Or would you, if you had some? I'm more interested in what religious folk have to say about this, but I guess there aren't that many around here. If you're an atheist, would you encourage them to be one too? I'd let them choose for themselves because I'm not religious.
I will never teach my children religion. I will wait until they are old enough and I will educate them about it and ask if they want to join a certain religion. I don't want to force anything onto my children.
Do you realize what you have done? Anyway, I would teach them the fundamental values that most religions teach at a young age and let him/her decide for themself later on.
From a young age I'm going to be teaching my children about the Bible and Christianity but it's their choice as to whether they choose to follow that path or not. They will know what Christianity believes by the time they are of age to decide for themselves. I want to be the spiritual leader in the family that I wish I had growing up.
From a young age I'm going to be teaching my children about the Bible and Christianity but it's their choice as to whether they choose to follow that path or not. They will know what Christianity believes by the time they are of age to decide for themselves. I want to be the spiritual leader in the family that I wish I had growing up.mindstorm
What if your partner would disagree with you? Or would you never marry a person of different beliefs?
[QUOTE="mindstorm"]From a young age I'm going to be teaching my children about the Bible and Christianity but it's their choice as to whether they choose to follow that path or not. They will know what Christianity believes by the time they are of age to decide for themselves. I want to be the spiritual leader in the family that I wish I had growing up.Bartimaeus23
What if your partner would disagree with you? Or would you never marry a person of different beliefs? Nope, won't even consider dating a person that believes differently. Sharing the same beliefs and passions in life is what I want in a female more than anything.
I'm religious and will teach them Christian values, but ultimately allow them to decide whatever they like. I'm a very tolerant person and I wouldn't mind marrying a women who wasn't religious, but I would want her to be very tolerant too and not enforce in my kids that religion is nonsense.
[QUOTE="Bartimaeus23"][QUOTE="mindstorm"]From a young age I'm going to be teaching my children about the Bible and Christianity but it's their choice as to whether they choose to follow that path or not. They will know what Christianity believes by the time they are of age to decide for themselves. I want to be the spiritual leader in the family that I wish I had growing up.mindstorm
What if your partner would disagree with you? Or would you never marry a person of different beliefs? Nope, won't even consider dating a person that believes differently. Sharing the same beliefs and passions in life is what I want in a female more than anything. Would she have to be of the same group of followers as you (Catholic, Orthodox etc.)? Just curious.
No. Organized religion has brought humanity nothing but bloodshed and war, I have no interest in putting my kids through such a bloodthirsty system.Andrew_Xavier
Most people don't kill themselves over religion. War and religion don't necessarily have to have anything at all in common.
[QUOTE="Bartimaeus23"] Would she have to be of the same group of followers as you (Catholic, Orthodox etc.)? Just curious. Very likely. I'd like it most if she was some type of Baptist or Presbyterian when it comes to basic beliefs. I'm not saying I recommend this to everyone, but as I want to become a pastor I don't want to come home each Sunday evening and be told how wrong I was. I'd want her to be a support in the ministry, not a burden.
[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]No. Organized religion has brought humanity nothing but bloodshed and war, I have no interest in putting my kids through such a bloodthirsty system.Bartimaeus23
Most people don't kill themselves over religion. War and religion don't necessarily have to have anything at all in common. Ummm...the history of humanity begs to differ.
I will never teach my children religion. I will wait until they are old enough and I will educate them about it and ask if they want to join a certain religion. I don't want to force anything onto my children.xTheExploited
[QUOTE="Bartimaeus23"][QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]No. Organized religion has brought humanity nothing but bloodshed and war, I have no interest in putting my kids through such a bloodthirsty system.Andrew_Xavier
Most people don't kill themselves over religion. War and religion don't necessarily have to have anything at all in common. Ummm...the history of humanity begs to differ.
No. Organized religion has brought humanity nothing but bloodshed and war, I have no interest in putting my kids through such a bloodthirsty system.Andrew_Xavier
Religion doesn't cause bloodshed. It's the zealous, brainwashed freaks that blow things out of proportion that cause bloodshed.
