Question for Atheists/Agnostics with Kids

[Neosutra]

yes because all religious persons are gay-hating, god pushing assholes.

Nope, mostly just directed at you.

[Neosutra]

I dont trust my doctors "feelings" when it comes to treating me, I trust his medical expertise, reserach, and the high tech machinary. So if i wont place my health on such a risky/imature/irrational system of decision making, why the hell would I "feel" myself for the answers of the universe. Yes, personal gratification is indeed a -personal- experience, but that doesnt mean you have to throw out basic logic just because your beleifs are not held to any test. Tell me what you "feel" about that >.>

For an individual who boasts about "embracing" logic, you sure love your ignoratio elenchi. Furthermoar, you completely disregarded the term "ultimate reality." I bet you thought I pulled out of my ass or sumthin'. But enough about silly ad hominems, time to go to bed!

Why would i care what phrase you pull out of your ass or someone else's when its all bullshit to begin with? A bullshit theory with no evidence based on nothing but feelings and happy thoughts is still a bullshit theory regardless of who endorces it, who spreads it, and how many people beleive it.

And for your benifit:

Ernest Valea:
Each world religion acknowledges an Ultimate Reality that is eternal and unchanging. There are three fundamental ways in which it is defined: as a personal being (a personal and loving God), as an impersonal being (as origin and target of all personal beings) or as an eternal truth or principle that governs the universe. If the world religions are only parts of a global and unique spirituality, these three perspectives should be consistent with each other. Could they be mere manifestations of the same Ultimate Reality

One of the fun tricks about religion, is once you break apart all of it's many historic and scientific inaccuracies and reveal it for the nonsense it is, you can always back paddle into psuedo-psychological definitions of your gods/goddesses. "Oh noes, you cant attack my religion, because I was really just talking about an enternal truth or principle, something non concrete, someone that has no physical standards, thus is above your examination". How fortunate.

Tell me another one please

[Demosthenes11]

yes because all religious persons are gay-hating, god pushing assholes.

Nope, mostly just directed at you.

yes, because most gay-hating people are pro-gay marriage and go to the bay area a few times a month to hang out with gay friends. Oh ya, and most god-pushing people love condemning other people for not embracing the lord. Trying to remember the last time I did that, possibly in between the last time I said "Jesus fucking christ" and uh "jesus and I are going to smoke bowls in heaven"

[Jefe]

I dont trust my doctors "feelings" when it comes to treating me, I trust his medical expertise, reserach, and the high tech machinary. So if i wont place my health on such a risky/imature/irrational system of decision making, why the hell would I "feel" myself for the answers of the universe. Yes, personal gratification is indeed a -personal- experience, but that doesnt mean you have to throw out basic logic just because your beleifs are not held to any test. Tell me what you "feel" about that >.>

For an individual who boasts about "embracing" logic, you sure love your ignoratio elenchi. Furthermoar, you completely disregarded the term "ultimate reality." I bet you thought I pulled out of my ass or sumthin'. But enough about silly ad hominems, time to go to bed!

Why would i care what phrase you pull out of your ass or someone else's when its all bullshit to begin with? A bullshit theory with no evidence based on nothing but feelings and happy thoughts is still a bullshit theory regardless of who endorces it, who spreads it, and how many people beleive it.

And for your benifit:

Ernest Valea:
Each world religion acknowledges an Ultimate Reality that is eternal and unchanging. There are three fundamental ways in which it is defined: as a personal being (a personal and loving God), as an impersonal being (as origin and target of all personal beings) or as an eternal truth or principle that governs the universe. If the world religions are only parts of a global and unique spirituality, these three perspectives should be consistent with each other. Could they be mere manifestations of the same Ultimate Reality

One of the fun tricks about religion, is once you break apart all of it's many historic and scientific inaccuracies and reveal it for the nonsense it is, you can always back paddle into psuedo-psychological definitions of your gods/goddesses. "Oh noes, you cant attack my religion, because I was really just talking about an enternal truth or principle, something non concrete, someone that has no physical standards, thus is above your examination". How fortunate.

Tell me another one please

Well, whoop da freaking dee doo, next time you google something at least don't choose the first result you get, be moar creative And yet again you missed the whole point (re-read my first post if you have to, which you do). For some reason you are mixing "faith" and science, you know those don't get along. Well, unless you have faith in science... >_>

Changing subjects, I personally don't give 2 fuks if people believe in god, worship a chair, or not. As long as neither side are shitting in my parade trying to impose their point of view. However, I still stand by my previous comment:

Anyways, I think it's up to the individual to discover in nature, or through human experience some clear grounds for whether they can accept religion from an intellectual point of view.

