(October 8, 2015 at 12:47 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 8, 2015 at 12:15 am)bambi_swag Wrote: Oh please. There is a point in which somethings like "miseducation child-abuse" sound ridiculous a I must start replying. I mean, if a parent honestly thinks that the moon is made of cheese and noses parted the read sea and teaches what he believes is truth to his children, you have no business interfering and giving your two shits on what you think is the truth.

Except they didn't say "miseducation child-abuse". Are you a deliberate liar, or just semi-literate?

They said "Dawkins argues it's child abuse" and then, later, made a second statement: "it is miseducation and kind of wrong at the very least."

If you wish to argue that it's okay for parents to teach them things that may harm them or cause them to have psychological problems, such as the concept that there are demons in the world and they are seeking to twist our minds, which may instill paranoia and delusional thinking in that child as they grow. That is why Dawkins likens it to abuse, and part of why Sagan wrote The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

Not "they". She.

And yes, Parents have the right to teach kids what they want. And you have the right to mind your own business. ladidia like teaching religion is "psychological harm" my ass. What if I think teaching abortion and atheism to children is "psychological harm"? Who is to say what is "psychological harm"?

(October 8, 2015 at 12:48 am)bambi_swag Wrote:

(October 8, 2015 at 12:47 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Except they didn't say "miseducation child-abuse". Are you a deliberate liar, or just semi-literate?

They said "Dawkins argues it's child abuse" and then, later, made a second statement: "it is miseducation and kind of wrong at the very least."

If you wish to argue that it's okay for parents to teach them things that may harm them or cause them to have psychological problems, such as the concept that there are demons in the world and they are seeking to twist our minds, which may instill paranoia and delusional thinking in that child as they grow. That is why Dawkins likens it to abuse, and part of why Sagan wrote The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark.

Not "they". She.

Not "she", he. But I said "they" because I wasn't entirely sure if I was quoting Evie or Dawkins or some other author referencing the claims of Dawkins in that context.

(October 8, 2015 at 12:50 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote:

(October 8, 2015 at 12:48 am)bambi_swag Wrote: Not "they". She.

Not "she", he. But I said "they" because I wasn't entirely sure if I was quoting Evie or Dawkins or some other author referencing the claims of Dawkins in that context.

Yes. We have to be on the same page before we both jump to conclusions on each other being liars and lunatics.

I'd say there is a point at which society has to decide someone is not a fit parent. We already make such decisions, because it's unfair to children to have incapable parents.

As an extreme example, if a parent is indoctrinating their children to commit suicide, or to become murderers, or anything like that, society has to step in and say no. How many children are you going to allow them to damage in this way before you declare them unfit? I agree parents should have the freedom to teach their kids as they see fit within reason, but as a society we can't allow anything and everything.

I'm not suggesting there are easy criteria for such decisions. They should be taken on a case by case basis.

(October 8, 2015 at 12:52 am)bambi_swag Wrote:

(October 8, 2015 at 12:50 am)TheRocketSurgeon Wrote: Not "she", he. But I said "they" because I wasn't entirely sure if I was quoting Evie or Dawkins or some other author referencing the claims of Dawkins in that context.

Yes. We have to be on the same page before we both jump to conclusions on each other being liars and lunatics.

Agreed. But if you twist two completely different phrases into a single term which you can then use as a strawman to bash Dawkins, then I suggest that it indicates a deliberate liar.

That's not to say I don't think one should bash Dawkins on his own merits; I frequently and vehemently have disagreed with some of his ideas in the past. But if you do it on the basis of things not said, or by misrepresenting what was said, you are a liar by definition, or you don't read very well. So I asked which it was.

"Lunatic" is an entirely different accusation, and one that I did not make. So... see above.

True. Point taken well m'dear.

I cannot pinpoint an exact date, but I was on my way toward the release of religious prison when I read works by Robert Green Ingersoll.

(October 8, 2015 at 12:15 am)bambi_swag Wrote:

(October 7, 2015 at 7:22 pm)Evie Wrote: Oh dear......

Indoctrination sucks. Dawkins argues it's child-abuse...... it is miseducation and kind of wrong at the very least.

Oh please. There is a point in which somethings like "miseducation child-abuse" sound ridiculous a I must start replying. I mean, if a parent honestly thinks that the moon is made of cheese and noses parted the read sea and teaches what he believes is truth to his children, you have no business interfering and giving your two shits on what you think is the truth.

I don't think of a standard religious upbringing such as I had to be a form of abuse.

However, there are certainly religious upbringings which are abusive, both mentally and physically.

(October 8, 2015 at 12:48 am)bambi_swag Wrote: And yes, Parents have the right to teach kids what they want. And you have the right to mind your own business. ladidia like teaching religion is "psychological harm" my ass. What if I think teaching abortion and atheism to children is "psychological harm"? Who is to say what is "psychological harm"?

You sure write like an American, for someone from India.

I became an atheist, because I paid attention in school. You know those morons, at the back of the class, who couldn't care less and cheated their way through education? They're still religious.