Any one disagree with Richard Dawkins?

Question

About religious indoctrination on Hell being worse than sexual abuse?

(Question mainly directed at Christians)

If so, why? How is a lifetime of mental pain from the sexual abuse worse than a fear of ETERNAL pain in Hell?

Richard Dawkins has no religious doctrine whatsoever.

Hell and Heaven are not choices. Atheism is NOT a choice.

"Pain and disgust of a sodomized altar boy"

He is not taking sexual abuse lightly either. He agrees that it is itself also disgusting.

Answer 1

Yes. I think Richard Dawkins is a pseudo-intellectual charlatan who cons people into giving him money to further his religious doctrine.

By the way, you have a choice about going to Hell, you do not have a choice about being raped or sexually abused.

Answer 2

I don't know which is worse. But the fact that I even have to doubt it, is enough proof that Dawkins at least has a point.

For me personaly, sexual abuse is worse. Simply because I understand that the religious indoctrination on Hell is just a huge fraude.

But when it comes to innocent children being forced into a religion with that same indoctrination, it's probably worse than sexual abuse. And yes, those children are being forced. A 10 year old shouldn't have fear at all. Specially not about a lifetime of eternal pain. That is not a choice, that's brutal force.

Answer 3

I agree that religious indoctrination is an ugly thing, but it can be undone. I still remember every single move in a Catholic mass, but it doesn't haunt me day to day because I left the faith and deprogrammed. Like I said, it can still come back if I'm forced into a church (say, for a wedding), but mostly it can be undone.

It's not so easy with sexual abuse.

Answer 4

Well, I would agree that scaring/scarring children with images of eternal damnation in hell and being rather vague about what hell is so children make up the worst images is not a nice thing to do.

Then again, their parents honestly believe these things and try to live the rule sets of 'how to get into heaven' for themselves. They are trying to 'save' their children from the hell thing. Don't all parents instill their beliefs (or lack thereof) in their children?

From that perspective, maybe it could be argued that the 'atomic family' consisting of mother, father, children (a christian concept by the way) might not be the best way to raise children given that the parents are free to instill all kinds of silly nonsense in children of an age where they are programmed by biology to accept this input as truth beyond questioning?

Perhaps communal raising would be the solution. I don't know.

Answer 5

There's a defence for the message about hell, which as far as I can see doesn't apply to sexual abuse.

If the message is true it isn't a threat, it's a warning.
I don't think the message is true, which is where I and Christians part company, most decidedly.
But I can see how that "if" applies in the viewpoint of sincere believers.

Richard Dawkins occasionally spoils his case by his delivery of it.

Answer 6

He shouldn't be worried about hell; he doesn't believe in the afterlife. And it is an aspect of the teaching of Jesus and the apostles, just as all the teachings about love are.
Teaching children that life just ends at death, and one is worm-meat is probably pretty traumatic - I bet not many parents, even atheist ones, tell their kids that when they are young. I don't know if Dawkins has a family, I suspect not, but if he did, I bet he would traumatise his kids with his atheist you're-worm-meat teachings; it would be pretty bad, but not as bad as sexual abuse.

Answer 7

I agree with much of what Dawkins writes, but I strongly disagree on this point.

I know too many children who have suffered sexual abuse. A person can be "reasoned" out of a fear of hell if it has been firmly implanted into their little minds. They can learn about other cultures, study religion and theology, etc--but the physical, emotional, and mental trauma of sexual abuse on a child can never be erased and has tragic repercussions.

Is religious indoctrination of children damaging? Sometimes, it certainly is. But to put it on a par with molestation is overly emotive rhetoric.

Answer 8

The guy doesn't represent atheism but no, I'd have to disagree because when you live in panic you're not really suffering. Self-hate for being "evil" is different from being afraid.

Answer 9

I wouldn't attempt to declare which is worse, but making small children believe that GOD (of all things) would make them burn forever in fiery hell if they are bad is indeed a form of abuse. How could anyone tell that to a child?

Answer 10

Richard Dawkins is a man that is out for your money and doesn't care a thing about you!

Answer 11

I've only seen one of his videos about the folly of religion and I thought it was rather simplistic. Dawkins seems to forget that if people didn't have religion to fight about they'd simply fight over something else.