Child abuse ?

[Shell B]

I didnt call you dumb!, and I have oftern acknowleged that I make spelling mistakes - and eaven greatfully accepted corrections by other participants of this forum.

I know you didn't call me dumb. You're calling Christians dumb. I'm an atheist.

I use other forums aswell as I write alot on word - so my spellcheck is always set on german language. If you can converse in perfect german - go ahead.

I'm not on a German-speaking forum. I normally wouldn't give a flying fuck and would even commend you for your use of words, despite your spelling. However, you are ranting about how stupid Christians are while hacking it up, so I'm finding myself amused.

If "teaching them their religion" includes teaching them a biggoted worldview, rejection of democracy, pseudoscience and a discriminatory view of others - it is abuse.

Wait, so rejection of democracy is also a problem? So, it is abuse if parents teach their kids that a Constitutional Republic is the way to go?

If you think this only means "thinking" then you are wrong, it might aswell lead to violence and attempt to force their views on others.

Ah, but it only does it in the most extreme of cases and the most extreme of religions. Millions (if not billions) of Muslims refrain from hurting people, despite being part of a so-called religion of violence. A child raised by atheist parents can go on to kill. So, is it abuse to "teach" atheism? A lack of god means a lack of supernatural punishment, as so many Christians like to point out.

No, I would deny it being tought nonsence. Which is my point!

You said you were against homeschooling. At any rate, children are taught nonsense as facts evolve all the time. It used to be that children were taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America. Were they all abused or is it just the religions you don't like that are the problem? Seems like you're entering this with complete and utter bias.

I will rephrase into: Not assuring that your child is a integrated member of the sociaty it lives in, is abuse.

I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense. So many children can't be integrated into society and that is not abuse. It is just unfortunate. Plenty of children are raised under the shadow of religion and integrate just fine. You have to make an argument that shows the result is a constant to call it abuse. A child who is beaten will always feel pain or at least suffer minimal tissue damage. The same goes fora child who is raped. An emotionally abused child will suffer emotional agonies. Now, you might say religion does that, but not by default. Calling your kid a god-hating fag is emotional abuse by our laws at this time anyway. Telling your child that homosexuals are not beloved of god is not. The former is abuse. The latter is teaching what is in a book. It's not even a fine line. It's not huge, but it's obvious.

A parent has the obligation to raise it`s child to be a integrated member of sociaty - if it does not it failes this obligation.
If it deliberatly teaches them nonsence it is abusing it`s parental commitment - therefor abusing the child.

Nope, nope and nope. A parent has many obligations. That is not one of them. Actually, a parent really has no obligations. Parents just up and abandon their spawn all the time. However, even the obligations under the law do not include raising an integrated member of society. We're not robots. I don't have to raise an automaton.

Write dictonaries? What?! Do you have an idea who we have and got to have, what we call knowlege?

Scientists do not define knowledge, nor are they the only purveyors of knowledge. I'm not sure we are meeting up with the term knowledge here. Knowledge is just stuff that you know. It can be fucking anything. I know that my table is wood. I know that dog farts smell funny. A scientists did not pop his head in the first time my first dog farted and tell me that.

What is the "ins and outs" of a religion?

Their teachings. In most cases, what is in a holy book and expected traditions.

So why should parents then be the teachers of their kids, eaven if they teach them nonsence?

Because they are their parents, firstly. Secondly, because you don't get to decide what is nonsense. You do not get to be the thought police. You do not get to hinder society by limiting that which adults can teach their children within reason.

Or was that the maturest argument you could give?

Really? You are calling my argument immature? The guy who is trying to restrict what parents can teach their kids about their respective religions? You are being as bad, if not worse, than most Christians. The worst part is that you think you are standing on some moral pedestal. I sincerely loathe when extremists take their moral ideals to some polar, but equally distasteful, opposite as their "foe."

I cant stand it when people answere in emotional hogwash phrases and believe this to be a valid argument.

Who said it was an argument? You are like something out of a fucking Orwell novel and you call me being frightened that people like you exist hogwash? It's not an argument, nor is it hogwash. It is a statement of fact that people like you who quelch ideas and try to control families that do not need your interference scare me. That you are from a different country is a comfort.

If you cant deliver facts to back up a rejection of an argument, dont answere.

Now you're trying to control who can answer what in this thread and how? I know there is a German joke in there somewhere. I'm just not sure if I am tasteless enough to make it, given that you're one in quite a few and I am 100% positive that your elitist beliefs do not extend to all of your countrymen. Still, I'm giggling a little. On the inside.

---

I'm just saying that the dictionaries are the end-all be-all of words. They report usage, which is why they change every year. So, no one "decides" what the definition of "knowledge" is. It's decided by the people who speak that language.

Well, the latter half of that statement is quite accurate and not all dictionaries are accurate. However, as a rule, dictionaries are typically more accurate in terms of widespread usage than people on this forum. Furthermore, it is easier to converse if one agrees to use certain definitions or dictionaries with his or her partner in conversation.

I was being more accurate in saying that people who write dictionaries decide it. Scientists certainly do not define terms, unless they create them, which is something they often do.

[Lion IRC]

Can you [Lion IRC] explain that in a bit more detail? I think my english fails me here.

It isn't your english (unless that was sarcasm). Religion has always provided an evolutionary disadvantage, except when as defense against the inquisition and other heretic murdering zealots. It was a non-factor back then because everyone did it, so its relative evolutionary disadvantage nullifed itself.

I am saying that religion confers a survival advantage to homo sapiens. Meaning that, as a species, humans have done better than other ''non-religious'' species
and that within the species as well, religious humans have done better than non-religious humans.

Atheism has always been an available menu option for 10, 20, 30 - perhaps 50,000 years but atheism, as a competing ideology, hasnt prevailed over theism during that time.

Perhaps religion promotes deeper thought/philosophy and that, in turn, makes the brain of ''thinking man'' even smarter. (Remember, atheism as we know it, presumes there is no point asking questions like...how did everything get here, is there a higher being/higher purpose, where do we go when we die?)

Perhaps it lowers stress - prayer/meditation.

Perhaps it is attended by greater self-sacrifice motivated for the greater good of the tribe. (Harder to justify on atheist grounds.)

Perhaps it increases the will to live and aids human endurance in the face of suffering. (Atheistic nihilism defeats this idea.)



PS - I wish I could speak German as well and as fluently as you speak English.

kernen zee mir halfen mit mine doy-che veil es ist zehr schlekt und ik finde es ist nicked im auwgenblikt der shloss ist geshlossen mit die shlooosle.

Some German visitors I entertained for business once thought it quite amusing when I took them to the Melbourne Zoo
and they noticed signs on display with the logo for the Friends Of The Zoo.

[Something completely different]

I'm not on a German-speaking forum. I normally wouldn't give a flying fuck and would even commend you for your use of words, despite your spelling. However, you are ranting about how stupid Christians are while hacking it up, so I'm finding myself amused.

Raising ones kid indoctrenating it into believing in creationism and rejecting those outside of it`s sect is stupid.

Wait, so rejection of democracy is also a problem? So, it is abuse if parents teach their kids that a Constitutional Republic is the way to go?

You are nitpicking - half of Europe has the constitutional monarchy - non of them are dictatorships - but have democraticly elected goverments.

The head of state in such a case has no other function is to sign the bills and amuse the public.

Ah, but it only does it in the most extreme of cases and the most extreme of religions. Millions (if not billions) of Muslims refrain from hurting people, despite being part of a so-called religion of violence. A child raised by atheist parents can go on to kill. So, is it abuse to "teach" atheism? A lack of god means a lack of supernatural punishment, as so many Christians like to point out.

You are absolutly not getting the point! I have nothing against a child being brought up with the religion of it`s parents aslong as the religion is bound within the framework of democracy and done at home.

I reject the raising a child by indoctrinating it with violent intolerant views and by teaching it pseudoscience at school!

You said you were against homeschooling. At any rate, children are taught nonsense as facts evolve all the time. It used to be that children were taught that Christopher Columbus discovered America. Were they all abused or is it just the religions you don't like that are the problem? Seems like you're entering this with complete and utter bias.

At any rate. I did say that. But probably because I forgot that such a special case might exist.

