How atheists should raise children

[AapoJoki]

Religious people have it easy when they have to decide how to raise their children: go to church with them, sign them up for Sunday school, tell them everything you know about Jesus -- the children will be brought up in the same religion as you, there's no question about it. While I think that this is a very unethical way of raising children, I understand that religious people don't see it that way, and that's why they won't feel the need to think about it that hard.

Children's upbringing is more problematic for atheists, agnostics and other secularists. Any atheist who abhors religious indoctrination of children, is painfully aware that it would be just as bad to raise your children as atheists. So, how should atheists bring up their children, then? The obvious answer is that the topic of religion should never be brought up in your household. Simply teach your children some of the universal virtues that are appreciated in our society: kindness, generosity, tolerance, patience etc. Never tell your child that you are an atheist, never even mention God.

But religious conversation cannot be avoided forever. Your child will probably have friends who are from religious families, or he or she might hear religious themes on TV or anywhere else. It would be foolish and impossible to try to censor these things from your child. Some day, your child will confront you with some hard questions, such as "Does God exist?", "What happens after you die?" or even "What is God?"

The easiest way to answer these questions is to simply say, "I don't know." But that would be dishonest, to a certain extent, if I have solid opinions about these questions. Expressing them to a child, however, can be difficult. If I think that God's existence is very unlikely, would I be a biased parent if I told my child that? Or if I am reasonably confident that a person's consciousness and memories disappear completely at death, would it be irresponsible to tell that to children and scare them shitless? The last question is the hardest of them all; I personally have no idea how I would define God to a child, and especially in such a way that it would not reveal my bias.

What might be a good solution, I think, would be to answer the question with another question: "Well, what do you think? How do you think it is?" That way the children will realize that there are no absolute right answers to these questions, and that it's the up to the children themselves to form an opinion. Some conversation may follow, and you may carefully present some of your views, and ask your children if they disagree with you. Whatever the case, never give a reply that will kill the child's curiosity and prevent him or her from pondering these questions further.

By the way, the topic title is misleading. I think this is how everyone should raise their children, even religious people. Don't take your children to the Church or the Sunday school. Children's upbringing shouldn't include religious views (even negative ones) any more than it should include political views. The best way to teach your children about these things is to wait until they ask you.

[JackPhantasm]

Religion teaches discipline. They could just teach them that without that sure. But they have a right to teach their kids what they want. As long as they're not hurting anyone.

[Shaggytheclown17]

Another fucked up religion thread?
WTF you guys, its a person's own fucking bisness if they want to be this or that, how about we all shut the hell up about religion hm?

[reviewer-general]

At 4/17/08 07:03 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Another fucked up religion thread?
WTF you guys, its a person's own fucking bisness if they want to be this or that, how about we all shut the hell up about religion hm?

You didn't read a word of the original post, did you?

;

[AapoJoki]

At 4/17/08 07:10 PM, reviewer-general wrote: You didn't read a word of the original post, did you?

I think he managed to read the word "atheist".

[SolInvictus]

At 4/17/08 06:56 PM, Suaron wrote: their religion commands otherwise. An obediant Christian cannot do that. And I don't knw why they would anyway considering their child's salvation may be at stake.

its interesting how Christianity has changed over time with regards to ones decision about religion. originally baptism was only for adults who understood and truly believed what they were doing. of course that doesn't mean the children weren't brought up with Christian views and morals but its still different from being born and quickly baptised.

[Al6200]

At 4/17/08 09:11 PM, SolInvictus wrote:

At 4/17/08 06:56 PM, Suaron wrote: their religion commands otherwise. An obediant Christian cannot do that. And I don't knw why they would anyway considering their child's salvation may be at stake.

its interesting how Christianity has changed over time with regards to ones decision about religion. originally baptism was only for adults who understood and truly believed what they were doing. of course that doesn't mean the children weren't brought up with Christian views and morals but its still different from being born and quickly baptised.

My understanding is that Baptism was only for adults in very early Christianity (i.e., pre-Catholic church), but then the Catholics started doing it to babies.

Then the protestant churches decided that although babies should be baptized (as a sort of salvation insurance policy), adults should redo baptism either literally or symbolically.

[SmilezRoyale]

if Atheists are true atheists they should realize that biologically, a child between the ages of 1-7 are built to absorb and replicate the information and social behaviors replicated by the parents; therefore, whatever they do, the child does.

