Dawkins: "Being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse"
355 replies, posted
I guess i don't understand the point Dawkins is making because it seems like hes just saying child abuse is bad in different words. Which goes without saying.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38934783][url=http://lesswrong.com/lw/yp/pretending_to_be_wise/]"now, now, both sides in this debate are idiots, which is why intelligent people such as myself take no heed of such trivial matters" - you[/url][/QUOTE]
but he's right
if you're not able to demonstrate your argument without alienating a huge number of people who - if you were a better speaker - would normally agree with you, you're doing something terribly wrong.
[QUOTE=Noble;38934742]You might hate him, but he's right.[/QUOTE]
In a very vague and broad sense yeah sure.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;38934751]I'm not arguing about the harm they do. I'm merely saying that they should just be done away with.
[editline]22nd December 2012[/editline]
I'm not saying they should all be killed.[/QUOTE]
I can appreciate the sentiment, but I don't know if things work out that way
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38934783][url=http://lesswrong.com/lw/yp/pretending_to_be_wise/]"now, now, both sides in this debate are idiots, which is why intelligent people such as myself take no heed of such trivial matters" - you[/url]
notreally you should see the context of how he said it[/QUOTE]
They are both very obnoxious and awful people though. That "I am the middleground moral pedestal" thing doesn't really work in this context. We are talking about the worst, and most extreme of both sides.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38934568]wait so you're calling out this article for misrepresenting an anecdote then in the next sentence you use an anecdote to argue for child sexual abuse being worse
[/QUOTE]
Actually I was trying to make the point that it affects people differently, contrasting the anecdote in the article where child sex abuse had no obvious scarring effects, with one where it drove a man to suicide. I didn't say "therefore child sex abuse is worse", my exact words were "child sex abuse can be horrific". In saying the title was sensationalist I simply wanted to make the point that Richard Dawkins acknowledged that not all people were affected by sex abuse the same way the woman in the article described it.
I do think that sexual abuse is more harmful than being raised Catholic, but I wasn't arguing that particular point when I mentioned my anecdote.
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;38934358]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]
Most Protestants(including myself) don't consider Catholicism Christianity because they don't "follow Christ", they follow men, dead people and themselves to find salvation.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38934783][url=http://lesswrong.com/lw/yp/pretending_to_be_wise/]"now, now, both sides in this debate are idiots, which is why intelligent people such as myself take no heed of such trivial matters" - you[/url]
i mean really do you see militant atheists going around mutilating genitals or flying planes into buildings or what have you? the most bad thing i've seen them do are hurt people's feelings (read: attacking a sacred cow)
notreally you should see the context of how he said it[/QUOTE]
So, he hears a story about a child who had militant theist parents who were Catholic, who told her that her friend would burn in hell for all eternity because she was a Protestant, and he then says that people raised Catholic had it worse than people who were physically abused as children.
It's not a case of religious belief, it's a case of she had abusive parents who were Catholics (and rotten Catholics, at that).
[editline]22nd December 2012[/editline]
On the topic of militant sides, I'm saying that they're all assholes that we don't need. They aren't progressing anything but hatred against each other.
[QUOTE=Robbobin;38934801]but he's right
if you're not able to demonstrate your argument without alienating a huge number of people who - if you were a better speaker - would normally agree with you, you're doing something terribly wrong.[/QUOTE]
oh come on i expected better of you. he's talking about militant atheists in general; a single atheist being a poor public speaker (on a single occasion i might add) doesn't add up to the full group
[QUOTE=Robbobin;38934801]but he's right
if you're not able to demonstrate your argument without alienating a huge number of people who - if you were a better speaker - would normally agree with you, you're doing something terribly wrong.[/QUOTE]
One could [I]quite easily[/I] make a perfectly sound and reasoned argument that alienates a huge number of people, solely due to the fact that they don't like its implications or the way it sounds. That doesn't make the argument bad, it makes the people reacting to it irrational.
[QUOTE=Mr. N;38934802]They are both very obnoxious and awful people though. That "I am the middleground moral pedestal" thing doesn't really work in this context. We are talking about the worst, and most extreme of both sides.[/QUOTE]
but again, the worst and most extreme of both sides aren't comparable at all. there are only 2 examples of militant atheism I can think of that have reached the scale of atrocities committed by militant theism, and those are revolutionary france and revolutionary russia (which is more an argument against revolutions than against atheism now that I think about it)
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38934857]oh come on i expected better of you. he's talking about militant atheists in general; a single atheist being a poor public speaker (on a single occasion i might add) doesn't add up to the full group[/QUOTE]
I'll try to be a little more eloquent; my point is, militant atheists are able to make claims that I usually agree with to a huge extent, but present them in a bitterly unlikable fashion. Dawkins is just the perfect example (and not just in this [I]single occasion,[/I] I can't think of another member of academic community who is able to make so many people who ought to agree with him argue against him). I just don't respond well to militant arguments. To me, when someone is arguing militantly (as opposed to arguing in a level-headed, uncontroversial, logical fashion), it just feels like there's a huge subtext motivating their argument. I guess there's no purely rational reason to dislike militant arguments; they're just unhelpful.
[QUOTE=Paramud;38934080]I'd like Dawkins more if he wasn't occasionally a colossal ass about being an atheist.[/QUOTE]
He kind of has to be an ass because no one else has the gal to stick it to religion and challenge their dominance over our culture. He makes a lot of wide claims, but I can find myself getting behind most of them. He is barbed in his approach but I am just as annoyed and bothered by the fact that there are so many people in the world that still utterly refute science, logic, and most importantly; reasoning.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;38934271]It's funny because that isn't what Christians believe Hell is.[/QUOTE]
[quote=Matthew 13][B]47[/B] “Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a dragnet cast into the sea, and gathering [I]fish[/I] of every kind;
[B]48[/B] and when it was filled, they drew it up on the beach; and they sat down and gathered the good [I]fish[/I] into containers, but the bad they threw away.[B]
49[/B] “So it will be at the end of the age; the angels will come forth and take out the wicked from among the righteous,
[B]50 [/B]and will throw them into the furnace of fire; in that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
[/quote]
Nope, nothin' about fire or burning there!
[QUOTE=Megafan;38934861]One could [I]quite easily[/I] make a perfectly sound and reasoned argument that alienates a huge number of people, solely due to the fact that they don't like its implications or the way it sounds. That doesn't make the argument bad, it makes the people reacting to it irrational.[/QUOTE]
My point is, most of Dawkins' conclusions I [I]would[/I] agree with, if they were presented differently. I've heard this sort of thing from [I]so[/I] many people with regards to Dawkins. Nobody else can do it like he does. One thing for sure, he's never going to change any religious people's minds. If you're presenting an argument that only half of the people who [I]already agree with you[/I] find compelling, you're totally shit at presenting arguments.
[editline]22nd December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;38934878]but again, the worst and most extreme of both sides aren't comparable at all. there are only 2 examples of militant atheism I can think of that have reached the scale of atrocities committed by militant theism, and those are revolutionary france and revolutionary russia.[/QUOTE]
I think his initial point was only that militant atheists get on his tits more than militant theists; nothing more than that.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;38934807]Most Protestants(including myself) don't consider Catholicism Christianity because they don't "follow Christ", they follow men, dead people and themselves to find salvation.[/QUOTE]
As much of a vocal Atheist as I am I do have to say you have a huge misunderstanding of Catholic customs. What worries me isn't just the fact that you're terribly misinformed but you've been essentially "trained" to not think any further than what you're told is fact. I'd do a lot more research before making ridiculous claims like that; if not, I just can't take your position on these matters seriously.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;38934988]Nope, nothin' about fire or burning there![/QUOTE]
It says throwing evil doers into a flaming furnace. Essentially, evil people.
Moral of the story: don't be an evil person and you won't go to hell.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;38934988]Nope, nothin' about fire or burning there![/QUOTE]
You act as if Hell is an actual fire as in, a combustion reaction.
The Bible had been translated from Greek, the meaning isn't the same today as it was back then. It is the common belief that Hell is the complete disconnection between God and a person, that the person in hell is tormented not by flames burning his skin but simply due to the fact that they know they sinned, rejected Jesus and that they could have so easily avoided their eternal fate. That's hell. Whether or not there are really lakes of fire around you in Hell is irrelevant, the important idea around it is the torment of your own guilt for eternity never ending.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;38935032]You act as if Hell is an actual fire as in, a combustion reaction.
The Bible had been translated from Greek, the meaning isn't the same today as it was back then. It is the common belief that Hell is the complete disconnection between God and a person, that the person in hell is tormented not by flames burning his skin but simply due to the fact that they know they sinned, rejected Jesus and that they could have so easily avoided their eternal fate. That's hell. Whether or not there are really lakes of fire around you in Hell is irrelevant, the important idea around it is the torment of your own guilt for eternity never ending.[/QUOTE]
That's the same common belief where the authorial intent of Deuteronomy and Leviticus is that they don't mention anything about slavery or stoning, right?
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;38935010]As much of a vocal Atheist as I am I do have to say you have a huge misunderstanding of Catholic customs. What worries me isn't just the fact that you're terribly misinformed but you've been essentially "trained" to not think any further than what you're told is fact. I'd do a lot more research before making ridiculous claims like that; if not, I just can't take your position on these matters seriously.[/QUOTE]
You seem to be the one who has the misunderstanding.
Catholics believe that the head of the church is the Pope and his bishops. Christians believe the head of the Church is Jesus himself. That Scripture and Tradition(The Catholic Church has a huge emphasis on tradition that has no biblical basis) are just as important as the other whereas we believe that it is Scripture alone we are to put our faith in. That "Mary is the co-redeemer, for she participated with Christ in the painful act of redemption" whereas we believe that Christ alone redeemed us, we do not pray to the Virgin Mary or other Saints as we believe that is idoltory, something Catholics do not. That following the teachings of the Roman Catholic Church is necessaries to be saved whereas Protestants believe that you are saved through the acceptance of the holy spirit.
The biggest difference being that Catholics believe they are required to do good works to receive the grace of god and salvation whereas we simply believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation and that gift is given freely to all, good works merely reflect someone who is saved.
You can not have such a huge difference in beliefs and still be considered to be apart of the same religion. The fundamental beliefs of Christianity are based around Jesus and protestants and Catholics both have very different interpretations of him.
[editline]22nd December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;38935090]That's the same common belief where the authorial intent of Deuteronomy and Leviticus is that they don't mention anything about slavery or stoning, right?[/QUOTE]
What?
In Mosaic Law the slavery which we know today was punishable by death: “Anyone who kidnaps another and either sells him or still has him when he is caught must be put to death”. The slavery in the bible is not the same as what slavery is to us today. I don't see what this has to do with the accepted meaning of Hell though.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;38935122]I don't see what this has to do with the accepted meaning of Hell though.[/QUOTE]
Common belief of Christianity and the authorial intent of the bible are so distinct from eachother that it would be safe to say that they never meet.
[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;38935234]Common belief of Christianity and the authorial intent of the bible are so distinct from eachother that it would be safe to say that they never meet.[/QUOTE]
You're going to have to expand on how protestant teachings are not in line with what is in the New Testament.
I refer you to this article to understand what the bible means by "Hell" - [url]http://www.gotquestions.org/fire-and-brimstone.html[/url]
This thread sure went off topic.
[QUOTE=Paramud;38934080]colossal ass[/QUOTE]
:C
[QUOTE=Paramud;38934662]Catholics not adhering to every part of the religion wouldn't be a new thing, really. I was "raised" catholic, and the extent of it was being baptized and then never going to a church again.[/QUOTE]
Then you weren't a catholic and shouldn't have identified yourself as one.
[QUOTE=The_J_Hat;38935021]It says throwing evil doers into a flaming furnace. Essentially, evil people.
Moral of the story: don't be an evil person and you won't go to hell.[/QUOTE]
That kind of thinking is exactly what Christianity is not about.
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;38935659]That kind of thinking is exactly what Christianity is not about.[/QUOTE]
most false statement, 2012.
Let's not let parents raise their children with any bias at all; it's obviously bad for them!
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;38935685]most false statement, 2012.[/QUOTE]
Christianity teaches evil is in our nature and therefore it is impossible for us to not be evil.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;38934362]He's just attacking Catholicism, the most Bible-literal and scary branch of Christianity.[/QUOTE]
yeah, no. i can think of quite a few more fundamentalist sects of christianity than catholicism
[QUOTE=bIgFaTwOrM12;38935725]Christianity teaches evil is in our nature and therefore it is impossible for us to not be evil.[/QUOTE]
you're acting like you think christianity doesn't constantly contradict itself. christianity condemns evil doers to death in this life, and eternal torture in the next. I think you're confusing sin with evil, and I think you're confusing christianity with a sensible belief system.
I don't get it; I hear all these horror stories about Catholicism, yet I never once had to hear a fire an brimstone type sermon, and my entire family is overtly liberal.
Odd.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;38934778]''this book is the word of god, accept there are multiple instances where entire pages are just typos where god wasn't really paying attention and accidentally said kill all homosexuals''[/QUOTE]
not everyone believes in biblical inerrancy
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.