I think you guys are equating "religion" with "morals."  I'm not advocating, and I don't think Falkus is either, that children not be taught morals.  Though you may not believe it, it is very much possible to be a moral atheist or agnostic.

Good in who's eyes?  Who are you comparing yourself to?  Me?  Heath?  Gandi?  Hitler?  Mother Theresa?  Bill Clinton?  Your neighbor?  Your boss?  How do you even define "good" and "moral" as an athiest or agnostic?

Good in who's eyes?  Who are you comparing yourself to?  Me?  Heath?  Gandi?  Hitler?  Mother Theresa?  Bill Clinton?  Your neighbor?  Your boss?  How do you even define "good" and "moral" as an athiest or agnostic?

As I've said many, many, many, MANY times before on this forum: there are actually ethical philosophies not based on religion. I myself am an utilitarian.
This message was last edited by the player at 22:59, Mon 10 Dec 2007.

Yes, and the natural law theory in at least one form supports a similar atheist morality.

But the point, I think, is that this is far more than morality.  Building a spiritual foundation of faith is not only important from the spiritual perspective, but also for the psychological well being of a person.  Statistically, a religious person is more likely to not be depressed, engaged in immorality, or fall into other such trappings, partly because of a faith in God as well as the morality involved.  Such people are generally happier.  Why not teach children a way (i.e. religion) that will make them happier in the end?  If they choose to reject it later, so be it.

Can you give a citation for all that?  Particularly the "engaged in immorality" part, and perhaps be more specific on "fall into other such trappings."  As for the depression angle, I'd be interested to know if that's for people who were raised with religion but no longer have it, or for people who never had religion as part of their life.  If the study you're talking about doesn't separate the two groups, it's difficult to make any conclusions on this issue.


Because of the exact reason you mentioned earlier:  "programming."  At a young age, children will accept what you tell them because you tell it to them, rather than because they've given is sufficient thought to make that decision for themselves.  The chances that they'll choose to reject it later are much smaller, which means they're also much less likely to accept something else which might make them even happier (be it a different religion, or a lack of religion, or whatever else).
This message was last edited by the player at 13:19, Tue 11 Dec 2007.

Under any reasonable definition of the word, really.  I'm sure you know "bad" christians, and "good" people of religions that aren't the same as yours.  Most people tend to judge someone's "goodness" or "badness" based on their actions, rather than their beliefs.  Being a thief and a murder is still bad, even if you pray for forgiveness every night (and get it), and being kind, fair, and honest is still good, even if don't.  It might not get you to heaven, but that's not what I'm talking about.  Like I said, I'd prefer to leave that part of it up to the child when they're no longer a child, because I don't claim to have the answer.  I wouldn't want to lead them astray.  People who do claim to have the answer naturally do want to "program" their children to believe the same thing.  Like I said, it's not reasonable for me to ask religious people to have the same view on this as me, because mine is based on the idea that I might be wrong, whereas most religious people don't think it all likely that they're wrong about their religion (despite that fact that we know that most of them are wrong, just by the fact that none of them are in the majority!--ie, no matter who's right, most people believe something else).

engaged in immorality,

Oh, well this a rich argument. Because, you see, as a christian, you believe that simply being a non-christian is being engaged in immoral behavior.

because of a faith in God as well as the morality involved.

Since I have a strong dislike of much of christian morality (and believe that many christians are good in spite of it, not because of it), this is not the sort of argument that's going to convince me.

Why not teach children a way (i.e. religion) that will make them happier in the end?

Because it's the equivalent of brain washing. People should be allowed to make choices for themselves, not have them forced upon you by your parents. Should we force political beliefs upon our children as well, punish them if they don't vocally support democrats or republicans?

I think it's funny I'm quoted in debates I'm not even partaking in :P  I must be popular!  katisara = disagreement ;P

Whoa, how did that happen?  I didn't think I was replying to Katisara when I wrote it!  Must have still had it in the cut-and-paste clipboard.  Sorry, I'll go back and fix it!  Apologies to both Katisara and Heath for the confusion.

Not a problem, I was just really amused.  I'm honestly laughing about it, so no worries.  Makes me wonder if I'm playing devil's advocate too well though :P

We discussed it a couple years ago when rogue was around on one of the threads.  I think it might have been the homosexuality thread.  At the time, we cited sources.

That's a false statement.  That's not what the LDS church believes at all.


So you are saying that acting in a morally upright way disgusts you in some fashion?  You would rather be around those who give into their every lusts and desires?  It seems to me that such types of amoral behavior lead to selfish behaviors that typically do not help the general good and would be less appreciated by both theists and atheists alike.

Children are incapable in every way of making such decisions.  Why don't you just hand them the car keys and let them make the decision if they want to drive?  Why don't you hand them matches and let them make the decision of whether to light them? What you're saying does not strike me as something someone would say who understands how children work.


This is a red herring.  That issue doesn't apply here.

You program children from the instant they are born.  It is better to program them with what you think is right than nothing at all.  If that makes them have a slimmer chance of changing later, that's irrelevant.  All that does is put more importance on MY DECISION to teach them and WHAT I TEACH THEM.  Therefore, I have even a greater responsibility to try to make sure I teach them truth.  To teach them nothing is to be no parent at all.  Might as well turn them over to the state and Big Brother.

This is pretty much exactly what I've been saying.  From your point of view, the point of view that claims to know "what is right" on this issue, it's clear you should do what you say.  I've said a number of times now I don't think it makes sense to ask you or other religious people to not teach your children your religion.  Like I said, since you belief you know what's right, it's natural that you would teach them that.  Only people who admit a lack of certainty would see the value in letting children come to their own conclusions on this.

Also, I would point out that not teaching a child a particular religion isn't the same as teaching them nothing.  You can teach them how to weigh the various inputs that lead to ones decision, and teach them that different people believe different things, but no one knows for certain, you can teach them what different people believe, and why they believe it.  You can do all of that without saying "and this is what is true."

You use the car example earlier, which I think is apt.  You don't let your kids drive when they're five.  They're not ready for it.  It's too much responsibility to put in the hands of a young child.  Religions, from the point of view of those of us who don't claim to have proof on the matter, are similar.  It takes a certain level of maturity in order to weigh the various possibilities.  People who, like Falkus and I, think it would be better to let kids make up their own minds when their old enough realize that no matter who happens to be right, most people are wrong about their religion.  And we realize that we're just as human as all of them, so to assume that we're right and everyone else is wrong is dangerous.  We'd rather let people weigh the data, think about, and make up their own minds, rather than have their minds made up before their ready by their parents.  Again, though, it's an issue of point of view.  If you think there's no real chance that you're wrong, you don't look at things the same ways you would if think there is, in fact,  a non-trivial chance.

That's a bit vague.  If you want to convince me, you'll have to dig'em up.  I'm guessing it's not quite as cut-and-dry as you remember.

But Christians do get a bit of leeway here that isn't really afforded to atheists. A few in this thread have insinuated that giving children the atheistic outlook is harmful to a child. It's been insinuated as amoral, even if it wasn't said explicitly. And no one seemed to make a big deal about that except the atheist.

But then, the shoe went on the other foot, falkus suggested Christianity might be harmful, and even Health, whom I consider to be a very reasonable Christian, seems to get offended. Don't you think atheists get a little offended when people out and out call them undignified amoralists and their beliefs harmful to society? In America especially, Christianity often gets this free ride, this "Christianity is moral and that's a given, that's a fact" outlook. And atheism is this crazy cult that'll come and kidnap your children and send them to hell. A bit exaggerated, yes, but it does seem like Christianity does have a bit of public bias going for it.

I'm not against organized religion persay. I think it can help bring value into ones life, and it's simply healthy to have a community to go to, for support and guidance. But, I don't think it's necessary for a happy healthy life either, or for moral development. I myself have had no such community growing up, that I think grew up alright. I'm sure many of the members of this board might be a little skeptical about just how moral or healthy I might be, and I guess that's understandable, cause I really can't prove it here. But, let me just say, I abide by the laws of our nation, I respect authority, I have a good relationship with my friends and family, I'm a rather accomplished student of psychology, I try to be as compliant and courteous as I can be, and I highly value modesty. I'm confident in myself, I love life, and I've never had a bout of depression, even though it runs rampantly through my family. I even vote (how many 22 year olds do that?). Granted, those can be out and out lies, which would be a reasonable conclusion if you're assuming I'm amoral and trying to break your point. Let this be known though: my family never pushed any religion whatsoever on me. They never preached to me about Christ or read me passages from the Bible. Everything I learend about Christianity I learned on my own, through my own searching and initiative. And I still do search. I'm not proposing that this way is superior, just that it can be done.

I feel people don't give children enough credit sometimes. Though unwise in ther early years, they do pick up on things, and are often far more intelligent and observant than people give them credit for. They can come to their own conclusions. It's a parent's job to inform them about the available choices, and hopefully, they'll come to the same conclusion you did.

It has been said that people who belong to a church are statistically happier than those that don't, and I'm not going to deny that, cause I do believe that to be true. But, my reasoning is probably different. I don't believe it's so much the connection to God that makes them happier as so much as just having a positive outlook, and a feeling of meaning in one's life. In my view, Christians make themselves happier. Churches sometimes downplay the importance and power of the individual, that one person, all on his or her own, can do great things. It doesn't take God to live a rich fulfilling life. A person can do that on their own, with the right motevation, conviction, and attitude.

And, for the record, I do feel some beliefs (not religions per say, but beliefs) can be harmful. I disagree with teaching to a child any faith that takes away from the power to question things, the world, and the faith itself. I'll leave to you to decide what faiths those are.

I think you're mixing up people.

I did not say that atheism is immoral or amoral at all.  I said exactly the opposite from the beginning.

So even if I did get upset, it wouldn't be inconsistent.

But I didn't get upset with his opinion either.  I simply said it didn't apply as to the LDS church at least.

I can agree that certain religious tenets can be very zealous and harmful to children.  But it is not an across the board thing.  This is why I come back to the fact that the responsibility is on the parents to try to make sure what they teach is right, and then to make sure they teach what they believe is right to their children.

No one's perfect, and no parent's teachings are perfect, but it is through the imperfections that the children grow to learn.

I really don't remember.  We were discussing something, and I posted a link to a study showing how prayer and faith of any sort and from any religion has a calming effect psychologically and how it positively affects the brainwaves, and it discussed the helpful nature of religion on people from a pure psychological perspective.

Okay, I agree...but even if you lack certainty, it's good to teach at least to the limits you know to be true.

I had a friend who was not religious but wanted his kids to have some kind of exposure to religion, so he sent his kids to church with us so that at least they'd have that exposure.  I think not giving kids that kind of exposure only hurts them in the long run...if for no other reason than their own ignorance of what really goes on.

Not really.  Children learn first and foremost by example.  If you don't practice what you preach, they take it as not important to you.  You also can't teach someone to think as you mention above without actually taking them through the process.


...on their own, yes, which is why they don't get a choice until they're old enough...

Most people are actually right about their religion.  The vast majority of any religion is good.  There may be small problems or untruths here or there, but you don't through out the baby with the bathwater.


Again, see above.  WE point out small differences.  It's not a black and white, right or wrong issue.  You're oversimplifying.


Again, I am surely wrong about a few things here or there, but that's not really the point.  My teachers teach my children untruths too, yet I don't pull them out of school and tell them to go back when they are old enough to make a decision on whether they want to go.

Hmm..seems I wasn't clear on this point. I wasn't trying to imply that Health did say that about atheists (though, a few members of this board did certainly imply it).

When I mentioned Health, I was only really referencing this:


This wasn't a point to say Health was insulting atheism, but rather, assuming that his beliefs in fact are healthy, not selfish, and disciplined. It was an example I was using to make one particular point: it always seems to be the atheist that has to prove their beliefs aren't harmful. For Christians, it's simply implied that they are, a given that they never have to prove. This to me shows a social bias.

And by the way, I can't tell what Health was was thinking at the time, it does to me seem to imply a degree of offense. It's a leap of logic to say that a disliking of Christian values means advocating an amoral hedonistic existance.

Actually, I think that's exactly what it means.  If you reject Christian morality, then you are rejecting:  abstinence, abstaining from alcohol (sometimes) or drugs, etc. etc.

These are the "morals" of the religion, not the principles, tenets or dogmas.  So if you find these morals to your disliking, by default it seems to advocate an amoral, hedonistic existence.

Either that or you like the Christian morals but dislike the dogma.  But you can't reject the morals and claim the morals at the same time.

I just coincidentally saw this article today, which is along the same lines as my earlier claim (although this one is about going to church weekly):

http://www.livescience.com/hea...403_church_good.html


On the flip side, this kind of made me laugh (when others pray for you just before bypass surgery, the chance of you having a complication goes up):  http://www.livescience.com/str...p_060330_prayer.html


Here's another interesting one:  http://www.scienceblog.com/cms...s-prayers-12790.html

Here's another one I just dug up:  http://www.plim.org/PrayerDeb.htm

So the power of prayer has been subject to scientific inquiry, and the atheist response was that the results are what they expect to be a placebo effect.

Even atheists thus seem to acknowledge the positive effect of prayer on the individual, regardless of the existence of God.
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:01, Tue 11 Dec 2007.

In my view at least, reasons can matter. For example, when looking at that little fact that Christians are happier, you and I can both agree, but our reasoning can be different as for why it's true. I believe it's because Christians aquire a sort of peace of mind through the process, while another person might say it's the connection to God. Sure, we might agree with the fact, and in that reguard, the reason might not matter. However, the implications that can be made by the differences in reasons can mean a world of difference in other areas.

Furthermore, it seems arrogant to call these particular values exclusively Christian, at least to me. "If you're drug-free, you're just taking from Christianity". If I decide not to sleep with the first man I see, it's not because of the health considerations, or the lack of desire to bring a child into this world under those circumstances, but because "I'm ahearing to Christian values". I think that's a very inaccurate way to look at things.

By not liking Christian values, perhaps he's simply rejecting the whole set of them, not every moral and value individually. likewise, he might not agree with the reasoning of "God says it thus it's moral/immoral."
This message was last edited by the player at 20:06, Tue 11 Dec 2007.

   OOOHH!  Look at the can of worms I cracked open!  ;p  Fun!


    I'm not going to quote anyone because a few people have made some reference to this idea, and Heath has pretty well debunked it, but I just wanted to throw a thought out as a response to the idea of not teaching a child about your religious beliefs and letting them "figure it out when they're older".  All religion, Christianity probably topping the list, affects how you view the world.  You cannot, in my opinion, not teach children your values because they see them in your everyday life.  Even if you don't preach them to your children, you speak voulumes to them every day when it comes to how you live.  I see this whole line of response as a red herring to get away from the original question.  If you have children, and they live with you and you spend time with them, your passing on your values to them or your not living your values in your daily life, which would mean they weren't really your values.

    I'm going to ask it again.  Where do you get this "morality" from.  How do you even define it?  Who makes it?  Who gets to say what's "moral" or "immoral"?  Falkus, you can tell me how you've said something many many times, but just because you said it doesn't make it true.  I can just say something else many times too.  I'm asking you athiests where you get your "morality" from.  How do you know what you believe to be "moral" is actually "moral"?