Tuesday, July 24, 2007

This is what happens when you brain rape children

Take a look at this poor kid.



Now, I recognise that a simple reaction is to hate and ridicule him. But let's be honest. He's too young and certainly to ill educated form his own opinion. In fact, he states clearly that he's been educated by Kent Hovind.

Any atheists watching this know immediately what I am talking about when I refer to the religious abuse of children by indoctrination - and no, I am not talking of the Catholic Church's payment methods for their unquenchable thirst for child sex slaves. I'm talking about the abuse of the mind.

Now theists, this kid is suffering from the abuse we talk about. He's got no idea of what he's talking about and such a passionate belief, almost certainly based on fear, that erupts into hatred and virtually assures he will spend his whole life under the yoke of barbarous ideas with his ability to think critically well and truly switched off. Do you see what we mean when we refer to child indoctrination as abuse?

Most theists at this point will probably be in agreement that this kid is abused but will be saying "But I wasn't abused like that, religion has been good for me". The truth is that if you were indoctrinated as a child then you simply aren't aware of the balkanising effects it has had on you and the large spanner that has been firmly lodged in the working of your critical faculties - just as this kid isn't.

I hope that some of you will at least think about whether or not I have a point.

End the indoctrination of children now. Let them learn enough about the world to choose their own beliefs once they are mature enough to do so. If you really have faith in the truth of your position then what do you have to fear by letting them mature enough to understand it before forcing it upon them?

(Hat Tip: Atheist Perspective)

If you enjoyed this article please feel free to digg it down below.

11 comments:

MothandRust said...

Holy crap. that's one scary kid! "God has such a great reward for you... after you die" - pmsl.

"I will take away your comments". So much christian love in those endearing words of warning to love god or else!

Drugs? Or a gallon of 7-11 slurpy syrup?

Rhology said...

A YouTube vid of a socially awkward kid - down with Christianity! How'd he be different if he were atheist? He actually sounds quite a lot like the "Rational" Response Squad, from my side, just FYI.

Maybe he'd be wearing more black if he were an atheist. Instead of bizarrely-stated near-approximations of Christian doctrine, he'd be saying stuff like "Hey Christians, your life has no meaning. Just drop it, K? When you guys scoff at us and you make fun of us, you're proving that we've got the right idea and the right system."

As for "indoctrination", NOT giving kids guidance about what to believe IS giving them guidance.

chooseDoubt said...

How would he be different if he were an atheist?

Let’s see.

He’d have a better knowledge of evolution.
He’d understand that Kent Hovind is an inveterate liar.
He would have no belief in hell.
He’d not hate atheists.
He’d have at least a rudimentary understanding of reason, logic, science and history.
He wouldn’t be convinced that he is constantly spied on by an invisible dictator.
He wouldn’t be convinced that victimless crimes deserve and require eternal punishment.
He wouldn’t grow up to be extremely likely to abuse his own children similarly.
He would credit reason above superstition.
He would be less likely to divorce when older.
He would be less likely to be involved in a teen pregnancy, contract a STD, commit violent crimes, spend time in prison, burn books, deny others the right of free speech, and judge based on Bronze Age myth.

I’m sure the list could go on and on, but a lot of it would become more personal and less specific. Since I don’t actually know the kid I don’t think I can get too personal.

And what a huge surprise that in your thinking Christianity clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with this kid’s pure Christian ranting. I’m of course certain that Christianity has had absolutely nothing to do with all Christian atrocities through out history, right, and that that whole witch burning phase for example was purely down to Jain infiltrators and had nothing at all to do with what it says in the Bible, right?

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear. Spanner alert! But of course, you are incapable of hearing it.

Rhology said...

He’d have a better knowledge of evolution.
And maybe he'd think the earth is flat too.

He’d understand that Kent Hovind is an inveterate liar.
But he wouldn't have am objective reason to think that being an inveterate liar is bad.

