German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

[spoffle]

Religion isn't really just the belief in god though, there are religions that don't have a "god head" at the centre of the religion.

 

[estebanrey]

Atheism is generally the rejection of belief in god or deities, or a belief that they don't exist.

What you're describing is agnosticism.

Again no, atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive. They just answer two different questions.

If you ask me "Is there a God" then I have to reply "I don't know" because I cannot categorically or absolutely rule it out, hence agnosticism. But if you ask me do I believe in a god or gods then my answer is no (atheism).

Religion isn't really just the belief in god though, there are religions that don't have a "god head" at the centre of the religion.

Correct, which was the point I was making in post 993

 

[Craterloads]

Just so that I am completely clear. You have a full understanding of the very small statistical advantages of circumcision, coupled with an understanding that you are putting your child at a statistical risk of death through unnecessary (i.e. it will not harm the child either way to either have the foreskin or not) invasive surgery? You entirely understand that the reasoning is based on a very (VERY) small advantage that could or could not be relevant in later life and yet still support the decision?

thats where we disagree, i believe its much more hygienic and the medical benifits are worthy enough.

You can't say that as all. You have no evidence whatsoever to state that it is only non circumcised people that have the issues. Please feel free to Google "i wish i hadn't been circumcised" or "I didn't want to be circumcised". I understand the spurious nature of custom Google searches but it does represent a point that not all people are happy about it and I'm not sure that the numbers support "a handful of isolated cases".

What numbers?

point being with so many people circumcised it would be a much more prevalent issue, it simply isnt.

case and point, this thread. Just look who's complaining?

But this is what I am trying to understand. If it is factually incorrect then by all means address it and correct it. There is every point in discussing it as it is central to your reasoning for circumcision. If there is actual evidence for a historical Islam medical argument, please present it. If my interpretation of the origins of Islamic Circumcision is incorrect then please correct it.

The prophet Mohammad (pbuh) part was incorrect. It was seen a hygienic thing to do, which is correct even with the just wash argument. Modern science has proved the others. Its also done as a sign of belonging, identification, can be done at consenting age. Probably isnt because of feedback from adults who have had it done, providing feedback with wishing they had it done as an infant.

Like i said earlier im trying to remove religion from my reasonings as its futile to to so with athiests. You want reasoning and science, hence my line of debating.

I'm not depriving them of anything. I would give them all the information and let them understand that some people believe this, some people believe that. This is what I believe and you are free to believe what you will, as long as it doesn't negatively effect other people. It is not the exact same as raising a child in religion because religion doesn't allow for the scope of seeing other religions as valid or legitimate. There are 2.1 billion Christians, 1.5 billion Islamic, 950 Million Hindus, 480 million Buddhists and 1 billion non religious people. Who is right? Who's religion is the most valid, who's god is the real god?

you go your way, other will go theirs. You dont have to worry about who is correct, you have your beliefs, stick with them. As a Muslim you are not supposed to do gods role and judge people, god will do that. A story i used to hear growing up, there was this woman prostitute, commited sins all her life. One day she seen a dog that was dying of thirst, she used a scarf to get water fromk a well to allow this dog to drink. God liked her actions so much he forgave all her sins and allowed her into heaven. Everyone would have judged her, but it is taught only god is the one to do the judging.

 

[Craterloads]

But he's not 'removing' anything... Religion is adding something that wasn't there to start with...

You could say that about anything and everything? science, maths, etiquette, so you impose we not "add" these?

 

[StriderX]

I think the whole religious issue is hiding the real unbearable truth from the desert days.

Sand in the foreskin, Yep.

...Seriously thinking about this right now though...must have been true.

 

[sketchytom]

^^^^ you calling me unhygenic cause my nob has a hood

yet islamic people (that chop said hood off) **** all over the place in our toilets whilst squatting on the toilet seat

 

[Moothead2]

You could say that about anything and everything? science, maths, etiquette, so you impose we not "add" these?

They have real world applications, Religion doesn't.

 

[Craterloads]

^^^^ you calling me unhygenic cause my nob has a hood

yet islamic people (that chop said hood off) **** all over the place in our toilets whilst squatting on the toilet seat

Wow is that the level of your interaction, wheres the ignore button?

 

[Craterloads]

They have real world applications, Religion doesn't.

In your opinion....

the logic is still the same though, "adding" something isnt bad.

 

[estebanrey]

You could say that about anything and everything? science, maths, etiquette, so you impose we not "add" these?

And I get accused of asking stupid questions.

I think the whole religious issue is hiding the real unbearable truth from the desert days.

Sand in the foreskin, Yep.

...Seriously thinking about this right now though...must have been true.

Well quite, most religious doctrines are no more than ancient advice which probably seemed sensible at the time. Circumcision pre-dates recorded history and was being done by the ancient Egyptians long before the Abrahamic religions came along.

I see religious mandates as no more than advice with the use of the carrot and stick method (heaven and hell) to encourage the people at the time to follow it.

If religious people truly followed all the rules in their holy books they'd be arrested and overtime as science has taught us things and morality changes people have just dropped certain parts of their doctrines or written them off as metaphors whilst retaining the ones they can still get away with or still make sense.

 

[Moothead2]

In your opinion....

the logic is still the same though, "adding" something isnt bad.

There's nothing 'in my opinion' about it. It's fact that they have real world applications. Adding something that serves no purpose it modern times is bad.

 

[Craterloads]

And I get accused of asking stupid questions.

Yep its really the same isnt it

 

[SteveOBHave]

thats where we disagree, i believe its much more hygienic and the medical benifits are worthy enough.

And my point is that it is, when statistically compared, not.

What numbers?

point being with so many people circumcised it would be a much more prevalent issue, it simply isnt.

case and point, this thread. Just look who's complaining?

Oh the 6 million odd hits that the search brings up...

the prophet Mohammad part was incorrect. It was seen a hygienic thing to do, which is correct even with the just wash argument. Modern science has proved the others. Its also done as a sign of belonging, identification, can be done at consenting age. Probably isnt because of feedback from adults who have had it done, providing feedback with wishing they had it done as an infant.

Like i said earlier im trying to remove religion from my reasonings as its futile to to so with athiests. You want reasoning and science, hence my line of debating.

I have zero issue with it if it is what the adult wants. That the adult wanted it done as an infant, well that's their point of view. But what about all those that didn't want it done and wished that they had the choice? (who? I refer back to the Google reference)

you go your way, other will go theirs. You dont have to worry about who is correct, you have your beliefs, stick with them. As a Muslim you are not supposed to do gods role and judge people, god will do that. A story i used to hear growing up, there was this woman prostitute, commited sins all her life. One day she seen a dog that was dying of thirst, she used a scarf to get water fromk a well to allow this dog to drink. God liked her actions so much he forgave all her sins and allowed her into heaven. Everyone would have judged her, but it is taught only god is the one to do the judging.

I applaud the perspective that it is for God to judge but the reality is that people of all religions feel that it is their higher right to do exactly the opposite and **** all over 'non believers'. Christians are historically particularly bad at this as is evidenced by the likes of the Crusades. In fact almost every religion has had some historical background for using their religion to wield judgement over others. I would be remiss to point out that Atheists have much the same history evidenced by communist regimes.

What I am trying to get at is that including religion in the argument is fraught with the risk that there is no logic to back it up. So if we then remove religion from the argument we're left with science, statistical argument and the rights of an infant. For me, seeing the decidedly lacklustre representation of science in the argument and the very very small advantages given by circumcision, we're left with one extraordinarily important argument. The rights of the infant.

 

[Woden]

I think the whole religious issue is hiding the real unbearable truth from the desert days.

Sand in the foreskin, Yep.

...Seriously thinking about this right now though...must have been true.

Crossed my legs just thinkijng about this

Can go with a fair few things though. Before fridges and freezers, pork/shellfish could kill you.

 

[Craterloads]

There's nothing 'in my opinion' about it. It's fact that they have real world applications. Adding something that serves no purpose it modern times is bad.

In your opinion religion adds no purpose... billions would disagree with you.

Again this is just your prejudice, does not concern me.

 

[spoffle]

Wow is that the level of your interaction, wheres the ignore button?

He might not have been very eloquent with it, but he does have a point.

Your argument for hygiene is undermined by those disgusting squat pits that are so prevalent in Muslim countries and mosques.

In reality, Muslims don't view circumcision as a necessity due to anything hygiene related, it's simply a "part of the religion" that people are expected to adhere to, and it's that simple.

The only reason you've come back with hygiene and other arguments is because you have been unwilling to admit the fact that you're just obeying your religion without question.

 

[SKaRT]

thats where we disagree, i believe its much more hygienic and the medical benifits are worthy enough.

I have read every single post in this thread and I can quite categorically say that it is clear that those are not the reasons you believe in it. Every point you have made has been pretty cleanly dismantled and countered but you continue to stand by those points. Your primary reason for wanting to circumcise your child is a result of religion. That's it. You can gloss it up all day long with the other benefits - which all have alternatives which are both non invasive and non permanent (read: better).

In the modern westernised world there is literally no reason this kind of practice should continue. We have the technology to essentially render the practice irrelevant and it only persists as a result of forcing religion upon children too young to give informed consent.

I will concede on certain points, such as I believe mutilation is probably too strong a term for it, but that does not detract from the fact that it is morally repugnant to force a child to do something they have no understanding of and will never be able to reverse.

I hope for your sake that any child you raise doesn't decide to reject your belief system, and as such your views on circumcision, after you have already forced them upon him.

 

[SteveOBHave]

And I get accused of asking stupid questions.



Well quite, most religious doctrines are no more than ancient advice which probably seemed sensible at the time. Circumcision pre-dates recorded history and was being done by the ancient Egyptians long before the Abrahamic religions came along.

I see religious mandates as no more than advice with the use of the carrot and stick method (heaven and hell) to encourage the people at the time to follow it.

If religious people truly followed all the rules in their holy books they'd be arrested and overtime as science has taught us things and morality changes people have just dropped certain parts of their doctrines or written them off as metaphors whilst retaining the ones they can still get away with or still make sense.

I have to agree - it's is based around making it more difficult to masturbate and introduces the need to be embarrassed by the action. Cutting off the foreskin is more to do with being 'spiritually clean' and make a commitment to not 'self love' as this is bad in religions and gods eyes. The medical argument is very much the same as creationists attempting to find scientific 'fact' to back up the Biblical reference that the earth is only 4000 years old. It's indicative of a society moving forward and a religion not being able to without giving up on it's core control factors or requirements for demonstrative faith.

 

[Craterloads]

He might not have been very eloquent with it, but he does have a point.

Your argument for hygiene is undermined by those disgusting squat pits that are so prevalent in Muslim countries and mosques.

bringing cultural differences of undeveloped or under developed nations has no bearing on said topic or religion Again just shows your ignorance.

In reality, Muslims don't view circumcision as a necessity due to anything hygiene related, it's simply a "part of the religion" that people are expected to adhere to, and it's that simple.

The only reason you've come back with hygiene and other arguments is because you have been unwilling to admit the fact that you're just obeying your religion without question.

Again factually incorrect, it was and is seen as a hygiene reason along with the religious reasons. the very least you could do is research and verify what you are stating, it would help.

 

[Craterloads]

I have to agree - it's is based around making it more difficult to masturbate and introduces the need to be embarrassed by the action. Cutting off the foreskin is more to do with being 'spiritually clean' and make a commitment to not 'self love' as this is bad in religions and gods eyes. The medical argument is very much the same as creationists attempting to find scientific 'fact' to back up the Biblical reference that the earth is only 4000 years old. It's indicative of a society moving forward and a religion not being able to without giving up on it's core control factors or requirements for demonstrative faith.

I dont see how removing the foreskin prevents masterbation? please elaborate, it would be enlightening.