Question for Atheists/Agnostics with Kids

[MF Perm]

Your avatar makes me thirsty every time.

I don't trust beer in green bottles.

Racist.

[Cesaria]

I don't quite know what I believe. I was christened Methodist, but then went through the Catholic education system (the church still has a fairly strong education sector in the UK) and converted to Catholicism mainly because I was young, impressionable and didn't want to be different from my peers.

It's a faith I have little time or respect for these days, not because of its belief system or anything - but because of the behaviour of its followers. From the nuns who terrorized and bullied me at the age of 8, to the teachers who told me being bullied would build my character and it was what God wanted when I was 12 - I've rarely had a good or pleasant experience from Catholics. I made the mistake of working within the Catholic education system as a teacher for a while - the head there who made a big show of being holy as they come, yet set about actively trying to ruin my teaching career because I didn't personally address a leaving gift thank you card to her - but to the staff as a whole who had all contributed equally. With the notable exception of one of the nuns who taught me in school, who truly had the patience and empathy of a saint - I've only ever really known intolerance, backstabbing and bullying behind the scenes from Catholics. All these people outwardly at least - would have given the Pope a run for his money in terms of displays of holyness.

I also worked in a Quaker school for a time, and that place had the most phenomenal caring attitude to its pupils - even the ones who weren't shiny happy grade A+ students - it's a faith I have a lot of respect for, and in its own quite quiet understated way, I think the people I met there were nicer people than those running around shouting hymns and amen at the top of their voices like I came across when I was at school.

Yes, I still work in a church school now - it's a Church of England school, and while there is an emphasis on... well - being nice to people and caring for them... it's not as overtly in your face and hypocritical as the Catholic schools I've worked in are, the local clergy's links with the school consist of more than rolling in once a term to do a Mass and preach a sermon totally over the kids' heads about how children today have no respect and are going to hell for not going to Church every week. It seems to be much more about doing things than making a huge show about them - I have much more respect for that.

If/when I have kids - that's the kind of approach I want them to have towards religion - not the Catholic stand at this point, kneel at this point, do this and be seen to be doing it bigger and louder than everyone else if you want to make it into heaven deal that goes by. I also happen to think that church schools in general do tend to offer a better standard of education - so I would probably try to get the kid into a school similar to where I work at the moment (hell if I was still working there I would probably get them into that school), where they get a grasp on what different religions believe so they can understand what's going on in the world and a general ethos that I agree with. I would never let a kid of mine anywhere near the Catholics and I personally won't teach in an RC school again.

[Andarvi]

[quote=MF Perm]

Your avatar makes me thirsty every time.

I don't trust beer in green bottles.

Racist. [/quote:53786]

Its the most delicious beer in the world, to me at least. Granted seeing as ive like it since I started drinking I have not really tried too many others. Some of the Sams are pretty good too.

[Ivve]

Coming really late on this, but:

Personally, I kind of understand where Demos is coming from. You can explain (just about, if not) everything on earth through the laws of science, but some people choose to believe that basically, something was around to write those laws. To them, that something is God.

As far as my own beliefs, I don't know. I discussed this with MF Perm a little bit the other day. I would like for there to be a God. It comforts me to think that there is someone out there who knows the whole story. They know the ultimate truth of everything that has happened over time. Someone knows who was on the grassy knoll. Someone knows who killed Jon Benet. It also comforts me to think that there is some form of existence beyond the life that we have here, and that I will retain some sense of self or some form of consciousness after I die, because quite honestly, death scares the fuck out of me. It's hard for me to comprehend lack of existence, and if I decide that I have faith that there is something greater than me out there, then I don't see a need for other people to scrutinize it unless I try to convince others that my beliefs are ultimately correct or superior to theirs.

I don't see the harm in believing on a personal level that there is a God, although I do think that religion as an institution has done more harm than good over time. Yes, maybe it's annoying to other people that someone believes God created the laws of gravity or motion, but I don't see why that needs to be infinitely dissected. It's annoying to me when people do a lot of things, but I rarely devote time to trying to convince people that I'm right unless it's a discussion opened by someone else, specifically asking my opinion.

If I did have kids, I think I would start by asking them what they think. I would straight-up tell them that I'm not all-knowing or perfect, and I have no certain answers and neither does anyone else. Then I would try to explain to them that there are many different systems of belief, but the most important part of choosing a religion (if they do), is to choose something that doesn't negatively affect others, something that is tolerant of other people, and something that respects the beliefs and practices of others. If all religions met those three qualifications, I doubt we'd have many of the conflicts that we have today.

On top of those things, it definitely is about choosing what makes you feel good about living. Rightness doesn't really matter if knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God makes me want to stop getting out of bed in the morning. Whatever belief influences you to lead the fullest, most fulfilling life that you can lead is the belief for you.

[Tristam]

I sincerely wish more christians held Ivve's beliefs, if I were raising a child, I would give them the opporitunity to go to church, perhaps join a youth group, but try to make sure they're not indoctrinated into any of the fundamentalist/political movements (Intelligent design, creationism etc.).

But above that, I would make sure that my child maintains the ability to use reason and interpret empirical evidence above all else, which will most likely lead them towards a less spiritual lifestyle.

edit: there are good things that can be learned from religious studies, but religion has a long and political past, something that it must be removed from. Separation of church and state FTW.

[Neosutra]

On top of those things, it definitely is about choosing what makes you feel good about living. Rightness doesn't really matter if knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God makes me want to stop getting out of bed in the morning. Whatever belief influences you to lead the fullest, most fulfilling life that you can lead is the belief for you.

Disagreed with alot of what you said, but liked the way you said it. I think we addressed most of the points you touched on earlier, specifically: "Why we were critically examining other people's beleifs in this thread", "the downsides to forming support in fictitious foundations", and the "scientific irresposibilty of assigning god to the unknown and how is strips you of your curiosity for that unknown, or at least the drive to find the real answer".

Now Im not really interested in reiterating those concepts, or convincing you of any of them, just wanted to bring them up again in light of your post and respond to the above quote.

It seems to me, that you are openly admitting that it is your fear of death, fear of the unknown, and fear of loneliness that drives your beleif in a diety. Even though you seem to understand it to be a irrational decision and realize the driving forces for it, you attempt to justify it by saying "as long as it makes you feel better".

I just really have to ask: Do you really and sincerly beleive that it is better to have comfort in something you know is fairy tales to ease your fears, rather then face life, however hard that may be?

Also, its not the end of the world to realize there isnt a diety out there with a big sack of love for you. It is a relief to me to not be held accountable to any specific god's likes/dislikes. Its a wonderful inspiration to know there are things unknown in the universe, things still left to figure out. It is a daily inspiring event to realize that my life is temporary, and that I need to live each day to the fullest, because they are all we have.

Taking away the ficticious support systems is hard I know, but the life you get in return is one that is built on real foundations, and the realization that life is more precious and wonderful than anyone could have imagined. The candle burns brighter when it only burns for a short time.

[Blarg]

If anyone is interested, I suggest reading 'The end of faith' by Sam Harris. If any of you wonder why some atheists have such little patience/respect for religious beliefs and faith in general this book should show the reasoning behind some of it. The reaches and strength of faith in our religious books affect more of our world than you would originally think. It's not too long of a book, 250ish pages, and should cost 10-15 dollars maybe, definitely interesting.

[Ivve]

On top of those things, it definitely is about choosing what makes you feel good about living. Rightness doesn't really matter if knowing beyond a shadow of a doubt that there is no God makes me want to stop getting out of bed in the morning. Whatever belief influences you to lead the fullest, most fulfilling life that you can lead is the belief for you.

Disagreed with alot of what you said, but liked the way you said it. I think we addressed most of the points you touched on earlier, specifically: "Why we were critically examining other people's beleifs in this thread", "the downsides to forming support in fictitious foundations", and the "scientific irresposibilty of assigning god to the unknown and how is strips you of your curiosity for that unknown, or at least the drive to find the real answer".

Now Im not really interested in reiterating those concepts, or convincing you of any of them, just wanted to bring them up again in light of your post and respond to the above quote.

It seems to me, that you are openly admitting that it is your fear of death, fear of the unknown, and fear of loneliness that drives your beleif in a diety. Even though you seem to understand it to be a irrational decision and realize the driving forces for it, you attempt to justify it by saying "as long as it makes you feel better".

I just really have to ask: Do you really and sincerly beleive that it is better to have comfort in something you know is fairy tales to ease your fears, rather then face life, however hard that may be?

Also, its not the end of the world to realize there isnt a diety out there with a big sack of love for you. It is a relief to me to not be held accountable to any specific god's likes/dislikes. Its a wonderful inspiration to know there are things unknown in the universe, things still left to figure out. It is a daily inspiring event to realize that my life is temporary, and that I need to live each day to the fullest, because they are all we have.

Taking away the ficticious support systems is hard I know, but the life you get in return is one that is built on real foundations, and the realization that life is more precious and wonderful than anyone could have imagined. The candle burns brighter when it only burns for a short time.

Actually, I have no real belief in any particular deity. I simply find it a comforting idea, and I understand why many people feel a need for that in their life. As long as it isn't infringing on the rights or freedoms of others, I see no reason that it is any more irresponsible or ridiculous than believing in supernatural occurrences (like ghosts, spirits, hauntings, etc.) or aliens. As an example, maybe you think aliens are likely, but outside of some bacteria on Mars or something like that, we really have no evidence to prove that anything else exists in the universe other than the feeling, "This just can't be all there is."

The fundamental question is not whether or not God is a likely thing to believe, but simply how those ideas should be presented to children. Again: not whether religion is right, wrong, likely, unlikely, responsible or irresponsible, but how the concept of God and religion should be presented to children, more specifically from the stance of a non-believer. My answer was that I would explain to my own children that we have no concrete answers, and that they are free to research what they want and believe what they want. I personally think that it is a system that has been able to survive for as long as it has because it is a comfort in contrast to a potentially terrifying reality. Whether or not God is a "fairy tale," this is not the correct thread in which to explore that possibility.

As an aside, I think it's fine to say that you disagree with a person, but calling their beliefs "fairy tales" or "fictitious support system" is both disgustingly condescending and also very inflammatory. I appreciate that you have an opinion, but there is no need to be rude and confrontational when you present it. I read the entire discussion, which is why it took me so long to respond, but this entire time you seem to be more focused on telling people how they are wrong and why than addressing the question.

[Neosutra]

Actually, I have no real belief in any particular deity. I simply find it a comforting idea, and I understand why many people feel a need for that in their life. As long as it isn't infringing on the rights or freedoms of others, I see no reason that it is any more irresponsible or ridiculous than believing in supernatural occurrences (like ghosts, spirits, hauntings, etc.) or aliens. As an example, maybe you think aliens are likely, but outside of some bacteria on Mars or something like that, we really have no evidence to prove that anything else exists in the universe other than the feeling, "This just can't be all there is."

I agree, believing in god is just as irresponsible as believing in ghosts, spirits, haunting, and big foot. And I think most scientist believe in life on other planets bacause life exists where the conditions to support it arize, and there is an aweful lot more heat sources out there then just our sun.

As for being offended at me calling dieties "fairy tales" and/or fictitious, I apologize. I toss words such as god/gods in the same category as Zues/Athena. I will make sure not to call Zues/Athena myth, as to not offend the pagans.

Either way, I was looking for an answer to the specific question I asked. As to do you really and sincerlly think support systems that are built on fear of the unknown (as you stated) are really support systems at all.

[Blarg]

Maybe you think aliens are likely, but outside of some bacteria on Mars or something like that, we really have no evidence to prove that anything else exists in the universe other than the feeling, "This just can't be all there is."

I'm not totally sure about this but I think based on the sheer size and number of possible life bearing planets that alien life elsewhere can be considered 'likely'. Even though life occuring at all is unlikely the planets which are capable of life are numerous enough for it to possibly happen more than just on earth. However, that aliens having visited Earth is very very small, considering the size of the universe and the time needed to travel through it. So, I wouldn't put Aliens in the same boat as ghosts and spirits.

[Ivve]

As for being offended at me calling dieties "fairy tales" and/or fictitious, I apologize. I toss words such as god/gods in the same category as Zues/Athena. I will make sure not to call Zues/Athena myth, as to not offend the pagans.

It doesn't offend me as someone who does not necessarily have a belief in God, but it's kind of really obviously inflammatory to the people who do believe who have previously posted in the thread. If I rolled in here and called science bullshit, I wouldn't be amazed when people stopped putting a lot of thought into their posts. If you want to have a mature discussion with people, you can't insult/belittle them and then expect rational, mature responses.

Either way, I was looking for an answer to the specific question I asked. As to do you really and sincerlly think support systems that are built on fear of the unknown (as you stated) are really support systems at all.

Clearly, they are. We still have hundreds of different denominations of faith all over the world, and while some of those are likely perpetuated by politics or lack of knowledge, there are still plenty of believers among the rich, among the educated, and among people who have no particular political affiliation. That would suggest to me that there are reasons outside of those for faith to exist.

Whether or not they are particularly good methods of support is something to be judged on an individual basis. Does a belief in God ease your pain when someone you love dies? Does a belief in God motivate you to be a more kind, compassionate person? Does belief in God make your life more fulfilling, more satisfying, more complete? If the answer is yes to any or all of those then yes, it is a decent support system for that person. Again, I see no reason for judgment of other people's beliefs until those beliefs infringe on your rights or freedoms. Maybe it pisses you off that some people believe in God, but who cares? Why should it? As long as those people do not try to legislate their religion or use their belief to some way interfere in your life, it really shouldn't matter to you what other people believe.

Honestly, I think comparing faith, comparing beliefs, is a lot like trying to compare spouses. If I said, "My husband is the best husband on Earth," that would pretty much be wrong. He may be the best person for me, but not necessarily the best husband for every other woman on the planet. Just like God may be a comfort or an inspiration in my life, but not necessarily in yours.

I'm not totally sure about this but I think based on the sheer size and number of possible life bearing planets that alien life elsewhere can be considered 'likely'. Even though life occuring at all is unlikely the planets which are capable of life are numerous enough for it to possibly happen more than just on earth. However, that aliens having visited Earth is very very small, considering the size of the universe and the time needed to travel through it. So, I wouldn't put Aliens in the same boat as ghosts and spirits.

From what has been explained to me, the beginning of everything that has taken place on Earth was pretty much a fluke. It's just an amazing coincidence that all the factors to support life on this planet managed to come together, although we can explain how life on this planet has evolved over time after that happened. I find it hard to believe that such an unlikely, coincidental set of factors could come together multiple times to create life in far-flung reaches of the universe. Is life possible on other planets? Perhaps. Is it likely? Based on what we have found so far, I very much doubt it.

[Blarg]

From what has been explained to me, the beginning of everything that has taken place on Earth was pretty much a fluke. It's just an amazing coincidence that all the factors to support life on this planet managed to come together, although we can explain how life on this planet has evolved over time after that happened. I find it hard to believe that such an unlikely, coincidental set of factors could come together multiple times to create life in far-flung reaches of the universe. Is life possible on other planets? Perhaps. Is it likely? Based on what we have found so far, I very much doubt it.

Well yes the odds of the very start of life forming are incredibly rare, but.... it only had to happen once. If you think of it that way, there were potentially billions of opportunities for life to first form but failed for whatever reasons, but eventually the factors worked out and life started. It's kinda hard to understand but given enough time (and there was PLENTY after the earth cooled until life first formed) things of extraordinarily small odds will occur. The odds that a shuffled deck of cards when dealt out are in order of diamond, club, heart, spade, 2's first, then 3's and so on (so first card would be 2 of diamond, second 2 of club, 3rd 2 of spades, and so on) ever happening would be a fluke, as you put it, but given enough time and opportunities, it will eventually happen. Even the odds of this card scenario isn't as rare as life starting, but I think it gets the point across.

[Andarvi]

From what has been explained to me, the beginning of everything that has taken place on Earth was pretty much a fluke. It's just an amazing coincidence that all the factors to support life on this planet managed to come together, although we can explain how life on this planet has evolved over time after that happened. I find it hard to believe that such an unlikely, coincidental set of factors could come together multiple times to create life in far-flung reaches of the universe. Is life possible on other planets? Perhaps. Is it likely? Based on what we have found so far, I very much doubt it.

Well yes the odds of the very start of life forming are incredibly rare, but.... it only had to happen once. If you think of it that way, there were potentially billions of opportunities for life to first form but failed for whatever reasons, but eventually the factors worked out and life started. It's kinda hard to understand but given enough time (and there was PLENTY after the earth cooled until life first formed) things of extraordinarily small odds will occur. The odds that a shuffled deck of cards when dealt out are in order of diamond, club, heart, spade, 2's first, then 3's and so on (so first card would be 2 of diamond, second 2 of club, 3rd 2 of spades, and so on) ever happening would be a fluke, as you put it, but given enough time and opportunities, it will eventually happen. Even the odds of this card scenario isn't as rare as life starting, but I think it gets the point across.

