Religion is "child abuse" ??

Dades · 03-10-2010 08:58AM

limklad wrote: »

Like it or not Atheism is a religion and has many branches just like Christianity and Islam. It core belief that there is no god. There is much written doctrines (bibles) by many prophets of Atheism, who write their doctrine about why religion is false in the many books (self Bibles/Koran).

Veganism.

03-10-2010 09:36AM

There are actually hellenic and nordic recons by the way

Loki and helios aren't quite out of the picture

MagicMarker · 03-10-2010 09:44AM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

rational wrote: »

No more wrong than the way you would potentially rear your child if you did not believe in unicorns,.

Are you saying that teaching a kid that they'd go to hell if they don't believe what I tell them is no more wrong than, for instance, never referencing hell at all in their upbringing?

I'm sorry but you really are full of shít. I don't think even you know wtf you are saying.

robindch · 03-10-2010 10:09AM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

limklad wrote: »

Quite Frankly it is abuse to call it "Religion is "Child abuse"" as you are inciting hatred and bigotry like like religious fanatics.

limklad - welcome to the forum!

Have a read of the thread before you go off the end again like that!

rational · 03-10-2010 11:21AM

I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

MagicMarker wrote: »

Are you saying that teaching a kid that they'd go to hell if they don't believe what I tell them is no more wrong than, for instance, never referencing hell at all in their upbringing?

I'm sorry but you really are full of shít. I don't think even you know wtf you are saying.

You are blaiming the UNICORN i am blaiming the parent. Thing is we are always going to have parents.

Again just because you cant understand me I am full of ****.

Des Carter · 03-10-2010 12:34PM

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Des Carter wrote: »

I totally agree but there is an explanation as to why there are so many views.

Again IF "God" exists then surely he would be so complex and outside our experience that it would be absolutely impossible to come anywhere close to fully (or even partly) understanding him?

would you not agree?

Not really, as I had a conversation with a theist the other week who was trying to convince me of gods simplicity. There are as many different hypothesis about what god is or what constitutes god as their are religions and deists who suppose to know. I don't think anyone knows and I think there is a very good reason why nobody knows, why nobody can say with any certainty and why there is no available evidence for me peruse or witness.

Again I completely agree with what you are saying but we have already agreed that "God" still exists/does not exist irregardless of what people say/teach/believe about him - so for the momentdiscardeverythin anyone ever said about God and answer the question with this in mind.

Do YOU agree with what I said in my last post?

Ickle Magoo · 03-10-2010 01:25PM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

No - and you won't rail-road me into agreeing with you by arbitrarily narrowing the parameters until they only suit your hypothesis, that's not how it works.

Mark Hamill · 03-10-2010 01:28PM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok of course their logic was flawed but so is ours as in the future more evidence will present itself and we would have looked like idiots for believing the things we believe now.

Our logic may be flawed in certain areas, but I think we can safely say, what with aeroplanes, computers and modern medicine, that its far lessed flawed than the first theists. For one thing, we know lightning is just a natural occurance, not a god in the sky with a hammer.

rational · 03-10-2010 02:17PM

I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Our logic may be flawed in certain areas, but I think we can safely say, what with aeroplanes, computers and modern medicine, that its far lessed flawed than the first theists. For one thing, we know lightning is just a natural occurance, not a god in the sky with a hammer.

you dont get it do you. You are seeing ancient peoples Gods ina literal context.

It was the way these people articulated their understanding of the transendent. In language and metaphor that was avalible to them.

Do you really think that because we have science we are more clever than ancient peoples??

400 years of scientific rationality has made up believe in our own omnipotence. If the answer is not avalible in science it cant be an answer.

Are you seriously that nieve and blind.

MagicMarker · 03-10-2010 02:20PM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

rational wrote: »

You are blaiming the UNICORN i am blaiming the parent. Thing is we are always going to have parents.

Again just because you cant understand me I am full of ****.

How am I blaming something that I don't even think exists!?!

You're talking absolute nonsense! Of course I'm blaming the parent, I'm also blaming people like YOU, because you think I should be allowed to teach a child about a bloody Unicorn creating the universe, and how they will be punished forever if they don't believe it too!

I'm sorry but of all the crap some people come here to post, you're really bringing it to all new levels of stupidity.

