CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?
Richard Dawkins has publically claimed that forcing a religion on a child is a form of child abuse. Do you agree?
Please Note - He did not saying teaching your child ABOUT religion is child abuse. He said telling your child "You are a christian (or muslim or cathlic or jewish) child therefore this is your belief" is a form of child abuse.
I completely agree with Mr. Dawkins. Not allowing a child to explore, is trapping him or her in a mindset. I think this is just as damaging as other forms of child abuse.
I think this is just as damaging as other forms of child abuse.
Really, so taking your kid to church is a s bad a s the couple who killed their 5 month old by leaving them in a car seat for 8 days.... Taking your kid to church is as bad as molestation huh? Why don't you try thinking before you type.
Taking a kid to church isn't child abuse. Forcing them to believe is. It isn't as bad as anything physical, but your above comment is like saying teasing isn't bullying because it's not as bad as punching. Young kids are often very gullible.
It's not the same as murdering children, but it still forces children to believe something that they don't believe. For example: if two Christian parents had a child, they would want the child to be Christian. But the child might believe in science and logic more than religion. Therefore the parents are forcing their children to do something they don't believe in, which could be seen as child abuse.
No, but I agree with the following points: it is to what extent and religion should not be forced upon. However, making a child do their homework for their own sake you could call trapping them in a state of boredom or unhappiness because they dislike doing it or even asking them to lose weight because they are too heavy.
It depends on how old and mature they are - a young child and adolescents require the most input from parents as studies have shown.
It really depends on what you are doing to "force" them. Needless to say, you're a really poor parent if you can't accept that your child has different views than you.
Number 1, your brain washing them. Number 2, your not allowing them to discover the world and religion themselves.
Their freedom is being token away. Also, they can't live their lives nor enjoy themselves because they live in fear. It's just another way to control people. We Need a law for this.
America gives Women, Blacks, and handicaps rights, but not children. The USA is getting less democratic.
That's really not fair. How a Lion is able to make choices for itself when he's only a few months, but a highly intelligent and mature 16 year old isn't able to make choices. Children are nothing but Slaves in the U.S Of A.
If you tell them about god when they are a kid, and teach them about spirituality, then you are not really forcing them to believe in anything, you are teaching them what you know, and as long as you dont try to scare them into staying with your beliefs.
If you use fear in your teachings, that is psychologically damaging.
Just because I ask a question doesn't mean I am trying to be mean. You can answer the question instead of demonstrating that religion is bad for children.
How is the fear of jail not used as a way to scare kids? I thought we were supposed to only use the nice parts of religion.
i am saying the opposite of what you said i said, i never said using hell wasn't necessary, just from my experiences, that side of religion is very alive and very real, negative forces are at work all around us whether they be in the form of greed or actual possession, ive never sen possession, but i believe it is possible
That shit is no joke, thats why the bible warns against going to psychics or other people for spiritual advice, which i have a hard time following and paying attention to, but yes if you are not prepared to enter the spirit world then you will get fucked mentally.
I have only seen one physical demon, completely sober, in my life and that was a very strange experience.
So i dont think how you would find it reasonable to leave that part out of religion, thats one of the most important parts to explain....
If you use fear in your teachings, that is psychologically damaging. that is what all religions stands on, scarying people by promising infinite pain forever if they do not donate to the church...
That is teaching about consequences break a law go = to prison... real world real scenario... because it is important to know how to live in our society
Teaching children if it is not going to eat symbolical flesh of long dead homeless guy then it will endup in eternal fire in la la land, is just fucked up.
Dude, you have no clue what you're talking about, there is a very real spiritual side to life, and tampering with it IS dangerous for your psyche.
Yes, teaching children that they have to eat the bread and drink the wine is messed up, but there is no way a child can grasp the meaning of what that is, at least not in western society.
Stop mixing me in with your general view of religion, I am against organized religin its the work of the devil, even jesus himself stated that but for some reason noone has listened to that part of what he said.
So, i am probably on your side, i just have a religious nature to me, and religion can be used as a word in different ways, i am talking about believing in god and having a set f beliefs with it.
Does that mean i suck up to god or am going to force what i believe onto my children?
No, ill talk to them, about the possibilities of what could happen when we die, but i will never force anything on them.
Not everyone that believes in god is a nut job buddy, you need to stop making rash conclusions, its very annoying.
Yes, teaching children that they have to eat the bread and drink the wine is messed up, but there is no way a child can grasp the meaning of what that is, at least not in western society.
Wine suppose to represent Jesus blood and bread his flesh, so the ritual of drinking wine and eating bread is a symbolic cannibalism and I think that it is sick to teach kids to do that.
and also to answer your dispute, what is wrong with the basic premise that if your life is filled with anger, hatred, greed, and fear, that your afterlife will be filled with the same things? And vice versa, if you live a life full of joy and happiness and altruism, then your afterlife will mirror the same thing.
Obviously there is no proof of this, but why do alot of scientists believe in god? Why would atheists all of a sudden change their views to believe in god after having a crisis in their personal life?
Thats all religion is for: YOUR PERSONAL LIFE and to help you get through problems, its not meant to replace government, or become the law of the world.
But it is something that helps you cope with the daily struggles of life, if you havent found it that sucks, but i have and billions of other people have.
So, all youre doing is sounding like a parrot repeating what everyone else says about religion, how about think for yourself and go explore it and take from it what YOU will not what some church leader says
The problem is that the vast majority of religious parents/guardians do not simply teach their children that god is an idea that could exist, but that god is an absolute and incontrovertible truth. This view is imparted by the parent/guardian with a false air of legitimacy that abuses the trust and vulnerability of the child.
The scare tactics practically innate to all religion are just an exacerbation of what is already damaging to the emotional and cognitive maturation of the child.
I know, i have a best friend whose parents were not as bad as THAT, but he was pretty indoctrinated it tookk me years to open up his mind lol, well he opened it up of his own accord but i think i helped him...
Child Abuse: "(1) Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation. (2) An act or failure to act which presents an imminent risk of serious harm. (The Federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act, 42 U.S.C.A. § 5106g)
Force: "Violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing." (Source)
Forcing a child to practice a religion implicates the act as one of coercion against the will of the child. This alone can be emotionally damaging, but is further compounded by the retardation that religion causes in emotional and cognitive development. Religion exists and is perpetuated as a consequence of emotional insecurity, and actively works against critical thought and emotional maturation. Further, this indoctrination is rarely done out of genuine interest in the welfare of the child but is a projection of the emotional insecurities of the parent(s)/guardian(s) onto the child and at the expense of the child.
I don't know USA law but I'd imagine that for the parents to be culpable the court would have to determine causality between the parents act and the harm. Part of this is would surely be reasonable (or actual) foreseeability. What a reasonably prudent parent have foreseen harm (perhaps the criteria would 'serious harm' ) caused by teaching the child religion? I think the answer would be no.
Causality would need to be demonstrated (which I believe it can be) but to my understanding based upon the federal code cited above the reasonable foreseeability standard is not at issue in the United States. Such a standard though seems curious to me in light of the innate ambiguity it holds. While I can appreciate the intent to protect parents from being penalized for unforeseeable harms done to children, to attach the standard of foreseeability to the reasoning capacity of the average parent/person seems imprudent to me.
All of that being said, it is exceptionally unlikely that any court would ever rule against parents for teaching their children religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution secures freedom of religion, which people interpret quite generously and defend quite passionately in this country.
Yes since being in a religion should be voluntary and being done out of passion for the movement. Being forced however to follow something you don`t even believe is torture in an intellectual sense.
Yet another extreme oversimplification argument from the left. If everyone just left it up to their child how to act how do you think children would behave overall? Would they go to school? Would they ever learn anything? Would they ever learn to be respectful or communicate properly?
Personally, if I'd ever been born into a religious family, and christened (etc), I'd have been very annoyed. I believe that people should be free to make a choice, on whether to follow a religion (and if so, what one they wish to be a part of) or not. In no respect is it okay to force beliefs upon someone.
Christening a baby is not an acceptable act - you are condemning that child to a life of following a religion, that they've had no say it. If they want to take on a religion, fair enough, but forcing it upon them is never okay. That is not the freedom that humans deserve.
Whether it is child abuse, is difficult to say - making a child be a certain religion is unlikely to harm them, in any way than, perhaps, educationally (e.g. in Science).
This comes to be the Major problem that a child is having from his/her background. Because, However, A child is willing to practice what is aiming to do and parent now be the one to be confusing him/her, this is Illegal and also Formally Child Abuse to every Societies.
I completely agree with Mr. Dawkins. Not allowing a child to explore, is trapping him or her in a mindset. I think this is just as damaging as other forms of child abuse.
This is a tuff one.. Mostly because a few religions are allot like ethnic back grounds. A Muslim is born "Muslim" a Jewish is born Jewish. In today's America most children are not born into a certain religious belief. All I have to go from is my own experience.
When I was a teen I met a guy who was a non practicing Jehovah Witness, while he still carried the teachings he was raised with he did not attend "meetings" and sinned against the teachings everyday. We later had two child and had been married. The marriage did not last for reasons outside of the JW factor. And ever since I have raised my kids to explore god and his teachings on there own free will. I have allowed them my oldest is now 15 to gain his own since of what is right for him. He has made wise choices, last year he was baptized and confirmed and I was so happy for him. He did this all on his own. His choice not mine.
I never grew up in a strict religious house hold, so I didn't feel that my kids should either. But back to Muslims and Jewish people, this is like I said something the kids are born into. And until they are older and can reflect on the teachings on there own, I don't see any problem with passing down this tradition and beliefs that they have. Unless it is harmful to the child.
I feel that JW's and Mormons are a type of cult, and there fore I would never ever introduce this to my kids. Just as I wouldn't introduce them to any other religious belief. But as for it being child abuse because the parents take them to church of there choosing and raise there kids in such church.. No I don't think it is. It could become abuse if this religious view hurts or damages the children in ways that we would describe as a cult. Where sexual and or physical and mental abuse took place.
So I guess I would have to say no, that most of the time this is not abuse, it is raising a family in the light of faith. That has been done for many many years and generations before.
Yes if you belive somthing why should they. They are not you they can have their own opinions. How would you feel if your parents were for example Jewish and you belive in christianity and they forced you to belive in somthing you don't. Be cannot be forced they are created by yourself trying out different things and figuring out from there what you like andto belive in
I like the way you phrase "own". Instead I shall use ownership or custody since I don't really prefer to use "own".
How do I not have ownership of my child? It is my creation. Even then why can I not teach my child my religion if my religion tells me too? What harm is done? Shall the child quiver in fear and suffer psychological trauma?
How do I not have ownership of my child? It is my creation.
Any parent exerts influence over their children, but it is an absolute fact that the child does operate as its own autonomous entity (particularly as it grows older). There is only so much that a parent can do to regulate their child, and eventually most children will assert themselves as autonomous adults in their own right.
You may argue that you have a natural or legal right as a parent to indoctrinate your child, and perhaps you do, but this does not actually change the abusive nature of that indoctrination.
Even then why can I not teach my child my religion if my religion tells me too? What harm is done? Shall the child quiver in fear and suffer psychological trauma?
The harm is to the emotional and cognitive development and maturation of the child. Religion teaches an absolute and incontrovertible truth, which conditions a child to close their mind to alternative perspectives and possibilities. Religion is also founded upon the emotional insecurities of people, and a child who learns to lean on the emotional crutch of religion is unlikely ever to learn to walk on their own (i.e. they will struggle far more to confront and resolve their emotional insecurities, instead turning to superficial religious explanations).
In some cases where religion is forcefully imposed upon a child, against the wishes and interests of the child, the harm can be even greater. The threat of being cut out of the family or physically harmed for not conforming to religious views of the parent/guardian is very real for too many children. Arguably, though, this falls within the prerogative of the parent if they do in fact have ownership of the child.
but this does not actually change the abusive nature of that indoctrination.
Please state what "abuse" has been placed onto the child? Do define this beyond my expectation.
Religion teaches an absolute and incontrovertible truth, which conditions a child to close their mind to alternative perspectives and possibilities.
What is the harm in teaching them this? I also doubt the child will become close minded. I tend to find both Atheists and Theists hold a belief preservation bias towards their own enigmas. I'd like to see you provide some evidence for your claim and then show me how this applies to all children who are taught a religion.
Religion is also founded upon the emotional insecurities of people, and a child who learns to lean on the emotional crutch of religion is unlikely ever to learn to walk on their own (i.e. they will struggle far more to confront and resolve their emotional insecurities, instead turning to superficial religious explanations).
Oh, okay. An emotional crutch you say? So is it not okay for a child to pray to receive and A on his test and also put in effort to score that high? Is it improper for a child to pray to see a lost one in heaven once more? Is it improper to have a child pray to see their lost father again after he has given his life for his country? No. In fact I would say that these are very sweet things to pray and believe in. Unless you wish to tell your child that your father was a simple being and is no longer in existence and you will never see him again since his consciousness has drifted away and has ceased to exist. I would define that as mental abuse.
I love the way you say "unlikely" since you must be aware that your statement may be false. If a child is raised on a true Christian doctrine he will walk as a confident man who will work hard in life and hope to receive eternal life. If I am incorrect do prove your statement to be correct. Show me a statistic that supports your claim.
In some cases where religion is forcefully imposed upon a child, against the wishes and interests of the child, the harm can be even greater.Â
I see. So basically "in some cases" is the crutch of your argument since its applicability is not general but case specific. I can give an "in some cases" bit on Atheistic homes. I can create scenarios that seems abusive.
You must also realize that all people are different and some Christian homes will vary in differrent locations. There are some promiscuous Christian homes and there are some morally superior homes. Same goes for Atheists. There are some abusive homes and some incredibly peaceful homes. If a religious child can grow up and obtain a nice job and retire successfully and live a great life what abuse has been instilled?
Please state what "abuse" has been placed onto the child? Do define this beyond my expectation.
I already did: emotional and cognitive retardation.
What is the harm in teaching them this? I also doubt the child will become close minded. I tend to find both Atheists and Theists hold a belief preservation bias towards their own enigmas. I'd like to see you provide some evidence for your claim and then show me how this applies to all children who are taught a religion.
"Indoctrination: to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs." (Merriam-Webster)
Religion demands full acceptance of its tenets as a matter of faith, without and even in some cases against evidence and reason; this is closed-mindedness, clear and simple. To be clear, I recognize that atheists can be equally dogmatic and indoctrinating. The crucial difference to my mind is that theism innately requires these attributes, whereas atheism does not.
Oh, okay. An emotional crutch you say? So is it not okay for a child to pray to receive and A on his test and also put in effort to score that high? Is it improper for a child to pray to see a lost one in heaven once more? Is it improper to have a child pray to see their lost father again after he has given his life for his country? No. In fact I would say that these are very sweet things to pray and believe in. Unless you wish to tell your child that your father was a simple being and is no longer in existence and you will never see him again since his consciousness has drifted away and has ceased to exist. I would define that as mental abuse.
The primary difference between you and I is that you value the subjective and I value the objective. Religion substitutes subjective assumption for proximity to objective truth; I personally prefer the pursuit of reason to delusion. And I do think it is ill-advised to teach children to pray to ignore reality rather than to confront it head-on, but I guess that comes down to my preference for not burying my head in the sand. Religion is a comfortable alternative to admitting we do not know everything and that what we do know is not how we would like it to be; the problem is that religion trades comfort for emotional maturity. Rather than avoid reality we should learn (and teach our children) to live with reality as it is. The conflict and distress over reality is not innate, but a consequence of our forming the very attachments to an idealized world that religion teaches people to make (e.g. our lives have meaning, there is an afterlife, etc.). Religion creates the expectation for that which we cannot prove exists, and in some cases for which we can say probably does not exist; it sets us (and the child) up for disappointment.
I love the way you say "unlikely" since you must be aware that your statement may be false. If a child is raised on a true Christian doctrine he will walk as a confident man who will work hard in life and hope to receive eternal life. If I am incorrect do prove your statement to be correct. Show me a statistic that supports your claim.
I do not think anyone can claim absolute certainty about anything, and this is why I used the word unlikely in my argument. I cannot point to statistics because that data has not presently been collected to support either of our claims. Fortunately, statistics are not the only means for substantiating an argument; I have presented you with a logical progression of ideas that demonstrates why one might conclude my initial claims to be more probable than any other alternative. I challenge you to actually address that rationale and demonstrate where and why my reasoning itself is fallible.
I see. So basically "in some cases" is the crutch of your argument since its applicability is not general but case specific. I can give an "in some cases" bit on Atheistic homes. I can create scenarios that seems abusive. & etc.
It is not the crutch of my argument, but an extension upon it. There is a reason I said "the harm can be even greater" (in reference to the harms already established as inherent to religion generally). I have readily acknowledged that atheists can be equally fallible, because my argument all along has not been that no atheists are abusive but that there is greater capacity for non-abusive comportment within the atheistic perspective than in the theistic perspective on account of the latter's innate indoctrinal attribute.
I already did: emotional and cognitive retardation.
Poorly done. You simply wish to make things appear worse than they are. In fact I think a person could ask a child themselves and ask "Do you feel abused by your parents teaching you there religion?".
Religion demands full acceptance of its tenets as a matter of faith, without and even in some cases against evidence and reason; this is closed-mindedness, clear and simple.
Incredibly untrue especially since more churches are adding apologetic teachings to their ministries. That isn't close mindedness. In fact they were open minded going in. Most children barely care about church. Do you honestly think the child feels "abused"?
The primary difference between you and I is that you value the subjective and I value the objective.
True. I would love to debate with you on other topics as well since you argue clear and fluidly, if you wouldn't mind of course.
Rather than avoid reality we should learn (and teach our children) to live with reality as it is. The conflict and distress over reality is not innate, but a consequence of our forming the very attachments to an idealized world that religion teaches people to make (e.g. our lives have meaning, there is an afterlife, etc.). Religion creates the expectation for that which we cannot prove exists, and in some cases for which we can say probably does not exist; it sets us (and the child) up for disappointment.
I shall not contest this since I completely agree.
I have presented you with a logical progression of ideas that demonstrates why one might conclude my initial claims to be more probable than any other alternative. I challenge you to actually address that rationale and demonstrate where and why my reasoning itself is fallible.
I disagree. I do not see how you have effectively demonstrated your progression of ideas, but I guess that depends on our preferences between subjectivity and objectivity.
What I do not understand is the actual abuse. You seem to highlight the semi-agreed upon negatives of religion, but what about the positives felt by the child? How do we actually know how the child feels on the inside besides bored from sitting in church?
Poorly done. You simply wish to make things appear worse than they are. In fact I think a person could ask a child themselves and ask "Do you feel abused by your parents teaching you there religion?"
Not really, this was just a consolidated version of my more extensive argument above. You can ask the child if they feel abused and they can say no, but that does not mean they are not being abused. People can and too often are in abusive situations without recognizing that that is what they are. Abuse is not determined exclusively on the abused considering themselves to be abused, but upon the full context. As a child being indoctrinated into religion you have no way of appreciating the ways in which that will limit your perspective or your capacity for emotional and cognitive growth.
Incredibly untrue especially since more churches are adding apologetic teachings to their ministries. That isn't close mindedness. In fact they were open minded going in. Most children barely care about church. Do you honestly think the child feels "abused"?
Do the apologetic teachings state that God might not be real, that there may be no meaning to life, that there may be no free will, that there may be no objective good and evil, etc. and that this is consistent with the truth of the religion? If not, then my point stands. If these apologetics assert anything as a truth then they are not open minded.
Whether or not the child cares about church does not change the fact of their exposure to unsubstantiated assumptions asserted as truth over and over; the child will integrate the ideas as truths without even realizing they are doing it regardless if they want to be there. And again, whether the child feels abused does not change the context of abuse.
True. I would love to debate with you on other topics as well since you argue clear and fluidly, if you wouldn't mind of course.
Certainly. Did you have anything particular in mind? Or do you merely anticipate bumping into each other again down the line?
I shall not contest this since I completely agree.
I see aversion to reality and the construction of attachment as innate to religion, however. I suspect this is where me differ on this issue?
What I do not understand is the actual abuse. You seem to highlight the semi-agreed upon negatives of religion, but what about the positives felt by the child?
I do not deny that there can be positives, but that does not mean there are no negatives. (A parent who feed their child, helps them with homework, etc. might also beat them.)
As a child being indoctrinated into religion you have no way of appreciating the ways in which that will limit your perspective or your capacity for emotional and cognitive growth.
I see, but how will we know a child limitations on emotional and cognitive growth? What of some children will lack development in accordance to another who will develop further and not lack that of which it's fellow friend has? If you favor full cognitive development do explain how religion will hinder the growth of it. I'm curious to learn how.
meaning to life, that there may be no free will, that there may be no objective good and evil, etc. and that this is consistent with the truth of the religion? If not, then my point stands. If these apologetics assert anything as a truth then they are not open minded.
I'm not too sure. I'm going to hold your statement as valid anyhow.
Certainly. Did you have anything particular in mind? Or do you merely anticipate bumping into each other again down the line?
Seeing as you are actually rather wise in rhetoric and debate skills I wouldn't mind bumping into down the road, but if a particular topic comes to mind I will challenge you to a debate and hopefully contest the knowledge you currently hold and may obtain.
I see aversion to reality and the construction of attachment as innate to religion, however. I suspect this is where me differ on this issue?
Indeed, this may be a debate on viewpoints rather than objective quantities.
I do not deny that there can be positives, but that does not mean there are no negatives. (A parent who feed their child, helps them with homework, etc. might also beat them.)
I see, but how will we know a child limitations on emotional and cognitive growth? What of some children will lack development in accordance to another who will develop further and not lack that of which it's fellow friend has? If you favor full cognitive development do explain how religion will hinder the growth of it. I'm curious to learn how.
I do not believe in "full" cognitive development, but in realizing varied degrees of cognitive potential. Religion restricts greater cognitive development because it teaches its mythology as the absolute and incontrovertible truth; it inherently constructs a world perspective resistant to critical analysis and evolving ideology. Religion also demands that this "truth" be taken on faith, without and in some cases even against actual evidence and/or reason; this inherently constructs a disposition against reason and critical thought. There are specific ideas which are also harmful to cognitive development, such as the concepts of evil and sin.
There are some particular ideas common in religion which I consider damaging to emotional development as well. The assumption of afterlife, cosmic purpose/meaning, free will, etc. are not only all unsubstantiated, but actively substitute immediate emotional gratification for genuine emotional introspection and development. Rather than confront what is emotionally uncomfortable, religion teaches us to deny it.
I'm not too sure. I'm going to hold your statement as valid anyhow.
What statement? It was a question, followed by a conclusion if you answered in a particular way. If you are accepting that apologetics teach that any of those things are true (which was my angle), then you are also accepting that my conclusion is true. Unless you demonstrate that apologetics are not teaching any absolute truth, then your point falls.
Seeing as you are actually rather wise in rhetoric and debate skills I wouldn't mind bumping into down the road, but if a particular topic comes to mind I will challenge you to a debate and hopefully contest the knowledge you currently hold and may obtain.
Thank you, and I shall look forward to future debates on other issues.
Indeed, this may be a debate on viewpoints rather than objective quantities.
I think my viewpoint at least is grounded in the objective; holding perspective is not innately exclusive of objective reality.
Not always, religion is designed to steer people in the right direction, not to close their minds; in the olden days, it may have been the case that religious faculty were strictly against science and its principles, but it is no longer the case.
Not always, religion is designed to steer people in the right direction, not to close their minds
Oh, really? Please explain how teaching an unsubstantiated and even actively invalidated set of beliefs as absolute and incontestable truth does not encourage a closed mind. Add to that that a failure to believe is usually accompanied by threats of eternal damnation, and I think your claim becomes even more fallible.
Religion is a power structure that evolved as a mechanism of social control. It functions by compelling obedience to certain norms by teaching an absolute truth, threatening punishment, and feeding off of and perpetuating common human insecurities. If you want to call that the "right direction"...
in the olden days, it may have been the case that religious faculty were strictly against science and its principles, but it is no longer the case.
Again, seriously? Religion still resists science, frequently. Reference the evolution "debate", for instance. Or consider stem cell research, or sexual orientation, or just about every pertinent issue where science contradicts a religiously derived belief.
