Religion is "child abuse" ??

Mark Hamill

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

Des Carter wrote: »

Ok IF "God" does exist then he would still exist irregardless of what organised religions teach.

Do you agree?

Yes, but its entirely moot. If god doesn't exist, he would still not exist regardless of what is taught about him.

Des Carter

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yeah, consider it in terms of what they, as conmen, can con out of peoples. They are consider the best way to explain their hoax in order of how much profit they can make.

And, hell, even if they did consider it honestly, even if they did believe it, they are a) in the fast minority of people in the history of the world - most believers are believers because they are brought up to believe uncritically and b) from a time when the wheel was modern technology, they also considered vampires, unicorns and werewolves as real, their considerations on these are flawed to the point of uselessness because of their vast ignorance of the world and reality.

I completely agree with A and as for B we are just discussing a hypothesis/theory that religion was created by conmen I never said I believed it was.

rational

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And likewise if god doesn't exist, people would still believe as they have done since helios and loki and organised religion would still exist...

Do you not see how pointless it is in arguing that because helios or loki do not "exist" that obviously shows that God does not exist? These Gods are expresssions or articulations of ancient peoples to explain their world. They helped them make sense of their world and the nature of the divine.

They have validity for ancient peoples as much as scientific rationality has for atheists in the modern world. But you see 400 years of scientific reductionism had pushed aside anything that cant be impirically measured.

bad2dabone

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

Rational, it is my opinion that the judeo-christian God is merely the god-du-jour. The loki or helios of the current times.

On another note, Atheists are so obsessed with Unicorns because we're all secretly Unicornigists. It's a new thing.

MagicMarker

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

Still waiting on an answer to my question rational.

Mark Hamill

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

Des Carter wrote: »

I completely agree with A and as for B we are just discussing a hypothesis/theory that religion was created by conmen I never said I believed it was.

You say that about option as if it somehow discounts it.
You do that quite a bit. Point out that its only a hypothetical or something you may not be believing in thats being discussed. I dont know why you think pointing out these things means you can just ignore points made to you.

rational

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

bad2dabone wrote: »

Rational, it is my opinion that the judeo-christian God is merely the god-du-jour. The loki or helios of the current times.

On another note, Atheists are so obsessed with Unicorns because we're all secretly Unicornigists. It's a new thing.

loki or helios have validity for people of ancient times. it was the way they expressed thier understanding of the divine in thier experience and language. These Gods have valiidity as methapor even if they were seen in a literal context by these people. Do you get that????

No you dont, you want to be able to break it down as simply as you can

Loki/incorrect by ancient people= God/incorect by people today.

its just not as simple as that I am afraid.

rational

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

MagicMarker wrote: »

Still waiting on an answer to my question rational.

I ve answered it youve chose to ignore the answer because you cant understand what I am saying.

MagicMarker

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

rational wrote: »

I ve answered it youve chose to ignore the answer because you cant understand what I am saying.

You have not answered my question. You've blatantly ignored the question over and over and over again and you still continue to do so.

So I'll ask again, why should I be allowed to teach my children that they'll go to hell if they don't believe a unicorn created the universe?

rational

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

bad2dabone wrote: »

Rational, it is my opinion that the judeo-christian God is merely the god-du-jour. The loki or helios of the current times.

Even given that logic that does not discount the idea that God exists, just that the human mind is incapable of articulating what exactly it is. Therefore it uses language of the time to point the way to an understanding. it is a journey not a destination. Do you see that?

Improbable

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

rational wrote: »

So you are saying that the 5 billion people who believe in God are superstitious idiots?

Improbable wrote: »

Well of course there are, otherwise, that would mean that religion has existed without a beginning which is blatantly false. But that doesn't mean that the first people who thought it up weren't superstitious idiots and that later generations, perhaps some of them who knew better, didn't simply take advantage of the fact.

How about actually reading the post instead of trying to aggravate people for no reason...

rational

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

MagicMarker wrote: »

You have not answered my question. You've blatantly ignored the question over and over and over again and you still continue to do so.

So I'll ask again, why should I be allowed to teach my children that they'll go to hell if they don't believe a unicorn created the universe?

You or anyone else will teach your child what you will teach your child. UNicorn or no unicorn. Take away the unicorn and you will still be ****ing up your child. (Larkin again) Still be teaching him the flaws of the human condition and the goodness of the human condition. Dont you see that?

MagicMarker

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

rational wrote: »

You or anyone else will teach your child what you will teach your child. UNicorn or no unicorn. Take away the unicorn and you will still be ****ing up your child. (Larkin again) Still be teaching him the flaws of the human condition and the goodness of the human condition. Dont you see that?

So you agree that it would be wrong for me to do as I described?

bad2dabone

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

rational wrote: »

loki or helios have validity for people of ancient times. it was the way they expressed thier understanding of the divine in thier experience and language. These Gods have valiidity as methapor even if they were seen in a literal context by these people. Do you get that????

No you dont, you want to be able to break it down as simply as you can

Loki/incorrect by ancient people= God/incorect by people today.

its just not as simple as that I am afraid.

Incorrect.
I have to say i'm laughing heartily at how you cannot see that you and the ancient follows of forgotten deities are the same.
Your god is the way you express the experiences that you cannot understand. You attribute things that you experience to God, giving a supernatural being credit. Just as they did.

bad2dabone

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

rational wrote: »

Even given that logic that does not discount the idea that God exists, just that the human mind is incapable of articulating what exactly it is.

Not at all, it merely indicated that the human mind is prone to attributing things it doesn't understand to the supernatural, and prone to making up gods. do you not see?

rational

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

Improbable wrote: »

How about actually reading the post instead of trying to aggravate people for no reason...

Originally Posted by Improbable
Well of course there are, otherwise, that would mean that religion has existed without a beginning which is blatantly false. But that doesn't mean that the first people who thought it up weren't superstitious idiots and that later generations, perhaps some of them who knew better, didn't simply take advantage of the fact.

I read it. I understood it. You are saying that the first people who came up with religion were superstitious idiots. That alone shows your blatent ignorance of ancient peoples. Judging people 50 thousand years ago by what we know today and calling them idiots!!!! Please that alone tells me enough about what kind of level of debate I could have with you.

And, oh sorry these first people who believed in God/gods were superstitious idiots but of course people today who believe in gods are obviously not superstitious idiots!!!

Come on give me a break.

rational

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

bad2dabone wrote: »

Not at all, it merely indicated that the human mind is prone to attributing things it doesn't understand to the supernatural, and prone to making up gods. do you not see?

Again you use the word "understand". You dont see that you have developed a very narrow view of understanding from 400 years of scientific reductionism.

rational

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

bad2dabone wrote: »

Not at all, it merely indicated that the human mind is prone to attributing things it doesn't understand to the supernatural, and prone to making up gods. do you not see?

Lets say hypothetically every thing about existance could be reduced to a mathamatical equation. We could all look at it and say ah yea that the answer there. Where would we be? Do you think people would stop believing in a God? Do you not see?

bad2dabone

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

I feel like smacking my head against the desk.

rational

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

MagicMarker wrote: »

So you agree that it would be wrong for me to do as I described?

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

limklad

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

It is Very melodramatic and self-insecure to be calling it "child abuse."

Forcing people to believe in any view is abuse wherever it is science or religion.

If Forcing Religion is Child abuse, then Forcing Children to believe in fictional things like the "Tooth Fairy" or "Santa Clause" or the Easter bunny Abuse too as you are lying to kids. Forcing Kids to believe what the parents believe is also abuse whenever it is Atheism or Religion.

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

Abuse is forcing people to believe into something they do not believe in no matter what it is.

For Example, if Parents are Atheists and the child by the age of 14 started believing in one religion or another. Is is abuse if the parents punishes/ridicules their child just as bad as religious parents doing the same to their child when that child is an Atheist or believes in another religion or none.

I believe in Freedoms of speech and beliefs, even though there are idiots who still believe in the Easter Bunny well into their 40's. It is their personal choice and it not up to me or anyone to force them otherwise unless they are hurting others. Children are not been hurted by believing in Religions no matter how misguided the various religious community are. Just Like Atheism they are a few bad eggs that are hurting people through ridicule or use of any punishment.
There are many good people in the religious community that do not hurt others. Children also are been hurt by bad/psychotic people who do not have to believe in any religion but a lot of them do because most of the world population believe in one religious view or another usually changing the dogma of that doctrine to suit their psychotic view. If religion was not their they use something else perhaps a Sherlock Homes believing that in order to become famous they must commit crimes so Sherlock Homes will catch them.

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).
The Churches of Atheism are spreading and preaching.

http://www.google.ie/search?q=Atheism+groups&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a#hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=k0C&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&&sa=X&ei=08unTIjVKIOI4QaGmtiBDg&ved=0CBYQBSgA&q=Atheist+groups&spell=1&fp=c5d774b5e10f7e5d

Usually when I hear crap like this Religion is "Child abuse" etc from other Atheists quite frankly it is an embarrassment. I see that these extreme views of these types of Atheists are just as bad as the extremist in Muslims/Christians fanatics who are Insecure/ill-tolerant idiots who are inciting fanatical hate-ism just like groups like Al-Qaeda and christian fundamentalist.

Child abuse is a human condition, you do not need to believe in a religion or use it to do it.

rational

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

bad2dabone wrote: »

I feel like smacking my head against the desk.

You want to understand but your defination of understanding has been influenced so greatly by scientific understanding and rationality that you cant see that their may be other equally valid forms of understanding.

bad2dabone

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

rational wrote: »

You want to understand but your defination of understanding has been influenced so greatly by scientific understanding and rationality that you cant see that their may be other equally valid forms of understanding.

what?
you are now deep in the realm of mumbo jumbo.

let me try and decipher what you just said:

Science and Rationality have warped my understanding of understanding. I cannot see that there may be other, irrational ways of understanding. I don't understand how to understand.

You've given up on making sense.

Improbable

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

rational wrote: »

I read it. I understood it. You are saying that the first people who came up with religion were superstitious idiots. That alone shows your blatent ignorance of ancient peoples. Judging people 50 thousand years ago by what we know today and calling them idiots!!!! Please that alone tells me enough about what kind of level of debate I could have with you.

And, oh sorry these first people who believed in God/gods were superstitious idiots but of course people today who believe in gods are obviously not superstitious idiots!!!

Come on give me a break.

Yes, I am judging them by todays standards because people who are theists hold onto those very same beliefs that were thought up by people who didn't have a clue about what was going on around them. And as you put it, 5 billion people today still believe the nonsense that some superstitious idiots came up with.

Des Carter

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

And likewise if god doesn't exist, people would still believe as they have done since helios and loki and organised religion would still exist...

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Yes, but its entirely moot. If god doesn't exist, he would still not exist regardless of what is taught about him.

YES exactly so therefore if you are debating/discussing/trying to find evidence of Gods existence you can do this without looking at religion - religious teachings.

Do you not agree?

Des Carter

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

You say that about option as if it somehow discounts it.
You do that quite a bit. Point out that its only a hypothetical or something you may not be believing in thats being discussed. I dont know why you think pointing out these things means you can just ignore points made to you.

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.

Ickle Magoo

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

Des Carter wrote: »

YES exactly so therefore if you are debating/discussing/trying to find evidence of Gods existence you can do this without looking at religion - religious teachings.

Do you not agree?

I suppose it depends on whose god you are trying to find evidence for...that's what I find most confusing about theism/deism. I have some people telling me god is in children's smiles, other people saying their god is the one the church describes, other people have many gods, gods that think/say/does completely conflicting things - then you say that religion isn't necessary to find evidence of god while others say you can't find god without it. From my perspective it seems like nobody knows any more than I do, I'm just more honest about it.

siochain

Religion is "child abuse" ??


that is an unreal statement even given the poll options,


Sport is "child abuse" ??
School is "child abuse" ??
Life is "child abuse" ??

.............................................................?

Des Carter

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I suppose it depends on whose god you are trying to find evidence for...that's what I find most confusing about theism/deism. I have some people telling me god is in children's smiles, other people saying their god is the one the church describes, other people have many gods, gods that think/say/does completely conflicting things - then you say that religion isn't necessary to find evidence of god while others say you can't find god without it. From my perspective it seems like nobody knows any more than I do, I'm just more honest about it.

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?

Ickle Magoo

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

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.