Religion is "child abuse" ??

Cú Giobach

This is a subject I would love to debate with R. Dawkins.
He claims that parents indoctrinating their children with their religion is "child abuse", citing that it makes it more difficult for them to form a proper and realistic perspective of reality.
Now, my point is, that not bringing up a child in your own faith would actually be tantamount to child abuse.
If someone believes that, praying to and giving homage to a deity is rewarded with "everlasting life" and not doing so is punished with "damnation", then withholding the positive option from your child would be unforgivable and cruel.
Parents want the best for their kids and taking the chance of "damming them to hell" in the event of premature death would be inexcusable.

liah

It's a little melodramatic to be calling it "child abuse." Plenty of children were raised in religious households and turned out alright. I really don't like that term being thrown around lightly.

That said, I don't agree with childhood indoctrination, either. But I certainly wouldn't class it under "child abuse."

Roro4Brit

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Now, my point is, that not bringing up a child in your own faith would actually be tantamount to child abuse.
If someone believes that, praying to and giving homage to a deity is rewarded with "everlasting life" and not doing so is punished with "damnation", then withholding the positive option from your child would be unforgivable and cruel.

You sound exactly like Fred & Shirley Phelps

Didn't you post this in humanities already

sorry that was croga, nevermind carry on

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

While I think using the term child abuse is slightly hysterical, in order to be classed as child abuse surely it would be harmful to all children but many kids grow up grateful for a religious upbringing... In saying that, I think the defence that parents HAVE to instil their religion in their kids for fear of deistic reprisal sounds like a complete cop-out too.

I mean, what would you think of parents who instil fervent racism in their children because they genuinely feel black people are second class citizens? Would you think it completely understandable and reasonable? Or perhaps those parents who teach their kids that punching other kids gets them what they want in life because they truly believe that's how the world works? Having the power to instil the fundamental building blocks to a child's' learning should never be abused and manipulating that child using coercion and threats of eternal damnation or suggesting dead relatives can see them at all times is just abysmal parenting.

Incidentally, I actually think the whole go to hell thing was invented specifically to ensure childhood indoctrination and keep certain religious organisations in business....and my post is only in reference to the whole hell & damnation, guilt laden kind of religious indoctrination.

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I mean, what would you think of parents who instil fervent racism in their children because they genuinely feel black people are second class citizens?

There is a difference in a parent instilling their "world view" and instilling "the meaning of their existence".
If someone genuinely believes in "deistic reprisal" then how could they possibly take this chance with their child?

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Children should be taught about religions in general but not indoctrinated into any specific religion. It is a very subjective issue and depends on how fervently the parents teach it. If it leads to a life of stringently clinging onto archaic beliefs and forgoing thinking for themselves, then I would consider that child abuse.

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

There is a difference in a parent instilling their "world view" and instilling "the meaning of their existence".
If someone genuinely believes in "deistic reprisal" then how could they possibly take this chance with their child?

Personal belief has nothing to do with truth. How do they know that their religion is the right one? They BELIEVE that it is but there is no logical reason to do so.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

There is a difference in a parent instilling their "world view" and instilling "the meaning of their existence".
If someone genuinely believes in "deistic reprisal" then how could they possibly take this chance with their child?

I don't see a difference...only an idiot would claim they know absolutely that their "meaning of existence" is worth any more than their own "world view"...

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

Children should be taught about religions in general but not indoctrinated into any specific religion. It is a very subjective issue and depends on how fervently the parents teach it. If it leads to a life of stringently clinging onto archaic beliefs and forgoing thinking for themselves, then I would consider that child abuse.

That is your position, but what would you think if you were, say a christian?

Personal belief has nothing to do with truth. How do they know that their religion is the right one? They BELIEVE that it is but there is no logical reason to do so.

Personal belief has everything to do with the OP.
To someone who "believes", their religion is the "right" one.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Personal belief has everything to do with the OP.
To someone who "believes", their religion is the "right" one.

And to a racist, they are right and to a sexist, they are right; the question is are they right to pass on such views to their children? If you think it's wrong for other people to pass on their personal views of their race's superiority or their sexes superiority - why is okay to pass on a religious superiority?

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And to a racist, they are right and to a sexist, they are right; the question is are they right to pass on such views to their children? If you think it's wrong for other people to pass on their personal views of their race's superiority or their sexes superiority - why is okay to pass on a religious superiority?

Not passing on the religious aspects would result (in their opinion) in damnation for eternity.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Just because a parent is harbouring under the illusion that they must do it because god tells them to doesn't mean it's right or good parenting for that matter - any more than the parent who teaches their kids to be racist or sexist or a bully think they are enhancing their child's life & instilling quality learning.

If I truly believed that an alien called szurp would come down and kill my family if I didn't beat my kids every day - does that mean it's not child abuse and it's actually justified?

Shenshen

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This is a subject I would love to debate with R. Dawkins.
He claims that parents indoctrinating their children with their religion is "child abuse", citing that it makes it more difficult for them to form a proper and realistic perspective of reality.
Now, my point is, that not bringing up a child in your own faith would actually be tantamount to child abuse.
If someone believes that, praying to and giving homage to a deity is rewarded with "everlasting life" and not doing so is punished with "damnation", then withholding the positive option from your child would be unforgivable and cruel.
Parents want the best for their kids and taking the chance of "damming them to hell" in the event of premature death would be inexcusable.

I can't speak for Mr Dakwins, of course, but my problem lies not with parents teaching their children what they themselves believe.
My problem lies with parents who will go to some extremes to make sure the child does not hear about what anybody else believes in presented in a positive way. That's when I think indoctrination begins, and depending on the lengths the parents go to, I do agree that it can reach near-abusive levels.

Yes, of course the parents have a right to teach their children what they think is right or wrong.
But the child has a right to learn about the world, and to have access to knowledge and education. A parent that wants to prevent the child from learning acts grossly irresponsible in my view.

Shenshen

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

There is a difference in a parent instilling their "world view" and instilling "the meaning of their existence".
If someone genuinely believes in "deistic reprisal" then how could they possibly take this chance with their child?

Well, to keep with the racist comparison, for a lot of racists racial purity is a form of religion, it needs to be preserved at all costs.
So to them, not teaching their children about it could result in them ending up mixing with other races, and possibly having mixed-race children...
How could they possibly take that chance with their children and grandchildren?

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Just because a parent is harbouring under the illusion that they must do it because god tells them to doesn't mean it's right or good parenting for that matter - any more than the parent who teaches their kids to be racist or sexist or a bully think they are enhancing their child's life & instilling quality learning.

If I truly believed that an alien called szurp would come down and kill my family if I didn't beat my kids every day - does that mean it's not child abuse and justified?

You seem to be missing the point here. Its not about whether child indoctrination is good or bad in a general sense, but from the perspective of a religious parent.
Basically, how could a religious parent not bring up a child in their own faith.
Believing the consequences could be so awful ???

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Personal belief has everything to do with the OP.
To someone who "believes", their religion is the "right" one.

For the majority of them, this is due to childhood indoctrination. It's a vicious cycle of believing that a deity who supposedly loves you and cares for you would sentence you to eternal damnation if your parents don't indoctrinate you and you grow up to choose a different religion or abandon religious beliefs altogether.

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point here. Its not about whether child indoctrination is good or bad in a general sense, but from the perspective of a religious parent.
Basically, how could a religious parent not bring up a child in their own faith.
Believing the consequences could be so awful ???

No, I think it's you missing the point. Adults can believe in whatever they like. Indoctrination of children is the issue, not about whether it appeals to the sensibilities of the parent.

Acts of evil done with good intentions are still acts of evil.

Zillah

Thread Fail.

Dawkins specifically said that labelling children with a religion is tantamount to child abuse. Calling a three year old a "muslim" is ridiculous because that child could not possibly understand what it means to be a muslim.

He never said that raising a child in a particular religion is child abuse. He certainly doesn't approve of it but he doesn't call it child abuse.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

You seem to be missing the point here. Its not about whether child indoctrination is good or bad in a general sense, but from the perspective of a religious parent.
Basically, how could a religious parent not bring up a child in their own faith.
Believing the consequences could be so awful ???

I don't think I am, I'm not sure you are getting the points being made and nor am I not sure how your post above negates any of the points made thus far. Again, point to one of a million things we consider bad parenting and wrong to pass onto children which certain parents wilfully pass on out of fear of the consequences - how is certain extreme parental religious indoctrination any different...I don't think a fear of a deity is any different to a fear of women or a fear of coloured people or whatever is driving other extremist behaviours. So religious parents are convinced they are doing good - so what? Since when did personal conviction = terrific parenting.

Again, I have a fear of szurp, does that make beating my kids good parenting or my behaviour non-abusive? No, it doesn't. It doesn't matter what the motivation there is a line that can be crossed from loving, caring parenting into abusive extremism.

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Zillah wrote: »

Thread Fail.

Dawkins specifically said that labelling children with a religion is tantamount to child abuse. Calling a three year old a "muslim" is ridiculous because that child could not possibly understand what it means to be a muslim.

He never said that raising a child in a particular religion is child abuse. He certainly doesn't approve of it but he doesn't call it child abuse.

Dawkins has also talked about the mental abuse of teaching threats of damnation and has spoken and written about how much religious teaching can be abusive for children.
You are only talking about one specific comment.

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

To put the question another way.
If you truly believed that by not giving your child your religion, you would be damming it to hell, Could you do it??

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Would you not be better puting that to a religious forum? I don't think many atheists or agnostics have that issue...

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Would you not be better puting that to a religious forum? I don't think many atheists or agnostics have that issue...

See, it is a tricky question.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Well no, it doesn't even rank as a question, never mind a tricky one for someone who has no belief in a god, far less the christian view of heaven and hell. It's no more a tricky question for an atheist than it is for a hindu.

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Well no, it doesn't even rank as a question, never mind a tricky one for someone who has no belief in a god, far less the christian view of heaven and hell. It's no more a tricky question for an atheist than it is for a hindu.

If you don't like the question, why are you responding?
Some people actually like musing over things like this.
No point in going to a religious forum with it, because they are mostly nuts.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

It's not that I don't like it - if there is no hell and no god, what's the relevance of the question?

MagicMarker

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

To put the question another way.
If you truly believed that by not giving your child your religion, you would be damming it to hell, Could you do it??

If I truly believed that, then the cruel part would be having children in the first place.

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's not that I don't like it - if there is no hell and no god, what's the relevance of the question?

To discuss the point with anyone who is interested.
If no one is, then so be it.
The perspective of people with an a-theistic outlook is best for this kind of question.

Zillah

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Dawkins has also talked about the mental abuse of teaching threats of damnation and has spoken and written about how much religious teaching can be abusive for children.
You are only talking about one specific comment.

Ok well to address your question; tormenting children with threats of eternal torture is abusive. If the parents are stupid or crazy enough to believe in these things then they don't think they're being abusive but they are. In the same way that parents who do nothing but pray over their dying diabetic daughter don't think they're being criminally neglectful, but they are.

krudler

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If I truly believed that an alien called szurp would come down and kill my family if I didn't beat my kids every day - does that mean it's not child abuse and it's actually justified?

you szurp apologists are all the same, everyone knows its blaxaar who will be the saviour of the universe.

Shenshen

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

MagicMarker wrote: »

If I truly believed that, then the cruel part would be having children in the first place.

There IS that, yes.
Some people, thinking this thought through to the end, ended up killing their children to assure them a place in heaven by dying while still innocent....

