View Full Version : Is teaching your child about your religion mental abuse?
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 13:30
Too much censorship on these boards.
-------------------------------------------
MODERATOR'S NOTE: The OP decided to edit out his previously-submitted content for reasons of his own. However, in the interest of reader continuity, and in light of the fact that several other posters have contributed to this project, here is the restored original content:
This is something I have been pondering the last few weeks..
A childs mind is tabula rasa... Thus, forcing your own religious belief onto this child, is that not a form of mental abuse?
If the [being] of the child in his life would wish to seek a spiritual life, would it not be best to let this [being] do it on his own? Find his own way?
I could add more, and I will, but I would rather have it in the debate phase:)
~Kukri
A childs mind is tabula rasa... Thus, forcing your own religious belief onto this child, is that not a form of mental abuse?
*Forcing* it is wrong. *Teaching* it is not.
If the [being] of the child in his life would wish to seek a spiritual life, would it not be best to let this [being] do it on his own? Find his own way?
Human mind can't do much if it has no information to work with. Introducing a child to a religion provides the child with the necessary information to make the correct decision on whether or not to follow any particular creed.
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 13:46
Too much censorship on these boards.
KukriKhan
10-22-2008, 13:48
A childs mind is tabula rasa...
Your premise is also debateable.
So what is the difference between forcing and teaching when it comes to a, say, 4 year old person who's world consists of mommy and daddy?
There is a reason why schools begin at the age of 7, and why more philosophical issues are handled when kids are 14+ (at least in the contries where I have gone to school).
Teaching is just that: teaching. It does not involve any coercement. As far as age goes, it doesn't really matter. If the child is old enough to absorb the information he'll absorb it, otherwise he'll just shrug it off. At 4 the child is unlikely to comrehend much of what religion is all about, beyond the most rudimentary things. For example, my daughter is 3.5 y.o. and to her Jesus == cross. So, A cross is Jesus, and a plus sign is Jesus. She knows that Jesus is something positive and that's good enough for me. Obviously, I won't discuss theology with her until she has reached the appropriate age.
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 13:56
Too much censorship on these boards.
Tabula rasa theory is simply false.
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 13:59
Too much censorship on these boards.
rvg,
Is that not indoctrination?
Jesus is not something positive for everyone in the world, you know...
Indoctrination? Hardly. It's merely a parent sharing his worldview with his child. As far as Jesus not being positive for everybody, if you want to stick to that as your guiding principle as far as what should be taught to children, then there will be pretty much nothing left to teach, since just about any idea will findan opponent somewhere in the world.
imho yes but I am an atheist which kinda can be a religion of it's own when it comes to evangelistic behaviour, a religious person is usually far more respectful of atheism then an atheist if of religion and I keep that in mind, I think teaching someone about their religion is a better thing then teaching them to destroy it wherever they happen to find it.
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 14:17
Too much censorship on these boards.
KukriKhan
10-22-2008, 14:19
If that is true, you would have to come up with a very good reason why there are so many budhists in asia, so many muslim in arab countries, and so many christians in the US... Am I wrong?
No, you're not. At least not prove-ably. Actually, you make the point for 'the other side' that a human is not a blank slate, but rather has a seeming instinct (among other instincts, or tendancies) to seek some "bigger than me" explanation for existence. This instinct validated by the widespread and varied search for gods world-wide by humans of all races, cultures and times. Only the details vary.
rvg, that depends on what you mean with "jesus"... It is better to talk about christianity... What have you taught your child about christian beliefs?
Nothing, obviously. At her age she can recognize the defining symbol of Christianity, and that is good enough for me.
No, you're not. At least not prove-ably. Actually, you make the point for 'the other side' that a human is not a blank slate, but rather has a seeming instinct (among other instincts, or tendancies) to seek some "bigger than me" explanation for existence. This instinct validated by the widespread and varied search for gods world-wide by humans of all races, cultures and times. Only the details vary.
Human species is completely devoid of any instincts whatsoever. At least of anything that can be scientifically defined as an instinct. We do have some basic drives, but those do not qualify as instincts.
KukriKhan
10-22-2008, 14:28
Human species is completely devoid of any instincts whatsoever. At least of anything that can be scientifically defined as an instinct. We do have some basic drives, but those do not qualify as instincts.
You sound quite certain of this.
You sound quite certain of this.
100% certain.
CountArach
10-22-2008, 14:31
Mental abuse? No, that would be demening a label for something very serious.
Indoctrination? Yes, but this can be said of just about everything a parent tells their children, starting with political views, then moral views, then a general worldview, etc, etc.
I was born into a family that was half Jewish, half Baptist and I was raised a non-practising Baptist. I don't begrudge my parents one bit for raising me that way - they were doing what they thought was right and through an education that encouraged individual thought I came ot my own conclusion that God does not exist. I only recently told my Father, and he was fine with it and commented "I feel I gave you a good moral basis to make your own decisions."
So I don't know where I am going with this, but something to chew on I guess.
KukriKhan
10-22-2008, 14:31
We do have some basic drives...
What might those be? Is there a definitive list?
Fragony, how about not teaching them about spiritual life at all then?
That wouldn't be preparing them for a society where religion just happens to exist. I am not a father mind you, I would teach them to always hold a respectable distance, I hope.
Ideally a child should be informed in unbiased and rational way about the different world views and spiritual/philosophical positions in the world, and then be allowed to form his or hers own opinion.
but as we know the world is not perfect and this will not happen......religion and dogma is too engrained into our societies for it not to affect a child.
as for mental abuse?....I think you can find examples where I would use that world, like people that have extreme religious views and push that on their children causing them to live lives that are limited in so many ways....
But the average non-fanatical religious person that raises his children acording to his faith...I wouldn´t call that abuse....that´s an exageration.
Myself I was raised as a catholic, I was baptized, did first communion.....I don´t think I was mentally abused.....hey I even went to school in a catholic school for 4 years (and I wasn´t abused there either :laugh4:) but when I got to the age I could think clearly about it I threw the religion aside pretty easily and became more of an atheist
In summation....moderate religious upgringing is no more mental abuse than telling a child there is a Santa Claus or a easter bunny.....or reading them Grimm's fairytales.
What might those be? Is there a definitive list?
The usual stuff...foraging, safety, shelter. The very basics.
Long story short, in order for a drive to be called an instinct, it has to be followed by every member of the species at all (applicable) times. There's quite literally *no* aspect of human behavior that can meet this condition. So, things like self-preservation that might *seem* like an instinct, actually do not qualify.
The usual stuff...foraging, safety, shelter. The very basics.
Long story short, in order for a drive to be called an instinct, it has to be followed by every member of the species at all (applicable) times. There's quite literally *no* aspect of human behavior that can meet this condition. So, things like self-preservation that might *seem* like an instinct, actually do not qualify.
The lack of self-preservation might be an instinct, we are social creatures. There has never been a society without religion, religion is probably the most basic codification of law, since religions have the same themes everywhere the same rules are in place everywhere. How do you explain that.
The lack of self-preservation might be an instinct
No, because every member of the species has to unquestionably (or subconsciously) conform to an instinct. Humans have no instincts. None.
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 14:56
Too much censorship on these boards.
No, because every member of the species has to unquestionably (or subconsciously) conform to an instinct. Humans have no instincts. None.
Don't we? Religions always arise in organised society's, when man has to deal with man. All cultures have some variety of celebrating harvest and festivity for example, pretty basic if you intend to be alive, I would call the harvest and reproduction celebrations a product of our instincts, pretty basic instincts, it's just how we deal with it without getting killed. Everywhere.
To put it mild, if you believe in God here, you are seen as the village idiot.
In towns perhaps but towns are not the villages, scandinavia is a very very very christian place it puts our biblebelt to shame.
Heard of scandinavia?
To put it mild, if you believe in God here, you are seen as the village idiot.
You said that your mother believed in God. Is she seen as the village idiot?
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 15:06
Too much censorship on these boards.
I was 19 when I discovered it... It is not something she shows in public, for obvious reasons.
So....in a free, democratic and supposedly tolerant society people have to hide their religious affiliation? Is this really the standard the human civilization should strive for?
So....in a free, democratic and supposedly tolerant society people have to hide their religious affiliation? Is this really the standard the human civilization should strive for?
don´t start getting on the "we are persecuted" stuff.
people don´t have to hide anything...it´s not like you will be put in jail or anything.
but if someone comes out and tells me that they believe in the bible....literally.....I´m gonna laugh in their face.....is this persecution????.....don´t be ridiculous.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-22-2008, 15:17
No, because every member of the species has to unquestionably (or subconsciously) conform to an instinct. Humans have no instincts. None.
That isn't the definition of instinct. Also, when babies go in the swimming pool they instinctively hold their breath.
Teaching religion is not mental abuse. If the parents are open minded rather than fanatical then no harm will come of teaching their children about religion or anything else. Some of them do have a "I must make my child a devout christian or else they will burn in hell" attitude unfortunately. As rvg said, just teach em a few things at a young age they'll still want to be like their parents, and at an older age they'll reject it if you push them towards it. That's the problem with religions that have a "hell" of some sort though, parents feel like it is urgent that their child follow the religion instead of letting them go their own way and just teaching them the moral principles.
don´t start getting on the "we are persecuted" stuff..
If you have to hide something that you believe is right, then there's clearly some kind of retribution that the society imposes on those who profess the given belief. Otherwise there would be no reason to hide it. Unless the person is really, really, *REALLY* shy.
