Children and Religion

[Zero Beat]

forcing a religion on your child just doesn't work...but I think you can teach them the religion you were taught as they grow up. then they can choose to follow it or not when they are older...

Here's a good question, why should one teach them ANY sort of religion for that matter? What ever happened to breaking the mold??

Religion falls under ethics. Assuming you're an ethical person, there's no need for religion's teachings when you can do that yourself in a much simpler manner(after all, religion is not the parent, YOU ARE). Besides, there's no such thing as "teach them this and that, and then let them choose." That would only work if they had some sort of pre-existing knowledge of the two right as they're born. However, that's never the case.

Then again, I've never given much thought to this situation, therefore I am open to suggestions as long as you're able to justify them through reasonable explanations.

 

[pockyD]

I'm fairly certain this has already been mentioned (I didn't read the walls of text on page 2 at all ), but if you believe in God, hell, the whole shebang, it would be ridiculously irresponsible not to raise your child in the same way

People who aren't religious don't seem to understand the mindset of the religious person; it's not whether it's right or wrong for him or her; religion is (largely) meant to be a universal and absolute truth. Whether it's IS truth or not is obviously a different subject matter, but if you believe something to be true, and the consequences for not abiding by it are eternal ****ation, then you would have to be a pretty awful parent to allow your child to basically choose his death.

 

[RDK]

forcing a religion on your child just doesn't work...but I think you can teach them the religion you were taught as they grow up. then they can choose to follow it or not when they are older...

What are you talking about?

It works ridiculously well. If it didn't, Christians would be extinct.

Spoiler

/INDOCTRINATION

 

[Firus]

I have never heard of a parent disowning a child for not believing the same way.

Oh, I didn't mean they cast their kid out on the streets for it. I'm talking about when they move out, go to college, whatever and they don't speak to their son/daughter because they became an Atheist or something. It's just ridiculous when people can't even accept a difference in beliefs coming from their own flesh and blood.

In my opinion, religion was and is a way to explain all the events that happen in our world. The non Christian Muslim or Jewish religions seem to have better ideas. They have many gods for different reasons, really having one omnipotent god is just senseless.

Yeah, you actually make a good point. Aside from just keeping you out of trouble as a little kid (although I wouldn't necessarily say it was religion that did that for me, I think that my parents taught me that themselves), it's actually a good way for kids to understand things. A 5-year-old can't understand complex science, and they're going to ask questions about this, that, and the other thing. If you can say "God" to every question, it's simple and easy. It may seem lazy, but it's also good for a kid, I think. If you try to explain the Big Bang to a child, or this or that, they probably won't understand. As a very curious person, I know that as a child if I couldn't use "God" as an answer for everything, I would've been overwhelmed with questions.
Although ironically enough, given my curiosity, I never actually asked the cliched "Where do babies come from?" question as a kid.

I really wouldn't care if my kids believed in creation or God, as long as they don't tell me im going to hell for not believing in Him, and I wouldn't care if they became Satanists, as long as they don't commit stupid incidents im fine with what they (will) believe.

Definitely. I hate it when strangers do it, but I'm certainly not going to accept my kid(s) growing up to be that way. I'll set them straight if they get started on that attitude, or at least attempt to; for their sake, my sake, and strangers with differing opinions' sake.

 

[Bowser King]

My uncle wasn't born into a religion. He was brought up and allowed to choose. He's been like that for most of his life until he went to India. There he became Sikh and hes been happy since. So I'm inclined to agree that forced religion is wrong and the child should be allowed to choose. If my uncle was forced, he may not be the person he is now.

 

[pockyD]

A good percentage of our national laws and regulations are based on the idea that children should NOT be allowed to "choose"

 

[RDK]

A good percentage of our national laws and regulations are based on the idea that children should NOT be allowed to "choose"

What laws and regulations are you referring to?

 

[pockyD]

anything requiring the signature of a parent/guardian rather than that of the minor?

 

[RDK]

Wow; I completely misunderstood your post then. Disregard.

 

[Firus]

anything requiring the signature of a parent/guardian rather than that of the minor?

Yeah, they shouldn't be able to "choose" physical decisions according to that. Parents don't have to sign off on what religion a child chooses.

Unless the parent threatens their kid by saying they won't do this or that for the kid if they don't believe the same religion, these situations have no impact on this debate.

 

[MasterWarlord]

I fully believe in Christianity and wouldn't be following it if not for the evidence. Evoloution is filled with holes IMO, but that's not what this is about, and I'm just begging for flames here.

Children really don't have much else to do at such a young age, and church helps to teach them morals. When they're very young, they're not smart enough to really do anything with their time if they didn't go. Once they're older though (13 at the earliest), I intend to actually give them reasons behind their faith, and if they then reject said reasons, I'll try harder, but if they refuse to listen to my reasons, that's their choice. My parents forced me to do too many things for my religion, and I hardly want to follow in their footsteps as far as method of parenting go. They use far too little logic.

 

[RDK]

I fully believe in Christianity and wouldn't be following it if not for the evidence. Evoloution is filled with holes IMO, but that's not what this is about, and I'm just begging for flames here.

If there is a god, he's such an unbelievable **** to me.

 

[pockyD]

Yeah, they shouldn't be able to "choose" physical decisions according to that. Parents don't have to sign off on what religion a child chooses.

Unless the parent threatens their kid by saying they won't do this or that for the kid if they don't believe the same religion, these situations have no impact on this debate.

A parent can decide whether or not their child goes on a field trip on wednesday, but they can't decide if their child goes to church on a sunday?

Of course a parent can't "choose" what their child ends up believing; that's an actual near impossibility, so not worth debating. They should certainly be allowed to "educate" their child however they see fit though, within reason of course, and I think far more often than not, the things parents choose to expose their children to are 'within reason'

 

[~Peachy~]

I believe that children should have the religion of their parents shoved down their throats ( lack of a better phrase atm ^__^)

This is because children barely know right from wrong, good and bad, basic morality. Religion is a good basis to start children on the right path to decide whether something is good or bad. Of course there is school, but a religion gives the extra boost. ^__^

Even so, when a child grows into the age to know right from wrong, (and at a parent's expense,) they should be able to decide what they believe with the parent not interfering. Of course, this should be when a parent thinks the child is mature enough to make that choice. In the mean time, force feeding religion may not be a bad thing!

 

[Zero Beat]

Religion is a good basis to start children on the right path to decide whether something is good or bad.

I disagree, for reasons I stated in my previous post.

Instead of letting religion do the parenting, how about YOU do it?(You're still alive, you're not in jail, you must be doing something right!) You brought them to this world didn't you? Take responsibility.

 

[marthanoob]

My belief:
Tell children what you think. Encourage them to explore different perspectives. Censor nothing.
This is all taken with the faith that children do not become demented freaks by the age of 5.

 

[pockyD]

I disagree, for reasons I stated in my previous post.

Instead of letting religion do the parenting, how about YOU do it?(You're still alive, you're not in jail, you must be doing something right!) You brought them to this world didn't you? Take responsibility.

are you suggesting that all children should be homeschooled?

 

[Firus]

A parent can decide whether or not their child goes on a field trip on wednesday, but they can't decide if their child goes to church on a sunday?

Be that as it may, church doesn't have a whole lot to do with having to sign off on things, which is what confused me initially. It sounded as if you were saying that law states that you can indoctrinate your children specifically.

Instead of letting religion do the parenting, how about YOU do it?(You're still alive, you're not in jail, you must be doing something right!) You brought them to this world didn't you? Take responsibility.

I agree. Religion doesn't necessarily guarantee morals anyways; think of the kids you knew growing up in school who were always the troublemakers and grew up to be the ones on drugs and everything. I'm sure some of those kids were put into church, and just didn't get the morals from it. Honestly, I don't think I acquired my morals from church...I remember them being in the Ten Commandments and everything but I recall them reinforcing what I already knew, not the other way around.

I don't think you need a pastor to tell your kids what's right and what's wrong -- and if they do ultimately question religion, what if they question those morals along with it? That could have disastrous effects. It's safer and more responsible to tell your kids what's right and wrong by yourself.

are you suggesting that all children should be homeschooled?

School teachings =/= real world teachings.

Real world teachings should be the parent responsibility. That's what he's saying. Like, morals.

 

[pockyD]

Be that as it may, church doesn't have a whole lot to do with having to sign off on things, which is what confused me initially. It sounded as if you were saying that law states that you can indoctrinate your children specifically.

I thought it was pretty clear I was referring to the principle of parental consent, not the practice of it. Sorry if that was not the case.

School teachings =/= real world teachings.

Real world teachings should be the parent responsibility. That's what he's saying. Like, morals.

You're going to have to do a much better job of explaining this; I really have no idea what you're trying to say

 

[Firus]

I thought it was pretty clear I was referring to the principle of parental consent, not the practice of it. Sorry if that was not the case.

Meh, it might've been my fault. Either way, confusion cleared up. Sorry.

You're going to have to do a much better job of explaining this; I really have no idea what you're trying to say

He's saying that if you've gotten thus far in life, you must be doing something right, you must know morals. So teach them to your children instead of relying on religion to do it. You need more education and time to homeschool, so it's a different situation.

Tell me if it's still not clear.

 

[pockyD]

He's saying that if you've gotten thus far in life, you must be doing something right, you must know morals. So teach them to your children instead of relying on religion to do it. You need more education and time to homeschool, so it's a different situation.

Tell me if it's still not clear.

I don't see why that's necessarily true

What's more credible: a parent telling you not to do drugs, a former addict telling you not to do drugs, or a policeman telling you not to do drugs?

Religious parents often see the church (or whatever) as a higher, more knowledgable religious authority. It seems logical to allow them to have their say.

It's not like the parents are bringing their kids to church INSTEAD OF talking to them; they probably talk to them also.

 

[zrky]

To the common not follow the Bible/torah/koran to the letter parents, I think the parents just do it out of habit or that's what their parents did, Im pretty shure parents don't say "im gonna teach my kids morals, let's go to church"

 

[Zero Beat]

Most of what you learn from "wrong and right" based on extremes comes from parenting at home. You don't need religious studies to teach YOUR OWN CHILD not to kill.

Why do you not kill? Because you're infringing upon the rights of others to live. Then you explain what living is, ect. All of the implications in time. All in time.

Haha, I have to share this. A friend of mine was asking about an early stage of the big bang and I just think I gave the greatest/funkiest explanation ever.

Jose says:
lol
Jose says:
for example
Jose says:
inflationary epoch is depicted as the following..
Jose says:
picture a roach as the big bang, and picture it going from the size of a roach to the size of the sun in the smallest time frame measureable in an instant.

You guys should try to picture it, it's hilarious.

[size=-9]Warning, not for the weak minded.[/size]

 

[~Peachy~]

I disagree, for reasons I stated in my previous post.

Instead of letting religion do the parenting, how about YOU do it?(You're still alive, you're not in jail, you must be doing something right!) You brought them to this world didn't you? Take responsibility.

Really now, does the word BASIS mean anything? Obviously, not all good morals come from the church, but MANY of them do. When you're younger, it is harder for kids to understand the real world explanation to kids. ( If you disagree to that, then you've obviously have no experience trying to teach kids right and wrong). It is significantly easier to say "Because God/ Allah/ Buddha/ etc. said that's the right thing to do" then it is to say " Because ( insert non-religious explanation here). If parents state the latter, then the conversation goes on with "Why?", " But why?"," But Why?". Parents will get tired with these long, repetitive explanations ( if you grow up to be a parent and answer every, single one, be my guest, but not many people have that kind of patience.)

Young kids will not understand things like "Why not to kill" and subjects along those lines using literal explanations. Would you honestly tell your child not to kill because they'll become juvenile delinquents and your family will be broken up? Maybe you expect too much from your child then. We're talking 3-9 year-olds (around that age).... do you think they'll be able to comprehend all these complicated, real world topics?

Again, religion makes a Good Foundation for good morals. It's not necessarily the only way to teach children, but it sure helps the children and parents.

To those who said that some kids don't learn morals from church so they should just learn morals from their parents. If they don't learn from church, what makes you think their parents will do better? The parents can already discipline their children to listen more in church to actually get something out of it. The acts of Discipline in Church can be equal to the Acts of Discipline at home.

 

[Zero Beat]

You can use simple explanations of your own just the same way religion gives their simple explanations.

"Hey sweetie, would you like it if your friends called you names? Very well then, don't do it to them, that way both of you will be happy friends forever and ever" and give them a smile. My grandma raised me more than my own mother did. She also raised all of my close cousins and they've all turned out to be great people.

Teaching kids is a step by step process. ****ing with their minds through religion is wrong. I was a victim of that fear of God. Because that's what it is taught, to fear God. I remember as a young kid, stealing a ****ING GUM WRAPPER(something you THROW AWAY), to later remember that stealing was against God's teachings(I have like two church diplomas, yes, I wasn't born an atheist, I was catholic until the end of 6th grade) and I felt ****ty for that entire weekend because I thought God was going to send me to hell or hurt my family. I will never forget that feeling.

I'm talking about life experience here, not "what if's" on a forum. It isn't "harder" for kids to understand an explanation outside of religion, it's how you as the FACILITATOR approach the situation with YOUR child and break it down for them. I went to 3 different catholic schools as a child, I know I would have rather had my mom or grandma teach me all throughout instead of learning some bogus **** I'd later reject in life.

 

[aeghrur]

Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

Why I'd rather answer those questions than teaching them religion to say "cuz God said so."

