It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is teaching religion child abuse?

page: 10
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman



you're telling me what i think now?


Answer the question. Typical fundie, always answers a question with a question.


no, i've never even heard of anyone abused because of religion, unless you're thinking of those hoax stories about satanism in the 80's.


This shows just how deluded and narrow-minded you are. Do you not think that the people who followed the 'pastor' at Jonestown were abused because of their religion? They wouldn't be there if it wasn't for their 'faith'.

Do you not think that the raped children in Christian institutions were abused because they were Christian? They wouldn't be there if they weren't Christian.

I can go on and on with this. Religion is sick. At the top of the hypocritical 'sick list' is Christianity.


and if your brother is discussing the people he helps with you, he's a jerk.


I think you better watch your tone. It's amazing what people will say on the internet - I'd love you to have the guts to say that to my face. You're living up the to the title of ignorant fundie yet again.

Parallex.




posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Benji1999
 





So how can it be 'right' to bring up children with the golden rule, but 'wrong' to bring up children with religion ?


The golden rule is a suggestion, a best practice that has a tendency to do what it is set out to do without enforcement and wholly relies upon agreement. People working (thinking) together for their mutual benefit and greater good.

Religion is almost always an absolute a practice that is purely for the benefit of the deity, it's morals are dictated through fear and separation the follower are aware they may never experience the benefit (if any) of thier religion while they live.

I am not saying it is wrong to bring up a child in religion but I am claiming that religion tends to be abusive to children for the very reasons I have earlier stated.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by mamabeth
 





It depends on which branch of christianity you are talking about?


I simply look at what it's founder has to say -




But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me.



I think I'm referring to the branch of Christianity that follows this guy.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Deaf Alien
'Right' and 'wrong' are more of philosophical terms.

Actually we can say that the Golden Rule is not really about morality, but practicality. Do you want to live and have rights in a society? Then treat others with the same rights.


I have to disagree with you on this point. The most practical outlook on life is to be amoral. Imposing any kind of restriction upon yourself on how you can and can't act is always going to be a disadvantage.
Someone can easily live and have rights in a society without obeying the golden rule.
I can think quite a few instances in my life when I could have done something immoral that would've benefited me and get away with it; but I didn't because I've got a moral compass.
So really, I've failed to take advantage of opportunities because of my morals.


Hurting other people is not 'right' or 'wrong'. If you want to hurt others, you have to expect others to do the same to you. You can't get away with it.

It works every time.


Sorry, but once more I have to disagree with you.

What you say here appears to turn morality into sub-conscious karma.
I'm sure most of us could find some unfortunate victim to hurt if we wanted to. Why don't we, though ?
You can easily get away with hurting others if you wish to. The fact that the world is so messed up is largely down to people who don't follow the golden rule.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:22 PM
link   
Just a reminder that religious discussions can get heated and that personal attacks and name calling will not be tolerated. Any further instances may result in further action.

Please keep future posts on topic and not on the poster.

Thank you.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:33 PM
link   
reply to post by Benji1999
 




Imposing any kind of restriction upon yourself on how you can and can't act is always going to be a disadvantage.


No. It is not imposing restrictions on yourself. The other people do. Imagine being on a small island with the other person. You'd have to watch your back all the time, correct? You'd have to trust that person. You'd need a third party to watch each others' back. And so on and on.

That's other subject, other time.

I suppose anyone with death wish could hurt or kill others. Eventually, that person will be taken down.

Again, it is just common sense.



Someone can easily live and have rights in a society without obeying the golden rule.


How? By hiding yourself in your home all the time?



I can think quite a few instances in my life when I could have done something immoral that would've benefited me and get away with it; but I didn't because I've got a moral compass.


Like what?



You can easily get away with hurting others if you wish to. The fact that the world is so messed up is largely down to people who don't follow the golden rule.


I beg to differ. It's the RELIGION that is responsible for the world being so messed up.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 06:37 PM
link   
After reading the first page of posts, I feel like I'm going crazy!



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:53 PM
link   
I think it’s a form of brain washing not actual child abuse as such though.

I have 2 girls of my own; they have friends who go church. I have always told my girls if they wish or feel the need to go to church that I will take them, only I would not join them. They have never asked to go. Our 13 yo asked to go to a church fun group, I checked it out of course and found they play games and to me it appears as a fun teenage social group. I let her go and she came home saying she had a good time but hasn’t asked to go back; I let her make up her own mind. I think she realized that she didn’t need it as her social life is quite busy enough without the churches influence. I have raised my 2 girls as best as I could possibly do.
My basic parenting rules are as follows and I think they have worked as my 2 beautiful children are caring, loving and confidant girls.

