BS: Atheists

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Don Firth
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 04:28 PM

Okay, John, let me take a whack at this.

"Do you believe that Jesus died and was mystically brought back to life three days later?"

No, I don't believe that. But that is a standard folkloric style of telling stories about important religious figures. Examine the other religions, and you will find that ALL important religious figures both entered and left the world in miraculous ways.

"Do you believe that the only way to enlightenment is through Jesus?"

No.

"What's the story on the whole three-in-one thing? What's that mean?"

Supposed triune aspect of the Deity:   Father, God, presumably the father of us all, as well as the father of Jesus, the Son, who tells us directly of God's will, and the Holy Spirit, the word of God as enunciated by Jesus. Again, it's a simile, a way of telling the story.

"Do you believe that Mary produced a virgin birth?"

Refer to my response to the first question about the folkloric aspects of stories about important religious figures. Side note: a pastor friend of mine, when confronted with this question, responded by saying, "What matters is what Jesus said, not the gynecological and obstetric details of His conception and birth." Yup.

"Do you believe that God made the world in six days and that the Theory of Evolution is essentially incorrect?"

Absolutely NOT!

"Do you believe in life after death? What is heaven and hell within your belief system?"

I don't know, nor does anyone else. The subjective fact is that a) I know that one day I'm going to die; that I cannot imagine myself NOT existing in one form or another (I am rather fond of the Eastern belief in reincarnation, and that living many lives is like going to school and passing from one grade to the next), but—let's put it this way: if there is an afterlife, it will be a whole new adventure, if there is not, I will no longer have a consciousness with which to be disappointed.

"Do you believe in Satan?"

No.

"Do you think God listens to and cares about prayers? Whose prayers get answered if equally good people ask for equally good but opposite results?"

Since I don't even know if there IS a Supreme Being, I don't have a lot of confidence in prayers being answered. I think prayer works on the person doing the praying.

"If God is omnipotent, why is there so much underserved suffering in the world? How is God not a complete schmuck in this regard?"

That is subsumed under my answer to the question directly above this one.

My state of agnosticism does not prevent me from going to the church I go to, which is a quite liberal church. The words of Jesus are what they consider important (with little attention paid to such things as virgin birth and resurrection and ascension in the body other than celebrating the usual religious holidays like Christmas and Easter), and this translates into trying to find housing for the homeless, providing a program of free meals for the hungry, and generally taking what Jesus is alleged to have said seriously in the form of action, rather than proselytizing.

I wish more churches would do that instead of making themselves a pain in the ass.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: BrendanB
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 04:44 PM

I would say that abuse of faith is very very dangerous. Faith is entirely personal and any attempt to to impose it on those who actively reject it is unacceptable.   I think that is what Dawkins is focussing on. In my experience children who have been educated in Catholic schools are well able to question Catholic doctrine. ( I have worked in Catholic schools and know that to be true). In fact, I have encouraged young people to question religious teaching because faith that is not arrived at freely is no faith at all.

Sexuality and relationships between adults are complex and challenge the understanding of those not directly involved. I hope that I will never sit in judgement on others in this (or any other) matter. We must all answer for our own behaviour not that of others. The fact that I have not committed adultery is probably down to luck as much as anything else.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 06:29 PM

Sorry Brendan, I guess we are going to disagree on this. Honestly I don't see how it is debatable. When Dawkins said this

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

He meant exactly this

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

He has had editors and publishers and and debates and defenses of it. The words are NOT accidental.

He does not SAY "the abuse of faith" can be very very dangerous He is saying that to implant it (faith) into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.

Its a simple question to you Brendan and to you and to everyone who cares to defend Mr. Dawkins, well two questions really do you think that he believes this "to implant it (faith) into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong." Do YOU believe it?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 06:56 PM

""Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong.""

Niki Lauda, twice Formula One World Champion, shortly after the birth of his son, was asked by a journalist if he could take some photos of the boy.

Lauda pointed out that he couldn't answer for the son, but if the boy agreed, it was alright with him.

The reporter said "But he's only six months old, and and can't talk, so he can't give permission".

"So", said Lauda, "You'll have to wait tll he can". End of conversation.

Maybe Dawkins feels that making faith choices for a child which hasn't any conception of faith or any capacity to choose, is equally wrong.

Not saying I agree, especially with the wording, but the idea.......?

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:03 PM

If Dawkins wrote it he presumably believes it. Why shouldn't he?

If you think faith is a good thing, then clearly you will want to pass that on to others especially your children, and will view his statement as outrageous. However if you believe that faith is a bad thing, then you'll see indoctrinating young and impressionable children as bad thing. It's not really surprising that opposing views come to opposite conclusions

Religious people are often ready to take a very similar tone against things they disapprove of.

I can understand that Jack disagrees with both the statement and the underlying assertion, but that's his point of view and I can't see why he's surprised that someone with a different point of view should think differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:36 PM

Howard and Don, thanks for the feed back. But I still think that "and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong"

Goes beyond what you both said. I am saying that Dawkins is just as dogmatic and extreme in his views as many of the religious people he condemns.

I think his views are much more polarizing than mine or Joe's or Brendan's Or even Rick Warren's, Billy Graham's and Charles Stanley's

I'm puzzled that no one agrees, but maybe my attempts at humor (the Cult of Dawkins etc) have made agreement with me too high a hill to climb.