He would have no belief in hell.
Or, like it was for me, hell would be on earth.

He’d not hate atheists.
He might hate Christians. Worse, he'd have no overarching reason not to do so.

He’d have at least a rudimentary understanding of reason, logic, science and history.
If he goes to public skrewel, not even atheism might be able to save him.

He wouldn’t be convinced that he is constantly spied on by an invisible dictator.
Which he might or might not like, but again would have no reason to say it's bad beyond personal preference.

He wouldn’t be convinced that victimless crimes deserve and require eternal punishment.
B/c to him, there is no crime beyond violating personal preference.

He wouldn’t grow up to be extremely likely to abuse his own children similarly.
That is, assuming he grew up to learn to beg questions like this one.

He would credit reason above superstition.
See previous.

He would be less likely to divorce when older.
Not if he were a real Christian rather than a hypocrite nominal one.

He would be less likely to be involved in a teen pregnancy, contract a STD, commit violent crimes, spend time in prison,
See previous.

burn books

B/c Stalin, Mao, Hitler and Pol Pot never did that either.

deny others the right of free speech

See previous.

judge based on Bronze Age myth.

See note on question-begging.


Since I don’t actually know the kid I don’t think I can get too personal.

Yeah, you wouldn't want to make any huge unwarranted leaps to a conclusion.



Christianity clearly has nothing whatsoever to do with this kid’s pure Christian ranting.

If I knew him I'd try to disciple him to be much more measured and thoughtful, but overall you're in the wrong.



I'm sure that Christianity has had absolutely nothing to do with all Christian atrocities through out history, right, and that that whole witch burning phase for example was purely down to Jain infiltrators and had nothing at all to do with what it says in the Bible, right?

Jain? No, but certainly the 'false brethren' alluded to in the Bible, etc.
But maybe you could help - go ahead and point out some psg in the Bible that could legitimately, in context, be seen to support
these atrocities to which you refer. You've not impressed me in the past w/ your exegetical skillz, but you can redeem yourself here.

Peace,
Rhology

chooseDoubt said...

Hi Rhology,

Flat Earth? I’ll let it go. We have more interesting things to discuss.

Burn books – Hitler, Stalin, Mao, blah blah blah.

Hitler was catholic, but that’s really beside the point. All of the named madmen championed a dogma, so weather they were theists or not is beside the point since it is the dogma in religion that makes it so dangerous. I’d really recommend getting a copy of “God Is Not Great” by Christopher Hitchens out from the local library. Effective commentary on this topic starts from Chapter 17. I know you don’t want to read this stuff, as like you said about Dawkins that you can promise you won’t be wasting your time on it. But to be honest, it’s going to be much quicker for you to read their books than it’s going to be to debate me and I am certainly influenced by Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Russell, and so on. I disagree with your stance also, but I’m reading up on it.

As for the passages that support atrocities, let’s schedule a complete discussion on that. I’d also like to talk about what makes you so sure that you are not the “false brethren” and why you are so sure that the Pope is demonic. But really, having described yourself as a Calvinist are you really sure you want to go into atrocity territory? Calvin was an ardent believer that Exodus 22:18 and Leviticus 20:27 should be put into practice and then there’s the whole torture thing.

I know that’s not the modern Calvinist view, but the bible hasn’t changed so why has the opinion? Calvin was wrong but you’re a Calvinist, Was Calvin “false brethren”?

Peace,

CD

Rhology said...

Hey CD,

There are reasons I restrict what takes up my time. I read reviews, and when I read reviews like this one and then read Hitchens debate an at least halfway-knowledgeable Christian and get clobbered, I figure he's not worth my time.

Hitler was catholic,

Real Catholics don't write books detailing how they're going to destroy the Christian church like Hitler did. Since you like atheist novels so much, give Mein Kampf a try.

All of the named madmen championed a dogma, so weather they were theists or not is beside the point since it is the dogma in religion that makes it so dangerous.

