"Is there a God?", my niece asked.

[jegs2]

So I did the best I could. I told her that as long as she believes in God, then He is real. In belief, God exists in your heart, and that's all that matters.

Based upon what I can gather from your stance on God, I think you gave her the best answer you could have.

[h0rus]

"If there is no God then what's the perpose of me being here?" This is the question that convinsed me that there is a God. If I grew up not believing in a greater being, I don't think I would like living...

So you're only way to gauge your personal worth is based on what 'someone' 'put' you here for.

Sorry, but that is pretty sad. There are a billion reasons to enjoy life that have nothing to do with believing in a god. Maybe someday you'll see that.

[zombie84]

And to take it to the logical conclusion, if there is a god, rather than if there isnt, then what is the point of existence? If the point of life is to join God in the afterlife, why create physical life at all? It is god, not a lack of, that renders existence meaningless.

[Kurgan]

Perhaps a more honest answer would be to say "I don't know."


Because we really don't. Though some of us have a hunch in the positive (theist) and some have a hunch in the negative (atheist).

You can qualify the agnostic afirmation with a "but I believe he/she/it does" or "but I suspect he/she/it doesn't."

Though a person makes up their own mind sooner or later (well okay there are exceptions...)

[Joe]

"Yes, and every time it rains, that's him crying because of something you did."

[Captain Cyran]

LoL I'm speaking in broad (thus inaccurate) terms. Why lie to kids at all? What purpose does it serve?

I personally don't think that a parent telling a child that Santa Claus gets them their presents is a bad lie. If I were a parent I know I'd much rather have my kids screaming their lungs off at someone who gets paid for it then have them screaming at me till I give in. I think the main purpose of the little lies to little children is kinda like getting a babysitter for the night so you can go out with your spouse for a night. Basically, it's something that's just used to get a break. I will agree however that a parent lying to their child about stuff like that grandma went on vacation for a long time is rather... ugh.

These beliefs are allowed to exist for a reason. Like controlling your kids during the year with threats of gift-embargos, and forestalling the inevitable girl/boy interactions until later. A common parent behaviour - shelving issues until they become critical, like during someones teens.

The point I was trying to make was, in the end, the little stuff like that isn't important unless you've got a really messed up kid on your hands.

Stand down, pal. The truth that the guys dead? That he's decomposing right now, and it's time to move on? This whole afterlife thing is just lame. People live on through causality, not through spiritual hand-holding. God/no God isn't the issue, and I'm not really addressing it here.

Most people don't have a problem with the fact that the person is dead, and most do infact move along shortly after unless the person was very close to them, which is understandable. The afterlife thing may seem lame to you, and by that fact you are in a way making the God/ no God issue, but I'll ignore it since I don't think either of us want to get into it. But either way, doesn't change the fact that what you consider lame is considered to be, at least possible, by most people in the world.

Making kids used to their parents (and by extension adults in general) being liars when it suits them doesn't foster respect for others. Its like teaching kids that violence solves problems by beating them. Hypocrisy is a subset of dishonesty, and they are both bad examples to set. My example was intended to illustrate this; why demand your kids do something you're glad you don't have to anymore, instead of supporting and participating in their homework. Sorry bout the vagueness; I'm hung over.

I'm simply going to state the fact again that when you look at it. A young child doesn't really care in the long run that their parents lied about santa claus or where Fluffy the puppy went. And about the hypocrisy, most parents don't demand their kids to believe something or do something that is bad for them. In fact, when it comes to believing things most parents just mention it and let the kid take it up for themselves. As for homework, most kids don't want help with their homework, at least I know I didn't.

This is entirely my point, stated from a different perspective (and more clearly). People should be free to choose, and this does indeed involve the free flow of information about many viewpoints. Being an atheist, I'm not afraid of this, because I have no beliefs to protect from harmful information. However, Stravo implied he wanted to limit his childs access to this kind of open discussion in order to direct his childs development in this respect, and that's what I was interested in.

I think Stravo was more along the lines of "It's my responsibility to tell my child about stuff like atheism, not my brother." But I'll leave him to answer that for himself.

