HOME | DD
XDiaLinnX — Misguided Parenting is the real problem.
Published: 2013-11-03 18:51:10 +0000 UTC; Views: 8364; Favourites: 311; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
All this talk about forcing children to believe in gods/God, it's a tragic thing, I agree. I feel horrible when I hear people are being forced to say what they don't believe in, just like many of you who had overzealous families that made you go to church without your consent. And I will say it's wrong to force children to engage in what they don't understand.But guys, there is nothing harmful about teaching religion to children.
"But teaching children religion slows human progress! In order to kill religion we must stop teaching it to kids!"
It does not slow so-called "progress". People who actually believe this, you have to realize that by killing off a religion, you or other people just end up creating and teaching ANOTHER one. Religion has been with us since the ANCIENT times, and no matter how much you try to be rid of it, it will always be replaced by some other dogmatic belief system, with or without gods. See also fav.me/d4xgjt3
"But children do not need to learn from such a bloody and gorey book such as the Bible!"
I agree, many children are not ready to experience the deep contexts of the Bible, but it doesn't harm the child to give the a rated G version that they can enjoy and understand:
No blood and gore in this little beauty. Antitheists and fundemental Christians, did you really expect a kid to be able to comprehend the adult version?
"But children do not need to be brainwashed by Christian camps!"
What about atheist children camps that have been around since 1996? They do just as much preaching about how God doesn't exist, it's liable to be called "brain-washing" as well when you put them both into that sort of context. The truth is, kids want to learn and be around other kids, and camps are the perfect opportunity for that. I strongly oppose camps that act more like boot-camps in general, so I can understand the concern inside children camps very much! Parents must choose wisely and know exactly what their children are being taught about when it comes to that sort of thing, so children can avoid being put into compromising situations.
" But children are taught that being an atheist is bad! They are trapped into thinking something they may not actually believe in! "
And I don't think it's right for that to happen. Alot of that behavior does not come from the actual message of Christianity, but from the parents themselves, because of THEIR faith. If a parent is THAT intimidated by someone who lacks the faith, their own faith is liable to be weaker than they wanted, and that is a problem they need to deal with themselves instead of bringing their children into it. Having doubt is not a bad thing, it's something everyone experiences at some point, and children should/are being taught to explore their beliefs. See also fav.me/d50o69g
I could go on and on about it, but here is where I think the real issue is. Misguided parenting.
Related content
Comments: 318
I didn't read them all. Up to 30 nows. Plus I'll ignore those not published on actual peer review publications (example : books by the discovery institute and their own magazines).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Because you are ignoring me, I'll repeat: I didn't go to the Discovery Institute. However, the Discovery Institute is not automatically wrong just because you don't believe them. If you continue to bash on them just because you don't agree with their views, especially since I did not get my information from them, that will be considered harassment.
You asked for peer-reviewed papers written by Creationists. I gave you peer-reviewed papers written by Creationists. Or are you so hateful of religion that you're willing to discard anything written by a Creationist no matter if it's peer-reviewed? Or does "peer-reviewed" to you only mean "approved by evolutionists"? Did you know that many of those books actually are applauded by evolutionists? Some evolutionists are mature enough to realize that there are many theories is science and all of them should be explored. To say that only one should be explored is extremely closed-minded, and is exactly the type of attitude that has no place in public schools. Did you know that the Roman Catholic Church said that only one theory should be explored (Geocentricity?) Do you realize that you're making the same exact mistake as those religious people that you so loath?
What do you think of Raymond Vahan Damadian? Does the inventor of the MRI scanner qualify as a scientist? Or is he just another "brainwashed idiot"?
Excuse me, but everyone knows that when an argument is made against one theory, it is in support of another. Since these are written by Creationists and are addressing problems with Macro-evolution, they are obviously in support of Creationism. Your denseness is astounding. If you continue to spam my feedback box with "they didn't mention Intelligent Design so ID is automatically false" nonsense, that will be considered harassment.
Prove to me that none of these papers, articles, books, and other such writings are peer-reviewed, and then you will have recovered yourself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You...are off on several tangents that seems, if I may say, compleately wrong.
First of all, your list comes originally from the discovery institute.
Secondly, the point was for you to back up your claim that intelligent design was a scientific theory which you did not do. Nothing about peer review papers by people who believe a creation myth.
Thirdly the peer review process is one by which the papers and the data on which it is based is observed is reviewed by other scientists in the same field. If their data/experiments is found to be faulty, then it do not pass the review. It has nothing to do with being religious or not.
Fourth, where have I demonstrated loath to religious people? They can believe whatever fictional mythology they want. But if they claim it is reality, they have the burden of proof to back up their claim with empirical evidence.
Fifth, as explained before, a scientific theory is a model based on empirical evidence which explains what is observed. It starts as an hypothesis and is tested again and again with each new evidence found in the fields related to it. Intelligent design hasn't passed such test. Heck, from the papers of that list, it isn't even related to a particular field. What is it related to? Biology? Chemistry? Analytical programming?
Sixth, pointing out that none of the papers actually talk about intelligent design nor use that hypothesis to make prediction nor explain what is observed is not harassment, it's just the results of reading the actual papers (you can find them online).
Seventh, when an argument is made against a theory, it doesn't support another. That's the complete opposite of how it works in science. If the scientific theory of gravity is demonstrated to be false, does it mean "intelligent falling" is real?
Eight, where have I said : "It doesn't mention intelligent design so ID is automatically false"?
Ninth, one's invention or discoveries in no way validate one's religious belief/lack of belief. Sure, Vahan's work on the MRI is good, but that's it. His belief are irrelevant to the invention itself. The same way that Newton's work on gravity in no way validate his practice of alchemy.
Tenth, in science, creationism is not considered an hypothesis either since there are too many variables that cannot be observed/tested. Heck, with the thousands of creation myths out there, which one would be real since they are all as untestable/unobservable? Is it the titan of ancient greece? Or the brahma's cosmic egg? The iroquois' floating island with the light tree?
Eleventh, none of the papers I've read so far off your list present any "problem" with speciation (what you call macro-evolution). Heck, the few papers related to biology which address evolution do states that life evolves.
And finally twelfth, why are you so angry that in science, religious models haven't passed the scientific method? For some reasons it seems to be upsetting you a lot. I'm trying to understand here why you are acting this way when the scientific theories accepted in science do not reflect your personal belief.
Also, it is to be noted I will be continuing to review those papers to see if they are indeed about intelligent design as you claim or, if, from what I've read so far, there is not a single mention of intelligent design/designer in it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
To lipiz (since it seems you are incapable of accepting a discussion)
"You had the chance for legitimate evidence, but you blew it, ignoring my entire list and going to a completely different list to "accuse" me. I don't have time for spam."
Alas for you my dear, you are the one who is spamming here. My basis for the origin of your list is searching for the exact wording you wrote which gave the result to the discovery.org website which is maintained by the discovery institute. But hey, prove me wrong, do present your sources.
"they very clearly are written in support of Intelligent Design. One would have to blind not to see that. "
Let's test this claim of yours then. What in Duston's "A Functional Entropy Model for Biological Sequences" is written in support of intelligent design?
"The papers I gave to you were all reviewed by other scientists in the field."
This is actually false. All papers published in BIO-Complexity are not peer reviewed since they are in a magazine published solely by the discovery institute.
Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA is a book and not a peer review magazine.
"Fictional," "brainwashed," "mythology," "silly," implying that no one who considers Intelligent Design is not a scientist... Do I need to go on?"
Where have I used the term brainwashed? That is your word, not mine. And where have I implied that those who consider intelligent design is not a scientist? That is, once more, you going on another tangent young lady. Also, what is wrong with using the term mythology to describe a creation myth? It is the proper term. Same with "fictional" when pointing to a character in a tale of fiction. Idem with "silly" when such a story sounds more like a fable than an actual event that occurred in reality.
"Intelligent Design, just like Macro-evolution, is a theory based on evidence found in species barriers and other empirical evidence which gives an explanation for how the universe began."
.............
You...didn't actually try to link the scientific theory which explains only the diversity of life with the big bang model....did you?
One is in biology while the other is in cosmology/astrophysics.... They are two different fields!
But hey, once again, I am giving you the opportunity to prove me wrong.
Here is the definition of evolution : the change in the inherited characteristic of biological population over successive generations.
Where does it talk about the formation of the universe?
Also species barrier are what prevent a virus that evolved to infect a particular specie to infect members of other species.
