Poster- Christianity inherently abusive

[danvillebelle]

I just read through this thread and the "buffet" one, and have pretty much the same thing to say about both.

I'm an atheist because I just can't make myself believe in anything supernatural. That doesn't affect my respect for people who believe, if they are not harming others. And the people of faith that I know are not hurting anyone with their beliefs. Atheism is not automatically the same as anti-theism.

Fundies who are harming their children, and those shoving religion into government -- that's a different story. But I don't think all of Christianity (or any other faith) should be condemned for that.

My father and my brother share your position. You expressed it very well.

[Arete]

I just read through this thread and the "buffet" one, and have pretty much the same thing to say about both.

I'm an atheist because I just can't make myself believe in anything supernatural. That doesn't affect my respect for people who believe, if they are not harming others. And the people of faith that I know are not hurting anyone with their beliefs. Atheism is not automatically the same as anti-theism.

Fundies who are harming their children, and those shoving religion into government -- that's a different story. But I don't think all of Christianity (or any other faith) should be condemned for that.

[Patsy]

I think it is and I am probably just misremembering parts.

Here is a video about the guy if anyone else is interested:

*puts cranky pants on* Here's a quote from the book:

Aggression is observed from time to time, from mild to severe (Keren [his wife at the time] witnessed a gang rape of a young unmarried girl by most of the village men). But aggression is never condoned and it is very rare.

That's it. Not even a sentence. No discussion follows, except that aggression is "never condoned" (you know, apart from the fact that MOST OF THE VILLAGE MEN banded together to pack rape a girl. But they would never condone that thing that they almost all of them did!) I haven't read the book, but you can find discussions elsewhere about the fact that there isn't a discussion about the incident. And never mind the fact that a rape, itself, would directly contradict those claims. Even without those claims, the fact that MOST OF THE MEN did this should be anthropologically interesting, right? Like, why did it happen? How did she react? No? No discussion? Just "they're totally non-violent, non-oppressive and respectful". Okay.

And there are plenty of people who don't agree with universal grammar, both refuting its claims and postulating other possible causes for the similarities, so he wasn't the first. Perhaps what he says in his books is new in the sense that it's a new approach, but he wasn't the one who broke the ground of contradicting UG itself, at least.

[zcccrv]

I just read through this thread and the "buffet" one, and have pretty much the same thing to say about both.

I'm an atheist because I just can't make myself believe in anything supernatural. That doesn't affect my respect for people who believe, if they are not harming others. And the people of faith that I know are not hurting anyone with their beliefs. Atheism is not automatically the same as anti-theism.

Fundies who are harming their children, and those shoving religion into government -- that's a different story. But I don't think all of Christianity (or any other faith) should be condemned for that.

That's the tricky territory, isn't it? I do have respect for people who believe but I don't have a lot of respect for religion. That can be difficult to navigate sometimes.

About believers not doing harm to others... I'll try one example to try and refute that claim. I will use "harm" in a broader sense. Parents who believe are more likely to raise a child that believes. Parents who don't are more likely to raise an atheist. Let's look at Kid1 and Kid2 as they grow up and start wondering if they may be wrong. Kid1 will face quite a trauma if he starts doubting his beliefs. Most people who loose their faith have a hard time in the process (the degree of course varies). Kid2 will start looking into faith and liking what it has to say. He may resent his parents denying him something so positive growing up but I don't think there is any trauma involved in finding faith. I may be wrong, that's just the impression I have. With the preposition that both sets of parents aim to raise the best adapted/happy future adult whatever his personal view on life may become, I do think that believing parents do more potential "harm" for their child.

[debrand]

*puts cranky pants on* Here's a quote from the book:

That's it. Not even a sentence. No discussion follows, except that aggression is "never condoned" (you know, apart from the fact that MOST OF THE VILLAGE MEN banded together to pack rape a girl. But they would never condone that thing that they almost all of them did!) I haven't read the book, but you can find discussions elsewhere about the fact that there isn't a discussion about the incident. And never mind the fact that a rape, itself, would directly contradict those claims. Even without those claims, the fact that MOST OF THE MEN did this should be anthropologically interesting, right? Like, why did it happen? How did she react? No? No discussion? Just "they're totally non-violent, non-oppressive and respectful". Okay.

And there are plenty of people who don't agree with universal grammar, both refuting its claims and postulating other possible causes for the similarities, so he wasn't the first. Perhaps what he says in his books is new in the sense that it's a new approach, but he wasn't the one who broke the ground of contradicting UG itself, at least.

Slightly off topic but it pisses me off so I am derailing the thread for my rant.

I've gotten the impression that past historians/anthropologists did not give a damn about women's suffering. Jewish women during the Holocaust were raped and forced into sexual slavery. That information is just now coming out. For years, there were many people who thought the Nazis didn't use rape as a way to demean their captives. Under articles about the number of women raped during war there are always a few commenters who basically ask, "Well, it is war. What do you expect?" I expect for soldiers not to torture a civilian who is happens to agree with the other side. Rape should be equated with torture.

Rant ended

[danvillebelle]

That's the tricky territory, isn't it? I do have respect for people who believe but I don't have a lot of respect for religion. That can be difficult to navigate sometimes.

About believers not doing harm to others... I'll try one example to try and refute that claim. I will use "harm" in a broader sense. Parents who believe are more likely to raise a child that believes. Parents who don't are more likely to raise an atheist. Let's look at Kid1 and Kid2 as they grow up and start wondering if they may be wrong. Kid1 will face quite a trauma if he starts doubting his beliefs. Most people who loose their faith have a hard time in the process (the degree of course varies). Kid2 will start looking into faith and liking what it has to say. He may resent his parents denying him something so positive growing up but I don't think there is any trauma involved in finding faith. I may be wrong, that's just the impression I have. With the preposition that both sets of parents aim to raise the best adapted/happy future adult whatever his personal view on life may become, I do think that believing parents do more potential "harm" for their child.

FWIW, I was kid 2, and I agree with you.

[Mama Mia]

That's the tricky territory, isn't it? I do have respect for people who believe but I don't have a lot of respect for religion. That can be difficult to navigate sometimes.

About believers not doing harm to others... I'll try one example to try and refute that claim. I will use "harm" in a broader sense. Parents who believe are more likely to raise a child that believes. Parents who don't are more likely to raise an atheist. Let's look at Kid1 and Kid2 as they grow up and start wondering if they may be wrong. Kid1 will face quite a trauma if he starts doubting his beliefs. Most people who loose their faith have a hard time in the process (the degree of course varies). Kid2 will start looking into faith and liking what it has to say. He may resent his parents denying him something so positive growing up but I don't think there is any trauma involved in finding faith. I may be wrong, that's just the impression I have. With the preposition that both sets of parents aim to raise the best adapted/happy future adult whatever his personal view on life may become, I do think that believing parents do more potential "harm" for their child.

I think that's a pretty big generalization to make. Many people lose or change faiths without it being a huge trauma, and many people who find faith as an adult become more "intense" in their religion than others - and those people sometimes tend to worry greatly about their non-believing relatives.

Also most peoples ideas and beliefs change at least somewhat over the course of their lives - the fact that those changes can sometimes be uncomfortable, or challenging to work through, doesn't mean people should be stuck in a particular mind set forever.

[OkToBeTakei]

That's the tricky territory, isn't it? I do have respect for people who believe but I don't have a lot of respect for religion. That can be difficult to navigate sometimes.

About believers not doing harm to others... I'll try one example to try and refute that claim. I will use "harm" in a broader sense. Parents who believe are more likely to raise a child that believes. Parents who don't are more likely to raise an atheist. Let's look at Kid1 and Kid2 as they grow up and start wondering if they may be wrong. Kid1 will face quite a trauma if he starts doubting his beliefs. Most people who loose their faith have a hard time in the process (the degree of course varies). Kid2 will start looking into faith and liking what it has to say. He may resent his parents denying him something so positive growing up but I don't think there is any trauma involved in finding faith. I may be wrong, that's just the impression I have. With the preposition that both sets of parents aim to raise the best adapted/happy future adult whatever his personal view on life may become, I do think that believing parents do more potential "harm" for their child.

I was Kid1 and have to say that I personally suffered no trauma at all. I would imagine I am not unique. From the other aspect I would imagine that somebody who finds faith might actually be traumatised at the thought that they lived their life in a different manner before.

Horses for courses.

[France Nolan]

I was never really traumatized by my faith. My parents are liberal Christians and although we are Christians, our entire lives don't center around our church or God. I know, I know, the Maxwells would be so disappointed. When I walk through Target I think about things other than Jesus.

In my church doubting and questioning your beliefs is okay and even something that's encouraged. Questioning can lead to a deeper understanding of God and a better relationship with Him. Or it could lead you to renounce your beliefs, which is also okay.

I don't know. I don't see my belief in God as a big deal. It's part of who I am and what I do, but it doesn't define me.

[2xx1xy1JD]

That's the tricky territory, isn't it? I do have respect for people who believe but I don't have a lot of respect for religion. That can be difficult to navigate sometimes.

About believers not doing harm to others... I'll try one example to try and refute that claim. I will use "harm" in a broader sense. Parents who believe are more likely to raise a child that believes. Parents who don't are more likely to raise an atheist. Let's look at Kid1 and Kid2 as they grow up and start wondering if they may be wrong. Kid1 will face quite a trauma if he starts doubting his beliefs. Most people who loose their faith have a hard time in the process (the degree of course varies). Kid2 will start looking into faith and liking what it has to say. He may resent his parents denying him something so positive growing up but I don't think there is any trauma involved in finding faith. I may be wrong, that's just the impression I have. With the preposition that both sets of parents aim to raise the best adapted/happy future adult whatever his personal view on life may become, I do think that believing parents do more potential "harm" for their child.

Having known people who have gone both ways, I'd say that it really depends on the personalities involved, the parent-child relationship and the exact nature of the commitment to either religious belief or atheism.

I didn't experience any real trauma when I became more religious than my agnostic/atheist mother - but my close relationship with my parents is somewhat unusual for a BT (newly religious Jew). For me, it wasn't like I suddenly took on hard-core observance overnight, and I was in my 30s by the time we announced that we were keeping Shabbat (the Sabbath) and keeping kosher (the no bacon and shrimp dietary laws). For my mom (and my sister), she may not personally have a belief in God, but she is committed to Judaism and a very strong advocate of religious tolerance and freedom of religion. We have love and respect for each other, we have some good-natured discussions and debates, but nobody is trying to change the other person and we don't see lack of agreement as a sign of rejection or lack of love.

I know others who have had a much rockier time. In those cases, the changes were more abrupt, and often occurred in late teen/early 20s - right around the time that people are usually struggling to define their independence from parents. Parents were more rigid in their views (whether religious or atheist), and had a really negative view of those with the opposite beliefs. Taking on different beliefs was seen as a personal rejection of the parents. There wasn't any real respect for boundaries.

[zcccrv]

So you guys think that the potential for trauma is roughly the same in the two cases? I still, I have to say, think it is less in an atheist family. If for no other reason because there is no real upbringing going on that is directly tied to atheism. No rituals, no rules, no built-in community. The non-belief doesn't come up too often in everyday life- the opportunity to tie it in with everyday situations arises less often. I would think that atheism is on average significantly less present in teaching the decision making process to a child than religion is.

When a young adult looses faith he is loosing something; when the other one finds it, he is gaining something. That's how I look at it.

[dawbs]

In a way, I can see the gaining/loosing.

But from experience? You loose something when you gain faith too. You loose certainties , you loose some of your family's familiarity to you, you loose freedoms, you loose cultural heritage and identity--those things aren't purely religious items (although plenty of fundies of various flavors think they are).

Mr. Dawbs (who grew up, essentially w/o religion) has had at least as much stress in the move toward faith and the move back out of faith as I have had in my movements out o the fundie-lite I was brought up in.

[zcccrv]

In a way, I can see the gaining/loosing.

But from experience? You loose something when you gain faith too. You loose certainties , you loose some of your family's familiarity to you, you loose freedoms, you loose cultural heritage and identity--those things aren't purely religious items (although plenty of fundies of various flavors think they are).

Mr. Dawbs (who grew up, essentially w/o religion) has had at least as much stress in the move toward faith and the move back out of faith as I have had in my movements out o the fundie-lite I was brought up in.

Why do you think you loose certainties and freedoms, if you could elaborate? I myself don't feel like I have many certainties in life so I don't know if there would be anything to loose in that respect.

Freedoms should theoretically not change in the process of de/conversion. You wouldn't want to accept something new if it means you loose your freedoms. Or should I say, if you would want to limit yourself that means you probably have ulterior motives: perhaps limiting the freedoms of others as well or having a useful bargaining tool in a power motivated relationship.

[dawbs]

Why do you think you loose certainties and freedoms, if you could elaborate? I myself don't feel like I have many certainties in life so I don't know if there would be anything to loose in that respect.

Freedoms should theoretically not change in the process of de/conversion. You wouldn't want to accept something new if it means you loose your freedoms. Or should I say, if you would want to limit yourself that means you probably have ulterior motives: perhaps limiting the freedoms of others as well or having a useful bargaining tool in a power motivated relationship.

I honestly don't see how freedoms could stay the same in the process of conversion, jut because conversion makes one subject to arbitrary, faith-based rules.

All faiths have rules that, even as liberal and open minded as they can be, limit what one is 'allowed' to do. I don't at all wish to speak the BS that atheists are innately immoral, it's just that atheists will have fewer just plain arbitrary rules.

People I know who have gone from atheist to faithful (excuse the clumsiness of those descriptors--I don't have a better shorthand for it) generally move from a mindset where they are the arbiters of what is right and wrong to having to cede at least some of that power to others--and I see that as a loss of freedom.

Most of the atheists I've known who 'find faith' also have brand new things to worry about...which is what I"m thinking of w/ certainties.

Part of this may be because most of those I know who went through a conversion process didn't tend toward 'spiritual', but questions like "are human beings innately good or innately evil?" and "what is the age of accountability" and "what about those who live good lives in another faith" are questions that often don't exist outside of religion.

There are questions that are out there, along those lines, both within and outside of religion, but for a lot of people, they at least feel a lot more relevant to day-to-day life within the scope of religion.

(And I"m sorry, I don't feel I'm describing this well at ALL. I'm going to blame it on being in that state if irritatingly hungry, waiting for my relief to show up so I can take my damn lunch break )

[France Nolan]

So you guys think that the potential for trauma is roughly the same in the two cases? I still, I have to say, think it is less in an atheist family. If for no other reason because there is no real upbringing going on that is directly tied to atheism. No rituals, no rules, no built-in community. The non-belief doesn't come up too often in everyday life- the opportunity to tie it in with everyday situations arises less often. I would think that atheism is on average significantly less present in teaching the decision making process to a child than religion is.

When a young adult looses faith he is loosing something; when the other one finds it, he is gaining something. That's how I look at it.

Not necessarily true. There are some people I know who were raised in atheist households and now belong to various religions. Some of them met stiff resistance from their families, and a few are no longer on speaking terms with their parents. You mentioned that your brother's families raises their kids without religion. What happens if twenty years from now one of the kids comes home and says that they've decided to become religious?

As 2xx said, when someone changes religions or becomes religious it can be seen as rejecting the person's parents and the way the parents' raised him/her. The trauma has more to do with poor boundaries than it does with religion.

[2xx1xy1JD]

So you guys think that the potential for trauma is roughly the same in the two cases? I still, I have to say, think it is less in an atheist family. If for no other reason because there is no real upbringing going on that is directly tied to atheism. No rituals, no rules, no built-in community. The non-belief doesn't come up too often in everyday life- the opportunity to tie it in with everyday situations arises less often. I would think that atheism is on average significantly less present in teaching the decision making process to a child than religion is.

When a young adult looses faith he is loosing something; when the other one finds it, he is gaining something. That's how I look at it.

It really depends on the exact nature of the religious family or atheist family.

My maternal grandmother, for example, was involved with a group called the UJPO (basically, Jewish Communists). While there wasn't a literal belief in a deity, there was very much a sense of community and organization and ideology.

There can also be a sense of loss if someone loses social connections, or is no longer able to do the same things. If you had a group of friends that you would regularly meet at the pub or bar, that activity may no longer be an option if you become Mormon or Muslim.

With a very insular and/or intense religious family, though, you are right that loss of community is often a really big issue.

[zcccrv]

You mentioned that your brother's families raises their kids without religion. What happens if twenty years from now one of the kids comes home and says that they've decided to become religious?

Yes, well, my sister and brother in law. If the kids decide to become religious that's their choice and it won't impact the core of the relationship at all. I'm actually really proud of that aspect of their child rearing (I also spend A LOT of time with those kids so they are partly mine :)).

Where I live religious classes exist in school. You can opt out if you want to but there is no organized school activity at the same time so you're left with reading books in the library. There are 1-3 kids (from 25-30) in each class that don't attend. My older nephew never attended and he was happy as a clam to spend the time in the library. It suits his personality to read in solitude. My younger niece was quite unhappy with the setup. She wanted to go and experience what everybody else gets to. So she now prays with the rest of the kids and attends regularly. I like that she is exposed to it and gets to see for herself what religion is all about. I'm skeptical that it will make a believer out of her but if it does- so be it.

[zcccrv]

...generally move from a mindset where they are the arbiters of what is right and wrong to having to cede at least some of that power to others--and I see that as a loss of freedom.

I tend to think that the society is always at the core of what's right or wrong. For religious and non religious alike. Atheists who are the same time decent people tend to be quite active in issues like minority rights and equality because they take full responsibility for their moral estimates. It doesn't mean we think we are 100% correct all the time but it means that we think that best social results come when more people take full responsibility for themselves. It's easier to asses the opinions and weigh them against each other that way.

...questions like "are human beings innately good or innately evil?" and "what is the age of accountability" and "what about those who live good lives in another faith" are questions that often don't exist outside of religion.

I would say those questions certainly exist outside of religion. I ask them myself and I'm an atheist.

(And I"m sorry, I don't feel I'm describing this well at ALL. I'm going to blame it on being in that state if irritatingly hungry, waiting for my relief to show up so I can take my damn lunch break )

That's perfectly understandable. :)

[dawbs]

mulling this a bit more--now that I'm not Hangry at the world--I'm fairly sure there's a degree of confirmation bias in my 'samples'.

The athiests who have turned faithful are, not surprisingly, introspective and interested in facets of religion.

The faithful I know who have eschewed all religion tend to be those who are asking those same questions from the opposite end.

(still struggling to make those thoughts into words and not hand-waving. Which usually means I haven't finished thinking it through well :))

I do think that some of the big questions take on a bit more urgency when confronted from a place of faith (not that "how do we feed the starving people of the world" isn't an urgent question--in some ways, moreso, from a point where there isn't afterlife but because it's a question that will always carry with it a burden of certain failure--no one expects to be able to save everyone)--just because the looming prospects of what happens to those around you is colured differently when an afterlife is part of the equation.

[Boogalou]

*puts cranky pants on* Here's a quote from the book:

That's it. Not even a sentence. No discussion follows, except that aggression is "never condoned" (you know, apart from the fact that MOST OF THE VILLAGE MEN banded together to pack rape a girl. But they would never condone that thing that they almost all of them did!) I haven't read the book, but you can find discussions elsewhere about the fact that there isn't a discussion about the incident. And never mind the fact that a rape, itself, would directly contradict those claims. Even without those claims, the fact that MOST OF THE MEN did this should be anthropologically interesting, right? Like, why did it happen? How did she react? No? No discussion? Just "they're totally non-violent, non-oppressive and respectful". Okay.

And there are plenty of people who don't agree with universal grammar, both refuting its claims and postulating other possible causes for the similarities, so he wasn't the first. Perhaps what he says in his books is new in the sense that it's a new approach, but he wasn't the one who broke the ground of contradicting UG itself, at least.

I snipped the giant quote tree, btw.

The guy who wrote this book, from what I am reading online, isn't really an anthropologist, he's a linguist and that was the main focus of the book, as far as I recall. However, he obviously should not claim a culture that includes gang rape is non-violent, non-oppressive and respectful. I think a lot of people fall into thinking that some "remote" and "primitive" cultures are somehow better in certain ways than "the west" when really, most people and cultures have their "problems" (sorry for all the scare quotes, but I'm being too lazy to think of better words). But, anyway, I agree with all the points you made. He was by no means the first to refute universal grammar, and I don't know enough about the arguments against it to know if he made a unique one. I think what made his argument unique though was his study of Piraha, as far as I know no non-native speaker of Piraha has ever really discussed it. Actually, I would be surprised if there were any other non-native speakers of it.

[Arete]

I tend to give an automatic side eye to single individuals who come out with claims that they found a remote culture and it's Shangra-La. :shrug:

[RosyDaisy]

I think that's a pretty big generalization to make. Many people lose or change faiths without it being a huge trauma

:agree: I was raised in the Church of Christ. When I decided to leave the church for a more liberal one, it wasn't a huge trauma. My family didn't condemn me, shun me, or tell me I was going to Hell. That is partly due to the fact that in my family we stick by each other no matter what, and partly because what was preached in the church wasn't always practiced at home.

[Mama Mia]

So you guys think that the potential for trauma is roughly the same in the two cases? I still, I have to say, think it is less in an atheist family. If for no other reason because there is no real upbringing going on that is directly tied to atheism. No rituals, no rules, no built-in community. The non-belief doesn't come up too often in everyday life- the opportunity to tie it in with everyday situations arises less often. I would think that atheism is on average significantly less present in teaching the decision making process to a child than religion is.

When a young adult looses faith he is loosing something; when the other one finds it, he is gaining something. That's how I look at it.

I think athiest parents / relatives can have a tendency to look down upon a child who grows up to become religious or marries a religious person. There can be a sort of snotty, more intellectual than thou snarkiness that can be very discouraging for the religious person. Jokes made about religion, snide comments if the religious person wants to pray before eating, etc. etc....

Not all of course, but I have definitely seen it first hand.

[zcccrv]

I think athiest parents / relatives can have a tendency to look down upon a child who grows up to become religious or marries a religious person. There can be a sort of snotty, more intellectual than thou snarkiness that can be very discouraging for the religious person. Jokes made about religion, snide comments if the religious person wants to pray before eating, etc. etc....

Not all of course, but I have definitely seen it first hand.

Sure, I agree with that. On the other hand, do jokes about religion become taboo in the company of religious? It's important to know a person well enough to know when to (not) get offended but I joke about religion with my religious friends all the time and it doesn't bother them. If I go overboard with my zeal for blowing of steam (religion is also a big factor in politics where i live) I will be called extremist. I also don't get offended. I don't know if there is anything I could say (or they could say) that could be considered crossing the line. Because I understand their starting point is very different and so do they for mine.

Can we perhaps agree that the family and community can cause trouble in both de/conversion cases but the act itself, just speaking of the individual going through the process, is easier for the person gaining the faith rather then for the one loosing it?

[Mama Mia]

Sure, I agree with that. On the other hand, do jokes about religion become taboo in the company of religious? It's important to know a person well enough to know when to (not) get offended but I joke about religion with my religious friends all the time and it doesn't bother them. If I go overboard with my zeal for blowing of steam (religion is also a big factor in politics where i live) I will be called extremist. I also don't get offended. I don't know if there is anything I could say (or they could say) that could be considered crossing the line. Because I understand their starting point is very different and so do they for mine.

Can we perhaps agree that the family and community can cause trouble in both de/conversion cases but the act itself, just speaking of the individual going through the process, is easier for the person gaining the faith rather then for the one loosing it?

I really don't know why that would necessarily be true though ? I'm trying to understand your thought process here - but I'm not seeing why it would be easier to gain religion than to lose religion. For one thing, if you are joining a church and have never been exposed to religion - wouldn't you feel awkward and out of place for not knowing the culture ? I know we talk all the time about how at least in the U.S. Christianity is everywhere and it is the expected thing to be - but if you've never been and don't understand the customs or anything I think it could be very awkward.

I think joking about religion with friends is probably not going to cause problems, or joking about religion with family members who follow your own general belief system - but if you throw in family dynamics and a newly religious person- there could be problems.