Forcing children to follow parents religion?

[Sucumbio]

An atheist accepts that 'God', by definition, is an invalid idea.

I disagree.

a·the·ist
ˈāTHēˌist/
noun
noun: atheist; plural noun: atheists
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.

We may as well exchange "God or gods" for "higher power" since that's really what a God or gods is, a higher power. You do not believe a higher power exists. You have no proof of it, therefore you do not KNOW it is true. You -believe- it is true. Very simple equivocation. To disbelieve, in anything, is to not believe in that thing.

faith
fāTH/
noun
noun: faith
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction;

Yeah.

So let's wrap it up: To disbelieve in God is to be Atheist. To not have faith that a higher power exists, is Atheist. To have faith, that a higher power does not exist, is Atheist. I get what you meant about using the word Faith (with a capital "F") to describe Atheism, but I didn't mean it that way. I was just demonstrating that the Atheist is no more sure about the unknown than the Theist, and so both have to take it on faith, that they're right.

Moving along, this idea that the existence of a higher power is somehow invalid, because it's contradictory. I think you must be referring to the omnipotent and omniscient paradox. I could be wrong, but you've not exactly spelled it out for us. Anyway, to say "religion is invalid because it's contradictory" is grossly overstating the matter, it's really only God that is contradictory, that is, the Abrahamic God (which is why Ussi assumed you were targeting Christianity, I would say.) And a bit of research into the matter would demonstrate that this paradox is actually solved - if you believe in that kinda thing, which obviously you don't, and so it's beside the point. MY point was not to insult you by accusing you of being narrow minded. I wasn't even going to post in this thread because for the most part I agree with you. I just don't think it's fair to brand all religions as contradictory, defying logic, and therefore are invalid (and as I said even the ones that appear to be that way, aren't really that way if you look into it, but that's a different topic, really.)

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.

Kids start questioning at an early age, and many of these questions could be answered dogmatically. That's not an endorsement, btw. What I was saying was that the questions come first, a lot of the time. In other words, parents don't always just immediately start throwing God at their kids the moment they can talk. It's more, when the child starts to ask their parents questions like "Where do I come from?" or "What happens when we die?" or what have you, it doesn't end there... there are answers to these questions, and for religious families, the answers that follow begin to involve the family's belief system.

 

[Thor]

It's abusive to fill a child's head with fallacious notions like 'anything is possible'.

Gee, super-DUPER glad that Neil Armstrong's farther never gave him any insane ideas like "You might be able to walk on the moon someday" or that the Wright brothers were never told "Hey, maybe people could fly one day" because it would've been SO ABUSIVE to tell them that anything's possible if they work for it.

Oh wait...

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.

I don't understand - how is it self-contradictory? Transcending understanding does not mean it does not exist - did people not having an explanation of gravity mean that until Newton came along we could all just fly because we couldn't explain why not? Just because you can't understand why it exists doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

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

Yes - stop enforcing your base 10 system on me. [This is sarcasm within an otherwise serious post...]

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'.

I just saw a TED talk where a professor said "Don't say no, say yes and when stuck with a problem." Adding the idea that doing something that seems meaningless, and adding to it, can generate things out of nothing, was his point.

People used to think Earth was the center - we thought outside the box for a simpler solution and found it's not. And people used to think it was a universe. People thought outside the box to a universe and not some scientists think there's a multiverse (not sure if it's been proven). 'Windy notions' or whatever can allow someone to consider ideas that were never thought of, which can lead to actual progress.

And until you fully explain the mechanics of the big bang, something HAD to start it - and as I said, when all the false avenues have been exposed, what remains is truth... and God has not been exposed as not existing yet.

God is a "supernatural" omniscient being who transcends our understanding. I say this because understanding something as "always having been" does not make sense to us, but that does not mean it cannot be true [similarly, understanding something as having come from nothing doesn't make sense, but that doesn't mean it can't be true - however, science has no answer for what started the big bang, so we'd have to go and look to something beyond science, which God lends itself to].

We can't actually deny the potential existence of forces outside our universe, although anything outside our universe is ultimately irrelevant

Wormholes.

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.

His statements attack the idea of God existing at all. Or so it seems to be (and I'm pretty sure my definition will fit under his assault). Just saying this now.

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.

Someone who doesn't believe anything they can't prove is an agnostic. Pretty sure atheists have decided God does not exist, despite no proof - which is more or less the definition of faith [as Succumbio pointed out directly above me].

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.

Well, I have faith that there are things I can't explain, but that they're out there anyway - I'm pretty sure it's admitting I don't have a solution... like my ideas on God... I certainly don't think it's humility, do you?

Bigotry is blind hatred of a particular group - your slinging it around as everything is irritating (or is this specifically an example about racism/homophobia, and not stuff like evolution, which denying doesn't make one a bigot in the slightest?)

Accepting that there is not something that transcends your understanding and created this world is by definition a strong faith that God does not exist despite a severe lack of proof.

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.

Well... you're implying never suggesting the existence of some God that all the religions have misidentified ever. I think Ussi and others are arguing against that, not necessarily against forcing people to follow a specific religion. Deism is a thing...
And if I'm irrational, but am having a rational argument, how is it consuming everything? I think you just made a slippery slope argument with zero rationale for it.

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 said it perfectly, but it's just as exploitative to force them to follow what you believe - you know what the difference between you and those "scumbags" is? There isn't one - you both believe something decisively and would force on little children, completely ignoring their right to self-determination about what they believe. And I know the exact response you BOTH would have - "But I'm RIGHT, that's what's different!" You're each trying your hardest to eliminate external threats, it's just a question of what the threat actually is. EDIT: Read the part about (without force or threats against the child) - there are still religious parents who don't use threats and the like, but take them to church every Sunday - is this bad parenting?

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

??? I think Ussi is on the mark, more or less - young children may do things that are detrimental to others (hitting, biting, etc.) and it's the parent's job to raise them so that they will not be hated/a criminal/whatever, which necessarily means forcing the child not to hit/bite/etc. If forms of coercion are "bad parenting", then I'm very curious - what do you think "good parenting" is?

 

[Hitzel]

This thread started discussing extremes very quickly.

Like it was said early on, the word "force" implies wrongness right off the bat, and honestly I don't think it represents at all what is happening when parents bring their children to church/synagogue/whatever in normal circumstances.

It seems intuitive that most children who don't want to go to church protest because they'd rather stay at home and watch cartoons or do whatever they feel like instead of what needs to get done, which is obviously an invalid excuse. I'd like to say that most children who express that they don't like or believe what is said at church about religion will get a mature, neutral response from their parents and a choice of where to go from there.

