Agnieszka

Thinking of you and your 'beauty of nature' experience, Thales would have said you experienced God.

Now  I rarely follow linkd but this is astounding! I Guarante that reading the article from an amazing Journal will teach you much:

It'd about how reason and faith are nevcessary to one another...

And tells you things abiut the bible you did not know

http://www.bu.edu/arion/archive/volume-18/colin_wells_how_did_god_get-st...

(Inreviewing this the lastword was forshortened: it is  the word: started)

The following paragraph is the one that reminded me of your post.

So one indisputable thing the last century or so of scholarly work has uncovered about faith and reason is that they are hardly the rigidly separate traditions we commonly take them for. It’s surprising for us, looking back, that reason came first. Even more surprising, perhaps, is how quickly monotheistic faith followed, starting with its first glimmering in the thought of Thales himself. As we perceive order in nature, it seems, we also gravitate to the One.

--------------------------------EVERY ONE!!!!-------------------------------------------------------------

If I had a whip. I'd force ALL of you to go to the site, knowing that  after you read it, even dripping blood, you would forgive me.

 Happy G,

I WILL read it, I swear.  But is it going to help at all with talking with atheists about religion?

Yes, indeed! It just might bring a whole new level into play...

Insightful about the charactistics and background of pagens, and atheists...and why and and and...how Greek philosophy...and and and Abraham an and and the bible which is and and and

In Sum: It'd quite an article.

I'm relly interestwd in your (any anyubody else's) reaction.

I'm beginning to wonder why also. It's like banging your head against a wall when all one gets back in return is 'because the Bible says so' or 'because there is no proof of that'.  If we believed everything the Bible says then we'd still be be living in dark ages. If we didn't believe in anything without proof then it's wonder we could function at all in our modern world.

Agnieszka,

I'm finding it more than a little interesting that you are questioning the motivations of athiesm when you yourself are questioning the existence of God.

Are you fearing the clinical dissection of God that they present will convince you that you truly are alone and therefore forced to admit that it is only yourself that you have to rely on? Because I have to admit sometimes an athiests perspective can be very convincing and can shake anyone that does not enter the arena without their feet firmly planted in God's presence. It's only from this perspective do you see their ritualistic dance to prove God doesn't exist becomes as nonsensical as the ancients that worshipped the moon.

Remember God's plan includes everything that we know and do not know, Atheism only deals with what we are limited to know. When you realize this, they cannot even begin to dent your armour without you seeing the faulty logic.

Hi Neo,
Yes, those are my thoughts exactly. But I have found it especially impossible to discuss their ideas with atheists particularly because they seem to thinks their notions stand outside of belief... It's one thing to make a "I believe " statement and base it on a book (the Bible). It's another thing to claim something like "God doesn't exist" but to then say also that you're NOT making any claims at all and that your idea is "based in fact", and that's it! Whatever happened to reason?

No, I'm just more than a little annoyed at the LACK of clinical dissection and the dismissive tone, lack of reason and yeah, the faulty simplistic logic. There is nothing there to be convinced of.

My own questions been there for quite some time. Nothing that an atheist has said made them stronger...

What annoys me to no end is that people engage them with interest and openness and all they do is trash ideas. It's rude more than anything. I regret (do I ever!) thinking there could actually be something there to learn from.

I don't feel that my own ideas are shaken at all. Such simplistic flat ideas as those put forth have proven nothing at all.

I've been posting to the Cafe for four years now and over that time I have participated in many conversations with atheists and agnostics.  I have learned a great deal about their way of thinking, and I have shared something of mine.  And just as I have grown in wisdom and understanding, I think I have seen growth and change in some of them. 

One thing I learned is how to spell atheist when I was (rather abrupted) called on it.  In the word atheist the "e" comes before the "i".   I asked my son, who teaches 'English as a Second Language' about this.  He thought about it for a bit and then suggested that it is because it is two separate sylables.  Athe-iest.     It is possible to talk to and learn from people who have a different world view. 

Hahaha, thanks seeler! A-t-h-e-i-s-t.

Thank you for sharing your experience, Seeler.  Can you say more about what you have learned and how you have grown as a result?

Lol!  

And I have learned that some congregations (? church?  I don't know what to call it!) of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have a beer vulcano and strippers!  

Happy Genius,

I read the article you posted.  And I have some thoughts on it, for sure.  

But, I have to say that, given your little "contribution" to my conversation with Chansen on the other thread, I'm not keen on chatting with you at all.

I don't think it's ok for people to trash each other and each others faith, but I do think people have the right to honestly state what they believe. But there is a fine line between stating what you believe and insulting someone with that belief sometimes. I try to walk the line carefuly myself.

What if you feel so strongly about your ideas that you have to trash someone else's?  It's been my experience that the atheists that come to this site are actually not that interested in walking the that line you describe carefully.  I mean, they could get worse, but as one atheist said, he didn't want to get banned.  The point is that they don't seem able to actually ponder the other side of the debate - which is crucial for understanding, isn't it?  Otherwise, they are just restating the same things over and over again, as if they've not heard a thing said to them.

Reason and Faith are not against one another (As per my suggested article, now  also on www.aldaily,com ) they actually compliment each other. That sounds strange, but that's why is suchj a great article.

It's in the "Essays and Opinion column...now a few items down.

It takes a while. I;m lookingforward to your responce.

I read it twice. (!)

Belief is to faith as experiment is to scienceand both are inherent in the human think-box.

Schrodinger changed the world's undstsnding of reality, but remained a church-goer.

I think that everyone who reads that article will change their viewpoint in some way.

Fair enough.

An open heart and mind are necessary to deal with unknown matters ... some needling is also recommended for you can't get a clam to move without stimuli!

Great sales organizations use this method to probe a persons mind ... not to find what they need but what they wish to pawn of on them. The human condition is pretty sad ... evidence? Just look around you ... some sense of cognizance is prerequisite ... the blind must wake!

In short the total of human reason is on the irrational side! You question my wisdom? Then tell me how we end up racing towards the edge ...

Talk and intercourse is common sense ... but most people will not talk about important things ... and some of us just loose it by letting go. Some theologians suggest that ... probably because they think thay can benefit from commandering the pieces ...

If one were to step outside the realm of personal emotives ... in a competitive world? people would call you a fool ... over 200 times in the biblical syntax!

Hi -Agnieszka--- I find talking to a atheist , will make me think on what I believe as a christain.I believe it is hard to learn from those that agree with you . You can learn from those that don't agree. I do Love my sisters and brothers in Christ.But when I talk to some one that don't believe ,then I must look at what I believe. I don't hate Chansen ,or any other  atheist. Why would I?They are men an women who think diff than me ,thats all.That is there right ,I will not agree with them ,buts that there problem .  airclean33

Thank You HG,

Isn't that the greatest way of showing how humankind with a bit of reason, believes he should control the whole thing (all there is, alias God) without understanding the complexity of it all?

If we could just condense a huge concept into a singularity and call it simple ... that's one an all ... mankind integrated as unnatural thought ... contrary to natural urges of love. These must exist elsewhere in a religious state of mind ... psyche being a creation of mind ... then how many don't believe in the Eros (primal energy) of that empty space we call brae in a physical hard space? Isn't that Eclectic, or dielectics? Pure words flying through empty space because we learned on this side of reality to believe in nothing. When defined, nothing is a profound desire in the absence ... so something had to be made of it ... and in the imbalance we call it normal ... war instead of a struggle to understand complexity ... what the Greeks called philosophy ... derived from the God Sophie ... love of wisdom that Romans taught us to hate as a thinking man would be a danger to a brutal animal. Now has the tide turned on us for denying wisdom in light of unbounded passions?

We don't need a God of Nothing (Love) for we can create collapse all by ourselves ... by not thinking ... a perfect sin as described by some theologians while some of us believe in the whole thing both sides ... all that surrounds the bod an will ... intellect as defined by others ... in gross balance in umpteen dimensions ... stacks and stacks of fabrications about what we cannot see ... underlying forces of eL that came to be known as flighty and bewitching (eLle) cause isolated men didn't wish to have the ephraimed mind around him ... thus the term isolated ... or mahaineim in Hebrew ... a grand anachronism that blows a man right out of the pool of time, space and light of the situation into pure satyr as he can't stand the physical state of mind ... unmovable!

You'd never get there without getting into the evolution of word, languages, the medium of the mind ... which according to many powers is non-existant and you have to wonder about the wisdom of such a statement. Consider that words are dark and silent without the creation of Heirs ... or the Aaron race ... winds blowing across the sphere in ripples. How did this happen ... from irrational activities shiyr in the dark ... and shiyr in dark is a cry but very quiet like a bump in the night ... people do not like to disturb the unknown ... not probing or testing allowed so I Thessalonians 5:21 is out ... althought other script says bad things about anyone who curtails any script Ur ... that's a writ of power in old understanding carrying a thought across all sorts of barriers ...

Hoo dah th'ought?

No one is talking about hate here, just clarify that.  I don't hate anyone.  I'm annoyed that conversation - where people actually hear each other out and consider what the other is saying - appears impossible.

I was open to learning - why does they think what they think, how to they get around certain questions, why do they choose certain interpretations over other.  And when they answers didn't add up or were too simplistic, I posed more questions.  But, my questions were seen as not worth  the "stamina" and consideration.  So, nothing more can happen there.

But the other problem is the derision, the contempt and trashing of other people's beliefs.

I realize they take their cue from folks like Dawkins and Hitchens - neither of whom can be said to even attempt to understand the other side of the debate.  They've got their ideas and that's that. 

I have been listening to Christopher Hitchens over the past few days - just youtube videos of his lectures and such.  Brilliant, sharp, so well spoken.  Really awesome.  But his ideas, his criticisms are almost as flat as Dawkins.  Always focusing on the external bits of awful stuff about religions, always throwing out these details for shock value...  I think Alastair McGrath had a lot of good points in response to Hitchens, but sadly - and very similarly to what I've seen happen here - Hitchens didn't seem able or willing to address what McGrath was actually saying.  

I've been dealing with "hard" atheists since high school, when I was still Christian myself. Most, if not all, of the arguments that the so-called New Atheists raise are actually pretty old. There's very little that I've heard Harris, Dawkins, and Hitchens say that can't be found in some form in, say, Bertrand Russell's essays on the subject (who passed away in the 60s).

While I appreciate the atheist viewpoint and understand it to some extent, I do find that there isn't much to discuss about it anymore for me. I've heard it all before from my atheist friends and everything chansen, atheisto, and others say is stuff that those friends were saying to me 20+ years ago (and I'm still not convinced of all of it). That said, I'd say the same about the hard-core evangelical Christian viewpoint: heard it many times, not interested, not much to discuss. For me, the really interesting discussion comes from more open-minded folks, from progressive Christians, agnostics, moderate atheists, and so on. Even from some of the less familiar conservative ideas (for instance, I've learned a lot about Calvinism and it's place in the modern church from RevJohn).

In the end, I'd say that the atheists are an important part of the mix at WC and I love having them around, but I would also say that I don't get as much from discussion with them as I do from engaging with some of the more radical religious ideas. I'm just too familiar with, and too used to, the arguments from the hard atheist position.

Mendalla

Agnieszka

quote:

"I have been listening to Christopher Hitchens over the past few days - just youtube videos of his lectures and such.  Brilliant, sharp, so well spoken.  Really awesome.  But his ideas, his criticisms are almost as flat as Dawkins.  Always focusing on the external bits of awful stuff about religions, always throwing out these details for shock value.."

Agreed. I believe this is also the reason Chansen has stated he dislikes the atheist forums. He finds them flat and  boring. Me too. I find the atheist forums boring  as well as  Hitchens and Dawkins after one has heard them a few times.

I watched an engaging discussion between Dawkins and the head of the Church of England on Youtube once, in which Dawkins did listen and considder what the reverend was saying, and I sided with the reverend. I found his debate quite compelling and reasonable. So they can discuss and listen to each other, it is possible.

Feeling so strongly that you have to trash someone else's... I don't know, but maybe one can pass that off as not valid. It's certainly impolite. It is terribly frustrating when someone won't answer your question straight though, I know. One can't control how others react, one can only control how we react ourselves, so maybe it's best to just focus on that, and allow whatever else happens to be their thing, not ours? I think people can get arrogant. I've seen that personally.

Elanorgold, do you have the link to that debate you cite?  I'd be really interested. Maybe Hitchens was having a particularly bad day in the debate I'm thinking off - but it was just like he had a list of bones to pick and it didn't matter than half the time the other guy was in agreement... he had to be nasty and contemptuous anyway.  

I hear what you say about controlling how we react ourselves.  It's damn hard to remain reserved when you're being insulted, ignored, called things, etc..  It gets personal and hurtful.  And I'm not even a believer trying to convert an atheist!  Just challenging the position, asking questions about it and sharing some thoughts.  Anyway, I'm pretty sure I'm done with it! 

[quote=WaterBuoy]

An open heart and mind are necessary to deal with unknown matters ... some needling is also recommended for you can't get a clam to move without stimuli!

The human condition is pretty sad ... evidence? Just look around you ... some sense of cognizance is prerequisite ... the blind must wake!

In short the total of human reason is on the irrational side! You question my wisdom? Then tell me how we end up racing towards the edge ...

[\quote]

Racing toward something f''sure...

Why is it you write posts that I understand containing things I agree wth?

I think some principle here is being overlooked...

Y'know the first Waterboy was Thales....

Here's part 1 of 4

part 2 of 4

************ part 3 of 4

********** part 4 of 4

Sam Harris' recent appearance on Tapestry was quite good and not too terribly strident. His focus was on his latest book, which deals with using science as a basis for morality and how he feels it may be a better basis than faith. The piece on Jewish atheists is interesting, too.

http://www.cbc.ca/tapestry/episode/2010/11/07/science-and-the-moral-landscapejewish-atheism/

Mendalla

Ah, the cede of genius still with an imbalance of emotion in tholes ...

That's where you put your oars when rowing across de po-eL (a light) ... when possessed with emotives ... no rheum for th'aught, a condensation on Theo! That's nothing when you reach out into the beyond, myth of intellect according to Webster ... all that surrounds us and the overly emotional hate IT!

Have you never heard in church that intellect is evil? Can someone relate to this? How about philosophy is evil? Then philosophy is defined as the love of wisdom and knowledge ... shiyr polity ... clasj of extremes ... the Titans?

Yes HG, the story just repeats itself ... but does anyone learn from history?

And the master of the whole thing still asks .. Meis child ... what did you learn out there in de rapture? Let's just say I pars'd IT!

Best of the New year to you HG and all that are around us in our bantering storm ... if yah didn't probe a beast how would you know IDs nature ... the very personae ... on the facia 'veit?  Such is s retreating vision ... observerve while your still in the Wahl ... balanced between an unconscious state of beginning and just figment of mind ... a wee spark down there in the ... well ... whetted pitz! Oh the flutter across Mrs. Hype's Theis ... the two amourphous states flow on---Sam UaL Clemonts JR ... weid Evil? Treis Marx eh!

Why does history repeat itself ... per Simeon question ...

I think atheists do not reject spiritual feelings, or the expressions of spiritual feelings. I think they are aware that much of human experience is beyond scientific explanation, yet is expressed, and needs to be expressed, in the metaphorical or specualtive language of artistic or philosophical expression.

I think atheists reject the claim that religious beliefs that are based on literalized mythology or the literalized sayings of ancient mystics and prophets are equal to, or even superior to, scientific truth.

If that which is beyond the scope of science to explain is expressed speculatively or metphorically rather than as pseudo-scientfic truth, then I am sure most atheists would go along with it. After all, they themselves have experiences and feelings that can't be explained by science.

In other words, if religious expressions were artistic and speculative rather than pseudo scientific, then most atheists would go along with them.

To me, personally, the entire realm of "spirituality" is the experience of reality as an inseparable whole in a unitive state of synthesis. This spiritual reality can only be experienced, and any explanations of that experience are speculative and/or metaphorical. I have not yet met an atheist or anti-theist who opposes this kind of spirituality.

I think that's entirely fair to say, Arm.  Personally, I'm not a "spiritual person".  At least, I don't interpret any of my best experiences as "spiritual".  The birth of my children, the feeling I get from a perfectly-executed turn, and the sights have seen are all great moments in my life, but at no time was I visited by a "spirit".

A feeling of connectedness, I can certainly inderstand.  Where religion goes off the rails, is when is tries to be a source of information, or rules, or answers.

Motheroffive, thank you for posting the interview clips!!!

Number 2 isn't working though - and I can't find it on YouTube. Would you mind posting it or a link again, please???

Mendalla, am looking forward to the Tapestry interview!!! Only my fave radio show!!!

Hi chansen:

By "spiritual" I don't mean "spectral" or "supernatural," I just mean "unitive": the feeling of being united with everyone and everything, of reality being a unitive whole in an indivisible state of synthesis, with me as an inseparable part of IT. And this unitive "IT" is also my definition of "God."

I realize that my personal definitions of "God" and "spirituality" are not the common Christian definitons, but they aren't all that rare, either. They are shared by some people here on the Cafe, by many poeple who define themselves as "spiritual but not religious," and even by some progressive or liberal Christians.

Remember Spockis here on the Cafe? He was a self-described atheist who defined spirituality that way. If the separate, interventionist, supernatural creator deity is the only possible definition of God, then I, too, am an atheist.

Agnieszka - near the beginning of the thread you ask 'can you say more about what you have learned and how you have grown as a result' . . . of conversing with atheists on the Cafe?

I've been pondering this.  Learning, growth and change are gradual.  It's hard to pinpoint exactly when and how it happens, but I know that I think differently now than I did four years ago.   

First off, I think I was surprised at how angry and hostile some atheists appear.  I know many people who don't bother much about religion.  Some are just indifferent, others call themselves agnostics, atheists, secular, or humanists.  One person who called himself an atheist attended church regularly, took part in study groups, served on the outreach committee.  But here on the Cafe I found atheists who appeared to be angry, frightened,, hostile.    They blamed religion for most of the troubles of this world both at present and throughout history.  They would like to see churches closed.  And they would laws passed that children and youth cannot be exposed to religion - some atheists would not only prevent parents from taking their children to church or enrolling them in a religious school or youth program, but would try to stop them from practicing their religion in their own homes when children are present.    I found this disturbing.  They seemed fanatical and all fanatics scare me. 

I also found that many of these people had very little idea what goes on in most United churches, or what we believe.  They seem to relate all Christians to the most extreme TV evangelists. 

But when I found the couage and the words to try to have a discussion with them, I found that there are many places where we can find a common ground and many things we can agree upon.   It may help that I don't believe in an interventionalist god myself, that I consider how I live my life more important than hopeing for my reward in heaven after I die, that I don't take the Bible literally.    When I explained this to one atheist during a discussion, he accused me of trying to 'change the rules', and I asked him what gave him the right to decide what I had to believe to be a Christian? 

Once we were able to agree on some of the terms and cast aside some pre-conceived ideas we were able to talk about ideas. 

I think the main areas of growth for me have been in examining my own beliefs more closely in light of the fact that many people do not agree with them.    

Motheroffive, thank you!  That was probably the best part of the series!!!

Wow, it was awesome!  I guess Dawkins can be totally respectful as an interviewer.  That's awesome!

I don't agree, but I can say the same of a minority of believers.

Many, if not most.  Sure.

Um...no.

What a remarkable series of lies.  Show me where any atheist on WC has advocated this.

And I see no limit to how low some Christians will stoop when discussing atheists.  You should be ashamed of yourself.

As trouble as I currently am about my "faith", this above is certainly true for me.  When I use the term "spiritual" I am not referring to anything supernatural, or any entities existing outside, external to the universe... they might or might not, and I don't think it is possible for me to know.  If I have some powerful vision, uninvited and unexpected, perhaps that will change my mind.  

It would also be my definition of "God" as well.  But, there are some problems with that.  I think it was Azdgari who pointed out that "God" is the name of the Israelite deity and therefore the term is confusing.  So, the question has to be asked: why use a term that to most people means something completely different?  When to most people "God" means externally existing supernatural being acting on the universe but not part of it?

Or perhaps you and I and everyone else of this thinking need to not use that term? I went around for a while only referring to "it" as the Holy...  

But then, in the end, perhaps the argument that the word "God" only has one definition shouldn't be taken too strictly to just mean one thing and one thing only.  Even within Christianity, the definition has changed dramatically over time... 

Here, here. Count me in, I want to be an atheist too. Can we start our own religion now?

Chanson - I didn't say all atheists or even most.  And I cannot go back though every thread in the last five years to find where various atheists from Atheisto and itdon'tmatter to you and Brett and the many others in between who have joined in discussion on the Cafe.   But some have appeared to me to be very hostile towards all religion and particularly against Christianity.  

I do remember reading on more than one occasion that teaching children religion could be considered a form of child abuse and should be stopped - and at least one person on the Cafe (I don't remember who or on what thread and I'm not going back through them all to look it up) said that included exposing children to religion in their own homes.  

I have also seen posts on here that seemed to imply that churches should be closed - that whatever services they provide could be better provided by other, secular, institutions. 

When I read these posts I get the same feelings of discomfort and I do when I read some of the hatefilled posts from some Christian extremists.  

Generally though, I find I have more in common with most atheists than I do with some people on this site who claim to be Christian - in fact who claim to be the only true Christians here.   

I don't think anything I said in this or in my previous post is a lie.  It is the impression I have of some atheists from reading their posts.   I don't think I have stooped low or said anything that I need to be ashamed of, and I'm sorry you think that way.  Generally I enjoy your posts.  

The non-Church of the True Non-god

Are emotions and thoughts some sort of physical reality, or like energy as sort of flighty shift from one state to another through a strange veil (parietal) that separates the absolute from the abstract?

Then if Creation is the desire of primal emotion and the interloper between that and intellect is man ... would a mortal being like mankind wish to give up on such elusive energy--- Eros to a point ... "V" inverted in form ... such is the Greek capital for Light a mountainous intellect which a man keeps falling out of in Dante'n(or Milton-like) humours! Few of the heavy bretherin would understand.

Brutus (Roman sorts) types wouldn't like common folk to grasp such things as the situation snowballs right into eL ... that's a lighter existence eh ... thin Isis!

I believe in Love and the capacity of thought and in the integral of all of these infinite stages ... we come up with an all inclusive term like God, Allah, the traveller ... for the intellect will continue to grow if there is desire to do so ... here there is some doubt ... leaving the potential of other Gae Laxis ... all that is ... needs a way of expressing all that pent up Eros as another Eris-in somewhat corrupted in phonetics as word ... because false authorities didn't wish us to know ...

That's not the devil for the devil does some serious digging as he'd like some handle on the light ... as Creation's Rite-hand (main) Mon ... mortals would like to ascend to this but don't know the reciprocal form ... that's reflection, thought or eKos, sometimes spelled as Egos and real people think the Ego is evil ... but one should be aware of far more than the primal self ... that would be a superlative Ego ... sublime in understanding ...