You seem to have had pretty open parents like me, so I'm not surprised you don't get it. Many people, however, confuse 'modesty' with 'the naked human body is bad to see or examine in detail'. I dated a girl who was incredibly uncomfortable with her own body, and didn't even know where the buttons were. However, the naked=bad mindset pretty much creates the social support for malls full of seminaked teenies looking for validation, so I see it as a pretty broad social issue.

I understood what you were talking about, just wondering why you were mentioning it in something that was involved with lying to children.

I'm not implying a slippery slope, I'm pointing out that lying to people you expect to respect you is not clever or a good example for the future. The tax return example was an expression of my wish not to be misunderstood; I don't suggest that kids should be forced to grow up, but neither should the be coddled into adulthood. I also didn't suggest these lies are significant in and of themselves, but that since so many things are avoided by parents (like procreation) or railroaded (like religion) or made up (like santa) that this isn't an intellectually honest way of raising children. You shouldn't confuse my non-belief with my opinions on social issues. Thanks for your input

While I agree that lying to people you want respect from is never a good idea, the fact remains that we're talking about santa claus and the easter bunny. Something that kids get over amazingly well.

By the general tone of your post I got the idea that you were suggesting that you were doing that. Procreation, parents don't NEED to worry about it until the kids a teenager, this really isn't a problem. Religion, well maybe it's the fact that I am part of a rather liberal church but I don't think I ever got really railroaded into belief, and in the end, by the time a kid is a teen it doesn't matter what the religion has railroaded into their heads unless we're under circumstances like the kid being homeschooled, or going exclusively to church school and having no friends, because eventually they're gonna run into other beliefs.

And I didn't let the fact that you're athiest cloud my responses.

[zombie84]

The answer to the question of "does god exist" is of course "i dont know"--but since knowing is a prerequisite to affirmation of belief, the theist must remain himself an atheist. You cant not know something and then assume a positive.

"Is the lock ness monster real?"
"well i dont know...so yes, i guess you could say that he is."
"Is the lock ness monster god?"
"well i dont know...so yes, he is god. Lets all worship the great Lord Nessie."

The fact is that if something is unknown--which any sane person will admit god is--then you have no choice but to remain neutral in belief until said proof is provided: in this case the neutrality to a positive belief is to simply withhold said belief until proof of existance is demonstrated. A lack of belief in god is an atheist.

The agnostic is just an atheist without the balls to declare so.

[Darth Raptor]

Agnostic: Freedom from knowledge, does not know whether any gods exist.

Atheist: Freedom from observence of religion. Does not worship any form of deity.

I don't see why these terms are always seen as such totally different outlooks on life.

[Stravo]

I hope you don't mind if I respond to this Stravo...

While I don't disagree that a child should be left to their own ultimate decisions. The problem I'm finding is that some athiests are just as bad as the fundies in their quest to rid the world of the "false religion". If an athiest is gonna expect a christian to tell a child about athiesm. I don't see why an athiest shouldn't tell their child about different religions. Give alittle get alittle.

This is entirely my point, stated from a different perspective (and more clearly). People should be free to choose, and this does indeed involve the free flow of information about many viewpoints. Being an atheist, I'm not afraid of this, because I have no beliefs to protect from harmful information. However, Stravo implied he wanted to limit his childs access to this kind of open discussion in order to direct his childs development in this respect, and that's what I was interested in.

We direct our children's development in all things. For instance in education I chose to send my daughter to a Catholic school not because I wanted her to have a religious education but because she lives in the Bronx and anyone that lives in NYC can tell you that our public schools are a fucking disaster so I wanted to make sure she would have a good education and was willing to accept the tradeoff that she would be indoctrinated in the Catholic faith. As a product of Catholic education from K through Law School (Yes my Law School taught in the "Catholic Tradition" a catch phrase to ensure that they receive Fed and State funds) I don't have very many objections to that indoctrination. Yet I am at most a Deist and certainly am not a practicing Catholic. I never received a 'helpful' view from an athiest family member. I simply THOUGHT and REASONED and QUESTIONED. These are basic skills taught in school.

