Religion is "child abuse" ??

rational · 30-09-2010 09:55PM

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I don't know what you mean, it's a statement of fact; like saying you've never been a liverpool fan, or pink has never been your favourite colour, or whatever.

I would say it is a statement of opinion rather than fact. Certainly it could never be proven with a mathamatical equation or scientific experiment that you have always been an atheist.

No I'd be fairly happy in saying that its an opinion that someone can say they have always been an atheist and it it was a default position rather than a fact.

iguana · 30-09-2010 10:04PM

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

rational wrote: »

Hold on a minute, Christians tell me with the same certainty that we all start out as Christians? At least they have the modesty to invent original sin. Atheism goes one better and imbues its adherents with atheistic purity. How very symbolic.

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not get it?

Atheism is lack of belief. Babies don't really believe anything as their ability for the kind of thought necessary to believe in anything outside of the immediately obvious has not yet developed. Therefore a baby can't be anything but atheist until they reach a point where they can form a belief.

Ickle Magoo · 30-09-2010 10:04PM

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

rational wrote: »

I can’t comment on your surrounding your upbringing etc, so I don’t know your personal story came to be. I can’t comment on the personal context of how you cam to be an atheist.

I didn't "come to be" an atheist, that's my point. My religion or lack of hasn't changed in my lifetime.

Regardless, I posted in response to your deeming to make sweeping statements about "you atheists" and how posters (clearly myself included) came to be atheists - I'm not sure how you can suddenly back-peddle and claim my personal history is now relevant and makes my atheism somehow unique?

rational wrote:

I would say it is a statement of opinion rather than fact. Certainly it could never be proven with a mathamatical equation or scientific experiment that you have always been an atheist.

No I'd be fairly happy in saying that its an opinion that someone can say they have always been an atheist and it it was a default position rather than a fact.

What?

And your name was so promising...does that mean it's just peoples opinions what their sexuality is, they can't claim heterosexuality as a matter of fact? What bizarre logic.

I first stated that I wasn't buying into the whole religion and god thing as a preschooler, granted I can't remember if as a foetus I was religious but certainly from the age of 4 or so I can state categorically that whatever some people have or need to follow a god, I didn't have it - and that can be verified by my family.

rational · 30-09-2010 10:09PM

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

iguana wrote: »

Are you being deliberately obtuse or do you really not get it?

Atheism is lack of belief. Babies don't really believe anything as their ability for the kind of thought necessary to believe in anything outside of the immediately obvious has not yet developed. Therefore a baby can't be anything but atheist until they reach a point where they can form a belief.

Lack of believe as you see it is actually believing in something i.e. lack of believe. It a belief system. Like other belief systems. Calling me obtuse because I dont blindly buy into your ground rules is unhelpful.

Ickle Magoo · 30-09-2010 10:11PM

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

So you actually believe in unicorns and leprechauns, because not believing in them is a belief system? You know how nuts that sounds, right? :pac:

Mark Hamill · 30-09-2010 10:15PM

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

Des Carter wrote: »

maybe because there are so many of them for a start.

Sorry, didn't read it properly, didn't see every religion and every detail. My point still stand. You dont need to teach specific details if you can teach them how to take in any details critically.

Des Carter wrote: »

I really wouldnt care how he viewed it as long as he arrived at his decision through critically examining certain thoughts etc and not having this view shoved down his throat. Also as long as he was happy with his beliefs and did not look down on others for not sharing them.

But how can a child arrive a decision about a religion with honest critical thought, if they have been brought up in that particular religon?

Des Carter wrote: »

Because most parents are not critical thinkers and do not question their faith and irrationally ignore the fact that they maybe wrong and follow their religion blindly.

Thats my point, parents aren't critical and are irrational so they generally dont bring up their children to be rational and critical, hence their kids end up believing what their parents believe. This is the abuse we are talking about. Parents abuse their power over their kids to instil in them their own irrationality and uncritical nature.

rational · 30-09-2010 10:15PM

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I didn't "come to be" an atheist, that's my point. I'm not sure how you can suddenly back-peddle and claim my personal history is now relevant and makes my atheism somehow unique?.

