indoctrinated' with a specific religion, even though it clearly was a waste of time in his case. And in every case, I suspect, since nearly all the militant atheists on Gransnet appear to have had a religious education. Love and Peace

Militant atheists Lilygran? That's a bit rich.

A militant atheist is described as one who is characterised by a belief that religion should not simply be tolerated but should be countered, criticised and exposed by rational argument wherever it arises.

It's open to the atheists on this forum to say if they agree with this position or if they would describe themselves as moderate atheists.

Who is a militant atheist on Gransnet? C'mon, don't be shy!

I'm a cowardy custard atheist - when I used to give evidence in court (nothing involving perjury, I promise), I would size up the judge before deciding whether to take the oath or claim to be C of E. The ushers who knew me would raise their eyes to the ceiling and threaten to tell on me. They never did!

Why does it need an adjective?

We don't describe those of you with equally strong religious views as militant religacs, do we? Not even when you are countering, criticising and trying to expose atheism wherever it arises. We accept your right to do that. Equal treatment of all, wot?

I know exactly what you mean, when!
I guess that makes me a CC atheist, too.

So...

I'm an atheist. If you want 'precision', call me a De facto atheist (6 on the Dawky scale of 7; same as him).

Rot in religion needs to be exposed, as does rot in atheism. Go at it, gals!

Address the issue! 'Indoctrination' had the reverse effect, didn't it?

Lilygran - you have disappointed me. I have been viewing you as someone with a strong religious faith but who treated those who did not share that faith with the respect you expect yourself.
What has the fact that most of our parents had no choice but to send us to church schools got to do with our atheism? Surely you are not suggesting that our moral values have been derived from our forced indoctrination?

I have always refused to swear an oath to a god in whom I do not believe. I worked in a Catholic high school and they accepted that I would not be taking part in services, although I stood at the back of the hall in assemblies because my remedial classes needed me to keep an eye on them.
I do attend weddings and funeral services in church, because I cannot dictate to other people and I do not wish to hurt their feelings. I don't take part in the prayers or hymns (good job, I am tone deaf).

If objecting to having laws passed to please somebody else's religious beliefs makes me militant, then count me in. If being angry that women are dying because their church forbids abortion or contraception, count me in. If thinking forced marriages or female circumcision are evil, count me in.

I have never had an atheists knocking at my door trying to convince me that they had 'the truth'. It seems to me that religious people are far more militant than most atheists.

Lilygran - our posts crossed. No, it was not indoctrination that had the reverse effect - I am assuming you mean it put us off religion. It took common sense and discussion, reading and research to convince me that all belief in any supernatural being is misguided.

Yes, agree with you Bags, especially in exposing the rot, and the debate has been fascinating and enlightening. I choose where I state my opinions about atheism, as sometimes it can put a damper on things like dinner parties or, as recently, being introduced to son's new girlfriend who is an ardent catholic. She's lovely - she doesn't need me descending on her to give her my views on going to church and attending mass. I get the early impression that there are areas of flexibility, anyway - she was happy to forego mass and come to a birthday outing a couple of weeks ago.

I think I'm a 5/6 on the Dawky scale

Lilygran Some de facto atheist members of Gransnet attended convents or went to church schools – which is what I assume you mean by having a religious education – others, including me, didn't. Anyone educated in this country, whether they are now atheists, agnostics or people of faith, would have had lessons about religion(s).

So can it really be called 'indoctrination'? Also, Dawky is quite wrong when he claims that you can't legitimately describe a child as "Jewish" or "Christian" (name a religion of your choice, I'm fed up with doing the whole long list). Most (many) religions have some form of induction or initiation of children, following which, of course, they are properly described as children of that faith. It also calls into question the level of understanding of even a young child. In the case of Jews, of course, there is the additional factor that if the mother is Jewish, so is the child. And many died on that account, whatever their private beliefs.

I, too, particilate in weddings, funerals and baptisms in churches, for the same reason as Greatnan. I don't sing hymns or pray, though. I just sit or stand quietly. At a recent funeral, I did find myself re-writing the words to 'All Things Bright and Beautiful' whilst everyone was singing....'Higgs Boson made them all!'

Religious education in school is not what Dawky means by 'indoctrination'. He means faith education, whether through a faith school, or by parents or by a religious institution.

Particilate?? .....think I'll leave that one - I quite like that word!

Yes, I'm the same, when. I only mention my atheism on forums like this which are there to discuss such things. DH and I didn't even mention our beliefs when we exercised our parental right to withdraw DD from religious observances at her primary school. We simply informed the HT that we wished to do that. In fact, our action had a positive effect on religious education in the school (from which, of course, we did not withdraw her) because they expanded the curriculum to include religions other than the Abrahamic ones.

DD took part in Christmas and Harvest Celebrations along with all the other children because, as we pointed out, midwinter feasting and fun existed before christianity was invented, and so did harvest celebrations. Besides, they are cultural celebrations rather than religious ones for most people.

When she was in the top primary year, DD said she wanted to go along to the two annual church services that the entire school (except her, the school secretary, the janitor, and the classroom assistant left in charge of DD) attended. By then we felt she was old enough to choose for herself, and anyway, she only wanted to go so she could play her trumpet as part of her class's goodbye to primary school 'show'.

lily, the fact that religious indoctrination doesn't always work, doesn't mean it's not wrong. Some people are less susceptible to brainwashing than others. Thank goodness, or we'd still be in the Dark Ages.

In your remarks about being Jewish, lily, you are failing to distinguish between Jewish by race and Jewish by religion. There's a difference. No child is Jewish by faith unless they have been indoctrinated, even if they are Jewish by race (race is always questionable anyway, depending on ancestry, but that's another issue).

What does 'indoctrination' mean, then? Bags seems to equate it with brainwashing!

Indoctrination means brainwashing, pure and simple.

We have addressed the issue of indoctrination, as you demanded, Lilygran. Now perhaps you will address the issue of calling people 'militant atheists'.
I interpret 'indoctrination' as meaning telling people that something is a fact when it is only a belief. I told my daughters that I did not believe in any god, and the reasons why. They got RE lessons at school. They were free to adopt any religion they chose. One flirted briefly with some unspecified religion because she couldn't bear the thought of being parted from her children after death, but she soon realised that she was clutching at straw.

Subjected to the dogma and doctrines of a particular group of people, rather than educated in a variety of doctrines, attitudes and beliefs.

Lilygran I was checking that I had understood your use of the term religious education – not talking about indoctrination or anything Richard Dawkins has said.

Just because a child is baptised doesn't make him or her a Christian; that's why churches have a confirmation ceremony. However, this usually takes place while the child is still a child and is still not in a position to have fully understood the options of Christianity, other faiths or no faith. The child is not making the choice and therefore cannot properly be described as Christian child.

The issue of whether a child can be Jewish is not quite the same, as the word is applied to race as well as beliefs. Presumably, it is the race aspect that is believed to pass down the maternal line, although I suppose religious Jews themselves don't really differentiate between the two.