• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans


Adverts help to support the work of this non-profit organisation. To go ad-free join as a Member.


Photo
* * * - - 5 votes

Should religion be illegal until 18?


  • Please log in to reply
237 replies to this topic

Poll: The legality of involuntary religious teaching. (70 member(s) have cast votes)

Should we pass laws to prevent parents from forcing their children to participate in religious services and be exposed involuntarily to religious doctrines?

  1. Yes - parents cannot be trusted (47 votes [67.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 67.14%

  2. No - parents are inherently benevolent (23 votes [32.86%])

    Percentage of vote: 32.86%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 abolitionist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 07 February 2009 - 11:15 PM

I think that parents have the best interests of their children in mind, and religions teach good things mostly. I'd like it if all churches taught the tenets of other religions like a Unitarian Universalist church does :p There is no way in our current society one could "ban" religion for children, I think the opposite should occur --the education of religion should be mandatory and expanded so kids learn about Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism, Confucius, Buddhism (more a way of life than a religion :p ) and modern self-help "evolutionary psychology" etc. (That's pretty much a year's curriculum at a UU church :) )


then why do we have laws to prevent child abuse?

I agree that the information should be made available to children, but not in a way that forces the beliefs upon them

For instance : forcing your child to go to sunday school and practice your religion is abuse

whereas telling them that there are many religious views and providing them with books on the subject is not abuse

the issue is parents forcing their own biases on their children - especially when they are not at an age of consent

too many people here are twisiting the goal to say that I'm suggesting that we ban a child from being exposed to different information

Edited by abolitionist, 07 February 2009 - 11:19 PM.


#62 markm

  • Guest Recorder
  • 71 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Sudbury, ON

Posted 07 February 2009 - 11:20 PM

Look at the question another way. As of 2005, this is the breakdown of faith/non-faith in the world:

Christianity: 33.06%
Islam: 20.28%
Hinduism: 13.33%
Chinese Universalism: 6.27%
Buddhism: 5.87%
Ethnoreligions: 3.97%
Neoreligions: 1.68%
Sikhism: 0.39%
Judaism: 0.23%
Spiritism: 0.20%
Bahá'í: 0.12%
Confucianism: 0.10%
Jainism: 0.07%
Shintoism: 0.04%
Taoism: 0.04%
Zoroastrianism: 0.04%
Other religions: 0.02%

Non-religious: 11.92%
Atheist: 2.35%

Do the 14.27 percent who are non-believers have the right to dictate the teaching of faith to the other 85.73 percent? No, certainly not. I'm inherently mistrusting of anyone who tries to suppress the rights of the majority on "moral grounds", even if I agree with their position.

#63 abolitionist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 07 February 2009 - 11:23 PM

Look at the question another way. As of 2005, this is the breakdown of faith/non-faith in the world:

Christianity: 33.06%
Islam: 20.28%
Hinduism: 13.33%
Chinese Universalism: 6.27%
Buddhism: 5.87%
Ethnoreligions: 3.97%
Neoreligions: 1.68%
Sikhism: 0.39%
Judaism: 0.23%
Spiritism: 0.20%
Bahá'í: 0.12%
Confucianism: 0.10%
Jainism: 0.07%
Shintoism: 0.04%
Taoism: 0.04%
Zoroastrianism: 0.04%
Other religions: 0.02%

Non-religious: 11.92%
Atheist: 2.35%

Do the 14.27 percent who are non-believers have the right to dictate the teaching of faith to the other 85.73 percent? No, certainly not. I'm inherently mistrusting of anyone who tries to suppress the rights of the majority on "moral grounds", even if I agree with their position.


hahaha what a spin!

no majority has a right to force their faith on anyone else be it christian or muslim

that's the whole point my friend, religious people do not have the right to force their religion on others

and children especially must be protected from this attempt as they are most vulnerable

especially from their own parents

sponsored ad

  • Advert

#64 markm

  • Guest Recorder
  • 71 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Sudbury, ON

Posted 07 February 2009 - 11:38 PM

hahaha what a spin!

no majority has a right to force their faith on anyone else be it christian or muslim

that's the whole point my friend, religious people do not have the right to force their religion on others

and children especially must be protected from this attempt as they are most vulnerable

especially from their own parents


Religion is a facet of culture, which is a pervasive phenomenon that shapes every individual regardless of their consent. The only way to create a 100% autonomous, free-thinking individual is to isolate them from birth, in which case the individual would be incapable of functioning in a society.

If we ban the teaching of religion, where do we draw the line? I personally find Objectivism to be an offensive philosophy, do I have the right to say that Objectivists should be banned from espousing the virtues of free-market capitalism and consumerism to their children?

I was raised in a religious family. I was forced to go to church, and as I grew older my faith slipped away. I don't believe I was abused in the slightest. Intelligent people will always start thinking for themselves at some point, the less intelligent will always need something to follow.

Edited by markm, 07 February 2009 - 11:39 PM.


#65 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 07 February 2009 - 11:39 PM

You know, I'm starting to like this idea. Can you imagine if this was done in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Problem solved in two generations.

#66 .fonclea.