Improbable · 03-10-2010 02:22PM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

rational wrote: »

Do you really think that because we have science we are more clever than ancient peoples??

400 years of scientific rationality has made up believe in our own omnipotence. If the answer is not avalible in science it cant be an answer.

Are you seriously that nieve and blind.

Yes, we clearly are more clever than ancient people because we don't believe all the nonsense that they believed. Contrary to what you believe, most people do not believe in their own omnipotence. There are questions that science may never be able to answer, but that doesn't automatically make it transcendent. If the answer is unknown to science, we admit that it is unknown. We simply do not say that just because we don't know how it happened that a god must have done it.

What exactly do you mean when you say "the answer"? the answer to what exactly?

rational · 03-10-2010 02:38PM

I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

Yes, we clearly are more clever than ancient people

I see. where do I go from there. Its that kind of reductionist arrogance that has the planet where it is.

Do you know that we have managed with our cleverness and scentific rationality over the last 400 years to bring the planet to the brink of enviromental meltdown. A planet that these ancient peoples has respect for and worshipped. Yet you think you are so more clever than them.

I dont know why I am bothering at this stage,

Improbable · 03-10-2010 02:56PM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

rational wrote: »

I see. where do I go from there. Its that kind of reductionist arrogance that has the planet where it is.

Do you know that we have managed with our cleverness and scentific rationality over the last 400 years to bring the planet to the brink of enviromental meltdown. A planet that these ancient peoples has respect for and worshipped. Yet you think you are so more clever than them.

I dont know why I am bothering at this stage,

You are once again veering away from the issue of religion which is what this is supposed to be about and to be honest, I have no idea why you keep trying to do that.

rational · 03-10-2010 02:57PM

I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

MagicMarker wrote: »

How am I blaming something that I don't even think exists!?!

You're talking absolute nonsense! Of course I'm blaming the parent, I'm also blaming people like YOU, because you think I should be allowed to teach a child about a bloody Unicorn creating the universe, and how they will be punished forever if they don't believe it too!

I'm sorry but of all the crap some people come here to post, you're really bringing it to all new levels of stupidity.

I have never called what you have said stupid. I will disagree but I dont think your stupid. You just dont understand the complexity of what I am trying to explain and so look for your own first principals as comfort and surity.

rational · 03-10-2010 03:02PM

I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Improbable wrote: »

You are once again veering away from the issue of religion which is what this is supposed to be about and to be honest, I have no idea why you keep trying to do that.

You are trying to argue that

1. Ancient people believed in a number of Gods like thor etc
2. We now know that their God is thunder
3. Hence these people are stupid and we are more clever than they are because we understand things in a scientific way.

You are claiming to be clever than ancient peoples and using this cleverness as a justification of your views about religion.

You are assuming that because we know more scientific facts we are more clever than ancient people and their beliefs are stupid.

That my friend is not very clever if you dont mind me saying

You getting a euraka moment yet?

Ickle Magoo · 03-10-2010 03:09PM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

rational wrote: »

I have never called what you have said stupid. I will disagree but I dont think your stupid. You just dont understand the complexity of what I am trying to explain and so look for your own first principals as comfort and surity.

There is always the chance that it's actually you not understanding the complexity of the other points being made or the refutation of your own. You wouldn't be the first person to jump up and down and have to resort to shouting or caps lock or multiple exclamation marks claiming we just didn't get it and how could we be so closed minded and staidly dependent on evidence and science...if I remember correctly the most recent was trying to convince us that aliens built the pyramids...of course we have no evidence they didn't but, well, you get the idea.

03-10-2010 03:12PM

It took me a long time to learn, personally speaking, that if someone wasn't getting 'the complexity of something I'm saying', that's my problem and not theirs.

Improbable · 03-10-2010 03:12PM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Sorry, but their beliefs were stupid... I don't blame them, they simply didn't know better. But we do, hence we are more clever than they are. Yes, they believed in gods of thunder etc. etc. and those beliefs were absolutely proven to be wrong. And yes, I am using my claim of being more clever to justify my views on religion because as we know more and more about the world, the number of gods that have been debunked is huge. With the default position being that there is nothing rather than there is something, there is simply no reason to believe that there is any god.

What exactly is your problem with this statement? Why do you think that my view point isn't clever? Do you think that I'm wrong? Do you think that we aren't more clever today as a people than we were a thousand years ago? Or do you think that our intelligence should have nothing to do with our views on religion? If so, then what is your reasoning behind it?

03-10-2010 03:14PM

I don't know about us being more clever, but we are more knowledgable.

Des Carter · 03-10-2010 03:14PM

I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

No

What part of my statement do you disagree with?

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

and you won't rail-road me into agreeing with you by arbitrarily narrowing the parameters until they only suit your hypothesis, that's not how it works.

Im not trying to do this at all Im simpley making a statement and asking you if you agree with it - if no then what part do you disagree with.

I am not arbitrarily narrowing the parameters I am "narrowing the parameters" by eliminating any irrational arguments through criticall thinking - in this case we both agreed that a God does(n't) exist irregardless of peoples opinions/theories/beliefs and so you can answer my question without referring to what others have said.

This is how rational/critical thinking works.

03-10-2010 03:15PM

Des Carter wrote: »

- in this case we both agreed that a God does(n't) exist irregardless of peoples opinions/theories/beliefs and so you can answer my question without referring to what others have said.

This is how rational/critical thinking works.

This is completely irrelevant to any argument, but since it's the second time at least that you have used it - irregardless isn't a word. If it was a word it would mean something close to 'regarding'.

iguana · 03-10-2010 03:17PM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

rational wrote: »

You are saying that the first people who came up with religion were superstitious idiots.

I don't think anyone is calling the ancient people's who first assumed there were gods/supernatural beings to be idiots. It was a sign of their intelligence that they questioned how things were and was an inevitability in the evolution of human reasoning.

Once the first peoples started to move beyond the use of the most basic tools our thought processes changed. They started to see that specific actions effected changed. So then they started to wonder which actions effected the change they had no part in. If they could fashion tools and carry water from one place to another then they started to wonder how it rained, why the sun came up and then went down, why the moon looked different on different nights. They knew that they could make small changes so the natural assumption was that a bigger version of themselves was making the big changes.

Once we evolved to question the world about us we were on the path to finding out how it worked. But it was a path that would take thousands and thousands of years before we could evolve ourselves and our technology enough to be able to form any real understanding. So humans created stories to explain things because the mind needs explanations and these stories comforted that need.

The problem was that it didn't take much probing to work out that those stories weren't accurate. Which on the one hand was great, they weren't accurate so people sought new reasoning and started to move toward the correct answers. But on the other hand the people who had been manipulating those stories for their own benefit did not like being shown to be wrong, nor did those who believed like to let go of their comforting beliefs.

Those who challenge accepted beliefs were persecuted and either died out or eventually found ways to have their beliefs become accepted usually by a mixture of physical force and a co-opting of the existing beliefs. And when two strongly held beliefs collided when new communities met the stronger society would vanquish the beliefs of the weaker no matter who's ideas have since proved to be more accurate. This slowed down our path of real understanding. The loss of careless loss of the libraries of Alexandria in 48BCE and the willful destruction of the remaining knowledge in the Serapeum in 391 may have set back human advancement by 10-15 centuries. And the people who oversaw that were at best superstitious idiots and at worst arrogant morons.

Modern day Christianity is so clearly the bástard religion of Eastern monotheism and European paganism that any honest scholar of it's origins and beliefs can tell it has no credence whatsoever. All of it's stories have been picked and chosen to best suit the heads of church and state in existence for each of the seven Ecumenical Councils. The growth in number of primary history sources in the last 500 years show just how religious changes during the Renaissance and beyond were interlinked with the personal desires of powerful people.

People who believe in religion now are being willfully blind, especially those who believe in organised religions. We now have so much evidence that shows us the real cause and effect of the world and universe around us along with the ongoing dishonesty of most churches throughout their existence. We have real explanations but the problem is they show us that we are not special beings loved by omnipotent gods. We are just evolved organisms who live and then die and probably cease to exists. Shít happens not for a reason but just because it happens. There is no Karma, we won't be rewarded in heaven, our dead loved ones are gone from everywhere but in our memories. Our planet will become uninhabitable, our planet is not the only habitable planet. We are not that special in the universe. The universe will probably end.

People don't believe in religions because they are foolish, they believe in them because it's very hard to let go of a lovely fairy story they were raised to believe was true. Which is a pity because we don't need a magic God to love us, we love and are loved anyway. We may not live forever but we do live. Which may not be unique or special in the universe but it's damn special to me. Our species is now on the precipice of amazing discoveries. Another habitable planet last month, created parthenogenesis 5 years ago, cloned organs from stem cells soon, vastly expanded lifespans, high-speed mag-levs in vacuum tunnels. We're great, we don't need there to be gods at all because once we can understand cause and effect we can manipulate it and ultimately be better than the gods our species used to need to believe in.

rational · 03-10-2010 03:19PM

I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

There is always the chance that it's actually you not understanding the complexity of the other points being made or the refutation of your own. You wouldn't be the first person to jump up and down and have to resort to shouting or caps lock or multiple exclamation marks claiming we just didn't get it and how could we be so closed minded and staidly dependent on evidence and science..i

IM sure if I were to do a quick look I would see a few exclamation marks from yourself too. Go on now be honest. for examply the smilely face at the end of your post!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k0RzhVJSxE&feature=related Watch to the end.

As of yet I have not heard a single thing that I would nt class as the same old tired arguments for atheism. Usually revolving around unicorns, thor etc. All this kind of argument does, as I have tried to explain, is to show a deep lack of understanding of the complexity and richness of ancient cultures and absolutly nothing to foward the atheist argument. There are good arguments for an atheistic mind set. I know them. Trouble is I have heard little of these arguments on here. That is very disapointing [/QUOTE]

Ickle Magoo · 03-10-2010 03:19PM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Des Carter wrote: »

What part of my statement do you disagree with?

Im not trying to do this at all Im simpley making a statement and asking you if you agree with it - if no then what part do you disagree with.

I am not arbitrarily narrowing the parameters I am "narrowing the parameters" by eliminating any irrational arguments through criticall thinking - in this case we both agreed that a God does(n't) exist irregardless of peoples opinions/theories/beliefs and so you can answer my question without referring to what others have said.

This is how rational/critical thinking works.

You are arbitrarily narrowing parameters - asking people what colour of jumper they would buy in next if only blue jumpers were available tells you nothing and answers nothing. It's a completely pointless way of approaching any problem.

If the question is

Again IF "God" exists then surely he would be so complex and outside our experience that it would be absolutely impossible to come anywhere close to fully (or even partly) understanding him?

The answer would still be no. For all we know "god" could be a giant turtle that poops out universes none the wiser of what it does. "God" could be a particle that kick-started the big-bang. Considering that a "god" would be a he, would require understanding or that they would be complex are complete assumptions on your part based entirely on the society you were raised in. Nothing rational or critical about it.

Improbable · 03-10-2010 03:20PM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't know about us being more clever, but we are more knowledgable.

I dunno, I think as time goes by, as a race we're less willing to just explain things away by using concepts like god. I would consider that an advancement in cleverness.

Ickle Magoo · 03-10-2010 03:20PM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

If you can't post it in your own words and form a coherent argument, I'm not watching youtube videos that do the job on your behalf....and last time I looked I couldn't find an hysterical smiley.

rational · 03-10-2010 03:22PM

I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

iguana wrote: »

I don't think anyone is calling the ancient people's who first assumed there were gods/supernatural beings to be idiots.

You dont?

Sorry, but their beliefs were stupid...

Yes, we clearly are more clever than ancient people because we don't believe all the nonsense that they believed.

As willie carson would say; Theres more.

rational · 03-10-2010 03:23PM

I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

If you can't post it in your own words and form a coherent argument, I'm not watching youtube videos that do the job on your behalf....and last time I looked I couldn't find an hysterical smiley.

It was regarding the fact that you criticised my use of caps locks and ex marks.

"let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" Its from a famouse philosopher. Never mind its just religious fantasy.

rational · 03-10-2010 03:26PM

I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

iguana wrote: »

I don't think anyone is calling the ancient people's who first assumed there were gods/supernatural beings to be idiots. It was a sign of their intelligence that they questioned how things were and was an inevitability in the evolution of human reasoning.

Once the first peoples started to move beyond the use of the most basic tools our thought processes changed. They started to see that specific actions effected changed. So then they started to wonder which actions effected the change they had no part in. If they could fashion tools and carry water from one place to another then they started to wonder how it rained, why the sun came up and then went down, why the moon looked different on different nights. They knew that they could make small changes so the natural assumption was that a bigger version of themselves was making the big changes.

Once we evolved to question the world about us we were on the path to finding out how it worked. But it was a path that would take thousands and thousands of years before we could evolve ourselves and our technology enough to be able to form any real understanding. So humans created stories to explain things because the mind needs explanations and these stories comforted that need.

The problem was that it didn't take much probing to work out that those stories weren't accurate. Which on the one hand was great, they weren't accurate so people sought new reasoning and started to move toward the correct answers. But on the other hand the people who had been manipulating those stories for their own benefit did not like being shown to be wrong, nor did those who believed like to let go of their comforting beliefs.

Those who challenge accepted beliefs were persecuted and either died out or eventually found ways to have their beliefs become accepted usually by a mixture of physical force and a co-opting of the existing beliefs. And when two strongly held beliefs collided when new communities met the stronger society would vanquish the beliefs of the weaker no matter who's ideas have since proved to be more accurate. This slowed down our path of real understanding. The loss of careless loss of the libraries of Alexandria in 48BCE and the willful destruction of the remaining knowledge in the Serapeum in 391 may have set back human advancement by 10-15 centuries. And the people who oversaw that were at best superstitious idiots and at worst arrogant morons.

Modern day Christianity is so clearly the bástard religion of Eastern monotheism and European paganism that any honest scholar of it's origins and beliefs can tell it has no credence whatsoever. All of it's stories have been picked and chosen to best suit the heads of church and state in existence for each of the seven Ecumenical Councils. The growth in number of primary history sources in the last 500 years show just how religious changes during the Renaissance and beyond were interlinked with the personal desires of powerful people.

People who believe in religion now are being willfully blind, especially those who believe in organised religions. We now have so much evidence that shows us the real cause and effect of the world and universe around us along with the ongoing dishonesty of most churches throughout their existence. We have real explanations but the problem is they show us that we are not special beings loved by omnipotent gods. We are just evolved organisms who live and then die and probably cease to exists. Shít happens not for a reason but just because it happens. There is no Karma, we won't be rewarded in heaven, our dead loved ones are gone from everywhere but in our memories. Our planet will become uninhabitable, our planet is not the only habitable planet. We are not that special in the universe. The universe will probably end.

People don't believe in religions because they are foolish, they believe in them because it's very hard to let go of a lovely fairy story they were raised to believe was true. Which is a pity because we don't need a magic God to love us, we love and are loved anyway. We may not live forever but we do live. Which may not be unique or special in the universe but it's damn special to me. Our species is now on the precipice of amazing discoveries. Another habitable planet last month, created parthenogenesis 5 years ago, cloned organs from stem cells soon, vastly expanded lifespans, high-speed mag-levs in vacuum tunnels. We're great, we don't need there to be gods at all because once we can understand cause and effect we can manipulate it and ultimately be better than the gods our species used to need to believe in.

There is a lot in that post and its about as close as anyone has come to making a coherent argument for athiesm. I want to have time to respond to some of the points raised which I dont really have now.

Ickle Magoo · 03-10-2010 03:29PM

I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'

rational wrote: »

It was regarding the fact that you criticised my use of caps locks and ex marks.

"let he who has not sinned cast the first stone" Its from a famouse philosopher. Never mind its just religious fantasy.

Ya, I was talking more about the...

Y0US JUT DON@T GEsT IT!!!!!!!!!!111111111111!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

Type responses while claiming reasoned discussion. I wouldn't consider smileys or even one or two exclamation marks shouting or hysterical posting, it tends to be the posts that jump out at you due to colour, emboldened text or enlarged text - and they all tend to follow a theme that everyone else is stupid and lacking in some way for being unable to follow an intelligent line of argument while the proponent claims they are neither...it's interesting how while claiming the same old boring arguments are being used you are guilty of exactly the same MO used a hundred times before you. 'Tis all.

Religion is "child abuse" ??

Comments