(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.  😎

Is this a category error? William Lane Craig is universally recognised as being one of the biggest liars for Jebus that walks this earth. Dawkins on the other hand is a highly respected biologist. I would be most interested in CL's views on Dawkins; 'Unweaving the Rainbow'.

---

(November 19, 2017 at 8:13 pm)SteveII Wrote: ...First, Jesus being crucified is one of the most attested to facts of the ancient world. Most atheist historians think that it happened...

And around and around we go. You are a fucking liar! But I will once again indulge you. Name a historian who claims this.

(November 19, 2017 at 10:14 pm)Succubus Wrote:

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

Is this a category error? William Lane Craig is universally recognised as being one of the biggest liars for Jebus that walks this earth. Dawkins on the other hand is a highly respected biologist. I would be most interested in CL's views on Dawkins; 'Unweaving the Rainbow'.

It certainly would be if I were trying to compare the two men.  Please, don't misunderstand; I have the utmost respect and admiration for Dawkins.  I'm just saying it's not unreasonable to think that a Theist may have a personal distaste for an outspoken anti-theist.  It's personal for her.  It doesn't mean she is trying to start trouble on the forums.  That's all I'm saying.

Quote:.First, Jesus being crucified is one of the most attested to facts of the ancient world. 

It does not matter how much you push that bullshit narrative it remains untrue  

Quote:Most atheist historians think that it happened...

Irrelevant if it were true (which it is not )

(November 19, 2017 at 11:17 pm)LadyForCamus Wrote:

(November 19, 2017 at 10:14 pm)Succubus Wrote: Is this a category error? William Lane Craig is universally recognised as being one of the biggest liars for Jebus that walks this earth. Dawkins on the other hand is a highly respected biologist. I would be most interested in CL's views on Dawkins; 'Unweaving the Rainbow'.

It certainly would be if I were trying to compare the two men.  Please, don't misunderstand; I have the utmost respect and admiration for Dawkins.  I'm just saying it's not unreasonable to think that a Theist may have a personal distaste for an outspoken anti-theist.  It's personal for her.  It doesn't mean she is trying to start trouble on the forums.  That's all I'm saying.

What I don't understand is why does she garner so much respect around here. She is, and always has been an attention whore. Everything is about her and how she, and her beliefs are being disrespected. Well cry me a fucking river.
She's having a good run mind you. Wherever she appears, she creates bother and that, in my view is not accidental. As I said up thread, I seriously doubt her sincerity.
Ok, how about we try a wee experiment.

Catholic Lady! How do you reconcile the laws of physics with your god of the bible?

I'm flat out waiting.

We are indeed witnessing child abuse by Christian institutions every day, like this is one of the latest:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ex-mem...spartandhp

but the thing is that Christians on this forum and elsewhere simply ignore it. Just as they ignore Christians on this forum who still think that evolution is a hoax and that probably Earth is flat - where do they think they got that from if not from Christian education?
There is other systematic abuse in Christian schools like not allowing kids to be vaccinated against certain diseases (like HPV) which they call promotion of sex (as if sex needs to be advertised) as well as lack of sexual education which results in higher teen pregnancy and vulnerability to venereal diseases.
Also kids are exposed to racism, I mean let's not forget churches are last places that are still racially segregated and Christian universities like Liberty frowns on interracial dating and is outlawed at Bob Jones University.

(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.

I have a personal story about this. My oldest daughter went to a catholic primary school for the first 2 years of her schooling. The intention was to enrol my younger daughter in the catholic school as well when she was old enough. One day my older daughter came home from school and started talking to me about the 14 stations of the cross. Anyone know what that is? I didn't at the time so I googled it. What I found shook me to the core. These intellectually handicapped adults were brainwashing my child to become as intellectually handicapped as them - in short, child abuse!

I had to think quickly here. I couldn't tell my daughter that this is a load of crap because that would push here even further away from me and closer to a demented mentality. So I taught her critical thinking. Firstly, I defined ethics as any thought, word or action that causes harm or death to any living being (I have to thank the Buddhist texts for that definition). Then I asked her to show me some of the other xtian texts that they taught at school and sat with her to analyse whether the thoughts, words or actions described in those texts was ethical. Lo and behold, she identified a number of unethical actions and I could see the light bulb literally switching on in her head. I won! I had just grabbed my child from the clutches of these demented people!

At the end of that year, she was out of the school and out of the catholic system. The bizarre thing is, when we told the school, they were shocked that we were taking her to a non catholic school and asked us if we had considered taking her to one of the other catholic schools. They wanted to keep her in the lunatic asylum called catholicism!

After my experience, nearly losing my child to this demented mentally abusive system, I understood what Richard Dawkins meant when he said that teaching religion to children is child abuse.

Anyone have similar experiences?

Anyone think that it's ok for xtians and muslims to teach their religion to their children and that it's not child abuse?

I agree that this is an awful thing to do to a child. 'Abuse' might imply some intent, though, and I don't think most religious parents want anything but the best for their children; they simply have a flawed understanding of how to achieve it. The way you phrased this might be what's upsetting some of the theists and other posters, though.

Personally I can tell that one of the best things that ever happened to me was being raised secularly and to critically think. The fact that so many children are denied this opportunity makes me sad; they are at a point in their life where they have not yet had a chance. I strongly believe that the education system should be secular.

---

(November 19, 2017 at 10:43 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:

Quote: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.

This is such a monumentally stupid argument that it's hard to know where to begin.  If it were true, then atheists would have to be more successful than believers, with a concomitant issue of believers having more of a struggle to 'get ahead'.  Since neither of these are evidentially true, Dawkins should get his head out of his arse at least long enough to look about and see things as they are.

Maybe that stroke affected him more than we thought.

Boru

Why do you assume that many theists could not be more successful than they are had they been raised with a better ability to critically think? I consider this a very valuable skill. This argument is a little like when people say 'when I was a kid we didn't have ______ and I turned out just fine'. Fill in the blank with a good number of things: seatbelts, mental health awareness, the internet, renewable energy, higher education for women, cell phones, vaccines. Just because someone 'turned out fine' doesn't mean that they couldn't have turned out better, or that all of the influences of their childhood were positive.

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

Ok, so what you have described here is a situation where an unwholesome thought has arisen, you were self aware enough to recognise that unwholesome thought and you did not allow that thought to turn into words or actions. Were you unethical? In words and actions, no but in thoughts, yes. Let's say you were not self aware enough to notice the unwholesome thought and it resulting in some words or actions against the perpetrator. Because the unwholesome thought arose, there is a chance that it will be followed by unwholesome words and/or actions.

Let's take the same scenario but with a different result. Someone steps on your foot and causes you pain. You do not have thoughts of retaliation. What are the chances that unethical words or actions will follow? None. In the first scenario there is always a chance. In the second scenario, it is not possible.

---

(November 19, 2017 at 8:13 pm)SteveII Wrote:

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

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.

[*]

I don't use "Dawkins said so" as a support for his argument. That doesn't make any sense. It's like saying "the bible says so - so it must be true". See? It doesn't make any sense.

There is no historical proof of JC's life let alone how he died. How then can anyone state there were 14 or 15 or 12 or any "stations of the cross"? This is an absurdity. You don't even know what you had for lunch a year ago, how would anyone know what JC did 2,000 years ago?

"The fact that  you did not find any meaning in the NT, is an individual matter" - No, it is a matter of simple logic. Unless you do a great deal of mental gymnastics, there is little to no consistent, coherent meaning in the bible. It's why I had to read the NT 3 times - just to make sure I wasn't missing something.

He does not say it in the god delusion. He says it in interviews and in articles.

I have defined unwholesome thoughts, words and actions as being those that harm or kill living beings. Your god is responsible for the death of millions of living beings in one supposed act of his - the great flood. But this is just one of his many heinous crimes.

---

(November 19, 2017 at 8:53 pm)alpha male Wrote:

(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.

Sure, here's some:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/american/prison.htm

Atheists supply less than 1% of American prisons. The vast majority are some form of xtianity. So, teach your children to be good xtians so they can go straight to prison. That's child abuse. Here's a nice quote from the article:

Dr. Christian, Superintendant of the NY State Reformatories, checked
22,000 prison inmates and found only 4 college graduates.  In "Who's Who"
91% were college graduates, and he commented that "intelligence and
knowledge produce right living" and that "crime is the offspring of
superstition and ignorance."

Superstition and ignorance - ie xtianity - lead to prison life. This is just one tiny example so let's not get hung up over it. These sorts of results can be seen throughout society.

---

(November 19, 2017 at 9:10 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:

(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.

How can I be "anti-Catholic" when one of my best friends in Catholic? Seriously, you need to stop taking things so personally and attack the argument instead of the person. I would not say anything against my Catholic friends.

---

(November 19, 2017 at 9:38 pm)Catholic_Lady Wrote:

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

Don't take it personally, CL. One of the posters here accused me of the same thing because I sent my daughter to a catholic school. I didn't take it personally. I admitted that I was not as careful as I could have been and as soon as I realised I rectified the situation. If we sweep things under the carpet instead of bringing them into the light and examining them, then we continue the abuse simply because we are not aware of it. I put an end to it as soon as I became aware of it. The first step is to reconginse it and admit it.

---

(November 20, 2017 at 3:20 am)shadow Wrote: I agree that this is an awful thing to do to a child. 'Abuse' might imply some intent, though, and I don't think most religious parents want anything but the best for their children; they simply have a flawed understanding of how to achieve it. The way you phrased this might be what's upsetting some of the theists and other posters, though.

Personally I can tell that one of the best things that ever happened to me was being raised secularly and to critically think. The fact that so many children are denied this opportunity makes me sad; they are at a point in their life where they have not yet had a chance. I strongly believe that the education system should be secular.

This is a crucial point. Of course no good parent would want to deliberately disadvantage or abuse their children - quite the opposite, they shower them with love and kindness. However, ignorance of the damage they are doing to their children by teaching their religions means that they cannot correct their behaviour. Instead they go into denial mode and shut down completely. When one of the members here accused me of mentally abusing my oldest child by sending her to a catholic school I had to admit that by not carefully investigating the school beforehand that I do accept the accusation. The difference is thought that as soon as I became aware of the situation I rectified it. Ignoring it or denying it only leads to situations like the catholic church is in with a huge cover-up of child molestation.

Good to hear you were raised with critical thinking. I found my daughers prospered an amazing amount by being introduced to critical thinking.

(November 19, 2017 at 8:24 pm)possibletarian Wrote: 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.

Nowt wrong with hating religion, but he needs to stop and think before making nutty comments like the one under discussion.  Elsewhere, Dawkins has made very good arguments that religion is, on balance, less of a help than a hindrance.

But the notion that religious instruction in and of itself makes it harder to cope with the world simply isn't borne out by the evidence.  Richard Dawkins himself is pretty damned successful, and seems pretty well adjusted, despite his COE upbringing.

Dawkins is off the rails with this one.

Boru

As you sayed Dawkins is a biologist, to make his opinion that teaching children religion is a child mental abuse an argument is a logical fallacy, he may be a brilliant biologist but his expertise in psychologi may not be that brillian.It's like me saying God exists because Albert Einsteint believed it.

I would agree that childhood indoctrination into any one specific religion or cult of any kind is abusive to the innocent mind of a child (and religions are cults really, they're just cults that are popular and accepted). Parents who teach their children comparative religion aren't abusive though. My parents taught me all about different religions in an unbiased way saying that "This is what people believe", and I saw that they were just like mythology and all equally silly. My parents themselves aren't atheists and also believe in their own spiritual nonsense that is equally silly.

I'd resent my parents bitterly and lose all respect for them if they had indoctrinated me into any one religion and when I was an adult I realized it was all nonsense. For starters I may have not been able to shake it off and I may have spent my whole life believing in nonsense just because my parents decided to talk their own delusions at me as if it were fact.

If parents created a cult where they convinced children that the moon is made of cheese and fought all attempts by the school or anyone else to teach their children otherwise, and these children went into their adulthood believing the moon is made of cheese, I think people would suddenly realize how abusive that is. Religion is no different . . . and in fact is potentially far more harmful than the belief that the moon is made of cheese (depending on the type of religion taught).

---

(November 19, 2017 at 10:43 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Maybe that stroke affected him more than we thought.

I think that he made a similar statement to this many years before his stroke.

And in fact I think his actual statement was that the labeling of children like "This is a Christian child", "This is a Muslim child" or even "This is an atheist child" is abusive.