I'd like to see you back that up.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't like to see psychological abuse of kids.
Poll
Should people be allowed to indoctrinate their children with religion?
| Yes | 41% | 41% - 31 | ||||
| No | 45% | 45% - 34 | ||||
| I'm Catholic | 12% | 12% - 9 | ||||
| Total: 74 | ||||||
...and you have completely failed to prove that talking about religion is psychological abuse.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't like to see psychological abuse of kids.
Talk about a logical leap of faith!
'Talking about religion' is one thing.
Indoctrination is another.
Indoctrination is another.
Fuck Israel
Agreed.Dilbert_X wrote:
'Talking about religion' is one thing.
Indoctrination is another.
But comparing it to sexual and psychological abuse is probably just shock value to prove your point.
Better watch those Ten Commandments, they'll really screw up your kids. Indoctrinate away, baby. Get back to me when you have children, DX. Everyone's a genius about parenthood before they actually have to try their hand at it.
Ok. You have yet to make a clear destinction between the two.Dilbert_X wrote:
'Talking about religion' is one thing.
Indoctrination is another.
(It is a hard one to make, IMO.)
'Education in its broadest sense is any act or experience that has a formative effect on the mind, character or physical ability of an individual. In its technical sense education is the process by which society deliberately transmits its accumulated knowledge, skills and values from one generation to another.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education
'Indoctrination is the process of ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
There will be enough examples of people educated in religion and those indoctrinated for most people on this forum to get the idea.
Education - This is our family religion, you can take it as you like, there are fun aspects (Christmas) dull bits (church) onerous bits (ten commandments) you don't have to do it if you really don't want to, when you're 18 you can do what you like.
Indoctrination - Your religion will be X. You will observe the requirements including the zany clothing rules. You may not marry outside the religion. You will raise your children in the religion. You may not ask questions as it displays lack of faith. It is your sacred duty to kill or convert heathens/goyim/infidels.
Should you fail in any of the above you will be disowned by your family and community/set on fire/burnt with acid/killed.
Since its a fine line between education and indoctrination - and impossible to Police - I'd say just put a stop to it until people are 18.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education
'Indoctrination is the process of ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology. It is often distinguished from education by the fact that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
There will be enough examples of people educated in religion and those indoctrinated for most people on this forum to get the idea.
Education - This is our family religion, you can take it as you like, there are fun aspects (Christmas) dull bits (church) onerous bits (ten commandments) you don't have to do it if you really don't want to, when you're 18 you can do what you like.
Indoctrination - Your religion will be X. You will observe the requirements including the zany clothing rules. You may not marry outside the religion. You will raise your children in the religion. You may not ask questions as it displays lack of faith. It is your sacred duty to kill or convert heathens/goyim/infidels.
Should you fail in any of the above you will be disowned by your family and community/set on fire/burnt with acid/killed.
Since its a fine line between education and indoctrination - and impossible to Police - I'd say just put a stop to it until people are 18.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-03 01:28:06)
Fuck Israel
That argument is not scientific. One being right does not make the others hogwash, particularly when the teachings are similar.Dilbert_X wrote:
You want scientific - there are umpteen religions, in the event one is right the remainder are hogwash.FEOS wrote:
Where's the scientific evidence to prove that it's "hogwash"?
Probability is they're all hogwash.
You still haven't shown how teaching them religion is psychological abuse. You just don't like religion.Dilbert_X wrote:
I don't like to see psychological abuse of kids.Then why do you care?
If you didn't like asparagus, you'd think having kids eat it would constitute abuse, too.
So educating them incorrectly (by your definition) in other areas would be abuse as well? Not teaching them proper personal finance is abuse?Varegg wrote:
Kids when evolved is called grownups FEOS, properly indoctrinated they then cause problems tied to religion ...
That argument has no relevance whatsoever. Adults make choices (as pointed out before). They--and they alone--are responsible for their choices and actions associated with them.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I have a better idea, let the nutballs prove their superstitions AREN'T hogwash. That would be the normal scientific process.
Forcing kids to believe nonsense, live in fear of imaginary beings, follow straitened lives - thats psychological abuse. Like telling them the boogey-man DOES live under their bed and WILL get them if they don't brush their teeth.
Deliberately teaching kids bad personal finance - yes I'd say that was abuse.
When they are old enough and smart enough to realise their parents lied to them - the consequences are quite serious.
Forcing kids to believe nonsense, live in fear of imaginary beings, follow straitened lives - thats psychological abuse. Like telling them the boogey-man DOES live under their bed and WILL get them if they don't brush their teeth.
Deliberately teaching kids bad personal finance - yes I'd say that was abuse.
When they are old enough and smart enough to realise their parents lied to them - the consequences are quite serious.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-03 05:18:08)
Fuck Israel
See here's the thing. It's your thread.Dilbert_X wrote:
I have a better idea, let the nutballs prove their superstitions AREN'T hogwash. That would be the normal scientific process.
Forcing kids to believe nonsense, live in fear of imaginary beings, follow straitened lives - thats psychological abuse. Like telling them the boogey-man DOES live under their bed and WILL get them if they don't brush their teeth.
Deliberately teaching kids bad personal finance - yes I'd say that was abuse.
When they are old enough and smart enough to realise their parents lied to them - the consequences are quite serious.
It's your opportunity to prove your theory.
Anyhow I've been thinking about this:
Pug wrote:
You are comparing religion to smoking, drinking and sex abuse?
Which religion are you talking about?Dilbert_X wrote:
It probably causes as much death and suffering as the above.
Any of the big ones.Which religion are you talking about?
Pretty sure no major wars have been fought over smoking.
Fuck Israel
Hey Dilbert, is it okay to indoctrinate kids with atheism, or at least the idea that religion is bad?
Ok, so which current major wars are based on religion?Dilbert_X wrote:
Any of the big ones.Which religion are you talking about?
Pretty sure no major wars have been fought over smoking.
We're dealing with faith. It is not a scientific formula. Your treatment of people who practice religion isn't going to win you many supporters. Religion has not been proven nor disproven.Dilbert_X wrote:
I have a better idea, let the nutballs prove their superstitions AREN'T hogwash. That would be the normal scientific process.
Forcing kids to believe nonsense, live in fear of imaginary beings, follow straitened lives - thats psychological abuse. Like telling them the boogey-man DOES live under their bed and WILL get them if they don't brush their teeth.
Deliberately teaching kids bad personal finance - yes I'd say that was abuse.
When they are old enough and smart enough to realise their parents lied to them - the consequences are quite serious.
When you accuse religious people of simply using fear to "abuse" their children into conforming, you are grossly misrepresenting the world. Frankly, I'm not inclined to debate the merits when all you seem capable of doing is accusing the otherside of abuse, idiocy, and ill intent.
No it wouldn't be, any kind of indoctrination is wrong.DoctaStrangelove wrote:
Hey Dilbert, is it okay to indoctrinate kids with atheism, or at least the idea that religion is bad?
I'm not accusing all religious people of doing so, but there is no question many do. Fear of god is a major part of many religions.RAIMIUS wrote:
When you accuse religious people of simply using fear to "abuse" their children into conforming, you are grossly misrepresenting the world.
Afghanistan and Iraq for example - in direct response to Bin Laden's faith based attacks - not much question about that.Pug wrote:
Ok, so which current major wars are based on religion?
On the other side the Christian right, egged on by Israel, has been promoting dismantling of the ME for a good while now.
Fuck Israel
Bin Laden gave reasons beyond "fuck the infidels" for the attack.Dilbert_X wrote:
Afghanistan and Iraq for example - in direct response to Bin Laden's faith based attacks - not much question about that.
On the other side the Christian right, egged on by Israel, has been promoting dismantling of the ME for a good while now.
Iraq had anything to do with religion. I'm pretty sure I'd find a quote from you about oil on this matter (although I do not agree).
Israel is a border dispute, no? Plus I live in the big ol' Christian right neighborhood, I should be able to walk out my door and have people have a hot opinion on Israel. Not true.
So I don't agree with you. Religion might be helping both sides not talk as much as they should. It isn't the cause of the conflict.
BUT, lets go one step futher.
With Bin Laden: is this guy mainstream religion? Typical of the entire muslim population?
With Israel: are the Hamas/Hez mainstream religion? Typical of the entire muslim population? How about the invisible army of right-wing bible beaters (that I have never found) here in the states?
With Iraq: Not even close to a religious dispute.
If you are saying that fanatics will be eliminated if religion is eliminated? I'd think it would not change much.
Can't be arsed reading all of this, just gonna state my opinion, for what it's worth...
It's up to the parents how they want to raise their kids (to an extent, obviously I'm not talking extreme cases). There are far worse things they can do than share their religious beliefs.
I was raised by a Christian mum, although my dad doesn't believe (he did when he was younger). I made my own choice to stop believing it, like any sane person has the right to; that's up to the individual.
Not a fan of state schools (or any schools) forcing religion upon people, but it's a parent's choice whether to do the same.
Btw, I haven't read much of Dawkins, but from what I know he wants to convince everyone to absolutely abandon religion, right? Is that not just as arrogant as those who seek to convert everyone to their own religion? There may not be any proof that there is a god, but neither is there absolute proof that their is not...so, Dawkins is essentially a fanatic atheist...
It's up to the parents how they want to raise their kids (to an extent, obviously I'm not talking extreme cases). There are far worse things they can do than share their religious beliefs.
I was raised by a Christian mum, although my dad doesn't believe (he did when he was younger). I made my own choice to stop believing it, like any sane person has the right to; that's up to the individual.
Not a fan of state schools (or any schools) forcing religion upon people, but it's a parent's choice whether to do the same.
Btw, I haven't read much of Dawkins, but from what I know he wants to convince everyone to absolutely abandon religion, right? Is that not just as arrogant as those who seek to convert everyone to their own religion? There may not be any proof that there is a god, but neither is there absolute proof that their is not...so, Dawkins is essentially a fanatic atheist...
Last edited by MrAnderson (2009-09-03 19:15:59)
True also.Mr Andersen wrote:
Btw, I haven't read much of Dawkins, but from what I know he wants to convince everyone to absolutely abandon religion, right? Is that not just as arrogant as those who seek to convert everyone to their own religion? There may not be any proof that there is a god, but neither is there absolute proof that their is not...so, Dawkins is essentially a fanatic atheist...
Are you saying religion wasn't a major part?Pug wrote:
Bin Laden gave reasons beyond "fuck the infidels" for the attack.
The Afghan and Iraq wars were in direct response to this so they are at least religion based on one side.
If you follow the pressure applied by the second coming loons and the zionists on the other side then its religion based on bot sides.
Oil was certainly a factor in the money-making equation, but not necessarily the primary driver.
No, its about one group of people dispossessing another group of people because the first group of people's religion says they have the right to.Israel is a border dispute, no?
But you're going off-topic, therefore you're trolling
Its about whether parents have the RIGHT to do this.
Maybe it would help to read the OP
And frankly I think many problems in the world would cease to be quite so great. We'd probably have a whole new set of different problems but I think its worth a go.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-03 21:10:01)
Fuck Israel
No, it wouldn't.Dilbert_X wrote:
I have a better idea, let the nutballs prove their superstitions AREN'T hogwash. That would be the normal scientific process.
The normal scientific process is establishing a hypothesis, then testing it. You're the one with they hypothesis here. Even though it's not really even a hypothesis, as a hypothesis is an educated guess.
You're just ranting about religion and trying to equate teaching religious principles to children with abuse. You haven't shown how that is the case, but many have shown you how it's not.
YOU believe it's nonsense, but you have no proof that it is. So I guess if you ever have kids, you'll force them to believe that there is no God, thus abusing them since it can't be proven there is no God...you'll be forcing them to believe nonsense. That is psychological abuse in your world, apparently.Dilbert_X wrote:
Forcing kids to believe nonsense, live in fear of imaginary beings, follow straitened lives - thats psychological abuse. Like telling them the boogey-man DOES live under their bed and WILL get them if they don't brush their teeth.
That wasn't the question. Nobody said "deliberately" teaching kids bad personal finance. Just teaching them personal finance methods you disagree with apparently is abuse now.Dilbert_X wrote:
Deliberately teaching kids bad personal finance - yes I'd say that was abuse.
When they are old enough and smart enough to realise their parents lied to them - the consequences are quite serious.