"Macro-evolution is dependent on many things which has yet to be explained by scientists, such as life naturally arising from non-living matter (give me one example of that)."
Here you are now confusing evolution (which, once again, explain the diversity of life) with abiogenesis which is the current hypothesis about how life arose from autocatalyctic self replicating molecules with heredity (a good example of those is Rebek's AATE molecule which is not only an autocatalyst, but also self replicating and has an heredity factor (as such, the copies are imperfect, those which duplicate better or are more stable gains the upper hand compared to the other molecules).
"One must take a leap of faith to believe that a living cell of any kind sprung from non-living matter."
Awww, why start at the cell levels when there is so much before the cell level? Ever get information about Szostak's work on polymer duplicating in lipid bylayers? It's quite fascinating.
"Obviously, since they address the same question, the same field that Macro-evolution is related to. Or are you claiming that Macro-evolution is as "weak" as Intelligent Design?"
So only biology since, as it was explained to you several times now, evolution is only about the diversity of life. Lipiz, if you want to argue science, actually learn what the terms are. You have to stop using strawmen.
"after someone tells you how the papers support Intelligent Design and you continue to rant that they don't without bringing up any reason for anyone to believe you, yes, that's harassment"
Except I did bring the reasons. Not only that, but you claimed those papers supported intelligent design without any evidence to back it up. I am starting to think you didn't read those papers.
" They are all written by Creationists and are written to challenge ideas put forward by Macro-evolutionists"
Which is irrelevant to the case. In science you follow the evidence wherever it leads. The model presented that explains the evidences after being tested again and again and again are considered scientific theories. If there are aspect of the scientific models which cannot be observed/tested, then that model is not considered a scientific theory.
" I have said that speciation is an example of Micro-evolution"
And you were demonstrated to be wrong. If you cannot accept what is written in science, it may be evidence that you are close minded when it comes to scientific subject.
" if someone made an argument against the Theory of Gravity (which was formed by a religious Christian, by the way)"
One's religious belief is irrelevant to the validity of a scientific theory. This was explained to you several times before and, with the logic you used earlier, could be considered harassment. However, need I remind you that Newton also spent years working on alchemy? Does his work on gravity validate his work on alchemy?
"if someone made an argument against the Theory of Gravity (which was formed by a religious Christian, by the way) with the intention of supporting IF, than yes, their argument would be in support of IF"
Actually, it wouldn't. It would be supporting IF if they presented an alternate model which explains what is observed. That's how it works in science. You might not like it, but that won't make it false. The same way none of the papers so far presented an alternate model which explains what is observed, thus, it doesn't support ID.
""Eight, where have I said : "It doesn't mention intelligent design so ID is automatically false"?"
That's what your entire argument is"
And now you are strawmaning my position.
"Or are you admitting that Intelligent Design has some merits?"
As much as all the other failed hypothesis.
" I asked what you thought of him."
I did tell them. His belief are irrelevant to his work. It wouldn't matter if, instead of believing in the abrahamic mythology he would believe the universe is the crumb of a transdimensional sandwich.
"Deflection is a cheap tactic."
Then stop doing it.
"Intelligent Design is what it says: that everything we see was designed by someone intelligent. It is a theory, not an hypothesis."
And as pointed to before, it never passed the scientific method.
"I already gave you a link to a secular paper so you could learn about the differences between theories, hypothesis, and laws, but you clearly haven't read it"
An elementary level book is a scientific paper now?
"a supernatural beginning to the world, and that's the same exact variable that has yet to be tested in Macro-evolution. How did life arise from non-living matter?"
You are again confusing astrophysic, biology and biochemistry. Stop it.
Also, nothing in ID have been observed. No evidence of an intelligent designer, no testing nor predictions were made.
"How do we know which one it is? Because its supporters have told you."
Or because, unlike you, I actually read about scientific subjects. The more you read about a scientific subject (any subject, but from an actual scientific source), the better you get a comprehension of it. Hence why, unlike you, I do not make a strawman of what evolution is.
"Those papers were largely written before the conclusion of those experiments"
Actually, a paper is written after the experiments, once all the data is compiled, analysis are done and conclusion reached. Then they write it in a cohesive form and submit it to be reviewed with all those neat little graphs and calculations and experimental results.
"You have used another strawman argument: I have said that speciation is an example of Micro-evolution, not Macro-evolution."
And you were demonstrated to be wrong. Heck, even tonight you've demonstrated you don't even know what "macro-evolution" is since you confuse it with planet formation, the universe formation and the formation of self replicating molecules with heredity.
"We have yet to see entirely new creatures arise from creatures that already exist."
You mean like how the pakicetus gave rise to modern cetacean? That's observed in the fossil records.
"We have yet to see entirely new creatures arise from creatures that already exist. Bacteria have only adapted to be different species of bacteria. They have never evolved into something that are not bacteria"
And you were explained before about what evolution was and you keep using your strawman. a species in a family in a genus in an order in a kingdom in the bacteria domain will remain of the bacteria domain, the same way you are still an eukaryote, a vertebrate, a tetrapod, an amniote, a synapsid, a placental mammal, a primate, a haplorhini, an hominidae and an homo sapien.
If you want to talk about science, stop using your strawman.
"They have passed, and I'm frustrated because you refuse to see it."
And I am frustrated with you making claim and not backing it up. I am frustrated with you making logical fallacies after logical fallacies. I am tired of you harassing me. And yet I still take the time to back up my claims, to point out where you are wrong and even give you chances to back up your claims.
You say they passed the scientific method, demonstrate it!
"You claim that if it's not your personal belief, then it's not true."
Another strawman! you really have to stop doing that.
"We must be open to all ideas"
Actually, we are to follow the evidence wherever they lead. If those ideas are contradicted by what is observed, then those ideas are rejected. Hence why ID and creationism are considered failed hypothesis in science.
Lipiz, I'll be here if you want to discuss. But you will have to do your homework and actually study the subjects, stop doing strawman and going off on other tangents... you might want to stop doing projection also. It's starting to be annoying.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"First of all, your list comes originally from the discovery institute."
Oh, I see. You're going to the Discovery Institute to get your list. Well, you can go there if you'd like, but you'd be wasting your time, because I didn't get my list from the Discovery Institute. If you compare my list to their list, you will see that they differ. However, since you continued to harass me over Discover Institute after I warned you to stop, by assuming things that aren't true, that's all for you. You were warned. You had the chance for legitimate evidence, but you blew it, ignoring my entire list and going to a completely different list to "accuse" me. I don't have time for spam.
"Secondly, the point was for you to back up your claim that intelligent design was a scientific theory which you did not do. Nothing about peer review papers by people who believe a creation myth."
Actually, if you read the papers, not just skim them looking for the words "Intelligent Design," they very clearly are written in support of Intelligent Design. One would have to blind not to see that.
"Thirdly the peer review process is one by which the papers and the data on which it is based is observed is reviewed by other scientists in the same field. If their data/experiments is found to be faulty, then it do not pass the review. It has nothing to do with being religious or not."
The papers I gave to you were all reviewed by other scientists in the field. The majority were reviewed by evolutionists and creationists, but a paper does not have to be viewed by both either or, in order to be peer-reviewed. By your own definition, they just have to be approved by scientists in the field.
"Fourth, where have I demonstrated loath to religious people? They can believe whatever fictional mythology they want. But if they claim it is reality, they have the burden of proof to back up their claim with empirical evidence."
"Fictional," "brainwashed," "mythology," "silly," implying that no one who considers Intelligent Design is not a scientist... Do I need to go on? I've offered you empirical evidence and peer-reviewed data, and yet you refuse to see it. That is extremely closed-minded and precisely the attitude that does not belong in public schools.
"Fifth, as explained before, a scientific theory is a model based on empirical evidence which explains what is observed. It starts as an hypothesis and is tested again and again with each new evidence found in the fields related to it. Intelligent design hasn't passed such test. Heck, from the papers of that list, it isn't even related to a particular field. What is it related to? Biology? Chemistry? Analytical programming?"
Strawman argument: making up something about Intelligent Design that is not true/irrelevant. Intelligent Design, just like Macro-evolution, is a theory based on evidence found in species barriers and other empirical evidence which gives an explanation for how the universe began. Observation: we know the universe began at some point. Both Macro-evolution and Intelligent Design offer explanations for how it happened. Just like Macro-evolution, it has not been observed. Just like Macro-evolution, it has offered many predictions which have been shown to take place. Science has not told us which one is true. Macro-evolution is dependent on many things which has yet to be explained by scientists, such as life naturally arising from non-living matter (give me one example of that). One must take a leap of faith to believe that a living cell of any kind sprung from non-living matter. What field is Intelligent Design related to? Obviously, since they address the same question, the same field that Macro-evolution is related to. Or are you claiming that Macro-evolution is as "weak" as Intelligent Design?
"Sixth, pointing out that none of the papers actually talk about intelligent design nor use that hypothesis to make prediction nor explain what is observed is not harassment, it's just the results of reading the actual papers (you can find them online)."
Yes, after someone tells you how the papers support Intelligent Design and you continue to rant that they don't without bringing up any reason for anyone to believe you, yes, that's harassment. They are all written by Creationists and are written to challenge ideas put forward by Macro-evolutionists. When you say "Intelligent Design is false," you are saying that to support Macro-evolution.
"Seventh, when an argument is made against a theory, it doesn't support another. That's the complete opposite of how it works in science. If the scientific theory of gravity is demonstrated to be false, does it mean "intelligent falling" is real?"
Your argument makes no sense and could be described as strawman (creating an argument supposedly held by your opponent that in order to shoot it down.) Intelligent falling (IF) is a parody created to make fun of the intelligent design (ID) movement. The joke originated on Usenet, and has appeared in several online parodies.
However, if someone made an argument against the Theory of Gravity (which was formed by a religious Christian, by the way) with the intention of supporting IF, than yes, their argument would be in support of IF. It doesn't mean that IF would be "real," but it would mean that the author is writing in support of it. That’s pretty straightforward.
Again, you have used another strawman argument: I have never said that Intelligent Design is true and Macro-evolution is false. In fact, I have only ever advocated offering both in schools because both have merits and failings.
That's what your entire argument is. Or are you admitting that Intelligent Design has some merits?
"Ninth, one's invention or discoveries in no way validate one's religious belief/lack of belief. Sure, Vahan's work on the MRI is good, but that's it. His belief are irrelevant to the invention itself. The same way that Newton's work on gravity in no way validate his practice of alchemy."
I didn't ask about what you thought of his invention. I asked what you thought of him. Deflection is a cheap tactic.
"Tenth, in science, creationism is not considered an hypothesis either since there are too many variables that cannot be observed/tested. Heck, with the thousands of creation myths out there, which one would be real since they are all as untestable/unobservable? Is it the titan of ancient greece? Or the brahma's cosmic egg? The iroquois' floating island with the light tree?"
Intelligent Design is what it says: that everything we see was designed by someone intelligent. It is a theory, not an hypothesis. I already gave you a link to a secular paper so you could learn about the differences between theories, hypothesis, and laws, but you clearly haven't read it. Actually, only one part of it has yet to be observed or tested: a supernatural beginning to the world, and that's the same exact variable that has yet to be tested in Macro-evolution. How did life arise from non-living matter?
How do we know which one it is? Because its supporters have told you. By your own logic, you don't even know what evolution advocates, because "evolution" could be about how cars develop over the years, how singers learn to sing, the ways that medical help has improved or gotten worse, anything. You know what it's about because its supporters have told you.
"Eleventh, none of the papers I've read so far off your list present any "problem" with speciation (what you call macro-evolution). Heck, the few papers related to biology which address evolution do states that life evolves."
Those papers were largely written before the conclusion of those experiments. I have not denied speciation or said that there is a problem with it. You have used another strawman argument: I have said that speciation is an example of Micro-evolution, not Macro-evolution. It shows minute changes on the species level. That is Micro-evolution, and, just as these Creationist scientists have pointed out, we see that day in and day out. Life evolves, but only around median positions as of late. We have yet to see entirely new creatures arise from creatures that already exist. Bacteria have only adapted to be different species of bacteria. They have never evolved into something that are not bacteria. Maybe they will some day. Maybe they're in the process of changing into new life forms. Now that we're recording information, we might see it. However, we have not seen it yet, and thus it requires faith to believe that it happened in the past.
"And finally twelfth, why are you so angry that in science, religious models haven't passed the scientific method? For some reasons it seems to be upsetting you a lot. I'm trying to understand here why you are acting this way when the scientific theories accepted in science do not reflect your personal belief."
They have passed, and I'm frustrated because you refuse to see it. You claim that if it's not your personal belief, then it's not true. That's a very dangerous stance to take. Where would we be now if ancient scientists took that stance? We'd still believe that maggots arise from rotting meat, that mice arise from dirty socks, and that the sun revolves around the Earth. We must be open to all ideas. And for your information, I actually don't believe much of what Intelligent Design supporters put forward.
However, you continued to do all of the things I asked you not to do, none of which are related to science, so not only is that harassment, but it is unscientific. You have not given me any evidence to support your claim that Evolutionism is 100% true 100% of the time, or evidence to support your claim that Intelligent Design is 100% false 100% of the time. Your entire argument boils down to "Intelligent Design is wrong because that's what I was taught so therefore they shouldn't teach it in schools," which, I must point out, is circular reasoning.
This began as a polite discussion of what ideas should be presented in public schools, but it's become clear to me that public schools share your closed-mindedness. I now know why public schools force only one idea on all children. I now know why children like you are growing up making the same mistakes as ancient religions. My questions are answered. Thank you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'd be killed by my parents if I don't believe in what my religion tells me. Ahaha, if only I grew up with no religion!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I was raised to be able to choose my religion. I ended up becoming agnostic (don't even look for a definition on google, you will only find a vague one)
I do believe people should be educated about the religion they are considering joining before they actually join it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Parents that force their kids to go to church may be doing it because they can't leave their kids home alone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah but you see, some idiots would say "Then get someone to babysit!".
My parents took me to church for that reason, they didn't force me to do anything save for staying in my seat and staying out of trouble. When I was old enough to understand and stay home alone with my brothers, my parents said "You can be whatever religion you wish. It's your life. We will still love you.".
But hey, we're talking about haters here, you can't reason with most of them.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I suppose I am not a christian but you could say the little cartoon bible in the description made me have a sense of well yeah. Christian or not kids should be allowed to read it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Good. I was raised a Christian and Christianity taught me a firm sense of justice. Now, I'm a Deist. We need to defend God before he is all but forgotten. He will still watch me as he usually does. God isn't good or evil.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How on earth is that considered Child abuse? Is teaching your children now considered such? It saddens me to see what this world is coming to.
I personally was raised Catholic, and fell away from religion all together in my junior year of high school. I still believe in God, but that was apparently not good enough for my mother who thought i was becoming atheist. However, i still vouch for teaching your children religion, or a belief in some sort of deity. There's nothing wrong with it, It provides a moral code for kids. When they're old enough to make their own decisions then they can decide whether or not religion is for them or even if they believe in God.
I agree that parents are misguided when they try to force their children to believe something. But teaching it to them when they're young is different. Forcing it on them when they're older is another thing entirely.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree atleast read some stories from the child bible!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Eh, so long as the kids are just being taught about the religions - beliefs, gods, etc etc - and not taught that they should actually follow that religion because it's, well, obviously fact, I'm good. That's the kid's choice to make, not the legal guardian/teacher.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Sure, as long as they can be taught every other religion in the same manner. And not taught that any of these are right, and that they can believe what they want. Christianity doesn't get any special treatment.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm going to teach my kids Catholicism until they have their first communion, after that, they can believe in anything. They can even believe in Ceiling Cat! Just as long as they're happy.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I knew about religion at the age of 5. YES. you heard me. 5, But i didnt learn it from my parents, dont know why tho. i learned it from the internet. (i was on the internet when i was 5. dont ask.)(btw. im 13 right now.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Its religion that put order to this fucked up world.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Religion didn't exactly create order though it did indeed help.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
religion also caused many many wars. I wouldn't say it brings order.
Don't think I'm against religion though, I was raised Catholic and though I've fallen out with the church, I still believe in God.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes but just dont twist the religion around ......thats how people nowadays think god hates gays. Thats sooo untrue because it dosent say anywere in the bible were he say he hate gays.
they have christian kids thinking if your gay that means your a sin.
