Generational Religion is Lowballing

[Efstathios]

NOCTVRNVS

Wow, how original, a post explaining the concept of religion as a tool for brainwashing children. Unfortunately for this theory the fact is, many little Johnnys who grow up with their parents drinking and fighting all the time and ridiculing little Johnny whenever he asks about a God end up having a faith in God stronger than any child who grew up in an environment that would suggest a religion. Take about two thirds of my friends for example (most of the remaining third being atheist).

On the flipside, when I was a child I was friends with three children whose parents were fanatically "Christian" but obviously didn't quite get what Jesus is about, you know the type. One of the brothers, 17, just moved into a different province to live with his "boyfriend" he met on the internet (who he told everyone was his girlfriend, apparently knowing secretly otherwise all along), and the other now has psycopathic death-wishes for his parents. The girl, I have no clue what happened to her (she was the oldest).

And then there's the whole baptism thing. Every day grown men are baptised because they have chosen to either return to their faith stronger than ever, or want to confirm their newfound faith in an established religion. Many adults from every walk of life are blessed with the realization -- in some form -- of God during their lifetime.

The problem here is that you obviously consider religion "bad", which it isn't. But since religion is "bad", then when people pass on their faith to others it becomes "brainwashing". However, if you agree that religion is "good" then it can't exactly be "brainwashing" when it is passed on to others. I mean you don't brainwash and control people with GOOD. You do it with fear and pain. But the Christian faith is NOT one of fear and pain, it is one of love and fulfillment, and that is why we pass it on to our children. We do not FEAR God; we REVERE Him!

And that's all I have to say about that

Whether an individual considers something negative or positive is not the issue.
People should be given the right to make informed decisions when they have reached the age of accountability, here that's 18. Baptism of people under the age of majority should be illegal in my opinion, they should have some life experience and some exposure to alternatives before they make such a major, in some cases, life-altering decision.
It should be a choice.
Parents should not make such an important decision for their children, each person is supposed to figure it out for themselves, guidence is permissable, but not brainwashing.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

NOCTVRNVS

Wow, how original, a post explaining the concept of religion as a tool for brainwashing children. Unfortunately for this theory the fact is, many little Johnnys who grow up with their parents drinking and fighting all the time and ridiculing little Johnny whenever he asks about a God end up having a faith in God stronger than any child who grew up in an environment that would suggest a religion. Take about two thirds of my friends for example (most of the remaining third being atheist).

On the flipside, when I was a child I was friends with three children whose parents were fanatically "Christian" but obviously didn't quite get what Jesus is about, you know the type. One of the brothers, 17, just moved into a different province to live with his "boyfriend" he met on the internet (who he told everyone was his girlfriend, apparently knowing secretly otherwise all along), and the other now has psycopathic death-wishes for his parents. The girl, I have no clue what happened to her (she was the oldest).

And then there's the whole baptism thing. Every day grown men are baptised because they have chosen to either return to their faith stronger than ever, or want to confirm their newfound faith in an established religion. Many adults from every walk of life are blessed with the realization -- in some form -- of God during their lifetime.

The problem here is that you obviously consider religion "bad", which it isn't. But since religion is "bad", then when people pass on their faith to others it becomes "brainwashing". However, if you agree that religion is "good" then it can't exactly be "brainwashing" when it is passed on to others. I mean you don't brainwash and control people with GOOD. You do it with fear and pain. But the Christian faith is NOT one of fear and pain, it is one of love and fulfillment, and that is why we pass it on to our children. We do not FEAR God; we REVERE Him!

And that's all I have to say about that

Whether an individual considers something negative or positive is not the issue.
People should be given the right to make informed decisions when they have reached the age of accountability, here that's 18. Baptism of people under the age of majority should be illegal in my opinion, they should have some life experience and some exposure to alternatives before they make such a major, in some cases, life-altering decision.
It should be a choice.
Parents should not make such an important decision for their children, each person is supposed to figure it out for themselves, guidence is permissable, but not brainwashing.

But if you find that you do not want to support the faith that you were baptised under, what difference does that really make? You don't believe in it, then you don't believe in the concept of baptism, crisis averted.

Having a religion from an early age is not a "life-altering decision" as you put it, and parents do not "brainwash" children, they "teach" them. Parents do not "brainwash" their children to believe in equality, or fairness, or not talking to strangers because these things are "positive". But ONLY because you view religion as negative does it become "brainwashing" instead of just "teaching" -- which is the reality. People develop minds of their own and are going to believe what THEY want to, so don't act like being taught about religion early on is going to put you in some kind of choke-hold for the rest of your life where you can't ever change what you believe just because you were baptised.  

[Efstathios]

Fine, don't call it brainwashing then, call it "conditioning"
Does that sound more positive to you?
And it IS life-altering.
You want to argue that you would have lived your life exactly the same without religion?
And baptisms do matter, a person of one religion doesn't want to be baptised as another, the Mormon Church was forced to remove a number of baptisms of the dead they'd done for Jewish people. In U.S. we're supposed to have freedom of religion, freedom to be any religion and it isn't right to indoctrinate someone before they can fully understand, before they have access to other modes of thought. You don't have to teach your kid Judaism while you're Christian, but wait until the kid's able to read and research other religions.

Why do you believe in God? Because you do, because you think it's true with no proof whatsoever, and that's your decision. You're allowed to believe that, but there isn't logical basis for it.

Why shouldn't kids talk to strangers? Because they could be kidnapped, raped, murdered. This has happened before to many children and we have the mangled bodies to prove it.

You can't put those two things in the same category.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

Fine, don't call it brainwashing then, call it "conditioning"
Does that sound more positive to you?
And it IS life-altering.
You want to argue that you would have lived your life exactly the same without religion?
And baptisms do matter, a person of one religion doesn't want to be baptised as another, the Mormon Church was forced to remove a number of baptisms of the dead they'd done for Jewish people. In U.S. we're supposed to have freedom of religion, freedom to be any religion and it isn't right to indoctrinate someone before they can fully understand, before they have access to other modes of thought. You don't have to teach your kid Judaism while you're Christian, but wait until the kid's able to read and research other religions.

Why do you believe in God? Because you do, because you think it's true with no proof whatsoever, and that's your decision. You're allowed to believe that, but there isn't logical basis for it.

Why shouldn't kids talk to strangers? Because they could be kidnapped, raped, murdered. This has happened before to many children and we have the mangled bodies to prove it.

You can't put those two things in the same category.

Well when I don't completely disagree with you I just don't understand what the hell you're trying to say...

"Would have" lived my life? I'm only nineteen, what do you mean I "would have lived" my life the same without religion? Okay, maybe I would have lived the FIRST NINE YEARS of my life slightly different were it not for the Christian faith -- more stealing, more lying, and more hatred -- but honestly I don't get how you can think that one day when I turned seventeen I would feel violated or something, or like my life was meaningless up to that point just because I underwent a religious ritual when I was three months old.

You are just making something of nothing here obviously. Read and research other religions? WTF? Yeah a Christian couple is just never going to mention their RELIGION in front of their children until they're old enough to drive.

Freedom of religion? Please, now you're acting as if the religion your parents passed down to you is some soulbound entity that will stick onto you for the rest of your life and cause you endless pain and misery. You DO realize parents don't just tell their kid, "Chip, we're Christians but only because there aren't any other religions we could follow out there. No crazy muslims or fanatical buddhist hippies". I mean when did I learn about other religions? I can't even remember because it was before I even understood my own.

Speaking of that, hm, I wonder why you're never complaining about the Muslim radicals that force their children to detonate themselves in a crowded place at thirteen before they are actually educated in their own religion, or how about Hindus who drink with their children from rats-nests because they think they are drinking alongside their aunts and uncles. But no, it's the evil Christians like always, those damn bastards always trying to pass along their message of love and fairness to susceptible little children.

Once again you're only proving my point, that it's only a negative thing to teach your religion to others when you think religion itself is a negative. Please disprove this by showing me one person who contradicts it by example. But when your faith is what you live for and your saviour is very real, why WOULDN'T you pass that knowledge on to your children? It would be selfish not to. What you're saying is illogical, I mean there's no DOWNSIDE to passing on your faith to your children, you just don't like it that we do because you don't like our faith and that's all there is to it.

Just because of you my wife and I are going to have dozens of children, the cutest most innocent-looking children ever, and we're gonna read them the Bible every night at bed-time, and give them all Biblical names like Moses and Noah and Rachael and Gabriel and Lazarus, and we'll go to San Fransisco every year to re-enact Sodom & Gomorrah, and we'll go on trips to the Vatican and every religious landmark in the world AND STOP AT ALL THE TOURIST-ATTRACTIONS. EAT IT.  

[Efstathios]

NOCTVRNVS

It's only a negative thing to teach your religion to others when you think religion itself is a negative. Please disprove this by showing me one person who contradicts it by example.

NOCTVRNVS

Muslim radicals that force their children to detonate themselves in a crowded place at thirteen before they are actually educated in their own religion, or how about Hindus who drink with their children from rats-nests because they think they are drinking alongside their aunts and uncles.

I mentioned Christianity as an example, I'm talking about ALL religions. Including the ones you mentioned while giving VERY good reasons NOT to indoctrinate children.  

[Buroabenteuer]

NOCTVRNVS

Wow, how original, a post explaining the concept of religion as a tool for brainwashing children. Unfortunately for this theory the fact is, many little Johnnys who grow up with their parents drinking and fighting all the time and ridiculing little Johnny whenever he asks about a God end up having a faith in God stronger than any child who grew up in an environment that would suggest a religion. Take about two thirds of my friends for example (most of the remaining third being atheist).

On the flipside, when I was a child I was friends with three children whose parents were fanatically "Christian" but obviously didn't quite get what Jesus is about, you know the type. One of the brothers, 17, just moved into a different province to live with his "boyfriend" he met on the internet (who he told everyone was his girlfriend, apparently knowing secretly otherwise all along), and the other now has psycopathic death-wishes for his parents. The girl, I have no clue what happened to her (she was the oldest).

And then there's the whole baptism thing. Every day grown men are baptised because they have chosen to either return to their faith stronger than ever, or want to confirm their newfound faith in an established religion. Many adults from every walk of life are blessed with the realization -- in some form -- of God during their lifetime.

The problem here is that you obviously consider religion "bad", which it isn't. But since religion is "bad", then when people pass on their faith to others it becomes "brainwashing". However, if you agree that religion is "good" then it can't exactly be "brainwashing" when it is passed on to others. I mean you don't brainwash and control people with GOOD. You do it with fear and pain. But the Christian faith is NOT one of fear and pain, it is one of love and fulfillment, and that is why we pass it on to our children. We do not FEAR God; we REVERE Him!

And that's all I have to say about that

In all actuality, I don't generally view religion as bad, I simply disagree with a number of them and disagree with the ends-justifying-means philosophy of several of them. My beliefs specifically on the negativity or Positivity, while an interesting piece to take up for discussion, have no real sway on the matter I was conveying: The morality of coercing a child that is not yet of sound mind to make informed decisions into making one of the most central decision to many a person's life.

think about how key to your life your religious beliefs are. And judging from your post, I'd venture a guess as to rather so. Now reflect for a moment about the possibility that those beliefs you hold dear only manifest in their current state because of a trick somebody played on you, and not because of your own judgement when you boil it down to cause and effect.  

[Buroabenteuer]

Quote:

Just because of you my wife and I are going to have dozens of children, the cutest most innocent-looking children ever, and we're gonna read them the Bible every night at bed-time, and give them all Biblical names like Moses and Noah and Rachael and Gabriel and Lazarus, and we'll go to San Fransisco every year to re-enact Sodom & Gomorrah, and we'll go on trips to the Vatican and every religious landmark in the world AND STOP AT ALL THE TOURIST-ATTRACTIONS. EAT IT.

First and foremost, I would ask that you give me and the other debators here the basic respect of keeping your responses from being inflammatory and refrain from arguments that border on rude and ad hominem.


Now, to clear up an misunderstanding, I have only used christianity as an example of what I was positing, and I and the rest here have repeatedly generalized all of it to include any belief on the nature of the metaphysical. Religion specifically is a good example of the lowballing idea in that it is designed to survive generation to generation with as little change as possible.

If you find discussing your own religion in such a light uncomfortable, by all means use another group of metaphysical beliefs as your example in whatever contentions you put forward, since you inevitably believe at least one of such to be subject to objective observation in this regard through the beliefs of your own religion: christianity.


When Efstathios said that you would have lived your life differently, she meant exactly what she said. Had something so simple as who your parents were been different from what it was, your lifes outcome, even to the point of ninteen years, would be dramatically different. Every decision you made would have been passed through the filter of a different belief system, and every one of those decisions would have compounded to create a very different you. Think on what that means. No matter the inherent truth to either set of beliefs, only one thing was the deciding factor to what religion was the origin of your developing beliefs, and it was who your parents were.

The fact that a person's set of beliefs CAN change later in life does not change the possible immorality of how those origional beliefs came to be. The vast majority of people in the world believe in the same religion that their parents chose to teach them. Changing your religion from what you were origionally indoctrinated in is an exceedingly hard and trying experience, often ending in estrangement from families and/or resentments that are hard to heal. It takes a break of very circular thought patterns and a level of personal resilience to properly weather such a shift for many a person, depending on a number of variables. Its hard to change the thought patterns you were given as a child, and thats why the process I outlined in my origional post works so well, because more times than not it guarantees the survival of a specific set of beliefs, for good or for ill.

As for the positivity of the christian message, it is irrelevant. Plenty of religions have messages that people perceive as positive, and im sure there are plenty of people who would disagree with the effective positivity of christianity, just as your own perspective runs with the Radical Islamic "positivity", if in a different light. Yet again, don't infer incorrectly that I have something against christianity, you just have to understand that what you see as an unquestionable positive thing can be percieved as VERY different by any number of other people.
Then, on top of the relativity of it, the idea that one specific religion is positive doesn't change the flaw inherent in the idea that the end justifies the means, because thats just not how right and wrong work. Saying that because christianity has a positive message, the method of conversion doesn't matter is judging the morality of an action based upon a HUGELY subjective weighing of which deed outweighs the other, effectively, the good or the bad, and that is a game that could be very damaging to a child at the recieving end of these judgements.

In judging the situation where this idea is taken to heart, you assumed that the child would be raised without morals untill they are "old enough to drive". The mistake made here is in assuming that all morals are tied solely to teaching a child your religion, or any religion for that matter. Morality isn't a concept that is only taught with some mythology, though mythology has for so long been used as a tool of conveying one value or another that for many the two concepts become inseparable in their minds; that the truth of such stories are the SOURCE of morality. If a child were not told a religion was specifically "theirs" before they could understand what that truly meant, its easily conceivable that they could be taught morality, simply given that you had a justifiable reason for what moral beliefs you share other than "God/Allah/YHWH/Buddah/Quetzalcoatl said so", and thats not really that hard, especially in a secular social system such as America.


And to wrap up, in terms of what to do instead of dictating our children's religion before they're ready, it wouldn't come in the form of not saying anything at all untill some preset age; yes that is rediculous. A better idea would simply be to inform about the nature of __ and justify while allowing other ideas to be aknowledged and explored without giving authoritarian facts where there really aren't any in the realm of the metaphysical. Besides, your not being able or willing to find a good alternative way of doing things is not in any way shape or form justification of the origional.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Wow, that sure overcomplicated the core issue.

You seem to think that it would be more righteous to teach morality without religion. That being your opinion and nothing more, I have but two things to say...

First, rarely do I EVER see proper morality where there is not religion anyway. Just a guess here but perhaps that's because religion is where proper moral codes were established... not to mention there is absolutely no logical point in acting for a moral good if you have no religion.

and second, WHY? You really didn't say anything about WHY religion is not a good way to teach morality and righteousness. You just typed a dozen paragraphs that were way too elaborate and had little to do with the discussion. Unless I completely missed the part where you did... it's very very simple really despite how you portray it: it is our responsibility to teach our children wisdom and what we see as virtues. It's ridiculous to say that we shouldn't pass on our religion to the next generation just because it's important, I mean what kind of statement is that? We can teach our children etiquette, fairness, equality, sociology, biology and mathematics when they're but a year old and yet for some reason religion is supposed to be "forbidden". NEVER does someone "force" another to follow the same faith, never is another's freedom of religion violated when we advertise our own. My mum told me the knee-bone's connected to the leg-bone when I was just a little squash and yet when I grew up and realized there's more than ONE leg-bone, I didn't exactly have a hard time "adapting" to that knowledge and getting over the fact that mum lied to me. And damn, leg-bones are an important part of life. Unless you're a cripple, then you probably just daydream about them and wake up with an erection.  

[Efstathios]

NOCTVRNVS

Wow, that sure overcomplicated the core issue.

You seem to think that it would be more righteous to teach morality without religion. That being your opinion and nothing more, I have but two things to say...

