The only thing thats real...

God as an interventionist deity certainly not, the concept seems to verge on the ridiculous as far as my mind can see. To place the possible creation in the form of personality I can think only of as human arrogance.

I'm a bit loath to abandon the concept completely though, I mean we all still have to deal with "Why ?". To circumvent this my words to my children are "god is more than anything and everything you can imagine". The concept in my mind of good and bad still exist, I'm justifying it all on the hoof really hoping my offspring reach a similar rational, probably to justify myself, but also as a duty of care to others also.

 

What do you think your children believe about god?

You said you had a religious upbringing, were your parents devout, or more just cultural Christians?

 

My little ladies, 11 & 12 are still dealing with conformality, they trust the world to tell them the truth and still enjoy the innocence of childhood. They will still say they believe in Father Christmas so getting real discussion in the reality of God is a little tricky.

There have been statements about doubt of Gods existence from the elder but they are not ready to dismiss the notion just yet. I will say that I have had an above average involvement in their religious education so it is a conversational topic in our household, a good thing I believe.

Father is an Irish Catholic, Mother is English Methodist, we were educated within the Catholic school system through Infants and Junior. Church was a regular occurence until I refused conformation it then tailed off. I would say that both were believers but not devout they even played with Jehovas Witnessess for a while. A search for the correct manner in which to behave is the legacy they left me.

 

How did your parents react to your rejection of their faith?

Do you have much contact with your parents and siblings?

 

Dad dropped the faith many years back now and dosen't, even with the onset of old age, show any interest of picking it up again. Mother on the other hand has picked the reins up again over the last couple of years, and I get the feeling that has happened because of what I was involved with. Neither of them ever gave me any trips about whatever my philosophical beliefs were. Saw the old man a couple of months ago for the firat time in 3 years, ha can't travel and I don't like going to London. Mother appears a couple of times during the year for a brief visit, she'll ring up maybe once every 2 months, suppose you'd say not close.

I have four sibling all younger than me, boy, girl, girl, boy. I get on reasonably well with my brothers, football being an easy subject of conversartion. Girls, can't say I do, one pissed me off and the other is just a bit essex really.

 

Did you get along with your siblings when you were all younger?

And did you try the recipe I sent you?

 

Hello to you.

Ever hear the saying, "My karma ran over my dogma?" I was raised under a variety of Christian faiths, but I don't hold to any of them, and I don't go to church anymore. I still believe in God, but now consider referencing God as "The Source", and I question whether or not God has a gender at all.

Anyway, I think Karma holds equal, if not more, practical spiritual value at times compared to church values. A person could be nice to others out of worry for bad karma just as much as out of religious conditioning. The end result is basically the same. That's not to say that I haven't learned some good morality from going to church, but my perspective on morality is different now in relation to karma. One could choose whether or not to be religious and/or go to church, but karma simply happens. It's like the weather -- we don't choose rain or sunshine on any given day; we just deal with it when it comes.

 

I always beleived I got on well with my borthers and sisters, they ahave shared a slightly different opinion with my children though, nothing spectatcular but the odd little jibe about events they remember and I don't.

Closest to the elder boy and girl, Sean and Anette, the other two were babes really during my growing.

We had a wonderfully messy time weekend before last, a new taste experience for the little ladies left them slightly puzzled.

 

And likewise to you sir.

I believe I'm quite a fatalist myself really with an awareness that your behaviour has direct consequences at least, and also your own emotional being informs others how to behave with you.

I have and do use church as an institute of moral instruction for my offspring though. I find it a shame when children are not taught strong moral fundamentals but are raised with airy faeiry philosophies, if any at all.

 

Hahaha, hopefully it didn't taste too bad

When your kids are a little older, do you plan on giving them the choice of whether they want to go to church or not, or will you continue to take them?

 

They've always had the choice to attend or not.

I started with the realisation that church services are a complete bore to children, if not most adults, so that has never been part of the regime, they only attend those on special occaisions.

Most children in england receive their religious education from school which is subsequently dropped the same time as father christmas is realised as a fairy tale. This can leave a moral vacume.

Children also seem to accept education better from teachers than from parents, so because I have an interest in their moral wellbeing I stood as a sunday school teacher myself, thereby embibing me with educational authority, what I have to say on the matter carried more weight.

They'll both probably stop attending the majority of the time next year when they are both in the senior school. At least they have an inkling about kindness, care and consideration, hope the people they meet appreciate it.

 

Do you not think these things can exist in the absence of religious moral indoctrination?

 

To be honest, no.

As mentioned children respect their teachers authority, the words given are subsequently respected, even if only for a year or two, but the foundation is laid.

Children who don't receive this have no moral foundations. The most they can hope for is a bit of "be nice to each other" from mum and dad, which will carry no authority whatsover and thus leaves the children able to create their own opinions on morals.

Care, kindness and consideration do not exist, they have to be created, our current celebration being involved in the same.

I've looked but can find no authority other than religion for morals, rather it weren't the case but beggars cant be choosers.

 

What about cultures which have no organised monotheism? Religious morality of the type you describe is a very new phenomenon which has developed since the development of agricultural societies a few thousand years ago. There are still cultures which do not have these kinds of centralised religious guilds which purport to hold a monopoly on morality.

Are these cultures without care, kindness and consideration? Did these things not exist until organised monotheism took hold?

I would say it's quite the opposite: these things are naturally occurring phenomena which arise as a consequence of human society and the need for co-operation that entails. They don't arise as a consequence of superstitious beliefs, but those beliefs tack on to our innate propensity to exist in a moral framework, so that it has become hard to disentangle the two. But if you take away religion, the social frameworks (and evolutionary factors) through which morality arises would still exist.

I would say there is very good evidence that morality is a naturally arising human phenomenon

 

Ah, but they don't exist in my neighbourhood, my points of consideration are, as you would say, subjective.

Not well read by any means, but I think the older religions may well of had them as part of thier doctrine.

"Lord of the Flies", grandmother and eggs I imagine but the proposal in this tale seem prevelant to me. I observe around me the world of self, religious morality has been replaced by no morality.

The issue I believe should revolve around which morals are relevant rather than ditch them all because some don't fit anymore, not your proposal I know but one that seems to be accepted by others. Small groupings of humans seem able to deal with the issues satisfactorily, large groupings do not.

Thanks for your thoughts dude.

 

If man made religion to instil moral values into communities, is it not conceivable that these created morals could be incorporated into society through other means? Are atheists amoral?

 

Apologies for the delay, been busy wiping off the stagepaint.

I'd struggle with the precept of "man-made", nature made man...but anyway, if these values could be displayed in another way I'd give them due consideration but unfortunately I am still waiting for the opportunity to do so.

Amorality is a natural consequence of atheism, yes I declare my belief in the case, am I in error ?

 

I assume that could be taken to mean that you think a majority of those who don't believe in gods don't care about issues of right and wrong, which seems like an incredible assertion to me. On what do you base it?

 

Perhaps I don't mean complete amorality but a lesser/smaller morality !

 

I have morals, only with no concept of God, or punishment or reward, I must be the enforcer of my own moral values. That instils a certain sense of responsibility in an atheist that one should not overlook I think. Nor, given the highly interpretive nature of religious texts, should one assume that because one is religious, one has higher or better morals. Take evangelical Christians, Zionists, or fundamentalist Muslims for example....