Should infant circumcision be banned and have the child decide when 13?

RDCF · Jul 17th 2013, 12:26pm

Whiff wrote:

Circumcision is essentially removing a function of the penis. The foreskin protects the glans (the head) of the penis from desensitisation and damage, creates further sexual stimulation through a "gliding" motion during intercourse, and increases sexual pleasure for men. Through circumcision, these benefits are effectively removed completely or made blunt. That's the irreversible, permanent damage.

Nice theory, it's not proven though. there are other theories that claim that circumcision decreases the chance of getting a few sexual diseases. i.e currently, no big health organization recommends either for or against circumcision, so the alleged health damage claim is pretty much irrelevant.

Whiff wrote:

Religion is not a valid reason because the child may not even grow up to consider themselves of the same religion as their parents. Religion is also not the authority on medical procedures. It's not a good reason at all, period.

The child may not grow up to agree with a lot of decisions his parents made that affect him permanently and irreversibly, and yet we let his parents make these choices. That's the point i was trying to make with my example but you were too busy write pseudo-smart things about the example itself instead of dealing with its meaning.

Whiff wrote:

You're seriously going to start throwing out retarded hypotheticals to try and make a point? Fuck. It's near impossible to predict what could happen as a result of parents refusing their child piano lessons. It leads to hypotheticals upon hypotheticals upon hypotheticals with holes that you could drive a truck through. It doesn't add anything to a discussion, it just derails a discussion into mindless drivel. And you say that my approach is leading to absurdity?

You refuse to draw a line that defines exactly what decisions parents are allowed to take and what not, except keep repeating the mantra "medical procedures should require medical reasons" which you think is a rule with no exceptions no matter what, you're allowed to think that, of course, but why should anyone?
Once you believe in certain things religions wants you to believe (god created the world, god ordered people to do a,b,c etc.), things that cannot be proven nor dismissed and are a matter of faith only, circumcision, and other religious practices, does look like the rational thing to do. The fact that you don't believe it, doesn't mean everyone shouldn't or have to raise their children your way, just because you (not science) think it's dangerous.

Whiff · Jul 17th 2013, 2:32pm

RDCF wrote:

Nice theory, it's not proven though. there are other theories that claim that circumcision decreases the chance of getting a few sexual diseases. i.e currently, no big health organization recommends either for or against circumcision, so the alleged health damage claim is pretty much irrelevant.

Actually, what I've said is factually accurate. I'm not sure what you believe a "theory" to mean, but labelling something a theory and then claiming it's not been proved is just contradictory at best. The studies that show correlation between STIs and circumcision aren't conclusive, the results are often negligible and the legitimacy of generalising the findings to populations that aren't rife with HIV/AIDS (not Africa) has been questioned constantly in the scientific scene.

The bottom line is, there are far more practical methods for protecting against STIs that don't involve cutting off a part of an infant's body.

The child may not grow up to agree with a lot of decisions his parents made that affect him permanently and irreversibly, and yet we let his parents make these choices. That's the point i was trying to make with my example but you were too busy write pseudo-smart things about the example itself instead of dealing with its meaning.

Your example was weak. Throwing convoluted hypotheticals out as if they're worth something doesn't work in your favour. Your hypothetical made no sense. If it were perhaps a bit tighter and not so weak, I wouldn't have ignored it as the rubbish that it was. On top of that, there's a huge difference between freedom in parents deciding the best for their children and needlessly mutilating a part of their body.

You refuse to draw a line that defines exactly what decisions parents are allowed to take and what not, except keep repeating the mantra "medical procedures should require medical reasons" which you think is a rule with no exceptions no matter what, you're allowed to think that, of course, but why should anyone?

I do refuse to. It's irrelevant. We're not in the business of comparing a circumcision to refusing a child piano lessons. This isn't Parenting 101, it's whether or not an infant should be forced to undergo an unnecessary medical procedure. The answer is that they shouldn't. The reason is that it's invasive to the child, irreversibly damaging, and there is no valid reason to do so routinely. Unfortunately, it's all too common for circumcision supporters to create this false distraction in which this issue even includes parents. It doesn't.

You happened to conveniently cut off the end of my quote to fit your weak argument, and if I have to keep repeating this "mantra", then I will. This is how medical types operate, but it's not so important that people believe me. What's important is that people stop forcing infants to undergo circumcisions for their own perverted obsession.

Once you believe in certain things religions wants you to believe (god created the world, god ordered people to do a,b,c etc.), things that cannot be proven nor dismissed and are a matter of faith only, circumcision, and other religious practices, does look like the rational thing to do. The fact that you don't believe it, doesn't mean everyone shouldn't or have to raise their children your way, just because you (not science) think it's dangerous.

This actually makes no sense. You would sooner follow an outdated book's advice on medicine (a book which is rife with contradictions) rather than science. By the way, the reason the prevalence of circumcision is decreasing (and almost non-existant in many developed countries) is because the medical community has shown that it is totally unnecessary and an invasion of the child's rights to their body.

RDCF · Jul 17th 2013, 10:31pm

Whiff wrote:

Actually, what I've said is factually accurate. I'm not sure what you believe a "theory" to mean, but labelling something a theory and then claiming it's not been proved is just contradictory at best. The studies that show correlation between STIs and circumcision aren't conclusive, the results are often negligible and the legitimacy of generalising the findings to populations that aren't rife with HIV/AIDS (not Africa) has been questioned constantly in the scientific scene.

The bottom line is, there are far more practical methods for protecting against STIs that don't involve cutting off a part of an infant's body.

I'm not the one who need to prove that circumcision is good, if it's neutral i'm completely fine with it, because the reason i support it isn't related to health at all. It's the parents' right to raise their children the way they choose. Also, circumcision isn't proven to decrease sexual pleasure, the studies that concluded that were found to be heavily flawed.

Whiff wrote:

Your example was weak. Throwing convoluted hypotheticals out as if they're worth something doesn't work in your favour. Your hypothetical made no sense. If it were perhaps a bit tighter and not so weak, I wouldn't have ignored it as the rubbish that it was. On top of that, there's a huge difference between freedom in parents deciding the best for their children and needlessly mutilating a part of their body.

It's not very hard to find examples. I already mentioned the earrings holes example (which are more common than circumcision and yet all those human-rights saints become mysteriosly quiet and don't say anything about it). Actually, any heavy decision the parent would make can possibly lead to heavy psychological damage to the child. It can be divorce, certain religion, atheism, choosing to live in a culturally different neighborhood, immigration and that's a very partial list. Circumcision is only a small part of a much bigger question and your artificial attempts to seperate the two doesn't make any sense.
Also, it's not "needlessly". Maybe for you as a non-believer it is, but for religious people it has a great meaning. Stop trying too hard to sound like an enlightened, progressive person, you just come out as a huge snob.

