Human Rights

[sayak83]

I have often wondered what life would have been for me if I had a lawyer advise me of my rights before I began considering my first thought but then I would have had to already begin to believe in those rights to listen to counsel.

Our rights are violated from day one, society (religion is but a part) demands under the guise of promises that we fall in line or there will be consequences. Coercion by any other name is still coercion. And we get use to it, to the point where we only react to the "serious violations".

Society (religion is but a part) indoctrinates us without making us aware of our rights, good or bad, it still is a violation of our rights.

Most people have no idea of the fullness of their rights but believe only in what they were told about their rights.

Do you have the right to set aside that which you accepted before you knew you didn't have to accept it?

And if you believe you have that right, can you exercise it?

Society can (and in many cases does) expand our "rights" beyond what would have been possible without it. In fact, there is no right to life in nature outside of society. Ask tigers.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

No, Dennett is suggesting that parents should be agnostic.

If that's so then it's an even more senseless and unrealistic expectation than I originally thought. That's not how beliefs work, it's not something you can circumstantially change depending on your situation. And you don't need to in order to engender the pursuit of discovery in a kid. If the point is encouraging multiple POV exposure in a kid, what the parents believe and how they practice isn't the issue. The issue is making comparative studies available to all kids regardless of what backgrounds they come from.

I'm not challenging what a parent believes, I'm challenging the idea of indoctrinating children into supernatural faith claims. And remember, for 1.6 BILLION people, such indoctrination is often a life sentence with no change of parole.

Yes, thanks for another example of hyperbolic prattle. Life sentence with no chance of parole. You're going to give me eye strain from the rolling that sort of unhelpful dialogue causes.

 

[sayak83]

I find this post shocking for several reasons:

1 - You apparently didn't read the OP, since Dennett's proposal completely handles your argument.
2 - It seems you're willfully twisting the definition of atheism, unless you feel the same way about a-unicornists. Should a-unicornist parents be charged with child abuse?

No. And neither should believers be accused of child abuse merely for including kids in their social, ethical and belief practices unless it can be shown that it is directly causing actual cases of mental of physical sickness or violent behavior towards others in the kids. Atheists are making the claim that bringing up children with belief is child abuse, it's their job to provide scientific evidence for this, particularly for the case of billions of children of mainstream religious families in the world.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

It would seem that 'Belief' is acceptable to some in a free society.

If it makes you feel better, I am an atheist. I probably always will be. I have no beliefs in gods and no desire to become one. But I most certainly wouldn't tell you that you are not free to believe in a god or gods. People should be free to believe or not as they wish.

 

[icehorse]

No, you need to connect them yourself, it wasn't so hard using religion as the indoctrination but you have trouble separating yourself from your thoughts about yourself.

1 - No I don't.
2 - Your claims are extremely ambiguous. There are any number of ways I could interpret them. I'm asking you to clarify your points. You're asking me to guess what you mean. I'm not going there.

 

[icehorse]

No. And neither should believers be accused of child abuse merely for including kids in their social, ethical and belief practices unless it can be shown that it is directly causing actual cases of mental of physical sickness or violent behavior towards others in the kids. Atheists are making the claim that bringing up children with belief is child abuse, it's their job to provide scientific evidence for this, particularly for the case of billions of children of mainstream religious families in the world.

Well in millions of situations, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is on my side.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Atheism is just another religion.

No it isn't.

 

[icehorse]

If that's so then it's an even more senseless and unrealistic expectation than I originally thought. That's not how beliefs work, it's not something you can circumstantially change depending on your situation. And you don't need to in order to engender the pursuit of discovery in a kid. If the point is encouraging multiple POV exposure in a kid, what the parents believe and how they practice isn't the issue. The issue is making comparative studies available to all kids regardless of what backgrounds they come from.


Yes, thanks for another example of hyperbolic prattle. Life sentence with no chance of parole. You're going to give me eye strain from the rolling that sort of unhelpful dialogue causes.

And you appear to be naive on this point.

In Islam, what is the penalty for apostasy? And across the Muslim world, how many hundreds of millions of Muslims believe that apostasy is a crime, often believing it to be a CAPITAL crime.

@ADigitalArtist - this seems to be a long-running disagreement between us. It seems (correct if I'm wrong), that you'd like us to believe that Islam is just another religion. Whereas I believe that it is a barbaric, totalitarian ideology, whose very core values run counter to modern human rights.

 

[sayak83]

Well in millions of situations, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is on my side.

How so? Where is there a fundamental right that children should not learn the socio-cultural-linguistic-religious beliefs and practices of their family or community. Maybe learning the mother tongue is child abuse, as it deprives the right of children to have other languages as their primary tongue?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

Well in millions of situations, the Universal Declaration on Human Rights is on my side.

And it was when it was atheistic anti-theistic totalitarianism too. But to conflate the problem as being with atheism not with totalitarianism and insist that every atheist must support it by virtue of their atheism is just as silly and presumptuous as assuming religion is the problem.

