Labeling children as a member of a particular religion is immoral

[icehorse]

You can ask any anthropologist, psychologist, psychiatrist, or sociologist you want, and they will all tell you religion is just as much of a part of culture as is politics or any other aspect of culture. Even college professors in the Humanities department will tell you this.

We have an abundance of that without religion. If only John Nada and his glasses were real.

What's an example of an extraordinary, unquestionable claim in any of those domains?

 

[ChristineES]

Agreed. But worse it all starts with the indoctrination, the very first word a child learns, of "NO." Mind your mom, do what your dad says, don't question, do as i say not as I do. How is a baby supposed to learn to think critically if they are taught from day one that they need to pay attention to and accept authority? I say when a baby is born we immediately move them to an environment where they receive ZERO subjectivity and are only provided with 100% certain objective knowledge. Then we will check back in 18 years and test the hypothesis.

To tell you the truth, that sounds incredibly horrifying to me. Like the start of a horror movie.

 

[DayRaven]

Richard Dawkins: making Atheism look stupid since 2006. What ever the man's intentions he has become a victim of his own hatred. There are serious Atheist thinkers out there: Dawkins et al are not among them.

 

[FunctionalAtheist]

To tell you the truth, that sounds incredibly horrifying to me. Like the start of a horror movie.

I hope you understand the sarcasm for what it was.

 

[sojourner]

Come on sojourner, really? "Didn't happen to you individually" is your argument?

You said religion teaches those things. In my experience, that's simply not true. You're making a generalization -- I'm refuting that generalization.

 

[icehorse]

You said religion teaches those things. In my experience, that's simply not true. You're making a generalization -- I'm refuting that generalization.

Ok, I'll amend my claim to: "Religion *often* teaches..."

 

[Shadow Wolf]

What's an example of an extraordinary, unquestionable claim in any of those domains?

Society tells us how our families should be structured, when the "appropriate" age for sexual intercourse is, who we shouldn't be having sex with, and who should be involved in child rearing.
Our cultures tell us how to dress, such as the American look of t-shirt, jeans, and sneakers. Culture also tells us what to eat, when to eat, and what foods are gross, disgusting, and off limits. It even tells us how to use the bathroom.
Marketing and advertising tells us how to look and what products to use.
Capitalism tells us to be consumers.
Language partly shapes the way we think.
Even the meta-narratives we view the world through are passed down to us through the culture we grew up and live in.
I can keep going on if you want. I have a background, personal experience, and education to keep going and going and going if you really need more examples.
Everything is ideology, and everything passes this ideology down from one generation to the next. It just happens.

 

[sojourner]

Ok, I'll amend my claim to: "Religion *often* teaches..."

I'd be happy with "can."

 

[Thruve]

Do you think that is evidence against the OP? You owe yourself looking into the matter a bit more then.

I agree with the OP, although I must note that many couples just do not know better than to demand their children to follow the religious protocols and cerimonies that they themselves were raised to see as "how things should be".

Your in Brazil, right? It's ironic that in your country, the tons of child abuse and rape come from your dogs, not from religiously affiliated folk. I also know many people from Brazil and I get to hear how messed up it is all the time =)=)=) The religious folk/children in your country are better off than the ones who are not, especially spiritually.

We have all heard the stories of children who grew up.. messed up.. because of their radical parents. Its their parents fault, not religion, and surely not God. The super Christian retards who never let their children play with the kids in the neighborhood out of fear of bad influence, usually find out their effort was pointless once their kids are sent off to college =) Thats usually the kids' life lesson ontop of it being a huge reality check for the parents. We've all seen it so I won't deny radicals need to metaphorically burn for the well being of the planet.

To say, on the other hand, that the majority of us are/should be messed up because our parents had religious influences on us, especially when we were jits, is beyond nuts. It applies to such a small amount of children whos parents religiously influence them.
The fact some parents didn't is why some of the atheists on here are nuts. I consider many of the religious folk on here to be well rounded individuals, and Im sure their parents religiously influenced them when they were young.

Besides, many atheists here have admitted to having strong religious influence by their parents when they were young, to which, they wouldn't even be who they are today had it not been so. To get rid of influence all together? gtfo.

 

[LuisDantas]

Your in Brazil, right? It's ironic that in your country, the tons of child abuse and rape come from your dogs, not from religiously affiliated folk.

Eeeeexcuse me?!? What you are saying is simply not true.

Although I wonder what you mean by "dogs".

I also know many people from Brazil and I get to hear how messed up it is all the time

It is true. And not by coincidence, it is a deeply religious country as well.

=)=)=) The religious folk/children in your country are better off than the ones who are not, especially spiritually.

In which sense, if any?

We have all heard the stories of children who grew up.. messed up.. because of their radical parents. Its their parents fault, not religion, and surely not God.

Religion and theism specifically, or at least a poor understanding of their roles, are major factors, though.

 

[sojourner]

Agreed. But worse it all starts with the indoctrination, the very first word a child learns, of "NO." Mind your mom, do what your dad says, don't question, do as i say not as I do. How is a baby supposed to learn to think critically if they are taught from day one that they need to pay attention to and accept authority? I say when a baby is born we immediately move them to an environment where they receive ZERO subjectivity and are only provided with 100% certain objective knowledge. Then we will check back in 18 years and test the hypothesis.

So, no art, no music, no creative activities, no exposure to aesthetics, no fantisization, no intuitional development, no pretend play? They can learn the arithmetic, but not the inherent beauty of systems that work. They can learn the facts, but not the stories of history. They can learn about the biochemical reactions that accompany love, but understand nothing about how it feels. I suspect that in 18 years, you'd have one sick sociopath on your hands.

 

[Thruve]

Eeeeexcuse me?!? What you are saying is simply not true.

Although I wonder what you mean by "dogs".




It is true. And not by coincidence, it is a deeply religious country as well.




In which sense, if any?




Religion and theism specifically, or at least a poor understanding of their roles, are major factors, though.

You said you were in Brazil.. -.- in prev posts.
By dogs I mean the more primitive acting.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

What's an example of an extraordinary, unquestionable claim in any of those domains?

I'm refuting your claim that religion is somehow necessary as part of a child's education - it clearly isn't.

 

[Quintessence]

What I find lol-worthy about the arguments like this that we see on a regular basis is that they can all pretty much be summed up as follows:

"I don't like religion [sic], therefore nobody should be taught it and instead do things my way." ​

The other conclusion I draw out of the OP goes something like this:

"Teach and show children nothing until they can think for themselves."
​

Yes, I realize the absurd implications of this. Absurdity was kind of my general reaction to this and similar OPs of the past.

 

[serp777]

What I find lol-worthy about the arguments like this that we see on a regular basis is that they can all pretty much be summed up as follows:

"I don't like religion [sic], therefore nobody should be taught it and instead do things my way." ​

The other conclusion I draw out of the OP goes something like this:

"Teach and show children nothing until they can think for themselves."
​

Yes, I realize the absurd implications of this. Absurdity was kind of my general reaction to this and similar OPs of the past.

This is a prominent use of strawman and a false dilemma. Please read back through my arguments to understand them more thoroughly before embarrassing yourself by claiming they're "lol worthy" when you inaccurately portray two incorrect conclusions. I certainly get tired of posts like the above.

The correct conclusion to draw would be "teach children all the material, religion, philosophies, and atheism in an attempt to let them find their own conclusions." Without a huge bias to a particular religion or atheism.

 

[serp777]

And that's different from being force-fed a bunch of garbage created by modern "realist" nit-wits... how, again??

Again I have addressed this strawman before. I'm not saying teach the children modern realism and reject all religions, rather its teach the children all the religions, philosophies, and atheism and let them reach their own conclusion without a gigangtic bias from their family's religous preconceptions. Also I would argue, as a tangent to my central argument that takes priority, realism is better than teaching children that Mohammad rode to heaven on a winged horse, or Jesus was resurrected, or the Earth is 6000 years old, or that we are reincarnated into different castes depending on our karma, or whateber.Regardless children should still hear about all the mythologies and come to their own conclusions.

 

[sojourner]

This is a prominent use of strawman and a false dilemma. Please read back through my arguments to understand them more thoroughly before embarrassing yourself by claiming they're "lol worthy" when you inaccurately portray two incorrect conclusions. I certainly get tired of posts like the above.

The correct conclusion to draw would be "teach children all the material, religion, philosophies, and atheism in an attempt to let them find their own conclusions." Without a huge bias to a particular religion or atheism.

Religion isn't objective fact like that, though. It's experiential.

 

[serp777]

In an ideal world, you would prevent children from socialization. Because culture is inherent to socialization. In an ideal world, you would keep a child from the important process of differentiation. Because being immersed in a family (culture) or any other integrated social group gives the child an important baseline against which s/he can measure her/his unique personhood.

No, this is another strawman. In an ideal world I would let a child decide to explore a variety of cultures through the processes you mention, and then allow them to associate themselves with one they aligned best.

Regardless culture is entirely different from religion. its impossible to avoid culture, but families tend to have a significant amount of control over the child's religious holidays, or cermonies, or conversations that occur in the home.

 

[Ingledsva]

Actually there is. UZIs aren't that accurate in no small part because their rate of fire is so high compared to other PDW and submachine guns like HK MP5, MP5 kurtz, FN P90, HK MP7, and so on. They are cheap, though, and have a large magazine that empties out fast able to spray down a room quickly killing most inside. Unfortunately, this kind of tactic isn't useful for most special ops, paramilitary law enforcement, anti-terrorist squads, etc. It is very useful for criminals, terrorists, and others who care little to nothing for human life and don't mind inflicting maximal damage regardless of the target.

It's a weapon designed to kill fairly indiscriminately with little measures of control to stop rounds from spraying along multiple trajectories. I cannot fathom putting it into the hands of a child.



There are things one does as a student or instructor on a range or anywhere involving guns. Never have your finger on the trigger unless you are ready to destroy. Never point your gun anywhere other than up or down (in safety positions) even if you are running (rangers tend to run with their rifles pointed downwards, but this brings the head down unconsciously and requires two hands while the methods SEALs tend to use (hold the rifle in one hand straight up so that you can run normally while ensuring that your weapon is safely oriented upwards). Ensure the line of fire is clear before allowing any trainees to even bring their weapons into a ready position. And so on. Handing a child a submachine gun designed to inflict maximal damage with minimal skill in minimal time is not being "in the wrong spot" it is being irresponsible. This doesn't, of course, mean the trainer deserved what happened. Far from it.

In context. There is no use for that weapon in the hands of normal people - especially children.

I am obviously FOR our right to own guns.

*

 

[serp777]

No. They're not. Most young children go to children's church where they hear stories and sing songs.

Religion (or lack thereof) is integral to one's culture. You can't separate them out like that.

Wait a minute! Didn't you just complain that children were forced to go to church and listen to sermons? So, it's OK to force children to be exposed to a plethora of ideas, just not forced to be exposed to specific, religious ideas?

Huh. I and many people I know were reared in the church, and this isn't true of us.

And so do theologians and philosophers. Both doctors and engineers operate within the bounds of philosophy. There are philosophies of both those disciplines. So, I would say that we'd be better off with more -- not less -- of those people.

No. It doesn't.

That will leave them, ultimately, worse off, foundering in a trackless wilderness of ideas and identities.

"No. They're not. Most young children go to children's church where they hear stories and sing songs."
An early form of prostelization.

"Religion (or lack thereof) is integral to one's culture. You can't separate them out like that."
In much of the first world you can. Religion also isn't that integral clearly--China, the country with the largest population--get along without religion fine and dandy. It's proof that religion doesn't need to be connected to culture.

"Wait a minute! Didn't you just complain that children were forced to go to church and listen to sermons? So, it's OK to force children to be exposed to a plethora of ideas, just not forced to be exposed to specific, religious ideas?"
And? Are you arguing that I thought kids shouldn't be taught any ideas? That is definitely not my position.

"That will leave them, ultimately, worse off, foundering in a trackless wilderness of ideas and identities."
No it won't. People who grow up in agnostic households that don't really care about religion aren't any worse off. This is just a bald faced assertion.

"And so do theologians and philosophers. Both doctors and engineers operate within the bounds of philosophy. There are philosophies of both those disciplines. So, I would say that we'd be better off with more -- not less -- of those people."

No lol. What has philosophy and theology contributed to science and engineering in the last 500 years? Seriously i would love to know.