Whiff wrote:

This actually makes no sense. You would sooner follow an outdated book's advice on medicine (a book which is rife with contradictions) rather than science. By the way, the reason the prevalence of circumcision is decreasing (and almost non-existant in many developed countries) is because the medical community has shown that it is totally unnecessary and an invasion of the child's rights to their body.

You don't seem to understand that the reason of circumcision is not health. Maybe for some people it is, and if circumcision is indeed not healthy as they think they shouldn't do it. Your repeating attempts to drive the health part into this mainly shows ignorance about what religion is.

Whiff · Jul 18th 2013, 5:20am

RDCF wrote:

I'm not the one who need to prove that circumcision is good, if it's neutral i'm completely fine with it, because the reason i support it isn't related to health at all. It's the parents' right to raise their children the way they choose. Also, circumcision isn't proven to decrease sexual pleasure, the studies that concluded that were found to be heavily flawed.

I believe I've already explained how circumcision is not the choice of the parents, much like female circumcision is not the choice of the parents, and is illegal in many civilised countries. This isn't about the rights of the parents. It's about the rights of the child. Circumcision removes sensitive nerve endings by cutting off the foreskin. In doing so, sexual pleasure is dulled to a degree. This isn't a case of whether studies are conclusive or not. It's basic science medical science.

It's not very hard to find examples. I already mentioned the earrings holes example (which are more common than circumcision and yet all those human-rights saints become mysteriosly quiet and don't say anything about it). Actually, any heavy decision the parent would make can possibly lead to heavy psychological damage to the child. It can be divorce, certain religion, atheism, choosing to live in a culturally different neighborhood, immigration and that's a very partial list. Circumcision is only a small part of a much bigger question and your artificial attempts to seperate the two doesn't make any sense.

I believe I've already said that I'm against piercing a child's ear against their will. I believe I've also pointed out that circumcision and ear piercing is vastly different. The former is an irreversible and damaging procedure that is illegal to be performed on girls, but legal to be performed on boys because "Hurr durr, muh holy book says so." The latter is not permanently damaging in the same sense... at all. The hole can heal back over time when not used. Once again, this isn't about the heavy decisions of parents having an impact upon their children. It's about the rights of a child to their own bodily integrity. And does your argument really rest on this notion of "Well, parents can already fuck up their children by making bad choices such as divorce, certain religion, et cetera. We may as well let them cut off a part of their child's penis against the will of the child too"? That's some of the most flawed logic I've ever seen.

Also, it's not "needlessly". Maybe for you as a non-believer it is, but for religious people it has a great meaning. Stop trying too hard to sound like an enlightened, progressive person, you just come out as a huge snob.

Religion is not an excuse to do wrong. A religious person could claim that human sacrifices are necessary and have great meaning, yet murder is illegal, and religion cannot be used as an excuse to allow it.

You don't seem to understand that the reason of circumcision is not health. Maybe for some people it is, and if circumcision is indeed not healthy as they think they shouldn't do it. Your repeating attempts to drive the health part into this mainly shows ignorance about what religion is.

Some people seem to believe it's healthier. If that were true, the right still belongs to the individual, not the parent. I've already addressed the religious aspect, and I've already said that it is an insufficient excuse for cutting the penis of a baby boy.

RDCF · Jul 18th 2013, 3:53pm

Whiff wrote:

I believe I've already explained how circumcision is not the choice of the parents, much like female circumcision is not the choice of the parents, and is illegal in many civilised countries. This isn't about the rights of the parents. It's about the rights of the child. Circumcision removes sensitive nerve endings by cutting off the foreskin. In doing so, sexual pleasure is dulled to a degree. This isn't a case of whether studies are conclusive or not. It's basic science medical science.

This is definitely about the rights of the parents. Except the fact that you take it for granted that the child wouldn't like his circumcision, which is not the case at all, you present it like the parents harm their child for their belief, but yet failed to show how exactly they harm him (execpt for the little pain in the process itself, that doesn't stand against the clear advantages the child gets from it assuming you believe it so important like his parents do).
Your "basic medical science" hasn't been proved, which is really surprising if it's indeed that basic. Studies should totally be conclusive about it.
Also, comparing female circumcision and male circumcision is as ridiculous and retarded as comparing a tooth implant to a heart implant because they're both implants. The two processes are completely different and except the name and the fact that they are both involve genitals they are nothing alike. This stupid comparison is only weakening your already poor argument.

Whiff wrote:

I believe I've already said that I'm against piercing a child's ear against their will. I believe I've also pointed out that circumcision and ear piercing is vastly different. The former is an irreversible and damaging procedure that is illegal to be performed on girls, but legal to be performed on boys because "Hurr durr, muh holy book says so." The latter is not permanently damaging in the same sense... at all. The hole can heal back over time when not used. Once again, this isn't about the heavy decisions of parents having an impact upon their children. It's about the rights of a child to their own bodily integrity. And does your argument really rest on this notion of "Well, parents can already fuck up their children by making bad choices such as divorce, certain religion, et cetera. We may as well let them cut off a part of their child's penis against the will of the child too"? That's some of the most flawed logic I've ever seen.

I already told you what i think about your amazingly stupid comparison between male and female circumcision (hell, male and female genitalia are completely different, how can you possibly think that it will carry the same results).
My logic is very simple, it goes like that: "we let parents to make decision that are much more important and carry the potential to a much heavier damage than circumcision. It's because we trust them that they want the best for their child. Letting them do all those things but insisting on prevent them from having their child circumcised (which even if it's bad for him, he still can lead an almost perfect life with it) because all of a sudden we don't trust them, is hypocrite and irrational".

Whiff wrote:

Religion is not an excuse to do wrong. A religious person could claim that human sacrifices are necessary and have great meaning, yet murder is illegal, and religion cannot be used as an excuse to allow it.

Circumcision is not wrong, it's a choice with its pros and cons. Circumcision is not human sacrifices, not even close.
Perhaps religious people shouldn't teach their child to pray or to go to the church, because he may grow up to not believe in it and the time that he lost on it is not recoverable, am i right?

Whiff · Jul 18th 2013, 4:41pm

RDCF wrote:

This is definitely about the rights of the parents. Except the fact that you take it for granted that the child wouldn't like his circumcision, which is not the case at all, you present it like the parents harm their child for their belief, but yet failed to show how exactly they harm him (execpt for the little pain in the process itself, that doesn't stand against the clear advantages the child gets from it assuming you believe it so important like his parents do).

