vlad321 said:
I switched the bolded parts to be me talking; pardn the possible confusion.
Yes, I realize that, but neither am I about to believe something about science just on blind faith, that's the same as religion and I classify such people as religious myself. I'm also not gonna believe science can figure everything out butso far it has been taking steps towards that, very slowly over the centuries but still some steps. Meanwhile the religious preachers have been retreating constantly as science advances and not vice versa. Science does not prove/disprove everything right now but it might in the future, it might not. We'll just have to wait and seee
But we cannot actually say that science is getting closer to the truth, nor can we say it does anything; to claim that science is making progess implies that one has observed science making progress, which is circular, because observing science science, effectively. So there is no way to say science has done anything.
The parent moght believe in both, but only one will actually assure the wellbeing of the child on this green Earth. Meanwhile atheists have been living and dying since forever without restricted abilities or health problems. At the same children who don't eat their veggies generally don't do as well as thos who do in terms of health. That's what the big difference is between the two.
While the effects of t3h v3gg13s are evident (I use that word notwithstanding the other argument), but why should the parent only concern himself with the physical if he is convinced of a spiritual need?
It's exactly because the parents don't know whether it's horrid or not that they shouldn't be imprinting their beliefs on their kids. And yes there have been many more non religious things that were horrifying as well, but they would not have existed, or they would have existed to a much smaller scale, if the parents weren't transfering their beliefs over to the new generation.
They do think it is good, though, which is effectively why they teach their children anything else that think is right.
And you also mention that bad non-religious teachings would not have existed if the parents hadn't transferred they're ideasdown gernation-after-generation. That's true, but that would mean the parents shouldn't have transferred any ideas at first (since they would not have known any werebad). Also, there were probably things taught that no one knew were causing harm, even after long periods of time. And in that case, no one could have known to stop them.
So what is the age at which a person goes to hell? 4? 5? 2?
My point is that a parent should tell their kid as early as possible, lest they run the risk of being too late.
What's the age or mental stage? I'm not really sure on that one.
Those were more of rhetorical questions to invoke self reflection, but thank you for answering. I know a lot of people who didn't pick up religion from their parents as well, but it has always been the caase that they pick it up from someone they trust a whole lot.
I see; of course I should be mindful of my earlier influences on my ideas, escpecially this. For myself, I think I've thought it out enough, but it never hurts to examine more, huh?
|
