[PUG] Is indoctrination of children abusive?

[Duty]

This thread is exactly why I never bother discussing anything regarding religion with atheists, especially the ones who wish to do away with all religion. It's a pointless waste of time.
Posted via Mobile Device

:/

I think this thread needs more openmindedness and less bigotry.

 

[testing]

...All Dawkins is doing here is philosophizing. I don't think he is saying, "I know religious indoctrination is worse!" I think he is saying, "Religious indoctrination is bad and some people I've spoken to say it is more damaging then molestation."

To settle the debate, we need a definition of what "worse on a mind" means. What is it that is psychological damaging and how do we quantify it? There is more to it then just conjectures.

...

Yes, and in some cases that may be true, but all the same, I have never yet seen a case of religious doctrination that leads to extensive damage of a child's genitals or that requires stitches.

Unless you count that lovely combination which we've all heard of: religious indoctrination combined with molestation. That is molestation, plain and simple.

In the ordinary course of events, children usually manage to survive indoctrination mostly unscathed. Because people can change their minds! Molestation? Not usually. It leaves bad scars, physically and emotionally, and it includes every bit of the guilt and shame that religious mis-doctrination can cause.

(Other than that I really like your answer and appreciate the well thought-out response.)

 

[Barnabas]

If you're not considering the possibility that religious indoctrination is perhaps more damaging, then I'd say to take a minute. You're tossing something out because society calls one terrible and the other not. It's very possible that religious indoctrination is worse on a young mind and I don't think you're giving the argument a fair chance. Not an insult, but you're pulling a bad form of Si: "No, it is not what normal people think so I won't consider it."

All Dawkins is doing here is philosophizing. I don't think he is saying, "I know religious indoctrination is worse!" I think he is saying, "Religious indoctrination is bad and some people I've spoken to say it is more damaging then molestation."

To settle the debate, we need a definition of what "worse on a mind" means. What is it that is psychological damaging and how do we quantify it? There is more to it then just conjectures.

Are you freaking serious, "you don't think", Dawkins doesn't leave room for that thought. He is admittedly against religion in all forms, most strongly toward the abrahamic religions. He would like nothing more then to see the church disappear into dust.

but of course you don't take into the account, false descriptions and the ignorance of his points. Just the fact that I'm in "Ti overload". Which is also off base, more likely Fe overload he's attacking my core beliefs, calling every christian parent in America abusive, and above all else calling that which is holy evil. But of course this you couldn't possibly understand could you .

It's pretty obvious what Dawkins intended to communicate by using the term "indoctrination." Consider what he is trying to say instead of imposing how you would use the term onto his words.

He isn't critical of moral indoctrination, but instead is more concerned with the indoctrination of bad beliefs. Telling children about hell is equal to a threat: If you don't do religion tells you to do then you're going to be punished severely. When they later question that religion (which in many places is itself grounds for severe sanction), it can be very toxic to the child as they now have a strong fear of burning for their curiosity.

Not as damaging, but certainly worth mentioning is the "fairy tale" status that religion has in Dawkins's mind. If you believe that religion is just a bunch of ridiculous myths, you quickly come to the conclusion that feeding those myths to children is just giving them misinformation or even lies. That's damaging too (especially if you want to educate children well, it can make it tougher to fill them with right information).

Going one step deeper and Dawkins has a feeling of disgust in this article. He accuses religion (and I think he's right about this one) of doing what tobacco companies do: get 'em while they're young. If you had an adult that grew up free of hearing religious stories or myths of any kind, and then you tried to tell them about sky-lords, world-wide floods, people dying and coming back to life, and all the other mythology in the bible, Dawkins postulates that they'll probably laugh at the foolishness of the whole thing. Leaders understand this, so they encourage religion when a mind is young and easily misdirected. There are sadistic and manipulative overtones to the whole operation admittedly.

were you in a christian household, Muslim maybe. could you even now what the experience is, or would you just follow the rant of a lunatic. don't be so stupid, your not normally. Dawkins is working a agenda and manipulating ideas to further that agenda. I don't care to refute the rest of what you said. Grow up this was nothing more then a blatant attack on religion.

 

[Duty]

Are you freaking serious, "you don't think", Dawkins doesn't leave room for that thought. He is admittedly against religion in all forms, most strongly toward the abrahamic religions. He would like nothing more then to see the church disappear into dust.

but of course you don't take into the account, false descriptions and the ignorance of his points. Just the fact that I'm in "Ti overload". Which is also off base, more likely Fe overload he's attacking my core beliefs, calling every christian parent in America abusive, and above all else calling that which is holy evil. But of course this you couldn't possibly understand could you .

were you in a christian household, Muslim maybe. could you even now what the experience is, or would you just follow the rant of a lunatic. don't be so stupid, your not normally. Dawkins is working a agenda and manipulating ideas to further that agenda. I don't care to refute the rest of what you said. Grow up this was nothing more then a blatant attack on religion.

I think you need to take a step back and chill out a minute. You're only ad Homineming at this point. It shouldn't matter who wrote it or what actions the author would want you to take, but only if the arguments are sound ones. I think you're dismissing it before giving it a chance based on its authorship.

 

[Duty]

Yes, and in some cases that may be true, but all the same, I have never yet seen a case of religious doctrination that leads to extensive damage of a child's genitals or that requires stitches.

Indoctrination isn't a physical abuse of course. It's a psychological one alone.

Although I suspect as well that most people escape indoctrination with problems comparable to a normal upbringing, I'd still be curious to see the results of investigation into how damaging it is.



I think Dawkins could make a better case that religious indoctrination of children as individuals is harmful on a societal level.

I also think the case would be stronger to contend this on ethical grounds: that teaching mythology (specifically the mythology: hell, heaven, sky-wizards, world-wide floods, resurrections and the like) to impressionable youth is not the right thing to do, but instead let them grow up and let them decide later.


The whole argument is impractical anyways. Society is not ready for something like this and its implementation would cause more harm then good.

 

[Barnabas]

I think you need to take a step back and chill out a minute. You're only ad Homineming at this point. It shouldn't matter who wrote it or what actions the author would want you to take, but only if the arguments are sound ones. I think you're dismissing it before giving it a chance based on its authorship.

false, I read most of the first article, cooled off then read Dawkins' article. Both pressed misleading information about the Church and the effect of religious world view taught to children.

As for the person, if Hitler published an article that made Jews out to be only slightly evolved apes, would you not be skeptical. follow that article with misleading information, negative speech, and shallow witnesses. You would have no reason to believe any of it.

In fact before this I could have at least respected Dawkins intelligence, but now no longer.

I'm starting to feel that you are trying to push my arguments away based your world view, not whether or not Religious child raising is abusive or not.

 

[Krumplenump]

I want to echo Eric86's comments that arguing is a waste of time. I can certainly take umbridge with his comments context, not to mention those of Barnabas, but since this forum is not solely a platform for religious debate I won't engage in this thread further so as to avoid adding any nastiness to the brew.

 

[Lucifer]

We are all indoctrinated into beliving certain things, so it not the indoctrination part of it that I believe people have a problem with it is the message that is being indoctrinated.

 

[DevilDoll]

Finally, could you possibly understand why your parents are upset, even a little. Think of it like this, you've told them that you have every intention of committing suicide, and there is no way they can convince you otherwise. Don't you get it, to the Christian this isn't just about how you live your life. It's a matter of life and death, and what parent in their right mind would not be disheartened by the fact that they can't save their child. Their not trying to live through you, their trying to help you live.

My choice to live my life as an atheist is not quite the same thing as me choosing to kill myself. I am not dead and my grandmother did not find me lying in a pool of my own blood. This decision was not incredibly life changing for either of us. The only thing that is different now is the fact that I have not set foot in a church in several years. I still call her on a daily basis and even go home for holidays. I am far from dead. While she may believe that my decision has damned my soul to hell that is still a matter of opinion, an opinion that I do not agree with. Her attempts to force it on me are attempts to get me to agree with her views and her opinions, just like she has been rushing me to get married and have kids. It's not her trying to save my life, because my life does not need saving. This is her trying to make my life what she always imagined it would be.

 

[Stu]

My choice to live my life as an atheist is not quite the same thing as me choosing to kill myself......

depending on what brand of religion they affiliated with, for many of the faithful, not believing in God = no afterlife. So to them atheism = suicide.

 

[Kavalan]

Indoctrination of any kind is the creation of ideals that are not to be challenged and considered absolute(generally) and deviation from those ideals isn't allowed for fear of retribution(usually internally).

With this general framework it can be said all indoctrination is bad. But to say indoctrination does not take place in some religious communities or families is as foolish as to say that the earth is the center of the solar system.

were you in a christian household, Muslim maybe. could you even now what the experience is, or would you just follow the rant of a lunatic.

I have not been raised in a Christian household, but rather, have had friends whom I do not converse with for reasons of, "I don't go to their church or a church, I seek to disprove the existence of God(me being a scientist)." I am not like them therefore I am not good yet their defining of good is that I do not read a book written 2000 years ago.

The system of religion seeks to prove the unexplainable yet the three western religions and their branches all say they are correct and the others are not. This system of resistance to ANYTHING not found within their own teaching can be seen as indoctrinations as they do not allow for any discourse.

Dawkins is working a agenda and manipulating ideas to further that agenda. I don't care to refute the rest of what you said. Grow up this was nothing more then a blatant attack on religion.

As are you. You discredit others perspectives and even went so far as to project your own idea of what was happening between a relationship of someone who has left the church and those who stayed. You push a western, conservative, Christian, agenda. Everyone does. You need not agree with all of them but one must realize that the world is many shades of grey. It isn't black and white

 

[TinyBubbles]

A couple of arguments:

http://mwillett.org/atheism/religion-is-child-abuse.htm

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118


More specifically, I'd like to hear opinions on whether indoctrination, if it is child abuse, should be illegal. If so, what kinds and levels of indoctrination should be prevented?

What constitutes abuse is bound to be subjective. One could say that by being indoctrinated at an early age, people have an opportunity to know what it's like to really believe in something, and this may have helped them out in numerous ways throughout their lives. It's also debatable what distinguishes indoctrination from regular education.
Does indoctrination create closed-mindedness? Maybe, depends on how easily the child is swayed by what they hear, how much exposure they've had to alternative ideas, and to what extent the topic of indoctrination is relevent to their everyday lives. Being indoctrinated about a topic like fabric design is not going to influence them as much as religious or political indoctrination. It's a contextual call - you'd have to observe the particular circumstances in which the child lived and lives in to make a definitive assessment as to whether it is harmful.

 

[Eric86]

:/

I think this thread needs more openmindedness and less bigotry.

I've seen and dealt with more bigotry than I care to from both other Christians and atheists. It annoys me how so many atheists try to cover it up; it would be better if they were more up front about it. I simply do not wish to deal with it from anyone any more than is necessary.
Posted via Mobile Device

 

[Barnabas]

Indoctrination of any kind is the creation of ideals that are not to be challenged and considered absolute(generally) and deviation from those ideals isn't allowed for fear of retribution(usually internally).

Indoctrination- The act of indoctrinating, or the condition of being indoctrinated; Instruction in the rudiments and principles of any science or belief system; information
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/indoctrination

With this general framework it can be said all indoctrination is bad. But to say indoctrination does not take place in some religious communities or families is as foolish as to say that the earth is the center of the solar system.

I fixed your framework

I have not been raised in a Christian household, but rather, have had friends whom I do not converse with for reasons of, "I don't go to their church or a church, I seek to disprove the existence of God(me being a scientist)." I am not like them therefore I am not good yet their defining of good is that I do not read a book written 2000 years ago.

So you have friends, whom you don't talk to, because your trying to disprove there view of God. Kinda funny if you knew anything about christian theology. You'd now that you are just like them, and they aren't good either. It's also funny that you would evoke the argument of age, as if it being old makes it obsolete, what will people say of you in 2,000 years. Not much I can imagine, but I bet the church will still be around.
also, quick question, does being a scientist automatically mean you have to disprove God?

The system of religion seeks to prove the unexplainable yet the three western religions and their branches all say they are correct and the others are not. This system of resistance to ANYTHING not found within their own teaching can be seen as indoctrinations as they do not allow for any discourse.

More lack of knowledge of western religious theology. Religion is not a tool to explain the what we can't understand, none of these religions subscribe to your "god of the gaps". However at least Christianity and Judaism assert that God isn't the answer to unsolved questions but instead the answer to every thing. Also it's not a matter of not accepting anything outside of Christianity, it not accepting anything against Christianity. Jesus was the one to say he who is not against you is for you.

As are you. You discredit others perspectives and even went so far as to project your own idea of what was happening between a relationship of someone who has left the church and those who stayed. You push a western, conservative, Christian, agenda. Everyone does. You need not agree with all of them but one must realize that the world is many shades of grey. It isn't black and white

Your right, I do have a Christian bias, not to sure about conservative or western. But a Christian bias none the less, but that does not excuse Dawkins of his. Nor am I the one saying that Muslims, atheist, Jews and Pagans are by teaching them their worldview that they are committing child abuse tantamount to child molestation. As for projecting my views, not really. I reasoned through basic christian doctrine and a grandmothers love for her grandchild. Not that big of a jump. As for the world, It is black and white, gray just makes everybody wrong.

 

[patricky]

It's also funny that you would evoke the argument of age, as if it being old makes it obsolete, what will people say of you in 2,000 years.

I've been reading a lot of Babylonian history lately. If 2000 year old religions aren't obsolete, I don't know what is. I bet if you saw the way Christianity or (especially) Judaism was practiced in its original form, you'd think twice about relating to anything but the most wishy washy Jesus quotes from the New Testament. Also, the notion that Christianity is 2000 years old is pretty laughable. In its current form it's about 1600 years old at best (if Christ was real, everything about him is a lie constructed around 400AD), and in its modern liberalized form it's about, uhh, 200 years old. And even then it's evolved as it was forwarded by secular humanists and then vacillated between being hijacked by humanists and fundamentalists alternatively for another 100 years, coloring it with the most hilarious of idiotic interpretations.

also, quick question, does being a scientist automatically mean you have to disprove God?

As a scientist it is impossible to disprove God. Something that is not falsifiable is however the most mundane and uninteresting possible thing you can present a scientists with, since it has no intellectual value. All debates around unfalsifiable claims are just mental masturbation on the part of both parties, and until religious wackies understand the true meaning of unfalsifiable claims, they'll continue to worship whatever makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside.

However at least Christianity and Judaism assert that God isn't the answer to unsolved questions but instead the answer to every thing.

If God is the solution to the Riemann Hypothesis, I'd REALLY like to see the proof.

Also it's not a matter of not accepting anything outside of Christianity, it not accepting anything against Christianity.

Where 'anything against Christianity' is whatever is politically convenient for your particular denomination or pastor. Why think for yourself when a book that says so many crazy ass things can think for you, once the crazy has been hand-picked for quality control. Eaten any shellfish lately? Hope you mentioned it at confession, because God was watching.

Jesus was the one to say he who is not against you is for you.

If Jesus isn't against me then why are Christians always pissing me off? I think he's at least trolling me.

As for projecting my views, not really. I reasoned through basic christian doctrine and a grandmothers love for her grandchild..

Truly a FOUNDATIONAL system of rational argument, appropriate for any wishy-washy, irrational conversation about nothing in which one could desire to partake.

 

[Peguy]

I've been reading a lot of Babylonian history lately. If 2000 year old religions aren't obsolete, I don't know what is. I bet if you saw the way Christianity or (especially) Judaism was practiced in its original form, you'd think twice about relating to anything but the most wishy washy Jesus quotes from the New Testament. Also, the notion that Christianity is 2000 years old is pretty laughable. In its current form it's about 1600 years old at best (if Christ was real, everything about him is a lie constructed around 400AD), and in its modern liberalized form it's about, uhh, 200 years old. And even then it's evolved as it was forwarded by secular humanists and then vacillated between being hijacked by humanists and fundamentalists alternatively for another 100 years, coloring it with the most hilarious of idiotic interpretations.

Fuh fuh fuh

 

[Shai Gar]

Is that your way of saying that you've no intelligent response?

 

[Krumplenump]

'tis futile.

 

[Barnabas]

I've been reading a lot of Babylonian history lately. If 2000 year old religions aren't obsolete, I don't know what is. I bet if you saw the way Christianity or (especially) Judaism was practiced in its original form, you'd think twice about relating to anything but the most wishy washy Jesus quotes from the New Testament. Also, the notion that Christianity is 2000 years old is pretty laughable. In its current form it's about 1600 years old at best (if Christ was real, everything about him is a lie constructed around 400AD), and in its modern liberalized form it's about, uhh, 200 years old. And even then it's evolved as it was forwarded by secular humanists and then vacillated between being hijacked by humanists and fundamentalists alternatively for another 100 years, coloring it with the most hilarious of idiotic interpretations.




As a scientist it is impossible to disprove God. Something that is not falsifiable is however the most mundane and uninteresting possible thing you can present a scientists with, since it has no intellectual value. All debates around unfalsifiable claims are just mental masturbation on the part of both parties, and until religious wackies understand the true meaning of unfalsifiable claims, they'll continue to worship whatever makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside.



If God is the solution to the Riemann Hypothesis, I'd REALLY like to see the proof.



Where 'anything against Christianity' is whatever is politically convenient for your particular denomination or pastor. Why think for yourself when a book that says so many crazy ass things can think for you, once the crazy has been hand-picked for quality control. Eaten any shellfish lately? Hope you mentioned it at confession, because God was watching.



If Jesus isn't against me then why are Christians always pissing me off? I think he's at least trolling me.



Truly a FOUNDATIONAL system of rational argument, appropriate for any wishy-washy, irrational conversation about nothing in which one could desire to partake.

Lovely another misguided friend whom know nothing of religious doctrine, should I discuss with you or would it be better if i left you to your own devices
--------------------

Also i'd like to note that slurring profanities and insulting terms does not prove any points you make

 

[DevilDoll]

Fuh fuh fuh

I honestly have no idea what this means, but if you don't have something to contribute don't post because "fuh fuh fuh" is not going to prove or disprove your point. It's a pointless post you have made to simply dismiss someones opinion. However, I am sure you can do better than that.