  • Guest, F@H
  • 300 posts
  • 2
  • Location:none

Posted 07 February 2009 - 11:56 PM

Look at the question another way. As of 2005, this is the breakdown of faith/non-faith in the world:

Christianity: 33.06%
Islam: 20.28%
Hinduism: 13.33%
Chinese Universalism: 6.27%
Buddhism: 5.87%
Ethnoreligions: 3.97%
Neoreligions: 1.68%
Sikhism: 0.39%
Judaism: 0.23%
Spiritism: 0.20%
Bahá'í: 0.12%
Confucianism: 0.10%
Jainism: 0.07%
Shintoism: 0.04%
Taoism: 0.04%
Zoroastrianism: 0.04%
Other religions: 0.02%

Non-religious: 11.92%
Atheist: 2.35%

Do the 14.27 percent who are non-believers have the right to dictate the teaching of faith to the other 85.73 percent? No, certainly not. I'm inherently mistrusting of anyone who tries to suppress the rights of the majority on "moral grounds", even if I agree with their position.


hahaha what a spin!

no majority has a right to force their faith on anyone else be it christian or muslim

that's the whole point my friend, religious people do not have the right to force their religion on others

and children especially must be protected from this attempt as they are most vulnerable

especially from their own parents


I am agree with marm. You can't ask 3/4 of the wold to follow the rules of the other 1/4 mostly occidental. Religious group are mostly involved in social activity and helpful in day to day life when gouvernements abandon them.

In france religion is forbidden in scholol because we consider that part of privat life and nothing better than a father/mother to teach their children. I guess a general teach of all religion would be more logic. Religion is the spine of day to day life, our values comes from religion.

I am a deep atheist and i have a big mistrust in religion :p

#67 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 February 2009 - 12:35 AM

I think that parents have the best interests of their children in mind, and religions teach good things mostly. I'd like it if all churches taught the tenets of other religions like a Unitarian Universalist church does :p There is no way in our current society one could "ban" religion for children, I think the opposite should occur --the education of religion should be mandatory and expanded so kids learn about Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism, Confucius, Buddhism (more a way of life than a religion :p ) and modern self-help "evolutionary psychology" etc. (That's pretty much a year's curriculum at a UU church :) )


Now that's a VERY good idea. Teach kids about ALL religions. It would be hard for religious zealots to object, and would accomplish much the same goal. I'll tell you, that's one of the reasons I came to be a 'disbeliever.' Happened when I was fourteen. That, and my interest in science.

Daniel Dennett has been recommending this for ages. He thinks that actually studying the scriptures is the quickest route to nonbelief.

#68 sUper GeNius

  • Guest
  • 1,501 posts
  • 1
  • Location:Phila PA USA Earth

Posted 08 February 2009 - 12:40 AM

I think that parents have the best interests of their children in mind, and religions teach good things mostly. I'd like it if all churches taught the tenets of other religions like a Unitarian Universalist church does :p There is no way in our current society one could "ban" religion for children, I think the opposite should occur --the education of religion should be mandatory and expanded so kids learn about Islam, Christianity, Judaism, Paganism, Hinduism, Confucius, Buddhism (more a way of life than a religion :p ) and modern self-help "evolutionary psychology" etc. (That's pretty much a year's curriculum at a UU church :) )


Now that's a VERY good idea. Teach kids about ALL religions. It would be hard for religious zealots to object, and would accomplish much the same goal. I'll tell you, that's one of the reasons I came to be a 'disbeliever.' Happened when I was fourteen. That, and my interest in science.

Daniel Dennett has been recommending this for ages. He thinks that actually studying the scriptures is the quickest route to nonbelief.


Well, don't forget, as a Catholic, if there was ever any doubt about a miracle or whether something made any sense, you were told "to have faith." Don't forget the 'doubting Thomas' story. While the other apostles had troubles believing a man actually had risen from the dead, Thomas had "faith." Later, Jesus makes his appearance and commends Thomas for his faith. That's a very powerful story to hear as a child.

We ought to be teaching kids logic, and its counterpart, rhetoric. That'll give them what they need to call bullshit when they hear it.

#69 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 08 February 2009 - 07:40 AM

Well, don't forget, as a Catholic, if there was ever any doubt about a miracle or whether something made any sense, you were told "to have faith." Don't forget the 'doubting Thomas' story. While the other apostles had troubles believing a man actually had risen from the dead, Thomas had "faith." Later, Jesus makes his appearance and commends Thomas for his faith. That's a very powerful story to hear as a child.

We ought to be teaching kids logic, and its counterpart, rhetoric. That'll give them what they need to call bullshit when they hear it.


Certainly. Dennett was advocating the study of all major religions in an academic and dispassionate setting. Personally, I have long thought that all public high schools should have mandatory philosophy courses which explain the rules of logic and rationalism, and perhaps psychology classes which teach about cognitive biases.

#70 abolitionist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 09 February 2009 - 12:25 AM

Well, don't forget, as a Catholic, if there was ever any doubt about a miracle or whether something made any sense, you were told "to have faith." Don't forget the 'doubting Thomas' story. While the other apostles had troubles believing a man actually had risen from the dead, Thomas had "faith." Later, Jesus makes his appearance and commends Thomas for his faith. That's a very powerful story to hear as a child.

We ought to be teaching kids logic, and its counterpart, rhetoric. That'll give them what they need to call bullshit when they hear it.


Certainly. Dennett was advocating the study of all major religions in an academic and dispassionate setting. Personally, I have long thought that all public high schools should have mandatory philosophy courses which explain the rules of logic and rationalism, and perhaps psychology classes which teach about cognitive biases.


I would support this as a way to expose them to the ideas without a pressure to believe

#71 abolitionist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 09 February 2009 - 12:29 AM

hahaha what a spin!

no majority has a right to force their faith on anyone else be it christian or muslim

that's the whole point my friend, religious people do not have the right to force their religion on others

and children especially must be protected from this attempt as they are most vulnerable

especially from their own parents


Religion is a facet of culture, which is a pervasive phenomenon that shapes every individual regardless of their consent. The only way to create a 100% autonomous, free-thinking individual is to isolate them from birth, in which case the individual would be incapable of functioning in a society.

If we ban the teaching of religion, where do we draw the line? I personally find Objectivism to be an offensive philosophy, do I have the right to say that Objectivists should be banned from espousing the virtues of free-market capitalism and consumerism to their children?

I was raised in a religious family. I was forced to go to church, and as I grew older my faith slipped away. I don't believe I was abused in the slightest. Intelligent people will always start thinking for themselves at some point, the less intelligent will always need something to follow.



that there is no free-will in the absolute sense doesn't mean that we shouldn't protect human rights and informed consent

the line is the use of force in various forms to compel children to believe in a specific doctrine that is untestable and undebatable

so : science is debatable as is philosophy while religious faith is not - that's the difference

forcing children to go to church and punishing them for not adopting a specific religion is abuse of the individual and children are highly susceptible as they depend on their parents for so much

#72 abolitionist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 09 February 2009 - 12:35 AM

You know, I'm starting to like this idea. Can you imagine if this was done in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Problem solved in two generations.


excellent point

most would agree that it should be illegal to teach a religious doctrine that compels young people to believe in an afterlife reward for suicide bombing

while this might seem more severe than other forms of religious doctrine it's the same principle and proves how malleable children and adults are and how much we need to protect
them from religious brainwashing

religion in many cases causes individuals to shun efforts at truly improving the human condition, here are a few examples;

1. many christians would oppose immortality as immoral
2. many religious doctrines would teach that humans should not change their DNA as it is given by god
3. many shun health care for religious reasons
4. many oppose technology for religious reasons

so ethical and philosophical debate does not create rigid doctrines that are untestable and prevent people from seeking improvements to the human condition

whereas religious faith in doctrine does in many cases lead one to forego actual progress in the name of beliefs
and is therefore harmful to the individual and society in the long run

Edited by abolitionist, 09 February 2009 - 12:37 AM.


#73 Ben Simon

  • Guest
  • 352 posts
  • 3
  • Location:London

Posted 09 February 2009 - 01:14 AM

You know, I'm starting to like this idea. Can you imagine if this was done in Afghanistan and Pakistan? Problem solved in two generations.


excellent point

most would agree that it should be illegal to teach a religious doctrine that compels young people to believe in an afterlife reward for suicide bombing

while this might seem more severe than other forms of religious doctrine it's the same principle and proves how malleable children and adults are and how much we need to protect
them from religious brainwashing

religion in many cases causes individuals to shun efforts at truly improving the human condition, here are a few examples;

1. many christians would oppose immortality as immoral
2. many religious doctrines would teach that humans should not change their DNA as it is given by god
3. many shun health care for religious reasons
4. many oppose technology for religious reasons

so ethical and philosophical debate does not create rigid doctrines that are untestable and prevent people from seeking improvements to the human condition

whereas religious faith in doctrine does in many cases lead one to forego actual progress in the name of beliefs
and is therefore harmful to the individual and society in the long run


Firstly, lots of things are harmful that are not illegal.

Secondly, even if they were, you are still conflating religious belief with harm erroneously. All four of your points begin with the word 'many'. In other words: Not all. You are making a unilateral statement about religion without unilateral means to support it. Your consequentialist reasoning is all askew.

What if religious teaching in children could be shown to have numerous positive outcomes? Would that change things? Or if 'ethical and philosophical debate' WERE to create rigid doctrines that prevent people from seeking improvements to the human condition (see Communism)?

Your bias is against religion itself, and particularly it seems the most stereotypical versions of it. At least be honest about it and don't try to dress it up as some consequentialist ethic you're espousing here.

Edited by ben, 09 February 2009 - 01:15 AM.


#74 Blutarsky

  • Guest
  • 77 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 February 2009 - 03:41 AM

How about fairly characterizing "these guys" instead of trying to throw their character into question ahead of time?

I characterized "these guys" albeit inferentially earlier.

Which authorities in "religion" should Dawkins go to for that "formal training"? Unlike scientists, religious "authorities" have no mechanism to check each other's work and reduce the incidence of errors, biases and nonsense.


Seeing as most universities around the world all have divinity programs taught by respected theologians, that would be a logical place to start. Of course acutally putting forth the effort to really study theology in that sort of detail usually keeps one from painting religion with such broad, and frankly ignorant, brush strokes. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Dawkins is an ignorant man by any means, but his piss-poor grasp on theology evidences his disinterest in an honest discussion.

As to your other point, religious authorities have no need to check each other's work. Their field is one of existential data, the type of data that doesn't typically lend itself to measurement, and error reduction. For example, existential ideas like the expression/perception of love. Such existential determinations are not up for such questioning. There are questions, and damned important ones that cannot be answered, nor conlcusions fine tuned, by eliminating errors and bias. IOW, there's a reason that Hallmark doesn't hire atheists to write their Valentine's Day cards. I can just see it now...

