A couple of questions for atheists

[robvalue]

If someone is teaching their kid to be a racist, yes I'd say that's abuse. I don't think cats are comparable, I agree that is stupid but fairly harmless superstition. Very mild abuse, maybe, if knowingly imparted. I don't think either of these things in any way compare to teaching a child it may be tortured forever. It's in a league of it's own. You don't just come to conclusions that stuff like that is real without it being drilled into you.

I'm not talking about whether it's intended abuse. I want people to know it causes damage, and to consider stopping from doing it.

---

I don't think I could compare inadvertently passing on your own superstitions which you don't talk about, and deliberately drilling false truths into someone's head, scolding them until they accept them as true. This is not teaching a child. If religion is to be taught, then it should be through reason like everything else a child is taught. If the parents can't do it through reason then that's too bad. Young children do not need to know about hell. It's not a brute fact they have to just accept, like hot ovens hurt you etc. for their own benefit.

[pocaracas]

But if you truly believe you're doing your child a favor, how can it ever be considered abuse?

[thesummerqueen]

I'm not talking about whether it's intended abuse.

Then we're not actually having a discussion, since that's what my comment was hinging on.

I want people to know it causes damage, and to consider stopping from doing it.

Once they do, then you discuss whether the indoctrination afterwards was abuse.

[robvalue]

OK, seems like we've been having a misunderstanding. Maybe I should just say that indoctrination is damaging, and as such, it would be a good idea to educate parents on this. How does that sound?

---

Seems the term abuse was a bit of a red herring to my point, apologies.

[thesummerqueen]

That sounds perfectly reasonable. I just don't think you can honestly call a parent an abuser when they impart superstitions and fears that they think are legit.

[Spooky]

Sure, doing it by law would be very hard, I agree. That's why I stated it as theoretical, just to gauge opinions.

I would think education is the way to go, if action is to be taken. Show parents the damage they are potentially doing. Teach them to be better parents.

To clarify: I would vote for the law if given the chance. But I dont believe that law will ever exist.

[pocaracas]

Maybe I should just say that indoctrination is damaging, and as such, it would be a good idea to educate parents on this. How does that sound?

But it's the best way to get kids to accept the message that they're saved by Jaysus and they should be good so they can earn heaven... and "I, as a parent, only want them to believe in heaven as much as I do so we can all meet there for the eternal ever after". How can you reason with someone like this to make them see how it can be damaging?... I'm not even going into the "it's definitely damaging" scenario.

[robvalue]

I don't think such a law would be possible either. It probably would be seen as against human rights or parenting something or other. I would vote for it though, I think some rights parents should not have. They can still explain their beliefs to their children, when the children are at an appropriate age. That's different to drumming it in by force.

Sure, I wanted to get opinions. The law probably will never happen. But I do think education is possible. I would hope indoctrination is on the decline anyway, "moderates" are probably not going in for that, and so they will dilute further.

I suppose it's possible someone doesn't realize that by teaching their 8 year old about hell that they are going to scare the shit out of them. I'd call that person pretty fucking stupid though, especially as they would almost certainly have gone through the same experience.

---

If people are just teaching about the "positive" sides, fuzzy jesus, heaven, good will, blah blah, then it's retarded but I probably wouldn't object so much. It's the hell, fire and judgement side that I am focused on. That is never helpful, it's just for control. Anyone who thinks they are doing anything other than controlling their kids through threats with that stuff has to be a total moron. But even so, the parents can be educated as to what they are doing so they can make a better decision.

---

I could have put my questions forward a lot better in retrospect Thanks very much for all the opinions!

---

Maybe we could agree that people should be dissuaded from teaching young children about hell, God watching and judging them and so forth? That's the stuff that really bothers me. That's what is going to cause the most harm.

[Jacob(smooth)]

Citation please....

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiritual_crisis

Honestly this is kind of a "duh" moment. Scaring children into compliance with hell is terrible just on the face of it.

Edit: Presently at work, posting using my phone. So I'm not in my Library and able to cite any better sources.

C'mon. Yes people can be damaged by religion. And indeed by the lack thereof. And by diet Pepsi. The question is whether kids with a regious background are substantially more likely to develop psychiatric problems. A study for which hood data cannot, by definition, exist.

I think you're taking very much the extreme negatives of religion. I had a religious upbringing, but I was never threatened with hell. Come to think of it, I don't recall he'll being mentioned much, if at all. If I told my kid that he'd burn in hell if he didn't tidy his room, or go to church, or turn straight, yeah that could be considered abuse.
.

I think the point here is that while we agree that religion CAN be used for child abuse, it does not follow that it is abuse in and of itself.

---

Raises the question, is religion always bad? Started a new thread on that so as not to derail this one.

[ManMachine]

I've been obsessed lately with the idea that indoctrination is child abuse. I'm talking about "teaching" young children religious beliefs as fact. I feel strongly that it is. It represents just about every aspect of any other psychological abuse, and quite possibly spilling into physical abuse depending on the severity. What is your opinion please on the following:

1) Do you consider indoctrination to be child abuse? What about taking children to church?

2) If so, would you theoretically support this being made into law? (Disregarding the practicality of enforcing it.) My answer is yes.

On an unrelated topic, I found this video from 2007 of Sam Harris. I wondered what people's opinion is about it. He talks about the possible harm of using the "atheist" label. I can see where he is coming from, and agree with some of the barriers that have been inadvertently thrown up. But I personally think this is outweighed by the effect it has on making it easier for the next atheist to "come out". It may be a moot point now, but I thought it would be interesting to discuss.

http://youtu.be/YvweK4Guph4

1. No. If you start down that path then you will very quickly arrive at 'any ideological indoctrination is abuse so we best keep children clean slates' and the practical upshot of that is we will raise a generation of ineffectual morons... oh wait...

2. Don't be silly, that's the beginning of ideological totalitarianism, it's both vile and abhorrent.


MM