• Dawkins: "Being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse"
    355 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Bean Shoot;38937777]Dawkins isn't arguing for the sake of arguing. He only argues against fundamentalism because that's what actually affects people negatively. He's mentioned many times in his books how he wouldn't bother with religious debate if it wasn't for the fundamentalists.[/QUOTE] Dawkins could probably get a lot of Christians on his side if he wasn't such an asshole.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;38937676]I'm sorry, but you can't say that the majority of Christians are "posers" when you aren't even one.[/QUOTE] Well, I may have overstated the thing for some dramatic effect, but the point is... If we call those ancient people, who were oftenly eaten by lions - Christians (and we have every right to), then the modern "majority of Christians" are something entirely, entirely diffirent. If we go to say "religion evolved" - well, that's one way to look at the meaning of the word "dogma". [editline]22nd December 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;38937802]Dawkins could probably get a lot of Christians on his side if he wasn't such an asshole.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and that's the funny part. Dawkins doesn't need Christians, nor Muslims on his side, nor anyone religious at all for that matter, that has been stated very often. The fundamentalists are the actual threat we see constantly. But the real long lasting threat, according to Dawkins, is the concept of "religious" faith itself, faith without evidence.
[QUOTE=RobbL;38937483]I was thinking the same thing. Obviously the actions of God show he isn't all powerful but then you get claims in the Bible of God himself saying things like "I am the Lord, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me?" when many christians believe the Bible to be the word of God, and not the subjective accounts or of it's writers or even allegory I'm sure the Bible never explicitly states God is perfect though[/QUOTE] Christ states explicitly that God is perfect in the sermon on the mount though.
[QUOTE=thisispain;38937276]k name one militant atheist group responsible for areligious terrorism there isn't one name one militant religious group responsible for religious terrorism if you know anything about geopolitics that should be easy[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_metal#Church_burnings]I'd call 50 churches being burnt to the ground anti-religious terrorism[/url] It may not have been an organized group, but it was (mostly) atheists committing terrorist acts against theists.
[QUOTE=Paramud;38937941][url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_metal#Church_burnings]I'd call 50 churches being burnt to the ground anti-religious terrorism[/url] It may not have been an organized group, but it was (mostly) atheists committing terrorist acts against theists.[/QUOTE] i think calling that militant is a severe stretch, especially when there are actually religious extremist militant groups
[QUOTE=thisispain;38938034]i think calling that militant is a severe stretch, especially when there are actually religious extremist militant groups[/QUOTE] They were still a group of (mostly) atheist extremists who used terror to serve as a weapon against the religious.
well no they weren't a group at all
[QUOTE=Ltp0wer;38934259]I can kind of believe that. I became a Christian after some school friends took me to church a few times and it was terrible knowing that my non-religious mother was going to end up in hell. I'd cry just thinking about the fact that she didn't accept Jesus, and I'd try to convince her to believe. It wouldn't work, and it'd just make me more sad. I was taught that if you think of sinning, it's equivalent to actually sinning in God's eyes. I was also taught that God and people in heaven could see and hear your thoughts all the time, which was pretty traumatizing. A blasphemous thought would cross my mind (such as "God is mean" or "What if god isn't real") and I'd start crying and shouting "No God! I didn't mean it, I didn't mean it! I'm sorry!". All this stuff was happening when I was in elementary school. I know the article is about Catholicism, but I think that the problem is fundamentalist Christianity. And even though I eventually grew out of those irrational thoughts, I still remember how terrible I felt. I really don't think young children should be exposed to religion in this way. I think it is a brain-washing technique, because children are very impressionable. You can teach them the fundamental things that no adult would believe (Hell, virgin birth, etc), and it will be engraved in their mind.[/QUOTE] That's fucked up. I wasn't raised to believe in God, but I eventually started to around the age of 14 or so. If you live in a heavily religious area (inland Mississippi [ask buttsex v3 about the diff.],) it's actually fairly cruel to raise your children irreligious. Either this, or Christian people need to start raising their children Christian instead of intolerant bigots. As to your posting, a perfect being would know that we're imperfect and would understand our sinful thinking. It's whether you act upon it or not that I believe is what counts. I question God's existence and what God is all the time. If our faith is a sword, then surely doubt is the fire that tempers it. It's this doubt that led me to become what I think to be a more proper God fearer. That is, a more tolerant one with more rational beliefs. I probably believe in more prophets you do (The Prophet Muhammad is probably the starkest difference,) but I do still reject certain others (like Joseph Smith.) But raising your children to be radical, militant atheists isn't proper either. They contribute as much to religious intolerance as a fundamentalist does.
certainly not a paramilitary
[QUOTE=thisispain;38938098]certainly not a paramilitary[/QUOTE] If you were looking for a militia, you should've said that. I don't think I've heard of any atheistic military groups, but I don't take a particular interest in religious terrorism. [editline]oh hamburgers[/editline] Does that really matter, though? Does an act of terrorism from an individual make it any less an act of terrorism? Would you consider Ted Kaczynksi not a terrorist?
[QUOTE=Vasili;38936812]You insinuated it, God allows humanity to be itself and as a result punishes humanity for that exact act.[/QUOTE] it's kind of like beating a dog for barking. the fuck else is it supposed to do
[QUOTE=Paramud;38938145]If you were looking for a militia, you should've said that. I don't think I've heard of any atheistic military groups, but I don't take a particular interest in religious terrorism.[/QUOTE] i did say that??? "one militant atheist group responsible for areligious terrorism" a bunch of swedish dudes burning down churches doesn't register to me as an atheist militant group that participates in terrorism, especially when i think of the OVF, the NLFT, the LRA, or Al Qaeda
What an ass
[QUOTE=Paramud;38934080]I'd like Dawkins more if he wasn't occasionally a colossal ass about being an atheist.[/QUOTE] he wouldn't even be popular on the internet or talked about amonst non science community members if it weren't for this, so you probably wouldn't even know who he is
[QUOTE=Paramud;38938145] Does that really matter, though? Does an act of terrorism from an individual make it any less an act of terrorism? Would you consider Ted Kaczynksi not a terrorist?[/QUOTE] no it has more to do with the nature of it. all i'm trying to say is that religious fervor is far more capable of assembling a group of people to do bad stuff than say a Sam Harris book
[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] I consider Catholics Christians, just that they're original Christians who stick to traditions that can help or hinder them in the long run.
[QUOTE=thisispain;38938260]no it has more to do with the nature of it. all i'm trying to say is that religious fervor is far more capable of assembling a group of people to do bad stuff than say a Sam Harris book[/QUOTE] Just because there isn't doesn't mean there can't. Atheists can be just as violent and stupid and organized as theists.
[QUOTE=Paramud;38938330]Just because there isn't doesn't mean there can't. Atheists can be just as violent and stupid and organized as theists.[/QUOTE] of course they can be as stupid and violent as theists, but organized i don't think so atheists lack the cultural capital to mobilize large vast majorities of any population, you'll have a hard time convincing people to kill "in the name of science", regardless of what South Park might say
[QUOTE=TheHydra;38938214]it's kind of like beating a dog for barking. the fuck else is it supposed to do[/QUOTE] That would be the case if he only allowed the perfect into heaven. The whole point of Chritianity is that it's a way to gain salvation freely through another's actions.
Glad I was raised in [URL="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism4"]Unitarian Universalism[/URL]. The OWL program was awesome.
I was raised in a Roman Catholic household and it was great. My grandfather taught me Latin. How many other households teach Latin?
Sure they teach you that you can go to hell, but they teach you the he forgives all your sins. So in theory you always end up on top. Being sexually abused is completely incomparable.
I'd say that China's invasion of Tibet was about as motivated by Atheism as Al Qaeda was by Islam.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;38938780]I'd say that China's invasion of Tibet was about as motivated by Atheism as Al Qaida was by Islam.[/QUOTE] based on what??? China's conflict with Tibet far predates the enlightenment
[QUOTE=Mr. N;38934636]I don't, militant theism is a lot bigger thing and I know that, but on the topic at hand [I]about who is a lot more goddamn annoying[/I], which was what was being talked about, I find them to be a lot more bothersome and obnoxious, and they saturate my personal life more than any other belief/lack of belief.[/QUOTE] Militant atheists mostly tell you that you are wrong about something and they most of the time try to explain why. While militant theists tell me that I, among most of the worlds population, are going to suffer in hell for eternity. And eternity after that. And eternity after that. - Just because I think differently. Eternal hell would be worse than being burned alive, worse than what any holocaust victim had to go trough, or worse than being tortured for your whole life. That's much worse than being [I]annoying. [/I]There's no word to describe such selfishness and viciousness.
I was raised catholic, at the time I did not really know what was happening in a sense since it was a very oldschool traditional church and I was younger. Around 14 I started going to a lively non-denominational christian church and I love it there. There are child abusing catholic parents out there, but at least from a personal stand point myself nor my brothers have ever been abused by our parents, and any friend I know with catholic parents have never been abused either. For them, a bit strict sometimes, but nothing out of the ordinary really.
I stopped reading at "militant atheist."
[QUOTE=Thom12255;38937069]no God is the creator of the universe, he can do whatever he wants. We are his servants, we do not have the authority to oppose him. He has given us all a chance to be redeemed through Christ, those who do not accept his free gift have made the choice to reject him and thus will be thrown into Hell for eternity where they will be cut off from God just like they chose to be, however, they will immediately regret this and that is what makes Hell such a terrible place, your own guilt.[/QUOTE] "Atheists send themselves to Hell" is such a terrible and nonsensical argument. You're basically saying he's a mafia boss. "Hey humans, got a nice life here, be a shame if you had to burn in Hell for all eternity right? But I got my son here, you believe in him, and you'll be alright." is that fair?
[QUOTE=Paramud;38934080]I'd like Dawkins more if he wasn't occasionally a colossal ass about being an atheist.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Robbobin;38934114]Nice to see that Dawkins is making himself a more and more intolerable academic with more pointless, empty controversy. All of the shit he says serves no purpose but to alienate certain atheists from each other and [I]further[/I] alienate theists from everyone else. I'm sure in academia he's written some perfectly valid stuff (I find it a little hard to believe, but I don't see how else he'd be in such high standing in the academic community), but his mainstream shit is just one irritating whine after the next.[/QUOTE] Did you guys even read the article? I know Dawkins is an asshat, but he's making a valid point here. He's making the point that sexual abuse takes longer to get over than religious abuse. Now, that's quite a stretch, but you can't deny him he's making actual fucking points. This isn't controversy. [editline]22nd December 2012[/editline] I have two friends, very very close friends who have told me they were abused, and it haunted them for a very long time. But it hasn't followed them their entire lives, they've gotten over it. They will tell you they've gotten over it.
[QUOTE=Key_in_skillee;38937676]I'm sorry, but you can't say that the majority of Christians are "posers" when you aren't even one.[/QUOTE] Yes you can.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.