To my carbon-based, replication partner:

Electrical currents occuring in my hippocampus
and/or chemical reactions producing endorphins
are currently producing feelings of affection for you.
It appears that it is time for us to have coitus in an
effort to propagate the species. Hope your
biological processes are
functioning similarly.

XoXo,
Richard Dawkins


Such is the main failure of atheism in my opinion. Atheism fails abjectly to answer existential questions, and most, if not all truly meaningful questions in life are existential in nature.

That being said, I know religious people who re-evaluate their faith and beliefs based upon life experiences, so your point is beginning to sound more and more like yet another attempt at pidgeonholing religious people, as if they behave monolithically.

Edited by Blutarsky, 09 February 2009 - 03:53 AM.


#75 Ben Simon

  • Guest
  • 352 posts
  • 3
  • Location:London

Posted 09 February 2009 - 04:10 AM

To my carbon-based, replication partner:

Electrical currents occuring in my hippocampus
and/or chemical reactions producing endorphins
are currently producing feelings of affection for you.
It appears that it is time for us to have coitus in an
effort to propagate the species. Hope your
biological processes are
functioning similarly.

XoXo,
Richard Dawkins


I will be using this on Valentines Day. Thank you.

#76 Luna

  • Guest, F@H
  • 2,528 posts
  • 66
  • Location:Israel

Posted 09 February 2009 - 05:12 AM

How about fairly characterizing "these guys" instead of trying to throw their character into question ahead of time?

I characterized "these guys" albeit inferentially earlier.

Which authorities in "religion" should Dawkins go to for that "formal training"? Unlike scientists, religious "authorities" have no mechanism to check each other's work and reduce the incidence of errors, biases and nonsense.


Seeing as most universities around the world all have divinity programs taught by respected theologians, that would be a logical place to start. Of course acutally putting forth the effort to really study theology in that sort of detail usually keeps one from painting religion with such broad, and frankly ignorant, brush strokes. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Dawkins is an ignorant man by any means, but his piss-poor grasp on theology evidences his disinterest in an honest discussion.

As to your other point, religious authorities have no need to check each other's work. Their field is one of existential data, the type of data that doesn't typically lend itself to measurement, and error reduction. For example, existential ideas like the expression/perception of love. Such existential determinations are not up for such questioning. There are questions, and damned important ones that cannot be answered, nor conlcusions fine tuned, by eliminating errors and bias. IOW, there's a reason that Hallmark doesn't hire atheists to write their Valentine's Day cards. I can just see it now...

To my carbon-based, replication partner:

Electrical currents occuring in my hippocampus
and/or chemical reactions producing endorphins
are currently producing feelings of affection for you.
It appears that it is time for us to have coitus in an
effort to propagate the species. Hope your
biological processes are
functioning similarly.

XoXo,
Richard Dawkins


Such is the main failure of atheism in my opinion. Atheism fails abjectly to answer existential questions, and most, if not all truly meaningful questions in life are existential in nature.

That being said, I know religious people who re-evaluate their faith and beliefs based upon life experiences, so your point is beginning to sound more and more like yet another attempt at pidgeonholing religious people, as if they behave monolithically.


Funny note! ^_^

But how does atheism fail to answer the "meaningful" answers of life? because you are no longer special?
It is not atheism who fails to answer the meaningful questions (and really, it is not atheism then, it is science), it is you who don't like what you get.
Which is understandable! humans like to feel special, who wants to be born into a world with no reason for that, no reason for living and not to mention, one day dying and having it all end! "ridiculous! there must be something beyond all that!" you might think.
But that's only your desires, not a failure of science or atheism.

Religion makes you feel special, meaningful (does it? really?) and that you have future and hope! that is the way to approach the human heart, it makes you feel good and fulfills your desires. it also lies. ;)

Anyways, I think this thread is unrealistic! (not to mention problematic in many ways!) and the poll is quite silly to "blame it on the parents", parents want the best for the children, thing is, the best is relative to the eyes of the observer, just like most things!
And a child would still see their religious parents practicing religion, the child will be curious, you really can't prevent it.

To finish, I believe the best way is to teach people - the whole truth.
If you block something from them, they will get curious, passionate and related.
If you teach them, but not fanatically, they will have better chances.

Then again, religion might make them feel good! *escapes*

#77 abolitionist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:33 AM

Firstly, lots of things are harmful that are not illegal.

Secondly, even if they were, you are still conflating religious belief with harm erroneously. All four of your points begin with the word 'many'. In other words: Not all. You are making a unilateral statement about religion without unilateral means to support it. Your consequentialist reasoning is all askew.

What if religious teaching in children could be shown to have numerous positive outcomes? Would that change things? Or if 'ethical and philosophical debate' WERE to create rigid doctrines that prevent people from seeking improvements to the human condition (see Communism)?

Your bias is against religion itself, and particularly it seems the most stereotypical versions of it. At least be honest about it and don't try to dress it up as some consequentialist ethic you're espousing here.


1. yes, and the criteria as to whether or not they should be illegal is : are they undertaken with informed consent? religion at an early age before higher reasoning capabilities develop is not consensual - I'd even argue that some adults never fully develope the capacity to evaluate religious truths. Yes there are many, just look around. Many just means that I don't have an exact number but the obvious examples are there. Religion is used to rationalize and control people - not to solve problems.

2. No, we can't justify teaching children to believe in religious doctrines because it has some benefits. However, teaching them about the nature of religion and about the nature of faith vs. reason/scientific method - is empowering and therefore good.

3. No the bias is against faith in doctrine, which is different from understanding religion.

Edited by abolitionist, 09 February 2009 - 09:36 AM.


#78 abolitionist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 09 February 2009 - 09:39 AM

How about fairly characterizing "these guys" instead of trying to throw their character into question ahead of time?

I characterized "these guys" albeit inferentially earlier.

Which authorities in "religion" should Dawkins go to for that "formal training"? Unlike scientists, religious "authorities" have no mechanism to check each other's work and reduce the incidence of errors, biases and nonsense.


Seeing as most universities around the world all have divinity programs taught by respected theologians, that would be a logical place to start. Of course acutally putting forth the effort to really study theology in that sort of detail usually keeps one from painting religion with such broad, and frankly ignorant, brush strokes. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Dawkins is an ignorant man by any means, but his piss-poor grasp on theology evidences his disinterest in an honest discussion.

As to your other point, religious authorities have no need to check each other's work. Their field is one of existential data, the type of data that doesn't typically lend itself to measurement, and error reduction. For example, existential ideas like the expression/perception of love. Such existential determinations are not up for such questioning. There are questions, and damned important ones that cannot be answered, nor conlcusions fine tuned, by eliminating errors and bias. IOW, there's a reason that Hallmark doesn't hire atheists to write their Valentine's Day cards. I can just see it now...

To my carbon-based, replication partner:

Electrical currents occuring in my hippocampus
and/or chemical reactions producing endorphins
are currently producing feelings of affection for you.
It appears that it is time for us to have coitus in an
effort to propagate the species. Hope your
biological processes are
functioning similarly.

XoXo,
Richard Dawkins


Such is the main failure of atheism in my opinion. Atheism fails abjectly to answer existential questions, and most, if not all truly meaningful questions in life are existential in nature.

That being said, I know religious people who re-evaluate their faith and beliefs based upon life experiences, so your point is beginning to sound more and more like yet another attempt at pidgeonholing religious people, as if they behave monolithically.


existential data?

if it can't be measured - it isn't data

subjective experience does not cause beliefs, religious beliefs stem from the Darwinian drive to create memes which dominate people

where do you think the idea of god or theology came from?

theology is worthless debate aimed at attempting to reconcile the lack of any evidence for the existance of god or data which supports religious doctrines

Edited by abolitionist, 09 February 2009 - 09:42 AM.


#79 Ben Simon

  • Guest
  • 352 posts
  • 3
  • Location:London

Posted 09 February 2009 - 01:03 PM

1. yes, and the criteria as to whether or not they should be illegal is : are they undertaken with informed consent? religion at an early age before higher reasoning capabilities develop is not consensual.


Neither are most things. If informed consent is required from children then it should be illegal to encourage them to go to school, eat their vegetables or go to the doctor, all of which are good for them. You will only be successful in making your case if you show religion to be intrinsically harmful, which you have not.

Religion is used to rationalize and control people - not to solve problems.


Lol. ;) Yes, and fire is used only for acts of arson - not to cook meals and warm homes.

2. No, we can't justify teaching children to believe in religious doctrines because it has some benefits.


Then why can you disqualify it on the grounds that it has negative outcomes? Do you not consider that a contradiction? ...I do.

However, teaching them about the nature of religion and about the nature of faith vs. reason/scientific method - is empowering and therefore good.


What is the 'nature of faith' you refer to? Why do you place this in opposition with reason and the scientific method. If religion were also empowering, might we infer that this would qualify it as 'good'? Why/why not?

3. No the bias is against faith in doctrine, which is different from understanding religion.


Then why single out religion at all? If your grievance is with doctrines in general, say as much.

Edited by ben, 09 February 2009 - 01:06 PM.


#80 abolitionist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 09 February 2009 - 01:15 PM

Neither are most things. If informed consent is required from children then it should be illegal to encourage them to go to school, eat their vegetables or go to the doctor, all of which are good for them. You will only be successful in making your case if you show religion to be intrinsically harmful, which you have not.

AB : we have something called freedom of belief, it is an important right - this right does not require that we prove that all religion is inherently bad though a case could certainly be made.

Rights and informed consent require the free-will clause. Would you like to be brainwashed into being a muslim suicide bomber? Why or why not?


Lol. ;) Yes, and fire is used only for acts of arson - not to cook meals and warm homes.

AB : ok, prove that religion is a solution for anything... - will it make you immortal or eliminate your suffering? what does it do?

Then why can you disqualify it on the grounds that it has negative outcomes? Do you not consider that a contradiction? ...I do.

AB : I'm not using a greater good rationale, that's impossible to measure. I'm using rights to justify my position.

What is the 'nature of faith' you refer to? Why do you place this in opposition with reason and the scientific method. If religion were also empowering, might we infer that this would qualify it as 'good'? Why/why not?

AB : faith is belief in something that is not proven and being closed minded towards competing theories - while the scientific method is remaining skeptical. If religion were empowering, we wouldn't need science.

Then why single out religion at all? If your grievance is with doctrines in general, say as much.

AB : because no post is all emcompassing, obviously I'm putting forward the idea that we should protect the rights of those we create - and focusing on the specific right to be free of involuntary religious programming.

Edited by abolitionist, 09 February 2009 - 01:18 PM.


#81 Blutarsky

  • Guest
  • 77 posts
  • 0

Posted 09 February 2009 - 08:11 PM

existential data?

if it can't be measured - it isn't data

Does the term "information" suit you better?

subjective experience does not cause beliefs

I beg to differ. Would you like to rethink this statement?


religious beliefs stem from the Darwinian drive to create memes which dominate people
where do you think the idea of god or theology came from?

I think the idea came directly from God...which unfortunately is impossible to prove, but so is your pal Richard's ideas about memes. It sounds neat and scientific, but it's nothing more than an interesting theory which can't be proven. Seems like you and I are in the same boat, so to speak.

theology is worthless debate aimed at attempting to reconcile the lack of any evidence for the existance of god or data which supports religious doctrines

And atheism is primarily a philosophy of self-aggrandizment mixed with an unhealthy pseudo-faith in science that exalts man, namely self, above all else. I find this quote truly indicative of the end product of a life soiled by atheism:

If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or, as the Nazis liked to say, "of blood and soil." I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.

–Viktor Frankl, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy


#82 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 10 February 2009 - 04:04 AM

I think people can make rational decisions long before eighteen. But (before I derail the thread and start going on about the age discrimination in our sociecty) I see your point. If adults start indoctrinating them at a young enough age, those children may never be able to think rationally as adults. And I certainly wish more parents would let their children grow and decide on their own. However, I think using the force law is going too far.

Think of it from a religious parent's perspective. Suppose you believe that God is the ultimate truth and joy in the universe. Wouldn't you want to share that 'knowledge' with your children? Would you want your child to stay up nights worrying about death when you 'knew' there was a heaven? What if you thought that child would burn in fire for all eternity because you didn't teach them? Following such a law would be a guilt-ridden nightmare for religious parents.

If you think children would be better off growing up rational, it would be better to go through the schools and maybe TV programs. Right now they generally have a message like, "Listen to your parents and teachers because you're just a child. Only an adult can know what's best for you." Instead, society should be honest with young people and tell them that their feelings and opinions matter. If your parents' beliefs don't make sense to you, it's okay to disagree.

#83 abolitionist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 10 February 2009 - 05:01 AM

I think people can make rational decisions long before eighteen. But (before I derail the thread and start going on about the age discrimination in our sociecty) I see your point. If adults start indoctrinating them at a young enough age, those children may never be able to think rationally as adults. And I certainly wish more parents would let their children grow and decide on their own. However, I think using the force law is going too far.

AB : I agree development is different for individuals. How else besides creating laws can you prevent parents from forcing their children to believe and worship as they do?

Think of it from a religious parent's perspective. Suppose you believe that God is the ultimate truth and joy in the universe. Wouldn't you want to share that 'knowledge' with your children? Would you want your child to stay up nights worrying about death when you 'knew' there was a heaven? What if you thought that child would burn in fire for all eternity because you didn't teach them? Following such a law would be a guilt-ridden nightmare for religious parents.

AB : tough shit, what if I believe that satan is coming to drink your blood unless you give me $50,000? who cares what those idiots believe - they can suffer the irrationality of their own beliefs. I have no sympathy for that.

If you think children would be better off growing up rational, it would be better to go through the schools and maybe TV programs. Right now they generally have a message like, "Listen to your parents and teachers because you're just a child. Only an adult can know what's best for you." Instead, society should be honest with young people and tell them that their feelings and opinions matter. If your parents' beliefs don't make sense to you, it's okay to disagree.

AB : it's not my place to say that they would be better off, however it is my place to say that we should protect their right to intellectual freedom.

Edited by abolitionist, 10 February 2009 - 05:02 AM.


#84 abolitionist

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 720 posts
  • -4
  • Location:Portland, OR

Posted 10 February 2009 - 05:12 AM

Does the term "information" suit you better?

AB : is information not measurable? would you like to rethink this...?

I beg to differ. Would you like to rethink this statement?

AB : would you like to provide evidence to the contrary?

I think the idea came directly from God...which unfortunately is impossible to prove, but so is your pal Richard's ideas about memes. It sounds neat and scientific, but it's nothing more than an interesting theory which can't be proven. Seems like you and I are in the same boat, so to speak.

AB : The word meme is used to symbolize something that is measurable, the word god is not. No you're not in my boat.

And atheism is primarily a philosophy of self-aggrandizment mixed with an unhealthy pseudo-faith in science that exalts man, namely self, above all else. I find this quote truly indicative of the end product of a life soiled by atheism:

If we present man with a concept of man which is not true, we may well corrupt him. When we present him as an automation of reflexes, as a mind machine, as a bundle of instincts, as a pawn of drive and reactions, as mere product of heredity and environment, we feed the nihilism to which modern man is, in any case, prone. I became acquainted with the last stage of corruption in my second concentration camp, Auschwitz. The gas chambers of Auschwitz were the ultimate consequence of the theory that man is nothing but the product of heredity and environment--or, as the Nazis liked to say, "of blood and soil." I am absolutely convinced that the gas chambers of Auschwitz, Treblinka, and Maidanek were ultimately prepared not in some ministry or other in Berlin, but rather at the desks and in lecture halls of nihilistic scientists and philosophers.

–Viktor Frankl, The Doctor and the Soul: Introduction to Logotherapy


AB : yes Athiesm means that we should murder Jews - what was I thinking? please god save me...

look, our genetic design creates our selfishness not athiesm

belief in something does not change our genetic design or solve the world's problems, never has and never will

humans have been murdering each other and sacrificing each other since the dawn of time, Athiesm is simply the lack of subscribing to a belief system

a belief system doesn't make one ethical

Edited by abolitionist, 10 February 2009 - 05:14 AM.


#85 Ben Simon

  • Guest
  • 352 posts
  • 3
  • Location:London

Posted 10 February 2009 - 08:06 AM

we have something called freedom of belief, it is an important right - this right does not require that we prove that all religion is inherently bad though a case could certainly be made.


Now its a rights issue? Then why all the stuff about how religion is harmful? You're going in circles.

Rights and informed consent require the free-will clause. Would you like to be brainwashed into being a muslim suicide bomber? Why or why not?[/b]


No. I wouldn't. For obvious reasons. Now please make the case that all religion is brainwashing. Or are you simply saying children shouldn't be brainwashed? If you are, once again, why single out religious brainwashing?

Lol. ;) Yes, and fire is used only for acts of arson - not to cook meals and warm homes.

AB : ok, prove that religion is a solution for anything... - will it make you immortal or eliminate your suffering? what does it do?


Will it make me immortal? What an odd question. Why would it need to do that to be of benefit? ...At its worst religion is a justification for acts of evil. At its best it is the inspiration and affirmation for acts of charity, kindness, mercy and love, bringing communities together with a common purpose to do good in the world and provide for their neighbors both materially and spiritually. You seem to think of religion as being defined only by how it is at its worst. ...Why? Do you judge all political systems on the basis of fascism? Or spurn the piano because some folk don't know how to play it?

Then why can you disqualify it on the grounds that it has negative outcomes? Do you not consider that a contradiction? ...I do.

AB : I'm not using a greater good rationale, that's impossible to measure. I'm using rights to justify my position.


But you are, and have been repeatedly. You have been stating that religion is harmful and oppressive. Like I said, going in circles. My above comment was in response to the fact that you have stated the opinion that religion is harmful to support your claims. When I challenge you, and say what about when its NOT harmful, you say its not about harm: It's about rights. A classic dodge.

What is the 'nature of faith' you refer to? Why do you place this in opposition with reason and the scientific method. If religion were also empowering, might we infer that this would qualify it as 'good'? Why/why not?

AB : faith is belief in something that is not proven and being closed minded towards competing theories - while the scientific method is remaining skeptical.


That is a particularly odd statement. Faith is belief? Dubious. Faith is closed mindedness to other options? Says who? If you genuinely have issues with religion (and why shouldn't you?) I advise you study something of what religion is. You clearly know very little about it. That's not me trying to insult you either. That's real advice.

In a battle of ideas, there is no substitute for accurate, specific knowledge. Ignorance is evil and paralytic.

If religion were empowering, we wouldn't need science.


Another doozy. I find Millsian Liberalism pretty darn empowering. Is that an affront to science too? Not to mention that obviously religion IS empowering to so many people. How can you even say something like 'if' religion were empowering? It clearly is. Religion and science are nowhere close to being at odds.

Then why single out religion at all? If your grievance is with doctrines in general, say as much.

AB : because no post is all emcompassing, obviously I'm putting forward the idea that we should protect the rights of those we create - and focusing on the specific right to be free of involuntary religious programming.


Yes, but why? I would argue its because of your belief that religion is intrinsically harmful. See where I'm going? You're not hung up on doctrine. You're hung up on religion.

Edited by ben, 10 February 2009 - 08:09 AM.


#86 Ben Simon

  • Guest
  • 352 posts
  • 3
  • Location:London

Posted 10 February 2009 - 08:58 AM

AB : yes Athiesm means that we should murder Jews - what was I thinking? please god save me...

look, our genetic design creates our selfishness not athiesm

belief in something does not change our genetic design or solve the world's problems, never has and never will

humans have been murdering each other and sacrificing each other since the dawn of time, Athiesm is simply the lack of subscribing to a belief system

a belief system doesn't make one ethical


I know this wasn't directed at me, but it's worthy of special attention.

You are indulging in the same kind of thinking and argument that a lot of religious people use to disassociate themselves from the miserable actions of those who (however loosely) share their faith. When a Christian for example says 'humans have been murdering each other from the dawn of time' so as to avoid accusations that religion begets violence, or a Muslim sarcastically remarks that 'yes the Koran means that we should fly planes into buildings', they are technically making a sound point. However, they are also demonstrating their naivety. Our worldview informs how we behave. This cannot be avoided. Contrary to what you said, yes, belief systems can make us ethical. They can also encourage us to kill, persecute others, wage war, etcetera. Whatever a person believes, be they christian, jew, republican, democrat, whatever... this will have behavioral consequences, depending on the specifics of what those beliefs entail. And though I know it is typical for atheists to talk about how 'atheism is not a belief system', and while I can even appreciate why, the same is most certainly true of atheism. Atheism, materialism, and yes, Darwinism all have their place alongside other 'isms' as having contributed historically to violence. Quips like yours above are an attempt to shrug this off. ...It can't be done. The very weight of history is against you. Like with religion, this is not to say that atheism is, in and of itself, a bad thing, but culturally it has its history. Just as every religious person should be aware of that fact as concerns their own beliefs, so should every atheist.

#87 cyborgdreamer

  • Guest
  • 735 posts
  • 204
  • Location:In the wrong universe

Posted 10 February 2009 - 12:26 PM

I think people can make rational decisions long before eighteen. But (before I derail the thread and start going on about the age discrimination in our sociecty) I see your point. If adults start indoctrinating them at a young enough age, those children may never be able to think rationally as adults. And I certainly wish more parents would let their children grow and decide on their own. However, I think using the force law is going too far.

AB : I agree development is different for individuals. How else besides creating laws can you prevent parents from forcing their children to believe and worship as they do?

Think of it from a religious parent's perspective. Suppose you believe that God is the ultimate truth and joy in the universe. Wouldn't you want to share that 'knowledge' with your children? Would you want your child to stay up nights worrying about death when you 'knew' there was a heaven? What if you thought that child would burn in fire for all eternity because you didn't teach them? Following such a law would be a guilt-ridden nightmare for religious parents.

AB : tough shit, what if I believe that satan is coming to drink your blood unless you give me $50,000? who cares what those idiots believe - they can suffer the irrationality of their own beliefs. I have no sympathy for that.

If you think children would be better off growing up rational, it would be better to go through the schools and maybe TV programs. Right now they generally have a message like, "Listen to your parents and teachers because you're just a child. Only an adult can know what's best for you." Instead, society should be honest with young people and tell them that their feelings and opinions matter. If your parents' beliefs don't make sense to you, it's okay to disagree.

AB : it's not my place to say that they would be better off, however it is my place to say that we should protect their right to intellectual freedom.


I think you're making a bit of a leap by saying that teaching children religion inherently violates their intellectual freedom. Children aren't born wanting to be rational atheists anymore than they are born with a desire to be religious. As long as the child doesn't actively desire a different mindset from their parents', I don't see how religious teachings are any more destructive than the myriad of other arbitrary influences that affect the minds of children and adults.

#88 Shannon Vyff

  • Life Member, Director Lead Moderator
  • 3,897 posts
  • 702
  • Location:Boston, MA

Posted 10 February 2009 - 05:53 PM

Markm--the kids in my UU RE class colored and decorated this chart: http://www.adherents..._Adherents.html It is up on the wall in our room, and the kid took them home for parents to put on the fridge :~

Please also note that the 33% that is "Christianity" includes: Catholics, Protestants, Eastern Orthodox, Pentecostals, Anglicans, Monophysites, AICs, Latter-day Saints, Evangelical, SDAs, Jehovah's Witnesses, Quakers, AOG--etc....

Personally I'd not really put Mormons, Catholics and Protestants in the same group ;)

I consider Islam the world's largest religion (not Christianity) due its better cohesion (although there are some large differences between Shiites and Sunnis--we even have some extremely liberal Sufis that attend our UU church from time to time)

I agree that religion has no place in school, but if it does then an overview of all the religions should be taught. I'd also like it if any religion taught religion, they taught them all. It is eye opening to our UU children, who even at Kindergarten through Second grade--"get it". They see that others are raised, and believe in things that help them "find the right path" in life. They learn to question, and they learn tolerance.

I'm still working on my son though who at age 10 will still argue with his Christian friends that they should be atheists :) (so even though he is being raised UU like his sisters, he does not tolerate other people's beliefs he feels are "silly" or "dumb"--I'm still working on him...)

#89 EmbraceUnity

  • Guest
  • 1,018 posts
  • 99
  • Location:USA

Posted 10 February 2009 - 09:45 PM

I'm still working on my son though who at age 10 will still argue with his Christian friends that they should be atheists ;) (so even though he is being raised UU like his sisters, he does not tolerate other people's beliefs he feels are "silly" or "dumb"--I'm still working on him...)


I think your son is a perfect example of how dispassionate teaching of religion will expose it as the prima facie bullshit that it is. Even a 10 year old could see through it. There is nothing inherently good about tolerance. One cannot respond tolerantly to intolerant religious doctrine, and no state authority is needed for this to happen. Scandinavians are pretty notorious in their ridicule of idiotic religious buffoonery. A girl on my trip to Scandinavia talked to an Afghani refugee in Norway and he said that most people think his religion is silly. Telling this story brought the girl to tears.... but it brought a smile on my face.

Perhaps the wussy tolerance approach will help in the institution of the dispassionate teaching of religion, but the ultimate goal is to make religion something that no self-respecting person would believe in.

#90 markm

  • Guest Recorder
  • 71 posts
  • 3
  • Location:Sudbury, ON

Posted 10 February 2009 - 10:35 PM

I don't know why we spend so much of our emotional energy on hating religion and especially on hating the religious. Perhaps my confusion comes from the fact that I'm not an atheist. Honestly, I find atheism to be as illogical and narrow-focused as religion, I just get along with atheists better because we have the same secular values. Lack of proof in an after life/higher power is not proof that an after life/higher power doesn't exist.

You scorn tolerance, progressive, but building bridges will do more to advance our cause than hatred. You describe "intolerant religious doctrine", but this is an oversimplification. Within Catholicism, as an example, there are many tolerant and progressively minded people who could be open to transhumanism. It could even be argued that Catholicism sanctions transhumanism, or at least the life extension component. If God is omniscient and omnipresent, it can be argued that his hand played a role in life extension technology. With the focus of Catholicism being the sanctity of life and God's plan, the rejection of life extension technologies could be viewed as the mortal sin of suicide.

Hate will get us nowhere. I'd much prefer to show how our philosophy is compatible with faith than dwell on how it's different. I have a number of wonderful religious friends, and they're not insignificant people just because they believe some man lives in the clouds.
  • like x 1




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users