Religious child

robindch

Czarcasm wrote: »

Your daughter is screaming for your attention OP. [...] some of the most fantastical willy waving I've ever seen on Boards [...] If this thread was an example of Atheists being rational and logical, well, it read more like a group of immature 10 year olds arguing in the school playground.

Mr Waters, is that you?

Czarcasm

Piliger wrote: »

What an appalling piece of amateur psycho babbling nonsense. Blame the parents is all you have to contribute, along with a brutal and ultimately doomed frontal assault on the child.

No amateur psychobabble about it Pilliger, I didn't even have to reach for my "Armchair Psych 101" text book. If you take the time to read my post more carefully (when you didn't read the OP's posts you missed out on the influence of the child minders!), you'll see that it's not a case of "blame the parents", it's a case of each person who has an influence over the child needs to be responsible for their own words, behaviours and actions. That means the parents should be guiding the child, and not defaulting to allowing childminders and the child's grandparents to undermine the parent's guidance.

"Brutal and unlimately doomed frontal assault"?? Jesus wept tbh, it's called reality, something which I would think any self-affirmed atheist would already be familiar with surely.

pauldla wrote: »

I quite liked it. A puckish satire of contemporary mores. A droll spoof aimed more at the heart than the head. :pac:

Nay, satire 'twas not, merely emphasising that this was more of a parenting issue than anything to do with religion or non-religion as the case may be. Was it aimed at the heart? Not intentionally, 'twas indeed aimed at the head, to have the OP consider all the variables and the issues involved, not just put it down to one single cause.

robindch wrote: »

Mr Waters, is that you?

John frickin' Waters?? That's low robin, fairness, OK my post contained traces of hyperbole, but that blustering wankbag? Geez...



I'm kidding, I'm kidding, I know what you meant, post should've been taken in the... erm, "spirit" in which it was meant :pac:

robindch

Czarcasm wrote: »

[...] my post contained traces of hyperbole [...]
I'm kidding, I'm kidding [...]

You are herewith and hereby forgiven and absolved of all sins, temporal and spiritual, related to that post.

Let the games recommence.

<blows whistle>

smacl

Czarcasm wrote: »

They seem more concerned with pitting themselves against J C to backslap each other, and when J C was gone they turned on each other and bandied about surveys and statistics in what has to be commended as some of the most fantastical willy waving I've ever seen on Boards, completely forgetting (or ignoring) about the OP's issue.

Thanks for that, but if you wander into a thread some 300 posts in you might just find it has drifted off topic some. Very noble of you to try and drag us all back on side, but I suspect the OP may have left the building some time since, given she hasn't re-visited this thread in over two weeks. I suspect your well considered advice on good parenting may fall on deaf ears, and your left with us willy wavers and atheists who are an embarrassment to atheism* :rolleyes:

*BTW, how exactly can one embarrass atheism?

Czarcasm

smacl wrote: »

*BTW, how exactly can one embarrass atheism?

OK, an embarrassment to the concept of Atheism then.

Atheists I know wouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape about J Cs innocuous ramblings as they would see no basis for his opinion and therefore would see no need to get into a self-righteous pissing contest.

Only anti-theists would give his opinion any regard, let alone see it as harmful.


Put it this way -

It's easy to spot the difference between an intelligent atheist, and an intellectual anti-theist.

pauldla

Czarcasm wrote: »

..................

Nay, satire 'twas not, merely emphasising that this was more of a parenting issue than anything to do with religion or non-religion as the case may be. Was it aimed at the heart? Not intentionally, 'twas indeed aimed at the head, to have the OP consider all the variables and the issues involved, not just put it down to one single cause.

My comment was actually a quote from a Woody Allen movie, and was intended as a comment on the brusqueness of the comment after your comment but before my comment.

It was funnier in the Woody Allen movie, and I should probably have left it there.

smacl

Czarcasm wrote: »

OK, an embarrassment the concept of Atheism then.

Atheists I know wouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape about J Cs innocuous ramblings as they would see no basis for his opinion and therefore would see no need to get into a self-righteous pissing contest.

Only anti-theists would give his opinion any regard, let alone see it as harmful.

