Teach children about Jesus at a young age,

[Huggy Bear]

The hostages had begun to feel the captors were actually protecting them from the police. One woman later became engaged to one of the criminals and another developed a legal defense fund to aid in their criminal defense fees. Clearly, the hostages had “bonded” emotionally with their captors.

Are you even reading these things or just skimming them to pick out the bits you like? Because if that's all you want to do, it's going to be rather pointless bothering with you.

I asked you a question which you dodged like Neo.


Clearly the woman wasn't right psychologically, and continued to suffer from ptsd.

Also you do realize there are different designations for "love" right? What we are talking has nothing to do with sexual attraction, were talking about brotherly love.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greek_words_for_love

The Greek language distinguishes at least four different ways as to how the word love is used. Ancient Greek has four distinct words for love: agápe, éros, philía, and storgē. However, as with other languages, it has been historically difficult to separate the meanings of these words when used outside of their respective contexts. Nonetheless, the senses in which these words were generally used are as follows:

   Agápe (ἀγάπη agápē) means "love: esp. brotherly love, charity; the love of God for man and of man for God." Agape is used in ancient texts to denote feelings for one's children and the feelings for a spouse, and it was also used to refer to a love feast. Agape is used by Christians to express the unconditional love of God for his children. This type of love was further explained by Thomas Aquinas as "to will the good of another."
   Éros (ἔρως érōs) means "love, mostly of the sexual passion." The Modern Greek word "erotas" means "intimate love." Plato refined his own definition: Although eros is initially felt for a person, with contemplation it becomes an appreciation of the beauty within that person, or even becomes appreciation of beauty itself. Plato does not talk of physical attraction as a necessary part of love, hence the use of the word platonic to mean, "without physical attraction." In the Symposium, the most famous ancient work on the subject, Plato has Socrates argue that eros helps the soul recall knowledge of beauty, and contributes to an understanding of spiritual truth, the ideal "Form" of youthful beauty that leads us humans to feel erotic desire – thus suggesting that even that sensually based love aspires to the non-corporeal, spiritual plane of existence; that is, finding its truth, just like finding any truth, leads to transcendence. Lovers and philosophers are all inspired to seek truth through the means of eros.
   Philia (φιλία philía) means "affectionate regard, friendship," usually "between equals." It is a dispassionate virtuous love, a concept developed by Aristotle. In his best-known work on ethics, Nicomachean Ethics, philia is expressed variously as loyalty to friends, family, and community, and requires virtue, equality, and familiarity. Furthermore, in the same text philos denotes a general type of love, used for love between family, between friends, a desire or enjoyment of an activity, as well as between lovers.
   Storge (στοργή storgē) means "love, affection" and "especially of parents and children" It's the common or natural empathy, like that felt by parents for offspring. Rarely used in ancient works, and then almost exclusively as a descriptor of relationships within the family. It is also known to express mere acceptance or putting up with situations, as in "loving" the tyrant.

Now that you know what context were using, show me an example of abuse causing love.

[Cyberman]

No, I didn't dodge your question. I emphasised the section of the article that fulfilled your earlier erquest:

Look, all I need is one study that shows an instance of child abuse producing love.

I never said that Stockholm Syndrome - love, but the cases cited clearly indicate Stockholm Syndrome leading to or developing into love and affection.

[The Valkyrie]

Children should be taught about Jesus at an early age.

"Jesus is likely a fictional character, possibly an amalgam of actual people who did exist, but any supernatural abilities associated with him were invented after the time he supposedly existed and are also associated with other, earlier god-man figures."

[Huggy Bear]

Oh, for fuck's sake. Are you even reading these posts or just having a conversation with yourself?

When you said this:

If "indoctrination" makes a child a good human being, how is that a bad thing?

...and this:

If the ideology a person is being "indoctrinated" into results in that person being as Stimbo puts it, "good and kind and loving"... I don't have a problem with that, no matter what religion they belonged to

...and this:

And my point was the REASONS for one being a "loving person" is irrelevant, the fact that they are a loving person is all that matters, hence the Nazi example.

...you were clearly stating that you don't care about the motivations behind behaviour, only about the behaviour itself. You then did a complete u-turn by saying that not only should we care about the motivations but that the motivations are more important than the behaviour. You contradict yourself.

*emphasis mine*

What I CLEARLY stated was in the context of Ideology, seeing how were talking about indoctrination. "which is why I refered to the Nazi example.

If Nazi indoctrination resulted in "good and kind and loving" Nazi's, no one would've had a problem with them.

Do you agree with the above statement?

You cannot produce love with hate, you cannot "indoctrinate" people with hateful ideology and produce love, It's common sense.

Therefore I am comfortable in saying that any ideology (no matter what it is) that causes one to love their fellow man, I'm ok with.

You on the other hand choose to make it about abuse, and anyone with a brain knows that abuse causes fear, not love.

You claimed that you can make a child "love" through abuse, even going so far as to say it was demonstrable, you have yet to provide the evidence of that.

No I didn't. I stated that if you don't care about the motivations behind behaviour, you can't differentiate between someone who is actually loving and someone who is mimicking love. I used domestic abuse as an example.

Either it's love or it isn't, to "mimic" love means it's NOT love.

So if you saying that Abuse does not in fact cause love, then I agree.

[Minimalist]

"Dear kiddies,


Jesus" is a made-up bullshit story designed to make ignorant peasants do what they are told so that they can get to heaven and kiss jesus' ass for eternity.  This ensures that the king and his priests don't have any trouble from them while they are grinding them into the dirt.

If you want to believe in this silliness when you reach a reasonable age, you can.  But mommy and I will be very disappointed that you turned out to be such a fuck-up."


That's all kids need to know about "jesus."

[Huggy Bear]

"Dear kiddies,


Jesus" is a made-up bullshit story designed to make ignorant peasants do what they are told so that they can get to heaven and kiss jesus' ass for eternity.  This ensures that the king and his priests don't have any trouble from them while they are grinding them into the dirt.

If you want to believe in this silliness when you reach a reasonable age, you can.  But mommy and I will be very disappointed that you turned out to be such a fuck-up."


That's all kids need to know about "jesus."

Really? That why Priests (with the kings permission) were putting Christians to death when they didn't conform to their brand of religious doctrine?

That's why the Catholic church made translating the bible into a language people could read illegal? Because obviously if you want the "ignorant peasants" to believe the scriptures, the best thing to do is ensure they can't read it for themselves.

[Minimalist]

Catholicks are every bit as big a bunch of scumbags as you protestant cocksuckers.  Deal with it.

None of you are worth a shit.

[Huggy Bear]

I'm a Protestant in so much that I don't agree with the catholic church, but not in denomination, I don't agree with protestant denominations either.

Incase you haven't noticed, the Catholics and the protestants are pretty much hand in hand.

[Ben Davis]

So you haven't been reading the posts then. I don't know why I bother sometimes.

What I CLEARLY stated was in the context of Ideology, seeing how were talking about indoctrination.

Well, I've certainly not been talking about anything else. I'm trying to break you out of your quasi-Boolean thinking. A suitably manipulative person, when not framed by any ethical concerns, can use a variety of indoctrinative techniques can get anyone to believe, sincerely, anything. That's been the thrust of my criticism of your initial position (which you still haven't cleared up for me yet - Do you care about the motivations or not?!).

"which is why I refered to the Nazi example.

If Nazi indoctrination resulted in "good and kind and loving" Nazi's, no one would've had a problem with them.

Do you agree with the above statement?

I'm sure most Nazis were good, kind & loving, to their mothers, to friends & colleagues, maybe even to broader society on the whole. Just don't ask them about Jews or Gypsies. So I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve using this example, other than to highlight the continues failure of your quasi-Boolean thinking.

You cannot produce love with hate, you cannot "indoctrinate" people with hateful ideology and produce love, It's common sense.

Yes you can. Stockholm syndrome is a perfect example as are cases of DA.

Therefore I am comfortable in saying that any ideology (no matter what it is) that causes one to love their fellow man, I'm ok with.

Well, I'm not. Do you think that North Koreans love each other any less than any other society?

You on the other hand choose to make it about abuse, and anyone with a brain knows that abuse causes fear, not love.

You're wrong. Please see above.

Either it's love or it isn't, to "mimic" love means it's NOT love.

And yet again, if ou don't care about the motivations behind it, how can you tell the difference? I'm going to keep asking this until I actually get an answer and not a dodge.

So if you saying that Abuse does not in fact cause love, then I agree.

Jesus fucking wept...

[emjay]

I can't tell you how much that means to me emjay I am overcome that you would consider my opinion on things so highly You make me feel very proud!

I agree, while religion is strong in a house, the crap will probably continue. But I've heard more and more stories of liberal parents who don't presume their children will take their faith. They seem to focus on educating them properly, and allowing them to choose for themselves. I think this is a trend that will continue as religion becomes less and less fundamental, over many generations. I think indoctrinating these days is a lot harder than it used to be. Instant worldwide communications make insular environments much harder to create.

You're welcome Rob   It's amazing what a little community can do... make things real that were once only vague ideas... no man is an island and all that. It was the same when I met other gay people for the first time and was no longer alone. It makes all the difference. So being here on this site has changed the sort of atheist I am and given me far more confidence in my convictions, along with more arguments against god than I ever would have thought of myself. And I kind of see you as the Richard Dawkins of this site and the figurehead of it. You're such a welcoming presence and you do so much to help new atheists. I'm so glad I met you 

You're about the luckiest man alive having no religious baggage whatsoever. You can look at all religions equally, from Zeus to Jesus, and say 'that's ridiculous'. I would give everything I owned to be able to do that. I can do that only for every other religion other than the one I was brought up in, Christianity. With Christianity it takes a lot more because I have a lot more to undo... a lot more subconscious and programmed ideas that I have to deal with. So despite the inherent inconsistency in just about every aspect of Christianity, I can't write it off in the same way as I could Zeus. I don't believe in it but it's still there lurking all the time. The problem is you just can't 'unlearn' things... you can replace them, you can repress them, or you can forget them, but you can't unlearn them   So that's part of why I'm so pissed off that I never really had much of a choice in hearing those messages when I was growing up.

Anyway, I hope your vision comes true. It's just that fundamentalism takes many forms so outwardly a family might look pretty liberal and casual in their religion but it all comes down to the strength of belief of the parents. As I said, I've never met anyone with the level of belief of my dad... you could put all the Christians together on this site and IMO it wouldn't even approach it. I hope it comes to a point of liberal parents thinking like you say, but in my own experience those sorts of Christians... here usually CofE or whatever, aren't really Christians in the first place... they follow the traditions and all that but don't seem to really believe. If I ever meet a Christian with the same level of belief as my dad, but also with a let-them-make-their-own-choices approach to parenting, that will be the day I rejoice.