Should Christianity Be Age Restricted?
Offline If my personal experiences count for anything, I would say that there are practices and doctrines in many Christian churches that are harmful in that they can exacerbate existing mental illnesses and traumatize children who are exposed to it. I know being exposed to behavior such as what is seen in this video was traumatizing to me as a nine year old boy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6ck5...eature=related
I just wonder how many Christians on this forum see this as mentally healthy behavior and safe for children to be exposed to. Here's a video that claims that such behavior is "proof of god". http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JAWF_...eature=related Same kind of madness. Here is a forum site in which a woman shares some of the trauma she suffered in a Pentacostalist organization. http://www.psychforums.com/cult-abuse/topic2609.html . Here is an article on a study of tongue talking from neuroscience and what parts of the brain are involved. http://mindhacks.com/2006/11/09/the-...ng-in-tongues/.
Here is another study of the phenomena.
http://www.slate.com/id/2153947/
Another thing that I question when it comes to exposing kids to are some of the doctrines and beliefs that are taught to children. An eternal burning hell, missing the rapture, the devil , just to name a few horrors that children are regularly exposed to in churches all over the world. No one has explained to me , to my satisfaction anyway, what the difference is in sitting a five year old down in front of a Tv and having him watch a Stephen King or George Romero movie, or just listen to a sermon where a preacher describes hell as if he was born and raised there, or how horrible it will be on Judgement Day when your name's not found in the Lamb's Book of Life, or what awaits you if you miss the Rapture. I wonder how many Christians think it's healthy to expose kids to this kind of thing?
"Science flies you to the moon. Religion flies you into buildings."
- Login to post comments
Offline I've given plenty. There's a 23 pg PDF that shows a positive correlation between religiosity and dysfunction and antisocial behaviour.
Once, again I seem to have missed the revolution in statistics that invalidated "correlation=/=causation".
Tell me redneF, have YOU read the studies? If so, what controls did Zuckerman include?
That's like saying that all the women who are in women's shelters are not even slightly neutral on the issue of spousal abuse.
Which brings up an interesting comparision if using your logic should I conclude that all men are abusive?
Ohhhhhhhh, you don't want to analyze all the testimony from victims. Only some of the victims.
I thought you wanted to be 'scientific'...
Bringing in other Christians IS scientific. Otherwise, you are using a biased sample. If you only include the abuse victims, than 100% of your sample will be victims of abuse duh. But you can't just select your sample like that.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias
In other words, I can just interview the moral Christians who regularly donate to charity and help the poor and conclude that all Christians are moral and charitiable, but that would be selection bias/ Just like what you're doing here.
http://www.amazon.ca/Introduction-Probability-Statistics-Applications-Engineering/dp/007246836X/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&qid=1320600246&...
- Login to post comments
Offline Fair warning this will probably be my last post on this topic unless you come up with something interesting and new to say. Right now all that is happening is you are saying its harmful, I am showing you why you are wrong to want to age restrict the entire thing and you are not accepting it. There is little use in continuing from this point add to that I am bored of the topic at this point, so unless something new is brought up enjoy.
Tapey wrote:The one who makes a claim needs to provide the proof.I've given plenty. There's a 23 pg PDF that shows a positive correlation between religiosity and dysfunction and antisocial behaviour.
Which means absolutly nothing. I don't even need to read it to tell you why it means nothing.
First religiosity =/= christianity
Second, they will not have come to the conclusion that all christians are dysfunction and display antisocial behaviour because it is simply not true.
Therefore you have not shown that christianity causes this, you have shown that it can cause it. It is not a difficult point to grasp, can but does not have to, like lots of other things. Just because some christians are messed up is not reason enough to age restrict the entire thing.
Lets also do a causality vs corolation test. Lets comare IQ's of Black people and Asians. Are we to assume being black is the cause people having a lower IQ? No there are other things which are split along racial lines. There maybe things split along religous lines. Hell maybe dysfunction and people who have antisocial behaviour are attracted to christianity, thats certain;y not hard to imagine. I don't know and I don't care. I know you cannot prove causation so I am not going to ask you to. Its just not possible in this case so I don't expect it.
Tapey wrote:Firstly Testimony, why would you accept there testimony over mine?I accepted theirs and yours. Yours doesn't prove that the bible is benign.