Then again, repeating the same points to make a seemingly simple and self-evident argument is kinda boring. I have to entertain myself somehow.

Or did y'all think that I actually thought there was a cult?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:40 PM

The issue with implanting "faith" into children so young that they can't possibly understand the consequences is, in my opinion, the greatest of all the evils of religion (one or two popes and Mother Teresa come a very close second). Let us remember that faith is the unquestioning acceptance of doctrine in the face of all contrary evidence. "Giving" children faith at a very early stage flies in the face of everything we believe about what one of the main aims of true education should be: the imparting of the skills to children that will enable them to seek, assess and criticise information, and to require evidence for any assertions that that are not based on self-evident truth. We are unjustifiably gentle on religion when it comes to this. We indulge all those seriously misguided people, many of whom are very nice people of course, who send their children to faith schools with the excuse that they "mean well". They are doing their children a serious disservice whilst doing their organised religion of choice a hell of a big favour (if you don't catch 'em young you don't catch 'em at all). I'm never going to excuse people who think in their heart of hearts that, because they think faith is a good thing, it's fine to force-feed that faith into young children. My view is that the concept of a God who breaks all the rules of nature is a far more complex notion than anything science has ever thrown up, and, as such, children probably shouldn't even hear about God at least until they can vote or join the army. God-bothering is not a trivial matter. You'd think I was a lunatic if I suggested that seven-year-olds should be taught string theory, yet we allow them to be taught about God, an infinitely more complex matter than string theory, and a chap to whom we are supposed to bow down our heads without question. Yes, we certainly let the faith-school/Sunday school brigade off far too lightly. The people who run them are manipulative scumbags and the people who send their kids to them are seriously deluded. It's the kids I feel sorry for.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:40 PM

The issue with implanting "faith" into children so young that they can't possibly understand the consequences is, in my opinion, the greatest of all the evils of religion (one or two popes and Mother Teresa come a very close second). Let us remember that faith is the unquestioning acceptance of doctrine in the face of all contrary evidence. "Giving" children faith at a very early stage flies in the face of everything we believe about what one of the main aims of true education should be: the imparting of the skills to children that will enable them to seek, assess and criticise information, and to require evidence for any assertions that that are not based on self-evident truth. We are unjustifiably gentle on religion when it comes to this. We indulge all those seriously misguided people, many of whom are very nice people of course, who send their children to faith schools with the excuse that they "mean well". They are doing their children a serious disservice whilst doing their organised religion of choice a hell of a big favour (if you don't catch 'em young you don't catch 'em at all). I'm never going to excuse people who think in their heart of hearts that, because they think faith is a good thing, it's fine to force-feed that faith into young children. My view is that the concept of a God who breaks all the rules of nature is a far more complex notion than anything science has ever thrown up, and, as such, children probably shouldn't even hear about God at least until they can vote or join the army. God-bothering is not a trivial matter. You'd think I was a lunatic if I suggested that seven-year-olds should be taught string theory, yet we allow them to be taught about God, an infinitely more complex matter than string theory, and a chap to whom we are supposed to bow down our heads without question. Yes, we certainly let the faith-school/Sunday school brigade off far too lightly. The people who run them are manipulative scumbags and the people who send their kids to them are seriously deluded. It's the kids I feel sorry for.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: John P
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:43 PM

Jack -- I wasn't defending anything that Dawkins said. I was questioning your insistence that he was speaking scientifically when he said that, and I was questioning your apparent blaming of anyone who likes Dawkins for any reason for his words, or at least assuming that other people agree with everything he ever said. You seem to be clumping all atheists together sometimes, and it sometimes makes it hard to know who you are talking about -- it becomes easy to think you are getting angry at all of us. And I'd still much rather find out what you think about these issues than what you think Dawkins thinks about it.

As for whether or not a religious upbringing is desirable, I'm actually on both sides of the question. For the most part, I think it depends on the specific situation. For most Christians I know, their faith manifests as a desire to feel love for their fellow man, to live their lives with honesty and integrity, and to do good works. I support those types of values being instilled in our young people. I don't like kids being told that fantastical events are the literal truth. I think it's bad for the moral fiber. I see that many kids naturally question the faith of their parents and reach their own conclusions. I also see that many don't, and the ones that don't are often the ones who want to tell other people how to live their lives. I really don't like the idea of telling parents how to raise their children, and I really don't think parents should get to do whatever they like to their kids. I guess I'll go figure out how to play "Both Sides Now".

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: John P
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 07:54 PM

♫ I've looked at life from both sides now . . . ♫

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:02 PM

Pete From 7 Stars: i would beg to differ rob as to who gets most influence in media and education.thought for the day and songs of praise [is there anything else/] gets ,i suspect,much less time than the evolutionary programming of dawkins,attenborough type programs.the same is true in state schools.RI,assembly ,if at all religious anyway,is countered by the naturalistic viewpoint of so called science

Pete, you're comparing apples with oranges here. The vast majority of Christians and Jews, and a significant number of less fundamentalist Muslims are accepting of science, the scientific method and the strong evidence for evolution. So science-based programmes are NOT in opposition to religious ones. They're just entirely separate. However, the ones discussing religion in UK tend not to include atheism or agnosticism as part of their spectrum of discussion. I find it difficult to understand why a programme such as "Beyond Belief" simply never includes an atheist or agnostic viewpoint. You have an issue examined from a Muslim, Catholic, Anglican, Sikh and Jewish viewpoint but it's never even raised that an atheist may have something valuable to add to the issue under discussion.