 

[~Peachy~]

And if one can't/won't/don't know how to make up those explanations? It all ends up to preference. As I said before, it's not NECESSARY for religion to be used to teach morals, but it is a very handy crutch/building block/ foundation to start from. (Or even going all the way). This is just going to be a repeating argument. IT COMES DOWN TO PREFERENCE. There is no right way to do many things in life. For example, teachers have different teaching styles. Mrs. Slade (Random name) prefers to give a "Hands-on" Learning experience to the children while Mr. Gorman (Also random) prefers to make students copy notes. They both generally deliver the same content, but in the end, it depends on which the child liked more and remembers.

Maybe some kids like those Stories about Moses, the Buddha, God, etc while hating stories that are made up b/c they can never understand them. (reason doesn't matter). It depends on the child/parent preference. The child choosing which way of being taught more, and the the parent's preferred way of making their kids learn.

You and your cousin's probably preferred you Grandma's style of teaching then the church's "shove down your throat maneuver". Which beings me to another point, not all religions are taught the same way. Even well-known religions have sub-groups which teach differently. I know Catholic friends who had a much less strict guidelines.Some forms of Christianity teaches people to Love God, as a best friend, rather than to fear him as a some sort of Scary Being. Not everyone here nor everyone in the world has the same life experience as you if you haven't noticed. What I've stated aren't just "what ifs", for all you know they can be real life experiences going on in the lives of other people.

 

[Zero Beat]

Right, a basis. That sounds so "pretty" and "orderly" doesn't it?

Yes, OBVIOUSLY it is up to preference, it always has been when you're the parent. But again, while you go on with "maybe," "probably," and "if," I'll refer to life experience once again. All of the kids I was with in my Communion and Confirmation class would admit that they were only there because their parents forced them. Now, explain the kind of effect this "basis" will have on such a negative attitude as a result of being forced? By the way, which religion in 2008 doesn't teach you to fear God?

In my opinion, I strongly believe I can teach my child about ethics better than any religion(don't let the word "ethics" allude to the explanations I'd give as "difficult," just take the word as it is) . There is no need to teach them to be afraid of something that doesn't exist, especially with as much power he is made out to be. "He sees everyone, is everywhere. If you do this, which is outside of these set of rules, he'll send you to hell, he'll punish you."

I don't think so. I went through enough. Again, post modernist religions are all about fearing God. You MUST abide by His rules or else, ect ect. THAT is the basis of religion.

You want ethics? In my friend's philosophy class, the teacher asked the class:
"If God told you to murder your parents, knowing that he knows what is best without question, would you do it?" People actually rose their hands. And you want to talk about religion doing a better job than yourself? At least I am biased through life-experience and reasoning, and with plenty of reasons to be.

 

[RDK]

Like I said; if forced indoctrination wasn't used, then Christians would be all but extinct. The chances of an educated adult converting to Christianity is astronomical.

 

[Darxmarth23]

I think that children should be introduced to religion.

If a child is not introduced then it has almost lost the oppertunity to accept a religion.

almost....

 

[Firus]

If you do it right, kids won't have to question it. If you teach kids from an early age that something is wrong, they probably won't question it until a long time afterwards, which is exactly how religion works. If you put your kid in church from day one and teach them there is a God, they're not going to seriously question it until much later. If you teach a kid that killing is wrong and that stealing is wrong from day one, they won't question that until they're older. At which point, they would've questioned their religious teachings as well, so whether they decide to stop doing what they were taught or continue doing as taught, you can do it by any method so long as it's efficient and not telling them "Don't kill people" on one occasion.

If you bring your child to church just to teach them morals, you're a fool. If you bring them to church for the religious aspect and to learn morals as well, that's fine. But it's certainly not the only way to teach morals, so it's not really an efficient enough argument to say children should be indoctrinated into a religion for it. And if you raise a child on religion, it's indoctrination. At a young age, anything a child is taught is the equivalent of indoctrination, because they're so vulnerable and trusting that they'll believe whatever is told to them.

 

[aeghrur]

I hate how we all assume that religion suddenly ends kid's questions.
I wish kids were smarter so they would eventually come along the line of though of:
What made the universe?
What made God?
But... how does he just "exist?"
But... how?
etc etc.
That'd be hilarious.

 

[~Peachy~]

Right, a basis. That sounds so "pretty" and "orderly" doesn't it?

Is there something wrong with being "pretty" and "orderly"? Society is all about order, without it, it wouldn't be a society.

Yes, OBVIOUSLY it is up to preference, it always has been when you're the parent.

I could have sworn I wrote the word "obviously" in my argument..... it is quite obvious. But last time I checked, it wasn't wrong to state the obvious.

Yes, OBVIOUSLY it is up to preference, it always has been when you're the parent. But again, while you go on with "maybe," "probably," and "if," I'll refer to life experience once again.

Oh lord... there we go with your life experience again. How many times must I say this? Just because you had some sort of occurrence in your life, that doesn't mean every person has had the same exact experience. And even if they did , that doesn't mean the outcome was the sameThose "probably's", "if's", and "maybe's" are very likely to happen if not have already happened, so that doesn't mean that they should be wiped off the slate either.

All of the kids I was with in my Communion and Confirmation class would admit that they were only there because their parents forced them. Now, explain the kind of effect this "basis" will have on such a negative attitude as a result of being forced? By the way, which religion in 2008 doesn't teach you to fear God?

So what if they were forced? That doesn't mean it was full of negative results because of it. Since you're so into life experiences, I'll give you one of mine. When I was a child, I barely ate fruits/vegetables/ healthy food and I'd always eat junk food. My parents would force me to eat all sorts of healthy food to get some nutrients into my system. Does that mean I've grown up to be some obese/diabetic (insert health problem here) person who hates healthy things? No, and that means there would be many other people who've had the same experience. Even so, that doesn't mean everyone had the same experience.

This proves two things: Your so called "Life Experience" does not prove something true due to the fact that others may have had experienced something else in a situation just like yours. Maybe someone wouldn't have liked something until they've been forced to actually try that. The second one is that being forced into something does not necessarily produce negative effects/attitudes. Don't even try bringing the "Oh, religion and food aren't related and thus irrelevant" argument. They are are the same in the fact that being force fed and "religion forced" don't necessarily produce negative attitudes.

By the way, which religion in 2008 doesn't teach you to fear God?

If you mean "modern" religions that are also a majority, then there are very few. But Buddhism fits perfectly into that category. First off, Buddhism does not have its believers worship the "Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc" God, the believers worship the Buddha. Secondly, it doesn't say to fear Buddha. In fact, here's a quote:

"The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you...."-Buddha

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/buddha.html

There's a site if you need it.

Next off, there are many other religions that survive to this day that have nothing to do with fearing God or even anything to do with "God" at all. Few examples are Animism and Hinduism, and Shintoism. Hopefully, you won't need me to explain each of them. Look them up if you don't have any idea what they are.

Lastly, there are different views on "Fearing God."

For true believers, fearing God is to honor him with respect and acknowledge that he is God.

For non-believers and those who have doubts, it is the fear of being separated from God and burning in an everlasting fire we like to call Hell. ^__^

For those of you who need more reassurance, read these pages thoroughly:

http://www.gotquestions.org/fear-God.html

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/YesLord/fearlord.htm

In my opinion, I strongly believe I can teach my child about ethics better than any religion(don't let the word "ethics" allude to the explanations I'd give as "difficult," just take the word as it is) . There is no need to teach them to be afraid of something that doesn't exist, especially with as much power he is made out to be. "He sees everyone, is everywhere. If you do this, which is outside of these set of rules, he'll send you to hell, he'll punish you."

I don't think so. I went through enough. Again, post modernist religions are all about fearing God. You MUST abide by His rules or else, ect ect. THAT is the basis of religion.

Your opinion is not fact. Again, preference. See the argument I last wrote to see the hole in your argument.

You want ethics? In my friend's philosophy class, the teacher asked the class:
"If God told you to murder your parents, knowing that he knows what is best without question, would you do it?" People actually rose their hands. And you want to talk about religion doing a better job than yourself? At least I am biased through life-experience and reasoning, and with plenty of reasons to be.

Simple answer, raising their hands just shows the set of morals those students have. Everyone has a different set of morals. And if you think what they did is wrong/insane/stupid, what do you think a whole religion is based on?

"If God told you to murder your parents, knowing that he knows what is best without question, would you do it?"

That shows what a religion really is. It's about having FAITH in what YOU BELIEVE IN. That's the whole idea about belief. It's what one believes in. Those students who raised their hands stood up for what they believe in. Reasoning may have benefits, but having faith is just as strong. Not everything in life has a sure-fire explanation. And that's where faith steps in to see if a person believes.

 

[aeghrur]

Simple answer, raising their hands just shows the set of morals those students have. Everyone has a different set of morals. And if you think what they did is wrong/insane/stupid, what do you think a whole religion is based on?

Idiots telling more idiots to do insane things and giving them crappy morals? I'm sorry, it's just your questions seemed to be trying to reach an answer like this one, lol.

That shows what a religion really is. It's about having FAITH in what YOU BELIEVE IN. That's the whole idea about belief. It's what one believes in. Those students who raised their hands stood up for what they believe in. Reasoning may have benefits, but having faith is just as strong. Not everything in life has a sure-fire explanation. And that's where faith steps in to see if a person believes.

Okay, reasoning has benefits. Reasoning also has strength. The only reason faith is strong is because people don't learn the lesson that logic>faith in most cases. Nor do they seem to understand that it doesn't matter if faith is strong, it means nothing in a debate. Faith steps in to give them a witty little answer that makes little to no sense and it disillusions people. >_< Personally, I believe the quote of Karl Marx fits in SO well here.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.

 

[Dash_Fox]

Children should go to school and not worry about church. They shouldn't be forced to think that fairy tales are facts. Churches don't allow them to think for them selves, like when you tell your children about Santa clause and giving him hints that he doesn't exist. They force the religious texts into your child's brain and he/she will be programmed to think that way. If he/she thinks otherwise, he/she will be filled with shame and guilt and that could lead to other dangerous consequences.

 

[l3lue2ain]

I would take my children to church because I went through a similar experience but I realized that it made me better in the long run. Some of the things that could have happened to me didn't because I was at church instead of hanging out.

 

[Zero Beat]

Is there something wrong with being "pretty" and "orderly"? Society is all about order, without it, it wouldn't be a society.

Of course there is, it's called taking advantage of it SOUNDING "pretty and orderly."

Oh lord... there we go with your life experience again. How many times must I say this? Just because you had some sort of occurrence in your life, that doesn't mean every person has had the same exact experience. And even if they did , that doesn't mean the outcome was the sameThose "probably's", "if's", and "maybe's" are very likely to happen if not have already happened, so that doesn't mean that they should be wiped off the slate either.

My point was, you get nowhere with ifs and probably's. You get somewhere by observing mediums. <<<Life experience. Besides, we use the scientific method every day. We experience these multiple experiments because we are alive. Thus, "life experience." I know, it's such a horrible phrase to use in a debate: life experience, ew. <_<

The second one is that being forced into something does not necessarily produce negative effects/attitudes.

Can't say it doesn't, either, what is your point?

If you mean "modern" religions that are also a majority, then there are very few. But Buddhism fits perfectly into that category. First off, Buddhism does not have its believers worship the "Christian/Muslim/Jewish/etc" God, the believers worship the Buddha. Secondly, it doesn't say to fear Buddha. In fact, here's a quote:

"The whole secret of existence is to have no fear. Never fear what will become of you...."-Buddha

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/b/buddha.html

There's a site if you need it.

Notice how you did not include which religion you're planning on forcing to your child(Or didn't specify your preference)? I introduced the "fear of god" issue based on the assumption that you'd plan on enforcing christianity, or a related religion. I'm very sorry to have wasted your time, but thanks for the citations and all that.

Let's take a look at how you defended the Fear of god concept:

For true believers, fearing God is to honor him with respect and acknowledge that he is God.

This proves my assumption correct. Has Christian values attached to it. What I have to say for the quote in bold : LOL. So you try to explain the following:
-Everyone goes through different stuff in life, we all react differently.

Yet you go out and say "for true believers?" Who do you think you are, anyway? Very confusing.

Your opinion is not fact. Again, preference.

I never said it was, just stated that what I went through is fact because it took place. It happened. It was observed, felt, ect.

Simple answer, raising their hands just shows the set of morals those students have. Everyone has a different set of morals. ?

You're really going to let your child be taught that if God told him/her it was okay to kill you, it's dandy?

And if you think what they did is wrong/insane/stupid, what do you think a whole religion is based on?

What do I think? Wrong, insane, and stupid.

It's about having FAITH in what YOU BELIEVE IN.

Without observing and analyzing intermediate steps? Listen, I don't mind religious people. My whole family is, minus a cousin or two. The problem comes when religion(Or an intelligent creator/the bible, ect) is presented as reality through faith alone. The problem comes when as a result of this, millions of people pay with their lives. Starting to see where I stand?

Reasoning may have benefits, but having faith is just as strong.

I would tell you to give me a reasonable example, but since you're trying to defend "faith," what's the point? See where I'm going with this? Again, see when religion becomes a problem? This is why people(most REASONABLE people) try to avoid being irrational on a daily basis, to AVOID the offspring of being irrational: problemas.

Not everything in life has a sure-fire explanation. And that's where faith steps in to see if a person believes.

Using a phrase that has the word obvious stamped all over it, and then saying that because of that phrase, faith steps in to see if a person believes? Can you word that differently? I'm having trouble with it.(I really am)

Honestly, I should have never answered seeing as others already did for me. But in this particular case, the horse HAD to be beaten.

Don't take me lightly because I use very 'down to earth examples," the problem with me is:

Whenever I explain myself, I have to make sure the dumbest AND smartest person understand me. Sorry if you thought I was easy prey or something.

 

[HyugaRicdeau]

I don't see how faith can be a reliable path to arrive at a certain belief, given that "faith" has led to thousands of different mutually contradictory religions. What exactly do you mean by "faith" anyway?

 

[ElemMasterZeph92]

I don't see how faith can be a reliable path to arrive at a certain belief, given that "faith" has led to thousands of different mutually contradictory religions. What exactly do you mean by "faith" anyway?

Forgive me for my bluntness, but why not define it yourself.

 

[~Peachy~]

Idiots telling more idiots to do insane things and giving them crappy morals? I'm sorry, it's just your questions seemed to be trying to reach an answer like this one, lol.

Ummm....no. Don't blame someone else for your idiotic answer. Simple as that.

Okay, reasoning has benefits. Reasoning also has strength.

Thank you for proving how redundant all of your arguments are becoming. I have already stated that.

The only reason faith is strong is because people don't learn the lesson that logic>faith in most cases. Nor do they seem to understand that it doesn't matter if faith is strong, it means nothing in a debate. >_< Personally, I believe the quote of Karl Marx fits in SO well here.

faith- a strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny

Faith can have answers that fit into questions, and that's why it's called faith. It's what one believes in. It's not the "ALL THE ANSWERS ARE IN YOUR FACE" statements. And I hope you remember that logic can be just as questionable as faith. Sure, there may be a tad bit of evidence here and there (which can also be said about faith), but most of it is based on assumptions and we all know assumptions aren't fact.

Faith meaning nothing in a debate? Here's a simple scenario. Where do many debates take place? The courtroom. Who ultimately decides who's innocent and who's guilty in court? The jury. What are one of the influences on a jury member's decision? There faith and what they believe in. Now tell me, does something that affects the decision of one man on another man's life mean nothing?

I don't see how faith can be a reliable path to arrive at a certain belief, given that "faith" has led to thousands of different mutually contradictory religions. What exactly do you mean by "faith" anyway?

Faith doesn't arrive at a certain belief, not everyone has the same faith. Maybe you people need a refresher course on vocabulary... even if I've already defined faith.

Faith steps in to give them a witty little answer that makes little to no sense and it disillusions people.
>_< Personally, I believe the quote of Karl Marx fits in SO well here.

That's your opinion. (with no proof) For all you know, others might have the exact opposite of what you're saying. Also, that quote can be said about facts and atheists and non-religious people.

Of course there is, it's called taking advantage of it SOUNDING "pretty and orderly."

So what? That's an opinion. You're acting like I've stated a fact. People take advantage of many things in life and arguing against that is futile.

My point was, you get nowhere with ifs and probably's. You get somewhere by observing mediums. <<<Life experience. Besides, we use the scientific method every day. We experience these multiple experiments because we are alive. Thus, "life experience." I know, it's such a horrible phrase to use in a debate: life experience, ew. <_<

And my point is, that throwing your own life experience in this debate out there like it happens/will happen to everybody is, as you say "ew". You act like what happens to you is destined to happen to everyone. Breaking news...... IT DOESN'T. Apparently, I've stated that many times but it's not getting through.

Btw, your third and fourth sentences are completely irrelevant. See if you can figure out why.

Can't say it doesn't, either, what is your point?

To drive the idea that it definitely does (which you obviously were trying to argue) out of the people reading this argument. Why else?

Notice how you did not include which religion you're planning on forcing to your child(Or didn't specify your preference)? I introduced the "fear of god" issue based on the assumption that you'd plan on enforcing christianity, or a related religion. I'm very sorry to have wasted your time, but thanks for the citations and all that.

Waste my time? Please... this is just oodles of fun darling.

You've asked "which religion worshiped in 2008 does not fear God?" Here's a mind refresher:

By the way, which religion in 2008 doesn't teach you to fear God?

It doesn't bother me that I answer people's questions, even if they are "half-hearted" arguments.

What does bother me is the fact people forget them so quickly.

Apparently(though maybe not to you ), I've also provided an argument against your "fearing God" argument below that. Or did you forget that too?

This proves my assumption correct. Has Christian values attached to it. What I have to say for the quote in bold : LOL. So you try to explain the following:
-Everyone goes through different stuff in life, we all react differently.

Yet you go out and say "for true believers?" Who do you think you are, anyway? Very confusing.

Assumption of what? You haven't even stated that clearly. Now I'll assume that the assumption you made was that the religion I am so called "forcing/will force" is Christianity/other related religion. I am simply pointing out the Christian view of things. (which were on those two "useless, as you say" links.) If you looked and maybe even skimmed, you could have realized that. I would have pointed out the point of view from the atheist/non-religious side, but it looks like you've got that handled. Anyway, this is what "fearing God" means to Christians anyway. That was the point of the link. Who knows a "Holy Book" more than the people who's religion uses it? Would you ask an atheistic scientist about the true meaning of the words "fearing God"? Or an actual Christian/Catholic/related faith? Most would choose the latter b/c someone in that faith would know more about the depth of their own religion than a scientist who doesn't believe in any.

Again, you don't get the point of references, do you. Let me give you a run down
(Unnnghhh.... sometimes people are too ignorant and opinionated to get even a smidgen of someone else's view on things).

Does anyone define things these days?

True believer -One who sticks to one's beliefs irrespective of the facts.

In other words, someone who believes in something w/o a doubt. They have an unshakable faith. Someone who's not a true believer has a faith, albeit doubts to counteract it and thus more easily swayed.

I never said it was, just stated that what I went through is fact because it took place. It happened. It was observed, felt, ect.

Good for you! Very little of use to us though. Keep trying!

You're really going to let your child be taught that if God told him/her it was okay to kill you, it's dandy?

Again....apparently...you're not getting it through your head. I'm making my own argument redundant b/c your making me state the same things over and over. And that's not okay. Really now, at the rate you're going, this will turn into a full-speed, "Is religion fact/stupid/overrated?" debate.

I guess the "don't repeat useless arguments twice"ship has sailed.

For your sake, I'll answer you one last time. It's what a person has faith in. If a person has faith in God, they will believe what he says no matter how idiotic it may sound to you, or anyone else. What may appear "delusional to you may seem right to someone else." That's something that happens every day in life. Deal with it.

What do I think? Wrong, insane, and stupid.

Good for you, but that was rhetorical, so no one cares. ^__^

Without observing and analyzing intermediate steps? Listen, I don't mind religious people. My whole family is, minus a cousin or two. The problem comes when religion(Or an intelligent creator/the bible, ect) is presented as reality through faith alone. The problem comes when as a result of this, millions of people pay with their lives. Starting to see where I stand?

I saw where you stood from the beginning of this argument.

Presented through faith alone? I hope you realize where many of these Holy books came from. They come from things written down through history. Also, no one goes through faith alone. There is common sense out there ( although, numbers are dwindling, religious and non-religious). No one goes through anything without thinking the options through, but after that person does, they'll make their choice. And of course they will consider other people! If they didn't, they'd have no morality, and that contradicts the whole argument of religion and morality. Really, why would they be religious in the first place if that happened? Again, this shouldn't become a Separation of Church and State topic.

I would tell you to give me a reasonable example, but since you're trying to defend "faith," what's the point? See where I'm going with this? Again, see when religion becomes a problem? This is why people(most REASONABLE people) try to avoid being irrational on a daily basis, to AVOID the offspring of being irrational: problemas.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piuoGb-Nhfw

There's an example. You may question the validity of it, but you did want proof.^__^

The term reasonable is subjective, just like many of your arguments. That pretty much beats up your pretty paragraph.

Using a phrase that has the word obvious stamped all over it, and then saying that because of that phrase, faith steps in to see if a person believes? Can you word that differently? I'm having trouble with it.(I really am)

Honestly, I should have never answered seeing as others already did for me. But in this particular case, the horse HAD to be beaten.

Don't take me lightly because I use very 'down to earth examples," the problem with me is:

Whenever I explain myself, I have to make sure the dumbest AND smartest person understand me. Sorry if you thought I was easy prey or something.

All your questions are answered so simply, I find it a little sad. Let's try this again, but slowly...

It's obvious that there things are unexplained in this world. That's an area where others and one's self can see how strongly he/she believe in his or her faith. It's a very simple concept to most people. ^__^

And that just shows how idiotic the "master of the horse" is. Reiterating a futile and redundant argument and THEN insulting a person's viewpoint like yours is fact when quite honestly, your points have just been negated severely. You deserve cookies for that. Hopefully, you'll get the sarcasm. Hmmmmm... but I just have to ask myself "Why would I think he can understand it if he barely understood a simple argument?" And the answer is, I really don't.

Oh, everyone understood you all right, you just argued an argument that got shut down pretty quickly. I'm the one who should be sorry. I'm wasting my time on a "bigshot" who,in reality, isn't worth it.