Is Religion Ever Child Abuse? - Page 2 - 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 Religion Ever Child Abuse?
in Religion

245


Arguments

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 2
    @ZeusAres42

    So basically, God, Religion, and some religious individuals, are "Responsible," for what these parents did to their kids, through their own actions? 

    They are being used as "excuses" for why these parents, did what they did, to their kids?

    I view these individuals as being irresponsible individuals, or irresponsible parents. 

    Examples:

    "His mother and stepfather, as Christian Scientists, had the boy treated by a church practitioner instead of a medical doctor. Ian died in a diabetic coma."

    They should have taken their child, to a medical doctor.


    "Neil Beagley, age 15 died June in Oregon 2008. He had a urinary tract blockage that could have been corrected by a fairly simple catheterization. It wasn’t corrected though, because Neil’s parents had taught him that God, not man, should cure disease if it is to be cured at all."

    They should have taken their child, to a medical doctor.

    "Matthew Swan, age 16 months, died of spinal meningitis in 1977 in Detroit, Michigan. His parents, Doug and Rita Swan, both lifelong Christian Scientists, retained Christian Science practitioners for spiritual "treatments."

    Christian Science contends that illness is an illusion caused by faulty beliefs, and that prayer heals by replacing bad thoughts with good ones."

    They should have taken their child, to a medical doctor.

    "Austin Sprout was only 16 years old and his parents believed that their faith alone would heal him even though five years earlier,"

    They should have taken their child, to a medical doctor."

    "Brian Sprout, Austin's father, died of Sepsis after he refused medical care thinking that his faith alone was enough to make him well."

    Sepsis, can be fatal if ignored, if it's caught early enough, antibiotics, and fluids are used to treat sepsis. 

    So this individual, hurt himself, by not seeking medical attention.

    "The Sprout family are members of a church called The General Assembly Church Of The Fist Born, a church which is known for practicing faith healing.

    Brandi Bellew, who remarried after the death of her husband Brian as well as her husband Russell, faced second degree manslaughter charges after the death of Austin."

    Thank you for educating me on "faith healing."

    Because faith healing, sounds very non medical oriented to me.

    I view the above as parental "malpractice, or neglect," and it's on those individuals, for the type of care, that they sought, or didn't seek for their child? 




  • I do not have enough information to say it is abuse. However just truth does not matter in any understanding of death and the state of medical treatment provided, doctors are not paid for only people cured like with common services to the public, and the Medical professionals are paid for a practice there is no life back guaranty that can be made, results are only the sales display for business opportunity.  The preservation of constitution as a state of the union may yield information or results that are popular in this matter when said as whole truth.
  • Oops meant to type The preservation of constitution as a state of the union may yield information or results that are not popular in this matter when said as whole truth.

  • A simple yes or no will do. do you or do you not see those cases as abuse? Yes or no?

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    So basically, God, Religion, and some religious individuals, are "Responsible," for what these parents did to their kids, through their own actions?
    I never said or implied that God or Religion in itself was responsible for the abuse.  In fact, I even made this perfectly clear in one of the paragraphs in my argument. - "Moreover, religion in itself, of course, is not abuse. It is, however, the indoctrination imposed upon young minds that is abuse. Albeit, this doesn't just apply to religion; there are other belief systems that also get infringed upon young people's minds. I believe that children should be allowed to grow up to form their own decisions about what to believe and what not believe. If they decide that they want to be an Atheist then so be it; if they want to follow a particular religion then so be it, and the parents should welcome this whether they are an Atheist or a Theist. " - https://debateisland.com/discussion/3823/is-religion-ever-child-abuse.

    Furthermore, the people responsible were religious people as also outlined in those case reports; the parents/guardians. So yes, these religious parents were responsible for the cruel way they let their children die.

          Because faith healing, sounds very non medical oriented to me.

    Indeed it is non-medical. And some religions that I would call akin to cult mentality is like this sadly.

     I view the above as parental "malpractice, or neglect," and it's on those individuals, for the type of care, that they sought, or didn't seek for their child?

    Malpractice and neglect are forms of abuse. And yes, this is indeed abuse. It was, however, the religious beliefs that these adults had that lead to the demise of their children. These religious beliefs were also forced upon their children; they had no choice in the matter what so ever. Had they not had these beliefs their children might have still been alive today enjoying the fruits of life that others have enjoyed.

    It is a logical progression that some beliefs which the rest of us might find disturbing do often end up leading to disturbing actions; take the Twin Towers for example.

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    @John_C_87

    Your opinion, counts to you.

    And when it comes to how you view your individual philosophy verses Religion, your opinion, has no bearing on how religious parents are raising their kids, and aren't abusing their kids with Religion, when it apparently comes to your opinion, does it?

    No anti religious individual, has ever produced, evidence, where Religion was put on trial and convicted of Child Abuse, along with the offending parent, or parents, have they?

    Individuals can verbally handcuff Religion to human beings, and make any claim, that Religion was responsible for what an offending parent, or parents did to abuse their own kids, or the kid, or kids from another family? 

    It's a convenient claim to make, from the impersonal confines of one's own keyboard? 

    Apparently cold words, on the internet, carry the same value, that actual cash does? 

    Just because, they want their anti religious opinion, to carry the same value? 

    I'm pro family, pro kid, and pro children.

    And from the educational perspective, that the anti religious crowd, has taught me, through their repetitive anti religious opinions, and teachings, the anti religious individuals, appear to be staunch believers of their peddled anti religious rhetoric?

    It makes one wonder, just exactly how "pro family, pro kid, or children," are the anti religious crowd, when it comes to their anti religious philosophies?   

    The above is my response to your individual mindset:

    "I do not think TKDB has a explanation in basic principle why refusing of medical practice is not an abuse. The biggest legal hurtle is the legal precedent of how charging a doctor with murder is not the same as malpractice in united state by consitution."


  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 562 Pts
    edited August 2

    I'm pro family, pro kid, and pro children.

    That is a good thing. So am I. Also, nontheism or nonreligious does not equate to being Anti-religious. I also happen to come from a religious background with friends and relatives who happen to have theistic beliefs. But they too can also see that the case reports I presented to you with are acts of cruelty and have no issue in understanding it was those religious beliefs that influenced their actions.

    Moreover, if a person's religion leads them to commit the cruel death of their vulnerable children then you can bet your butt that I am "Anti-that religion!" 


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • Your opinion, counts to you.

    And when it comes to how you view your individual philosophy verses Religion, your opinion, has no bearing on how religious parents are raising their kids, and aren't abusing their kids with Religion, when it apparently comes to your opinion, does it?

    Its not my opinion TKDB it is a preservation of constitution stated as fact religion is in fact by explanation of basic principle a public shared belief it is a united state all religion shares. Child abuse and child death do not share a united state, not all child death is abuse. The united state is hardship all child death is a hardship.
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    @ZeusAres42 ;

    Show this very forum, where Religion, or God, along with the abusive parents have been incarcerated, along with the abusive parents? 

    "Moreover, if a person's religion leads them to commit the cruel death of their vulnerable children then you can bet your butt that I am "Anti-that religion!" 

    A persons Religion has Zero, to do with a parent, or parents, unjustifiably causing their kids, to die by their own neglectful or parental malpracticing ways.

    Call any District Attorney in the United States, and see if your anti religious view of those criminal parents, and see if your blaming of their crimes, will hold up in any Court of Law, based on your individual, anti religious views on Religion, or God, as being the specific reasons why those parents failed their kids, because of their negligence towards their own kids health, because they where blinded by their own negligence, and not God, or Religion?

    Call any of those DA's up, and tell the forum what, their answer was?

  • Show this very forum, where Religion, or God, along with the abusive parents have been incarcerated, along with the abusive parents?
    I've already explained this part. Scroll up (mainly for the benefit of other readers). I will repeat. I have never claimed or implied that generic abstract concepts were or should be tried in court. I have, however, provided case reports of religious parents leading their children to death because of there religious beliefs that were tried and convicted by the US Judicial system; again, scroll up.
    "Moreover, if a person's religion leads them to commit the cruel death of their vulnerable children then you can bet your butt that I am "Anti-that religion!" 

    A persons Religion has Zero, to do with a parent, or parents, unjustifiably causing their kids, to die by their own neglectful or parental malpracticing ways.
    That doesn't really make much sense. If a person's religion leads them to commit the cruel act of killing children then their religion has everything to do with it. Just like extremist's beliefs lead them to commit acts of terrorism. By your own logic then you better start protesting to the Western Governments that they should stop trying to take issue with these extremist and radical views? 



    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • @TKDB ;

    The above is my response to your individual mindset:

    You agree then you have no basic priciple of objection to religion being capable of committing child abuse.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 3
    @ZeusAres42

    Are you "maybe trying" to tell other parents what to do around their kids, when it comes to Religion?

    I'm pro family, pro kid, and pro children.

    "That is a good thing. So am I. Also, nontheism or nonreligious does not equate to being Anti-religious. I also happen to come from a religious background with friends and relatives who happen to have theistic beliefs. But they too can also see that the case reports I presented to you with are acts of cruelty and have no issue in understanding it was those religious beliefs that influenced their actions."

    Because those individuals committed their crimes, and I didn't read anywhere in your stories, where God, abd Religion had handcuffs placed, around their wrists, and they are now incarcerated in prison, with those "parent criminals?"


    "Moreover, if a person's religion leads them to commit the cruel death of their vulnerable children then you can bet your butt that I am "Anti-that religion!" "

    Individuals can verbally handcuff Religion to human beings, and make any claim, that Religion was responsible for what an offending parent, or parents did to abuse their own kids, or the kid, or kids from another family? 

    "That doesn't really make much sense. If a person's religion leads them to commit the cruel act of killing children then their religion has everything to do with it."

    Classic anti religious rhetoric, you're the 4th person to bring up the below argument.
      
    "Just like extremist's beliefs lead them to commit acts of terrorism. By your own logic then you better start protesting to the Western Governments that they should stop trying to take issue with these extremist and radical views?"

    Go to Wikipedia: And look up 9/11, and see if you see God, or Religion being blamed for 9/11?

    I've read this information, God's not in it, nor is Religion.

    The 9/11 Hijackers, they committed those crimes, not God, and or Religion. 

    Read the information.

    What country are you from? 

    "By your own logic then you better start protesting to the Western Governments that they should stop trying to take issue with these extremist and radical views?"

     
    Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    @John_C_87

    I agree, that you are chronic with your whole truth teaching.
  • ZeusAres42ZeusAres42 562 Pts
    edited August 3

    A persons Religion has Zero, to do with a parent, or parents, unjustifiably causing their kids, to die by their own neglectful or parental malpracticing ways.
    That doesn't really make much sense. If a person's religion leads them to commit the cruel act of killing children then their religion has everything to do with it. Just like extremist's beliefs lead them to commit acts of terrorism. By your own logic then you better start protesting to the Western Governments that they should stop trying to take issue with these extremist and radical views? 




    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 3
    @ZeusAres42
    You're teaching me plenty, via your individual logic.

    What country are you from?

    "That doesn't really make much sense. If a person's religion leads them to commit the cruel act of killing children then their religion has everything to do with it. Just like extremist's beliefs lead them to commit acts of terrorism." 

    "By your own logic then you better start protesting to the Western Governments that they should stop trying to take issue with these extremist and radical views?"

    Individuals can verbally handcuff Religion to human beings, and make any claim, that Religion was responsible for what an offending parent, or parents did to abuse their own kids, or the kid, or kids from another family? 
  • @TKDB ;  

    I'm from the UK. And just like in the US we have programs put in place that tackle extremist views and thus saving lives! Isn't that such a wonderful thing for humanity?

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 3
    @ZeusAres42

    Classic anti religious rhetoric, you're the 4th person to bring up the below argument.
      
    "Just like extremist's beliefs lead them to commit acts of terrorism. By your own logic then you better start protesting to the Western Governments that they should stop trying to take issue with these extremist and radical views?"

    Go to Wikipedia: And look up 9/11, and see if you see God, or Religion being blamed for 9/11?

    I've read this information, God's not in it, and neither is Religion.

    The 9/11 Hijackers, they committed those crimes, not God, and or Religion. 

    Read the information. 

    Explain, why the above is a fallacy? 
    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42Dee
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 3
    @ZeusAres42

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

    "Domestic terrorism in the United States"


    "Definitions of domestic terrorism"

    "The statutory definition of domestic terrorism in the United States has changed many times over the years; also, it can be argued that acts of domestic terrorism have been occurring since long before any legal definition was set forth.

    Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[2] [3] [4] This definition is made for the purposes of authorizing law enforcement investigations. While international terrorism ("acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries") is a defined crime in federal law,[5] no federal criminal offense exists which is referred to as "domestic terrorism". Acts of domestic terrorism are charged under specific laws, such as killing federal agents or "attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce".[6] "

    Now read this information, and see if you can see God, or Religion being mentioned, within it's own wording?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom


    "Terrorism in the United Kingdom"


    "Terrorism in the United Kingdom, according to the Home Office, poses a significant threat to the state.[1] There have been various causes of terrorism in the UK. Before the 2000s, most attacks were linked to the Northern Ireland conflict (the Troubles). In the late 20th century there were also attacks by Middle Eastern terrorist groups, most of which were linked to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Since the 2000s, most terrorist incidents in Britain have been linked to Islamic extremism.

