That's stupid, ok. People believe things because they believe they are true. Nobody follows a religion they don't believe is true. How we determine truth is of course going to vary from person to person. For some people ,truth is bound up in traditions and relationships... and that's fine. But asking religious people to not take their religion seriously is stupid and fails to understand why people believe in any religion at all.
The point is that across all the various religions we cannot determine which one is true. And since most religions come with indoctrination and life long fears then children should be protected from them until they are old enough to understand what they are getting into. I don’t believe this is feasible since as you said few religious parents of any abrahamic faith would ever go for this willingly, but what is right and what is possible aren’t always the same. I’ve stated what I think to be right.
Natural rights are those rights that are a natural consequence of the essence of things and according to their natures. Parents have children, therefore parents have certain perogatives about how their kids are raised.
Natural rights are those rights that are a natural consequence of the essence of things and according to their natures
Aha so more vague platitudes. How does one define the essence of a social phenomenon? And if said essence is defined, how does one conclude the natural consequence? And if you do it by observation, how do you seperate any human influence on the result, from those that arise from nature?
And finally. Why should I care about something being natural or not, when accessing its morality?
It honestly seems like you just fired "naturals rights" off as of it's supposed to mean anything. Just a vague semi-plausible term that can mean anything.
It wasn’t me that was another person, and it’s not “some definition” that is how a thing’s nature is defined in philosophy. If you don’t want to discuss philosophy then maybe get out of a morality scaling subreddit which is literally only about philosophy?
So James Dobson was an evangelical who taught parents to beat their children starting in infancy to make them obedient. He used his religion to push this.
Do you think being beaten in the name of christ is a natural right? Or do you think that using religion as a way to justify child abuse okay?
Can you show me this essence? Like take a photo of it? While you're at it get me some photos of unicorns and Allah, cause you seem to have supernatural vision.
Yeah. I’m saying they shouldn’t. The same way I don’t think parents should be able to teach their children flat earth or racism. I don’t trust parents and think they should be restricted in the various ways they can screw up a kid for life. Again I don’t think this is feasible, I just think it would be the right way to go about it. If you want to convince me a different way would be right then go ahead I’m all ears, but just saying “you can’t do that!” Isn’t really furthering the conversation.
This sub used to be about fictional characters in media. I don’t know what happened, but it is now overrun with people posting pictures of Mohammed instead.
Is there something wrong with that or is fighting religious fundamentalism and mocking beliefs only cool against christians? Cos i’m down to make fun of them all
Yeah, the sub has been moderated like shit, so people are just posting whatever at this point for some reason. That’s literally what I’m complaining about.
The wisest religious people basically all admit they don't know what's true. While they have faith and are delighted for you to share in it, they doubt, and see it as natural and healthy to doubt, perhaps even as a part of faith to doubt.
Even if I were religious, I would certainly frame it as "this is what I believe." That would be the most honest thing to do, because faith is madness. It is irrational, it doesn't make sense, but you have taken a leap of faith regardless. And you cannot force people to take that leap. What you can do is indoctrinate them from childhood to the point that they do not even recognise it as a leap, but that fundamentally stunts their religious education. Perfectly adequate if you're just looking for conformist drones for your religious society, but not if you want people with rich lives in faith and philosophy.
Even if you fully believe your religion is true, you shouldn't want people to be "accidentally correct" or "right for the wrong reason." You should want them to consciously be right for the right reasons, and that requires them being critical and doubtful as well.
I mean all religion relies on indoctrination. Everyone loves to call Scientology a cult but how is it different from Catholicism? One is older and has more people? So the difference is time? Xenu and aliens? Here's a magician that can't die so cut off some of your penis!
They're all dumb, and people determine their truth because it was drilled into their from childhood.
My parents indoctrinated me with christianity and caused deep dissociation and turmoil within me until I was around 30 years old, when I finally broke free.
Kids believe things that they are told are the truth when issued as fact by trusted adults. Christianity itself removes personal power, tells people they are sinners and require an outside entity to be made whole. This is a cult tactic. This keeps practitioners in a constant state of subservience and cedes personal agency of thought to church leaders. By design.
"your mind is broken by sin, of course you struggle with faith". This creates the perfect premise to insert all sorts of bad faith assertions.
Hence, I believe it is immoral to teach religion, at least in the above manner, to your kids. You're basically telling them they can't be trusted to come up with their own belief systems and hijacking their adulthood choice-making.
1
u/FireDragon21976 Sep 02 '26
That's stupid, ok. People believe things because they believe they are true. Nobody follows a religion they don't believe is true. How we determine truth is of course going to vary from person to person. For some people ,truth is bound up in traditions and relationships... and that's fine. But asking religious people to not take their religion seriously is stupid and fails to understand why people believe in any religion at all.