(November 19, 2017 at 6:19 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 6:13 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Yes.

Could you elaborate?

Imagine that I strike you with a pen. It causes your death. The action of my muscles using a pen to murder you, necessarily must come from a thought of me to harm you.

This should be obvious barring involuntary actions.

Another stuff. History tells us that dictators can kill milions, not with their own hands, simply with their thoughts.

I hope I made it clear.

(November 19, 2017 at 6:33 pm)LastPoet Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 6:19 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: Could you elaborate?

Imagine that I strike you with a pen. It causes your death. The action of my muscles using a pen to murder you, necessarily must come from a thought of me to harm you.

This should be obvious barring involuntary actions.

Another stuff. History tells us that dictators can kill milions, not with their own hands, simply with their thoughts.

I hope I made it clear.

You certainly clarified what you were saying. But I still have concerns.

Let's say that someone steps on my foot and causes me pain. The involuntary reflex period passes, but then I look at this person and think "I ought to punch you in the face!"

But then I think: "Wait a second, he didn't mean to step on my foot." And then I don't punch him. Have I violated ethics in any way here?

If a fascist dictator thinks about killing someone or some people, he must first give the order to murder them before anyone dies. Giving the order is an ACTION not a thought. (Unless the entourage surrounding a given dictator consists of mind readers.)

Anyway, that's the way I was approaching your statement.

Any thoughts?

(November 19, 2017 at 5:25 pm)Bow Before Zeus Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 9:49 am)SteveII Wrote: Wow, you will fit in here! An obnoxious and inflammatory title that is not in any way supported by the post!

1. Your shock at a Catholic school teaching NT stories is, well, shocking.
2. You never connected how The Stations of the Cross (a series of purported historical events) was "in short, child abuse" or could lead to "mentally handicapped". You simply asserted your opinion in an effort to support your conclusion.  
3. With your deep background in theology, you examined the "xtian texts". You found "unethical actions" based on your ethical theory. Okay, even if I grant you that, you have in no way supported your conclusion: "Christian Parents Abuse Their Children". 
4. By your own shitty logic, you, being ultimately responsible for your child, were abusing your child by sending her to that school. Congrats. 

In an effort to salvage your post from breaking the forum rules, do you have any actual arguments to support your post title. In case you need the reminder:

ar·gu·ment
ˈärɡyəmənt/
noun
plural noun: arguments

[*]2.
a reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong.

[*]

The title of the post is supported by the text in the post. Richard Dawkins' assertion is that it is child abuse to teach religion as fact as many xtian and muslim parents do. I thought I made that obvious.

[*]

If you think that your posts made any kind of argument, you are really bad at this. "Dawkins said so" is not an argument. Exactly, Richard Dawkins' assertion. You repeating it does not magically turn it into an argument. Most of his arguments are against extreme examples or caricatures of Christianity. The rest are badly reasoned. Even atheist philosophers blanch at his books. 

Quote:"(a series of purported historical events)" is an example of this mental abuse. The bible is NOT a historical document. Far from it. Many of the events have not and can not be verified by actual historical documents. So something like stations of the cross is a mentally aberrant teaching which could never be verified even a few years after the event let along a few thousand years. Reality is, it never happened and yet it is being taught as fact in catholic schools. 

[*]

First, Jesus being crucified is one of the most attested to facts of the ancient world. Most atheist historians think that it happened. This fact alone completely obliterates the thesis that to teach it to children is "in short, child abuse" or could lead to "mentally handicapped". Second, you are continuing to fail to tell us HOW this is abuse even if the parents or school was wrong. 

Quote:"background in theology" - a nice ad homonym attack. Reality is that a degree in theology is equivalent to a degree in voodoo magic. Neither of them studies a scientifically verifiable fact. They are based on current mythologies. So no, I prefer using the critical thinking I have been taught in a scientific based degree to logically analyse and critique mythological texts. I read the xtian NT 3 times to find some sort of coherent meaning. There was none. And for your information, the "ethical theory" which I used was not mine. I wish I could lay claim to it! No, I used the most rigorous ethical system that I had read about to date and that was to be found in Buddhism (also Jainism). The ethical logic in these systems condemns the triumvirate of Abrahamic religions and shines a light on the unwholesomeness of their teachings. Teaching children unwholesome teachings is certainly abusive.

[*]

You admitted your Biblical IQ was low in your quaint little story. Since it was clear you have no background in systematic theology or biblical hermeneutics, your analysis couldn't have been thorough...but it does not matter--I granted you (for the sake of this argument only) that you found stories that raise moral questions. The fact that  you did not find any meaning in the NT, is an individual matter (because millions do). You are going to have to list out some of the "unwholesome teachings" that rise to the level of abuse. Simply asserting that there are some (over and over) is horrible discussion/argumentation skills. 

Quote:I don't see how I am breaking rules when all I have done is discussed a topic that Richard Dawkins has raised and give examples of how it has affected my family in the past. Certainly it is not my intention to offend but by the same token, I will not sit back and pretend this does not happen. I will also not give it more palatable names or disguise it for what it is in a 1984 style newspeak. If this is what gets me banned then I will wear that as a badge of honour, knowing that I have not sat back silently while children are mentally abused. It only takes ethical people to sit back and say nothing for this sort of abuse to continue.

[*]

You did NOT give an argument. You said that Dawkins says it. Actually I have The God Delusion open. What page does Dawkins say specifically that "Christians abuse their children" in the same blanket way that you said it? Perhaps with that, we can get some details and you can avoid breaking the rules.

Quote: Actually I have The God Delusion open. What page does Dawkins say specifically that "Christians abuse their children" in the same blanket way that you said it?

He didn't say in The God Delusion.  He said in an opinion piece in Free Inquiry several years ago.

Boru

Dawkins is a very good biologist, and listening to him teach what he knows is a treat.

However when it comes to his ill concealed hatred of religion I take a much more cautious approach.

(November 19, 2017 at 8:40 am)Bow Before Zeus Wrote: Not my assertion but Richard Dawkins believes that bringing children up to believe that their parents religion is true is tantamount to child abuse. The argument is that by doing so the child is ill equipped to make their own way in the world when they go out on their own.

OK, let's see some stats on that argument.

Quote:I have a personal story about this.

No, not anecdotes, real evidence please.

(November 19, 2017 at 10:57 am)Catholic_Lady Wrote: I'm going to report this. At least for the title.

Beat me to it. And SteveII's like a lawyer, man, clearly revealing the hate and provocation. This one strikes me as particularly anti-Catholic bigotry. Know who else is anti-Catholic...the Klan...

Let's have a little competition and see which theist can get the most threads banned based on the new rules.

(November 19, 2017 at 11:19 am)Succubus Wrote: Well if it isn’t Catholic Lady trying to brew up a shit storm. Quell surprise.

Maybe she just doesn't like the guy, lol.  I mean, I say the same thing about WLC all the time, but I'm not usually trying to brew up a shit storm.  Usually.  😎

(November 19, 2017 at 9:31 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 11:19 am)Succubus Wrote: Well if it isn’t Catholic Lady trying to brew up a shit storm. Quell surprise.

Maybe she just doesn't like the guy, lol.  I mean, I say the same thing about WLC all the time, but I'm not usually trying to brew up a shit storm.  Usually.  😎

Haha, yes LFC!

And yeah, I can't imagine why I wouldn't like someone who accuses my parents (and myself if I have kids) of abusing children.

(November 19, 2017 at 6:45 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 6:33 pm)LastPoet Wrote: Imagine that I strike you with a pen. It causes your death. The action of my muscles using a pen to murder you, necessarily must come from a thought of me to harm you.

This should be obvious barring involuntary actions.

Another stuff. History tells us that dictators can kill milions, not with their own hands, simply with their thoughts.

I hope I made it clear.

You certainly clarified what you were saying. But I still have concerns.

Let's say that someone steps on my foot and causes me pain. The involuntary reflex period passes, but then I look at this person and think "I ought to punch you in the face!"

But then I think: "Wait a second, he didn't mean to step on my foot." And then I don't punch him. Have I violated ethics in any way here?

If a fascist dictator thinks about killing someone or some people, he must first give the order to murder them before anyone dies. Giving the order is an ACTION not a thought. (Unless the entourage surrounding a given dictator consists of mind readers.)

Anyway, that's the way I was approaching your statement.

Any thoughts?

An authoritarian's rhetoric can cause violence and death among his people all by itself.

Edit: oh, thoughts, not words. I'm going to agree with LP and say that the thought leads to the action. To say it has no role would just be semantics