I actualy grew up around this shit...
this is abused power of religion.
and when i get kids i wont abuse the power
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
teaching them about it no it's not actually making them believe what you do and they don't get a chance to learn is because you are not allowing them to make the choice for them self. Though I am Atheist I will teach my kids about religion and let them choice what they want to believe.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's not possible to "make" someone believe something.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
it is. there are parents that will punish their child for not believing in what they do and beat the teachings of that religion scaring them into a state where they are to scared and traumatized to change or reconsider later in life.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
To make someone believe someone is to have an impossible control over the inner workings of their mind.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes. But, kids have the right to go any religious path they're comfortable with. Or no religious path at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There's nothing wrong with teaching your child religious beliefs, but when you are going to the point of punishing them for not believing it as they get older, that is abuse.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That may be true. Very true.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I loved going to church as a kid, however I feel sympathetic for those having to be forced. If I am ever a parent, I will never EVER force my kids to go. They have agency just like I do, and it's something even God has.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I am sympathetic to those who have been forced to go to church or another place of worship to a point. That point is when they take their own expiriences and start saying that ALL the people from the religion must be stopped, or painting every person in that religion the same.
I have been told I am going to confuse my own children. My partner and I are from two very different religions you see. I am Christian and he is Wiccan. I think it just gives them two view points to look at myself. I will admit I would rather them not be atheist, but if the are I hope they do not box themselves in, mentally. I have seen to many of faith and non-faith who dismiss others ideas, ideals, and opinions because they do not believe the same. Which to me is what really stops you from growing as a person, when you can not take in ideas that are outside of your comfort zone.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
What a decently informed adult knows about religions, reading here and there: Multiple points of views on all religion.
What they teach to kids: The christian point of view on christianity. Why?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I'm an atheist, and what i have to say is whenever I tell someone that I am an atheist, they give me so much shit into saying it's bad for me.
I don't care what religion you are
i don't care what you believe
Just don't shove it down my throat. I'm not saying that that you say here is bad, i totally agree with what you said.
This is just an example.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Is talking about it really "shoving religion down your throat" like you say, or are they just telling you about their religion with someone?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
teaching them about it isn't. but if people go to major extremes to make their child believe in one thing, I'd say it's a kind of abuse
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Teaching them ABOUT it isn't, but indoctrinating them and telling them they should believe it is. And it's been proven that religion does slow human progress.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
teaching them isn't. preaching to them is.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
To anyone who heard Bill Nye arguing that we can't teach kids religion: He's an actor. All of the things he says on screen were him reading from a script. He is not a scientist. Never was. Never will be. So any authority he has over the argument that religion is holding us back it invalid, since he has no sources to back him up.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Actually, he kinda is. www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6kgvh…
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
He has a degree of science. He has a lot of experience, teaching classes of astronomy and human ecology...he's a scientist. He is a scientist, that happens to be an actor.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Huh. I was pretty sure he was just an actor. I never seen him teach a class.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
That's silly line of thought. I also haven't seen most teachers teach. I haven't seen Neil Degrasse Tyson study, he probably doesn't know anything either, right? Let's just ignore the degrees.
That's not even including the fact that his videos themselves or educational and teach people.
Yeah, Bill is a scientist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Agree, bad parenting is the problem. Last time I checked one didn't need a bible to do a good or a bad job at it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Teaching kids about religion isn't child abuse.
Child abuse is FORCING YOUR KIDS TO BELIEVE IN GOD.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Religion teaches morals, so it's usually good.
Obviously forcing your child to go is bad after they're old enough to have a reason other than "but church is boring!", but before that, it helps.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Even if that is their only reason you shouldn't force them to go anywhere once in highschool.
Religion doesn't teach morals. Religion happens to contain morals, several of which are morals that exist in general human society because they are the objective base morals. Everything that doesn't fall into that is extra stuff that may not even be moral, especially by today's standards.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I agree, by old enough I would even mean 12 or 13, I'm referring to young as too young to stay home by themself.
And obviously not everything is good in religion, but not everything is bad, either. What I mean is that, at least in my experience, it's easier to do what's "right" as a child if there are consequences such as the concept of heaven and such.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'd directly disagree, very few kids look farther than a few days into the future. Heaven, as a child is not an issue. They don't usually even have things that would apply to that go through their mind. Child psychology just doesn't point to long term consequences being in any normal child's mind. The threat 'you'll be grounded for a month' means more than 'burn for eternity' little kids can barely comprehend decades, if they can, forget eternity.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
<= Prev | | Next =>