Why does the existence or non-existence of god matter?

[Greatest I am]

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]

Most Christians apostates that I have talked to say that the main reason they left the church was due to hell. That belief causes many mental problems.

I don't think I ever really believed that hell was real. Not the one they were talking about, anyway. I can't remember really being scared of it. I considered going to their church to be hell.

My main issue was that they were always telling me I couldn't do things, with no actual reason for the prohibition. They claimed it was commanded by the cartoon god, but couldn't explain why he was so upset by it.

For instance, unmarried sex. There were good reasons against it in the primitive times the bible shit was formulated, but sexually-transmitted disease and unwanted pregnancy have been drastically reduced in the modern era. Except in religious families and places where the religious have managed to shut down Planned Parenthood and the like.

A real god would have created us with built-in birth control, where sperm or ova were created only if the person actually wanted to reproduce.[/QUOTE]

You are brighter than most theists and that is why you did not let fear of the lie of hell scare you. Weaker minds are not so fortunate.

I had some stats on this at one time but could not find them.

Christians will be shocked to hear that their God given free will does not extend to the will to not have children.

Then again, the far right wing believes that even rape victims should not get an abortion.

As long as it is not their daughter of course.

Regards
DL

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Interfering with a parent's right to teach their children to accept a religion as true is far more authoritarian than any harm the parents do by teaching their children what to believe, even if those beliefs are nutty.

Nonsense. If any parent were teaching their children to murder or to commit any number of criminal offenses and it were to be discovered, the pararents would be accused of child abuse.

I can’t tell my children they can’t seek medical attention, but I can if I say, “Our religious beliefs prohibit us from seeking medical attention.” All over the globe and still prevalent in American society in various places is the cult-backed notion that a husaband has the right to rape his wife.

That’s the horrible irony; because we are such a cult-dominated society, in certain situation all anyone would have to do is claim it’s part of their religion to be committing the harms/neglect/crimes that they are committing and presto, the special “these are my religious beliefs” dispensation just magically exempts them from prosecution (not persecution) of otherwise globally recognized harms/crimes.

In fact, being raised in such a strict, weird household, probably helped me to think a lot more.

And if you were beaten every day, it might also have driven you to become a successful heavyweight boxer, but that doesn’t change the fact that it’s still abuse.

It doesn’t matter if you can come up with one thousand positives so long as there are one thousand and one negatives, only in this situation there are nearly uncountable numbers of negatives and only about a handful of positive, so it’s not even close in comparing the negatives to the positives.

[sohy]

Nonsense. If any parent were teaching their children to murder or to commit any number of criminal offenses and it were to be discovered, the pararents would be accused of child abuse.

Jesus Fucking Christ on a stick, Koy. You know damn well that's not what I was talking about. I despise that some parents are racist and teach their children to hate people that are different from them, but the kids aren't going to be removed from the home for that, which is far worse than teaching kids religious dogma. Why even pretend the kids are going to be removed for teaching the kids religious dogma. Nobody is suggesting that parents who instruct their kids to murder shouldn't be suspected of child abuse. I have never once known of a parent that instructed their children to murder. You're really grasping at straws here.

And, who the fuck do you think is going to raise all these poor little religiously indoctrinated children? We can't even find enough decent foster parents for all the kids that are actually abused or neglected by their parents. In fact, sometimes the foster parents are worse than the natural parents.

[Jackrabbit]

What should be done and what can be done are sometimes two different things. In fact, gubment often shows complete incompetence with what must be done. Just ask the people of Puerto Rico. Though many can't answer, being all dead and everything. The fact that it wasn't done or can't be done has no effect on whether it should be done.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[quote=""sohy""]

Nonsense. If any parent were teaching their children to murder or to commit any number of criminal offenses and it were to be discovered, the pararents would be accused of child abuse.

Jesus Fucking Christ on a stick, Koy. You know damn well that's not what I was talking about. [/quote]

That’s what I have been talking about so now you can get up to speed. As Jackrabbit noted, it’s a question of should, not can. Is cult indoctrination and the destruction of critical thinking it requires to be effective a form of child abuse? Yes, it is. Does it result in all manner of harms, both to the individuals and to society at large? Unquestionably. History is literally built out of the harms cults have inflicted and the primary method by which they are formed and can be maintained is by brainwashing (my blanket term) at an early age. “Suffer the children unto me.”

