Should religion be taught to children under ten?
Debate Rounds (3)
Religion - https://en.wikipedia.org...
God - http://www.merriam-webster.com...
A study of prayer use by patients showed that 47% of study subjects prayed for their health, and 90% of these believed prayer improved their health. Those who prayed had significantly less smoking and alcohol use and more preventive care visits, influenza immunizations, vegetable intake, satisfaction with care, and social support, and were more likely to have a regular primary care provider. The study concluded that those who pray had more favorable health-related behaviors, preventive service use, and satisfaction with care.
Spiritually augmented cognitive behavioural therapy. Australas Psychiatry 12: 148-152. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...
This study used spiritually augmented cognitive behavior therapy in a mental health study. The study demonstrated that spiritually augmented cognitive behavior therapy helped reduce hopelessness and despair, improved treatment collaboration, reduced relapse, and enhanced functional recovery.
Interactions with Personal Beliefs on Problem-Specific Outcomes and Functional Status. J. Alt. Compl. Med. 10: 438-448. http://www.liebertonline.com...
A randomized clinical trial found a significant reduction in the amount of pain in the intercessory prayer group compared to controls. In addition, the amount of concern for baseline problems at follow-up was significantly lower in the prayer group when the subject initially believed that the problem could be resolved. Those who did not believe that their problem could be resolved did not differ from controls. Better physical functioning was observed in the prayer group for those with a higher belief in prayer. However, better mental health scores were observed in the control group with lower belief in prayer scores.
Monitoring and Actualization of Noetic Training (MANTRA) feasibility pilot. Am. Heart J. 142: http://www.harcourthealth.com...
A pilot study8 (limited to 150 patients) examining the efficacy of noetic (non-pharmacological) therapies (stress relaxation, imagery, touch therapy, and prayer) found that "Of all noetic therapies, off-site intercessory prayer had the lowest short- and long-term absolute complication rates." The results did not reach statistical significance due to the small sample size, but a full study is planned.
I have more if you need more, but the point is that religion has great effects on the physical and mental health of children and adults.
The link and argument my contender posted was research done on adults over forty (40) over the span of a year. First off, the debate was if children under ten benefited by being in a religious environment or not, and if it effected them in their teen years.
The data was also recorded by the subjects and didn't have any scientific evidence that it helped the patients.
Here's a link to an article about Professor Dawkins: http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Here's also a link to a website saying we should teach all religions to children: https://richarddawkins.net...
I agree with the last article because it doesn't put pressure on the children if they don't agree with the religion they were taught.
To address your second article: children who grow up in a family with parents of two different faiths are more likely to grow up to be atheist. what do you think would happen if they were taught many different religions? this would decrease the amount of religious children and this is only a good thing if we assume religion is bad. if you want to argue that religion shouldn't be taught at such a young age, then give us evidence that proves that religion dose more bad than good for the children of those age groups, and like I said the one you did give us only represents a specific experience under specific circumstances. you should sight sources that support your arguments, not sight sources as an argument.
You said "the debate was if children under ten benefited by being in a religious environment or not, and if it effected them in their teen years." why specifically there teen years? were people over 40 never ten years old before, and will those ten year old not carry what they learn until they are 40? are they just going to forget everything when they are out of their teens? apparently not because the first source you sighted was based on the experiences of a woman, this woman was past her teen years when interviewed so obviously religious experiences stick with you past your teens. so how is it that the experiences of people who were taught religion before they were ten is relevant in your example but not in mine? even when your example specifically talks about these things happening, them sticking with here and effecting her life in the future. you are simply giving date a range of which it can be valid, to make yours valid and mine not.
You also said "The data was also recorded by the subjects and didn't have any scientific evidence that it helped the patients." if you don't believe in self-diagnoses that is your problem, because it makes you hypocritical in this debate. your first source says that religion has bad effect based on the word of a single woman. my source says religion is good for your health based off of the health of their 5107 participants. your data analysis was done by single scientist, EACH of mine were done by three or more scientists. also you clam they have no scientific evidence... did you even read them? they ARE the scientific evidence! how do you think that scientific evidence is found? by scientists (check) conducting an experiment (check) and drawing a conclusion based on the data (check) your sources are the ones with no scientific evidence, they are bunch of opinions and assumptions based on OTHER scientific evidence, and that is the difference between our sources. yours are clams based on scientific evidence and mine ARE scientific evidence, I am not quoting someone else s ideas I'm directly giving you the experiment and the results, and they support my claim.
Not only that but I gave you four different sources that provide scientific evidence and you seem to have not read a single one of the sources, because if you did than you would see the scientific evidence right in front of you.
I have given you four different reasons why religion is good for children to have religion and if you don't see how they relate, let me spell it out. most religious adults learned their religion through their parents and didn't just stumble upon it. therefor the effect of religion on adults are directly related to being introduced to the religion as a child.
If you wait to teach a child, by the time they are ten they will likely have their own idea of how everything works, and if you wait until then to introduce religion they are more likely to reject the beliefs of that religion. so what you need to be doing is getting me to believe that it is good for children to reject religion (like I said before, prove that religion does more harm than it does good, but I understand that religion has its bad sides, so give me the good and the bad and show me how the bad is worse) and if you can't do that, then instead you need to prove how waiting 10 years to introduce religion is good for children (not in a religious point of view and not in an atheist point of view. explain how it is beneficial to children intellectually and worldly scenes)
I don't have anything else to bring to the table.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by dsjpk5 2 weeks 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:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: Con conceded in the final round.
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.