Brainwashed Children Example - sick/abuse

[TTLer]

I found this video of a recent children's inculcation session to be particularly sickening and reprehensible. A prime example of religious child abuse and cradle-to-grave indoctrination at it's ugly best:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aef_1186421103


(Edit: speaker hits a high note at 4:20:)
"Who should you always trust first [children], god or the scientists?"
chorus reply: "god"
"god, and I want you to remember that!"



Cuckoo, Cuckoo, Cuckoo!

Obviously the religion virus is a seriously inbred sickness; what are the first steps to stopping this Nazi-style inculcation of our future leaders?

[Skeptical Greg]

Well, what they tried in Waco didn't pan out so well, so I don't know..

[vexed]

That video makes me sick.

[yairhol]

Quote:
(Edit: speaker hits a high note at 4:20:)
"Who should you always trust first [children], god or the scientists?"
chorus reply: "god"
"god, and I want you to remember that!"



But I'm sure that after saying these words, the speaker gets into his car (which scientists had invented) and talks to his wife on his mobile phone (which scientists had invented), listens to the radio (which scientists had invented) opens his garage door (which is enabled because of scientists), cook his food in the microwave (again scientists), log on to his computer (scientists), turn on the lights (light bulbs/Fluorescent/whatever), tv, coffee machine, oven, dishwasher etc... (all due to science and scientists) and basically you get my point.
Thenerve that these people have to put down science on every occasion possible is sick.

Regards,
Yair

[UnrepentantSinner]

Obviously the religion virus is a seriously inbred sickness; what are the first steps to stopping this Nazi-style inculcation of our future leaders?

I, for one, welcome our new Nazi-style inculcated overlords.

[qayak]

But I'm sure that after saying these words, the speaker gets into his car (which scientists had invented) and talks to his wife on his mobile phone (which scientists had invented), listens to the radio (which scientists had invented) opens his garage door (which is enabled because of scientists), cook his food in the microwave (again scientists), log on to his computer (scientists), turn on the lights (light bulbs/Fluorescent/whatever), tv, coffee machine, oven, dishwasher etc... (all due to science and scientists) and basically you get my point.
Thenerve that these people have to put down science on every occasion possible is sick.

Regards,
Yair

Wasn't he using a power point projector and a laptop during his lecture? Did god make those?

[qayak]

I found this video of a recent children's inculcation session to be particularly sickening and reprehensible. A prime example of religious child abuse and cradle-to-grave indoctrination at it's ugly best:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aef_1186421103




Cuckoo, Cuckoo, Cuckoo!

Obviously the religion virus is a seriously inbred sickness; what are the first steps to stopping this Nazi-style inculcation of our future leaders?

Anybody still think religion isn't child abuse? :D

Is this one of the "good" religions I hear tell of? :D

[UnrepentantSinner]

Anybody still think religion isn't child abuse? :D

Is this one of the "good" religions I hear tell of? :D

Is this one of those straw man arguments I have been warned of?

[mijopaalmc]

Is this one of those straw man arguments I have been warned of?

It's a very poor attempt at humor.

He's trying to mock those who called him on asking the first rhetorical question in a thread about how creationists were encouraging children to question evolution on tour of a natural history museum by offering their own "correct" version of the origins of life.

It is essentially a straw man because, like the creationist museum tours, it takes a very extreme example of religious indoctrination and generalizes to all religion.

[qayak]

It is essentially a straw man because, like the creationist museum tours, it takes a very extreme example of religious indoctrination and generalizes to all religion.

Now you are suggesting there is a religion that doesn't teach children fairy tales? Well, give us a name so we can go check it out.

[articulett]

Yay kiddies-- trust the invisible guy and the men in clergy costumes claiming to speak for him-- not those dastardly scientists who would teach you things like (gasp!) facts.

[mijopaalmc]

Now you are suggesting there is a religion that doesn't teach children fairy tales? Well, give us a name so we can go check it out.

