Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

I Think Indoctrinating Children With Religion Is Child Abuse

Of course if you believe that indoctrinating children with religion is child abuse then you have to go on to say that indoctrinating them with atheism is also child-abuse. In fact you have to go on to say that indoctrinating them in any way and with any sort of value is child abuse, so let's close down the schools and stop all this indoctrination. Don't indoctrinate your children into road safety - let them find out for themselves what it's like to go under a lorry. I know people who take their child up a football match and indoctrinate them into supporting that team. How terrible that such child-abuse goes on! And for goodness sake don't let your children read books or they might get indoctrinated. And of course the greatest indoctrinater of all is the media. Do no Facebook, Television or Internet, have we got that clear?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
SW-User
people have seen what a person looks like after being run over by a lorry, no one has seen heaven or hell as described in the stories. yet you think it's the same thing, that's delusion. It's like telling children santa is real, but only worse because it becomes a reality to them, a story without any basis. reminds me of the guy who shot children in a school because he was angry at god for taking his new born girl. human flaws and religious lies are a terrible mix and your argument is an example of BS
Speedyman · 70-79, M
I don't think many children have seen what a person looks like when they are run over by a lorry. In any case you missed the irony of my comments being obviously a literalist. Interesting you give one example of someone who supposedly shot children for religious reasons - of course he was in religion but a mixed-up mind that was the problem - when you don't mention that the greatest mass murderers of the last century were all atheists @SW-User
SW-User
@Speedyman no body did crimes because they were atheists. religion might have been the reason for crimes. also religion never stopped anyone from molesting children so screw that. it's not just the dumb example. the core of your argument is flawed.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
You obviously need to read some history. How about all the Christians who were locked up and toured by the communists? What about the churches which were demolished by the communists because they didn't want peopke to believe in God? Are you the complete master of the double standard? @SW-User
SW-User
@Speedyman Atheism is not the reason for someone committing the crimes. It's not the motivation. If an atheist commits crimes it's to serve their selfish interests. Always. the thing with religious however is that, they crime both because of selfish reasons and also because of their beliefs. that's clearly worse if you ask me.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
This is always the silly reason that the atheist gives. They say that atheism is not the motivation yet they are very quick to say that religion is the motivation. Of course atheism was the motivation for many of the crimes committed under atheistic regimes. Your argument is completely dumb. @SW-User
SW-User
@Speedyman Atheism can't be a reason for actions because it gives no reason for any action, by definition. You need to have beliefs in order to find motivation for actions, at least when the actions are motivated by anything other than just the need for thrill.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Of course atheism is a reason for actions. There is no God and therefore man is nothing but a chance gathering of chemicals therefore human life is worthless. Isn't that a reason for killing people?@SW-User
SW-User
@Speedyman No most atheists I know subscribe to a secular moral code.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Yes most atheists I know do too. And believers ascribed to a moral code too. The problem comes when I theist sees his moral code us in fact illogical as he is a chance happenning @SW-User
SW-User
@Speedyman you said atheism is a reason for killing people, how is that? i can show how religion might be a reason but how is atheism?
Speedyman · 70-79, M
If you see human life as a worthless product of chance, why not? That is a logical outcome of atheism. Of course I'm not saying all atheists go down that road but some have as history reveals@SW-User
SW-User
@Speedyman why do you think atheists think of human life as worthless? do you just assume that?
Speedyman · 70-79, M
I have just said that not all atheists think that but it is a logical outcome if you just believe that mankind is a collection of chemicals put together by unguided forces@SW-User
Phire1 · 51-55, F
SW-User
@Speedyman It's not the logical outcome. Atheists are supposed to be in awe and admiration of how beautiful and elegant the process of life is. It's not just chemical mix, it's a wonderful chemical mix. The morality is derived from holding ourselves responsible for ourselves, instead of a God as someone who by his will is already aware everything that is supposed to happen and thus the one with sole responsibility of everything that will and has happened. An atheist loves humanity not because of God but because he holds himself responsible for the joy and sorrow he causes to others.
Speedyman · 70-79, M
But how do you know your mirality is right? Why shouldn't Hitler's morality be just as right as yours? however wonderful you are as a gathering of chemicals the fact is you are put together by unguided forces as was Hitler so surely his morality has just as much right to say it's right as yours has. And why is causing joy to others and better things and causing sorrow? Hitler would've said that it is better to advance the progress of his estate and the progress of the Arianism rather than cause people joy. The communists would've said that the advancement of communism is a far greater cause than allowing people joy of living. The problem is who are you to refute it @SW-User
SW-User
@Speedyman We don't know if it's right. We know that it's a choice. The fundamental question would be of life or death? If you choose life then you will need to know science in order to understand what conditions are good for human life and psychology to help with your choice of life. Once you know that, you build your society to act accordingly, for desired outcome. If you choose death then everything is over. Atheists choose life because life is worthy by its own merit. This is better than blindly believing something that there ia no evidence for. Hitler's morality is not an atheists morality because Hitler didn't care about the lives of people he killed. An atheist with a secular moral code would hold himself responsible for well being of every being he can
Phire1 · 51-55, F
@Speedyman Apparently you think Atheists agree with Hitler
Speedyman · 70-79, M
The thing I'm trying to point out to you is not that it's wrong to have a moral code, because obviously I believe in that. Or it's not wrong to try and do good to other people, because I believe in that too. What I am saying is that if you accept these things are illogical because there are no absolutes. Hitler's morals are just as valid as yours because you came from the same chance happening of in guided forces. And of course science does not help us to make moral choices. Science enabled us to build a bomb that killed 70,000 people at Hurishima buts ience does not tell us whether it was moral to explode it. .@SW-User
Speedyman · 70-79, M
Of course I don't think that, but if you are in atheist there is no logical reason why your morality should be more valid than Hitler's as you come from the same unguided forces@Phire1
Phire1 · 51-55, F
@Speedyman With "guided forces"... then I guess Hitler was part of "god's" plan, too?
SW-User
@Speedyman Science is not a God. Science is a tool and it can be used for good and bad. No body said it's only use is for helping life so I don't see your point. Again, if you decide in favor of 'life' then Hitler's idea is unreasonable because it leads to strife and war which is not good for human psychology. Once you make the fundamental choice the rest basically follows without much confusion. There is no confusion whether Hitler was right or wrong. He was not aligned with the idea of peaceful living. So I don't see the point here either. Do you think it is logically possible to choosse life and well being of humans and then act like Hitler?
SW-User
@Phire1 of course. God used his free will to let it happen. That's obvious.
Phire1 · 51-55, F
@SW-User Lol! I am so tired of seeing theists bring up Hitler and certain others to make their "morality" point. They just don't trust Atheists, is all
SW-User
@Phire1 It's worse if they start being dishonest, which is kind of allowed when defending religion. Makes one wonder why this might have been a necessity