Please tell me there are more Atheists out there...

Remove all ads!

Yes, that's what belief is all about. It is a 100% emotional thing, you can't just assemble a lot of fact about all the religions and then choose the one that makes the most sense to you. I find the idea laughable (isn't Richard Gere a Buddhist? Ha!).

You believe in god and the teachings of a particular religion because your parents told you about the existence of god and the teachings of that particular religion - and that's all there is to it. The need to base your faith on logic and reason comes after this period of faith building, after you already learned to believe.

Besides, all the religions are pretty much the same, why bother and try to teach your children something that
a) you don't care about,
b) you don't know about,
c) doesn't make a difference to what your children already know and do anyway?

If you'd really like to keep the balance, then it would be sufficient to teach your children about the religion of your fathers on one side and about the possibility of the non-existence of god on the other side. Now that would be fair, wouldn't it.

 

Or, you could teach your children about a religion that:
a.) you do care about,
b.) you do know about,
c.) will make a significant difference in the lives of your children.
Let me just say that without God in my life, I would be dead. I don't mean spiritually, or I would be as good as dead, I mean I would have been a corpse in the ground by 16 years old.
Also, my parents, every Bible study teacher I have ever had, and all my pastors have encouraged me to study other religions if only to know what people are talking about when they talk about them. I'm not saying I'm an expert on all world religions, but I'm much more familiar with them than most people on the street.
On the issue of people claiming to be christians, just remember that Jesus said that at judgment, "Many will cry to me, 'Lord, did we not pray, fast, and work miracles in your name?' and I will say, 'Depart from me, you evildoers, for I knew you not."
There will be many people who attend church and wear crosses and claim to be christians that will find a very nasty surprise at judgement day. Going to church and being good doesn't actually make you a christian.

 

I actually pretty much agree with NOG except for the c) part, since I think all religions basically teach for the most part the same things. Children should be taught the religion their parents have and later in public school they should be taught about other religions too, not to sway them from the wrong path or anything but to help them understand and accept other people and their beliefs.

 

I believe in pro-choice. You can give a religion to your childrens, but it doesen't mean they *have* to accept it. If they choose another faith, so be it.

Personally, being an Atheist, I won't teach any religion to my children (supposing that I decide to have any), but if they choose to believe in something, I won't stand against it, unless it's an organized religion (or a sect, if you prefer).

Pro-choice for me.

@NOG: I admit I snapped pretty easily. Having serious money problems is a major stress factor, and doesen't make for a happy mood. With the triumphant return of my bro, however, I can breathe easier, and my hot tempered has cooled down.

 

Same for me.

 

I think the true test of whether a faith is genuine and true comes from thinking of it, questioning it. Not necessarily doubting it, but acknowledging that you wouldn't *have to* believe in it, that you *could* believe in something else, or in nothing at all. If *then* you still feel you got it right the first time, congratulations are in order.

I wasn't raised an atheist or agnostic, you know.

Never questioning the faith you've been taught often leads to being one of those "Sunday christians." in NOG's words,

Questioning one's faith is a healthy thing, in my mind. It leads to a better understanding of both your faith and yourself. There are people who never question theirs because they're afraid of what they might find.

I really don't think a small child *needs* a religion at all. Surely it's nice to have an explanation ready when they start asking all those tough questions, but they'll press the matter further anyway - asking where God came from and stuff like that - and no matter what answer you give then, one of you will be left scratching your head.

I think that if you really need to teach your kid some religion, it'd be better to do it a little later, when they have the faculties to comprehend it or question it.

And if you don't want your children to be ripe for the first cult that comes along, it's not really just the religion you taught them that does the trick. It's the combination of everything, the way you raised them. I really don't think an atheist's kid is in any way more vulnerable to bad influences than a religious kid, if they've been raised right.

As for the 100% emotional thing...yeah, that is what faith is usually about. For me, that's not enough.

 

Luckily for me, I'm not having children I don't like them. But, it makes it easier for me, because I won't have difficult questions to answer to a young child.

That is true: If you raise a child in a way that lets them be open towards other people, and lets them look at the facts of the matter, they should be fine. Give them a good education, and they can stay out of trouble (hopefully).

 

Not quite true. Sure they are taught the religion that their parents followed, but sooner or later, they have to have some experience that convinces them that it is true, or else they won't care, and will be less likely to follow it, or will pay it lip service.

Exactly. It's better to give them some form of answers, so that they may have a form of ethics and guiding principle than to turn them out into the world with no idea what's out there.

If that was really true, then why do we still have Religion? Instead, there is a spiritual connection that forms between the faithful and that faith. In some cases, it denies logic and reason. Assuming a Divine, omnipotent being, why then, must he conform to the rules as understood by finite, mortal beings?

A) If people don't care, then they will be lax in their teaching, even neglecting it when they'd rather spend time on other things.
B) They have to know something, after all, they learned about their faith from somewhere, didn't they? Either that or I must be in a religion that actually expects us to learn about it...
C) I believe it really does make a difference. it helps them shape how they make their decisions.

Actually, it wouldn't be good for them. Faith is something that needs to be solid, not riddled with doubts to help them. If you doubt the existence of a higher power, then would you be less likely to make the sacrifices (time on the sabbath, a bit of fun that would otherwise be wrong) necessary to gain the benefits of that faith.

Then if the parents in question have personally been through it and have a personal conviction of what they teach their children, then you would have no problem with it? That is the way many people in my faith feel. I draw from that on Sunday mornings when I teach the teenage boys placed in my class.

I disagree. Religion comes with a system of ethics. Most people believe that children need to be taught some form of right and wrong. If you plan to teach them religion, then you have to include it's rules of ethics. It's easier to teach them the basics then add the more complex points as they get older.

 

Okay, here comes Rotku barging in uninvited. Anyway, before I begin, let me state my beleifs. I'm an extreme Atheist. I believe very strongly that there is no greater being out there, and in all that super-natural stuff. But in saying that, I have no problem at all with people who beleive in this stuff - infact, for some reason or another, most of my friends seem to always wind up being religous in some manner.

[Edit - Sorry about such a long post!]

What I do not like though, when it comes to religion, are those who do not question. I believe that Susipaisti summed it up beautifully in his last post, so I will not elaberate too much on that. To me though, the major draw back with religion, is that often it makes people narrow minded, and fixed in their ways. To stop questioning is, in my opinion, to become stagnate, which helps neither oneself nor society. In saying that of course, I do not think one has to doubt religion. To doubt something and to question something is completely different. I do not doubt that there is no greater being, although I never stop questioning my beliefs - How did this happen then? But what about that? Then why did this do that?

To believe is good, to stop questioning is bad.


Now, the more immediate topic at hand, working from the bottom down.

Gnarfflinger:

I'm sure this isn't meant in an insultry manner, but it could very well be taken as that. I wasn't brought up with any religion, nor with a strong belief of atheism. Why? Because my parents simply believed that there wasn't a god. Why teach about something not being there if it's not there? But I would still claim that I have a very good set of ethics. I believe strongly in my set of ethics. Yes, they may not, in every single way, agree with the standard Christian ethics, but that does not mean they are wrong. Likewise, it does not make the Christian ethics wrong.

So what am I trying to say there in all that blabbering? I guess it's a simple fact that it is possible to bring children up without a religion yet still have ethics, and a good set of ethics if I may say so myself.

Regarding whether or not a child should be bought up with religion or not, I really think that is something that should be left up to the parents. What should be taught though is the ability to question everything. Infact, the neccessity to question everything. I know many poeple who have been raised been taught to follow a religion blindly. To me, that is wrong. Infact, in my completely honest opinion, that is terrible for the child.


Onto the evolution topic, that was very briefly addressed on the last page (although I'm sure there are many other topics in this forum that discuss it, it does fit here). I resently participated in a debate at college, the moot been something along the lines of "That evolution is true" (but in more words), and I argued on the negative side (out of choice, mind you. There's nothing funner than arguing something you strongly disbelieve. Questioning.). I spent a few days talking with religous friends of mine, searching through the internet, even contacting different religous 'leaders' in the community, to get different views on why evolution is a load of BS. It's facinating hearing the different reasons, and I can certainly see where they come from. If you look at it from a probability view, there's almost no chance of life ever forming. And there's no arguing with that*. But the thing that always turned me off, no matter what argument people used, was that just because something can't be proved, to go and say that "God did it".

((* Of course, one could say that because the universe has been in exsistance for billions of years, and covers an infinte space, even something with a near impossible probability of occuring is likely to occur eventaully. Infact, it is so likely to occur that there is an almost impossible probabliliy that it will not occur! See the logic there ))


Gay Rights. Now, I come from a country where homosexual marriage is allowed, so this may influence my views a bit (prostitution is also allowed - saw someone saying that this isn't allowed anywhere, so thought I'd add my bit to that ). The main argument I saw presented against gay marrages, although correct me if I'm wrong, was that:
(a) it is interfering with religion, and offends many people;
(b) the majority disagree with it; and
(c) marriage is a religous matter, and should not be mingled with politics.
I'll address these points backwards, just because I can... well, not really. Because the arguement for the latter helps explain the first two... but anyway!

