Is Teaching your Children Religion Child Abuse?

[bryant69]

Richard Dawkins suggested that it was in in an interview with Salon. ". . . they could teach children that there are such things as religious beliefs. But to teach children that it is a fact that there is one god or that God created the world in six days, that is child abuse." - http://www.salon.com/books/int/2006/10/13/dawkins/index1.html

He did soften this statement in a later interview - changing it pretty completely "What I think may be abuse is labeling children with religious labels like Catholic child and Muslim child. I find it very odd that in our civilization we're quite happy to speak of a Catholic child that is 4 years old or a Muslim of child that is 4, when these children are much too young to know what they think about the cosmos, life and morality. We wouldn't dream of speaking of a Keynesian child or a Marxist child. And yet, for some reason we make a privileged exception of religion. And, by the way, I think it would also be abuse to talk about an atheist child." http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/04/30/dawkins/index.html This is of course standard behaivor - if you make a statement that people find offensive, simply pretend you said something completely different.

But back to the main question - do you agree with Dawkins when he says teaching that there is one God is child abuse?

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Deep13]

1. Don't agree with religion, but not abuse.

If the kid is not beaten, molested, threatened, is warm and dry, is feed, clothed and shod and is being educated, then there is no abuse.

[Kerrytravelers]

2. I think it is a matter of degrees.

My evil sister-in-law is a fundy fruitcake and a racist bigot who is ruining her three beautiful children with her hate. She isn't welcomed in our home or (someday) around our children.

However, my parents raised me a Christian with the understanding that there are different faiths and ways of beliefs (Atheism and Agnosticism) that are not less than we are simply because we're Christian. It takes a lot of self-righteous stupidity to think that only your faith or beliefs has all the answers and everyone else is wrong. I take comfort in Christianity, but I certainly don't consider myself Holy and everyone else not. That would be foolish. There are simply different ways of looking at the world. Christianity is only one way. There are many, many others.

[Zhade]

77. With all due respect, then, your parents taught you wrong...

...in that there is no such thing as atheist "faith" or "way of belief".

Otherwise, they sound like they did very well!

[Kerrytravelers]

100. How else would you describe it? Atheism is a way of believing.

I didn't say a way of believing in God, but simply a belief that there is no god that one has. It certainly isn't calling someone a godless heathen. That would have gotten me grounded for saying such a thing!




EDITED TO ADD:

Ok, I reread my post. I can see how I wasn't clear. My parents weren't saying that Atheism or Agnosticism was a faith, but a way that people believe. That is what I meant. I lumped everything non-Christan kind of together, saying either a faith or way of belief.

And, when I read the opening subject line, I kind of felt my defenses go up... until I got to the last part. Just saying, I got to defend my parents as they did an excellent job instilling tolerance and understanding of other's beliefs into me as a child.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. I think it depends upon what is taught

Personally, my faith teaches that all paths lead to God-and God is defined as That which is Everything. The stress in my order is in developing an individual relationship with That and to have direct experience of That. An important part of my faith is tolerance of others and to try and understand their point of view.

Would you call this "child abuse"?

[kwassa]

4. Oh boy! Another Richard Dawkins thread!

maybe I should update the count.

[Buzz Clik]

5. LOL! Dawkins is the darling the anti-"Xtian" crowd.

Just the mention of his name gets them excited and inflames those of strict faith.

Personally, I think South Park summed him up pretty well.

[Goblinmonger]

17. I missed the South Park episode

but something tells me that they did not touch on the fact that he is one of the most brilliant scientific minds in the world today.

On edit: Where do you get off calling the atheists on here the "anti-Xtian crowd"? Where is that coming from? Just because we don't believe in that mythology doesn't mean we are "anti" that mythology. Are we the "Anti-Zeus crowd" too? How about the "Anti-Mithra crowd"? Give me a break.

[Buzz Clik]

19. I said nothing about atheists.

I suggest you tuck in your sensitivities. And, yes, the anti-Xtians are alive and well at DU. I have no idea if they are atheists or not -- you don't have to be an atheist to be anti-Xtian.

As for this brilliant scientific mind, yeah, well, maybe and maybe not. I have not doubt he's a smart guy, but he dashes off on tangents and extrapolations that give me cause to doubt the extent of his "brilliance". For example, one of his articles was recently posted at DU in which he declared that a belief in God and a deep understanding of science (specifically evolution) were incompatible. That level of ignorance approached that seen in the anti-science, creationists on the Kansas School Board.

[Goblinmonger]

42. Nice duck and cover

So, who exactly are the "anti-Xians" that idolize Dawkins if not the atheists.

You are factually correct. You never said the word "atheists." But it is pretty clear from what you are saying that it is what you meant. Dawkins is one of two vocal atheists in our culture right now. He pretty much dishes it out to all religions. I can't see a member of any religion idolizing Dawkins. That pretty much leaves atheists.

But, go ahead. Tell me what you really meant. I'm interested to see how backpedaling looks.

[Buzz Clik]

44. Suddenly you can read my mind?

You have many gifts.

[Goblinmonger]

48. I asked you to explain it.

I gave you my interpretation. If there is an alternative explanation, please, go ahead. I think I made it clear I wanted to hear your explanation.

[Buzz Clik]

61. You're interested only in a bizarre dung-flinging exercise.

I'm not.

I said exactly what I meant with no lack of clarity. The only confusion has come from your apparent paranoia and your insistence of injecting interpretations that are clearly wrong.

However, if you are an atheist who despises "Xtians" and I have offended you, too bad. I will retract nothing.

You seem to like Dawkins and his ball-crushing approach to debate. I find it infantile and strongly suggestive of a person is who is not nearly as "brilliant" as he likes to project.

[Goblinmonger]

66. I think you are flinging dung

I have made that clear. I also realize I can be wrong about those things, especially considering that this form of communication allows little to no interpretation of people's nuances. That being the case, I gave you my reason for interpreting your statement that way and asked for you to explain it differently if I was wrong. The fact that you haven't explained your reasoning is kind of troublesome to me.

"Dawkins and his ball-crushing approach to debate"
I have to problems with that phrase.
1. Dawkins is very, very logical in his approach but I don't think he is ball-crushing.
2. If you are debating, you need to be ball-crushing. If you are just talking about something with someone, then not so much.

[Zhade]

78. "You're interested only in a bizarre dung-flinging exercise" - NOW who can suddenly read minds?