No, it's not about the rights of the parents. We don't allow parents to cut off other body parts of their children at whim, so their rights are irrelevant with respect to this case. If the child wants to be circumcised, they can do so at an age where they're able to give adult consent. I've already mentioned how circumcisions are harmful to the function of the penis, and I assume that you're aware circumcisions are not exempt from medical complications. There are male infants who do in fact die from circumcision, even in first world countries. It is, after all, a surgical procedure.

Your "basic medical science" hasn't been proved, which is really surprising if it's indeed that basic. Studies should totally be conclusive about it.
Also, comparing female circumcision and male circumcision is as ridiculous and retarded as comparing a tooth implant to a heart implant because they're both implants. The two processes are completely different and except the name and the fact that they are both involve genitals they are nothing alike. This stupid comparison is only weakening your already poor argument.

I'm begging to think you don't understand science at all. When I say the removal of sensitive nerve endings dulls sensitivity, and that this is a fact of basic science, the studies that contradict this would have to be freaking amazing, and you'd have to wonder why scientists are spending so much time defending such a perverted and barbaric practice by going head on with science that a ten-year-old can understand.

Teeth are teeth. The heart is an organ. The relevant procedures are vastly different. This is just not so with regards to circumcision. The vagina and the penis are both reproductive organs. The circumcision of either is performed often for similar reasons. The only difference is gender, which is not a relevant difference. At the end of the day, the child is being mutilated against their will.

I already told you what i think about your amazingly stupid comparison between male and female circumcision (hell, male and female genitalia are completely different, how can you possibly think that it will carry the same results).
My logic is very simple, it goes like that: "we let parents to make decision that are much more important and carry the potential to a much heavier damage than circumcision. It's because we trust them that they want the best for their child. Letting them do all those things but insisting on prevent them from having their child circumcised (which even if it's bad for him, he still can lead an almost perfect life with it) because all of a sudden we don't trust them, is hypocrite and irrational".

My comparison between male and female circumcision is both amazingly awesome and accurate, whether you accept this or not has no bearing on its legitimacy. I assumed that you were aware circumcision could potentially lead to many complications and in few cases death, but I realise this waas wrongly assumed. You clearly have no idea. Also, your hypothetical was really shit. The point you're trying to make is convoluted. I've explained this already.

Circumcision is not wrong, it's a choice with its pros and cons. Circumcision is not human sacrifices, not even close.
Perhaps religious people shouldn't teach their child to pray or to go to the church, because he may grow up to not believe in it and the time that he lost on it is not recoverable, am i right?

Circumcision is wrong when performed routinely on male infants. If it has pros, let the child decide to circumcise when he is old enough to decide on his own. Notice also, that I wasn't even making a comparison between circumcision and human sacrifice, but I'm beyond expecting you to notice the nuances of my argument at this stage.

Religious parents shouldn't be forcing their religion on their children, including enforcing mandatory church attendance. If the child wants to go of his or her own accord, then there is little issue.

RDCF · Jul 19th 2013, 9:59am

Whiff wrote:

I'm begging to think you don't understand science at all. When I say the removal of sensitive nerve endings dulls sensitivity, and that this is a fact of basic science, the studies that contradict this would have to be freaking amazing, and you'd have to wonder why scientists are spending so much time defending such a perverted and barbaric practice by going head on with science that a ten-year-old can understand.

You're simplifying way too much. Right, in general less nerves means less sensitivity, but the human body is more complicated than that. If what you say is true, it should be very easy to prove that non-circumcised males function sexually better than circumcised males. Well as surprising as it sounds to you, it was never proven.
I would expect a scientific genius like you to know one of the most basic rules in science: if a theory fails when it's met by facts, the problem is the theory, not reality.

Whiff wrote:

Teeth are teeth. The heart is an organ. The relevant procedures are vastly different. This is just not so with regards to circumcision. The vagina and the penis are both reproductive organs. The circumcision of either is performed often for similar reasons. The only difference is gender, which is not a relevant difference. At the end of the day, the child is being mutilated against their will.

Yeah, they are both reproductive organs, but they are different in almost any way you can think of. This was exactly the point of my comparison you can implant both heart and tooth, but the process is different in almost any way you can think of. Yeah, the only difference is gender, but it is such a huge difference with so much ramifications that it's practically makes it two completely different things. You wouldn't go to a gynecologist to treat your penis, right? Even if they are both reproductive organs.

Whiff wrote:

My comparison between male and female circumcision is both amazingly awesome and accurate, whether you accept this or not has no bearing on its legitimacy. I assumed that you were aware circumcision could potentially lead to many complications and in few cases death, but I realise this waas wrongly assumed. You clearly have no idea. Also, your hypothetical was really shit. The point you're trying to make is convoluted. I've explained this already.

Circumcision can lead to complications only if done wrong, i'm against circumcision under insufficient medical supervision.
You didn't explained at all what is wrong with my logic, except saying that if the child want it he would do that himself, but that's irrelevant because the question is whether parents can do it to their infants as their religion want them to, not if a person can do it to himself.

Whiff wrote:

Circumcision is wrong when performed routinely on male infants. If it has pros, let the child decide to circumcise when he is old enough to decide on his own. Notice also, that I wasn't even making a comparison between circumcision and human sacrifice, but I'm beyond expecting you to notice the nuances of my argument at this stage.

Exactly, circumcision is a choice, and i think it's completely legitimate for parents to choose for their children when they're too young to do it themselves.

Whiff wrote:

Religious parents shouldn't be forcing their religion on their children, including enforcing mandatory church attendance. If the child wants to go of his or her own accord, then there is little issue.

You can't base education completely on good will. Parents will always have to choose for their children. If your child insisting on eating junk food only, would you let him because it's his choice?
Education will always contain elements of enforcement, allowing parents to choose for children about everything but not about religion is, again, hypocrite.

Whiff · Jul 19th 2013, 11:15am

RDCF wrote:

You're simplifying way too much. Right, in general less nerves means less sensitivity, but the human body is more complicated than that. If what you say is true, it should be very easy to prove that non-circumcised males function sexually better than circumcised males. Well as surprising as it sounds to you, it was never proven.
I would expect a scientific genius like you to know one of the most basic rules in science: if a theory fails when it's met by facts, the problem is the theory, not reality.

It's unfortunately so typical of certain people to dismiss fact because it's "more complicated than that". That's a rather convenient way of avoiding the discussion. Despite what you seem to think, it actually is relatively simple, and as I've said before, this is basic science that children are learning in school, already settled. Scientists are welcome to refute this with evidence, but they really have their work ahead of them. You don't seem to understand that there are no facts challenging this "theory", which is essentially a fact in itself. Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure through the removal of A LOT of nerve endings.

