Children must be taught religions

[ZAV]

It would be asn Oxymoron if there waas such a think as Nonreligious people. But Atheism is not the opposite of Religion. Atheists still have a comprehensive undrstasndin of the world they live in. We may now call this "Worldviewz', and say that somepeople have a Religious worldivew and others as nonreligious worldview, nut I don't really see the distinction between "Wprldview" ansd \d "Religion" other than peopel ant to bclass some as not Religious. In the end its the same thing.

 

[gmilam]

It would be asn Oxymoron if there waas such a think as Nonreligious people. But Atheism is not the opposite of Religion. Atheists still have a comprehensive undrstasndin of the world they live in. We may now call this "Worldviewz', and say that somepeople have a Religious worldivew and others as nonreligious worldview, nut I don't really see the distinction between "Wprldview" ansd \d "Religion" other than peopel ant to bclass some as not Religious. In the end its the same thing.

I really wish you would take a little more time to proofread your posts. This is really difficult to read. Makes it hard to take you seriously if you don't care enough to communicate clearly - just sayin'.

So which defintion of religion are you using, because it obviously isn't one of the commonly used ones.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

 

[Aqueous Id]

We should run an experiment where young children ( age 2 plus) are taught both religion and atheism, but without parents of either side poisoning the well.

Or just listen to what is reported. For example in Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope he describes being introduced as a child to world religions, by his mother, anthropologist Ann Dunham.

So there's one test case. There are countless others.

Unitarian Universalists would seem to fare well in such a study.

 

[Aqueous Id]

All Parents teach their Children what they believe to be True.

And parents tend to teach their children how to think.
Even without necessarily trying.

 

[Aqueous Id]

This may seem surprising coming from an atheist, but I do say that religion must be taught to kids.

Ideally we would all know a little bit about each other's cultures and this would lead to some idea of at least the major world religions.

I think most social studies classes, especially in this age of cultural awareness, strive to give kids a little more of this in the curriculum.
A more focused curriculum might be hard to pull off without boring kids to death.

Better yet: every country should take half of its national defense budget and pay to let each student travel abroad to learn about the world. This would cure the boredom issue and leave an indelible impression to respect foreign cultures. After returning and reflecting on their experiences, students would tend to be more receptive to focused classes on world culture and religions.

(Taking funds from defense is predicated on the probability that war would could be rendered obsolete once xenophobia is eradicated.)

 

[ZAV]

I really wish you would take a little more time to proofread your posts. This is really difficult to read. Makes it hard to take you seriously if you don't care enough to communicate clearly - just sayin'.

So which defintion of religion are you using, because it obviously isn't one of the commonly used ones.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

1: I am dyslecic.

2: I type with oen hand as I have a cut on the left hand. Its temporary.

3: The dictionary definition is a Set of beelifs about the Nature, cause, and ultimat meaning of our existance. Thats pretty well the one I use, and fits in with Atheistic beleif systems like Secular Humanism as well.


By the way the bit abotu esp. if it features worship of gods, look up the word especially. The actual defintion ends before it, its just the usual, but not required features you see in Religion.


Religion is simply a Philosophy about the naturre of our existance. Any "Non-Rweligious Philosophy' that answers the same questiins and fills the same need as a Religion is a Religion.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Children should be taught faith.

Faith is the mean, unnecesary and inappropriate abuse of a child's instict to trust its elders. When he grows up, knows about all religions and the how and why of sociology, then he is free to put all the faith he wants in God.

 

[aaqucnaona]

the problem I see is this. If you are a Christian, then you accept Christianity as True. I don’t buy into the scare word “Indoctrinate’ as if its some sort of Brainwashing, just like I don’t think Atheist Parents are as Neutral as some believe. All Parents teach their Children what they believe to be True. Yaz thinks that a Baptist is a Hypocrite for believing in adult Baptism whilst “Indoctrinating” their Children for example, but didn’t Dan Barker and Anne his wife “Indoctrinate” their own Daughter into their own Atheistic beliefs? The reason a Baptist teaches their Children the Baptist Faith is because, unlike many posters here, they don’t think of their Religion as some special, separate realm of Knowledge apart from everything else. Jesus Christ is the Saviour of the world and you gain Salvation by Faith Alone in Christ by accepting his Sacrifice, and that is as True as Gravity pulling us to Earth or Napoleon Bonaparte becoming Emperor of France. To the Baptist, it’s the Truth, materially and objectively about the Real World, and is not “just there Religion”. Asking them to remain Agnostic about it is therefore foolish as to them, it’s a vitally important aspect of the real world they live in.

