Religion is Child Abuse

[sharkman]

This is all just theory (btw I'm surprised to hear you defend God's possible choice of days vs daaaaaaaays on one hand, claim you're agnostic on the other, and keep agreeing with a noted atheist on the third hand. You have said there isn't evidence to prove or disprove God.), but since God told the author of Genesis to put down days, he might have meant for the reader to understand days, not millions of years. But that is just one theory.

It sounds like you are taking Hitchens lead on the science part as well. Many do. I grew up believing in creation and God ( a highly abused child I was!) so perhaps I should leave it at that. You have your beliefs and I mine, and I don't think less of you for yours.

[BubberMiley]

I'm surprised to hear you defend God's possible choice of days vs daaaaaaaays on one hand, claim you're agnostic on the other, and keep agreeing with a noted atheist on the third hand.

Yes, all that and I'm still accused of not having an open mind.

[Rue]

Do people actually believe in God?

Yah. But hell no I would never claim its true or that it is the gospel or the truth and the only way, etc. I mean what the hell do I know. for me this belief in God is sort of like an obsessive compulsive twitch. I have always had it. I mean it could be simply a chemical imbalance or nervous anxiety expressing itself.

Point is I always had this idea God is sort of like this big ball of energy and it spit out thousands of sparks and each one flies its own flight fueled by free choice.

These little sparks are all Gods who create their own little sparks and so on and so on. The point? All these particles experience meaning through contrasting opposites and trying to synethesize the extremes.

Why? I think this aplha and omega behind it all didn't have to do anything but decided to spit out parts of itself to set in motion an infinite journey of these continuing to multiply and fragment particles to experience.

I mean it did not have to. But I think it wanted to experience through these particles. I think it feels everything each particle feels but would never interfere with them because to do so would extinguish them.

So of course its a human theory-it projects human concepts.

I don't claim to know. Its just something I always felt. Its totally irrational. I just feeling something behind all the chaos. Its like I am not supposed to understand it or its purpose but just feel its always just behind all that noise and chaos smiling.

I just came to that conclusion staring at intricate patterns. Maybe I projected form into the chaos I was staring at but I have experienced fractal theory-looking at what appears sheer and absolute chaos and seeing something emerge then disappear then come back in another form, then disappear again like inhales and exhales.

So no I don't see any angels or devils or a guy with a white beard or burning bushes (still think that was a reference to venereal disease) or hear any booming voices in my head or shit like that. Sometimes I visualize God as Jane Fonda in her young days or Diana Rigg in her young days and see them in latex and sliding down a pole but then I realize its me confusing them with Batgirl.

Since any of us can create a vision of God mine is Halle Berry, Jennifer Lopez and Angie Harmon switching from one to the other and when I really get righteous Kate Blanchett or Perdita Felicien. Have no idea why Perdita but I think God could look like her. She has amazing hamstrings.

[JB Globe]

Religion is Child Abuse

Far from the topic it is right that parents try to make follow the children should follow same religion which they wants.Adopted child is also made to follow the same religion beside given him right to follow religion of his interest.It is not a big matter for child in early years but it matters a lot in adalts.

priyan

It would only be abusive in my book if the parent was teaching religious hatred along with religion. This isn't all or nothing: There's a difference between: "This is Christianity, and this is what Christians believe in" and "All non-Christians are vermin"

At the same time, I don't know what's so different about religious ideological indoctrination and any other kind of indoctrination of an ideology?

What if a parent is an ardent conservative or progressive and raises their kid to be like them? Isn't that the same thing? - indoctrinating a kid with ideology? What if they're extreme in their politics and teach them that the "others" are less than them?

[WIP]

It would only be abusive in my book if the parent was teaching religious hatred along with religion. This isn't all or nothing: There's a difference between: "This is Christianity, and this is what Christians believe in" and "All non-Christians are vermin"

At the same time, I don't know what's so different about religious ideological indoctrination and any other kind of indoctrination of an ideology?

What if a parent is an ardent conservative or progressive and raises their kid to be like them? Isn't that the same thing? - indoctrinating a kid with ideology? What if they're extreme in their politics and teach them that the "others" are less than them?

Since you wanted to revive this thread also, I'd like to add that 'religion' is too big and too all encompassing a term to place in a yes/no, good or bad category. Teaching children religion can run from taking them to Sunday school to sending them to private religious academies, where they can be cut off and isolated from different ideas. And this is where I draw the line on religious indoctrination! It may not be possible to stop religious fanatics from sending their children to private religious schools to be indoctrinated in Islam, Judaism or Christianity, but the decision of parents to do so, only adds to the sectarian divisions of society.