You want to save your child from indoctrination? You can't; it's a program that can't be uninstalled, only turned off by another mechanism that is also uncontrollable.

The only thing you can do is not present any form of opinion on any religious topic what-so-ever; which is not in any way easy. But keep in mind, that if a child doesn't replicate it from you, they replicate it from someone else. And honestly, who's genes and memes are we built to try and carry on? ours, or someone elses?

[penis-plant]

this is how atheists should raise children...like anyone else

end

[Drakim]

At 4/17/08 07:03 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: Another fucked up religion thread?
WTF you guys, its a person's own fucking bisness if they want to be this or that, how about we all shut the hell up about religion hm?

Get the fuck out. Nobody forced you to read topic you do not enjoy. So stop trolling.

At 4/17/08 10:11 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: First off, I don't think atheistic parents have it any "harder" than religious parents when it comes to teaching kids values (raising them). No matter what God someone chooses, or ignores, nobody can deny their progeny are the sum total of their and their spouse's lives. This recognition puts all parents in the position to raise their children the best way they know how to: Christian folk teach forgiveness and the difference between right and wrong through biblical passages and interaction with people all of ages sharing a common faith in Jesus Christ.

What do atheists expose their children to when they wish to teach values and morality? Who is an example? In Christianity Jesus is the perennial role model, with many other characters who demonstrate righteousness or sinful behavior.

You don't neccessary need a role model "superman" to teach values. Values can be taught by simple interaction, in your everyday life.

Second, baptism, at least in my church, is a pledge by the congregation to love and help the baptized child grow in faith through us and through the Word. Once they've (chosen to) complete religious study, they are confirmed as full-fledged members of the church, with the same responsibilities and obligations as the rest of the congregation.

But isn't this a bit unfair to do to children? Put them in an organization without them even knowing what it's about? Sure, ignore that you were baptized when you grow up, but why not just baptize grown ups that knows what the heck is happening? (like it was originally done?)

Alot of people find it convenient to forget that the church community is an extremely strong and interwoven community, one built on the premise of love. No matter how many firebrand religious zealots you find on Youtube, the fundamental nature of religion is to unite.

This may be true, but religion can never be a uniter when it's so limiting and unreasonable. For example, how is a Christian group which thinks being gay is a terrible sin ever going to unite everybody? The solution they present appears to be "they just have to stop being gay", which is laughable.

And I mean, who the heck can be proud of being a uniter when you are officially saying that people who aren't part of your group is going to burn in hell?

[dummasshole]

And I mean, who the heck can be proud of being a uniter when you are officially saying that people who aren't part of your group is going to burn in hell?

that is such a great answer, it represents the entire church stance and the ignorancy that comes with it, for exemple, when was jesus born? most will say 2008 years ago! wrong! patrus and the other folks only saw him when he was like 30 or somthing, which means we already have the wrong counting, other thing, in all the western books movies and television shows, jesus is white, not!!! he was born in isreal for pity sake, who lived in isreal that time do you know? badoi tribes, which means desert ppl, which means aracib. im sorry if im offending it just pisses me off the ignorance of ppl, and its the holy trio things who pisses me the most, yere not praying for god ppl, you are praying to jesus and the thousend and more wannabes who called themselves his friends like 1000 years later.

[dummasshole]

At 4/18/08 03:21 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 4/18/08 03:18 AM, dummasshole wrote:
desert ppl

There's actually archaelogical evidence that a tribe of white men (with red hair) dwelled in ancient Middle Eastern Asia.

Would you like a link?

you mean shalh a din? beacuse he had red hair but just beacuse his mother was germen, i would like to see the link but im telling you for sure that was no white ppl in isreal(or cnaan, depends how much are you familiar with the bible) in that time, not until 1800 .

[Drakim]

At 4/18/08 03:19 AM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 4/18/08 02:55 AM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/17/08 10:11 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

Of course. Wouldn't you say though that there's a higher probability of negative role models influencing children outside of a traditional Christian upbringing?

I don't exactly like the typical American Christian upbringing, since it can involve hatred of gays, denying basic science, and so on. Note that I said can and not will. I know there are very nice Christian communities and parents who are completely tolerant and open. But Christianity as a whole does not have a good track record of being tolerant. Thus, I wouldn't think of the "typical" American Christian upbringing as a good thing.

