Why do we respect religious beliefs?

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: