Dawkins: "Being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse"
355 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Thom12255;38934271]It's funny because that isn't what Christians believe Hell is.[/QUOTE]
It's funny that you think you can make claims about what an entire group, with so many different denominations and sects, believes.
Also, Catholicism is a denomination of Christianity. Christianity and Catholicism aren't separate, one is just a more specific term.
[QUOTE=BenJammin';38934323]I got so much slack for hating Dawkins over here, now you guys know why I hate this asshole.[/QUOTE]
But he isn't wrong. Sure he says controversial stuff, but what's wrong with pointing out the awful truth's about certain beliefs? He's just attacking Catholicism, the most Bible-literal and scary branch of Christianity.
Telling a child that they'll burn in hell for an eternity for what amounts to be human nature; that touching your dick will get you cast into burning brimstone for your flesh to burn off, regrow, and burn off forever; that having sex is an abomination of mankind, that you are a monster of sin that must repent to even be accepted by God, and that every action you do is the result of your filth.
That leads to some pretty fucked up children, and if you think that it's not as bad as verbal/physical abuse, you're blind to how much these words can affect a child. Telling a child this is an awful form of abuse, and its severity [b]can[/b] be compared to rape or hitting; the argument is not whether its worse or better, abuse is abuse regardless of the form, and it needs to stop.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;38934362]But he isn't wrong. Sure he says controversial stuff, but what's wrong with pointing out the awful truth's about certain beliefs? He's just attacking Catholicism, the most Bible-literal and scary branch of Christianity.
Telling a child that they'll burn in hell for an eternity for what amounts to be human nature; that touching your dick will get you cast into burning brimstone for your flesh to burn off, regrow, and burn off forever; that having sex is an abomination of mankind, that you are a monster of sin that must repent to even be accepted by God, and that every action you do is the result of your filth.
That leads to some pretty fucked up children, and if you think that it's not as bad as verbal/physical abuse, you're blind to how much these words can affect a child. Telling a child this is an awful form of abuse, and its severity can be compared to rape or abuse, its not whether its worse or better, abuse is abuse regardless.[/QUOTE]
yeah i was terrified of god as a child too that's why i'm not religious anymore but comparing it to child rape and then trivializing the rape by calling it "yucky" is so rock-hard fucking incorrigibly stupid it's unbelievable
[QUOTE=Mingebox;38934335]Yeah, that's just what we needed. The world's most famous atheist [I]telling rape victims that being raised religious was what they really should be upset about[/I].[/QUOTE]
How in the hell did you manage to come to that conclusion?
Are we reading different articles?
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;38934378]How in the hell did you manage to come to that conclusion?
Are we reading different articles?[/QUOTE]
it's a pretty basic conclusion. he's telling people who were raised catholic and molested by priests that being raised catholic was worse than being molested.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;38934372]yeah i was terrified of god as a child too that's why i'm not religious anymore but comparing it to child rape and then trivializing the rape by calling it "yucky" is so rock-hard fucking incorrigibly stupid it's unbelievable[/QUOTE]
I think comparing it to child rape is a decent concept, both have long term emotional and physical affects on a child, and both can traumatize one for years and years leading to abusive relationships, self harm and poor self images, but yes, I do agree that the "yucky" line was a bit daft. All in all though, he may have trivialized it, but his point still stands, religious upbringing in Catholicism can be just as bad as any form of abuse, because it is abuse. It's verbal abuse.
There is no way you can defend telling a child any of the teachings of the Catholic church.
You were raped as a child? At least your parents didn't take you to church!
[QUOTE=Robbobin;38934399]You were raped as a child? At least your parents didn't take you to church![/QUOTE]
Nice job trivializing the entire argument and missing the point of what Dawkins was trying to make.
If you think that telling a child any of the lines of scripture already posted is healthy for them mentally, you really don't realize the impact that "burning hell for eternity" can have on a small child.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;38934372]yeah i was terrified of god as a child too that's why i'm not religious anymore but comparing it to child rape and then trivializing the rape by calling it "yucky" is so rock-hard fucking incorrigibly stupid it's unbelievable[/QUOTE]
lol you're just appealing to emotion and using loaded phrases like "trivializing" rape
[QUOTE=Loriborn;38934396]I think comparing it to child rape is a decent concept, both have long term emotional and physical affects on a child, and both can traumatize one for years and years leading to abusive relationships, self harm and poor self images, but yes, I do agree that the "yucky" line was a bit daft. All in all though, he may have trivialized it, but his point still stands, religious upbringing in Catholicism can be just as bad as any form of abuse, because it is abuse. It's verbal abuse.
There is no way you can defend telling a child any of the teachings of the Catholic church.[/QUOTE]
he could tell me the sky was blue and if he phrased it as poorly as he did here i would disagree
[QUOTE=TheHydra;38934372]yeah i was terrified of god as a child too that's why i'm not religious anymore but comparing it to child rape and then trivializing the rape by calling it "yucky" is so rock-hard fucking incorrigibly stupid it's unbelievable[/QUOTE]
I want to see where Dawkins actually said that. How do we know he isn't quoting what the woman said to him?
[quote]He said he had been told by a woman that while being abused by a priest was a ‘yucky’ experience, being told as a child that a Protestant friend who died would ‘roast in Hell’ was more distressing.[/quote]
To me, it looks like the woman is the one who described it as yucky. The fact that you are losing your shit because "yucky" was used instead of "fucking terrible" is quite ridiculous. You're missing the point of the article because you are getting hung-up over a stupid word.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38934413]lol you're just appealing to emotion and using loaded phrases like "trivializing" rape[/QUOTE]
what the fuck are you even talking about? is this a joke post
[editline]22nd December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;38934415]I want to see where Dawkins actually said that. How do we know he isn't quoting what the woman said to him?
To me, it looks like the woman is the one who described it as yucky. The fact that you are losing your shit because "yucky" was used instead of "fucking terrible" is quite ridiculous. You're missing the point of the article because you are getting hung-up over a stupid word.[/QUOTE]
words convey a certain tone and tone kind of matters a lot
If only Bill Zeller knew that religious people had it so much worse than him.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;38934372]yeah i was terrified of god as a child too that's why i'm not religious anymore but comparing it to child rape and then trivializing the rape by calling it "yucky" is so rock-hard fucking incorrigibly stupid it's unbelievable[/QUOTE]
Do you know what quotations are? That means the woman said it.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;38934416]what the fuck are you even talking about? is this a joke post
[editline]22nd December 2012[/editline]
words convey a certain tone and tone kind of matters a lot[/QUOTE]
The way 'yucky' is quoted makes it sound like the molested victim said it, which even further iterates Dawkin's point.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;38934416]words convey a certain tone and tone kind of matters a lot[/QUOTE]
a tone only matters to those who interpret it. words and the intents behind them are the only things that really matter, the tone is irrelevant.
Guys please read the op ,it's not as bad as it sounds.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;38934412]Nice job trivializing the entire argument and missing the point of what Dawkins was trying to make.
If you think that telling a child any of the lines of scripture already posted is healthy for them mentally, you really don't realize the impact that "burning hell for eternity" can have on a small child.[/QUOTE]
While my post was facetious (no less than "rape is yucky", though) , I do get the point really. I'd say that there's no interesting way of comparing the two. There's so many different ways of giving a child a religious upbringing, ranging from mere education in the parent's religion to coercively forcing them to practice it. And there's loads of different ways of abusing a child, ranging from very mild neglect to rape. How do we even begin to compare the two?
Everyone (on facepunch, at least) would be cheering him on if he made realistic claims like "religious upbringing is child abuse of a bad sort", but instead he blows things out to be gratuitous, absurd statements that serve no helpful end but alienating everyone from one another.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;38934416]
words convey a certain tone and tone kind of matters a lot[/QUOTE]
He was quoting. Maybe if he'd have paraphrased it it would have come out more tactfully, but a quote is a quote.
Depends on how into it your parents were I guess.
I was raised Catholic, I honestly didn't mind it. My parents didn't let it invade home life too much, and when I did got to church and other church events, I found it pretty fun. I never was immersed in the whole "everyone except you is going to hell" idea, it was never a part of my life.
I get what Dawkins is talking about, but that is a broad sweeping generalization that is absolutely insane. I really wish he stuck to what made him a great guy, instead of being some militant anti-theist.
[QUOTE=Paramud;38934080]I'd like Dawkins more if he wasn't occasionally a colossal ass about being an atheist.[/QUOTE]
why he would be respectful of a group of delusional, destructive, hypocritical, clinically insane morons that can't handle the reality of their own existence so they fill their life with lies and cause immeasurable pain for the rest of the world? please give me one reason why anyone should respect a person who believes that the world is 5000 years old when there are fossils dating from more than a million years ago? honestly, don't speak ever again. you're a waste.
I find militant anti-atheists more annoying than militant theists.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;38934465]why he would be respectful of a group of delusional, destructive, hypocritical, clinically insane morons that can't handle the reality of their own existence so they fill their life with lies and cause immeasurable pain for the rest of the world? please give me one reason why anyone should respect a person who believes that the world is 5000 years old when there are fossils dating from more than a million years ago? honestly, don't speak ever again. you're a waste.[/QUOTE]
You're funny
[QUOTE=Loriborn;38934432]The way 'yucky' is quoted makes it sound like the molested victim said it, which even further iterates Dawkin's point.[/QUOTE]
even so, the quote implies he agrees with it, and using one quote like that to try and prove your point is a really shithead thing to do. to me it's sort of like people who say "my black friend lets me say nigger, so why don't all of them?". you can't use the behavior and experiences of one person in a group to apply to the entirety
I don't really get this.. I was raised Catholic but I've never had any issues. I attended Mass every Friday for a year, I've said prayers and talked to priests. I'm agnostic to this day, and I've no damage from my Catholic past.
[QUOTE=Falubii;38934470]I find militant anti-atheists more annoying than militant theists.[/QUOTE]
I know a militant atheist who always gets in a huff and puff about religion whenever it's mentioned.
I just laugh at him when he goes on those rants though.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;38934465]why he would be respectful of a group of delusional, destructive, hypocritical, clinically insane morons that can't handle the reality of their own existence so they fill their life with lies and cause immeasurable pain for the rest of the world? please give me one reason why anyone should respect a person who believes that the world is 5000 years old when there are fossils dating from more than a million years ago? honestly, don't speak ever again. you're a waste.[/QUOTE]
Because some are
A. Not the simple
or
B. Not bothering anybody
You're a fucking asshole buddy, get the fuck out if you are going to be a giant cunt over a post that was hardly even hostile.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;38934416]what the fuck are you even talking about? is this a joke post[/quote]
because the argument is circular
dawkins is saying that priests raping kids might not be as bad as it's cracked up to be, and he gives an argument for it. but in your model of the world, "raping kids is really really bad" is immutable. so you see that dawkins isn't respecting this taboo, so you criticise him for "trivializing" it. therefore, so the reasoning goes, the argument must be wrong. you're proving your proposition by assuming it in the first place.
[quote]words convey a certain tone and tone kind of matters a lot[/QUOTE]
[img]http://i.imgur.com/81i24.png[/img]
[QUOTE=Robbobin;38934450]While my post was facetious (no less than "rape is yucky", though) , I do get the point really. I'd say that there's no interesting way of comparing the two. There's so many different ways of giving a child a religious upbringing, ranging from mere education in the parent's religion to coercively forcing them to practice it. And there's loads of different ways of abusing a child, ranging from very mild neglect to rape. How do we even begin to compare the two?
Everyone (on facepunch, at least) would be cheering him on if he made realistic claims like "religious upbringing is child abuse of a bad sort", but instead he blows things out to be gratuitous, absurd statements that serve no helpful end but alienating everyone from one another.[/QUOTE]
And I think he could've said it that way, but being raised into an abusive religion has far longer lasting affects than abuse can have. Verbal abuse is often far worse than physical, and while molestation and rape by Church officials are still [b]awfully horrendous[/b] things, being raised to believe that every thought you have is sinful, and you're a monster, can still cause more long lasting self-image issues.
Take into consideration a gay individual raised by Catholic parents who becomes so brainwashed, that he harms himself because he has "unpure thoughts," or even kills himself, or represses his desires.
Take into consideration a girl who has sex with a guy before marriage and gets disowned by her family, or becomes pregnant, and has to care for a child on her own.
While I'm not saying all Catholic parents would do this, Catholicism reinforces these beliefs and gives people blatant justification to "follow the word of God" and basically abuse a child.
[QUOTE=Falubii;38934470]I find militant anti-atheists more annoying than militant theists.[/QUOTE]
well then you would be wrong
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.