I'm extremely well aware of how complicated social interactions can be, especially in authoritative institutions like some religious schools and even single-parent families. There are no guarantees that a child raised with nothing but love and tenderness won't end up selecting Charles Manson as their hero. Chuck Norris is a great role model, but what about other TV personalities? With the Bible properly interpretted, there are concrete characters, ones which won't end up taking steroids or beating their wives or driving drunk.. crushing the faith the children had in them as models to learn from.

But, for all non-Christians, Biblical characters are just the work of fiction. Jesus wansn't the son of God, Moses didn't talk to a burning bush, etc. If we are operating with characters with such a basis of existintance, then why can't I just make up characters which are role models?

And one thing to considure is, what happens when a child stops being a Christian? Is it so smart to base all the teachings on Christianity then? Maybe the person will decide that everything you taught him was bullshit since the example persons you used never actually existed. Wouldn't it be much safer to teach such values as a separate thing, instead of the result of belief? (sorry if that didn't make any sense :S)

Yes, the bible contradicts itself, yes it's fallible. Yes it can be taught in a manner that stresses positive values and constructive thoughts/actions.

Why not edit the Bible to take away all the nasty parts? What good could a child have to read about God ordering people to rape and murder?

baptism

But isn't this a bit unfair to do to children? Put them in an organization without them even knowing what it's about? Sure, ignore that you were baptized when you grow up, but why not just baptize grown ups that knows what the heck is happening? (like it was originally done?)

It's no more unfair than being born an American, or Mexican, or Cuban. You can renounce your religion however, which gives it the upper hand when it comes to "fairness".

True. I take a lot more issues with things like circumcision.

However, I know some religions, once you are in, you aren't allowed to get out. Even after you leave the religious community, they still keep you on their list of members (which does in fact break the human rights).

Children need choices made for them at young ages. With church, there is a pre-existing community based on the minimal belief that Jesus died on the cross for the sins of man. It's kinda hokey, but it's not only an ice breaker it's an understanding between human beings.

But who decides what we may and may not teach our children within religion? Should I be able to teach my child that all humans are worthless and evil, and that the best that could happen to the world would be if somebody managed to nuke it? Should I be able to teach my child this not as my opinion, but as the truth, and if you don't belive it, you'll suffer and die?

If you say no, considerer that a lot of Christians teach their children that most people on earth, including their school friends, is unsaved and is going to burn in hell. And the child will also burn in hell unless it takes the belief of the parent.

Should one be able to teach children whatever you feel like, no matter how destructive it may be?

Would you want TV being the main component of your child's learning experience concerning sex money or happiness? You don't have to answer that, I'm just raising an observation.

Ofcourse not, but there is more to this world than TV and Bibles.

Personally, I'd not teach my child to be an atheist or humanist. I'd rather teach him basic things, like kindness, justice, being trusting, being skeptical. And letting my child reach his own conclution. I'm not deluting myself by thinking I can void myself of afffecting the child in any way, but I'll not force him in any way.

On the contrary, I know a lot of kids don't even dare to tell their parents that they are atheist. And I know a lot of parents who teaches their religion as facts, and doesn't even allow the possibility for the child to not accept it as fact.

I don't want to sound like "LOL CHRISTIANITY SUCKS AND HUMANISTS ARE BETTER!" but, I don't see what a Christian can offer better in terms of child raising that a Hummanist cannot. Not to say that a hummanist can offer something Christianity cannot, but, it's rare for a hummanist to teach his child to hate others because they are gay, or to teach his child that evolution is a lie and that the earth is 6000 years old.

This may be true, but religion can never be a uniter when it's so limiting and unreasonable. For example, how is a Christian group which thinks being gay is a terrible sin ever going to unite everybody? The solution they present appears to be "they just have to stop being gay", which is laughable.

I can't speak for other churches, but mine recently sided with the gays in favor of government recognition.

And say then, me, who is an atheist, how would your church unite me? The only way that I can imagine is for them to say "you just have to stop being an atheist".

Two sides on every coin.

But it's still a coin, no matter what side you look at. As long as an group has an unresonable list over things that you can and cannot do to be part of the group, that group can never be an uniter. I mean, I love pork. That rules me out of Judadism and Islam right away. If I was gay, It would rule me out of most religions. Being an atheist, it does rule me out of religions.

