Atheism is defined as not believing in God or Gods.

An Infidel does not believe in the validity of the scriptures and is a disbeliever in the Christian faith. (or Islamic faith by reverse)

By these measures I am an atheist and an Infidel. While these have been developed into stigmatized titles - I think that over time - and already apparent in some circles - these stigmas are rapidly changing.

I never was a boy scout. My small town didn't have a big scout population. Rich and conservative largely, almost all the kids spent their time at the beach surfing during summers. OP shorts, Hang Ten and all the beach fashions were much more evident than blue caps.

As for children needing faith...I disagree strongly. Children need understanding.
Classical 'atheism' is portrayed somewhat in Raoul's vein of philosophy - a big blackout - and a big blackout for grandma and greatgrandma does not sound too appealing to children. As well it should not - since human nature intuitively knows there is much more.

The concept of continuity and reincarnation, in my opinion should be introduced early into a child's lexicon. It should be explained sans hocus-pocus and based on very real and demonstrable scientific energy principles. The first being that energy cannot be created or destroyed - but always only changes form. This kids can understand. They will ask 'what is energy' and that can be explained by early introducing the concept of the atom which composes all things - and is really a resonating bit of energy.

The god problem is a nasty one and although it comforts kids 'that god exists' and is 'looking out for them', this in the long haul can lead into several problems:

A) Guilt complexes
If God is watching them, when they do something bad God will want to punish them and maybe even send them to 'hell'.
This can lead to paralysis and procrastination as they will not want to make some mistake which will damn them.

B) Resentfulness
After praying for a new Barbie and Skipper set, and not getting it - the child may feel God does not love them or is punishing them or loves others more. The child then may resent 'God' and then feel more guilty for this resentment.

I think Justin pointed out how many kids of strongly religious parents are very messed up - and this is no accident.

The children, recognizing they are going to hell anyway, can now feel free to do horrible things which no atheist would ever dream of doing because of their internal moral code.

Other kids become hellions and can tell themselves, that they will just be sure to repent later and take Jesus as their saviour and their passage through the pearly gates will still be assured anyway.

In general the daughters of the very religious are sometimes the 'loosest' (pardon the parochialism) as they see the hypocrisy as evidenced often by their parents 'sins' and rebel against their faith and their parents.

In the long haul, and this may seem sacrilegious to many, but religions generally hold one to a lower standard of morals than does atheism. The golden rules are swell and fine but the concept of repentance is IMO a much inferior one to that of 'balance' and 'corrective action'.

Religion serves a definite purpose. My parents were brought up Protestant, though neither actively. The church was primarily a social organ and a community link - and in that role it does a great job of knitting communities together, and if it did not come with alot of other baggage they would be wonderful.

When children understand that they have been around before - they will also understand why sister is better at playing the piano than brother, even though brother tries harder. Past proclivities remanifest themselves - and can keep in check a child's natural insecurity and jealousy.

Children also become much more rooted and interested in science when you explain energy and wave forms, frequencies etc. They will surprise one and reach - asking questions and wanting definitions and examples.

When I was a child I devoured the How and Why library and wore out the covers. Once the quest for knowledge is fanned there is an infinite desire which is never satiated.

Supreme beings are all relative. In my definition or philosophy - there is no ultimate being - as such is scientifically impossible in an infinite universe.

To believe in an omnipotent god is too condemn the universe to a finite state. (which is why the big bang is so ardently pursued as it creates an imaginary beginning or border)

I know better. (IMO;-)

The universe has beings which make the Christian and Islam gods appear like bloodthirsty, meanspirited savages - who have little conception of the wonders of infinity and judge others while their own actions somehow defy judgement.

By granting prayers gods would steal initiative and wreak havoc as the muslims pray for the christians death and vice-versa. By not granting prayers, god becomes an uncaring monster who lets children be born with deformities and crippling diseases - and these kids grow up thinking that somehow god doesn't like them as much or just didn't care.

And if this is their 'one shot' then god is horribly unfair and cruel to the point of the worst form of sadism.

No, such gods are relics of ancient eras.

The new era demands a scientific understanding of the universe and a redefining of infinite intelligence.

As Twain said, "Dream different dreams and better."

A single god with a bunch of mud and rib creations all with finite parameters is a lonely, lonely universe - and one I would be ashamed to be a part of.

AN infinite universe with an infinite number of beings all at infinitely varying levels of knowledge and understanding, living on an infinite number of worlds and even infinite dimensions, each being unique and infinite in potential - is the only universe worth living in (IMHO)

Best wishes,

The infidel known as

SDAI-Tech1