Holmes,
That simply is not true. It is an oversimplification. SOME religions do exactly that. Certainly many Abrahamic sects do, and have it as a mandate. But that does not suggest anything inherent to a belief in deities, nor even all Abrahamic sects.
Now that's not entirely true, either. Most religions indoctrinate the young, not just the Abrahamic ones. But just because some
might not, does not stop it being it a valid criticism of those that do.
Like I said, I am happy to live with religious people as long as it is a personal belief. In truth I live happily with them even if they do indoctrinate their children but am just opposed to the practice.
That does not bring me to challenge theism itself. Fanaticism and ignorance are equally capable under atheism, and if tables were reversed I would not like theists condemning atheists in the same way.
Ignorance isn't a preserve of the religious, it is true, but it is more likely. Even encouraged. Ergo, if you remove religion you would allow for the removal of some ignorance. Fanaticism is almost never in the name of atheism, either.
Secondly, draw a list up of the atrocities committed in the name of atheism, & another in the name of religion. You'll find it a very one sided scale. I can't think of any atrocities committed in the name of atheism. It's not that atheists aren't capable of atrocity, it's just that atheism in & of itself doesn't lead them to it.
Ugh. This is a whole separate issue, but I could not disagree more. This societal fixation on protecting children is extremely unhealthy and mistaken. It is a graphic overstatement to call religious indoctrination, based merely on its beliefs, abuse.
“Societal fixation on protecting children”?!
Instilling an unfounded fear in children is mental abuse. It is inescapable.
It reminds me of a letter written to Dawkins that I'll paraphrase. A woman wrote to him stating that the (catholic) church had done two things to her aged seven. Firstly a priest had sexually abused here in a car, secondly that her best friend had died. The sexual abuse was icky but she lost no sleep over it. Her best friend, however, was a protestant & went to hell. She spent many sleepless nights attempting to reconcile this, this lasted well into adulthood.
That is abuse. But anyway .
Every kid is taught something without their consent, every single one. That's the nature of being a kid, or being a parent (or guardian/teacher). There is nothing abhorrent about someone teaching something you don't like, or that you find upsetting to their kid.
There is if it harms the children, or leads to a rejection of logic & reason.
I am way behind you that I would not want MY kids raised with such ideas. I want to have my kids separated from such beliefs until they have a greater understanding of a different way of life. But I realize that it won't kill them, or wreck them to have such exposure.
You just don't know that, Holmes. There are plenty of intellectual & emotional wrecks that are like that because of religion. Even more that had their minds fucked with to the point where they have to reject reality.
Teach a kid that the bible is gods way of talking to us & you are checkmated when the kid says “ hey dad, gays are disgusting, because it says it right here in black & white”.
I sure as heck went through it and while I look back at it as a huge waste of time, and waste of learning, it did not bust my mind and I became an atheist and a scientist all the same.
I forget where I saw the statistic, but it's something like 1 in 12 that escape the religion of their parents. You are one of the lucky ones, there are 11 others not-so-lucky.
I totally respect the fact that some theist will have the same idea about my philosophy. I would not want them labeling my beliefs or instructing my kids as I want as somehow a horrific act, especially just because they have no choice.
But you don't have
beliefs, Holmes. You have an acceptance that logic, reason & a requirement for evidence are of import, & that they are demonstrably useful. It is not the same thing.
They can diss you for it, sure. But the analogy is vacuous. Atheism doesn't require fear to be instilled in children. Nor that your best mate might go to hell, nor that women are second class citizens, or that homosexuals are an abomination, or that the death penalty applies for things that hurt no-one, or that slavery can be justified. Nor will they have to put on evidence sensitive sunglasses as adults because reality is shown to be different to your particular religious book, etc. etc. etc.
There is no harm in someone standing in a pulpit pointing out that this can & does happen, & much worse besides.
Beyond that, multiculturalism has to allow for some of the things you mention above within another culture... or its simply not multiculturalism.
So back to my point, if you are against religious fanatics in a culture, you aren’t a multiculturalist. More below.
Concepts of what harm (mental or physical) will be different between cultures as well as what counts as domination over someone else.
Of course, but what
actually harms will be the same, meaning at least all but one of those concepts must be wrong by definition if. But I suppose we should shut up about whatever it is they do wrong for fear of appearing intolerant.
I realize you are well meaning, and our personal outlook/practices may be quite the same, but I am seeing that we do differ in how we view other cultures. Yours appears part of a trend of intolerance, and moral righteousness, which I do not like and think is unhealthy.
And yours is turning a blind eye for the sake of tolerance. I do not like this & think it unhealthy.
Think about this question, what cultures are allowed to exist within your view, and what allows you to determine what counts as harm or who is oppressed when you make your judgement? Won't your opinions be based on current tastes, just as those in other cultures will have theirs?
But we are all intolerant about some aspects of other cultures. This is a red herring. You sidestepped my point on being an anti-fanatic was anti-multicultural. I chose the most extreme example I could think of, but there are many others. Women being worth half that of men, you think that’s worth preserving for the sake of cultural diversity, do you? You think being told “it’s none of your fucking business” is a reasonable response for how those cultures mistreat their own members? Western Feminists should just piss off & not rock the boat of male domination? You really think women should be barred from certain professions, or paid less for the ones they do? Or homosexuality should be vilified etc? Or do you think that it is valid to criticise these cultures that maintain these inequalities?
I do not believe my statement that he uses the actions of fanatics, or specific writings of specific religious groups, to help make his case against theism in general is misrepresenting his position.
That is correct. But that’s not what you said. You said:
When you use the activities of fanatics of a single strain of theistic belief, not to mention writings, as your example for theism, that is both fallacious and insulting.
Dawkins uses many examples of theism, not a single one. He does not tar everyone with the same brush. Far from it. But religion can lead to religious fanaticism & saying so isn’t fallacious or insulting. It’s a statement of fact.
I want people to say "Wrong? Its none of your fucking business what I think or do." People should be concentrating on themselves and their own families, and not worrying about others. That's the problem I see these days: too much intolerance plus nosing into other people's affairs.
And I want people to say “It is my fucking business when you impose your irrational beliefs on members of
my society that lack the mental faculties to properly assess them, especially when there are so many potential negative corollaries involved. So perhaps you should mind your own fucking business & leave other human beings to determine their own religion or worldview.”
Or would that be unfair?
Certainly Xians have been doing it for a long time. That's what evangelizing and missionary work was all about. I am for putting a stop to that crap.
Why is it OK to indoctrinate one person but not another?
Surely you should just leave them be & let them get on with it. You are just being intolerant of their deeply held conviction that they should indoctrinate others, right?
Where's the pulpit?
Mark
There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
™ Version 4.2