: If you need to faith, have faith in yourself first
: To respect someone you must first respect yourself
: Never turn the other cheek, if you see or hear about cruelty, harassment or any other injustice. You must tell someone
: Always think outside the box
: If you see yourself on the side of the majority, step back and take another look
: Don’t take anyone’s word for truth, find out research and come to your own conclusion

So that’s just some of my wisdom for raising beautiful children. If I wrote them all I think I could write a book lol



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Who is to say there is no right or wrong? I may be an atheist who accepts the possibility of a creator (just not any of the man made deities), but I accept that there is an apparent ability to discern right from wrong.


But what merit is there in ascribing the values of 'right' or 'wrong' if you believe that God doesn't exist ?
What if someone believes that it's 'right' to kill ? How can their view of 'right' reconcile with yours ?


The way I like to think of it, if I would not want it done to me or my own, it's wrong.


Precisely. You say ''The way I look at it'', which means that your view is based on individual moral relativism.
What if someone else believes that it's right to do anything they like, regardless of it's impact on others ?
What make your idea of 'right' more valid than theirs ?


Do I want to be screamed at, beaten or humiliated? No.
So why would I subject my children or anyone else to such acts?
Religious people have to understand, you don't need God to be moral.


The sad fact is that there's plenty of people that do scream, beat and humiliate their children ( and presumably wouldn't want this inflicted on them ). These parents obviously think it's ok to do this, so what makes you assume that your viewpoint is 'right' and not theirs ?
I don't think that someone needs to beieve in God to be moral,it's just that without God morality can only ever be based on an individual basis.



Originally posted by sirnex
That is complete BS as far as I am concerned. Please cite your sources of information that state this of atheism. All Atheism is, is a disbelief in all man made deities as actual entities and creators. I don't know which deity if any you personally believe in, but whatever the case may be, disbelief in all others makes you a mild atheist.


As far as I can see, if you don't believe in an intelligent creator of the universe, then by inductive reasoning you must believe in an unintelligent force or creator. If the force is unintelligent then the values of 'right' and 'wrong' must be ascribed by us.
I think we may have varying opinions on what the definition of 'atheist' is,
I consider it as a disbelief in God - not just ''man made'' deities and creators.
Either someone believes in God, doesn't believe in God ( which covers atheists ) or is not sure ( ie. agnostics ), in my opinion.
I haven't got any sources to back up my statement that you queried, but I'll just ask anybody to suggest where absolute 'right' and 'wrong' could come from without God.
* Also, when I use the word 'you' in this post and most discussions, I'm using it in it's plural sense; I could have used 'one' instead, but that'd sound a bit pompous.



Originally posted by sirnex
Who is to say there is no right or wrong? I may be an atheist who accepts the possibility of a creator (just not any of the man made deities), but I accept that there is an apparent ability to discern right from wrong.


But what merit is there in ascribing the values of 'right' or 'wrong' if you believe that God doesn't exist ?
What if someone believes that it's 'right' to kill ? How can their view of 'right' reconcile with yours ?


The way I like to think of it, if I would not want it done to me or my own, it's wrong.


Precisely. You say ''The way I look at it'', which means that your view is based on individual moral relativism.
What if someone else believes that it's right to do anything they like, regardless of it's impact on others ?
What make your idea of 'right' more valid than theirs ?


Do I want to be screamed at, beaten or humiliated? No.
So why would I subject my children or anyone else to such acts?
Religious people have to understand, you don't need God to be moral.


The sad fact is that there's plenty of people that do scream, beat and humiliate their children ( and presumably wouldn't want this inflicted on them ). These parents obviously think it's ok to do this, so what makes you assume that your viewpoint is 'right' and not theirs ?
I don't think that someone needs to beieve in God to be moral,it's just that without God morality can only ever be based on an individual basis.



Originally posted by sirnex
That is complete BS as far as I am concerned. Please cite your sources of information that state this of atheism. All Atheism is, is a disbelief in all man made deities as actual entities and creators. I don't know which deity if any you personally believe in, but whatever the case may be, disbelief in all others makes you a mild atheist.


As far as I can see, if you don't believe in an intelligent creator of the universe, then by inductive reasoning you must believe in an unintelligent force or creator. If the force is unintelligent then the values of 'right' and 'wrong' must be ascribed by us.
I think we may have varying opinions on what the definition of 'atheist' is,
I consider it as a disbelief in God - not just ''man made'' deities and creators.
Either someone believes in God, doesn't believe in God ( which covers atheists ) or is not sure ( ie. agnostics ), in my opinion.
I haven't got any sources to back up my statement that you queried, but I'll just ask anybody to suggest where absolute 'right' and 'wrong' could come from without God.
* Also, when I use the word 'you' in this post and most discussions, I'm using it in it's plural sense; I could have used 'one' instead, but that'd sound a bit pompous.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 07:58 PM
link   

No one says there is no wrong as far as I know. Except religious idiots trying to argue against atheism.


So, what is 'wrong' ? And how do you come to the conclusion that 'wrong' is wrong ?


A great deal actually. If fish cost $3 a LB and suddenly jumped up to $10 a LB while supply and demand remained unchanged, that's just BS and wrong. I wouldn't be able to eat as much fish anymore, and I love fish.





No, not at all. Unless your an Al-Qaeda sympathizer? Should we just allow people to teach their kids to blow themselves up in some holy Jihad?


Yes, 'we' should allow them to teach their kids that, because your view that it's 'wrong' for them to do that is equally as valid as their view that it's 'right' to do so.
*My above post was made on the hypothetical proviso that atheism is correct.


Perhaps if we got our heads out of God's ass we would be able to realize there are no contradictions. Atheism only asserts that there are no God(s), there is nothing else to it other than that. How can that be contradictory? In order for atheism to be able to contradict itself, it would have to state that there are no God(s) and then devise it's own deity to believe in. Do you understand what Atheism is or are you arguing against it with ignorance of it?


My apologies if my point that you're replying to came across wrongly. Judging by your reply, it appears that I didn't put across my point as well as I would have liked to.
When I said 'contradictions' I wasn't saying that the actual atheist world-view contradicts itself, but rather that the practical conclusions that can be drawn from the atheist outlook inherently contradict themselves.
For example:
It's wrong to murder people.
It's wrong to impose your views on others.

Yet someone else thinks it's ok to murder people, so how can you imprison them for committing the crime ?
I don't mean to bang on about it, but the atheist outlook is entirely based on individual moral relativism.
If ''person A'' considers murder to be wrong, then how can he enforce his personal morals on ''person B'' that thinks it's ok to murder ?
And if ''person A'' does believe he can punish ''person B'' for his misdemeanour, then how can he reconcile that with the belief that ''it's wrong to impose your views on others'' ?
I hope that I've made myself clearer.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by Benji1999
 



So, what is 'wrong' ? And how do you come to the conclusion that 'wrong' is wrong ?


((snip)) I was pretty clear I thought on how I can personally deduce what thing's would be wrong.








Yes, 'we' should allow them to teach their kids that, because your view that it's 'wrong' for them to do that is equally as valid as their view that it's 'right' to do so.
*My above post was made on the hypothetical proviso that atheism is correct.


Atheism has nothing to do with morality, so the hypothetical proviso is pointless and meaningless to what atheism is. In light of the statement you have made, I'm rather appalled that you would be OK with parents raising their children to blow up your children.


My apologies if my point that you're replying to came across wrongly. Judging by your reply, it appears that I didn't put across my point as well as I would have liked to.
When I said 'contradictions' I wasn't saying that the actual atheist world-view contradicts itself, but rather that the practical conclusions that can be drawn from the atheist outlook inherently contradict themselves.
For example:
It's wrong to murder people.
It's wrong to impose your views on others.


You draw conclusions from horse feces. Interesting. Atheism has nothing to say on morality itself, you can not simply draw moral conclusions from something that has nothing to do with morality. Your asserting an unfounded biased opinion upon a system of belief in an attempt to argue against it. All this does is show how ridiculously idiotic one can be. I would advice either rephrasing your 'points'/assertions or learning what atheism really is and perhaps listen to what an atheist has to say about atheism.


Yet someone else thinks it's ok to murder people, so how can you imprison them for committing the crime ?


Just as religion says thou shalt not murder/kill, atheist's DO hold this same view. I would not want to be murdered/killed, so I can't consciously act out this against someone else.


I don't mean to bang on about it, but the atheist outlook is entirely based on individual moral relativism.


((snip)) Atheism is about non-belief in all deities, nothing more,nothing less. That's all there is to atheism, look it up before you argue against it.


