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

Religion is "child abuse" ??

1…2123252627

Comments

  • #662
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,455 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    rational wrote: »
    2. what are you doing giving another couple your "opinion" regarding religion. It really is none of your business with the greatest of respect.
    And with a fairly minimal level of respect, I must point out that you didn't read my post.


  • #663
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    I agree with this point but this point has got nothing to do with the original question:

    I was responding to were you said "it is possible as many critically thinking atheists were raised in a religious manner."
    Des Carter wrote: »
    What are these issues?

    Stuff like inconsistencies in what they believe, in the texts they follow, that their reasons for believing are learnt rather than arived at. There's way more, for instance here is a short thread where I had a discussion with a muslim about issues in believing in islam.


  • #664
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,455 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    this one as it shows how closed minded you are
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    Des Carter MAY be coming across as a massive moron
    Ladies -- less of the insults, please.


  • #665
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    people came up with the idea of the following:
    Dragons
    Sea Monster
    Vampires
    Werewolves
    The Tooth Fairy
    Fairies in general
    Leprechauns
    The Yeti
    Unicorns (my favourite!)

    must we consider that these things exist?

    People can come up with things all the time. Greeks thought the god Helios drove the chariot of the sun across the sky each day. They came up with the idea of there being a Helios. Must we consider weather he existed or not?

    Your argument is dreadfully flawed.
    Your misunderstanding the argument - this isnt an argument that God exists this is an argument that someone can come to the conclusion that their is a god without having religion being taught to them from a young age.


  • #666
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Improbable wrote: »
    Because then you're a deist, not a theist. That's what he was getting at.
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    You might some of the terminology here useful....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/

    I may well be a deist but I dont really know what that means. I also dont really care for terms as they tend to seperate groups of people instead of brining them closer.


  • Advertisement
  • #667
    bad2dabone
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,333 ✭✭✭bad2dabone


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Your misunderstanding the argument - this isnt an argument that God exists this is an argument that someone can come to the conclusion that their is a god without having religion being taught to them from a young age.

    No i don't think I am misunderstanding you. I'm trying to highlight the fact that people can come to the conclusion that lots of fictional things exist, and "god" is no different.


  • #668
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Very true but if they came up with the "idea of God" then the idea of their being a God would have to have been considered.

    Only by the people being fooled by the conmen, and even if the conmen started believing their own bs, they were a people in a time when the wheel was cutting edge technology.


  • #669
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Why are they determined by organised religion

    Why not consider the idea that a God exists but is completely unrelated and unconnected to any religion.

    A theist is generally someone who believes in a god as defined by an organised religion. I think you mean deism.


  • #670
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I was responding to were you said "it is possible as many critically thinking atheists were raised in a religious manner."


    Stuff like inconsistencies in what they believe, in the texts they follow, that their reasons for believing are learnt rather than arived at. There's way more, for instance here is a short thread where I had a discussion with a muslim about issues in believing in islam.

    Then I agree!

    Is it not possible to be a theist who looks at these issues.


  • #671
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    I may well be a deist but I dont really know what that means. I also dont really care for terms as they tend to seperate groups of people instead of brining them closer.

    You may not care for terms but you appear to have no issue bandying them about - I was just suggesting you may wish to educate yourself on what those words mean in terms of recognised definitions before using them/arguing what you do or don't mean when you say them. :)

    It's an impossibility to live in a world without descriptive terminology - especially when using a mode of communication entirely dependent on linguistics, like an internet discussion forum.


  • Advertisement
  • #672
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Your misunderstanding the argument - this isnt an argument that God exists this is an argument that someone can come to the conclusion that their is a god without having religion being taught to them from a young age.

    But the problem with your argument is that these people also believed in yetis, dragons, vampires, unicorns etc. Their reasoning is hardly reliable.


  • #673
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    No i don't think I am misunderstanding you. I'm trying to highlight the fact that people can come to the conclusion that lots of fictional things exist, and "god" is no different.
    Im going to leave out the last part as there is no way of knowing if "God" is real or not.

    Yes I agree and they dont always come to these conclusions because the idea of these fictional things being real was forced upon them from early age.


  • #674
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Is it not possible to be a theist who looks at these issues.

    Sure. But if you are still a theist, then you just aren't being honest. If you look at that link I gave you (long posts, sorry) you will see the same weak apologetics that theists come up all the time when confronted with obvious flaws in their beliefs: its metaphorical, you are reading it wrong etc.


  • #675
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Why not consider the idea that a God exists but is completely unrelated and unconnected to any religion.

    Give us reasons to.


  • #676
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Only by the people being fooled by the conmen, and even if the conmen started believing their own bs, they were a people in a time when the wheel was cutting edge technology.

    not really because the conmen would have to consider the possibility of a God even if they didnt believe it or if it was only for a short period.

    For example when thinking up the con they would have thought "Ok were going to convince everyone that there is a supernatural being - so we have to have something to preach - so what would a supernatural being preach?* - he would preach that if you do not praise me you will be punished" ya thats good lets teach that ...."

    *this is where they consider it.


  • #677
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    You may not care for terms but you appear to have no issue bandying them about - I was just suggesting you may wish to educate yourself on what those words mean in terms of recognised definitions before using them/arguing what you do or don't mean when you say them. :)

    It's an impossibility to live in a world without descriptive terminology - especially when using a mode of communication entirely dependent on linguistics, like an internet discussion forum.

    Fair enough.


  • #678
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But the problem with your argument is that these people also believed in yetis, dragons, vampires, unicorns etc. Their reasoning is hardly reliable.

    I never said it was reliable.


  • #679
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    I never said it was reliable.

    So what exactly are you saying?


  • #680
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Sure. But if you are still a theist, then you just aren't being honest. If you look at that link I gave you (long posts, sorry) you will see the same weak apologetics that theists come up all the time when confronted with obvious flaws in their beliefs: its metaphorical, you are reading it wrong etc.

    Just to clarify I looked at some links and Im not a Deist!

    These may not be weak apologetics but rather maybe these ARE my beliefs. for example maybe I BELIEVE it is metaphorical - maybe I BELIEVE you are reading it wrong!


  • #681
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Give us reasons to.

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

    Do you agree?


  • Advertisement
  • #682
    rational
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 357 ✭✭rational


    I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Hypothesis, actually. Theories are suported by evidence, you haven't presented any.

    Scientific theory is supported by evidence yes. ALL theorising DOES NOT HAVE TO SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE.



  • #683
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


    I'm religious and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Improbable wrote: »
    So what exactly are you saying?

    That their are other ways to come to the conclusion that a "God" exists - other than having the belief taught to you since childhood.


  • #684
    Improbable
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,576 ✭✭✭Improbable


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    That their are other ways to come to the conclusion that a "God" exists - other than having the belief taught to you since childhood.

    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.


  • #685
    rational
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 357 ✭✭rational


    I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    bad2dabone wrote: »
    people came up with the idea of the following:
    Dragons
    Sea Monster
    Vampires
    Werewolves
    The Tooth Fairy
    Fairies in general
    Leprechauns
    The Yeti
    Unicorns (my favourite!)

    must we consider that these things exist?

    People can come up with things all the time. Greeks thought the god Helios drove the chariot of the sun across the sky each day. They came up with the idea of there being a Helios. Must we consider weather he existed or not?

    Your argument is dreadfully flawed.

    these may be regarded as attempts by people to come to terms and understand things that are outside themselves, the unknown, to explain a very complex frightening world to children etc. it is an attempt by ancient peoples to understand the world around them in language they know. It is really useless retrospectively arguing that because they are literaly incorrect this lessons their value or points to the fact that God does not exist.

    Its a really pointless argument and a non conclusion.


  • #686
    rational
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 357 ✭✭rational


    I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Improbable wrote: »
    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.

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


  • #687
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    not really because the conmen would have to consider the possibility of a God even if they didnt believe it or if it was only for a short period.

    For example when thinking up the con they would have thought "Ok were going to convince everyone that there is a supernatural being - so we have to have something to preach - so what would a supernatural being preach?* - he would preach that if you do not praise me you will be punished" ya thats good lets teach that ...."

    *this is where they consider it.

    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.


  • #688
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,832 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    I'm atheist/agnostic and DON'T believe that any religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Des Carter wrote: »
    Just to clarify I looked at some links and Im not a Deist!

    What are you then?
    Des Carter wrote: »
    These may not be weak apologetics but rather maybe these ARE my beliefs. for example maybe I BELIEVE it is metaphorical - maybe I BELIEVE you are reading it wrong!

    Why do you believe its metaphorical? How are you supposed to read it?


  • #689
    Des Carter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 720 ✭✭✭Des Carter


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

    Thats exactly my point and all this came from:
    Des Carter wrote: »
    robindch wrote: »
    No.Everybody starts life as an atheist. It's only through the forced imposition of religious views that anybody ever stops being an atheist.

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


  • #690
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    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?

    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...


  • Advertisement
  • #691
    rational
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 357 ✭✭rational


    I'm religious and DO believe that at least some religious dogmas constitute 'child abuse'
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    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.

    Can someone explain to why are atheists on here so obsessed with unicorns???????????????

    Rather than just assuming that people are superstitious morons or ignorent for believing in these things why not ask why they believed in them and try to understand thier point of view and assess/ examine their point of view from their time.

    Dont you see that by looking at it your way you are condeming every generation to be labled as ignorant by future generations.


Advertisement