Why Atheists Send Their Children to Religious Centers?(New Question)

It has been opined by the atheists that the religion is harmful for society at large in general, and for young children in particular, who are force fed harmful ideology. Then the natural question is-why atheists send their children to Religious Centers? Why this contradiction?

I do not know about other religious communities, but I am talking about Muslim community. I personally know three families in Muslim community, who (one or both parents) do not believe in God and attack religion ferociously, but all three of them send their children to Islamic Centers. I am sure some of the participants also know some such families in their communities.

Let me suggest possible reasons behind it, and participants can write their comments;

1- They think it is ok to have atheist believes themselves, but not good idea for children?

2- They are hedging their bets?

3- They are afraid that the children and they themselves might get isolated from the community?

4-    Under pressure from grandparents of children?

5-    One parent (usually mother) wants to take children to Islamic Center, but other (usually father) with atheism views faintly grumbles but does not stop it? ( He usually fights with teachers and management)

6-    When it comes to girls, no matter how strong atheism views of parents, mostly both parents’ wants to send them to Islamic Centers?

7-    No matter how viciously they attack religion, the parents still believe Islamic Center is still good place for children to learn some morals and values?

If some atheist feel so strongly against religion, as the comments on our website suggest, then why compromise on any of the above grounds? Of course it is not true for all atheists in all Muslim communities, but it is true about all three families I am familiar with.

Happy New Year!




‘Begging To Differ’ By Catherine Z Elgin

An interesting philosophical discussion on difference of opinions; A quote by Bertrand Russell is appropriate before reading the excerpts.

“The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser men so full of doubts.”

The author writes:

.” Resoluteness fosters dogmatism; 

Full excerpt from article;

Disagreement abounds. People disagree about everything from sports and politics to science and child rearing. When disagreements stem from the manifest ignorance, bias, or stupidity of one of the disputants, they are epistemologically benign. That someone who clearly does not know what he is talking about disagrees with you gives you no reason to rethink your position. But some disagreements are more worrisome. Equally intelligent, knowledgeable, thoughtful and open-minded people often disagree. Let us call such parties intellectual equals. Should disagreements among intellectual equals give us pause?

Epistemologists disagree. Conciliatory thinkers such as Hilary Kornblith hold that it should. If Fred recognises George as his intellectual equal, he has no basis for thinking that his opinion is better than George’s (or that George’s is better than his). So when they disagree, conciliationists maintain, both should suspend judgement. Advocates of resoluteness such as Thomas Kelly recommend holding fast. If intellectual equals who disagree are always required to suspend judgement, scepticism looms. Given the range of topics on which we disagree with our intellectual equals, we know very little. Resoluteness is permissible, they maintain, because everyone makes mistakes. It is open to Fred to think that where they disagree, George must be mistaken. He is then within his rights to dismiss George’s opinion. Unfortunately, George can think the same about Fred. Resoluteness fosters dogmatism; we are always entitled to dismiss the opinions of intellectual equals who disagree with us by assuming they have made a mistake. Neither scepticism nor dogmatism is an attractive option. A third alternative is that disagreement among intellectual equals provides some reason to rethink one’s position but does not require revising or repudiating it. In that case, parties could reasonably agree to disagree. The challenge is to make room for this position.

Read full Article by clicking on link;


Posted by F.Sheikh

Khudd’a (God)-Qata’a By Mirza Ashraf

 It relates to the subject, whether there is a God or not. In my view the most complex and difficult to understand is “man” whether evolved or a creation of Intelligent Design.
Shakespear in Hamlet:
What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals—and yet,
to me, what is this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me—
nor woman neither, though by your smiling you seem to say so.
خدا دیکھا نہیں پھر بھی سمجھنا اُس کو آساں ہے

نہیں کوئی خدا کہنا ، سمجھنے سے بھی آساں ہے

مگر ہے کس قدر مشکل سمجھنا بندے کو اشرف

جسے خود میں خدا اور بندہ ہونا کیوں کر آساں ہے