assuming you don't want to brainwash, what is the proper age to introduce religion

[Cecilie1200]

Morality doesn't only come from religion, chanel. That's another common fallacy.

I realize that goldcatt but I am curious what book atheists refer to when teaching right from wrong. I am not being facetious. I know from experience just telling kids "don't do that" is not entirely effective. They must know "why" and sometimes "God" is more powerful than "because I said so". How is it taught? Formally or just happenstance?

BTW - all the atheists I know had some religion as a child and are good people. Coincidence?

Why would you teach basic morality to a child out of a book?

Same reason you would teach math or English or history out of a book: because books are where humans collect their repository of knowledge.

What the hell do you have against books?

 

[Cecilie1200]

How about the folks that lived in remote areas for thousands of years and had never been exposed to anyone other than their own tribe?
Do they go to heaven? How can they accept Jesus if they had never heard of them?
Doesn't seem fair.

Apparently I get the privilege of being the first to inform you that life and the universe are not fair.

 

[Cecilie1200]

'age' might not be the appropriate measure, it has more to do with maturity, but in the interest of raising a non-sheeple kid, when should religion/god be introduced? personally, we are aiming somewhere in between 11-13 for my stepson and when that time comes doing a thorough review of all major religions/ideas throughout the world, as well as the idea of being agnostic and atheist. what have other people done?

Yeah.. cause a 11 year old is a fountain of maturity...

Birth is usually about the right time... At least that's the time that most people begin to introduce the kids to who they are and what they believe.

And I think it's a GREAT idea to teach your kid that everything that's out there is basically the same... pick the one that you're the most comfortable with...

Just one word of warning; prepare yourself for anarchy... and the best of luck with that.

everything out there isn't the same, but I don't mind teaching the differences between tehm and what they are about.

adn do you really think lack of organized religion leads to anarchy?? you realize people can live moral lives without religion being involved right?

No, I don't. And neither do you. You just THINK that's the case. The truth is, an attempt at a moral life without an objective, outside moral standard rapidly becomes no moral standard at all, because it becomes very easy to rationalize away anything you want to do. I have never known anyone who tried to be moral based on "I'm a good person, and I can decide right and wrong individually for myself" who didn't wind up awash in a morass of confusion and doubt.

 

[Cecilie1200]

And people keep wondering why we manage to raise generations of gormless little weirdos with no direction and no moral compass who, at best, can't find the gumption and drive to get and hold a decent job and move out of Mom's basement, and at worst, are downright dangerous. Look no further than the odd notion that it's somehow equivalent to The Manchurian Candidate for parents to actually teach their children anything they themselves believe and that they should simply turn the little lumps of humanity out with no guidance to somehow recreate the moral learning of human history all on their own.

wow this is pretty sad... you can teach them guidance it just doesn't need a god attached the kid wouldn't understand anyway. and there are many books one can read on morality and philosophy that aren't religious. its really sad if you need religion as a crutch in order to teach your kids morality.

Oh, okay. So what you're saying is you think it's okay to "brainwash" them about your beliefs concerning right and wrong, just not to "brainwash" them about the REASONS you believe it's right and wrong. Good luck with that. And while I'm sure you genuinely think that you're teaching them a strong, solid moral foundation while standing back and saying, "I don't want to influence your personal belief choices, honey", I somehow find that very hard to believe.

I don't see Christianity as a "morality crutch". I see it as the source of morality, because I'm not deluded enough to think I'm a good enough and righteous enough person in and of myself to serve as such a source. And since I genuinely believe Christianity to be the truth, I would be both a fool and a criminally-neglectful parent to withhold the truth from them.

I have to ask: if you see your religion as merely a "morality crutch", which you in your great Enlightenment are sparing your children from until they're old enough to spare themselves from it, why do you bother to believe it at all?

By the way, I'm sorry you believe your kids are too stupid to understand the concept of God.

 

[Cecilie1200]

pity that you can't be moral without fear of reprisal in the afterlife

Yeah, it's a real pity that the whole purpose of morals is to help us avoid the unpleasant consequences of immoral choices. We should instead have moral standards to guide us between choices that will have equally happy and spiffy outcomes.

 

[del]

Yeah.. cause a 11 year old is a fountain of maturity...

Birth is usually about the right time... At least that's the time that most people begin to introduce the kids to who they are and what they believe.

And I think it's a GREAT idea to teach your kid that everything that's out there is basically the same... pick the one that you're the most comfortable with...

Just one word of warning; prepare yourself for anarchy... and the best of luck with that.

everything out there isn't the same, but I don't mind teaching the differences between tehm and what they are about.

adn do you really think lack of organized religion leads to anarchy?? you realize people can live moral lives without religion being involved right?

No, I don't. And neither do you. You just THINK that's the case. The truth is, an attempt at a moral life without an objective, outside moral standard rapidly becomes no moral standard at all, because it becomes very easy to rationalize away anything you want to do. I have never known anyone who tried to be moral based on "I'm a good person, and I can decide right and wrong individually for myself" who didn't wind up awash in a morass of confusion and doubt.

you must know a bunch of singularly weak people.

 

[Foxfyre]

pity that you can't be moral without fear of reprisal in the afterlife

I think attempting to control behavior by evoking fear of reprisal in the afterlife is one of utter futility when dealing with kids. Who among us has never sinned using whatever criteria we have been taught to identify sin? And once you're headed for hell anyway, you don't have much to lose.

In my decades of observing the phenomenon though, I am convinced that those who reject a rigid fundamentalist religion tend to reject all of it and become sometimes antisocially rebellious. Or, if they reject it, they just go through the motons later on without any conviction behind it.

Those raised in faiths in which the basics are taught but independent questions and thought and logic and reason are encouraged are much more likely to stay with it their entire lives and encourage their children to follow suit.

It is a fact that children on average who grow up in the church are more likely to graduate highschool, obtain at least some higher learning, stay out of serious trouble, and achieve a degree of success in life. That is not to say that all will or that no children raised as Atheists will likely succeed.

But you don't wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves before exposing them to reading, writing, arithmetic, science, social studies, music, arts, sports, or anything else that might be important in their life. And yet each kid, exposed to these things, grows up with his/her own unique interests and focus.

Why would you wait to give a child opportunity to learn about something as important as religious faith?

 

[Cecilie1200]

everything out there isn't the same, but I don't mind teaching the differences between tehm and what they are about.

adn do you really think lack of organized religion leads to anarchy?? you realize people can live moral lives without religion being involved right?

No, I don't. And neither do you. You just THINK that's the case. The truth is, an attempt at a moral life without an objective, outside moral standard rapidly becomes no moral standard at all, because it becomes very easy to rationalize away anything you want to do. I have never known anyone who tried to be moral based on "I'm a good person, and I can decide right and wrong individually for myself" who didn't wind up awash in a morass of confusion and doubt.

you must know a bunch of singularly weak people.

All people are that way.

And most of them are just as arrogant and self-deluding about it as you are, believing that they are steadfast, moral beacons when everyone around them can see they aren't.

 

[blu]

And people keep wondering why we manage to raise generations of gormless little weirdos with no direction and no moral compass who, at best, can't find the gumption and drive to get and hold a decent job and move out of Mom's basement, and at worst, are downright dangerous. Look no further than the odd notion that it's somehow equivalent to The Manchurian Candidate for parents to actually teach their children anything they themselves believe and that they should simply turn the little lumps of humanity out with no guidance to somehow recreate the moral learning of human history all on their own.

wow this is pretty sad... you can teach them guidance it just doesn't need a god attached the kid wouldn't understand anyway. and there are many books one can read on morality and philosophy that aren't religious. its really sad if you need religion as a crutch in order to teach your kids morality.

Oh, okay. So what you're saying is you think it's okay to "brainwash" them about your beliefs concerning right and wrong, just not to "brainwash" them about the REASONS you believe it's right and wrong. Good luck with that. And while I'm sure you genuinely think that you're teaching them a strong, solid moral foundation while standing back and saying, "I don't want to influence your personal belief choices, honey", I somehow find that very hard to believe.

I don't see Christianity as a "morality crutch". I see it as the source of morality, because I'm not deluded enough to think I'm a good enough and righteous enough person in and of myself to serve as such a source. And since I genuinely believe Christianity to be the truth, I would be both a fool and a criminally-neglectful parent to withhold the truth from them.

I have to ask: if you see your religion as merely a "morality crutch", which you in your great Enlightenment are sparing your children from until they're old enough to spare themselves from it, why do you bother to believe it at all?

By the way, I'm sorry you believe your kids are too stupid to understand the concept of God.

actually besides basic things that all sane people have agreed upon - say that murder, stealing, lying, etc is wrong, I really don't inject any of my beliefs into it. I also, as said before, dont have a problem with using moral teachings from religious books (I said earlier the bible is a good source for morals and one can live an easier life by following its rational teachings). I generally use books/writings that were written by sane/smart philosophers and religous thinkers, I just don't buy into the extraordinary crap that is unnecessary to live a moral life unless you are intlectually lazy or just too scared of "burinng" for an afterlife.

 

[del]

No, I don't. And neither do you. You just THINK that's the case. The truth is, an attempt at a moral life without an objective, outside moral standard rapidly becomes no moral standard at all, because it becomes very easy to rationalize away anything you want to do. I have never known anyone who tried to be moral based on "I'm a good person, and I can decide right and wrong individually for myself" who didn't wind up awash in a morass of confusion and doubt.

you must know a bunch of singularly weak people.

All people are that way.

And most of them are just as arrogant and self-deluding about it as you are, believing that they are steadfast, moral beacons when everyone around them can see they aren't.

project much, assmunch? i, unlike you, never set myself up as a *steadfast beacon of morality*.

i believe in god. in fact i'm certain of god's existence and god's love for me.

why?

i don't wake up next to you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

pity that you can't be moral without fear of reprisal in the afterlife

I think attempting to control behavior by evoking fear of reprisal in the afterlife is one of utter futility when dealing with kids. Who among us has never sinned using whatever criteria we have been taught to identify sin? And once you're headed for hell anyway, you don't have much to lose.

In my decades of observing the phenomenon though, I am convinced that those who reject a rigid fundamentalist religion tend to reject all of it and become sometimes antisocially rebellious. Or, if they reject it, they just go through the motons later on without any conviction behind it.

Those raised in faiths in which the basics are taught but independent questions and thought and logic and reason are encouraged are much more likely to stay with it their entire lives and encourage their children to follow suit.

It is a fact that children on average who grow up in the church are more likely to graduate highschool, obtain at least some higher learning, stay out of serious trouble, and achieve a degree of success in life. That is not to say that all will or that no children raised as Atheists will likely succeed.

But you don't wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves before exposing them to reading, writing, arithmetic, science, social studies, music, arts, sports, or anything else that might be important in their life. And yet each kid, exposed to these things, grows up with his/her own unique interests and focus.

Why would you wait to give a child opportunity to learn about something as important as religious faith?

I'm a bit curious as to what makes you think that fundamentalist religions and those that teach questioning and independent thought are somehow mutually exclusive.

Also, I refrained from all kinds of sins as a child because I didn't want to go to Hell. Admittedly, it didn't make me perfect, because it's not designed to. It certainly did provide me a strong, simple moral structure to fall back on at a time in my life - childhood - when my own reasoning skills were still shaky and immature.

 

[Cecilie1200]

wow this is pretty sad... you can teach them guidance it just doesn't need a god attached the kid wouldn't understand anyway. and there are many books one can read on morality and philosophy that aren't religious. its really sad if you need religion as a crutch in order to teach your kids morality.

Oh, okay. So what you're saying is you think it's okay to "brainwash" them about your beliefs concerning right and wrong, just not to "brainwash" them about the REASONS you believe it's right and wrong. Good luck with that. And while I'm sure you genuinely think that you're teaching them a strong, solid moral foundation while standing back and saying, "I don't want to influence your personal belief choices, honey", I somehow find that very hard to believe.

I don't see Christianity as a "morality crutch". I see it as the source of morality, because I'm not deluded enough to think I'm a good enough and righteous enough person in and of myself to serve as such a source. And since I genuinely believe Christianity to be the truth, I would be both a fool and a criminally-neglectful parent to withhold the truth from them.

I have to ask: if you see your religion as merely a "morality crutch", which you in your great Enlightenment are sparing your children from until they're old enough to spare themselves from it, why do you bother to believe it at all?

By the way, I'm sorry you believe your kids are too stupid to understand the concept of God.

actually besides basic things that all sane people have agreed upon - say that murder, stealing, lying, etc is wrong, I really don't inject any of my beliefs into it. I also, as said before, dont have a problem with using moral teachings from religious books (I said earlier the bible is a good source for morals and one can live an easier life by following its rational teachings). I generally use books/writings that were written by sane/smart philosophers and religous thinkers, I just don't buy into the extraordinary crap that is unnecessary to live a moral life unless you are intlectually lazy or just too scared of "burinng" for an afterlife.

I never said it was unnecessary to be moral without religion. I said it was impossible to do well. And I get really tired of the scornful way people keep referring to "burning in the afterlife", as though it's a motivational lie on the lines of "Santa doesn't bring toys to bad kids". First of all, Christians teach about Hell because they genuinely believe it exists, not because they're trying to scare people. And if they're right about it existing, it would be criminally negligent and evil of them NOT to tell people, particularly those they love most. Second, I simply don't get the idea that negative enforcement is somehow bad and shoddy and inferior compared to positive.

And this doesn't answer my question. I could be remembering wrong, but I believe you said you were not an atheist. So if you really view religion so negatively, why do you have any religious beliefs at all?

 

[Cecilie1200]

you must know a bunch of singularly weak people.

All people are that way.

And most of them are just as arrogant and self-deluding about it as you are, believing that they are steadfast, moral beacons when everyone around them can see they aren't.

project much, assmunch? i, unlike you, never set myself up as a *steadfast beacon of morality*.

i believe in god. in fact i'm certain of god's existence and god's love for me.

why?

i don't wake up next to you.

I have never set myself up as a moral beacon. You, on the other hand, HAVE just gotten done championing the idea that people can derive all the morality they need from themselves, so don't try to backtrack now and pretend that that doesn't constitute EXACTLY what I said.

Oh, and not waking up next to me isn't a sign that God loves you. It's a sign that I'd rather die than be that desperate.

 

[THE LIGHT]

'age' might not be the appropriate measure, it has more to do with maturity, but in the interest of raising a non-sheeple kid, when should religion/god be introduced? personally, we are aiming somewhere in between 11-13 for my stepson and when that time comes doing a thorough review of all major religions/ideas throughout the world, as well as the idea of being agnostic and atheist. what have other people done?

Don't worry, the religion will be chosen for you by then.

The question is not do you want to brain wash him, but who do you want to brain wash him? Unless you store him in a freezer until 11-13 he will be brainwashed daily with the religious world views of everyone he comes in contatct with. And if you send him to public school this will most likely be that of the NWO.

 

[AquaAthena]

It is comforting for young children to believe that loved ones who have died (yes, including pets) will go to heaven. It matters not whether the parents believe it IMHO. We started taking our children to church as babies. They were raised RC and have been "brainwashed" into following the ten commandments and giving to charity. Now they are older and don't buy into the dogma. That's ok with me because they have a moral foundation and a basis to compare with. Denying your kids any moral teaching can be harmful. "Setting a good example" is not enough during times of crisis. Prayer can ease a lot of pain.

Speaking as an agnostic, I would still rear my children in a religion as soon as they were young, as chanel has mentioned. I would want them to have years of this perspective before making a decision to believe or not. It is their life and I wish to provide them as much information as possible about conventional wisdoms and customs as practiced by many of the citizens of our great country.

I would not want my own beliefs or opinions to be influential for them and would keep discussions open ended, at all costs and only if they initiated them. I would provide for them, morals and principals, and live the Golden Rule. They would have a happy Mother who provided for their material needs and love, with stability and consistency.

Those would be my goals and I would try hard to achieve and maintain them.

"Example is not only the main thing; it is the only thing."

 

[Foxfyre]

pity that you can't be moral without fear of reprisal in the afterlife

I think attempting to control behavior by evoking fear of reprisal in the afterlife is one of utter futility when dealing with kids. Who among us has never sinned using whatever criteria we have been taught to identify sin? And once you're headed for hell anyway, you don't have much to lose.

In my decades of observing the phenomenon though, I am convinced that those who reject a rigid fundamentalist religion tend to reject all of it and become sometimes antisocially rebellious. Or, if they reject it, they just go through the motons later on without any conviction behind it.

Those raised in faiths in which the basics are taught but independent questions and thought and logic and reason are encouraged are much more likely to stay with it their entire lives and encourage their children to follow suit.

It is a fact that children on average who grow up in the church are more likely to graduate highschool, obtain at least some higher learning, stay out of serious trouble, and achieve a degree of success in life. That is not to say that all will or that no children raised as Atheists will likely succeed.

But you don't wait until they are old enough to decide for themselves before exposing them to reading, writing, arithmetic, science, social studies, music, arts, sports, or anything else that might be important in their life. And yet each kid, exposed to these things, grows up with his/her own unique interests and focus.

Why would you wait to give a child opportunity to learn about something as important as religious faith?

I'm a bit curious as to what makes you think that fundamentalist religions and those that teach questioning and independent thought are somehow mutually exclusive.

Also, I refrained from all kinds of sins as a child because I didn't want to go to Hell. Admittedly, it didn't make me perfect, because it's not designed to. It certainly did provide me a strong, simple moral structure to fall back on at a time in my life - childhood - when my own reasoning skills were still shaky and immature.

Really? You were a sinless child? I applaud you. I thought there was only one of those, but hey, whatever. . . . (Teasing. . . .)

There are perhaps a few exceptions, but Fundamentalist religions usually don't allow a whole lot of wiggle room about what is and what is not acceptable belief. Though they may differ among themselves what is 'the way', they are more likely to teach religious doctrine as irrefutable fact. Some pentecostal groups are convinced a person isn't 'saved' unless they speak in tongues. Some groups put far more importance on a physical baptism or the form of baptism than others. Some require a specific statement of faith to ensure and/or verify one's salvation, etc. etc. etc. There are a few who place one's salvation within a particular church itself and consider all others to be damned. Some group teach predestination; most hold to a free will doctrine. Some have certain food or beverage taboos.

I spent an entire dinner with a pleasant young man who was convinced that if somebody was baptised without specific words being said, that person wasn't baptised.

Stuff like that sets the fundamentalists apart from the free thinkers who are open to revelation and don't attempt to confine God to a specific fixed doctrine or teach that we know all we need to know.

Personally I don't think God cares one way or the other so long as people are interested in seeking and doing what He knows we should be about.

I am not and have never been of the fundamentalist group though I appreciate and respect the faithful there very much. But I think I tried to behave, at least most of the time, because I loved God. And not because I feared hell.

 

[Anguille]

BTW - all the atheists I know had some religion as a child and are good people. Coincidence?

I don't know if you consider me a good person, chanel, but I am an atheist who had zero religion as a child.

 

[AquaAthena]

BTW - all the atheists I know had some religion as a child and are good people. Coincidence?

I don't know if you consider me a good person, chanel, but I am an atheist who had zero religion as a child.

The atheists I know are happy people without a need to think of or explain their lack of faith or belief in an afterlife to others. Most of them, as I, were reared in church. I loved sunday school and church and bible school. Sang in a choir....the only teenager to sing in an adult choir. Loved it all. Every Sunday.

My parents taught me values and the importance of integrity and courage. They were good role models too. I think all of it combined, made me a very well rounded individual. Happy and content, moral and courageous. That is why I would expose my kids to Christianity. Many of my friends are Christians and we have mutual respect for one another's value systems. We are good peeps. Non-judgmental nor hypocritical.

 

[Big Black Dog]

Talk about a bunch of non-commital folks and political correctness. You either want your child to believe in God or you don't want your child to believe in God. If you want your child to believe in God you take them to church with you as they are growing up. They learn by example. If you want them to learn about something else, you stay at home with them and play video games or something else on Sunday morning. Really now. Is that so hard to do?

 

[AquaAthena]

Talk about a bunch of non-commital folks and political correctness. You either want your child to believe in God or you don't want your child to believe in God. If you want your child to believe in God you take them to church with you as they are growing up. They learn by example. If you want them to learn about something else, you stay at home with them and play video games or something else on Sunday morning. Really now. Is that so hard to do?

I don't care what my kid wants to believe in when they make that choice. But it is important to me, to offer them a frame of reference. And I think they would enjoy the Sunday experience. I have many fond memories of it all. There is no PC going on here, according to my impressions.