Is religious indoctrination child abuse? - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

Is religious indoctrination child abuse?
in Religion

By JoesephJoeseph 561 Pts
Religious children are far less able to distinguish fantasy from reality and this pattern can be eveidenced going into adulthood ad some of the posters on here ably demonstrate 
 

Children need to be “protected” from religious indoctrination in schools, biologist and atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins has said, backing a campaign by Atheist Ireland to overhaul our education system.

Speaking to The Irish Times in advance of a public talk at Trinity College Dublin on Tuesday evening, Prof Dawkins said: “There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents…

“Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.”

Nathaniel_BanonymousdebaterZeusAres42CYDdhartaZombieguy1987Happy_Killbot
«1



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Nathaniel_B
  • "Is religious indoctrination child abuse?"


    Are there any court cases where a parent or parents were incarcerated for being found guilty of child abuse by religious indoctrination?

    Any court case from any country? 

    Europe, the United States, or Australia for example? 

    Any statements from the attorneys from those same jailed parents? 

    Why not include some quotes, and or interviews from the religious parents to go along with this forum, so that both sides of the conversation can be fair and equally debated over? 


    “Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.”

    Does the above seem to be an implication that the anti religious are in a sense judging the religious parents via their anti religious stances? 



    Zombieguy1987Joeseph
  •  “There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents…"

    Why does the above seem to  sound like atheist politics? 

    So to separate this point of view from the atheist politics.

    The (atheist parents) are apparently raising their kids correctly without religion and the religious parents are incorrectly raising their kids because they are exposing them to religion, and that exposure is messing with their thinking and reasoning abilities? 

    Is there a study or survey to support this statement?:

    : “There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents…



    Zombieguy1987
  • Continuing this line of thought to its logical conclusion, we can decide that any time adults express any point of view to their impressionable children, they are abusing the children, since children cannot easily distinguish fantasy from reality and are susceptible to manipulation.

    I do not think either part of this reasoning is correct, however. First, children are very well capable to distinguish fantasy from reality - they merely have very little experience and knowledge about the world and, hence, do not have a solid framework in which to judge the validity of claims others make. Second, it is fine for parents to explain their views to their children; what is not fine is forcing them on them. 

    On that note, I would not take Dawkins' opinion seriously: he is on a bit of a crusade against religion, and his obsession leads him to make claims not resulting from rigorous application of scientific method (even though he is a scientist). Children do not need to be protected from any ideology or type of ideologies specifically. On contrary, expose them to as many ideologies as possible and let them see the whole spectrum of opinions - and start forming their own opinion.

    Now, when it comes to things like "Either you go to the Sunday school tomorrow, or you won't be allowed to use your computer for the next week" - that is pretty close to child abuse, and such forceful moves are no Bueno. But that goes for everything, not just religion.
  • JoesephJoeseph 561 Pts
    edited October 2018
    @MayCaesar

    You say .....I do not think either part of this reasoning is correct, however. First, children are very well capable to distinguish fantasy from reality - they merely have very little experience and knowledge about the world and, hence, do not have a solid framework in which to judge the validity of claims others make. Second, it is fine for parents to explain their views to their children; what is not fine is forcing them on them. 

    My reply .... Children are not given the choice regards religion most are introduced to it from infancy and its re-forced daily by churches , schools and their particular societies which are mostly made up of likewise individuals 

    I’m from a country where the Catholic Church ruled the country through a fist of iron , religion was hammered into every one of us and from infancy onwards , one never had or was offered a choice in such matters .

    Religious indoctrination means to instill ithe particular religion where no questioning or alternative world views are permitted , I was not alone this was the way religion was indeed introduced to people of my generation who suffered under the Catholic Church 

    It’s also most amusing to me to hear most religious people recoil at the idea that I use the term abuse , tell me is it not mental abuse to tell a child he/she will roast in Hell for disobeying gods word ? Is it abuse to tell a child that gays , lesbians and others are evil ? Or that worship of another god demands a fiery eternity in Hell ? 

    I certainly think it is and maybe 50 years down the road our future generations will say “ what the hell were they thinking “? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TTKDB

    Your failure to address even the most basic points in an argument never fails  to amaze me , maybe when you actually address what was asked I will reply , until then can you let others debate without interference?
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Joeseph:

    Are you using Dawkins to make your argument with? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TTKDB

    No , why would I need or use him?  I merely provided a quote from the man in relation to a newspaper piece 
  • How about providing concrete evidence to support this statement? 

    Is religious indoctrination child abuse?


    If you have significant quotes or sound bite's from the religious parents that speak to your stance, that would be educational and helpful. 
    IdolRocks
  • @TTKDB

    Do you not see it’s worded as a question?

    A question is a cunning method used by debators in an attempt to seek arguments or discussion on the topic at hand , can you comprehend this? 

    Do you you have anything to offer as in an answer to the question that you keep avoiding? 
  • JohnSmith
  • @Joeseph:

    I shared a counter argument to your debate question. 

    Did you see this article? 

    From the Washington Post:

    "The latest social science is wrong. Religion is good for families and kids.

    On average, people of faith lead more fulfilling family lives.

    By W. Bradford Wilcox"


    Zombieguy1987IdolRocks
  • @TTKDB

     He teaches undergraduate- and graduate-level courses on statistics, family, and religion,I would take his words with a large pinch of salt
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Joeseph

    "He teaches undergraduate- and graduate-level courses on statistics, family, and religion,I would take his words with a large pinch of salt"

    And the title of this forum maybe shouldn't be viewed with the skepticism?

    In taking your words as well with the same large pinch of salt? 
  • @TTKDB

    You say ....
    And the title of this forum maybe shouldn't be viewed with the skepticism?

    My reply .... Yes I agree the the title shouldn’t be viewed with doubt , do you even know what you’re saying? 

    You say ......In taking your words as well with the same large pinch of salt? 

    My reply ..... I couldn’t care less what way you want to take them , so you have my permission to find another topic that might suit your particular views 
  • @Joeseph:

    Is the primary point of this forum to once again have the religious parents defend themselves from your accusation towards them? 

    Are you accusing the religious parents of abusing their kids by exposing them to religion? 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @TTKDB

    Can you not even read the debate topic heading ? What is it that’s not clear in that heading ? I’ve reported and flagged you again  for trolling .


    Zombieguy1987
  • @Joeseph ;

    Yes, when what you describe happens, then it gets pretty close to child abuse - however, it by no means is specific to religions, or even to ideologies in general. Children have all kinds of beliefs forced on them by their parents. In my opinion, for example, "patriotism" is one such system of beliefs - it is not an ideology or religion per se, but it is a very traditionalist entity, putting certain values above being susceptible to logical criticism. 

    I would generalize your question to: "Is indoctrination child abuse?" And here, depending of course on the interpretation of the term "indoctrination", the answer will be "yes" more often than "no".
  • @Joeseph

    I wish that you would include both sides of the story to include the religious parents points of view to offset your own points of view? 

    Why aren't you including them as a part of your debate is what I'm debating you on.

    Some other examples of probable "indoctrination" by adults:

    Some of the adults enabling kids with alcohol under their own roofs, in some states this is legal, in other states it isn't. 

    Or some adults using illegal drugs around kids? 

    Or adults driving around high on drugs while there might be kids present in the vehicle at the same time? 

    What about those other probable examples of adult indoctrination? 






    Zombieguy1987JohnSmith
  • @TTKDB

    You say .....
    I wish that you would include both sides of the story to include the religious parents points of view to offset your own points of view? 

    My reply .... Do you honestly think religious parents are going to admit they indoctrinated their kids?

    They are free to come on anyway , why don’t you speak for them why are you so terrified to express an opinion?

    You say .....Why aren't you including them as a part of your debate is what I'm debating you on.

    My reply .... Where did I say they are not included , I cannot force people on 

    You say ....Some other examples of probable "indoctrination" by adults:

    Some of the adults enabling kids with alcohol under their own roofs, in some states this is legal, in other states it isn't. 

    Or some adults using illegal drugs around kids? 

    Or adults driving around high on drugs while there might be kids present in the vehicle at the same time? 

    What about those other probable examples of adult indoctrination? 


    My reply .... Please explain how any of them are examples of indoctrination? I think you don’t know what the term means why don’t you look it up ?