It is insidious and effects billions of people on this planet in a myriad of different harmful ways.

Can we get rid of it? Different question; different topic. Should we? Yes.

[Politesse]

So millions of children should be removed from their homes and re-educated "for their own good", you just don't trust your government to do it? That's weird, because the US has a long history of doing exactly that, on an industrial scale and very effectively. Indeed, you and Richard Henry Pratt would really get along; like you, he considered himself a passionate liberal and humanitarian, and he genuinely believed that he was "saving" the children from their parents, and giving them freedoms and opportunities they would never see if raised within the constrictions of their parents' religion and culture. Indeed, forbidding native religious practices was a key element of that program. The State can do it better, so why shouldn't it?

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[quote=""Politesse""]So millions of children should be removed from their homes and re-educated "for their own good"[/quote]

More evasive straw. What’s the point, Poli? Aside from repeatedly demonstrating that you will post any fallacious thing in order to shift focus off of the actual question of whether or not cult indoctrination—brainwashing—constitutes a form of child abuse.

[Politesse]

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]

So millions of children should be removed from their homes and re-educated "for their own good"

More straw. What’s the point, Poli? Aside from repeatedly demonstrating that you will post any fallacious thing in order to avoid the actual question of whether or not cult indoctrination—brainwashing—constitutes a form of child abuse.[/QUOTE]

That's not straw, it's literally what happened the last time someone tried to suppress religion by removing children from their homes.

If you don't fucking get it, this does explain why you don't understand the natural horror the rest of us feel when you talk about what the government should do. But it doesn't excuse it.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[quote=""Politesse""]

So millions of children should be removed from their homes and re-educated "for their own good"

More straw. What’s the point, Poli? Aside from repeatedly demonstrating that you will post any fallacious thing in order to avoid the actual question of whether or not cult indoctrination—brainwashing—constitutes a form of child abuse.

That's not straw[/quote]

Yes, it is. The question is whether or not brainwashing constitutes a form of child abuse.

Answer the question, or don’t. Your transparent attempts to derail and avoid the question are just tiresome.

[Politesse]

And by the way, no, I don't see how the "actual point" could be that something is child abuse, rather than that we should treat it as child abuse. Unless you are suggesting that we should declare it child abuse, and then do nothing about it?

And obviously no, I do not think that raising children in their own culture is abusive, or "brainwashing". This trivializes actual abuse and constitutes a disgusting attempt to suppress opinions other than your own by criminalizing disagreement.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[quote=""Politesse""]And by the way, no, I don't see how the "actual point" could be that something is child abuse, rather than that we should treat it as child abuse.[/quote]

So your answer is that brainwashing children is not abusive. Got it.

And obviously no, I do not think that raising children in their own culture is abusive, or "brainwashing".

So you do not agree that cult indoctrination should be considered “brainwashing.” Got it.

Congratulations. You just actually addressed the questions. Stick to this approach for the rest of your life.

[Politesse]

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]

And by the way, no, I don't see how the "actual point" could be that something is child abuse, rather than that we should treat it as child abuse.

So your answer is that brainwashing children is not abusive. Got it.

And obviously no, I do not think that raising children in their own culture is abusive, or "brainwashing".

So you do not agree that cult indoctrination should be considered “brainwashing.” Got it.

Congratulations. You just actually addressed the questions. Stick to this approach for the rest of your life.[/QUOTE]
Though accurate, this ignores why I think that your redefinition of child abuse would lead to crimes against humanity. It takes some cheek to complain that others don't read from your posts what you want them to, while glibly ignoring their own contributions.

Incidentally, "brainwashing" a child is and should be considered child abuse, if you were using that term to refer to literal torture and abuse, rather than hyperbolically to describe those you disagree with. But this requires no new action, as it would already be illegal to torture a child whatever your motivation.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[quote=""Politesse""]

And by the way, no, I don't see how the "actual point" could be that something is child abuse, rather than that we should treat it as child abuse.

So your answer is that brainwashing children is not abusive. Got it.

And obviously no, I do not think that raising children in their own culture is abusive, or "brainwashing".

So you do not agree that cult indoctrination should be considered “brainwashing.” Got it.

Congratulations. You just actually addressed the questions. Stick to this approach for the rest of your life.

Though accurate[/quote]

Good.

this ignores why I think that your redefinition of child abuse would lead to crimes against humanity.

Strawman. I have not redefined “child abuse.” I am arguing that cult brainwashing constitutes a form of child abuse. There is no such monolithic thing as “child abuse.” There are many different forms of child abuse and many different legal recourses for same. There is physical abuse (beatings and starvation and the like, with gray areas in regard to spanking or sending a child to bed without their supper as punishment, etc); sexual abuse (with gray areas as to such things as should a male/female parent bathe their female/male children and up to what age or the like); and mental/emotional abuse, which this discussion falls under.

We, as a society, would readily intervene if it were discovered that a family were inflicting mental/emotional abuse, depending upon its nature and extent. Thus the question becomes what is the nature and/or extent of the abuse, NOT whether or not to intervene. That precedent has already been established. Discussing the harms of possible methods of intervention is a different topic.

It takes some cheek to complain that others don't read from your posts what you want them to, while glibly ignoring their own contributions.

It takes no “cheek” to point out when someone is stuffing strawmen as you do on a recklessly regular basis.

Incidentally, "brainwashing" a child is and should be considered child abuse, if you were using that term to refer to literal torture and abuse, rather than hyperbolically to describe those you disagree with.

Fucking hell. So ALL of your earlier protestations and righteous hyperbolic indignations are now rendered moot.

But this requires no new action, as it would already be illegal to torture a child whatever your motivation.

So the QUESTION WOULD THEN BECOME whether or not cult brainwashing constitutes some form of torture, wouldn’t it? See how that works? MY question is “does cult brainwashing constitute a form of child abuse?” Understand now?

I argue it does indeed constitute a form of child abuse. What then should be done about it is a DIFFERENT QUESTION. Perfectly fucking clear now?

[Jackrabbit]

In this case, the brainwashing is a lot more problematic than "teaching something I disagree with".

If the brainwashing harmed only the child, that would be one thing. But this particular brainwashing often causes that child to later harm other people as a direct result of it. You should be aware of that, since LGBT people are one of the primary targets. As are most of us here, since atheists are another. And women needing birth control. And many other people who haven't actually done anything wrong.

If they would keep fucking religion to themselves, nobody would give a shit, or even pay attention to them. But as it is...the idea of eliminating the brainwashing is to protect society as well as the child. By protecting society from the child.

[Politesse]

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]

I argue it does indeed constitute a form of child abuse. What then should be done about it is a DIFFERENT QUESTION. Perfectly fucking clear now?[/quote]No, of course not.

If I say, "I think killings in warfare should be considered murder", and you said "But that would imply setting a life sentence for doing something most people in our society consider honorable", would you be stuffing a strawman? Why would it even occur to me, when you say "x is child abuse", to assume that what you mean is "x is child abuse, but I don't think it should be criminalized". You are, essentially, claiming that I built a strawman because I assumed you meant what you said, rather than inferring a bunch of illogical things you didn't say.

What should we do about this child abuse, in your opinion?

[Politesse]

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]In this case, the brainwashing is a lot more problematic than "teaching something I disagree with".

If the brainwashing harmed only the child, that would be one thing. But this particular brainwashing often causes that child to later harm other people as a direct result of it. You should be aware of that, since LGBT people are one of the primary targets. As are most of us here, since atheists are another. And women needing birth control. And many other people who haven't actually done anything wrong.

If they would keep fucking religion to themselves, nobody would give a shit, or even pay attention to them. But as it is...the idea of eliminating the brainwashing is to protect society as well as the child. By protecting society from the child.[/quote]

I thought you were defining all religious instruction of children as child abuse. What any specific group teaches about LGBT rights or birth control is irrelevant in that case, as all would be caught in the net whether or not they teach any of those things.

And I see this as intensely problematic in any case. Again, do you really want your government to have the right to define any thought/belief they dislike as a crime? I know an awful lot of people who I consider to have raised their children in ways that might cause harm later. Raising them to consume alchohol, raising them with strict gender roles, raising them to believe that a citizen has a right to overthrow a government they disapprove of, raising them to worship death in battle as a human ideal, raising them to be afraid of moving traffic.... Am I going to start calling everyone a child abuser, because I think something they taught their kids is bad or dangerous? You were traumatized by your childhood, I get it. But traumatizing billions more people will do nothing to soothe the wounds in your heart. You will still feel sad and angry, you'll just have spread it around a little more.

This is no way to treat others, and if I thought my positions were so weak that I had to force or threaten force for everyone to agree with them, I would be questioning my beliefs, not theirs. If I cannot convince someone of the truth of my position by civil means, I have no place believing it myself let alone forcing it on someone else.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

[quote=""Politesse""]

I argue it does indeed constitute a form of child abuse. What then should be done about it is a DIFFERENT QUESTION. Perfectly fucking clear now?

No, of course not.[/quote]

JTFC.

If I say, "I think death is warfare should be considered murder", and you said "But that would imply setting a life sentence for doing something most people in our society consider honorable", would you be stuffing a strawman?

False equivalence. First, for it to be analogous to what I said you would have to say, “I think killing in warfare should be considered a form of murder.” We have different degrees of murder (first degree, second degree) and different shades to what constitutes murder (intent; premeditation; heat-of-the moment; etc)—and likewise different sentences/punishment for same—but what you are arguing is not about punishment; it’s about the moral classification and how we don’t classify it as the equivalent of murder, but we should because of....whatever the rest of your argument would be. THAT then is the topic; why it should or should not be considered a form of murder NOT how it should be punished. That is a separate issue.

As written, however, the response you have me giving would in fact be a strawman, because I would then be saying to you, “You are arguing that killing in warfare should be punishable with life in jail” when in fact you argued no such thing. You were asking about a moral imperative; I was saying you were arguing about punishment.

The fact that I added onto the end “for something most people consider honorable” stuffs even more straw, because that means I am saying that you argued punishment should not be inflicted unless most people agree the act was dishonorable. So we’re so far away from what you had argued as to be completely off track. You were NOT arguing about punishment; you were NOT arguing that punishment should be tied to mass opinion about what is (or is not) honorable. YOU were arguing that killing in warfare should be considered a criminal act in a moral sense the same way we classify murder (which in turn raises questions of how we classify murder and different forms of killing, etc).

Or to put it more directly, punishment (or what a group of people consider “honorable”) has nothing to do with the question of whether or not killing in war should be morally classified as premeditated murder. If every person on the planet thought there was “honor” in killing your innocent child, does that have any bearing on whether or not killing your innocent child is morally justifiable? What has “honor” got to do with the act of killing your innocent and/or whether or not the killing of your innocent child was morally justified?

Why would it even occur to me, when you say "x is child abuse", to assume that what you mean is "x is child abuse, but I don't think it should be criminalized".

I DO think it should be criminalized, because it is a form of abuse. That has absolutely nothing to do, however, with how it should be punished. You are the one that jumped on your high horse and falsely declared I was arguing we should take children away from their parents and rape and murder every human on the planet Or hyperbole to that effect. And you did so—imo—deliberately to avoid dealing with the actual question of whether or not cult brainwashing constitutes a form of child abuse, or, in short, whether or not it is child abuse.

Determining what constitutes a form of child abuse is one thing. Determining what should therefore be done once that qualification has been made is a different thing.

Can you seriously not comprehend that?

What should we do about this child abuse, in your opinion?

Other than properly labeling it as such and educating the citizenry accordingly? I don’t know. But, again, that is an entirely different question than the one I am positing.

I understand why you are trying to reframe the question. I’m just not interested in allowing you to do so in order to avoid the issue I am raising. You don’t think cult brainwashing is a form of child abuse. Noted.

[Jackrabbit]

[quote=""Politesse""]

In this case, the brainwashing is a lot more problematic than "teaching something I disagree with".
...
If they would keep fucking religion to themselves, nobody would give a shit, or even pay attention to them. But as it is...the idea of eliminating the brainwashing is to protect society as well as the child. By protecting society from the child.

