Total Posts:147|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Is imparting religion to kids immoral?

Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:12:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The authenticity of a religion can never be proven, it's a matter of faith, and one's faith depends a whole lot on what they have been taught as a child. With that said, as I watched a documentary on one of those places in islamic countries where kids are indoctrinated with the idea that terrorism in the name of God is a honorable thing, I couldn't help but question the morality of raising kids by the rules of a certain religion.

Maybe you think that only the morality of raising kids to be terrorists in the name of God should be questioned, it shouldn't extend to any religion, but I think both of these things go hand in hand. When we religiously indoctrinate kids, regardless of the religion, we're telling these kids that having 100% trust in something without proof is okay, which is dangerous already because that sets them up to being comfortable with accepting the beliefs of whatever extremist religion or sect on the basis that "I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. I deeply feel like it's true, so it's true." That makes them more vulnerable to the type of manipulation that has them believe religious terrorism is to be encouraged.

Furthermore, in the case of Abrahamic religions in particular, isn't it emotionally abusive to threaten with hellfire?
This type of conditioning causes even adults to have trouble with letting go of an Abrahamic religion, even if they think the religion makes no logical sense, purely out of fear of going to hell in case they were wrong. And yet, we don't fear the punishment that, say, the Vikings or the Romans believed the non-believers of their religion would get. Their beliefs just sound like silly mumbo jumbo to our ears because nobody believes in them anymore, although they're just as likely to be true as today's most popular religions; they're just as unproven. This demonstrates perfectly that religious faith (the feeling that we just "deeply know" our religion is true) is a matter of psychological conditioning more than anything.

Kids are the most psychologically malleable (I suppose, otherwise people wouldn't so often have faith in the religion they were raised with as adults) so shouldn't it be immoral/illegal to religiously indoctrinate kids (by forcing them to go to church/mosque/synagogue, read the holy scriptures, not allowing them eat pork, etc.)?
Shouldn't a good parent only impose rules on kids that aren't religiously based, so that the kids can make the conscious choice to follow a religion as a grown ups, free of restrictive psychological conditionning, when they will already have developped the critical thinking skills that will make them less vulnerable to joining extremist religious groups?

Furthermore, going from being an atheist to a theist is usually a liberating experience (going by testimonies), but the reverse is more likely to be painful because it means forsaking faith into a very appealing eternal paradise and redefining the meaning of one's whole existence. That's another difficult experience religiously indoctrinated kids are being set up for (if they lose their faith at some point).

I expect that many of you could find it intrusive and wrong to meddle with parent's freedom to share their religion, but religion has sewn so much division across the world, caused so many conflicts and wars throughout history and now even. Doesn't the fact that It's so immensely powerful warrant some curbing?
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:14:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
No, its not.

Imparting certain values may be immoral, but certainly not religion as a whole. It would be just as "immoral" to have your kid grow up with atheistic values as it would be to impart them with religious values. My point being, that it isn't immoral at all.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:17:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:14:26 PM, Intrepid wrote:
No, its not.

Imparting certain values may be immoral, but certainly not religion as a whole. It would be just as "immoral" to have your kid grow up with atheistic values as it would be to impart them with religious values. My point being, that it isn't immoral at all.

Why would it not be immoral? I gave reasons as to why it would be in my OP and you did not rebut any of them...

Parents don't have to either impart religion or atheism, they can as well just say that nothing is known for sure (that includes whether God exists or not) and then let the kid decide for himself what he believes in when he's old enough to.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:20:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:17:52 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:14:26 PM, Intrepid wrote:
No, its not.

Imparting certain values may be immoral, but certainly not religion as a whole. It would be just as "immoral" to have your kid grow up with atheistic values as it would be to impart them with religious values. My point being, that it isn't immoral at all.

Why would it not be immoral? I gave reasons as to why it would be in my OP and you did not rebut any of them...

Parents don't have to either impart religion or atheism, they can as well just say that nothing is known for sure (that includes whether God exists or not) and then let the kid decide for himself what he believes in when he's old enough to.

I didn't rebut what you said because honestly it was too long and I am too lazy.

Anyways, kids need answers and it is good to allow them to grow off of those answers. You act as if anything said to a child is what that child will think for the rest of their lives. People can think for themselves. It is not immoral to teach your kid anything subjective, especially if your intent is good. It is not immoral to instill conservative, liberal, atheistic, christian, libertarian, ect. values on a child.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:38:22 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:20:33 PM, Intrepid wrote:
I didn't rebut what you said because honestly it was too long and I am too lazy.

The main arguments against what you say were:

1. When we religiously indoctrinate kids, regardless of the religion, we're telling these kids that having 100% trust in something without proof is okay

2. isn't it emotionally abusive to threaten with hellfire?

3. going from being an atheist to a theist is usually a liberating experience, but the reverse is more likely to be painful because it means forsaking faith into a very appealing eternal paradise and redefining the meaning of one's whole existence.

4. Kids are the most psychologically malleable so shouldn't it be immoral/illegal to religiously indoctrinate kids (by forcing them to go to church/mosque/synagogue, read the holy scriptures, not allowing them eat pork, etc.)?

5. Shouldn't a good parent only impose rules on kids that aren't religiously based, so that the kids can make the conscious choice to follow a religion as a grown up when he'll have developed critical thinking skills, free of restrictive psychological conditioning?

6. religion has caused so many conflicts and wars throughout history and now even. Doesn't the fact that It's so immensely powerful warrant some curbing?

Anyways, kids need answers and it is good to allow them to grow off of those answers. You act as if anything said to a child is what that child will think for the rest of their lives. People can think for themselves.

People can think for themselves, but their thinking can be strongly conditioned by what they're taught as kids. These teachings can hinder their reasoning.
Like I said, people can keep having an irrational fear of hell well into their adult years even after having dropped religion just because they were raised in Christianity. They can also refuse to question the religion they were raised in out of fear of losing their purpose in life.

It is not immoral to teach your kid anything subjective, especially if your intent is good.

Intent is irrelevant, only the factual consequences matter. And religion is not subjective to those who believe in it.

I don't mind people telling their kids "there are people who believe in religion X and people who believe in religion Y and the teachings of religion X or Y are the following...", but I do mind parents telling their kids that their religion is The Truth and their kids should believe in it otherwise they will face eternal punishment. That's what I mean by "imparting their religion to their kids".

It is not immoral to instill conservative, liberal, atheistic, christian, libertarian, ect. values on a child.

Yes, it can be immoral because instilling values has consequences which you seem to be ignoring.
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 5:49:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:38:22 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:20:33 PM, Intrepid wrote:
I didn't rebut what you said because honestly it was too long and I am too lazy.

The main arguments against what you say were:

1. When we religiously indoctrinate kids, regardless of the religion, we're telling these kids that having 100% trust in something without proof is okay

That is false. Most religions, primarily and especially Christianity do posses logic and reason behind their beliefs. Therefore, it is nor immoral to tell someone something under the assumption it is true through logic and reason.

2. isn't it emotionally abusive to threaten with hellfire?

I don't think so. It does essentially teach that crimes do have punishment, which is something everyone will learn in life.

3. going from being an atheist to a theist is usually a liberating experience, but the reverse is more likely to be painful because it means forsaking faith into a very appealing eternal paradise and redefining the meaning of one's whole existence.

Surprisingly it usually does not go like that. You'll find that many people who abandon their faith do it over a gradual period of time where they just stop caring about their religion and then eventually leave it as a whole.

4. Kids are the most psychologically malleable so shouldn't it be immoral/illegal to religiously indoctrinate kids (by forcing them to go to church/mosque/synagogue, read the holy scriptures, not allowing them eat pork, etc.)?

As much as it would be immoral to force kids into the culture of the country you live in, make them eat dinner with the family every night, or allow them to be influenced in any way possible.

5. Shouldn't a good parent only impose rules on kids that aren't religiously based, so that the kids can make the conscious choice to follow a religion as a grown up when he'll have developed critical thinking skills, free of restrictive psychological conditioning?

This assumes religion is false. By your logic, parents also shouldn't allow their kids to socialize with others, watch tv, read books, or even go out into the city lest they may be influenced by something. Influence is a part of life. You must trust kids to eventually be able to make their own decisions.

6. religion has caused so many conflicts and wars throughout history and now even. Doesn't the fact that It's so immensely powerful warrant some curbing?

Eh, no. That is not the general fault of religion, rather by the people participating in the religion. There is essentially no religion that is violent by nature. Even Islam is not a religion of violence. Only extremist Islamists interpret it to be that way.

Anyways, kids need answers and it is good to allow them to grow off of those answers. You act as if anything said to a child is what that child will think for the rest of their lives. People can think for themselves.

People can think for themselves, but their thinking can be strongly conditioned by what they're taught as kids. These teachings can hinder their reasoning.
Like I said, people can keep having an irrational fear of hell well into their adult years even after having dropped religion just because they were raised in Christianity. They can also refuse to question the religion they were raised in out of fear of losing their purpose in life.

It is not immoral to teach your kid anything subjective, especially if your intent is good.

Intent is irrelevant, only the factual consequences matter. And religion is not subjective to those who believe in it.

What I mean is, it would only be immoral to teach children that objectively immoral things are morally good, but since most religions and values in general do not work that way, it is not something to worry about and it certainly should not be blamed on religion.

I don't mind people telling their kids "there are people who believe in religion X and people who believe in religion Y and the teachings of religion X or Y are the following...", but I do mind parents telling their kids that their religion is The Truth and their kids should believe in it otherwise they will face eternal punishment. That's what I mean by "imparting their religion to their kids".

This again, assumes children cannot and will not think for themselves, which is false.

It is not immoral to instill conservative, liberal, atheistic, christian, libertarian, ect. values on a child.

Yes, it can be immoral because instilling values has consequences which you seem to be ignoring.

Can be immoral, but is not inherently so. Again, this isn't the fault of religion like how you specify, rather it would generally be the fault of teaching your kids certain values that may or may not be objectively immoral.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 7:27:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would like to see critical thinking skills, logical fallacies etc taught to kids before religion gets a hold of them and starts telling them all sorts of things.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 7:57:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:49:28 PM, Intrepid wrote:
That is false. Most religions, primarily and especially Christianity do posses logic and reason behind their beliefs. Therefore, it is nor immoral to tell someone something under the assumption it is true through logic and reason.

This does not rebut the argument that religious indoctrination encourages 100% trust in unproven things. Nothing proves that any of the gods exist, people in religion are rewarded for having faith. Faith is blind trust by definition.

2. isn't it emotionally abusive to threaten with hellfire?

I don't think so. It does essentially teach that crimes do have punishment, which is something everyone will learn in life.

But the end doesn't justify whatever traumatizing means. A kid learns that lesson every time his parents punish him for doing something bad (and normally, that's supposed to happen a lot), so it is completely unnecessary to instill a fear of eternal torment which he might not be able to get rid of as an adult in the child.

3. going from being an atheist to a theist is usually a liberating experience, but the reverse is more likely to be painful because it means forsaking faith into a very appealing eternal paradise and redefining the meaning of one's whole existence.

Surprisingly it usually does not go like that. You'll find that many people who abandon their faith do it over a gradual period of time where they just stop caring about their religion and then eventually leave it as a whole.

This does not contradict my argument at all. The fact that people gradually let go of religion does not prove that it's a painless process. The fact remains that going from theist to atheist is a lot more potentially hurtful than the reverse.

4. Kids are the most psychologically malleable so shouldn't it be immoral/illegal to religiously indoctrinate kids (by forcing them to go to church/mosque/synagogue, read the holy scriptures, not allowing them eat pork, etc.)?

As much as it would be immoral to force kids into the culture of the country you live in, make them eat dinner with the family every night, or allow them to be influenced in any way possible.

That's false. You can force kids into the culture of the country you live in (so as to make them able to function properly in the society they live in) without making them sit through long hours in church once a week, listening to a preacher as he tells all kinds of things they don't understand or pay attention to because they're just kids. And you can perfectly not serve the kids pork during the family dinner without prohibiting them to eat pork even at school or anywhere else they go (like muslim parents tend to do with their kids).

5. Shouldn't a good parent only impose rules on kids that aren't religiously based, so that the kids can make the conscious choice to follow a religion as a grown up when he'll have developed critical thinking skills, free of restrictive psychological conditioning?

This assumes religion is false.

No, it doesn't. It assumes that religion is unproven.

By your logic, parents also shouldn't allow their kids to socialize with others, watch tv, read books, or even go out into the city lest they may be influenced by something.

Not at all, where are you getting that from? Of course kids have to be influenced by something - they have to be raised and guided by their caretakers. But the "something" shouldn't be a bad influence and I have explained what the negative effects of religious indoctrination can be.

Influence is a part of life. You must trust kids to eventually be able to make their own decisions.

Again, you are ignoring completely that there are different kinds of influences. You won't mind letting your kid be influenced by a good role model, but you will mind it being influenced by one who encourages them to do drugs and act reckless.

6. religion has caused so many conflicts and wars throughout history and now even. Doesn't the fact that It's so immensely powerful warrant some curbing?

Eh, no. That is not the general fault of religion, rather by the people participating in the religion. There is essentially no religion that is violent by nature. Even Islam is not a religion of violence. Only extremist Islamists interpret it to be that way.

It is only your opinion that Islam is not a religion of violence. The terrorist jihadists beg to differ. And who is right? Well, no definite answer can be given to that question, because it's all up to interpretation.

If it wasn't for their religion, no extremists would be savagely murdering disbelievers out of faith and fear of going to hell (like so many are now). Once the religious extremists have God to back them up, they feel strong, blind confidence in doing the craziest things, and that is the fault of religion for having such extremely ambiguous sacred texts, for discouraging critical thought, for leaving the door open to such extremism that wouldn't exist if religion didn't exist.

Intent is irrelevant, only the factual consequences matter. And religion is not subjective to those who believe in it.

What I mean is, it would only be immoral to teach children that objectively immoral things are morally good, but since most religions and values in general do not work that way, it is not something to worry about and it certainly should not be blamed on religion.

What are "objectively immoral" things, to you? Nothing is "objectively immoral".

And religion does determine people's morals to a great extent. It condems some things that wouldn't be wrong at all if it wasn't for religion, like eating pork or homosexuality. Homosexuals are disowned, persecuted and murdered "because God said so" across the whole world. If religion isn't to blame for it, what is?

I don't mind people telling their kids "there are people who believe in religion X and people who believe in religion Y and the teachings of religion X or Y are the following...", but I do mind parents telling their kids that their religion is The Truth and their kids should believe in it otherwise they will face eternal punishment. That's what I mean by "imparting their religion to their kids".

This again, assumes children cannot and will not think for themselves, which is false.

And why is this false? I just told you that there are people who struggle with letting go of their fear of hell because it has been drilled into them since childhood. I just told you that upbringing plays a big role in how people think even as grown ups. You just repeat that I'm wrong without justifying your arguments at all.

I think you need to define "thinking for oneself".

It is not immoral to instill conservative, liberal, atheistic, christian, libertarian, ect. values on a child.

Yes, it can be immoral because instilling values has consequences which you seem to be ignoring.

Can be immoral, but is not inherently so.

Nothing is "inherently immoral". I replaced your "is" with "can" because it does not make sense to say "instilling conservative values is not immoral" when it, of course, depends on what conservative value you're instilling. You need context to define morality.

Again, this isn't the fault of religion like how you specify, rather it would generally be the fault of teaching your kids certain values that may or may not be objectively immoral.

You need to define "objective immorality".
Intrepid
Posts: 372
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 9:54:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:57:14 PM, Questionner wrote:
This does not rebut the argument that religious indoctrination encourages 100% trust in unproven things. Nothing proves that any of the gods exist, people in religion are rewarded for having faith. Faith is blind trust by definition.

That's a false statement though, because religions do not teach that they are 100% correct. It is made quite clear that religion is faith based. Anyways, nothing can be proven, so it would be just as immoral to teach a kid God doesn't exist since that is also unproven. You are placing the entire blame on religion but that is simply not true.

But the end doesn't justify whatever traumatizing means. A kid learns that lesson every time his parents punish him for doing something bad (and normally, that's supposed to happen a lot), so it is completely unnecessary to instill a fear of eternal torment which he might not be able to get rid of as an adult in the child.

That is completely subjective and individual based, so it therefore cannot be blamed on religion. Anyways, again religion is not taught as fact, but as faith.

This does not contradict my argument at all. The fact that people gradually let go of religion does not prove that it's a painless process. The fact remains that going from theist to atheist is a lot more potentially hurtful than the reverse.

Subjective and individually based. Religion cannot be blamed. Leaving any value you traditionally grew up with can be hard. Claiming it is abusive to teach a child religion because it might be hard to grow out of religion is complete balderdash. Finding our own personal views is a personal journey we must all take.

That's false. You can force kids into the culture of the country you live in (so as to make them able to function properly in the society they live in) without making them sit through long hours in church once a week, listening to a preacher as he tells all kinds of things they don't understand or pay attention to because they're just kids.

It's irrelevant how it is done. Your argument is based around the claim that coercion and instilled values among children is a bad thing, then you focus that claim to attack religion specifically, even though it applies to anything and everything that coerces a child's views.

5. Shouldn't a good parent only impose rules on kids that aren't religiously based, so that the kids can make the conscious choice to follow a religion as a grown up when he'll have developed critical thinking skills, free of restrictive psychological conditioning?

This assumes religion is false.

No, it doesn't. It assumes that religion is unproven.

