NationStates Jolt Archive

I've just had a religious talk with my seven year old brother. This is what he believes:

He mentioned Satan and I told him that the devil doesn't exist. My kid brother then informed me I was wrong. He'd learned about Satan in school and so it must be true.
I then asked him if he believes in God, and he just returned the question so I told him that I don't. He agreed with me, also deciding that there is no God.
When good people die, Jesus comes to collect their spirits and takes them to heaven.
When bad people die, the Grim Reaper comes to collect their spirts and takes them to hell.
When I asked him how he thought the world was created, he just looked puzzled for a moment before shouting 'Aliens.'

I'm sure that as soon as God is mentioned in school he'll become a christian. Apparently everything they teach in school is absolutely right...

Anyway, what I want to know is how people on NS deal with introducing children to religion.
I know a lot of people teach children, particulary their own, mostly about the religion that they follow. Personally, I disagree with that. I think children should make up their own minds as they grow up and learn new things, without being told what to believe in by their family.

As for my brother; I was quite tempted just to tell him that all this shite he was talking about is just...well, shite. I didn't though, I don't like the idea of brainwashing kids into a certain religion and so I didn't want to be a hypocrite and force him into atheism. I did give my opinion at first though, he did catch me by surprise after all. But then I decided that I'll just humor him and let him come to his own decision on what he believes in. I think that is best.


So does anyone else agree that religion shouldn't be taught to young children?
Personally I don't think that it should be taught until they have learned in science class about these alternative ideas to an almighty being who created mankind and the entire universe. Before that I don't think that they have the background knowledge to make informed decisions about what they believe in.

This also goes for atheism. Sure I could convince my kid brother that there are no Gods and I could explain all my reasons for thinking this. But I guess that it is best that he comes up with his own reasons for whatever he chooses to believe in.

Also, it's amusing to hear all these crazy stories that little children come up with on their own. Aliens? Hah! That can't be true...

Right? :eek:



Yes.

Well, I don't think that religion should be taught to children. I wouldn't advocate the introduction any kind of anti-religion-teaching law, just saying that if the world suddenly became my idea of a utopia, the teaching of religion would happen.

I don't see the problem with being open about your belief system as long as you are not actively indoctrinating anyone, however the line between actively indoctrinating and introducing is kinda a grey area.

Part of my freedom of religion is to be able to raise my children how I feel that my religion says to....so I don't like people going around telling me that I shouldn't.

My mom is Lutheran, my dad is Catholic...

...they did what any sane couple would have done. Leave well enough alone.

I have gone from Christian to Atheist to Agnostic to, well...I have my own ideas now. :p

The important thing is that they are MY ideas...and I for one am very glad that I had no belief system forced upon me. :)

Indoctrinating children is wrong, there's no doubting that. Teaching children about religion, however, is fine. To claim that it should not be taught is to say you're frightened about education, and most of use left that fear behind 200 years ago.

It's going to be interesting for me and my wife. I'm athiest leaning agnostic/she's christian. She takes out 3yr old twins to church ( I don't go). When they get older, the "discussions" on when they decide they don't want to go or start questioning me on why I don't should be entertaining.

Being the child of an atheist and a lapsed Catholic, I shouldn't have had any religious views introduced to me as a kid, but my mother decided for some reason that we should go to the local Lutheran church. So I got some Christian indoctrination, I guess it was.

I wouldn't teach my kids about religion unless and until they asked about it, but I can see how people will bring their kids into whatever denomination or church they belong to, that's just natural.

Taking this in a somewhat different direction, having been raised a catholic I think the most important thing I took from my young teachings were moralistic, right vs wrong, good and evil teachings.

In my opinion of an Ideal setting for raising youth, I would stay clear from religion at a young age and just impress good morals (and good work/learning habits) on the really young. Then when they get older, maybe early teens, after having learned a thing or two about themselves and the world, let them explore the various religions and see what sticks.

I know that idea sounds outlandish, but it solves forcing religion on children and having them rebel to it later on. Give them the choice.

I don't see the problem with being open about your belief system as long as you are not actively indoctrinating anyone, however the line between actively indoctrinating and introducing is kinda a grey area.

Part of my freedom of religion is to be able to raise my children how I feel that my religion says to....so I don't like people going around telling me that I shouldn't.
Wouldn't you prefer that instead of being taught at such a young age, your kids would choose for themselves what they want to believe in whenever they feel ready?

Taking this in a somewhat different direction, having been raised a catholic I think the most important thing I took from my young teachings were moralistic, right vs wrong, good and evil teachings.

In my opinion of an Ideal setting for raising youth, I would stay clear from religion at a young age and just impress good morals (and good work/learning habits) on the really young. Then when they get older, maybe early teens, after having learned a thing or two about themselves and the world, let them explore the various religions and see what sticks.

I know that idea sounds outlandish, but it solves forcing religion on children and having them rebel to it later on. Give them the choice.
I agree with that exactly.

Children have too many other things to learn. (math, science, history, etc..)
No sense in cluttering up their heads with almighty beings and the nature of the universe and all that.

When such questions are asked by children, I would try to answer as briefly and simply as possible like: "Some people believe that God, Satan, Heaven and Hell are real and some do not. Read the Bible when you can understand the words and decide for yourself."

Teaching children about religion is fine, a line is crossed when you start indoctrinating them however. I think it would be fine for schools to teach about religion in general, as long as a multitude of religions are covered.

Wouldn't you prefer that instead of being taught at such a young age, your kids would choose for themselves what they want to believe in whenever they feel ready?

How are they going to choose for themselves if they are never introduced to the ideas in the first place?

There is a difference between teaching your children, "This is what we believe," (ie. including them as if your own beliefs are theirs) and teaching them about your own beliefs. As a child, my mother would take me to church, and when I would question her about what I had heard, she would tell me her own beliefs, in addition to beliefs held by others. Naturally, at a very young age, I tended to figure I would believe as my mother did, just like I cheered for her favorite football team and, had I thought about it, probably would have said I backed her chosen political candidates. However, as I got older, I began to seriously consider all of the viewpoints I heard - those she told me about and those she didn't. She never discouraged such questioning and, in fact, actively encouraged it.

Parents should have the freedom to teach children what they like. Schools can teach science in science and religion in r.e.

Wouldn't you prefer that instead of being taught at such a young age, your kids would choose for themselves what they want to believe in whenever they feel ready?

they will choose what they believe whenever they are ready whether I am open about my faith or not.

"You shall teach them [God's words] diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise."

Deuteronomy 6:7 (ESV)

-Snip-

This is very similar to my father. He is a priest, let while he always took us to church, he never forced us to believe something. Out of three children, I'm the only one who is still really a Christian; but I am because of my own faith, as it was offered to me, not because I was 'made' to believe it.

Well, the mythology of various religions make for nice stories. I wouldn't necessarily suggest making them believe them though.

This is very similar to my father. He is a priest, let while he always took us to church, he never forced us to believe something. Out of three children, I'm the only one who is still really a Christian; but I am because of my own faith, as it was offered to me, not because I was 'made' to believe it.

I disagree with this. Not your experience, but what you've gleaned from it. My parents "forced" my brothers and I to go the church: "I don't care if you don't want to go. I'm your mother, God put me in charge over you, and He says in the Bible to go meet and worship on the Sabbath. So you're going to church." They made us go to Sunday School and youth group: "I don't care if your show is on. God says in the Bible that you are to study His word diligently. So you're going." They made us go over what we learned. They made us look up in Scripture what we did wrong when we disobeyed. Any theological question we had, they made us look up in Scripture. They forced us to do all these things. And guess what? We hated it. But now that we are able to understand why they were doing what the were doing and now that we understand the how's and why's, my two brothers and I are devout Christians. And we disagree with on many things with our parents. I am charismatic, my parents are staunch cessationists. Even my autistic brother he can't read a See Spot Run book (he's in 9th grade) is still able to say "What does the Bible say?" when asked what he is to do. It's because we were taught diligently that we understand. Not because it was no forced on us.

How are they going to choose for themselves if they are never introduced to the ideas in the first place.


They can choose for themselves, they don't need to be indoctrinated into a specific religion. People are perfectly capable of coming up with their own ideas. For example, my brother at the moment seems quite happy with his christian/bill & ted/alien beliefs. I'm sure that he'll change his beliefs as he gets older and learns more stuff. I am not saying that people should never be taught religion, just that young children shouldn't be taught. It looks like brainwashing to me.

I have no problem with teaching religion to older children.

"You shall teach them [God's words] diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise."

Deuteronomy 6:7 (ESV)
I'm not really interested in regurgitated bible quotes. :rolleyes:

yall make it sound like religion is something you do on sunday morning then put away until the next sunday rolls around. except when youre too hungover to get to services...


when you are religious, religion is part of your every day life. christians pray every day; many pray at every meal. catholics have a crucifix on the wall, in my home growing up we also had a picture of the sacred heart of jesus. moslems pray 5 times a day. hindus have little home shrines to whatever god they find most important to them.

how do you NOT explain that to your children? how do you NOT teach your children to participate in your daily life? when part of your understanding of how your life plays out is "its part of god's plan" are you going to LIE to your children when the subject comes up?

for many people, stories from the bible and other holy books are part of their every day vocabulary. they use those stories as a cultural reference to make points in conversation ("he has the patience of job"). they discuss the implications of that weeks sermon over dinner. when making an important moral or life decision they use their religion to guide them.

for a religious person its impossible to NOT indoctrinate their children into religion.

I'm not really interested in regurgitated bible quotes. :rolleyes:

It told you what I think on the subject, though, didn't it?

for a religious person its impossible to NOT indoctrinate their children into religion.

*GASP* Say it ain't so! :rolleyes:

To my knowledge, this is the first time I have agreed with you. :)

"You shall teach them [God's words] diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise."

Deuteronomy 6:7 (ESV)

You do know that that's the easiest way to turn your kids into atheists?

You do know that that's the easiest way to turn your kids into atheists?

Have you tried? The answer's probably no. In my experience, it is only the families who have done this whose children have remained faithful Christians. Those which compromised? Their children can't quote John 3:16 even with prompting.

My parents bought me a "children's bible", basically a collection of colourful pictures showing bits of it.

I particularly liked the whale that ate the guy.

Then I went back to dinosaurs*.

*I reckon that's why I could never ever have become a Christian, no matter what: They never talked about dinosaurs!

Have you tried? The answer's probably no. In my experience, it is only the families who have done this whose children have remained faithful Christians. Those which compromised? Their children can't quote John 3:16 even with prompting.

So being a faithful Christian is about being able to randomly quote the bible?
I grew up in a very Christian family, went to church kindergarden and Catholic school run by a convent. I'm confessing agnostic now. And so are my two brothers...

It's wrong. It shouldn't be done.

Children should be exposed to a wide variety of beliefs, and given freedom to choose.

So does anyone else agree that religion shouldn't be taught to young children? I do. Religion should not be taught at all to anyone. Most people do not even the ability or the patience to really comprehend, to investigate, and to verify or falsify religious teachings, least of all children. E.g. the success of Christianity lies in the fact that most of its followers never actually think about what it is really about and what its origins really are. Most adhere to this just because they are used to it. No brain involved.
.

What sort of school is it that he goes to that has taught him this nonsense?

It's bad enough for these children who are born to religious parents that they are duped into believing these delusions at home - but in school? School should be a sanctuary from such detrimental influence.

So being a faithful Christian is about being able to randomly quote the bible?
I grew up in a very Christian family, went to church kindergarden and Catholic school run by a convent. I'm confessing agnostic now. And so are my two brothers...

Edwardis is quite right, making religion part of your family life is the best way to bring your children up in your faith. It's not about randomly quoting the Bible, by any means.

"You shall teach them [God's words] diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise."

Deuteronomy 6:7 (ESV)And?

Is it not so that only those need to teach or need to be taught who no god speaks to?
.

So being a faithful Christian is about being able to randomly quote the bible?

I didn't say that. John 3:16 is a verse which is always, always, always referenced. Christians of any level of spiritual maturity should be familiar with it and be able to at least paraphrase it. If they are unable to with prompting, there is a problem, with their education. And what you get out of education depends on what you put in. So they must not have put very much in.

I grew up in a very Christian family, went to church kindergarden and Catholic school run by a convent. I'm confessing agnostic now. And so are my two brothers...

Good for your parents. I don't know them or their style of parenting. But I do know that I have never known anyone whose parents were diligent in teaching them through their entire life who turned from Christianity.

I disagree with this. Not your experience, but what you've gleaned from it. My parents "forced" my brothers and I to go the church: "I don't care if you don't want to go. I'm your mother, God put me in charge over you, and He says in the Bible to go meet and worship on the Sabbath. So you're going to church." They made us go to Sunday School and youth group: "I don't care if your show is on. God says in the Bible that you are to study His word diligently. So you're going." They made us go over what we learned. They made us look up in Scripture what we did wrong when we disobeyed. Any theological question we had, they made us look up in Scripture. They forced us to do all these things. And guess what? We hated it. But now that we are able to understand why they were doing what the were doing and now that we understand the how's and why's, my two brothers and I are devout Christians. And we disagree with on many things with our parents. I am charismatic, my parents are staunch cessationists. Even my autistic brother he can't read a See Spot Run book (he's in 9th grade) is still able to say "What does the Bible say?" when asked what he is to do. It's because we were taught diligently that we understand. Not because it was no forced on us.

Careful!

You know what happens when children disagree with their parents, do you?

When to Stone Your Children (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html)

I didn't say that. John 3:16 is a verse which is always, always, always referenced. Christians of any level of spiritual maturity should be familiar with it and be able to at least paraphrase it. If they are unable to with prompting, there is a problem, with their education. And what you get out of education depends on what you put in. So they must not have put very much in.



Good for your parents. I don't know them or their style of parenting. But I do know that I have never known anyone whose parents were diligent in teaching them through their entire life who turned from Christianity.

You're hanging around w/ a small selection of people. Most of the most militant athiests/agnostics/other/etc have come from obsessively "christian" households.

Anyway, what I want to know is how people on NS deal with introducing children to religion.

Show them this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exDo2SMdB-0

100 times a day.

And?

Is it not so that only those need to teach or need to be taught who no god speaks to?
.

The structure of your question is a little odd. But if I understood it correctly, yes you are correct because only those who God does not speak to would need to be taught. Thankfully God spoke through His prophets and Apostles and they recorded His perfect Word that we might teach each other from that Word, the whole of that Word, and from nothing but that Word (in matters of religion), because the means through which He spoke to His prophets are now ended by His choice.

Edwardis is quite right, making religion part of your family life is the best way to bring your children up in your faith. It's not about randomly quoting the Bible, by any means.Most people who are able to quote the Bible have no idea what it actually means or what the historic and idological circumstances are.
Quite pointless. As well as raising kids in a faith they do not understand nor ever will in the narrow perpective that parents usually teach.
.

Careful!

You know what happens when children disagree with their parents, do you?

When to Stone Your Children (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html)

Aww, Christianity. Warms the cockles of your heart. Sort of like Islam. All feel-goody.

Careful!

You know what happens when children disagree with their parents, do you?

When to Stone Your Children (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_children/dt21_18a.html)

There is a difference between disagreeing and being rebellious.

yall make it sound like religion is something you do on sunday morning then put away until the next sunday rolls around. except when youre too hungover to get to services...


when you are religious, religion is part of your every day life. christians pray every day; many pray at every meal. catholics have a crucifix on the wall, in my home growing up we also had a picture of the sacred heart of jesus. moslems pray 5 times a day. hindus have little home shrines to whatever god they find most important to them.

how do you NOT explain that to your children? how do you NOT teach your children to participate in your daily life? when part of your understanding of how your life plays out is "its part of god's plan" are you going to LIE to your children when the subject comes up?

for many people, stories from the bible and other holy books are part of their every day vocabulary. they use those stories as a cultural reference to make points in conversation ("he has the patience of job"). they discuss the implications of that weeks sermon over dinner. when making an important moral or life decision they use their religion to guide them.

for a religious person its impossible to NOT indoctrinate their children into religion.

very true.

The structure of your question is a little odd. But if I understood it correctly, yes you are correct because only those who God does not speak to would need to be taught. Thankfully God spoke through His prophets and Apostles and they recorded His perfect Word that we might teach each other from that Word, the whole of that Word, and from nothing but that Word (in matters of religion), because the means through which He spoke to His prophets are now ended by His choice.Real gods need no intermediaries. Prophesy is crap.
.

What sort of school is it that he goes to that has taught him this nonsense?

It's bad enough for these children who are born to religious parents that they are duped into believing these delusions at home - but in school? School should be a sanctuary from such detrimental influence.

I'm a bit annoyed that the only things he seems to know much about is heaven and hell, and Satan. It looks to me like someone has been trying to scare him into christianity, with threats of hell. He doesn't even go to a religious school, so it was wrong of his teacher to tell him this shite.

I'm not too worried though, I don't live in a very religious area. Even the christians aren't very serious about their beliefs, so I doubt he'll become one of these crazy fundies that NS seems to be full off.

very true.

That's the really sad bit.

*appreciates his non-religious upbringing even more*

You're hanging around w/ a small selection of people. Most of the most militant athiests/agnostics/other/etc have come from obsessively "christian" households.

You'll please notice the qualifier:

anyone whose parents were diligent in teaching them through their entire life

The people who turn away? Their parents did not teach: they force-fed random formulas which they didn't understand themselves or were so afraid of "indoctrinating" that they refused to teach at all, though the parents thenselves might be devout.

Real gods need no intermediaries. Prophesy is crap.
.

Excuse me, may I be picayune for a moment, please? Prophecy as a noun is spelt with a "c". It's spelt with an "s" in the verb form.

You are correct. God doesn't need anyone. But we need someone. Our sin prevents us from approaching a holy, perfect, just God. So He condescended through means of Prophets.

I'm a bit annoyed that the only things he seems to know much about is heaven and hell, and Satan. It looks to me like someone has been trying to scare him into christianity, with threats of hell. He doesn't even go to a religious school, so it was wrong of his teacher to tell him this shite.

If I were you, I'd complain, and bitch, and scare that teacher into shutting up about his religion around the children lest he get his ninny ass fired. That is completely inappropriate behaviour.

I'm not too worried though, I don't live in a very religious area. Even the christians aren't very serious about their beliefs, so I doubt he'll become one of these crazy fundies that NS seems to be full off.

The moderately religious are but enablers to the fundies.

You'll please notice the qualifier:



The people who turn away? Their parents did not teach: they force-fed random formulas which they didn't understand themselves or were so afraid of "indoctrinating" that they refused to teach at all, though the parents thenselves might be devout.

Nice qualifier. It really means nothing. I see you didn't even bother to read what I had to say.

Nice qualifier. It really means nothing. I see you didn't even bother to read what I had to say.

I did read what you said and addressed it:

they force-fed random formulas which they didn't understand themselves

You are correct. God doesn't need anyone. But we need someone. Our sin prevents us from approaching a holy, perfect, just God. So He condescended through means of Prophets.

This makes sense to you? Wow...

Excuse me, may I be picayune for a moment, please? Prophey as a noun is spelt with a "c". It's spelt with an "s" in the verb form.Good you know. How come you make typos while correcting me?

You are correct. God doesn't need anyone. But we need someone. Our sin prevents us from approaching a holy, perfect, just God. So He condescended through means of Prophets.Are you a Christian? If so, do you not know that humans are free of all sin because of Jesus? And BTW I do not need anyone to talk to Yah.
.

indoctrination is wrong, and so is everyone who supports it.

I did read what you said and addressed it:

No, you assume that people who turn away from your faith weren't taught correctly. All that is is an assumption w/ no basis in fact.

I cannot speak for all religions, but I'm pretty sure if you practice one, the religion says you're supposed to teach you children. I know in Catholic baptism, the parents say they will be the child's first teachers in faith. So, yes, if you actually have a religion you should teach your child. I agree with the user who said you should start simple, if only because otherwise the child may miss the larger points of a religion (such as loving your neighbor) and get confused with the details (such as believing aliens made the earth).
Of course, if you're nonreligious you are under no such obligation. I still think one should discuss religion with a child, not only because they will need to make their own choice later on, but because they will certainly encounter people with different beliefs and will need to understand the beliefs to better understand the people.

If I were you, I'd complain, and bitch, and scare that teacher into shutting up about his religion around the children lest he get his ninny ass fired. That is completely inappropriate behaviour.

You've got a point, I don't really want this teacher brainwashing all these six/seven years olds. I'm actually banned from the school, but I'll mention this to my mother when I see her tomorrow. I'm not sure what she'll think of it though, she never mentions religion to me.

Most people who are able to quote the Bible have no idea what it actually means or what the historic and idological circumstances are.
Quite pointless. As well as raising kids in a faith they do not understand nor ever will in the narrow perpective that parents usually teach.
.

I don't think the majority of Christians are ignorant of what their religion teaches. They may not be scholars, able to quote chapter and verse or to debate the nature of Christ and the Trinity, but I think most people are fairly sincere in their beliefs. I'm not by any means a believer, either, but I don;t think religions are a conscious conspiracy to beat down the human race.

This notion of "forcing" children to go to church is flawed. It is no different to "forcing" your child to enjoy a nice country walk or forcing him to go visit his aunts etc...

Parents should have the freedom to take their young children where they like (as long as it is no where illegal).

I don't think the majority of Christians are ignorant of what their religion teaches. They may not be scholars, able to quote chapter and verse or to debate the nature of Christ and the Trinity, but I think most people are fairly sincere in their beliefs. I'm not by any means a believer, either, but I don;t think religions are a conscious conspiracy to beat down the human race.I do think the majority of Christians are ignorant of what their religion teaches just as they are ignorant of what their religion fails to teach. And I do think religions are a unconscious conspiracy that have almost beaten down the human race already.
.

Of course, if you're nonreligious you are under no such obligation. I still think one should discuss religion with a child, not only because they will need to make their own choice later on, but because they will certainly encounter people with different beliefs and will need to understand the beliefs to better understand the people.

The thing is, there is nothing about religion to understand. It simply makes no sense. Sure, you can learn the names of the deities and read the little stories and go "hmm, omnipotent deity talks though burning bush in the middle of nowhere" or "Shiva dances the world to death" but the moment you "understand" religion, you've fallen for it.

Good you know. How come you make typos while correcting me?

Which typo?

Are you a Christian? If so, do you not know that humans are free of all sin because of Jesus? And BTW I do not need anyone to talk to Yah.
.

Christians are free of the penalty, are being freed from the power and will be freed from the presence of sin. Jesus' sacrifice does not free all from sin. And yes, you do need someone to talk to God, unless you are a Christian. In which case, because you have been adopted by God, you may approach Him with boldness.

You've got a point, I don't really want this teacher brainwashing all these six/seven years olds. I'm actually banned from the school, but I'll mention this to my mother when I see her tomorrow. I'm not sure what she'll think of it though, she never mentions religion to me.

I doubt she'll be happy about someone trying to scare her child with the Christian version of the bogeyman.

No, you assume that people who turn away from your faith weren't taught correctly. All that is is an assumption w/ no basis in fact.

It has basis in my own experience, even if you disregard my family. Those of my friends and "friends" whose parents were clueless but strict or whose parents refused to say anything about religion "because that's personal" have either rejected the faith or have no idea what the faith is about. It is the children of the families who made sure they understood who have stayed with the faith.

This notion of "forcing" children to go to church is flawed. It is no different to "forcing" your child to enjoy a nice country walk or forcing him to go visit his aunts etc...

Sure, just like "forcing" your child to be a member of the Hitlerjugend is just like sending them off to band camp.

I do think the majority of Christians are ignorant of what their religion teaches just as they are ignorant of what their religion fails to teach. And I do think religions are a unconscious conspiracy that have almost beaten down the human race already.
.
That's a gloomy outlook, there in Sumer.

I think religion and "spirituality" have done as much harm to humanity as good (and yes, there has been some good). The one thing, at least in the West, has been teaching people to disregard this world and to look forward to the "next." But this is what people believe and in some measure it has served a purpose for many people. I think the human race ought to be on the point of outgrowing our imaginary friends.

It has basis in my own experience, even if you disregard my family. Those of my friends and "friends" whose parents were clueless but strict or whose parents refused to say anything about religion "because that's personal" have either rejected the faith or have no idea what the faith is about. It is the children of the families who made sure they understood who have stayed with the faith.

So what makes your "experience" more legitimate than mine?

Sure, just like "forcing" your child to be a member of the Hitlerjugend is just like sending them off to band camp.

What I meant to say is, taking you children to church is not forcing them to embrace any sort of permenant membership to the Christian religion. They are too young to really care enough unless you really enforce the values at home.

Which typo?Read yourself.

Christians are free of the penalty, are being freed from the power and will be freed from the presence of sin. Jesus' sacrifice does not free all from sin. And yes, you do need someone to talk to God, unless you are a Christian. In which case, because you have been adopted by God, you may approach Him with boldness.Blah. Go read Milton.
.

So what makes your "experience" more legitimate than mine?

The fact that I don't know your experience. I only know mine. And you have done nothing but say

obsessively "christian" households

You yourself note that their true understanding is in doubt with your quotation marks. I have explained why I agree with this doubt based on my experiences. And I think that I would see more clearly since I am still in the Church. You don't appear to be and if so, are less likely to see distinctions.

What I meant to say is, taking you children to church is not forcing them to embrace any sort of permenant membership to the Christian religion.

Just like bringing your children to communist rallies is not forcing them to embrace the manifesto.

They are too young to really care enough unless you really enforce the values at home.

They are too young to see through it.

Read yourself.

Blah. Go read Milton.
.

I did and didn't see it. Why do I care what Milton said?

EDIT: Never mind. I found it.

"You shall teach them [God's words] diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise."

Deuteronomy 6:7 (ESV)
I agree. Of course, one should talk about many things to one's child, but relating real life events to the word of God is a helpful part of education.

I did and didn't see it.Of course not.
Why do I care what Milton said?Because you should care for anything that would widen your obviously narrow horizon.
.

I agree. Of course, one should talk about many things to one's child, but relating real life events to the word of God is a helpful part of education.

Which part of God's word?

Just like bringing your children to communist rallies is not forcing them to embrace the manifesto.



They are too young to see through it.

So what, when they get older (assuming you have brought them up well) they will begin to question whatever religious beliefs they have been raised with.

So what if they get brought up in a vague religious culture?

I agree. Of course, one should talk about many things to one's child, but relating real life events to the word of God is a helpful part of education.There is no word of any god in the Bible. It is only the word of a handful of overeager Jews.
.

Have you tried? The answer's probably no. In my experience, it is only the families who have done this whose children have remained faithful Christians. Those which compromised? Their children can't quote John 3:16 even with prompting.
That's not true, Christianity was never forced on me, yet I embrace it.

Of course not.
Because you should care for anything that would widen your obviously narrow horizon.
.

That wasn't my point. My point was that it doesn't matter what Milton says in determining what is. Though reading him would undoubtedly help me understand more, it won't change what God has revealed.

Which part of God's word?
Whatever fits the situation at hand.

So what, when they get older (assuming you have brought them up well) they will begin to question whatever religious beliefs they have been raised with.

If they have managed to retain any sense, yes (the thing is, being raised well is anathema to being raised religious - it's more an exception, I'd say. A lucky fluke.). Alas, the chance for a child to see through the indoctrination is quite diminished the more they are inundated with it. It's like Scientology - they get you when you're weak and then in most cases they've got you.

So what if they get brought up with a vague religious culture?

You seem to be under the impression that religion is something good or neutral.

Whatever fits the situation at hand.Or whatever fits your opinion on the situation at hand.
.

That wasn't my point. My point was that it doesn't matter what Milton says in determining what is. Though reading him would undoubtedly help me understand more, it won't change what God has revealed.

Though a course in neuroscience or astrophysics or anthropology might.

That's not true, Christianity was never forced on me, yet I embrace it.

First, are we speaking about your childhood? Were you raised in a Christian home, or were did you come to the faith later?

Second, I agree that I was not forced. But for all practical purposes, I use that word in this conversation. Instead of opening up the can of worms over what "forced" really means, I'll fight the battle of whether parents should teach their children God's Word diligently.

Just like bringing your children to communist rallies is not forcing them to embrace the manifesto.

from the begining of time parents have raised their children according to their values, why would you want to change that now?

Personally I see nothing wrong with introducing children to religion. I know there's all this talk of 'brainwashing' but really, do we not do the same thing with Father Christmas? The Easter Bunny? The Tooth Fairy? All of these follow exactly the same principle, and yet how many adults believe in them?

Of course, you can argue that, say, your brother told you it's actually your mum who took that tooth, and that it's not really real. But then isn't the world full of people saying much the same about religion?

I was taken to church as a child, baptised as a baby and all of that. I didn't believe - not truly believe until a couple of years ago (when I was fifteen). Just introducing me to religion didn't make me a believer; I made my own choice, weighed it up in my own mind. Who knows though, maybe that doesn't work for everyone, or maybe I was influenced more than I realise by it. I seem to be working out ok for being Christian though - hasn't made me any less of a person.





And if someone doesn't make a 'Father Christmas isn't real?! :eek:' gag within the next ten posts I shall be sorely disappointed :D

I personally feel that religious belief should be discovered independently, since our conscience and reasoning are the only way that we can come to a spiritual truth. My religious beliefs have been developed by me through my own learning and experiences, and I feel that is really the best way to do it. Personal experience and reasoning, after all, are the most self-convincing methods of discovering spirituality for ourselves.

However, I do feel that religious belief (if you have it) should be introduced if necessary as an underlying argument for morality. Nevertheless, your kids should be free to investigate other traditions and see what lies behind them and to see if there is anything of value in them. We shouldn't try and force our beliefs on anyone, since in all honesty our religious beliefs are based on faith and to try and "prove" one religion or one God over another is an exercise in futility...it's something you have to discover on your own through your own search for truth.

For reference, I am an agnostic theist but am leaning more and more towards Catholicism.

If they have managed to retain any sense, yes (the thing is, being raised well is anathema to being raised religious - it's more an exception, I'd say. A lucky fluke.). Alas, the chance for a child to see through the indoctrination is quite diminished the more they are inundated with it. It's like Scientology - they get you when you're weak and then in most cases they've got you.


If the child is completely indoctrinated into it and do not have the ability to question it then they have been raised completely wrong.


You seem to be under the impression that religion is something good or neutral.

You make it seem like it's the same as Nazism.

Whatever fits the situation at hand.

So in discussions of homosexuality, you will remind them that Leviticus proscribes the death penalty for such a heinous crime?

In discussions of Israel/Palestine, you will remind them that God gave the land to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and their descendants, and called for genocide in order to take this birthright?

In discussions of politics, you will remind them that according to God, a politician who fails to fully exterminate an enemy, to the last man, woman, child, and beast, deserves to be stripped of his standing?

Or will you dispense with the Bible, and teach them something decent?

I personally feel that religious belief should be discovered independently, since our conscience and reasoning are the only way that we can come to a spiritual truth. My religious beliefs have been developed by me through my own learning and experiences, and I feel that is really the best way to do it. Personal experience and reasoning, after all, are the most self-convincing methods of discovering spirituality for ourselves.

However, I do feel that religious belief (if you have it) should be introduced if necessary as an underlying argument for morality. Nevertheless, your kids should be free to investigate other traditions and see what lies behind them and to see if there is anything of value in them. We shouldn't try and force our beliefs on anyone, since in all honesty our religious beliefs are based on faith and to try and "prove" one religion or one God over another is an exercise in futility...it's something you have to discover on your own through your own search for truth.

For reference, I am an agnostic theist but am leaning more and more towards Catholicism.
The good thing in Catholicism or any other orthodox church is that you know what you get. In all those Protestant groups and sects one never knows what they are really about.
.

from the begining of time parents have raised their children according to their values, why would you want to change that now?

Some values are simply crap, you see. That they've been around for a long time and been perpetuated doesn't mean they have any sort of worth or should be respected in any sense. Slavery was a value. Crap. Nationalism was a value. Crap. Religion is a value to some. It's still crap.

Some values are simply crap, you see. That they've been around for a long time and been perpetuated doesn't mean they have any sort of worth or should be respected in any sense. Slavery was a value. Crap. Nationalism was a value. Crap. Religion is a value to some. It's still crap.

so, because you think that all religion is crap, everyone on earth should bow down to you and do what you think is best?

I was taken to church as a child, baptised as a baby and all of that. I didn't believe - not truly believe until a couple of years ago (when I was fifteen). Just introducing me to religion didn't make me a believer; I made my own choice, weighed it up in my own mind. Who knows though, maybe that doesn't work for everyone, or maybe I was influenced more than I realise by it. I seem to be working out ok for being Christian though - hasn't made me any less of a person.




Sure. I remember being that age, mulling the matter over and deciding that the whole thing was a stageshow put on for the benefit of the leaders. Like most things we turn our hands to.

So why should you have god revealing himself to you? S'not fair.

The good thing in Catholicism or any other orthodox church is that you know what you get. In all those Protestant groups and sects one never knows what they are really about.
.

I haven't seen a protestant church without a statement of faith outlining exactly what they believe and why.

Of course, you can argue that, say, your brother told you it's actually your mum who took that tooth, and that it's not really real. But then isn't the world full of people saying much the same about religion?

They're not really the same. Your example is more like your mom or dad walking up to you and saying "I'm God" rather than telling you that God does not exist.

Also, you can either directly observe your parents doing these things or logically deduce it from observation of other clues. Neither of these is possible with God, and that's why it is fundamentally impossible to disprove its existence; you're trying to use human logic and physical investigation to argue about something that exists outside of time and matter.

so, because you think that all religion is crap, everyone on earth should bow down to you and do what you think is best?

On this matter, yes. Religion deserves no respect.

Some values are simply crap, you see. That they've been around for a long time and been perpetuated doesn't mean they have any sort of worth or should be respected in any sense. Slavery was a value. Crap. Nationalism was a value. Crap. Religion is a value to some. It's still crap.

Against what standard do you argue that slavery and nationalism are wrong?

I haven't seen a protestant church without a statement of faith outlining exactly what they believe and why.

I second that.

On this matter, yes. Religion deserves no respect.

why?

so, because you think that all religion is crap, everyone on earth should bow down to you and do what you think is best?Religion is crap, that is not a matter of opinion. Anything that keeps people from using their own minds is crap.

If the child is completely indoctrinated into it and do not have the ability to question it then they have been raised completely wrong.

That's the thing. Being raised religiously is being raised wrong. It isn't in the interest of religious people to sow doubt and critical thinking of the religion they follow, so they simply won't. If the child picks those up, it is fortunate, because it won't tend to be because it was raised with them.

You make it seem like it's the same as Nazism.

Well, if we go by amount of suffering and death caused through the years, then it no doubt is.

Sure. I remember being that age, mulling the matter over and deciding that the whole thing was a stageshow put on for the benefit of the leaders. Like most things we turn our hands to.

So why should you have god revealing himself to you? S'not fair.

:) If you search for God I'm sure He will reveal Himself to you. *Insert innuendo here*

Perhaps the experiences you had of religion were different? Perhaps the leaders in your area really were in it solely for their own benefit. I'm glad to say that if that was the case for mine it didn't work :)

Religion is crap, that is not a matter of opinion. Anything that keeps people from using their own minds is crap.

I use my mind quite often. I wonder about people who make absolute statements though, I wonder how much they actually think through what they are saying.

why?

Because it has no inherent value - just tradition.

The only thing positive about religion is the ideal of 'brotherhood' or 'togetherness' or even 'self-fulfillment'. All of which exist perfectly happily outside of the religious sphere.

I haven't seen a protestant church without a statement of faith outlining exactly what they believe and why.I haven't seen a protestant church with a statement of faith outlining exactly what they believe and why.
Protestants stepped out of the community that Jesus founded. Are they Christians at all?
.

That's the thing. Being raised religiously is being raised wrong. It isn't in the interest of religious people to sow doubt and critical thinking of the religion they follow, so they simply won't. If the child picks those up, it is fortunate, because it won't tend to be because it was raised with them.

can you objectively prove that it is wrong?

Religion is crap, that is not a matter of opinion. Anything that keeps people from using their own minds is crap.

Why do you say that? It's because I use my mind that I am a Christian! I use my mind, so I don't accept these theories about evolution that are shoved down my throat in biology. I use my brain, so I believe in things like preservation of the saints. It's because I use my brain that I am not an atheist.

Well, if we go by amount of suffering and death caused through the years, then it no doubt is.

Why is that wrong? I'm just wondering what moral standard you use to argue against the wrongness of suffering and death.

Also, it's not religion that causes suffering and death, it's people. Those two horrific things exist in all societies and have causes that are as separate from religion as anything else.

so, because you think that all religion is crap, everyone on earth should bow down to you and do what you think is best?

So that's the straw man you decided to pull? I must say, I was kind of curious which one it would be, because I knew it would come.

Because it has no inherent value - just tradition.

The only thing positive about religion is the ideal of 'brotherhood' or 'togetherness' or even 'self-fulfillment'. All of which exist perfectly happily outside of the religious sphere.
I find great value in my faith.

I haven't seen a protestant church with a statement of faith outlining exactly what they believe and why.
Protestants stepped out of the community that Jesus founded. Are they Christians at all?
.
I am a Christian, I am a protestant.

What do you think makes a Christian a Christian?

I haven't seen a protestant church with a statement of faith outlining exactly what they believe and why.
Protestants stepped out of the community that Jesus founded. Are they Christians at all?
.

Every Presbyterian body has accepted the Westminster Confession of Faith and its Catechisms. There's a dozen Protestant groups right there.

That's the thing. Being raised religiously is being raised wrong. It isn't in the interest of religious people to sow doubt and critical thinking of the religion they follow, so they simply won't. If the child picks those up, it is fortunate, because it won't tend to be because it was raised with them.


Thats extemely opinionated. If you are going to generalise about religion and religious people then the debate will go no where.


Well, if we go by amount of suffering and death caused through the years, then it no doubt is.

Thats a terrible way to show how bad something is. Anything which has a difference of opinion will cause conflict.

The only thing positive about religion is the ideal of 'brotherhood' or 'togetherness' or even 'self-fulfillment'. All of which exist perfectly happily outside of the religious sphere.

Why is brotherhood or togetherness an ideal?

Why is brotherhood or togetherness an ideal?

Because it's apparently not the natural condition.

Also, it's not religion that causes suffering and death, it's people. Those two horrific things exist in all societies and have causes that are as separate from religion as anything else.

But when religion explicitly promotes doctrines whose consequences are suffering and death - opposition to homosexuality, misogyny, intolerance of other religions, hierarchy, meek obedience, etc. - it deserves to be blamed for its contributions.

So that's the straw man you decided to pull? I must say, I was kind of curious which one it would be, because I knew it would come.

straw man?

not really. You say that it's wrong to raise people in a religious home, that religion is crap, you can't prove it, you haven't offered any proof that it is wrong, you can't. You have the opinion that it is wrong, you are basing your position that kids should not be raised around religious people based on your opinion therefore when I say that you think it's wrong and that people should do what you think is right because you think it, it's hardly a straw man.

But when religion explicitly promotes doctrines whose consequences are suffering and death - opposition to homosexuality, misogyny, intolerance of other religions, hierarchy, meek obedience, etc. - it deserves to be blamed for its contributions.

so all religion is the same now?

I haven't seen a protestant church without a statement of faith outlining exactly what they believe and why.

Thirded. The Church of England, for example, has a very definite creed. There's even a song written about it.

They're not really the same. Your example is more like your mom or dad walking up to you and saying "I'm God" rather than telling you that God does not exist.

Also, you can either directly observe your parents doing these things or logically deduce it from observation of other clues. Neither of these is possible with God, and that's why it is fundamentally impossible to disprove its existence; you're trying to use human logic and physical investigation to argue about something that exists outside of time and matter.

Yeh it wasn't a great analogy. It was more meant to show that we 'brainwash' kids anyway. I think I tried to take it rather further than it was able to go :)

Religion is crap, that is not a matter of opinion. Anything that keeps people from using their own minds is crap.

*Raises hand* I'm very much Christian, and still have retained my lucidity. I arrived att my decision to follow Christ by use of my mind, I continue to use my mind to evaluate my decision, and so far I haven't been given reason to think I made the wrong choice.

That's the thing. Being raised religiously is being raised wrong. It isn't in the interest of religious people to sow doubt and critical thinking of the religion they follow, so they simply won't. If the child picks those up, it is fortunate, because it won't tend to be because it was raised with them.

But it is in the interests of religious people to encourage critical thinking in general in their kids. If their kids don't apply this to their religion then admittedly there is fault at hand, but that's the parents' fault rather than the religion. You're also assuming that no parent raises their child to reach reasoned decisions rather than accepting everything they're told at face value.

Why is that wrong? I'm just wondering what moral standard you use to argue against the wrongness of suffering and death.

*picks one out of the hat* Hedonism.

Also, it's not religion that causes suffering and death, it's people. Those two horrific things exist in all societies and have causes that are as separate from religion as anything else.

That's just like saying "people don't kill people, it's the injuries to vital processes that people cause to people that kill people." So, sure, if you like to pretend away the culpability, then be my guest.

Because it's apparently not the natural condition.

Why wouldn't we want the natural condition? What makes one better than the other?

I haven't seen a protestant church with a statement of faith outlining exactly what they believe and why.
Protestants stepped out of the community that Jesus founded. Are they Christians at all?
.

Protestantism (or lutherism) were formed by people protesting against the alleged infallability of the Pope and against the church from not properly educating people about what the Bible actually said (among many other corruptions). They wanted people to follow the Bible, not the Pope.

so all religion is the same now?

I didn't say that.

I think pretty much all existing kinds of organized religion have aspects that I strongly object to ethically, but I suppose I can conceive of decent alternatives.

*picks one out of the hat* Hedonism.

Why do you want to pursue pleasure? And what about pleasures that cause others pain?

That's just like saying "people don't kill people, it's the injuries that to vital processes people cause to people that kill people." So, sure, if you like to pretend away the culpability, then be my guest.

How many innocent people have died because of democratic governments, or because of biological weapons experiments conducted on people in the name of "science". By that logic, democracy is responsible for every innocent death caused by a democratic government and science is responsible for every death caused by eugenics or biological weapons experiments.

I didn't say that.

I think pretty much all existing kinds of organized religion have aspects that I strongly object to ethically, but I suppose I can conceive of decent alternatives.

if every religion gets painted as violent, hateful, and full of idiots with nothing better to do than preach hellfire, you are either trying to hide the good in religions for your own argument to work, or you are ignorant of the world around you.

I haven't seen a protestant church with a statement of faith outlining exactly what they believe and why.
Protestants stepped out of the community that Jesus founded. Are they Christians at all?
.

No, they broke away from the Roman Catholic Church. Nothing wrong with that is there? Especially considering the state of the RCC at the time.

Why do you say that? It's because I use my mind that I am a Christian! I use my mind, so I don't accept these theories about evolution that are shoved down my throat in biology. I use my brain, so I believe in things like preservation of the saints. It's because I use my brain that I am not an atheist.

And on the flip side, I use my brain to conclude that evolution seems the most likely, that creationism doesn't seem at all probable and so forth. It doesn't affect my faith at all. I've reconciled the two rather neatly (to my mind at least).

But when religion explicitly promotes doctrines whose consequences are suffering and death - opposition to homosexuality, misogyny, intolerance of other religions, hierarchy, meek obedience, etc. - it deserves to be blamed for its contributions.

Well, we also have to remember that religion is being used by human beings, and religious texts are the word of God (in the case of the Bible) as written down by human beings; we are in a position where humans have control over the entire organization, so to speak, and ultimately that leaves a lot of room for corruption.

Ultimately, we have to go with our conscience as well as our religious teachings; if something is against our conscience, we should most likely go with it (provided it's not obviously in contradiction to morality, although that's a sticky subject in itself).

straw man?

not really. You say that it's wrong to raise people in a religious home, that religion is crap, you can't prove it, you haven't offered any proof that it is wrong, you can't.

Like I hardly need to motivate nowadays that goody Procter isn't a witch, I hardly need to motivate why religion is simply inane. You're religious - you won't admit it, of course you won't, but in the harsh cold light of common sense, your little wizard in the sky is just, well, a figment of your imagination. Pretend it away as you no doubt will, but rest assured that your pretending won't be something I'll entertain. I'll most likely ridicule it, because, really, you should have grown out if it a long time ago.

You have the opinion that it is wrong, you are basing your position that kids should not be raised around religious people based on your opinion therefore when I say that you think it's wrong and that people should do what you think is right because you think it, it's hardly a straw man.

You claimed I wanted to make people bow before me. Honey, you were off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of Oz.

Why wouldn't we want the natural condition? What makes one better than the other?

Because the natural condition is, like all nature, cruel and implacable. I'd argue that the meaning of life at this point is to stave off the descent back into tribalism.

Religion is tribalism. If you're religious, you're fucking things up. The karma's still not right as long as one person on earth believes in creation myths.

Come on, people. It's scary, but we're doing ok on our own.

Protestantism (or lutherism) were formed by people protesting against the alleged infallability of the Pope and against the church from not properly educating people about what the Bible actually said (among many other corruptions). They wanted people to follow the Bible, not the Pope.It is the community that Jesus founded that constitutes Chritianity, not any teachings or stories in a book like the Bible. The first Christians had no Bible at all. The Orthodox Churches (that includes Catholicism) are the continuation of this community. The Protestants left this community and instead made the Bible their ideological basis and lost the human connexion, the chain from human to human beginning with Jesus. Thus Protestants are more like Jews (who are always so anal about any texts that allegedly prove something), which is funny since Luther himself was pretty anti-Jewish.
.

History! Since Protestantism was brought up I thought this would be good. For anyone who's interested, here's a little history about terms linked to the Reformation. The terms are always misused. There are a lot of nuances, which I won't mention, but here they are:

Evangelical - originally meant Protestant, was then applied (and still applied by theologians) to Protestant groups which affirm that Christians are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, made possible by the works of Christ alone, as told by the authority of Scripture alone

Protestant - applied to any group which was neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. It replaced Evangelical when the Anglican Church changed allegience, but not theology

Reformed - those Evangelical groups which kept closest with the leaders of the Reformation. Also called Calvinist

Arminian - (not Armenian) those Evangelical groups which rejected the Reformed explanation of predestination

Just in case anyone was wondering. You probably weren't but...

Like I hardly need to motivate nowadays that goody Procter isn't a witch, I hardly need to motivate why religion is simply inane. You're religious - you won't admit it, of course you won't, but in the harsh cold light of common sense, your little wizard in the sky is just, well, a figment of your imagination. Pretend it away as you no doubt will, but rest assured that your pretending won't be something I'll entertain. I'll most likely ridicule it, because, really, you should have grown out if it a long time ago.



You claimed I wanted to make people bow before me. Honey, you were off to see the wizard, the wonderful wizard of Oz.

oh.....I just realized who you are. Sorry for being short with you earlier. I think we already agreed to disagree a while ago right?

How are they going to choose for themselves if they are never introduced to the ideas in the first place?

There is a difference between teaching your children, "This is what we believe," (ie. including them as if your own beliefs are theirs) and teaching them about your own beliefs. As a child, my mother would take me to church, and when I would question her about what I had heard, she would tell me her own beliefs, in addition to beliefs held by others. Naturally, at a very young age, I tended to figure I would believe as my mother did, just like I cheered for her favorite football team and, had I thought about it, probably would have said I backed her chosen political candidates. However, as I got older, I began to seriously consider all of the viewpoints I heard - those she told me about and those she didn't. She never discouraged such questioning and, in fact, actively encouraged it.

Spot on - I'm a Christian parent & that is my response - speaking from my experience as a Christian, questioning and challenging beliefs [including my own] is essential. Discussion and healthy, intelligent debate is crucial. I hope that my children will have a connection with Christ as adults but if they do, I want it to be because they desire it, independent of anyone else. That's the freedom we have and I'd be remiss as a parent if I tried to force them to accept my faith.

if every religion gets painted as violent, hateful, and full of idiots with nothing better to do than preach hellfire,

Well, "hateful" does seem to be a common feature. Even Baha'i thinks it's okay to condemn homosexuality.

"Violent" tends to stem fairly naturallly from "hateful," though in some areas secularism has countered this tendency.

"Idiots", no - there are plenty of intelligent religious people.

"Preach[ing] hellfire" requires an actual belief in hellfire, which I will grant is not common to all kinds of organized religion.

you are either trying to hide the good in religions for your own argument to work

I have never argued that all of religion is "bad."

It is the community that Jesus founded that constitutes Chritianity, not any teachings or stories in a book like the Bible. The Orthodox Churches (that includes Catholicism) are the continuation of this community. The Protestants left this community and instead made the Bible their ideological basis and lost the human connexion, the chain from human to human beginning with Jesus. Thus Protestants are more like Jews, which is funny since Luther himself was pretty anti-Jewish.
.

Actually, the Protestant churches are much closer to the Early Church as seen in the Bible that either the RC or the EO.

But it is in the interests of religious people to encourage critical thinking in general in their kids. If their kids don't apply this to their religion then admittedly there is fault at hand, but that's the parents' fault rather than the religion. You're also assuming that no parent raises their child to reach reasoned decisions rather than accepting everything they're told at face value.

There is nothing "reasoned" about religion. No, it's not a reasoned decision to choose to believe in Mwoatombo, the elf that lives in your cellar and brings you good fortune if you feed him porridge.

History! Since Protestantism was brought up I thought this would be good. For anyone who's interested, here's a little history about terms linked to the Reformation. The terms are always misused. There are a lot of nuances, which I won't mention, but here they are:

Evangelical - originally meant Protestant, was then applied (and still applied by theologians) to Protestant groups which affirm that Christians are saved by grace alone, through faith alone, made possible by the works of Christ alone, as told by the authority of Scripture alone

Protestant - applied to any group which was neither Roman Catholic nor Eastern Orthodox. It replaced Evangelical when the Anglican Church changed allegience, but not theology

Reformed - those Evangelical groups which kept closest with the leaders of the Reformation. Also called Calvinist

Arminian - (not Armenian) those Evangelical groups which rejected the Reformed explanation of predestination

Just in case anyone was wondering. You probably weren't but...

Now this boy's crazy. Even the Christians admit that.

"Too far" they say, and shake their heads. "Tone it down, for god's sake", they add.

Well, "hateful" does seem to be a common feature. Even Baha'i thinks it's okay to condemn homosexuality.

"Violent" tends to stem fairly naturallly from "hateful," though in some areas secularism has countered this tendency.

"Idiots", no - there are plenty of intelligent religious people.

"Preach[ing] hellfire" requires an actual belief in hellfire, which I will grant is not common to all kinds of organized religion.
I condemn nobody, and yet I am religious...all religion is not the same, it varies just like people do.



I have never argued that all of religion is "bad."
my apologies, my head is not working properly today.....had a hard day at the farm.

It is the community that Jesus founded that constitutes Chritianity, not any teachings or stories in a book like the Bible. The first Christians had no Bible at all. The Orthodox Churches (that includes Catholicism) are the continuation of this community. The Protestants left this community and instead made the Bible their ideological basis and lost the human connexion, the chain from human to human beginning with Jesus. Thus Protestants are more like Jews (who are always so anal about any texts that allegedly prove something), which is funny since Luther himself was pretty anti-Jewish.
.

I smell horse-apples. How exactly did we get to the point where you decide who is and isn't Christian? To be Christian, it is generally accepted within the Christian community that you have to follow the teachings of Christ as laid down within the Bible, not some hokum pokum about belong to the JeeZus Kru, the Nazareth Boiz or whatever you seem to be hooked up on.

oh.....I just realized who you are. Sorry for being short with you earlier. I think we already agreed to disagree a while ago right?

It took you this long? :D:p

Because the natural condition is, like all nature, cruel and implacable. I'd argue that the meaning of life at this point is to stave off the descent back into tribalism.

Cruelty is subjective. A person who is strong enough to steal what he wants or who can convince others to follow them by brute force can live very well in a tribalist society. There's absolutely no incentive to not be cruel if you can get something out of it in return.

Religion is tribalism. If you're religious, you're fucking things up. The karma's still not right as long as one person on earth believes in creation myths.

It's interesting to know that every time a religious institution rebuilds someone's house, collects food and clothes for the poor, cares for the sick or orphaned, provides education and clean water in poor villages around the world or tries to achieve peace instead of war as a solution to disputes is fucking "things up".

And creation myths have nothing to do with the "truth" of religious belief. The Bible, Qur'an, or Rig Veda are religious works written by man to convey the word of God in a way that people can understand. Quantum mechanics wouldn't fly in 2000 BC.

Come on, people. It's scary, but we're doing ok on our own.

Really? I see a lot of problems in the world that are only getting worse, and I see a lot of religious organizations stemming horrific diseases and suffering around the world.

Actually, the Protestant churches are much closer to the Early Church as seen in the Bible that either the RC or the EO.They claim but the are not.
.

There is nothing "reasoned" about religion. No, it's not a reasoned decision to choose to believe in Mwoatombo, the elf that lives in your cellar and brings you good fortune if you feed him porridge.

I don't understand what you are trying to argue. You claim you don't actually want to force people to not raise people religiously. But you still criticize for thinking that people should be allowed to.

You are essentially seem to be arguing against religion in general, which is stupid as each religion is completely different.

They claim but the are not.
.

Why do you put a full stop under everything you type?

Well, we also have to remember that religion is being used by human beings, and religious texts are the word of God (in the case of the Bible) as written down by human beings; we are in a position where humans have control over the entire organization, so to speak, and ultimately that leaves a lot of room for corruption.

Only most religions hold that the teachings are somehow divinely inspired and protected.

Catholicism, for instance, holds that the teachings of the Church on moral questions are infallible.

Ultimately, we have to go with our conscience as well as our religious teachings; if something is against our conscience, we should most likely go with it (provided it's not obviously in contradiction to morality, although that's a sticky subject in itself).

Then what role do the religious teachings play, if you just pick and choose which ones you like and don't like?

I'm happy to teach children about religion, but I'd also be sure to point out that these systems of belief are entirely without reason.

I would be so proud if my child said in school "religion is a crutch for the weak-minded".

oh.....I just realized who you are. Sorry for being short with you earlier.

No biggie. Remember, I'm not the one to be affected by "shortness." ;)

I think we already agreed to disagree a while ago right?

We probably did, but that doesn't mean I've given up on you, yet! :P

I condemn nobody, and yet I am religious...all religion is not the same, it varies just like people do.

Do you think it's okay for God to condemn?

No biggie. Remember, I'm not the one to be affected by "shortness." ;)



We probably did, but that doesn't mean I've given up on you, yet! :P

meh, now that I know who you are I will be more patient, I remember fun times.

There is nothing "reasoned" about religion. No, it's not a reasoned decision to choose to believe in Mwoatombo, the elf that lives in your cellar and brings you good fortune if you feed him porridge.

And yet, if you were to leave porridge by the cellar, and by the morning it had vanished, and you experienced extraordinary good luck following that, in addition to having thousands of years worth of writings and eye-witness evidence of Mwoatombo, it would be reasonable to suspect that something was going on nay?

Same with religion - I have had many experiences which seem to match up to what Christianity says, therefore I don't see it as unreasonable to think that I'm on to something.

Now this boy's crazy. Even the Christians admit that.

"Too far" they say, and shake their heads. "Tone it down, for god's sake", they add.

Yer what? *Blank look*

There is nothing "reasoned" about religion. No, it's not a reasoned decision to choose to believe in Mwoatombo, the elf that lives in your cellar and brings you good fortune if you feed him porridge.

Is it reasoned to not believe in God? As far as I know, no one has ever been able to empirically demonstrate the nonexistence of God.

Do you think it's okay for God to condemn?

I figure it's okay for God to do whatever He wishes, He is God afterall.

I am human, flawed and shortsighted, I couldn't condemn if I wanted to, things of that nature are beyond my control. In fact the only thing in my control is myself and that's what I tend to think about, and that's what my religion applies to.

I smell horse-apples. How exactly did we get to the point where you decide who is and isn't Christian? To be Christian, it is generally accepted within the Christian community that you have to follow the teachings of Christ as laid down within the Bible, not some hokum pokum about belong to the JeeZus Kru, the Nazareth Boiz or whatever you seem to be hooked up on.It is a misconception that a) the Bible lays down any teachings of the historical Jesus and b) that the Bible is necessary for anything. The first followers of Jesus had no Bibles, most of them could not even read. They only had the community. And that is how it remained. The Bible is only a additional prop but in no way the foundation of Christianity.
.

Why do you put a full stop under everything you type?Well, I want a gap between text I write and whatever comes beneath (my sig, the next post, whatever...).
.

I figure it's okay for God to do whatever He wishes, He is God afterall.

Then the fact that you, personally, condemn nobody is completely immaterial.

You think it's perfectly okay for God to condemn whoever He wants, for whatever arbitrary reasons He invents, so it amounts to the same thing.

Only most religions hold that the teachings are somehow divinely inspired and protected.

Catholicism, for instance, holds that the teachings of the Church on moral questions are infallible.

The Catholic Church also holds that Purgatory is real, despite the overwhelming lack of Biblical evidence thereto.

I don't understand what you are trying to argue. You claim you don't actually want to force people to not raise people religiously. But you still criticize for thinking that people should be allowed to.

And where exactly did I say people shouldn't be allowed to? Just because I criticise that it goes on, doesn't mean I want to "make" people stop it. They should stop on their own. Be made to stop? Not be allowed to? Puh-lease. I did criticise the teacher proselytising religion in school, though.

You are essentially seem to be arguing against religion in general, which is stupid as each religion is completely different.

Each religion is exactly the same thing: supernaturalism. A ridiculous concept. So, no need differentiate its spectrum - it's just the same shit, different packaging.

Then the fact that you, personally, condemn nobody is completely immaterial.

You think it's perfectly okay for God to condemn whoever He wants, for whatever arbitrary reasons He invents, so it amounts to the same thing.

God's reasons would not be arbitrary...He knows all. (assuming He does in fact exist)

Only most religions hold that the teachings are somehow divinely inspired and protected.

Most hold them to be divinely "inspired", which still leaves room for human fallibility in the transmission of God's word to individuals.

Catholicism, for instance, holds that the teachings of the Church on moral questions are infallible.

Actually, the Church has modified its teaching to say:

"Man has the right to act according to his conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters""

In other words, if your conscience tells you one thing and the Church another, you should go with your conscience first. Ideally, you'd contact a priest or someone with authority on the matter and discuss it with them but they cannot stop you from acting according to your conscience.

Then what role do the religious teachings play, if you just pick and choose which ones you like and don't like?

Well, the Church believes that conscience stems from God and so most of our moral decisions will be in line with the teachings of the Church. In other words, God created the conscience so our conscience should be in line with God.

God's reasons would not be arbitrary...He knows all. (assuming He does in fact exist)

Morality is not a matter of knowledge.

Morality is not a matter of knowledge.

how do you know?

Morality is not a matter of knowledge.But?
.

Is it reasoned to not believe in God? As far as I know, no one has ever been able to empirically demonstrate the nonexistence of God.

That's what you resort to? The old logical fallacy of proving a negative? The one easily countered with "no one has been able to disprove gumdrop and lollypop land where people pee ovomaltine, either!" :rolleyes:

You've certainly let your argumentation slip since last I chatted with you...

Each religion is exactly the same thing: supernaturalism. A ridiculous concept. So, no need differentiate its spectrum - it's just the same shit, different packaging.

Prove this to me. As far as I know, there is a lot more that we know nothing about than we do know about, and no scientific experiment has ever been conducted that has empirical evidence for or against supernatural phenomena.

We've barely penetrated the functioning of the brain, and understanding of consciousness and memory is still in its infancy. How can you even begin to argue against the supernatural when our own species is still cloaked in mystery?

Prove this to me. As far as I know, there is a lot more that we know nothing about than we do know about, and no scientific experiment has ever been conducted that has empirical evidence for or against supernatural phenomena.

We've barely penetrated the functioning of the brain, and understanding of consciousness and memory is still in its infancy. How can you even begin to argue against the supernatural when our own species is still cloaked in mystery?

But by definition the supernatural exist outside of testable boundaries

What is waiting for more natural information going to do to help us determine the super natural that are not necessarily bound by natural laws.

Do you think it's okay for God to condemn?

Well He is perfect, so I assume He knows what He's doing.

It is a misconception that a) the Bible lays down any teachings of the historical Jesus and b) that the Bible is necessary for anything. The first followers of Jesus had no Bibles, most of them could not even read. They only had the community. And that is how it remained. The Bible is only a additional prop but in no way the foundation of Christianity.
.

Umm, do you actually have any backing for any of this? Like what evidence do you have that the Bible doesn't lay down the teachings of the 'historical' (as opposed to geographical?:confused: ) Jesus? And as a Christian I can most definitely say that the Bible is necessary for pretty much everything. It reveals God's message to the world, and it doesn't get much more necessary than that.

The first followers of Jesus did have 'bibles' - they had the Torah, and it follows that they presumably knew how to read it. And even if not they didn't 'just have the community' - they had the teachings of Jesus, the letters of Paul, Peter, John and so forth. Since there were people to write them it follows that there would've been someone to read them.

And the foundation of Christianity is the teachings of Jesus, which conveniently enough happen to be in the Bible, so yes, actually, the Bible is the foundation of Christianity.

Well, I want a gap between text I write and whatever comes beneath (my sig, the next post, whatever...).
.

Is there not a gap there anyway? Posts and sigs are seperated by that little bar.

And don't piss too many people off with it, or it'll bite you in the arse ;) Remember what happened with Ritlina? :D

Is it reasoned to not believe in God? As far as I know, no one has ever been able to empirically demonstrate the nonexistence of God.Well, at all times people have had many gods, including the Israelites and the Hebrews before them. The restriction to just one god was made pretty late, and there is no reason why this was made and why the Jews project their monotheistic view into the past and pretend that it had existed before it actually did.

And yet, if you were to leave porridge by the cellar, and by the morning it had vanished, and you experienced extraordinary good luck following that, in addition to having thousands of years worth of writings and eye-witness evidence of Mwoatombo, it would be reasonable to suspect that something was going on nay?

You won't have that because Mwatombo doesn't exist. Just like religious people don't have it because their little Vishnu or Enkidu or Jahve or Thor or Zeus doesn't exist.

Same with religion - I have had many experiences which seem to match up to what Christianity says, therefore I don't see it as unreasonable to think that I'm on to something.

One should never underestimate the power of self-delusion. It makes people think they're clairvoyant, and it also makes them think their particular deity of all those possible deities is more probable or less non-sensical than them.

Actually, the Church has modified its teaching to say:

"Man has the right to act according to his conscience and in freedom so as personally to make moral decisions. He must not be forced to act contrary to his conscience. Nor must he be prevented from acting according to his conscience, especially in religious matters""

In other words, if your conscience tells you one thing and the Church another, you should go with your conscience first.

No, that isn't what it says at all. It is just an endorsement of religious freedom, a concession to the prevailing liberal ideology in today's Western World.

You should go with the Church - but no one should force you to.

Ideally, you'd contact a priest or someone with authority on the matter and discuss it with them but they cannot stop you from acting according to your conscience.

Yes, but this is a separate question from moral obligation.

Well, the Church believes that conscience stems from God and so most of our moral decisions will be in line with the teachings of the Church. In other words, God created the conscience so our conscience should be in line with God.

We are supposed to be naturally inclined towards the good, yes, I know. But Catholic natural law, like so much of moral philosophy, assumes that its view of what we are naturally inclined to do is the correct one, and any other one is disgusting and sinful.

You're assuming that they want to derive morality from natural moral inclinations, but they don't; they want to justify their intolerant, reactionary, and bigoted conception of morality with vague appeals to an incoherent moral theory.

If someone is naturally homosexual, for instance, they are "deviant" and "disordered."

That's what you resort to? The old logical fallacy of proving a negative? The one easily countered with "no one has been able to disprove gumdrop and lollypop land where people pee ovomaltine, either!" :rolleyes:

You've certainly let your argumentation slip since last I chatted with you...

Well, it all depends on how you classify the "negative" position. If we are each stating a new claim instead of an alternative to a preexisting one, it is up to both of us to prove our claim. The default position in this case would be agnosticism.

Also, for a huge chunk of human history, the existence of God was considered the default position and any argument for the nonexistence of God would be considered the new argument that has to be proven, shifting the burden of proof from the preexisting theory to the new one.

You won't have that because Mwatombo doesn't exist. Just like religious people don't have it because their little Vishnu or Enkidu or Jahve or Thor or Zeus doesn't exist.

Naturally not. But I have had experiences of God in the same sense.

One should never underestimate the power of self-delusion. It makes people think they're clairvoyant, and it also makes them think their particular deity of all those possible deities is more probable or less non-sensical than them.

In which case we must assume that the overwhelming majority of people are 'self-delusional' and yet... surely what is normal and non-delusional would be that which is experienced by the majority?

Cruelty is subjective. A person who is strong enough to steal what he wants or who can convince others to follow them by brute force can live very well in a tribalist society. There's absolutely no incentive to not be cruel if you can get something out of it in return.

I'm not sure I'm quite with your last sentence, but I'm not disputing the first. Strange you bring up 'following'. Is it an indispensable part of tribal society?



It's interesting to know that every time a religious institution rebuilds someone's house, collects food and clothes for the poor, cares for the sick or orphaned, provides education and clean water in poor villages around the world or tries to achieve peace instead of war as a solution to disputes is fucking "things up".

Yes, nice. Shi'te militiamen give food to their mob, and I hear Bono's doing another gig for Somalia. No doubt, that's a wonderful thing those people are doing out there, under their particular aegis - I wholeheartedly support a few of their efforts . But as long as people feel that they're affecting social change through the guidance of a central authority, they feel committed. I'm saying we don't necessarily need that.

People can do good without religion. Arguing against that is impossible. So, religion is now a less vital ingredient for the upkeep of the public good, and so on. You see where I'm going with this.

And creation myths have nothing to do with the "truth" of religious belief. The Bible, Qur'an, or Rig Veda are religious works written by man to convey the word of God in a way that people can understand. Quantum mechanics wouldn't fly in 2000 BC.

But this I hate. I detest it. All that chat about not shitting in your camp at night, and stoning as a method of punishment? Ugh. No wonder you disregard the old testament. It's an embarrassment. Couldn't the prophet have mentioned a car? Or a bicycle? Just a name. Or a minor event in the future. The Muslims have their three stages of embryology, the salt/fresh water sill and the linguistic proof, while Christians have nothing. How can this be?


Really? I see a lot of problems in the world that are only getting worse, and I see a lot of religious organizations stemming horrific diseases and suffering around the world.

Stemming horrific diseases? I thought you had to agree with the tenets of evolution before you worked on viral pathology.

Prove this to me. As far as I know, there is a lot more that we know nothing about than we do know about, and no scientific experiment has ever been conducted that has empirical evidence for or against supernatural phenomena.

Supernatural phenomena cannot be scientifically or empirically tested or proved by their very nature of being, yeah, you guessed it, supernatural. That's why they're ridiculous, and that's why your clutching at straws here is so feeble.

We've barely penetrated the functioning of the brain, and understanding of consciousness and memory is still in its infancy. How can you even begin to argue against the supernatural when our own species is still cloaked in mystery?

Let me guess, you believe in the ridiculous concept of "souls" and that our minds are somehow separate from the biological processes of the brain? Yet, you have no shred of evidence for it. Because you never will, because that's the whole point to the silliness - that it's this zany "supernaturalism" which is a concept anathema to being demystified, as the very tools we'd use to demystify it, it has been defined to be beyond the reach of. Just like the gods moved higher up from mount Olympos, to evade our grasp, you'll keep pushing them further and further away.

Well, at all times people have had many gods, including the Israelites and the Hebrews before them. The restriction to just one god was made pretty late, and there is no reason why this was made and why the Jews project their monotheistic view into the past and pretend that it had existed before it actually did.

That still doesn't mean God does not exist; all it means is that interpretations of God have changed. Perhaps all religions reflect a core concept of religious truth, with some closer to it than others; we're automatically assuming a false dichotomy and arguing about it from there rather than considering the possibility of a greyscale of truth.

Again, I have faith that God exists and an atheist has faith that God does not exist. Ultimately, we're pitting the fallacy of proving a negative against the fallacy of argument from ignorance, and any attempt to argue the point logically falls apart.

Umm, do you actually have any backing for any of this? Like what evidence do you have that the Bible doesn't lay down the teachings of the 'historical' (as opposed to geographical?:confused: ) Jesus? And as a Christian I can most definitely say that the Bible is necessary for pretty much everything. It reveals God's message to the world, and it doesn't get much more necessary than that.

The first followers of Jesus did have 'bibles' - they had the Torah, and it follows that they presumably knew how to read it. And even if not they didn't 'just have the community' - they had the teachings of Jesus, the letters of Paul, Peter, John and so forth. Since there were people to write them it follows that there would've been someone to read them.

And the foundation of Christianity is the teachings of Jesus, which conveniently enough happen to be in the Bible, so yes, actually, the Bible is the foundation of Christianity.- Almost none of the biblical authers in fact knew or ever met Jesus. They wrote down what they got from hearsay.
- Written biblical texts were virtually inaccessible to ordinary people, the only contact they had with the Torah or Tanaach was when they were read in temples. And letters are just letters, no books. Some may have been copied, but a real collection of texts that would later be made into the NT did not exist until the late 2nd century CE.
- The foundation of Christianity is the community, not some dead fabricated words of a book.
.

Children shouldn't be taught religion, rather, they should be taught a general set of good morals and civil behaviour.

That still doesn't mean God does not exist; all it means is that interpretations of God have changed. Perhaps all religions reflect a core concept of religious truth, with some closer to it than others; we're automatically assuming a false dichotomy and arguing about it from there rather than considering the possibility of a greyscale of truth.

Again, I have faith that God exists and an atheist has faith that God does not exist. Ultimately, we're pitting the fallacy of proving a negative against the fallacy of argument from ignorance, and any attempt to argue the point logically falls apart.But since I know that Jews and thus the Bible lie about the theology and thus history of ancient times, why should I believe in anything they tell about their "interpretation" of their god? If you have faith in something you know (or could know) has no basis, what is the use of that faith. faith is a flawed concept overall, since it has no connexion with reality at all. It is all in your head only and is independent from the world around you.
.

Naturally not. But I have had experiences of God in the same sense.

Sure you have. Just like the Toltecs had experiences of Quetzalcoatl, or Tom Cruise has of Xenu. We laugh at them and their quaint deities now, dismissing them because they are just so silly... I've said it before, and I'll say it again: when you understand why you dismiss all those other gods, you will know why I dismiss yours. And, trust me on this, yours is not in any way less dismissable.

In which case we must assume that the overwhelming majority of people are 'self-delusional' and yet... surely what is normal and non-delusional would be that which is experienced by the majority?

Tell that to the people burnt for being witches. Just because many people can fool themselves, doesn't mean they're not fooling themselves.

Supernatural phenoma cannot be scientifically or empirically tested or proved by their very nature of being, yeah, you guessed it, supernatural. That's why they're ridiculous, and that's why your clutching at straws here is so feeble.

Do you know for a fact that they will never be scientifically or empirically tested? Otherwise, you're simply having faith in the fact that we are not going to be able to test these things and arguing from there. Again, argument from ignorance; if it can't be proven to exist, it doesn't exist.


Let me guess, you believe in the ridiculous concept of "souls" and that our minds are somehow separate from the biological processes of the brain? Yet, you have no shred of evidence for it. Because you never will, because that's the whole point to the silliness - that it's this zany "supernaturalism" which is a concept anathema to being demystified, as the very tools we'd use to demystify it, it has been defined to be beyond the reach of. Just like the gods moved higher up from mount Olympos, to evade our grasp, you'll keep pushing them further and further away.

I have no shred of evidence, that's correct. However, the workings of the brain and its relation to consciousness and memory have yet to be explained and until they are, if they are, there is absolutely no reason other than faith to reduce consciousness to physical causes just like there is no other reason besides faith to believe that the soul exists.

Once the brain can be empirically shown to be the sole explanation of consciousness, there will be no argument for the soul from physical observation. And even if it were explained, there's still the magic of the supernatural itself: God could simply recreate consciousness in a spiritual realm if he wanted to.

Children shouldn't be taught religion, rather, they should be taught a general set of good morals and civil behaviour.

what are "good morals"? how do you know that they are good? why do you believe that? how can you teach them to your child when you can't prove them?

- Almost none of the biblical authers in fact knew or ever met Jesus. They wrote down what they got from hearsay.
- Written biblical texts were virtually inaccessible to ordinary people, the only contact they had with the Torah or Tanaach was when they were read in temples. And letters are just letters, no books. Some may have been copied, but a real collection of texts that would later be made into the NT did not exist until the late 2nd century CE.
- The foundation of Christianity is the community, not some dead fabricated words of a book.
.

What about John? He was one of Jesus' closest disciples. And Matthew too. And Peter, and James?
Does it matter if they didn't have Torahs to hand? The point is they had religious teachings to follow, not just 'the community'. And so the letters are just letters - so what? They are still guidance in how to live as a Christian. Damn good guidance too, if you read them.
You keep insisting that the foundation of Christianity was the community, but haven't yet given any reason as to why. So there it is? Why?


All that said, I'm actually off to bed, but feel free to tg me, or just respond anyway, because I expect I'll check this thread tomorrow. And besides, it might provide interesting material for someone else to discuss :)

My mother is Reform Jewish, my father is Catholic. They raised both my brother and I as Jews. However, I became more observant of my own accord.

But since I know that Jews and thus the Bible lie about the theology and thus history of ancient times, why should I believe in anything they tell about their "interpretation" of their god? If you have faith in something you know (or could know) has no basis, what is the use of that faith. faith is a flawed concept overall, since it has no connexion with reality at all. It is all in your head only and is independent from the world around you.

Well, you don't have to believe anything and you don't have to believe in their interpretation of their God

Faith has quite a bit of connection with reality; we take it on faith all the time that we will wake up in the morning, that our car will function properly, that we will not get in an accident, that the laws of the physical universe will remain constant and that we will not simply blink out of existence.

The concept of causality itself is taken on faith, just like any of the fundamental axioms of our reality.

what are "good morals"? how do you know that they are good? why do you believe that? how can you teach them to your child when you can't prove them?

Well... "good" as in the fact that they won't go running around shooting people, or chopping heads off of other people just because they have a different set of beliefs.

True, there is no such thing as "good morals." But the way I see it, if you're not harming anyone and you show everyone some respect, then its all good.

Sure you have. Just like the Toltecs had experiences of Quetzalcoatl, or Tom Cruise has of Xenu. We laugh at them and their quaint deities now, dismissing them because they are just so silly... I've said it before, and I'll say it again: when you understand why you dismiss all those other gods, you will know why I dismiss yours. And, trust me on this, yours is not in any way less dismissable.Indeed. And obviously like Tom Cruise you (I mean Fassigen) do not care about the lack of any reliable sources for your beliefs. Or like Tom Cruise you just do not have the mental abilities to review the sources at all.
.

what are "good morals"? how do you know that they are good? why do you believe that? how can you teach them to your child when you can't prove them?

Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle.

Don't mention his colour.

Well... "good" as in the fact that they won't go running around shooting people, or chopping heads off of other people just because they have a different set of beliefs.

True, there is no such thing as "good morals." But the way I see it, if you're not harming anyone and you show everyone some respect, then its all good.
how is that any different than what I teach my kids?

Pot, I'd like you to meet Kettle.

Don't mention his colour.

you aren't smart enough to understand.....

how is that any different than what I teach my kids?

Well gosh, I dunno what you teach your kids. But if you're teaching them what I previously mentioned then its all good.

how do you know?

Because knowledge concerns objective facts. Morality does not; it depends on "ought" statements.

Faith has quite a bit of connection with reality; we take it on faith all the time that we will wake up in the morning, that our car will function properly, that we will not get in an accident, that the laws of the physical universe will remain constant and that we will not simply blink out of existence.

The concept of causality itself is taken on faith, just like any of the fundamental axioms of our reality.

It's like a sketch show called the Krazy Kartasians, or something.

This is a ridiculous way to justify your faith. Calling the universe tenuous because the beliefs inside your skull are threatened? Problem.

Well, it all depends on how you classify the "negative" position. If we are each stating a new claim instead of an alternative to a preexisting one, it is up to both of us to prove our claim. The default position in this case would be agnosticism.

No, for you see, the default position in science is the 0 hypothesis, and that one is always "the claim is false." In the case of people claiming the existence of something, the 0 hypothesis is "it doesn't exist." Up to the claimer to disprove the 0 hypothesis. The thing is, you've sawed yourself off at the knees when you made that claim about the supernatural, because in doing so you have as per the definition of the supernatural made it impossible for yourself to disprove the 0 hypothesis.

Also, for a huge chunk of human history, the existence of God was considered the default position and any argument for the nonexistence of God would be considered the new argument that has to be proven, shifting the burden of proof from the preexisting theory to the new one.

Yeah, and for a long time people thought they'd fall off the edge of the Earth, and that "God" was not "God" but "gods." Still doesn't change the fact that the scientific 0 hypothesis is the negative, which you have to disprove. Because, you see, in your flawed view of evidence and the scientific method, anyone could make up any sort of nonsense and go "hah! it's valid 'cause you can't disprove it! Haha!" Sorry, bub. It doesn't work that way in the realm of sanity.

how can you teach them to your child when you can't prove them?

*swish*

Well, you don't have to believe anything and you don't have to believe in their interpretation of their GodOf course not, And you should not. Belief is insubstantial. Either you have an information or you do not. There is no point in pretending you know something while you only speculate (that is what belief is). Assumptions are dangerous and if they are used to justify actions in the real worls they are even more dangerous. Look at what suffering religions have caused.

The concept of causality itself is taken on faith, just like any of the fundamental axioms of our reality.Axioms have nothing to do with faith.
.

Indeed. And obviously like Tom Cruise you (I mean Fassigen) do not care about the lack of any reliable sources for your beliefs. Or like Tom Cruise you just do not have the mental abilities to review the sources at all.

You seem to be confused so as to think lack of belief - the very non-existence of it - is belief. Which is just pishposh.

I'm not sure I'm quite with your last sentence, but I'm not disputing the first. Strange you bring up 'following'. Is it an indispensable part of tribal society?

Well, no. But if you use enough brute force and cruelty, you can get people to follow you pretty effectively. Slavery is dependent on cruelty and oppression to function; they only follow because the alternative is so much worse.

Yes, nice. Shi'te militiamen give food to their mob, and I hear Bono's doing another gig for Somalia. No doubt, that's a wonderful thing those people are doing out there, under their particular aegis - I wholeheartedly support a few of their efforts . But as long as people feel that they're affecting social change through the guidance of a central authority, they feel committed. I'm saying we don't necessarily need that.

We might not "need" it in a formal, hierarchial sense, but that's more of an argument against organized religion rather than God as a concept. Most of the world's organized religions evolved from small or disorganized groups, so it's not like they appeared with a hierarchy from the outset.

People can do good without religion. Arguing against that is impossible. So, religion is now a less vital ingredient for the upkeep of the public good, and so on. You see where I'm going with this.

But why should people do good? What benefit is there in placing others before yourself instead of wanton self indulgence or powerlust? And, for that matter, what is the independent standard against which "good" is measured?

But this I hate. I detest it. All that chat about not shitting in your camp at night, and stoning as a method of punishment? Ugh. No wonder you disregard the old testament. It's an embarrassment. Couldn't the prophet have mentioned a car? Or a bicycle? Just a name. Or a minor event in the future. The Muslims have their three stages of embryology, the salt/fresh water sill and the linguistic proof, while Christians have nothing. How can this be?

What good would it be to mention a car? If you went back in time and tried to convince people you were God by talking about weird inventions, people would probably just think you were possessed and ignore you...God has to be practical first and prophetic second.

Also, Islam came later than Judaism and Christianity, and science was more advanced in the Middle East than it was at the time of the Romans. If we were to assume Islam is divinely inspired, then it would make sense that a more technologically advanced time would have more technology in its holy book so that the people could relate to it.

Stemming horrific diseases? I thought you had to agree with the tenets of evolution before you worked on viral pathology.

You do know that there are religious scientists, right? Also, evolution has absolutely no conflict with God, it only conflicts with particular interpretations of the Bible.

Also, for a huge chunk of human history, the existence of God was considered the default position and any argument for the nonexistence of God would be considered the new argument that has to be proven, shifting the burden of proof from the preexisting theory to the new one.For almost the entirety of human history, the existence of Gods was considered the default position.
.

We might not "need" it in a formal, hierarchial sense, but that's more of an argument against organized religion rather than God as a concept. Most of the world's organized religions evolved from small or disorganized groups, so it's not like they appeared with a hierarchy from the outset.

That's a good reason to abandon the hierarchical ones, isn't it?

Of course not, And you should not. Belief is insubstantial. Either you have an information or you do not. There is no point in pretending you know something while you only speculate (that is what belief is). Assumptions are dangerous and if they are used to justify actions in the real worls they are even more dangerous. Look at what suffering religions have caused.

Look at what suffering human beings who believe they have the right to force others to do their bidding have caused. Ultimately, it's selfishness that causes suffering, whether that suffering is justified by religion, the "free market", scientific inquiry, or simply pride and powerlust.

Faith should be one of those personal things that is only discussed if others ask, or shared with those who want to listen. Otherwise, it's pointless and wrong to try and force your faith on others.

Axioms have nothing to do with faith.

Faith is a belief in something without logical proof. An axiom is something that has to be taken as true in order for a system to function, so it has no logical justification of its own since that would be inherently contradictory. As a result, it is taken on faith (albeit a faith whose outcomes support the original supposition) that those axioms are true.

Is it reasoned to not believe in God?
Of course. The absence of belief is the only reasonable default position. Failing conclusive evidence, one must remain there in order to be reasonable.

Do you know for a fact that they will never be scientifically or empirically tested? Otherwise, you're simply having faith in the fact that we are not going to be able to test these things and arguing from there. Again, argument from ignorance; if it can't be proven to exist, it doesn't exist.

You seem to speak English quite well. Yet for some reason you don't seem to understand what "supernatural" entails. Strange.

I have no shred of evidence, that's correct.

And you have defined it so that you never will have any shred of evidence. Because in the concept of the "supernatural" lies that there cannot be evidence for it. Other than well "supernatural" evidence, but, that evidence if beyond you because you've defined it as supernatural.

However, the workings of the brain and its relation to consciousness and memory have yet to be explained and until they are, if they are, there is absolutely no reason other than faith to reduce consciousness to physical causes just like there is no other reason besides faith to believe that the soul exists.

Actually, there is no reason not to assume it's not just an invisible clown in there running around on a unicycle. Again: it doesn't work that way, bub. We are not driven by lack of reason, but we are driven by the very existence of reason and reasons. And the "supernatural" is exactly that - the lack of reason, or reasons.

Once the brain can be empirically shown to be the sole explanation of consciousness, there will be no argument for the soul from physical observation. And even if it were explained, there's still the magic of the supernatural itself: God could simply recreate consciousness in a spiritual realm if he wanted to.

Precisly. That's why it's so stupid, this concept of the supernatural. No matter how many things you explain (no, Thor doesn't create lightning, no, the Earth was not created in 6 days) you can always invent some cockamamie other "supernatural" thing. That's why it is non-sensical. That's why it is to be dismissed as any sort of way to explain things, or lead a life.

For almost the entirety of human history, the existence of Gods was considered the default position.
.

Let's say the existence of some kind of supernatural element in order to avoid slighting those religions who embrace a nontheist spirituality (like Buddhism) or a pantheistic or animist religious system like Hinduism or Shinto. Even these do a disservice due to the sheer variety of religious belief, so:

I'll use "spirituality" as the fairest term for this purpose since it covers anything dealing with the spirit rather than the strict physical world.

Of course. The absence of belief is the only reasonable default position. Failing conclusive evidence, one must remain there in order to be reasonable.

Exactly! What I've been trying to say - and what science and logic say - all along.

Exactly! What I've been trying to say - and what science and logic say - all along.You have been trying to say that? I thought you were Christian... :confused:
.

Exactly! What I've been trying to say - and what science and logic say - all along.
The strangest people have been agreeing with me, today, but I'll take it.

You seem to speak English quite well. Yet for some reason you don't seem to understand what "supernatural" entails. Strange.

Supernatural merely means outside of the natural world according to our current knowledge of the physical world. It's possible that we may end up explaining the supernatural in terms of the physical, so it's not necessarily accurate to say we will never be able to empirically observe supernatural phenomena. It's a placeword for things we do not understand and cannot explain.


And you have defined it so that you never will have any shred of evidence. Because in the concept of the "supernatural" lies that there cannot be evidence for it. Other than well "supernatural" evidence, but, that evidence if beyond you because you've defined it as supernatural.

Yup. The argument becomes meaningless, which ultimately means that the default position in regard to this argument is nontheism and so really doesn't matter any way. Chances are, the Earth will revolve around the sun and the universe will keep expanding regardless of what we believe...so it's more of a matter of personal gnosis rather than any kind of objective argument.

Actually, there is no reason not to assume it's not just an invisible clown in there running around on a unicycle. Again: it doesn't work that way, bub. We are not driven by lack of reason, but we are driven by the very existence of reason and reasons. And the "supernatural" is exactly that - the lack of reason, or reasons.

Until we can explain the mind in terms of the brain, we can't say that consciousness is not supernatural in nature. We are ignorant of the workings of consciousness, so any logical argument either way is fundamentally an argument from ignorance and logically untenable. Also, arguing that there is no soul because it is unreasonable or lacks reason is an argument from incredulity, also logically untenable.

Precisly. That's why it's so stupid, this concept of the supernatural. No matter how many things you explain (no, Thor doesn't create lightning, no, the Earth was not created in 6 days) you can always invent some cockamamie other "supernatural" thing. That's why it is non-sensical. That's why it is to be dismissed as any sort of way to explain things, or lead a life.

