why is the church still brain washing kids

Hotblack Desiato

robindch wrote: »

Mental illness is not something to be made light of, and most religious people - like most atheists and agnostics - are not mentally ill.

Levels of observed religious belief are positively correlated to other quantities - lack of education being one the most prominent - but mental illness isn't one of them.

Indeed not - but firm belief despite an utter lack of evidence is indeed a delusion, and often not a harmless one either. It leaves many people broken with pointless guilt and shame.

Then there's the correlation between actual mental illness and theistic delusions, why do so many schizophrenics think that they are god or that god is talking to them?
One of the 'moments of clarity' (as AA call them) for me when I was still fighting off the religious mental fog was the realisation that if JC2 somehow did materialise on this earth, he would undoubtedly be locked up in a secure institution, just like all the other people who think they're god, and there'd be no more reason to believe him than there is for any of the others.

Kiwi in IE

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Indeed not - but firm belief despite an utter lack of evidence is indeed a delusion, and often not a harmless one either. It leaves many people broken with pointless guilt and shame.

Then there's the correlation between actual mental illness and theistic delusions, why do so many schizophrenics think that they are god or that god is talking to them?
One of the 'moments of clarity' (as AA call them) for me when I was still fighting off the religious mental fog was the realisation that if JC2 somehow did materialise on this earth, he would undoubtedly be locked up in a secure institution, just like all the other people who think they're god, and there'd be no more reason to believe him than there is for any of the others.

Also many of JC1's behaviours as described in the bible are consistant with the symptoms of what we recognise today as bipolar disorder.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), American Psychiatric Association, which is the 'bible' of the psychiatric profession, intentionally add get out clauses for religious doctrine in their definition of delusional ideation. If those get out clauses were not written in, religious belief would certainly fit the definition.

Hotblack Desiato

At least they no longer regard epilepsy as demonic possession. That's a relief to someone close to me if they should ever forget to take their pills.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I think most A+A regulars would agree with you on that.Because the most successful religions feed on persecution, or in the absence of it, on perceived persecution. Banning religion outright will achieve nothing.

It's true that most beliefs (religious and secular) thrive on attempted suppression ... it's the 'forbidden fruit' phenomenon - and it's certainly not confined to religious ideas.

robindch wrote: »

And that's quite apart from the belief that most atheists + agnostics hold, which many religious people don't, that all people are free, and should be free, to believe whatever they wish to.

I think there are liberals and illiberals within all religions and none and the above quote shows that you accept this too.

robindch wrote: »

If you want to see what happens when you attempt to control people's beliefs, then go visit North Korea - a place I've visited which has more than its fair share of christian thought-relics.

Its objective is an atheistic communist society - and it seems to have largely achieved this ... and I agree with you, it's not a pretty sight. Whether this is due to its atheism or its communism (or both) may be open to debate. I personally think that it's both. Whilst Atheism (like most beliefs) is relatively benign (and sometimes even 'a breath of fresh air') when in a pluralist environment, just like any other belief system, it can become quite oppressive when it teams up with the state to have its beliefs (and only its beliefs) promulgated by the state.

robindch wrote: »

None of that please, kids. Mental illness is not something to be made light of, and most religious people - like most atheists and agnostics - are not mentally ill.

I agree - calling people mentally ill is an ad hominem and one of the nastier ones at that.
Those whom 'the powers that be' would destroy, they first declare to be mad.

robindch wrote: »

Levels of observed religious belief are positively correlated to other quantities - lack of education being one the most prominent - but mental illness isn't one of them.

There has been are recent fashion for many people to reject faith in God for faith in a lack of God.
This has been caused in no small measure by both sins of omission and comission by many churches, with the Roman Catholic Church being the greater source of scandal in this regard.
Historically, observed religious belief has been positively correlated with education level ... and educational qualifications have always been prized and achieved by Saved Christians - and this continues to be the case.

J C

robindch wrote: »

I've been around atheists and agnostics a long while at this stage and I can honestly say that I've never met one who's wanted to ban religion, or who thought it would be a good idea to try.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that not banning religion is a matter of practicality and not one of principle for you. You have said that you want religious dogma to be eradicated ... its only the practicalities of doing so (and avoiding counter productive results) that makes you propose avoiding the outright banning of religion.
Indeed, the demands from Atheists and Secularists for irreligious education in all schools, the banning of any public expression of religious belief and (in some cases) the banning of faith transmission to children under 18 years old comes quite close to an outright legal proscription of religion.

robindch wrote: »

I have, however, met many, many christians who think that atheists, agnostics and just about everybody else is trying to outlaw their own particular religious views. As above, persecution is one of the things upon which religion thrives.

