I worry about the children of religious parents.

[dawny0826]

I don't.

Very well. Thank you for clarifying and I apologize.

 

[Assad91]

From all? Nah, of course not. But the particular variety of evils that religion introduces? It clearly minimizes those. Not many people killing anybody, or trying to restrict their civil rights, in the name of God in atheism.

Right. Because god is the only excuse ever to be used as justification for an evil.

 

[suzy smith]

As if atheism w will turn everyone away from evils.

no one is saying that?

 

[oldbadger]

Nah. Concerns well-founded. See: the entire history of religion.

Hello....

I think that you have an unbalanced POV on all this.
I live in England, and our NSPCC, National Society for the Protection of Children from Cruelty has one or two issues with obsessed atheists and their very strange ideas.

Atheist and Agnostic parents can have some very very worrying fixations about how their children should grow and develop. And these same parents might easily point fingers at firmly religious parents and accuse them of all kinds of wrongdoing. The fact is that the NSPCC records do not point to unusually higher instances of abuse from religious parents.

Child suicide statistics might throiw some light on to the reasons for these tragedies, and bullying, low performance, mental illness etc are among the most highly recorded incidents.

I leave this post with some journalistic comments about Richard Dawkins and the NSPCC. Very very worrying indeed, that a high profile atheist should talk such nonsense.....................

--------------------------------------

"Catholicism is Worse than Child Abuse"

'Mild paedophilia never did me any harm': Atheist scientist Richard Dawkins provokes outrage after he says recent child abuse scandals have been overblown

However his comments have provoked an angry reaction from child protection groups.
The NSPCC’s Peter Watt told The Times: 'Mr Dawkins seems to think that because a crime was committed a long time ago we should judge it in a different way.
'But we know that the victims of sexual abuse suffer the same effects, whether it was 50 years ago or yesterday.'


Read more: Richard Dawkins in controversial 'mild paedophilia' comments | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[suzy smith]

I think you may have missed my point here. At least to a degree. I was not talking about child abuse in the normal recognised sense of the meaning of child abuse.
So let me explain my point and my feelings on this again and hopefully a little clearer.
First of all I am approaching this from the standpoint of an atheist so I know theists will never agree with me.
Actually I am covering two points. One, teaching a child something important without first finding out if it is true or not. I maintain that there is no evidence for God so teaching something based only on superstition [faith] to a young impressionable child is wrong.
Two, instilling into a young impressionable child something that will possibly adversely affect him in his or her adult life is wrong on several levels. For example just believing in a man made religion is not good is it? And to see time and effort wasted on going to church or praying or being bigoted against minority groups such as the gay community for example for no other reason than their upbringing has installed these ideas into them is not the most productive way to use ones life is it?

I ended my thread by saying ‘I would never accuse her or any religious parent of child abuse……but sometimes I have to hold myself back a bit’ I hoped that would show that I am only saying that there is no excuse in my opinion for teaching children something without proving it to be true yourself. Yes, saying its child abuse is putting it to strongly perhaps, but to me its still in the same ‘ball park’

 

[dawny0826]

I think you may have missed my point here. At least to a degree. I was not talking about child abuse in the normal recognised sense of the meaning of child abuse.
So let me explain my point and my feelings on this again and hopefully a little clearer.
First of all I am approaching this from the standpoint of an atheist so I know theists will never agree with me.
Actually I am covering two points. One, teaching a child something important without first finding out if it is true or not. I maintain that there is no evidence for God so teaching something based only on superstition [faith] to a young impressionable child is wrong.
Two, instilling into a young impressionable child something that will possibly adversely affect him in his or her adult life is wrong on several levels. For example just believing in a man made religion is not good is it? And to see time and effort wasted on going to church or praying or being bigoted against minority groups such as the gay community for example for no other reason than their upbringing has installed these ideas into them is not the most productive way to use ones life is it?

I ended my thread by saying ‘I would never accuse her or any religious parent of child abuse……but sometimes I have to hold myself back a bit’ I hoped that would show that I am only saying that there is no excuse in my opinion for teaching children something without proving it to be true yourself. Yes, saying its child abuse is putting it to strongly perhaps, but to me its still in the same ‘ball park’

What evidence do you have to support your claim that these children are "possibly" being adversely impacted in their lives?

You're saying this isn't child abuse, but, yet, you're saying that it's still in the same ball park.

Please support your claim with something other than opinion and objection to religion and the young. This is what I've seen in this thread...unfavorable opinion towards religion and introducing religion to youth, without tangible evidence linking harm to such unbringing/influence.

