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 religion child abuse?
Is it child abuse to raise children with the notion that the looming threat of hellfire is waiting for them should they ever deviate from your belief system? Is it child abuse to try to dictate what your children believe and punish them for thinking differently? Is it child abuse to teach your children pseudo science which is engineered to support biblical claims and is not based on observable reality? Is it an abuse of FactMachine's good sensibilities to subject him to the idiotic notion that free will exists and then in the same breath tell your children what they must think and believe?
Yes, it absolutely is a form of child abuse. Your children have the right to make up their own minds about what they believe and in their own time. To be perfectly honest I don't know how anybody would determine the brainwashing of children to be anything other than child abuse. When you indoctrinate a child into religion you snatch away their potential to think critically about the world in which they live. Just because they are your kids does not make them a material possession you can do psychological damage to simply because you want future company on the crazy train.
Just think of the repercussions of bombarding a small child with religion in the modern era. Since religion is slowly dying in the west, the chances are high that your child will be bullied by his future classmates for having such views. This in turn might lead to depression and social problems in later life. If it isn't right for Hitler to indoctrinate children into Nazism then it isn't right for you to indoctrinate children into Christianity or whichever other batshit theistic system you have deluded yourself into taking seriously.
You know something Nomenclature? My first impression of you was that you are just a condescending communist cognitively impaired cunt and that 100% of everything you say is bullshit but now I'd say it's only about 80%
So your solution is to deem religion as child abuse given that other individuals will most likely antagonize a devout individual for their views? And you assume that because I am devout to my god, that I lack the ability to think critically?
My question then, is, if you allow your child to espouse homosexual or trans-gendered feelings, by these same standards could it not be classified as child abuse? Its not as if the suicide and depression rates spike in regards to this, or that most of the time they become socially isolated (Which I might add, Christian children of any denomination do not experience on the same level).
If you ALLOW your child to espouse homo sexual or transgender feelings that's not the same as forcing them on the child, And I am not very fond of homosexuality or transgenderism but I don't think they should be disallowed from following those tendencies, I do however think that the PC SJW culture that doesn't know what gender is should be marched off to concentration camps and that even a tranny should be able to understand that they are not technically a woman. And I also believe that young children shouldn't be subjected to SJW propaganda because it warps their mind and makes them more likely to be confused about gender and whatnot.
Child abuse can come in the forms of neglect or excessive force. if I were to leave a pack of cigarettes out, and allow my 12 year old child to access them, full well knowing how destructive they are, then that is child abuse.
I agree. That's why you shouldn't leave a pack of gayness or gender dysphoria on the counter, but if they want to smoke gayness or vape some tranny juice when they're old enough it's not your place to tell them they can't.
So in and of itself, if you, as a parent, allow a young child to participate in destructive or socially harmful activities (And I refuse to accept that faith is one of these) then you are in the act of child abuse.
Nope, I wouldn't allow a young child to participate in destructive or socially harmful activities and faith IS destructive and socially harmful because it teaches you to believe things just because you are told or because that's what you want to believe which is the opposite of being smart.
The majority of the chapters of scripture in the bible teach upstanding values and morals, not degenerate social and ideological diseases that are flooding our everyday lives.
By whom? No formal agency I know of regards neglect as a form of abuse. Rather, both are forms of maltreatment. But the distinction is made to differentiate between acts of omission versus acts of commission.
By whom? No formal agency I know of regards neglect as a form of abuse.
The National Society tor the Prevention of Cruelty to Children regards it as abuse. The NSPCC is the most formal child protection agency in the United Kingdom.
Neglect is the ongoing failure to meet a child's basic needs and is the most common form of child abuse.
Fair enough, and thanks for the source reference. Still against my experiences with the usages, but I'm not claiming my background is extensive by any means.
All the same, it strikes me as a strange way to cut it. If neglect is abuse then saying "abuse and neglect" is redundant, but my impression is that that language is quite common (which suggests a difference). It also seems useful (especially legally) to be able to call out a clear difference between commission and omission, which is harder to do when the omission term is lumped in under a commission term.
Utter nonsense , child neglect is a form of child abuse, and is a deficit in meeting a child's basic needs, including the failure to provide adequate health care, supervision, clothing, nutrition, housing as well as their physical, emotional, social, educational and safety needs.
Where does this right come from, exactly? And does it extend to protection from indoctrination into political and social ideologies as well, such as moralisms? If not, how do you defend that discrepancy?
Yes, forcing religion upon your children is child abuse. First, there are many religions in the world, they cannot all be true, at best one of them could be true, or none are true. So for parents to attempt to shove their religion down their child's throat while they are young and vulnerable knowing full well that there are many competing religions and ways of interpreting the world, is the act of a dictator and bully. Not to mention, the school systems do not seriously teach the products of the last several thousand years of human thought in math, science, history, philosophy, comparative religions, mythology, ect. because as soon as they teach anything the parents/adults would lose their grip on the children's minds that is keeping them confined to this tiny Disney Channel Snowglobe of a world that religion offers. That is to say, the serious pursuit of knowledge about the world and universe of which we are a part of is incompatible with bullshit (aka. religion) and the adults are aware of this. So, they attempt to shield the children from everything we know to be true about the universe and the method of thinking that helped us arrive at these conclusions (ei. science and logic). So, parents/adults intentionally withholding the truth about reality from children in order to shove Fairy Tales and mythology down their throats while they are still young, developing, and vulnerable is obviously child abuse. If that doesn't qualify as Psychological child abuse what would one accept as child abuse short of physically beating children?
How is religion incompatible with scientific and intellectual pursuits? Many scientific minds and great thinkers alike who have laced the thread of history and contributed breakthroughs that founded much of what modern science operates upon had faith. Its ignorant to suppose my religion can prevent me from delving into any sort of complex scientific research or philosophical cognition. I intend to make sure that my children know as much from the day I give birth to them. Not only will they be taught a set of moral standards and given a backbone of values to live life upon from the bible, but they will also be taught to think for themselves, and deviate if they choose to. It is more than shoving mythical rhetoric down their throats, it is ensuring that they are upstanding in character, as all good Christians I know are. This is much, much different than child abuse.
Insert "The Chronicles of Narnia" in place of "The Bible" and it should become clear how both Christianity (based on your response I am supposing you are some strand of Christianity) is incompatible with Science/serious intellectual pursuits and is also child abuse (to tell/force a child to believe there is something magical about the Chronicles of Narnia and is in some way seriously true).
To me or anyone who is not your religion, The Chronicles of Narnia is nearly just as true as what you believe in (there are some differences because there are some historical truths in the Bible such as characters, places, ect.).
If you heard that your neighbors were indoctrinating their kids into The Chronicles of Narnia worldview, I think you would be rightly outraged and consider confronting the parents about it at least if not call child protective services if it continued for years and years as the child was growing up. The only thing you have on your side is sheer number of subscribers. As in, many people hold the same outlandish, myth laden views that you do so it is viewed as socially "normal" to people you are coming into contact with on an everyday basis.
Please watch at least a few of these (the first 4 videos are short, the last 3 are longer) and if you provide a few counter videos/articles/books that you insist I should watch/read to illustrate your worldview on this topic then I will:
I was born to a Mother who is native to France and a Father who was an active duty serviceman of the United States Air Force. I won’t get too much into the story, simply because I know the majority of you most likely do not care. Anyhow, my Mother had been raised as a devout Catholic, while my Father was raised by a family that was undeniably Christian, but rarely set foot in a church of any kind. My family on my Mother's side have a historical background in medical professions, and my Father’s family farmed beats in Northern Colorado. Regarding such, I spend a considerable amount of time in both locations (Not so much anymore), which I believe gives me a unique perspective. I graduated from high school with a score of 18 on the bac, and subsequently applied to take prepas, or special classes. After completing these I applied at and gained entry through the EV1 at École Polytechnique. I have spent the last month or so in basic military training, preparing to finish my mandatory service in the Gendarmerie, or militarised police. However, my main goal is to major in electrical engineering and mathematics, which I will begin to focus on later this year in general courses. I spout off small snippets on the website here or there, but rarely get a chance to develop an in depth response as I am now.
So now that you understand my preoccupation and background, I will proceed to address your topic. I fail to see how The Chronicles of Narnia and the Holy Bible correlate, other than your sense that they are both fictional and meaningless stories on a personal note. That I can understand and will respect. I do not view all of the Bible as a factual rendition of history, most of all Genesis. The Bible speaks in a considerable amount of riddles, and it is up to the reader to decipher and find purpose in what they mean. While my Mother and other relatives take the topic very seriously and literally, I see the tale as a metaphor. The Bible says that god created the heavens and Earth in seven days, and it begs the question, what is a day to God? I contend that it must be an enormously long time given God is an infinitely large entity. In this regard, I see Genesis as an ancient rendering of scientifically accurate events, though perhaps not in order. God created the universe, created the Earth, and created man. And this is another place where I differ from mainstream Catholics. I believe in evolution as a process that life undergoes, but not as an origin, which is still heavily disputed (No one knows exactly where life came from on Earth). I think that Genesis tells of God planting the seeds (Hence the garden of Eden) for history as we know it to become reality, for the biological timeline to unfold. I believe that he has had a guiding hand here or there, and I believe that when Eve betook of the fruit from the forbidden tree of knowledge it describes the point where modern man emerged. The manipulative, clever, and determined beings we know today. Additionally, and I have read the Bible to completion, I admit that there are heinous acts committed within, but I see these as the wickedness of man and the perversion of God’s will. To this extent I opt not to follow them. For example, I ignore what the Bible commands in terms of treatment of slaves and homosexuals (Although I by no means agree with their lifestyle). But I will also be the first to say that the bible offers and upstanding and admirable set of morals for one to live their life by. That, I feel, cannot be disputed, even if one takes the… unsavory... portions of scripture into consideration.
