German court rules circumcision is 'bodily harm'

[Morbius]

If they are not aware of god you are essentially doing the same, unless you suggest we teach them of the 20 plus religions, plus athiesm or other variants?

You can't teach atheism. Atheism is the null hypothesis, the rejection of theist suppositions. What you can teach is critical thinking, to evaluate claims using what evidence is available.

Of coarse if you are raised as a blank canvas you will more than likeley become an athiest, what you learn as a child is the most important things that will last with you forever. its perfectly reasonable to suggest if you are raised devoid of god, you will see no need for him as an adult.

You also learn about Father Christmas and the Easter Bunny as a child. However, we disregard them after a certain point because we decide that the evidence does not support the existence of these beings. We have lost faith in them. Quite rightly too, this is how critical thinking works. However, a respected and trusted adult reinforcing a belief despite a lack of evidence flies in the face of a child's critical thinking. There is a conflict and it is resolved by critical thought becoming less relied upon by the child.

If the evidence is compelling enough, an atheist will turn to belief. Atheism is a rejection of belief based on a lack of evidence, but clearly new evidence would have to be evaluated critically and their position reevaluated. No compelling evidence has ever appeared. I must state my position here. I am an atheist. More specifically, I am an agnostic atheist. Based on the evidence, I believe there is no God but I can't know this for certain. I accept that I could be wrong, but any rationale for changing my position would be based on evidence and critical thinking, not faith.

 

[hurfdurf]

I'm not sure that makes sense. In fact I'm pretty sure that doesn't make sense.

Shock horror as person who doesn't understand how bad religion is, doesn't understand a near enough quote from a Nobel laureate in Physics.

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg

 

[spoffle]

Shock horror as person who doesn't understand how bad religion is, doesn't understand a near enough quote from a Nobel laureate in Physics.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Weinberg

And yet we still have non religious people that do evil.

People do evil because they're people, it's a fact.

 

[fluffmct]

I disagree, Faith doesn't give violence legitimacy or validity, individuals may try to justify their actions within their ideology, but that is largely down to them and it is influenced by other factors rather than their religion....if you remove religion from the equation, you will still have the same problems, they will simply be justified or defended using different paradigms.



Again, it is not religion that is responsible for your Father not having the will to quit smoking, that is something personal to him.....he feels that his faith helped him quit alcohol and that too is a personal justification for him, Relogion doesn't make him smoke, anymore than it made him drink. If he is blaming a lack of faith for his inability to quit smoking, then he is simply seeking external justification for his own weakness, just as he justified his strength in quitting alcohol in the same way.

If he had no faith, he would simply find another excuse.

You're assuming way too much here. My dad has a personal faith, but it's the nature of religion to have that faith, contrary to evidence and logic, which is exactly the problem I'm talking about. He isn't blaming a lack of faith at all, not sure where you are getting this?! You're correct in saying he is looking for external influence, but I don't need to explain to you that religion is putting faith in something beyond yourself at its core.

As for faith not giving legitimacy or validity - I'm talking about within others, not the people actually committing these actions. These people are not bound by nationalist or unionist ideologies, but the sacrosanct nature of their (perceived) religious belief.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

And yet we still have non religious people that do evil.

People do evil because they're people, it's a fact.

The number of atheists in prison is SUBSTANTIALLY less than the number of religious people (although this is partially representative of the population), and religion encourages people to do evil eg. homophobia.

 

[trigger-happy]

lol this thread.

Many women I know prefer circumcised men, they say sex is better and it looks better.

the only benefit of being uncircumcised is fapping,

lol GD.

 

[RDM]

Many women I know prefer circumcised men, they say sex is better and it looks better.

Yes, because I woman is really going to say "You know what, I really do prefer my men uncut." to a partner that is cut...

Regardless that is besides the point anyway. The point is that it should not be performed on unconsenting infants for anything other than medical reasons. If you want it done for cultural/religious reasons then why not wait until consent is possible?

 

[zenf]

the only benefit of being uncircumcised is fapping

You say that as if it's not important...

 

[estebanrey]

the only benefit of being uncircumcised is fapping

I can honestly say I noticed no difference between the two (as I'm 'lucky' enough to experience both)

 

[hurfdurf]

And yet we still have non religious people that do evil.

People do evil because they're people, it's a fact.

Bad people do indeed to evil even without religion.

There are good people how ever, who do extremely bad things, because of religion.

 

[elmarko]

Only religion can make people think it's OK to mutilate the genitals of another without consent. (for none medical reasons & in the UK) - some cultures are as bad as religions for this kind of thing.

 

[estebanrey]

Bad people do indeed to evil even without religion.

There are good people how ever, who do extremely bad things, because of religion.

I believe you are paraphrasing Steve Weinberg.

"With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion. "

Only religion can make people think it's OK to mutilate the genitals of another without consent. (for none medical reasons & in the UK) - some cultures are as bad as religions for this kind of thing.

Whilst I agree with our principle on this, can we stop using the term 'mutilation', it's a bit OTT and I don't like to thing of my littleman as a mutilation

 

[RDM]

Whilst I agree with our principle on this, can we stop using the term 'mutilation', it's a bit OTT and I don't like to thing of my littleman as a mutilation

Well it certainly fits some of the definitions of mutilation...

 

[zenf]

I can honestly say I noticed no difference between the two (as I'm 'lucky' enough to experience both)

Surprising... I mean, I knew being circumcised wouldn't make it impossible but thought you might need some sort of lubrication?

 

[estebanrey]

Well it certainly fits some of the definitions of mutilation...

Not really...

.
Mutilate

inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on

You can't really call a surgical operation 'violent' and given some people clearly think it looks better I don't think 'disfigure' is really appropriate either.

 

[estebanrey]

Surprising... I mean, I knew being circumcised wouldn't make it impossible but thought you might need some sort of lubrication?

Technique is slightly different but you (or at least I) don't need lube. Watch a 'money shot' in porn as most of them are circumcised and you'll noticed they 'grip' just below the head, whereas people with it I suspect grip on the head itself.

 

[elmarko]

Not really...

You can't really call a surgical operation 'violent'

Would you call a surgical operation on somebody without consent for none-medical reasons violent?.

and given some people clearly think it looks better I don't think 'disfigure' is really appropriate either.

Disfigure - deform - deface - distort - disfeature, I don't see any implication it looks worse, just not as it does by default.

I mean, if people want it - they are totally open to getting it done once they are old enough, that way everybody wins.

Nobody get's it done without consent, & people have it done for religious or cosmetic reasons if they like when they get older.

 

[Castiel]

You're assuming way too much here. My dad has a personal faith, but it's the nature of religion to have that faith, contrary to evidence and logic, which is exactly the problem I'm talking about. He isn't blaming a lack of faith at all, not sure where you are getting this?! You're correct in saying he is looking for external influence, but I don't need to explain to you that religion is putting faith in something beyond yourself at its core.

As for faith not giving legitimacy or validity - I'm talking about within others, not the people actually committing these actions. These people are not bound by nationalist or unionist ideologies, but the sacrosanct nature of their (perceived) religious belief.

Like I said, that is down to their personal faith and how they personally justify their actions, it is not something you can blame specific religions for. If there was no religion, they would simply justify it in another way. Faith isn't contrary to evidence and logic either, the individual may inform their Faith in an illogical or destructive way, but others will apply critical thinking, evidence with regard to their worldview and come to what they consider a logical assumption.


The troubles in NI are not driven by religious ideology, they are driven by political ideology, relogion is simply the excuse, not the cause. If you remove religion from equation, the problems will not go away, the way they manifest will simply change.

It is easy to blame religion, as it abrogates you of your own responsibilty.

 

[estebanrey]

Would you call a surgical operation on somebody without consent for none-medical reasons violent?.

Not really. There are a hell of a lot of emergency surgical operations people have without their consent (because they are too ill or unconscious to give it) and I wouldn't describe them as violent.

Anyway, I'll steer away from this semantics argument now as I've derailed too many thread with them in the past couple of days.

 

[estebanrey]

The troubles in NI are not driven by religious ideology, they are driven by political ideology, relogion is simply the excuse, not the cause. If you remove religion from equation, the problems will not go away, the way they manifest will simply change.

I don't think anyone could seriously argue that without religion there would be no problems or violence in the world so you're fighting a bit of a strawman there.

The question isn't whether the trouble would go away, but whether it would be reduced, harder to justify and/or gain global support for your actions.