This Is Why You Don’t Introduce the Bible to Children

Of course they ride bikes! How else can they masturbate without guilt?

i’ve never really understood why people think it’s a “wholesome” text. the same people who get their panties in a bunch at every pride parade “gay people dancing naked in public! won’t somebody think of the children!!1!” want their kids reading about incest, rape, torture, mass slaughter and bashing babies’ heads on rocks. um, whatever.

I am a parent of a 12 year old boy. We belong to an Ethical Humanist Society in LI, NY.

Whenever I’ve tried to tell my child about the bible, the conversation really starts to sound absurd. The Bible sounds like fairy tales to my son! When he looks at me with that, “That sounds crazy!” look, I realize that even though I am familiar with Bible Stories, they sure do sound ridiculous when you try to repeat them.

I have also taught in the secular Sunday morning program for children at EHS, and they have the same reaction.

They are bored. They would rather talk about social action, or saving the environment, or anything else.

I thought that Dale McKowen was right when we created the term, “Religious Literacy.” I thought it was impt for the kids to know about this stuff. But it bores them!

Here’s another reason: my four-year-old nephew is about to say his prayers at night, and he asks me, “Is God going to hang me from a cross like he did Jesus…and leave me there?” The tone of his voice was both frightened and a little fascinated, like he knew that is a really bad thing to do and found it interesting that God would do it. I got shivers…my impulsive little nephew did not need to have violence like this floating around in his head at that age. I’d much rather him be fascinated by baseball or bikes or board games. Of course, he’s only ten now, and they gave him a gun and let him shoot his first deer, and they put blood all over him and made him feel great about the accomplishment. Gotta love it. But it’s all good because god gave us dominion over the animals. They remind me of this anytime it comes up that I’m a vegetarian.

Mary:
Didn’t you know that “God” intentionally made animals tasty so that people eat them? Did you know that little nephews are delicious in BBQ sauce?

On the other hand, if we’re supposed to eat animals, then how come they clog our arteries and make us fat? How many heart attack victims eat fried chicken and steak?

Maybe the “forbidden fruit” was actually a chicken??

Wohoo, a Danish cartoon involving religion that won’t get anyone killed or threatened with death!
Right? Right?

@Jason Greenlee
The dictionary would agree with you. Just open the page and show her

1. a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.
2. a system or collection of such beliefs.
3. a custom or act based on such a belief.
4. irrational fear of what is unknown or mysterious, esp. in connection with religion.
5. any blindly accepted belief or notion.

Or an alternative:

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition
2: a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary

The most sensible translation is the LOLcat Bible. Guaranteed to soften the blow.

http://www.lolcatbible.com/index.php?title=Main_Page

Naasson – are you actually serious about that question, or are you being facetious?

I’m just asking, because that’s the kind of question that generally provokes roars of laughter amongst atheists.

If you do honestly mean it, and honestly are interested in an answer, I can give you one if you really need it. I am, however, painfully used to theists saying things like that and having absolutely no interest in the response. As I have no interest in having yet another discussion with someone who doesn’t read what I say, and then tries to declare ‘victory’ when I end the discussion and use my time more profitably (like talking to a wall), you’ll forgive me if I don’t give you an answer immediately.

I can give you a multitude of answers, actually, it’s not hard.

Naason:

Paintings have painters. Buildings have builders. Designs have designers. Therefore, creation must have a capital-C Creator, right?

Unfortunately, while initially compelling, this is no more than a clever linguistic trick. When you say “creation has a creator”, what you actually mean is “creation (which is created by a creator) must have been created (by a creator).” In other words, by labeling the universe “creation”, you assume that the universe was created a priori, and then use that assumption to deduce that that assumption is true.

For the record, we have also thought about and come up with reasonable objections to the following claims and more:

* That radiometric dating is junk science,
* That evolution is totally unprovable because it takes so long to happen that nobody can witness it happening,
* That gaps in the fossil record prove that evolution is no more than a guess,
* That the coexistence of apes and humans proves that humans did not evolve from apes,
* That DNA/RNA is code, code is information, and the only source of information is an intelligent mind,
* That the relative locations of the Earth, Moon and Sun are so perfectly arranged to support life that they could not have happened by chance,
* That four billion years ago Earth’s magnetic field would have been so strong as to completely obliterate all life,
* That many if not most biological systems are “irreducibly complex” …
… and so on. Take your pick.