Now that I have established some, but not all, of my personal outlooks on the Holy Bible, I pray we can avoid any sort of misunderstandings and mistakes. By the same hand, I can now delve into the heart of the matter. To lay out my thesis, I do not believe that preaching the will of the Lord to children in a family setting is child abuse or indoctrination. I watched every video you posted to completion, and I find that all of them dance around the subject at hand entirely. This... Richard Dawkins. He is a good speaker, I will concede, but I found him utterly unconvincing in every manner. The first video you present as evidence spends the majority of its time highlighting the undisputed fact that youth minds are malleable and easy to teach. I do not argue with that in the slightest. Then, abruptly, after some subtle hints, at the end, it simply goes ‘And religion is bad, THE END’ without any other context or evidence. The second is even more evasive. He is asked a question, spends about a minute or so jumping all over God’s creation with fragmented ideas and facts, then looks at the girl and says ‘Sorry, I cannot answer that’. When asked another question, he at least comes out quicker with admitting he has no resolution to the man’s inquiry. The third was a little bit more understandable, the speaker outlined his conflicts with religion (Essentially that it preaches false truths, and I have already stated my views on that), and concluded that lying to children is wrong. That is a slightly more concrete position. The fourth, regarding schools, simply reiterated an idea that I actually agree with, that education should be independent from faith, or secular. Children should be taught the science and the real world observations, and then be allowed to have that knowledge complemented and augmented by a religious education by the family at home. I contend that it does not matter if the Holy Bible is a factual compiling of history (I already outlined my outlook), if one can look within it and find upstanding morals while looking beyond the bad. The last three were essentially duplicates of the first and third, just more abrasive and vague. So gathering from your Narnia comparison, video references, and my inferred meanings behind them, I am going to construct a more refined version of the argument you are presenting to the best of my ability.
Obviously, you do believe that bringing religion upon a child is abuse, because It is a lie, is incompatible with factual science in the modern age, and therefore is indoctrination into a false truth. To make it easier to contrast with mine, I will put a more enhanced form of it here:
I believe that teaching religion to children is not family abuse, given that it is compatible with modern science, provides an admirable set of morals, and overall produces better oriented individuals’.
Now that I have cleared that hurdle. I can begin an offensive push at your argument, which will also serve as a defense to some extent.
Secondly, the Bible provides an undisputable set of honest and righteous morals (Along with some malicious ones that must be overcome). It teaches to love one another, ironically to avoid violence, to be humbled and honest, to avoid vanity and self righteousness, to forgive, and to live a virtuous life. These morals are and should be present in any family household that wants to imbue the best to its offspring. I live my life as best I can by these teachings, and I have obviously found success.
Lastly, despite secular pushes from the left to contradict this, Religion does have a statistically noticeable effect on crime in developed countries. Studies by law enforcement across your nation have showed a correlation between the number of prison inmates who did not attend service (IFI) and those who did and their respective rates of reincarceration, 35% and 17% respectively. Research was also done on youth who live in poverty ridden communities that fester with crime compared to surrounding regions. It was found, that of the youth who managed to avoid involvement in crime, a significant amount of them had attended service of some kind, be it voluntary or involuntary. Furthermore, when data was collected regarding wealth and social placement, it seemed that on a worldwide scale, the more religious one was, the less money one earned per capita. But when only developed countries were taken into consideration, a number of outliers showing the opposite trend appeared, like, for example the US. I could delve more into this, but I feel as if this response is saturated as it is in and of itself. Besides the point, I need to be ready to go in an hour or so for salute and drill.
Athene, I very much appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic with me and am glad that you clearly took the time to view the links I sent you, think about them and come up with a thought out response. Your response is quite lengthy and you provided links as well (as I requested) which I am happy about and looking forward to engage with you on. It will take me a bit of time to get back to you as you put quite a bit on the table there and I am going to watch all of the videos you sent and respond to everything in some detail (as there is a lot to discuss here). Also, if we are going to have a bit of a back and forth like this at some length, would you consider doing a separate debate page with just you and I and broadening the topic a bit more to include "1. Are Religion and Science compatable? 2. Is there any reason to favor one religion over the other? 3. Is religion child abuse? 4. Is the Bible/religion a good source of moral teachings and can there be morality outside of in the absence of religion? 5. Does a religious worldview produce better oriented individuals, that is, Is Religion good or bad for society?"? Or do you prefer to keep the format as it is at the moment?
Btw, I read that you are planning on majoring in Electrical Engineering and Mathematics, I wanted to say good for you and best of luck with your schooling. Also, it appears we have some overlap, I myself am in the final year (finishing up) a Mathematics and History double major/double degree program in a University in the United States and intend to follow up with Physics and Mathematics in Graduate school afterword.
I don't have much time at the moment, but I would be willing to open a private debate as you suggested. I would also be open to the idea of broadening the topic with the parameters you have in mind.
I just realized that I said it took 7 days for god to make the Earth. I don't know why I made that mistake, I suppose because the Sabbath is directly related to the other 6. However, god created the heavens and Earth in 6 days according to scripture. Mon mauvais.
Haha From what I have seen of your positions so far I also agree with the overwhelming bulk of what you say (on quite a range of topics) and even where we haven't overlapped completely I view it as minor differences. I think we, as a society, need more people like you that think critically, independently, and are not afraid to trespass on taboo in order to assert their "controversial" views in the conversation as well as the honesty/confidence to call a spade a spade when you see one (although I may just be saying that because we agree about so much LOL).