The biggenst political shift I've made over the last few years is reversing my attitude about public education and supporting ideas to privatize the education system, like charter schooling, or extending public funding to other religious schools besides the Catholic system (there's should be cut as well!). Because public schooling is prone to the same buraucratic inefficiencies as other government institutions, a good argument could be made to privatize it on economic grounds alone. But, after reading about the situation in England, where Tony Blair instituted a rapid charter schooling program and has broken down the public system in many cities such as London -- the early results aren't showing the great improvement in education promised, but it is showing a rapid increase in sectarian divisions, not surprisingly in the new Muslim schools. As one critic commented: 'a child can now grow up in East London and reach adulthood without having any contact with the wider community or having any awareness of British customs and culture.'

Locally, it's impossible for any parents with children in the public school system to not notice that most of the Muslim children have disappeared over the last five years or so. Some of it may be due to fears of reprisal of their parents after 9/11, or it may be further indication that the generous donations for Islamic education we hear about, especially from Saudi Arabia, are actually having an effect. You can't stop people from deciding to send their children to religious schools or homeschool like all of the fundies south of the border have been doing over the last 20 years( at least not yet), but I see this as leading to an increase of separation of Muslims into their own little societies, like we hear about from Europe every so often. An increase in sectarianism is not going to lead to any sort of 'moderation' and blending in to the larger community, that we keep hearing about, and instead, it will lead to wanting increased separation, so that we have our own 'Londonistans' on this side of the pond.

Fortunately here in Ontario, John Tory got shot down in flames during the last provincial election, when he misjudged his focus-group polling to believe that Ontarians as a whole wanted start dismantling our public school system and divert money to every religious school that had their hand out. I'm surprised Tory didn't get dumped out after causing this disaster, because McGuinty's relative unpopularity should have made it easy for a Conservative to at least mount a strong challenge. Nevertheless, the Tories focus on bringing in Republican advisors and imitating their strategies and policies is a big reason why I abandoned the Party.

My apologies for going off-track, but before I can answer a question of whether "religion is child abuse", I need to know what sort of religious education we're talking about, and what access the child will have to hearing opposing views later in life.

[Oleg Bach]

Since you wanted to revive this thread also, I'd like to add that 'religion' is too big and too all encompassing a term to place in a yes/no, good or bad category. Teaching children religion can run from taking them to Sunday school to sending them to private religious academies, where they can be cut off and isolated from different ideas. And this is where I draw the line on religious indoctrination! It may not be possible to stop religious fanatics from sending their children to private religious schools to be indoctrinated in Islam, Judaism or Christianity, but the decision of parents to do so, only adds to the sectarian divisions of society.

The biggenst political shift I've made over the last few years is reversing my attitude about public education and supporting ideas to privatize the education system, like charter schooling, or extending public funding to other religious schools besides the Catholic system (there's should be cut as well!). Because public schooling is prone to the same buraucratic inefficiencies as other government institutions, a good argument could be made to privatize it on economic grounds alone. But, after reading about the situation in England, where Tony Blair instituted a rapid charter schooling program and has broken down the public system in many cities such as London -- the early results aren't showing the great improvement in education promised, but it is showing a rapid increase in sectarian divisions, not surprisingly in the new Muslim schools. As one critic commented: 'a child can now grow up in East London and reach adulthood without having any contact with the wider community or having any awareness of British customs and culture.'

Locally, it's impossible for any parents with children in the public school system to not notice that most of the Muslim children have disappeared over the last five years or so. Some of it may be due to fears of reprisal of their parents after 9/11, or it may be further indication that the generous donations for Islamic education we hear about, especially from Saudi Arabia, are actually having an effect. You can't stop people from deciding to send their children to religious schools or homeschool like all of the fundies south of the border have been doing over the last 20 years( at least not yet), but I see this as leading to an increase of separation of Muslims into their own little societies, like we hear about from Europe every so often. An increase in sectarianism is not going to lead to any sort of 'moderation' and blending in to the larger community, that we keep hearing about, and instead, it will lead to wanting increased separation, so that we have our own 'Londonistans' on this side of the pond.

Fortunately here in Ontario, John Tory got shot down in flames during the last provincial election, when he misjudged his focus-group polling to believe that Ontarians as a whole wanted start dismantling our public school system and divert money to every religious school that had their hand out. I'm surprised Tory didn't get dumped out after causing this disaster, because McGuinty's relative unpopularity should have made it easy for a Conservative to at least mount a strong challenge. Nevertheless, the Tories focus on bringing in Republican advisors and imitating their strategies and policies is a big reason why I abandoned the Party.

My apologies for going off-track, but before I can answer a question of whether "religion is child abuse", I need to know what sort of religious education we're talking about, and what access the child will have to hearing opposing views later in life.

