And life goes on...

But I believe atheism is the truth, cimics.

Sounds like you've missed the point.  :)  OK, so you believe atheism is the truth.  What consequence occurs if your child becomes a Christian?  He believes some things (from your perspective) that aren't true about the world, but likely you figure he's still going to be a decent person and have a good life.

For a Christian, however, being an unbeliever means forfeiting eternal life (or perhaps worse).  The Christian cares about his child's well-being not just in this life (which is temporary) but in the next (which is eternity).

Doesn't that prove my point, and that you do think you are superior?

I believe that I have a better grasp of the truth than you do, if that's what you are looking for.  But if that's thinking superior, then you are guilty of it as well.  If that doesn't qualify, then I would say no, because Christianity holds that no one is saved by their works.  

I don't think I miss the point, cimics. You are simply the victim of Pascal's Wager.

I had a feeling you'd bring that up.  But Pascal's Wager says you should believe because of the risk of what might happen if you don't.  That's not the issue here.  The issue is why you want your child to hold a correct belief.   There is no wager there.  From a Christian perspective, if your child holds the incorrect belief then he WILL miss out on eternal life.  While I haven't taken a poll, my experience has been that most Christians do not believe in Pascal's Wager.  They believe in Christianity because the evidence (most commonly the Bible, but can include other stuff) convinces them that it is correct.  You are confusing consequences as a reason for belief with consequences as a motivation to show people the light.

I had a feeling you'd bring that up.  But Pascal's Wager says you should believe because of the risk of what might happen if you don't.  That's not the issue here.  The issue is why you want your child to hold a correct belief.   There is no wager there.  From a Christian perspective, if your child holds the incorrect belief then he WILL miss out on eternal life.  While I haven't taken a poll, my experience has been that most Christians do not believe in Pascal's Wager.  They believe in Christianity because the evidence (most commonly the Bible, but can include other stuff) convinces them that it is correct.  You are confusing consequences as a reason for belief with consequences as a motivation to show people the light.

I don't know what Pascal's Wagner is, but I couldn't disagree more with the statement I bolded. Christian children are taught from a young age that if they do not follow God (and all that implies) they will suffer eternal d--nation. I would say that's a pretty strong motivation to believe. If Hell were taken out of Christian teachings altogether, I wonder how many more people would stop believing when they got older. My guess is Christianity would be viewed almost universally as just another myth.

I think to be raised Christian and then still reject it because you know it has no basis in reality, after having been taught that to do so results in eternal d--nation, takes the utmost amount of courage.

I don't know what Pascal's Wagner is, but I couldn't disagree more with the statement I bolded. Christian children are taught from a young age that if they do not follow God (and all that implies) they will suffer eternal d--nation. I would say that's a pretty strong motivation to believe. If Hell were taken out of Christian teachings altogether, I wonder how many more people would stop believing when they got older. My guess is Christianity would be viewed almost universally as just another myth.

Christian children are taught the Bible stories as well.  Your claim is speculative and for the purpose of this thread, really beside the point.  For whatever reason, the Christian adult believes Christianity is true.

If the adult believes it on the basis of Pascal's wager (the threat of hell is close enough to what it is for our purposes), he still wants his child to be Christrian out of concern for the child rather than out of a sense that Christians are superior.  

As for me, I believe Christianity is true because of the evidence.  So I would not be a "victim of Pascal's wager" as Stathei put it even though my motivation for wanting my child to be a Christian would be based on the eternal consequences.  The critical distinction being basis for belief vs motivation to help others see the light.   My basis for belief is the evidence, but my motivation for wanting my child to believe are the eternal consequences.

Perhaps an analogy will clarify.  Suppose my child likes to drink a particular advertised "health" drink, but my research confirms that drink's advertised benefits are nonexistent, though the drink itself is not harmful.  I may figure, if it makes my child feel better to drink it, no big deal, even though my child believes the drink will have these good nonexistent health consequences.

But suppose my research reveals that the drink is actually a slow poison.  Then my child's wrong view about it's good health effects would concern me.

The concept of Pascal's wager is a terrible arguement for Christianity.

You beleive in something just because if it IS true, the consequences are bad? Do you also forward chain letters in fear of death? Do you avoid black cats? Do you live you life based on a horoscope? I HOPE that you would answer no to these, even though the consequences of ignoring them are claimed to be terrible!

The real shame comes from not from casual theists. The real problems come from people who:

- Make Laws based on religion (Bush)

- Kill based on Religious beleifs (Christians, Muslims)

- Judge non-theists (Every religion)

- Devote entire lives to teaching fairy tales

On top of these obvious reasons, why would you close your mind to the FACTS around you?

We see the negative side of religion every single day. Al-Queda, for example is all about pleasing their flavor of "God". How many more people have to die over the fairy-tales before the human race WAKES UP!?

Religion is a parasite. It rapidly eats away the ability to think. unfortunately, for most people, this parasite strikes before they ever had a chance to think on their own.

Cimics, the Christians superiority complex is not based on them thinking they know the truth - as you point out, Atheists would also have a superiority complex were that true. The Christian view is different because they think they will "be saved from eternal d--nation", i.e. they are worthy of saving, whereas Atheists are not.

Pascal's Wager applies because you think your children are better off believing. You are a "victim" because that only applies if there is a 50:50 chance of there being a god. Based on all evidence there is no real chance of there being a god (I note someone describes "evidence" in the Bible - that is the best circular argument since the old parental standby "because I said so").

I do agree it takes courage to step out from under the burden of a Christian upbringing. I had a relatively mild version and it was very hard to shake it off - not so much because of the hell part, but because of the paternal heavenly "Father" figure supposedly taking care of me. Becoming an atheist is a little like growing up - it takes maturity and guts to leave home and get a job instead of living off your parents.

Cimics, the Christians superiority complex is not based on them thinking they know the truth - as you point out, Atheists would also have a superiority complex were that true.

Ah we agree on something!!!

The Christian view is different because they think they will "be saved from eternal d--nation", i.e. they are worthy of saving, whereas Atheists are not.

That's just ignorance of what the Christian view is.  Nobody is worth saving.  But God will afford grace to those who are willing to accept it.

Pascal's Wager applies because you think your children are better off believing. You are a "victim" because that only applies if there is a 50:50 chance of there being a god.

They are better off because God exists.  That's what I think.  I'm not playing the odds.  That's your game.  For me to be a victim of Pascal, I would have to actually utilize Pascal-type reasoning.  For you to attempt to do so on my behalf begs the question.

Based on all evidence there is no real chance of there being a god (I note someone describes "evidence" in the Bible - that is the best circular argument since the old parental standby "because I said so").

Saying the Bible is evidence is no more circular than saying evidence is given when a witness testifies at trial.

Saying the Bible is evidence is no more circular than saying evidence is given when a witness testifies at trial.

It is also no more circular than using the works of Darwin to prove evolution, but I'm sure you wouldn't do that.

Cimics, we actually agree on just about everything. There have been hundreds of gods - I just believe in one less than you do    .