Telling children that they are going to hell is abusive?

[LastPoet]

All this preening, and still no evidence for hell.  Doesn't this ever seem counterproductive to you, Comfort?

My guess is very few atheists have ever looked at the evidence from Fatima.

Hmmm, empoverished Portugal, illiterate populace, three prophecies in hindsight and a dictatorship just in need to grab that harness over the people.

Are you tuga?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Suppose I had a child (I don’t) who was misbehaving.  Rather than try to correct their behaviour by some other means, I took them out into the garden, set their favourite toy on fire and told them, ‘I love you, but if you don’t be good, that’s what I’m going to do to you.’

Would that qualify as child abuse?

Boru

[ColdComfort]

Ha. Dawkins uses the words 'no evidence' too.

That's called logic and common sense: millions of sick people and only 66 supposed healings is no evidence for a miracle.

That's not what the man in the video said. Sixty-six declared miraculous cures and a few thousands unexplained cures. And of course, Lourdes is not the only place where miraculous cures occur. But what does statistics have to do with it? A miracle is an act of will by God. 

In any event that is not an examination of the evidence. For that, you would have to examine the medical files. But naturally you and others would just say there is no evidence to be examined even though there is.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

My guess is very few atheists have ever looked at the evidence from Fatima.

Hmmm, empoverished Portugal, illiterate populace, three prophecies in hindsight and a dictatorship just in need to grab that harness over the people.

Are you tuga?

Not to mention that, at the time of the Fátima incident, Portugal was undergoing a kind of religious hysteria.  Funny how that works.

Boru

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

That's called logic and common sense: millions of sick people and only 66 supposed healings is no evidence for a miracle.

That's not what the man in the video said. Sixty-six declared miraculous cures and a few thousands unexplained cures. And of course, Lourdes is not the only place where miraculous cures occur. But what does statistics have to do with it? A miracle is an act of will by God. 

In any event that is not an examination of the evidence. For that, you would have to examine the medical files. But naturally you and others would just say there is no evidence to be examined even though there is.

It’s debatable whether the term ‘act of will’ is even applicable to God.

Boru

[The Valkyrie]

That's called logic and common sense: millions of sick people and only 66 supposed healings is no evidence for a miracle.

That's not what the man in the video said. Sixty-six declared miraculous cures and a few thousands unexplained cures. And of course, Lourdes is not the only place where miraculous cures occur. But what does statistics have to do with it? A miracle is an act of will by God. 

In any event that is not an examination of the evidence. For that, you would have to examine the medical files. But naturally you and others would just say there is no evidence to be examined even though there is.

A question that has never been answered and something that has never been demonstrated: Curing amputees instead of "miracles" that can be claimed but not demonstrated.

A single regrown limb would convince millions. Certainly more so that aunt Agnes claiming her heart burn was cured by drinking water.

[ColdComfort]

My guess is very few atheists have ever looked at the evidence from Fatima.

Hmmm, empoverished Portugal, illiterate populace, three prophecies in hindsight and a dictatorship just in need to grab that harness over the people.

Are you tuga?

Portugal was not a dictatorship at the time. It was a republic that was very anti-clerical. The secular authorities were hostile to the claims as was most of the Church and the Press.  Only in 1930 did the Church declare it 'worthy of belief". The prophecies were not made in hindsight. As one example, the warnings about Russia were made at a time when that country was an absolute theocracy quite some time before the Bolshevik victory. And the miracle of the sun was witnessed by 30,000 to 40,000 people. It was predicted beforehand not in hindsight. That's why so many people were there.   The testimony has been collected and written down. The crowd was a mix of Catholics, non-believers come to scoff, and just curious people.  

Was Portugal impoverished at the time or particularly illiterate compared to the rest of Europe? I never heard that but I don't see why it would matter.

---

That's not what the man in the video said. Sixty-six declared miraculous cures and a few thousands unexplained cures. And of course, Lourdes is not the only place where miraculous cures occur. But what does statistics have to do with it? A miracle is an act of will by God. 

In any event that is not an examination of the evidence. For that, you would have to examine the medical files. But naturally you and others would just say there is no evidence to be examined even though there is.

It’s debatable whether the term ‘act of will’ is even applicable to God.

Boru

Very cryptic. But if its debatable you could start one.

---

That's not what the man in the video said. Sixty-six declared miraculous cures and a few thousands unexplained cures. And of course, Lourdes is not the only place where miraculous cures occur. But what does statistics have to do with it? A miracle is an act of will by God. 

In any event that is not an examination of the evidence. For that, you would have to examine the medical files. But naturally you and others would just say there is no evidence to be examined even though there is.

A question that has never been answered and something that has never been demonstrated:  Curing amputees instead of "miracles" that can be claimed but not demonstrated.

A single regrown limb would convince millions.  Certainly more so that aunt Agnes claiming her heart burn was cured by drinking water.

Would it convince millions? If suddenly someone is free of Parkinsons or cancer and that doesn't convince millions why would a regrown limb?  Wouldn't millions just say it was a trick by the Church looking to make some money.

---

Hmmm, empoverished Portugal, illiterate populace, three prophecies in hindsight and a dictatorship just in need to grab that harness over the people.

Are you tuga?

Not to mention that, at the time of the Fátima incident, Portugal was undergoing a kind of religious hysteria.  Funny how that works.

Boru

Never heard of that and I've read a lot about the subject. Any reference?

[ColdComfort]

Suppose I had a child (I don’t) who was misbehaving.  Rather than try to correct their behaviour by some other means, I took them out into the garden, set their favourite toy on fire and told them, ‘I love you, but if you don’t be good, that’s what I’m going to do to you.’

Would that qualify as child abuse?

Boru

Yes it would. And where I live it's a criminal offence to threaten anyone in that manner. Why do you ask...? If you think that parents should be forbidden to teach Christianity to their children then it's really the start of a civil war. My kids are adults now but I have grandchildren.  I'd fight you over this issue although at my age I'd need a desk job. It's something right out of Mao's China or Stalin's Russia. 

Is that what you meant? Hard to tell because you didn't explicitly finish your thought. You'd like to oppress Christians with the power of the state? Take their children away from them?

[arewethereyet]

If you constantly tell your young child there is a monster under the bed who will gobble them up if they dare get out of bed before morning and they believe it and lay in their bed till dawn even if they are sick or need the restroom because of the fear you have created - how is telling them if they lie, swear, cheat, etc. they will be burned for eternity any less emotionally abusive? It's threatening behavior used for control with one using a monster and one using a god...never mind...they are both using a monster to instill fear on a young psyche. Both are abusive.

[ColdComfort]

If you constantly tell your young child there is a monster under the bed who will gobble them up if they dare get out of bed before morning and they believe it and lay in their bed till dawn even if they are sick or need the restroom because of the fear you have created - how is telling them if they lie, swear, cheat, etc. they will be burned for eternity any less emotionally abusive?  It's threatening behavior used for control with one using a monster and one using a god...never mind...they are both using a monster to instill fear on a young psyche. Both are abusive.

There is no monster under the bed but there is a hell. That's one way the analogy is false. When my children were little I ,and their teachers, would also mention the mercy of God. And a Christian parent does use the threat of hell to control their kids. For the very good reason that parents don't decide if their kids go to heaven or hell. The analogy is entirely false.

But you didn't answer the question. Are you willing to use the power of the state and child welfare laws to prevent parents from teaching their children the Christian faith. If so, we have a very serious political problem.