(Aug 18, 2018 06:40 PM)Zinjanthropos Wrote: One of the few times where I want religion, particularly the punishment in the afterlife part, to be true. Then again, belief in such a system may be what's preventing these perps from being severely punished, although some religions don't f**k around with this type of bad behavior.
i think "Religion" has been used like an american spagetti-cowboy n'western style sherif-badge.
It seems fairly apparent that the underlying reality is slavery.
Slavery exits in most cultures and has existed in ALL cultures.
The predation process to exploit others through physical or mental capacity is not balanced on the edge of a knife as a moral aspect.
thus slaves can be physically stronger than the slave master.
The cultural normalcy of raising women as a slave class is still normal amongst billions of humans.
cultural norms are used to disguise many things.
gay marriage(raged against as a state of war)
child marriage(normalised & voted to maintain)
2 polar aspects of majority conservative christianity in the usa
(Aug 18, 2018 09:35 PM)Syne Wrote: Do you really think a sexually abused child cares anything about hypocrisy. Betrayed trust is betrayed trust, and children don't really differentiate trusted adults.
You don't think having your religion connected to sexual abuse is traumatizing? You're an idiot.
Straw man. But you seem to be saying it isn't as traumatizing if it doesn't include religion.
I can only assume that your religious experience included heavy brainwashing, since most children do not view religion as anything very different from school.
You simply have your weekday teacher and your Sunday school teacher. The priest/pastor is just like a principal. All of them tell you how to behave, and you have zero real concept of death.
Quote:
Quote:Or are you speaking from personal experience with priests?
You're pathetic...
Well if it ain't just your anti-religious bias, there must be some reason you think religious abuse is especially traumatizing. So which is it? Bias or personal trauma? O_o
(Aug 18, 2018 09:53 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: I know they’re annoying when they land on you but swatting at them doesn’t seem to help. Gadflies don’t bite. We should probably just ignore them. Maybe even learn to live with 'em.
Says the troll who's only posting off-topic to be inflammatory. I actually offered relevant info. Do you ever plan to? O_o
A priest isn't the same as a teacher. A priest is the representative of God on earth and the arbiter of all that is right and good. To be abused by your priest is to be abused by God, which has a much deeper affect than being abused by a teacher.
(Aug 19, 2018 12:06 AM)Magical Realist Wrote: A priest isn't the same as a teacher. A priest is the representative of God on earth and the arbiter of all that is right and good. To be abused by your priest is to be abused by God, which has a much deeper affect than being abused by a teacher.
Even children raised in church have only a vague understanding of what any of that means. It's just another authority figure they are taught to trust.
So again, do you have some experience to demonstrate otherwise, or are you only speaking from anti-religious bias?
Quote:Even children raised in church have only a vague understanding of what any of that means. It's just another authority figure they are taught to trust
Bullshit. A kid knows the difference between a representative of God on earth and a mere teacher in their school. And abuse by such demolishes any trust they may have had in that God. This is simple common sense.
Quote:Even children raised in church have only a vague understanding of what any of that means. It's just another authority figure they are taught to trust
Bullshit. A kid knows the difference between a representative of God on earth and a mere teacher in their school. And abuse by such demolishes any trust they may have had in that God. This is simple common sense.
And every time you use the term "common sense", we all know you can't support your claim. Just a waste of time.
I'm guessing Syne is religious? Tu quoque, or not tu quoque, that is the question...
But in some attempt to pierce the chaff, I should probably note here that the argument regarding a "greater" abuse coming from a religious or on-religious environment is largely irrelevant, as far as the victims themselves are concerned. However, the impact of religious institutions engaging in child abuse when their entire moral platform and reason for existence is tied up in morality does actually make it worse, in terms of its impact upon society.
Moral outrages on the part of teachers are not going to make one question the value of education. But moral outrages on the part of priests would have to have at least some impact on the belief systems of the religious (Although I'm not entirely sure how much, it's a very self-affirming belief system).
I'm hardly going to take the results of a single study conducted 20 years ago to heart anyway.
When you actually read that article Syne linked, the numbers don't have any context. It's... well, I'm a data analyst. And I'd not pay any attention to data like that without knowing the details of the original study. Which are not available, it appears. There is a link to an original piece but it doesn't work.
It's junk.
(Aug 20, 2018 07:16 AM)Ben the Donkey Wrote: I'm guessing Syne is religious?
Since you were kind enough to ask "Why?" on my behalf, I’ll catch you up to speed.
Syne is an impersonator—one of Peterson’s little flowers (I mean) followers.
Jordan Peterson was just interviewed on Fox News last night. It opened with the commentator saying that his fame has brought him to the forefront in the world of psychology with his message influencing millions of people around the world. He is described as the most influential public intellectuals in the western world right now.
A rose by any other name would smell as sweet…
...but these roses stink.
Peterson used to identify as a Christian, but now when asked if he believes in god, he says "No, but I’m afraid that he might exist." He says he acts as if god does exist because actions speaks louder than words.
He’s a Christian apologist, that’s for sure, but as with all apologists, his argument dies at the cross.
Did his body resurrect?
"I don’t know-I don’t know. The accounts aren’t clear for one thing. What the accounts mean isn’t clear. I don’t know what happens to a person if they bring themselves completely into alignment. I’ve had intimations of what that might mean. We don’t understand the world very well. We don’t understand how the world could be mastered if it was mastered completely. We don’t know how an individual might be able to manage that. We don’t know what transformation that might make possible.”—Jordan Peterson
He started a political and cultural firestorm regarding the C-16 bill in Canada over his refusal to use special pronouns to describe different gender identities. He said that the pronouns are symbolic of a political agenda that he does not agree with and that they're trying to gain linguistic supremacy in the area of public discourse. He feels that the new use of pronouns isn’t a natural development of language. He said that they were doing this by using compassion as a guise and they were pulling the wool over people’s eyes.
He’s thinks political correctness has gone too far and is against the 'snowflake' thing, which most of us can agree with, but I do relish in the irony. When it comes to discourse, by all means, step in the ring, but this nutter thinks he’s 'the lord of the rings'.
When it comes to the one ring of power (my precious)…well, you know how magic can affect a person’s mind. He introduces ambiguity by violating the law of identity when it comes to defining God.
A God by any other name would still reek of supernaturalism. *sniff-sniff* And he’s hot on the trail. In this corner of the ring he wants us to believe that the names of things do not affect what they really are. He feels that those of us without a God would be foolish to feel any awe or gratitude towards our environment.
He walks like an Egyptian (medu-netjer)—in the beginning was the word and the word was god. He believes that writing itself was god given, but he forgets that before the word…there was silence, and in this silence is where you can explore the qualities that we ascribe to sound.
His claim is that we’re riding on the coattails of religion, but religion doesn’t have a monopoly on our systems of communication, our morality, our emotions, or our creativity. All of these were derived from our environment. They lend to the survival of our species by strengthening social bonds and providing motivation. Religion is riding on the coattails of our planet. It is just several layers of old thick paint over the existing surface.
Life doesn't play to win, she plays not to lose.
Take a bow, the night is over
This masquerade is getting older
Light are low, the curtains down
There's no one here…
Are there plenty of successful atheists? What about successful people who dropped out of school? School Disengagement as a Predictor of Dropout, Delinquency, and Problem Substance Use during Adolescence and Early Adulthood Odds stacked against high school dropouts finding success
Are the atheists here actually making the argument that a life began in religion cannot possibly do as well without religion? O_o
Yes, a person's worldview would be rocked by any betrayal, but then that happens to those not abused as well. How do you think people of religious backgrounds become atheists? Certainly they weren't all sexually abused. Or were they? O_o
And just by the simple fact that the law requires all children go to school and only a fraction of those attend church, it does follow that more public school children are abused. Abusers have far fewer pressures on their moral behavior in secular positions.
And no, I'm not religious (wouldn't even call myself especially spiritual). I'm a theist. Do you understand the difference?
As for SS' trolling:
(Aug 16, 2018 12:04 AM)Syne Wrote:
(Aug 15, 2018 08:13 PM)Secular Sanity Wrote: A more interesting question is why have you been presenting Peterson’s arguments as if they were your own? Some of the things you’ve said are almost word for word.
But most of what Peterson says is stuff I already knew, and very little of what I've written about alpha men is from Peterson. I offered Ben a few links that I do read, but he never took me up on it.
Neither her nor Ben took me up on that offer. No doubt out of fear it would disabuse them of their biased assumptions.
Syne, you've only assumed I "never took you up on it". I've already shown at least twice now that I have indeed read some of the links you've posted. And commented on them, including the one above. Junk.
I think you have some issues with the reality of the situation.
I don't even know what the hell it is you're arguing about. You sound like you've been reading Peterson. Full stop. end of story. I commented on it, SS agreed, you've been squirming for days about it.
And if I wanted to know about August Kubizek, I could have googled it and come up with a hundred pages (including his own wikipedia entry) before happening across that site you posted and then denied reading. It was not a coincidence, and it was not happenstance. I mean I get that you're embarrassed, but getting caught in a lie has to be even more embarrassing.
Let it go, man. I don't know why the hell you're still arguing about it.
Nobody is afraid of you, Auld Lang.
Not by yourself, at any rate. Packs of fervent followers, of any stripe, can be a little disturbing though.
Maybe you don't follow too well. That offer, which you NEVER took me up on*, comes from the discussion about alpha males, which is what SS is busy trolling on about, completely off-topic. Has nothing to do with any links here, nor even the one specifically about Hitler (posted before that offer was made). I never denied reading the article I posted, and it's your own problem if you entertained reading a lot more from that site (which is really not a coincidence, and something to truly be embarrassed about). You can pretend anything you like, but when an OP asks if Hitler was an alpha male or not, I post whatever Google has on the topic (very first result from the search "hitler beta male")...based on its own, individual merit. If you don't like the source, that's just a genetic fallacy. And whatever you may think of me finding the first result in a Google search is only poisoning the well. So nothing but fallacies. Notice how you've never refuted anything from that article I posted. Just lazy and irrelevant fallacious arguments.
I haven't even read anything by Peterson, but you and SS are happy to just make up whatever bullshit suits your trolling nonsense. It's just much easier to pigeonhole someone with a straw man than to learn their actual position or influences.
LOL! I don't expect anyone to be afraid of me...but that's a telling assumption on your part.
*
(Aug 10, 2018 06:15 PM)Syne Wrote: You want me to spoon feed you a few links?
(Aug 12, 2018 04:29 AM)Syne Wrote: I've already offered to spoon feed you some of the sites I read on the subject. Just giving you a fair chance to make good on your claim.
Aug 18, 2018 11:47 PM
