Philosophy Discussion Forums

Ecurb wrote:It is wrong because what you believe is incorrect, and you are bearing false witness against your neighbours. If you told you children that your neighbours were child molesters when they aren’t, that would be evil, too. You owe your neighbours due diligence before insulting them and accusing them. I don’t doubt that some religious people are frauds – but tarring all religious people with that same brush is just as bigoted as telling your children that all of their neighbours of African descent are thieves. “Fraud” is “wilful deceit or trickery”. No reasonable person can believe that every religious person is “wilfully deceiving” others when he or she tells them about religion. Religious people may be wrong, but they are not all “fraudulent”.

It is incorrect in your opinion. In my opinion religion is fraudulent so those who perpetuate that fraud are fraudsters. They do not have to teach their children the certainty of their faith, if they do they are acting in a fraudulent manner.What if you knew that your child's tutor was actively encouraging your children to worship Satan? Would question their motives? If I sell anything to anyone convincing them of a products when in fact it has no value, that is fraud. My false faith in that product is no defence.

If I thought my neighbours were child molesters I would report them to the police not exactly spread rumours without proof or action.

"Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." -- Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibiity.

Ecurb wrote: Sincere, well-meaning religious believers may be incorrect, but they are neither “fraudulent” (as Xris suggests) nor “bat crap crazy” as (Jj suggests).

Have you seen some of the conservative christians in the US recently? I think bat crap crazy is being nice.

I don't think that most of them are fraudulent. To me calling them frauds would imply they came to the realization that their religion was false and still perpetuated it for power or money or both. I sincerely believe that a good majority of them actually beleive it to be true.

Bat crap crazy is a different take. When they are arguing that evolution is just a theory, that the big bang is just a theory, and that creationism is just as serious a scientific movement and conservative legislators are forcing schools to teach this, then yes, bat crap crazy is fitting.

Not all of them mind you. But there's enough of them.

Chrisianity is getting a bad reputation because of noisy idiots who claim to be Christians.

Ecurb wrote:"Elinor agreed to it all, for she did not think he deserved the compliment of rational opposition." -- Jane Austen, Sense and Sensibiity.

"If this were played upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction"

Fraud..A thing that does not fulfill its claim.

To actually make the claim that I am not rational but those who support the concept of an invisible, unprovable god are, is slightly weird Ecurb.

Yes, religion can clearly be regarded as child abuse. Teaching children that God exists and that Jesus is the Lord and Saviour and that if they are bad they will go to Hell is brainwashing. Children need to be taught independence and to think for themselves. They need to be taught atheism as well as christianity so they can make up their mind for themselves without overbearing adult influences. Teaching kids that God exists is like telling them Santa Claus exists because it makes their lives seem more pleasant, but they will continue to believe a lie for the rest of their lives.

Rtmjdnt wrote:Yes, religion can clearly be regarded as child abuse. Teaching children that God exists and that Jesus is the Lord and Saviour and that if they are bad they will go to Hell is brainwashing. Children need to be taught independence and to think for themselves. They need to be taught atheism as well as christianity so they can make up their mind for themselves without overbearing adult influences. Teaching kids that God exists is like telling them Santa Claus exists because it makes their lives seem more pleasant, but they will continue to believe a lie for the rest of their lives.

But the same way they outgrow Santa Claus, they can outgrow God if so they wish.

Bermudj wrote: But the same way they outgrow Santa Claus, they can outgrow God if so they wish.

Of course! In addition, I don't think telling your child that Santa Claus brings him or her presents on Christmas constitutes "child abuse". Good grief!!!! What a totalitarian and dogmatic group the "religion is child abuse" supporters are! How about a little support for freedom of thought and freedom of expression!

Bermudj wrote: But the same way they outgrow Santa Claus, they can outgrow God if so they wish.

If that was the case then either Santa would have charitable status or god would be a minority interest who gave out Easter eggs once a year. I suppose both have big fluffy white beards and live somewhere up there.

Bermudj wrote: But the same way they outgrow Santa Claus, they can outgrow God if so they wish.

Ecurb wrote:Of course! In addition, I don't think telling your child that Santa Claus brings him or her presents on Christmas constitutes "child abuse". Good grief!!!! What a totalitarian and dogmatic group the "religion is child abuse" supporters are! How about a little support for freedom of thought and freedom of expression!

And yet show me one adult who believes in Santa. Clearly the mode and intensity in the transmission of these beliefs is much different making the comparison invalid. Furthermore, you can speak about freedom of thought all you want but if your children as adults based their lives around a belief in Santa, you would drag them kicking and screaming to a psychiatrist.

Gene16180 wrote:


And yet show me one adult who believes in Santa. Clearly the mode and intensity in the transmission of these beliefs is much different making the compassion invalid. Furthermore, you can speak about freedom of thought all you want but if your children as adults based their lives around a belief in Santa, you would drag them kicking and screaming to a psychiatrist.

If adults do not outgrow their belief in God is in many cases, not all, for personal reasons.

Ecurb wrote:
Of course! In addition, I don't think telling your child that Santa Claus brings him or her presents on Christmas constitutes "child abuse". Good grief!!!! What a totalitarian and dogmatic group the "religion is child abuse" supporters are! How about a little support for freedom of thought and freedom of expression!

Ye lets teach them that god smells and angels stole their wings from eagles. You honestly believe that religion is not educating young minds into dogmatic beliefs from a totalitarian position? You honestly believe that the pope is not a totalitarian head of a dogmatic belief system?

-- Updated Mon Jul 23, 2012 4:25 pm to add the following --

Bermudj wrote: If adults do not outgrow their belief in God is in many cases, not all, for personal reasons.

Bermudj there is a distinct difference between the innocent sugestion that Santa brings you gifts, once a year and the insistence of teaching religion. No one past the age of eight ever carried the belief in Santa, simply because it was not reinforced with fear or formal education.

Xris wrote:Bermudj there is a distinct difference between the innocent sugestion that Santa brings you gifts, once a year and the insistence of teaching religion. No one past the age of eight ever carried the belief in Santa, simply because it was not reinforced with fear or formal education.

But religion and God or no God is addressing, whether correctly or incorrectly, many other issues.

Bermudj wrote: If adults do not outgrow their belief in God is in many cases, not all, for personal reasons.

I don't think this thread is about autonomous adults who for personal reasons and of their own volition decide to believe in god. The greatest predictor of ones religious affiliation is the religion of family and/or community. This says that the majority of people are not religious for “personal reasons” but rather have it stamped into them from childhood. The “personal reasons” seem to come after the belief has already been established in a subconscious attempt to dress one's decisions as rational and autonomous.

Gene16180 wrote: I don't think this thread is about autonomous adults who for personal reasons and of their own volition decide to believe in god. The greatest predictor of ones religious affiliation is the religion of family and/or community. This says that the majority of people are not religious for “personal reasons” but rather have it stamped into them from childhood. The “personal reasons” seem to come after the belief has already been established in a subconscious attempt to dress one's decisions as rational and autonomous.

Yes -- and I'll bet that the greatest predictor of belief in Darwinian Evolution is being involved in a family or community (perhaps a University) in which Darwinian Evolution is accepted as true. Good grief! Of course people believe what the people around them tell them is true -- especially when they are children. What's remarkable is that so many people on this board use that as an excuse to try to dictate what people can and cannot believe and say to other people. Xris thinks it is "child abuse" (and should be illegal) to express religious beliefs. A more nauseating abridgement of freedom of thought and expression can scarcely be imagined. Of course it would be equally obnoxious to say that teaching children about Darwinian Evolution constitutes child abuse and should be outlawed -- but somehow the atheists on these boards fail to see that both positions restrict freedom.

It's as if Xris and his supporters think, ", I (and only I) will determine which thoughts and expressions are correct. Teaching children anything that is not approved by me (or the Central Committee) constitutes child abuse, and perpetrators will be sent to the gulag." Meanwhile, the Fundamentalists want to send the Darwinians off to the gulag. Xris and Jerry Fallwell are one in the same! Both of them want to limit freedom of thought and expression. Perhaps Xris's and Jerry's fond memories of the Inquisition, back in the 15th Century, have inspired them.

Gene probably thinks his "personal reasons" for believing as he does are NOT "subconscious attempt to dress (his)decisions as rational and autonomous." But why should he be different from religious people? All "reasons" are "rationalizations" -- for the religious and atheists alike. That's no reason to outlaw freedom of thought and expression.