Yeah, they are both reproductive organs, but they are different in almost any way you can think of. This was exactly the point of my comparison you can implant both heart and tooth, but the process is different in almost any way you can think of. Yeah, the only difference is gender, but it is such a huge difference with so much ramifications that it's practically makes it two completely different things. You wouldn't go to a gynecologist to treat your penis, right? Even if they are both reproductive organs.

It's by no means a huge difference. The ramifications are much the same. The parents are taking away a part of their child's body against their will. It's abusive.

Circumcision can lead to complications only if done wrong, i'm against circumcision under insufficient medical supervision.

Well, duh. People aren't exempt from making errors, even under adequate supervision, as you've said. Any surgery can lead to complications if done wrong. The difference is that the patient in other surgeries can consent to the operation, or their parents can consent if the surgery is medically necessary. The patient knows the risk involved. The issue is that circumcision, a generally unnecessary procedure, is not somehow risk free.

You didn't explained at all what is wrong with my logic, except saying that if the child want it he would do that himself, but that's irrelevant because the question is whether parents can do it to their infants as their religion want them to, not if a person can do it to himself.

Hold on, what...

This is the crux of the argument. Bodily integrity should be left to the individual unless there is a solid medical reason for the removal of a body part, period. The rights of the parents are so far removed from this debate, that is to say, they don't have the right to remove the body part of a child.

Exactly, circumcision is a choice, and i think it's completely legitimate for parents to choose for their children when they're too young to do it themselves.

A choice for the individual. For the parents to make the choice as as a result of their selfish reasons (religion, aesthetics etc.) is quite frankly, child abuse. It's not at all legitimate for parents to force their children to undergo a pointless procedure. That is the antithesis of legitimate. It's completely illegitimate.

You can't base education completely on good will. Parents will always have to choose for their children. If your child insisting on eating junk food only, would you let him because it's his choice?

This isn't about letting the child do anything at whim either, as you seem to think it is. You might as well say that because parents can choose how their children eat that they should be able to also choose which parts of their body the children can keep. It's beyond ridiculous.

Education will always contain elements of enforcement, allowing parents to choose for children about everything but not about religion is, again, hypocrite.

The difference between forcing a religion on a child and forcing a child to eat healthily (for example) is that religion is an unsubstantiated belief lacking evidence, while eating healthily is obviously known to be necessary in maintaining a healthy lifestyle. It's not hypocritical at all. Religion is also telling the child what to think rather than how to think.

RDCF · Jul 19th 2013, 3:58pm

Whiff wrote:

It's unfortunately so typical of certain people to dismiss fact because it's "more complicated than that". That's a rather convenient way of avoiding the discussion. Despite what you seem to think, it actually is relatively simple, and as I've said before, this is basic science that children are learning in school, already settled. Scientists are welcome to refute this with evidence, but they really have their work ahead of them. You don't seem to understand that there are no facts challenging this "theory", which is essentially a fact in itself. Circumcision decreases sexual pleasure through the removal of A LOT of nerve endings.

I'll try again, even though you don't seem to grasp this very simple thing.
If you were right, there would've been some unavoidable results to circumcision, those results currently don't exist. It means that you are wrong. Why exactly? I don't know, but it doesn't make you right.

Whiff wrote:

It's by no means a huge difference. The ramifications are much the same. The parents are taking away a part of their child's body against their will. It's abusive.

They're totally not same, their health effects are completely different and any comparison is simply ridiculous. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Whiff wrote:

Well, duh. People aren't exempt from making errors, even under adequate supervision, as you've said. Any surgery can lead to complications if done wrong. The difference is that the patient in other surgeries can consent to the operation, or their parents can consent if the surgery is medically necessary. The patient knows the risk involved. The issue is that circumcision, a generally unnecessary procedure, is not somehow risk free.

Unnecessary to you, very necessary in the eyes of those parents. The parents know the risk involved themselves and love their child enough to do only things that will benefit him. Exactly the way parental consent work in other areas.

Whiff wrote:

This is the crux of the argument. Bodily integrity should be left to the individual unless there is a solid medical reason for the removal of a body part, period. The rights of the parents are so far removed from this debate, that is to say, they don't have the right to remove the body part of a child.

"bodily integrity" is not a holy principle by itself, it is important due to other reasons, mainly medical ones.
When there are sufficient reasons, removing body parts is completely fine, even according to you. You think that religion isn't a good enough reason, i think that it does, especially here, when the damage is so little, if exists at all.

Whiff wrote:

A choice for the individual. For the parents to make the choice as as a result of their selfish reasons (religion, aesthetics etc.) is quite frankly, child abuse. It's not at all legitimate for parents to force their children to undergo a pointless procedure. That is the antithesis of legitimate. It's completely illegitimate.

Their reasons aren't selfish, they wholeheartedly believe that their child will only benefit from that and they do it for him.

Whiff wrote:

This isn't about letting the child do anything at whim either, as you seem to think it is. You might as well say that because parents can choose how their children eat that they should be able to also choose which parts of their body the children can keep. It's beyond ridiculous.

If amputing a leg would've the same effects circumcision has i'd say parents can consent in their child's name for that as well.

Whiff wrote:

The difference between forcing a religion on a child and forcing a child to eat healthily (for example) is that religion is an unsubstantiated belief lacking evidence, while eating healthily is obviously known to be necessary in maintaining a healthy lifestyle. It's not hypocritical at all. Religion is also telling the child what to think rather than how to think.

Expecting parents to teach their children only proven things is ridiculous, it means they can teach their children no values (you can't prove that it's bad to steal or to be a racist for example). Also, not every question is even a provable question (i.e god existence, morality, conformity vs. Non-conformity and there are more).
Every parent teaches his child his world view, and that is his right, the child doesn't have to agree but that doesn't mean the parent shouldn't do it at all.
Your last sentence about religion was so ignorant and misinformed i'll just do you a favor and ignore it.

Whiff · Jul 20th 2013, 6:35am

RDCF wrote:

I'll try again, even though you don't seem to grasp this very simple thing.
If you were right, there would've been some unavoidable results to circumcision, those results currently don't exist. It means that you are wrong. Why exactly? I don't know, but it doesn't make you right.

These unavoidable results exist though, so your claim is just completely erroneous, demonstrably so.

They're totally not same, their health effects are completely different and any comparison is simply ridiculous. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

The comparison is that they're both genital mutilation, i.e., removing a part of a child's body against their will. The procedures are different. This much is obvious. The results are that sexual pleasure is blunted. Both are abusive.

