It's true that Tony Beam could see my proposal as an attack on his right to pass down Christian Values. A less likely possibility is that he could see it as an opportunity to evangelize the children of people who are not already members of his church, as well as an opportunity for others to evangelize for their views.

I suppose it depends on how obviously superior he thinks his views are, compared to the other religions all the children would be told about.

If I may rephrase what I think you're saying: Christan parents (and others) should be prohibited by law from teaching only one relgion to their children. (You didn't specify how the law could be enforced - but I presume the only practical way would be compulsary education in comparative religion.)

To what extent is this the same or different from prohibiting these Christian parents (and others) from "passing their religious values down to their children"? On the surface, I can see how they may be seen as different - since they'd still be allowed to pass on "values" and even teach doctrine. When we consider what Beam might mean by this, and how he might understand my rephrasal of your words, they are not so different after all.

I speculate: Beam belives the best way to "pass down Christian values" is to teach only views which are compatable with his worldview. If this is so, then from this point of view it is true that Jim Baerg, at least, wants to prevent him by law from doing this, since Jim Baerg wants Beam's children to be subjected from an impressionable age to views which Beam believes are authored by Satan himself.

I happen to side more with Jim Baerg in this discussion (and speculation), but we should be clear that it's possible that Beam really does understand Jim Baerg here, and really does "know his enemy." If this is not immediately apparent to my fellow atheists here, I suspect it's because we are guilty of not knowing our own enemy.

The question which needs to be asked now is whether the enforcement of the word "should" in your comment should be by force of law or merely by force of the parents own good conscience. That's the point in contention.

For the record, I'm starting to agree with this "good case which could be made" - although, again, the question is whether this should be enforced by law.

I don't know that we can say it's completely fictitious. After all, in The God Delusion, he does seem to be saying that it's better to be fondled by priest than indoctrinated by one (p317/318). In a footnote about "focus on your own damn family, he says that "maybe some children need to be protected from indoctrination by their own parents." In chapter 9, he quotes Nicholas Humphrey who said that parents should "not be allowed" to teach the literal truth of the Bible, just as they're not allowed to knock their children's teeth out.

Why am I not surprised that you didn't get it. What Dawkins is talking about is that he thinks parents should not be allowed to teach their kids known falsehoods, to lie to their kids, because the kids will believe it to their detriment. He also objects to the psychological torture of telling kids that they are evil and going to hell. And, BTW, he also objects to labeling kids as Xian, Muslim, atheist, whatever, until they are old enough to make up their own minds.

Beam repeats the charge that Richard Dawkins wants to ban parents from teaching children about their (the parents') religion. Shocking! Scandalous! And also completely fictitious.

I don't know that we can say it's completely fictitious. After all, in The God Delusion, he does seem to be saying that it's better to be fondled by priest than indoctrinated by one (p317/318). In a footnote about "focus on your own damn family, he says that "maybe some children need to be protected from indoctrination by their own parents." In chapter 9, he quotes Nicholas Humphrey who said that parents should "not be allowed" to teach the literal truth of the Bible, just as they're not allowed to knock their children's teeth out.

I think the only leap of fiction here is Beam's use of the words "by law", but even that's a small leap to make, especially when you consider the source. Dawkins does indeed say that his (and especially Humphrey's) comments in chapter nine need to be qualified, but what are we to conclude? Are Dawkin's statements, as Ebon asserts, moral and not legal in nature. What is the difference in practice? If it's only moral, should we conclude that Dawkins believes anti-fondling laws are unnecessary? If only the disclaimers Ebon linked to focused more on these actual statements by Dawkins and not some petition I don't care about.

They believe absolute truth is a myth and objective, fact-based reality is a fairytale told by fools.

I believe Ebon misunderstood Beam here. If the Bible and the story of Jesus is understood by Beam to be both "absolute truth" and "fact-based reality", then we do indeed believe that it is a myth and a fairytale, although I personally would stop short of "told by fools." Beam is correct here, so the ensuing suggestion that he does not "know his enemy" is misplaced on ths point.

"Basing your life on reason is to me very limiting, because you can only reason with the knowledge you have."

Philosophical paradox:

The letters "ration" in "rational" mean simply "reason", thus "rational" means "pertaining to reason." If someone claims that it's better to be intuitive than rational, how can you convince him without giving reasons? He could respond that your reasoning is sound, yet his intuition tells him that it's better to follow his intuition. At that point all you could say is that you have good reasons to be rational.

My own intution tells me that it's better to follow reason.

Sociologist studied the impact of religious practice on American teenagers. They found kids who were described as “devoted” or “regular” participants in religious activities did better than their un-churched counterparts. They did better at school; they were more active in the community; and, contrary to what Dawkins says, they scored higher on measures of “emotional well-being.”

I would be in your debt if you could provide specifics, so I could look into this. I'll admit that I'm skeptical. Several questions spring to mind -- is this correlation or causality? Do we know whether the "unchurched" in this study are not believers with social problems? Who did the study? What controls were in place? Has it been repeated? Are there similar studies which reach the opposite conclusion?

Your main complaint, however, seems to be that you feel Dawkins gives short shrift to salvation through Jesus Christ, am I correct? I'm not sure why this is a sticking point, however. Xianity still holds to the doctrine of hell, and that is still a rather unpleasant thing to pollute a child's mind with. Hell is a threat. god is threatening us. If we don't do as god says, he will send us to hell. This is mental abuse, no matter how you slice it, even if god turns around and says that he will reward us for following him. If we were to look at a real world example, it would be like a tyrant. Take Saddam Hussein for instance. He rewarded those who were loyal to him, but he punished severely those who were against him. Do we consider Saddam a good person because he was good to his friends? Of course not. So, why would we do the opposite for god? There's even more to the story, like the fact that god made us sinful by nature, so he is punishing us for being the way he made us, etc, but I don't think we need to go into that in great detail to get the gist of what's going on here.

Finally, to clear up something, why do you think that atheism = purposelessness? We are rational beings quite able to make a purpose for our own lives and live it. Knowing that this is all we have makes us treasure our time here on Earth and live life to its fullest. Conversely, the thought of having an afterlife cheapens the life we have. In fact, if I thought I were going to heaven, I would want to die. And, why shouldn't I? If heaven is so great, then why should I be here on Earth in a substandard environment? Why should god continually test me instead of letting me be with him, especially if he supposedly loves me?

Also, atheists generally do not hold that there is no god. Atheists generally hold that there is no evidence for a god and no rational reason to believe that such an entity exists. Hopefully you understand the difference.

This fellow needs to understand the difference between a positive claim and a negative one.

If I say you ARE a murderer - do I need to provide evidence of this? Indeed the evidence of this claim needs to be proved 'beyond reasonable doubt'.
If you say you are NOT a murderer - do you need to provide evidence? Not by any standard that would be deemed fair and reasonable.

So a theist says there is a God - the burden of proof is on them to convince others as to the veracity of the claim.
An atheist says there is no God - because the burden of proof has not been met.

"It persists because it gives the impression of being honest and objective, asking one only to accept what appears to be based on facts and on the assured results of scientific investigation or scholarship."

This is more than just an impression, and leaves out a crucial point - fallibility. When new facts about the world we live in are uncovered, the scientific consensus can shift. New theories replace old ones, new experiments and approaches give us greater understanding of our world and can sometimes radically alter the way we perceive it.

Compare this to the claims of infallibility put forward by religion. There is no God but God, and there are explicit statements threatening death and violence against all those who would claim otherwise.

"that is, when we die, we become worm food, and the universe soon forgets that we ever existed. The idea that there is nothing beyond the grave is the stuff of countless anxieties. So a message of hope is abuse, but a message of purposelessness is ok?"

When we die? What about that annoying little speck of time between birth and death? No mention of that (this being part of the atheist argument - that it is THIS LIFE that matters).
Afterlife - an argument used by religious despots over the millena, that life's a bitch and then you die - but hey after that its all good!

What purpose is served in going to heaven/hell? Does Gabriel tell you at the Pearly Gates to 'get a job'? What is Heaven/Hell other than a fantasy version of a Retirement Home/Fat Camp - oh right that is part of 'Gods Purpose' we are not meant to know.

In his book, The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins argued that religious belief is delusional. He mocks the irrationality of believing in something that you cannot subject to scientific scrutiny; he rails against the so-called “immorality” of the Bible, like the sanctioning of slavery—untrue—and the alleged way that religion, especially Christianity, stands in the way of scientific progress—also untrue.

Dawkins makes a really gutsy, yet stupid, ascertion that religious belief is a kind of child abuse. By “child abuse” Dawkins is not referring to the scandals involving sexual misconduct by Catholic priests. He means that teaching a child about Christianity can damage them psychologically and emotionally. Aside from the fact that he doesn't demonstrate it using logic or reason, he goes further by saying that however “odious” sexual abuse is, he “suspect[s] that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place.”

Now Dawkins is the king of the straw man arguement, but he is also a man of contradiction...but hey, we're all hypocrits right? Dawkins’s accusations of child abuse are so absurd that it is hard to take them seriously. But someone will, so it is important to correct the record. According to Dawkins, the "mental abuse" is the result of of teaching children that nonbelievers will spend eternity in Hell. Dawkins calls this doctrine “an extreme threat of violence and pain” and “mental terrorism,” but of course doesn't demonstrate how and why it is abuse in the first place. He then rhetorically asks, “If you can sue for the long-term mental damage caused by physical child abuse, why should you not sue for the long-term mental damage caused by mental child abuse?”

Ok, let's assume that his arguement is not simply invalid to begin with, what does he believe? Christianity teaches that there is a Hell and that the unrepentant wicked will spend eternity there. But it also teaches that through His death and resurrection, Jesus freed those who believe in Him from that fate. To leave Jesus’ saving work out of any discussion of Hell is a distortion of Christian teaching. So it has a message of hope, whether you believe it or not does not matter, and whatever your personal bias maybe is irrelevant in this discussion. It is, however, unfair to criticize Christianity for its teachings on the afterlife without discussing the atheistic alternative presumably preferred by Dawkins and the other “new Atheists”: that is, when we die, we become worm food, and the universe soon forgets that we ever existed. The idea that there is nothing beyond the grave is the stuff of countless anxieties. So a message of hope is abuse, but a message of purposelessness is ok?

Let's not forget that Dawkins leaves out what else religion teaches, but that would not suit the agenda of his book. Sociologist studied the impact of religious practice on American teenagers. They found kids who were described as “devoted” or “regular” participants in religious activities did better than their un-churched counterparts. They did better at school; they were more active in the community; and, contrary to what Dawkins says, they scored higher on measures of “emotional well-being.”

That means that in this case, Dawkins ascertion would be wrong. That is what Dr. Beam was commenting on. I would rather you keep on topic about the article, other than use this as a personal ranting platform of your incorrect assumptions, personal biases, and your own personal disagreements. If God is fake, then Christians should be pitied because they are throwing their lives away over a day dream. Surely a flight of fancy should not be able to draw the vitriolic response I read above. Santa Clause, Jack and the Bean Stalk, and other fairy tales never conjure such an emotional response.

You hate the accusation that atheist create their own reality, yet you turn around and accuse religious people doing the same thing? Then claim that atheism has proof for the basis of its belief? Wow, that is quite a claim, and apprently one you didn't bother to back up, and I will venture to guess that the "proof" you cite is not abundantly clear, and religious people believe the same way you do, but you both can't be right.

Atheism does have a general outline of certain beliefs, that may or may not be embraced by all atheist:

1.) Matter is all that exists. There is no God/deity/uncaused cause/supreme being/creator.

2.) The cosmos exists as a uniformity of cause and effect in a closed system.

3.) Human beings are complex "machines"; personality is an interrelation of chemical and physical properties we do not yet fully understand.

4.) Death is extinction of personality and individuality. There is no afterlife.

5.) History is a linear stream of events linked by cause and effect but without an overarching purpose.

It persists because it gives the impression of being honest and objective, asking one only to accept what appears to be based on facts and on the assured results of scientific investigation or scholarship. It appears to be coherent to a vast number of people, and the implications of atheisms premises are worked out and acceptable. Human beings are the makers of value, which is a delusion as human existence is an accident. It assumes that there is no god, no spirit, no life beyond the grave. It disallows us to be the center of the universe but it allows humans to place themselves there, to make of themselves and for themselves, something of value. It gives you the power. That is why it is psychologically and emotionally appealing.

I find it interesting that a race, here by accident with no value or purpose, is constantly seeking it. Now many of you will immediately write me off as a "Christian nut," but really I do not care. Just be careful the next time you want to criticize someone when you do not have the full story or context. We all base our worldview or beliefs upon assumptions, and we all accept the premises on faith, atheists included. We also all believe ourselves to have good, rational, logical, and factual reasons for our beliefs, and we all belief we have proof and support for our beliefs. I hope I have cleared up whatever misunderstandings here.