Atheist parents!
 

Hey here's something that I've been pondering for a while. Those of you atheists here, if you're ever considering children, how would you plan on broaching to them religion? I'm an atheist, and so is my girlfriend (well she in all but name I guess) and if we have kids, I'm honestly quite stumped about what information to give them. Certainly I'm not going to indoctrinate them in any sort of religion, but I also think it's important they be aware such things. It's a tough subject, mostly because they'd be an incredible minority in school, definitely the target of harassment at times, and who knows if we as parents would receive some kind of backlash for not teaching them about "the Lord." I'm against religion and so is my girlfriend, so why teach our children something that we're fundamentally opposed to?

Anyway, your thoughts?

It's a complicated subject indeed, and I really never thought about that. Still, I think they need to be aware of it at certain point, and let them take their own decision if they'd like to follow any religion, if not, stick to Atheism. Then again, you know how school can be; it'll be a problem for them not to believe in "the Lord" for they will be targets, like you mentioned. But, if you think it's not a need to teach your children about it, then just don't.

Maybe not the best of solutions, but I think, personally, that we'll see what happens when the time comes.

I agree with you that it is not necessary to indoctrinate children with a given religion's teachings.

IMO, if you have an alternate view of the world, that is what you should share with your kids. Explaining to them about beliefs and religion is the best thing you can do. Informing their children is the best thing parents can do.

I would allow my child to decide for him or herself once he or she is old enough to make such a decision. Doing otherwise is no different than brainwashing.

So you're saying you'd be able to raise your children without even giving subtle hints about your relgious (dis)beliefs?

I think he is rather suggesting that to try and force beliefs upon your kids for the rest of their life equates to brainwashing.

This is why it's important to teach kids how to think, not what to think. I'm an atheist as well, and it always seemed to me the best idea to teach kids about religion from a historical perspective, and make sure they know all about things like the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, the Salem Witch Trials, the Taliban, and other atrocities committed by religion or in religion's name, so that if they are approached by members of proselytizing sects, they'll know that the sunshine-and-roses sales pitch they're given belies what is most likely a very bloody and horrid underbelly.

I agree with this, but you'll find yourself hard pressed in the matter to not give your personal opinion about these things. Though I agree with you that if you teach them how to think, they'll be better equipped to form their own opinions regardless of yours.

However, here another problem arises. If you teach your children to be critical and form opinions for themselves on everything, isn't there the slight bit chance that they will come to not respect your authority even when it is justified?

Well, that depends. If my authority is justified from an objective point of view (e.g. don't touch the stove burner, it's hot), then I can only hope I raised them to be sensible enough to see the logic in my actions.

If my authority is justified from my perspective based on my set of ideals, then the onus is on me to acknowledge the subjectivity of my assertion/order/command/desire and realize that they may be justified in challenging it.

Really, what would happen is that it would raise the standard of parenting for me and demand that I expend more effort and thought in not only what I initially teach my children, but also in how I follow it up by setting my own examples. If I teach them how to smell a hypocrite, it then places the burden on me to not be hypocritical. If I want my children to think or feel that what I say and do is right or logical, then I have to make sure that what I say and do is, in fact, right and logical when placed under outside scrutiny.

Personally, I plan to raise them without religion all together. That includes atheism. Like Capo said, it's something they should personally decide for themselves when they're older - certainly not when they're young children. I may throw in the "some people believe" and try to vary it a lot. But apart from the standard, I see no reason why the paranormal should explain things for my children. Religion won't be a part of their lives until they're older, and only if they chose to accept it.

I hope to instill some critical thinking in my kids instead. Always question, always think.

I DO plan to celebrate Christmas with them. Though it is generally accepted as a religious holiday, Christmas will be celebrated as a seasonal thing. When they get a little older and they have classmates and things (and I am sure I can't protect them from Baby Jesus Brigade), I hope to explain that the holiday season is celebrated by millions of people for different reasons.

I think Easter will just be "celebration of spring and fertility." I mean, what the hell ELSE could the Easter Bunny be good for? Here kids - have some chocolate for dinner! It's Easter!

Children will learn about religion through other means, whether that be their friends or through school. When they ask questions, as they are bound to being such curious creatures, treat them as you should; like they have a brain and can reach their own decisions. Tell them how you feel personally, but that you respect their choice if they do not agree. That's how I'd raise my children anyway.

My mother is an atheist. My father is one of those secular Jews who sent us to Sunday school but dropped all religion in the house. As a result, my mother won. She basically raised us by not talking about God or switching the subject until we were older. This works wonders. At first glance, it sounds like a bad idea, but she never made the subject something to avoid. We were kids, so we were easily amused with some other conversation when she quickly asked us other questions.

A few times when I asked her point-blank on issues I was learning in religious school, she shrugged her shoulders and said, "Yes, that's a Jewish belief." When I would push with phrases like, "What do other people believe?" she would tell us directly what non-religious people believe (and sometimes, if warranted, what Christians believed). We very quickly realized, even at a young age, to sort through and find our answers ourselves.

I would tell you not to worry about it, nor to tell the kids that they are atheists. (Bad idea. Just as bad as six-year-old professed Christians).

Yes. That is perfectly logical and my viewpoint on the matter. If it results in shouting matches when they're teenagers, then that only stems from the way I've raised them.

You consider atheism a religion? I don't. I doubt other atheists do either.

It's as much a belief system as any other religion is. I consider myself non-religious for that reason.

No, it isn't. Atheism is the lack of a belief. I'm not being technical, here, either. Generally speaking, agnosticism (or "non-religiosity") is a variant form of atheism.

Now, some atheists elevate their position to religious standards, creating secular holidays and adopting secular credos (i.e. secular humanism) and see it as necessary "theology" to compliment their new religion, but that's just pomp and circumstance.

You would do a great injustice if you were to separate atheists from the non-religious.

Atheist believe in no god. They are grouped together, as in religion, as a number of people with the same set of beliefs.

It may not have originally been this way, but that is what it has become.

I was raised with no religion. My mom is an Atheist and my dad can be considered the same. I went to church a handful of times but that was with a friend and we ended up ditching it and just going outside to play. I've been brought up more or else that I can do as I choose, though I imagine my mom would be disapointed if I was to choose a religion, except Wiccan, she's into that. It's never been discussed really when I was in school and was never made a point of ridicule.

How would I raise my kid since I'm an Atheist? I wouldn't have religious, at least overtly religious symbols in my house and I wouldn't really take him to church or anything. However if he asked me anything about it I would answer it to the best of my ability and if he wants to pursue a religion I'd allow him to do so and still be proud of him as long as he continues to be a wonderful human being.

Now with my current girlfriend, she's a Christian, and what if we were to have kids? That I don't know exactly. We're sort of at the opposite ends as to how to raise a kid with religion. She would Christianity and I wouldn't want any religion put down my kids throat. So yeah that would have to get worked out if that time ever comes along.

To Capo:

So in this sense, you neither believe in nor deny the existence of one or numerous gods?

How could I?

That's a very good question. I would like to quote the Bible on this... But I know the answer isn't there!:D


Or anywhere else for that matter...

There's a big division in atheists about this. I'm one of those atheists that doesn't believe in anything, including the typical atheistic tagline. (I get angry when atheists want to unify and shit - what is there to unify ON? Poking and prodding at people who HAVE faith? Just as ridiculous as Satanism.)

It's a big, gaping hole where religion usually goes.

Capo may feel that atheism is a religion in a way - and so does my boyfriend. I believe that the lack of a belief is just an absence in a religious faith.

A lot of atheists actually put faith in their lack of faith. It seems counter-intuitive to me, so I don't. Religion or LACK of religion of any kind doesn't have a place in my life. I don't believe in anything and there's nothing to really discuss, you know?

The term "atheist" is just the closest I can get to accurately describing myself in one word. =/ I guess
non-religious" is a good term, but it's a little less aggressive than "atheism." I am kind of militant about non-belief in my life.

I don't feel that the strict definition of atheism is a religion, rather what it has become.

That's why I usually like the term agnostic better. It seems to have fewer negative connotations. =\

But "agnostic" means something different....?

I was Christened, and I got very basic religious teaching at Primary School. I don't even know if my parents are religious or not, they never bring it up and they never forced their beliefs onto me. So if I were to ever have children, i'd probably do the same. Let them find their own way, if they ask about Christianity i'll tell them what they believe in.

As for the topic of what exactly is Atheism...it's a tricky one. I see myself as an Atheist, but not one who wants to join up with others and campaign that peoples beliefs are false. My Atheism goes as far as not believing in God. I don't really have a strong case backed with scientific evidence as to why I don't believe, I just don't.

I'll teach my children the truth. I'll simply tell them that religion has always been to the peasants true; to the philosophers false; and to the kings as useful. I'll explain how religion belongs to our prehistory and is our first and worst attempt at understanding the origins of the universe and our species. I'll tell them how religion came from a period when natural events would have appeared wholly mysterious and terrifying. Religion is from a time when we didn't know-we had no way to know-that the Earth was a sphere, or that micro-organisms existed and had dominion over us. I'll reinforce that we now have a much better explanation and understanding about our situation in this rather odd solar system.

Agnostic means skepticism towards the idea of god.

To JackyBoy: And precisly what is that explanation???