Which makes little sense since these guys were all atheists. But sure, it's the dogma IN RELIGION that makes it so dangerous.

I am certainly influenced by Hitchens, Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, Russell, and so on

I can tell.

As for the passages that support atrocities, let’s schedule a complete discussion on that. I’d also like to talk about what makes you so sure that you are not the “false brethren” and why you are so sure that the Pope is demonic.

I'd be more than happy to. You're a fun guy to talk to, no doubt at all.

having described yourself as a Calvinist are you really sure you want to go into atrocity territory?

My only restriction on topics of discussion is a topic that would waste time w/o producing anything worthwhile. Bubble gum flavors is an example. That's probably not up your alley. :-D

Calvin was an ardent believer that Exodus 22:18 and Leviticus 20:27 should be put into practice and then there’s the whole torture thing.

He may have been (I'm no scholar on Calvin) but we could talk about that a bit as well.

I know that’s not the modern Calvinist view, but the bible hasn’t changed so why has the opinion? Calvin was wrong but you’re a Calvinist, Was Calvin “false brethren”?

True, the Bible has not changed. But just b/c the Bible doesn't change and is w/o error doesn't mean the people reading it are automatically error-free.
If he believed like you say, he's wrong and I'd be happy to explain why.
Calvin was not a false brother - teaching the wrong thing about Exodus 22:18 and Lev 20:27 is not what disqualifies someone from saving faith in Christ.

Peace,
Rhology

chooseDoubt said...

Hi Rhology,

Nothing more than an argument from ignorance. That’s why I recommend you read Hitchens amongst others, but best to start with Dawkins and learn a little about evolution.

What you don’t seem to understand is that much of what you say is just regurgitated mind-wash that is firmly refuted by the facts. Evolution is fact. Will you study it to find out if that’s true or not? No, of course not, because you’ve got the short cut which makes you so much wiser than the many thousands of highly educated, diligently honest, peer reviewed scientists publishing actual evidence and their all wrong. Every scientific discovery is just wrong, and you know this thanks to???

Thanks to nothing, that’s what.

You’ll sit there trying to use the internet to spread your ignorance utterly unaware that the very science that makes it work proves you ignorant and disproves most of what you consider your wisdom. It’s ridiculous really. And in all the time we’ve spoken you’ve not offered one shred of evidence to your side. Nothing!

You’ve got nothing in support of your position against what you claim to be a bible without error. How long did that flood last again?

Peace,

CD

Rhology said...

Hi CD,

Nothing more than an argument from ignorance.

Yes, it's obvious to everyone.

That’s why I recommend you read Hitchens amongst others, but best to start with Dawkins and learn a little about evolution.

I'm in the middle of Gee's _In Search of Deep Time_ right now.

Evolution is fact.

You are proving to be very fond of assertion contests. They're not worth much.
But OK, I'll play.
ChooseDoubt is a caterpillar who has learned to type somehow.
Wow, that was easy! I'll bet I can make bald assertions all day long!

Will you study it to find out if that’s true or not? No, of course not,

Of course not. In fact, I'm actually NOT reading a book about it right now.

You know, you typed all that out and actually responded to NOTHING I said. This comment is exactly what I mean when I say that your emotion gets in the way of your reasoning too often. It shows in your highly emotive "Faith is a disease" monologue in your "About Me" display. It is showing more and more as I challenge your groundless assertions. You keep going at this rate and you'll hardly be stringing two sentences together in a few weeks. Not b/c of anythg I've done really, but b/c you just can't STAND being challenged by some stupid ignorant moron fundy. It's amazing to watch.

Peace,
Rhology

Anonymous said...

Rhology

You seriously need to get a good college education some day. Your thoughts are those of a very uneducated person.

Rhology said...

Anon,

I'd have to pass 10th grade first.

Anonymous said...

rhology

I think passing the 10th grade would be a serious challenge for you.

See if you set your sights on something a little less frightening, like first grade.