NationStates Jolt Archive

I think children should not be encouraged to take up a religion. If I ever chose to have children, I would not introduce my religion until he/she was in high school, because:

- faith is based primarily on free will
- children usually cannot tell the difference between faith and science
- children cannot exercise free will under the heavy influence of parents/family

By all means, they should read religious texts, but only under a clear guidance, because the child may confuse the Bible with his Physics textbook.

Obviously this will contradict with the religions persons that believe in the evangelical "good word" concept of religion. What are your thoughts on this?

children should follow greed and death ism.

Next thing you know, you'll tell me that Fiction is the bad kind of stuff to read to kids because they might mistake it for fact.

Jesus is just like Santa Claus or Anpu. You want to believe, but part A of you heart tells you they don't exist and part B tells you that part A is full of shit. Part C plays good music, like Scorpions or Led Zeppelin, which is why part C is the part of your heart that you should listen to. But you shouldn't listen to part A too much because part A is too depressing. It takes away all your reasons for living until your one bullet away from kicking the bucket.

So go ahead. Read the goriest, most unpleasant parts of the good book to your kids. It keeps part A of their hearts from making them suicidal.

I think children should not be encouraged to take up a religion. If I ever chose to have children, I would not introduce my religion until he/she was in high school, because:

- faith is based primarily on free will
- children usually cannot tell the difference between faith and science
- children cannot exercise free will under the heavy influence of parents/family

By all means, they should read religious texts, but only under a clear guidance, because the child may confuse the Bible with his Physics textbook.

Obviously this will contradict with the religions persons that believe in the evangelical "good word" concept of religion. What are your thoughts on this?

My father was an agnostic. My mother was a Lutheran, but only because everyone else in her family was. My mother insisted that I go to Sunday School at the nearest church. So I had once a week on Sunday morning at church and all week listening to my father's views. And I disagree with the idea that kids can't tell the difference between faith and fact, especially in my family where the clarion calls were "cite your sources" and "show me proof." (and ftw, this in no way means that I can't follow the Tao, since Taoism is perfectly accepting of agnosticism).

so you don't want to tell them about Santa Claus until they're in high school either?

Well I think that children should be taught about religion from an early age. But in a neutral way. They should not be told that creationism is the "one and only truth" and neither shoudl they be thaught that evolution is the "one and only truth". They should learn both as being viable theories about how the earth came into excistence and why we are here, and we should tell them that everyone can have a different opinion or belief upon the matter as long as they keep their minds open and don't force their beliefs (whether they believe in God, evolution, both, or neither) down each other's throats.

Next thing you know, you'll tell me that Fiction is the bad kind of stuff to read to kids because they might mistake it for fact.

I mentioned that Bibles/Koran/other faith-based text be read with clear guidance. Children reading fairy tales should also be informed of its intent.


so you don't want to tell them about Santa Claus until they're in high school either?

?

I'm not saying that children should be sheltered from religion, I am saying that parents should not directly influence the child's religious choice. Adopting a faith when your parents send you to religious schooling is definitely not an exercise of free will.

I mentioned that Bibles/Koran/other faith-based text be read with clear guidance. Children reading fairy tales should also be informed of its intent.




?

I'm not saying that children should be sheltered from religion, I am saying that parents should not directly influence the child's religious choice, because that is in violation of free will.

Good for you.

And I disagree with the idea that kids can't tell the difference between faith and fact, especially in my family where the clarion calls were "cite your sources" and "show me proof." (and ftw, this in no way means that I can't follow the Tao, since Taoism is perfectly accepting of agnosticism).

Children usually can't tell the difference, which I believe is quite true. Where I live, most post-elementary children share the same faith with their parents, just as my maternal grandfather had pointed to the shrine, literally claiming that it represents God.

I more or less agree. There are certain things that I will explain to my son when he is old enough to ask me about them, but I wouldn't go out of the way to drag him to church or tell him that this is the way it is. I want him to find his own path, but I won't refuse his questions though.

