Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Indoctrination

1235789

Posts

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Bondage Discipline Spider-Man Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    See, you're being hypocritical. You can't teach them atheism and then tell every other parent they can't teach their beliefs. Yes, you may think that atheism is the only logical conclusion, but not everyone agrees with you.

    As long as you aren't teaching rote dogmatism, I don't see a problem with saying, when your kid asks you about god (or simply if the subject comes up), that you have yet to see any evidence for it, and go from there.

    That would be a better idea.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    My parents were rather mild about religion and I thank them every day for that. They gave me a choice and I chose what was most suitable for my life. My two brothers and I are all atheist, and my sister has recently joined a church (she had a life changing incident a couple years ago, was in a coma with some brain damage but almost fully recovered).

    When I have kids I will probably stay pretty silent on the topic unless they bring it up. Also of course send them to a public school where they are exposed to other kids of all backgrounds and faiths. If they ask, I will make sure they know the essentials of what kind of belief systems are out there and why I believe what I do, and if they inquire further attempt to explain why other people believe what they do (though this is tricky because its hard not to be biased).

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Has someone already linked to clips from "Jesus Camp" to illustrate what Dawkins was talking about?

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Kids are a lot smarter than people give them credit for. Even if a five year old says, "Okay mummy, I believe in God too!" that doesn't necessarily "lock" them in to God because it's just idle chit-chat with mom; there's no element of punishment or approval, no reinforcement.

    But if mom wakes them up every morning to fervently pray, screaming to the stars for God to forgive us for the sins we commit while we dream...that might do more to keep a person from self-reflection.

    I mean, the last barrier to my atheism was the fear of Hell, and I was never hit with it at all when a kid (by that point most every normal Catholic was on a "You have to be a unbelievably evil person to go to Hell)...just the idea of it was frightening enough, in the abstract.

    If I had been to Jesus Camp when very young...I doubt I'd have been able to give up my faith. And it wouldn't have made me stronger, it would have been rooted solely in fear, in anxiety over my eternal soul and whether or not it would be tortured eternally. It wouldn't have been a positive thing, but a crippling wound to my psyche I'd never recover from.

    There's a difference- exposing me to the idea of Hell is fine. I was exposed to the idea of Zeus, Thor, Buddha, etc. Parents shouldn't lie to their kids just to keep them from an idea. The key point I'd like to make is that there is a difference between punishing or rewarding a child going with the "right" religious behavior, and just talking honestly with a child. Kids have enough meta-awareness to tell the difference between "Mom says this because she thinks that!" and "Mom says this and I have to think it or else!." In the same way, they often understand implicitly that a teacher might be simplifying things for their benefit...because they understand the context in which they are being taught.

    As an atheist, I'd never think of punishing my kid if he went through a religious phase, or rewarding him with an X-Box if he comes home one day talking about how he reconciled his existentialist dilemma!

  • DocDoc Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
  • ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
  • Ain't No SunshineAin't No Sunshine Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Oh, and I had the impression from the thread that Dawkins/local PA forumers were claiming *all* religious upbringing to be harmful indoctrination. He was talking specifically about that?

    I'm not lifting a finger to defend that. That looks like an extremely unhealthy psychological environment for children.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    I was making an effort to distinguish single-religion-as-truth instruction from teaching-all-angles-and-letting-them-roll-with-what-makes-sense, actually. Which covers a lot more than the Jesus Camp kids, but a lot less than the board biblethumpers think.

    tmsig.jpg
  • GregerGreger Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Fencingsax wrote: »
    See, you're being hypocritical. You can't teach them atheism and then tell every other parent they can't teach their beliefs. Yes, you may think that atheism is the only logical conclusion, but not everyone agrees with you.

    Are you refeering to me? In fact I said it was OK to teach your kids your religion at a proper age, and when their mature enough to be critical thinkers.

    I wouldnt teach my kids atheism at like age 5-7 as many religious parents do, I would teach them as late as possible. At like 14 if they didnt bring up the issue earlier.
    Oh, and I had the impression from the thread that Dawkins/local PA forumers were claiming *all* religious upbringing to be harmful indoctrination. He was talking specifically about that?

    I'm not lifting a finger to defend that. That looks like an extremely unhealthy psychological environment for children.


    Why would that be unhealthy? Because they wouldnt believe in god? Please motivate.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Oh, and I had the impression from the thread that Dawkins/local PA forumers were claiming *all* religious upbringing to be harmful indoctrination. He was talking specifically about that?

    Dawkins is actually very specific about what he considers child psychological abuse and what he just considers normal. He fundamentally objects to the idea of a "Catholic child" or a "Protestant child" or anything like that.

    His opponents tend to exaggerate his views or take him out of context.

  • The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited April 2007
    Greger wrote: »
    Why would that be unhealthy? Because they wouldnt believe in god? Please motivate.

    Relax, he's saying Jesus camp is bad, not the lack of it.

    tmsig.jpg
  • Vincent GraysonVincent Grayson Frederick, MDRegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Doc wrote: »
    Has someone already linked to clips from "Jesus Camp" to illustrate what Dawkins was talking about?

    Every time I hear about indoctrination, I can't help but think of that rat-tail kid and his "I was born-again at 5, because I just felt like I needed more out of life".

    That kid creeps me the fuck out.

  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Doc wrote: »

    The homeschool movement is just as bad in many ways, albeit, I'm reasonably certain, less militant.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • MBVMGBMBVMGB Registered User
    edited April 2007
    I really need to watch Jesus Camp, though I did recently watch The Most Hated Family in America. That was creepy enough.

    My parents didn't raise us to be anything. I became an atheist, and my sister became insane. (People originally came from dirt or a rib.)

    Most of the time when I went with a friend to church, everyone seemed incredibly bored. There's a lot of talk about how indoctrinating children into religion is such a huge deal to that child. In my (limited) experience, most of the indoctrination involved bored parents teaching their bored kids that church was equivalent to a chore that they did "just 'cause". Their bored kids will grow up to do the same thing. It is religion without true belief.

    I would hope that good parents can expose their children to as much as they can. Limiting positive experiences with the world for the purpose of shaping them into clones of their parents may not be child abuse, but it's shamefully close.

  • GregerGreger Registered User
    edited April 2007
    MBVMGB wrote: »
    I really need to watch Jesus Camp, though I did recently watch The Most Hated Family in America. That was creepy enough.

    My parents didn't raise us to be anything. I became an atheist, and my sister became insane. (People originally came from dirt or a rib.)

    Most of the time when I went with a friend to church, everyone seemed incredibly bored. There's a lot of talk about how indoctrinating children into religion is such a huge deal to that child. In my (limited) experience, most of the indoctrination involved bored parents teaching their bored kids that church was equivalent to a chore that they did "just 'cause". Their bored kids will grow up to do the same thing. It is religion without true belief.

    I would hope that good parents can expose their children to as much as they can. Limiting positive experiences with the world for the purpose of shaping them into clones of their parents may not be child abuse, but it's shamefully close.

    Good said. And yes, church can be boring. Went there a lot of times for marriages and such. Really boring stuff.

    And forcing your kids to go christian is just pathetic.

  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Church was alright. But confusing. In one seminar, they were discussing how Americans needed to reach out to the world and understand their fellow human beings, learn to embrace other languages and cultures. In another, they were bad-mouthing Buddhism as religion of superstition and godless bestial and idol worshipping.

    MyBannerII7-1.jpg
  • GregerGreger Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Church was alright. But confusing. In one seminar, they were discussing how Americans needed to reach out to the world and understand their fellow human beings, learn to embrace other languages and cultures. In another, they were bad-mouthing Buddhism as religion of superstition and godless bestial and idol worshipping.

    On another note, In what way is buddism more superstituous than christianity and why is it bestial and idol worhsipping in comparsion to christianity? I think they got it all wrong.

  • GlyphGlyph Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Greger wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    Church was alright. But confusing. In one seminar, they were discussing how Americans needed to reach out to the world and understand their fellow human beings, learn to embrace other languages and cultures. In another, they were bad-mouthing Buddhism as religion of superstition and godless bestial and idol worshipping.

    On another note, In what way is buddism more superstituous than christianity and why is it bestial and idol worhsipping in comparsion to christianity? I think they got it all wrong.

    I'm sure in their mind they had it right. Nevermind that Buddha was a teacher, to them he's one of those "other gods" that man isn't meant to have before The One.

    MyBannerII7-1.jpg
  • MBVMGBMBVMGB Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    Church was alright. But confusing. In one seminar, they were discussing how Americans needed to reach out to the world and understand their fellow human beings, learn to embrace other languages and cultures. In another, they were bad-mouthing Buddhism as religion of superstition and godless bestial and idol worshipping.

    On another note, In what way is buddism more superstituous than christianity and why is it bestial and idol worhsipping in comparsion to christianity? I think they got it all wrong.

    I'm sure in their mind they had it right. Nevermind that Buddha was a teacher, to them he's one of those "other gods" that man isn't meant to have before The One.

    When the power of your church relies on attendance numbers, there's bound to be badmouthing of other religions.

    My sister went to a private christian school. According to them, not only are other religions nothing but cults, but so are the Catholics and a few other flavors of protestants.

    On the other hand, she was very likely saved by them. Not in the biblical sense of the word, but in a very real way. She was right on the edge of being too old for her grade and she was bigger than everyone in it.* My parents took her to the christian school for a day and she absolutely loved it and the people there. Sure, she allowed herself to be brainwashed, but she didn't slit her wrists in the bathtub. Not necessarily because she found God, but I think because she found a way where she could be judged based on one thing - Belief.


    edit - *She was picked on constantly

  • GorakGorak Registered User
    edited April 2007
    MBVMGB wrote: »
    Not necessarily because she found God, but I think because she found a way where she could be judged based on one thing - Belief.

    No offence, but I may have to post this in the "creepiest thing ever" thread.

  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Gorak wrote: »
    MBVMGB wrote: »
    Not necessarily because she found God, but I think because she found a way where she could be judged based on one thing - Belief.

    No offence, but I may have to post this in the "creepiest thing ever" thread.

    It's pretty common though.

    The whole "Born Again Christian" thing, in my experience, is mostly people from rehab or other horrible life situations, scrambling for support.

    If society at large doesn't treat people well, they'll go to whoever will.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Gorak wrote: »
    MBVMGB wrote: »
    Not necessarily because she found God, but I think because she found a way where she could be judged based on one thing - Belief.

    No offence, but I may have to post this in the "creepiest thing ever" thread.

    It's pretty common though.

    The whole "Born Again Christian" thing, in my experience, is mostly people from rehab or other horrible life situations, scrambling for support.

    If society at large doesn't treat people well, they'll go to whoever will.

    People swap one strong ideology or support for another. The KKK Grand Wizard becoming a born again Christian is about the most predictable thing that could ever happen once he was kicked out from the KKK. I mean great, he's stopped actively seeking persecution of blacks and all, but we probably could've left a copy of the English translation of the Koran in that motel drawer and made him a Muslim if we wanted too.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    People swap one strong ideology or support for another. The KKK Grand Wizard becoming a born again Christian is about the most predictable thing that could ever happen once he was kicked out from the KKK. I mean great, he's stopped actively seeking persecution of blacks and all, but we probably could've left a copy of the English translation of the Koran in that motel drawer and made him a Muslim if we wanted too.

    There seems to be a fundamental human need for an all-encompassing ideology or faith. I can't deny that I certainly feel passionate about atheism, skepticism, empiricism, etc.

  • Chake99Chake99 Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    True Believer, thoughts on the nature of mass movements by Eric Hoffer is a mind-fuckingly good book on the same topic. Srsly.

    Hic Rhodus, Hic Salta.
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    People swap one strong ideology or support for another. The KKK Grand Wizard becoming a born again Christian is about the most predictable thing that could ever happen once he was kicked out from the KKK. I mean great, he's stopped actively seeking persecution of blacks and all, but we probably could've left a copy of the English translation of the Koran in that motel drawer and made him a Muslim if we wanted too.

    There seems to be a fundamental human need for an all-encompassing ideology or faith. I can't deny that I certainly feel passionate about atheism, skepticism, empiricism, etc.

    Well yes, but I would define mine as the need to construct a consistent and rational worldview. Clearly there are other modes of thought on the matter.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007

    Well yes, but I would define mine as the need to construct a consistent and rational worldview. Clearly there are other modes of thought on the matter.

    Of course, I consider my world view superior for exactly that reason- I believe passionately in the ideal of changing my mind, looking at the facts, self-correction, etc.

    But then again, I would think that, wouldn't I?

  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007

    Well yes, but I would define mine as the need to construct a consistent and rational worldview. Clearly there are other modes of thought on the matter.

    Of course, I consider my world view superior for exactly that reason- I believe passionately in the ideal of changing my mind, looking at the facts, self-correction, etc.

    But then again, I would think that, wouldn't I?


    I would say the same thing. I think any person of conviction would, regardless of belief. When does it become appropriate for another party to step in, considering how many parents are likely to see their veiw as fundamentally correct?

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • IncenjucarIncenjucar QA Tester -> Game Producer Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Sarcastro wrote: »

    Well yes, but I would define mine as the need to construct a consistent and rational worldview. Clearly there are other modes of thought on the matter.

    Of course, I consider my world view superior for exactly that reason- I believe passionately in the ideal of changing my mind, looking at the facts, self-correction, etc.

    But then again, I would think that, wouldn't I?


    I would say the same thing. I think any person of conviction would, regardless of belief. When does it become appropriate for another party to step in, considering how many parents are likely to see their veiw as fundamentally correct?

    The irony is, since most of the world already believes in magic, there are advantages to believing in magic, regardless of the accuracy of the notion.

    Similarly, smoking and drinking can be great for your career and reproductive success, even if it kills you earlier.

    freefallagentad_zps635a83ed.png
  • SarcastroSarcastro Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »

    Well yes, but I would define mine as the need to construct a consistent and rational worldview. Clearly there are other modes of thought on the matter.

    Of course, I consider my world view superior for exactly that reason- I believe passionately in the ideal of changing my mind, looking at the facts, self-correction, etc.

    But then again, I would think that, wouldn't I?


    I would say the same thing. I think any person of conviction would, regardless of belief. When does it become appropriate for another party to step in, considering how many parents are likely to see their veiw as fundamentally correct?

    The irony is, since most of the world already believes in magic, there are advantages to believing in magic, regardless of the accuracy of the notion.

    Similarly, smoking and drinking can be great for your career and reproductive success, even if it kills you earlier.


    Very true. Being religious and what church you go to are big in the top end of business positions today. One could very well be screwing thier progeny out of a competitive ability by not applying at least some form of religious indoctrination.

    Edcrab wrote: »
    "See," said Lucifer, "God's an asshole."
  • GregerGreger Registered User
    edited April 2007
    People swap one strong ideology or support for another. The KKK Grand Wizard becoming a born again Christian is about the most predictable thing that could ever happen once he was kicked out from the KKK. I mean great, he's stopped actively seeking persecution of blacks and all, but we probably could've left a copy of the English translation of the Koran in that motel drawer and made him a Muslim if we wanted too.

    There seems to be a fundamental human need for an all-encompassing ideology or faith. I can't deny that I certainly feel passionate about atheism, skepticism, empiricism, etc.

    You are probably true, but I dont really feel that way. You see, I dont really feel strongly for my agnosticism.

    Its really just the lack of believing in god, so what is it to feel strongly for?

    But I do feel like its a great wiew of life though. I dont really have to tell anybody how its possible to dont believe in god. Because its just pretty much natural. Sometimes I like to think about the reasons I dont believe in god, but its really not something that needs convincing.
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    Incenjucar wrote: »
    Sarcastro wrote: »
    [quote=electricitylikesme;1330540

    Very true. Being religious and what church you go to are big in the top end of business positions today. One could very well be screwing thier progeny out of a competitive ability by not applying at least some form of religious indoctrination.

    Infact, I would go so far as to say that we could probably have any bullshit as religion, as long as enough persons believed in it.


    God really doesent make sense, but when the doubters have like 1000000000 people saying that he does exist, then you do get some kind of support for your faith. And theres also the argument that the shit has been along for so long.

    Meanwhile, while I have like tons of reasons I cant believe in god, and even arguments almost disproving him more or less, then I dont really have much support. I dont really need support though, when agnosticism/atheism dont really need any support from society, because it simply makes sense.

  • markmark Registered User
    edited April 2007
    Few "children" are old enough to understand their own beliefs. Why then do we label them as "Christians" or "Muslims"? And why on earth would we take them to church every Sunday before they can even decide for themselves if they want to go?

    I agree with that, and am against "indoctrination".

    I am an agnosticist, and cannot tell whether god exists or not. So I will let my children choose their religion (or choose to be agnosticist or else) without influencing them voluntarily.

    "I think Han Solo is the character we wish we were but we aren't, while Jar-Jar is the character we wish we weren't, but we are."
  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Glyph wrote: »
    Greger wrote: »
    Glyph wrote: »
    Church was alright. But confusing. In one seminar, they were discussing how Americans needed to reach out to the world and understand their fellow human beings, learn to embrace other languages and cultures. In another, they were bad-mouthing Buddhism as religion of superstition and godless bestial and idol worshipping.

    On another note, In what way is buddism more superstituous than christianity and why is it bestial and idol worhsipping in comparsion to christianity? I think they got it all wrong.

    I'm sure in their mind they had it right. Nevermind that Buddha was a teacher, to them he's one of those "other gods" that man isn't meant to have before The One.

    Actually I would guess it's because most people that consider themselves Buddhist go to animist temples and leave offerings for spirits. Less so in places with denser populations and more education like big cities. Which is not to say that makes it OK to be hating on those people, but y'know... some people think everyone else should be taught to think just like they do.

    To me, it smacks very much of hypocrisy for someone to say children should only be taught critical thinking and logic if you think that the only possible conclusions on life are your conclusions. It implies to me you disaprove of indoctrination simply because without it everyone would agree with you, not because there are good reasons against it. Apart from the fact that I think you're wrong about the conclusions thing.

    edit: and no I don't think that there are no good arguments against indoctrination. I just suspect they aren't at the core of the reason most of the people here don't like it.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    To me, it smacks very much of hypocrisy for someone to say children should only be taught critical thinking and logic if you think that the only possible conclusions on life are your conclusions. It implies to me you disaprove of indoctrination simply because without it everyone would agree with you, not because there are good reasons against it. Apart from the fact that I think you're wrong about the conclusions thing.\

    Oh, but there are side-benefits even if they don't go all the way to Atheism. A critical thinker is less likely to be a zealot, to be an asshole about their beliefs. Someone who, via self-reflection, critical examination and rational analysis decides to adopt a particular religious belief is less likely to be fanatical about it than someone whose very identity is founded on a particular belief.

    If you're the type of believer who might acknowledge, "Yes, my belief is irrational...but I feel there is a God on an intuitive level. I understand you lack this intuition and do not begrudge you for it, but it brings me comfort..." is fine. I have no problem with that person. Hell, I kind of envy such a person, since I lack a faith like that.

    And, a critical thinker can change his mind.

    Someone who is indoctrinated into a particular set of beliefs has a much, much harder time not only understanding other beliefs, but understanding his own. (How many bible-thumping god-botherers have been shown to not understand basic tenets of their own religion? An awful lot!)

    For those three reasons, I think rationality and reason benefit even people with a deep, unflinching faith, because it allows them to examine that faith critically and have it come out more legitimate for it. Is there really any value in teaching a child to fear God so badly they're effectively programmed into "believing" in him?

    At least compared to sitting down an adult and convincing him, honestly, that there is a God? Or that same adult coming to the conclusion on his own? What kind of belief would an omni-benevolent deity want?

    Personally, if I did believe in God, the God I would believe in wouldn't be such a dick that he'd demand unthinking devotion.

  • CalciumCalcium Registered User
    edited April 2007
    The reason to baptise your children and take them to church would be because if they should die, then they would go to Heaven. Of course, once they are old enough to make a decision whether or not to go to church that isn't based on "It's boring" then by all means, they shouldn't. They can then refute religion and Christianity all they want.

    But "child abuse"? Spending one hour in a church per week, boring as it may be, would not be "child abuse". I assume that's what happened to most raving atheists on this board, and they certainly came to their own conclusions.

  • Professor PhobosProfessor Phobos Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Calcium wrote: »
    But "child abuse"? Spending one hour in a church per week, boring as it may be, would not be "child abuse". I assume that's what happened to most raving atheists on this board, and they certainly came to their own conclusions.

    Yes, of course, we aren't talking about that (nor was Dawkins), we were talking about far more heavy-handed indoctrination methods. Like, for example, Jesus Camp.

    EDIT: Though to be fair, we're also talking about the sillyness and irrationality in calling one child "Christian" and another child "Muslim" just because we dipped the "Christian" kid in some water. It's idiotic to identify someone too young as a particular religion, just like it would be stupid to say: "He's a good Republican baby!" or "My, that infant is a happy little socialist!"

  • FallingmanFallingman Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    we were talking about far more heavy-handed indoctrination methods. Like, for example, Jesus Camp.

    Purely speaking from the outside looking in, some relatively common practices leave me cold. I.e as I understand it, Baptisms are necessary because all babies go to hell otherwise. ALL BABIES GO TO HELL? Whether or not that can be considered abuse or not, I'm not sure. But the whole premise seems pretty horrible to me.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Few "children" are old enough to understand their own beliefs. Why then do we label them as "Christians" or "Muslims"? And why on earth would we take them to church every Sunday before they can even decide for themselves if they want to go?

    Because when you blow up a bus load of kids you have to be able to tell if they were infidels or martyrs. Duh!

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Except it has been repeatedly said that people shouldn't be teaching their children to believe their religion at all, because it constitutes indoctrination. Which is, I think, influenced people believing that theirs are the only rational conclusions so if people would just stop teaching their children to be religious then everyone would agree with them and the world would be a better place. Which is what I find hypocritical.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
  • electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    Except it has been repeatedly said that people shouldn't be teaching their children to believe their religion at all, because it constitutes indoctrination. Which is, I think, influenced people believing that theirs are the only rational conclusions so if people would just stop teaching their children to be religious then everyone would agree with them and the world would be a better place. Which is what I find hypocritical.
    This is a bullshit argument which amounts to "atheism is religion".

  • MentalExerciseMentalExercise Indefenestrable Registered User regular
    edited April 2007
    No, I'm saying that it's disingeuous to say people shouldn't teach their children religion; if it's based on the idea that that will cause everyone to agree with you. It's not based on there being something wrong with teaching children religion except that you don't think people should be religious.

    edit: edited for puncuation clarity.

    "More fish for Kunta!"

    --LeVar Burton
Sign In or Register to comment.