Pedantic as it is, not even sure atheism has a concept or deserves capitalization as a proper noun for that matter. Atheists are a pretty diverse group, not subscribing to a common philosophy or dogma as theists would. Because you know some atheists that behave in one way is no indicator that this is how other atheists should behave. It's a bit like saying because you know a red head who likes marmalade, red heads like marmalade.

When faced with anachronistic reasoning that has no logical basis, many people reject religious argument.

Banbh

An insult to atheism:

I don't really understand atheism but I believe it's true.

Czarcasm

pauldla wrote: »

My comment was actually a quote from a Woody Allen movie, and was intended as a comment on the brusqueness of the comment after your comment but before my comment.

It was funnier in the Woody Allen movie, and I should probably have left it there.

Ahh, I just didn't get the reference, Woody Allen humor not my bag at all, far too subtle, Spike Milligan on the other hand

But yeah, a bit of googling later and it seems Woody too thought it was one of his funniest movies (Really, would it be that hard? ) -

Love and Death is a 1975 comedy film by Woody Allen. It is a satire on Russian literature starring Allen and Diane Keaton as Boris and Sonja, respectively, Russians living during the Napoleonic Era who engage in mock-serious philosophical debates. Allen considered it the funniest film he had made to that time.

Wikipedia


(My sister in law was mad into his work and that of Jack Kerouac during her angst-riddled teenage years, far too high brow for me, but still made for entertaining viewing/reading... sort of... :pac:)

Czarcasm

smacl wrote: »

Pedantic as it is, not even sure atheism has a concept or deserves capitalization as a proper noun for that matter. Atheists are a pretty diverse group, not subscribing to a common philosophy or dogma as theists would. Because you know some atheists that behave in one way is no indicator that this is how other atheists should behave. It's a bit like saying because you know a red head who likes marmalade, red heads like marmalade.

That's a poor analogy there smac, and it also misrepresents what I said. I mean, I loathe pedant philosophy but if you want to go there, the very fact that you can put a name to it means Atheism is indeed a concept (we could discuss all day whether it deserves capitalisation as a proper noun or not, but it's just my thing that I would be respectful of Atheism).

When faced with anachronistic reasoning that has no logical basis, many people reject religious argument.

Do many Atheists reject religious argument though? I would suggest it would be more anti-theists would reject a religious argument, whereas for Atheists, they would see religious argument for what it is - an illogical fallacy that derails a discussion, and that's exactly what J C did for nearly 20 pages of this thread, made for cringeworthy reading tbh to see all the anti-theists dance to his tune, but obviously he has form in this forum (I'm not in here often enough to have been subjected to more of his philosophy, and might I say thank fcuk for that!).

smacl

Czarcasm wrote: »

Do many Atheists reject religious argument though?

What exactly do you mean by the term Atheist, in its capitalized form, as a term that deserves respect? Do you think other people who use the word Atheist as a proper noun have the same understanding as you do of its meaning? While I'm aware there are many people with varying agendas that would like the word atheist to mean more, and treat the word as a proper noun, I think it is both ambiguous and incorrect, as to do so implies common attributes, beyond lack of belief in a deity, that may not exist.

Personally, I tend to reject religious argument because I don't believe in a God or god, or any of the surrounding mythology. I'm antitheist insofar as I will not tolerate anyone trying to force their religion on me or my family. I'm also a secularist insofar as I don't believe any religion should influence the running of the state or our education system.

Czarcasm

smacl wrote: »

What exactly do you mean by the term Atheist, in its capitalized form, as a term that deserves respect? Do you think other people who use the word Atheist as a proper noun have the same understanding as you do of its meaning? While I'm aware there are many people with varying agendas that would like the word atheist to mean more, and treat the word as a proper noun, I think it is both ambiguous and incorrect, as to do so implies common attributes, beyond lack of belief in a deity, that may not exist.

The bolded bit there, is my understanding of Atheism, nothing more, nothing less. Now, I know what you mean by people with many different agendas trying to pull in all sorts of ideas about social philosophy under the term "atheism" and try to make Atheism some sort of humanitarian ideal that separates them from, well, atheists who they perceive to be individuals of a lesser intellect or lesser "enlightened" individuals, and that's what I understand to be "atheism+" (In other words, a ball of shìte for a minority of atheists who think they're better than everyone else), but no, that wouldn't be the definition of Atheism for me at all. Atheism stands on it's own as a concept - a lack of belief in a deity. Anything else is just people just looking to segregate themselves from mainstream Atheism - elitists, if you will.