Ha! Oh, just wait untill you tell them "Just eat your God damn peas!"

What about a situation where the parent can't keep their faith a secret? How do you manage to "not tell the kids" until high school?

Kids can understand the difference between fact and faith as long as you never present faith as fact.

I just don't think you should legislate to stop parents passing on their beliefs, whether religious or in my case atheist.

I will do what my parents did. Nothing. They taught me nothing about religion and left me to find out on my own.

There's a great middle ground between trying to force your child into your beliefs and sheltering them from all forms of religion. It's called being a sensible person, and telling your child the difference between belief and knowledge, and teaching them about what you believe and what other believe.

While I do not think parents should indoctrinate their children, that does not mean they should strive to keep their own faith a secret. The best route would be to make sure the child understands that her parents have their views, but that it is important to think for oneself, especially as she grows and becomes more capable of applying reason and understanding the concepts involved. Of course, this applies to views other than religious belief-- parents should teach their children to be open-minded about everything, to apply critical reasoning, to demand evidence, and to never be afraid to challenge the opinion of convention or authority-- even when the authority is the child's parents.

One thing that I think is important to note, though, is that it seems rather odd to me to speak of "Christian" children or "Muslim" children or whatever. A child typically does not have the understanding to have religious views of her own. We wouldn't think to call a child a Republican child or a Marxist child, even if that child's parents held those views. Why should it be different with religion?

Your first mistake is thinking that faith is based primarily on free will.

I think children should not be encouraged to take up a religion. If I ever chose to have children, I would not introduce my religion until he/she was in high school, because:

- faith is based primarily on free will
- children usually cannot tell the difference between faith and science
- children cannot exercise free will under the heavy influence of parents/family

By all means, they should read religious texts, but only under a clear guidance, because the child may confuse the Bible with his Physics textbook.

Obviously this will contradict with the religions persons that believe in the evangelical "good word" concept of religion. What are your thoughts on this?

Will you teach this belief of yours to your children?

I'm not saying that children should be sheltered from religion, I am saying that parents should not directly influence the child's religious choice. Adopting a faith when your parents send you to religious schooling is definitely not an exercise of free will.

To tell you the truth I believe that most children when they get older anyway will be choosing their religion.

To tell you the truth I believe that most children when they get older anyway will be choosing their religion.
In America, 90% of individuals who are religious belong to the same denomination as their parents. Note: not just the same general faith (i.e. "Christian") but the same denomination.

"Choosing" is relative.

I think children should not be encouraged to take up a religion. If I ever chose to have children, I would not introduce my religion until he/she was in high school, because:

- faith is based primarily on free will
- children usually cannot tell the difference between faith and science
- children cannot exercise free will under the heavy influence of parents/family

By all means, they should read religious texts, but only under a clear guidance, because the child may confuse the Bible with his Physics textbook.

Obviously this will contradict with the religions persons that believe in the evangelical "good word" concept of religion. What are your thoughts on this?
i think it would be ...ODD.... for mom and dad to get dressed up every sunday morning and go to church after finding some heathen to care for little bobby and susie for a few hours.

i think it would be ....ODD...for mom and dad to say grace out of earshot of the kids.

i think it would be...ODD... for mom and dad to believe that the only way to heaven is through accepting jesus christ as your personal lord and savior but to never mention this to their offspring thus leaving them likely to end up in hell for eternity.

you dont keep your most fundamental beliefs from your children.

In America, 90% of individuals who are religious belong to the same denomination as their parents. Note: not just the same general faith (i.e. "Christian") but the same denomination.

"Choosing" is relative.

You can't choose your relatives. It's a smartass way of asking for a source.

While I'm sure my family (both Baptist and Catholic) side of the family will be pissed. IF I do have children, they will not be baptized until they are old enough to consent. Yes I know that it's tradition for Catholics to baptize babies, but I have a personal problem with that practice. The baby can't consent! I basically plan to let my parents, and anyone from my mom side talk about Christianity, I'll talk about Paganism, and if my child wants to learn about any other religion, I'll help my child learn about that religion.

I think children should not be encouraged to take up a religion. If I ever chose to have children, I would not introduce my religion until he/she was in high school, because:

- faith is based primarily on free will
- children usually cannot tell the difference between faith and science
- children cannot exercise free will under the heavy influence of parents/family

By all means, they should read religious texts, but only under a clear guidance, because the child may confuse the Bible with his Physics textbook.

Obviously this will contradict with the religions persons that believe in the evangelical "good word" concept of religion. What are your thoughts on this?


I think that the principles behind religion are very good for children to know. I was raised in an extremely religious family who knew the difference between science and religious creation crap. They informed me from day one that basically, "Yeah, God is real. Yes, God is great. But no, God did not create the world in six days and rest on the seventh. And also yes, most everything in the bible is a fictitious story used to teach people common lessons and such, much akin to Greek myths. But all the same, God kicks ass." I was also never pressured to have any particular faith, I WAS however, encouraged to look at all faiths and find one which I could identify with. I kind of have a combination of Islam and Christianity for example, as I believe in the tenents within those two faiths.

It worked out for me at least! I'm a pretty tolerant guy and I'm certainly not a creationist wackjob :D

i think it would be ...ODD.... for mom and dad to get dressed up every sunday morning and go to church after finding some heathen to care for little bobby and susie for a few hours.

i think it would be ....ODD...for mom and dad to say grace out of earshot of the kids.

i think it would be...ODD... for mom and dad to believe that the only way to heaven is through accepting jesus christ as your personal lord and savior but to never mention this to their offspring thus leaving them likely to end up in hell for eternity.

you dont keep your most fundamental beliefs from your children.



Well said. I believe in keeping an open mind but I see no reason to not teach your children what you believe.

Believers will pass on their beliefs to their children. Unbelievers will make sure their children follow them in unbelief, by not giving them anything to believe in and leaving it to their "free choice". Neither side is likely to adopt the approach of the other.

One thing that I think is important to note, though, is that it seems rather odd to me to speak of "Christian" children or "Muslim" children or whatever. A child typically does not have the understanding to have religious views of her own. We wouldn't think to call a child a Republican child or a Marxist child, even if that child's parents held those views. Why should it be different with religion?

Nice quote stealing there.

Assuming I have children, I will inform them of all major religions, other than Islam, ask them which makes most sense, if any, and then leave it at that.

Assuming I have children, I will inform them of all major religions, other than Islam, ask them which makes most sense, if any, and then leave it at that.

I don't suppose there's even any point in asking why you're going to hide Islam from your children, is there?

I don't suppose there's even any point in asking why you're going to hide Islam from your children, is there?

Actually, maybe I won't hide it, I could give them a good laugh it its senseless, violent beliefs.

Nice quote stealing there.
:confused:
If you're referring to Richard Dawkins, then yes, I am making essentially the same argument that he does. I happen to agree with him on this issue, you see. But I didn't grab that out of any of his books, seeing as I made that post at work and all my books are at home.

Actually, maybe I won't hide it, I could give them a good laugh it its senseless, violent beliefs.

Ah, but the senseless, violent beliefs regarding the God of the Bible are just fine, of course.

Believers will pass on their beliefs to their children. Unbelievers will make sure their children follow them in unbelief, by not giving them anything to believe in and leaving it to their "free choice". Neither side is likely to adopt the approach of the other.

No. the unbelievers will make their children unbelieve by convincing said kids that the believers are stupid and that believing is evil and will send them to the hell that they (the unbelievers) don't believe in.

Ah, but the senseless, violent beliefs regarding the God of the Bible are just fine, of course.

The violence isn't belief. It's history. It's there to show the readers that no matter how shitty their lives are, there was once a time where things were a LOT shittier. It's inspirational. Especially how God made Moses' people wander around the desert for forty years and how the Romans crucified Jesus because Jesus said he was king of a people that the Romans were busy oppressing.

