if you need to use him as an excuse to do good things...go right ahead...
if you need to use him as an excuse to do bad things..something ain't right..
Is Religious Indoctrination Criminal?
- Thread starter PsychoticEpisode
- Start date
if you need to use him as an excuse to do good things...go right ahead...
if you need to use him as an excuse to do bad things..something ain't right..
Falsely accusing one’s neighbors saying they are bad using the awful sin lie as an excuse deserves the utmost contempt.
In post 22 I said:
I fail to see where I made anything clear about rights.
George Carlin said rights are temporary privileges. I suppose he meant they last as long as society feels fit to have them. Rights are entitlements, whether from a legal perspective, something legislated by the people or they could be moralistic in origin.
I don't understand why you're so upset with me. By asking where rights come from I have no choice but to conclude you agree there are such things as rights. So why ask me where they come from?
sorry--i'm not upset, just prone to hyperbole when frustrated--what i really want is just some clarity.
you are correct insofar as rights are entitlements and permissions; but there are those which are accorded by the state (legal rights) and another sort, i.e. rights which pertain to one's perceived morality, and that seems to be what we are talking about.
but where do these rights (the latter kind) come from? i mean, what means do you use to conclude that such "exist"? by speaking of rights in this sense, you are speaking as though they exist a priori--they are givens. but how can that be?
I would submit that it depends.
For instance, in the case of jews and certain African tribes where that 'indoctrination' includes actual physical abuse, (circumcision/face scarring etc), then most certainly. I would personally see such people arrested. (Of course media plays its role and curiously suggests that it is only a crime when a female is circumcised. Is it somehow less physically abusing to chop skin off a male than a female without their permission?)
If, in fact, be it theist or something else, you 'teach' in such manner whereby the results lead to loss of life or physical harm, (such as christians refusing aid for their children), then yes. I would have such people arrested [thankfully they are but it is always too late for the victim].
It depends upon the 'level' of indoctrination. If you spend some time perusing serial killer lists, you'll find that pretty much all of them had devoutly religious mothers/parents. Being devoutly religious is not simply a case of indoctrinating them with the notion that a god exists but everything that accompanies it such as self loathing, (we are all useless sinners deserving of hellfire), and sexual repression, (which is the biggest factor). Indeed question the more devout christians here, (Adstar or someone).. Question them about sexual organs - you'll find they'll get all steamed up simply by you using the word penis or vagina. Such 'indoctrination' does not lead to mentally healthy individuals and so yes, I would consider it abuse.
I do not however consider it abuse to teach - as long as it is done in an unbiased manner, (as much as possible). Fortunately here, (UK), that seems to be the trend. I don't think that applies to much of the US where it isn't a matter of teaching beliefs and ideas but of downright indoctrination of the worst kind.
You made it clear you think they exist. Most scinetific critiques of religious indoctrination would come down to showing that entities are being posited that do not exist. If Religious indoctrination were to become illegal and this was thought to be important that it was, it should be clear that either 1) other posited entities that do not have (sufficient) supporting evidence would also be no nos for acts of convincing OR 2) for some reason they are not.
When an atheist raises the issue of making religious indoctrination a crime and then goes ahead and posits an entity that is unlikely to be proven to exist through scientific testing, of course one will point this out. You can see this probing around the existence of rights as a way of showing the problems of making religious indoctrination illegal. So much would become illegal soon after, including talk of rights.
It is possible Parmalee has another interest in the issue of rights.
The thread does not exist in a vacuum. Even if it did the OP has implicit values. You can see responses like mine and I would guess Parmalee's as NOT pretending these are absent.
Just as I would not if the thread were entitled Should Gay literature be made Criminal,
and then some posts in the person strongly implied it should be, at the same time referring to their reading of heterosexual porn, while having said elsewhere in other threads that one should not have tests that stimulate sexual feelings.
I think what you're trying to tell me is that as far as morality goes, that rights would not exist if religion hadn't come along? Something to that effect? If so then I believe there are several archival threads on the subject.
For starters and this is no way indicates my position....Is it morally right:
1. To be taught creationism in public schools
2. To be taught evolution in public schools
3. To be indoctrinated
4. To refuse indoctrination
Last edited:
I used theft and killing as examples:
Through your belief you have set God on a pedestal allowing him special privileges so that he is liken to a “immature spoiled child” who can’t do any wrong although committing the very crimes he has judged as evil. I blame the "spoiled child's" parents and in the case of God you are acting as the parent spoiling the child.
I realize your motives for being unfair and unjust.
Last edited:
not exactly, but you are thinking in the right direction--see this thread specifically: atheist AND deontologist, possible?
if you are to acknowledge that some sort of "natural rights" "exist," then you must account for how you came to arrive at this conviction.
again, one must make clear what one means by "indoctrination"--we are all indoctrinated into something, from the moment we exhibit the capacity to subvert the instinctive. "moral..." can also be problematic.
and so i can only express my opinions on the matters enumerated: i do not believe that creationism should be taught in public schools, apart from an historical account of various belie systems in history classes, for instance; i do believe that evolution should be taught; as to nos. 3 and 4, i do not have a problem with either.
yes..if indoctrination were to be made illegal..it would have to apply to other forms of indoctrination as well..this would be a case of 'where does it end?'
at least they should not exclude creationism or evolution, it should not be a matter of one or the other..to do so would create indoctrination in the schools..so then using the logic put forth in OP that would make schools illegal..
Squirrel.... if you read my post you would see that I wasn't talking about the legality of these choices. I asked if it was a moral right.
Last edited:
I don't follow.
What is it specifically about theft that makes it inherently evil?
Or perhaps, what is it specifically about the material world that makes it a non-possession of god?
I mean every living thing on this planet is born with nothing and dies with nothing. What is it specifically that you are claiming proprietorship of?
If we discuss this further I think we will find that on the contrary, god is infinitely magnanimous (a quality born out of his infinite sense of renunciation), at least in contrast to ourselves.
No matter where you go throughout the galaxy
D) in any civilization stealing another person’s property is a crime.Present this owner of my possessions otherwise its you trying take my material things making you a flimflam man. Is it God that is materialist coveting my things or is it you?
I say you're making that up flimflam man and have nothing to offer except you plan to deceive me out of my things. btw, I worked for and am earning my material things I own.
Last edited:
So you agree, that if its your property at the onset, there's no criminality to the act?No matter where you go throughout the galaxy
You're under illusion.
You've only got them on lease under an agreement that is extremely tentative. You can some or all of it in a moment.
hehe
then just try and keep such things by dint of your hard work.
I bet you lose.
Is it God that is materialist coveting my things or is it you?
Well as for god, no sense coveting something what one already has, and as for me, I'm just painfully reminding you that your entire sense of acquisition is here to go. Whether you work harder than an ass or not simply details how much you stand to lose.
There is no God to own anything and its your coveting that has been revealed.
You didn’t answer the question and I’ve nailed you down. God would have no need to be materialist, would he?
I tell you that its the nature of our possession in this world to be temporary and I'm coveting your possessions?
In the sense that a materialist derives a sense of pleasure from ownership and such, no.
Your comments concerning my losing things is because of your envy. You covet my things.