• Dawkins: "Being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse"
    355 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Maucer;38939224]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.[/QUOTE] Ok dude do you know what militant means? Hint: There have only been militant theists (Al Qaeda, Lord's Resistance Army, the Crusaders)
I've been an atheist forever and read two Dawkins atheism books and used to think he was pretty cool (and I still think he made some great contributions to biology) but lately he's just been one disappointment after another. Dude needs to get a grip.
I think both qualify equally as a form of child abuse.
I was raised by sort of catholic parents, they never showed their religion at any time and still don't but from most documentation I've ever rested my eyes upon they state that the family is catholic We don't go to church but I go to a catholic school, and it's not as bad as most people think, religion isn't forced in the classrooms and even with the RE subject cannot have any preaching whatsoever because of a set guidelines of rules Mass and church sessions every 1 or 2 times a month are boring as fuck but I'm not the only one saying that, all together our school is made up of Christians, Catholics and Atheists but nobody goes around preaching we all stay put
Being raised Dawkins is better than sex.
[QUOTE=ForgottenKane;38939979]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.[/QUOTE] Most of the people replying didn't read the OP or the article and just react based on the title. There is large bias against atheism/agnosticism in SH.
“Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct before reason can act upon them; and no man ever had a distinct idea of the trinity. It is the mere Abracadabra of the mountebanks calling themselves the priests of Jesus.”
I'd really like a link to the original interview. Nothing really suggests that Dawkins was saying that sexual abuse isn't as bad as religious upbringing. It seems more like he was giving a specific example of how psychologically damaging the concept of hell can be, not making a generalizing statement.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;38940126]Ok dude do you know what militant means? Hint: There have only been militant theists (Al Qaeda, Lord's Resistance Army, the Crusaders)[/QUOTE] As far as I've understood, militant [U]ism[/U] does not mean the supporters attack physically in particular. There does not seem to be an exact definition for it either. But I'm pretty sure there have been militant atheists by your definition too.
While being an ex christian I'd have to say the christian religion wasn't abusive but the Catholic religion is a brutal religion that punishes it's followers. For masturbating or using contraception which in my opinion is ridiculous. Also Dawkins comment on rape was not needed and was in bad taste on his part.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;38940982]While being an ex christian I'd have to say the christian religion wasn't abusive but the Catholic religion is a brutal religion that punishes it's followers. For masturbating or using contraception which in my opinion is ridiculous. Also Dawkins comment on rape was not needed and was in bad taste on his part.[/QUOTE] It wasn't Dawkins' comment, it was paraphrasing someone else's words. Read the article.
[QUOTE=Bean Shoot;38940813]I'd really like a link to the original interview. Nothing really suggests that Dawkins was saying that sexual abuse isn't as bad as religious upbringing. It seems more like he was giving a specific example of how psychologically damaging the concept of hell can be, not making a generalizing statement.[/QUOTE] Hell is only psychologically damaging if you explain it wrong or give a stupid reason as to why the person is going to hell. such as masturbating or having sex for instance. When I was a kid my parents would tell me if you kill someone or do evil acts you will go to hell for all eternity. And that kept me from doing bad things when I was kid and turned out fine. When I got older my parents told me hell wasn't real and I'm agnostic now but that is beside the point basically it teaches young kids not to do bad things.
[QUOTE=coldroll5;38941126]Hell is only psychologically damaging if you explain it wrong or give a stupid reason as to why the person is going to hell. such as masturbating or having sex for instance. When I was a kid my parents would tell me if you kill someone or do evil acts you will go to hell for all eternity. And that kept me from doing bad things when I was kid and turned out fine. When I got older my parents told me hell wasn't real and I'm agnostic now but that is beside the point basically it teaches young kids not to do bad things.[/QUOTE] Hey, guess what the catholic church teaches. They kind of include masturbation on the eternal damnation list.
its actually not worse than child abuse what the fuck
[QUOTE=coldroll5;38941126]Hell is only psychologically damaging if you explain it wrong or give a stupid reason as to why the person is going to hell. such as masturbating or having sex for instance. When I was a kid my parents would tell me if you kill someone or do evil acts you will go to hell for all eternity. And that kept me from doing bad things when I was kid and turned out fine. When I got older my parents told me hell wasn't real and I'm agnostic now but that is beside the point basically it teaches young kids not to do bad things.[/QUOTE] That's not really being "raised as Catholic". That's merely using one or two dogmas for the sake of education. You can totally go without it. My parents always tought me that our world is a beautiful place. Everything in it is fascinating. That life, just about all life in the world, is awesome and human life is the most awesome thing, because we're the only ones capable of understanding all the beautiful things around us. That turned out in me never being able to even start a fight over something, let alone hurt someone on purpose, including, say, steal something from someone. Empathy is the greatest moral compass ever. At this point you have probably figured out why I hate religion and ideology with such a passion - it demands all attention to made up entities and ideas, marks living for the sake of living as "sinful" or "wasteful" (communism) experience. That's one hell of a damaging restraint to me.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38940722]Most of the people replying didn't read the OP or the article and just react based on the title. [B]There is large bias against atheism/agnosticism in SH[/B].[/QUOTE] What?
[QUOTE=coldroll5;38941126]Hell is only psychologically damaging if you explain it wrong or give a stupid reason as to why the person is going to hell. such as masturbating or having sex for instance. When I was a kid my parents would tell me if you kill someone or do evil acts you will go to hell for all eternity. And that kept me from doing bad things when I was kid and turned out fine. When I got older my parents told me hell wasn't real and I'm agnostic now but that is beside the point basically it teaches young kids not to do bad things.[/QUOTE] I think it's fucked up to tell a kid that they'll burn for eternity for any reason whatsoever. [QUOTE=Swilly;38941754]What?[/QUOTE] "I'm an atheist but what this guy is doing is dumb." Most users here seem to be atheist/agnostic, but articles about them always seem to result in that kind of reaction. In a lot of cases it's justifiable, but people seem to just read the title and post based on that, despite the Daily Mail being known for extremely sensationalist articles. As far as I can see, Dawkins didn't say what the title implies. He just gave an example of one incident where it was possibly the case.
[QUOTE=Thom12255;38935122]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] 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] Holy shit you couldn't be pulling anymore bullshit out of your ass. The pope is the head of the church because it's a tradition passed down since the creation of the church. This is of course when Christ gave Peter the keys to heaven and wanted him to lead over the apostles and followers of the church. The pope is simply there to lead the church and keep its traditions; this is why Protestantism is so backwards and all over the place because everyone is free to interpret scripture a completely different way. Mary is venerated in the church because of her choice to give up her only son to a cruel and painful death. The reason Mary is venerated is because in scripture it is said that when she died her entire body would be assumed into heaven. (The assumption of the Blessed Mother) The reasons Mary and the saints are prayed to isn't because they are idolized, but because they are asked to pray in heaven for those on Earth and in purgatory as well as in hell. Catholics aren't required to do "Good work" but to keep to their faith and core values of the religion. They try to avoid cherry picking what is allowed and not allowed, such as with most Protestant sects. You reallllly should attend a Catholic mass before spreading complete utter uninformed bullshit. I'm annoyed that you don't understand basic world religions, and even me being an Atheist at least has the respect and intelligence to know what I'm talking about before I start spewing false information.
Sometimes the best way to win any argument is to simply smile and nod and allow your opponent to keep talking. This, for example, is something many Christian and Catholics must be thinking about atheism right now. Good Job Dawkins.
[QUOTE=SaltyWaters;38941821]Sometimes the best way to win any argument is to simply smile and nod and allow your opponent to keep talking. This, for example, is something many Christian and Catholics must be thinking about atheism right now. Good Job Dawkins.[/QUOTE] Sometimes the best way to not sound dumb is to read the entire article. [sp]you're not off to a good start[/sp]
[QUOTE=coldroll5;38941126]Hell is only psychologically damaging if you explain it wrong or give a stupid reason as to why the person is going to hell. such as masturbating or having sex for instance. When I was a kid my parents would tell me if you kill someone or do evil acts you will go to hell for all eternity. And that kept me from doing bad things when I was kid and turned out fine. When I got older my parents told me hell wasn't real and I'm agnostic now but that is beside the point basically it teaches young kids not to do bad things.[/QUOTE] So the idea of telling a kid that if they do x or y they end up being subjected to some of the worst torment imaginable for the rest of eternity, isn't distressing?
[QUOTE=coldroll5;38941126]Hell is only psychologically damaging if you explain it wrong or give a stupid reason as to why the person is going to hell. such as masturbating or having sex for instance. When I was a kid my parents would tell me if you kill someone or do evil acts you will go to hell for all eternity. And that kept me from doing bad things when I was kid and turned out fine. When I got older my parents told me hell wasn't real and I'm agnostic now but that is beside the point basically it teaches young kids not to do bad things.[/QUOTE] Most people don't use hell like Santa Claus or the Bogeyman to make children play nice. They tell you it's real as a kid and a lot of people end up believing until they die. In fact, you're the only case I've heard where the parents told you they made up hell.
[QUOTE=Falubii;38941860]Sometimes the best way to not sound dumb is to read the entire article. [sp]you're not off to a good start[/sp][/QUOTE] I read the article. I'm also aware that in general, people latch onto specific statements and forget about everything else. I'm aware that the concept of hell could be construed as EXTREMELY damaging. I'm also aware that he is a fucking idiot in how he presented his argument.
[QUOTE=gudman;38941735]That's not really being "raised as Catholic". That's merely using one or two dogmas for the sake of education. You can totally go without it. My parents always tought me that our world is a beautiful place. Everything in it is fascinating. That life, just about all life in the world, is awesome and human life is the most awesome thing, because we're the only ones capable of understanding all the beautiful things around us. That turned out in me never being able to even start a fight over something, let alone hurt someone on purpose, including, say, steal something from someone. Empathy is the greatest moral compass ever. At this point you have probably figured out why I hate religion and ideology with such a passion - it demands all attention to made up entities and ideas, marks living for the sake of living as "sinful" or "wasteful" (communism) experience. That's one hell of a damaging restraint to me.[/QUOTE] I was raised christian not catholic.
[QUOTE=SaltyWaters;38941918]I read the article. I'm also aware that in general, people latch onto specific statements and forget about everything else. I'm aware that the concept of hell could be construed as EXTREMELY damaging. I'm also aware that he is a fucking idiot in how he presented his argument.[/QUOTE] So paraphrasing exactly what somebody else said makes him fucking idiot? 10/10 logic.
Being raised stupid is bad, but I was raised Catholic and turned out just fine. These incredibly militant Catholics are very much in the minority, just like these incredibly militant bigots like Dawkins are in the minority.
[QUOTE=Kasuga Ayumu;38942151]Being raised stupid is bad, but I was raised Catholic and turned out just fine. These incredibly militant Catholics are very much in the minority, just like these incredibly militant bigots like Dawkins are in the minority.[/QUOTE] "X happened to me and I'm okay now, therefore there is no problem with X!" P.S. Dawkins isn't a bigot.
[QUOTE=Falubii;38942174]"X happened to me and I'm okay now, therefore there is no problem with X!" P.S. Dawkins isn't a bigot.[/QUOTE] he's an athiest and he thinks everyone who isn't is stupid. he dislikes a specific group (theists), therefore he is bigoted against that specific group you don't have to hate black people or whatever to be a bigot.
[QUOTE=Loriborn;38934277]Dawkins is an ass, but he's the ass we need.[/QUOTE] He isn't the ass we want, but the ass we need. He is. The Dawk Knight.
Stop with the "I'm so tired of atheists being dicks". They have to be. They need to point out how absolutely fucking insane Christianity is.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.