Unnecessary to you, very necessary in the eyes of those parents. The parents know the risk involved themselves and love their child enough to do only things that will benefit him. Exactly the way parental consent work in other areas.

No, it's not. Parental consent doesn't allow parents to mutilate their children's bodies at whim, except for male circumcision because it aligns to perverted religious values. Values I've already explained are not sufficient enough. Often the parents don't know the risks involved, or they perhaps do know and they do the procedure on purpose. Again, this isn't about what parents want.

"bodily integrity" is not a holy principle by itself, it is important due to other reasons, mainly medical ones.
When there are sufficient reasons, removing body parts is completely fine, even according to you. You think that religion isn't a good enough reason, i think that it does, especially here, when the damage is so little, if exists at all.

It's not a sufficient reason. Plain and simple. An irreversible religious procedure performed on a child, who may not even be of that religion as they age, is not sufficiently justified by religious belief.

Their reasons aren't selfish, they wholeheartedly believe that their child will only benefit from that and they do it for him.

It's selfish. If they want their child to benefit, they can wait until he's old enough to consent and claim these benefits of his own accord.

If amputing a leg would've the same effects circumcision has i'd say parents can consent in their child's name for that as well.

For the lack of benefits circumcision has, this statement makes you a sick, evil person.

Expecting parents to teach their children only proven things is ridiculous, it means they can teach their children no values (you can't prove that it's bad to steal or to be a racist for example). Also, not every question is even a provable question (i.e god existence, morality, conformity vs. Non-conformity and there are more).
Every parent teaches his child his world view, and that is his right, the child doesn't have to agree but that doesn't mean the parent shouldn't do it at all.
Your last sentence about religion was so ignorant and misinformed i'll just do you a favor and ignore it.

You misinterpret my expectations. A parent could just as easily fabricate a fantastic fairytale and pass it off as a religion to their children because religion has no basis in reason or logic. Values are a product of the times and we teach children to have a respect for others as a basis for values. There is reason behind this, there is logic behind this. There's even a Darwinian explanation of why we can treat complete strangers with respect. Religion, again, is devoid of this logic and reason, and teaching it to children is no different in raising them to wholeheartedly believe that there's a giant unicorn in the universe controlling everything.

Also, religion teaches what to think, much less how to think. You can choose to ignore it if you like, but to me, that reads as your inability to respond to it.

RDCF · Jul 20th 2013, 9:59pm

Whiff wrote:

These unavoidable results exist though, so your claim is just completely erroneous, demonstrably so.

No they don't, they would've been found already in research if they did.

Whiff wrote:

The comparison is that they're both genital mutilation, i.e., removing a part of a child's body against their will. The procedures are different. This much is obvious. The results are that sexual pleasure is blunted. Both are abusive.

They both include removing a part of the child's body, right. That's also where the similarity ends. The results are completely different, as i already have explained.

Whiff wrote:

No, it's not. Parental consent doesn't allow parents to mutilate their children's bodies at whim, except for male circumcision because it aligns to perverted religious values. Values I've already explained are not sufficient enough. Often the parents don't know the risks involved, or they perhaps do know and they do the procedure on purpose. Again, this isn't about what parents want.

You're just recycling old claims that I've already referred to. It's not mutilation, and religion is a sufficient enough reason in that case.

Whiff wrote:

It's not a sufficient reason. Plain and simple. An irreversible religious procedure performed on a child, who may not even be of that religion as they age, is not sufficiently justified by religious belief.

It is, as part of the parents' right to raise their children the way the see fit.

Whiff wrote:

It's selfish. If they want their child to benefit, they can wait until he's old enough to consent and claim these benefits of his own accord.

It's not the same, it's like not giving him a religious education at all and telling him to start pratice at 18. Religion has requirements, his parents think it's good for him to follow those requirements, one of the requirements is to be circumcised as a baby.

Whiff wrote:

You misinterpret my expectations. A parent could just as easily fabricate a fantastic fairytale and pass it off as a religion to their children because religion has no basis in reason or logic. Values are a product of the times and we teach children to have a respect for others as a basis for values. There is reason behind this, there is logic behind this. There's even a Darwinian explanation of why we can treat complete strangers with respect. Religion, again, is devoid of this logic and reason, and teaching it to children is no different in raising them to wholeheartedly believe that there's a giant unicorn in the universe controlling everything.

Also, religion teaches what to think, much less how to think. You can choose to ignore it if you like, but to me, that reads as your inability to respond to it.

Looks like you have finally put your cards on the table. Your perception of religion is awfully shallow, and indicates a complete ignorance about the whole issue.
Religions (obviously not all of them, and the same religion can have different subgenres with different levels of deepness and complication) are far more complicated and are based on much more than your typical ignorant ultra-atheistic bullshit wrongly thinks.
Religions totally makes sense and answering many hard questions once you accept a few axioms they think you should believe. Those axioms (god's existence and god's caring about the world for example) cannot be completely proven nor completely denied, and are a matter of faith.
Certain religions exist for hundreds and thousands of years, and during that time (except of being busy in killing other people, sadly) a lot of very smart people studied deeply their texts (pretty smart texts themselves, btw), and tried to form out of them guidance in every aspect of a human's life. Those efforts resulted in hundreds of thousands of books, that discusses pretty much every philosophical issue (including how to think). Religion are definitely not only about believing in some spaghetti monster, but a hard work of tens of thousands of people, trying to find the perfect way to live.

Whiff · Jul 21st 2013, 7:43am

RDCF wrote:

No they don't, they would've been found already in research if they did.

It's already been established.

They both include removing a part of the child's body, right. That's also where the similarity ends. The results are completely different, as i already have explained.

The results are not completely different. The procedures are done for much the same reasons: religious, aesthetics, tradition, lessening sexual pleasure. You haven't really explained it either, you've just said that results are different, which is fine. But since I've told you how they're similar, it's not sufficient. Besides, the similarity that matters is that in both situations, an infant is being mutilated against their will. Despite this, one is illegal and the other is not, most likely to appease the religious crowd.

You're just recycling old claims that I've already referred to. It's not mutilation, and religion is a sufficient enough reason in that case.

I doubt you've referred to these in any great depth. They're still very valid. It's mutilation, religion is not a sufficient reason. If it were, religion would also be a sufficient reason to cut off many other body parts, as well as doing several other activities outside the law.

It is, as part of the parents' right to raise their children the way the see fit.

Nope. Mutilating a child is not part of raising it.

It's not the same, it's like not giving him a religious education at all and telling him to start pratice at 18. Religion has requirements, his parents think it's good for him to follow those requirements, one of the requirements is to be circumcised as a baby.

