Dawkins: "Being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse"
355 replies, posted
[QUOTE=gudman;38954831]What he meant was that atheists are just as dumb as theists, and in denial as much as them. To feel better about themselves, dumb atheists hypnotize themselves into believing they are smarter and more reasonable, when in fact it is not the case.
So that's same old "atheism is a form of religion, checkmate!".[/QUOTE]
I do not think there is no god to feel better about myself, I am not deluded in that way.
Atheism is the belief that there is nothing where there appears to be nothing. [B]That is not faith[/B]. I don't think something is there because there does not appear to be anything there.
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;38954051] lots of text about atheism/agnosticism[/QUOTE]
Theism refers to belief. Gnosticism refers to knowledge (from "gnosis"; knowledge). If you believe in a god/gods, but don't claim knowledge of their existence, you are an agnostic theist. You can also be an agnostic atheist, or a gnostic theist, or (albeit rare) a gnostic atheist. People use "agnostic" as if it were some sort of less extreme version of atheism. It's not, they're not mutually exclusive terms. Then again, I guess words change definition over time as people start to use them differently, but the definitions you and many others are trying to push are complex and redundant.
[B]Edit[/B]
I may have entirely misread what you said, and it could be the case that actually you agree with me. I'm slightly too tired to figure it out.
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;38954051]I think you have a bit of a warped view on what Atheism is. Just look at the word and break it down. The word Theist means, belief in a deity; when your put an "A" in the front it means without. Atheism means in the most simple form; Without God/Without a Deity.
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
Exactly! People have this misconception that Atheists are equally as wrong because they don't believe in a God without evidence of one not existing. Richard Dawkins explains in one of his books about a scale; on the far left is Theists, on the opposite end is 100% Atheists. The problem with either extreme is that there isn't any proof for either ideas. Being an Atheist that 100% says God doesn't exist is just as dumb as someone who says that %100 God exists. However, most Atheists sit somewhere further down the scale.
IE, we strongly don't believe an omnipotent being actively controls the universe, but to 100% refute the idea is scientifically wrong. I believe a good saying is, "Any smart Atheist will be Agnostic" because Agnosticism more or less is the belief that there isn't a God but the idea can't be proven just yet. The blanket term Atheist just covers everyone who currently doesn't believe in a God.
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
Ahem, Russell's Teapot would like to have a word with you:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."[/QUOTE]
I never said anything was wrong with doubting existence of gods. Hell, I doubt my own from time to time.
At least you're not oversimplifying yourself to win at arguments on the internet.
[QUOTE=Matriax;38954860]I do not think there is no god to feel better about myself, I am not deluded in that way.
[/QUOTE]
The "feel better" part, according to Irkalla (if I understood him correctly), comes from the delusion that atheist is somehow right in his beliefs (that there's no god or whatever) because of "reason", "common sense", "logic".
I agree that there's no such "belief" exists, so the whole thing is one big stretch.
[QUOTE=gudman;38954978]The "feel better" part, according to Irkalla (if I understood him correctly), comes from the delusion that atheist is somehow right in his beliefs (that there's no god or whatever) because of "reason", "common sense", "logic".
I agree that there's no such "belief" exists, so the whole thing is one big stretch.[/QUOTE]
You are correct, atheism is not a belief in the same way theism is, it is a distinct lack of belief.
But yes, I think I am right in my beliefs due to logic and reason, why is that somehow "delusional"?
Edit: changed "believe" to "think", god this is getting confusing.
[QUOTE=matt.ant;38934044]
Roman Catholic former Tory MP Ann Widdecombe said: ‘[B]Dawkins doesn’t know what to say next to get attention. No sane person would believe that being brought up in a force for good, in the Ten Commandments, in the Beatitudes, and in the Gospels can be worse than child abuse.[/B]'
[/QUOTE]
Ann Widdecombe's statement is a perfect example of mindless brainwashing via religion in action.
Brainwashed so hard into believing some bullshit that you not online believe it for 60+ years and tout it as a 'force for good' yet can't see how this is a damaging process?
Could Ann ever break her beliefs? Would 40 years tutoring in the art of reality help her? Doubtful.
As for the rape statement, I'd agree that they have a similar impact - although being raised catholic has more active implications as you're expected to carry the tradition on through your entire life.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953229]
Tell me this, how can an atheist go around saying there are no gods if he doesn't believe that there aren't any?[/QUOTE]
I am an agnostic. To me there is no reason to believe gods exist because they lack empirical evidence. That's why I'm also an atheist. Atheism does not close out agnostism.
Whether god/gods exist or not, at the moment they have exactly zero truth value. Exactly on the same line where the tooth fairy and santa are. Even though I am an agnostic I don't need to keep on repeating the possibility of every single supernatural thing, because there are infinitely of them. That would be pointless waste of resources. My "belief" works on probability. The probability of an existence is determited by the evidence. And god has zero.
But it's also true atheism does not close out religion either. If you reject the existence of god, but believe in some sort of other non-godlike spirituality you are still an atheist.
There's no excuse that Christians can ever say that will make the idea of hell excusable.
It's simply not and never will be.
[video=youtube;1cpsmyuILk8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1cpsmyuILk8[/video]
i was raised catholic and the only thing wrong with me is trying to comprehend how fucking retarded u all are
[highlight](User was permabanned for this post ("troll alt" - Orkel))[/highlight]
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38954936]I never said anything was wrong with doubting existence of gods. Hell, I doubt my own from time to time.[/QUOTE]
Don't worry, I'm a separate entity and I think you exist.
Unless of course this is your subconscious speaking.
I guess you will never know!
Ugghugugh
Dawkins never said that being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse. If anyone bothered to watch the interview, Dawkins was just referring back to his book which gave an example of a girl who was sexually abused by a priest. The same girl in question had a non-Catholic friend who died. Her church leaders told her that her friend would be roasting for eternity in hell and that thought bothered her much longer than her experience with the abuse did. It's just one example and Dawkins himself said IMMEDIATELY afterward that it's just an example of how bad teaching kids the concept of hell is, not a statement about rape or anything of the sort.
You'd expect people to look more carefully at a fucking Daily Mail article.
Dawkins used to be an idol of mine. A guy I looked up to because of his flawless reason and logic. What happened, Dawkins?
[sub][I]This comment is now obslotete due to the comment above mine.[/I][/sub]
It's funny how the title is in quotes, but that quote doesn't actually exist. Definitely no agenda being pushed here.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953017]Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism are all beliefs. They're all equally wrong, and it proves one's own stupidity to claim one is wrong while believing in another. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[/QUOTE]
In a certain sense absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but even moreso it means that there is [I]absolutely nothing[/I] to support the positive assertion that god exists. Regardless of whether god doesn't exist, at least you may be at a position where, when confronted with new evidence, can readily shift your position. However, if you believe that a god exists, even in the absence of evidence, the burden of proof is on you to in some way explain why that is. Any claim presented without evidence (or even good justification) can be dismissed without evidence, after all.
this is true, but most families abuse their children anyway so telling them about psychedelic beliefs is nowhere near in the same league as to what actually happens in some kids' lives.
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
oh it's daily mail..
[QUOTE=AK'z;38960528]this is true, but most families abuse their children anyway so telling them about psychedelic beliefs is nowhere near in the same league as to what actually happens in some kids' lives.
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
oh it's daily mail..[/QUOTE]
Too late. All the users have come and gone with only the Daily Mail title leaving an impression. Cue next week when another Dawkins article is posted in SH and the cycle repeats itself.
"Oh look, Dawkins is being an asshole again."
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953017]Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism are all beliefs. They're all equally wrong, and it proves one's own stupidity to claim one is wrong while believing in another.
I choose to be a theist. Others do not. Does that mean they're wrong?[/QUOTE]
[quote]I choose to be a theist.[/quote]
[quote]Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism are all equally wrong[/quote]
hahah okay buddy
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Bean Shoot;38956751]You'd expect people to look more carefully at a fucking Daily Mail article.[/QUOTE]
not in SH
I haven't the slightest faith in the posters of this section to distinguish between fact and fiction
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
thread title should be "Ann Widdecombe completely invalidates victim's views"
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;38949733]are you fucking inbred or what? if you think that the bible is wrong about a multitude of things and yet you still think the religion based on the bible is real, *YOU'RE A FUCKING IDIOT*. I think categorizing these people as christians is an insult to their superiors who actually believe in the religion and aren't just cowards that can't face mortality. bottom line is, if I tell you 10 things and 8 of them turn out to be false, and then you base your life on the other 2 things I said, you're not intelligent enough to be considered human. this is simple shit, man. wake up.
[highlight](User was banned for this post ("Flaming" - Megafan))[/highlight][/QUOTE]
yeah, just so everyone knows, having a non christian opinion is technically flaming. thanks for clearing that up megafan, you're a great moderator.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;38963062]yeah, just so everyone knows, having a non christian opinion is technically flaming. thanks for clearing that up megafan, you're a great moderator.[/QUOTE]
Nope, pretty sure you got banned for being rude as hell.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;38963062]yeah, just so everyone knows, having a non christian opinion is technically flaming. thanks for clearing that up megafan, you're a great moderator.[/QUOTE]
No, saying "are you fucking inbred or what?" is flaming. This isn't the place to dispute bans anyway, so I'm warning you now to stop.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;38963062]yeah, just so everyone knows, having a non christian opinion is technically flaming. thanks for clearing that up megafan, you're a great moderator.[/QUOTE]
what's the matter with you
[QUOTE=Megafan;38963218]No, saying "are you fucking inbred or what?" is flaming. This isn't the place to dispute bans anyway, so I'm warning you now to stop.[/QUOTE]
God I hope he doesn't heed your warning.
[QUOTE=Bean Shoot;38963206]Nope, pretty sure you got banned for being rude as hell.[/QUOTE]
oh really? care to have a look at some of the other things people have said just in this thread alone?
looks like your hope was granted
[QUOTE=Bean Shoot;38956751]Ugghugugh
Dawkins never said that being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse. If anyone bothered to watch the interview, Dawkins was just referring back to his book which gave an example of a girl who was sexually abused by a priest. The same girl in question had a non-Catholic friend who died. Her church leaders told her that her friend would be roasting for eternity in hell and that thought bothered her much longer than her experience with the abuse did. It's just one example and Dawkins himself said IMMEDIATELY afterward that it's just an example of how bad teaching kids the concept of hell is, not a statement about rape or anything of the sort.
You'd expect people to look more carefully at a fucking Daily Mail article.[/QUOTE]
I looked at his website, and he actually did say something like that, but later admitted it was something heat of the moment,.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.