What about 20 monkeys in a room on typewriters for eternity successfully reproducing king lear word for word?

[Siniroth]

Assuming the actual odds of them hitting any key were equal, and the key typed had no influence on what was typed next, it would eventually happen

[Andarvi]

Assuming the actual odds of them hitting any key were equal, and the key typed had no influence on what was typed next, it would eventually happen

agreed.

[Neosutra]

Whether or not they are particularly good methods of support is something to be judged on an individual basis. Does a belief in God ease your pain when someone you love dies? Does a belief in God motivate you to be a more kind, compassionate person? Does belief in God make your life more fulfilling, more satisfying, more complete? If the answer is yes to any or all of those then yes, it is a decent support system for that person. Again, I see no reason for judgment of other people's beliefs until those beliefs infringe on your rights or freedoms. Maybe it pisses you off that some people believe in God, but who cares? Why should it? As long as those people do not try to legislate their religion or use their belief to some way interfere in your life, it really shouldn't matter to you what other people believe.

It doesnt piss me off that people believe in gods/ghosts/big foot. We are simply discussing the finer points of the subject in this topic. And yes, people do legislate their religion at every oportunity, so it is a matter of interest to other individuals. Again, in this thread, it does matter why someone believes something, as we are presenting arguments for validation in a debate to determine the best/worst ways to approach teaching children religious history.

And I was examining the pyschological support system of dieties over physical people that surround you, as regardless of how much gooey feelings belief in Zues may give you, it cannot hold you when your sick like your husband can. It cannot pull the drug pipe out of your hand like your best friend. It will not stop you from driving while drunk like your brother/sister may do. I am pointing out here, that it is very easy for people to think "ive got god to look out for me" and not place those REAL physical foundations around them, thus get themselves in serious mental/physical trouble. I know several people that have driven drunk because they think god will protect them.. This is an extreme example that is a generalization and does not apply to everyone, but is an example none the less of how dangerous such a system can be.

From what has been explained to me, the beginning of everything that has taken place on Earth was pretty much a fluke. It's just an amazing coincidence that all the factors to support life on this planet managed to come together, although we can explain how life on this planet has evolved over time after that happened. I find it hard to believe that such an unlikely, coincidental set of factors could come together multiple times to create life in far-flung reaches of the universe. Is life possible on other planets? Perhaps. Is it likely? Based on what we have found so far, I very much doubt it.

It was explained to you incorrectly and you should spend some more time in biology classes before you make such assertations. Its not "all the factors lined up amazingly", but rather the few factors lining up to support a variation of life happening constantly and continuously throughout a near infinite combination of space and time. If you even looked at is as a random probability that each combination of "correct circumstances" you would still have life in billions of planets.

For instance, assuming conditions are rare (i.e. similar to this planet.. formation of star by condencing matter cloud. Matter outside coronal disk circles via gravity as matter inside fuses under the weight. Matter circling too fast spins out fo system, matter spinning too slowly around collapses in and adds to the mass. Matter spinning just right around to balance out the force outward with the gravitational pull inward stays where it is all, condencing into planets. This happening is basic physics 101 and a variation of this happens every time a star is destroyed/recreated via supernova/collapse.

Now since there are higher order elements from the previously exploded stars inner core, these elements that are in that "just right zone" of not collapsing back into the star are tossed into whatever planetary ring. Now you have a planet with various elements, within a varing range to a heat source.

Heat(energy) + Chemicals = Compounds
Compounds + Time = Biochemical Reactions
Biochemical Reactions + Time = life.
Life + Time = Evolution.
Evolution + Self Awareness = Revolution.

Assuming 1/million even develop planetary rings within the proper heat distance to support life as we know it, then there would be about 1 gazillion life bearing planets in the universe.

It is actually extremly improbable that there is not life on other planets. On the order of 0 probability.