That was my point. Thanks. -_-

No it doesn't. It means not holding a certainty about things unknowable. It's as much skepticism towards atheism as it is towards the divine.

Well, being skeptic can be held as being uncertain, and being uncertain towards the idea of god also means being uncertain about god not existing, so it amounts to that, yes.

But that implies that you're ambivalent on the whole thing! ;_;

I'm not ambivalent about it. I just don't think there's much to be passionate about! Atheists are really good at being passionate about nothing. =/

Well, it doesn't mean that the person will necessarily try to force his beliefs onto you. It's fanatacism that's the real danger. Talking about your beliefs isn't a bad thing, doing everything possible to make sure you come to take it as the truth, no matter what the cost, is what is dangerous.

Couldn't agree with you more on that one. I wanted to say that, but I thought it may be misconstrued as something it's not.

And yea, all that stuff about fanaticism. Agree.

But in a way, I think teaching your kids about a religion as though it's a fact or how things "should be perceived as" is, well, kind of fanatic.

Well, I agree with your position, and I have adopted it myself quite a long time ago. I am still interested in hearing about different religions though, as I feel it to be quite educating in most instances, as religious beliefs, when taken apart from the institutions that promote them, can sometimes propose models in terms of morals that can be interesting. It also helps to understand people from all walks of life to know what it is that they believe in.

Willingly and voluntarily educating yourself about other religions is not "pushing an agenda" at all. I think it's important to be educated about other religions and beliefs. It also lends a greater understanding of the human mind to those who wish to know why people do things and where we stand as a species.

I don't think anyone here would ever imply that education - regardless of subject matter - is a bad thing.

It's funny about some of those zealots, though. You know how they can get. (This includes atheists)

@Remy: It just sounded like you were giving the definition a tilt to it. The term seems very flexible to me. You could attend church, pray regularly, and not believe for a moment in the torments of hellfire. That would give you some agnostic value. As would rejecting major religions' teachings by and large, but curious to other aspects of mysticism like spirits, out of body experiences, or deja vu. It's just that you don't put absolute stock in anything that involves forces unseen.

Back on topic, the parent would have to discern the maturity level of the child to handle discussion on the matter. I don't think it would be wrong to tactfully avoid or give non detailed answers to the ins and outs of belief with a six year old just as you might when they ask where babies come from or how Santa makes it to everyone's house in a single night. Don't lead them to a conclusion when they're young, but don't give them no guidance whatsoever.

Sorry about the ambiguity.

About the children thing, it is true that certain things can be hard to grasp before a certain age, but I'm not so sure that I'd be able to give any other answer than 'I honestly don't know' to the question of god. As to the place babies come from, I don't think telling them is necessarily the end of the world.

So, how does Santa go around the world in one night???

Here's a more interesting debate: do you tell your kids about Santa Claus? I've had this debate with so many people so many times. (I would)

That, I honestly don't know. I can't recall having much love for the guy, but I know for a fact that my girlfriend's opinion on it is that we should definitely do it. Then again, I think we should eliminate christmas altogether, so I might be held as having an extreme view on the subject... So I probably would do it, if only for her.

Why eliminate Christmas altogether??

Because I feel it has taken a turn for the worst in our society, and that it is a perfect example of needless consumtion. I'm not talking about the vacation aspect of it, simply the part about going out to buy stuff for people while trying to figure out what they want/need, when most of us have pretty much all we need and go buy for ourselves what we want. I'm not suggesting that all of you are rich. I am not rich either. It's just that, in my view, if you want to give something to someone because you feel they would appreciate the said thing or simply because you feel like being nice, by all means do so, and I do that all the time. Buying stuff for someone just because on that specific day you HAVE to give them something or it won't go over well socially I care less for.

While I agree with your ideas about consumerism and needless consumption, I'd hope you'd also find a sense of giving to those in need and generosity in the season.

At the risk of sounding like a sentimental asshole, presents don't make Christmas - the spirit does it for me. Winter, being kind and generous to your neighbor, so on and so forth - this is what I find valuable.

I agree with being a giving person. I just don't understand why people couldn't just be more considerate year round instead.

You do bring up a good point though, about celebrating the act of giving and all...

No, no, I agree with you. But most people need a special circumstance to feel generous and giving, it seems. (That statement has nothing to do with religion) If Christmas fulfills that basic need, even once a year, I'm happy teaching my kid about it.

Festivus, baby.

Devo, sadly, I do too. I don't save at Christmas. I buy/make presents for people, but I am also unusually generous with my money. I eat out at a restaurant? I leave a 40% tip. I buy a coffee? Leave extra cash. Someone needs help with something, even if they're a stranger? I try to help. Doesn't always have to be cash! =D

The way I was raised, this was vise-versa :( I got so screwed.

That's the one, yep.

As far as Santa is concerned, I won't bring that onto my kids. It's completely unnessecary. They're going to find out eventually and I'd love to keep misinformation to a bare minimum when I raise them. Though hell if they create some other concept for Christmas I'd be all for that especially if they are creating it entirely with their imaginations and isn't being derivative.

Oh yeah and I'd ask them not to ruin it for the other kids. They want to be ignorant, that's fine, I'd rather not have to answer to disgruntled parents who choose to put up that charade.

Just don't talk about it, let your kids decide for themselves. As an athiest as well I strongly beelive in free thought and I imagine you do too. Being athiest is being independant and you should allow your kids to be too.

My parents and Dad's grandparents for that matter are all athiest.

My mother was (and still is) an extremely zealous, almost fanatical Christian. She makes LSword look almost sane by comparison. She refuses to believe in evolution, not becuase she doesn't think there is enough evidence or anything like that but soley because she believes that the Bible should be taken literally, all of it, every last bit. For the record we're in the U.K, a land where everyone knows that evolution is a fact, or at least they should know since we don't have all that creationism crap.

When I was younger she would take me and my brother to her meeting hall every sunday where we spent 6 hours being told that the Bible was literally true and that you should never, ever question it.

Luckily both me and my brother have stong anti-authoritarian tendencies, as well as the capacity for critical and logical thinking. While both me and my brother are athiets, my mother has decided to start indoctrinating my youngest brother by telling him things like evolution is false and that catholics and homosexuals are evil. Naturally I've started showing him things like Randi and Dawkins on the sly.

When I have kids the plan is to never bring up religion until they do, which they probably will after their first R.E lesson. I'll tell them my position and why I chose that position while stressing that I could be wrong and instead of blindly following me they should think for themselves. That or I'll teach them that I am god and should be served at all times no matter how insane my commandments are.

My mom had a decent method I think. She just let us choose whatever, and doesn't judge us for whatever religion we choose. She also likes the fact that me and my sister go to a church, because we have another form of support other than home. She didn't go out of her way to inform us about religion or anything, but she didn't stop us from learning when we did find out about it.

Don't be like my parents. They were violent and did lots of things that drove me to God.
The very mention of God in my home was a sure way to get my butt kicked.

Love & support your kids and let them learn in reasonable boundaries.
Besides the Christian way there are worse paths to choose from, I know.
I tried them.
The occult and a multitude of other belief systems compete with mine.

I'm a parent and to keep up with todays trends I stay in touch with guys like you. Thanks to folks like you I have been proactive in my approach to inform my oldest on my view & competing views. I also live out my values and model what my belief stands for to show the reality of how it works.

In time they will choose and I wont stand in their way unless their choices will do them harm.

that's funny, this little book i've got next to me called the Quran says otherwise.

the earth is not a sphere, it is actually geo-spherical in shape. the Quran mentions the actual shape of the earth in the following verse:

“And we have made the earth egg shaped”. [79:30]

the arabic word dahaha means egg shaped. dahaha is derived from Duhiya which specifically refers to the egg of an ostrich which is geo-spherical in shape, exactly like the shape of the earth.

i'll let that whet your appetite... there's also plenty in the Quran with regards to our solar system such as the big bang, rotation of the planets and other stuff.

i have a question for you JackyBoy - since you yourself say that man at that time had no way to know this, please explain where all this scientific knowledge that resides in the Quran come from?

Amazon.com: The Meaning Of The Holy Quran (Meaning of the Holy Quran): Books: Abdullah Yusuf Ali

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/1193/45052996db3.jpg

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/2...hforesstr3.jpg

The resemblance is just striking.

Didn't Mohammud say something about "even the mountains moving" years before tectonic theory and the proof that yes, mountains did in fact move.

What is this I hear about you people not telling kids about Santa Claus? What are you, communists? Don't you (those of you who grew up with the Santa) remember how awesome it was to go downstairs at like five thirty in the morning and see all those presents that weren't there before? Don't you remember that feeling, of impossibilities happening? What, are you going to explain every magic trick they see just to suck the joy out of their lives? What kind of heartless person do you have to be to suck the wonderment out of kids?

What do you think will happen if you DO tell them? Exactly the same that happened to you when you found out. Nothing.

I mean, how can you call it misinformation? wha? Do you really deem it necessary to bring the crushing weight of reality down on five year old shoulders? don't you have any respect of the age of innocence and nativity?

shit. i would feel cheated if i never got in on the Santa.

Thats exactly how I feel about it, yes. And you'd be surprised at how many people think the whole Santa Claus thing is "lying" to their kids.

I'll never understand it. Kids have an imagination. Kids won't be crushed when they find out that the fat guy in a red suit was just all pretend. It makes shit more EXCITING for them.