How can religion be a uniter when it's basic premisis demands that everybody become like them? That's more like the Borg D:

Not all things needs to be like that.Imagine a grou that fights for freedom. Such a group, both a Christian and an atheist can join because it doesn't have stupid rules like "eat no pork" and stuff like that. THAT is a real uniter.

And I mean, who the heck can be proud of being a uniter when you are officially saying that people who aren't part of your group is going to burn in hell?

Yeah, or trying to unite Americans under the message of "God damn America".

<_<

It's rather ironical that they miss the irony.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 4/17/08 07:03 PM, Shaggytheclown17 wrote: WTF you guys, its a person's own fucking bisness if they want to be this or that,

And yet you condemn homosexuals. Ha!

[poxpower]

Well it would be super-fun to tell them all about how you can make religious kids ask their parents really hard questions. You kid doesn't care, just tell him "hey if you have religious friends, ask them this and that etc."
Of course eventually they'll find out you're not religious and then find out your kid isn't either and they'll distance themselves and distrust you because there's nothing more ignorant and intolerant of other people than a religious person.

Anyways a good thing you can teach him is to always ask questions. Always question what people say, always ask yourself why you should believe them and then do your own research. He won't get it when he's 8 years old but as he grows up, he might spread it around.

[Slizor]

Children's upbringing is more problematic for atheists, agnostics and other secularists. Any atheist who abhors religious indoctrination of children, is painfully aware that it would be just as bad to raise your children as atheists.

I wouldn't have a problem. It's not indoctrination to raise your kids not to believe in UFOs, it's not indoctrination to raise your kids not to believe in the yeti. It could only be considered indoctrination if what you are teaching your children is a belief and atheism is not a belief, it's a lack of belief.

I'm not saying I would push my views, but I wouldn't avoid the subject if my kids asked and even if I did slightly push my views it wouldn't be quite the same as religious intdoctrination (y'know, with the whole book, church and celebration thing.)

[zoolrule]

Well i don't know about you, but i was raised in absolutely objective way, even though my mother believes in god, not even ONCE my parents ever discussed and convinced me about their opinion of god and for this i thank my parents a lot - not making me a religious fool. because i know that if you are born to it, it's easy to get out.

Raising children in Atheist way is worse than religious way? With that i completely disagree with you, because like many people before said, Atheist is not a religion, it's not something you are. it's something you are NOT. it doesnt teach you a way, you aren't obligated to some ridiculous god.
Atheist - Not theist. It just denies that believe of god, which i think is awesome thing.

[AapoJoki]

At 4/18/08 06:31 AM, Slizor wrote: I wouldn't have a problem. It's not indoctrination to raise your kids not to believe in UFOs, it's not indoctrination to raise your kids not to believe in the yeti.

I didn't really consider it that way, to be honest. But here's the problem: it's not like you're going to spend the first 10 years of your child's life telling him every day that there is no Yeti. "Look kid, Yeti doesn't exist. In this family, we don't believe in Yeti, and you can't, either." If nothing else, it would be at least a very weird way of parenting. I don't want any atheists to talk that way about God either. You're not going to teach your child about the non-existence of Yeti or UFOs, unless he or she asks you, so you might as well remain silent about God too.

While it's true that God may not be any more likely than these mythical creatures, the real dilemma is the question of death and afterlife. At what age is a child old enough to cope with the information that one day they'll have to disappear completely from existence? Telling that to a child would be a million times worse than telling them that there's no Santa Claus. Of course I wouldn't want my children to live in a false sense of security, either.

It could only be considered indoctrination if what you are teaching your children is a belief and atheism is not a belief, it's a lack of belief.

You can make it a dogmatic belief, if you talk about it to your children obsessively.

I'm not saying I would push my views, but I wouldn't avoid the subject if my kids asked and even if I did slightly push my views it wouldn't be quite the same as religious intdoctrination (y'know, with the whole book, church and celebration thing.)

Well I wouldn't avoid the subject either if my children asked about it, but I would not express my views any sooner than that.

If your child asks you "Is there a God?", would you simply reply "no" with the same confidence as if you had just been asked, "Is there a Yeti"? From my perspective, that seems a bit too definitive. On the other hand, if you add a disclaimer, such as "No one knows for sure, but I don't believe that there is one", it would sound like an appropriate answer about God, but slightly crazy if asked about Yeti. I don't know why, really.

