Parenting

[kamykazee]

When dealing with such matters, you need to first define what you would like the end-result to be. Is the child's good upbringing what you most want? Would you rather just get on with your own life and neglect the child? Should you try to balance both, even if it means you will do a half-assed job at both if you choose this option?

 

If what you want is for the child to have a good upbringing: fit into society, be able to be independent at a certain age, have beneficial habits, and so on, then two parents are prefered. I won't rely on statistics to say that is 'statistically the better option', but i do think that it you have both parents, and they are themselves actually preocupied with the child and take the time to lead him in the right direction, it will be better instead of having just one.

[Assume Nothing]

I think this thread is worth bumping.

 

I'll propose a question which goes hand in hand with the religious debate: is it better for Christian parents to allow their children to think freely and let them choose their religion, or should Christian parents raise their children as Christians? I realise I've asked a similar question before, but it's still a discussion worth bringing up.

[champion]

You know you don't have to turn every thread into a religious debate, right?

[Assume Nothing]

Of course - they're just interlinked in this specific case.

[Jonanananas]

I think this thread is worth bumping.

 

I'll propose a question which goes hand in hand with the religious debate: is it better for Christian parents to allow their children to think freely and let them choose their religion, or should Christian parents raise their children as Christians? I realise I've asked a similar question before, but it's still a discussion worth bringing up.

 

This is kind of a strawman because the two options are by far not mutually exclusive. I've been raised as Christian yet was allowed to think freely and to change my religion once I was old enough to think about it and expressed that wish.

[Vezon Dash]

You know you don't have to turn every thread into a religious debate, right?

What Pie said.

 

 

 

 

Forcing children to be religious is wrong, but giving them exposure isn't.

[Assume Nothing]

I think this thread is worth bumping.

 

I'll propose a question which goes hand in hand with the religious debate: is it better for Christian parents to allow their children to think freely and let them choose their religion, or should Christian parents raise their children as Christians? I realise I've asked a similar question before, but it's still a discussion worth bringing up.

 

This is kind of a strawman because the two options are by far not mutually exclusive. I've been raised as Christian yet was allowed to think freely and to change my religion once I was old enough to think about it and expressed that wish.

 

You're confusing your logical fallacies. Straw-man arguments would be fallacious argumentation because it misrepresents the position. False dichotomies would be fallacious argumentation because it falsely limits the options by omitting plausible alternatives.

 

I'd say you were raised as a freethinker with a greater emphasis on Christianity, if not being exposed to cherry picked Christian ideals. I'd say it would be better to raise children as true freethinkers by exploring every avenue of belief, and drawing conclusions from there.

[Jonanananas]

I think this thread is worth bumping.

 

I'll propose a question which goes hand in hand with the religious debate: is it better for Christian parents to allow their children to think freely and let them choose their religion, or should Christian parents raise their children as Christians? I realise I've asked a similar question before, but it's still a discussion worth bringing up.

 

This is kind of a strawman because the two options are by far not mutually exclusive. I've been raised as Christian yet was allowed to think freely and to change my religion once I was old enough to think about it and expressed that wish.

 

You're confusing your logical fallacies. Straw-man arguments would be fallacious argumentation because it misrepresents the position. False dichotomies would be fallacious argumentation because it falsely limits the options by omitting plausible alternatives.

 

I'd say you were raised as a freethinker with a greater emphasis on Christianity, if not being exposed to cherry picked Christian ideals. I'd say it would be better to raise children as true freethinkers by exploring every avenue of belief, and drawing conclusions from there.

 

I'm not a native speaker, that's why I'm not familiar with the exact names for logical fallacies, that's also why I said "kind of a strawman"

 

I've been raised as christian. Period. Christian and freethinker are not in any way mutually exclusive. It's just that you seem to have a completely different view of "christian" as the differences in that group can be rather large. This is why your initialy question doesn't work well. You should clarify it.

[Assume Nothing]

... it depends on your interpretation of what being raised as a Christian entails. If it entails the acceptance of religious doctrine, then no - that's not being a freethinker at all. I would operate on that definition, unless you can help me clarify your own definition.

[Jonanananas]

... it depends on your interpretation of what being raised as a Christian entails. If it entails the acceptance of religious doctrine, then no - that's not being a freethinker at all. I would operate on that definition, unless you can help me clarify your own definition.

 

You know, that's an entirely different thing from being rased as a christian. Or rather, it's a part of a variety of options.

 

For me it worked like this: As a baby, I was baptized. I was taken to church when my parents went there. I was taught christian morals but on the basis of explaing why certain things are bad, not because I'll go to hell otherwise. I was told god was watching over me, and as a child, it was comforting.

When I grew older, I started to question it. I asked my mum if God really existed, as I couldn't really believe it anymore. She said she believed in it and would be happy to tell me about it, but that everyone has to answer that question for themselves anymore. When I told them I didn't want to go to church anymore I didn't have to, and it wasn't an issue.

 

Does that help you?

 

Else, you can just change the question to "being forced to accept religious doctrine" - but you know, then the answer would be pretty obvious.

[Assume Nothing]

I would then be faced with the accusation of providing a loaded question, as it would imply that religious doctrines may only be forced. I can't categorize you as a Christian in the context of holding Christian beliefs - rather, you're Christian by name, not nature. That is, if I'm not misinterpreting you.

[Jonanananas]

Well, as Christian entails the entirety of christianity and I was raised as a christian (as in accepting christian beliefs, not just by the name), then yes, you must be misunderstanding me.

 

Maybe the issue is that I'm not christian anymore, I'm atheist. But I was raised as a christian.

 

 

As for the question, let's say "raised with religious doctrine" ?

[Assume Nothing]

'entirety of Christianity'

 

... what does that entail, precisely? If it's beyond scripture, what follows? Oh, and even if we've established that you were raised as a Christian, which was in reality a sidepoint - how does that relate to whether you should have been?

[Jonanananas]

'entirety of Christianity'

 

... what does that entail, precisely? If it's beyond scripture, what follows? Oh, and even if we've established that you were raised as a Christian, which was in reality a sidepoint - how does that relate to whether you should have been?

 

I don't know how I am supposed to clarify. It's simply all people accepting some kind of christian belief. Not sure what you mean by "beyond scripture" either.

 

As for why we are discussing this: Your original question was skewed. I pointed that out and used myself as an example to explain why. When you are rephrasing the original question, we can discuss that.

[Assume Nothing]

I'll try to rephrase: 'Would religious persons raise their child to accept their own religious ideas/beliefs, or would they expose them to all beliefs/ideas without bias? If the former, should they?'

[Randox]

I'll try to rephrase: 'Would religious persons raise their child to accept their own religious ideas/beliefs, or would they expose them to all beliefs/ideas without bias? If the former, should they?'

Try:

 

"Should a parent raise a child under their own belief system, or should they endevour to expose their child too/educate them on, other belief systems beside their own."

 

Non religious beliefs are a belief system, and so the question should include everyone.

 

EDIT: I've been thinking of an answer, and this is where I stand. I think that a parent should teach their children whatever values they feel are important to teach. The ones that are going to make them the best people they can be, and help them lead the best life they can be. If you have biases that you don't want your children to have, then you try not to impart them. If you sincerely believe that your child is going to go to hell if they don't believe in god, then I think it would be pretty shitty of you to not try and convince them god is real.

 

I don't expect parents to do the impossible, nor can I say that my own values are the best, so I just expect parents to do their best to do whatever it takes to give them the best life possible.

[Assume Nothing]

I'm hesitant to use that phrasing since irreligion isn't a belief system as such - it's not a worldview.

 

The only thing two atheists can agree on, presuming that all we know about them is that they're atheists, would be that they don't believe in a deity. We don't know why, what they do believe in, etc. - they could believe in any other superstition, e.g. ghosts if they wanted to, as long as it's not a deity. The same cannot be said for any other religion or ideology.

 

My answer would be something like: teach no religion as the truth, but rather - a philosophical thing. I wouldn't take a child to church until they are of sufficient mental maturity to really choose, and by that time - they should be able to reason why they've chosen a specific religion and adopt its values. I'll always encourage them to think for themselves, with no bias towards any religion or irreligion. I'll offer my say in it - I won't impede their freedom to choose.

 

In theory, it should bring them naturally towards atheistic views if delivered impartially. I'm fine with that.

[Guest jrhairychest]

I'm hesitant to use that phrasing since irreligion isn't a belief system as such - it's not a worldview.

 

The only thing two atheists can agree on, presuming that all we know about them is that they're atheists, would be that they don't believe in a deity. We don't know why, what they do believe in, etc. - they could believe in any other superstition, e.g. ghosts if they wanted to, as long as it's not a deity. The same cannot be said for any other religion or ideology.

 

My answer would be something like: teach no religion as the truth, but rather - a philosophical thing. I wouldn't take a child to church until they are of sufficient mental maturity to really choose, and by that time - they should be able to reason why they've chosen a specific religion and adopt its values. I'll always encourage them to think for themselves, with no bias towards any religion or irreligion. I'll offer my say in it - I won't impede their freedom to choose.

 

In theory, it should bring them naturally towards atheistic views if delivered impartially. I'm fine with that.

Take them anywhere you want but it doesn't really matter what you do in that respect, your kids will make their own decisions when they're older anyway. That's irrespective of anything you have to say.

[Randox]

I guess my point would be I don't believe it is reasonable to expect a parent to teach religion as a philosophy rather than the truth, if the parents believe it to be the truth. To do so under those circumstances would be to teach your kids a lie (from your hypothetical perspective), and to me, that would be a bad thing to do.

[Assume Nothing]

I don't follow - why? What they feel/believe to be != what is. You're only encouraging biased viewpoints being imparted here.

[Vezon Dash]

I don't follow - why? What they feel/believe to be != what is. You're only encouraging biased viewpoints being imparted here.

 

What's wrong with that?

 

Should I teach my children that murder is acceptable that way I am not biased against those people who think that murder is acceptable?

[Assume Nothing]

Slippery slope fallacy, but nope.

[Vezon Dash]

I don't see the difference. Please. Enlighten me since you are so much more intelligent than 99% of the rest of us here in OT.