It's Human Nature to want one's own beliefs to be shared by the maximum number of people.
Where this 'crosses a line' is when somebody demands that their beliefs (and only their beliefs) be priveliged by the state - or where they outlaw the beliefs of others.
A free exchange of ideas is a healthy thing - and any idea that cannot stand rigorous examination shouldn't be priveliged to the point of suppressing alternative ideas, to keep it alive. Indeed, even if it can stand rigorous examination, it still shouldn't be priveliged to the point of suppressing alternative ideas.

J C

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

Also many of JC1's behaviours as described in the bible are consistant with the symptoms of what we recognise today as bipolar disorder.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), American Psychiatric Association, which is the 'bible' of the psychiatric profession, intentionally add get out clauses for religious doctrine in their definition of delusional ideation. If those get out clauses were not written in, religious belief would certainly fit the definition.

Some religious people, just like some irreligious people sadly suffer from mental illness.
However, faith in God's existence (or indeed non-existence) isn't a symptom of mental illness.
The American Psychiatric Association would be a laughing stock, if they didn't exclude religious (and irreligious) belief as delusional ideation - and that is why their 'bible' doesn't do this.

J C

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It incentivises you to do so by making it a requirement for priority in 90+% of primary schools, therefore if any school is oversubscribed and your child is not baptised you will not get a place.

Then once they get in there, the state employee paid to educate your child spends a not insubstantial proportion of their working week ramming bronze age nonsense into kids' heads.

Then there's sacramental preparation, again carried out by state employees during their working week.

Yet the Constitution guarantees religious freedom and bans the State from endowing any religion :rolleyes:

Yes the state cannot endow any religion i.e. discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation. However, a state whose citizens have various religious beliefs must endow all persons equally - and it cannot use its powers to suppress some or all religions.
Its freedom of religion ... and not freedom from religion (or indeed, irreligion).

looksee

J C wrote: »

Its objective is an atheistic communist society

what's objective? I am not aware of a link between atheism and communism - it may suit communism to be atheistic, but not the other way round

Whilst Atheism (like most beliefs)

Lets not get into the 'whether atheism is a belief' argument again, it is boring at this stage and we can't keep accommodating the people who refuse to try and understand it. This removes several other irrelevant points in JC's post.

There has been are recent fashion for many people to reject faith in God for faith in a lack of God.

like this one for example.

Historically, observed religious belief has been positively correlated with education level ... and educational qualifications have always been prized and achieved by Saved Christians - and this continues to be the case.

Could we have just a teeny bit of evidence for this statement please?

J C wrote: »

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that not banning religion is a matter of practicality and not one of principle for you. You have said that you want religious dogma to be eradicated ... its only the practicalities of doing so (and avoiding counter productive results) that makes you propose avoiding the outright banning of religion.

There is no particular demand to ban religion - people are free to believe what they like - PROVIDED religion does not impose itself on those who do not want it. Like using schools to indoctrinate for example.

Indeed, the demands from Atheists and Secularists for irreligious education in all schools, the banning of any public expression of religious belief and (in some cases) the banning of faith transmission to children under 18 years old comes quite close to an outright legal proscription of religion.

Check out the difference between irreligious and non-religious.

You are referring to Baptism presumably? Most atheists are not concerned about baptism - the OP's reference is not entirely without an agenda - except to the extent that baptism to ensure school access is used to 'prove' the popularity of the Catholic church and therefore keep its position of authority in the State.

It's Human Nature to want one's own beliefs to be shared by the maximum number of people.
Where this 'crosses a line' is when somebody demands that their beliefs (and only their beliefs) be priveliged by the state - or where they outlaw the beliefs of others.
A free exchange of ideas is a healthy thing - and any idea that cannot stand rigorous examination shouldn't be priveliged to the point of suppressing alternative ideas to keep it alive. Indeed, even if it can stand rigorous examination, it still shouldn't be priveliged to the point of suppressing alternative ideas.

Amazing, for once we agree on something, if I let you away with describing atheism as a belief, I could not have put it better myself.

whats newxt

haveringchick wrote: »

I have posted a couple of times on AA but I admit I don't read it much. I find it difficult to believe tthat adults would think it was reasonable to suggest that you could ban religion

I'm not talking about "thought police" but why not tax them out of existence for example.

eviltwin

I'm more annoyed at parents than the church. They are the ones with responsibility towards their children. They shouldn't be bringing babies to be baptised in the first place.

looksee

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm more annoyed at parents than the church. They are the ones with responsibility towards their children. They shouldn't be bringing babies to be baptised in the first place.

But apart from the 'numbers in the church' thing, what does it matter. If you believe then it is a 'good' thing. If you do not then it doesn't matter either way. It is not making any difference at all to the child. If for some reason the child were brought up away from family it would not know whether it had been baptised or not.

eviltwin

looksee wrote: »

But apart from the 'numbers in the church' thing, what does it matter. If you believe then it is a 'good' thing. If you do not then it doesn't matter either way. It is not making any difference at all to the child. If for some reason the child were brought up away from family it would not know whether it had been baptised or not.

I think it should be left to the child to make that decision for themselves.

endacl

whats newxt wrote: »

I'm not talking about "thought police" but why not tax them out of existence for example.

Have you met Notavirus.exe? One of you is the other's evil twin!

whats newxt

You can delete this thread if you want, all i'm saying is if we do want to truly exist on this planet and build a utopia religion has no place in this idea as it's funda'mentally' detriment to human co-existence.

endacl

whats newxt wrote: »

You can delete this thread if you want, all i'm saying is if we do want to truly exist on this planet and build a utopia religion has no place in this idea as it's funda'mentally' detriment to human co-existence.

I do truly exist already. The notion of a 'utopia' is crackers, by the way. Everybody happy all the time? What would be the point?

haveringchick

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm more annoyed at parents than the church. They are the ones with responsibility towards their children. They shouldn't be bringing babies to be baptised in the first place.[/quote

One billion 1000000000 baptised Catholics on the planet at the moment and rising all the time. Are you annoyed with all the parents or only the Irish ones?

haveringchick

whats newxt wrote: »

You can delete this thread if you want, all i'm saying is if we do want to truly exist on this planet and build a utopia religion has no place in this idea as it's funda'mentally' detriment to human co-existence.

Are you starting 2nd or 3rd year philosophy?

haveringchick

eviltwin wrote: »

I think it should be left to the child to make that decision for themselves.

But it's part of the promise I made during the sacrament of matrimony to bring my children up as Catholics. It's part of the religion to baptise your child. Baptism is one of the sacraments. I wouldn't be a Catholic if I didn't baptise my child.

Cabaal

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm more annoyed at parents than the church. They are the ones with responsibility towards their children. They shouldn't be bringing babies to be baptised in the first place.

Many parents feel they have no choice as if they don't they can't make use of the local tax payer paid for school

Cabaal

haveringchick wrote: »

But it's part of the promise I made during the sacrament of matrimony to bring my children up as Catholics. It's part of the religion to baptise your child. Baptism is one of the sacraments. I wouldn't be a Catholic if I didn't baptise my child.

You're also not a Catholic of you don't regularly go to mass and follow the Catholic on its beliefs and rules.

For example, I take it you think sex before marriage is a big no no and also condoms are wrong and should never be used? After all these are official Catholic Church teachings... You wouldn't ignore them as a Catholic would you?

Also, I take it you fully believe in transubstantiation? After all this is a really really big thing for the Catholic Church.

uck51js9zml2yt

robindch wrote: »

Levels of observed religious belief are positively correlated to other quantities - lack of education being one the most prominent -.

And you have scientific evidence to back this up I assume.
I have a level 9 and a couple of level 8 degrees and am a dedicated theist for the last 30 years.

Its the biggest load of nonsense I've read all day:)

The Randy Riverbeast

Cayson Icy Wagon wrote: »

And you have scientific evidence to back this up I assume.
I have a level 9 and a couple of level 8 degrees and am a dedicated theist for the last 30 years.

Its the biggest load of nonsense I've read all day:)

It varies. Some studies have found it going one way, others another.

For Ireland the census has shown those who have no religion/atheist/agnostic are more likely to have a third level education.

Persons with no religion (including Atheists and
Agnostics) had higher levels of education than the
general population, as illustrate
d in the graph on the left.
They were more than twice as likely to have a
postgraduate degree or diploma compared with the
general population (17.1% and 8.2% respectively) and
more than half (56%) had
a third level qualification
compared with 35.5 per cent of the general population.

http://www.cso.ie/en/media/csoie/census/documents/census2011profile7/Profile,7,Education,Ethnicity,and,Irish,Traveller,entire,doc.pdf

It doesnt mean that a theist cant have a third level education, just that they are less common among that section of the population when compared to people without a religion.

eviltwin

haveringchick wrote: »

But it's part of the promise I made during the sacrament of matrimony to bring my children up as Catholics. It's part of the religion to baptise your child. Baptism is one of the sacraments. I wouldn't be a Catholic if I didn't baptise my child.