First, rarely do I EVER see proper morality where there is not religion anyway. Just a guess here but perhaps that's because religion is where proper moral codes were established... not to mention there is absolutely no logical point in acting for a moral good if you have no religion.

and second, WHY? You really didn't say anything about WHY religion is not a good way to teach morality and righteousness. You just typed a dozen paragraphs that were way too elaborate and had little to do with the discussion. Unless I completely missed the part where you did... it's very very simple really despite how you portray it: it is our responsibility to teach our children wisdom and what we see as virtues. It's ridiculous to say that we shouldn't pass on our religion to the next generation just because it's important, I mean what kind of statement is that? We can teach our children etiquette, fairness, equality, sociology, biology and mathematics when they're but a year old and yet for some reason religion is supposed to be "forbidden". NEVER does someone "force" another to follow the same faith, never is another's freedom of religion violated when we advertise our own. My mum told me the knee-bone's connected to the leg-bone when I was just a little squash and yet when I grew up and realized there's more than ONE leg-bone, I didn't exactly have a hard time "adapting" to that knowledge and getting over the fact that mum lied to me. And damn, leg-bones are an important part of life. Unless you're a cripple, then you probably just daydream about them and wake up with an erection.

I want to see your reply to my last post in this thread...You gave me such a neat reply you practically gift-wrapped it.
Since you were responding to Buroabenteuer, I'll let him retort to most of this, but I had to say the governing values of your entire life is a little different from the finer points of anatomy, I'll also assume that you were taught that as a rhyme, like a mother goose story, not as absolute truth that will determine the rest of eternity for you.

(Also I don't think cripples get erections over legs anymore than anyone else, when was the last time you saw a deaf guy pitch a tent because he saw an ear?)  

[Buroabenteuer]

NOCTVRNVS

Wow, that sure overcomplicated the core issue.

You seem to think that it would be more righteous to teach morality without religion. That being your opinion and nothing more, I have but two things to say...

First, rarely do I EVER see proper morality where there is not religion anyway. Just a guess here but perhaps that's because religion is where proper moral codes were established... not to mention there is absolutely no logical point in acting for a moral good if you have no religion.

and second, WHY? You really didn't say anything about WHY religion is not a good way to teach morality and righteousness. You just typed a dozen paragraphs that were way too elaborate and had little to do with the discussion. Unless I completely missed the part where you did... it's very very simple really despite how you portray it: it is our responsibility to teach our children wisdom and what we see as virtues. It's ridiculous to say that we shouldn't pass on our religion to the next generation just because it's important, I mean what kind of statement is that? We can teach our children etiquette, fairness, equality, sociology, biology and mathematics when they're but a year old and yet for some reason religion is supposed to be "forbidden". NEVER does someone "force" another to follow the same faith, never is another's freedom of religion violated when we advertise our own. My mum told me the knee-bone's connected to the leg-bone when I was just a little squash and yet when I grew up and realized there's more than ONE leg-bone, I didn't exactly have a hard time "adapting" to that knowledge and getting over the fact that mum lied to me. And damn, leg-bones are an important part of life. Unless you're a cripple, then you probably just daydream about them and wake up with an erection.

(btw, your last sentence there was poetic, kudos)


First of, I dissected your arguments and refuted every one of them. I backed my refutations with justifications. Calling that overcomplicated is saying that having an opinion other than your own and for actual reasons is somehow NOT how to do a debate. To then say that the direct responses to your arguments "have little to do with the discussion" is to call your own points off-topic as well. It really should be quite simple to take the responses to your own points and respond to them. Don't just dismiss my arguments without even adressing them and simply change the subject as though ignoring them will simply make them go away. If you don't understand something I wrote, then adress the point specifically and ask me to clarify so we can actually continue the discussion.

Secondly, my point regarding morality and religion was simply that they are fundamentally separate. Here is the point where we're going to clash because you're a moral objectivist, which causes you to have trouble visualizing morality without religion, hence your comment about "proper" morality. The only thing that religion adds to the table moral wise is some deity or another holding fear of punishment and the promise of reward over peoples heads as motivation. Separate of the motivation to obey certain moral tennets is the actual justification for why something is right or wrong, the why that comes before the "end result" of an action. THAT is what you teach a child. You teach them to take responsibility for their own moral decisions, and they will act according to those moral beliefs much more often than a child that is simply told the consequences and acts based on a punishment-reward basis.

Thirdly, of course it is the parents job to pass along wisdom to their child. You even listed a valid number of "wisdoms" to pass onto one's offspring. The thing that makes things such as "etiquette, fairness, equality, sociology, biology, mathematics" all valid is that they don't involve defining for the child a part of them that has no empiricial justification and is exceedingly difficult to redefine when the child develops to the point of wanting to. The difference between "pass on" and "teach about" becomes key here. There is nothing wrong with teaching one's child about religion, since there is wisdom to be gleaned from the various religions out there, but its when one "passes" religion on as though it were hereditary 'knowledge' is where the inherent lie becomes apparent (Read the Topic Post)  

[NOCTVRNVS]

So then, as you touched on briefly, the core issue lies in that we disagree fundamentally. Your perspective is that religion being taught to a child is some form of brainwashing; mine is that it is as easy to change, once the child is more capable of making decisions regarding his own life, as it is your understanding of any other subject. You maintain that baptism could have some sort of negative effect on the person later in life somehow, I maintain that it would mean as little to a neophyte atheist as his ex-religion itself (or less). Both perspectives are obviously based on personal experience and, as I said, the way we both individually view religion in society.  

[Buroabenteuer]

NOCTVRNVS

So then, as you touched on briefly, the core issue lies in that we disagree fundamentally.

The only time you can EVER justifiably raise the "agree to disagree" flag is when arguments whittle down to axiological points; when both debators only have statements based on concepts of "value" left to them. If you're going to throw in the towel, do so without wrongly implying we've BOTH exhausted our objective contentions, because I most certaintly haven't and several of my previous points still stand to refute just about everything you just said in attempting to "sum it all up", which isn't even possible at this point because you haven't actually debated me thus far. Every time I try to respond to your positions with a structured set of refutations, you avoid directly facing those points and attempt to ignore them altogether by responding with a flawed attempt at generalizing everything into a single statement and argueing against THAT instead. And you even use arguments I had directly refuted previously to clash with your own mistakenly generalized summation of my position.

Take your most recent statements for example:

Quote:

Your perspective is that religion being taught to a child is some form of brainwashing; mine is that it is easy to change, once the child is more capable of making decisions regarding his own life...

You not only summarized my position incorrectly, you also posit your own position as though religion being easy to change is somehow a fundamentally opposing position, despite that not being the case AND my previous justifications for that very same idea not being true, which you ignored entirely.

Quote:

You maintain that baptism could have some sort of negative effect on the person later in life somehow, I maintain that it would mean as little to a neophyte atheist as his ex-religion itself...

Again, a flawed summation. You say "somehow" as if I didn't quite explicitly give an example of how such a shift can be hard and/or damaging and with subsequent justification. And yet again, you refute your own summation with an argument that was thoroughly debunked on two separate occasions, and do so as if its your fundamentally untouchable subjective position.

Quote:

Both perspectives are obviously based on personal experience and, as I said, the way we both individually view religion in society

As I've said on several occasions, how I view religion itself has nothing to do with the morality of the method of its passing on, which is NOT some subjective truth that is untouchable by discussion and debate.


Basically, if you want to realistically continue with your position, then actually DEBATE with me, don't just be argumentative. Actually aknowledge the points set against your position, as I have done so with you, and then refute them with justification rather than banal summations and reduntant statements that act as avoidance methods.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Buroabenteuer

NOCTVRNVS

So then, as you touched on briefly, the core issue lies in that we disagree fundamentally.

The only time you can EVER justifiably raise the "agree to disagree" flag is when arguments whittle down to axiological points; when both debators only have statements based on concepts of "value" left to them. If you're going to throw in the towel, do so without wrongly implying we've BOTH exhausted our objective contentions, because I most certaintly haven't and several of my previous points still stand to refute just about everything you just said in attempting to "sum it all up", which isn't even possible at this point because you haven't actually debated me thus far. Every time I try to respond to your positions with a structured set of refutations, you avoid directly facing those points and attempt to ignore them altogether by responding with a flawed attempt at generalizing everything into a single statement and argueing against THAT instead. And you even use arguments I had directly refuted previously to clash with your own mistakenly generalized summation of my position.

Take your most recent statements for example:

Quote:

Your perspective is that religion being taught to a child is some form of brainwashing; mine is that it is easy to change, once the child is more capable of making decisions regarding his own life...

You not only summarized my position incorrectly, you also posit your own position as though religion being easy to change is somehow a fundamentally opposing position, despite that not being the case AND my previous justifications for that very same idea not being true, which you ignored entirely.

Quote:

You maintain that baptism could have some sort of negative effect on the person later in life somehow, I maintain that it would mean as little to a neophyte atheist as his ex-religion itself...

Again, a flawed summation. You say "somehow" as if I didn't quite explicitly give an example of how such a shift can be hard and/or damaging and with subsequent justification. And yet again, you refute your own summation with an argument that was thoroughly debunked on two separate occasions, and do so as if its your fundamentally untouchable subjective position.

Quote:

Both perspectives are obviously based on personal experience and, as I said, the way we both individually view religion in society

As I've said on several occasions, how I view religion itself has nothing to do with the morality of the method of its passing on, which is NOT some subjective truth that is untouchable by discussion and debate.


Basically, if you want to realistically continue with your position, then actually DEBATE with me, don't just be argumentative. Actually aknowledge the points set against your position, as I have done so with you, and then refute them with justification rather than banal summations and reduntant statements that act as avoidance methods.

I like how you just took a whole post to talk about how I am ignoring your points because I am trying to avoid them, ironic

"Thoroughly debunked"? I wasn't aware you even cited a single researched fact at this point let alone "thoroughly debunk" the statement that faith maintained in childhood does not affect the person's free choice of religion or denouncement thereof in adult life.

You seem to think I "summarized your position incorrectly" but yet instead of clarifying how you just make another exhaustingly long-winded claim of my ignorance regarding your position on the subject. The reality is I'm just simplifying the ideas that you delivered very extravagantly. If you aren't arguing that religion being taught at a young age is potentially damaging then I must have completely misunderstood everything you have said to this point. If that IS what you're arguing then my summation was accurate, so which is it...

Yes, you did "explicitly give an example" of how altering your religious beliefs can be hard, the problem is, exactly as I said, that's nothing but your own opinion.

Long story short, you don't want me "generalizing" your statements then why don't you get to the point? The subject is so simple and you're totally overanalyzing it.

Anyway, to answer the one point I CAN see that you tried to make, well logically there iss no motive for morality without religion. If you disagree then please explain how. That is all.  

[Efstathios]

NOCTVRNVS

It's only a negative thing to teach your religion to others when you think religion itself is a negative. Please disprove this by showing me one person who contradicts it by example.

NOCTVRNVS

Muslim radicals that force their children to detonate themselves in a crowded place at thirteen before they are actually educated in their own religion, or how about Hindus who drink with their children from rats-nests because they think they are drinking alongside their aunts and uncles.

You said yourself that teaching children religion at a young age is bad. The highlighted portion. So, I don't see why you're still arguing against it.

I was taught morality without religion. It is difficult for true morality to exist with religion.
A child should be taught that you do what is right because it is right. The law of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Not because if they don't they're going to Hell, carrot/stick only works on animal too dumb to steal the carrot when you're not looking.  

[NOCTVRNVS]

Efstathios

NOCTVRNVS

It's only a negative thing to teach your religion to others when you think religion itself is a negative. Please disprove this by showing me one person who contradicts it by example.

NOCTVRNVS

Muslim radicals that force their children to detonate themselves in a crowded place at thirteen before they are actually educated in their own religion, or how about Hindus who drink with their children from rats-nests because they think they are drinking alongside their aunts and uncles.

You said yourself that teaching children religion at a young age is bad. The highlighted portion. So, I don't see why you're still arguing against it.

I was taught morality without religion. It is difficult for true morality to exist with religion.
A child should be taught that you do what is right because it is right. The law of "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Not because if they don't they're going to Hell, carrot/stick only works on animal too dumb to steal the carrot when you're not looking.

I never said that Muslims teaching their children to be Muslims is negative whatsoever; but strapping a bomb on them and hitting them with a stick until they agree to blow themselves up is not religion. And nor is contracting diseases from rats' nests. That is just insanity. I said radicals of Islam tell their children only what is convenient to them so that they can get their way any time they play the "Allah wants you to" card (such as when they feel like blowing people up), and that's just an example that goes for false followers of any religion. It isn't the religion that's harmful but the people.

As for morality without religion, I don't get it. Why wouldn't you just want to do whatever YOU want to do without worrying about other people? I mean you believe when you die that's it, you get one life to do whatever you want with it, shouldn't you just go out and do whatever's fun for you? Like I mean what's the big picture? You're going to die, everyone else is going to die, the world's gonna end and then what difference does it make what you did in life? No-one was watching you live your life, and writing down the good that you did, no-one who's still gonna be alive in 100 years to tell about it anyway. Selflessness is not logical if you believe there's no benefit in the end, isn't that right?