Is religion harmful to children?
Debate Rounds (5)
Again, non-religious people can teach their children good morals, but to do so they must borrow principles from a theistic worldview that has an explanation for absolutes. For non-religious people who argue there is no Higher Power to turn around and criticize religious people strikes me as hypocritical.
By saying as such you must believe society would not exist without religion. That people cannot be people without religion. That they are no better than animals without a higher power.
Needless to say, I disagree.
People have morals before religion. A person can teach a child decency and respect without god ever coming into play. I must say though, long-term, religion can be harmful for a child's development. How can a child progress in life filled with fear?
Since an atheist cannot account for standards of any kind, how is it possible to criticize religious folks? Isn't it arbitrary to personally expect theists to follow certain standards when an atheist cannot account for them?
Again in regard to the topic, no one is criticizing religious people. It is simply being pointed out that religion may possibly have a negative long term effect on children's development, and instead of being scared and forced into religion from a young age, why not allow them to make educated choices based on their own beliefs?
(by the way, if you want to argue about borrowed morals, i would not mind opening another debate)
You're not criticizing religious people but think their beliefs could have a long term negative effect on children? This doesn't make sense.
Why do you assume religion imposes fear on children? I don't know why you make this assumption. If abused, religion can impose fear, but why are you making a blanket accusation?
Which brings me to my point. They are not borrowed. They are cultivated by personal experience. I am not being unreasonable (I am also not atheist but not the point). I can account for my own morals. They are mine.
I apologize. You are right. I was criticizing. Religion is, fundamentally, fear. Its the only way it motivates people (along with promises of an afterlife). Such a thing can only have a negative effect on a child.
You are assuming a lot about religion. I am a devoted born again believer, and am not motivated in the least by fear. You haven't done anything to document that claim. As someone apparently not religious, how can you feel so confident about how those who are religious feel?
I understand you feel you have your own morals, but how can you impose those views on others? That it what you are doing by claiming that religion is harmful to children. How can you do so while rejecting the only way one can have solid absolutes? I understand you feel your own beliefs are good enough for you, but you are going on the offense and attacking those of another. I'm yet to see evidence of your view.
I'm sorry, I find it difficult to write sufficient argument in 750 characters.
Though I'm non religious, I was raised with religion and went to both primary and secondary Catholic schools. We got given out to for not going to mass, forced to an hour of religion a day, and then to do a state exam in it. It's wrong.
And it's harmful for children, that telling them having sex is wrong, feeling desire is wrong, homosexuality is wrong.
How can you tell a child these things? By teaching a child religion from an early age, you're removing it's free will to look objectively at the world.Fundamentally, you are teaching a child to be entirely dependant on the world, on god/s. You're disabling the child. A child is too young for something so powerful.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by Hierocles 3 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: Overall, this whole debate got off topic. All but the last round was about the metaphysical, or lack thereof, source of morality rather than whether or not religion is harmful to children. Con gained some ground in the round by arguing that religion provides a beneficial moral foundation for children. Pro took some ground from Con, by undermining Con's moral ontology claims but I think Con still wins this one on potential marginal benefits in the moral foundation of children. Pro could of won this debate if she provided arguments, especially one's supported by scientific social studies, that demonstrated how religion is harmful to children's psyche. She made her best arguments in the last response, all of which were totally new, and never gave Con an opportunity to respond. Therefore, I can't fully consider them in my decision.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.