AJ Philips. Let's be honest about the goal posts here shall we? Set aside what's true and what not for a moment because we will not agree. Your accusations of Hell being a lie is your assertion to counter anything I have to say. So where are these "goal posts?"

The way I see it here's why the goal posts as you've presented them are rubbish.

Teaching religion is child abuse. Why? Because the beliefs are forced onto the children... Rubbish. In all teaching scenarios we teach our kids based on what we know. We don't wait till they're old enough to know better to start teaching them the basics in how to act around others, or to start to read, write, do math, or teach history. Yet because you believe a religion to be a lie you would force a parent's hand to not teach their children based on what they know, what they believe the world to be like, or what they hope will be good for their children. If a person aren't doesn't think it's a lie then they should have the obligation to teach their children about the world based on the parent's best understanding.

No good! So we change the goal posts! Teaching religion is abuse because it is indoctrination (as opposed to other kinds of teaching which is just fine because you agree with it). Why is it indoctrination? Because by definition all religion is uncritical thinking. Wait, that's also no good. As I mentioned before we live in a world that encourages doubt on religious people. Those who remain religious do so after confronting those doubts. They think critically both about the doubts presented or doubts they have on their own, as well as think critically on their beliefs and the teachings they have. You even admit that there is critical thinking involved in theology.

(Continued)

(Continued)

So the goal posts get moved again. Hell. Hell must be abuse. Unspeakable torture?! Fear rampant about doing right or going to hell? That's the current goal post you've presented. Want to know why that is also rubbish? I gave you an accurate way to look at it based on the teachings of Jesus and the Gospels and letters of the New Testament. Hell is horrible but God already helped anyone who turns to Him so they never have to face such a place. Not abuse, and easy to explain to a child. The problem is not explaining it to children or that it's abuse. But instead that you reject the answer go back on calling it a lie and demanding me to prove it to you.

Providing a new goal post. It's abuse unless you prove it's not, while proving that it's real also. Am I missing how you're moving these goal posts? Go back to the first goal post rebuttal. If it's the parent's understanding then it is their role and obligation to teach their kids (eventually anyways) for the benefit and well being of their kids. As to proving it? If God is real then there's merit in trusting His words given to us. I don't need to prove it to you in order to have the right to teach my children if I ever have that chance. Nor will it be abuse if I ever get the opportunity to teach my kids.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Let's move to the real goal post. As long as parents are allowed to teach their children what they've come to believe, then there's a chance the children will accept what they were taught by those that love and care for them. In order to prevent this, the idea has been spread (for various excuses) that teaching religion is abuse. This is to oppress the parents their rights, roles, and responsibility being a parent, and silence them from teaching their children if there is anything religious involved. The real goal post is not religion being abusive. The real goal is to silence parents and oppress any religion through it's ability to teach the next generation. That's the real goal post.

On each on these goal posts you've presented I reject them completely.

Yes, Not_Now.Soon, let’s.

<<Let's be honest about the goal posts here shall we?>>

I have been. It was you who tried to shift them by suggesting that teaching children the doctrine of Hell isn’t abusive, so long as I (an adult) do not feel abused while engage in a discussion about it.

<<Set aside what's true and what not for a moment because we will not agree.>>

I’m afraid we can’t.

The question of whether religious indoctrination is a form of abuse rests heavily on the ability of those who indoctrinate their children to objectively demonstrate the truth of their beliefs, and I have explained twice now why. The ‘truth’ question is, therefore, inseparable from this issue.

<<Your accusations of Hell being a lie is your assertion to counter anything I have to say.>>

No, ultimately (and for the most part), my argument rests on the fact that it is theists who bear the burden of proof, and the fact that they have not yet fulfilled this burden.

<<So where are these "goal posts?">>

See above.

<<Teaching religion is child abuse. Why? Because the beliefs are forced onto the children...>>

That’s one way of putting it, yes. The problem is multifaceted. There is also the fact that the beliefs are taught uncritically, and, for most Abrahamic theists, there is also the fact that the doctrine of Hell or Annihilation are taught.