No but it does mean exactly as I have said above that christianity does not have to cause harm to a child. You have conflicting stories now you need to explain why I was not harmed and others were. This is a vital question, answering it will tell you whether all of christianity should be age restricted or none of it . Because if it is bad parenting as I said then no need to age restrict it, if it is only certain churches then not all needs to be age restircted. There are plenty of different things it could be. You might end up only having to ban a literal interpretation of the bible up to age 18 or whatever.
On top of that you need to explain why I should have been raised non christian even though I was not harmed by it. Why should we not decided on a case by case basis?
Furthermore you need to show why we should single out christianity as something that should be age restricted and not other things which are harmful. (this one is not for this thread though but it is something you need to be able to answer in your position)
Tapey wrote:You have conflicting stories, I gave bad parenting to explain it, what story will you give?I'd give the example of a preacher who studied the bible and teaches to drink it's Koolaid as per the doctrines set forth in the bible.
I am assuming you are talking about waco? This doesn't even relate to my post. How does waco relate to some people being harmed and others not? Do you mean some forms are dangerous? If so great, I have said yeah maybe some churches might need an age restriction but not an entire religion. Not everyone is running around joining suicide cults.
Tapey wrote:If you cannot explain how some people are harmed and some are not you have not proved that christianity is harmful.The more you and cpt_ post, the more I think you two would make a great couple. You both are arguing from ignorance. The evidence has been given. It's there for those who know how to read properly.
We have been explaining to you why your evidence is not enough. Seriously, if what you have provided was enough to age restrct christianity do you not think it would be talked about by now? Nothing here is new infomation.
Tapey wrote:All you have proved is that it can be harmful.No. You're claiming that the bible is PG 13. You're claiming that with a parent's intervention from drinking the Koolaid, the bible is taken less literally. You're arguing that it mustn't be taken literally.
That's special pleading.
No I am not arguing it must be taken in any way. There is no correct way to take the bible or else we would be able to say a christian must be X but we really cannot. Most christians have never even read the bible, you really don't have to take the bible at all it seems to be a christian. In this picture the parents job is to ensure the child is not harmed, I think that can happpen even when teaching the bible literally. I don't see why it couldn't happen.
Tapey wrote:Testimony cannot be proof, especially from the people here.Special pleading.
see next bit
Tapey wrote:We all visit an atheist website with the goal of gettting rid of religion, we are not even slightly neutral in this issueThat's like saying that all the women who are in women's shelters are not even slightly neutral on the issue of spousal abuse.
Are they in a club dedicated to ending it?
Tapey wrote:...our credibility in this area is kind of zero.A victim's credibility is zero?
Tell it to the Judge.
Yes you get the victim to tell you it is horrible and then you get someone without motive to lie through there teeth to back it up. Ever notice how we never convict anyone only on the victims word?
Tapey wrote:If you actually want proof you need scienceThe science is in. And the bible speaks for itself. No need to embellish what it says.
I don't even know what you are trying to say? If it is that the bible is filled with inaccuracies and lies I agree. We tell lies all the the time to kids.
Tapey wrote:...then back that at with testimony from a wide variety of peopleThe victims are numerous. Just on this site.
Variety of experiance, you must give chjristans a chance to defend their belief.
Tapey wrote:not just atheistsOhhhhhhhh, you don't want to analyze all the testimony from victims. Only some of the victims.
I thought you wanted to be 'scientific'...
What? I said wide variety of people. Christians atheists everyone, lotsa differnt people in the world that would have in put on this type of thing.
Tapey wrote:Biblical literalists are not the only christians.I never said they were. But their testimony (from professional clergy) is that the bible is meant to be taken literally because it says so in the bible.
The church I attended when I was 13 told me not to take the bible literally. Where they not christians? Your point means nothing. Some christians take it literally others don't.
Tapey wrote:Pretty much anyone who calls themself a christian is a christian.And nowhere will you see me arguing otherwise.
You're building a strawman.
I am not building anything, I am simply informing you why you are wrong.
Tapey wrote:Why put an age restriction on all christianity?Because of the Christian bible. It prescribes dysfunction and anit-social behaviour.
Refer to the top, can does not have to.
Tapey wrote:redneF wrote:Tell me what Christians think about sex.
In detail...
They are a wide an varied group, they do not just think one thing that is the point.
What does the bible say about sex and masturbation?
Why is it explicit in the bible that you need to repent? What do people need to repent from?
Be very, very specific and don't withhold evidence.
We're trying to be *scientific* here...
Are those views necessary to be christian? That is what you should be asking yourself. If not it really doesn't matter if they cause any problems, you could age restrict that, it would not jusitify age restricting an entire religion. You are trying to age restrict the entire thing arnt you?
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
- Login to post comments
You see I have sympathy here, that can indeed be bad parenting and the church is directly at fault, if they take the kid to a church which does harm them. But that is not necessary for christianity. You can be christian and never have stepped in a church. Christianity is completely wishy washy, pretty much anyone can be called christian because there is no true chrisitian. Now if you want to age restrict that crazy church that protests soldiers funnerals I am ok with that, I think we can say kids who grow up there are in the majority of cases going to get screwed up. But an entire religion age restricted? No waaaay to broad a thing to ban.
Although I am against governments have too much power over how children are raised. But I will say you could make a very good case for age restricting that particular church assuming it is always bad the majority of the time (I think it is a safe bet not that I have proof or anything). I don't know maybe. But I wouldn't blame anyone for wanting to.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
That's not what I said.
You need to show that it doesn't promote ignorance or arrested development.
You'd have to show there's no brainwashing, or rationalization that parents can use to emotionally, mentally, or physically abuse, or mislead children with threats, terror, or manipulation.
Tell it to the Judge.
You've been given many in the testimonies here from former theists raised by fundy parents.
You're just being obtuse.
Then you'd lose the debate.
That's how to lose by default.
The facts are in.
It's called 'History'.
I'm all ears...
No.
If the proof is there, the debate is over.
You don't get to move the goalposts.
Sorry...
It's not.
This thread isn't about parenting.
Yes, you are. Simply claiming otherwise, doesn't make what you are saying, true.
Yes, it is.
Our beliefs shape our actions.
Christianity not only dictates to indoctrinate your own children, but to convert non believers.
The ones raised by biblical literalists, yes.
God 'is' the 'daddy' of all children. Or did you miss that part in the bible??
Anyone who is a biblical literalist, be it a preacher, teacher, parent is just doing what god is commanding them to do.
They are a 'stand in' for 'god'.
You lose the debate.
Evidence and testimony, from those who suffered due to Christianity, and therapists who have to treat them.
Then your parents weren't doing it 'right'.
You're arguing in circles.
The 'bad' parents are 'good' Christians, who drank the Koolaid. They breed and make their offspring drink the Koolaid too. Duhhhhhhhhh....
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Rednef, you are relying on anecdotes. In science there's a word for those: anecdotes.
What are you are doing is tossing out the scientific method. You can name Christians that are arrogant assholes? So what? I can name Christians who aren't. I can name atheists who are.
You just go on to pull the no true Scotsman, that if a child wasn't harmed by Christianity, they weren't a TRUE Christian. Martin Luther King, Tommy Douglas, or Ken Miller must not be TRUE Christians.
You just assert assert and assert, then lock yourself in you ivory tower and shout "Prove me wrong!", that doesn't make your claims scientific, it makes them idiotic.
Patently false.
I said testimony. I don't know why you'd attempt to cast the aspersion that ex theists are making shit up when the bible instructs these things in black and white.
You never responded to my post# 32.
If you are going to stoop to lying instead of conceding, then go fuck yourself with your demands for the 'scientific method', if you're just going to fucking ignore the data.
There are people that will not only swear that Christianity caused their dysfunction, their parents will use the bible to justify indoctrinating their children.
Oh fuck right off.
What does the bible teach about your 'self worth' if you don't drink the Koolaid?
Nothing positive.
What does it teach if you don't 'believe' and accept Jesus as your personal saviour??? What does the bible teach is the punishment for not obeying your parents?
It teaches you that you're a 'fool' if you don't believe. It teaches about demonic possession. The 'devil' is after your soul.
What does it teach about sexuality? What does it teach about masturbation? What does it teach about 'fornication'. What does it teach about submission? What does it teach about homosexuality? What does it teach about being a 'slave' and loving your 'Master'. What does it teach about slavery? What does it teach about virginity? What does it teach about women who get raped? What does it teach about menstruation? What does it teach about sodomy?
What does it teach about punishment for not adhering to the Christian bible?
Does the bible not talk about 24/7 monitoring of your thoughts and actions by an invisible being who will torture you for eternity if you do not worship him and submit to him?
Ya, there's no 900 lb gorilla in the room...
No.
I give you facts, facts, facts.
If someone drinks the Christian Koolaid like it says to in the bible, they are dysfunctional and antisocial by definition.
Obviously, because you cannot refute. Otherwise, you'd be able to win the debate with ease. But you can't, can you?
I gave you facts.
If I was making shit up, you'd use the 'scientific' method to prove me wrong, instead of running around with your fingers in your ears going ' lalalalalala still waiting to hear some facts lalalala...'
The Christian god is an angry immoral blood lusting homicidal baby killing fuck, or haven't you read the bible?
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
Like Bill Maher says : "Ghandi was so fucking Christian, he was Hindu..."
Religion is child abuse, they are being forced to believe in something they are born with no knowledge of.
Westboro Baptist Church should be closed down for child abuse, they are vile people.
Scotland The Brave
Would a Rose by any other name smell so sweet?
Yes I did when I said you were tossing out the scientific method. None of the links proved your point. I addressed it in post #42
The Bible says a lot of things. In fact, I could argue that the bigoted mega-churches aren't TRUE Christians using your logic.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+19%3A21&version=NIV
I AM using the scientific method. You're not, by simply claiming "prove me wrong". If you think that's the science, then you're doing it wrong.
No, you're moving the goalposts. You're not being objective.
I already covered that.
" If someone drinks the Christian Koolaid like it says to in the bible, they are dysfunctional and antisocial by definition."
Look up the word 'objective'.
It might help.
Tell me what Christians think about sex.
In detail...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris
The one who makes a claim needs to provide the proof. Firstly Testimony, why would you accept there testimony over mine? You have conflicting stories, I gave bad parenting to explain it, what story will you give? Am I lieing? Are some forms of christianity non harmful? Am I just a special little angel that was immune to the harmful effects because of my awesomeness? If you cannot explain how some people are harmed and some are not you have not proved that christianity is harmful. All you have proved is that it can be harmful. Like a million other things which I don't see calls for them being age restricted. Please note I am using proved very wrongly in this case. Testimony cannot be proof, especially from the people here. We all visit an atheist website with the goal of gettting rid of religion, we are not even slightly neutral in this issue, our credibility in this area is kind of zero. If you actually want proof you need science, then back that at with testimony from a wide variety of people not just atheists on a website dedicated to getting rid of religion. For the purposes of this I am accepting this testimony as proof, but be aware it really does not even come close proof.
Biblical literalists are not the only christians. Pretty much anyone who calls themself a christian is a christian. Why put an age restriction on all christianity? To do that you need to show that what is causing harm is in all the different forms. One form of rugby is dangerous to kids so lets ban all rugby. would you do that? (I do think some are harmful, not all)
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
They are a wide an varied group, they do not just think one thing that is the point.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
I've given plenty. There's a 23 pg PDF that shows a positive correlation between religiosity and dysfunction and antisocial behaviour.
I accepted theirs and yours. Yours doesn't prove that the bible is benign.
I'd give the example of a preacher who studied the bible and teaches to drink it's Koolaid as per the doctrines set forth in the bible.
The more you and cpt_ post, the more I think you two would make a great couple. You both are arguing from ignorance. The evidence has been given. It's there for those who know how to read properly.
No. You're claiming that the bible is PG 13. You're claiming that with a parent's intervention from drinking the Koolaid, the bible is taken less literally. You're arguing that it mustn't be taken literally.
That's special pleading.
Special pleading.
That's like saying that all the women who are in women's shelters are not even slightly neutral on the issue of spousal abuse.
A victim's credibility is zero?
Tell it to the Judge.
The science is in. And the bible speaks for itself. No need to embellish what it says.
The victims are numerous. Just on this site.
Ohhhhhhhh, you don't want to analyze all the testimony from victims. Only some of the victims.
I thought you wanted to be 'scientific'...
I never said they were. But their testimony (from professional clergy) is that the bible is meant to be taken literally because it says so in the bible.
And nowhere will you see me arguing otherwise.
You're building a strawman.
Because of the Christian bible. It prescribes dysfunction and anit-social behaviour.
What does the bible say about sex and masturbation?
Why is it explicit in the bible that you need to repent? What do people need to repent from?
Be very, very specific and don't withhold evidence.
We're trying to be *scientific* here...
I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks
" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris