Children raised by religious fundamentalists—can this be a form of child abuse?

[King Blackwood]

Deists would be an example of a group of theists without dogma, I think. I don't know a whole lot about them.

[protar]

Nope. Some theists have no doctrine, some atheists do. And this is yes another problem with your comparison.

A valid comparison would be between theists and atheists (eg - atheists rarely have a specific doctrine whereas theists frequently do) and between specific doctrines or philosophies (ie - hardcore New Atheists are just as intolerant as hardcore Muslims). Because those things are alike.

Trying to compare a general belief in a there being no god(s) to a specific religious doctrine is just not a sensible comparison since they are not the same kind of thing.

You are attempting, again, a rhetorical sleight-of-hand by saying "atheism has no doctrine but christianity does" because you are comparing a simple belief and/or overarching philosophy to a very specific type of religion (that itself falls under a much larger simple belief and/or overarching philosophy). One that does not necessarily have any doctrine. And once you recognize this, you can see the big hole in your argument I just pointed out.

I recognise the distinction you're making, I just don't think it is relevant to the discussion. When talking in general terms you probably want to talk about the more likely scenarios. It's more likely that the Atheist family will have no doctrine whilst the theistic family will.

Also if Hardcore New Atheists are a subset of Atheism - which you cede would be a valid comparison, then why do non-doctrine atheists also not count as a subset of Atheism? Why are you so adverse to this comparison? I mean I'd also be fine with comparing Hardcore Atheists with Non-religious theists.

Anyway, I'm fine with my comparison - I understand your arguments, I disagree with them. So I'm going to continue making that comparison. If that really bothers you then there's no point in discussing this any further.

[TerraPrime]

Is it abuse? Yes. Unequivocally. All religions are harmful to young children's mind, even the benign, friendly, socially progressive ones. We are okay with most of the non-extreme forms because it's social inertia and cultural tradition to do so. Society has ever advanced in spite of religion and religions bring more harm than good to this world.

Should it be banned? No. Religious parents should be allowed to raise their kids in a way that aligns with their religion. Even if this means causing harm to them. It is the price we must pay to live in a pluralistic society when it comes to faith and religion, just like there will always be cases of your children killing others in firearm accidents Ina society with widespread gun ownership.

[King Blackwood]

Is it abuse? Yes. Unequivocally. All religions are harmful to young children's mind, even the benign, friendly, socially progressive ones. We are okay with most of the non-extreme forms because it's social inertia and cultural tradition to do so. Society has ever advanced in spite of religion and religions bring more harm than good to this world.

I take offense to this. What about all of the religious charity organizations? Religion is a motivating factor for many people to do good in the world. Religion is not a bad thing. It teaches morality, and at my Catholic high school we were taught to think critically and not accept everything as truth just because doctrine says so, but to question and come to our conclusions. Maybe I just had progressive teachers in a progressive school, but it was a religious school. I came out far more analytically minded than when I went in.

For instance, Jesus preached that love and forgiveness was the way to happiness. Great guy. God? I personally don't believe so.

[Crom Dubh]

People will do good without religion. Your school would have taught you critical thinking without needing to be a Catholic school. I don't think religion is always evil, but I am certain it is always unnecessary.

[Theda Baratheon]

You can still have charitable organizations and be a good person with a strong moral code without religion though. Those aren't religion only things.

[King Blackwood]

I'm not saying that religion is required for morality, good deeds, charity, etc... But many people find a calling to do these good things through religion.

[Shryke]

Is it abuse? Yes. Unequivocally. All religions are harmful to young children's mind, even the benign, friendly, socially progressive ones. We are okay with most of the non-extreme forms because it's social inertia and cultural tradition to do so. Society has ever advanced in spite of religion and religions bring more harm than good to this world.

Should it be banned? No. Religious parents should be allowed to raise their kids in a way that aligns with their religion. Even if this means causing harm to them. It is the price we must pay to live in a pluralistic society when it comes to faith and religion, just like there will always be cases of your children killing others in firearm accidents Ina society with widespread gun ownership.

How?

[Dr. Pepper]

KB, I think you're probably ignoring the second part of TP's post where he stated that religion shouldn't be made illegal. It's possible for people to consider things as harmful and damaging while also accepting that the existence of such things is a necessary trade off. It's the difference between imagining one's perfect world and comparing it to what one considers an ideal or acceptable world.

[King Blackwood]

I disagree that it is always harmful or damaging though. People can do terrible things in the name of religion, but they can also do great things in the name of religion. It's the same for absolutely anything else. People are capable of evil and good, and will use anything to justify both.

[Ormond]

You can still have charitable organizations and be a good person with a strong moral code without religion though. Those aren't religion only things.

While this is true in the abstract, it does seem to ignore the fact that in the United States, at least, those who regularly attend religious services are much more likely to give to non-religious charitable causes than non-religious persons are.

This is probably mostly because of social ties formed within religious congregations. But in our modern individualistic society, if a decrease in religious observance is NOT to lead to an overall decrease in charitable giving, even to non-religious charities, those who aren't religious will have to do something to replace the social ties and pressures to give found in religious congregations with some social ties and pressures of their own. And so far they have been very unsuccessful in doing this.

http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/26/religious-people-are-more-charitable/

[DireWolfSpirit]

Deists would be an example of a group of theists without dogma, I think. I don't know a whole lot about them.