And I have checked, german law makes an exception for disabled kids, but the curriculum is given by the ministry of education and the kid has to do a test once a year - which is handed out and controlled by the state.

Your other point is complet nonsence, only because facts constantly change due to scientific and sociatal progress, this doesnt mean that we shouldnt teach current facts, one might aswell stop teaching at all.

I'm sorry, but it just makes no sense. So many children can't be integrated into society and that is not abuse.

examples?

It is just unfortunate. Plenty of children are raised under the shadow of religion and integrate just fine. You have to make an argument that shows the result is a constant to call it abuse.

reject of scientific institutions
radicalisation of political views
intolerance

I am someone who sees sociaty as a big diverse network in flux under constantly changing influences. In which something is never the result of one reason but of several.
I do believe that the homeschooling movement greatly contributed to right wing ignorance in your country.

A child who is beaten will always feel pain or at least suffer minimal tissue damage. The same goes fora child who is raped. An emotionally abused child will suffer emotional agonies. Now, you might say religion does that, but not by default.

I know 70-80 year olds who still think a russian-jewish conspiracy controls the world. My own grandfather thought so.
Dont underestemate the power indoctrination has on a child.
It is abuse, because you can create a monster.

Calling your kid a god-hating fag is emotional abuse by our laws at this time anyway. Telling your child that homosexuals are not beloved of god is not. The former is abuse. The latter is teaching what is in a book. It's not even a fine line. It's not huge, but it's obvious.

And if this book says: the earth is 8000 years old, a woman is a cursed and wicked being, a homosexual should be put to death?
Most probably wont abide to such bronze age calls for execution.
But they will certainly have memorised these things as "moral values"
And it is eaven worse if they are told that these things are infalible, since they conflict with modern values on every base.

Nope, nope and nope. A parent has many obligations. That is not one of them. Actually, a parent really has no obligations. Parents just up and abandon their spawn all the time. However, even the obligations under the law do not include raising an integrated member of society. We're not robots. I don't have to raise an automaton.

A democracy is a pluralistic sociaty - therefor a schoolsystem and general education representing it`s values doesnt raise robots.

I dont know much about the legal obligations, actualy I should rephrase it into "social obligation"

Scientists do not define knowledge, nor are they the only purveyors of knowledge.

They might not be the only ones looking for knowlege.
But you will have to explain the "not defineing part", since finding knowlege and broadening mankinds horizon is practicaly their job.

I'm not sure we are meeting up with the term knowledge here. Knowledge is just stuff that you know. It can be fucking anything. I know that my table is wood. I know that dog farts smell funny. A scientists did not pop his head in the first time my first dog farted and tell me that.

The earth is a 100 million year old rock traveling at 67000 miles per hour arround a field, created by the interactions between the gravitational forces of the sun and planets and held together by the centrifugal force, called the Barry field. In a expanding universe. - that is knowlege that should be taught at school.

The earth is the 8000 year old center of the universe on which creatures all at once created by god, await their doom and judgement by that god. - simply a lie and therefor not knowlege and therefor shouldnt be tought to kids as being the truth in school.

Their teachings. In most cases, what is in a holy book and expected traditions.

I dont have a problem with people going to church or celebrating christmans and doing other things which can be peacefully practiced within a tolerant pluralistic sociaty without discriminating others.
I have a problem with what i mentioned above.

Because they are their parents, firstly. Secondly, because you don't get to decide what is nonsense. You do not get to be the thought police. You do not get to hinder society by limiting that which adults can teach their children within reason.

what has the thought police accusation got to do with this?

And there is no limit to what parents can teach their children - but school education shouldnt be defined by a kids parents views.

I never claimed to have the right to define what is knowlege and what is not - or better put: what should be tought to kids and what not.
theres a field of professionals managing this. pedagogy.

Really? You are calling my argument immature? The guy who is trying to restrict what parents can teach their kids about their respective religions?

I havent tried anything sofar. I live in a country in which homeschooling is forbidden - because schooling means to be taught facts - not nonsence.
What religion they get served at home (as long as it doesnt conflict with the rest of sociaty) is non of my concern.

You are being as bad, if not worse, than most Christians.

where and how?

Who said it was an argument? You are like something out of a fucking Orwell novel and you call me being frightened that people like you exist hogwash? It's not an argument, nor is it hogwash. It is a statement of fact that people like you who quelch ideas and try to control families that do not need your interference scare me. That you are from a different country is a comfort.

I dont quelch ideas, I protect myself from those who think I dont eaven have the liberty to have ideas.

Orwell? I am strictly talking and arguing about the educational sector!
As long as someone doesnt brutaly cut of the clitoris of his minor daughter or something like that, I have no problem with people practicing their religion in peace and in respective tolerants towards other members of sociaty.

Now you're trying to control who can answer what in this thread and how? I know there is a German joke in there somewhere. I'm just not sure if I am tasteless enough to make it, given that you're one in quite a few and I am 100% positive that your elitist beliefs do not extend to all of your countrymen. Still, I'm giggling a little. On the inside.

I am interested in arguments. I dont want to control anything here.
But I will not answere someone who will think that emotional statements are a legit argument and who only seems to want to get a kick out of this for herself.

I argue to educate myself, I am convinced by the more reasonable and logical argument and then acknowlege the failure of the other one one.

And I am eaven less interested in your sence of "humor" when it is based on insulting stereotyps

[Shell B]

Raising ones kid indoctrenating it into believing in creationism and rejecting those outside of it`s sect is stupid.

We agree, to an extent. The actual belief is pretty stupid. Teaching your children something you truly believe is not.

You are nitpicking - half of Europe has the constitutional monarchy - non of them are dictatorships - but have democraticly elected goverments.

No, I am being concise. I object thoroughly to the suggestion that teaching children anything other than a democracy in terms of government is abuse. That is even more ridiculous than the original claim.

You are absolutly not getting the point! I have nothing against a child being brought up with the religion of it`s parents aslong as the religion is bound within the framework of democracy and done at home.

Now, you are contradicting yourself completely. You have said you are against homeschooling, teaching a religion that is intolerant (which is virtually every religion), etc. Now, you are saying you don't care as long as it is not done at school. I agree with the caveat that it not be done in a public school. I have no say what is done in a private school as far as curriculum.

I reject the raising a child by indoctrinating it with violent intolerant views and by teaching it pseudoscience at school!

Whether you know it or not, or any of us, I believe we have all been raised to be intolerant of some group or another. Whether you were raised that way, you are, as we speak, being intolerant of Christians.

At any rate. I did say that. But probably because I forgot that such a special case might exist.

Fair enough.

And I have checked, german law makes an exception for disabled kids, but the curriculum is given by the ministry of education and the kid has to do a test once a year - which is handed out and controlled by the state.

Which is wonderful to test how well they are doing academically. Their "spiritual" teaching is another story.

Your other point is complet nonsence, only because facts constantly change due to scientific and sociatal progress, this doesnt mean that we shouldnt teach current facts, one might aswell stop teaching at all.

I agree that it is ridiculous. That was the point, though the argument is a logical fallacy, if I am not mistaken. I'm sarcastically pointing out the flaws in your argument by pointing to ridiculous equivalents of it.

examples?

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.

reject of scientific institutions

Is not significantly harmful to the child's well being.

radicalisation of political views

See above.

intolerance

See above.

I do believe that the homeschooling movement greatly contributed to right wing ignorance in your country.

Right wing =/= religious.

I know 70-80 year olds who still think a russian-jewish conspiracy controls the world. My own grandfather thought so.
Dont underestemate the power indoctrination has on a child.
It is abuse, because you can create a monster.

Do these old gentlemen suffer for that thought? I underestimate no such thing. I simply reject the control and authority you seem to think society should have over the raising of a child.

And if this book says: the earth is 8000 years old, a woman is a cursed and wicked being, a homosexual should be put to death?
Most probably wont abide to such bronze age calls for execution.
But they will certainly have memorised these things as "moral values"
And it is eaven worse if they are told that these things are infalible, since they conflict with modern values on every base.

Yep.

A democracy is a pluralistic sociaty - therefor a schoolsystem and general education representing it`s values doesnt raise robots.

