This reminds me of Bishop Barron's retort on some Redditor asking "do you think it's harmful to indoctrinate children with what's essentially BS" Barron responded something like "Yes, I do think it is harmful and wrong to teach atheistic materialism to children."
"How do you think religion in the modern world could or should reform to fit into our current society? "How about modern society repenting and reforming itself?"
The most striking contrast I got from their arguments with reality is that parents can actually be religious, but not impart that religion onto the child. Am I supposed to leave my child home alone or hire a baby sitter every single time I go to mass or send them into the next room over so that I can pray? Am I not supposed to actually practice my religion whenever my child is around in order to prevent 'indoctrinating' them? Religions aren't social clubs or political parties that can be believed in without an outward expression the child would naturally see and want to understand more about, they actually shape our lives and ought to be present in our daily actions. Thank you Trent for your insights!
@@bluestrategist9aby540 Except we do have proof. We have Fine Tuning, Abiogenesis, and historical confirmation of the Bible as history. Meanwhile atheists never provide proof, or try to make a positive case. Your example is actually you saying "don't indoctrinate your kid into YOUR beliefs, indoctrinate them into MINE!!!"
These are the types of topics i love seeing apologetics based on. Because these are the most common types of bad arguments people make out in the world. Anytime im at a party or gathering with people i dont know, and the topic of Christianity comes up these are the types of things i hear. On a regular basis.
I was raised a Christian and everything Thermin trees talks about happened to me and is prevalent in the society I grew up. Don't call them bad arguments just because you haven't experienced them.
@@iku_1013parents teaching their kids to love their religion is not indoctrination. That might not of happened to you, I don’t know what happened to you. But what he calls indoctrination is what school and every other teaching institution does the exact same.
Does basic Christianity teach that we should never question our beliefs? Well, remember that Jesus taught seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be opened.
@ApplesWithPeanutButter I'm willing to put money on the fact that you follow the progressive worldview lockstep. All of you "free thinkers" parrot the same historically illiterate garbage.
@@apologiaromana4123 No issue. :) Your post is quite old. He was doing a review of a video which is definitely opposed to various ideological notions with theological notions being front and center. I found the video to hold a lot of value, but it definitely has many limits. Consider that we all "indoctrinate" our kids (and others) in varying degrees to the notions that we hold to be correct. Unfortunately, most (if not all) have notions which are not true, but do not know that such is false. You seemed to be responding the question of the based post as to whether Christianity teaches that one should not question one's beliefs. You seem to be affirming the idea that Christianity does NOT teach not to question one's belief. I reject that as a categorical, since it is the case that there are many different flavors of Christianity and some do in fact encourage blind acceptance and will use various passages of the Bible to support that notion such as the one that I cited. --- I am not a fan (putting it mildly) of theological acceptance, but I broadly understand why people think what they think. I don't find that belief is a choice (or non-belief for that matter).
The utopian example is hilariously US-centric, or at most Western-centric so much so that it is offensive and bigoted. Or, alternatively, probably it envisages a hegemonic globalism where very single cultural, national, geographic uniqueness needs to be dismantled and submit to the false god of forced "diversity"... These ideas seem benign and even "enlightened" at face value, but they are exactly the opposite.
if you are given this facts what decision will you make You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself. But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven. If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell c) Bring no children,1h
I was an atheist for several years, studied some other religions later, but finally reverted back to Catholicism, I'm so glad that I was baptized Catholic and I'm very happy now knowing the Catholic truths as they are and not as depicted by the secular culture in college and university.
How would you answer the seeming contradictions in the bible and the errors in the apparition of Fatima. I'm still a Catholic but these things get to me, i see these as just simple human error but the religion as still valid
@@homiesenatep You don't have to believe Fatima. It is a private revelation. The contradictions in the Bible are a bit harder but historical context, context of writing style and cultural context can help understand. There are hard things in the Bible to understand but you are most likely not to be the first to have come upon these hard parts a Bible commentary such as Catena Aria are could help. Do some research into various commentary they are not created equal.
@@homiesenatep I think the website Catholic Answers can help you, I'm not an expert in explaining, but I can say that the Bible is first of all not a single book, but is composed of many writings through centuries, written by different hands for different audiences, but being inspired by God they do not contain error, that is the Bible is the word of God. Some people confuse "contradictions" with "narrative cohesion"; for example the life of Jesus is written truthfully as it was by the Gospel writers, including His actions, words and teachings, through eye-witness accounts, however the whole story can be presented differently by the different writers to put different emphasis, that is they left certain things that others included in order to convey different points of the same message. Regarding Fatima, I'm not sure what errors you're referring to. Fatima is an approved apparition of Mother Mary by the Church, you will find the official Church approved account of Fatima.
Tbh, I get where he's coming from, as he must've been raised in a Christian household where he wasn't allowed to question anything, and the answers he was provided made no sense to him, because his parents didn't bother to understand how he learns and his needs for learning, and so, he, like many atheists raised this way, assume that this is all that Christianity is. Using the Bible as a bludgeon for your children whenever they question your authority. This is why so many of them believe that Christianity or religion in general must've started in order to control people for power. Here's a tip for any Christian parent: *NEVER DO THIS.* _Never_ use the Bible as a weapon against your children to keep them in line. The Bible is a tool to help people learn about God, and asking questions is a part of learning. Be prepared for difficult questions, and be prepared with answers. And when you don't have answers, humbly admit you don't know, and teach your child that some questions can't be answered, or can't be answered at this time, or even, perhaps you can search for the answers together! Never discourage questions like this. But ultimately, know your scripture and why you believe what you believe, so that when your kids inevitability ask, "Why does X happen" in the Bible, you can answer confidently and with love, not defensively and with frustration. God bless you, and good luck. 🙏
I'm not Christian from birth, I came in in my early 20's, so I have no first hand experience. But I've never met anyone who treats their kids like this guy claim that "religious" people indoctrinate kids.
I've seen it fairly often but it's usually people attempting to be edgy, they realize it's an inordinate issue to complain about without looking like a loon
To finish with these prejudices: science is praising the traditional catholic and protestant education that has been given to kids. Indeed, the very secular Harvard university has published different studes demonstration that the more the familly holds a orthodox faith and pratices the better is the mental health of the kids. See here in 2 mn te studies (what do you think?): ua-cam.com/video/SLFv5uH5m0k/v-deo.html
@@phoult37 I think you are generalizing, now I am a conservative catholic and obviously disagree with Islam however as an example in Cape Town here in South Africa we have a large Muslim community for the last 300 years and I have not ever hear of a push for sharia and we never had religious conflict in South Africa. If Muslims in Cape Town taught their children sharia we would have had a lot of extremists and political groups pushing for that. I d o believe in some countries it happens but in many Muslim communities it is not the case.
As someone who grew up and still attend my parents church. Calling me christian only because my parents had faith, completely ignores my free will and choice in the matter.
And who's to say he gets to pick which religions? Based on what? Current popularity? That would still be child abuse. He should include as many ancient, dead religions as possible - human sacrifice and all.
I find that many atheists are critiquing an idea of religion that only exists in their own minds. Also by far most parents in the world are in the third world and parents here in Africa would laugh at this guy. Indoctrinationto some extent is and always had been the norm of parenting and it doesn't necessarily stops a child to think for him/her self. However their are numerous advantages in indoctrination within limits.
Maybe he's teaching them how to sound conceited and dismissive? Because his narration is honestly self defeating. There may be a lack of self awareness there. That tone. You'd think he's teaching a pilot how to eject from a free falling plane or how to do CPR on a someone's whose heart has stopped. My Goodness.
TheraminTrees: A loving parent should instead teach the kid with critical thinking and how to make a sound judgment. They should as well teach fairly other alternatives to their own beliefs so that the kids is equipped to make is own mind about what to believe. Indoctrinating young children is abuse. The counsel of Trent rebuttal: Indeed we should teach critical thinking and other religions to our kids. But still we should make clear what they are supposed to believe at the end because our belief is the right one and the sooner we indoctrinate our kids into it the better the kids will be equipped to submit to what we teach them. Indoctrination is for their own good. TheraminTrees: It's wrong to indoctrinate a child as it remove the child's freedom of thinking. Counsel of Trent: It's not wrong to indoctrinate as long as we are sincere about it. All in all in this 'rebuttal' the host fails entirely to make the distinction between education and indoctrination. He insists that TheraminTrees is depicting religious education as equal to indoctrination and that TheraminTrees is discriminating the content with an atheist agenda when in reality TherminTrees is explaining a problem in method and how some methods are falling in the category of indoctrination and abuse. The Counsel of Trent is really listening with an agenda to prove the video wrong. Often misrepresenting the argument made by TheraminTrees and mentioning Genders issue to discredit atheists. Please be more open-minded next time you comment TheraminTrees' video. Maybe it would be healthier to not consider that your job is to make a rebuttal in the first place. Your introduction in the first minute of this video is showing how little you understand the point of TheraminTrees' video and instead take the video as an attack on your right to teach your belief to your child. In his video TheraminTrees make it clear we are talking about indoctrination here, a very different business than just teaching. But instead of letting this distinction sink in you immediately rebut a point that was never made, that indoctrination is an inherent feature of religion. Then your next argument is that it's perfectly normal to teach your children your religion while telling them it's the truth since it's the job of TheraminTrees to prove the religion is not true. This is shifting the burden of proof. Of course you can teach you religion is true as long as you first give your child the mental toolkit to judge properly for themselves what they think of your position and belief. You shouldn't push an inability to doubt on your kids. That's abuse and the point of TherminTrees video.
Great comment. I've seen so many people saying they have no problem with people questioning their faith, yet I don't see comments like yours getting enough attention.
@@YEY0806 I'd argue that's the same argument that TherminTrees is making. His default is that your religion is a relative truth and you should allow a variety of religions to be introduced to your children. As OP says, "They should as well teach fairly other alternatives to their own beliefs". Not understanding that he is also participating in the act of moral relativism and also assuming his stance is the "true and correct" one. He also sets an impossible standard for children. OP actually thinks, "Of course you can teach you religion is true as long as you first give your child the mental toolkit to judge properly for themselves what they think of your position and belief". Sure if they're young adults, but children simply lack the mental capacity to think this logically. He completely neglects the right and authority of the parents to choose for their children, as though they haven't already thought critically over their religion. His default as well as OP's is that religious familys are by default "indoctrinating" their children. As OP mischaracterizes Trent, "It's not wrong to indoctrinate as long as we are sincere about it." This is already starting from a strawman argument and displays your own bias.
@b00g3rs21 I don't think you get this, but the point of TherminTrees video is that parents who want to foster children into believing their religion should do so when they are old enough and have been taught the importance of critical thinking from which you then can argue a case for your religion on a fair ground. Needing to handicap your children's development to get them to follow your religion is abuse. I bet you wouldn't be this respectful of a parents authority and power if they belonged to the religion Heavens Gate and wanted to indoctrinate their children into its beliefs. Besides, children aren't that stupid. If children as old as 4 can be taught to memorise the bible, quran, and other holy books, then they can definitely be taught critical thinking skills
@@YEY0806 I don't think you get this, but you're engaging in the same moral relativism that is the problem here. You, OP and TherminTrees, are all engaging in a hypocrisy. You're saying, the way other people choose to raise their kids is wrong, but the way WE choose to do it is correct. Because we're *sincere* and *morally correct* , hence your argument falls short of convincing anyone. Additionally, your example of heavens gate falls flat. There is objective abuse that can be pointed to, no just "things I dont agree with".
When i attended Church/Bible study as a child, every time i had a question about the veracity of the bible, (if___ says___, why does___ say ___, etc.) the teacher would always try to answer to the best of their ability, not threaten me with punishment. In fact, every first Sunday of each month, the preacher would attempt to answer questions people had about the bible, and he would even tell us to study the bible for ourselves to test his answers. So i don't understand it when atheists say, "Churches hate when you ask questions". I am a member of the churches of Christ b.t.w.
The main issue is that he seems to not care about the differences and importance In matters of the soul compared to matters of politics. Sure on paper the comparison is close enough but when you look at details it really isn’t
Like what details? In both cases beliefs (especially moral ones) are forced onto the child. The only difference is that religion always presents those beliefs as unquestionable and is typically based upon outdated fairytales and their modern interpretation (even despite the "unquestionable" part still being present)
@@alexr6068Assume it is true for one second and you’ll realize it is urgent for Christian parents to pass on Christ to their child. Those moral beliefs are unquestionable because nobody has any authority to question them. What is a man’s opinion when compared to the will of God? You’ve already assumed the religion is untrue before the argument began. Thats not an impartial judgement of the situation.
@@froggamer4884 Beyond that, you fail to mention that secularism functions exactly like a religion itself. You’re just asking to replace one form of indoctrination with another. I’d prefer the indoctrination done by the people who love the child and want the best for them.
@@jubileeemeli if you are given this facts what decision will you make You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself. But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven. If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell c) Bring no children,2
I was to, until after further research I realized all his points are weak as hell, and a based on a fundamentalist straw man, not a biblical Christianity.
@@endygonewild2899because in real life “biblical Christianity” means something different to everyone and fundamentalists are rampant? It’s not complicated
@@G0LUX How can you justify this criticism? False religions exist; Their members are convicted; Therefore, convicted belief is simply not dependent on truth whatsoever. Empirical evaluation of the historicity of the miracles Jesus committed is inconclusive at best and extremely weak at worst. Practically equal to that of the evidence for Muhammad's miracles The bible is not an empirical source, to be blatantly clear, just as the qur'an isn't(or at least as strong of one) for you. There are thousands of false religions. Each and every one had convicted believers. The chance you are wrong is extreme. It exceeds 99%. (assuming one true religion to be the pretense for religions existing at all) I beg you this: If a rationalization you give would work for another religion, its simply invalid. If you go "god works in mysterious ways" to handwave away valid criticism, the same could be done for Islam, and you'd think it invalid. Special pleading fallacies are still special pleading fallacies. Epistemologically; I posit that, whether a religion is true; the empirical evidence for a god points in no particular direction. I say that believing in a particular religion is basically intellectually bankrupt. It goes against reason. For example, with Christianity, you have to believe that observable cessations of reality happened regularly, and then to the point they could be empirically categorized(that's recently) they simply stopped happening? I say our observed, lacking meaningful evidences for any religion, world, further stretches the point that faith is unreasonable. If your belief was [instilled](because of your unique case] prior to you having the mental faculties to ascertain what it was actually saying; your belief is simply not concerned with truth. If that's the case; your belief is emotionally concerned. This is the beckoning of the manipulator; the indoctrinator.
@secretshadow1262 how shallow a view do you have of Christians? I just started researching and found theramin trees objections only applied to fundamentalism, and they completely fell away when I discovered an intelligent articulation of the Christian faith that answered his objections . I’m fine with atheists, but anti theists like you who presume religious people are stupid are insufferable.
The difference is theremin is making an informed and logically coherent argument aimed at mentally developed adults, and not presenting his views to highly impressionable children as unquestionable absolutes. Argumentation =/= indoctrination.
@@elijahp7899 Good parents should be willing to answer questions about religion, rather than dismiss them. Why? Because it turns out the Christian worldview _does_ hold up to scrutiny.
@Elijah P No he isn't. He has nothingnto say about transgender kids having perfectly healthy body parts lopped off or pumped full of hormones. Lots of consent there...they can't even get tattoos or vote lol. Keep lying to yourself that you are educating kids while they go through irreversible gender treatment.
The key with indoctrination is that one strongly encourages another to accept a particular belief with out giving reasons why. This can be done with any belief... One can certainly teach religious beliefs critically (providing good reasons to believe and encouraging one to question) which is not indoctrination. The problem is that many people don't have good reasons for the beliefs they hold, whether atheistic or Christian, and so they run the risk of indoctrinating when they teach others.
As far as I know, most American Christians say they believe in God because of something personal. So no, I don't think majority of American Christians don't have any reasons to believe in God. It's just that they're personal reasons. For example, witnessing what they believe to be a miracle, having personal revelations, etc.. These types of reasons cannot be used to prove your faith to others but that doesn't mean they're bad reasons. Most of these types of reasons are really good in convincing oneself
@@mathewjose4753 I'm not sure about the majority but certainly many don't have good reasons. I agree that personal experience is good for oneself but does not help much when another has intellectual questions. If you wish to defend your beliefs, then you need to get involved intellectually.
I think there are very few things in this world which are given without reason. I'm sure even in North Korea they give a litany of reasons why their great leader is so important and great.
I think religious beliefs have a much higher chance of using indoctrination methods because of the concept of eternal punishment and hell. I've read the stories of several ex-Christians who were afraid to ask questions because they didn't want to compromise their faith and potentially go to hell if they couldn't answer it. I have asked these questions myself and I remember how my questioning led to a cell group leader saying I was bordering on heresy. Even my dad told me to "stop asking because we can't ever understand it and just take it on faith" While I don't necessarily doubt that you can teach a concept that allows questioning, if it involves my well being and happiness, shouldn't I have the right to determine if the belief system is worth following?
5:00 - "Frankly alot of stuff like this happens with LGBT ideology in public schools." Here are the messages listed in ThereminTree's video: - The party leader is always right. - Those who rebel against the leader will suffer terrible consequences. - Only devoted members will enjoy a good life. None of this seem reasonably applied to public school teachings on LGBT topics. All of them very closely describe religion.
It does describe LGBT really well(as a person who is still in school). We’re told to accept gender ideology and to not question it. If you say anything like “gender and sex seem to be the same thing, they obviously want to change their sex, and the whole ‘gender is a social construct’ thing seems to be made up to have an excuse to affirm delusion” you would most definitely get ex-communicated from the class and called all the phobics.
@@charles21137 The purpose is not to force people to become LGBTQ+ though. It’s to avoid prejudice for existing people who want to be respected as people. What’s the harm in calling people by a different pronoun? That’s all that’s being asked of you. It’s like calling someone Doctor regardless of whether you agree with them or even believe they’re intelligent. In religion, being indoctrinated entails a lot more and can follow you long after you have deconverted. I was quite fortunate in this respect, and so I can sympathize with those who seem to think the video applies to all indoctrination.
@@seanpierce9386 the problem is making it obligatory, no one should be obligated to call anyone anything, I don’t haft to call a person by their “preferred gender”. “What’s the harm?” What’s the harm with not calling them that, those words are meaningless to y’all anyways. It’s like two people arguing over wether to call something a “dog” or “canis lupus familiarus”, anyone who isn’t delusional would know how stupid that is(because those words mean the same thing)
My addition to the conversation: My children will believe something, that is unavoidable. It will likely be what they are taught. Someone will teach my children something (again, unavoidable). Therefore, I will ensure that I am the one doing the teaching. My job as a parent is to teach my children what is true and good. My Catholic faith is what I look to for truth and goodness, so I will teach my children to look there as well.
Why include your own children in the things/rituals you value when strangers who are hostile to your beliefs are offering to practically raise your children for you for "free"? One might even argue that your "job" as a parent is to simply feed, clothe and provide your child a place to sleep. The actual raising/moral formation and teaching should be left to the experts.
Well your kids are going to be at odds with society. Like you likely are. Because truth is based in evidence in the year 2022, not Iron Age myths. So by forcing irrational beliefs onto your child you’re ensuring another generation of cultural division, polarization and christian persecution complex.
What a narcissist, assuming that what you teach your children is automatically better than what anyone else would because it’s you doing it. You don’t care about their development or reasoning capabilities, you just want control.
@@amyj4283 if you are given this facts what decision will you make You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself. But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven. If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell c) Bring no children,
These people say that and be the same ones completely ok with parents having their kids go through gender transitions and having them watch naked adults in pride parades
Yes! Catholic faith is as a good tree that can be reconized by its fruits. Different recent studies from, the very secular, Harvard university, showing a clear correlation between catholic faith/pratice and the mental health of kids (2 mn) : ua-cam.com/video/SLFv5uH5m0k/v-deo.html
Having the opposite extreme as a major example may seem as a good argument, but this opinion on religion is shared not only by radical trans indoctrinators, but other people who may or may not accept gender transition and pride parades. Though if you want pride parades to stop, accept gay people and there will be no need for such things. Religious indocrination opposers have different opinions on this thing, they may be pro- or against abortion, gay marriage, trans-people and so forth. So your argument about hypocrisy does not really defend your position in any way, it even disproves it as you say that "their indocrination bad, our indocrination good". About gender transition: You should tell children such thing exists, but not impose the "you can be a boy today and a girl tommorow". What shall the kid do with that info? It would be better to ask if the child(not at 4 yo though) feeels ok about being the way they are, ask what they want to change. If they feel okay, you should stop imposing the attitude about changing gender every day.
HAHAHA, sometimes I forget that there are people like you who make false comparisons and just believe whatever fiction your news channel or favorite UA-cam channel sells you.
@@_SloppyhamYou can ignore it and laugh all you want, but the logical conclusion of an ideology which rejects objectivity and the role of a creator is nihilism, which leads to things like a belief in the subjectivity of truth, which leads to things like transgenderism. You MUST allow for things like this if you do not believe that the universe and the life within it is truly purposeful, which you cannot believe if you do not believe in a creator.
2:00 - "Imagine there is a horrible disease sweeping the world. Now imagine you have the opportunity to vaccinate your child... you might want to celebrate this important milestone in your childs life." I don't think this is a good analogy. In the first place, if my child's first vaccination were some formal event where everybody publicly celebrated their status, yeah, I think most people would find that creepy and probably a form of indoctrination (albeit of the attendees, if the child were just a baby, certainly of the child, if they were older). In the second place, a vaccination is not really seen as an initiation into a community of shared beliefs and values. Baptism (and ThereminTree's political example) both fit this description. You seem to agree with this at 4:00, when you say: "This is a public ceremony where you pledge to the community that you will raise a child to certain values." Your vaccination comparison doesn't match this description, but baptism, and ThereminTree's example, both do. In both cases, it seems at very least like using a child to celebrate your own beliefs.