[ABsoldier17]

At 4/17/08 06:56 PM, Suaron wrote:

At 4/17/08 06:15 PM, AapoJoki wrote: By the way, the topic title is misleading. I think this is how everyone should raise their children, even religious people. Don't take your children to the Church or the Sunday school. Children's upbringing shouldn't include religious views (even negative ones) any more than it should include political views. The best way to teach your children about these things is to wait until they ask you.

their religion commands otherwise. An obediant Christian cannot do that. And I don't knw why they would anyway considering their child's salvation may be at stake.

Wow 2 people who dont know what they're talking about. I find the right way to raise children is with rules, and when those rules are broken spankings occur.
If you don't pass you ideals on to you kids what was the point? You basically fed, and housed them for 18 to 20 years without imparting a little bit of your knowlege or beliefs. If you don't raise a kid in concordance with your values or beliefs then how do you know he/she will make the right decisions? You don't, because with passive parenting you two seem to endorse, what will happen is the child will start acting more like the kid next door, simply because that kid is a stronger influence. Now if you want to raise a child with atheist/agnostic values thats fine, but you need reenforce your beliefs or else you've missed one of the most important parts of parenting.
You need to pass on strong values in order to have strong children.... If you don't you end up with spineless sons, and slutty daughters.

[AapoJoki]

At 4/18/08 08:59 AM, ABsoldier17 wrote: If you don't raise a kid in concordance with your values or beliefs then how do you know he/she will make the right decisions?

Teach your children how to think critically and independently, teach them how to use reason and logic instead of choosing to think or behave simply based on what is "cool".

You don't, because with passive parenting you two seem to endorse, what will happen is the child will start acting more like the kid next door, simply because that kid is a stronger influence.

It's not that hard to tell a child not to jump off the cliff, even if all of his friends did.

You need to pass on strong values in order to have strong children.... If you don't you end up with spineless sons, and slutty daughters.

I never meant to suggest raising your children in a valueless environment. Of course you can tell your child that teenage sex is dangerous. Of course you can tell them that they shouldn't drink alcohol until they're old enough. Of course you can teach them to be tolerant, not to be racist and not to laugh at retards. Of course you can set them boundaries, even strict ones. I just don't see why religion would have to be part of any of this. If you have to resort to a higher authority to keep your children in line, then you're being a spineless parent.

[JackPhantasm]

So I read the entire OP and agree word for word basically.

Your views are that god exist, but certainly your views are also that other people's views are worthwhile, certainly your kids.

[poxpower]

At 4/18/08 07:58 AM, AapoJoki wrote:

At what age is a child old enough to cope with the information that one day they'll have to disappear completely from existence?

That's a really tough thing for a kid to understand. It will usually come up on tv, or from a familiy member dying or other such thing. I'd say that about age 6-7, any kid will know...
To hide that fact is the only reason I would lie to them about God, but how long could you keep that going while you also tell your kid to be skeptical, you know?

If your child asks you "Is there a God?", would you simply reply "no" with the same confidence as if you had just been asked, "Is there a Yeti"?

How about "if there is one, he doesn't care about us".

[JackPhantasm]

At 4/18/08 09:42 AM, poxpower wrote:
How about "if there is one, he doesn't care about us".

You're not being serious right.

Right.

[Drakim]

At 4/18/08 12:51 PM, LazyDrunk wrote:

At 4/18/08 04:01 AM, Drakim wrote:

That's not the typical American Christian upbringing :/

Most Americans don't believe in evolution. Source
Most Americans believes "homosexual activity or sex" is harmful. source

I'm sure I could post a long list of such things, but you get my point.

For every firebreathing preacher you find on youtube, you'll find 100 altruistic and passionate christians in the real world.

But when Christians are polled, they tend to show opinions that are less than tolerant. When somebody says that "anybody who isn't like us is going to burn in hell when they die" (which I'm positive most Christians believe, as it is basic Christian doctrine), then how can you call them tolerant? By accepting Jesus, you are a Christian. If you don't accept Jesus, you will burn in hell. That means, if you aren't a Christian, you burn in hell. Are we operating on different definitions of the word here?

From what I see, Christians wants a loving and caring image, because that's how Jesus was, but the reality has never ever reflected it. For every Christian that thinks it's okay to be different, to not be a Christian, you'll find 100 Christians who wants to tell you about Jesus (to make you a Christian too). Tolerance is about accepting people like they are, not trying to shape them in your image.

But, for all non-Christians, Biblical characters are just the work of fiction. Jesus wansn't the son of God, Moses didn't talk to a burning bush, etc.

And you're wrong in saying that non-christians view biblical characters as fiction.

I think you must have mistyped, or misread what I said. I'll repeat it.
Non-Christians do not believe in Biblical characters are they are presented.

Non-religious folk do that, but they wouldn't believe in nuclear power unless they could touch a core rod.

That's just ignorant to say. It's like me saying you don't believe in Zeus because you haven't been struck my lighting yet.

You can, and should. You'd be doing a great service to humanity. Many christian groups create just such fictional works, all in the name of grace and goodwill.

I disagree. I find the quest for truth a lot more noble than the quest for grace and goodwill. Hitler was trying to do the "right thing" too you know. The "right thing" to do is subjective depending on who you ask. Truth is not. Even though people disagree on what is true, there can only be one truth, by definition.

Being christian is something you need to be true to yourself with, if you can't find christly love, you probably aren't trying hard enough.

So, I'm not a Christian simply because I'm lazy and haven't tried enough? If I'd just search really hard for the truth, I will end up a Christian?

To see that before God's own child was sacrificed on the cross, he was a wrathful and jealous God.

I'm liking Christianity less and less really. Death and sacrifices, wrath and rightful jealousy is not things that should be shown to the kid for the "good guys". I'd rather teach my children moral stories which doesn't involve somebody having to die to set things straight, or somebody killing and raping in the name of good.

True. I take a lot more issues with things like circumcision.

More sanitary (science yay).

Yeah, but it's still a permanent change. We don't use the ear flip (the lower part of your outer ear) for anything. But like any body part, it can get infected. Should we cut it off?

Circumcision is a bit too permanent for my tastes to force on a child. It's no different form giving the child a tattoo that cannot be removed.

But lastly, it's bullshit. When a jewish family gets a child circumcised, it's not because it's more sanitarian. That's a positive side effect, not the reason.

However, I know some religions, once you are in, you aren't allowed to get out. Even after you leave the religious community, they still keep you on their list of members (which does in fact break the human rights).

If you know of these religions, why don't you report them? That's fucking sick if you aren't allowed out. Who are they?

Mormons do this, and Catholics used to do it.

Heck, according to the Quran, Muslims must kill anybody who deconverts.

I don't know what your point is. You think the majority of christians believe everyone's gunna burn in hell.

Yes, I do. I've really yet to see anything to tell me otherwise, be it polls or people. There are a lot of Christians who belive Jesus saved everybody, but I'm afraid not the majority of Christians.

You aren't going to change your opinion of that, even if I told you I've never honestly encountered such a thing that you hold as true.

Show me some evidence, like a poll, that shows otherwise, and I'll change my mind this minute.

Should someone be able to tell you what you can and can't teach your kids?

Yes, because some things are considered child abuse to teach your kids. I would not accept that a parent taught their child that they are worthless scum who doesn't deserve to live. Such a parent is unfit to raise a child, no different from a parent that hits his/her child.

Ofcourse not, but there is more to this world than TV and Bibles.

Yes, indeed. But televisions are more prolific than even the bible. If not X, then Y.

If not X, then Z, A, B or whatever at the moment. There is no natural follow-up so that if you miss the Bible, you go to the TV.

I agree with you for the most part here. I do believe force is necessary in extreme situations however. I was raised with a similar mindset as what you've just described, but as I've gotten older I'm thankful for about half the times I was 'forced' into something. Like piano practice or singing for old people on holidays.

You just implied it's not rare for Christians to teach their kids to hate others... wow. Do you have such a narrow view of everything else in the world as well? If you do, I won't waste any more of my time tossing pebbles down the well.

Christians are not known to be tolerant. You might disagree, but I think this is pretty self evident. Imagine that you find out that you are gay, at the age of 14. This can be quite hard, as a lot of children at school might attack you for it. You might lose some friends if it goes public. Heck, even some grownups might treat you disrespectfully for it, despite you being a child. All this over something you can't help anymore than your skin color.

Do you think having Christian parents will help such a situation or worsen it? Be completely honest. Will the child have a harder or easier time with being gay if the parents are Christian, compared to say, atheist?

And say then, me, who is an atheist, how would your church unite me? The only way that I can imagine is for them to say "you just have to stop being an atheist".

You need to choose to be saved. If you want a loving community you could share Christ's love in, my church is for you. We meet a few times a month and enj

So, I just have to change what I am to be united with everybody. This still sounds like the Borg. D:

How can religion be a uniter when it's basic premisis demands that everybody become like them?

If you don't believe the premise, how does that effect you? You have said religion is unfair. How is it any more unfair than being born into an industrialized nation? At least with church, you aren't forced to tithe or threatened with jail time

For example, I'm right now making a group called "The group for goodness". The only premiss for joining this group is that you want to promote goodness. We don't force you to belive in any God, force to you give up any food, have any selected sexuality, or anything like that.

Can Christianity offer the same thing? To join you in promoting goodness with your group, I have to start believing in God, believe that Jesus was his son, believe he died for my sins, etc. I can't see how anybody could argue that religion unites when it demands this.

[Memorize]

I love how Drakim continues to pretend as if he knows anything about religion in general.

It's laughable.

[Drakim]

At 4/18/08 02:24 PM, Memorize wrote: I love how Drakim continues to pretend as if he knows anything about religion in general.

It's laughable.

Sigh. The Memorize we all know and love ;)

[Memorize]

At 4/18/08 02:49 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/18/08 02:24 PM, Memorize wrote: I love how Drakim continues to pretend as if he knows anything about religion in general.

It's laughable.

Sigh. The Memorize we all know and love ;)

Here. Let's play a little game.

Your "lack of" belief is too unreasonable. It's ignorant and unfair.

You mean to tell me that regardless of what you do in your life, whether or not you're a good and honest working person, that you'll die and end up in the same place as the murdering, rapist, child molestor?

What a truely sick and depraved, and not to mention completely illogical, view you have.

You disgust me.

[poxpower]

boo hoo memorize can't accept that Karma doesn't exist.

Stop watching "My Name is Earl" like it was a documentary.

[Drakim]

At 4/18/08 03:20 PM, Memorize wrote:

At 4/18/08 02:49 PM, Drakim wrote:

At 4/18/08 02:24 PM, Memorize wrote: I love how Drakim continues to pretend as if he knows anything about religion in general.

It's laughable.

Sigh. The Memorize we all know and love ;)

Here. Let's play a little game.

Yes, let's do that. ;)

Your "lack of" belief is too unreasonable. It's ignorant and unfair.

Lack of belief in God is as ignorant and unfair as lack of belief in goblins.

HOW DARE YOU NOT BELIEVE IN GOBLINS?

You mean to tell me that regardless of what you do in your life, whether or not you're a good and honest working person, that you'll die and end up in the same place as the murdering, rapist, child molestor?

You mean to tell me that an atheist grandma who loves her grandchildren and bakes them cookies is going to get the same punishment as Hitler?

What a truely sick and depraved, and not to mention completely illogical, view you have.

Here, you are suggesting that if something is unfair, it's illogical. Explain this please.

You disgust me.

Everybody who doesn't think that the Bible is the direct perfect word of God disgusts you. It's not that big of a loss.

[Memorize]

At 4/18/08 03:27 PM, Drakim wrote:

Yes, let's do that. ;)

I've already won.

Lack of belief in God is as ignorant and unfair as lack of belief in goblins.

So it's unfair that you lack a belief in a god?

I couldn't agree more.

You mean to tell me that an atheist grandma who loves her grandchildren and bakes them cookies is going to get the same punishment as Hitler?

Of course, only someone who has no biblical or general religious knowledge would believe such nonsense.

Everybody who doesn't think that the Bible is the direct perfect word of God disgusts you. It's not that big of a loss.

You do realize that i've expressed multiple times on this forum that I hate it when people seem to think only their religion means anything. You know, the "convert or go to hell" crowd.

Of course, if you had any knowledge of the Christian religion, the bible more specifically, at all, then you would also realize that God labels several people outside 'the faith' as being righteous.

The point: They were righteous because they did the best with what they had.

Congradulations.