I am admittedly new to the forum and have only seen a limited number of Nomenclature's positions. I thank you and am glad that you brought this to my attention and I have commented on the "No Freedom of Speech" debate. The short answer to the "No Free Speech" position is no, I strongly disagree with that, I think it is imperative to have "Free Speech", I actually think that there is a huge problem with a lack of free speech, free press, free thought, free expression, ect. Now, as for "communism", I have not read Nomenclature's beliefs on this topic as of yet although it is of interest to me. From what I gather, what you (FactMachine) take "communism/socialism" to mean is very different than what I take the terms "socialism/communism" to mean based on my readings of the theory/arguments and work of the various historical figures and the reasons why these ideas/systems developed. But that is too much for here, I am sure you may eventually see my views on political and social matters at some later point on relevant threads in the future. I have seen you (FactMachine) around the forum a bit and from what I can tell we have both overlapping positions and points of disagreement that I would be interested to explore in the future (admittedly you have posted far more than me so I'm the one who has to do their HW on your views to get a better sense of exactly where we disagree and to what extent) as it is always interesting to see how and why people with some similar views at places diverge at other areas .
Being religious and pursuing science or other intellectual ends is not incompatible. Using religion to pursue science or other intellectual ends is incompatible though, because the former advances from faith and the latter from evidence. Typically, when one speaks of the incompatibility of religion and evidence this is what is meant.
If you teach your children that X is good and right then you have not really allowed them to determine what is good for themselves. Instead, you have conditioned them to regard choosing anything not-X as bad and wrong. This is arguably a softer sort of indoctrination but it nevertheless indoctrination. Of course, religious people are hardly the only people who do it; secularists are just as prone to the practice.
Being religious and pursuing science or other intellectual ends is not incompatible
Perhaps, but you are still giving yourself a deliberate handicap to the pursuit of scientific inquiry, because you have already made up your mind about what you are going to find.
In some cases you are correct, bit your conclusion doesn't necessarily follow.
For instance... not all religions are equally engaged in metaphysical speculation (e.g. Spinozistic faith or Zen Buddhism as compared to Catholic Christianity), not all adherents are equally dogmatic (i.e. their idea may not be so fixed that they will presume an end in spite of evidence against it), and not all scientific and intellectual pursuits are in tension with religious beliefs (i.e. there is a difference between pursuing advanced mathematics versus evolutionary science as a Christian).
Indoctrination into any ideology through coercive threats is abusive. That extends well beyond the domain of religion and into most forms of socialization.
I think there's a useful to distinction there, yes. The coercive threat element is largely what makes indoctrination abusive (though not necessarily the only thing).
While I'd agree that absent such coercion one could say that indoctrination is education I nevertheless think it is still indoctrination, although I don't think there's necessarily anything objectionable to that.
Whether or not you agree with religion it only counts as child abuse if you
a) Use it to justify denying something they need, like an education or a vaccination, or
b) Teach them something you know is false and personally don't believe, or
c) Use it to physically abuse or even kill them (don't go Abraham on them).
But most of the parents teaching their kids religion really do believe in it. It's not abuse.
And keep in mind there are other white lies and big lies we teach them and society doesn't consider those abuse, either. Stories of the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, etc. Urban legends like don't masturbate or you'll go blind. In a way, since we already know as adults those things are lies and not to be believe, then telling those lies is more of a child abuse than teaching about religion.
Use it to justify denying something they need, like an education or a vaccination Teachings kids that they have to conform to a religion is a denial of one of the most important needs a child could have, the need to learn critical thinking skills and use their own brains to reach logical conclusions so they don't become a brain dead robot jelly fish slave. And keep in mind there are other white lies and big lies we teach them and society doesn't consider those abuse Well I do. since we already know as adults those things are lies and not to be believe, then telling those lies is more of a child abuse than teaching about religion. Not so, because they are equally stupid regardless of whether you believe them or not and children should not be forced to believe them, and religion is more abusive because you are not threatened with damnation for saying santa clause isn't real and the tooth fairy doesn't tell you how to live your life or that the earth is only 6000 years old and science was invented by the illuminati.
Fair enough. As parents my wife and I try to do whatever is best. That's subjective.
So far we only talk religion if the kids ask a question about it, and they only time they do that is if they wonder why Nana isn't home on a Sunday morning. We allow the cultural white lies like Santa Claus so they get to participate like their friends, but we don't make a big deal about it. We're fully in support of vaccinations, good education, and raising good people. And so far we've achieved discipline without hitting them.
You're not bad parents, but I think people should be blunt and truthful with their children even about things like death and even at a very young age because the faster they are exposed to reality the faster they will mature. And if I where you I would be careful with vaccinations, I support the science of vaccination but that doesn't mean there can't be adverse effects that may be unintentional, you're still dealing with foreign "coding" material and modified viruses and if enough of that accumulates who knows what would happen. If you avoid taking too many vaccines in close succession and avoid the unnecessary ones and the sketchier ones that aren't 100% proven to be safe and effective you should be good.
My opinion is not much if you have not instilled in them the value of viable unborn late term human lives.
When you are shopping in stores, and your children see a special needs child, do you cover their eyes and ears, and run in the opposite direction? Do you teach your children what the Democrat Party supports when keeping it legal to kill viable special needs children merely for being diverse and different?
No it's not , I'm an atheist and while I would argue with believers about what and how they believe most believers genuinely hold their position because they firmly believe in the particular belief system they participate in .
In your debate description you're citing what I call extreme religious views which can indeed be termed abuse if a child is damaged psychologically or bodily
Some believers see Atheism as abuse so it depends on what your position is regarding this matter doesn't it ?
A believer believes he /she is giving his kids the best start in life by giving them religious instruction and believe this is essential to raising a model child no malice or injury is intended , quiet the opposite in fact , most grow up to be be decent citizens who just happen to believe in a god .
Religion leverages the threat of divine, social, and/or familial sanction to coerce compliance. It creates profound dependency by fostering the beliefs that the individual is flawed and that without the religion there can be no personal salvation, social order, happiness, meaning, etc. If a parent engaged in these behaviors towards a child under other circumstances we would not equivocate on the matter, but people like you become the most accommodating apologists when it comes to established social institutions like religion.
Of course you will acknowledge the most extreme instantiations of these practices as abusive, because you do not wish to seem unreasonable. But then it seems suggested that not all religion is as extreme as that, as though a less abusive act ceases to be abusive merely by not being the most abusive it could be. These practices are not merely commonplace but are essential to religious ideology as ideology.
Sincerity of belief and good intention do not influence whether acts are abusive. A person can be abused by someone who means to do and believes they are doing good. Your position here disqualifies any number of cases of child and spousal abuse generally regarded as abusive. It also excuses the extreme religious views you claim could be abusive, because we have no reason at all to believe those people are any less ardent in their beliefs or beneficent in their intention.
Neither does being a 'decent citizen' (whatever that means) suggest that one was not abused. Many (non-religiously) abused children also grow up to be socially functional people.
If atheism or atheists engage in similar behavior (and they generally do) then it is also abusive. The term 'abuse' signifies something in particular, namely habitually violent behavior directed at another person (which we typically identify by evaluating harm, but which is really distinct from the harm).
Your direct claims that (1) the description cites extreme rather than normative cases and that (2) abuse is relative to perspective.
Additionally, your implicit claims that (3) the sincerity of conviction and (4) intentions pertain to whether religion is child abuse and that (5) religion is non-objectionable on the abuse grounds since most religious people can ultimately function socially.
I said in relation to the topic heading ......In your debate description you're citing what I call extreme religious views which can indeed be termed abuse if a child is damaged psychologically or bodily......
I also said regarding abuse .....No it's not , I'm an atheist and while I would argue with believers about what and how they believe most believers genuinely hold their position because they firmly believe in the particular belief
Abuse is relative to perspective really ? So beating a child or psychologically abusing a child like extremists do is all about perspective ?
I was not talking about most religious people as is apparent by my agreeing it's not abuse except in extreme cases , are you on a separate debate ?
I said in relation to the topic heading ......In your debate description you're citing what I call extreme religious views which can indeed be termed abuse if a child is damaged psychologically or bodily......
Yes, and as I already stated my original response critiques that position.
I also said regarding abuse .....No it's not , I'm an atheist and while I would argue with believers about what and how they believe most believers genuinely hold their position because they firmly believe in the particular belief
Yes, and as I already stated my original response critiques that position.
Abuse is relative to perspective really ? So beating a child or psychologically abusing a child like extremists do is all about perspective ?
According to you, yes. Again, I already stated that my original response critiques this position which you took. It isn't my position but I'm glad to see you think your own position can only be met with incredulity.
I was not talking about most religious people as is apparent by my agreeing it's not abuse except in extreme cases , are you on a separate debate ?
Yes, you were. You said that "most grow up to be decent citizens", which is what I was responding to as I (again) already explained.
Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you just lack basic reading comprehension? I'm done here.
Yes go and fuck off you troll ; you said that I stated .. abuse is a matter of perspective .... you fucking idiot I never said that , your problem is I comprehended your bullshit and you've no defence so as usual you invent your own version to suit your pseudo intellectual rantings
If you call me correcting you on your ridiculous re - invention of what I said into what you think I said is somehow " lowering the bar " that demonstrates clearly you're delusional as well as a drama queen
Your " bar room " philosophy act may impress your long suffering family , at least they think there's one thing impressive about you
Lower than a nonce like you ? No !!!! You're so mean 😢😢😢
As I said if your looking for " a decent insult " which your alas would seem to imply I've no doubt you will get one or two because there's a lot to insult about you
Why aren't you as pissed off about religion as you are about sacred geometry? most believers genuinely hold their position because they firmly believe in the particular belief system they participate in That doesn't make them any less retarded. Some believers see Atheism as abuse so it depends on what your position is regarding this matter doesn't it? No, it depends on which viewpoint is actually correct. A believer believes he /she is giving his kids the best start in life by giving them religious instruction And their wrong, they're just brainwashing their kids with delusional pipe dreams from the shamans hut of delirious peyote popping yopo snuffing ayahuasca shenanegans.
Because sacred geometry is a so called pseudoscience and has no place being regarded as science .
Believers aren't retarded they're indoctrinated take a child from infancy and teach it nonsense and what does it end up believing .....nonsense ; I see them as victims .
I believe Atheism is correct but I cannot force others to accept my views can I ?
Yes , I believe they're wrong also but they totally believe it don't they , so what do you do ?
Christian science is pseudo science and has no place being regarded as science. Teach a child nonsense from infancy and if it is intelligent enough it will see through the nonsense, so it is both due to brainwashing and a lack of intelligence. The average human is retarded by my standards and magical thinking is the norm even if it doesn't manifest in a religious form, anyone who doesn't understand the falseness of every subjective contrivance and every social construct and every superstitious notion is just another irrational superstitious monkey. Many people who are irrational superstitious monkeys would not be if they weren't indoctrinated. You say you cannot force others to accept your views, which is exactly why christians need to be forced not to force their views on their children. But not through force, but social engineering, to make rational impericism just an unavoidable as advertisement and consumerism is in the croney capitalist structure, so that every child is subjected to logical thought whether their parents like it or not until there are no christians left.
I suppose I could educate my children in the liberal arts, our new obsession with gender-dysphoria , and ineffective social systems instead. However, in my view, science and religion go hand in hand. Science is the means of getting us closer to understanding the vast grace of god, and religion is the road by which we should travel during our lives. One is a lifestyle, and the other is the method by which we better understand that lifestyle and the world around us.
Atheism and liberalism do not go hand in hand, religion and science do not go hand and hand, I am an agnostic atheist and I'm not a liberal, you are a christian and you are not scientific. Christian can be scientific to an extent and most liberals are atheists but there is no inherent connection.
Learning a specific field of science and being trained to accomplish certain tasks is not the same as universally applying rational empiricism, there are many scientists who are not scientific thinkers, they use science as a tool to do a certain job but they don't apply it to their worldview. If you are loyal to faith and belief then you are not loyal to methodology and logic, therefor your worldview is inherently unscientific.
I would disagree. I see the bible differently than others, but I am still considered faithful to god. In this sense I incorporate methodology and observational science into my worldview, along with faith. I'm not naive enough to practice the word of the lord at the exclusion of modern science.
I would disagree. I see the bible differently than others, but I am still considered faithful to god. In this sense I incorporate methodology and observational science into my worldview
The methodology of contradicting yourself?
I'm not naive enough to practice the word of the lord at the exclusion of modern science.
The "word of the lord" directly contradicts modern science in a number of key areas, so either your God is liar, you are a liar, or you both are liars. Choose one.
I fail to see how I contradicted myself in the fact that I espoused that I have slightly different religious views than those of my faith. The bible often speaks in riddles, and it is up to those who read its scripture to find meaning from them. In this sense, I think that the bible and science often go hand in hand in a number of manners.
You claimed to see the Bible differently, but you are using it to support an irrational belief system absent any other historical evidence, just like everyone else.
I have slightly different religious views than those of my faith.
Some schizophrenics think they talk to Elvis; others think they talk to Henry VIII; some think they talk to demons; others think they talk to angels. It's the same mind virus with different symptoms.
and it is up to those who read its scripture to find meaning from them.
What meaning do you think people are going to find in a book which orders the execution of homosexuals, worshippers of other gods and impertinent children?
In this sense, I think that the bible and science often go hand in hand in a number of manners.
In what sense? You haven't provided any sense. How exactly does a book which science proves is fictional go "hand in hand with science"?
Its not at all an irrational belief system. Its a book of enlightened guiding principles to live ones life by. I choose to follow those values which are not dated and uncivilized, while still giving my love to god. You would think that if the bible successfully convinced enough people to do the heinous things that are admittedly listed in its chapters, the modern world would be chalk full of Christians doing such things. However this is not the case. While there are fringe radical groups, you see no behavior among the majority of faithful Christians that would be indicative of this effect. As for my views on science and the bible, I believe that many scriptures such as genesis actually (Despite efforts to convince people otherwise) do not contradict modern scientific principles, just paraphrase them in a poetic sense.
The idea that the bible is not historically or scientifically accurate to me has no impact on the morals and values that many of its chapters imbue to believers.
Says the cultist zealot that thinks there are 48 genders, the Quran and ISIS are kidding, and that a madman from the 1800s is the messiah who can fix the world's problems...
Learning a specific field of science and being trained to accomplish certain tasks is not the same as universally applying rational empiricism, there are many scientists who are not scientific thinkers, they use science as a tool to do a certain job but they don't apply it to their worldview.
Perhaps you should learn basic punctuation before you start abusing the online thesaurus and the online insult generator. This passage shows that you have a shockingly bad understanding of grammar.
There is hope for you yet! That is the first post I've read from you concerning Christianity, that was not a rant of bigotted insults towards Christians.
That is an Atheist I could respect. Hopefully it will last.
I never say to anyone there is hope for you yet as in the real world I respect people's rights to hold different opinions ,my wife is a Christian and we get along just fine .