And Pete: .as a result they get science wrong,-think junk dna,vestigual organs,the eye wrongly wired etc.all predictions and assertions of evolutionists.

I think you'll find it's creationists who've constantly (and knowingly) mis-represented science on their websites and in their publications. Sometimes they've continued (as in the case of moon dust, leap seconds, "the vertical whale" etc) to use their discredited arguments for years, decades even, after they were proved to be wrong, until the inability to keep those discredited arguments going has forced them to make anodyne comments such as "we don't recommend using that argument any more"....without at any point admitting that they were deliberately continuing to promulgate said arguments for years after they were discredited and *known by creationist leades to have been discredited*. In most spheres of endeavour this is called "deliberately lying" to your followers.

Pete: just to add to my previous post where my mind muddled my message,-and surprisingly no-one pulled me up on it
....diamonds supposedly millions of yrs old registering radio carbon.

The problems seems to be, Pete, that you get all your "knowledge" of science from snippets on creationist websites and show little evidence of having made any *independent* efforts to follow the real evidence, so to someone who's had a more in-depth scientific education, *most* of your posts mentioning science seem quite muddled.

With regard to the diamond point in particular. AiG says:

There are two main applications for radiometric dating. One is for potentially dating fossils (once-living things) using carbon-14 dating, and the other is for dating rocks and the age of the earth using uranium, potassium and other radioactive atoms.

Which is plain wrong. Fossils as such are generally NOT dated using carbon-dating, as fossilised material millions of years old usually no longer contains organic carbon...the carbon having been replaced with inorganic materials over time. Carbon dating *is* used to date once-living things, as long as they've not been subject to permineralisation and as long as they're sufficiently young (ie younger than about 50,000 years) that there is still a reasonably accurately measurable C12/C14 ratio left in the material.

Carbon dating has been subject to cross-checking against dates from dendrochronology, varves, ice cores, coral growth rings etc and in all cases the curves match where they overlap, giving a strong indication that the utility of carbon dating *within its applicable band* is correct. For it to be otherwise physical laws would have had to be different in the past....something which we can rightfully be *very* skeptical of in the light of information gleaned from geology, astrophysics and cosmology (all different subjects to evolution/ biology, but which dovetail nicely where they overlap).

AiG then states: Carbon-14 (14C), also referred to as radiocarbon, is claimed to be a reliable dating method for determining the age of fossils up to 50,000 to 60,000 years. If this claim is true, the biblical account of a young earth (about 6,000 years) is in question, since 14C dates of tens of thousands of years are common....When a scientist's interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible.

So it's *very* important for creationists to cast doubt on carbon dating....if they don't then their whole edifice of literal belief comes tumbling down. AiG's further comments on carbon dating are a farrago of wrong assumptions and conclusions which are well de-bunked on several sites.

The RATE diamond experiments are critiqued here:

RATE Critique

And the publication "Perspectives On Science And Christian Faith, March 2008, pages 35-39, concludes:

The RATE team has honestly acknowledged that even if their technical claims were accurate, there remain unsolved problems that cannot be reconciled with any known scientific process. In his summary at the RATE conference in Denver on Sept. 15, 2007, Don DeYoung noted the need to invoke divine intervention in order to circumvent these problems. However, the oft-stated summary by the RATE team, that their results provide assurance of the biblical interpretation of a young earth, leaves the average listener with the mistaken impression that these problems are nonexistent, trivial, or soon to be resolved. Rather, the RATE team acknowledged overwhelming evidence for hundreds of millions of year's worth of radioactivity12 and admitted that compressing this activity into a few thousand years would generate more than enough heat to vaporize all granitic rock.13 They state that no known thermodynamic process could dissipate such a large amount of heat.14 Their expressed hope in solving heat dissipation by cooling via enhanced cosmological expansion15 has not been realized and is not consistent with our knowledge of the expanding universe.16 Thus, the RATE team has provided solid evidence that, scientifically, the earth cannot be thousands but must be billions of years old.

In fact, carbon dating isn't the main thing that should concern fundamentalist creationists. It's the fact that it complements and agrees with dates from varves, ice-cores, tree-ring dating and coral growth, all combining to form a coherent picture. We have varve records going back unbroken for 40,000 years and ice cores going back 700,000 years.

Pete, if you'd actually learn some real science as opposed to getting snippets from AiG and elsewhere, you'd do yourself a big favour. The evidence for an old earth and an even older universe is both overwhelming and very consistent. There are still unknowns, and a few (a *very* few in the big scheme of things) inconsistencies, but to try and leverage young earth creationist dogma into explanations for such inconsistencies is a disservice to those with truly enquiring minds who are willing to follow the evidence where it actually leads, rather than trying to shoe-horn such inconsistencies into a world-view which refuses to accept evidence when it contradicts its pre-suppositions.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:05 PM

As for whether or not a religious upbringing is desirable, I'm actually on both sides of the question. For the most part, I think it depends on the specific situation. For most Christians I know, their faith manifests as a desire to feel love for their fellow man, to live their lives with honesty and integrity, and to do good works. I support those types of values being instilled in our young people.