My hometown is primarily Roman Catholic and the general response to kids who honestly didn't want their parents' religion (and didn't want to skip church for spoiled brat reasons) were asked to continue going until 8th grade Confirmation and told to think for themselves as much as they wanted. Most kids agreed and dealt with going to church on Sundays for a few more years and then did their own thing. I don't think there's anything seriously wrong there.

Of course there are the nutty families out there who probably would go to extremes if they found out their kids didn't want religion, and probably would have their kids too indoctrinated by that time anyway. Those families are obviously raising some alarms, but again I don't think that they represent even the majority of families who fall under the "force their kids to go to church" category which is why I'm posting all this in the first place.

I'm going to stay out of all of this arguing over the definition of atheism and such. The idea what we can so easily classify an individual's unique personal beliefs by rigid definitions set up by others is pretty silly IMO, so have fun trying to make sense of it.

 

[LarsINTJ]

There's really no way I can argue we aren't all agreeing on the same definitions and repeating myself is far too tiresome.

This thread is about whether it's acceptable to exclusively expose children to a single-minded irrational way of thinking, not about whether God exists, there's another thread more focused on that.

Religion must inevitably force itself upon children as absolute truth in order to propagate, so it's innately abusive. No child is ever born religious, nor would anyone take Religion seriously if it were explained to them honestly and without consequential bias.

By the way, Agnosticism is intellectually even worse than openly believing in a specific deity. It tries to apply the principle 'there is no such thing as truth' while being completely oblivious to the fact that if there is no such thing as truth, then such must also be applied to that very same principle. Regardless, does an agnostic apply this principle to anything else besides the concept of God? Nope!

As for parenting, society in general has a long way to go. What's perceived as proper now will be considered terribly abusive in the future if we are to make any progress. I suggest people aim toward that future rather than repeating the mindless traditions of their own parents and their parents before them. It's a parent's responsibility to do some research, particularly about how bad it is to hit/shout at/threaten your kids for the sake of "discipline".

 

[Ussi]

No child is ever born religious, nor would anyone choose to be if a Religion was explained to them honestly and without consequential bias.

Just to nitpick, but there are plenty of adults who convert to religion. If adults are converting, I'm sure children are no exception in that some would also decide to follow a religion as well. If no one would follow religion then logically speaking, religion wouldn't even be that widespread. How would religion even become a thing if logically people shouldn't follow it?

 

[LarsINTJ]

Just to nitpick, but there are plenty of adults who convert to religion. If adults are converting, I'm sure children are no exception in that some would also decide to follow a religion as well. If no one would follow religion then logically speaking, religion wouldn't even be that widespread. How would religion even become a thing if logically people shouldn't follow it?

Lacking a religion does not make somebody logical.

Most people aren't capable of critical thinking, not because they're stupid (although there are a lot of stupid people), but because they're never taught how to critically think. Society values conformity way more than critical thought, why? Conformists are easier to manage and exploit.

Anyway, why do you think religions tend to be so strict regarding sexual practises? Childbirth is the most reliable way of increasing their numbers. Even though most people are irrational, it's still considerably harder to convert a non-religious adult than it is to indoctrinate a new child. I would guess that the only reason people even bother to attempt adult conversion is to inject their ideology into the children of those adults and each subsequent generation.

 

[Hitzel]

Eh.. I'd say approach this as a question of whether children should be indoctrinated into an arbitrary way of thinking at an early age, because treating religion like the boogeyman loads the question.

Someone saying "I don't know if God exists" isn't saying "there is no such thing as truth," and I don't think it's fair to assume that.

A agree that parenting has a long way to go, but I feel that abuse stops and acceptable negative reinforcement starts way earlier than many would like to think.

 

[Ussi]

Anyway, why do you think religions tend to be so strict regarding sexual practises? Childbirth is the most reliable way of increasing their numbers.

What counts as so strict? The whole single partner marriage comes from Christianity alone. Judaism and Islam both allow multiple wives though. (Well Judaism did until a rabbi banned it). As for premarital sex, that practice has a detrimental effect on society. Mainly because human can try to make their own rules but they will never fully agree with each other. A line gets draw and then people fight over where the line is. People will challenge the line and work to lower it. Looking towards history, that line used to be much higher and then the line slowly but surely dropped over decades. Eventually we'll reach a point where sex is done in public and people won't bat an eyelid about it.

 

[LarsINTJ]

What counts as so strict? The whole single partner marriage comes from Christianity alone. Judaism and Islam both allow multiple wives though. (Well Judaism did until a rabbi banned it). As for premarital sex, that practice has a detrimental effect on society. Mainly because human can try to make their own rules but they will never fully agree with each other. A line gets draw and then people fight over where the line is. People will challenge the line and work to lower it. Looking towards history, that line used to be much higher and then the line slowly but surely dropped over decades. Eventually we'll reach a point where sex is done in public and people won't bat an eyelid about it.

I know you've acknowledged 'nitpicking', but vague pedantic fog, dodging the issue and willful misinterpretation is really irritating nonetheless.

 

[Sucumbio]

This thread is about whether it's acceptable to exclusively expose children to a single-minded irrational way of thinking, not about whether God exists, there's another thread more focused on that.

This thread was biased from the start. "Force." It's not good to force anyone to do anything, especially children. Even something like force feeding your kid green beans is bad.

Religion must inevitably force itself upon children as absolute truth in order to propagate, so it's innately abusive.

Absolutely false. You've got a real hard on for Evangelical Christians, because literally every post you've made in this thread really only and exclusively applies to them. This thread is not just about snake handlers. It's not about bible thumpers. It's about religion - all religions. And many religions specifically -avoid- "forcing" themselves on children because of the negative impacts it has on the child's development.

Not to mention there's a few religions that avoid god-figures altogether, such as: Secular Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. These belief systems rely on philosophy to create and manage a construct of means with which to conduct oneself in daily life. Elements within these systems even go so far as to avoid completely "supernatural" beliefs.

No child is ever born religious, nor would anyone take Religion seriously if it were explained to them honestly and without consequential bias.

You'd have made a better case for yourself if you'd just been intellectually honest from the start. You've allowed your own bias to confuse the issue, which is the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit, even if that includes elements of religion. I'll forget the OP's obvious lack of thoughtfulness when positing the question. You obviously have a good head on your shoulders, so you should know better than to play right into it yourself. There is nothing wrong with teaching your child values. There is nothing wrong with teaching them morals. Religions also typically demonstrate good morals and values. Therefore it fits that many families are in the right to teach their children morals and values, and use their religion as a source. It's irrelevant that these things may contain myths and legends. Do we not bother to learn a lesson from The Iliad or The Odyssey, simply because the Ancient Greeks believed in Zeus? Ridiculous. You can't just throw out all the important information because it's speckled with something fanciful to make it more exciting or romantic.

Think of Bible Stories, an old cartoon series from way back when. Yeah, they're fairy tales, in the loosest of senses. But they still contained important life lessons that children take away. That's how children learn, through example, by comparison, and demonstration. Fables, another important tool for teaching. Would you discount all of the lessons that are taught, just because the animals could talk?

 

[#HBC | Acrostic]

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.

Rabbattack is a troll and in this thread used intentionally biased language in order to trigger poor responses. Also, if you read the responses posted they expand upon the topic rather than being the baited commentary the OP wanted to see.

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.

The only thing I could understand from the above post is that you believe children can't be forced into a religion because they have the ability to discern their own "heart" and are able to decide by themselves what the condition of their own "heart" therefore making the implication that all children who follow religion are doing so of their own volition.

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.

While this seems like a noble academic endeavor, a child will likely not care about being a religious scholar during his early life and does not have time to adequately verse himself in all matters religion. The core of religion isn't the ideology embodied in the text, but the core value has always been in the community as a support network for the believers of the faith. In this sense, the practice of modern religion is more embodied by the sense of identity people feel in belong to one faith rather than a sense of fairness embodied by being the only one to embrace all faiths. When it comes to disasters and failure of the world, people within a sect blame the 'outside world,' the 'fall of man,' and a lack of realization among people to adhere to their faith noting all the false religious practices around them. While religions may not make a blatant attempt to defraud other religions, there may be a line of tolerance however only as long as the adherent never abandons the principles of that religion as it is the 'core' religion.

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"

Out of curiosity which specific religion embodies a parent being a living example when he answers questions with, "Just believe" or "This is how it is."

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.

I don't understand how you abstracted the idiot/smart commentary from the quoted post. However, interpreting it as such would understandably give someone an issue. I don't understand though why you feel adamant about pushing atheism as a false position. Atheists are confident that there is no God or supernatural power at work, however a lot of them believe in 'higher powers' at work like Newtonian forces, Mendelian genetics, and Periodic law. If you are someone who believes that the notion of 'God' is completely undecided, then it should be a logical to presume that it is a valid possibility that there is no 'self-intelligent force' guiding the world or universe.

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.

Out of curiosity which ideology states that the structure of the universe is "just a big coincidence."

Spoiler

One theory that a number of researchers believe that early on our planet had an extremely oxidizing atmosphere which would result in only primitive life forms coming to life on the surface. It was believed that lightning and thunderstorms may have acted as reaction catalysts similar to how our enzymes expedite chemical reactions and formations of proteins in our bodies. And that the first life forms may have been formed under water where there was a bountiful amount of hydrogen atoms to provide a reducing environment for organisms to go that was also shielded by ultraviolet rays that were believed to have mutated and destroyed the integrity of complex life forms on the surface of the planet.

Which pieces of knowledge fail to explain "why stuff works."

From what I know, faith doesn't have to involve religion, unless you're talking about a faith in a God. Also if we're talking about the Christian God according to the baptist faith then creationists based in the book of Genesis will clash with scientists because the Bible explicitly states in Genesis 2.7 that:

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

Which goes against not only the theory of evolution, but also what we know of basic cell theory, theories behind alleles, and a host of other microbiological concepts.

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.

No @ LarsINTJ is perfectly rational in assuming that this conversation is about Christianity since the only information that you provided us is that you were giving a context where "a God is put at the beginning instead of nothing". And even if Lars was jumping to conclusions, if you were really discussing another God aside from the Judeo-Christian one then you would have specified which one you were talking about. However, it's rather obvious that your retort has no basis because you're not even using an actual "God" or "higher power" as a foundational belief behind any of the comments I've quoted and are just throwing out by-words and assumptions that you 'feel' are right just for the sake of arguing.

If more people find it easier to believe in God, then tell me why there is an increasing tendency according to the Guardian that the number of secular Americans has doubled within the past three decades, notably among the young. "More people" is another convenient by-word that hardly highlights which group of people you are even explaining find it easier to believe in God because frankly the trend has been that people are turning away from religion according to experts.

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.

It's the result of bad news coverage I suppose that makes people more predisposed to think that people with a religious background could potentially be more forceful with their beliefs with perfectly good intentions to better their child.

/////////// /////// /////
To be continued. w/e.

 

[LarsINTJ]

This thread was biased from the start. "Force." It's not good to force anyone to do anything, especially children. Even something like force feeding your kid green beans is bad.

Absolutely false. You've got a real hard on for Evangelical Christians, because literally every post you've made in this thread really only and exclusively applies to them. This thread is not just about snake handlers. It's not about bible thumpers. It's about religion - all religions. And many religions specifically -avoid- "forcing" themselves on children because of the negative impacts it has on the child's development.

('Hard on' means erection)

Give me a break, no religion avoids exclusive exposure toward their children. There are no devout families who would gladly expose their kids to different religions, most of them are uncomfortable exposing them to secular ideals.

As I pointed out earlier, there is an implicit threat that a child may be disowned if they go against their families' beliefs. To a dependent child, being abandoned is practically the same as death. This goes for any sort of irrational conformity, not just religion. Kids are instinctively programmed to adopt the beliefs of their tribe, why? Most of the kids who rebelled in the past were outright murdered. The 'rebel gene' is quite suppressed.

Not to mention there's a few religions that avoid god-figures altogether, such as: Secular Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism. These belief systems rely on philosophy to create and manage a construct of means with which to conduct oneself in daily life. Elements within these systems even go so far as to avoid completely "supernatural" beliefs.

Eastern Philosophy is nothing more than a bunch of 'obey my abstract authority' fortune-cookies, none of it is reasoned from first principles. Nevertheless, everything I've said in regards to religion fully applies to these systems as well, it's all irrational and thus damaging to a child's capacity for critical thought.

You'd have made a better case for yourself if you'd just been intellectually honest from the start.

A religious person's dishonesty arises from faith, that is to pretend they know that which they do not know. I never asserted 'truth' out of ignorance. These arguments aren't my 'faithful' opinions.

