The God Delusion on More 4

MagicMarker

storm2811 wrote: »

It has many benefits,it's cleaner,therefore less prone to infection,many men have problems with their foreskin when they're older and need to circumcised anyway and it actually reduces the risk of STDs in men.

Yes, many men NEED to be circumcised. The ones who don't have problems with cleanliness, infection etc, don't.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone with a normal functioning foreskin to be circumcised.

storm2811

MagicMarker wrote: »

Yes, many men NEED to be circumcised. The ones who don't have problems with cleanliness, infection etc, don't.

There is absolutely no reason for anyone with a normal functioning foreskin to be circumcised.

It is cleaner though and statistics prove that circumcised men are less prone to infection.

MagicMarker

storm2811 wrote: »

If I answer you again I will just be repeating myself.
Read my above post in regards to circumcision,no need to be rude either.

Maybe you can comment on almost half of the most powerful nation in the world believing in creationism? Do you think this is right? Is childhood indoctrination still a good thing? It would appear 40% of Americans didn't grow up to make up their own minds!

Boxoffrogs

storm2811 wrote: »

I am yes and I know he's not just talking about Ireland..:pac:

But attempts to teach creationism alongside or instead of science has been going on for ages.
I see what he's getting at but I think atheism will eventually have more members than any church.

The fact that it's being going on for so long does not in any way justify it Storm. Religion in schools is taught as fact, and being fundamentally at odds with what we know to be true about the world, this is grossly unfair.

I grew up in the Catholic school system. In primary, never once did a teacher add the disclaimer that there was not the slightest amount of evidence to support what I was being taught as fact or encourage me to think about other possibilities.

As for going on to say that people are free to choose when they are older to believe or not, if you've been brought up with faith in your life and particularly in your education (given that our teachers are knowledgeable and we have to trust what they tell us is true), then we have to first shake off a whole belief system. That's not an easy thing to do.

I too doubt your claims of atheism, were you not just yesterday thanking a post by Jakkass who was extolling (in a very lengthy post) the many virtues of Jesus? What reason would you have for doing so if you are a non believer?

amacachi

storm2811 wrote: »

It is cleaner though and statistics prove that circumcised men are less prone to infection.

Might get me arm amputated, been getting a few pains lately.

storm2811

MagicMarker wrote: »

Maybe you can comment on almost half of the most powerful nation in the world believing in creationism? Do you think this is right? Is childhood indoctrination still a good thing? It would appear 40% of Americans didn't grow up to make up their own minds!

Not personally no,I wouldn't teach my child about creationism.
40% is not the whole population,as I said before (repeating myself) some
people will grow up like that but more will not.

Ickle Magoo

storm2811 wrote: »

It has many benefits,it's cleaner,therefore less prone to infection,many men have problems with their foreskin when they're older and need to circumcised anyway and it actually reduces the risk of STDs in men.

Just because some men have issues is no justification for lopping off a piece of a child's body with no greater concern that adhering to archaic ritual. The foreskin has an important role - ask any man who has one. If a child/man has problems with his foreskin then that is a different issue to habitually circumcising babies because your religion says you should. As a parent, that my child can have the best possible sexual experience possible in combination with a good education in sexual matters is far preferable to any of the issues and reduced sensation but a slightly lower chance of catching an STD that circumcision offers - frankly, it's a no brainer.

MagicMarker

storm2811 wrote: »

It is cleaner though and statistics prove that circumcised men are less prone to infection.

It is not cleaner so long as a man cleans properly! The American Academy of Pediatrics themselves say that the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure and that circumcision is not medically necessary.

Do you know that there is a chance of death with this procedure?

storm2811

diddledum wrote: »

The fact that it's being going on for so long does not in any way justify it Storm. Religion in schools is taught as fact, and being fundamentally at odds with what we know to be true about the world, this is grossly unfair.

I grew up in the Catholic school system. In primary, never once did a teacher add the disclaimer that there was not the slightest amount of evidence to support what I was being taught as fact or encourage me to think about other possibilities.

As for going on to say that people are free to choose when they are older to believe or not, if you've been brought up with faith in your life and particularly in your education (given that our teachers are knowledgeable and we have to trust what they tell us is true), then we have to first shake off a whole belief system. That's not an easy thing to do.

I too doubt your claims of atheism, were you not just yesterday thanking a post by Jakkass who was extolling (in a very lengthy post) the many virtues of Jesus? What reason would you have for doing so if you are a non believer?

I too went to school in a Catholic school and I do not remember being taught such things,as far as I can remember I was taught to do good things but never if I did bad things that I would go to hell,only that God would be upset or something along those lines.

Well then do not believe my claims of atheism,I cannot thank a post which I found intelligent and helpful?
I never asked for opinions on my thread in this forum,hence why I posted it in the Christianity forum,I have explained myself to MagicMarker already and if you wish I'll explain myself to you too,even though it is off topic.

amacachi wrote: »

Might get me arm amputated, been getting a few pains lately.

Har de har..:pac:

MagicMarker

storm2811 wrote: »

Not personally no,I wouldn't teach my child about creationism.
40% is not the whole population,as I said before (repeating myself) some
people will grow up like that but more will not.

And you're complaining that Dawkins' is calling theists deluded? Listen to what you're saying! You are deluding yourself.

storm2811

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Just because some men have issues is no justification for lopping off a piece of a child's body with no greater concern that adhering to archaic ritual. The foreskin has an important role - ask any man who has one. If a child/man has problems with his foreskin then that is a different issue to habitually circumcising babies because your religion says you should. As a parent, that my child can have the best possible sexual experience possible in combination with a good education in sexual matters is far preferable to any of the issues and reduced sensation but a slightly lower chance of catching an STD that circumcision offers - frankly, it's a no brainer.

Alright I see what you mean but still I wouldn't really class it as child abuse as it is beneficial to them in most cases.
I'm not telling you what to with your child but most men who are circumcised at birth do not complain later in life.

MagicMarker wrote: »

It is not cleaner so long as a man cleans properly! The American Academy of Pediatrics themselves say that the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure and that circumcision is not medically necessary.

Do you know that there is a chance of death with this procedure?

It is tradition though and has it's benefits and I'm sure the chance of death is extremely small ,no?

Ickle Magoo

storm2811 wrote: »

Alright I see what you mean but still I wouldn't really class it as child abuse as it is beneficial to them in most cases.
I'm not telling you what to with your child but most men who are circumcised at birth do not complain later in life.

How is it beneficial in most cases? Can you supply some links to figures showing that and that most men do not complain later in life please. It all sounds remarkably like you've pulled them out your hat.

I don't think ignorance to how differently it could have been or acceptance of a cultural mutilation is reason to accept the practice, btw.

SafeSurfer

MagicMarker wrote: »

How is that not child abuse? You're not giving the child a fair chance to choose for themselves, you're telling them what to believe, they WILL believe it as all children do.

Is it child abuse to teach children about creationism?

In some parts of the world, you can be killed for turning your back on your faith, is this child abuse?

What about genital mutilation, is this child abuse?

I agree with much of what you say. However I would not regard "not giving the child a fair chance to choose for themselves," as child abuse. If one had religious views it would be natural to want to pass those along to your children, the same way you would a love for books, or a respect for different cultures etc.

These people would argue that you don't let a child burn its hand on the fire, you teach it that the fire is dangerous. To people with belief, passing on their belief to their kids is as natural as an athiest or agnostic passing on a healthy scepticism and rational thought to their kids but conceeding that their kids could decide to become believers when they were mature enoght to decide.

Boxoffrogs

storm2811 wrote: »

I too went to school in a Catholic school and I do not remember being taught such things,as far as I can remember I was taught to do good things but never if I did bad things that I would go to hell,only that God would be upset or something along those lines.

Well then do not believe my claims of atheism,I cannot thank a post which I found intelligent and helpful?
I never asked for opinions on my thread in this forum,hence why I posted it in the Christianity forum,I have explained myself to MagicMarker already and if you wish I'll explain myself to you too,even though it is off topic.



Har de har..:pac:

You never learned anything of Original Sin, the Ten Plagues, The Beatitudes, Sacrifices, not even that delightful little story of Noah on his great big boat while the rest of the world population drowned?

And I was not referring to any post in the Christianity forum, not a place I frequent at all.

MagicMarker

storm2811 wrote: »

Alright I see what you mean but still I wouldn't really class it as child abuse as it is beneficial to them in most cases.
I'm not telling you what to with your child but most men who are circumcised at birth do not complain later in life.

That's not the point! Again, you're not listening! The benefits are negligible! If circumcision was as great as you make it out to be, it would be standard procedure world wide, it's not! Because it's not necessary!

And AGAIN, just because men don't complain later on in life is completely irrelevant!

storm2811 wrote: »

It is tradition though and has it's benefits and I'm sure the chance of death is extremely small ,no?

Female circumcision is traditional, so that makes it okay? Would you have your new born circumcised if there is even a remote chance of death?

storm2811

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

How is it beneficial in most cases? Can you supply some links to figures showing that and that most men do not complain later in life please. It all sounds remarkably like you've pulled them out your hat.

I don't think ignorance to how differently it could have been or acceptance of a cultural mutilation is reason to accept the practice, btw.

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision
There's a list of benefits if you scroll down a bit there.
I can't find anything at the moment about men not complaining about it but I'd just like to say that it is riskier for older men to get it if they need to rather than getting it at birth.

MagicMarker

storm2811 wrote: »

http://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision
There's a list of benefits if you scroll down a bit there.
I can't find anything at the moment about men not complaining about it but I'd just like to say that it is riskier for older men to get it if they need to rather than getting it at birth.

Taken from the same link..

Currently, the American Academy of Pediatrics does not recommend routine circumcision for newborn males stating the evidence was not significant enough to prove the operation's benefit.

storm2811

diddledum wrote: »

You never learned anything of Original Sin, the Ten Plagues, The Beatitudes, Sacrifices, not even that delightful little story of Noah on his great big boat while the rest of the world population drowned?

And I was not referring to any post in the Christianity forum, not a place I frequent at all.

No,I did learn about Noah's ark as a child,the fact that the people died because they sinned was not really mentioned if I remember correctly.
I learned about the Beatitudes in second year and by then I couldn't give a shìte.
Was never taught about the other things I don't think.

You were questioning my claim to be atheist,which MagicMarker questioned because I posted a thread in the Christianity forum about thinking of joining a church again.

KidKeith89

I only caught the last hour of it, but they're showing it again at the minute on More4

storm2811

MagicMarker wrote: »

That's not the point! Again, you're not listening! The benefits are negligible! If circumcision was as great as you make it out to be, it would be standard procedure world wide, it's not! Because it's not necessary!

And AGAIN, just because men don't complain later on in life is completely irrelevant!



Female circumcision is traditional, so that makes it okay? Would you have your new born circumcised if there is even a remote chance of death?

Okay then,it may not be necessary, but it is just their culture and tradition,it has very little risks and does not harm the child for life,therefore,I do not see it as child abuse.

Female circumcision has no benefits at all and affects the women forever,it is completely different.

WesternNight

storm2811 wrote: »

Okay then,it may not be necessary, but it is just their culture and tradition,it has very little risks and does not harm the child for life,therefore,I do not see it as child abuse.

Tradition isn't a good enough reason anymore.

Ickle Magoo

storm2811 wrote: »

Okay then,it may not be necessary, but it is just their culture and tradition,it has very little risks and does not harm the child for life,therefore,I do not see it as child abuse.

Female circumcision has no benefits at all and affects the women forever,it is completely different.

Great thread on it here might suggest otherwise...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055954078&highlight=circumsision

MagicMarker

storm2811 wrote: »

Okay then,it may not be necessary, but it is just their culture and tradition,it has very little risks and does not harm the child for life,therefore,I do not see it as child abuse.

Female circumcision has no benefits at all and affects the women forever,it is completely different.

No, they're not. You're just trying to justify male circumcision by listing any benefit you can get your hands on, stating it's their ''culture & tradition''. Female circumcision has been going on for thousands of years, it's also their ''culture and tradition''.

At the end of the day, both are barbaric and completely unnecessary.

Dades

Cutting off a few inches more than the turtleneck would be surefire way to avoid STDs in later life.

panda100

I watched an hour of this last night before switching over to Ultimate Big Bro.

Dawkins was excellent as usual. One thing that struck me about the programme was where were all the women??
All the religious authority figures he met from all religions were men. Something is very,very wrong when half the worlds population Is completely excluded from laying down moral guidelines.

The evangelical man was absolutely heinous.How fragile were his convictions that the only way he could demean Dawkins reasoned debate was by calling him arrogant.

The muslim man was shocking. His views towards women was absolutely disgusting. The hatred he had for Dawkins and women just sums up how nasty religion really is

I used to be a religious apologist but more and more I see that religious people are completely intolerable to my lack of belief so why should I assure them respect then why disrespect me.

robindch

panda100 wrote: »

One thing that struck me about the programme was where were all the women?? All the religious authority figures he met from all religions were men. Something is very,very wrong when half the worlds population is completely excluded from laying down moral guidelines.

Two mistakes here:

1. According to its proponents, god(s) through religion provides the moral guidelines. There's supposed to be no human input (at least up until religious people start rattling on about using their "moral sense" to figure out what to to).

2. Religion has evolved to permit men to enforce their hegemony, not to share it.

But yes, as you say, something is very, very wrong when half the world's population is excluded, on principle, from decision-making. Doubly so, since many of the excluded have been brainwashed into thinking that they should be excluded.

panda100

robindch wrote: »

Doubly so, since many of the excluded have been brainwashed into thinking that they should be excluded.

Yes the extent of the brainwashing is quite scary.

I really enjoyed the part about the Assumption of Mary too. I knew that there was nothing about her ascension in the bible and it came a few centuries later. I didn't realise it was decided by a pope locking himself in a room for a few days and coming up with the idea himself. How can any sane person actually believe this ludicrous nonsense!

Nailz

For those who missed it and/or want to see both episodes you can watch it on the Channel 4 website via 4oD.

Galvasean

Malty_T wrote: »

Lol, I remember when Tubs was interviewing Dawkins on The Late Late Show and my mother was watching. She thought Dawkins was a loony and was just laughing at his crazy notions.

My mother watched that one too. She is no atheist (cherrypicking lapsed Catholic I'd say), but she found Dawkins to be a good debater who raised some 'very good points'. She also remarked at how Dawkins was much dfferent to what she was expecting of him. She was expecting him to be very 'in your face' and rude, when in reality he was 'polite and well mannered'. I gues thats the difference btween the real Richard Dawkins and the characature presented by certain religious groups in order to make him look bad.

panda100 wrote: »

I watched an hour of this last night before switching over to Ultimate Big Bro.

Dawkins was excellent as usual. One thing that struck me about the programme was where were all the women??

I recall seeing Dawkins debate a Creationist woman on Youtube. She looked so brainwashed it's actually quite unnerving...


PS: They aint getting my foreskin! From my cold dead hands!!!

robindch

Galvasean wrote: »

I recall seeing Dawkins debate a Creationist woman on Youtube. She looked so brainwashed it's actually quite unnerving...

Is that the frightful and permanently surprised-looking Wendy Wright who kept banging on about a creaTOR?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YFjoEgYOgRo

I'm not going to watch it again since I can do without the concomitant increase in blood pressure, but isn't this the one that in which Dawkins weathers Wright's abominable ramblings for longer than any thinking human could, then says "I must confess to feeling slightly frustrated..."