Xris wrote: So if you observed bruises without known causes you would not suspect abuse. You do not need to know how they enforce their indoctrination to believe they have been.What are you talking about?
Log In   or  Sign Up for Free
A one-of-a-kind oasis of intelligent, in-depth, productive, civil debate.
Topics are uncensored, meaning even extremely controversial viewpoints can be presented and argued for, but our Forum Rules strictly require all posters to stay on-topic and never engage in ad hominems or personal attacks.
Xris wrote: So if you observed bruises without known causes you would not suspect abuse. You do not need to know how they enforce their indoctrination to believe they have been.What are you talking about?
Jjpregler wrote:If you in your previous job observed bruises on a child you would never suspect abuse? If you see someone who has obviously been indoctrinated you would want to know how before you could comment?
What are you talking about?
Xris wrote: If you in your previous job observed bruises on a child you would never suspect abuse? If you see someone who has obviously been indoctrinated you would want to know how before you could comment?Yes, because indoctrination usually does not cause bruising.
Jjpregler wrote:There is such a thing as emotional bruising.
Yes, because indoctrination usually does not cause bruising.
Jjpregler wrote:So you need physical evidence before you can accept abuse?
Yes, because indoctrination usually does not cause bruising.
Xris wrote: ...There is no historic reference of witches before christianity implemented the biblical demand. Witches have never existed.I don't s'pose there's any evidence for this, but there must be some basis for all these lordly injunctions. That thou shall not suffer a witch to live implies that suffering witches to live was something that happened & something that the Lord did not condone.
Xris wrote: So you need physical evidence before you can accept abuse?Yeah, imaginary evidence is usualy thrown out.
Misty wrote:I know, but his responses have been so weak, I just don't know how to respond ot him on an intellectual level any more. He had something personal happen to him, so he is projecting that onto every single man, woman, and child to ever hear the word religion and there is no real way to debate with someone so closed minded. He hasn't given one shred of evidence in 11 pages of thread here but continues to just try to ram his conclusion without any support.
There is such a thing as emotional bruising.
Jjpregler wrote:What a strange response. You actualy believe the only abuse that is possible is physical. The consensus of opinion expressed here is that certain religous indoctrination is abusive. It is you that has failed to argue that religous indoctrination is not abusive.
Yeah, imaginary evidence is usualy thrown out.
-- Updated July 10th, 2012, 12:24 pm to add the following --
I know, but his responses have been so weak, I just don't know how to respond ot him on an intellectual level any more. He had something personal happen to him, so he is projecting that onto every single man, woman, and child to ever hear the word religion and there is no real way to debate with someone so closed minded. He hasn't given one shred of evidence in 11 pages of thread here but continues to just try to ram his conclusion without any support.
“Indoctrinate: To instruct in doctrines, principles, or systems of belief; especially, to teach partisan or sectarian dogmas.”Wherein the abuse (I wonder)? Is it the “indoctrination” that is “abusive”? Or is it the religion? Is instructing young people about the doctrines of proper grammar, the doctrine of liberty, or the principles of physics “abusive”?
Xris wrote: What a strange response. You actualy believe the only abuse that is possible is physical. The consensus of opinion expressed here is that certain religous indoctrination is abusive. It is you that has failed to argue that religous indoctrination is not abusive.I have given numerous example of indoctrination per se not being abuse. I ahve already conceded that there are certain circumstances of indoctrination methods that are considered abuse, bu5t it is the method itself and not the indoctrination that made it abuse.
Jjpregler wrote:I'd call it abuse if you're not giving the child a choice. It's mind control, because they're so gullible.
I have given numerous example of indoctrination per se not being abuse. I ahve already conceded that there are certain circumstances of indoctrination methods that are considered abuse, bu5t it is the method itself and not the indoctrination that made it abuse.
And I never ever ever said that the only abuse is physical. Edited out.
With as open a mind as I can muster I do feel teaching religion to children is abusive. With a woman as open minded as Belinda being confused about such a simple issue I offer as proof.But I said only that I was maybe prejudiced about Jesus being a sage. I am not prejudiced regarding not teaching religion to children. I maintain that if teaching about Gentle Jesus to young children is done, then it should be put into the perspective of teaching about other good men in stories, fairy tales, songs and history, and preferably world wide as much as is consonant with the main 'goodness' precepts of our culture. This ethics teaching would exclude any teaching that Jesus or anyone else really went to Heaven or comes alive again in churches and so on. I.e. the teaching should exclude supernatural or superstitious material, and should also exclude the stuff about Jahwei doing horrible things.And foreskins
Recoil wrote: I'd call it abuse if you're not giving the child a choice. It's mind control, because they're so gullible.I'm not sure if you read the whole thread or not, but let me recap my argument. in short:
Don't even say that religion does no harm because stats say the exact opposite; in places like Denmark and Japan - the biggest atheist countries in the world - they have the lowest rape, teen pregnancy, abortion and murder rate vs religious countries.
Sure religion has some benefits. Community, internal strength, helping those in need. But there isn't one benefit that is exclusive to religion - meaning every benefit gained from religion, you can get from atheist/secular communities as well. Not to mention leave out all the harm.
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
Quite true. We are not in a place at many occasion[…]
I agree, but I won't say all of the governments do[…]
I think in most countries this is the same. And it[…]