Dawkins has his own way of thinking, like that atheist don't cause wars, religions do. That communism was a form of religion and ect.
If a free thinker can read the communist manifesto and think that this is a religion than I guess he is not really so committed to the use of reason as what he claims. I guess the French Revolution was just another religious movement as well.
Richard Dawkins epitomizes the modern atheist sentiment. You don't have to prove atheism true just keep telling other world views why they are evil and then off course that makes your views correct. I mean only a hundred million people had to die at the hands of atheist in the 20th century but that is in no way evil to him.
Give the child that same home environment, and they'll probably turn out fine even if you beat them. That doesn't make beating them not abuse.
First of all, I'm pretty sure if you beat the child you are by definition not giving them that home environment. What's more, this is a question-begging argument based on insinuation rather than evidence. I could say the same things you say about absolutely any treatment to make it sound sinister: "They'll probably turn out fine even if you hug them. That doesn't make hugging them not abuse." Perhaps it doesn't, but it certainly doesn't make hugging them abuse, either. Beating a child is abuse for a specific reason: it causes them pain. You can't just wave your hands and imply that other things are abuse without showing how it causes them pain (physical or emotional). This is especially the case because, if you read what I wrote again, you will note that I am not saying "they'll turn out fine"; I am directly saying that they will not be emotionally pained.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
First of all, I'm pretty sure if you beat the child you are by definition not giving them that home environment. What's more, this is a question-begging argument based on insinuation rather than evidence. I could say the same things you say about absolutely any treatment to make it sound sinister: "They'll probably turn out fine even if you hug them. That doesn't make hugging them not abuse." Perhaps it doesn't, but it certainly doesn't make hugging them abuse, either. Beating a child is abuse for a specific reason: it causes them pain. You can't just wave your hands and imply that other things are abuse without showing how it causes them pain (physical or emotional). This is especially the case because, if you read what I wrote again, you will note that I am not saying "they'll turn out fine"; I am directly saying that they will not be emotionally pained.
I thought it was clear how pain is caused by taking children to hellfire sermons about how terrible hell is and how easy it is to end up there. I gave two examples of such sermons. Do you think it would not be emotionally painful for a child to attend those, even if they had a loving home environment?
Tell children that God loves them unconditionally, show the children that their parents love them unconditionally, and they'll probably not be unduly troubled by what the Catechism has to say about Hell. But give children an angry, capricious God and angry, capricious parents, and the situation changes.
Do you think your "hellfire sermons" are better described by the first sentence or the second?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Tell children that God loves them unconditionally, show the children that their parents love them unconditionally, and they'll probably not be unduly troubled by what the Catechism has to say about Hell. But give children an angry, capricious God and angry, capricious parents, and the situation changes.
Do you think your "hellfire sermons" are better described by the first sentence or the second?
Neither really, because you lump the parental attitude in with the sermon. Do you think the sermons I linked to would be emotionally painful for children, even if the child didn't have "angry, capricious parents"?
@Frostdragon4.
Dawkins isn't saying that teaching religion is itself abuse, but that it easily can be. Concepts like hell, jihad, contraception being bad and abortion being bad are all beliefs that can easily, easily, cause serious problem for someone who is taught them from a vulnerable age. Most religions are fundamentally (whether they admit it or not) vindictive of those who do not believe. Dozens of wars in history have been caused by religion, and daily persecution takes place somewhere in the world, with capital punishment being inflicted on the 'criminals' commonly. Religions preach morality, but they cause much death. If we are to follow religions, we must be quite careful with how we teach it and what we teach when.
You say that religions adapts to new social realities, but how far can this go before it goes against scripture too deeply to be accepted? Many religious people already do not accept scripture as the literal word of god, so the advancement of society will either make atheists or fundamentalists of them. As far as I am concerned, organised religions are already slowly dying and we should not miss them. Instead of teaching mainly scripture, why not mainly teach general morality at least? Teach children to be open-minded, but also critical thinkers. If people want to hold faith in something they cannot verify, fine, but they have no place to enforce these views on their children, only to present them fairly.
Before we even begin this round, how much religious history do you actually know and dating back how far?
Let's take the example of the Knights Templar during their fall, knock out all the mythology stuff just what we know as fact:
1. The French king owed them money
2. He wasn't going to pay up
3. He called them heretics and homosexuals, then had the order dissolved through the Pope as a political maneuver
It seems to start with avarice or ambition in the start, then uses religion as a pretext for the justification of conquest and persecution.
There's what people say and what people do. If you look at how Otto von Bismarck engaged and started the Crimean War, along with other things he had done with his life, the real reason was mainly for power while the applied marketed reason was usually flimsy like territorial trespassing by said foreign power. Then within Chinese next with the dynastic rise and fall caters to the same notion that a "reformer" comes to power because the older dynasty was "evil" and that peace needed to be "maintained all under Heaven."
For "criminals" we have a group of people in ISIL calling themselves the chosen of God and the caliphate. It's the cultural language in how conquerors talk relative to their ambitions for world domination. This is no similar than Hitler, hence Islamofascism that was influenced by Christian missionaries and the Muslim Brotherhood of Turkey.
You can just as easily trace Nazism back to American Progressivism as well.
The question is whether it is caused by war or rather the want of control, which is still very much alive today. Some people were even just as bald faced about what they wanted such as during the fall of Byzantium. The caliph just basically told the people "I want the city, just let me have it and I'll let you just leave."
Why? Because he wanted to be a part of the Roman heritage. So it's the sense of belonging within a larger tradition and the want of the social animal to be a part of a larger group. Therefore, the part of organized religion we can see it wax and wane but also return at different points. Religions, the less restrictive they become, tend to splinter more and more. Whereas more strict religions such as Mormonism are growing by leaps and bounds. We see this through what is called The Great Awakening, which tend to be cyclical in America and other parts of the world. As interest in a culture stagnates and then emerges with greater vigor one or two later. You see this with the Welsh and other dying language groups like American Indians who are re-establishing their own cultural identities.
And then there's the whole thing about syncretism that takes place in areas like Africa and so forth, which is a whole other permutation. Going farther back, even the Doctors of the Church and several Islamic scholars were influenced not only by each other but also the ancients.
Verification for every belief isn't always necessary, if it has an emotional appeal and use. Logic only exists as it is entwined to emotion. This is why you have Scientology and other sects created and dying off all the time with the theist tree.
Here's the dirty little secret with scripture: when it's no longer convenient it gets trashed and new scripture comes into place. Texts are added to and redacted. Read some of Enheduanna's hymns in English as a perfect example. If you want specific Sumerian works with the translation and a history covering Enheduanna gives a biography of her life and work around different religions therein and within. A more modern example would be the intellectual biography Benjamin Franklin and His Gods. I would say Endeduanna and Benjamin Franklin in a frank way places into some context the malleability of experience, education, time, place, and several points within the context of religion and spiritual with intellectual growth.
The university system was born out of religious education, most theologians were generalists until the universities over time have secularized. Many orders within various churches enforce both theology degrees as well as other practical degrees for priests. So the tradition of scholasticism is there within every branch of the Abrahamic traditions. Sola Scriptura is more of a pesky thing, that can degenerate a religion such as Occassionalism within Islam to the point that became the closing of the Muslim mind on theology in a way that nothing more can be learned.
Then we also have to look at ancient religious practice in the difference between a mystery cult and say the civil religions across the ancient world and how they were applied. The point really is there is no "singular right way" to introduce a child to religion, the question is what you do during and after the child accepts or declines it.
I think this goes back to a fear of rejection by people, as well as actual abuse that young atheists have with parents who are troubled and not accepted by their religious parents is that's calling into question. My family is religious, I come out of the skeptic's tradition. I'm "accepted" by "whatever I chose." The point here is this, my own experience within a skeptical tradition will be different than other skeptics which would face much greater hostility.
The issue isn't religion, it's people. But I have a tendency to look at "forcing a kid to go to church" when they're five and state based say "they wanted to watch cartoons" versus the out and out 10 year old atheist asking to get out of parochial school and go to public school. We ascribe different rights to different ages and talk to people differently and engage situations based on different contexts stemming from the base reason.
To take to task on "general morality" versus religion. You're being utilitarian without looking at the context of why scripture tells morality stories and parables rather than "explainey" things like philosophy and why many theological works just aren't read beyond a handful. It's the reason why you can't remember that scientific formula you learned a long time ago but then I say:
"Give me a break"
"Give me a break"
You know the rest of the jingle.
It's how we function as individuals, we don't "remember" lengthy volumes. Hence why whenever Dawkins writes himself he uses imagery and polemics to get his point across. Because he knows that emotion works over cold logic. That's sales and marketing. The same reason at how envangelizers worked in the New World and Old World. They told stories that related back to people's own lives in a way they understood. Philosophy, like theology, has it's own language. Religion in part was the original corporation.
Now, just as I can say:
"Give me a break"
"Give me a break"
I too can say:
"Our Father in heaven,"
"hallowed be your name"
Can you get the gist of what I'm getting here?
It's easier to remember the jingle and get the main gist and then remember the product/lesson to apply later in mind. An interesting bit look at the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius versus some self-help books that are secular. You'll see the point I'm making by seeing their similarities.
It's marketing. The effect to transmit ideas and have people copy those behaviors from trend setters and early adopters and as that moves forward to later adopters in the cycle and the physical mechanic of people copying others is called the cascade effect.
That's why religions don't teach basic morality. People want a self-help program, no different than ancient mystery cults. That and they want to feel acceptance and be praised. This is in part why people create artistic representations of religion and so on. I can rebuff some of Dawkin's historical excentriciaies as well rather easily. As an aside, there's a style of marketing built around the evangelization model.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Life is a beautiful engineer, yet a brutal scientist.
Christianity is Child Abuse because the core premise of Christianity is that people are bad. Everyone is Sinful, no one is or can be good enough for God, so Christ had to come and save everyone. No matter how you slice and dice it, every denomination of Christianty agrees on this point, because it's the only reason and need for Christ. (the fact that redeption occured via his horrific torture and murder is also rather demented). Teaching someone that they are bad is deeply harmful - in fact, it's the same tactic abusive spouses use to keep their partners from leaving them.
I was Christian for a long time and it damaged me. Since becoming an atheist, I've found self-worth (instead of looking to an imaginary friend to provide it - shocking how that never happened). I've lost over 70lbs of body-fat and gained muscle. I was someone who could barely climb up a flight of stairs, and I ran over 6 miles last week. I stopped asking God to make me better, I stopped asking God to forgive me, I stopped asking God to help me, and I did those things for myself, and gradually taught myself that I am a good person. Fundamentally, I am good.that's a lesson you could never learn from Christ. I'm worthy not becuase of his mercy, I'm worthy becuase of ME. I'm happier, more compassionate, less likely to lie or commit other "sins" because I can;t just ask Him for forgiveness, I have to ask myself. I'm less angry, I'm a better parent, and I'm going to live decades longer because of my health. All becuase I put away my imaginary abusive friend who told me I was bad but he'd take me anyway, and found the good person inside.
Christianity is abuse. Period.
I can't really speak intelligently about other religions, but redemption is hardly monopolized by christians as a concept. At the end of the day, believing in myths can only make you blind to truth. Some religions might not take it as far as christianity into abusive, but it's clearly not good to base your life, your ethics, or much of anythign else around something that is demonstrably false.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Here's where things get problematic for me. While I don't mind children being raised with religion, I do find infant circumcision (often a practice originating from religion) very troubling....
Because it's usually not medically necessary and has no real medical benefits with the risk of long-term physical and psychological damage.
No medical benefits? um...wrong!
Foreskin harbors bacteria, thus, circumcision reduces the risk of STI's and its more hygienic. According to the WHO, circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by 60%. Holy crap - 60%!!! Oh, and it reduces the risk of penile cancer too.
Personally what I find troubling are parents that deny their infant these health benefits because their desire for their baby to have an ugly unhygienic ***** is so important to them.
Anyways, as to the topic, religion is not abusive but indoctrination is. The thing is, indoctrination usually comes in the form of religious indoctrination.
Anyways, as to the topic, religion is not abusive but indoctrination is. The thing is, indoctrination usually comes in the form of religious indoctrination.
This indeed.
I was raised religions, as where my siblings. I'm the oldest, and left the faith first. I'm a pretty logical person, and despite various attempts at guilt tripping me into staying, I eventually declared I was out of the church, and they would leave me to make my choice, or I was out of their lives.
My parents relented. The rest of my siblings grew, left the church, went back, and have suffered guilt over their choices their entire lives. This is similar to many of the experiences my friends from the church encountered (one just sent me a message on facebook, we haven't spoken in years, proclaim how he is finally free!) however my parents where young, and more liberal. In the households that where more hardline on things, there was abuse for talking back, abuse for even thinking of leaving, and in the most extreme cases, being disowned.
Religion - A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
Indoctrination - Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] Indoctrination is a critical component in the transfer of cultures, customs, and traditions from one generation to the next.
Some distinguish indoctrination from education, claiming that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
Religion when taught to children, imo, always borders on indoctrination. If I told my son as a child 'the sky is green' he would believe me. If I told him to perform in a certain manner, or a Sky Man would be disappointed with him and may send him to suffer eternally...well he would believe me.
Thats abusive, when it comes to adulthood, and attempting to extract oneself from a Religion you no longer believe in.
Here's where things get problematic for me. While I don't mind children being raised with religion, I do find infant circumcision (often a practice originating from religion) very troubling....
Because it's usually not medically necessary and has no real medical benefits with the risk of long-term physical and psychological damage.
No medical benefits? um...wrong!
Foreskin harbors bacteria, thus, circumcision reduces the risk of STI's and its more hygienic. According to the WHO, circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by 60%. Holy crap - 60%!!! Oh, and it reduces the risk of penile cancer too.
Personally what I find troubling are parents that deny their infant these health benefits because their desire for their baby to have an ugly unhygienic ***** is so important to them.
Per wikipedia:
Outside the parts of Africa with high prevalence of HIV/AIDS, the positions of the world's major medical organizations on non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision range from considering it as having a modest net health benefit that outweighs small risks to viewing it as having no benefit with significant risks for harm. No major medical organization recommends for universal neonatal circumcision, and no major medical organization calls for banning it either. The Royal Dutch Medical Association, which expresses the strongest opposition to routine neonatal circumcision, does not call for the practice to be made illegal out of their concern that parents who insist on the procedure would turn to poorly trained practitioners instead of medical professionals.
It's not quite so cut and dried as 'denying infants health benefits'.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
But yeah, cutting on infants? Probably a practice that we should take a reeeeal hard look at.
Many of the benefits noted in the Wikipedia article relate to STIs - maybe it would be better to wait and give adolescents the choice, circumcision being rather harder to undo than do.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Christianity is Child Abuse because the core premise of Christianity is that people are bad. Everyone is Sinful, no one is or can be good enough for God, so Christ had to come and save everyone. No matter how you slice and dice it, every denomination of Christianty agrees on this point, because it's the only reason and need for Christ. (the fact that redeption occured via his horrific torture and murder is also rather demented). Teaching someone that they are bad is deeply harmful - in fact, it's the same tactic abusive spouses use to keep their partners from leaving them.
There's an enormous leap from stating that all people are flawed creatures to domestic abuse, Killane.
Teaching someone that they are bad is deeply harmful - in fact, it's the same tactic abusive spouses use to keep their partners from leaving them.
There's an enormous leap from stating that all people are flawed creatures to domestic abuse, Killane.
Telling someone they're bad and they _deserve_ whatever abuse comes their way is, in fact, a tactic used by abusive spouses; a lever they wield over the abused person's actions. Telling people they're inherently flawed and sinful, and the church is their only path to Heaven, is giving the church a really big lever to wield over the actions of those people. Putting a child into that belief system before they develop scepticism is (more or less) installing a back door for other people to control their actions.
Claiming that (for example) failure to tithe is a sin is essentially extortion, if someone believes in Hell. 'Nice afterlife you've got here, shame if something was to happen to it.' There's a church in New Zealand (of a stream of Christianity apparently not far from the main) that was in the news for sending men out to collect tithes from old people that were behind on their tithing, and has EFTPOS (Electronic Financial Transactions at Point Of Sale - essentially 'pay by card') machines in their lobbies.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
It has been my experience that the people who believe themselves flawed are the honest ones. The people who think themselves good and noble those are the ones you have to look out for. Evil is always thinking it is doing good after all.
Telling someone they're bad and they _deserve_ whatever abuse comes their way is, in fact, a tactic used by abusive spouses; a lever they wield over the abused person's actions. Telling people they're inherently flawed and sinful, and the church is their only path to Heaven, is giving the church a really big lever to wield over the actions of those people. Putting a child into that belief system before they develop scepticism is (more or less) installing a back door for other people to control their actions.
Telling people that the evil they do is good is even worst. Do we live in the same universe Grant? Do you watch the news at all? This world is fulled with wife beating, sister raping, child abusers. What is so wrong with the Bible being so candid about how terrible we really are to each other?
Telling people that the evil they do is good is even worst. Do we live in the same universe Grant? Do you watch the news at all? This world is fulled with wife beating, sister raping, child abusers. What is so wrong with the Bible being so candid about how terrible we really are to each other?
You appear to be confusing:
a) accurately pointing out that rape and abuse are bad when committed
with
b) encouraging the belief that every single human being is flawed and dirty because their distant ancestor ate an apple, and should therefore do whatever the leaders of their religion command or face eternity in the Inferno
Did I actually suggest that we should tell rapists that what they do is good? I certainly didn't intend to.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Telling people that the evil they do is good is even worst. Do we live in the same universe Grant? Do you watch the news at all? This world is fulled with wife beating, sister raping, child abusers. What is so wrong with the Bible being so candid about how terrible we really are to each other?
In fact, I believe Jesus' exact words were,
Quote from Matthew 7:1-5 »
Do not judge so that you will not be judged. For by the standard you judge you will be judged, and the measure you use will be the measure you receive. Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove the speck from your eye,’ while there is a beam in your own? You hypocrite! First remove the beam from your own eye, and then you can see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye.
(Interpretation tip: When Jesus says "you", he actually means you.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You can all look at this link and then explain to me just how wrong the Bible is in claiming that evil lurks in us all.
Certainly the potential for evil exists in everyone. But so does the potential for good. I will point out again that I'm not asserting that we should not call evil out for what it is, I'm saying that Christians start from a default position of 'everyone deserves Hell, only through the unearned forgiveness of Jesus do you not burn in Hellfire for eternity'.
A goodly number of Christian sects insist that humans are stained forever by the act of their distant foremother. And that, should said humans not repent and worship the Christian God, they will be condemned to eternal punishment for that act. Leaving aside the colossal dick move that this is on the part of the Christian God, when children believe this, it opens the door for all sorts of nightmares and terrors for them.
Everybody. Constantly. It is your primary modus operandi.
"It has been my experience that the people who believe themselves flawed are the honest ones. The people who think themselves good and noble those are the ones you have to look out for." Judgment.
"Telling people that the evil they do is good is even worst." Judgment.
"Do we live in the same universe Grant? Do you watch the news at all?" Judgment.
"This is not enlightenment this is tyranny." Judgment.
"Kinda arrogant to prescribe to other people how to raise there children." Judgment.
Those are just from this thread. I could go on.
And since you apparently have no idea how wildly judgmental you are, Jesus' words become especially apropos. "Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own?"
If you're gonna paraphrase a Hunter S. Thompson title, you damn well better follow through on it.
...nnnnope.
I did not recognise the reference until you pointed it out. I thought the title was just going for literality, and now I'm wondering what that article would be like in gonzo style.
(Edit: 'like like' to 'be like', didn't even notice until it was quoted!)
I did not recognise the reference until you pointed it out. I thought the title was just going for literality, and now I'm wondering what that article would like like in gonzo style.
I have to assume that the experience of reading a lurid illustrated depiction of Hell could only be vastly improved by the copious consumption of illicit substances. Sweet dreams, Hunter!
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, there is no such leap. Again, the central conceit of Christian theology is that we cannot save ourselves, that humans are fallen and have a sin nature that we cannot overcome without help. This tactic is directly analgous to the manner in which abusive spouses systematically destroy the self-worth of their victim ("partner"). "You aren't good enough on your own" is a terribly harmful message to teach children.
@ Bakgat
There is a huge difference between recognizing that you have the potential to do evil (a healthy dose of self-awareness, since we all have the potential to do evil), and believe that you are INNATELY evil, irredeemably so in fact, without outside help. Christianity does not teach that you have the potential for evil. Christianity teaches that you ARE evil, beyond the hope of redemption, but God, through the Grace of Christ, is going to redeem you anyway, because love. That's analogous to spousal abuse,and it's #$%@!#$% terrible.
@Blinking Spirit re: Matthew 7:1-5
That's really nice poetry, but reality doesn;t work that way. We cannot have a functional society if we never punish each other for anything, and if humans all actually are sinful, that would be the end result of the proposal to remove the beam from our own eye first.If we are capable of removing the beam from our own eye, then we can redeem ourselves, and thus no need for the Cross. If we are not, then Christ is proposing anarchy with judgement to only come after death. Thanks, I'll pass. Jesus' teachings make no sense in the light of the law that he supposedly came "not to abolish, but to fulfill". Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of examples of YHWH requiring his chosen people to pass judgement (how many times is the phrase "put to death" or some variation used? It's out of control). He can't say that "not one letter" will disappear from the law and then teach in complete contradiction to the law.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"A little nonsense now and then is cherished by the wisest men."
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
That's really nice poetry, but reality doesn;t work that way. We cannot have a functional society if we never punish each other for anything, and if humans all actually are sinful, that would be the end result of the proposal to remove the beam from our own eye first.If we are capable of removing the beam from our own eye, then we can redeem ourselves, and thus no need for the Cross. If we are not, then Christ is proposing anarchy with judgement to only come after death. Thanks, I'll pass.
You mean to say that the Bible contains contradictory preachments, making it a matter of your personal whim which of those preachments you opt to "pass" on, as you put it? This is my shocked face.
If a free thinker can read the communist manifesto and think that this is a religion than I guess he is not really so committed to the use of reason as what he claims. I guess the French Revolution was just another religious movement as well.
Richard Dawkins epitomizes the modern atheist sentiment. You don't have to prove atheism true just keep telling other world views why they are evil and then off course that makes your views correct. I mean only a hundred million people had to die at the hands of atheist in the 20th century but that is in no way evil to him.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I thought it was clear how pain is caused by taking children to hellfire sermons about how terrible hell is and how easy it is to end up there. I gave two examples of such sermons. Do you think it would not be emotionally painful for a child to attend those, even if they had a loving home environment?
Do you think your "hellfire sermons" are better described by the first sentence or the second?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Neither really, because you lump the parental attitude in with the sermon. Do you think the sermons I linked to would be emotionally painful for children, even if the child didn't have "angry, capricious parents"?
Before we even begin this round, how much religious history do you actually know and dating back how far?
Let's take the example of the Knights Templar during their fall, knock out all the mythology stuff just what we know as fact:
1. The French king owed them money
2. He wasn't going to pay up
3. He called them heretics and homosexuals, then had the order dissolved through the Pope as a political maneuver
It seems to start with avarice or ambition in the start, then uses religion as a pretext for the justification of conquest and persecution.
There's what people say and what people do. If you look at how Otto von Bismarck engaged and started the Crimean War, along with other things he had done with his life, the real reason was mainly for power while the applied marketed reason was usually flimsy like territorial trespassing by said foreign power. Then within Chinese next with the dynastic rise and fall caters to the same notion that a "reformer" comes to power because the older dynasty was "evil" and that peace needed to be "maintained all under Heaven."
For "criminals" we have a group of people in ISIL calling themselves the chosen of God and the caliphate. It's the cultural language in how conquerors talk relative to their ambitions for world domination. This is no similar than Hitler, hence Islamofascism that was influenced by Christian missionaries and the Muslim Brotherhood of Turkey.
You can just as easily trace Nazism back to American Progressivism as well.
The question is whether it is caused by war or rather the want of control, which is still very much alive today. Some people were even just as bald faced about what they wanted such as during the fall of Byzantium. The caliph just basically told the people "I want the city, just let me have it and I'll let you just leave."
Why? Because he wanted to be a part of the Roman heritage. So it's the sense of belonging within a larger tradition and the want of the social animal to be a part of a larger group. Therefore, the part of organized religion we can see it wax and wane but also return at different points. Religions, the less restrictive they become, tend to splinter more and more. Whereas more strict religions such as Mormonism are growing by leaps and bounds. We see this through what is called The Great Awakening, which tend to be cyclical in America and other parts of the world. As interest in a culture stagnates and then emerges with greater vigor one or two later. You see this with the Welsh and other dying language groups like American Indians who are re-establishing their own cultural identities.
And then there's the whole thing about syncretism that takes place in areas like Africa and so forth, which is a whole other permutation. Going farther back, even the Doctors of the Church and several Islamic scholars were influenced not only by each other but also the ancients.
Verification for every belief isn't always necessary, if it has an emotional appeal and use. Logic only exists as it is entwined to emotion. This is why you have Scientology and other sects created and dying off all the time with the theist tree.
Here's the dirty little secret with scripture: when it's no longer convenient it gets trashed and new scripture comes into place. Texts are added to and redacted. Read some of Enheduanna's hymns in English as a perfect example. If you want specific Sumerian works with the translation and a history covering Enheduanna gives a biography of her life and work around different religions therein and within. A more modern example would be the intellectual biography Benjamin Franklin and His Gods. I would say Endeduanna and Benjamin Franklin in a frank way places into some context the malleability of experience, education, time, place, and several points within the context of religion and spiritual with intellectual growth.
The university system was born out of religious education, most theologians were generalists until the universities over time have secularized. Many orders within various churches enforce both theology degrees as well as other practical degrees for priests. So the tradition of scholasticism is there within every branch of the Abrahamic traditions. Sola Scriptura is more of a pesky thing, that can degenerate a religion such as Occassionalism within Islam to the point that became the closing of the Muslim mind on theology in a way that nothing more can be learned.
Then we also have to look at ancient religious practice in the difference between a mystery cult and say the civil religions across the ancient world and how they were applied. The point really is there is no "singular right way" to introduce a child to religion, the question is what you do during and after the child accepts or declines it.
I think this goes back to a fear of rejection by people, as well as actual abuse that young atheists have with parents who are troubled and not accepted by their religious parents is that's calling into question. My family is religious, I come out of the skeptic's tradition. I'm "accepted" by "whatever I chose." The point here is this, my own experience within a skeptical tradition will be different than other skeptics which would face much greater hostility.
The issue isn't religion, it's people. But I have a tendency to look at "forcing a kid to go to church" when they're five and state based say "they wanted to watch cartoons" versus the out and out 10 year old atheist asking to get out of parochial school and go to public school. We ascribe different rights to different ages and talk to people differently and engage situations based on different contexts stemming from the base reason.
To take to task on "general morality" versus religion. You're being utilitarian without looking at the context of why scripture tells morality stories and parables rather than "explainey" things like philosophy and why many theological works just aren't read beyond a handful. It's the reason why you can't remember that scientific formula you learned a long time ago but then I say:
"Give me a break"
"Give me a break"
You know the rest of the jingle.
It's how we function as individuals, we don't "remember" lengthy volumes. Hence why whenever Dawkins writes himself he uses imagery and polemics to get his point across. Because he knows that emotion works over cold logic. That's sales and marketing. The same reason at how envangelizers worked in the New World and Old World. They told stories that related back to people's own lives in a way they understood. Philosophy, like theology, has it's own language. Religion in part was the original corporation.
Now, just as I can say:
"Give me a break"
"Give me a break"
I too can say:
"Our Father in heaven,"
"hallowed be your name"
Can you get the gist of what I'm getting here?
It's easier to remember the jingle and get the main gist and then remember the product/lesson to apply later in mind. An interesting bit look at the Spiritual Exercises of Ignatius versus some self-help books that are secular. You'll see the point I'm making by seeing their similarities.
It's marketing. The effect to transmit ideas and have people copy those behaviors from trend setters and early adopters and as that moves forward to later adopters in the cycle and the physical mechanic of people copying others is called the cascade effect.
That's why religions don't teach basic morality. People want a self-help program, no different than ancient mystery cults. That and they want to feel acceptance and be praised. This is in part why people create artistic representations of religion and so on. I can rebuff some of Dawkin's historical excentriciaies as well rather easily. As an aside, there's a style of marketing built around the evangelization model.
Modern
Commander
Cube
<a href="http://www.mtgsalvation.com/forums/the-game/the-cube-forum/cube-lists/588020-unpowered-themed-enchantment-an-enchanted-evening">An Enchanted Evening Cube </a>
A lot of text and not a lot of explaining, what are you trying to say?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
I was Christian for a long time and it damaged me. Since becoming an atheist, I've found self-worth (instead of looking to an imaginary friend to provide it - shocking how that never happened). I've lost over 70lbs of body-fat and gained muscle. I was someone who could barely climb up a flight of stairs, and I ran over 6 miles last week. I stopped asking God to make me better, I stopped asking God to forgive me, I stopped asking God to help me, and I did those things for myself, and gradually taught myself that I am a good person. Fundamentally, I am good.that's a lesson you could never learn from Christ. I'm worthy not becuase of his mercy, I'm worthy becuase of ME. I'm happier, more compassionate, less likely to lie or commit other "sins" because I can;t just ask Him for forgiveness, I have to ask myself. I'm less angry, I'm a better parent, and I'm going to live decades longer because of my health. All becuase I put away my imaginary abusive friend who told me I was bad but he'd take me anyway, and found the good person inside.
Christianity is abuse. Period.
I can't really speak intelligently about other religions, but redemption is hardly monopolized by christians as a concept. At the end of the day, believing in myths can only make you blind to truth. Some religions might not take it as far as christianity into abusive, but it's clearly not good to base your life, your ethics, or much of anythign else around something that is demonstrably false.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
Foreskin harbors bacteria, thus, circumcision reduces the risk of STI's and its more hygienic. According to the WHO, circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by 60%. Holy crap - 60%!!! Oh, and it reduces the risk of penile cancer too.
Personally what I find troubling are parents that deny their infant these health benefits because their desire for their baby to have an ugly unhygienic ***** is so important to them.
Anyways, as to the topic, religion is not abusive but indoctrination is. The thing is, indoctrination usually comes in the form of religious indoctrination.
My G Yisan, the Bard of Death G deck.
My BUGWR Hermit druid BUGWR deck.
This indeed.
I was raised religions, as where my siblings. I'm the oldest, and left the faith first. I'm a pretty logical person, and despite various attempts at guilt tripping me into staying, I eventually declared I was out of the church, and they would leave me to make my choice, or I was out of their lives.
My parents relented. The rest of my siblings grew, left the church, went back, and have suffered guilt over their choices their entire lives. This is similar to many of the experiences my friends from the church encountered (one just sent me a message on facebook, we haven't spoken in years, proclaim how he is finally free!) however my parents where young, and more liberal. In the households that where more hardline on things, there was abuse for talking back, abuse for even thinking of leaving, and in the most extreme cases, being disowned.
Religion - A religion is an organized collection of beliefs, cultural systems, and world views that relate humanity to an order of existence.
Indoctrination - Indoctrination is the process of inculcating ideas, attitudes, cognitive strategies or a professional methodology (see doctrine).[1] Indoctrination is a critical component in the transfer of cultures, customs, and traditions from one generation to the next.
Some distinguish indoctrination from education, claiming that the indoctrinated person is expected not to question or critically examine the doctrine they have learned.[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indoctrination
Religion when taught to children, imo, always borders on indoctrination. If I told my son as a child 'the sky is green' he would believe me. If I told him to perform in a certain manner, or a Sky Man would be disappointed with him and may send him to suffer eternally...well he would believe me.
Thats abusive, when it comes to adulthood, and attempting to extract oneself from a Religion you no longer believe in.
Spirits
Per wikipedia:
It's not quite so cut and dried as 'denying infants health benefits'.
But yeah, cutting on infants? Probably a practice that we should take a reeeeal hard look at.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Hey, it was only semi-intentional. (I noticed afterwards and left it in.)
Many of the benefits noted in the Wikipedia article relate to STIs - maybe it would be better to wait and give adolescents the choice, circumcision being rather harder to undo than do.
Telling someone they're bad and they _deserve_ whatever abuse comes their way is, in fact, a tactic used by abusive spouses; a lever they wield over the abused person's actions. Telling people they're inherently flawed and sinful, and the church is their only path to Heaven, is giving the church a really big lever to wield over the actions of those people. Putting a child into that belief system before they develop scepticism is (more or less) installing a back door for other people to control their actions.
Claiming that (for example) failure to tithe is a sin is essentially extortion, if someone believes in Hell. 'Nice afterlife you've got here, shame if something was to happen to it.' There's a church in New Zealand (of a stream of Christianity apparently not far from the main) that was in the news for sending men out to collect tithes from old people that were behind on their tithing, and has EFTPOS (Electronic Financial Transactions at Point Of Sale - essentially 'pay by card') machines in their lobbies.
Telling people that the evil they do is good is even worst. Do we live in the same universe Grant? Do you watch the news at all? This world is fulled with wife beating, sister raping, child abusers. What is so wrong with the Bible being so candid about how terrible we really are to each other?
You appear to be confusing:
a) accurately pointing out that rape and abuse are bad when committed
with
b) encouraging the belief that every single human being is flawed and dirty because their distant ancestor ate an apple, and should therefore do whatever the leaders of their religion command or face eternity in the Inferno
Did I actually suggest that we should tell rapists that what they do is good? I certainly didn't intend to.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
You can all look at this link and then explain to me just how wrong the Bible is in claiming that evil lurks in us all.
http://www.tiki-toki.com/timeline/entry/98018/Genocides-within-The-20th-21st-Century/#vars!date=1916-11-19_10:06:24!
Certainly the potential for evil exists in everyone. But so does the potential for good. I will point out again that I'm not asserting that we should not call evil out for what it is, I'm saying that Christians start from a default position of 'everyone deserves Hell, only through the unearned forgiveness of Jesus do you not burn in Hellfire for eternity'.
A goodly number of Christian sects insist that humans are stained forever by the act of their distant foremother. And that, should said humans not repent and worship the Christian God, they will be condemned to eternal punishment for that act. Leaving aside the colossal dick move that this is on the part of the Christian God, when children believe this, it opens the door for all sorts of nightmares and terrors for them.
Since we're tossing links around, here's one for you.
"It has been my experience that the people who believe themselves flawed are the honest ones. The people who think themselves good and noble those are the ones you have to look out for." Judgment.
"Telling people that the evil they do is good is even worst." Judgment.
"Do we live in the same universe Grant? Do you watch the news at all?" Judgment.
"This is not enlightenment this is tyranny." Judgment.
"Kinda arrogant to prescribe to other people how to raise there children." Judgment.
Those are just from this thread. I could go on.
And since you apparently have no idea how wildly judgmental you are, Jesus' words become especially apropos. "Why do you see the speck in your brother’s eye, but fail to see the beam of wood in your own?"
If you're gonna paraphrase a Hunter S. Thompson title, you damn well better follow through on it.
...nnnnope.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I did not recognise the reference until you pointed it out. I thought the title was just going for literality, and now I'm wondering what that article would be like in gonzo style.
(Edit: 'like like' to 'be like', didn't even notice until it was quoted!)
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
No, there is no such leap. Again, the central conceit of Christian theology is that we cannot save ourselves, that humans are fallen and have a sin nature that we cannot overcome without help. This tactic is directly analgous to the manner in which abusive spouses systematically destroy the self-worth of their victim ("partner"). "You aren't good enough on your own" is a terribly harmful message to teach children.
@ Bakgat
There is a huge difference between recognizing that you have the potential to do evil (a healthy dose of self-awareness, since we all have the potential to do evil), and believe that you are INNATELY evil, irredeemably so in fact, without outside help. Christianity does not teach that you have the potential for evil. Christianity teaches that you ARE evil, beyond the hope of redemption, but God, through the Grace of Christ, is going to redeem you anyway, because love. That's analogous to spousal abuse,and it's #$%@!#$% terrible.
@Blinking Spirit re: Matthew 7:1-5
That's really nice poetry, but reality doesn;t work that way. We cannot have a functional society if we never punish each other for anything, and if humans all actually are sinful, that would be the end result of the proposal to remove the beam from our own eye first.If we are capable of removing the beam from our own eye, then we can redeem ourselves, and thus no need for the Cross. If we are not, then Christ is proposing anarchy with judgement to only come after death. Thanks, I'll pass. Jesus' teachings make no sense in the light of the law that he supposedly came "not to abolish, but to fulfill". Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of examples of YHWH requiring his chosen people to pass judgement (how many times is the phrase "put to death" or some variation used? It's out of control). He can't say that "not one letter" will disappear from the law and then teach in complete contradiction to the law.
- Willy Wonka
The Quote function doesn't work for me on this forum. Sorry for any confusion created.
You mean to say that the Bible contains contradictory preachments, making it a matter of your personal whim which of those preachments you opt to "pass" on, as you put it? This is my shocked face.
Which if thou dost not use for clearing away the clouds from thy mind
It will go and thou wilt go, never to return.