I hold my opinions passionately as do others this is a debate site and I expect opposing views ; heated exchanges are regular but I do not take them too seriously
Yes, the Progressive religion is child abuse. It teaches children things that are demonstrably untrue. Is there a god? Is there a Heaven? Do angels exist? It's not something that's tangibly provable one way or the other. Are there 48 genders? No. Are all cultures equally good? No.
Parents have the right to each their children about Yeshua....................................................................................................
Let me take your debate remarks and show you who is truly abusng our children...
Is it child abuse to raise children with the notion that killing them when they were viable unborn babies is ok?
Is it child abuse to try to dictate what your children believes when it comes to political correctness and judge them for thinking differently?
Is it child abuse to teach your children pseudo science which is engineered to support unnatural sexual orientations rather than biology?
Is it an abuse of FactMachine's good sensibilities to subject him to the idiotic notion that free will exists and then in the same breath force all States to change their marriage laws, telling your children what they must think about unnatural Transgender and Homosexual sexual orientations?
You are correct when speaking to child abuse. You just have the parties involved backwards.
Christians truly believe their is a Heaven and Hell, and to ignore this fact and watch as their children destroy their lives with worldly anything goes values, would be ludicrous and a total lack of love and compassion.
As we watch our families fall apart from the lack of moral values in this nation, it is child abuse to watch record numbers of broken homes, and say or do nothing about it.
I agree that indoctrinating kids with leftist BS is child abuse, what does that have to do with the fact that christianity is incorrect and God doesn't exist?
How arrogant does a person have to be, to think he has all the answers, and that Christianity is 100% incorrect? Are you God?
Evolutionists don't even know how the first living cell magically popped to life, yet they are acting as if their theories are fact.
GIVE ME A BREAK! Just because you don't believe in God does not make it so! GET OVER YOURSELF!
For our public schools to be indoctrinating our children with Godless theories to life, is much worse child abuse then anything a loving parent could ever teach their child. A parent loves their children. They care far more than any cold distant public school could ever care about them.
Evolutionists don't even know how the first living cell magically popped to life, yet they are acting as if their theories are fact.
GIVE ME A BREAK! Just because you don't believe in God does not make it so! GET OVER YOURSELF!
The irony about complaining that "the first living cell magically popped to life" is that you are using the phrase "magically popped" into existence in a derogatory, condescending way in an attempt to discredit such an idea (which is in fact implausible and is not at all what Scientists are suggesting btw), and yet you use the exact same reasoning in an attempt to explain/rationalize the origin of the universe which is the basis for your entire belief in a God. Even you yourself are tremendously dissatisfied with the idea of appealing to Abra-Kadabra magic for some explanations so why not carry that same logic through to the origin of the Universe (which is exactly what Cosmologists attempt to explore in a serious, mature way without the magic)?
I purposely use phrases such as magically and mystically when speaking with bigots because that is the terminology they use. I like showing them their own faith in things not proven.
I purposely use phrases such as magically and mystically when speaking with bigots because that is the terminology they use.
That's like Hitler saying he always calls Stalin a Nazi because that's the terminology Stalin uses. You essentially have a mental illness. The people you are arguing with believe in science, evidence and reality, and you believe in a magical being called God who walks on water and turns water into wine.
@FromWithin, "I purposely use phrases such as magically and mystically when speaking with bigots because that is the terminology they use. I like showing them their own faith in things not proven."
To be clear though, based on your comments you clearly reject any scientific explanation both for the origin of life (which you are correct that it is not known how the first self-replicating molecules formed or what level of complexity they had, what they looked like, ect.), and how the broad framework for how life has evolved to the present state we observe today (Neo-Darwinism; Descent with Modification by Natural Selection plus Mendilian Genetics). So, do you believe in Creationism (Adam and Eve in a Garden with a talking snake, a magic tree, and a hankering for apples), some other explanation, or just a void there and you are withholding judgement on the explanation for our existence? I understand that you may be upset that I just referred to the Creationist story in a very mocking and condescending way however, I just want to highlight for you how unlikely a scenario that is and ask you to question how does this story have any serious explanatory power? If you say, Adam was created by mud and then Eve was a Rib pulled out of Adam, then these two people mated and now several thousand years later, we have the human population as we see it now, can't you see how implausible that scenario is and raises far more questions than it answers? Furthermore, would you really teach kids that as compared to the body of Scientific knowledge. You must know that if you open up a Science textbook on any topic, it is SO much more detailed, complex, and precise than if you open up the Bible. Does this give you pause at all?
When you open up a biology book, and read the OBVIOUS roles of men and women, tell me why you ignore it and become a political correct fairy tail believer when it comes to Homosexuality and all the other unnatural sexual orientations.
When you come to grips with how brainwashed you have become when sanctioning abnormal sexual orientations as being just another natural sexual orientation, how on earth do you dare preach to and judge others for believing in God?
Why would you support every State being forced to sanction Gay marriage? How would you like it if every State were forced to sanction God as fact?
Wake up and look in the mirror before judging others for their beliefs.
