Child abuse ?

[Something completely different]

No, you can't. Have of what you post is irrelevant. About a quarter of it directly contradicts what you have already said. You could knock it down by at least that much. You're wasting people's time, as is the other dude who refuses to post evidence of his claims because it's too much work to back up what you are saying.

Point out to me where I contradict myself and what is irrelevant - and if true I will accept.

The whole point of me posting links to evidence is to undermine basesless accusations such as this one:

Too many long fucking posts in this thread. I'll try to be concise:

It appears that some people in this thread believe that they have the right (or at least, the government does) to control what parents teach their children. This is of course entirely based on their own preconceptions about what is real; completely ignoring the preconceptions of others. In other words, it's an undeniably selfish position to hold.

I do not base my arguments on "my perception" but on facts to which I leave links with evidence!

My conclusion: You're a couple of anti-theists who have an agenda to serve. You will not see the contradictions in your posts because they do not suit your agenda to discriminate against people of various faiths.

Nope, I will gladly accept failure, if contradiction I made are pointed out to me. So please just do it! I would accept that I am wrong when it can be proven to me.

There is freedom of religion - everyone can believe what they want.
But there is science. And that field is not about belief in a religious way, and that field has the authority to determine what is science and what is not, and to give people ignorant of it the chance to pose as such in a legit way - is contraproductive.

I dont and have never discriminated anyone.

You on the other hand:

Children born with developmental disorders that prevent them from working. Children born with immune system disorders that essentially keep them home or hospital bound. Children born with genetic disorders that cause them to become weaker and die over time. These children cannot integrate into society. That is not abuse. There is no reason why parents should be forced to raise their child so as to have that child fit in with society to the optimal amount. Optimal here having to be some arbitrary amount set by the overzealous lawmakers in TGAC land.

have something to justify!

It's not abuse. Go out and get abused for a bit, go get preached to and then come back and tell us how they are similar and do try to stay on topic.

This is not about preaching - this is about indoctrinating a child into a intolerant worldview, by posing as a legit "scientific" institution.

[Shell B]

Of course you do. Posting proof of your claims is too much work. At least Germans isn't a lazy debater. He's just all over the place. You just can't be fucked to back up your retarded assertion that teaching children religion is child abuse.

[Something completely different]

Of course you do. Posting proof of your claims is too much work. At least Germans isn't a lazy debater. He's just all over the place.

I am unemployed and therefor have a lot of time. Which means a lot of time for a lot of things - including posting. And I will not make such a shallow personal judgement of you, based on the number or emotionaly based content of your posts and apearance, like you did.

You just can't be fucked to back up your retarded assertion that teaching children religion is child abuse.

Didnt I write about 5-10 times what my opinion was.

A parent can tell it`s kids what they want.
But a school, which is a institution following standerds of education has to follow these standerds and cannot abuse it`s power to teach nonsence such as creationism which contradicts educational standerds - that would be abuse of power and abuse of the children who, at a young age are more capabel to save cognitively receive knowlege.

I dont mean this in a insulting way - but must I draw you a picture of it?

[jonb]

I would not send my children to a catholic or church of England school, as although they may have had better examination results, because of, a different demographic, my wife and I saw the indoctrination about religion as an abuse of power.

[Shell B]

Of course you do. Posting proof of your claims is too much work. At least Germans isn't a lazy debater. He's just all over the place.

I am unemployed and therefor have a lot of time. Which means a lot of time for a lot of things - including posting. And I will not make such a shallow personal judgement of you, based on the number or emotionaly based content of your posts and apearance, like you did.

You just can't be fucked to back up your retarded assertion that teaching children religion is child abuse.

Didnt I write about 5-10 times what my opinion was.

A parent can tell it`s kids what they want.
But a school, which is a institution following standerds of education has to follow these standerds and cannot abuse it`s power to teach nonsence such as creationism which contradicts educational standerds - that would be abuse of power and abuse of the children who, at a young age are more capabel to save cognitively receive knowlege.

I dont mean this in a insulting way - but must I draw you a picture of it?

I can't believe you got two fucking kudos when you were replying to a post that wasn't directed at you. Idiots abound. Also, swearing is not emotional. It's just swearing. Get over it.

[Something completely different]

I can't believe you got two fucking kudos when you were replying to a post that wasn't directed at you. Idiots abound.

I know it wasnt directed at me. And I saw the "he`s all over the place" and "at least he`s not lazy" as a personal attack which I wanted to comment on.

I explained in that post why I have so much time.

To acuse Napoleon and Jond of being stupid and not understanding that the post wasnt directed at me, requires some proof of that.

Or do you generaly look down on people who dont aprove of your opinion as "stupid"?

Also, swearing is not emotional. It's just swearing. Get over it.

But it doesnt deliver a argument.
Which you have jet still failed to deliver.

And about this statement:

You just can't be fucked to back up your retarded assertion that teaching children religion is child abuse.

I have the same opinon as Kobroeck on a number of issues concerning this - and gave my answere again, for the 5-10th time.

Where is your counter argument?

[jonb]

dear Germans don't worry about stupid, from how I used to be refered to that's positively encouraging.

[Something completely different]

dear Germans don't worry about stupid, from how I used to be refered to that's positively encouraging.

And I thought the british self-loathing (if I understand the meaning of the term correctly) was a clichè.

[Shell B]

Both Napo and Jonb should know that I'm kidding. Most people don't bother to have a sense of humor about themselves. I do, and I do about everyone else as well. I call myself stupid ten times as much and I don't even give myself a smiley, so relax, chief. This isn't an emotional argument.

[Something completely different]

Both Napo and Jonb should know that I'm kidding. Most people don't bother to have a sense of humor about themselves. I do, and I do about everyone else as well. I call myself stupid ten times as much and I don't even give myself a smiley, so relax, chief. This isn't an emotional argument.

Still hasnt delivered a counter argument.