Those desirables are, as you know, fully achievable without even a hint of religious indoctrination. It's perfectly possible to support those types of values without so much of a sniff of religion. Your post is one of those excuses I mentioned used by deluded Christians to send their unfortunate offspring to those indoctrination camps we call faith schools. Faith schools may well pretend to preach love for fellow men, but they also instil the benefits of keeping away from the riffraff.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:09 PM

"Jack, you seem to be purposefully misunderstanding what Dawkins meant"


Jack -- I wasn't defending anything that Dawkins said.

I am sorry that I thought you were defending Dawkins. Can you see why I might have thought that.

" You seem to be clumping all atheists together sometimes"

I don't think that, I have been talking about Dawkins and his followers the whole time. I have been clear about what I don't like. I have been specific in my criticisms.

Considering the post before you, which vividly displays the attitude I was trying to counter, I don't even think I have been very harsh.

I think that Dawkins is trying to stir up that kind of thing and I think he believes the statement fully, without qualification.

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."

I am happy to see that you don't. I count you on the side of reason. Steve and Mr. Dawkins, not so much.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:12 PM

Nice post Rob. Seriously.

Good luck getting though. Seriously.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:30 PM

Jack: I'm not holding my breath. Seriously. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stringsinger
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:43 PM

From the standpoint of a child learning to think for him/herself without outside indoctrination, "faith" can be interpreted as a means of indoctrination. If a child is old enough to determine whether he/she should have "faith" then that's a different story. Then "faith" is not dangerous but chosen unless it is a kind of "faith" that wreaks havoc on those who don't have it. Dawkins point is clear, here. Indoctrination (faith) without the framework of questioning and decision is dangerous.

The Taliban have faith and they instill it into the minds of young suicide bombers who are not mature enough to understand what it happening to them. They have "faith" and are dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Rob Naylor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:56 PM

Some creationists do eventually modify their ideas based on where the evidence leads:

Glenn Morton Statement

But it tends to take quite a while, and they need to get quite a good understanding of real science and real evidence before they change their ideas.

I interacted with Glenn in religious discussions quite a bit on various newsgroups and forums many years ago, and then later slightly from a professional viewpoint (I'm in seismic surveying too) when he was based for a while in the UK and got the impression of a very honest and open individual who wrestled with his conscience for years before finally breaking with his original indoctrination. I think he was quite bewildered when his creationist (soon to be former) colleagues reacted in such a vicious and personal way to his last paper.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 08:57 PM

A soldier in Stalin's, security forces has no religion and was dangerous. A child soldier 10 years old with nothing to believe in but his gun and an AK 47 is dangerous.

Billions of people have faith in religion are not dangerous.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 09:51 PM

If your only justification for indoctrinating children with your faith of choice is that the kids might not actually turn out to be dangerous, then I think you have a little more thinking to do.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 11:37 PM

"If your only justification for indoctrinating children with your faith of choice is that the kids might not actually turn out to be dangerous, then I think you have a little more thinking to do. "

Steve that is the dumbest thing that you have said so far.

I'm saying it is not dangerous for children to be raised in their parent's faith. You know, the status quo.

Do you think parents should be separated from their parents to prevent indoctrination? You know, to prevent this grievous wrong.

Steve has been telling us all that he is the reasonable one who relies on science and logic. He's telling us that I am the one who has to prove that "Inserting" "Faith" into the "vulnerable mind of an innocent child" is not dangerous. Are Steve and Mr. Dawkins planning to hang out at churches and pick up the children as they walk out the door?

(That was a joke everyone else. I am not attacking atheists, I am mocking Steve's (and Mr. Dawkin's) wild assertions and implications.)

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 11:45 PM

Ooops!

Do you think parents should be separated from their parents to prevent indoctrination?

Do you think children should be separated from their parents to prevent indoctrination?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 07 Apr 13 - 11:57 PM

"Faith can be very very dangerous, and deliberately to implant it into the vulnerable mind of an innocent child is a grievous wrong."
R. Dawkins

I guess that is true for Atheism as well!

I am not attacking Atheism here. I am simply showing Steve Shaw that any dogmatic true believer, including the most famous atheist in the United States at the time can damage her kids by not letting them think for themselves.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20076618,00.html

As Murray tells it, his atheism was enforced from childhood by a tyrannical, explosive and indifferent matriarch. Growing up in a household run by his mother and maternal grandmother (his father left when he was an infant), Bill says it was clear to him that his mother wanted only girl children: "One of her favorite stories—I've heard her repeat it many times—is that when I was born and the doctor told her, 'It's a boy,' she asked him if there wasn't some way he could put it back." Bill says he remembers her cruelties all too well: Once, in a fit of temper, she shattered a model airplane he had been working on for months—and another time she bit him so severely he still recalls the pain. "As a kid I won a baseball trophy," he says. "Two years later when she came across it she asked where I had bought it. I told her I'd won it, but since she didn't know or care that I played baseball, she didn't believe me. Her attitude was that if she couldn't see it or touch it or feel it, it didn't exist."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 01:23 AM

Hello Sailor!

I note that above you state that adultery is a worse sin than homosexuality.

Sin?

Oh, of course. You have 'religion' so bigotry is acceptable eh?

Possibly the strongest argument about a shallow belief system is Sailor Boy's sense of morality exhibited above.

Not much more to add really.   I am not gay and cannot see myself falling into a relationship with a man in the way I have done with women, but for Clapton's sake, I don't look down on people and call them sinners.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 02:33 AM

"I guess that is true for Atheism as well!"
Not really Sailor Boy - Atheism comes with argument and discussion and not with "the fear of god" and the threat of "eternal damnation".
"I am not attacking Atheism here"!
Yes you most certainly are, and you are carefully avoiding all the brainwashing features of all religions, the threats, the humiliation, the "Give me a child for for his first seven years and I'll give you the man" aspects that is part and parcel of what your religion brings with it.
A few weeks ago there I heard part of a radio interview with two ex-Magdalene nuns (who wisely chose who be identifies as "sisters X and Y) who talked of their victims, who as young women, had been put into their care for "getting into trouble". The nuns described the girls as "prostitutes" and proudly declared that by taking them in they were "cleaning up the streets of such people". When asked did they apologise for the horrific treatment now known to have been meted out to these unfortunates, they replied "for what?".
Last night I watched an interview with some of their victims; constant humiliation, crippling beatings, sexual assaults by priests, including an appalling description of one priest who would regularly sexually assault one girl then masturbate over her.
The the total and lifelong destruction of these womens' lives was a common feature of the interviews.
One interviewee, not a Laundry Girl but of an orphan in a Magdalene-run home, described how she attempted to make contact with one of these 'slaves', was discovered talking to her and was taken to the Mother Superior's office, beaten with a purpose-made rubber belt and had her hair sheared off and her head shaved bald, leaving her scalp covered with bleeding cuts. She was then forced to stand in front of a mirror for hours to witness the "results of her sinning".
Far from being "a thing of the past," the troubles of the church in Ireland have only just begun.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 03:17 AM

Do think that I would be bigot if I said that said that homosexuality is a sin? Mr. Musket.

I am really not qualified to judge that. But the point is moot.

It did not say that it was a sin. I implied that homosexual adultery is a sin. But then I think that all adultery is sin.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 03:24 AM

Jack is not a true Christian. Real Christians are so busy contemplating their own sins that they have no time to worry about the sins of strangers.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 03:32 AM

"I am not attacking Atheism here"!

Jim, I'm simply saying that this particular atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair, Inserted Atheism into her son the same way that Dawkins and Steve claim that people of faith insert their faith into their children.

I'm not attacking that woman. I'm passing on a report of what her child said was inserted into his innocent mind. If anyone attacked atheism, it was her. But that is not the case is it? She was just raising her kids in her own belief system.

I'm attacking Steve's claim but I am not attacking Atheism. Atheists are people just like everyone else. They have baggage and deserve to be left alone to raise their own kids as they see fit. Just as people of faith do.

Every now and then child services services have to step in and protect children. I don't think that they should be protecting them from being taken to Sunday school.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 03:36 AM

"Jack is not a true Christian. Real Christians are so busy contemplating their own sins that they have no time to worry about the sins of strangers. "

I've not talked about a single person as a sinner. I've accused no one of sin. Nor do I do so now.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 04:38 AM

"Inserted Atheism into her son the same way that Dawkins and Steve claim that people of faith insert their faith into their children."
And has had Christianity inserted into her by an education system that ruled by brute force and enforced ignorance, possibly by thuggish nuns an sexually abusive priests as described above.
Atheism isn't "inserted" into anybody, it is rationally argued in order to give an alternative to the myths, tales and fairy stories we all took in with our mother's milk due to generations of brainwashing - that is what compulsory religious teaching is - brainwashing by fear.
Arguing against the expression of rationally argued ides is extreme censorship.
My parents were fed their religion by fear - my mother went to her grave in fear of the church ind in terror of the threat of eternal damnation.
My father was excommunicated for fighting Fascism in Spain; once removed from a regime based on fear and enforced ignorance he began to think for himself and developed a fine mind eager to learn everything that had been forbidden to him during his Catholic education.
Most of the literature he introduced me to were on the Catholic "index" of banned books (including the wonderful Irish classic 'The Tailor and Ansty' - a high point of my life).
I don't know of an atheist list of banned books - do you?
Writers like Dawkins are arguing for freedom of access to all knowledge; the Church is suppressing that knowledge just as the Nazis burned books.
If you want to find deliberate suppression of thought and ideas, you would do well to look nearer home.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 04:45 AM

Jim Did you read the article?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 04:54 AM

I'm really sorry you and your family were mistreated. My experience was very different. Some religious people have committed crimes.

According to article it was not beatings by nuns that caused Mrs. O'Hair to abuse her sons.

He traces her atheism to that self-absorption and hubris and to an aggressive antiestablishment streak that led her (with her two sons) into a variety of left-wing causes—even, he claims, to the Soviet embassy in Paris in search of exile. Rejected by Moscow, she retreated angrily back home to Baltimore where, as he puts it, "The rebel found a cause in prayer at school."

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 05:04 AM

"According to article it was not beatings by nuns that caused Mrs. O'Hair to abuse her sons."

Oh, well that's all right then!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 05:54 AM

"I'm really sorry you and your family were mistreated."
My family were not mistreated - unless you call brainwashing ill-treatment - my father was grateful to have got out from under the oppressive influence of religion and the church, and I am eternally grateful to hve never been sucked into that fairy-world.
You avoid the point - religion is the result of centuries - even millenia of brainwashing and compulsion - atheism is not, yet you make yourselves out to be victims.
None of us had the choice of opting out of religion, we only had the choice of what brand of religion we were fed.
I can can still remember vividly my first encounter with religion.
My father, as well as being excommunicated, had come to the attention of the security services and had been blacklisted from his work - he was a skilled cabinet-maker. Unable to find alternative work he had taken to the roads as a navvy and spent mots of the time away from home.
When it came time for me to be enrolled in school, my mother, being half under the Iron-Heel of the church, couldn't really decide where to put me so, one day a well meaning aunt, under the pretence of taking me for a walk, whipped me around to the local RC school, St Sebastian's.
We stood in this long, gloomy, browny/yellow corridor populated by floating black-robed and hooded creatures floating from room to room, apparently without the aid of feet. We were standing next to a larger than life statue of a half naked man shot through with arrows and streaming with blood - I was petrified and we had only been standing there for a matter of minutes - god alone knows what years in such an environment would have done to me.
Luckily the school was full to capacity, so I was finally enrolled in a somewhat wishy-washy religiouswise C of E school a mile away full of human beings and without any S & M statues - lucky escape eh?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Howard Jones
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 06:01 AM

Dawkins presumably uses extreme language because he's challenging extremists.

Most religious people I know are not extremists. They just get on with living their lives the best they can and trying to be good people – just like most non-religious people I know. They accept science and education, and decide for themselves which parts of their religious scriptures hold what they consider to be fundamental truths, and what should be regarded as metaphor. So far as I am concerned, that is absolutely fine – it is no concern to me what they choose to believe in. To me, it's like having an interest in stamp-collecting or golf – I don't see the attraction myself but understand that some people do.

However some religious people want to impose their views on the rest of us. Even moderate religious organisations seem to believe that their views should receive special consideration when public policy is being considered. The more extreme insist that their views should receive special treatment – for example, those who insist on creationism being taught in schools (but only their version of creationism of course). At its worst, religion is hostile, even violently so, to education and free thought, not mention personal freedom.

Of course it's not just religion which can be oppressive, intolerant and restrictive. However religion exercises enormous influence over millions of people. For the most part, that influence is benign, even positive – I don't undervalue the good things done in the name of religion, but repeat the point that religion is not a prerequisite of doing good things. However, all too often that influence is malign, oppressive, violent and dangerous. You may say that's the fault of the people interpreting it rather than of religion itself but the effect is the same.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 06:13 AM

I am not attacking Atheism here. I am simply showing Steve Shaw that any dogmatic true believer, including the most famous atheist in the United States at the time can damage her kids by not letting them think for themselves.

If you tell your kids you're an atheist you will have to explain to them why, in a world saturated with religion-by-default, you have rejected religion. Gone completely against the flow. Contrary to what you say, that conversation is actually a very good tool for showing children how to think for themselves (the very opposite of what faith requires). You will be telling them that you have looked in vain for evidence for God's existence and found none. You will tell them that it's up to them to consider evidence and come to their own conclusion, free of pressure. That's what every atheist I know has done. I've done it with my own two kids. No atheist I've ever known insists that you follow his convictions. That can hardly be said to be true for faith, can it?

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 07:28 AM

>>My father, as well as being excommunicated, had come to the attention of the security services and had been blacklisted from his work - he was a skilled cabinet-maker. Unable to find alternative work he had taken to the roads as a navvy and spent mots of the time away from home.<<

That seems like your dad was mistreated to me.

It also seems that you don't have nearly the beef with the C of E as the Catholic Church.

Are you saying the school did or didn't brainwash you. If they did, they certainly didn't do it well.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stringsinger
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 09:57 AM

Indoctrinating children before they have the intellectual capacity for making choices about what "faith" they desire is wrong. Any attempt at religious brainwashing is no different than any other kind, political or otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 08 Apr 13 - 10:45 AM

I recall that Religious Education classes were in the curricula of the various (C of E) schools that I attended - but, curiously, I can remember very, very little about them. All that I really recall is that the Bible is in two halves: the first half is full of begatting and slaying and people living in the desert with dishcloths on their heads (that's how my infant brain pictured it anyway); the second half is about someone called Jesus (or,as he's referred to these days, "this man Jesus".). I probably couldn't tell you a lot more about Christianity now! So school didn't succeed in brainwashing me. I suspect that I probably found it all pretty unconvincing then. On the other hand, school did force a lot of useful stuff about reading, writing, arithmetic and science into my thick head.

Still, I'm glad that I wasn't born into a Catholic or Protestant fundamentalist family.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 04:19 AM

"That seems like your dad was mistreated to me."
He thought so at the time; he came to believe his break with the church opened up the world that had been denied to him by his religious education.
It wasn't just the excommunication that affected him initially.
He was wounded and taken prisoner in Spain - I have already described how he was put before a mock firing squad over a number of months; I don't think I mentioned that he was given mock last rights by the same priest throughout that period who was well aware that what was happening was deliberate mental torture.
The only time I ever saw my father weep was when he told me a story of an event that took place when the result of the war hung in the balance.
A young Spanish lad still of school age was taken prisoner for being a runner (messenger) for the Republicans. The Italian commander of the prison questioned the lad and decided he was harmless and instructed that he be detained along with the rest of the prisoners.
The priest (he of the last-rites), was from the same village as the lad, and, should the war have gone the 'wrong' way, was apparently worried that he would been identified as having supported the fascists so he demanded that the boy be executed - he was.
"It also seems that you don't have nearly the beef with the C of E as the Catholic Church."
I found there to be far less compulsion and attempt at mind-control than with my relatives who followed the faith.
"Are you saying the school did or didn't brainwash you"
They didn't attempt to - they simply put their case. Ironically the highest exam mark I ever received in school was in the Religious Education class - 95%.
This was due to my love of literature and my ability to remember the poetry of the psalms and the beautiful prose that we were taught - all gone now when they abandoned the King James Bible.
You still ignore the main point of these arguments - the bullying compulsion that accompanies religion - THIS IS NOT THE CASE WITH ATHEISM.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 10:22 AM

Jim,

All I have been saying is that some atheists are bullies and having faith in religion does not automatically make a person dangerous.

You and you family seem to have good reason to be angry with certain people in authority in the Irish Catholic Church. It is fair to say that they had too much of the wrong kind of power in your society at the time and that they abused it.

Did they think that they were protecting the world from communism or some other evil? I think so. But I think it was a grievous wrong for them to try to use your families faith as a political tool.

I think it is important for societies not to give any one group too much influence or power.

I like the principle of separation of Church and State in the US system. I am willing to fight for it politically. Your story provides a valuable cautionary tale.

But I don't see militant atheism as a viable tool in that fight. I want to see all of the name calling and semantic distortion come from the other side and for the side of reason to remain civil and reasonable.

Moderate loving Christians and reasonable non-believers are natural allies. Militants of all types cause more trouble than they are worth.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 11:15 AM

In accusing so-called "militant athests" as bullies, you are missing the point. Atheists have every right to present their views as do evangelical Christians, Islamists or Jews (the latter not being particularly evangelical). The so-called "militant atheists" have every right to criticize religion without Christians feeling victimized. The thing that bothers them the most is that today more atheists are becoming articulate and so-called "moderate Christians" can't stand that so they call atheists "bullies" when in fact the reverse is true.

Christians and non-believers can become allies on social causes or even get along together as long as atheists such as Dawkins can present his views without being called a "bully".

Christians and non-believers are never allies in their thinking, however. Without "militant types" such as civil rights activists, environmental activists, women's rights activists, peace activists, this country would never progress to anything more than a soporific stupor and social improvements would never be made. This so-called "reasoned" view is pernicious in that it suppresses social activism.

It is incumbent upon Christians and other religious people to understand the atheist position without getting their back up and calling names such as "bully".

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 11:26 AM

"All I have been saying is that some atheists are bullies"
I would say outspoken and articulate - I don't see any atheists picketing family planning clinics or terrorising young women when they are at their most vulnerable.
I've never come across atheist suggesting that those those who don't share their views "don't believe in anything" or are really "closet atheists (whole thread devoted to that one), or are to be "pitied and prayed for"   
I don't see any atheists pulling the strings of government in order that they observe "god's law" - what the hell is "militant atheism" anyway?.
The history of any church with any degree of influence is to abuse that influence - the history of any church with power is one of bullying militancy, often to the extent of going to war. The British, and many other Empires was launched on "God and Country - if you ever gat a chance read Mark Twain's brilliant 'King Leopold's Soliloquy.
The Church of England, while having to some degree the ear of the government, is little more than a figurehead to be wheeled out at coronations, royal weddings and state funerals - too much influence as far as I'm concerned but it will do to be going on with.
The Catholic church, certainly in Ireland, wielded enormous power, as a result the laws here remain fixed somewhere in the early part of the twentieth century - I wonder if you are following the Halappanarva inquest - now that's what I call being militantly aggressive.
The grip of the church here has loosened somewhat due to the revelations of the clerical abuse affair, and will probably relax again when the Magdalene Laundries cases come into the open.
the church's favourite preoccupation seems to have been going into people's bedrooms and telling them how they should be doing 'it' - celibate old men (supposedly) telling us about "the birds and the bees".
Nowhere in my experience has this happened anywhere with atheism, those who have no spiritual belief are now free to express their views openly, and this appears to be what you are describing as "bullying".
I don't know what "reasonable non-believers are - those who don't talk about it, those who only don't believe on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays - what?
As far as I'm concerned things will only be put right when Church and State are totally separated and when people's beliefs are their own and not implanted from an age when it is virtually impossible to be removed.
You realise I suppose that such discussions as this would have the 'thought police' banging on our doors at midnight, well within my lifetime anyway?
"....angry with certain people in authority in the Irish Catholic Church"
A clarification - I was born in Liverpool and lived in the UK until my retirement, my father and mother were born in Glasgow and Liverpool respectively, my grandparents were both Liverpudlians.... Our experiences were of the English Church - nothing to do with Ireland - but than again, Catholic means "Universal".
"civil and reasonable."
Can't think of anything less "civil or reasonable" than the behaviour of the church down the centuries - far more evil than "communism or some other evil".
By the way, the number of anti- atheist threads that have been on-the-go recently (a number of them being started by you) falls well within my description of "bullying".
Must go - god seems to have abandoned our garden and left me to clear up the mess.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 12:08 PM

Jim,

I've said all I have to say to you on this topic. If you want to say that no atheists ever are bullies with your evidence being that the Churches bully more, I have no useful response.

