That question seems to answer itself, according to theistic thinking.

Yeah. I've noticed some people are humble enough to own their beliefs when talking to other adults, but I wonder if that continues when they have a child. Does it suddenly become fact at that point?

(March 11, 2016 at 11:46 am)Huggy74 Wrote: It IS relevant, show me any known unethical methods that result in making someone a "loving person". If they don't exist then your point is moot.


ponder this for a second:

"what if setting a child on fire makes them a loving person?". See how stupid that sounds?

So produce a plausible example then I'll take you seriously.

OK, I'll address your derail once & once only. You're arguing from ignorance. Just because you can't imagine an abusive situation like this doesn't mean there aren't any. In fact, you need only talk to someone in any of the child protection services and they'll furnish you with a plethora of specific cases where parents have physically and emotionally tortured children to 'make them love & respect' them. It's frighteningly common and according to your criteria, it works: the method generates behavioural outputs which mimic 'love' however psychologists recognise those behaviours as a variety of psychological disorders. The example is not only plausible, it's demonstrable.

So back to the point that you've tried to dodge: you stated that you're happy with people being 'loving' with no regard to the reason why. Given the scenario above, do you understand why such disregard is unethical and acknowledge that your disregard permits harm?

(March 12, 2016 at 3:01 am)robvalue Wrote:

(March 11, 2016 at 5:07 pm)Emjay Wrote: I just hate this. (as if I didn't already know the answer) what do religious people fear in letting their children reach an age of critical thought before teaching them about their religion? And not seven like I think the Catholic Church suggests, but an age of real critical thought... adulthood. I wonder what the world would be like if religious education was not allowed until say 18... a very different and much better place. Any earlier than that and it's not a real choice to believe but just the natural trusting and impressionable nature of children. And it makes my blood boil to hear stories, like Judi's, of young kids being told they're going to hell... seeming to forget that children naturally have very vivid imaginations, much more vivid perhaps than any adult.

18? That would be it. Done and dusted. No one is going to be able to convert an 18 year old who hasn't had any one lean on them about religious dogma. Well, it would be very rare anyway.

They would still have the advantage that society is saturated with mythology though. That's the good thing about England, we've reached the tipping point where this is no longer the case. Jesus isn't everywhere. He's hardly anywhere, in fact. So unless you get indoctrinated, it is generally viewed as a dumb story.

I totally agree. Telling a young child about hell is one of the most vile, disgusting things I could imagine. Talk about a parenting short cut.

Hiya Rob. Sorry I've taken a while to reply but I'm playing a mafia game at the moment and you know what that's like   

Yep, what we need is an Age of Consent for religious teaching... an age under which people are deemed incapable of giving informed consent to the ideas that are being implanted... not taught... but implanted in them. It's almost like hypnotic suggestion, perhaps it even is that, because what choice do they have when they're bombarded with only those messages and nothing else by those closest to them?

Going a bit further into this utopia, you could put age ratings on religious programming... so an 18 certificate on watching Joyce Meyer or whatever, just as you would with any other potentially harmful content that children are not psychologically equipped to deal with. That would perhaps deal a bit with some of the external influence in society. I know it sounds silly but it is psychologically damaging especially if there's no choice or consent involved in receiving those messages. But then it might just become the forbidden fruit, just as smoking or alcohol is to kids... but hopefully it would be at least one drug they could say 'fuck that' to after trying it once. 

I wonder how many adults really think about hell... I mean immerse themselves in the idea of it... not many I'd think. But with their imaginations children will just do that naturally whether they like it or not. I did when I was a child, well teen, and went through months of nightmares because I thought I had committed the unforgivable sin. I'm glad I can now say fuck the holy spirit (thanks to you guys on this site) and sleep like a baby.

That's great emjay! The last bit I mean It's good to hear from you.

I agree. I can see a case for an age of consent for religious stuff. There's absolutely no need to be bothering young children with it. It's sick.

I would hope society would come to that realization on it's own, as trying to enforce this would probably be very difficult.

I don't know how many adults think about hell. Some people (we have some examples) seem to get great pleasure thinking about other people going there.

"God said to sacrifice your son by stabbing and killing him."

See how stupid that sounds?

Yet, theists think that if god gives the command, no matter how stupid it obviously sounds, it exudes love because it is coming from a place of love.

Therefore, "God says that setting a child on fire will make you a loving person."

(March 14, 2016 at 9:21 am)Ben Davis Wrote:

(March 11, 2016 at 11:46 am)Huggy74 Wrote: It IS relevant, show me any known unethical methods that result in making someone a "loving person". If they don't exist then your point is moot.


ponder this for a second:

"what if setting a child on fire makes them a loving person?". See how stupid that sounds?

So produce a plausible example then I'll take you seriously.

OK, I'll address your derail once & once only. You're arguing from ignorance. Just because you can't imagine an abusive situation like this doesn't mean there aren't any. In fact, you need only talk to someone in any of the child protection services and they'll furnish you with a plethora of specific cases where parents have physically and emotionally tortured children to 'make them love & respect' them. It's frighteningly common and according to your criteria, it works: the method generates behavioural outputs which mimic 'love' however psychologists recognise those behaviours as a variety of psychological disorders. The example is not only plausible, it's demonstrable.

So back to the point that you've tried to dodge: you stated that you're happy with people being 'loving' with no regard to the reason why. Given the scenario above, do you understand why such disregard is unethical and acknowledge that your disregard permits harm?

 
It's not an argument from ignorance it's an argument from common sense. I never said that situation doesn't exist, I said that situation doesn't produce love; and since you somehow believe that it's demonstrable, point me to that particular study.

(March 14, 2016 at 9:21 am)Ben Davis Wrote: the method generates behavioural outputs which mimic 'love'

I thing the phrase you're looking for is Stockholm syndrome, which has nothing to do with love, but fear.

(March 14, 2016 at 12:13 pm)robvalue Wrote: That's great emjay! The last bit I mean It's good to hear from you.

I agree. I can see a case for an age of consent for religious stuff. There's absolutely no need to be bothering young children with it. It's sick.

I would hope society would come to that realization on it's own, as trying to enforce this would probably be very difficult.

I don't know how many adults think about hell. Some people (we have some examples) seem to get great pleasure thinking about other people going there.

Thanks man, it's nice to hear from you too   I think it was actually mainly you that brought me out of my shell on that one... so thank you... you and this site have done a lot for me in the road to pure atheism 

Yeah I know it would probably be impossible to enforce but it was a nice dream while it lasted. But something I think that could be achieved is just people being a bit more mindful and realising when something they're saying is personal belief that is not shared by everyone. Any time that happens if people just said 'I believe this but some other people don't' or 'some people believe this or that' it would make a whole lot of difference. I mean it's a problem we all face... talking about our beliefs as fact without qualifying it that way all the time... I do... but I do try to be mindful as much as I can and use the magic word 'some' because it makes all the difference.

Yeah, and I take great pleasure in knowing that if heaven existed, such self-righteous, sadistic people would be going nowhere near it

(March 14, 2016 at 12:17 pm)Kitan Wrote: "God said to sacrifice your son by stabbing and killing him."

See how stupid that sounds?

Yet, theists think that if god gives the command, no matter how stupid it obviously sounds, it exudes love because it is coming from a place of love.

Therefore, "God says that setting a child on fire will make you a loving person."

The thing that gets to me about that is the selfishness of it all. If you cut out the crap, cut out all the poetic and lofty wording... like serving god, god's will, and god's love etc it boils down to a simple statement: "I, your father, am willing to kill you, my son, in order to save me from hell". That's all it comes down to. And then they try to get out of it by saying since the child is innocent they'll go to heaven... so the last thing the son sees in life is his father bearing down on him with a sword... that would be one interesting reunion in heaven forty years later 'oh hi dad, thanks for brutally murdering me when I was young just so I could get here quicker, and then leaving me all alone, whilst you carried on living out your life and doing god's will', 'that's alright son', pat on the back, 'glad I could help. fancy a beer?'

You're very welcome emjay, I'm really glad I was able to help

I think society naturally stopping indoctrination is a possibility, as it matures. People will hopefully realize it's not healthy or necessary. It will probably fizzle out and be diluted, as religion loses its grasp. I haven't seen a lot of evidence of it still going on in England, at least where I've been.

Ideally, it should be illegal because it's absolutely disgusting, but I think in practical terms we have to arrive there naturally. So if we keep on promoting rational thought and freedom from dogmatic ideas, hopefully we'll move things in the right direction.