Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 71

Thread: Brainwashing Children is Child Abuse

  1. #46
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,679
    Quote Originally Posted by greg79f150 View Post
    There is nothing in this world that I know of that exists that puts, " good or bad" stamps on babies. They grow up to be a product of their environment. Their home, family values, education, social atmosphere, religious exposure, are all key components to how that baby will be as an adult. ...

    If being brainwashed by a religion (Christianity in mind here ) as a young person proves to be a " valuable exposure" then, I have no problem with it. My long life experiences have proven to me that a brainwashed religious person usually (but not always) grows up to be a good person.
    Do you have any studies you could sight that address the question of whether or not children grow up to be better adults when raised with religion?

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ky
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by Accipiter View Post
    Do you have any studies you could sight that address the question of whether or not children grow up to be better adults when raised with religion?
    No studies that I know of to mention. As I posted, the people that I have met in my life the passed 48 years that were raised in religious families, just seem to grow up being good people ( not all of them of course) and that is just my perception.

  3. #48
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,418
    Quote Originally Posted by greg79f150 View Post
    No studies that I know of to mention.
    Studies, smudies. What studies have been made to know that my wife makes better cake than anyone in the known world? There's no use telling anyone that life is good, Greg, unless you have a team of studiers on retainer at your neighborhood study bank...
    Ain't life funny...

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ky
    Posts
    29
    Very true Orn, it seems nowadays that people are more prone to believe a proven lie, than a percieved truth.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,679
    In addition to your argument being a logical fallacy, your opinions are based on bias subjective perceptions and anecdotal information all supported by a book of mythology, it's hardly worthy as an argument.

    Truth does not come from people who believe in fairy tales.
    Last edited by Accipiter; 02-10-2012 at 12:19 AM.

  6. #51
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by marc9000 View Post
    Atheism has many, if not all, the same characteristics as religion does. Here is how the word ‘religion’ is defined by dictionary.com;
    I think there is another thread for this discussion, but what the heck. By looking at the last few pages, looks like we're off topic anyways. Ill try to keep this relevant.

    1]A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
    Atheism does not explain anything. It is not a belief system, has no central body, is not a theory, does not include explanations, has no literature associated with it, and contains no moral code. It is simply the a lack of belief in a God.

    2]a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
    Nobody decides what being atheist is. The definition arose out of the necessity to describe someone who holds no belief in a God. Kind of like the necessity for a word to describe what being liberal or conservative is.

    3]the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
    The is no world council, no set of beliefs and definitely no practice associated with atheism.

    4]the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
    Not sure how you could come even close to asserting that this one describes atheism.

    5]the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
    No faith is necessary. It is complete lack of faith and the acceptance of "I don't know squat, but I can make attempts to figure it all out and do so in the most systematic, logical, and deductive way possible."

    Atheism has all that. It sees the nature and purpose of the universe as products of naturalism/evolution. The devotional and ritual observances, moral codes, etc. are the study of philosophical science, the constant futility of searching for "abiogenesis" and calling it science, conducts of human affairs involving big government, and a worship of the environment. And of course, to eventually erase religion from society.
    There is no motive to atheism. There is no plan or mission. This all exists in your head.

    From your link;
    It may therefore be reasonable to conclude that atheism may not be part of the universal human nature, and widespread practice of atheism may have been a recent product of Communism in the 20th century. So belief in higher powers is evolutionarily familiar and natural, and atheism is evolutionarily novel. The Hypothesis would therefore predict that more intelligent individuals are more likely to be atheist than less intelligent individuals.
    The fact that communism never works wouldn’t indicate that atheism has the market cornered on intelligence. I read “the hypothesis” and didn’t find it’s intelligence prediction convincing.
    It's not saying that communism is a product of intelligence. It's saying that those who are more intelligent are more likely to be using deduction than relying on their intuition that has resulted from their evolutionary history where explaining things correctly was not necessarily beneficial. You just needed the urge to explain things to figure them out and therefore be more effective in whatever it is that you happen to be doing to survive. With the trait proposed in this article, things that were unexplainable could be disregarded as God or Gods and leave the explainable things with more of one's focus. In today's age of science and technology, we have been able to actually figure out what stars are and that the Sun is completely outside of any realm of the gods. There are still things left unexplained and are perhaps unexplainable, but the intelligent people are not willing to give up the fight. The less intelligent see God in the unexplained based on the above described phenomena.

    Again, the only reason communism was mentioned is that it coincided with an atheist movement.
    Implying to a 13 year old in a science class that all of reality is the result of purposeless, happenstance processes can also have a huge impact. It could fit in perfectly with his desire to go ahead and knock up the cute girl sitting in the next row after class today. He knows his parents would prefer that he didn’t do that, but why worry about them? No need to honor thy father and mother as an atheist, is there? Statistics/census reports show the U.S. to be increasing in atheism over the past several decades. As the U.S. national debt has also been increasing. Wouldn’t an increase in intelligence indicate better money management, not worse?
    Who cares? So its probably not true because you don't like it? Do think honestly believe that it is religion that is keeping kids from getting pregnant? I would be willing to bet that teenage pregnancy, just as a high level of religiosity, correlates with lower than average intelligence. In fact, I will assert that it does.