    Since 1970, there have been at least 3,395 terrorist-related deaths in the UK, the highest in western Europe.[2] The vast majority of the deaths were linked to the Northern Ireland conflict and happened in Northern Ireland.[2] In mainland Great Britain, there were 430 terrorist-related deaths between 1971 and 2001. Of these, 125 deaths were linked to the Northern Ireland conflict,[3] and 305 deaths were linked to other causes[4] – most of the latter deaths occurred in the Lockerbie bombing.[4] Since 2001, there have been almost 100 terrorist-related deaths in Great Britain, the vast majority linked to Islamic extremism.[citation needed]

    1,834 people were arrested in the UK from September 2001 to December 2009 in connection with terrorism, of which 422 were charged with terrorism-related offences and 237 were convicted.[5] "

    Same thing, see if you can see where  God, or Religion being mentioned, within its own wording? 

    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • @TKDB. How many times? I am not anti-religious or anti-god. And even if I was that would be irrelevant to what I actually said. 

    I am anti-extremist, anti-radical and anti-religious-views that lead to the death of others. And you know what? So are my religious friends and relatives. 

    Isn't that such a wonderful thing for humanity?

    Plaffelvohfen

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 4
    @ZeusAres42

    "I am anti-extremist."

    Then take your grievance up with the Parliament in your country, then?  
     
    And if there are religious individuals who aren't being extremists to their own kids, then you have nothing to get unsettled over, in regards to those peaceful religious citizens in your country then do you?

     
    "anti-radical and anti-religious-views that lead to the death of others." 

    "And you know what?"

    "So are my religious friends and relatives."

    Good for you.

     
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 4
    And to the similar minded individuals, in the United States, the same argument to you all, as well:

    You can take your grievances up with the SCOTUS, can't you? 

    And if there are religious individuals who aren't being extremists to their own kids, then you have nothing to get unsettled about, in regards to those peaceful religious citizens in the United States, either then, do you?

     

    ZeusAres42
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    http://www.humanreligions.info/extremism.html

    The definition of Religious extremism.
  • @TKDB ;

    I don't need to take up a grievance with the UK or us government about extremism
     They do that already and have agents in the field risking their lives for us. And for that I am very grateful. Aren't you?


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    https://www.gmu.edu/programs/icar/ijps/vol1_1/smoker.html

    "SPIRITUALITY, RELIGION, CULTURE, AND PEACE:
    EXPLORING THE FOUNDATIONS FOR INNER-OUTER PEACE
    IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY

    Linda Groff
    California State University

    Paul Smoker 
    Antioch College

    "If a man sings of God and hears of Him, And lets love of God sprout within him, All his sorrows shall vanish, And in his mind, God will bestow abiding peace." --Sikhism

    "A Muslim is one who surrenders to the will of Allah and is an establisher of peace (while Islam means establishment of peace, Muslim means one who establishes peace through his actions and conduct)."--Islam"The Lord lives in the heart of every creature. He turns them round and round upon the wheel of Maya. Take refuge utterly in Him. By his grace you will find supreme peace, and the state which is beyond all change." --Hinduism"The whole of the Torah is for the purpose of promoting peace." --Judaism"All things exist for world peace." --Perfect Liberty Kyodan "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shall be called sons of God." --Christianity"Peace ... comes within the souls of men when they realize their relationship, their openness, with the universe and all its powers and when they realize that at the center of the universe dwells Wakan-Tanka, and that this center is really everywhere, it is within each of us."--From The Sacred Pipe, by Black Elk, Lakota Sioux Medicine Man"
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • @TKDB

    There is a difference between knowing stuff and actually being able to comprehend it. You might want to rethink posting the above information when it had absolutely nothing to do with what my argument is about. 
    TKDB

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 4
    @ZeusAres42

    "There is a difference between knowing stuff and actually being able to comprehend it. You might want to rethink posting the above information when it had absolutely nothing to do with what my argument is about."

    You tell me the DIFFERENCE between a religious extremist, and a peaceful religious individual?

    Go ahead, and educate the United States public, and the UK public, through your educational lens? 

    "I don't need to take up a grievance with the UK or the United States government about extremism."

    "They do that already and have agents in the field risking their lives for us. And for that I am very grateful. Aren't you?"

    I'm grateful for the Peaceful Religious individuals, who don't have hateful attitudes, towards others, like the the public around them, or towards their own families? 
    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • @TKDB

    For the benefit of other readers I am not anti-religious like this deluded user keeps calling me. You can verify that also by what I actually said by scrolling back.


    PlaffelvohfenTKDB

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 4
    @ZeusAres42

    "Is Religion Ever Child Abuse?"


    "I think the answer to this question is both a yes and a no, dependent upon individual circumstances.  If a child is being told what to believe and will "burn in hell" if they don't believe what they're being told then this is indeed abuse. This is a form of psychological manipulation; although not intentional abuse I will grant, still abuse, nonetheless."

    "Moreover, religion in itself, of course, is not abuse. It is, however, the indoctrination imposed upon young minds that is abuse. Albeit, this doesn't just apply to religion; there are other belief systems that also get infringed upon young people's minds. I believe that children should be allowed to grow up to form their own decisions about what to believe and what not believe. If they decide that they want to be an Atheist then so be it; if they want to follow a particular religion then so be it, and the parents should welcome this whether they are an Atheist or a Theist."

    "Religion is and should be a choice. However, it is often imposed upon children rather than having them learned about it first, and then make up their own minds. As I also mentioned some people will even go so far as put the "fear of God" into some young minds that if they don't believe and behave in a such a way they will suffer in hell for eternity. "

    "For the benefit of other readers I am not anti-religious like this deluded user keeps calling me. You can verify that also by what I actually said by scrolling back."

    "I am anti-extremist, anti-radical and anti-religious-views that lead to the death of others."

    You tell me, and the other readers, the DIFFERENCE between a religious extremist, and a peaceful religious individual?

    Go ahead, and educate the United States public, and the UK public, through your educational lens? 

    "I don't need to take up a grievance with the UK or the United States government about extremism."

    "They do that already and have agents in the field risking their lives for us. And for that I am very grateful. Aren't you?"
     
