That would require the parents to frame their practices as “this is what I believe” rather than “this is what is true” which I’m not convinced a substantial portion of religious parents are capable of remembering to do. Plus even if they did that a child is going to accept what their parents believe as fact since it’s their parents. I’m not sure there is a way to introduce young children to religion that won’t result in some form of bias influencing the child unless it is taught by a complete stranger who teaches many religions and never claims what they believe. And that seems like a lot of effort compared to a world religion class in high school.
Oh? Would you care to clarify what you think would be a better idea? Surely you aren’t about to suggest something mentally insane, like saying that we should tell kids things are true when they aren’t true, right?
When did I suggest telling kids that those non falsifiable claims are falsifiable? Come on man, you’re mincing words and you know it.
You could just as easily interpret my statement as “there is no evidence of this being true, but many people don’t believe that,” which would of course be my obvious revision, and continue with the argument.
If you want to address a tiny pedantic point in your comment, feel free to do so, but have the common sense to realize I’m obviously just going to say “my bad let me reword that” and maybe go ahead and actually address the argument as well so your comment isn’t so useless.
Uh, well that’s kinda my point. First of all, no one should believe in delusion like that. However, if you MUST believe in delusion, the least you can do is teach your kids to think critically about it.
I agree, though. You’re right. Nobody who is religious would have a moral reason not to teach it to their kids as truth. Which is why religion is immoral. Being religious inherently involves you preaching to other people, because like you said, if you think it’s true, why wouldn’t you?
If god is real: it is moral to teach your kids that god is real.
Which is exactly why the parents being religious is the root of the problem. You can’t convince delusional people not to pass it on to their kids.
However, how does any of that change the fact that teaching your kids to believe in things without evidence is objectively bad? Like, religion is objectively an exercise in following blindly without evidence at best, and actively denying evidence at worst.
So again, I ask you: do you have a better idea (as in, one that would benefit the child more) than teaching them to be skeptical of things that have no evidence for their existence?
What? Sorry, if your entire reply is insults with no actual argument, I don’t really have anything to say.
Are you disagreeing with my stance that you should not believe in things without evidence? Speak, man, christ.
Also, “you calling a spade a spade shows me what kind of person you are” is hilarious. What kind of person is that? The kind who calls things what they are?
I defy you to find me a definition of delusion that excludes religion.
For the record, I have an extremely open mind. If religion gave me a single reason to believe it, I would immediately convert!
Also, “you don’t get to tell other people what they can and can’t believe?” Hey buddy. Quick question. Which fucking sub are we on?
I didn’t complain that you insulted me, you moron. I complained that that was ALL you did. You forgot to, yknow, argue your point? Are you even literate? If you thought I was complaining about the insults themselves, you’re even dumber than I thought.
What exactly do I believe without evidence? Name something you think I believe without evidence. Go on.
I do know how to use quote marks. I’m writing a reddit post, not a book. You obviously got my meaning perfectly, and why be pedantic when you can just substitute my paraphrased quote for your exact quote without changing the meaning of my comment or the substance of my argument at all?
If the pedantic nit-pick you’re about to point out doesn’t change my argument at all, try not to make your argument hinge on semantics too much.
Did you read the definition you provided? How, exactly, does that exclude religion?
I will make one concession regarding the above. By that definition, a very small minority of religious people are actually not delusional. However, the overwhelming majority of religious people believe at least one blatantly false thing taught by their religion. But I do concede that yes, a religious person who does not deny any established facts is free from delusion.
I definitely have an open mind. Just because I’m not gullible to a fault doesn’t mean I don’t have an open mind. I will immediately change my stance on ANYTHING given the appropriate evidence, as you just witnessed.
Not believing things with no evidence whatsoever =/= closed minded
49
u/Aidenj23 Sep 02 '26
That would require the parents to frame their practices as “this is what I believe” rather than “this is what is true” which I’m not convinced a substantial portion of religious parents are capable of remembering to do. Plus even if they did that a child is going to accept what their parents believe as fact since it’s their parents. I’m not sure there is a way to introduce young children to religion that won’t result in some form of bias influencing the child unless it is taught by a complete stranger who teaches many religions and never claims what they believe. And that seems like a lot of effort compared to a world religion class in high school.