I thought you were defining all religious instruction of children as child abuse. What any specific group teaches about LGBT rights or birth control is irrelevant in that case, as all would be caught in the net whether or not they teach any of those things.
[/QUOTE]
It's a matter of priority. Yes, it is all abuse. The difference is in the number of people abused in each instance, adding the secondary abuse to the primary. And the tertiary, when the child teaches the same shit to his own child and still more people are harmed at an even later time. It's like preventing a disease from spreading. Some diseases are more contagious and/or virulent than others, so there is greater urgency in containing those.

You can gauge the likelihood and intensity of the epidemic by the specific teachings being spouted by the original parents. If it's all about what they think they should do, it's probably not as big a deal, as long as they are not harming someone else by doing it. If it's all about what everybody else should do, such as interfering with birth control, it's probably going to be a huge problem.

[Jobar]

Interfering with a parent's right to teach their children to accept a religion as true is far more authoritarian than any harm the parents do by teaching their children what to believe, even if those beliefs are nutty.

This seems to me the heart of this dispute. But who judges? Would it have been better for the children, and for society, if Fred Phelps' kids had been taken away from him, and raised in an orphanage or other government institution? If we had the power to close down Islamic madrassas that teach extremist views, and force the parents to send the children to schools that promote a worldview skeptical of religion, would that have worse results than what we see in so many Muslim countries?

I don't think that any government on Earth has such enlightened policies, officials, and teachers, that we should always trust its techniques for raising children more than we trust the biological parents. But is such an enlightened and competent government impossible?

For now, I am more prone to side with Poli and Sohy- even considering the manifold insanities religious parents may teach to children, the results of turning the responsibilities of child raising over to government would be worse. But I might hope that a sufficiently sensible system could exist someday; and if it ever does, then I'd side with Koy and Jack.

[Politesse]

[quote=""Koyaanisqatsi""]

I argue it does indeed constitute a form of child abuse. What then should be done about it is a DIFFERENT QUESTION. Perfectly fucking clear now?

No, of course not.

JTFC.

If I say, "I think death is warfare should be considered murder", and you said "But that would imply setting a life sentence for doing something most people in our society consider honorable", would you be stuffing a strawman?

False equivalence. First, for it to be analogous to what I said you would have to say, “I think killing in warfare should be considered a form of murder.” We have different degrees of murder (first degree, second degree) and different shades to what constitutes murder (intent; premeditation; heat-of-the moment; etc)—and likewise different sentences/punishment for same—but what you are arguing is not about punishment; it’s about the moral classification and how we don’t classify it as the equivalent of murder, but we should because of....whatever the rest of your argument would be. THAT then is the topic; why it should or should not be considered a form of murder NOT how it should be punished. That is a separate issue.

As written, however, the response you have me giving would in fact be a strawman, because I would then be saying to you, “You are arguing that killing in warfare should be punishable with life in jail” when in fact you argued no such thing. You were asking about a moral imperative; I was saying you were arguing about punishment.

The fact that I added onto the end “for something most people consider honorable” stuffs even more straw, because that means I am saying that you argued punishment should not be inflicted unless most people agree the act was dishonorable. So we’re so far away from what you had argued as to be completely off track. You were NOT arguing about punishment; you were NOT arguing that punishment should be tied to mass opinion about what is (or is not) honorable. YOU were arguing that killing in warfare should be considered a criminal act in a moral sense the same way we classify murder (which in turn raises questions of how we classify murder and different forms of killing, etc).

Or to put it more directly, punishment (or what a group of people consider “honorable&#8221 has nothing to do with the question of whether or not killing in war should be morally classified as premeditated murder. If every person on the planet thought there was “honor” in killing your innocent child, does that have any bearing on whether or not killing your innocent child is morally justifiable? What has “honor” got to do with the act of killing your innocent and/or whether or not the killing of your innocent child was morally justified?

Why would it even occur to me, when you say "x is child abuse", to assume that what you mean is "x is child abuse, but I don't think it should be criminalized".

I DO think it should be criminalized, because it is a form of abuse. That has absolutely nothing to do, however, with how it should be punished. You are the one that jumped on your high horse and falsely declared I was arguing we should take children away from their parents and rape and murder every human on the planet Or hyperbole to that effect. And you did so—imo—deliberately to avoid dealing with the actual question of whether or not cult brainwashing constitutes a form of child abuse, or, in short, whether or not it is child abuse.