My ire was directed at the thought that my brother, a family member and my own blood would undermine what I was attempting to do. I want my daughter to be exposed to the ideas of a higher power and faith. That is my right as a parent to help mold and shape her. Faith has seen me through some very rough and nasty times and I want her to have access to that as I did when I grew older.

My brother has no right to undermine that. I don't mind him saying, "I don't know, or some people do and some don't." but to say simply there is no god is directly opposing what I am attempting to do.

The real world will have a very big say in how she develops and very soon (if not already) she is being exposed to other ideas and competing philosophies. "Do drugs it makes you feel good." "Smoke because it's cool"

I have to instill my values now before others do so and there is the rub with many parents who complain about schools not doing enough. As a parent it is up to US not our schools to instill values in our children. My values (whether you like it or not) include belief in a higher power and faith. You can raise your children to be athiests and I will be the FIRST to stand in line and protect your right to do so. But this is my child and I want her to know how important faith is to me.

Exposure to other ideas is what school and Real life will do (quite brutally sometimes) so I'm not afraid that she will not be well rounded. Education is what that is for, to make you a well rounded individual not to collect diplomas on a wall.

[Darth Wong]

We direct our children's development in all things. For instance in education I chose to send my daughter to a Catholic school not because I wanted her to have a religious education but because she lives in the Bronx and anyone that lives in NYC can tell you that our public schools are a fucking disaster so I wanted to make sure she would have a good education and was willing to accept the tradeoff that she would be indoctrinated in the Catholic faith. As a product of Catholic education from K through Law School (Yes my Law School taught in the "Catholic Tradition" a catch phrase to ensure that they receive Fed and State funds) I don't have very many objections to that indoctrination. Yet I am at most a Deist and certainly am not a practicing Catholic. I never received a 'helpful' view from an athiest family member. I simply THOUGHT and REASONED and QUESTIONED. These are basic skills taught in school.

These are basic skills which should be taught in school. Their teaching is hardly consistent.

My ire was directed at the thought that my brother, a family member and my own blood would undermine what I was attempting to do.

If you asked him, as a brother, to conceal his feelings from your daughter even when she confronted him about it, I would expect him to do so out of sibling loyalty. However, it hardly "undermines" anything or anyone for someone to give an honest answer to a direct question.

If my son asks my sister in law whether there's a God, my sister in law will unhesitatingly respond "yes" (this is not hypothetical; this has actually happened). I don't freak out and scream that she's "undermining" me. She is not "undermining" me; she is merely disagreeing with me. This is not office politics, and you don't need to buttress your position in the eyes of your child by trying to ensure that every adult in view backs you up on everything you say. In fact, such perceived unanimity of opinion could very well be harmful in terms of the child's intellectual development.

I want my daughter to be exposed to the ideas of a higher power and faith. That is my right as a parent to help mold and shape her. Faith has seen me through some very rough and nasty times and I want her to have access to that as I did when I grew older.

She is being exposed to that idea. What you are saying is that you want her to be sheltered from any different ideas.

My brother has no right to undermine that.

You know, it's one thing to expect that your own brother will observe your wishes because he's your brother, but to say that he has no "right" to give an honest answer to a direct question is frankly ridiculous.

I don't mind him saying, "I don't know, or some people do and some don't." but to say simply there is no god is directly opposing what I am attempting to do.

No, it is opposing your opinion. Your child has the right to make up her mind for herself. Frankly, you're being very close-minded about this; I allowed my kids to go to Sunday school despite my own atheist position because Rebecca wanted to expose them to that, and I believe that they have the right to choose their own path. If I adopted your approach, I would have screeched that I was being "undermined".

The real world will have a very big say in how she develops and very soon (if not already) she is being exposed to other ideas and competing philosophies. "Do drugs it makes you feel good." "Smoke because it's cool"

Those are stupid, harmful ideas. If you are about to say that you think atheism can be compared to these ideas, you'd better have some goddamned good evidence.

I have to instill my values now before others do so and there is the rub with many parents who complain about schools not doing enough. As a parent it is up to US not our schools to instill values in our children. My values (whether you like it or not) include belief in a higher power and faith. You can raise your children to be athiests and I will be the FIRST to stand in line and protect your right to do so. But this is my child and I want her to know how important faith is to me.

