All you atheist parents wondering how to broach the religion topic to your kids listen up!

[Rhubarb]

I'm a catholic and I teach my kids about all religions. I explain that some people believe different things and some people don't believe at all. I tell them what the Bible says about creation and what science says.

I tell them what my personal beliefs are but I encourage them to make their own minds up. I answer questions with "well this is what I believe but you might think something different".

I take them to Church and they know about the religion we follow, but I do encourage questions as far as I can bearing in mind their young ages.

So what I say to you is this. Don't put a barrier between yourselves and religion when it comes to your kids. Arm them with information and let them make their own minds up. If you push them a certain way, chances are that they'll reject it later on in life. Whereas if you add your support to whatever they decide to believe or not, it will give them the confidence to choose their own paths.

You may be disappointed in their choices but don't try to influence them too strongly one way or the other.

So says me.

Message withdrawn

sticks up hand

I think harrisey might have been asking a neutral question about the basis for a non-religious moral code. Perhaps seeing it as related to her recent query on opinions about moral absolutes might be helpful?

I don't think she's saying that those without religion have no moral code, just asking what a non-religious person bases it on, and why.

Like, I have a certain moral code, based on the judeo-christian ethical law, which most western law is loosely founded on, from what I recall. I try and follow that for a number of reasons (none of which are about fear of hell, btw) not least the fact that it has a reasonable record of keeping a society operating pretty well.

I know of atheists who are still quite happy with that basis, because of a pragmatic approach to what already works ok, and I know of others who would be quite happy to jettison a lot of it and start again (madamez is one online person who springs to mind who would probably want to take that approach)

Is that as clear as mud?

Mice do feel empathy. It is a clear finding from studies - mice get very stressed when they see mice they know in pain.
However, I am a little dubious about the empathy levels of the scientists carrying out this research.

www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/312/5782/1967

caterpillar and Madamez - you give athiests a very bad name.

There are some lovely people on here such as Aloha and UnquietDad who show tolerance of all religions even though they don't believe. But I doubt that teaching your children intolerance of other peoples faiths or religions is a good way to start their young lives is it?

I'm sorry that you think I support mutilitation of children's genitals and that I am stupid for believing in invisible beings. To be honest I think that says a lot more about you than me.

It is a shame those comments were made on such an interesting thread. Although I see that it has come to the Christians and non-religious each justifying why they are so.

I'll leave this thread with just one final thing. As a Christian you should NOT judge, Jesus himself said so. It always peeves me when I hear someone profess to be Christian and then abuses the Christian code in that way.

Oh and Aloha - I scored a mini-victory with the priest this Sunday, he was shocked at the articles in the publication he had handed out and apologised at once, he said he would not hand it out in future. Now for the Vatican!

Message withdrawn

Thanks Suebaroo - i think that I was trying to say.

Peachy - I arpreciate you saying have been more lucid elsewhere. Good word. Have scarey migraine today, so possibly why I was imflammatory over the weekend, they often take a day or two to manifest (a PMT thing).

Rhuby - I hope you didnt think I was being judgemental. I didnt mean to be. I have a lot of questions for the non-theists, and wasnt phrasing them well this weekend. I'm sory if I was letting you, the side in general, or Jesus down.

The gobledegook question. Sorry if it was rude. I just cant get my head round the nontheist worldview, in my addled state. Will review this tomorrow when my eyes and head are working better. I do appreciate the time and effort given to try to answer my questions.

Tbh Harrisey, when I read caterpillers and Madamez's replies to my previous posts, I only read a few other replies because I felt absolutely insulted and appauled at the reaction I had got from them.

"Rhubarb: you're offended by "comfort blanket"? What would you prefer? "Excuse for mutilating children's genitalts?" "Attempt to justify genocide"? I don't care if people claim to get their moral guidance from the Tellytubbies ( who would make for a fairly harmless religion, after all: eat toast, waggle your legs, give your mates a big hug...) but what is believing in invisible unprovable beings that supervise your actions if not a mental comfort blanket? " This from Madamez made me realise that these are not people I would wish to associate with even in rl as they are preaching intolerance, bigotry and absolute generalisation to their children.

And they call me!

Sorry, I was very upset at that and had to say something. Do carry on without me. It would be a shame to stop such an interesting debate.

"caterpillar and Madamez - you give athiests a very bad name."

but atheism isn't an organised group. Caterpillar and Madamez are individuals with their own individual opinions, which may or may not be completely independent from other athiests way of thinking. Do you see? We are only forced to identify oyurselves as athiests as a counter-position to theism. We don't join 'atheism' and subscribe to a set script of beliefs. For that reason I don't see how Madamex or Caterpillar can be said to be giving atheism a bad name.

Religion is different. If you belong to an organised religion, you do take on all of the beliefs within that organisation (or else you might as well not belong to the organisation) so whilst you might not personally agree with the less desirable things that are done in the name of your religion, your continued membership does support what goes on, however implicitly.

I suppose I cannot understand how people can pick and choose the parts of a religion or denomination that they like and ignore the other bits. Why not just set up your own religion to cover which bits you do like and agree with? Or why not campaign more forcefully (Rhubarb, accosting your priest about the publication he handed out was a good start) against the members of your religion/denomination who do nasty things in its name? I can't get my head around the complaceny and double-standards.

Point taken Ekra. Their individual views are very distasteful.

Yes I do intend to follow more closely what is done in the name of catholicism and to make my views known. But do not confuse the words and actions of individuals with the religion as a whole either. Just because one person preaches that all non-believers go to hell does not mean that this is the stance of the Vatican.

I really must go now before they come back and hurl more bricks at me.

Message withdrawn

I re-read the chapter in "The God Delusion" about educating children, and I thought the most interesting thing the Prof has to say there is (paraphrased) that "you should not teach your children what to think, but rather how to think."

I believe this is excellent advice. Basically it means applying my "Loch Ness Monster paradigm" below - weigh up the evidence and decide what percentage of you will admit that something exists. Encourage critical thinking and always encourage them to back up their beliefs with evidence. Saying "I believe it because it's true" should not be acceptable.

Genuine question for the believers on here: do you agree with Dawkins that the phrases "Christian child" and "Muslim child" etc, should be altered to "child of Christian parents" or "child of Muslim parents"? If not, why not? Do you believe a child can genuinely be Christian, Muslim, Hindu etc? if so, would you happily say "Tory child" or "socialist child" or "Marxist child"?

Just doing my bit for consciousness-raising!

Interesting question, UQD. I think you can say 'Christian child' if your child can articulate the beliefs that they have taken on board for themselves. Obviously, that only happens once they're a certain age anyway, so it becomes a fairly meaningless label before that, if applied to a baby or something like that.

Fwiw, I was definitely a socialist child, as the child of socialist parents. I eventually rejected that, but it was certainly true for a time.

I was a Christian child of atheist aprents, and my ds1 is the Christian child of now- Atheist aprents. Not sure Dawkins suggestions always work, although I understand entirely where he is coming from.

I think the fact that i used to be a Christian is warthy of note here. When I lost my faith my beliefs in right and worng didn't alter, only my general belief in theism and afterlife (I do believe in karma, btw, as in what goes around, comes around. But I see it as a practical reality- whats it they say- be wary who you step on as you climb the ladder, you may need their support on the way back down Which isn't theistic, but does require a moral basis of some rigour).

And Oi Rhuby. I'm also a lovely person who shows tolerance. Don't you forget me

Also agree that Atheists aren't some homogenous group. Some form themselves into groups- I broadly identify with Huimanism and iirc Aloha is too(?). Ohters float around having nothing whatsover in common with anyone bar a gfenral alck of belief in Theistic deities. Some label themselves Buddhists, for example (not the tibetan sort or the Pure Land ones- are they the same as Humanists? Nope.)

Rhubarb: of course I'm not stating that you practice either genocide or child genital mutilation. But these things are done in the name of religion, and that's one of many reasons why rational people despise religion: the immense amount of social harm that is done by individuals and organisations in the name of their imaginary friends.
I do of course appreicate that many supertitious individuals live ethical lives, help the needy, play fair, etc and good luck to them: supersition in people like this is something that can be treated as any other personality quirk one doesn't share (a fondness for bingo, grand opera, jellied eels or brazilian waxing, whatever). It's also true that people who don't identify with any particular brand of mythology can behave badly: it's not superstition or the lack of it that forms a person's moral character.
Oh and as to the idea that the current moral values in the west are based on judeo-christian ones oh FFS! When was there ever a society based on the moral code that it's OK to kill your neighbours for the fun of it, cheat others in business transactions and take what is not yours? Though many societies had some aspect of their moral codes we wouldn't care for (slavery, infanticide) and the moral ideals they describe often applied only to the upper classes of that society, all organised societies had a roughly similar core framework of respect for life and property. No one superstion or myth system gets the copyright on that, sorry.

How old is your ds1, Peachy? can he explain his beliefs?

I do rather object to this distinction between 'religious' and 'rational'. I understand that most of you are using this terminology in the context of this discussion only, but it does rather make it sound as though you think people with a religious belief are generally off their trolley. I suspect non-believers too have their own irrationalities.

I'd love to hear someone define how having a religious belief (which does after all depend on believing stuff for which there is no evidence whatsoever) can be described as in any way rational.
Of course, all human beings behave irraitionally at times, out of wishful thinking, drawing the wrong conclusions from the available evidence, etc. But people who want evidence and facts befoerthey'll accept something are more rational than the ones who just go "duhhh" and hand over their money or their civil liberties.

I didn't say religious belief was rational. It isn't. I don't have any quibbles with that. But assuming people without a religious belief are therefore rational is invalid. Indeed, it is irrational. And that was the dichotomy on offer - religious/rational

UD he is 7.5 BUT he has a verbal age of 16 - 21 (he is HFA so that has been confirmed by many a specialist!). He could explain quantum physics, should you require (but has plenty of issues to compensate sadly)

"rational" as oposed to "superstitious" in the context of this discussion seems reasonable to me as it's a way of getting round all the rather cumbersome or negative definitions of people who don't believe in gods, pixies, flying teapots etc.

I suspect that if you really believe in something then it is rational yto you- religious people feel and see evidence in the forms of love etc, its their interpretationa nd I think its rational enough to believe what your heart says is true- after all, if they dont believe on the basis of what others tell them, thats as negative as believing on that basis, surely?

Rational / irrational isn't really imprtant, in this context people will alwys see their beliefs as rational. What amtters is how you treat poeple, and not condemning good people just because they dont beleive the same as you. the world would be a sadder place without its variety.

Religion is not necessarily irrational, indeed the bloke what invented mathematical logic, George Bool, used it to form a proof of God.

Later it was shown, very rigorously that there are things that can be true, that we cannot prove, and things where we can't even prove that we can't prove them.

It's undergrad maths to prove there are more questions than answers.

Also, if you assume the spiteful God of Islam/Christianity/Judaism, then keeping on His right side is very rational indeed.
Decartes who was a deeply smart person when dealing with uncertainty pointed out that given just how vicious his God was, even a small probability of his existence was worth a lot of bowing and scraping.

Also, "rational" in the economic sense is merely to act in a way that you expect to make your life better, and we observe that many religious people seem happier as a result.
Of course this rational position does not require God to actually exist.

I would say 'people with a religious (or superstitious if you prefer) belief' and 'people who don't have a religious/superstitious belief'.

Otherwise you are excluding, by your own definition, "all human beings".

"I think the fact that i used to be a Christian is worthy of note here. When I lost my faith my beliefs in right and worng didn't alter, only my general belief in theism and afterlife"
So true. At the risk of being branded nasty, my decision to be an atheist was based entirely on logic and rationality. And when i occaisionally question my non-belief it is because i am scared that i might die and be proved wrong and go straight to hell!!
We can't prove there is no God but we can't dis-prove it either.

Today your priest, Rhuby, tomorrow the Vatican!
I don't think anyone is saying that religious people are all bad and non-religious people are all good. That's clearly nonsense. I don't believe because I don't believe.