Just as a form of mental abuse - something like this, a belief is an intrinsic part of someone and it is unfair to use force to get someone to do something. In the end, it is the child's choice - disparate from asking a child to do his/her homework. Religion is a commitment and forcing your child to conform to someone else's personal beliefs should not be tolerated. How is it not different from a form of suppression?
Even though your child will come to harm from having a religion you may not agree with - forcing them to conform to your way, although it might be better for them shouldn't be the response. Clearly the child would need guidance and support but never be forced into something. This will ultimately have a negative effect, especially upon a relationship.
Political viewpoints such as feminism is about improving and equalizing the human race. Religion/faith does none of that. Forcing a child to believe in something that you do, regardless is a form of child neglect.
Wow, if you honestly believe that then you have been brainwashed by fear mongering and propaganda and you dont think for yourself, how does religion not do that?
Anyone who uses religion as an excuse for violence is extremely misled and should rethink their views, that doesnt mean religion itself is bad.
Yes. Forced indoctrination of a child into any ideology is abusive. However, that secular indoctrination can occur is in no way a negation of the reality that forced religious indoctrination is still also a form of child abuse.
You emphasize the process not the conclusion; teach children how to think critically about ideas and to form their own viewpoints based on their observations independent of any presumed "truths" (religious or otherwise).
I honestly doubt that would work. Nearly all young children lack the critical thinking skills to be able to make informed decisions.
While allowing children to hold whatever viewpoint they want seems alright to me, that doesn't mean we should let them do whatever they think is acceptable either.
You cannot legitimately reduce the scope of the debate to include only those children too young to be incapable of thinking. Even if you do, you would necessarily be discussing children too young to fully grasp the religious ideologies they are being taught. Even were that not the case, then I would contend that it is more abusive to indoctrinate children into unsubstantiated, harmful ideologies before they have the capacity to critically consider them.
Not indoctrinating children into a religious ideology is not at all the same thing as "letting them do whatever they think is acceptable."
Technically, neither depression nor drug addiction are willful (even under the common assumption that we have free will). More accurate to say that we cannot entirely prevent depression and drug addiction from occurring, so rather than teach our children to condemn both as immoral/sinful we teach them how to engage with both effectively when they do arise.
Do you have to ask? Teach them morality, humanity, honesty and love.
Then let them choose for themselves - your parents don't make your decisions for you like who you love and get married to in the future! Do they want to/ have to?
No. Why would it be? Does the child scream and cry for help when you teach him a particular religion? No. I don't see how it could ever be child abuse. If it is then teaching your child anything and not letting them find out for themselves is child abuse.
Nor would a child scream and cry for help if you were to sexually touch them. The point is whether 1) it infringes a child's right to autonomy 2) it causes long term harm.
Nor would a child scream and cry for help if you were to sexually touch them
I'm fairly positive the child will say something if the parent is doing something of this nature. Either that be a scream, shout, or a yell.
it infringes a child's right to autonomy
Who says that right exists? Rights are simply mental constructs for the benefit of those that fit under it description. I don't think rights exist at all. Humans just share ideas and argee or disagree on what they find to be beneficial. Even if the right to autonomy is granted what about the parents right to autonomy by wishing to indoctrinate her child? Shall you prohibit one to allow the other?
it causes long term harm.
What is the long-term harm of teaching a child a religion?
I'm fairly positive the child will say something if the parent is doing something of this nature. Either that be a scream, shout, or a yell.
Not at all. If it is done by a trusted adult, young children do whatever that adult says as their body is forced to feel things that they don't have the capacity to process. The child smiles through their abuse and only later when they comprehend what has happened to them do they realise how it has effected their development.
I don't think rights exist at all.
Okay. Then nor does morality. This is a valid argument but not something I can ascribe to. Rights are, at least in part, social constructs but this does not mean they do not exist.
What is the long-term harm of teaching a child a religion?
It disconnects them from reality. It teaches them that there is a creature in the sky that is more important than their friends, their family and anything else on the Earth and that this creature should be valued above everything else. This is a very dangerous. It leads to a complete lack of empathy and disregard for a shared morality that is normally developed through natural interaction with others within society.
This is the part of the argument I wish to focus on.
It disconnects them from reality.
Religion cannot completely disconnect you from reality. Especially Christianity since it requires you to practice the faith within reality. I don't see how a disconnection within reality constitutes abuse. People with mental disabilities can be seen as disconnected from the world. Are they abusing themselves? No. There is no abuse at all.
It teaches them that there is a creature in the sky that is more important than their friends, their family and anything else on the Earth and that this creature should be valued above everything else.
So? Most humans will put themselves before anything else. This "big man in the sky" is seen as the grand master protector for those who follow the faith. It's not like they shut out friends and family, in fact their doctrine teaches them to care for one another and to care for their enemies.
This is a very dangerous. It leads to a complete lack of empathy and disregard for a shared morality that is normally developed through natural interaction with others within society.
Prove it. You know it doesn't. Christianity for example, as stated above, pushes for a moral good in absolute truth. Christians are to suscribe to the law of the land, thus they must follow the rules everybody else follows. This is in no way dangerous. In fact it is beneficial since Christian are not to be arrogant to law or humanity. That isn't abuse. Your argument doesn't constitute anything to uphold you position in this debate.
Okay. Then nor does morality. This is a valid argument but not something I can ascribe to. Rights are, at least in part, social constructs but this does not mean they do not exist.
Rights don't exist. Unless you can hand me my rights. You cannot. You can hand me a paper communicating what "rights" you wish to give me, but what if I chose something else? Are my other "rights" not as valid as yours? What about someone who wishes to have malicious "rights"?
Not at all.
Incorrect sir. In fact most abuse cases actually constitute abuse since they involve neglect and present scarring and damage. Either mentally, physically, cognitively, or emotionally. Neglect is a prime factor with abuse. Thus a child will, in fact, scream, kick, shout, when being abused.
People with mental disabilities can be seen as disconnected from the world. Are they abusing themselves? No. There is no abuse at all.
And if someone makes someone mentally disabled to the point where they cannot connect with reality? This is abuse.
Most humans will put themselves before anything else
To me I put my friends and family before anything else. No Christian can ever say this.
hristianity for example, as stated above, pushes for a moral good in absolute truth
There you have the problem. It is this 'pushing'. Christians, disconnected from the morals we share, feel duty bound to push society towards their own believes. I can't blame them. If I believed that something was right then I'd push for it too. The problem is that this believe does not come from the process of their own interactions with other people, but rather it comes from "The Big Book of Morals" (The Bible). This allows them to campaign for the persecution of gays, women etc.
Sometimes 'persecution' may be justified if those people are doing something morally wrong (e.g. it is justifiable to persecute criminals for their activities) but when the only basis is a big book... how do you expect an atheist to react? How can you justify that your book isn't dangerous when you use it to advocate suffering of people you see as immoral?
Neglect is a prime factor with abuse. Thus a child will, in fact, scream, kick, shout, when being abused
Read about sexual abuse. You clearly have no idea. If a father touches their small child inappropriate they do not go running and screaming out of the house. It is different to many other forms of abuse and the child doesn't always recognise that what is happening to them is an abuse.
And if someone makes someone mentally disabled to the point where they cannot connect with reality? This is abuse.
I agree, but if you wish to link that to religion you are taking too many leaps since religion requires you to interact with reality.
To me I put my friends and family before anything else. No Christian can ever say this.
This is the internet, you can be as brave as you wish, but when the predicament strikes most people will fend for themselves. It's human nature. Also, you are not a representative sample of 7 billion people.
It doesn't matter if a Christian can say it or not. It doesn't constitute abuse.
There you have the problem. It is this 'pushing'. Christians, disconnected from the morals we share, feel duty bound to push society towards their own believes.
Christians are not disconnected to shared morals. In fact morality is highly subjective. Thus interpretation and opinions vary between individuals. Christians, Muslims, Taoists, etc, wish to share their views. Their morality is their own, the same as your own. Your views on what's right and what's wrong are subjective. Same for Christians.
Again, this doesn't constitute abuse.
The problem is that this believe does not come from the process of their own interactions with other people, but rather it comes from "The Big Book of Morals" (The Bible). This allows them to campaign for the persecution of gays, women etc.
Interactions with other people? No. You obtain morals by what has been written by past humans. The laws they have set you live by. Christians do the same. Again, doesn't constitute abuse.
Sometimes 'persecution' may be justified if those people are doing something morally wrong (e.g. it is justifiable to persecute criminals for their activities) but when the only basis is a big book... how do you expect an atheist to react?
The bible is a book of laws. America, or any nation, has a book of laws that tell us what we can and cannot do. What's the difference? Still, you aren't displaying what abuse is in play.
 How can you justify that your book isn't dangerous when you use it to advocate suffering of people you see as immoral?
First, do not call it my book. It isn't my book.
Second, Atheists say we simply cease to exist. Oblivion, I'd say that worse. I'd rather have a shot at eternal life. Also what if purgatory exists? How do we know if God is not Odin? Or Ra?
Read about sexual abuse. You clearly have no idea. If a father touches their small child inappropriate they do not go running and screaming out of the house. It is different to many other forms of abuse and the child doesn't always recognise that what is happening to them is an abuse.
So how does that relate to teaching a child a religion as abuse? You have yet to do so and are getting off topic.
This is the internet, you can be as brave as you wish, but when the predicament strikes most people will fend for themselves. It's human nature.
In absolutely no circumstance should a perfect Christian put a member of his family before pleasing God. Irrespective of whether atheists sometimes put themselves before their family, a Christian should never put their family before their faith. This is the evil that Christianity creates. Thankfully there are Christians that aren't very good Christian that would put their family before their faith but they are not as good a Christian as they should be.
Their morality is their own, the same as your own. Your views on what's right and what's wrong are subjective. Same for Christians.
I'll try and explain how they are not the same. Child A is raised a Christian. Child B is raised an atheist. Child A is taught that homosexuality is wrong. Child B is left to form his own opinion. Both children met homosexuals throughout their lives. They see that they are good people and that there is nothing about their sexuality that causes harm to other. Child B assimilates all of his experiences and forms a view based on his observations: he wants gay people to be happy and sees no harm in what they do. Child A experiences the same things but his morality develops differently. Irrespective of the fact that he himself wants gay people to be happy and sees no harm in their acts, homosexuality is immoral to him. He campaigns strongly for limits to the rights of homosexuals. His justification? Because the Bible, his church, and his parents told him so.
Both children learn from their experiences, that is true. The difference is that child A MUST not follow his own feelings and justifications for gay relations. He MUST follow the Bible. Or else he is not a Christian. By forcing a child to be a Christian you create an self-identity that directly conflicts with the morals they may develop.
Interactions with other people? No. You obtain morals by what has been written by past humans. The laws they have set you live by. Christians do the same. Again, doesn't constitute abuse.
On the first day of law school they asked us all to raise our hands if we have committed any crimes this week. Most of us should have raised our hands as there are many small things that we do everyday that are probably prohibited.
Personal morality and law is not the same. There are many things that are legal but immoral (being generally a prick to people is one example) and there are many things that are illegal but moral to society at large (laws on copyright and certain frauds, for example).
An atheists morality is not bound by law.
So how does that relate to teaching a child a religion as abuse? You have yet to do so and are getting off topic
It was not off-topic. It was a rebuttal to your original statement that it cant be abuse because the child does not cry. A child does not always cry at abuse.
In absolutely no circumstance should a perfect Christian put a member of his family before pleasing God. Irrespective of whether atheists sometimes put themselves before their family, a Christian should never put their family before their faith. This is the evil that Christianity creates.Â
No, and again, stating that this is evil is your subjective interpretation of anothers actions. Even so that predicament is not inherently evil. In fact it only contests some ideals that society holds. Society is only the accumulation of rejected and accepted ideals by authority figures in society. This argument is weak in and of itself.
Thankfully there are Christians that aren't very good Christian that would put their family before their faith but they are not as good a Christian as they should be.
Useless information that doesn't show that teaching a child a religion is child abuse.
