Ping Atheists/Agnostics: How do you handle religion/church with your kids?

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

If religion does not have an effect on the rest of anybody's life, how do you explain religious people pouring millions of dollars into preventing "gay marriage" with no secular/scientific reasoning behind their position on the issue? How do we have no alcohol sales on Sundays, if religion is not having an impact on the rest of our lives? Is it because these initiatives are not driven by, or supported by, those who merely attend on Sunday? If our society really were as secular as some say, how do any of these purely religious issues ever make it into law?

It could be argued that religious affects on peoples lives in most western societies is decreasing by looking at just the terms you have specified:

* No alcohol sales on Sundays
This isn't the case in many countries these days and indeed once upon a time sales of any description didn't happen on a Sunday. This has been relaxed a lot in the last few decades imho.

* Preventing 'gay marriage'
While I abhore the position of the Christian churches who preach hatred to homosexuals I do believe that this side of things is much more open and tolerated today than it was in the past - DESPITE the efforts that certain religious groups put into repressing it.

I find it interesting that religions are 'evolving' again, especially in recent decades. There are chruches openly embracing homosexual members (and indeed at least one openly homosexual clergy member in the Church of England).

These recent evolutions differ somewhat from earlier ones somewhat imho. In earlier times someone would pop up in a church and say "God spoke to me on the lavatory" or whatever and hey presto if he could convincce enough members of the congregation that his toilet talk was genuine you'd have an offshoot of the existing church come into being.

Today the evolution of such chuches as the CofE is done visibly out of almost 'commerical pressures' to gain back an audience - they don't pretend that God told them to do 'x' or 'y' they just reinterpret the scriptures and get on with what they think will work.

Why is this? - I think if they tried the "toilet" approach their present followers are too educated to put up with it and would likely leave to try another church, so simply putting their hands up and saying "we think its wrong to discriminate in this way" works best - it fits in with what non-religious society as a whole is saying and so is accepted reasonably well.

(end of drivel - sorry about that went off on a train of though)

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

So the difference between being dogmatic about religion and dogmatic about being open-minded is...

To be honest I think all parents will on purpose or inadvertantly communicate their mores and preferences to their kids - its natural and to be expected.

If someone is religious its because he truly believes that will be good for him, so it'd be natural for him to pass that belief onto his kids.

Similarly if someone isn't and see's religion as harmful then he will pass that mistrust of religion onto his children.

I try hard to let my kids have exposure to multiple viewpoints on religious topics and let them know they're welcome to make up their own minds and that I'd love them even if they shaved their heads and decided to give away roses .... the thing I want them to do is THINK about their choices, question everything and look for proof rather than follow something blindly.

Its blind obedience which imho often causes the largest problems in society imho, whether that obedience is to a religion (cue footage of Witch Trials), a political party/social group (cue footage of Nazi Germany) or whatever.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by bignej

You're missing the fact that you don't actually teach the agnostic/atheist point of view. Are you suggesting that by not living within and disussing religion to a 4 year old, you are teaching them to be an atheist/agnostic?

This definition of teach is extremely narrow as to be unhelpful. Parents are, by default, always teaching whether this teaching comes formally or informally. So, yes, I am suggesting that ignoring religion is teaching the child to be atheistic/agnostic. I don't see how the child could learn any other alternative.

Originally Posted by bignej

Living that way allows them to become atheist/agnostic(or christian/Jew/whatever) if they choose later in life with significantly less bias that by doing the church thing. Just like Mac said, at that age they take whatever is said around them as fact and you need to tread lightly on matters of such importance as religion. Taking them to church around people singing and praying and being religious is not treading lightly.

You seem to have a real problem with bias. I don't know how many times I have to hammer this point, but in influencing your children you are expressing your bias. Even if you are biased toward some apparent neutrality, you are still biased and expressing that bias in everything you do. We're all biased toward something. We cannot help but be anything but.

Originally Posted by bignej

Even giving you the point that not taking them to church is somehow indoctrinating them into atheism, it far from the opposite extreme of going to church. You are atleast striving for neutrality. If they ask you can say, "some people believe x and other do not". Pretty neutral. You could stress that it is so important to some people that they kill others. All without going to church.

Saying "some people believe x and others do not" and repeating that mantra about belief systems a, b and c is not a neutral statement. It is a statement presenting a bias toward grouping these belief systems within the same category.