Your religion is primitive for telling your people to mutilate a child, and your people are primitive enough to actually do it. What can I say? That doesn't make it right.

Looks like you have finally put your cards on the table. Your perception of religion is awfully shallow, and indicates a complete ignorance about the whole issue.
Religions (obviously not all of them, and the same religion can have different subgenres with different levels of deepness and complication) are far more complicated and are based on much more than your typical ignorant ultra-atheistic bullshit wrongly thinks.
Religions totally makes sense and answering many hard questions once you accept a few axioms they think you should believe. Those axioms (god's existence and god's caring about the world for example) cannot be completely proven nor completely denied, and are a matter of faith.
Certain religions exist for hundreds and thousands of years, and during that time (except of being busy in killing other people, sadly) a lot of very smart people studied deeply their texts (pretty smart texts themselves, btw), and tried to form out of them guidance in every aspect of a human's life. Those efforts resulted in hundreds of thousands of books, that discusses pretty much every philosophical issue (including how to think). Religion are definitely not only about believing in some spaghetti monster, but a hard work of tens of thousands of people, trying to find the perfect way to live.

And obviously trying to find the perfect way to mutilate children too.

RDCF · Jul 21st 2013, 12:54pm

Whiff wrote:

The results are not completely different. The procedures are done for much the same reasons: religious, aesthetics, tradition, lessening sexual pleasure. You haven't really explained it either, you've just said that results are different, which is fine. But since I've told you how they're similar, it's not sufficient. Besides, the similarity that matters is that in both situations, an infant is being mutilated against their will. Despite this, one is illegal and the other is not, most likely to appease the religious crowd.

Male circumcision isn't lessening sexual pleasure.
You can also call a tooth extraction "mutilation against their will" but you are still fine with it because you think the reason it's being done for is good enough to turn it from a "mutilation" into a legitimate action. That's exactly what i think about circumcision.

Whiff wrote:

I doubt you've referred to these in any great depth. They're still very valid. It's mutilation, religion is not a sufficient reason. If it were, religion would also be a sufficient reason to cut off many other body parts, as well as doing several other activities outside the law.

Again, circumcision is relatively unique since its damage is just the pain in the process. When the damage is so little, other considerations has much more weight in the decision and i think a religious one is enough in that case to make it a legitimate action.
Also, if the law is the only thing that determines for you what is good and what is bad then you are in a big problem

Whiff wrote:

Your religion is primitive for telling your people to mutilate a child, and your people are primitive enough to actually do it. What can I say? That doesn't make it right.

It may surprise you, but you don't have a monopoly on what is primitive and dark and what is progressive and enlightened. The fact that you think that something is primitive, isn't a good enough reason to force other people to not do it. I don't force you to circumcise your children, don't force me to not circumcise mine.

Whiff wrote:

And obviously trying to find the perfect way to mutilate children too.

Since you have nothing else to say other than that weak joke, i assume you agree with me that religions are not a thing you can just dismiss as a stupid primitive ideas of some weirdos from the past. If that's the case, raise your children to be religious is not less good than raising them to be atheists, circumcision is a part of raising your child to be religious, and it is up to the parents to choose. Telling them what to do out of a false sense of superiority is arrogant and rude.

Whiff · Jul 22nd 2013, 10:43am

RDCF wrote:

Male circumcision isn't lessening sexual pleasure.
You can also call a tooth extraction "mutilation against their will" but you are still fine with it because you think the reason it's being done for is good enough to turn it from a "mutilation" into a legitimate action. That's exactly what i think about circumcision.

There are practical reasons for the removal of a tooth. The reasons cited for removal of the foreskin at birth, more often than not, are religious or aesthetic reasons. Neither are adequate. You may claim that they are, but neither reasons are practical or fair to the child who's being mutilated. This is why it's called mutilation, and I'm afraid it does lessen sexual pleasure.

Again, circumcision is relatively unique since its damage is just the pain in the process. When the damage is so little, other considerations has much more weight in the decision and i think a religious one is enough in that case to make it a legitimate action.
Also, if the law is the only thing that determines for you what is good and what is bad then you are in a big problem

I think you've misinterpreted why I brought up the law, rather briefly in fact. The point was that we don't allow religion as a valid excuse for breaking the law, which mutilation is, and it follows that it shouldn't be a legitimate excuse for either male or female circumcision. The damage is not just the pain in the process. The damage is the thousands of nerve endings removed, several functions of the foreskin removed and so on.

It may surprise you, but you don't have a monopoly on what is primitive and dark and what is progressive and enlightened. The fact that you think that something is primitive, isn't a good enough reason to force other people to not do it. I don't force you to circumcise your children, don't force me to not circumcise mine.

The fact that I alone think it's primitive is not enough, but the fact that genital mutilation does irreversible damage to the body of a child totally against their will is more than enough. I don't need a monopoly on what is primitive versus what is progressive to push this point, and I can freely say with confidence that this is a primitive procedure for primitive people. In the end, all I hear you say is "I don't force you to mutilate your children, so you shouldn't get all judgmental when I want to mutilate my own against their will." I'm sure you'll end up justifying it because you're their father and ultimately, the choice of whether or not to cut a part of someone's genitals off should rest with their parents... I mean, it's obvious, right?

Since you have nothing else to say other than that weak joke, i assume you agree with me that religions are not a thing you can just dismiss as a stupid primitive ideas of some weirdos from the past. If that's the case, raise your children to be religious is not less good than raising them to be atheists, circumcision is a part of raising your child to be religious, and it is up to the parents to choose. Telling them what to do out of a false sense of superiority is arrogant and rude.

I wish that was a joke, but I guess it rings true enough. Religions are something to be dismissed as primitive ideas, though raising a child as religious versus raising them as an atheist would not necessarily yield different results apart from the obvious lack of religion as opposed to the devout religious belief. These positive attributes, like thinking for oneself, they don't belong to religion. The fact that religion alone tells the individual to believe a set of "axioms", some that cannot be proved, and some that are senseless, including that cutting the dick of your son will somehow validate his inner Jew, show just how manipulative it is.

Desprain49 · Jul 22nd 2013, 11:12am

nope shouldn't be banned

RDCF · Jul 22nd 2013, 3:59pm

Whiff wrote:

There are practical reasons for the removal of a tooth. The reasons cited for removal of the foreskin at birth, more often than not, are religious or aesthetic reasons. Neither are adequate. You may claim that they are, but neither reasons are practical or fair to the child who's being mutilated. This is why it's called mutilation, and I'm afraid it does lessen sexual pleasure.

Why are a religious reason less practical or fair? It's very practical, he won't be considered a Jew without circumcision.

