yguy

Nonsense. Atheism is a disbelief in God. Infants don't pass judgment on the idea. You might just as well say they're born "aparentists" because they don't immediately recognize their parents for who they are.

Bree

Exactly. People are born atheists by default, because they have no opinion whatsoever on the matter - they're clean slates. If "no opinon" doesn't mean "atheist" in your book, then what label would you use?

yguy

Agnostic.

Disbelief does not necessarily mean a lack of opinion, as is repeatedly demonstrated by the atheists here who not only are positively convinced that God doesn't exist, but do their level best to convert theists to that POV. Children are not born with that sort of disbelief.

Mageth

Agnostic.

Agnosticism typically implies someone who withholds belief one way or the other, and implies some knowledge of the object in which belief is being withheld, so I don't think "agnostic" is a particularly good label for newborns.

Disbelief does not necessarily mean a lack of opinion, as is repeatedly demonstrated by the atheists here who not only are positively convinced that God doesn't exist, but do their level best to convert theists to that POV.

Well, atheists that are "positively convinced that God doesn't exist" are rare, IMO. Most around here express their atheism as lack of belief in god(s).

I'm not convinced that newborns need labeling as "atheist", "agnostic", etc. I'm not even sure it's proper to try to do so, for the reason I gave against using "agnostic" above - they have no knowledge of the object in which a belief (or lack thereof) is being considered. However, as newborns lack belief in anything, and god is one of the things they lack belief in, "atheist", or at least "weak atheist", seems to be closer to the mark if one feels the need to label them. For me, "blank slate" is perhaps a preferable term.

BadBadBad

My response was to the question why would anyone want to make their child become an atheist. I say that an atheist doesn't want their child to become an atheist. Rather it's more likely for an atheist parent to not want their child to become a christian, muslim, hindu, buddist, etc. etc. An atheist parent doesn't want their child to be manipulated, lied to, humiliated, and pressured into believing one of many false religions.

BadBadBad

I'm not sure militant is the right word (more with the wife than the kids). I don't want to be passive though.

I think it's like anything your kids might have to face when growing up. I grew up with a bunch of drug heads. My parents struggled to head that off. My kids have a fundie mother. I'm trying to head that off. My older son grew up with a bunch of do nothings that after high school headed off for their careers at the movie theatre. I tried to head that off. It's our job to be role models and if there is any outside influence that we don't approve of, your level of effort should match the threat.

You shouldn't sit back and let the church god bots take their course for fear some fundie is going to accuse you of being a bad parent for trying to influence your child to go to hell. Or that well, christianity is right, and if you don't believe it, why spoil it for your kid? Let's let him get the full course of indoctrination, while you sit passively by, and see what happens? That might be a distortion of the OP, but is it a disservice to deny children organized spirituality? Is it somehow wrong and immoral to actively educate your children about the false nature of religion? I say definitely not!

Mageth

My response was to the question why would anyone want to make their child become an atheist. I say that an atheist doesn't want their child to become an atheist. Rather it's more likely for an atheist parent to not want their child to become a christian, muslim, hindu, buddist, etc. etc. An atheist parent doesn't want their child to be manipulated, lied to, humiliated, and pressured into believing one of many false religions.

Personally, all I want for my son is to grow up being able to figure things out for himself, to be able to reach his own conclusions. I want to teach him to think, to question. Given the right tools, he'll be able to make the right decision by himself. And whatever he chooses to become in regards to religion as an adult, that's his business.

Is it somehow wrong and immoral to actively educate your children about the false nature of religion? I say definitely not!

Again, teaching a child to think for themselves is the best thing you can do for them. I feel it'd be best to teach the "false nature of religion" as your opinion and not as doctrine, and leave it up to them, using the tools you've provided, to make their own determination when they're ready.

BadBadBad

I understand what you're saying Mageth. I just see this as a similar problem to drugs in more ways than one. I think many many people want to prepare and educate children to help them deal with decisions on drugs and drug culture. I won't just sit back and let the kids figure out for themselves if drugs are bad. I have an opinion on that, their decisions may affect my whole family for ever, and my kids will be educated on my point of view. If my kid is pressured into that, I will intervene in some way. In the end, they will make their own decisions, and I understand that I if I try to push my opinions too hard, it could have the opposite effect. I don't see that religion is any different.

ju'iblex

I think it's a fantastic idea to teach children about religion at a semi-early age, if nothing else, take them to all the different types of places of worship and look at the differences in art and culture. mind you, religious art happens to be one of my favourite subjects, so that's just me. Even if you don't take them to an all out decorated church or temple or what have you, show them to them and talk to them about it with pictures from a book. Of course, I'm not entirely sure how old your children are...