:::Also, in many fundamentalist religious groups, children are brought up in ignorance of everything apart from what is taught to them by their parents, or teacher. Or, they are taught in a slanted view, which distorts the truth. All this because those parents or teachers seem afraid that their young charges may find something in another viewpoint they like more than what they are being taught! That '''is''' morally wrong. The choice should be the child's not the elders'. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:16, 17 April 2007 (EDT)
::There's a reason that William Shakespeare's dramas, King David's tribulations & and the Andy Griffith show (how's that for a unexpected twist?) are timeless stories that affect us in the same way as when they affected those to whom these stories were first told. They affect us all the same way because human nature does not change. The truth is we all love, hate, breath, live and die. The human condition is infinitely variable, but human nature is constant. Of course, there are countless examples of this simple and plainly evident truth. I'm quite sure I'm not the first one to tell you that human nature is the same. In fact, this truth is the foundation of our concepts of equality and our freedoms of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
::It may offend your sensibilities, but some people don't agree with your opinions about religion. In American, they don't have to agree with you. They can believe whatever they want. Thus, most American parents teach their children that America is a free country, where people can believe whatever they want. Further, they teach their children their own family's values and religion. Some people are Baptists or Muslims or Hindus. Some people (like you) prefer like to teach their children to sample a hodgepodge of all religions so that they will better understand atheism. That is their right. Please don't take it away from them. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:11, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
==Selective application of logic==
Isn't it amusing that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age, but the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:06, 22 April 2007 (EDT)
::No, i disagree (although of course i would, i am a so-called liberal). I think that the reason is that there are facts about sex and that religion is more hazy, in that there is very little proof on both sides of the arguement, and it becomes philosophical which is harder for a child to deal with. However i think that sex education should start at around age 13, which is about the same time i think children should start to seriously consider their religion or beliefs. [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 15:03, 23 April 2007
You disagree with what? You disagree with:
::* The assertion that so-called progressives and liberals would like to postpone the discussion of religion until a child comes of age;
::* The assertion that the same crowd wants to proactively educate children about sex at the earliest possible age;
::* With the idea of teaching children family values;
::* With the idea of teaching children regilious values;
::* With the idea that sex education should be postponed;
::* All of the above;
::* Something else?
You don't make much sense to me.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:18, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:Aside from the fact that you've ignored the bulk of what Bolly wrote and focused mainly on a fairly trivial thing that he said, you seem to think that "we" (being us liberal bods) are applying selective logic by saying we should teach about "sex" and not religion. In fact, by your reasoning, "you" (being the conservative bunch) are applying the same selective logic by saying that we should teach religion but not teach "sex". A horrible dilemma for you, don't you think? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 11:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::1. I've not ignored anything anyone said. Please explain.
::2. I'm sorry that I've seemed to confuse you. Please allow me to explain my interpretation of the conservative position on the education of sex and the education of religion.
:::* One should teach children family values, morals and religion at an early age. This is for the child's benefit and for the benefit of mankind. (As an adult they can do whatever they would like to do, provided they don't break the law.)
:::* Regarding sex, the conservative position is that it is desirable to prolong the child's innocence by postponing sex education as long as possible.
::I'm sorry if this flavor of common sense offends you. Furthermore, I'm sorry but I can't begin to understand why this common sense would support in any way the ridiculous notion that "religion is morally wrong" by ''any'' definition of "religion" as posted below by another editor. As best as I can figure from the poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled statements above here's what I suppose the liberal position is:
:::* One should not teach children about religion because religion is evil. They won't come to realize how evil religion is until they reach 13 to 25 (commonly known as the Age of Rebellion). As a quick aside, it is a universal truth that the older people become, the wiser they become. I wonder why churches are full of old people?
:::* One should teach children about sex as soon as they are old enough to masturbate. This is because masturbation is healthy and can lead to an active and enjoyable sex life. It's important for children to understand the dangers of STD's and how to avoid pregnancy through the use of pills and condoms. Furthermore, all children should be aware if a little girl wants want an abortion, she can safely get an abortion without her parent's ever even knowing that she was pregnant. In this way she can continue with the lifestyle of her choosing without parents invading her right to privacy. If a child has a child and ends up dependent on the parents or the system, it's the conservative's fault for not talking about birth control more.
::Please correct me if I've mistated the liberal position.[[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 12:12, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
:::You ignored the fact that Bolly made a valid point about the definition of fact and religion, and the age at which children should be educated about "sex".
:::Secondly, you say yourself that the statements written above are "poorly written, badly punctuated and misspelled" and then go on to derive a definition from them!? Surely a better course of action would have been to take the definition from some credible source? As to what you have said, I would agree with most of what you define the conservative view to be, apart from teaching children a specific religion at an early age. I suppose it comes down to setting an age where innocence is lost (and I doubt many are naive enough to think that that is the age of consent). People under the age of 16 will have sex (not all, but some) and if no sex education is available for them, what sort of experiences will they have? Is it not better that from a certain age (and I would say that 13 is a good age for this to start) children are introduced to the idea of safe sex, with few (and preferably one) partner(s)?
:::You're right though, we have divulged from the debate topic, but this is an interesting tangent to the debate which I would very much like to continue if you care to carry on? [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:50, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
::For the second time, I'm ignoring Bolly's "valid point" because I have no clue what you are talking about. I didn't read any valid point which wasn't addressed ''ad nauseum'' already. Please read the dialogue to this point if you are confused as to why I think it's ridiculous (and invalid) to demand that other people teach their children ''your'' values. I've already explained why this is ridiculous above.
::I attempted to derive a definition from Bolly's statement only to appease your pretense of indignation when you accused me of ignoring Bolly's alleged "points". By your reaction, I'm now assuming that you just haven't read the entire argument yet and that you concur, Bolly made no points in the gibberish above. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 13:30, 23 April 2007 (EDT)
My point was that i think that children should be educated about sex and religion at the same age. This is because it is the age where both become major issues for children growing up. Please do explain how this is hard to understand, and how this is a selective application of logic. (I apologise for my poor grammar, it is because i write my line or thought and arguement down the same way i would say it out loud) [[Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 11:42, 24 April 2007
::You don't need to keep writing the same thing over and over and over. We already understand your opinion about how ''you think'' things should be. You've made that quite clear.
::What you still don't seem to understand is that you don't have the right to tell other people how to live, nor do you have the right to teach other children your beliefs. That's pretty self-centered. You're self-centered nature is further evidenced by the fact that you admission that you would prefer to force others to spend their precious time deciphering your cryptic musings directly from your stream of consciousness, rather than taking the time and effort to write coherent sentences with good spelling and grammar. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 10:55, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
==Age at which sex education should be taught==
:::I understand what you say, but I don't think that's what you mean. What you are actually saying is that you have defined your image of God and unless God conforms to your idea of what God means/is and then someone else proves to you that idea is true, then you will not believe in God. Have you considered the possibility that what you thought of as God is just a magical bogeyman? Have you considered the possibility that God is something else entirely than what you thought as a child and later realized was preposterous when you grew up? What we teach children about God is drastically simplified for their consumption. It up to you to purse the truth of God after you realize there is no magical bogeyman. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:27, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
==Why Atheism is ridiculous==
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 16:56, 27 April 2007
==Is Atheism Ridiculous?==
[[User:Bolly Ottihw|Bolly Ottihw]] 17:13, 27 April 2007
==Questions and Answers==
As an aside I find this assertion amusing, "As an aside i think that to say that as you grow older you grow wiser is slightly misguided." I'm not so much suprised that someone who believes there is more wisdom in youth than in age doubts the foundations of the philosophies that provided his every waking and sleeping daily need. I wish I were that naive again. [[User:Everwill|Everwill]] 08:21, 27 April 2007 (EDT)