Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(July 1, 2015 at 10:56 am)Pyrrho Wrote: Here is how it works. When children are born to devout religious people, the parents indoctrinate them in religion from the earliest teachings they give them. And the teachings are not separated off as a separate issue, but are mingled in with everything else about how the world works. So, for example, a parent will teach children to try to avoid touching a fire or a hot stove, because it is dangerous, and will teach them to try to avoid hellfire and damnation (or whatever the punishment is in the specific religion), because it is dangerous. Both are involved in the world view presented to the children. By the time a child is old enough to be much interested in sexual activity, the person is a believer in the religion (if the indoctrination was successful). If the person turns out to be gay, then he or she may feel like the devil is tempting them or some such thing, and will try to avoid such activity, and will try to hide whatever is done regarding the matter. Of course, being sexually repressed isn't good and can lead to all sorts of strange things, but that will likely also be interpreted as the devil's influence (though whether it is literally thought to be the devil or not will depend on the particular religion).
Of course, a gay person may escape from such beliefs the same as anyone else, but a gay person does not have a magical ability to escape from indoctrination either.
Given the place of women in most religions, following the reasoning you give, one would expect that no woman would be religious. That, too, is not the case, for the same reasons given above; it is a question of indoctrination and poor thinking, not a question of whether the beliefs themselves favor or disfavor one.
Well that makes perfect sense. Until a person becomes more aware of the world about them, all they'll know is what they've been taught.
This leads me onto a question I've pondered quite a bit!
Do we think that indoctrinating a kid into religion should be classed as child abuse?
It is in my mind completely wrong.
As I said I wasn't given a religion, but, at the same time if I'd have decided to follow one, my folks would've supported me in that choice. As they did when I told them I was gay.
Shouldn't all kids be given a "clean slate" and be allowed to choose whether they'll follow a religion or not?
Religious people will never agree to that, because, if, for example, hell were real, it would be extremely important to avoid it. More important than teaching your child to not stick its hand in a fire.
Once one has the belief that there is a hell to be avoided, one is going to act on such beliefs. This is why people's beliefs are really a matter of public concern, because they influence behavior, and their behavior matters for others. For more on this idea, you might find the essay entitled "The Ethics of Belief" by William Kingdon Clifford interesting:
There is no way a responsible parent is going to not teach their child about what they regard as the most important thing to learn.
So, the only solution that would work is to convince people not to believe silly things. Otherwise, they will pass it on to their children.
By the way, I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian. My parents were very devoutly religious. They believed that they were doing the right thing in teaching me to believe in Christianity. It was not malice on their part. It is that they sincerely believed it, and so they taught it to me. (Fortunately, I questioned things anyway, even though one is not supposed to, because I thought that it made no sense to prohibit questioning, because if it is really true, no examination of it could prove that it is false.)
I certainly wish they had not taught me to believe such nonsense, but I understand why they did it.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
(July 1, 2015 at 11:06 am)gindygoo Wrote: Well that makes perfect sense. Until a person becomes more aware of the world about them, all they'll know is what they've been taught.
This leads me onto a question I've pondered quite a bit!
Do we think that indoctrinating a kid into religion should be classed as child abuse?
It is in my mind completely wrong.
As I said I wasn't given a religion, but, at the same time if I'd have decided to follow one, my folks would've supported me in that choice. As they did when I told them I was gay.
Shouldn't all kids be given a "clean slate" and be allowed to choose whether they'll follow a religion or not?
Religious people will never agree to that, because, if, for example, hell were real, it would be extremely important to avoid it. More important than teaching your child to not stick its hand in a fire.
Once one has the belief that there is a hell to be avoided, one is going to act on such beliefs. This is why people's beliefs are really a matter of public concern, because they influence behavior, and their behavior matters for others. For more on this idea, you might find the essay entitled "The Ethics of Belief" by William Kingdon Clifford interesting:
There is no way a responsible parent is going to not teach their child about what they regard as the most important thing to learn.
So, the only solution that would work is to convince people not to believe silly things. Otherwise, they will pass it on to their children.
By the way, I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian. My parents were very devoutly religious. They believed that they were doing the right thing in teaching me to believe in Christianity. It was not malice on their part. It is that they sincerely believed it, and so they taught it to me. (Fortunately, I questioned things anyway, even though one is not supposed to, because I thought that it made no sense to prohibit questioning, because if it is really true, no examination of it could prove that it is false.)
I certainly wish they had not taught me to believe such nonsense, but I understand why they did it.
Fair comment!
I do despair though that kids are taught this rubbish. It really saddens me.
(July 1, 2015 at 11:26 am)Pyrrho Wrote: Religious people will never agree to that, because, if, for example, hell were real, it would be extremely important to avoid it. More important than teaching your child to not stick its hand in a fire.
Once one has the belief that there is a hell to be avoided, one is going to act on such beliefs. This is why people's beliefs are really a matter of public concern, because they influence behavior, and their behavior matters for others. For more on this idea, you might find the essay entitled "The Ethics of Belief" by William Kingdon Clifford interesting:
There is no way a responsible parent is going to not teach their child about what they regard as the most important thing to learn.
So, the only solution that would work is to convince people not to believe silly things. Otherwise, they will pass it on to their children.
By the way, I was raised as a fundamentalist Christian. My parents were very devoutly religious. They believed that they were doing the right thing in teaching me to believe in Christianity. It was not malice on their part. It is that they sincerely believed it, and so they taught it to me. (Fortunately, I questioned things anyway, even though one is not supposed to, because I thought that it made no sense to prohibit questioning, because if it is really true, no examination of it could prove that it is false.)
I certainly wish they had not taught me to believe such nonsense, but I understand why they did it.
Fair comment!
I do despair though that kids are taught this rubbish. It really saddens me.
Yes, it is sad. This is one reason why education is very important. The government should try to make sure people are taught properly, to be good at critical thinking (or as good at critical thinking as reasonably possible), though many in government wish to do the opposite.
"A wise man ... proportions his belief to the evidence."
— David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Section X, Part I.
Isn't lesbianism just another religion, like atheism or stamp collectorism?
Personally there's nothing I can do about those refugees, but dc has already said no to any more.
Of course being a lesbian isn't a religion, it's a description of my chosen sexuality preference. That's like saying everyone who eats bacon for breakfast are in the bacon religion!?
Isn't lesbianism just another religion, like atheism or stamp collectorism?
Personally there's nothing I can do about those refugees, but dc has already said no to any more.
Of course being a lesbian isn't a religion, it's a description of my chosen sexuality preference. That's like saying everyone who eats bacon for breakfast are in the bacon religion!?
Oh......then never mind.
Those of us who do worship Bacon would not accept such a thoughtless inflation of our ranks.
(Baconism, the rational scientific choice since 1561)
(July 1, 2015 at 12:27 pm)gindygoo Wrote: Personally there's nothing I can do about those refugees, but dc has already said no to any more.
Of course being a lesbian isn't a religion, it's a description of my chosen sexuality preference. That's like saying everyone who eats bacon for breakfast are in the bacon religion!?
Oh......then never mind.
Those of us who do worship Bacon would not accept such a thoughtless inflation of our ranks.
(Baconism, the rational scientific choice since 1561)
July 1, 2015 at 1:07 pm (This post was last modified: July 1, 2015 at 1:58 pm by JuliaL.)
(July 1, 2015 at 12:44 pm)gindygoo Wrote: I'm paradoxically in the sausageist cult!
So......If you are paradoxically in the cult, does that mean you aren't really a member?
Or are you a member, but don't practice their rituals?
Or can you become a member of a non-existant cult by the non-practice of non-existant rituals?
But doesn't that mean the cult now exists?
And where is the atheist handbook published?
So how, exactly, does God know that She's NOT a brain in a vat?
(July 1, 2015 at 12:44 pm)gindygoo Wrote: I'm paradoxically in the sausageist cult!
So......If you are paradoxically in the cult, does that mean you aren't really a member?
Or are you a member, but don't practice their rituals?
Or can you become a member of a non-existant cult by the non-practice of non-existant rituals?
But doesn't that mean the cult now exists?
And where is the atheist handbook published?
Haha it's a make your own rules non existent sarcastic bullshit cult!