And you have that right. What you do not have is the right to demand that everyone around you censors himself. If they do, it is a courtesy to you; do not elevate it into some kind of moral imperative.

[Slartibartfast]

Honestly Stravo, it sounds like you're going to kick the crap out of your brother for NOT doing you a favor, and an unasked one at that. This is almost worse than a (former) friend telling me to fuck myself because I didn't drive 300 km to bring him his car keys.

[Lonestar]

Context of that part of the discussion was Santa Claus. There's no way to describe Santa Claus as anything but a falsehood (sorry, Dalton).

I would like to refer you to the smartest man on earth:

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/971226.html

Dear Jeff:

Let's just say his existence can't be definitely ruled out.

I'm not saying there aren't improbable aspects to the story. You have x number of kids (even leaving out the Muslims, Shintoists, Hindus, animists, etc., who one presumes get shafted, giftwise), you have y time per visit, you have z average distance between domiciles, you have an earth of known diameter, and you have 24 hours in the day. It doesn't add up. You have the problem of access to the gift-giving venue in the absence of chimneys with fireplaces, unless we're assuming that Santa Claus oozes through the keyholes in the manner of the critter in The Abyss, which is not a pretty picture. You have the problem of what in all likelihood is the earth's single largest concentration of toy manufacturing facilities in a polar region remote from resources of every type (cold excepted), that's so carefully camouflaged as to be invisible to satellite surveillance, and that produces no detectable emissions. Although now that one thinks about it, there's that ozone hole over the south pole. Hmm.

On the other hand, consider the following:

A great many seemingly improbable events do in fact occur. Florida winning the World Series. Cleveland winning the World Series. Compared to this, what is the accurate delivery of zillions of packages in the course of a single night?
Besides, Fed Ex does it. So what if we're talking Memphis and drivers in baseball caps rather than the north pole and elves? It's the principle of the thing.
OK, so there's a certain amount of mortal participation involved. Perhaps, as a parent, you've personally done your bit to help Santa and thought you did so of your own accord. The ants in the anthill probably think they're doing it on a whim, too. But looking at the matter objectively, we can't deny that a larger purpose is at work and that we are in the service of an agency greater than ourselves.
You mean the IRS.
I mean the impulse to be generous. Three hundred sixty-four days out of the year humankind commits all manner of heinous acts. On the 365th day we give toys to the kids. I'm not saying that the latter compensates for the former. I'm not saying Adolph Hitler wouldn't have given presents to his children, if he'd had children. But come on, it's got to count for something. The giving of gifts in such a way that no credit will devolve upon ourselves is sufficiently at odds with our routine behavior as to be accounted a mystery, and we may as well give that mystery a name. Santa Claus it is.
Besides, to believe in Santa Claus is to believe in magic. The belief in magic in many respects is a pernicious thing. Because of it you've got countless multitudes thinking that aliens abduct people, that Elvis is alive, that you can earn big money stuffing envelopes in your home, and that the TV preacher can cure you if you send him 50 bucks. A certain class of persons, of whom your columnist is one, will go through their lives attempting to extinguish these foolish hopes. No doubt in the main it is good that we do so. But even the sternest among us remembers the wonder we felt as children to think there was a force having a kindly interest in us that wasn't bound by the rules of this drab world. Wherefore if there's someone who's going to say flat out that Santa Claus doesn't exist, it's not going to be me.
--CECIL ADAMS

So, I think I can speak for everone when I say, PPPHHHBBTTT!!!!

[Howedar]

Several choices:

1. Yes.
2. No.
3. Ask your mother.
4. "I don't believe in one, but many people do, including your mother."

In that circumstance, I would probably pick #4. It doesn't evade or lie but it's also not as likely to cause problems.

This is also true outside of our specially constructed case. Even if nobody is dead or anything, #4 is still completely truthful and is still less likely to cause problems. In fact, I'd submit that it is a better response because you're exposing the kid to a difference of opinion, which encourages independant thought. You're not just telling her to appeal to a different authority.

I'd rather the kid think for herself than automatically believe you when you say there is no God. I thought one of your big problems with religion was how it often tells people how to live their lives instead of letting them decide for themselves?

[Darth Wong]

This is also true outside of our specially constructed case. Even if nobody is dead or anything, #4 is still completely truthful and is still less likely to cause problems.

It's also diplo-babble. The addendum is just there for the sake of diplomacy; it's not as if a kid really needs someone to tell him that there are people out there who believe in God. That fact is simply inescapable in modern society.

In fact, I'd submit that it is a better response because you're exposing the kid to a difference of opinion, which encourages independant thought. You're not just telling her to appeal to a different authority.

No, it's just re-phrased to be more polite to people who believe. The kid does not learn anything more from it than he does from the simple answer "no". In a society where the majority (>90%) believe in some kind of God, it might be news to a kid that somebody does not believe, particularly if that lack of belief is expressed in an unambiguous and unapologetic fashion. The fact that most people believe is not going to be news to this kid.

I'd rather the kid think for herself than automatically believe you when you say there is no God. I thought one of your big problems with religion was how it often tells people how to live their lives instead of letting them decide for themselves?

Absolutely, which is why a kid should be exposed to all viewpoints. I allowed my kids to be exposed to various forms of Christian indoctrination such as Sunday School and the Veggie Tales cartoons for that reason. But what you are saying is not that the kid should be exposed to multiple viewpoints, but that atheists should express their viewpoint in a weak, almost apologetic fashion.

You can bet your ass that no Church pastor says "I personally believe in a God although there are lots of people in the world who don't, and there is no real evidence for his existence", so why is an atheist obligated to express his disbelief in a weak fashion?

[His Divine Shadow]

My answer would be simple: "No. It's make-believe, like Santa Clause".

...there's no Santa?

You are Santa now.

[His Divine Shadow]

When I was a kid I believed in God and Jesus and all that, I stopped by myself around 12 or so, but I still think it's corrupted my thinking on some deep level that I can never rid myself of.
I'd have been happier never hearing about it myself, atleast not until I was an adolescent and it wouldn't have affected the very foundation of my being.

[His Divine Shadow]

I suppose I would have gone about it like this:

-Do you believe in Santa Claus?
-Yes
-Well it's the same with God as with Santa, when your older this will probably make more sense to you.

If she'd said no I dunno, I might have gone something like, "No one knows, no one in the whole world can answer that for you, thats the whole point of believing in something, whats the point of believing in something that you know exist? It'd be like beliving in the mailman."

[Stravo]

If I lose any sleep for not exposing my daughter to the athiest viewpoint I'll let all of you know.

For now the simple fact is that she is being raised in the envioronment that I was raised in, that her entire family on both sides was raised in, in other words we all exist as believers (each to their own degree). When the time comes for her to be exposed to ideas alien to her home environment and my ideals then College applications will be filled out. Otherwise I could truly care less that she is not being told that there isn't a god.

[Darth Wong]

If I lose any sleep for not exposing my daughter to the athiest viewpoint I'll let all of you know.

For now the simple fact is that she is being raised in the envioronment that I was raised in, that her entire family on both sides was raised in, in other words we all exist as believers (each to their own degree). When the time comes for her to be exposed to ideas alien to her home environment and my ideals then College applications will be filled out. Otherwise I could truly care less that she is not being told that there isn't a god.

That's not what you said. You said you would be EXTREMELY OFFENDED if your brother dared tell her that there's no God. Obviously, there is a considerable difference between that statement and saying you don't care.

[Stravo]

If I lose any sleep for not exposing my daughter to the athiest viewpoint I'll let all of you know.

For now the simple fact is that she is being raised in the envioronment that I was raised in, that her entire family on both sides was raised in, in other words we all exist as believers (each to their own degree). When the time comes for her to be exposed to ideas alien to her home environment and my ideals then College applications will be filled out. Otherwise I could truly care less that she is not being told that there isn't a god.

That's not what you said. You said you would be EXTREMELY OFFENDED if your brother dared tell her that there's no God. Obviously, there is a considerable difference between that statement and saying you don't care.

