Should Parents Raise Their Child(ren) Into a Religion?

Batmannn.:

It's not different at all. Atheism is a belief, or lack of one, and to instill that on your child without allowing them a choice later in life is just as immoral as instilling any sort of religion on your child without allowing them a choice later in life.

A religion is a belief system. Atheism is not. If you're instilling a religion into your child, all the dogma, beliefs and tenets of that religion are (I assume) being included. In other words, it's not just "God/Allah/Yahweh exists", it's also "thou shalt not do this/that/the other", etc. Atheism is different; it's simply the lack of one particular belief. No other attributes come with it.

And might I add that atheism is not necessarily a staunch contention that there are no gods. If you simply raise your child in a secular environment in which there is not even any mention of theism or religion, technically it's raising them as an atheist. You don't have to actively reject all theistic claims in order to be an atheist. It just means you don't have any belief in a god.

Quote

And I'm not saying their opposite, but they are opposed, obviously. Religion = a belief in God/gods. Atheism = belief that there is not a God or gods.

That's not quite true; theism is a belief in a god/gods. Religion is broader; it deals with belief systems; worldviews, etc. Yes, many religions are theistic but not all are, and atheism and religion are not necessarily antonymous.

Quote

It's immoral no matter what you teach them UNLESS you allow them to go on their own path once they're old enough. A religion is not needed for morals, because religion isn't morality. An Atheist can instill morals just as easily as a Christian. Most parents obviously want their child to believe what they believe but forcing them - despite it being a religious belief or an Atheistic belief - is immoral. Children should be allowed to choose once they can and not be punished for it.

That much I agree with. I definitely don't think children should be brought up by being told "there are no gods", partly because I find the concept of gnostic atheism ridiculous, but mainly because I believe a child should be given options. However, I would advocate a secular upbringing, whether atheism is mentioned or not, and allow Religious Education to do its part in providing said options.

(By the way, atheism/atheist doesn't need capitalising. )

Alex; oxytocin.:

A religion is a belief system. Atheism is not. If you're instilling a religion into your child, all the dogma, beliefs and tenets of that religion are (I assume) being included. In other words, it's not just "God/Allah/Yahweh exists", it's also "thou shalt not do this/that/the other", etc. Atheism is different; it's simply the lack of one particular belief. No other attributes come with it.

Movements such as the Cult of Reason or the Brights suggest that atheist has the same potential of being part of a belief system as theist and that, in fact, very often it is part of a bigger belief system which make very definite statements about moral attitudes, it's just that - exactly like in the case of theism - these statements differ quite a lot among believers. Not to mention that there's nothing in the definition of a belief system that requires that anybody believe in it.

Xsoteria:

Ok.

It's very simple. As you grow up you are expected to stop believing in Santa. People openly tell you they've lied to you. On the other hand, religious people are a vast majority today, even though we don't live in the Middle ages. As you grow up, there are hordes of people who keep telling you God is real, offer all kinds of rationalisations, organise churches, meddle with law, are all over the media and well, religion is completely socially acceptable.

It is infinitely easier to continue belieiving in God than it is to believe in Santa.

Do you see the glaring difference and a huge wobbly strawman now?

Not really because my argument was never that it's easier to believe in Santa than to believe in God. My argument was that we're perfectly capable of relinquishing beliefs that our parents have instilled in us as children because as we grow up we discover that our parents often lied to us and learn to doubt what they told us so our beliefs are not instilled in us in our childhood. In that respect, you've actually proven my point by insisting that the society we're exposed to as adults has a much bigger influence on our beliefs than our parents.

Alex; oxytocin.:

Actually no idea why I said "forcing"; not the word I was looking for at all. But either way, to me, instilling doesn't imply much choice in the matter anyway.

But to instill something means to introduce gradual. I mean, that's how we learn in society right? Almost everything we learn in school is instilled into us, whether everything we learn is true or fact, or not. Like when my teacher said Greeks came up the most of the geometry we learn today, But I'm not going to get into that. That's another argument.

Alex; oxytocin.:

Actually no idea why I said "forcing"; not the word I was looking for at all. But either way, to me, instilling doesn't imply much choice in the matter anyway.

Children at certain ages shouldn't be given choices about the big questions and answers, not until they understand them. Also they would learn it at school and from their peers. It's not a parents job to teach them everything.

kafka.:

Not really because my argument was never that it's easier to believe in Santa than to believe in God. My argument was that we're perfectly capable of relinquishing beliefs that our parents have instilled in us as children because as we grow up we discover that our parents often lied to us and learn to doubt what they told us so our beliefs are not instilled in us in our childhood. In that respect, you've actually proven my point by insisting that the society we're exposed to as adults has a much bigger influence on our beliefs than our parents.

What? I've never said that we are unable to relinquish opinions imposed on us in childhood.

I'm saying that religious indoctrination of children is infinitely different to fairytales told to them (ie. Santa), revoked later in life. Of course it's possible to reject things imposed to you in early life, but the ridiculous assumption that you can have religious upbringing, surround and expose children to religious methodology - and that their future choice is completely unaffected by that... Well that's something I strongly disagree with.

kafka.:

Movements such as the Cult of Reason or the Brights suggest that atheist has the same potential of being part of a belief system as theist and that, in fact, very often it is part of a bigger belief system which make very definite statements about moral attitudes, it's just that - exactly like in the case of theism - these statements differ quite a lot among believers. Not to mention that there's nothing in the definition of a belief system that requires that anybody believe in it.

But atheism itself is not a belief system, which makes it incomparable to religion in that particular respect.

ayanasioux:

But to instill something means to introduce gradual. I mean, that's how we learn in society right? Almost everything we learn in school is instilled into us, whether everything we learn is true or fact, or not. Like when my teacher said Greeks came up the most of the geometry we learn today, But I'm not going to get into that. That's another argument.

It means "to cause a quality to become part of someone's nature", at least in the dictionary I'm consulting. No mention of how gradually it happens.

Despite that, the majority of things we learn in school are fact, in which case it's not a problem for teachers to instil it (or essentially, teach) in students. Subjects that are less objective, such as psychology, involve the teaching of several different theories, but the point is made throughout that they're not yet settled upon. So basically, there's a big separation between what kids learn in school and what they're brought up to be (in terms of religion) by parents.

the mice endure:

Children at certain ages shouldn't be given choices about the big questions and answers, not until they understand them.

Why not?

Quote

Also they would learn it at school and from their peers. It's not a parents job to teach them everything.

Learning it at school is different though, because in the case of teachers, it's forbidden to try and sway pupils into their way of thinking (in terms of religion and politics, etc. In fact, it's often forbidden to even discuss personal beliefs). As for peers, well they're all in the same boat as the child in question.

My sister was raised Atheist. She's not a nice person sometimes, but other than that, it didn't fuck her over. She doesn't understand Christianity, but it's not really an issue since she's not a Christian.

@Alex because they're not ready to fully understand. I'd say from the age of ten up you can let them start making choices on religion. Or I guess depending on how mature the child is.

I believe the parents should guide and bring a child up with a religion (Though, I'm a bit unsure when it comes to Satanism; mind you, I'm not Christian) - to a certain point. I believe that morals and rules come from religion and being religious dates back to like the cavemen.

For example:
In Buddhism, a child would raise up knowing that it is wrong to steal from others; moreover, the child would know that stealing would bring pain to the person he had stolen from.

I'm agonist.

^ So where would you say the morals of a person who has never experienced religion come from?

^. My dear friend, I'm starting to think you have something against me.

Alex; oxytocin.:

^ So where would you say the morals of a person who has never experienced religion come from?

Did I ever say having morals and rules only applied to the ones who are religious?

Where do you think morals come from?

A person, no matter what or where he or she is brought up to be, is always expose to religion, hence, the reason why I said "being religious dates back to like the cavemen."

Morals are the principles of rights and wrongs, am I not correct?

Can a human, who have never been influenced by religion or another who has been exposed to religion before, distinct between the rights and wrongs? Or would he act upon his instinct alone? Don’t cliché stories have that one girl who defies her parents to be with her one true love, that “hot bad ass guy” who is secretly sweet? Is that acting by moral or by listening to her heart (instinct)?

The differences between acting by morals and acting by mere feelings are that
1) Acting by morals is based on what the society a person is being raised into has morphed the person into thinking how he should act.

2) And acting by mere feelings is called instincts. For example: a mother hiding her murderer of a son who had raped three kids from the policemen.
If she was to act by morals from a society influenced by Christianity, she might have given in her son to avoid being condemned into Hell.

Her neighbor, who is an atheist, if put into the same situation as the woman, might give his own son in for he was raised to think that murdering and raping someone is wrong, bad and horrendous.

Apparently, a lot of people on here don't like others having opinions.
And apparently, there are rock people who have never experienced religion still existing.

So my answer is this:

Morals of a group of people who are nonreligious , I'm assuming was what you're trying to say, come from being raise in a society affected and twisted by religions.

And… morals of those who are never once exposed to religion do not exist and the people would act by instinct. Mind you, not all actions by instinct are bad, like a mother hen covering her chicks from harm. But because of that, most people get instincts and morals all messed up.

Chocolate Thunda:

My dear friend, I'm starting to think you have something against me.

Why would you think that?

Quote

Did I ever say having morals and rules only applied to the ones who are religious?

Well, you said that morals come from religion, which came across as an exclusive statement.

Quote

Where do you think morals come from?

A human sense of empathy, mutual understanding and common sense.

Quote

A person, no matter what or where he or she is brought up to be, is always expose to religion, hence, the reason why I said "being religious dates back to like the cavemen."

I agree that religion dates back a very long time, but I disagree that everyone in the world is exposed to religion; I'm sure there are tribes and races somewhere with no experience of it whatsoever.

Quote

Morals are the principles of rights and wrongs, am I not correct?

You are correct.

Quote

Can a human, who have never been influenced by religion or another who has been exposed to religion before, distinct between the rights and wrongs?

I believe so, yes.

Quote

Apparently, a lot of people on here don't like others having opinions.

I don't think that's true; these are discussion forums; they're meant specifically for debating and discussing, so if someone responds to another person's opinion, it's for the sake of debate, not a personal thing.

Alex; oxytocin.:

I don't think that's true; these are discussion forums; they're meant specifically for debating and discussing, so if someone responds to another person's opinion, it's for the sake of debate, not a personal thing.

I'm pretty new to this thing, so I don't know how you did that fancy dandy 5/6 quotes thing but

1) I thought so because of the way your replies seem to have a sardonic tone. But it seems that I've wronged you, and I apologize for that.

2)"A human sense of empathy, mutual understanding and common sense" can come from
a) instincts but is probably due to
b) being raised in a society that values such. And what did I say I think a society and group is influenced by, eh eh eh?

But I will give you that.

^ Well, I think it goes beyond just instincts, but runs along a similar vein. I think we understand, for example, that killing is wrong because we understand that that's not the way we would personally like to be treated. And I don't think we ever needed religion to tell us. Similarly, we believe that giving to charity is right because we understand that the people who would benefit from it would feel good because of it.

I think it's better for a child to think on their own and decide. What a parent should do is teach them their religion but also allow their child to and let them know that there's not just that religion.

Alex; oxytocin.:

Despite that, the majority of things we learn in school are fact, in which case it's not a problem for teachers to instil it (or essentially, teach) in students. Subjects that are less objective, such as psychology, involve the teaching of several different theories, but the point is made throughout that they're not yet settled upon. So basically, there's a big separation between what kids learn in school and what they're brought up to be (in terms of religion) by parents.

But there's always that handful of information that we learn that we think is true for the time being, only to find out that there is a mistake or the information we learned was completely false.

But when it comes to religion, no one knows whether it's true or not, so why should it matter if your parents instill it in you? Some of it may be true, some of it may be false.

And every definition except for one that I've seen says that it means to introduce gradually.

ayanasioux:

But there's always that handful of information that we learn that we think is true for the time being, only to find out that there is a mistake or the information we learned was completely false.

Have you any examples? I know of cases of information being vastly simplified or made concise for earlier years, especially in science, etc., but I can't think of any information that I learned in school that was a total lie. Otherwise why would it be on the curriculum?

Quote

But when it comes to religion, no one knows whether it's true or not, so why should it matter if your parents instill it in you? Some of it may be true, some of it may be false.

It's not so much about whether it's true or not, rather whether the child: 1) actually understands the concepts it's being taught, 2) would agree with them, and 3) is being given any reasonable slack in terms of digressing from it.

Alex; oxytocin.:

Have you any examples? I know of cases of information being vastly simplified or made concise for earlier years, especially in science, etc., but I can't think of any information that I learned in school that was a total lie. Otherwise why would it be on the curriculum?

It's not about what's on the curriculum all the time, it's about what the teacher personally teaches their students at times.

Quote

It's not so much about whether it's true or not, rather whether the child: 1) actually understands the concepts it's being taught, 2) would agree with them, and 3) is being given any reasonable slack in terms of digressing from it.

What does the CHILD know what to agree on? The child is young and all they know is what their parents tell them. I don't see what's wrong with that, especially when it comes to religion. From what I know, there isn't a religion that's greatly harmful to anyone. We learn from our elders and our elders guide us until we're old enough to make our own decisions.

That's why I don't see anything wrong with it.

ayanasioux:

It's not about what's on the curriculum all the time, it's about what the teacher personally teaches their students at times.

Again, any examples? Teachers are required not to stray from the curriculum, and if they do, it's usually a bit of additional helpful knowledge, and I've never heard any cases of a teacher bare-facedly lying to their students about anything to do with what they're learning.

Quote

What the the CHILD know what to agree on? The child is young and all they know is what their parents tell them.

So surely it should be the parent's responsibility not to plant something as dubious as a fully-fledged belief system/worldview into it's mind?

I think is most important teaching a child to be a good person.
Manners, respect, being true to one's self, loyalty, responsibility, things like that are the most important to have.

Believing in something is human nature so I think that a child that has been taught what is wrong and what is right can perfectly decide in what to believe or what religion to follow.