Forcing children to follow parents religion?

[Rabbattack]

Debate on how it is wrong or right. I know which answer will be the most chosen.

 

[LarsINTJ]

The initiation of 'force' automatically denotes wrongness through the axiom of self-ownership.

The very essence of religion is the fact that it is forcefully imposed upon children as truth with dire consequences should they act against it. A virus persists by infecting new hosts, religion is a mental virus.

Scientific theories do not need cults backing them up because their conclusions are actually supported by a rigorous methodology. In other words, truth-value (empiricism) does not bow to whim; religion is entirely whim-based.

Nevertheless, I understand what fundamentally draws people to religion.

1. Religion acts as a kind of illusory social glue, it grants ridiculously easy access to a widespread support network. Regardless, shared religion is hardly a consistent standard for virtue, these relationships are hollow and potentially dangerous.
2. Guilt as a result of childhood trauma.
3. People like to pretend to understand what they do not understand lest face difficult introspection.
(4. Perhaps you could be killed for speaking out against a particular religion depending on the time and place.)

Faith is a bigoted non-standard for truth which should never be inflicted upon helpless young minds. Religion claims to possess answers which have ******** the progress of human knowledge for thousands of years. "God did it" is a blockade against curiosity for the sake of appeasing a seedy social sphere as well as one's own insecurities.

In the instance that your child could be killed by the authorities if they are not raised to accept the state religion?
It isn't exactly ideal, but priority is clear for parents trapped in that circumstance, I wouldn't blame them unless they had a way out. It's a parent's duty to provide the safest possible environment for their child, they make that implicit agreement by choosing to bring a new dependent life into the world.

 

[Donyoku]

I believe that "forcing" a child or anyone for that matter to believe in a certain religion is wrong and goes against their natural curiosity for other options that may be available to them.

However, I do not think religion is inherently bad thing for children as I feel it can help teach morals to children which I feel science cannot. Being a good person, respecting others and values of that nature are all taught in religion and with the positive and negative consequences placed on your action by an "all seeing God' can be used as a way to reinforce those values and morals when away from parents. I think religion is necessary to a certain extent, my problem with religion is when it starts to dabble in science and logically debates where religion has no footing as it has no logic or proof but, rather a requirement of faith.

I believe religion is fine when it is trying to pass on healthy and proper morals, thus I don't find a problem with children being introduced to it and deciding for themselves rather they wish to dive deeper into the subject or move on to another. Therefore, religion should not be forced onto a child but, it should be an option. Not everyone desires to be an Atheist/Agnostic or a Theist, its up to each individual as to how they live their life and they should be able to chose what they believe in and not just forced into one.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

@ Donyoku What 'morals' are to be gained by dedicating time and energy to an imaginary super force.

 

[Donyoku]

@ #HBC | Acrostic Morals such as not to steal, not to lie, respect thy neighbor, and respect your parents. Morals such as those are taught through religion and religion has a better way of enforcing them by using God than a parent by themselves would be able to. I am in no way stating that religion is the only way to learn and appreciate these morals but it is one.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

@ Donyoku However, you are stating that religion results in a better enforcement of people to obey arbitrary item lists from the ten commandments compared to people who don't follow a religion while offering no underlying rationale or valid basis.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Based on a 2013 study regarding the religious affiliation of U.S prison inmates, only 0.07% were found to be Atheist. That's not to say that the law is a perfect guideline for ethical behavior (far from it), but it says a lot about the moral efficacy of religion if most criminals are in fact religious.

 

[Donyoku]

@ #HBC | Acrostic You are right, I should have worded it differently. I do not want to give the impression that religion is a better method of teaching morals and values, just simply stating that the values that we hold come from religion in certain cases.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Based on a 2013 study regarding the religious affiliation of U.S prison inmates, only 0.07% were found to be Atheist. That's not to say that the law is a perfect guideline for ethical behavior (far from it), but it says a lot about the moral efficacy of religion if most criminals are in fact religious.

Considering that few americans consider themselves atheists in the first place, the statistic isn't that surprising

 

[LarsINTJ]

Considering that few americans consider themselves atheists in the first place, the statistic isn't that surprising

Indeed.

After analyzing the overall statistics we can also see that atheism is comparatively underrepresented when it comes to criminality. In other words, Atheism makes criminality less likely, contrary to what the religious believe.

 

[#HBC | Dark Horse]

Wait what

Correlation doesn't imply causation. Just because there aren't that many criminal atheist means that atheism makes people less likley to be criminals.

I wouldn't be surprised if their religion in general is insignifigant in the eyes of many of these criminals.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Wait what

Correlation doesn't imply causation. Just because there aren't that many criminal atheist means that atheism makes people less likley to be criminals.

I wouldn't be surprised if their religion in general is insignifigant in the eyes of many of these criminals.

Didn't imply causation, only likelihood. Implying causation would be to say 'therefore atheism leads to moral behavior' or 'therefore religion is to blame for criminality'.

Oh... I did word that badly though, sorry. "Makes" might have been misleading.

Based on the statistics, atheists are less likely to be criminals. I would also infer the opposite about the importance of Religion to criminals, it's a pretty convenient psychological 'get-out-of-jail-free card' for whatever wrongs they may commit; just ask for forgiveness and everything is fixed.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

@ #HBC | Acrostic You are right, I should have worded it differently. I do not want to give the impression that religion is a better method of teaching morals and values, just simply stating that the values that we hold come from religion in certain cases.

What about the repeated instances of commanded genocide and him allowing his own son to be murdered despite having the ability to stop it at any time.

> Numbers 31: 15 And Moses said to them: “Have you kept all the women alive? 16 Look, these women caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the incident of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD. 17 Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known a man intimately. 18 But keep alive for yourselves all the young girls who have not known a man intimately.

> Observe what I command you this day. Behold, I am driving out from before you the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. Take heed to yourself, lest you make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land where you are going, lest it be a snare in your midst. But you shall destroy their altars, break their sacred pillars, and cut down their wooden images (For you shall worship no other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.)

> Job 2:1-6 One day Yahweh said to Satan, 'Have you noticed Job? He holds fast to his perfect righteousness even though you persuaded me to destroy him for no reason. Satan answered Yahweh, saying, 'A man will give away all he has to save his life. But if you were to stretch out your hand and strike his body, he would surely curse you to your face.' Yahweh said to Satan, 'Fine then, he is in your power. Only, do not kill him.'

> “Come into the ark, you and all your household, because I have seen that you are righteous before Me in this generation. 2 You shall take with you seven each of every clean animal, a male and his female; two each of animals that are unclean, a male and his female; 3 also seven each of birds of the air, male and female, to keep the species alive on the face of all the earth. 4 For after seven more days I will cause it to rain on the earth forty days and forty nights, and I will destroy from the face of the earth all living things that I have made.” 5 And Noah did according to all that the Lord commanded him. 6 Noah was six hundred years old when the floodwaters were on the earth.

 

[LarsINTJ]

What about the repeated instances of commanded genocide and him allowing his own son to be murdered despite having the ability to stop it at any time.

Precisely.

Religious ideologies (particularly Christianity) are rife with contradictions which can only be waved away by granting higher authority figures exemption from the standards they impose on their underlings. It is nothing more than a fearful worship of power.

Compare Christianity to something like the paganism of Ancient Rome, you'll see it simply upholds contemporary cultural values and circumstance as virtuous. Christianity started as a minority/slave religion, that's why it encourages collective servitude to a single higher power. Whereas the Romans originally upheld individual strength, pride and leadership, stuff that Christians would view as arrogant.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

Precisely. Religious ideologies (particularly Christianity) are rife with contradictions which can only be waved away by granting higher authority figures exemption from the standards they impose on their underlings. It is nothing more than a fearful worship of power.

That's not it. I believe that when it comes to Christianity being one of the largest denominations in the United States it largely has to do with the fact that your average American is largely uneducated and prefers to remain blissfully ignorant of the truth. Few people who claim to be adherents to the faith have completed reading the Bible (I have) or attend church on a regular basis (I do). The prior which I did because I was being indoctrinated in the faith and the latter because I wish to still continue to have a relationship with my mother who is a religious zealot, however has no tolerance for people who don't follow the faith.

I am more educated in terms of general overall knowledge than most believers who come to defend their faith online and have a more broad attitude choosing not to fall into the pitfall of using the 'science' card having studied biochemistry extensively and understanding that science doesn't contain absolute answers as to how we originated, however is gradually still developing theories on the topic at hand. Unlike the common 'feel good' defense that religion is there to fortify moral values and to keep people in check, I am currently living in an incredibly corrupt country where citizens allow themselves to be exploited by big corporations, banks, and other systems choosing to willingly remain apathetic because they don't want to make an effort to change their own conditions and choose to chalk it up to the fall of mankind and the influence of sin rather than actually analyzing how investing in faulty financial devices like derivatives and mortgage back securities continue to play a large part in the defrauding of our system.

Religion is one form of control that is exerted on the poor and ignorant to give them an illusion that there are reasons why they are suffering. Other forms of manipulation involve the saturated growth of America's higher level 'education system' that promises students job security in the future while those that are able to land steady jobs and have consistent careers are tricked into trusting a 401k account and pension fund that is fully out of their own control and left to the hands of the bankers.

The recurring trend in all these cases is that when people continue to put faith into other people and other instruments instead of relying on themselves to come to terms with the failures of the world then they will continue to be abused and exploited because they will never adjust their behavior. They will continue to feed the pockets of the people exploiting them which is sad because at the very least the value of capitalism should at least tell us that we should be giving up money to social devices that will actually aid us in our individual progress to attain more capital and not the other way around.

 

[LarsINTJ]

That's not it. I believe that when it comes to Christianity being one of the largest denominations in the United States it largely has to do with the fact that your average American is largely uneducated and prefers to remain blissfully ignorant of the truth. Few people who claim to be adherents to the faith have completed reading the Bible (I have) or attend church on a regular basis (I do). The prior which I did because I was being indoctrinated in the faith and the latter because I wish to still continue to have a relationship with my mother who is a religious zealot, however has no tolerance for people who don't follow the faith.

Ignorance would definitely be a primary factor when it comes to inflicting religion on the young, but don't underestimate a child's intelligence; most children will not automatically believe nonsense without some sort of prior threat or guilt. Try handing an empty box to a five year old and relentlessly insist that there's a new tablet inside.

I fully understand people's desire to maintain a relationship with their parents even if it means sacrificing their immediate integrity. Though, I hope you understand that allowing your mother to have a strong influence on your (future?) children would be quite irresponsible.

Those who grow up without a religious influence are extremely unlikely to become religious later on in life because abstract threats/guilt can only be planted within the physically and/or emotionally immature. Yet the threats aren't so abstract for most children, they implicitly experience the threat of abandonment when it comes to accepting their families' faith regardless of whether their parents are actually willing to act on it.

I am more educated in terms of general overall knowledge than most believers who come to defend their faith online and have a more broad attitude choosing not to fall into the pitfall of using the 'science' card having studied biochemistry extensively and understanding that science doesn't contain absolute answers as to how we originated, however is gradually still developing theories on the topic at hand.

To be more precise, science doesn't develop new theories and discard the old, it builds on established theories. Science cannot be used as a 'gaps in our knowledge' excuse for the potentiality of supernatural occurrences, that's pure regression. It's abusive to fill a child's head with fallacious notions like 'anything is possible'.

Unlike the common 'feel good' defense that religion is there to fortify moral values and to keep people in check, I am currently living in an incredibly corrupt country where citizens allow themselves to be exploited by big corporations, banks, and other systems choosing to willingly remain apathetic because they don't want to make an effort to change their own conditions and choose to chalk it up to the fall of mankind and the influence of sin rather than actually analyzing how investing in faulty financial devices like derivatives and mortgage back securities continue to play a large part in the defrauding of our system.

Like I said, religion upholds contemporary cultural circumstances as virtuous. These beliefs are a vulnerability toward exploitation, not a safeguard. Conformity vs. Rebellion, which do you think a religious person is more likely to choose?

Religion is one form of control that is exerted on the poor and ignorant to give them an illusion that there are reasons why they are suffering. Other forms of manipulation involve the saturated growth of America's higher level 'education system' that promises students job security in the future while those that are able to land steady jobs and have consistent careers are tricked into trusting a 401k account and pension fund that is fully out of their own control and left to the hands of the bankers.

Yeah, one of the fundamental distinctions between science and religion is their perception of humanity. Religion requires humans to have started from a place of greatness, but then to have fallen from grace in order to explain present day suffering. Science asserts that we started as a disgusting sludgy mass of perpetually reproducing single-cellular organisms - it has only been uphill from there.

The consequences here are:
Religious person: "I am human, I possess greatness within me, though I am suffering now, I will be rewarded in the end because I am faithful."
Secular person: "I am human, many have died to grant me life, I must make the most of what I have right now in order to pave the way for future life"

The recurring trend in all these cases is that when people continue to put faith into other people and other instruments instead of relying on themselves to come to terms with the failures of the world then they will continue to be abused and exploited because they will never adjust their behavior. They will continue to feed the pockets of the people exploiting them which is sad because at the very least the value of capitalism should at least tell us that we should be giving up money to social devices that will actually aid us in our individual progress to attain more capital and not the other way around.

After somebody has devoted a significant portion of their life to a religious (or political) collective then people-pleasing conformity becomes an aspect of who they are rather than something they do. It's a very difficult habit to reverse.

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't think there's a right or wrong answer to this, unless you qualify what is right and wrong parenting. Normally one would assume that this fits into the same category as other types of "raising." So like, if you teach your children not to place your elbows on the dinner table. Or that stealing is wrong. Or that you should not drink from public water fountains. But the difficulty is that religion is more complex than simple rules of etiquette, or even entire moral values. It's a belief system based on faith which in itself requires some notion of questioning (why are we here, who created the universe, etc.) So as a parent if you feel it is necessary that your children follow in your footsteps, such as the Catholic religion, which dominates the family structure from birth to death, then yes, it's perfectly normal and expected for a child to follow their parent's religion. But do I think that's right? As in "best" for the child? No, actually. I think religion is too complex a thing to expect children to blindly follow it just because their parents do. It means so much less in this regard. I would rather a parent allow their child to grow into adulthood with the notion that religion exists, that it is purely faith-based, and that when they are ready, they can choose for themselves whether or not religion is right for them.

The same goes for atheist families. Just because a parent decrees "There is no God" does not mean that is the right thing for their child to believe (and yes, I do in fact think that even atheism requires faith to a degree... the religion of non-religion if you will.)

 

[LarsINTJ]

The same goes for atheist families. Just because a parent decrees "There is no God" does not mean that is the right thing for their child to believe (and yes, I do in fact think that even atheism requires faith to a degree... the religion of non-religion if you will.)

Ideally, atheist families do not teach wishful conclusions as the religious do, they teach their kids how to think so that they're able to reach to the most logical conclusions given any context. Atheism is not comparable to religion, it is a rejection of faith, faith being a pretense of knowledge. The existence of God is not a subjective/preferential matter - somebody can either deny reality (and thus truth) by affirming the existence of a self-contradictory entity or they can rightfully accept that things which cannot exist do not exist.

 

[Thor]

Obviously yes - best way to fight Communism is Sunday School, show them the value of Jesus Christ and His word. Opiate of the masses my ***.

Ok no not really but I think communism is a poor idea (maybe good, but has zero method of effective implementation) so the way those two were tied together in the 50s amuses me immensely.

There's a paradox in a lot of religions that makes no sense to me, I can sort of cook up answers but they don't make sense to me... here it is:

Some religions say "If you aren't this religion, you go to hell."

Me: Ok, so... what happens to dead babies? We send them to hell?

Religion: "Oh no of course not they are the innocent. Especially the baptized."

Me: "Wait, but if someone is baptized in a religion or receives the sacred rites of a religion, they are of that religion, right?"

Religion: "Oh of course! Admittedly none are sacred but ours, but that's not something nonbelievers understand."

Me: "So if someone receives the rites, at like 2 weeks old, and dies, despite never having the choice, they go to hell?"

Religion: "Well..."

Me: "I thought all people were God's Children?"

Religion: "Yes, some have strayed is all."

Me: "So those who never had a choice, are his children, and are forced to stray go to hell because of something they could never choose to not do?"

Religion: ...

Potentially there's an argument that those people were never God's Children, or that those people aren't worthy, but that is pretty racist, and I really don't think racism is divine. If it is, I'll burn in hell for that belief I suppose.

And so forcing kids to follow something that has this (to me) irreconcilable flaw seems silly. But that's coming from someone who doesn't have a specific religion [though I believe there is something there, since something cannot logically come from nothing, which is what the Big Bang proposes, and as Holmes said [not exact but something close to this], "When all the false paths have been cleared away, what remains is the answer."] so my answer is obviously biased. A religious person (extremist to us) would say "It's my duty to ensure my children are saved - you would state that I shouldn't do everything in my power to avoid letting them descend to hell instead of allowing them glory of everlasting heaven?" or something like that. And because it's the extremist versus us, neither side can see each other's side, because of differing axioms, so there's not much to debate because neither side can budge (fall back on axioms).

 

[LarsINTJ]

Sometimes you just have to step back and view the colorful room full of dancing jesters for what they are. Then you lift the carpet to find a basement full of dead bodies.

 

[Sucumbio]

Ideally, atheist families do not teach wishful conclusions as the religious do, they teach their kids how to think so that they're able to reach to the most logical conclusions given any context. Atheism is not comparable to religion, it is a rejection of faith, faith being a pretense of knowledge. The existence of God is not a subjective/preferential matter - somebody can either deny reality (and thus truth) by affirming the existence of a self-contradictory entity or they can rightfully accept that things which cannot exist do not exist.

This seems overly absolute, don't you think? Can we truly dismiss the existence of a "higher" power simply because humans defined God poorly?

 

[LarsINTJ]

This seems overly absolute, don't you think? Can we truly dismiss the existence of a "higher" power simply because humans defined God poorly?

Is proclaiming 1 + 1 = 2 'overly absolutist'?

Coz ya know, man, 1 + 1 could equal anything in some other whacked out dimension that doesn't follow the up-tight rules of our universe, dude. Stop being overly (?) absolutist with these words you're saying... it's cramping my style. Anything is possible, man, just gotta think outside the box, ya know? Find a balance, yin yang and all that.

Explain to me how these windy notions add anything of value to human thought.

If 'God' is a term which cannot be defined then it is meaningless, it doesn't generate some reality-bending loophole which converts meaninglessness into 'the meaning of all things'.

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

This seems overly absolute, don't you think? Can we truly dismiss the existence of a "higher" power simply because humans defined God poorly?

Ambiguity fallacy. In the quoted paragraph Lars never denied the existence of "higher" power. His statements wrt God have been relatively focused on a religion based God and not a build-your-own "God" that you equivocate to being a misunderstood "higher" power.

 

[LarsINTJ]

We can't actually deny the potential existence of forces outside our universe, although anything outside our universe is ultimately irrelevant. Pretending to understand such potential forces is like claiming to see the complete script for Shakespeare's Hamlet scrolling across a static TV screen.

 

[pinkdeaf1]

The question of this thread has connotations which condemn one side, immediately making the other more appreciable. For the sake of fairness for both sides of the debate, I request that the question we are debating be reworded with more neutral words. Specifically, "Forcing" is the word with which all my qualms arise.

 

[Ussi]

Avoiding the whole religion is right/wrong debate. What are children supposed to be raised by then? If anything, children normally desire to be like their parents until they reach their teen years and think they know everything by then. By then you can't "force" kids to follow the religion, they just live a double life which is even worse though. Expanding on the double life, its more prominent when the parents who are forcing the religion, are just forcing culture instead of the religion itself and do so to not look bad in their religious community. Religion cannot be forced as a primary aspect to religion is submitting yourself to it. No one can force your heart to submit but yourself.

 

[pinkdeaf1]

Avoiding the whole religion is right/wrong debate. What are children supposed to be raised by then? If anything, children normally desire to be like their parents until they reach their teen years and think they know everything by then. By then you can't "force" kids to follow the religion, they just live a double life which is even worse though. Expanding on the double life, its more prominent when the parents who are forcing the religion, are just forcing culture instead of the religion itself and do so to not look bad in their religious community. Religion cannot be forced as a primary aspect to religion is submitting yourself to it. No one can force your heart to submit but yourself.

While you can't force religion on those old enough to think clearly for themselves, children especially are subject to having their entire mindsets influenced by whatever they are within proximity to. The Children of bigots and the openly racist are likely to become so themselves if that is all they are around. Similarly, children exposed to religion and knowing only religion are likely to follow that religion. Is is brainwashing then, if parents expose their children to religion at a young age? Religion and children is an issue best handles by society, where children are exposed to a multitude of different aspects of belief and happiness not revolving around only religion. While I believe parents should be able to expose their children to religion, all other religions as well as a lack of religion and other philosophies should be under equal representation for children.

 

[Ussi]

Equal representation is impossible when the parent is a living example of his or her religion. You can't give an equal representation. What parents fail to do is answer questions any child asks and tells them "Just believe" or "This is how it is"

 

[Sucumbio]

Is proclaiming 1 + 1 = 2 'overly absolutist'?

Coz ya know, man, 1 + 1 could equal anything in some other whacked out dimension that doesn't follow the up-tight rules of our universe, dude. Stop being overly (?) absolutist with these words you're saying... it's cramping my style. Anything is possible, man, just gotta think outside the box, ya know? Find a balance, yin yang and all that.

Explain to me how these windy notions add anything of value to human thought.

If 'God' is a term which cannot be defined then it is meaningless, it doesn't generate some reality-bending loophole which converts meaninglessness into 'the meaning of all things'.

By absolute I am referring to this notion you've described that Atheists cannot be compared to Theists. To me they both revolved around the same thing: Faith. So they're similar in this fashion. The Theist has faith that God exists. The Atheist has faith that God does not exist. If we're to be perfectly correct I suppose you can say that the Atheist does not believe in anything, they either know or don't know, but I find this to be a limiting position, as one should question everything if they are to be the most open minded. I say this because there is no possible way for anyone to "know" if God exists or not, you can only assume based on the observations you've made if one is correct or not. And so if you're going to teach your child anything, it should be that the idea of God is possible, just that today's examples of God may be what you call contradictory.

Ambiguity fallacy. In the quoted paragraph Lars never denied the existence of "higher" power. His statements wrt God have been relatively focused on a religion based God and not a build-your-own "God" that you equivocate to being a misunderstood "higher" power.

Yeah but he's missing the point, then. I'll agree the Abrahamic God can be interpreted as contradictory and therefore does not exist. But that's not where it would end... the idea of a higher power is what kids often start with, and then parents go from there to define it for them (Well, there's Jesus, blah blah blah). He said "The existence of God is not a subjective/preferential matter - somebody can either deny reality (and thus truth) by affirming the existence of a self-contradictory entity or they can rightfully accept that things which cannot exist do not exist." And by saying this he's really saying you can either be an idiot or you can be smart. I took issue with this stance, because it's disingenuous and insulting, and a false dichotomy to boot. The true statement would follow: You can either deny reality by affirming the existence of a self-contradictory entity, or you can leave yourself open to the idea that there is a higher power that we do not fully understand, and therefore cannot define in any traditional sense. Choosing to believe in the latter does not = stupid. It just means you're willing to be open to the possibility. Now if someone goes further as to take actions based on that premise, then THAT is dumb, yes. But then we're getting beyond the initial statement.

 

[LarsINTJ]

By absolute I am referring to this notion you've described that Atheists cannot be compared to Theists. To me they both revolved around the same thing: Faith. So they're similar in this fashion. The Theist has faith that God exists. The Atheist has faith that God does not exist. If we're to be perfectly correct I suppose you can say that the Atheist does not believe in anything, they either know or don't know, but I find this to be a limiting position, as one should question everything if they are to be the most open minded. I say this because there is no possible way for anyone to "know" if God exists or not, you can only assume based on the observations you've made if one is correct or not. And so if you're going to teach your child anything, it should be that the idea of God is possible, just that today's examples of God may be what you call contradictory.

Faith is not the same as accepting gaps in our knowledge - faith is not humility.

Faith creates very specific definitions regarding the nature of the universe, then upholds them as truth in the face of contradictory evidence (or no evidence at all). i.e. bigotry.

Atheists do not have faith in their conclusions, we do not claim to understand how the universe works. We do not pretend that there's validity in wishful thinking. An atheist accepts that 'God', by definition, is an invalid idea.

I do not have faith in the non-existence of square circles, I know they do not exist.

The idea of a higher power is what kids often start with

Please don't insult children, they're quite empirical without the constant bias influence of religious parents. God is not an innate idea, there are no innate ideas.

 

[Ussi]

Not everyone finds it easy to swallow that the structure of the universe from the bonding of atoms to the many stars in the galaxy, is just a big coincidence. Our knowledge only explains how stuff works, not why stuff works. What exactly is faith defining in the nature of the universe? From what I know, faith just puts God at the beginning instead of nothing.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Not everyone finds it easy to swallow that the structure of the universe from the bonding of atoms to the many stars in the galaxy, is just a big coincidence. Our knowledge only explains how stuff works, not why stuff works. What exactly is faith defining in the nature of the universe? From what I know, faith just puts God at the beginning instead of nothing.

Are you seriously saying this with a straight face? In a thread about parents forcing religion upon their children, filling their heads with ridiculous, inappropriate and frightful stories posited as historical fact while having them worship a corpse on a stick whose death they are to be blamed for. Don't forget all those hypocritical edicts upheld as objective ethics because the big floaty ghost in the sky said so... better obey otherwise you'll be sent to the eternal naughty-corner where mischievous imps shove flaming rods up your butt and giant demons bite off your head.

Thumbs up to faith, eh? It's totally harmless, give the poor victimized religious folk a break.

Yeah right... don't cry victim to me unless it's about your childhood.

Besides, assigning an indefinable 'god' to be the prime mover of the universe answers absolutely nothing, it's merely an excuse for the abusive/exploitative tendencies of religious dogma. This has nothing to do with truth.

Once faith is applied as a principle ('truth is what I want it to be'), no matter how small the application, there's nothing stopping it from consuming all rationality.

 

[Ussi]

You're jumping to conclusions assuming faith automatically means Christianity. Nonetheless, whether God exists or not is not the argument, more people find it easier to believe in God than not that is all.

 

[LarsINTJ]

You're jumping to conclusions assuming faith automatically means Christianity. Nonetheless, whether God exists or not is not the argument, more people find it easier to believe in God than not that is all.

I didn't explicitly state Christianity, those were just familiar examples. All religion is basically the same - a rejection of reality for the sake of social/emotional convenience.

If people are actually interested in truth/reality, then they utilize the scientific method, not prayer or meditation.

Fine if people want to reject reality, go ahead, live in the clouds. It's just that I will consider them abusive scum-bags if they impose their fallacious beliefs upon children.

 

[Ussi]

I know there are some abusive parents out there when it comes to faith, but I could say the same thing could happen in an Atheist family when the child wants to believe in God and the parents force him or her to not believe. The parents intend better for their child when trying to "force" their beliefs.

 

[LarsINTJ]

I know there are some abusive parents out there when it comes to faith, but I could say the same thing could happen in an Atheist family when the child wants to believe in God and the parents force him or her to not believe. The parents intend better for their child when trying to "force" their beliefs.

Oh I know, it's inevitable for a religious parent to impose their beliefs because they don't want their kids to "go to hell" (become rational). i.e. it's inevitable for me to consider them abusive scum-bags.

Also there's a difference between atheists who dislike god and atheists who accept the impossibility of god. Am I firmly opposed to the idea of leprechauns? Hardly, they don't exist.

If atheist parents notice that their child is being exploited by some external influence, they should do everything in their power to alleviate the problem (without force or threats against the child). Religion is synonymous with exploitation.

 

[Ussi]

If atheist parents notice that their child is being exploited by some external influence, they should do everything in their power to alleviate the problem. Religion is synonymous with exploitation.

This right here is akin to forcing their children to be like them. In the end, I'm saying majority of the time, parents have good intentions for their children more often than not. Even if the parents are delusional, they still have good intentions in their heart (most of the time at least).

So I say it like this. Parents have the right to control their kids up to an age where the kids think for themselves. Even then, parents can and should play a strong influence in their children's lives.

 

[LarsINTJ]

This right here is akin to forcing their children to be like them. In the end, I'm saying majority of the time, parents have good intentions for their children more often than not. Even if the parents are delusional, they still have good intentions in their heart (most of the time at least).

So I say it like this. Parents have the right to control their kids up to an age where the kids think for themselves. Even then, parents can and should play a strong influence in their children's lives.

Sorry for not being clear enough earlier, I added 'without force or threats against the child'.

Parents don't have a right to control anyone, they have a responsibility to protect their child. If they think that protecting their child involves feeding them poison, good intentions don't change the fact that their methods are toxic.

 

[Ussi]

If my child is making noise in public, I should have a right to force him to be quiet. I'm not protecting him from anything as no one does anything about a crying child, at least not anything to the child.

Practically speaking, parents have to force their children to do things time and time again. Like forcing good manners, good hygiene, proper etiquettes speaking to others. Not every child wants to do that. What is the child being protected from here? From being a despicable person?

 

[LarsINTJ]

If my child is making noise in public, I should have a right to force him to be quiet. I'm not protecting him from anything as no one does anything about a crying child, at least not anything to the child.

Practically speaking, parents have to force their children to do things time and time again. Like forcing good manners, good hygiene, proper etiquettes speaking to others. Not every child wants to do that. What is the child being protected from here? From being a despicable person?

Our definitions of 'good parenting' are quite different, there's no point continuing.