Questions are more important than answers.

I will not teach my children my beliefs. I will teach them my doubts. I will teach them to question all statements about god. Theists and atheists of all stripes.

By questioning, they will be learning to understand all religious views, while not being misled by any.

I think everybody is misunderstanding my question. I didn't say children should be sheltered from religion, I have said that I would not introduce my religion to children until they have sufficiently matured.

I think everybody is misunderstanding my question. I didn't say children should be sheltered from religion, I have said that I would not introduce my religion to children until they have sufficiently matured.

I don't really think that is possible. Are you going to actively hide it from them, and ignore all their questions?

In religious terms, introduction would usually mean evangelization.

How would I handle religion with my kids? Hmm... I'd read them the Necronomicon, stating at the beginning and end of each reading session that it is fiction and everyone knows it. After that, I'll read them some Bible, stating after the reading that while some people, myself included, are certain that it is fiction a great many people believe it to be fact.

Actually, maybe I won't hide it, I could give them a good laugh it its senseless, violent beliefs.

I know some Muslims that would classify Al Qaeda/Hamas as not truly Muslim because of their indiscriminate, violent actions, in fact the violent elements could easily be denounced as heretics. I also know that some liberal denominations classify dispensationalist (End Times folk) theology as violent, immoral, and heretical, as well. I regard no difference between Christian, or any other religion, for that matter, extremists. Both should be denounced, while the mainstream religious groups should be praised for their contributions to society (ie: soup kitchens, schools for poor students, health exams, other charity and volunteer work...), imo.

Back on topic, I would raise my children as Christians, teaching them the Creeds and Commandments, sharing the story of the life of Christ and his teachings. As far as politics goes, as long as they are not neocons or fascists or Objectivists or CPUSA members, I do not care.

I have said that I would not introduce my religion to children until they have sufficiently matured.

In religious terms, introduction would usually mean evangelization.

So you mean introduce your children to your religion rather than introduce your religion to your children. To me the first implies making your children members of your religion the other explaining your beliefs to them.

So you mean introduce your children to your religion rather than introduce your religion to your children. To me the first implies making your children members of your religion the other explaining your beliefs to them.

No that's not quite it. It is important to expose children to the concept of religions, but it would be wrong to indoctrinate the highly malleable mind of a child, for reasons I have already stated.

When the child is of sufficient age to make its own decisions, I would open an evangelical arm to the child, even if he/she has already taken up another faith. Should he/she choose to take up this path is completely up him/her.

No that's not quite it. It is important to expose children to the concept of religions, but it would be wrong to indoctrinate the highly malleable mind of a child, for reasons I have already stated.

How do you draw the line ? Take the kids with you to church/mosque/whatever or leave them at home e.g. ? Prayer before meals or not ? Circumcision ? Baptism ?

You can't prevent believers from wanting their children to believe.

A believer honestly thinks that their child's immortal soul is at stake. How can you possibly expect religious parents not to do everything in their power to insure their child doesn't spend eternity in a lake of fire?

Only non-believers could reasonably be expected not to encourage religion and they would probably do so in any case. I'm an agnostic, but as a parent, if I was a believer, you wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing me not to encourage religious faith in my children.

Having seen in person some very questionable situations with other people and their children, I am opposed to indoctrinating children into religious teachings and religious practice before they are old enough to make critical judgments about it and decide for themselves whether they want to do it or not.

I do think it is perfectly okay, and probably beneficial to society and the family, for children to attend church with their parents and participate in holiday observances and learn basic stories and moral precepts from the family religion (or philosophy), but I do not think children should be reciting prayers in church or carrying out/participating in rituals or in any way be asked to profess a personal belief until they are older and there is a good chance it really is their considered and chosen belief.

When we are talking about things like blessing or baptizing babies, I really don't have a problem with that because an infant really is not participating in such a thing. It's really for the sake of the parents and other adults, and I don't think it is binding on the child in any way. But something like a communion or a confirmation is not something I would want a young child to be required to do.

