Dawkins: 'being Raised Catholic Is Worse Than Child Abuse'

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I've seen dawkins on msnbc before, these statements of his are about all catholics.  I mean the stuff he was saying on there made the extremely liberal host uncomfortable and the show was about religion and atheism.  if you can make an msnbc uncomfortable with your language about religion then you know your way out there.

 

The host was uncomfortable because he was born and raised Catholic. As a non-Catholic, Dawkins didn't say anything that offensive. He's done much worse.

Edited June 17, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Gabriela]

I wouldn't classify Dawkins as militant, he doesn't use weapons to hurt anyone.

 

With regards to saying that raising children as Roman Catholics is worse that child abuse, well it seems an overstatement.

But I guess given the example he has provided then in the woman's experience it was, she experienced both, so she qualifies to make a statement like that.

 

If Dawkins was generalising then it is quite a statment to make, but I assue "in context" he was talking about this woman in particular rather than stating for all children raised as Roman Catholics.

 

The idea of hell is ridiculous, a supposidly loving god sending people to hell for eternal torture... I can see why many Christians interprete hell to be something other than that. An SDA "friend" of mine said that hell is a lake of fire and at the time of judgment his god would ressurect all people's who ever walked the earth, would then tell the non believers and those that believed in the wrong god/s that they were wrong and then throw them all (billions of them) into the lake of fire where they would die a second death, witnessed by those that picked the right god to believe in. He told me not to worry, that the second death would be painless, I told him that if what he says is true then his god is a monster and he is no different to those crazy arabs that chop people's heads off on tv and scream out "God is great, long live allah".

 

I don't know what Catholics believe with regards to hell, but the concept is really problematic.

 

God does not send people to hell. People send themselves to hell. In fact, some people are already in hell here on earth. Hell is nothing but separation from God. God invites every single one of us to spend eternity with Him. If we reject that invitation, God permits us to go to hell. Would you rather God force the refuser against his will to spend eternity in Heaven with God?

 

No one knows "which direction" anyone goes immediately upon death. We can only know that a person has reached Heaven when there are clear signs (like miraculous healings after praying to a particular deceased person). The absence of signs does not indicate that the person is in hell. Thus, we can never know if someone is in hell, though we can know if someone has arrived in Heaven. And just because a person was a huge saint (or hugely evil) on earth does not necessarily indicate to us where the person ended up after death. We can never know what was in a person's heart. Only God can know that.

 

Given these truths, what that woman's family said to her was just flat-out arrogant. When you consider that the deceased was also a child... Outrageous. If Dawkins knew the first thing about Catholicism, he would know that. I know of no Catholic family that would ever presume to say such a hateful thing.

[Gabriela]

I wouldn't classify Dawkins as militant, he doesn't use weapons to hurt anyone.

 

With regards to saying that raising children as Roman Catholics is worse that child abuse, well it seems an overstatement.

But I guess given the example he has provided then in the woman's experience it was, she experienced both, so she qualifies to make a statement like that.

 

If Dawkins was generalising then it is quite a statment to make, but I assue "in context" he was talking about this woman in particular rather than stating for all children raised as Roman Catholics.

 

The idea of hell is ridiculous, a supposidly loving god sending people to hell for eternal torture... I can see why many Christians interprete hell to be something other than that. An SDA "friend" of mine said that hell is a lake of fire and at the time of judgment his god would ressurect all people's who ever walked the earth, would then tell the non believers and those that believed in the wrong god/s that they were wrong and then throw them all (billions of them) into the lake of fire where they would die a second death, witnessed by those that picked the right god to believe in. He told me not to worry, that the second death would be painless, I told him that if what he says is true then his god is a monster and he is no different to those crazy arabs that chop people's heads off on tv and scream out "God is great, long live allah".

 

I don't know what Catholics believe with regards to hell, but the concept is really problematic.

 

God does not send people to hell. People send themselves to hell. In fact, some people are already in hell here on earth. Hell is nothing but separation from God. God invites every single one of us to spend eternity with Him. If we reject that invitation, God permits us to go to hell. Would you rather God force the refuser against his will to spend eternity in Heaven with God?

 

No one knows "which direction" anyone goes immediately upon death. We can only know that a person has reached Heaven when there are clear signs (like miraculous healings after praying to a particular deceased person). The absence of signs does not indicate that the person is in hell. Thus, we can never know if someone is in hell, though we can know if someone has arrived in Heaven. And just because a person was a huge saint (or hugely evil) on earth does not necessarily indicate to us where the person ended up after death. We can never know what was in a person's heart. Only God can know that.

 

Given these truths, what that woman's family said to her was just flat-out arrogant. When you consider that the deceased was also a child... Outrageous. If Dawkins knew the first thing about Catholicism, he would know that. I know of no Catholic family that would ever presume to say such a hateful thing.

 

Shame on you, Catholic PMers, for letting this:

 

I don't know what Catholics believe with regards to hell, but the concept is really problematic.

 

sit for FOUR DAYS without a response! 

 

;-)

[Gabriela]

Sorry about the DP. PM is super wonky tonight...

[havok579257]

The host was uncomfortable because he was born and raised Catholic. As a non-Catholic, Dawkins didn't say anything that offensive. He's done much worse.

 

 

I guess for me when someone attacks the real presence in communion the way he did, thats offensive.  I guess maybe not to you when someone mocks our faith and the Lords body.

Edited June 19, 2013 by havok579257

[Byzantine]

1. The kid's parents' theology was bad and they should feel bad.

2. I'm going to let my kids (if I ever have any) play with matches so they can find out for themselves whether it's a bad idea.

Edited June 19, 2013 by Byzantine

[photosynthesis]

Dawkins' words are an insult to people who have suffered real child abuse.  

 

This young child's parents were stupid to tell her that her Protestant friend is in Hell.  Yes, there is no salvation outside the Catholic Church in that everyone who has the Beatific Vision certainly will be Catholic.  But we do not know how deep or how wide God's mercy goes and there is no way to definitively say where someone is after they die, unless they make it through the canonization process :)

 

 

[CatholicsAreKewl]

I guess for me when someone attacks the real presence in communion the way he did, thats offensive.  I guess maybe not to you when someone mocks our faith and the Lords body.

 

What exactly did he say that was so offensive? Was it that the belief of transubstantiation is ludicrous? it's not that offensive. You called it "hate speech". I fail to see how it could be. 

Edited June 19, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[Luigi]

Dawkins, for all his education, has made the most basic of logical errors. He has taken one case, one example, and made it a generalization. It's the same as me saying, "A Black guy robbed me; therefore, all Black guys rob people." 

 

If Dawksing were to say that, he'd be laughed off the planet. But he's talking about Catholics, so people swallow his illogicality hook, line, and sinker. If he were to make similarly baseless generalizations about scientists (or any other group than religious believers), the false logic would be obvious. People don't see the false logic because they want to believe what he's spewing as truth. 

[DiscerningCatholic]

Before y'all get riled up, remember that this comes from the guy who says that an unborn human fetus is less human than a baby pig. 

 

So...yeah. Intelligence does not run high with this man.

Edited June 19, 2013 by DiscerningCatholic

[DiscerningCatholic]

Why did he choose Catholicism as akin to child abuse? What about Islamic cultures where girls' genitalia are mutilated or women are raised to see themselves as less than men...where homosexuals are stoned in the streets, and victims of raped are blamed?

 

Please note - I understand that plenty of Muslims don't adhere to these practices, but if Mr. Dawkins here is going to make such a sweeping generalization of Catholicism, why is he ignoring the practices carried out by Islamic cultures? In fact, not just Catholicism has theology on Hell, other faiths do too, so why only Catholicism?

 

Because if he said something like that about Islam, he'd get blown up. The chances of something like that happening is far lower if you insult Catholics.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Because if he said something like that about Islam, he'd get blown up. The chances of something like that happening is far lower if you insult Catholics.

Like I said earlier, I don't think this is true about Dawkins. He just seems to know a lot less about Islam.

 

“Haven’t read Koran so couldn’t quote chapter and verse like I can for Bible. But [I] often say Islam [is the] greatest force for evil today.”

Richard Dawkins

Edited June 19, 2013 by CatholicsAreKewl

[DiscerningCatholic]

“Haven’t read Koran so couldn’t quote chapter and verse out of context like I can for Bible. 

 

Fixed it.

[CatholicsAreKewl]

Fixed it.

 

Lol

[BG45]

I vehemently disagree with Dr. Dawkins on pretty much all matters of religion and find his statements, made after an anecdotal story of one woman's experience, to be completely off base and reprehensible.  

 

That said, I do somewhat respect him on two primary things:

 

1)  His work in evolutionary biology is phenomenal.  We wouldn't even have the concept of the extended phenotype without him.  (Still trying to figure out how this makes him an expert in metaphysics though...)

 

2)  While he is prone to making baseless sweeping generalizations like the awful one in this thread, he's nowhere as angry or encouraging anger as his fellow well known New Atheist, PZ Myers, whom you all may remember from his "Eucharistic Desecration Challenge".  From what I recall, even Dawkins found that to be in the poorest taste; it's one thing to deny someone's God exists, it's another line entirely to Dawkins, to desecrate what people believe is God made Flesh and post the desecration to YouTube.  He's outright denied the Eucharist, saying about the Body and Blood, "the dotty idea that a priest, by blessing bread and wine, can transform it literally into a cannibal feast."  

 

However, no matter his level of vitriol, even he draws a line against physical desecration of the Body of Christ. Does it offend me he disrespects and denies the Eucharist?  Definitely, it makes me angry as well as sad for him, but I do find that he's a better man than PZ Myers for being unwilling to desecrate the Eucharist physically or encourage others to do so.  

 

 

I don't have kids. I can't really make a claim one way or the other. I have a feeling the kids will tend to adopt the parents' views on religion. 

Ditto on not having kids.  However, most of the people I grew up with did as you said and adopted their parents' faiths, though most left said faith as well.  Something I've always found interesting in my journey into Catholicism is people who "revert" to the Catholic faith after leaving and how it usually involves a moment similar to Protestants/Evangelicals "being Saved", a moment where someone acknowledges Jesus for themselves, because of their own belief, and not that of their parents.  Most Baptists I know who still practice have had two such moments, the first when they were little and doing it because it was expected by their parents that they would adopt their faith and the second time when they actually meant it, by embracing the faith for themselves.

 

It's something I'd love to be able to hear about from Dawkins actually, because the process for embracing atheism is often similar.  It happens while a teen or early adult most often and is a conscious decision to declare God (or gods) does not exist; the decision being grounded in argument with some emotional force acting as an additional agent.  When I see someone as evangelical about Atheism as Professor Dawkins, or the late Christopher Hitchens, or PZ Myers, it makes me wonder what emotionally is providing the sustaining fire for that level of proselytizing against religion?