# Is it fair/right to bring up a child in a religion?



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

As the question: I would not do it, I object very strongly to having been brought up in a religion, having been schooled in a single sex religious school etc. In my opinion, children should be allowed to make their own choices when old enough. I think it's wrong to impose your personal choices on a child that will then impact on their entire lives. 

Thoughts?


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

I was brought up going to church, but always made aware that there are other beliefs, and my choices were my own. Religion isn't bad, people are bad.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

This is going to be a controversial thread! 

I was brought up non-religious. I was not christened, neither was my sister, and I will definitely not be christening any children I have.

I've nothing against Christianity, but if my kids want to practice it then they'll make their own minds up. I'm not doing it for them.


----------



## Amelia66 (Feb 15, 2011)

i was brought up in a sorta religious background, my school was also religious. At the end of the day tho i made up my own mind on what i believe now. I think it depends on what religious background you have, but those who have been brought up in a religion, and then go on to believe in that religion the up bringing is beneficial for them as its something they will use when older. 

Depends on the person i guess is what im saying, and the religion to some degree.


----------



## Space Chick (Dec 10, 2011)

My Mum was a Sunday School Teacher and my Dad was a preacher.... So I'll let you guess if I had a religious upbringing or not 

What it taught me was a sense of doing good deeds and being kind to other people.

Whilst I believe in God and an afterlife, I do not follow any organised religion as an adult. Who's to say which religion is right. So I respect and value people whether they are Christian, Muslim, Buddist etc etc.


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

I was not bought up religious.

I guess for as long as the parents are not fanatics (is that right?) it does not matter in my mind, I have known both religious and non-religious people, some are lovely some are not in both examples.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> I was brought up going to church, but always made aware that there are other beliefs, and my choices were my own. Religion isn't bad, people are bad.


I think that this is the best way. To my mind not to bring up a child in any trillion is as bad as fringing them up bigoted. By refusing to acknowledge a faith, you have already made the choice for them as much as if you insisted that they worship as a Christian, Moslem to anything else.

An awareness of God, with the freedom to question and choose.


----------



## Hanwombat (Sep 5, 2013)

Yes I agree, nobody should be forced too. I don't believe in religion and I was bought up non-religious, never blessed, christened etc, nor were my parents and siblings.

I actually hate it when people knock on my door trying to force me to go to one of their religious readings etc, I don't think they should be allowed to do that! and when you try and nicely say that you're not interested they then ask why etc etc...

If I see them wondering about now, I know to avoid answering the door.

Perhaps I should walk and knock on their door all the time.


----------



## Sleeping_Lion (Mar 19, 2009)

lostbear said:


> I think that this is the best way. To my mind not to bring up a child in any trillion is as bad as fringing them up bigoted. By refusing to acknowledge a faith, you have already made the choice for them as much as if you insisted that they worship as a Christian, Moslem to anything else.
> 
> An awareness of God, with the freedom to question and choose.


The only thing I'd amend is the awareness of *a* God.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

If children aren't taught about religion, how can they choose to follow one or not?

My dad's family are Jewish, my mums side Catholic.

My dad was raised CofE and my mother was raised Methodist. I was christened in a Methodist Chapel. Went to Methodist sunday school, brownies and guides. Same with my own children. I was never pressured at all and told my own daughters from a very early age they could choose.

I liked the look of nuns when I was a child...saw Sound of Music and Nuns Story and decided this was a life for me.for a while.lol.

Decided to be Catholic for a while.My dad just raised an eye brow but said nothing.

My daughters all went Jewish for a while. I said nothing. It stopped.

We all believe in God...thats it.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Sleeping_Lion said:


> Religion isn't bad, people are bad.


Didn't say it was and that's not my point in this thread. I was discussing piercing babies' ears and imposing what a parent wants on a child who is too young to object.


----------



## Jenna500 (May 27, 2012)

Its a difficult one. My ex-husband was brought up a Jehovah's Witness and it screwed him up right royally. But if you have that deep, all-abiding belief in a religion, you're going to want to bring your children up in it, aren't you?

Me, I'm a witch (or pagan or wiccan, whatever you want to call me). My kids know what I believe, but my attitude is that the best way is for them to discover their own path.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

lostbear said:


> To my mind not to bring up a child in any trillion is as bad as fringing them up bigoted. By refusing to acknowledge a faith, you have already made the choice for them as much as if you insisted that they worship as a Christian, Moslem to anything else.


Think I managed to translate that... that's how I end up typing if I try and use an iPad! 

Not sure I necessarily agree though. As I said, I grew up non-religious. My father in particular is extremely aware of religion - he's read the Bible cover to cover, he's lived in the Holy Land (where do you think my name came from?). But he simply does not believe in a particular religion and did not raise his children to do so.

Yet I am a kind, honest and morally proficient human being who respects religions without having any part in them.

ETA: changed my Dad from 'was' to 'is'... dunno where that came from, he's still alive lol.


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2014)

Space Chick said:


> My Mum was a Sunday School Teacher and my Dad was a preacher....
> 
> What it taught me was a sense of doing good deeds and being kind to other people.


My dad was a welder and my mum worked in a petrol station and neither are religious...still live life by the last bit though...


----------



## Space Chick (Dec 10, 2011)

jon bda said:


> My dad was a welder and my mum worked in a petrol station and neither are religious...still live life by the last bit though...


Are you an old car fanatic though


----------



## jenniferx (Jan 23, 2009)

I wasn't christened - which was quite radical in 80's Northern Ireland. I was raised with faintly christian beliefs- we never went to church and I don't remember ever actually discussing it with my parents. My secondary school had a Methodist heritage and Christianity did feature quite heavily. The school had it's own Chapel and minister, assembly with prayers and hymns every morning and compulsory RE lessons till 18. I also went on to do RE a level. I was an atheist then as I am now and to be honest being surrounded with the Christian ethos and all of that stuff wasn't really a problem for me. I certainly don't think it harmed me in anyway. I quite like that I know all the hymns :lol: 

It's funny really because whilst there were a few people I can think of that were obviously influenced by their family (baptist daughter that sort of thing) many were also very independently minded. I had a close friend and she became very religious although her family definitely weren't. 

I think that there is no such thing as a value free upbringing and provided you don't use it negatively- ie: wielding control, I don't think it's too bad. Suppose it depends on the religion, depends on the way in which it's used.


----------



## Fluffster (Aug 26, 2013)

I was brought up non-religious and like to think I'm a decent person! 

I think it's important children are aware and tolerant of other religions, but it's my personal preference that I would not take a young child to church, I would rather they did their own research when they reached an appropriate age - there is plenty of information out there - and decided what they should believe for themselves. I don't think you need to *be* a religion to be tolerant of others, or even believe in a god. I would hope that any children that are taken to church are free to decide if they want to go when they reach the age to make that decision, and allowed to make their own choices without pressure.

I would class myself as a humanist - I believe in the good of people, not any divine being. And that means I treat people with respect and tolerance, even if their beliefs don't align with mine - as long as those beliefs are not harmful or hurtful to others.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

Well, I personally wouldn't do it. I would hate to have my children Christian (example) and they then turn out and want to go for another religion.

My mum never got me baptised as she wanted us to make our own decisions.

I believe in God but not so open to the concept of religion though. I respect other people's beliefs though.


----------



## Fleur (Jul 19, 2008)

I think as long as the parents aren't fanatical then I don't see why not.
Bringing up kids non-religious in my mind is the same as bringing them up religious in that the parents are making a choice.

To be truly fair the parents should fully educate their children in all religions and non-religion and I don't think that is practical or achievable for most.
However I do think all children should be taught the basics about all religions enough to enable them to be understanding and tolerant.

My grandmother was religious, she played organ for her local church but none of her children were Christianed (sp) she felt it was up to them to make a commitment to God if they choose to do so once old enough - 2 of my Aunties were babtized, my mother and her other sister were not.

By choosing to be Athiest my kids have been bought up as such - but I have tried to explain various religions to them and encourage tolerance and understanding, I always let them know they could attend church if they wanted. None of them have ever shown an interest in religion in fact my son refused to say the full scouts pledge because he couldn't make a vow to a God he didn't believe in and he felt it disrepectful to those who did believe.


----------



## Spellweaver (Jul 17, 2009)

I've never had children, so this will be hypothetical. However, I imagine that if I had had children I would have brought them up to have the same values that I have, across the board, including religion. Providing you bring children up correctly, part of that upbringing is teaching them to think for themselves - I don't see why religious beliefs should be any different.

I do not follow the religion I was brought up in, and neither does my OH. Both of us were, however, taught how to think and how to make choices - much more important in all walks of life.


----------



## MontyMaude (Feb 23, 2012)

I think it's the parents choice to bring up their child in their own faith, it would be strange if the parents went off to worship and left their children out, I was brought up C of E whilst I no longer believe, I don't resent the fact I was brought up to believe I actually enjoyed going to Sunday School and learning about the Bible Stories as to me they were just like Fairy Stories. I envy people their faiths in a lot of ways in that it must be so comforting to have such a belief in a god.


----------



## redroses2106 (Aug 21, 2011)

I don't see a problem if religious parents bring their children up teaching about their religion - it's kind of inevitable, how could a religious family not bring religion into their childs up bringing, I do think there are issues if the family is completely fanatical and extremely strict about it but so long as the child is not being physically or mentally harmed or abused then I think religion can have it's place in some families 

I was brought up non religious by non religious parents, but still enjoyed learning about it at school, and was open to different ideas - I actually went through a very holy phase when I was about 5-6 and would make every one say grace before dinner, and my parents just let me get on with it, they didn't try to make me stop because they didn't believe, and I think that's the important thing, yes bring up the child as you see fit, but if they don't believe then that's ok just as if they do then that's ok to, you shouldn't force your beliefs but you can try to teach them.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

i think its utterly wrong to bring up a child in a religion, but lets face it, if you dont indoctrinate people into a religion at a very young age you're probably never going to be able to convince them.

The whole point is to instill blind faith before they are old enough to think things through properly for themselves- while they still look to you and only you (parents) for guidance and still trust that all you say is factual.

I think that indoctrinating young impressionable minds is the only way a religion can perpetuate itself on any kind of significant scale.



Fleur said:


> Bringing up kids non-religious in my mind is the same as bringing them up religious in that the parents are making a choice.


How is saying to a child "we dont know" the same as saying "this story for which there is absolutely zero evidence is definately true". It's not remotely the same.


----------



## Milliepoochie (Feb 13, 2011)

Didn't do my husband any harm.

If a Mum and dad cannot bring their child up to appreciate a religion they share its a sad world.


----------



## chissy 15 (Mar 13, 2013)

I wasn't brought up regularly going to church or anything although I was christened and I haven't forced religion on my kids. What they know about religion they learnt at school. But I do believe in having values and think they are very important to live by. I taught both my kids values and hope they choose to live by them to be better people in society


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

I'll change the viewpoint a bit... 

Who is to dictate if it is right for another parent to follow their beliefs? Isn't this a slippery slope where others dictate what isn't acceptable according to their own morality? Surely if you say it's not right for a child, you are also saying it is fundamentally wrong.. Aren't you doing exactly the same as the parents.. forcing your views onto children?

It's a slippery slope.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

I'd be surprised if a parent did not bring up their child in their religion. I think with most religions it is expected, surely?

I was brought up as Christian, by lightweight Christian parents (christenings, weddings, funerals, etc.). 

I grew up to be Agnostic.

My OH is Atheist.

Neither of us imposed our views on our son and encouraged him to be tolerant of peoples' differences.

My son went to a Christian school - he decided quite early on that he is an Atheist.


----------



## Royoyo (Feb 21, 2013)

I do not think it's right but then who am I to judge other people on how they raise their children. 

My Mum and Dad are both religious (especially my Mum) but I was never forced into any religion, was also never christened. I like the way my Mum and Dad let me decide what I believe in, that's how it should be.

Personally I am not religious at all.


----------



## Rosie64 (Feb 27, 2014)

I was bought up C of E was baptised went to Sunday school read the bible from cover to cover (makes a good novel there's a bit of everything in there) had prayers at school etc I stopped doing all these things when I was a young teenager with the consent of my parents as I didn't believe in it and I raised my children to make their own choices taught them about as many religions as I could and that they didn't have to have any religion if they didn't want to but that they should respect the beliefs of those that do and that if they treat everyone else the way that they would like to treated they won't go far wrong


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

its 100% fair in my opinion


----------



## Colliebarmy (Sep 27, 2012)

Lurcherlad said:


> I grew up to be Agnostic.
> 
> My OH is Atheist.
> 
> My son went to a Christian school - he decided quite early on that he is an Atheist.


Christmas must be fun at your house....


----------



## Guest (May 8, 2014)

Its very much a personal choice for each parent IMO. As a parent, I want a say in the values I instill in my children. For example, it is very important to me that my children have a deep respect and admiration for animals and the environment. To that end I have exposed them to a life with animals, with much outside time enjoying mother nature, as well as a lot leading by example on our part.

However, there is a fine line between exposing a child to something and indoctrination. The essence of religious indoctrination is faith, which is basically belief without questioning. 
Porps nails it:


porps said:


> lets face it, if you dont indoctrinate people into a religion at a very young age you're probably never going to be able to convince them.
> 
> The whole point is to instill blind faith before they are old enough to think things through properly for themselves- while they still look to you and only you (parents) for guidance and still trust that all you say is factual.


Think about it, if you tell a grown adult that part of your rituals are to eat wafers of pseudo bread pretending thats your gods body and drink wine pretending thats your gods blood, they would think you were nuts. But a child will take it all in wide eyed just like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Except when the kid starts cottoning on to the whole Santa thing we accept it as part of growing up and developing reason. Not quite the same with religion....


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

chissy 15 said:


> But I do believe in having values and think they are very important to live by. I taught both my kids values and hope they choose to live by them to be better people in society


This ^^ Religion is not necessary to live life in a way which helps and supports others and promotes values, making you a good person.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

jenniferx said:


> I think that there is no such thing as a value free upbringing and provided you don't use it negatively- ie: wielding control, I don't think it's too bad.


I like this bit. I can't see how religious people can not want to share their experience with their children, or how the child wouldn't notice it. The bit I think is not fair is the undue influence of a particular religion in the primary schools I have been involved with.


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

cinnamontoast said:


> As the question: I would not do it, I object very strongly to having been brought up in a religion, having been schooled in a single sex religious school etc. In my opinion, children should be allowed to make their own choices when old enough. I think it's wrong to impose your personal choices on a child that will then impact on their entire lives.
> 
> Thoughts?


I have two daughters and a son who has learning difficulties and doesn't understand a lot of things. I raised them all the same - make up your own mind. My eldest went and signed up for confirmation classes at the age of 13, which meant she also had to get baptised. The vicar came to visit, quite amazed that he hadn't seen us at all yet our daughter had done this on her own. She is still quite religious. My youngest daughter had the same opportunity but she doesn't believe at all. When the children were small and I told a friend who is Roman Catholic that they had not been baptised, she was horrified and said that as Ian didn't understand I should have him baptised, like 'just in case'. What sort of belief is that? I better do it just in case I'm wrong is not really my idea of what it is all about.

As it happens, he has the simplest and most sincere faith of all of them - he knows his dad is in Heaven talking to Elvis. He doesn't just hope, or think he might be - he knows


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Its very much a personal choice for each parent IMO. As a parent, I want a say in the values I instill in my children. For example, it is very important to me that my children have a deep respect and admiration for animals and the environment. To that end I have exposed them to a life with animals, with much outside time enjoying mother nature, as well as a lot leading by example on our part.
> 
> However, there is a fine line between exposing a child to something and indoctrination. The essence of religious indoctrination is faith, which is basically belief without questioning.
> Porps nails it:
> Think about it, if you tell a grown adult that part of your rituals are to eat wafers of pseudo bread pretending thats your gods body and drink wine pretending thats your gods blood, they would think you were nuts. But a child will take it all in wide eyed just like Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy. Except when the kid starts cottoning on to the whole Santa thing we accept it as part of growing up and developing reason. Not quite the same with religion....


If that were true, there would not be nearly so many adult converts to catholicism, which is the faith you are describing. There are a lot and they blindly believe the transubstantion, despite being adults. They don't think they are being told a fairy tale, they believe it. There are a lot of converts from one religion to another, JWs spring to mind. Many people will convert to different religions as adults.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Jenna500 said:


> Its a difficult one.* My ex-husband was brought up a Jehovah's Witness and it screwed him up right royally.* But if you have that deep, all-abiding belief in a religion, you're going to want to bring your children up in it, aren't you?
> 
> Me, I'm a witch (or pagan or wiccan, whatever you want to call me). My kids know what I believe, but my attitude is that the best way is for them to discover their own path.


I think this says it all - JH's (as I understand it, and I apologise if I offend anyone) are one of the sections of society that think they have all of the answers, when TBH, I don't think that we even have all of the questions.

Any faith which is deeply dogmatic, discourages (Or outright forbids) and questioning of values, and demonises people because of their race, colour,creed, gender or sexual orientation is a faith that I don't want to be part of, and hope my children won't either.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

porps said:


> i think its utterly wrong to bring up a child in a religion, but lets face it, if you dont* indoctrinate *people into a religion at a very young age you're probably never going to be able to convince them.
> 
> The whole point is to instill blind faith before they are old enough to think things through properly for themselves- while they still look to you and only you (parents) for guidance and still trust that all you say is factual.
> 
> ...


Indoctrination and teaching aren't the same thing - and do you not think that atheism can be just as in doctrinal (Is that a word? You know what I mean.)

"We don't know" is not atheism - it is agnosticism. Atheism can be as fervent as some religious faiths. I never say "this is true" - I say "this is what I believe to be true".


----------



## newfiesmum (Apr 21, 2010)

lostbear said:


> Indoctrination and teaching aren't the same thing - and do you not think that atheism can be just as in doctrinal (Is that a word? You know what I mean.)
> 
> "We don't know" is not atheism - it is agnosticism. Atheism can be as fervent as some religious faiths. I never say "this is true" - I say "this is what I believe to be true".


You never said a truer word! People who mock others for their beliefs because they have none, and they must be right, are worse than any religious fanatic. I think they must have had some trauma concerning religion to be so fervently against it. It is, in fact, that very attitude that has caused all the bloodshed in the name of religion, not the religion itself. It is the "I am right and everyone who doesn't agree with me doesn't deserve to live" doctrine that causes all the trouble. It is only very insecure people who behave like that.


----------



## ClaireandDaisy (Jul 4, 2010)

Why are so many people so exercised about what other people do? Have we turned into a nation of interfering nannies? 
People bring their kids up in the best way they can, as a rule. Then the kids get to teenage and reject it all. It`s nature`s way......


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

My father was atheist and my mom was Christian (Anglican). I attended Sunday school etc until my mom gave up on the both of us (my Dad and I). I consider myself an atheist, but not a strident/shouty one. I believe in complete freedom of religious (or no) beliefs. I never get into arguments about religion with deeply religious people (unless they are trying to convert me ) because I believe their beliefs bring comfort and joy to them and I have no right to "judge" them (it is none of my business anyway).
I do agree that some practicers (?) of atheism can be as bad and intolerant as the worst thundering bible-bashers (Stephen Dawkins being a case in point). I cringe when people like that give atheism a bad name, I suppose as a moderate Christian/Jew/Moslem would cringe at some of the things their religious leaders and followers get up to/do.
AS for children, millions have been brought up in a "religion" and most of them turned out OK. I hope that religious psychoses in a home are the exception rather than the norm.


----------



## foxiesummer (Feb 4, 2009)

I was brought up C of E, went to Sunday school and church but it was never 'forced down my throat'. I have no problem with any religion my gripe is when people force their religious beliefs on me making out their way is the only way.


----------



## grumpy goby (Jan 18, 2012)

Im an agnostic Atheist (Agnostism and atheism are not mutually exclusive - not believing is not the same as saying "there are definitely no gods" its just "I dont believe in any god")

I was raised christian, cant say it damaged me, but my parents are not "strict" or devout. I think the damage is done when kids are disowned for making their choice. So long as the freedom remains to walk away from faith without fear, then I see no harm. JH's suffer more, IMO, because they are discommunicated from everything they know if they walk away. The same happens in the bible belt in the US. This is oppressive and damaging behaviour.

I think the danger is that people say "so long as your not a fanatic its fine.." I doubt any fanatic THINKS they are fanatical. You be raised a christian, in a normal family, and turn out fine, or you can be raised by the Westborough Baptist church... I doubt the WBC members think they are harming their children. So it really is a difficult one.

If no one was raised in faith - I think most would die out pretty swiftly. 

If i were to have a child I wouldnt raise it an atheist. I wouldnt tell it "there is no god", but I wouldnt raise it in faith either. I would teach it about religions, give it freedom to choose, and see what happens. I would also teach it good manners, ethics and empathy - you dont need faith to be a good person.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

grumpy goby said:


> Im an agnostic Atheist (Agnostism and atheism are not mutually exclusive - not believing is not the same as saying "there are definitely no gods" its just "I dont believe in any god")
> 
> I was raised christian, cant say it damaged me, but my parents are not "strict" or devout. I think the damage is done when kids are disowned for making their choice. *So long as the freedom remains to walk away from faith without fear, *then I see no harm.
> 
> ...


*Actually, people are "hard-wired" to believe in a deity or deities (I'll have to see if I can find the psychological study - I was reading it just recently. If this weren't so, apart from anything else, societies the world over and in all times past and present would no have gods/goddesses - the fact that there has never been (as far as we are aware) an atheist society, shows this. BTW - I'm not shouting at you - I somehow got the bold type on and now I can't get rid of it! Sorry!

*People now often have different "gods" - these can be money, fame, a football team, even - I know this sounds facile, but the _need_ to believe in something is immensely powerful. It is said that when people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing - they believe in _anything_ - hence the passions for things like Reiki, crystal therapies etc. I believe that these things work for many people - good luck to them - but for myself I do believe in God and that Jesus Christ came to earth to bring mankind to God, and bring creation to completion. God is there waiting and willing - it's people that are the problem.

I have experienced moments of what I can only term "transcendence" - I know many people will think that I am just loopy - fine by me.

To me God is a wholly loving, sustaining, creative force responsible for the universe and all that is in it. I don't know how - big bang sounds as good a way as any for God to achieve divine ends - but that is my belief. I also do not believe that God is male - or female. God just IS.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Indoctrination and teaching aren't the same thing - and do you not think that atheism can be just as in doctrinal (Is that a word? You know what I mean.)
> 
> "We don't know" is not atheism - it is agnosticism. Atheism can be as fervent as some religious faiths. I never say "this is true" - I say "this is what I believe to be true".


Completely wrong.
You can be an agnostic theist or an agnostic atheist.

Theism and atheism are strictly and only about _belief,_ specifically belief in god or gods. Gnosticism and agnosticsm relate to knowledge.

The agnostic theist says "i believe but i do not know"
The agnostic atheist says "i dont believe but i do not know"
The gnostic theist says "i believe in a god, and i know it exists"
The gnostic atheist says "i dont believe in a god and i know there is no such thing"

It's not an uncommon mistake to make, but it's still a mistake.

Unlike a religion, atheism is not organized under a common doctrine (belief system). The only shared opinion among atheists is the nonexistence of a deity.



> "We should teach children how to think, not what to think" - Margaret Mead


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> To me God is a wholly loving, sustaining, creative force responsible for the universe and all that is in it.


"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins.

i do not see how anyone who has actually read the bible could honestly come to the conclusion that god is wholly loving, i really dont.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I think it's fine as long as they're made aware of other religions and raised to be tolerant and can choose whether or not they want to be a part of it once old enough. I was baptised but that was about the extent of my religious upbringing, it was my own choice to go to that church when I was older.

If the children are raised by the superior atheist/evolution type, they could easily be as intolerant as someone brought up by a deeply religious family. You know the sort, haha look at the stupid religious people. A minority of atheists of course just as the really fanatical religious people are a minority.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Colliebarmy said:


> Christmas must be fun at your house....


As for lots of people, Christmas to us has nothing to do with religion


----------



## Zaros (Nov 24, 2009)

porps said:


> The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins.
> 
> i do not see how anyone who has actually read the bible could honestly come to the conclusion that god is wholly loving, i really dont.


Encore! Encore!

I'd like to Rep You for the above post.

Unfortunately you'll have to wait until I'm on the main computer because my tablet thingy won't allow me to for some unknown reason. :sad:


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

porps said:


> The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins.
> 
> i do not see how anyone who has actually read the bible could honestly come to the conclusion that god is wholly loving, i really dont.


That's like quoting the edl on Islam .

However, what Dawkins and his worshippers forget is that pesky new agreement that Jesus made. You know the one about respect others, forgive those who wrong you etc. Of course there are plenty of Christians that forget those bits too. But I'm not going to take the word of someone who, on a programme talking about how our morality would be affected had religion not existed, took the extreme ends of the spectrum the american purity cults, Muslim girls having their hymens sowed back up so they bled on their wedding nights etc and tried to show this was representative of all religious people. I don't trust a scientist who's clearly never heard of a bell curve or that outliers aren't representative.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> That's like quoting the edl on Islam .


i didnt quote it because i think it's an unbiased opinion, i quoted it because it reflects my own opinion and i dont for one moment believe that i could put it so eloquently or succinctly.

Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion. 
― Steven Weinberg


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

porps said:


> i didnt quote it because i think it's an unbiased opinion, i quoted it because it reflects my own opinion and i dont for one moment believe that i could put it so eloquently or succinctly.
> 
> Religion is an insult to human dignity. Without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things.
> But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
> ― Steven Weinberg


Or another way to look at it is that religion was an early version of science. People didn't understand how the world worked, so the explanations they came up with were odd like Poseidon causing earthquakes or geese hatching from barnacles.

People can do evil things without religion by utterly convincing themselves they're right. It doesn't take religion. Most of the dictators that caused such misery in the last century were atheist.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

porps said:


> The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully. - Richard Dawkins.
> 
> *i do not see how anyone who has actually read the bible could honestly come to the conclusion that god is wholly loving, *i really dont.


I believe that God IS love - how people interpret God is different.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> I think it's fine as long as they're made aware of other religions and *raised to be tolerant and can choose whether or not they want to be a part of it once old enough.* I was baptised but that was about the extent of my religious upbringing, it was my own choice to go to that church when I was older.
> 
> If the children are raised by the superior atheist/evolution type, they could easily be as intolerant as someone brought up by a deeply religious family. You know the sort, haha look at the stupid religious people. A minority of atheists of course just as the really fanatical religious people are a minority.


Nothing to add here.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Or another way to look at it is that religion was an early version of science.


Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
Religion is the denial of observation so that faith can be preserved.



Nicky10 said:


> People can do evil things without religion by utterly convincing themselves they're right. It doesn't take religion.


Yes, evil people can do evil things with or without religion. But for good people to do evil things...



Nicky10 said:


> Most of the dictators that caused such misery in the last century were atheist.


You would have to provide evidence to me of this (where most means more than half). And i dont mean just name a few athiest dictators, i mean name all dictators of the last century who caused misery and provide evidence to show wether they were athiest or not.

Given that i wouldnt expect you to dot hat (doesnt sound much fun), i'll just say that it could also be true that most dictators favourite colour was blue. but that is not the reason for the things they do.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

porps said:


> Science adjusts it's beliefs based on what's observed
> Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved.


I've seen many just as blind, in denial that anything but evolution is the perfect answer atheists. To me that's no more science than a blind faith in God.

Yes, evil people can do evil things with or without religion. But for good people to do evil things...



> You would have to provide evidence to me of this (where most means more than half). And i dont mean just name a few athiest dictators, i mean name all dictators of the last century who caused misery and provide evidence to show wether they were athiest or not.
> 
> Given that i wouldnt expect you to dot hat (doesnt sound much fun), i'll just say that it could also be true that most dictators favourite colour was blue. but that is not the reason for the things they do.


Stalin and Mao the two greatest mass murderers in history. You did get the memo about religion being the opium of the people. Granted Stalin was training to be a priest when he discovered communism. Hitler not included in this, he was a spiritualist and that's a religion. Pol Pot again communist.

There can be no denying that people have done horrific things in the name of this or that god. Most of the time it was an excuse to get what they wanted such as the Spanish conquest of the americas


----------



## Goblin (Jun 21, 2011)

porps said:


> Yes, evil people can do evil things with or without religion. But for good people to do evil things...


Takes politicians or people who simply believe that they are right.. People such as those who say there is no religion and dig their heels in saying it's therefore wrong. Any belief can be dangerous.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> I think it's fine as long as they're made aware of other religions and raised to be tolerant and can choose whether or not they want to be a part of it once old enough. I was baptised but that was about the extent of my religious upbringing, it was my own choice to go to that church when I was older.
> 
> If the children are raised by the superior atheist/evolution type, they could easily be as intolerant as someone brought up by a deeply religious family. You know the sort, haha look at the stupid religious people. A minority of atheists of course just as the really fanatical religious people are a minority.


I wholeheartedly agree with teaching (and practicing) tolerance, compassion, respect, and understanding. Which is in fact one of the values I hope OH and I are instilling in our own children.

However, I have to take exception to comparing the "intolerance" of atheists to the "intolerance" of those who are religious. Atheists do not have a long, sordid human history of horrific abuse, inquisitions, genocides, mutilations, imprisonments, and every other inhumane treatment that those who believed the wrong thing (or refused to believe) have had to suffer at the hands of the religious.

There simply is no comparison between the two expressions of intolerance.



Nicky10 said:


> That's like quoting the edl on Islam .
> 
> However, what Dawkins and his worshippers forget is that pesky new agreement that Jesus made. You know the one about respect others, forgive those who wrong you etc. Of course there are plenty of Christians that forget those bits too. But I'm not going to take the word of someone who, on a programme talking about how our morality would be affected had religion not existed, took the extreme ends of the spectrum the american purity cults, Muslim girls having their hymens sowed back up so they bled on their wedding nights etc and tried to show this was representative of all religious people. I don't trust a scientist who's clearly never heard of a bell curve or that outliers aren't representative.


Unfortunately though, those "outliers" are not really outliers, and they ARE representative for the majority of the world. Europeans have been abandoning religion noticeably every since WW2 so in many ways what you see around you really isn't representative of how religion is practiced worldwide. 
I work with university-educated co-workers who believe the bible LITERALLY. Like that there really was a talking snake and that the earth really is only about six thousand years old. These same people believe the Holocaust was their god's punishment of the Jews. These same people will reject their children for being gay or having an abortion with their pastor's blessing. Oh yeah, and that Obama is the antichrist. No, really...

I have had a mom - educated, intelligent person, say to me that she would rather her child be a murderer than gay because god can forgive a murderer, and a murderer can reform. These are not toothless, back country yahoos. This is a woman who has 2 university degrees, lives in a well-to-do suburb, wears brand-name clothing, make up, and looks like any other "normal" spoiled 1st world human. And she is NOT an anomaly.

Look at the statistics. Well over half of Americans believe the bible is true - literally, and is the word of god.


----------



## Lilylass (Sep 13, 2012)

Hanwombat said:


> Yes I agree, nobody should be forced too. I don't believe in religion and I was bought up non-religious, never blessed, christened etc, nor were my parents and siblings.





Fleur said:


> To be truly fair the parents should fully educate their children in all religions and non-religion and I don't think that is practical or achievable for most.
> However I do think all children should be taught the basics about all religions enough to enable them to be understanding and tolerant.


I believe everyone has to make their own decision when they're old enough to do so - but if you've never been taught anything about religion how would you make that decision 

For those not brought up with any teachings / religious education, who's to say that if you had been brought up with those, that things might be totally different and you might actually be religious if you had had those as you were growing up



Lurcherlad said:


> As for lots of people, Christmas to us has nothing to do with religion


Sorry but this is what I don't understand - if you don't believe in Christianity, why would you celebrate something that is so fundamentally based on a religious event


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2014)

Lilylass said:


> Sorry but this is what I don't understand - if you don't believe in Christianity, why would you celebrate something that is so fundamentally based on a religious event


Christmas isn't based on the birth of christ 
It was originally a celebration of the winter solstice, the early Christians adopted it in to their own rituals and adjusted the story to fit their needs


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Christmas and most of it's traditions far predate Christianity. Blame the Romans and their obsession with stealing nearly every part of their culture from others for it being held on the winter solstice.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> I believe that God IS love - how people interpret God is different.


If god is just love then we already have a word for that, and that word is love.

Also, i wonder how does a wholly good being create evil. to me either he didnt create _everything_, or he isnt _wholly_ good. I cant reconcile those 2 statements.

-
How can heaven be paradise if it's an eternity of knowing that loved ones who were raised with different cultural myths are burning hell because they happened to be born in the wrong country?
-

i realise this is probably not the heaven/god you beleive in lostbear, its a general musing not directed at you hence the separation. What im trying to get across i guess is that when you just give things a little thought, when you start to cut through the rhetoric, they turn out to be completely illogical at best or actually quite horrific at worst.

It kinda seems to me though that what _you_ are mostly talking about is faith, not religion. I think they are 2 very different things, and though people who've had the displeasure of engaging me in these types of discussion before might remember that i dont have much time for either of them, i only think one of them is necessarily dangerous.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Isn't the whole how can a god who created disease and warfare be wholly good why the devil came to be believed in? At first he was just a tester of mankind, later he became well the devil because people couldn't reconcile the idea of a loving god with the catastrophes in the world. 

People can and will do truly evil things, whether in the name of their god or not, and be utterly convinced what they're doing is right. Whether that's Vlad the impaler killing hundreds of thousands of Ottomans convinced he was some kind of Christian hero but mostly motivated by revenge or Pol Pot convinced that the best thing for Cambodia was a return to an agricultural based society and massacring anyone with an education to get it.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> I've seen many just as blind, in denial that anything but evolution is the perfect answer atheists. To me that's no more science than a blind faith in God.


sorry missed this part first time i responded...

evolution exists.
It's proven and has been demonstrated on countless occassions.
If you have a dog the evidence is right there.

Wolf to dog is evolution via artificial selection.

People often confuse evolution, natural selection and abiogenesis, they blur the distinctions.

the very fact that people would still argue in such a way about the existence of _evolution_ only backs up the statement "religion is denial of observation so that faith can be preserved". The existence of evolution doesnt automatically preclude the existence of a deity, it does however contradict many of the stories told in religious scripture.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Evolution is the best explanation we have but it's not perfect. To me a scientist blindly believing it and saying it's perfect and there is no way it could be wrong or that with new facts we could improve on it is as bad as someone blindly believing in a god.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

Lilylass said:


> Sorry but this is what I don't understand - if you don't believe in Christianity, why would you celebrate something that is so fundamentally based on a religious event


Actually wasn't it to do with pagans but then they were all pretty much murdered and Christianity changed the winter solstice to the birth of Jesus, when he actually wasn't even born on December 25th.

Correct me if I am wrong.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> To me a scientist blindly believing it and saying it's perfect and there is no way it could be wrong or that with new facts we could improve on it is as bad as someone blindly believing in a god.


absolutely, that's not science though.

BUT..

_evolution_ _exists_- 
this statement does not say anything about how _we_ got here or if a deity exists or how life began or how the universe began or anything else. it simply states that evolution exists. There is a mountain of evidence for it across many different scientific disciplines. More to the point, it can and has been demonstrated to exist on a great many occasions...

anyway game time :blush:


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

Of course Science isn't one hundred percent and science is just theories. No evidence in one hundred percent of course.

I am very undecided in believing in a powerful being. Sometimes just as much as what certain things Science likes to tell me.

These sort of discussions have been going on for a very long time. Nothing can be one hundred percent proven. Nobody will ever be able to prove if God exists which is where belief and faith comes in. Science is never going to be one hundred percent right but it speaks some truth, a great deal more than what religion says, for me anyway.

We go by what we believe in. Nothing wrong in what people believe in. It's when the lack of respect is not given on both sides where problems come in.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

porps said:


> absolutely, that's not science though.
> 
> BUT..
> 
> ...


Widely accepted and proven theories have been shown to be wrong before though. I can't remember the name of it and google isn't helping, but most of the french scientists in the 20's were utterly convinced there was a newly discovered particle. They'd done experiments, they'd assigned all these properties. And it didn't exist, phlogiston didn't either. Granted there's far more evidence for evolution.


----------



## Lurcherlad (Jan 5, 2013)

Lilylass said:


> I believe everyone has to make their own decision when they're old enough to do so - but if you've never been taught anything about religion how would you make that decision
> 
> For those not brought up with any teachings / religious education, who's to say that if you had been brought up with those, that things might be totally different and you might actually be religious if you had had those as you were growing up
> 
> *Sorry but this is what I don't understand - if you don't believe in Christianity, why would you celebrate something that is so fundamentally based on a religious event *


I didn't say that I celebrate Christmas, as in the birth of Christ. There are many people, including those of other religions who do a lot of the things associated with Christmas such as decorate a tree, exchange presents, eat turkey, etc. just as they do at Easter. The difference is they don't participate in the religious aspects. I was brought up in a Christian family, so it's more family tradition than anything else, I guess.

Should I have excluded my young son from the school nativity play and singing carols, just because I am not a believer? Of course, I could be accused of being a hypocrite - that's probably fair - but I have no strong views either way on religion, it's just not for me.

I recently went to a catholic church service because my nephew was baptised - I didn't join in the hymns or prayers, but I was there to witness his acceptance into the religion because it was what my BIL and SIL wanted and I am part of the family. I am not offended by their religious choice nor do I feel the need to boycott a family event. Should I have refused to enter the church?


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

I'm fine with religion, as long as others don't try to enforce their beliefs on me.

That includes knocking on my door and trying to sign me up, or trying to bomb the crap out of me and all I hold dear.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Lurcherlad said:


> I recently went to a catholic church service because my nephew was baptised - I didn't join in the hymns or prayers, but I was there to witness his acceptance into the religion because it was what my BIL and SIL wanted and I am part of the family. I am not offended by their religious choice nor do I feel the need to boycott a family event. Should I have refused to enter the church?


I agree. I attended the Catholic christening of my best friend's little boy. I did the same as you - I did not join in with the prayers but sat quietly. I was more than happy to go in and be part of the event, as it's up to them and I respect their beliefs. But I definitely won't be christening my own children.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> Evolution is the best explanation we have but it's not perfect. To me *a scientist blindly believing it and saying it's perfect and there is no way it could be wrong or that with new facts we could improve on it* is as bad as someone blindly believing in a god.


But that's not what science is... Science is all about adjusting your paradigm as new information presents itself. So if as a scientist I accept the theory of evolution, I'm also free to accept a new and improved theory if and when one presents itself. 
Religion offers no such freedoms.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

ouesi said:


> But that's not what science is... Science is all about adjusting your paradigm as new information presents itself. So if as a scientist I accept the theory of evolution, I'm also free to accept a new and improved theory if and when one presents itself.
> Religion offers no such freedoms.


This ^. :thumbup:

Pick up any scientific journal.
Then pick up the Bible.

Do the same twelve months later. Twelve YEARS later.
Which one moved on?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

I think we can all agree that people can believe what they want, it's just the preachy, superior types on either side that are annoying? 

I have met scientists with a blind faith in evolution. Including one lecturer who walked in said evolution was perfect, religious people were idiots and there was no other explanation. He's likely in the minority though.


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> I think we can all agree that people can believe what they want, it's just the preachy, superior types on either side that are annoying?
> 
> I have met scientists with a blind faith in evolution. Including one lecturer who walked in said evolution was perfect, religious people were idiots and there was no other explanation. He's likely in the minority though.


Yeah, I think so. I think most people are pretty tolerant, but if someone comes in and instantly gets people's backs up then of course arguments may result.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Widely accepted and proven theories have been shown to be wrong before though. I can't remember the name of it and google isn't helping, but most of the french scientists in the 20's were utterly convinced there was a newly discovered particle. They'd done experiments, they'd assigned all these properties. And it didn't exist, phlogiston didn't either. Granted there's far more evidence for evolution.


yep, science changes as more information, evidence and knowledge is acquired rather than starting with a presupposition and denying such things if they conflict with it.

:w00t: :smile:


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2014)

Nicky10 said:


> I think we can all agree that people can believe what they want, *it's just the preachy, superior types on either side that are annoying? *
> 
> I have met scientists with a blind faith in evolution. Including one lecturer who walked in said evolution was perfect, religious people were idiots and there was no other explanation. He's likely in the minority though.


Actually, Im even okay with the preachy superior types. Preach all you want, I dont have to listen.
Its the ones who want to enforce their beliefs in to my government, my classroom, my family, my love life, and my uterus who need to go away.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Actually, Im even okay with the preachy superior types. Preach all you want, I dont have to listen.
> Its the ones who want to enforce their beliefs in to my government, my classroom, my family, my love life, and my uterus who need to go away.


Forcing your belief on anyone else is wrong. It seems much more of a problem in the US than here, although I don't doubt we have the extremists here too.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> I wholeheartedly agree with teaching (and practicing) tolerance, compassion, respect, and understanding. Which is in fact one of the values I hope OH and I are instilling in our own children.
> 
> However, I have to take exception to comparing the "intolerance" of atheists to the "intolerance" of those who are religious. Atheists do not have a long, sordid human history of horrific abuse, inquisitions, genocides, mutilations, imprisonments, and every other inhumane treatment that those who believed the wrong thing (or refused to believe) have had to suffer at the hands of the religious.
> 
> ...


I'm sure that you are right - but that doesn't mean that there is no God, or that faith in the Godhead is wrong - it just means that these people are bigoted, mindless twits. I find that people who believe blindly are always the ones who believe that they themselves are "saved" and everyone who thinks differently will go to hell. They will be caught up in the 'rapture| and not experience a moment's suffering, while the rest of us will spend an eternity in agony.

What a load of rubbish! And I speak as a practising Anglican and lay preacher. We are very few of us truly worthy of God's love and yet we have it anyway, because the nature of God is to love, and that is that.

I can never quite get my head around the fact that people who believe the Bible literally when it comes to homosexuality etc (all OT stuf usually), don't seem to take any notice ofJesus' words - "love you neighbour as yourself; on this hang all the law and the prophets". They are comfortable being very wealthy, when people are starving - not just in another part of the world, but in their own country. They will happily (legally) murder someone convicted of murder or rape without a thought for the words "Forgive, that you may be forgiven". If they want to bring OT rules into it, why don't they ever refer to "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord" and leave God to carry out the ultimate punishment?

I'm not saying that people who commit horrible crimes should get away scott free- of course they shouldn't - they should have hefty jail sentences if only to protect the public, but the hatred some 'religious' people exhibit for people who are homosexual, or who have abortions, or who disagree regarding the creation of the world - or disagree about anything - is horrifying. I find this sort of fanaticism very frightening, and to my mind it is a million miles away from the selfless love of Jesus Christ, who showed nothing but compassion for everyone.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> *Christmas isn't based on the birth of christ *
> It was originally a celebration of the winter solstice, the early Christians adopted it in to their own rituals and adjusted the story to fit their needs


Christmas IS a celebration of the birth of christ. It was given the date of a pagan festival to help pagan people understand the Christian faith. The original Druidic winter festival, as I understand it, was one where a young man was hunted down and killed as a sacrifice so that his blood would replenish the earth and bring a fruitful harvest. The following year, there would be another young man performing the same function. The parallels with Christ's sacrifice and resurrection are pretty obvious, so it is easy to see why that time was chosen. There is no reason why it should not have been, as no-one knows the exact date of Jesus' birth.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2014)

lostbear said:


> Christmas IS a celebration of the birth of christ. It was given the date of a pagan festival to help pagan people understand the Christian faith. The original Druidic winter festival, as I understand it, was one where a young man was hunted down and killed as a sacrifice so that his blood would replenish the earth and bring a fruitful harvest. The following year, there would be another young man performing the same function. The parallels with Christ's sacrifice and resurrection are pretty obvious, so it is easy to see why that time was chosen. There is no reason why it should not have been, as no-one knows the exact date of Jesus' birth.


Nah... Its just one version of the same story thats been around since humans figured out the patterns in the sky


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> However, what Dawkins and his worshippers forget is that pesky new agreement that Jesus made. You know the one about respect others, forgive those who wrong you etc.


Then there's one religion at least that disbelieves the New Testament and harks only to the Old Testament, no pesky new agreement there. 



Nicky10 said:


> There can be no denying that people have done horrific things in the name of this or that god. Most of the time it was an excuse to get what they wanted such as the Spanish conquest of the americas


That was partly an accident, tho, given Columbus was a total [email protected] and a crap geographer.



ouesi said:


> I have had a mom - educated, intelligent person, say to me that she would rather her child be a murderer than gay because god can forgive a murderer, and a murderer can reform. These are not toothless, back country yahoos. This is a woman who has 2 university degrees, lives in a well-to-do suburb, wears brand-name clothing, make up, and looks like any other "normal" spoiled 1st world human. And she is NOT an anomaly.
> 
> Look at the statistics. Well over half of Americans believe the bible is true - literally, and is the word of god.


Over half? I'd disagree there, but having tolerated the religious radio channel across Death Valley, the only blasted thing we could get on the rubbish stereo in the hire car, I can believe that there are still many people who believe this in America. Utterly amazes me!



Lilylass said:


> Sorry but this is what I don't understand - if you don't believe in Christianity, why would you celebrate something that is so fundamentally based on a religious event


Computer says no.



ouesi said:


> Christmas isn't based on the birth of christ
> It was originally a celebration of the winter solstice, the early Christians adopted it in to their own rituals and adjusted the story to fit their needs


This ^^

Glad to see this thread hasn't degenerated into a slanging match and I'm learning stuff, keep it up, PFers!


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

porps said:


> If god is just love then we already have a word for that, and that word is love.
> *
> Also, i wonder how does a wholly good being create evil.* to me either he didnt create _everything_, or he isnt _wholly_ good. I cant reconcile those 2 statements.
> 
> ...




I agree, but properly applied religion should enhance faith, not detract from it.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> Isn't the whole how can a god who created disease and warfare be wholly good why the devil came to be believed in? At first *he was just a tester of mankind,* later he became well the devil because people couldn't reconcile the idea of a loving god with the catastrophes in the world.
> You're right! I love him at the beginning of the nook of Job - I always get the impression that he is a minor functionary - a sort of traffic warden, overfull of his own importance, and probably with as much gold braid on his hat as a Bolivian tank commander LOL
> 
> People can and will do truly evil things, whether in the name of their god or not, and be utterly convinced what they're doing is right. Whether that's Vlad the impaler killing hundreds of thousands of Ottomans convinced he was some kind of Christian hero but mostly motivated by revenge or Pol Pot convinced that the best thing for Cambodia was a return to an agricultural based society and massacring anyone with an education to get it.


Most people who want power/wealth/control will find one way or another to justify their personal greed by putting an unselfish gloss on it - it does't mean that that is what truly motivates them. Look at those American Bible Belt fundamentalist 'health and wealth' preachers - arguing that God wants them to have a top of the range jacuzzi so that they can be fully rested to properly preach the Holy Word. They use God to justify their own over=weening greed and arrogance.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

porps said:


> sorry missed this part first time i responded...
> 
> evolution exists.
> It's proven and has been demonstrated on countless occassions.
> ...


Creation is the 'what' - evolution is the 'how'


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Blackcats said:


> Actually wasn't it to do with pagans but then they were all pretty much murdered and Christianity changed the winter solstice to the birth of Jesus, when he actually wasn't even born on December 25th.
> 
> Correct me if I am wrong.


That is pretty much true - but why don't you celebrate "Winter Solstice Day" (I'm sure many pagans do) and just slaughter a red-headed young man (I don't think they do this, probably)?


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> Over half? I'd disagree there, but having tolerated the religious radio channel across Death Valley, the only blasted thing we could get on the rubbish stereo in the hire car, I can believe that there are still many people who believe this in America. Utterly amazes me!


A lot depends on how you interpret believe but this article (credible news source) gives a pretty interesting, though rather depressing breakdown:
Polls: Most believe Bible as God&#39;s word - Washington Times


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

cinnamontoast said:


> Then there's one religion at least that disbelieves the New Testament and harks only to the Old Testament, no pesky new agreement there.


Yes but label them all as Christian and the same as some do it wrong. Plenty of Christians are horrified by the fundamentalist types too.



> That was partly an accident, tho, given Columbus was a total [email protected] and a crap geographer.


Well yes, I don't know what idiot let him pilot a ship. But once they saw gold they were back over right away to cheerfully hack and plunder their way through the south american tribes to get it. Er sorry to convert the heathens, god's work etc etc.



> Glad to see this thread hasn't degenerated into a slanging match and I'm learning stuff, keep it up, PFers!


It's wonderful to see


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> But that's not what science is... Science is all about adjusting your paradigm as new information presents itself. So if as a scientist I accept the theory of evolution, I'm also free to accept a new and improved theory if and when one presents itself.
> *Religion offers no such freedoms*.


You're in the wrong church


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2014)

lostbear said:


> That is pretty much true - but why don't you celebrate "Winter Solstice Day" (I'm sure many pagans do) and just slaughter a red-headed young man (I don't think they do this, probably)?


Probably for the same reasons Christians no longer do animal sacrifice, that sort of thing is generally frowned upon these days


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Probably for the same reasons Christians no longer do animal sacrifice, that sort of thing is generally frowned upon these days


Have Christians ever done animal sacrifice? (other than the Spanish, who even now will grab any opportunity to hoy a donkey off a church tower)

Really what I am saying is why don;t you buy winter solstice cards and wish people a happy winter solstice? I know - it's the presents, isn't it?!

I hate that Christmas has become a massive greedfest for people of almost all faiths. Not what it's about at all.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2014)

lostbear said:


> You're in the wrong church


Actually, Im in no church 

So now it gets sticky though. Because your church says you have the freedom to change your beliefs as new information presents itself and another church says no way, sacrilege, and next thing you know you have a rift with one church being right and the other church being wrong. And then you get the ones in the right church judging the ones in the wrong church and before you know it, it all escalates in to... Well... the history of humanity really!

Im more of a John Lennon Imagine type myself. 
Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people, living life in peace...."


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

lostbear said:


> Have Christians ever done animal sacrifice? (other than the Spanish, who even now will grab any opportunity to hoy a donkey off a church tower)
> 
> Really what I am saying is why don;t you buy winter solstice cards and wish people a happy winter solstice? I know - it's the presents, isn't it?!
> 
> I hate that Christmas has become a massive greedfest for people of almost all faiths. Not what it's about at all.


Actually I see it as more of family coming together.

Maybe that's greedy, huh.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Wars aren't always started over religion, although granted many have been or at least that's been the excuse. More often than not it's oh they have resources let's go get them because we have bigger army :w00t:


----------



## Ceiling Kitty (Mar 7, 2010)

ouesi said:


> Im more of a John Lennon Imagine type myself.
> Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do. Nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too. Imagine all the people, living life in peace...."


That reminds me of this photo of the Chat d'Orange I took last year when he was in the vet's.  We always record the pet's 'possessions' (such as blankets, toys and leads) on their kennel door.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

lostbear said:


> That is pretty much true - but why don't you celebrate "Winter Solstice Day" (I'm sure many pagans do) and just slaughter a red-headed young man (I don't think they do this, probably)?


Oy, no slaughtering of us gingers, we're rare enough without being chased through mistletoe adorned oak groves, thank you very much!



ouesi said:


> A lot depends on how you interpret "believe" but this article (credible news source) gives a pretty interesting, though rather depressing breakdown:
> Polls: Most believe Bible as God's word - Washington Times


Totally depressing 



Nicky10 said:


> But once they saw gold they were back over right away to cheerfully hack and plunder their way through the south american tribes to get it. Er sorry to convert the heathens, god's work etc etc.


Land and potential, I reckon. What a disgrace. The Catholic Kings have a lot to answer for. We could also mention the Inquisition, but that would just be rude


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

cinnamontoast said:


> Land and potential, I reckon. What a disgrace. The Catholic Kings have a lot to answer for. We could also mention the Inquisition, but that would just be rude


The inquisition was born out of a people who felt under attack at the height of the Reformation. How many other people have done/are still doing the same? Persecuting those that they are feel are a risk to them in times of stress.

I'm not condoning what they did but they had their reasons.


----------



## Guest (May 9, 2014)

lostbear said:


> Have Christians ever done animal sacrifice? (other than the Spanish, who even now will grab any opportunity to hoy a donkey off a church tower)
> 
> Really what I am saying is why don;t you buy winter solstice cards and wish people a happy winter solstice? I know - it's the presents, isn't it?!
> 
> I hate that Christmas has become a massive greedfest for people of almost all faiths. Not what it's about at all.


I dont know what bible youre reading, but the one Ive read has a whole lot of blood guts and gore, including human and animal sacrifice...

I dont wish folks happy winter solstice, but I do with folks happy holidays and buy holiday cards, not Christmas cards. That way I can do a mass send-out to my Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, and Atheist friends without having to switch greeting cards each time


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

For sure, but a bloody and brutal time. Looking realistically at current affairs, it's still going on in certain countries.  Strikes me that it's a control thing as opposed to a real belief, or perhaps real belief mangled.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

cinnamontoast said:


> For sure, but a bloody and brutal time. Looking realistically at current affairs, it's still going on in certain countries.  Strikes me that it's a control thing as opposed to a real belief, or perhaps real belief mangled.


Even in a milder form here to a degree, turning on immigrants when the economy went into meltdown.

Oh it was definitely a control thing and trying to put down their enemies. It just so happened those enemies were a different religion.


----------



## mrs phas (Apr 6, 2014)

cinnamontoast said:


> We could also mention the Inquisition, but that would just be rude


only because no one suspects them ;P


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Have Christians ever done animal sacrifice? (other than the Spanish, who even now will grab any opportunity to hoy a donkey off a church tower)
> 
> Really what I am saying is why don;t you buy winter solstice cards and wish people a happy winter solstice? I know - it's the presents, isn't it?!
> 
> I hate that Christmas has become a massive greedfest for people of almost all faiths. Not what it's about at all.


Please don´t lump all the spanish people in the same basket, a lot of us are aginst such barbaric practices.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Actually, Im in no church
> 
> So now it gets sticky though. Because your church says you have the freedom to change your beliefs as new information presents itself and another church says no way, sacrilege, and next thing you know you have a rift with one church being right and the other church being wrong. And then you get the ones in the right church judging the ones in the wrong church and before you know it, it all escalates in to... Well... the history of humanity really!
> 
> ...


If life contains _nothing_ worth dying for, does it have any value? I really don't know if I would have the courage to die for my faith (which says a lot about me), but I would be prepared to walk into the jaws of hell for my children and animals.

People sadly will never live life in peace - look how we are on this forum sometimes - but we could live life in acceptance if we made the effort. The difficulty comes when we try to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong". By "right" church, I don'y mean one with all the answers - anything but - I mean one that allows questions and difference of opinion and still offers support and respect.

And of course, "right" and "wrong" applies to much more than religion - we live in a world of many cultures. To me it is "wrong" to eat dogs - but to many people they are a valuable food source - who am I to say they shouldn't be eaten? However, I will always maintain that our treatment of any animal - dog, horse, cow - is a huge part of what defines us. It is one thing to eat an animal (and many would argue that no animals should be eaten), it is another to keep it under appalling conditions, boil it alive, beat it to 'tenderise" flesh and so forth. To my mind that should not be acceptable in any place or culture.

And then we come to why we shouldn't eat a particular animal - if it's because we keep it as a pet, why does that make it more "special"? Is it because animals suffer pain and fear and it is cruel to hurt them? Is it because every living creature is a precious part of God's creation, and has its own place in it and we have no right to take its life, and more than we have a right to take the life of another human being?

And female genital mutilation - ALWAYS wrong, surely - but many people, male and female would argue for it.

Neither of those examples necissarily has anything to do with religion - they are primarily cultural, but I bet that there are people willing to go to war over them somewhere.

I agree that Lennon's imaginary world sounds ideal - but it is just that - imaginary, And Lennon himself considered money and recognition worth fighting for - look how he fell out with the others over things like rights to the music etc.

It is sad that we won't ever all agree (or is it? - what a boring forum this would be) but what is sadder is when we cannot disagree in an atmosphere of respect and tolerance.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Blackcats said:


> Actually I see it as *more of family coming together. *
> 
> Maybe that's greedy, huh.


Not at all - have a happy solstice


----------



## merlin12 (Jun 24, 2011)

In reply to th OP´s question. Yes I think it is. Just like parents decide a lot of other things they feel is right for their children. I am catholic and although my faith is a result of my personal growth, I am grateful to my parents, as I believe the family is the first church and they planted the seed in me that has grown into the most important part of my life. I am especially grateful because we lived in an area and in circusmstances where it was not always easy for us to go to church. Today of their four kids, 2 go to church and 2 dont but for each of us, it has been a personal journey and decision.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> *I dont know what bible youre reading, but the one Ive read has a whole lot of blood guts and gore, including human and animal sacrifice...*
> 
> I dont wish folks happy winter solstice, but I do with folks happy holidays and *buy holiday cards, *not Christmas cards. That way I can do a mass send-out to my Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Pagan, and Atheist friends without having to switch greeting cards each time


Agreed - bit how much of that is _Christian_ sacrifice? There was only one Christian sacrifice that I an aware of, and that was the one made by Jesus himself.

I like your holiday cards idea for non--believers.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

mrs phas said:


> only because no one suspects them ;P


Hahahahahahahahaha

Lovely moment to lighten us all up. :laugh::laugh::laugh:


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

merlin12 said:


> Please don´t lump all the spanish people in the same basket, a lot of us are aginst such barbaric practices.


Apologise unreservedly. Hope I wasn't offensive. I just knew that if I said Christians don't offer animal sacrifices, someone would throw it back at me, and it is easier to make a blanket statement late at night when you're too tired to argue your case properly, than it is to point out exceptions carefully (of course, this is how wars start . . . )


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

merlin12 said:


> In reply to th OP´s question. Yes I think it is. Just like parents decide a lot of other things they feel is right for their children. I am catholic and although my faith is a result of my personal growth, I am grateful to my parents, as I believe the family is the first church and they planted the seed in me that has grown into the most important part of my life. I am especially grateful because we lived in an area and in circusmstances where it was not always easy for us to go to church. Today of their four kids, 2 go to church and 2 dont but for each of us,* it has been a personal journey and decision*.


And that freedom is the important thing.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

lostbear said:


> If life contains _nothing_ worth dying for, does it have any value? I really don't know if I would have the courage to die for my faith (which says a lot about me), but I would be prepared to walk into the jaws of hell for my children and animals.
> 
> People sadly will never live life in peace - look how we are on this forum sometimes - but we could live life in acceptance if we made the effort. The difficulty comes when we try to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong". By "right" church, I don'y mean one with all the answers - anything but - I mean one that allows questions and difference of opinion and still offers support and respect.
> 
> ...


we can agree or disagree....its makes life interesting and if we all agreed there would never be any moving forwards or change.

Whgat does spoil things is people getting up close and personal and then nasty cos others disagree with them.

Manners maketh man..and cost nothing.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

lostbear said:


> Christmas IS a celebration of the birth of christ. It was given the date of a pagan festival to help pagan people understand the Christian faith. The original Druidic winter festival, as I understand it, was one where a young man was hunted down and killed as a sacrifice so that his blood would replenish the earth and bring a fruitful harvest. The following year, there would be another young man performing the same function. The parallels with Christ's sacrifice and resurrection are pretty obvious, so it is easy to see why that time was chosen. There is no reason why it should not have been, as no-one knows the exact date of Jesus' birth.


well you live and learn....all new to me. thank you


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2014)

lostbear said:


> If life contains _nothing_ worth dying for, does it have any value? I really don't know if I would have the courage to die for my faith (which says a lot about me), but I would be prepared to walk into the jaws of hell for my children and animals.


Okay, you cant be finding fault with John Lennon lyrics! Thats just *wrong*! 
The way I read it - no countries, nothing to kill or die for as a commentary on dying for your country.



lostbear said:


> People sadly will never live life in peace - look how we are on this forum sometimes - but we could live life in acceptance if we made the effort. The difficulty comes when we try to decide what is "right" and what is "wrong". By "right" church, I don'y mean one with all the answers - anything but - I mean one that allows questions and difference of opinion and still offers support and respect.


I dont know if we can say that *people* will never live in peace. Certainly the history of humanity doesnt give one much hope, but Im a never say never kind of gal  People might never live in peace, but individuals can. I feel like most of the time I live a very peaceful life, and Im definitely not unique in that. Many folks out there who do a far better job than I do and inspire me ever day.



lostbear said:


> And of course, "right" and "wrong" applies to much more than religion - we live in a world of many cultures. To me it is "wrong" to eat dogs - but to many people they are a valuable food source - who am I to say they shouldn't be eaten? However, I will always maintain that our treatment of any animal - dog, horse, cow - is a huge part of what defines us. It is one thing to eat an animal (and many would argue that no animals should be eaten), it is another to keep it under appalling conditions, boil it alive, beat it to 'tenderise" flesh and so forth. To my mind that should not be acceptable in any place or culture.
> 
> And then we come to why we shouldn't eat a particular animal - if it's because we keep it as a pet, why does that make it more "special"? Is it because animals suffer pain and fear and it is cruel to hurt them? Is it because every living creature is a precious part of God's creation, and has its own place in it and we have no right to take its life, and more than we have a right to take the life of another human being?
> 
> ...


No, its not sad that we wont ever all agree. Thats the beauty of each of us being individuals. Agreement wont bring us peace. But like you said, disagreement in an atmosphere of respect and tolerance, IS worth working towards. 
And not an impossible goal either IMO. When we teach our children to love and accept themselves, they will have far more effective tools in learning to love and accept others and treat differences with compassion and respect rather than labeling them right and wrong.

At this point, we circle back to raising children in religion. Does raising my child in religion help me achieve this goal of my child learning to love and accept him/herself? Does religion label behaviors and people right and wrong? Might children internalize these labels? Does religion teach compassion and respect for differences, or does it teach isolation and otherness?

For me the answers are clear. I dont need religion to teach my children any of this. I dont need religion to achieve peace. And in many ways religious teachings are counter productive to my parenting goals. I do not want my children internalizing any notion that they were born flawed in any way (original sin) and that their behavior determines their goodness.
I do not want my children being kind to others so that they may reap some ultimate reward (heaven). I want them to be kind to others because that is how we treat others. Not because we are right and unkind people are wrong, but because being kind is simply how we are.


----------



## Blackcats (Apr 13, 2013)

lostbear said:


> Not at all - have a happy solstice


That's your *opinion*

So, again, don't tar everyone with the same brush just because people aren't religious.

Seeing as you are quite offended that people would celebrate Christmas because they're not religious and you feel only religious people should celebrate it, do you follow absolutely everything your religion tells you.

Secondly, religion stole the winter solstice (Murdered pagans) so quite frankly for a religious person to take offence to it is somewhat hypocritical.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

My own personal view is that people can have faith (in whatever they choose to have faith in), people can be moral and know right from wrong (though what people class as moral varies on a grand scale), but faith and morality can exist without religion. Why should I have to class myself as religious in order to be a good person, or in order to believe in God (or whatever divine deity/s I choose)? Religion appears to be a construct of mankind to enforce notions or ideas of what is moral or what is 'God', and has nothing to do with a single persons' morality or faith. As someone (or several someones) have said, religion is another way of adding labels to concepts that are simply unnecessary - and these concepts can be deeply flawed if not grossly outdated in modern society. I do not need religious boundaries in my life in order to live it to the best of my ability, and indeed I see religion as only a boundary, a limiting factor in the vast choice of paths I may make, some of which will be beautiful and fulfilling, and others will be darn right ugly. But these paths are there for me to choose, not for someone with an agenda on whether or not I eat certain foods, what I do with my Sundays, or whether or not my soul deserves to go to hell or heaven.

Erm anyway, that was my rambling opinion on the matter.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

I born and baptised soon after..as were my ancestors for a thousand years before me..

My parents choice..but is not only about faith ..it is a part of our heritage,our culture and tradition...
I made my choice that my children willhave allthe necessary sacraments (baptism, communion, confirmation...) and then late ron ..they may do as the please..
but I do demand that they respect their tradition, their heritage and their ancestry...

If they do not respect the culture and tradition they come from, then they do not respect themselves...

I do not force my ds who is 13 to go to the church...if he does not want to..but if it is a Special Occasion and a family event :then he is a part of family and he goes...meekly enough...


I am a happy believer, Christianity is one of many paths..as good as any I would think! so I may as well stay a Christian..... I wish my kids had faith ..whichever path they might chose as long as it is not extreme..


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> My parents choice..but is not only about faith ..it is a part of our heritage,our culture and tradition...
> I made my choice that my children willhave allthe necessary sacraments (baptism, communion, confirmation...) and then late ron ..they may do as the please..
> *but I do demand that they respect their tradition, their heritage and their ancestry...*
> 
> If they do not respect the culture and tradition they come from, then they do not respect themselves...


See now what I read there is actually you demand they respect _your_ tradition, heritage, ancestry etc, but in truth when your children become adults they have a choice to make about _their_ traditions, heritage and ancestry, and by demanding they respect your beliefs etc you are, potentially, disrespecting their freedom to choose. You are, in effect, imposing your personal standards on them, creating boundaries that are neither necessary nor helpful for them to grow as independent adults.

Just my opinion, and not to be taken as more than such.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

And to use Cheeky as a modern and handy example: she's Polish (probably Catholic?) but lives in Gibraltar. To which culture/heritage should the kids adhere? Hers? Theirs? A cool mix to embrace all that surrounds them? And what should parents do if they are of differing religions?


----------



## ForestWomble (May 2, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> And to use Cheeky as a modern and handy example: she's Polish (probably Catholic?) but lives in Gibraltar. To which culture/heritage should the kids adhere? Hers? Theirs? A cool mix to embrace all that surrounds them? *And what should parents do if they are of differing religions?*


Answering the bit in bold, obviously I can not answer for everyone, but my friend is Jewish and her husband is CofE, they have 3 children and let them decide, two of them have gone with their mothers religion and the other decided to follow the fathers.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

You can reject your ancestry, you traditions , your faith ,..but you cannot change where you came from!!
and it sits deeper that you think! or so many psychologists agree..even if we are not conscious of that influence..

To those who wonder what my kids are expected to do: that is easy they have to respect both! 

in our case:we both Catholics ,but some traditions are different of course...
respect means : knowledge , means understanding where you came from..

and children need boundaries!!! (even if for to push them!!!)



so taking them to mass in Polish does not do them any harm..or to egg blessing on Good Sunday (Polish tradition)..or to "processiones" -local tradition, on Good Friday...


some Polish tradition incorporated by RC date from pagan times...and while we observe them I explain why and how they came about...



I have my own battles and disputes with RC (contraception, women priests,gay marriage etc...0..but it is still my heritage and I respect it..0

my children will naturally question and debate their heritage...yet I hope they will find it worth of respect ...(

so if parents are of different religions/cultures/traditions you just learn to know and respect them both...


...I actually find learning about religions and traditions quite fascinating...:001_tongue:

now one stepgirl is with protestant from Nothern Ireland, other stepgirl married a Berber!..so there is so much more to learn!!

Maybe my kids will bring Jews, buddists and Hindu into our family?



God has many rooms in His abode.....



and if you do not respect who you are..how can you truly have respect for others?


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> If life contains _nothing_ worth dying for, does it have any value?


of course- because there would still be things worth living for.



cheekyscrip said:


> You can reject your ancestry, you traditions , your faith ,..but you cannot change where you came from!!


Yes and "if you dont change direction you may end up where you're heading" -lao tzu

If people realise that, more than likely, the primary reason they follow a particular religion or beleive in a certain god is because their ancestors happened to be born in a certain region, rather than because those beliefs are actually true.. well it honestly boggles my mind how they manage to resolve to just keep believing it regardless.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

porps said:


> of course- because there would still be things worth living for.
> 
> Yes and "if you dont change direction you may end up where you're heading" -lao tzu
> 
> If people realise that, more than likely, the primary reason they follow a particular religion or beleive in a certain god is because their ancestors happened to be born in a certain region, rather than because those beliefs are actually true.. well it honestly boggles my mind how they manage to resolve to just keep believing it regardless.


It would be very strange indeed to be a follower of whatever beliefs..and not to introduce your children into them?

I say respect! but as to the truth..or Truth....
oh , man!!! that is a different story!!!

seriously I will NOt, like in Tudor times, have battles over the reality of transsubstantiation....

I have belief in existence of Absolute and that we originate from It...and somehow comeback to It...

that my very personal kind of truth...with my own evidence for it..

you have yours and I have respect for it..

_porps..why men always try to find truth or logic into everything??/mind boggling that!)_


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

The respect that I have for myself has little to do with my ancestry. Half of the world 'hates' the English (or so it sometimes seems) so does that mean I should hate myself? No. My 'ancestors' have roots in many different trees, including the celts, vikings, normans, romans and goodness knows who else that invaded the British isles throughout history. None of that really bears anything on how I feel about myself. It is my own personal actions that determine the respect I have for myself, and it is those actions that determine the respect other people have for me. No one on this Earth is going to respect me because I am part viking, or because some ancestor or other died in some battle or other. People don't respect me because I say I do/do not believe in God/s any more than they would if I said I believe in aliens or pixies or nothing at all. It is my belief in myself that earns respect, and the actions that I carry out throughout my life. 

Yes parents set boundaries for their kids, but does an athiest or agnostic set any less moral or worthy boundaries for their children than Jew, Buddhist, Christian or Muslim? No. My mother taught me right from wrong (as per her own set of moral values) and though she was christened and attended sunday school and was confirmed, she chose to not become 'religious' nor did she force me to either, and this does not mean her set of values are any less worthy than if she had followed Christianity, and feels no disrespect that I did not choose to to become confirmed and do so either.

Bah i'm rambling again


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Being religious doesn't make you any better than an atheist, I think the Westboro baptist church proves that. You can have morals and be a good person without religion. Being atheist doesn't make you a good person or superior either.

People can believe what they want and as long as they're not trying to force those beliefs onto me I'm happy to learn about them.


----------



## Valanita (Apr 13, 2010)

I went to a church school, infants & junior. Took my young Brother to Sunday school every Sunday, used to 'help' too as I was older. I was a Brownie & came to the age I could be a Guide, only to be told by a very officious member of the church that if I wanted to be a Guide I would have to go to church every Sunday. I told her exactly what I thought, Guiding was non denominational & she couldn't make me go. Big row & words with Parents. There were a lot of hypocrites in our CoE CHURCH. I said in that case I couldn't care less about not being a Guide & I never went to any church again, except to wedding/funerals. 
I became an athiest & have been one ever since. 
We got married in a registry office & my kids have not been christened.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Valanita said:


> I went to a church school, infants & junior. Took my young Brother to Sunday school every Sunday, used to 'help' too as I was older. I was a Brownie & came to the age I could be a Guide, only to be told by a very officious member of the church that if I wanted to be a Guide I would have to go to church every Sunday. I told her exactly what I thought, Guiding was non denominational & she couldn't make me go. Big row & words with Parents. There were a lot of hypocrites in our CoE CHURCH. I said in that case I couldn't care less about not being a Guide & I never went to any church again, except to wedding/funerals.
> I became an athiest & have been one ever since.
> We got married in a registry office & my kids have not been christened.


The guides I went to was in a church but you didn't have to be religious. I thought that was one of the main principles of the whole thing that it was open to everyone


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

being an atheist is a matter of belief as well


(no proof either! that God does not exist...)...so that is just as much a matter of faith as believing in existence of God..
agnostics just sit on the fence and say "maybe"- which it is what they believe in?

and they most likely will choose education for kids which will represent that belief??


am I rambling?????













(few red berries will mean ...possibly I am...)


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Valanita said:


> I went to a church school, infants & junior. Took my young Brother to Sunday school every Sunday, used to 'help' too as I was older. I was a Brownie & came to the age I could be a Guide, only to be told by a very officious member of the church that if I wanted to be a Guide I would have to go to church every Sunday.* I told her exactly what I thought, Guiding was non denominational & she couldn't make me go*.
> 
> Good for you - people like her are the reason a lot of younger people don't want to set foot inside a church.
> 
> ...


I don't deny that there are a lot of hypocrites in church, but there are a lot outside it too - Christians don't have a monopoly, The thing is, when you purport to have a faith you are he'd to a higher standard than other people, but when push comes to shove we are all only human and all make mistakes and do things that we regret. It's just more obvious when people expect higher standards of you because of your faith.

Atheism is as much of a faith as theism, because it is just as incapable of being proven, and so it remains a faith stance.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

cheekyscrip said:


> being an atheist is a matter of belief as well
> 
> (no proof either! that God does not exist...)...so that is just as much a matter of faith as believing in existence of God..
> agnostics just sit on the fence and say "maybe"- which it is what they believe in?
> )


sigh

Atheism doesnt claim "there is no god". It simply states "i do not believe in god". That statement does not require faith.

Agnostics say "i dont know if god exists". agnosticism strictly relates to knowledge not belief. What you admit to knowing for certain may be very different to what you believe.



> Shifting the burden of proof is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> *being an atheist is a matter of belief as well.
> 
> (no proof either! that God does not exist...)...so that is just as much a matter of faith as believing in existence of God.*
> 
> ...


You won't get one off me    


I think that you are exactly right - whether we believe in God or not, we take a position of faith - faith that God exists or Faith that God does not exist, and no matter how much we try not to influence our children's upbringings, we can't help doing so, even if we aren't aware of it. If we deliberately try not to consciously influence one way, we are likely to influence it the other by overcompensating.

I wonder though, those people who do not believe in God - what is their moral compass? If, as many claim, we are purely animals selected for success by evolution, where does "right" and "wrong" enter the equation. Richard Dawkins says that the universe is "coldly indifferent" - so why do we instinctiely feel that some actions are "good" and others "evil"? After all, we are just animals - animals are neither good nor evil and nor are their actions - it is our interpretation of what they and we do which leads us to labels things, people and happenings as one or the other.

The abduction of those poor little schoolgirls in Nigeria - to me that is an act of evil; in the atheist universe though, surely it is just something that has happened, neither evil nor good, just some peoples way of fulfilling a neutral urge within themselves to find a way of getting money for resources that they want, and showing their superiority as war-like animals by making an act of aggression to intimidate other animals and therefore maintain their own breeding potential.

I very much doubt that there is a single person among you, no matter how "Darwinist" you may be, who views this horrible act like that. So what is it that makes us feel revulsion at one thing, and joy at another? I would argue that we can make this distinction because we are created in the likeness of God, and that this is how we are capable of recognising the difference between good and evil.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Atheism is as much of a faith as theism, because it is just as incapable of being proven, and so it remains a faith stance.


atheism is a faith stance in the same way that bald is a hair colour...


----------



## Jamesgoeswalkies (May 8, 2014)

In answer to the original question as to whether its *fair or right* to bring a child up in a particular religion if the parents are themselves, I would say probably not, but it is *inevitable*, as we do bring our children up according to our own thoughts and views. Lets be honest, we decide what they wear, how long their hair is, whether they can swear and what toys they play with. And what we dont teach them they glean from us anyway  I regularly watch the lad across the road (hes 7) help his dad in the garden. He walks, talks and leans on his spade just like his dad. Hes polite like his dad, too. No doubt in a few years hell be off down the pub like his dad, as well. Hes learning to live and follow the societal rules his parents believe in simply by being around them.

Children born of religious parents are often similarly educated.

Where I believe it becomes unsavoury is when religion becomes a forced issue and older children are discouraged from thinking for themselves or taking other paths. Imagine if, as the lad across the road grows up, he was pressured by his parents to go the to pub every Friday night simply because that was what we have always done in our family. Or if their daughter was only directed towards listening to Robbie Williams because that is what their mother liked to listen to.

We should always allow our children freedom of choice as they grow and never try to impose our beliefs on them. We should guide not dictate. Bringing up a child who can think for themselves is the greatest gift we can bestow as a parent.

J


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

porps said:


> sigh
> 
> Atheism doesnt claim "there is no god". It simply states "i do not believe in god". *That statement does not require faith. *
> 
> Agnostics say "i dont know if god exists". agnosticism strictly relates to knowledge not belief. What you admit to knowing for certain may be very different to what you believe.


On the contrary - you are saying "I believe that there is no God" To make the statement that you do not believe in God, you are making a statement of faith that you do not believe that God exists. In order to "not believe" in something, you have to believe in its non-existence.

I could say "I do not believe in the milkman"
I could deny to myself all evidence that the milkman exists. When other people point out the bottles of milk on my doorstep, I could insist that a cow had laid her eggs there (again).

However, no matter how vociferously I claimed this, the milkman would still be there (Yes - we're lucky here - we still get doorstep deliveries).


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

porps said:


> atheism is a faith stance in the same way that bald is a hair colour...


It is a state of hirsutism, certainly.

I actually wonder why atheists are so determined not to admit to faith of any sort - do you regard it as a weakness?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Jamesgoeswalkies said:


> In answer to the original question as to whether its *fair or right* to bring a child up in a particular religion if the parents are themselves, I would say probably not, but it is *inevitable*, as we do bring our children up according to our own thoughts and views. Lets be honest, we decide what they wear, how long their hair is, whether they can swear and what toys they play with. And what we dont teach them they glean from us anyway  I regularly watch the lad across the road (hes 7) help his dad in the garden. He walks, talks and leans on his spade just like his dad. Hes polite like his dad, too. No doubt in a few years hell be off down the pub like his dad, as well. Hes learning to live and follow the societal rules his parents believe in simply by being around them.
> 
> Children born of religious parents are often similarly educated.
> 
> ...


I totally agree - but what I would say is that we have a duty to child and society to instil a sense of right and wrong in every child, and to that extent we must impose on their freedom. However, we must never stop them thinking and questioning.- everything - even the things dearest to our hearts.


----------



## Valanita (Apr 13, 2010)

Nicky10 said:


> The guides I went to was in a church but you didn't have to be religious. *I thought that was one of the main principles of the whole thing that it was open to everyone*


yes, it should be & is, but our church elders had other ideas.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> On the contrary - you are saying "I believe that there is no God" To make the statement that you do not believe in God, you are making a statement of faith that you do not believe that God exists. In order to "not believe" in something, you have to believe in its non-existence.


atheism says "i have not been provided with a sufficiently good reason to be convinced that this is true". It doesnt say "i have been convinced that this is not true"


----------



## Valanita (Apr 13, 2010)

Atheism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whatever! I do not believe there is a god, not an all encompassing only one god anyway.
No life after death, you die, end of you.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

lostbear said:


> I actually wonder why atheists are so determined not to admit to faith of any sort - do you regard it as a weakness?


Yes - for me, to believe a thing without empiric evidence is weakness, or laziness.

I also don't get the "atheism is a form of faith" argument. In the empiric world, no evidence means you are looking in the wrong place for the evidence or the thing isn't true, or the test was faulty. I do not use the word belief very often in regards to my own stand, and I do not engage very often in disucssion on the subject. If someone asks then I might say that I have found no evidence to support the concept but really it is not a part of my day-to-day concerns.


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2014)

porps said:


> atheism is a faith stance in the same way that bald is a hair colour...


Or like abstinence is a sex position


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

lostbear said:


> *I wonder though, those people who do not believe in God - what is their moral compass? * If, as many claim, we are purely animals selected for success by evolution, where does "right" and "wrong" enter the equation. Richard Dawkins says that the universe is "coldly indifferent" - so why do we instinctiely feel that some actions are "good" and others "evil"? After all, we are just animals - animals are neither good nor evil and nor are their actions - it is our interpretation of what they and we do which leads us to labels things, people and happenings as one or the other.
> 
> The abduction of those poor little schoolgirls in Nigeria - to me that is an act of evil; in the atheist universe though, surely it is just something that has happened, neither evil nor good, just some peoples way of fulfilling a neutral urge within themselves to find a way of getting money for resources that they want, and showing their superiority as war-like animals by making an act of aggression to intimidate other animals and therefore maintain their own breeding potential.
> 
> I very much doubt that there is a single person among you, no matter how "Darwinist" you may be, who views this horrible act like that. So what is it that makes us feel revulsion at one thing, and joy at another? *I would argue that we can make this distinction because we are created in the likeness of God, and that this is how we are capable of recognising the difference between good and evil.*


Darwinian evolution - more correctly known as evolution by natural selection - (even though Darwin himself didn't mention the word evolution until much later after his 'origin of species' works... but that's another story) is where traits that are favoured by the conditions that the species is living under are selected for because of selection pressures. These traits can be anything, and the selection pressures can vary, which is why a great deal of species can evolve from a single common ancestor, though not all of which will survive.

In human evolution, which is obviously much studied and still under much scrutiny and debate, several factors were under selection over time that resulted in what we have today. Aside from the obvious physical changes going on, traits such as speech, writing systems and such like, all eventually came about. Of all the theories about why and how this happened, a common element remains: humans are social. For societies to exist and function there must also be rules (even in the animal kingdom, in social animals there are hierarchies with rules), and with rules comes a notion of what is right and what is wrong.

Whilst these rules must have started out in very simplistic terms way back at the beginning of human evolution - the most basic being the leader of the pack is usually the strongest, most dominant individual (as is the case in most social groups), to more complex associations and rules as the social group itself became more complex (just look at other primates, such as chimps - individuals that assist others are more likely to be assisted in return by those they helped out). Human social groups became so complex that levels of hierarcy, rules, and means of communication (speech, writing, etc) in line became more complex. Fast forward a few thousand years or so and human society has strong people ruling weaker people, and those strong people making rules for weaker people to follow. One classic and well known set of rules being the 10 commandments.

Now you could argue that Moses got those 10 commandments from the voice of God, or you could say Moses was tripping on some crazy mushroom, or delirious from hunger, or schizophrenic and hearing voices (certainly anyone today claiming to hear the voice of some higher being gets regarded as having some kind of mental illness, just in the way that early scientists or innovative thinkers were branded as witches and sorcerers or heretics or lunatics).

I think my point is, after yet more rambling, is that religion and morality are not mutually exclusive. The concepts of right and wrong existed way before any religion did, even if in a very primitive manner. Morality evolved along with social complexity, and i'm sorry but the evidence against the bog standard 'creationism' is just too great to sensibly ignore. Unless you concede that God may actually have the form of a single celled bacterium, seeing as these are the most numerous organisms on the planet, were the first to exist, and have - and have had - the greatest influence on life on the planet since its birth - billions of years before humans even appeared.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

lostbear said:


> I wonder though, those people who do not believe in God - what is their moral compass? If, as many claim, we are purely animals selected for success by evolution, where does "right" and "wrong" enter the equation. Richard Dawkins says that the universe is "coldly indifferent" - so why do we instinctiely feel that some actions are "good" and others "evil"?


It's the same as anyone who believes in God, of course. Certainly you don't need to believe in God to think that murdering someone is wrong. It's society's norms, not a religious precept.

Let's remove the word 'evil' which _does_ have religious connotations and replace it with wrong. It's wrong to have sex with someone else if you're married (IMO) because you're gong to emotionally hurt your partner. It's wrong to murder because you shouldn't kill people, it will devastate their family and others will hate you because you did something nasty.

It's not '_evil_' and might even be seen as justified if you murdered say, a paedophile. Evil is a concept which was born from religion and fostered by religion in order to control the proletariat, much like insisting on conducting the Mass in Latin.


----------



## Jonescat (Feb 5, 2012)

Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
An angel writing in a book of gold:
Exceeding peace had made Ben Adhem bold,
And to the Presence in the room he said
"What writest thou?"The vision raised its head,
And with a look made of all sweet accord,
Answered "The names of those who love the Lord."
"And is mine one?" said Abou. "Nay, not so,"
Replied the angel. Abou spoke more low,
But cheerly still, and said "I pray thee, then,
Write me as one that loves his fellow men."

The angel wrote, and vanished. The next night
It came again with a great wakening light,
And showed the names whom love of God had blessed,
And lo! Ben Adhem's name led all the rest.


by James Leigh Hunt. 
Theists are not the only ones with moral compasses.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Their moral code is more based on society, as is many religious peoples'. Society frowns on murder and adultery and therefore to most these are wrong. In earlier societies these may have been seen as normal, revenge killings sparking blood feuds etc but we like to think of ourselves as civilised these days. 

However, the basis of many law codes is religious texts. They just get updated as necessary.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Phoenix24 said:


> Darwinian evolution - more correctly known as evolution by natural selection - (even though Darwin himself didn't mention the word evolution until much later after his 'origin of species' works... but that's another story) is where traits that are favoured by the conditions that the species is living under are selected for because of selection pressures. These traits can be anything, and the selection pressures can vary, which is why a great deal of species can evolve from a single common ancestor, though not all of which will survive.
> 
> In human evolution, which is obviously much studied and still under much scrutiny and debate, several factors were under selection over time that resulted in what we have today. Aside from the obvious physical changes going on, traits such as speech, writing systems and such like, all eventually came about. Of all the theories about why and how this happened, a common element remains: humans are social. For societies to exist and function there must also be rules (even in the animal kingdom, in social animals there are hierarchies with rules), and with rules comes a notion of what is right and what is wrong.
> 
> ...


I agree - I have never advocated "creationism". The Genesis story in the Bible is just a simplistic way of explaining a very great truth (do you not think that the order of creation in Genesis is startlingly like the order in which creatures developed on earth as evidenced by fossils).

I'm sorry but I don't understand your "God is a bacterium" comment/ Not sure what you are getting at here.

ps - I don't see now the 10 commandments were anything to do with strong people ruling weaker ones.

I would argue that many animals are social - but that violence is endemic in all species, including our own. I'm not saying that people didn't find it useful to get along with each other - what I am saying is, where did the concepts of "right" and "wrong" come from? There is a difference between doing/not doing something because it serves your purpose, and doing/not doing it because it is the "right" or "wrong" hint to do.

Even societies which have been based on horror (Nazi Germany springs to mind), the perpetrators feel the need to mask their motives in rhetoric and false justification, because they KNOW that what they are doing is unacceptable.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

lostbear said:


> Even societies which have been based on horror (Nazi Germany springs to mind), the perpetrators feel the need to mask their motives in rhetoric and false justification, because they KNOW that what they are doing is unacceptable.


No most were utterly convinced what they were doing was right and Hitler himself was a psychopath, in the medical sense of not being able to feel compassion. There's a quote somewhere from Mengele's son who said his father felt he had never done anything wrong because of course he was working on sub-humans as he saw it.

Leaders all over the world have claimed a divine right to rule or that they're a channel for the power of whatever god they happened to worship. The Israelites weren't the first, certainly the Egyptian Pharaohs were claiming divine lineage before that.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> It's the same as anyone who believes in God, of course. Certainly you don't need to believe in God to think that murdering someone is wrong. *It's society's norms,* not a religious precept.
> But what prompted society to develop such norms, which are often contra-successful in evolutional terms?
> 
> Let's remove the word* 'evil' *which _does_ have religious connotations and replace it with wrong. It's wrong to have sex with someone else if you're married (IMO) because you're gong to emotionally hurt your partner. It's wrong to murder because you shouldn't kill people, it will devastate their family and others will hate you because you did something nasty.
> ...


I disagree - "evil" has moral connotations rather than religious ones I think - not quite the same. "Wrong" is a comparatively mild description. Adultery is "wrong". The Holocaust was "evil", and I would think that most people, religious or not would concur.

Killing a pedophile is still "wrong", but would not necessarily be considered an "evil" act

I agree that conducting the mass in Latin was exclusivist - but at the same time, I have Catholic friends who used to cherish that Latin mass, because no matter what country they were in, they could participate fully, because the language of the worship was universal. And you know - a lot of people love the mystery of God - they don't always want it broken down into easy to swallow bites - they want something that lifts and challenges them.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> It is a state of hirsutism, certainly.
> 
> I actually wonder why atheists are so determined not to admit to faith of any sort - do you regard it as a weakness?


firstly i can only speak for myself - there is no doctrine for atheists to follow, no shared ideaology between atheists, the only thing we necessarily agree on is that we are not convinced in the existence of a deity.

If faith is defined as "being convinced of something for which there is no evidence" then yeah i suppose i do see it as a weakness, although the amount of evidence required for a claim is relative to the claim being made. If you tell me you have a dog, i might be inclined to believe you with very little evidence (given that- dogs are known to exist, many people keep dogs, this is a pet forum) but if you told me you could move objects with your mind i'd require more evidence.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Jonescat said:


> Abou Ben Adhem (may his tribe increase!)
> Awoke one night from a deep dream of peace,
> And saw, within the moonlight in his room,
> Making it rich, and like a lily in bloom,
> ...


I don't deny it - what I am saying is where has it come from. God influences us even if we are unaware of it.

And the poem is about a Muslim - not Christian, but definitely theist


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> *No most were utterly convinced what they were doing was right *and Hitler himself was a psychopath, in the medical sense of not being able to feel compassion. There's a quote somewhere from Mengele's son who said his father felt he had never done anything wrong because of course he was working on sub-humans as he saw it.
> And yet they went to great lengths to keep everything secret, to deny the truth, and to abdicate responsibility.
> 
> *Leaders all over the world have claimed a divine right to rule* or that they're a channel for the power of whatever god they happened to worship. The Israelites weren't the first, certainly the Egyptian Pharaohs were claiming divine lineage before that.


 The Israelites asked God for a king because they wanted to be like other nations. The Egyptians, like the Japanese, believed that their pharaoh was a god. The divine right of kings has only comparatively recently been set aside. But this is not religion -it is abuse of religion.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

> And yet they went to great lengths to keep everything secret, to deny the truth, and to abdicate responsibility.


More out of fear of the retribution that would come once they knew they were losing. Hitler did his utmost best to let everyone know what he planned to do.



lostbear said:


> The divine right of kings has only comparatively recently been set aside. But this is not religion -it is abuse of religion.


But power has in many places, across a lot of religions come from claims of divine lineage or chosen by god. I think the point they were making was a priest or a king annointed by one, or as the Pharaohs did claiming to be descended from one. They didn't have to fight their way to the top, it was a way of taking control. An abuse of religion yes but still using religion to gain power.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

porps said:


> firstly i can only speak for myself - there is no doctrine for atheists to follow, no shared ideaology between atheists, the only thing we necessarily agree on is that we are not convinced in the existence of a deity.
> 
> If faith is defined as "being convinced of something for which there is no evidence" then yeah i suppose i do see it as a weakness, although the amount of evidence required for a claim is relative to the claim being made. If you tell me you have a dog, i might be inclined to believe you with very little evidence (given that- dogs are known to exist, many people keep dogs, this is a pet forum) but if you told me you could move objects with your mind i'd require more evidence.


"Faith" as such does not require a doctrine - it is a conviction. We ALL have faiths of one sort of another - believing that the sun will rise tomorrow is faith based on the evidence that the sun has risen each day in the past. You have never found evidence of God - even in creation - I see it everywhere.

The evidence as you see it leads you to believe (have faith) that there is no God. The evidence as I see it leads me to believe (have faith) that there is.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

firstly, sorry- i haven't read the entire thread- it's very long 
but, i was raised pretty much in the church- attending sunday school- during church service and 2hrs beforehand, rainbows then brownies, caravaners, and was quiz team leader twice, and deputy to my sister twice (who was deputy to my eldest sister until she got too old and left). i learned to read using childrens bible books and i knew the bible inside out and could quote it all at will from a young age- not quite as memorable now, but i remember enough. but i certainly am not religious, same as my sisters.
to quote Ricky Gervais... 



lostbear said:


> I agree - I have never advocated "creationism". The Genesis story in the Buble is juts a simplistic way of explaining a very great truth (so you not think that the order of creation in Genesis is startlingly like the order in which creatures developed on earth as evidenced by fossils).
> 
> I'm sorry but I don't understand your "God is a bacterium" comment/ Not sure what you are getting at here.
> 
> ...


i believe the point they were trying to make is that we evolved. bacteria are the most influential thing on our earth- we likely evolved from them. we are Still evolving- so at what point are/were we 'in gods image'. a loaded question no doubt, and one that can't be answered in life-time.

i believe that is something that many species have a concept of though- my dogs do, my cat does, my rats do... i mean, with both my dogs and cat they Should instinctively hunt and kill rats, but they know that harming the pets is Wrong, so they don't- kitty has even befriended and pretty mcuh adopted them! 
so not only do they have their own species specific traits, they can learn right and wrong based on their social conditions...



lostbear said:


> I disagree - "evil" has moral connotations rather than religious ones I think - not quite the same. "Wrong" is a comparatively mild description. Adultery is "wrong". The Holocaust was "evil", and I would think that most people, religious or not would concur.
> 
> Killing a pedophile is still "wrong", but would not necessarily be considered an "evil" act
> 
> I agree that conducting the mass in Latin was exclusivist - but at the same time, I have Catholic friends who used to cherish that Latin mass, because no matter what country they were in, they could participate fully, because the language of the worship was universal. And you know - a lot of people love the mystery of God - they don't always want it broken down into easy to swallow bites - they want something that lifts and challenges them.


good and bad, wrong and right, good and evil- they all mean the same thing to me- they are all based on an individuals/ a society's own beliefs and concepts. they, to me, are all of the same meaning- so to me, the holocaust was wrong, it was evil, it was carried out by evil/ bad people. 
yet the culling of mis-marked pups was perfectly acceptable until very recently  a double standard within society purely based on the species involved. that seems like a bad/wrong/evil practice to me. (my dads dog growing up was a rough collie- he was the runt, so not expected to make the size requirement for a show dog. he was due to be culled by his owner- a minister incidentally. all creatures great and small are important?)

and as for the latin- 'back in the day' the general public had no understanding of latin. they had to just take the priests word for it! even those who were skilled enough to know how to red and write, did so in the english of the time, not in latin. it was very much a method used to control the people a they had to take the priests word on the subject as law- no matter how immoral to us these days that it was.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Exactly what K posted above re Ricky Gervais-love how we can use that character to convey our point!



lostbear said:


> I disagree
> 
> I agree that conducting the mass in Latin was exclusivist - but at the same time, I have Catholic friends who used to cherish that Latin mass, because no matter what country they were in, they could participate fully, because the language of the worship was universal. And you know - a lot of people love the mystery of God - they don't always want it broken down into easy to swallow bites - they want something that lifts and challenges them.


I knew you would, my Bearcub, I just wanted to see if we could take off the religious edge to explain my point.

I learnt Mass in French when I lived there, very odd!


----------



## Guest (May 10, 2014)

Regarding traditions and respecting where you come from...
I come from a long family history of dysfunction and abuse. I grew up in many different countries, many different cultures, and my heritage is massively mixed. 
What I choose to pass on to my own children is a complete invention of my own making with precious little to do with my family of origin.

If traditions are worth passing on, knock yourself out, but many of us grew up in traditions that no longer serve any greater good and need to be allowed to wither and die.

Regarding atheism being a belief system. Its not. Its simply a statement of not believing. Its like saying I dont believe Thor is a god or that the tooth fairy exists. It doesnt make me a believer in non-toothfairy-ism or non-Thor-theism. 

Now, atheists can have philosophies that they follow, but thats separate from their non-belief. For example one can follow the philosophy of mindfulness in all that you do, but that doesnt mean you have faith in mindfulness or believe in mindfulness. Its just something that you do, like meditation or going for a walk in the woods. 

Regarding that oh so common question if you dont believe in God, where does your morality come from? Honestly, I find it rather arrogant. 
Like I said, Ive lived in many countries, experienced many cultures, and it seems to me that humans manage quite well to be moral without a god figure. And really, like Einstein said, if the only reason youre good is to gain some reward, and avoid punishment, what kind of morality is that anyway? 
I dont want my children to behave in a moral way just so that they can reserve their spot in heaven and avoid hell. I want them to develop a strong sense of empathy, compassion, and caring for their fellow humans and animals. And they dont need god for that.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> *More out of fear of the retribution that would come once they knew they were losing*. Hitler did his utmost best to let everyone know what he planned to do.
> 
> Even before they began to lose - from the very first - they were aware that what they were doing was sinful and were careful to never mention it openly in speech or writing.
> 
> But power has in many places, across a lot of religions come from claims of divine lineage or chosen by god. I think the point they were making was a priest or a king annointed by one, or as the Pharaohs did claiming to be descended from one. They didn't have to fight their way to the top, it was a way of taking control. *An abuse of religion yes but still using religion to gain power.*




Agreed - but that is not a question of whether or not God exists.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> firstly, sorry- i haven't read the entire thread- it's very long
> but, i was raised pretty much in the church- attending sunday school- during church service and 2hrs beforehand, rainbows then brownies, caravaners, and was quiz team leader twice, and deputy to my sister twice (who was deputy to my eldest sister until she got too old and left). i learned to read using childrens bible books and i knew the bible inside out and could quote it all at will from a young age- not quite as memorable now, but i remember enough. but i certainly am not religious, same as my sisters.
> to quote Ricky Gervais...
> 
> ...


I agreed with this before. Latin mass started because Latin was the language of the ROman EMpire, and therefore became the language of the church. But I do know catholics who enjoy a Latin has even though they don't understand Latin. I personally have celebrated a eucharist where the readings were in New Testament Greek - to me it was very beautiful, and felt extremely spiritual and full of God's mystery. I appreciate that this would not be to everyone's wish.


----------



## tinaK (Jun 12, 2010)

I was bought up to go to church twice on a Sunday, Sunday school, etc But at home I was suffering awful sexual/physical/verbal/emotional abuse 

My parents were seen to be the pillar of society. Now however I do have my own faith. i go to church, and enjoy it.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

ouesi said:


> Regarding traditions and respecting where you come from...
> I come from a long family history of dysfunction and abuse. I grew up in many different countries, many different cultures, and my heritage is massively mixed.
> What I choose to pass on to my own children is a complete invention of my own making with precious little to do with my family of origin.
> 
> ...


No - not for that.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

lostbear said:


> I won't argue with you here. Whether he was a minister or not though is immaterial - priests are human and can be as bad as the rest of us. Most priests of all denominations that I know (and I know a fair few) do not believe that animals have souls. I would disagree with them on that one. I think that they not only have souls, but that like the souls of young children, they are pure.
> 
> I agreed with this before. Latin mass started because Latin was the language of the ROman EMpire, and therefore became the language of the church. But I do know catholics who enjoy a Latin has even though they don't understand Latin. I personally have celebrated a eucharist where the readings were in New Testament Greek - to me it was very beautiful, and felt extremely spiritual and full of God's mystery. I appreciate that this would not be to everyone's wish.


though it wasn't completely immaterial- it linked back to the image and quote i posted.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> ]though it wasn't completely immaterial- it linked back to the image and quote i posted.[/B]


Sorry - I was thinking about the person being a minister - I agree with you that how we treat other people is the important thing - and how we treat those creatures over which we have control.

And I also think a minister should be kinder, you're right. But they are people like us, some of them are nicer individuals than others.

I also realise that I pulled someone for straying away from the thread when I have done exactly the same thing - apologies all round, folks. It seems to have gone from"should we bring kids up in a religion" to "is there a God". Not like a thread on this forum to lose direction and end up miles from where it started, is it? (*koff, koff*) (LOL).

Looks like we will have to agree to differ - but how civilised we have all been about it - not a single jihad.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

Imagine that God may actually respect our beliefs (we have free will!!)...and so we all will be granted the Beyond of our choice...










what will happen to agnostics...that puzzles me though?



but deep down I think we all are one way or the other..


----------



## Spikesmum (May 7, 2014)

I was brought up in a Christian/Catholic household. 26 years ago I became Buddhist and still am. My son is 21 and I've never pressed my beliefs or any other kind of religious beliefs on him. I've always said that it's up to him if he chooses to follow any religion, up to now he hasn't shown any interest in any of them.


----------



## Guest (May 11, 2014)

lostbear said:


> Sorry - I was thinking about the person being a minister - I agree with you that how we treat other people is the important thing - and how we treat those creatures over which we have control.
> 
> And I also think a minister should be kinder, you're right. But they are people like us, some of them are nicer individuals than others.
> 
> ...


I agree, it has been enjoyable


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> Imagine that God may actually respect our beliefs (we have free will!!)...and so we all will be granted the Beyond of our choice...
> 
> *
> what will happen to agnostics...that puzzles me though?
> ...


We just don't know  :laugh:


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Spikesmum said:


> I was brought up in a Christian/Catholic household. 26 years ago I became Buddhist and still am. My son is 21 and I've never pressed my beliefs or any other kind of religious beliefs on him. I've always said that it's up to him if he chooses to follow any religion, up to now he hasn't shown any interest in any of them.


I thought the dog on the left in your sig picture was a giant anteater

(I know - shoulda gone to specsavers . . . )


----------



## koekemakranka (Aug 2, 2010)

Shoshannah said:


> I agree. I attended the Catholic christening of my best friend's little boy. I did the same as you - I did not join in with the prayers but sat quietly. I was more than happy to go in and be part of the event, as it's up to them and I respect their beliefs. But I definitely won't be christening my own children.


Exactly. Respect is a two-way street. I think refusing to attend religious events of family, or making a fuss when people want to say grace in their own home is intolerant and rude.


----------



## lilythepink (Jul 24, 2013)

when I was a child I went to Sunday school...as did everyone from the same area. We went to different churches but it was the norm to go to Sunday School.

We had religious assemblies every morning in school.

Everyone I knew went to Brownies and then on to Guides.

This was all Christian based. 

I don't go to church or any other religious activity, I can choose and so can my daughters and grandchildren.

I honestly don't think going to these things did me or anybody else I knew any harm.It hasn't done my children or grandchildren any harm so far either.

3 grandchildren regularly go to Sunday school in the local Methodist chapel.They are also involved in other chapel.christian activities. I don't think this will do any harm either.


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

I am not religeous but personally I think its very wrong to say that parents should not be allowed to bring up their children in their own faith - that would be living in a dictatorship


----------



## Dingle (Aug 29, 2008)

Although I'm not a religous person, my daughter goes to a Catholic Primary School. She enjoys RE and it's not rammed down her throat... I believe it's her choice to make.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

lostbear said:


> I thought the dog on the left in your sig picture was a giant anteater
> 
> (I know - shoulda gone to specsavers . . . )


I think you have a problem  You are obsessed with anteaters. Never mind Specsavers, how about Anteaters Anonymous?! :lol:


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> I think you have a problem  You are obsessed with anteaters. Never mind Specsavers, how about Anteaters Anonymous?! :lol:


I started their 12-step programme, and I was doing really well - I stood up in front of everyone and said (in a wavering voice, it must be admitted) "My name is lost bear, and I am a myrmecophagaholic" and everybody clapped and someone patted my back and they all said "That's the hardest bit" and "You're over the worst" and all that stuff, and then the leader said "Then next thing is you have to remove anteaters from your life altogether. Get rid of 'em. You can't afford ever to even look at an anteater again."

I mean - WHAT? Get rid of my anteaters? The three of them were tied up to a lamp-post outside the meeting room and had been as good as gold the whole time I had been in there. I just got quietly to my feet and said "I'm just going outside - I may be some time". A couple of them followed me down the stairs, trying to drag me back - well as soon as they set eyes on Pip, Squeak and Wilfred they were all over them, and their joyful cries of "Oh, you're so fluffy" and "Who's a pretty boy, then?" brought the rest of them running (and you wouldn't believe how many ex-anteater obsessives keep a bag of mixed ants and termites in their pockets "just in case").

I had to fight to get my babies away from them - things were staring to get ugly and very embarrassing - watching grown men sobbing into the thick, anthill encrusted hair of my little tuppences (we'd been to the park - they'd had a bit of a dig), and crying "Why did I ever let them persuade me to part with Rolfie/Janis/Mittens/Spike" etc and fighting with each other over a shed whisker - honestly. On the other hand the ladies have knitted lots of little claw cosies which have been a boon as far as protecting the settee is concerned.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

Took me a while to get time to reply to this, but here goes 



lostbear said:


> I agree - I have never advocated "creationism". The Genesis story in the Bible is just a simplistic way of explaining a very great truth (do you not think that the order of creation in Genesis is startlingly like the order in which creatures developed on earth as evidenced by fossils).
> 
> *No, not really. Humans were not the last creature on Earth to evolve ('evolution' is ongoing all the time), and alongside early hominids in the fossil record are many other species that have lived and evolved or become extinct. Humans beings have the ability to assign an order of importance to other living beings depending on their complexity, and so it makes sense for the writers of the genesis story to assume that larger animals came later, and also to assume that there must be an environment for them to exist in first. But as we all well know the conditions on Earth changes all of the time, and there's no mention in genesis of the great ice ages, or mass extinctions caused by meteors hitting the Earth. And any good scientist of the history of life on Earth knows that insects evolved along side or even before flowering plants.*
> 
> ...


Just my opinions.


----------



## Guest (May 12, 2014)

Does anyone else find it a bit worrisome that not taking the lord's name in vain, not having false idols, and not having any other god were all important enough to become a commandment, but there is no commandment against rape or slavery? Two things that were rampant at that time?


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Blackcats said:


> *That's your opinion
> 
> So, again, don't tar everyone with the same brush just because people aren't religious.*
> 
> ...


Again - not offended - I think you seem to be very touchy, though.

An as for stealing the winter solstice - that is just being silly. To adopt a time when people would be celebrating anyway, in such a way as to use that adoption to bring them to greater understanding of the faith you are trying to teach them is sensible, not "theft". The early Christians effectively said "This is what we believe - and it is not unlike your belief in XXXXX. You want to keep your festival as well as being Christian - that's fine - but what about using it to celebrate a Christian belief.

Not sure how many pagans the Christian fathers murdered - many of them were killed, but most used peaceful methods to spread the word of Jesus, as dar as I am aware.

BTW - I don't get offended as easily as you seem to think. If you hurt a child ir an animal, were unkind to someone, or daubed racist slogans, or stuck up holocaust-denial posters, I would find that offensive. If you spat on the Cross, or tore up a Bible, I would find that offensive. But I probably wouldn't go to war with you about it. I would try to stop it, and I would consider you an @rs£, but I wouldn't lose any sleep over someone so stupid.

I think you've read more into my posts than I have put there.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Phoenix24 said:


> See now what I read there is actually you demand they respect _your_ tradition, heritage, ancestry etc, but in truth when your children become adults they have a choice to make about _their_ traditions, heritage and ancestry, and *by demanding they respect your beliefs etc you are, potentially, disrespecting their freedom to choose*. You are, in effect, imposing your personal standards on them, creating boundaries that are neither necessary nor helpful for them to grow as independent adults.
> 
> Just my opinion, and not to be taken as more than such.


Taking that to its logical conclusion, that means that if we demand that our children do not break the law, treat other people with consideration and respect, and are kind to animals and to others, then we are disrespecting their freedom to choose to be petty thieves, drug dealers, rapists, murderers and animal abusers.

Does the opportunity to indulge our worst impulses at every whim help us to grow as independent adults? We have to impose standards on, and create boundaries for our children - how else are they going to learn that others also have rights and are entitled to respect?

This "I have rights but no responsibilities" culture is one of the things that is eating away at the fabric of our very tolerant society.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

message depends not only on Sender but also on receiver.....thus if we humans are to receive any message we can only do so in spectrum of our culture, knowledge ,understanding...

God cannot be understood by anything but His equal...

we have limited life ,limited knowledge, experience, senses...yet we are aware than more experience, knowledge life exist beyond our capacity and ability...

humanity for many thousand of years tries to understand..to get the message.....in many ways..

I do not mind praying and learning with Hindu,Buddhists, muslim...Jewish..all are paths ,crisscrossing paths...


and infinity of questions...






children ask questions too..that is why quite impossible not to answer them!


So my youngest cheeklet recently asked what was before Big Bang?
Where it came from? Why?

He is seven.......


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> You can reject your ancestry, you traditions , your faith ,..but you cannot change where you came from!!
> and it sits deeper that you think! or so many psychologists agree..even if we are not conscious of that influence..
> 
> To those who wonder what my kids are expected to do: that is easy they have to respect both!
> ...


Cheeky - you are a joy. Very sensible and very tolerant.


----------



## Phoenix24 (Apr 6, 2013)

lostbear said:


> Taking that to its logical conclusion, that means that if we demand that our children do not break the law, treat other people with consideration and respect, and are kind to animals and to others, then we are disrespecting their freedom to choose to be petty thieves, drug dealers, rapists, murderers and animal abusers.
> 
> Does the opportunity to indulge our worst impulses at every whim help us to grow as independent adults? We have to impose standards on, and create boundaries for our children - how else are they going to learn that others also have rights and are entitled to respect?
> 
> This "I have rights but no responsibilities" culture is one of the things that is eating away at the fabric of our very tolerant society.


I think you missed my response to this, but basically I agree we need boundaries for our children, but those boundaries need not be 'religious' for those boundaries to be moral. For example, I know not to kill people because that is wrong, but I didn't have to go to church to learn this, not do I spend my time worrying that my soul might go to hell if I do not follow a religion.

Totally agree there on the rights/responsibilities comment. But I do not agree that a child needs to follow a religion to grow up with appropriate moral boundaries.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> message depends not only on Sender but also on receiver.....thus if we humans are to receive any message we can only do so in spectrum of our culture, knowledge ,understanding...
> *
> God cannot be understood by anything but His equal...*
> 
> ...


----------



## DoodlesRule (Jul 7, 2011)

Phoenix24 said:


> I think you missed my response to this, but basically I agree we need boundaries for our children, but those boundaries need not be 'religious' for those boundaries to be moral. For example, I know not to kill people because that is wrong, but I didn't have to go to church to learn this, not do I spend my time worrying that my soul might go to hell if I do not follow a religion.
> 
> *Totally agree there on the rights/responsibilities comment. But I do not agree that a child needs to follow a religion to grow up with appropriate moral boundaries*.


Neither do I but for someone with a strong faith then to me it would be natural for them to bring their children up in the same religeon - providing they are permitted to make their own decision when old enough I cannot see what is wrong with that.

Both me & brother were christened simply because it caused a lot of distress to my grandad the thought of us not being christened because of his beliefs (he was Catholic). It didn't do either of us any harm, my parents were not church goers and never pushed it either way


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

DoodlesRule said:


> *Neither do I but for someone with a strong faith then to me it would be natural for them to bring their children up in the same religeon - providing they are permitted to make their own decision when old enough I cannot see what is wrong with that.
> *
> Both me & brother were christened simply because it caused a lot of distress to my grandad the thought of us not being christened because of his beliefs (he was Catholic). It didn't do either of us any harm, my parents were not church goers and never pushed it either way


I think we have a responsibility to raise our children in our own beliefs (how strongly can we feel about them if we don't want our children to follow them) and even more to raise them to have a moral code.

As Doodles says - they then have the right as adults to follow our faith, another, or none.

Both of my children are agnostic. I hope they will come to Christian belief. and I pray for that to happen. But failing Christian belief, I hope they find God in a faith, rather than becoming atheistic. But I love them anyway, and will continue to love them - I can't think of anything that would destroy my love for my children, and I believe that God's love for us is the same. We have it despite what we do, not because of it, a lot of the time.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Phoenix24 said:


> *I think you missed my response to this, but basically I agree we need boundaries for our children, but those boundaries need not be 'religious' for those boundaries to be moral.* For example, I know not to kill people because that is wrong, but I didn't have to go to church to learn this, not do I spend my time worrying that my soul might go to hell if I do not follow a religion.
> 
> Totally agree there on the rights/responsibilities comment. But I do not agree that a child needs to follow a religion to grow up with appropriate moral boundaries.


I did miss your response, and to a degree I agree with you regarding the fact that boundaries need not be "religious". What I have tried to understand is "What tells you that a 'wrong' thing is 'wrong' if not an instinct placed within you by God?"


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

lostbear said:


> I started their 12-step programme, and I was doing really well - I stood up in front of everyone and said (in a wavering voice, it must be admitted) "My name is lost bear, and I am a myrmecophagaholic" and everybody clapped and someone patted my back and they all said "That's the hardest bit"


What, saying myrmecophagaholic?! :lol:

LB, I think you ought to write a newspaper column a the very least, or answer Agony Aunt type queries in this manner ^^ I think you're hilarious!!


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> What I have tried to understand is "What tells you that a 'wrong' thing is 'wrong' if not an instinct placed within you by God?"


i see no reason to believe that (that) instinct could only exist with a gods influence. Nor am i convinced that our sense of right and wrong is entirely instinctual. I do think there are base instincts, such as dont kill your own species which offer a clear evolutionary advantage, but beyond that i think peoples sense of right and wrong probably comes mainly from a combination of social and cultural influences and our brains cognitive ability. I dont _know_ really.. but i dont just say "must be a god then!" when i dont know something, i say "i dont know".

this question is strange it's almost the same as saying "i cant think of a reason to be a nice person other than god"


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cinnamontoast said:


> What, saying myrmecophagaholic?! :lol:
> 
> LB, I think you ought to write a newspaper column a the very least, or answer Agony Aunt type queries in this manner ^^ I think you're hilarious!!


Aaaw! Shucks - you've made me blush :blushing::blushing::blushing:


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

porps said:


> i see no reason to believe that (that) instinct could only exist with a gods influence. Nor am i convinced that our sense of right and wrong is entirely instinctual.* I do think there are base instincts, such as dont kill your own species which offer a clear evolutionary advantage,*
> 
> Not necessarily - if you are competing for resources killing your competitors makes perfect evolutionary sense.
> 
> ...


