Religion-Demonology

I don't see how this is any different from America? My mother was raised Christian by strong Christian parents. She's an atheist by choice... I don't see what you expect parents to do. Yes, parents do try to teach children their ways of belief. But that doesn't mean that they child, when they're older and can think for themselves, can't make the end decision for themself. I've never heard a person say "I really wish I wasn't a Christian. If only my parents hadn't forced me to be one. I really wish I could just stop believing in God at this point." If you have, please enlighten me to it.

 

agreed - same in Ireland. While most are born and brought up Catholic and a lot aren't practising in the slightest do they suddenly have to go to court and declare he no longer shares the belief of his parents? Err no. And like Thornesque says, as parents we have a duty to bring our children up with some belief. You may not agree with some and that's your choice. Each to their own.

 

Of course not. There is a big difference between wearing a hat, and dying of lymphoma. The government steps in on a regular basis when a parent is abusing a child. Even if my religion told me to deny my children food, or make them sleep outside, we have laws against that.

As a parent, you have the moral responsibility to get them to adulthood as healthy as you can. After that, they can do whatever they want. But my son would have ice cream for dinner every day if I let him, but I wouldn't be a very good parent for 'accepting' his 'individuality'.

Then we agree. I may grown up in a democrat household, but I can choose to be republican if I want. Once you're an adult, you're free to do whatever you want with your life. It's an easy concept and I think your examples are fringe and not the norm.

 

I think the biggest issue is that people often confuse the idea of raising a child to a certain religion, and refusing to allow that child to explore the world and learn about what else is out there. I don't have a problem with mommy and daddy teaching little Johnny that God exists and that he should follow the Christian faith. Because I know that Johnny is going to be a grown-up some day that can make decisions for himself. What I do have an issue with are parents that bar their children from exposure to other aspects of life, or blatantly teach hatred (of muslims, buddhists, atheists, blacks, asians, etc. etc. whatever it may be) to their children. But these are two distinctly different ideas.

 

I never said it was different in America. I was mentioning Scandinavia because that's the laws I am familiar with (Norwegian and Swedish) and that's the part of the world that I live in.

One thing is to teach their children their ways of belief. Another is to force them. I don't think it is a good idea to put pressure on children when it comes to religious matters. I think children should decide themselves whether or not they want to attend Sunday School. If they want to do other activities instead, why not let them?
If the child who was raised Christian suddenly converted to Buddhism had parents who disapproved of it, I would call the parents narrow-minded.

 

I could call you narrow-minded, but I respect your freedom and your views.

I think the real issue is the next logical step in your thought-process. If Drusilla had absolute authority over the world, what would you do? Would you make it a crime to take your children to church or synagogue? If your child wanted to sleep in rather than attend mass, would you jail me or take my children away? Taking away freedom, religious or otherwise is a slippery slope.

When children are under my guardianship, I will force them to eat healthy food, go to bed at a reasonable time, do their homework and go to church with the family on Sunday morning. If the whole family is going to a political rally, and my eleven year old wants to stay home alone, she can't because I won't let her. I don't feel that she is old enough to be home by herself yet. Those are my choices, not yours and not the governments. I will tell my daughter what she can and can't wear and I will tell my son how late he can be out and what movies he is allowed to see.

If you disagree with that, I would call you narrow-minded. But, respectfully.

~ J. J.

 

This is frankly ridiculous. You cannot avoid influencing children. Even if they were wards of the state, they'd still start believing the things the state teaches them. Parents can't compel children to believe things they really don't want to. Religious parents don't brainwash their children anymore than non-religious parents do. You have a moral code that you believe, and you will pass that code down to your children because you believe it's right.

If you can say other parents don't have that right because they're wrong, what's to stop other people from accusing you of the same thing? Parents should definitely have control over their children until they come of age. This isn't a perfect system, but any alternative is worse. The family unit is too ingrained in human psychology to ever break up for an extended period. Look at the kibbutz system of child-rearing.

So, what I'm trying to say is that enforcing rules based on subjective beliefs leads to didactic rules that oppress one group or another.

 

Ha - I just had that conversation with mine - You know the one where you roar down the stairs - "Where the hell do you think you're going dressed like that?" Bad daddy imposing his will on a 15 year old in her friend's mini skirt! I did however tell her kindly that when she's 40 she can actually wear what she wants and see who she wants to see - but not a day before - Dads of the world back me up here...

