No you haven't, all you keep repeating is if you don't tell a child about the concept of God they won't form an opinion on God. No shit, belief and disbelief inherently requires awareness of the concept, I've stated that several times; there is no conflict between us on that point. I specifically discussed a scenario in which the child has been made aware of the concept; yet you have continuously avoided that and repeated your irrelevant idea of never forming belief if you're never told that I've never disputed.
I don't even bother reading your replies. You just keep repeating the same thing, even though I already demonstrated that you were wrong.
No you haven't, and your refusal to address the very specific and clear difference that i have pointed out between what you continue to argue and what is actually the discussion reflects you not only can't dispute my position but don't even understand your own position if you don't even realize it is completely irrelevant.
Like I said, I don't read your responses. You just want to say what you want to say without reading and understanding what I have to say. It's called a pissing match.
If you don't read my responses, how do you know that I haven't read or understand what you have said.
Interesting. I'll have to think about that for a bit. So if I understand what you're saying, it may have been possible for humans to evolve the trait of belief in a supreme being, whether or not that being actually exists. It is possible to imagine this belief conferring benefits, such as peace of mind, lower stress, etc, even if God doesn't exist. In fact, this reminds me of all of the tangible benefits of religion even in this life; numerous studies have shown that people who believe in God and/or follow a religion live longer, are healthier, have less stress, etc, than nonbelievers. I found plenty of research articles from professional journals attesting to these facts when I did a graduate school paper on the importance of religion in the 21st century. But the fact remains that every other trait that has evolved, for any species, has evolved in response to something tangible in the environment. This would be the only case of something evolving in response to nothing, or in response to an imaginary being. Seems far more likely to me that our practically universal desire for God and for the spiritual has evolved in response to a divine reality that cannot be seen, but can be experienced in other ways. The majority of people throughout history, in all parts of the world and all cultures, have experienced something they refer to as spiritual.
Let's go back to the beginning. The Genesis, so to speak, of our conversation. You said "if a child only believes in what is introduced to them, the child will only not believe in God if the idea is introduced to them that a God does not exist." Why would I even have to introduce the idea that a god doesn't exist? I don't believe that a god exists anymore than I don't believe that Bigfoot or the Loch Ness Monster exists. If my child asks me how we got here, I would grab a science book for children and explain it in the best way that I can. I would NOT say "well, some people believe that a supernatural power made the world in 6 days." If my child asks me about god, I would follow it up with another question "what do you think about god?"
I lost my reply, but I'll try to summarize ... throughout history, especially recent history, the Papacy has been recognized worldwide as a non-partisan advocate of human rights, peace, and freedom. The Pope is welcomed and respected by virtually all of the world's leaders, as an unbiased advocate for not only the 2 billion Catholics worldwide, in every country on earth, but for all of humanity. Unlike other world leaders, the Pope can speak on behalf of all people, since we are all God's children; he is free to speak the truth unencumbered by any political bias or agenda. In particular, the last few Popes have been outstanding; Pope John XXIII, Pope John Paul II, and Pope Francis. Here are a couple of excerpts from neutral, secular sources (Biography.com and the Encyclopedia Brittanica): Pope John Paul II "As the leader of the Catholic Church, he traveled the world, visiting more than 100 countries to spread his message of faith and peace. But he was close to home when he faced the greatest threat to his life. In 1981, an assassin shot John Paul twice in St. Peter's Square in Vatican City. Fortunately, he was able to recover from his injuries and later forgave his attacker. Legacy A vocal advocate for human rights, John Paul often spoke out about suffering in the world. He held strong positions on many topics, including his opposition to capital punishment. A charismatic figure, John Paul used his influence to bring about political change and is credited with the fall of communism in his native Poland." http://www.biography.com/people/john-paul-ii-9355652 