Prevents independent thought.
No it does not.
Not ALL independent thought. But people believe whatever worldview is given to them by the pope, their pastor or some old men in Brooklyn, to name a few. They are certainly not thinking for themselves.
Children are indoctrinated regardless of whether their environment is religious or not. My family fled Atheist Cuba, I could tell you a couple of things about their attempted atheist indoctrination in the state religion.
Sure, please tell me about it. Were you told 'There is NO god, don't even think there is one! Stop believing in God!'? You cannot have atheist indoctrination in the state religion. It's not to do with atheism. It's like saying you had fairy denier indoctrination in the state religion.
There is a difference between indoctrination and standard teaching. http://www.vusst.hr/ENCYCLOPAEDIA/indoctrination.htm
-------
Quote:
In the philosophy of education, the concept of indoctrination refers to unethical influencing in a teaching situation. Indoctrination means infiltrating (drilling, inculcating etc.) concepts, attitudes, beliefs and theories into a student’s mind by passing her free and critical deliberation. When - on a general level - we define indoctrination in this way, it is easy to say that the indoctrinative teaching is morally wrong and that teachers or educational institutions should not practise it.
Quote:
...teaching is indoctrination if the outcome is an "indoctrinated person".
Quote:
The ground of the beliefs of such a person are believed to be untenable, or beyond rational reasoning. An indoctrinated person holds her conviction despite of the counter evidence.
-------
When teaching facts, there is no counter evidence. It is not irrational to believe in these things and pass them on to the next generation. It is how our species acquires knowledge.
Fear of death.
No. Fear of eternal torture after death, or an unnatural death any day now at the hands of an invisible tyrant.
Fear of life without an invisible friend.
Sounds like an atheist problem to me.
Not really. Most atheists I know rely on other humans or doing things for themselves instead of wishing they had an invisible friend. Someone who believes there is one and that life is better with one may find it hard to accept there isn't one. They may fear that.
People may pray instead of getting or giving real help.
The one does not preclude the other. Classic "false dilemma" logical fallacy.
I'm pretty sure people pray when things are going bad. Talking to oneself isn't going to get anything done.
Keeps people ignorant of the facts of life.
Which are?
Facts that go against the Bible, such as studies that show prayer doesn't work, evidence for evolution, evidence that stars came before the Earth, not the other way round as Genesis would have us believe, evidence of human fossils older than 6,000 years (when Adam was supposed to have been made), proof that the human body can't have been designed- or was poorly designed (back pain, blind spot in the eye, men with nipples, wisdom teeth, defects, etc), proof that there are gay animals, so it can't be anything to do with our fall, proof that there was never a worldwide flood, and much more.
Instead, they may end up believing
this isn't the only life they get, that god hates gays, that stem cell research goes against god, that the gospel should be spread far and wide, that an invisible man in the sky listens to them and cares for them, that their children shouldn't marry people of another faith, that hell is a real place, that there were only 8 people alive 4,000 years ago, that there are 72 virgins waiting for anyone who kills people of another religion, that lies (such as creationism) should be taught to others, that babies should have their foreskins removed, that the word of a woman is worth half that of a man, that there is a big invisible dragon on the Earth, that they need to talk to themselves every night before bed, etc etc etc.
On the contrary, at least if we are talking about Christianity here, an adherence to its precepts creates an interest in the well being of others. Check out all of the Christian charities.
Not a COMPLETE lack of concern. I cannot see how anyone who believes in God would be worried about our species dying out.
Holds back science.
No it does not.
Not ALL science.
The teaching of evolution.
Stem cell research.
Plus anything else that goes against the Bible.
Killing 'witches' (which continues to this day in some places)
Chalk this up to ignorance and a human tendency to demonize that which is different.
No, I think I'll chalk that up to Leviticus 20:27- " 'A man or woman who is a medium or spiritist among you must be put to death. You are to stone them; their blood will be on their own heads.' "
and Exodus 22:18-
"Do not allow a sorceress to live.
Actually, you're right! It's ignorance and a human tendency to demonize that which is different.
Suicide bombing.
Yes, all religions teach this of course!
You missed the line before the list.
' It depends on the religion, so these won't all apply to one:'
Ditto to the next two.
Wars.
Lets talk about the millions killed by avowed atheist states in the last 100 years. Wars persist, despite religion.
First, it was not done in the name of atheism.
Secondly, this is like saying: "Oh, I know there is a murderer wandering the streets who occasionally kills people, but most of the time he does good works and gives to charity. Besides, even if we locked him up, another murderer would take his place."
It is possible that other things will be used to justify killing, and they should be addressed too. Religion, proven to kill (not just in wars) should not be ignored, just like we wouldn't ignore a murderer wandering the streets.
Catholics in Africa teaching monogamous heterosexual married sex-the one thing that can stop AIDS.
Please research how AIDS spreads. Straight people are now more likely to catch it than homosexuals. The teaching you think would work isn't followed because it's human nature to want sex. It's a distinct possibility the priests who abuse children do so because they've been made to hold in their natural urges. The one thing that can stop the spread of AIDS with great effectiveness is condoms.
Opposing euthanasia.
No argument there.
Then we disagree on what is moral. Prolonging pain for no good reason isn't moral to me.
Discrimination of homosexuals.
This is a social problem. If your argument is correct, this would not exist in atheist societies.
Homosexuals are treated better in more atheistic societies. In Saudi Arabia they can be killed. In the UK a couple of years ago a new law was passed which allowed homosexuals equal rights. In the most religious states of America, it is illegal to engage in homosexual acts.
Ditto to the next two.
Guilt is the natural response of a well formed conscience.
It is. A conscience not well formed would be one influenced by religion.
Atheists may give up their dreams in bitter hopelessness and futilty. I've seen plenty of bitter angry hopeless atheists in my time.
Hopelessness and futility about what? Bitterness and anger about what? Athiesm isn't a belief system.
In short, to listen to you would make one think that a fully atheistic and areligious society would not have any of these problems. I submit to you that all of the above would be WORSE.
Well then you missed this-
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=sharris_26_3
"According to the United Nations’ Human Development Report (2005), the most atheistic societies-countries like Norway, Iceland, Australia, Canada, Sweden, Switzerland, Belgium, Japan, the Netherlands, Denmark, and the United Kingdom-are actually the healthiest, as indicated by measures of life expectancy, adult literacy, per-capita income, educational attainment, gender equality, homicide rate, and infant mortality. Conversely, the fifty nations now ranked lowest by the UN in terms of human development are unwaveringly religious."
Will you be replying to what was in the first post?