Which Christianity is the real thing?

[Robert]

better to teach them how to think rather than what to think. giving them tools instead of giving them a coupon to a mechanic.

How to think as an atheist you mean

[Jack]

How to think as an atheist you mean

If by "think as an atheist" you mean to think for themselves, yes.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

How to think as an atheist you mean

like I said, how to think instead of what to think.

Its not my fault that a properly working skeptical brain rejects your belief. its usually what happens when critical thinking is properly applied to the claims of religion.

and its a hell of a lot better than the indoctrination that goes on in sunday school.

[Robert]

If by "think as an atheist" you mean to think for themselves, yes.

Hello Jack
but to think for themselves, they would have to either have NO information put forward at all, or, in the interest of equality and no indoctrination, you have to show all opinions of all religions, and NOT from a person who does not believe in them in the first place and is merely going to give a pessimistic caricature of the believe. I think it is highly unlikely that Dawkins in his propaganda camps, actually did this. Therefore they are doing the very thing they are against,

[Robert]

like I said, how to think instead of what to think.

Its not my fault that a properly working skeptical brain rejects your belief. its usually what happens when critical thinking is properly applied to the claims of religion.

and its a hell of a lot better than indoctrination like what goes on in sunday school.

Indoctrination goes on everywhere, you're trying to do it now, it is normal that we try to make others see what we think is right. This is part of the reason we have schools. But the fact is that if there is an atheist camp, it will 'Do what it says on the tin'.

[Robert]

I wonder if they say to them: ''Where did we come from? As we were not there, we cannot know for sure, and therefore, as Dr Dawkins says, the Origin could be God. After all, Richard is an agnostic, and as he has also said, Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it does not exist. It may be something which is pure energy of some sort, like Quantum energy. Perhaps it is deeper than that, and Conscious Energy is the answer, what religion refers to as God. You make up your minds children. There is evidence of one sort or another for both, but neither are conclusive. But remember, religion can be also a force for good as well as evil, so choose wisely''

Perhaps they then go onto say: ''This is Francis Collins, he is a scientist, and he believes in God. He is intelligent. What do we think of that children?''

[xx_mortekai_xx]

Hello Jack
but to think for themselves, they would have to either have NO information put forward at all, or, in the interest of equality and no indoctrination, you have to show all opinions of all religions, and NOT from a person who does not believe in them in the first place and is merely going to give a pessimistic caricature of the believe. I think it is highly unlikely that Dawkins in his propaganda camps, actually did this. Therefore they are doing the very thing they are against,

so, of course, they should be taught by believers, because thats who will fairly represent their religion.

Dont want that critical eye turned toward your religion, do you? maybe because even you know that it doesnt stand up to critical scrutiny?

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I wonder if they say to them: ''Where did we come from? As we were not there, we cannot know for sure, and therefore, as Dr Dawkins says, the Origin could be God. After all, Richard is an agnostic, and as he has also said, Just because you can't see something doesn't mean it does not exist. It may be something which is pure energy of some sort, like Quantum energy. Perhaps it is deeper than that, and Conscious Energy is the answer, what religion refers to as God. You make up your minds children. There is evidence of one sort or another for both, but neither are conclusive. But remember, religion can be also a force for good as well as evil, so choose wisely''

Perhaps they then go onto say: ''This is Francis Collins, he is a scientist, and he believes in God. He is intelligent. What do we think of that children?''

so, we should teach them assertions.

we cannot know for sure, and therefore, the Origin could be God

Had you stopped at the first comma, i would have agreed with you. but it could also be universe-building pixies. Or it could have been Krishna. Or it could have been the body of Ymir. Do you really think we should also teach them all these things as well?

And if you are going with examples, only 7% of physicists believe in a god. medical doctors are fairly low as well, somewhere in the teens. It would be more representative to point out the ones who DONT believe than to point out the exception. Besides, Francis Collins also says that the DNA evidence alone is enough to confirm the common descent theory of evolution. But you ignore that part.

[Jack]

But the fact is that if there is an atheist camp, it will 'Do what it says on the tin'.

Well, while you speculate about what might go on at an atheist camp for kids, we all know what actually occurs at Jesus Camp.

[The Theist]

Well, while you speculate about what might go on at an atheist camp for kids, we all know what actually occurs at Jesus Camp.

I only just stumbled upon Jesus Camp a few days ago. Isn't that sad?! All those kids getting worked up and speaking in tongues, ready for spiritual warfare. Patriotism, Bob Dylan said, was the last refuge for a scoundrel.

[xx_mortekai_xx]

I only just stumbled upon Jesus Camp a few days ago. Isn't that sad?! All those kids getting worked up and speaking in tongues, ready for spiritual warfare. Patriotism, Bob Dylan said, was the last refuge for a scoundrel.

are you being sarcastic?

If not, that is HILARIOUS. why exactly do you find this sad?

[finder]

so, of course, they should be taught by believers, because thats who will fairly represent their religion.

Dont want that critical eye turned toward your religion, do you? maybe because even you know that it doesnt stand up to critical scrutiny?

So since you didn't refute Robert's point are we to assume indoctrination is fine as long as it lines up with yours?