Originally Posted by bignej

Do you teach your children about all other gods? Do you take them to services of other religions? According to your arguments, by not doing so you are suggesting they are unimportant.

The answer to your questions is no and no. But I don't have kids either. But I would teach children about different religious systems and possibly take them to a service or two from different religions in order to teach them about religion's importance for some in society.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

You seem to have a real problem with bias. I don't know how many times I have to hammer this point, but in influencing your children you are expressing your bias. Even if you are biased toward some apparent neutrality, you are still biased and expressing that bias in everything you do. We're all biased toward something. We cannot help but be anything but.

I know you were not addressing me, but I would like to respond to this bit. If I have a bias, it is a bias in favor of science and the scientific method in general. I don't mind admitting that I choose that over the supernatural explanation that religion tries to sell.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I know you were not addressing me, but I would like to respond to this bit. If I have a bias, it is a bias in favor of science and the scientific method in general. I don't mind admitting that I choose that over the supernatural explanation that religion tries to sell.

You have a very narrow view of religion (A view that can definitely be indoctrinated into a child).

I don't have a problem with how anyone raises their kids, I guess my only pet peeve in this thread is the close-minded view of religion.

There's fundamentalists out there. But many more that can appreciate religion even in the context of science, and questioning, etc.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by molson

You have a very narrow view of religion (A view that can definitely be indoctrinated into a child).

Hah. Give me a break. Please, I beg you, to explain to me what evil things come from that. I really want you to explain the dangers of never falling back on "God works in mysterious ways."

I don't have a problem with how anyone raises their kids, I guess my only pet peeve in this thread is the close-minded view of religion.

By all means, give me this open minded view that you want others to have. Tell me what religion offers that does not ultimately fall back on attributing anything to the supernatural.

There's fundamentalists out there. But many more that can appreciate religion even in the context of science, and questioning, etc.

Make your case.

[Tekneek]

By the way, here are the books I would recommend reading to your children:

In the Beginning: Creation Stories from Around the World by Virginia Hamilton
The Story of Religion by Betsy and Giulio Maestro

I believe it is admirable that any atheists/agnostics are even concerned about giving their children an understanding and tolerance of religion (a view I happen to share). I am quite sure the favor is not returned in any statistically significant amount.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I believe it is admirable that any atheists/agnostics are even concerned about giving their children an understanding and tolerance of religion (a view I happen to share). I am quite sure the favor is not returned in any statistically significant amount.

I think thats to be expected though - agnostics/aetheists generally view religion as misguided but often not particularly uber harmful and overcome easily by logic (and thus don't mind their kids being exposed to it somewhat).

Religious people on the other hand see their beliefs as vital to their eternal salvation - as such anything which might threaten to bring them or their friends/family/pets/whatever from that salvation has to be avoided at all costs ...

Fear is a great motivator, unfortunately its not a terrific educator ...

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I think thats to be expected though - agnostics/aetheists generally view religion as misguided but often not particularly uber harmful and overcome easily by logic (and thus don't mind their kids being exposed to it somewhat).

Religious people on the other hand see their beliefs as vital to their eternal salvation - as such anything which might threaten to bring them or their friends/family/pets/whatever from that salvation has to be avoided at all costs ...

Fear is a great motivator, unfortunately its not a terrific educator ...

I still think there is a middle ground here. There is "fundamentalism" which I think is bad in all forms, whether Christian, Islamic, Atheism, or whatever and closer to what you are talking about. There are also a whole bunch of "religious" people who are not nearly as close-minded as you think they are. There are also the "hypocritical" religious folks who act all fundamentalist in public and then do whatever the heck they want and get all high and mighty when called on it. I can't stand either group 1 or group 3, but know plenty of group 2 people. I think the problem in this thread is lots of people arguing against religion don't see #2 as a viable option.

[Tekneek]

What is an Atheist fundamentalist? I don't understand the concept.

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

And because most kids once the figure out the truth enjoy having figured out the truth and play along from that point. Assuming they figure out and don't have some jerk ruin it for them at too early an age...

Well, when I wrote that dropping the belief in Father Christmas would be supported by society at large I did wonder if I was spoiling it for some on the board

Oh, there I go again

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I see your point, but I don't think it's possible to "leave the child alone" as it were. The child is never truly alone, but is always being influenced by someone/something. Kodos needs to make his decision based on what types of influence he wants his child to experience and not on the basis of making sure the child can have an open-mind.

Absolutely. But that's why I talk of "minimising" the messages. You can't avoid them totally but by taking the child to church - which exists to promote the messages of one side and omit the messages of the other - you are amplifying the problem, forcing you, if you wish to give the child a balanced view, of giving him messages of the opposite kind (and probably just confusing him to hell). I would far rather do neither.

I agree with you that a child is incapable of considering the nuances of arguments about religious belief. Yet, the child is also incapable of weighing arguments about atheism/agnosticism as well (at least the four year olds I've met anyways). In living a life from this position, the parent is indoctrinating the child into things the child cannot understand, the very thing that seems objectionable.

As someone else has said - not talking about religion is not promoting atheism. I would object to messages about atheism to a 4 year old as much as religious messages.

So the difference between being dogmatic about religion and dogmatic about being open-minded is...

massive.

Insisting on open-mindedness can indeed be considered as dogmatic just as as insisting on tolerance can be seen as intolerant. But there is a significant qualititive difference between these forms of doma and intolerance.

I think the content of religious dogma is where your primary objection lies and should lie rather than this line of argument about indoctrination vs. open-mindedness.

You insist on thinking this is only against religious dogma. It is equally about atheistic dogma.

My own "dogmatic" position is "We do not know". The dogma there is only about my state of knowledge (of which I claim to be very knowledgable ). I have no dogma about whether God exists or not. I object to children being taught/indoctrinated in that dogma either way.

But if the objection is that dogma is objectionable merely because it is dogma, open-mindedness is itself a form of dogma and must be objected to as well to be consistent.

Open-mindedness, like my position on God, is only about the approach not about the content. Open-mindedness does not say "this is the way it is" it merely says "this is the way we should approach this". The content remains undogmatic. That's why I say the dogma of open-mindedness is qualititively different.

I'm quite happy to be guilty of being dogmatic about an open-minded approach weighed against a dogmatic approach.

We're really getting into what are merely semantic arguments here. Interesting but I suspect not a lot of help to kodos

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

* No alcohol sales on Sundays
This isn't the case in many countries these days and indeed once upon a time sales of any description didn't happen on a Sunday. This has been relaxed a lot in the last few decades imho.

You've clearly never been to WA. Still can't buy a loaf of bread on a Sunday here never mind a bottle of wine. Seriously!

Don't give me any crap about religion diminishing in influence

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

There are also a whole bunch of "religious" people who are not nearly as close-minded as you think they are.

I wasn't trying to indicate I saw 'all' religious people in this way - just trying to explain why I kinda understand why some religious people do take this approach (i.e. avoiding anything they see as distracting from their religious beliefs).

(sorry if I wasn't clear on that)

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

Really? Still can't buy a loaf of bread on a Sunday her (WA) never mind a bottle of wine. Seriously!

Move back to England and you'll find a 'retired' Church in Norwich which I seem to recall holds a yearly beer festival which runs through the weekend (including sunday).

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

Move back to England and you'll find a 'retired' Church in Norwich which I seem to recall holds a yearly beer festival which runs through the weekend (including sunday).

Are the supermarket alcohol sections open on a Sunday now? Always cordoned off when I was last there.

I very much get the impression that there has been an upswing in religious influence in America recently at least until the election of Obama. I've seen many elections both in the UK and Australia and never before has religion had any influence whatsoever. But Kevin Rudd had to make his religious credentials very obvious at the last election here because of the rise in influence of the evangelical churches.

I would be prepared to bet money on the rejection in America of a openly atheistic presidential candidate based almost entirely on religion (though I suspect you've had closet atheists in the past).

[Tekneek]

Maybe some of us would like to avoid shenanigans like this:

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

HCON 121 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. CON. RES. 121

Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as `The National Year of the Bible'.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 7, 2009

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. FORBES, Mr. PENCE, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. WAMP, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. CARTER, Mr. AKIN, and Mr. MCGOVERN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as `The National Year of the Bible'.

Whereas the Bible has had a profound impact in shaping America into a great Nation;

Whereas deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testament of the Bible have inspired Americans from all walks of life, especially the early settlers, whose faith, spiritual courage, and moral strength enabled them to endure intense hardships in this new land;

Whereas many of our Presidents have recognized the importance of God and the Bible, including George Washington; Franklin D. Roosevelt; Harry Truman; John F. Kennedy; Ronald Reagan, who declared 1983 as `The National Year of the Bible'; and especially Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th Birthday Celebration in 2009 highlighted freedom for the slaves;

Whereas shared Biblical beliefs unified the colonists and gave our early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, both of which recognized the inherent worth, dignity, and inalienable rights of each individual, thus unifying a diverse people with the right to vote, and the freedoms of speech and vast religious freedoms, which inspired courageous men like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to lead the Civil Rights Movement;

Whereas the Bible has been the world's best selling book since it was first published in English in 1526, and has influenced more people than any other book;

Whereas the Bible has been a cornerstone in the development of Western civilization, influencing the nations in the areas of history, law, politics, culture, music, literature, art, drama, and especially moral philosophy;

Whereas the Bible, used as a moral guide, has inspired compassion, love for our neighbor, and the preciousness of life and marriage, and has stimulated many benevolent, faith-based community initiatives and neighborhood partnerships that have healed and blessed our families, communities, and our entire Nation, especially in times of war, tragedy, and economic and social crisis;

Whereas the Bible has inspired acts of patriotism that have unified Americans, commemorated through shared celebrations such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas; and

Whereas 2010 is an appropriate year to designate as `The National Year of the Bible': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the President is encouraged--

(1) to designate an appropriate year as `The National Year of the Bible'; and

(2) to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States and its great democratic form of Government, as well as its rich spiritual heritage, and which has unified, healed, and strengthened its people for over 200 years.

I'm glad he didn't pretend like it does anything for science, at least.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Maybe some of us would like to avoid shenanigans like this:

Search Results - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

HCON 121 IH

111th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. CON. RES. 121

Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as `The National Year of the Bible'.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

May 7, 2009

Mr. BROUN of Georgia (for himself, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. FORBES, Mr. PENCE, Mr. GINGREY of Georgia, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. WAMP, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. CARTER, Mr. AKIN, and Mr. MCGOVERN) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as `The National Year of the Bible'.

Whereas the Bible has had a profound impact in shaping America into a great Nation;

Whereas deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testament of the Bible have inspired Americans from all walks of life, especially the early settlers, whose faith, spiritual courage, and moral strength enabled them to endure intense hardships in this new land;

Whereas many of our Presidents have recognized the importance of God and the Bible, including George Washington; Franklin D. Roosevelt; Harry Truman; John F. Kennedy; Ronald Reagan, who declared 1983 as `The National Year of the Bible'; and especially Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th Birthday Celebration in 2009 highlighted freedom for the slaves;

Whereas shared Biblical beliefs unified the colonists and gave our early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, both of which recognized the inherent worth, dignity, and inalienable rights of each individual, thus unifying a diverse people with the right to vote, and the freedoms of speech and vast religious freedoms, which inspired courageous men like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to lead the Civil Rights Movement;

Whereas the Bible has been the world's best selling book since it was first published in English in 1526, and has influenced more people than any other book;

Whereas the Bible has been a cornerstone in the development of Western civilization, influencing the nations in the areas of history, law, politics, culture, music, literature, art, drama, and especially moral philosophy;

Whereas the Bible, used as a moral guide, has inspired compassion, love for our neighbor, and the preciousness of life and marriage, and has stimulated many benevolent, faith-based community initiatives and neighborhood partnerships that have healed and blessed our families, communities, and our entire Nation, especially in times of war, tragedy, and economic and social crisis;

Whereas the Bible has inspired acts of patriotism that have unified Americans, commemorated through shared celebrations such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas; and

Whereas 2010 is an appropriate year to designate as `The National Year of the Bible': Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That the President is encouraged--

(1) to designate an appropriate year as `The National Year of the Bible'; and

(2) to issue a proclamation calling upon citizens of all faiths to rediscover and apply the priceless, timeless message of the Holy Scripture which has profoundly influenced and shaped the United States and its great democratic form of Government, as well as its rich spiritual heritage, and which has unified, healed, and strengthened its people for over 200 years.

I'm glad he didn't pretend like it does anything for science, at least.

Meh. There are much crazier bills than this (religious and non-religious) that are proposed very frequently.

A little off-topic, but the only reason "sex" is protected by Title VII and its progeny is because a Southern senator inserted it along with other protected classes as a joke or in an attempt to have the law blocked. Imagine his surprise when it passed with protection for sexes intact.

So, Congressmen are adept to doing many crazy things both religious and non-religion affiliated.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Meh. There are much crazier bills than this (religious and non-religious) that are proposed very frequently.

It isn't about it being the winner in the "I proposed the CRAZIEST Christian bill in the House!" contest, just the fact that it was proposed 3 days ago.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It isn't about it being the winner in the "I proposed the CRAZIEST Christian bill in the House!" contest, just the fact that it was proposed 3 days ago.

Nah, you posted in an attempt to block religious organizations because some Senators use religious reasons to support crazy bills.

i.e. "Maybe some of us would like to avoid shenigans like this"

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Nah, you posted in an attempt to block religious organizations because some Senators use religious reasons to support crazy bills.

i.e. "Maybe some of us would like to avoid shenigans like this"

This isn't even at the level of dealing with Senators. This has not made it out of the Committee level yet. This is the same guy who proposed a bill earlier this year claiming that human life begins at fertilization and as such would be entitled to all the protections available under the US Constitution. The odd part is that this guy appears to be a supporter of the death penalty, and certainly of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the shenanigan I would like to avoid is having a national year for any religious book, or even requesting such a thing. I don't care for them to have a national year for any atheist-leaning book either, for that matter.

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

This isn't even at the level of dealing with Senators. This has not made it out of the Committee level yet. This is the same guy who proposed a bill earlier this year claiming that human life begins at fertilization and as such would be entitled to all the protections available under the US Constitution. The odd part is that this guy appears to be a supporter of the death penalty, and certainly of going to war in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And the shenanigan I would like to avoid is having a national year for any religious book, or even requesting such a thing. I don't care for them to have a national year for any atheist-leaning book either, for that matter.

Dude. It happens. If you wiped all religions off the earth, some crazy person would be attempting to make the Easter Bunny the official mascot of America.

Only difference is the motivation.

[Tekneek]

I don't want religion wiped from the planet. People can believe whatever they want to, as long as they don't try to (1) tell me it is "The Truth" with little to no evidence to support their claim, or especially (2) try to force their religious beliefs upon me (including using the power of the government).

Since 1 and 2 are routinely violated, I have a problem with the way things are currently working.

[Mac Howard]

Whereas the Bible has had a profound impact in shaping America into a great Nation;

Whereas deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testament of the Bible have inspired Americans from all walks of life, especially the early settlers, whose faith, spiritual courage, and moral strength enabled them to endure intense hardships in this new land;

Whereas many of our Presidents have recognized the importance of God and the Bible, including George Washington; Franklin D. Roosevelt; Harry Truman; John F. Kennedy; Ronald Reagan, who declared 1983 as `The National Year of the Bible'; and especially Abraham Lincoln, whose 200th Birthday Celebration in 2009 highlighted freedom for the slaves;

Whereas shared Biblical beliefs unified the colonists and gave our early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of the United States, both of which recognized the inherent worth, dignity, and inalienable rights of each individual, thus unifying a diverse people with the right to vote, and the freedoms of speech and vast religious freedoms, which inspired courageous men like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. to lead the Civil Rights Movement;

Whereas the Bible has been the world's best selling book since it was first published in English in 1526, and has influenced more people than any other book;

Whereas the Bible has been a cornerstone in the development of Western civilization, influencing the nations in the areas of history, law, politics, culture, music, literature, art, drama, and especially moral philosophy;

Whereas the Bible, used as a moral guide, has inspired compassion, love for our neighbor, and the preciousness of life and marriage, and has stimulated many benevolent, faith-based community initiatives and neighborhood partnerships that have healed and blessed our families, communities, and our entire Nation, especially in times of war, tragedy, and economic and social crisis;

Whereas the Bible has inspired acts of patriotism that have unified Americans, commemorated through shared celebrations such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Day, Presidents Day, Memorial Day, Independence Day, Labor Day, Thanksgiving, and Christmas; and

Whereas 2010 is an appropriate year to designate as `The National Year of the Bible': Now, therefore, be it

No mention of the 600 years of the Inquisition then

This should liven up the debate

I put forward the idea that America has succeed despite religion not because of it.

While Europe tore itself apart in religious wars America devised a constitution that allowed its citizens to pursue their own religious inclinations free from intolerance and persecution while governed by what was essentially a secular government. Even those highly religious members of government recognised the need to keep at arms length fractious religious "certainties".

Look around the New World today. The USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, West Indies - every one an affluent, liberal democracy. Every one an ex-colony of "separation of church and state" Britain.

And look at the ex-colonies of Catholic Spain, Portugal and France. Every one a poor developing, 2nd or 3rd world nation where the dead hand of Catholic dogma has opposed both technological and social development and left the country backward-looking, intolerant and vulnerable to Marxism and Fascism.

Time to go now but I look forward to reading the reactions tomorrow

[RedKingGold]

Originally Posted by Mac Howard

I put forward the idea that America has succeed despite Christianity not because of it.

Fixed.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by RedKingGold

Fixed.

Not sure why you want to limit it to Christianity when the statement applies just as well to all religion.

[gstelmack]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

What is an Atheist fundamentalist? I don't understand the concept.

They persecute anyone who believes in religion at all, just like religious fundamentalists persecute anyone who doesn't have their beliefs.

[Butter]

Getting back to the initial point of this thread...

I am an atheist, and my wife was raised Southern Baptist, but became more liberal the more she grew up.

My main problem with taking the kids to a church in the past had been the degree to which my beliefs did not line up with any given church's... never mind about God, but morally. Many churches operate with a high degree of certainty and with no ambiguity about belief systems. They are the way and everything else is wrong.

It took some looking, but we did find a church that was not quite so strict, and was more in-line with our belief system. The Church of the Brethren, which is closely related to the Quakers, oddly enough. They believe in peace as a major tenet, and in the standard message of human redemption through Christ that most religions have. The church has a wide variety of viewpoints, but tends to stay away from hot-button issues, or address them in a "there is no right answer" kind of way.

I am fine with my kids growing up Christian. But I am not going to lie to them. And I have enough faith in our parenting that they will end up believing whatever was in their heart to believe, not what they were indoctrinated in as children. As it is, they have raised some good questions and even asked how do we know God is there (my wife's answer was "I don't know for sure, but I believe").

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

What is an Atheist fundamentalist? I don't understand the concept.

The short answer is that, when the plane is crashing to the ground, the atheist fundamentalist is the one person on the plane who is not fervently praying to some deity for salvation just in case.

Seriously, I think you could reasonably call someone an atheist fundamentalist if they have closed off their mind to the possibility of any sort of deity or higher consciousness existing. Essentially, they must have made their own leap of faith to conclude that all there is to know can eventually be explained scientifically, even if there are not enough facts available now to reach a logical conclusion.

To Ajaxab's point that not teaching something has similar effect to teaching something: with respect, that is hooey. I have not taught my 3-year-old about sex. It is not appropriate to her age -- she has neither the physical nor intellectual development to comprehend the subject. That does not mean I don't believe the topic is important. I think it is an extremely important topic. When she is ready, we will have all the conversations we need to have to be sure she understands that any boy that comes around the house to see her will likely not be seen by human eyes again.

At this age, as others have mentioned, she does not have the intellectual development to determine the difference between fact and faith. Until she does, my wife and I are not exposing her to religious services or texts. When she is older, it will be her choice to investigate religion or not.

Of course she will not be coming at it with a blank slate -- we hope to have instilled an intellectual curiousity and the tools she needs to like a happy, healthy life. But it will be far more of a "neutral" starting position than if she had been a regular church attendee all her life.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by gstelmack

They persecute anyone who believes in religion at all, just like religious fundamentalists persecute anyone who doesn't have their beliefs.

It is an interesting concept. I suppose I cannot say for sure that there are not any, but I don't know of any of them.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

Seriously, I think you could reasonably call someone an atheist fundamentalist if they have closed off their mind to the possibility of any sort of deity or higher consciousness existing. Essentially, they must have made their own leap of faith to conclude that all there is to know can eventually be explained scientifically, even if there are not enough facts available now to reach a logical conclusion.

I don't know any that would not be open to revising their view if faced with evidence. Problem is that nobody ever comes forward with any new evidence. Even Richard Dawkins, who apparently is most often attacked with the "atheist fundamentalist" label, has said that he would be open to weighing any new evidence for the existence of God.

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

I don't know any that would not be open to revising their view if faced with evidence. Problem is that nobody ever comes forward with any new evidence. Even Richard Dawkins, who apparently is most often attacked with the "atheist fundamentalist" label, has said that he would be open to weighing any new evidence for the existence of God.

Richard Dawkins is definitely a pit bull when it comes to speaking out against religion. However, he also backs his words up with science and evidence. I'm not sure if he would let his kids go to church or not, but, it would be an interesting conversation to hear if his kids wanted to go.