http://www.lasisblog.com/2011/10/23/in-god-we-trust%E2%80%A6and-hold-office/

My comment to Neil would be it is not fair to compare “christian children” to “Political children” is for the most part parents do not attempt to indoctrinate their child early to their political viewpoints, but they do with religion. Religion is something they start imparting on their children early in life, but I would not say the same of their political viewpoints (for the most part). You will always find the exceptions (and I think the video for this post is a small example) where parent will indoctrinate their kids with their political views.

In both cases, there is a fine line that seperates when kids are actually “believing” in what they are being told, and just parroting what they are being told (I would say this video is an example of parroting). Either scenario does not prevent the child from changing their actual viewpoint later on. But that does not make their previous viewpoint any less valid.

This is correct as far as it goes, but Neil’s point was that no child is “born into” a religion.

My view on this is that children do not believe in god until they are taught to do so. And that’s the point – religion isn’t something into which a person is born, it must be taught.

Also, if a child’s “previous viewpoint” is valid, does this mean you would argue that Santa Claus really does exist? Otherwise, how can a belief in Santa Claus possibly be valid for any meaningful use of that word?

Afraid, otherwise I can’t see any way around that. My sympathies, FWIW.

No worries, mate.

True, science attempts to answer “what” questions. Religion/philosophy attempt to answer “why” questions. You are in agreement with me.

No, PayasYouStargaze was arguing against you.

“Religion does not attempt to answer any questions about anything, and only demands “how should you then live”. “

Yes, that is what I said.

This is insane. You just said (your previous line in the same comment!) that religion answers the “why” questions. And now you are agreeing that religion answers no questions.

In fact, the latter is correct, religion answers no meaningful questions, it merely claims to do so.

That you choose to devalue “how we should then live” is your private affair.

You have not shown that any atheist does this. Is it because you cannot, or because you could not be bothered?

In fact, I have seen some pretty strong arguments that humanism is far more (heh!) humanitarian than any religion.

You are not free to tell me what I have or have not experienced. It is a simple fact that I have had atheists use those exact words.

Right, and from this you extrapolated your personal experience of a few (how many exactly?) atheists telling you something to all atheists everywhere.

Has it not occurred to you to apologise for behaving like a bigot?

Well yes, most people do assume that one’s children will more or less follow their parents and that’s a pretty good rule of thumb. But the question “Should the marginal tax rate be raised to 38%?” has hardly been a matter of utmost importance through all of human history the way that religious matters have.

This is disingenuous.

You know perfectly well that very nearly no-one calls a child a “Democrat” or “Republican” child, whereas “Christian” or “Muslim” are frequently used to refer to the children of parents in that faith.

BTW, the only way in which religion has been a “matter of utmost importance” is the number of wars that it has caused.

I don’t recall hearing anyone using the phrase “Christian children” in my life but I do know that it is a common assumption for people to make that one’s children will more or less believe what their parents believe. You are of course free to say that we shouldn’t always make that assumption and I would agree with you.

But you did not.

But you didn’t make that argument. You made a different argument. You didn’t make an argument about what we ought to do, you made a factual argument about what children *are*. That argument is invalid.

No, Neil’s argument is perfectly valid. Irrespective of what most people might call a child, that child’s professed belief in god or Allah or Yahweh or Thor or Zeus is meaningless until the child is old enough and mature enough to make a considered decision. Therefore, there really is no such thing as a “Christian” baby.

This:
“children tend to believe what their parents believe”

and this:
“they “believe” what their parents ( and other adults, e.g. Sunday school teachers ) teach them to believe,”

Are the same claim.

Quite clearly, they are not. Children believe what their authority-figures tell them is so. This is typically what their parents believe, but not necessarily. Additionally, no child believes in any kind of god until it is taught to do so. Thus, Neil’s argument stands, and yours does not.