Pope John XXIII "During the Cuban missile crisis of 1962, the pope publicly urged both the United States and the Soviet Union to exercise caution and restraint and won the appreciation of both President John F. Kennedy and Premier Khrushchev. His major encyclical, Pacem in Terris (“Peace on Earth”), addressed to all humankind, was received warmly throughout the world and praised by politicians as well as churchmen. Straightforward and frankly optimistic, it avoided the language of diplomacy and set forth the requirements for world peace in profoundly human terms. John saw himself as a reconciler. In statement after statement he emphasized the church’s significance as a suprapolitical spiritual force in the world. .... When he died in 1963, it was generally recognized that he had become one of the best-loved men in the world." http://www.britannica.com/biography/Saint-John-XXIII
The 10 Greatest Popes Here, in chronological order, are their picks: (from historynewsnetwork.org) 440-461 St. Leo I the Great He stared down Attila the Hun in 452 to prevent the sacking of Rome and later persuaded a Vandal king to spare the people. The first to rule that popes are successors to St. Peter with authority over all the faithful, "he established the pope as someone who could intervene in just about any affair," O'Malley says. He gave the "definitive teaching on the divinity and humanity of Christ," McBrien says. 590-604 St. Gregory I the Great He's one of only two "outstanding" popes in McBrien's ratings, for being a "genuinely pastoral pope." He "saved his people from marauding bandits, sold papal property to help feed them . . . and set a vision of pastoral care for the church," O'Malley says. The first monk to be chosen pope, Gregory dubbed himself "servant of the servants of God." Yet he also helped launch the evangelization of northern Europe that transformed Christianity. 1059-1061 Nicholas II The French-born Bishop of Florence became the pope who turned cardinals into kingmakers and cracked down on simony -- the buying and selling of church offices. Before the Lateran Council he convened, the pope was chosen by clergy, the faithful and sometimes secular authorities, O'Malley says. McBrien calls Nicholas a bad influence for his imperial pretensions. 1073-1085 St. Gregory VII He makes O'Malley's list for consolidating the papacy as a centralized monarchy of secular and religious power. In his heyday, Gregory famously brought German King Henry IV to his knees, making him stand in the snow for days begging forgiveness. Eventually, the pope lost control of the city to Norman invaders and was driven from Rome. But in his efforts to combat corruption and secular interference, he transformed the papacy into a legalistic office, an influence "mostly for ill," McBrien says. 1198-1216 Innocent III He broadened and deepened the lives of the medieval faithful by approving the Franciscan religious order, dedicated to preaching and healing, and the Dominicans, known for their learning, O'Malley says. He was also known for his "power and his pretentiousness," McBrien says. He promoted the disastrous Fourth Crusade and saw himself as "less than God but greater than humans," McBrien says. 1503-1512 Julius II He was "the antithesis of the Apostle Peter" and McBrien blasts him as a "warrior pope" known for arranging to sell indulgences to pay for building a new St. Peter's Basilica. (Indulgences are a way forgiven sinners can shorten or escape the punishment of purgatory.) That helped provoke Martin Luther's Protestant Reformation. Even so, O'Malley cites "his legacy of beauty." Julius persuaded Michelangelo to paint the Sistine Chapel, commissioned paintings from Raphael and assigned architect Bramante to design the new St. Peter's. 1534-1549 Paul III He convoked the Council of Trent, which organized the church in response to the Protestant Reformation. He cracked down on clerical abuses and established formal seminaries to train priests, O'Malley says. Paul excommunicated Henry VIII rather than grant him a divorce, thereby isolating England from the Catholic world. He also founded the "Roman Inquisition" to enforce doctrinal purity. 1846-1878 Blessed Pius IX His was the second-longest pontificate in history, including eight years he refused to leave the Vatican as a political protest to losing the papal state to the new unified Italy. He sparked a spiritual revival in 1854 with the declaration of the immaculate conception -- that Jesus' mother, Mary, was born without sin. And, in 1870, he pushed through the doctrine of papal infallibility in faith and morals, making the papacy the watchdog, teacher and final arbiter of doctrine, O'Malley says. But McBrien also cites him for condemning free expression and approving the secret baptism of a kidnapped Jewish boy. 1878-1903 Leo XIII Dubbed the "workers' pope," Leo laid the groundwork for Catholic social thought and the church's response to modern economics and industrialization, McBrien says. Generations of popes dedicated their writings to Leo on anniversaries of his encyclical on the subject. 