My views on marrage is quite simple. Marriage is the legal bonding of two people. It carries certain rights with it, and certain resonsiblities. It is a sacrad thing, but not in a religous way for me. For someone, be they government, religous body or individual, to say that people are not allowed to marry (wither it be a hetro- or homo-sexual marriage) is denying basic legal rights. [Edit - this is where my set of ethics differ from the standard Christian ones ] Some day, if I ever get married, it will not be any religous thing (if I get my way!), nor any fancy thing. It will involve registering at some legal registar. And if anyone then went to say that we were not married, just because it wasn't a religous marriage, I would be deeply offended. Saying that marriage is a religous matter only and should not be mixed with legal, is wrong. Marriage, to me, like faith, is an emotional thing, but this also has a legal part in it as well.

Point B - the majority are against it. Let me give you a hypothetical situation. We have this country, let's call it country X, just for simplicity. Now, in X, the ethnical majority are green skinned people (Yes! Green! Just so people don't think I'm refering to any actaul country). The Green skinned people make up 80% of the country. Now, the Green skinned people feel they are superior to the others, the Blue skinned, who make up the remaining 20%. So what do they do? They get referendum passed through, placing heavy restrictions on Blue Skins. Bed skins can no longer eat in public parks, own a dog, wear a hat nor live in a house with more than 2 bathrooms. Infact, it gets so bad that Blue skins can't get married! Now, even though the majority say this is right and for the good of the country, and believe strongly that this is right and for the good of the country, does it make it right? Is it really for the good of the country? To me, this situation is just a slightly exaggerated situation that is currently occuring - and been discussed about before - with the homo-sexual marriages. I don't care whether or not the majority say that it is wrong for homo-sexual marriages to become legal. To me, making them illegal is denying them basic rights! (see later on for a bit more on this... sorta)

And last of all, point A. To me, this quote here sums it up well.

And to add to that, if I were to start a religon that based its dogma around homo-sexual marriages, where hetro-sexual marriages were banned, going by the logic presented in previous posts (a few pages back) the government, by not passing laws similar to that, would be interfering with my religon.


As I've written enough to make people think I'm trying to immitate chev and his long posts (no offence chev!) I'll sum up what I'm saying in a few sentences, just to really drive home the point, make you all convert to Rotkuism and... yeah.

To me, there is nothing at all wrong with religon. Religous people, though, MUST always question their beliefs. Why do I believe in this? Doesn't this contradict that? and so on. This same applies to everyone, even athesits. Anyone who does not question their beleifs is doing no one good, espcially not themselves. Questioning and solving answers lead to advancement. If we take what we see and/or are told as facts and don't try and work out why it was wrong, we'd go no where. Other than questioning, as stated above, one of the key things when dealing with religons, is that everyone should always be given equal rights, even homo-sexuals.

 

Rotku. Wow. Go Rotkuism!

 

Rotku, that was just beautiful to read. Spot on, enormous thumbs waaaay up!

 

BOOM! Look out chev, Rotku's in town.

 

That is simply MAH-velous, Rotku.

 

@Rotku: word!

 

Haha, the five (now six) consecutive posts after Rotku were all applauding him.

But, it is true, that was stellar, [insert 12 synonyms for great].

I especially love your reasonining to your argument behind point A. Absolutly true.

That is absolutly logical. Even if the chances are a trillion to one, because the universe (or space, whatever) is infinite and forever, there is no way that that trillion to one chance will not occur (even if the trillion to one is an understatement). The larger the space and time with the same probability, the more likely the probability will occur.

Plus, it is very likely that fission will occur in space (for the time, space, prob. that I just reinforced). There are so many tiny particles that can split large atoms, releasing large amounts of energy, that it is near impossible not to create stars and such in instants.

 

Saber, you must of course realise that, atleast going by the current estimates, that the universe hasn't been around for ever. Most estimates, if I recall correctly, place it at around 6 billion years. Then of course, the most widely accepted big bang theory claims that space, let along matter, isn't infinite. Never liked the latter part of that theory much, but that's a different topic....

Anyway, thanks for all the comments

 

But earth is about 5 billion years old, and I thought it was a relatvely young planet for space. Oh well. But still, 6 billion years is a long time, long enough for near impossible things to happen all the time, don't you think?

 

My point is that If you plan to teach religion in the home, it's better to start from that position of ethics rather than some other position so that you aren't changing the rules as you go along. Since the religion in question covers ethics, then those ethics should be taught in that home.

 

As an example, how many math and science assertions are we forced to not question simply because the time to fully explain how they were logically reached would just take too **** long? 9.8 m/s2; says who? We aught to each measure it ourselves with finely tuned equipment to be sure. Math is generally better about that sort of thing, but there are still basic assumptions upon which everything else is based.

No matter what you single out, certain things are always questionable; even logic is not absolute.

The coin spins, faster and faster until it seems as a ball of metal. Friction takes hold and gradually slows the spinning object to a complete stop ... as a perfect sphere.