Dan133269

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This is a subject I would love to debate with R. Dawkins.
He claims that parents indoctrinating their children with their religion is "child abuse", citing that it makes it more difficult for them to form a proper and realistic perspective of reality.
Now, my point is, that not bringing up a child in your own faith would actually be tantamount to child abuse.
If someone believes that, praying to and giving homage to a deity is rewarded with "everlasting life" and not doing so is punished with "damnation", then withholding the positive option from your child would be unforgivable and cruel.
Parents want the best for their kids and taking the chance of "damming them to hell" in the event of premature death would be inexcusable.

You are quite right, taking the chance of damning them to hell would be inexcusable. The logical extension of this, is of course that a parent should kill their child as soon as they are born before they have a chance to commit any sin(s) and so they will go straight to heaven, as if you allow them live their life there is the risk they will sin and go to hell. If you value the eternal well-being of your child(ren) over your own, you shoud therefore kill them as soon as they are out of the womb.

Improbable

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Dan133269 wrote: »

You are quite right, taking the chance of damning them to hell would be inexcusable. The logical extension of this, is of course that a parent should kill their child as soon as they are born before they have a chance to commit any sin(s) and so they will go straight to heaven, as if you allow them live their life there is the risk they will sin and go to hell. If you value the eternal well-being of your child(ren) over your own, you shoud therefore kill them as soon as they are out of the womb.

Don't catholics believe in original sin and that unbaptised children go to hell?

Ghost Buster

Cú Giobach wrote: »

That is your position, but what would you think if you were, say a christian?



Personal belief has everything to do with the OP.
To someone who "believes", their religion is the "right" one.

I wouldnt have to think. Thats the great thing about religion, you have nice men in frocks to do the akward thinking for you.

strobe

Cú Giobach wrote: »

To put the question another way.
If you truly believed that by not giving your child your religion, you would be damming it to hell, Could you do it??

If they truly believed in their god then wouldn't he grant their children with one of these magical "personal revelations of God" I keep hearing so much about? Why would an omnipotent, omniscient being need people to convince their children of his existence while they are children. I'm sure he can handle that himself. He's been doing it since the start of time after all.

As for the OP, no I wouldn't use the term child abuse. That's a very heavy phrase to be throwing around frivolously.

lynski

Improbable wrote: »

Don't catholics believe in original sin and that unbaptised children go to hell?

limbo actually and no not anymore. they published some ****e there a while ago about it all being a mistake http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0506867.htm
more to the point they want to spread their word in 3rd world counties and they have higher infant mortality rates then in western nations.
I read some diary entries of a woman in the 1910s in Ireland who had lost a baby at birth and the torment she was in because her baby was in limbo was heartbreaking.
I believe it is child abuse to keep your child uneducated about anything in the world, and if that means that you dont allow them to explore the belief systems f any and all religions then you are abusing them. If you keep them from exploring evolution, then you are abusing them, if you keep them from exploring other cultures, then you are abusing them.
as broad an education in life should be the goal for all parents, not if a 5 yr old believes enough to go to heaven.

What you are basically asking op, is if a parent wants a god who would damn a five yr old cancer victim because they did not adhere to the beliefs of their religion closely enough? hell no! if your god is like that then i want no part of it and no parent should.
Like the old saying goes: your god your hell so you go there.

Cú Giobach

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

lynski wrote: »

What you are basically asking op, is if a parent wants a god who would damn a five yr old cancer victim because they did not adhere to the beliefs of their religion closely enough? hell no! if your god is like that then i want no part of it and no parent should.
Like the old saying goes: your god your hell so you go there.

I am a total atheist, and also very anti-theistic in my views.

Unfortunately millions and millions of people do have a belief in just this kind of god, and consequently indoctrinate their kids for fear of reprisals.

Just because I can understand something doesn't mean I agree with it.

iguana

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Not passing on the religious aspects would result (in their opinion) in damnation for eternity.

A lot of religions have moved past that belief system. Most christians believe unbaptised children can still go to heaven because while humans are bound by the sacraments, God is not and he loves people, especially children and will want them to go to heaven if they were not baptised due to someone else's choice.

Other religions like Mormonism can baptise anyone after their death so if someone dies unbaptised they can baptise them afterward. In fact they don't baptise until after the age of eight (or the mentally challenged) as they believe it is an abomination to baptise someone who can't understand and choose the faith. And that God can use his own sense to see this.

The Jewish Mikveh is for adults. The Hindu Ayushkarma is not necessary for reincarnation. And in Islam many believe that to be a condemned to hell Kafir (unbeliever) you must make a conscious rejection of the truth which doesn't apply to children who have not been given the opportunity to be Muslim.

So in fact for the majority of religious believers there is no need at all to indoctrinate your children into a religion as very few people now believe in a god so malevolent that he would punish children for not following that faith.

nozzferrahhtoo

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This is a subject I would love to debate with R. Dawkins.
He claims that parents indoctrinating their children with their religion is "child abuse"

Not for the first time I must correct the interpretation of what Dawkins has said here. I would also join you in disagreeing with him if this was what he said.

However on further reading and listening I realised that it is not so and the above is a mistaken misrepresentation.

What dawkins is calling "Child Abuse" is labeling the child with your religion, not teaching them your religion.

In other words he is trying to show it is wrong to tell a child "YOU are a catholic" when in fact that child is too young to know what it is.

The difference may be subtle but it is massively important and I have zero disagreement with it.

By all means teach your child all about what it means to you to be a Catholic. Just do not go around telling the child that that is what he or she is.

However I would disagree with Dawkins on the term "abuse". The failure to see your own child as an unformed individual, but as some cloned extension of yourself is NOT abuse.... it is a massive failure in parenting.

magicbastarder

iguana wrote: »

So in fact for the majority of religious believers there is no need at all to indoctrinate your children into a religion as very few people now believe in a god so malevolent that he would punish children for not following that faith.

that's barely part of the story of why people bring their kids up in the same religion though. people teach their kids what they themselves believe. if you believe you should be nice to others, you teach your kids that too. if you believe it's safe to stop, look and listen before crossing a road, you teach your kids that too. if you believe jesus died for you, you teach your kids that too.

regarding the 'it's bad that parents do not expose their children to other religious opinions'; how many parents do that with other beliefs they hold, such as the 'be nice to others' one?

Dades

Great post, iguana.

iguana wrote: »

So in fact for the majority of religious believers there is no need at all to indoctrinate your children into a religion as very few people now believe in a god so malevolent that he would punish children for not following that faith.

The only thing I'd say is that indoctrination isn't just the equivalent ritual to baptism, but the constant feeding of a single world-view onto a child's mind. So while I commend the idea of not officially having them partake in a ceremony until they are older, I suspect the children are just as brain-washed in their respective faiths regardless.

AudreyHepburn

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Speaking as some-one who was brought up in a Catholic home, I can honestly that I haven’t been affected negatively in any way by my upbringing. I am quite happy and well adjusted and in no way indoctrinated.

I was never thought anything like what people here seem to believe is taught. My parents certainly never said that I would burn in hell if I were naughty or any of the other silly things being mentioned here.

I was simply taught, as I’d wager the vast majority of those I know would have been that God loves us all equally no matter who we are or what we do and that he is always there to guide and protect us.

I really don’t see the problem with teaching children those kinds of lesson.

I think that suggesting that if you are a parent with religion and you decide to raise your children in that faith you are a kin to those who beat/neglect/sexually abuse their children is rather irrational and actually quite demeaning to good religious parents, like mine.

It also imo demonstrates a lack of understanding of what the Catholic faith is really about i.e. loving thy neighbour as thy self.

I also think that raising your children in a strictly atheist way where you teach them all religion is wrong and unhealthy is not a good thing either. You don’t have to teach them to believe but you do need to teach them to respect those that do.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Is the catholic faith not also about banning gay people from having sexual relations and getting hitched? Refusing to let women play a prominent role in their church and teaching that condoms cause AIDS...don't know what you class as lousy parenting but if a parent actually follows the churches lead and practices the faith and edict faithfully...

AudreyHepburn

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Is the catholic faith not also about banning gay people from having sexual relations and getting hitched? Refusing to let women play a prominent role in their church and teaching that condoms cause AIDS...don't know what you class as lousy parenting but if a parent actually follows the churches lead and practices the faith and edict faithfully...

What I'm saying that's not what the vast majority of parents and teachers teach nowadays, whether you accept it or not.

No-one I know was ever thought anything like the above nor was I.

My Mother only taught me acceptence and respect for everyone and that we are all loved equally.

I remember several times where I really didn't want to go to mass and she said (ad libbing here) don't worry, God won't mind if you miss a day!

She was certainly not in any way abusing me and I resent the suggestion that she was by teaching me her faith.

Ickle Magoo

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

I don't think the wishy-washy closer to protestantism catholicism that appears to be all the rage at the moment actually changes what the religion some people align themselves with actually teaches, that some choose to water it down and ignore the more abhorrent dogma doesn't change what the religion is. I'm assuming when generic phrases are being thrown around, posters aren't taking about you and your specific upbringing anyway, I assume they are talking generally and more specifically referring to the many people who do suffer at the hands/pious mouths of religious parents?

nozzferrahhtoo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I was never thought anything like what people here seem to believe is taught.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

What I'm saying that's not what the vast majority of parents and teachers teach nowadays, whether you accept it or not.

I am perfectly willing to accept the anecdote in your first post here, I have no reason to doubt it and quite happy to hear it I am too, however I am not sure how you extrapolate that to being an authority on what the "vast majority" of parents are or are not doing.

Do you have any figures or data on studies conducted into what the "vast majority" of parents in Ireland are teaching their children in the privacy of their own homes, or are you as I fear merely extrapolating from personal anecdote?

Zombrex

Cú Giobach wrote: »

This is a subject I would love to debate with R. Dawkins.
He claims that parents indoctrinating their children with their religion is "child abuse", citing that it makes it more difficult for them to form a proper and realistic perspective of reality.

Actually what he said was teaching religious doctrine like hell to a child can be tantamount to child abuse. He bases this on testimony from people raised in religious families who suffered mental trauma when taught the idea of hell by their parents.

Cú Giobach wrote: »

Now, my point is, that not bringing up a child in your own faith would actually be tantamount to child abuse.
If someone believes that, praying to and giving homage to a deity is rewarded with "everlasting life" and not doing so is punished with "damnation", then withholding the positive option from your child would be unforgivable and cruel.

But they don't go to hell as children, and a religion like Christianity maintains that you have to freely choose salvation so indoctrinating your children to believe it is true would seem some what counter productive.

AudreyHepburn

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

nozzferrahhtoo wrote: »

I am perfectly willing to accept the anecdote in your first post here, I have no reason to doubt it and quite happy to hear it I am too, however I am not sure how you extrapolate that to being an authority on what the "vast majority" of parents are or are not doing.

Do you have any figures or data on studies conducted into what the "vast majority" of parents in Ireland are teaching their children in the privacy of their own homes, or are you as I fear merely extrapolating from personal anecdote?

Well yes I am speaking from my own experience and those of the people I have known throughout my life.

I don't see they aren't relevent?

I'd bet if the athiests on here used their experiences you wouldn't be on your high horse about it, tbh:rolleyes:

Zombrex

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Speaking as some-one who was brought up in a Catholic home ... and in no way indoctrinated.

Are you a Catholic?

nozzferrahhtoo

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'd bet if the athiests on here used their experiences you wouldn't be on your high horse about it, tbh:rolleyes:

On another thread just now you pointed out to someone the folly of presuming to know things about people you do not know.

Try taking your own advice. In fact here it is in case you want to read it again:

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Please don't presume anything about me, it only makes you look petty and cheapens your argument.

Quite the contrary is true about me and you are almost 100% wrong in your assumption above.

Extrapolating generalisations from personal anecdote is an error regardless of whether it is performed by a theist or not and I point it out whenever I see it. So get off your own "high horse" as you decide to put it and reply to only the things I have done and said, and not things you imagine I would or would not do or say.