I was commenting in the context that people beliefs or lack of are conditioned by their enviroment. Your personal history is conditioned by your enviroment as is everyones.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

does that mean it's just peoples opinions what their sexuality is, they can't claim heterosexuality as a matter of fact? What bizarre logic..

Yes what bizarre logic indeed.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I first stated that I wasn't buying into the whole religion and god thing as a preschooler, granted I can't remember if as a foetus I was religious but certainly from the age of 4 or so I can state categorically that whatever some people have or need to follow a god, I didn't have it - and that can be verified by my family.

We are massively influenced by our environment from the moment we are born and before.

rational · 30-09-2010 10:17PM

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So you actually believe in unicorns and leprechauns, because not believing in them is a belief system? You know how nuts that sounds, right? :pac:

I dont really follow your logic.

rational · 30-09-2010 10:19PM

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Parents abuse their power over their kids to instil in them their own irrationality and uncritical nature.

What kind of beliefs is it okay to instill in children without calling it an abuse of power.

Mark Hamill · 30-09-2010 10:22PM

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

Des Carter wrote: »

WHAT? Why are you bringing my upbringing into this. I never said what kind of upbringing I had so there is no way you could know what kind of upbringing I had. Please leave this argument out as you know nothing about my upbringing and as for as your concerned the bit I have highlighted is false.

I was talking about people picking and choosing what to believe, how people who are brought up with and edited version of the bible and end up only believing in the bits they know and like and out and out deny the rest. This is what you did and I pointed this out.

Des Carter wrote: »

Where did I say it contradicted you? and when did I say I was trying to contradict you?

Then what is your point on arguing with me on this?

Des Carter wrote: »

do what? contradict me? I dont know and I never said you were trying to I said IF YOU ARE GOING TO - Please stop jumping to conclusions!

What point does me changing my beliefs prove?

I'm not jumping to conclusions, you changed your believes because your edited ideas of the bible where shown to be wrong. I simply pointed this out as an example of how most people are (they just haven't had their ideas challenged yet). I don't know why you are taking offence, changing your views on new evidence is a good thing.

mohawk · 30-09-2010 10:24PM

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

rational wrote: »

Lack of believe as you see it is actually believing in something i.e. lack of believe. It a belief system. Like other belief systems.

If someone gave me a euro everytime someone posted on boards that being an atheist is a belief system. I would be so rich. (any chance of you guys giving me a euro when someone posts the above opinion in future).

Mark Hamill · 30-09-2010 10:25PM

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

Des Carter wrote: »

I would disagree with this as it is possible to reach the conclusion that a God exists through other means

Such as?

ColmDawson · 30-09-2010 10:26PM

rational wrote: »

I would say it is a statement of opinion rather than fact. Certainly it could never be proven with a mathamatical equation or scientific experiment that you have always been an atheist.

No I'd be fairly happy in saying that its an opinion that someone can say they have always been an atheist and it it was a default position rather than a fact.

I've been trying to decide how to respond to this post, but I keep getting distracted. The thing that's distracting me is a rather disturbing mental image of an adult human sitting at a computer, typing your post and hitting Submit Reply.

Mark Hamill · 30-09-2010 10:27PM

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

Des Carter wrote: »

Of COURSE it is

GOOD BOY!

Now go play with the other trolls and let the grown ups talk!:D

Do you not think its a valid question*, why worship a god whose most important commandments are "worship me" and who once lost his temper at a fig tree?

*question to those who hold to the ten commandments and to the story of teh tree

Ickle Magoo · 30-09-2010 10:28PM

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

rational wrote: »

I was commenting in the context that people beliefs or lack of are conditioned by their enviroment. Your personal history is conditioned by your enviroment as is everyones.

I'd have to disagree that it was/is the only contributing factor, nature Vs nurture and all that. I'm not sure that having the ability to believe in virgin births, omnipotent creators etc can just be explained away by social or familial conditioning - or everyone would share beliefs with those who raised them and that's clearly not the case.

rational wrote: »

Yes what bizarre logic indeed.

You really think people can't make claims about their own beliefs or persuasions as being factual? I don't get that - nobody knows better than us what we believe or who we fancy, surely?

rational wrote: »

I dont really follow your logic.

Lol, it's your faulty logic. If lacking belief is a belief system as you claim, then you too must have a belief in anything you actually lack a belief in...

Dan133269 · 30-09-2010 10:28PM

rational wrote: »

Lack of believe as you see it is actually believing in something i.e. lack of believe.

Hilarious

rational · 30-09-2010 10:28PM

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

mohawk wrote: »

If someone gave me a euro everytime someone posted on boards that being an atheist is a belief system. I would be so rich. (any chance of you guys giving me a euro when someone posts the above opinion in future).

Constructive debate there alright.

Mark Hamill · 30-09-2010 10:31PM

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

rational wrote: »

Lack of believe as you see it is actually believing in something i.e. lack of believe. It a belief system. Like other belief systems.

Is baldness a hair colour?

rational · 30-09-2010 10:31PM

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Lol, it's your faulty logic. If lacking belief is a belief system as you claim, then you too must have a belief in anything you actually lack a belief in...

No, lacking the belief is the belief. Its a belief in its self.

rational · 30-09-2010 10:32PM

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

Dan133269 wrote: »

Hilarious

Good constructive debate again.

rational · 30-09-2010 10:33PM

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

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is baldness a hair colour?

How profound.

Ickle Magoo · 30-09-2010 10:33PM

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

rational wrote: »

No, lacking the belief is the belief. Its a belief in its self.

So you believe in unicorns then? And dragons? As the lacking belief is a belief in itself...

rational · 30-09-2010 10:35PM

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

You really think people can't make claims about their own beliefs or persuasions as being factual?

Something Christians are very good at and rightly get a lot of criticism for.

ColmDawson · 30-09-2010 10:35PM

Have you considered subscribing? They let you change your username.

rational · 30-09-2010 10:36PM

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

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

So you believe in unicorns then? And dragons? As the lacking belief is a belief in itself...

No, Lacking belief in God is a belief intrinsic to itself. It is a belief. Not a belief in God but a belief.

bad2dabone · 30-09-2010 10:37PM

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

rational wrote: »

No, lacking the belief is the belief. Its a belief in its self.

I lack belief in the Tooth Fairy. I believe in the Tooth Fairy.

What?

I need a lie down.

Mark Hamill · 30-09-2010 10:37PM

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

rational wrote: »

What kind of beliefs is it okay to instill in children without calling it an abuse of power.

You can explain morals and ethics in terms of rational logical arguments that dont need calls to supernatural authority in order to reinforce them. If a child is going to hit another child, simply asking "would you like someone to hit you" is actually approaching the Golden Rule in a very easy, essentially universally justifiable* way.

* I mean that almost no matter what religion someone is, it makes sense, the same thing cant be said for, say, morals based on a christian god, as their justification means nothing to a hindu.

iguana · 30-09-2010 10:38PM

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

rational wrote: »

Lack of believe as you see it is actually believing in something i.e. lack of believe. It a belief system. Like other belief systems. Calling me obtuse because I dont blindly buy into your ground rules is unhelpful.

No it's not. It's not believing in something. You know what? I'd quite like it if there really was some type of god, it would be brilliant (as long as it was a nice god) because I don't want to cease to exist and I want my dead loved ones to still be somewhere and I want to be with them again. In the same vein I'd really like it if Santa Claus and superpowers really existed. But they don't. They are just imaginary human constructs. That's not a belief system, I don't belong to the religion of "your parents buy the gifts in a shop and put them under your tree Xmas eve while eating the cake you put out" because not believing in Santa is not a belief system. Neither is not believing in God.

And just as babies don't not, not believe in Santa, they also don't not, not believe in God.

Ickle Magoo · 30-09-2010 10:40PM

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

rational, I'm still not following, accepting what people claim their beliefs are as in fact being what they believe is separate to accepting the subject of those beliefs as being factual or even rational and reasonable.

rational wrote: »

No, Lacking belief in God is a belief intrinsic to itself. It is a belief. Not a belief in God but a belief.

Can you explain to me what is it I believe then?

mohawk · 30-09-2010 10:41PM

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

rational wrote: »

Constructive debate there alright.

Beliving in god on its own is not a belief system. However if you were to include a book, adhering to some rituals, rule to follow maybe even throw in some religous leaders etc you will have a belief system. In simple language belief in god is part of the belief system not the belief system.
On the other hand a lack of believing in god is not on its own a belief system.

Religion is "child abuse" ??

Comments