1958-1963 Blessed John XXIII John was "the most beloved, ecumenical and open-hearted pope in history," McBrien says. In the 1960s he called the Second Vatican Council, turning the church to the 20th century with a broad series of reforms such as using the local language for the liturgy instead of Latin and issuing a document on the fundamental rights and dignity of all human beings. His encyclical on peace was addressed to all people of good will -- within and beyond the Catholic Church. This pope renewed the faith and reached out to the world, "radically changing relationships with other religions," O'Malley says. - See more at: http://historynewsnetwork.org/article/11485#sthash.36sGgDor.dpuf Again, from an unbiased, nonreligious source. Can't argue with the facts. Popes have thwarted dicators, saved countless innocent lives, brokered peace agreements, won major human rights victories, helped the poor and disadvantaged, and on and on. You can't deny these historical facts. (Note: Before people complain that 2 of the greatest popes are missing, Pope John Paul II and Pope Francis were considered too recent for this list)
The 10 Worst Popes http://www.oddee.com/item_96537.aspx 1 Pope Stephen VI: had his predecessor exhumed, tried, de-fingered, and thrown to the river Stephen VI was Pope from 896 to 897. Fueled by his anger with Pope Formosus, his predecessor, he exhumed Formosus's rotting corpse and put "him" on trial, in the so-called "Cadaver Synod" in January, 897. With the corpse propped up on a throne, a deacon was appointed to answer for the deceased pontiff, who was condemned for performing the functions of a bishop when he had been deposed and for receiving the pontificate while he was the bishop of Porto, among other revived charges that had been leveled against Formosus in the strife during the pontificate of John VIII. The corpse was found guilty, stripped of its sacred vestments, deprived of three fingers of its right hand (the blessing fingers), clad in the garb of a layman, and quickly buried; it was then re-exhumed and thrown in the Tiber. All ordinations performed by Formosus were annulled. The trial excited a tumult. Though the instigators of the deed may actually have been Formosus' enemies of the House of Spoleto (notably Guy IV of Spoleto), who had recovered their authority in Rome at the beginning of 897 by renouncing their broader claims in central Italy, the scandal ended in Stephen's imprisonment and his death by strangling that summer. Talk about bad Popes. 2 Pope Benedict IX: the Pope who sold the papacy 3 Pope Sergius III: ordered the murder of another pope and started the "pornocracy" 4 Pope John XII: raped female pilgrims and invoked pagan gods 5 Pope Leo X: sold indulgences, killed cardinals 6 Pope Alexander VI: nepotism, orgies and the rise of the Borgia family 7 Pope Innocent IV: introduced torture on the Inquisition 8 Pope Urban VI: complained he did not hear enough screaming when his Cardinals were tortured 9 Pope John XV: split the church's finances among his relatives 10 Pope Clement VII: his power-politicking with France, Spain, and Germany got Rome sacked _
You don't have to introduce the concept if you don't want to, and the child will the never have an awareness of a God, which means they neither believe or disbelieve. But that isn't the discussion. The discussion, which I have repeated and you continue to ignore, is not a child who has never been introduced to the concept and why a parent has not, but a scenario where the child has in fact been introduced to the concept and has formed an opinion of belief or disbelief already. Answer the fucking question that is posed, stop asking your irrelevant "why would I" question. I don't give a shit why you would, we are taking about the scenario in which it has. Your question doesn't have anything to do with your argument. If a child initiates a question to you about God then the child has already been introduced to the concept of God and is now searching out answers to influence their belief. You are arguing why would you make a child aware of the concept but then creating a scenario in which the child is aware. Not the same thing.
How far do you carry through the logic of your argument that why would you introduce your child to a fictitious concept? Do you not introduce your child to Batman, Superman or Star Wars because they are fiction? If you do, than your position not to do so in regard to the story of God is hypocritical and clearly has something else to do with other than because it is fiction. Your child must live a boring life if you don't tell them about any fictitious characters. They are probably mocked at school when they are so confused about this Iron Man all the kids like to play.