You've allowed your own bias to confuse the issue, which is the rights of parents to raise their children as they see fit, even if that includes elements of religion. I'll forget the OP's obvious lack of thoughtfulness when positing the question. You obviously have a good head on your shoulders, so you should know better than to play right into it yourself.

Here comes the parental alter. "Ye got a good head on ye shoulders, ma' boy, ye should know better than to play in the mud". Bloody hell, don't patronize me.

There is nothing wrong with teaching your child values. There is nothing wrong with teaching them morals. Religions also typically demonstrate good morals and values. Therefore it fits that many families are in the right to teach their children morals and values, and use their religion as a source. It's irrelevant that these things may contain myths and legends. Do we not bother to learn a lesson from The Iliad or The Odyssey, simply because the Ancient Greeks believed in Zeus? Ridiculous. You can't just throw out all the important information because it's speckled with something fanciful to make it more exciting or romantic.

(...and the parental alter ego takes hold.)

Did you just suddenly forget about the statistical facts that were raised in this very thread?

A valid moral framework cannot be derived from imaginary ghosts in the sky. 'The good is whatever I want it to be' says religion and look where society has ended up after thousands of years, look at all the egregious disasters which have occurred, then tell me again that religion has anything to do with instilling 'good moral values'.

Yep, 'the good' is whatever suits my individual circumstance, preferences and motives, that'll certainly work to resolve conflict!

Think of Bible Stories, an old cartoon series from way back when. Yeah, they're fairy tales, in the loosest of senses. But they still contained important life lessons that children take away. That's how children learn, through example, by comparison, and demonstration. Fables, another important tool for teaching. Would you discount all of the lessons that are taught, just because the animals could talk?

Important life lesson No.1: Obey God (read 'your parents', also translates well into 'the state') or else *threats*.
Important life lesson No.2: There is no important life lesson No.2.

...

Even if it did actually address my arguments, do you really think I haven't heard all of this before? Do you really think I would be taking such a strong stance against religion if I accepted this tolerance-based propaganda everyone is exposed to?

Sucumbio, I refuse to respond to anymore if you continue to cherry-pick charged statements while ignoring the bigger picture. Learn to reconsider your existing paradigm a bit and I might take you seriously.

I may appear somewhat inflammatory, but that's because I'm passionate about protecting future generations from the intellectual dregs of tradition.

 

[Ussi]

The only thing I could understand from the above post is that you believe children can't be forced into a religion because they have the ability to discern their own "heart" and are able to decide by themselves what the condition of their own "heart" therefore making the implication that all children who follow religion are doing so of their own volition.

Children who don't want to follow a religion then won't. They just will do enough just to keep their parents happy mainly for self-preservation. A child is not going to do religious acts on his own unless he actually believes. Basically, the child will only be a part of the religion on the surface.

Out of curiosity which specific religion embodies a parent being a living example when he answers questions with, "Just believe" or "This is how it is."

I said that parents are failing to answer children's questions. If a parent follows a religion, whether correctly or incorrectly, he/she's an example still.

Which goes against not only the theory of evolution, but also what we know of basic cell theory, theories behind alleles, and a host of other microbiological concepts.

Theories are theories not facts.

No @ LarsINTJ is perfectly rational in assuming that this conversation is about Christianity since the only information that you provided us is that you were giving a context where "a God is put at the beginning instead of nothing". And even if Lars was jumping to conclusions, if you were really discussing another God aside from the Judeo-Christian one then you would have specified which one you were talking about. However, it's rather obvious that your retort has no basis because you're not even using an actual "God" or "higher power" as a foundational belief behind any of the comments I've quoted and are just throwing out by-words and assumptions that you 'feel' are right just for the sake of arguing.

I was trying to be encompassing of all religions so I just used faith. Doesn't seem to work when every religion is different.

If more people find it easier to believe in God, then tell me why there is an increasing tendency according to the Guardian that the number of secular Americans has doubled within the past three decades, notably among the young. "More people" is another convenient by-word that hardly highlights which group of people you are even explaining find it easier to believe in God because frankly the trend has been that people are turning away from religion according to experts.

More money makes man less likely to believe in God. Man gets arrogant in his own ability and luxury. But it doesn't change the fact that the majority of people still believe in God.

 

[Thor]

A valid moral framework cannot be derived from imaginary ghosts in the sky. 'The good is whatever I want it to be' says religion and look where society has ended up after thousands of years, look at all the egregious disasters which have occurred, then tell me again that religion has anything to do with instilling 'good moral values'.

Yep, 'the good' is whatever suits my individual circumstance, preferences and motives, that'll certainly work to resolve conflict!

ROFL I'll keep in mind that The Good Samaritan CANNOT be true because it's derived from someone following "imaginary ghosts in the sky."

Or hmm, maybe it its a valid moral framework to stop and help people in need, and we can teach that through the story of the Good Samaritan, someone who, oh yeah, is of the WRONG religion in that story and is PRAISED anyway, showing that people can be good REGARDLESS of the religion they choose.

Funny how you can cherrypick stories you don't even reference to try to paint a picture that doesn't actually work.

Or else you actually don't believe that the actions the Good Samaritan are actually part of a valid moral framework because it's necessarily impossible (the bolded cannot). I would be surprised, but if you believe that, tell me, so that if I ever see you in critical injury on the side of the road I'll know to stop, cross the road until I pass you, cross back over, and keep walking. Or maybe I'll shine my shoes on your pants as I pass.

 

[Sucumbio]

I don't understand how you abstracted the idiot/smart commentary from the quoted post. However, interpreting it as such would understandably give someone an issue. I don't understand though why you feel adamant about pushing atheism as a false position. Atheists are confident that there is no God or supernatural power at work, however a lot of them believe in 'higher powers' at work like Newtonian forces, Mendelian genetics, and Periodic law. If you are someone who believes that the notion of 'God' is completely undecided, then it should be a logical to presume that it is a valid possibility that there is no 'self-intelligent force' guiding the world or universe.

"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."

Someone who denies reality, imho, is an idiot. Someone who understands that things that can't be, aren't... is smart. My issue isn't with Atheism. It's with his obviously skewed take on the matter, he's really giving Atheists a bad name. Atheism itself is a perfectly valid position, in fact. He just didn't have to reduce the debate to this false dichotomy: you're either an idiot, or you're not. He's made it sound like if you're in any way religious you HAVE to be wrong, because you fly in the face of logic and reasoning. There are plenty of logical and analytical people in the world who still hold personal belief systems that aren't all math and numbers. Science and morality are not mutually exclusive.

I agree that the Atheist believes there are no gods or God at work. I do not think by "higher power" it can really refer to anything else, I'd call those other things mysteries of science. I brought that up simply to demonstrate that an Atheist has no proof for their position, the same as the Theist. They both are shooting into the dark; one believes in one possibility, the other disbelieves in that possibility. Two sides to the same coin (he was adamant that they are incomparable, and clearly by definition alone, they are.)

Give me a break, no religion avoids exclusive exposure toward their children. There are no devout families who would gladly expose their kids to different religions, most of them are uncomfortable exposing them to secular ideals.

In point of fact I grew up around several families who waited until their kids were older before involving their own personal beliefs in their children's lives. And yet more families who taught their children that the diversity of life offers a wide range of belief systems. I would avoid making such generalizations, it hurts your argument, and has been one of your issues in this thread all along. Having been a member here for several years I can attest that the number of devout Christians on this board is far and few between. Yet none of them have even showed their faces in here to argue against you, because you've argued against yourself at every turn.

As I pointed out earlier, there is an implicit threat that a child may be disowned if they go against their families' beliefs. To a dependent child, being abandoned is practically the same as death. This goes for any sort of irrational conformity, not just religion. Kids are instinctively programmed to adopt the beliefs of their tribe, why? Most of the kids who rebelled in the past were outright murdered. The 'rebel gene' is quite suppressed.

Has it occurred to you that religion is not the culprit, but that crappy parents are? Just sayin... Where is this vitriol coming from? Were YOU threatened in this way? Or a friend of yours? Did you read about it somewhere, and decide that everyone must be this way? Seriously... I won't deny that some families are like this. But religion isn't to blame.... psycho parents are.

Eastern Philosophy is nothing more than a bunch of 'obey my abstract authority' fortune-cookies, none of it is reasoned from first principles. Nevertheless, everything I've said in regards to religion fully applies to these systems as well, it's all irrational and thus damaging to a child's capacity for critical thought.

Now you're just being a bigot. There's nothing irrational about living a life of peace. About protecting nature, about upholding the sanctity of life. About learning to hone your body's natural energies to attain a state of enlightenment. There's nothing evil about these things. And there's nothing wrong with raising your children to understand these things either. Secular Buddhism teaches the importance of questioning one's perceptions of reality. Is this evil? If we didn't do this would we have achieved the breakthroughs in science that we have? Or would we still think the Earth is flat?

And so now I have to address another issue I take with your huge generalizations. Morality. Where do you think morality would come from if not from some belief system? It's certainly not written in the stars, right? It's not handed down to us from Moses. Right? So where does it come from? In your ideal world where does morality stem from, if not from religion and spirituality? ONLY reasoning? And if so, why do you think it is that just about every religious philosophy happens to teach just about the same thing when it comes to how people should conduct themselves in society and at home? It's not coincidence. Religions serve a very specific purpose which is a structured approach to teaching moral values. It's not the fault of religion that some people take these lessons and bend them to their own twisted desires (think of the late Fred Phelps whose anti-gay sentiments ruined so many lives.) Again you're trying to cure the cold by cutting off the head.

Here comes the parental alter. "Ye got a good head on ye shoulders, ma' boy, ye should know better than to play in the mud". Bloody hell, don't patronize me.

Lol you brought this on yourself, man. Generalizations. False dichotomy. Bigotry. And all without even the slightest hint as to an alternative. I've yet to see you actually lay down a plausible plan of action for parents to take should we somehow get what you want, a world devoid of religion, of spirituality. Are YOU going to write The Book of Morals and pass it out to everyone? What makes YOU right? At least these other entities have literally thousands of years backing them up. You come along a mere fraction of that time and think to shut it all down because some crazy family somewhere decided to let their kid die a horrible death instead of allowing medical treatment? I don't need to be lectured on the atrocities that are done in the name of religion. It happens all the time. It's also not the only source of atrocity. People. People do crazy things. I submit even if we were to eliminate religion, there'd be some other scapegoat made available to rationalize this irrational behavior, even if it was just something as simple as arguments from authority. "I'm the parent, I brought the kid into the world, he's mine to do with as I please." In fact I even know people like that, they suck.

(...and the parental alter ego takes hold.)

A valid moral framework cannot be derived from imaginary ghosts in the sky.

Okay, let's say you're right, and a religion cannot be the basis for morals. I'll ignore the gross exaggeration on your part, the generalizations, the fact that I've already pointed out alternatives to imaginary ghosts in the sky (what?). Where do you get a valid moral framework, then? And I won't accept anything that happens to be similar to what you've exacted as false. You have to give me an example that's 100 percent DIFFERENT. Otherwise you've invalidated your own argument. So your framework cannot involved in any way shape or form: The 10 commandments, or anything else taught in the Bible, for example. Even if your framework has just ONE similarity to the ENTIRE bible, you're wrong. If you can't understand why, then we've nothing more to discuss, I just have to write you off as a a close-minded bigot, whose head is not so good upon those shoulders of yours.

I may appear somewhat inflammatory, but that's because I'm passionate about protecting future generations from the intellectual dregs of tradition.

You're not though, that's why I even bothered to post in this thread. You are literally fighting a one-sided argument, and trying to pawn it off as valid. Nothing of what you've said addresses the actual issue, which is whether or not parents have the right to raise their kids religiously. Instead you've attacked religion itself. Religion isn't alive, it doesn't have a will of its own. PARENTS make these choices. PARENTS decide if it's okay to teach their kids that stealing is wrong, that gays go to hell, or what have you. Obviously I think it's a bad idea to indoctrinate children with hate. But it's no better an idea to shield them from society, either. They have to know that in this world there are people that understand right from wrong, and that they learned these things by following the examples of structured religions. In fact we may as well say it, religions are the authority on right and wrong. The fact that we tend to ignore some parts of it because it sounds bad, like hating gays, is a testament to our own innate sense of equality and right-ness, which ironically is something else you deny even exists.

