Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

children can make their own mind up about religion when they grow up...

814 replies

AliGrylls · 07/04/2011 12:05

Okay I have just read this on another thread but this is a statement I hear quite a lot and want to ask the question.

If all you teach your child is atheism how will they make their mind up about religion when they grow up because they have no religion other than atheism?

They will know nothing other than what you have taught them so they have nothing to make their mind up about - they will be atheist, by default. If people genuinely want their children to make their own mind up they have to provide them with a reasonable alternative (ie, Judaism / Christianity / Islam).

I don't actually know any adults who have been brought up atheist who have thought all of a sudden "I believe in God, I am going to go to Church".

OP posts:
WinterOfOurDiscountTents · 12/04/2011 11:33

They may not arrive at faith through parental or school coersion, but whoever said religion was all about faith?

exoticfruits · 12/04/2011 11:42

They don't arrive at lack of faith through coersion either.

WinterOfOurDiscountTents · 12/04/2011 11:52

A lack of religion doesn't hurt anyone though.

Bumpsadaisie · 12/04/2011 11:53

My parents were non-believers but because I grew up in a village and went to a C of E primary there was always religion there in the cultural background if you like.

I am now a Christian - and I think I was always of quite a religious bent despite my upbringing. Eg when the Gideons came and gave out Bibles I actually read mine of my own accord every night, at age 11 (in deep secrecy from my parents, though am sure they wouldnt have minded).

However it wasn't till I met DH who is a priest that I got baptised and confirmed. Up till that point although I was sympathetic to christianity I was always stumped by the thought that I had to believe literally in the Bible stories. But I did discussion groups and was baptised and confirmed at a liberal cathedral church in London where the door to more sophisticated ideas about what the bible might mean was opened for the first time and I realised I could be a Christian even if I had doubts about the literal truth of many things in the Bible.

I am not fervent and am a very doubtful Christian. But that said, the faith is incredibly important to me now and I attend church most Sundays.

Roseflower · 12/04/2011 12:06

Snorbs you are missing the point

The contention is that the quotes were presented factually ;as authentic quotes from the bible, which of course is deliberately disingenuous.
If one was to submit an academic essay and they incorporated a ?quote? that was in actual fact not from the direct source but their own elucidation (designed to support their argument) they would fail that essay instantly. On a basic academic level it is not proper.
Furthermore you have been doubly misled, as the ?paraphrasing? and ?portrayal? were not even the authors own works as you believe; but were taken from the Sceptics annotated bible website but portrayed as genuine words from the bible.
Of course the very nature of the bible means it is inherently entwined with the art and science hermeneutics. There is no argument in that.
In a nutshell, if it was honestly portrayed ?these are someone else?s interpretations that I happen to agree with? then fine. But it was the lack of proper academic application and dishonesty which is the contention.

Think; I was to write an article about this thread and not quote you directly but but a spin on your words to suit my outcome to "win" my argument you cannot, with all honesty say you would find that proper.

That is the end of the matter for me.

SpringchickenGoldBrass · 12/04/2011 14:16

I can just about cope with people who faff around with some idea of 'spirituality' that isn;t particularly attached to any of the Big Myth Brands - mainly because that sort of woolly woo is generally devoid of any misogyny, homophobia or justifications-for-warfare. It's not some people's fault that they can't do without some fluffy sort of supernaturalness, it's to do with the way their lesser brains are wired.
What I realy don't get is why supposedly intelligent people insist on following the Big Myth Brands when they are so easy to deconstruct logically, and so unpleasant in so many aspects.

ChickensHaveNoEyebrows · 12/04/2011 16:02

Indeed, Winter. Religion can be a very different thing to faith, ime.

exoticfruits · 12/04/2011 17:10

I don't understand why you have 'to get it' SCGB- I'm sure they can manage without you 'getting it'. Life would be simpler if everyone was just free to think what they like without others trying to influence or ridicule etc.

A lack of religion doesn't hurt anyone though

Naturally-those without religion are all sweetness and light, spreading joy and peace whereever they go! They don't want power, they love their fellow man (or woman)and they are never cruel and selfish!

MIFLAW · 12/04/2011 17:24

"A lack of religion doesn't hurt anyone though

Naturally-those without religion are all sweetness and light, spreading joy and peace whereever they go! They don't want power, they love their fellow man (or woman)and they are never cruel and selfish!"

Silly argument - are you saying that those things happen BECAUSE they don't have religion?

If not, you still haven't shown that a lack of religion is harmful.

And if that IS what you mean, then it's bollocks.

alistron1 · 12/04/2011 17:35

Atheism is not a belief. There are no rituals, moral codes or expectations surrounding it. You don't need to follow a special diet, spend money or only marry certain people in order to be an atheist. Atheists tend not to stone people to death, spread misinformation about aids/contraception or issue fatwas.

Atheism is a logical position IMHO, religion and science are intrinsically linked, for example 'creationism' and 'intelligent design' are two pretty high profile religious/scientific issues.

I was brought up in the catholic world and remember quite clearly being 11 and deciding that it was all rather ludicrous. I'd never heard of Dickie Dawkins, so to infer that we are all Dawkins worshipers is just silly.

exoticfruits · 12/04/2011 17:36

Human nature is the same the world over-religion is merely an excuse-wanting power is the cause.

exoticfruits · 12/04/2011 17:38

Of course bad things don't happen because people don't have religion-where on earth did I say, or even imply that? Bad things happen regardless.

MIFLAW · 12/04/2011 17:59

Well, fine, but it really did look like you were using this "argument" to refute the claim that lack of religion never hurt anyone.

Of course human nature means that there are wrong'uns of every stripe.

So that suggests that you agree wholeheartedly that lack of religion never hurt anyone; some non-religious people hurt people, of course, but it's not their lack of religion that makes them evil.

Glad we agree.

BonnetwithPosie · 12/04/2011 18:00

then exotic, your earlier arguement

"A lack of religion doesn't hurt anyone though

Naturally-those without religion are all sweetness and light, spreading joy and peace whereever they go! They don't want power, they love their fellow man (or woman)and they are never cruel and selfish!"

makes no sense, so what are you trying to say here? Of course it's about power, but religion in some cases facilitates this.

So how does a lack of religion hurt anyone?

Roseflower · 12/04/2011 18:28

It is naive to say a lack of religion never hurts anyone.

There are many examples when enforcing atheisim on a an entire nation can, and will leave some very black marks on our history books.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism

WinterOfOurDiscountTents · 12/04/2011 18:32

thats not the same thing though is it, actually?

Roseflower · 12/04/2011 18:33

How so?

alistron1 · 12/04/2011 18:39

Well RoseFlower, your link discusses corrupt and oppressive state regimes who enforce a position on their population. Obviously not nice, but one could counter with witch craft trials, the spanish inquisition, the crusades, burning catholics/protestants, the sacking of the monasterys, the troubles in ireland, the middle east, jihad, oppression of women, aids in africa, and warring between various islamic factions..

The daily 'practice' of atheism doesn't require special clothes, food, sexual practices, stoning people, handing over cash etc...

SolarPanel · 12/04/2011 18:39

YANBU. Why shouldn't children be brought up within a faith, as long as it's the harmless variety of loving one's neighbour? It would be ridiculously interventionist to insist children cannot go along to Sunday School, for example. Let each family do what they feel is best, just as they do with other aspects of life.

When the children grow up they will of course be able to decide for themselves (if they haven't already) whether to continue to follow similar beliefs to their parents, or to take another stance. It's perfectly possible to be brought up in a faith and then reject it later - this happens all the time.

No, atheism is not a "default setting", it's a decision that you believe there is no god. The default setting (if you mean what we're born with) is lack of knowledge about religion.

SolarPanel · 12/04/2011 18:40

(interventionist - I mean by anyone apart from the parents, such as a state ban on religious practice for children)

Roseflower · 12/04/2011 18:47

Well of course that is the obvious response; look what evil has been done in the name of religion and is unrefutable.

However the point is on an individual basis religion or lack of does not hurt anyone; but when religion or atheism is enforced a failure comply this is when history proves the dire consquences.

What history should teach us is to be tolerant.

Religion or no religion; cause or no cause; evil has and will always exist such is human nature.

WinterOfOurDiscountTents · 12/04/2011 18:52

I don't believe in evil or human nature, so I'll disagree with you on both counts. A very religious notion is evil, and human nature...well, since you can never find a set of qualities of any kind that all humans have or do encompass, it easily follows that the notion of human nature is an artificial construct.

Roseflower · 12/04/2011 18:57

If you don't believe in evil or human nature then how do you explain them?

Roseflower · 12/04/2011 18:58

By that I mean what is your personal explanation for

  1. Evil
  2. Human nature
alistron1 · 12/04/2011 18:58

State enforced atheism has always ultimately been an attempt to wrest control/power/money away from state enforced religion. Both things are bad.

I personally think that the mark of a civilised society is that people should be allowed to worship (or not) as they wish. And in that spirit I reserve the right to think that faith/religion is misplaced and has caused lots of grief on a macro and micro level for a very long time.