quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Can you start by agreeing in principle that religious indoctrination may cause harm to the indoctrinated? Otherwise it's a nonstarter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Can you start by agreeing in principle that religious indoctrination may cause harm to the indoctrinated? Otherwise it's a nonstarter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I would consider our approach ethical, as we are presenting our beliefs in ways that are designed to permit our children their own free choices. I am here to complain about indoctrination that does the opposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
All teaching of children, especially young children, is indoctrination. They lack the critical apparatus to filter what we tell them. What you need to do, Yorick, after normal breathing resumes, is distinguish between abusive indoctrination and non-abusive indoctrination. Which requires some subtlety of thought and isn't as easy as spraying hatred on all religious parents who try to teach their children their most cherished beliefs (as if atheists don't do exactly the same thing).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Hi IBP. We share the same values in parenting, I think. I would consider our approach ethical, as we are presenting our beliefs in ways that are designed to permit our children their own free choices. I am here to complain about indoctrination that does the opposite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Q, indoctrination in atheistic beliefs is the same, for the purposes. (I'm sorry about your pain, BTW.) It's also the same for child sex abuse, which is the charge I lay here.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Her parents were (and remain) zealous Christian evangelists, and they inflicted their religious views on their children in ways that I, even as a child then, considered abusive. Now, G tells me that she herself feels she was profoundly abused by their religious indoctrination, and that this has caused her terrible pain and suffering. She blames this single aspect of her childhood experience for much of the trainwreck of her adult life (drug abuse, self-harm, eating disorders, disastrous relationships, divorce, you know- the usual shit), and this seems reasonable to me. But I'm not impartial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I feel that religious indoctrination of children is on a moral level right down there with child sex abuse. There are obvious parallels; with paedophilia, adult abusers of minors will often claim they mean no harm and that they act out of genuine love, for example. However, religious indoctrination of children can be as harmful as sexual abuse can be, and society should condemn it similarly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I call to Hell all parents whose intentions are to indoctrinate their children into their religion, however they happen to view it. Tampering with their minds like that is as wrong as tampering with their genitals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
All teaching of children, especially young children, is indoctrination. They lack the critical apparatus to filter what we tell them. What you need to do, Yorick, after normal breathing resumes, is distinguish between abusive indoctrination and non-abusive indoctrination. Which requires some subtlety of thought and isn't as easy as spraying hatred on all religious parents who try to teach their children their most cherished beliefs (as if atheists don't do exactly the same thing).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
I was raised in a denomination that has been repeatedly (and rightly so) accused of being a cult, is banned from many university campuses for its aggressive recruitment of students, and teaches that it and it alone is the "true church." This may explain the topic I posted in Purgatory not long ago.

From childhood I was taught that all "Christians" outside of this church were actually lost, that God would punish me with death if I did not formally join their church, that if you're not constantly evangelizing (as in door knocking/randomly approaching people) you're weak. Long story short I rejected everything to do with God and church for many years until I finally started to learn the real Gospel.

I've had some major heart to hearts with the parent who was responsible for this, and they now understand the damage that was done to us as children due to the church's indoctrination.

If an adult wants to join some hard-core legalistic church that is their choice, but the children don't have any choice. I'm all for teaching children the Gospel but requiring membership or commitment from them equal to that of adults and using guilt or control to keep them from leaving the group is extremely wrong.

So OP I relate to your friend and I agree with you, parents who behave this way should be called to this toasty place. For those of you who grew up in normal churches I suspect you will struggle to relate. I'm not talking about CofE childrens' church here (which looks like an absolute delight compared to what I had!)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Do you really think that your children's ideas somehow percolated out of thin air into their minds? And please do not protest that you have only taught your children to think for themselves. The level of naiveté in that is just too sickening...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I'm talking very very specifically about indoctrinating religious beliefs when this causes harm (regardless of intention).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
This view of human agency is indistinguishable from the most determinist allegations of anti-theists. Children are not the vessels of their parents' will.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:


I call to Hell all parents whose intentions are to indoctrinate their children into their religion, however they happen to view it. Tampering with their minds like that is as wrong as tampering with their genitals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Whatever else one may say about any attempt of "conceptual" parental teaching, whether secular or religious, it is simply not in the same realm of concrete and predictable hurt as child rape. And pretending that it is is just fuck-stupid and utterly offensive rhetoric.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
By the sheer assholery of it all, I had assumed that you had wanted to say something more general, like for example that all religious indoctrination causes harm (comparable to child rape). But no, you very very specifically limited yourself to saying something utterly trivial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

I call to Hell all parents whose intentions are to indoctrinate their children into their religion, however they happen to view it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Sure. Given more provisos than can be contained in this discussion, religious indoctrination of children may be harmful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:
This view of human agency is indistinguishable from the most determinist allegations of anti-theists. Children are not the vessels of their parents' will.

---

That's a blatant misreading of what I've actually said, contradicted directly and explicitly by other things I've already written above. For example, my second paragraph in the very post you are commenting on...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the famous rachel:
This response may be a little too measured for the venue, but here goes:

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by the famous rachel:
This response may be a little too measured for the venue, but here goes:

---

We do allow more Purgatorial styles of thought down here. Especially when they're as well written as THAT was.

It's more that the folks up in Purgatory won't allow a Hellish tinge up there. They're purists. We're less fussy.

---

Thanks!
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I'm talking very very specifically about indoctrinating religious beliefs when this causes harm (regardless of intention).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Last weekend, I bumped into a childhood friend of my sister (we'll call her 'G') whom I haven't seen for thirty-odd years, and I'm here to complain about how she's been harmed by her indoctrination into religion by her parents. It very badly fucked her up, and I hereby call all parents who do this stuff to Hell.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, Q, I would. (And so would you, I'm sure. Suicide cults, extremism, etc.).

mousethief, you know that I agree that it is impossible to avoid inculcating our values on our children, and that doing so is what parenting actually IS. I'm talking very very specifically about indoctrinating religious beliefs when this causes harm (regardless of intention).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Her parents were (and remain) zealous Christian evangelists, and they inflicted their religious views on their children in ways that I, even as a child then, considered abusive. Now, G tells me that she herself feels she was profoundly abused by their religious indoctrination, and that this has caused her terrible pain and suffering. She blames this single aspect of her childhood experience for much of the trainwreck of her adult life (drug abuse, self-harm, eating disorders, disastrous relationships, divorce, you know- the usual shit), and this seems reasonable to me. But I'm not impartial.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

After a certain age, it's all on you. You may rage in private against how off-course you are because of the failures who raised you, but your failure is your own. Going around telling people how responsible others are for the choices you've made? No, no, no. You're just repeating the pattern of their lives, sodden with other people's wills, other people's decisions. You're giving them a power over you they could never attain by their own efforts. Failures cannot make you a failure any more than bullies can make you commit suicide. You have to own your own will, and move on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Hard cases make bad law, as they say. I think we can safely ignore the seriously fucked-up in this discussion, even if they happen to cluster in Alaska..

---

Oy, I happen to like comet's posts.
 

---

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :
 
Some people use religion as an excuse to ostracise or even kill their offspring, if they don't conform when they become mature and start thinking for themselves. Now that really IS Hell - but I don't think for a moment that is the same as what Yorick is talking about in the OP.
 

---

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :
 
The Linns are very good on spiritual abuse. I don't think it's quite the same a indoctrination (also a bad thing) though the two often go hand-in-hand. The way I would define spiritual abuse is to say it's an attempt to enlist God in terrorizing a child. So, for believers, it's blasphemy.
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Hard cases make bad law, as they say. I think we can safely ignore the seriously fucked-up in this discussion, even if they happen to cluster in Alaska.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
And I also do not think that it is fair to say that parents generally fuck up their children. That measures their efforts against impossibly high ideals. I prefer to cut them some slack, so that I do not run out of four letter words when describing really bad parenting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Patdys:

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Hard cases make bad law, as they say. I think we can safely ignore the seriously fucked-up in this discussion, even if they happen to cluster in Alaska..

---

Oy, I happen to like comet's posts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Tampering with their minds like that is as wrong as tampering with their genitals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I feel that religious indoctrination of children is on a moral level right down there with child sex abuse. There are obvious parallels; with paedophilia, adult abusers of minors will often claim they mean no harm and that they act out of genuine love, for example. However, religious indoctrination of children can be as harmful as sexual abuse can be, and society should condemn it similarly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Of course, we don't know what Yorick means by "religious indoctrination". Atheists tend to use this word 'religion' as a catch-all for any belief that does not conform to their dogma of philosophical naturalism. It's a pretty useless word, in my view.

Anyway, I can't see how teaching children about God is abusive, on the one hand, and yet teaching them that they are nothing more than meaninglessly assembled bundles of chemicals is not abusive, on the other. The philosophy on which atheism feeds is about as abusive as one can imagine, because it provides no conceptual protection against any form of abuse.

---

(It is very worrying to me who I find myself in agreement with on this thread )

But let us get down to the nub of the this therefore; either Yorick is saying that harm is bad or that any kind of religious thinking shared with any child that doesn't conform to his worldview is on a par with child sex abuse.

Can I just start with

before going on to explain that this might be a little ambitious.

I understand why (some) atheists consider religion to be harmful. I won't bother here to take apart this argument - though it is ridiculous - but let's accept for the moment the notion of religion as harmful. As a comparator to go for, child sex abuse is aiming a little high don't you think?

As anyone who's on the Ship regularly will know, a while back we had some very heated debates on the subject of childhood abuse and myself and a few others shared both their direct experiences and what they have seen in others who have been victims. Speaking as someone who has cared for, counselled, sat with, cried with and for, a number of victims; I find this comparison pretty-fucking-offensive. It either demonstrates very lazy thinking from 'all religion is bad' to 'therefore teaching it to children must be really bad' or a deliberate and callous attempt at an offensive moral equivalence. That is, the OP is meant to offend.

So I would postulate this: If we get past the sweeping generalisation, it is indeed true that is some cases, the religious view of the parents can be demonstrably detrimental to the children but to draw this parallel I suspect shows a complete lack of any knowledge about what IngoB rightly insisted on referring to a child-rape.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
No.

Tampering with minds is not as wrong as tampering with genitals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Tampering with their minds like that is as wrong as tampering with their genitals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Our decisions are not made consciously (for some unknown reason(s) we seem to need to kid ourselves that they are) but are the outcome of a combination of genetic inheritance and our lifetime’s experiences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
It's not the experiences, it turns out, which shape us so much as it is our attitudes toward said experience. And we have the ability to re-frame these.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Ideally we would be unaware of religion until our mid-twenties – and then be expected to consider all the options.

---

And why for fuck's sake would that be ideal? I would be hard pressed to find a worse method of dealing with religion. Even if I allow for the sake of argument that religion is some kind of mind porn, then this suggestion is like saying that one should keep everybody sexually continent and indeed totally naive of sex until they are twenty, and then blast them with all manner of available hardcore porn, so that those innocent virgins may consider their sexual options for the rest of their lives. Yeah. No doubt that will lead to lots of sexually well adjusted individuals.
 

---

Posted by Leaf (# 14169) on :
 
Ah, Yorick. How fortunate for you that whatever genuine hurt you experienced on behalf of your friend so nicely hooked into your preconceived notions! Don't you find righteous anger is such a trip? And in this case it fuels two of your favourite things: atheist crusading and attention whoring. Lucky you. (I will try to make this as much about you as possible, because I'm feeling charitable about your need for attention.)

Unfortunate for you, though, that you have been so thoroughly called out on your bullshit by other, more capable posters.

What really makes this fun is that you, and possibly your friend, are guilty of the very thing which you condemn: binary, blinkered fundamentalism. The teaching of religion is so wrong that you can only compare it with the secular world's greatest sin, the abuse of children, so that you can use the emotions of wishing there was a hell without having to employ the concept. Neat.

Whatever response you are hoping to generate on Ship of Fools, I doubt that you will receive it. Maybe one day someone will buy what you're selling, but this seems to be a tough market for your atheist evangelism. I feel for you; it's tough to be a missionary. Or perhaps you yourself could grow up past your fundamentalism - "rise above your programming", as they say - and think more critically about religion, education, and parenting.

In closing: You.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
<snip>
b) Where do our attitudes come from if not genetics and experiences?

c) Where do we get the ability to re-frame - or indeed to want to re-frame - other than from genetics and experiences?
<snip>

---

quote:

---

an increased need to regulate affect and behavior in accordance with long-term goals and consequences, often at a distance from the adults who provided regulatory structure and guidance during childhood.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
Even if I allow for the sake of argument that religion is some kind of mind porn, then this suggestion is like saying that one should keep everybody sexually continent and indeed totally naive of sex until they are twenty, and then blast them with all manner of available hardcore porn, so that those innocent virgins may consider their sexual options for the rest of their lives. Yeah. No doubt that will lead to lots of sexually well adjusted individuals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:


Further, I'm suspicious when any adult starts claiming that his or her messed-up-ness is all down to the parents and their doings. At some point, we either start taking responsibility for our own lives, or we don't; we blame our own decisions and actions on Somebody Else.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
Isn't that exactly what the RCC teaches? (apart from the porn bit of course) No sex, not even masturbation then marriage and - wham, all breaks off.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I feel this is of equivalent moral wrong when the harmful effects are equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
But whatever the case may be, it's something that religious people seem averse to accepting AT ALL, when they should all be looking very carefully at it, and this seems morally negligent to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
But whatever the case may be, it's something that religious people seem averse to accepting AT ALL, when they should all be looking very carefully at it, and this seems morally negligent to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I don't see much acceptance of the idea on this thread, but perhaps that's because people are rather fond of their religions and rather less fond of my opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
My particular point here is to propose for your consideration that the effects of indoctrinating religious beliefs in children may cause harm in a similar way to that in which harm may be caused by child sex abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I feel this is of equivalent moral wrong when the harmful effects are equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I know nothing about the statistical incidence of harm caused by parental indoctrination of religion, nor the intentions of the individual harmers. I imagine its a relatively minor thing and often is accidental to intention. But whatever the case may be, it's something that religious people seem averse to accepting AT ALL, when they should all be looking very carefully at it, and this seems morally negligent to me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I feel this is of equivalent moral wrong when the harmful effects are equivalent.

---

And I think circles are round.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I don't see much acceptance of the idea on this thread, but perhaps that's because people are rather fond of their religions and rather less fond of my opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Agreed. I blame myself for having insufficient time to take care of that with my postings, but perhaps I've straightened that out a bit this morning, and people will now respond to the point rather than the person. Perhaps.

---

quote:

---

Say something that is ambiguous between something so strong it is absurd and so weak that it would be absurd even to mention it. When attacked, hop from foot to foot as necessary, keeping a serious expression on your face. With luck, you will be able to generate the mistaken impression that you haven’t been knocked flat, by rights. As a result, the thing that you said which was absurdly strong will appear to have some obscure grain of truth in it. Even though you have provided no reason to think so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Agreed. I blame myself for having insufficient time to take care of that with my postings, but perhaps I've straightened that out a bit this morning, and people will now respond to the point rather than the person. Perhaps.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Agreed. I blame myself for having insufficient time to take care of that with my postings, but perhaps I've straightened that out a bit this morning, and people will now respond to the point rather than the person. Perhaps.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Agreed. I blame myself for having insufficient time to take care of that with my postings, but perhaps I've straightened that out a bit this morning, and people will now respond to the point rather than the person. Perhaps.

---

Before you build up your hopes, remember that this is Hell and people will play the man instead of the ball. If you want to engage seriously, this might be a disappointing thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
My particular point here is to propose for your consideration that the effects of indoctrinating religious beliefs in children may cause harm in a similar way to that in which harm may be caused by child sex abuse. I feel this is of equivalent moral wrong when the harmful effects are equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:


Further, I'm suspicious when any adult starts claiming that his or her messed-up-ness is all down to the parents and their doings. At some point, we either start taking responsibility for our own lives, or we don't; we blame our own decisions and actions on Somebody Else.

---

May I give a perspective on that for my own experience?

I was raised by an abusive father, and a mother who followed him, I can see now, out of fear.

This left me with mental problems, and what might be called messed-up-ness.

I manage this with various things, including medication, by not letting these problems define me, and also (ITTWACW) through a lot of prayer.

I take responsibility for my own life and for managing my messed-up-ness, but that doesn't mean my father wasn't a major contributing factor in causing it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
My particular point here is to propose for your consideration that the effects of indoctrinating religious beliefs in children may cause harm in a similar way to that in which harm may be caused by child sex abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

And Plique-a-jour – your touching conviction that we have our own free will which pops into existence unbidden is totally contrary to the last twenty (in fact it started in the 80s with Benjamin Libet and others) years experimental evidence on how the brain actually operates. Our decisions are not made consciously (for some unknown reason(s) we seem to need to kid ourselves that they are) but are the outcome of a combination of genetic inheritance and our lifetime’s experiences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
And Plique-a-jour – your touching conviction that we have our own free will which pops into existence unbidden is totally contrary to the last twenty (in fact it started in the 80s with Benjamin Libet and others) years experimental evidence on how the brain actually operates. Our decisions are not made consciously (for some unknown reason(s) we seem to need to kid ourselves that they are) but are the outcome of a combination of genetic inheritance and our lifetime’s experiences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Who is talking about amateur psychology? Neuroscientific investigations show that all kinds of decisions are apparently being made in the brain before anything happens at a conscious level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Plus there's all the stuff about the internal narrator, which I think is probably what HughWillRidMe was going on about. How all that connects to theories of the sub-conscious is a bit of a moot point, because as far as neuroscience is concerned, Freudians, professional or amateur are away with the fairies.

---

Neuroscientists don't take into account psychiatry?



Psychiatry is part of medicine.

Moot point anyway- "subconscious" sounds like the same thing as "internal narrator".
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Who is talking about amateur psychology?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
Ironically, there was some quite reasonable playing of the ball in the part of the thread that was before Yorick explicitly asked people to play the ball. Reverse psychology in Hell is a wonderful thing.

---

I thought I was playing the ball. Having been in lurker mode for ages and being likely to slip back into it almost immediately, I don't have any form of ongoing dialogue with Yorick which might influence me to play the man. However, my attempt to play the ball, along with others, have been generally ignored.

R.
 

---

Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Who is talking about amateur psychology? Neuroscientific investigations show that all kinds of decisions are apparently being made in the brain before anything happens at a conscious level.

---

You mean the autonomic nervous system that regulates our bodies?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
How all that connects to theories of the sub-conscious is a bit of a moot point, because as far as neuroscience is concerned, Freudians, professional or amateur are away with the fairies.

---

Neuroscientists don't take into account psychiatry? Psychiatry is part of medicine.

---

quote:

---

quetzalcoatl: 'Subconscious' is used by people who haven't read Freud.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Plique-à-jour:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

And Plique-a-jour – your touching conviction that we have our own free will which pops into existence unbidden is totally contrary to the last twenty (in fact it started in the 80s with Benjamin Libet and others) years experimental evidence on how the brain actually operates. Our decisions are not made consciously (for some unknown reason(s) we seem to need to kid ourselves that they are) but are the outcome of a combination of genetic inheritance and our lifetime’s experiences.
If you've really allowed yourself to be convinced of your non-existence by that demonstrably inadequate data, perhaps you really were damaged by that 'inhibition'. No, human beings are not pork. There are no born victims. Everything about your tone, over many other posts, suggests that that displeases you, and maybe you need to disclaim responsibility for your own mind to enjoy your sociopathic baiting of people who believe in the sanctity of human life, but there it is: we exist.

People with such a view of human agency should not be allowed to have children.

---

Convinced of your non-existence? - I exist – there seems to be a lot of research going in to what that means – but suggesting we don’t exist is AFAIK still very, very fringe.

Demonstrably inadequate data? - all of it? care to enlighten me?

Born victims? I've never thought of myself as such - though I did have "original sin" laid on me pretty heavily as a child. But I escaped, not entirely unscathed, but better than many, perhaps better than most, and I’m grateful for that good fortune.

need to disclaim responsibility for my mind? - I've made it clear in previous posting (presumably one you didn’t read or forgot) that I dislike the idea that I have no free will. I'd like to feel that my current (to my mind modest but more than adequate) comfort is something that results from my choices and that I am entitled to claim a substantial degree of responsibility for it. Reluctantly I have to accept that it seems that, unfortunately, the rapidly increasing mass of experimental evidence appears not to support my preference.

people who believe in the sanctity of human life now here’s the nub perhaps. Sanctity is sacredness – the condition of being considered sacred or holy, and therefore entitled to respect and reverence You think, I assume, that human life is entitled to respect because of the involvement of your god, I think it (life, all life, plus that which sustains it) is entitled to respect without invoking the supernatural. (There are good humanistic reasons why qualities such as caring, sharing, respect etc. are beneficial to humanity). Christians, and peoples of other faiths, should be free to inform others of their beliefs, and I understand that they will want to – I used to do so - but presenting those beliefs as facts, as historical reality, to partially developed minds; as reality which must be accepted on pain of rejection/eternal damnation (which is in itself an unsubstantiated belief) is not ISTM treating others with respect. You may disagree - I don’t post here with the expectation of terminating religion, I simply hope that any uncommitted reader will realise that some can question the basis for religion and therefore weigh the data for themselves – that is part of what I consider to be treating my fellow man with respect.

“Sociopathic baiting” – sociopath = someone whose personality makes them behave in ways that are dangerous to other people . You, presumably, don’t consider misrepresenting beliefs as facts to children as being dangerous to other people. I got news for you – sometimes it is. From buggering children and ensuring their silence by threatening them with hell through screwing up their adult sexuality by misrepresenting Onan’s sin and repressing their natural desires to creating an environment in which the family goes hungry when the money runs out, but the church has had its bite up front. And hopefully none of this applies to you – but I know people (not me) who have been the victims of all these situations. So sometimes, like others, I get angry – deal with it – preferably by removing the need for such anger.

People with such a view of human agency should not be allowed to have children Wow. I’m really, really sorry for you if that sentence is driven by your own pain.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Hughwillridme - with reference to Porridge's post - your other posts on the Ship, the ones where you post angrily in Purgatory about the detrimental effects of religion particularly Christianity and the stupidity of any believer for believing –

Stop there – point to one post where I have called believers stupid; not even silly. And if my comments are particularly about christianity – well it is SoF isn’t it? In other fora I oppose all that I consider superstition – christianity is just one subset of a category of superstition called religion.

read to me as if you're still stuck wallowing in anger and not moving on from your childhood abuse. Which is why I posted the way I did. And really truly, if you're that angry with Christianity is it that healthy for you to be a part of a board discussing Christianity?

Count me amongst those who had a crap childhood. I didn’t have a crap childhood, it was comfortable and secure, I was balanced enough to be the only “A” streamer in my grammar school year to be an automatic choice for the year’s inter-school football team (though I was a long way from first pick in either), I had immense respect for my father and I hope he realised how much I loved him. Now retired I have my health (though I don’t deserve to do so) and sufficient wealth. Yes – I was brought up in an atmosphere of automatic belief – but I got out – see above

..........
Now your crap childhood is not down to all Christians, who are mostly doing their best in world beset with difficulties, but how your particular parents dealt with their belief and the challenges of their environment. And you as an adult, and Yorick's friend, should be able to recognise that generalising and lashing out at all Christians is as helpful as the rape survivor refusing to deal with all men because all men are rapists - i.e. not helpful at all.
It isn’t Christians – its injustice. Its people (often wonderful, caring, lovely people) being part, as I see it, of a system that enslaves them and others for the benefit of a few – and most of the few are probably as enslaved as those they ensnare. I benefitted from the sting as a child - being a PK – though my dad might have been happier and wealthier had he not changed course in his mid-twenties because, I suspect, of what he saw in late 1920s England. I suspect that most practitioners of acupuncture, of homeopathy, of ear-candling, and of Islam, of Hinduism and yes – even of Christianity - genuinely believe, and care. Their beliefs are not supported by proof and create an environment in which people are vulnerable to abuse. There may even be some writers of horoscopes who think they can foretell the future!

But your analogy with rapists falls down because, in most societies, the majority of men do not condone rape, they don’t shelter rapists and excuse their behaviour. To take a single illustration (no – not the obvious one) - I have no doubt that

Benny Hinn

and others, are conscious frauds preying on those who are predisposed to believe their nonsense. Does Christianity weed out such charlatans? No, disapproval is there but muted because faith healing is dogma and those who have the truth usually think that it cannot be changed without loss of credibility. (though it doesn't seem to be a problem for the LDS). Not only does Christianity shelter (or at least not root out) the predators, it provides (willingly or otherwise) a veneer of respectability and it continues to interfere in potential victims’ lives in ways that make them more likely to be predated by all those who peddle un-proven superstitious products from extreme religion and conversations with their dead mother (whose name started with M, or is it N - no - well she obviously had a name you weren't aware of) to miracle cures for arthritis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
However, whether neuroscience or any other kind of science can 'prove' that we don't have free will is another matter altogether. I don’t think I’ve claimed any such proof – merely pointed out that the experimental evidence seems to point strongly in that direction. If I’ve claimed proof – my apologies – strong indication is what I should have said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
My particular point here is to propose for your consideration that the effects of indoctrinating religious beliefs in children may cause harm in a similar way to that in which harm may be caused by child sex abuse. I feel this is of equivalent moral wrong when the harmful effects are equivalent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

Coming back to the point, if you want to get away with saying things like "Her parents were (and remain) zealous Christian evangelists, and they inflicted their religious views on their children in ways that I, even as a child then, considered abusive." you're going to have to back it up with some details.

So, come on, Yorick. Specifics. Exactly what ways are we talking about here. Please describe for us some things that your friend G experienced that you consider abusive. Perhaps, at the same time, you could outline what you think is reasonable behaviour by a religious parent that wouldn't get him or her tarred with your child abuse brush.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
However, whether neuroscience or any other kind of science can 'prove' that we don't have free will is another matter altogether.

---

I don’t think I’ve claimed any such proof – merely pointed out that the experimental evidence seems to point strongly in that direction. If I’ve claimed proof – my apologies – strong indication is what I should have said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Yes, there is a difference between uncnscious and subconscious. Subconscious is a term that has an objective correlative in terms of events in the brain. The unconscious mind is a very fruitful myth which has worked very well, but does it relate to anything real? If it does, then surely what it relates to must be the subconscious, mustn't it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
Who is talking about amateur psychology? Neuroscientific investigations show that all kinds of decisions are apparently being made in the brain before anything happens at a conscious level.

---

You mean the autonomic nervous system that regulates our bodies?

---

No, she means actual "higher" decision making, like for example "should I buy these shoes or save my money?" or for that matter "do I believe in the resurrection of Christ or is that tosh?"

---

Now see I'd put answering those kind of questions down to the subconscious level.

And by subconscious I just mean below the conscious.

quetzalcoatl

What's the difference between the unconscious and the subconscious?

I also thought the idea of the subconscious was more Jung than Freud?

[ 31. August 2013, 13:32: Message edited by: Evensong ]
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib:
I think a myth is a story we tell ourselves which may tell deep truths about our condition that we can't access any other way. Or maybe they aren't True, but they seem somehow to fit, they work for us. The great thing about Myth is that, as long as it doesn't get tied into some very literalist religious interpretation, we can re-work it. Christians and others have re-worked the Genesis Creation Myth down the centuries.

So .... mind. Is Mind a Myth? Some scientists are saying it is. The thing is, even if they could somehow prove they were right, we still have Mind - that idea still works for us, and we probably couldn't be who we are without it. We need to understand oourselves as having minds.

I suspect the Multiple Intelligence (Gardner version) thing is a myth, but it works quite well in education. Similarly, the whole idea of the unconscious mind, repression, transference etc - people can use that, and use it successfully, but will it ever be somehow proven to be true? Probably not, in scientific terms, it's just smoke on the water. But not everything that is true about human life can be tested on the basis of a falsifiable hypothesis.

So a lot of Freud's ideas bore fruit - even though, as I understand it, most of those women he thought had fantasised about sex with father figures had probably been sexually abused as children. True?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
HughWillRidMe - that post is such a coding fail that responding to it will take far more effort than I'm prepared to expend.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Benny Hinn and others, are conscious frauds preying on those who are predisposed to believe their nonsense. Does Christianity weed out such charlatans? No, disapproval is there but muted because faith healing is dogma and those who have the truth usually think that it cannot be changed without loss of credibility. (though it doesn't seem to be a problem for the LDS). Not only does Christianity shelter (or at least not root out) the predators, it provides (willingly or otherwise) a veneer of respectability and it continues to interfere in potential victims’ lives in ways that make them more likely to be predated by all those who peddle un-proven superstitious products from extreme religion and conversations with their dead mother (whose name started with M, or is it N - no - well she obviously had a name you weren't aware of) to miracle cures for arthritis.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
All families 'indoctrinate' their kids with some set of values to some degree.

Kids in turn respond to these values by accepting them or rebelling against them -- two sides of one coin -- and so those values shape them to greater or lesser degrees.

Once they get out on their own, though, and get a little RW experience under their belts, they can start re-assessing their beliefs and altering them PRN.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
I seem to recall that there's some evidence to suggest that the moment they're exposed to a peer group, that's actually more influential than the family... For better or worse...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
I seem to recall that there's some evidence to suggest that the moment they're exposed to a peer group, that's actually more influential than the family... For better or worse...

---

I would be surprised to find that to be true. kids are influenced by their peers, but over and over again I find that the influence of the family - in good and bad ways - is strongest and lasts the longest.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

OTOH, I'd far rather you found something better to do. This thread makes me want to scratch my eyes out even more than the 'Jellyfish' one.

Sioni Sais
Hellhost

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
I seem to recall that there's some evidence to suggest that the moment they're exposed to a peer group, that's actually more influential than the family... For better or worse...

---

I would be surprised to find that to be true. kids are influenced by their peers, but over and over again I find that the influence of the family - in good and bad ways - is strongest and lasts the longest.

---

Lord have mercy I hope you're right comet.

Not 20 minutes ago at the dinner table, my 16 year old said believing in God was unrealistic, and you're being fooled if you do.

Where does he get this from? Not home........

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Not 20 minutes ago at the dinner table, my 16 year old said believing in God was unrealistic, and you're being fooled if you do.

Where does he get this from? Not home........

He attends a Catholic boys school......is this from his peers?

Whereas my 18 year old government school son (no religious affiliation) has little trouble with the idea of God and has at least two overtly atheist school friends.

What gives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
I seem to recall that there's some evidence to suggest that the moment they're exposed to a peer group, that's actually more influential than the family... For better or worse...

---

I would be surprised to find that to be true. kids are influenced by their peers, but over and over again I find that the influence of the family - in good and bad ways - is strongest and lasts the longest.

---

Lord have mercy I hope you're right comet.

Not 20 minutes ago at the dinner table, my 16 year old said believing in God was unrealistic, and you're being fooled if you do.

Where does he get this from? Not home........

He attends a Catholic boys school......is this from his peers?

Whereas my 18 year old government school son (no religious affiliation) has little trouble with the idea of God and has at least two overtly atheist school friends.

What gives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Garasu:
I seem to recall that there's some evidence to suggest that the moment they're exposed to a peer group, that's actually more influential than the family... For better or worse...

---

I would be surprised to find that to be true. kids are influenced by their peers, but over and over again I find that the influence of the family - in good and bad ways - is strongest and lasts the longest.

---

Lord have mercy I hope you're right comet.

Not 20 minutes ago at the dinner table, my 16 year old said believing in God was unrealistic, and you're being fooled if you do.

Where does he get this from? Not home........

He attends a Catholic boys school......is this from his peers?

Whereas my 18 year old government school son (no religious affiliation) has little trouble with the idea of God and has at least two overtly atheist school friends.

What gives?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Not 20 minutes ago at the dinner table, my 16 year old said believing in God was unrealistic, and you're being fooled if you do. ... Whereas my 18 year old government school son (no religious affiliation) has little trouble with the idea of God and has at least two overtly atheist school friends. What gives?

---

Two boys, two years apart, and the older one has already occupied the religious spot to your satisfaction. I'm guessing that gives... Go easy.
 

---

Posted by comet (# 10353) on :
 
Bingo is right, too. (shit, I think I pulled a muscle typing that ) kids occupy different roles in the family. if someone is already the funny one, then the other kid is going to be the hardworking one, or the loser one, or the dramatic one, or whatever.

so, kid#1 is well behaved and tows mama's religious line? kid#2 needs to set themselves apart. the obvious choice is to question mama's standing and challenge it. go with it. if you resist, you'll lose.
 

---

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by comet:
the key in your post is this part: 16

at that age, it's their job to test the boundaries, challenge their upbringing, and call you on what you're teaching them. chill out. answer his questions. if you can't, tell him you can't. let him make his own calls. if you "lay down the law" he'll just reject all of it. "Teen" is just another word for "will rebel against everything". if you don't make a big deal out of it he'll forget about it and move on to something else.

like, you know, drugs, sex, politics, whatever really gets your back up. [/QB]

---

16?

Mine started at 12
 

---

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
I have often wondered how one

quote:

---

tows the line

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Matt Black:
...either which way, we're all writing on a blank canvas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
I have often wondered how one

quote:

---

tows the line

---

,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
FWIW (=0), I grew up in a religion-free home, where God was mentioned when my dad hit his thumb with a hammer (in the vocative, with the appellative "You Cocksucker"). I had very little exposure to Christianity until college (=university), and what little before then was largely negative.

Indoctrinate your kids all you want. They still will make up their own minds.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
I have often wondered how one

quote:

---

tows the line

---

,

because I can't shake the image of a kid carrying around a lot of baggage.

Toeing a line is staying just on this side of acceptable, which, face it, a lot of kids are experts at.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Yorick quit, once he was asked to substantiate his lurid claims.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, Q, I would. (And so would you, I'm sure. Suicide cults, extremism, etc.).

mousethief, you know that I agree that it is impossible to avoid inculcating our values on our children, and that doing so is what parenting actually IS. I'm talking very very specifically about indoctrinating religious beliefs when this causes harm (regardless of intention).

---

Ah, so you have answered the second question in my post, now go back and answer the first. I'll repeat and broaden it.

1. What is "harm" in this case?
2. Who gets to define it?
3. Do the same things cause harm in every person?
4. Do parents have a fundamental right to teach their children their values?
5. Should the state define which values are okay to teach and which are not?
6. Based on what?
7. If a value causes harm in only 1% of children taught it, is that enough to ban it?
8. 0.1%?
9. 0.01%?
10. Just one child, ever?
11. How can you decide for any given case whether the harm was caused by that value being taught, or the WAY it was taught, or just because they have abusive parents?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Yorick,

I'm sure others have tried to state this, but how about a law that states "Parents may not harm their children physically, emotionally or psychologically, whether intentionally or otherwise".

Doesn't that cover all the bases?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Yorick,

I'm sure others have tried to state this, but how about a law that states "Parents may not harm their children physically, emotionally or psychologically, whether intentionally or otherwise".

Doesn't that cover all the bases?

---

But all parents harm their children to an extent. Who is going to determine the extent, and then who is going to determine the punishment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
What matters is that G feels her parents have harmed her by way of their inculcating their religious beliefs in her upbringing, and from what she has told me I'm inclined to agree. I don't know who the hell anyone on this forum thinks they are to deny this.

<snip>

As far as my OP goes, I don't care that it can and does cause good to children that their parents indoctrinate them into their religion. That is quite beside the point because it doesn't make the bad that happened to G go away, and nor does all other denial of the general principle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Yorick,

I'm sure others have tried to state this, but how about a law that states "Parents may not harm their children physically, emotionally or psychologically, whether intentionally or otherwise".

Doesn't that cover all the bases?

---

But all parents harm their children to an extent. Who is going to determine the extent, and then who is going to determine the punishment?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But all parents harm their children to an extent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
If your point is to say that religious indoctrination of children can cause harm (as in your friend's case) then I think that's a very valid point.

Totally agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't think anyone's disputing that certain kinds of religious indoctrination of children are harmful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't think anyone's disputing that certain kinds of religious indoctrination of children are harmful.

---

Well, hardly any of them accepted this fact straight on without heaping all kinds of excuses, denials, counter-accusations and mitigations all over it, which I think is a big part of the problem atcherly.

---

Oh dear.


On the first two pages of this thread there is a large number of posts which answer the OP with far more seriousness than it deserves.

There have been no ostriches on this thread.

So either you are saying that religion is evil and no parent should ever be able to share their views with their children or The serious harm that can be done by parents (such as in your friends case) is really serious and bad.

Now I don't think you'll find anyone here who'd disagree with the second contention. The problem is the logical fallacy you apply to it. I would postulate given that for the most part parents with sincere religious views don't bring about the kind of harm you're describing, that the religion might not be the determining factor.

AFZ
 

---

Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Yorick -

Please define what you mean by the term 'indoctrination'.

Are we talking about a particular method of conveying information to other people (which could apply to the communication of any set of ideas), or is your complaint just a roundabout and subliminal way of claiming that the communication to children of any idea that does not conform to atheism / naturalism, is inherently abusive (because, in your view, such ideas are "quite obviously" irrational and false)?

Please clarify this point. Thank you.
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
These are all interesting questions that ignore and sidestep my central point. The things that happened to G when she was a child are, in her opinion and mine, harmful. I will not post details on this public forum, and I feel it wouldn't help this discussion to do so anyway (for sure, people would argue that it did her good to have such an upbringing, and her pain is instead caused by her own failure to believe all that terrible shit or, if they are more liberal perhaps, to discern for herself what parts of it are false according to them). What matters is that G feels her parents have harmed her by way of their inculcating their religious beliefs in her upbringing, and from what she has told me I'm inclined to agree. I don't know who the hell anyone on this forum thinks they are to deny this.

But we're talking about general principles here. It is possible for parents to cause harm to their children by indoctrinating their religious beliefs. All further discussion starts or ends there. For example, the mitigation or not that they can also cause harm in other ways, like stubbing out their cigarettes on their arms, or indoctrinating them into their anti-theism, or persuading them of their racism or homophobia or whatever political inclinations. And the mitigation or not that all parents inevitably cause harm to all children in certain ways, however well-intentioned. (I would say it doesn't make it right to stab someone in the eyes because it's just as bad to stab them in the throat, or that people can blind themselves anyway by walking into the sharp tip of a tree branch in the dark).

As far as my OP goes, I don't care that it can and does cause good to children that their parents indoctrinate them into their religion. That is quite beside the point because it doesn't make the bad that happened to G go away, and nor does all other denial of the general principle.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, Yorick is unwilling to see the fallacious reasoning, that he is using.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I think that'll have to do. Bye, ostriches.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
But all parents harm their children to an extent.

---

Oh, that's fine then. How honestly and directly this deals with the matter! *

Jesus allegedly wept, and I can see why.

* I suppose it's worth pointing out this is sarcasm, since your brain seems to have stopped providing you with your usual balanced insight.

---

quote:

---

Sir, your inclination to presume things about me says more about you than my recent absence here says about me.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
I don't think anyone's disputing that certain kinds of religious indoctrination of children are harmful.

---

Well, hardly any of them accepted this fact straight on without heaping all kinds of excuses, denials, counter-accusations and mitigations all over it, which I think is a big part of the problem atcherly.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I would say that any heavy indoctrination can be harmful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IntellectByProxy:
I absolutely share your views about indoctrination of children, and so I tread a fine line with my own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by seekingsister:
So OP I relate to your friend and I agree with you, parents who behave this way should be called to this toasty place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by the famous rachel:
I agree that religious indoctrination can be harmful,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
OK, when indoctrinating religious belief causes harm that is bad. I agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Parents can certainly fuck up their children, indeed, they can be very inventive in their methods. Religion is merely another tool with which it can be done.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by North East Quine:
Religion is only one out of a thousand ways that well-meaning parents can get it wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chorister:
Some people use religion as an excuse to ostracise or even kill their offspring, if they don't conform when they become mature and start thinking for themselves. Now that really IS Hell - but I don't think for a moment that is the same as what Yorick is talking about in the OP.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib (quite clearly admitting spiritual abuse exists):
The Linns are very good on spiritual abuse. I don't think it's quite the same a indoctrination (also a bad thing) though the two often go hand-in-hand. The way I would define spiritual abuse is to say it's an attempt to enlist God in terrorizing a child. So, for believers, it's blasphemy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:
If we get past the sweeping generalisation, it is indeed true that is some cases, the religious view of the parents can be demonstrably detrimental to the children

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
Liberals are quite aware severe religious indoctrination can be harmful.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
I don't see much acceptance of the idea on this thread, but perhaps that's because people are rather fond of their religions and rather less fond of my opinions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by QLib (a little more explicit this time):
Religion is dangerous stuff and cuts very deep - so, yes, spiritual abuse is a serious problem and, yes, when it occurs it can be just as damaging as sexual abuse.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
Can raising a child religiously be child abuse? Depends how it's done. If you're using Dr Frank Dobson's "Dare To Discipline" or worse yet Michael and Debbi Pearl's "How to train up a child" (or worse) then yes it is. If your kids cry themselves to sleep at night because they have been told their friends are going to Hell or even that they are then again it is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
To compare this to sexual abuse is ridiculous and ludicrous for all kinds of reasons, but all abuse leaves its scars and I have sympathy for those who have struggled with religion because of the way someone tried to impose it upon them as a child.

It shouldn't ever be that way. God invites us to seek him out, as children and as adults. If the word 'indoctrination' is synonymous with 'imposition' then I agree that it shouldn't be the way children are drawn into religion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SvitlanaV2 (clearly admitting the possibility of what she expects happens):
I suspect the state already removes children from religious parents if the 'abuse' is of a certain type or intensity. But if you want the state to go much deeper than this then you're basically demanding the end of religious freedom.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong (coming back around for another swing):
If your point is to say that religious indoctrination of children can cause harm (as in your friend's case) then I think that's a very valid point.

Totally agree.

---

Go away, little boy. All you can do is make outrageous accusations against Christians as a whole, then watch your idiocy be torn to shreds and whine that nobody is capable of being self-critical. Go away.
 

---

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :
 
Holy shit on toast.
 

---

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
The things that happened to G when she was a child are, in her opinion and mine, harmful. I will not post details on this public forum, and I feel it wouldn't help this discussion to do so anyway

---

quote:

---

What matters is that G feels her parents have harmed her by way of their inculcating their religious beliefs in her upbringing, and from what she has told me I'm inclined to agree.

---

quote:

---

But we're talking about general principles here. It is possible for parents to cause harm to their children by indoctrinating their religious beliefs.

---

quote:

---

As far as my OP goes, I don't care that it can and does cause good to children that their parents indoctrinate them into their religion. That is quite beside the point because it doesn't make the bad that happened to G go away, and nor does all other denial of the general principle.

---

Yorick, this makes no sense at all. You are making the case that you don't care that millions of lives are saved by vaccines because your friend had an allergic reaction to one and was seriously injured. Your name's not Wakefield, is it?

