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Message withdrawn

I also believe because I believe.

Strangely, I also love rationality. I just suspend it when it comes to faith. Because I can't not believe.

Ok i admit, the vehement belief that led me to say wierd things like "Go on (insert 7 year old neice's name here), you can jump off the top bunk, God won't let you get hurt" is just not there anymore. Btw i was about 14 and extremely stupid.
I state again. Can't dis-prove God. Then again can't dis-prove an alternate dimension where i am the Queen, which i personnally would quite like to be real. (Note that i did NOT say "that i'd like to be true too".

I think it comes down to amatter iof personal faith, which you eitther have or don't. Mine waned after DH got ill (and also the tsunami) and our lives fell apart for a while, then vanished when we were told ds3 would be getting a dx of ASD in the future- we already ahev a DS1 with HFA. I just can't believe that a sympathetic loving God could do that to us, it seems we have been hit repeatedly for many years.

otjhers use their faith to get them through of course, and good luck to them.

Rhubarb I have to echo ekra's sentiment that people who you find insulting on this thread are individuals and saying that they are giving atheists a bad name isn't the case - they are giving themselves a bad name. I know you acknowledged her point, but I had to mention it too because it is always tempting to use that kind of reasoning (as a counter attack also) but it weakens the argument.
I do not see being an atheist as membership of an illicit clandestine group - I do not see myself as part of a group at all. I am just me. I never aspired to atheism - I just became one by default. As I said before, I agree with your initial point about being open to teaching kids both viewpoints.

Last one then!
Yes Ekra, I do understand your point and I promise never to group everyone again if you promise never to group catholics or Christians!

I do not believe in ghosts because so far there is no proof of their existence. I do not believe in fairies or Father Christmas for the same reasons, or little green men. However I am open minded enough to think that if a little green man came and flashed his 10 willies at me then I'd have to believe, given the undisputed evidence before me.

But then, who would believe me that a little green man had just flashed his 10 willies at me? I might have my proof but who would take my word?

Now you take God. I have my proof that He exists, my faith, my own experiences of Him. But who would believe me? As Jesus said to Thomas "You believe because you can see me, happy are those who believe yet cannot see me". I might be classed as a loon, or someone who is irrational or insane. As I might if I related the little green man experience to anyone who cared enough to listen. But I know myself, I know that I am no loon, that I am not easily fooled, that I have been through life with no faith and no belief at all. And now, well now I cannot dispute the evidence He has shown me.

But for my children? I will tell them about everything, I will tell them of my faith, perhaps even of my experiences, but they need to find their own stance on things. They need to find these things out for themselves. For it wasn't until I lost my faith that I learnt many things about myself. That I learnt what it was like to live without faith or belief. It was a useful experience for me. Perhaps my children have to go through the same thing?

But whatever, I do not want my children to have blind faith. I want them to question and discover, seek and explore. I have faith that they will make the right decisions at some point in their lives. And so it really is up to them.

So ends the rantings of a loon!

Was that for Ekra or me?

SIW, you can't "disprove" God, but neither can anyone disprove any outlandish claim made by anybody. It's impossible to "disprove" the non-ness of anything, and to ask someone to do so (not that you are) is merely a rhetorical flourish designed to win arguments.

Bertrand Russell posited something called the "Great Celestial Teapot" to illustrate this very point. The Invisible Pink Unicorn is another example.

The best you can do is weigh up the evidence, and see where on the line of belief/non-belief you lie having assessed it all. As I said below, I'm 90/10 against the Loch Ness Monster. I'm about 95/5 on ghosts. I'm as close to 100/0 as it's possible, philosophically, to be against God, fairies and astrology.

If people don't like "rational" then I welcome other possible words, which must have the meaning "people who don't accept things for which there is no objective evidence."

I know...i was trying to be funny [smiles sweetly], everybody on here seems to be getting so serious and offended!

Sorry plummy, it was for you!

For one who is an avid follower of Sherlock Holmes I would say rational is perfectly acceptable to use, but I shall quote him when he says "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I know for some people that God is an impossibility, but as you cannot disprove Him, perhaps we could say he is the "improbable"?

Rhubarb, I object to you deducing from my views that I raise my children to be intolerant of people with faith. I have more integrity and intelligence than that. Someone who would do that is a bigot. I am no bigot.
Why does non-belief have to go hand in hand with intolerance? By this logic you could be said to be intolerant of anyone whom you happened to disagree with over any issue? This of course brings us back to an earlier point: Why is religion so special??
I have found that it is people with definite religions who are more intolerant of other faiths, not aethiests.

Ah but have we actually eliminated all the impossible? Haven't you seen the beer advert where we are a bubble floating in a glass, or the end of Men in Black where we are inside the marble of a giant alien. There are more but i can't remember everything i am not a walking encyclopaedia.

Caterpillar, that bit of my rant was directed at MadameZ. However I shall quote yourself back to you: "The older ones now look at people who are religious with a look of half pity, half surprise at their gullibility. If the word exists" - why do your older children have such disdain for believers then?

Are we to be pitied?

Can you not see why I would object to that?

But anyway. You have your views and that's fine. I hope you would respect me mine as much as I respect you yours.

I think there's a difference between irrational and unproven.
Irrational is where you ignore facts you know. The classic here is not the existence of God, but how you interpret his nature.
The evidence that he's a loving entity is not exactly 100%.
There's a nice parallel with Dr. Who.
A very powerful being who takes a personal interest in humans. DCs think he's good, but that's far from clear. Like the Christian/Jewish/Moslem God he is vengeful, and judges quite harshly. He does good, but for reasons that are clearly his own, following logic that is not shared with us.
You never quite know where you are with the Doctor, he appears to some people, not others. He does what he sees fit and then disappears.

Of course the Doctor is not God, though it's very easy to see how such a being could give rise to legends.

Rhubarb, that was a bit rude, and OTT. I get a bit hot under the collar when it comes to this subject.

Basically, I'm very happy to live and let live. Unfortunately, teachers often take it upon themselves to teach R.E from their bias. This is unfair to us all, would you not agree?

I guess i'm not the only telly addict in da house! Dr Who doesn't randomly inflict debilitating diseases on people in the name of 'a test' as my mum says it is, though does he? Mind you i can't attribute that to a God either as i don't beieve in one.

S'alright caterpillar, I guess we all say things in the heat of the moment.

First time I've ever heard the comparison of God and Doctor Who though!

As I explained a couple of posts down, my reasons for believing are not, in my mind, illogical or irrational, but based on fact and evidence that is personal to me.

I don't claim to understand God however, or be certain of the translations of the Bible. Which is why I will continue to question and explore.

It's gotta be a bit boring not having all these things to think about though eh?

Siw, as we saw in a recent episode the Doctor does inflict random suffering, as when he decided to battle it out with aliens in 1913. Lots of collateral damage, hundreds dead because he chose that period on a whim.

Ahhhh, the explanation for WW1, but of course! Next time the Jehovah's Witnesses tell me that this was the time of the Devil I shall simply say, don't be so stupid! It was Doctor Who!

Rhubarb: you seem to be getting your knickers in a twist over the fact that I'm not giving your particular set of superstitions any special privileges over the superstitions of people who believe in pixies, flying saucers etc. What makes one set of supersitions superior (from the believers' viewpoint) to others? I'm quite intrigued. Is it the number of people who share the belief in whatever it is? The length of time the belief has been around?
I really don't mind what brand of nonsense people subscribe to as long as they don't claim special privileges (such as the right to discriminate) for their superstitions - and that they don't interfere with other people's business on superstitious grounds.

What a strange thread this has turned out to be.

Well, I am absolutely sure that astrology is bilge, and will happily tell my children that it is bilge, BUT I won't tell my children to despise people who do believe or harangue them about it. In fact, I'll say we can think anything we like, but it isn't polite to tell people they are wrong if what they think doesn't hurt anyone.

madamez, I am more than happy to ignore you and your rants so long as you continue to ignore me and mine.

Thank you.