Do you practice misrepresenting what people say?

Neither one of the questions you asked was about religion teaching children fairy tales.

The question that I specifically addressed was about the generalization from teaching creationism (the status of which as child abuse is questionable at best) being child abuse to all religious teaching being child abuse, which is a patently absurd proposition.

I do not support the teaching of demonstrably false statements but to equate it with child abuse trivializes the experience of people who have actually experienced child abuse and is a cheap appeal to emotion.

[articulett]

Is this one of those straw man arguments I have been warned of?


No. Those are questions. At best they are "opinions". A strawman is demonizing a person as though that refutes the point they are making-- that is what the apolgosts do.

Criticizing religion in general because it's proffered as "higher truths" despite evidence to the contrary is not the same as criticizing people in place of an argument. You may express an opinion as to whether you think religion in general is good for something, child abuse, or anything else. However, if you attack qayak instead of ignoring the OP and/or quayak's opinion about the OP you will be committing the fallacy of using a strawman.

[articulett]

Now you are suggesting there is a religion that doesn't teach children fairy tales? Well, give us a name so we can go check it out.

Per Mijo's semantic games, if you say "horses run in the Kentucky Derby"--you must mean ALL horses run in the Kentucky derby... and you are using extreme examples to describe the whole. :)

Apologists love to play the semantic obfuscation game. Demonize the critic of religion instead of addressing the OP. They are so sadly predictable.

[SomeGuy]

Well if you assume that god exists and that the christian idea of him is roughly right, than you should consider god a higher authority than mere mortal scientists.

Which still begs the question of why they would single out scientists.

There's an even bigger falsehood in what they teach these kids though, they pretend it's god vs scientist when it's really nutjob creationist vs scientists. They want the kids to believe _them_ not scientists.

Nutjob creationists are scarier if only because they actually exist.

[qayak]

Do you practice misrepresenting what people say?

Do you pretend you didn't say it?

Neither one of the questions you asked was about religion teaching children fairy tales.

Teaching children "fairy tales" (a polite way of saying "lies," I know how sensitive you are) as an acceptable world view is child abuse by any and every definition.

The question that I specifically addressed was about the generalization from teaching creationism (the status of which as child abuse is questionable at best) being child abuse to all religious teaching being child abuse, which is a patently absurd proposition.

But he wasn't teaching creationism was he? He was teaching that scientists lie and can't be trusted.

I do not support the teaching of demonstrably false statements

Glad to hear you don't think religion should be taught to children.

but to equate it with child abuse trivializes the experience of people who have actually experienced child abuse

Not according to the ones I talked to. Contrary to what you seem to think, victims don't try and out victimize each other. Would a victim who suffered physical beatings as a child think one who had been constantly traumatize wasn't a victim? Like I said, not any of the ones I talked to.

Listen to the people who it happened to. They are adamant that it was abuse.

and is a cheap appeal to emotion.

It's a fact of life.

[UnrepentantSinner]

No. Those are questions. At best they are "opinions". A strawman is demonizing a person as though that refutes the point they are making-- that is what the apolgosts do.

Criticizing religion in general because it's proffered as "higher truths" despite evidence to the contrary is not the same as criticizing people in place of an argument. You may express an opinion as to whether you think religion in general is good for something, child abuse, or anything else. However, if you attack qayak instead of ignoring the OP and/or quayak's opinion about the OP you will be committing the fallacy of using a strawman.

You need to refresh your memory on the definition of a straw man.

[UnrepentantSinner]

It's a very poor attempt at humor.

He's trying to mock those who called him on asking the first rhetorical question in a thread about how creationists were encouraging children to question evolution on tour of a natural history museum by offering their own "correct" version of the origins of life.

It is essentially a straw man because, like the creationist museum tours, it takes a very extreme example of religious indoctrination and generalizes to all religion.

I'm fully aware of that and mine was a rhetorical question. I already knew the answer.

I also feel, that while not child abuse, taking children to the Creationist Museum is borderline neglect in terms of giving children a proper eduction and not filling their heads will nonsense.

That said the video in the OP and Jesus Camp, etc. are deplorable, but cannot be extrapolated out to all believers just as 19 hijackers on 9/11 does not tarnish all of Islam.

[mijopaalmc]

Do you pretend you didn't say it?

You deliberately misrepresented my response as saying that I thought that it was OK to teach children lies even though it was a response to the rhetorical questions you asked in this thread.

For the record I never said that I approved of teaching children lies (if you think I did, you need to provide the evidence); I just said it wasn't child abuse as society usually views child abuse.

Not according to the ones I talked to. Contrary to what you seem to think, victims don't try and out victimize each other. Would a victim who suffered physical beatings as a child think one who had been constantly traumatize wasn't a victim? Like I said, not any of the ones I talked to.

Listen to the people who it happened to. They are adamant that it was abuse.

It's a fact of life.

So anecdotal evidence is only acceptable when it supports your argument?

I thought skeptics shied away from it in general.

[articulett]

You need to refresh your memory on the definition of a straw man.


You're right. I was thinking ad hom. Strawman is when you make a fake version of the argument and argue that instead of the actual argument... for example, this is a thread about something abusive religion is doing to kids-- it's not a thread about whether qayak can ask whether religion is child abuse. If you are arguing about what qayak can and can't say as opposed to the topic--then you would be arguing a strawman rather than the actual issue.

This happens all the time on this forum. Somebody mentions something unsavory about religion and suddenly the apologists turn the conversation into whether ALL religions are bad or whether somebody has the right to say whatever they said-- such people avoid the OP to derail the thread with their straw men.

[mijopaalmc]

I'm fully aware of that and mine was a rhetorical question. I already knew the answer.

I also feel, that while not child abuse, taking children to the Creationist Museum is borderline neglect in terms of giving children a proper eduction and not filling their heads will nonsense.

That said the video in the OP and Jesus Camp, etc. are deplorable, but cannot be extrapolated out to all believers just as 19 hijackers on 9/11 does not tarnish all of Islam.

Sorry, I missed your rhetorical question.

The event in question, though, is about creationists sponsoring tours of public natural history museums that encourage children question scientists on evolution.

[articulett]

qayak... you know mijo-semantics-- if you criticize religion --you must derided because NOT ALL religion is bad. Of course if he defends religion he's not really defending ALL religion. The "ALL" only applies when it works for mijo and not when it works against him, silly! It's his favorite way to avoid the topic of the OP and derail yet another thread with his nothingness.

[mijopaalmc]

qayak... you know mijo-semantics-- if you criticize religion --you must derided because NOT ALL religion is bad. Of course if he defends religion he's not really defending ALL religion. The "ALL" only applies when it works for mijo and not when it works against him, silly! It's his favorite way to avoid the topic of the OP and derail yet another thread with his nothingness.

Yet you so blithely follow the piper.

[qayak]

You deliberately misrepresented my response as saying that I thought that it was OK to teach children lies even though it was a response to the rhetorical questions you asked in this thread.

You said religions besides extreme religions aren't child abuse and yet teaching children lies as an acceptable world view is definitely child abuse. I asked if you could point to a religion that doesn't teach lies as a world view, only I called them fairy tales to protect your sensibilities.

I didn't misrepresent what you said, i simply pointed out its absurdity.

For the record I never said that I approved of teaching children lies (if you think I did, you need to provide the evidence); I just said it wasn't child abuse as society usually views child abuse.

As far as I know there are three main forms that are "usually" viewed as child abuse. Physical, sexual and mental/emotional. Teaching children lies definitely fits the mental/emotional form.

I suspect that it is the fact that it is disguised as religion that prevents you from seeing this.

So anecdotal evidence is only acceptable when it supports your argument?

I thought skeptics shied away from it in general.

Wait, wait, wait! You said calling religious instruction of children child abuse belittled those who had "actually experienced" abuse. I stated that the people who "actually experienced" abuse say it does not belittle them at all.

Belittling is something felt, and therefore decided, by the victim. The people you say have "actually experienced" abuse say that calling religious indoctrination abuseDOES NOT belittle them.

The abuse suffered by one person in no way belittles the abuse suffered by another. I don't know what kind of logic would make yu think it did!

There is no other way to know how someone feels than to have them tell you. It maybe rhetorical but in this instance, you won't find a better way to know.

The fact that you think they should feel a particular way, is just your opinion. That they don't feel that way makes it your incorrect opinion.

[Quakeulf]

All religion is bad. It's nothing more than a poor alternative to TV.

[qayak]

Sorry, I missed your rhetorical question.

The event in question, though, is about creationists sponsoring tours of public natural history museums that encourage children question scientists on evolution.

Only because you didn't watch the video. They are not encouraging children to question scientists, they are telling children that scientists lie and then they are lying to the children. I didn't see one kid question a scientist, I saw a lot regurgitate the lies of the lay preacher.

As religion proves, ignorance breeds ignorance.

[UnrepentantSinner]

You're right. I was thinking ad hom. Strawman is when you make a fake version of the argument and argue that instead of the actual argument... for example, this is a thread about something abusive religion is doing to kids something some religious people are doing to their kids that some consider abusive-- it's not a thread about whether qayak can ask whether religion is child abuse. If you are arguing about what qayak can and can't say as opposed to the topic--then you would be arguing a strawman red herring rather than the actual issue.

Corrected a few things for you.

I thinkThis happens all the time on this forum. Somebody mentions something unsavory about religion certain sects or religious practices and suddenly the apologists people who don't think you should tar whole groups with the same brush turn the conversation into whether ALL religions are bad or whether somebody has the right to say whatever they said into whether we should tar whole groups with the same brush-- such people avoid the OP to derail the thread with their straw men.

Oooo, that one needed a lot of correcting.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Sorry, I missed your rhetorical question.

Where I asked qayak about a straw man.. but nevermind...

The event in question, though, is about creationists sponsoring tours of public natural history museums that encourage children question scientists on evolution.

They aren't being encouraged to question scientists, they're being fed propaganda and "gotcha" questions to ask tour guides who might, but most likely aren't scientists during tours. They're also being encouraged to run home to mommy crying after a trained scientist or a someone familiar with Creationist tactics tears their brain a new pooper when they ask their insipid "gotcha" questions.

[skeptifem]

Anybody still think religion isn't child abuse? :D

i still think religion isnt child abuse.

[skeptifem]

As far as I know there are three main forms that are "usually" viewed as child abuse. Physical, sexual and mental/emotional. Teaching children lies definitely fits the mental/emotional form.

evidence?

and no i do not want evidence that lies can be used to cause emotional abuse to children-thats pretty obvious, i want evidence that lies are by themself emotionally abusive to children. I dont believe they are.

i dont think i need therapy over being told about santa claus as a kid, but thats just me. :)
I suspect that it is the fact that it is disguised as religion that prevents you from seeing this.

i consider a lie that the teller genuinely believes to be true different than a lie told by someone trying to purposely decieve others in a moral sense.


Wait, wait, wait! You said calling religious instruction of children child abuse belittled those who had "actually experienced" abuse. I stated that the people who "actually experienced" abuse say it does not belittle them at all.

ok *sigh*, fine, youve pushed me to it. It does belittle me. I was abused as a kid and not by my parents. I do get angry at the idea of you saying my parents abused me when my mom was so helpful to me at trying to deal with the actual abuse I had suffered.

Belittling is something felt, and therefore decided, by the victim. The people you say have "actually experienced" abuse say that calling religious indoctrination abuseDOES NOT belittle them.

uh yeah it does because I experienced both being raised religiously and being abused. you are saying my mother abused me, and i really do not appreciate it.


The abuse suffered by one person in no way belittles the abuse suffered by another. I don't know what kind of logic would make yu think it did!

whatever. theres a LINE and you know it. its like someone getting their hand chopped off and someone else saying "oh i have a paper cut i know just how you feel!" and getting all defensive when the missing hand person gets offended.

I know that there are some horrible abuses that have occured where the abusers used religion to hurt children. thats terrible but its hardly religion as a wholes fault and it does not make religion inherently abusive. its just not logically sound to say that because something can be used incorrectly that its inherently dangerous.

[articulett]

i still think religion isnt child abuse.


Never ever?

[articulett]

Corrected a few things for you.



Oooo, that one needed a lot of correcting.

I think I'll stick with mine. When we say horses run in the Kentucky Derby-- we don't mean ALL horses. Nobody rushes in to accuse anyone of painting with "too broad a brush". The OP is an act that people can rightly find abusive. Inferring it is abusive is not as bad as inculcating kiddies with ignorance. It's silly to derail a thread by accusing anyone who says anything bad about religion as "painting with too broad a brush"... THAT IS A STRAWMAN-- not a red herring-- it's a whole false issue to keep people from discussing the actual issue. Most people on this forum can parse the sentence fine without hearing "all". Only the apologists hear the word "all" when it isn't there and then change the subject to whether ALL religions are bad.

Is the OP illustrative of something that some people might rightly call child abuse? I think so. Great. Move on. No one needs your semantics, derailings, corrections, or interpretations.

I do wish the apologists would at least give their opinion on the topic before diverting threads with this same sad semantic silliness.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I know that there are some horrible abuses that have occured where the abusers used religion to hurt children. thats terrible but its hardly religion as a wholes fault and it does not make religion inherently abusive. its just not logically sound to say that because something can be used incorrectly that its inherently dangerous.

What are the correct uses of religion?

BTW, I tend to agree with you. Most people use religion as a crutch.

I think it becomes abusive when it is used to frighten children into conforming.

[UnrepentantSinner]

The OP is an act that people can rightly find abusive. Inferring it is abusive is not as bad as inculcating kiddies with ignorance. It's silly to derail a thread by accusing anyone who says anything bad about religion as "painting with too broad a brush"... THAT IS A STRAWMAN-- not a red herring-- it's a whole false issue to keep people from discussing the actual issue. Most people on this forum can parse the sentence fine without hearing "all".

Oh My God. You've got to be kidding me...

You didn't actually look up what a straw man and red herring are did you?

Only the apologists hear the word "all" when it isn't there and then change the subject to whether ALL religions are bad.

Is the OP illustrative of something that some people might rightly call child abuse? I think so. Great. Move on. No one needs your semantics, derailings, corrections, or interpretations.

I do wish the apologists would at least give their opinion on the topic before diverting threads with this same sad semantic silliness.

You keep repeating the word apologist. Do you know what that means, and would you explain how it would apply to me?

[qayak]

uh yeah it does because I experienced both being raised religiously and being abused. you are saying my mother abused me, and i really do not appreciate it.

If it's not true why do you take offence? Other than the fact that you think everything everybody else suffers in life has a bearing on you, of course? Don't you find that a little self centred?

And where do you become the arbitor of what is abuse. I can see how you would decide for yourself but why are you the one that gets to decide for everyone? Why does your abuse carry more weight than the other "actually abused" people I talked to?

Of, and by the way. By definition, lying is abuse.

whatever. theres a LINE and you know it. its like someone getting their hand chopped off and someone else saying "oh i have a paper cut i know just how you feel!" and getting all defensive when the missing hand person gets offended.

WTF? Having been injured very badly physically, why would I take offence if someone gets a paper cut? Sorry, I'm just not that self absorbed.

There is no line. There are degrees.

I know that there are some horrible abuses that have occured where the abusers used religion to hurt children. thats terrible but its hardly religion as a wholes fault and it does not make religion inherently abusive. its just not logically sound to say that because something can be used incorrectly that its inherently dangerous.

BS!!! I have a friend who grew up in an orphanage in Manchester England, you tell him it wasn't abuse. Or my mother who attended catholic school in Winnipeg, Manitoba.

In order to believe that it is not religion that causes the abuse, you would have to ignore the very basis for the religions. Unless you are saying religions do not teach children according to their religious doctrine.

Now THAT I have got to see evidence for!

[Gord_in_Toronto]

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire

[Moochie]

If this (what we saw in the video) is child abuse, then what about all the other gumpf people tell their kids, such as "Father Christmas," "Easter Bunny," "Tooth Fairy," and so on?

M.

[Matty1973]

One persons 'normal education' is another's brainwashing.

[l0rca]

So guys, since I like you all, I've thought of a get-rich-scheme.

I'm going to buy up a lot of tickets to Canada. And in a decade, when the last of the planes are being dismantled as all our technology is packaged and destroyed in the name of Jesus, I'm going to sell the last few flights.

[qayak]

If this (what we saw in the video) is child abuse, then what about all the other gumpf people tell their kids, such as "Father Christmas," "Easter Bunny," "Tooth Fairy," and so on?

The difference is that the children are not expected to take these as their world view. It is good natured fun unlike religion which is deadly serious to believers.

[TTLer]

I'm the OPer, returning after 24hrs; it's excellent to see this thread generating discussion.

articulett, qayak, Quakulf, vexed, yairhol - your thoughts are greatly appreciated, thanks.

Especially considering the abject (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abject) posts here. I mean, what kind of person would stick their head out to defend religion, except a person suffering from the religious disease?

Every single religious person is suffering from a disease: a virus that causes delusions, racism, sexism, homophobia, pedophilia, incest, child abuse etc., and they purposely infect their own children with this sickness.

Even the most mild believers cause harm, by providing a virus reservoir (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=virus+reservoir&btnG=Google+Search) for extremists, who use religion via literal interpretation of holy books as an excuse for wholesale murder. Especially Islam, nowadays: "most suicide bombers are Muslim (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.html)" (see #4).

I encourage all genuine atheists here to "kick it up a notch" and become much less tolerant of religious beliefs here on the Randi forum. Don't ignore such posts - religion doesn't deserve the quiet respect of silent deference - please join in every time to shut them down.

That is one of the first steps to preventing the awful child abuse we see in the OP child-abuse video (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aef_1186421103).

[mijopaalmc]

I'm the OPer, returning after 24hrs; it's excellent to see this thread generating discussion.

articulett, qayak, Quakulf, vexed, yairhol - your thoughts are greatly appreciated, thanks.

Especially considering the abject (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/abject) posts here. I mean, what kind of person would stick their head out to defend religion, except a person suffering from the religious disease?

Every single religious person is suffering from a disease: a virus that causes delusions, racism, sexism, homophobia, pedophilia, incest, child abuse etc., and they purposely infect their own children with this sickness.

Even the most mild believers cause harm, by providing a virus reservoir (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=virus+reservoir&btnG=Google+Search) for extremists, who use religion via literal interpretation of holy books as an excuse for wholesale murder. Especially Islam, nowadays: "most suicide bombers are Muslim (http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/pto-20070622-000002.html)" (see #4).

I encourage all genuine atheists here to "kick it up a notch" and become much less tolerant of religious beliefs here on the Randi forum. Don't ignore such posts - religion doesn't deserve the quiet respect of silent deference - please join in every time to shut them down.

That is one of the first steps to preventing the awful child abuse we see in the OP child-abuse video (http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=aef_1186421103).

Can we say "atheist fanaticism", children?

[TTLer]

Can we say "atheist fanaticism", children?


Indeed, folks - this is a prime example of what I'm talking about.

Personal attack removed

[TTLer]

I'm sorry mijopaalmc and others, I apologize for my excessive rant passion on this one. Still learning here and I look forward to positive interactions going forward! :)

[mijopaalmc]

I'm sorry mijopaalmc and others, I apologize for my excessive rant passion on this one. Still learning here and I look forward to positive interactions going forward! :)

I guess I accept your apology (i.e., if you offered an apology to be accepted).

If I might advise you, though, it does your argument very little good if, when someone accuses you of fanaticism, you respond with a post that is moderated for civility.

[TTLer]

I guess I accept your apology (i.e., if you offered an apology to be accepted).

If I might advise you, though, it does your argument very little good if, when someone accuses you of fanaticism, you respond with a post that is moderated for civility.


With all due respect, I admit the moderator's civility warning was fair. Indeed, I already made my point in post #41 using very strong language; everyone who reads it knows where I stand on the issue and I don't need to aim the same harsh sentiments at specific individuals to further my point.

That's what I learned today - certainly it's necessary to maintain some type of decorum here, no matter how different our worldviews. I get the cut of that jib now.

However, I continue to stand 100% behind my OP and my post #41 here.

[qayak]

If this (what we saw in the video) is child abuse, then what about all the other gumpf people tell their kids, such as "Father Christmas," "Easter Bunny," "Tooth Fairy," and so on?

Moochie,

Can I turn this around and ask you if believers see their belief in god the same as their belief in Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy?

If they do, I withdraw my belief that religions are bad but then I have to ask, "If they don't take their belief seriously, why do they get upset when someone points out the flaws in it?"

[autumn1971]

Moochie,

Can I turn this around and ask you if believers see their belief in god the same as their belief in Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy?

If they do, I withdraw my belief that religions are bad but then I have to ask, "If they don't take their belief seriously, why do they get upset when someone points out the flaws in it?"

Exactly what I was thinking. What would the reaction be if a group of children between 6 and 16 years old were sent to a camp where they were informed (through delightful songs and discussions) that the truth of the tooth fairy must never be questioned, and that all who evinced even the slightest tendancy to question the reality of the tooth fairy were liars who must be distrusted, dismissed, or dismantled? Is there a Christian here who would not qualify that system (assuming that the camps were part of a larger indoctrination system, including parents and others, condoning the assumption of inhumanity [yes, acording to many sects in many religions, outsiders are much less "humanity" than insiders]) as an abusive betrayal of trust?

[articulett]

And Moochie-- no one tells kids to believe Santa or the Easter Bunny over scientists. Nobody is telling them that faith is better than facts when it comes to such stories. The god story is supposed to be about how you spend ETERNITY. It not only promotes ignorance--but it says you'll be rewarded for it and punished for doubting.

And, US, I do know what the terms mean:

straw man

To argue against a straw man is to interpret someone's position in an unfairly weak way, and so argue against a position that nobody holds, or is likely to hold.

a·pol·o·gist

A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

And I stand by my claims once again. Everyone brings up the silly "all religions" argument whenever anyone dares say anything bad about religion--even on a skeptics forum! And such people seem bizarrely blind to their apologetics. They offer up special deference and defense of religion all the time while denying they are doing so and vilifying those who speak out about real abuses committed in under the guise that "faith" is good -- or "necessary for morality".

If you want to know if you are being apologetic... ask yourself if you would have acted similarly if someone was promoting racist dogma to children over scientific fact. Ask yourself if you'd be doing your tizzy dance about not ALL racism being bad if qayak had said, "who said racism isn't child abuse?"

The apologetics offer some very poor analogies, red herrings, and strawmen-- anything to avoid having to say that religion is a lie.

[TTLer]

Yes! Yes! Yes yes yes!

[Herzblut]

Yes! Yes! Yes yes yes!
Want a tissue ? :D