Nobody is denying that some children are abused by their parents, and nobody is denying that some of those parents profess to be Christian. It sounds like your friend G had a pretty rotten upbringing, and you have every right to be angry about that.

But you have not and will not provide a shred of logic to connect "my friend G has bad parents" to "religious indoctrination of children is like child sex abuse".

You have seen a swallow, so you're wearing shorts.
 

---

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Mousethief...




AFZ
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Blistering barnacles! All I can say is:

Alas poor Yorick, I knew him, Horatio: a fellow
of infinite jest, of most excellent fancy ...
Where be your gibes now? your
gambols? your songs? your flashes of merriment,
that were wont to set the table on a roar? Not one
now, to mock your own grinning? quite chap-fallen?
 

---

Posted by piglet (# 11803) on :
 
I've been reading this thread off and on and as a non-parent I'm not sure that I'm qualified to comment.

But it's made me think: when does having your children christened and taking them with you to church where they attend Sunday School, sing in the choir or become vergers/servers/whatever cross the line into "religious indoctrination"?

Most people of my generation (I'm 51) whose parents were regular church-goers would (as I was) have been taken to church until they were of an age to decide for themselves whether they wanted to stay.
 

---

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by piglet:

But it's made me think: when does having your children christened and taking them with you to church where they attend Sunday School, sing in the choir or become vergers/servers/whatever cross the line into "religious indoctrination"?

---

My SIL went to Church for the first time in many, many years. She came back and was appalled and quite upset. "Those poor choirboys, it's pure indoctrination, they sing and speak those words until they believe them. It's verging on abuse."

I wasn't sure what to say. I kind of agree with her, but my view is that indoctrination of good things is fine, we do this all the time as parents and teachers.

But as soon as you think religion is a bad thing then it must look awful from the outside.
 

---

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :
 
Not all services look like that. It's one of the reasons I find charismatic style services unpleasant. I don't want to self-hypnotise.

(I'm thinking of a service at the height of the Toronto Blessing when I watched half the congregation in the church I was visiting use self-hypnosis and the effort of holding their hands above their heads to induce that falling over of the Toronto Blessing. I found the atmosphere totally unpleasant and something that left me with a panicking child and no sense of the numinous. The friends I went along with later tried beating the devil out of their teenage son when he started acting in ways they interpreted as possession. I think those parents were abusive, but I suspect religion was an excuse rather than the complete reason.)

[ 11. September 2013, 06:58: Message edited by: Curiosity killed ... ]
 

---

Posted by The Midge (# 2398) on :
 
So Yorick, can we are you to ask [again IIRC] if atheist indoctrination of children is equivalent of child sex abuse if it was extreme and harmed the up bring of children? You know, if the child turned out to be a vicar murderer or something?

Or just if they were so far out of touch with their spiritual side they were subject to depression and became an addict to cover that up?

Can you see that I'm having trouble drawing the line between what behaviour of the parents is unacceptable and unacceptable and what is actual harm caused by the actions of the parent and what might be the child's own problems and life style choices?

I might feel my parents have screwed up my life, but feelings have never been the grounds for objective reasoning.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
I just have to get this out of my system, otherwise, it will sit there like a piece of lead:

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

Philip Larkin.
 

---

Posted by Laurelin (# 17211) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
My SIL went to Church for the first time in many, many years. She came back and was appalled and quite upset. "Those poor choirboys, it's pure indoctrination, they sing and speak those words until they believe them. It's verging on abuse."

---

ABUSE? What planet does your SIL live on? It's a flippin' boy's choir, not a Magdalene Laundry or the workhouse. Do people really just fling the word 'abuse' around so carelessly?

(And what makes her think that choirboys necessarily retain their faith ...?)

quote:

---

But as soon as you think religion is a bad thing then it must look awful from the outside.

---

Well, sure, OK, yeah, I think some religious things are awful too. For example, I grew up in a church which forbade women from praying in public and I thought that was pretty awful, outrageously sexist, and I soon jettisoned that belief without jettisoning God.

But a boy's church choir, singing lovely things that inspire countless people and enjoying an excellent education? Seriously?

I wouldn't have known what to say to her. I understand non-church people not liking church services. But that response seems to be missing a sense of proportion.
 

---

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Yes, the word 'abuse' has now assumed ludicrous proportions. Damn, having to do double maths at school was abusive, really. And PE? Monstrous.
 

---

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :
 
Believe it or not, there are some boys who like to sing and enjoy the challenge and the variety of singing in a church choir. Having known some choirboys myself over the course of a longish life, I can assure you that singing in a church choir does not equate religious belief.
 

---

Posted by Yorick (# 12169) on :
 
A few points in haste, this being my last post on the matter.

I call it 'indoctrination' when a parent inculcates their beliefs* in their child with the intention that the child adopts those beliefs. It's indoctrination because the child is incapable of making the decision to believe those things for himself, informed by independently free critical reasoning. (Indeed, that's clearly why these parents do it- they want to get their child to believe in all that stuff before they attain sufficient maturity to make up their own minds. They want to get writing all over those tabulae rasa before it's too late and they lose their influence).

* specifically, theistic religious beliefs, but it works the same for atheism, politics, and so on and on, and on. Obviously.

Yes, this is a universal process. Yes, we all do it. Yes, much of our parental indoctrination causes good. BUT some of it causes harm to our children, whether this is our intention or not. And, then, indoctrination is bad. And sometimes the degree of harm caused can be comparable to that caused by child sex abuse.

That's it.

The fact that so much protest is raised against this very simple and patently obvious principle is pretty fucking damning, I feel. Although some of you admit its truth (yes, mousethief, I can actually read), there's an awful lot of 'ah, but...’ going on. And therein lies my complaint. There should be no buts. Our thinking on this should first and foremost be informed by the fact that it can cause terrible harm, and I fear it seldom is.

[ 11. September 2013, 10:21: Message edited by: Yorick ]
 

---

Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on :
 
I was terribly and shockingly harmed by my english teacher in primary school who made me read 'Dick and Dora do Lunch' because she felt that was the best way to learn to read. I was so indoctrinated by this act that I have never been able to read any other book without the spectre of Dick and Dora lurking behind every page, causing me nightmares and a restless life of drug addiction and alcoholic soaking. Despite the fact that the first word I learnt was 'no', I have been irreparably damaged and at the age of 40 cannot to this day decide to read any other book other than Dick and Dora, as any other book I attempt to read simply leads me back to those hauntingly awful words.....'Dick and Dora were hungry....'
 

---

Posted by alienfromzog (# 5327) on :
 
Oh Yorick, you really are an idiot.


AFZ
 

---

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
Yes, this is a universal process. Yes, we all do it. Yes, much of our parental indoctrination causes good. BUT some of it causes harm to our children, whether this is our intention or not. And, then, indoctrination is bad. And sometimes the degree of harm caused can be comparable to that caused by child sex abuse.

That's it.

The fact that so much protest is raised against this very simple and patently obvious principle is pretty fucking damning, I feel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
The fact that so much protest is raised against this very simple and patently obvious principle is pretty fucking damning, I feel.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurelin:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boogie:
My SIL went to Church for the first time in many, many years. She came back and was appalled and quite upset. "Those poor choirboys, it's pure indoctrination, they sing and speak those words until they believe them. It's verging on abuse."

---

ABUSE? What planet does your SIL live on? It's a flippin' boy's choir, not a Magdalene Laundry or the workhouse. Do people really just fling the word 'abuse' around so carelessly?

(And what makes her think that choirboys necessarily retain their faith ...?)

But a boy's church choir, singing lovely things that inspire countless people and enjoying an excellent education? Seriously?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's quite irrational, to make an unsubstantiated and inflammatory assertion, refuse to back it up with any evidence, and then complain when people object!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by PeteC:
... there are some boys who like to sing and enjoy the challenge and the variety of singing in a church choir ...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's quite irrational, to make an unsubstantiated and inflammatory assertion, refuse to back it up with any evidence, and then complain when people object!

---

Welcome to the internet. Enjoy your stay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
(yes, mousethief, I can actually read)

---

quote:

---

The fact that so much protest is raised against this very simple and patently obvious principle is pretty fucking damning, I feel. [

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Yorick:
A few points in haste, this being my last post on the matter.

I call it 'indoctrination' when a parent inculcates their beliefs* in their child with the intention that the child adopts those beliefs. It's indoctrination because the child is incapable of making the decision to believe those things for himself, informed by independently free critical reasoning. (Indeed, that's clearly why these parents do it- they want to get their child to believe in all that stuff before they attain sufficient maturity to make up their own minds. They want to get writing all over those tabulae rasa before it's too late and they lose their influence).

* specifically, theistic religious beliefs, but it works the same for atheism, politics, and so on and on, and on. Obviously.