Whiff wrote:

I think you've misinterpreted why I brought up the law, rather briefly in fact. The point was that we don't allow religion as a valid excuse for breaking the law, which mutilation is, and it follows that it shouldn't be a legitimate excuse for either male or female circumcision. The damage is not just the pain in the process. The damage is the thousands of nerve endings removed, several functions of the foreskin removed and so on.

What functions?

Whiff wrote:

The fact that I alone think it's primitive is not enough, but the fact that genital mutilation does irreversible damage to the body of a child totally against their will is more than enough. I don't need a monopoly on what is primitive versus what is progressive to push this point, and I can freely say with confidence that this is a primitive procedure for primitive people. In the end, all I hear you say is "I don't force you to mutilate your children, so you shouldn't get all judgmental when I want to mutilate my own against their will." I'm sure you'll end up justifying it because you're their father and ultimately, the choice of whether or not to cut a part of someone's genitals off should rest with their parents... I mean, it's obvious, right?

Nice try, misquoting my sayings to strengthen your argument, but that's not what i said at all.
Except that it's not mutilation and there isn't irreversible damage, thing that i've told you a hundred times already but you refuse to accept, i also don't justify it because the parents "own" their children.
I'm justifying it because i trust the parents to have their children's best intetest in mind and that they're doing it for their child's good, just like many other irreversible decisions we let parents take for their children.

Whiff wrote:

I wish that was a joke, but I guess it rings true enough. Religions are something to be dismissed as primitive ideas, though raising a child as religious versus raising them as an atheist would not necessarily yield different results apart from the obvious lack of religion as opposed to the devout religious belief. These positive attributes, like thinking for oneself, they don't belong to religion. The fact that religion alone tells the individual to believe a set of "axioms", some that cannot be proved, and some that are senseless, including that cutting the dick of your son will somehow validate his inner Jew, show just how manipulative it is.

Religion doesn't prevent you for thinking for yourself, maybe a clerical regime does, but that's not an inherent part of most of the religions. A lot of extremely creative and innovative people were also deeply religious (e.g. Roger Bacon, Isaac Newton) so that claim is simply not true.
Everyone believe a certain set of axioms, if you think that all your life are based on logic and proven facts only then you're living in a deep illusion. The difference between religion and atheism is only the exact set of axioms you believe in.
Also, please don't pretend to understand Judaism cos you're clearly don't.

Whiff · Jul 23rd 2013, 7:19am

RDCF wrote:

Why are a religious reason less practical or fair? It's very practical, he won't be considered a Jew without circumcision.

The religion of the parents is not necessarily the religion of the child. Doing irreversible damage and justifying it with an ancient belief is definitely not practical or fair. There are thousands of Jewish men in the world who have not been circumcised, as well as Jewish based organisations against the practice, and I'm sure they'd all disagree with you.

What functions?

Increased sexual pleasure for both participants, reduces friction in intercourse, protects the glans from damage and desensitisation. These are the main ones.

Nice try, misquoting my sayings to strengthen your argument, but that's not what i said at all.
Except that it's not mutilation and there isn't irreversible damage, thing that i've told you a hundred times already but you refuse to accept, i also don't justify it because the parents "own" their children.
I'm justifying it because i trust the parents to have their children's best intetest in mind and that they're doing it for their child's good, just like many other irreversible decisions we let parents take for their children.

It is mutilation. It is irreversible damage. You're wrong, and that is why I won't accept your argument. I sincerely hope you wouldn't let a parent cut off a child's finger because they believe it's in the child's best interests. When these "irreversible decisions" involve cutting off body parts at whim, you let me know. Trying to compare mutilation to some unknown irreversible decision isn't working right now.

Religion doesn't prevent you for thinking for yourself, maybe a clerical regime does, but that's not an inherent part of most of the religions. A lot of extremely creative and innovative people were also deeply religious (e.g. Roger Bacon, Isaac Newton) so that claim is simply not true.
Everyone believe a certain set of axioms, if you think that all your life are based on logic and proven facts only then you're living in a deep illusion. The difference between religion and atheism is only the exact set of axioms you believe in.
Also, please don't pretend to understand Judaism cos you're clearly don't.

I don't ever remember even hinting that I'd want to understand your primitive religion involved in mutilating the sexual organs of little boys. I liked the part where you said I'm living in a deep illusion when I'm not the one who's blindly following an ancient belief with no evidence.

Religion instills a blind belief in people that there is a personal god who dictates what morally can and cannot be done, all without evidence. Otherwise known as teaching your people what to think rather than how to think. The reason so many religious people are creative and innovative is that religion doesn't permeate every aspect of life as much as it used to, though you can still see the effects of religion on those who believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Those who are creative and innovative are so not as a result of religion.

RDCF · Jul 23rd 2013, 8:48pm

Whiff wrote:

The religion of the parents is not necessarily the religion of the child. Doing irreversible damage and justifying it with an ancient belief is definitely not practical or fair. There are thousands of Jewish men in the world who have not been circumcised, as well as Jewish based organisations against the practice, and I'm sure they'd all disagree with you.

According the vast majority of the Jewish people, he aren't really considered a Jew. Religion of the parents isn't necessarily the religion of the child, but it's their right to raise their child to the same religion they believe in.

Whiff wrote:

Increased sexual pleasure for both participants, reduces friction in intercourse, protects the glans from damage and desensitisation. These are the main ones.

None of them were proven.

Whiff wrote:

It is mutilation. It is irreversible damage. You're wrong, and that is why I won't accept your argument. I sincerely hope you wouldn't let a parent cut off a child's finger because they believe it's in the child's best interests. When these "irreversible decisions" involve cutting off body parts at whim, you let me know. Trying to compare mutilation to some unknown irreversible decision isn't working right now.

No and no. Cutting a finger is much worse than circumcision. Circumcision is like any other irreversible decision.

Whiff wrote:

I don't ever remember even hinting that I'd want to understand your primitive religion involved in mutilating the sexual organs of little boys. I liked the part where you said I'm living in a deep illusion when I'm not the one who's blindly following an ancient belief with no evidence.

I don't ask you to know anything about any religion. I do ask you to not say silly, baseless things in areas you haven't the slightest idea about.
Actually you do follow a lot of beliefs with no evidence. You believe there's no god, that's a belief without evidence. You believe in human rights, that's a belief with no evidence, you believe in democracy, that's also a belief without evidence. Don't take me wrong, the fact that there aren't evidence for those beliefs definitely doesn't mean that they're wrong, but they're mainly based on your perception of good and bad, what happiness is and the meaning of life, and those are only beliefs of yours, they can't be proven. Evidence-wise, you're not stand on a higher ground than any other person, you can maybe try to use history, but it's hard to draw conlusions from the very short time the west in its modern form exists.