I sincerely hope that you work out your issues with the Irish Catholic Church.

"Christians and non-believers can become allies on social causes or even get along together as long as atheists such as Dawkins can present his views without being called a "bully"."

I am tired of talking with you Stringsinger. You don't read what is said. You simply make half-assed pronouncements about the word or two that you do read. Have a nice life.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 12:10 PM

I follow Carlos Santana in my Facebook. He posted this today.

Carlos Santana
I made a request to the audience
When we were in Melbourne, Australia
I asked-
if you are or consider yourself to be an atheist
Please stand up
Many of you did stand up !!!
Well - I LOVE respect honor
and salute your courage- conviction
And your honesty
Thank you for being YOU
I DO believe in a SUPREME being
We are given the freedom
of free will and choice
Live long healthy and prosperous
My sisters and brothers
Of all beliefs and faiths
Peace

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 12:48 PM

"If you want to say that no atheists ever are bullies "
Never said anything of the sort - atheists can be bullies, left handed, vegetarians, wife beaters, like Bob Dylan music..... just like believers can. What I am saying is what they are has nothing to do with their atheism.
I am also suggesting that bullying is part and parcel of most religious teaching and has been down the ages.
A major part of that bullying is spiritual blackmail; "if you don't go to church you'll...." and this from the point when a child begins to think and understand what is being said to it.
I've yet to hear an atheist say "if you go to church you'll spend eternity living in Milton Keynes listening to Daniel O'Donnell records" - thence the difference.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 01:00 PM

"I am also suggesting that bullying is part and parcel of most religious teaching and has been down the ages."

It wasn't for me. Not at all. But a lot of my upbringing did involve bullying.

I have seen Atheists say that if you believe in God you are stupid and mentally ill. Not blackmail perhaps, but still bullying.

I think "lets work together in peace" is the best approach.

Did the C of E say "if you don't go to church you'll. (go to Hell or whatever?)"

My Mom's family and my Grandmother on my Dad's side were all Anglican. I never once heard that from them.

I empathize with your experiences. But they are far from universal.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 01:11 PM

I'm sorry, Jack. I know it was all long ago, and all that. But I revert to the Crusades and the Holy Office: violence and cruelty committed explicitly in the name of religion. These are history in Christian terms; but is not Sharia Law, with some of the appalling details of its imposition [teenage girls caned 100 strokes on the bare buttocks for the enormity of conceiving after rape; 'adultresses' buried to the neck in sand and stoned to death ~~ well documented recent instances], a contemporary instance of the same syndrome in a present-day setting involving another faith?

As Jim has been at pains to point out, you cannot point to any such enormities committed explicitly in the name of atheism.

No-one is saying these are an inevitable outcome of all manifestations of religious faith. But you cannot wish their existence, historical or contemporary, away, in relation to some.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 01:29 PM

MtheGM,

I am not about to ever call the Crusades and inquisition bullying.

They were far worse than that. But as I have pointed out before that the Crusades was about looting and the inquisition about the consolidation of political power.

Also, I have never said that the bullying of SOME current atheists was as bad as some Christians of the past and of SOME current Christians. I have taken great pains to say that politically, bullies like Dawkins and Harris and for that matter Musket and Shaw, hurt in the fight against religious fanatics imposing their will on society more than they help.

I am not the enemy. People like Joe Offer and Brendanb are not the enemy. Creationists taking over school boards and people trying to impose things like sharia law and Sunday laws on non-believers are the problem. People claiming to represent reason engaging in name calling make it seem as though the fight is between different sides of the same coin rather than reason and fundamentalism.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: Stringsinger
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 05:09 PM

Jack your posts, I've read them all and found them not particularly illuminating. You don't have to talk to me directly. I will respond when I read something that is off the wall.

There is no enemy, here. Just an attempt to have an adult conversation about an important issue. Your going after Dawkins is as a Christian Ahab going after the white whale of atheism. Dawkins is not an enemy of anyone. Remember, this is not a bar fight here. It's a difference of opinion to be treated respectfully.

Subject: RE: BS: Atheists
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 09 Apr 13 - 05:36 PM

It's not surprising that some religious people see themselves as victims of bullies. After all, there they were all nice and snug under their comfort blankets and then along came all of those nasty old atheists, backed by reason, logic and science, and whipped their blankets away! Now they're exposed to the icy cold of reality.

Not only that, but they've no longer got any reason to declare themselves superior to, or more enlightened than, anyone else and have no justification for browbeating, brainwashing and bullying others.