As to the wars discussion: someone saying it's about religion does not make it so. As has been said repeatedly, man uses religion to justify much of his actions...actions whose true motivation has very little, if anything, to do with religion.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The hypothesis is there is a god, religion means something, its so important it needs to be drummed into kids from the age 0. Go ahead and prove it.FEOS wrote:
The normal scientific process is establishing a hypothesis, then testing it.
Until you've done so there is no justification in ramming it down kids throats.
Try reading the OP, maybe the thread title, look up the definition of indoctrination - then come back.So I guess if you ever have kids, you'll force them to believe that there is no God, thus abusing them since it can't be proven there is no God...
Equally it can't be proven the scientologists aren't right and we don't all have undetectable thetans living inside our heads.
er, you didNobody said "deliberately" teaching kids bad personal finance.
Thats different from not teaching something at all, or poorly.FEOS wrote:
educating them incorrectly
Wars - Maybe, maybe not. It would be interesting to see a world where people don't study religion until they are 18, and then keep it private.
Fuck Israel
Alrightly then. Rather than quoting the entire post from before:Dilbert_X wrote:
Maybe it would help to read the OPAnd frankly I think many problems in the world would cease to be quite so great. We'd probably have a whole new set of different problems but I think its worth a go.
I disagree with your assessment on Iraq and Israel that religion is the primary reason for these conflicts. If there were no religion, I would think these conflicts would likely occur. Bin Laden's primary reason for attacking the states was not religion, it was due to what he believes is meddling in the Middle East. Again in absence of religion, his actions are quite probable.
When you have two opposing sides, it is common to magnify the differences between the two. In this case, religion was used to recruit fanatics. Remove it, and I would mutate into some other difference to recruit fanatics.
I'm not off topic btw. You have stated having religion breeds conflict. The conflicts you noted are highly probable if religion isn't a factor. Therefore, your presumption is false.
Secondly, my argument on these conflicts and in general is that religion isn't the primary reason problems develop. The problem is some people are fanatics.
Thirdly, you are pushing the theory that the 1% speaks for the whole. If this is true, I expect you to back up lowing in his next argument.
So, yes, indoctrination to create a fanatic is undesirable. Religion doesn't primarily lead to fanatical behavior. But fanatics would exist without religion.
So also, so I'm clear: indoctrination to become a fanatic is bad. But your argument that every parent who takes their kids to church is a form of indoctrination is false. For one, you need to prove that more than 1% of those who are "indoctrinated" are fanatics, and the drawbacks you mentioned are common. You have failed to do this so far.
Last edited by Pug (2009-09-04 06:37:30)
I think its more meddling with moslem countries and attacking moslems. Albania is not in the ME for example.Bin Laden's primary reason for attacking the states was not religion, it was due to what he believes is meddling in the Middle East.
Bin Laden didn't go to Afghanistan because he hated Russians, then realise it was actually Americans he hated.
There are fanatics on all sides. The problems arise for multiple reasons, religion being one of them.Secondly, my argument on these conflicts and in general is that religion isn't the primary reason problems develop. The problem is some people are fanatics.
Israel is a clear example of one religion clashing with another - its not as if the jews are after oil since there isn't any there.
I haven't siad that at all.Thirdly, you are pushing the theory that the 1% speaks for the whole.
The 1% holds far more power and influence than would be in proportion to their numbers, and of course they don't speak for the whole.
The blindly indoctrinated don't all become fanatics, but they certainly give the fanatics a lot of leeway.
It is a form of indoctrination, in varying degrees, no question about it.But your argument that every parent who takes their kids to church is a form of indoctrination is false.
My argument is that indocrinating those who have no choice in the matter is wrong and indefensible, same as missionaries going to africa and trying to force catholic dogma on uneducated illiterates is wrong.
Or do people have a 'right' to travel and scare fuzzy-wuzzies into a new religion?
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-09-04 07:09:34)
Fuck Israel
Yeah, I get your point. So we can end this now.
What we differ on is "what exactly is indoctrination" and how "harmful" religion is.
Have a good weekend.
What we differ on is "what exactly is indoctrination" and how "harmful" religion is.
Have a good weekend.
The funny thing is I'm the liberal heathen in my family, because I'm not catholic and don't always expouse Republican values. Yet here, I have a feeling I'm one of the ultra-cons.
Try not to blow urself up in a US Embassy this weekend...
Try not to blow urself up in a US Embassy this weekend...