There is so much wrong with theramin's video, even beyond what Trent discusses. But the main flaw (or intentional deception) is simply labeling all religious teaching as "abusive indoctrination" in order to make his argument work. He simply links the two intrinsically for the benefit of his case, It is like saying a man with a green jacket beat his wife, therefore wearing a green jacket leads to spousal abuse. Second, he seems to disclose that he was or felt he was "abusively indoctrinated" in his own childhood. This means his stance is a very personal one, one with much personal bias attached. Does he ever question whether he himself is trapped within the very confirmation bias he accuse Christians of?
Again you don’t understand the video it’s talking about removing the critical thinking of a child that’s indoctrination clearly you and Trent the apologist are clowns
@walterhartwellwhite8022 thinking real critically there bud, calling people clowns for no reason. Not emotional at all💀 You clearly dont understand the comment thats talking about arguing against the most extreme cases of religion. Any good parent who is knowledgeable about the faith is open to their children's questions, but that doesnt mean they have no right to impart their beliefs onto them. Children are always going to be raised up with some system of beliefs, because humans are religious by nature.
41:07 And? Does he think we should keep children in a void where we don't allow them to think until they are older or let other people teach them their values but God forbid we would do that with ours. These kinds of arguments are brought up by atheists who think that, for sure everyone would be irreligious if they didn't have religious parents but then if this was true, there would be no religious people at all.
I am guessing that atheists are also more likely to look down on marriage and parenthood and therefore will contribute to neither. So there's definitely some humor there.
First off, I think it's really on the nose that an Atheist's closest concept of religion is a radical political party since I see lots of people these days treat politics as their religions. Second, it always baffles me when subjects like this come up with people who clearly don't understand religion to it's fundamental core. His core argument basically comes down to: "Believe what I believe, which is that religion is awful and abusive for whatever reason." Real smooth brain.
looking at his other vids, the animation style. he is an amazing rhetoritician, and his allegories are excellent. You, without trents critique, feel the pressure present in his video that he is putting on you, and the solding hatred that he wants to infuse into you. But I get the sense that the man is genuinely insane.
Yes. A good tree can be reconized by its fruits. Here one of the visible fruits of faith: different recent studies from, the very secular, Harvard university, showing a clear correlation between catholic faith/pratice and the mental health of kids (2 mn) : ua-cam.com/video/SLFv5uH5m0k/v-deo.html
@@boguslav9502 I honestly don't get the praise, his comparison is flawed, his tone is condescending and thus unpersuasive and on top of it it undercuts his own paradigm. If he had respectable criticisms of religion he would phrase them very differently
@@Qwerty-jy9mj from an analytocal stand point i agree, its flair over substance. But to the layperson thst stumbles on his videos, he like most liberals using those tools with his arrogance and certsinty, is capable of putting Pressure on the average viewer. Hes a rhetoritician much like dillahinty and his troop. While ultimately not worhmth the time, are dangerous. I still think he is genuinly insane because some of his comparisons come off as something someone in an insane asylum would say, not to mention his graohics.
I seriously couldn't help but laugh when he says to teach your child about logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, biases etc. after his video riddled with these things.
But Theramin Trees would have us believe that transgender kids are getting both sides of the story, and understand both sides, at ages too young to vote or get tattoos.
The video hinges upon the misconception that Christians aren't encouraged to self-critique or explore their beliefs with a critical eye. That is where the analogy falls apart. Christianity is the single most self-critical worldview in the history of mankind. Christians fill libraries with books poking, prodding, and examining their own beliefs, and the church has even canonized many who have done so as saints. It is a well made and video, but, like so many UA-cam atheist videos, it relies on misconceptions about religion.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:17 📚 Parents teaching children about religion isn't inherently abusive indoctrination; it's a way of passing on values and beliefs. 02:33 🧒 Baptism, even for infants, can be celebrated like a choice made for a child's welfare, just as we celebrate vaccination against disease. 03:52 🙏 Religious ceremonies like baptism or dedication signify a commitment to a community's values and can be celebrated without expecting full comprehension from infants. 06:55 ⚖️ Comparing religious education to political indoctrination highlights the importance of allowing children to question and explore beliefs. 10:19 💔 Religious indoctrination can deter questioning and critical thinking, hindering a child's ability to develop their own identity. 12:59 🎭 Open conversations about religion and moral values, along with warm relationships with parents, promote the retention of faith into adulthood. 15:46 📚 Teaching foundational moral, religious, and civic beliefs with certainty is not inherently wrong, as they form the basis of a child's understanding of the world. 18:03 💡 Differentiating between teaching foundational truths and promoting harsh authoritarianism is crucial in discussing religious education. 21:03 🚫 Abusive indoctrination involves threats, manipulation, and harm, whereas religious instruction aims to educate children about important beliefs. 23:08 🌍 Comparisons between religious instruction and child protection highlight that non-abusive alternatives exist, making the point about methods, not content. 24:31 🧠 Teach critical thinking skills and logical reasoning to children. 25:11 🤔 Encourage children to think for themselves and engage in honest exchange. 26:21 ❤️ Provide authentic experiences of faith rather than just arguments. 27:02 👨👩👧👦 Teach children about potential spiritual dangers using non-abusive means. 28:25 📜 Distinction between moral truths and religious truths is complex. 29:21 📜 Moral values can have secular and religious roots. 32:23 ⚖️ Critique of certain moral norms and punishments in religious texts. 33:47 📚 Historical context affects interpretation of religious punishments. 36:07 🙏 Belief in gods doesn't automatically grant moral value to actions. 37:18 🤝 Sincere beliefs alone don't necessarily justify behavior. 41:11 👶 Early years of childhood can influence beliefs, but not definitively. 43:44 🙉 Young children's uncritical acceptance can be exploited. 48:23 🤝 Overcoming confirmation bias is essential for reasoned discourse. 49:02 🧠 Indoctrination conditions children with automatic emotional responses and behaviors. 50:40 🤔 Recovering from disillusionment allows rebuilding with honest doubt and critical thinking. 52:06 🕊️ Rawls' "veil of ignorance" principle assesses society by benefiting everyone, challenging self-interest. 53:16 📚 Society A indoctrinates, Society B educates children about all religions impartially. 55:47 💭 Teaching reasonable beliefs to children isn't inherently wrong, requires informed consent. 56:44 🧠 Child coercion in religious ideology parallels political manipulation, demanding informed consent. 57:26 🚫 False dichotomy between teaching religion and morality, refuted by examining both.
It is indoctrination by definition. Indoctrination can be seen as good or bad but it is always intended to impose a mind onto the child that is not their own mind, in the belief that theirs is inherently wrong.. THIS, is it's maladaptive
The "just teach them about all religions" seems like a very dismissive suggestion because it doesn't really seem actually very practical to me. Is he, or anyone else, really going to spend the hours, days, maybe even weeks or months going through every single religion? Their denominations? Their history and belief structure? That suggestion really rubs me the wrong way because of that. Because realistically what it actually means is to simply teach your child some 5 minute cliff notes version of a religion, because you won't have the time to devote to properly explore each religion with your child. And that's assuming your child even has the patience to deal with you trying to talk to them about every religion out there. And ultimately, I don't think trying to do some rapid fire teaching session with your child about "all the religions they could choose from, or none at all!" would really be any actual help to your child. And lets say you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc who may attend a regular religious service? Does he actually expect you to leave your child at home? To pay for a babysitter for an hour? Just so you don't "expose them to indoctrination?" Who's really being the irrational one at that point?
These are the same slippery tactics used in education. Oh yes you can still read Shakespeare but also we have to read these twenty books on CRitical race theory. “Its just more education”, no, time is finite and their is only so much things we can learn. See through the facade that they are trying to undermine the traditional order.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj The authorative claim of christianity doesn't exist outside specifically schools run by priesthood and churches. Schools in general don't favor any specific religion unless it's forced by external factor such as theocratic government or christians lobbying a little too heavily.
@@stcolreplover when you say things like “the traditional order” you sound really fascist and disgusting and absolutely out yourself as being the exact kind of individuality destroying brain disease cult described in the video.
So just because a child can’t easily learn about a range of religions, that means they should be forced to believe one set of ideals thrust on them from birth? Since when has parents having to take care of their children been a roadblock for learning?
It seems like, at the end of the day, the view expressed in the video is "parents should not raise their children according to what they think is true". Which is, of course, a ridiculous notion.
But as Trent mentions, we all teach kids certain things. Math, not to lie to parents, etc. Presumably, the maker of the video has some opinions which he teaches his kids. Will he let his child beat a gay kid so he can find his own path? Parents teach their kids according to what they believe is true, and there is nothing wrong with it. Not to mention that the picture he paints of religious education is not representative of most cases, I believe.
@@LordZurkovI agree, but that’s not what he is saying. What he is saying is that parents should let their kid choose their own religion which can work out, but it can also go horribly wrong.
He couldn't even give a well argumented response out of this, he's not basing anything on fact, just on what he already believes, what he was indoctrinated (either as a child or adult) into believing.
In this specific video, TheraminTrees is criticizing religious indoctrination. In other words, teach someone to accept a set of beliefs UNCRITICALLY. That's his whole point, that's what he is criticizing. He's not saying that all religious people do that. Simply that it's not something that should be done. It seems like you agree with his point, since you agree that you should encourage questions. Your points are mostly about what is true and what is not. He criticizes religions and their dogma in other videos. But that's not the point of this video. When he compares religion to a political party, he's not saying that the political party is saying something wrong. Now you accuse the double standards of only using it when it comes to religion. Except it's not a double standard. Critical thinking is the key. A good math teach would not just expect his students to learn dogmatically the mathematical rules, he would demonstrate them. A good parent would not just teach moral values using "that's bad because I said so", but rather give reasons. That way, growing up, if the kids finds the reasons to be unsufficients, they can change their minds. That's the non-dogmatic approach.
When I got into Psychology I found this channel talking about living with a narcissist and it clearly screams of someone personally hurt by narcissistic religious parents. I never gave this channel a second thought and now im seeing it here. Glad im not the only one turned off by him. God bless Trent
When I was thinking about converting, I was listening to some of his videos. I was a kid then. Now I recognize his arguments as nonsense. His videos always come off as condescending and inconsistent...
Dude, his videos are actually very well supported. It is intellectually dishonest to just dismiss them wholesale on the grounds that he has had bad experiences with the subjects of his videos. I agree that this bias could come into play but he does a good job of finding outside evidence instead of just relying on his experiences. If anything his experiences make him better able to understand the subjects of his videos. And by the way he explicitly states that he had these experiences, it’s not just implied.
@@elijahp7899 I agree that his videos are well researched and professional, but his experience with religious trauma is pertinent because it seems the *bulk* of evangelical atheism comes from a similar place. And in no other debate would reasonable people argue against the crummiest versions of a thing. Atheism and Fundamentalism are two sides of the literalist coin. And it’s unfortunate that atheists who’ve endured fundamentalism depict that as the essence of all religious practice. Edited: for clarity
@@elijahp7899 You're mischaracterizing what Daka said about his videos. He was only making a simple assessment of the videos he's seen, rather than the ones he hasn't seen. Your whole paragraph is off base, then, because the sentences prior to the last one he typed imply that he's basing the latter sentence off of experience. Is it obviously a generalization? Sure! This still does not discount his the fundamental issues with the few videos he's seen. It's a clear implication that he doesn't speak in good enough faith to make believable arguments in his view. It seems to me like he's saying that even though his UA-cam videos might _seem_ like a good way to comment on religion and other things, but now that he's learned better he may very well have spotted a serious issue with the way he seems to formalize arguments. I mean, you are happy to go on and mention the fact that he has certain experiences, and in fact point out that Daka is ignoring them, but you still missed the fact that he wasn't making a comment about his experience so much as he was making a comment on the very content of the way he formalizes arguments. Two different things.
The basic problem with Theramin's argument is that he's establishing a standard that does not and has never existed in reality. Children are always 'indoctrinated'. In other words, children don't have the capacity to select whatever beliefs, ideas, etc. their parents will share with them. Nature designed neonates to be totally dependent on their parents during the first years of life. We can disagree on what is the ideal or appropriate indoctrination for children to best prepare them for living in reality and society, but to argue that 'indoctrination' in it of itself is a bad thing because that's what religion does, is really an attack on religion because it's assumed that religion is fraudulent, therefore non-religion (whatever that is) ought to be the default for indoctrination.
Overall I agree with your sentiment, but I think his argument is more about the degree of reinforcement and social pressure involved. Teaching a kid how to tie their shoes is not equivalent to forcing them to attend a ceremony where they're expected to perform rituals with their family every week. People generally don't get their identities wrapped up in shoe-tying, but it's pretty normal for someone to have their identity enmeshed in their religion.
@Excuse me but I have my doubts that TT cares about methodologies in nonreligious systems. His channel seems to only really center at targeting interactions one would have within religion and what he proposes in this video alone proves that he actually doesn't care about secular indoctrination. "That's why he chose the political party example to illustrate the type of harm operational even in a nonreligious context. Religion is only guilty to the extent that use such methodologies, which is to say, they are very guilty." They can't be any more guilty than the atrocities committed last century caused by increased secularism. The ideas projected by Statist indoctrination has caused genocide on a level that the world had never seen beforehand. Yet I'll be surprised to see TT ever remotely targets systems like those.
@Excuse me but There are no harmful methodologies, rather just proven pragmatism. The political party example you constantly refer means nothing. Political parties is just picking sides to the available systems of government that one finds while living in a certain nation/state. The benefits, or drawbacks, of picking a specific party is up to the individual circumstances of that state. But again, there is no harm, fault or sinister outcome because some grow up sharing loyalty to one party or another.
@Excuse me but But idk where the harm is, what factors one chooses to use before voting is entirely arbitrary. This is not about thinking like some thorough analysis, but based on individual desires. I think people overrate the threat of eternal punishment, as if it exists in a vacuum in religion. Its hardly the main topic or concern in Catholicism, granted I can only speak from my experiences and not those reformist religions. Now if someone has an irrational obsessive fear/dread of these things, then that is an individual issue that may need to be addressed but hardly a characteristic of the religion itself.
@Excuse me but Okay if its "fear" due to pressure and external threats, that is simply a matter of the people surrounding that person's life. Which would require intervention or other remedies. But I still maintain that its not about religious beliefs/ideas here. Whether an idea can cause fear, guilt, etc.. is entirely a subjective thing to an individual. And I just think that one could say that their beliefs could just as easily give positive feelings (love, support, etc...). So to say that their methodologies are bad while dismissing the good seems dishonest. I don't have experience with Islam, so no I won't say it condemn it for harm. I've met Muslims who liked their beliefs (women and men).
I am 15. I finished my conversion to Catholicism at 14. I can tell you that religion has done nothing but help me in life. My parents are atheist and I can see where morals stray. I still love my parents, but I can definitely see it. So if you are a parent or adult reading this debating if you should raise your child religious, PLEASE RAISE THEM RELIGIOUS. I promise it will help them some way in life. For me it’s helped in a lot. Also if you have the time, please pray for all my atheist family and my God mother (my aunt. I didn’t get to choose my God parent even though I converted. My parents made it be my aunt)and grandma who claim to be catholic, but don’t believe in the Eucharist or church teaching (abortion, gay marriage, etc) I fear for their souls, please pray for them.
👏 Great job Sister! Keep up your hard work and dedication as you enter adulthood! It’s going to be hard, being a teenager isn’t easy, but with God guiding you? You’ll make it where you want to be!
Yes it’s very hard seeing people around you struggle with their connection to Christ and instead be distracted by other things. It’s for the best we pray for them and set a good example as Christians and dont be harsh but act very welcoming to them! Thank you sister for being a good example for your family and friends!
If Mr.Horn addressed these or they seem off I am sorry. I did not see through all the video as I am not in the best emotional state but I am more aware of emotional matters at times like this so I wanted to try to bring something good from it. Note I am not saying this is intentional on their part, it may be a result of bias. The original presentation relies mostly on fearmongering and emotion reasoning, notice all of the references to violence that are thrown out and asserted but never backed with anything to say they are occuring today let alone how they might be related to a given system of religion. Also notice how ar points in the video morally wrong practices that parents whether religious or not might enact or that are given only extreme examples of practice are given. Religion is not presented as capable of or doing anything good. This is anti-religious propaganda that relies on its emotional appeal to try to make reasoning against the points it gives as associated in the listener`s mind with morally and socially inconsciable things. Such practices are a dereliction on those practicing them to that extreme, but a game of guilt by association is played by implying this is just how religion functions without really backing that conclusion as to how the specific instances must lead to the claims being universal or intrinsic to raising children into a religion. In other words, normal practice is equated with extreme ones. This is a form of strawmanning as well. It is emotionally manipulative to attempt to undermine the credibility of anyone who would attempt to disagree before the discussion even starts. Thus Theramin Trees is ironically making a piece of indoctorination while attempting to criticize what they are characterizing as indoctorination. When philosophers speak of those relying on rhetoric rather than reasoning to make their point, this is the sort of practices they mean.
@@walterhartwellwhite8022 I did but not it all. Now that does not prevent my interpretation being off, but also simply because it is unpalatable to you does not make it wrong or provide evidence I never watched any of the video. Take my word or do not, I stand by what I have said. The Lord knows I have, that is enough for me. He will judge me harshly espescially now if I am lying as I am explicitly pointing out the matter and making it clear that it would be evil to lie.
So, to prevent any kind of indoctrination, then parents shouldn’t teach any language (because you are forcing one, maybe they want to speak elfish not the parents language), neither take them to school (you are forcing a certain view of history and science) and obviously shouldn’t give them names (because again you are forcing one that maybe they will not like/accept) Oh but it is not indoctrination to take them to certain parades and marches 🤔
There are legit parents trying to raise “they/gender neutral babies” because they don’t want society ‘forcing’ certain traits and norms on them 🙄 sure, keeping their own biology a secret from those kids is totally gonna prepare them for the inevitable puberty that will cause a bunch of hay-wiring in the brain and body. Not to mention medical personal who need to know their risk for certain diseases, mental ailments, general physic health, cancer risks, etc. But no, those parents think it’s simply a kid choosing their haircut and what they wear 🤦♀️
Yes. The end goal is for parents to not teach anything. A "benevolent" secular state would be in charge of child education from the earliest age. It's already true for a large segment of the population anyway. In Sunday school I hear very very interesting things - such as state middle school teachers telling kids to "never discuss what we learn here with parents / family". When we asked a group "what is Church for you" answers rangig from "the Spanish inquisition" to "an instrument of oppression" and "like you know, the co... coloneezation? like you know what white people did?"
someone doesn't know what indoctrination is. I'm trying to be respectful, but when orthodoxes treat their faith literally on the same level as language education, it's hard to be serious.
Glad I wasn’t the only one getting weirded put by that. Yes, ‘it’ can be valid in addressing something, but it sounds so inhuman to me. Like how pro-abortion people talk about an unborn baby. ‘They’ is an appropriate address for a being as it makes a better connection than simply ‘it.’
Have we forgotten the periods in history where it was “ Convert to the state Religion or be subjugated or die “ The real crime of Religion is the idea of heaven and hell after death, in the wise words of Confucius “ we have two lives, the second one begins when we realise that we only have one “
Most underrated comment. I am most puzzled sometimes by the pseudo-spirituality atheists espouse (e.g. "but isn't it glorious that our atoms come from STARS?!"). Why do they care? How does that change anything? Stars are, according to them, just dead balls of fusing helium, just as unremarkable, purposeless and accidental as dust or void or humans. And why do they need a poetic / emotional crutch like that? I think it is a desperate attempt to reconcile their innate knowledge and craving for God that we all share! It's actually sad, makes me tear up sometimes: their souls still have that ability but they try so hard to deny their own nature...
Coming from the supernova of a collapsing star is much more powerful than a dude made you from a rib. So that he could roast your body forever and ever because he loves the smell of burning flesh. Disgusting Also Christianity is what makes people believe everything is meaningless and beats them into a state of misery so it can sell them the cure. Fake Jesus cult idol. Western chauvinism. Stolen holy book. Forgery fake news hoax. ua-cam.com/video/NjnDaeKvZ8c/v-deo.html
15:06 looked up the context for this verse. Exodus 23 is talking about the laws the isrealites should keep. Things like resting on shabat, and caring for foreigners, even helping enemies was mentioned. The specifc verse is about how God warned that he was a jealous God who wouldn't tolerate the practices and worship of other gods. The specific gods in this case would be gods like baal who had practices of burning children. Although im not sure on the specifics.
So I'm 17 minutes in and the only argument has basicly been "but Jesus is God so it's just like teaching any other truth". How is that even a good argument, for that to make any sense you'd have to already believe that Jesus is God. Feels like pandering to the audience tbh
SO much I could say about Theramin Trees' claims. Starting with the hidden assumption that all religions are equally valid (because they're equally wrong). Or the composition error that "some people use bad tactics to uncritically teach their beliefs, therefore all religious instruction is wrong." Or once again bringing up prescribed penalties under Mosaic Law as though those arguments have never been answered before. Fallacies, fallacies everywhere!
