"My parents didn't impose a religious view on me...

i dont think thats an answer to the question i asked

A child has no concept of ideology, how it operates, or how to properly critique one. It's an oxymoron to want to raise a skeptic, children have no grounding.

>It's an oxymoron to want to raise a skeptic, children have no grounding
Thats why YOU teach them to be skeptical

>Remember Billy, everything everyone ever told you is a lie, including what I'm telling you right now. Now have a good day at school! We love you (or maybe we really don't)!
You see how this might cause trouble?

The obvious solution is to raise your children to be egoists.

>Hey Dad, at school today another kid told me that god is real, is that true?
>Well son, why dont you read up on it yourself and form your own opinion. Feel free to come ask me for help if there is anything you dont understand

The fucking horror

>Even a taught absence of interest promotes a particular agenda.
And what that agenda might be senpai?

>Skepticism is thinking everything is a lie
desu baka senpai

Voluntary egoists, to be specific. None of this Randian bullshit.

>Hey dad, my teacher told me that every man was born equal today, is that true?
>Well son, why don't you read the past 3000 years of recorded history and every ideology and religious document that has ever argued for this type of belief and decide for yourself. Feel free to come ask for help if there is anything you don't understand.
A child has NO GROUNDING. Children have no concept of "God", "truth", "reality" as opposed to fiction. If you want to raise a child independent from ideology, you have to raise him independently of humanity.

If you truly wanted to raise a skeptic, you would be unable to teach them any sense of objective truth, therefore anything and everything may in fact be a lie.

There is indeed a difference between exposing a child to a particular ideology and tyrannically enforcing it, but in my opinion, since children are far more likely to give up an ideology they were raised with than adopt a different one, not giving a child certain values is in fact more likely to deny them a choice about whether they want to hold those values. Therefore if people really wanted to provide their child with choices they would give them a baseline at least, and not just teach them nothing - that encourages them not to make any choices at all.

It's a barely disguised christard bitchfest thread where they complain that secular people are raising their children without the religious values that said christards prefer.

AND THEYRE PRO ABORTION!!!1

>being irreligious is a religious view

Nope, it's arguing against the dishonest claim that this is somehow not passing on an ideology to a child.

You've said it yourself; in raising a child without religious values, you're raising them with secular values. That's still a religious stance despite what Is memeing at, just like how not caring about tennis is still having an opinion on tennis.

> "My parents did impose a religious view on me, they're close-minded and intolerant and would DARE indoctrinate a child!"
> "It's impossible to not impose a certain religious or political view on your child. Even a taught absence of interest promotes a particular agenda. You're indoctrinating your children no matter what you teach them; indoctrination is equivalent to education."

This is a dishonest argument used by reactionaries who have a vested interest in wearing away a particular culture and want to veil their dishonest goals behind a veil of inevitability. A value set is passed on, and even if you genuinely believe that no one has freedom, that's indoctrinating them in a worldview.

Kek

I tell my child what I believe, and I tell him what others believe. He is free to believe as he likes.
I teach my son the reality of subjectivity.
This certainly leads to disagreements, but it is worth it in the long run.

>not caring about tennis is still having an opinion on tennis
>not collecting stamps is a hobby
How do you remember to breathe?

Meh. My parents didn't impose any ideologies on me really, my sister became a massive neoliberal when she grew up, my other sister doesn't give a shit about anything and I am a social democrat.

My father is a communist and my mother is a soft neoliberal. They never talked about politics or ideology at all when we were kids. The source for your political ideas doesn't have to be your parents, and as a parent it is entirely possible to not impose any views on your kids. Your kids will get their views for somewhere, but it doesn't have to be (you)

ideology =/= activity friendo

The only way not having an opinion about something can even happen is if that something doesn't conceptually exist at all.

Or by, you know, just not forming an opinion about something? I don't have an opinion Inuit wedding customs for instance.

I never heard about them before, but I am sure that I was always against such primitive traditions.

Okay, so you're a prejudiced retard. Not everyone is though.

Ignorance is a stance, though

The answer is an anthropological view of culture.
Raise children to be citizens of the world. Expose them to a variety of viewpoints and religions.
At the same time, teach them your own culture/ religion, but absent the premise that any one culture/ religion is TRUE or BETTER.
Ie: "This is how we do it in *our* family" "This (these) are *our* gods" or "I prefer to do it *this* way" "I believe *this*"
At the same time maintaining respect for others and their traditions, and learning about them so as to understand reasons why they do or believe differently.

I agree with this, except for the part about avoiding exceptionalism / .

In certain societies, some cultural practices and religions may be "better" simply because, for instance, you can rely more on that in-group to help you in times of need; in essence, where there is strife, teach your children to stick with their societal allies, but where there is harmony, teach them to be more open-minded.

Dude, most adults, even those who claim that they know a lot about religion because they went to church as a kid, know jack all about any religion, whether they believe in it or not.

Whatever that kid decides after a "quick internet search" is going to be uninformed.

>Feel free to come ask me for help if there is anything you dont understand
You underestimate people's ability to not be aware that they don't understand something. They jump to conclusions based on assumptions because their knowledge of the subject matter is so poor they don't know even how to think about something. Ask your average Bible-belter to explain evolution or the average fedora to explain salvation if you don't believe me.

Political ideology is heavily informed by your understanding of how the world works. If your dad really did think "from each according to his ability,...", he would obviously have a world outcome that would lead him to that conclusion. And you can't not demonstrate your basic life philosophy to your kids, it's subtly imparted in everything you do.

But do you know anything about them? If you do, surely you had some reaction to the knowledge. It doesn't need to be a formulated "view", but basic opinions kind of form instinctively, we judge everything we observe.

People are going to teach their kids what they think is right, if they did not it would kind of be a dick move like intentionally training someone wrong.

I guess the solution is to teach kids about human fallibility, not only of themselves but their teachers and even their parents. Kind of like the first scene in Conan the Barbarian.

youtube.com/watch?v=tz2DknROaI8

>if you don't teach something, that means you actually are teaching something.
You are an idiot.

Imposing the idea that children can and should question their values and ideas, seems to me by definition less intrusive then telling them about a certain absolute truth which they're not allowed to question.

>surely you had some reaction to the knowledge
Nope, reserving judgment is an option for people with 3 digit IQs.

> learns that inuit weddings are a thing
> decides not to give a shit
> "lol I have no opinion"

You clearly don't consider it important enough to you to bother knowing about

SAVAGE

You know that when you define basically everything as judging of one sort or another the term loses all meaning, right?

>>It's impossible to not impose a certain religious
Wrong.

>>political view on your child
True to a certain extent.

>>Even a taught absence of interest promotes a particular agenda.
Is it really that hard for you to believe that some people just don't bother taking their kids to church or telling them about a deity they don't believe until the kids in question are older?

>>You're indoctrinating your children no matter what you teach them; indoctrination is equivalent to education.
Yeah no, you're just an assmad christfag upset that some people have rightly figured out that at least some forms of religious education are essentially child abuse.

>>This is a dishonest argument used by seditionists who have a vested interest in wearing away a particular culture and want to veil their dishonest goals behind a veil of liberty.
Yeah no, you're also an assmad /pol/tard I see.

>>Any value set is passed on by immersion, and even if you genuinely believe that children should have that freedom, that's indoctrinating them in that worldview.
Congratulations, you just made the word indoctrination essentially meaningless.

God is real.

>>I'm a faggot
Fixed.

>>>
What did he mean by this?

>It's impossible to not impose a certain religious or political view on your child.
No it isn't.
I grew up isolated from society in the mountains with my mother and brother and sister. I didn't even know what a conservative or liberal was until I went to school. Neither did I know what Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, or Islam was. She quite simple never talked about it. The only things she taught us was math, how to read, how to grow food, what the plants and animals around us were etc etc.
Keep in mind we were squatting on an abandoned cabin in one of the lowest population areas in the US. No running water, electricity, or telecoms. We grew our own food, baked our own bread, and our only contact with the outside world was when we went to buy staples for baking bread or soap or things like that.

It is possible. Is it beneficial? Yes. I think so. When you are raised outside of the things people take as normalcy, you realize exactly how insane everyone is when you do finally become part of that society. When you live like we did, as a family, whose only objective was to survive and be healthy, you gain an appreciation for how fragile life is, how everyone of us is one flood, or forest fire or drought away from being broken and scattered to the wind.

We join society when I was old enough for the state to start asking questions about why we weren't in school.

Plus as an added bonus you get to call basically anyone you want a giant pussy when they complain about their problems because you know by modern societies standards you grew up in the equivalent of the middle ages.

I win poorest childhood. But I also win best childhood. My mother really cared, a lot, so much so that she took three children by herself into the wilderness to get us away from the drug addled, alcoholic fathers we would have had to endure if she had kept us where we were born. She was a strong woman, and it was a different time, you couldn't do what we did anymore.

>Raise children to be citizens of the world.
Disgusting.

But that's what life is. Interaction with the environment you live in are all prefaced by judgement and evaluation of some form or another. Judgement can only be avoided by destroying consciousness, for instance by descending into a coma.

Children before puberty are barely rational beings, they operate on Pavlovian principles. Attempting to raise a child in a purely skeptical environment is retarded.

You can teach them to be skeptical and to judge for themselves, but all you're doing is indoctrinating them into the value of skepticism [which is a good thing, but its still teaching them a value]

The reality is as OP says, values are often learned by example and immersion, and until a child reaches near-adulthood he isn't going to even have the mental faculties to really question what he's being given.

This is compounded by the fact that all value systems are relative and based on axioms that are taken for granted.

Congratulations, you've completely failed to understand the point. A child has no "normal" at birth; what is normal is defined by their upbringing and the values their parents and environment instill.

Someone saying that they decided to let their child choose a religion when they grew up because they didn't want to indoctrinate them is an atheist and/or a libertarian, is still instilling those values in their child, and someone who disagreed with those values would then call that indoctrination.

> Congratulations, you just made the word indoctrination essentially meaningless.

What would you describe it as? In my view it's just education with a goal that the user doesn't like. Since it's entirely subjective whether or not an educational goal is good or not, there is no difference from an objective viewpoint.

heh...pretty good mr. Pepefrog you get a (You)

>alright buddy with raising your kid you have three choices
>my way
>don't teach them anything(they become a dirty liberal, duh)
>the woods

I agree, children are always going to be influenced by their parents' religious views, but there's a difference between being open with your kids about your beliefs and your reasons for them vs. forcing them to accept your religion and shoving it down their throats.

It really makes you think.

this is so many layers of fucking irony

nicely memed

ever heared of atheist parents that teach their childrrn to think sceptical and make their own decisions?

god you religious retards are a shame for the human race

Read the thread, this has been discussed several times, most notably here:

There's a difference between socialisation and indoctriation. Reaising a child within a religious is not in itself indoctrination

The only difference between "socialization" and "indoctrination" is that one has a negative association with it.

Sure, it's the same as putting them in a bubble makes them safe from environment-aggravated disorders. It's true, but it's stupid.

Just teach them to question shit. I may also push to avoid radicalization and idealogues, but that's just me.

I'm surprised at how high the level of discourse in this thread is. Good job Veeky Forums