The Instigator
brironi
Pro (for)
Losing
0 Points
The Contender
Vox_Veritas
Con (against)
Winning
12 Points

Parents should not be allowed to impose religion on their children.

Do you like this debate?NoYes+1
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 3 votes the winner is...
Vox_Veritas
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 11/26/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 1,645 times Debate No: 65896
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (21)
Votes (3)

 

brironi

Pro

Parents should not be allowed to impose religion on their children.

The imposition of a parent's religion on their child should not be allowed due to the fact the child would be unable to determine whether or not that religion suits their own individual viewpoint. This is true for the following reasons;

1. Imposition of religion is harmful to a child's health in both psychological and social ways.

2. The child is likely to maintain that religion throughout his/her adult life and will therefore cause them to be ignorant in the future.

3. The majority of religions are primitive and not fit for the squo

4. Organized religion can have harmful effects on society.
Vox_Veritas

Con

I accept.
As my opponent is making a positive claim ("Parents should not be allowed to impose religion on their children") and he is challenging the status quo (many parents "impose their religion" on their children), my opponent has the Burden of Proof.
Also, as my opponent has stated his case in the First Round, it's reasonable to assume that the First Round is NOT for acceptance only.

1. "Imposition of religion is harmful to a child's health in both psychological and social ways."

Oh? Could you provide proof for this claim? If you're in a setting full of Christians, having Christianity "imposed" on you is beneficial to your chances of sociality. If you're in a setting full of Muslims, having Islam "imposed" on you is beneficial to your chances of sociality. If you're not in this group, it could hurt your chances of sociality. How's atheism magically exempt from this?
Are you perhaps talking about some other way that being taught religion impairs your 'social ways'?
How about psychological health? Explain to me how exactly being taught religion is psychologically harmful whereas atheism is not. If you believe in evolution, then you'd believe that religion has been part of the human condition for thousands (possible tens of thousands) of years. Until about 500 years ago (and in a few civilizations such as Ancient Greece), being religious has been the default. That is, the overwhelming majority of human beings who have ever existed have believed in some sort of deity or held some form of spirituality.
How is that which has been the default for eons be harmful? Wouldn't evolution root it out if it were detrimental to the psychological health of human beings? Wouldn't the fact that the vast majority of humans throughout history have been religious suggest that religion is around for a good reason?
Again, explain how religion is harmful to one's psychological health.

2. "The child is likely to maintain that religion throughout his/her adult life and will therefore cause them to be ignorant in the future."

Before we continue, I demand that you show me that religion causes ignorance in human beings. If you're referring to Creationism:
1. Creationism isn't necessarily wrong just because you may say it is.
2. Even if it were, plenty of religious people do NOT believe in Creationism.
Also, throughout history and to this day there have been plenty of very intelligent people who believed in God for all of their lives.

3. "The majority of religions are primitive and not fit for the squo".

Prove that most major religions are primitive. Granted, there are plenty of indisputably primitive religions, but they're nearly extinct. Anyway, answer the question. Is it that they were established thousands of years ago? If they actually were divine revelations from God, what would their age matter?
Also, how are they not fit for the squo (whatever that means)?

4. "Organized Religion can have harmful effects on society".

I won't dispute the possibility of religion having harmful effects on society, but religion, organized or not, can also have beneficial effects on society.

Anyway, I hand this back over to my opponent. May the better debater win.
Debate Round No. 1
brironi

Pro

brironi forfeited this round.
Vox_Veritas

Con

My opponent has not upheld his Burden of Proof, and he has also forfeited. Unless he comes back to complete this debate, then you should cast your votes in my favor. Thank you.
Debate Round No. 2
brironi

Pro

brironi forfeited this round.
Vox_Veritas

Con

Vote for Con!
Debate Round No. 3
21 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by dhardage 2 years ago
dhardage
Ah, there it is, the loving Christian response, someone might shoot your nose off. That is exactly the response I expect from someone who cannot tell reality from fantasy and gets angry when their pretend world is threatened with facts.
Posted by Phaedra 2 years ago
Phaedra
I agree with this statement.

Children are forced from an early age to be forced into a particular religion, and have a forward way of thinking that they would otherwise not have chosen.

They should be able to chose their own religion from an early age and should be introduced to a broader range of them before making a choice.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
You raise YOUR children how you want. YOU keep your nose out of other peoples business. In some places you could get it shot off.
Posted by dhardage 2 years ago
dhardage
One need not impose atheism. It's the default position of any child until they are introduced to religion. This happens before the child is fully capable of reasoning in almost every religious household. It can be implicit, such as praying at every meal, or explicit, like being read bible stories every night and told that God is watching everything you do. That, to any an all who wish to know, is imposing religion. Studies have shown that children so treated have greater difficulty telling the difference between fantasy and reality so yes, it is harmful and, in my view, a form of brainwashing. It's exactly how they inculcate the worship of their leader in countries like North Korea. Once so indoctrinated, it become very difficult to see anything but what one has been told.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Miss...... If you have the right words you can create worlds.Life and death are in the power of the tongue. Words are the main theme of the bible.
Posted by Conservative101 2 years ago
Conservative101
Parents should not impose atheism on their children. Or agnosticism. Or any ism. Let's keep parents from giving their opinions to their children. In fact, parents shouldn't even be allowed to talk to their children. You know what, let's put the kids in a nursery so they never get to hear about the evil, horrible religion from their parents. Because belief in God and loving others is such a terrible thing. Give me a break.
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Words have power, and for those you will listen, annunciate the truth. Words begin and end wars. Words create and destroy families. Words break hearts. Words heal them. Words teach. Words hurt and words heal. Words ask question and words answer. Words can calm a crowd or words can cause a riot. If you have the right words, you can change the world.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Tell me . o mighty mental wizard, what effect do words have on our circumstances and the environment we find ourselves in?
Posted by missmedic 2 years ago
missmedic
Epistemology is the study of knowledge, and how we come to achieve it. A proper epistemology allows us to gain valid understanding of the world, and identify incorrect ideas. An epistemology based on reason is our means of successfully acquiring knowledge. An irrational epistemology, though, impairs the functioning of the mind. The more irrational it is, the less valid the knowledge one has is.
Like all misbegotten notions, most irrational epistemological theories or assumptions are not practiced consistently. The result would be an inability to deal with the world. Instead, an irrational epistemology is practiced inconsistently. It impairs the mind when it is used, but it is often ignored allowing limited real use of one's mind.
When someone claims to have supernatural knowledge, or the ability to gain knowledge in a way that you are unable to, their claims cannot be considered valid. If someone claims to be able to speak to their god, and tells you what god demands, you have no reason to accept it as true. In fact, it should be rejected. If he claims to have knowledge which you are incapable of achieving, his beliefs must be rejected. If one has to accept the knowledge of others, he must use reason in order to decide which others to listen to. Again, if there is no evidence or contrary evidence for accepting a person's beliefs, it is not an act of reason. It is an act of faith.
There's a lot of confusion about what exactly faith is. Many people confuse belief with faith. It's said that if you believe something, you must be taking it on faith. This is a denial of the fundamental distinction between reason and faith. It pretends that evidence for or against an idea is irrelevant.
Posted by cheyennebodie 2 years ago
cheyennebodie
Your problem is you are limited only by what you see around you. There is another whole world out there that you cannot see. And that effects life more than all the inter-actions of people. And that is why in the long run you will be found wanting.

Like I said, I walked through the old and new testaments and they never led me to mecca or rome. The 1st chapter of geneses started the Christian religion. And Jesus fulfilled that promise. Yopur problem is not education, it is a lack of it.
3 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Vote Placed by lannan13 2 years ago
lannan13
brironiVox_VeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Agreed with after the debate:Vote Checkmark--0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Forfeiture
Vote Placed by whiteflame 2 years ago
whiteflame
brironiVox_VeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pretty straightforward. Con had the only complete arguments, Pro forfeited all but one of his rounds, very much handed him the debate here.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 years ago
dsjpk5
brironiVox_VeritasTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:-Vote Checkmark-3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:04 
Reasons for voting decision: Pro ff many times, so conduct to Con. Pros arguments were baseless, so arguments to Con.