Posted on 11/27/2007 11:53:56 AM PST by Between the Lines
Christian kids are typically sent to Sunday school for lessons on the Bible and morals. For nonbelievers, there's atheist Sunday school.
With an estimated 14 percent of Americans professing to have no religion, according to the Institute for Humanist Studies, some are choosing to send their children to classes that teach ethics without religious belief.
Bri Kneisley sent her 10-year-old son, Damian, to Camp Quest Ohio this past summer after a neighbor had shown him the Bible.
"Damian was quite certain this guy was right and was telling him this amazing truth that I had never shared," said Kneisley, who realized her son needed to learn about secularism, according to Time magazine.
Camp Quest, also dubbed "The Secular Summer Camp," is offered for children of atheists, freethinkers, humanists and other nonbelievers who hold to a "naturalistic, not supernatural world view," the camp website states.
The summer camp, offered across North America and supported by the Institute for Humanist Studies, is designed to teach rational inquiry, critical thinking, scientific method, ethics, free speech, and the separation of religion and government.
Kneisley welcomes the sense of community the camp offers her son.
"He's a child of atheist parents, and he's not the only one in the world," she said, according to Time.
Atheist and humanist programs are expected to pop up in such cities as Phoenix, Albuquerque, N.M., and Portland, Ore., and adult nonbelievers are leaning on such secular Sunday schools to help teach their kids values and how to respond to the Christian majority in the United States.
Outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins argues that teaching faith to children can be dangerous, noting the possibility of extremism.
"The point about teaching children that faith is a virtue is that you're teaching them that you don't have to justify what you do, you can simply shelter behind the statement 'that's my faith and you're not to question that,'" he argued in a debate with Christian apologist John Lennox last month.
A recent study by Ellison Research, however, found that most Americans who attended church as a child say their past worship attendance has had a positive impact on them. The majority, including those who no longer currently attend religious services, said their attendance at church as a child gave them a good moral foundation and that they are glad they attended.
Yet today, nonbelievers want their children to participate in Sunday school the secular way.
"I'm a person that doesn't believe in myths," says Hana, 11, who attends the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto, Calif., according to Time. "I'd rather stick to the evidence."
Well, it would certainly be a miracle if it happens. The trend is currently in the opposite direction and has been for the past 40 years. There are now five times as many young non-believers than there were 40 years ago with upwards of 20% expressing their non-affiliation with religion.
As a nation we appear to be near the beginning of the same secularization that took place decades ago in Western Europe, and the danger is that if Christians continue to express the same hostility towards non-believers that I have seen on many threads on this board, they will be delivered right into the hands of the left.
Since I’m not a Christian I would prefer to live in a country where conservative atheists and agnostics can live without the constant antipathy non-believers get from the religious right. Political allegiances are hard to maintain when you’re not even considered to be worthy of political office unless you profess belief in a supernatural being.
So what do you make of the prediction from the Bible that “The Gates of Hell will not prevail against it.” (Church)?
Well, the simple answer is, as a non-believer, I don’t believe it! I’m not sure what else you were expecting me to say :)
But even if the bible quote is true, it’s true not just for the USA but for the whole world, most of which is already much less Christianized than America. So, even if we assume that your world view is correct, the future of America could easily be much more secular than it is today, by far. (In fact, many Christians are predicting that and much worse, given what they believe about the contents of Revelation.)
What!? They don’t get enough secularism every single damned school day in the public schools!!!!? The dogma of atheism is the strictest I’ve ever encountered.
I recall that these Humanist organizations and Ethical Societies (both basically atheist) are treated more or less as “churches” being tax-exempt and having officials who can perform marriages and funerals. Basically they’re already churches with God subtracted. Sounds like a religion to me.
Keep in mind however, that many young unbeliever “come home” later in life, especially after they begin to raise families. Also in the past many actual non-believers probably claimed nominal Christianity (but lacked real faith) for social reasons that are less prevalent now. The reality may not be nearly as dire as statistics make it seem.
Well, as to your first point, when they surveyed older age groups in later years they found the number of non-believers remained remarkably static. I’m sure some became believers, but either an equal number gave up their faith or the numbers are not that significant overall.
Perhaps that may be different with the next generation, but there is little sign that it is likely to happen.
As for your second point, the professional pollsters do their best to get accurate data, but it’s true there is no guarantee they will get honest answers. But I suspect that the trends they have found are real enough.
"The Right Thing" is whatever you want it to be if you have no higher authority. The stronger taking from the weaker has been held up as the admirable and "right thing" in many societies throughout time. Its amusing to hear an atheist rest their entire case on the premise that Christian values are the one and only true path.
Well that is load of nonsense. Given the choice of a so-so Christian surgeon and an top-notch surgeon who just happened to be an atheist to perform delicate brain surgery on your child, you would choose the atheist surgeon every time (or would you really put your own faith before the welfare of your child?)
Not surprisingly you've created a false analogy. There is nothing to "trust" in that situation, as there is no gain for the atheist in doing something wrong. The better analogy is which one would I trust to carry out a verbal agreement. The clear answer is the Christian.
Someone's professed religious belief (or lack thereof) is no measure of their competence or honesty. How many cheating and embezzling pastors do you need to convince you of that? Because the list is a long one.
I've never been double crossed by anyone that I considered to be a practicing Christian, but I've known many atheists (professing and otherwise) that I wouldn't leave alone with an unattended nickel. Your proof rests on the assertion that people who profess to be Christians can be bad people. Indeed, and people who profess to be Nigerian businessmen can be hucksters. Tell me, when as an atheist you've set up your own moral code and people break it, will you fault your moral code? I guess consistency isn't an atheist principle, huh.
Wrong! God judges, not man. The act of murder is something we are commanded not to do.
What you miss here is the core of the faith, which is a relationship with God. By doing wrong you damage the most important relationship in your life, bar none.
Luke 6:
Love for Enemies
27"But I tell you who hear me: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29If someone strikes you on one cheek, turn to him the other also. If someone takes your cloak, do not stop him from taking your tunic. 30Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31Do to others as you would have them do to you.
32"If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' love those who love them. 33And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' do that. 34And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even 'sinners' lend to 'sinners,' expecting to be repaid in full. 35But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.
Judging Others
37"Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned. Forgive, and you will be forgiven. 38Give, and it will be given to you. A good measure, pressed down, shaken together and running over, will be poured into your lap. For with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." 39He also told them this parable: "Can a blind man lead a blind man? Will they not both fall into a pit? 40A student is not above his teacher, but everyone who is fully trained will be like his teacher.
41"Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 42How can you say to your brother, 'Brother, let me take the speck out of your eye,' when you yourself fail to see the plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.
A Tree and Its Fruit
43"No good tree bears bad fruit, nor does a bad tree bear good fruit. 44Each tree is recognized by its own fruit. People do not pick figs from thornbushes, or grapes from briers. 45The good man brings good things out of the good stored up in his heart, and the evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in his heart. For out of the overflow of his heart his mouth speaks. The Wise and Foolish Builders
46"Why do you call me, 'Lord, Lord,' and do not do what I say? 47I will show you what he is like who comes to me and hears my words and puts them into practice. 48He is like a man building a house, who dug down deep and laid the foundation on rock. When a flood came, the torrent struck that house but could not shake it, because it was well built. 49But the one who hears my words and does not put them into practice is like a man who built a house on the ground without a foundation. The moment the torrent struck that house, it collapsed and its destruction was complete."
What a lot of thinkers that have never believed miss is that salvation is not the only reason to be a Christian. To act as a Christian is to act with God, which is, in and of itself, joy. Sin is and of itself, destructive. Most are just too clouded in their thinking to see it.
Slavery was a remnant of pre-Christian times. There is absolutely no support for slavery in the New Testament. As with the other practices that we now consider to be human rights violations, it was the growth of Christian thought and principles that led to slavery's end in Christian lands. Opposed to that, I've conversed with atheists right here on FR that think slavery should be legal, as long as it is entered into voluntarily (such as settling a debt). As for Pagans creating worthy objects or processes, so what? Its hard to find a point in your assertion. I never said that all things non-Christian are bad. The Romans created fantastic architecture in which to spectate on the murder of thousands. The NAZIs gained advanced knowledge of human physiology by freezing Jews to death in cold water. The list goes on. What I said, and you did not answer to, was that you have chosen Christian values as the one true moral code and the falsely justified it as "just natural" with historical evolution, which is total nonsense and completely unsupported.
And a note on Greek democracy. It did not protect the rights of the minority. It simply placed total power with the majority. As a moral institution it simply replaced tribal rule based on blood, with tribal rule based on thought. It took Christian values to create modern democracy based on the Golden Rule.
In any case, do you think that the great non-Christian civilizations were able to flourish absent the Golden Rule?
Of course they grew. Christianity is no recipe for ruling the world, it is personal. If the only goal is to build an empire, the Golden Rule is a detriment. From the Roman Empire to the Aztec Empire, terror and brute force ruled the day. That you think they practiced the Golden Rule is hilarious. Altruism is doing something for others without reward, that did not exist as a concept. The great communal efforts were designed to achieve results. The most evil of human organizations practice communal cooperation to achieve greater strength, you have confused that with altruism.
Perhaps the ancient civilizations do not stand up to scrutiny by today's standards,
You mean Christian standards. Thanks for the reinforcement. They easily stand up to the standards of many of today's societies, just not ours.
but they would not have achieved all they did without some level of altruism between people and without groups of people working together for the common good.
You've confused the "common good" with the "common goal". Was crushing Jerusalem and using the plunder to build the Colosseum, so that greater joy could be achieved in watching men kill each other a "good"? Not by Christian standards.
But the Romans were logical and reasoned, and they did have a moral code of their own making. Just like you profess. But we've already agreed that simply professing something doesn't make it so. And you need to go back to whoever taught you the meaning of "good" and "altruism" and demand your money back.
Get your evolution right. Things evolve supposedly because more fit individuals pass on more of their genes.
Also, if I'm a born-again Christian, forgetting conscience, there is nothing to stop you from killing or stealing either since you are already guaranteed your place in heaven.
Bark up another tree with that silliness. I'm Catholic and believe in the ability to fail as a Christian. Salvation is not a wicket to hit once, its a life long journey. The Christian would not kill you because they love God. If they do not love God, then they are not a Christian. Yet many non-Christians who felt drawn to God will act with morality, because they have not yet hardened their hearts against him.
Anyway, most people can't afford the protection needed to prevent friends and relatives of the victims of their crimes from coming after them and exacting revenge. Forgetting conscience, there are still plenty of reasons obey society's laws. Anyone with half a brain knows it's beneficial to them to live in a stable, law-abiding society rather than a place where anarchy reigns supreme.
History does not support your assertion. Try Rwanda or the streets of LA.
Your "logical" idea that because stability and morality do provide a safer society, that they are natural is as absurd as the Utopian dreams of socialists. By your logic the Tragedy of the Commons would never exist, as it is in everyone's interest to put a little back in for the common good. The truth is that human nature does not support your notion that Christian values are "just natural".
But as I said, I'm flattered that even an atheist can see the superiority of such principles.
Where did this obnoxious practice of referring to oneself in the third person come from? It's a really weak and cowardly way of speaking.
Stand up for yourselves, people! "I believe < whatever >." "I don't believe < whatever >." Say it like you mean it.
< /rant>
“Because you may be punished if you are caught,” answered the athiest teacher.
“And if I am sure that I won’t be caught?”
“Then you don’t steal because you will hurt someone else.”
“And if I don’t feel bad about that?”
How do you suppose this colloquy went with little Jim Bakker? Or Kent Hovind? Or Benny Hinn? Or Richard Roberts? Or perhaps these miscreants?
DAMIAN??? Why would parents name a child DAMIAN?? That is CHILD ABUSE!
So far your only arguments have been from a failure to follow the train of thought. You wanted a rationally consistent basis for morality, I provided you with one,
That's just silly. Your argument is that people should not sin because your God says not to. Please go out and try to convince inner-city muggers of that. You wouldn't last a day. Does that mean you're wrong?
You seem to think the validity of morality depends on one's ability to convince others of it. That only work if morality is relative. Judeo-Christian morality is competing with Muslim morality and right now Muslim morality is winning by the numbers. Does that mean you are wrong about what is good and evil?
The strength of my basis for morality is that it is an absolute morality, unlike standard Judeo-Christian morality, which is basically inconsistent and internally conflicted.
My point in the little dialog with the atheist Sunday school teacher was that there is no premise that is consonant with human experience and human nature that will allow a rational argument for doing right in all cases when self-sacrifice is sometimes required.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.