 

YES! 15 going on 28! I never thought I would actually give the 'As long as you live under my roof...' speech. lol

 

Has to be done man; mini skirts today, boob tubes tomorrow - who knows where it will all end up? You've a male president, we've a male Taoiseach (Prime Minister), you'd think they'd pass a law letting us lock up our teenage daughters for a few years...

 

Who started talking about the state? I didn't. I never said that it would be ideal if children were raised by the state.

I will leave this debate about childraising now.



JJ_Maxx: I never said that raising children religiously was abuse if the children want it! I think you see it in a very black and white way. What I think is considered wrong is to enforce religion upon children.

 

You stated that your belief is that parents shouldn't be allowed to raise their children religiously. You said it was 'wrong'. If you believe that, then naturally you would want these children removed from the custody of their narrow-minded parents and placed... where exactly? We all assumed the government would take them since that is who you want to enforce their 'freedoms' and 'individualness'.

The state currently removes children who are abused by their parents. They become wards of the state and go to orphanages and whatnot. We assumed you wanted to deem raising children up religiously as 'abuse', therefore the state would remove them from the harmful environment.

You could tell us what we should do with all these narrow-minded children once we take them away from their oppressive parents...

...or you can leave the conversation, and I respect that.

Cheers.

~ J. J.

 

A retrospective assumption, I would say. Before you harp on about this I suggest you watch Louie Therox's The most hated family in America. If you do not consider that child abuse then you are a cold person.

This argument could belt on for days, and at the end of it you will find this: There are plenty of religious idiots out there who brainwash their children. There are plenty of atheist idiots who brainwash their children. There are plenty of intelligent, caring religious people who raise their children well, with God's involvement. There are plenty of intelligent, caring agnostic and atheist parents who raise their children without god. People do things differently. One of the smartest fellows I know is devoutly Catholic. Atheists, in my experience tend to be hack-intellects who seem to think it makes them cutting edge or some bullshit.

Oh, and I am a hard-line atheist. I think of Jesus as a positive philosopher (I'm yet to read thoroughly), and it's a shame that it took an imaginary chap in the sky to get his message across. I don't think parents should force their children to go to church, just like I don't think parents should force atheism. Belief in anything adds coal to the fire of regression. Humans are where we are now because we question everything. To impose belief on a child limits their capacity to do so, to some extent. Take stem cells as an example.

Kerosene on the fire, and I'm out!

 

We've already covered the Westboro Crowd - I'm guessing that's who you mean...

So you're telling us you are a hardline, cutting edge, bullshitting, hack-intellect? Okay...

What gives you the right to castigae and belittle just about religion out there? Why would you belittle your arguement by reverting to "imaginery men in the sky"?

i'm guessing you don't have children...

 

For a "hard-line atheist" (whatever that implies), you seem to have a misunderstanding of what atheism actually is. It addresses one issue alone, and that's the existence of deities. It isn't a religion, philosophy, ideology, cause or principle. It's simply the lack of belief in a deity. It's the default position. We are born not believing in a God. Religion is learned. You speak of atheism as if it's on the same level as a doctrine that can be used to brainwash kids.

That being said, I'm also strongly against childhood indoctrination and the idea of parents bringing up their kids to believe that what they believe is the absolute truth. Children should be taught to question everything and apply a level of skepticism to the way they see things. They should also have the choice and freedom to believe what they want to believe.

I also agree with Drusilla that religion should NOT be immune to criticism. Religion is based on an ideology and like any other ideology, it should be questioned and challenged. Respectfully, of course, but even when theists are challenged or questioned respectfully, they tend to respond with something along the lines of "I find that offensive" or "you're narrow-minded and intolerant". The reason why questioning someone's beliefs are so important is because beliefs determine someone's actions and these actions can be harmful to other people. Now, I'm not suggesting that the freedom of religion should be infringed upon or that we take away people's rights to go to churches. I'm saying that the religious should not be entitled to any more privileges than the non-religious.

 

are there any of the ten commandments that you don't believe in?

 

So no, you are calling me a hardline, cutting edge, bullshitting, hack-intellect. I just gave you the words. Which is fine. I'm sure you're not the first.

The same right they have claim he's there?

Having a child does not make you an expert on them. Unless you raised one child to adulthood devoutly religious, and one child with no theological influence whatsoever - I don't see how your experience as a father has anything to do with it.

 

I don't know you, I wouldn't do such a thing - they were your words not mine

So If I want to believe in God - that gives you the right to criticise, belittle and castigate me?

So unless you treat your children completely differently, drag one to mass every sunday and lock the other in a room, we can't be experts on our children? Like parenting is some form of experimentation? I think that would be child abuse.

So please answer these two questions: Are there any of the ten commandments you do not agree with? And did you believe in Santa Clause as a child?

 

Hard-line is redundant, true. First off: There is no proof that we are born not believing in a god. A quick wikipedia showed me what I was pretty sure was the case; for the most part, more people identify themselves as agnostic than people identify themselves as atheists... And then more again as believing in a god. So if anything, spirituality and the immortal soul is just as likely a part of us, as the millions of synapses we don't understand.

I watched Dorkins debate with a Bishop and what I took from it is that Atheism has about as much scientific evidence to stand on as religion does. If you tell a child there's no god, and that people who believe in them are wrong; they will grow up believing there is no god. Indoctrination.

 

Were you asking me or AVCortez? The answer is: sure.

(King James Version)
1. Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
2. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image.
3. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath.
5. Honour thy father and mother.
10. Thou shalt not covet.

The rest I can agree with.

 

Okay, again, you're confusing the definition of atheism. You seem to be implying that atheism IS THE BELIEF THAT THERE IS NO GOD. This is incorrect. It is the LACK OF BELIEF or DISBELIEF IN THE CLAIMS THERE IS ONE. Agnostics take the position that you can't KNOW (not believe) one or the other for certain. Therefore, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive. I don't claim to know for certain that there is no God, however, I can refrain from believing that there is one.

Another issue you're addressing is the burden of proof. It is not up to the non-believers to disprove a claim. It is up to the believers to prove their claim. If someone was to claim that they know the existence of Bigfoot, it would be up to them to provide evidence for that claim.

(Edit: Forgive the double post, I replied too late.)

 

thank you for answering sanco - AV has dodged, oh well...

1, As children we (my younger brother and I) worshipped Jimmy Saville...
2, More or less the same - false Gods etc
3, Don't slag him off
4, Have a day off
5, Respect your parents
10, Thy neighbour's wife

You think it's ok to worship false Gods, Call Him a ****, to dishonour your parents and to break up the family next door? Okay we'll differ

 

See what I did there?... I moved around what you said so it looks like you said something else...

So, you misread when I said, in my experience, Atheists tend to be...? And you accidentally changed the quote so it appeared as if it was one long piece?

So to answer your question: Yes I believed in santa clause as a child, and yes that gives me the right to criticise you. Though I don't see how relevant belief in a flying fatman for the 8 years has to do with a life-long indoctrination into a faith-based society. Not to mention their is more tangible proof through a child's eyes that santa exists, then there does a good.

You also seem to have forgotten that the little quip that kickstarted this whole business mentioned that I believe jesus ideals were good. Not that jesus has anything to do with the ten commandments, but it's a little more relevant than bringing the old testament into this discussion.

 

I find that assessment asinine and inaccurate. You asked which of the commandments I don't believe in. That does not mean I believe in the exact opposite of those commandments. Let me elaborate.

1. I'm guessing your use of the word "worship" is hyperbolic. I doubt you prayed to him or lived by his words as the absolute truth.
2. I do NOT believe in false gods. I don't believe in any gods. My question to you is how do you distinguish between false and true gods anyway?
3. I find this commandment childish. If a god is a god, I doubt he'd care what I have to say about him.
4. Life is short and I've got shit to do. This doesn't seem like a moral dilemma to me.
5. I believe respect is earned not automatic. Just because I don't believe in this commandment, it doesn't mean I DISHONOUR my parents.
10. I can't control my desires or thoughts. What I can control are my actions. Just because I'd like to get it on with someone's wife, it doesn't mean I will act upon it.

Since we're on the topic of biblical morality, I presume you don't agree with slavery, which is sanctioned in the old testament? You also pick and choose what you wanna subscribe to, don't you?

 

Just incase you think I'm dodging you; I'll let you know that I'm leaving now. It's saturday night and for the first time in a long time actually have plans.

Ciao.