    I'm grateful for the peaceful religious individuals, who don't have hateful attitudes, towards others, like the the public around them, or towards their own families?

    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • @TKDB ;

    Talk of evidence to address any grievance publicly debate or not without whole truth is a violation if United State Constitution. The whole truth in a Pro child, Pro baby, Pro family declaration to justify an assembly of truths publicly to set principle into the beliefs of the public in general means in basic principle that person does not authentically care but is instead make an  effort for money by profession. That are in truth a professional. I do not believe that this is the right explanation to match you true intention. Basic principle is the same as basic united state.

  •  "Is Religion Ever Child Abuse?
    This is not a question that can be answered in truth with yes and no. If a reply is yes, it is always yes defend the principles which set that understanding, and if a reply is no it would always be no. Own it. Ever means an eternity.   

    Realistically there is a lie designed as a fabrication of a fake separation of church and state taking place. If you want to take the constitutional test, simply give a proof that a religion can be sustained in society without sharing belief openly in the public. Since the creation of a united state constitutional common defense it has not been done. It is the basic prickle which separates a republic that directs democracy for the common defense and any form of unregulated democracy which establishes large, often unknown crimes by self-incrimination. 
  • For the benefit of other readers who can hopefully comprehend what is being writ:

    The user TKDB is under the illusion that because I am against religious-based extremist views or any religious views that lead to the cruelty or death of others that somehow makes me an Anti-religious individual whose stance is somehow a violation of all religions worldwide.

    I, like the vast majority of us, are against extremism or any religious views that lead the death or cruelty to others. A vast number of governments around the world can also see how certain religious views can lead to horrible actions, and they work to tackle this. What's more, is that a vast number of religious people around the world can also see and understand this. But it is very clear that TKDB cannot see this and the burden of education of this subject is clearly upon him.

    Moreover, if being against religious views that lead to acts of terrorism or child abuse or death mean that we are "Anti-Religious" then count me in! Because I am pro-humanity and that is the stance I will continue to defend no matter how hard TKBD tries to convince us that extreme religious views are harmless.

    I really do hope that other people will question their beliefs sometimes, especially when other peoples lives are at stake.

    Thanks. :)


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 4
    @ZeusAres42

    "A vast number of governments around the world can also see how certain religious views can lead to horrible actions, and they work to tackle this."

    What country besides, the United Kingdom, and the United States? 

    I'm against any individual, who goes about corrupting (any Religion, outside of its own published or copyrighted work,) to self serve their own corrupted mindsets.

    Example, the 9/11 highjackers, who used and corrupted a Religion, as a way to make excuses for their individual, inhumane deeds, and actions?

    Wikipedia has the information, available for global consumption, and can read the historical information themselves, and Religion, and God, are not a part of that Reference material.

    That information, has been shared with this forum.

    I'm pro humanity.

    I'm pro peaceful religious individual, or individuals.

    I'm anti extremist.

    And still no one, can provide any Factual evidence, where God, or Religion in general, was guilty, along with the guilty humans who hurt others, by Manipulating Religion, for their own needs, and means.

    Moreover, I'm not trying to make you do squat, ZuesAres42.

    "Moreover, if being against religious views that lead to acts of terrorism or child abuse or death mean that we are "Anti-Religious" then count me in! Because I am pro-humanity and that is the stance I will continue to defend no matter how hard TKBD tries to convince us that extreme religious views are harmless."

    "Because I am pro-humanity and that is the stance I will continue to defend no matter how hard TKBD tries to convince us that extreme religious views are harmless."

    Where's your Evidence, to prove this malicious talking point from you?

    "You will continue to defend no matter how hard TKDB tries to convince us that extreme religious views are harmless?

    Go, and find that quotation, that you're claiming, that I said to you ZuesAres42, or anyone else for that matter?

    You will not put words verbally in my mouth:

    I have never made such a comment to you ZuesAres42, 

    "No matter how hard TKBD tries to convince us that extreme religious views are harmless."

    Show the United Kingdom readers, and the United States readers, where I made the statement, you're claiming? 

    Who am I trying to Convince that extreme religious views are harmless?

    Where's your evidence?

    Because I'm sure you're able to copy and paste those very words, and share your proof, or evidence, to back your claim up? 

    Maybe MI6, can help you out?

    "The Secret Intelligence Service, commonly known as MI6, is the foreign intelligence service of the government of the United Kingdom, tasked mainly with the covert overseas collection and analysis of human intelligence in support of the UK's national security. Wikipedia "

    I'm really curious to read, the supposed proof or evidence that you have.

    And thank you ahead or time, for being able to provide that existing evidence of yours.






    ZeusAres42
  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    "A vast number of governments around the world can also see how certain religious views can lead to horrible actions, and they work to tackle this."

    What country besides, the United Kingdom, and the United States? 

    I'm against any individual, who goes about corrupting (any Religion, outside of its own published or copyrighted work,) to self serve their own corrupted mindsets.

    Example, the 9/11 highjackers, who used and corrupted a Religion, as a way to make excuses for their individual, inhumane deeds, and actions?

    Wikipedia has the information, available for global consumption, and can read the historical information themselves, and Religion, and God, are not a part of that Reference material.

    That information, has been shared with this forum.

    I'm pro humanity.

    I'm pro peaceful religious individual, or individuals.

    I'm anti extremist.

    And still no one, can provide any Factual evidence, where God, or Religion in general, was guilty, along with the guilty humans who hurt others, by Manipulating Religion, for their own needs, and means.

    Moreover, I'm not trying to make you do squat, ZuesAres42.

    "Moreover, if being against religious views that lead to acts of terrorism or child abuse or death mean that we are "Anti-Religious" then count me in! Because I am pro-humanity and that is the stance I will continue to defend no matter how hard TKBD tries to convince us that extreme religious views are harmless."

    "Because I am pro-humanity and that is the stance I will continue to defend no matter how hard TKBD tries to convince us that extreme religious views are harmless."

    Where's your Evidence, to prove this malicious talking point from you?

    "You will continue to defend no matter how hard TKDB tries to convince us that extreme religious views are harmless?

    Go, and find that quotation, that you're claiming, that I said to you ZuesAres42, or anyone else for that matter?

    You will not put words verbally in my mouth:

    Likewise, go and find the quotes from me about being Anti-religious and how I or any of us that are against the extreme religious ideology that causes harm is a violation of all peaceful religions around the world. You made this argument; it's upon you to prove that is the case.

    Putting words into peoples mouth is very childish and frustrating and yet it is what you have been doing constantly, and/or presenting a counter-argument to an argument that was never even presented by me in the first place. Hopefully, and I emphasize the word hopefully, you have now learned your lesson; two can play your childish game!

    Tip: If you want to have the moral high ground in this debate then start being honest. Unless you're incapable of because of inevitable imbecility in which case I forgive you for you know not what you do! 

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    "A vast number of governments around the world can also see how certain religious views can lead to horrible actions, and they work to tackle this."

    What country besides, the United Kingdom, and the United States? 

    I'm against any individual, who goes about corrupting (any Religion, outside of its own published or copyrighted work,) to self serve their own corrupted mindsets.

    Example, the 9/11 highjackers, who used and corrupted a Religion, as a way to make excuses for their individual, inhumane deeds, and actions?

    Wikipedia has the information, available for global consumption, and can read the historical information themselves, and Religion, and God, are not a part of that Reference material.

    That information, has been shared with this forum.

    I'm pro humanity.

    I'm pro peaceful religious individual, or individuals.

    I'm anti extremist.

    And still no one, can provide any Factual evidence, where God, or Religion in general, was guilty, along with the guilty humans who hurt others, by Manipulating Religion, for their own needs, and means.

    Moreover, I'm not trying to make you do squat, ZuesAres42.

    "Moreover, if being against religious views that lead to acts of terrorism or child abuse or death mean that we are "Anti-Religious" then count me in! Because I am pro-humanity and that is the stance I will continue to defend no matter how hard TKBD tries to convince us that extreme religious views are harmless."

    "Because I am pro-humanity and that is the stance I will continue to defend no matter how hard TKBD tries to convince us that extreme religious views are harmless."

    Where's your Evidence, to prove this malicious talking point from you?

    "You will continue to defend no matter how hard TKDB tries to convince us that extreme religious views are harmless?

    Go, and find that quotation, that you're claiming, that I said to you ZuesAres42, or anyone else for that matter?

    You will not put words verbally in my mouth:

    Likewise, go and find the quotes from me about being Anti-religious and how I or any of us that are against the extreme religious ideology that causes harm is a violation of all peaceful religions around the world. You made this argument; it's upon you to prove that is the case.

    Putting words into peoples mouth is very childish and frustrating and yet it is what you have been doing constantly, and/or presenting a counter-argument to an argument that was never even presented by me in the first place. Hopefully, and I emphasize the word hopefully, you have now learned your lesson; two can play your childish game!

    Tip: If you want to have the moral high ground in this debate then start being honest. Unless you're incapable of because of inevitable imbecility in which case I forgive you for you know not what you do! 

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • Likewise, go and find the quotes from me about being Anti-religious and how I or any of us that are against the extreme religious ideology that causes harm is a violation of all peaceful religions around the world. You made this argument; it's upon you to prove that is the case.

    Putting words into peoples mouth is very childish and frustrating and yet it is what you have been doing constantly, and/or presenting a counter-argument to an argument that was never even presented by me in the first place. Hopefully, and I emphasize the word hopefully, you have now learned your lesson; two can play your childish game!

    Tip: If you want to have the moral high ground in this debate then start being honest. Unless you're incapable of because of inevitable imbecility in which case I forgive you for you know not what you do!  @TKDB

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 4
    @ZeusAres42

    You STATED, all of the below:

    "Is Religion Ever Child Abuse?"


    "I think the answer to this question is both a yes and a no, dependent upon individual circumstances.  If a child is being told what to believe and will "burn in hell" if they don't believe what they're being told then this is indeed abuse. This is a form of psychological manipulation; although not intentional abuse I will grant, still abuse, nonetheless."

    "Moreover, religion in itself, of course, is not abuse. It is, however, the indoctrination imposed upon young minds that is abuse. Albeit, this doesn't just apply to religion; there are other belief systems that also get infringed upon young people's minds. I believe that children should be allowed to grow up to form their own decisions about what to believe and what not believe. If they decide that they want to be an Atheist then so be it; if they want to follow a particular religion then so be it, and the parents should welcome this whether they are an Atheist or a Theist."

    "Religion is and should be a choice. However, it is often imposed upon children rather than having them learned about it first, and then make up their own minds. As I also mentioned some people will even go so far as put the "fear of God" into some young minds that if they don't believe and behave in a such a way they will suffer in hell for eternity. "

    "For the benefit of other readers I am not anti-religious like this deluded user keeps calling me. You can verify that also by what I actually said by scrolling back."

    "Likewise, go and find the quotes from me about being Anti-religious and how I or any of us that are against the extreme religious ideology that causes harm is a violation of all peaceful religions around the world. You made this argument; it's upon you to prove that is the case. 

    Putting words into peoples mouth is very childish and frustrating and yet it is what you have been doing constantly, and/or presenting a counter-argument to an argument that was never even presented by me in the first place. Hopefully, and I emphasize the word hopefully, you have now learned your lesson; two can play your childish game!"

    @ZeusAres42

    Who's playing childish games?

    I knew, that I hadn't said anything, resembling the claim that you made in reference to me? 

    "Because I am pro-humanity and that is the stance I will continue to defend no matter how hard TKBD tries to convince us that extreme religious views are harmless."

    This statement, is the most educational, self defining, and descriptive of your individual educational lens:

    (("I am anti-extremist, anti-radical and anti-religious-views that lead to the death of others." ))

    You stated those words from your own mouth, right?

    I had nothing to do with your written word usages.

    You tell me, and the other readers, the DIFFERENCE between a religious extremist, and a peaceful religious individual? 

    "Tip: If you want to have the moral high ground in this debate then start being honest. Unless you're incapable of because of inevitable imbecility in which case I forgive you for you know not what you do! "

    Thank you for the education in your use of your individual UK "vernacular?" 

    https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imbecility

    "imbecility"

     noun

    "Definition of imbecility

    1a: the quality or state of being very stupid or foolish : utter foolishness… it seemed a very odd business, filled with illusions and delusions, at times noble to the point of imbecility and at other times base to the point of amorality.— Colleen McCulloughalso : FUTILITY
    b: something that is foolish or nonsensical."

  • I am going to ask you two very simple questions. You have ignored a lot of my questions in this debate so far. So please have the human decency and answer these two with just a simple yes or no. Imagine you're in a court where all you can say is either yes or no.

    First: Were the extreme religious views that the individuals had in those case reports I presented to in regards to "faith-based medical neglect" harmful and lead to the death of those children? To remind you of those case reports here they are:

    Ian Lundman, age 11, died May 9, 1989, in Minneapolis, Minnesota of medically untreated juvenile onset diabetes. His mother and stepfather, as Christian Scientists, had the boy treated by a church practitioner instead of a medical doctor. Ian died in a diabetic coma. http://ethics.iit.edu/EEL/Lundman.pdf
    Neil Beagley, age 15 died June in Oregon 2008. He had a urinary tract blockage that could have been corrected by a fairly simple catheterization. It wasn’t corrected though, because Neil’s parents had taught him that God, not man, should cure disease if it is to be cured at all. http://childrenshealthcare.org/?page_id=132

    Matthew Swan, age 16 months, died of spinal meningitis in 1977 in Detroit, Michigan. His parents, Doug and Rita Swan, both lifelong Christian Scientists, retained Christian Science practitioners for spiritual "treatments."

    Christian Science contends that illness is an illusion caused by faulty beliefs, and that prayer heals by replacing bad thoughts with good ones. https://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Victims/matthew.html
    Austin Sprout was only 16 years old and his parents believed that their faith alone would heal him even though five years earlier, Brian Sprout, Austin's father, died of Sepsis after he refused medical care thinking that his faith alone was enough to make him well. The Sprout family are members of a church called The General Assembly Church Of The Fist Born, a church which is known for practicing faith healing.

    Brandi Bellew, who remarried after the death of her husband Brian as well as her husband Russell, faced second degree manslaughter charges after the death of Austin. http://www.angelizdsplace.com/child163.htm.
    William Hermanson, 42, and his 38-year-old wife Christine were convicted in the death of their daughter Amy, who died at home in 1986 of diabetes (only 7 years old) after they relied on prayer for her recovery instead of seeking medical attention.
    Robyn Twitchell, age two, died in April, 1986, in Boston, Massachusetts, of a bowel obstruction. A simple operation to remove the twisting of the bowel would have most likely saved Robyn's life. Robyn was seriously ill over a five day period; he was in severe pain, vomiting intermittently and he had serious difficulty eating and sleeping. The parents, David and Ginger Twitchell, contacted a church practitioner the first day of Robyn's illness. The practitioner treated the boy's serious medical illness only by prayer. Subsequently, Robyn's illness became "much worse": he was shaking and vomiting and then became unresponsive. Still the parents and the practitioner did not seek medical help, preferring instead to use prayer as the only treatment.
    I will stop here but there are multiple incidences of these cases. You can find more in the following references and probably more  from there on:
    Second: Were the religious views of those religious extremists who committed acts of terrorism (including even in the previous links you even showed me) harmful and lead to the death of multiple thousands of man, woman, and child? Yes or No?

    Now if you are honest you will only answer with a yes or no. 

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDB said:
    @ZeusAres42

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_terrorism_in_the_United_States

    "Domestic terrorism in the United States"


    "Definitions of domestic terrorism"

    "The statutory definition of domestic terrorism in the United States has changed many times over the years; also, it can be argued that acts of domestic terrorism have been occurring since long before any legal definition was set forth.

    Under current United States law, set forth in the USA PATRIOT Act, acts of domestic terrorism are those which: "(A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended – (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."[2] [3] [4] This definition is made for the purposes of authorizing law enforcement investigations. While international terrorism ("acts of terrorism transcending national boundaries") is a defined crime in federal law,[5] no federal criminal offense exists which is referred to as "domestic terrorism". Acts of domestic terrorism are charged under specific laws, such as killing federal agents or "attempting to use explosives to destroy a building in interstate commerce".[6] "

    Now read this information, and see if you can see God, or Religion being mentioned, within it's own wording?


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_in_the_United_Kingdom


    "Terrorism in the United Kingdom"


    "Terrorism in the United Kingdom, according to the Home Office, poses a significant threat to the state.[1] There have been various causes of terrorism in the UK. Before the 2000s, most attacks were linked to the Northern Ireland conflict (the Troubles). In the late 20th century there were also attacks by Middle Eastern terrorist groups, most of which were linked to the Arab–Israeli conflict. Since the 2000s, most terrorist incidents in Britain have been linked to Islamic extremism.

    Since 1970, there have been at least 3,395 terrorist-related deaths in the UK, the highest in western Europe.[2] The vast majority of the deaths were linked to the Northern Ireland conflict and happened in Northern Ireland.[2] In mainland Great Britain, there were 430 terrorist-related deaths between 1971 and 2001. Of these, 125 deaths were linked to the Northern Ireland conflict,[3] and 305 deaths were linked to other causes[4] – most of the latter deaths occurred in the Lockerbie bombing.[4] Since 2001, there have been almost 100 terrorist-related deaths in Great Britain, the vast majority linked to Islamic extremism.[citation needed]

    1,834 people were arrested in the UK from September 2001 to December 2009 in connection with terrorism, of which 422 were charged with terrorism-related offences and 237 were convicted.[5] "

    Same thing, see if you can see where  God, or Religion being mentioned, within its own wording? 


    FYI, I've put your question in bold here. And the answer to that question is also in bold from your very own quote; Islamic extremism.


    And to other readers this is what TKDB left out of the Wikipidia article: (typical of someone only searching form info to confirm their own biased views and/or delusions).

    Islamic extremism is any form of Islam that opposes "democracy, the rule of law, individual liberty and mutual respect and tolerance of different faiths and beliefs".[1] Related terms include "Islamist extremism" and Islamism.[2] Some people oppose the use of the term, fearing it could "de-legitimize" the Islamic faith in general.[3] Some have criticized political rhetoric that associates non-violent Islamism (political Islam) with terrorism under the rubric of "extremism".[2]

    Jewish Defense League

    Main article: Jewish Defense League The Jewish Defense League (JDL) was founded in 1968[15] by Rabbi Meir Kahane in New York City. FBI statistics show that, from 1980 to 1985, 15 terrorist attacks were attempted in the U.S. by JDL members.[16] The FBI’s Mary Doran described the JDL in 2004 Congressional testimony as "a proscribed terrorist group".[17] The National Consortium for the Study of Terror and Responses to Terrorism states that, during the JDL's first two decades of activity, it was an "active terrorist organization."[18][19] Kahane later founded the far right Israeli political party Kach.

    The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord

    Main article: The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord The Covenant, The Sword, and the Arm of the Lord (CSA) was a radical Christian Identity organization formed in 1971 in the small community of Elijah in southern Missouri, United States. One of its members, Richard Wayne Snell was responsible for the murder of a pawnshop owner and a Missouri state trooper. The CSA collapsed following an FBI and ATF siege in 1985.