Deism (Listeni/ˈdiː.ɪzəm/[1][2] or /ˈdeɪ.ɪzəm/, derived from the Latin word deus meaning "god") combines a rejection of religious knowledge as a source of authority with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe.[3][4][5][6][7] Deism gained prominence among intellectuals during the Age of Enlightenment especially in Britain, France, Germany and the United States who, raised as Christians, believed in one god but became disenchanted with organized religion and notions such as the Trinity, Biblical inerrancy and the supernatural interpretation of events such as miracles.[8] Included in those influenced by its ideas were leaders of the American and French Revolutions.[9]

Today, deism is considered to exist in two principal forms: classical and modern.[10]

Thomas Jefferson,

as well as many of the founding fathers for the U.S.A. are famous examples of Deists.

[King Blackwood]

Thomas Jefferson,

as well as many of the founding fathers for the U.S.A. are famous examples of Deists.

Thanks for the info. I think I would fall under the definition of a deist, then. I love Thomas Jefferson.

[Shryke]

Deists would be an example of a group of theists without dogma, I think. I don't know a whole lot about them.

It can be as simple as people who will say they do believe in god but aren't actually part of any organized religion.

[TerraPrime]

I take offense to this. What about all of the religious charity organizations? Religion is a motivating factor for many people to do good in the world. Religion is not a bad thing. It teaches morality, and at my Catholic high school we were taught to think critically and not accept everything as truth just because doctrine says so, but to question and come to our conclusions. Maybe I just had progressive teachers in a progressive school, but it was a religious school. I came out far more analytically minded than when I went in.

Religions can motivate good behavior. But, often, the very charitable Christians are charitable only to certain types of people, like other white Christians, and only in certain aspects, like giving them clothes and food. Charity is not just about that, though. Charity, in its ideal, is kindness to the less fortunate. In the United States alone, organized religions, in particular Christians, is the single most important force of uncharitable political and social behaviors, such as anti-gay, anti-trans, and shaming of female sexuality. It is, without a doubt in mind, that all the soup kitchens and all the used clothes drives do not make up for the damage that religion has done to society. The Catholics alone are responsible for decades of cultural genocide with their missionary acts, so say nothing of all the copy-cat sects with similar goals of converting others.

Over all, religion does more harm than good. I see that as a fairly incontrovertible statement when taken at a global scale across various cultures. With the exception of totalitarium regimes running on communist ideals, almost all social problems can be laid at the feet of one religion or another.

For instance, Jesus preached that love and forgiveness was the way to happiness. Great guy. God? I personally don't believe so.

I don't think Jesus was particularly concerned about anyone being happy. He was more concerned about people recognizing God's plan for them and to redeem humankind. But be that as it may, Jesus also compared gentiles to animals in one of his parables, and there was no sign that he really considered gentiles to be of equal to Jews. I mean, why would he? He was born and raised as a Jew.

Re: Shryke

How?

By teaching them that appealing to a universally unprovable authority on morality is the right thing to do, for one. Second, it is harmful in the tribalism and ethnocentric worldview assoicated with all religions.

Re: Ormond

While this is true in the abstract, it does seem to ignore the fact that in the United States, at least, those who regularly attend religious services are much more likely to give to non-religious charitable causes than non-religious persons are.

I wonder if the phenomenon is tied to the fact the United States is probably the worst in social services provided to its citizens amongst comparably industrialized countries. In other words, charitable giving is high in the United States because we lack many of the social safety net services that are in other countries provided by the government.

[Shryke]

Re: Shryke

By teaching them that appealing to a universally unprovable authority on morality is the right thing to do, for one.

What harm is being done here?

Second, it is harmful in the tribalism and ethnocentric worldview assoicated with all religions.

You mean the tribalism associated with all humans ever?

[Wmarshal]

I see no issue in teaching chidlren religious beliefs. But a person is entitled when they are old enough to question and follow what they believe.

[TerraPrime]

What harm is being done here?

You don't find indoctrinating people into accepting a source of moral authority that can neither be challenged nor invalidated problematic?

You mean the tribalism associated with all humans ever?

I take it that you accept that religion does inculcate tribalism and ethnocentrism, then? And your retort is that lots of other things in human society introduce tribalism and ethnocentrism and therefore, we ought not criticize religion for ALSO doing these things?

[Jo498]

Over all, religion does more harm than good. I see that as a fairly incontrovertible statement when taken at a global scale across various cultures. With the exception of totalitarium regimes running on communist ideals, almost all social problems can be laid at the feet of one religion or another.

This seems extremely dubious and bad methodology. There is not control group because there hardly ever was any society without religion (or some ersatz, be it totalitarian communism, facism or "Western values" that allow us to kill Afghan wedding guests with drones). The ones with ersatz religion were often faster and more efficient in killing without the benefits of the "real" religions, though the latter usually ruled for longer periods.

[Shryke]

You don't find indoctrinating people into accepting a source of moral authority that can neither be challenged nor invalidated problematic?

Considering the number of people who were raised religious and have no problems with this later in life, no.

I take it that you accept that religion does inculcate tribalism and ethnocentrism, then? And your retort is that lots of other things in human society introduce tribalism and ethnocentrism and therefore, we ought not criticize religion for ALSO doing these things?

I think you are being foolish by pretending that any difference doesn't introduce tribalism in humans. We've done these experiments with children. You can literally induce these feelings by making them wear different colour shirts.

So unless you are advocating the sci-fi jumpsuit for all, I think you are searching for an excuse.