More Religious Nuts

[Timmy]

Re: More Religious Nuts

Yet to come to court, alleged:

A South Australian police officer has been charged with trying to perform an exorcism on a teenager at a church youth camp

From the article: It's alleged the three restrained the boy after he complained of stomach pains in an incident that allegedly went for about 12 hours.

12 hours!

Another article on the same incident:
Cop 'performs exorcism on teen boy'

On the bright side, the church:
does not endorse or encourage any actions which are abusive or which results in the limitations or freedoms of any individual

Which is nice.

Meanwhile, back at the Police Station:
"Look, we covered this in basic training Officer Plod; all you have to do is read him his rights, no exorcisms, right?"

 

[darkside]

Sorry, I thought you were making an analogy to religion being the cause of violence, like guns.

ie, it's people, not religion, that is the source of the problem.

Not sure how mental health units comes in to it.

How did you go Kennas, did you make any sense of those posts or like me , had no idea what that was about. I am thought of thinking , maybe Tink was replying to a different thread and posted on this one by mistake, that is the only explanation i can come up with .

 

[darkside]

Re: More Religious Nuts


Meanwhile, back at the Police Station:
"Look, we covered this in basic training Officer Plod; all you have to do is read him his rights, no exorcisms, right?"

Haha, your too funny !!

 

[Julia]

[

Except for that weird nut club that cuts the ears of dogs. .........................

Could anyone posting this sort of stuff please just briefly mention the subject and then post a link to the actual descriptive article.

I would much rather not have started reading this, and now feel quite sick.
Those who want to read detailed descriptions of cruelty to animals can access that if they like, but please, don't expose all of us to this.

Yes, I know I shall be considered an unrealistic wuss. Can't help it.
Just find cruelty to animals immensely distressing.

 

[trainspotter]

Sorry Julia. Please accept my sincere apologies on this matter. I will paste the links in future. You are not being wussy at all. Dog lovers unite !

 

[Agentm]

Stupid comment ... no offense Bobby.

Believe yesterday there were some pictures of dog which had it's ears cut off.

There are sick people, and some have enough charisma for other sick people to follow them ... we feel safe by calling them a 'nut'.

Lived in Muslim countries and with Muslim families, while the countries usually aren't as developed as ours, they do as a normal representation, have similar beliefs as most people in our society, that is, killing is wrong, and planning a Jihad, has less priority over welcoming guests of any religion.

As I mentioned above, the nut that cut off the ears of the dog is a nut. He or she, could be a member of the bowls club, library, even a donater to the cancer foundation, I don't believe cutting off the ears of dog is part of any of their clubs or organizations.

hey weird, your a man who lived in muslim countries and you never noticed how badly they treat their women?

when you criticise someone as a nut for cutting the ears off a dog, and claim muslums are so wonderful, then why do they still partake in the barbaric practice of tahara.. which is plainly hacking or cutting, or lets use a nicer sanitary clinical term, circumcise the clitoris, so these young female muslim girls will be made less promiscuous

so its only muslim men who are not promiscuous.. what a joke, what an insult.. call that religion??

religion is way off course, its been male dominated for too long, catholicism is as bad as any..

to me the ears being cut off a dog ranks second to what muslims do to their young females..

 

[weird]

hey weird, your a man who lived in muslim countries and you never noticed how badly they treat their women?

when you criticise someone as a nut for cutting the ears off a dog, and claim muslums are so wonderful, then why do they still partake in the barbaric practice of tahara.. which is plainly hacking or cutting, or lets use a nicer sanitary clinical term, circumcise the clitoris, so these young female muslim girls will be made less promiscuous

so its only muslim men who are not promiscuous.. what a joke, what an insult.. call that religion??

religion is way off course, its been male dominated for too long, catholicism is as bad as any..

to me the ears being cut off a dog ranks second to what muslims do to their young females..

Lived in Indonesia (largest Muslim country in the world, and 4th largest in population in the world) and Malaysia, and certainly not aware of female genital mutilation occurring in the mainstream of the population.

Wiki has an interesting article,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_cutting

Note the following,

"Amnesty International says that the prevalence of the practice of FGC is unknown, and that the procedure is now only practiced by some Muslims and Animists.[41] The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that the custom of FGC "cuts across religions and is practiced by Muslims, Christians, Jews and followers of indigenous religions."[42]"

Anyhow, there are a lot of cultural influences which affect practicing of any religion or belief system, so it is difficult to use a wide brush when writing criticism.

Also in Indonesia, they did elect a female president, so not so sure about the suppressing of women, in all Muslim counties anyhow ... I don't believe Indonesians feel they are any less Muslim than other Muslim countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megawati_Sukarnoputri

 

[Agentm]

lol

in egypt over 80% of women still have this done

i dont ignore how religion treats women at all. i condemn it

i dont ignore how catholics dissallow women to teach the holy gospel

women are equal, and can teach it like any other

wake up and smell the roses.. or rosey in your case..

there was a pope, who even forgot to speak out against Nazism..

religion fails humanity and fails women..

time for a recheck on the whole idea these muslims can terrorise me into cowering to them, and that the catholics can only present a narrow view of outdated beliefs to the people who genuinely need faith

religion fails to achieve the objectives of giving faith, when it misses the point of what you have to represent to qualify as something that can inspire faith in the human heart

religion today is totally nuts!!

 

[weird]

lol

in egypt over 80% of women still have this done

i dont ignore how religion treats women at all. i condemn it

i dont ignore how catholics dissallow women to teach the holy gospel

women are equal, and can teach it like any other

wake up and smell the roses.. or rosey in your case..

there was a pope, who even forgot to speak out against Nazism..

religion fails humanity and fails women..

time for a recheck on the whole idea these muslims can terrorise me into cowering to them, and that the catholics can only present a narrow view of outdated beliefs to the people who genuinely need faith

religion fails to achieve the objectives of giving faith, when it misses the point of what you have to represent to qualify as something that can inspire faith in the human heart

religion today is totally nuts!!

The whole debate of whether women should be allowed to become priests is not something I have thought about, you would think with the decline in people wanting to become priests, which is similar to people not wanting to stay on the family farm, that it would be a good recruiting opportunity.

However your statement of women not being able to teach the gospel, is not correct, as you have sunday school teachers, readers as part of church service , catechists, and missionaries etc.

Love and respect women, and how they compliment men, as we do them.

 

[bellenuit]

bellanuit,

Your point is arguable. Turn the thing around and many religious atrocities come down to issues of power as well.

I think some atheist CAN rightly be described as fundamentalist, these are folk who:

actively proselytize for the athiest... umm, cause.
are offended by religious beliefs
use logical fallacy to support their views, words and actions.

For instance, there was a series of ads on the London underground and buses last year advertising atheism, paid for by Dawkin's mob.

All the hallmarks of fundamentalism there.

N'est-ce pas, bellanuit?

Ce n'est pas.

I certainly agree with your statement: "Turn the thing around and many religious atrocities come down to issues of power as well."

Just because one follows a religion doesn't make that religion responsible for one's every action. Even some actions that are done in the name of some religion, may be done purely as a power play, rather than adherence to that religion's dogma. Tyrants/terrorists will use whatever can assist them in their goals, whether it is religion, nationalism or ethnicity. However, there is no denying that the teachings or dogmas of many religions are motivation for some people to commit atrocities or repugnant acts. It would be fairly safe to say that suicide bombers commit their acts, not for their own personal gain (at least in this life), but because they believe they are following the teachings of their faith.

Atheism does not have a dogma or any sort of teachings. Neither does deism (in its truest sense). Because deists do not believe in an interventionist God, there is no dogma to follow. A fundamentalist deist is just as nonsensical as a fundamentalist atheist. It is just as nonsensical as classifying those who do not believe in aliens as fundamentalist or non-fundamentalist. Fundamentalism, IMO, means strict adherence to teachings or a dogma, no matter how irrational they may be. Refusing to budge in one's opinion, when contradictory evidence is proven beyond doubt. Religion goes beyond deism or the simple belief that there is a god and introduces the concept of an interventionist God, who prescribes how we are to act through so-called revelations. This is where the teachings and dogmas come in and allows us to then differentiate between fundamentalist and non-fundamentalist in relation to adherence to those teachings and dogmas.

I can't agree with your opinion of Dawkins as a fundamentalist atheist. He is primarily an educator and asking that religious statements, particularly those that relate to the realm of science (creationism for example) be tested scientifically, is in the domain of any educator. In fact every religious person should also do they same.

Being offended by religious beliefs hardly makes one a fundamentalist atheist. How many Christians are offended by Islamic beliefs? Dawkins opposition to religion is not to "promote atheism", though he would obviously see atheism as the better alternative, but to stop the evils inherent in religion. He sees religion as a form of child abuse where before they can even think rationally, they are indoctrinated with the religion of their parents often accompanied with threats of eternal damnation should they ever question those beliefs. Why do 95% of people have the same religion as their parents? They certainly didn't sit down at a table, study all religions and non-religions, and come to the conclusion that that particular religion was better than any other belief system. It was because of what was drummed into them at an early age. And if what was drummed into them is what is being taught in the madrasa in Pakistan or parts of the UK, that surely is child abuse.

The bus campaign was rather silly IMO, but its message was to overcome the fears drummed into you at an impressionable age and think for yourself.

 

[bellenuit]

bellanuit,

BTW, are you named after the duet, or visa-versa?

Yes, good guess.

 

[weird]

He sees religion as a form of child abuse where before they can even think rationally, they are indoctrinated with the religion of their parents often accompanied with threats of eternal damnation should they ever question those beliefs. Why do 95% of people have the same religion as their parents? They certainly didn't sit down at a table, study all religions and non-religions, and come to the conclusion that that particular religion was better than any other belief system.

You will probably find similar stats on political voting, choice in occupation or education , and racial tolerance. Child abuse ... what an emotional tear jerker of words to use ... using those words is abuse. Loaded.

When children leave their nest, they re-evaluate alot of their teaching, and sometimes revert to 'unlearning' ... obviously they are influenced by their earlier teaching if they find the explored alternatives aren't working or unsatisfying.

 

[darkside]

You will probably find similar stats on political voting, choice in occupation or education , and racial tolerance. Child abuse ... what an emotional tear jerker of words to use ... using those words is abuse. Loaded.

When children leave their nest, they re-evaluate alot of their teaching, and sometimes revert to 'unlearning' ... obviously they are influenced by their earlier teaching if they find the explored alternatives aren't working or unsatisfying.

Weird , i do understand that "child abuse " is a big call, but when i read things like this , that is the only conclusion i can arrive at .

The case of the British muslim who forced his children to flog themselves to the point of bleeding

The Ashura ceremony, part of the month-long period of ‘mourning’ known as Muharram, is an important part of the Shia calendar. It calls for blood. To commemorate the slaughter of Muhammed’s grandson and his family, many men indulge themselves in self-flagellation - a ritual they apparently call ‘zanjeer zani’.

Syed Zaidi, who was brought up in Pakistan, has long been one of them. But he went further. In a ceremony at a community centre in Levenshulme, near Manchester, he first ensured his own blood was flowing before passing his zanjeer - a chained whip with five blades - to two young boys, aged 13 and 15.

In court, the boys said they were ‘forced’ to whip themselves.
This is child abuse , he should be someones "Prison Bitch"

 

[weird]

Weird , i do understand that "child abuse " is a big call, but when i read things like this , that is the only conclusion i can arrive at .

The case of the British muslim who forced his children to flog themselves to the point of bleeding

The Ashura ceremony, part of the month-long period of ‘mourning’ known as Muharram, is an important part of the Shia calendar. It calls for blood. To commemorate the slaughter of Muhammed’s grandson and his family, many men indulge themselves in self-flagellation - a ritual they apparently call ‘zanjeer zani’.

Syed Zaidi, who was brought up in Pakistan, has long been one of them. But he went further. In a ceremony at a community centre in Levenshulme, near Manchester, he first ensured his own blood was flowing before passing his zanjeer - a chained whip with five blades - to two young boys, aged 13 and 15.

In court, the boys said they were ‘forced’ to whip themselves.
This is child abuse , he should be someones "Prison Bitch"

Agree concerning all those situations. But as I mentioned previously don't use a wide brush when criticizing. There are issues in using logic here , if x people are y, are y people all x ?

 

[bellenuit]

You will probably find similar stats on political voting, choice in occupation or education , and racial tolerance. Child abuse ... what an emotional tear jerker of words to use ... using those words is abuse. Loaded.

When children leave their nest, they re-evaluate alot of their teaching, and sometimes revert to 'unlearning' ... obviously they are influenced by their earlier teaching if they find the explored alternatives aren't working or unsatisfying.

I agree to a certain extent, though I would not think they follow their parents to the same degree when it comes to politics, education or occupation. However, there certainly isn't the same psychological trauma associated with adopting a different religion or no religion when deciding not to follow in your parents footsteps for occupation or education. Perhaps there is a bit of trauma for politics. With religion, you not only have to overcome your personal fears (a belief that you may be eternally damned) but for some religions and in some countries, you may be ostracised or even killed for rejection of your religion.

However, I would not shy away from the use of the phrase "child abuse". From my own personal experience of a fairly strict Catholic upbringing, I found it very difficult to reject the Catholic church. Even though I concluded that it was all nonsense, I still saw myself as a non-practising Catholic, rather than an atheist. It is hard to describe how difficult it was to take this final step. It was purely because of the fear instilled in me at an early age that made it so difficult. It was exposure to the works of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris that "liberated" me from that irrational fear.

 

[darkside]

Every communist atrocity IS in the name of atheism. Militant atheism is at the heart of communism.

The atheism provides the rationale for the atrocities. There is no Judgement Day. Life is just matter, random chemicals. Evolution is survival of the fittest. It's nature's way.

Refined Silver , this is a bit like your , Hitler wasn't a christian statement, you need to do some research or at least have something to back your claims.

Atheism offers intellectual integrity and freedom from religion. Atheists reject religious absolutes, primitive "revelations", superstition, blind obedience to a tyrannical deity whose existence cannot be proven.
Atheists value reason, logic, knowledge, freedom, equality and social progress. Many atheists are highly ethical people who live by the golden rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you. A lot of them are involved with human rights organisations, environmental issues, animal rights and other social issues with the goal of making the world a better place.

 

[weird]

I agree to a certain extent, though I would not think they follow their parents to the same degree when it comes to politics, education or occupation. However, there certainly isn't the same psychological trauma associated with adopting a different religion or no religion when deciding not to follow in your parents footsteps for occupation or education. Perhaps there is a bit of trauma for politics. With religion, you not only have to overcome your personal fears (a belief that you may be eternally damned) but for some religions and in some countries, you may be ostracised or even killed for rejection of your religion.

However, I would not shy away from the use of the phrase "child abuse". From my own personal experience of a fairly strict Catholic upbringing, I found it very difficult to reject the Catholic church. Even though I concluded that it was all nonsense, I still saw myself as a non-practising Catholic, rather than an atheist. It is hard to describe how difficult it was to take this final step. It was purely because of the fear instilled in me at an early age that made it so difficult. It was exposure to the works of Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris that "liberated" me from that irrational fear.

Bellenuit, it's all a personal journey, one persons liberation, is another person condemnation.

I am from a large family, and shared most of the same family experiences as my siblings, yet they seem to have completely different interpretations on the same events, so I believe while there is a nurture effect, there is also a nature effect, which I guess in less whimsical terms is difference in genetics, even though from the same mold ... we all look different and think different from the same parents.

I have been involved with catachumens, who basically are adults who are seeking understanding with the possibility of baptism in the Catholic church, that would say that they felt liberated as well.

Religion to me is important, however I don't feel the need to rubbish anyone else belief, I guess I am comfortable with who I am, although constantly seek to be better.

 

[refined silver]

Atheism offers intellectual integrity and freedom from religion. Atheists reject religious absolutes, primitive "revelations", superstition, blind obedience to a tyrannical deity whose existence cannot be proven.

In Christianity, that deity is Jesus. God in the flesh. If to you he is tyrannical, that is your choice.

Atheists value reason, logic, knowledge, freedom, equality and social progress.

Some atheists value these things and many do not.

Many atheists are highly ethical people who live by the golden rule: Treat others as you would have them treat you.

Mmm this "golden rule" was given by Jesus, your so called "tyrannical deity"!

A lot of them are involved with human rights organisations, environmental issues, animal rights and other social issues with the goal of making the world a better place

Thats true, many are involved in these things. This however is where they are inconsistent with their atheist beliefs. Their God-given conscience and intuition tells them these things are the right things to do, but according to their atheistic beliefs, how can these things be true? If every life is a random bunch of chemicals, if there is no life after death, if this planet is an accident of evolution with no higher purpose, no purpose of any description, then why do "good"? Why help others? Why protect the weak? This is against nature and evolution.

 

[darkside]

In Christianity, that deity is Jesus. God in the flesh. If to you he is tyrannical, that is your choice.



Some atheists value these things and many do not.



Mmm this "golden rule" was given by Jesus, your so called "tyrannical deity"!



Thats true, many are involved in these things. This however is where they are inconsistent with their atheist beliefs. Their God-given conscience and intuition tells them these things are the right things to do, but according to their atheistic beliefs, how can these things be true? If every life is a random bunch of chemicals, if there is no life after death, if this planet is an accident of evolution with no higher purpose, no purpose of any description, then why do "good"? Why help others? Why protect the weak? This is against nature and evolution.

Well the first few parts of your post backed up most of what i said , "thank you" , and as for your closing i suppose my belief as well as most decent athiests are, whilst religion promises eternal bliss or ever lasting torment as the consequence for right or wrong behaviour as inducements to 'toe the line', we reject such 'carrot and stick' procedures. Hypothetical 'pie in the sky' may secure the desired result with the ignorant but not with a sophisticated society

Strictly speaking a person is an atheist when he or she comes to the realisation that supernatural beings do not exist and, by extension, that there is no supernatural realm, clearly not the "boogey man " you percieve us to be.

 

[weird]

If you are an atheist and you know it, clap your hands.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism

As usual the loudest in the room, are usually the ones in the back which are 'least' understood.