You miss out on one very important factor between religious belief facts and real world facts - objectivity and empirical observablity - gravity and napoleon yes, christ in heaven, not so much. In such a situation, it would be unfair for us to impose on the child just one facet of what actually might be the case. You have got to either teach both/all sides or not teach anything that makes a fact claim or value judgement.

The same is True of Secular Humanist Parents who impart Humanist values on their Children, yet who are not blast as “Indoctrinating “them.

The indoctrination of a child with an idea is acceptable in inverse proportion to the intensity and subjectivity of the idea. A big but mellow and objective view is a much more better idea to indoctrinate simply because its the most pragmatic choice of all avaliable. A secular humanist would not do extreme things due to his secular humanism, at worse, he may disrespect and be apathetic to his culture. A religious fundamentalist would disrespect and disregard secular politics and the sciences, even oppose them and at worse would kill abortion doctors and fly planes into buildings.

Asking parents to not teach what they believe about the word to their Children is just foolish though since Religion is how people navigate the world. This includes the supposedly Non-Religious, for all they do is swap one Religion for another.

Ok. But it must be all or none. We cannot live or nagivate by "our religion", even if we consider our ideas to be true and our obligation to tell them to our children. Like I said in the OP -

Finally, I want to tell you why I think this proposition is indispensable. We live in times where we can, if we choose, destroy most life on this planet overnight. We are truely capable of things only the gods of early pagans were capable of. And we live in a shrinking world. There is no looking back. We are now a global community and are becoming an increasingly interdependent one. We cannot live without each other, we cannot live without bumping into each other. However, we also live in times where simple ideological differences cost us planes and buildings.....and lives. We cant help running into people we dont agree with on the most basic beliefs in our lives. Our children would be even more helpless in this regard. What might happen in such situations, especially in an escalating environment of ideological antagonism coupled with increased power to do harm is indeed horrifying - there could be suicide bombings everyday in most major cities in the world, war be always be on between atleast some countries, 9/11s could happen each year - we might destroy ourselves....and we are more that capable of doing so.

In such a situation, ignorance of other people and their beliefs is suicidal. People need to know and understand what others believe and why they believe it. They need to know how to work with, converse with and productively debate with others. They need to be lifted above the veil of "my religion" and presented with the world as it is.

In the end, you are asking the Baptist Parent to not teach their Children how they understand the world, and, ultimately asking the Baptist parent to not be a Baptist. After all, the only way the Baptist can actually approach the situation is via the means of his own beliefs. The same is True of us all.

I AM asking a Baptist to not be one if their actions result in cultural segregation and indeterminate conflict which might otherwise we resolved by a simple discussion.

 

[wynn]

I know there are bad things on science's tab, but the benefits far outweigh the problems.

Not at all.

Why dont you just own up to the fact that without science, we simply couldnt have got where we are?

I am sure that without science, we indeed probably couldn't have gotten where we are.

Why is a theist's opposition to science any different from a militant atheist's [which I am not] opposition to religion?

I'm not a theist. I am a concerned citizen of Planet Earth.

Ps. I know you well enough to know that you would debate on my supposedly militant atheism, but I have phased out the hostility to religion that I had in my early days as an atheist. I am now an agnostic atheistic apatheist.

Lol. "You know me well enough"?

 

[aaqucnaona]

Not at all.

I both of us agree that we hold diametric views here, I suggest one of us open a thread on this issue and let the ensuing debate make some inference.

I am sure that without science, we indeed probably couldn't have gotten where we are.

And you think this is good or bad?

I'm not a theist. I am a concerned citizen of Planet Earth.

I love that self-identity, Xenomorphism, very rare indeed. But, out of curiosity, can you please describe your stand on God and religion? Are you are atheistic? Are your religious?

Lol. "You know me well enough"?

Dont I? I might not be able to explain you to another person, but I [basically]understand how you think, what tactics you use, your self-identity, your paradigm, your personality, etc. I dont quite know you as such, but I know enough to somewhat predict your actions, answers, arguments.

 

[wynn]

I love that self-identity, Xenomorphism, very rare indeed. But, out of curiosity, can you please describe your stand on God and religion? Are you are atheistic? Are your religious?

Dont I? I might not be able to explain you to another person, but I [basically]understand how you think, what tactics you use, your self-identity, your paradigm, your personality, etc. I dont quite know you as such, but I know enough to somewhat predict your actions, answers, arguments.

Apparently, you don't know me well enough then, if you ask what my stance on God etc. is.

