So, what’s wrong with that??? Belief in God has to be taught. Otherwise, probably nobody will believe in God. And if belief in God develops thru a diffcult moment in life, I think it aids to the creditability of belief in God.

But I don’t think it matters how a person gets their religion. What matters is the value of it.

What many people don’t know is Religion is a way of life. How someone practice living everyday according to purpose, beliefs, and/or truth. For example: some people religiously are vegatarian; or some people religiously go jogging everyday. So whether your religion is well-known and practice by many or whether your religion is only known and practice by you; everybody in the world has a Religion (a way and practice of living life).

So, I believe everyone is religious and whether it was develop while growing up or found outside the home, the value is the root and heart of it.

Now pure religion is rooted in Truth and the heart is Love. Without truth and love, the way a person live is destined to end. But the infallible truth and pure love can survive no matter what. And there is only one pure religion.

The difference between making religion illegal and making baptism illegal is that people are free to practice their own religion. Children are not free to opt out of a baptising. It is a limit of the freedoms they should have been born with.

You also seem to be suggesting that people can’t be left until a certain age without religious influence because there are other external factors that would taint their opinion anyway. Wouldn’t God have entered their lives without religion being pushed on them by their parents? Are you afraid that without the constant interjection of religion into their lives they would be free to explore the options and fairly assess them? It certainly comes across that way.

I’d also question your assertion that becoming religious after a traumatic experience is “a way to take full responsibility in a way that could otherwise be impossible”. They are joining a club that guarantees forgiveness and tells them that everything is part of their creator’s plan. If it is part of a plan, then it was always going to happen regardless of what actions they took. That doesn’t sounds like they are taking responsibility, quite the opposite in fact.

I’ve never met anyone who has been intellectually dissatisfied with atheism. The great thing about atheism is that it is constantly providing answers. Unlike a fixed text written thousands of years ago (that has already been proven inaccurate and contradictory), it is evolving as science provides us with more information, more answers, and more questions. Anyone who is intellectually dissatisfied with atheism is inherently dissatisfied with learning and curiosity. Religion will never provide more answers than it currently does because the holy books cannot be added to, they can only be interpreted differently (and we know Jesus’s view on that). On the other hand, I’ve met many agnostics who come to the inevitable opinion that at some point they have to make a decision, most become atheists. I’ve also met many many people who have left religion because they have found the answers they have been given to be inaccurate and insufficient, and the teachings to be intolerant and nonsensical.

I’ll just close by saying this. If you are not content to accept that your life is “just a meaningless accident”, maybe you should start living it to its fullest. I am content in my life, I don’t have a need to feel like I’m part of some great plan, and quite frankly I pity those that do have that inadequacy.

Rise
Yes, this is the normal way to experience religion, and the religious views of the parents will inescapably effect the children. It is a tragedy when fundamentalists merely indoctrinate (as opposed to educate) their children. I hope I am not guilty of that. But this is equally true of atheists or anyone else who has an opinion on anything. Don’t think that simply waiting until your child is 18 and then suddenly being able to choose from a ‘clean slate’ is possible. By that time TV and their peers will have induced them into the semi-coma that modern adults have become accustomed to. True religiosity is a feature of almost all cultures. It is atheism that has arisen relatively recently, which is one of the reasons that culture in the full sense is declining. Baptism or its equivalent is a perfectly normal procedure. To make it a crime would be equivalent to making the religion itself a crime, for it is the natural expression within a family. Indoctrinating a child with atheism can be just as dangerous… fundamentalist atheists (like Dawkins) abound. It is really a kind of anti-religion, and has its own set of beliefs and justifications of a particularly damaging kind on society.

Fall
Yes, it is difficult to change religions (or pick or drop one) because very simply it is difficult to move between cultures. Ask anyone who has married someone of another race. Religion is not just a matter of a few beliefs so memorise and be able to spit out when required, but much deeper than this. At least true religion!

Regarding your analysis of religious motivation:
I agree that tragedy can often be the spark for religious feeling. The adage that there are no atheists in foxholes is probably reasonably true. But that should not cast aspersion on the person who is seeking existential answers and finds that religion provides them. The motives vary enormously in my own experience. It is far too simplistic to assert that it is “a way to absolve themselves of responsibility.” Even in the case that the disaster is their own fault, often it is a way to take full responsibility in a way that could otherwise be impossible.

People in difficult circumstances often turn to religious because it is frequently amongst these people and only here that true charity can be found. While governmental social services can be a help they are normally completely functionary – a totally non-human way of relating to another human being. But if you think that Mother Teresa, say, was simply out to convert poor innocent Hindus by saving them from starvation, you clearly don’t know much about her.

Finally I would like to add that of course people in a difficult situation will be curious about the motives driving someone willing to go out of their way to help. Would you simply prefer Mother Teresa to have stayed indoors or pretended that actually her faith had no part of her interest in the sick and dying? People in hard circumstances need more than “logical premises”! But charity is certainly more convincing yet, because it is real and not just in the head.

Finally, I would like to add that there is another signficant (and rising) type of convert: one who is intellectually dissatisfied with the atheism, or better, agnosticism of the age. These are people who have no particular emotional or physical difficulty, but grapple with the ultimate questions of life, existence, death and eternity and are not content to accept the dogma (that is all it is) that the universe (and therefore their life) is simply a meaningless accident.