The debate "What if we forbid religion until the age of 18 then you choose freely" was started by
May 21, 2019, 4:21 am.
29 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 30 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
aysell posted 2 arguments to the agreers part.
DanielSays posted 1 argument, JDAWG9693 posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
sssk, shubham90012 and 27 visitors agree.
lukeluckynuke123, InfinityMachine, Hellow, JDAWG9693, MADHURA, DanielSays, Potatochiper, bernie, hollieg and 21 visitors disagree.
What if one believes that blowing themselves up in a public place, murdering many people, and then does it?
To clarify, I'm not saying that there are many people that believe this, but one should care to an extent about what others believe and, especially, what they do.
What if we don't give a f*** about what others do/believe in
Not really no. I agree that ideally people should be able to make informed decisions about things. But if a parent honestly believes something is good for their child, and that thing doesn't inherently harm the child, then what right does society have to stop them?
But it is a fun thought experiment.
are you agreeing with the concept?
The point, presumably, would be people being able to look at it with a rational and reasonable reading of the information. If you indoctrinate someone their whole life to believe something, it is much easier to overlook complete nonsense.
Drawing back to my previous example, the idea that the pope is infallible is ridiculous. If you look at the available information it is fairly obvious that it is a later invention and should not be believed. But if you tell someone that it is true their entire childhood, it is much harder to look at it objectively.
what would be the point then.
furthermore, I'm sure it is safe to say that any topic, including 100% real facts, would be seamlessly adopted if pushed at a young age and would have some level of less adoption if pushed after critical thought.
and since I believe this would apply to everything real or fake, reasonable or fantastical... it obviously applies to religion as well, no matter your views on it.
Probably. Large chunks of many religions don't really make sense. Or they are just weird additions added later for.... reasons. Like the idea that the pope is infallible for example. That idea was actually 1st floated by a guy who hated the pope at the time and wanted to tie his hands so he couldn't make rules that contradicted previous popes. (The logic being if all popes are infallible, then decisions made by previous popes could never be changed.)
But if you ask many Catholics today, they believe it was always that way and makes total sense. If you only taught them about Catholicism at 18, I think most people would look at that and see it for what it is, an obvious later addition to the religion so that no one could question the pope.
If people were confronted to religion only after they are old/developed enough to think logically rather when they're the age where they even believe in santa and the tooth fairy, much more people would most likely think religion is nonsensical.
How would you enforce that? And, how would not not infringe of freedom of speech?
Will the proportion of religious people would drop?