You want every child to fit into said democracy. It's a stylized version of the same thing.

I dont know much about the legal obligations, actualy I should rephrase it into "social obligation"

There are no such things. Expectations of people in a society are not obligations. People may feel compelled to abide by them, but that does not mean they are obligated to do so. Many people reject such things simply on the basis that it is expected of them.

They might not be the only ones looking for knowlege.
But you will have to explain the "not defineing part", since finding knowlege and broadening mankinds horizon is practicaly their job.

Scientists and science are not just another thing to be deified. I really do think there is a language barrier here with the word knowledge.

The earth is a 100 million year old rock traveling at 67000 miles per hour arround a field, created by the interactions between the gravitational forces of the sun and planets and held together by the centrifugal force, called the Barry field. In a expanding universe. - that is knowlege that should be taught at school.

That is information. Knowledge is the acquisition of such information. I would even venture to say that it is also retention.

I dont have a problem with people going to church or celebrating christmans and doing other things which can be peacefully practiced within a tolerant pluralistic sociaty without discriminating others.
I have a problem with what i mentioned above.

We already have laws protecting against discrimination. If that is your only problem, problem solved.

what has the thought police accusation got to do with this?

Because it seemed very much like you didn't want parents to teach children religion at home. You have since contradicted said statement so I'm not sure what you are suggesting.

And there is no limit to what parents can teach their children - but school education shouldnt be defined by a kids parents views.

Agreed. That is not the issue up for debate in this thread.

What religion they get served at home (as long as it doesnt conflict with the rest of sociaty) is non of my concern.

What is with the parenthetical there? That is where there is a problem. You are advocating conformity.

where and how?

Directly above this.

I dont quelch ideas, I protect myself from those who think I dont eaven have the liberty to have ideas.

That's what you think you're doing. That's what every zealot thinks he is doing.

As long as someone doesnt brutaly cut of the clitoris of his minor daughter or something like that, I have no problem with people practicing their religion in peace and in respective tolerants towards other members of sociaty.

The contradictions are too much. I don't know if it is a language barrier or a convenient flux of position.

I am interested in arguments. I dont want to control anything here.
But I will not answere someone who will think that emotional statements are a legit argument and who only seems to want to get a kick out of this for herself.

That's exactly it. I get a kick out of reading page after page of remarks from an atheist that are only slightly different from similar threads with Christians. Furthermore, I reiterate that my statement was not an argument. It was a statement. Two very different things. As a statement of fact, I find your position deplorable. As an argument, I find it deplorable because it treads on the freedoms of others and suggests a conformist society.

I argue to educate myself, I am convinced by the more reasonable and logical argument and then acknowlege the failure of the other one one.

You should educate yourself before you argue. Otherwise, it should not be an argument, but a lesson. If the two combine, it should only be a happy accident.

And I am eaven less interested in your sence of "humor" when it is based on insulting stereotyps

Haha, I find stereotypes humorous. I quite clearly stated that I know it isn't true. Nonetheless, it is funny when someone plays into the stereotypes that their race, gender, class or geographic location disposes them. For example, hicks at a demolition derby are hilarious. Germans telling me not to answer if I am not going to behave how they want me to and saying that parents should be restricted in what they teach their children is funny. Come oooon. I'm white. Wouldn't it be funny if I tried to dunk and failed? I'm American. Me firing guns in my backyard whilst saying yee-haw, wearing an American flag for a t-shirt and topping the scale at 250 would be funny too. There is humor in stereotypes. At least I can laugh. Nonetheless, this could all come down to poor communication. It seems we agree on a lot of things.

[Lion IRC]

[Something completely different]

quotes

We agree, to an extent. The actual belief is pretty stupid. Teaching your children something you truly believe is not.

And if one teaches his children violence? Surely one cannot prevent such things from happening on certain occasion, but when public school is mandetory children are at least interduced to the invorment of the pluralistic sociaty they live in.

No, I am being concise. I object thoroughly to the suggestion that teaching children anything other than a democracy in terms of government is abuse. That is even more ridiculous than the original claim.

No you are nitpicking - because the difference between the head of state in a constitutional monarchy and republic is only a formal one.
So you would find it alright if schools would start teaching kids about "the benefits of fashism" instead of interducing them to the benefits of a pluralistic sociaty?

Now, you are contradicting yourself completely. You have said you are against homeschooling, teaching a religion that is intolerant (which is virtually every religion), etc. Now, you are saying you don't care as long as it is not done at school. I agree with the caveat that it not be done in a public school. I have no say what is done in a private school as far as curriculum.

No I`m against homeschooling since it replaces public school and thereby opens the possibility for people to teach children rubish whilest posing as legit educators.
And as far as privat schools are concerned they sjould be bound by law to not teach nonsence.

Whether you know it or not, or any of us, I believe we have all been raised to be intolerant of some group or another. Whether you were raised that way, you are, as we speak, being intolerant of Christians.

Can you back that up with behavioral studies or is this simply a baseless assumtion?

Which is wonderful to test how well they are doing academically. Their "spiritual" teaching is another story.

"spiritual"? what?

I agree that it is ridiculous. That was the point, though the argument is a logical fallacy, if I am not mistaken. I'm sarcastically pointing out the flaws in your argument by pointing to ridiculous equivalents of it.

which equivalent?

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.

What a big steaming load of pathetic horseshit!

Not capable of integrating into sociaty?!
Do you know people with disabilities? The entire concept of how to treat such people is centered arround the concept of seeing them as a equal part of sociaty. A sociaty shouldnt build it`s moral standerds and framework around the strongest, but addapt itself towards the needs of it`s most weakend link! Children with disabilities have the possibility in germany to be homeschooled and get a teacher assigned to them, not because they cant integrate, but to integrate them!
A sociaty which makes the judgement that it`s weakest link cannot be able to integrate into the rest of sociaty and participate with it`s strongest isnt a sociaty worth living in!

And you call me intolerant and orwellian!

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.

This concept is not centered only arround the concept of bringing forth the most optimal ammount. actualy the contents of the curriculum are based on the concept of bringing forth the most optimum of result.
The concept of mandetory public schools - and that the education brought to students there should be brought to students who cannot go to school payed and provided by the state - is a concept that every person should from a educational level have the chance of having a equal start into life.

Is not significantly harmful to the child's well being.

Unless you dont see a doctor because it`s "science" and your child dies as a result of your ignorance and stupidity.

See above.

Radical possitions are also dangerous to a radicals surrounding individuals due to the violent behavior that usualy comes with it.

See above.

Intolerance is throwned uppon in a pluralistic sociaty, indoctrinating a child to be intolerant in a pluralistic sociaty is sending it into social isolation, which can be harmfull.

Do these old gentlemen suffer for that thought?

I dont know, they are individuals with their own personalities and I havent seen a psychological study on such jet and dont know if any such study exists.

I underestimate no such thing. I simply reject the control and authority you seem to think society should have over the raising of a child.

Schoollessons in a public school can be built arround the concept of a pluralistic sociaty and thereby further the participation within a democracy by it`s students.
Visisting a public school in a democracy does nto mean decline in creativity, diversity and other, actualy it can further such things if the educational sector is furthered to a certain extent.

And if this book says: the earth is 8000 years old, a woman is a cursed and wicked being, a homosexual should be put to death?
Most probably wont abide to such bronze age calls for execution.
But they will certainly have memorised these things as "moral values"
And it is eaven worse if they are told that these things are infalible, since they conflict with modern values on every base.

Yep.

Fine. As long as such is not teached at schools or by people posing as legit educators a parent can tell their children that nonsence at home.

You want every child to fit into said democracy. It's a stylized version of the same thing.

No I want everyone to respect the laws and moral values of the democracy they live in. aka: integration.

There are no such things. Expectations of people in a society are not obligations. People may feel compelled to abide by them, but that does not mean they are obligated to do so. Many people reject such things simply on the basis that it is expected of them.

So why should there then not be legal standerds on what one can and cannot do with his or her children?

They might not be the only ones looking for knowlege.
But you will have to explain the "not defineing part", since finding knowlege and broadening mankinds horizon is practicaly their job.

Scientists and science are not just another thing to be deified.

?

Do you know what you are writing about? deified?!?!
Science is reasoning out and finding out how things work and then to spread that "knowlege"!
A deity is a excuse for not learning anything, but simply putting that deities face behind the unknown.

I really do think there is a language barrier here with the word knowledge.

No. Erkenntnis, Wissen.

That is information. Knowledge is the acquisition of such information. I would even venture to say that it is also retention.

You are spinning arround with words in ways the most desperate apologists could manage to do better.

Information could be anything from the fact carbon monoxide is a tasteless gas, to the useless nonsence from the koran that saltwater and fresh water dont mix, to the info that David Foster Wallace was a professional tennis player although he is now known for his writing, to the halfnude pics of women in the tabloid press.

If that information can be called knowlege depends on it`s content.

Knowlege is usefull information
Carbon monoxide - tasteles gas = usefull
David Foster Wallace - former tennis plaxer = still usefull
saltwater and fresh water dont mix = useless nonsence, and only usefull for showing it`s stupidity and understanding the medieval mindset
Halfnude women in tabloid press = useless and only usefull for desperat morons

We already have laws protecting against discrimination. If that is your only problem, problem solved.

But you dont have laws preventing people who pose as legit educators to teach kids that the earth is 8000 years old and that all non christians are evil - as legit and importent "knowlege"

Because it seemed very much like you didn't want parents to teach children religion at home. You have since contradicted said statement so I'm not sure what you are suggesting.

I dont want homeschooling provided by inlegitemat, unscienticic, dishonest and intolerant sources to replace public schools which provide a basic knowlege for everyone.

What is with the parenthetical there? That is where there is a problem. You are advocating conformity..

conformity? yes to confirm the fact that they live in a democracy.
Dont you live in a democracy? didnt you go to a public school? didnt they teach you about democracy as a kid?


do you realy believe that educating children on the principles of what a democracy is is orwellian?

Directly above this.

No I`m not.

Which is the samekind of informative way of answering a question like you do.

That's what you think you're doing. That's what every zealot thinks he is doing.

difference is, I protect democracy i protect the freedom of opinion.
the thing you rant arround about is that i want everyone to start life with the same basic education.

You want to give the same zealots who would take the the rights given to them from those who gave them if they could - to be capable of indoctrinating children into their intolerant worldviews.

The contradictions are too much. I don't know if it is a language barrier or a convenient flux of position.

Point my contradictions out to me if you think there are any, and if there are any i will acknowlege them.
if there arent any dont use this phrase in a dishonest way.

I am interested in arguments. I dont want to control anything here.
But I will not answere someone who will think that emotional statements are a legit argument and who only seems to want to get a kick out of this for herself.

That's exactly it. I get a kick out of reading page after page of remarks from an atheist that are only slightly different from similar threads with Christians.

sarcasm has failed to amuse

Furthermore, I reiterate that my statement was not an argument. It was a statement. Two very different things.

you wrote:

They do it all the time. Just because someone is a bible quoting moron does not mean they have no other skills. The lack of any other skill is an entirely different issue. I have two very Christian family members who happen to be the most successful members of my family. They run a multi-million dollar tool business.

statement = fact
your family -christian = fact
the christian part of your family successfull members of sociaty = fact
biblequoting morons all successfull members of sociaty because of your families example = no fact

you tried to use the statement of your familiy for a argument and failed, emotional, private or family expiriences cannot be used for argumentational purposes in scociatal questions, only scientific studies can.

show me a unemployment statistic which shows how many unemployed people are christian and how many are not. you cant? well thats because your country doesnt make national polls which include religion.

but the fact that the poorest US state (Mississippi) is the most religious says alot from my short sketchy overview.

I smoke = fact

all atheists are smokers = i dont think so

As a statement of fact, I find your position deplorable. As an argument, I find it deplorable because it treads on the freedoms of others and suggests a conformist society.

taking the freedoms of someone who would take yours has nothing to do with conformity

i have no tolerance for the intolerant

You should educate yourself before you argue. Otherwise, it should not be an argument, but a lesson. If the two combine, it should only be a happy accident.

life is a learning process, humans are a learning species who learn each day, and could learn through each action they take.
to be aware of this and use it is importent.

Haha, I find stereotypes humorous. I quite clearly stated that I know it isn't true. Nonetheless, it is funny when someone plays into the stereotypes that their race, gender, class or geographic location disposes them. For example, hicks at a demolition derby are hilarious. Germans telling me not to answer if I am not going to behave how they want me to and saying that parents should be restricted in what they teach their children is funny. Come oooon. I'm white. Wouldn't it be funny if I tried to dunk and failed? I'm American. Me firing guns in my backyard whilst saying yee-haw, wearing an American flag for a t-shirt and topping the scale at 250 would be funny too. There is humor in stereotypes. At least I can laugh. Nonetheless, this could all come down to poor communication. It seems we agree on a lot of things.

if you want to talk about sterotyps dont derail this thread and open a new one.

[Tiberius]

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.

Just because science is held as a good method for determining what is true by the majority of people, does not make it the only way of determining truth, nor does it give that majority a right to impose it on others. Imagine if the shoe were on the other foot, and you were a science advocate in a sternly religious (and anti-science) country. Would you be fine with your countrymen denying you the right to teach your child your beliefs? I doubt it.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves here. Science is not a method for establishing absolute truth. It is a method for establishing empirical truth, which is wholly different. For starters, whilst empirical truth is often seen as "more accurate" than other forms of truth because it can be verified and tested experimentally, one of the core principles of science is falsifiability...in other words; any "truth" obtained through science and empiricism must be able to be disproved in some way. If that possibility exists, empirical truth is not absolute truth.

Thus, whilst you may think science is the best method for obtaining truth, it isn't the only method, and there are plenty of people who believe other methods are either equal or better. To deny these people to teach their own children their views is an ultimate violation of their rights as both humans and as parents.

As for these children not being able to integrate into society; it seems that empirical evidence would cast doubts on your theory. You see, astoundingly, the vast majority of religious beliefs have no impact on people's everyday lives in society. The UK possibly proves this more than most countries; we are one of the most multicultural places on Earth, home to people of countless faiths and races, and we all seem to (for the most part) get on just fine. I have atheist friends, Christian friends, Muslims friends, and even Hindu friends. We all see the world differently; we all believe in different things, but we all respect each other enough to not make it as big an issue as you seem to want to make it.

Oh look, that wasn't very concise at all. I do apologise.

[Faith No More]

(Remember, atheism as we know it, presumes there is no point asking questions like...how did everything get here, is there a higher being/higher purpose, where do we go when we die?)

Have you not learned anything during your time here?

[Kousbroek]

Love no, respect... in some ways the society i live in forces me to respect people so that is not a strange thing to do.

Not really. Respect is a feeling. They force you to treat people in a certain way so as not to trample on their rights.

Just a feeling ?
How about the willingness to show consideration or appreciation ?
A very important aspect of education imo.
If teachers notice a child shows 'abnormal' behavior pretty soon the parents are visited by some social youth authority to see what is going on.
To state that parents are free to raise their kids any way they like just simply isn't true. ( not in Holland anyway )

[Shell B]

Just a feeling ?
How about the willingness to show consideration or appreciation ?
A very important aspect of education imo.
If teachers notice a child shows 'abnormal' behavior pretty soon the parents are visited by some social youth authority to see what is going on.
To state that parents are free to raise their kids any way they like just simply isn't true. ( not in Holland anyway )

In any way they like, so long as they are not infringing on the right's of the child. I've made that one clear throughout my posts.

A willingness to show consideration showing respect, not respect itself. By your logic, giving someone chocolates is love.

---

Oh, and TGAC, I'm going to stop responding to you at least try to comprehend what I am saying. Coming back with calling my argument pathetic horseshit when clearly you do not understand it is tiresome. I don't have to the time to bandy words with someone who doesn't bother to understand what a person is saying before going off on an anti-theist tangent. We may do a lot for disabled people who are capable of integrating into society. Apparently, you have never met the kind who can't. Fucking twatwaffle. There, now I feel better.

---

if you want to talk about sterotyps dont derail this thread and open a new one.

There goes the German telling me what to do again. /obvious joke whooshing over angry guy's head.