To be honest, if you were a parent who firmly believes that your religion is the truth and that you have found your saviour... wouldn't you be a bad parent NOT to expose your child to that? We teach our children our political beliefs and lots of other things which are basically a matter of opinion - but nobody cares about those issues. However, i agree with Richard Dawkins that it's unfair to label your child a 'christian child' when they hardly know what they are. And i don't think baptism for children is good at all. If i have children i won't necessarily teach them my religion (because i'm agnostic), but because i come from a largely christian background, i hold the values in the bible very dear to me, and i'd probably teach them.
I will teach my children how to think for themselves and use logic to make decisons,and I will probably expose them to as many different religions and belief systems as I can without saying any are right or wrong. From there they can take that knowledge and do what they feel is best with it.
[QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]No. Organized religion has brought humanity nothing but bloodshed and war, I have no interest in putting my kids through such a bloodthirsty system.Vax45
Religion doesn't cause bloodshed. It's the zealous, brainwashed freaks that blow things out of proportion that cause bloodshed. Yeah, i mean the damage done by religious violence doesn't even compare to anti-religious regimes - Hitler Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin etc.etc.etc.
To be honest, if you were a parent who firmly believes that your religion is the truth and that you have found your saviour... wouldn't you be a bad parent NOT to expose your child to that? We teach our children our political beliefs and lots of other things which are basically a matter of opinion - but nobody cares about those issues. However, i agree with Richard Dawkins that it's unfair to label your child a 'christian child' when they hardly know what they are. And i don't think baptism for children is good at all. If i have children i won't necessarily teach them my religion (because i'm agnostic), but because i come from a largely christian background, i hold the values in the bible very dear to me, and i'd probably teach them.Stumpt25
Isn't that why God gave us free will though? So we can choose for ourselves? I'd only teach them when they'd be older and able to understand religion if they were curious. Otherwise I could argue that I'd simply exploit my position as a person of trust to teach kids what I believe.
[QUOTE="Stumpt25"]To be honest, if you were a parent who firmly believes that your religion is the truth and that you have found your saviour... wouldn't you be a bad parent NOT to expose your child to that? We teach our children our political beliefs and lots of other things which are basically a matter of opinion - but nobody cares about those issues. However, i agree with Richard Dawkins that it's unfair to label your child a 'christian child' when they hardly know what they are. And i don't think baptism for children is good at all. If i have children i won't necessarily teach them my religion (because i'm agnostic), but because i come from a largely christian background, i hold the values in the bible very dear to me, and i'd probably teach them.Bartimaeus23
Isn't that why God gave us free will though? So we can choose for ourselves? I'd only teach them when they'd be older and able to understand religion if they were curious. Otherwise I could argue that I'd simply exploit my position as a person of trust to teach kids what I believe. That's the whole point... Kids DO have freewill I was taught the religion of my parents and I don't believe it anymore. It hasn't damaged me as a person, and i actually feel that i've benefitted from it.
[QUOTE="Vax45"][QUOTE="Andrew_Xavier"]No. Organized religion has brought humanity nothing but bloodshed and war, I have no interest in putting my kids through such a bloodthirsty system.Stumpt25
Religion doesn't cause bloodshed. It's the zealous, brainwashed freaks that blow things out of proportion that cause bloodshed. Yeah, i mean the damage done by religious violence doesn't even compare to anti-religious regimes - Hitler Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin etc.etc.etc. It's not the belief or non-belief in a deity that matters when where talking about these regimes. It's the fanaticism and total devotion that the fundamental ideologies (Nazism, Communism, facism) behind these authorities inspires that matters. What's funny is that most of those systems functions like religions.