I mostly base this on the number of times I have met young children being raised with a lot of Christian religiosity who were near fanatics in expressing and adhering to beliefs they did not even understand -- practically little Grand Inquisitors or mini-Cromwells copping attitude with everyone around them. Also the number of new-age families raising children who exhibited what I found kind of scary levels of belief in magic and their own ability to develop supernatural powers. It is true that children below a certain level of cognitive development cannot make certain subtle distinctions between reality and metaphor or myth. It is even more true that children of all ages have monumental egos and desire for power in their social groups. Naive understanding + ambitious ego is not a good combination.

Raising children with too much religious practice only makes someone who, at best, will have to unlearn bad habits and deal with bitter disappointments later on.

No that's not quite it. It is important to expose children to the concept of religions, but it would be wrong to indoctrinate the highly malleable mind of a child, for reasons I have already stated.

When the child is of sufficient age to make its own decisions, I would open an evangelical arm to the child, even if he/she has already taken up another faith. Should he/she choose to take up this path is completely up him/her.
do you go to church now?

Believers will pass on their beliefs to their children. Unbelievers will make sure their children follow them in unbelief...

Horseshit.

I'm an atheist, my ten-year-old daughter is a Southern Baptist. Your 'opinion' is based on nothing.

Religious people may pressure their children to follow them 'to save their souls', or some such crap, but there's no incentive for me to lead my children into a path of non-belief.

You're

Your.

Your.

Thanks. But if that's all you have to offer, no thanks.

Thanks. But if that's all you have to offer, no thanks.

Oh no, I agree with your point. I was just pointing out your spelling mistake (or is it grammar?).

You can't prevent believers from wanting their children to believe.

A believer honestly thinks that their child's immortal soul is at stake. How can you possibly expect religious parents not to do everything in their power to insure their child doesn't spend eternity in a lake of fire?

Only non-believers could reasonably be expected not to encourage religion and they would probably do so in any case. I'm an agnostic, but as a parent, if I was a believer, you wouldn't have a snowball's chance in hell of convincing me not to encourage religious faith in my children.

Perhaps that is the evangelical Christian point of view, which I clearly do not share. I hope you don't believe all religions believe in this sort of doctrine.

I cant help but think my atheist views would eventually seep out if I ever had kids, though it's not my place to force religion or nonreligion.

I think children should not be encouraged to take up a religion. If I ever chose to have children, I would not introduce my religion until he/she was in high school, because:

- faith is based primarily on free will
- children usually cannot tell the difference between faith and science
- children cannot exercise free will under the heavy influence of parents/family

By all means, they should read religious texts, but only under a clear guidance, because the child may confuse the Bible with his Physics textbook.

Obviously this will contradict with the religions persons that believe in the evangelical "good word" concept of religion. What are your thoughts on this?

But... but... if you don't force them to believe asap, they'll become *gosh* godless atheists!

Meh, religion always perplexes me.

Has anyone considered raising their kids/kids-to-be as pastafarians? ;)

Has anyone considered raising their kids/kids-to-be as pastafarians? ;)

Well... I eat pasta about every day and I plan to cook it for my eventual family. Does this count as pastafarian indoctrination 101?

But... but... if you don't force them to believe asap, they'll become *gosh* godless atheists!

This may be, but in the religious point of view, the correct approach will not be to subjugate young minds into submission.

This may be, but in a sensible religious point of view, the correct approach will not be to subjugate young minds into submission.

Fixed... you know, not all religious guys are sensible, expecially when it comes to educating kids.
I wonder, do they fear that it's almost impossible that their kids will be willing to join their own parents' religions as adults?

Fixed... you know, not all religious guys are sensible, expecially when it comes to educating kids.
I wonder, do they fear that it's almost impossible that their kids will be willing to join their own parents' religions as adults?

The subjugators, oppressors and fanatical are irreligious, so my quote was correct.

The subjugators, oppressors and fanatical are irreligious, so my quote was correct.

You claim that they're irreligious. They claim (I guess) that they're religious.

I prefer your interpretation, still the problem with zealots remains.

There is nothing wrong with a parent wanting to pass their faith on to their child. Similarly for a non-religious person to encourage their child to keep a distance from religion. I know plenty of adults from a relgious background who, when they reached a more mature age, usually in their teens, decided that their parent's religion was not for them, and distanced themselves from it. No parent should be penalised or condemned for sharing ideas with their children that they believe right, unless such ideas encourage generally deplorable behaviour like racism or something along those lines.

No parent should be penalised or condemned for sharing ideas with their children that they believe right, unless such ideas encourage generally deplorable behaviour like racism or something along those lines.

No where has anybody said parents should be penalised for sharing/evangelizing their faith to their children, nor has anybody said all children are destined to follow the faith of their parents.

This mentality addresses the problem that children are highly influenceable, such that it is irreligious to exploit these young mind and implant their faith onto them.


I know plenty of adults from a relgious background who, when they reached a more mature age, usually in their teens, decided that their parent's religion was not for them, and distanced themselves from it.

I know plenty of people who have retained the religious bias of their family environment, in particular, harmful.

How about we treat religion like the pointless, silly thing it is, and just don't tell our kids about it because it is irrelevant? If they discover it and are interested in it, then tell them what it is.

At any rate, they will learn about it in history class, seeing as religion played a significant role in many historical events.


Also, why are there so many religion-threads here on NSG? Is religion really still such a big topic in the United States? I mean, I know about the Bible Belt, but I figured other parts of the US were quite less God-fearing.

How about we treat religion like the pointless, silly thing it is, and just don't tell our kids about it because it is irrelevant? If they discover it and are interested in it, then tell them what it is.

Many people would disagree with this point of view. Religions still have significant political and economic power.


Also, why are there so many religion-threads here on NSG? Is religion really still such a big topic in the United States? I mean, I know about the Bible Belt, but I figured other parts of the US were quite less God-fearing.

There are more economy and politics related threads here.

Many people would disagree with this point of view. Religions still have significant political and economic power.

Sure, but only in faraway regions like the Middle East. So you can safely wait until high school to explain the kids what religions are, right?



There are more economy and politics related threads here.
Very true. I wouldn't expect anything less from a nation simulation game :)

A believer honestly thinks that their child's immortal soul is at stake. How can you possibly expect religious parents not to do everything in their power to insure their child doesn't spend eternity in a lake of fire?

Why would God save the souls of people who 'believe' only because their parents told them to?

Why would God save the souls of people who 'believe' only because their parents told them to?
You can't force someone to believe something, you can only force them to pretend to believe it. But if you keep talking about God, there's a good chance that your kid will actually start believing it.

And if one truly believes, God will be merciful.

Why would God save the souls of people who 'believe' only because their parents told them to?

To the fanatical Christian, the only redeeming quality worthy of entrance into His Kingdom is the acceptance of Jesus Christ. So more power to the child who has been informed of the Good Word.

Children should be taught their parent's religion.

But once they are older they are free to find a religion that more closely aligns with their beliefs.

Children should be taught their parent's religion.

But once they are older they are free to find a religion that more closely aligns with their beliefs.

Because......?

Because......?

Tradition for the first part.

Personal growth/reflection for the second.

Tradition for the first part.

Personal growth/reflection for the second.
"Tradition is just a damn eufemism for 'it's broken but we ain't fixing it' "
Who said that again? I saw it in someone's sig.

EDIT: apparently it was Kryozerkia.

"Tradition is just a damn eufemism for 'it's broken but we ain't fixing it' "
Who said that again? I saw it in someone's sig.

EDIT: apparently it was Kryozerkia.

And its just an opinion. An opinion billions of people would disagree with.

"We're doing it this way because some dead people did it this way" sounds like a recipe for fail. All it takes is for your child to ask "Why?" and you're left pretty much saying "Because.....well, just because!".

And its just an opinion. An opinion billions of people would disagree with.
Being pro tradition is just an opinion as well.

I do respect tradition, unless it goes against ideals like freedom and equality and the like.
(And religions often do that.)

"We're doing it this way because some dead people did it this way" sounds like a recipe for fail. All it takes is for your child to ask "Why?" and you're left pretty much saying "Because.....well, just because!".
That's not entirely accurate. For instance, if your child would ask about christian stuff, you can always say "because some illiterate nomad walking around in some desert three millennia ago said it".

"We're doing it this way because some dead people did it this way" sounds like a recipe for fail. All it takes is for your child to ask "Why?" and you're left pretty much saying "Because.....well, just because!".

You could also explain why the religion is important, and why you believe it to the kids.

Tradition means consistency and respect. Neither of those are bad.

Tradition means consistency and respect. Neither of those are bad.
Not in themselves, no.

But tradition can consistently be, and have great respect for, abhorrent practice.

You could also explain why the religion is important, and why you believe it to the kids.
Which has nothing to do with tradition.

Tradition means consistency and respect. Neither of those are bad.

Nor are the necessarily good.

Which has nothing to do with tradition.



Nor are the necessarily good.


Being consistent is usually a good trait.

Respect is good, too. Respecting others and all that other fun stuff people preach to little kids.

Not in themselves, no.

But tradition can consistently be, and have great respect for, abhorrent practice.

Abhorrent to an outside society, yes.

Abhorrent to an outside society, yes.
It's got nothing to do with 'outside society'.

It's just a simple fact, tradition isn't necessarily a good thing, nor necessarily a bad one.

Saying 'practice x is a tradition' isn't a valid argument for it's value.

Being consistent is usually a good trait.
The same applies here; consistency is a morally neutral state.

Appealing to a practice's consistency doesn't help us decide whether the practice is good or bad, for we have to say whether the consistency is good or bad in itself.

Being consistent is usually a good trait.


So, rape is okay, so long as you do it consistently?

No - because consistency is neither good nor bad, in and of itself.

i would never introduce children to religion, ever, unless to warn them of its many flaws, atheism for the win!

All else being equal, it is better to be consistent than to be inconsistent.

But all else is rarely equal.

If you want your children to buy your religion, you have to get to them early. My parents didn't send me to Sunday School until I was five, at which point I had read books about mythology and about science, and was thus ruined forever.

If you want your children to buy your religion, you have to get to them early. My parents didn't send me to Sunday School until I was five, at which point I had read books about mythology and about science, and was thus ruined forever.
You read books at age five :eek:

i would never introduce children to religion, ever, unless to warn them of its many flaws, atheism for the win!

So you won't introduce them to other beliefs but you will introduce them to yours, got ya.

So you won't introduce them to other beliefs but you will introduce them to yours, got ya.
Atheism is absence of superfluous beliefs, which is not the same as "just another religion".

You read books at age five :eek:

Any child will read books if they don't have a television.

Atheism is absence of superfluous beliefs, which is not the same as "just another religion".

Actually I believe Atheism is the belief that there is no god. Of course there are still your beliefs on religion.

Actually I believe Atheism is the belief that there is no god.

...which is evidence that 'beliefs' can actually be wrong.

There are SOME Atheists who actively believe there is/are no god(s). Atheists like myself simply 'lack faith' in a god or gods.

So you won't introduce them to other beliefs but you will introduce them to yours, got ya.

...which is evidence that 'beliefs' can actually be wrong.

There are SOME Atheists who actively believe there is/are no god(s). Atheists like myself simply 'lack faith' in a god or gods.

1. Mine are based on science, so they will learn about them anyway, why teach them about religions that are contradictory to what they learn in science, history and stuff

2. i wasnt aware there was proof that a god exists? im suprised its not headline news?

1. Mine are based on science, so they will learn about them anyway, why teach them about religions that are contradictory to what they learn in science, history and stuff

2. i wasnt aware there was proof that a god exists? im suprised its not headline news?

Why am I quoted, here?

Why would God save the souls of people who 'believe' only because their parents told them to?

People who believe always believe they made the decision by themselves. Most likely that goes for non-believers too. Humans being human we all believe we control our own destiny,or at least make our own decisions, even if we don't.

But you're missing the point. I said "encourage to believe" in which case it would be as genuine as it could get now wouldn't it? We learn most things from somebody.

Perhaps that is the evangelical Christian point of view, which I clearly do not share. I hope you don't believe all religions believe in this sort of doctrine.

All of them? No.Too many of them? Yes.

I was simply using the extreme case as an example.

...which is evidence that 'beliefs' can actually be wrong.

There are SOME Atheists who actively believe there is/are no god(s). Atheists like myself simply 'lack faith' in a god or gods.

So you have no belief that there is a god or not? Isn't there another name for that? The name escapes me I can't even remember it (one to many at the uni tavern) but it starts with an 'a'. And no it isn't atheist. :p

1. Mine are based on science, so they will learn about them anyway, why teach them about religions that are contradictory to what they learn in science, history and stuff

So all of your beliefs are based in science, history and stuff? Well depending what that stuff is I find that hard to believe? What about your political beliefs? Are they based in science?

Why am I quoted, here?

I think he was talking about your assertion that some people believe that there is no god.

If I choose in the distant future to have kids I'm not gonna teach them anything about religion, I'll let them find their own way.

Being consistent is usually a good trait.
Depends what you're doing consistently. If you pot 3 or 4 balls in a row consistently then that's good. If you pot the white or foul the black consistently, that's bad.

Respect is good, too. Respecting others and all that other fun stuff people preach to little kids.

Depends whether the respect is earned or not. If you just respect things and people by default, then it kind of becomes meaningless.

So you have no belief that there is a god or not? Isn't there another name for that? The name escapes me I can't even remember it (one to many at the uni tavern) but it starts with an 'a'. And no it isn't atheist. :p...Agnostic? ...Is it a trap? :eek:

So you have no belief that there is a god or not? Isn't there another name for that? The name escapes me I can't even remember it (one to many at the uni tavern) but it starts with an 'a'. And no it isn't atheist. :p

Areligious sounds right. Agnostic is about whether you believe it is possible to know if god/s exist or not.

So you have no belief that there is a god or not? Isn't there another name for that? The name escapes me I can't even remember it (one to many at the uni tavern) but it starts with an 'a'. And no it isn't atheist. :p

areligious or nontheistic can be used, but atheist is quite correct as well.

So you have no belief that there is a god or not? Isn't there another name for that? The name escapes me I can't even remember it (one to many at the uni tavern) but it starts with an 'a'. And no it isn't atheist. :p

Atheism.

Implicit Atheism is a lack of belief in god/gods.

Explicit Atheism is the belief there is a lack of gods.

Implicit Atheists are often called 'Agnostic Atheists', although it isn't quite accurate - but a lot of Implicit Atheists will also be Agnostic, so it's not too far off.

(Agnosticism doesn't answer the question of belief or non-belief - only if you believe it's possible to ever KNOW if there's a god. You could be an Agnostic Theist - in fact, I know several Agnostic Christians - just as easily as an Agnostic Atheist.)

children should be clamped into electronic devices, injected with suitable serums, and deeply hypnotized into the dominant faith of your nation.

to shore up this conditioning, we shall shoot on the spot anyone suspected of "heresy" (i.e., contrary opinions).

they are all terrorists anyway.

children should be clamped into electronic devices, injected with suitable serums, and deeply hypnotized into the dominant faith of your nation.

to shore up this conditioning, we shall shoot on the spot anyone suspected of "heresy" (i.e., contrary opinions).

they are all terrorists anyway.

Word.

...Agnostic? ...Is it a trap? :eek:

Yeah that was it. Why couldn't I think of it last night?

And I won't bother quoting everyone else but thanks for the info.