Determining what constitutes a form of child abuse is one thing. Determining what should therefore be done once that qualification has been made is a different thing.

Can you seriously not comprehend that?

What should we do about this child abuse, in your opinion?

Other than properly labeling it as such and educating the citizenry accordingly? I don’t know. But, again, that is an entirely different question than the one I am positing.

I understand why you are trying to reframe the question. I’m just not interested in allowing you to do so in order to avoid the issue I am raising. You don’t think cult brainwashing is a form of child abuse. Noted.[/QUOTE]

Rape and murder everyone on the planet?

I merely made the assumption, when you call something child abuse, that you mean it should be dealt with in a fashion similar to all other kinds of child abuse. Which, if the perpetrator insists on continuing to visit on the child after remediation have been attempted, almost always results in removal from the home and criminal charges for the parent. If you wanted to invent a new form of "child abuse lite" that only results in a stern talking to or something, you should have said so.

As a practical matter, this would require a totalitarian solution if applied to the current population of the US as it is currently constituted and under its current laws concerning abuse.

And if you are going around calling people child abusers, but literally have no idea what we should do about it, well...

I don't think you've thought through the implications of calling someone a child abuser, and I stand by that judgment. Don't throw criminal charges around unless you are certain you're okay with how they will stick.

[Jackrabbit]

Koy and I have already said that we don't know what to do about the problem.

me: What should be done and what can be done are sometimes two different things.

him: Other than properly labeling it as such and educating the citizenry accordingly? I don’t know.

But that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

We don't know how to solve the massive problems in washington either, especially the ones caused by Orangeface.

[Politesse]

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]Koy and I have already said that we don't know what to do about the problem.

me: What should be done and what can be done are sometimes two different things.

him: Other than properly labeling it as such and educating the citizenry accordingly? I don’t know.

But that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

We don't know how to solve the massive problems in washington either, especially the ones caused by Orangeface.[/quote]
So you have no solution.

But you still think it's a good idea to accuse people of the worst crimes humans can commit.

Then refuse to address those crimes because you "don't know what to do."

Without thinking about the potential implications of accusing another person of a crime that, in fact, has a known definition, procedure, and set of punishments associated with it. Not to mention the other social ramifications of accusing someone of abuse.

Because you do not, apparently, think about anything before typing it?

When's the last time someone accused you of child abuse? Was your first thought, "eh, they probably don't mean to do anything about it, so it's okay"?

[Jackrabbit]

[quote=""Politesse""]

Koy and I have already said that we don't know what to do about the problem.

me: What should be done and what can be done are sometimes two different things.

him: Other than properly labeling it as such and educating the citizenry accordingly? I don’t know.

But that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.

We don't know how to solve the massive problems in washington either, especially the ones caused by Orangeface.

So you have no solution.

But you still think it's a good idea to accuse people of crimes.

Then refuse to address those crimes because you "don't know what to do."

Without thinking about the potential implications of accusing another person of a crime that, in fact, has a known definition, procedure, and set of punishments associated with it.

Because you do not, apparently, think about anything before typing it?[/QUOTE]
Because my opinion on the matter won't actually affect anything. Nor will my accusation. This is a discussion forum, not a court of law. But I am still free to express that opinion and make that accusation.

[Politesse]

[quote=""Jackrabbit""]Because my opinion on the matter won't actually affect anything. Nor will my accusation. This is a discussion forum, not a court of law. But I am still free to express that opinion and make that accusation.[/quote]

Well, yeah, if you want to come across as a thuggish moron who is actually quite vicious to others on the inside, but only brave on the internet. What I don't see is the appeal of doing so. If you don't mean it seriously, what's the point? And why am I in the wrong for taking you seriously and responding accordingly?

I see an accusation of child abuse applied to myself and most people I know, I respond accordingly. Am I supposed to sit back and take that just to be, what, polite?

[Jackrabbit]

I said several times that nothing will actually come of it. Taking it as something that would have real-world effects was your own fault.

But since you are taking it personally and have apparently done the indoctrination under discussion, did you see the post about not giving children a choice?

Did you ask them if they wanted to hear about the cartoon god? If not, why not? What would have happened if they had said no?