    But it’s not done publicly. I’m against something so obviously untrue as naturalistic origins. I think the only reason atheism is shown to be increasing in the U.S. is because we continually PUBLICLY indoctrinate our kids with it in science classes.
    Atheism is not taught publicly either. Its not taught in science class. The only thing taught in science goes like this:
    1) Here is what we observe
    2) Here is what we think is happening
    3) Here is our test of what we think is happening
    4) Test results do (not) confirm


    Do you believe atheism would be increasing in the U.S. without its promotion from the mainstream scientific community?
    Atheism is only increasing because religiosity is decreasing. Kids simply have more access to information than ever before. What they decide to do with that information is up to them.



    I don’t see much difference between Islam and atheism. The communist history of atheism is much more similar to the dictatorships of Islam than it is to liberty/capitalism. There are many logical reasons to believe Christianity over Islam.
    There are logical reasons to believe Christianity over Islam? What are they? (And "the Bible is better than the Koran" is not acceptable.)

  7. #52
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by gansao View Post
    Then it uses a bar graph to ' show that there appears to be a difference of about 6 points between the intelligence of the very religious to athiests...well ok it depends on the sample .....BUT......the bar graph they use has the bar showing the lower intelect sample being less than a quarter of the size of the higher intellect sample thus insulting the intelligence of everyone reading the article .
    You ever see stocks prices graphed? Find me one that goes all the way to zero. This is common practice and make for a more readable chart.

    Altogether a complete waste of time that shows a tenous claim in an exaggerated fashion.
    I may show that religious men have larger penises by taking a sample of religious men in the Congo and compare them with athiest men in Japan.
    I can enhance that with appropriate( or maybe inappropriate ) bar graphs.
    That'll swell the ranks of my local Sunday school
    Can you find a way to take the data and make it say the opposite? Assuming this is an honest study with an honest sample, the data speaks for itself.

    It also actually infers that being stupid was a evolutionary plus because of the accompanying paranoia lol and that the widespread cult of personality which was just about ALL the communist society doctines of the 20th century was an evolutionary step up because they were ' athiest'. How do these turkeys get their grants?
    It speaks nothing of evolution playing a role in the emergence of atheism in the 20th century. It also does not say that the belief in God in evolutionary history was the result of being stupid. It suggests we are ALL, whether religious or not, hard wired to want to believe in a higher power. It asserts that the ability to disregard our instincts in favor of observation and deduction takes a higher than average IQ.

    I have to say it is speculation. There is no study or testing of the theory. The theory, however, works - and the data they have gathered, whether their theory is correct or not, is independent of the theory itself.

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    659
    Quote Originally Posted by greg79f150 View Post
    No studies that I know of to mention. As I posted, the people that I have met in my life the passed 48 years that were raised in religious families, just seem to grow up being good people ( not all of them of course) and that is just my perception.
    Good people being defined as those who hold the same moral values as you.

    There is no doubt that "good people" can be defined without your religious value system to a degree acceptable by most, with the exception of those who would kill you for not believing in their version of God. And I can also believe that those who would choose to be religious because they believe it to be "good" would also themselves be good people. But I do not think that anyone in the world is a good person because he reads the Bible and without the guidance of his religion would be a bad person.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    4,414
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    You ever see stocks prices graphed? Find me one that goes all the way to zero. This is common practice and make for a more readable chart.
    True, but it does visually magnify numerically small differences. For instance if you were comparing the precision of an instruments and repeated this method of display (without the numbers) you probably couldn't tell the difference between holding your hands up and a laser caliper.

    You could probably find a bigger difference than the one shown between competing colleges.
    Morals are a religious Myth.. - Xcaliber
    How is Evil Immoral? - Xcaliber
    I am right until you prove otherwise - Xcaliber

  10. #55
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ky
    Posts
    29
    [QUOTE=Accipiter;448951]In addition to your argument being a logical fallacy, your opinions are based on bias subjective perceptions and anecdotal information all supported by a book of mythology, it's hardly worthy as an argument.

    Truth does not come from people who believe in fairy tales.[/QUOTE]

    Now Accipiter, just how do you expect someone to reply nicely or in a intellectual manner to your comment in bold above, when it is put forth in such a derogatory and aggressive manner ?

    But being the nice, old fart that I am, I will waste some of my short time I have left on this earth, mentally masturbating with you...



    I did not say in my post anywhere, that I was looking to argue about anything. I was just stating my perception of those people that I have met the passed 45 years, that had a religious background.....

    For you to say that I was lying about my perception, would be like me stating that you never sleep, just because there is no substantial study documenting my statement.....

  11. #56
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    3,679
    [QUOTE=greg79f150;449006]
    Quote Originally Posted by Accipiter View Post
    In addition to your argument being a logical fallacy, your opinions are based on bias subjective perceptions and anecdotal information all supported by a book of mythology, it's hardly worthy as an argument.

    Truth does not come from people who believe in fairy tales.[/QUOTE]

    Now Accipiter, just how do you expect someone to reply nicely or in a intellectual manner to your comment in bold above, when it is put forth in such a derogatory and aggressive manner ?

    But being the nice, old fart that I am, I will waste some of my short time I have left on this earth, mentally masturbating with you...



    I did not say in my post anywhere, that I was looking to argue about anything. I was just stating my perception of those people that I have met the passed 45 years, that had a religious background.....

    For you to say that I was lying about my perception, would be like me stating that you never sleep, just because there is no substantial study documenting my statement.....
    I am aggressive and derogatory because I find your religion offensive.

    You are not lying if you believe that what you're saying is true so I am not calling you a liar.

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Limeyland
    Posts
    7,870
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    You ever see stocks prices graphed? Find me one that goes all the way to zero. This is common practice and make for a more readable chart. .
    We are not talking about stocks. The graph could of shown a small difference as a small difference not a seemingly large one and still be quite readable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    Can you find a way to take the data and make it say the opposite? Assuming this is an honest study with an honest sample, the data speaks for itself. .
    Send me the money and I will do the churchgoers have bigger penises chart..that will be honest too



    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    It speaks nothing of evolution playing a role in the emergence of atheism in the 20th century. It also does not say that the belief in God in evolutionary history was the result of being stupid. It suggests we are ALL, whether religious or not, hard wired to want to believe in a higher power. It asserts that the ability to disregard our instincts in favor of observation and deduction takes a higher than average IQ.

    I have to say it is speculation. There is no study or testing of the theory. The theory, however, works - and the data they have gathered, whether their theory is correct or not, is independent of the theory itself.
    You are right it is speculation ...with a dodgy graph. Nothing more
    Last edited by gansao; 02-11-2012 at 03:46 PM.
    Richard Dawkins quote..
    .'I dont think its a very important question whether Jesus existed. Some historians.. MOST historians think he did.
    I dont really care, precisely because its petty. Maybe I've alluded to the possibilty that some historians think Jesus never existed. I take that back Jesus existed........

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    northern Ky.
    Posts
    2,211
    Greg79f150! I thought I remembered you from FTE - had to go over there and poke around to make sure. You and I shared the common interest of bodywork and painting. It's been a few years! Check your PM's.
    Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

  14. #59
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    northern Ky.
    Posts
    2,211
    Quote Originally Posted by Databed View Post
    Atheism does not explain anything. It is not a belief system, has no central body, is not a theory, does not include explanations, has no literature associated with it, and contains no moral code. It is simply the a lack of belief in a God.
    That may have been true 200 years ago, and you may have been able to get by with this assertion as late as the 1950’s, or 60’s, but it’s not true today. Especially since the appearance of the www. , atheism has united into everything any religion is.

    Nobody decides what being atheist is. The definition arose out of the necessity to describe someone who holds no belief in a God. Kind of like the necessity for a word to describe what being liberal or conservative is.
    The definition may have arose that way, but it has evolved, largely in the last 2 or 3 decades.

    The is no world council, no set of beliefs and definitely no practice associated with atheism.
    Darwin’s Dangerous Idea / Daniel Dennett - 1995
    The End of Faith/ Sam Harris - 2004
    The God Delusion/ Richard Dawkins - 2006
    Letter to a Christian Nation/ Sam Harris - 2006
    The Atheist Universe / David Mills - 2006
    Breaking the Spell/ Daniel Dennett - 2006
    Everything you know about God is wrong/ Russ Kick - 2007
    The Quotable Atheist / Jack Huberman - 2007
    The Atheist Bible / Joan Konner - 2007
    Nothing - Something to Believe / Lalli Nica - 2007
    The Portable Atheist / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
    God is Not Great / Christopher Hitchens - 2007
    God - the failed hypothesis - How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist / Victor Stenger - 2007
    50 Reasons People Give For Believing in God/ Guy Harrison – 2008
    Godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists / Barker/Dawkins – 2008


    The current practices and beliefs in today’s atheist community is centered around books like these, and, as you can see by the dates beside each book, shows how this has all very recently culminated. My list is nowhere near complete, but it does contain the titles of some best sellers. The one titled “Nothing, something to believe” shows how outdated it really is to claim that atheism is just a blank state of mind.