<<In all teaching scenarios we teach our kids based on what we know.>>

But you don’t “know”. You believe. There is a big difference.

<<We don't wait till they're old enough to know better to start teaching them the basics in how to act around others, or to start to read, write, do math, or teach history.>>

Correct, but none of these are unprovable assertions that could have damaging effects if we’re wrong.

<<Yet because you believe a religion to be a lie …>>

No, it’s because theists have not yet fulfilled their burden of proof. It has nothing to do with me.

Continued…

…Continued

<<… you would force a parent's hand to not teach their children …>>

I have suggested nothing of the sort. In fact, I have said that we should NOT force them to stop (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8181#255515). You are becoming hysterical now.

<<So we change the goal posts! Teaching religion is abuse because it is indoctrination ...>>

I did not shift the goalposts there. I have always maintained this.

<<Why is it indoctrination? Because by definition all religion is uncritical thinking.>>

No, because it is taught uncritically. I made this quite clear before (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8181#255515).

<<Those who remain religious do so after confronting those doubts.>>

Perhaps. From my observations, however, those who remain religious never confront them honestly. I’d welcome a counter-example if you have one, though.

<<You even admit that there is critical thinking involved in theology.>>

Yes. However, I also explained how none of that is of any use if the possibility that God does not exist is not entertained.

<<So the goal posts get moved again.>>

What goalposts are you talking about this time, and how were they moved? So far, you have not yet provided a single example of myself moving any goalposts.

<<Hell must be abuse.>>

Correct. Infinite punishment for finite crimes certainly would be abuse.

<<Fear rampant about doing right or going to hell? That's the current goal post you've presented.>>

No, I have not yet speculated on how frequent, nor to what degree, a fear of Hell exists. There are no goalposts there.

<<I gave you an accurate way to look at it based on the teachings …>>

Based on the teachings? Yes. Accurate? No. I explained to you why your god is an evil monster, and how your theology does not get you around that. You are yet to counter my points.

<<Hell is horrible but God already helped anyone who turns to Him so they never have to face such a place.>>

The fact that ANYONE has to face Hell at all, when God could simply change the rules, makes Him an evil monster, and your theology immoral. My points still stand.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Not abuse, and easy to explain to a child.>>

The ease with which Hell may be explained to a child says nothing of whether actually teaching a child such an immoral and hideous notion constitutes abuse.

<<Providing a new goal post. It's abuse unless you prove it's not, while proving that it's real also.>>

Close, but not quite.

“… for it to not be abuse, given what is at stake should they be wrong, they would also need to be able to objectively verify that what they believe is true. Until they can do this, it is abuse.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8181#255515)

“… for the teaching of it to not constitute abuse, one would need to be able to objectively demonstrate its existence because of the harm that can be caused should they be wrong.” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=8181#255683)

I have always maintained this. There is still no shift in goalposts.

<<Am I missing how you're moving these goal posts?>>

Have you stopped beating your wife?

Again, no goalposts have been moved.

<<Go back to the first goal post rebuttal. If it's the parent's understanding then it is their role and obligation to teach their kids (eventually anyways) for the benefit and well being of their kids.>>

I never said that (If it’s me you’re attributing those words to, that is. It’s difficult to tell what exactly you’re saying, to be honest. You’re sounding very flustered now.)

<<If God is real then there's merit in trusting His words given to us.>>

That’s a very big ‘if’ there. Not exactly evidence for anything, though, is it?

<<I don't need to prove it to you in order to have the right to teach my children ...>>

At no point have I suggested otherwise.

<<Nor will it be abuse if I ever get the opportunity to teach my kids.>>

That depends on how you go about it.

<<On each on these goal posts you've presented I reject them completely.>>

It comes to me as no surprise that you do. The question, however, is whether you can rationally justify your rejection. That’s the part I’m interested in.