-14 votes

Brainwashing Kids 4 Christ! Just $39 + S/H

Check out this commercial for a creepy new teddy bear, created by "christian" Pastor John Hagee, that indoctrinates fundamentalist christianity into your unsuspecting child...


My question is, If christ/god of the bible was really real,then why the constant need to trick and scare people into believing?


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Catholics in name only

actions speak louder than words, and maybe the parents were dragging them to Church in hopes of getting help. Catholism is a very deep complex religion that children get on the level of Christ the infant, but not on a level of adults, so they do not develope of they are not taught the catechism from an adult perspective.

So happens, many of the strongest and longest volunteers in my community are the catholics.

Of course children are

Of course children are thinking individuals. However, when humans are young, we look to our elders for guidance - it's coded into our DNA that we must observe our elders in order to know how to survive. Hardly any of our functions are instinctive, therefor we must learn how to live, and it's irresponsible and inaccurate to say that a child won't pretty much eat up and believe everything their parents say, at least until they reach the typical rebellious or free thinking ages.

Theology may be one place to begin your child's "knowledge" base, and there are of course other places to begin as well. I've seen no evidence that people who were taught a religion first as a youth lived any better or worse lives than those who were taught... I don't know, language, basic physics, history, mathematics, or philosophy as the foundation of their knowledge base. It does strike me as counter-intuitive to make the foundation of your child's knowledge base a completely unscientific, non-hierarchic, dogmatic system (which can even sometimes be self-contradicting), rather than one that possesses traits like being disprovable if it's wrong or demonstrated if it's correct (an important learning tool especially for children who constantly ask, 'why' or 'are you sure.')

But I guess to each their own. I'd rather educate my children at a young age with verifiable information that works as a foundation for other verifiable information they'll see for the rest of their lives.

Yes, exactly..."until they

Yes, exactly..."until they reach the typical free thinking ages."

An atheist parent is not less instructive than a evangelical Christian or a Muslim. I'm saying instruction does not brainwash. You may instruct me all you want, and in fact I've read many of Dawkin's works, and it does not brainwash me. My Christian upbringing did not brainwash me any more than the instruction you received that led you to atheism. We get to choose, no matter our childhood instruction. Instruction as a a child helps to form a scaffold of knowledge and an approach to incorporating new knowledge. The Bible is certainly a big book of stories about people seeking knowledge and contending with God. Then just when they think they have it down, Jesus comes along and says, "Um...you weren't listening." The Bible is one big exercise in coming to grips with our own notions of logic and right/wrong. There's not closed doors in those pages. When I teach my son the Bible, I know he's not getting a tied-up-in-bows packages; he's getting a difficult, conflicted, heroic story of man's quest for God and God's quest for man.

That's perfectly fine, and

That's perfectly fine, and I'll teach a likely similar version of the bible, but I won't stop there. I'll go on to teach the other major religions and many of the less popular ones.

I agree with your premise that as youth come closer to adulthood, they develop their own manner of thinking and will construct their own worldview. I was myself raised in a fundamentalist household and it never took - I've been an atheist my entire life, so I don't discount the ability of children to overcome what can in some cases be very hard indoctrination. What I'm more concerned with is 'what is the BEST method,' not 'which method will they at least most likely survive.' It's simply my conclusion that the best method is one that is all-inclusive rather than one that is personally tailored to include or exclude information based on my own life and biases. Even though I'm an atheist, I will not take atheism for granted when instructing my children. In my view, even if they could survive it, I would be ruining some degree of their potential to best understand the world later on. Just like how most of us small government folk want the spontaneous order of the market instead of the calculated method of the technocrats who think they know everything. I don't know everything, not even close, therefor I can't in good conscience restrict the information with the intention that it will better serve my children.

I like your point that we'd

I like your point that we'd be better off focusing on best practices rather than what practices can be survived.

We've both managed to be willful adults despite our upbringings, as, I think, most children are.

I'm not sure that a Christian upbringing is somehow more limiting than an atheistic upbringing. My son has certainly read the Bible more than other religious texts, but we went through most of the Koran as a family. We tried the Bhagavad Gita, but got waylaid. I read it after college and figure maybe it's best the boy does so as well. We have several Talmud variations lying about as well as Gnostic gospels, and, like I said a couple Dawkin's books. While we haven't purposefully read these to the boy, my husband and I have read them and they come up frequently in conversation, and they're around should he want to pick them up. We also have an extensive library of legend/religious texts from Alaskan and Canadian indigenous people. Again, we haven't read them to the boy, but we've read and we discuss with him.

My husband and I are certainly evangelical Christians, and we're raising our boy accordingly. (I think I'm a fundamentalist, too, but my husband and friends say I'm not. I say they've just let the definition be taken away from them by fearful folks.)

I'm not sure where this notion that Christian parents pretend to know everything or wish to restrict information comes from. It was not my experience growing up in a Christian home; it is not the experience I think we're giving our son nor the experience I see Christian friends giving their children. I guess I just have the opposite notion of what instruction in Christianity is about. My husband is a scientist; I'm a writer/researcher. We read the latest popular science books and magazines; we do math as a family hobby in our quest come up with a unified field theory. We're fascinated by evolution and go on paleontology digs.

All this "we" stuff is not to shoot an arrow into our family, but to say that most Christian families are as fascinated by our world and the universe and trying to figure it out and to look at other religions as anyone else. I don't know why Christians get this bad rap. We're scientists and writers and thinkers and we raise our children to explore. I'm at a loss to see how letting your child have a teddy bear that quotes scripture is so threatening.

I'm sure that not all

I'm sure that not all Christians only read the bible to their children and isolate them from other religions. I'm equally sure that the overwhelming majority of the religious families I've encountered do not own a single non-Christian religious text, the household I was raised in and the many households of my extended family included. If you believe my own experience isn't commonplace, I'm not opposed to that notion.

I don't have a problem with the teddy bear as it was presented, but I have a problem with many of the things it could be saying due to the text it's drawing from.

Rest assured, no matter how

Rest assured, no matter how intelligently a child is taught, at some point the child will do something to purposely displease you to assert their independence. LOL...

What is your Fucking problem

Why are you such a Christian hating asshat??

Seems wrong to teach kids the evolution myth .. What is it? we all evolved from a hydrogen atom from the big bang .. What kinda stupid asshat would believe that .. Oh i know you have "faith" that one day they will discover the scientific proof we evolved from a hydrogen atom ... good luck with that

you are a model christionist aren't you??

So glad you are still able to use your words and debate like a grown up!

Religion hating aside,

Religion hating aside, evolution is not myth, it's fact. You don't have to be an evolution denier to believe in a god.


That must make it science right? If it's scientific, that means in order for it to be scientific, you can reproduce the same results in repeatable tests.

Oh you can't do that can you. That means it's not scientific fact. Further, if it's not demonstrable via scientific method, that means it's not proven at all, but just an unprovable, untestable hypothesis.

This is why Charles Darwin himself said evolution is neither fact nor scientific.

What else do large group of people BELIEVE is true, but is also not scientific fact and is not provable?


You never believed you were a religionist, but there you are..

Evolution is demonstrable via

Evolution is demonstrable via scientific method. Darwin did not have the means of testing as we do today. Today we the have DNA testing.

Not once did I state that evolution is a fact due to argumentum ad populum, that's your assertion. Strawmen will get you nowhere.

I know you'd like to believe that.

Unfortunately, no test has demonstrated the result of an ape evolving into a human.

No strawman. I am relying on the black and white word of the scientific method which REQUIRES reproducible tests producing the same results EACH TIME before something can be considered a scientific fact.

I apologize if your opinion is different. Your opinion is irrelevant and cannot change the scientific method. Either something is repeatably testable with the same results each time or its not. If it's not you have a working, but untestable and unprovable hypothesis that you BELIEVE is correct.

Your BELIEFS regarding evolution beyond the FACTS stated above are nice, but they are irrelevant in light of the facts which is that evolution is NOT proven fact, nor is it scientific at all beyond a hypothesis.

"Unfortunately, no test has

"Unfortunately, no test has demonstrated the result of an ape evolving into a human."

That's not what you posited originally though, is it?
What you claimed was that evolution could not be confirmed via the scientific method, which it can. It has been done countless times with bacteria. Bacteria are subject to toxins that kill 99+% of those specimens present. This is done repeatedly. Eventually said toxin has no effect on the bacteria. This is evolution proven using the scientific method. It's reproducible and you could even do it yourself quite cheaply if you wanted.

You would not need to recreate the evolution of pre-sapien to sapien to show that it occurred. As I said before, DNA testing verifies the links that were supposed to exist based on fossil records.

Humans have even been shown to have evolved within the last ten thousand years based on DNA collected from bone marrow.

Just for clarity, are you a full on creationist that believes the earth is 6,000 years old, or are you just an evolution denier without the other baggage that usually comes with it?

And for a second time, if you believe that the human immune system exists, you have to necessarily believe that evolution exists.


See my response to you below further down.

InTRA-specie MUTATION has been demonstrated and proven, you are correct.

Evolution of one specie into another has not. Sorry.

Again, I am not an evolution denier. I believe in the scientific method, probably more than you do.

Fossil records are very nice ancillary, corroborating data. DNA samples are very nice ancillary, corroborating data. But they do not prove evolution of one spieces into another. I'm sorry. That has never been demonstrated in a repeatable manner EVER. But that is what is required for it to be scientifically proven.

And until it is, unfortunately, evolution cannot be scientifically proven and remains an unprovable hypothesis that you (and I in fact) believe in.

I hate to tell you, but that means it's nothing more than a likely myth.

That's probably because

That's probably because there's no such thing as evolution from one species to another. There are small/micro evolutions that change the makeup of a species slowly over a very long time until it no longer resembles the so-called original species.