[Tristam]

yeah the origin of life on this planet, while amazing, seems more and more to boil down to simple chemistry. There's little controversy over the fact that there were plenty of avaliable compounds in early earth situations that could produce biomolecules when given energy. There are some nifty aspects about the chemistry, like why all amino acids in biological organisms have "left handed" chirality when it's just as easy to synthesize them with a "right handed" chirality, maybe having something to do with crystals used as catalysts, but I'm really not familiar. Even if you don't trust the Miller-Urey experiments due to the fact that they used oxygen, there's no reason (that I know of, I could be wrong) to suggest that there couldnt be oxygen-rich scenarios on other planets that could support life via Miller-Urey processes.

I really would hesitate to call something like that a fluke. To be sure, to develop life as we know it on this planet is exceedingly complex, but I would honestly be very surprised if similar chemistry wasn't happening in similar scenarios across the universe. Now what's really amazing to me is that over the course of recent natural history on this planet, we've avoided any serious asteroid collisions!

Nature, and life, the more I learn about it, just seems to follow basic thermodynamics and chemistry. If you want to attribute it to a primary mover who cast the fundamental equations into being, then I won't argue against that and I have no problem with people believing that and teaching their childeren that. I certainly know some scientists that feel that way, and it probably affects them only in a positive way.

[Andarvi]

The funny thing is that despite all the elaborate chemistry that is behind life, whether it be its genesis or implimentation, it all boils down to water (no pun intended). Not just water being present, but a very unique colligative property of it: the fact that as a solid water is less dense than when it is a liquid. As a result, during the ice ages, the upper layers of the oceans just froze over, leaving the liquid beneath them intact. If ice were more dense than liquid water it would have sunk and then froze over the entire oceans, reducing the planet back to its microbial beginnings if not worse.

[Neosutra]

yeah the origin of life on this planet, while amazing, seems more and more to boil down to simple chemistry. There's little controversy over the fact that there were plenty of avaliable compounds in early earth situations that could produce biomolecules when given energy. There are some nifty aspects about the chemistry, like why all amino acids in biological organisms have "left handed" chirality when it's just as easy to synthesize them with a "right handed" chirality, maybe having something to do with crystals used as catalysts, but I'm really not familiar. Even if you don't trust the Miller-Urey experiments due to the fact that they used oxygen, there's no reason (that I know of, I could be wrong) to suggest that there couldnt be oxygen-rich scenarios on other planets that could support life via Miller-Urey processes.

I really would hesitate to call something like that a fluke. To be sure, to develop life as we know it on this planet is exceedingly complex, but I would honestly be very surprised if similar chemistry wasn't happening in similar scenarios across the universe. Now what's really amazing to me is that over the course of recent natural history on this planet, we've avoided any serious asteroid collisions!

Nature, and life, the more I learn about it, just seems to follow basic thermodynamics and chemistry. If you want to attribute it to a primary mover who cast the fundamental equations into being, then I won't argue against that and I have no problem with people believing that and teaching their childeren that. I certainly know some scientists that feel that way, and it probably affects them only in a positive way.

Agreed 100%, nice response.

[Ivve]

It doesnt piss me off that people believe in gods/ghosts/big foot. We are simply discussing the finer points of the subject in this topic. And yes, people do legislate their religion at every oportunity, so it is a matter of interest to other individuals. Again, in this thread, it does matter why someone believes something, as we are presenting arguments for validation in a debate to determine the best/worst ways to approach teaching children religious history.

And I was examining the pyschological support system of dieties over physical people that surround you, as regardless of how much gooey feelings belief in Zues may give you, it cannot hold you when your sick like your husband can. It cannot pull the drug pipe out of your hand like your best friend. It will not stop you from driving while drunk like your brother/sister may do. I am pointing out here, that it is very easy for people to think "ive got god to look out for me" and not place those REAL physical foundations around them, thus get themselves in serious mental/physical trouble. I know several people that have driven drunk because they think god will protect them.. This is an extreme example that is a generalization and does not apply to everyone, but is an example none the less of how dangerous such a system can be.

You're still unable to make unbiased, non-inflammatory remarks about religion/spirituality. If you can't speak about it objectively, without using colorful language about "gooey feelings" or fairy tales, then it appears to me that you're really just trying to wind people up. The fact that you can't drop this tangential discussion backs that up. Regardless, I'll bite.