Personally, I tend to reject religious argument because I don't believe in a God or god, or any of the surrounding mythology. I'm antitheist insofar as I will not tolerate anyone trying to force their religion on me or my family.

You and I actually aren't all that different smac - I too would be somewhat anti-theist in that I would tend to reject any opinion about a humanitarian issue that I sense is based on religious arguments. Religion and faith have no place in a discussion because for me, faith is a personal philosophy, and a person should be able to form a cogent and logical argument without resorting to fallacies.

I'm also a secularist insofar as I don't believe any religion should influence the running of the state or our education system.

I too would be secularist (and I have often argued and advocated secularism in education and government) as I don't believe religion should influence running of the State or our education system. That again goes back to my somewhat anti-theist ideology in that I believe legislation and education based on religious philosophy and faith should not be forced upon those people who do not share the basis of that philosophy.

This is why, even though I am RC myself, I would fully support the OP in raising her child without indoctrinating them with ideas and philosophies in which the OP herself does not agree with.

Piliger

Czarcasm wrote: »

No amateur psychobabble about it Pilliger, I didn't even have to reach for my "Armchair Psych 101" text book. If you take the time to read my post more carefully (when you didn't read the OP's posts you missed out on the influence of the child minders!), you'll see that it's not a case of "blame the parents", it's a case of each person who has an influence over the child needs to be responsible for their own words, behaviours and actions. That means the parents should be guiding the child, and not defaulting to allowing childminders and the child's grandparents to undermine the parent's guidance.

You talk like someone who has either never had children or one who has lived both a privileged and controlled life where children had no exposure to the outside world. Neither is normal and your patronising opinions reeks of unearned smugness I'm afraid. How you can suggest that a child not be exposed to grandparents, and expect all parents to be home and not use any kind of child care just beggars belief.
You also fault me for missing some points by the OP, yet your response to the OP ignores every one of the OP's posts.

"Brutal and unlimately doomed frontal assault"?? Jesus wept tbh, it's called reality, something which I would think any self-affirmed atheist would already be familiar with surely.

The child is five for goodness sakes. Are you for real ?

Piliger

smacl wrote: »

On mature reflection, my point re 1000 obs not being enough for an opinion poll may have been **cough** wrong.

I am confused by your 'admission', considering your original comment made no such claim.

"A sample of 1000 out of a population of 4.5 million represents just 0.02% of the total. While it might give qualitative results if what you're measuring is known to have a normal distribution across the population, quantitative results are prone to large unknown errors. If the data has an uneven distribution based on geography, you need to know where the sample was drawn from. e.g. Urban vs Rural, outside a shopping center vs outside a church gate. "

Piliger

smacl wrote: »

Pedantic as it is, not even sure atheism has a concept or deserves capitalization as a proper noun for that matter. Atheists are a pretty diverse group, not subscribing to a common philosophy or dogma as theists would. Because you know some atheists that behave in one way is no indicator that this is how other atheists should behave. It's a bit like saying because you know a red head who likes marmalade, red heads like marmalade.

When faced with anachronistic reasoning that has no logical basis, many people reject religious argument.

What can one expect from a theist who wanders in and immediately starts patronising this kind and that kind of Atheist without evidently even understanding what the word even means.
Being a theist is evidence enough of an inability to rationally analyse or prognosticate. But then again this is what theists do isn't it ?
Their inner nature struggles against the irrationality of their 'faith' and in an effort to reconcile themselves, they try to label atheists in any way they can so as to give them any justification for their bewildering belief in all powerful alien beings who control every atom in the universe, control the daily lives of >7bn people on this planet alone 24/7/365 and listen to everyone's 'prayers' while choosing to grant some and reject others based on some capricious and cruel judgement criteria.

Your analogy is very good. Trying to cubby hole atheists is like trying to cubby hole 'people who don't like football' as a 'class' of people. It is just such a comical and self ridiculing activity.

Piliger

Czarcasm wrote: »

That again goes back to my somewhat anti-theist ideology.... This is why, even though I am RC myself....

With respect ... do you know the meaning of the language you are using at all ? How can you possibly be anti-theist and also be catholic ?

Piliger

Piliger wrote: »

With respect ... do you know the meaning of the language you are using at all ? How can you possibly be anti-theist and also be catholic ?

Sure we had someone in here before who didn't believe in god but was adamant they were RC

Turtwig

smacl wrote: »

Piliger wrote: »

I am confused by your 'admission'. . .

...At a thousand, the sample size is small, which weakens the result, ...

This was the bit other pedants took issue with. They both agree with each other though.

Piliger

bluewolf wrote: »

Sure we had someone in here before who didn't believe in god but was adamant they were RC

I know some people like to keep their options open ... but duh ??

Czarcasm

Piliger wrote: »

You talk like someone who has either never had children or one who has lived both a privileged and controlled life where children had no exposure to the outside world.

You couldn't be further from the the truth there Pilliger. Well, you could, but lets try and stick to the facts, like the fact that you missed the part in my post where I mentioned that I do indeed have a child. I come from a middle class background, was plenty exposed to the outside world. Controlled? Hmm, possibly, but then again I'll freely admit I was never one to be controlled.

Neither is normal and your patronising opinions reeks of unearned smugness I'm afraid.

"Normal"? I find that "normal" is definitely one of those words that means different things to different people. One person's normal is another person's madness. Depends on the individual's perspective I suppose. If anyone could be perceived as being smug btw it's the person that fires off their opinion without even reading what's been posted in the thread. I read all 25 pages before I commented. You don't appear to have read anything.

How you can suggest that a child not be exposed to grandparents, and expect all parents to be home and not use any kind of child care just beggars belief.

Ehh? I never said nor suggested any such nonsense. Why are you making stuff up?

You also fault me for missing some points by the OP, yet your response to the OP ignores every one of the OP's posts.

In your opinion. Actually I wonder how you even came to that conclusion when it's blatantly obvious that not only have you not read the OP's posts, but you haven't read mine either.

The child is five for goodness sakes. Are you for real ?

The child is ten -

Rosina1969 wrote: »

Hi, my daughter is 10...

And yes, I'm very much for real (I could've been a smart bastard and said "No, I'm posting this from my ethereal armchair!", but I'm not sure you'd have appreciated the humour).

Piliger

Czarcasm wrote: »

You couldn't be further from the the truth there Pilliger. Well, you could, but lets try and stick to the facts, like the fact that you missed the part in my post where I mentioned that I do indeed have a child. I come from a middle class background, was plenty exposed to the outside world. Controlled? Hmm, possibly, but then again I'll freely admit I was never one to be controlled.

yet you criticise the parents for not being the sole guiding force in her life... you can't have it both ways.

"Normal"? I find that "normal" is definitely one of those words that means different things to different people. One person's normal is another person's madness. Depends on the individual's perspective I suppose. If anyone could be perceived as being smug btw it's the person that fires off their opinion without even reading what's been posted in the thread. I read all 25 pages before I commented. You don't appear to have read anything.

The reverse is the case.

Ehh? I never said nor suggested any such nonsense. Why are you making stuff up?

Because it is what you criticised the OP for.

In your opinion. Actually I wonder how you even came to that conclusion when it's blatantly obvious that not only have you not read the OP's posts, but you haven't read mine either.

The facts speak for themselves.

The child is ten -

Yes you got me. My mistake.

And yes, I'm very much for real (I could've been a smart bastard and said "No, I'm posting this from my ethereal armchair!", but I'm not sure you'd have appreciated the humour).

Hilarious...

Czarcasm

Piliger wrote: »

With respect ... do you know the meaning of the language you are using at all ? How can you possibly be anti-theist and also be catholic ?

Yes Pilliger, I do know the meaning of the language I'm using. With respect I don't think you're reading the full context of my posts where I said I am somewhat anti-theist, in that I do not believe people should use religion to form the basis of a coherent and logical argument when it comes to humanitarian issues.

How can I be anti-theist and also Catholic? Quite easily. My beliefs are my own personal philosophy, not to be confused with my outlook as a humanitarian. I was a human being before I was ever religious, so my humanitarian outlook will always trump my religious beliefs. Does that make me an "a-la-carte" Catholic or "not a true Catholic" in your eyes? Meh, no disrespect intended but I'm not entirely sure I give much thought to your opinion at this stage tbh.

Czarcasm

Piliger wrote: »

yet you criticise the parents for not being the sole guiding force in her life... you can't have it both ways.

...

Because it is what you criticised the OP for.

I didn't criticise the OP in any way, shape, or form. For the THIRD time, yet again -


The adults with influence over the child need to be informed by the parents that they are, under no circumstances, to undermine the child's parents guidance.


Now, where's the criticism of the parents, or keeping the child away from the grandparents, or expecting that the OP not be able to avail of the services of a child minder, in that statement?

Start reading what I've written, and stop making up nonsense and twisting my words and trying to say I said things I unequivocally did NOT say.

Czarcasm

Piliger wrote: »

Your analogy is very good. Trying to cubby hole atheists is like trying to cubby hole 'people who don't like football' as a 'class' of people. It is just such a comical and self ridiculing activity.

Not half as much fun as trying to cubby hole theists though, eh?

Piliger

Czarcasm wrote: »

Yes Pilliger, I do know the meaning of the language I'm using.

Well I'm not so sure.

With respect I don't think you're reading the full context of my posts where I said I am somewhat anti-theist, in that I do not believe people should use religion to form the basis of a coherent and logical argument when it comes to humanitarian issues.

The context doesn't matter if the words make no sense. And somewhat anti-theist as opposed to theist is really a silly and nonsensical distinction.

How can I be anti-theist and also Catholic? Quite easily. My beliefs are my own personal philosophy, not to be confused with my outlook as a humanitarian. I was a human being before I was ever religious, so my humanitarian outlook will always trump my religious beliefs. Does that make me an "a-la-carte" Catholic or "not a true Catholic" in your eyes? Meh, no disrespect intended but I'm not entirely sure I give much thought to your opinion at this stage tbh.

It seems clear that you are in a confused haze between theism with organised religion.

Either you believe in god(s) or you don't. If you do then you are a theist, not a sort of theist or a somewhat theist. If you don't believe in god(s) then you are not a theist.

Where giving thought is concerned, I suggest that you need to give some thought to sorting out your own head before you feel so entitled to laud it over other people.

Piliger

Czarcasm wrote: »

Not half as much fun as trying to cubby hole theists though, eh?

There is no fun in cubby holing people who jump into the hole willingly like lemmings.

smacl

smacl wrote: »

On mature reflection, my point re 1000 obs not being enough for an opinion poll may have been **cough** wrong.

Cheers.....



.....and apologies if in sticking to my guns I was (more than) a bit irritating.



You should take it as a sort of backhanded compliment, though. It stood out in sharp contrast to a load of other things that you say that are right.

Czarcasm

Czarcasm wrote: »

The child is ten -

The child could also be five, in fairness. The sample size is one, which is very small and prone to a high marg............

Piliger

Czarcasm wrote: »

I didn't criticise the OP in any way, shape, or form.

Oh please ... that really is a bit rich....

Czarcasm wrote: »

Your daughter is screaming for your attention OP. When she's not with the childminder she's with her grandparents, and her parents are separated so I imagine she gets very little time with either of you. You have allowed a situation to develop where your child is being influenced by god botherers all round her, then she gets to spend some time with her parents, and what's the most obvious difference between you and the people she regularly interacts with?

(Educate Together schools aren't anti-theist schools, they are in fact so called because they embrace all religions and teach the children about many religions, as part of what they call an Ethical Educational Curriculum).

She's picking up on that one difference that she knows will draw your full attention, and she's maximising the attention she's getting for it by engaging in behaviour that she knows will give you concern for her welfare. Your child isn't really as, erm, "easily influenced" as you think, more to the point in fact it is YOU who is being far too easily influenced by her behaviour. Your daughter is manipulating you and your ex-husband for attention. She's pushing the envelope each time and you're succumbing each time.

These comments are extremely critical and quite insulting to these parents, especially as there is absolutely no grounds or evidence for the criticism whatsoever.

Czarcasm

Piliger wrote: »

The context doesn't matter if the words make no sense. And somewhat anti-theist as opposed to theist is really a silly and nonsensical distinction.

Context is everything Pilliger. It is context that gives words and sentences meaning. Without context, of course a passage makes no sense. I never stated my somewhat anti-theist position in direct opposition to theism. You should go back and read my post again to see why I used the qualifier "somewhat", because I'm not opposed to theism, I just abhor it's use in defence of an opinion in a discussion on a humanitarian issue, because it is in it's very essence an illogical fallacy.

It seems clear that you are in a confused haze between theism with organised religion.

Either you believe in god(s) or you don't. If you do then you are a theist, not a sort of theist or a somewhat theist. If you don't believe in god(s) then you are not a theist.

See above - I am a theist, but I wouldn't shove it down anyone else's throat, nor would I use it to form the basis of my argument on a humanitarian issue.

There are some people who choose to conflate their theism or their atheism with their humanity, I'm just not one of those people, fundamental theists or fundamental atheists I call them, those who are so black and white in their thought processes that they define their humanity by their belief in a deity, or lack thereof. I only mentioned the fact that I was RC in my first post in this thread by way of full disclosure. It's not like I go bandying my faith about the place waving it in people's faces and using my beliefs to denigrate other people's beliefs.

Where giving thought is concerned, I suggest that you need to give some thought to sorting out your own head before you feel so entitled to laud it over other people.

Eh? Seriously Pilliger like, I'm genuinely curious as to what way you're reading my posts. I could tell you my own head is just fine, though you'd probably throw out your own special brand of psychobabble to say that just confirms your suspicions about my irrational mind. How and ever anyway, rest assured I'm not trying to laud it over anyone here. I respect the fact that I'm a visitor to the Atheism and Agnosticism forum, and I've never been made to feel unwelcome any time I've ever posted here, that's because I've never had any inclination to laud it over anyone here, so I am truly curious what way you are reading my posts that you seem to find my opinion so offensive. It's truly not meant that way I assure you (as much as I can assure you really given you seem to have pigeon-holed my irrational state of mind).

Czarcasm

Piliger wrote: »

Oh please ... that really is a bit rich....


These comments are extremely critical and quite insulting to these parents, especially as there is absolutely no grounds or evidence for the criticism whatsoever.

Pilliger you just parroted my post and took offence on behalf of another person, based on your own prejudiced view. The OP posted looking for advice, I gave advice. You perceive my advice as criticism, but it doesn't relate to you. Do you normally take offence on behalf of other people?

Brian Shanahan

Czarcasm wrote: »

Atheists I know wouldn't have gotten so bent out of shape about J Cs innocuous ramblings as they would see no basis for his opinion and therefore would see no need to get into a self-righteous pissing contest.

Innocuous? We're talking about a person who wants the rest of the world to live by the rules made up in his head, who distorts and ignores evidence to favour his view, and who has no problem with people who have perverted the course of justice to further views he shares.

If he ever got enough power behind him he'd be a murderous tyrant.

Czarcasm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Innocuous? We're talking about a person who wants the rest of the world to live by the rules made up in his head, who distorts and ignores evidence to favour his view, and who has no problem with people who have perverted the course of justice to further views he shares.

If he ever got enough power behind him he'd be a murderous tyrant.

Tbh Brian I think you're giving him far too much credit!

nagirrac

Czarcasm wrote: »

I respect the fact that I'm a visitor to the Atheism and Agnosticism forum, and I've never been made to feel unwelcome any time I've ever posted here, that's because I've never had any inclination to laud it over anyone here, so I am truly curious what way you are reading my posts that you seem to find my opinion so offensive. It's truly not meant that way I assure you (as much as I can assure you really given you seem to have pigeon-holed my irrational state of mind).

This is a very good forum Czarcasm, and has very little of the vitriol you see on most atheists forums. By and large this is a very good humored bunch who are mainly preoccupied with biscuits. There are a few militant atheists but they are easy to spot, they are the one's who insist there is only one kind of acceptable atheist and they must score as a 7.0 on Dawkins' scale;).

Banbh

There are a few militant atheists but they are easy to spot, they are the one's who insist there is only one kind of acceptable atheist

Acceptable atheist? That's a new one.

lazygal

Banbh wrote: »

Acceptable atheist? That's a new one.

We're the new AA.

Piliger

Czarcasm wrote: »

Pilliger you just parroted my post and took offence on behalf of another person, based on your own prejudiced view. The OP posted looking for advice, I gave advice. You perceive my advice as criticism, but it doesn't relate to you. Do you normally take offence on behalf of other people?

I posted "These comments are extremely critical and quite insulting to these parents, especially as there is absolutely no grounds or evidence for the criticism whatsoever."

Where does that possibly give you the idea that I am offended ? You gave advice and I call it insulting criticism. I find your posts repeatedly bizarre and irrational. Hardly surprising I guess considering your religious attitudes.

Brian Shanahan

Czarcasm wrote: »

Tbh Brian I think you're giving him far too much credit!

Honestly, they said the same about Hitler for five years during the twenties.

Czarcasm

Piliger wrote: »

I posted "These comments are extremely critical and quite insulting to these parents, especially as there is absolutely no grounds or evidence for the criticism whatsoever."

Where does that possibly give you the idea that I am offended ?

You viewed my advice as criticising the parents, therefore is it not logical to conclude that you found my post offensive?

You gave advice and I call it insulting criticism. I find your posts repeatedly bizarre and irrational.

If you find my couple of posts in this forum are bizarre and irrational, you've missed some of my best work in After Hours!

Hardly surprising I guess considering your religious attitudes.

Like I didn't see that coming -

Czarcasm wrote: »

I could tell you my own head is just fine, though you'd probably throw out your own special brand of psychobabble to say that just confirms your suspicions about my irrational mind.

ps. If you could point out to me even once in this thread where I based my opinion on my own personal religious beliefs, that'd probably lend some weight to your opinion.

hsianloon

Think you need to do some self evaluation

Why does the idea of her being Catholic strike a chord for you?
Did you have experiences that made you turn away and dislike it?
Are you hoping that by turning her away from the Catholic faith, that you would have scored some ''success'' against whatever it was that caused the dislike for it?
If believing in it would make her happier than not believing in it, would you still pursue that course just to satisfy yourself

Just putting up questions, not a personal attack

Czarcasm

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Honestly, they said the same about Hitler for five years during the twenties.

Brian did you just pull a Godwin?


Ah no, the difference between a person like J C and Hitler is that Hitler had the success trifecta -

The right place, the right space, at the right time (though admittedly he screwed the pony when he went to invade Russia in the Winter!).

J C is in the wrong place, the wrong space, at the wrong time.

Sarky

Hopefully he'll stay there. We don't need someone like that out doing harm in the real world.

Czarcasm

Sarky wrote: »

Hopefully he'll stay there. We don't need someone like that out doing harm in the real world.

I honestly couldn't see him doing harm in the real world Sarky. Where I would see him doing harm was his ability to derail a thread thread that led to a 20 page back and forth while the OPs issue was long forgotten about and the OP had since bailed out.

It was what I call "interactive distraction" - J C distracted all the posters and focussed the attention on himself, and everyone who engaged with him was distracted from the issue in the OP, because I can only assume they perceived his presence as a threat of some sort?

I was just somewhat confused as to why a person who identifes as atheist would be so bothered by a person who bases their opinion on their theist beliefs.

Would it not be more logical that a person who identifies as atheist would see no validity in the opinion of a person who bases their opinion on their theist beliefs, and therefore ignore them, effectively giving their theist opinion no traction?

Turtwig

Folks less discussion of the JC derailment please. It's like rubbing salt into the fact that this mod didn't delete all the posts.

Uh yeah Czar, you read the thread wayyy too late. There was a lot more posts that I purged. And I lot more I should probably have purged.:o Just, you know, stuff happens.

Piliger

Czarcasm wrote: »

ps. If you could point out to me even once in this thread where I based my opinion on my own personal religious beliefs, that'd probably lend some weight to your opinion.

Kindly point out to me anywhere where I made that claim ? I would be so appreciative. On the other hand, an admission of yet another piece of your nonsense would suffice.

Czarcasm

Piliger wrote: »

Kindly point out to me anywhere where I made that claim ? I would be so appreciative.

Piliger wrote: »

I find your posts repeatedly bizarre and irrational. Hardly surprising I guess considering your religious attitudes.

On the other hand, an admission of yet another piece of your nonsense would suffice.

This is like trying to get a straight answer out of Bill Clinton!

I've answered your questions, not once have you even made an attempt to take a stab at any of mine, you just continue to play dodgeball. At this point I see nothing further to be gained from engaging with you when you continue to be so evasive and resort to semantics instead of engaging in proper discussion.


I'll leave it there.

Godge

Rosina1969 wrote: »

Hi, my daughter is 10 and she's become obsessed with god and religioni. She wants to make her first communion and become a catholic. She's not baptised. I was brought up a catholic but long since lapsed and don't believe in anything now. She's been influenced by my parents strong catholic faith. What should I do, I'm very torn. On the one hand I should respect what she wants but on the other hand I really didn't want this for her. She prays every night, she reads prayer books and bible stories. She prays when she eats. She worries that I don't believe, or her dad. What would you do.

I took a very pragmatic, practical but also hypocritical approach to this issue.

I was baptised and confirmed but have been an atheist since my late teens. Nevertheless, I got married in a Catholic church and have been happily married ever since.

My children have been baptised, had first communion and been confirmed in accordance with the promises I made when I got married. However, each of them was told after that that attendance at mass was their choice and that they were free to make their own choices.

I have been accused of hypocrisy but at the same time I believe that if I was brought up in a purely secular society (which doesn't exist) I would have explained the options at the same age to them, regardless of my own beliefs.

At the end of the day, they should be free, after a certain age to make their own beliefs

Banbh

I have been accused of hypocrisy

Really?

Cabaal

Godge wrote: »

I took a very pragmatic, practical but also hypocritical approach to this issue.

I was baptised and confirmed but have been an atheist since my late teens. Nevertheless, I got married in a Catholic church and have been happily married ever since.

My children have been baptised, had first communion and been confirmed in accordance with the promises I made when I got married. However, each of them was told after that that attendance at mass was their choice and that they were free to make their own choices.

I have been accused of hypocrisy but at the same time I believe that if I was brought up in a purely secular society (which doesn't exist) I would have explained the options at the same age to them, regardless of my own beliefs.

At the end of the day, they should be free, after a certain age to make their own beliefs

You are being a hypocrite though,

You intentionally went out of your way to push religion on your kids and then claim they have free will....how exactly?

Just because you got married in a church doesn't mean you had to push religion on your kids. You didn't sign a legally binding agreement in church to raise kids. Nobody will ever go after you if you choose to not raise your kids in that faith.

I don't believe in god, I did my communion because it was pushed on me and i did my confirmation purely for the money (I'm not an idiot, I wanted free cash). I've always been open about this.

I did get married in a church and yes I will at least admit that this in some way makes me a hypocrite.

However, I got married in a church to keep the peace and I was extremely clear on the day that the church stuff was utter nonsense to me. I said this on the day to numerous people and I'll continue to say it now.

However, thats where the buck stops with me and my wife. We won't be christening any kids as I will ensure they can make their own minds up from the start.

In your case you claim your an atheist but then you have no problem following through on a meaningless "promise" to push a fairytale story on your kids as fact and then push all that goes with this belief system.

If you push Communion and Confirmation on them then they are required to go to mass before each of these sacraments, mass is not optional for them no matter what you might claim.

Czarcasm

Cabaal wrote: »

You are being a hypocrite though,

You intentionally went out of your way to push religion on your kids and then claim they have free will....how exactly?

Just because you got married in a church doesn't mean you had to push religion on your kids. You didn't sign a legally binding agreement in church to raise kids. Nobody will ever go after you if you choose to not raise your kids in that faith.

I don't believe in god, I did my communion because it was pushed on me and i did my confirmation purely for the money (I'm not an idiot, I wanted free cash). I've always been open about this.

I did get married in a church and yes I will at least admit that this in some way makes me a hypocrite.

However, I got married in a church to keep the peace and I was extremely clear on the day that the church stuff was utter nonsense to me. I said this on the day to numerous people and I'll continue to say it now.

However, thats where the buck stops with me and my wife. We won't be christening any kids as I will ensure they can make their own minds up from the start.

In your case you claim your an atheist but then you have no problem following through on a meaningless "promise" to push a fairytale story on your kids as fact and then push all that goes with this belief system.

If you push Communion and Confirmation on them then they are required to go to mass before each of these sacraments, mass is not optional for them no matter what you might claim.

Jesus Cabaal, if there were an equivalent for atheists of the fire and brimstone bible basher preaching "Do as I say, not as I do!" from the pulpit; That post would epitomise the concept in spades!