Yes, this is a universal process. Yes, we all do it. Yes, much of our parental indoctrination causes good. BUT some of it causes harm to our children, whether this is our intention or not. And, then, indoctrination is bad. And sometimes the degree of harm caused can be comparable to that caused by child sex abuse.

That's it.

The fact that so much protest is raised against this very simple and patently obvious principle is pretty fucking damning, I feel. Although some of you admit its truth (yes, mousethief, I can actually read), there's an awful lot of 'ah, but...’ going on. And therein lies my complaint. There should be no buts. Our thinking on this should first and foremost be informed by the fact that it can cause terrible harm, and I fear it seldom is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I'd join in too folks, but it seems he has gone away, which suits me just fine.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:
Is there some sort of implied distinction between "beliefs" and "values" being made here that I can't perceive? It seems that children shouldn't be allowed to exist in some sort of "state of innocence" until they reason things out according some set of neutral principles they acquire as a part of growing up.

So, "Mommy, I was over at Jimmy's house, and he wouldn't let me play with his truck, so I hit him with a stick until he did. The Jimmy's dad came out and told me that I was a bad boy and had to leave. Was I being a bad boy, mommy?"

"No, not necessarily, that depends on what you believe about using violence to solve problems, and you'll have to work that out for yourself as you learn more. But Jimmy's dad was very bad for trying to indoctrinate you into his belief system. That's actually much worse than hitting someone. (Or, well, I think it is; you'll have to decide for yourself at some point.)"

Really?

---

Hear hear.

The perception of neutrality and the ability to apply critical reasoning on said perceived neutrality/objectivity is a complete farce.

Which is why those new atheists that say "all you need is reason" are ignorant fools. They would do well to study a bit of philosophy and learn from their more intelligent ( yet still ultimately wrong ) ancestors.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Magic Wand:
<wise words>

---

Hear hear.

The perception of neutrality and the ability to apply critical reasoning on said perceived neutrality/objectivity is a complete farce.

Which is why those new atheists that say "all you need is reason" are ignorant fools. They would do well to study a bit of philosophy and learn from their more intelligent ( yet still ultimately wrong ) ancestors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Evensong:
This is but the beginning of enlightenment. You'll get there in the end dear boy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Okay it's the Parousia -- something by Evensong I completely agree with and feel strongly enough about to say so.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:
In the meantime I would recommend a STRONG drink...

---

quote:

---

I call it 'indoctrination' when a parent inculcates their beliefs* in their child with the intention that the child adopts those beliefs. It's indoctrination because the child is incapable of making the decision to believe those things for himself, informed by independently free critical reasoning.

---

I'm pretty certain that my daughter was in no position to assess the claim that one should hold onto Daddy's hand when crossing the road and only cross when when Daddy said so on the way home from nursery. Getting a child into a position where they can do this whole independent rational enquiry business involves spoon feeding them a load of stuff they have to take on trust.

This is actually the case of you are Hiram J. Fundamentalist or Dastardly Dicky Dawkins. Epistemologically a child is going to receive the claim that God made flowers because he loves us and wants us to be happy and the claim that flowers exist because they serve the purposes of DNA in much the same spirit. Both Hiram Jnr. and the Dawkins Dauphin are going to believe this stuff because kids generally believe what their parents tell them until they become teenagers at which point an announcement that they sky is blue will be greeted with a sigh of "Oh Dad, you are such a Tory".

If you wait until this point before you start telling them stuff they are never going to get to the point where they can do the whole critical rationality bit and you are going to have to start by telling them stuff they cannot assess for themselves some of which will doubtless be contested. This is unavoidable. All children are brought up to believe that the relevant adults in their lives are right to an extent which the friends, neighbours and families of said adults would raise an eyebrow at, to say the least.

Short of introducing some latter day variant of Plato's Republic this is pretty unavoidable. If you want to claim that people bringing their kids up to believe stuff you disagree with is some kind of brainwashing, knock yourself out. But, unless you are some kind of spambot, you yourself are probably bringing your own kids up with your own belief system and values that other people disagree with and your kids are probably no more able to rationally critique Life According To Yorick than my child is able to critique Life According To Gildas. I would hate to think that either of our family lives hinged on as to whether Social Services were Yorickians or Gildaterians.

In a free society parents will bring up children to believe different things. People who object to this are enemies of freedom.
 

---

Posted by BashfulAnthony (# 15624) on :
 
I was indoctrinated as a child - I'm getting on a bit now. It's awful: I was taught to love and forgive; to help and care for others and to do to others as I would have them do to me. I cannot believe the injustice of such brain-washing. Or, to put it another way to these indoctrination claims: try thinking differently, as in being sensible and adult.
Best wishes.


 

---

Posted by HughWillRidmee (# 15614) on :
 
Firstly - all children who survive to adulthood go through a period of intense learning the content of which is dictated by their those with authority over the kids' environment.

Secondly - some parents and other persons in positions of power, misuse children by teaching them that things that result in unnecessary harm. This applies in a variety of circumstances, some of which are justified as religious and some which are not. Whether non-sexual misuse amounts to abuse, and if so is equivalent to sexual abuse, will depend on individual situations. I suspect that it occasionally does but, having no experience of the latter, am in no position to be certain.

Thirdly - Epistemologically a child is going to receive the claim that God made flowers because he loves us and wants us to be happy and the claim that flowers exist because they serve the purposes of DNA in much the same spirit. may be true - but that does not make the alternatives equal - one is a belief and one can be demonstrated to be true. ISTM that, in that situation, there is a moral requirement to advise the child of that difference.

I was not, in my opinion, abused in any way which equated to sexual abuse. I was, however, brought up in a controlled environment where belief was automatic. Everyone I knew at all well believed much the same thing (1950s evangelical Anglican), everyone said their prayers, everyone did their Scripture Union thing daily, everyone said grace before each meal (as if god would starve us if we didn't tell him how wonderful he was), everyone worth knowing went to church, everyone tried to be good because they didn't want to upset Jesus (no room for morality there is there?). I knew of no other life (contact with the non-congregation kids at school was curtailed) and was insulated from seeking such knowledge by the certainty that I was right and alternatives were, by definition, inferior and toxic.

Pre-teens I was an arrogant little prig and, for all I know, that may have informed my social attitudes for the last 50+ years.

You can argue that my religious belief was just a habit that I could break at any time - but if that is the case is "give me a child to the age of seven" a silly mistake and why are CofE, RCC and a load of fringe outfits (Steiner!!) so keen to control children's education in the UK? Words and actions appear at variance.

When my children were growing up they weren't set tasks to indoctrinate them in atheism, they didn't pray to nothing, they weren't made to read atheistic literature and answer questions thereupon, they weren't taken to atheist meetings morning and evening on Sunday with a special kids atheist hour in the afternoon, they didn't have to wait breakfast until after a reading from Dawkins, they weren't taught that people who thought differently from them were to be pitied and preached at.

The point I'm making is that growing up in a religious environment is, for want of a better construct, active indoctrination whilst growing up in an atheist (lacking belief in a god or gods) environment is passive. The opposite to a religious upbringing is not, as some contributors seem to think, an atheistic one - it's an anti-theist one - a totally different, and I suspect much rarer, thing.
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

HughWillRidmee: Thirdly - Epistemologically a child is going to receive the claim that God made flowers because he loves us and wants us to be happy and the claim that flowers exist because they serve the purposes of DNA in much the same spirit. may be true - but that does not make the alternatives equal - one is a belief and one can be demonstrated to be true. ISTM that, in that situation, there is a moral requirement to advise the child of that difference.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
(1950s evangelical Anglican)

---

I feel your pain.

If only you'd been raised on the dark side of the Anglican church.

Then all would have been well as you would have outgrown your rebellious teenage atheism so much sooner and returned the bosom of the true fold.
 

---

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The point I'm making is that growing up in a religious environment is, for want of a better construct, active indoctrination whilst growing up in an atheist (lacking belief in a god or gods) environment is passive.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
The point I'm making is that growing up in a religious environment is, for want of a better construct, active indoctrination whilst growing up in an atheist (lacking belief in a god or gods) environment is passive.

---

Possibly. Show me the atheist parent who has never once told their child there is no god, and I'll sell you a bridge to Never Land.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
This topic needs to die. Because of the topic title and some of the vacuous ideas expressed within it.

---

quote:

---

Seriously? Ideas can be countered as they are merely a psychological experience. Sexual abuse is about physical experience as well as psychological experience. The physical part is completely lacking in the religious indoctrination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This points to a wider issue. The child of an atheist will not learn to value religious activity as important part of normal life...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
This topic needs to die. Because of the topic title and some of the vacuous ideas expressed within it.