Nice double-standard.

[Buzz Clik]

92. Can you read my mind now?

[Zhade]

96. Your statement reads as if you can read the other poster's mind.

"You're only interested in..." - point being, you don't KNOW what that poster is interested in. You assumed, without knowledge.

[Goblinmonger]

43. Secondly,

can you give me the link to that article. I would like to read what Dawkins really had to say and then I will respond to your post.

I just read the portion of The God Delusion last night where he talks about evolution actually coming closer to proving the non-existence of god. If you are talking about that, I think you have a hard time showing me how that is ignorant. His claim is basically that if you say the world is too complex not to have been designed (and he briefly shows how evolution has all the answers as to how things came about much more clearly than creationism), it naturally regresses to who designed the designer because that designer would have to be much more complex than our world and certainly it would have had to be designed, and so on, and so on, and so on. To compare that level of logical analysis with the Kansas School Board is either you being deliberatley obtuse or it is ignorance in itself.

[Buzz Clik]

46. You have access to the search engine...

If I have time, I'll do it for you.

[Goblinmonger]

49. I would rather you did

so that I am reading the correct article. I'll check back in tonight.

[Buzz Clik]

60. links

The DU post (locked, because the "adult" who started the thread couldn't resist juvenile comments):
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=2509273

and the original article:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richard-dawkins/why-there-almost-certainl_b_32164.html

[Goblinmonger]

67. Thank you

I will read that tonight and respond. Appreciate it.

[Goblinmonger]

107. I didn't see it.

The only thing close is this:

An American student asked her professor whether he had a view about me. 'Sure,' he replied. 'He's positive science is incompatible with religion, but he waxes ecstatic about nature and the universe. To me, that is ¬religion!' Well, if that's what you choose to mean by religion, fine, that makes me a religious man. But if your God is a being who designs universes, listens to prayers, forgives sins, wreaks miracles, reads your thoughts, cares about your welfare and raises you from the dead, you are unlikely to be satisfied. As the distinguished American physicist Steven Weinberg said, "If you want to say that 'God is energy,' then you can find God in a lump of coal." But don't expect congregations to flock to your church.

and that isn't Hawkins saying it, it is someone else.

He does go on to ride the ID people by showing how evolution comes close to proving that the question of god is irrelevant. That is one of his main points--of the whole book, btw--that proving god is not necessary to understand the world. Science can explain it all. Have you read his book?

[Buzz Clik]

111. Well, I can't read the article for you, but I'll give you the first relevant quote

Chamberlainites are apt to quote the late Stephen Jay Gould's 'NOMA' - 'non-overlapping magisteria'. Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse:

To say it for all my colleagues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists.

This sounds terrific, right up until you give it a moment's thought. You then realize that the presence of a creative deity in the universe is clearly a scientific hypothesis. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a more momentous hypothesis in all of science. A universe with a god would be a completely different kind of universe from one without, and it would be a scientific difference. God could clinch the matter in his favour at any moment by staging a spectacular demonstration of his powers, one that would satisfy the exacting standards of science. Even the infamous Templeton Foundation recognized that God is a scientific hypothesis - by funding double-blind trials to test whether remote prayer would speed the recovery of heart patients. It didn't, of course, although a control group who knew they had been prayed for tended to get worse (how about a class action suit against the Templeton Foundation?) Despite such well-financed efforts, no evidence for God's existence has yet appeared.

To see the disingenuous hypocrisy of religious people who embrace NOMA, imagine that forensic archeologists, by some unlikely set of circumstances, discovered DNA evidence demonstrating that Jesus was born of a virgin mother and had no father. If NOMA enthusiasts were sincere, they should dismiss the archeologists' DNA out of hand: "Irrelevant. Scientific evidence has no bearing on theological questions. Wrong magisterium." Does anyone seriously imagine that they would say anything remotely like that? You can bet your boots that not just the fundamentalists but every professor of theology and every bishop in the land would trumpet the archeological evidence to the skies.

I don't know how you missed this -- it was in the first 300 words. Nevertheless, there it is, complete with insults.

If you like Dawkins, bully. I find him to be an arrogant ass whose arrogance is unfounded.

[Goblinmonger]

115. Nowhere in there does he say that science and religion are incompatible

Actually, what he is saying is that the existence of god is a scientific hypothesis. Which means he is really saying that religion and science ARE compatible. Quite the opposite of your claim. Now, he does go on to say in the article, which is from his book, that evolution and science comes far closer to proving god's non-existance than god's existance.

I don't see anything really insulting on a broad brush level. He doesn't say that all religious are hypocrites, just those that both dismiss science and then use it to "prove" their point.

How is his arrogance unfounded? What does he say in that clip of yours or in his book that is not based on logic or science?

And again, have you read his latest book?

[Buzz Clik]

116. Last entry on this thread for me (I don't argue for the sake of arguing)

Gould claimed that science and true religion never come into conflict because they exist in completely separate dimensions of discourse

Dawkins then goes on to say that only a moment of thought would dismiss this notion. My point is made.

[Goblinmonger]

119. No, your point isn't made (and I'm not arguing for the sake of arguing--there are points being made)

That doesn't prove that Dawkins thinks that science and religion are incompatiable. He is arguing AGAINST the notion that religion gets a pass because it is something completely distinct from science. He is arguing that religion IS a scientific hypotheisis and therefore needs to be put to the same rigors. He is NOT saying they are incompatible.

And again, have you read his new book? By your lack of answer, I am guessing the answer is no. If I am wrong, please correct me. My point being, of course, that it seems like you are condemning a guy when you have not read his entire work. Kind of like saying you should ban a movie or book when you haven't even read it.

[trotsky]

13. Does it still count when it's a believer who starts it? n/t

[kwassa]

29. Still counts!

[trotsky]

31. Cool.

Anything that gets you annoyed is OK in my book!

[Ha Ha Ha Oh Wow]

6. this poll is so LOL INTERNET nt

nt

[Hoosier Dem]

7. I take issues with the phrase "child abuse"

As someone who has spent a great deal of time working with abused kids, I can tell you that comparing religious indoctrination to child abuse is idiotic. While I don't agree with this kind of religious indocrtination, it is hardly abuse.

Child abuse is something far more evil and insidious. I can give a few examples that I've come across over the years. Forcing your 14yo son to prostitute himself to support you and your boyfreind's meth habit is abuse. Slamming your 3yo's head against the wall so hard that her nose is shattered is abuse. Keeping your 6yo outside at night because he wets the bed is abuse. Beating your 15yo son so hard that his ribs are broken after he tells you he might be gay is abuse. Indoctrinating your kids with intolerance masked as faith is just stupidity, but it is not abuse.

So, no matter how strongly you disagree with someone's views on religion and wether they push these beliefs onto your kids, DO NOT compare it to child abuse. Believe me, there are a lot of kids out there suffering REAL abuse as we sit here reading this.

Sorry, but this really got me steamed. :thumbsdown:

[Dorian Gray]

9. I agree with you, Hoosier

There are many faiths that I am wary of, but I would NEVER believe that indoctrinating a child into that faith is abusive. If I had been abused as a child, I would be insulted with that notion.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

11. Well put

I don't think the person who started this poll probably considered what child abuse really is. May I add that anyone who has been a victim of incest as a child or who was pyschologically abused to the point where they were suicidal would think that religious indoctrination is not abuse.

[jgraz]

26. Wow -- you don't have to break bones to abuse a child

That's how the vast majority of child abusers rationalize what they're doing: "I didn't leave any marks, so I'm not a bad parent," or "They're just words, I'm not really hurting my kid."

Like everything, it's a matter of degrees. Telling your kid she's stupid or worthless is abuse, plain and simple. It's not as over-the-top as the examples you cite, but in some ways it can be just as damaging. Many abused children read stories like yours and tell themselves they weren't "really" abused. Then they tell themselves that they aren't "really" abusing their own kids. And so it goes.

It's pretty easy to see how doctrinaire religious beliefs can lead directly to an abusive relationship. Arguing that teaching religion is in and of itself abuse may be going a bit far, but things certainly aren't as black-and-white as you portray them.

[Zhade]

79. Are you suggesting there's no such thing as mental abuse?

If indeed you've worked with abused kids, then surely that can't be the case.

Forced indoctrination into anything is mental abuse. We'd say so about the Jim Jones cult indoctrinating children; that doesn't change just because the religion is more popular.

A fundies' kid being forced to pray and worship as their parents see fit IS abuse. Same for any belief system, or even this atheist's lack of belief, being forced on a child who can't make up his/her own mind.

[NMMNG]

138. Would you consider it abuse,

when parents teach their child s/he is evil and going to hell because s/he is gay? When girls are taught that they are to be subservient to men because some book says so? When a young man is put through an exorcism because he begins showing signs of mental illness and his parents consider him to be possessed by a "spirit of mental illness" (true story)?

Abuse is more than physical. Verbal and psychological behavior can cause grievous harm as well.

[Dorian Gray]

8. It's a ridiculous assertion.

[OneBlueSky]

10. if that includes the religion of unfettered corporate capitalism, then yes . . . n/t

.

[bryant69]

12. What about the religion of managed capitalism and marxism is bullshit? n/t

[cosmik debris]

14. Is this poll DU Abuse?

It looks like pure flame bait to me.

[bryant69]

15. Well anything that casts Atheists in a less than perfect light is flame bait

I understand. But answer these questions.

1. You aside, do DU atheists regularly cite Dawkins as an inspirational figure?

2. Did Dawkins compare teaching religion to Child Abuse?

If the answer to both those questions is yes, isn't it a fair question to ask what they think of this particular opinion of Dawkins?

Bryant

[jgraz]

21. It's a totally fair question

Especially since we atheists use the argument that parts of the xtian doctrine throw the entirety of their faith into question.

The difference is that Dawkins never says "my word is perfect", or "you must have no other atheists before me". We are free to disagree with anything he says, especially when (as I suspect) he's saying it to make a rhetorical splash rather than make a reasoned argument.

That having been said, I DO think that teaching your child religion (as opposed to ethics or morals) is doing them a disservice at best. Teaching it in the way that RW Xtians do is definitely child abuse in my book. Of course, they're most likely physically abusing their children as well if they're following Proverbs.

[cosmik debris]

24. And if abusing is the opposite of disabusing,

Dawkins has a good point.

[Meshuga]

16. How about teaching honesty to your children?

And teaching them what you truly believe? Is that abuse?

What are you going to do if you believe in God and think God is a reality? Lie to your child? The same works the other way around since you should not teach a child there is a God if you don't believe there is a God.

I don't think it is abuse to teach your child what you believe.

But it is not abuse as long as you teach your child to be tolerant of other religions, backgrounds, opinions, etc. It is not abuse as long as you don't teach your kids to be violent or hateful.

I teach my kids what I believe but it's up to them to make up their minds in the future. Many ardent atheists come from ultra religious backgrounds while I know religious people who come from secular families.

If you do have a religion that's where you get your values and you want to teach your values to your children. Once your kids grow up they can make their decision and follow your religion, their own religion, or no religion at all.

I would say it is abuse to disown your kid for not having your same beliefs and following something else.

[Goblinmonger]

18. This is wrong on so many levels

First of all, just because atheists are happy that there is actually an atheist voice being published in the United States does not mean, as you often seem to imply, that he is our leader or something. What Harris says has no reflection on what any other atheist can or will think.

Secondly, of course it isn't abuse. We all teach our children our morals. Is it child abuse that both of my children have been vegetarians from birth? And contrary to what my mother said numerous times, my children are not malnurished. Actually, my 10-year-old son has placed at state in wrestling 2 times and is the best linebacker on his YMCA tackle team.

Finally, why do atheists get bagged on for "another Harris thread" when it wasn't an atheist that started it?

[melissinha]

20. Some parents teach religion w/in bounds of reason

I see no problem teaching your child religion so long as its accompanied by separation of church and state, and there is a healthy dose of reason and science as well.

[Finder]

22. As others have stated, it depends...

I am sure Dawkins is talking about the "Jesus Camp" types and those that raise kids to see those of other faiths as bad based on a holy book. Indoctrinating a child using fear of eternal punishment is emotional abuse. Using a "rod"(for those that do)to enforce is physical abuse.

[bryant69]

25. Hey Finder - another untapped skill. You can read Dawkins mind?

Cause he sure doesn't seem to limit it to Jesus Camp types.

Bryant

[Finder]

27. No, but I can read his books and articles...

and he is talking about indoctrinating children with fear and fallacies. His point is there are no Christian children, Muslim children, Atheist children only children of such. Bringing up a child to hate or fear those who do believe differently is a type of abuse as far as Dawkins is concerned.