    Zombieguy1987
  • @Joeseph

    "They are free to come on anyway , why don’t you speak for them why are you so terrified to express an opinion?"

    A few days ago, you used my parents to platform your own opinion in a sense didn't you? 

    Did they give you fictional permission to speak for them? 




    Zombieguy1987
  • @TTKDB

    You say ....
    A few days ago, you used my parents to platform your own opinion in a sense didn't you? 

    My reply .... That comment makes no sense


    You say .....Did they give you fictional permission to speak for them? 

    My reply ... Bring them on maybe they will speak for you and answer the questions you refuse too 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Joeseph

    "My reply .... Please explain how any of them are examples of indoctrination? I think you don’t know what the term means why don’t you look it up ?"

    You don't view an adult using illegal drugs around kids in their presence under the same roof as a probable form of indoctrination? 

    "indoctrination

    Indoctrination means teaching someone to accept a set of beliefs without questioning them."

    So if a drug user is using illegal drugs around kids, is the kid just supposed to accept the illegal drug use as it and not question the adults actions? 

    Isn't the kid learning from the very actions of the drug user? 

    Or an alcoholic illegally enabling a kid with alcohol under the same roof, is the kid just supposed to accept the illegal actions of the alcohol drinking adult, and not question that adults actions as well? 

    Isn't the kid learning from the actions of the alcohol drinker? 

    I think that both of those examples fall within the confines of the definition of "Indoctrination." 


    Zombieguy1987Joeseph
  • @Joeseph:

    You say ....
    A few days ago, you used my parents to platform your own opinion in a sense didn't you? 

    "My reply .... That comment makes no sense"

    Sure it does, you used them to make your point of view with. 


    You say .....Did they give you fictional permission to speak for them? 

    "My reply ... Bring them on maybe they will speak for you and answer the questions you refuse too."

    Why bring them on, when youve already used them like you did? 

    You put words in their mouth, you spoke for them, you want them as well to do your arguing for you? 






    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDB said:
    @Joeseph:

    Is the primary point of this forum to once again have the religious parents defend themselves from your accusation towards them? 

    Are you accusing the religious parents of abusing their kids by exposing them to religion? 
    He’s not wrong when you look at my arguments 
  • @TTKDB

    What a throughly stupid argument , but unfortunately that’s your level 
    Zombieguy1987
  • @Joeseph

    You really wanted to go there huh? 

    "My reply ..... I was hoping they weren’t cowards like you and could actually answer a simple question seems it’s in the blood"

    Do you want to retract your comment now? 


  • @Joeseph ;
    @Zombieguy1978:

    Care to comment on the below? 

    "My reply .... Please explain how any of them are examples of indoctrination? I think you don’t know what the term means why don’t you look it up ?"

    You don't view an adult using illegal drugs around kids in their presence under the same roof as a probable form of indoctrination? 

    "indoctrination:"

    Indoctrination means teaching someone to accept a set of beliefs without questioning them."

    So if a drug user is using illegal drugs around kids, is the kid just supposed to accept the illegal drug use as it and not question the adults actions? 

    Isn't the kid learning from the very actions of the drug user? 

    Or an alcoholic illegally enabling a kid with alcohol under the same roof, is the kid just supposed to accept the illegal actions of the alcohol drinking adult, and not question that adults actions as well? 

    Isn't the kid learning from the actions of the alcohol drinker? 

    I think that both of those examples fall within the confines of the definition of "Indoctrination."  

  • TTKDB said:
    @Joeseph ;
    @Zombieguy1978:

    Care to comment on the below? 

    "My reply .... Please explain how any of them are examples of indoctrination? I think you don’t know what the term means why don’t you look it up ?"

    You don't view an adult using illegal drugs around kids in their presence under the same roof as a probable form of indoctrination? 

    "indoctrination:"

    Indoctrination means teaching someone to accept a set of beliefs without questioning them."

    So if a drug user is using illegal drugs around kids, is the kid just supposed to accept the illegal drug use as it and not question the adults actions? 

    Isn't the kid learning from the very actions of the drug user? 

