Has anyone used "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist?

[pjssully]

XPOST

 

 

Hi,

I am considering using "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist" both the book and the curriculum-which is like a workbook.  Has anyone used this?  If so, what were the ages of your children.  I want my 13 year olds to start this, or maybe use it next year for 8th grade.  Is this an appropriate age for the curriculum?(workbook?)

 

Thanks

pam

 

 

[Slache]

NVM. I had the wrong author. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

You might check to see if your public library has it so that you can take a look.   Ours does and I'm waiting in line to get it on hold.  The reviews seem to be focused toward an adult audience.  

[JDoe]

I just looked at this book - I hadn't heard of it before.

 

It looks pretty weird.

 

I am an atheist, and it takes me zero faith to be one. It isn't a belief system, you see...it's the absence of a belief system. 

 

But I guess you're not looking for insight into atheism, huh ? :)

 

That is not actually quite correct, in order to be an atheist you must believe the statement "No god exist" to be true. Given the obvious lack of evidence to prove the statement, a certain amount of "faith" is required.

 

Now however, most folks that refer to themselves as atheists are actually very sceptical agnostics, that basically are saying "Given the (lack of) evidence, I find the probability of the existence of any god to be extremely small, however it is not quite 0%. Now, could both those that maintain "God exist" and those that maintain "No god exist" please lay out their evidence?".

 

Admittedly, they often only request proof from those that maintain that some god do exist, but this is in conformity to Russel's teapot (as well as their personal inclinations)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

 

It should also be noted that many/most religious folks fall into the same agnostic category, but on the other end of the spectrum, that is the credulous agnostics, that basically are saying "Given the evidence, I find the probability of the existence of my God to be extremely high, however it is not quite 100%.

[albeto.]

That is not actually quite correct, in order to be an atheist you must believe the statement "No god exist" to be true. Given the obvious lack of evidence to prove the statement, a certain amount of "faith" is required.

 

Now however, most folks that refer to themselves as atheists are actually very sceptical agnostics, that basically are saying "Given the (lack of) evidence, I find the probability of the existence of any god to be extremely small, however it is not quite 0%. Now, could both those that maintain "God exist" and those that maintain "No god exist" please lay out their evidence?".

 

Admittedly, they often only request proof from those that maintain that some god do exist, but this is in conformity to Russel's teapot (as well as their personal inclinations)

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot

 

It should also be noted that many/most religious folks fall into the same agnostic category, but on the other end of the spectrum, that is the credulous agnostics, that basically are saying "Given the evidence, I find the probability of the existence of my God to be extremely high, however it is not quite 100%.

Sadie's right. Atheism isn't a positive belief ("I believe this statement to be true"). It is simply a lack of faith in a god or gods.

 

Therefore, it requires no faith to be atheist. It requires no faith to lack faith in god/s.

[Rosie_0801]

I don't see how it requires any faith to accept what appears to you to be obvious, whether that is a belief in a god or no belief in a god.

[JDoe]

No, you're wrong. And it's kinda rude to teach atheists to suck eggs. I know what I require and what I don't - no belief is involved.

 

 

Sadie's right. Atheism isn't a positive belief ("I believe this statement to be true"). It is simply a lack of faith in a god or gods.

 

Therefore, it requires no faith to be atheist. It requires no faith to lack faith in god/s.

 

 

Classic case of equivocation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

 

Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities. In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

 

 

I have used the word Atheist clearly in the narrow sense of the word, whereas your rejection of my point is based on the broad sense of the word.

[albeto.]

Classic case of equivocation

Equivocation? I'm using the word as defined by the root and suffix. A = lack of. Theism = belief in god/s.

 

 

I have used the word Atheist clearly in the narrow sense of the word, whereas your rejection of my point is based on the broad sense of the word.

Okay, so what faith does the atheist have, precisely? What confidence or trust in a being, object, living organism, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion assures an atheist there is no being, object, living organism, deity, view or doctrines or teachings that exists?

[JDoe]

Equivocation? I'm using the word as defined by the root and suffix. A = lack of. Theism = belief in god/s.

 

 

Okay, so what faith does the atheist have, precisely? What confidence or trust in a being, object, living organism, deity, view, or in the doctrines or teachings of a religion assures an atheist there is no being, object, living organism, deity, view or doctrines or teachings that exists?

 

Equivocation happens when you use the word atheist in one sense, and I used the word in another sense. Thus we are talking about to different terms.

 

In YOUR use of the word you require nothing but a knowledge of yourselves. Of course the problem with your rejection of my statements is that I never have said anything about you, or any other persons that consider themselves as atheists (your term), as persons anywhere.

[JDoe]

It doesn't mean anything other than 'lack of belief in gods'. I don't know what other 'sense' there is to use it. It literally means what it means - see albeto's post above.

 

"It" does not mean anything, it is the person that uses the word that means something with his or her use of a word. 

[albeto.]

Equivocation happens when you use the word atheist in one sense, and I used the word in another sense. Thus we are talking about to different terms.

 

Equivocation happens when one uses an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading. I'm not using two senses of the word, I'm using the traditional, etymological meaning of the word - lack of faith. Your definition, a faith that no gods exist, is problematic for practical reasons.

 

In YOUR use of the word you require nothing but a knowledge of yourselves.

 

You lost me here. What do you mean you require nothing but a knowledge of yourself? Is this a philosophical argument (I ask because I'm really quite ignorant about philosophy, so you'll have to fill me in ^_^)?

 

Of course the problem with your rejection of my statements is that I never have said anything about you, or any other persons that consider themselves as atheists (your term), as persons anywhere.

 

I reject your claim that one requires faith in one thing to lack faith in another. My question is faith in what? From where does this faith derive? Or maybe I should ask, how are you defining "faith"? I understand it as a belief that something is true despite a lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary (example).

[albeto.]

"It" does not mean anything, it is the person that uses the word that means something with his or her use of a word. 

 

Are you suggesting definitions are relative?

[JDoe]

Well, when I use the word, I use it to mean what the word literally means. As does every other atheist I know.

 

a-the-ist

 

a- negation, absence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privative_a

 

the, from Greek Î¸ÎµÏŒÏ‚ god

 

-ist person http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-ist

 

No-god-person

 

The "literal" meaning thus does not exclude either.

 

Signed

 

an atheist (your term)

[JDoe]

Equivocation happens when one uses an ambiguous term in more than one sense, thus making an argument misleading. I'm not using two senses of the word, I'm using the traditional, etymological meaning of the word - lack of faith. Your definition, a faith that no gods exist, is problematic for practical reasons.

 

You lost me here. What do you mean you require nothing but a knowledge of yourself? Is this a philosophical argument (I ask because I'm really quite ignorant about philosophy, so you'll have to fill me in ^_^)?

 

 

I reject your claim that one requires faith in one thing to lack faith in another. My question is faith in what? From where does this faith derive? Or maybe I should ask, how are you defining "faith"? I understand it as a belief that something is true despite a lack of evidence, or evidence to the contrary (example).

 

1. Equivocation does not require that it be the same individual that uses the word in two different meanings, only that the word is used in two differing meanings

 

1570s, from French athéiste (16c.), from Greek atheos "without god, denying the gods; abandoned of the gods; godless, ungodly," from a- "without" + theos "a god" (see theo-).

 

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=atheist

 

My term may be problematic, but that does not make it invalid.

 

 

2. Your term do not make any reference to the gods, it makes only reference to the individual person and that persons lack of belief. Thus the existence or not of any god is of absolutely no relevance, as your term do not concern itself with the gods, only about the person.

 

To take an example, the aplatypusist is the person that does not believe that platypuses exist. The actual existence, or not, of any platypus is completely irrelevant to the the label aplatypusist being accurate as a description of the person that do not believe in platypuses.

 

 

 

Of course confronting the aplatypusist with a live platypus might very well lead to a conversion, if any such animal really do exist. But that would be irrelevant to the current label as aplatypusist, it would only entail that the prefix a- would have to be removed after the conversion (or remain if it fails to produce any belief in platypuses)

 

 

Alternatively I could, when I refer to an aplatypusist refer to a person that claims that no such thing as a platypus does exist, in which case the individual is concerned with outside reality, not the state of his own mind.

 

 

3. I fail to grasp your exact meaning, but I suspect it is a continuation of the equivocation.

[Excelsior! Academy]

This is a post asking about a certain curriculum.  Even if you don't agree with that curriculum you probably shouldn't post unless you are prepared to answer the OP.

[Pen]

No, but I am having trouble with the title -- other than being cute and catchy.  What is the point?

 

I guess there are different forms that atheism can take, but often it is something like a relation to religion along the lines of someone who does not collect stamps has to stamp collecting.  There isn't any faith going on in not believing in something, just as there is usually no active belief going on in not participating in stamp collecting. It just is not a part of that person's life.  Most atheists I know are in this category.

 

Though I also know some who are more actively anti-faith in God and actually actively involved in not being  a believer in God.

[Pen]

This is a post asking about a certain curriculum.  Even if you don't agree with that curriculum you probably shouldn't post unless you are prepared to answer the OP.

 

True, but the author of the material seems to have chosen a title deliberately to provoke such thoughts and discussion.

[albeto.]

.

 

 

[JDoe]

Are you suggesting definitions are relative?

 

No. I am suggesting that words may have more than one meaning, and that it is the user of the word that determines which meaning he is using a specific word in.

 

In other words, you may NOT determine what I mean by using the word "atheist" any more that I may determine what you mean when you use the word "atheist", given that the word has various possible meanings. Thus when we pick different meaning we are no longer speaking about the same thing, despite using the same word.

 

You are talking about minds, I am talking about gods (and I believe the author of the book also is talking about gods, well most likely one particular god, otherwise the book title would be complete and utter nonsense).

[BrookValley.]

No. I am suggesting that words may have more than one meaning, and that it is the user of the word that determines which meaning he is using a specific word in.

 

In other words, you may NOT determine what I mean by using the word "atheist" any more that I may determine what you mean when you use the word "atheist", given that the word has various possible meanings. Thus when we pick different meaning we are no longer speaking about the same thing, despite using the same word.

 

You are talking about minds, I am talking about gods (and I believe the author of the book also is talking about gods, well most likely one particular god, otherwise the book title would be complete and utter nonsense).

 

Then where do you get the justification for telling Sadie, an atheist, that she is not correct about what it means "in order to be an atheist?" 

[sassenach]

This is a post asking about a certain curriculum. Even if you don't agree with that curriculum you probably shouldn't post unless you are prepared to answer the OP.

Oh, but that would require respect and self-control. Something I've never seen happen in a thread with the word atheism (or a whole host of other topics) in the title.

[Pen]

Oh, but that would require respect and self-control. Something I've never seen happen in a thread with the word atheism (or a whole host of other topics) in the title.

 

 

My head has been spinning from some of the definition arguments here, but I am not really seeing a lack of respect or self control.

 

The thread title and the book / curriculum title are both inviting this sort of discussion, so far as I can tell.

 

I do not know why the OP is interested in this curriculum, but I have a ds of same age as she has. 

 

I would not be inclined to have my ds read this sort of book, do this sort of curriculum for any number of reasons, including that the title itself (though clever) appears to have a straw-man argument built in, and I would assume that other logic in it would also be faulty. An assumption that the various negative comments I saw on Amazon seem to say is justified.

 

What would be the reason for it as a curriculum for a 13 year old?

 

To try to convince an atheist child to believe or convert to Christianity? 

To try to give a Christian child arguments to use with others  who are not believers? 

 

Or?

[JoJosMom]

This is a post asking about a certain curriculum.  Even if you don't agree with that curriculum you probably shouldn't post unless you are prepared to answer the OP.

 

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Really, no offense to Captain Obvious. I'm just at a loss to understand how others could have missed the point of the post.

 

 

No, but I am having trouble with the title -- other than being cute and catchy.  What is the point?

 

 

Um, it's the NAME OF THE CURRICULUM that the OP is ASKING ABOUT.  There. Does that help? Bless your heart.

 

 

 

Jeez. If all of our prolific-posting atheists are so sure there's no "flying spaghetti monster," why are they so hysterical whenever someone posts something that might, GASP, disagree?

 

For pete's sake, why can't you leave the thread for people who have actually used the curriculum and those of us who are interested in the users' thoughts?

[sassenach]

My head has been spinning from some of the definition arguments here, but I am not really seeing a lack of respect or self control.

 

The thread title and the book / curriculum title are both inviting this sort of discussion, so far as I can tell.

 

I do not know why the OP is interested in this curriculum, but I have a ds of same age as she has.

 

I would not be inclined to have my ds read this sort of book, do this sort of curriculum for any number of reasons, including that the title itself (though clever) appears to have a straw-man argument built in, and I would assume that other logic in it would also be faulty. An assumption that the various negative comments I saw on Amazon seem to say is justified.

 

What would be the reason for it as a curriculum for a 13 year old?

 

To try to convince an atheist child to believe or convert to Christianity?

To try to give a Christian child arguments to use with others who are not believers?

 

Or?

If someone posted asking for opinions about a clearly secular/evolutionist curriculum, as often happens around here, I show self-control and respect by holding my tongue about my own beliefs (or my opinion about their beliefs) and allowing them the space to get the info they're looking for without having to wade through my opposing opinion.

That's a courtesy that seems to be regularly absent around here.

[rmtzc2009]

Hi OP.  Sorry your thread has been derailed. I have no personal experience with the book.  Below is a link to many reviews.  Hopefully you'll find it helpful.

 

 http://schoolhousereviewcrew.com/apologia-i-dont-have-enough-faith-to-be-an-atheist/

[Roadrunner]

nm

[JDoe]

Then where do you get the justification for telling Sadie, an atheist, that she is not correct about what it means "in order to be an atheist?" 

 

I mistakenly believed that she was using the word atheist with the same meaning that the author of the book seems to be using the word atheist. 

 

Once it became clear to me that she was using the word in one meaning (certain states of human minds), while the author (and I) was using the word in a different meaning (regarding the existence of gods), I did point out the problem (equivocation).

 

I have not made any claim about her being wrong in her use of the word atheist, only that it is possible to use the word with meanings that differ from hers.

[BrookValley.]

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Really, no offense to Captain Obvious. I'm just at a loss to understand how others could have missed the point of the post.

 

 

 

Um, it's the NAME OF THE CURRICULUM that the OP is ASKING ABOUT.  There. Does that help? Bless your heart.

 

 

 

Jeez. If all of our prolific-posting atheists are so sure there's no "flying spaghetti monster," why are they so hysterical whenever someone posts something that might, GASP, disagree?

 

For pete's sake, why can't you leave the thread for people who have actually used the curriculum and those of us who are interested in the users' thoughts?

 

Where does anyone get hysterical because people disagree? I don't see anyone caring one way or another what anyone believes or doesn't believe in this thread. This is not a believer vs. unbeliever topic, nor has anyone made it into such, until perhaps your comment. The thread was derailed over an unrelated discussion of the definition of atheist (and for that, OP, I am sorry. That's not exactly fair). Others have expressed interest over the title and content of the curriculum, asked for more information as to why the OP is interested in the curriculum, etc. Some have expressed interest in the logic behind the book. Why wouldn't that be fair game as part of the discussion, on a homeschooling board dedicated to classical education?

 

OP, I hope your thread can get back on topic. I think the discussion about the book has been interesting. I'm reading through excerpts and whatnot now.

[TracyP]

If someone posted asking for opinions about a clearly secular/evolutionist curriculum, as often happens around here, I show self-control and respect by holding my tongue about my own beliefs (or my opinion about their beliefs) and allowing them the space to get the info they're looking for without having to wade through my opposing opinion.

That's a courtesy that seems to be regularly absent around here.

 

I don't know. I think the reason you (and others) hold your tongue is because there is nothing to say. (Your super self-control and respect weren't enough to stop you from posting a comment completely unrelated to the OP, right? ;) ) The only time that posters jump in is when a book is actually teaching something untrue. For example, if someone was wondering if anybody had ever used My IQ Is Too High To Be a Christian*, I would expect some posters to jump in and mention that IQ had diddly squat to do with their decision to follow Christ. The title would be misleading and offensive, no doubt intentionally.

 

This is no different, IMO. It is only fair that the OP understands that an atheist does not need faith to be an atheist. (No clue why JDoe felt the need to tell Sadie she was wrong - that did derail the thread...) So we have a book title that was worded to be misleading and offensive. One can only assume that the contents get even worse. It seems sensible for someone to point out this book will not actually shed any light on an atheist's position. Just from the title it looks like this book will be setting up straw men and belittling views other than their own. (I just looked - even the 5 star reviews on Amazon confirm this) I have never gotten into apologetics; maybe this is normal :confused: . But I would look elsewhere to understand my faith and the faith or non faith of other people.

 

*not a real book

[JDoe]

I have had a quick look into the content.

 

It is obviously aimed at Christians as a "How to deal with Atheists"-manual. 

 

It seems to be fairly well written, and has obviously been written by someone that has studied logic, and as such it might be very effective when dealing with atheists that have not studied logic. 

 

The major flaw I suspect it has is that the author does not seem to have an accurate conception of what "truth" is, but then again most people do not.

 

Interesting book, presents arguments and refutations, where the Christian side always wins. Of course, the material could perfectly well be used by atheists by pointing out the mistakes in the reasoning in the book, but that would require a little extra work and a reasonable understanding of logic, fallacies and science. 

 

It does however bring up some of the more interesting points of controversy where I do not believe that a peek at the other side would do any harm (thus the book could be used by atheists for a peek at the other side, the usefulness of the book as a peek at the other side for christians is somewhat more doubtful given the lack of neutrality and what I perceive to be a "this is how you win the argument" style.)

 

The convinced Christians might benefit from some Atheist book pointing out the problems with their faith such as Why There Is No God: Simple Responses to 20 Common Arguments for the Existence of God or God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist

 

Any well rounded study of this subject could do well by including the best possible argument from both sides, but most folks will only wish to have their own views confirmed.

[mama27]

True, but the author of the material seems to have chosen a title deliberately to provoke such thoughts and discussion.

As shocking as this may sound I think the OP was really asking for opinions from people who have actually used or thought about using this book.

 

To the OP I don't know if you've been on these boards long ( I didn't look to see if how many posts you've written) but I don't think you will get a decent answer here. All you'll get is what you've already gotten, people trying to attack you for YOUR faith and doing their best to convince you how wrong and terrible you are. Try another board.

I haven't used the book but I have heard of it, sorry I can't be of more help.

[mama27]

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Really, no offense to Captain Obvious. I'm just at a loss to understand how others could have missed the point of the post.

 

 

 

Um, it's the NAME OF THE CURRICULUM that the OP is ASKING ABOUT.  There. Does that help? Bless your heart.

 

 

 

Jeez. If all of our prolific-posting atheists are so sure there's no "flying spaghetti monster," why are they so hysterical whenever someone posts something that might, GASP, disagree?

 

For pete's sake, why can't you leave the thread for people who have actually used the curriculum and those of us who are interested in the users' thoughts?

 

 

That's just the way they roll around here.

[BrookValley.]

Oh good grief.

 

No one is attacking anyone over their faith. Did you read the thread?

 

OP, this is a great place to ask questions and get a wide range of responses, often from a lot of very intelligent, respectful folks (of all faiths or lack thereof) who put a decent amount of thought and effort in responding to people's posts. I hope you don't "find another board." 

[Pen]

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Really, no offense to Captain Obvious. I'm just at a loss to understand how others could have missed the point of the post.

 

 

 

Um, it's the NAME OF THE CURRICULUM that the OP is ASKING ABOUT.  There. Does that help? Bless your heart.

 

 

 

Jeez. If all of our prolific-posting atheists are so sure there's no "flying spaghetti monster," why are they so hysterical whenever someone posts something that might, GASP, disagree?

 

For pete's sake, why can't you leave the thread for people who have actually used the curriculum and those of us who are interested in the users' thoughts?

 

I am not an atheist.  I am sympathetic to atheism and do not like to see it misrepresented. I do not feel at all hysterical -- though your post sounds a bit hysterical to me.

 

I did not mean what was the OP's point with regard to the title. I meant what is the book/curriculum authors' point.

 

Let me use an analogy, if someone asked about a math book about fractions with a title something like  0/0 = 0     at first glance, the title clearly has a mathematical error and misunderstanding, just as the title of the curriculum/book in question has an error and misunderstanding built in.  

 

But I could ask, "what's the point" because maybe there is something that the author is trying to say that goes beyond the error--that is maybe the author knows it is an error and is going to make a point of that somehow.  Otherwise, I could and would comment that even not having used the curriculum, I'd be wary of a book that has an error right in the title. And I would feel that so posting is reasonable, because maybe the OP would not know that 0/0 = 0 is not correct.  Even if it were a Christian Math curriculum I don't think it would be wrong to mention the title error, because I would not assume a Christian parent wants to have a poor math book for her children. In fact, I think if I just assumed that Christian parents don't care about math accuracy --that they are doing a special Christian Math and not regular Math Math, that that would be far more disrespectful.

 

Additionally, however, I did not know at first from the title of either the thread or the curriculum that it was a book/curriculum about what seems to be dubbed "Christian apologetics"--I had at first actually thought it was supposed to be explaining Atheism--and so, that seemed even more a reason to point out that the title does not accurately portray atheism.

 

I think having accurate math without regard to religious belief is important. I also think having accurate logic without regard to religious belief is important.  Isn't this the Logic Stage forum?

 

Also, from what I saw of other posts from the OP, a lot of what she seemed to be using or considering for her sons has seemed similar to my own choices, so my guess is that even if they are more much strongly religious than I am, they probably want something that will have correct logic.

 

Though maybe not. I guess if OP wants poor logic for whatever reason, she could state that.

 

 

 

I would be interested in knowing what the OP actually is looking for in such a curriculum.

 

I also would be interested in the thoughts of someone who has actually used the curriculum, but haven't seen any such so far.

[JDoe]

 

 

Though maybe not. I guess if OP wants poor logic for whatever reason, she could state that.

 

 

 

 

From what I have seen the logic seem to be fairly good, although I believe some of the premises may be a little dubious, and the agnostic alternative is not very well dealt with, nor is the flying spagetti monster (the case that even if there is a god it is unlikely that that god coincide with anything believed in today, the god may even be evil for that matter). 

 

I would actually consider using this thing, together with an atheist apologetics arguing that there is no god, as material for the study of logic and argumentation. ;)

 

On the other hand, I am not overly keen on spending much time on religion, so if I find other material with diametrically opposed positions argued for logically and persuasively I may end up going with something else. Global warming is one option, capitalism vs socialism another, but those are way more complex and I am less of an agnostic in those issues.

[Pen]

 

 

I would actually consider using this thing, together with an atheist apologetics arguing that there is no god, as material for the study of logic and argumentation. ;)

 

 

 

 

That is an interesting idea.  

 

I do not personally believe that either the existence of god(s) or the existence of no god(s) can be logically proven.

 

But if you do this as a course, I'd be interested in knowing if it seems successful as a way to study logic and argumentation.

 

Personally, I think doing that with global warming sounds more interesting.

 

I don't understand the point you are making about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  I thought it was the "deity" of "Pastafarianism," a sort of spoof religion as I understand it.  (I might like to be a Pastafarian, but have gluten intolerance, causing some of its special foods and the celebration of Holiday to be a bit difficult, beyond saying Happy Holidays, which I did back even before the Flying Spaghetti Monster's (mental) conception.)

 

When I spoke of logical problems, I included in my own mind the idea that false premises are not logical. But I believe that technically you are correct and a logical argument built on false premises is considered to be good logic.  

 

 

 

[JDoe]

I don't understand the point you are making about the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  I thought it was the "deity" of "Pastafarianism," a sort of spoof religion as I understand it.  (I might like to be a Pastafarian, but have gluten intolerance, causing some of its special foods and the celebration of Holiday to be a bit difficult, beyond saying Happy Holidays, which I did back even before the Flying Spaghetti Monster's (mental) conception.)

 

When I spoke of logical problems, I included in my own mind the idea that false premises are not logical. But I believe that technically you are correct and a logical argument built on false premises is considered to be good logic.  

 

FSM was just a reference to that if there is a god, or gods, those may not be any of the known gods described in the various religions in existence today. It may even be an utterly evil creature for what we know.

 

 

False premises would not invalidate the logic of the argument, but would invalidate the argument itself. The argument would no longer be sound, as soundness requires both true premisses and valid logic.

 

The advantage of using religion for the study of argumentation, is that it is less likely to be solved in the foreseeable future, whereas climate science will eventually mature or at least has the potential to do so.

[charlotteb]

My son (12th grade) and I are doing this curriculum.  We both really like it! It is a very deep course, so I would recommend it for older kids. MY DS dislikes the workbook but enjoys the reading book.  He thinks the workbook is too ardorous (sp?).   I would recommend this currciculum for any child before they graduate!

[Saddlemomma]

Thank you, Captain Obvious. Really, no offense to Captain Obvious. I'm just at a loss to understand how others could have missed the point of the post.

 

 

 

Um, it's the NAME OF THE CURRICULUM that the OP is ASKING ABOUT. There. Does that help? Bless your heart.

 

 

 

 

 

Jeez. If all of our prolific-posting atheists are so sure there's no "flying spaghetti monster," why are they so hysterical whenever someone posts something that might, GASP, disagree?

 

For pete's sake, why can't you leave the thread for people who have actually used the curriculum and those of us who are interested in the users' thoughts?

Can't like this post enough! That said...