 

[kx000]

Children must be taught to compare, and contrast theism and atheism, then the major world faiths, and spirituality and arrive to firm stand point on their beliefs in what happens after we die, morality, and natural-divinity. In the end most people can come to the conclusion we can not know about God on earth unless he smiles for us, or if we conquer him (we won't), there for all we have is our beliefs. Mine is that there is, and always has been a conciousnes to our universe that resulted in energy being produced to create anything. This resulted in a monotheistic pre/afterlife in which there is a one supreme God, and gods formed into a perfect hirearchy known to us as angels.

 

[aaqucnaona]

Apparently, you don't know me well enough then, if you ask what my stance on God etc. is.

Ok, I dont know you. NOW can you please explain your stance on God please?

 

[leopold]

Faith is the mean, unnecesary and inappropriate abuse of a child's instict to trust its elders.

there are a million things you take on faith.
i would say that everything you don't know first hand has an element of faith in it.

 

[aaqucnaona]

there are a million things you take on faith.
i would say that everything you don't know first hand has an element of faith in it.

Sure I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow and that apples will keep falling but surely having faith that killing an infidel will get you 72 supernatural virgins is surely crossing the line, no?

 

[leopold]

Sure I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow and that apples will keep falling but surely having faith that killing an infidel will get you 72 supernatural virgins is surely crossing the line, no?

exactly.

on the opposite end i would hate the thought of eternal damnation if i masturbated.

funny how god manages to stick his big fat ass into everything eh?

am i being unrealistic? not in the slightest.
in my opinion, if god actually exists, then he/ she/ it/ them, is a huckster or a gambler.
my biggest problem with the "god concept" is why involve innocent people?
why destroy innocent lives on what? a gamble?
i'm sorry but i can't kiss that ass.

 

[gmilam]

1: I am dyslecic.

2: I type with oen hand as I have a cut on the left hand. Its temporary.

3: The dictionary definition is a Set of beelifs about the Nature, cause, and ultimat meaning of our existance. Thats pretty well the one I use, and fits in with Atheistic beleif systems like Secular Humanism as well.


By the way the bit abotu esp. if it features worship of gods, look up the word especially. The actual defintion ends before it, its just the usual, but not required features you see in Religion.


Religion is simply a Philosophy about the naturre of our existance. Any "Non-Rweligious Philosophy' that answers the same questiins and fills the same need as a Religion is a Religion.

My ex wife is dyslexic, I understand. You may want to use a browser with spell check.

Check the religion section, we've had a long thread about religiously motivated violence. The person who started that thread has gone so far as to claim that for something to be religious...

As far as I can see, the minimum criteria for something to be religious, and all three must be fulfilled:

1. that which is done with the intention to serve God,
2. that which is in line with all three: 1. scriptures, 2. the discernment of saintly people and 3. the discernment of a saintly person immediately in the position of instructing the person who commits an action,
3. that which indeed pleases God.

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2888315&postcount=1107

So, obviously, people on both sides of the god fence disagree with your definition.

 

[Yazata]

Yaz thinks that a Baptist is a Hypocrite for believing in adult Baptism whilst “Indoctrinating” their Children for example,

"Hypocrite" is your word, not mine. But I do see a basic inconsistency.

Baptists make a very defensible point about the need to make a conscious "decision for Christ". My point is that raising a child in such a way that a decision for Christ has already been presupposed and imposed on the child by another individual's fiat, kind of preempts and subverts the Baptists' fundamental theological idea.

It seems to me that indoctrinating young children into a religious path without allowing them any opportunity to make the choice themselves is a lot more serious affair than simply sprinkling some drops of water on a baby in a ceremonial infant baptism.

 

[leopold]

Faith is not belief without evidence.

i beg to differ.
faith is indeed belief without evidence.
you have faith that your brakes will prevent the headon accident you are about to have. you have absolutely no proof they will.
you have faith that the bystander will not walk in front of your speeding vehicle. you have absolutely no proof he won't.
you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. you have absolutely no proof it will.

 

[wynn]

i beg to differ.
faith is indeed belief without evidence.
you have faith that your brakes will prevent the headon accident you are about to have. you have absolutely no proof they will.
you have faith that the bystander will not walk in front of your speeding vehicle. you have absolutely no proof he won't.
you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. you have absolutely no proof it will.

In all those cases you mention above, you had some reason to believe or hope that things will work out as you wish,
and that reason is based on your previous experience or knowledge of functional brakes, careful people crossing streets and the sun rising.

Your reason to believe or hope is not based on nothing.