If ''person A'' considers murder to be wrong, then how can he enforce his personal morals on ''person B'' that thinks it's ok to murder ?
And if ''person A'' does believe he can punish ''person B'' for his misdemeanour, then how can he reconcile that with the belief that ''it's wrong to impose your views on others'' ?
I hope that I've made myself clearer.


Contrary to your idiotic claims of atheism and what you think it is about, we DO hold life as precious and sacred. Unnecessary death of another life IS wrong, regardless of who may think it is OK. Unless you are of the opposite opinion that life is not sacred, that we can just dispose of another person as we please. Oh wait... God commands in the bible this very act be done against non-believers. ((snip))

Mod note: Personal attacks against other members will not be tolerated. General ATS Discussion Etiquette – Please Review This Link.


[edit on 1/6/2010 by TheRedneck]

[edit on 1/6/2010 by TheRedneck]



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
reply to post by mamabeth
 





If you and I were in afghanistan,world war three would begin.You, being an atheist and me, a fundamental baptist,would be the catalyst for global destruction.I would be trying to teach the children about Jesus.You would be trying to convince the children that Jesus was a mythical fairy


No M, you may be trying to teach about jesus, I'd teach them to read.

It's 2:25 am here M, I have no sleep apart from the the tinnitus the the hum of my PC the world is silent.

Through the window the snow is falling creating tomorrows playground. The glow of the amber street lights chasing away the dark in this this now pristine cul de sac. Memories of Turkish delight and Christmas day when decorations were made of green and red crepe paper, thank your god for my wonderful memories eh M? Neat trick having a pocket full of happiness to warm my cold hands.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Benji1999
 




But what merit is there in ascribing the values of 'right' or 'wrong' if you believe that God doesn't exist ?

I do not understand how this is difficult for you to understand?

We all understand pain, correct?

If you do not want others to cause you pain, then do not cause them pain. Correct?

See, I didn't invoke any god into this.



What if someone believes that it's 'right' to kill ? How can their view of 'right' reconcile with yours ?

If that someone tries to kill me, then I'll defend myself and possibly kill him. See?

No god or goddess involved here.



What if someone else believes that it's right to do anything they like, regardless of it's impact on others ?

Then they wont go far. If I have someone threatening to hurt or kill me, then I'll do anything to preserve my right to live.

It's no different from say a bear attacking me or a weather threatening my life. I'd have to do anything to survive.



The sad fact is that there's plenty of people that do scream, beat and humiliate their children ( and presumably wouldn't want this inflicted on them ). These parents obviously think it's ok to do this, so what makes you assume that your viewpoint is 'right' and not theirs ?


Because that could have been you. And ultimately everyone. Imagine letting them have their way and then it progress into something worse. Then it ends up in your doorstep.



But what merit is there in ascribing the values of 'right' or 'wrong' if you believe that God doesn't exist ? What if someone believes that it's 'right' to kill ? How can their view of 'right' reconcile with yours ?


Logical deduction.

You want to survive?

By logical consequence you do not want someone else to kill you.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:11 PM
link   
I think that those who believe in the religion being taught look at it as being moral. Those who do not believe in anything even close to the religion being taught would, naturally, consider that subject to be wrong (maybe not quite abuse). I doubt many Christians could be found who are completely understanding and accepting of Paganism being taught to children. Same thing on the other side - Atheists would probably agree that it is wrong to teach a child Christianity because it "brainwashes" them. It should always be something that the parents or guardians should take care of, not any educational bodies (excluding religious organizations).

I, for one, think that every child should be taught either every major religion without bias or no religion at all (lack of religious education, not atheism). If parents want their children to learn about a religion, then they should send them to a religious school. I do not, however, think that teaching any religion to a child is child abuse, so long as it is not being shoved down the child's throat. Intellectual purposes only.

I also think any religious education at all should be exclusive to higher education because the parents should be the sole providers of religious education during childhood development.

That's my basic thoughts on it, though I could go on for hours about the philosophy of religion...



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 10:28 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


And you completely ignored my answer. Way to show intellectual honesty there moocow.



posted on Jan, 5 2010 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


You know i did realize something and i will humble myself here. I did inadvertantly avoid directly answering your question.