[bryant69]

28. You like him are trying to soften what he initially said

Fair enough - maybe upon reflection he really felt that he had gone to far with his initial statement. He loses some points for consistancy, but what are you going to do?

Bryant

[Name removed]

23. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[More Than A Feeling]

30. Teach all faiths and no faith, then leave it up to the child.

One of the basic tenets of the American Baptist denomination is that a child should have a free choice to accept or reject Christianity. That's why children aren't baptized immediately on birth. It's one of the things that attracted me to American Baptists in the first place.

In order to have a true choice though, a child must be given a fair look at the alternatives, otherwise it's really no choice at all.

The conclusion I draw from these principles is that the best thing to do is to teach a child about all faiths and no faith, and support whatever decision they make. After all, it's really their decision

[jgraz]

32. My guess is that most people would disagree with that approach

if it were applied to anything but religion. Would you teach your children all political views and let them decide? How about all perspectives on race relations? On gay rights? Would you really want to give your children a "fair" look at views other than your own on these subjects?

Atheists view this as a matter of science. We wouldn't teach our kids all perspectives on evolution or geology any more than we'd teach them the belief in the trinity.

Another problem in this "all beliefs" approach is it just isn't practical. Are you really going to teach your child all the Native American myths, in addition to Islam, Hinduism, Paganism, Discordianism, etc, etc, etc? And if not, which ones do you choose?

[More Than A Feeling]

34. I'm certainly not going to teach that mine is the one true faith

and everyone else is going to hell or is just wrong. That would be on one end of the spectrum, and I reject that end. That view breeds intolerance and moreover it's misleading to pretend certainty when none is possible.

The other end would be to teach nothing about religion. To be completely silent on the matter. That is the way I was raised, and I was unprepared to deal with other people's faith when I encountered it for the first time. So that end of the spectrum is out.

With those two possibilities out, anything else is going to be a compromise. Ultimately, my child will have to live with the consequences of whatever faith or no faith they have. I don't have the right as a parent to make that decision for them.

On the matter of other values and on science, much more clarity about the "right way" is possible, and so there is less of an obstacle to teaching my views on those matters.

The usual caveat is that I have no children, and I will certainly do as much learning as I can about the proper way to raise them as the time draws nearer when I will have children, but the above is my opinion as it stands now.

Do you have children? Have you raised your children as you have stated above? What has been the outcome?

[jgraz]

38. So it sounds like you agree with Dawkins here

In so much as you think that it's morally questionable to tell your child that the 6-day creation myth is "a fact".

[More Than A Feeling]

99. No, I don't. He is making a general statement, I'm making a personal statement

If other people want to teach their children that the Bible is literally true, that is their affair.

[Finder]

40. I have used that approach with my children...

to a certain extent and so far it has worked well. Of course there are still perspectives for them to discover and understand but they have a good understanding of the different religious and political views out there. They often formally debate each other and sometimes others.

Coin collecting or collecting any rare objects(we also collect rare books, manuscripts and newspapers, rocks/fossils/spearheads, religious paraphernalia, weaponry) is a great way to get kids interested in history, science and geography(and investing).

Most of history is about politics and religion. The history of science is especially filled with politics and religion.

[jgraz]

75. If you teach your kids history of science

they are probably going to be some of the more educated and thoughtful adults in their community. It's a great way to learn science and just plain learn how to think.

[jgraz]

33. For those who voted "disagree"

Which religions are you thinking of? Just yours?

What if somone taught their child fundamentalism? Or Fr*d Ph*lps "god hates fags" philosophy? At some point, I think we'd all agree that some type of radical indoctrination borders on abuse.

Does anyone doubt that muslim suicide bombers have been poorly served by their faith? If their parents taught them those ideals, I'd say those children had their minds twisted as much as if their parents had beaten them or continually told them they were worthless.

[kiahzero]

36. I answered in the context the question was asked:

"But to teach children that it is a fact that there is one god or that God created the world in six days, that is child abuse."

I disagree.

Teaching your child that, if they disagree with you, they will suffer an eternity of torment, on the other hand, is abusive. Then again, it's abusive to teach anyone that.

[jgraz]

37. As with everything, it's a matter of degrees

His wording, "six days" and "a fact" put the parents on shakier moral ground here, IMHO.

In practice, though, I'd guess that people who believe in the literal creation myth but don't believe in hell are the smallest of religious minorities.

[muriel_volestrangler]

105. I voted 'disagree', and I don't have a religion

But, as you say, it's a matter of degree - which is why I didn't vote 'strongly disagree'. Taken to extremes like Fred Phelps, it is brainwashing. But if it's accompanied by a decent education, they'll be able to doubt and question it. I don't think it's a good idea - it's the equivalent of history education that is very nationalistic - but the word 'abuse' should be reserved for things that really harm the child or adult they grow into.

[Evoman]

35. Depends on what degree of indoctrination it is, I suppose.

Thats a hard one. I'm of the mind that guiding your children is alright and that beating religion into your child could constitute abuse. A co-worker of mind went through, what I think, is child abuse...she grew up in fundie religion, where her parens made her go to church about 4 times a week, and told her she was going to hell quite frequently. She suffered anxiety attacks about it and to this day hates her parents. That seems sort of like child abuse to me.

What I do think is wrong, and borders on child abuse (not quite child abuse, maybe, but terrible nonetheless), is to teach religion to the exclusivity of any other things. Taking your children out of school, for example, and teaching them biblical creation is taking a piece of your childs mind. The biblical creation is just plain wrong. I suppose if you actually believed it, I could see how you wouldn't think your taking anything away from your children...but you are.

Again...I don't think religious indoctrination is any more child abuse that any other type of indoctrination we go through (and we all do, to some degree). But extreme fundiness, and taking science away from children, is getting pretty damn close.

[Dorian Gray]

89. I agree with this...

If one teaches religion to the detriment of everything else, then that is abusive.

[jgraz]

39. Dawkins is specifically referring to teaching children the creation myth as fact

And in that sense, I totally agree with him.

[bryant69]

45. That certainly is a pleasing interpretation

But let's look at the record. "But to teach children that it is a fact that there is one god or that God created the world in six days, that is child abuse" Note that "or" there. That means teaching one God (as Christianity, Islam, and Judaisism do) is Child Abuse, in Dawkins eyes, along with or instead of teaching the Creation myth as fact. Now he may have softened his position since then; I wouldn't know. But that's certainly what he said at the time.

Bryant.

[Goblinmonger]

50. See post #72

for a little background on his interpretation.

[jgraz]

56. It's the inclusion of the word "fact"

I'm still in total agreement with him on this. No softening or interpretation necessary -- you teach a child that your faith is a fact and you are warping that kid's mind in an unacceptable way. Even if I had no compassion for the poor kid (and I do), I'd still be pissed off at the prospect of another fundiebot being turned loose on society once the kid grows up.

[Goblinmonger]

68. Amen, my brother.

You must be a preacher in the "Church of Dawkins." As you can see from my sig line, I have been named the head of your sister church by some on this forum.

[jgraz]

76. I like Dawkins and Harris, but they pick the easy targets

I'd much rather see someone address the moral issues that casual salvationist belief implies. Once you accept God, Heaven, Hell and an eternal afterlife, you have a recipe for creeping nihilism that tends to increase cumulative tolerance for suffering and injustice.

[hunter]

41. How 'bout racism, or blind nationalism, or homophobia...?

...or even telling your daughter she's fat because she's not skinny. Those are abuse.

Our family is religious. We go to church, and it is a positive thing that is not damaging to our kids' self respect, or their respect for people of other faiths. (I'm using "faith" here in a very broad way that includes non-religious ethical systems too.) It's how you do religion that counts.

If you are beating your kids to knock the demons out of them, or teaching them falsehoods and hatreds, then that's abusive.

I am honest with my children, I tell them how I see the truth, and I don't expect that they will see truth in exactly the same way I do. I am perfectly comfortable telling my kids which aspects of the Catholic faith I think are wrong -- for example the Church's stand against gay marriage. Our kids see us supporting the marriages of gay couples, and what they take away from that is not that we are hypocrits for being Catholic, but that they are not bound by the authority of the Church, instead they are bound by what is right.

I hope they extend this understanding beyond the confines of religion. Just because I am a citizen of the United States does not mean I support it blindly, or feel I must support those parts of law and U.S. society that I believe are wrong.

In terms of deadly toxicity, U.S. nationalism destroys more lives than the Catholic Church does. Ronald Reagan reeked more of Hell's sulfur than Pope John Paul II ever did, but here I am, a U.S. citizen, and Social Justice Catholic doing what I can to make the world a better place.

[Goblinmonger]

47. Why didn't you quote from this earlier paragraph

in the first interview. I think it shows what Dawkins is talking about pretty clearly.

excerpts from articles)

But don't you need to distinguish between religious extremists who kill people and moderate, peaceful religious believers?

You certainly need to distinguish them. They are very different. However, the moderate, sensible religious people you've cited make the world safe for the extremists by bringing up children -- sometimes even indoctrinating children -- to believe that faith trumps everything and by influencing society to respect faith. Now, the faith of these moderate people is in itself harmless. But the idea that faith needs to be respected is instilled into children sitting in rows in their madrasahs in the Muslim world. And they are told these things not by extremists but by decent, moderate teachers and mullahs. But when they grow up, a small minority of them remember what they were told. They remember reading their holy book, and they take it literally. They really do believe it. Now, the moderate ones don't really believe it, but they have taught children that faith is a virtue. And it only takes a minority to believe what it says in the holy book -- the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Quran, whatever it is. If you believe it's literally true, then there's scarcely any limit to the evil things you might do.

Care to comment on that precursor to your "abuse" comment? I think it is "spot on" to borrow from my British "idol."

[bryant69]

52. Yes he beleives that if I teach my child to believe in God

or to believe in the Bible it's child abuse and I shouldn't do it, no matter how reasonable I am as a theist.

Do you see something different there?

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

54. Please

quote the section where he says that. He says that teaching kids that anything to do with faith gets a free pass is a bad thing. He is telling people to teach their kids to question everything. Figure everything out for themselves. That's a bad thing?

[Zhade]

88. He's right - there's no requirement that faith be respected.

And the further away from reality it gets, the more true that becomes.

Like, say, creationism.

[Goblinmonger]

51. I'm kind of disappointed in your editing of the first interview!

What about this follow-up question to the one you quote. Comments on this?

I think it's child abuse not to let the child have the free choice of knowing there are other people who believe something quite different and the child could make its own choice.

That is from the first interview, not his "claim I said something different later" interview.

[bryant69]

53. I guess I can take some solace in providing links to the interviews

so people could read the whole thing.

I don't disagree with that statement - but I suspect my definition of living up to it would differ somewhat from yours. I would want my child (I'm childless by the way for those of you worried about my hypothetical abuse) to develop a relationship with God and come to know him. To have spiritual interaction with the Divine.

Bryant

[Goblinmonger]

55. But are you going to tell your hypothetical child

that there are no other choices out there. That your way is the only way and the right way and that going against that way is wrong and, in some scenarios, will land them in hell? Now we are getting to what Hawkins is talking about.

[bryant69]

57. Well I doubt I would use hell

On the other hand if they developed faith in God I would probably encourage them to continue in that faith. I don't know what you mean by no other choices - Could I really get away with teaching my kids that other religions and belief systems and athism don't exist? Probably not. Am I going to teach them some kind of "All Paths are just as good" theory? Probably not that either.

I think you are missing Dawkins point - I teach my kids to believe in the Bible and to be tolerant and loving and open-minded and what not. Good moderate Christianity. One kid goes off and follows in my foodsteps being a good moderate christian - but by exposing my other kid to the Bible and teaching him that faith is good and that God is real, he says "Well Dad's ok but he's a little wimpy. I'm going to join this Rapture United Church that teaches the real Bible and how we Christians should take over!" And goes off and becomes the next Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell. I'm responsible for his path because I encouraged him to accept the Bible and believe in God.

Maybe I'm misreading him, but that's how I take him, at least in that first interview. No matter how watered down or moderate my Christianity is, so long as it is tied to the Bible and to Faith, it has the potential to grow into fanatacism.

Bryant

[Danger Mouse]

87. Well, it kinda does...

...you could always become 'born again' =)

[bryant69]

93. So how far should we as society be willing to go to stamp out

religious fanaticism? And is religious fanaticism the only kind of fanaticism that exists?

Bryant

[Zhade]

90. But you wouldn't be teaching him that gods are real.

You'd be teaching him that you THINK your god is real.

You can't teach what you don't know, and you don't KNOW your god exists. Teaching a child that something you yourself can't prove is real exists is not terribly honest.

It's probably not abuse, unless you disallowed that child from asking for evidence and a reason to believe as you do, at which point it's not teaching, it's controlling.

(For the record, I doubt you would force your child to refrain from questioning, so don't assume I think you'd be an abusive parent. I'm just throwing that out there as something to consider about those who WOULD disallow questioning, like fundies.)

[Zhade]

58. Teaching? No. Dictating? Yes.

NT!

[jgraz]

59. And even if Dawkins said that Christians should be fed to lions...

it wouldn't change the fact that many of his other arguments are spot on.

[Buzz Clik]

62. Yes, but it certainly diminishes his argument.

A series of sparkling observations can be irreversibly tarnished by asinine and subjective interjections. Dawkins is most certainly guilty of that.

[jgraz]

63. your reasoning is "fellatious" :)

I've personally not seen a lot of asinine and subjective interjections from Dawkins, but then I'm not really a huge acolyte of his. But even granting the point, the fact that he's a dick does nothing to affect the logic of his other arguments. After all, his dickishness doesn't make his science less credible, why should it diminish his other arguments?

[bryant69]

64. I suppose it's because he's a symbol

as well as a participant in the debate. He's been elevated to be "The Atheist" (the title of the one of the interviews actually). If he is the living symbol of Atheism and he's also "a dick," it gives people an opinion of Atheism that's not entirely positive.

Bryant

[jgraz]

65. Yes, because if it weren't for Dawkins everyone would love atheists

:P

[bryant69]

70. Well some Atheists can be very lovable- presumably.

Are theism and atheism societally compatable? In the long run? Or does one side have to win eventually? Within our lifetimes?

Bryant

[jgraz]

74. Your questions are good fodder for a whole new thread

Short answer: Depends, No, Probably, Almost Certainly Not.

[Finder]

69. Atheism has no elders.lol

[beam me up scottie]

122. So we're swooning fanboys of Dawkins too?

Oh, goodie! I was afraid we'd run out of atheist gods to worship!

Sam isn't going to like sharing the throne, though.

[Danger Mouse]

129. Silly heathen...

...gods are for theists!

[beam me up scottie]

131. ROFLMAO!!!

[Buzz Clik]

71. I'm not talking about being a dick --

His entire style of argument is combative and insulting for no reason. He is quick with a knee to the groin of anyone who disagrees with him -- and anyone who refuses to denounce the possible existence of a god is immediately dismissed as an idiot.

If he were merely a dick, I'd have no problem with that. But he insists on imposing his social and intellectual assessments in every article he writes. His scholarly pursuits and dickishness are inseparable.

[jgraz]

72. It still doesn't diminish the substance of his arguments

He's like the kid in 1st grade who runs around telling all the other kids that Santa Claus is a lie. He may be a dick, but that doesn't change the fact that he's substantially correct.

Attacking his style does nothing to refute his arguments.

[Buzz Clik]

91. Let's dump the Santa example and look at what Dawkins really says:

According to Dawkins, anyone who believes in God is a fool. Anyone who is unwilling to attack those who aren't sure about a deity are naive and creating the same dangerous situation as Neville Chamberlain pre-WWII. I'm sorry, but equating agnostics to Hitler is a huge stretch.

I agree with Dawkins's analysis about evolution and evolutionary biology. The rest of his diatribes are offensive and based on pure emotionalism. Seriously, I see Dawkins in the evolutionary debate filling the same role as Ann Coulter in the political debate -- a smart person with some interesting ideas but whose objectivity has been willingly and repeatedly flushed down the toilet.

If you like spewing, in-your-face debates, then Dawkins is your man. If you prefer a presentation of facts devoid of rancor, then he most certainly is not.

[jgraz]

94. You haven't shown what Dawkins really says

You've just given your characterizations of it. However, I have no reason to doubt that you've actually seen him equate agnostics to Nazi appeasers, although that seems extreme even for him.

I don't find Dawkins that interesting, mostly because he makes many of the same arguments that atheists have been making for years. The one interesting bit that he contributes is his take on the evolutionary origins of morality. Harris touches on this, but Dawkins can speak with a lot more authority on the matter. IMHO, it's his one decent contribution to the whole debate, aside from the personality issues.

That having been said, I do happen to thing that we atheists need some in-your-face debaters. I've often found atheists to be far too tolerant of destructive religious views, mostly restricting themselves to defensive stances against the most egregious attempts to force a particular ideology on the general public. It's far past time that the atheists go on the offensive and start calling religionists out on their acceptance/enabling of the more extreme elements of their faiths.



Edit: wording

[Buzz Clik]

104. see post 87

[Goblinmonger]

109. Huh? Did you mean a different #? n/t

[Buzz Clik]

110. Hmmm... yes, I did. Post 60.

[Goblinmonger]

108. To compare Dawkins to Coulter is ignorant

She spews absolute hate-filled emotion with no sense of logic or evidence.

Dawkins takes a very logical approach to everything that he does. He is trying to prove things throught the scientific method, something that would probably cause Coulter to melt if she came face to face with it.

Don't undercut what may be legitimate points against Dawkins by throwing out absurd comparisons.

[Buzz Clik]

112. You mean we disagree on this, too? Shocking.

[Goblinmonger]

118. I just don't think you do yourself any good

by arguing against Dawkins based on a "he's a moron" platform. He isn't a moron. He is responsible for the direction and understanding we have today of evolution. Arguing that he is a moron kinda makes people look like they are morons. I don't mean to say that you can't disagree with him, but make your disagreement clear and avoid the ad hominem that is clearly not true.

Additionally, don't you think it cuts against your point that Dawkins is a prick and always goes for the groin shot when you call him a prick and arrogant and unintelligent? Aren't you employing the same strategies that you descry?

[beam me up scottie]

123. And this surprises you?

Fundies always compare people they're threatened by to their own kind, why should other believers be any different?


Scientist/atheist critical of religion = hate spewing dominionist harpie who advocates the use of violence against liberals




Come on, Gobby! That makes perfect sense.

[Danger Mouse]

128. Ann Coulter vs. Richard Dawkins?

Wow. Just wow.
Look, I think Dawkins is an ass, but come on. That's reaching. Really, really reaching.
Coulter is an evil hate-filled shrieking harpy who brays a lot but doesn't back it up with brains.
Dawkins is obviously brilliant and very knowledgable, he just happens to be kind of a dick...and I think that's just because he's pissed off, and has reason to be. If so many (most) religious people weren't ignorant hate-filled trogolodytes, I don't think Dawkins would be as hostile towards religion as he is. I mean, look, just LOOK at all the problems that religion is causing in the world right now. It's hard to be a liberal Christian, because you just feel like you're surrounded, absolutely surrounded, by fundies and backwards ignorant intolerant asses, and you wonder, you just can't understand, why is it like this? How could this happen?
For that matter, Ann Coulter is a big proponent of Intelligent Design.
Which makes her the antithesis of Dawkins.
Coulter = Hate-filled, religious, believes in ID, stupid, full of hot air
Dawkins = Frustrated, atheist, brilliant.
Yeah. They're just SO alike.

[Chulanowa]

73. It's not the religion...

But the manner in which it is taught that can be abusive. Look, you can teach a kid whatever the hell you want. They're going to grow up and come to their own personal conclusions - unless you make them totally terrifed of doing so. And that goes beyond religion - those "parents" who use terror to hammer their religion into their kid's heads aren't just indoctrinating them into a religion, they're also erasing any sense of self-reliance, rendering the child into a permanant state of seeking authority.

I completely support those parents who want to teach their kids their religion. It's no different than teaching your kid family history or how to appreciate music. It's those abusive assholes who terrorize their children into believing that there is punishment awaiting them not only in the next life, but this one as well if they don't accept it totally, that I have the issue with

[SidDithers]

80. Teaching your child religion as FACT is child abuse...

teaching your child religion as belief is just indoctrination.

Sid

[Danger Mouse]

81. Someone who says...

...that teaching kids religious values is child abuse doesn't know SHIT about child abuse. I work with kids that have been abused (in all sorts of horrible ways), and the way it tears them up inside is sick and disgusting.
Religion can certainly contribute to abuse (spare the rod and spoil the child my ass). Also, when people force their narrowminded hateful beliefs onto children, and mold them into miniature hatemongers, I think that is sickening, but I don't call it child abuse. I think it's incredibly unfair to a child.
But to compare to a child that is afraid to go home because they KNOW their drunken ass of a father is going to beat the living shit out of them...that's bullshit.
I have a lot of respect for Dawkins (even though I don't necessarily like him)...but that statement is asinine, stupid, and disrespectful to both people of faith and to children that are abused every day and could tell him a thing or two about what it's like.

[Danger Mouse]

82. Clarification...

forcing kids into hateful beliefs is abusive. and often leads into further physical and mental abuse.
teaching kids religion isn't.
my prior statement was incorrect.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

83. It is irresponsible NOT to teach children some coherent system of values

because the commercial culture of consumerism is ready to fill the empty spaces, turning the child into a shallow trendoid whose only system of values is "Do the mass media and trendsetters say it's cool?"

They can always reject your values, but to provide no moral framework--whether it's based on Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, socialism, vegetarianism, environmentalism, science, Buddhism, paganism, your ethnic traditions, or just plain "do no harm"-- is to abdicate your responsibility as a parent.

Growing up with a distinct identity is good for psychological health. You have only to look at native peoples around the world whose culture has been destroyed but who can't or aren't allowed to assimilate to the dominant culture.

[Danger Mouse]

84. What, like Native Americans?

and look how well they're doing =P
That whole 'stealing their land, destroying their way of life and forcing them to live on barren tracts of land' thing really worked out well for them, didn't it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

85. Those who are able to get/stay in touch with their heritage, and those

who have gone over completely to the dominant culture seem to do much better than those who have lost/been separated from their traditions but have not assimilated to the dominant culture.

The same is true of Native Hawaiians, Maoris, Australian Aborigines, Inuit, Ainu in Japan, etc.

A human being needs a coherent culture to belong to.

[Meshuga]

95. That's why I send my kid...

...to a Jewish school to get some coherent system of values that I am proud of and for the sake of identity since identity is more important than certain faith in my religion. My son might end up like a few people I encountered on this message board: good Jews who happen to be atheists. Perhaps he will be a theist, who knows? That's for him to decide.

But he is a Jewish child and I don't see this label as form of abuse. I also see that growing up with a distinct identity that he could be proud of might be good for his psychological health.

[Zhade]

97. Um, a "coherent system of values" isn't derived solely from religion.

I'm an atheist who has an excellent ethical system, thanks.

(And I'm a member of one of those native peoples, incidentally.)

[kiahzero]

98. No kidding.

They can always reject your values, but to provide no moral framework--whether it's based on Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, socialism, vegetarianism, environmentalism, science, Buddhism, paganism, your ethnic traditions, or just plain "do no harm"-- is to abdicate your responsibility as a parent.

So... yeah. You're agreeing with Lydia.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

101. Note that I included ethics other than religious ones

:-)

[Danger Mouse]

86. Further musings...

...I don't think it's right to teach a child to fear Hell. Having experienced what it's like to develop an irrational fear of Hell at an early age...
I think it's pretty much abusive to do that. You warp a child's mind in that way and frighten them...and even from an early age you ask them to love God or burn in Hell. Once a kid reaches the age where they can tell right from wrong...(around 7 or 8 according to msot fundies)...they are 'hellbait'.
Being afraid of an angry, abusive god is little different from being afraid of an angry, abusive father.
you are causing psychological scarring.
i am a sunday school teacher, but i will never teach my kids about hell, or tell them that they could go to hell, or any of their loved ones could.
and they can feel free to fire me or kick me out of the church for doing that, too. but i refuse to tell a five year old that they better love god or hell awaits them.
most of these fundies were brought up that way...and deep down inside, it's that fear of hell that motivates them...because as children, their parents sternly warned them of hell's flames...the psychological damage was done...the cycle continues with their kids.
in my earlier post, i admit i reacted...emotionally =)
however, i still feel the same way about dawkins statement.
i just can more clearly define the line where religious teaching becomes abusive behavior.

[beam me up scottie]

102. My ex grew up thinking he's going to hell.

He STILL thinks that.

His wonderful fundie mother really did a job on him and his brother.

I think that qualifies as child abuse.

[Danger Mouse]

124. Yes...

and just like I said, I would never do that to my (future hypothetical) child, or to the children I teach sunday school to. Last night I told my sister about how a loving God would NEVER do that to his children. That made her feel better. I just...i hate it, and I hate to see the psychological effect it has on children.
It scars them, it really does, and people think they're *helping* them.

[beam me up scottie]

132. You're wise beyond your years.

My ex and his poor brother will never be able to enjoy life without the obligatory guilt trip and sense of impending doom.

Seriously.

[Danger Mouse]

133. To be honest....

...neither will I. Hence my determination to make sure that others close to me won't go through the same.

[beam me up scottie]

134. Man, I'm really sorry about that.

And I admire your commitment to stopping that kind of abuse.

You're a good man, Charlie Brown. :)

[Danger Mouse]

137. Well...when you're abused...

you have two choices...

1.) do your best to make sure that NEVER happens to those you love so that they don't have to go through what you did

or

2.) become an abuser yourself, and continue the cycle of abuse

I think #1 is a better choice. I had a weird upbringing. Most of this bizarre religion stuff was caused by my dad and my uncle...my dad having been into drugs, whores, and violence for quite a few years, then 'finding his way,' and my uncle being a preacher...some weird stuff went on there...ah well...

[beam me up scottie]

103. Is starting flame bait polls a tenet of your religion?

And how strongly must someone believe that atheists are out to get them in order to join?

[Name removed]

106. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Danger Mouse]

125. You're on to us.

It's in the book of 'Revelations'. Trolling and flame baiting are founding principles of our faith.
You have to be pretty paranoid to be able to join, but it's alright. It's better than leaving you godless heathens to steal my christmas and take prayer out of the school, and teach my children about evil-ution!

[cain_7777]

113. lying to your children until they are as delusional as you is abuse

[Buzz Clik]

114. Interesting. I was under the impression that one of the cornerstones of this country....

is freedom of religion. You're now telling me that raising a child in a given religion is abuse?

I think a hearty, "bullshit!" is in order here.

[cain_7777]

117. Stifle your child from birth with religious misinformation

The only bullshit around here is what you've been spoon fed by your religion.

[Imperialism Inc.]

120. FYI. He has never changed his position.

I've heard him espouse it time and again. I totally agree with him in the sense that he means it (and not in your gross distortion of it). He is talking about threatening little children with eternal damnation, hellfire and torture if they don't think a certain way or misbehave. I could not agree more. That is definitely child abuse. Mental torture.

Not sure if you are mis characterizing his position due to ignorance of his position or willful malevolence. Knowing you I'm guessing the latter or some of both.

[bryant69]

121. I'm full of malevolence. Thank you for noticing.

[beam me up scottie]

126. You're full of something.

:rofl:

[Danger Mouse]

127. That wasn't nice.

*snort*
I hate you.

[beam me up scottie]

130. I am a wicked woman.

:evilgrin:

we need an evil grin smilie with lipstick.

[Kiouni]

135. kids grow up, no worries. n/t

[Meshuga]

136. Call this flame bait or not

But anybody stating opinions are worthy of questioning. Dawkins should not receive a get out of jail free card. If the OP is saying something unfair about somebody then it does not need an emotional response in order to defend the person in question.

Same thing goes for questionioning opinion of a religious figure or saying that some beliefs and concepts of god sound childish. The theists get really defensive.

Religion is an excellent tool for people of power to stay in power. All they have to do is get people on different sides of the fence to yell at one another to achieve their goal. That's one of the major strikes I see against religion.

But Dawkins tone gives me a perception that he is also building a fence and I see that as a strike against him.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

139. but isn't original sin abusive?

Original sin says you are bad because you are human. None of us asked to be born. We can make plenty of mistakes on our own.

I think Christianity in any form is abusive because its starting point is original sin & therefore that is why people need substitutionary atonement (Jesus dying on the cross). If there is no original sin, there is no need for the death of Jesus, so "POOF" goes the whole religion.

This is totally unjust. This is a bad rap that NOBODY needs to hear about. It's phony. It coerces people to go to church out of fear of hell.

I knew someone who tried to slash their wrists because every sunday they went to church and heard sermons about how evil and sinful ALL people are. And just couldn't take that kind of putdown every Sunday. This is dangerous for people who are depressed anyway.


And ALL Christians believe in Original Sin, so they are ALL that way.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

140. Original sin is merely a theological way of saying "nobody's perfect"

It's a theological elaboration of Paul's lament about doing the things he shouldn't do and not doing the things he should do. Religious or not, I'm sure you've all felt that kind of frustration with your own shortcomings.
Somehow it got twisted into "everyone deserves hell." (I think we can blame Augustine for that, although I'm not sure that he started it.)

[kiahzero]

142. Actually, that notion dates back to Saul.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - the problems we see in modern Christianity are Saul's fault.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

143. yeah some people felt so uncomfortable with their own shortcomings..

That they tried to kill themselves. Spent time in a mental hospital. This can't be the only person in the world that has ever done this either.

Now isn't that abusive? The preachers thought they were helping people. And this is mainstream, bedrock Christian belief. No getting around it.

Psychologically horrendous, and yet accepted by millions. And I'll say that there are other Abrahmaic religions just as bad.

I, for one, refuse to live in fear.

Hinduism and Buddhism and Eastern religions don't have that sort of psychologically harmful theology. And they also don't have people writing books apologizing and explaining away the inconsistencies in their Scriptures, because they DO NOT HAVE ANY. That's why Christians call that field apologetics.

No need for it in a logical belief system.
:banghead:

[kiahzero]

144. Minor nitpick

"Apology" comes from a Greek word meaning "defense." The use of "apologetics" doesn't have anything to do with the modern usage of "apologize."

[Lydia Leftcoast]

145. I guess you don't know about some of the varieties of Japanese Buddhism

They have a concept of hell, and it's referred to in their literature as early as the twelfth century, which is about four hundred years before the first European missionaries showed up.

And Buddhism does have Scriptures--lots of 'em. Go to the nearest university library and see all of them there on the shelves.

[kiahzero]

141. Actually, not all Christians believe in original sin

http://www.religioustolerance.org/sin_gene0.htm

[Manifestor_of_Light]

146. I don't believe in substitutionary atonement either

So that post isn't relevant. If there is no original sin, then the substitutionary atonement of Jesus is non-existent and unnecessary.

POOF!! There goes Christianity!!!

Examine two concepts closely, and there it goes!!!