And, again, demonstrating....

That there is no repeatable test that can yield repeatable results demonstrating evolution.

Therefore, it is impossible to scientifically prove evolution.

Therefore to represent it as scientific fact or scientifically proven is manifestly false and illogical.

Incorrect, the demonstrations

Incorrect, the demonstrations of micro evolution show the functions that permit macro evolution.

If A=B
and B=C
then A=C

The functions required for micro evolution are the same as those required for macro evolution. The functions have been extensively shown to exist and so too has been documented some record of change through time of migrating species, further verified by genetic information.

If as much evidence in favor of evolution existed instead in favor of intelligent design, I'd be on your side. There's no evidence though. Intelligent design is just creationism with more advanced excuses. Currently it's the massive horde of evidence for evolution including a number of our sciences that rely on it, including medical sciences that have benefited from it... and on the other side are some people who will say basically anything to distract from the evidence that exists. "Well, show me a monkey turning into a man," is essentially the burden of proof you require except you dress it up a little more.
At some point, as the sciences advance, enough proofs will exist to invalidate this new iteration of creationism and creationists will be pushed back into an even smaller gap of unanswered questions to point to and say, "Well maybe this gap is god... you haven't explained that away yet!" I wonder if it will ever end?

Seems to make sense. But not a scientific proof.

I don't dispute what you are saying. I believe you. But that's the thing. It's a belief.

What you write is scientific proof of nothing. There is one and only one standard which needs to be met. Repeatable tests yielding predictable, repeatable results.

Don't have that? Then you don't have scientific proof. Sorry. That's the beauty of science and logic. It's conceptually simple.

So, while I don't disagree with what you write, my OPINION and your OPINION about it are scientifically IRRELEVANT, unless they can be scientifically proven.

Either you have a scientific proof or you do not. You do not. Evolution does not. I'm sorry. I know that's hard for you to accept, but that's the simple fact.

Belief in evolution as scientific fact is a religious belief as it has not been and cannot be scientifically proven. It is a likely creation myth.

You have a fundamental

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how science utilizes confirmed inference. The standard has been met several times in several ways but some bias in this particular area has disabled you from accepting it as you would in any other area.

OK. Provide an example...

...that supports your point that specie-to-specie evolution has been scientifically proven via inference.

By the way "everyone knows.... " or other appeals to authority aren't examples.

You stated it was scientifically proven via inference, so provide an example of such a proof by inference.

How about 29?

Somebody else already did the work.

Why would you assume that I would use appeals to authority or appeals to popularity when I haven't done that this entire time?

Do you realize what you just posted?

It's quite interesting, generally, so thank you for posting it.

In the intro it states:
-Precisely, almost word for word, the description of the scientific method I provided above
-They create a NEW definition of "observations" which is not compatible with traditional scientific method: "By "testable" we mean that the hypothesis makes predictions about what observable evidence would be consistent and what would be incompatible with the hypothesis."
-The imply that inference is equivalent to testing, which it is not, per scientific method, unless inference is made on repeatable test observations
-The correctly observe that "maximum likelihood" (ML) is used in scientific method
-But then they apply ML to inTRA-specie mutation and do a bait and switch, attempting to extend observations drawn on inTRA-specie mutation to specie-to-specie evolution, which is not scientifically valid.

So, the fact remains, that despite how interesting and informative what you posted was, and I thank you for that, ZERO scientific proofs were provided in the article that one specie evolved out of another.

Please point to something

Please point to something unobservable that you recognize as fact.

That's impossible.

I recognize those unobservable items I believe in as BELIEFS.

I believe the Big Bang was probably true.
I believe in God.

These things are BELIEFS, unobserved and unprovable. They are matters of FAITH, no different than your unprovable BELIEF in evolution as scientifically proven fact, when it is not scientifically proven at all and further, according to scientific method, IT CAN NEVER BE scientifically proven fact, only a scientifically unprovable hypothesis.

So gravity is just an

So gravity is just an opinion?

Now you are just being silly.

Gravity can be proven via repeatable tests demonstrating the same results each time.

Are you

Are you sure?
I saw this and thought it was right up your alley.

It is and thank you.

It requires us to define terms better.

Observable gravity has been proven scientifically. Beliefs about gravity impossible to observe is an extrapolation and not scientifically proven.

Belief in it as scientifically proven is faith based, not based in scientific proof.

While it may be likely and, in fact, even be true, it is not and cannot be scientifically proven at this time.

That said there are many repeatable tests and repeatable local observations that can be made and those repeatable tests yielding the same results each time do constitute scientific proof of that which was repeatedly tested.

GoodSamaritan's picture

So you've seen proof

that information can arise from non-information? Increasing complexity requires increasing information. I'm unaware of anyone having demonstrated that phenomenon so I'd love to read your source material that describes how such a feat is accomplished in a purely materialistic or naturalistic way.

Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father