Is it selfish of a parent to force their religion onto their child

iUseVi · 08-04-2010 02:44PM

meditraitor wrote: »

It begs the question, Would some of the more Vocal A&A posters be willing to give their own children an education in religion without forcing their opinion on the child?

I'd want religions taught in a similar way to Greek mythologies. And I'd say some people still believe in these myths now, and that different people believe different things. Oh and that some believe none. :P

axer · 08-04-2010 02:54PM

ColmDawson wrote: »

Definitely. Religious culture is a huge part of human history and by learning about it, people can make educated choices. Don't forget that many A&A posters are deeply interested in theology.

I would echo this. I will teach any future children I have all the different religions and what people believe and what they don't believe. I would have no reason to indoctrinate my children in any particular way of thinking as I would want them to be open minded and tolerant to all ideas. To tell my children there is no god would be akin to telling them that there is - just as bad. If they want to join a particular religion I would support them (except if the religion is a dangerous type of cult that encourages them to block out non believers from their lives).

meditraitor and the other religious people, the question is would you?

meditraitor · 08-04-2010 03:01PM

ColmDawson wrote: »

Definitely. Religious culture is a huge part of human history and by learning about it, people can make educated choices. Don't forget that many A&A posters are deeply interested in theology.

Theology is neither here nor there, the thread is advocating non indoctrination of children by parents and you think that just because an agnostic has a theology degree they would not influence the child?

Human psycology would say different, a more scientific sciense than theology,

The compulsion to teach a child your own beliefs far outweighs any study you can or will do!

A&A patrons for the whole have very firm beliefs, more so even than the christianity forums, you must see that they will force these beliefs on their offspring! And denying this would only prove that practising A&A is not good for the old common sense, nearly- or more than that God crowd

ColmDawson · 08-04-2010 03:06PM

meditraitor wrote: »

Theology is neither here nor there, the thread is advocating non indoctrination of children by parents and you think that just because an agnostic has a theology degree they would not influence the child?

Human psycology would say different, a more scientific sciense than theology,

The compulsion to teach a child your own beliefs far outweighs any study you can or will do!

A&A patrons for the whole have very firm beliefs, more so even than the christianity forums, you must see that they will force these beliefs on their offspring! And denying this would only prove that practising A&A is not good for the old common sense, nearly- or more than that God crowd

I've answered your question. No more food for you.

Zombrex · 08-04-2010 03:06PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm actually questioning this assumption that you have. Why aren't you still Christian, if this is true?

Are you seriously questioning that children accept what they are told by their parents? Did you figure out for yourself that the road is dangerous and that you shouldn't drink drain cleaner?

Jakkass wrote: »

There is a time, when kids become adults, and in that frame of time end up thinking about whether or not belief or unbelief is a reasonable position to hold. I ended up wrestling with this myself as a teenager. I eventually after several years came to the conclusion that God does exist, and indeed it is by far the most reasonable conclusion to hold.

Ok, so if this is something a person should only tackle when a teenager or adult, what is the purpose of telling your kids about Christianity?

This is the contradiction here. You are saying you are going to teach your kids Christianity and then let them make their own mind up. But if that is the case why not simply not teach them Christianity and let them make their own mind up with then get older?

Jakkass wrote: »

It isn't "taking advantage". It bears no advantage to them to give their child a real relationship with God.

Of course it does. Parents worry about their children not becoming the same religion as them because they associate so much of good with religious membership.

By instilling in them very young the parents religion they greatly increase the odds that they will become the same religion as them.

Which of course contradicts the notion that they want them to discover it themselves when they get older, which to be honest I think is a hallow claim.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm quite sure those who do teach their children about Christianity are mindful of what they are doing, and are not only mindful, but do so out of a belief that they are offering their child an invaluable opportunity to know their God as they have.

You are quite sure of this based on what exactly? That they are Christians and all Christians are good people/parents?

Jakkass wrote: »

If I had children, and it's not just in the case of children. I care for people in general, coming to know their God in a full, meaningful and thoughtful manner.

Which should mean you shouldn't want to take advantage of innate biological forms of implanting knowledge in my head.

For example I'm sure you would agree that it would be pointless to the goals of Christianity to teach me about God while I'm under the effects of a suggestion drug. I would end up accepting what you say without rationally accepting what you say.

Same thing applies with children. Children accept what they are told by their parents without rationally determining what they are told.

It is wrong to use that biological relationship to instill religious beliefs in your children if you believe that it is important that they do in fact figure it out for themselves.

axer · 08-04-2010 03:10PM

meditraitor wrote: »

A&A patrons for the whole have very firm beliefs, more so even than the christianity forums, you must see that they will force these beliefs on their offspring! And denying this would only prove that practising A&A is not good for the old common sense, nearly- or more than that God crowd

I will never say to my child there is no god whereas a christian will say categorically that there is a god. See the difference?

Joey the lips · 08-04-2010 03:17PM

axer wrote: »

I will never say to my child there is no god whereas a christian will say categorically that there is a god. See the difference?

Thats aside the point... You tell a child the fire is hot but they only know when they get burnt... In otherwords either is indifferent... The child decided one day if what you said is right or wrong... They rearly these days follow the flock so to speak...

I still maintain its harmless to educate your child with religion... If they join another denomination later are they truly daft or have they become truly inspired... ie they have done more than made up there mind they have ultimatly considered there original faith to be wrong...?

Mark Hamill · 08-04-2010 03:17PM

meditraitor wrote: »

The compulsion to teach a child your own beliefs far outweighs any study you can or will do!

It is possible to teach a child your beliefs without telling them what to believe. Its the difference between "this is what I believe, make up your own mind" and "this is what you will believe, dont question me".

ColmDawson · 08-04-2010 03:18PM

Joey the lips wrote: »

Thats aside the point... You tell a child the fire is hot but they only know when they get burnt... In otherwords either is indifferent... The child decided one day if what you said is right or wrong... They rearly these days follow the flock so to speak...

And what about the story of Santa Claus?

magicbastarder · 08-04-2010 03:20PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

i didn't make it very far into the thread, so i may be covering ground already covered, but this stood out for me. completely and utterly ludicrous.

of course parents are going to bring their kids up in their religion. to suggest that they shouldn't is so insane, in the words of pauli, it's not even wrong.

Joey the lips · 08-04-2010 03:24PM

ColmDawson wrote: »

And what about the story of Santa Claus?

Are we discussing santa clause or religion....?

Is your issue being told what to believe or being told something you dont believe...

after all dont tell me you dont believe in santa clause....

axer · 08-04-2010 03:27PM

Joey the lips wrote: »

Thats aside the point... You tell a child the fire is hot but they only know when they get burnt... In otherwords either is indifferent... The child decided one day if what you said is right or wrong... They rearly these days follow the flock so to speak...

Thats massively different. Telling a child that they will get burnt is a fact not an opinion. They will know that they get burnt when they touch the fire because they have been told time and time again. They will know what it feels like when they get burnt the first time.

People still follow the flock to this day. Group Psychology proves this.

A "good" christian parent hammers into their child that there is a god just like fire is hot thus the child will think there is a god at an early age.

iUseVi · 08-04-2010 03:30PM

Joey the lips wrote: »

Are we discussing santa clause or religion....?

What's the difference?

philologos · 08-04-2010 03:32PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Are you seriously questioning that children accept what they are told by their parents? Did you figure out for yourself that the road is dangerous and that you shouldn't drink drain cleaner?

I'm questioning the assumption that if people are taught about religion that they will automatically share the same view as their parents come adulthood.

Hence why I asked you why you weren't still Christian.

Wicknight wrote: »

Ok, so if this is something a person should only tackle when a teenager or adult, what is the purpose of telling your kids about Christianity?

I never said should, just to note. It's when it generally happens for a lot of people.

Sharing about Christianity, is about empiricism I guess. One must have something to reason upon.

It's kind of like saying we shouldn't teach children about Irish history, so that they can reason it all for themselves when they are older. However, how can you seriously expect this unless there is nothing to reason upon.

Wicknight wrote: »

This is the contradiction here. You are saying you are going to teach your kids Christianity and then let them make their own mind up. But if that is the case why not simply not teach them Christianity and let them make their own mind up with then get older?

It's not about "letting". People do this anyway, irrespective of whether or not they are in a house where militant atheism is encouraged, or in a house which takes a rather extreme approach to teaching about Christianity.

Wicknight wrote: »

Of course it does. Parents worry about their children not becoming the same religion as them because they associate so much of good with religious membership.

It's not because of association, it's due to actuality in many cases.

Wicknight wrote: »

By instilling in them very young the parents religion they greatly increase the odds that they will become the same religion as them.

By giving their children the right tools to reason upon with, and to make sense of a certain faith in time. That's radically different to unquestioning belief.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which of course contradicts the notion that they want them to discover it themselves when they get older, which to be honest I think is a hallow claim.

Well, I'm merely saying from my experience of it. That's the way it's happened. I've found it out for myself, in a far, far deeper way than I was ever taught in school.

Wicknight wrote: »

You are quite sure of this based on what exactly? That they are Christians and all Christians are good people/parents?

Call it anecdotal, but I don't believe that Christians are worse parents than atheists because they teach their children about God.

Wicknight wrote: »

Which should mean you shouldn't want to take advantage of innate biological forms of implanting knowledge in my head.

This is getting ridiculous now Wicknight. Teaching about Christianity, allows for people to think about it, and to reason about it. It's not "implanting" or setting a duplicate disk image on another drive in computery terms.

It's allowing people to see it as reasonable for themselves.

Wicknight wrote: »

For example I'm sure you would agree that it would be pointless to the goals of Christianity to teach me about God while I'm under the effects of a suggestion drug. I would end up accepting what you say without rationally accepting what you say.

I think it's pointless to tell anyone anything if they aren't willing to rationally think about what you are going to say.

Wicknight wrote: »

Same thing applies with children. Children accept what they are told by their parents without rationally determining what they are told.

This is nonsense again. Read what I said after the first quotation in this post.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is wrong to use that biological relationship to instill religious beliefs in your children if you believe that it is important that they do in fact figure it out for themselves.

It's no more wrong to teach about Christianity, than common ethical sense, language, history or anything else. It is up for people to decide if they want to continue in this understanding of faith, and if they don't that's their prerogative.

JimiTime · 08-04-2010 03:35PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Surely you believe that anyone teaching their child that any religion but christianity is true (or that no religion is true) is the worst form of child abuse possible because they are drastically increasing the possibility that their child will go to hell.

No I don't actually. I think parents in most cases do what they think is best for their child. If they turn out to be wrong, I would not call them child abusers. If you guys are correct about the non-existance of God, it still does not make the Christian a child abuser. I find that such pejorative terms are just propagandist 'shocker' words, which is why in my post I said 'if you truly believe its child abuse'.

Why don't you look to legislate to stop this?

There's no need to. I don't see a child raised well, by loving parents, but also as an atheist, a big issue. We all grow up at some point. I would hope that all good parents will teach their children how to think, and to question etc. This does not equate to never instructing them though.

meditraitor · 08-04-2010 03:44PM

ColmDawson wrote: »

I've answered your question. No more food for you.

If your only form of answer is by implying I am a troll then your answer falls way too short and is indictative of a narrow mind.

Sam Vimes · 08-04-2010 03:44PM

JimiTime wrote: »

No I don't actually. I think parents in most cases do what they think is best for their child. If they turn out to be wrong, I would not call them child abusers. If you guys are correct about the non-existance of God, it still does not make the Christian a child abuser. I find that such pejorative terms are just propagandist 'shocker' words, which is why in my post I said 'if you truly believe its child abuse'.

Well yeah it is a shocker word. It's obviously not like physical or sexual abuse but parents are still teaching their child that something is true when they cannot possibly know that it is. It's not something I'd go marching in the streets over but I'd rather parents let their children make up their own minds

JimiTime wrote: »

There's no need to. I don't see a child raised well, by loving parents, but also as an atheist, a big issue. We all grow up at some point. I would hope that all good parents will teach their children how to think, and to question etc. This does not equate to never instructing them though.

You don't see any problem with someone dooming their child to eternal damnation through their own ignorance? Really?

magicbastarder · 08-04-2010 03:51PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's obviously not like physical or sexual abuse but parents are still teaching their child that something is true when they cannot possibly know that it is. It's not something I'd go marching in the streets over but I'd rather parents let their children make up their own minds

you mean in the sense of presenting the pros and cons of the major world religions to your five year old and asking them to make up their own mind?

i don't *know* that my values are right. i believe they are. i would happily teach them to my child. to suggest that a parent should not teach their children what they themselves believe is an argument i'm still trying to get my head around.

philologos · 08-04-2010 03:51PM

The point is Sam, if it were child abuse, you would be marching on the streets, or at least if you were led by conscience you would.

This is perhaps the reason why JimiTime and I, question whether or not you are being sincere when using the "child abuse" card, or are you just throwing it around gratuitously.

axer · 08-04-2010 03:52PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean in the sense of presenting the pros and cons of the major world religions to your five year old and asking them to make up their own mind?

i don't *know* that my values are right. i believe they are. i would happily teach them to my child. to suggest that a parent should not teach their children what they themselves believe is an argument i'm still trying to get my head around.

Values does not equal teaching that there is a god. Nobody *needs* to teach that there is a god since nobody knows.

ColmDawson · 08-04-2010 03:59PM

Jakkass wrote: »

This is perhaps the reason why JimiTime and I, question whether or not you are being sincere when using the "child abuse" card, or are you just throwing it around gratuitously.

I'm sure Sam Vimes will respond to that, but I might as well give my take on it.

I think the use of the term in this case refers to an abuse of the position of power an adult has over a child, i.e. the fact that a young child will generally believe what a parent tells them. I think the use of the term 'child abuse' is accurate in this sense, and is not equating religious upbringing with the beating or rape of children.

magicbastarder · 08-04-2010 04:04PM

axer wrote: »

Values does not equal teaching that there is a god. Nobody *needs* to teach that there is a god since nobody knows.

i thought that the criteria here were whether kids were taught things which are factual?

this debate is fatuous. there is merit in discussing the point of view regarding whether kids can meaningfully be described as religious, etc., but the debate about whether parents should be able to raise their kids as religious is a non-starter.

Zombrex · 08-04-2010 04:05PM

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm questioning the assumption that if people are taught about religion that they will automatically share the same view as their parents come adulthood.

Why are you questioning that?

What makes religion as a topic immune to natural biology?

Jakkass wrote: »

Hence why I asked you why you weren't still Christian.

I wasn't raised a Christian.

I am though scared of standing in the middle of a road and have been since I was a little boy.

The vast vast vast majority of people follow the religion of their parents. I'm sure you can dig up examples where this isn't the case, but they are irrelevant to the point at hand, that being that children have a natural biological tendency to accept what they are told as children by their parents.

Does this work every single time for every single instance? No, like all biological systems it isn't exact. Does that mean it doesn't exist at all? Nope.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's kind of like saying we shouldn't teach children about Irish history, so that they can reason it all for themselves when they are older. However, how can you seriously expect this unless there is nothing to reason upon.

I would be as careful about teaching my children about Irish history as I would be about Christianity. I knew of a guy in secondary school who attacked a teacher over teaching of the Rising (he threw a folder at him after a rather heated debate). Unsurprising after that happened we found out his parents had strong Republican views, that had obviously been passed down to their children.

Now admittedly this is an extreme case, but it again highlights the nativity of the view that children will just figure it out for themselves as they get older what they were taught by their parents.

People should be very careful about teaching their children stuff that they then hope their children will figure out later. You can't ignore that they will be biased toward the position you present to them because you are their parents, or ignore than viewing information your parents give you as wrong can be a lot harder and more emotionally charged than with other things.

The phrase "Everything I was taught is a lie" is more often than not associated with learning what your parents taught you is wrong. People tend not to get as emotional about finding out something their 2nd year college professor taught them was wrong.

I've no problem teaching my children stuff I want them to consider unquestioningly. I want my child to unquestioningly think that playing out on the road with the trucks is a bad idea. I want my child to unquestioningly think that stealing his friends ice cream is bad.

If you want your child to accept Christianity unquestioningly that is fair enough, but don't pretend you don't and then go about it.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not about "letting". People do this anyway, irrespective of whether or not they are in a house where militant atheism is encouraged, or in a house which takes a rather extreme approach to teaching about Christianity.

No, some people do. The vast majority seem not to.

The person changing religion from the religion of their religious parents is the exception rather than the rule. Most people with religious parents stay in the religion they were raised in.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's not because of association, it's due to actuality in many cases.

Well that is an argument for whether the religion is true or not, which isn't really the point.

Even if you believe your religion is true you should recognize the limits of that opinion, particularly if you want your children to make up their own minds.

Jakkass wrote: »

By giving their children the right tools to reason upon with, and to make sense of a certain faith in time. That's radically different to unquestioning belief.

It is, but it is also radically different to what you are talking about.

Jakkass wrote: »

Call it anecdotal, but I don't believe that Christians are worse parents than atheists because they teach their children about God.

Great, but that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you do Christians do this. You seem now to be saying Not any more than atheists, which wasn't the issue.

Forget about how good or bad atheist parents are. That isn't the issue here. Atheists parents can teach their children things in as bad a way (look at the guy who get physically violent because a history teacher was questioning what his parents had taught him about the Rising, nothing to do with religion)

Jakkass wrote: »

This is getting ridiculous now Wicknight. Teaching about Christianity, allows for people to think about it, and to reason about it.

It does if you are teaching your 17 year old about it Jakkass. It doesn't if you are teaching your 5 year old about it.

There is a very good evolutionary reason why that is, it is too dangerous for children to "reason about" what they are told by their parents when they are young.

If your mother says don't go near the lions and you have a good think about that and decide ah I think she is mistaken, you get eaten.

The fallacy in your argument Jakkass is the assumption that children think about stuff in the same way adults do. They don't. This has nothing to do with religion, if you teach your 5 year old that black people are dirty they will think that until they are much older.

It is evolutionarily advantageous for children to listen and accept what they are told by their parents.

You seem to be simply ignoring this fact about children because it doesn't fit with what you want to do with your children.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think it's pointless to tell anyone anything if they aren't willing to rationally think about what you are going to say.

Great, we agree. Don't tell you children about Christianity, since they aren't willing/able (for very good evolutionary reasons) to rationally critique what you are telling them.

Jakkass wrote: »

This is nonsense again. Read what I said after the first quotation in this post.

It is not nonsense it is basic child psychology and it is very useful. It stops your children wandering out under a bus.

You are simply choosing to ignore this because you want to teach your children about Christianity. Which is fair enough, but then don't pretend that you are all interested in them rationally figuring it out for themselves since you clearly aren't

philologos · 08-04-2010 04:25PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Why are you questioning that?

What makes religion as a topic immune to natural biology?

Of course I'm questioning it, because it doesn't reflect the reality of how I and others have accepted Christianity.

It's nonsense to suggest that if you are taught about Christianity in the home you will automatically have the exact same conception about it.

Reality seems to suggest that people don't become exact duplicates of their parents. Especially if independent reading of the Bible occurs. That requires individual reasoning.

Wicknight wrote: »

I wasn't raised a Christian.

Apologies, I had thought from previous posts that you were.

Wicknight wrote: »

The vast vast vast majority of people follow the religion of their parents. I'm sure you can dig up examples where this isn't the case, but they are irrelevant to the point at hand, that being that children have a natural biological tendency to accept what they are told as children by their parents.

I again challenge this assumption, that we have exactly the same regard concerning religion as our parents.

I've already mentioned previous in this thread, that I differ with my parents, and other family members about how I regard Christianity.

Wicknight wrote: »

Does this work every single time for every single instance? No, like all biological systems it isn't exact. Does that mean it doesn't exist at all? Nope.

Irrespective of biology, which I think you are only invoking to make the lame claim that "this is science", from what I have noted anecdotally, both in my own experience and in that of other Christians I'd disagree with you.

Wicknight wrote: »

Even if you believe your religion is true you should recognize the limits of that opinion, particularly if you want your children to make up their own minds.

What limits are these?

Wicknight wrote: »

Great, but that wasn't what I asked you. I asked you do Christians do this. You seem now to be saying Not any more than atheists, which wasn't the issue.

It's something you've left unanswered. You've referred to teaching ones children about their faith as bad parenting, but you have failed to answer if atheists are better parents than Christians as a result of this.

Wicknight wrote: »

Forget about how good or bad atheist parents are. That isn't the issue here. Atheists parents can teach their children things in as bad a way (look at the guy who get physically violent because a history teacher was questioning what his parents had taught him about the Rising, nothing to do with religion)

It's pivotal to your argument and it needs clarifying.

Wicknight wrote: »

It does if you are teaching your 17 year old about it Jakkass. It doesn't if you are teaching your 5 year old about it.

This assumes that parents stop sharing their faith after their child hits the age of reason.

Wicknight wrote: »

It is evolutionarily advantageous for children to listen and accept what they are told by their parents.

You seem to be simply ignoring this fact about children because it doesn't fit with what you want to do with your children.

I'm disregarding (not ignoring) this because it doesn't seem to square with reality in a lot of cases, if not most that I have encountered. Most of my friends who were raised in Christian homes, now don't believe.

Wicknight wrote: »

Great, we agree. Don't tell you children about Christianity, since they aren't willing/able (for very good evolutionary reasons) to rationally critique what you are telling them.

Why wouldn't I if I regarded it the best thing I could possibly share with anyone? It's kind of like how I wouldn't ignore friends when they want to talk about Christianity with me.

Sam Vimes · 08-04-2010 04:27PM

magicbastarder wrote: »

you mean in the sense of presenting the pros and cons of the major world religions to your five year old and asking them to make up their own mind?

i don't *know* that my values are right. i believe they are. i would happily teach them to my child. to suggest that a parent should not teach their children what they themselves believe is an argument i'm still trying to get my head around.

Religion is a personal choice, one that a five year old is not old enough to make. You'd never hear someone refer to a socialist child, a fascist child or a libertarian child but you hear people refer to catholic and protestant children as if they have any idea what a resurrection is. Teaching a child all of the options is fine, telling a child what you believe is fine but telling a child what they believe is not fine. Yes children do need instruction in things like "don't walk off cliffs" and basic ethical values but that does not extend to teaching them that the source of these values is an invisible being that watches them all the time and is going to punish them eternally for the crime of being born unless they believe a particular magic story.

That's one of the problems with specifically teaching christianity btw, that one of its core beliefs is that the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to believe it. If the parent is to honestly teach the child christian beliefs it can't simply be "this is what I believe, take it or leave it", it must be "this is what the person you trust most in the world believes and if you don't accept it you're gonna fry (or so I believe)"

Jakkass wrote: »

The point is Sam, if it were child abuse, you would be marching on the streets, or at least if you were led by conscience you would.

This is perhaps the reason why JimiTime and I, question whether or not you are being sincere when using the "child abuse" card, or are you just throwing it around gratuitously.

Child abuse is an emotive term meant to make a point. I consider smacking children and smoking around them to be child abuse too as in the parent is abusing the position of trust they have been placed in but if I see either happen I don't wrestle the child out of the parent's grip

Tim Robbins · 08-04-2010 04:39PM

Indoctrination is a completly ridiculous from a logical perspective. But then nearly every single aspect of Religion also is. At least there's consistency.

magicbastarder · 08-04-2010 04:43PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Religion is a personal choice, one that a five year old is not old enough to make. You'd never hear someone refer to a socialist child, a fascist child or a libertarian child but you hear people refer to catholic and protestant children as if they have any idea what a resurrection is. Teaching a child all of the options is fine, telling a child what you believe is fine but telling a child what they believe is not fine. Yes children do need instruction in things like "don't walk off cliffs" and basic ethical values but that does not extend to teaching them that the source of these values is an invisible being that watches them all the time and is going to punish them eternally for the crime of being born unless they believe a particular magic story.

That's one of the problems with specifically teaching christianity btw, that one of its core beliefs is that the only way to avoid eternal damnation is to believe it. If the parent is to honestly teach the child christian beliefs it can't simply be "this is what I believe, take it or leave it", it must be "this is what the person you trust most in the world believes and if you don't accept it you're gonna fry (or so I believe)"

i get it - you don't like that kids are raised as christian. neither do i, in the sense that i'd prefer they weren't taught something i don't believe in.

what gets my goat is the argument that parents shouldn't teach kids what they themselves believe in (i'll leave the obvious things such as racism to one side). that's the parents call, and that's how it should be.

Zombrex · 08-04-2010 04:50PM

Jakkass wrote: »

Of course I'm questioning it, because it doesn't reflect the reality of how I and others have accepted Christianity.

What does that have to do with anything?

Are you saying that you did not accept what you are told by your parents as a child? Not specially about Christianity but about anything?

Jakkass wrote: »

It's nonsense to suggest that if you are taught about Christianity in the home you will automatically have the exact same conception about it.

You keep dropping in "automatically" into that concept, which suggests to me some straw man slight of hand there Jakkass

Do you think it is nonsense to suggest that if you are taught about something, anything, by your parents at a young age you are more likely to accept it as true and less likely to rationally question it?

Forget Christianity for a minute. When was the last time you saw a 7 year old having a deep rational debate with their parents over the pros and cons of playing on the road?

Jakkass wrote: »

Reality seems to suggest that people don't become exact duplicates of their parents.

"Automatic", "exact duplicates" :rolleyes:

You always know you have won the argument when you guys start introduce straw men that are far easier to argue against.

Reality doesn't suggest you become exact duplicates of your parents but we both know that isn't what the argument is.

Reality does suggest that children of a young age are much more like to accept unquestioningly what they are told by their parents than if they were older or if they got the information from other sources.

Can I take it that your slight of hand to misrepresent that argument into something easier to argue against means you accept that initial premise.

Jakkass wrote: »

Apologies, I had thought from previous posts that you were.

it is also not relevant to the actual point, only to your straw man point.

If I was saying that will certainly become an exact duplicate of your parents then it is easy to find examples where that is not the case, a person raised in an atheist family who finds Christianity, or a Christian who converts to Islam.

But we both know that isn't the actual argument (as much as you would like it to be).

The argument is that children are more likely to accept what they are told by their parents. Not that they certainly will. And this is reflected to a staggering degree by the amount of people who are in the same religion as their parents.

Jakkass wrote: »

I again challenge this assumption, that we have exactly the same regard concerning religion as our parents.

Straw man, see above.

Jakkass wrote: »

What limits are these?

Well for a start 2.2 billion people think you are wrong and you haven't figured out a way yet to demonstrate otherwise.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's something you've left unanswered. You've referred to teaching ones children about their faith as bad parenting, but you have failed to answer if atheists are better parents than Christians as a result of this.
It's pivotal to your argument and it needs clarifying.

It is not pivotal at all.

I have "failed" to answer that question because I have no idea what atheists teach their children.

An atheist teaching their children that Jews are trying to take over the world is not a better parent than a Christian teaching their children that Jesus loves them.

Atheism not a belief system. I can't infer what an atheist is teaching their children simply because they are atheist.

Jakkass wrote: »

This assumes that parents stop sharing their faith after their child hits the age of reason.

No it doesn't.

Jakkass wrote: »

I'm disregarding (not ignoring) this because it doesn't seem to square with reality in a lot of cases, if not most that I have encountered. Most of my friends who were raised in Christian homes, now don't believe.

Your friends are exceptions to the wider statistics.

Jakkass wrote: »

Why wouldn't I if I regarded it the best thing I could possibly share with anyone?

Because you want them to realize this themselves, not accept it simply because you told them it. Or at least you claim you do.

If I'm under a suggestive drug and you tell me Christianity is great and I accept that because of the drug I'm not realizing that myself.

Likewise if you tell your children about how great Christianity is and they accept that because their parents told them this, not because they had a good old think themselves and came to the same conclusion as you, they are not realizing it themselves either.

Which, like I said, fair enough. But don't pretend you care about them coming to agreement with you through rational consideration.

Ghost Buster · 08-04-2010 05:11PM

kippy wrote: »

Seriously, you'd leave them at home?
Theres lots of "good" things to take from the church teachings as well.

And lets face it. Its the ideal time to introduce kids to religion. They will believe absolutely anything at a young age.

axer · 08-04-2010 05:14PM

Ghost Buster wrote: »

And lets face it. Its the ideal time to introduce kids to religion. They will believe absolutely anything at a young age.

Reminds me of a story my brother in law told me. His kids were at his fathers house for christmas and one of them at 10 still believed in santa. My brother in law's father said with surprise when he heard "Tommy still believes in santa at 10?" to which my brother in law quipped "sure you still believe in god and you are 60!".

Is it selfish of a parent to force their religion onto their child

Comments