"When you open up a biology book, and read the OBVIOUS roles of men and women, tell me why you ignore it and become a political correct fairy tail believer when it comes to Homosexuality and all the other unnatural sexual orientations"
As far as what biology informs us about Homosexuality, human beings are mammals, and homosexuality is extremely common amongst other species of mammals so why would one suppose things would be any different for our species? Also, I have seen you voice your disapproval for transgenderism before on this site. This is a separate matter and may or may not have biological roots that can be traced in other animal species as well (I profess ignorance on this topic), however I do not at all share your disapproval of transgenderism. Even if there were not a biological basis for transgenderism, I would prefer people to be comfortable in their own skin and identity (including if that means identifying with the opposite gender that they were born with) and defiantly not try and label someone "exotic" or "freak" because they are breaking from the norm a bit. I do not necessarily subscribe to everything the Bill Nye the Science Guy argued for in his new Netflix documentary series on the topic (if you are familiar with that) and recognize social factors and forces contributing to the discussion that you appear to be taking issue with when you said, "When you come to grips with how brainwashed you have become when sanctioning abnormal sexual orientations as being just another natural sexual orientation"*. I'll leave the transgender topic there.
You are doing exactly what you judge Christians for. You are believing OBVIOUS political correct dogma over science.
There are no homosexual animals but to make excuses for your faith in your cult of political correctness, you believe the most ludicrous of anti scientific beliefs.
I have many times dispelled the notion of Homosexual animals. If it were true, every species should have a percentage of Homosexuals.
Whens the last time you saw a Gay dog, cat, horse, or any of the animals we all know and see every day?
A dog will hump your leg as well as a fence post when aroused. Is that what you call homosexual animals?
Apes will have sex with anything that moves but are not ignoring the opposite sex.
They always speak about Gay Geese, yet it is shown that two male Geese do not have sex with each other. Geese bond for life and if the female goose dies and there are no others, a male Goose could pair up with another male Goose.
A true Homosexual animal would have to ignore sex with the opposite sex and prefer the same sex. You show me this happening in any animal we would know.
If it is a natural thing, every animal species would have Homosexuality. They do not, but don't let that stop your belief in anti scientific facts.
In a FREE country, why can't a person CHOOSE to be gay??? WHO does it hurt? What does HIS personal life have to do with you anyway?? You talk about your rights but you refuse to grant a gay person the SAME rights you have...
I'm NOT talking about homosexuality.. I don't CARE about homosexuality.. I CARE about FREEDOM and the CONSTITUTION.. As a card carrying right winger, I'd think you'd love freedom just like me.. No, huh?
@FromWithin, "You are doing exactly what you judge Christians for. You are believing OBVIOUS...dogma over science"
Are you conceding that many Christians believe in your words "OBVIOUS dogma over science"?? Btw, I certainly do not want to lump ALL Christians/religious people in as Anti-Science, it is just that in terms to that specific topic/set of beliefs, these scientifically literate/insightful/sophisticated religious people are not using the same process for understanding the world or demanding the same standard of evidence that they would in other areas of their life (e.g. science). It is more of an example of people's ability to compartmentalize information in such a way that it naturally leads to cognitive dissonance (this is simply part of the human condition and we are all guilty of it to various degrees in different areas including myself; although in this case I really do think you are quite off the mark).
@FromWithin, "You are doing exactly what you judge Christians for. You are believing OBVIOUS political correct dogma over science. There are no homosexual animals..."
I just explained how Homosexuality IS based in Biology. Now, Transgenderism is a different phenomena in which I partially agree with you in two ways. First, gender and sex (although often used interchangeably) are not relating to the topic. Sex is the anatomy of an individual's reproductive system, and secondary sex characteristics and gender is social roles based on the sex of the person, or personal identification of one's own gender based on an internal awareness (gender identity). Now, I agree that a transgender person (e.g. Female to Male) still retains the SEX of their biological origin while the GENDER differs. Second, I also partially agree with you in the sense that gender is not an extremely fluid domain in which talk of a plethora or highly diverse "continuum of gender" and in that sense is in part socially constructed. However, there is evidence from brain scans that suggest that there is some neurological basis for gender dysphoria. There is just a lot more to learn on the topic and as of Neuroscientists are unable to scan a male or female brain and determine with any reliable percentage of accuracy if that individual identifies/feels they belong to the sex they were born with. That doesn't mean that they know nothing about the Gender Dysmorphia and that it has no biological basis, it means that there is going to be a growing understanding of the issue that is still very much up for revision and further investigation. Here is a link to a Scientific American article exploring this point: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/
"When you open up a biology book, and read the OBVIOUS roles of men and women, tell me why you ignore it and become a political correct fairy tail believer when it comes to Homosexuality and all the other unnatural sexual orientations"
Also, one last point, in terms of different human Sex's, if you open a Biology textbook you will discover that there are more than two human sexes (the others are just much less common). However, this is a separate topic to Transgenderism and sexual orientation but still something you should become cognizant of based on how you are talking (e.i. you certainly do not appear to be aware of it).
As a believer in Christ, parents are obligated to teach their children about Christ because they have the authority given by God to raise up their children in the ways of the Lord.
