morality is subjective and people don't have free will

[Catholic_Lady]

No, we don't agree. Because I don't agree they are willful sinners, or that what they are doing it is objectively wrong.  Yes, children's behavior needs correcting.  But it is decidedly harmful to teach them, in addition to normal correction, that the reason they are like this is that they are born tainted sinners.  That addition make all the difference.

I do appreciate you trying to make peace, CL, but teaching children they are born evil and the only thing that can erase that evil is belief in Jesus, (NOT their own behavior or other choices), is vile to me.

I've sadly had dealings with groups such as The Good New Club.

Who is teaching a two year old that they a born tainted sinners? You are blowing this way out of proportion!

Now you are pivoting to the term "evil" to make your objection appear stronger. Evil is a moral term and we have already established that a young child is not morally responsible. The point has always been that we are born knowing how to be selfish, intolerant, harmful, etc. and need to be taught these things are wrong.

My bold. 

I don't deny that there are extremists out there who may do this, though it's far from the mainstream.

[Angrboda]

Well, it would seem that in order for that to work, the world would have to be intelligible and at least partially conceivable.
I never said that the world was completely unintelligible.  All that means is that there is some order to the world.

It seems to me that if the world is even partially unintelligible then that small amount undermines the intelligibility of the whole.

That's because you're a nutjob. Your metaphorical understanding of intelligibility is bollocks. The part undermines the whole? That's nonsense. Does the existence of randomness in quantum mechanics undermine the science. Does the existence of randomness in the universe "undermine" order? You're talking poetic rubbish.

When you qualify the world's intelligibility that allows you to let in any absurdity through the back-door to dismiss otherwise reasonable conclusions about the nature of reality.

More poetic nonsense.

Also I think questioning an essential and necessary correspondence between reason an intelligible world order raises serious problems with respect to humanities ability to attain knowledge. Personally, I think it undermines the whole enterprise.

Reality is a bitch. Get over it.

If you don't stand for something, you cannot stand for anything.

Oh please, spare me. You're talking barely intelligible metaphysical gobbledygook and invoking stupid platitudes? Get over yourself. The world is a mixture of the intelligible and unintelligible, and much as you might not like the fact, wishing it away won't make it so. Our reason and our senses are fallible, and a healthy skepticism is a good thing. Your platitude notwithstanding, standing for the wrong things is just being stupid. With supernaturalism and faith and a belief in magic, you fall for all the wrong things.

[Mister Agenda]

I don't deny that there are extremists out there who may do this, though it's far from the mainstream.

Is it really that far from the mainstream in a country (USA) that's 25% Evangelical Protestants? If it was 1%, I'd tend to agree that 'far from the mainstream' is a fair description. Not that all Evangelical Protestants fit that mold, but children being born sinners is something that they teach in Good News Clubs, and there are almost 4,000 of those clubs in our schools teaching young kids that they're in danger of hellfire and the moral lesson of the God commanding the genocide of the Amelekites.

I commend you on your views of what's age appropriate, but millions of Americans believe it's a disservice to children not to instill fear of God and hell in them and the idea that hell is what they deserve as young as possible, and many of them aren't shy about taking advantage of opportunities to do that to other people's children.

[Jackalope]

Indeed Whateverist

almost none of our reasoning capacity comes to us from birth infants are irrational, illogical, impulsive, Insensitive , creatures most if none of this innate to us we have to learn it .

A great many adults as well... (No, I don't exclude myself from that group)

[Aroura]

No, we don't agree. Because I don't agree they are willful sinners, or that what they are doing it is objectively wrong.  Yes, children's behavior needs correcting.  But it is decidedly harmful to teach them, in addition to normal correction, that the reason they are like this is that they are born tainted sinners.  That addition make all the difference.

I do appreciate you trying to make peace, CL, but teaching children they are born evil and the only thing that can erase that evil is belief in Jesus, (NOT their own behavior or other choices), is vile to me.

I've sadly had dealings with groups such as The Good New Club.

Who is teaching a two year old that they a born tainted sinners? You are blowing this way out of proportion!

Now you are pivoting to the term "evil" to make your objection appear stronger. Evil is a moral term and we have already established that a young child is not morally responsible. The point has always been that we are born knowing how to be selfish, intolerant, harmful, etc. and need to be taught these things are wrong.

As Mr Agenda says, 4000 good news clubs in public schools across the country, and a lot of evangelicals, of which there are more than a few.
Teaching it to a 6 year old in Kindergarden, or a 20 year old in church does not make it better.

And you ignored that I used your own words for most of the statement and pick out the word evil. Fine, I take back the word evil, and insert your own word, sin, and reassert my statement. Teaching people that they are born in sin and jesus is the only way to fix that sin is morally repugnant and harmful to the mental state of humans, children included.

And back back back to CL. You can imagine god outside of space and time, but not sentient computers? Frankly I'm surprised. I mean, people have been imagining sentient computers for well over 100 years. Sometimes they are dangerous, as in The Matrix and Terminator, sometimes friendly as in My Iron Giant and I Robot and also Terminator and The Matrix, lol.

Aren't you familiar with some of these modetn stories? When you watch them, you don't, for a time, imagine sentient macines taking both moral and imoral actions, as they are happening in the movie?

[Neo-Scholastic]

That's because you're a nutjob.

On this thread, you've been very disrespectful of me personally and are now resorting to insults.

The part undermines the whole?  That's nonsense.  Does the existence of randomness in quantum mechanics undermine the science.  Does the existence of randomness in the universe "undermine" order?  You're talking poetic rubbish.

If randomness means that anything can happen for no reason at all, then yes, it does undermine scientific inquiry. If on the other hand we are talking about physical operations within certain parameters and the presumption that there is an underlying reason for why particular results manifest, then no.

....questioning an essential and necessary correspondence between reason an intelligible world order raises serious problems with respect to humanities ability to attain knowledge.

Reality is a bitch.  Get over it.

I'll take that as an admission that your view has serious problems.

If you don't stand for something, you cannot stand for anything.

You're talking barely intelligible metaphysical gobbledygook and invoking stupid platitudes?  Get over yourself.  The world is a mixture of the intelligible and unintelligible, and much as you might not like the fact, wishing it away won't make it so.  Our reason and our senses are fallible, and a healthy skepticism is a good thing.

My use of that adage refers to the notion that an existential choice to believe something positive, like the efficacy of reason, is necessary in order to justify subsequent positive beliefs. Your version of skepticism crosses into nihilism. Perhaps the things you consider unintelligible appear that way to you because of your incoherent and self-defeating stance.

[Edwardo Piet]

I look forward to reading Jor's response because... in all seriousness... she's just gonna totally destroy you again, dude.

If I could give you a nickname it would be "Mister Non-Sequitur".

[Catholic_Lady]

I don't deny that there are extremists out there who may do this, though it's far from the mainstream.

Is it really that far from the mainstream in a country (USA) that's 25% Evangelical Protestants? If it was 1%, I'd tend to agree that 'far from the mainstream' is a fair description. Not that all Evangelical Protestants fit that mold, but children being born sinners is something that they teach in Good News Clubs, and there are almost 4,000 of those clubs in our schools teaching young kids that they're in danger of hellfire and the moral lesson of the God commanding the genocide of the Amelekites.

I commend you on your views of what's age appropriate, but millions of Americans believe it's a disservice to children not to instill fear of God and hell in them and the idea that hell is what they deserve as young as possible, and many of them aren't shy about taking advantage of opportunities to do that to other people's children.

And yet the 2 Christians participating in the discussion (Steve and I) are both like "uhhh what?" 

Evangelical or not, of everyone I know (and I know a lot of conservative Christians here in the Air Force) I can't imagine any of them treating their toddlers and young children like that. It's far from what I've seen.

[brewer]

Who is teaching a two year old that they a born tainted sinners? You are blowing this way out of proportion!

Now you are pivoting to the term "evil" to make your objection appear stronger. Evil is a moral term and we have already established that a young child is not morally responsible. The point has always been that we are born knowing how to be selfish, intolerant, harmful, etc. and need to be taught these things are wrong.

bold mine

Isn't enough that you/christians believe that they are? Isn't that one of the motives for infant baptism? It does not need to be taught to the child. You already believe it and that will come through in interaction with the child. 

I've heard parents teach their infants to pray from the time they can talk, pray to be forgiven for sin, even before the child can understand what they are saying.

[Homeless Nutter]

And yet the 2 Christians participating in the discussion (Steve and I) are both like "uhhh what?" [...]

What?! The whole 2 christians? Yeah - that's definitely a representative sample... LOL...
2 christians, out of millions, who also frequent atheist forums, are not particularly bright, or informed, and who - for all we know - could be lying, in order to show their faith in a more positive light (I know, I know - that neeeeeever happens)... Yeah, no more questions about that, then...