Not to mention he then just assumes his particular secular ethical beliefs are just self-evident and then chastises the bible for not living up to them. Never mind he fact that’s there is great disagreement in ethical philosophy among non-religious perspectives and many who reject the idea that ethics have any basis. His voice has that weird condescending tone to it as well, don5 know the accent
@@l21n18 zif you are given this facts what decision will you make You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself. But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven. If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell c) Bring no children,
Basically everything this guy's case comes down to is, "Like with politics, and unlike devotions to truth and goodness themselves, I don't believe religion (or any single religion for that matter) has any transcendent truths to it, so it shouldn't be taught to children." Great for you bud. I disagree, so I'm gonna teach 'em. The only way his video succeeds is if you already agree with him.
That’s called a cultural bias. If you don’t realize that the party would consider itself as essential to truth and as the sole source of meaning you know nothing of the way Christianity makes everything meaningless
@@isidoreaerys8745 if you are given this facts what decision will you make You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself. But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven. If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell c) Bring no children,13
@@a.39886 I am going to steelman your hypothetical a bit since, as it is, it is fundamentally flawed. There are no children in hell. All who die before the age of accountability are in heaven, so (b.) is not an option. (See 2 Samuel 12:21-23 and Matthew 19:14) Let's replace children with persons. Now this is a stronger hypothetical, but still has a major flaw. First, why assume that a) is even possible? People don't exist in a vacuum. They interact with others and their environments. If you put one person in a different set of circumstance, they may make different choices. To claim that the exact same people will choose to accept Christ in all sets of circumstances is unjustified. That leaves b and c, and for that I would ask why should those people who refuse to accept the free gift of salvation have a veto power over those who accept the free gift? Why should those who choose to go to hell hold those who choose heaven ransom?
@@ChristiFuturum this a contradiction in your train of thought. *you put one person in a different set of circumstance, they may make different choices* when a person is lost forever to the sufferings of hell, is because God has exactly planed where and when this person is going to be born and given that condition if they will accept the "gift of salvation", now imagine that this "save person" is born with different conditions and now is "lost in hell". if what you are saying is true then, I guess your explanation will be that in the current world there would be the most number of people saved vs any other world, even that you know that the bible says that narrow is the gate and few are the ones that complete the race. Given the option that you can give up hell so your son/daughter/partner/love one won´t experience hell would you take that deal. You won´t be going to hell you both just stop existing would you take that deal?
@@a.39886 Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It is interesting and thus deserving a proper response. In order to do that, a few critical points need to be addressed. For your first paragraph, there seems to be a presumption that an individual's environment wholly predetermines whether they will choose to accept salvation or not. This presupposes determinism and doesn't take into account free will. This is not to say that environment doesn't play a part in someone's personality. It does, but it does not dictate our every action. Even twins born in the exact same conditions and household can make radically different choices in life. Yes, God places us in a specific time and place for a reason, but we also choose how we respond to our environment, whether for good or for ill. This is also why no two people will be judged the same when they die. Everyone will be judged, but they will be judged based on the light they have been given. (Luke 12:48; Romans 2:12-16) Second, your perspective appears to consider hell's punishment as arbitrary, like a speeding fine being set at $400 instead of $300. However, it's important to distinguish between positive punishment (which can be arbitrary) and natural punishment, which follows logically from specific actions. For example, if someone jumps off a cliff, they *will* fall. Hell is an example of a natural punishment. If someone consciously rejects God, the ultimate source of goodness and existence, they're choosing not to be with Him or His creation in the afterlife. In essence, they are separated from everything and everyone. This is partly why hell is referred to as the outer darkness (Matthew 8:12). It is complete and utter self-isolation. As for the hypothetical itself, there is an interesting quote by G.K. Chesterton: > "Hell is a monument to human freedom." True freedom means we have the choice to accept or reject a relationship with God. Only with this choice can a genuine relationship exist, otherwise it would be forced and not a true relationship. (Similar to how consent makes the difference between copulation being an act of love or a horrendous crime) The possibility of someone choosing to reject God necessitates the possibility of hell. To remove hell would thus be to remove free will, a key component that makes a person valuable. In your hypothetical you asked if I would erase myself and a loved one from existence if I knew they would reject God's offer of an eternal relationship. I think you are underestimating the severe implications of this. To erase someone from existence would be to utterly negate the value of a person, as if their very existence was a mistake. It's essential to distinguish a person's inherent value from their actions. Their actions may be flawed, but their existence isn't. (This is why genocidal dictators need to dehumanize a target. A person's value is not based on their deeds, but on their humanity) So, to *finally* answer your hypothetical, it doesn't make sense to accept the deal. It would not only demean my loved one's worth but would also eradicate two individuals of eternal value from existence.
When your world view is glowingly reflected back to you in every movie, tv show, news program, news article, and popular song, you have ACTUALLY been indoctrinated
Reminds me of the Chesterton quote “The Modern Man is so dogmatic that he thinks he doesn’t have dogmas”. They are so indoctrinated that they think their values are “neutral” whereas the Christian knows they are positing a certain vision on the world.
Wait, what?? Do you know the definition of non sequitur? If you meant "theists are such cringe" then yeah, the reaction guy does start with non sequitur.
Indoctrination: the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs *uncritically* . 9:42 This is indoctrination. When you teach a developing child to believe something that you have no valid reason to believe, and to believe this thing uncritically or even question it... that is indoctrination. Faith = "Things hoped for evidence not seen" = Feelings. Name one other thing that you use Faith to form your belief in?
In 32:32, Theramin failed to apply Bible into context, concluded that "religions are frequently the source of immoral ones". This raises another issue of "letting your child learn about all religions". How can you really know if your child is learning different religions correctly? What if he/she takes their teachings out of context (like 32:32) and, in worst case scenario, wrongly concluded all the religions are bad? Do you have what it takes to ensure your child learns the truth? If you, as a parent, had studied the truth, wouldn't you want your child to know and defend the truth as well? I hope that if we Christians believe that God is truth and love, then we will always educate our children in love, so that they can know the truth. John 8:32: "and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.” Anyway thanks for the rebuttal Trent, keep preaching the truth and GBU always!
Yeah, only because you're a weakling whose parents were very successful at indoctrinating you. (For this guy, this is the only possible explanation, which I find unbearably condescending and offensive. I don't think defending against his attacks is effective. I would find a good attack that tears down the hypocritical facade that conceals their intolerance to religious people and beliefs a lot more effective-and satisfying.)
@@xaviervelascosuarez I got the sense that this guy probably hasn’t met any converts… children converts at that. often children who are given the gift of faith, lead their lapsed or faithless parents to the faith.
@@deeplyhidden4880 Yeah, according to YOU. What if I say that covering a baby in honey is essential for salvation. Honey-baptism. Why wouldn't you do that? These rituals have the exact same amount of evidence behind them
@53:45 he forgets to mention we don't choose who are parents are either, and that we are faced with the fact if we expect a child to obey their parents and if they are under their authority or not.
Religion and talking about religion is a skill. Not just the ceremonies, the technical language about laws and ecclesiastical matters. Being able to think in a religious way is not only a preference, but a skill. It takes years of practice, which even most Catholics do not have, of learning and of repetition, to get the message that the Psalms and the other scriptures are trying to get into your head. A lot of young converts think they know everything. I don't blame them! But it changes, what you know, once it soaks in. Edit: to try to put a more positive spin on it: if atheism really is true, learning the mechanisms behind religion from the religious person's perspective surely should pose no threat to them. Science poses no threat to me! This is because science can absorb your attention and distract you from any deep meditation on ultimate questions. But science is only about how things work, not their purpose.
Interestingly the New Testament teaches that Jesus said not to pray in "meaningless repetitions" which I think means the meditative type repetitions you're referring to, and I think the teaching was specifically in reference to other religions using mantras and prayer bead type repetitious pray meditations.... Then the Catholics adopted it to defeat the Spanish Armada (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was to secure Yahweh's favor for some naval confrontation) Maybe that isn't what you mean by "years of learning and repetition" but it might be room for thought Anyway, I find your comment "if atheisms is true" to be strange. Atheisms isn't at thing that would be true or not, it's literally the lack of belief in all gods. (I know colloquially it's generally used to mean actively believing there are not gods) I would love to have a constructive conversation about how Science poses no threat to you. I presume you mean it poses no threat to your belief system? I used to think the same thing, but the more "science" I learned the less compatible it became to my faith beliefs
@@jwmmitch It says do not pray with "vain repetition". Not repetition at all. You would have to demonstrate that Catholic prayers are vain (in a Christian sense) to prove that they violate Jesus' command. Merely showing that they pray in repetition would *not* meet that standard. So you can't say that the Catholics inconsistently adopted a practice that Jesus condemned without proving that their prayers are, in fact, vain in nature. And many philosophy books do not define atheism the way that you do. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy: "The word “atheism” is polysemous-it has multiple related meanings. In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well" According to this definition, which is accepted by many philosophers atheist and theist, atheism is a positive claim and not merely a psychological state".
@kenanthompson2075 looks like the KJV uses "vain repetitions" although looking up a translation of the Greek word I get this: "βατταλογέω · to stammer · to repeat the same things over and over, to use many idle words, to babble, prate. Some suppose the word derived from Battus, a king..." which I take to mean either something life repeatedly saying a mantra, or saying empty/idle words. I'm not sure what the Christian sense of "vain" is so feel free to explain that if you like. I think the point in Matthew (it seems to be missing in Luke) is to pray differently than the pagans. Anyway, what I meant by " "if atheism is true" sounds weird" is: that it just seems to land for me like confirming the negative. I understand there's a lot of different usage for the word in different circles. And it seems I had it backwards which way is used where. But we don't need to fie on any hills here. I'll just say what I believe as an atheist. And I believe that it's apparently clear that all of the gods I know about were made up to fabricate an explanation for unknown things. I also believe there are enough strange things as to allow reasonable entertainment of ideas about the supernatural, But none of the gods I know fit in that allowance. It's important to acknowledge that I'm no expert on gods of the world
@@jwmmitch @kenanthompson2075 "looks like the KJV uses "vain repetitions" although looking up a translation of the Greek word I get this: "βατταλογέω · to stammer · to repeat the same things over and over, to use many idle words, to babble, prate. Some suppose the word derived from Battus, a king..." which I take to mean either something life repeatedly saying a mantra, or saying empty/idle words. I'm not sure what the Christian sense of "vain" is so feel free to explain that if you like. I think the point in Matthew (it seems to be missing in Luke) is to pray differently than the pagans." None of this demonstrates that Catholics inconsistently adopted a prayer practice that Jesus condemned. You mention that they did "Then the Catholics adopted it to defeat the Spanish Armada", but there is nothing to show that they did. Merely showing repetition does not demonstrate vain repetition. It never says repetition in and of itself is condemned or a bad thing. In fact, this reading would do violation to the entire context of Biblical prayer. Jesus' followers would have been praying in repetition as Jews did with the Shema. The Shema was a prayer Jews and early Christians repeated daily. Also, repetitious prayer existed long for before the battle you mentioned, so I'm not sure why you cite that as the point at which it began. And by praying to the God of the Bible alone, they would, in fact, be praying differently from the pagans.
@kenanthompson2075 because if the point is to distinguish passing methods from that of pagans then one must understand what that difference is to be. I'm not sure anyone I've ever talked to could educate me on that distinction. Or maybe it means don't pray with idle empty words, as Jesus was keen on addressing yahweh informally as "daddy" and talking to it as a person, similar to how evangelicals actually focus on the relationship with yahweh in their prayers, actually making them personal. My mom might be the only person I know that claims to be catholic that prays to yahweh in a personal manner. The reason I bring up the rosary is because that's exactly the catholics reverting to multiple repetitions, with prayer beads for counting, exactly as was common in pagan religions. ....I think all in all. My point on the lords prayer is that is seems like a pretty good example of the religion straying away from the source material and people just accept it without realizing there's even a difference. And it pushes my buttons when Christians say they follow biblical principles but then are, say.... anti slavery
It's not a fallacy, but something I notice on many controversial topics: people tend to assume the worst of the other side. So, Theramin really seems to believe that religions using guilt, fear, and ostracism to quash critical thinking and question asking is common.
@@bluestrategist9aby540 hm, personally I have no reason to believe it's common at all. I'm religious and ~50% of my friends and family are religious, but I have no direct or indirect experience of this. Not sure how you'd get past anecdotes here. Maybe you could try to find a survey on how many religious people feel they've been discouraged from asking questions.
@Benkai True, people are flawed and religion certainly has no monopoly on any of those listed behaviors, though I am sure some religious people act like that. It's a personality flaw, not a religious doctrine.
You may have noticed that some Christian public speakers accuse every person of some sort of sin, and mention a wide variety of actions they believe to be sinful,making people feel guilty. Moreover, numerous times have I heard that I deserve eternal punishment and the only thung that is saving me is God. Isn't it inflicting guilt to a person just for being born human? Fear of hell and being not good enough is something more obvious.
30:13 "Ultimately these rules are universally binding so they are religious". How does that work? If everyone shares such a rule it means it was the rule required for groups to survive, not because some creature dictated it
His video is actually such a great argument for religion, as it clearly demonstrates how when one rejects the intrinsic religious nature of man, one finds some (very inferior) form of belief system to fill that void, such as politics in this video. And this is demonstrated by how often he uses that as a comparative example. Politics are not everything, that's one of the biggest problems of our current discourse, everyone reduces the other down to their political party affiliation as their whole identity, but it has so little to do with your identity as a person, whereas a religious belief system gets to the fundamental core of who we are as humans and where our intrinsic value comes from. It's such an unbelievably disingenuous comparison, yet so incredibly telling of anti-religious people. And I say anti-religious to specifically differentiate them from atheistic people.
This TT guy is basically just a repackaging of that QualiaSoup dunce from the older UA-cam atheist days. Same style of videos and from British countries. Their videos try to claim to tackle some "harmful" ideology or mistakes in thinking, but in truth they always just try to argue against religiously based faiths and hide it as some generalization.
You did not watch the ramintrees video with a open mind I feel bad for you religious people indornctied and feed a spoon every day of false information and clowns like you and Trent
if you are given this facts what decision will you make You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself. But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven. If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell c) Bring no children,afh
@@a.39886 What? Are you asking about whether movement/action from perfection is downgrading (i.e., creating a universe with life)? Neither of those decisions really affects the perfection of the creator since even in heaven those souls don't actually become God. They are just imperfect reflections of a more absolute entity. So all 3 options would have the same impact, or lack there of, in terms of affecting God. So it just becomes I'd say it comes down to personal preference: a) is more justice driven, b) is about the commonwealth. As for "c)" I may have to ask you to clarify what exactly you mean by bring no children? Like no afterlife or something?
@@UncannyRicardo I understand It have no impacted then how do you take a decision to create some children all children or no children I wonder If you have the same foreknowledge with 100% of certainty that if you have a daughter she won`t believing in the same religion as you and she will end up to being eternally condemned to torture of hell. Would have sex and bring this daughter to this world?
@@a.39886 If it has no impact, than any decision will be equally weighed, unless there is a different criteria to differentiate them. So for your example it could go either way. Have a daughter or not, wouldn’t affect my standing on being good since in the context it wouldn’t reflect you. But one could still come up with an arbitrary reason for having a child. Like say you wish to believe they have certain desired affects on the world (have further children of her own, save lives, etc…) regardless of whether she ends up in hell or not. But again, these are just hypotheticals
Christianity is not just about belonging to a group, it is about a strong relationship with Jesus, our Lord and God, and God the father and God the Holy Spirit and it is about belonging to a church, being an active part of a group. Moreover, the content of the Bible itself includes doubts in the existence of God and mockery of other religions. If Christians would just indoctrinate their children without any sort of reflecting on the bible and all of its contents, it would be a distortion of Christianity. St. Thomas said these words: "Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe." John 20:25 KJV He demanded proof or he would not believe, and so shall we not believe everything that is said by authorities, but demand proof until we understand. And there is plenty of evidence for Christianity, and there are good teachers in Jesus's church. To me, it seems to be impossible to indoctrinate children into Christianity, maybe into a distortion of Christianity, but if anyone thinks that mindless following of God is what the Bible says, read again. As I write, I remember the story in which God destroyed his people, not because they stopped praising him, they continued singing praises and offering sacrifices, but because they were continuing in their evil works: "They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly. Forasmuch therefore as your treading is upon the poor, and ye take from him burdens of wheat: ye have built houses of hewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them; ye have planted pleasant vineyards, but ye shall not drink wine of them. For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: they afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor in the gate from their right. I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols." Amos 5:10-12, 21-23 KJV A mindless member of a group is not what God intended any of us to be, we are body parts of his church. If God would have intended us to be indoctrinated, why would he allow us to have free will? Jesus is Lord.
,if you are given this facts what decision will you make You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself. But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven. If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell c) Bring no children,
@@a.39886 How am I perfect if I don't have love or companionship? That's paradox. But ok, if I'd be "perfect", without pray, love, companion, worship, and I would be 100 % by myself, I'd let all children die, because I'd be a selfish person without love and companionship. What a stupid question.
@@georgwagner937 Isn`t god a perfect trinity he is not alone. he have love and companionship. Why a perfect being needs praise, worship? Then Why exactly you need to create?
Your metaphor with the disease works well, when one corolates sickness with religion. The best way to make sure your child doesn't catch it is by keeping the child away from the "disease" and allowing it to decide for it's self when it reaches the age of reason. This is indeed indocrination when the choices reduced to one and then spoon fed to the trusting infant. Religion allways wants two things, your money and access to you kids.
by speaking , you are asking us our kids and your state is asking us for money , secondly , with what we observe , the materialist thoughts are the disease who breaks the mind into pieces , it doesn't allow to see the world with wonder and sadness , only meaninglessness
The truth hurts, critical thinking is not respected in Catholicism. The fact that most believers cant say that their beliefs are just that and not truth or provable in anyway. Religion is exactly what is expected from ignorant ancient peoples trying to explain the world we find ourselves in. Can we say if there is a god of creation for sure or not, no but we can say that the man made abrahamic religions are completely false. If jesus of the bible books ever did exist, he died and his body rotted just like all humans.
@@ndeepowderRead the 5,000-page textbook of evidence for the Ressurection by Gary Habermass and let me know if you still think the same. Volume 1 comes out in February, it's 1,400 pages.
@@voyelloHas religion met the burden of proof? If the answers is "no", agnostic atheism is the logical conclusion. If there's not proof for a god then there is no reason to believe.
Would be interesting to know Theramin's history. He sounds like someone who had overly abusive parents himself. Also the animation is creepy, which I guess is part of the point
He had a "losing faith" video. You should watch it. He didn't have "bad" parents until he and his brother mentioned they didn't believe in Yahweh. I forgot the details so don't take my word for this. Edit: Here it is, ua-cam.com/video/6xqCkx6WQBE/v-deo.html. Tbh this isn't his best video(the one being rebutted). I do understand why it's the only video being rebutted now.
Belief in a magic sky god and his obsession with blood atonement makes me uncomfortable. Cutting infants genitals makes me uncomfortable. Irrational and harmful beliefs, that are professed to be fact makes me uncomfortable.
@@christophekeating21 if you are given this facts what decision will you make You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself. But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven. If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell c) Bring no children,bn
The veil is also sinister in that it creates a framed assumption whereby it, through how it is set up, immediately primes us against anything that could go against equality by abusing our self serving survival instinct. Suddenly we are afraid to be "outside" of the norms and rules. But then again we need to recognize that no such society could or does exist nor would it be just. Just like in a family father and mother loves their children first and foremost, while remaining sympathetic to other children within their little comunity. It would be burtally unjust for these children to have to earn their parents love, bah, earn anything from their parents. Meanwhile the veil actually has a hidden premis of declaring this kind of hierarchy of love, and rights, as evil. When in fact its actually moral. A society has to exist for someone, because if it exists for everyone then it isnt much of a society, as much as it is anarchy or equal misery. Societies have always been made by families for families, which can be then extended to tribes, nations etc. And this has actually allowed humanity to maximize how much good it does in the world. What is better? Having everyone care for their own little plot of land, creating communities with walls and gates that then create customary care within their walls towards themselves and everyone does this until the walls are touching and the gates allow free movement of honest and good people, where the line between host and guest is obvious. Or a world where there are no fences or walls, where evetryone is constantly bickering with each other and demanding someone clean their land rather than they themselves do it. Etc. Id vouch for a world of gates and fences, rather than a world without borders. The veil doesnt remove self interest, it actually puts it in the center of your decision making becase you are deciding what YOU desire, not what is good.
Bringing up Rawls from theramintrees was super odd because it seems Rawls expressly rejects his position. It's been a little while since I read Rawls, but if I am not mistaken, Rawls argues for a separation of Comprehensive Doctrines (overarching views about the fundamental nature of the world and definitions of 'the good life') from Political Views (views about political and social stability drawn from all reasonable comprehensive doctrines). As a starting point, a reasonable comprehensive doctrine is going to be one that has the political principles arrived at from the original position as a modular component of its doctrines (so equal basic liberties, equality of opportunity for public jobs, and the difference principle, possibly a notion of civic friendship too). The state then neither affirms or denies any of the reasonable comprehensive doctrines as even a statement of their 'equality' would be an endorsement of a particular comprehensive doctrine. Because reasonable comprehensive doctrines all contain the principles of justice as a modular component, there is further no reason to be worried about citizens being raised exclusively with education in these reasonable comprehensive views because they all support the principles which create a just and desirable society from the original position. Unreasonable comprehensive doctrines, such as those that abuse children, do not have the same consideration, but not because their comprehensive doctrine dictates something we dislike from a comprehensive view, but because their comprehensive doctrine rejects or conflicts with the principles of justice (usually equal basic liberties). Outside of that conflict, the state is once again silent.
Curious, but everything he said, reminded me of the horrific reality of Godless communists treating children in public schools. I wonder if he would send his own children to church or to catechism for them to learn and study religion, with the chance that they become priests or nuns...I wonder...
The worst of this is that it assumes the superiority of their way of thinking over not just one, but over all religious traditions. It's virtually impossible to listen to this and not leave with the impression that only non religious people like the presenter can be considered reasonable or free thinking people, and all religious people are necessarily the result of indoctrination relentlessly applied to feeble minded people. As a religious person, I find this kind of hubris extremely offensive, and I think maybe Trent is way too kind and gracious in his critique. There's a place for graciousness, most of the time. I'm not sure that it's well placed when granted to those who despise you.
@@ehmkannde8673 It can vary between cult and normalcy, depending on how devout its followers are required to be. Obviously, there’s a huge difference between progressive Christianity and Jehovah’s Witnesses. But there’s always a point where critical thinking gives way to dogma.
@@animalcart4128 Jesus never condemned atheists, only judas kind and hypocritical religious leaders. Trent and others don't mention about the sexual crimes of their consecrated priests and holy fathers. And they still find rebuttals against others. Take the plank out your own hypocritical eyes.
As an atheist I admit that I accepted many of the arguments from the original video without appropriate scrutiny because I agreed with the conclusion. It's a large part of what makes analogy so dangerous - you have to both understand what makes the analogy hold and what would make it break rather than just carrying your feelings between two different cases uncritically. The argument that Theramin trees fails to make that there is a clear difference between "teaching" and "indoctrination" - when you teach someone you show them how to find truth and you allow them to challenge the justification for your beliefs. Indoctrination is enforcing a specific belief on someone and refusing to tolerate criticism or dissent. When children are extremely young there isn't much difference between the two - young children don't have the intellectual capability to understand all of the dangers in their life and so their parents have to enforce some rules or values without justification. This is where your vaccine analogy hits it's mark - no infant wants to be vaccinated, but neither of us would condemn an informed parent making the decision to vaccinate their child based on their assessment of their child's interests. As children mature though an important stage in their development is being able to understand and scrutinise their beliefs. You say it yourself - children parroting beliefs they don't understand is creepy but eventually they should be able to not just regurgitate someone else's truth but understand what truth is themselves. Indoctrination is about preventing that process: - Children are saturated with a single viewpoint repeatedly - The viewpoint itself is moralised - scrutinising alone becomes an immoral act - Adherents of opposing viewpoints are slandered and dehumanised - Adherence to the viewpoint is ritualised and repeated - The child's community is inseparable from those beliefs and dissent entails ostracization - Authority figures are elevated above children and dictate to them unequally Obviously it's often not cleanly on one side of the line or the other but there's a spectrum and religious beliefs as described in the original video fall very cleanly on one side of the line. Similarly you might describe 'LGBT ideology in schools' as a form of indoctrination and in doing so you may have found a hypocrisy in theramin tree's beliefs. I wouldn't know though because I'm not him and neither of us is American. "I'm sure theramin trees would say the same about truth or goodness - we should always do what is true, we should always do what is good" This statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding about (modern, western) atheism. The underlying guiding principle is that concepts like truth and justice should be accessible to everyone through processes like logic and debate - that's a matter of epistemology more than anything else but if you don't provide any concrete, symmetric criteria for finding truth then whatever beliefs you settle on are totally arbitrary - no one has any reason to support any belief above any other besides personal preference. There are no beliefs that are "self evident" to an atheist besides the minimal concessions without which truth and reality are inaccessible: - Logic is consistent - I exist - My experience of the world reflects some kind of underlying reality which I can understand through repeated observation Surrender any of those and there's no reason to believe one explanation of reality over any other. Accept all of those and we can discuss and challenge claims about what is true. Once someone has been given the tools to determine for themselves what is true or good there is no dogma and no blasphemy in criticising an atheist's beliefs because there's nothing that elevates one person's beliefs above another outside of those frameworks. The forms that challenge can take have to be constrained if for no other reason than pragmatism but any belief can and should be challenged. None of this is to say that atheists can't be dogmatic or that religious parents always indoctrinate their children though. The original video is a criticism of the specific structure and rituals of certain organised religions, not religion or religiosity generally after all.
Ok, right off the bat: The vaccine analogy is a weaker analogy than the political one. While a getting a vaccine as a child is a decision they don't get to make, it is a singular event that happens in the moment. It isn't a repeated practice, it does not socially, mentally, morally influence the individual during their formative years like a political ideology would, or even more so, like a religion would. And the motive of the vaccination is far more tangible, it is a measurable and consistent result for an important, but much less deep issue than morality and the afterlife like religion claims to be. The benefit religion offers, the disease it claims to prevent from is not tested and is as theoretical as making sure to give your kid a sacred tiger-prevention rock, then celebrating that over the course of their life the fact that they never got attacked by a tiger. Religion can only be traced back to storytelling, and presences that can be measured and controlled as internal psychological illusions. A spiritual experience can be induced and replicated with alterations to brain chemistry, what makes an unintentional spiritual experience in a church not just a similar moment of brain chemistry that didn't get measured at the time, maybe caused by the hormones released by the tangible sense of community? And if you believe tolerance of other beliefs is so essential as atheists should practice it more, than you should offer the knowledge of all other theistic outlooks to the child too during their upbringing, not just your own. Teach them to be tolerant, or at least aware of the existence of other religious beliefs that contradict yours. I can assure you, atheists at least don't hide information of other religions existences from their kids. And we admit that our knowledge constantly gets updated and is constantly open to questioning as we learn and observe more about the world. I don't want to "own" or even hurt religious people, I care about them as fellow beings, and want them to have the most ethical treatment possible. But it is cruel to force this ideology upon kids, without at the very least equally teaching all the other ideologies with as much or more evidence as just as truthful and important. Nothing makes Catholocism more real than Hinduism, or Atheism. Be transparent with your kids, and teach them how the world really appears, not how you want it to look. That way they have a stronger foundation to influence good changes for the world from as adults.
I've honestly always thought teaching your kids there's nothing after death is much more abusive, before I found Christianity I was constantly depressed over the idea of nothing being after death and the idea of ceasing to exist.
23:47 There have been many observed cases of kids being kidnapped by adults they've never met. Demons have not even been proven to exist. This goes into his later point about beliefs you can't substantiate.
Theramin Trees seems to think the moral values we take for granted in modern society have always been part of humanity and that religion (though mainly attacking Christianity) somehow patented the concepts. That if left on our own, humans will naturally come to solid, positive morals without the need of religion to “approve” said morals. However, the various cultures, ideas, lifestyles, and belief systems widely contradict this idea. For example, it was common before the British Empire arrived to burn widows as the children may not have wanted to take care of her and it was “fitting” a wife follow her husband til the end. Contrast with the Christian idea that marriage is a bond where husband and wife help each other get to heaven, and death is where that bond technically ends and people have the right to live up to their natural lifespan no matter their station. One can easily look at Western society and see the consequences of throwing out objective truth and reasoning, and encouraging an individual led subjective outlook. People are lost, unhappy, overly anxious, depressed, etc if there’s not something meaningful and good to ground them. There’s an Atheist podcaster I follow who openly admits that while he doesn’t see Christianity or any religion as true, he recognizes Judeo-Christian principles provide a good base for functional society and would rather teach his kids those basic principles (Golden Rule, honor and respect, virtues like courage, etc) over the vapid materialism of the secular world.
Most of these ex Christians saying this are only first generation away from the religion in the US or second generation away from the religion if in Western Europe. We are already seeing the results from this yet they insist these morals will always be the same.
@@christianthinker2536 Exactly, we can already see the results of this in real time as the culture deteriorates, as well as all the social sciences that back this up (see jonathan haidt)
There’s also the problem that Pre-Christianity, there wasn’t a robust sense in the West that weak lives were worth saving. Pagan Romans abandoned their children for dead, and while one might blame bad things in their “religion” for this, one can see that atheistic presuppositions did not magically create Utopias when atheistic states were tried (France, Mexico, Soviet Union, et al.) Atheistic materialists are as much prisoners of their time as anyone else. Heck, look at how homophobic some of Freud’s beliefs were by modern standards, for just one example. If history had gone differently and Christianity has never existed, and Roman cults eventually evolved into a general atheistic/agnostic mindset during and after the industrial revolution, it’s at least arguable that said society would still be much more brutal than what we are today.
@@stcolreplover if you are given this facts what decision will you make You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself. But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven. If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell c) Bring no children,2g
if you are given this facts what decision will you make You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself. But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven. If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell c) Bring no children,1
I wonder if there’s any articles or essays on the phenomenon of British accents seeming authoritative. How many people have been led away from truths because someone with a British accent “seemed convincing.”
As someone who was indoctrinated in school, this video really bothered me. You just made a response vid that's almost an hour long and the only argument you made is: "Well but my religeon is true, so it's just teaching facts." But that argument only works for pandering to your challenged audience mate
@@henryvdl3692 The video's very first point is "Indoctrination into Christianity is fine because Christianity saves children's souls". Literally every religious person thinks the same thing.
yeah, i stumbled upon his chanel and while i do also enjoy his animation, he makes christianity seek like some strange voodoo cult that scrafices babies to a stone, he also makes atheism sound like some weird form of pure intellect that will instantly make you a mega rational genius
If we look at history, a background with a solid religious education was behind many of the worlds finest Western Scholars and Philanthropists. Plus, a good number of children (admittedly not all) with a religious upbringing are shown to have less dysfunctional and and psychologically more stable home environments.
Fight a war against progress. Lose a war against progress. And when that progress turns out to be a good thing afterall; Claim credit for that progress. ua-cam.com/video/dPOMNdvKZtQ/v-deo.html
Religious education is as "abusive" as teaching your child how to read. Atheism is not the default position. And if it is, then it is the same as being unable to read.
That’s actually a pretty clever analogy. Just as an atheist sees the world as only material, a person who can’t read only sees words on a page as randomly squiggles.
The difference is you don't consider one written language true and others false. But you consider your religion true and others wrong. So the analogy is not really that good.
@@bluestrategist9aby540 I consider Catholicism true, because it really is true. Others are wrong insofar as they are incomplete or straight up contrary to it. Buddhism for example has the exact opposite view of redemption compared to Catholicism.
The problem with your vaccination analogy is that a vaccine demands actual medical proof of working in favor of preventing a disease, while your views of what happens after death remain unproved. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Theramin didn't condemn the excitement coming from the people attending the ceremony in his video, but rather they condemned the injustice of exposing an infant, that can't consent, to said ceremony. I felt like in your video you focused more on that first aspect. While the analogy of a political party is brash itself, it is in my opinion considerably more accurate than an analogy of a vaccine. Parties, much like religion, are something deeply personal and dependent on world view, rather than the objective truth of a vaccine working - or being a placebo. Sure, people can disagree later on in their lives. If they aren't coerced by fear of hell, which is ritually instilled in children (at least in my household when I was growing up). Might edit this to add more after I'm done watching. Just noticed this and wanted to point it out.
Just by the title I already know this will be full of shit. The point is not that "religious education is abusive indoctrination" and far from it. The ENTIRE POINT OF THE VIDEO is showing how people and especially kids are indoctrinated. It never claims that education on religion is bad. Far from it. I bet Theramin Trees would even say that education about religion is good. What's NOT good is teaching these events as complete truth and not allowing people to question things.
26:07 If you can't substantiate the claim that your religion is more valid than all the others, then why would you teach this to your child? How is he contradicting himself? He's saying not to push beliefs you can't substantiate onto your children. You have not proven that spiritual dangers exist, nor has anyone.
He can substantiate it, just not to what I assume are your strict standards for positive proof. But I'd argue many other important things also wouldn't meet those standards.
It’s a very stupid idea that people don’t choose their religion. They at least choose whether or not to believe the specific religion in the culture they were born into.
I mean, you can pretty easily see that most people believe the same thing as their parents. People are certainly capable of changing their minds, but the default is just whatever they were raised in, and most people stay there.
@@Psalm34rws if you are given this facts what decision will you make You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself. But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven. If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell c) Bring no children,123
@@Psalm34rws sure god is god but I wonder If you have the same foreknowledge with 100% of certainty that if you have a daughter she won`t believing in the same religion as you and she will end up to being eternally condemned to torture of hell. Would have sex and bring this daughter to this world?
Theramin T rees makes a weird charicatuere of religion. He takes the creepiest excesses of any religion and presents them as general attributes of religion as a phenomenon. In his eyes the average religion - practices child marriage - practices circumcision, male and female - practices beheadings - demands unquestioning obedience - has a God that demands the death penalty (preferably in a sadistic way) for trifles. - isolates its members from society and ostrcises them if they become a pain in the hindquarters - has very agressive conversion methods, makes it very easy to get in and very hard (if at all possible) to get out. - consideres infant baptism like entering a monastary where you can never get out of He just forgot human sacrifice and temple prostitution, but those are historical of course. All these things do exist, mostly in extremist fringe groups and creepy cults. Avoid those. I think that if a religious group holds at least one of these points, and actually practices it, there is something very wrong about it. If your parents are active in the Socialist Party, you can expect them to talk politics at home, from a Socialist perspective. You can expect them to subscribe to the basic ideas of Socialism and consider them as true. You can hardly expect from them that they take their children to the convention of the Conservative Party and say afterwards "hey their ideas are just as good as ours, make your own choice". Of course, once adult, everyone is free to make his own choice anyway. Indocrtnation does exist, but I think it's far more prevalent in the political sphere than in the religious sphere (except of course extremist groups and creepy sects). Also, a parent that is a committed football supporter, clothes his son in the shirt of his club, signs him up for the local football club and takes him to the stadium each week, is that abusive indoctrination too? He also denies individual agency. I grew up in a atheist family. At age 20 I knew nothing of religion, nor did I care. Probably pretty effectively indoctrinated. Yet at age 38 I converted to the Catholic Church. I had to follow a 12 week catechesis course where they taught the basics of Catholicism. We had to write a letter describing our motivation to join the Church. That went to the bishop's office and if they thought you wanted to join for the wrong reasons they wouldn't approve. At any point of the process anyone could bail out. Also I can (if I want, which I don't) get out any moment I would like. Simply by ceasing to attend. Nothing will happen. They will not send a gang of thugs to beat me up. No-one forces me to attend. In some places there might be some social pressure, but that is not very common. Nor particular for Churches, If you live in a small town in the outback of Texas and you put up a giant sign for Bernie Sanders, you might get some dirty looks too. I think political parties are very wise not to organise weekly gatherings where people are expected to sit listening to someone talking for an hour, get nothing material out of it and are expected to contibute something in the collection. I expect attendance to be embarassingly low.
If you have even watched a fraction of his channel you would quickly realize that he does not generalize any attributes of religion, rather the videos are tailored to either 1: his experience 2: very specific sects of religions 3: the experience of thousands of other people who escaped from the abusive relationship that is religion
![when saviours go bad | drama disguised as help [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/sXcTIkuzQ3I/mqdefault.jpg)
![exposing abuse | Jehovah's Witnesses on trial | part 2 [cc]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/6F58ZJt_qYU/mqdefault.jpg)
This reminds me of Bishop Barron's retort on some Redditor asking "do you think it's harmful to indoctrinate children with what's essentially BS"
Barron responded something like "Yes, I do think it is harmful and wrong to teach atheistic materialism to children."
I remember that! It was pretty funny.
Bishop Barron has some based short responses in that Q&A it was awesome. “So you think your religion is better than all the other religions?” “Yes.”
@@bman5257
"What's it like to be completely wrong in your beliefs?"
"No idea."
"How do you think religion in the modern world could or should reform to fit into our current society?
"How about modern society repenting and reforming itself?"
@@YardenJZ unbelievably based
The most striking contrast I got from their arguments with reality is that parents can actually be religious, but not impart that religion onto the child. Am I supposed to leave my child home alone or hire a baby sitter every single time I go to mass or send them into the next room over so that I can pray? Am I not supposed to actually practice my religion whenever my child is around in order to prevent 'indoctrinating' them? Religions aren't social clubs or political parties that can be believed in without an outward expression the child would naturally see and want to understand more about, they actually shape our lives and ought to be present in our daily actions.
Thank you Trent for your insights!
Just tell your child "I believe this thing, but I have no proof for it, but I need this for emotional relief"
@@bluestrategist9aby540 Yeah, But that will be false or lying. If I was an atheist then telling them that will be true.
@@JulioCaesarTM According to atheist what should agnostic parents tell to there children then?
@@bluestrategist9aby540 Except we do have proof. We have Fine Tuning, Abiogenesis, and historical confirmation of the Bible as history. Meanwhile atheists never provide proof, or try to make a positive case. Your example is actually you saying "don't indoctrinate your kid into YOUR beliefs, indoctrinate them into MINE!!!"
@@mellieg.7543 The atheist almost always thinks that you should bring your child up to be atheist, weirdly. XD
These are the types of topics i love seeing apologetics based on. Because these are the most common types of bad arguments people make out in the world. Anytime im at a party or gathering with people i dont know, and the topic of Christianity comes up these are the types of things i hear. On a regular basis.
Agreed
I was raised a Christian and everything Thermin trees talks about happened to me and is prevalent in the society I grew up. Don't call them bad arguments just because you haven't experienced them.
@@iku_1013 we will call them bad arguments, because they are.
@@TheCristianalvarez based on what exactly?
@@iku_1013parents teaching their kids to love their religion is not indoctrination. That might not of happened to you, I don’t know what happened to you. But what he calls indoctrination is what school and every other teaching institution does the exact same.
Debunking starts at 58:26
Lolz
Please take a shower
Does basic Christianity teach that we should never question our beliefs? Well, remember that Jesus taught seek and ye shall find. Knock and it shall be opened.
@ApplesWithPeanutButter No it doesn't
@ApplesWithPeanutButter I'm willing to put money on the fact that you follow the progressive worldview lockstep. All of you "free thinkers" parrot the same historically illiterate garbage.
@@apologiaromana4123 It really depends on the tapestry of what is being presented.
""Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed""
@@MyContext I’m not gonna lie I completely forgot the context of this discussion.
@@apologiaromana4123 No issue. :) Your post is quite old.
He was doing a review of a video which is definitely opposed to various ideological notions with theological notions being front and center. I found the video to hold a lot of value, but it definitely has many limits.
Consider that we all "indoctrinate" our kids (and others) in varying degrees to the notions that we hold to be correct. Unfortunately, most (if not all) have notions which are not true, but do not know that such is false.
You seemed to be responding the question of the based post as to whether Christianity teaches that one should not question one's beliefs. You seem to be affirming the idea that Christianity does NOT teach not to question one's belief.
I reject that as a categorical, since it is the case that there are many different flavors of Christianity and some do in fact encourage blind acceptance and will use various passages of the Bible to support that notion such as the one that I cited.
---
I am not a fan (putting it mildly) of theological acceptance, but I broadly understand why people think what they think. I don't find that belief is a choice (or non-belief for that matter).
The utopian example is hilariously US-centric, or at most Western-centric so much so that it is offensive and bigoted. Or, alternatively, probably it envisages a hegemonic globalism where very single cultural, national, geographic uniqueness needs to be dismantled and submit to the false god of forced "diversity"... These ideas seem benign and even "enlightened" at face value, but they are exactly the opposite.
if you are given this facts what decision will you make
You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself.
But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven.
If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision
a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven
b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell
c) Bring no children,1h
I was an atheist for several years, studied some other religions later, but finally reverted back to Catholicism, I'm so glad that I was baptized Catholic and I'm very happy now knowing the Catholic truths as they are and not as depicted by the secular culture in college and university.
How would you answer the seeming contradictions in the bible and the errors in the apparition of Fatima. I'm still a Catholic but these things get to me, i see these as just simple human error but the religion as still valid
@@homiesenatep You don't have to believe Fatima. It is a private revelation. The contradictions in the Bible are a bit harder but historical context, context of writing style and cultural context can help understand. There are hard things in the Bible to understand but you are most likely not to be the first to have come upon these hard parts a Bible commentary such as Catena Aria are could help. Do some research into various commentary they are not created equal.
Same here!
@@homiesenatep I think the website Catholic Answers can help you, I'm not an expert in explaining, but I can say that the Bible is first of all not a single book, but is composed of many writings through centuries, written by different hands for different audiences, but being inspired by God they do not contain error, that is the Bible is the word of God.
Some people confuse "contradictions" with "narrative cohesion"; for example the life of Jesus is written truthfully as it was by the Gospel writers, including His actions, words and teachings, through eye-witness accounts, however the whole story can be presented differently by the different writers to put different emphasis, that is they left certain things that others included in order to convey different points of the same message.
Regarding Fatima, I'm not sure what errors you're referring to. Fatima is an approved apparition of Mother Mary by the Church, you will find the official Church approved account of Fatima.
@@homiesenatep what errors are there around Fatima? Just curious
I just came back from France. I went there for no other reason than to attend a baptism.
Good for you! We need all the religious indoctrination we can get here in France just to counter the atheistic state propaganda.
what
@@Jack-izzy It is customary to end a question with a "?"
@@gussetma1945 That is, indeed customary.
Do you not have churches near you or did you just want it to be special?
Tbh, I get where he's coming from, as he must've been raised in a Christian household where he wasn't allowed to question anything, and the answers he was provided made no sense to him, because his parents didn't bother to understand how he learns and his needs for learning, and so, he, like many atheists raised this way, assume that this is all that Christianity is.
Using the Bible as a bludgeon for your children whenever they question your authority.
This is why so many of them believe that Christianity or religion in general must've started in order to control people for power.
Here's a tip for any Christian parent:
*NEVER DO THIS.*
_Never_ use the Bible as a weapon against your children to keep them in line. The Bible is a tool to help people learn about God, and asking questions is a part of learning. Be prepared for difficult questions, and be prepared with answers. And when you don't have answers, humbly admit you don't know, and teach your child that some questions can't be answered, or can't be answered at this time, or even, perhaps you can search for the answers together!
Never discourage questions like this.
But ultimately, know your scripture and why you believe what you believe, so that when your kids inevitability ask, "Why does X happen" in the Bible, you can answer confidently and with love, not defensively and with frustration.
God bless you, and good luck. 🙏
Baseline of the atheist's argument:
"You shouldn't teach your children what you consider to be true, but what I consider to be true."
Exactly!
Very good comment, you hit the nail on the head!
Maybe more specifically, what I view the consensus to be.
*What science proves to be true.
Nice try.
Yep, science(logic and reason) is "considered" to be true. Exactly!
I'm not Christian from birth, I came in in my early 20's, so I have no first hand experience. But I've never met anyone who treats their kids like this guy claim that "religious" people indoctrinate kids.
I've seen it fairly often but it's usually people attempting to be edgy, they realize it's an inordinate issue to complain about without looking like a loon
Muslims do. Sharia law is incredibly harsh.
To finish with these prejudices: science is praising the traditional catholic and protestant education that has been given to kids. Indeed, the very secular Harvard university has published different studes demonstration that the more the familly holds a orthodox faith and pratices the better is the mental health of the kids. See here in 2 mn te studies (what do you think?): ua-cam.com/video/SLFv5uH5m0k/v-deo.html
@@phoult37 I think you are generalizing, now I am a conservative catholic and obviously disagree with Islam however as an example in Cape Town here in South Africa we have a large Muslim community for the last 300 years and I have not ever hear of a push for sharia and we never had religious conflict in South Africa.
If Muslims in Cape Town taught their children sharia we would have had a lot of extremists and political groups pushing for that.
I d o believe in some countries it happens but in many Muslim communities it is not the case.
well there are a lot of baptist ministers out there....
As someone who grew up and still attend my parents church. Calling me christian only because my parents had faith, completely ignores my free will and choice in the matter.
I wonder if TheraminTrees is teaching his kids about all the world's religions right now.
And who's to say he gets to pick which religions? Based on what? Current popularity? That would still be child abuse. He should include as many ancient, dead religions as possible - human sacrifice and all.
@@dunuth 😂😂😂😂
Excellent point! I'm surprised Trent didn't think of it.
I find that many atheists are critiquing an idea of religion that only exists in their own minds. Also by far most parents in the world are in the third world and parents here in Africa would laugh at this guy. Indoctrinationto some extent is and always had been the norm of parenting and it doesn't necessarily stops a child to think for him/her self. However their are numerous advantages in indoctrination within limits.
Maybe he's teaching them how to sound conceited and dismissive? Because his narration is honestly self defeating. There may be a lack of self awareness there. That tone. You'd think he's teaching a pilot how to eject from a free falling plane or how to do CPR on a someone's whose heart has stopped. My Goodness.
They either don't have children or abort them
TheraminTrees: A loving parent should instead teach the kid with critical thinking and how to make a sound judgment. They should as well teach fairly other alternatives to their own beliefs so that the kids is equipped to make is own mind about what to believe. Indoctrinating young children is abuse.
The counsel of Trent rebuttal: Indeed we should teach critical thinking and other religions to our kids. But still we should make clear what they are supposed to believe at the end because our belief is the right one and the sooner we indoctrinate our kids into it the better the kids will be equipped to submit to what we teach them. Indoctrination is for their own good.
TheraminTrees: It's wrong to indoctrinate a child as it remove the child's freedom of thinking.
Counsel of Trent: It's not wrong to indoctrinate as long as we are sincere about it.
All in all in this 'rebuttal' the host fails entirely to make the distinction between education and indoctrination. He insists that TheraminTrees is depicting religious education as equal to indoctrination and that TheraminTrees is discriminating the content with an atheist agenda when in reality TherminTrees is explaining a problem in method and how some methods are falling in the category of indoctrination and abuse.
The Counsel of Trent is really listening with an agenda to prove the video wrong. Often misrepresenting the argument made by TheraminTrees and mentioning Genders issue to discredit atheists.
Please be more open-minded next time you comment TheraminTrees' video. Maybe it would be healthier to not consider that your job is to make a rebuttal in the first place. Your introduction in the first minute of this video is showing how little you understand the point of TheraminTrees' video and instead take the video as an attack on your right to teach your belief to your child.
In his video TheraminTrees make it clear we are talking about indoctrination here, a very different business than just teaching. But instead of letting this distinction sink in you immediately rebut a point that was never made, that indoctrination is an inherent feature of religion.
Then your next argument is that it's perfectly normal to teach your children your religion while telling them it's the truth since it's the job of TheraminTrees to prove the religion is not true. This is shifting the burden of proof.
Of course you can teach you religion is true as long as you first give your child the mental toolkit to judge properly for themselves what they think of your position and belief. You shouldn't push an inability to doubt on your kids. That's abuse and the point of TherminTrees video.
Great comment. I've seen so many people saying they have no problem with people questioning their faith, yet I don't see comments like yours getting enough attention.
@yobro-eg3ic, you see, they have no problem with people questioning faith, just as long as it's NOT theirs
@@YEY0806 I'd argue that's the same argument that TherminTrees is making. His default is that your religion is a relative truth and you should allow a variety of religions to be introduced to your children. As OP says, "They should as well teach fairly other alternatives to their own beliefs". Not understanding that he is also participating in the act of moral relativism and also assuming his stance is the "true and correct" one.
He also sets an impossible standard for children. OP actually thinks, "Of course you can teach you religion is true as long as you first give your child the mental toolkit to judge properly for themselves what they think of your position and belief". Sure if they're young adults, but children simply lack the mental capacity to think this logically.
He completely neglects the right and authority of the parents to choose for their children, as though they haven't already thought critically over their religion. His default as well as OP's is that religious familys are by default "indoctrinating" their children. As OP mischaracterizes Trent, "It's not wrong to indoctrinate as long as we are sincere about it." This is already starting from a strawman argument and displays your own bias.
@b00g3rs21 I don't think you get this, but the point of TherminTrees video is that parents who want to foster children into believing their religion should do so when they are old enough and have been taught the importance of critical thinking from which you then can argue a case for your religion on a fair ground. Needing to handicap your children's development to get them to follow your religion is abuse. I bet you wouldn't be this respectful of a parents authority and power if they belonged to the religion Heavens Gate and wanted to indoctrinate their children into its beliefs.
Besides, children aren't that stupid. If children as old as 4 can be taught to memorise the bible, quran, and other holy books, then they can definitely be taught critical thinking skills
@@YEY0806 I don't think you get this, but you're engaging in the same moral relativism that is the problem here. You, OP and TherminTrees, are all engaging in a hypocrisy. You're saying, the way other people choose to raise their kids is wrong, but the way WE choose to do it is correct. Because we're *sincere* and *morally correct* , hence your argument falls short of convincing anyone.
Additionally, your example of heavens gate falls flat. There is objective abuse that can be pointed to, no just "things I dont agree with".
Since when was "it" an appropriate pronoun for a child??
Edit: 26:00 Thank you, Trent.
When i attended Church/Bible study as a child, every time i had a question about the veracity of the bible, (if___ says___, why does___ say ___, etc.) the teacher would always try to answer to the best of their ability, not threaten me with punishment. In fact, every first Sunday of each month, the preacher would attempt to answer questions people had about the bible, and he would even tell us to study the bible for ourselves to test his answers. So i don't understand it when atheists say, "Churches hate when you ask questions". I am a member of the churches of Christ b.t.w.
But that is not everyone's experience! It's important to understand that one good experience does not erase all bad experiences.
@@plumish that is true, but such bad experiences do not erase good experiences either.
@@sillythewanderer4221And vice versa.
@@yobro-eg3ic agreed. :)
The main issue is that he seems to not care about the differences and importance In matters of the soul compared to matters of politics. Sure on paper the comparison is close enough but when you look at details it really isn’t
Like what details? In both cases beliefs (especially moral ones) are forced onto the child. The only difference is that religion always presents those beliefs as unquestionable and is typically based upon outdated fairytales and their modern interpretation (even despite the "unquestionable" part still being present)
@@alexr6068Assume it is true for one second and you’ll realize it is urgent for Christian parents to pass on Christ to their child. Those moral beliefs are unquestionable because nobody has any authority to question them. What is a man’s opinion when compared to the will of God?
You’ve already assumed the religion is untrue before the argument began. Thats not an impartial judgement of the situation.
@@luigimrlgaming9484Religion has failed to meet the burden of proof.
@@froggamer4884 No it hasn’t, you have chosen to discount all of the evidence, that doesn’t make it untrue.
@@froggamer4884 Beyond that, you fail to mention that secularism functions exactly like a religion itself. You’re just asking to replace one form of indoctrination with another. I’d prefer the indoctrination done by the people who love the child and want the best for them.
I was pretty shaken by the first Theramin Trees video I watched. I'm glad you're taking it on
Same ayo 😭
@@jubileeemeli if you are given this facts what decision will you make
You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself.
But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven.
If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision
a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven
b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell
c) Bring no children,2
I was to, until after further research I realized all his points are weak as hell, and a based on a fundamentalist straw man, not a biblical Christianity.
@@endygonewild2899because in real life “biblical Christianity” means something different to everyone and fundamentalists are rampant? It’s not complicated
@@thomaswilliams2723 fundamentalism is not a biblically accurate version of Christianity. I was quite clear
False equivalence is the bread and butter of anti christian "thinkers".
They are smarter than the Christian’s that have strawman arguments
Yeah, the vaccine equivalence is much more accurate if you have the mental capacity of a toddler
Watching Theremin Trees started my journey on researching Religion and atheism, ironically, leading me to strengthen my Christian Faith.
Same here, but i was previously an ignorant atheist
@@G0LUX
How can you justify this criticism?
False religions exist;
Their members are convicted;
Therefore, convicted belief is simply not dependent on truth whatsoever.
Empirical evaluation of the historicity of the miracles Jesus committed is inconclusive at best and extremely weak at worst. Practically equal to that of the evidence for Muhammad's miracles
The bible is not an empirical source, to be blatantly clear, just as the qur'an isn't(or at least as strong of one) for you.
There are thousands of false religions. Each and every one had convicted believers.
The chance you are wrong is extreme. It exceeds 99%. (assuming one true religion to be the pretense for religions existing at all)
I beg you this: If a rationalization you give would work for another religion, its simply invalid. If you go "god works in mysterious ways" to handwave away valid criticism, the same could be done for Islam, and you'd think it invalid. Special pleading fallacies are still special pleading fallacies.
Epistemologically; I posit that, whether a religion is true; the empirical evidence for a god points in no particular direction.
I say that believing in a particular religion is basically intellectually bankrupt. It goes against reason.
For example, with Christianity, you have to believe that observable cessations of reality happened regularly, and then to the point they could be empirically categorized(that's recently) they simply stopped happening? I say our observed, lacking meaningful evidences for any religion, world, further stretches the point that faith is unreasonable.
If your belief was [instilled](because of your unique case] prior to you having the mental faculties to ascertain what it was actually saying; your belief is simply not concerned with truth.
If that's the case; your belief is emotionally concerned. This is the beckoning of the manipulator; the indoctrinator.
And what have you learned about atheism?
@secretshadow1262 When did I say anything like that?
@secretshadow1262 how shallow a view do you have of Christians? I just started researching and found theramin trees objections only applied to fundamentalism, and they completely fell away when I discovered an intelligent articulation of the Christian faith that answered his objections . I’m fine with atheists, but anti theists like you who presume religious people are stupid are insufferable.
Theramin Trees: You shouldn’t teach YOUR beliefs as fact.
Also Theramin Trees: Here’s why MY beliefs are fact.
The difference is theremin is making an informed and logically coherent argument aimed at mentally developed adults, and not presenting his views to highly impressionable children as unquestionable absolutes. Argumentation =/= indoctrination.
@@elijahp7899 Good parents should be willing to answer questions about religion, rather than dismiss them. Why? Because it turns out the Christian worldview _does_ hold up to scrutiny.
@Elijah P No he isn't. He has nothingnto say about transgender kids having perfectly healthy body parts lopped off or pumped full of hormones. Lots of consent there...they can't even get tattoos or vote lol. Keep lying to yourself that you are educating kids while they go through irreversible gender treatment.
@@feeeshmeister4311 What? No, it doesn't. Their arguments are based on logical fallacies rather than hard facts.
@@yashjoseph3544 Logical fallacies such as what?
The key with indoctrination is that one strongly encourages another to accept a particular belief with out giving reasons why. This can be done with any belief... One can certainly teach religious beliefs critically (providing good reasons to believe and encouraging one to question) which is not indoctrination. The problem is that many people don't have good reasons for the beliefs they hold, whether atheistic or Christian, and so they run the risk of indoctrinating when they teach others.
As far as I know, most American Christians say they believe in God because of something personal. So no, I don't think majority of American Christians don't have any reasons to believe in God. It's just that they're personal reasons. For example, witnessing what they believe to be a miracle, having personal revelations, etc..
These types of reasons cannot be used to prove your faith to others but that doesn't mean they're bad reasons. Most of these types of reasons are really good in convincing oneself
@@mathewjose4753 I'm not sure about the majority but certainly many don't have good reasons. I agree that personal experience is good for oneself but does not help much when another has intellectual questions. If you wish to defend your beliefs, then you need to get involved intellectually.
I think there are very few things in this world which are given without reason. I'm sure even in North Korea they give a litany of reasons why their great leader is so important and great.
@@seekingtruth4045 I pay Trent Horn and others to do that for me. :)
I think religious beliefs have a much higher chance of using indoctrination methods because of the concept of eternal punishment and hell. I've read the stories of several ex-Christians who were afraid to ask questions because they didn't want to compromise their faith and potentially go to hell if they couldn't answer it.
I have asked these questions myself and I remember how my questioning led to a cell group leader saying I was bordering on heresy. Even my dad told me to "stop asking because we can't ever understand it and just take it on faith"
While I don't necessarily doubt that you can teach a concept that allows questioning, if it involves my well being and happiness, shouldn't I have the right to determine if the belief system is worth following?
5:00 - "Frankly alot of stuff like this happens with LGBT ideology in public schools."
Here are the messages listed in ThereminTree's video:
- The party leader is always right.
- Those who rebel against the leader will suffer terrible consequences.
- Only devoted members will enjoy a good life.
None of this seem reasonably applied to public school teachings on LGBT topics.
All of them very closely describe religion.
It does describe LGBT really well(as a person who is still in school). We’re told to accept gender ideology and to not question it. If you say anything like “gender and sex seem to be the same thing, they obviously want to change their sex, and the whole ‘gender is a social construct’ thing seems to be made up to have an excuse to affirm delusion” you would most definitely get ex-communicated from the class and called all the phobics.
@@charles21137 Do you not see a meaningful difference between "Gender is a social construct" and "The Leader is always right?"
@@inotterwords6115 “gender is a social construct, and if you disagree I will cancel you” is definitely a “they’re always right” attitude.
@@charles21137 The purpose is not to force people to become LGBTQ+ though. It’s to avoid prejudice for existing people who want to be respected as people. What’s the harm in calling people by a different pronoun? That’s all that’s being asked of you. It’s like calling someone Doctor regardless of whether you agree with them or even believe they’re intelligent.
In religion, being indoctrinated entails a lot more and can follow you long after you have deconverted. I was quite fortunate in this respect, and so I can sympathize with those who seem to think the video applies to all indoctrination.
@@seanpierce9386 the problem is making it obligatory, no one should be obligated to call anyone anything, I don’t haft to call a person by their “preferred gender”. “What’s the harm?” What’s the harm with not calling them that, those words are meaningless to y’all anyways. It’s like two people arguing over wether to call something a “dog” or “canis lupus familiarus”, anyone who isn’t delusional would know how stupid that is(because those words mean the same thing)
My addition to the conversation: My children will believe something, that is unavoidable. It will likely be what they are taught. Someone will teach my children something (again, unavoidable). Therefore, I will ensure that I am the one doing the teaching. My job as a parent is to teach my children what is true and good. My Catholic faith is what I look to for truth and goodness, so I will teach my children to look there as well.
Why include your own children in the things/rituals you value when strangers who are hostile to your beliefs are offering to practically raise your children for you for "free"? One might even argue that your "job" as a parent is to simply feed, clothe and provide your child a place to sleep. The actual raising/moral formation and teaching should be left to the experts.
Well your kids are going to be at odds with society. Like you likely are. Because truth is based in evidence in the year 2022, not Iron Age myths. So by forcing irrational beliefs onto your child you’re ensuring another generation of cultural division, polarization and christian persecution complex.
What a narcissist, assuming that what you teach your children is automatically better than what anyone else would because it’s you doing it.
You don’t care about their development or reasoning capabilities, you just want control.
@@amyj4283 if you are given this facts what decision will you make
You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself.
But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven.
If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision
a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven
b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell
c) Bring no children,
@@amyj4283 no one is an expert on being a moral person.
These people say that and be the same ones completely ok with parents having their kids go through gender transitions and having them watch naked adults in pride parades
Yes! Catholic faith is as a good tree that can be reconized by its fruits. Different recent studies from, the very secular, Harvard university, showing a clear correlation between catholic faith/pratice and the mental health of kids (2 mn) : ua-cam.com/video/SLFv5uH5m0k/v-deo.html
Having the opposite extreme as a major example may seem as a good argument, but this opinion on religion is shared not only by radical trans indoctrinators, but other people who may or may not accept gender transition and pride parades. Though if you want pride parades to stop, accept gay people and there will be no need for such things. Religious indocrination opposers have different opinions on this thing, they may be pro- or against abortion, gay marriage, trans-people and so forth. So your argument about hypocrisy does not really defend your position in any way, it even disproves it as you say that "their
indocrination bad, our indocrination good".
About gender transition: You should tell children such thing exists, but not impose the "you can be a boy today and a girl tommorow". What shall the kid do with that info? It would be better to ask if the child(not at 4 yo though) feeels ok about being the way they are, ask what they want to change. If they feel okay, you should stop imposing the attitude about changing gender every day.
Yep I agree. It's an amazing lack of self-awareness.
HAHAHA, sometimes I forget that there are people like you who make false comparisons and just believe whatever fiction your news channel or favorite UA-cam channel sells you.
@@_SloppyhamYou can ignore it and laugh all you want, but the logical conclusion of an ideology which rejects objectivity and the role of a creator is nihilism, which leads to things like a belief in the subjectivity of truth, which leads to things like transgenderism.
You MUST allow for things like this if you do not believe that the universe and the life within it is truly purposeful, which you cannot believe if you do not believe in a creator.
2:00 - "Imagine there is a horrible disease sweeping the world. Now imagine you have the opportunity to vaccinate your child... you might want to celebrate this important milestone in your childs life."
I don't think this is a good analogy.
In the first place, if my child's first vaccination were some formal event where everybody publicly celebrated their status, yeah, I think most people would find that creepy and probably a form of indoctrination (albeit of the attendees, if the child were just a baby, certainly of the child, if they were older).
In the second place, a vaccination is not really seen as an initiation into a community of shared beliefs and values. Baptism (and ThereminTree's political example) both fit this description.
You seem to agree with this at 4:00, when you say:
"This is a public ceremony where you pledge to the community that you will raise a child to certain values."
Your vaccination comparison doesn't match this description, but baptism, and ThereminTree's example, both do. In both cases, it seems at very least like using a child to celebrate your own beliefs.
There is so much wrong with theramin's video, even beyond what Trent discusses. But the main flaw (or intentional deception) is simply labeling all religious teaching as "abusive indoctrination" in order to make his argument work. He simply links the two intrinsically for the benefit of his case, It is like saying a man with a green jacket beat his wife, therefore wearing a green jacket leads to spousal abuse.
Second, he seems to disclose that he was or felt he was "abusively indoctrinated" in his own childhood. This means his stance is a very personal one, one with much personal bias attached. Does he ever question whether he himself is trapped within the very confirmation bias he accuse Christians of?
Again you don’t understand the video it’s talking about removing the critical thinking of a child that’s indoctrination clearly you and Trent the apologist are clowns
@walterhartwellwhite8022 thinking real critically there bud, calling people clowns for no reason. Not emotional at all💀
You clearly dont understand the comment thats talking about arguing against the most extreme cases of religion. Any good parent who is knowledgeable about the faith is open to their children's questions, but that doesnt mean they have no right to impart their beliefs onto them. Children are always going to be raised up with some system of beliefs, because humans are religious by nature.
41:07 And? Does he think we should keep children in a void where we don't allow them to think until they are older or let other people teach them their values but God forbid we would do that with ours. These kinds of arguments are brought up by atheists who think that, for sure everyone would be irreligious if they didn't have religious parents but then if this was true, there would be no religious people at all.
I am guessing that atheists are also more likely to look down on marriage and parenthood and therefore will contribute to neither. So there's definitely some humor there.
First off, I think it's really on the nose that an Atheist's closest concept of religion is a radical political party since I see lots of people these days treat politics as their religions. Second, it always baffles me when subjects like this come up with people who clearly don't understand religion to it's fundamental core. His core argument basically comes down to: "Believe what I believe, which is that religion is awful and abusive for whatever reason." Real smooth brain.
looking at his other vids, the animation style. he is an amazing rhetoritician, and his allegories are excellent. You, without trents critique, feel the pressure present in his video that he is putting on you, and the solding hatred that he wants to infuse into you. But I get the sense that the man is genuinely insane.
Yes. A good tree can be reconized by its fruits. Here one of the visible fruits of faith: different recent studies from, the very secular, Harvard university, showing a clear correlation between catholic faith/pratice and the mental health of kids (2 mn) : ua-cam.com/video/SLFv5uH5m0k/v-deo.html
@@boguslav9502 The dude is smart, which is what makes him dangerous.
@@boguslav9502
I honestly don't get the praise, his comparison is flawed, his tone is condescending and thus unpersuasive and on top of it it undercuts his own paradigm. If he had respectable criticisms of religion he would phrase them very differently
@@Qwerty-jy9mj from an analytocal stand point i agree, its flair over substance. But to the layperson thst stumbles on his videos, he like most liberals using those tools with his arrogance and certsinty, is capable of putting Pressure on the average viewer. Hes a rhetoritician much like dillahinty and his troop. While ultimately not worhmth the time, are dangerous.
I still think he is genuinly insane because some of his comparisons come off as something someone in an insane asylum would say, not to mention his graohics.
I seriously couldn't help but laugh when he says to teach your child about logical fallacies, appeals to emotion, biases etc. after his video riddled with these things.
I was laughing at child. Adults aren't equipped to apply these tools, much less children.
An average American adult of 2021 don't even know what the hell that is, forget about these kids learning about this
@@jhoughjr1 thats why i think children needs to learn this, maybe when they grow up, adults know it. because they should! 🙂
But Theramin Trees would have us believe that transgender kids are getting both sides of the story, and understand both sides, at ages too young to vote or get tattoos.
The video hinges upon the misconception that Christians aren't encouraged to self-critique or explore their beliefs with a critical eye. That is where the analogy falls apart. Christianity is the single most self-critical worldview in the history of mankind. Christians fill libraries with books poking, prodding, and examining their own beliefs, and the church has even canonized many who have done so as saints.
It is a well made and video, but, like so many UA-cam atheist videos, it relies on misconceptions about religion.
I completely agree with you! except on the well made video thing, as an artist, those graphics are painful to watch.
@@umatveg And the Audio! EGH sounds like I'm listening to a Predator makes my skin crawl.
@@Scortch-lo3xy Now that you mention it! lol
@FallenAngel Here: ua-cam.com/video/9Nh-_PEH25o/v-deo.html
Watch that and come back
@FallenAngel this is easier, and it represents all of my thoughts perfectly.
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:17 📚 Parents teaching children about religion isn't inherently abusive indoctrination; it's a way of passing on values and beliefs.
02:33 🧒 Baptism, even for infants, can be celebrated like a choice made for a child's welfare, just as we celebrate vaccination against disease.
03:52 🙏 Religious ceremonies like baptism or dedication signify a commitment to a community's values and can be celebrated without expecting full comprehension from infants.
06:55 ⚖️ Comparing religious education to political indoctrination highlights the importance of allowing children to question and explore beliefs.
10:19 💔 Religious indoctrination can deter questioning and critical thinking, hindering a child's ability to develop their own identity.
12:59 🎭 Open conversations about religion and moral values, along with warm relationships with parents, promote the retention of faith into adulthood.
15:46 📚 Teaching foundational moral, religious, and civic beliefs with certainty is not inherently wrong, as they form the basis of a child's understanding of the world.
18:03 💡 Differentiating between teaching foundational truths and promoting harsh authoritarianism is crucial in discussing religious education.
21:03 🚫 Abusive indoctrination involves threats, manipulation, and harm, whereas religious instruction aims to educate children about important beliefs.
23:08 🌍 Comparisons between religious instruction and child protection highlight that non-abusive alternatives exist, making the point about methods, not content.
24:31 🧠 Teach critical thinking skills and logical reasoning to children.
25:11 🤔 Encourage children to think for themselves and engage in honest exchange.
26:21 ❤️ Provide authentic experiences of faith rather than just arguments.
27:02 👨👩👧👦 Teach children about potential spiritual dangers using non-abusive means.
28:25 📜 Distinction between moral truths and religious truths is complex.
29:21 📜 Moral values can have secular and religious roots.
32:23 ⚖️ Critique of certain moral norms and punishments in religious texts.
33:47 📚 Historical context affects interpretation of religious punishments.
36:07 🙏 Belief in gods doesn't automatically grant moral value to actions.
37:18 🤝 Sincere beliefs alone don't necessarily justify behavior.
41:11 👶 Early years of childhood can influence beliefs, but not definitively.
43:44 🙉 Young children's uncritical acceptance can be exploited.
48:23 🤝 Overcoming confirmation bias is essential for reasoned discourse.
49:02 🧠 Indoctrination conditions children with automatic emotional responses and behaviors.
50:40 🤔 Recovering from disillusionment allows rebuilding with honest doubt and critical thinking.
52:06 🕊️ Rawls' "veil of ignorance" principle assesses society by benefiting everyone, challenging self-interest.
53:16 📚 Society A indoctrinates, Society B educates children about all religions impartially.
55:47 💭 Teaching reasonable beliefs to children isn't inherently wrong, requires informed consent.
56:44 🧠 Child coercion in religious ideology parallels political manipulation, demanding informed consent.
57:26 🚫 False dichotomy between teaching religion and morality, refuted by examining both.
Thank you very much
Teaching your religion as fact, and purposefully pushing actual science and facts out, is abusive indoctrination.
It is indoctrination by definition. Indoctrination can be seen as good or bad but it is always intended to impose a mind onto the child that is not their own mind, in the belief that theirs is inherently wrong.. THIS, is it's maladaptive
The "just teach them about all religions" seems like a very dismissive suggestion because it doesn't really seem actually very practical to me.
Is he, or anyone else, really going to spend the hours, days, maybe even weeks or months going through every single religion? Their denominations? Their history and belief structure?
That suggestion really rubs me the wrong way because of that. Because realistically what it actually means is to simply teach your child some 5 minute cliff notes version of a religion, because you won't have the time to devote to properly explore each religion with your child. And that's assuming your child even has the patience to deal with you trying to talk to them about every religion out there.
And ultimately, I don't think trying to do some rapid fire teaching session with your child about "all the religions they could choose from, or none at all!" would really be any actual help to your child.
And lets say you are a Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc who may attend a regular religious service? Does he actually expect you to leave your child at home? To pay for a babysitter for an hour? Just so you don't "expose them to indoctrination?" Who's really being the irrational one at that point?
It's a way to relativize the authoritative claim of Christianity, they never suggest it good faith and most of them would admit as much
These are the same slippery tactics used in education. Oh yes you can still read Shakespeare but also we have to read these twenty books on CRitical race theory. “Its just more education”, no, time is finite and their is only so much things we can learn. See through the facade that they are trying to undermine the traditional order.
@@Qwerty-jy9mj The authorative claim of christianity doesn't exist outside specifically schools run by priesthood and churches. Schools in general don't favor any specific religion unless it's forced by external factor such as theocratic government or christians lobbying a little too heavily.
@@stcolreplover when you say things like “the traditional order” you sound really fascist and disgusting and absolutely out yourself as being the exact kind of individuality destroying brain disease cult described in the video.
So just because a child can’t easily learn about a range of religions, that means they should be forced to believe one set of ideals thrust on them from birth? Since when has parents having to take care of their children been a roadblock for learning?
It seems like, at the end of the day, the view expressed in the video is "parents should not raise their children according to what they think is true". Which is, of course, a ridiculous notion.
I think the sentiment is closer to "children shouldn't be taught to accept anything uncritically".
But as Trent mentions, we all teach kids certain things. Math, not to lie to parents, etc. Presumably, the maker of the video has some opinions which he teaches his kids. Will he let his child beat a gay kid so he can find his own path?
Parents teach their kids according to what they believe is true, and there is nothing wrong with it. Not to mention that the picture he paints of religious education is not representative of most cases, I believe.
@@YardenJZ Comparing math and basic moral values to "believe in me or suffer for eternity in a lake of fire" is crazy
@@LordZurkovI agree, but that’s not what he is saying. What he is saying is that parents should let their kid choose their own religion which can work out, but it can also go horribly wrong.
AT LAST, YOU ARE RESPONDING TO THERAMIN TREES. PLEASE MAKE THIS A SERIES.
YES
I sense this guy has flown under the radar for way too long haha
@@joedwyer3297 true! Maybe because his videos are less interesting compared to Holy Koolaid, Cosmic Skeptic and such.
He probably won't, this is one of Theramimtrees's weakest videos, and this Trent guy can't even "debunk" it.
He couldn't even give a well argumented response out of this, he's not basing anything on fact, just on what he already believes, what he was indoctrinated (either as a child or adult) into believing.
In this specific video, TheraminTrees is criticizing religious indoctrination. In other words, teach someone to accept a set of beliefs UNCRITICALLY. That's his whole point, that's what he is criticizing. He's not saying that all religious people do that. Simply that it's not something that should be done.
It seems like you agree with his point, since you agree that you should encourage questions. Your points are mostly about what is true and what is not. He criticizes religions and their dogma in other videos. But that's not the point of this video. When he compares religion to a political party, he's not saying that the political party is saying something wrong.
Now you accuse the double standards of only using it when it comes to religion. Except it's not a double standard. Critical thinking is the key. A good math teach would not just expect his students to learn dogmatically the mathematical rules, he would demonstrate them. A good parent would not just teach moral values using "that's bad because I said so", but rather give reasons. That way, growing up, if the kids finds the reasons to be unsufficients, they can change their minds. That's the non-dogmatic approach.
When I got into Psychology I found this channel talking about living with a narcissist and it clearly screams of someone personally hurt by narcissistic religious parents. I never gave this channel a second thought and now im seeing it here. Glad im not the only one turned off by him. God bless Trent
When I was thinking about converting, I was listening to some of his videos. I was a kid then. Now I recognize his arguments as nonsense. His videos always come off as condescending and inconsistent...
@@dakabaka4912 because...?
Dude, his videos are actually very well supported. It is intellectually dishonest to just dismiss them wholesale on the grounds that he has had bad experiences with the subjects of his videos. I agree that this bias could come into play but he does a good job of finding outside evidence instead of just relying on his experiences. If anything his experiences make him better able to understand the subjects of his videos. And by the way he explicitly states that he had these experiences, it’s not just implied.
@@elijahp7899 I agree that his videos are well researched and professional, but his experience with religious trauma is pertinent because it seems the *bulk* of evangelical atheism comes from a similar place. And in no other debate would reasonable people argue against the crummiest versions of a thing.
Atheism and Fundamentalism are two sides of the literalist coin. And it’s unfortunate that atheists who’ve endured fundamentalism depict that as the essence of all religious practice.
Edited: for clarity
@@elijahp7899 You're mischaracterizing what Daka said about his videos. He was only making a simple assessment of the videos he's seen, rather than the ones he hasn't seen. Your whole paragraph is off base, then, because the sentences prior to the last one he typed imply that he's basing the latter sentence off of experience. Is it obviously a generalization? Sure! This still does not discount his the fundamental issues with the few videos he's seen. It's a clear implication that he doesn't speak in good enough faith to make believable arguments in his view.
It seems to me like he's saying that even though his UA-cam videos might _seem_ like a good way to comment on religion and other things, but now that he's learned better he may very well have spotted a serious issue with the way he seems to formalize arguments. I mean, you are happy to go on and mention the fact that he has certain experiences, and in fact point out that Daka is ignoring them, but you still missed the fact that he wasn't making a comment about his experience so much as he was making a comment on the very content of the way he formalizes arguments. Two different things.
The basic problem with Theramin's argument is that he's establishing a standard that does not and has never existed in reality. Children are always 'indoctrinated'. In other words, children don't have the capacity to select whatever beliefs, ideas, etc. their parents will share with them. Nature designed neonates to be totally dependent on their parents during the first years of life. We can disagree on what is the ideal or appropriate indoctrination for children to best prepare them for living in reality and society, but to argue that 'indoctrination' in it of itself is a bad thing because that's what religion does, is really an attack on religion because it's assumed that religion is fraudulent, therefore non-religion (whatever that is) ought to be the default for indoctrination.
Overall I agree with your sentiment, but I think his argument is more about the degree of reinforcement and social pressure involved. Teaching a kid how to tie their shoes is not equivalent to forcing them to attend a ceremony where they're expected to perform rituals with their family every week. People generally don't get their identities wrapped up in shoe-tying, but it's pretty normal for someone to have their identity enmeshed in their religion.
@Excuse me but I have my doubts that TT cares about methodologies in nonreligious systems. His channel seems to only really center at targeting interactions one would have within religion and what he proposes in this video alone proves that he actually doesn't care about secular indoctrination.
"That's why he chose the political party example to illustrate the type of harm operational even in a nonreligious context. Religion is only guilty to the extent that use such methodologies, which is to say, they are very guilty."
They can't be any more guilty than the atrocities committed last century caused by increased secularism. The ideas projected by Statist indoctrination has caused genocide on a level that the world had never seen beforehand. Yet I'll be surprised to see TT ever remotely targets systems like those.
@Excuse me but There are no harmful methodologies, rather just proven pragmatism. The political party example you constantly refer means nothing. Political parties is just picking sides to the available systems of government that one finds while living in a certain nation/state. The benefits, or drawbacks, of picking a specific party is up to the individual circumstances of that state. But again, there is no harm, fault or sinister outcome because some grow up sharing loyalty to one party or another.
@Excuse me but But idk where the harm is, what factors one chooses to use before voting is entirely arbitrary. This is not about thinking like some thorough analysis, but based on individual desires.
I think people overrate the threat of eternal punishment, as if it exists in a vacuum in religion. Its hardly the main topic or concern in Catholicism, granted I can only speak from my experiences and not those reformist religions. Now if someone has an irrational obsessive fear/dread of these things, then that is an individual issue that may need to be addressed but hardly a characteristic of the religion itself.
@Excuse me but Okay if its "fear" due to pressure and external threats, that is simply a matter of the people surrounding that person's life. Which would require intervention or other remedies. But I still maintain that its not about religious beliefs/ideas here.
Whether an idea can cause fear, guilt, etc.. is entirely a subjective thing to an individual. And I just think that one could say that their beliefs could just as easily give positive feelings (love, support, etc...). So to say that their methodologies are bad while dismissing the good seems dishonest.
I don't have experience with Islam, so no I won't say it condemn it for harm. I've met Muslims who liked their beliefs (women and men).
I am 15. I finished my conversion to Catholicism at 14. I can tell you that religion has done nothing but help me in life. My parents are atheist and I can see where morals stray. I still love my parents, but I can definitely see it. So if you are a parent or adult reading this debating if you should raise your child religious, PLEASE RAISE THEM RELIGIOUS. I promise it will help them some way in life. For me it’s helped in a lot. Also if you have the time, please pray for all my atheist family and my God mother (my aunt. I didn’t get to choose my God parent even though I converted. My parents made it be my aunt)and grandma who claim to be catholic, but don’t believe in the Eucharist or church teaching (abortion, gay marriage, etc) I fear for their souls, please pray for them.
👏 Great job Sister! Keep up your hard work and dedication as you enter adulthood! It’s going to be hard, being a teenager isn’t easy, but with God guiding you? You’ll make it where you want to be!
Yes it’s very hard seeing people around you struggle with their connection to Christ and instead be distracted by other things. It’s for the best we pray for them and set a good example as Christians and dont be harsh but act very welcoming to them! Thank you sister for being a good example for your family and friends!
If Mr.Horn addressed these or they seem off I am sorry. I did not see through all the video as I am not in the best emotional state but I am more aware of emotional matters at times like this so I wanted to try to bring something good from it. Note I am not saying this is intentional on their part, it may be a result of bias.
The original presentation relies mostly on fearmongering and emotion reasoning, notice all of the references to violence that are thrown out and asserted but never backed with anything to say they are occuring today let alone how they might be related to a given system of religion. Also notice how ar points in the video morally wrong practices that parents whether religious or not might enact or that are given only extreme examples of practice are given. Religion is not presented as capable of or doing anything good.
This is anti-religious propaganda that relies on its emotional appeal to try to make reasoning against the points it gives as associated in the listener`s mind with morally and socially inconsciable things. Such practices are a dereliction on those practicing them to that extreme, but a game of guilt by association is played by implying this is just how religion functions without really backing that conclusion as to how the specific instances must lead to the claims being universal or intrinsic to raising children into a religion. In other words, normal practice is equated with extreme ones.
This is a form of strawmanning as well. It is emotionally manipulative to attempt to undermine the credibility of anyone who would attempt to disagree before the discussion even starts. Thus Theramin Trees is ironically making a piece of indoctorination while attempting to criticize what they are characterizing as indoctorination. When philosophers speak of those relying on rhetoric rather than reasoning to make their point, this is the sort of practices they mean.
Interesting examination, hats off to you!
You did not watch the video
@@walterhartwellwhite8022 Which video do you mean? Mr.Horn`s or the original? Thank you for reminding me of this, God bless you sir!
@@LostArchivist original
@@walterhartwellwhite8022 I did but not it all. Now that does not prevent my interpretation being off, but also simply because it is unpalatable to you does not make it wrong or provide evidence I never watched any of the video. Take my word or do not, I stand by what I have said. The Lord knows I have, that is enough for me. He will judge me harshly espescially now if I am lying as I am explicitly pointing out the matter and making it clear that it would be evil to lie.
So, to prevent any kind of indoctrination, then parents shouldn’t teach any language (because you are forcing one, maybe they want to speak elfish not the parents language), neither take them to school (you are forcing a certain view of history and science) and obviously shouldn’t give them names (because again you are forcing one that maybe they will not like/accept)
Oh but it is not indoctrination to take them to certain parades and marches 🤔
yeah and let's not teach them about avoiding strangers, that could be forcing a certain biased view of perverts and drug dealers, oh no
There are legit parents trying to raise “they/gender neutral babies” because they don’t want society ‘forcing’ certain traits and norms on them 🙄 sure, keeping their own biology a secret from those kids is totally gonna prepare them for the inevitable puberty that will cause a bunch of hay-wiring in the brain and body. Not to mention medical personal who need to know their risk for certain diseases, mental ailments, general physic health, cancer risks, etc.
But no, those parents think it’s simply a kid choosing their haircut and what they wear 🤦♀️
@@jendoe9436 The insanity of a society without any objective morality
Yes. The end goal is for parents to not teach anything. A "benevolent" secular state would be in charge of child education from the earliest age. It's already true for a large segment of the population anyway. In Sunday school I hear very very interesting things - such as state middle school teachers telling kids to "never discuss what we learn here with parents / family". When we asked a group "what is Church for you" answers rangig from "the Spanish inquisition" to "an instrument of oppression" and "like you know, the co... coloneezation? like you know what white people did?"
someone doesn't know what indoctrination is. I'm trying to be respectful, but when orthodoxes treat their faith literally on the same level as language education, it's hard to be serious.
Brother really used the most fringe groups as examples of christianity.
That guy is clearly trying to be as provocative as possible.
The way he calls a child "it" is really disturbing
@@Psalm34rws hey now don't assume their pronouns
Glad I wasn’t the only one getting weirded put by that. Yes, ‘it’ can be valid in addressing something, but it sounds so inhuman to me. Like how pro-abortion people talk about an unborn baby.
‘They’ is an appropriate address for a being as it makes a better connection than simply ‘it.’
@@Psalm34rws i hate his autotune thing. Even when i was really against orthodox Christianity, i couldn't stand his style
No, this is just a British thing. They use 'it' for young children and bebes.
@@gregtheleg7090 well they need to stop. It's creepy and gross
Have we forgotten the periods in history where it was “ Convert to the state Religion or be subjugated or die “
The real crime of Religion is the idea of heaven and hell after death, in the wise words of Confucius “ we have two lives, the second one begins when we realise that we only have one “
That's a perspective that only makes sense if certain beliefs are presumed.
Telling children life is an accident and has no objective meaning and is pretty abusive.
Most underrated comment.
I am most puzzled sometimes by the pseudo-spirituality atheists espouse (e.g. "but isn't it glorious that our atoms come from STARS?!"). Why do they care? How does that change anything? Stars are, according to them, just dead balls of fusing helium, just as unremarkable, purposeless and accidental as dust or void or humans. And why do they need a poetic / emotional crutch like that? I think it is a desperate attempt to reconcile their innate knowledge and craving for God that we all share! It's actually sad, makes me tear up sometimes: their souls still have that ability but they try so hard to deny their own nature...
Coming from the supernova of a collapsing star is much more powerful than a dude made you from a rib. So that he could roast your body forever and ever because he loves the smell of burning flesh.
Disgusting
Also Christianity is what makes people believe everything is meaningless and beats them into a state of misery so it can sell them the cure. Fake Jesus cult idol. Western chauvinism. Stolen holy book. Forgery fake news hoax.
ua-cam.com/video/NjnDaeKvZ8c/v-deo.html
Really? Why?
@@bluestrategist9aby540 because then they won't be Catholic
@@person8064 understandable have a nice day
15:06 looked up the context for this verse. Exodus 23 is talking about the laws the isrealites should keep. Things like resting on shabat, and caring for foreigners, even helping enemies was mentioned. The specifc verse is about how God warned that he was a jealous God who wouldn't tolerate the practices and worship of other gods. The specific gods in this case would be gods like baal who had practices of burning children. Although im not sure on the specifics.
So I'm 17 minutes in and the only argument has basicly been "but Jesus is God so it's just like teaching any other truth".
How is that even a good argument, for that to make any sense you'd have to already believe that Jesus is God. Feels like pandering to the audience tbh
SO much I could say about Theramin Trees' claims. Starting with the hidden assumption that all religions are equally valid (because they're equally wrong). Or the composition error that "some people use bad tactics to uncritically teach their beliefs, therefore all religious instruction is wrong." Or once again bringing up prescribed penalties under Mosaic Law as though those arguments have never been answered before. Fallacies, fallacies everywhere!
lol. He just begs the question at every turn.
Not to mention he then just assumes his particular secular ethical beliefs are just self-evident and then chastises the bible for not living up to them. Never mind he fact that’s there is great disagreement in ethical philosophy among non-religious perspectives and many who reject the idea that ethics have any basis. His voice has that weird condescending tone to it as well, don5 know the accent
@@l21n18 zif you are given this facts what decision will you make
You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself.
But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven.
If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision
a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven
b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell
c) Bring no children,
@@a.39886 what’s the argument here?
@@l21n18 What do you think my argument is?
Basically everything this guy's case comes down to is, "Like with politics, and unlike devotions to truth and goodness themselves, I don't believe religion (or any single religion for that matter) has any transcendent truths to it, so it shouldn't be taught to children."
Great for you bud. I disagree, so I'm gonna teach 'em.
The only way his video succeeds is if you already agree with him.
That’s called a cultural bias.
If you don’t realize that the party would consider itself as essential to truth and as the sole source of meaning you know nothing of the way Christianity makes everything meaningless
@@isidoreaerys8745 if you are given this facts what decision will you make
You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself.
But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven.
If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision
a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven
b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell
c) Bring no children,13
@@a.39886 I am going to steelman your hypothetical a bit since, as it is, it is fundamentally flawed. There are no children in hell. All who die before the age of accountability are in heaven, so (b.) is not an option. (See 2 Samuel 12:21-23 and Matthew 19:14)
Let's replace children with persons. Now this is a stronger hypothetical, but still has a major flaw.
First, why assume that a) is even possible? People don't exist in a vacuum. They interact with others and their environments. If you put one person in a different set of circumstance, they may make different choices. To claim that the exact same people will choose to accept Christ in all sets of circumstances is unjustified.
That leaves b and c, and for that I would ask why should those people who refuse to accept the free gift of salvation have a veto power over those who accept the free gift? Why should those who choose to go to hell hold those who choose heaven ransom?
@@ChristiFuturum
this a contradiction in your train of thought.
*you put one person in a different set of circumstance, they may make different choices*
when a person is lost forever to the sufferings of hell, is because God has exactly planed where and when this person is going to be born and given that condition if they will accept the "gift of salvation", now imagine that this "save person" is born with different conditions and now is "lost in hell".
if what you are saying is true then, I guess your explanation will be that in the current world there would be the most number of people saved vs any other world, even that you know that the bible says that narrow is the gate and few are the ones that complete the race.
Given the option that you can give up hell so your son/daughter/partner/love one won´t experience hell would you take that deal. You won´t be going to hell you both just stop existing would you take that deal?
@@a.39886 Thanks for your thoughtful reply. It is interesting and thus deserving a proper response. In order to do that, a few critical points need to be addressed.
For your first paragraph, there seems to be a presumption that an individual's environment wholly predetermines whether they will choose to accept salvation or not. This presupposes determinism and doesn't take into account free will.
This is not to say that environment doesn't play a part in someone's personality. It does, but it does not dictate our every action. Even twins born in the exact same conditions and household can make radically different choices in life.
Yes, God places us in a specific time and place for a reason, but we also choose how we respond to our environment, whether for good or for ill.
This is also why no two people will be judged the same when they die. Everyone will be judged, but they will be judged based on the light they have been given. (Luke 12:48; Romans 2:12-16)
Second, your perspective appears to consider hell's punishment as arbitrary, like a speeding fine being set at $400 instead of $300. However, it's important to distinguish between positive punishment (which can be arbitrary) and natural punishment, which follows logically from specific actions.
For example, if someone jumps off a cliff, they *will* fall.
Hell is an example of a natural punishment. If someone consciously rejects God, the ultimate source of goodness and existence, they're choosing not to be with Him or His creation in the afterlife.
In essence, they are separated from everything and everyone. This is partly why hell is referred to as the outer darkness (Matthew 8:12). It is complete and utter self-isolation.
As for the hypothetical itself, there is an interesting quote by G.K. Chesterton:
> "Hell is a monument to human freedom."
True freedom means we have the choice to accept or reject a relationship with God. Only with this choice can a genuine relationship exist, otherwise it would be forced and not a true relationship. (Similar to how consent makes the difference between copulation being an act of love or a horrendous crime)
The possibility of someone choosing to reject God necessitates the possibility of hell. To remove hell would thus be to remove free will, a key component that makes a person valuable.
In your hypothetical you asked if I would erase myself and a loved one from existence if I knew they would reject God's offer of an eternal relationship.
I think you are underestimating the severe implications of this. To erase someone from existence would be to utterly negate the value of a person, as if their very existence was a mistake.
It's essential to distinguish a person's inherent value from their actions. Their actions may be flawed, but their existence isn't. (This is why genocidal dictators need to dehumanize a target. A person's value is not based on their deeds, but on their humanity)
So, to *finally* answer your hypothetical, it doesn't make sense to accept the deal. It would not only demean my loved one's worth but would also eradicate two individuals of eternal value from existence.
When your world view is glowingly reflected back to you in every movie, tv show, news program, news article, and popular song, you have ACTUALLY been indoctrinated
Reminds me of the Chesterton quote “The Modern Man is so dogmatic that he thinks he doesn’t have dogmas”. They are so indoctrinated that they think their values are “neutral” whereas the Christian knows they are positing a certain vision on the world.
@@stcolreplover yes so true
And right off the bat he throws out a huge non sequitur.....antitheists are such cringe...
which part of the video do you mean?
Wait, what?? Do you know the definition of non sequitur? If you meant "theists are such cringe" then yeah, the reaction guy does start with non sequitur.
I would love to watch how he would teach children in action and quickly contradict himself
That Midwit shouldn’t be anywhere near kids.
Indoctrination: the process of teaching a person or group to accept a set of beliefs *uncritically* .
9:42 This is indoctrination. When you teach a developing child to believe something that you have no valid reason to believe, and to believe this thing uncritically or even question it... that is indoctrination. Faith = "Things hoped for evidence not seen" = Feelings. Name one other thing that you use Faith to form your belief in?
In 32:32, Theramin failed to apply Bible into context, concluded that "religions are frequently the source of immoral ones".
This raises another issue of "letting your child learn about all religions". How can you really know if your child is learning different religions correctly? What if he/she takes their teachings out of context (like 32:32) and, in worst case scenario, wrongly concluded all the religions are bad? Do you have what it takes to ensure your child learns the truth?
If you, as a parent, had studied the truth, wouldn't you want your child to know and defend the truth as well?
I hope that if we Christians believe that God is truth and love, then we will always educate our children in love, so that they can know the truth.
John 8:32: "and you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free.”
Anyway thanks for the rebuttal Trent, keep preaching the truth and GBU always!
Although I don’t remember it, I will always be grateful that my parents decided to baptize me.
Yeah, only because you're a weakling whose parents were very successful at indoctrinating you. (For this guy, this is the only possible explanation, which I find unbearably condescending and offensive. I don't think defending against his attacks is effective. I would find a good attack that tears down the hypocritical facade that conceals their intolerance to religious people and beliefs a lot more effective-and satisfying.)
@@xaviervelascosuarez I got the sense that this guy probably hasn’t met any converts… children converts at that. often children who are given the gift of faith, lead their lapsed or faithless parents to the faith.
Why? You could have been baptized later, and that wouldn't change much, right?
@@leritykay8911 No, baptism is essential for salvation. That's why baptizing infants asap is really important
@@deeplyhidden4880 Yeah, according to YOU.
What if I say that covering a baby in honey is essential for salvation. Honey-baptism. Why wouldn't you do that? These rituals have the exact same amount of evidence behind them
@53:45 he forgets to mention we don't choose who are parents are either, and that we are faced with the fact if we expect a child to obey their parents and if they are under their authority or not.
Religion and talking about religion is a skill. Not just the ceremonies, the technical language about laws and ecclesiastical matters. Being able to think in a religious way is not only a preference, but a skill.
It takes years of practice, which even most Catholics do not have, of learning and of repetition, to get the message that the Psalms and the other scriptures are trying to get into your head. A lot of young converts think they know everything. I don't blame them! But it changes, what you know, once it soaks in.
Edit: to try to put a more positive spin on it: if atheism really is true, learning the mechanisms behind religion from the religious person's perspective surely should pose no threat to them. Science poses no threat to me!
This is because science can absorb your attention and distract you from any deep meditation on ultimate questions. But science is only about how things work, not their purpose.
Interestingly the New Testament teaches that Jesus said not to pray in "meaningless repetitions" which I think means the meditative type repetitions you're referring to, and I think the teaching was specifically in reference to other religions using mantras and prayer bead type repetitious pray meditations.... Then the Catholics adopted it to defeat the Spanish Armada (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was to secure Yahweh's favor for some naval confrontation)
Maybe that isn't what you mean by "years of learning and repetition" but it might be room for thought
Anyway, I find your comment "if atheisms is true" to be strange. Atheisms isn't at thing that would be true or not, it's literally the lack of belief in all gods. (I know colloquially it's generally used to mean actively believing there are not gods)
I would love to have a constructive conversation about how Science poses no threat to you. I presume you mean it poses no threat to your belief system? I used to think the same thing, but the more "science" I learned the less compatible it became to my faith beliefs
@@jwmmitch It says do not pray with "vain repetition". Not repetition at all. You would have to demonstrate that Catholic prayers are vain (in a Christian sense) to prove that they violate Jesus' command. Merely showing that they pray in repetition would *not* meet that standard. So you can't say that the Catholics inconsistently adopted a practice that Jesus condemned without proving that their prayers are, in fact, vain in nature.
And many philosophy books do not define atheism the way that you do. From the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy:
"The word “atheism” is polysemous-it has multiple related meanings. In the psychological sense of the word, atheism is a psychological state, specifically the state of being an atheist, where an atheist is defined as someone who is not a theist and a theist is defined as someone who believes that God exists (or that there are gods). This generates the following definition: atheism is the psychological state of lacking the belief that God exists. In philosophy, however, and more specifically in the philosophy of religion, the term “atheism” is standardly used to refer to the proposition that God does not exist (or, more broadly, to the proposition that there are no gods). Thus, to be an atheist on this definition, it does not suffice to suspend judgment on whether there is a God, even though that implies a lack of theistic belief. Instead, one must deny that God exists. This metaphysical sense of the word is preferred over other senses, including the psychological sense, not just by theistic philosophers, but by many (though not all) atheists in philosophy as well" According to this definition, which is accepted by many philosophers atheist and theist, atheism is a positive claim and not merely a psychological state".
@kenanthompson2075 looks like the KJV uses "vain repetitions" although looking up a translation of the Greek word I get this: "βατταλογέω · to stammer · to repeat the same things over and over, to use many idle words, to babble, prate. Some suppose the word derived from Battus, a king..." which I take to mean either something life repeatedly saying a mantra, or saying empty/idle words. I'm not sure what the Christian sense of "vain" is so feel free to explain that if you like. I think the point in Matthew (it seems to be missing in Luke) is to pray differently than the pagans.
Anyway, what I meant by " "if atheism is true" sounds weird" is: that it just seems to land for me like confirming the negative. I understand there's a lot of different usage for the word in different circles. And it seems I had it backwards which way is used where.
But we don't need to fie on any hills here. I'll just say what I believe as an atheist. And I believe that it's apparently clear that all of the gods I know about were made up to fabricate an explanation for unknown things. I also believe there are enough strange things as to allow reasonable entertainment of ideas about the supernatural, But none of the gods I know fit in that allowance. It's important to acknowledge that I'm no expert on gods of the world
@@jwmmitch @kenanthompson2075 "looks like the KJV uses "vain repetitions" although looking up a translation of the Greek word I get this: "βατταλογέω · to stammer · to repeat the same things over and over, to use many idle words, to babble, prate. Some suppose the word derived from Battus, a king..." which I take to mean either something life repeatedly saying a mantra, or saying empty/idle words. I'm not sure what the Christian sense of "vain" is so feel free to explain that if you like. I think the point in Matthew (it seems to be missing in Luke) is to pray differently than the pagans."
None of this demonstrates that Catholics inconsistently adopted a prayer practice that Jesus condemned. You mention that they did "Then the Catholics adopted it to defeat the Spanish Armada", but there is nothing to show that they did. Merely showing repetition does not demonstrate vain repetition. It never says repetition in and of itself is condemned or a bad thing. In fact, this reading would do violation to the entire context of Biblical prayer. Jesus' followers would have been praying in repetition as Jews did with the Shema. The Shema was a prayer Jews and early Christians repeated daily. Also, repetitious prayer existed long for before the battle you mentioned, so I'm not sure why you cite that as the point at which it began. And by praying to the God of the Bible alone, they would, in fact, be praying differently from the pagans.
@kenanthompson2075 because if the point is to distinguish passing methods from that of pagans then one must understand what that difference is to be. I'm not sure anyone I've ever talked to could educate me on that distinction. Or maybe it means don't pray with idle empty words, as Jesus was keen on addressing yahweh informally as "daddy" and talking to it as a person, similar to how evangelicals actually focus on the relationship with yahweh in their prayers, actually making them personal. My mom might be the only person I know that claims to be catholic that prays to yahweh in a personal manner.
The reason I bring up the rosary is because that's exactly the catholics reverting to multiple repetitions, with prayer beads for counting, exactly as was common in pagan religions.
....I think all in all. My point on the lords prayer is that is seems like a pretty good example of the religion straying away from the source material and people just accept it without realizing there's even a difference. And it pushes my buttons when Christians say they follow biblical principles but then are, say.... anti slavery
It's not a fallacy, but something I notice on many controversial topics: people tend to assume the worst of the other side. So, Theramin really seems to believe that religions using guilt, fear, and ostracism to quash critical thinking and question asking is common.
It is common, especially in Islamic countries, though in Europe and US such cases are not that rare
@@bluestrategist9aby540 hm, personally I have no reason to believe it's common at all. I'm religious and ~50% of my friends and family are religious, but I have no direct or indirect experience of this. Not sure how you'd get past anecdotes here. Maybe you could try to find a survey on how many religious people feel they've been discouraged from asking questions.
@@gregtheleg7090 it’s common every where come on man 👨
@Benkai True, people are flawed and religion certainly has no monopoly on any of those listed behaviors, though I am sure some religious people act like that. It's a personality flaw, not a religious doctrine.
You may have noticed that some Christian public speakers accuse every person of some sort of sin, and mention a wide variety of actions they believe to be sinful,making people feel guilty. Moreover, numerous times have I heard that I deserve eternal punishment and the only thung that is saving me is God. Isn't it inflicting guilt to a person just for being born human? Fear of hell and being not good enough is something more obvious.
30:13 "Ultimately these rules are universally binding so they are religious". How does that work? If everyone shares such a rule it means it was the rule required for groups to survive, not because some creature dictated it
one of the reasons this still exists is that humans genuinely love to satisfy their ancient tribe instinct
Taking secular to be the opposite then they are religious in nature.
@@JulioCaesarTM are you saying every group animal believes in God ?
@@bluestrategist9aby540 the rebuttal was god awful by Trent I feel so bad for people who don’t have a open mind
That's a presumption, not a given.
His video is actually such a great argument for religion, as it clearly demonstrates how when one rejects the intrinsic religious nature of man, one finds some (very inferior) form of belief system to fill that void, such as politics in this video. And this is demonstrated by how often he uses that as a comparative example.
Politics are not everything, that's one of the biggest problems of our current discourse, everyone reduces the other down to their political party affiliation as their whole identity, but it has so little to do with your identity as a person, whereas a religious belief system gets to the fundamental core of who we are as humans and where our intrinsic value comes from.
It's such an unbelievably disingenuous comparison, yet so incredibly telling of anti-religious people. And I say anti-religious to specifically differentiate them from atheistic people.
This TT guy is basically just a repackaging of that QualiaSoup dunce from the older UA-cam atheist days. Same style of videos and from British countries. Their videos try to claim to tackle some "harmful" ideology or mistakes in thinking, but in truth they always just try to argue against religiously based faiths and hide it as some generalization.
You did not watch the ramintrees video with a open mind I feel bad for you religious people indornctied and feed a spoon every day of false information and clowns like you and Trent
if you are given this facts what decision will you make
You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself.
But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven.
If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision
a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven
b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell
c) Bring no children,afh
@@a.39886 What? Are you asking about whether movement/action from perfection is downgrading (i.e., creating a universe with life)? Neither of those decisions really affects the perfection of the creator since even in heaven those souls don't actually become God. They are just imperfect reflections of a more absolute entity.
So all 3 options would have the same impact, or lack there of, in terms of affecting God. So it just becomes I'd say it comes down to personal preference: a) is more justice driven, b) is about the commonwealth. As for "c)" I may have to ask you to clarify what exactly you mean by bring no children? Like no afterlife or something?
@@UncannyRicardo I understand It have no impacted then how do you take a decision to create some children all children or no children
I wonder If you have the same foreknowledge with 100% of certainty that if you have a daughter she won`t believing in the same religion as you and she will end up to being eternally condemned to torture of hell.
Would have sex and bring this daughter to this world?
@@a.39886 If it has no impact, than any decision will be equally weighed, unless there is a different criteria to differentiate them.
So for your example it could go either way. Have a daughter or not, wouldn’t affect my standing on being good since in the context it wouldn’t reflect you. But one could still come up with an arbitrary reason for having a child. Like say you wish to believe they have certain desired affects on the world (have further children of her own, save lives, etc…) regardless of whether she ends up in hell or not. But again, these are just hypotheticals
Christianity is not just about belonging to a group, it is about a strong relationship with Jesus, our Lord and God, and God the father and God the Holy Spirit and it is about belonging to a church, being an active part of a group. Moreover, the content of the Bible itself includes doubts in the existence of God and mockery of other religions.
If Christians would just indoctrinate their children without any sort of reflecting on the bible and all of its contents, it would be a distortion of Christianity.
St. Thomas said these words:
"Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my finger into the print of the nails, and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe."
John 20:25 KJV
He demanded proof or he would not believe, and so shall we not believe everything that is said by authorities, but demand proof until we understand. And there is plenty of evidence for Christianity, and there are good teachers in Jesus's church.
To me, it seems to be impossible to indoctrinate children into Christianity, maybe into a distortion of Christianity, but if anyone thinks that mindless following of God is what the Bible says, read again.
As I write, I remember the story in which God destroyed his people, not because they stopped praising him, they continued singing praises and offering sacrifices, but because they were continuing in their evil works:
"They hate him that rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly. Forasmuch therefore as your treading is upon the poor, and ye take from him burdens of wheat: ye have built houses of hewn stone, but ye shall not dwell in them; ye have planted pleasant vineyards, but ye shall not drink wine of them. For I know your manifold transgressions and your mighty sins: they afflict the just, they take a bribe, and they turn aside the poor in the gate from their right. I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take thou away from me the noise of thy songs; for I will not hear the melody of thy viols."
Amos 5:10-12, 21-23 KJV
A mindless member of a group is not what God intended any of us to be, we are body parts of his church. If God would have intended us to be indoctrinated, why would he allow us to have free will?
Jesus is Lord.
,if you are given this facts what decision will you make
You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself.
But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven.
If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision
a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven
b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell
c) Bring no children,
@@a.39886 How am I perfect if I don't have love or companionship? That's paradox.
But ok, if I'd be "perfect", without pray, love, companion, worship, and I would be 100 % by myself, I'd let all children die, because I'd be a selfish
person without love and companionship.
What a stupid question.
@@georgwagner937 Isn`t god a perfect trinity he is not alone. he have love and companionship.
Why a perfect being needs praise, worship?
Then Why exactly you need to create?
Your metaphor with the disease works well, when one corolates sickness with religion. The best way to make sure your child doesn't catch it is by keeping the child away from the "disease" and allowing it to decide for it's self when it reaches the age of reason. This is indeed indocrination when the choices reduced to one and then spoon fed to the trusting infant. Religion allways wants two things, your money and access to you kids.
by speaking , you are asking us our kids and your state is asking us for money , secondly , with what we observe , the materialist thoughts are the disease who breaks the mind into pieces , it doesn't allow to see the world with wonder and sadness , only meaninglessness
I'm not taking advice from a dude who refers to children as "it" 💀
Those animations and tone boils my blood.
The truth hurts, critical thinking is not respected in Catholicism. The fact that most believers cant say that their beliefs are just that and not truth or provable in anyway. Religion is exactly what is expected from ignorant ancient peoples trying to explain the world we find ourselves in. Can we say if there is a god of creation for sure or not, no but we can say that the man made abrahamic religions are completely false. If jesus of the bible books ever did exist, he died and his body rotted just like all humans.
@@ndeepowder Well,
So much critically thinking.
Can you logically prove your stand ?
I mean you must be having well defined proof for atheism.
@@ndeepowderRead the 5,000-page textbook of evidence for the Ressurection by Gary Habermass and let me know if you still think the same. Volume 1 comes out in February, it's 1,400 pages.
@@voyelloHas religion met the burden of proof? If the answers is "no", agnostic atheism is the logical conclusion. If there's not proof for a god then there is no reason to believe.
Would be interesting to know Theramin's history. He sounds like someone who had overly abusive parents himself. Also the animation is creepy, which I guess is part of the point
Well the channel name is kinda meant to be creepy I think. The theremin is that classic 50s creep out sound.
He had a "losing faith" video. You should watch it. He didn't have "bad" parents until he and his brother mentioned they didn't believe in Yahweh. I forgot the details so don't take my word for this.
Edit:
Here it is, ua-cam.com/video/6xqCkx6WQBE/v-deo.html.
Tbh this isn't his best video(the one being rebutted). I do understand why it's the only video being rebutted now.
He admits to that actually his mother was a narcissist.
He has many videos that skim past or directly address his childhood, and religious past.
@@cagedgandalf3472 I love your response! ❤️
The animation style made me very uncomfortable
It's meant to, the videos on that channel are pretty disturbing, sometimes.
Belief in a magic sky god and his obsession with blood atonement makes me uncomfortable. Cutting infants genitals makes me uncomfortable. Irrational and harmful beliefs, that are professed to be fact makes me uncomfortable.
@@christophekeating21 if you are given this facts what decision will you make
You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself.
But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven.
If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision
a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven
b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell
c) Bring no children,bn
The veil is also sinister in that it creates a framed assumption whereby it, through how it is set up, immediately primes us against anything that could go against equality by abusing our self serving survival instinct. Suddenly we are afraid to be "outside" of the norms and rules. But then again we need to recognize that no such society could or does exist nor would it be just. Just like in a family father and mother loves their children first and foremost, while remaining sympathetic to other children within their little comunity. It would be burtally unjust for these children to have to earn their parents love, bah, earn anything from their parents. Meanwhile the veil actually has a hidden premis of declaring this kind of hierarchy of love, and rights, as evil. When in fact its actually moral. A society has to exist for someone, because if it exists for everyone then it isnt much of a society, as much as it is anarchy or equal misery. Societies have always been made by families for families, which can be then extended to tribes, nations etc. And this has actually allowed humanity to maximize how much good it does in the world. What is better? Having everyone care for their own little plot of land, creating communities with walls and gates that then create customary care within their walls towards themselves and everyone does this until the walls are touching and the gates allow free movement of honest and good people, where the line between host and guest is obvious. Or a world where there are no fences or walls, where evetryone is constantly bickering with each other and demanding someone clean their land rather than they themselves do it. Etc.
Id vouch for a world of gates and fences, rather than a world without borders. The veil doesnt remove self interest, it actually puts it in the center of your decision making becase you are deciding what YOU desire, not what is good.
Bringing up Rawls from theramintrees was super odd because it seems Rawls expressly rejects his position. It's been a little while since I read Rawls, but if I am not mistaken, Rawls argues for a separation of Comprehensive Doctrines (overarching views about the fundamental nature of the world and definitions of 'the good life') from Political Views (views about political and social stability drawn from all reasonable comprehensive doctrines). As a starting point, a reasonable comprehensive doctrine is going to be one that has the political principles arrived at from the original position as a modular component of its doctrines (so equal basic liberties, equality of opportunity for public jobs, and the difference principle, possibly a notion of civic friendship too). The state then neither affirms or denies any of the reasonable comprehensive doctrines as even a statement of their 'equality' would be an endorsement of a particular comprehensive doctrine. Because reasonable comprehensive doctrines all contain the principles of justice as a modular component, there is further no reason to be worried about citizens being raised exclusively with education in these reasonable comprehensive views because they all support the principles which create a just and desirable society from the original position. Unreasonable comprehensive doctrines, such as those that abuse children, do not have the same consideration, but not because their comprehensive doctrine dictates something we dislike from a comprehensive view, but because their comprehensive doctrine rejects or conflicts with the principles of justice (usually equal basic liberties). Outside of that conflict, the state is once again silent.
SO GLAD you decided to address theremin trees and his false analogies! God Love you.
✝️
🔥
❤
Curious, but everything he said, reminded me of the horrific reality of Godless communists treating children in public schools.
I wonder if he would send his own children to church or to catechism for them to learn and study religion, with the chance that they become priests or nuns...I wonder...
The worst of this is that it assumes the superiority of their way of thinking over not just one, but over all religious traditions. It's virtually impossible to listen to this and not leave with the impression that only non religious people like the presenter can be considered reasonable or free thinking people, and all religious people are necessarily the result of indoctrination relentlessly applied to feeble minded people.
As a religious person, I find this kind of hubris extremely offensive, and I think maybe Trent is way too kind and gracious in his critique. There's a place for graciousness, most of the time. I'm not sure that it's well placed when granted to those who despise you.
You’d didn’t understand tt video but yuor a clown
Besides the video being so freakin creepy, he keeps depicting cult examples... not religious education ones
Josh Xrist was false prophet idol who lead an apocalyptic polytheist cult.
Uhm... religions are just "loose" cults
Religion is cult....
@@ehmkannde8673 It can vary between cult and normalcy, depending on how devout its followers are required to be. Obviously, there’s a huge difference between progressive Christianity and Jehovah’s Witnesses. But there’s always a point where critical thinking gives way to dogma.
I can't get past the fact that he keeps calling the child "it."
Religions do influence young minds. Its well known that very religious parents are worse with their kids.
Decety et al. was retracted. Their math was simply incorrect.
No it isn't.
@@animalcart4128 Jesus never condemned atheists, only judas kind and hypocritical religious leaders. Trent and others don't mention about the sexual crimes of their consecrated priests and holy fathers. And they still find rebuttals against others. Take the plank out your own hypocritical eyes.
Not even a minute in and you've already horribly misrepresented what the video was about... not a good look!!
You make two comments on that video and both are just what i was thinking about.
Is anyone else put off by Theramin Trees referring to "the child" as "it?"
Yes. Only an atheist could think this ok.
As an atheist I admit that I accepted many of the arguments from the original video without appropriate scrutiny because I agreed with the conclusion. It's a large part of what makes analogy so dangerous - you have to both understand what makes the analogy hold and what would make it break rather than just carrying your feelings between two different cases uncritically.
The argument that Theramin trees fails to make that there is a clear difference between "teaching" and "indoctrination" - when you teach someone you show them how to find truth and you allow them to challenge the justification for your beliefs. Indoctrination is enforcing a specific belief on someone and refusing to tolerate criticism or dissent.
When children are extremely young there isn't much difference between the two - young children don't have the intellectual capability to understand all of the dangers in their life and so their parents have to enforce some rules or values without justification. This is where your vaccine analogy hits it's mark - no infant wants to be vaccinated, but neither of us would condemn an informed parent making the decision to vaccinate their child based on their assessment of their child's interests.
As children mature though an important stage in their development is being able to understand and scrutinise their beliefs. You say it yourself - children parroting beliefs they don't understand is creepy but eventually they should be able to not just regurgitate someone else's truth but understand what truth is themselves. Indoctrination is about preventing that process:
- Children are saturated with a single viewpoint repeatedly
- The viewpoint itself is moralised - scrutinising alone becomes an immoral act
- Adherents of opposing viewpoints are slandered and dehumanised
- Adherence to the viewpoint is ritualised and repeated
- The child's community is inseparable from those beliefs and dissent entails ostracization
- Authority figures are elevated above children and dictate to them unequally
Obviously it's often not cleanly on one side of the line or the other but there's a spectrum and religious beliefs as described in the original video fall very cleanly on one side of the line. Similarly you might describe 'LGBT ideology in schools' as a form of indoctrination and in doing so you may have found a hypocrisy in theramin tree's beliefs. I wouldn't know though because I'm not him and neither of us is American.
"I'm sure theramin trees would say the same about truth or goodness - we should always do what is true, we should always do what is good"
This statement represents a fundamental misunderstanding about (modern, western) atheism. The underlying guiding principle is that concepts like truth and justice should be accessible to everyone through processes like logic and debate - that's a matter of epistemology more than anything else but if you don't provide any concrete, symmetric criteria for finding truth then whatever beliefs you settle on are totally arbitrary - no one has any reason to support any belief above any other besides personal preference. There are no beliefs that are "self evident" to an atheist besides the minimal concessions without which truth and reality are inaccessible:
- Logic is consistent
- I exist
- My experience of the world reflects some kind of underlying reality which I can understand through repeated observation
Surrender any of those and there's no reason to believe one explanation of reality over any other. Accept all of those and we can discuss and challenge claims about what is true.
Once someone has been given the tools to determine for themselves what is true or good there is no dogma and no blasphemy in criticising an atheist's beliefs because there's nothing that elevates one person's beliefs above another outside of those frameworks. The forms that challenge can take have to be constrained if for no other reason than pragmatism but any belief can and should be challenged.
None of this is to say that atheists can't be dogmatic or that religious parents always indoctrinate their children though. The original video is a criticism of the specific structure and rituals of certain organised religions, not religion or religiosity generally after all.
Ok, right off the bat:
The vaccine analogy is a weaker analogy than the political one.
While a getting a vaccine as a child is a decision they don't get to make, it is a singular event that happens in the moment. It isn't a repeated practice, it does not socially, mentally, morally influence the individual during their formative years like a political ideology would, or even more so, like a religion would.
And the motive of the vaccination is far more tangible, it is a measurable and consistent result for an important, but much less deep issue than morality and the afterlife like religion claims to be.
The benefit religion offers, the disease it claims to prevent from is not tested and is as theoretical as making sure to give your kid a sacred tiger-prevention rock, then celebrating that over the course of their life the fact that they never got attacked by a tiger. Religion can only be traced back to storytelling, and presences that can be measured and controlled as internal psychological illusions. A spiritual experience can be induced and replicated with alterations to brain chemistry, what makes an unintentional spiritual experience in a church not just a similar moment of brain chemistry that didn't get measured at the time, maybe caused by the hormones released by the tangible sense of community?
And if you believe tolerance of other beliefs is so essential as atheists should practice it more, than you should offer the knowledge of all other theistic outlooks to the child too during their upbringing, not just your own. Teach them to be tolerant, or at least aware of the existence of other religious beliefs that contradict yours. I can assure you, atheists at least don't hide information of other religions existences from their kids. And we admit that our knowledge constantly gets updated and is constantly open to questioning as we learn and observe more about the world.
I don't want to "own" or even hurt religious people, I care about them as fellow beings, and want them to have the most ethical treatment possible.
But it is cruel to force this ideology upon kids, without at the very least equally teaching all the other ideologies with as much or more evidence as just as truthful and important. Nothing makes Catholocism more real than Hinduism, or Atheism. Be transparent with your kids, and teach them how the world really appears, not how you want it to look. That way they have a stronger foundation to influence good changes for the world from as adults.
Oh dear, I'm so glad there's a person that was outraged just like myself and wrote paragraphs
I've honestly always thought teaching your kids there's nothing after death is much more abusive, before I found Christianity I was constantly depressed over the idea of nothing being after death and the idea of ceasing to exist.
I love these rebuttals!
Ah, the good old False Equivalence Fallacy.
23:47
There have been many observed cases of kids being kidnapped by adults they've never met. Demons have not even been proven to exist. This goes into his later point about beliefs you can't substantiate.
Not empirically no.
The entire time I was listening to this, I was wondering about this man's childhood...😳
He's talked about it on other videos.
why are you thinking about kids...
Theramin Trees seems to think the moral values we take for granted in modern society have always been part of humanity and that religion (though mainly attacking Christianity) somehow patented the concepts. That if left on our own, humans will naturally come to solid, positive morals without the need of religion to “approve” said morals.
However, the various cultures, ideas, lifestyles, and belief systems widely contradict this idea. For example, it was common before the British Empire arrived to burn widows as the children may not have wanted to take care of her and it was “fitting” a wife follow her husband til the end. Contrast with the Christian idea that marriage is a bond where husband and wife help each other get to heaven, and death is where that bond technically ends and people have the right to live up to their natural lifespan no matter their station.
One can easily look at Western society and see the consequences of throwing out objective truth and reasoning, and encouraging an individual led subjective outlook. People are lost, unhappy, overly anxious, depressed, etc if there’s not something meaningful and good to ground them.
There’s an Atheist podcaster I follow who openly admits that while he doesn’t see Christianity or any religion as true, he recognizes Judeo-Christian principles provide a good base for functional society and would rather teach his kids those basic principles (Golden Rule, honor and respect, virtues like courage, etc) over the vapid materialism of the secular world.
Most of these ex Christians saying this are only first generation away from the religion in the US or second generation away from the religion if in Western Europe. We are already seeing the results from this yet they insist these morals will always be the same.
@@christianthinker2536 Exactly, we can already see the results of this in real time as the culture deteriorates, as well as all the social sciences that back this up (see jonathan haidt)
There’s also the problem that Pre-Christianity, there wasn’t a robust sense in the West that weak lives were worth saving. Pagan Romans abandoned their children for dead, and while one might blame bad things in their “religion” for this, one can see that atheistic presuppositions did not magically create Utopias when atheistic states were tried (France, Mexico, Soviet Union, et al.) Atheistic materialists are as much prisoners of their time as anyone else. Heck, look at how homophobic some of Freud’s beliefs were by modern standards, for just one example.
If history had gone differently and Christianity has never existed, and Roman cults eventually evolved into a general atheistic/agnostic mindset during and after the industrial revolution, it’s at least arguable that said society would still be much more brutal than what we are today.
@@stcolreplover if you are given this facts what decision will you make
You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself.
But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven.
If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision
a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven
b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell
c) Bring no children,2g
@@a.39886 “If I were the Almighty, I would do things better!!!”
You rebutted nothing, just evidenced your ignorance
Because the owner of the video has not made any arguments or rebutted anything. All from ignorant opinion.
Trent is a good witness in the public sphere. May God protect him and his associates.
if you are given this facts what decision will you make
You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself.
But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven.
If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision
a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven
b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell
c) Bring no children,1
@@a.39886 what is your question?
@@suzannespanier4492 What do you think is my question?
@@a.39886 I don’t know. It’s why I asked.
@@suzannespanier4492 That`s interesting
Theramintrees: Christian could mean (...) Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses.
Me: No. No it does not.
I wonder if there’s any articles or essays on the phenomenon of British accents seeming authoritative. How many people have been led away from truths because someone with a British accent “seemed convincing.”
Stop buddy your Trent didn’t understand the video and is straw man
As someone who was indoctrinated in school, this video really bothered me. You just made a response vid that's almost an hour long and the only argument you made is: "Well but my religeon is true, so it's just teaching facts." But that argument only works for pandering to your challenged audience mate
You clearly didn't watch or absorb the video if you've come away with that conclusion.
@@henryvdl3692 Great argument, I feel really convinced now
@@henryvdl3692 The video's very first point is "Indoctrination into Christianity is fine because Christianity saves children's souls". Literally every religious person thinks the same thing.
@@person8064 that is a gross caricature of the video’s first point.
@@henryvdl3692 then what's the video's first point?
While I would say that I enjoy his style of animation, the delivery always seems a bit melodramatic
yeah, i stumbled upon his chanel and while i do also enjoy his animation, he makes christianity seek like some strange voodoo cult that scrafices babies to a stone, he also makes atheism sound like some weird form of pure intellect that will instantly make you a mega rational genius
If we look at history, a background with a solid religious education was behind many of the worlds finest Western Scholars and Philanthropists. Plus, a good number of children (admittedly not all) with a religious upbringing are shown to have less dysfunctional and and psychologically more stable home environments.
Fight a war against progress.
Lose a war against progress.
And when that progress turns out to be a good thing afterall;
Claim credit for that progress.
ua-cam.com/video/dPOMNdvKZtQ/v-deo.html
That’s not really true but okay
This has to be the cringiest video you've rebutted so far.
Religious education is as "abusive" as teaching your child how to read.
Atheism is not the default position. And if it is, then it is the same as being unable to read.
That’s actually a pretty clever analogy. Just as an atheist sees the world as only material, a person who can’t read only sees words on a page as randomly squiggles.
The difference is you don't consider one written language true and others false. But you consider your religion true and others wrong. So the analogy is not really that good.
@@bluestrategist9aby540 I consider Catholicism true, because it really is true. Others are wrong insofar as they are incomplete or straight up contrary to it. Buddhism for example has the exact opposite view of redemption compared to Catholicism.
@@intedominesperavi6036 and how is Catholicism true?
@@intedominesperavi6036 I can say I consider Paganism true because it is true and others are not true because they contradict it
The problem with your vaccination analogy is that a vaccine demands actual medical proof of working in favor of preventing a disease, while your views of what happens after death remain unproved.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think Theramin didn't condemn the excitement coming from the people attending the ceremony in his video, but rather they condemned the injustice of exposing an infant, that can't consent, to said ceremony. I felt like in your video you focused more on that first aspect.
While the analogy of a political party is brash itself, it is in my opinion considerably more accurate than an analogy of a vaccine. Parties, much like religion, are something deeply personal and dependent on world view, rather than the objective truth of a vaccine working - or being a placebo.
Sure, people can disagree later on in their lives. If they aren't coerced by fear of hell, which is ritually instilled in children (at least in my household when I was growing up).
Might edit this to add more after I'm done watching. Just noticed this and wanted to point it out.
I agree with Trent's conclusions, although I think you raised fair points here. Well said.
Just by the title I already know this will be full of shit.
The point is not that "religious education is abusive indoctrination" and far from it. The ENTIRE POINT OF THE VIDEO is showing how people and especially kids are indoctrinated. It never claims that education on religion is bad. Far from it. I bet Theramin Trees would even say that education about religion is good. What's NOT good is teaching these events as complete truth and not allowing people to question things.
So many of these comments are "Oh thank god you made a video on theramintrees, now I don't have to think for myself."
They worship brainwashing and surrendering critical thought.
Yeah lazy thinkers
I felt physical pain from the fallaciousness of Trent's points. I really hope TheraminTrees never sees this reaction, he would cringe to death
26:07
If you can't substantiate the claim that your religion is more valid than all the others, then why would you teach this to your child?
How is he contradicting himself? He's saying not to push beliefs you can't substantiate onto your children. You have not proven that spiritual dangers exist, nor has anyone.
He can substantiate it, just not to what I assume are your strict standards for positive proof. But I'd argue many other important things also wouldn't meet those standards.
Can you prove you exist? Or can you prove I exist. If you want to be so 'rational' you'd better start with the basics.
@@peterc.1419 define existance
@@bluestrategist9aby540 Define definition.
@@peterc.1419 meaning of a word/group of words/statement (in the given context)
It’s a very stupid idea that people don’t choose their religion. They at least choose whether or not to believe the specific religion in the culture they were born into.
I mean, you can pretty easily see that most people believe the same thing as their parents. People are certainly capable of changing their minds, but the default is just whatever they were raised in, and most people stay there.
@@Psalm34rws if you are given this facts what decision will you make
You are 100% perfect need no one or anything you can`t get nothing for creation you don't need pray, love, companion, worship you are 100% perfect by yourself.
But if you created you know with 100% certainty that if certain children will end up eternally suffering the torture of hell, and a different group of children will end up eternally on heaven.
If you have that knowledge and the power to created them what is your decision
a) Bring only the children that end up in heaven
b) Bring both the children that end up in heaven and also hell
c) Bring no children,123
@@Psalm34rws sure god is god but I wonder
If you have the same foreknowledge with 100% of certainty that if you have a daughter she won`t believing in the same religion as you and she will end up to being eternally condemned to torture of hell.
Would have sex and bring this daughter to this world?
@@Psalm34rws but isn't God all-powerful? Why can't he stop people from making their own choices? Or why can't he make hell as pleasant as heaven?
Theramin T rees makes a weird charicatuere of religion. He takes the creepiest excesses of any religion and presents them as general attributes of religion as a phenomenon.
In his eyes the average religion
- practices child marriage
- practices circumcision, male and female
- practices beheadings
- demands unquestioning obedience
- has a God that demands the death penalty (preferably in a sadistic way) for trifles.
- isolates its members from society and ostrcises them if they become a pain in the hindquarters
- has very agressive conversion methods, makes it very easy to get in and very hard (if at all possible) to get out.
- consideres infant baptism like entering a monastary where you can never get out of
He just forgot human sacrifice and temple prostitution, but those are historical of course.
All these things do exist, mostly in extremist fringe groups and creepy cults. Avoid those. I think that if a religious group holds at least one of these points, and actually practices it, there is something very wrong about it.
If your parents are active in the Socialist Party, you can expect them to talk politics at home, from a Socialist perspective. You can expect them to subscribe to the basic ideas of Socialism and consider them as true. You can hardly expect from them that they take their children to the convention of the Conservative Party and say afterwards "hey their ideas are just as good as ours, make your own choice". Of course, once adult, everyone is free to make his own choice anyway.
Indocrtnation does exist, but I think it's far more prevalent in the political sphere than in the religious sphere (except of course extremist groups and creepy sects). Also, a parent that is a committed football supporter, clothes his son in the shirt of his club, signs him up for the local football club and takes him to the stadium each week, is that abusive indoctrination too?
He also denies individual agency. I grew up in a atheist family. At age 20 I knew nothing of religion, nor did I care. Probably pretty effectively indoctrinated. Yet at age 38 I converted to the Catholic Church. I had to follow a 12 week catechesis course where they taught the basics of Catholicism. We had to write a letter describing our motivation to join the Church. That went to the bishop's office and if they thought you wanted to join for the wrong reasons they wouldn't approve. At any point of the process anyone could bail out.
Also I can (if I want, which I don't) get out any moment I would like. Simply by ceasing to attend. Nothing will happen. They will not send a gang of thugs to beat me up. No-one forces me to attend. In some places there might be some social pressure, but that is not very common. Nor particular for Churches, If you live in a small town in the outback of Texas and you put up a giant sign for Bernie Sanders, you might get some dirty looks too.
I think political parties are very wise not to organise weekly gatherings where people are expected to sit listening to someone talking for an hour, get nothing material out of it and are expected to contibute something in the collection. I expect attendance to be embarassingly low.
If you have even watched a fraction of his channel you would quickly realize that he does not generalize any attributes of religion, rather the videos are tailored to either
1: his experience
2: very specific sects of religions
3: the experience of thousands of other people who escaped from the abusive relationship that is religion