 

[Thor]

Technically, you could make some argument that anything that is immoral is something that makes another person feel bad (so stealing is wrong, because it would hurt if done to you, murder is wrong because it would hurt if done to you, etc.) as a form of hedonistic (pleasure/pain) morality. But I don't think that it's easy to teach that, because children don't really understand abstract concepts until age 12 (psychology class) and they don't understand that others don't exist as them until about age 5 (if memory serves) which is why they block the TV and don't think it's a problem - they all think at that age that everyone can see what they can see, which is why they don't realize they are blocking the TV. As a result, you can't even explain to them that they are hurting others until like age 5 (if memory serves), and they wouldn't understand that eating cookies all the time is bad until they get obese, and that's only if you forcibly tie the links in the chain for them... and they'd feel that denying cookies is morally wrong, so this system does rely on a person's own self-restraint (and allows no room for self-defense, so you'd have to make the exception that you can cause another pain only to stop them from inflicting pain on a third who is not inflicting pain on others, or something like that...). So this system is of course also hard to make/enforce, and I sure it has other holes as well. But for LarsINTJ, it may be a starting point... I say this because I like looking at all sides of the debate (but I am in agreement with the post above me).

That said, you could also just read your kids the story of the Good Samaritan, read the 10 commandments as your own rules (or God's) and tell them to live by them even if they don't believe in God, then call it a day - even if religion isn't perfect, it has provided some rules that are worth living by regardless, and teaching kids religion to teach them that, even if they later dislike the religion and aren't a part of it, seems cool to me.

 

[micstar615]

I think religion is something that can be used for good or bad. A lot of the teachings in religion are very flawed, however some of the principles are very good (bringing communities together, helping each other out, not being greedy etc). So as far as this moral debate on religion is concerned: I think it depends on the family and how religion is used. For example there are many tolerant, rational and good people I know that are religious. However there are also many who use religion as a scapegoat for doing bad things (look at many of the wars). Again, it's not really inherently good or bad imo, it depends on how it's used.

I think it's not right to "force" your child into a religion. I think it's fine to get your child involved in a religion you practice. However you should let the child make their own decision once they start growing up.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

My parents are both Christians, with my mom being Lutheran and father being Protestant. Me and my older sister are both Atheists. Parents should not force their kids to learn their religion, but let them learn on who they want to be. The same can be said for political affiliation.

I personally see religion as a poison, and should not be encouraged. But I wouldn't prevent my child from learning about religion.

 

[Ussi]

Majority of wars are fought for land, money, and power. 7% of wars can even be tied to religion.

Pretty much any war America was in for example. The world war II is the worst when it came to deaths.

http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/09/18/is-religion-really-the-number-one-cause-of-war/

http://wars.findthebest.com/

 

[micstar615]

Majority of wars are fought for land, money, and power. 7% of wars can even be tied to religion.

Pretty much any war America was in for example. The world war II is the worst when it came to deaths.

http://www.jonsorensen.net/2012/09/18/is-religion-really-the-number-one-cause-of-war/

http://wars.findthebest.com/

Yes but you can't deny that much of the conflict (not just war) that has occurred in the world has also stemmed from religion (maybe not the majority of conflict, but still too much of it). A lot of discrimination and hate happens due to religious differences. I'm neutral on my stance towards it (again I blame how ppl use religion not religion itself) but you can't deny that a lot of violence and unnecessary hate has happened because of religious differences.

There's a whole wiki article that shows many conflicts and wars all throughout history in which religion had a role (to some minor,and to some non minor effect):

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war

Like I said previously, having an ideology or belief is not inherently bad. However it can be used for bad, in which it commonly is in many instances. It can also be used for good, which it also has in many instances. However with all of the different beliefs there is bound to be conflict, sometimes extreme conflict, whether it be social, political or anything in between. In my opinion, we'd be better off as a uniform society then a segregated society with clashing beliefs, some of which are ridiculous and outdated, but that is my opinion. Objectively, religion has positives and negatives, whether it not the positives outweigh the negatives, I believe is based off the individual's experience.

 

[Ussi]

again I blame how ppl use religion not religion itself

Money causes more problem then religion, how about we get rid of money? This statement itself means religion is NOT a problem when it is the people who are the problem for not following their religion correctly.. (Which religion promotes conflict now?)

Uniformity is impossible, hipsters will always exist. What we need is tolerance (Unless that's what you meant by tolerance). Know what religion has a history of tolerance? Islam. You can even look at the war ethics if you want.

People do the best job at ruining the image of what actually isn't bad.

 

[LarsINTJ]

Religion stunts people's ability to think critically and resolve conflict peacefully.

If war is to wheelchair then religion is to broken spine. You could also replace religion with the state, it's exactly the same irrational worship of power.

 

[micstar615]

Money causes more problem then religion, how about we get rid of money? This statement itself means religion is NOT a problem when it is the people who are the problem for not following their religion correctly.. (Which religion promotes conflict now?)

Uniformity is impossible, hipsters will always exist. What we need is tolerance (Unless that's what you meant by tolerance). Know what religion has a history of tolerance? Islam. You can even look at the war ethics if you want.

People do the best job at ruining the image of what actually isn't bad.

You're comparing apples to oranges there my friend. Also, my claims weren't based off which is the bigger or biggest evil nor did I ever state that religion should be abolished. Money and religion can both cause harm but they have different effects and detrimentals. Money is a tool, religion is an ideology. Money can be used for good, money can be used for bad. So can religion. They are both social constructs. That is all they have in common. Again, I didn't state that religion is a bad thing. I said that it can and is used for bad. You can't deny that.

Which religion promotes conflict? Many religions state to kill all the non believers and that those who believe in a different faith are going to hell. That is a fact for many religions (not all). Therefore some religions promote conflict. Also, different ideologies inherently promote conflict. Surely I don't have to explain why. Religious texts also carry many, many contradictions so you can't say one "isn't following their religion properly" when there are multiple interpretations of each religion. You're opinion on a certain verse may be different from someone of a previous generation, or from a scholar or from anyone else.

Yes, I meant tolerance when I mentioned uniformity, and in my humble opinion uniformity isn't impossible in general, there's just a lot of ignorance and needless social obstacles. However, tolerance is the first and most realistic step.

Ironically, Islam as a religion has also been used for violence. Many terrorist groups kill for the sake of their religion. Many Islamic fundamentalist oppress their own citizens and some governments still carry a death penalty. There's also countless conflicts in the Middle East due to religious differences. Love and acceptance also exist in the Middle East however. Again: there's bad and good.

I guess our opinion on what is "good" and "bad" differs or you don't see that religion is also used for bad just as much as it is used for good. Therefore, some people see religion as bad for society, whilst other's see it as good for society. Again, the basis of my claims were that religion is used for good and bad not that religion in itself is bad, that is subjective.

/rant

 

[Ussi]

Since emcompassing all religion together actually doesn't work out (cause seriously Christianity ruined the image of religion), I'm not gonna bring more points on specifics of religions.

Being used for bad doesn't mean its bad to teach to children. Parents teach kids how to spend money, likewise they'd have to teach them how to properly follow their religion if they teach them that.

I guess what is at a difference for us, is what we define religion as. As religion to some people is a once a week thing while for others its a 24/7 thing, and for others its just a form of ethnicity to them.

 

[micstar615]

Since emcompassing all religion together actually doesn't work out (cause seriously Christianity ruined the image of religion), I'm not gonna bring more points on specifics of religions.

Being used for bad doesn't mean its bad to teach to children. Parents teach kids how to spend money, likewise they'd have to teach them how to properly follow their religion if they teach them that.

I guess what is at a difference for us, is what we define religion as. As religion to some people is a once a week thing while for others its a 24/7 thing, and for others its just a form of ethnicity to them.

Agreed (also, sorry for going a bit off topic ). Religion is a complex term because the definition of it varies from individual to individual and from time and place.

 

[Crimnonin]

I actually have yet to read most of the posts in this thread, but this morning I woke up to this story:

"Two New York City infants were diagnosed with herpes after undergoing a traditional Orthodox Jewish circumcision, NBC4 reports.

According to the Health Department, both babies developed lesions on their genitals shortly after having the metzitzah b’peh, a practice in which the mohel — a person trained to perform the “covenant of circumcision” — uses a direct oral suction technique to swab blood from the infant’s penis, was performed on them.

More than half of all adults carry the herpes simplex virus type 1 (HSV-1) , according to Brian F. Leas, a research analyst in the Center for Evidence-based Practice at the University of Pennsylvania Health System. But the symptoms that present in those adults are oral lesions, or cold sores, and not life-threatening. In infants, however, HSV-1 can cause high fever and seizures — and in two cases since 1998, even death.” *

Religion AND herpes? What a pleasant combination. And ultimately, this happened because of a procedure that is completely unnecessary to begin with.

Should kids be forced into a particular religion? No. Will that ever change? Of course not. The parents who are forcing the religion onto the children are, in all likelihood, the products of religious indoctrination themselves.

This is why there are attempts to teach creationism in some states. Many people who are molded into a religious way of thinking, especially from an early age, are more likely to continue traditions that should have been killed a long time ago. Unfortunately, this is all just a part of the cycle of religious indoctrination that seems impossible to break.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

Since emcompassing all religion together actually doesn't work out (cause seriously Christianity ruined the image of religion), I'm not gonna bring more points on specifics of religions.

Being used for bad doesn't mean its bad to teach to children. Parents teach kids how to spend money, likewise they'd have to teach them how to properly follow their religion if they teach them that.

I guess what is at a difference for us, is what we define religion as. As religion to some people is a once a week thing while for others its a 24/7 thing, and for others its just a form of ethnicity to them.

I disagree. Religion teaches kids to do good deeds not because of what society thinks is right or wrong, but because of an all-knowing, all-powerful god, who already knows what will happen and what won't happen, either promising them an eternal reward for good behavior or threatening to put them into a fiery pit of eternal torture. Which is exactly how dictators, such as Stalin, Osama, Saddam, Mao, and other people with massive power did. Who can tell if a person gives to a homeless man out of the goodness of their heart and for their fellow human, and not out of their own purposes (heaven)?

 

[Ussi]

Why does the intention of a person matter? If anything, the incentive to do good makes good more often happen. The incentive to avoid bad actions also helps make them avoid bad. Essentially fear and hope and you have a balanced way to approach life. Too much hope = lazy and too much fear = give up.

Besides, you can't compare God to dictators when you aren't getting punished or rewarded instantly and there is something called repentance.

 

[Sucumbio]

I disagree. Religion teaches kids to do good deeds not because of what society thinks is right or wrong, but because of an all-knowing, all-powerful god, who already knows what will happen and what won't happen, either promising them an eternal reward for good behavior or threatening to put them into a fiery pit of eternal torture. Which is exactly how dictators, such as Stalin, Osama, Saddam, Mao, and other people with massive power did. Who can tell if a person gives to a homeless man out of the goodness of their heart and for their fellow human, and not out of their own purposes (heaven)?

Christians are taught that humans posses free will, and that as such we may choose to live as Christ did, because it's the right thing to do. AND be rewarded for doing so (but that's secondary), or we may live in sin, and be punished. Dictators don't give people a choice as such. Small difference I realize, but this distinction is still important. Parents often go straight to the reward/punishment because kids are stupid and typically respond best to consequentialism rather than deep thought-out logic. Your 5 year old will understand "go to bed or I'll beat your ass" vs. "you should go to bed because if you don't you'll be tired and you'll not have enough energy to do what you need to do tomorrow." Parents aren't obligated to explain themselves to their children. Children are obligated to do as their told, or else. Call me old skool

 

[micstar615]

I don't think Smashing Samurai was comparing God to dictators, I think he was comparing religion and some of it's principals to the dictators and their principals.

Also, again religious texts are interpreted in many ways. Values one religious family holds may be different from another family of the same religion. For example family A, may teach their kid to "love thy neighbour"
Whereas family B may teach "people who are gay and/or another religion are going to hell." Because there are contradictions each household may have a variable understanding, whether one understanding is more "wrong" or "right" than the other truly comes down to subjective interpretation of the religious text. I think whether religion is good for children depends on how the family teaches them the religious values, also it's important to allow your kid to grow in a neutral environment so they can find their own answers.

 

[The Smashing Samurai]

Christians are taught that humans posses free will, and that as such we may choose to live as Christ did, because it's the right thing to do. AND be rewarded for doing so (but that's secondary), or we may live in sin, and be punished. Dictators don't give people a choice as such. Small difference I realize, but this distinction is still important. Parents often go straight to the reward/punishment because kids are stupid and typically respond best to consequentialism rather than deep thought-out logic. Your 5 year old will understand "go to bed or I'll beat your ***" vs. "you should go to bed because if you don't you'll be tired and you'll not have enough energy to do what you need to do tomorrow." Parents aren't obligated to explain themselves to their children. Children are obligated to do as their told, or else. Call me old skool

Hmm, that is still not giving you a choice. You either have to live by the life of Christ, STRICTLY by that way, or face eternal hell. Whatever you do (eat bacon, divorce, such and such), or don't do (go to church on sunday, pray instead of do), if it's not within Christ's lifestyle, you go to hell.

Sorry, but I think children should have a brain, and not go by what their parents believe. I am Atheist, I don't expect my kids to be Atheist too. I do expect them not to be the theists of today.

 

[Sucumbio]

Hmm, that is still not giving you a choice. You either have to live by the life of Christ, STRICTLY by that way, or face eternal hell. Whatever you do (eat bacon, divorce, such and such), or don't do (go to church on sunday, pray instead of do), if it's not within Christ's lifestyle, you go to hell.

I didn't say it was an easy choice, lol. But technically it's a choice. For Christians. For you, or anyone not Christian it's a moot point, obviously. I just wanted to make sure we understood in this discussion that there are no real choices in a dictatorship. You do as you're told or you die. In Christianity, depending on which version you worship, there's all kinds of choices, actually. Just depends. In Catholicism, you can even commit sin, so long as you confess your sins. So basically you can make bad decisions, and then repent them away (I know, it's dumb sounding, but that's beside the point, I just chimed in to ensure we don't get some idea that Christ = Stalin, it's completely unjustified to make this comparison).

Sorry, but I think children should have a brain, and not go by what their parents believe. I am Atheist, I don't expect my kids to be Atheist too. I do expect them not to be the theists of today.

Children require input so their brains may develop, So then it becomes a matter of what input you're allowing your child access to. Some input is frankly too mature for children to interpret in a safe manner. Therefore it makes sense that agencies (board of education, religions, doctors, etc.) make choices -for- children in terms of what is appropriate. And as parents, therein lies the responsibility of being in the know in terms of what these agencies are, and which ones to employ. Most parents think they know what's best for their child, and most parents are wrong. It's only with the help of experts in the field of child rearing that parents are able to gain a proper understanding of best to raise their own kids. Some of these authorities come from external sources, the agencies aforementioned. Others come from direct results such as, their parents, or grandparents - tradition, in other words. Parents have a humongous task in undertaking the balance and integration of all these sources of well being so that the may present it to their child in a seamless manner to avoid confusing (if there's one thing a child IS good at, it's picking apart a Parent's logic). So, in short, religion doesn't mean the child isn't allowed to think. Quite the opposite. To say nothing of all the scientific research that's been done at the behest of religious institutions (but this doesn't seem to be the time for a history lesson).

 

[micstar615]

Just FYI not all religious households give their child a choice, they expect them to fully follow their religious upbringing and some are even disowned if they go against said religion. Heck in some religious texts I believe they even encourage punishing disobedient children. It's not really that simple to say that it's a choice, in certain cases, it certainly isn't. However in many cases it is, it's just that having that choice may be irrelevant when the rest of your society pressures you to follow said rules, if you don't you get shunned or disowned and as humans, it's in our nature to want to conform and be a part of society. So there may be some choice but it really isn't that simple.

I think both the above posters have valid claims, however it's important to see both perspectives. Religion has the ability to enable critical thinking and limit it. It has the ability to teach and to perpetuate ignorance, it has the ability to spread love and unity as well as cause segregation and conflict. It's caused both progression and regression. I think what the underlying question is: do the positives outweigh the negatives? I think answers to that will be variable.

 

[Ussi]

Who doesn't punish disobedient children? White folks please best your kids... jokes aside, parents will punish a child with a time out at the lightest for disobedience (and not only for disobedience in religious practices)

As I said earlier, many children in religious familes live double lives where they act religious in front of their parents and then are themselves in front of their friends. Once the fear of parents is gone, then the double life stops and child stops pretending to be religious...

Other children embrace the faith later on by choice due to it feeling right or making sense to them.

Still, I don't like it when parents are trying to force their ideals into their children. Doesn't have to be religion either; athlete/coach parents, for example, sometimes force their children to do their sport as well. Force doesn't lead to healthy parenting, which leads to fragile parent-children bonds.

 

[micstar615]

I meant that specifically in a religious sense in terms of context of how religion isn't always a choice: punishing disobedience under the context of disobeying religion and punishing not in terms of things like "time out" but in terms of disowning and rejection. Of course the punishing of disobedient children can be applied in many circumstances, I was stating how it can apply in a religious household and to what extreme. The extremes in religious text may involve stoning and burning and in today's standards, that's ridiculous however some families apply that same mindset differently, this further cycles into my claim of how religion isn't always a choice for kids and their options to leave sometimes may result in harsh treatment which is sometimes encouraged by religious texts, so either they abide to their parents' ideology or get punished (of course this isn't the case in many religious households, it's just my response in terms of how religion being a choice isn't always that simple).

Totally agreed with everything else though @ Ussi

 

[Desu_Maiden]

Children might eventually grow out of their parent's religion. I heard of plenty of Christians turn to other religions after they were exposed to them.

 

[Oracle_Summon]

The act of circumcision is what I determine to be an act of harm to infant males. Though it is part of my religion, I believe the reasons that we did it in the past, as to show God that we acknowledge him and will follow his rule, is no longer needed when concerning how accepting Jesus Christ and giving your life to him should suffice.

 

[Sucumbio]

I just don't care for foreskin. But I have researched the matter and found to my surprise that circumcision is indeed unnecessary, though there are some benefits statistically in terms of STD transmission including AIDS. NOT TO GET OFF TOPIC >< but yeah. That and my best friend was not snipped and he always had a UT infection for some reason and at the time of my birth (1976) it was thought that circumcision of infants was good because it reduced health risks later on in life( which again, it does depending on which study you read). But now that I'm actually faced with this choice (having a child and deciding what to do) my wife has voiced she absolutely is against doing it. If the child grows up and decides to do it, okay, but we should not choose for them. Nor should we Baptize them. Ah, marriage.

 

[Thor]

Money causes more problem then religion, how about we get rid of money? This statement itself means religion is NOT a problem when it is the people who are the problem for not following their religion correctly.. (Which religion promotes conflict now?)

Uniformity is impossible, hipsters will always exist. What we need is tolerance (Unless that's what you meant by tolerance). Know what religion has a history of tolerance? Islam. You can even look at the war ethics if you want.

People do the best job at ruining the image of what actually isn't bad.

Greed causes the problems, not money - Bill Gates would be (at least, would have been for a time) the biggest problem on the planet if money actually caused problems.

And we can't get rid of greed - it can be channeled via certain economic systems for a greater good with some regulation (yay capitalism! *people start shooting at me*) but it corrupts systems that don't have money (communism fails because of this) because people will acquire whatever means wealth, unfortunately unscrupulously, robbing others then of what they're supposed to have.

Sorry I'll buzz out of here again.

 

[Ussi]

My point was humans (their characteristics like greed, jealously, envy, pride [arrogance], etc) are the problem, not the religion.