I'll try and explain how they are not the same. Child A is raised a Christian. Child B is raised an atheist. Child A is taught that homosexuality is wrong. Child B is left to form his own opinion. Both children met homosexuals throughout their lives. They see that they are good people and that there is nothing about their sexuality that causes harm to other. Child B assimilates all of his experiences and forms a view based on his observations: he wants gay people to be happy and sees no harm in what they do. Child A experiences the same things but his morality develops differently. Irrespective of the fact that he himself wants gay people to be happy and sees no harm in their acts, homosexuality is immoral to him. He campaigns strongly for limits to the rights of homosexuals. His justification? Because the Bible, his church, and his parents told him so.Both children learn from their experiences, that is true. The difference is that child A MUST not follow his own feelings and justifications for gay relations. He MUST follow the Bible. Or else he is not a Christian. By forcing a child to be a Christian you create an self-identity that directly conflicts with the morals they may develop.
This follows a biased assumption as well. You assume that Christians aren't accepting of gays when the bible clearly tells them not to judge other and to treat them better than they would treat themselves, thus your entire argument is flawed. Even then there are Atheists who don't like gays. You are aruing with a biased intent. You have flawed your own argument while ignoring the principles of religion. Christians are commanded to accept gays. I still see no child abuse.
Also is morality is subjective then again the child abuse is absent since morality isn't objective. This lack of objectivity allows for the formation of many different moral codes.
Personal morality and law is not the same. There are many things that are legal but immoral (being generally a prick to people is one example) and there are many things that are illegal but moral to society at large (laws on copyright and certain frauds, for example).An atheists morality is not bound by law.
This is the same for Christians. Christians are to obey law in the same fashion Atheists do. Atheists may hold opinions that differ from the law in the same fashion as a Christian would. Again, where does this constitute child abuse?
It was not off-topic. It was a rebuttal to your original statement that it cant be abuse because the child does not cry. A child does not always cry at abuse.
I see. So then relate that to the teaching of religion and demonstrate how this is child abuse. You have yet to show me how.
Yes they do refuse, scream and ignoring it. That why you deny them desert if they do not do some rituals. Scaring them with infinite suffering in hell if they don't do another ritual .Lying them, telling them that Bible is like a real textbook...
This is core thing of all religion, scaring kids to make sure that you will have enough drones in future.
Show me an instance where someone was teaching their child their religion and the child was screaming in fear and pain. Please link me to some evidence to support yourself.
Scaring them you say? How so? Can a religious child not grow uo to be an astronaut? Doctor? Athlete? Lawyer? Police officer? Scientist? What scaring will occur? It's no different from me telling my child that when he dies he will no longer exist and everything will blow into oblivion with nothing left in existence.
We have atheist astronauts doctors etc... so there is obviously no need to scare children with imaginary la la land full of pain if they reuse to do idiotic rituals over and over again...
Okay? So a Christian can pretty much have the jobs that Atheists do. So obviously there is no abuse. The child is not being harmed. The child doesn't run away scream for help when you tell him the story of Jonah and the whale or Daniel and the lions. There is no scaring. You would most likely give your child a Christian coloring book or kids book. Im sure Atheists don't want to scare their children either with other worldly applications such as war, disease, famine, etc.
Child can develop in something like you, a deluded zealot that does not difference between bronze age mythology a real world issues, being against gay marriage because some stone age moron wrote it down, or being against stem cell research, abortions, evolution, astrophysics etc... it can fuck up kids with nothing to balance that risk.
Christianity is useless in its best... so there is no gain in it.
A dogma based on bronze age fairytales? Ah so like modern America with a horrible past and is based on those bronze age fairytales then? I guess just about any country that has committed a vile act is "wrong".
So America is a wrong place then? Along with most other countries? Then they are equal to the religion itself in measures of wrongdoing? That's fine with me.
But you will teach them about evolution and other science-y things. That's kinda the same thing. Instilling in them a mindset. Otherwise they won't know anything. They need a foundation to grow as a person however they want.
But you will teach them about evolution and other science-y things. That's kinda the same thing. Instilling in them a mindset. Otherwise they won't know anything.
Teaching children objectively probable truths is not remotely comparable to teaching them subjective, unsubstantiated opinions.
They need a foundation to grow as a person however they want.
Yes, but some foundations are objectively better than others.
Generally, a child's religion is determined by the parents by default. With that model in mind, there's loads of ways to look at this:
1. "Child abuse" refers to going against the child will and forcing him/her to do something the child would not want to do. According to the model, the child's religion is decided the very moment he/she is born, and at this point the child is a little too young for this planet to imply that he/she has an opinion about something as complex as religion. So if the child has free will, parents hold the right to decide what is good and bad for the child, and it is in the proposers' interest to believe that parents will be sane enough to do the right thing.
2. Say the child grows into a 9 or 10 year old, maybe even a teenager. He/she will not have the required maturity to decipher which religion echoes his/her internal thoughts. Instead, they'll like a religion that is less demanding in terms of time and energy rather than one that defines them. I believe that a decision based on practicality and ease cannot be the best decision to make when choosing a religion, not only because the teachings of the religion and what religions stand for is more important, but also because choice of religion sends out a firm message of how somebody thinks and a carelessly chosen religion will, therefore, have detrimental effects on a person's image in society.
3. Most religions preach the same thing: to be good human beings. Yes, the ways are different. But the idea is the same. The differences in religions, therefore, are too minute for children to decipher. When they grow old, they certainly have the freedom to change their religion because that's when they have the mental maturity to understand the slight differences in the various religions.
I know that it isnt right, but I dont think it can be considered as child abuse.
The responsibility of the parent is to guide their children towards the right path. They are only sharing to their children what works for them. But of course, children should have the rights to refuse
I believe sharing is different than forcing. I can share you some food but I can`t force you to eat it, you`ll have to eat it willingly. This analogy may apply to the case presented. I can share to my children my beliefs and if sometime they grow weary of it, then I think it would be alright for them to follow their own.
There is forced indoctrination and there is expression of personal belief, but there is also a coercive in-between. Most religious indoctrination is not outright forceful, but is coercive as a consequence of the assertion of religion as an absolute and incontrovertible truth by parents/guardians who by nature of their relationship with the child exert incredible authority. This imbues religion with a false legitimacy, and persuades vulnerable children to believe in something which is harmful to their emotional and cognitive maturation.
I believe that is already part of the system in a religion. As mere individuals in a family we can only do so much as to prevent or assert these influences in our child. Probably when the child gets older then he may dispute such authority from his parents. Children are too young to understand such doctrines anyway and not realize such kind of abuse until they grow of age.
That is not a refutation of my point, nor is it even correct. That children are incapable of distinguishing between actual truth and what their parents tell them is true only underscores the abusive nature of religious indoctrination. A parent/guardian can do more than oppose or support the influence of religious institutions and ideas upon their children; they can teach their children how to think and evaluate ideas rather than asserting that something is true or false. A child taught to think can reach their own conclusions; a child taught that any thing is an absolute truth likely cannot.
Children are too young to comprehend such beliefs even if they are taught by their parent. A 3 year old child for an example would find it difficult to comprehend the such concepts thus it would only be a burden to both parties if explained.
You cannot legitimately reduce the scope of a debate on all children to include only children three years and younger. Even if we look only at children who are too young to grasp ideas your argument is seriously lacking; it is far less burden to not teach any ideology until the child is old enough for comprehension than to teach them any particular ideology.
When the child is ready to make his own choices, then he can just simply change his beliefs and leave the religion. Teaching an ideology to a child is`t necessarily forcing it to them but rather a form of introduction.
Firstly, this is entirely non-responsive to every point I made.
Secondly, it is incorrect. Indoctrination into any ideological perspective, but especially one which teaches subjective faith as objective fact, is not something one simply sets aside.
Indoctrinate (v): to teach (someone) to fully accept the ideas, opinions, and beliefs of a particular group and to not consider other ideas, opinions, and beliefs.
It is exceedingly rare that religious parents present their faith to their children as an "introduction" that is only a possibility and which could be incorrect. Religion is, by necessity, taught as an absolute and incontrovertible truth. Consequentially, not only are children brought up to reject alternatives offhand, but they are taught that shifting their ideology will lead to eternal damnation. This means that they cannot "simply change beliefs and leave the religion".
Well, they can always leave the group when they grew up.
1. I think you miss the point of indoctrination: it prevents people from developing the critical thinking abilities they need to leave the indoctrinated perspective.
2. Making that argument is like saying that some children can still have better lives after being physically abused; it may be true, but it does not change the fact of the abuse.
I see no problem in parents nurturing their child to be someone similar to them
The problem is that it is not nurturing, for the reasons I expressly observed.
1. So how was that supposed to change anything? Religion, by definition, is but a mere group of believers. It is different from a cult of madmen such as Westboro and KKK.
2. No it's not. There's no problem in joining any congregation that violates no law.
1. Tell me more of how religion was close-minded in the founding of civilization, invention of code of conducts and keeping people united during tragedies.
Hell, 51% of scientists are believers (41% atheists, 8% agnostics). Are you going to say that they are frauds?
1. I sacrificed my earlier nuance for the sake of brevity; allow me to (re)clarify my earlier point: religion creates ideological close-mindedness, necessarily rejecting anything that contradicts whatever it asserts as the absolute, incontrovertible truth.
People can be ideologically close-minded and still invent the wheel because the wheel does not undermine God. People can be scientists, and still be ideologically close-minded on matters not pertaining to their field of study (or else bend their research to promote their ideological agenda).
2. Um... it is unsubstantiated because you did not substantiate it?
And your argument that religion existing does not make it wrong does not actually engage with the rationale I provided explaining why religion is problematic.
1. Yeah right, like ive never heard of that edgy generalization before.
Now explain how Charles Darwin remained a theologist despite the fact that his discoveries disproves the Genesis. Even Einstein condemned atheism. What's your excuse now?
2. sigh
You claimed that teaching religion is not nurturing but all your reasons are some copy-paste complains about creationists and extremists while trying to avoid the contributions of religion in the advancement of civilization and philosophy of the society.
Yeah right, like ive never heard of that edgy generalization before.
If you have heard of it before, then you should know how to refute it by now. How about giving that a go? Or, you know, just keep sidestepping the main argument instead.
Now explain how Charles Darwin remained a theologist despite the fact that his discoveries disproves the Genesis. Even Einstein condemned atheism. What's your excuse now?
You misrepresent both Darwin and Einstein, as both were self-described agnostics who rejected organized religion at least as much as they did atheism. (Source 1, Source 2)
More importantly, that otherwise intelligent individuals were ultimately fallible in an area of knowledge they did not specialize in does nothing to undermine my argument.
You claimed that teaching religion is not nurturing but all your reasons are some copy-paste complains about creationists and extremists while trying to avoid the contributions of religion in the advancement of religion and philosophy of the society.
You mentioned extremists and creationists; my argument has never been premised upon either. I presented what remains an unrefuted rationale demonstrating the harms of religion generally. This in no way denies that religion has also exerted some positive influences, and I never made that claim.
Stop putting words in my mouth, and address what I actually have said instead. Thanks.
1. There was no misinterpretation. The fact that they despise atheism rings a bell about the fact that your beliefs is of no different from every single religion available.
2. Do not deny the obvious. Your argument was copy-pasted from the ideas posted on each and every debates about the Vatican, Islam, Creationists, and Religion in itself.
Here's a dare: Why not stop using extremists as an example and start admitting the advances done by religion?
2. Seriously? The arguments I am making are in direct response to particular statements you have made. If they were copy-pasted they would not flow naturally into the course of the debate. Even if I had copy-pasted the arguments that does not make them any less legitimate, or your avoidance of them any less marked.
Regarding your dare: I already have.
This "debate" is a farce which I am quite done indulging.
2. Not really. My arguments are about how there's no problem in parents sharing their religion to their child. Your arguments on the other hand, is but mere complains about extremists.
To judge the majority over the acts of the worst side is not only cliche, it is also stupid.
1. Your two sources were about Darwin and Einstein's belief. Both of them says that despite their excellent knowledge in the field of science, they shun upon atheism.
Guess you know what that means
2. Too bad the researches says otherwise
What list?
Stop embarrassing yourself, you know what I am talking about.
I was daring you to stop using extremists as an example and list down all the advances contributed by religion throughout history. You may start at how advanced science and medicine
1. You do not know it. You believe it contrary to evidence that has been presented to you. I am done "debating" this with you.
2. In order as presented:
(A) Bad link, directs to Frobes landing page.
(B) When this source actually backs its claims with source citations they are inevitably 15 years or older. This is terribly outdated, and has been countered by more current research (e.g. "Our results suggest that further work is warranted to explore the causal mechanisms by which religiosity is protective for adolescents. Needed is both theoretical work that identifies mechanisms that could explain the different patterns of empirical results and surveys that collect data specific to the hypothesized mechanisms.")
(C) Most of the benefits in this source are conditioned by uncertainty, inconsistency,non-uniqueness, lack of definite/probable causal relationship, or off-setting drawbacks like obesity and less confidence in career prospects. The rest tend, again, to reply upon vaguely referenced studies without citations.
(D) This is flagrantly false. See this and this, for starters.
I was daring you to stop using extremists as an example
For the final time, I never did. Period. Done.
and list down all the advances contributed by religion throughout history. You may start at how advanced science and medicine
1. Actually, your so called "evidence" supported me. Is there a problem?
2. (A) My bad
(B) You just picked out a random link, have you?
Your very source was even more outdated than mine (yours was published in 2003, mine was 2008) and simply compares the health risks between public and private religion. And to add insult to injury, it even admitted that they need further studies.
If you
(C) And I suppose you can prove LiveScience wrong then?
(D) Your first link was the crime rate of the world
Second link discusses the rise of secularism and decline of religion in developed countries. How is that connected to anything?
I understand that you need to find some articles to support your claim. But seriously, please read your own references before posting it
Why would I make your arguments for you?
Its not an argument, its a fact. And you just failed the dare.
(B) I know your article was written in 2008, but its sources are all more than 15 years old.
The study I cited does observe the relationship between public and private religion to health because this is what we are debating; I fail to see the problem. And the study observed that as a field more research needs to be done into actual causality; if this is true in the 2000s then it was definitely true in the 1980s and 1990s where your source draws its information from.
(C) I do not need to disprove what has never been proven to begin with.
(D)First Source Yes, because your source made a flagrantly false claim that "thanks in no small part to America’s rich religious culture, the nation has far lower crime rates". To be that glaringly incorrect discredits the author completely.
Second Source No, it observed that secularism correlates to stronger societies more than religiosity which directly contradicts the assertion you have made and which your source also attempted to make.
I understand that you need to find some articles to support your claim. But seriously, please read your own references before posting it.
I am not the one with reading issues.
Its not an argument, its a fact. And you just failed the dare.
A "fact" which you have not proven. A "fact" that I have no burden to prove. I have not failed the dare, I have refused to engage it because it is idiotic.
You have not proven any of your claims. Even if you had, they are widely off target from the initial question and do not remotely invalidate my argument because positives do not magically erase negatives. I am tired of being blamed for what is either your slothful application to the research or actual incapacity for reasoned thought, and decline to persist in this farce any longer.Expect no further reply.
1. That's so cute of you to deny the fallacy of your arguments
2. (B) Read your own source. Its references came from 1985
What are you talking about? Your source merely compared the health of individuals between public and private religions- it made no further study about the health risks of being in a secular group.
Pro Tip: Doesnt mean that the title said "religion", doesnt mean you can use it in a religious argument
P.S
Rule of science is that a hypothesis is false until proven true, which means that unless your source has finished the study, it is not complete.
(C) Then you agreed with LiveScience, hence you admitted I won
(D) What's incorrect about it? The guy made some valid claims about how religion maintains social stability.
You have no idea how crime rates work, do you?
There are many factors that affects the moral instability (e.g financial situation, political feuds,law enforcements, etc) your source spoke only of the presence of religion in such places.
Only a fool will believe that religion alone dictates the well-being of a nation.
A "fact" which you have not proven.
The evidences are right in front of you. Denial can only get you so far.
I started making my own decisions about wherever God existed or not since the age of about seven. I agree Children should have to follow the rules there parents set like what time they go to bed, how long they watch T.V. etc. but it is stupid parent's have no right to force them follow their religion. You do not own your kids, they can choose for themselves. "They aren't clever enough" is not a good enough reason. Their are plenty of adults who are less intelligent than certain Children. Should they have less rights because they are unintelligent?
I support it mostly. I think it would be a form of neglect. If a person is so obtuse that they need a book to help them be a good person, they shouldn't be teaching anybody anything. They should be the ones being taught.
In the vast majority of cases they are not just sharing their views with their children. They are telling their children that their religious beliefs are absolute and incontrovertible truths, at a point when their authoritative relationship with the child imbues these views with a false air of legitimacy. In most cases, the child is also informed repeatedly that if they do not adopt the same views they will live in eternal suffering. This is an abuse of authority, and it is harmful to the emotional and cognitive maturation of the child.
Religion being abused by the majority doesn't mean that it is wrong.
Forceful indoctrination into religion is the subject of this debate, not religion generally. My statements were that those instances are child abuse, not that this makes religion wrong (though I consider it so for other reasons).
No its not. The subject of this debate is right on the title: "Is forcing your child to be a certain religion, a form of child abuse?" From which I claim that guiding a child in spiritual views is part of parenthood.
You're the one forcing indoctrination into the argument.
The existence of force is an implicit assumption in the debate question; if you do not like that then make your own debate and stop arguing on this one.
Besides which, you are assuming the child never resisted.
The fact that they are a child, the fact that parenthood tackles nurturing, the fact that parents desire their children to be like them, and of course, the fact that religion in itself is but a mere social organization of believers.
The fact that they are a child, the assertion that parenthood tackles nurturing, the assertion that parents desire their children to be like them, and of course, the assertion that religion in itself is but a mere social organization of believers. Care to substantiate your "facts"?
This has nothing to do with any of the claims you made in this instance. As a reminder of what you said:
- parenthood tackles nurturing
- parents desire their children to be like them
- religion in itself is but a mere social organization of believers
The Study
Since you shared it, here are my thoughts on the article on the study. Firstly, it is not the study itself and does not specifically cite it so critical examination is limited. Secondly, the article indicates that the conclusions were reached not upon actual, observable behavior but on parents' subjective opinions on their children's behavior; this could lead to any number of problems in the data, not the least of which is that parents may have different understandings of what constitutes good and bad behavior, may be more or less observant than other parents, etc.
Firstly, it is not the study itself and does not specifically cite it so critical examination is limited.
Click the blue texts- it's their references
Secondly, the article indicates that the conclusions were reached not upon actual, observable behavior but on parents' subjective opinions on their children's behavior
I believe you have a research that proves them wrong?
Fallacy 1: Indicating other instances of potential child abuse does not prove that forcing a child to be religious is not child abuse as well.
Raising your sons to believe it is ok to be gay when it increases your odds of getting HIV 50 fold is child abuse.
Fallacy 2: Teaching respect and acceptance to children does not predispose them to be homosexual.
Fallacy 3: Being homosexual does not increase your risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Engaging in risky behavior (e.g. promiscuity, unprotected sex, etc.) increases you risk of contracting all STIs, and this is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The reason risk behavior is likely greater amongst homosexuals is because safer sex education has not been equally accessible to this demographic, in part because parents reject their childrens' orientation and fail to educate them and in part because social stigma has failed to provide equal information and access to homosexual persons.
Fallacy 4: Transmission rates for other STIs are actually higher in heterosexual populations than in homosexual populations. Picking one STI to defend your point provides an incomplete picture.
Fallacy 5: Not all religious indoctrination condemns homosexuality. Religious persons can force their child into religious practice/belief while also teaching acceptance of homosexuality.
Valuing dual income over having someone there for your children is child abuse.
Fallacy 6: Homosexual couples do not place dual income over supporting their children any more than heterosexual couples. Homosexual couples can also have a stay at home partner, just as heterosexual couples can both be working partners.
Thinking divorce is ok and raising a kid without their father is child abuse.
Fallacy 7: Divorce can be damaging to children, however in some contexts divorce can actually be the better choice for a child. Examples include instances of domestic abuse, child abuse, and domestic unrest from bad marriages.
Raising your boys to be something other than a man, or raising your girls to be something other than a woman is child abuse.
Fallacy 8: Whether you are referencing "traditional" gender roles or transgender identities, you have no basis for your claim.
Fallacy 9: Actually, raising children to conform to "traditional" gender roles is harmful (not the other way around). For instance.
Raising your children to be open to influence from a world without respect for life, decency, or honor is child abuse.
Fallacy 10: Religion is not the only source (nor even the best source) for raising a child with respect for life, decency, and honor.
Fallacy 3: Being homosexual does not increase your risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Engaging in risky behavior (e.g. promiscuity, unprotected sex, etc.) increases you risk of contracting all STIs, and this is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The reason risk behavior is likely greater amongst homosexuals is because safer sex education has not been equally accessible to this demographic, in part because parents reject their childrens' orientation and fail to educate them and in part because social stigma has failed to provide equal information and access to homosexual persons.
I don't actually want to support the idea that it's child abuse to tell your son it's ok to be gay (hence why I'm clarifying rather than disputing), but your statement here is rather misleading. Anal intercourse with an infected partner does, in fact, carry a higher risk of transmission than vaginal intercourse with an infected partner, for several reasons(1). Similarly, vaginal intercourse with an infected partner carries a higher risk of transmission than oral sex with an infected partner. Furthermore, there is, as you noted, a higher incidence of risky behaviour amongst homosexual males than amongst heterosexuals, and a larger proportion of infected homosexual males than heterosexuals, as a result of all factors involved. I also believe that the lack of pregnancy risk is an additional contributing factor to risky behavior amongst homosexuals as opposed to heterosexuals.
Now, it's true that anal intercourse is not exclusive to homosexual males- heterosexual couples are known to indulge as well. However, anal intercourse is far more prevalent amongst male homosexual couples. All else being equal, a homosexual male is at a higher risk of contracting HIV than a heterosexual individual. It should also be noted that a heterosexual individual is at a higher risk of contracting HIV than a homosexual female. Still- stating that being a homosexual male does not increase an individuals risk of contracting HIV is blatantly false.
This does not mean children should be encouraged not to be gay- that is an exercise in futility, as sexual orientation is not chosen consciously. Telling your son that it is not ok to be gay is extremely flawed and damaging, regardless of the reasoning behind it. But we shouldn't be making misleading statements because they are politically correct- homosexual males, heterosexual individuals, and homosexual females all have different overall risks of contracting HIV, due to the nature of each demographics proclivities towards various sexual activities- all else being equal, of course.
(1)- Anal intercourse is riskier for several reasons. Firstly, the tissues of the intestines carry the specific function of absorbing nutrients and moisture from their contents into the bloodstream. Even without damage, it is significantly easier to contract a disease when body fluids are deposited in the intestines as compared to the vagina for this reason. Secondly, the large intestine does not lubricate naturally, nor is it as elastic as vaginal tissue. This both increases the prevalence and severity of microtears forming on both partners, as well as the likelihood of damage occurring to a condom when it is used.
I agree that religion is not the predominant source of child- abuse and yes, much of what you say is true e.g. fallacy 2 - divorces, values are what matters but I must disagree with Fallacy 9: traditional has much credibility, it was formed over generations for a sound reason - it is not to be mistaken as 'the out-dated and suppressive way'. It wouldn't do well to simply ignore the fact that your ancestors and many generations preceding you followed this 'traditional' way of life.
Everything is subject to change and a very definite example is our VALUES.
I believe you should not condemn homosexuality and that there is ALWAYS more than one side to every story. Yes, not all religious doctrines condemn this, but isn't religion ultimately how we perceive it? Why is it that when Islamic religions ( as an example) are in favour of world peace and honour there exists who attribute their actions to religion- the 'extremists and terrorists?'
They can be deeply religious and no less a part of the faith as anyone else despite the fact that the actions they engage in are treated as if they are inexplicable.
Really, the biggest fallacy of all is saying we can all agree where to draw the line for abuse and our personal beliefs.
I placed "traditional" in quotations for a reason. Contemporary, western conceptions of gender roles actually have a very shallow history. Even if that were not the case, I disagree that tradition has "much credibility". Human beings and our actions are illogical at least as often as they are sensible. The moment a tradition (or something viewed as tradition) is established as being more harmful than beneficial it loses its credibility. I contend that this is the case with gender norms, not as a matter of assumption but of fact. Human identity is diverse and multifaceted, and to force it into (arbitrary) boundaries is a consequence not of function but of social power dynamics dysfunction.
Everything is subject to change and a very definite example is our VALUES.
My point precisely. Glad you agree.
[...] They can be deeply religious and no less a part of the faith as anyone else despite the fact that the actions they engage in are treated as if they are inexplicable.
I do not think anything I said contradicts that observation. I fully acknowledge the diversity of perspectives that exist concurrently within faith groups (and take that as further evidence against their legitimacy). What I do think is that, to varying degrees, all of these views are damaging and constitute abuse when children are indoctrinated into them.
Really, the biggest fallacy of all is saying we can all agree where to draw the line for abuse and our personal beliefs.
Then it is fortunate that I never said either of those things.
It is fortunate then. I do acknowledge the fact that you did not contradict my observation when I said They can be deeply religious and no less a part of the faith as anyone despite the fact that the actions they engage in are treated as if they are inexplicable... but if you ask most religious children or people who were indeed religious from a very early age, you will find that the majority did not have these supposedly 'legitimate' views of a particular faith sprung upon them or in your words 'indoctrinated' in them. (If I may bring some scientific observations into this argument) during puberty/ maturation, the child has already a 'mind of their own', we already question and form our own opinions, so it is true that they may be pushed or nudged in a particular direction, but ultimately, it is their choice. -hyperlink-
To varying degrees, all of these views are damaging and constitute abuse when children are indoctrinated into them
If I may say, I do disagree, though I do appreciate this precise outlook on the matter. You could say that believing in
It is fortunate then. I do acknowledge the fact that you did not contradict my observation when I said They can be deeply religious and no less a part of the faith as anyone despite the fact that the actions they engage in are treated as if they are inexplicable... but if you ask most religious children or people who were indeed religious from a very early age, you will find that the majority did not have these supposedly 'legitimate' views of a particular faith sprung upon them or in your words 'indoctrinated' in them. (If I may bring some scientific observations into this argument) during puberty/ maturation, the child has already a 'mind of their own', we already question and form our own opinions, so it is true that they may be pushed or nudged in a particular direction, but ultimately, it is their choice. - see hyperlink-
To varying degrees, all of these views are damaging and constitute abuse when children are indoctrinated into them
If I may say, I do disagree, though I do appreciate your precise outlook on the matter. Especially: Human identity is diverse and multifaceted, and to force it into (arbitrary) boundaries is a consequence not of function but of social power dynamics dysfunction. Yet, I still dispute the 'indoctrination' part, most of what we know e.g. the most fundamental principles of right and wrong can be attributed to our upbringing and therefore, our parents, but much abuse can come from within that person's base personality/ traits. Each person is unique in the way that they have their own way of thinking and reacting to stimuli and (this also depends on their EQ.) Not that parents cannot abuse/ don't abuse children, but psychologically, a child is influenced by their exposure to other people and experiences. In Japan, most groups are structured hierarchically. Individual members have a designated rank within the group and responsibilities based on their position. Seniority has traditionally been the main qualification for higher rank, and socialization of young people in Japan emphasizes respect and deference to one’s seniors. This is 'indoctrinated' in Japan's young people from a very early age. Now, you can call this 'culture' and at the same time, this could even constitutes abuse, but is this actually just a different way of living by western standards/ practices? The definition of abuse = using (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse/ treat someone/ thing with cruelty. Is this abuse, when the parents are trying to teach the children the best they know how? If they believe this is what is best for their development?
but if you ask most religious children or people [...] - see hyperlink-
Not only is your citation outdated itself, its own citations are woefully obsolete (some are more than half a century old). More importantly, none of the research in the development section indicates an element of deliberate, willful choice. Quite the opposite actually; the stages of development into a religious young adult parallel those of indoctrination. To trust self-reporting on the subject would be like taking the word of someone suffering from Stockholm Syndrome that their captor never did anything wrong.
[...] most of what we know e.g. the most fundamental principles of right and wrong can be attributed to our upbringing and therefore, our parents, but much abuse can come from within that person's base personality/ traits. Each person is unique in the way that they have their own way of thinking and reacting to stimuli and (this also depends on their EQ.) Not that parents cannot abuse/ don't abuse children, but psychologically, a child is influenced by their exposure to other people and experiences.
I have never disputed the influence of other factors; indeed, I would contend that the infrastructure of organized religion is a strong influence on religious development. Notably, parents are introducing and repeatedly subjecting their children to that influence. More importantly, however, the existence (and even extent) of other influences in no way negates the reality of the influence parents bear upon their children.
In Japan[...] The definition of abuse = using (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse/ treat someone/ thing with cruelty. Is this abuse, when the parents are trying to teach the children the best they know how? If they believe this is what is best for their development?
The distinction I would make between the Japanese seniority system and religiosity would be along lines of consequence; if the seniority system is more detrimental than harmful then I would contend it is also abusive.
You do raise a potentially interesting distinction between willful and incidental abuse, but I think both fall well within common legal understanding of the term abuse: "Any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caretaker which results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse or exploitation." (source) Notably, in your own definition you speak to either bad effect or bad purpose... indicating your own implicit understanding that consequence is of concern at least as much as purpose. Basically, intent is not necessary for abuse to occur, though knowledgeable abuse would generally be construed as more egregious by most people.
P.S. I recognize that this is a quite belated response. Feel free to disregard it if you like; it will not be construed as concession in any way.
Fallacy 1: Indicating other instances of potential child abuse does not prove that forcing a child to be religious is not child abuse as well.
True, but it illustrates how liberals indoctrinate their children into their worldview as well, even when it directly harms them.
Fallacy 2: Teaching respect and acceptance to children does not predispose them to be homosexual.
POSSIBLY, but teaching that homosexuality is a sin can discourage them from becoming an active homosexual
Fallacy 3: Being homosexual does not increase your risk of contracting HIV/AIDS. Engaging in risky behavior (e.g. promiscuity, unprotected sex, etc.) increases you risk of contracting all STIs, and this is true for both homosexuals and heterosexuals. The reason risk behavior is likely greater amongst homosexuals is because safer sex education has not been equally accessible to this demographic, in part because parents reject their childrens' orientation and fail to educate them and in part because social stigma has failed to provide equal information and access to homosexual persons.
Give it a rest, being an active homosexual is only possible by either deluding or discarding any faith in an Abrahamic religion. In the west, religion is what discourages people from promiscuity. Being a homosexual DOES increase your risk of HIV, even if it is a secondary effect. It has nothing to do with stigma, sex education, or healthcare discrimination, which have been pretty much eliminated in the last 20-30 years... If there was even the slightest indication removal of those factors decreases the infection rate among homosexuals, the entire country would erupt in a super volcano of academic papers shoving it in everyone's face. 5 seconds on google shows homosexuals in Europe face similar infection rates as the US.
Fallacy 4: Transmission rates for other STIs are actually higher in heterosexual populations than in homosexual populations. Picking one STI to defend your point provides an incomplete picture.
source
Fallacy 5: Not all religious indoctrination condemns homosexuality. Religious persons can force their child into religious practice/belief while also teaching acceptance of homosexuality.
I understand it is a Fallacy (No true Scotsman), but you can generally assume I'm excluding liberal Christians when I say "Christians"
Fallacy 6:
I was not talking about homosexuals. I was talking about heterosexuals.
Fallacy 7: Divorce can be damaging to children, however in some contexts divorce can actually be the better choice for a child. Examples include instances of domestic abuse, child abuse, and domestic unrest from bad marriages.
...and infidelity, yes I agree. I'm not supporting domestic violence, I'm addressing an apathy towards fatherhood.
Fallacy 8: Whether you are referencing "traditional" gender roles or transgender identities, you have no basis for your claim.
Yes I do, It is a disease. Denying medical treatment for a disease is abusive. Mutilating someone's body, literally selling them false hope that they can change genders, is abuse.
Fallacy 9: Actually, raising children to conform to "traditional" gender roles is harmful (not the other way around). For instance.
A. explain how
B. Your link didn't work
C. You can pretty well assume I'm not going to see things your way because of an article from a California university, just like I know full well you are not going to see things my way if I just trow Bible verses at you all day. I have more respect for peer reviewed journals, but only if they contain statistics that actually support what you are trying to say. Maybe you should look up the suicide rates of housewives vs transsexuals.
Fallacy 10: Religion is not the only source (nor even the best source) for raising a child with respect for life, decency, and honor.
Another instance where you and I will just disagree on what is good and what is bad, but just for fun, why don't you go ahead and tell me what that better source is.
True, but it illustrates how liberals indoctrinate their children into their worldview as well, even when it directly harms them.
Which remains wholly irrelevant to the debate.
POSSIBLY, but teaching that homosexuality is a sin can discourage them from becoming an active homosexual
Prove it. Sources.
Give it a rest, being an active homosexual is only possible by either deluding or discarding any faith in an Abrahamic religion.
Prove it. Sources.
In the west, religion is what discourages people from promiscuity.
Prove it. Sources.
Being a homosexual DOES increase your risk of HIV, even if it is a secondary effect. It has nothing to do with stigma, sex education, or healthcare discrimination, which have been pretty much eliminated in the last 20-30 years...
Prove it. Sources. Since discrimination has lessened, so have the rates of HIV/AIDS transmission among homosexuals. In fact, "the epidemic has become increasingly an epidemic of non-white populations, of women, and of heterosexuals and injecting drug users" and "the largest proportional increase has occurred in cases attributed to heterosexual transmission" (source).
I understand it is a Fallacy (No true Scotsman), but you can generally assume I'm excluding liberal Christians when I say "Christians"
No, actually, I cannot. That being established, however, does not legitimize the apparent argument you are making that religion is non-abusive because it protects children from becoming homosexuals (because not all religion condemns homosexuality). You missed the point, and subsequently you have lost it as well.
I was not talking about homosexuals. I was talking about heterosexuals.
Fine. My first point stand here to then: so what? Religion does not uniquely solve for this, and it does not change the rest of the abusive nature of religion at all even if it did.
...and infidelity, yes I agree. I'm not supporting domestic violence, I'm addressing an apathy towards fatherhood.
Again, religion is not a unique solution to this if it is a solution at all. Even if it were a solution, this does not change the rest of its abusive nature.
Yes I do, It is a disease. Denying medical treatment for a disease is abusive. Mutilating someone's body, literally selling them false hope that they can change genders, is abuse.
A. Transgender identities have been declassified as a mental illness in the DSM-V, having been replaced with "gender dysphoria" which references the state of discomfort that may be associated with this identity. By the DSM's own admission, the only reason that gender dysphoria is even on the books is to retain access to medical resources for transgender persons who have historically been shut out of all forms of medical treatment (not just transitional services).
B. Even among those who consider transgenderism to be a mental illness, the most effective medical treatment has consistently been identified as supporting the person through transition (not denying them it). There has been no success is eliminating dysphoria through therapy or medication, but aligning the physical self with the cognitive self has been proven to work.
C. I am transgender. I was designated female at birth and was raised to be a woman, but this did not prevent me from later identifying as a man. I am pursuing transition, not because I hate my body but because that is the only way I can get other people to treat me as the man I am. If I could not change my body, if society could accept that I am a man with a female body, I would not need to pursue transition. As it is, failing to do so leads not just to invalidation of my identity but jeopardizes my career and places my life and well-being in serious risk on a regular basis. Most of that danger comes from conservative religious people.
A. explain how B. Your link didn't work C. You can pretty well assume I'm not going to see things your way because of an article from a California university, just like I know full well you are not going to see things my way if I just trow Bible verses at you all day. I have more respect for peer reviewed journals, but only if they contain statistics that actually support what you are trying to say.
A. See B.
B. Apologies. I cannot find the original article any longer but here are additional sources: #1 & #2 & #3. I recognize that two are abstracts, but they do include citations to additional pertinent research.
I would also remind you that while I have at least made effort at procuring evidence in my counter claim you have yet to provide any for your initial claim.
C. The difference between a California study and the Bible is that the study has been peer-reviewed and includes a methodology which can be understood and critiqued, whereas the Bible makes no gesture towards any evidential standard at all.
Maybe you should look up the suicide rates of housewives vs transsexuals.
I do not have to. As a transgender person I am already distinctly aware in a way you could not possibly be. Perhaps you should educate yourself as to the actual reasons for that increased prevalence: foremost among them being discrimination. Does it really come as any surprise to you that an oppressed demographic would suffer from higher rates of suicide? Truly? Please.
Another instance where you and I will just disagree on what is good and what is bad, but just for fun, why don't you go ahead and tell me what that better source is.
I do not hold a personal morality myself, and do not actually see things in terms of good and bad as you do. That said, I think any secular source is innately better than a theistic source because it has a greater capacity for incorporating critical thought (whereas this attribute is anathema to religion).
Baseline: You have presented no evidence for any of your many assertions, yet make repeated calls for more substantiation of my counter claims; in truth, the primary burden of proof is upon you and you have utterly failed to support it. Even if everything you have claimed were true, and even if you could then prove that religion is the only way to address those issues, you would still not have disproved that religion can also be a form of child abuse on account of its other attributes (e.g. indoctrination, dogma, superstition, etc.). Present proof and a coherent argument, or I am disinclined to persist in listening to your espousal of uniformed and frankly intolerant beliefs.
Prove it. Sources. Since discrimination has lessened, so have the rates of HIV/AIDS transmission among homosexuals. In fact, "the epidemic has become increasingly an epidemic of non-white populations, of women, and of heterosexuals and injecting drug users" and "the largest proportional increase has occurred in cases attributed to heterosexual transmission"
I did a pretty long post about this elsewhere, male homosexuals are still half of the new HIV cases and only 1% of the population. In Europe they are still many many times more likely than a heterosexual to contract HIV even though there is little to no stigma there.
You said heterosexuals are more likely to contract other diseases. You should have used the qualifier "some". I wouldn't have disputed it. Your original statement implies HIV is the only STD to impact male homosexuals more than others.
No, actually, I cannot. That being established, however, does not legitimize the apparent argument you are making that religion is non-abusive because it protects children from becoming homosexuals (because not all religion condemns homosexuality). You missed the point, and subsequently you have lost it as well.
Actually you can because I just clarified what I meant. As an atheist you should appreciate that if someone is changing long held, indisputable beliefs about God to something they are more comfortable with, what they are worshiping is not God. They are just worshiping their own imagination. Changing a belief about a deity to one that will make you appear to be more tolerant and acceptable to the world, so that the world believes your deity is omnipotent and infallible, is counterintuitive since you had to fix a "flaw" with him in the first place.
Fine. My first point stand here to then: so what? Religion does not uniquely solve for this, and it does not change the rest of the abusive nature of religion at all even if it did.
Christian beliefs do not contain anything about a capability of its followers to stop all the sin in the world. We can't even stop all the sin within the church. We can, however, lessen it ( see the report above )
A. Transgender identities have been declassified as a mental illness in the DSM-V,
Similar situation as liberal churches. Changing what is a disease and what isn't a disease to appease political correctness simply does not make any sense.
B. Even among those who consider transgenderism to be a mental illness, the most effective medical treatment has consistently been identified as supporting the person through transition
Yes, and the best treatment for someone who is suicidal is to shove them off a bridge. Problem solved.
I am pursuing transition, not because I hate my body but because that is the only way I can get other people to treat me as the man I am.
You are mutilating your body, not because you particularly want to, but because you want others to see you as a man? Has it ever crossed your mind that you will NEVER be a man. It is 100% impossible to change genders. You can try to imitate a man, sure. You can change the outward appearance of your body, good for you. Go through with it and for the rest of your life you wont' be a man, you won't be a woman, you will just be something in between.
B. Apologies. I cannot find the original article any longer but here are additional sources: #1 & #2 & #3. I recognize that two are abstracts, but they do include citations to additional pertinent research.
Reading the abstracts, there are again differences between what the writers considered "negative" and what I would consider "negative". Consider the conflict of interest of a psychologist saying we need to stop raising boys to be masculine because they are more likely to view seeking psychological help negatively. Other negative aspects (as far as I can tell from the abstract they were considered negative ) were "pursuit of status" and "desiring to be more muscular" "risk taking" "dominance" "self reliance" .... come on. As a woman who wants to be a man, these things are "negative" to you?
I would also remind you that while I have at least made effort at procuring evidence in my counter claim you have yet to provide any for your initial claim.
I concede there is an overwhelming resource you have that I don't have. You can prize your resource all you want, I prize mine. Again though, I am always interested in surveys and statistics. I think most of them you have brought me help me as much as they help you.
Does it really come as any surprise to you that an oppressed demographic would suffer from higher rates of suicide?
ok fine, Illegal immigrants vs transsexuals.
That said, I think any secular source is innately better than a theistic source because it has a greater capacity for incorporating critical thought (whereas this attribute is anathema to religion).
If you are an atheist you think the bible is man-made anyway. So what makes one man-made source of morality better than another? Results. The reign of secular morality is in its infancy, and already on life support.
This shows that religious opposition to homosexuality has decreased while opposition to infidelity has increased, and argues that religious support for same-sex marriage may stem from the interest of reinforcing fidelity within non-heterosexual relationships. If you are attempting to argue that this is equitable to deluding/rejecting religion, then you are grossly over-extending both the evidence and analysis because there is no proof contained therein that this represents deluding/rejection instead of evolution.
You still have provided no evidence that children raised to be accepting are more likely to become homosexual. Consequentially, I consider this point ceded.
I did a pretty long post about this elsewhere, male homosexuals are still half of the new HIV cases and only 1% of the population. In Europe they are still many many times more likely than a heterosexual to contract HIV even though there is little to no stigma there.
Nice source citation. Also, entirely non-responsive to my point and my evidence. I was not arguing that homosexuals have a lower rate of HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals. I was pointing out that that rate has dropped in the homosexual population in correlation to increased acceptance, which substantiates my earlier argument that the higher rate is itself a consequence of resource/education inaccessibility engendered by discrimination (whereas the rate has actually increased within the heterosexual population). You have not addressed this point; failure to do so again will lead me to conclude you cede the point.
You said heterosexuals are more likely to contract other diseases. You should have used the qualifier "some". I wouldn't have disputed it. Your original statement implies HIV is the only STD to impact male homosexuals more than others.
That was fairly implicit in my wording. If you no longer contest that point, however, then your overall point is completely voided; being homosexual may mean greater risk of contracting some STIs but being heterosexual may mean greater risk of contracting some other STIs. The harm is non-unique.
Actually you can because I just clarified what I meant. As an atheist you should appreciate that if someone is changing long held, indisputable beliefs about God to something they are more comfortable with, what they are worshiping is not God. They are just worshiping their own imagination.
As an atheist, what I actually believe is that all religious belief is a projection of what people want to believe without the need to actually legitimate those beliefs through reason or proof. You are all worshiping your own imagination. At any rate, not all religious people condemned homosexuality to begin with so alteration is not at issue.
Christian beliefs do not contain anything about a capability of its followers to stop all the sin in the world. We can't even stop all the sin within the church. We can, however, lessen it ( see the report above )
Your report does not show that in the least. This is also non-responsive to my point: even where religion does good this does not counteract the bad it also does.
Moreover... if Christianity cannot solve for divorce then why make the point to begin with?
Changing what is a disease and what isn't a disease to appease political correctness simply does not make any sense.
This is not why the condition was declassified. It was declassified because further research indicated to practitioners that it was not actually a disorder. If you are going to claim otherwise, then you need to actually prove the "trans agenda" at work. Otherwise you are arguing an unfounded conspiracy theory.
Yes, and the best treatment for someone who is suicidal is to shove them off a bridge. Problem solved.
No, because suicidality is responsive to therapy. Gender dysphoria is not.
You are mutilating your body, not because you particularly want to, but because you want others to see you as a man? Has it ever crossed your mind that you will NEVER be a man. It is 100% impossible to change genders. You can try to imitate a man, sure. You can change the outward appearance of your body, good for you. Go through with it and for the rest of your life you wont' be a man, you won't be a woman, you will just be something in between.
I am "mutilating" my body only as much as anyone who gets plastic surgery, tattoos, or piercings; this is my body and I can do whatever I want to it without needing your approval. You are conflating gender identity and biological sex. Gender identity is a cognitive state, biological sex is a physical state; the former can change though you are correct that physical alterations cannot perfectly accomplish a sex change. You presume that I consider myself to be a man in the typical, cisgender sense of the word; I don't. I am a transgender man (call it "inbetween" if it makes you more comfortable), and despite the ignorant bigotry I face every day I am comfortable being that person. I am not transitioning because I need yours or anyone else's approval; I am transitioning because it is safer.
Reading the abstracts, there are again differences between what the writers considered "negative" and what I would consider "negative".
You misunderstand both the abstract and my point. They list all the causal correlates studies, including the potential non-negatives. Your pointing this out does not disprove the link between traditional masculinity and aversion to getting proper psychological help (unless you truly mean to suggest this is not a negative).
I concede there is an overwhelming resource you have that I don't have. You can prize your resource all you want, I prize mine. Again though, I am always interested in surveys and statistics. I think most of them you have brought me help me as much as they help you.
You don't have a resource to prize. You have failed to substantiate any of your arguments, having even attempted to do so only for one of your many assertions. You have not disproved or turned my substantiation to your side (claiming it is not doing it).
ok fine, Illegal immigrants vs transsexuals.
I have no idea what you are trying to do by comparing apples to oranges, and at this point I honestly do not care.
If you are an atheist you think the bible is man-made anyway. So what makes one man-made source of morality better than another?
They are all problematic, which is why I do not hold one. However, I have already presented you with a rationale as to why religious morality is more problematic than secular morality; this is a rationale you have failed to refute (your sole reply being an abstract claim about secular morality being on life support).
Final Statement
I asked you to substantiate your assertions. You attempted (and failed) to do so only with one tangential claim, and left the others completely unsubstantiated. You have given no evidence, no rationale. Much of your counter-argumentation has been non-responsive. You have persisted in espousing ignorant bigotry without any basis for your statements beyond personal, religious prejudice. You statements have been consistently close-minded and ill-informed. And in all of this you have utterly dodged the actual question of the debate which is whether religion is itself abusive.
I am done engaging with you at this time, so you may expect no further reply after this.
I really don't have time to dispute all this... oh well.
Even if alternative perspectives are also guilty, this does not make yours any less guilty. So, yes, it is quite irrelevant.
You are either a theist or atheist. If atheists are indoctrinating their children too, and you want to call that wrong, that would mean almost everyone is doing something wrong. It is more difficult to convince people everyone is wrong vs trying to convince people another group is wrong but your group is right. Anything that weakens your side is relevant.
This shows that religious opposition to homosexuality has decreased while opposition to infidelity has increased, and argues that religious support for same-sex marriage may stem from the interest of reinforcing fidelity within non-heterosexual relationships.
That was the main point of the article, but if you take a closer look at the graphs they show what I have been saying. People who went to church weekly are less likely to approve of homosexuality and extramarital affairs.
I was not arguing that homosexuals have a lower rate of HIV/AIDS than heterosexuals. I was pointing out that that rate has dropped in the homosexual population in correlation to increased acceptance, which substantiates my earlier argument that the higher rate is itself a consequence of resource/education inaccessibility engendered by discrimination (whereas the rate has actually increased within the heterosexual population).
That was fairly implicit in my wording. If you no longer contest that point, however, then your overall point is completely voided; being homosexual may mean greater risk of contracting some STIs but being heterosexual may mean greater risk of contracting some other STIs. The harm is non-unique.
uh huh, your right, should we start comparing fatalities?
At any rate, not all religious people condemned homosexuality to begin with so alteration is not at issue.
All Christian groups started from a handful of churches going back to the time of the Apostles. They all universally condemned homosexuality. At some point in time, all the churches today that accept homosexuality had to make that change in their past. I understand to you we might all be the same, but would you equate someone who follows a 2,000 year old religion to say, a Scientologist? Some churches have changed their view of homosexuality even more recently than they came around!
Your report does not show that in the least. This is also non-responsive to my point: even where religion does good this does not counteract the bad it also does.
What bad? Valuing the life of an unborn child is bad? Teaching the golden rule is bad? Wanting the homosexuals to leave us alone is bad? If all religion is false, and there is no higher authority, than by what authority do you judge us as "bad".
Moreover... if Christianity cannot solve for divorce then why make the point to begin with?
Because it can give people the knowledge that divorce is not the right thing to do. It teaches people to think of something bigger than themselves. It idealizes the intact family while the most popular consensus among athiests will always to be to just do what makes you feel good now.
This is not why the condition was declassified. It was declassified because further research indicated to practitioners that it was not actually a disorder. If you are going to claim otherwise, then you need to actually prove the "trans agenda" at work. Otherwise you are arguing an unfounded conspiracy theory.
I would be very interested in seeing your best peer reviewed article on that subject.
No, because suicidality is responsive to therapy. Gender dysphoria is not.
You are telling me no one has ever been successfully treated for gender confusion without surgery?
I am "mutilating" my body only as much as anyone who gets plastic surgery, tattoos, or piercings;
Generally speaking, while many of those also are accurately described as mutilation, they usually don't destroy someone's reproductive function and completely change who they are.
Gender identity is a cognitive state,
Yes, and when your cognitive state is not reconciled with reality or possibilities it is a sign of a MENTAL DISORDER.
call it "inbetween" if it makes you more comfortable ... it doesn't
and despite the ignorant bigotry I face every day ... that you bring upon yourself
You misunderstand both the abstract and my point. They list all the causal correlates studies, including the potential non-negatives. Your pointing this out does not disprove the link between traditional masculinity and aversion to getting proper psychological help (unless you truly mean to suggest this is not a negative).
Independence and confidence are positives... Manhood 101
You don't have a resource to prize. You have failed to substantiate any of your arguments, having even attempted to do so only for one of your many assertions. You have not disproved or turned my substantiation to your side (claiming it is not doing it).
My resource has lead me to a very good place in my life right now... You can put your happiness in the hands of surgeon you don't really know who is just in it for the money. Good luck. Plus, 99% of the exchanges we have had are just opinions and our own personal views on things. I can have an opinion and a line of reasoning without citing resources every step of the way. So can you... Actually if you notice, you didn't give a single reference in your entire last posting.
I have no idea what you are trying to do by comparing apples to oranges, and at this point I honestly do not care.
I think you said something about comparing the happiness of people who conform to gender vs people who don't. So I proposed we compare the suicide rates of housewives vs transsexuals. Then you said "well that is because transsexuals are oppressed" or something like that. To which I responded we should compare the suicide rates of illegal immigrants to transsexuals then. Your group is more suicidal than housewives and more suicidal to people who are authentically discriminated against. Maybe you should consider the possibility that your non-conformity to both society and nature that lead to so many suicides.
You are assuming that "gay" is a choice and that it is something you are taught. You probably also believe you can "Pray away the gay".
The "go forth and multiply" is an easy way to have too many children to the point that dual incomes are needed.
This statement insinuates that anyone with gay children has raised them to be gay. This is not the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard, but it's close.
Children should be raised not to be influenced by anyone. Especially people who believe in things that are based on faith. They need to be taught critical thinking skills and come to their own conclusion on how the world works.
You are assuming that "gay" is a choice and that it is something you are taught. You probably also believe you can "Pray away the gay".
If you have some gay male friends, ask them if they've ever been with a woman- same deal with lesbian friends regarding males. You'll find that most homosexuals have, in fact, engaged in heterosexual activity at some point. It's just not their preference. -thousandand1
The "go forth and multiply" is an easy way to have too many children to the point that dual incomes are needed.
So if I go out and have 10 kids... wife gets pregnant and says "well we just don't have enough money, I have to work." So I put 10, going on 11 kids in daycare... what is my net gain (assuming my wife isn't a neuro-surgeion, rocket scientist, or professional athlete) ?
This statement insinuates that anyone with gay children has raised them to be gay. This is not the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard, but it's close.
No, but there are parents who refuse to embrace gender norms, and inadvertently push gender disorders. I have no doubt there are a lot of well meaning Christian parents out there who have been blind-sided by one of their kids coming out.
Children should be raised not to be influenced by anyone.
Correct, optimally children should only be influenced by God.
Especially people who believe in things that are based on faith.
Correct, so next time there is a discussion on teaching evolution, I expect you to stand against it.
They need to be taught critical thinking skills and come to their own conclusion on how the world works.
You know, my wife doesn't understand why I'm always having these arguments online... There is even a pretty clear biblical prohibition against it, (Proverbs 26:4, 2 Timothy 2:14). I just consider it proselytizing and feel justified. But what I really feel I get out of it is every time someone challenges my faith and pushes me into a conflict, my faith is vindicated. I have no desire to be a Christian if someone can prove it is wrong... but you can't... what I find is usually the opposite.
It is an incredible act of arrogance to assume everyone who holds a different opinion than you is guilty of not using critical thinking. It shows a shameful level of pride in the atheist community to assume they have a monopoly on thinking objectively.
If you have some gay male friends, ask them if they've ever been with a woman- same deal with lesbian friends regarding males. You'll find that most homosexuals have, in fact, engaged in heterosexual activity at some point. It's just not their preference. -thousandand1
It is not matter of preference, it is genetic. Just because your book of bullshit is against... nothing changes...
B. I have yet to see an article that says "this is it, this is the gay gene, this gene makes you 99% more likely to be gay"
C. After you accomplish that, find the bisexual gene.
D. Realize the entire academic community is sold out on the assumption homosexuality is genetic, if proof exists you shouldn't have to look to far to find it.
It is not genetic but epi-genetic, it is caused by miss-fire by one of fetus protection systems that suppose filter out testosterone.
Gay people pick their sexuality same way you have picked your hair color...
IF. And I do mean IF that were true... How is it not a disease? How is it not something that should be treated and prevented? My hair color doesn't make me incapable of living a normal life or reproducing.
Most of gays do live better life than you. Your life as a religious moron is worthless...
How do you "cure" epigenetic miss fire that happen in the womb 20 years ago...? That saving person that has been shot by travelling back in time and sabotage the gun...
If you have some gay male friends, ask them if they've ever been with a woman- same deal with lesbian friends regarding males. You'll find that most homosexuals have, in fact, engaged in heterosexual activity at some point. It's just not their preference
This is an argument about Freewill and Determinism. It does nothing to prove your point.
So if I go out and have 10 kids... wife gets pregnant and says "well we just don't have enough money, I have to work." So I put 10, going on 11 kids in daycare... what is my net gain (assuming my wife isn't a neuro-surgeon, rocket scientist, or professional athlete) ?
If you've got 10 children, you probably are already in one of those professions or have some type of high paying job.
Correct, optimally children should only be influenced by God
Yes, children should be influenced by an invisible man in the sky. Makes sense.
Correct, so next time there is a discussion on teaching evolution, I expect you to stand against it.
Why would I. It is not faith based. I know, I know, you're going to play the "It's just a theory" card. Well Gravity is also a theory, but I don't see creationist jumping off of buildings.
I have no desire to be a Christian if someone can prove it is wrong... but you can't...
You're right, I can't prove it wrong. Just like you cant prove the flying spaghetti monster wrong. But if I claim there IS a flying spaghetti monster, then I need extraordinary evidence to back up this extraordinary claim. The burden of proof would fall on the person making the claim.
It is an incredible act of arrogance to assume everyone who holds a different opinion than you is guilty of not using critical thinking.
I do not believe that at all.
It shows a shameful level of pride in the atheist community to assume they have a monopoly on thinking objectively.
I think that we only ask for proof of your claims. In no way, do I think you do not have thinking skills. But I think you're wrong on this one.
No. That would be tyranny. While I prfer that children be taught plurality and comparative religion and spirituality, the gov has no right to force that on people and who gets to decide? The rule of law should be enforced, not mob rule.
I know I was taught world religions in elementary school, weren't you? I was repeatedly informed that we live in a country with freedom of religion and it was my choice what I wanted to believe. But my parents raised me in their belief system just like all parents do. I was actually raised catholic and have "rebelled" against that and am a protestant (not sure which kind yet, might need to start my own denomination to be happy). My sister was raised the exact same way and is either an atheist or an extremely weak Christian.
So if we live in a country where people are given a choice in what they want to believe, and routinely do chose differently than how they were raised, why do we have to go out and insult parents who are doing what they think is best? "Brainwashing" would almost necessarily require threats or violence which are already illegal anyway.
Anyways, if the government were to take Dawkins' advice and label teaching a child religion as abuse, how is that not tyranny?
Mr. Dawkins' idea is the tyranny I refer to, and I got that whole new age shabang as far back as age 8 when they said that whatever you believe is the truth no matter what and I was thinking in my head "lkady are you nuts? You are not God who defines what is real". It is sad when an 8 year old knows more about absolutes than a "teacher".
Agreed, either all religions are wrong or only one is right....................................................................................................
Rule of law means to me a certain code of conduct agreed upon by lawmakers and the people that vote for them. i do not support mob rule, but I oppose a dictatorship too. a middle ground where government is a partnership between the people and the lawmakers is ideal to me. Ill use an example: The Constitution of America is what used to be such a partnership. A democratic republic. What America currently is would be for another debate. Tell me whatcha think. :)
All parents should be expected not to indoctrinate their child into any perspective, but to equip their child with the means to think critically and formulate their own opinions. This includes parents who are atheists, but it does not follow that the way to do this would be for those parents to bring their children to church.
Child abuse is an act of child endangerment, such as molestation, physical harm and mental bullying. If something does not harm a child or harm his/her wellbeing, it is not a form of abuse.
What a silly question. My dad tried to force Catholicism on me when I was little. It didn't work. I developed my own beliefs as I grew up. This is NOT child abuse. When children grow up they have their own mind. How can it be child abuse?
I don't believe it is necessarily "Child Abuse." I would call it "Indoctrination." Every child to an extent is indoctrinated with their parent's beliefs, whether it be Theism, Christianity, Muslim, Buddhist, or Atheist. Now if you are talking about the parents FORCING them to believe something, that is an infringement on freedom and rights. Also it depends on what you call "religion."
A Theist will teach their child to be Theist, and an Atheist will teach their child to be Atheist. Children have always and will always lean toward their parent's belief, it's a natural tendency.
However, if you must call it Child Abuse, to be fair you must put Atheism under the label of "religion" for the sake of the debate.
Indoctrination commonly refers not just to the teaching of ideas but to the representation of those ideas as inherently true. Such absolutism is effectively a prerequisite for religion to exist; it is not equitably necessary for atheism and is not especially applicable to agnosticism. Even were theism and atheism equitably parallel in this respect, your argument does not disprove that religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse but rather expands the terminology to include atheistic indoctrination as well.
Note: I'm ignoring the description of the debate by posting this, so apologies there.
I will even say that actually forcing your child to be a member of your religion, or to subscribe to any of your beliefs, is a form of child abuse. But by that same token, forcing a child to abstain from religion altogether, telling him he is an atheist, and not allowing him to investigate religion on his own terms is child abuse for the exact same reason.
The reason that I voted 'No' after noting the above, and the reason that I am ignoring the description, however, is because of what the generally accepted definition of 'forcing religion' is said to be. What most people call 'forcing religion' is not in fact forcing religion of any kind. Someone wearing a crucifix at work- even if they work for the government- does not constitute forcing their religion on you. Someone praying in a public place- even if it's government property- does not constitute forcing their religion on you.
I acknowledge that this diverts significantly from the subject at hand, so I'll leave it at that. I would like one person to dispute this to balance out the votes in the debate- any others, please choose clarify, as this is somewhat tangential to the debate topic. I will take your argument as a support or dispute based on its contents rather than the word next to your name; there is no need to artificially skew the vote either way.
How can you force someone to hold to a particular religion? It's a personal choice. Anyway, when the child is grown, they can make their own decision. And I would think that they would abandon the religion that was forced on them. On the other hand, if their parents did not instruct them in their religious beliefs, wouldn't that be even worse? It would mean that the parents did not care about their child's eternal soul.
It is true that a child has the right to believe/ dispute certain beliefs and to choose from the diverse branches of religious philosophy and to a certain degree, a parent as the responsibility to guide their child in the right direction to learn the fundamental moralities of humanity. However, there is no quintessential set of values or book instructing parents on how to raise their children developing into a 'perfect adult' as no book exists and this is parallel to how there is no such quality/ state of being 'perfect'. Children who are sent away to a different country or in the past wars, would have left the security and guidance of their parents/ family, it doesn't mean they are completely clueless as how to act as a human or to care/ love/ honour others. Conversely, children need to experience and learn from their experiences to make these judgements for themselves. However, it is true that some things are hard -wired/ inherent to us from the start such as turtles when born know instinctively that they need to go to the water, it may be product of evolution for survival, but children also seem to understand the concept of death before someone has explained it to them.