Because my brother is my family and as I said before in terms of the situation as originally stated if my brother were to do as some were suggesting here and say "There is no god" to my daughter I would be upset. I explained why I would be upset. He is interfering in my daughter's upbringing. If he were an athiest (which he is not) and his daughter came over to me and asked me if there was a god I would most certainly NOT say "Yes, dear, there is a God." I would respect his wishes on how he was raising his child and at most I would say "Some people believe there is and some don't." But I as her uncle would not state the exact opposite position of her father. Frankly it is not my place.

[Darth Wong]

Because my brother is my family and as I said before in terms of the situation as originally stated if my brother were to do as some were suggesting here and say "There is no god" to my daughter I would be upset. I explained why I would be upset. He is interfering in my daughter's upbringing.

No, he's just giving a straight answer to a straight question. That is not a form of interference in the way you raise your child, any more than TV interferes with the way you raise your child.

If he were an athiest (which he is not) and his daughter came over to me and asked me if there was a god I would most certainly NOT say "Yes, dear, there is a God."

Good for you. But I still think you're being close-minded about this. I've had relatives talk about God to my kids, and it doesn't bother me. Why should it bother you if your relatives talk to your kids about their disbelief in God?

I would respect his wishes on how he was raising his child and at most I would say "Some people believe there is and some don't." But I as her uncle would not state the exact opposite position of her father. Frankly it is not my place.

It is your place to give an honest answer to a direct question. If your brother censored himself to avoid offending you, he'd be doing you a favour. It's not a moral obligation.

[Stravo]

I would respect his wishes on how he was raising his child and at most I would say "Some people believe there is and some don't." But I as her uncle would not state the exact opposite position of her father. Frankly it is not my place.

It is your place to give an honest answer to a direct question. If your brother censored himself to avoid offending you, he'd be doing you a favour. It's not a moral obligation.

Bringing back the Santa analogy, if your brother's kids believed in Santa and asked you if there was one would you say no there isn't?

[Slartibartfast]

The thing is that most adults WANT the kids to believe that there is a Santa, even when they're pretty sure he doesn't exist. It's, I would say, a completely intentional lie (call it a game, fantasy, whatever) - I'm not saying that it's a good or a bad thing to do, but that's the way it is.

If there was somebody who really thought that kids are being harmed by telling them about a big fat red burglar climbing down your fireplace and doing inverse stealing once a year, he wouldn't have any responsibility to perpetuate that belief. IF he said to your kid "well, maybe he does and maybe he doesn't" he would be doing you a favour in helping you with keeping the Giant Christmas Secret Conspiracy alive. If he said "no, he doesn't exist" that's his problem, and the only one at "fault" would be the kid for fucking ASKING.

What you need to teach your kids is not to ask questions, because they might get answers.

[Nova Andromeda]

It is your place to give an honest answer to a direct question. If your brother censored himself to avoid offending you, he'd be doing you a favour. It's not a moral obligation.

--Wait a second. Isn't it a moral obligation to ensure every person in society has reasonable access to the knowledge they need to make life decisions. Furthermore, isn't it immoral to support the crippling of another person's decision making ability by withholding criticle information for no reason other than a blatant attempt to control them for one's own ends (i.e., Stravo's attempt to indoctrinate his kid and forclose on his(her?) self determination). It seems to me that if Stravo's brother withheld the knowledge that there is no evidence for the existance of God and a great deal of evidence against it that he would be acting immorally. It would be similar to the government withholding information that cigarettes are harmful to your health. I just don't get it. What makes people think that creating a child means they can take away that kid's right to self determination by forced indoctrination and the withholding of criticle education and knowledge.

[His Divine Shadow]

I think myself is an example of what I'd have wished, then again I can't really blame my parents, they've hardly ever mentioned religion, it was just assumed kids ought to be baptized in church, and in school school prayer was mandatory, probably still is, it was school that filled me with that nonsense.

The Lutheran church here is the official goverment funded church of Finland, which is a constant source of amusement when I look at america and it's separate of church and state and how much more religious people are there.