How would someone who doesn't believe in God or the afterlife,answer their dying child,if they asked them that question?
Will i go to heaven?
| truespeed wrote: |
| How would someone who doesn't believe in God or the afterlife,answer their dying child,if they asked them that question? |
I suppose there are two alternatives: you lie and say yes, or you try to tell them what you believe to be true in a way they can understand. Having never faced that situation I'm not going to speculate about what I would do.
It isn't a problem particular to atheists though. What about the dying Hindu child who asks a Catholic priest? What about the dying Catholic child that asks a Rabbi? What about the Catholic baby who dies before baptism? Any number of beliefs about heaven are out there - and most of them exclude the majority in some way or another. At least the atheist can say, honestly and clearly, that you WON'T be going to hell, or purgatory. Can most religious people honestly say that to their dying child? Most Christian sects opt-out of that one. The Catholics invented purgatory to 'push the problem away'.*
*The problem being, basically, that the notion of original sin means that, until baptism, you are destined for hell. Not all Christians believe that, of course, but I've never quite understood their reasoning on the matter. Evangelicals and Baptists tend to think that you have to be old enough to decide for yourself - which leaves open the question of what happens before that point...?
Last edited by Bikerman on Thu Sep 24, 2009 1:10 pm; edited 2 times in total
I don't have kids, but I have been asked that question before, by adults who were drawing their final breath. Because they were not close to me, I always felt it was best to lie, and just say "yes, of course". Regardless of my personal views, I always felt that was the more compassionate route.
I can't really say what my answer would be for a friend or relative, much less my own child. I'd like to think that I would raise my children to have open minds, and not automatically think that the christian idea of heaven and hell is the only idea around.
I can't really say what my answer would be for a friend or relative, much less my own child. I'd like to think that I would raise my children to have open minds, and not automatically think that the christian idea of heaven and hell is the only idea around.
| truespeed wrote: |
| How would someone who doesn't believe in God or the afterlife,answer their dying child,if they asked them that question? |
Since the child assumes heaven is real, why not work from the viewpoint of that assumption?
I've always heard that there is an 'age of innocence', where a child that cannot really understand the difference between right and wrong, and is too young to accept faith, will automatically go to heaven. Just tell them that.
Even if heaven is imaginary, there's no reason you can't tell them the entry requirements for an imaginary place.
I think that won't do. Expand that position to others who are not dying children. Would it be 'right' to encourage the delusions of anyone, on the grounds that it makes them feel better? Are we making a special category out of dying children and excepting that category from the normal rules of ethical behaviour?
As I said previously, I can't honestly speculate about what I would do, but it certainly isn't, to me, a no brainer. Part of being human is learning truth from myth. At what age would we apply any 'cut off' for the child? Would it be appropriate at, say, 3 yrs, but not at, say 14? Would it always be appropriate?
I really don't know - it touches on many quite deep principles in philosophy. I will have to think more...
As I said previously, I can't honestly speculate about what I would do, but it certainly isn't, to me, a no brainer. Part of being human is learning truth from myth. At what age would we apply any 'cut off' for the child? Would it be appropriate at, say, 3 yrs, but not at, say 14? Would it always be appropriate?
I really don't know - it touches on many quite deep principles in philosophy. I will have to think more...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| I think that won't do. Expand that position to others who are not dying children. Would it be 'right' to encourage the delusions of anyone, on the grounds that it makes them feel better? Are we making a special category out of dying children and excepting that category from the normal rules of ethical behaviour?
|
Why shouldn't children be a special category?
Have you ever seen a kid who found out too early that there is no Santa Claus?
Just think how much more traumatic it would be for a child asking 'will I go to heaven' to get the answer 'there is no heaven'.
Just like when the child asks 'will Santa bring me presents?' It's better to say 'he will if you've been a good little boy/girl' than to say 'there is no Santa, silly'.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Have you ever seen a kid who found out too early that there is no Santa Claus?
Just think how much more traumatic it would be for a child asking 'will I go to heaven' to get the answer 'there is no heaven'. |
I can accept making a special category for kids. I think we are forgetting the original question here. The kid in question is dying. If they have enough of a belief in heaven to ask if they are about to go there, I certainly don't see the harm in telling them they will.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| At least the atheist can say, honestly and clearly, that you WON'T be going to hell, or purgatory. Can most religious people honestly say that to their dying child? |
The atheist can honestly say they won't be going to hell,but would they be just as honest in saying they won't go to heaven.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Would it be appropriate at, say, 3 yrs, but not at, say 14? . |
I never even considered age being a factor,as when i was posing the question,i suppose i was thinking in terms of an under 7 years old,but then as has rightly been pointed out,most parents wether they believe in God or not,hoodwink their children into believing in a man in a red suit who visits them once a year to give them presents.
So i suppose in that scenario,saying to the child that they will go to heaven shouldn't be a problem,if your willing to hoodwink them with Santa Claus,then no matter how firmly your belief in a godless universe,for the sake of the child dying thinking its going to somewhere else,rather than an eternal nothingness,then i think it is an easy decision to make.
When they are older,say early teens, and they are aware of the possibility of no heaven and the consequences of what that entails,what then? for me the answer is still the same ,even if i don't believe in it,i would tell them they are going to heaven,as long as it comforts them in their last moments.
Even if by that age they are aware of your non belief in heaven (even though you have probably said,nobody can know for sure and its just an opinion) ,in that moment,when they ask you "will i go to heaven" i don't think an answer of "i don't know" would suffice,for me,an out right lie is the way i would go.
If I had children I would explain at some point explain what atheism is and that I am one, at the right time when he asks questions. At some point I would say I don´t believe in it but if it did exist he would go to heaven if it was up to me. Before that i would say yes. But really hard to answer havn´t been in the situation and not planning to be in the situation.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Have you ever seen a kid who found out too early that there is no Santa Claus?
Just think how much more traumatic it would be for a child asking 'will I go to heaven' to get the answer 'there is no heaven'. |
Well... I do not have kids, nor do I ever want to have kids. But if I did have a kid one day, I do not think I would endorse the story of Santa Claus (or the Easter Bunny). I would maybe endorse it if my girlfriend or wife insisted, but I still do not think I would cave in.
I would also discourage religion/gods/deities/fairy tales to my children (but I also wouldn't ban it). So if I had a dying child, I do not think that this would be an issue. I would have had my views on this declared from the beginning so he/she would probably know atheistic views.
However... The real question is what would I tell someone else's child (that has been raised with religious beliefs)? That, I honestly do not know. I think that my emotions would get the better of my and that I might just cave in and say, "Yes; you're going to Heaven."
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: | ||
Well... I do not have kids, nor do I ever want to have kids. But if I did have a kid one day, I do not think I would endorse the story of Santa Claus (or the Easter Bunny). I would maybe endorse it if my girlfriend or wife insisted, but I still do not think I would cave in. I would also discourage religion/gods/deities/fairy tales to my children (but I also wouldn't ban it). So if I had a dying child, I do not think that this would be an issue. I would have had my views on this declared from the beginning so he/she would probably know atheistic views. However... The real question is what would I tell someone else's child (that has been raised with religious beliefs)? That, I honestly do not know. I think that my emotions would get the better of my and that I might just cave in and say, "Yes; you're going to Heaven." |
In the children’s faces there is heaven . . . by Bluedoll
I would tell the truth. I would say, I don’t know anything about heaven and explain, if it hadn’t been explained before my personal belief, which is great because I could say to the child that they will not feel pain or experience fear. They will not feel anything.
However, I would also consider that because the child is asking the question that they just might have a different belief and I would honour them by finding someone that shared that same belief. I would not deny the child the right to believe in something by spitting out things like its a fairy tale, that belief in heaven is ignorance, just someone’s imagination, delusional or discourage the child in anyway from having a belief just because I am an atheist.
There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. There is something wrong with sending out negative messages and hate against anything that’s is not in alignment with your own view.
Perhaps people that say they are an atheist and are angry, are angry because they have been tortured by over zealous religions. As a result, they strike out at people and subjects with contempt and negativity. For me I like talking to people who are open to all possibilities. If I said I was an atheist, which I am not, I would still have respect and admiration for little children and their thoughts.
I would tell the truth. I would say, I don’t know anything about heaven and explain, if it hadn’t been explained before my personal belief, which is great because I could say to the child that they will not feel pain or experience fear. They will not feel anything.
However, I would also consider that because the child is asking the question that they just might have a different belief and I would honour them by finding someone that shared that same belief. I would not deny the child the right to believe in something by spitting out things like its a fairy tale, that belief in heaven is ignorance, just someone’s imagination, delusional or discourage the child in anyway from having a belief just because I am an atheist.
There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. There is something wrong with sending out negative messages and hate against anything that’s is not in alignment with your own view.
Perhaps people that say they are an atheist and are angry, are angry because they have been tortured by over zealous religions. As a result, they strike out at people and subjects with contempt and negativity. For me I like talking to people who are open to all possibilities. If I said I was an atheist, which I am not, I would still have respect and admiration for little children and their thoughts.
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| There is nothing wrong with being an atheist. There is something wrong with sending out negative messages and hate against anything that’s is not in alignment with your own view. |
There are several postings by atheists, including mine, and I certainly never said any such thing. I've read the other postings and I can't see anything other than considered and honest opinion. In fact I think you will find that most, if not all, posters have said that they really don't know what they would do in that particular situation. You create, in your message, an entirely spurious notion - and I find it dishonest. In fact, on checking again, I find that most of the postings by people who could possibly be considered atheists, actually say that they would probably lie (and thus damage themselves), just to accommodate the viewpoint that the religious inculcate in our children. How is that 'hate'?
| Quote: |
| Perhaps people that say they are an atheist and are angry, are angry because they have been tortured by over zealous religions. As a result, they strike out at people and subjects with contempt and negativity. |
Your posting is a classic example of the 'straw man' fallacy.
My words are very strong. Perhaps the message that is being provided is a result of many other threads that I’ve read under Philosophy and Religion.
. . . but I do not feel threatened at all by an atheist point of view in fact it can be refreshing because there is a lack of prejudice. I do not even think of an atheist as person but as a particular viewpoint of a person.
I should also point out as well while maintaining a completely up front format that the words hate and anger are pointing to the tone in general and not to moderating technicalities. That is an issue, I don’t have to deal with. I certainly hope that this is clear!
Is it possible to choose another description that is more respectable of another persons religion? A fairytale is a fairytale. A belief is a belief.
Do the Catholics say that or just Bikermen? Why do not people just state what they believe and not conjure up a quote about what others are not saying?
Bikerman does not have the right to even presume how I feel. I will state my feelings. Bikerman should state his own feelings only.
In all honesty, I find that Bikermen posts like in this thread although intelligent with strong views on subjects contain within the post, a style that is simply inconsiderate of my views.
I enjoy posting and reading other people’s viewpoints and then trying to understand them. I don’t enjoy reading about strawman, dishonest posting or striking out in regard to what I choose to write! It is fine to state an opposite point of view but it can it not be done by simply writing what we believe and leaving out things like - perhaps you need to think . . . . - Bluedoll says, “don’t tell me what I need to do!”
I am not striking out. I am speaking up!
. . . but I do not feel threatened at all by an atheist point of view in fact it can be refreshing because there is a lack of prejudice. I do not even think of an atheist as person but as a particular viewpoint of a person.
I should also point out as well while maintaining a completely up front format that the words hate and anger are pointing to the tone in general and not to moderating technicalities. That is an issue, I don’t have to deal with. I certainly hope that this is clear!
| Bikerman wrote: |
| it is quite cruel to impose that fairytale |
Is it possible to choose another description that is more respectable of another persons religion? A fairytale is a fairytale. A belief is a belief.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| The Catholics invented purgatory to 'push the problem away'.* |
Do the Catholics say that or just Bikermen? Why do not people just state what they believe and not conjure up a quote about what others are not saying?
| Bikerman wrote: |
| You obviously feel threatened . . . |
Bikerman does not have the right to even presume how I feel. I will state my feelings. Bikerman should state his own feelings only.
In all honesty, I find that Bikermen posts like in this thread although intelligent with strong views on subjects contain within the post, a style that is simply inconsiderate of my views.
I enjoy posting and reading other people’s viewpoints and then trying to understand them. I don’t enjoy reading about strawman, dishonest posting or striking out in regard to what I choose to write! It is fine to state an opposite point of view but it can it not be done by simply writing what we believe and leaving out things like - perhaps you need to think . . . . - Bluedoll says, “don’t tell me what I need to do!”
I am not striking out. I am speaking up!
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| My words are very strong. Perhaps the message that is being provided is a result of many other threads that I’ve read under Philosophy and Religion. |
| Quote: |
| I should also point out as well while maintaining a completely up front format that the words hate and anger are pointing to the tone in general and not to moderating technicalities. That is an issue, I don’t have to deal with. I certainly hope that this is clear! |
| Quote: | ||
|
| Quote: | ||
|
| Quote: | ||
|
| Quote: |
| In all honesty, I find that Bikermen posts like in this thread although intelligent with strong views on subjects contain within the post, a style that is simply inconsiderate of my views. |
| Quote: |
| I enjoy posting and reading other people’s viewpoints and then trying to understand them. I don’t enjoy reading about strawman, dishonest posting or striking out in regard to what I choose to write! It is fine to state an opposite point of view but it can it not be done by simply writing what we believe and leaving out things like - perhaps you need to think . . . . - Bluedoll says, “don’t tell me what I need to do!” |
It is interesting that you feel free to assume that others are 'striking out' and yet object when that is turned back on you.....
If nobody points-out the fallacies in your postings then you will continue to repeat them. Look upon it as a free service I provide, then you won't feel so bad...maybe?
Now, why don't you read my previous posting again, and then answer it honestly, instead of attempting to distract attention from your attacks?
Last edited by Bikerman on Sat Sep 26, 2009 12:47 am; edited 4 times in total
| Bluedoll wrote: |
| Do the Catholics say that or just Bikermen? |
Anyway, I think it's no big deal to call religious beliefs 'fairy tales'. Why not? I mean, what is a fairy tale? Again, I refer to good ol' Merriam-Webster on this one:
Yep. Pretty much sums it up, except for the whole "happy ending" part.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Matrix, my sister was like that. She had so many fixed notions about what her kids were going to learn and how strict she was going to be with them, etc. etc. She also said she would never have children. Then she got married, and once her first kid was born there was a total paradigm switch. Being on a kid's wavelength completely changes the way you look at things. They sort of totally inhabit you and sort you out who you really are as opposed to who you thought you were. |
Sorry. I am not your sister. I highly doubt that I will ever have kids. I am careful with using condoms and/or other forms of birth control. And even if my girlfriend did get pregnant, that still wouldn't be a problem because I see nothing wrong with abortion.
Furthermore, the idea that I am going to just change all of my beliefs because I have a child is ridiculous. Sure, little things might change. I might say that I want my kids to be healthy and so I will not let them eat junk food, but then I might cave in one day and buy them ice cream. I can respect someone saying that I'll change my views in some little way like that.
But we're discussing something completely different here. We're discussing mythology and fairy tales. Am I all of a sudden going to tell them that God exists even though I spend so much of my time and energy fighting against, what I view as, an oppressive and dangerous religion? Why would it ever even be an issue under my reign as father? It's just as likely that I'd start endorsing Greek mythology over Christianity.
The other point that was brought up (originally by Ocalhoun) was Santa Claus. I don't see myself endorsing that either BUT I told you that I recognized that I would if the girlfriend or wife insisted...
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| The other point that was brought up (originally by Ocalhoun) was Santa Claus. I don't see myself endorsing that either BUT I told you that I recognized that I would if the girlfriend or wife insisted... |
I don't see as much of a problem with this, because current social constructs basically bring it to an end if the parent doesn't beforehand. Yeah, it's nonsense either way, but kids seem to have an easy time getting away from this nonsensical belief as opposed to religion (at least I did. Religion not so easy; I still have pretty strong remnants of religion in my mindset at times from growing up amongst it).
| liljp617 wrote: | ||
I don't see as much of a problem with this, because current social constructs basically bring it to an end if the parent doesn't beforehand. Yeah, it's nonsense either way, but kids seem to have an easy time getting away from this nonsensical belief as opposed to religion (at least I did. Religion not so easy; I still have pretty strong remnants of religion in my mindset at times from growing up amongst it). |
I do not see a huge problem with Santa Claus, but I do not see any reason for it. There are some cultural traditions that I would wish to pass on to my ancestors but then there are some that I wouldn't care to see die. Santa Claus is one of those traditions. I actually hate the entire holiday of Christmas; it really goes against too many things that I stand for. I really would not mind seeing that die either.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| But we're discussing something completely different here. We're discussing mythology and fairy tales. Am I all of a sudden going to tell them that God exists even though I spend so much of my time and energy fighting against, what I view as, an oppressive and dangerous religion? Why would it ever even be an issue under my reign as father? It's just as likely that I'd start endorsing Greek mythology over Christianity.
The other point that was brought up (originally by Ocalhoun) was Santa Claus. I don't see myself endorsing that either BUT I told you that I recognized that I would if the girlfriend or wife insisted... |
Back to the topic, I usually follow kids minds, rather than wanting to influence them in any direction. If they come with a pretty convincing Santa Claus story, I will play along with it. Kids have limitless imagination, I'm almost certain all of them have their own version of Santa Claus and some of it is really cute at times. I just can't see how it could hurt them, they will obviously grow out of it one day, especially during their rebellious teenager years. They may then go into religion, or some may prefer to see themselves as atheists. All I can hope for is that whatever conviction they will hold one day will be one that would be tolerant of others' convictions. Whether they agree with them or not.
| truespeed wrote: |
| How would someone who doesn't believe in God or the afterlife,answer their dying child,if they asked them that question? |
what you do is wait till they are about too go too sleep and tell them "dying is like going too sleep and never waking up"
that's what my parents did and i turned out fine....or was it a movie?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
|
I highly doubt that I will ever have kids. I am careful with using condoms and/or other forms of birth control. And even if my girlfriend did get pregnant, that still wouldn't be a problem because I see nothing wrong with abortion. . |
Stating the obvious i know,but that problem wouldn't be yours to decide.
| Bannik wrote: | ||
what you do is wait till they are about too go too sleep and tell them "dying is like going too sleep and never waking up" that's what my parents did and i turned out fine....or was it a movie? |
But many kids hate sleeping... That's why they complain about a bedtime... So that may not be the most comforting thing to tell them...
| truespeed wrote: | ||
Stating the obvious i know,but that problem wouldn't be yours to decide. |
Oh yes it is. Don't you talk about these things before hand? I sure as Hell do... I make an agreement before-hand that if something happens, she'll get an abortion... Of course I'm not as bad as one of my friends who actually had his girlfriend sign a contract...
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Oh yes it is. Don't you talk about these things before hand? I sure as Hell do... I make an agreement before-hand that if something happens, she'll get an abortion... Of course I'm not as bad as one of my friends who actually had his girlfriend sign a contract... |
| Quote: |
| But many kids hate sleeping... That's why they complain about a bedtime... So that may not be the most comforting thing to tell them... |
| Ophois wrote: |
| A contract? Seems stupid... oh wait... isn't that pretty much what marriage is? A contract between two parties, the state, and god? |
| Ophois wrote: | ||
|
That's absolutely ideal. I wouldn't want to send any child to bed with that terrible thought. But we're talking about extreme cases here. Most children are not unfortunate enough to have to worry about death at such a young age... Situations completely change.
That's why we started discussing fairy tales. Would you lie to a dying child to comfort him/her? I think ideally the best thing to do is to talk to your child as soon as possible (when you find out he/she is dying) and make death seem like nothing too bad.
LOL...you should try having devout Irish Catholic grandparents.
My gran used to end many sentences with the phrase 'if you are spared'. She would send me to bed with phrases like 'we'll go shopping tomorrow, God willing, if you are spared'.
I would lay awake waiting for the thing that was going to, perhaps, 'spare' me to turn up...spooky...
My gran used to end many sentences with the phrase 'if you are spared'. She would send me to bed with phrases like 'we'll go shopping tomorrow, God willing, if you are spared'.
I would lay awake waiting for the thing that was going to, perhaps, 'spare' me to turn up...spooky...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| LOL...you should try having devout Irish Catholic grandparents.
My gran used to end many sentences with the phrase 'if you are spared'. She would send me to bed with phrases like 'we'll go shopping tomorrow, God willing, if you are spared'. I would lay awake waiting for the thing that was going to, perhaps, 'spare' me to turn up...spooky... |
That explains a lot. ^.^
| Bikerman wrote: |
| LOL...you should try having devout Irish Catholic grandparents.
My gran used to end many sentences with the phrase 'if you are spared'. She would send me to bed with phrases like 'we'll go shopping tomorrow, God willing, if you are spared'. I would lay awake waiting for the thing that was going to, perhaps, 'spare' me to turn up...spooky... |
Well I guess I was lucky. I was brought up in a devout Protestant family with several Protestant Pastors. I think Protestants tend to be much more tame than Catholics. They would talk about Heaven a lot but never about Hell because the idea that someone in their family might deny the religion and become a "Satanist" was totally beyond them and something that simply never occurred to them.
Death was never in an issue while I was growing up because we all (I must admit, myself included) simply believed that we'd end up in Heaven... I never even cried or mourned for the deceased...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| No, absolutely not. A marriage is a civil contract between two people, sanctioned by the state and formally recognised in law. God is entirely optional. |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| That's why we started discussing fairy tales. Would you lie to a dying child to comfort him/her? I think ideally the best thing to do is to talk to your child as soon as possible (when you find out he/she is dying) and make death seem like nothing too bad. |
But the initial question was whether we would tell a kid they were going to heaven or not.
Obviously, if you believe in god and heaven, you'll likely tell your kid "yes".
For those of us who don't subscribe to religion, the question is not so easy. I said it before, and I stand by it. I would most likely say "yes", because there's no harm in it, and it would comfort the kid. They are asking the question, so they obviously believe, at least to an extent, in heaven. So I see that as a really bad time to crush them by saying something like "well kiddo, I don't believe in heaven, so as far as I'm concerned, you are just going to stop existing".
| Bikerman wrote: |
| LOL...you should try having devout Irish Catholic grandparents. |
| Ophois wrote: |
| But the initial question was whether we would tell a kid they were going to heaven or not. Obviously, if you believe in god and heaven, you'll likely tell your kid "yes". For those of us who don't subscribe to religion, the question is not so easy. I said it before, and I stand by it. I would most likely say "yes", because there's no harm in it, and it would comfort the kid. They are asking the question, so they obviously believe, at least to an extent, in heaven. So I see that as a really bad time to crush them by saying something like "well kiddo, I don't believe in heaven, so as far as I'm concerned, you are just going to stop existing". |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| and make death seem like nothing too bad. |
Furthermore, if it was a kid of an atheist, possibly the kid would not have asked that question at all, if the atheist father and mother were serious that the kid should not have that kind of thinking he would have already been coached that there is nothing like heaven. Wonder what the kid's question would have realistically been then, perhaps, "what is death like?". Then Matrix would have answered:"nothing too bad". And then the kid would have come up with:"But how do you know, have you died before"?
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
That explains a lot. ^.^ |
My thoughts too.
Anyway, I pretty much agree with deanhills' and ophois' views. So yeah, I would tell a dying child he/she "will go to heaven". I even think I may answer the same way if it was a dying adult asking the question- not that I would say "he would go to heaven", but probably play around the notion that it exists. I personally feel it's too selfish to communicate my own personal opposing views to a person in his deathbed. It's just not the right time/venue for things of that nature, in my opinion.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Furthermore, if it was a kid of an atheist, possibly the kid would not have asked that question at all, if the atheist father and mother were serious that the kid should not have that kind of thinking he would have already been coached that there is nothing like heaven. |
| tingkagol wrote: |
| I even think I may answer the same way if it was a dying adult asking the question- not that I would say "he would go to heaven", but probably play around the notion that it exists. |
Tingkagol has it right, it's just not the right time and place to debate the reality of heaven or god, when the person who is asking is also dying. Whether they are a kid or not really doesn't matter much either.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
No. Simply making death seem like it's not so bad is not a fairy tale. Here's what wiki says about fairy tales:
| wikipedia wrote: |
| A fairy tale is a fictional story that may feature folkloric characters such as fairies, goblins, elves, trolls, giants, gnomes, and talking animals, and usually enchantments, often involving a far-fetched sequence of events. In modern-day parlance, the term is also used to describe something blessed with princesses, as in "fairy tale ending" (a happy ending)[1] or "fairy tale romance", though not all fairy tales end happily. Colloquially, a "fairy tale" or "fairy story" can also mean any far-fetched story. Fairy tales commonly attract young children since they easily understand the archetypal characters in the story. |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| Here's what wiki says about fairy tales: |
| Quote: |
| Main Entry: fairy tale
Function: noun Date: 1749 1 a : a story (as for children) involving fantastic forces and beings (as fairies, wizards, and goblins) —called also fairy story b : a story in which improbable events lead to a happy ending 2 : a made-up story usually designed to mislead |
Sorry, I gotta play the Devils' Advocate.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| No. Simply making death seem like it's not so bad is not a fairy tale. |
So if you are going to lie to him anyway to make him feel better, why not just play along with him? If it comforts him to think he may be going to heaven, why not give it your all?
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
|
Oh yes it is. Don't you talk about these things before hand? I sure as Hell do... I make an agreement before-hand that if something happens, she'll get an abortion... Of course I'm not as bad as one of my friends who actually had his girlfriend sign a contract... |
Agreeing to something is one thing,but if your girlfriend became pregnant and decided she wanted to keep the child,theres nothing you could do about it,even if you had some written contact,i doubt a court of law would order her to kill her unborn baby just because of some agreed contract.
Hmmm....some interesting points, but the central debate seems focussed around the definition of a fairy tale and, since I introduced the term, I'd better say what I meant by it.
I took it to mean a story, normally with a moral/ethical 'message', which is not based on facts - more folklore, and normally includes some supernatural elements.
Now, if you want to get really 'semantic' about the term then we could have a whole discussion about the meaning, but I don't think it would progress this particular thread. I don't think it is necessary to get lost in definitions.
The choice seems to be clear for the atheist. You confirm to the child that they will go to heaven, or you don't. For the atheist to make that 'affirmation' is a lie - because they do not believe it to be true. We can dance around terminology, but I don't think it helps. The question is, therefore, should the atheist lie in this particular instance?
Now, we can also ask - if the atheist answers 'no' then is that a lie? since the atheist cannot rule out the possibility and it is therefore only an opinion. That won't wash, though, because everything is ultimately an opinion and the child is asking you for YOUR opinion.
So it seems clear that the choice is between lying and not lying.
The fact is that most people seem to think that, in this instance, lying is the obvious and 'moral' choice. I find that interesting and would like to develop it.
Would the same be true if it were not a child but, instead, an adult who desperately wanted to hear that you now believed in heaven, before they died? Should you lie?
This is not, by the way, a hypothetical case......
I took it to mean a story, normally with a moral/ethical 'message', which is not based on facts - more folklore, and normally includes some supernatural elements.
Now, if you want to get really 'semantic' about the term then we could have a whole discussion about the meaning, but I don't think it would progress this particular thread. I don't think it is necessary to get lost in definitions.
The choice seems to be clear for the atheist. You confirm to the child that they will go to heaven, or you don't. For the atheist to make that 'affirmation' is a lie - because they do not believe it to be true. We can dance around terminology, but I don't think it helps. The question is, therefore, should the atheist lie in this particular instance?
Now, we can also ask - if the atheist answers 'no' then is that a lie? since the atheist cannot rule out the possibility and it is therefore only an opinion. That won't wash, though, because everything is ultimately an opinion and the child is asking you for YOUR opinion.
So it seems clear that the choice is between lying and not lying.
The fact is that most people seem to think that, in this instance, lying is the obvious and 'moral' choice. I find that interesting and would like to develop it.
Would the same be true if it were not a child but, instead, an adult who desperately wanted to hear that you now believed in heaven, before they died? Should you lie?
This is not, by the way, a hypothetical case......
| Ophois wrote: | ||||
Sorry, I gotta play the Devils' Advocate. |
But I never said that death is like sleep. I think that was Bannik. I said to make death seem like it isn't too bad.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
So if you are going to lie to him anyway to make him feel better, why not just play along with him? If it comforts him to think he may be going to heaven, why not give it your all? |
I won't play along. Death shouldn't be too bad because living things die... That's an essential part of life. So by what standards would it be bad?
| Bikerman wrote: |
|
Would the same be true if it were not a child but, instead, an adult who desperately wanted to hear that you now believed in heaven, before they died? Should you lie? This is not, by the way, a hypothetical case...... |
Adult or child, it makes no difference really.
A lie won't hurt them; there's nothing to be lost in believing in something for such a short time.
The truth though... that might be quite traumatic, depending on how much this person depends on the idea of going to heaven.
So, you can tell a lie and not hurt them, or tell the truth and hurt them.
That's the crux of the matter.
I'll leave it up to your particular interpretation of ethics:
Which is more important, honesty or prevention of suffering?
There is, perhaps, a more creative way out of that little moral dilemma.
Say neither, or say something that can be interpreted either way.
Perhaps the best thing to do would be to just sit there and quietly smile.
| deanhills wrote: |
| Furthermore, if it was a kid of an atheist, possibly the kid would not have asked that question at all, if the atheist father and mother were serious that the kid should not have that kind of thinking he would have already been coached that there is nothing like heaven. Wonder what the kid's question would have realistically been then, perhaps, "what is death like?". Then Matrix would have answered:"nothing too bad". And then the kid would have come up with:"But how do you know, have you died before"? |
Any kid is probably going to be exposed to the idea of heaven/paradise after death in one form or another, regardless of a parent's beliefs.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Would the same be true if it were not a child but, instead, an adult who desperately wanted to hear that you now believed in heaven, before they died? Should you lie?
This is not, by the way, a hypothetical case...... |
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I won't play along. Death shouldn't be too bad because living things die... That's an essential part of life. So by what standards would it be bad? |
Like I said before, I have been in this position with adults. So I know what I would say, as I have actually had to say it. I would lie, I would set aside my own beliefs for a short time in order to give a dying person a bit of comfort.
It sucks, and I hate doing it, because I would like to think that death isn't scary, and that I could tell people I don't believe in any kind of afterlife. But it is scary. Every person I have seen die has had that element of fear in them, even if they were otherwise at peace. It's the ultimate unknown, and everyone dies alone. So people ask these questions, because they want some sort of affirmation, some comfort. That's why people in the medical field are critiqued by their superiors on their "bedside manner". At almost any cost short of causing injury, you make the patient comfortable, especially if they are dying.
Besides, what do you gain if you tell them you don't believe in heaven?
It sucks, and I hate doing it, because I would like to think that death isn't scary, and that I could tell people I don't believe in any kind of afterlife. But it is scary. Every person I have seen die has had that element of fear in them, even if they were otherwise at peace. It's the ultimate unknown, and everyone dies alone. So people ask these questions, because they want some sort of affirmation, some comfort. That's why people in the medical field are critiqued by their superiors on their "bedside manner". At almost any cost short of causing injury, you make the patient comfortable, especially if they are dying.
Besides, what do you gain if you tell them you don't believe in heaven?
This is heaven... So don't worry to go somewhere when you already are there!
| spinout wrote: |
| This is heaven... So don't worry to go somewhere when you already are there! |
Now there's a nice message for someone who's going to be leaving 'heaven' soon, and doesn't have a choice about it...
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
Christians like to talk about Hell being bad because they have Heaven to compare it to. If Heaven didn't exist, then there wouldn't be as much of a point to Hell being bad because it would just be Hell, which is life.
I feel that way about death. While I do not want to die for many years, I feel that death is a necessary aspect of life and that it cannot be too bad because we'll have nothing else to compare it to after we die (if we even recognize that we're dead).
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
|
I feel that way about death. While I do not want to die for many years, I feel that death is a necessary aspect of life and that it cannot be too bad because we'll have nothing else to compare it to after we die (if we even recognize that we're dead). |
Taoist?
If you don't consider yourself one, perhaps you should read about it some. What you say there is almost exactly what some forms of Taoism believe about death.
It seems to me that everyone here is caught up in a giant false dilemma: "Do i lie and say yes, or do i scare the child and say no?"
Isn't the obvious answer: "i don't know kid. You'll find out if you get there. In the meantime, there's not much point in worrying about it, so why not enjoy yourself?"
Isn't the obvious answer: "i don't know kid. You'll find out if you get there. In the meantime, there's not much point in worrying about it, so why not enjoy yourself?"
| Indi wrote: |
| It seems to me that everyone here is caught up in a giant false dilemma: "Do i lie and say yes, or do i scare the child and say no?"
Isn't the obvious answer: "i don't know kid. You'll find out if you get there. In the meantime, there's not much point in worrying about it, so why not enjoy yourself?" |
So if your child is dying,your response would be to place doubt in the kids mind? Wouldn't it just be better to lie? What harm would it do,as long as it benefits the child. Or anyone else in that situation,should the situation ever arise.
| truespeed wrote: | ||
So if your child is dying,your response would be to place doubt in the kids mind? Wouldn't it just be better to lie? What harm would it do,as long as it benefits the child. Or anyone else in that situation,should the situation ever arise. |
Again, pointing out the obvious: i didn't put the doubt in the child's mind. Some other ****** did (and a religious one at that - nice job there, guys). What i put in the child's mind is the idea that there's no point in worrying about it.
So no, it's not "better" to lie. It's utterly unnecessary. It's better to tell the child to stop worrying and enjoy what time they have left - whatever answer they're going to get, they're going to get regardless of what i say.
In fact, it would be just as good to laugh off the question as silly: "Heaven? Where did you pick up that silly old idea? Maybe you'll go there, maybe you'll go to the land of chocolate. Who knows? There's no point worrying about things you can't possibly know about yet. Just relax and enjoy yourself now."
For the record, if you're interested in a practical psychological justification, then this is the fact: children pick up far more on the non-verbal cues of adults than on their words. So if you lie to a child that they're going to go to heaven, it's far more likely that they're going to pick up on your discomfort and concern than it is that they'll be comforted by the words. On the other hand, if you just shrug and say "i dunno, don't worry about it", they'll pick up from your body language that it's not that big a deal, and stop worrying about it (not because of what you said, but because of your body language - if you really don't know and really don't care, that will be what the child picks up on). This is why it would be just as effective to laugh the idea off as stupid - your words aren't as important as the laugh... that's what's going to make all the difference. Lying about it, that will probably just backfire when the child reads your tell cues... and make them feel worse.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Again, pointing out the obvious: i didn't put the doubt in the child's mind. Some other ****** did (and a religious one at that - nice job there, guys). What i put in the child's mind is the idea that there's no point in worrying about it. |
But kids do worry about death,i know i did when i was young,and i am sure if death was imminent ,they would worry even more. And if a belief in heaven,where ever they got that belief from,be it religious or otherwise,i am not sure it really matters,what matters is the kid asking you to confirm to them the one thing that will make facing death bearable.
| Indi wrote: |
|
In fact, it would be just as good to laugh off the question as silly: "Heaven? Where did you pick up that silly old idea? Maybe you'll go there, maybe you'll go to the land of chocolate. Who knows? There's no point worrying about things you can't possibly know about yet. Just relax and enjoy yourself now." |
I think this is a fair thing to say if the child is healthy,i am pretty sure i got told similar when i was young,but the question is about a dying child,you can't relax if your about to die,there's no enjoyment if death is just around the corner.
| Indi wrote: |
|
For the record, if you're interested in a practical psychological justification, then this is the fact: children pick up far more on the non-verbal cues of adults than on their words. So if you lie to a child that they're going to go to heaven, it's far more likely that they're going to pick up on your discomfort and concern than it is that they'll be comforted by the words. On the other hand, if you just shrug and say "i dunno, don't worry about it", they'll pick up from your body language that it's not that big a deal, and stop worrying about it (not because of what you said, but because of your body language - if you really don't know and really don't care, that will be what the child picks up on). This is why it would be just as effective to laugh the idea off as stupid - your words aren't as important as the laugh... that's what's going to make all the difference. Lying about it, that will probably just backfire when the child reads your tell cues... and make them feel worse. |
For me there would be no discomfort,i have no problem lying in this instance,my beliefs and opinions aren't that important to me.
| Afaceinthematrix wrote: |
| I feel that way about death. While I do not want to die for many years, I feel that death is a necessary aspect of life and that it cannot be too bad because we'll have nothing else to compare it to after we die (if we even recognize that we're dead). |
| Quote: |
| Besides, what do you gain if you tell them you don't believe in heaven? |
The illusion of credibility, I guess. In a weird way makes me think about the story of Peter where he denies Jesus three times. In the case of atheists, don't ever lie about your 'beliefs'/opinions or else.... or else what? I always thought atheists are the most flexible people on Earth when it comes to beliefs- they're not bound/inhibited by their own or anyone else's, most especially when dealing with sensitive situations such as comforting a dying child. You can make exceptions, if you feel like it. I think that's the beauty of being atheist. (if there's some sort of "10 commandments" for atheists, please point me to it)
So yeah, in my opinion- absolutely no harm done (to you or the kid).
| Indi wrote: |
| For the record, if you're interested in a practical psychological justification, then this is the fact: children pick up far more on the non-verbal cues of adults than on their words. |
By this logic, kids shouldn't believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, which are lies. They should know that you are lying when you tell them their crappy "art" hanging on the fridge is good. They should pick up on all these non-verbal cues that you are giving off while telling all these lies, right? Strange then, that so many kids(I'd go so far as to say most of them) believe so many lies throughout childhood.
So, while all these other lies are believed, a kid who is on their death bed will suddenly switch into super-cynic-intuition mode, and figure out that you don't really believe in heaven when you say that yes, they will go there? This makes no sense.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Now there's a nice message for someone who's going to be leaving 'heaven' soon, and doesn't have a choice about it... |
Hehe, that is another "worry"... well I heard some scientists pointed out they found traces of big bangs before the latest - so heaven will come around more times, don't worry!
| Ophois wrote: |
| So, while all these other lies are believed, a kid who is on their death bed will suddenly switch into super-cynic-intuition mode, and figure out that you don't really believe in heaven when you say that yes, they will go there? This makes no sense. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
How would the kid know their parents were atheists? Unless they are evangelical about it in the same way some religious people are about religion and it comes up around them in conversation all the time, then they wouldn't know about their parents views on heaven.
I agree with Ophois,young kids don't look for tells from their parents,they believe them without question,i remember when i was young asking my dad how big the stars were,he told me they were about the size of a grown man,i didn't question it,i just believed it,because my dad told me it was true.
Of course, if you have already discussed your Atheist(or religious, for that matter) points of view with your kid, then the question is moot, as is this entire thread.
Maybe there should be some more details injected into this scenario. Here is how I see it, feel free to amend or alter it.
1 - Kid is dying.
2 - You, as their parent(s), have never really spoken about religion with them, much less what you believe.
3 - Kid is average. Not a champion poker player, as some would have us believe.
4 - You are an Atheist.
With these facts in play, is it a good time to let them in on your Atheist views?
Indi makes a good point, it would be more honest, and just as harmless to tell them not to worry about it. But kids do worry, and in this scenario, this kid obviously worries enough to ask the question in the first place. Maybe you can get away with telling them not to worry about it or whatever, but I don't see how that is going to assuage their apparent fear of death and their apparent concern for whether they will or will not go to heaven.
Maybe there should be some more details injected into this scenario. Here is how I see it, feel free to amend or alter it.
1 - Kid is dying.
2 - You, as their parent(s), have never really spoken about religion with them, much less what you believe.
3 - Kid is average. Not a champion poker player, as some would have us believe.
4 - You are an Atheist.
With these facts in play, is it a good time to let them in on your Atheist views?
Indi makes a good point, it would be more honest, and just as harmless to tell them not to worry about it. But kids do worry, and in this scenario, this kid obviously worries enough to ask the question in the first place. Maybe you can get away with telling them not to worry about it or whatever, but I don't see how that is going to assuage their apparent fear of death and their apparent concern for whether they will or will not go to heaven.
| truespeed wrote: | ||||
How would the kid know their parents were atheists? Unless they are evangelical about it in the same way some religious people are about religion and it comes up around them in conversation all the time, then they wouldn't know about their parents views on heaven. |
Guess one has to know the kid at least a little, and I think one pretty much gets an idea of where to go with him. If it sounds as though he really wants to know that he will be going to heaven and that will bring him peace to know, then I will say anything to convince him that he is going where he wants to go. But obviously when I know what he thinks about heaven when he says those words, I will laugh about it, as may be expected from him. The assumption is that all children who ask that question are believers in heaven. They could be non-believers too. Maybe when you think you've got it right, he will come to wink at you and say something to the tune of "you've got to be kidding me"! Or perhaps more straight: "No I'm not!" There is no heaven and no hell. You told me so.
| truespeed wrote: |
| I agree with Ophois,young kids don't look for tells from their parents,they believe them without question,i remember when i was young asking my dad how big the stars were,he told me they were about the size of a grown man,i didn't question it,i just believed it,because my dad told me it was true. |
To ophois 4 statements - this is a natural and easier scenario actually - what can be more natural viewpoint to death than an atheists??? Ashes to ashes rather mumbo jumbo - much easier!
| spinout wrote: |
| To ophois 4 statements - this is a natural and easier scenario actually - what can be more natural viewpoint to death than an atheists??? Ashes to ashes rather mumbo jumbo - much easier! |
| truespeed wrote: | ||
But kids do worry about death,i know i did when i was young,and i am sure if death was imminent ,they would worry even more. And if a belief in heaven,where ever they got that belief from,be it religious or otherwise,i am not sure it really matters,what matters is the kid asking you to confirm to them the one thing that will make facing death bearable. |
First, you're twisting my words. i didn't say that the child shouldn't worry about dying. i said they shouldn't worry about whether or not they are going to heaven.
Second, don't take religion off the hook. There is no "where ever they got that belief from,be it religious or otherwise", there is only religion. There is no other way you can possibly get the idea of "heaven" and take it even remotely seriously without religion. If the child has really been as badly scared about the question of whether or not they are going to heaven as you imply, then religion was responsible. Period.
And finally, where did this idea that this is "the one thing that will make facing death bearable" come from? i call bullshit. There are two possibilities. Either this really isn't that important to the child as you are trying to pretend it is (children don't really have existential crises after all), in which case the correct move is to not encourage it - just tell the child to not worry about it, and offer them other distractions instead. Or, it is that important to the child... in which case this child is the victim of psychological abuse. That child has literally been emotionally tortured by someone. Personally, i will not contribute further to the mind ****** of that child. On the contrary, i will try to defuse the damage already done by whatever sicko put that shit in the child's mind.
| truespeed wrote: |
| I think this is a fair thing to say if the child is healthy,i am pretty sure i got told similar when i was young,but the question is about a dying child,you can't relax if your about to die,there's no enjoyment if death is just around the corner. |
If you ever said anything like that to a child i was responsible for, i'd put my non-violent nature on hold just for the sake of soundly kicking your ass, because that is psychological torture. That is child abuse.
i seriously hope you have never said anything like "there's no enjoyment if death is around the corner" to anyone near death, child or otherwise. That's just sick, man. Sick, sick, sick.
Of course you can relax if you're about to die, and of course you can still enjoy the time you have left if death is around the corner. Don't be stupid. i don't use that word often, but i'm using it now, because you're just being stupid.
Just tell the child to forget that heaven bullshit and have fun. Eat whatever candy they want, watch whatever cartoons they want, if they can manage a roller coaster ride go for it, i'd take them up in my plane and let them fly it, etc. etc. You can fill that child's last days so full of excitement that they won't even have time to consider the question of heaven.
| Ophois wrote: | ||
By this logic, kids shouldn't believe in Santa Claus or the tooth fairy, which are lies. They should know that you are lying when you tell them their crappy "art" hanging on the fridge is good. They should pick up on all these non-verbal cues that you are giving off while telling all these lies, right? Strange then, that so many kids(I'd go so far as to say most of them) believe so many lies throughout childhood. So, while all these other lies are believed, a kid who is on their death bed will suddenly switch into super-cynic-intuition mode, and figure out that you don't really believe in heaven when you say that yes, they will go there? This makes no sense. |
No, you don't have it straight.
i didn't say that they have built in lie detectors. i said: "they're going to pick up on your discomfort and concern".
When most parents tell a child about Santa Claus, for example, they're not exactly uncomfortable about telling them this, are they? Quite the contrary, they are thrilled to pass on the myth... and the child picks up on this excitement.
By contrast, an atheist asked to confirm heaven for a child will probably be more than a little uncomfortable about it. The child will pick up on that. There is no "super-cynic-intuition" involved. Children always mirror the emotions of adults around them. Unless you're either perfectly comfortable with lying to the child or a phenomenal actor, then they will catch your discomfort, and share it... regardless of your words. (In fact, if you answered "no, you're not going to heaven" in a cheerful and carefree way, they'll probably not worry about it anymore.)
Here's the thing.
This hypothetical scenario is based on someone who is literally about to die. So the comfort of that child is of the utmost importance. If they have garnered some sort of half-assed belief in God and Heaven through school or other friends, and then ask me "am I going to Heaven", then I will say yes, because I believe it will comfort them in their final moments. If they have absorbed my non-religious views from being raised by me and asked me "is Heaven real", then I would say that I don't believe it is.
Honesty is great, but to say that telling a kid who is about to die that they are going to Heaven, when in fact you yourself don't believe in it, is "child abuse", is absurd. It's not abuse. It's putting aside your own system of beliefs in order to give a dying child some comfort.
I'm not saying kids aren't smart or intuitive, they certainly do pick up on parents discomfort when they are under stress. But if the kid is dying, they most likely have more to deal with, emotionally and mentally, than deciphering their parents body language. If you want to tell your kid not to worry about it, then fine, but I have seen that backfire as well. Kids don't like to not get an answer, and if they ask the question, it's because they are contemplating the reality of the situation. In which case, I think it's best to give an answer.
And you think telling them "yes" is child abuse?
My sentiments exactly.
This hypothetical scenario is based on someone who is literally about to die. So the comfort of that child is of the utmost importance. If they have garnered some sort of half-assed belief in God and Heaven through school or other friends, and then ask me "am I going to Heaven", then I will say yes, because I believe it will comfort them in their final moments. If they have absorbed my non-religious views from being raised by me and asked me "is Heaven real", then I would say that I don't believe it is.
Honesty is great, but to say that telling a kid who is about to die that they are going to Heaven, when in fact you yourself don't believe in it, is "child abuse", is absurd. It's not abuse. It's putting aside your own system of beliefs in order to give a dying child some comfort.
I'm not saying kids aren't smart or intuitive, they certainly do pick up on parents discomfort when they are under stress. But if the kid is dying, they most likely have more to deal with, emotionally and mentally, than deciphering their parents body language. If you want to tell your kid not to worry about it, then fine, but I have seen that backfire as well. Kids don't like to not get an answer, and if they ask the question, it's because they are contemplating the reality of the situation. In which case, I think it's best to give an answer.
| Indi wrote: |
| (In fact, if you answered "no, you're not going to heaven" in a cheerful and carefree way, they'll probably not worry about it anymore.) |
| Quote: |
| That's just sick, man. Sick, sick, sick. |
| Indi wrote: |
|
First, you're twisting my words. i didn't say that the child shouldn't worry about dying. i said they shouldn't worry about whether or not they are going to heaven. |
But in this scenario,the child is worrying,enough to ask you,their parent,if they will, or not, go to heaven.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Second, don't take religion off the hook. There is no "where ever they got that belief from,be it religious or otherwise", there is only religion. There is no other way you can possibly get the idea of "heaven" and take it even remotely seriously without religion. If the child has really been as badly scared about the question of whether or not they are going to heaven as you imply, then religion was responsible. Period. |
I don't care,i don't care where they got the idea of heaven from,i don't care if religion is responsible,its not important,what is important is your child in front of you dying,asking you to confirm to them if they will go to heaven.
| Indi wrote: |
|
And finally, where did this idea that this is "the one thing that will make facing death bearable" come from? i call bullshit. There are two possibilities. Either this really isn't that important to the child as you are trying to pretend it is (children don't really have existential crises after all), in which case the correct move is to not encourage it - just tell the child to not worry about it, and offer them other distractions instead. Or, it is that important to the child... in which case this child is the victim of psychological abuse. That child has literally been emotionally tortured by someone. Personally, i will not contribute further to the mind ****** of that child. On the contrary, i will try to defuse the damage already done by whatever sicko put that shit in the child's mind. |
The situation is hypothetical,you really do take every situation to an extreme,they could of got the idea of heaven from anywhere,school,a disney film,who knows, who cares. It doesn't always have to be the worse case scenario,whereby they have been kidnapped by some cult and brainwashed with heaven,god and religion (yes i know you didn't say this)
| truespeed wrote: |
| I think this is a fair thing to say if the child is healthy,i am pretty sure i got told similar when i was young,but the question is about a dying child,you can't relax if your about to die,there's no enjoyment if death is just around the corner. |
This was in response to your quote.
| Indi wrote: |
|
In fact, it would be just as good to laugh off the question as silly: "Heaven? Where did you pick up that silly old idea? Maybe you'll go there, maybe you'll go to the land of chocolate. Who knows? There's no point worrying about things you can't possibly know about yet. Just relax and enjoy yourself now." |
Basically saying that to answer the heaven question with a "i don't know " answer is fair comment and factually correct,as nobody really knows. Which is the answer i got when i was young.
So i am not sure where this response came from.
| Indi wrote: |
|
If you ever said anything like that to a child i was responsible for, i'd put my non-violent nature on hold just for the sake of soundly kicking your ass, because that is psychological torture. That is child abuse. i seriously hope you have never said anything like "there's no enjoyment if death is around the corner" to anyone near death, child or otherwise. That's just sick, man. Sick, sick, sick. |
You don't sound like someone with a non violent nature.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Of course you can relax if you're about to die, and of course you can still enjoy the time you have left if death is around the corner. Don't be stupid. i don't use that word often, but i'm using it now, because you're just being stupid. |
If you know your to die soon,and given enough time,you may go out of your way to make the most of your last few weeks/months,but i rather doubt the fear of death would ever be too far from your thoughts,and in the final moments,i imagine the fear to be very real,and your state of mind would be far from relaxed.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Just tell the child to forget that heaven bullshit and have fun. Eat whatever candy they want, watch whatever cartoons they want, if they can manage a roller coaster ride go for it, i'd take them up in my plane and let them fly it, etc. etc. You can fill that child's last days so full of excitement that they won't even have time to consider the question of heaven. |
To keep this simple,lets imagine there's no time for all this,your in a hospital,your son/daughter is dying,will be dead in a matter of minutes/hours,they ask you,will i go to heaven,because in their head,heaven means an afterlife,a place to go to after they die,do you ....
A: Confirm to them that they will go to heaven. (Therefore confirming there is a heaven and an afterlife)
B: Tell them no,as there is no such place.
C: Say "I don't know"
And just so we don't get sidetracked,lets assume,they are not going to pick up on any of your verbal or non verbal clues,lets assume they will believe what ever answer you give without question.
| Indi wrote: |
| Second, don't take religion off the hook. There is no "where ever they got that belief from,be it religious or otherwise", there is only religion. There is no other way you can possibly get the idea of "heaven" and take it even remotely seriously without religion. If the child has really been as badly scared about the question of whether or not they are going to heaven as you imply, then religion was responsible. Period. |
For me when someone dies, I don't count. My thinking doesn't count. Who cares what I think, or what is true or false. If it is clear from what the child is asking, that it has a very positive view of heaven, and that it would make the child feel good if you were to say that it is going to heaven, then I would embrace that thought. I would not even have to think about it. If he/she were to ask where they will be going, without mentioning heaven, I would go as far as creating a special magic world, like most people do, tell them about grandma and grandpa waiting to give them a great hug etc. etc. Also what child wants candy when they are dying, or wants to hear about enjoying themselves when they are a million miles away from that state of physical being? Like when you may feel depressed and someone telling you to have a candy, it will make you feel better?
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
Taoist? If you don't consider yourself one, perhaps you should read about it some. What you say there is almost exactly what some forms of Taoism believe about death. |
It makes since that I'd have a philosophical viewpoint similar to an East Asian religion... East Asian religions tend to be, in my opinion, better than any western religion. The only religions that I tend to like more than East Asian religions are pagan religions. I have never really looked into Taoism but I will definitely do a little research now...
i have to make something crystal clear here, because truespeed moved the goalposts, and i don't think everyone realizes it.
In the beginning, i assumed that we were dealing with a normal child (other than the fact of being near death's door), who was dying and curious about Heaven. i assumed no great emotional attachment to the idea - i figured it would hold about as much emotional weight for the child as "when i die, will i come back as a turtle?"... and thus, it should be treated in the same way as that question: "i don't know, you'll find out i guess. don't worry about it, enjoy yourself now."
And i defy anyone to argue that that's not the best response in that case. Why? Because the child has no great emotional attachment to the idea, and so there's no harm in dismissing it, and no real good reason to lie about it. There's no rational reason to not be honest in this normal case. The only thing i added to the commentary was that by laughing about it, you make even less emotionally important than you would by fretting over lying about it, based on body language. So not only is dismissing the question harmless, it might even be healthier.
And then truespeed - not i - changed the scenario. He said that for the child: "what matters is the kid asking you to confirm to them the one thing that will make facing death bearable."
In other words... we're not dealing with a normal child anymore. We're dealing with a child that has been emotionally tortured by some sick religious nutter into being so terrified about the prospect of going/not going to Heaven that it is the only thing that will make them comfortable.
If that's clear now - clear that we're not dealing with a normal situation, but rather a victim of child abuse, a child that has been psychologically tortured to the point that this silly theological question matters so much to them that they can't even relax without assurances about it - then i am continuing in that vein. i say again: we are not talking about the normal child anymore... all i have to say about that has already been said, and no one has answered anything on that front yet... we are talking about this hypothetical victim of abuse.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is a philosophical forum. In philosophy, we think. We don't do thoughtless, knee-jerk emotional appeals. First of all, a "hypothetical scenario" were someone is "literally" about to do anything is... yeeeeeah, you do understand what those words mean, right? Or did you just use them for emotional effect unthinkingly?
But more importantly: "So the comfort of that child is of the utmost importance." Oh, really? The "utmost", you say? As in nothing else in the world matters as much as making one single dying child slightly more comfortable in their last hours? You're ok with that assessment? Even if i were more concerned with the hypothetically literal millions of other children (and adults!) who might suffer similar emotional abuses?
You know, i always say that people lose their shit so thoroughly over religion that whenever i discuss it, i prefer to replace religious terms with less emotionally impactive ones... just to get them to stop and think. It would seem the same is true for children. So let me ask you this hypothetical literal: If a dog were dying, and all it wanted before it died was a chewy bone, but you knew that if you give that dog that chewy bone it would encourage others to get millions of other dogs addicted to chewy bones and if you deny that dog its chewy bone you would be doing your part to end the global scourge of chewy bone addiction forever... is the answer of what to do so clear cut now? Or are you willing to toss away the well-being of millions of other dogs just to satisfy the needy whim of the one in front of you?
Now this is why i opened the post with making clear about truespeed moving the goalposts. If we are dealing with a normal child - one with a "half-assed" belief in God and Heaven as you say - then you get my first instance... where the truth is the best answer, and it won't really harm the kid all that much because their belief is "half-assed". Instead, you should guide them to find comfort in their friends and family, not sky fairies. That is the responsible, logical and - amazingly enough - easy thing to do... and the most likely to do the kid the most good (because he'll spend more time enjoying himself) and make his family happier (because the kid will be focusing on them and not "heaven").
To me, you're just being lazy by indulging the kid's childish, half-assed whim, instead of brushing it off and encouraging them to focus on important things - and while you may succeed in giving them small comfort in the short-term, you will fail at providing them the most happiness before death and providing his family with the most time with them.
And you see, now you're jumping to the child after the goal posts have been moved (and misinterpreting what i wrote to boot). This child (the one i was talking about when i brought up child abuse) does not have a "half-assed" belief... they have a clinically unhealthy fixation. The abuse i was talking about was not answering the child's question yes or not... it was the abuse that resulted in the unhealthy fixation.
Now. Given that the child is a victim of child abuse to become so unhealthily fixated on this heaven obsession, the question has changed. This is no longer a simple question of indulging a childish whim just for the sake of comfort. Whether you want to admit it or not, this has now moved into a clinical situation. You have a child that has been tortured in front of you... do you pretend the abuse they have suffered doesn't matter? Or do you try to help them find peace by taking whatever steps you can to heal them of their abuse?
To me, the answer is clear. This child has been saddled with this horrible emotional baggage by some evil bastard. My job, in that child's last hours, is to try and save them from it if i can.
That is why, if i were dealing with a child that has been tortured in the way truespeed describes, i would say something more like this: "Whoever told you that stuff is a liar and an evil person. They told you scary stories, and made you worry about this stuff, because they are sick, horrible people. They don't really know anything about any of that stuff they told you. They just wanted to hurt you because they are so afraid themselves, they only way they can feel good is by passing some of their fear off on others. Heaven is what you make it. Forget all that nonsense they told you - it's all lies. Make heaven here, now, with the people you love. And if the bastard that got you so scared about going to heaven shows up again... just let me know."
No, it is important. Because you are trying to foist the blame off onto atheists for the horrible things done by the religious people that caused the problem. It really doesn't matter how i respond to the abuse that has been done to this child - whether i laugh at it, go along with it, or try to fix it... the real criminals, the ones who deserve all the blame and wrath for the emotional scarring done to this child are the religious bastards who abused the child in the first place. If they hadn't got the child so freaked out about heaven that the child can't relax without being soothed about it... then i wouldn't have to deal with it at all (whether i deal with it well or badly).
Let me put this in clear terms for you. This is not about "your child in front of you dying,asking you to confirm to them if they will go to heaven." This is about a victim who has been psychologically tortured, who is asking me to play the role their torturer played to satisfy a need the torturer broke into their psyche. No one is unjustified in refusing to play that role... even if they agree with the statement! Yes, if a child has been psychologically tortured to the point that they can't rest unless someone tells them that Kirk was a cooler captain than Picard, and they asked me if i would confirm that Kirk is cooler than Picard... even though i totally agree with that statement i would hesitate to make the confirmation, because that child needs help, not to have their emotional tics satisfied. i would help the child, not play along with the game the torturer laid out.
In this situation, the abuse was done by religious people. The crime is firmly on their shoulders. Whatever i chose to do - play along or walk away - i hold no responsibility for it.
That being said, i will take responsibility... i will try to undo the damage done by the religious bastards that did it. So no. i will not play along with the sick game the abusers created. i will not simply say yes to make the problem "go away" (because it really won't). i will try to de-condition the child from that irrational fear that was put into them.
YOU created this extreme situation. i started with an ordinary kid, and you changed it to a child who can't relax until they have had their question answered. Don't build a straw man then blame me when it comes to life and smacks you in the face.
An ordinary child would be satisfied with "i don't know, it doesn't matter, let's have fun instead"... but you weren't satisfied that the atheist involved was suffering enough with that answer, so you amped up the intensity of the situation: you created a child that can't even bear their last days unless someone promises them heaven. Well, this is the monster you created... a child like that is sick. Seriously psychologically sick, as in they should be getting serious psychotherapy, if that's really how they feel.
My non-violent nature goes only as far as the point where someone attacks me or someone helpless in my care... and no further. What you are describing about that child that can't bear to live without hearing about heaven is a victim of a psychological attack - a ******, if you like. If i saw that in progress, i would not let it happen.
Only if you've been scared. If, on the other hand, you're being distracted, you probably won't have much time to think about it.
If we are talking about a normal child... not one that has been emotionally tortured to the point that they can't bear their last minutes/hours without hearing they'll be going to heaven, i'll say i don't know. There's no need to lie.
If we are talking about a child that has been abused so much that it really, really, really, really, really matters that someone tells them they are going to heaven, then i'll tell them they are the victims of a horrible scam, and that whoever they got those ideas from is a monster on par with any other child molester... and i'll tell them everything they were told about heaven is a lie, and whatever happens after death, if anything, it will be an adventure, and a surprise.
Because you are jumping in late, you probably missed when truespeed changed things up. i was not talking about a child that has simply "heard" of heaven (i was an atheist child, and i'd heard of heaven of course, and not necessarily from religious sources)... i was talking about a child that - as truespeed described it - has a pathological need to have their heaven question confirmed.
There is no functional way you can get that powerful a belief about heaven - to the point that you can't even bear to relax because it's on your mind - without the involvement of religion. Someone has to have terrified that child about what might happen if they didn't get into heaven.
In the beginning, i assumed that we were dealing with a normal child (other than the fact of being near death's door), who was dying and curious about Heaven. i assumed no great emotional attachment to the idea - i figured it would hold about as much emotional weight for the child as "when i die, will i come back as a turtle?"... and thus, it should be treated in the same way as that question: "i don't know, you'll find out i guess. don't worry about it, enjoy yourself now."
And i defy anyone to argue that that's not the best response in that case. Why? Because the child has no great emotional attachment to the idea, and so there's no harm in dismissing it, and no real good reason to lie about it. There's no rational reason to not be honest in this normal case. The only thing i added to the commentary was that by laughing about it, you make even less emotionally important than you would by fretting over lying about it, based on body language. So not only is dismissing the question harmless, it might even be healthier.
And then truespeed - not i - changed the scenario. He said that for the child: "what matters is the kid asking you to confirm to them the one thing that will make facing death bearable."
In other words... we're not dealing with a normal child anymore. We're dealing with a child that has been emotionally tortured by some sick religious nutter into being so terrified about the prospect of going/not going to Heaven that it is the only thing that will make them comfortable.
If that's clear now - clear that we're not dealing with a normal situation, but rather a victim of child abuse, a child that has been psychologically tortured to the point that this silly theological question matters so much to them that they can't even relax without assurances about it - then i am continuing in that vein. i say again: we are not talking about the normal child anymore... all i have to say about that has already been said, and no one has answered anything on that front yet... we are talking about this hypothetical victim of abuse.
| Ophois wrote: |
| This hypothetical scenario is based on someone who is literally about to die. So the comfort of that child is of the utmost importance. |
Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is a philosophical forum. In philosophy, we think. We don't do thoughtless, knee-jerk emotional appeals. First of all, a "hypothetical scenario" were someone is "literally" about to do anything is... yeeeeeah, you do understand what those words mean, right? Or did you just use them for emotional effect unthinkingly?
But more importantly: "So the comfort of that child is of the utmost importance." Oh, really? The "utmost", you say? As in nothing else in the world matters as much as making one single dying child slightly more comfortable in their last hours? You're ok with that assessment? Even if i were more concerned with the hypothetically literal millions of other children (and adults!) who might suffer similar emotional abuses?
You know, i always say that people lose their shit so thoroughly over religion that whenever i discuss it, i prefer to replace religious terms with less emotionally impactive ones... just to get them to stop and think. It would seem the same is true for children. So let me ask you this hypothetical literal: If a dog were dying, and all it wanted before it died was a chewy bone, but you knew that if you give that dog that chewy bone it would encourage others to get millions of other dogs addicted to chewy bones and if you deny that dog its chewy bone you would be doing your part to end the global scourge of chewy bone addiction forever... is the answer of what to do so clear cut now? Or are you willing to toss away the well-being of millions of other dogs just to satisfy the needy whim of the one in front of you?
| Ophois wrote: |
| If they have garnered some sort of half-assed belief in God and Heaven through school or other friends, and then ask me "am I going to Heaven", then I will say yes, because I believe it will comfort them in their final moments. |
Now this is why i opened the post with making clear about truespeed moving the goalposts. If we are dealing with a normal child - one with a "half-assed" belief in God and Heaven as you say - then you get my first instance... where the truth is the best answer, and it won't really harm the kid all that much because their belief is "half-assed". Instead, you should guide them to find comfort in their friends and family, not sky fairies. That is the responsible, logical and - amazingly enough - easy thing to do... and the most likely to do the kid the most good (because he'll spend more time enjoying himself) and make his family happier (because the kid will be focusing on them and not "heaven").
To me, you're just being lazy by indulging the kid's childish, half-assed whim, instead of brushing it off and encouraging them to focus on important things - and while you may succeed in giving them small comfort in the short-term, you will fail at providing them the most happiness before death and providing his family with the most time with them.
| Ophois wrote: |
| Honesty is great, but to say that telling a kid who is about to die that they are going to Heaven, when in fact you yourself don't believe in it, is "child abuse", is absurd. It's not abuse. It's putting aside your own system of beliefs in order to give a dying child some comfort. |
And you see, now you're jumping to the child after the goal posts have been moved (and misinterpreting what i wrote to boot). This child (the one i was talking about when i brought up child abuse) does not have a "half-assed" belief... they have a clinically unhealthy fixation. The abuse i was talking about was not answering the child's question yes or not... it was the abuse that resulted in the unhealthy fixation.
Now. Given that the child is a victim of child abuse to become so unhealthily fixated on this heaven obsession, the question has changed. This is no longer a simple question of indulging a childish whim just for the sake of comfort. Whether you want to admit it or not, this has now moved into a clinical situation. You have a child that has been tortured in front of you... do you pretend the abuse they have suffered doesn't matter? Or do you try to help them find peace by taking whatever steps you can to heal them of their abuse?
To me, the answer is clear. This child has been saddled with this horrible emotional baggage by some evil bastard. My job, in that child's last hours, is to try and save them from it if i can.
That is why, if i were dealing with a child that has been tortured in the way truespeed describes, i would say something more like this: "Whoever told you that stuff is a liar and an evil person. They told you scary stories, and made you worry about this stuff, because they are sick, horrible people. They don't really know anything about any of that stuff they told you. They just wanted to hurt you because they are so afraid themselves, they only way they can feel good is by passing some of their fear off on others. Heaven is what you make it. Forget all that nonsense they told you - it's all lies. Make heaven here, now, with the people you love. And if the bastard that got you so scared about going to heaven shows up again... just let me know."
| truespeed wrote: | ||
I don't care,i don't care where they got the idea of heaven from,i don't care if religion is responsible,its not important,what is important is your child in front of you dying,asking you to confirm to them if they will go to heaven. |
No, it is important. Because you are trying to foist the blame off onto atheists for the horrible things done by the religious people that caused the problem. It really doesn't matter how i respond to the abuse that has been done to this child - whether i laugh at it, go along with it, or try to fix it... the real criminals, the ones who deserve all the blame and wrath for the emotional scarring done to this child are the religious bastards who abused the child in the first place. If they hadn't got the child so freaked out about heaven that the child can't relax without being soothed about it... then i wouldn't have to deal with it at all (whether i deal with it well or badly).
Let me put this in clear terms for you. This is not about "your child in front of you dying,asking you to confirm to them if they will go to heaven." This is about a victim who has been psychologically tortured, who is asking me to play the role their torturer played to satisfy a need the torturer broke into their psyche. No one is unjustified in refusing to play that role... even if they agree with the statement! Yes, if a child has been psychologically tortured to the point that they can't rest unless someone tells them that Kirk was a cooler captain than Picard, and they asked me if i would confirm that Kirk is cooler than Picard... even though i totally agree with that statement i would hesitate to make the confirmation, because that child needs help, not to have their emotional tics satisfied. i would help the child, not play along with the game the torturer laid out.
In this situation, the abuse was done by religious people. The crime is firmly on their shoulders. Whatever i chose to do - play along or walk away - i hold no responsibility for it.
That being said, i will take responsibility... i will try to undo the damage done by the religious bastards that did it. So no. i will not play along with the sick game the abusers created. i will not simply say yes to make the problem "go away" (because it really won't). i will try to de-condition the child from that irrational fear that was put into them.
| truespeed wrote: |
| The situation is hypothetical,you really do take every situation to an extreme,they could of got the idea of heaven from anywhere,school,a disney film,who knows, who cares. It doesn't always have to be the worse case scenario,whereby they have been kidnapped by some cult and brainwashed with heaven,god and religion (yes i know you didn't say this) |
YOU created this extreme situation. i started with an ordinary kid, and you changed it to a child who can't relax until they have had their question answered. Don't build a straw man then blame me when it comes to life and smacks you in the face.
An ordinary child would be satisfied with "i don't know, it doesn't matter, let's have fun instead"... but you weren't satisfied that the atheist involved was suffering enough with that answer, so you amped up the intensity of the situation: you created a child that can't even bear their last days unless someone promises them heaven. Well, this is the monster you created... a child like that is sick. Seriously psychologically sick, as in they should be getting serious psychotherapy, if that's really how they feel.
| truespeed wrote: |
| You don't sound like someone with a non violent nature. |
My non-violent nature goes only as far as the point where someone attacks me or someone helpless in my care... and no further. What you are describing about that child that can't bear to live without hearing about heaven is a victim of a psychological attack - a ******, if you like. If i saw that in progress, i would not let it happen.
| truespeed wrote: |
| If you know your to die soon,and given enough time,you may go out of your way to make the most of your last few weeks/months,but i rather doubt the fear of death would ever be too far from your thoughts,and in the final moments,i imagine the fear to be very real,and your state of mind would be far from relaxed. |
Only if you've been scared. If, on the other hand, you're being distracted, you probably won't have much time to think about it.
| truespeed wrote: |
| To keep this simple,lets imagine there's no time for all this,your in a hospital,your son/daughter is dying,will be dead in a matter of minutes/hours,they ask you,will i go to heaven,because in their head,heaven means an afterlife,a place to go to after they die,do you ....
A: Confirm to them that they will go to heaven. (Therefore confirming there is a heaven and an afterlife) B: Tell them no,as there is no such place. C: Say "I don't know" And just so we don't get sidetracked,lets assume,they are not going to pick up on any of your verbal or non verbal clues,lets assume they will believe what ever answer you give without question. |
If we are talking about a normal child... not one that has been emotionally tortured to the point that they can't bear their last minutes/hours without hearing they'll be going to heaven, i'll say i don't know. There's no need to lie.
If we are talking about a child that has been abused so much that it really, really, really, really, really matters that someone tells them they are going to heaven, then i'll tell them they are the victims of a horrible scam, and that whoever they got those ideas from is a monster on par with any other child molester... and i'll tell them everything they were told about heaven is a lie, and whatever happens after death, if anything, it will be an adventure, and a surprise.
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
Because you are jumping in late, you probably missed when truespeed changed things up. i was not talking about a child that has simply "heard" of heaven (i was an atheist child, and i'd heard of heaven of course, and not necessarily from religious sources)... i was talking about a child that - as truespeed described it - has a pathological need to have their heaven question confirmed.
There is no functional way you can get that powerful a belief about heaven - to the point that you can't even bear to relax because it's on your mind - without the involvement of religion. Someone has to have terrified that child about what might happen if they didn't get into heaven.
That's a mouthful. I was thinking of making a joke right about now, but decided against it.
| Indi wrote: |
| i have to make something crystal clear here, because truespeed moved the goalposts, and i don't think everyone realizes it.
|
| truespeed wrote: |
| How would someone who doesn't believe in God or the afterlife,answer their dying child,if they asked them that question? |
I didn't move the goal posts,the original question (quoted above) was quite vague in retrospect,but its vagueness was a positive in that it opened up the discussion,things like age and time left got factored in to the discussion,as well as religious abuse.
I won't answer your post by quoting everything you said,as to answer every point individually will just take us off on to tangent after tangent,and end up in the nit picking land of head lice.
Your taking it for granted that the child got the idea of heaven from someone connected to religion and using this to beat the atheist drum,using drama drama words like "torture" and "abuse".
They may of got the idea of heaven from tv,there are lots of references to heaven and god on TV or maybe a film like Bruce Almighty was their favourite movie.
Are the films companies and TV companies guilty of abuse too?
Is the child really scarred when asking you this question? Scarred i don't think so,scared,most definitely,death is the great unknown.
The point of this question was to see if the atheist is as religious in his views as a religious man,most atheists answered that they would confirm and comfort the child with what ever was on his/her mind,even if that meant giving up their opinions and beliefs,and basically lying,therefore putting the immediate needs of the child first.
If the child wants to hear that Kirk is cooler, i would say Kirk is cooler,even though its quite obvious that Picard is.
By answering "i don't know" or in the case of the child who you think has been "abused" by religion you would say no, shows (to me) that your atheist beliefs are more important to you than your dying child.
Although this could take us off on to another tangent i will answer this..
| Indi wrote: |
|
As in nothing else in the world matters as much as making one single dying child slightly more comfortable in their last hours? |
Yeah,but that one single dying child is your child,you may be able to remove yourself from the situation and think of the bigger picture,but in any situation i would be selfish and put the needs of "that one dying child" first,because that one dying child is mine. I think your dog/chewy bone analogy doesn't really work,i couldn't care less if the dog did or didn't have a chewy bone,after all, its only a dog.
Last edited by truespeed on Wed Oct 14, 2009 6:02 pm; edited 1 time in total
I don't see how a one-on-one conversation about heaven & hell with a dying child affect millions of others. I think that's an exaggeration. Say the consensus of this thread will make all people lie to all the dying children asking about heaven- I don't see that as abuse. Keyword- dying. (If we're talking about a perfectly healthy child being told "not to sin" or else he'll "burn in hell", and vice versa--- that's another story.)
That's your perception, not the child's. Children are more sensitive than you can imagine. A child raised as christian will have his emotions deeply attached to it. Again, this is a dying child we're talking about. The last thing I want to do is upset them.
I believe that response can only work in some cases- probably to kids who're raised with no religion and only heard of it through hearsay, and it probably wouldn't work for all of them. The fact that they're asking shows they want to be comforted because, let's face it- death is scary. All the more for children.
| Quote: |
| And i defy anyone to argue that that's not the best response in that case. Why? Because the child has no great emotional attachment to the idea, and so there's no harm in dismissing it, and no real good reason to lie about it. |
That's your perception, not the child's. Children are more sensitive than you can imagine. A child raised as christian will have his emotions deeply attached to it. Again, this is a dying child we're talking about. The last thing I want to do is upset them.
I believe that response can only work in some cases- probably to kids who're raised with no religion and only heard of it through hearsay, and it probably wouldn't work for all of them. The fact that they're asking shows they want to be comforted because, let's face it- death is scary. All the more for children.
| Indi wrote: |
| Whoa, whoa, whoa. This is a philosophical forum. In philosophy, we think. We don't do thoughtless, knee-jerk emotional appeals. First of all, a "hypothetical scenario" were someone is "literally" about to do anything is... yeeeeeah, you do understand what those words mean, right? Or did you just use them for emotional effect unthinkingly? |
| Quote: |
| But more importantly: "So the comfort of that child is of the utmost importance." Oh, really? The "utmost", you say? As in nothing else in the world matters as much as making one single dying child slightly more comfortable in their last hours? You're ok with that assessment? Even if i were more concerned with the hypothetically literal millions of other children (and adults!) who might suffer similar emotional abuses? |
| Quote: |
| You know, i always say that people lose their shit so thoroughly over religion that whenever i discuss it, i prefer to replace religious terms with less emotionally impactive ones... just to get them to stop and think. It would seem the same is true for children. So let me ask you this hypothetical literal: If a dog were dying, and all it wanted before it died was a chewy bone, but you knew that if you give that dog that chewy bone it would encourage others to get millions of other dogs addicted to chewy bones and if you deny that dog its chewy bone you would be doing your part to end the global scourge of chewy bone addiction forever... is the answer of what to do so clear cut now? Or are you willing to toss away the well-being of millions of other dogs just to satisfy the needy whim of the one in front of you? |
It seems that you have such a dire hatred for religion that nothing else is as important to you as fighting this "scourge". Though I don't see how telling a dying kid that they will go to Heaven will somehow perpetuate a world-wide fixation on religion, per your doggy treat comparison... but hey, run with it.
You accuse me of using words for emotional effect, then you go and use words like "scourge", "child abuse", "torture", "evil bastard", "sky faerie", "horrible people", etc. Nah, no emotional effect there...
*AHEM*hypocrite*AHEM*
What started out as a simple question, somehow turned into Indi's personal crusade against religion, at all costs. Hell, I'm an Atheist and I hate religion, but this is just... creepy. Well, have fun with your diatribe against religion. I gave my answer and my justification for it, and I stand by it.
| truespeed wrote: |
| I didn't move the goal posts,the original question (quoted above) was quite vague in retrospect,but its vagueness was a positive in that it opened up the discussion,things like age and time left got factored in to the discussion,as well as religious abuse. |
You did move the goal posts, although i realize that you don't understand that (and neither does anyone else, apparently).
The discussion started out with most people - myself included - talking about a normal, healthy child (psychologically, of course - physically they're on Death's door) that had somehow picked up the curious notion of Heaven and was curious and/or concerned about what happens after death with respect to Heaven. i answered what to do in that case: laugh it off as unimportant.
But then you changed the parameters. You made this child so desperate to get confirmation of this silly idea that nothing else but talking about it would make the child relax. No longer was the child just a normal child with a question about Heaven, now it was a child unhealthily obsessed with the idea. That is moving the goalposts. Now that you'd changed the child into a mental case, i had to deal with the situation entirely differently. The problem is that you - and most people - still don't seem to realize that we're now dealing with a mental case... but we are: any child that obsessed about anything - anything at all - should be getting professional help.
Just think about it: imagine a child whose father or mother was off fighting in Afghanistan, and this child couldn't find any kind of happiness until they heard that their parent was safe (this is just like the child you described, except obsessed about their parent's safety, and not about Heaven). In this case, the child's concern is rationally justified - because the parent really is in danger - but still... if the child is that obsessed over their parent's safety, the other parent should be taking that child in for counselling. That child is mentally unbalanced, and needs help.
Your child - the one you changed to after moving the goalposts - is also mentally unbalanced, and needs professional help. The difference is that the cause of that child's obsession is not a reasonable one (concern for their parent's safety), but rather an existential terror about a mythical land of milk and honey that you might go to after death... in other words, a stupid thing to be obsessed about.
| truespeed wrote: |
| Your taking it for granted that the child got the idea of heaven from someone connected to religion and using this to beat the atheist drum,using drama drama words like "torture" and "abuse".
They may of got the idea of heaven from tv,there are lots of references to heaven and god on TV or maybe a film like Bruce Almighty was their favourite movie. |
Yes, anyone may have gotten the idea of Heaven from TV... but people (children especially) get ideas from TV all the time: maybe they watched a cartoon and thought they might turn into gargoyles after death (Gargoyles), maybe they thought they would turn into homicidal penguins (Disgaea), maybe they thought that they would be reincarnated as a mute giant panda that turns into a kung fu hero when wet (Ranma ˝). What would you say if a child asked you if they would turn into giant kung fu panda when they died? You would probably laugh it off, right? Would you ever - in your wildest dreams - get the notion of creating a thread in a philosophy forum asking - in all seriousness - how to reply to a dying child that asks about becoming a kung fu panda? i seriously doubt it. So why is Heaven any different from reincarnated kung fu pandas? Why is Heaven a serious issue, but not becoming a prinnie or a crime-fighting gargoyle?
You know the answer, you just don't want to admit it. It's religion.
Look, there are only two possible ways that a child can become so obsessed about the idea of Heaven that their entire life's happiness revolves around it (remember, that was what you made the child like when you moved the goalposts!). One way is that the child was already susceptible to becoming obsessed about anything: that could happen in cases where the child has a seratonin imbalance or they are mildly autistic. But if one discounts already mentally unstable kids, the only other way that anyone can get so obsessed by Heaven is... well, you already know.
Now, let's assume an ordinary, healthy child (psychologically, of course). They see the idea of Heaven on TV or somewhere - along with thousands of other images - but what do you think is the likelihood that simply seeing the image of Heaven (again, along with thousands of others) is enough to make the child so obsessed about the concept that they can't find any happiness until they know for sure they're going there (again, remember, this is the child you created when you moved the goalposts)? Obviously that's not likely to happen.
So, logically, where would the obsession about Heaven come from? Again, you know the answer. Only religion could make the idea of Heaven so important to anyone that they would obsess so completely about it that it would effectively run their life.
Now, remember we're starting with a psychologically normal and healthy child, and ending up with one with an obsession that is ruling their life. How did this happen? Again, use your head. We have already established that only religion could reasonably be the culprit for creating such a serious obsession about Heaven. So how does the religion do this? How does religion turn a healthy child into an obsessed psychological head case? Do you think that happens by gentle conditioning? Do you think it happens with mild suggestion? Don't be absurd. You know how it was done, through a campaign of terrorizing the child about what would happen if they died without being good enough to get into Heaven. In other words, a campaign of psychological torture.
And there it is, step-by-step, point-by-point. You introduced the idea of this damaged child, this is the fruit of your decision. Because, as i just showed, you have introduced a child that was the victim of psychological abuse by religion - there is no other way you can posit an otherwise stable, normal child that has degenerated into the basketcase you describe.
And that is why i say that kid should be handled differently from an ordinary, healthy child: because they are the victims of abuse, and they are suffering from an obsessive paranoia that is the result of that abuse. Their concern about Heaven is not healthy, it is the symptom of serious problems.
| truespeed wrote: |
| The point of this question was to see if the atheist is as religious in his views as a religious man,most atheists answered that they would confirm and comfort the child with what ever was on his/her mind,even if that meant giving up their opinions and beliefs,and basically lying,therefore putting the immediate needs of the child first.
If the child wants to hear that Kirk is cooler, i would say Kirk is cooler,even though its quite obvious that Picard is. By answering "i don't know" or in the case of the child who you think has been "abused" by religion you would say no, shows (to me) that your atheist beliefs are more important to you than your dying child. |
You are doing two things here: trying to be deliberately dishonest by confounding the two very different children - the healthy child with the normal curiosity, and the abused one with the obsession - and then trying to dump the blame for the problem on "atheists"... which is singularly absurd. How in the name of any kind of common sense can "atheists" be responsible for a child's obsession with Heaven? i mean, really.
And as i went through great detail to explain above: i don't "think" the child has been abused by religion, i deduced that fact by a careful analysis of the question of how a normal child could get so obsessed.
To show you the extent of your dishonesty, i will turn the question around. What if a child, on their death bed, asked a Christian, "Is God an evil, murdering bastard?" or a Muslim, "Is Mohammad a bigoted, Nazi pedophile?", and their whole happiness depended on being told "yes"? If the Christian or Muslim opted to sit down and explain why God is not evil, or Mohammad was not a Nazi, instead of just mindlessly agreeing, would you say they had done the wrong thing? Of course not. The child is messed up, and needs counselling.
Incidentally, to further drive the point home that you're just dishonestly looking for an angle to snipe at atheists from, consider this: if i had to deal with a child that was singularly obsessed with whether or not God was an evil, murdering bastard or Mohammad was a Nazi pedophile bigot, i would get them counselling. You see, despite your posturing, this (the second child, the one you created after moving the goalposts) is not really about atheism at all. It's really about a sick child that needs help. i insist on getting that child help, regardless of how little time they have left. But you never thought to ask that, hm? You never thought to see if "atheists" would give different answers to questions that have nothing to do with (a)theism at all. Interesting, no?
Go ahead, change the question. How about having the child ask if robot ninjas exist instead of Heaven. You will find that my answers will not change, not one bit (except for the fact that who ever terrorized the child into being so obsessed about robot ninjas, it probably wasn't religion anymore). That is because i am not the one obsessed with atheism here. You are.
(And note also how silly it is to imagine that any child's happiness would depend on answers to those questions. Entirely different from the question about Heaven, right? i wonder why that would be. Wait, we know why.)
| tingkagol wrote: |
| I don't see how a one-on-one conversation about heaven & hell with a dying child affect millions of others. I think that's an exaggeration. Say the consensus of this thread will make all people lie to all the dying children asking about heaven- I don't see that as abuse. Keyword- dying. (If we're talking about a perfectly healthy child being told "not to sin" or else he'll "burn in hell", and vice versa--- that's another story.) |
No, the fact that the child is dying doesn't change the story.
If the child is just curious about Heaven, they will get the same answer from me whether they are dying or not: "i don't know and it doesn't matter; you'll find out if and when you get there."
If the child is obsessed about Heaven, they will get the same answer from me whether they are dying or not: "you need help." (Obviously not put that bluntly.)
And the millions come into the equation in this way. First, realize again that we're not talking about the normal child who is just curious about Heaven. We're talking about the paranoid obsessed child that truespeed dreamed up. This child has been terrorized into being unable to find happiness unless they get confirmation their going to Heaven, and we all know who did the terrorizing. We also all know that this kind of child abuse is virtually universal. Most of the time it's not conducted quite so viciously as to turn the child into a paranoid obsessive, but sometimes it is. Now there are roughly 7 billion people, and roughly 6 billion (or more) are religious. So let's say that out of all the people who are religious, only one in a thousand, or one in ten thousand were scared into as children. That seems like a fairly low estimate to me, but i'll grant it. That still gives you millions of children being terrorized into religious ideas. Now, maybe only one in a thousand, or less, actually develop psychological problems from this terrorizing... doesn't really matter. What matters is that the attempt is being made on millions of children worldwide.
So. Now you come face-to-face with a child who has not only be abused in this way, they have been damaged. They are now paranoid obsessives, and unable to find happiness because of their religious fear (this is exactly the way truespeed described the child - this is not my idea). What do you do? The general consensus here seems to be:
- turn a blind eye to the abuse done to the child and just offer them soothing platitudes to shut them up... it's just too much work to try and heal them and they're going to die anyway; and,
- ignore the causes of the damage that has been done, focus only on the child in front of you and forget all about your larger social responsibility to the other millions of children who are currently be abused the same way this child was - they may not develop the same symptoms, but that's just a question of how tough they are and how good the rest of their upbringing environment is.
You see, while i'm also trying to help the child in front of me (by undoing the torture that was done to them, and hopefully defuse their obsessive paranoia), i am also fighting against the entire social structure that allows that kind of thing to happen at all. i want to help the child in front of me, and i will try damn hard to do it, but frankly if i fail and the child dies in terror about Heaven while i manage to strike a powerful blow against the people who are currently doing this to - literally - millions of other children... i'm sorry, i'm chalking up a win. Why? Because i didn't harm the child, the religious nutters that freaked him out did. i was unable to help the child, but not for lack of trying. Certainly i did more to try to help the child than the people who say just shut the child up by telling them what they want to hear. i tried, and failed, but at least i tried. My win comes from the fact that by ruining the sanction that the torturers have to do this kind of damage in the future, i am working toward sparing - again, literally - millions of kids the same terror.
i see it like this. Suppose you have a paraplegic person who is about to die. They are in great pain. You have an option. Pump them up with painkillers to make their passing gentle... or try to cure them. (Assume for a moment that you can't ask them what they want, because they're not in a mental state to answer.) The general consensus here seems to be just dope them up to shut them up and let them die quietly. i say differently. i will use all my power to try and get that person walking again, even if only for a few minutes before they finally die. Even if they only manage a few steps, i think they will die happier - with real happiness, not drug-induced happiness - than they would if i just doped them up. AND, even if i fail in my attempt to heal them, if i advance the research toward the cure that might save all the other people who suffer from the same ailment... i call that a win. So, that's my score. i'm going to try to cure the victim - not just opiate them to shut them up - and in doing so i hope to advance the process toward a cure for all who suffer from the same malady.
| Ophois wrote: |
| Huh? In this scenario you are the kids parent, so yes, your child's comfort in their dying hours is more important than anything else(or so I would assume, if you are any kind of decent parent). And these millions of other people have nothing at all to do with this... wow... |
i find that horribly selfish. i'll help my child, sure, but not at the expense of other people's children. If having a child is going to make you a menace to other people's children, you shouldn't have a child.
| Ophois wrote: |
| So the importance of combating this scourge of religion is, to you, more important than comforting your dying child. Nice. I guess you gotta have a cause, right?
It seems that you have such a dire hatred for religion that nothing else is as important to you as fighting this "scourge". Though I don't see how telling a dying kid that they will go to Heaven will somehow perpetuate a world-wide fixation on religion, per your doggy treat comparison... but hey, run with it. |
As i already explained to truespeed, this is not an "atheist" thing, it is a child abuse thing - i just have the courage to point the finger at the obvious abusers in this particular case.
Go ahead, change the question to something that has nothing to do with atheism or religion at all. My answer will not change (the only thing that will change will be who is responsible, which may be immediately obvious, as in this case, or it may not be).
It is not the scourge of religion that i am intent on combating, it is the scourge of child abuse. As i explained - step-by-step, in great detail to truespeed - any child that obsessed about Heaven (or anything!!! and i've said that before, so i don't know why you're so fixated on the idea that this is a religious/atheist thing) is psychologically sick, and they only way they could have gotten that way is by a campaign of psychological abuse. And we all know that this abuse is happening all the time. So would i make an effort to fight the systemic abuse while trying to help my child? Absolutely. Unlike you, i care about all children (and all people) as much as my own - i will not let other children be victimized just so my own can be comforted in the short term.
| Ophois wrote: |
| You accuse me of using words for emotional effect, then you go and use words like "scourge", "child abuse", "torture", "evil bastard", "sky faerie", "horrible people", etc. Nah, no emotional effect there...
*AHEM*hypocrite*AHEM* |
The fact that you think i am using these terms for emotional effect shows me that you either don't understand or (now that you have admitted you don't really care about other people's children all that much, compared to your own) don't care about the seriousness of this situation. And, once again, let me make this crystal clear - i am using these terms specifically for the second case truespeed brought up. Not the normal child, the other one. i don't approve of people like Richard Dawkins tossing the word "abuse" around to describe normal religious upbringing (even though i don't agree with "religious upbringing" at all), because it is wrong. It is dishonest, and it devalues the term, which has a specific clinical meaning. It is using the word solely for emotional effect, without concern about the actual meaning.
But that is not what i am doing. When i say child abuse, i mean it absolutely literally. As in the literal academically defined sense of the word. Even as in prosecutable under the law. i mean real, literal, actual child abuse. If my child came home so terrified about going to Heaven that they couldn't find any happiness otherwise, yes, i would seek legal recourse (along with, obviously, taking the child to a counsellor).
Regular religious upbringing is not child abuse, despite Dawkins's characterization of it, because it does not involve any of the mechanisms of child abuse (usually), and does not (usually) result in psychological damage. In this case, in truespeed's second child case, there is psychological damage (specifically obsessive paranoia - and if you think i'm using those words for emotional effect and not in their most literal sense, you really haven't been paying attention). And under normal circumstances, such psychological damage can only come from psychological abuse. i pointed that out, and i identified the most likely (the only logical, really) culprits. And for this you think i am on a crusade. It is as if i identified a woman as a rape victim by the symptoms of the rape, pointed out from the way that the rape was done that the only way it could have been done was by a left-handed person, and then you stepped in and accused me of being a crusade against left-handed people. Rubbish.
No, the psychological terms i used - child abuse, psychological torture, emotional damage, obsessive paranoia - these are not plays on sympathy, i use them in the absolute, cold-and-hard scientific definitions. When i say that (truespeed's second child) was a victim of child abuse, i friggin' mean it. i am not playing games with your feelings, i mean it in the most absolute and literal sense. There is no hypocrisy, only verbal precision... it's just that you either don't understand (or don't care) that they are being used in the correct sense.
The other terms - evil bastard (applied to the person who did the abuse), horrible people - i use because i sincerely believe that people who do the kind of abuse that would have been done to truespeed's second child are evil bastards, and horrible people. i frankly don't give a rat's ass whether calling them bastards changes your opinion or not. i think they're scum. You don't agree? You think that people that would terrify a child into obsessive paranoia about a mystical after-life happy place are not horrible? Well, that's your opinion. "Evil bastards" is my opinion, and there is nothing hypocritical about stating my opinion in the words that best describe it.
And finally the last group of terms - evil bastard (applied to God or Mohammad or whatever), sky fairy, after-life candyland, etc. - i use because i think these religious notions are stupid, and laughable, and i look on them with contempt. i didn't pick those words to change your opinions. Those are the words i use for them. Deal with it.
So, *ahem*, there's no hypocrisy here. It's just a matter of you not understanding (or not caring).
| Indi wrote: |
| No, the fact that the child is dying doesn't change the story. |
I believe otherwise. I think it is the key to this whole argument.
It seems you are describing your day to day campaign against people who are injecting the belief of heaven into children's minds. So yes, you can very well counsel the child that you believe it does not exist (I assume you believe its existence cannot be proven otherwise). But then again, this is not what we're talking about. A dying child. I don't know about you, but given a dying child and a perfectly healthy one, I wouldn't treat them the same.
In all honesty though, I think it's completely harmless to believe in heaven, in that most people choose to believe in it for the thought of afterlife rather than "judgement". Furthermore, I personally feel NOBODY gets anxiety pangs over "the possibility that they're going to hell" when they are in their deathbed (It seems those are the "abused" children you are referring to in your post). They all fear only one thing: dying. It's all there is to it.
I do admire your philosophy though.
| Indi wrote: |
|
You did move the goal posts, although i realize that you don't understand that (and neither does anyone else, apparently). |
I said and i quote ..
| Quote: |
| what matters is the kid asking you to confirm to them the one thing that will make facing death bearable.
|
I think this is where your suggesting i moved the goalposts. (If i am wrong please point me to the grassy knoll where the goal posts are situated) The thing is,this post came after your initial religious rant,this was just me trying to get you to answer the question without sidetracking into psychology,and the child picking up tells etc etc. The problem was,it just gave your more ammunition for your tirade against religion as the cause of the childs distress,as if dying isn't enough just cause. And from there your on your plane, heading for the middle east,to reclaim Jerusalem in the Atheists crusades.
If i could go back and word it differently i would.
The problem now is,your whole point of view,is slanted by convenience because of "the changing of the goal posts".
| Indi wrote: |
|
Now, remember we're starting with a psychologically normal and healthy child, and ending up with one with an obsession that is ruling their life. How did this happen? |
No we are not,the child is dying,the child may never have thought of heaven to any great degree prior to now,if the thought of heaven is on there minds at this moment,its not because they are obsessed with the idea,its because they are dying,and because at some point they have heard that is where people go when they die.
It doesn't have to have religious connections,i am guessing ,but if you asked young kids to describe heaven,they would probably describe a place with an old man (God) with a big white beard (Not unlike Santa) .. angels sat on clouds playing harps,and a place where they will get to meet their Grandmother Ethel,or there since deceased dead dog.
| Indi wrote: |
|
But then you changed the parameters. You made this child so desperate to get confirmation of this silly idea that nothing else but talking about it would make the child relax. |
I didn't change the parameters,you did,we have gone from a child dying,distressed naturally,to some abused,obsessed,psychologically damaged kid,who doesn't need a comforting word on their deathbed,but some kind of Atheists exorcism from the dreaded God. .
| Indi wrote: |
|
Just think about it: imagine a child whose father or mother was off fighting in Afghanistan, and this child couldn't find any kind of happiness until they heard that their parent was safe (this is just like the child you described, except obsessed about their parent's safety, and not about Heaven). In this case, the child's concern is rationally justified - because the parent really is in danger - but still... if the child is that obsessed over their parent's safety, the other parent should be taking that child in for counselling. That child is mentally unbalanced, and needs help. |
In this case,if the child is having problems,then counselling is the answer,but in my scenario,theres no time for counselling really.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Yes, anyone may have gotten the idea of Heaven from TV... but people (children especially) get ideas from TV all the time: maybe they watched a cartoon and thought they might turn into gargoyles after death (Gargoyles), maybe they thought they would turn into homicidal penguins (Disgaea), maybe they thought that they would be reincarnated as a mute giant panda that turns into a kung fu hero when wet (Ranma ˝). What would you say if a child asked you if they would turn into giant kung fu panda when they died? You would probably laugh it off, right? |
Gargoyles are scary,and homicidal penguins,why would a child want to go to a heaven like that,that sounds more like a childs version of hell? (But i guess it suits you not to paint a off centre happy version of heaven)
| Indi wrote: |
|
Would you ever - in your wildest dreams - get the notion of creating a thread in a philosophy forum asking - in all seriousness - how to reply to a dying child that asks about becoming a kung fu panda? i seriously doubt it. So why is Heaven any different from reincarnated kung fu pandas? Why is Heaven a serious issue, but not becoming a prinnie or a crime-fighting gargoyle? You know the answer, you just don't want to admit it. It's religion. |
Heaven is different because its part of our culture,we are all aware of it (yes through religion) but also through films,tv, ect ect,so the possibility of a child picking up on heaven is there,heaven to them may just be the place where everyone goes to when they die.
| Indi wrote: |
|
So, logically, where would the obsession about Heaven come from? Again, you know the answer. Only religion could make the idea of Heaven so important to anyone that they would obsess so completely about it that it would effectively run their life. |
| Indi wrote: |
|
Again, pointing out the obvious: i didn't put the doubt in the child's mind. Some other ****** did (and a religious one at that - nice job there, guys). What i put in the child's mind is the idea that there's no point in worrying about it. |
The above quote was made before my alleged "moving the goalposts" You had already made up your mind that religion was to blame..
| Indi wrote: |
| We have already established that only religion could reasonably be the culprit for creating such a serious obsession about Heaven. |
When did we establish that only religion could be the culprit,why does there need to be a culprit? And we haven't even established that the child has a serious obsession,just that the child is distressed about dying,if the idea of going to heaven eases his/her passage into death,why does that mean the kid is obssessed/damaged,even if your going with my....
| Quote: |
| what matters is the kid asking you to confirm to them the one thing that will make facing death bearable.
|
It still doesn't mean they are obsessed by the idea,just the fact that they are about to die,and to use an English expression,scared shit'less.
| Indi wrote: |
|
So how does the religion do this? How does religion turn a healthy child into an obsessed psychological head case? Do you think that happens by gentle conditioning? Do you think it happens with mild suggestion? Don't be absurd. You know how it was done, through a campaign of terrorizing the child about what would happen if they died without being good enough to get into Heaven. In other words, a campaign of psychological torture. And there it is, step-by-step, point-by-point. You introduced the idea of this damaged child, this is the fruit of your decision. Because, as i just showed, you have introduced a child that was the victim of psychological abuse by religion - there is no other way you can posit an otherwise stable, normal child that has degenerated into the basketcase you describe. And that is why i say that kid should be handled differently from an ordinary, healthy child: because they are the victims of abuse, and they are suffering from an obsessive paranoia that is the result of that abuse. Their concern about Heaven is not healthy, it is the symptom of serious problems. |
This just reads like Atheist propaganda.
| truespeed wrote: |
| The point of this question was to see if the atheist is as religious in his views as a religious man,most atheists answered that they would confirm and comfort the child with what ever was on his/her mind,even if that meant giving up their opinions and beliefs,and basically lying,therefore putting the immediate needs of the child first.
If the child wants to hear that Kirk is cooler, i would say Kirk is cooler,even though its quite obvious that Picard is. By answering "i don't know" or in the case of the child who you think has been "abused" by religion you would say no, shows (to me) that your atheist beliefs are more important to you than your dying child. |
| Indi wrote: |
|
You are doing two things here: trying to be deliberately dishonest by confounding the two very different children - the healthy child with the normal curiosity, and the abused one with the obsession - and then trying to dump the blame for the problem on "atheists"... which is singularly absurd. How in the name of any kind of common sense can "atheists" be responsible for a child's obsession with Heaven? i mean, really. |
I am not being dishonest deliberately or otherwise,there were never two kids,perhaps from your reading of my comments there are,but neither of them are healthy as they both about to die. Now you have the choice to allow them to die with an idea of heaven,or not,and i don't think either kid will benefit from your "i don't know" to the "healthy" kid or your outright no,to the damaged/tortured/obsessed. kid.
| Indi wrote: |
|
And as i went through great detail to explain above: i don't "think" the child has been abused by religion, i deduced that fact by a careful analysis of the question of how a normal child could get so obsessed. To show you the extent of your dishonesty, i will turn the question around. What if a child, on their death bed, asked a Christian, "Is God an evil, murdering bastard?" or a Muslim, "Is Mohammad a bigoted, Nazi pedophile?", and their whole happiness depended on being told "yes"? If the Christian or Muslim opted to sit down and explain why God is not evil, or Mohammad was not a Nazi, instead of just mindlessly agreeing, would you say they had done the wrong thing? Of course not. The child is messed up, and needs counselling. |
This is just one of your,not really working analogies,but to answser,if i was that christian or i was that muslim,and it made the child happy to hear it,i would go along with it.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Incidentally, to further drive the point home that you're just dishonestly looking for an angle to snipe at atheists from. |
I am an atheist.
| Indi wrote: |
| . i insist on getting that child help, regardless of how little time they have left. But you never thought to ask that, hm? You never thought to see if "atheists" would give different answers to questions that have nothing to do with (a)theism at all. Interesting, no?
|
Ok ,i will play along,the child wil be dead within the hour,though it could be as little as five minutes,the damaged/tortured/obsessed child needs help? So what help would you give them?
| Indi wrote: |
|
Go ahead, change the question. How about having the child ask if robot ninjas exist instead of Heaven. You will find that my answers will not change, not one bit (except for the fact that who ever terrorized the child into being so obsessed about robot ninjas, it probably wasn't religion anymore). That is because i am not the one obsessed with atheism here. You are. (And note also how silly it is to imagine that any child's happiness would depend on answers to those questions. Entirely different from the question about Heaven, right? i wonder why that would be. Wait, we know why.) |
My answer wouldn't change either,i would just tell them whatever comforts them,and if robot ninjas give them comfort,robot ninjas it is.
And there is no happiness here,the child is dying (i am not sure you get that) ultimately theres nothing you can do to make this child happy,not even telling the child your best joke,or pulling that funny face. The child is never going to see his mum again,or his dad,or any of his friends,this is it,this is the end.
| truespeed wrote: |
| And there is no happiness here,the child is dying (i am not sure you get that) ultimately theres nothing you can do to make this child happy,not even telling the child your best joke,or pulling that funny face. The child is never going to see his mum again,or his dad,or any of his friends,this is it,this is the end. |
| tingkagol wrote: |
| It seems you are describing your day to day campaign against people who are injecting the belief of heaven into children's minds. So yes, you can very well counsel the child that you believe it does not exist (I assume you believe its existence cannot be proven otherwise). But then again, this is not what we're talking about. A dying child. I don't know about you, but given a dying child and a perfectly healthy one, I wouldn't treat them the same. |
There are several things wrong here. First, this has nothing to do against any campaign of mine against people who are teaching religion to children. i don't actually have such a campaign, despite what people accuse me of. This about my campaign against child abuse - and only then specifically in the case of the second child truespeed dreamed up, not the first one. No matter how many times i repeat this in this thread, it just doesn't seem to be sinking in. The only abused child in this thread is the second child truespeed described. The first child, which everyone, including me, assumes is just a normal child with curiosity, is not a victim of child abuse. They must have just heard of Heaven from their friends, and wonder if they're going there, too. But the second child is obsessed with the idea - to the point that they can't find any happiness without feeding their obsession. And that is what makes them abused - the paranoid obsession - not the belief in Heaven. (Technically, even the obsession itself doesn't make them abused. It is quite possible to get obsessed about something without abuse. But not in this case; to determine that they're abused, i followed a train of logic as to the most reasonable way that they became obsessed, and that was where i found abuse as the most likely answer.)
Second, i would never counsel any child that Heaven does or does not exist, because i simply don't know. As i already explained, if the child were normal (aside from being on Death's door), and they asked me if they were going to Heaven i would say "i don't know". And if the child were obsessed about Heaven, i would try to get them help for their obsession... not for the belief in Heaven.
The third thing is not a question of misunderstanding, but rather a difference of opinion. i disagree - i don't treat children any different whether they're dying or not, except that i would allow a dying child a little more leeway to do self-destructive things (like eating candy or not going to school if they don't want to) than i would a child who wasn't dying (because i can't really say "if you don't eat your veggies you won't grow up big and strong" to a child that is probably not going to grow up). But if a child asked me if they were going to Heaven, dying or not, they would get the same answer: "i don't know." And if i encountered an abused child, they would get the same treatment, dying or not: i would try to get them counselled for their abuse. If there is an afterlife, then i think the child would thank me for my efforts when they arrive there and they are not a paranoid obsessive crackpot.
| tingkagol wrote: |
| Furthermore, I personally feel NOBODY gets anxiety pangs over "the possibility that they're going to hell" when they are in their deathbed (It seems those are the "abused" children you are referring to in your post). They all fear only one thing: dying. It's all there is to it. |
i totally agree, and that's how i assumed things were when i made my first reply. But truespeed was not satisfied with that - apparently he wanted to see people squirming over whether they would "hurt" (in his estimation) a dying child by denying them their fantasy of Heaven, or give up their "beliefs". (Of course, it's all just a false dilemma, as i pointed out. i don't "deny" Heaven exists, i just don't think it does, so i don't have to say "no". i also showed that it is possible to not say "yes" without hurting the child. Thus, i broke the false dilemma, and offered the logical answer: "i don't know". truespeed was not satisfied with this, so first he tried to dump the blame for the child's discomfort on me - which i countered by pointing where the discomfort really came from - then he upped the ante with a more desperate case, described below.)
But i do have to correct you. Nobody normal gets anxiety pangs over that possibility - only people who are unhealthily obsessed with the notion (which, although it is unfortunately very common to have anxiety about the afterlife, it is not normal in that it can't happen unless someone puts the notion there that you should be anxious) - which is what truespeed created with the second child. He said that the "one thing" that would make this child's last moments "bearable" was hearing that they would go to heaven. That is not a normal child, that is a very sick child - a paranoid obsessed child. That is the abuse i am talking about. The abuse has nothing to do with religion or Heaven. The abuse is the emotional and psychological abuse that turned the child into a paranoid obsessive.
If it were simply a matter of a child fearing death, then i would comfort the child. If it were a simple matter of a normal child asking about religious concepts that i know nothing about, i would answer: "i know nothing about those things." But it is no longer a simple matter if you introduce a child as messed up as the one truespeed introduced - that child is a victim of abuse. Given that, i will make an effort to cure that abuse rather than simply handwave it away. And given that, after considering the type of abuse and its probably cause, i recognize that this kind of abuse is systemic, i recognize that i have a social responsibility to do something about it for the greater good.
But yes, normal kids - not the paranoid basketcase truespeed dreamed up, but normal kids - aren't so strung out about existential questions like Heaven, so there is no harm in admitting you just don't know and they shouldn't worry that much about it.
| truespeed wrote: | ||
I think this is where your suggesting i moved the goalposts. (If i am wrong please point me to the grassy knoll where the goal posts are situated) The thing is,this post came after your initial religious rant,this was just me trying to get you to answer the question without sidetracking into psychology,and the child picking up tells etc etc. |
Now the first part is just a bald-faced lie - i certainly did not make any "rants" about religion before you moved the goal posts. The only mention i made of religion was this: you asked me if it wasn't wrong for me to put doubt in the child's mind, and i responded that i didn't put the doubt there, a religious person did (and not anyone who didn't believe in God, which is who the thread is about). And then i made a sarcastic comment about what a nice job that was (because it created the whole problem).
The second part, if it's true, indicates remarkable short-sightedness. To get me to stop discussing child psychology while dealing with a dying child's psychology... you created a psychotic child. Nice job, that. (That was sarcasm again, not a rant.)
You say you want to go back and word it differently, fine. There was no need to bring obsession into the discussion, and i was rather shocked that you did. If you're only interested in dealing with normal, non-psychotic children, fine - i already gave my answer. If you don't like it, i would suggest introducing a crazy child is not the best way to get around that.
| truespeed wrote: |
| No we are not,the child is dying,the child may never have thought of heaven to any great degree prior to now,if the thought of heaven is on there minds at this moment,its not because they are obsessed with the idea,its because they are dying,and because at some point they have heard that is where people go when they die. |
You can't really expect anyone to accept a child that is perfectly psychologically normal and healthy one moment to have a fixated obsession on Heaven a moment later, for no reason at all. -_- Get real. Or are you now dropping the idea that this child is unable to find any happiness without having their Heaven-fears consoled? Again the goalposts move? Or not? i can't even tell anymore.
| truespeed wrote: |
| I didn't change the parameters,you did,we have gone from a child dying,distressed naturally,to some abused,obsessed,psychologically damaged kid,who doesn't need a comforting word on their deathbed,but some kind of Atheists exorcism from the dreaded God. . |
We started with a normal child, and i answered your question. Then you changed the child to be obsessed to the point that they couldn't find any happiness without being told they were going to Heaven. YOU did that. Not me. YOU introduced the obsession. All i did was follow it through logically to it's rational conclusion - where did the obsession come from, etc.
And as i've repeated several times, but you refuse to accept, this has nothing to do with atheism. If you had made the child obsessed about anything you would have gotten the same response. The only thing that might have changed was the logical cause of the obsession (which, in this case, happens to be religion, in the only logical conclusion).
| truespeed wrote: |
| In this case,if the child is having problems,then counselling is the answer,but in my scenario,theres no time for counselling really. |
There is always time for counselling. There just may not be enough time to cure them completely.
In this case, i already outlined what i would do to start - i would tell them that wherever they got their fear from, it's nonsensical, and whoever made them so freaked out about the idea, they're a bastard. "No one has any answers; you'll find out soon enough anyway; just relax and enjoy what time you have left with the people around you." It may not work, but at least i would have tried. And even if it works only partially, they'll at least get some more time with their loved ones. All win. No lose. No need to lie.
| Indi wrote: |
| No matter how many times i repeat this in this thread, it just doesn't seem to be sinking in. The only abused child in this thread is the second child truespeed described. The first child, which everyone, including me, assumes is just a normal child with curiosity, is not a victim of child abuse. |
| Indi wrote: | ||
You can't really expect anyone to accept a child that is perfectly psychologically normal and healthy one moment to have a fixated obsession on Heaven a moment later, for no reason at all. -_- Get real. Or are you now dropping the idea that this child is unable to find any happiness without having their Heaven-fears consoled? Again the goalposts move? Or not? i can't even tell anymore. |
| truespeed wrote: |
| Will i go to heaven? How would someone who doesn't believe in God or the afterlife,answer their dying child,if they asked them that question? |
I don't see any fixation in it, nor complicatedness, it is quite a realistic scenario as well. Do we lie about this, or do do we tell the child there is no heaven? Quite a large number of us, including Truespeed thought it did not matter how we felt about heaven, what mattered most is what would comfort the child the most. If someone is dying, whether adult or child, I would take my cue from the dying, and if it takes a lie to comfort them, I would lie with a passion.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Now the first part is just a bald-faced lie - i certainly did not make any "rants" about religion before you moved the goal posts. The only mention i made of religion was this: you asked me if it wasn't wrong for me to put doubt in the child's mind, and i responded that i didn't put the doubt there, a religious person did (and not anyone who didn't believe in God, which is who the thread is about). And then i made a sarcastic comment about what a nice job that was (because it created the whole problem). |
You said.
| Indi wrote: |
| Again, pointing out the obvious: i didn't put the doubt in the child's mind. Some other ****** did (and a religious one at that - nice job there, guys) |
Its not a bald faced lie,or even a lie,you pointed the finger at religion straight away and in no uncertain terms,your even admitting it,so where is the lie,you can't admit it and claim me a liar at the same time.
| Indi wrote: |
|
The second part, if it's true, indicates remarkable short-sightedness. To get me to stop discussing child psychology while dealing with a dying child's psychology... you created a psychotic child. Nice job, that. (That was sarcasm again, not a rant.) |
It wasn't that you introduced child psychology into it,its just the content of what you said and the way you said it,as if it was a matter of fact and we should all just accept it because you have said it,and it was under the umbrella of psychology.
| Indi wrote: |
|
You say you want to go back and word it differently, fine. There was no need to bring obsession into the discussion, and i was rather shocked that you did. If you're only interested in dealing with normal, non-psychotic children, fine - i already gave my answer. If you don't like it, i would suggest introducing a crazy child is not the best way to get around that. |
| truespeed wrote: |
| ,what matters is the kid asking you to confirm to them the one thing that will make facing death bearable. |
There is my comment,again,only you could give a child a whole back story from that one comment,a back story of an abused paranoid obsessive crackpot,all at the hands of religion.
| truespeed wrote: |
| No we are not,the child is dying,the child may never have thought of heaven to any great degree prior to now,if the thought of heaven is on there minds at this moment,its not because they are obsessed with the idea,its because they are dying,and because at some point they have heard that is where people go when they die. |
| Indi wrote: |
|
You can't really expect anyone to accept a child that is perfectly psychologically normal and healthy one moment to have a fixated obsession on Heaven a moment later, for no reason at all. -_- Get real. Or are you now dropping the idea that this child is unable to find any happiness without having their Heaven-fears consoled? Again the goalposts move? Or not? i can't even tell anymore. |
The child isn't normal and healthy,the child is dying,and dying can have an affect on your mental health surprisingly,again your using words like "fixated obsession" , as if anyone who asks about heaven who is about to die is somehow mentally unwell,and not as is the case, just scared of death,and perhaps look for comfort in the thought of an afterlife.
He/she is hardly going to be sat on her death bed singing "always look on the bright side of life" while all her family sing along as he/she slowly loses consciousness.
| truespeed wrote: |
| I didn't change the parameters,you did,we have gone from a child dying,distressed naturally,to some abused,obsessed,psychologically damaged kid,who doesn't need a comforting word on their deathbed,but some kind of Atheists exorcism from the dreaded God. . |
| Indi wrote: |
|
We started with a normal child, and i answered your question. Then you changed the child to be obsessed to the point that they couldn't find any happiness without being told they were going to Heaven. YOU did that. Not me. YOU introduced the obsession. All i did was follow it through logically to it's rational conclusion - where did the obsession come from, etc. |
I didn't change the child to anything,you created him in your head,based on one comment that never included any of the words you use to describe him/her,or even religion for that matter. He is your own creation,like an atheist version of Frankensteins monster.
| Indi wrote: |
|
And as i've repeated several times, but you refuse to accept, this has nothing to do with atheism. If you had made the child obsessed about anything you would have gotten the same response. The only thing that might have changed was the logical cause of the obsession (which, in this case, happens to be religion, in the only logical conclusion). |
Logical to you perhaps,but as there are other options,its not the only logical conclusion.
| Indi wrote: |
|
There is always time for counselling. There just may not be enough time to cure them completely. |
Your use of the word cure is significant i think,as it shows that you think of religion as an illness,and given enough time,you will cure them of their religious disease.
| Indi wrote: |
|
In this case, i already outlined what i would do to start - i would tell them that wherever they got their fear from, it's nonsensical, and whoever made them so freaked out about the idea, they're a bastard. "No one has any answers; you'll find out soon enough anyway; just relax and enjoy what time you have left with the people around you." It may not work, but at least i would have tried. And even if it works only partially, they'll at least get some more time with their loved ones. All win. No lose. No need to lie. |
You haven't tried though,its all on your terms.
This is from earlier in the thread...
| Bikerman wrote: |
| What about the dying Hindu child who asks a Catholic priest? What about the dying Catholic child that asks a Rabbi? |
I think this is significant because,for them i feel there would be a genuine dilemma,as they have give up their life to their God and their faith,so to lie or not to lie would be very difficult for them.
Atheists however don't have a God to answer to,they don't have a faith,so where is the dilemma?
In the interest of simplifying this discussion, what is there to loose?
Tell them they're going to heaven, and what is lost?
Tell them you don't believe heaven exists, and you'll make the end of that child's life just a little bit more miserable.
All this discussion about who's fault it is that the child believes in heaven, and if that constitutes abuse or not seems rather besides the point to me.
Tell them they're going to heaven, and what is lost?
Tell them you don't believe heaven exists, and you'll make the end of that child's life just a little bit more miserable.
All this discussion about who's fault it is that the child believes in heaven, and if that constitutes abuse or not seems rather besides the point to me.
Ocalhoun is on the mark, there.
Tell the kid "yes", and it eases their mind a bit.
Tell them "no", and believe it or not, they will have follow-up questions.
"Then what happens to me? Where will I go? Why? Why? Why?" etc.
If you want to pretend that a kid will stop asking after they get a non-definitive answer, then you obviously have ZERO experience with kids. You can skirt those follow-up questions all you want with your "I don't know" answers, and there will be many, but in the end, that will make a kid very worried. Not giving some kind of definite answer about death would do more harm than good. Kids look up to their parents for answers, especially in times of crisis. Feeding them uncertainty on their death bed, well, that would scare the bejeezus out of any kid.
Call it "honesty" all you want, but making a kid more worried about death would be, I don't know... child abuse.
Additionally, telling the kid "yes" will not further this supposed abuse of millions of kids around the world, no matter how much anyone tries to say so. Those millions of kids will not hear your private conversation, and they will not be the least bit influenced by some person they will never meet. It's not like the kid will suddenly leap up and start blogging about the validity of Heaven just because mommy or daddy confirmed it.
Tell the kid "yes", and it eases their mind a bit.
Tell them "no", and believe it or not, they will have follow-up questions.
"Then what happens to me? Where will I go? Why? Why? Why?" etc.
If you want to pretend that a kid will stop asking after they get a non-definitive answer, then you obviously have ZERO experience with kids. You can skirt those follow-up questions all you want with your "I don't know" answers, and there will be many, but in the end, that will make a kid very worried. Not giving some kind of definite answer about death would do more harm than good. Kids look up to their parents for answers, especially in times of crisis. Feeding them uncertainty on their death bed, well, that would scare the bejeezus out of any kid.
Call it "honesty" all you want, but making a kid more worried about death would be, I don't know... child abuse.
Additionally, telling the kid "yes" will not further this supposed abuse of millions of kids around the world, no matter how much anyone tries to say so. Those millions of kids will not hear your private conversation, and they will not be the least bit influenced by some person they will never meet. It's not like the kid will suddenly leap up and start blogging about the validity of Heaven just because mommy or daddy confirmed it.
| truespeed wrote: |
| Its not a bald faced lie,or even a lie,you pointed the finger at religion straight away and in no uncertain terms,your even admitting it,so where is the lie,you can't admit it and claim me a liar at the same time. |
You are misrepresenting what happened. You blamed me for making the child afraid, i said it wasn't me, it was religion. That is all. That is not a "rant". Furthermore, i did not blame religion for abusing the child, because the abused child did not exist at that point - i didn't blame religion for abusing the child until after you created it. So no matter which way you look at it, i did not make an "initial religious rant" before you introduced the messed up child. That claim was a lie, and you are compounding the dishonesty by selective quotation.
| truespeed wrote: |
| There is my comment,again,only you could give a child a whole back story from that one comment,a back story of an abused paranoid obsessive crackpot,all at the hands of religion. |
i have explained quite clearly how i derived the situation. Oftentimes you only need "one comment" to tell you a lot about a situation. It is your fault that your "one comment" created a situation you were not prepared to deal with, not mine.
| truespeed wrote: | ||
The child isn't normal and healthy,the child is dying... |
Right there in my quote it says quite plainly: PSYCHOLOGICALLY normal and healthy. And in a previous line i explicitly said that i obviously meant psychologically normal and healthy and no physically normal and healthy because they are dying. Honestly. -_-
| truespeed wrote: |
| ... and dying can have an affect on your mental health surprisingly,again your using words like "fixated obsession" , as if anyone who asks about heaven who is about to die is somehow mentally unwell,and not as is the case, just scared of death,and perhaps look for comfort in the thought of an afterlife.
He/she is hardly going to be sat on her death bed singing "always look on the bright side of life" while all her family sing along as he/she slowly loses consciousness. |
Dying does not make one paranoid obsessive. It just doesn't.
A child - anyone - who is near death and afraid will probably wonder about life after death, and may even worry about it (many worry about it enough to try and "get their sins absolved" at the last moment). But to be so fixated on the idea that nothing else can possibly give the child any peace (remember, in your words the right answer to this question is "one thing that will make facing death bearable") is not normal. It is, in fact, quite abnormal, and is pathological in nature. i'll say it clearly: if it is impossible to deflect the question and distract the child with other stimulation, the child is pathologically obsessed with the topic. There is just no way that can happen in a psychologically normal and healthy child (at least, not without someone or something having terrified the child about the topic beforehand, but this is just repeating the same argument all over again).
You are creating a straw man regarding my claims. i am not claiming that a normal child wouldn't be afraid of dying, or that they wouldn't be concerned about a possible afterlife - i certainly don't require them to be cheery enough to sing about it. But a normal child can be consoled even if you don't have the answer to their questions. Just take my example of the child whose mother is missing in action in some distant war - when the child asks "is Mommy dead" the correct answer is not "no", but "i don't know", followed by helping the child cope with the fear of not knowing by distracting them in some way - at the very least by telling them to "be strong" or something similar. It is only the mentally unbalanced child who is unable to bear life solely because someone can't tell them "yes". The same is true in this case.
| truespeed wrote: |
| I didn't change the child to anything,you created him in your head,based on one comment that never included any of the words you use to describe him/her,or even religion for that matter. He is your own creation,like an atheist version of Frankensteins monster. |
You did change the child. i answered your question in the only rational manner, and my answer was unchallengeable, so you tried to "challenge" it by making the child psychotic. No matter how many times you deny it, or blame me for the monster child you created, the facts remain.
| truespeed wrote: | ||
Your use of the word cure is significant i think,as it shows that you think of religion as an illness,and given enough time,you will cure them of their religious disease. |
My use of the word "cure" is significant indeed, because i was talking about curing the mental instability - the paranoid obsession - which is what i've been talking about all along. i have never once said or implied that the child needed to be "cured" of religion. You put that implication there. i find that significant.
| truespeed wrote: |
| You haven't tried though,its all on your terms. |
? Of course it's on my terms. i am the one to whom the question was put.
| truespeed wrote: |
| Atheists however don't have a God to answer to,they don't have a faith,so where is the dilemma? |
There is no dilemma. Unless the atheist is sure that there is no Heaven, there is no reason not to tell the truth: "i don't know".
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| In the interest of simplifying this discussion, what is there to loose?
Tell them they're going to heaven, and what is lost? Tell them you don't believe heaven exists, and you'll make the end of that child's life just a little bit more miserable. All this discussion about who's fault it is that the child believes in heaven, and if that constitutes abuse or not seems rather besides the point to me. |
Again the same false dilemma. There is a third option, you know.
| Ophois wrote: |
| Tell the kid "yes", and it eases their mind a bit.
Tell them "no", and believe it or not, they will have follow-up questions. "Then what happens to me? Where will I go? Why? Why? Why?" etc. If you want to pretend that a kid will stop asking after they get a non-definitive answer, then you obviously have ZERO experience with kids. You can skirt those follow-up questions all you want with your "I don't know" answers, and there will be many, but in the end, that will make a kid very worried. Not giving some kind of definite answer about death would do more harm than good. Kids look up to their parents for answers, especially in times of crisis. Feeding them uncertainty on their death bed, well, that would scare the bejeezus out of any kid. |
Uh huh. You have kids, right? Do you pretend to your kids that you are all-knowing and infallible? Or... don't you occasionally answer their questions with "i really don't know" (often followed up with an "ask your father/mother/teacher", or "look it up" where applicable)? Are you really too afraid to admit to your children that there are some things you just don't know? How positively cowardly.
i'm not afraid to tell kids "i don't know", and i don't care how many follow up questions that elicits. You see? i'm not afraid of follow-up questions either. Shocking? Yes, i'm not afraid to have a child ask me questions! Wow!
And if i can't answer those follow-up questions, i'll say "i don't know". What a concept! If i can answer, i will. You questioned my experience with children? Well, in point of fact, i have a lot of experience with children, and it has been my experience that they both appreciate, and then later demand, to be honestly treated... not lied to. All of the kids i see regularly love the fact that when i interact with them, i always tell them lots of neat stuff and... dun dun dun... answer all their questions as honestly as i can, and they positively love it. In fact, just this weekend i had two enthralled by explaining why my telescope shows things upside down using a hunk of sticky tack to illustrate.
Do you want an example of how this would work? Try me. You play the kid, i'll play the adult. Assuming you started with the first question being the first question of the thread, this is what we have so far:
CHILD: Will i go to heaven?
ME: i don't know.
CHILD: <go ahead, insert your follow-up question here>
| Ophois wrote: |
| Additionally, telling the kid "yes" will not further this supposed abuse of millions of kids around the world, no matter how much anyone tries to say so. Those millions of kids will not hear your private conversation, and they will not be the least bit influenced by some person they will never meet. It's not like the kid will suddenly leap up and start blogging about the validity of Heaven just because mommy or daddy confirmed it. |
i did not say that telling the kid "yes" would further the abuse of other kids. i said that it would allow it to continue (or that in the case of the one kid in front of me i would be doing what the abuser wanted to continue the abuse they started). There is a difference. Saying "yes" does not cause abuse to other kids, but it does allow the abuse of those other kids to continue.
By not telling the kid "yes", i am - by definition - not allowing it to continue. i am taking the first step toward putting a stop to it.
Once the child has passed on, i will then use the story of the child's paranoid obsession to... as you put it (although not necessarily literally)... blog about the validity of terrifying children with the idea of Heaven. By doing this, i will have turned the crime done to the child into a positive thing: a rallying cry to prevent future crimes.
| Indi wrote: | ||
Again the same false dilemma. There is a third option, you know. |
Would that third option be the one I mentioned: no reply, or a clever reply that satisfies the question without stating your specific belief, or is there a different third option?
| Indi wrote: |
| You are misrepresenting what happened. You blamed me for making the child afraid, i said it wasn't me, it was religion. That is all. That is not a "rant". Furthermore, i did not blame religion for abusing the child, because the abused child did not exist at that point - i didn't blame religion for abusing the child until after you created it. So no matter which way you look at it, i did not make an "initial religious rant" before you introduced the messed up child. That claim was a lie, and you are compounding the dishonesty by selective quotation. |
Any post that has "*******" expletives in it,comes across as a rant,that was my reading and interpretation of what you wrote,so its not dishonest,just my take on what you wrote,
| truespeed wrote: |
| There is my comment,again,only you could give a child a whole back story from that one comment,a back story of an abused paranoid obsessive crackpot,all at the hands of religion. |
| Indi wrote: |
| i have explained quite clearly how i derived the situation. Oftentimes you only need "one comment" to tell you a lot about a situation. It is your fault that your "one comment" created a situation you were not prepared to deal with, not mine. |
Its not that you arrived at your conclusion,but you arrive there with great certainty,and authority and pass off your conclusion as fact.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Right there in my quote it says quite plainly: PSYCHOLOGICALLY normal and healthy. And in a previous line i explicitly said that i obviously meant psychologically normal and healthy and no physically normal and healthy because they are dying. Honestly. -_- |
I know what you meant,which is why i pointed out the fact that dying is going to affect their mental health.
| truespeed wrote: |
| ... and dying can have an affect on your mental health surprisingly
He/she is hardly going to be sat on her death bed singing "always look on the bright side of life" while all her family sing along as he/she slowly loses consciousness. |
| Indi wrote: |
|
Dying does not make one paranoid obsessive. It just doesn't. |
The only person who has this kid as a gibbering wreck based on what i wrote is you,but getting away from that,dying may not turn you into a paranoid obsessive,but it would cause you greater distress than moving house or getting divorced, surprisingly.
Nothing i can say is going to distract you from the conclusion you have reached based on my one comment,so i will try to approach it another way.
Let me give you 2 examples.
Child A: (The normal healthy one as you call him/her)
Child A is about to die,they are distressed,sobbing,frightened,afraid of what awaits them,they ask you will i go to heaven?
Child B: (The paranoid obsessive mental child who has suffered at the hands of religion)
Child B: is about to die,they are distressed,sobbing,frightened, afraid of what awaits them,they ask you will i go to heaven?
You see,they are both scared,they are both distressed,child A is just as scared as child B. Is child A a mental case?
How would you distinguish between the two? Would you cross examine them,before granting them with your non commital "I don't know"
| Indi wrote: |
|
You did change the child. i answered your question in the only rational manner, and my answer was unchallengeable, so you tried to "challenge" it by making the child psychotic. No matter how many times you deny it, or blame me for the monster child you created, the facts remain. |
So its a fact that my comment shows a child that has been abused and is a mentally unstable psychotic,paranoid obsessive all at the hands of religion?
(facts aren't facts just because you say them as fact and repeat them often and with tabloid sensationalism)
| truespeed wrote: |
| You haven't tried though,its all on your terms. |
| Indi wrote: |
|
? Of course it's on my terms. i am the one to whom the question was put. |
The question was put to you,but your doing what you want,not what the child wants,what about the rights of the child? Doesn't the child have rights? Can't the child go to heaven if he/she wants? Why take that away from them?
| truespeed wrote: |
| Atheists however don't have a God to answer to,they don't have a faith,so where is the dilemma? |
| Indi wrote: |
|
There is no dilemma. Unless the atheist is sure that there is no Heaven, there is no reason not to tell the truth: "i don't know". |
If there wasn't a dilemma you would just agree to what the child says,surely you can see that the only thing left to do for your child is to comfort them? An "I don't know" answer isn't going to comfort them.
| Indi wrote: |
|
Unless the atheist is sure that there is no Heaven |
So if you were sure there was no heaven,i take by that you mean that you would tell the child there is no heaven?
| truespeed wrote: |
| Its not that you arrived at your conclusion,but you arrive there with great certainty,and authority and pass off your conclusion as fact. |
The process is called deduction. When used properly, you are supposed to arrive at conclusions with great certainty, and those conclusions will be factual.
i notice that you have no problem arriving at conclusions like that children close to death turn into sobbing wrecks who fixate so much on the morbidity of their situation that they are inconsolable. That conclusion wasn't reached by any kind of deduction... you just state it as fact and expect me to accept it without analysis. By contrast, i explicitly outlined the process of deduction i used... you just don't like the conclusion.
| truespeed wrote: |
| I know what you meant,which is why i pointed out the fact that dying is going to affect their mental health. |
Not necessarily, and certainly not in the manner you pointed out.
Furthermore, you didn't "point out a fact". You made an assertion, which you expect me to accept uncritically. No way. Either back up your claim, or i'll go with what i know about psychology from my training, reading and personal experience, which contradicts your claim.
The actual fact is that dying does not affect a child's mental health. Very young children don't even understand the finality of death - they simply can't grasp concepts like "forever" or "never again". That's just basic child psychology. At around the age where they start going to school with other children they will start to discover the concept of death as a "scary thing" (a thing that adults fear), but still won't grasp what it actually is and what it really means. In fact, the main thing that will probably be going through their mind is that they are being punished for something they did - which has nothing to do with your question about Heaven - and they will require reassurance that death is totally natural and not their fault.
By the time a child has the mental wherewithal to understand the finality and permanency of death, they are obviously (by the fact that they understand abstract concepts like "forever") ready to be talked with on a more adult level than what you seem to think. They simply won't be the gibbering, blubbering babies you think they will be. In fact, just the opposite... you will find the child trying to protect you from suffering during their last days!!! Crazy, but absolutely true! They will try hard to put on a brave face and hide their suffering in order to spare you from suffering. Read up on it and see.
| truespeed wrote: |
| The only person who has this kid as a gibbering wreck based on what i wrote is you,but getting away from that,dying may not turn you into a paranoid obsessive,but it would cause you greater distress than moving house or getting divorced, surprisingly. |
Again, no, not necessarily.
In reality, you will probably find the opposite, because: a) divorce creates an aspect of shame in the children (are they divorcing because of me?) that being sick does not; b) the child's support structure (their parents and family) is not working properly during a divorce, whereas in a terminal case it almost certainly is, so they have less support to help them through; c) it's a lot easier for a young child to understand a parent not being around (because they have surely experienced it) than it is to understand being cut off from everyone, forever; etc.
But don't take my word for it. Go to your local hospital, and go to the kids' ward. Seek out the terminal cases, and see how many are gibbering wrecks or paranoid obsessives. You'll be surprised. Or just read about it; because you really don't know what you're talking about. Kids are a lot tougher than you seem to think.
| truespeed wrote: |
| Let me give you 2 examples.
Child A: (The normal healthy one as you call him/her) Child A is about to die,they are distressed,sobbing,frightened,afraid of what awaits them,they ask you will i go to heaven? Child B: (The paranoid obsessive mental child who has suffered at the hands of religion) Child B: is about to die,they are distressed,sobbing,frightened, afraid of what awaits them,they ask you will i go to heaven? You see,they are both scared,they are both distressed,child A is just as scared as child B. Is child A a mental case? How would you distinguish between the two? Would you cross examine them,before granting them with your non commital "I don't know" |
Simple. The first thing i would do is not "cross-examine" the child, it is what any caring person would do when confronted with someone in that state (child or not)... i would try to calm them down. i wouldn't discuss anything with someone in that state - particularly existential questions like the afterlife - i would try to help them past their hysterics. Wouldn't you?
Now, here's the thing. If the child cannot be calmed down, then it must be child B. Why? Because even if the child were genuinely concerned about the afterlife, if they were in such a state that they can't be calmed down without having their question answered, they are child B - as you defined them. Remember your definition? Well, there it is, in the flesh. If a child cannot find any happiness without having their questions answered, they are a mental case.
So there's the answer to several of your questions. Is child A a mental case? No, they're just upset... but they can be calmed down and distracted. Child B is a mental case precisely because they can't be calmed down or distracted. And, that is also how i distinguish between the two. If they are inconsolable, then it is child B. If they can be consoled, it is child A. How do i figure this out? Simply by doing the humane thing: trying to calm them down from their hysterics.
And one more thing: my "i don't know" is not non-committal. i am, in fact, completely committed to that answer. And, if the child presses, i am prepared to answer follow up questions and justify my answer. Are those who lie to the child and say "yes" prepared to do the same? Or, are they just hoping that they can answer "yes" and the child will shut up?
| truespeed wrote: |
| So its a fact that my comment shows a child that has been abused and is a mentally unstable psychotic,paranoid obsessive all at the hands of religion?
(facts aren't facts just because you say them as fact and repeat them often and with tabloid sensationalism) |
Yes, it is a fact. And i explained why. Facts are facts when they follow from other facts in a logical progression without any fallacies in it. That's how knowledge works. i explained, in great detail, exactly how and why the facts i stated follow inevitably from the facts you stated. Deal with it.
| truespeed wrote: |
| The question was put to you,but your doing what you want,not what the child wants,what about the rights of the child? Doesn't the child have rights? |
From this point on, you completely lose it and start talking absolute nonsense. i always say that it's hard to talk god or religion with most people, because as soon as you bring either of those two things into the conversation, they completely lose their minds; they just can't think rationally the moment those topics come up. i'm beginning to suspect the same is true for you and children. Observe:
First of all, i am certainly not doing what i want - i don't want to discuss Heaven with a dying child, come on. -_-; That's what you want; it was your idea. i don't want it. And within the context of the hypothetical, isn't what the child wants an honest answer to their question? In that case, i am doing what the child wants... and you are not.
And then there's this bizarre issue of rights that you bring up. Do you know what the word "rights" means? Do you know what they are? How does the child have a "right" to make me answer a question in a particular way? In what universe, under what possible conception of rights, does anyone - child or not - have a "right" to force other people to deny what they believe just to make them "feel better"? Get real.
Furthermore, in many conceptions of rights, it is a violation of a person's rights to deceive them. This follows from the idea that people should never be used as means, but only as ends. In other words, i am not violating the child's rights by telling them the truth as far as i know it... you are when you lie to the child.
| truespeed wrote: |
| Can't the child go to heaven if he/she wants? |
Why are you asking me? i don't decide who gets into Heaven.
| truespeed wrote: |
| Why take that away from them? |
What am i taking away? They asked me a question, i gave them an honest answer. If they wanted a specific answer, they should have told me to say yes no matter what i believe. Without that, the only logical thing to assume is that they want an honest answer from whoever they ask the question.
| truespeed wrote: |
| If there wasn't a dilemma you would just agree to what the child says,surely you can see that the only thing left to do for your child is to comfort them? |
Again, you're way out in la-la land here. Not one part of any of that makes any sense.
For starters, if there was no dilemma, i could tell the child whatever i felt like; i could just as easily tell the child to go jump in a lake. You see, if i didn't care at all about the child's feelings, or about the child at all, there would be no dilemma, right? Therefore, why should i feel compelled to answer them at all? There is no reason that i would automatically choose to tell the child what it wants to hear (assuming that is what you think it is) just because i don't see any dilemma here. That assertion of yours is complete bunk.
The fact that i do care about the child is why i bother to give them an honest answer. If i didn't care about the child, i would just tell them whatever they wanted to hear to shut them up... oh, wait... isn't that what you're doing? Hm.
| truespeed wrote: |
| An "I don't know" answer isn't going to comfort them. |
1.) Says you. Reality, in my experience, disagrees (unless the child is obsessed with the question, but you don't want to go down that road again).
2.) Which is why i say if they ask more questions, i'll answer them, too.
| truespeed wrote: |
| So if you were sure there was no heaven,i take by that you mean that you would tell the child there is no heaven? |
If i was sure there were no Heaven, i wouldn't be me, i would be an entirely different person - one who believes that things like that can be absolutely known - so i can't answer that question. Ask someone whose religion doesn't include Heaven.
The bottom line is that you're still trying to do what i accused you of in the beginning. You are trying to dump the responsibility for this child's misery on me (or atheists in general). That's nonsense. No one - atheist or otherwise - has a moral obligation to comfort anyone; we just do it because we're nice. And whether we are able to actually do it successfully or not, we deserve praise for making the effort, not blame for failing - which you seem to want to dump on us - and certainly not blame for not violating ourselves to do it the way you want it done. The blame for the child's suffering falls on the shoulders of those who caused it - not those who are trying to fix it - and you know exactly who that is.
Frankly, even if the person the child asked just shrugged and walked away, they would still not be morally blameworthy. They wouldn't be morally praiseworthy, but that's their choice. The only ones who deserves blame for any of this, is the one who caused the child to be scared or miserable in the first place.
Related topics
 |