Here is your answer moocow

I do not think there is a good reason to teach a child that there is an invisible man who will torture and kill them for disobeying him, because i know of no empirical or philosophical evidence that can even definitively state whether said invisible man exists or does not exist. And should said invisible man exist i am not capable of knowing its true intentions in regards to whether or not my child obeys it. Should the invisible man exist then i would suppose it would be a good reason to tell my child to believe in said man is so that they can add a degree of safety to their life.



***(If you ask loaded questions you are going to get complex answers. Please do not insult my intelligence and i will try my best not to insult yours.)***

[edit on 5-1-2010 by DeathShield]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 05:15 AM
link   
reply to post by DeathShield
 





***(If you ask loaded questions you are going to get complex answers. Please do not insult my intelligence and i will try my best not to insult yours.)***


Dude, I didn't deliberately avoid answering your question and id you're giving me a complex answer please consider that the question may also be complex and not necessarily loaded.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:06 AM
link   
reply to post by moocowman
 


Did you at least see what was wrong with your question? I mean if i said to you. "give me one good reason why you should let your child be ignorant to the glory of god and putting him at risk of being killed by god" How would you respond to that? That itself is a loaded question because it presupposes that god is real and kills people according to their loyalty towards him or it and that this is what i am actually teaching my child. It is a rhetorical trick intended to shut down your oppositions argument. It is purposely constructed to lead you to the conclusion that there is no good reason. Don't BS me with this " well it is a complex question not loaded." Because that is horseballs a loaded quesion is by its' very nature complex. If you say otherwise than i am afraid i must assume that you are fearful of being wrong on your stance of god and the teaching of god because right from the get-go you have no real interest in hearing your oppositions argument. Instead you wish to play an atheistic game of "holier than thou" with people you have no intellectual respect for. I see this BS all the time with fundementalist christians.

Now you could have responded by saying " well how do you know i don't believe in god how do you know that i do not think god is real" to which i would tell you. "You have made your stance clear in this thread and others on your beliefs in regards to god, you argue that teaching children about god is harmful and that god does not exist. Therefore when answering you i operate under the a priori that you do not believe in god therefore i can logically deduce that your arguments will be based on the assumption that god is not real. But the assertion that god is not real is NOT a fact therefore i can not give you a straightforward answer. "

No instead you just reposted the question again without even bothering to define whether or not god exists and whether or not i was actually teaching my child to be fearful of him.



Instead of answering me by saying " well i didn't take
all that into consideration when thinking it up, i see why you did not directly answer. Lets assume that the presumptions in the question are correct, that there is no god and that it would be harmful to teach your children that he is real because they fear for their lives" I would then give you a straightforward answer.

But no, instead you focused on the weakest part of my argument. And your response still operated under the assumption that there was no god and that i was teaching my child that it is indeed "a certainty that there is a being that conforms to whatever description that you choose based on your belief, and no evidence, and this being is to be feared for its' violent retributions for not believing in or complying with its' alleged dictates."

Who here is actually teaching their kids that? I'm not, if anything i am raising my kid to be an agnostic because i want him to come to these conclusions on his own. And why are you assuming that this is what religious people are telling their kids? Are you in every single religious persons home monitoring with what and how they are teaching there kids about god? No you aren't You are operating under the assumption that this is what most religious. Like i said before, you are right there are people who are teaching there kids these exact things, but this does not account for every religious person because there are various and multiple views on the reality and nature of god.

Edit number 1:
I'm sorry if i come off as emotionally charged on this, it's just every single time faith is brought up i have to go into these unnecessary long winded diatribes about how to properly construct an argument or why i can not give a definite answer and usually end up receiving character assassinations and other ad hominem why simultaneously combatting blanket generalizations that do not apply to me or other people i know.

Edit number 2: Do you ever get tired of hearing people say " well since atheists do not believe in god they have no moral compass"
and then trying to explain to people why atheism does not equate to a lack or morality or ethics?


[edit on 6-1-2010 by DeathShield]

[edit on 6-1-2010 by DeathShield]



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:08 AM
link   
I have been reading some of the postings on this thread.I am finding,
that most people don't have a problem with religion.They have a problem
with the beliefs being forced upon them and their children.

As a christian,we are duty bound to spread the gospel.Some christians
are very forceful in their approach,which is often times detrimental to
their mission.



posted on Jan, 6 2010 @ 06:14 AM
link   
reply to post by mamabeth
 


Think of it this way beth. Would you rather have someone accept our lord and savior out of fear or out of an actual desire to know and understand him? I am not god but i get the feeling that he would prefer people find him by true desire than by fearful desire.



new topics

top topics



 
18
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join