Seriously? Ideas can be countered as they are merely a psychological experience. Sexual abuse is about physical experience as well as psychological experience. The physical part is completely lacking in the religious indoctrination.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Possibly. Show me the atheist parent who has never once told their child there is no god, and I'll sell you a bridge to Never Land.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by IngoB:
This points to a wider issue. The child of an atheist will not learn to value religious activity as important part of normal life. Even if the atheist parent scrupulously avoids ever mentioning that religion is a "waste of time / energy / money", which is rather unlikely frankly, it is the simple living of a life without spiritual aspect that teaches the child a particular evaluation of religion. Even if we follow the atheist and consider religions as "mere culture", assuming that God is not "really real", then there still is a significant lack there. Imagine that some parents raised their child without any music whatsoever. Not necessarily by any hard rules against music, but simply by never having any music in the home, of any kind. We may say that this child lacks something in its upbringing that most people consider to be of value. Furthermore, religion now is largely absent in the public sphere and in school (at least in Europe). The teaching of religion has been pushed into the private sphere, and so if there is none there, then basically there is none full stop.

Of course, we can ask whether the absence of religion is people's lives is really as significant as lacking music, culturally speaking. Maybe this is no more significant that the fact that most people do not any longer learn the traditional folk dance of the region they grow up in. That's worth a discussion. But my point here was rather this: not teaching something is not necessarily a "neutral" act. Where this formed integral part of the cultural matrix of life, stopping a particular human cultural endeavour is actually "active" parenting.

---

“religious activity as important part of normal life” – that's a whole separate issue isn't it. Just because religion is important to you does not make it so for anyone else. There was a time when collecting bus numbers was important to me.

Virtually every child in the UK will grow up enveloped in a religion-rich environment. You probably have to be outside the bubble to realise the extent of its grip. Christmas, Easter, Ramadan, "Bless you", the church on the highest ground in the village, the inability to buy a Bible/Koran/Veda in W H Smiths at five p.m. on Sunday, news items about alleged victims of religious intolerance, 9/11, 7/7, school acts-of-worship, church parades, war memorials in the shape of a cross, unelected bishops in the House of Lords, place names, school names, street names, sectarian parades, street preachers, RE in school – just because atheist parents don’t teach their kids about religion doesn’t mean the darlings aren’t exposed to it. They just aren’t being fed a particular preferred variety in a particular preferred package.

The likening of religion to music is disingenuous. Music is an adjunct to life, it exists (for most people) in a controllable external form, it can add both pleasure and pain but it rarely defines people. Religion - neither controllable nor externally demonstrable, often controls people – it informs, restricts and mandates (at least I’m told it does if you do it properly). When did you hear of people depriving their family of food to tithe for their music, when was someone who became a devotee of Bach killed by their relations because they dishonoured their Mozart-adoring family, who is made to feel guilty and in need of salvation through a blood sacrifice for inadvertently thinking that they would like to have my LP of the Goodyear concert of 1962?

Another point. How many christians bring up their children to value “religious activity”? I doubt many kids see going to church as valuable - derived from the fact that most I've seen seem to spend their time during the service colouring-in or playing computer games whilst parent(s) beat their breasts, bewail their inadequacies and "jump for jesus" (Sorry - very limited experience since 1970 and definitely not RCC). What constitutes “religious activity”? Are you sure you don't mean either that the child learns about a particular, correct, sectarian/cultic version of a specific religion or (in a more liberal environment) is taught that people have differing religious opinions and they’re all better than no religion but our way is the nearest to right of all of them?

Evensong at least my dad restricted his dressing up to cassock, surplice and occasional sheepskin(?) scarf (stole?)!

[confusing codefux. pay attention to what you're doing, idiots! -comet, Hellhost]

[ 23. October 2013, 01:21: Message edited by: comet ]
 

---

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :
 

quote:

---

HughWillRidmee: Atheists don’t tell people there is no god

---

quote:

---

HughWillRidmee: Music is an adjunct to life, it exists (for most people) in a controllable external form, it can add both pleasure and pain but it rarely defines people.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
when was someone who became a devotee of Bach killed by their relations because they dishonoured their Mozart-adoring family, who is made to feel guilty and in need of salvation through a blood sacrifice for inadvertently thinking that they would like to have my LP of the Goodyear concert of 1962?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Possibly. Show me the atheist parent who has never once told their child there is no god, and I'll sell you a bridge to Never Land.

---

Atheists don’t tell people there is no god – they say they don’t believe in god(s).

---

You need to get out more.
 

---

Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

Evensong at least my dad restricted his dressing up to cassock, surplice and occasional sheepskin(?) scarf (stole?)!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Possibly. Show me the atheist parent who has never once told their child there is no god, and I'll sell you a bridge to Never Land.

---

Atheists don’t tell people there is no god – they say they don’t believe in god(s).

---

You need to get out more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Possibly. Show me the atheist parent who has never once told their child there is no god, and I'll sell you a bridge to Never Land.

---

Atheists don’t tell people there is no god – they say they don’t believe in god(s).

---

You need to get out more.

---

Aw, c'mon. Some atheists run around proclaiming "There is no god!"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:
I'm an atheist; so what? That's my lookout. Further, what skin comes off my nose if others believe in God? So long as they don't start haranguing me about it, I'm fine with that. What's the fastest way to goad somebody into haranguing me? Proclaim my disbelief. I have better things to do with my time.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
The meme that "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" needs to die

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm wondering whether he'd suggest that every scientific statement be prefaced with "this is current theory based on the best available evidence and the model may have to be discarded if new facts don't accord with it".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by SusanDoris:

Apologies for not reading the wholthread, by the way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Justinian:
The meme that "Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me" needs to die as do all other versions that only the physical matters..

---

quote:

---

The difference between the physical and the psychological is surprisingly blurred (see psychosomatic illnesses).

---

quote:

---

Also, which has done more damage to more people? The playing of e.g. Bulldog, which does physical damage, or the combined speeches and utterances of Hitler and Gobels? Yes, that's an extreme example. But ideas can be seriously damaging.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand, there was no earthly point resurrecting this trainwreck of a thread, and I wish Yorick would get the hell off my side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That I denied a universal does not mean I think the opposite universal is true. Do atheists not understand logic?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That I denied a universal does not mean I think the opposite universal is true. Do atheists not understand logic?

---

On the internet, no-one can hear you think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That I denied a universal does not mean I think the opposite universal is true. Do atheists not understand logic?

---

On the internet, no-one can hear you think.

---

One needn't hear me think to avoid drawing unwarranted conclusions from what I said. One need only be logical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Possibly. Show me the atheist parent who has never once told their child there is no god, and I'll sell you a bridge to Never Land.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That I denied a universal does not mean I think the opposite universal is true. Do atheists not understand logic?

---

On the internet, no-one can hear you think.

---

One needn't hear me think to avoid drawing unwarranted conclusions from what I said. One need only be logical.

---

I’ll see your universal and raise you one absolute, as follows:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Possibly. Show me the atheist parent who has never once told their child there is no god, and I'll sell you a bridge to Never Land.

---

You may not have meant this statement as an expression resembling “all atheists do X,” but to this allegedly illogical atheist, it sure came across that way. Of course, I’m not a parent, and therefore can’t pass my beliefs on to offspring anyway. I’m not sure I’d be arsed to try; atheism is merely a default conclusion I’ve come to, not a cause.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Porridge:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
That I denied a universal does not mean I think the opposite universal is true. Do atheists not understand logic?

---

On the internet, no-one can hear you think.

---

One needn't hear me think to avoid drawing unwarranted conclusions from what I said. One need only be logical.

---

I’ll see your universal and raise you one absolute, as follows:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Possibly. Show me the atheist parent who has never once told their child there is no god, and I'll sell you a bridge to Never Land.

---

You may not have meant this statement as an expression resembling “all atheists do X,” but to this allegedly illogical atheist, it sure came across that way. Of course, I’m not a parent, and therefore can’t pass my beliefs on to offspring anyway. I’m not sure I’d be arsed to try; atheism is merely a default conclusion I’ve come to, not a cause.

---

"I know you are so what am I?"? Isn't that a bit adolescent?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:
Possibly. Show me the atheist parent who has never once told their child there is no god, and I'll sell you a bridge to Never Land.

---

Atheists don’t tell people there is no god – they say they don’t believe in god(s).

---

You need to get out more.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by HughWillRidmee:
Atheists don’t tell people there is no god

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Because this abortion of the thread pisses me off, and I cannot believe it is still going, my question is: Have any of you had religion shoved up your ass?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
Because this abortion of the thread pisses me off, and I cannot believe it is still going, my question is: Have any of you had religion shoved up your ass?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by orfeo:

The only reason I haven't closed the thread yet is because I have some wild, vain hope that it can continue being a feisty little argument between theists and atheists about which one is worse at childcare.

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0