Not sure it is, but it may well be that I'm not expressing myself clearly, as other people are also mistaking what I'm trying to get at. Perhaps this whole concept is too complicated to discuss via forum posts. Maybe we shall all have to just agree to differ - but I've certainly enjoyed this whole discussion - not just what has been said, but the atmosphere in which it has been conducted.

There are some areas where we either believe or don't believe, and the most people of the opposite view can hope for is that they will make us think. Some comments here have certainly made me think - not about my faith, but about why I feel as I do, and also how to express it.

Thank you for that.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=701618586571718&set=p.701618586571718&type=1

porps...it sort of made me think of you...so I shared!


----------



## georgypan (Mar 31, 2014)

Richard Dawkins emphasises that there is no such thing as a Christian child, only the child of Christian parents. Children are too young to make that sort of judgement or decision. The same goes for all religions. Depending on which country or community into which you are born you can be a Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Christian. If you were born to different parents you could believe the total opposite of what you believe today. Children should be given a moral upbringing. Religious people don't have a monopoly on morality. I'm an atheist, can you tell?


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

Neither religious people or atheists are more moral than the other. Our moral code is based on the society we live in. We live closely together in larger groups than ever before, there have to be rules governing our behaviour or the whole thing collapses. Whether you follow those rules for fear of imprisonment or eternal damnation is up to you really. Laws and courts are hardly a modern invention, I think the first records we have of something close to a proper justice system is in ancient Egypt.

I'm not Christian, I do believe evolution is the best answer we have but I look at some of the relationships and survival strategies and wonder if it's possible for those to evolve by random chance so who knows.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> Neither religious people or atheists are more moral than the other. Our moral code is based on the society we live in. We live closely together in larger groups than ever before, there have to be rules governing our behaviour or the whole thing collapses. Whether you follow those rules for fear of imprisonment or eternal damnation is up to you really. Laws and courts are hardly a modern invention, I think the first records we have of something close to a proper justice system is in ancient Egypt.
> 
> I'm not Christian, *I do believe evolution is the best answer we have *but I look at some of the relationships and survival strategies and wonder if it's possible for those to evolve by random chance so who knows.


Not sure what this means (not being sarcastic - sorry if it sounds like I am). I don't see any contradictions between science and religion. And despite what Richard Dawkins would like to imply in his books, there are a lot of scientists who have strong Christian faith (I mention "Christian" for two reasons
1) because people are free to leave it if they wish - Islam puts huge social burdens (and often worse) on those who convert to other faiths (I'm including atheism in "other faiths") It is not a faith that you can "opt out " of
and
2) Dawkins seems to reserve his special venom for Christianity

I also accept that there are believing scientists of many other faiths (including atheism)


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

lostbear said:


> Not sure what this means (not being sarcastic - sorry if it sounds like I am). I don't see any contradictions between science and religion. And despite what Richard Dawkins would like to imply in his books, there are a lot of scientists who have strong Christian faith (I mention "Christian" for two reasons
> 1) because people are free to leave it if they wish - Islam puts huge social burdens (and often worse) on those who convert to other faiths (I'm including atheism in "other faiths") It is not a faith that you can "opt out " of
> and
> 2) Dawkins seems to reserve his special venom for Christianity
> ...


As in the best answer we have for getting from bacteria to well us and everything else. I see no problem with someone believing there was a guiding hand in the whole thing whatever that was and I am well aware there are many scientists who feel that by studying the work of their god they're honouring them.

I see Dawkins as almost as blind as the fanatical religious people he condemns and tries to lump all religious people in with. However, I don't assume all atheist scientist share his blind arrogance and superiority.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

Nicky10 said:


> As in the best answer we have for getting from bacteria to well us and everything else. I see no problem with someone believing there was a guiding hand in the whole thing whatever that was and I am well aware there are many scientists who feel that by studying the work of their god they're honouring them.
> 
> I see Dawkins as almost as blind as the fanatical religious people he condemns and tries to lump all religious people in with. However, I don't assume all atheist scientist share his blind arrogance and superiority.


Extremists of any race, colour or creed are as bad as each other..


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

lostbear said:


> Extremists of any race, colour or creed are as bad as each other..


you think dawkins is an extremist? really?


----------



## havoc (Dec 8, 2008)

> I think it's wrong to impose your personal choices on a child that will then impact on their entire lives


So I mustn't give my children any set of beliefs which by my personal choice would impact their lives? Right from wrong, work ethic, tolerance and kindness to others? Whether within a religious framework or otherwise imposing personal beliefs on children which will see them through to adulthood is exactly what parents do.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

porps said:


> you think dawkins is an extremist? really?


Dawkins assumes all religious people are like the fanatics, like I said earlier in the thread he did a show about how our morals would be had we not invented religion, by which he meant the abrahamic religions of course . He took the purity cults in the US, Muslim girls having their hymens sown up so they bled on their wedding night and extrapolated this to all religious people :huh:. I don't trust a scientist who assumes outliers are representative of the entire population.


----------



## RubyFelicity (Aug 26, 2013)

I was born into the church of Jesus christ of latter day saints. I loved the church when I was little. I have fantastic memories of playing, exploring the church and primary songs. 

I stopped going when I was about 13. But I went back at 20. Not all my siblings go, but we all love Tony and Denise who are from our church who are like family to us. I believe in God and Jesus Christ and I think my family do too.


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> Dawkins assumes all religious people are like the fanatics, like I said earlier in the thread he did a show about how our morals would be had we not invented religion, by which he meant the abrahamic religions of course . He took the purity cults in the US, Muslim girls having their hymens sown up so they bled on their wedding night and extrapolated this to all religious people :huh:. I don't trust a scientist who assumes outliers are representative of the entire population.


yeah fair enough, but i dont see how expressing strong opinions on a subject makes anyone an extremist. I suppose it depends how you define the word extremist, but to me extremists are people like the 911 bombers, or guy fawkes, and whether you trust or agree with dawkins or not doesnt put him that same group



RubyFelicity said:


> I was born into the church of Jesus christ of latter day saints


noone is born with a religion. You were born, then you were taught a religion.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

porps said:


> yeah fair enough, but i dont see how expressing strong opinions on a subject makes anyone an extremist. I suppose it depends how you define the word extremist, but to me extremists are people like the 911 bombers, or guy fawkes, and whether you trust or agree with dawkins or not doesnt put him that same group


a person who favours or resorts to immoderate, uncompromising, or fanatical methods or behaviour, esp in being politically radical

"Today the theory of evolution is about as much open to doubt as the theory that the earth goes round the sun."

"Of course in science there are things that are open to doubt and things need to be discussed. But among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know."

"Many of us saw religion as harmless nonsense. Beliefs might lack all supporting evidence but, we thought, if people needed a crutch for consolation, where's the harm? September 11th changed all that."

All respect for him vanished when he tried to claim child abuse did no harm.


----------



## springerpete (Jun 24, 2010)

Of course there's a God, and he's got a great sense of humour, how else do you explain the Duck Billed Platypus, it's obviously been created from spare parts ?????


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> All respect for him vanished when he tried to claim child abuse did no harm.


If dawkins is an example of athiest extremism i'll take that over religious extremism any day of the week. Remind me again how many people dawkins has killed? whats that? zero? thought so.

He didnt actually say child abuse does no harm- he said that he doesnt beleive the child abuse he suffered from caused him any lasting harm.


----------



## Nicky10 (Jan 11, 2010)

porps said:


> If dawkins is an example of athiest extremism i'll take that over religious extremism any day of the week. Remind me again how many people dawkins has killed? whats that? zero? thought so.
> 
> He didnt actually say child abuse does no harm- he said that he doesnt beleive the child abuse he suffered from caused him any lasting harm.


I didn't say religious extremists are right either but extremism isn't all about blowing people up


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

Nicky10 said:


> I didn't say religious extremists are right either but extremism isn't all about blowing people up


but discussing strong opinions isnt extremism.

ex·trem·ist (ĭk-strē′mĭst)
n.
One who advocates or resorts to measures beyond the norm, especially in politics.

Talking about stuff isnt an extreme behaviour. Debate and discussion are not measures beyond the norm. If dawkins is an extremist then all priests and vicars and pastors are extremists too.


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

havoc said:


> So I mustn't give my children any set of beliefs which by my personal choice would impact their lives? Right from wrong, work ethic, tolerance and kindness to others? Whether within a religious framework or otherwise imposing personal beliefs on children which will see them through to adulthood is exactly what parents do.


Pretty much everything you mentioned is about morals, ethics, as opposed to religion. I don't see the need for a religion-this is my opinion, I know others may totally disagree and think you can only get them from a religious context-in order to live ethically.

I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who love a morally upright life without using religion to do so. It's a parent's right to bring up a child as he or she sees fit, but I did not want to be part of the religion imposed upon me and I feel it had a negative impact on me.

On a lighter note, my OH wanted to know when the spells and throwing of chicken bones would start at the Catholic wedding we attended on Saturday. He's convinced we're more voodoo than Catholic. (Believe me, I've explained the whole derivatives thing!)


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

Think there are worse things in life - how about bringing a child into the world when you have no emotional, financial, or educational intelligence?


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Or if you have none of those plus other issues, I know, first world problems to whinge about a religion!


----------



## Laurac (Oct 1, 2011)

cinnamontoast said:


> Or if you have none of those plus other issues, I know, first world problems to whinge about a religion!


Not at all - plenty of first worlders lacking in the fundamentals!


----------



## cinnamontoast (Oct 24, 2010)

Just the religion bit, I meant


----------



## porps (Jun 23, 2011)

the concepts of original sin, heaven and hell are disgusting things to indoctrinate anyone into believing, let alone a child, especailly since we have no evidence for their existence.

Yes there are worse things in the world than teaching religion - but is that actually a real excuse now? I mean, is theft ok because rape is worse?

Is it really nice for a young child to think their best friend is going to hell for an eternity of toture simply because they were born to parents who follow a different religion or no religion at all?

Is it good to teach kids to feel guilt about perfectly natural desires?

What good comes from religion that couldnt just as easily be achieved without the need to invent a deity?


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

Children have a habit of becoming adults.

I was brought up in a large Catholic Family. We were made to go to Mass every day, recite the Catechism over and over again like robots. We were assured that if we commited one sin, we would burn forever in Hell.

Many children were brought up that way. I'm not saying it was right, but that was how things were.

I turned Sixteen, decided it wasn't for me and I have never been to Church since.

I do believe in God and I do pray, but I do it my own way.

I don't believe I suffered any harm from my Childhood in a Catholic home. In some ways, it probably kept me on the 'straight and narrow', but once I was grown up, I was able to make my own decisions.

As Laurac said, there are worse things. Being indoctrinated isn't good, but being neglected as a Child, particularly emotionally, could be worse.


----------



## kodakkuki (Aug 8, 2011)

porps said:


> the concepts of original sin, heaven and hell are disgusting things to indoctrinate anyone into believing, let alone a child, especailly since we have no evidence for their existence.
> 
> Yes there are worse things in the world than teaching religion - but is that actually a real excuse now? I mean, is theft ok because rape is worse?
> 
> ...


the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has always stuck out in my mind- as i say, i read the bible cover to cover at a young age. my sister read it to me before i could read myself (not the best move my parents made thinking back, but they'd seen no harm and were proud we were so literate!)- and there is some really terrifying stuff in the old testament, and that story is a prime example. it made me scared of god- to the point as a kid i think i may have made myself not believe in the same way i was taught by my mum not to be afraid or the toilet monster that will attack when you flush the loo in the dark (i had warped cousins! lol).

i can see why religion was used as a tool to control the masses in the past- if you had an entire country of people convinced they'd burn for all eternity if they didn't accept what the church said, then of course no one will question a thing! (no problem with Christianity- it's the church i find fault with btw!)
and in the words of Eric Schwartz... "now i am not anti-christian before you grab a rope! there is beauty in religion, and joy and love and hope. we are all looking for the answers, 
Some colossal, cosmic cause. But who the 'heck' are you to turn your views into my laws?"

religion is great for most- by that i mean the Christians who carry on the work of Jesus etc. but there are some things that the church need to get more up to date on! even their holy book evolved from one testament to the next, and we have evolved enough to need another re-vamp IMO. for example, we need to move past homophobia, thankfully have moved past slavery and marrying off your daughters for cash (not in all countries though  ) or worse- forcing your daughter to marry the man who impregnated her- whether she was willing or not. same as sex before marriage- it happens, even with very religious teens... surely the use of contraception is better than an STI or another unwanted baby?

my nephew will read bible stories for kids, but will do so like a story book- and never get his hands on a full bible until he's a teen! IMO, there is some very immoral stuff in the old testament carried out in the name of god... a very different god from the new testament god!

(if that sounds judgmental at all- it's Really not meant to!)


----------



## Rafa (Jun 18, 2012)

kodakkuki said:


> the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has always stuck out in my mind- as i say, i read the bible cover to cover at a young age. my sister read it to me before i could read myself (not the best move my parents made thinking back, but they'd seen no harm and were proud we were so literate!)- and there is some really terrifying stuff in the old testament, and that story is a prime example. it made me scared of god- to the point as a kid i think i may have made myself not believe in the same way i was taught by my mum not to be afraid or the toilet monster that will attack when you flush the loo in the dark (i had warped cousins! lol).
> 
> i can see why religion was used as a tool to control the masses in the past- if you had an entire country of people convinced they'd burn for all eternity if they didn't accept what the church said, then of course no one will question a thing! (no problem with Christianity- it's the church i find fault with btw!)
> and in the words of Eric Schwartz... "now i am not anti-christian before you grab a rope! there is beauty in religion, and joy and love and hope. we are all looking for the answers,
> ...


Yes.

I believe religion is something you need to embrace or not, (personal choice), and find your own level with.

As I said, I do have my own beliefs, not the fanatical ones my Parents practiced, but my own, nonetheless.

I have not brought my Sons up as Catholics. I allowed them to make their own choices, but to me, religion is only a small part of raising a child.

Other things are way more important. My Sons don't go to Church, but they will both defend any creature, to the smallest spider, and are very compassionate and kind.

Religion has it's place, but it's not the 'be all and end all', in my opinion.


----------



## cheekyscrip (Feb 8, 2010)

two little RC who survived First Communion...


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

cheekyscrip said:


> two little RC who survived First Communion...


And very holy they look, too.


----------



## lostbear (May 29, 2013)

kodakkuki said:


> the story of Sodom and Gomorrah has always stuck out in my mind- as i say, i read the bible cover to cover at a young age. my sister read it to me before i could read myself (not the best move my parents made thinking back, but they'd seen no harm and were proud we were so literate!)- and there is some really terrifying stuff in the old testament, and that story is a prime example. it made me scared of god- to the point as a kid i think i may have made myself not believe in the same way i was taught by my mum not to be afraid or the toilet monster that will attack when you flush the loo in the dark (i had warped cousins! lol).
> 
> *i can see why religion was used as a tool to control the masses in the past-
> 
> ...



Not at all - you have explained yourself clearly and without prejudicial ranting - hard for anyone to do when they are discussing such a decisive topic

Loads I agree with here - but you have to remember that yes - as you say, the Bible evolved - it was composed over a period of millennia by a number of different authors, each of whom interpreted God's word through the culture and politics of their time.

The Ten Commandments are good laws especially for a lawless time. The Jews were nomadic people, and at that time did not have a king - there was no legal system the way we think of it, and the Commandments codified ethical behaviour. They start off with "You shall have no other gods before me" - this isn't God being up himself - it is a way of saying "Follow these rules because I have given them to you and they are important" - and then the rules are given. It's like us saying to our children - "Look! I don't care what Toby's mother lets him do - I'm your mother and I say -----------". For their time (1,500 years BC) they were pretty radical, though there were similar laws popping up all over the Middle East around the same date. It was a lawless and violent age - the commandments were an attempt to bring peace to it. Yes - they gave Moses a degree of control, but he was leading an entire nation across a desert - you couldn't have people just doing as they liked, they would have been butchering each other right left and centre - it was a "might is right" age.

It is not religion that is wrong - it is mankind's abuse of religious for selfish ends. And when people like Dawkins bang on about the preference for and purity of science, they always seem to forget to mention that science has given us the atom bomb as well as a cure for polio.

Science can just as easily be turned to bad as religion can. There will always be people who want to control others, and they will use any excuse they can (often religion) and any means they can (usually scientifically based).

None of us is innocent, here.


----------

