How many of you go to church with your kids?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Question for athiests: I think Athiests are people of faith, just like religious people. There is no proof either way for the existence or absence of God. Athiests choose to believe there is none. Or do you think there is proof of absence?

Nonsense.

I can't prove that my room isn't full of invisible green leprechauns leaping around singing in a language I can't hear. My default position is therefore not "maybe there are invisible leprechauns leaping around", but rather "I will act on the assumption that there are no invisible leprechauns leaping around until I see proof otherwise".

[Anonymous]

I think we should debate whether leprechauns can be both invisible and green...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm going to go out on a limb here with my own theory about atheism and scientists. The process of science is one of proof. If it is not repeatable and subject to others testing the same thing, then it is not so in the scientific world. Religion would have a hard time (in my opinion) living up to such criteria on a tangible level. Proving experential things is just not possible in a lab or even a wide study. I think that is why it is referred to as faith. I'm not trying to be snarky, just making an observation. I am one of the PP atheists.

But wouldn't that make most scientists agnostic? I mean, there's no proof that God doesn't exist either.

Richard Dawkins has written about this much better than I could, but my rough summary: there is great deal of empirical, physical evidence that a divine presence is not the reason for creation or for any number of other physical phenomena. Not slam dunk 100% proof, but a great deal. There is, on the other hand, no evidence that a divine force created the world or had a hand in designing it. Rather, there are the remaining gaps in our understanding of what really did happen. You could choose to fill the gaps with god, or not. But that doesn't mean that the scientific default is agnosticism, because it's not a 50/50 proposition.

All of this misses the point however. Kirkegaard described a "leap of faith," and this leap is what makes you religious, not proof. If you needed proof that something existed, then you would have no faith.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for athiests: I think Athiests are people of faith, just like religious people. There is no proof either way for the existence or absence of God. Athiests choose to believe there is none. Or do you think there is proof of absence?

Nonsense.

I can't prove that my room isn't full of invisible green leprechauns leaping around singing in a language I can't hear. My default position is therefore not "maybe there are invisible leprechauns leaping around", but rather "I will act on the assumption that there are no invisible leprechauns leaping around until I see proof otherwise".

Right. Just like religious people are acting on the assumption there is a God until proven otherwise. No difference. Neither athiests nor religious adherents leave room for doubt.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for athiests: I think Athiests are people of faith, just like religious people. There is no proof either way for the existence or absence of God. Athiests choose to believe there is none. Or do you think there is proof of absence?

Nonsense.

I can't prove that my room isn't full of invisible green leprechauns leaping around singing in a language I can't hear. My default position is therefore not "maybe there are invisible leprechauns leaping around", but rather "I will act on the assumption that there are no invisible leprechauns leaping around until I see proof otherwise".

Right. Just like religious people are acting on the assumption there is a God until proven otherwise. No difference. Neither athiests nor religious adherents leave room for doubt.

It is completely different. Rational people operate on the basis of working assumptions/hypotheses based on the simplest logical explanations for the evidence they find. Religious people imagine all kinds of stories and myths which are a) not logical and b) not necessary to explain the observed phenomena.

I am an atheist. This does not mean I argue that God cannot possibly exist. It means that I see no justification for a belief in God. It is not a working hypothesis I retain.

[Anonymous]

OK, to get back to OP's original question (if that still matters)....

Several years ago, before I had my first child, I went with a friend to her church service. It happened to be "youth Sunday," a day where the youth group, mostly high school students, led the service, sang the songs, etc. Five or six 17-year-old seniors spoke throughout the service.

To this day, I remember how impressed I was with those "kids," who were all students in DC area public and private schools. They spoke with such poise and grace about their teen years, growing up in the DC area, and what the church had meant to them through the years. Most of them had come up through the ranks of Sunday school, youth group, choir, etc. and while it didn't appear that any of them were wildly religious at that particular point in time, it was clear that the church had greatly influenced them. I remember one young man talking about the pressures of growing up in this area, the ways that he had failed himself and his parents along the way, and how the church had always stood by him in good times and bad.

What struck me was the point that it seemed to be the CONSISTENCY of parents taking them to church, over and over, week after week, Sunday school, vacation Bible school, choir practice, all through the years, that seemed to make the difference. It wasn't as though each time in and of itself was so important, or that they just went on the big holidays, but that through the ups and downs of kid-life, being a part of a church really mattered to them.

I would add that any parent reading this would be thrilled to have his/ her present-day child turn out like this group appeared to be. They were bright, athletic, involved in their schools/ communities and all off to top colleges. And they all seem to value the exposure to the church that their parents had given them as a beneficial dimension in their lives.

Obviously, this really impressed me, as I still remember it so clearly 4+ years later. I remember then making a promise to myself that my kids would be involved in a church, even though DH and I are not the most religious people in the world and definitely struggle with our own faiths. It just seems to be an integral part of a successful, happy person's life that I would hate to deny any child. Of course I realize that parents, etc. are responsible for teaching the values that you want your kids to have, but I don't see how anyone can think that reinforcing that through an outside institution is not a good thing.

[Anonymous]

OP, I think you should think of this issue simply:are you happy with your lifestyle? Do you think you are living the right way? If so, then raise your child that way with no doubts or regrets. If that means no church, then so be it.

As parents, if you believe in the way you are living, it is your right and responsibility to raise your children that way. If you are Christian, raise them Christian. If you are atheist, raise them as an atheist. They don't need to follow your same path (i.e., went to church and now don't or the other way around) to get to where you are now. If you are comfortable with your life, raise them that way. No guilt, no doubts.

Its pretty much implied that as adults they will choose their own path. You can't make them believe or make them not believe, honestly, and they will come by that on their own.

For those who don't go to church but want their children to, I think you should look at where these feelings are coming from. Sounds like you have some doubts. To use a metaphor, if you were a meat eater would you raise your kids as vegetarians because you think its more moral or healthier? As your children grow up, they will see through this hypocrisy and question it. Better to come to terms with your own life and choices and teach your kids that.

If you are religious, or atheist, just be secure in why you are what you are. And share that with your kids, guilt free.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think we should debate whether leprechauns can be both invisible and green...

LOL LOVE THIS A LOT!

[Anonymous]

I'm with the 17:26 poster. I'm not going to waste my time trying to prove that there is or is not a god. I'm ok with believing that there is no god until I see real proof to the contrary. I'm not to convert anyone or change any minds. Belief systems are a personal thing. I'm ok with whatever belief system someone else has until they try to push it off on me or insult me for not believing in their god (I'm not saying every religious person does this, just conveying my real life experiences).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Question for athiests: I think Athiests are people of faith, just like religious people. There is no proof either way for the existence or absence of God. Athiests choose to believe there is none. Or do you think there is proof of absence?

Nonsense.

I can't prove that my room isn't full of invisible green leprechauns leaping around singing in a language I can't hear. My default position is therefore not "maybe there are invisible leprechauns leaping around", but rather "I will act on the assumption that there are no invisible leprechauns leaping around until I see proof otherwise".

Right. Just like religious people are acting on the assumption there is a God until proven otherwise. No difference. Neither athiests nor religious adherents leave room for doubt.

It is completely different. Rational people operate on the basis of working assumptions/hypotheses based on the simplest logical explanations for the evidence they find. Religious people imagine all kinds of stories and myths which are a) not logical and b) not necessary to explain the observed phenomena.

I am an atheist. This does not mean I argue that God cannot possibly exist. It means that I see no justification for a belief in God. It is not a working hypothesis I retain.

Umm, I believe in God (i.e., one of those "religous people") and according to my law school professors, spouse, colleagues, friends etc., I am a rational person. Rationality does not negate having faith. I believe you may have missed the point in that to have faith, to believe in something be it God or invisible, green leprechauns is to have an assumption that they exist. That assumption may or may not ever be proven -- but that is not the point (to most people of faith) -- I know and understand how the planetary system came in to being but that does not mean I cannot have a belief in a higher being.

I find this whole listserve discussion to be rather circular. You either have faith in a higher being or you do not. Whether you do or don't does not equate your IQ, common sense, ability to parent etc.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP, I think you should think of this issue simply:are you happy with your lifestyle? Do you think you are living the right way? If so, then raise your child that way with no doubts or regrets. If that means no church, then so be it.

As parents, if you believe in the way you are living, it is your right and responsibility to raise your children that way. If you are Christian, raise them Christian. If you are atheist, raise them as an atheist. They don't need to follow your same path (i.e., went to church and now don't or the other way around) to get to where you are now. If you are comfortable with your life, raise them that way. No guilt, no doubts.

Its pretty much implied that as adults they will choose their own path. You can't make them believe or make them not believe, honestly, and they will come by that on their own.

For those who don't go to church but want their children to, I think you should look at where these feelings are coming from. Sounds like you have some doubts. To use a metaphor, if you were a meat eater would you raise your kids as vegetarians because you think its more moral or healthier? As your children grow up, they will see through this hypocrisy and question it. Better to come to terms with your own life and choices and teach your kids that.

If you are religious, or atheist, just be secure in why you are what you are. And share that with your kids, guilt free.

This is such a timely post for me. Probably a few weeks ago I got into a huge argument about bringing the children to Church with my mom. I basically left the door open but pretty much told my mom that she had to expect as an adult that I had to choose my own path and this type of decision had to be made with my husband - she couldn't decide when and what Church for us. I think this poster captured my feelings exactly - especially the part about looking at where your feelings on religion are coming from. For me it was definitely that I never felt my mom gave me the space to decide at some point what I wanted to do - it was like of course you believe this and you don't have a choice about Sunday school, church service, choir, Bible Quiz team etc. However, for me, the more I learned, the more I felt isolated because I didn't feel "It" and I had to be involved in activities where I felt even more uncomfortable because there were people that wanted to be there while I was basically had no choice.

I think with the hypocrisy - there really isn't a right answer. Just my perspective, I think my mom truly believes and my dad was more so of the church overload as a child and didn't really want to go as an adult. So I was basically learning one thing, but never felt my family was trying to live it. I can also see how the same thing can happen if I am not really a believer but make my child go regularly to Church how the end result can be the same. For me the most important thing was whatever we decide both my husband and I had to be in agreement. When we went to pre-marital counseling, I knew that there could be that life event that could bring me back to Church and I didn't want that to be something that divided us or how we raised our children (that was one of the many things that divided my parents). What I liked was that he said he would go as a show of support and respect as something that we would do as a family. He also pointed to an example within his family where overtime his relative started to go because he enjoyed going, not only in support of his wife.

Last thing - my 4 year old daughter kept asking me all Easter when we were going to celebrate Easter. Since she has only been to church when my mom is in town and we had not talked about Easter at home I figure they must talk about this stuff at school. I had no clue what is involved in her mind about celebrating Easter. I didn't really want to get into a discussion about going to Church or the religious story on Easter. So I tried to punt and said to my daughter "Easter isn't about candy and the Easter bunny it is a religious holiday". Then I went on to say "not everyone celebrates Easter. Jewish people don't celebrate Easter". Her response "but mommy, we aren't Jewish". Out of the month of babes. We will be going to Church and Sunday school at some point this year and next year will be going to Church for Easter.