Whiff wrote:

Religion instills a blind belief in people that there is a personal god who dictates what morally can and cannot be done, all without evidence. Otherwise known as teaching your people what to think rather than how to think. The reason so many religious people are creative and innovative is that religion doesn't permeate every aspect of life as much as it used to, though you can still see the effects of religion on those who believe the Earth is 6000 years old. Those who are creative and innovative are so not as a result of religion.

In its basis, without the intervention of power-hungry people, religion just offer you a way to lead your life. No one forces you to believe it, if it makes sense to you, then good, if it's not do not practice it. People are religious because it answers a lot of hard questions, like the meaning of life, the justice in the world and why what happens to us happens to us. Those are question science doesn't deal with, and can't, and are philosophical only. Your answers to them aren't more true than any religious ones because there isn't "true" answers to those questions. I'm sorry to tell you, but your opinions aren't superior to any religious person's ones. Atheistic life doesn't tell you how to think, it just tells you different things to think.
Trying to prove that religion is wrong based on stupid religious people isn't proving anything, there shitload of very stupid atheistic people, i hope you understand that.

Whiff · Jul 24th 2013, 6:13am

RDCF wrote:

According the vast majority of the Jewish people, he aren't really considered a Jew. Religion of the parents isn't necessarily the religion of the child, but it's their right to raise their child to the same religion they believe in.

It's not their right to mutilate their child in the process.

None of them were proven.

You got me. I've been lying this whole time about basic medical science/facts that anyone could check with a quick Google search. Sarcasm aside, just no. No. This has been settled and you're wrong.

No and no. Cutting a finger is much worse than circumcision. Circumcision is like any other irreversible decision.

No, cutting a finger would be the choice of the parents in raising their children. My religion says children should have their left ring finger cut off to be considered a true believer. It's necessary.

I don't ask you to know anything about any religion. I do ask you to not say silly, baseless things in areas you haven't the slightest idea about.
Actually you do follow a lot of beliefs with no evidence. You believe there's no god, that's a belief without evidence. You believe in human rights, that's a belief with no evidence, you believe in democracy, that's also a belief without evidence. Don't take me wrong, the fact that there aren't evidence for those beliefs definitely doesn't mean that they're wrong, but they're mainly based on your perception of good and bad, what happiness is and the meaning of life, and those are only beliefs of yours, they can't be proven. Evidence-wise, you're not stand on a higher ground than any other person, you can maybe try to use history, but it's hard to draw conlusions from the very short time the west in its modern form exists.

There's not sufficient evidence for God, and as a result, I'm not compelled into belief. If evidence were available, I would be. It's not that I believe there's no god with conviction. More so that I don't believe there's any evidence for his existence. I believe in human rights in the sense that humans created it through rational discussion and reasonable debate, evidence for that is clear. I believe in democracy in the sense that we created it, it's a type of government that was created and has been refined and improved through, again, rational discussion and reasonable debate. Unless you mean I "believe" in some other sense in which my beliefs cannot be proved? But in the sense that I believe, they can be... because these concepts exist through our creation of them.

In its basis, without the intervention of power-hungry people, religion just offer you a way to lead your life. No one forces you to believe it, if it makes sense to you, then good, if it's not do not practice it. People are religious because it answers a lot of hard questions, like the meaning of life, the justice in the world and why what happens to us happens to us. Those are question science doesn't deal with, and can't, and are philosophical only. Your answers to them aren't more true than any religious ones because there isn't "true" answers to those questions. I'm sorry to tell you, but your opinions aren't superior to any religious person's ones. Atheistic life doesn't tell you how to think, it just tells you different things to think.
Trying to prove that religion is wrong based on stupid religious people isn't proving anything, there shitload of very stupid atheistic people, i hope you understand that.

Atheism doesn't tell anyone what to think, it doesn't have any tenets. Atheists have difference in opinion between many many different things. I also support people being spiritual, believing in a creator, god, whatever. Not so much religion, which has done so much damage and continues to do so, e.g., encouraging parents to mutilate their children.

RDCF · Jul 24th 2013, 9:33pm

Whiff wrote:

You got me. I've been lying this whole time about basic medical science/facts that anyone could check with a quick Google search. Sarcasm aside, just no. No. This has been settled and you're wrong.

Well, probably. I know those were never proven. Why do you keep insisting on this nonsense? I don't know, ask yourself.

Whiff wrote:

No, cutting a finger would be the choice of the parents in raising their children. My religion says children should have their left ring finger cut off to be considered a true believer. It's necessary.

It's not the same. Cutting a finger is much worse than circumcision. People do voluntarily circumcise sometimes, no one cuts his finger voluntarily.

Whiff wrote:

There's not sufficient evidence for God, and as a result, I'm not compelled into belief. If evidence were available, I would be. It's not that I believe there's no god with conviction. More so that I don't believe there's any evidence for his existence. I believe in human rights in the sense that humans created it through rational discussion and reasonable debate, evidence for that is clear. I believe in democracy in the sense that we created it, it's a type of government that was created and has been refined and improved through, again, rational discussion and reasonable debate. Unless you mean I "believe" in some other sense in which my beliefs cannot be proved? But in the sense that I believe, they can be... because these concepts exist through our creation of them.

The question is not whether you believe in god or not and why, the question is whether you respect other people who believe, knowing your case isn't any stronger than theirs, or continue to live in your arrogant ignorance.
Human rights were created (at least partly) through reasonable debate, true, but that is not a belief but a fact. It's like saying that you believe that the Roman Empire have fallen, it's not a belief but a fact, however, saying that god crashed because they were cruel and evil is a belief. In the same way, saying that human rights were created through reasonable debate is not a belief, saying that they are a good thing for humanity is, though. Because it depends in what you define as good for humanity, which is a thing that can't be proved. The same with democracy.

Whiff wrote:

Atheism doesn't tell anyone what to think, it doesn't have any tenets. Atheists have difference in opinion between many many different things. I also support people being spiritual, believing in a creator, god, whatever. Not so much religion, which has done so much damage and continues to do so, e.g., encouraging parents to mutilate their children.

Atheism, by definition, says that god doesn't exist, if course it has clear tenets. Religious people also have huge differences in how they see the world.
People have used and still use religion as a way to justify their own barbaric urges, But I think that it actually says more about human kind than it says about religions. People also use other ideologies, including complete atheistic ones to justify horrible crimes. I think the violence accusations is a very good claim against clericalism, much less against religions.

Share