Don Corleone
10-22-2008, 15:24
don´t start getting on the "we are persecuted" stuff.
people don´t have to hide anything...it´s not like you will be put in jail or anything.
but if someone comes out and tells me that they believe in the bible....literally.....I´m gonna laugh in their face.....is this persecution????.....don´t be ridiculous.
Nobody's talking about you. Kadagar's talking about having any religious belief makes you an abusive parent. But yeah, we're paranoid...:dizzy2:
Ser Clegane
10-22-2008, 15:32
is that not a form of mental abuse?
Not more than any other teaching of morals/ethics IMHO.
If this already qualifies as mental abuse I guess parents would have to limit themselves to keeping their kids alive by feeding them* and otherwise let them discover everything by themseolves
* although they should not force any specific food on them - just let these little empty-minded buggers find out for themselves what food they prefer ~;)
Nobody's talking about you. Kadagar's talking about having any religious belief makes you an abusive parent. But yeah, we're paranoid...:dizzy2:
the comment I was replying to wasn´t about the original question....go read the back posts again.
but even on that aspect....Kadagar placed a question....the majority if not all people that replied disagreed (myself included).....so I still don´t see the persecution......1 person having a negative opinion of you does not make you persecuted.
imho yes but I am an atheist which kinda can be a religion of it's own when it comes to evangelistic behaviour, a religious person is usually far more respectful of atheism then an atheist if of religion and I keep that in mind, I think teaching someone about their religion is a better thing then teaching them to destroy it wherever they happen to find it.
:bow:
Don Corleone
10-22-2008, 16:13
the comment I was replying to wasn´t about the original question....go read the back posts again.
but even on that aspect....Kadagar placed a question....the majority if not all people that replied disagreed (myself included).....so I still don´t see the persecution......1 person having a negative opinion of you does not make you persecuted.
It's not a negative opinion, its a call to action. Maybe the term child abuse means something different in Portugal, but in the US, saying religious households are abusive implies that children in religious households should be removed and taken into custody by the state.
Rvg responded to Kadagar, not you. You responded to him, saying "nobody's persecuting you". I responded you aren't, but Kadagar's implying religious people should have their children taken away from them.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 16:14
Mental abuse... no, well the really crazy fanatical ones probably cross over into that terroritory but i would put everything else down to indoctrination of young impressionable minds...
I hate to invoke godwin here and i am not linking hitler to any religion (read the previous sentence over a few times if you start to get angy..)
When hitler set up his youth camps he had the majority of the german youth eating out of his hand, so if a stranger with a bit of power can brainwash children so easily, then two parents simply telling bible storys, taking thier kids to church and just speaking of thier own personal faith could permentantly convince the child of his religion with no critical/abstract or spiritual thought of his own...
Don now you are reading well too much into it... persucution complex possibly ? i now how badly you majority's are treated in america :wink:
I think kag was simply asking is indoctrinating your kid to believe as you do a form of mental abuse, i saw no calls for children of the religious to be taken away, kag is a child of someone religious himself (did he say in this topic ?)
Don Corleone
10-22-2008, 16:28
I see. So in the UK, Sweden and Austria, it's common practice to leave children in abusive households? I must have missed that factoid... was probably busy reading Goebbels to Jillian.
By the way, I love your pre-defense :laugh4: In the same spirit, I don't mean to call anybody here an idiot, but well, you know, idiots invoke Godwin's law to tarnish every viewpoint that disagrees with their limited worldview. :laugh4:
Indoctrination? Yes, but this can be said of just about everything a parent tells their children, starting with political views, then moral views, then a general worldview, etc, etc.
Indeed -critical thought is something that hardly ever is being taught to children. Well, receive information with a critical mind, but never ever think critically of what I have taught you. :laugh4:
No, because every member of the species has to unquestionably (or subconsciously) conform to an instinct. Humans have no instincts. None.
Yes, we have an instinct to look to other humans for confirmation on how well you are doing. You have someone you respect, and if you are unsure about your views, and persons whom you respect are opposed to them; you'll also be more critically inclined to your own views. Kadagar raises an important point here; the average persons live with absolute truths it has encountered through life; thus reflecting where it grew up. Americans from the US, Germans from Germany. It's no big secret.
Heard of scandinavia?
To put it mild, if you believe in God here, you are seen as the village idiot.
Not really. :laugh4:
-----
Question to the OP: could it be more wrong to tell children about religion than to instill in them what's "right" and what's "wrong"? Methinks not, the line would be arbitrary. What would you want children to be taught?
InsaneApache
10-22-2008, 16:33
No, because every member of the species has to unquestionably (or subconsciously) conform to an instinct. Humans have no instincts. None.
That's a weird world view. We are, after all, just very clever primates and primates do have instincts.
The survival instinct. The procreation instinct. The altruist instinct etc, etc. The last one is the instinct that keeps us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom.
As for the OP, no, not mental abuse. Indoctrination yes, abuse, no. I brought my kids up with no religious perpective. When they both got to majority, it was up to them what they did. What I did teach them was to approach life with an open a mind as possible.
No, because every member of the species has to unquestionably (or subconsciously) conform to an instinct. Humans have no instincts. None.
Humans have instincts....the thing is that instincts can be overridden or subdued by environment and upbringing.
Someone can be trained out of certain instinctual behaviors...we do it to animals all the time so I can´t see how this can be denied.
If you have to hide something that you believe is right, then there's clearly some kind of retribution that the society imposes on those who profess the given belief. Otherwise there would be no reason to hide it. Unless the person is really, really, *REALLY* shy.
almost everyone hides something from society at large...be it a weird sexual fetish or simply the fact that you enjoy a tv show that your friends might find "geeky".......are all these people persecuted???
if you extend the definition of a word to mean everything....then it doesn´t mean anything.
and even if I accept your position....if all these people are being persecuted.....then who is the biggest persecutor?? Religion...I´m looking your way.
Rhyfelwyr
10-22-2008, 17:00
Anything a parent does will influence their children. If a parent tells their child about religion then that is not indoctrination. At least no more than a child having an atheist parent who tells them religion is silly.
With everything a parent does they are influencing their children. If they eat something, then their children are more likely to try it, is that indoctrination? Of course parents influence their children, but its unavoidable unless all children are raised by the state in giant communes where they aren't allowed to learn anything in case it influences them before they grow up and think for themselves.
Also my parents are not religious BTW.
Strike For The South
10-22-2008, 17:09
If teaching religion to your kids is abuse than so is anything else a parent teaches. I dont see how you can see it as abuse when there are parents indoctrinating a kid the other way as well.
Sasaki Kojiro
10-22-2008, 17:14
If teaching religion to your kids is abuse than so is anything else a parent teaches.
Well, this argument doesn't work.
1) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom (good)
2) Wash your hands with bleach every five minutes (bad)
You would have to examine what was being taught.
Strike For The South
10-22-2008, 17:17
Well, this argument doesn't work.
1) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom (good)
2) Wash your hands with bleach every five minutes (bad)
You would have to examine what was being taught.
Well he didn't specify what religion or how fervently. He just made a blanket assumption. So I agree. I dont think one can call most anything a parent teaches a child "abuse" even if its religous extremism or racism. It is not the governments business to control thought within a household to begin with.
Rhyfelwyr
10-22-2008, 17:18
My above post should have said my parents were not religious.
I wouldn't think it is really necessary to indoctrinate children anyway, because it is predestined before time who will/will not be saved, these are the views most US Christians hold I believe. But then its a MATRIX situation - would you really have knocked the vase over if I didn't say you would have? Would it be your fault if they went to Hell because you hadn't taught them? No presumably since God is sovereign. So no need to indoctrinate children, just let them be aware.
seireikhaan
10-22-2008, 17:20
Abuse? Hardly.
While I can appreciate your concern for the matter, Kad(I myself have been trying some soul searching the last year or so), abuse is a rather serious term for such an issue. As Don said, abuse implies that the government should come in and take the child away from the parent because of it. Frankly, any religious person is, in some way, going to pass on their beliefs to their children no matter how open minded they tell them to be, because children have a tendency to emulate their parent's actions for awhile when young. If one goes to church, children will want to come with them(well, at least until they hit 13 or so:wink:). If one goes to the Minaret or synogogue or stuppa or even baseball game, their children will wish to come with them, until they make a decision on whether or not they find it as interesting as their parents.
CrossLOPER
10-22-2008, 17:26
Well, this argument doesn't work.
1) Wash your hands after going to the bathroom (good)
2) Wash your hands with bleach every five minutes (bad)
You would have to examine what was being taught.
Something like this.
LittleGrizzly
10-22-2008, 17:49
If a parent tells their child about religion then that is not indoctrination. At least no more than a child having an atheist parent who tells them religion is silly.
I completely agree!!!
If i was to just read off bad things religions have done day in day out to my child that would be indoctrination (the truth but a very baised selection of it) i think your indoctrinating your kid if your trying to make him religious like you or an atheist like you
I would share my theorys and my understanding of different religions with my child but i wouldn't push him towards any religion or non religion...
If one goes to church, children will want to come with them
From about the age of 8 i wanted to stop going to church, it wasn't till i hit about 15 that i was finally let off!!
I had to go on christmas day and everything!!! (damn evil christians!! :wink:)
TBH my mums fairly laid back on the whole religion thing, i would imagine there are loads of kids who went through what i went though.... and plenty worse...
Abuse is the wrong word... indoctrination is the more appropriate word... though indoctrination doesn't imply malicious intent, its similar to convincing your kid hes a con/lib like you
Kadagar_AV
10-22-2008, 18:10
Too much censorship on these boards.
Some said religion was not abusive...
* Cutting off parts of the penis.
* Starving for days/weeks.
* Prohibiting certain food.
* Letting the child die rather than having a blod transfusion.
That is just some examples from the most common religions... I could go on with the list of course, and if you start to include more zealot religions, it gets really bad.
you asked if simply exposing a child to religionm constituted mental abuse.
I disagreed with that premise.
those examples you are giving now are not simple exposition to religion....they are abuse...and not just mental abuse...just abuse flat out.
The Celtic Viking
10-22-2008, 18:22
At a young age, a child is programmed to believe whatever it's parents (or anyone it recognizes as authority) say, because testing things out scientifically at that age can be fatal. So if the parents tell their child about god, the child will not be making a choice whether to believe or not - it will just automatically believe because the parents said so. As the child grows up, it's highly unlikely that it will think more about it, and thus won't question it then either. The meme will have taken it's roots, and it would be very hard for the person to shake it off. Ask anyone who has deconverted from a faith they were taught to believe in as a child. Guess why religion always say "give us the boy and we'll give you the man"?
It is indoctrination. It is child abuse. If you really can't keep your religion for yourself, let your child first learn critical thinking, then tell it about religion (and not just your own).
imho yes but I am an atheist which kinda can be a religion of it's own when it comes to evangelistic behaviour
Atheism is not a religion any more than "off" is a TV channel. It simply isn't. Religion is the practice of worshipping a god/gods. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods, and therefore it is not a religion.
As for the "evangelical" part, yes, atheists can be outspoken, and we bloody well should be. If theists could keep their religion from affecting someone else than themselves, then yes, I'd say leave it be, but people don't. People vote on their beliefs, they try to pass laws and regulations, they blow themselves and other people up because of their beliefs. We simply cannot stay silent and just watch.
a religious person is usually far more respectful of atheism then an atheist if of religion
LOL! Go to the middle east and say you're an atheist - see how long you get to keep your head. Admittedly, the Christians in America are a little better - they just disown you if they're your parents, leave you if they're your friends, fire you if they're your employer or persecute you if they just know you're an atheist.
No, not everyone does that. A majority, though... yes.
and I keep that in mind, I think teaching someone about their religion is a better thing then teaching them to destroy it wherever they happen to find it.
Showing them that there's no basis for their irrational belief is not a bad thing. Sure, people can do it in bad ways, but religious beliefs doesn't deserve respect. That is not to say the believer doesn't deserve respect, but the belief doesn't. No belief does. It either stands on it's own merits, or it falls for it's lack of them.
The lack of self-preservation might be an instinct, we are social creatures. There has never been a society without religion, religion is probably the most basic codification of law, since religions have the same themes everywhere the same rules are in place everywhere. How do you explain that.
Care to back that up with some evidence? You can't just say "there has never been a society without religion" and expect us to take your word for it.
Why religion has been so widespread is because humans are naturally curious. We want answers, and when we didn't have the science to find them out, we made them up. That eased our minds, because it felt better to pretend to have the answers rather than to admit that you don't know.
In towns perhaps but towns are not the villages, scandinavia is a very very very christian place it puts our biblebelt to shame.
No, it isn't. Sweden is 85% atheist, Norway 80% and I don't remember the percentage for the Danes, but it's up in the 80's as well. It is a very, very, very secular and atheistic place.
If that is true, you would have to come up with a very good reason why there are so many budhists in asia, so many muslim in arab countries, and so many christians in the US... Am I wrong?
Tabula rasa is wrong. The reason why that is, is because religion is one thing that we're not born with - it's something we're taught. That doesn't mean that we're not born with anything - morals such as not to kill other people we're born with thanks to evolution and more importantly natural selection.
Human species is completely devoid of any instincts whatsoever.
This is so ridiculous I don't know where to start. If you don't know anything about biology, don't talk about it. Mm'kay? Anyone who has studied human behaviour would laugh at that claim. I just cry. Just to show how strong our instincts are, it's well understood by psychologists that control over a person's sexuality is pretty much equivalent to control over the person itself.
So....in a free, democratic and supposedly tolerant society people have to hide their religious affiliation? Is this really the standard the human civilization should strive for?
The other way around goes for atheists in America. Not to mention homosexuals... what's that whole "coming out of the closet" thing again?
As for being a Christian here in Scandinavia, I believe Kadagar is overstating things. Religion is simply not talked about. It's something people kept for themselves, and it wasn't until I came in contact with theists from other places that did not keep it to themselves that I started speaking out like I do now.
Indoctrination? Yes, but this can be said of just about everything a parent tells their children, starting with political views, then moral views, then a general worldview, etc, etc.
Political views, yes. Let the kid develop critical thinking before getting in to politics.
Moral views? Not completely. For example, we're born with a mental barrier against killing other people thanks to evolution and natural selection, as I mentioned before. Some may need to be taught, such as not to steal, but these are things that are needed to function in a society. That's why we should teach morals to children. Can you say something like that about religion, though? No. You don't need religion at all. So don't teach the kid about religion.
You'll have to define "general worldview" better for me to answer that as well, but I'm sure you can see my point here.
That's a weird world view. We are, after all, just very clever primates and primates do have instincts.
The survival instinct. The procreation instinct. The altruist instinct etc, etc. The last one is the instinct that keeps us apart from the rest of the animal kingdom..
Survival Instinct? No. Had it been an instinct, there would be no suicides and no self-sacrifice.
Procreation Instinct? No. Monks/Nuns and secular people who remain willingly childless clearly do not follow it.
Altruist Instinct? Once again, no. Acts of altruism are not universal.
Etc.? There is no etc. Humans have no instincts. If an "instinct" can be overcome, it's not an instinct. If an "instinct" is not universal for the species, it's not an instinct.
Survival Instinct? No. Had it been an instinct, there would be no suicides and no self-sacrifice.
Procreation Instinct? No. Monks/Nuns and secular people who remain willingly childless clearly do not follow it.
Altruist Instinct? Once again, no. Acts of altruism are not universal.
Etc.? There is no etc. Humans have no instincts. If an "instinct" can be overcome, it's not an instinct. If an "instinct" is not universal for the species, it's not an instinct.
Instinct definition:
1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
2. A powerful motivation or impulse.
3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.
Please notice that because something is instinctive does not mean you have no choice but to follow it.
Humans have instincts, like all other animals, that does not mean we always follow them.
Craterus
10-22-2008, 18:32
Survival Instinct? No. Had it been an instinct, there would be no suicides and no self-sacrifice.
Procreation Instinct? No. Monks/Nuns and secular people who remain willingly childless clearly do not follow it.
Altruist Instinct? Once again, no. Acts of altruism are not universal.
Etc.? There is no etc. Humans have no instincts. If an "instinct" can be overcome, it's not an instinct. If an "instinct" is not universal for the species, it's not an instinct.
We can clearly go beyond our instincts. Overrule them. Use whatever term you like, those are still instincts.
Even more basically [than the survival instinct], an aversion to pain? We instinctively avoid it. Bring up sadism if you will but I'd argue that that is a psychological overruling of our instincts in order to achieve another instinct.
All humans pursue pleasure and happiness. Or at least what they think will grant them those two things.
That satisfy your criteria?
Instinct definition:
1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
2. A powerful motivation or impulse.
3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.
Please notice that because something is instinctive does not mean you have no choice but to follow it.
Humans have instincts, like all other animals, that does not mean we always follow them.
Then we clearly use the same word to describe different things. As far as I know instinct is a "complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden."
Askthepizzaguy
10-22-2008, 18:33
Depends on what the religion is.
Religion itself is a neutral concept. The aspects of religion are positive or negative.
Teaching good morals; Good
Teaching that God chose your people to be better than everyone else; Bad
Teaching respect and tolerance for others; Good
Teaching that women are inferior to men; Bad
Teaching that murder and theft and lying is wrong; Good
Teaching that heretics should be burned and prostitutes should be stoned; Bad
Teaching that Lord Xenu enslaved billions of people several trillion years ago and destroyed people in volcanoes with nuclear warheads and then the remnants of those slaves became little demons which invaded your body and cause all psychological problems and therefore you should never see a psychologist or take any kind of drugs and that you need to donate your life and your money to the cult of Scientology:
So bad it hurts my brain to imagine this thing still exists.
Crusades/jihads/holy wars:
So ignorant it makes my stomach do flips.
religious persecution in Russia and China: Just as bad as the bad parts of religion.
Banquo's Ghost
10-22-2008, 18:36
I think that I might best express my response to this question with this reflection:
Were I to be hit by the proverbial bus, I would far rather my orphaned children were brought up by Don Corleone than Kadagar_AV.
Then we clearly use the same word to describe different things. As far as I know instinct is a "complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden."
ok...I´ll try this another way..
do you agree that animals like dogs and tigers have instincts?
if so how do you explain the fact that these animals can be trained to change those behaviors?
When I see a hot young brunette walking down the street I want to have sex with her...that´s instinctive.....society whoever has "trained" us to know it is not correct to simply follow that instinct.......it´s the same thing as the tiger that learned to jump through hoops at the circus instead of ripping the trainers head off.
Askthepizzaguy
10-22-2008, 18:39
I think that I might best express my response to this question with this reflection:
Were I to be hit by the proverbial bus, I would far rather my orphaned children were brought up by Don Corleone than Kadagar_AV.
To be fair, not all non-theists (such as myself) are as vehement in their opposition to religion.
Although your specific point is your own valid opinion, I would hope you'd not judge all non-theists the same way.
:bow:
All humans pursue pleasure and happiness. Or at least what they think will grant them those two things.
So, when a soldier covers up a live grenade with his body in order to save his buddies, how exactly is he seeking pleasure or happiness?
seireikhaan
10-22-2008, 18:43
At a young age, a child is programmed to believe whatever it's parents (or anyone it recognizes as authority) say, because testing things out scientifically at that age can be fatal. So if the parents tell their child about god, the child will not be making a choice whether to believe or not - it will just automatically believe because the parents said so. As the child grows up, it's highly unlikely that it will think more about it, and thus won't question it then either. The meme will have taken it's roots, and it would be very hard for the person to shake it off. Ask anyone who has deconverted from a faith they were taught to believe in as a child. Guess why religion always say "give us the boy and we'll give you the man"?
Programmed? Don't make me laugh. You act as though children are robots. I was taken to church every sunday, went to Religious Ed up through middle school, was confirmed in eighth grade. Then, I went to a Catholic high school. And yet, I'm still questioning Christianity quite a bit. Only through absolute ground pounding, "gonna go to hell" policies do you so completely ingrain beliefs.
It is indoctrination. It is child abuse. If you really can't keep your religion for yourself, let your child first learn critical thinking, then tell it about religion (and not just your own).
Again, you imply that parents who teach their child religion should have their kids taken away from them and put in foster homes. So much for freedom. ~:rolleyes:
Atheism is not a religion any more than "off" is a TV channel. It simply isn't. Religion is the practice of worshipping a god/gods. Atheism is the lack of belief in god/gods, and therefore it is not a religion.
As for the "evangelical" part, yes, atheists can be outspoken, and we bloody well should be. If theists could keep their religion from affecting someone else than themselves, then yes, I'd say leave it be, but people don't. People vote on their beliefs, they try to pass laws and regulations, they blow themselves and other people up because of their beliefs. We simply cannot stay silent and just watch.
Perhaps you should try an anthropology or sociology course? Ever heard of animism? Shaminism? Religion simply cannot be defined as a belief in god/gods. Its a belief in the supernatural. Frankly, Atheists who are as sure of themselves as religious fanatics are just as bad.
LOL! Go to the middle east and say you're an atheist - see how long you get to keep your head. Admittedly, the Christians in America are a little better - they just disown you if they're your parents, leave you if they're your friends, fire you if they're your employer or persecute you if they just know you're an atheist.
No, not everyone does that. A majority, though... yes.
Hmm. Tell me, have you ever lived in America for an extended time? If not, then please don't comment so broadly about people you don't know.
Showing them that there's no basis for their irrational belief is not a bad thing. Sure, people can do it in bad ways, but religious beliefs doesn't deserve respect. That is not to say the believer doesn't deserve respect, but the belief doesn't. No belief does. It either stands on it's own merits, or it falls for it's lack of them.
Tell me, then, what caused the big bang? Where did the matter that created the Universe come from? Logically, there must be a source for everything. Or does time simply not actually exist, and everything's infinite. Something HAD to create the base substances, the oxygen, helium, iron, and so forth from which the universe was created. And I have not ever heard of any logical equation which shows how it came from nothing.
Care to back that up with some evidence? You can't just say "there has never been a society without religion" and expect us to take your word for it.
A better question, frankly, would be can you find a society which evolved with no belief in the supernatural.
Why religion has been so widespread is because humans are naturally curious. We want answers, and when we didn't have the science to find them out, we made them up. That eased our minds, because it felt better to pretend to have the answers rather than to admit that you don't know.
Not gonna argue much with you here.
Stop lying, it isn't. Sweden is 85% atheist, Norway 80% and I don't remember the percentage for the Danes, but it's up in the 80's as well. It is a very, very, very secular and atheistic place.
Sources? Census? Something?
Tabula rasa is wrong. The reason why that is, is because religion is one thing that we're not born with - it's something we're taught. That doesn't mean that we're not born with anything - morals such as not to kill other people we're born with thanks to evolution and more importantly natural selection.
This is so ridiculous I don't know where to start. If you don't know anything about biology, don't talk about it. Mm'kay? Anyone who has studied human behaviour would laugh at that claim. I just cry. Just to show how strong our instincts are, it's well understood by psychologists that control over a person's sexuality is pretty much equivalent to control over the person itself.
No argument here.
The other way around goes for atheists in America. Not to mention homosexuals... what's that whole "coming out of the closet" thing again?
Once again; unless you have lived in America for several years, in the various regions across America, I ask that don't comment so broadly about people you don't know.
Political views, yes. Let the kid develop critical thinking before getting in to politics.
Moral views? Not completely. For example, we're born with a mental barrier against killing other people thanks to evolution and natural selection, as I mentioned before. Some may need to be taught, such as not to steal, but these are things that are needed to function in a society. That's why we should teach morals to children. Can you say something like that about religion, though? No. You don't need religion at all. So don't teach the kid about religion.
How do you define what "morals" to teach children, then? How do you think morals originally were supported?
So, when a soldier covers up a live grenade with his body in order to save his buddies, how exactly is he seeking pleasure or happiness?
we are instilled by society to protect those around us.....like I have said a bunch of times....instinct can be overridden....you are sticking to a rigid definition of "instinct" that is not correct.
Askthepizzaguy
10-22-2008, 18:46
Celtic and Makaikhaan-
Let's not disrespect one another. Please remember that although this is an emotionally charged issue, everyone here is worthy of respect and we can phrase our disagreements or our opinions in less sweeping generalities, or in disrespectful language.
I think this discussion is worth having, but such things could lock the thread.
Please be kind to one another.
Banquo's Ghost
10-22-2008, 18:49
Gentlemen,
You will all calm down right away, or this thread will be closed and warnings issued. :beadyeyes2:
Please respect each other's viewpoints when discussing this sensitive subject.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
seireikhaan
10-22-2008, 18:52
Sorry, ATPG, but when someone starts talking about how we need not respect a person's religious beliefs, it rather sets me off. Not to mention staking out broad generalizations about which misrepresent religion as a concept, staking it as an inherent evil, as well as bashing whole other nations for their supposed intolerance when that person does not live there, quite gets me riled up as well. If he does not respect me, I will not respect him.
ok...I´ll try this another way..
do you agree that animals like dogs and tigers have instincts?
if so how do you explain the fact that these animals can be trained to change those behaviors?
When I see a hot young brunette walking down the street I want to have sex with her...that´s instinctive.....society whoever has "trained" us to know it is not correct to simply follow that instinct.......it´s the same thing as the tiger that learned to jump through hoops at the circus instead of ripping the trainers head off.
Of course almost all animals have instincts. That doesn't mean however, that *all* of their behavior is instinctive and thus not subject to change. What instincts they *do* have however, are not subject to change. If you want to talk pure instinct, take a really primitive animal like a worker ant.
No, it isn't. Sweden is 85% atheist, Norway 80% and I don't remember the percentage for the Danes, but it's up in the 80's as well. It is a very, very, very secular and atheistic place.
Thats's not correct. I believe it was around 20% Christians. The rest are not atheists; I saw an EU survey linked to some time back, and a lot were labelled as believing in some sort of "life force". (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf; p. 9, France appears to be the country with the most atheists in Europe)
As for being a Christian here in Scandinavia, I believe Kadagar is overstating things. Religion is simply not talked about. It's something people kept for themselves, and it wasn't until I came in contact with theists from other places that did not keep it to themselves that I started speaking out like I do now.
Personally I find it talked about rather frequently, ho hum.
Some may need to be taught, such as not to steal, but these are things that are needed to function in a society. That's why we should teach morals to children. Can you say something like that about religion, though? No. You don't need religion at all. So don't teach the kid about religion.
This depends on how you want society to function; and if you believe that it should actually function at all.
Too much censorship on these boards.
I doubt anything but swearwords was removed. I was actually going to type a reply to your post; but it dissappeared before I got time to quote it. :wall:
we are instilled by society to protect those around us.....like I have said a bunch of times....instinct can be overridden....you are sticking to a rigid definition of "instinct" that is not correct.
And why exactly is it not correct?
Askthepizzaguy
10-22-2008, 19:03
I also believe and can prove that it's entirely possible to have morality without religion. Logic itself dictates what actions are immoral.
To kill an innocent person is irrational destruction, and causes unnecessary pain. That's illogical.
To steal from innocent people harms them, and gives you something which you do not deserve. You did not earn it honestly, and you are in volation of the law and social contract of the land, and you are bringing disorder and chaos to the land, which causes us to have to bring police into the situation, which puts people in prison, and drains society as a whole. On every level, stealing is illogical except in survival situations, and even then it usually doesn't hurt to ask for help first.
Cheating on your spouse betrays trust and can cause unwanted pregnancy and also spread STDs, and causes oneself to grow suspicious and guilty. There are so many logical reasons not to cheat.
Addictive drugs are self-destructive and dangerous to others when under the influence.
Any immoral action is also inherently irrational or illogical. Torture, for example, may yield information, but like stealing may yield necessary items, the path you take to get there is flawed. Firstly, you could be damaging an innocent person. Secondly, the people you need to torture to get information from are sometimes trained to withstand it. Many are willing to die. And some who might have been willing to talk will refuse once tortured. Torture is in most circumstances counterproductive, and it is essentially wrong and immoral.
There are circumstances where a society will break its ethical code to torture the most hardened criminal or terrorist, but that does not mean it is the most rational method of gaining information, nor does it mean that the information needs to be gained at all, especially using such a method.
Religion or superstition is a set of ideas which do not have a solid basis in what we understand and know to be reality or proven science. Faith is the belief in those ideas. They may or may not be wrong ideas, but we cannot prove that they are right (or wrong). As such, the rational mind should adhere to rational knowledge above irrational belief. People do not always do this, and when that happens, we have witch trials, public beheadings, terrorist bombings, suicide attacks, mass suicide, stoning of heretics, teaching superstition as knowledge, reluctance to accept modern medicine, and people being coerced into exploitative organizations and cults who abuse their members.
Not all religions are wholly negative, many organizations do good works. I merely contend that those good works should be done by all, and irrespective of faith. People can also have faith, but they need to be grounded in reality.
I recently spoke with a Wiccan nurse. He believes in the irrational over the rational, and said so plainly to me in those words. I responded that if this were so, then you cannot practice medicine, because you will favor a spell over traditional medicine. And he said he would. This is an example of religion perverting the mind.
When I go to the doctor, I don't want a Wiccan casting spells on me instead of practicing medicine. This is just an example, not all Wiccans are like that. But the example is a religious person favoring irrational faith over rational science. This is unacceptable.
You can have faith, but you should never let it interfere with what the mind can prove is correct. Blind faith leads to crusades, holy wars, ignorance, hatred, and corruption of the mind.
Craterus
10-22-2008, 19:03
So, when a soldier covers up a live grenade with his body in order to save his buddies, how exactly is he seeking pleasure or happiness?
He would die happy knowing that he was about to do something good. Plus, it's far better to die honourably and satisfy that need we all seem to have for a legacy.
I'd like to think I'd do the exact same thing. And I'm as hedonistic as anyone.
Tell me, then, what caused the big bang? Where did the matter that created the Universe come from? Logically, there must be a source for everything. Or does time simply not actually exist, and everything's infinite. Something HAD to create the base substances, the oxygen, helium, iron, and so forth from which the universe was created. And I have not ever heard of any logical equation which shows how it came from nothing.
By that logic, something has to have created God. Eventually, you have to concede that something must have come from nothing. May just as well be anti-matter (or however Big Bang Theory goes) as it is God.
Askthepizzaguy
10-22-2008, 19:07
Sorry, ATPG, but when someone starts talking about how we need not respect a person's religious beliefs, it rather sets me off. Not to mention staking out broad generalizations about which misrepresent religion as a concept, staking it as an inherent evil, as well as bashing whole other nations for their supposed intolerance when that person does not live there, quite gets me riled up as well. If he does not respect me, I will not respect him.
Oh I quite understand.
In this case, you were both wrong. That doesn't condemn either of you as bad people, just as human beings.
:yes:
I understand why you reacted that way, and I'm not even religious. That doesn't matter, we should ALL respect each other, even when we disagree. I just don't want to see two of my fellow orgah's fighting rather than debating respectfully.
Let's keep things on a positive note, and we can continue this fascinating discussion!
yesdachi
10-22-2008, 19:28
To the topic…
If I follow a way of life that I think is positive and beneficial isn’t it my responsibility to pass that along to my children? What kind of a douche-bag parent would I be if I didn’t raise my children to follow a path that I follow and feel works, religious or not and with extremes aside. Until they are old enough to make up their own minds a parents job is to raise them to the best of our ability so when they do leave the nest they can be independent, positive contributors to society.
Askthepizzaguy
10-22-2008, 19:32
@yesdachi
Agreed. Of course you have to teach morals and values to children. It would be shameful not to.
As a non-theist raised by theistic parents, all I'm really asking for is that parents don't force the religion on them. Allow them to choose, and teach what you believe. Just don't punish a child for not reading the Bible, for example.
I turned out OK and I respect my parents' differing religious views. I also view religious people more positively, having been raised by two fine ones. If my children were religious, it wouldn't bother me.
My whole point is the harmful aspects of ANY kind of ideology, be it religion or politics or philosophy, whatever. Don't be militant, extremist, or force bad views on children. Let people decide for themselves, and allow your children to explore your viewpoint without making it an obligation.
Isn't that a good compromise for all, religious or not? :bow:
That's what I've thought.
PanzerJaeger
10-22-2008, 19:39
Is this about religion or board censorship? Anyway, Kadagar - you have to build and support your points. Repeating the same one over and over simply won't do. :beam:
Askthepizzaguy
10-22-2008, 19:49
I'd be interested to know the approach taken by everyone. Not to hijack the thread, but would everyone be so kind as to indicate where they stand on this issue, included within their on-topic posts?
Example:
I'm non-theistic, non-religious. I favor allowing the child to learn about whatever religion they want, and also teaching my perspective, and not punishing them for disagreeing with me.
choices:
Non-religious
Religious
Unsure about religion,
and
Teach the child your views, punish if they disagree
Teach the child your views, don't punish independent thought
Never teach the child your views.
and if you have other options you'd like to present, go ahead. Personally I think that sharing your views but not forcing/coercing them to adhere to your views is the best method. I also think that being non-religious is better, too, but that's only my opinion.
:bow:
Logic itself dictates what actions are immoral.
I'm not sure how it could lead us to an universal moral. First, one must define what's desired and what's not; and this is entirely subjective:
To kill an innocent person is irrational destruction, and causes unnecessary pain.
That is not going to prevent a logical person from doing it; logic is relative and need a frame of reference, just as velocity is meaningless without having anything to measure it with regards to.
Furthermore, what is really an innocent person? You'll find that these views vary a lot from situation to situation; he who considers himself innnocent might be considered guilty by others.
-
That said, I do absolutely agree that it's entirely possible to have morality without religion, just as you say. In fact, I'll say that the opposite view is outright absurd
I'd be interested to know the approach taken by everyone. Not to hijack the thread, but would everyone be so kind as to indicate where they stand on this issue, included within their on-topic posts?
Non-religious. I'm not sure what to answer to the second question; but no doubt, I have plenty of time to figure out. ~D
Sometimes you, as a parent(please notice that I'm not one), one uses religion to explain certain things that exceed the natural or are hard to teach at their age(e.g. Grandmum made the bag and went to Heaven). It also works to delimitate whats good and what is not, and to prepare them to be teached about religion. Its not a mental abuse, its just teaching them what is good and bad for God (the Christhian one and the other Gods also). If you send them into a catholic school, they are teaching them a lot more of God, but in any point they are commiting mental abuse. Later, if that child doesn't believe in God, is his or her choice, and if in one moment of their lifes they believe in God, good. If they don't believe in God for the rest of their lifes, good also.
Maybe you should define what mental abuse is, if you are still in the forum.
The Celtic Viking
10-22-2008, 19:59
Programmed? Don't make me laugh. You act as though children are robots.
They're programmed by evolution and natural selection. Children who went against their parents warnings not to go too near the hungry lion got eaten. Those who listened survived to pass their genes on. That's what I meant when I said they're programmed to just listen - and they do.
Again, you imply that parents who teach their child religion should have their kids taken away from them and put in foster homes. So much for freedom. ~:rolleyes:
Oh, yes, because it's not the religious parent indoctrinating the child into their religion who's taking away the child's freedom to choose for itself. It's I who's trying to take away their freedom to indoctrinate.
Perhaps you should try an anthropology or sociology course? Ever heard of animism? Shaminism? Religion simply cannot be defined as a belief in god/gods. Its a belief in the supernatural. Frankly, Atheists who are as sure of themselves as religious fanatics are just as bad.
If it's "a belief in the supernatural", then atheism still isn't a religion, because all atheism is is the lack of a belief in one specific supernatural thing - a god.
Hmm. Tell me, have you ever lived in America for an extended time? If not, then please don't comment so broadly about people you don't know.
I'm not basing this on what I believe, I base things on people who have grown up in America has told me. And not just 1, 2 or 20. A lot of people.
Tell me, then, what caused the big bang? Where did the matter that created the Universe come from? Logically, there must be a source for everything. Or does time simply not actually exist, and everything's infinite. Something HAD to create the base substances, the oxygen, helium, iron, and so forth from which the universe was created. And I have not ever heard of any logical equation which shows how it came from nothing.
I'm not the one suggesting something came out of nothing. Please don't strawman my position.
I don't know what caused the big bang. I don't know, and no one does. To take that as an argument for god is an argument from ignorance.
To say that "everything needs a source" means that your god needs a source, and that source needs a source, and that source in turn also needs a source etc. To say "everything... oh, except god" is special pleading.
A better question, frankly, would be can you find a society which evolved with no belief in the supernatural.
That is a good question. Why are you asking me?
Sources? Census? Something?
Lets for simplicity's sake take the one supplied by Viking.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
According to that one, 77% are atheists. It's not the 85% I've heard elsewhere, but for my point to stand correct 77% is still enough.
Once again; unless you have lived in America for several years, in the various regions across America, I ask that don't comment so broadly about people you don't know.
How about having been told by people who have been born and grown up in various regions across America? Would that suffice?
How do you define what "morals" to teach children, then? How do you think morals originally were supported?
The first morals were simple, such as not to kill other humans, came through evolution and natural selection. As the tribes grew, the noticed that it worked better if they didn't steal etc., and morals like that grew up in that way. This is an extremely simplistic explanation.
Celtic and Makaikhaan-
Let's not disrespect one another. Please remember that although this is an emotionally charged issue, everyone here is worthy of respect and we can phrase our disagreements or our opinions in less sweeping generalities, or in disrespectful language.
I think this discussion is worth having, but such things could lock the thread.
Please be kind to one another.
I don't see how I disrespected anyone. It might be worth noting, though, that I don't see how Makaikhaan disrespected anyone either...
Sorry, ATPG, but when someone starts talking about how we need not respect a person's religious beliefs, it rather sets me off. Not to mention staking out broad generalizations about which misrepresent religion as a concept, staking it as an inherent evil, as well as bashing whole other nations for their supposed intolerance when that person does not live there, quite gets me riled up as well. If he does not respect me, I will not respect him.
I think I was careful enough when I said that you should not respect someone's religious beliefs to make clear that I still think you should show respect to the person holding the belief. I want you to know that I try to show you respect, but I hold no pretention to respect your beliefs.
If you have taken offense at anything that I've said, then I'm sorry, it was not my intention. However, I will continue to show no respect for your beliefs.
Thats's not correct. I believe it was around 20% Christians. The rest are not atheists; I saw an EU survey linked to some time back, and a lot were labelled as believing in some sort of "life force". (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/a..._report_en.pdf (http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf); p. 9, France appears to be the country with the most atheists in Europe)
Thank you for supplying that source. According to it, I'm only 8% off, which still lands me on 77% - which is enough for my claim. Remember: the definition of atheism is "the lack of belief in a god". In other words, those who said "I believe in a god" (because that was what they said, not that the believed in the christian god) are theists - the rest are thus atheists.
Being an atheist doesn't mean you can't believe in the supernatural: it just means that you don't believe in a god.
That said, I do absolutely agree that it's entirely possible to have morality without religion, just as you say. In fact, I'll say that the opposite view is outright absurd
Well, yes and no. Non-religious person can most certainly be moral, but if you look at the origins of morality, they are quite heavily rooted in religion. So yes, in the year 2008 it is entirely possible to be a 100% moral and decent human being without having a shred of belief in anything supernatural, but that is largely thanks to the countless centuries spent by the previous generations trembling before the wrath of the Almighty.
Of course almost all animals have instincts. That doesn't mean however, that *all* of their behavior is instinctive and thus not subject to change. What instincts they *do* have however, are not subject to change. If you want to talk pure instinct, take a really primitive animal like a worker ant.
ok...then for example how do you explain the fact that human babies know to hold their breath when underwater?....any parent who has taken their child to a babies swimming class knows this happens....if it is not instinctive behavior what is it?
ok...then for example how do you explain the fact that human babies know to hold their breath when underwater?....any parent who has taken their child to a babies swimming class knows this happens....if it is not instinctive behavior what is it?
Disclaimer: What I'm about to say is merely a layman's speculation.
I would suspect that it's learned behavior. The child spends plenty of time submerged in a liquid while in utero, and during its last 3-4 weeks inside, the baby is most definitely alert and capable of learning. Just like they learn to suckle while they are still in utero.
yesdachi
10-22-2008, 20:29
I'd be interested to know the approach taken by everyone.
Happy to share my approach.
The wife and I are mildly religious (Christian) maybe a 4 on a 1-10, and we use big picture biblical references as an easy way to explain some things to our child. But for the most part we live by the golden rule, do onto others as you would have them do onto you, and leave the rest for our child to learn as it interests him. As he gets older and he asks more questions we answer to the best of our abilities, religious or otherwise.
The religious belief is strong, but our commitment to church is low, I believe there is a god and an afterlife but I don’t think Christianity has it all figured out, that’s the part that brings me down to a 4 ~D but we figure that if we live a good life and follow the golden rule and the simple passage from the bible “the righteous will live by faith” society will accept us and heaven will open its doors wide when we arrive. :bow:
Disclaimer: What I'm about to say is merely a layman's speculation.
I would suspect that it's learned behavior. The child spends plenty of time submerged in a liquid while in utero, and during its last 3-4 weeks inside, the baby is most definitely alert and capable of learning. Just like they learn to suckle while they are still in utero.
when in utero the fetus does not breath so it has really no way to learn how to hold it´s breath....in fact when a child is born it happens sometimes that they have fluid in their air passages, so that proves they aren´t holding their breath.
also I have found links that indicate that fetus start to suck their thumbs around the 17 weeks mark....far before the last 3-4 weeks of gestations
these behaviors are instinctive.....no matter how much you want to deny that fact for whatever strange reason I can´t even begin to guess.
I´m done with this discussion.....I´ll probably not gonna change your opinion but you hang on to that and I´ll hang on to facts.
Craterus
10-22-2008, 20:46
that is largely thanks to the countless centuries spent by the previous generations trembling before the wrath of the Almighty.
And what a splendid source to draw our morality from.
Rhyfelwyr
10-22-2008, 21:02
Non-religious
Religious
Unsure about religion,
and
Teach the child your views, punish if they disagree
Teach the child your views, don't punish independent thought
Never teach the child your views.
Bolded my choices. Although I do not believe that truly independent thought exists, and hasn't since the fall of man.
And what a splendid source to draw our morality from.
It is.
choices:
Non-religious
Religious
Unsure about religion,
and
Teach the child your views, punish if they disagree
Teach the child your views, don't punish independent thought
Never teach the child your views.
I'm a CEO (Christmas and Easter Only) Catholic. Do not care much about doctrines or customs. With that being said, I do seek God everywhere and in everything every day of my life, and I do find inspiration in contemporary saints like JP2 and Mother Theresa.
Teach the child your views, don't punish independent thought is right along my line of thought.
Strike For The South
10-22-2008, 21:12
I'm a CEO (Christmas and Easter Only) Catholic. Do not care much about doctrines or customs. With that being said, I do seek God everywhere and in everything every day of my life, and I do find inspiration in contemporary saints like JP2 and Mother Theresa.
Teach the child your views, don't punish independent thought is right along my line of thought.
agreed \. I would put myself as a 5 on christian scale. My wife will probably decide what we teach the kids b/c Im kinda meh.
CountArach
10-22-2008, 21:39
@yesdachi
Agreed. Of course you have to teach morals and values to children. It would be shameful not to.
As a non-theist raised by theistic parents, all I'm really asking for is that parents don't force the religion on them. Allow them to choose, and teach what you believe. Just don't punish a child for not reading the Bible, for example.
I turned out OK and I respect my parents' differing religious views. I also view religious people more positively, having been raised by two fine ones. If my children were religious, it wouldn't bother me.
My whole point is the harmful aspects of ANY kind of ideology, be it religion or politics or philosophy, whatever. Don't be militant, extremist, or force bad views on children. Let people decide for themselves, and allow your children to explore your viewpoint without making it an obligation.
Isn't that a good compromise for all, religious or not? :bow:
This is an excellent post ATPG, I concur with you on all points :bow:
I saw this film the other day called Jesus Camp, and I must admit I was quite upset about the parents of those kids and other adults preaching the evangelist Christian viewpoint. I looked at what could only be brainwashing kids to become afraid of breaking God's commandments. I saw kids stopping adults on the streets and preaching the word of God, while having difficulties constructing meaningful sentences. I saw young kids speaking in tongues in made up languages. That upset me. It was all awful until this little gem of a segment appeared where these kids sits around a table talking while having lunch. This was right after a sermon where the preacher talked about how Harry Potter was of the devil and that all films about warlocks and sorcery were evil and would take you to hell.
This one kid said that his mom would not let him see any films about sorcery. But he then leaned over and said: "That doesn't matter, I watch Harry Potter at my dad's anyway". That little thing right there absolved all my resent against these preachers.
Whatever doctrine and God fear they try to put into kids, the kids will eventually decide for themselves what is right and wrong. They will decide if they will follow what they have been taught or seek out another course. There is no amount of preaching of hell and brimstone that will prevent this. The natural man will prevail sooner or later anyway. I think this board is full of examples of this. And this goes both ways. The kids learning that God is a fairytale might embrace religion and those taught strict religious views might embrace atheism.
And isn't it the priest's daughter who is the wildest girl in the neighborhood anyway? :smartass2:
Strike For The South
10-22-2008, 23:34
And isn't it the priest's daughter who is the wildest girl in the neighborhood anyway? :smartass2:
:yes:
...I looked at what could only be brainwashing kids to become afraid of breaking God's commandments...
Are you talking specifically about the 10 commandments?
warlocks and sorcery were evil and would take you to hell.
Very medieval, if you ask me.
Freedom of speech.
That the child may be more receptive is not the parents' fault, when people listen to McCain you don't try to silence him for indoctrinating empty people with nonsense either, do you?*
*that was a joke, I mean I tried :sweatdrop:
Freedom of speech.
Your answer is a bit ambiguous.
seireikhaan
10-23-2008, 00:31
They're programmed by evolution and natural selection. Children who went against their parents warnings not to go too near the hungry lion got eaten. Those who listened survived to pass their genes on. That's what I meant when I said they're programmed to just listen - and they do.
I believe, then, that "programming" is too strong word. Children do not simply follow every order given by parents. General tendency, yes. Absolute scientific law, no.
Oh, yes, because it's not the religious parent indoctrinating the child into their religion who's taking away the child's freedom to choose for itself. It's I who's trying to take away their freedom to indoctrinate.
I believe you underestimate free will. If every child raised by a religious person followed those same beliefs because they couldn't think in any other way, we would never have christianity, islam, hinduism, or any other major religion; we'd all be following some variation of animal/nature worship. Again, I believe you blow the concept of what you think is happening far out of proportion, particularly given the information available to many with great ease in our modern world. Yes, there's still going to be the "Jesus Camp" folks(yes, I've seen it, and yes, its quite scary), but they're frankly in the minority.
If it's "a belief in the supernatural", then atheism still isn't a religion, because all atheism is is the lack of a belief in one specific supernatural thing - a god.
I believe you misuderstood my point; my point was that, often, atheistic absolute confidence can, in fact, be just as damaging to human rights as religious absolute confidence. I wasn't implying that atheism is a religion.
I'm not basing this on what I believe, I base things on people who have grown up in America has told me. And not just 1, 2 or 20. A lot of people.
First of all, I would like to know when and where these people grew up in the US. I could understand their frustration and viewpoint if they grew up in the 50's. However, much of the US has changed in the last 40 years. Plus, we actually do, believe it or not, have laws against discriminating based on race, religious beliefs, etc... Not that our own government hasn't been at fault for the same crime regarding Islamic terrorism, but I'm of course referring to the domestic front.
I'm not the one suggesting something came out of nothing. Please don't strawman my position.
I don't know what caused the big bang. I don't know, and no one does. To take that as an argument for god is an argument from ignorance.
To say that "everything needs a source" means that your god needs a source, and that source needs a source, and that source in turn also needs a source etc. To say "everything... oh, except god" is special pleading.
First of all, I was not intending to put forth a strawman; my point was that science, as of now, simply cannot explain everything in the universe. of course, to imply that 'god' needs a source would imply that he's not, in fact, eternal and thus, would not actually be 'god'. Alas, I'm not up for a debate on this sort of thing. My point is that, I refuse to state that a person's view on a matter where we cannot explain it through ordinary means is worthless.
That is a good question. Why are you asking me?
Because you asked whether there was any proof that every society has evolved with some form of religious beliefs. I figured it would be easier to find if there were any that haven't.
Lets for simplicity's sake take the one supplied by Viking.
http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ebs/ebs_225_report_en.pdf
According to that one, 77% are atheists. It's not the 85% I've heard elsewhere, but for my point to stand correct 77% is still enough.
Alrighty then. I was just figuring that, as a man of science, you would have some sort of statistic to back up a viewpoint. And you were close enough.
How about having been told by people who have been born and grown up in various regions across America? Would that suffice?
Again, I question when they grew up here. Having lived in America my whole life, and been to every region except for the Deep South, Texas and the northwest, I can safely say myself that the majority of people do NOT get ostracized for religious beliefs, let alone fired or disowned for them.
The first morals were simple, such as not to kill other humans, came through evolution and natural selection. As the tribes grew, they noticed that it worked better if they didn't steal etc., and morals like that grew up in that way. This is an extremely simplistic explanation.
Extremely doesn't quite fit the bill, in my opinion. First of all, people have been stealing for millenia on end; in fact, for most of human history, it was, in fact, beneficial to steal from another tribe, whether it was through war or subterfuge. It was a way you could provide more for your family, without having to go through conventional means such as killing an animal or having to go out into the wilderness to gather plants and risk being attacked. War, as an extreme example of theivery, has been found in every civilization which has had neighboring peoples who were not of their own lineage, tribe, ethnicity, etc... And of course, with war, comes killing. So I stand by my assertion that the majority of morals have religious descent in some way or another.
I don't see how I disrespected anyone. It might be worth noting, though, that I don't see how Makaikhaan disrespected anyone either...
Actually, if you had not noticed, my post was edited by Banquo's Ghost. I'm afraid a few of my points were phrased slightly less politely than he reworded them as.
I think I was careful enough when I said that you should not respect someone's religious beliefs to make clear that I still think you should show respect to the person holding the belief. I want you to know that I try to show you respect, but I hold no pretention to respect your beliefs.
If you have taken offense at anything that I've said, then I'm sorry, it was not my intention. However, I will continue to show no respect for your beliefs.
Ah, but here we come to my gripe. To me, the one thing that sets each and every person truly apart from everyone else is their beliefs; whether it be moral, political, religious, economic, etc...
To insult one's beliefs by stating that they have no value and are due no respect is, in my opinion, a terrible insult to the person holding them. So, to me, you basically handed out a giant smear brush at roughly 65% of humanity, myself included, to an extent. So, essentially, yes, I take offense.
To clarify; humans are the only animal on this planet to evolve beyond basic instincts on a consistent basis. A dog does not mourn for its lost kin for months on end. A parrot does not look up at the sky and wonder "what if?" A horse does not ponder the source of all the universe. A fish does not seek out knowledge and truth, does not seek out to wonder why, when it leaps into the air, that it falls back down to the water. Beliefs make us unique. Beliefs are what make us the dominant species on this planet. So, to say that a person's belief does not deserve respect, does not deserve consideration, does not deserve acceptance, at least on some level, frankly makes me quite angry.
Brainwashing is exactly what was perpetrated on me as a very young child since I didn't have the reasoning power at that age to refute the teaching. The beliefs were taught as facts, and only one set of "facts" was presented by people that I trusted were telling me the truth. I didn't understand how to refute supernatural beliefs until I was 20 years old and read Immanuel Kant. Then it took me another 20 years to systematically find the flaws in the all the, so called, physical "evidence" that supported the teaching. I had to go all the way from believing the claim that what I had been taught was the one true reality to realizing that it was a made up fantasy. And how do you think I feel about my mother who was one of the perpetrators, and who is still alive. I hate what she did. That teaching did me no good, and was detrimental to me. It upsets me just thinking about the mental conflict I went through for most of my life and the bad decisions I made as a result of that "teaching".
LittleGrizzly
10-23-2008, 05:30
If I follow a way of life that I think is positive and beneficial isn’t it my responsibility to pass that along to my children? What kind of a douche-bag parent would I be if I didn’t raise my children to follow a path that I follow and feel works, religious or not and with extremes aside. Until they are old enough to make up their own minds a parents job is to raise them to the best of our ability so when they do leave the nest they can be independent, positive contributors to society.
But don't you think you child should decide this for himself, you should help the child with critical thinking presenting the facts and discuss any questions he has, to simply tell your child that religion A is true and the others are not is exactly the same level of indoctrination as telling your child the democrats are good and the republicans are bad, sure it may even be true ! :tongue: but i wouldn't simply present it to my child as such, depending on age and intelligence obviously, i would go through the various differences and ask him/her of thier opinion on the subject rather than informing him that this is something democrats are right on republicans are wrong on...
Im a liberal and think my views are right (like religious folk) but i just because i think my views are right doesn't mean i would press those views home on my kids, the negative impact of my kids being conservative almost seems like a good reason to indoctrinate my liberal views onto them, but there is something much more important for my children to have than my political or religious views... and that is independant and critical thought...
Are you talking specifically about the 10 commandments?
Ok I should have put it like this: "God's commandments".
Apparently these preachers "know" a great deal of what is lawful and what is not. That these "God commands us to..." are not found amongst the canonized commandments speaks of prophetic claims.
the "God speaks through us and gives us direction" is a new tune even for evangelical Christians.
If teaching religion is mental abuse, then we live in mentally abused societies since Homo Neanderthalensis.
LittleGrizzly
10-23-2008, 14:10
I would say the major difference between indoctrinating religion and informing would be how the parent puts it....
Dad "In the beginning God created.... bla bla bla..."
and no non indoctrination
Dad "I/We/Christians believe... bla bla bla....."
The Celtic Viking
10-23-2008, 15:38
I believe, then, that "programming" is too strong word. Children do not simply follow every order given by parents. General tendency, yes. Absolute scientific law, no.
Just to be clear: I'm not saying that children are programmed by their parents, but by nature. I'm not sure if that's what you mean, but just to make sure there's no misunderstanding here.
Anyway, until a certain age (I'm not quite sure when exactly, to be honest), there is no questioning, the child just accepts. This is what science tells us, and there is no debate about it within the scientific community.
I believe you underestimate free will.
Actually, I take one step further: I do not even believe we have free will. The way I see it, free will is only an illusion since we don't have all the variables available to us.
If every child raised by a religious person followed those same beliefs because they couldn't think in any other way, we would never have christianity, islam, hinduism, or any other major religion; we'd all be following some variation of animal/nature worship.
I don't see how this makes sense. Of course we would, because for one thing, I never said people can't stop to believe. I only said it isn't easy. In fact, it can be extremely hard - but I've never said impossible.
Another thing is that not everyone is equally likely to believe in supernatural things. It was quite a while since I read about this, so you'll have to excuse me for having only a vague memory of it, but scientists have found that there is a part in our brain that determines this, and it varies from person to person. What I'm trying to say with this is that some have it easier than others to break free, so to say.
Again, I believe you blow the concept of what you think is happening far out of proportion, particularly given the information available to many with great ease in our modern world. Yes, there's still going to be the "Jesus Camp" folks(yes, I've seen it, and yes, its quite scary), but they're frankly in the minority.
I am well aware that the fundamentalists are in a minority - thank god for that! :clown:
Seriously though, I have a challenge for you. Next time you go out to a bar, go somewhere where people don't know you, and start a conversation. Act naturally and friendly, and then lead it to (or wait for it to get to it on itself) religion. Say that you're an atheist, and see the reaction.
This is, by the way, not a challenge I made up myself. It's a challenge I borrowed from an American atheist, and is aimed at Americans.
(Oh, and yes, I am aware that it's not happening in a 100% ratio, but what I hear from American atheists is that it's widespread enough that you can be sure of to lose friends and family if you admit your atheism. As a side note, I'd also like you to note that George Bush Sr. said that he "does not think an atheist should be considered an American".)
I believe you misuderstood my point; my point was that, often, atheistic absolute confidence can, in fact, be just as damaging to human rights as religious absolute confidence. I wasn't implying that atheism is a religion.
In that case, I'm sorry. I just hear so often from theists that atheism is "just a religion", that I naturally went that way when you said it. My bad. :shame:
Regardless, I'd like you to demonstrate how you come to this conclusion. Atheism is just not believing in any god. How can that lead to behaviour that is "just as damaging to human rights"? I'm not denying that there are atheists who are behaving in such a manner - just that atheism is any of the reason/s behind the behaviour.
First of all, I would like to know when and where these people grew up in the US. I could understand their frustration and viewpoint if they grew up in the 50's. However, much of the US has changed in the last 40 years. Plus, we actually do, believe it or not, have laws against discriminating based on race, religious beliefs, etc... Not that our own government hasn't been at fault for the same crime regarding Islamic terrorism, but I'm of course referring to the domestic front.
They grew up in the 50's, 60's, 70's, 80's... 90's... now...
As to who, it's people I've met on forums on the internet, people I've seen in documentaries, blogs I've read etc. I can't point you to them personally, but I can point you to http://www.rationalresponders.com/. Go to the forums and ask about it, and I'm sure you'll get enough examples.
If believe you when you say that you wouldn't do it, and I'm willing to take your word for it than none you know would do it either (though I don't really think that you, that is generally speaking not you personally, can know this for sure). However, the picture that is being painted for my eyes is that Americans are genuinely nice people, but with a tendency to being less nice when someone is found out to be atheist. I'd love it if you could show that this is wrong, because I really don't want it to be true.
First of all, I was not intending to put forth a strawman; my point was that science, as of now, simply cannot explain everything in the universe. of course, to imply that 'god' needs a source would imply that he's not, in fact, eternal and thus, would not actually be 'god'. Alas, I'm not up for a debate on this sort of thing. My point is that, I refuse to state that a person's view on a matter where we cannot explain it through ordinary means is worthless.
Even if you didn't intend to, you strawmanned me anyway when you said I "believe something came from nothing" (paraphrased). I do not believe this. You do. What else could you mean when you say "god created everything"?
The part about the eternal god is exactly what is called "special pleading", and it's a logical fallacy. If you can say that god always existed, then why can't you say that the universe always existed instead? By occams razor, your god can be erased, because it's not the simplest explanation, and it raises more questions than it answers.
Because you asked whether there was any proof that every society has evolved with some form of religious beliefs. I figured it would be easier to find if there were any that haven't.
I never made any positive claim, so I don't have to provide any evidence. He did, so I asked for him to provide it.
Again, I question when they grew up here. Having lived in America my whole life, and been to every region except for the Deep South, Texas and the northwest, I can safely say myself that the majority of people do NOT get ostracized for religious beliefs, let alone fired or disowned for them.
No, not for religious beliefs, but for the lack of them.
Extremely doesn't quite fit the bill, in my opinion. First of all, people have been stealing for millenia on end; in fact, for most of human history, it was, in fact, beneficial to steal from another tribe, whether it was through war or subterfuge.
Yes, but notice: another tribe. Those are the key words. Stealing from within the tribe, though? Not the same.
It was a way you could provide more for your family, without having to go through conventional means such as killing an animal or having to go out into the wilderness to gather plants and risk being attacked.
Within the tribe, those with a lot of food would be forced to share with the rest. This was made because they recognized this was better for the tribe, their society, than having the ones with less be forced to steal from the others to survive.
War, as an extreme example of theivery, has been found in every civilization which has had neighboring peoples who were not of their own lineage, tribe, ethnicity, etc... And of course, with war, comes killing. So I stand by my assertion that the majority of morals have religious descent in some way or another.
That is a false assumption. Again, the thing is, the killing of people of another tribe was okay. It still is, for you as much as me. That is why people can go off to war and kill other people, and then come home and maintain that killing someone is wrong. The act would be the same - the difference is that you then would kill someone in the same tribe.
The reason for this is quite obvious. Killing someone of a different tribe would mean one less competitor for food. Killing someone of your own tribe would mean one man less to gather food for you and the rest of your tribe. Our mind has not changed much at all since then.
Actually, if you had not noticed, my post was edited by Banquo's Ghost. I'm afraid a few of my points were phrased slightly less politely than he reworded them as.
Ah, okay, I didn't notice that. Then thank you BG, and thank you makaikhaan for being honest about it. :bow:
Ah, but here we come to my gripe. To me, the one thing that sets each and every person truly apart from everyone else is their beliefs; whether it be moral, political, religious, economic, etc...
To insult one's beliefs by stating that they have no value and are due no respect is, in my opinion, a terrible insult to the person holding them. So, to me, you basically handed out a giant smear brush at roughly 65% of humanity, myself included, to an extent. So, essentially, yes, I take offense.
I disagree, and maintain that you should not take offense. Beliefs have no value bigger than how well they correspond to reality. We measure that through evidence. Religious beliefs (with that I mean beliefs in a god or gods) have no evidence, therefore, it deserves no respect. In other words, I treat religious questions the same way I treat less loaded questions. You make a special pleading for religious beliefs - for surely you would not object to me trying to show someone who believes the earth to be flat how he is wrong?
To clarify; humans are the only animal on this planet to evolve beyond basic instincts on a consistent basis.
But we have not. As I said in my first post, psychologists agree that control over a person's sexuality is pretty much equivalent to control over the person itself. This is because our sexual drives, our sexual instincts are just that strong.
A dog does not mourn for its lost kin for months on end. A parrot does not look up at the sky and wonder "what if?" A horse does not ponder the source of all the universe. A fish does not seek out knowledge and truth, does not seek out to wonder why, when it leaps into the air, that it falls back down to the water. Beliefs make us unique. Beliefs are what make us the dominant species on this planet.
A cheetah can run much faster than you. An eagle can fly much better than you. Seaturtles can live much longer than you. Want me to go on? The reason why we are so much more widespread than other animals (note that bacteria are more dominant that we are), is because we have successfully multiplied and eliminated threats to us, not because of any beliefs we have.
We have a superior brain, but that's it. That does not make us any more special than the best runner, strongest fighter, best flier etc.
So, to say that a person's belief does not deserve respect, does not deserve consideration, does not deserve acceptance, at least on some level, frankly makes me quite angry.
You misunderstand me. I believe a peron's belief does deserve acceptance. I do accept that people believe, and insofar as they keep their beliefs from affecting other people, I will do nothing to change them unless they invite me to. But as I said, people can't keep their beliefs from affecting others. They vote based on them, they prosetylize, and some even kill others based on them, and that is why I speak out without invitation, so to say.
yesdachi
10-23-2008, 15:58
But don't you think you child should decide this for himself, you should help the child with critical thinking presenting the facts and discuss any questions he has, to simply tell your child that religion A is true and the others are not is exactly the same level of indoctrination as telling your child the democrats are good and the republicans are bad, sure it may even be true ! :tongue: but i wouldn't simply present it to my child as such, depending on age and intelligence obviously, i would go through the various differences and ask him/her of thier opinion on the subject rather than informing him that this is something democrats are right on republicans are wrong on...
Im a liberal and think my views are right (like religious folk) but i just because i think my views are right doesn't mean i would press those views home on my kids, the negative impact of my kids being conservative almost seems like a good reason to indoctrinate my liberal views onto them, but there is something much more important for my children to have than my political or religious views... and that is independant and critical thought...
The key word there is “child”. Its not that I don’t think they shouldn’t choose for themselves, it’s that they can’t…yet*. Additionally they are going to be influenced by others, school, daycare, TV, etc. I would much rather the little sponge be influenced by me, with confidence that the way we are living is the best way we know. We are pretty open and when something new pops up we try and look at it with an open mind but even at a young age most kids will respond with a wise answer when the question is presented in a “would you like someone to do that to you” style.
The trouble is that there are nutters out there who, even though they are the most extreme wing, crackpots, they still think they are the ones that are right and teach their kids accordingly. Is it wrong, in my mind yes, but is there anything that can be done about it, probably not. I feel bad for the brainwashed kids of nutters. Gotta hope that when they grow up they meet people that help them balance out.
*We still offer plenty of opportunities to choose things like what shirt to ware, what food to eat, what playground to visit, just not difficult decisions they couldn’t hope to understand all the details of, heck adults are hardly “grown-up” enough to make some of those decisions. You can’t lay out all the literature from each religion on the kitchen table and go thru it with a child like you would a high school senior about to pick their college. Mom and dad have to choose and why not choose what they believe in and feel works.
LittleGrizzly
10-23-2008, 19:06
The key word there is “child”. Its not that I don’t think they shouldn’t choose for themselves, it’s that they can’t…yet*.
Im not saying ask a 3 or 4 year old these questions... im saying don't make the choice for them
You can’t lay out all the literature from each religion on the kitchen table and go thru it with a child like you would a high school senior about to pick their college.
You answer questions or talk to him about it in various depth depending on his age, not nessecarily one huge talk about it but bit by bit or as it comes up.... obviously getting more complex as intelligence increase
Mom and dad have to choose and why not choose what they believe in and feel works.
Well if mom and dad are strong conservatives whats the difference between teaching them conservatism the way they teach him christianity...
Obviously people feel more strongly about thier religion than thier politics (i assume) but it is still telling your child something they should make thier own mind up on....
I would like to point out im not saying bringing your child up in a religion is bad or wrong, i was brought up going to church myself, but i do believe i should have been able to stop going to church at about 11 when i decided i wasn't religious....
I believe its indoctrination but don't think nazi propaganda when i say that... i would say its something more like santa claus or the tooth fairy.... warm fuzzy and easy to explain to children and not harmful*
*Obviously crazy fundamentalists raising crazy fundamentalists is bad news, and various negative religious views that can get passed on (things against gays, women ect)
yesdachi
10-23-2008, 20:30
Im not saying ask a 3 or 4 year old these questions... im saying don't make the choice for them
But at 3-4 is when they are most impressionable. Its when they are going to start interacting with others and have friends, preschool, TV all influencing them it’s the perfect time to start introducing them to your way of life (whatever it is).
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.