 

[icehorse]

If that's so then it's an even more senseless and unrealistic expectation than I originally thought. That's not how beliefs work, it's not something you can circumstantially change depending on your situation. And you don't need to in order to engender the pursuit of discovery in a kid. If the point is encouraging multiple POV exposure in a kid, what the parents believe and how they practice isn't the issue. The issue is making comparative studies available to all kids regardless of what backgrounds they come from.

I'd agree that it's unrealistic - as I said initially. Senseless, well we'll have to disagree on that point.

 

[icehorse]

How so? Where is there a fundamental right that children should not learn the socio-cultural-linguistic-religious beliefs and practices of their family or community. Maybe learning the mother tongue is child abuse, as it deprives the right of children to have other languages as their primary tongue?

Because in Islam, apostasy is a crime, and in many cases it's a CAPITAL crime.

 

[sayak83]

And you appear to be naive on this point.

In Islam, what is the penalty for apostasy? And across the Muslim world, how many hundreds of millions of Muslims believe that apostasy is a crime, often believing it to be a CAPITAL crime.

@ADigitalArtist - this seems to be a long-running disagreement between us. It seems (correct if I'm wrong), that you'd like us to believe that Islam is just another religion. Whereas I believe that it is a barbaric, totalitarian ideology, whose very core values run counter to modern human rights.

And neither digital artist nor me is supporting those laws. One irrational position does not justify another.

 

[David T]

I have often wondered what life would have been for me if I had a lawyer advise me of my rights before I began considering my first thought but then I would have had to already begin to believe in those rights to listen to counsel.

Our rights are violated from day one, society (religion is but a part) demands under the guise of promises that we fall in line or there will be consequences. Coercion by any other name is still coercion. And we get use to it, to the point where we only react to the "serious violations".

Society (religion is but a part) indoctrinates us without making us aware of our rights, good or bad, it still is a violation of our rights.

Most people have no idea of the fullness of their rights but believe only in what they were told about their rights.

Do you have the right to set aside that which you accepted before you knew you didn't have to accept it?

And if you believe you have that right, can you exercise it?

This topic is interesting. We don't really have literal rights in context to nature. Interestingly if you come to understand nature as a kind of absolute dictator in a particular kind of way, that's really really liberating. Then the struggles that we battle with, are no longer as important and not primary. Human rights can't abandon nature, nor can they simply projected out as divinely ordained as well. One leads to a narcissism of modernity the other is a narcissism of antiquity. Some will claim their ancient narcissism is fundemental others their modern narcissism is emperically true. Both agree narcissism is fundemental, they only disagree on the details.

 

[Muslim-UK]

Because in Islam, apostasy is a crime, and in many cases it's a CAPITAL crime.

So is it a capital crime, or is it a capital crime in 'many' cases? Which is it, and where is your evidence.

 

[sayak83]

Because in Islam, apostasy is a crime, and in many cases it's a CAPITAL crime.

Yes. And how does that connect to anything here? Here we are discussing whether parents have right to teach their kids their culture and beliefs or not.

 

[sun rise]

To me, just talking about rights misses that emphasis also needs to be put on responsibilities. No one has an absolute right to do anything and everything except an absolute rulers. We all have to strike a balance.

My parents who were atheist Jews exposed me to Judaism because it was part of our heritage but did not say I should believe or not believe. They as parents felt the responsibility for my education in this area but gave me the right to think for myself as I matured. This seems to me the ideal.

 

[icehorse]

And neither digital artist nor me is supporting those laws. One irrational position does not justify another.

This thread is about human rights, one of the most important of the human rights as described in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, is freedom of religion. Islam declares apostasy to be a crime, and in many parts of the world Muslims agree with Islamic teachings on this point. So if you're one of the hundreds of millions of Muslims who live in such a place, you DO NOT have freedom of religion.

How is that an irrational point?

 

[Ponder This]

I have often wondered what life would have been for me if I had a lawyer advise me of my rights before I began considering my first thought but then I would have had to already begin to believe in those rights to listen to counsel.

Our rights are violated from day one, society (religion is but a part) demands under the guise of promises that we fall in line or there will be consequences. Coercion by any other name is still coercion. And we get use to it, to the point where we only react to the "serious violations".

Society (religion is but a part) indoctrinates us without making us aware of our rights, good or bad, it still is a violation of our rights.

Most people have no idea of the fullness of their rights but believe only in what they were told about their rights.

Do you have the right to set aside that which you accepted before you knew you didn't have to accept it?

And if you believe you have that right, can you exercise it?

"Can I have candy, mom?"
"Don't run with the scissors, dear."
"I don't want to do math homework. It makes my head hurt."
"Tell me a story, dad."
"I don't want a haircut."

... breaking news today... Congress has given children under the age of 9 the right to vote...

 

[Muslim-UK]

This thread is about human rights, one of the most important of the human rights as described in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, is freedom of religion. Islam declares apostasy to be a crime, and in many parts of the world Muslims agree with Islamic teachings on this point. So if you're one of the hundreds of millions of Muslims who live in such a place, you DO NOT have freedom of religion.

Very rarely will a Muslim leave Islam for another major Religion. Most stop practising Islam and become agnostic or reject the notion of God. What evidence do you have showing people are not free to stop believing?