    Or an alcoholic illegally enabling a kid with alcohol under the same roof, is the kid just supposed to accept the illegal actions of the alcohol drinking adult, and not question that adults actions as well? 

    Isn't the kid learning from the actions of the alcohol drinker? 

    I think that both of those examples fall within the confines of the definition of "Indoctrination."  

    What part of “Look at my argument” did you not get?
    Joeseph
  • @Zombieguy1987

    "What part of “Look at my argument” did you not get?"

    .You mean your Yahoo pictures? 

    You don't have any words for the adults indoctrinating kids with their illegal drug use? 

    Or the alcohol drinking adults illegallly indoctrinating the kids with alcohol? 


    Zombieguy1987Joeseph
  • TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    "What part of “Look at my argument” did you not get?"

    .You mean your Yahoo pictures? 

    You don't have any words for the adults indoctrinating kids with their illegal drug use? 

    Or the alcohol drinking adults illegallly indoctrinating the kids with alcohol? 


    See your argument is not a great comparison to what those pictures show
    Joeseph
  • @Zombieguy1987

    So wait a minute, you mean to tell me that the parents who killed kids, you're blaming their apparent crimes on religion? 

    And not the offenders themselves?
  • TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987

    So wait a minute, you mean to tell me that the parents who killed kids, you're blaming their apparent crimes on religion? 

    And not the offenders themselves?
    Did you actually look at some of cases?

    For example the Neil Beaghly case, it was a result of religion that led to his death 
  • @Zombieguy1987:

    "Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide after a two-week trial that focused on the death of 16-year-old Neil Beagley, who died in June 2008 of complications involved with a urinary tract obstruction."

    (Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide after a two-week trial.

    Religion itself wasn't found guilty along with them was it?)


    "The couple belong to the Followers of Christ Church, whose members have a lengthy history of child deaths from lack of medical care. The deaths influenced a 1999 law eliminating the religious freedom defense in some cases involving the welfare of a child"

    "Former Followers of Christ member: It's a cult."

    Did you see this information before? 

    Not every church might be a cult, right? 
    Zombieguy1987Joeseph
  • TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987:

    "Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide after a two-week trial that focused on the death of 16-year-old Neil Beagley, who died in June 2008 of complications involved with a urinary tract obstruction."

    (Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide after a two-week trial.

    Religion itself wasn't found guilty along with them was it?)


    "The couple belong to the Followers of Christ Church, whose members have a lengthy history of child deaths from lack of medical care. The deaths influenced a 1999 law eliminating the religious freedom defense in some cases involving the welfare of a child"

    "Former Followers of Christ member: It's a cult."

    Did you see this information before? 

    Not every church might be a cult, right? 
    Oh, so basically, because of a religious cult, which is against using medical care to help those in need, and has a lengthy history of child deaths. We should just say

    "Mmm. clearly, this didn't influence the people who got these kids killed. no... it was THE KIDS THEMSELVES!"

    10/10 doesn't help your case at all 
  • JoesephJoeseph 561 Pts
    edited October 2018
    @TTKDB


    You say .....Not every church might be a cult, right?

    My reply ..... Wrong , also you’re guilty of using the No true Scotsman fallacy 

    Person A: "No Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."
    Person B: "But my uncle Angus is a Scotsman and he puts sugar on his porridge."
    Person A: "But no true Scotsman puts sugar on his porridge."



    Christiaity is a cult 

    cult

    kʌlt/

    noun

    1 1.
    a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object."the cult of St Olaf"

    Zombieguy1987
  • @Zombieguy1987:

    Understand something, it's like drunk driving.

    1.6 million innocent people have been killed by drunk drivers in the last 80 plus years.

    Now taking your point of view, and applying it this way, who do you think that the families who lost their loved ones to the drunk drivers illegal actions might place the blame on for their family member or members being killed by the actions of the drunk driver? 

    The vehicle that the drunk driver was driving, or the drunk driver themselves? 

    What are probable odds that those families might not place the blame on the drunk driver, instead of on the vehicle that they were utilizing? 

    Reiterating this point of view again, because it answers the above question.

    (Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide after a two-week trial.

    Religion itself wasn't found guilty along with them was it?)

    So if the drunk drivers weren't under the influence of alcohol and didn't illegally use a vehicle to get from point a to b. 

    Those lives that were lost, might be around today and would have been around for the last 80 plus years? 




  • @Joeseph:

    You using this set of words, is a fallacy.

    "My reply ..... Wrong , also you’re guilty of using the No true Scotsman fallacy"

    No, this is a copout statement from you.


    "Christiaity is a cult 

    cult

    kʌlt/

    noun

    1 1. 
    a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object."the cult of St Olaf"


    Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide after a two-week trial.


    Religion itself wasn't found guilty along with them was it?


  • JoesephJoeseph 561 Pts
    edited October 2018
    @TTKDB

    You say ....
    You using this set of words, is a fallacy.

    My reply .... Yeah? What “fallacy “ would that be then ? Bet you cannot answer and you don’t know what the term fallacy or indoctrination even means do you?

    You say .....

    No, this is a copout statement from you.


    My reply ....Says the guy who’s no defence is  copping out of attempting an answer maybe your folks can help you?


    "Christiaity is a cult 

    cult

    kʌlt/

    noun

    1 1. 
    a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object."the cult of St Olaf"


    You say .....Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide after a two-week trial.


    Religion itself wasn't found guilty along with them was it?


    My reply .... What are you even talking about ? I don’t think you even know yourself do you?


  • @Joeseph:

    This is what I was talking about.

    "Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide after a two-week trial that focused on the death of 16-year-old Neil Beagley, who died in June 2008 of complications involved with a urinary tract obstruction."

    (Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide after a two-week trial.

    Religion itself wasn't found guilty along with them was it?)


    "The couple belong to the Followers of Christ Church, whose members have a lengthy history of child deaths from lack of medical care. The deaths influenced a 1999 law eliminating the religious freedom defense in some cases involving the welfare of a child"

    "Former Followers of Christ member: It's a cult."

    Did you see this information before? 

    Not every church might be a cult, right? 
  • @TTKDB

    You ignore every question asked of you because you’re incapable of comprehending simple questions , also did you not read what I said you clot?

    "Christiaity is a cult 

    cult

    kʌlt/

    noun

    1 1. 
    a system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object."the cult of St Olaf"



  • @Joeseph and Zombieguy1987:

    "You ignore every question asked of you because you’re incapable of comprehending simple questions , also did you not read what I said you clot?"

    Christiaity is a cult"

    Calling Christianity/ religion a cult, is like saying that vehicle drivers are cultists because some of the drivers abused alcohol and then illegally drove drunk, or tried to drive drunk? 

    Are you two going to now call the vehicle drivers in your respective countries cultists because some of the people who drive vehicles can decide to drink and then drive, and then those drunk drivers could hurt or kill innocent people or themselves in the process of illegallly driving while drunk?  


  • @Joeseph:

    Understand something, it's like drunk driving.

    1.6 million innocent people have been killed by drunk drivers in the last 80 plus years.

    Now taking your point of view, and applying it this way, who do you think that the families who lost their loved ones to the drunk drivers illegal actions might place the blame on for their family member or members being killed by the actions of the drunk driver? 

    The vehicle that the drunk driver was driving, or the drunk driver themselves? 

    What are probable odds that those families might not place the blame on the drunk driver, instead of on the vehicle that they were utilizing? 

    Reiterating this point of view again, because it answers the above question.

    (Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide after a two-week trial.

    Religion itself wasn't found guilty along with them was it?)

    So if the drunk drivers weren't under the influence of alcohol and didn't illegally use a vehicle to get from point a to b. 

    Those lives that were lost, might be around today and would have been around for the last 80 plus years?
  • JoesephJoeseph 561 Pts
    edited October 2018
    @TTKDB

    You say .....

    Calling Christianity/ religion a cult, is like saying that vehicle drivers are cultists because some of the drivers abused alcohol and then illegally drove drunk, or tried to drive drunk? 

    Are you two going to now call the vehicle drivers in your respective countries cultists because some of the people who drive vehicles can decide to drink and then drive, and then those drunk drivers could hurt or kill innocent people or themselves in the process of illegallly driving while drunk?  


    My reply ...  I think your insanity in print is getting worse if that’s possible as I haven’t a clue what you’re babbling about , maybe @Zombieguy1987 can comprehend what you’re attempting to say but I doubt it very much as you have a “gift“ for spouting nonsense 
  • @Joeseph

    Where's your counter argument? 

    (Calling Christianity/ religion a cult, is like saying that vehicle drivers are cultists because some of the drivers abused alcohol and then illegally drove drunk, or tried to drive drunk? 

    Are you two going to now call the vehicle drivers in your respective countries cultists because some of the people who drive vehicles can decide to drink and then drive, and then those drunk drivers could hurt or kill innocent people or themselves in the process of illegallly driving while drunk?)

    This from you isn't a counter argument, it's just you complaining over my point of view.


    "My reply ...  I think your insanity in print is getting worse if that’s possible as I haven’t a clue what you’re babbling about"

  • @TTKDB

    i still haven't a clue what you're bleating about are you on drugs?
  • @Joeseph:

    Where's your counter argument Joeseph?

    (Calling Christianity/ religion a cult, is like saying that vehicle drivers are cultists because some of the drivers abused alcohol and then illegally drove drunk, or tried to drive drunk? 

    Are you two going to now call the vehicle drivers in your respective countries cultists because some of the people who drive vehicles can decide to drink and then drive, and then those drunk drivers could hurt or kill innocent people or themselves in the process of illegallly driving while drunk?)


  • TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987:

    Understand something, it's like drunk driving.

    1.6 million innocent people have been killed by drunk drivers in the last 80 plus years.

    Now taking your point of view, and applying it this way, who do you think that the families who lost their loved ones to the drunk drivers illegal actions might place the blame on for their family member or members being killed by the actions of the drunk driver? 

    The vehicle that the drunk driver was driving, or the drunk driver themselves? 

    What are probable odds that those families might not place the blame on the drunk driver, instead of on the vehicle that they were utilizing? 

    Reiterating this point of view again, because it answers the above question.

    (Jeffrey and Marci Beagley were found guilty of criminally negligent homicide after a two-week trial.

    Religion itself wasn't found guilty along with them was it?)

    So if the drunk drivers weren't under the influence of alcohol and didn't illegally use a vehicle to get from point a to b. 

    Those lives that were lost, might be around today and would have been around for the last 80 plus years? 




    Because similar too drunk driving, religion impairs the people who do stupid things

    In this case, it impaired the parents of this kid, and resulted in his death, like how drunk driving impairs the driver of a car
    Neopesdom
  • @Zombieguy1987:

    "Because similar too drunk driving, religion impairs the people who do stupid things

    In this case, it impaired the parents of this kid, and resulted in his death, like how drunk driving impairs the driver of a car"

    Are you a defense attorney? 

    You sound like your defending your atheist stance with the above point of view? 

    Religion is to blame and not the parents, being that religion in your own words, impaired the parents? 

    So with the drunk drivers situation, it's the alcohols and vehicles fault, not the drivers fault for having a 80 plus year history of having hurt and killed innocent people via their own self created drunk driving decisions? 

    Is that your defense of the drunk drivers choice to drive while drunk?

    They were impaired by the law making drunk driving illegal, and impaired by the vehicle and the alcohol in their blood stream? 


    Zombieguy1987
  • TTKDB said:
    @Zombieguy1987:

    "Because similar too drunk driving, religion impairs the people who do stupid things

    In this case, it impaired the parents of this kid, and resulted in his death, like how drunk driving impairs the driver of a car"

    Are you a defense attorney? 

    You sound like your defending your atheist stance with the above point of view? 

    Religion is to blame and not the parents, being that religion in your own words, impaired the parents? 

    So with the drunk drivers situation, it's the alcohols and vehicles fault, not the drivers fault for having a 80 plus year history of having hurt and killed innocent people via their own self created drunk driving decisions? 

    Is that your defense of the drunk drivers choice to drive while drunk?

    They were impaired by the law making drunk driving illegal, and impaired by the vehicle and the alcohol in their blood stream? 


    It was a result of the religion that led to the kid dying! How can you not see that!

    Instead of going to a doctor, which they could've done until he died, they put oil and just PRAYED!

    Did you actually read about the case?
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch