Why do we respect religious beliefs?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Agreeing and pointing out.

Yes because your implication is that you think you are some silly errand to sort out some behavioural problem I have.

I may think it's a silly position, but I certainly wouldn't extend that to "behavioural problem"! I think you have inferred far more than I meant.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Not defined by the media but used by the media.

The definition you wish to use is the definition used by the media.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw wrote:

Oh come on! You were the one who said that "child abuse" is defined by the media to mean something other than "abuse of children"! If you've forgotten it already I suggest you read back over your posts.

I don't see your point vis a ve "abuse of children"

Well, that's pretty much all of it right there. You claim that "child abuse" means something different from "abuse of children".

Tim Robbins wrote:

No worries De Niro.

Actually, you're much more annoying when you don't try!

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

I may think it's a silly position, but I certainly wouldn't extend that to "behavioural problem"! I think you have inferred far more than I meant.

Where is your logic that silly and behavioural problems are two different things ?

The definition you wish to use is the definition used by the media.

Which media? there's a huge difference between tabloid media and reputable media. There's a huge difference between fox news, the star and wikipedia and dictionary.org.

Well, that's pretty much all of it right there. You claim that "child abuse" means something different from "abuse of children".

Yes, I think there is difference but not much.
"child abuse" is the common terminology just "science fiction" is the common terminology not fiction of science is not common terminology.

I don't see what "abuse of children" has to do with it what we are debating which is Dawkins use of "child abuse" not abuse of children.

I think abuse of children is a tangential argument.

Actually, you're much more annoying when you don't try!

Take it easy De Niro.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Which media? there's a huge difference between tabloid media and reputable media. There's a huge difference between fox news, the star and wikipedia and dictionary.org.

I don't know, Tim, it's your claim, not mine.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Yes, I think there is difference but not much.
"child abuse" is the common terminology just "science fiction" is the common terminology not fiction of science is not common terminology.

Again, those aren't comparable terms. "Substance abuse" is "abuse of substances". "Animal rights" are "rights of animals". "Science fiction" actually is a compound term - it has never meant anything but the literary genre, and was specifically coined for that genre.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I don't see what "abuse of children" has to do with it what we are debating which is Dawkins use of "child abuse" not abuse of children.

I think abuse of children is a tangential argument.

Your position appears to be that "child abuse" has only a narrow interpretation (physical/sexual abuse) - the term as commonly used in the media. Therefore Dawkins is incorrect in using the term to describe religious indoctrination. Since he is incorrect, it follows that he is probably being sensationalist, which is your original claim.

We, on the other hand, say that the phrase "child abuse" is exactly the same as the phrase "abuse of children" - that the terms means neither more nor less than it says. Dawkins, we say, believes that religious indoctrination is an abuse of children, and in debate uses the shorter term "child abuse" indifferently, and is entirely correct to do so, albeit he thereby opens himself up to misunderstanding.

The discussion about terminology is in fact at the heart of this discussion, because only your assertion that Dawkins is deliberately misusing the term "child abuse" leads on to the inference that he is being deliberately sensationalistic.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

We, on the other hand, say that the phrase "child abuse" is exactly the same as the phrase "abuse of children" - that the terms means neither more nor less than it says. Dawkins, we say, believes that religious indoctrination is an abuse of children, and in debate uses the shorter term "child abuse" indifferently, and is entirely correct to do so, albeit he thereby opens himself up to misunderstanding.

The discussion about terminology is in fact at the heart of this discussion, because only your assertion that Dawkins is deliberately misusing the term "child abuse" leads on to the inference that he is being deliberately sensationalistic.

regards,
Scofflaw

Q.1. Do you consider parents who bring their children to Church or mass child abusers?
Q.2. Do you think that most people consider people who bring their children to mass etc. child abusers?
Q.3. Do you think a good argument should be in terminology that is in common to most people?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Q.1. Do you consider parents who bring their children to Church or mass child abusers?

Going to church or Mass because your parents are going doesn't constitute indoctrination, so usually no.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Q.2. Do you think that most people consider people who bring their children to mass etc. child abusers?

No, I don't think they do - as above, neither do I. The majority of people wouldn't regard religious indoctrination as child abuse, come to that.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Q.3. Do you think a good argument should be in terminology that is in common to most people?

I think it should be held in a commonly agreed terminology. If you like to look at it this way, the same terms on each side of the equation should be the same, and should be openly stated. Obviously, that is not the same as "common to most people", which I think is irrelevant - if we were to agree to hold a conversation in Spanish, we would do better to agree that we mean Castilian (not Catalan, or Basque) rather than wrangling over who used the term "Spanish" more correctly, or whether common usage was correct.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Going to church or Mass because your parents are going doesn't constitute indoctrination, so usually no.

Well it is usually does mean indoctrination has already happened.
So can you answer on that basis?

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well it is usually does mean indoctrination has already happened.
So can you answer on that basis?

Well, no, because it doesn't. Even I went to Mass from time to time - visiting relatives in Dundalk usually. I sat when everyone sat, stood when everyone stood, much like any other child - until I turned atheist (about 7/8), and just sat there instead.

You could say it's part of the indoctrination process, but frankly it's more like an inoculation process...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, no, because it doesn't. Even I went to Mass from time to time - visiting relatives in Dundalk usually. I sat when everyone sat, stood when everyone stood, much like any other child - until I turned atheist (about 7/8), and just sat there instead.

You could say it's part of the indoctrination process, but frankly it's more like an inoculation process...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well your argument is falling apart.
You argue indoctrination is child abuse but the people who instigate it are not child abusers?
Would you have a problem with Dawkins calling them child abusers then? But allow him call the actualy act child abuse! Seems a contradiction.

Scofflaw and others, put it this way. I checked the Oxford dictionary last night:
Child abuse: noun [mass noun] physical maltreatment or sexual molestation of children.
Page 300 of the second edition (revised) published 2005.

It is ridiculous to think that all you people have been getting into a tizzy with me for questioning Dawkins' inaccurate use of "child abuse".
A very reputable dictionary is on my side. Dawkins is either using it completly inaccurate or in some sort poetic sensationalist context. But I suppose all you people know better than the Oxford dictionary.

It is ludicrous that you Scofflaw give out for people's typos and you go to such great lengths to defend such a gross misuse of a word.

Wicknight, The Atheist, Zillah, Ph, 5uspect, do you consider this definition in the Oxford dictionary inaccurate or something?

The least you could do is campaign to that dictionary to update its entry if you are prepared to give me so much hassel.

However, I doubt it's going to happen.

pH

Tim Robbins wrote:

Wicknight, The Atheist, Zillah, Ph, 5uspect, do you consider this definition in the Oxford dictionary inaccurate or something?

The least you could do is campaign to that dictionary to update its entry if you are prepared to give me so much hassel.

However, I doubt it's going to happen.

It probably will happen, much as I hate to get into pedantic 'define the word' debates you need to understand how dictionaries work. Dictionaries reflect common usage of words, they don't define them. If enough people use a word with a common understanding of what it means then that word goes in the dictionary - simple. The idea that you campaign to get a dictionary definition changed is simply ludicrous - though you're in good company here, McDonalds and the British Potato Council have both tried to campaign for a change in a dictionary definition. http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1628391,00.html


I've already given you 3 direct Dawkins quotes where he qualifies the term 'child abuse' with the word 'mental', and linked you to the BBC site on child abuse which reflects the (now common) widening usage of the term to include emotional maltreatment. I really have no idea what you're so worked up about - the phrase 'child abuse' is in common usage meaning emotional/mental abuse (see the BBC link I provide) and Dawkins usually qualifies and is careful when throwing the term around (again see the LINKS I provided).

robindch

TR wrote:

do you consider this definition in the Oxford dictionary inaccurate or something?

I never added my name to the list, but yes, the OED definition is inaccurate and doesn't cover the specific case of mental abuse, which is what we're talking about after all.

As much as one would like to, one can't define the problem into non-existence -- scaring or cajoling kids into believing stories of devils and gods is a gross and unpleasant abuse of a child's trusting nature, however you wish to define 'child abuse'.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

A very reputable dictionary is on my side. Dawkins is either using it completly inaccurate or in some sort poetic sensationalist context. But I suppose all you people know better than the Oxford dictionary.

Don't be ridiculous TR

For that to be true you would have to demonstrate that Dawkins knows that "child abuse" does not cover the type of mental abuse or mistreatment he is talking about, but he decided to use the word anyway to sensationalize the media coverage of his book.

Having read Dawkins essays and lectures on this subject, going back to the early 90s that is simply a ridiculous position to take.

From the Answers.com Medical Encyclopedia

http://www.answers.com/child+abuse&r=67

Child abuse is the blanket term for four types of child mistreatment: physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, and neglect. In many cases children are the victims of more than one type of abuse. The abusers can be parents or other family members, caretakers such as teachers and babysitters, acquaintances (including other children), and (in rare instances) strangers.
...
EMOTIONAL ABUSE. Emotional abuse, according to Richard D. Krugman, "has been defined as the rejection, ignoring, criticizing, isolation, or terrorizing of children, all of which have the effect of eroding their self-esteem." Emotional abuse usually expresses itself in verbal attacks involving rejection, scapegoating, belittlement, and so forth. Because it often accompanies other types of abuse and is difficult to prove, it is rarely reported, and accounted for only 6% of the confirmed 1996 cases.


Dawkins is arguing that raising children to believe, genuinely, in religious concepts such as Gods wrath and eternal hell is a form of mental (defined above as emotional) child abuse as it can place the child in a state of perpetual terror and guilt over their actions and consequences.

Whether or not you agree with him is up to you.

But it is utterly ridiculous to claim that he is using the wrong terminology here because currently "child abuse" is being associated in the wider public with sexual abuse.

Pedophilia is often incorrectly used by the general public and the tabloid press to refer to all forms of sexual abuse against a person under 18, when in fact it simply refers to a condition of sexual arousal triggered by a child who has not reached puberty (under 14, 15 for example). There is another philia associated with adults who are aroused by teenagers in puberty. That doesn't stop the tabloids claiming that Britney Spears in a school outfit was a "pedophiles dream", despite that being an inaccurate word to us. Would you expect doctors or social workers to start using the word in that general sense because that is what the public is doing?

Dawkins is an academic, who doesn't seem to bother much with general public trends. This is one of the reasons I think he tends to be bad in debates with the public themselves, and why he seemed genuinely surprised that the title of his book "The Selfish Gene" caused so much confusion. Dawkins takes words for their academic meaning, often being unaware of how they will appear to lay people reading his work, which does him more harm than good.

That makes it even more ridiculous to claim then that he picked the term "child abuse" to be sensational to the wider public.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

Dawkins is an academic, who doesn't seem to bother much with general public trends. This is one of the reasons I think he tends to be bad in debates with the public themselves, and why he seemed genuinely surprised that the title of his book "The Selfish Gene" caused so much confusion. Dawkins takes words for their academic meaning, often being unaware of how they will appear to lay people reading his work, which does him more harm than good.

That makes it even more ridiculous to claim then that he picked the term "child abuse" to be sensational to the wider public.

The irony is, he's in an Oxford academic, and doesn't seem to use the Oxford dictionary! Nor do you, because you have a bette knowledge than it I presume. Hillarious.
Even if Richard Dawkins admitted he used "child abuse" out of context specifically to be sensationalist and sell more books, you'd still defend him - me thinks.
I think you are a Dawkinentalist.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

"Substance abuse" is "abuse of substances". "Animal rights" are "rights of animals". "Science fiction" actually is a compound term - it has never meant anything but the literary genre, and was specifically coined for that genre.

"Substance abuse" means to use a substance in a way that causes self-harm rather than for its intended purpose.

Does this mean that "child abuse" has a similar function? (ie. Listening to what kids say, thereby wrecking your head, instead of letting them get on with their intended purpose of cleaning chimneys)

PDN

Wicknight wrote:

Strangely enough I think most children would be better off in secular schools not being molested. I didn't realise the options were religious instruction or molestation. :rolleyes:

I don't think it's an either/or choice. Some schools have managed to incorporate both into their educational system.

bonkey

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think you are a Dawkinentalist.

What page of the OED is that one one?

Tim Robbins

bonkey wrote:

What page of the OED is that one one?

It's on it's way you CAN get 790 HITS on google for DAWKINISM, so I would NOT be surprised if we had a WORD for it just lilke we ended up with Thatcherite etc :eek: :cool:

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's on it's way you CAN get 790 HITS on google for DAWKINISM, so I would NOT be surprised if we had a WORD for it just lilke we ended up with Thatcherite etc :eek: :cool:

Oh dear. Completely Capslock...

perturbed,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

:cool: :eek:

Scofflaw wrote:

Oh dear. Completely Capslock...

perturbed,
Scofflaw

De Niro, it was a JOKE for YOU to walk into :cool: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Well your argument is falling apart.
You argue indoctrination is child abuse but the people who instigate it are not child abusers?

Sigh. If going to Mass is usually not religious indoctrination, then people who take their kids to Mass are usually not engaged in religious indoctrination of their children by taking their kids to Mass.

Do you understand how those follow, one from the other?

Tim Robbins wrote:

Would you have a problem with Dawkins calling them child abusers then? But allow him call the actualy act child abuse! Seems a contradiction.

Would you prefer to wait for an answer, or do you think you'll have better luck if you conduct both sides of the debate yourself?

See above.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Scofflaw and others, put it this way. I checked the Oxford dictionary last night:
Child abuse: noun [mass noun] physical maltreatment or sexual molestation of children.
Page 300 of the second edition (revised) published 2005.

It is ridiculous to think that all you people have been getting into a tizzy with me for questioning Dawkins' inaccurate use of "child abuse".
A very reputable dictionary is on my side. Dawkins is either using it completly inaccurate or in some sort poetic sensationalist context. But I suppose all you people know better than the Oxford dictionary.

It is ludicrous that you Scofflaw give out for people's typos and you go to such great lengths to defend such a gross misuse of a word.

Wicknight, The Atheist, Zillah, Ph, 5uspect, do you consider this definition in the Oxford dictionary inaccurate or something?

I'm happy with the definition used by the Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse. Eventually someone will update the OED.

Tim Robbins wrote:

The least you could do is campaign to that dictionary to update its entry if you are prepared to give me so much hassel.

However, I doubt it's going to happen.

I don't know, Tim - that's two campaigns already. Isn't it easier just to "campaign" for you to make sense?

Tim Robbins wrote:

:cool: :eek:
De Niro, it was a JOKE for YOU to walk into :cool: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Er, OK. Thanks! Needs work, though...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

The irony is, he's in an Oxford academic, and doesn't seem to use the Oxford dictionary!

Yes it is strange (bizarre even) that Dawkins didn't consult the 2005 Oxford English Dictionary in 1994 when he first wrote about religion and child abuse.

Clearly he isn't keeping up payments on his time machine :rolleyes:

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think you are a Dawkinentalist.

I think you made an assumption about Dawkins being a sensationalist from a simple reading his book and lack of knowledge of his other writings on the subject, and that you are now refusing to drop the assertion despite it being pointed out to you by a number of posters that Dawkins has been calling this "child abuse" since the early 90s and that in the medical and academic world the type of abuse what Dawkins is talking about (emotional/mental abuse) falls under the classification of "child abuse".

But to each their own ...

Zombrex

PDN wrote:

I don't think it's an either/or choice. Some schools have managed to incorporate both into their educational system.

Hivemind187

PDN wrote:

I would think it's perfectly legal to say that there is no God and that religions are not conducive to a progressive, equal state - that's assuming you live in Ireland. You don't live in Saudi Arabia perchance?

Why should a theist's belief in hell qualify as hate speech? I believe in hell, but hate doesn't come into it. In fact, if I hated unbelievers then I would keep very quiet about my beliefs and just let them go to hell.

Firstly the constitution does not protect freedom of speech and therefore it is open to prosecution, from wikipaedia;

Guaranteed by Article 40.6.1. However this may not be used to undermine "public order or morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, the constitution explicitly requires that the publication of "blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" be a criminal offence.

Also, the theist belief in Hell stipulates (in most cases) that if you dont do the things that God syays you should, if you do not believe and hand your thought processess over to the church that you will go to hell. In essense, if you disagree with us you will go to hell.

Hell is the epitome of a place you would send someone you hate. Therefore you it qualifies as hate speech. In my opinion (since the rules regarding hate speach/crimes are so irrideemably dumb).

Tim Robbins

:eek: :cool:

Scofflaw wrote:

Sigh. If going to Mass is usually not religious indoctrination, then people who take their kids to Mass are usually not engaged in religious indoctrination of their children by taking their kids to Mass.

De Niro I said,

Well it is usually does mean indoctrination has already happened.
So can you answer on that basis?

Already.

Would you prefer to wait for an answer, or do you think you'll have better luck if you conduct both sides of the debate yourself?

What a point.

I'm happy with the definition used by the Commission to Inquire Into Child Abuse. Eventually someone will update the OED.

Because you think it suits your argument (which I don't myself) whereas the Oxford Dictionary doesn't.

Ah well if you know better than the Oxford Dictionary well then you don't even need to debate with a low life like me
:rolleyes: :mad:

Tim Robbins

Hivemind187 wrote:

Also, the theist belief in Hell stipulates (in most cases) that if you dont do the things that God syays you should, if you do not believe and hand your thought processess over to the church that you will go to hell. In essense, if you disagree with us you will go to hell.

I think you find thatis not the case if you read a bit more about theology.

Hell is the epitome of a place you would send someone you hate. Therefore you it qualifies as hate speech. In my opinion (since the rules regarding hate speach/crimes are so irrideemably dumb).

Eh no, what happens if you believe in hell but you don't believe in sending someone there even though you hate them?
Or what happens if you believed in hell and someone you loved just wanted to go there?

5uspect

We've had this argument before.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Because you think it suits your argument (which I don't myself) whereas the Oxford Dictionary doesn't.

Well, more because they're a Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, really. Defining their remit would have been more important to them than the OED getting their definition right.

In any case, I thought you said that their definition didn't support my case either?

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Well, more because they're a Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, really. Defining their remit would have been more important to them than the OED getting their definition right.

In any case, I thought you said that their definition didn't support my case either?

regards,
Scofflaw

Your definition, the ones from Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the ones that most poeple in the late late show are familiar with, the one most people refer to when the "child abuse" is referred to in conversation, yes you said it referred to clause c and d, I said I would like to see more evidence for that.
We are going round in circles De Niro...
:rolleyes: :mad:

I suggest you summarize the difference between us, as I notice you like doing that, and if I agree we leave it at that.

:rolleyes: :mad:

PDN

Hivemind187 wrote:

Hell is the epitome of a place you would send someone you hate. Therefore you it qualifies as hate speech. In my opinion (since the rules regarding hate speach/crimes are so irrideemably dumb).

Since I don't actually hate anybody, that statement is totally false.

Let's look at the structure of your argument here:
1. Hell is "the epitome of a place you would send someone you hate."
2. Christians say that the consequences of a certain action (not believing) is to go to hell,
3. Therefore Christians are guilty of hate speech when they warn you that you risk going to hell.

Let's try applying this logic to another scenario:
1. Death is the epitome of what you want to happen to someone you hate.
2. The Government warns smokers that smoking kills.
3. Therefore the Minister for Health is guilty of hate speech against smokers (including herself).

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Your definition, the ones from Commission to Inquire into Child Abuse, the ones that most poeple in the late late show are familiar with, the one most people refer to when the "child abuse" is referred to in conversation, yes you said it referred to clause c and d, I said I would like to see more evidence for that.
We are going round in circles De Niro...
:rolleyes: :mad:

Inded we are. Essentially, that's because you have decided that Dawkins is sensationalist - and as 5uspect points out, the argument has come up before, so it appears to be an idee fixe of yours. You won't change your mind about this, but you are incapable of arguing it in any sensible way - and we're now down to the level of you just being sulky and "funny" because everyone doesn't agree with you.

I'll leave out the obvious objurgation.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Inded we are. Essentially, that's because you have decided that Dawkins is sensationalist. You won't change your mind about this, you are incapable of arguing it in any sensible way, and we're now down to the level of you just being sulky and "funny" because everyone doesn't agree with you.

I'll leave out the obvious objurgation.

regards,
Scofflaw

Indeed we are. Essentially, that's because you have decided that Dawkins is not sensationalist. You won't change your mind about this, you are incapable of arguing it in any sensible way....

I'll leave out the obvious objurgation.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

Since I don't actually hate anybody, that statement is totally false.

Let's look at the structure of your argument here:
1. Hell is "the epitome of a place you would send someone you hate."
2. Christians say that the consequences of a certain action (not believing) is to go to hell,
3. Therefore Christians are guilty of hate speech when they warn you that you risk going to hell.

Let's try applying this logic to another scenario:
1. Death is the epitome of what you want to happen to someone you hate.
2. The Government warns smokers that smoking kills.
3. Therefore the Minister for Health is guilty of hate speech against smokers (including herself).

I think its fair to say that Christians don't hate anybody.
May I ask how Christians feel about those who hate or reject (in their view the idea of) God as opposed to those who believe in God but just hate him?

The RC church is clear that such people go to hell, but do Christians in general believe this and how do they feel about these sinners?

Would being angry with them and being happy that there's a hell for them to go to also be a sin?

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Indeed we are. Essentially, that's because you have decided that Dawkins is not sensationalist

How about you forget the smilies for a minute, and demonstrate that the assertion that Dawkins was being sensationalists is something other than just your opinion.

To demonstrate Dawkins was being sensationalist you have to show that he does hold to your definition that "child abuse" means sexual abuse, and that knowing this he decided to use the definition, incorrectly, anyway to generate controversy for the promotion of his new book.

Now myself and others have gone to some lengths to demonstrate to you that that assertion is very unlikely based on the common usage of the term "child abuse" in academic and medical circles and Dawkins past writing.

You refuse to accept this, yet so far you haven't offered anything to support your original assertion other than apparently your own opinion that you think he was being sensationalist.

Bringing out the 2005 OED and saying that Dawkins would have read this and therefore would have known how some see the usage of the word and therefore he should have changed his usage of the word and the fact that he didn't means he is trying to be sensationalists, is frankly ridiculous.

PDN

5uspect wrote:

I think its fair to say that Christians don't hate anybody.
May I ask how Christians feel about those who hate or reject (in their view the idea of) God as opposed to those who believe in God but just hate him?

The RC church is clear that such people go to hell, but do Christians in general believe this and how do they feel about these sinners?

Would being angry with them and being happy that there's a hell for them to go to also be a sin?

I can't answer for all Christians, but I personally believe that those who choose to reject the idea of God will go to hell.

For me to be angry with such people, or to be happy that hell exists, would in my opinion be a sin.

5uspect

PDN wrote:

I can't answer for all Christians, but I personally believe that those who choose to reject the idea of God will go to hell.

For me to be angry with such people, or to be happy that hell exists, would in my opinion be a sin.

thanks.

raido9

5uspect wrote:

I think its fair to say that Christians don't hate anybody.

Not really. I think Christians are as likely to hate/not hate anybody, just as much as your average joe on the street.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

How about you forget the smilies for a minute, and demonstrate that the assertion that Dawkins was being sensationalists is something other than just your opinion.

To demonstrate Dawkins was being sensationalist you have to show that he does hold to your definition that "child abuse" means sexual abuse, and that knowing this he decided to use the definition, incorrectly, anyway to generate controversy for the promotion of his new book.

Now myself and others have gone to some lengths to demonstrate to you that that assertion is very unlikely based on the common usage of the term "child abuse" in academic and medical circles and Dawkins past writing.

You refuse to accept this, yet so far you haven't offered anything to support your original assertion other than apparently your own opinion that you think he was being sensationalist.

Bringing out the 2005 OED and saying that Dawkins would have read this and therefore should have changed his usage of the word and the fact that he didn't means he is trying to be sensationalists, is frankly ridiculous.

It's not my definition, it's from the OED. Either Dawkins is familiar with the popular usage of "child abuse" and he is deliberately doing it to be sensationalist in which case I have no respect for him as an intellectual or he is not familiar with what "child abuse" means in popular usage, in which case I also have no respect for him as as intellectual.

Can you accept the probability that Dawkins may in fact be trying to be sensationalist?

More worrying than all this is something you said in a previous post.

In a previous post I said:

"Now, your particular quote, no I wouldn't agree with. I would prefer someone telling me about hell than actually sexually abusing me."

and then you said:
"Fair enough. I would rather the sexual abuse TBH"

Scofflaw

JimiTime wrote:

Personally, just looking at the points on this thread, Tims points have merit IMO. I do agree, that the last post was a little straw man like (sorry tim) I.E . The you condone child abuse bit. However, all and all, to go back to his original point that such a term is sensationalist, thus dawkins used to be so, can you really disagree on it. If I was to say, 'scofflaw knows that 200 children are being abused in his local school, yet does nothing about it'. What would your reaction be? Do you think I said it to get a reaction? Of course. Like it or not the term 'child abuse', generates certain images in ones head. If it doesn't in yours, you are the minority. The other point thats raised is that 'if', God does exist, then it is most definately not child abuse to educate a child spiritually.
Tim pointed out that the idea of hell is not really thought to children. I was never thought about hell. In fact, most of my christian upbringing was more like, samson and Soloman and the parables of Jesus.
Obviously I feel that teaching my child about God is not child abuse. In fact I think that relating the two are utter nonsense. Teaching your child to hate his neighbour because he is a '******' or 'prodi' etc, that will damage a child. Dawkins went for the sensationalist approach, and I think that Tim is correct in his opinion that it was purposely done to cause a stir.
Would you like me to say that you know about lots of children being abused yet you do nothing? Basically, all you could really say is, 'that statement is true but the abuse in question is not serious. Its in the form of them learning about God, and thus labelling them as a or b. They could well end up hating gays or muslims etc, because of it.' Maybe dawkins would have been wiser to say, instilling hatred, or unreasonable fear is child abuse. Generalising 'religion' the way he does, is what gets him on the talk shows etc. Can you really disagree with this?

Sorry, Jimi - I missed this post.

The bit of the discussion in question is really about whether Dawkins is being sensationalist in using the term "child abuse" - the implication being that he is not sincere when he says it, and that it is cynically done to generate publicity and sales for his books.

I've no great grá for Dawkins, because I regard him as rather doctrinaire, and frequently an embarrassment because he is unable to articulate his concepts clearly in live debate.

We know from Dawkins' writing that he does regard religious indoctrination as an abuse of children (which argument I would accept, although it is a very mild form of abuse). We know from a variety of other sources that he prefers dignity to drama (pace Tim's completely inaccurate comments). Unfortunately, drama is the lifeblood of the media, so they turn it up as high as possible - and one has to accept that as the penalty for dealing with the media.

If Dawkins were a sensationalist, as Tim contends, his books would contain the same sensationalist elements. They don't, and so I would say that Dawkins is not deliberately sensationalist, but accidentally sensationalist as most of us are when we are not able to articulate our argument to our satisfaction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Sorry, Jimi - I missed this post.

The bit of the discussion in question is really about whether Dawkins is being sensationalist in using the term "child abuse" - the implication being that he is not sincere when he says it, and that it is cynically done to generate publicity and sales for his books.

I've no great grá for Dawkins, because I regard him as rather doctrinaire, and frequently an embarrassment because he is unable to articulate his concepts clearly in live debate.

We know from Dawkins' writing that he does regard religious indoctrination as an abuse of children (which argument I would accept, although it is a very mild form of abuse). We know from a variety of other sources that he prefers dignity to drama (pace Tim's completely inaccurate comments). Unfortunately, drama is the lifeblood of the media, so they turn it up as high as possible - and one has to accept that as the penalty for dealing with the media.

If Dawkins were a sensationalist, as Tim contends, his books would contain the same sensationalist elements. They don't, and so I would say that Dawkins is not deliberately sensationalist, but accidentally sensationalist as most of us are when we are not able to articulate our argument to our satisfaction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You are hillarious. You berate me because I think Dawkins is sensationalist and you think he is accidentally sensationalist.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

You are hillarious. You berate me because I think Dawkins is sensationalist and you think he is accidentally sensationalist.

Yes, Tim. That's because your contention is entirely different, and carries entirely different implications about Dawkins. You just can't tell the difference.

regards,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes, Tim. That's because your contention is entirely different, and carries entirely different implications about Dawkins. You just can't tell the difference.

regards,
Scofflaw

Yes entirely different.
senationalist and accidentally sensationalist. Not just different but entirely different.
:rolleyes: :mad: :cool:

Zillah

Tim Robbins wrote:

:rolleyes: :mad: :cool:

...what are you doing?

Tim Robbins

Zillah wrote:

...what are you doing?

De Niro claims me and Captain Capslock have something in common.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

De Niro claims me and Captain Capslock have something in common.

...quite a lot in common...

Scofflaw

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

It's not my definition, it's from the OED. Either Dawkins is familiar with the popular usage of "child abuse" and he is deliberately doing it to be sensationalist in which case I have no respect for him as an intellectual or he is not familiar with what "child abuse" means in popular usage, in which case I also have no respect for him as as intellectual.

Why would you have no respect for him for using the correct medical definition of child abuse over the layman's ignorant usage of the term?

As I said, would you lose respect for an intellectual if he pointed out that lust after Britney Spears in school uniform is not actually pedophilia and it is not using the word correctly despite the fact that pretty much everyone now does use it to mean any sexual desire towards a minor? Or would you think it is now on academia to change how they use the term because lay people are now using it differently to how it was originally defined?

Again it is ironic that you call for a more intellectual debate but you are give out about an academic, a scientist, using a term in the correct medical sense rather than the way The Sun Newspaper might use it.

:rolleyes:

Tim Robbins wrote:

Can you accept the probability that Dawkins may in fact be trying to be sensationalist?

Anything is possible TR, but based on what I have read from Dawkins I can think of no reason to think he was trying to be sensationalist. And you have yet to present any reason yourself other than it being your opinion.

Tim Robbins wrote:

More worrying than all this is something you said in a previous post.

Why is that worrying?

Given the option between sexual abuse which at least ends and I can hopefully get on with my life (even if it is a damaged life) and eternal suffering forever, I'll take the sexual abuse please.

Its like asking would you like to be tortured for a day or go blind forever.

Each person will have a different answer, but I would rather the torture that I can hopefully recover from than never ever seeing again for the rest of my life. Others might disagree, but that is up to them.

aidan24326

Tim, can't agree with you at all. You're like a dog with a bone on this issue of Dawkins being 'sensationalist'. I don't believe he was at all. Religious indoctrination of young children is a form of abuse whenever that indoctrination promotes fear, hatred, intolerance and downright ignorance. How could it not be?

Unfortunately the term 'child abuse' tends to evoke images of young children being raped and the like, and certainly the type of abuse Dawkins is/was referring to isn't as obviously or as immediately harmful but that doesn't mean to say it isn't a form of abuse in it's own right. No child should have this stuff imposed on them.

The choice of words was very deliberate not to be sensational but to hammer the point home that religious brainwashing of children and the negative attitudes and emotions that can come with it is (potentially) a form of long-term abuse.

Tim Robbins

aidan24326 wrote:

Tim, can't agree with you at all. You're like a dog with a bone on this issue of Dawkins being 'sensationalist'. I don't believe he was at all. Religious indoctrination of young children is a form of abuse whenever that indoctrination promotes fear, hatred, intolerance and downright ignorance. How could it not be?

Unfortunately the term 'child abuse' tends to evoke images of young children being raped and the like, and certainly the type of abuse Dawkins is/was referring to isn't as obviously or as immediately harmful but that doesn't mean to say it isn't a form of abuse in it's own right. No child should have this stuff imposed on them.

The choice of words was very deliberate not to be sensational but to hammer the point home that religious brainwashing of children and the negative attitudes and emotions that can come with it is (potentially) a form of long-term abuse.

I love the way all of you can see the hidden meaning in what Dawkins is really talking about and what he's real intention was. It remind me when you pick an unfavourable verse from the Bible and the Christians tell you the esoteric meaning.
Look "child abuse" is the terminlogy we are discussing. As defined in the OED, that terminology is incorrect. It is as simple as that.

The question is why is he using incorrect terminology:

1. because he knows better than the OED?
2. because he is trying to be sensationalist?
3. because he had made a mess of point?

Dades

That's the last time I watch Brainiac: Science Abuse.

Those filthy buggers must be having sexual relations with science.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

As defined in the OED, that terminology is incorrect.

Luckily for the rest of us I guess then that speaking the English language isn't defined by the 2005 edition of the Oxford English Dictionary

http://www.google.ie/search?hl=en&q=define%3Achild+abuse&btnG=Google+Search&meta=

Funny how many of those definitions (including one from a US family court) includes emotional or mental abuse in the definition of child abuse.

Obviously they not paying attention to their OED instructions on how to speak :rolleyes:

God I cannot believe we are even having this discussion ... let it go TR

philologos

Guys can we progress the conversation past Richard Dawkins just for a second. The world doesn't revolve around him. I'm perfectly okay to accept that people have a right to hold a religion, but that is as far as I'd go. Is it the same for atheists or what? Thats what we're here to discuss isn't it?

Zombrex

Jakkass wrote:

Guys can we progress the conversation past Richard Dawkins just for a second. The world doesn't revolve around him.

Seemingly the world revolves around the Oxford English Dictionary.

Jakkass wrote:

I'm perfectly okay to accept that people have a right to hold a religion, but that is as far as I'd go.

I think that is as far as most of us go