    Not sure how you could come even close to asserting that this one describes atheism.
    Most of the authors of the above books are monks, nuns, of the scientific community. “Anything we scientists can do to weaken the hold of religion,” says Nobel Prize winner Steven Weinberg, “should be done and may in the end be our greatest contribution to civilization.” 93% of the National Academy of Sciences are atheists. I recently glanced through a ninth grade Kentucky public school biology textbook. Atheists beliefs and practices are obvious to anyone who cares to check their activities.

    No faith is necessary. It is complete lack of faith and the acceptance of "I don't know squat, but I can make attempts to figure it all out and do so in the most systematic, logical, and deductive way possible."
    "I don't know squat" isn't portrayed in the reviews of the above books, or in the biology textbook I looked at. What atheists don't know about deep space of origins of life, they are glad to speculate on.

    There is no motive to atheism. There is no plan or mission. This all exists in your head.
    It exists in those books, it exists on forums such as these, or websites like talkorigins, it exists all around us. There is evidence for it. The scientific community always harps on about evidence, yet doesn’t like it when evidence contradicts their politically correct positions.

    It's not saying that communism is a product of intelligence. It's saying that those who are more intelligent are more likely to be using deduction than relying on their intuition that has resulted from their evolutionary history where explaining things correctly was not necessarily beneficial. You just needed the urge to explain things to figure them out and therefore be more effective in whatever it is that you happen to be doing to survive. With the trait proposed in this article, things that were unexplainable could be disregarded as God or Gods and leave the explainable things with more of one's focus. In today's age of science and technology, we have been able to actually figure out what stars are and that the Sun is completely outside of any realm of the gods. There are still things left unexplained and are perhaps unexplainable, but the intelligent people are not willing to give up the fight. The less intelligent see God in the unexplained based on the above described phenomena.
    I, and many others, believe that the less intelligent are the ones who see themselves as the most intelligent, as being the highest form of intelligence.

    Quote Originally Posted by marc9000
    Implying to a 13 year old in a science class that all of reality is the result of purposeless, happenstance processes can also have a huge impact. It could fit in perfectly with his desire to go ahead and knock up the cute girl sitting in the next row after class today. He knows his parents would prefer that he didn’t do that, but why worry about them? No need to honor thy father and mother as an atheist, is there? Statistics/census reports show the U.S. to be increasing in atheism over the past several decades. As the U.S. national debt has also been increasing. Wouldn’t an increase in intelligence indicate better money management, not worse?
    Who cares? So its probably not true because you don't like it?
    I don’t like the societal “impact” of it. I have a "problem" with it. You said this in the second post;

    ...is going to have an impact and is equivalent to the kind of thing the church designs for the kids at their Jesus retreat. Kids this young will believe just about anything. Most of what they are duped into believing is retained into adulthood. Does no one have a problem with this?
    When I went to school in the 1960's, a kid could get on the school bus with a very realistic looking toy gun and no one raised and eyebrow. Today it's national news. There's no evidence that these types of unfortunate changes in society are the result of too much religious indoctrination, but they could very well be the result of telling children that life is purposeless, pointless, undirected.

    Do think honestly believe that it is religion that is keeping kids from getting pregnant? I would be willing to bet that teenage pregnancy, just as a high level of religiosity, correlates with lower than average intelligence. In fact, I will assert that it does.
    Not lower intelligence, lower morals.

    Atheism is not taught publicly either. Its not taught in science class. The only thing taught in science goes like this:

    1) Here is what we observe
    2) Here is what we think is happening
    3) Here is our test of what we think is happening
    4) Test results do (not) confirm
    And if can't find anything for naturalistic (atheist) origins, we'll find it someday. Atheism is implied.

    Atheism is only increasing because religiosity is decreasing. Kids simply have more access to information than ever before. What they decide to do with that information is up to them.
    So you see religious instruction as brainwashing, and atheistic science as information? I see it the other way around, and of course we’re not going to change each others minds. The question is, what’s the “impact”? What direction is society going today, compared to where it was going 50 years ago?


    There are logical reasons to believe Christianity over Islam? What are they? (And "the Bible is better than the Koran" is not acceptable.)
    Christianity was first. Jesus Christ is by far the most written about person that ever lived. A large number of people in the middle east didn't/don't like the claim that Jews are the chosen people of God. Islam was created in a reactionary way, Christianity was not.
    Why is it that our children can't read a Bible in school, but they can in prison?

  15. #60
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Ky
    Posts
    29
    Quote Originally Posted by marc9000 View Post
    Greg79f150! I thought I remembered you from FTE - had to go over there and poke around to make sure. You and I shared the common interest of bodywork and painting. It's been a few years! Check your PM's.
    Hey Marc, I'll stop by the site mentioned, and I cannot PM until I get 20 posts. Good to see ya, and keep a supply of bandaids handy, if you hang around this place.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •