This is why religion is a problem

[articulett]

If you tell people that speaking in tongues is a sign of the holy spirit working through them, then you are responsible when they start babbling and believe it's a sign from god. The same premise follows from all such "woo".

The daughter had no way of knowing that her father could be delusional. We are told it's arrogant to question god. We see the people who teach us about this "god" as trustworthy by proxy. The daughter needed a place where she could read words like this and get the power to ask questions and think.

BTW, criticism of religion is not hate speech.

 

[Olowkow]

Appeal from ignorance-

While having sex with a 14 year old is rape by UK definition, is it actually a crime to have sex with one's own daughter Iif above the local age of consent) , either in the UK or US or elsewhere? Or is this simply a taboo?

Definitely illegal. I assume it is the same in the UK:

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/incest
Rape and incest are separate offenses and are distinguished by the fact that mutual consent is required for incest but not for rape. When the female is below the age of consent recognized by law, however, the same act can be both rape and incest.

 

[Egg]

Believing and encouraging the belief that it's good or noble or a sign of some higher truth when invisible entities give signs... makes you a part of the problem, not the solution. You have no control over what the voices say, since everyone's imaginary friend is built to their liking.

If you lived in a society where people promote the use of psychics and believe some are real and encourage the "gift"-- you support a paradigm where the likes of Sylvia Browne can prosper.

If you support the paradigm that sacrifice of some sort can please "god"-- then you support whatever sacrifice martyrs make to please their god.

Your cherry picked god and interpretation of what he says just encourages others to do their own cherry picking and interpretation with your encouragement.

You don't want studies... that's why you are vague and you don't really ask questions or say anything. You want to believe that you really got some message from some god and you don't want to believe that it could be a delusion... you want it to be fine to encourage this kind of thinking because otherwise you have to admit that maybe your indoctrination is responsible for your belief or delusion-- not anything good or real or true.

Just because you don't do something that hurts other people or that society disapproves of based on your understanding of whatever it is you've been indoctrinated to believe... doesn't mean that the "faith is good" paradigm that you are supporting isn't dangerous and won't lead to exactly what we see in the story... exactly what we saw on 9-11... exactly the kid who died because her parents thought prayer could heal better than doctors...

You are saying, "I like my faith watered down"--it's harmless that way. Others hear this and say, I want my faith "full strength" to get maximum rewards.

I'm saying faith sucks as a means of knowledge. It makes people feel like they know some "higher truth" while being delusional. Moreover it keeps them from understanding actual truths and is the very opposite of critical thinking. It causes them to fear and get angry at those who might help them see this.

Humans have always invented explanations for things they don't understand... often they involve invisible entities and magical forces... as science accumulates knowledge, humans share this with each other so that superstitious thinking eventually disappears. But faith is endlessly fighting to keep the superstitious thinking alive. It has too. It can't have people probing it or looking for evidence. It must call the atheists strident and make people fear them. It must make believers feel chosen and to find the non-believers arrogant. It must pretend to offer a "higher truth". It must pretend that faith is a virtue and can help you live happily ever after.

This has nothing to do with what country I'm in... this has to do with how civilization and humanity has evolved. Sure it sucks to find out you've been deceiving yourself... but it's human... the only way we can grow and learn the truth that exist whether you believe it or not. The truth that is the same for everybody. The truth as to whether there IS or even can be an invisible form of consciousness-- a thinking entity without a brain. There is NO reason to believe or promote the belief that this is so-- not for gods, demons, souls, ghosts, angels, sprites, Thetans, demons, or any of them... they are all equally unlikely-- all built on the same delusion promoting notion that humans are so prone to use to reason fallaciously.

One of the things I like about these forums is the way that most posters examine the arguments and assess whether they're logically sound and if they are follow on from the evidence. It makes for some pretty good and challenging discussions and what matters are the arguments, not why a certain person might be arguing a certain way.

Instead of addressing my arguments, you're throwing out rhetoric, opinions with nothing but your say so to back them up and making up reasons for why I might be arguing the way I am (you're wrong on these most of the time by the way) and can't see how that can only be an ad-hom, even if you were correct in your assumptions. I thought the post where you changed my words without posting up my original post was a particularly low tactic.

I've asked you already not to do this and to stick to addressing the arguments and since you won't, I'm done with trying to have any kind of discussion with you.

I did look at those links you gave me (here). Thanks for those. The Nun Bun made me laugh. I'll try to get hold of that Shermer book, it looks pretty interesting.

Something you might be interested in the the Dennett interview you linked to (here):

Daniel Dennett: The word “faith” has been cheapened and distorted by its use as an excuse for unreason. I have faith in democracy, faith in science, faith in the truth (see my essay with that title), but not unreasoned faith, not blind faith.

So Dennett believes without or despite evidence in democracy, science and truth? Do you think maybe what he's actually saying is that he has something like trust/hope/confidence in these things?

Maybe you want to have another look at that straw man definition you love to knock down.

 

[articulett]

I don't know your point, Egg... or what you think the discussion is "about" or what your arguments are; maybe someone else is better at making sense of what you are saying or agrees. You seem to think religious belief should be treated different than other woo. I don't. You seem to go out of your way to protect it and to hear things that aren't there from those who find religion just another superstition--prone to abuse in ways that no other superstition is--because the imagined stakes are so high. This opinion drives you nuts... and I think it's because you are afraid it might be true.

I'm sure I find you as insulting and off topic as you find me. I just think you are one of those people who rush to defend religion at every opportunity because you believe in something or other and you are peeved that others find it something that is not worthy of belief or respect. You can't really put it in words or say why we should respect it or cover for it more than we would psychic woo... you can't imagine how your version of faith could possibly encourage less savory aspects of faith in others... and when I get too close to this truth you toss a bunch of straw men in the air. You don't like my opinion. You don't want your "faith" compared to belief in psychics or demons or Scientology-- but there's nothing that makes it different as far as regards to truth.

That's why my plugging psychics into your words made you mad. It shows you your own bias in full color.

I think you are reacting to my hitting too close to your sacred cow. You feel much more comfortable with your own self-serving analogies where atheism is just another faith and atheists are big rude meanies... and, oh yeah, "faith is groovy".

To me, your opinions are all over the place... but the point you want to convince yourself and others of is that religion can't be blamed for what happened in the OP. I disagree. At one time I might have been able to do your semantic dance to convince myself it wasn't so. That is what I believe you are doing. If I'm wrong, I'm sure the evidence will accumulate to show me this.

I'm not going off on your tangents any more... they are all designed to prop up an opinion or belief you WANT to be true-- something that you are mad that I don't believe in or respect but you can't find a logical way to defend it... or even put it into words.

The more I play along-- the more you will say things designed to get me to respond in a way to prop up your delusion that your faith is true and good and should be spread about humanity --and atheists are mean people trying to rid the world of this groovy faith thing.

I think you are mad at me to prevent having to examine yourself and what you are really trying to say. I agree conversation is futile. You have a need to have others respect your woo. I can't respect it.

If you don't like what I say, don't solicit my opinion. Put me on ignore.

ETA: oh, and you still don't understand straw man... and only a believer could find Dennetts argument as supporting their nebulous point about religion not being a cause of bad stuff or whatever it is your point is. Dan Dennett does not have faith in invisible immeasurable forms of consciousness. That is NOT reasonable faith.

But thanks for the irony.

 

[RobRoy]

One of the things I like about these forums is the way that most posters examine the arguments and asses . . .

There, fixed it!

This is why I love tab surfing.

 

[articulett]

Ah... so that's what you've been examining...

It explains a lot.

 

[Robin]

I think that's probably right too, but would he have seen the church as a potential enemy had he been a believer?

At one stage he saw the church as a potential ally. When sections of the church proved not so he moved against them. But in fact he never changed the part of the Soviet constitution that guaranteed freedom of religion and many churches throughout the Soviet republic have a history of undisturbed worship throughout the Soviet era. Presumably these churches never challenged Stalin's authority or never came to his attention.

 

[Robin]

Child abusers are usually adept liars and good at finding justifications, either to themselves or others.

The man in question would have undoubtedly found some other pretext had the religion option not been open to him.

So I tend to agree that this is not a problem with religion.

It would be a problem if the religious establishment gave assent for his actions.

 

[Egg]

At one stage he saw the church as a potential ally. When sections of the church proved not so he moved against them. But in fact he never changed the part of the Soviet constitution that guaranteed freedom of religion and many churches throughout the Soviet republic have a history of undisturbed worship throughout the Soviet era. Presumably these churches never challenged Stalin's authority or never came to his attention.

Fair enough . It seems that my attempted example had way too many complications to have been of any use.

 

[articulett]

Child abusers are usually adept liars and good at finding justifications, either to themselves or others.

The man in question would have undoubtedly found some other pretext had the religion option not been open to him.

So I tend to agree that this is not a problem with religion.

It would be a problem if the religious establishment gave assent for his actions.

He gained his daughters cooperation by making it a sign of faith. What wouldn't someone do if they believed their eternity depended on obedience to "god" and by proxy--the book or people who speak for him?

Moreover, we live in a culture where people are honored for getting revelations and prophesies from gods... they are not considered as delusional as if they are getting revelations from aliens. They are considered wise men and proffers of divine truths. Jesus could have been a schizophrenic... so could all revelators and prophets... or scam artists... or delusional folks... and the Pople and all religious leaders... and yet people imagine these men as being in touch with higher truths. Religion makes insanity look like something good and gulliblity like something salvation worthy.

 

[skeptical]

I only disagree with your concept of "blind obedience to authority". Buddhism, Catholicism, Mormonism, Lutheranism, etc. do not require "blind" acceptance, in my understanding. That the practice of this results in blind acceptance, I can't and won't deny. But that's a failing of the adherents, which is my point.

Interesting. Perhaps we have different conceptions of "blind".

Since not all of those you listed are based on a revelation, let's take Catholicism as an example. My understanding of it is that if you are a RC, it is a requirement of the system that if the Pope claims a revelation from God, you are not allowed to question that. You are not allowed to say "where is the evidence for that" or "I have my own revelation from God" or anything of that nature and still consider yourself a RC. (I mean openly of course, not to yourself in your basement or something)

I have the same understanding of deference to authority for other revelation based religions. Is your understanding different from this?

 

[RobRoy]

He gained his daughters cooperation by making it a sign of faith. What wouldn't someone do if they believed their eternity depended on obedience to "god" and by proxy--the book or people who speak for him?

He did not. Child-abusers whose victims are their own children often find willing or compliant accomplices regardless. The justification the parent uses runs the spectrum, and often the child needs no more "reason" than that their abuser is their parent. Most abusers do not provide their victim with a justification, but instead with a mixture of threats and promises regarding keeping their secret. When these children are removed from their parents, they are often angry, sad even depressed at their removal and wish only to return to their parents no matter how awful the abuse or what form it took. The damage done these children is never reversible, it will always be a part of them, and can take years of therapy to scar over and come to the realization that what their parents did was wrong.

There was no quote from the daughter or the wife to support your statement. In fact, the report said that "[they] were kept virtual prisoners in their house. . ." which strongly suggests neither wanted any part of what he was promoting.

This man used religion as a justification. Religion did not justify his actions. The premise that if there was no religion, he would not have abused his daughter is untenable. He would simply have used another justification.

Moreover, we live in a culture where people are honored for getting revelations and prophesies from gods... [snip] Religion makes insanity look like something good and gulliblity like something salvation worthy.

While I agree with your logic and also your point, I would caveat by saying it depends on what's being revealed and promoted as a "higher truth". If it's a "do unto others" and the result is a charity-driven enterprise, then not only do I fail to see the harm, there seems to be much good for those who are "gullible" enough to follow and adhere to said revelators. Following a schizophrenic Jesus, Siddartha or Muhammad who preach peace, general goodwill and a concept of treating others as you would be treated results in the same outcome as following a divinely-inspired Jesus, Siddartha or Muhammad who say the same thing. The source of their inspiration is hardly important. What's acted upon is.

 

[AkuManiMani]

This is absolutely disgusting.



http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=15&art_id=vn20080403060414774C774861


And that is why religion is a problem.

Erm...this shows how mental illness is a problem. Thats like saying men are a problem because that sicko raped his own daughter. If you think religion is the cause of incest and child rape you personally have a problem.

 

[RobRoy]

Interesting. Perhaps we have different conceptions of "blind".

No, I don't think we do. We have a differing opinion on what is required of adherents.

Since not all of those you listed are based on a revelation, let's take Catholicism as an example.

Which ones weren't? It's my understanding that every one I named has doctrines regarding revelation. <shrug>

My understanding of it is that if you are a RC, it is a requirement of the system that if the Pope claims a revelation from God, you are not allowed to question that. You are not allowed to say "where is the evidence for that" or "I have my own revelation from God" or anything of that nature and still consider yourself a RC. (I mean openly of course, not to yourself in your basement or something)

Untrue. You can question it all you want, you can take your questions to priest, bishop even the Pope himself if you so feel the need (and have the time to wait). You can run right up the channels of the Roman Catholic church and question it to the hilt, if the desire takes you. You will still be considered by the Roman Catholic church as a member all during your questioning.

In the matter of revelation, I had to do some digging (and I will caveat that digging by saying I'm hardly an expert on the workings and philosophy), but the Roman Catholic church allows for anyone to have a revelation. Apparently, any number of folk have done so and had their revelations approved by the church. These can take the form of "personal" or "particular" revelations, which only apply the the individual or "universal" revelations, which apply to the church as a whole.

I have the same understanding of deference to authority for other revelation based religions. Is your understanding different from this?

Yes, it is my understanding that your understanding is incorrect.

 

[AkuManiMani]

The daughter had no way of knowing that her father could be delusional. We are told it's arrogant to question god. We see the people who teach us about this "god" as trustworthy by proxy. The daughter needed a place where she could read words like this and get the power to ask questions and think.

Are you seriously arguing that child abuse of this sort would not occur if everyone were atheist?

Also it really wouldn't matter how capable the girl was of questioning and thinking. Obviously, since she was being raped and held prisoner, what she asked and thought really wasn't a factor. The guy could have told her that it was legal for him to treat her that way or that he was God himself -- her belief, or lack thereof, in what he was saying wouldn't change her situation at all.

BTW, criticism of religion is not hate speech.

That wasn't a criticism of religion. That was calling religion the cause of child abuse which is factually wrong. What you just did was comparable to saying "Black people are the cause of violent crime in America -- oh and btw, that wasn't hate speech."

 

[skeptical]

No, I don't think we do. We have a differing opinion on what is required of adherents.

Quite possibly.

Which ones weren't? It's my understanding that every one I named has doctrines regarding revelation. <shrug>

My understanding of Buddhism, and I am not an expert but have read on the subject, is that practice trumps belief. As I understand it, one is not required to have any particular acceptance of dogma in oder to be a practicing Buddhist.

Untrue. You can question it all you want, you can take your questions to priest, bishop even the Pope himself if you so feel the need (and have the time to wait). You can run right up the channels of the Roman Catholic church and question it to the hilt, if the desire takes you. You will still be considered by the Roman Catholic church as a member all during your questioning.

Perhaps "questioning" was not the right word. Let me put it this way, my understanding is that if a RC says "the Pope's revelation on x is wrong", that is not allowed. That is, a RC cannot reject the authority of the Pope in doctrinal matters as I understand it.

In the matter of revelation, I had to do some digging (and I will caveat that digging by saying I'm hardly an expert on the workings and philosophy), but the Roman Catholic church allows for anyone to have a revelation. Apparently, any number of folk have done so and had their revelations approved by the church. These can take the form of "personal" or "particular" revelations, which only apply the the individual or "universal" revelations, which apply to the church as a whole.

But, what if those revelations are at odds with the official doctrine of the church as revealed by the Pope? For example, what if someone has a revelation that abortion is permissible and that the Pope's understanding is wrong. Is that permitted? I think the answer is no, but if you a reference to the contrary I will look at it.

Yes, it is my understanding that your understanding is incorrect.

Quite possibly, as I am not now nor have I ever been a RC. However, I'm pretty sure that a RC cannot reject the authority of the Pope unless there is some reference on the subject I am not aware of.

 

[RobRoy]

My understanding of Buddhism, and I am not an expert but have read on the subject, is that practice trumps belief. As I understand it, one is not required to have any particular acceptance of dogma in oder to be a practicing Buddhist.

That was not my understanding, but in this case I'm willing to defer as it doesn't change the subject of this particular discussion in regards to "blind" adherence.

Perhaps "questioning" was not the right word. Let me put it this way, my understanding is that if a RC says "the Pope's revelation on x is wrong", that is not allowed. That is, a RC cannot reject the authority of the Pope in doctrinal matters as I understand it.

What I believe you're talking about is the infallibility of the Pope, or when he is speaking ex cathedra. If that's not the case, then please respond and I'll redress.

As I understand, with the above caveat still in place regarding my general lack of expertise, your description is not correct. If the Pope was speaking ex cathedra, then he is assumed to be infallible according to church doctrine, but the meaning of the pronouncement and the justification for it are considered open to discussion, question and debate. Thus, a Roman Catholic member could call into question what the Pope meant when he was speaking ex cathedra, the justification for the pronouncement, or how the pronouncement should be applied to the Roman Catholic church as a whole.

I get rather shaky on the whole theology at this point, but I'm not certain I need to go further. The point here is that Papal infallibility does not result in "blind" adherence. In fact, any doctrinal pronouncement, whether ex cathedra or not, Interestingly enough, most Catholics are either unaware of or deny outright this particular dogmatic doctrine, whether from ignorance or knowledge. The point is generally moot, since this particular power has only been used once by Pope Pius XII in regards to the Assumption of Mary, which very few Catholics have any problem with to begin. The Vatican seems to have adopted a general "don't ask, don't tell" policy in this regards.

But, what if those revelations are at odds with the official doctrine of the church as revealed by the Pope? For example, what if someone has a revelation that abortion is permissible and that the Pope's understanding is wrong. Is that permitted? I think the answer is no, but if you a reference to the contrary I will look at it.

Again, my understanding is that yours is incorrect. In the matter of "private" or "particular" revelations, those are for individual guidance, and not necessary for the church as a whole (which would be a "universal" revelation).

The articles I used in this matter are from the Catholic Encyclopedia. They are specifically:

Private Revelation
Revelation

For example, the article discusses the private revelations of Marie de Agreda and Anne Catherine Emmerich where their specific revelations come in conflict with the dogma of the Roman Catholic church. Both are considered to have received private revelation that applied only to them as individuals but not to the church as a whole, and both are considered to be good Catholic members despite some general discrepancies.

Quite possibly, as I am not now nor have I ever been a RC. However, I'm pretty sure that a RC cannot reject the authority of the Pope unless there is some reference on the subject I am not aware of.

A Roman Catholic cannot reject the authority of the Pope and remain a Roman Catholic. In that you are correct. So, in part, I see your point. A member of the Roman Catholic church must subscribe to a certain set of standards, which includes that of Papal infallibility, which could, potentially, come in conflict with a member's own personal moral sense. In such a case, that individual could not (or perhaps should not) remain a Roman Catholic and still adhere to their own personal sense of doctrine. This, however, does not mean that a Roman Catholic must blindly adhere to papal authority, which was your original contention. Blind adherence is not now, nor has it ever been, a requirement to being a Roman Catholic.

 

[articulett]

Are you seriously arguing that child abuse of this sort would not occur if everyone were atheist?

Nope, that's your lame straw man. You hear what you want to hear in order not to notice that religion is most definitely involved in this horror.

Also it really wouldn't matter how capable the girl was of questioning and thinking. Obviously, since she was being raped and held prisoner, what she asked and thought really wasn't a factor. The guy could have told her that it was legal for him to treat her that way or that he was God himself -- her belief, or lack thereof, in what he was saying wouldn't change her situation at all.

Oh, it matters... just like the link I provided where they took a bunch of young girls from the polygamous compound. If you can indoctrinate a child to believe that certain men speak to god and have the key to salvation, you can get them to do pretty much anything... and feel like it's what god wants.

That wasn't a criticism of religion. That was calling religion the cause of child abuse which is factually wrong. What you just did was comparable to saying "Black people are the cause of violent crime in America -- oh and btw, that wasn't hate speech."

Are you disturbed....? Can you not understand your bias...? how you are shielding religious involvement and the socially glorified "ability" to "get messages" from god? Blackness has to do with skin color... not a mind virus... not a woo... and this is what I mean by coddling religion... you hear stuff that isn't there to avoid the obvious. When you encourage and reward people for "faith" and hearing god and purporting divine secrets-- you encourage this behavior.... whether they really feel they are getting secrets or not. And, yes, I feel if this girl would have had an adult in her life or a forum where she can read that there is no reason to think anyone is getting messages from god --then she would have been better off than she and her offspring are today. I think this inane covering for religion --as though it can't be can't possibly cause harm --is very harmful indeed. What you twist from the words that are said shows an incredibly poor and biased thought process and the need to defend religion.

If her Father used Scientology teachings or Muslim teachings or some new age woo to convince his daughter that this was part of some divine plan, you'd guys actually read and understand the words other people are writing and see the connection between promoting "faith" and the results it can have.

Why do you think you understand analogies or logical fallacies? Has anyone given you the impression you do. Your analogies are poor. Religion is like racism-- it's inculcated via indoctrination and culture. Is your bias so extreme that you have to liken my words to racism? Plug in Scientology to the religion in question, and see just how strong your biases are as well as your knee-jerk protection for faith.

There are some harms only caused by religion... that doesn't mean that all harms are caused by religion --nor does it mean that all religions are harmful nor does it mean that I think all religions are bad. Nor am I criticizing believers-- the daughter was a victim... most believers start out that way. I just think this insane covering for "faith" --as though faith is something good-- is a terrible mind virus. You can't really tell a mentally ill person getting messages from god from a person who actually gets messages from god from a person who is pretending to get messages to manipulate those who believe in god... and yet you cover for them all when you cover for one. There is no way for anyone to distinguish the difference. All gods are subjective.

Faith is not and never will be a means of useful knowledge. If it was good or true, it wouldn't need people trying to shut up those who notice its harms. It wouldn't need your straw man or knee jerk defense.

 

[Acleron]

A Roman Catholic cannot reject the authority of the Pope and remain a Roman Catholic. In that you are correct. So, in part, I see your point. A member of the Roman Catholic church must subscribe to a certain set of standards, which includes that of Papal infallibility, which could, potentially, come in conflict with a member's own personal moral sense. In such a case, that individual could not (or perhaps should not) remain a Roman Catholic and still adhere to their own personal sense of doctrine. This, however, does not mean that a Roman Catholic must blindly adhere to papal authority, which was your original contention. Blind adherence is not now, nor has it ever been, a requirement to being a Roman Catholic.

A Roman Catholic must also subscribe to a certain set of beliefs: trinity, virgin birth, life after death, purgatory, saints, miracles etc. These beliefs are laid down by the church and, as such, are without any evidence. This seems very much like blind adherence, especially when excommunication is the penalty for lack of adherence.

 

[AkuManiMani]

Are you seriously arguing that child abuse of this sort would not occur if everyone were atheist?

Nope, that's your lame straw man. You hear what you want to hear in order not to notice that religion is most definitely involved in this horror.

So its a strawman even tho you really are arguing that religion is the cause??? Okay, lets try to follow your "logic" here:

The daughter had no way of knowing that her father could be delusional.

Its quite common for children to believe that the appalling conditions they live under are "normal". I've grown up in a fundie family and personally questioned their religious beliefs at an early age; if I were being abused my personal atheism wouldn't do much to prevent it from happening. Whether or not that poor girl was able to understand what was happening to her is unclear and irrelevant to the fact that she had no control over her situation.

Oh, and you still didn't answer my question. Do you believe that kind of child abuse would stop if everyone were atheist? If not, then why factor religion in as the cause? If yes, then please explain why.

We are told it's arrogant to question god. We see the people who teach us about this "god" as trustworthy by proxy.

"We" who? Which god? I thought we were talking about this specific instance of child abuse. Considering the context of this statement is pretty clear that you feel that religion is the reason why that girl was abused.

The daughter needed a place where she could read words like this and get the power to ask questions and think.

The daughter needed to be taken into protective custody. Her being enlightened to the world beyond the manufactured fantasy of her father could come afterward.

Also it really wouldn't matter how capable the girl was of questioning and thinking. Obviously, since she was being raped and held prisoner, what she asked and thought really wasn't a factor. The guy could have told her that it was legal for him to treat her that way or that he was God himself -- her belief, or lack thereof, in what he was saying wouldn't change her situation at all.

Oh, it matters... just like the link I provided where they took a bunch of young girls from the polygamous compound. If you can indoctrinate a child to believe that certain men speak to god and have the key to salvation, you can get them to do pretty much anything... and feel like it's what god wants.

I was referring to the article posted in the OP. In that particular instance the girl's abuse had nothing to do with her personal belief and everything to do with her father's insanity. She was made a prisoner and subjected to sexual abuse.

The case in the OP was an instance of a man using his personal delusions as justification for his insanity. Religion was used as a lame excuse but it wasn't the cause. The fact that you equate his pathology with being on par with all religion is unjustified and a bit silly.

Are you disturbed....?

Yes, I find that story very disturbing

Can you not understand your bias...? how you are shielding religious involvement and the socially glorified "ability" to "get messages" from god?

My bias???

I'm not shielding a religious movement. I'm disputing your argument that because a child abuser thinks the voice in his head is god that religion is the cause of child abuse. Your line of argument is identical to theists trying to argue that since Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists that atheism is evil and harmful. The logic simply does not follow.

Blackness has to do with skin color... not a mind virus... not a woo... and this is what I mean by coddling religion... you hear stuff that isn't there to avoid the obvious. When you encourage and reward people for "faith" and hearing god and purporting divine secrets-- you encourage this behavior.... whether they really feel they are getting secrets or not.

I "encourage this behavior"....? EH???

I think you missed my point completely...

And, yes, I feel if this girl would have had an adult in her life or a forum where she can read that there is no reason to think anyone is getting messages from god --then she would have been better off than she and her offspring are today.

Hows about she would be better off if she didn't have a nut-job father sexually abusing her? Sure, being exposed to the internet and differing points of view would benefit any child but what does that have to do with the fact that she was being sexually abused? Are you suggesting that her ignorance was the cause of the abuse??

I think this inane covering for religion --as though it can't be can't possibly cause harm --is very harmful indeed. What you twist from the words that are said shows an incredibly poor and biased thought process and the need to defend religion.

What did I twist? Bias? I simply asked if you thought that this kind of child abuse would be prevented if everyone were atheist. It was a perfectly reasonable question since you clearly think religion is the cause.

If her Father used Scientology teachings or Muslim teachings or some new age woo to convince his daughter that this was part of some divine plan, you'd guys actually read and understand the words other people are writing and see the connection between promoting "faith" and the results it can have.

Erm...so lemme get this strait. A girl is sexually abused because people are promoting faith? So do you think that, on the basis of such cases, religion should be prohibited by law? If the guy didn't have any religious background and simply told the girl that thats how daddies loved their daughters it would still be a heinous crime. This isn't an issue of religion, its an issue of child abuse and a madman using his personal delusion as justification. Obviously the defense "god made me do it" doesn't hold up in a court of law anymore than "the devil made me" or the FSM, or the Mystical Purple Space Monkey.

Why do you think you understand analogies or logical fallacies?

Erm...the fact that I can use the word "strawman" correctly in a sentence is one reason...

Has anyone given you the impression you do. Your analogies are poor.

You took the words right out of my mouth; I was about to say the same thing of you. This would actually be funny if you were deliberately trying to be ironic. In this case its just creepy....

Religion is like racism-- it's inculcated via indoctrination and culture.

And so is any other cultural element. If this were a discussion about the indoctrination of children then your points would be well taken. The issue at hand is that a child was sexually abused by her father and he happened to do it under a delusional pretense. Whether that delusion were based off of "God told me" or a secret message he decoded from his favorite TV program is completely incidental to the fact that he is mentally ill. No one is defending him because he believes god talks to him and no court will let him off the hook because of that delusion so I'm failing to see how the alleged special status of religion was the cause of this tragedy.

Is your bias so extreme that you have to liken my words to racism?

Actually it was you who posted the preemptory defense that your statements weren't "hate speech". Clearly, on some level, you can see the clear bias in your own statements; I simply pointed out your obvious prejudice. Your statement basically boiled down to:

"This man believed he heard messages from god in his head. He sexually abused his child based on these 'messages'. Religion caused sexual abuse. Religion is evil."

One could easily see the parallels between that and the type of rationale used to justify racism or any other form of prejudice.

Plug in Scientology to the religion in question, and see just how strong your biases are as well as your knee-jerk protection for faith.

What specific "faith" was I protecting, pay tell?

There are some harms only caused by religion... that doesn't mean that all harms are caused by religion --nor does it mean that all religions are harmful nor does it mean that I think all religions are bad. Nor am I criticizing believers-- the daughter was a victim... most believers start out that way. I just think this insane covering for "faith" --as though faith is something good-- is a terrible mind virus.

I wasn't arguing whether "faith" is good or bad; I was merely pointing out the clear lack of objectivity in your statement. "Faith" is completely neutral -- the nature of what a person chooses to have faith in determines whether or not it is harmful or beneficial.

You can't really tell a mentally ill person getting messages from god from a person who actually gets messages from god from a person who is pretending to get messages to manipulate those who believe in god... and yet you cover for them all when you cover for one. There is no way for anyone to distinguish the difference.

Theres no need to "distinguish the difference". Quite frankly, whether or not he actually heard "the voice of god" is irrelevant. What he did was evil and any "god" that would tell him to do that is obviously insane and/or evil and ought not to be listened to.

All gods are subjective.

And, being subjective the particular "god" in question reflects the psychological make-up of the believer. With that said would you care to elaborate on the relevance of your statement, please?

Faith is not and never will be a means of useful knowledge. If it was good or true, it wouldn't need people trying to shut up those who notice its harms. It wouldn't need your straw man or knee jerk defense.

What does any of that have to do with child abuse?

[And FYI, you're just as irrational as any religious nut I've met so don't kid yourself]