(April 25, 2016 at 2:24 am)Goosebump Wrote:(April 23, 2016 at 12:51 pm)drfuzzy Wrote: At 16-18, I was still completely under the control of my fundamentalist parents. I was reasonably bright and necessarily hard-working (I had a part-time job at 15 and straight-A grades) but a debate? If anyone challenged what I had been taught about religion, or creationism (my parents were young-earth creationists who actually believed that dinosaur fossils were planted on earth by demons) I just avoided them. I did not dare question.
If you challenge a teenager who is in this situation, I think that you are doing more harm than good. I would suggest waiting until they are self-sufficient, and then simply opening up possibilities for scientific education.
I don't think self-sufficiency is necessary. Once you reach your 22-25 age range your fully capable of all the higher reasoning and decision making. You'll be able to weigh correctly how much you depend on a provider and how much that should influence your own understanding of things.
You'll also be able to drawl the lines of description to play nice with the parental providers but change your views freely on anything within your own self and peer groups out-side the influence of a financial helper, even your parents. It's the white lie and placation done out of reason of familiar love rather then teenage angst.
That's fine, Goosebump, and logical thinking. But I was describing parents that could not be reasoned with. I wasn't talking about just minor household strife or losing monetary support. In my case, when the little white lies and placating were done and over with, so were the parents.
There are still parents out there who (due to the EVIL that is religion) will completely disown a child who does not follow their religion. That's what happened to me. -- Just for debate and reason, you are correct, self-sufficiency is not necessary. But in extreme cases, I think it's required.
"The family that prays together...is brainwashing their children."- Albert Einstein