And that's why the "God of the gaps" is a theologically weak position. No matter what, you're going to be on the defensive because you have to keep falling back on something else to argue your position. If anything, using physical phenomena to justify God is rather insulting and even blasphemous in an Abrahamic way, considering that a "God of the gaps" is very similar to pantheism.

If we assume God is outside of creation, then it becomes pointless to argue either way because we're dealing with something that cannot be observed or tested and the argument simply becomes null. Ultimately, the argument regarding the existence of God is meaningless. We each have our beliefs, and we will stick to them...and as long as you live your life according to rational, altruistic, utilitarian principles it probably won't matter what you believe during your stay on Earth because everyone will benefit. Your opinion of what happens next is, of course, dependent on your belief.

Even so, if consciousness is physically reducible that probably means we'll be resurrected by an ultraadvanced computer in the future anyway whose very nature is indistinguishable from God...so it's win-win either way.

You have been trying to say that? I thought you were Christian... :confused:

You have obviously not read my posts in this thread, especially the ones (basically all of them) where I reject religion...

You have obviously not read my posts in this thread, especially the ones (basically all of them) where I reject religion...Seems that way... :eek:
.

Exactly! What I've been trying to say - and what science and logic say - all along.

I would say nontheism is the default belief in a logical argument regarding the existence of God.

*swish*

yep, right over your head.

I would say nontheism is the default belief in a logical argument regarding the existence of God.But the real world is not a logical argument, and so the default belief was animism/polytheism. Humans obviously humanized their environment. Much like kids do.
.

But the real world is not a logical argument, and so the default belief was animism/polytheism. Humans obviously humanized their environment.

Yes, that's true. Of course, one might wonder if humans humanized their environment because something higher motivated them to do it. Perhaps the evolution of the ability to have spiritual experiences was in itself the defining point at which man ceased to be purely physical...

Weird stuff, but I have plenty of time to think. :p

Of course, if you're in to even weirder/paranormal stuff you might know of the Tibetan concept of "tulpa", or a being created through sheer willpower and focus. Perhaps God is a supreme tulpa, created by the sheer force of belief of millions of people...and eventually, like many tulpas, became independent of the visionary and was a thing in itself rather than a projection of someone's mind. As a result, the power of Gods depends on the number of believers which might explain why older Gods can no longer influence the world.

I have faith that God exists and an atheist has faith that God does not exist.

Sorry no, I don't have faith of that type. No evidence points towrds gods existing, and what little evidence that there is points towards various gods not existing.

Ultimately, we're pitting the fallacy of proving a negative against the fallacy of argument from ignorance, and any attempt to argue the point logically falls apart.

Strong atheists, by inductive reasoning are able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that gods do not exist. Weak athiests merely assert theists have failed to provide any reasonable grounds to accept gods existing.burden of proof is on the theist who make the claim.) So, in neither case does the atheist claim a negative needing proof.

[quote]Faith has quite a bit of connection with reality; we take it on faith all the time that we will wake up in the morning, that our car will function properly, that we will not get in an accident/[quote]

I really wish theists would think about their faith before using this silly argument. The claim that faith in gods is the same as faith in a chair holding me reduces the theist faith to a farcical level. I know my chair will eventually fail to hold me and I hope that it won't be this time. So, theists must know their gods will fail them and only hope it won't be this time.

At any rate, my parents didn't push religion on me in any way. If I wanted to go to a friends church that was fine. From talking to many people of different faiths I soon noticed they had nothing they could give as reason. So, along with Santa and the Easter Bunny, the gods exited from the realm of possible existance.

I just know that my religion is what keeps me sane... You can even believe in not believing in anything.. As long as I am allowed to believe there are all politicians are crooked and there are happy prostitute.. My belief is that no one should tell you what you are allowed to believe and not believe. as long as you are not hurting any living being that is.

Hello. I've tinkered with Nation States for quite some time now. I've never posted on this website, but this discussion seems interesting enough. I was brought up in a Baptist home with a religious mother and an indifferent father. In college I majored in Philosophy and then went on to get an M.A. in philosophy during graduate school. I also pursued a degree in western religious history (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) after that. I was a "devout" athiest for about 10 years (from 20 years of age to about 30 years of age). I converted to Catholicism at that time. Not a rapid conversion, but a slow, methodical movement towards the it. A combination of reintroducing myself with the classics of Catholic thought (St. Thomas Aquinas) coupled with charitable work, marrying a religious woman, and a renewed dedication to "walking the walk" prompted my further conversion to this denomination.

I'm a teacher at an "alternative school". We have kids with very severe problems (sexual abuse, drugs, neglect, etc). I am very careful about discussing religious beleifs with my students. They know that I'm a practicing Catholic, but I never discuss my personal beliefs in class. The only exception is if a student specifically asks me a question on an issue. Also, I am allowed to discuss my personal beliefs IF the student comes to me in private with an issue. But even then I must be careful not to cross into the legal territory of a liscensed guidance counselor. Despite the restrictions that are placed on me, the kids know from my actions/ mannerisms that my faith "bleeds through" in the way that I treat/care for them.

Now to the controversial part. There are certain aspects of my faith that I would never "push on society" or my kids for that matter. But there are other aspects that I unabashedly do. What will I not push? That Jesus is "The Truth, the Light, and the Way". What will I push? That there are moral absolutes like "torturing, raping, and murdering 5-year old girls is always wrong". Many of these kids are your "MTV, Gangsta-rap generation" kids, who literally see nothing (as in no moral action) as being wrong. They are never sorry for doing malicious deeds; they are only sorry for being caught. I realize that my impact on some students will be negligable (if not absolutely zero), but I am content to be an example and an influence in stearing them towards a belief in absolute standards of right/wrong (a Moral Law) if you will. Hopefully, they will go further and make the connection between a Moral Law and a Moral Law Giver, but that is something that they must journey towards on their own.

One last controversial point...I beleive that one of the worst mistakes that Christians can make is to teach that religion is purely a "matter of the heart". I beleive in St. Thomas Aquinas' statement that Faith and Reason are allies and indespensibly linked. Taking up theology might be intimidating (and frustrating) for some, but without logical, rational argumentation Christianity cannot hope to flourish in the modern world. There are many theological "heavyweights" out there (both Protestant and Catholic). Ravi Zacharias comes to mind as a powerful apologist for all christian denominations. Within Catholicism there is Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) and Peter Kreeft (professor at Boston College). Without the Mind and the Heart together all religious conversation degenerates into "how I feel versus how you feel"...and no one gets closer to The Truth that way.

P.S. I apologize for not spell checking this.

When I was small my parents sent me to church and got me a copy of childrens bible stories. They're both atheists, but thought they'd humor the grandparents. After a few years of tolerating being dragged to church by the grandparents, I made my decision to follow in mom and dads footsteps.

When I was small my parents sent me to church and got me a copy of childrens bible stories. They're both atheists, but thought they'd humor the grandparents. After a few years of tolerating being dragged to church by the grandparents, I made my decision to follow in mom and dads footsteps.

I am glad independence of though followed the rebellion after the abuse

I am not sure I could have gotten out of being drawn into my parents Catholicism without something drastic to kick me out of that downward spiral

Now this boy's crazy. Even the Christians admit that.

"Too far" they say, and shake their heads. "Tone it down, for god's sake", they add.

Actually, among Christians these definitions are agreed on nearly universally.

They claim but the are not.
.

And what separates them so much that they are not denominations of the same religion?

I have gone from Christian to Atheist to Agnostic to, well...I have my own ideas now. :p

The important thing is that they are MY ideas...and I for one am very glad that I had no belief system forced upon me. :)

yes.

One last controversial point...I beleive that one of the worst mistakes that Christians can make is to teach that religion is purely a "matter of the heart". I beleive in St. Thomas Aquinas' statement that Faith and Reason are allies and indespensibly linked. Taking up theology might be intimidating (and frustrating) for some, but without logical, rational argumentation Christianity cannot hope to flourish in the modern world. There are many theological "heavyweights" out there (both Protestant and Catholic). Ravi Zacharias comes to mind as a powerful apologist for all christian denominations. Within Catholicism there is Cardinal Ratzinger (Pope Benedict) and Peter Kreeft (professor at Boston College). Without the Mind and the Heart together all religious conversation degenerates into "how I feel versus how you feel"...and no one gets closer to The Truth that way.

I totally agree.

As an atheist, I have no intention of teaching any future children about a specific religion. I may tell them that there are people who believe in different gods for whatever reason, and give them an outline of theist belief, but that's about it.

Nevertheless, if, as they get older, they decide they want to be a full-blown theist, I would allow them to make that decision.

Sorry no, I don't have faith of that type. No evidence points towrds gods existing, and what little evidence that there is points towards various gods not existing.

What evidence is that? AFAIK, nobody has been able to empirically test supernatural events with current technology

Strong atheists, by inductive reasoning are able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that gods do not exist. Weak athiests merely assert theists have failed to provide any reasonable grounds to accept gods existing.burden of proof is on the theist who make the claim.) So, in neither case does the atheist claim a negative needing proof.

No, they argue from ignorance. There is no proof that God exists, therefore God does not exist. Theists argue from proving the negative, and either way it is logically fallacious and so logically untenable to hold any position other than nontheism.

I really wish theists would think about their faith before using this silly argument. The claim that faith in gods is the same as faith in a chair holding me reduces the theist faith to a farcical level. I know my chair will eventually fail to hold me and I hope that it won't be this time. So, theists must know their gods will fail them and only hope it won't be this time.

Well, if there are different kinds of faith then the debate is further complicated by the nature of the argument itself. Even within the physical realm there are other kinds of faith; the concept

And, one might argue that God "failing" us is really a way to test our faith and force us to apply what we know to the situation at hand.

At any rate, my parents didn't push religion on me in any way. If I wanted to go to a friends church that was fine. From talking to many people of different faiths I soon noticed they had nothing they could give as reason. So, along with Santa and the Easter Bunny, the gods exited from the realm of possible existance.

We'll only know after we die. Ironically, we may end up being "resurrected" in a sense by an ultra-advanced computer that can recreate all conscious minds so ultimately that being is indistinguishable from God. And, if that computer can find a way to either escape the universe or reverse entropy, it would be a true deity.

In other words, it seems to be either God or "The Last Question"...take your pick?

As an atheist, I have no intention of teaching any future children about a specific religion. I may tell them that there are people who believe in different gods for whatever reason, and give them an outline of theist belief, but that's about it.

Nevertheless, if, as they get older, they decide they want to be a full-blown theist, I would allow them to make that decision.

I fully intend to work up a knowledgeable covering of all the major religions and world views for my children when they are old enough.

I refuse to send them to out of house religious classes in this case (unless I know the person teaching on a personal level) But you guys know me here … I plan on working up a through covering of any information that I can get on all kinds of different viewpoints at a rate that they can handle

I want my kids to be informed not indoctrinated. I know it is likely that they will follow in my footsteps eventually but I can give them the best shot I can at finding something that makes them as happy as finding my own was has made me.

I fully intend to force Computerology onto my kids.

Ah the joys of parenting.:)

I've just had a religious talk with my seven year old brother. This is what he believes:

He mentioned Satan and I told him that the devil doesn't exist. My kid brother then informed me I was wrong. He'd learned about Satan in school and so it must be true.
I then asked him if he believes in God, and he just returned the question so I told him that I don't. He agreed with me, also deciding that there is no God.
When good people die, Jesus comes to collect their spirits and takes them to heaven.
When bad people die, the Grim Reaper comes to collect their spirts and takes them to hell.
When I asked him how he thought the world was created, he just looked puzzled for a moment before shouting 'Aliens.'

I'm sure that as soon as God is mentioned in school he'll become a christian. Apparently everything they teach in school is absolutely right...

Anyway, what I want to know is how people on NS deal with introducing children to religion.
I know a lot of people teach children, particulary their own, mostly about the religion that they follow. Personally, I disagree with that. I think children should make up their own minds as they grow up and learn new things, without being told what to believe in by their family.

As for my brother; I was quite tempted just to tell him that all this shite he was talking about is just...well, shite. I didn't though, I don't like the idea of brainwashing kids into a certain religion and so I didn't want to be a hypocrite and force him into atheism. I did give my opinion at first though, he did catch me by surprise after all. But then I decided that I'll just humor him and let him come to his own decision on what he believes in. I think that is best.


So does anyone else agree that religion shouldn't be taught to young children?
Personally I don't think that it should be taught until they have learned in science class about these alternative ideas to an almighty being who created mankind and the entire universe. Before that I don't think that they have the background knowledge to make informed decisions about what they believe in.

This also goes for atheism. Sure I could convince my kid brother that there are no Gods and I could explain all my reasons for thinking this. But I guess that it is best that he comes up with his own reasons for whatever he chooses to believe in.

Also, it's amusing to hear all these crazy stories that little children come up with on their own. Aliens? Hah! That can't be true...

Right? :eek:



Yes.
You are a very naughty girl!

Indoctrinating a child into religion is just that.
An indoctrination.

No matter wich religion, if a child is taught to believe in "INSERT DEITY", from day one, then that child never really gets to make his own mind up about what he/she really believes in, and why.

Its brainwashing, pure and simple.

If, on the other hand, the child were allowed to get to the age of 12, or so, before deciding for themselves if they wished to be indoctrinated, that would be a little better.

Most of us decide what we believe by that age.
Or, at least, decide wether we have doubts about a certain religion.
This is not to say that most 12 year olds arent gullible, or impressionable, but rather that I believe most people start to really become self-aware at that age.

However, the reality is that most religions, particularly the Neo-Christian ones, are also recruiting drives.
To get the benefits of thier god, you have to belong to thier club.
In order to join the club, you have to give yourself over completely to "INSERT DEITY HERE".
Once you do that, POOF!, yer in!
Now, all you have to do is show up on Sundays, and give us ten percent of however much you make!.
Here comes the best part...

If you DONT join us....

You get to burn in Hell and suffer for all eternity!

The above is not a philosophy that will wait till children are old enough to make up thier own minds about God.

Edwardis is quite right, making religion part of your family life is the best way to bring your children up in your faith. It's not about randomly quoting the Bible, by any means.

To be honest, I have to see that working once yet. I've been brought up that way, and so have most of my friends. Of about 20 people I regard as very colse friends, one remained Christian. Mainly because she can't be arsed to change it on the papers.

Good for your parents. I don't know them or their style of parenting. But I do know that I have never known anyone whose parents were diligent in teaching them through their entire life who turned from Christianity.

Really? It's quite the other way around here. The two or three people I know who would call themselves Christians generally come from agnostic families.

I have no children, but when I do, I intend to teach them of religion. I'm agnostic myself, but I find it important for them to be knowledgable about it (when they're old enough to understand it a bit better; I'd say between 7-10ish). Then let them come to their own decision as they grow up.

I am agnostic and my wife is pagan. We waited until our children started to ask questions and our answer was to believe as they wanted to believe. To listen with an open mind, and to explore the options that life presented them or what interested them. My daughter has been Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Satanist, Wiccan, and has settled at this point on being agnostic. My oldest son decided early that Athiest was his direction in life. My youngest still believes that we come from aliens even though he attends a neighborhood church. My two oldest are both about grown and one thing that they do agree on is to question everything, and if you still have your answer at the end of the day that is something worth believing in.

Indoctrinating children is wrong, there's no doubting that. Teaching children about religion, however, is fine. To claim that it should not be taught is to say you're frightened about education, and most of use left that fear behind 200 years ago.

QFT. I see nothing wrong with teaching children of the existence of religions and what effect they have on the world, but indoctrination should wait until the child can comprehend what it is s/he's being fed. In most cases, that would be never, but still... ;)

My point of view about religion:

"A man without religion is like a fish without a bicycle."

(I don't know who said this first, but it fits perfectly to my ideas about religion.)

In response to the OP (sorry, haven't read all the posts out there, I have work to do! :p )

Well, as I could be considered a buddhist (philosophical level, that is - I don't believe in a buddha that's gonna whisk us all to heaven in his great vessel when the day of reckoning comes), my primary guideline would be "whatever you do, act with compassion to the world and according to what you think is best". Realising that such is a bit vague, especially for a kid, there's some other stuff one might be able to do.

In my opinion, most parents that are faced with the confrontation between children and a belief system ("life meaning system" would be more appropriate) make the mistake of trying to provide answers to the questions of their kid. "Where does the world come from?" - "God made it" - "How?" - "By His holy might" - etc. Eventually the kid asks "why?" and you can say "it's written in the *insert religious book here* ". Neat, and simple. As a cultural historian, as someone used to dealing with belief systems (scienctific as well as religious), as someone used to dealing with how they evolve over time, I have some sort of "eye" for their development. I can "see" how they get created, I see their cultural roots - to put it simply, if a culture lives in an area ravaged by storms, I can "see" why there's a storm deity (very simply put, but I think you get the picture). I'm confident I can endow on children the logic (for lack of a better term) of how belief systems are created by inviting them to create their own - it's not unlike a fairy tale, mind you. It has moral, it gives meaning to the world around you (however small it may be), it has cause-effect, it has a guideline. I would ask the child "where does this flower come from?", "what does it resemble?", "do you think it is pretty?", "if you could make a flower, how would it look like?". By asking these questions, you can softly introduce the child to questions that have rattled philosophical thought since the days of antiquity and beyond. I'm confident that, in time, you could even introduce some comparative thought into the "teachings" - eventually, the world of the kid gets bigger (through extended knowledge), and you can keep on inquiring how its belief system is doing with the new added info, and how it compares to what the kid used to think about the world.
I think, the most important value regarding belief systems that you most confer to your child is the fact that because it is based on someones experience with the surrounding world (either the persons own, or replacement experience through already existant religious teachings) it is also relative - it's almost necessary for belief systems to differ on an individual level because peoples life experience is different. And then there's also the fact that some beliefs suit some aspects of a personality better than others - which, seeing as how people differ in personality, too - also makes it relative. A belief system, in effect, is a way of looking at the world, nothing more, nothing less. It's a way of naming, categorising and giving meaning to the impressions you get from what more ambitious "believers" would call "the Truth".
If you can succesfully introduce the aspects of "relativity", "based on experience" and "personal view on the world", you can be confident that your child can make a decision on its own with regards to which belief system he or she wishes to adhere to - be it an already existant, a slight adaptation of one, or a "new" one from scratch. The important thing is, that he or she understands the fact that everyone has a right to a personal belief system, that these systems don't necessarily have to coincide with eachother AND that it is "just" a belief system, not "the Truth". If you have taught that, you've taught compassion and respect, and imo you can be proud of yourself.

As a rule of thumb: if you provide a child with questions, you are teaching - if you provide a child with only answers, you are indoctrinating. Take care which route you choose at what particular time.

I just love what the Bible says (http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/how_to_keep_the_law/dt06_06-07.html) about teaching God's word to your children. :D

Really? It's quite the other way around here. The two or three people I know who would call themselves Christians generally come from agnostic families.

I never said others do not come in (which is a very good thing that they do.)

I never said others do not come in (which is a very good thing that they do.)

You just said that people from christian families do not drop out. Which is inherently untrue.

Dont worry, you'll all grow up someday and find you have faith in something.

Even if its only yourself.

I don't think it matters what you are taught in school, due to personal events in life people are bound to change their views. Surely everyone has their own version of a religion anyway, I mean ever so slightly different.
I think if a person reaches their own conclusion regarding religion then it will seem so much more meaningful to the individual, rather than being what some people regard as 'brainwashed'.

Dont worry, you'll all grow up someday and find you have faith in something.

Even if its only yourself.

What do you mean, "only"?? :p

I truely have no idea, I went to Sunday School at my local (Baptist) church. My main motivation was getting free stuff at Christmas and making stuff. On the otherhand, today I would not go into a Church. Nor any place of Worship.

as an agnostic, i think it's a bit pointless to try to teach my kids "belief". i teach them actions. whatever they decide to believe or not believe is up to them.

I will never forget the first conversation I had with my kid brother about religion. He came home from school with some questions about Christianity, because one of his friends had been telling him about Sunday school and Jesus.

I started by asking him, "What do you know about Jesus?"

He thought for a moment, and then replied, "I think he was on the Titanic."

If he doesn't major in Theology, the world will be all the poorer for it. :D

As I think it's wrong to force your views on anyone, but at the same time believe the stuff about protection for babies who have been Baptised, then:

I would have my child Baptised. If a painful procedure such as circumcision was required, then I would not do it. I would explain my beliefs to my child, but tell him/her that they do not have to believe it - and I certainly wouldn't force my views on them in a physical irreversible way such as circumcision when I know they may decide to be a different religion later, and I have no right to force my views on them. At least Baptism is, in all practicality, just a bit of water poured on the kid's head. The having them Baptised thing is only due to Christ's protection, and I wouldn't do it, even if it were for the same reason, if pain was involved.

My fiance and I are both pagan -- and somewhat monotheistic. We share the belief that all deities are simply different faces of one pervasive, universal force, and rather strongly emphasize the "harm none" concept. However, we still have our differences. I focus mainly on the spiritual side, through ceremonies, divination attempts, and meditation. He focuses on the practical side through herbal medicine and similar pursuits. (He never has been one for ceremonies.)

When we finally decide to raise children, we'll keep it simple -- teach them respect for the environment, respect for other people, and respect for themselves. (I think pretty much ANY parent would want to instill these values in their children.) When they're old enough, they'll be allowed to watch rituals as well as attend church if they like. As much as I would LIKE to see someone find comfort in beliefs similar to mine, it's simply not good to force beliefs upon anyone. It only brings negativity, and that hurts everyone involved.

I disagree with this. Not your experience, but what you've gleaned from it. My parents "forced" my brothers and I to go the church: "I don't care if you don't want to go. I'm your mother, God put me in charge over you, and He says in the Bible to go meet and worship on the Sabbath. So you're going to church." They made us go to Sunday School and youth group: "I don't care if your show is on. God says in the Bible that you are to study His word diligently. So you're going." They made us go over what we learned. They made us look up in Scripture what we did wrong when we disobeyed. Any theological question we had, they made us look up in Scripture. They forced us to do all these things. And guess what? We hated it. But now that we are able to understand why they were doing what the were doing and now that we understand the how's and why's, my two brothers and I are devout Christians. And we disagree with on many things with our parents. I am charismatic, my parents are staunch cessationists. Even my autistic brother he can't read a See Spot Run book (he's in 9th grade) is still able to say "What does the Bible say?" when asked what he is to do. It's because we were taught diligently that we understand. Not because it was no forced on us.

and here my friends is the difference between exposing children to religion and indoctrination? Would you have considered Judaism, Islam, Buddhism if you were not forced to do these things? Do you think you are a better person than others because you are a "devout christian?" The problem with the "devout" is it leaves no room for reason, which if you read the bible is a gift from God for all mankind to use. It looks at things in absolutes and leaves no room to consider the alternative. ie. gays are evil and will burn in hell, and other lovely teachings of intolerant christian fundies. I'm more of a moralist in terms of what is right and wrong shall guide you. I believe in God and largely refer to myself as a deist. My wife forces me to attend a Catholic mass every Sunday, and I humor her as it's easier just to sit there than fight over it. There are good teaching in almost any religion and one can gain information from them. Blindly following any one religion is just like deci[hering the wrong from the wrong.

You just said that people from christian families do not drop out. Which is inherently untrue.

I did not say that. I said that persons from Christian families whose parents taught them Christianity diligently (not ramming vague formulas down their throat and not letting them figure it out) do not "drop out."

and here my friends is the difference between exposing children to religion and indoctrination? Would you have considered Judaism, Islam, Buddhism if you were not forced to do these things?

I have considered them, and find them vastly inferior to Christianity in doctrine.

Do you think you are a better person than others because you are a "devout christian?"

No. Some would argue (and I sort of lean this way) that I am worse because I know and understand, yet continue to sin.

The problem with the "devout" is it leaves no room for reason, which if you read the bible is a gift from God for all mankind to use.

The first part (no room for reason) is simply not true. The second (for all Man) I agree with.

It looks at things in absolutes and leaves no room to consider the alternative. ie. gays are evil and will burn in hell, and other lovely teachings of intolerant christian fundies.

Well, if you read your Bible, everyone is evil and on their way to hell. Gays are not different. But if they (or any other person) repents and declares Jesus Christ his/her personal Lord and Savior, they will be justified (made right with God and freed from the penalty of sin), santified (freed from the power of sin), and glorified (freed from the presence of sin).

I'm more of a moralist in terms of what is right and wrong shall guide you. I believe in God and largely refer to myself as a deist. My wife forces me to attend a Catholic mass every Sunday, and I humor her as it's easier just to sit there than fight over it. There are good teaching in almost any religion and one can gain information from them. Blindly following any one religion is just like deci[hering the wrong from the wrong.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Schools should teach about all religions or none it should be up to each person what they will believe in not what has been drilled into there head at school.

I have considered them, and find them vastly inferior to Christianity in doctrine.

inferior? What makes another religion inferior to yours? Do you have indisputable proof that your doctrine is right and theirs is wrong? Or do you simply rely on your faith to guide you?



No. Some would argue (and I sort of lean this way) that I am worse because I know and understand, yet continue to sin.



The first part (no room for reason) is simply not true. The second (for all Man) I agree with.



Well, if you read your Bible, everyone is evil and on their way to hell. Gays are not different. But if they (or any other person) repents and declares Jesus Christ his/her personal Lord and Savior, they will be justified (made right with God and freed from the penalty of sin), santified (freed from the power of sin), and glorified (freed from the presence of sin).

So the power only lies with Jesus according to you. You delcare all others to be "inferior" and wrong. You don't see anything wrong with that attitude? That you are in fact superior (using circular logic you must be as they are inferior to you) to all others? These are the attitudes that bring war between religions over centuries. I'll alow you to die in the name of your God to prove your point, and live to prove mine.



Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.

Blindly following any religion is not the answer. The answer is reason which is a gift from God. Let me guess that you believe evolution is just a theory with no relevence to the practical world...I hope you then never ever take any entibiotics for after all fundies don't believe in evolution.

Schools should teach about all religions or none it should be up to each person what they will believe in not what has been drilled into there head at school.

If schools should teach about all the major religions then they should also explain about atheism/agnosticism and why some people choose not to believe in all the silly stories about God and whatnot.

Blindly following any religion is not the answer. The answer is reason which is a gift from God. Let me guess that you believe evolution is just a theory with no relevence to the practical world...I hope you then never ever take any entibiotics for after all fundies don't believe in evolution.

First, I am an Evangelical by the traditional definition. Not so much by the popular definition. Second, I am a Fundamentalist by definition (one who believes in the basics of the faith), though I do not consider myself part of that group because a lot of them do blindly follow.

Blindly following is not the answer. That's why parents are to teach, not shove vague formulas down their children's throats, a distinction I've been making throughout this entire discussion.

Evoltuion is just a theory if we are speaking of Darwinian/macro-evolution. Microevolution is obvious. We can see variation within species, but these variations have never been seen to bring new species.

The structure of your question is a little odd. But if I understood it correctly, yes you are correct because only those who God does not speak to would need to be taught. Thankfully God spoke through His prophets and Apostles and they recorded His perfect Word that we might teach each other from that Word, the whole of that Word, and from nothing but that Word (in matters of religion), because the means through which He spoke to His prophets are now ended by His choice.

So the bible is the direct word of God, no ad libbing allowed? And the Earth is only about 8,000 years old and there were never dinosaurs? Oh man, I love "your kind."

First, I am an Evangelical by the traditional definition. Not so much by the popular definition. Second, I am a Fundamentalist by definition (one who believes in the basics of the faith), though I do not consider myself part of that group because a lot of them do blindly follow.

Blindly following is not the answer. That's why parents are to teach, not shove vague formulas down their children's throats, a distinction I've been making throughout this entire discussion.

Evoltuion is just a theory if we are speaking of Darwinian/macro-evolution. Microevolution is obvious. We can see variation within species, but these variations have never been seen to bring new species.

Not a real science guy are you? I'll allow you to stew in your ignorant belief for your own demise.

So the bible is the direct word of God, no ad libbing allowed? And the Earth is only about 8,000 years old and there were never dinosaurs? Oh man, I love "your kind."

My "kind?" That's what things like Fascism are made of.

I am a young-earth Creationist, yes.

I never said the dinosaurs never existed. This is my problem with the Fundamentalist group. They say things like that without thinking it through. The book of Job describes the behemoth and leviathan, commonly thought to be the elephant and the crocodile. But, they really sound more like dinosaurs. Plus, you have all these reports of dinosaur-like creatures in the African jungles and reports of other animals resembling "prehistoric" animals all over the world. Is Nessie real? I don't know, but I wouldn't be surprised if she were.