Children must be taught religions

It would be asn Oxymoron if there waas such a think as Nonreligious people. But Atheism is not the opposite of Religion. Atheists still have a comprehensive undrstasndin of the world they live in. We may now call this "Worldviewz', and say that somepeople have a Religious worldivew and others as nonreligious worldview, nut I don't really see the distinction between "Wprldview" ansd \d "Religion" other than peopel ant to bclass some as not Religious. In the end its the same thing.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I really wish you would take a little more time to proofread your posts. This is really difficult to read. Makes it hard to take you seriously if you don't care enough to communicate clearly - just sayin'.

So which defintion of religion are you using, because it obviously isn't one of the commonly used ones.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Or just listen to what is reported. For example in Barack Obama's Audacity of Hope he describes being introduced as a child to world religions, by his mother, anthropologist Ann Dunham.

So there's one test case. There are countless others.

Unitarian Universalists would seem to fare well in such a study.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

And parents tend to teach their children how to think.
Even without necessarily trying.

 

Ideally we would all know a little bit about each other's cultures and this would lead to some idea of at least the major world religions.

I think most social studies classes, especially in this age of cultural awareness, strive to give kids a little more of this in the curriculum.
A more focused curriculum might be hard to pull off without boring kids to death.

Better yet: every country should take half of its national defense budget and pay to let each student travel abroad to learn about the world. This would cure the boredom issue and leave an indelible impression to respect foreign cultures. After returning and reflecting on their experiences, students would tend to be more receptive to focused classes on world culture and religions.

(Taking funds from defense is predicated on the probability that war would could be rendered obsolete once xenophobia is eradicated.)

 

1: I am dyslecic.

2: I type with oen hand as I have a cut on the left hand. Its temporary.

3: The dictionary definition is a Set of beelifs about the Nature, cause, and ultimat meaning of our existance. Thats pretty well the one I use, and fits in with Atheistic beleif systems like Secular Humanism as well.


By the way the bit abotu esp. if it features worship of gods, look up the word especially. The actual defintion ends before it, its just the usual, but not required features you see in Religion.


Religion is simply a Philosophy about the naturre of our existance. Any "Non-Rweligious Philosophy' that answers the same questiins and fills the same need as a Religion is a Religion.

 

Faith is the mean, unnecesary and inappropriate abuse of a child's instict to trust its elders. When he grows up, knows about all religions and the how and why of sociology, then he is free to put all the faith he wants in God.

 

You miss out on one very important factor between religious belief facts and real world facts - objectivity and empirical observablity - gravity and napoleon yes, christ in heaven, not so much. In such a situation, it would be unfair for us to impose on the child just one facet of what actually might be the case. You have got to either teach both/all sides or not teach anything that makes a fact claim or value judgement.

The indoctrination of a child with an idea is acceptable in inverse proportion to the intensity and subjectivity of the idea. A big but mellow and objective view is a much more better idea to indoctrinate simply because its the most pragmatic choice of all avaliable. A secular humanist would not do extreme things due to his secular humanism, at worse, he may disrespect and be apathetic to his culture. A religious fundamentalist would disrespect and disregard secular politics and the sciences, even oppose them and at worse would kill abortion doctors and fly planes into buildings.

Ok. But it must be all or none. We cannot live or nagivate by "our religion", even if we consider our ideas to be true and our obligation to tell them to our children. Like I said in the OP -

I AM asking a Baptist to not be one if their actions result in cultural segregation and indeterminate conflict which might otherwise we resolved by a simple discussion.

 

Not at all.

I am sure that without science, we indeed probably couldn't have gotten where we are.

I'm not a theist. I am a concerned citizen of Planet Earth.

Lol. "You know me well enough"?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I both of us agree that we hold diametric views here, I suggest one of us open a thread on this issue and let the ensuing debate make some inference.

And you think this is good or bad?

I love that self-identity, Xenomorphism, very rare indeed. But, out of curiosity, can you please describe your stand on God and religion? Are you are atheistic? Are your religious?

Dont I? I might not be able to explain you to another person, but I [basically]understand how you think, what tactics you use, your self-identity, your paradigm, your personality, etc. I dont quite know you as such, but I know enough to somewhat predict your actions, answers, arguments.

 

Apparently, you don't know me well enough then, if you ask what my stance on God etc. is.

 

Children must be taught to compare, and contrast theism and atheism, then the major world faiths, and spirituality and arrive to firm stand point on their beliefs in what happens after we die, morality, and natural-divinity. In the end most people can come to the conclusion we can not know about God on earth unless he smiles for us, or if we conquer him (we won't), there for all we have is our beliefs. Mine is that there is, and always has been a conciousnes to our universe that resulted in energy being produced to create anything. This resulted in a monotheistic pre/afterlife in which there is a one supreme God, and gods formed into a perfect hirearchy known to us as angels.

 

Ok, I dont know you. NOW can you please explain your stance on God please?

 

there are a million things you take on faith.
i would say that everything you don't know first hand has an element of faith in it.

 

Sure I have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow and that apples will keep falling but surely having faith that killing an infidel will get you 72 supernatural virgins is surely crossing the line, no?

 

exactly.

on the opposite end i would hate the thought of eternal damnation if i masturbated.

funny how god manages to stick his big fat ass into everything eh?

am i being unrealistic? not in the slightest.
in my opinion, if god actually exists, then he/ she/ it/ them, is a huckster or a gambler.
my biggest problem with the "god concept" is why involve innocent people?
why destroy innocent lives on what? a gamble?
i'm sorry but i can't kiss that ass.

 

My ex wife is dyslexic, I understand. You may want to use a browser with spell check.

Check the religion section, we've had a long thread about religiously motivated violence. The person who started that thread has gone so far as to claim that for something to be religious...

http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2888315&postcount=1107

So, obviously, people on both sides of the god fence disagree with your definition.

 

"Hypocrite" is your word, not mine. But I do see a basic inconsistency.

Baptists make a very defensible point about the need to make a conscious "decision for Christ". My point is that raising a child in such a way that a decision for Christ has already been presupposed and imposed on the child by another individual's fiat, kind of preempts and subverts the Baptists' fundamental theological idea.

It seems to me that indoctrinating young children into a religious path without allowing them any opportunity to make the choice themselves is a lot more serious affair than simply sprinkling some drops of water on a baby in a ceremonial infant baptism.

 

i beg to differ.
faith is indeed belief without evidence.
you have faith that your brakes will prevent the headon accident you are about to have. you have absolutely no proof they will.
you have faith that the bystander will not walk in front of your speeding vehicle. you have absolutely no proof he won't.
you have faith that the sun will rise tomorrow. you have absolutely no proof it will.

 

In all those cases you mention above, you had some reason to believe or hope that things will work out as you wish,
and that reason is based on your previous experience or knowledge of functional brakes, careful people crossing streets and the sun rising.

Your reason to believe or hope is not based on nothing.