Hey don't get all defensive, I just believe faith is a thing that one should discover for themselves, it shouldn't be chosen for you.

Hotblack Desiato

J C wrote: »

Yes the state cannot endow any religion i.e. discriminate on the basis of religious affiliation. However, a state whose citizens have various religious beliefs must endow all persons equally - and it cannot use its powers to suppress some or all religions.
Its freedom of religion ... and not freedom from religion (or indeed, irreligion).

Freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion.

The Irish state absolutely does discriminate on the basis of religion, try getting a job as an atheist primary teacher when 96% of primary schools are religious run and are allowed insist that you indoctrinate kids. Yet you would be a state employee and the Dept of Education pays your wages.

The state also permits discrimination against parents of minority faiths and no religion, by allowing 96% of primary schools to prioritise kids from RC or CoI families.

GekkePrutser

looksee wrote: »

But apart from the 'numbers in the church' thing, what does it matter. If you believe then it is a 'good' thing. If you do not then it doesn't matter either way. It is not making any difference at all to the child.

It does at a later stage. I was baptised and I still resent it to this day as I dont believe at all. Yet I'm still 'on the books' somewhere as a catholic. Don't forget your kids might resent you for it later (I certainly resent my grandmother for insisting at the time)

I'll never allow my kids to have a religious education, like eviltwin I'd also want them to make up their minds at a less impressionable age. If I'd have to leave this country then so be it. Not that I want kids anyway.

looksee

GekkePrutser wrote: »

It does at a later stage. I was baptised and I still resent it to this day as I dont believe at all. Yet I'm still 'on the books' somewhere as a catholic. Don't forget your kids might resent you for it later (I certainly resent my grandmother for insisting at the time)

I'll never allow my kids to have a religious education, like eviltwin I'd also want them to make up their minds at a less impressionable age. If I'd have to leave this country then so be it. Not that I want kids anyway.

Granted you are 'on the books' and that should not be. However if you do not believe, the fact that you were baptised is of no more significance than having been dressed in pink or in blue. Being circumcised or having your ears pierced as a baby or having your baby photo on facebook would have been way more intrusive.

Parents who genuinely believe that it is essential for their child's spiritual 'safety' to be baptised, are not likely to worry about later resentment.

eviltwin

looksee wrote: »

Granted you are 'on the books' and that should not be. However if you do not believe, the fact that you were baptised is of no more significance than having been dressed in pink or in blue. Being circumcised or having your ears pierced as a baby or having your baby photo on facebook would have been way more intrusive.

Parents who genuinely believe that it is essential for their child's spiritual 'safety' to be baptised, are not likely to worry about later resentment.

Day to day being a baptised Catholic doesn't affect me. It's only when you have to find a school place that supports your beliefs or see the church using its numbers to give it a platform on social issues that it's frustrating. I'm also on the books despite not having been a Catholic in over 20 years. I greatly resent that a decision my parents made, a decision I never agreed with, is used to inflate the church's power.

J C

eviltwin wrote: »

Day to day being a baptised Catholic doesn't affect me. It's only when you have to find a school place that supports your beliefs or see the church using its numbers to give it a platform on social issues that it's frustrating. I'm also on the books despite not having been a Catholic in over 20 years. I greatly resent that a decision my parents made, a decision I never agreed with, is used to inflate the church's power.

Is that really correct? ... surely it is the most recent Census figures (that you, as an adult complete) that are being used to plan school provision and for any other issues where religion is a factor??

looksee

I am arguing on both sides, I can see where eviltwin is coming from in resenting having been baptised, and I agree it gives the church power that we can now see is not reasonable.

This is not about the church though, if we are only discussing school places and patronage - it is up to the government to remove this power. There is really, if you think about it, no reason why the church should loosen its authority, that is what it (the church) is about. It is up to the government to make sure that schools etc that are paid for by the people should provide service that is not controlled by religious belief.

eviltwin

J C wrote: »

Is that really correct? ... surely it is the most recent Census figures (that you, as an adult complete) that are being used to plan school provision and for any other issues where religion is a factor??

I dunno JC, last census said the number of Catholic was in the 80's percent and yet it's still a country where well over 90% of our schools offer a Catholic education.