if you had the choice to be religious or believe in God, would you take it?
Individualistic deity or deities, no. It has no appeal to me anymore.
A pantheistic divine force that we do not currently but may one day have the capacity to perceive and which part of us that we may one day be able to observe that may originate and return to said divine force - I'm open to the concept, but I still wouldn't think such a force should be in charge of codifying behaviour or ritualistically worshiped in a way that would fit under religion.
a lot of posters on MN say that they are comfortable with the principle that actions have consequences, etc. Why are some then so against the idea that good actions will be somehow rewarded?
Except we all know many actions don't have consequences. We know people get away with rape and murder. We know people do active harm and not only have no negative consequences, but are praised and rewarded within our systems. We know our systems often incentivise terrible behaviour and how hard they can make it to do good behaviour that reduces the suffering of others. Why would I pin my hopes on a reward or punishment later when I'm dead? I accept that life isn't fair and sometimes I've benefitted from that as much as I've been harmed by it.
I have considered the ideas that our actions and deaths might affect a pantheistic divine force which may then in turn affect us, but I think that's very different to the individualistic consequences being discussed.
Children will still have a choice, even if they are presented with ideas about religion and spirituality at an early age. If they aren't it's very likely they will be atheists when older. I've seen it many times.
Most people I know in that situation are in the don't really care camp rather than a strong belief in any direction, including atheism or agnostic philosophy.
I'm a home educating parent that requires in Y6 for my children to take a Bible and It's Influences course. I have the textbook on my shelf. We cover a wide range of philosophical and religious systems. We're also a household that doesn't celebrate Christmas or Easter so no, I'm not surprised my older children are all either in the "don't care" or "humans do not have the capacity at this time to give a definitive answer" when facing the wide range of systems and their affects out there. My 9-year-old has some interesting ideas of gods as powerful aliens who now live elsewhere in space though.
I think what's important is the core principles many religions share (e.g. some form of the Ten Commandments, that there's some sort of superior being responsible for creation), not the 'petty' stuff if you like
I've studied and worked with many Jewish scholars, and I've yet to meet one that thinks the 10 commandments are the core of Judaism. They're the most well known, but they're really not the base. The idea of them as the core and that the rest of the 603 commandment and all the writings is petty stuff doesn't fit even the most relaxed understanding of Judaism by a Jewish scholar that I've come across. Important, yes, but not the core. The core is usually given more as struggling and wrestling with God (the meaning of Israel) or a more cultural importance. The 'petty stuff' is actually really important in understanding the different sects.
Religions are very different, and within them there are a lot of differences. This idea that they all paint similar ethics, or that the rules are the base of the faith, I don't think represents what many people of those groups say about their own faiths. I don't think watering them down into some sort of universal ethics has much benefit.
Those of you who are atheists, how would you feel if your DC chose to be religious when they were older?
Same as I would feel about them becoming politically active - how do they balance challenging institutional corruption with going along with it for the "greater good" or their personal comfort?
Their worldview being different to mine doesn't bother me. I'd only be disappointed if they made excuses for the inexcusable because of some divine reasoning and I'd be disheartened if the put their entire moral compass into something controlled by others because I think that's harmful and will likely harm them eventually. Many religious people aren't like that though, I know many who fight corruption within their faiths and the use of their texts and systems as means of control. That I don't feel like spending my time doing that much anymore and do not see the benefit in individualistic deities doesn't mean they won't.
there are lots of kind, compassionate people involved in organised religion, whose only aim is to do good
There are a lot of kind, compassionate people involved in government who only want to do good, that doesn't mean it isn't a network of systems that holds many of them back or that I should follow any specific political doctrine because some of what its followers have done good in the world. I don't think the good counteracts all the issues of corruption and sanctioned harm or makes their beliefs any less ideological or any more representative of reality. It's their effects I care about, not whether they think they're doing good because their ideology says so.
But, anyhow, there are lots of ideologies today that are about power and control and don't seem to generate as much controversy. Think of 'cancel culture', etc. A lot appear to tolerate it.
There are reams and reams of writing on the problems of cancel culture. There are people who benefit from it who promote the concepts of shunning people who they view do wrong and there are people who speak out against it and those are generally unaffected by the large chunk of it as squabbling outside of their perception so tolerate it easily.
Organised religions are a systemic means of socially promoting and obstructing behaviours and ideas - otherwise they wouldn't be organisations, all of them do this, religions just throw divinity into the mix. With this comes power and social control. How it's used and how that is viewed depends on many factors.