ink blot,

<<Religion offers so much and indeed, the great majority of the population of the world is religious.>>

Well, yes, but the great majority of the world’s population are also from relatively uneducated regions too.

<<[Sanitizing children from religion] deprives them of something that can be a great help to them now, and perhaps more importantly, later in life.>>

Personally, I don’t think teaching children to believe that it’s okay to believe in something so mentally and emotionally consuming and altering without any evidence - or in some situations, in that face of evidence to the contrary - is ever helpful.

Our beliefs inform our actions and so having our beliefs as close to the truth as possible is important. Sure, religious beliefs can bring solace, just as the belief that you’ve won the lottery is can too. But if one behaves as though they’d won when they haven’t, then that can have negative effects.

<<Unfortunate experiences are the fault of individuals who have made mistakes, not the religion itself.>>

If religion was a measureable, demonstrable, verifiable and necessary part of reality rather than a faith-based assertion that consisted of nothing more than a string of unfounded claims and promises that have been both inadvertently and deliberately set up to have the ability to influence the decisions people make and the things that they do, then you may have had a point.

If a child falls out of a tree it’s not the tree’s fault. This is the line of reasoning you were perusing, but a tree is a demonstrable, necessary and unavoidable aspect of reality that doesn’t exist to tempt children to climb it, and - unlike the religions of the world - if every tree disappeared, we’d have a serious problem. Trees are not man-made concepts that have been constructed to be as effective as possible in tempting children up into their branches.

“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” – Steven Wienburg

Continued...

...Continued

<<Religious-based ethics is often based itelf on time-tested philosophy and the great minds in the churches throughout history have contributed to the body of knowledge that we now teach our children. It would be a shame to deprive them of that...>>

The disregarding of religion doesn’t mean removing ethics, nor was religion necessary for the acquisition of any of the knowledge we now have.

<<...religion- a worldwide phenomenon that brings hope and fulfilment to many people who otherwise find no meaning in life.>>

Faith - a worldwide phenomenon in which those who hold it mistake hope and fulfilment for knowledge.

<<It's not an outdated disease to be avoided at all costs.>>

I’m no expert on most of the religions, but Christianity most certainly is.

Christianity acts like a virus, tearing down its adherents, and the vulnerable, by convincing them that they are worthless wretches, but then builds them back up again, only with itself at the centre of what makes its host feel good again.

Religions need to take something that we enjoy and that we’re most certainly going to do - such as eating or sex - then makes us feel guilty about it so that the religion is relied upon in order to feel the grace and redemption that it’s offering when we inevitable commit the act in which it convinces us is wrong in many situations.

<<...more important for me were lessons on philosophy, not religious-based, but inevitably led me to conclude that my religous convictions were sound.>>

Considering that a conviction is an unshakable belief in something without need for proof or evidence, I find this an odd thing to say. But I’d be curious as to what was learned in these lessons that I missed as a Christian, since the main reason I stopped believing was because of a total lack of any sound reasoning at all.

Continued...

...Continued

<<I think that if an honest look at the history of philosophy was taught, (and Christian philosophy has contributed much to that) then non-believers could make their own minds up and people with religious convictions would either confirm them or quesiton/scrutinise them further.>>

Sounds very plausible if you ignore the fact that (according to the Abrahamic religions anyway) god is obliged to make his existence as clear as day in the first place.

What about a complete lack of evidence is inadequate when determining the truth about religious claims?

What about the history of philosophy would be so compelling if a “more honest approach” were taken, and how is the current approach less honest?

Actually, this reminds me of the poor reasoning I used as a Christian (and that is still used by all Christians), in which I mistook the good deeds done in the name of Christianity to be proof that god existed; all the while ignoring the bad deeds which - if I wanted to be consistent and follow the same logic - should have disproved god at the same time.

<<...we need to be open to teach [metaphysical sciences such as anthropology and psychology], in some way, to children. How do children learn about virtues? How do we instruct them to treat other people etc? In what context do we teach them about love and feelings?>>

Using the same third party mechanisms that allow modern day Christians to distinguish between the good and the bad in their holy books.

<<Often, a religious perspective is very instructive here.>>

Instructive? Yes;
Helpful? Only if you ignore the bad bits;
Uniquely so in either respect? No, there is nothing here that religion offers that can’t be accomplished via secular means.

Continued...

...Continued

<<...all teachers have their 'dogmas' as earlier stated. As we are all human with our own peculiar experiences, we all find it hard to teach without imposing our own prejudices on people.>>

There’s a big difference between ‘prejudices’ and ‘dogmas’.

Prejudices are opinions formed in advance based on past experiences. Dogmas are codes of belief that are considered to be authoritative.

The key word being “authoritative”.

Uncomfortable with the fact that there are some out there who are freethinkers, not bound by the same intellectually shackles as they are, theists are often quick to apply the term “dogma” loosely in the hope that they can downplay the absurdity and irrationality of conforming to a dogma.

To equate prejudice with dogma is wrong and misleading.

AJ

You seem to have a rather large chip on your shoulder. You have been a Christian in the past and I can only assume for you it was not a good experience.

Christianity is not a disease, and if we can't agree on that one, then I don't think we are going to get very far on the other points.

People behaving badly is no evidence that there is not a God - it is evidence that men and women have free will. If they behave well, it is for a reason; if they behave badly it is also for a reason. We need to look deeper into the motivations for people's behaviour, but you can't turn your eye away from the fact that many of the greatest people that lived were deeply religious people. It is far too one-sided to focus solely on those that are not good ambassadors for faith.

It is totally ignorant, prejudiced and offensive for you to say that the majority of the world is religious because "the great majority of the world’s population are also from relatively uneducated regions too"

You must live in a shell.

I attended a public High School from years 7 to 12. I was then, and am now a Christian. I appreciated being able to attend Scripture classes. It was my choice.

It would appear that many of you posting would like to prevent myself and others exercising our choice because of your personal bitterness. Why should those who rage against God deny the rights of those who know and love God? That doesn't seem fair or reasonable to me.