No one is claiming religion is a fact, but that it is logically faith based. Everything is assumed; nothing is fact. However, like religion, many things are supported logically.

By your logic, parents also shouldn't allow their kids to socialize with others, watch tv, read books, or even go out into the city lest they may be influenced by something.

Not at all, where are you getting that from? Of course kids have to be influenced by something - they have to be raised and guided by their caretakers. But the "something" shouldn't be a bad influence and I have explained what the negative effects of religious indoctrination can be.

Assuming only religion applies negative affects on children, and that religion inherently does so. Religion is not a bad thing to still upon children. Not all religions may negatively affect a child. Even if so, many many other nonreligious values can also negatively impact children, yet you refuse to focus on those values and only proceed to attack all religion.

Again, you are ignoring completely that there are different kinds of influences. You won't mind letting your kid be influenced by a good role model, but you will mind it being influenced by one who encourages them to do drugs and act reckless.

In then end, regardless of influence, it is the child's free will and decision to do those things, and it is therefore not the fault of those who influence the child to do such things. Also, religion cannot be compared to bad influence since religion is generally a great influence through promoting the truth, happiness, love, selflessness, chastity, sacrifice, among many other good values.

It is only your opinion that Islam is not a religion of violence. The terrorist jihadists beg to differ. And who is right? Well, no definite answer can be given to that question,

My god man. Islam is a peaceful religion. Extremist islam terrosists do not represent islam.

If it wasn't for their religion, no extremists would be savagely murdering disbelievers out of faith and fear of going to hell (like so many are now). Once the religious extremists have God to back them up, they feel strong, blind confidence in doing the craziest things, and that is the fault of religion for having such extremely ambiguous sacred texts, for discouraging critical thought, for leaving the door open to such extremism that wouldn't exist if religion didn't exist.

Not the fault of religion, only the fault of those within the religion.

What are "objectively immoral" things, to you? Nothing is "objectively immoral".

Teaching a child that they should go out of their way to rape and torture women, and that that is the morally correct thing to do because women are vermin of this Earth and it would be immoral to not cause as much suffering to them as possible.

Objective morality is a different discussion for another time.

And religion does determine people's morals to a great extent. It condems some things that wouldn't be wrong at all if it wasn't for religion, like eating pork or homosexuality. Homosexuals are disowned, persecuted and murdered "because God said so" across the whole world. If religion isn't to blame for it, what is?

The people participating in the religion, not religion itself.

This again, assumes children cannot and will not think for themselves, which is false.

And why is this false? I just told you that there are people who struggle with letting go of their fear of hell because it has been drilled into them since childhood. I just told you that upbringing plays a big role in how people think even as grown ups. You just repeat that I'm wrong without justifying your arguments at all.

It doesn't matter how kids grow up, how they are influenced, what culture they are brought in because in the end they will always have the free will to reject such notions and think for themselves.

I think you need to define "thinking for oneself".

Freeing yourself from coercion and formulating your own opinions.

It is not immoral to instill conservative, liberal, atheistic, christian, libertarian, ect. values on a child.

Yes, it can be immoral because instilling values has consequences which you seem to be ignoring.

Can be immoral, but is not inherently so.

Nothing is "inherently immoral". I replaced your "is" with "can" because it does not make sense to say "instilling conservative values is not immoral" when it, of course, depends on what conservative value you're instilling. You need context to define morality.

Your argument basically states that imparting religion on a child is always immoral. I argue that inherently it is not immoral like you assume, that religion is not at fault rather the people within the religion, and that religion cannot be blamed because everyone has the free will to think for themselves.

Again, this isn't the fault of religion like how you specify, rather it would generally be the fault of teaching your kids certain values that may or may not be objectively immoral.

You need to define "objective immorality".
ArcTImes
Posts: 294
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 10:24:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:54:45 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:57:14 PM, Questionner wrote:
This does not rebut the argument that religious indoctrination encourages 100% trust in unproven things. Nothing proves that any of the gods exist, people in religion are rewarded for having faith. Faith is blind trust by definition.

That's a false statement though, because religions do not teach that they are 100% correct. It is made quite clear that religion is faith based. Anyways, nothing can be proven, so it would be just as immoral to teach a kid God doesn't exist since that is also unproven. You are placing the entire blame on religion but that is simply not true.


You are not understanding. You should not talk about God to your children. You don't need to talk them about theism or atheism, just don't talk about it because there are no proofs.

If someday he ask something like where do we come from, just tell him the truth. A simple I don't know and a game of hypothesis is going to be way better than teaching him religion.

Teach them to reason, to be skeptical.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:15:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:17:52 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:14:26 PM, Intrepid wrote:
No, its not.

Imparting certain values may be immoral, but certainly not religion as a whole. It would be just as "immoral" to have your kid grow up with atheistic values as it would be to impart them with religious values. My point being, that it isn't immoral at all.

Why would it not be immoral? I gave reasons as to why it would be in my OP and you did not rebut any of them...

Parents don't have to either impart religion or atheism, they can as well just say that nothing is known for sure (that includes whether God exists or not) and then let the kid decide for himself what he believes in when he's old enough to.

Um, the latter claim "nothing is known for sure (including whether God exists) is entirely compatible with imparting religion and/or faith.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:23:35 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
You mean simply it's immoral TO YOU right? Since nothing is "objectively immoral"? If that's the case it's moral to me and I'm just as correct as you are, end of discussion.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:24:52 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:23:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You mean simply it's immoral TO YOU right? Since nothing is "objectively immoral"? If that's the case it's moral to me and I'm just as correct as you are, end of discussion.

This reminds me of your old DP lol
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:28:53 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:24:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 11:23:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You mean simply it's immoral TO YOU right? Since nothing is "objectively immoral"? If that's the case it's moral to me and I'm just as correct as you are, end of discussion.

This reminds me of your old DP lol

DP?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:30:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:28:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/27/2014 11:24:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 11:23:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You mean simply it's immoral TO YOU right? Since nothing is "objectively immoral"? If that's the case it's moral to me and I'm just as correct as you are, end of discussion.

This reminds me of your old DP lol

DP?

Display Picture.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/27/2014 11:31:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:28:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/27/2014 11:24:52 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 4/27/2014 11:23:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You mean simply it's immoral TO YOU right? Since nothing is "objectively immoral"? If that's the case it's moral to me and I'm just as correct as you are, end of discussion.

This reminds me of your old DP lol

DP?

Something about not believing in objective morality, but being morally outraged in an ethics seminar.
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:27:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:12:18 PM, Questionner wrote:
The authenticity of a religion can never be proven, it's a matter of faith, and one's faith depends a whole lot on what they have been taught as a child. With that said, as I watched a documentary on one of those places in islamic countries where kids are indoctrinated with the idea that terrorism in the name of God is a honorable thing, I couldn't help but question the morality of raising kids by the rules of a certain religion.

Maybe you think that only the morality of raising kids to be terrorists in the name of God should be questioned, it shouldn't extend to any religion, but I think both of these things go hand in hand. When we religiously indoctrinate kids, regardless of the religion, we're telling these kids that having 100% trust in something without proof is okay, which is dangerous already because that sets them up to being comfortable with accepting the beliefs of whatever extremist religion or sect on the basis that "I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. I deeply feel like it's true, so it's true." That makes them more vulnerable to the type of manipulation that has them believe religious terrorism is to be encouraged.

Furthermore, in the case of Abrahamic religions in particular, isn't it emotionally abusive to threaten with hellfire?
This type of conditioning causes even adults to have trouble with letting go of an Abrahamic religion, even if they think the religion makes no logical sense, purely out of fear of going to hell in case they were wrong. And yet, we don't fear the punishment that, say, the Vikings or the Romans believed the non-believers of their religion would get. Their beliefs just sound like silly mumbo jumbo to our ears because nobody believes in them anymore, although they're just as likely to be true as today's most popular religions; they're just as unproven. This demonstrates perfectly that religious faith (the feeling that we just "deeply know" our religion is true) is a matter of psychological conditioning more than anything.

Kids are the most psychologically malleable (I suppose, otherwise people wouldn't so often have faith in the religion they were raised with as adults) so shouldn't it be immoral/illegal to religiously indoctrinate kids (by forcing them to go to church/mosque/synagogue, read the holy scriptures, not allowing them eat pork, etc.)?
Shouldn't a good parent only impose rules on kids that aren't religiously based, so that the kids can make the conscious choice to follow a religion as a grown ups, free of restrictive psychological conditionning, when they will already have developped the critical thinking skills that will make them less vulnerable to joining extremist religious groups?

Furthermore, going from being an atheist to a theist is usually a liberating experience (going by testimonies), but the reverse is more likely to be painful because it means forsaking faith into a very appealing eternal paradise and redefining the meaning of one's whole existence. That's another difficult experience religiously indoctrinated kids are being set up for (if they lose their faith at some point).

I expect that many of you could find it intrusive and wrong to meddle with parent's freedom to share their religion, but religion has sewn so much division across the world, caused so many conflicts and wars throughout history and now even. Doesn't the fact that It's so immensely powerful warrant some curbing?

Tl;dr
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:29:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 7:27:27 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I would like to see critical thinking skills, logical fallacies etc taught to kids before religion gets a hold of them and starts telling them all sorts of things.

Ironically, homeschoolers are like the only other people my age I've met who study logic.... At least I did logic for 5 years, philosophy for 2 and Latin for 8... And homeschoolers usually take religion a lot more seriously and are taught it more thoroughly.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:40:01 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 12:29:59 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:27:27 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I would like to see critical thinking skills, logical fallacies etc taught to kids before religion gets a hold of them and starts telling them all sorts of things.

Ironically, homeschoolers are like the only other people my age I've met who study logic.... At least I did logic for 5 years, philosophy for 2 and Latin for 8... And homeschoolers usually take religion a lot more seriously and are taught it more thoroughly.

That's all well and good, but it means nothing if your going to not use them on your own religious beliefs.

You can have a brilliant sharp analytic mind..............and still think your going to get the virgins.

Everyone sees the crap........when it comes to the other guys religion. Their own, not so much.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 12:41:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 12:40:01 AM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 4/28/2014 12:29:59 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:27:27 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
I would like to see critical thinking skills, logical fallacies etc taught to kids before religion gets a hold of them and starts telling them all sorts of things.

Ironically, homeschoolers are like the only other people my age I've met who study logic.... At least I did logic for 5 years, philosophy for 2 and Latin for 8... And homeschoolers usually take religion a lot more seriously and are taught it more thoroughly.

That's all well and good, but it means nothing if your going to not use them on your own religious beliefs.

You can have a brilliant sharp analytic mind..............and still think your going to get the virgins.

Everyone sees the crap........when it comes to the other guys religion. Their own, not so much.

Well I think that there's a certain amount of truth in all religions.

I was just pointing out that critical thinking/logic and religion aren't mutually exclusive.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 9:29:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 9:54:45 PM, Intrepid wrote:
At 4/27/2014 7:57:14 PM, Questionner wrote:
This does not rebut the argument that religious indoctrination encourages 100% trust in unproven things. Nothing proves that any of the gods exist, people in religion are rewarded for having faith. Faith is blind trust by definition.

That's a false statement though, because religions do not teach that they are 100% correct.

Of course they do. Why, otherwise, does it reward faith and punish those who don't have it?

It is made quite clear that religion is faith based.

Yes, and that's not mutually exclusive with the idea that religion is the factual truth. That's what religious parents usually tell their kids.

nothing can be proven, so it would be just as immoral to teach a kid God doesn't exist since that is also unproven.

Yes, teaching atheism would be wrong. Just tell the kid that you don't know if there's a God and make him aware of arguments for and against His existence so that he has information to decide what he wants.

You are placing the entire blame on religion but that is simply not true.
I'm not placing the entire blame on religion, I'm saying that religion deserves to be blamed.

But the end doesn't justify whatever traumatizing means. [...] it is completely unnecessary to instill a fear of eternal torment [...] in the child.

That is completely subjective and individual based, so it therefore cannot be blamed on religion.

False. Nothing is subjective about the fact that kids can be conditioned to fear for the rest of their life.

It does not follow that religion can't be blamed. It can and should be blamed on religion, because religion tells parents to teach their kids to literally "fear God".

going from theist to atheist is a lot more potentially hurtful than the reverse.

Subjective and individually based. Religion cannot be blamed.

There's nothing "subjective" about the fact that losing faith can be extremely painful. It's been observed, it is a fact.

And why does it matter that it's "individually based"? Kids are individuals.

Leaving any value you traditionally grew up with can be hard.

Exactly, and that's why we shouldn't make it even harder by teaching our kids nonsense.

Your reasoning is like saying "kids will all experience pain at some point so it's balderdash to be against battering them, suffering is something we must all do"... No, we mustn't.

It's irrelevant how it is done. Your argument is based around the claim that coercion and instilled values among children is a bad thing,

Of course it's not. This is an enormous strawman, Intrepid.

You've already said that and I had explicitly told you that not all influences are bad, not all values are bad, but some are and religion is part of that "some".

Coercing kids to not murder each other is good because it keeps society safe and prevents your kid from going to jail. Coercing kids to attend boring and meaningless religious ceremonies or prohibiting them foods on the basis that God wants it that way is not, because it restricts the child's freedom and has no positive effects if God doesn't exist. And no evidence demonstrates that He does.

Assuming only religion applies negative affects on children,

Not at all. Again, where are you getting this from? I never said that.

Religion is not a bad thing to still upon children.

You know we disagree on that. There's no point in repeating your standpoint.

Not all religions may negatively affect a child.

I don't know all the religions in the world, but all religions that teach people to have unquestionable faith in things that defy known scientific facts lest they be punished forever may negatively affect a child.

Even if so, many many other nonreligious values can also negatively impact children,

But that's irrelevant because these non-religious values aren't what this thread is about.

yet you refuse to focus on those values and only proceed to attack all religion.

False and irrelevant. This thread is specifically about religion because one topic needs to be discussed at a time to keep things clear. And because, like I said, religion is particularly powerful, widespread and dangerous, so it needs special attention.

religion cannot be compared to bad influence since religion is generally a great influence through promoting the truth, happiness, love, selflessness, chastity, sacrifice, among many other good values.

Religion can be a bad influence and I've already told you what its bad values are to support that. That doesn't mean religion only influences people in bad ways.

Religion is not necessary, though. It is perfectly possible to raise kids non-religiously and still promote love and happiness and all these good values.

It is only your opinion that Islam is not a religion of violence. The terrorist jihadists beg to differ. And who is right? Well, no definite answer can be given to that question,

My god man. Islam is a peaceful religion. Extremist islam terrosists do not represent islam.

Again, you are ignoring that this is only your opinion. Do you realize that if I go to an extremist group, they will tell me: "My god man. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Those who say it is do not represent islam"? It's all a matter of interpretation of the texts.

What are "objectively immoral" things, to you? Nothing is "objectively immoral".

Teaching a child that they should go out of their way to rape and torture women,

You gave an exemple of what's objectively moral, you did not explain what objective morality is. The latter is what I'm asking for.

But anyway, If your sacred texts say you should rape women, what do you do? Even if it seems immoral to you, you can't ignore the command because it's your God asking you to. Not doing it would equal saying that God is wrong and God is perfect, so He can't be wrong. So either you relinquish your faith, or you go and rape women. Religious terrorists are those who do the latter. Murdering "infidels" looks like something obviously immoral to us, but they conclude that it isn't because they were raised up to be uncritical and obey Gods command.

Objective morality is a different discussion for another time.

No, it isn't. If you're going to use objective morality as an argument, it's only logical that you define the concept so that I at least understand what you're saying. If you aren't going to discuss it, then it isn't a valid argument.

It doesn't matter how kids grow up, how they are influenced, what culture they are brought in because in the end they will always have the free will to reject such notions and think for themselves.

I have argued that what you say is false, otherwise nobody would STRUGGLE with letting go of their religion as adults. You have not rebutted that argument, you just repeated yourself instead.

I don't get how you can deny the extremely obvious fact that a person's culture and upbringing determines their behavior to some extent. If it didn't, it wouldn't be the case that most adult muslims come from muslim families, most adult Christians come from Christian families, most Jews come from Jewish families, etc. or do you think it's all just a big coincidence?
In fact, if you were right, kids wouldn't need a moral education at all. We'd just unleash them in the world without guidance and trust that they'll just magically know how to make the right choices. But we don't do that because we know that upbringing is greatly reflected in a child's behavior. So this...
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 9:30:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
child's free will and decision to do those things, and it is therefore not the fault of those who influence the child to do such things.

...is obviously false. Kids can't think as critically as adults, they're more likely to buy into illogical things adults tell them, that's why adults are held responsible for what kids do if the kids are under the age of the majority.

Not the fault of religion, only the fault of those within the religion.
The people participating in the religion, not religion itself.
You act like behavior is an independent entity that just happens out of nowhere. That's illogical. Everything has a cause, and there's no reason why behavior would be an exception to that. So yes, the people ought to be blamed for their own misbehavior, but parents shouldn't also make it more likely that their kids will misbehave by indoctrinating them with dangerous religious rules. If some kid blows himself up in the name of Islam, then yes, his parents are responsible for indoctrinating this child with the crazy idea that suicide-bombing is a honorable thing.

I think you need to define "thinking for oneself".

Freeing yourself from coercion and formulating your own opinions.

Then not everybody can think for themselves.

Abrahamic religions are all about not thinking for oneself, but rather acting well out of FEAR of God. Jihadists obey God's word out of FEAR of His wrath and because they want to be in His good graces.
You're being coerced if you're acting under threat. Hell is a threat. Losing one's life purpose is another.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 9:34:23 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 11:23:35 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You mean simply it's immoral TO YOU right? Since nothing is "objectively immoral"? If that's the case it's moral to me and I'm just as correct as you are, end of discussion.

Not end of the discussion. if you're going to reason like that then we might as well stop discussing morality altogether ever and let everyone do whatever they want. But we're not going to do that because we need moral rules/laws to have order and freedom in society.

Nothing is objectively moral because morality stems from agreements. Things that are wrong are the things that you wouldn't want to happen to yourself and have agreed to not do to others. Different people have different things they wouldn't want to happen to them and agree not to do to another.

You can think it's moral to murder people and become a murderer, but then you have to accept that people are going to feel free to murder you or throw you in jail. It's giving and taking.

Likewise, you can think it's fine to indoctrinate your kids with ideas that will hurt them (like religious ones), but you would have to accept that people brainwash you too then. You're most likely not okay with negative indoctrination and murder though, so you would want to be protected against that, and so we agree that it's wrong.

At 4/27/2014 11:15:38 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:17:52 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/27/2014 5:14:26 PM, Intrepid wrote:
No, its not.

Imparting certain values may be immoral, but certainly not religion as a whole. It would be just as "immoral" to have your kid grow up with atheistic values as it would be to impart them with religious values. My point being, that it isn't immoral at all.

Why would it not be immoral? I gave reasons as to why it would be in my OP and you did not rebut any of them...

Parents don't have to either impart religion or atheism, they can as well just say that nothing is known for sure (that includes whether God exists or not) and then let the kid decide for himself what he believes in when he's old enough to.


Um, the latter claim "nothing is known for sure (including whether God exists) is entirely compatible with imparting religion and/or faith.

No, it isn't, because we have developed a system (the scientific method) to maximize our chances of having the right knowledge. Religion fails the scientific test, since there are absolutely no indications that it's true except for people's personal experience and stories about miracles that are said to have happened two thousand years ago, but could as well have been written by some random fiction novelist. There's no proof.

If you're going to sentence your kid to a life of fear you have conditioned in them and a life of vulnerabilty because you have encouraged them to not think critically, then you better have proof to back up your choice so that it isn't child abuse. It's just like how you need proof (that the person is the culprit) before you can sentence that person to jail. If courts sentenced people just by "faith" (just like parents do through religious indoctrination), we'd have a lot more innocents in jail.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/28/2014 4:10:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Is imparting religion to kids immoral?
Not imparting religion to kids is immoral.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/29/2014 3:51:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/28/2014 4:10:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Is imparting religion to kids immoral?
Not imparting religion to kids is immoral.

Why?
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 5:39:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:12:18 PM, Questionner wrote:
The authenticity of a religion can never be proven, it's a matter of faith, and one's faith depends a whole lot on what they have been taught as a child. With that said, as I watched a documentary on one of those places in islamic countries where kids are indoctrinated with the idea that terrorism in the name of God is a honorable thing, I couldn't help but question the morality of raising kids by the rules of a certain religion.

Maybe you think that only the morality of raising kids to be terrorists in the name of God should be questioned, it shouldn't extend to any religion, but I think both of these things go hand in hand. When we religiously indoctrinate kids, regardless of the religion, we're telling these kids that having 100% trust in something without proof is okay, which is dangerous already because that sets them up to being comfortable with accepting the beliefs of whatever extremist religion or sect on the basis that "I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. I deeply feel like it's true, so it's true." That makes them more vulnerable to the type of manipulation that has them believe religious terrorism is to be encouraged.

Furthermore, in the case of Abrahamic religions in particular, isn't it emotionally abusive to threaten with hellfire?
This type of conditioning causes even adults to have trouble with letting go of an Abrahamic religion, even if they think the religion makes no logical sense, purely out of fear of going to hell in case they were wrong. And yet, we don't fear the punishment that, say, the Vikings or the Romans believed the non-believers of their religion would get. Their beliefs just sound like silly mumbo jumbo to our ears because nobody believes in them anymore, although they're just as likely to be true as today's most popular religions; they're just as unproven. This demonstrates perfectly that religious faith (the feeling that we just "deeply know" our religion is true) is a matter of psychological conditioning more than anything.

Kids are the most psychologically malleable (I suppose, otherwise people wouldn't so often have faith in the religion they were raised with as adults) so shouldn't it be immoral/illegal to religiously indoctrinate kids (by forcing them to go to church/mosque/synagogue, read the holy scriptures, not allowing them eat pork, etc.)?
Shouldn't a good parent only impose rules on kids that aren't religiously based, so that the kids can make the conscious choice to follow a religion as a grown ups, free of restrictive psychological conditionning, when they will already have developped the critical thinking skills that will make them less vulnerable to joining extremist religious groups?

Furthermore, going from being an atheist to a theist is usually a liberating experience (going by testimonies), but the reverse is more likely to be painful because it means forsaking faith into a very appealing eternal paradise and redefining the meaning of one's whole existence. That's another difficult experience religiously indoctrinated kids are being set up for (if they lose their faith at some point).

I expect that many of you could find it intrusive and wrong to meddle with parent's freedom to share their religion, but religion has sewn so much division across the world, caused so many conflicts and wars throughout history and now even. Doesn't the fact that It's so immensely powerful warrant some curbing?

Is there anything to be said for a child raised theist in an environment surrounded by all types? Don't forget that children also learn stuff from their friends AND the school systems, here in the states anyways. Kid's aren't that dumb I've learned, mine know way more than they should lol.

Say you have a law that prohibits parents from offering religious views how would you propose that something of this nature be enforced?
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/1/2014 6:27:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/27/2014 5:12:18 PM, Questionner wrote:
The authenticity of a religion can never be proven, it's a matter of faith, and one's faith depends a whole lot on what they have been taught as a child. With that said, as I watched a documentary on one of those places in islamic countries where kids are indoctrinated with the idea that terrorism in the name of God is a honorable thing, I couldn't help but question the morality of raising kids by the rules of a certain religion.

Maybe you think that only the morality of raising kids to be terrorists in the name of God should be questioned, it shouldn't extend to any religion, but I think both of these things go hand in hand. When we religiously indoctrinate kids, regardless of the religion, we're telling these kids that having 100% trust in something without proof is okay, which is dangerous already because that sets them up to being comfortable with accepting the beliefs of whatever extremist religion or sect on the basis that "I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it either. I deeply feel like it's true, so it's true." That makes them more vulnerable to the type of manipulation that has them believe religious terrorism is to be encouraged.

Furthermore, in the case of Abrahamic religions in particular, isn't it emotionally abusive to threaten with hellfire?

Lol did you know that "hell fire" is a very tiny percentage of Christian teaching? I'd like to see a statistic that showed how many xtian parents are teaching their kids hell fire.

This type of conditioning causes even adults to have trouble with letting go of an Abrahamic religion, even if they think the religion makes no logical sense, purely out of fear of going to hell in case they were wrong. And yet, we don't fear the punishment that, say, the Vikings or the Romans believed the non-believers of their religion would get. Their beliefs just sound like silly mumbo jumbo to our ears because nobody believes in them anymore, although they're just as likely to be true as today's most popular religions; they're just as unproven. This demonstrates perfectly that religious faith (the feeling that we just "deeply know" our religion is true) is a matter of psychological conditioning more than anything.

Kids are the most psychologically malleable (I suppose, otherwise people wouldn't so often have faith in the religion they were raised with as adults) so shouldn't it be immoral/illegal to religiously indoctrinate kids (by forcing them to go to church/mosque/synagogue, read the holy scriptures, not allowing them eat pork, etc.)?
Shouldn't a good parent only impose rules on kids that aren't religiously based, so that the kids can make the conscious choice to follow a religion as a grown ups, free of restrictive psychological conditionning, when they will already have developped the critical thinking skills that will make them less vulnerable to joining extremist religious groups?

Furthermore, going from being an atheist to a theist is usually a liberating experience (going by testimonies), but the reverse is more likely to be painful because it means forsaking faith into a very appealing eternal paradise and redefining the meaning of one's whole existence. That's another difficult experience religiously indoctrinated kids are being set up for (if they lose their faith at some point).

I expect that many of you could find it intrusive and wrong to meddle with parent's freedom to share their religion, but religion has sewn so much division across the world, caused so many conflicts and wars throughout history and now even. Doesn't the fact that It's so immensely powerful warrant some curbing?
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/5/2014 1:39:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 4/29/2014 3:51:47 AM, Questionner wrote:
At 4/28/2014 4:10:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
Is imparting religion to kids immoral?
Not imparting religion to kids is immoral.

Why?
Because they might be deprived of truly knowing God.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Questionner
Posts: 233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 2:25:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/1/2014 5:39:47 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Is there anything to be said for a child raised theist in an environment surrounded by all types?

Yes, that is just as not okay. The child is still more likely to believe what his parents tell him.

Don't forget that children also learn stuff from their friends AND the school systems, here in the states anyways. Kid's aren't that dumb I've learned, mine know way more than they should lol.

Then schools shouldn't be indoctrinating them either. Friends are on the same authority level, so I don't think it's as much an issue if peers discuss it among themselves.

Say you have a law that prohibits parents from offering religious views how would you propose that something of this nature be enforced?

I don't know. I don't think a law would be practical, I'm just discussing it from a moral, not judicial, standpoint.

Lol did you know that "hell fire" is a very tiny percentage of Christian teaching? I'd like to see a statistic that showed how many xtian parents are teaching their kids hell fire.

It's most likely most of them. I don't know of any christian who does not believe in hell. Those who don't are usually from small unpopular groups within the Christian community.

tBoonePickens wrote:
Because they might be deprived of truly knowing God.

How? They can still make the choice to believe in God once they're older.
matt.mcguire88
Posts: 1,137
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 5:15:26 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 2:25:31 PM, Questionner wrote:
At 5/1/2014 5:39:47 PM, matt.mcguire88 wrote:
Is there anything to be said for a child raised theist in an environment surrounded by all types?

Yes, that is just as not okay. The child is still more likely to believe what his parents tell him.

Maybe, but I have met quite a few Atheists that were raised Christian even in this forum. There are also quite a few prominent figures who converted at an older age like the Apostle Paul who was a student of religion at the age of 5 who later converted to Christianity, Martin Luther ect... My point here is that your views seem a little rigid and of course I'm not speaking for other religions just my own.

Don't forget that children also learn stuff from their friends AND the school systems, here in the states anyways. Kid's aren't that dumb I've learned, mine know way more than they should lol.

Then schools shouldn't be indoctrinating them either. Friends are on the same authority level, so I don't think it's as much an issue if peers discuss it among themselves.

Okay, but I don't think you understand the impact that friends may have, actually even more so due to the fact that they are on the same level.

Say you have a law that prohibits parents from offering religious views how would you propose that something of this nature be enforced?

I don't know. I don't think a law would be practical, I'm just discussing it from a moral, not judicial, standpoint.

Lol did you know that "hell fire" is a very tiny percentage of Christian teaching? I'd like to see a statistic that showed how many xtian parents are teaching their kids hell fire.

It's most likely most of them. I don't know of any christian who does not believe in hell. Those who don't are usually from small unpopular groups within the Christian community.

That's not really what I was getting at, and I never said I don't believe in Hell.... I said Hell is a tiny percentage of what is taught within Christian tenants. Other than HELL lol, more importantly are the principles that we live by such as love, forgiveness, giving, comforting, prayer, learning how to turn the other cheek ect. ect. My point being is that I seriously doubt parents are drilling their children with hell fire sermons rather than focusing on what applies to them.

tBoonePickens wrote:
Because they might be deprived of truly knowing God.

How? They can still make the choice to believe in God once they're older.