 

[4consideration]

I think you may have missed my point here. At least to a degree. I was not talking about child abuse in the normal recognised sense of the meaning of child abuse.
So let me explain my point and my feelings on this again and hopefully a little clearer.
First of all I am approaching this from the standpoint of an atheist so I know theists will never agree with me.
Actually I am covering two points. One, teaching a child something important without first finding out if it is true or not. I maintain that there is no evidence for God so teaching something based only on superstition [faith] to a young impressionable child is wrong.
Two, instilling into a young impressionable child something that will possibly adversely affect him in his or her adult life is wrong on several levels. For example just believing in a man made religion is not good is it? And to see time and effort wasted on going to church or praying or being bigoted against minority groups such as the gay community for example for no other reason than their upbringing has installed these ideas into them is not the most productive way to use ones life is it?

I ended my thread by saying ‘I would never accuse her or any religious parent of child abuse……but sometimes I have to hold myself back a bit’ I hoped that would show that I am only saying that there is no excuse in my opinion for teaching children something without proving it to be true yourself. Yes, saying its child abuse is putting it to strongly perhaps, but to me its still in the same ‘ball park’

I think that your perspective is valid -- but only as far as it is applied to your own life -- meaning that if you see no good purpose in teaching a child about a god because you have no proof of one, that is perfectly fine.

However, when you apply that same idea to another person, in the form of considering it some type of abuse (not the typical type, just some type) because the parent is teaching something that you see no proof of, that brings to mind some questions for me.

Throughout your schooling, and every time you come across any type of information, whenever you have read or studied something, have you always conducted experiments to prove to yourself that every statement and scientific bit of information is true, in a way that actually empirically demonstrates to you that it is true?

Have you followed every point made in a textbook to determine if the point, or the quote is accurate, and then tested it for yourself before accepting it as so?

Or, do you exercise some measure of faith (meaning trust here) that the information provided to you in a textbook is likely to be accurate, that the sources are probably operating in good faith, that the person who made the discovery is correct, that the context for understanding the information is accurately presented, that the author/publisher of the book accurately represented the information, and that the teacher had the proper understanding of the work, etc.?

I think if relying on that type of "proof" for everything we teach our children, we would teach them almost nothing.

 

[Quintessence]

First of all I am approaching this from the standpoint of an atheist so I know theists will never agree with me.

First of all, I want to thank you for clarifying some of the points you wanted to make. It's helpful for all involved.

My disagreeing with you has very little to do with the fact that I'm a theist and everything to do with the fact that I'm a scientist. You're not providing any evidence for your claims. Demonstrably prove that exposure to certain ideas (and really, it doesn't matter if these ideas are "religious" or not - an idea is an idea and "harmful" ideas can come from any source) are going to damage a child's future. And do so in a way that isn't chock full of your personal value judgements. The best way I can think of to do that is to document rates of clinical mental illness among people raised in certain kinds of households. We would start with correlational studies, which constitute a weaker form of evidence. If we stack up enough of those, though, it becomes more plausible to demonstrate causation.

Until we have this evidence in hand, your objections strike me as little more than anti-theist, anti-religious rantings (especially since you don't seem to be making any attempt to distinguish between various religions, theologies or ideas to which your allegations would not apply).

One, teaching a child something important without first finding out if it is true or not.

I think 4Consideration covered the problems of this so well that I have little that is worthy of adding to it. Truth is an elusive beast that can never be caught by such limited creatures as us. It is this one's belief that humans only ever operate from maps of the territory - limited knowings and interpreting of Truth. The question then becomes: true according to whose map of the territory? And who gets to decide which map is to be taught?

Not being a fan of authoritarianism, I'm for letting each parent or culture teach its children the maps it deems appropriate.

Two, instilling into a young impressionable child something that will possibly adversely affect him in his or her adult life is wrong on several levels.

Unless you have invented some marvelous device that can perfectly predict the future, I don't see how you can know which ideas might adversely effect a child into adulthood. This makes it very difficult to build a solid case for banning or prohibiting certain teachings. And, if such a device existed, ideas deemed problematic can be found across all areas of human culture. To make matters more complicated, one needs to create objective standards for what constitutes "adverse effects" that are not fraught with personal biases. As noted earlier, I think the best standard for this is clinical mental illness. Build me a case grounded in hard science and I might start listening to your concerns. Even then, considering my country and most of Western culture upholds ideals of freedom of speech and isn't a fan of censorship, I'm not sure what we could really do about it even if adverse effects were found. Unless someone is doing something illegal, we allow people freedoms, because we don't live in an authoritarian culture like that (thank the gods).

For example just believing in a man made religion is not good is it? And to see time and effort wasted on going to church or praying or being bigoted against minority groups such as the gay community for example for no other reason than their upbringing has installed these ideas into them is not the most productive way to use ones life is it?

Hey, we have something in common. I feel the same way about sports. Having kids participating in sports is not good. It's a terribly unproductive use of one's time, and even worse, it encourages aggressive competition and a warmongering us versus them mentality. Oh, and dear gods, don't even get me started on the physical injuries that children suffer from participating in sports. It's terrible! Some of them get concussions that leave them with permanent brain damage. Ligaments get torn, ankles twisted, limbs snapped. Sports, man. It's not good. Only an irresponsible parent would ever let their child participate in sports.

 

[Drolefille]

First of all, I want to thank you for clarifying some of the points you wanted to make. It's helpful for all involved.

<snip>

I can't frubal you again. SO I must applaud.:clap:clap

 

[JayJayDee]

I can't frubal you again. SO I must applaud.:clap:clap

My applauds too "super moderator" for a very balanced approach to this topic. :yes: :clap :clap

All parents can be accused of 'brainwashing' their children for teaching them their own values. (Or not teaching them any) When children grow up, they will form their own opinions on everything. Just because you teach something to a child, doesn't necessarily mean that they will adopt your view as an adult.

Religious parents don't always produce spiritual children and some raised as atheists will seek spirituality as adults. Its a difficult thing to deny that human beings are by nature, spiritually minded....history attests to that.

It's our adult children's choice, not ours. Being exposed to all views helps them to make an informed decision.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

My applauds too "super moderator" for a very balanced approach to this topic. :yes: :clap :clap

All parents can be accused of 'brainwashing' their children for teaching them their own values. (Or not teaching them any) When children grow up, they will form their own opinions on everything. Just because you teach something to a child, doesn't necessarily mean that they will adopt your view as an adult.

Religious parents don't always produce spiritual children and some raised as atheists will seek spirituality as adults. Its a difficult thing to deny that human beings are by nature, spiritually minded....history attests to that.

It's our adult children's choice, not ours. Being exposed to all views helps them to make an informed decision.

Not to single you out, since you're not the first person to make this argument in this thread, but why would someone who thinks a religious upbringing is a good idea argue this way?

It seems to me that your argument concedes that a religious upbringing can be a negative thing, but attempts to minimize this by pointing out that a person raised that way can overcome their upbringing as if this makes it okay.

It just strikes me as strange. Am I misinterpreting something here?

 

[JayJayDee]

Hey, we have something in common. I feel the same way about sports. Having kids participating in sports is not good. It's a terribly unproductive use of one's time, and even worse, it encourages aggressive competition and a warmongering us versus them mentality. Oh, and dear gods, don't even get me started on the physical injuries that children suffer from participating in sports. It's terrible! Some of them get concussions that leave them with permanent brain damage. Ligaments get torn, ankles twisted, limbs snapped. Sports, man. It's not good. Only an irresponsible parent would ever let their child participate in sports.

Applaud this as well :clap :clap

Sport is in reality a substitute for religion and war in many countries. :bow:

 

[JayJayDee]

Not to single you out, since you're not the first person to make this argument in this thread, but why would someone who thinks a religious upbringing is a good idea argue this way?

It seems to me that your argument concedes that a religious upbringing can be a negative thing, but attempts to minimize this by pointing out that a person raised that way can overcome their upbringing as if this makes it okay.

It just strikes me as strange. Am I misinterpreting something here?

As parents, we are not the ones responsible for the adult decisions of our children. We can only do so much to guide them in what we believe is the right direction. They are out of our care and control for most of their waking hours. They will be exposed to all manner of ideas every day from their teachers, the Internet and from their peers, so we must prepare them to evaluate those ideas in context. In order to do that effectively, we ourselves need to have some solid answers and reasoning to offer them.

I don't argue that some religious beliefs are detrimental if they promote practices or doctrines that cause 'excessive' fear or anxiety or who paint God as some sort of angry torturer. Conversely, having no fear is just as detrimental IMO. A healthy fear of the consequences of wrongdoing is always a good thing or else there would be no penalties for breaking the law.

Balance is the key. Balanced parents produce balanced children. (More often than not)

 

[dawny0826]

As parents, we are not the ones responsible for the adult decisions of our children. We can only do so much to guide them in what we believe is the right direction. They are out of our care and control for most of their waking hours. They will be exposed to all manner of ideas every day from their teachers, the Internet and from their peers, so we must prepare them to evaluate those ideas in context. In order to do that effectively, we ourselves need to have some solid answers and reasoning to offer them.

I don't argue that some religious beliefs are detrimental if they promote practices or doctrines that cause 'excessive' fear or anxiety or who paint God as some sort of angry torturer. Conversely, having no fear is just as detrimental IMO. A healthy fear of the consequences of wrongdoing is always a good thing or else there would be no penalties for breaking the law.

Balance is the key. Balanced parents produce balanced children. (More often than not)

Well said. Where there's balance, your children are learning, thinking and growing.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hey, we have something in common. I feel the same way about sports. Having kids participating in sports is not good. It's a terribly unproductive use of one's time, and even worse, it encourages aggressive competition and a warmongering us versus them mentality. Oh, and dear gods, don't even get me started on the physical injuries that children suffer from participating in sports. It's terrible! Some of them get concussions that leave them with permanent brain damage. Ligaments get torn, ankles twisted, limbs snapped. Sports, man. It's not good. Only an irresponsible parent would ever let their child participate in sports.

You know, I think a comparison between religion and sports is actually illuminating here. We can have conversations about questions like "is the concussion risk of tackle football too much for kids?" and "at what age should checking be introduced in kids' hockey?" and - in general - people can talk reasonably about it. Someone can suggest that 12 years old is too young for checking without a parent freaking out and saying "my 12-year-old plays in a full contact league! You're calling me an abusive parent!"

 

[Drolefille]

You know, I think a comparison between religion and sports is actually illuminating here. We can have conversations about questions like "is the concussion risk of tackle football too much for kids?" and "at what age should checking be introduced in kids' hockey?" and - in general - people can talk reasonably about it. Someone can suggest that 12 years old is too young for checking without a parent freaking out and saying "my 12-year-old plays in a full contact league! You're calling me an abusive parent!"

While I do think people can be oversensitive, I'm not terribly religious, I'm not a parent so I don't have a personal stake, and I did see that bias being presented in the thread here. I don't think I freaked out, but I addressed what i saw.

There are people out there who are livid or just irrational at the suggestion of restricting youth football, for example. Read the comment sections of news articles and see how bad it gets. Those people exist.

 

[MD]

I worry about children of non religious parents.

They will grow up without tradition, community, culture, history and have a very weak sense of identity.

 

[Drolefille]

Not to single you out, since you're not the first person to make this argument in this thread, but why would someone who thinks a religious upbringing is a good idea argue this way?

It seems to me that your argument concedes that a religious upbringing can be a negative thing, but attempts to minimize this by pointing out that a person raised that way can overcome their upbringing as if this makes it okay.

It just strikes me as strange. Am I misinterpreting something here?

I think the point is that many types of upbringings can be bad or good. If a child has a negative upbringing - religious or otherwise- they can often overcome it. If a child has a positive upbringing - religious or otherwise - then great.

The important thing there is the "can" not "is." Removing religion doesn't necessarily make an upbringing better. And again, I'd say look at the history of mankind - either the argument is that we're all royally screwed up and therefore there's no hope anyway, or that most people came out OK whether raised by very religious people, loosely religious people, irreligious people, or anti-religious people. I think mostly we're OK.

There's no parent who could possibly follow all "Best Practices" of parenting even if it was possible for all the experts to agree on what they are. There's no One True Way (tm) of being a good parent. Most things are within a range that is perfectly acceptable and are differentiated by personal or cultural differences. Raising a child a vegetarian/meat-eater isn't abusive, nutritionally depriving them is. Putting a child on a backpack leash, or letting them walk on their own isn't abusive, but putting them in a cage or being negligent about their safety is. There are ranges of acceptability and extremes of abuse.

I'm arguing that religious upbringing, in and of itself, is simply another domain where that range of acceptability comes into play.

 

[Drolefille]

I worry about children of non religious parents.

They will grow up without tradition, community, culture, history and have a very weak sense of identity.

Ah see, this is also not true. Religion is only one aspect of culture and community. You would need to provide a study to support that they lack identity.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I worry about children of non religious parents.

They will grow up without tradition, community, culture, history and have a very weak sense of identity.

The religious background in my family is mainly rooted in Irish sectarianism. My parents didn't raise me in it, and I think I'm better off without that sort of tradition, community and culture.

I've never had any problem with having a weak sense of identity that I've noticed, but I'd much rather have the identity I do have than one rooted in hatred and fear of people who go to a different church than I do... even if it was stronger than the one I have now.