Religion is evil. God is good! Most parents are sell out materialistic SOB's - who are as hypocritical as can be. Religion that brings on illusion in children and social submission to governments that are corrupt is child abuse...One must empower your child.. What Christ taught was rebellion and the importance of individual atonmy..and the value of the singular person...NOW - Saint Paul (Saul) - the opportunist former persecutor of Christians...who never laid eyes on the Christ - and who through HIS letter writing cluttered up most of the NT...who was also know in deleted writings as "The Spouter Of Lies" ......said this..."One must submit to the government because the government was put in place by God" - what a bunch of Catholic Paulist crap! God does not put corrupt governments in place - men do! So Paul gives Christianity a bad name...and I would safely say that Paulism is abusive because it disempowers....just as the raping of children by so-called occultist Catholic priests is also disempowering - God or goodness and truth gives power - anything less does not - hence religion is child abuse.

[betsy]

Perhaps it's just as futile to discuss religion in an objective manner with believers, as they've already willingly let go of objective reasoning in favour of what they call "faith." In that context, any amount of emperical evidence is irrelevant.

But it's easy for a non-believer to determine what believers believe. One just has to go the source of their belief system--the bible. I'm not telling you what you believe. It is.

Religion has long relied on a climate where non-believers would be stoned or burned for questioning its authority. In our society, at least, that is no longer the case. So when faced with scrutiny of its founding principles, such as the 10 commandments, is the only remaining defence of religion that one who doesn't believe simply can't understand, and therefore it shouldn't be discussed?

Just as a true believer would find it almost impossible to discuss her faith in an objective manner with a person who clings to self-gratification and all wordly things.

Faith does not come if one does not welcome and embrace it. What more if it's a faith that commands giving up worldly pleasures. Of course, it's far easier to justify one's self by attempting to erode or destroy the faith of the believer.

Have you notice how a lot of atheists rabidly attacks belief in God....I mean if you don't believe in God, you don't.

It's almost like they feel threatened by the mere fact that some do believe in God.

Somehow, with others believing in God makes them (atheists) "uncomfortable" in their own non-God belief. Bubber, if you feel uncomfortable, then it must mean there is a war raging inside you. A part of you is screaming that you should believe.

You may scratch the surface of what true Christians believe. But there is more to than just reading the words in the Bible.

Not all Christians who open the Bible understands the Bible.

Not all Christians who open and read the Bible are expected to understand the Bible.

Also take note of how I emphasize the word "true".....not all professed christians are actually following the teachings of Christ.

Have you read the Bible more than once? Have you joined in any true Christian Bible studies?

It strikes me that you got stalled upon reading the list of Commandments...

Kidding aside, if you truly would want to discuss the Bible indepth, it's better that you discuss it with someone who understands the Bible well.

Btw, there seems to be this belief that having faith does not require objective thinking. It's the non-believers, the moral relativists that doesn't exercise objective thought. It's pretty easy to imagine you've got it all figured out when you beleive that whatever you believe is the truth.

Edited March 29, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Christopher Hitchens has an interesting chapter in God Is Not Great about how all religion, no matter what form, is child abuse. This is not just because of the fact that, with the decline in organized religion's ability to curb all scrutiny, religious leaders' traditional practice of physically and sexually abusing children has come to light. It is also because instilling in children the belief that there will be eternal damnation for failing to meet an impossible standard (e.g.., thou shalt not covet) is equally abusive.

Do religious parents really feel good about tormenting their children with superstition?

Why do you say the standard is impossible????

Why, do you want to beat up your neighbor? You want everything that's his without earning it?

You want to commit adultery? Falsely accuse someone or lie about your neighbor?

Kill him? What's so difficult about that? See? If children are taught these moral values from the get go, it's a no-brainer. Following these rules comes quite naturally.

Bubber, the only one that I can see being onerous or difficult for you is the first commandment.

Btw, some scientists/psychologists are beginning to realize that the human mind is "hard-wired" to believe in a Creator. Children instinctively understand the concept of creation. They scratch their heads at the idea of evolution.

You talk of child abuse? Child abuse is raising your child as a post-modern liberal.

Edited March 29, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

If you tolerate her beliefs the same way you 'tolerate' others divergent beliefs on this board, then I daresay that I would have much the same reaction as her.

You are a fundamentalist. You mock others for not believing what you do.

Perhaps she doesn't like your fundamentalism, not your atheism.

I know I don't.

Good answer!

[betsy]

Here on MLW, yes I mock people's religious beliefs. Would I do that in person? No I would not.

Internet forums are not the same as "in person".

Many (probably most) things said on this forum would never be said in person.

I would never, for example, tell a native to "Fly little eagle fly!" in person, but have no issue with saying it here.

On MLW I am just another poster... in real life I am me and conduct myself accordingly. I'd hate to see bc04 or leafless for example, acting in real life the same way they do here.

Cheers!

Of course you wouldn't say that face-to-face! Face-to-face bigotry can result in sore face!

[betsy]

You're just as much a fanatic atheist as any theist is a fanatic atheist in regards to all other possible gods. There simply is no such thing as a fanatic atheist, since it's the default position. I don't understand why people are being so dense about this.

What do you mean by "default?"

[scorpio]

Child abuse is raising your child as a post-modern liberal.

So encouraging your child to think for themselves is child abuse now? Right

[WIP]

Just as a true believer would find it almost impossible to discuss her faith in an objective manner with a person who clings to self-gratification and all wordly things.

It's the true believers who are the most dangerous people in this world!

Faith does not come if one does not welcome and embrace it.

One thing that is immediately obvious is that there are as many different interpretations of faith as there are believers who base their belief on faith. I went through this last when a pentacostal told me he could prove that the God of the Bible was real and that I have to worship his God -- within a matter of minutes we were down to "if you ask God to reveal himself to you, he will." Now, this may mean something to those who already believe, but to me it is pure circular logic -- using Bertrand Russell's example, I can prove there's a giant teapot circling the Earth, but first you must have faith that there is a giant teapot circling above.

What more if it's a faith that commands giving up worldly pleasures.

A common feature of most of the world's major religions. A psychologist named Rodney Starkes provided the best answer why people create hardships for themselves in the name of religion -- the more demanding the religion is regarding worship, self-denial and donations, the more convinced the adherent is that the demands of worship are purchasing favour with God and the promise of eternal life.

Of course, it's far easier to justify one's self by attempting to erode or destroy the faith of the believer.

Have you notice how a lot of atheists rabidly attacks belief in God....I mean if you don't believe in God, you don't.

It's almost like they feel threatened by the mere fact that some do believe in God.

Somehow, with others believing in God makes them (atheists) "uncomfortable" in their own non-God belief. Bubber, if you feel uncomfortable, then it must mean there is a war raging inside you. A part of you is screaming that you should believe.

I suspect that one of the reasons why the faithful are always railing against unbelievers is because our mere existence is a threat to your faith-based belief. In other words, if it's so obvious, why doesn't everyone else see it to? The faithful can accept other religions under the pretense that 'those people have some faith, but have misinterpreted the message,' but those who say there's nothing there are the real threat to faith-based beliefs, and that's why you get more bent out of shape because there are atheists in the world even more than having to deal with other religions. Otherwise, you wouldn't have taken the trouble of reviving this thread if there was an atheist war on faith! You seem to want to bring it back to life, so it's more plausible that this is an example of someone with religious beliefs who's threatened by the existence of people who don't believe in a supernatural world.

I don't think most of us are interested in fighting against whatever your religious choice is, except where it inevitably steps outside the church doors as the believers make faith-based political choices.

You may scratch the surface of what true Christians believe. But there is more to than just reading the words in the Bible.

Not all Christians who open the Bible understands the Bible.

Not all Christians who open and read the Bible are expected to understand the Bible.

Also take note of how I emphasize the word "true".....not all professed christians are actually following the teachings of Christ.

Have you read the Bible more than once? Have you joined in any true Christian Bible studies?

It strikes me that you got stalled upon reading the list of Commandments...

Kidding aside, if you truly would want to discuss the Bible indepth, it's better that you discuss it with someone who understands the Bible well.

Btw, there seems to be this belief that having faith does not require objective thinking. It's the non-believers, the moral relativists that doesn't exercise objective thought. It's pretty easy to imagine you've got it all figured out when you beleive that whatever you believe is the truth.

A red flag goes up every time I hear someone say they are part of the true religion, since that is the first step to depersonalizing and negating the value of those who don't share this belief. Christendom had decades-long wars over 'who is a true Christian and who isn't,' dividing the population into true believers and false believers is the first step to religious-based wars and genocide. All that's needed is the demand to get rid of the apostates + an army or mob to carry it out, and voila! We are back on our merry way to the dark ages.

[betsy]

So encouraging your child to think for themselves is child abuse now? Right

Well, yah!

Does a child know the dangers of crossing the road? Playing with matches? The consequences of touching boiling water...of getting scalded? ETC.,

Don't you teach your child the necessities to survive? Don't you teach him what you think is best for him? Animals do.

Besides, don't you think you're placing quite an insensible burden on the shoulders of a child...having him think and make decisions on somethings he has no comprehension about?

Furthermore, what makes you think that post-modern liberalism is "thinking for yourself?"

Post-modern liberalism derives from the philosophy of Nietzsche and the mindless followers who have distorted even his warped theories. Think of them!

Hitler. Lenin. Pol Pot.

Superman exists in the mind of post-modern liberals. He is as destructive to those "thinkers" as he is to society.

Go ahead. Teach your child that he has replaced the dead God. We can see where it's leading.

[scorpio]

Betsy,

I think you've been scanning too many radical Christian websites. The real message of Liberalism is one of tolerance and acceptance, something you modern Christians seem to have a problem with.

[betsy]

It's the true believers who are the most dangerous people in this world!

True believers of what?

A common feature of most of the world's major religions. A psychologist named Rodney Starkes provided the best answer why people create hardships for themselves in the name of religion -- the more demanding the religion is regarding worship, self-denial and donations, the more convinced the adherent is that the demands of worship are purchasing favour with God and the promise of eternal life.

If all troubled people would find solace and comfort in God, I guess this psychologist knows he's out of business! He won't be able to compete with faith. Better knock down the competition.

I suspect that one of the reasons why the faithful are always railing against unbelievers is because our mere existence is a threat to your faith-based belief.

Christians are supposed to spread the word of God.

In other words, if it's so obvious, why doesn't everyone else see it to? The faithful can accept other religions under the pretense that 'those people have some faith, but have misinterpreted the message,'

What religions? Are we talking the different Christian denominations?

What do you mean by "accept?"

but those who say there's nothing there are the real threat to faith-based beliefs,

No. Those who claim to speak in the name of Christ and distort the will of God, those who corrupt and abuse using the name of Christ....those are the real threats.

and that's why you get more bent out of shape because there are atheists in the world even more than having to deal with other religions.

There are a lot of people who turned away from Christ because of those threats I mentioned above.

Otherwise, you wouldn't have taken the trouble of reviving this thread if there was an atheist war on faith! You seem to want to bring it back to life, so it's more plausible that this is an example of someone with religious beliefs who's threatened by the existence of people who don't believe in a supernatural world.

You say "that I had taken the trouble to revive", and "seem to want to bring it back to life, so it's more plausible that this is an example of someone with religious beliefs who's threatened by the existence of people who don't believe in a supernatural world".

I haven't been on this forum for quite a while and I stumbled on this topic. The premise interests me. So my response had resurrected it....hey, better late than never I say.

I wonder though why that would worry you so. You almost seem upset!

Why then did you answer?

You could've easily ignored my opinion, after all you've had your day participating when this thread was alive and active, and now you seem to think I'm just flogging a dead horse.

Dead thread indeed.

Judging by your unusual comment, I'd say it is you who seems aptly threatened by the existence of people who believe. What more, people who believe....and who dare unabashly voice out their beliefs!

A red flag goes up every time I hear someone say they are part of the true religion,

since that is the first step to depersonalizing and negating the value of those who don't share this belief. Christendom had decades-long wars over 'who is a true Christian and who isn't,' dividing the population into true believers and false believers is the first step to religious-based wars and genocide. All that's needed is the demand to get rid of the apostates + an army or mob to carry it out, and voila! We are back on our merry way to the dark ages.

All I stated is the fact that not all professed christians are "true" Christians.

Do you think priests who molests children are practicing the teachings of Christ?

Edited March 29, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Betsy,

I think you've been scanning too many radical Christian websites. The real message of Liberalism is one of tolerance and acceptance, something you modern Christians seem to have a problem with.

Well, that's your opinion. Tolerance and acceptance.....Hey! Come to think of it, how do you get your child to think about that all by himself?

And what about the first half of my response to you?

Do you teach your child the necessities of basic survival....or do you let him do that for himself?

Edited March 29, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

Betsy,

I think you've been scanning too many radical Christian websites. The real message of Liberalism is one of tolerance and acceptance, something you modern Christians seem to have a problem with.

What's a "modern" Christian?

[betsy]

This title, "Religion is child abuse", suggests that parents should not exercise their parental rights in imparting to their children their own moral values - which are mostly based on religion (in this case it is obvious in Bubber's talk of the Commandments, hell and damnation, that the emphasis is really on Christianity), that the parents adhere to.

Isn't this a farce? Another mockery...a blatant example of moral relativism.

Here you are having all this angst about how children suffer "abuse" and have to "endure" indoctrination....

What about children who are being raised by parents who are alcoholics....or dopers....or by self-absorbed parents who put careers and self ahead of their offsprings? Children who have to endure losing a parent through divorce because their mom and dad did not have the perseverance to put more effort into making the marriage work...easier to justify that "it's for the best" even though evidences abound that there are serious repercussions later on in life.

These children do not suffer mere hours enduring this "indoctrination" to the painful reality of having to live with parents like these. If you deem it child abuse to have them listen to gospels and teachings of faith....boy, what do you call the ones the likes I've enumerated above?

What is it like for a child living with and depending on, day in and day out, with an alcoholic I wonder? I've never seen anyone posted an outrage claiming it is child abuse. SO let's get a grip on this and just say it plainly for what it is: you have something against Christianity.

The irony is that if only children are taught the true teachings of Christ without any distortions, society would flourish and your children will have the inner stength to handle whatever comes their way. You won't need any psychologists!

Most of you atheists used to believe but for whatever reasons, you've stopped and turned away from your beliefs. I'm curious as to why.

It can't be because of the corruptions you've seen in church...or atrocities that have been done by men using the name of the Lord. Is it?

If so, re-visit your Bible.

Before you come out swinging accusing the Christian faith of this ridiculous nonsense, sit back and look around you.

Edited March 30, 2009 by betsy

[jbg]

Have you read the Bible more than once? Have you joined in any true Christian Bible studies?

It strikes me that you got stalled upon reading the list of Commandments...

Kidding aside, if you truly would want to discuss the Bible indepth, it's better that you discuss it with someone who understands the Bible well.

I respect religion, but you can be quite sure I have nver been to a Christian Bible study. You can also be quite sure that I recognize the Old Testament as Bible, not the New Testament (though I recognize the New Testament to the extent that it is an excellent historical resource). Edited March 30, 2009 by jbg

[WIP]

True believers of what?

I was hoping you had a definition for the term since you used it first:

QUOTE (betsy @ Mar 29 2009, 02:06 PM) *

Just as a true believer would find it almost impossible to discuss her faith in an objective manner with a person who clings to self-gratification and all wordly things.

If all troubled people would find solace and comfort in God, I guess this psychologist knows he's out of business! He won't be able to compete with faith. Better knock down the competition.

My mistake! The name actually is Rodney Stark, and he's a sociologist, not a psychologist - somebody who deals with trying to understand social forces and trends. I came across his idea of using economic principles to explain why some religions succeed and others fail, when Daniel Dennett examined the concept in a book called "Acts of Faith" covered in Dennett's book "Breaking The Spell." Actually, I thought his idea was more plausible than Dennett did, since he spent about 20 pages or so deconstructing it. Stark and his collaborator Roger Finke, are likely allies of yours, not mine, since they argue that the extreme demands of fundamentalist religions make them more durable than moderate ones.

Christians are supposed to spread the word of God.

Whenever someone shows up at my door spreading the word of God, I invite them in if I have time; but they never come back because their training doesn't help them handle the hard questions, and they are likely told by church elders to move on to find more likely converts.

What religions? Are we talking the different Christian denominations?

What do you mean by "accept?"

Well, a fundamentalist Christian is likely going to be more comfortable with denominations that share similar dogma, and less comfortable with ones like Mormons, J.W.'s, who don't accept the Trinity and other parts of the Nicene Creed. During the last U.S. election, the Religious Right was divided on whether to accept Mitt Romney -- some said his church was not a factor if he shared the same moral beliefs, whereas others were adamant that a Mormon is not a real Christian -- kind of ironic, since I can recall in my childhood that my uncles in Michigan were big supporters of Mitt's father George Romney, and George Romney's Mormonism was never mentioned in the 68 Republican primaries. In some ways, the fanaticism about religion is worse today than it was 40 years ago!

Before I forget, the fundamentalists will have some limited acceptance of people with other religions, but those with no religion always scare them the most!

No. Those who claim to speak in the name of Christ and distort the will of God, those who corrupt and abuse using the name of Christ....those are the real threats.

Who gets to decide who is speaking in the name of Christ, and who is an apostate? This sounds like the first ingredient of religious warfare.

You say "that I had taken the trouble to revive", and "seem to want to bring it back to life, so it's more plausible that this is an example of someone with religious beliefs who's threatened by the existence of people who don't believe in a supernatural world".

I haven't been on this forum for quite a while and I stumbled on this topic. The premise interests me. So my response had resurrected it....hey, better late than never I say.

I wonder though why that would worry you so. You almost seem upset!

Why then did you answer?

You could've easily ignored my opinion, after all you've had your day participating when this thread was alive and active, and now you seem to think I'm just flogging a dead horse.

Dead thread indeed.

Judging by your unusual comment, I'd say it is you who seems aptly threatened by the existence of people who believe. What more, people who believe....and who dare unabashly voice out their beliefs!

No, I'm not upset, and I invested a lot of hours studying religion and philosophy, and these threads are the only place where I get a chance to go back over my dusty old book collection, so I'm not going to complain about having an old thread brought back from the dead. My objection is that your opener presented Christianity as under attack, even though you first response was to a post that is several months old....and you may have noticed that the last person who revived it did so after it had layed dormant for three months or so.

All I stated is the fact that not all professed christians are "true" Christians.

That is what bothered me! That is an obvious inflammatory statement that leads to arguments at dinner parties and wars between rival sects when things totally escalate out of control.

Do you think priests who molests children are practicing the teachings of Christ?

So, now I know you're not a Catholic. Of anybody here, I've taken the most shots at the Pope and the Catholic hierarchy during the last few weeks, but I still do not expect everyone who is a Catholic to leave. For many people, their families have a long history in the Church, that they would have to leave behind if they renounced their religion. All I ask is that rank and file Catholics speak out against the lunacy of their leaders when they do crazy things like: excommunicating a Brazilian woman for seeking an abortion for her pregnant 9 year old daughter and not excommunicating the rapist stepfather who impregnated her. Most Catholics think this is ludicrous, and need to speak out louder and let the priests, bishops, cardinals, pope also, know that they have minds of their own and they are not just going to blindly follow church dictates they find to be ridiculous.

[WIP]

This title, "Religion is child abuse", suggests that parents should not exercise their parental rights in imparting to their children their own moral values - which are mostly based on religion (in this case it is obvious in Bubber's talk of the Commandments, hell and damnation, that the emphasis is really on Christianity), that the parents adhere to.

Isn't this a farce? Another mockery...a blatant example of moral relativism.

Here you are having all this angst about how children suffer "abuse" and have to "endure" indoctrination....

This thread started so long ago, many of us weren't even members at the time.

As for the "religion is child abuse" theory, I think Bubber misattributed it to Hitchens in the opener, since the person it is most connected with is Richard Dawkins, who explains why he thinks teaching religion is child abuse on his website. To me, it seems Dawkins is a little melodramatic, and I didn't like my religious training either; but nevertheless I figure that if there was no such thing as religious dogma, there would be some other equivalent teachings that would have had the same effect. I'm sure that in the days of the Cultural Revolution in China, millions of Chinese children were traumatized by teachings in Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.... so we have to keep these things in perspective. If organized religion has outlived its usefulness, people will slowly drift away from it, and that will have little to do with whatever Dawkins says or doesn't say on the subject. The focus should be more on having humanistic or other naturalistic alternatives for those of us who don't believe in the supernatural, and explaining to the believers in various religions, why we don't share their basic beliefs, rather than trying to de-evangelize all of the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc. etc.

Most of you atheists used to believe but for whatever reasons, you've stopped and turned away from your beliefs. I'm curious as to why.

It can't be because of the corruptions you've seen in church...or atrocities that have been done by men using the name of the Lord. Is it?

If so, re-visit your Bible.

Everybody who is an atheist has their own story to tell. From my limited experience, it seems that most of us took religion more seriously than our friends who stayed in the churches that we left behind. I can only think of a couple of self-described atheists or agnostics who seem totally thoughtless and lacking curiosity, most of us were disillusioned with the religions we grew up with and tried something else. Many people would have stopped there, but some of us kept finding that we were not satisfied because of the same questions that were not adequately answered.

Some atheists are angry...I was when I was forced to leave home for rejecting my family's new-found religion- Jehovah's Witnesses -- and after a few short years, they all left the J.W.'s also...even my father, who converted first and pushed us into it, eventually left also. I tried other types of religion over the years, but kept going back to a default position of atheism that I first arrived at when I was about 25. Now that I am 52, and have been an atheist for at least the last ten years, I am probably not that likely to change directions again....but my story is mine alone, other atheists or agnostics have their own stories to tell and everyone has a different one.

[betsy]

I respect religion, but you can be quite sure I have nver been to a Christian Bible study. You can also be quite sure that I recognize the Old Testament as Bible, not the New Testament (though I recognize the New Testament to the extent that it is an excellent historical resource).

Jbg, you know full well that I've always ...finding the right word....have a soft spot in my heart for Israelites (Jews). As a child and beyond that, my father always say how the Jews are the chosen people, and that Jesus himslef was a Jew. I have been reading the Bible (first time around, not with a Bible study group), and sure enough....it is true!

Boy, as Jesus had said: "You are a stiff-necked people."

You guys have an unsettled business with God, it seems. The Old Testament had prophesied about Christ.

Edited March 30, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

I was hoping you had a definition for the term since you used it first:

QUOTE (betsy @ Mar 29 2009, 02:06 PM) *

Just as a true believer would find it almost impossible to discuss her faith in an objective manner with a person who clings to self-gratification and all wordly things.

Well then I was referring to a Christian believer.

My mistake! The name actually is Rodney Stark, and he's a sociologist, not a psychologist - somebody who deals with trying to understand social forces and trends. I came across his idea of using economic principles to explain why some religions succeed and others fail, when Daniel Dennett examined the concept in a book called "Acts of Faith" covered in Dennett's book "Breaking The Spell." Actually, I thought his idea was more plausible than Dennett did, since he spent about 20 pages or so deconstructing it. Stark and his collaborator Roger Finke, are likely allies of yours, not mine, since they argue that the extreme demands of fundamentalist religions make them more durable than moderate ones.

If by trying to adhere to the exact teachings of Christ (sans distortions and manipulations by mere men usually just so to suit it to their needs or by popular demands - moral relativism), I guess I'm a fundamentalist! I'm okay with being described as that. I struggle to try to adhere...but then, don't we have to in order to achieve whatever is it we crave for?

Weight-loss? No pain, no gain?

Who said it's going to be easy? Christ Himself warned us it's going to be tough.

Whenever someone shows up at my door spreading the word of God, I invite them in if I have time; but they never come back because their training doesn't help them handle the hard questions, and they are likely told by church elders to move on to find more likely converts.

I sure won't be able to answer a lot of questions atheists will want to ask. I'm not trying to convert you to join in any religion. I'm inviting you to learn about Christ.

Well, a fundamentalist Christian is likely going to be more comfortable with denominations that share similar dogma, and less comfortable with ones like Mormons, J.W.'s, who don't accept the Trinity and other parts of the Nicene Creed. During the last U.S. election, the Religious Right was divided on whether to accept Mitt Romney -- some said his church was not a factor if he shared the same moral beliefs, whereas others were adamant that a Mormon is not a real Christian -- kind of ironic, since I can recall in my childhood that my uncles in Michigan were big supporters of Mitt's father George Romney, and George Romney's Mormonism was never mentioned in the 68 Republican primaries. In some ways, the fanaticism about religion is worse today than it was 40 years ago!

Before I forget, the fundamentalists will have some limited acceptance of people with other religions, but those with no religion always scare them the most!

As far as I'm concern, people who don't believe do not scare me at all. Scared is not the right word to describe me.

It is those who claim to believe...those who have the power to lead and sway....and use the name of Christ to mis-lead. Those are the real threats to the Christian faith, imho.

If trying to adhere to the teachings of Christ (sand the distortions and manipulations of mere men just so to suit their needs or bow down to popular demands) is now described as fanaticism...then I'm a fanatic. I have no problem being called that.

As to the word limited "acceptance" of people with other religions...I'm not exactly sure what you mean by that.

Who gets to decide who is speaking in the name of Christ, and who is an apostate? This sounds like the first ingredient of religious warfare.

It is a war-fare, religiously, morally and spiritually! Good vs Evil.

In our everyday lives....in our midst. Just for starter, why do you think we have our criminal laws?

No, I'm not upset, and I invested a lot of hours studying religion and philosophy, and these threads are the only place where I get a chance to go back over my dusty old book collection, so I'm not going to complain about having an old thread brought back from the dead. My objection is that your opener presented Christianity as under attack, even though you first response was to a post that is several months old....and you may have noticed that the last person who revived it did so after it had layed dormant for three months or so.

That is what bothered me! That is an obvious inflammatory statement that leads to arguments at dinner parties and wars between rival sects when things totally escalate out of control.

"inflammatory"...."offensive"....."un-acceptable"....what other "in" words are there now to go along with this?

Boy, you remind me of the HRC!

So, now I know you're not a Catholic. Of anybody here, I've taken the most shots at the Pope and the Catholic hierarchy during the last few weeks, but I still do not expect everyone who is a Catholic to leave. For many people, their families have a long history in the Church, that they would have to leave behind if they renounced their religion. All I ask is that rank and file Catholics speak out against the lunacy of their leaders when they do crazy things like: excommunicating a Brazilian woman for seeking an abortion for her pregnant 9 year old daughter and not excommunicating the rapist stepfather who impregnated her. Most Catholics think this is ludicrous, and need to speak out louder and let the priests, bishops, cardinals, pope also, know that they have minds of their own and they are not just going to blindly follow church dictates they find to be ridiculous.

I am a Catholic, actually....although not a practicing one. I just call myself a Christian now.

There's a lot of distrotions out there on the words of Christ....and on several passages, he'd warned us about false prophets, lamabsted the clergy for hypocrisy etc..,

I have to go...I'm running out of time, unfortunately.

Edited March 30, 2009 by betsy

[jbg]

Jbg, you know full well that I've always ...finding the right word....have a soft spot in my heart for Israelites (Jews). As a child and beyond that, my father always say how the Jews are the chosen people, and that Jesus himslef was a Jew. I have been reading the Bible (first time around, not with a Bible study group), and sure enough....it is true!

Boy, as Jesus had said: "You are a stiff-necked people."

I knoow that you are a friend of Jews and Israel.

You guys have an unsettled business with God, it seems. The Old Testament had prophesied about Christ.

While there are Messianic prophesies, I do not feel that Messianic conditions have yet occurred. Edited March 30, 2009 by jbg