    Phineas Priesthood

    Main article: Phineas Priesthood The Phineas Priesthood (Phineas Priests) is a Christian Identity movement that opposes interracial sex, the mixing of races, homosexuality, and abortion. It is also marked by its anti-Semitism, anti-multiculturalism, and opposition to taxation. It is not considered an organization because it is not led by a governing body, there are no gatherings, and there is no membership process. One becomes a Phineas Priest by simply adopting the beliefs of the Priesthood and acting upon those beliefs. Members of the Priesthood are often called terrorists for, among other things, planning to blow up FBI buildings, abortion clinic bombings, and bank robberies.


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • Here is another case of Religious based medical neglect:

    Letting them die: parents refuse medical help for children in the name of Christ

    The Followers of Christ is a religious sect that preaches faith healing in states such as Idaho, which offers a faith-based shield for felony crimes – despite alarming child mortality rates among these groups. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help

    It is a no brainer that it is a logical progression that these beliefs are harmful. And it doesn't make any sense to say or imply that it's not the beliefs responsible but the people. It really is beggars belief to say or imply that a person's beliefs are somehow a separate entity from the person.  Of course, a person is responsible for their actions but that still doesn't change the fact that they had harmful beliefs that lead them to commit those actions.

    Luckily and for the benefit of humanity, there are people doing things to help tackle these harmful beliefs around the world which are also a no brainer because it is pretty self-evident unless of course, I am living in a parallel world. 

    You've got people tackling radicalization in countries such as the US and UK so as to combat acts of terrorism, and thus saving lives. You've also got peaceful and charitable organizations around the globe tackling religious-based medical neglect and thus saving young vulnerable children's lives. And for this, I am very grateful because I am like I said pro-humanity. I say Pro-humanity for the win, all the way and is something I will defend from now on until my dying breath.


    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    What's more dangerous, God, Jesus, and the Bible?

    Regardless of what Religion they used as a crutch, to abuse the public via their own inhumane actions? 

    Or extremists, with their individual weapons, like the 9/11 Hijackers?

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

    "September 11 attacks

    The September 11 attacks (also referred to as 9/11)[a] were a series of four coordinated terrorist attacks by the Islamic terrorist group al-Qaeda[2][3][4]against the United States on the morning of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The attacks killed 2,996 people, injured over 6,000 others, and caused at least $10 billion in infrastructure and property damage.[5][6]Additional people died of 9/11-related cancer and respiratory diseases in the months and years following the attacks."

    Take note of the specific words:

    (Islamic Terrorist group al-Qaeda)

    Do you see Islam itself being mentioned, or a group apparently, using Islam for their apparent individual uses?

    Do you see any mention of "God, Jesus, or the Bible, or the Qur'an," being mentioned in the above, or the rest of the reference material, on the 9/11 Wikipedia page?


    @ZeusAres42

    I didn't, see if you can? 

    The extremist individuals, and the radical individuals.

    Or those individuals, who have been individually corrupting Religion, and use it as their individualized, (verbal spine, to make excuses, for why they have killed, and abused, their own families, or the family members, of other families, or the thousands of the innocent people,  because they distorted Religion, and used it as a guilt escape crutch? 
    ZeusAres42

  • So now you have gone from arguing that it's the people; not the beliefs that cause harmful actions to now arguing that those religious individuals are using their religion as an excuse for their actions?

    Why can't you just see that some strong harmful beliefs lead to some harmful actions?

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • Why can't you just see that some strong harmful beliefs lead to some harmful actions?

    The basic principle is that some strong helpful beliefs are what in whole truth lead to harmful action. The issue is that people present different types of child abuse then the types of child abuse which can come from religion.

    I’m sorry I cannot hold myself impartial in this discussion.

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 5
    @ZeusAres42

    "So now you have gone from arguing that it's the people; not the beliefs that cause harmful actions to now arguing that those religious individuals are using their religion as an excuse for their actions? 

    Why can't you just see that some strong harmful beliefs lead to some harmful actions?"

    Here in the United States, there is this piece of writing in the US Constitution, called the  Second Amendment, and this Amendment has, maybe in a sense created a loophole, in which a lawful gun owner, and unlawful gun owner committed 2 mass shootings, in the last 48 hours?
    Because there are 400 million guns in the US, and some of these guns have serial numbers, on them, and some of them do not? 

    See the loophole?

    I do, the loophole, is that these two mass shooters who had guns, and killed innocent people with them, and other mass shooters as well, dating all the way back the University of Texas tower shooting, Aug 1st of 1966? 

    Because the Second Amendment give the citizens the right to bear arms, and the first time offenders, and lifer criminals, and offenders, apparently have an attitudinal beef with what, that law that says, IE criminals, and offenders, aren't allowed to have guns? 

    So some of the criminals, and offenders, self justified the purchases of their ILLEGAL guns, to go to wherever, and hurt, maim, cripple, and do worse to the innocent people around the criminal or offender with their street purchased guns?

    In a country of 329 million citizens, and of those 329 million people, 900,000 of them are Law enforcement, and both of these groups of citizens, get to deal with mass shootings, along with race on race, and non race on race gun violence brutality, and so on? 

    a two year old child was among the wounded, who didn't pass away after being shot, by an individual with a gun. 

    But a mom, and a dad, were school shopping for the 5 year old child.
    So when the shooting continued on, the mom, shielded their baby, and gave her life for the baby, and the dad got shot in the process of the shooting as well.
    So now a 5 year old, and a baby, are parent-less?

    Who should those families, and family members blame for those two for those two shooters mass shooting gun violence?

    Blame their crimes on the laws, making it illegal for some individuals to have a gun?

    Blame it on White Supremacy, blame it on Hate?

    Those terrorists groups, that apparently hide behind Religion as a self JUSTIFICATION tool, to carry out the attacks that have been going on for how long now?

    Who wrote these RULES, about being able to blame, this or that mass murder, or this or that terrorist attack, on the thousands of innocent people who have been killed by these various individuals, and than their fallback excuse/plan is to vocalize for their reasons for why they did on, "White Supremacy, the Second Amendment, Hate, Religion, some of the US laws, as they are written? 

    Who, is really trying to condition who, on how to think, and view these terrorist attacks, or gun violence crimes? 

    Did the criminals, offenders, or the terrorist write these RULES?

    Or have some, maybe been instructing others on how to think about things, behind closed doors? 

    It's not fair, equal, or reasonable, to give these individuals their excuses to hide behind, via their own lip service, is it?

    I don't believe in letting these individuals having their excuses, (Reason being, that their excuses, can't bring their victims back, can they?

    I believe that these individuals should hold themselves accountable for their own actions, because the lives that they took, can't say anything back to their victimizer's faces can they?

    So, they don't deserve to get to hide behind their excuses, being that it wouldn't be fair, equal, or reasonable now would it? 

    Unless, some are mindfully content, to reduce themselves, down to the victimizer's level? 

    To me, when individuals create excuses for why they abused, indoctrinated, and brain washed themselves, and others to do their individual bidding for them?

    Their overall issue, is an attitude issue, passed from criminal, to criminal, from offender, to offender, or from terrorist, to terrorist, whether locally, or globally.

    Then you have individuals, blaming this or that Religion, or blaming a law, for why a criminal, or offender, committed their crimes, or their domestic terrorist act, or their global terrorist acts overall, they don't deserve, to get to hide behind their excuses.


  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1951 Pts
    edited August 5
    @Dee

    When I was a little kid, I watched the original Jurassic Park. Being a very impressible kid, the scenes from there seriously scarred me, and I would have quite a few sleepless nights trying to get the image of a T-Rex walking into my room and attacking me out of my head.

    Can my parents that encouraged me to watch that movie be seen as abusers? I do not think so.

    While there is a term "emotional abuse", I would not apply it liberally to every situation where a person has been traumatised by careless words from others. Among other things, it implies a certain malicious intent. You cannot blame a deeply religious parent for telling their child about hell, since they genuinely believe that this is how the world works and only want the best for their kid, no matter how misguided it is.
  • John_C_87 said:

    Why can't you just see that some strong harmful beliefs lead to some harmful actions?

    The basic principle is that some strong helpful beliefs are what in whole truth lead to harmful action. The issue is that people present different types of child abuse then the types of child abuse which can come from religion.

    I’m sorry I cannot hold myself impartial in this discussion.

    Of course, different harmful beliefs can lead to different types of harmful actions and they already have done. Take the medical neglect cases leading to the death of the children, or the Twin Towers for example. Two different harmful belief systems but which ultimately lead to harmful actions.

    The other point is that a person's belief system is also not separate from the person which just wouldn't make any sense to say. If some people didn't believe with strong conviction that what they were doing is right at the expense of other peoples lives then lives could be spared.

    Also, note that in the beginning and I still say that religion in itself is not abuse. But in some cases, it can be such as with those medical neglect cases I presented, and with the cases of religious-based fanaticism i.e religious extremism/radicalization which ultimately leads to destruction and is not good for humanity.  

    Furthermore, in a number of cases, a person's religion is not just a bunch of random beliefs that come out of nowhere or that they decided to conjure up to justify their actions. It is in fact, a strong belief system that usually would have been ingrained over years.

    Now, the modern and moderate forms of Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are generally not harmful belief systems that lead to harmful actions. However, it is the medi-evil and harmful interpretations, adaptations and/or adoptions of those religions which are harmful and lead to harmful actions, at least according to the way that we now ascribe to societal norms in the modern-day 21st century. 

    Lastly, the reason for the modernization and moderation of those religions, and why those religions in themselves are no longer as harmful as they used to be is due to secular morality; we have now moved away from that medieval era thankfully. Albeit there still are people today that have evidently adopted harmful belief systems that are akin to ancient pagan times and/or medieval times, which of course goes against what I am for which is the best for humanity.  

    The unexamined thought is not worth thinking.

  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @MayCaesar


    You say .......When I was a little kid, I watched the original Jurassic Park. Being a very impressible kid, the scenes from there seriously scarred me, and I would have quite a few sleepless nights trying to get the image of a T-Rex walking into my room and attacking me out of my head.

    My reply ......Yet I’m sure your parents would have comforted you and told you the movie was just that a movie and that you were under no threat , can you seriously not see a difference between the two?

    You say.......Can my parents that encouraged me to watch that movie be seen as abusers? I do not think so.

    My reply .....No they cannot , they most likely ate popcorn with you and drank coke and you’s all enjoyed the movie until you went to your separate rooms and you had your possibly first experience of a reaction to a scary scene in a movie 

    You say ......While there is a term "emotional abuse", I would not apply it liberally to every situation where a person has been traumatised by careless words from others.

    My reply .....Religious indoctrination is the opposite of “careless words” 

    You say ....... Among other things, it implies a certain malicious intent. You cannot blame a deeply religious parent for telling their child about hell, since they genuinely believe that this is how the world works and only want the best for their kid, no matter how misguided it is.

    My reply ......

    But I do blame a parent for psychologically damaging a child , would you also not condemn a parent for beating a child since they genuinely believe it’s best for their child?

    To teach a child daily about hellfire and such is the essence of bad parenting most children nowadays certainly where I live are taught  a totally different way regarding religion and the terrors of eternal torture because those in the various religions mostly realized how damaging and traumatic it was.




    ZeusAres42Plaffelvohfen
  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    @ZeusAres42

    An add-on, to my previous points of view:

    To me, when individuals create excuses for why they abused, indoctrinated, and or brain washed themselves, and others to do their individual bidding for them?
    They are bringing their own problems, unto themselves, and others.

    Their overall issue, is an attitude issue, passed from criminal, to criminal, from offender, to offender, or from terrorist, to terrorist, whether locally, or globally.

    Then you have individuals, blaming this or that Religion, or blaming a law, for why a criminal, or offender, committed their crimes, or their domestic terrorist act, or their global terrorist acts overall, they don't deserve, to get to hide behind their excuses.
     


    ZeusAres42
  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @TKDB


    You say .....

    Then you have individuals, blaming this or that Religion

    My reply .....If a Christian said he killed a homosexual because the Bible said so who would you blame , the Christian , the Bible or god? 

    If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13

  • TKDBTKDB 274 Pts
    edited August 5
    @Dee

    My argument is towards some of the humans who are and have been inhumane, to the other humans, around them.

    The Bible is a book with words in it, period.

    And you're trying to self facilitate your own anti Bible argument with it?
     
    So what the Bible says, or what the Qur'an says, is irrelevant, when inhumane humans, have killed other human beings.


    "You say .....

    Then you have individuals, blaming this or that Religion

    My reply .....If a Christian said he killed a homosexual because the Bible said so who would you blame , the Christian , the Bible or god? 

    If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13"

    A page with written word's on it, can't make any inhumane human, act inhumane towards another.

    PlaffelvohfenZeusAres42
  • DeeDee 748 Pts
    @TKDB

    My reply .....If a Christian said he killed a homosexual because the Bible said so who would you blame , the Christian , the Bible or god? 

    If a man has sex with another man, kill them both. 20:13"

    You say ......A page with written word's on it, can't make any inhumane human, act inhumane towards another.

    My reply .....But it can and it has , also well done for recognizing  that the  words of the book you hold sacred are inhumane and following the word of god is inhumane 
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