We are not having the same discussion. I have said in every one of my posts that a belief in God causes no harm as long as it does not infringe upon the rights and freedoms of other people, or otherwise affect people negatively. If you are using your belief in God to justify drunk driving, then that is obviously putting you into a situation to cause harm to yourself and others. That is obviously not what I am talking about, given what I have said previously. If your belief system does not allow or encourage you to make reasonable decisions, then it is obviously not working to your benefit. If you believe that you can drive home drunk because God is protecting you, that is not a belief system that is making your life more fulfilling, more satisfying, or more complete.

Likewise, when religion goes from being an emotional support system to something you feel should be incorporated into our political decisions, that is also unwise and counter to what I've been saying this whole time.

What I have said and what I will continue to say is that if your spiritual beliefs and religious practices benefit you in some way while not harming others, then there is no reason for anyone else to dissect it. If believing in God makes you feel like getting out of bed in the morning is worth it, then why not? Not everyone has the strength of character to face the harsh realities of the world without any support. If that were so, we would have significantly fewer suicides, homocides, and prescriptions for paxil.

You dissecting people's beliefs when they do not affect you is simply ridiculous. Obviously when other people's beliefs infringe on your rights and freedoms, they become your concern. Before that happens, though, if we're still talking about people who simply use the concept of God as a comfort mechanism and nothing more, then trying to convince them otherwise is like running into a kindergarten classroom and screaming that Santa Clause isn't real and the Easter Bunny is dead. Who are you to do that? Why would you bother? I think there is definitely a level of spirituality and religious activity that is perfectly acceptable, and for some people, even beneficial. That's all.

It was explained to you incorrectly and you should spend some more time in biology classes before you make such assertations. Its not "all the factors lined up amazingly", but rather the few factors lining up to support a variation of life happening constantly and continuously throughout a near infinite combination of space and time. If you even looked at is as a random probability that each combination of "correct circumstances" you would still have life in billions of planets.

For instance, assuming conditions are rare (i.e. similar to this planet.. formation of star by condencing matter cloud. Matter outside coronal disk circles via gravity as matter inside fuses under the weight. Matter circling too fast spins out fo system, matter spinning too slowly around collapses in and adds to the mass. Matter spinning just right around to balance out the force outward with the gravitational pull inward stays where it is all, condencing into planets. This happening is basic physics 101 and a variation of this happens every time a star is destroyed/recreated via supernova/collapse.

Now since there are higher order elements from the previously exploded stars inner core, these elements that are in that "just right zone" of not collapsing back into the star are tossed into whatever planetary ring. Now you have a planet with various elements, within a varing range to a heat source.

Heat(energy) + Chemicals = Compounds
Compounds + Time = Biochemical Reactions
Biochemical Reactions + Time = life.
Life + Time = Evolution.
Evolution + Self Awareness = Revolution.

Assuming 1/million even develop planetary rings within the proper heat distance to support life as we know it, then there would be about 1 gazillion life bearing planets in the universe.

It is actually extremly improbable that there is not life on other planets. On the order of 0 probability.

I'm not interested in having this discussion. I don't really care if there is life on other planets for several reasons. If there is, who gives a fuck? It's so far away that unless someone discovers how to move faster than the speed of light, we will never be able to get close enough to discover them, to interact in any way, or to do reasonable research and study of life on their planet. All that can be presented as proof is the mathematical possibility, which to me means absolutely nothing. I don't think there is anything else in the universe right now, although I'm sure it's possible that over time it may develop.

Also -- you caught me! Oh snap! I don't have a background in physics, I suck some balls at math, I don't remember a single thing from chemistry, and I honestly barely skimmed the majority of what you said. This is really a tangential discussion, much how just about everything you have said so far is completely tangential.

The discussion that you have started is indeed about how reasonable beliefs and belief systems are, etc. The discussion that you derailed, however, is about how it is best to present the idea of God to your children if you are an atheist. If you have ever answered that question at all, it's been long forgotten because you derailed the topic into the exact discussion that Andarvi specifically asked you not to.

In terms of the original question, however, I think it's unwise to present it to children in the way you have presented yourself in this topic. You come off as being intolerant of other people's beliefs, and you sound smug, self-righteous, and disrespectful. Maybe you feel that's working for you, but it really only encourages people to behave similarly, instead of facilitating a civil discussion. Not having the same faith as other people does not exempt you from common courtesy.

Outside of that, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree.