Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Darwin Program - Does Dawkins annoy you?
Options
Comments
-
.......it was indeed erroneous of the parents to claim that the child would go to Hell because she wasn't a Roman Catholic......the critical question is whether she was saved....and only Jesus Christ knows that.Originally Posted by Wicknight
.....told by her parents that a childhood friend of hers who died young had been sent to hell by God because she and her family were not Catholics.
kelly
Shame on her parents if it's true. That would indeed cause serious psychological damage and put anyone off God.
However, the fact that Hell exists shouldn't cause us any more psychological trauma than the fact that people die in the first place.....they are both terrible realities ...........that everbody should be aware of for their own physical and spiritual safety.
Jesus Christ himself confirmed the existence of Hell (which He describes as "the fire that shall never be quenched" ) in numerous verses of scripture:-
Mt 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.
Mk 9:42-48 "But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him if a millstone were hung around his neck, and he were thrown into the sea.
"If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life maimed, rather than having two hands, to go to hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--
"where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'
"And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame, rather than having two feet, to be cast into hell, into the fire that shall never be quenched--
"where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'
"And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, rather than having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire--
"where 'Their worm does not die, And the fire is not quenched.'
We are unable to judge the eternal destiny of others...........
......and the good news is that the Saved will never see the horrors of Hell.....so they don't need to concern themselves about it at all!!!
...the Saved will instead experience the beauty and bliss of Heaven in the company of an all-loving God!!!
......and explaining the reality of Heaven should cause NO trauma to anybody......including young children!!!!!:)0 -
From time to time I read some of these religious threads but I don't have a particular interest in them really.
But from what I've read AtomicHorror has got J_C by the balls on most of the arguments and counter arguments. Unfortunately I think he is wasting his good time on you because you always have an 'answer' of some sort.0 -
......the only ones being 'metaphorically castrated' on this thread are the Evolutionists........and their unfounded idea that they are evolved from pondslime.....with nothing added but time!!!!!:pac::):DFrom time to time I read some of these religious threads but I don't have a particular interest in them really.
But from what I've read AtomicHorror has got J_C by the balls on most of the arguments and counter arguments. Unfortunately I think he is wasting his good time on you because you always have an 'answer' of some sort.
.....the pips are squeaking!!!!:D0 -
Wicknight, there are two sides to this coin. Let's assume that it turns out you're wrong about the existence of God and Hell and that you've taught your children (if you have any) that Hell is ficticious. In that cause, wouldn't your advice be extremely dangerous and abusive? Those children should, in that case, have been brought up to love God and His commandments and be made aware of the consequences of rejecting God.It is more than that I think, he sees teaching children about super powerful being who throw people into hell as literal fact is a form of abuse. A bit like constantly telling your children that if they go to the big city they will be raped.
There certainly seems to be cases where the teaching of such dogma seriously messes with children's heads, in what could be described as mental abuse, as in the case of the woman from America who wrote to Dawkins.
I think the subject of Hell and damnation needs to be approached very carefully and with love. The emphasis should always be on God's love and mercy. That God always loves us as we are and is always ready to forgive us. Only God knows who is saved or damned. Nobody knows the true state of a person's soul when they die regardless of their religion or lack of it.
Telling people they're going to Hell only puts them off God.0 -
Wicknight, there are two sides to this coin. Let's assume that it turns out you're wrong about the existence of God and Hell and that you've taught your children (if you have any) that Hell is ficticious. In that cause, wouldn't your advice be extremely dangerous and abusive?
Well not until they end up in hell.
But then you can say that about anything. Teaching them about Christianity is the same as not teaching them about Christianity if the Hindus have it correct (or some non-Christian religion that has a concept like hell in it for non-believers)
It is one of the issue of your religion, this idea that those who don't believe will face a terrible terrible fate simply for not believing.
Considering we can't know if Christianity is the correct religion (as you yourself admit), it seems better not to terrorize children about the dogma of a particular religion just on the off chance that hell actually exists.
A lot of Christians, such as PDN, don't even think children can go to hell, so it seems completely unnecessary to teaching them a specific religion for the purposes of saving them.Telling people they're going to Hell only puts them off God.
Well that is something we can both agree with.0 -
Advertisement
-
From time to time I read some of these religious threads but I don't have a particular interest in them really.
But from what I've read AtomicHorror has got J_C by the balls on most of the arguments and counter arguments. Unfortunately I think he is wasting his good time on you because you always have an 'answer' of some sort.
I'm not doing it for him :pac:
Thank you for the compliment though.0 -
.....the belief in Materialistic Evolution is ALSO based on a moral and philosophical objection to Godl!!!!:)....... human self-deception may also play a part in the belief that we are spontaneously evolved from goo.......via the zoo!!!:pac::):D......the only ones being 'metaphorically castrated' on this thread are the Evolutionists........and their unfounded idea that they are evolved from pondslime.....with nothing added but time!!!!!:pac::):D
.....the pips are squeaking!!!!:D
Wrong thread man. Go back home to BC&P for this stuff.0 -
....... human self-deception may also play a part in the belief that we are spontaneously evolved from goo.......via the zoo!!!:pac::):D.....the belief in Materialistic Evolution is ALSO based on a moral and philosophical objection to Godl!!!!:)......the only ones being 'metaphorically castrated' on this thread are the Evolutionists........and their unfounded idea that they are evolved from pondslime.....with nothing added but time!!!!!:pac::):D
.....the pips are squeaking!!!!:D
PDN has made it quite clear that we need to move such talk to the 'other' thread.0 -
How does one scientifically demonstrate that this American woman was or was not correct that the dogma of the Christian religion damaged her more than her experiences with sexual abuse?
OK, let me answer your questions as best I can, Wicknight.
Dawkins mentions one woman's experience in particular as proof of his claim. Hers is a very sad and regrettable story, and a powerful persuader to someone who is inclined to believe that most of the evil in this world stems from the well of religion. However, as above, one does not have to scientifically demonstrate anything in relation to this woman. Why? Because Dawkins' claim is against Catholicism (see the quote provided earlier), not simply her experience. In other words, he has jumped from the anecdotal and into the general. This is quite a trick.What would you consider "sound logic"?
To answer this I think it is best to look at some research that focuses on the grim area of sexual abuse. (I've taken the liberty of reproducing the research of Vox Day from his book The Irrational Atheist.)
Day first mentions research conducted by Jonathan R.T. Davidson (I'm afraid I can only provide this synopsis of the paper) which suggests that those sexually abused were much 3 - 4 times more likely to attempt suicide if they were abused before the age of 16. In the same paper, Davidson states that sexually abused women (no age breakdown) are 6 times more likely to attempt suicide then those who were not.
The findings from this research conducted by N. L.Talbot found that 67% of women over 50 who have been diagnosed with severe depression and who have also been sexually abused have made multiple suicide attempts compared with the remaining 27% diagnosed with severe depression who had not suffered sexual abuse.
Day goes on to mention a number of other reports but, to be perfectly honest, I really don't enjoy typing on the subject matter, so I'll leave it there.
On the other hand, studies such as this and this suggest that religious people are happier than the non-religious. Then there are studies such as this and this which found that religious people live longer. Finally, this report even suggests that a full religious life will give you a better sex life!
So whether or not you believe the notion of God to be a load of nonsense, there is already enough evidence to suggest that religion (and Catholicism is included here) has a positive effect on the believer. I would be interested to see if there is much in the way of evidence to suggest that bring children up as Catholics is more damaging the being sexually abused. On this matter Dicky is silent though. And for this reason, I believe it is important to emphasise that his claim is based upon his moral and philosophical objection to religion, not one based upon empirical data.
I was thinking that the question is somewhat unfair because it falls under the 'do you still hit your wife?' category. Still, I can't resist. I wonder if Dawkins had only two choices:
1) Send his daughter to a Catholic school where they would teach her from a very young age about Catholicism.
2) Send her to a school where there was no religion taught but she would be abused.
Which would he choose?
Dawkins is talking out in backside.0 -
Hold on, what are you trying to say here? So a godless heathen brings up his child to believe that god, heaven & hell are make believe. How is this dangerous or abusive? It could only be that if your all knowing infinitely merciful god punished the child for not beliving in him when the child had no oportunity to. Not very infinitly merciful now is it?Wicknight, there are two sides to this coin. Let's assume that it turns out you're wrong about the existence of God and Hell and that you've taught your children (if you have any) that Hell is ficticious. In that cause, wouldn't your advice be extremely dangerous and abusive? Those children should, in that case, have been brought up to love God and His commandments and be made aware of the consequences of rejecting God.
Yes. He has a list and I guess he's checking it twice.Only God knows who is saved or damned.
Then why do so many religions insist on doing it again and again.Telling people they're going to Hell only puts them off God.
MrP0 -
Advertisement
-
Correlation =/= causationFanny Cradock wrote: »On the other hand, studies such as this and this suggest that religious people are happier than the non-religious. Then there are studies such as this and this which found that religious people live longer. Finally, this report even suggests that a full religious life will give you a better sex life!0 -
Fanny Cradock wrote: »Why? Because Dawkins' claim is against Catholicism (see the quote provided earlier), not simply her experience. In other words, he has jumped from the anecdotal and into the general. This is quite a trick.
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that this woman's parents were not Catholics?Fanny Cradock wrote: »Which would he choose?
Dawkins is talking out in backside.
I think you are slightly missing the point.
This debate always, for some reason, reminds me of the gun control debate in America.
Anti-gun lobbiests say that having guns in the house is dangerous, and point at the cases where a child or family member has been shot with the family gun.
Pro-gun supporters point out that this is a tiny fraction of the millions of Americans who own guns, so the argument that guns are dangerous is nonsense.
To understand this issue one has to look at what each side is actually arguing. The anti-gun lobby is not arguing that everyone with a gun is going to end up shooting their 5 year old. They are still arguing that having a gun in the house puts your family at risk, it is dangerous.
The pro-gun lobby are arguing that not everyone with a gun is going to end up shooting their 5 year old.
Dawkins is doing something similar to the anti-gun lobby. I think, based on his writing, that he is well away that the vast majority of people raised in a religious family will not end up as scarred as someone who is sexually abused. But some will. His position is that it isn't worth taking the risk because religion is just nonsense anyway. We shouldn't do this to our kids
You are arguing that children raised in religious families don't come out as scarred as people who are sexually abused. That is the gun lobby arguing that people who have guns don't end up shooting their children. Both are true in the vast majority of cases, but that isn't the point of either the gun-control lobbies claims, or someone like Dawkins' claims.0 -
I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying that this woman's parents were not Catholics?
I have no reason to believe that they weren't. However, I would have questions about a person who would claim to follow Jesus and yet do such things. I guess it all boils down to what it is that makes someone a Catholic. But for the sake of argument, we can just assume that they were.I think you are slightly missing the point.
I don't believe so - though I don't suppose you would agree.
O.K. I'll give it one more go.Dawkins wrote:Once, in the question time after a lecture in Dublin, I was asked what I thought about the widely publicized cases of sexual abuse by Catholic priests in Ireland. I replied that, horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first placeI think, based on his writing, that he is well away that the vast majority of people raised in a religious family will not end up as scarred as someone who is sexually abused.
Based on his quote - and that is what we are discussing here - he is not saying this, you are. If his intent was different - and I believe there is no reason to suggest such a thing in the first place - then he should have phrased his words better.
From my perspective, Dawkins makes an extraordinary claim. He is perfectly entitled to express his opinions, of course. However, he doesn't bother to provide any evidence - other than the anecdotal - to backup this claim.
It is clear that he thinks Catholicism is bad, very bad. And I doubt that he could bring himself to admit that much good stems from religion. For Dawkins there is little in the way of charity, generosity, kindness, comfort, societal cohesion, art, science, literature or even... truth arising from Catholicism that is worth considering. Indeed, Dawkins is immune or blind to any evidence contrary to his belief. For instance, the links I provided to the studies which speak of religion's positive attributes took all of 10 minutes to find. Surely each one of those severely weakens his claim.
By applying Dawkins' criterion (if that's what you can call it), I could also argue merely from anecdotal evidence - in this case, based on the testimony of her now converted son - that the considerable abuses of Madalyn Murray O'Hair are somehow indicative of a wider immorality inherent in all non-believers. But I wouldn't do that because it a load of rubbish.
I'm afraid I'll have to ignore your religion/ gun analogy. Whereas I am a firm believer that a great deal of good comes from religion and religious institutions such as Catholicism, both on a personal and social level (and I'll temper this by admitting that it's not an institution I have a great affection for), I can only say the opposite when it comes to guns.
Listen, we aren't going to agree here. Maybe you see his words as being couched in subtlety, I simply see it as a bigoted and regrettable statement - one that he never really bothers to back up.
I think I'll leave it there.0
Advertisement