 

The curriculum in question is an apologetics course for Christians to help them be able to defend their faith and/or answer questions about their faith in a reasonable way. I've also been looking into using it.

[Pen]

FSM was just a reference to that if there is a god, or gods, those may not be any of the known gods described in the various religions in existence today. It may even be an utterly evil creature for what we know.

 

 

False premises would not invalidate the logic of the argument, but would invalidate the argument itself. The argument would no longer be sound, as soundness requires both true premisses and valid logic.

 

The advantage of using religion for the study of argumentation, is that it is less likely to be solved in the foreseeable future, whereas climate science will eventually mature or at least has the potential to do so.

 

 

I guess I did not see the FSM ref.   I did see things like University defined as being Unity plus Diversity ... or something like that... but that does not seem to be either the current dictionary meaning nor the derivation of the word.

 

I gather the goal of book is too prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists? Or did I misunderstand that?  

 

What is the proof offered?

 

Other than that the world exists, and if one defines God as the Creator then the world should be proof  by virtue of the definition. Though that should not take a whole book.     ?????

[Jean in Newcastle]

The book is an apologetic.  As such it makes arguments for the Christian faith.  It is not trying to trick anyone - it is upfront in this.  It tries to do this in light of what the authors see as some common arguments against Christianity that are made by atheists.  I don't know if they are correct in how they state these arguments or where they get them from (ie. if they've cut and pasted them from different arguments that actual atheists have made or if they made up what they think might be arguments that an atheist might make).  Since Atheism isn't a set religion with a creed (or a religion at all) then I assume that there might be some variation in arguments out there that they might pick from.  I have not gotten the book from the library yet so I'm not saying this from having read it, btw.  As I said in the other thread on the chat board, this book is primarily written for Christians who want to examine their own faith by looking at it in light of different perspectives.  Some people are interested in having kids look at a book of this sort so that they can examine their faith by looking at it in light of different perspectives.  I don't think it is written to try and target atheists though I suppose if an atheist was searching for some answers from the perspective of the Bible they might want to look at a book like this.  Obviously many atheists won't be impressed by their arguments.  The reviews I read said that the book has fairly logical arguments (from a Christian perspective) but it is going to start with some presuppositions that are not normally shared by someone who is not a Christian.  The reviews also said that the book was a bit snarky in spots though I don't think their overall purpose is to be disrespectful even while their objective is to refute atheist arguments.  This book was not written by people who are searching for answers and are giving equal weight to each side.  Again - that is not it's purpose.   

[JenninMN]

I've read the book.  My daughter read it in 12th grade, I believe.  I wouldn't have tried it with any of my children at 13.  I would save it for late high school.  I haven't seen the workbook.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Jean, the title is snarky. I would have chosen another title if I didn't want to convey disdain for atheists. I can't imagine that the fair and accurate representation of atheist thought gets much better inside, given the premise.

 

I don't educate my kids on atheism by giving them books that convey disdain for Christians. I would like to think Christians would return the favour.

I understand that.  

[Pen]

Jean, the title is snarky. I would have chosen another title if I didn't want to convey disdain for atheists. I can't imagine that the fair and accurate representation of atheist thought gets much better inside, given the premise.

 

I don't educate my kids on atheism by giving them books that convey disdain for Christians. I would like to think Christians would return the favour.

 

 

Do you actively educate them on atheism at all?

 

That is more what the look inside parts of the book made me think he (wrongly for most atheists I know) thinks (or at least implies by title and other words)...that there is some sort of active atheism faith with atheism lessons, perhaps something akin to atheism religious education...   and while I am sure there must be in such a populated world some people for whom that is true, I do not know them, I guess.

 

Sort of like he portrays what goes on in higher education as teaching that everything is "relative"--maybe that was something that he experienced, but it was certainly not true of my experience.

 

I was not sure that it was disdainful so much as just trying to be catchy while at the same time not true for most atheists. Does it feel like a major put down?  