Is it just a story, or is something buried there ... as neuscience states that the story is mind and the corollary true ... how does one curtail that? Sometimes when you blow through such a creation ... you're left with a weird feeling that somethings out of whack in the large portion ...

Spiritual atheism? Atheism in the name of God?

Hi Agnieszka:

The meanings of linguistic concepts change over time, especially the meaning of metaphors. Many of us regard God as a metaphor, and now define God as pantheistic, panentheistic, wholistic ur unitheistic. Unitheism is my favourite word: God as the self-creative totality of being, as a self-generative and unitive whole.

I like to retain the word "God," though. From my experience, the expereince of the untive whole results in unitive awareness, consciousness, conscience, and, most of all, unitive love. Thus, "God is love" is profoundly true for me. Also, the oldest OT definition of God as "I AM" is very suggestive of God as the totality of being.The OT was written as "midrash," meaning that is was meant metaphorically, and meant to be discerned by us. I see nothing wrong with discerning the meaning of  "God" as "the self-generative totality of being." 

Seeler:

quote:

"But some have appeared to me to be very hostile towards all religion and particularly against Christianity.  

I do remember reading on more than one occasion that teaching children religion could be considered a form of child abuse and should be stopped - and at least one person on the Cafe (I don't remember who or on what thread and I'm not going back through them all to look it up) said that included exposing children to religion in their own homes.  

I have also seen posts on here that seemed to imply that churches should be closed - that whatever services they provide could be better provided by other, secular, institutions. " end of quote

 Seeler  I'll vouch for your honesty. I've read these same comments from atheists on the WC over the years.

A prime example of hostility, perhaps?

Has anyone here come out and told you how ridiculous and laughable your ideas are?  

Seeler was talking about her experience, by the way.  So you are accusing her of lying?

I have no doubt that the comment about religion being child abuse has popped up here.  It has strong roots in the thinking of people like Dawkins and Hitchens.

Even in the very mild mannered version of Dawkins' usually very scornful approach in the interviews posted right here on this thread, he touches on this very subject.

Where have any atheists here suggested that they want "laws passed that children and youth cannot be exposed to religion - some atheists would not only prevent parents from taking their children to church or enrolling them in a religious school or youth program, but would try to stop them from practiecing their religion in their own homes when children are present."???

It's just a lie.  The opposition you're referring to is about the labelling of children:

The "child abuse" argument is about telling children that if they don't believe or don't behave that they (or someone they love) will burn in hell.  That's a threat.  That's child abuse.  Teaching a child about your religion was never the point, and if you think it was, point out where I or any other atheist "on this site" wrote it, or retract the lie.

Chansen,

Raising one's children according to one's beliefs is a part of a parent's right.  A Christian might very well look at you and accuse you of child abuse because you are putting your child's eternal life at terrible risk by NOT introducing her to the Christian faith.  You are putting you child at risk of eternal damnation and hell fire because of your ideas.  

If you want to institute what parents of children are allowed to teach them within their own homes, you are opening quite the pandora's box.

By the way, you realize that children are born to drug addicts, prostitues, ideologs, sex slaves, racists, KKK members, and are raised by them.  Do you suggest that the government take over the raising of children entirely?  And, how do you ensure that the government is up to your liking?

Again, I've never advocated that anyone be charged for this child abuse.  I do, however, reserve the right to call anyone who threatens a child with eternal torment, a complete and utter loser.

A lot of good that'll do ya.

Why not focus your attentions of the child that's being made to offer sex to foreign sex tourists because she was sold for a television set.

A child might be scared of the adult yelling out crap about eternal damnation but it's not immediate, and it's hard to comprehend in and of itself for a kid... or even for an adult.  And the kids that HAVE been threatened like that - and there are countless - grew up to mostly see right through it and most certainly don't continue to be haunted by those threats.  Not so for all the kids right this very moment being subjected to unbelievable acts of violence.  

So, get over yourself already.  And Seeler very likely did not lie at all.