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."
At one time those duties included committing genocide with joy. Feel the love.
If your answer is no, then what of the doctor in the emergency room that sacrifices the child the mother carries to save the mother's life?
I bet if I asked you if third-trimester abortion was ever necessary for the health of the mother you would say no. . . At any rate, these situations are typically a case of the doctor attempting to save both and failing to save one. If there were a case where the baby's death would be required to save the mother, that would fall under self-defense, although the infant would be the unwitting aggressor.
Do you know that God didn't take those chidren immediately into Heaven?
Please show me in the Bible where it is less wrong to murder someone whose soul goes to heaven than it is to murder someone whose soul goes to hell.
Absolutely, it is called the Holy Spirit, an aspect of God.
So you acknowledge that God's morality changes? Tell me, if you were a Hebrew invading Canaan and had to kill a family because your leader told you God said to, would you feel good about doing it?
So when a man saves his kids from a burning building he’s not being altruistic?
I do go out and try to convince muggers and rapists and murderers of that. It's called a prison ministry and hundreds gather and some, and hopefully many, are saved. One would be enough. Regarding not lasting a day:
With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible." —Matthew 19:26
You seem to think the validity of morality depends on one's ability to convince others of it.
We have been talking about a rational basis for altruism. With God it is rational. Without God it is not; it is solely a cost benefit analysis.
Judeo-Christian morality, which is basically inconsistent and internally conflicted.
You will need to read the Bible in full and with understanding before making that judgment with confidence. I've been where you are and made similar arguments. I've read the Bible looking for inconsistencies and conflicts; my experience is that once I accepted the basic "premise" of the Bible, which is God, I turned up none. If you read the Bible without that premise you have in many cases a jumble of words.
Romans 1:16 I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. 17For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: "The righteous will live by faith."
If you are looking for reason in the Bible or approaching it from a secular perspective looking for wisdom, try reading Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, and then the New Testament.
Perhaps 11 year old Hana doesn't really believe it at all and is only regurgitating what she has been fed.
Congrats, do the ones who flip you off and tell you go to go [deleted] yourself invalidate your morality? If they do not, nor do they invalidate mine.
We have been talking about a rational basis for altruism. With God it is rational. Without God it is not; it is solely a cost benefit analysis.
That's what I've been talking about, I'm not sure what you've been talking about. You haven't been able to show my basis for morality is irrational. I suppose if you could convince me that I'm the best human by non-subjective standard I might be convinced, and then take over the world. :-D
You will need to read the Bible in full and with understanding before making that judgment with confidence.
Been there, done that, spent twenty years on it, got the Bible minor.
No, not at all. It is instinctive for people to protect their own family. Saving someone else's children would be a different matter.
Whoa, so you’re redefining “altruism” to exclude one’s family members and ingroup members?
Your all over the place here. Bottom line, if God says do it or God does it is not a sin, so you are using the word murder wrongly in this context.
I don’t even understand your 3rd trimester argument; but I will say that a Christian battlefield surgeon can triage without committing a sin.
You don’t understand that the Holy Spirit is God and God does not change. The Holy Spirit is a counseler, he is an advisor, a gift of God. This has nothing to do with change and everything to do with your limits and mine. You need a relationship with God and one reason that you do is to have God in your life through the Holy Spirit.
You will need to read the Bible in full and with understanding before making that judgment with confidence.
__________
Been there, done that, spent twenty years on it, got the Bible minor.
__________
With understanding!
So you're saying that what is evil is evil because God says it is evil? Then from whence our inalienable rights? If God can say at one point that killing helpless babies is an abomination and say at another point that killing helpless babies is a good and righteous act, what is the true value of that baby? It is dependent upon how God feels about it at that moment, therefore its right to life is not inalienable. I guess we can throw out that supposedly Judeo-Christian sentiment "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
I did. That's why I decided ultimately that it was not a true account by a supernatural God, after years of accepting others' pretzel logic to excuse genocide, and telling myself that when I had grown more I would understand how these sins could be good.
I have redefined nothing. There are two definitions for altruism and I posted them both. Science redefined altruism to include instinctive acts to preserve family and you are confusing that with pure altruism.
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
No one in the world but you adds "with the exception of one's family members and ingroup members."
So you’re saying that what is evil is evil because God says it is evil? Then from whence our inalienable rights?
________________
Yes, it is evil because it is against God’s will. That is the key to it and what you personally don’t understand when you look at Old Testament history. Since God is all-knowing, all-powerful, unchanging, and loves us, then to act against his will is wrong. Once again, similar to altruism, without God there are no inalienable rights, only rights granted by the state or society as “it” (actually a man or group of men) see fit. There is no basis to say their preference for your suppression is not equal to your preference for your freedom except a form of utilitarian argument (which makes the right not “inalienable” but conditional).
Proverbs 27:7
A satisfied soul loathes the honeycomb, But to a hungry soul every bitter thing is sweet.
Why does the scientific definition have to exclude the more general definition?
Given my previous post demonstrating that one's "inalienable" right to life can be given or taken away based on God's whim, how in the world can you claim rights are inalienable?
There is no basis to say their preference for your suppression is not equal to your preference for your freedom except a form of utilitarian argument (which makes the right not “inalienable” but conditional).
Well, one might return to my syllogism above which you still have not addressed.
Well, regarding your syllogism, once again . . . why should I care whether or not you are equal to me, or that I don’t want to be hurt, if I want what you have and can get away with taking it?
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.