 

To me it seemed more like just a wrong title, like 0/0 = 0 would be wrong, but not as much a dis as someone else's suggestion of a comparable title that went something like (can't see that post now) "I'm too smart to be a Christian"...   but I'm not sure...   maybe I'm Christian enough to really feel the sting of the "I'm too smart to be a ___ " and not quite atheist enough to feel the sting of "I don't have enough faith...."    Actually, once I realized it was a Christian apologetics, I thought he was going to make the "wager argument", where if one is not absolutely sure there is no god, then one should believe just in case there is.  This would seem to suit the title, but at least in the parts I saw, that did not seem to be the direction he was headed.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Well, if I ever write a book on the topic (highly unlikely!) I would choose a different title.  I have a hold on the book because I am working through some questions of my own and hope that this book might have some insights - not because they have anything specific to do with atheism but because I think the thrust of this book might cover those sorts of questions.  I thought the book was in but instead it was the picture books I ordered on wombats!   :D   So I still haven't gotten a copy of the book to look at, let alone read.  

[Χά�ων]

Do you actively educate them on atheism at all?

 

 

I am not Sadie and I do not really classify myself as anything. I am a bit confused and intrigued. Teaching atheism seems so odd to me. I cannot explain why. I have friends of all faiths and many provide instruction in their faith and, if their faith is not Christianity, provide a basic understanding and over view of Christianity. I cannot think of anyone who teaches atheism. I am really fascinated by the idea, though. I cannot wrap my head around it though. Maybe I only know odd atheists and it is the norm. 

 

I am going to go and obsess over this now...

[JDoe]

 

I gather the goal of book is too prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists? Or did I misunderstand that?  

 

What is the proof offered?

 

 

 

I do not have that impression, it does not seem to attempt any such proof. 

 

What it does is try to pick apart a number of arguments against the existence of the Christian God. It could be said to be an intellectual self-defense (or attack) manual for Christians of sort, and I think it probably delivers decent arguments which might work in many situations, however it is far from a waterproof case.

[Χά�ων]

There's nothing to teach. It's not like there's an atheist catechism or holy book. It kind of gets back to my original beef with the premise of the book - dealing with atheism through a paradigm of faith. It's another thing, not an alternate religion.

I just want to make sure I wasn't missing some super secret atheist curriculum or something.

[albeto.]

I just want to make sure I wasn't missing some super secret atheist curriculum or something.

 

I was going to make a joke about ever having watched Bill Nye the Science Guy, or read a quote by Carl Sagan, or accepted how scientists learned the earth revolves around the sun that you had been using super, not-so-secret atheist curriculum, but it really is a serious argument put forth by the author, and one the OP is genuinely looking for advice about. So I'll treat it seriously.

 

To the OP...

 

I can understand if your goal is to help your children maintain their religious beliefs in a world that is increasingly rejecting religious explanations. I can understand if this feels frightening and dangerous to you. I do not think this book will solve your problems. I do think it's more likely to increase these problems by giving your child false hope. That hope is the idea that religious beliefs can be explained through logical arguments and rational, critical thinking. I do recognize others use it and like it. I suspect there are more who have the opposite experience, and if the current trends are considered, things like this are having an effect opposite to the intended one.

 

The problem with this book (and others like it) as I see it is that in reality, religious beliefs are held in contrast to logical arguments and rational thinking. It's called faith for a reason. If there was evidence, faith would not be necessary. It certainly wouldn't be a virtue. To hide this from a child is to potentially set them up for a greater fall later on. If I had my 'druthers, I'd share with you why this book is such a trap, but I know that's not allowed here, and I know you're looking for validation and are likely to dismiss arguments against your goal. This is not a personal attack, but rather a comment on human behavior in general. I can, however, share my experience in watching people come to the conclusion that the answers given by their religious instructors is much like the emotional/intellectual equivalent to arming a soldier with toy guns. The feeling of vulnerability and betrayal can be severe, and I'd want you to avoid setting your child up for that, but I'll settle with letting you know this happens, and often, and sadly, with otherwise avoidable consequences.

[JDoe]

I can, however, share my experience in watching people come to the conclusion that the answers given by their religious instructors is much like the emotional/intellectual equivalent to arming a soldier with toy guns. The feeling of vulnerability and betrayal can be severe, and I'd want you to avoid setting your child up for that, but I'll settle with letting you know this happens, and often, and sadly, with otherwise avoidable consequences.

 

This seems to me to potentially be an important consideration. While the book does make well structured arguments to support their conclusions, it can easily be torn to pieces by attacking their premisses.

 

What IS useful in this book are some ways of thinking and arguing (techniques) which are used with respect to the subject of the existence of God, however these same tools may be better acquired, in my view, my studying logic and rhetoric independently of the subject matter. The student would then be better equipped to argue for their own beliefs, instead of parroting back a indoctrinated response.