Well, there are more then one ways to inspire imagination and wonderment in children. Although I think the whole Santa Claus thing is rather an artificial construct that don't necessarily make sense. Perhaps it is part of your childhood and you had very fond memory of it, good for you. Although that doesn't mean it is a necessary part of everybody's childhood, and I don't think individuals that grow up without having some fat stranger in red suit is necessarily "deprived".

Well, my question is this: Does Euclid predate the Quran? He realized that the earth was round in 300 BC.

Now, back on topic. Religion really isn't so bad. It's when you get into the whole: "My religion is better than yours" ideology. I don't believe in pushing religious beliefs onto anyone.

As for your children, it's easy:

First off, wait until they ask you something along the lines: "Why does Johnny go to church?" THEN you can tell them. But, don't be sarcastic or degrading about it. Remember, many people find comfort in religion. Just explain to them that Mom and Dad don't believe in God, but that doesn't make it any more right or wrong than what others believe. It's a personal choice--just like anything a person does. Also, let them know that no matter what they choose, you will support them.

I worked with a woman who told me of her experience of finding out about Santa.

It still bothered her even at the age of 28. When she was a kid, school kids teased her constantly & with great relish about her belief in Santa.
They were cruel in many ways for a long period of time. I am put in the same position often in life and it gave me the chance to encourage her with a biblical message.

I have a Niece who was terrorized by an "invisible" dog-like creature with glowing eyes under her bed. She was thankful of my banishing the thing in the name of Christ. It never returned.

My kid is afraid of the basement. After a refresher course on the Armor of God he is good to go.

I dont sell Santa because its not useful. Entertaining but not useful.
I dont want to sow seeds of doubt about other things I believe in but cant be seen. For the atheist I suppose the same thing could happen. Dont set your kids up for doubting your convictions later in life.

"At age 28, I am still hurt about Santa not being real." If this is true, I hope the woman you speak of is mentally retarded. Seriously.

I don't think we were talking about fears either, there. Way to pay attention.
Kids aren't adults. The mentality that you take as an adult will not be relayed to a child well. They don't understand "useful." Kids aren't going to follow your conviction through life. Kids will grow up, and hopefully, they won't be fucking crushed by a man in a red suit who is a figment of their imagination. Get real.

Kids need a creative environment to flourish. They like to imagine, they like to pretend, and it's a great avenue for them to take in encouraging them to think about the world around them. Yes, magic isn't real. That doesn't mean you shouldn't allow your kids to read Tolkien or Harry Potter books, watch The Neverending Story, or pretend they're a wizard in the backyard playing with imaginary potions. They won't suffer when they grown up - it's a natural process for them to slowly become more acclimated to their environment and the reality of it all.

Encourage your kids to have a sense of imagination and wonder about the world. Don't make them adults right out of the goddamn womb. Imagination begets curiosity and creativity.

really? Santa is the thing that will put your children's faith at risk? that's a mighty powerful conviction.

I don't know what you're coworker's experience was, but i remember back in the day there was one kid who didn't believe in Santa, and he's the one who got ridiculed. Not mercilessly, but still.

As for useful, there were plenty of times my parent's pulled the "Santa's watching" move on me, year round, and i straighted right up. Maybe that's not as useful as spiritual Kevlar (what is that, like a +4 AC?), but still...

She's sensitive & frail. Everybody reacts differently. I wouldnt want to needlessly expose my kids to the same thing.
There are more important things to deal with.

Nor Santa.
I noticed we moved on to imaginative concepts and their benefits & consequences.

In ancient history, the people you label as kids ruled nations. Young people are capable of much more than the limits some people place upon them. Role models do make a difference. When I look back I consider the feats of those that went before me to measure myself by.

My son is an adult in training. He knows this. As a spiritual person & artist imagination is the stuff from which I survive on. I teach many things that may not be real to the atheist but because they are real to my kids they preform interesting feats.

"Sensitive and frail." I guess that does mean "mildly mentally retarded," huh?

Wow. You aren't a fan of a SAINT? Lollin' over here.

What a horrible thing to teach your kids!

Are you going to start preaching in this thread too?

Where is The Lord when we need him.

Ha! I liked how you just lumped your religion in with Santa Claus.

Dismissed.

Oh god, this thread is transitioning from "Athiest Parents" into "Listen to LordsSword Preach". Dude, its cool that ya wanna share your faith, but you just sound like an idiot when you spout it off like you do. Noone is gonna take you seriously. Maybe if your reasoning for the things you did wasn't just "the bible says so", you'd have a little more luck sounding intelligent and less fanatical. ANNNNyyyyhowwww. back on topic

Since we were talking about santa claus. My mom didn't actively promote santa claus per say. There were usually one or two gifts under the tree from santa claus, but it was usually painfully obvious that it was our wrapping paper, and my mom's handwriting. So I always knew it was her. In fact, I usually got conscripted into helping wrap gifts on christmas eve for my little brothers who at the time still pretended to believe in santa claus. So my mom pretended to believe that they still believed and thus still put gifts from santa under the tree. I'll probably end up doing the same for my kids too. I guess it's just a family thing.

What do any of these (amazingly humorous) anecdotes have to do with telling your kids about Santa?

For the record, that invisible dog-like creature was probably more a figment of your niece's imagination. Please, as if banishing Satan's minions in the name of Christ from some middle aged guy is really going to scare them.

If I was Satan, I would have laughed and sent more.

OR AM I.

I just realized how lame it's going to be that I'll have to tell my kid I can't even know he exists, so how could I be sure about anything else. :(

I intend to just let my kids do most of the discovering and learning for themselves. I'm non-religious and I have no doubt that'll rub off somewhat on my kids. However its not like I'm going to keep the tykes locked up inside, they'll probably get some religious influences at school from friends and whatnot. But eventually I want to educate them to think for themselves by knowing the pros and cons of each side after they've had some exposure, such as the atrocities committed in the name of religion, but also how religion teaches certain values that make a really good person.

As for Santa though, I'm thinking I'll just show them some Christmas movie that involves Santa or something and let it be. Hopefully like myself they'll eventually grow up to the point where they'll realize on their own that they've been duped.

Yep, I'm with Yggdrasil on that one. I believe that a lot of children grow up not really knowing what they believe.
Children have their belief systems already determined many times, handed down by their parents and the children willfully accept. Its easy to do as we grow up being influenced by our parents in most respects, religion included.

There are good and bad parts to gain from religion. The consideration of course being the ability to recognize where the line is drawn.

Just do what I intend to do and tell them that if God does exist, he's probably an asshole anyways.

I think a lot of the time parents treat their children as objects rather than individuals and force a lot of their own beliefs on their kids. I'm not saying little kids should be making tons of adult decisions or stupid crap like that, but most children are indoctrinated into whatever religion their parents decide for them from early on. A lot of the times kids will just try things for themselves and decide if they like it or not.

I was forced to go to church a lot when I was younger, but I never enjoyed it and in the end I didn't have to keep going because I made it pretty clear church wasn't for me. I guess it's all about what you absolutely think your kids have to do and how casual you want to be about this issue. I'm an atheist and I never want to have children, but if I ever did decide to pop out some little bastards, I wouldn't stop them from going to church if they felt like it or any other religion as long as it wasn't harmful. Parents have to realize at some point their children are going to make their own decisions someday and that they can't perfectly sculpt them into whatever they wish.

I will finish with this. Santa in his current depiction is the same as anything a child can believe as "real" like boogymen, toothfairies, ect.
My position is to just be truthful and not set myself up to be branded as habitual liar.
The Santa thing may seem harmless but by our actions we teach what is improtant.
To her it was quite real. My solution fixed her problem & gave her comfort. What would you do?

I think children are too young to decide their faith so it's needless to have them mentally subscribe to a religion. When they grow up to a age where they have a firm sense of reality (knowing right from wrong, knowing that santa/tooth fairy/non-tangible fantasies aren't real), let them find out what they believe on their own instead of "brainwashing" them with your own beliefs when they are at a sensitive age.

I was born into a Christian family (United Church of Christ), however I deviated from that belief in high school and now I'm currently an Atheist.

Frankly, when I was a kid, I loved Santa. It was magic.

When the time came that I was old enough to reason that Santa was not "real", in the most mundane sense of the word, me, being the reasonable and grateful human being I am came to love and respect my parents more for it, knowing just how much effort they put into it, to suspend the illusion that just maybe there is in fact a great benefactor out there that does not discriminate between race, or religion, or anything else, but good and bad.

I don't lie. I don't cheat. I don't steal. I grew up close with my parents and all people around me.

I feel sorry for your kids. Instead of allowing them to believe that, just maybe, a little bit of beneficial magic (God fits this category too) can exist, you force them to cope with and directly accept a world wherein people hate, lie, cheat, kill, whatever they want; where people dangle food over the heads of starving Muslims and call it "evangelism during Christmas".

And then you wonder why your kids still lie, and cheat, and steal cars and beat up the neighbour's little handicapped boy.

Thank you, but sometimes I think "the truth" can be just a bit more harmful than "Santa".

Umm... I'm sorry, did you just say that people lie, cheat and commit thievery because they're told that such things exist? Ok, Huxley, do explain to us all about how a false sense of bliss and pleasantry will make it all true. Seriously, try and convince a few of us that lies about the state of the world will fix it. No, no, really. We can wait. We have the time. Go for it.

Or maybe an understanding of how the world works from a younger age might encourage people to do something to change how said system moves. Or maybe you're arguing about base human nature being changed by a lack of knowledge. Either way, I'm sure your reply will be a doozy.

If my kids decide to start believing in some imaginary being, or God, or whatever they may come up with. Who am I to stop them? Who am I to deny them something that makes them happy.
I won't go as far to say that they'll start lying, stealing and cheating if they don't get a chance to believe in such stuff. But I do think that at a young age, before kids can discern the difference between what is positive and what is negative to it's fullest extent, they should have as many positive influences (bliss and carefree imagination perhaps? belief in a jolly fat guy who brings gifts?). This goes a long way towards filling their hearts/minds with positive things, and if it's only positive stuff going in, then it can be assumed that positive stuff will come out.

While sentimentality isn't without its charms, I disagree. Lying to someone about a fat jolly man dropping down the chimney is nothing short of hysterically misleading. It certainly doesn't do much to form a practical mind in developing children around the world.

It is cute, but who cares?

Magic exists in many places. God doesn't need to be the only constant in the realm of miracles.

Cuz dey don't beleeve in deh 10 commandments?

Harmful only to a child. The truth doesn't go away just by covering it up with a lie.
Only in knowing the identity of 'harm', can it be avoided and dealt with.

Who said that God is the only constant. God fits into the broader category of 'beneficial magic'. Read before uttering robotic responses of a devil's advocates nature.

A doozy? Here's a doozy:

Forgive me for misunderstanding. I didn't realize we were trying to fix the entire freakin' world with this thread. I was under the impression that the topic was about family and raising children.

You want a fix? Try getting over yourself. The only real problem with society today is everyone's damnable fixation on themselves, and what makes them and them alone happy. You happy having sex with everyone you can without calling them after? Do it. You happy screwing people out of their money via credit card scams? Do it! Go ahead, no one's stopping you today! You get your jollies by anonymously attacking people from behind on the internet (oh, I'm sorry, I meant "tEh f!@m!ng N00bSxors")? Great! Contribute all the malice you can!

I intend to protect my kids from people like that.

Way off-topic.

***

On another note, thank you RainMan for a far more informative response.

Yeah, I agree. I just tend to think it's better to suspend their inevitable hatred of society until they're more prepared to deal with it.

Generally kids are rat bastards up *until* it's Christmas time, because then they can act good and think they deserve the presents they're getting. Of course, it's also vacation time at that point, so all the easier for them.

I would actually attribute this discovery to the early Greeks but like most scientific discoveries of the day it wasn't to be circulated until much later. I think I say something uncontroversial when I say religion did not begin with monotheism and certainly not the plagirism of Islam. Try to imagine the first few tens of thousands of years of life humans lived on the planet: starving to death, dying in terrifying natural events, dying of diseases which would have been entirely inexplicable, fighting over food and land with other tribes. You can fill in the rest of what life must have been like with your imagination. And certainly having Gods all the way. Worshipping other animals at a very early stage. Which incidentally persists today. I really should not have to provide examples of knowledge humans have managed to win for themselves. To credit religion for these advances seems at best absurd. Religious persecution, in the year 2007, is still trying its best to limit medical therapies and scientific understanding.

Santa Claus: An all loving, all knowing, fatherly figure who knows exactly when you are behaving good or bad and can reward you with gifts for behaving well or punish you if you have not. This is sounding familiar. And much like God, both are non-existent. But think of the implication of this nonsense. It is as far as I'm concerned the sinister attempt to make religious belief palatable for children. Of course children don't understand religion, so why not create a Sesame Street character, keep the authoritative principles but toss out ressurections and immaculate conceptions and the theological baggage and call the whole thing Christmas. And this has a further implication. How many children live (in North America) in low income families who's parents simply cannot afford the expense of this ridiculous celebration. What are these chidlren to think when their pine tree doesn't have so much as a piece of tinsle dangling off it? So my question is this. Is it ethical to lie to children and train them to believe things which are not true? I would submit, no, it's not.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realise that walking up to you and saying something in a public forum I knew you would read counts as "from behind." I imagine if I'd called you a cunt to your face, I'd somehow be talking behind your back, then?

Also, you're an idiot. Feel like screwing people out of money with credit cards? You can't do it, because it's illegal. It's called a law. As for fucking people in a casual fashion... on yeah, the world would be a miserable place if casual sex wasn't repressed by conservative morality. No one would be happy and less prone to jealousy and idiotic concepts of possession of a person. And as for "flaming" you? I demand a certain level of intellect, mate. If you hadn't come barreling in with a poorly supported and wickedly poorly thought out argument, you wouldn't have been tagged. But I get the impression it's about all we'll see out of you.

You intend to protect your kids from different views of the world? Thank god I'm not your kid. You should home school them, too. Really limit that perspective thing. Dangerous, that.

Who said anything about shielding kids from different views? The whole point of Pretzel's original post was just to say that you shouldn't shield them from such things as Santa and God. Don't force it on them I guess, but don't feel like you can't teach them about it either.

He's talking about selective morality, don't delude yourself that he's talking about open access to information.

Here's how I understood that:

Everyone is fixated on pleasing themselves. They figure 'Hey, I wanna have casual, uncomplicated sex with no strings attached? Yah, I'll do it' and not feel guilty about it. It's not so much the act of sex itself, but the general idea that everyone is out to please themselves and only themselves. That everyone is fixated on doing what is best for them in the long run.

I don't know if he's saying "Oh, can't let my kids know about that" or if he's saying "I'll encourage them not to take that path, and explain to them why I don't think they should, but in the end I'll have to accept the fact that they will be free to do as they please. I just hope they respect me in what they do"

I feel sorry for you if you consider yourself rather brave for being so bold on the internet. Frankly, I find that people like you simply do it cause they don't have the sac to be an asshole in reality.

And besides, what the hell have you even contributed to this thread, anyways?

Actually, no I didn't. I was alluding that people grow up to lie, cheat, and commit thievery when it's all you subject them to. The world's come to a point where sometimes I think imagination is the only escape from all the bullshit. But nonetheless, lying, cheating, and stealing is all you ever subject someone to, it's all they're ever going to know.

Besides, who's a better role model? Fictional Santa Claus? Or Britney Spears?

Oh, and seriously, don't kid yourself that your child is gonna simply know better than to look up to someone like that.

:twitch: Brilliant follow-up.

Oh my God!! Rules!! Better run for your life!!

Weak.

I'm not talking about selective morality. I'm talking about letting your kids have a little imagination! Open access to information? Where the hell did I say I was going to deny my kids that?

I intend to protect my kids from morons like yourself that are too stubborn to see any value in anything but their own judgment. This isn't even a debate anymore, it's a debacle!

I'd say that in all of the blathering babble that you've spilled into this thread, this is about the only worthwhile thing you've said. And even at that, it's weak. Children don't strive to change the world. A nine-year-old doesn't look at the state of the world and think to him/herself "Hrrrmm, I wonder how I can fix this when I grow up." They conform. They emulate. That's it. Kids accept their environment for what it is. It isn't until a certain level of development is reached that they even realize that they can alter the things around them.

You wouldn't know intellect if it smacked you in the head. Not that it ever will, so long as you keep it stuffed up your arse.



If you have something to contribute, do it. Otherwise, stop fucking around, and quit following me. I'm done with this.

Yes, I consider myself bold because I countered your comment about it being some sort of sneak attack. Get a grip. And as for being an asshole in real life, son, people around here know me better than that. Ask your boy Smelnick.

Well I debunked your bullshit, for a start.



So you're basically arguing nurture vs nature, and think that if we don't talk about Santa Claus, then they're going to only be exposed to the real world. Which is nothing but thievery and deception? Yeah, nothing good ever happens ever in the world. Ever. Not ever.

Who's a better role model? Santa Claus or someone who actually makes a difference in the world?

Wow, yeah. That would hold up, except for the fact that you're acting like it's completely acceptable and there's no part of life that is against it. Oh my god, logic!! Run for your life!!!


Oh yeah, not selective morality at all. CASUAL SEX IS BAD!



Yeah, one day we'll compare academic standing and you can laugh and talk about how that doesn't matter when it comes to intelligence.



Yes. If you teach them that the environment is fixed. And where exactly is your degree in child psychology? Yeah, no kid ever took up Amnesty International letter writing or anything to try and change things. Misguided as it might be. You're really used to people just taking your concept of things as legit, aren't you?



Big kid's can use curse words. And you're right, I have no concept of the intellectual. I don't live in that world at all.



If only I believed that for a second.

Actually, i think it would be better for everyone of people practiced a certain amount of apathy and selfishness. Really, most societal problems stem from too many people trying to get up in other people's business; trying to make everyone else conform to their wants and desires, instead of just doing "what makes them and them alone happy". People care too damn much about how other's act and think.

then again, i'm a libertarian. actually i'm an anarchist, but i like libertarianism just as much.

and now that this thread has served its purpose, long ago, perhaps we should move on?

Believe it.

Yeah, but aren't most people just trying to make others conform, only so that they themselves can feel more righteous themselves, and in the eyes of others with similar beliefs? It's certainly not out of concern for the convertee's well being... Usually, anyways.

Besides, there's too many groups of people out there that get their jollies only by butting into other people's business. ie: Jehovah's Witnesses.

if you want to start breaking it down, then eventually it can be said that everything is purely self motivated. everything.

Also, those kinds of people seem to want others to conform to their ideological system because they truly believe that it is the one and only way to behave. And indeed most of those peoples are getting up in your business because they are concerned for your well being (which is at risk because you don't follow their ideology). They consider that a selfless act, in an attempt to save your soul, or your peanut butter or whatever the hell it is they try and save.

Ok, if you're going to single out one religious group, you sort of have to do them all. I don't much care for christians or catholics or protestants or baptists butting into my business either.

hope this helps
 

I was personally brought up to believe in many religions. It made me nothing short of mad. You most definitely need to sit down with them and explain to them exactly what it is that you believe, but at the same time make sure your not coming on to strong. My dads family is Jehovah witness and my mom is catholic. They never sat down with me and both family's made me go to church which i grew to hate. As of today, i hate conformed religions of any sort, but then again i never got the chance to hear other religions referred to as anything good. As for them being outsiders, people arent too focused on religion in schools nowadays and i dont think that they would get much guff. So just sit and explain what you believe and make sure to tell them that they dont have to believe the same and i think you should be fine.

So, are you going to protect them from you?

Thanks, but I'm perfectly open to all (or most) opinions.

What I'm not open to is people coming in and having nothing more to say than "That's stupid" or "You're stupid". It's not constructive, and frankly, all it does is waste a few bytes on some server out there in the world.

He had a lot more to say than just 'You're stupid'. Quite a bit more in fact! Do you have trouble reading? :~)

Oh, fine then!


What I'm not open to are opinions that begin with, and end in, "you're stupid", and put words in my mouth. I didn't say (or at least mean) half the things he said I'd said.

Focusing on that, I end up ignoring the rest. :/

A bit better?

YAY! I'm "that guy." I honestly think "Unknown" works as a custom title for me....

So, where exactly are we in the discussion? Seriously, I'm lost.

Sass, it has been clearly illustrated by LordSword that some kids do, in fact, react badly, and that the possibility of long-term emotional effects exists. It was exciting to find presents under the tree even after I discovered where they came from. Would you laugh and say retard if it was your kid crying because you lied to him/her? Do you have confidence that you could explain the difference between that lie and a "real lie" in a way that wouldn't set them up to be suckers later in life?

I agree with all of that, but it doesn't say anything about a belief in Santa Claus. Nobody's telling their kids that Harry Potter or Frodo Baggins are real people who'll punish them if they don't behave.
Do you plan to tell them that it was all a ruse to teach them the dangers of taking things at face value? Maybe they'd learn the lesson, maybe they'd lose their trust in you, just a little. Do you really want to take that chance?

I'll teach my kids to read, and to dissect literature and film to uncover the meanings behind them. I'll teach them about the real magic in the world, instead of the manufactured kind that you lose faith in, like Santa Claus. I won't jeopardize a trusting relationship with my kids for the sake of a viral meme.

I like to pretend and imagine, I am curious about the world around me, and it has NOT ONE THING to do with Santa Claus. I focus on REAL things that are magical and fascinating, like computers, galaxies, and the spirals at the centres of sunflowers, and it's through things like this that I will foster a lust for life and growth in my children. I don't need some cop-out like Santa Claus to trick my kids into enjoying their lives or being good people or finding beauty in existence.

Maybe that's because these people you speak of were brought up giving under special circumstances, like Christmas.

QFT. I won't teach my kids to accept authoritarian bullshit under any circumstances. I wouldn't want my kids to forgive me for lying to them just to get their obedience. I want to teach my kids good judgement, not obedience.

Man, if you really think the world is that bad, then don't bring another life into it. It's misinformation because you're misinforming your kids about reality. Simple concept. There are far more interesting things in the Cosmos to wonder about than how all those presents got there.

I'll tell my kids about the best things I've learned from all the great thinkers in history, from Jesus, Buddha, and Mohammad, to Dawkins, Sagan, and Jung, and above all I'll teach them the importance of empirical thought and meditation. I won't tell them what to believe, but I'll certainly let them know what I believe when they eventually ask. If I get parents complaining to me because my son/daughter told little Jonny the truth about Santa, I'll tell them what my reasoning is, and if they don't like it, they can go eat wang.

hahahahaha...good luck with that. seriously, you want to be a parent? and then teach your kids to disobey you? that'll work fantastically.

I almost took all that other stuff seriously until i read that, and learned that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Yeah, Santa Clause is the great undoing - he is the epitome of truth and lie (Santa is actually an anagram of Satan, did you know that?) - and if you dare teach your kids to believe in him, it will cause irreparable damage.

Phoenix, your kids are going to be A: brats or B: miserable. And that's not me, that's an actual prediction of Nostradamus.

whinehurst, sarcastically paraphrasing a tiny fraction of my post doesn't add a damn thing to this thread. Please state a fucking point that you can at least try to back up. Give me some reasoning behind this idea that kids should be unquestioningly obedient. What possible problem could arise where my kids should obey me without being given a reasonable explanation why? Why should I set up a model for life for my kids that I don't want them to emulate later in life?

My kids won't need to obey me once they understand language well enough. You get pets to obey you, because they're stupid and don't understand things sometimes, like the danger of getting hit by a car if they wander onto the road. Kids can understand explanations like Road=Car=Possible Death. My kids are gonna have to empirically discern that they should consider my advice with the knowledge that I'm more experienced, and that I wouldn't lie about what I've seen, where I've been, what I've done, or what I've learned to be true. They'll do that on their own because I'll teach them empirical thought and I'll be consistent and truthful. They will respect themselves AND me because I will have set the model for them. Kids learn fast from the example scenarios you present in early childhood.

I would rather have kids that enjoy talking to me and trust me enough to come to me with any problems they might need help with. Teaching kids to obey you means teaching them to be motivated by their fear of you, and I would be a prick if I taught my kids that fear should ever be a motivation.

Sorry, Phoenix, perhaps i should have specified that I live in the real world. It's nice here, you should visit sometime.

There's really nothing i can say to "back up my point" because it's mostly common sense and the ability to not be delusional.

Now i'm not trying to dissuade you from raising your kids however you see fit, i'm just saying that basing parenting skills off of Dawson's Creek or Seventh Heaven or whatever bullshit world you think we live in simply doesn't work. This isn't so much an argument as it is a friendly reminder that kids don't reason empirically- they act to satiate their desires. And if you don't instill some fear into them, as good parents do, they'll just grow up to be assholes.

I know it's not as nice as the bubbly happy time world you think we live in, but it's the way things actually happen.

Sometimes fear is a grim necessity because people naturally challenge authority. I'm dealing with the terrible 2's right now. Rebellion is on like Donkey Kong when they find out they have choices.

As mine have aged the concept of consequences get challenged with greater complexity and ferver.

Sadly to say you have to show time and again that you can & will enforce your will in a given circumstance to kids.

Even if they know you will come down like a tonn of bricks on em' they will still experiment and test the boundaries.

I spell it loud & clear and hold the line cause I care.

The problem with what you intend is how you seem to plan on going about it.
Children go to authority figures when they need help. This is a fact. None of this "I just want to be my kid's friend." Its pretty much impossible to achieve, and its that sort of bullshit which puts kids in the juvie. If you want to be a parent, then you have to act like a parent. Parents, by definition, are authority figures. When you attempt to undermine this basic aspect of your family, the child will latch onto other authority figures to fill this gap. And you certainly have no control over who this might be. The kid is then victim to circumstance.

If you expect for them to trust and confide in you, and for that matter even care what you say, you must establish yourself as an authority figure. Fear is a necessary part of establishing this.

Fear has a perfectly legitimate function in humans, and to write it all off as inherently bad is pretty much the worst start to a parenting philosophy this side of Dr. Spock.



Getting topical again: I don't think I'm going to have kids. I would probably fuck them up too much by never arguing consistently from any viewpoint; one day I'll be arguing from some buddhist point of view, and another day I'll be explaining things from a nihilist point of view.

I can establish myself as an authority figure early in my kids' lives, but at a certain point my authority will become irrelevant. Knowing what you know (that your kids will experiment regardless), wouldn't you rather that they know you will offer them advice from a well-balanced and knowledgable perspective?

I understand that toddlers need authority figures, but parenting goes on to include everything right up to high school and, if you do your job well, beyond. As your children age, the need for authority wanes and is replaced by the need for wisdom and guidance. Not to say that your authority should diminish to zero, because they need to know that they'll get an ass-whuppin' or you'll sell their favorite console or somethin' if they steal your car, but I think you should be VERY restrictive over when you actually use your authori-tah, lest you become more of an irrelevant and distant boogy-man than an actual figure of authority and respect. I know of this possibility because I've lived it, and I will take every measure I can to avoid it.

Yup, couldn't agree more. I can tell my five-year-old to stay away from my weed stash, but eventually that kid's gonna meet someone who deals or smokes in school, and I can't stop him from smokin'. What I CAN do, however, is educate my kids on the long- and short-term pros and cons of any drugs they might ask about, with help from Erowid.org and any personal experience I can offer. It is thus that I establish myself as an authority figure (by being a wise and knowledgeable benefactor) without necessarily requiring 100% obedience.

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about toddlers who have barely grasped language. Your young ones simply won't recognize you as a fearsome character after a certain age, and you've gotta recognize that age and start using logic, reason, and facts to keep your kids from doing stupid shit that will bring them undue pain or suffering, since "because I said so" and "because I'll fucking smack/ground you" ceases to hold any relevance once kids discover the possibilities of choice and subterfuge.

I won't pretend that you can raise young children without some measure of authority, but I want my children to question authority in all it's forms, as I have learned to, once they've become active thinkers and not merely desire-driven machines. I plan to nurture them until they've reached this point, and then offer my assistance and guidance whenever possible. I can't stop my kids from seeking experience, but I can offer them a little of my own.

Well, just let your kids know that you can, in fact, be wrong, and that they should research these viewpoints and theories for themselves, and devise their own worldview from there. Buddhism, as I've studied it, is mostly a theory of empirical thought anyway, and nihilism also plays a big part in it. Nobody said you had to adhere to any singular system of thought. Even LordSword borrows from multiple systems of thought, it's part of having a balanced perspective. I'll probably teach from a mostly taoist perspective, but like I said, I'll be borrowing from a LOT of different sources.

Simple answer: To educate them in order for them to become informed, responsible adults. You don't have to agree with something in order to be aware of it. I myself am an atheist and have a lot of problems with religion, but it is so all-pervasive that you need to be aware of the influence it has.

How about telling them stories about what different people believe, and how we should respect what people believe, even if we don't agree with it? You could start out with a really easy example that has nothing to do with religion, and gradually move on to stories about religions such as Christianity and Islam. In any case, I'd try to leave personal baggage out of it (although it's hard), because it will make the interaction with other, religious children difficult for them.

I want to see someone qualify this need to teach children they must never question authority and must simultaneously love and fear persons of authority such as parents or non-existent divine father figures. I shudder to think where society would be if it wasn't for the dissenters and contrarians, who we all owe much thanks, who managed to win great social changes through their opposition. If it wasn't for the courage of people like Rosa Parks (a simple and obvious example) we'd all be living in the stone age.

Telling me that challenge to authority is a wrong act is both highly unintelligible and morally contemptible. Maybe some of you should emmigrate to North Korea since you fancy this authoritative and totalitarian principle so much.

I think challenging authority is a healthy skill that should be cultivated with discipline and control.
I have lively debates with my oldest about what is deemed fair, what is right & wrong and the notion of freedom.

My concern is the motives behind the challenges.
Is it for the sake of virtue or vice that a challenge is made & what is the definition of the perceived virtue or vice.

In the past I beheld the ugliness of the "wrong" to appreciate the beauty of the "right". As a parent I encourage this too but under loving guidance for the sake of safety.

I don't think they would be the target if harassment unless you put them in a priviate christan school wearing shirts that said I hate the thought of god on them so please lets just move on to next subject.


My best friend scott hates god, the thought of him and and anything to do with god. He recently stoped letting his wifes best friend watch the kids because they prayed with his kid. He is rasing his two sons to not believe in god. I told him to at least give his kids a moral code to follow if he won't tell them about the ten commandments and such.


I would stress those commandments in your OWN way to your kids. You don't have to read it to them verbetum or anything but teach them its not right to go out and kill, lie etc. I may not agree with your views but I'm sure we could agree that right and wrong are still right and wrong even if you do or don't believe in god.

Right and wrong are right and wrong not because it was written in some book, but because you and society defines them as such. I agree, there have to be boundaries, but this has nothing to do with religious beliefs. The fact that someone doesn't believe in God doesn't mean that they are any more or less likely to go out and kill someone (actually, a significant amount of people kill in the name of God!).

Ok, but the laws that we obey are written in books.
Ultimately we align ourselves with the written law because of a respect for the authority that enforces the law.

Recently my kid asked "what if there is no God, what if its a scam?"
I responded with "then I can do what I want as long as the police don't find out. I can be as selfish as I want & I dont have to work on being loving and kind to my family. As long as I am smart enough & strong enough I can do whatever I want."

This revelation caused a look of utter horrer on his face.

The "authority" issue is a heavy deal, I wonder how atheist parents hurdle this one?

I think God is a scam and I'm a good person.

Explain that one away.

(Also, how long does it take you to figure out you're not welcome in a community?)

I don't think God is a scam and occassionally I'm not a good person

Explain that one as well LordsSword

(Also, leave, because you keep making a mockery of a religion that I enjoy being apart of. It's people like you that make others view us as a joke.)

"good person" based on whose definition?
See when you go teaching a kid to be "good" it helps to lay out the parameters, give a moral map to align their course by.
The atheist has the challenge of getting this across because of the lack of a guide that is consistent over time.
The parent may be a good one but they are not perfect or consistent.
Society isn't either.
Once upon a time folks like me were fed to lions and burned at the stake. Time changes view on what is good.

So you're saying that athiests don't know how to be good? So you're only good if you do what it says in the bible? It says in the bible that it isn't through our works that we'll get into heaven, but by believing that the only son of God, Jesus, died on the cross to save us from our sin. So if it doesn't matter what we do, why would God bother making a guide for us?

Unlike you, I don't take my good/bad cues from one book.

I take cues from society and from how people would like to be treated. From history, from mistakes, from experience.

Not to pat myself on the back or anything here, but I figure I do a hell of a lot for people out of a hope for humanity. I don't need a book of rules to tell me to be kind to those around me - I figure it's my job as a fucking human being.

Which doesn't require a book. I dunno. Maybe I'm just more observant than you are.

You don't know jack shit about atheists - why are you making any conclusions about them? They are all very different.

We are our own guide.

You're brainwashing your child, but hey. If you want a robot for a son who doesn't know how to think for himself, more power to you.

Just keep him off my payroll and out of my neighborhood. I appreciate intelligence and critical thinking. Apparently, you don't.
So you just admitted that you're here - at Gamingforce - only to preach, then?

I won't reply to you anymore in this thread. You pretty much troll on these forums to incite religious debates wherever you go. You make a point of doing it, and you pull the whole "I am Christian and you hate me for it - like god said you would!" shit every time.

Learn to back yourself up with thought and critical thinking instead of scripture from a book. Maybe if you tried that, you'd be more welcome in the community.

What makes a Christian parent any more consistent than an Atheist parent?
No parent is perfect regardless of their religion.

I asked the question "good based on whose definition?" for a reason.
Sure they can be "good" but based on what system.
Society, history & experience are very fluid concepts depending on where you are and when you are in the world.
Remember I go by a 2000 yr. old book that was considered "good" for society at one time. Now its heavily disputed.

I would answer this but I wont do it here, PM me. The admins shut me down when I get on a roll.

Yes no parent is perfect but the book doesnt change. Its like the rules for sports. They are written down too so the game is played correctly.
A religious person can be held liable for "cheating" because of the standards they say they follow.
The atheist cant because "rules" don't really exist. They have guidelines but no real rules on morality to be held accountable to.

Of course it's heavily disputed. I dispute it all the time. It was written 2000 years ago, and now we have goofs like you trying to apply it like it was written yesterday. Yes, I admit, the bible has some awesome advice, and it's neat to read. But in today's society, we can't take it word for word. You have to take it with a grain of salt.

Here's something that'll blow your miniscule mind...

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Wait, what? How in the perfect blue hell does it not matter whose definition of "good person" you're talking about? Well, let me tell you a little story.

Betsy was raised by her mother, Joan. Before Betsy was born, Joan left her husband, Dick, because he was a dick. He was a devout Christian, followed the Bible's word to a T, and because of the way his particular religion interpreted the Bible, he felt a woman should be subservient to him. Joan eventually got tired of this treatment, especially after being eight months pregnant and having to serve Dick's every whim because he was too fat and lazy and tired to do anything but watch television once he got home from doing HIS duty which is, he believes, to be the "provider and protector" of his family. Guess that doesn't include protecting his wife's self-esteem. MOVING ON.
Joan was a complete atheist. She didn't believe in God at all. Didn't think God, or the afterlife, or heaven or hell existed. As such, she felt that everything she did in life, and however she affected people, needed to be as positively influencing as possible, so that her brief existence would have some meaning. On every moral issue she taught Betsy this way, and Betsy grew up with a moral code that practically mirrored the one that the Bible would teach her. Everywhere she went, people asked if she was a Christian, but she smiled, shrugged and replied "I don't subscribe to any religion." People then asked why she was such a goody-two-shoes and she smiled, shrugged and replied "Because it's easy to tell what's right and what's wrong."
Eventually, Dick died, and Joan became a lesbian. Betsy married a man who shared her moral code, but he got run over by a dump truck a year later. She struggled through the rest of her life, working for various charities, and eventually created the cures for AIDS and cancer. Before she died, she started her own religion, a cross between Rastafarian and Amish - but really it was just a religion where you sit around and smoke so much pot you can't afford to pay your electric bill. She passed away peacefully at the age of 72, after drinking enough wine to put Jesus to shame and crashing her car into a lake.

To sum up:

Knowledge of good and evil is given to all men. By their fruits ye shall know them, right? GOOD IS GOOD. Period. You can say that there is no good without God, and that's fine. But saying that an atheist can't do good because they don't involve God is the most idiotic thing I've ever heard of. Plenty of good things have been done without speaking God's name, and plenty of bad things have been done WHILE speaking it.

I thought you were banned. Shame.

Good is doing whatever makes you happy and doesn't interfere with the happiness of other people. Period. If you need a more detailed description, I recommend Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics. While Aristotle's views aren't quite in line with my own, they're another good possibility.Absolutely and positively wrong. Just because religious people shout it all around doesn't make it true. You don't need religion to have morality.

I don't say this often, but I actually agree with Sassafrass here. We are essentially our own guides, whether we take our cues from personal experience, hearsay, history, literature, or in fact religion. We are the ones who choose the rules we abide by, and what we think is right and wrong.

Atheists may differ in their opinions on this, just as Christians or Muslims differ in the rules and values they pick up on, and the ones they choose to ignore.

From a sociobiological point of view, altruistic behaviour usually serves inclusive fitness (the survival of our genes), or the principle of reciprocity ("if I treat you well, I hope you will do the same thing for me"). To me personally, the reason to try to be "good" is simply because I think it's "my job" as a human being as well. Maybe that is the case because it's the way my parents raised me, maybe it's my biology, maybe it comes from experience, maybe it's just me. But I do know that there is some sense of right and wrong there, and I don't need a divine authority to hand it to me.

In the simplest way, "good" is basically what makes me happy; and interfering with the happiness of other people makes me unhappy (most of the time - I make mistakes, of course, and I have bad days, like everyone). What makes me happy is good for me, and often, doing something good for others gives me a feeling of satisfaction. So I guess you could say I do good things out of selfishness, for my own gratification - then again, don't Christians get heaven for it?

Now this is a fact.

I'm jumping in this thread because I wanted to see where the discussion was, and BAM! There's LordsSword running his mouth off again, and making Christians look like dumbasses.

LordsSword, check it out, you aren't connecting reality to your faith. You are assuming waaaay too much and it keeps coming back to bite you. According to the Bible, yes, everything an atheist does is wrong. But guess what, the same is true of everything that you do. Just because you are a devout Christian, doesn't make you right. All have sinned, and come short; even and especially you. Half of being a Christian is learning how to be humble and non-confrontational ESPECIALLY with non-believers. Jesus and Paul demonstrate this in spades. The only people they are contentious towards are other religious people who are spreading false teachings or defaming Christ's name by misrepresenting Him.

And, THAT is what you are doing, and that is why I'm calling you out. You are a disgrace to Christianity on these forums. You are constantly being condescending and preaching "from on high" down at everyone and expecting them to listen. All they will say is "fuck you!" And in many ways, I'm joining them even though I'm a devout believer myself, because you are the picturesque example of why so many people hate Christians today.

So STFU and GTFO.

Ok, I suppose this works for kids. Simple, easy to remember.
Lets look at the reality though.

My critics are not making any attempt to make me happy are they? They are in fact with premeditation trying to make me unhappy.
Your statement is a mere platitude that is trampled on by you & evey new post aimed at me.

Recognise this? Some call it the golden rule:
Matthew 7:12
So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

The atheist is challenged by their abandoning of what has worked for civilization since the beginning of time: the impression that moral guidelines come from beyond the opinions of men.

The opinion that good=everybody happy system is proven to be a double standard that kids see right through.



Look folks, here is the golden rule at work.

Because this member & I have a rule book as a basis for working out our disputes, we both have a means to have unity despite our differences.
Our unity is wrought through our common acknowledgment of an authority of how life should be lived that is higher than our own shifting opinions.

Furthermore we have a basis for solving our problem instead of ignoring that one exists or the conflict degenerating to 2 people just getting their feelings hurt.

TheReverend and I can even strengthen our faith and knowledge through a prescribed process.
Matthew 7:4
How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye?
Matthew 18:15
"If your brother sins against you, go and show him his fault, just between the two of you. If he listens to you, you have won your brother over.
Luke 17:3
So watch yourselves. "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him.

I never said an atheist is wrong, they are "challenged" with their own obstacles that keep them from the ideals that we all strive for.

Life can be Hell too, no parent wants that for their kids, whats your system?

LordsSword, not even God himself would listen to your bullshit.

Only those who were taught through neglect have the desire to not listen.
I've have the role of a father and have had the pleasure of the experience for over 5 years. My stepson is an accomplished student and martial artist of 11 who started out as one of those diagnosed ADD kids. His temperament nearly got him tossed from his school.

Having been raised under the despotic whims of a parent who was an atheist before being shot in the face, I know how bad a person can go. I've seen things kids shouldn't be exposed to and survived to tell the tale, warn others and show that there is a better way.

I know my system works, my kids health and strength has earned the respect of his father who has thanked me himself for his sons success. You have your own ways of course, go ahead, experience and time will be the judge.

I firmly believe that LordsSword is actually the antichrist in disguise.

A very clever disguise at that.

Perhaps you are a good father, LordSword, nobody here is able to judge that, since we don't know you. It's the arrogance of saying that atheists are necessarily bad parents, which makes you unpopular here.

Apparently, he had a really shitty upbringing with an asshole father who happened to be atheist.

I wonder if he recognizes that his behavior is just him trying to get over his shitty parents.

Have you stopped to consider that it may not be working for everyone? That not everyone is happy going about with what they feel a delusion guiding their lives, everything they do?

I'm happy you've found Christ. I'm happy you were able to overcome what sounds to be a tough time of your life through his teachings, and the set of beliefs set around him. Honestly. I may not agree with what you believe, but that's entirely irrelevant. I respect what you believe, and am happy to see that you've found what makes you happy, content, whatever it is you may be looking for.

All I ask is that you show me the same respect.

But you're not worth respecting, Capo. You're a terrible person, a heathen, an atheist.

There are two things in the world that I can't stand. There are the people who mess up the there/their/they're words, And then there's the religious nutbars. Lordsword, I'm talking to you.

I really don't care if you subscribe to some book for your life. That's your choice. Just don't tell me that my choice is wrong, because we are all people, too. I hang out with religious people and we have quite the community. I see all this stuff, and being an atheist I shrug and go celebrate Christmas and Easter and I hang at church with my friends. Why? Because I respect the life choices that they have made, just like I support gay and lesbian types. You might say I'm less atheist than apathetic.

I could go around and tear down every sign of Jesus and God that I see. I could run into a church and yell, "You idiots are wasting your lives!" But I don't. I have respect for the people who are out there, and I understand my friends are happier with God in their lives.

What I have seen in this thread is a person who is the true reversal of what I know a Christian as: someone who doesn't love everybody. Why can't you accept the fact that other people find the world more acceptable without a big happy man in the sky?

You ask why we don't treat you the way we want to be treated. Well, now I ask you the same thing, and accept the fact perhaps your lens is a little tinted at the moment, and that there is nothing psychologically wrong with atheist people. I think perhaps in your case, it's the other way around.

Unless I am missing something, I am pretty sure Divest was being sarcastic...

I think quality people are quality people, regardless of spiritual beliefs.

1) Read the entire post much? That's kind of the point of my entire post.

2) Read the section where I referenced the fact that I was talking to Lordsword?

3) He's banned. 'Bout time.

1) If your entire post was clear to begin with, why did you feel the need to go back and edit the information in after I had replied? It wasn't clear but now it is. I am not getting on your case, I am just double-checking as I wasn't quite so sure.

2) Yes but you shouldn't have referenced Divests post as the focal point if you were purely referring to LordSword without mentioning you agreed with Divests post. It was confusing. I am just saying.

I agree with pretty much everything you said.

Nah, unfortunately he's not. That's just the title Zeal gave him during his short stint as a mock-admin.

I changed it because, while I was irritated, I realized that if it happened once, it will happen again. I'll probably just take his quote out entirely.

Not banned? That's a shame. Still, this conversation's probably the most interesting this happening on this board, so I might as well stick around. ;)

Dear pissweak individuals of this thread,

There is no middle road.

Either you're with Jesus (insert a fictional character of your choice here) or you are against him.

Saying "oh I won't say anything so I'm not doing anything bad" or "I'm just going to let them the figure it out for themselves" or "I'm going to teach my children about the Crusades and Jihads" IS NOT THE MIDDLE ROAD.

You get NO CLEAN conscience with this. You are actively choosing to teach them one side of the coin and there ain't no three sides to this coin.

I am saying this because some of the pissweak characters in this thread are refusing to consider the weight of their words and the weight of their impact upon another human being: acknowledge what you are doing to your children.

You are not above this religion discussion, you can't be a bystander, you can't be outside of this:
Like the fella from Nazi Germany said "oh they came for the Italians and I wasn't Italian so why should I care?"

No, that's not how it works. You are not on the outside of this discussion and you get no clean conscience "oh, I just wanted the middle road."

Religion defines the rules of this game and the rules are pretty specific: either you're with them, or you're against them.

If you're too scared or weak to justify your position then you are a pissweak individual and you have no place to be raising children.

It pisses me off that you want to raise your children with absolutely no leadership in such a critical issue.

I am an atheist and I will be quite clear cut with my children: you are on one side, they are on the other, and no matter how much you think you're right, you are not on the edge of the coin: you are flat on heads or tails and that's all you can be.
I will teach them wherein and wherefore my beliefs stem from but I will not skirt the issue: belief and larger purpose is a natural leaning of every person and they will naturally want to gravitate toward a neat fairy tale purpose like Jesus.

I'm not saying that "teach them to critically think" is a wrong ideal nor is it an Atheist ideal: I want you to acknowledge you're picking your lot on heads or tails. Your cute clever reasoning does not put you above this basic problem: you're with them or you're against them.

Make up your mind.

I don't think educating your children about world religions means that you haven't made up your mind. It should be part of a comprehensive education to learn about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Shintoism, etc. ...it's what we learned in school. And although it will be difficult for me because to be honest, all that condescending religious talk makes me sick, I won't teach them that there is some sort of war going on, an "us against them". Why not? Because I want my children to have friends, it's as simple as that. I won't lie to them and pretend everyone gets along, but I'm not going to tell them to be against any of these, either, because I want them to be tolerant and aware towards other people's beliefs. I want them to respect them as human beings - and I hope that they will be respected as well, although they may face some rejection.

Of course I'll explain my own beliefs and my reasons for them first, and make my point of view clear. When they are little, children don't understand the validity of different beliefs, either, so to make it understandable to them, my beliefs will be all they learn, and they will learn about them as "right". That's just what parents do. But if they choose to disagree with that as they grow older (and by the time they hit their teens, they are likely to), that's their choice. They can go to church all they want, as long as they don't drag me there with them. Of course I would be a bit disappointed, but that's life.

You sound like you'd be a kickass teacher or boss, but as a parent, life must be hell.

There is no middle road? What? Religion is not a political preference or even choosing between the black and white evil definitions that much of America might believe in. Religion is a perspective on the world and how they interact with it. Some people want a view on life where they need a supernatural explaination for the things out of their control, or the things they don't understand. Sure, that's fine.

I'm an athiest. I believe that Jesus existed, and I think that he had good stuff to teach. I'm actually pretty pumped that there are millions of people that try to be like Jesus, because he was a good man who had good things to say; his lessons are worth hearing and living by. But do I think he is the son of God? No. That doesn't mean that I have to swear off everything in the Bible.

There is a middle road here. It's the athiests like this that swear off religion completely that annoy the crap out of me as well, because they've become no better than the religion that they left earlier. I have come to terms with the fact that I live in a Christian country, and that I am a minority. I attend church with my family and I celebrate Christmas, because it makes them happy and mkaes the community stronger.

I can see you as people who rip down Christmas trees because, oh fuck, there's religion in my secular life. Oh, no. Get over yourself and realize that other people exist as well, and each has their own perspective.

I pity your kids.

LOL @ another LordsSword blowout. I swear when I stop back every few months to this forum the same shit is brewing each time. Anyway, to reply to the thread:

I can see where both you and neus are coming from, but I agree more with neus (though not harboring so much rage). I won't rip down a Christmas tree because it's religious. In fact, I'll probably use a Christmas tree during the holidays in the future because it's fun to decorate and brings in the holiday mood.

However, when it comes to meaningful things like ideas (because, really, how fucking meaningful is a Christmas tree), I stand on neus' side. I believe children should be taught to consider things rationally, rationally meaning weighing evidence against counter evidence and discriminating which is truth and which isn't. However, most people like to make little exceptions to rationality, such as, oh, blaming god for killing your child who was sick with cancer, or believing in a crucified jewish zombie sacrificial-lamb/man-savior that god splooged out one day.

Apologetics say I can't disprove that this is the way the world really functions, so they're off the hook; they get to believe what they want. Wrong. The evidence against the two above examples is blatantly obvious: there is no correlation between religion and whether or not your child gets cancer, and it is medically impossible to resuscitate a body after 3 days of death. "God did it" may be the answer to whatever argument I make, but it comes back to proof. I have proof that it medically can't happen, you have no proof that it medically can happen. Rationality is the opposite of believing things that can't be proven(see: racism, sexism); it is rejecting them and instead believing that which can be proven. We don't debate the possibilities of whether invisible-monkey-bird-demons are about to eat our face off, and for good reason. We can't prove their existence, and thus the idea of them never materializes into something we should be concerned about. Why the idea of God never received the same criticism is something to wonder about.

In my debates with others I've come to the conclusion that the real reason that anyone comes to believe in the supernatural is because, well, the alternative is too unimaginative. The ideas of atheism are sobering: no life after death, no god looking out for you (or trying to destroy you), the life you are living is not just a test for the future, it's the whole sha-bang. And considering how shitty many people's lives have been, atheism isn't going to be the crowd pleaser, the lift me up pill that so many other religions are. However, the place where atheism shines is in it's rationality, which is something no dogma-based system can attain.

The fault of atheism is the way it's message is presented (see: neus). Atheism can be presented in a hopeful, forward-looking context, but too often it spends time using it's energies arguing against religion instead of for itself (reminds me of a political campaign).

So to conclude, I do swear off religion completely. I don't swear off socializing, humanitarian efforts, basic traditions, or community strength (the things which religion leeches off of to sustain itself). Those are all positive things and need to be freed from their religious context. If I have kids, they will not be raised in a religion, and they will be taught to think critically and rationally. If I were you, Cellius, I wouldn't worry too much. I don't think harassment of atheists is a big issue for school kids (unless s/he wears shirts that say "Blasphemy is a victimless crime" to school). It seems to me that at this point in schools the majority of kids really don't give a crap about religion one way or the other. When they talk to each other it's about friends, food, movies, music, games, not religion. Unless your kid intentionally hangs out with the School Bible Club I doubt he'll have much to worry about.

Your argument is well constructed, but you may want to consider that people aren't 100% rational all the time. I think it's great that you want to teach your children to look at evidence, and encourage critical thinking, but you may still be disappointed. The toughest atheist can still have a moment of intense rage at something, think "fuck God" or "why me?" when their child dies of cancer. We can't understand everything rationally, there are many things we don't understand at all, and different people develop different coping mechanisms, different theories about their world of experience. Atheists are human beings, just like everyone else. Not everything can be proven, and sometimes, we need irrational hope to keep us going, whether this hope comes in the form of religion or something else. And sometimes, we feel irrational anger. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing.

I would want my children to understand that they can't always expect everyone to act rationally, especially when emotions run high, and that they don't always have to be the perfect model of rationality, either. I would want them to be able to deal with that, and not just view the world as the sum of empirical events and formulas.

The sum of empirical events and forumulas and irrationality aren't mutually exclusive. The Universe is a rather dumb (I use dumb in the same sense as one calls a computer dumb) place - it doesn't think and pick the most logical design or course of action, and if it was designed by some intelligence they did a rather piss-poor job.

I fail to see how 'the world is illogical' leads to 'teaching kids logic is retarded', much less to the implied 'teach them religion instead'.

First off, the raising kids debate I find is a little...pointless. If you've raised a child to be a smart person who, when asked, can identify their religion and why they believe it, then you've done well. If the child fits in with Christian mindsets, good for him. If not, good for him too.

As for what I personally think of religion for a religious perspective (as FallDragon and Traveller pointed out in very reasonable posts) I find religion to be a way for many people to fill in the gaps. There's a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense, and for some people, it really is essential to their state of mind to think that karma is the hand of a big smiling man in the sky pushing the good forward.

FallDragon, I don't swear off religion, but most of it I do. It's enough for me to say, "No God," and never even waste my brain cells thinking about it. I'm not opposed to it, it's just there. But what it represents is the more important focus, because personally for me, I've seen some of the greatest acts of kindness done through religion. If that person handed me my fallen wallet because he thought it would get him into Heaven, it's not me to think if that's right or not.

Is the world better off? Maybe. Do I care? Not really. Only when I see people slamming either side do I actually step in (A.K.A. this thread). Otherwise, it's just a part of life.

P.S. Arainach: Big words scare me.

Let's think about this for a moment, because that's a rather grand statement.

Do you understand the true nature of the entire universe? I'd be shocked if you do. I'd be shocked if anyone does. Stephen Hawking has made some progress yet still wrestles with theory, and you are not Stephen Hawking.

Consider, perhaps the universe is logical and that everything makes very good sense, happening for well-defined reason. These processes, whether by ultimate chance or higher design - the point is moot - would be part of a system that has been in action for countless epochs. How old are you? Do you see people on the street and label them "dumb" because you don't know where they're going and why? Is their purpose illogical merely because you're not privy to their goal? It can take the better part of a human lifetime to master chess, a game with only 32 functional pieces and a small handful of laws. The universe: infinitely moreso. Grasping or dismissing the fundamental order of the entire cosmos isn't a gesture that anyone can authoritatively make after only twenty-some-odd years of living.

Your failure to understand the universe does not constitute objective inefficiency, randomness or poor design on the universe's part or the part of any potential creator.

I agree religion has done some of the greatest acts of kindness. This is due to people feeling a need to just be kind, and because sections of text from their scripture tells them that performing kindness is a good thing. If this was all their religious text told them to do I wouldn't have a problem with it. The problems arise when they start to believe in ideas which have no foundation in reality, or at worst, contradict reality. And unfortunately, almost all religions have these kinds of ideas.

Arainach's argument is different than the argument you're addressing. You're saying "Don't say something is inefficient when you don't understand it." This is a statement I think both me and Arainach would agree with. However, I think Arainach is saying "Say something is inefficient when we understand how it could be more efficient." There are a lot of parts of the Universe we don't understand, but there are some that we do, and out of these parts that we understand there are objective inefficiencies (evolution being the most obvious example of showing how the universe makes objective inefficiencies).