[QUOTE="Bartimaeus23"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"]To be honest, if you were a parent who firmly believes that your religion is the truth and that you have found your saviour... wouldn't you be a bad parent NOT to expose your child to that? We teach our children our political beliefs and lots of other things which are basically a matter of opinion - but nobody cares about those issues. However, i agree with Richard Dawkins that it's unfair to label your child a 'christian child' when they hardly know what they are. And i don't think baptism for children is good at all. If i have children i won't necessarily teach them my religion (because i'm agnostic), but because i come from a largely christian background, i hold the values in the bible very dear to me, and i'd probably teach them.Stumpt25
Isn't that why God gave us free will though? So we can choose for ourselves? I'd only teach them when they'd be older and able to understand religion if they were curious. Otherwise I could argue that I'd simply exploit my position as a person of trust to teach kids what I believe. That's the whole point... Kids DO have freewill I was taught the religion of my parents and I don't believe it anymore. It hasn't damaged me as a person, and i actually feel that i've benefitted from it. Children at a young age would believe most things a parent tells them. I know if they're older, children will learn to think for themselves; but then what's the point of teaching them something when they'll believe it regardless of what it is?
[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="Vax45"] Religion doesn't cause bloodshed. It's the zealous, brainwashed freaks that blow things out of proportion that cause bloodshed. Yeah, i mean the damage done by religious violence doesn't even compare to anti-religious regimes - Hitler Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin etc.etc.etc. It's not the belief or non-belief in a deity that matters when where talking about these regimes. It's the fanaticism and total devotion that the fundamental ideologies (Nazism, Communism, facism) behind these authorities inspires that matters. What's funny is that most of those systems functions like religions. oh no you misunderstand me. I absolutely agree. The point i'm making is that to blame bloodshed purely on religion is completely pointless. Because you could blame violence on athiesm too. Ultimately, humanity's lunatics are the ones responsible for death and suffering in the world.
[QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="Bartimaeus23"] Isn't that why God gave us free will though? So we can choose for ourselves? I'd only teach them when they'd be older and able to understand religion if they were curious. Otherwise I could argue that I'd simply exploit my position as a person of trust to teach kids what I believe.Bartimaeus23
That's the whole point... Kids DO have freewill I was taught the religion of my parents and I don't believe it anymore. It hasn't damaged me as a person, and i actually feel that i've benefitted from it. Children at a young age would believe most things a parent tells them. I know if they're older, children will learn to think for themselves; but then what's the point of teaching them something when they'll believe it regardless of what it is? Well if you expose them to your belief, you are keeping them informed, and they can make a choice from there. Being informed is never a bad thing.
[QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"] Yeah, i mean the damage done by religious violence doesn't even compare to anti-religious regimes - Hitler Mao, Pol Pot, Stalin etc.etc.etc. It's not the belief or non-belief in a deity that matters when where talking about these regimes. It's the fanaticism and total devotion that the fundamental ideologies (Nazism, Communism, facism) behind these authorities inspires that matters. What's funny is that most of those systems functions like religions. oh no you misunderstand me. I absolutely agree. The point i'm making is that to blame bloodshed purely on religion is completely pointless. Because you could blame violence on athiesm too. Ultimately, humanity's lunatics are the ones responsible for death and suffering in the world. How exactly can you blame a non-belief of something? And sure, it's wrong to say that religion is the root of evil, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous. Sure, you could find moderate examples of it, but that goes for Nazism too.
No. Religion is somethng you should find yourself, not have forced upon from your parents, or anyone else, unfortunately they'll pick it up from society most likely.
[QUOTE="jointed"] It's not the belief or non-belief in a deity that matters when where talking about these regimes. It's the fanaticism and total devotion that the fundamental ideologies (Nazism, Communism, facism) behind these authorities inspires that matters. What's funny is that most of those systems functions like religions. And the moral of the story is that if any belief system has a croud, **** will hit the fan.
[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="jointed"] It's not the belief or non-belief in a deity that matters when where talking about these regimes. It's the fanaticism and total devotion that the fundamental ideologies (Nazism, Communism, facism) behind these authorities inspires that matters. What's funny is that most of those systems functions like religions. oh no you misunderstand me. I absolutely agree. The point i'm making is that to blame bloodshed purely on religion is completely pointless. Because you could blame violence on athiesm too. Ultimately, humanity's lunatics are the ones responsible for death and suffering in the world. How exactly can you blame a non-belief of something? And sure, it's wrong to say that religion is the root of evil, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous. Sure, you could find moderate examples of it, but that goes for Nazism too. Ok, let's take Pol Pot for example, who killed anyone who was religious, or a religious figure (e.g. Monk) - He hated religion, and wanted to create a new eutopia, liberated from religion. He set the year back to zero - symbolising a new dawn free from religious input. His radical atheism resulted in countless killings. Hitler, used social darwinism. He called jews, schlavs, blacks, and homosexuals inferior - marveled at the Aryan race, calling it superior. He took an darwinistic ideology (survival of the fittest), warped it to an extreme, and then used it to kill countless people in his own country. I'm not saying atheism is deadly - i'm saying psychotic killers are deadly. But the arguement that religion is 'evilll' is naive at best. John Lennon's 'Imagine' has the line - 'imagine there's no religion'. It's great he stopped at imagining, because what if someone went one step further and would die for no religion, or kill for no religion. Atheism is as easy to fight for as religion. I don't think you can blame religion or atheism in themselves - rather, people who are atheists / religious, and do damage.
From a young age I'm going to be teaching my children about the Bible and Christianity but it's their choice as to whether they choose to follow that path or not. They will know what Christianity believes by the time they are of age to decide for themselves. I want to be the spiritual leader in the family that I wish I had growing up.mindstorm
[QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"] oh no you misunderstand me. I absolutely agree. The point i'm making is that to blame bloodshed purely on religion is completely pointless. Because you could blame violence on athiesm too. Ultimately, humanity's lunatics are the ones responsible for death and suffering in the world. How exactly can you blame a non-belief of something? And sure, it's wrong to say that religion is the root of evil, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous. Sure, you could find moderate examples of it, but that goes for Nazism too. Ok, let's take Pol Pot for example, who killed anyone who was religious, or a religious figure (e.g. Monk) - He hated religion, and wanted to create a new eutopia, liberated from religion. He set the year back to zero - symbolising a new dawn free from religious input. His radical atheism resulted in countless killings. Hitler, used social darwinism. He called jews, schlavs, blacks, and homosexuals inferior - marveled at the Aryan race, calling it superior. He took an darwinistic ideology (survival of the fittest), warped it to an extreme, and then used it to kill countless people in his own country. I'm not saying atheism is deadly - i'm saying psychotic killers are deadly. But the arguement that religion is 'evilll' is naive at best. John Lennon's 'Imagine' has the line - 'imagine there's no religion'. It's great he stopped at imagining, because what if someone went one step further and would die for no religion, or kill for no religion. Atheism is as easy to fight for as religion. I don't think you can blame religion or atheism in themselves - rather, people who are atheists / religious, and do damage. What? It wasn't atheism that made them do it, and I know you say you don't believe that, but you argue as if you do. Pol Pot was a communist, his radical Communistic beliefs resulted in countless killings. The "greater good" idea is the main reason why communist regimes has been so ruthless...it has nothing to do with atheism since it isn't a belief system. The Nazis used National Socialism in order to kill people, a political ideology very similar to religion. The fanaticism created by this ideology was the main reason why so many died, not atheism. What's funny is that it wasn't atheists that killed in the name of Nazism, it was Christians...the vast majority of Germany was Christians during Hitler's regime remember? Both the SS and the Heer wore obligatory belt knuckles with the phrase "Gott Mit Uns".
[QUOTE="jointed"][QUOTE="Stumpt25"][QUOTE="jointed"] How exactly can you blame a non-belief of something? And sure, it's wrong to say that religion is the root of evil, but that doesn't make it any less dangerous. Sure, you could find moderate examples of it, but that goes for Nazism too. Ok, let's take Pol Pot for example, who killed anyone who was religious, or a religious figure (e.g. Monk) - He hated religion, and wanted to create a new eutopia, liberated from religion. He set the year back to zero - symbolising a new dawn free from religious input. His radical atheism resulted in countless killings. Hitler, used social darwinism. He called jews, schlavs, blacks, and homosexuals inferior - marveled at the Aryan race, calling it superior. He took an darwinistic ideology (survival of the fittest), warped it to an extreme, and then used it to kill countless people in his own country. I'm not saying atheism is deadly - i'm saying psychotic killers are deadly. But the arguement that religion is 'evilll' is naive at best. John Lennon's 'Imagine' has the line - 'imagine there's no religion'. It's great he stopped at imagining, because what if someone went one step further and would die for no religion, or kill for no religion. Atheism is as easy to fight for as religion. I don't think you can blame religion or atheism in themselves - rather, people who are atheists / religious, and do damage. What? It wasn't atheism that made them do it, and I know you say you don't believe that, but you argue as if you do. Pol Pot was a communist, his radical Communistic beliefs resulted in countless killings. The "greater good" idea is the main reason why communist regimes has been so ruthless...it has nothing to do with atheism since it isn't a belief system. The Nazis used National Socialism in order to kill people, a political ideology very similar to religion. The fanaticism created by this ideology was the main reason why so many died, not atheism. What's funny is that it wasn't atheists that killed in the name of Nazism, it was Christians...the vast majority of Germany was Christians during Hitler's regime remember? Both the SS and the Heer wore obligatory belt knuckles with the phrase "Gott Mit Uns". Ok, lots of things said here to address. Firstly, I totally accept that people have done terrible things in the name of religion. I deny however, that those things are encouraged by religious teachings - and 99.99% of religious people ardently oppose those acts. I also believe, that although people have done terrible things in the name of religion - there's also terrible things done by people inspired by atheism. You ask: how can you be inspired by a belief in nothing. It's not the inspiration, it's the way which people would want to impose their beliefs on others - or at least abolish the impact of religion - a kind of violent anti-theism. Ok, so onto Pol Pot. Yes, he was a communist, but that feeds into my point directly - communist ideology is 'religion is the opiate of the people', and this is a philosphy that Pol Pot believed deeply. If you've ever been to Cambodia and talked to the people there - religion was a thing that was supposed to be wiped out. Countless monks were killed, and religious people too. (religious people weren't the only ones killed, but that's beside the point). Pol Pot was ultimately trying to create a country of atheists - and he was willing to kill countless in order to do that. Secondly, Nazism. You're quite incorrect on a few fronts. Hitler's hatred for jews, blacks, schlavs etc. was indeed inspired by the belief that the aryans were the 'perfect race' - that the uncivilised other races would only help destroy a perfect body of people. This is what many people call 'social darwinism'. You are correct, that Germany was a body of Christians. However, the reason why the Nazi government came into power so quickly is because of their radical voice of change, and the failure of the Weinmar government - not Christian doctrine. The belt buckles, 'Gott Mit Uns' were there for basically one reason only - the Nazi's knew they couldn't take control without appealing to the religious population in Germany. Regardless, Hitler very quickly wanted to do away with christian values. In schools, curriculums were changed to teach a new kind of religion - Hitler There's actually a record of a song that was sung in school which basically went along the lines of 'there is no god, the fuhrer rules' (I speak in very very loose terms, obviously). You actually sum up my thoughts very well: "The fanaticism created by this ideology was the main reason why so many died, not atheism." I agree, it's unfair to blame atheism. But in the same way it's unfair to blame religion. We can only blame fanatics which subscribe to, and warp the ideology's to a level where they become dangerous.
l probably won't. l know l won't shove religion down anyone's throat. It's obnoxious. l'm not really a believer anyway. lt will be a choice my children will make themselves.
Considering I'm Catholic,and that I'll probably stay Catholic by the time I'm ready to have kids,it'd be pretty hard to raise them without mentioning my religious beliefs.I'd teach them some of the well-known stories and instill some of well-known values,but I wouldn't force it down my children's throat.Not sure how teaching a child about my religion would be harmful to them in any way,personally.
Considering I'm Catholic,and that I'll probably stay Catholic by the time I'm ready to have kids,it'd be pretty hard to raise them without mentioning my religious beliefs.I'd teach them some of the well-known stories and instill some of well-known values,but I wouldn't force it down my children's throat.Not sure how teaching a child about my religion would be harmful to them in any way,personally.VGobbsesser
Watch Jesus Camp and you'll see the danger in teaching children religion...
Log in to comment