Now I finally sleep! Thanks a lot fking engineering finals!!twelve!

[Skyylya]

i'll never begin to understand why so many people think someone elses structure of belief has anything to do with them. You guys arguing is completely useless and idiotic. Stop ruining this guys thread and make a new one for retarded debates about why the other persons perspective on their belief structure is wrong.

[Lexa]

I'm not touching the religion debate.

I don't have kids either, but I was raised in a Christian home, and consider myself agnostic.

I do not want to impose religion onto my kids when I DO have them, though. However, I will try to teach them about it. Honestly, childhood belief doesn't necessarily mean it carries over into teenage years or adult life, and I'd like to believe my kids would be smart enough to make their own decision. I have the uttermost respect for most religious people (not the crazy fanatics, though), so I think at least providing the information so my kids could make a decision on their own later in life, would be okay.

It could be, though, that these views are simply there because that's how I was raised. I was raised on Biblical stories and such, but my parents never tried to force me into a religious belief, and when I started cussing my head off and stopped going to church, they didn't say anything.

[sephir]

one of the things I find most annoying is when people try to impress upon you their religious beliefs. Religion is very important and should definitly be respected, but I strongly believe every person has to find their own way.

[Neosutra]

i'll never begin to understand why so many people think someone elses structure of belief has anything to do with them. You guys arguing is completely useless and idiotic. Stop ruining this guys thread and make a new one for retarded debates about why the other persons perspective on their belief structure is wrong.

Because the question was how do athiests/agnostics plan to raise their children, which brings to light several questions on the validity of any specific dogmatic system or principles. And if it that offensive to have a religious debate on an internet forums IN a topic directed toward athiest/agnostics, then you need to grow some thicker skin. If you cant handle a bit of discussion between a few people with varying viewpoints, your on the wrong internet.

[Intense]

i'll never begin to understand why so many people think someone elses structure of belief has anything to do with them. You guys arguing is completely useless and idiotic. Stop ruining this guys thread and make a new one for retarded debates about why the other persons perspective on their belief structure is wrong.

Because the question was how do athiests/agnostics plan to raise their children, which brings to light several questions on the validity of any specific dogmatic system or principles. And if it that offensive to have a religious debate on an internet forums IN a topic directed toward athiest/agnostics, then you need to grow some thicker skin. If you cant handle a bit of discussion between a few people with varying viewpoints, your on the wrong internet.

Id say its less offensive and more annoying. Peoples posts and opinions get overlooked (most importantly mine! >;O! ) by your guys' off topic debate. Of course you guys can do whatever you want, but a little courtesy never hurt anyone.

[Skyylya]

i'll never begin to understand why so many people think someone elses structure of belief has anything to do with them. You guys arguing is completely useless and idiotic. Stop ruining this guys thread and make a new one for retarded debates about why the other persons perspective on their belief structure is wrong.

Because the question was how do athiests/agnostics plan to raise their children, which brings to light several questions on the validity of any specific dogmatic system or principles. And if it that offensive to have a religious debate on an internet forums IN a topic directed toward athiest/agnostics, then you need to grow some thicker skin. If you cant handle a bit of discussion between a few people with varying viewpoints, your on the wrong internet.

The question was indeed how do athiests/agnostics plan to raise their children, a question which you didn't attempt to answer in your mini-bout with flecha. The OP did not ask about dogmatic validity of systems or principles of belief, but what steps should they take in educating their child one way or another.

I said nothing was offensive, merely that it boggles my mind why you think that what someone else beliefs are has anything to do with you. I rather enjoy theological discussions and dont' have a problem with it one way or another, i'm happy to share and hear from other people. Just do it where it's appropriate, either answer his question with your thoughts on the matter or make a new thread about the validity of dogmatic principles and belief structures as they vary from person to person.

[Neosutra]

i'll never begin to understand why so many people think someone elses structure of belief has anything to do with them. You guys arguing is completely useless and idiotic. Stop ruining this guys thread and make a new one for retarded debates about why the other persons perspective on their belief structure is wrong.

Because the question was how do athiests/agnostics plan to raise their children, which brings to light several questions on the validity of any specific dogmatic system or principles. And if it that offensive to have a religious debate on an internet forums IN a topic directed toward athiest/agnostics, then you need to grow some thicker skin. If you cant handle a bit of discussion between a few people with varying viewpoints, your on the wrong internet.

The question was indeed how do athiests/agnostics plan to raise their children, a question which you didn't attempt to answer in your mini-bout with flecha. The OP did not ask about dogmatic validity of systems or principles of belief, but what steps should they take in educating their child one way or another.

I said nothing was offensive, merely that it boggles my mind why you think that what someone else beliefs are has anything to do with you. I rather enjoy theological discussions and dont' have a problem with it one way or another, i'm happy to share and hear from other people. Just do it where it's appropriate, either answer his question with your thoughts on the matter or make a new thread about the validity of dogmatic principles and belief structures as they vary from person to person.

If you think the validity of specific sets of principles have no relation to what principles should be taught to children, then I beleive your deluding yourself. And if you read my first response to this post, I directed my message to answer specifically the OPs questions. I did not get into a "mini bout" with flecha till later, when several rather increduous statements were put forth. And if you think for a moment that the beliefs of others dont effect the people around them, youve got bigger problems then being annoyed on the internet.

[Ryany]

…on that Mensa survey about religion

Was it done anonymous or did someone mail in an answer attached to their name? Obviously if it was the later, Christians would likely be skewed higher than reality. (at least where I’m from)

[Skyylya]

i'll never begin to understand why so many people think someone elses structure of belief has anything to do with them. You guys arguing is completely useless and idiotic. Stop ruining this guys thread and make a new one for retarded debates about why the other persons perspective on their belief structure is wrong.

Because the question was how do athiests/agnostics plan to raise their children, which brings to light several questions on the validity of any specific dogmatic system or principles. And if it that offensive to have a religious debate on an internet forums IN a topic directed toward athiest/agnostics, then you need to grow some thicker skin. If you cant handle a bit of discussion between a few people with varying viewpoints, your on the wrong internet.

The question was indeed how do athiests/agnostics plan to raise their children, a question which you didn't attempt to answer in your mini-bout with flecha. The OP did not ask about dogmatic validity of systems or principles of belief, but what steps should they take in educating their child one way or another.

I said nothing was offensive, merely that it boggles my mind why you think that what someone else beliefs are has anything to do with you. I rather enjoy theological discussions and dont' have a problem with it one way or another, i'm happy to share and hear from other people. Just do it where it's appropriate, either answer his question with your thoughts on the matter or make a new thread about the validity of dogmatic principles and belief structures as they vary from person to person.

If you think the validity of specific sets of principles have no relation to what principles should be taught to children, then I beleive your deluding yourself. And if you read my first response to this post, I directed my message to answer specifically the OPs questions. I did not get into a "mini bout" with flecha till later, when several rather increduous statements were put forth. And if you think for a moment that the beliefs of others dont effect the people around them, youve got bigger problems then being annoyed on the internet.

The validity of a given set of principles is not something that can be generalized across all people or belief structures. What may be valid to you is not necessarily the same for anyone else. To say that what you believe is the standard for what should or shouldn't be taught specifically is quite...egocentric. The validity of principles is completely subjective to the perspective of whatever person is viewing them and thinks they should be applied. your perspective on the matter, while within your right to share, is not something that you should tell someone they should apply in their life. Share with them and allow them to decide for themselves as nothing religious is truly valid, and neither is anything non-religious. Simply put there is no true validity for a set of principles merely a personal application of them.

Being that increduous is not a word and incredulous doesn't apply i'm not sure what your opinion of flecha's statements are, but given that he is an individual and entitled to his own opinions on the matter, I think my previous statement that it boggles my mind why his personal thoughts have anything to do with your principles, still applies. I am not deluded in thinking this way, i'm quite open minded and willing to hear what people's idea's are without jumping to shove my personal thoughts down their throat. I believe it is you that is deluded to think that you are that significant that your thoughts or principles matter to anyone but yourself.

People's belief's might indirectly affect people around them but that is through how a person decides to let their belief's affect their character and personality and not directly because of what they believe. A belief never did anything to anyone, it is how people apply their belief system and principles to their life that is the main affect.

[quannum]

one of the things I find most annoying is when people try to impress upon you their religious beliefs. Religion is very important and should definitly be respected, but I strongly believe every person has to find their own way.

the bolded part is a myth that needs to be busted, at least in the way i assume that you are using it. which is, "this is my religion, don't mock/attack/scrutinze it". as long as people are trying to push that bs onto others.

[Neosutra]

People's belief's might indirectly affect people around them but that is through how a person decides to let their belief's affect their character and personality and not directly because of what they believe. A belief never did anything to anyone, it is how people apply their belief system and principles to their life that is the main affect.

First: Your stuck on this "whats valid to you may not be valid to someone else". When giving examples of principles in which to raise a child, I base my decisions on ideals that have evidence/support in the realm of reality, not perspective. When a child asks me "where did we come from", I give them the basics of evolution and planetary development. These principles are not "a matter of perspective", they are peer reviewed, evidence based, scientific theories. So calling it egocentric to put some standard on what bullshit you teach children is a bit offbase. If you want to go along the lines of "whatever makes them happy, regardless of what they beleive", then we can continue this discussion into the realm of psychology and discuss the ramifications of building foundations in fictitious dieties over real friends and families(i.e. someone who prays to god to fix their drug problem, instead of going to friends/family, thus getting no help what-so-ever).

Second: As to the "A belief never did anything to anyone, it is how people apply their belief system and principles to their life that is the main affect"
Again, the discussion is how to educate children in various sets of beliefs, so discussing the validity/downsides/upsides of various belief systems IS relevant. And yes, in an open society, where people DO act on their beleifs, it is in the interest of society to ensure that at least a basic standard of reason is applied to the general perception of the universe.

You seem to think there are no down sides to letting someone beleive in fairy magic, as long as it makes them happy. From a scientific point of view, as stated before, it strips individuals of the basic curiosity to answer the mysteries of the universe and fills the gap with happy fairy dust answers. Imagine how much farther we would be technologically if a large % of the world didnt beleive in magic, and strived to find the answers for themselves, using logic, reason, and the scientific method to obtain answers built in reality, that withstand basic examination.

[Skyylya]

People's belief's might indirectly affect people around them but that is through how a person decides to let their belief's affect their character and personality and not directly because of what they believe. A belief never did anything to anyone, it is how people apply their belief system and principles to their life that is the main affect.

First: Your stuck on this "whats valid to you may not be valid to someone else". When giving examples of principles in which to raise a child, I base my decisions on ideals that have evidence/support in the realm of reality, not perspective. When a child asks me "where did we come from", I give them the basics of evolution and planetary development. These principles are not "a matter of perspective", they are peer reviewed, evidence based, scientific theories. So calling it egocentric to put some standard on what bullshit you teach children is a bit offbase. If you want to go along the lines of "whatever makes them happy, regardless of what they beleive", then we can continue this discussion into the realm of psychology and discuss the ramifications of building foundations in fictitious dieties over real friends and families(i.e. someone who prays to god to fix their drug problem, instead of going to friends/family, thus getting no help what-so-ever).

Second: As to the "A belief never did anything to anyone, it is how people apply their belief system and principles to their life that is the main affect"
Again, the discussion is how to educate children in various sets of beliefs, so discussing the validity/downsides/upsides of various belief systems IS relevant. And yes, in an open society, where people DO act on their beleifs, it is in the interest of society to ensure that at least a basic standard of reason is applied to the general perception of the universe.

You seem to think there are no down sides to letting someone beleive in fairy magic, as long as it makes them happy. From a scientific point of view, as stated before, it strips individuals of the basic curiosity to answer the mysteries of the universe and fills the gap with happy fairy dust answers. Imagine how much farther we would be technologically if a large % of the world didnt beleive in magic, and strived to find the answers for themselves, using logic, reason, and the scientific method to obtain answers built in reality, that withstand basic examination.

Truly? I don't disagree with a lot that you said, simply the fact that you feel it is your duty to forcefeed what you think to people. I never said that I believe in magic or that i feel it is fine for other people to. I said that it is not my place to force my belief on them. If i child asked me where we come from I would tell them the biological and evolutionary reason as well and tell them that I don't believe we came from some diety. But i'm not going to tell someone else that they need to teach their child what i believe, it's not my place.

I say you are egocentric because you do feel the need to impart your belief on someone else, whether what they believe is your business or not. Your purpose in this world is not to free the ignorant from their belief system if it disagree's with yours. I don't care what anyone else believes in because it has no bearing on my life, and what I believe has no bearing on theirs. As long as what you believe allows you to function in society and enjoy whatever you call your life that is all that matters. Whether you believe in God or not, the sole purpose of religion and any belief in general is to give yourself a peace of mind and give whatever meaning or purpose you require.

I never said that there are no downsides to letting people believe in whatever they want, just that it isn't your place or mine to instill our belief in any one of them unless it is their desire to do so. There are an infinite number of problems caused by the principles of religion throughout the world, I don't deny that, never have. I think that people would be better off not believing in god and being part of organized religion. But not everyone is capable of not believing, some people need that level of comfort whether it is real or not in order to survive. Call them weak minded, less intelligent or whatever you want, it is still not your place to convert them. You are to close minded to accept that while there may be no god in existance it is not the empirical fact that it exists that is important to most people but the satisfaction of the idea that perhaps it does and what that implies.

I don't believe in god, I never have and never will. But I will not tell someone that they are wrong for doing so anymore than I would want someone to tell me I am wrong for not believing. As for your quib about getting into the psychology of letting someone grow up believing in magic. As someone with a degree in psychology and has been in many discussions about this very topic in school I can say that there is nothing negative what-so-ever for most people and while there is no evidence to support the existance of any god people's nature in most cases require that they believe in something in order to maintain sanity and the desire to live. not everyone is capable of believing that these years on the planet are all there is and that nothing matters, people need to believe that there is a reason to perpetuate the species and continue living. Religion gives them that, however unrealistic or lacking of evidence that belief may be, you are in no position to tell someone they are wrong for believing it.

Truly I don't disagree with you or with anything that you've said content-wise. I think we probably believe much the same things, just that you seem close minded and think that everyone is not entitled to their own belief, but need to believe what you do.

[BRP]

I'm not a parent, but the little plan I have in my head would be that I either let my kid believe in that religion/Santa Claus/Easter Bunny until he's old enough to understand it to make or choice, or give him the cold hard facts from day 1(and be sure to tell him not to spoil it for his friends). I have the feeling the latter could lead to some issues though.

[Neosutra]

Truly? I don't disagree with a lot that you said, simply the fact that you feel it is your duty to forcefeed what you think to people. I never said that I believe in magic or that i feel it is fine for other people to. I said that it is not my place to force my belief on them. If i child asked me where we come from I would tell them the biological and evolutionary reason as well and tell them that I don't believe we came from some diety. But i'm not going to tell someone else that they need to teach their child what i believe, it's not my place.

Except, as stated 50 times, im not force feeding anyone my views. This entire topic, in its entirety, is infact all about "telling someone else that they need to teach their child to beleive X philosophy". In fact, its called "Question for Atheists/Agnostics with kids".... The only difference is, instead of saying "i beleive you should teach them this....", i backed mine up with data and reasoning for my decision. Does the fact that we are in a topic entirely based upon giving your opinion on athiest/agnostic child bearing principles STILL elude you? Or are you simply going to quote everything I say and completely miss the point. I dont ever attack anyone on the streets, and force them to read physics books. I dont harrass my religious friends or work colleagues about their religion. But I do however, express my views on the subject, along with reasoning for it, in a forum SPECIFICALLY asking for it. Good grief.

[Mizango]

I'm not a parent, but the little plan I have in my head would be that I either let my kid believe in that religion/Santa Claus/Easter Bunny until he's old enough to understand it to make or choice, or give him the cold hard facts from day 1(and be sure to tell him not to spoil it for his friends). I have the feeling the latter could lead to some issues though.

Yeah, I once grappled with those same decisions lol. Nice to see that I wasnt alone.

[Blarg]

Atheism is lacking a belief in a god. Every kid is born without a belief in a god, and until they are a few years old they probably won't be able to distinguish between truth and something they are told by their parents. If you must teach your kids your religion wait a few years, and you better not force on them the horrors of hell and how if they don't follow this book they are gonna go there and burn for eternity. Shit like that will fuck up your kid like crazy, they will be afraid to be themselves because of this illogical fear of torture from demons for commiting the smallest of sins.


Now onto whoever said that Atheism is a belief in the same way theism is. Is not collecting stamps a hobby with that logic too? The flaw of that reasoning is that you assume that god existing and god not existing are equally likely and atheists are believing a certain side while the other remains somewhat likely, this is not the case with any atheist who doesn't believe based on evidence and logic. There are some atheists who don't believe for what I think are silly reasons and haven't educated themselves on religions and religious beliefs, those kind of atheists could fall under that definition of belief.