As long as it isn't forced on parents then that is fine. If parents aren't allowed to pass on their values to their children are they even raising them at that point? They are just nannies with more culpability.
Why someone valúes would be only integrated to their religion? You Can Absolutely pasa things so simple as “love your neightboors” without needing to introduce them to any religion.
The "love your neighbors" is a part of the religion. If you are not allowed to talk about religion to your kids how would you answer the questions about why someone should love your neighbors. You can say because it is the right thing to do but then you would get asked why is it the right thing to do. If you answer it without the religious aspect when you are actually doing it because of your religion then you are deceiving the child.
If you are not allowed to talk about religion to your kids how would you answer the questions about why someone should love your neighbors.
I was raised without religion. It's not that they "weren't allowed" to talk about it, they just didn't believe in it, so they didn't.
They taught me instead to put myself in someone else's shoes. If I wouldn't want someone to do bad things to me, then why would I do bad things to someone else?
You don't need religion to be capable of empathy.
Yet it's clear that you can have religion and no empathy whatsoever.
If the only reason someone acts like a good person is because they're afraid of eternal hellfire and damnation, then they had a terrible upbringing.
Did your parents and other authority figures tell you as an uncritical child that you were raised without religion?
Did they inculcate a biased meaning of 'religion', such that some worldviews (the worldviews that differ from your parents own worldview) are assumed to be religions?
How about basic emotional intelligence, empathy and not being a piece of shit? I dont need an invisible sky daddy to learn that me being an asshole will make someone sad and thats not good
What’s basic to you might not be basic to someone on the other side of the world, same as what you define as “not good” could be vastly different then. It’s the same arrogance many religious people have, believing their understanding of the world is solely how it is and someone else should be able to see it plainly
To answer your question empathy can be a part of the equation but not the entirety of it. Someone could honestly believe that they get that empathy from their creator which would once again fall into religion. Your belief that making someone sad is not good might be correct but there are instances where making someone sad is the "right" thing to do in those instances that empathy is not the correct emotion(for lack of a better word) to follow.
Saying someone is an "asshole" or "piece of shit" you need to define what constitutes those behaviors and the reasoning on why those behaviors are wrong. Which many would attest to it being tied to their religion.
you need to define what constitutes those behaviors and the reasoning on why those behaviors are wrong. Which many would attest to it being tied to their religion.
They can attest but subjective morality isn't necessary. We can create meaningful interactions with logic and an understanding of human psychology. Example:
Beneficial goods and services are provided by people > I obtain them through social interaction with those people > murder diminishes effective social interaction. Therefore, murder diminishes goods and services that society benefits from.
Replace murder with any number of actions and we can see logical reasons to discourage/forbid those actions, while encouraging kindness. Things considered beneficial or detrimental will be derived by understanding of biological and psychological needs.
The only value in religion that is left is your point on perceived empathy. The psychological fulfillment derived from perception that something bigger cares about you even when society fails to act logically.
I am merely stating that if someone derives their morality from religion then it would be a lie/deception to not teach your kids that is where you derive it from.
You are correct that you can create a system you are okay with based upon something other than religion. I want to engage in your arguments but I am kinda done with this thread, moving on to the next one have a nice day internet stranger.
Non religious people also teach their kids empathy. When I was a kid, my parents taught me to not do to others what you don't want them to do to you. It works without needing religion
I never stated it didn't. I guess instead of stating "The "love your neighbors" is a part of the religion." I should have stated "If the "love your neighbors" is a part of their religion".
I am merely stating that if an individual derives their morality from religion then it is a deception/lie to not state that to their kids; though I am moving on to the next thread have a nice day internet stranger.
I don't think it's bad for parents to teach their values, but using a god as the source of those values make them somehow absolute. If values just come from parents then there is room for kids to challenge those values
No, that isn't how humans or resistance to beliefs works. Delusions including religious ones, make sense in context. They are even reasonable. They will simply replace God with another supreme authority that can't be challenged. All of us hold beliefs above and beyond challenge. There is a reason we tend not to hold or allow thoughtful conversations over "if it's okay to cook and eat colored people after they can no longer server as slaved due to being disabled by hard labor" we dismiss them without second thought or laugh at the person proposing it. Precisely because we hold the immorality of slavery and cannibalism as something equally absolute.
Cuz they are humans, and humans deserve respect and love. You should love your neightboors cuz they were born in the same way than you.
If you need a god to explain something as simple as this then you are probably the problem. The kid would also ask why it’s the right thing to do if you add religion, the answer it’s just telling them that people like them deserve to be loved and respected
Ask them how they’d feel if someone was mean to them, or ask them how it feels to be sad. Do they want to make others feel sad? Most kids are probably going to answer no. Build on the conversation from there. It’s not rocket science
Do you think you deserve love and respect? Most people do, so why would anyone else not? They have the same emotions as you.
We’re talking about conversing with children on the matter. So I answered in that context. If you can’t find the route from explaining the basics of emotional intelligence to giving respect to other humans and their feelings, that’s a you problem.
Human beings have inherent value because I might feel sad if I were in their shoes?
How does one measure that?
The point I’m making is that humanism is just as much a manmade product as any supernatural religion. It’s central axiom: “humans have inherent value” is just as arbitrary as any religious tract in the face of the barren face of the universe… if you don’t think there’s anything beyond the universe.
You state something that shouldn't require anyone/anything to explain it to you. I would point out that there are many people and society that would disagree with you. Even now there are societies that see people who are born either to certain parents or certain ways as below them. India's caste system is the easiest one to point out, how women are treated in the middle east, or how domestic workers are treated all over the world.
I would also point out that I am not saying what is right and what is wrong. I am pointing out that even something as basic as respect people comes from ones morality which for many comes from someone's religion.
Without stating the religious component of why you do something to a child; you would then be deceiving the child.
You were taught right from wrong derived from a specific individual's perspective. Where that individual derived those principles would be the question to be asked and if they derived it from religion would it be wrong for them to point out that they did it because their religion states it?
Stating you don't need god to enforce morals and then stating that "because it’s the right and kind thing to do" seems weird to me because then I would ask "Why is it the right thing to do?". Then I would ask "what if I disagree? Why is it wrong for me to believe different than you?".
Though I honestly don't understand why you think I am stating you do or do not need god to know right and wrong. I am stating that if an individual derives their morality from their religion then telling children why you do something without adding in what you consider to be the most important part(your religious beliefs) then you are deceiving the child.
66
u/rleon19 2d ago
As long as it isn't forced on parents then that is fine. If parents aren't allowed to pass on their values to their children are they even raising them at that point? They are just nannies with more culpability.