Social Media Allows Data Mining of the Language of Religious Abuse
Offline Today on Twitter, one of the big trending memes is "Without God". Hordes of theists right now are tweeting what they think life would be like if Sky Daddy weren't around to hold their hand, with the words "Without God" somewhere in the tweet (which is how people get topics trending). The most common tweets are the most disheartening, because they demonstrate with crystal clarity that the most effective tool religion has for keeping people docile and compliant is the utter destruction of their personal esteem. Seriously, what other than religion could get people so eager to boast of their personal worthlessness? Here are actual examples.
@Periyon Without God I have nothing else to live for...
@mandyymanders Without God I would have nothing.
@SupaBaddizI Without God I am nothin, have nothin, && will never be able to accomplish nothin!
@Rieno2 Without God, I wouldn't know how it feels to LIVE...
@iLoveMJ147 Without God I am nothing.
@BellaKerber Without God, life has no meaning ..
@PeAce_SteLLa Without God : I'm NOTHING ! ! ! ! !
@taylormatthews Without God there can be no knowledge, good, evil, hope or joy.
@DJFoRenZic_JA: Without god, there is no life!
@iK00lKiDd Without God there is no me...
@nanamarie87 Without God i could do nothing...be nothing
@PastorJCJohnson: Those without God, know no love. Kids this is your time to step among others, and built a pro God future.
@ThisIsPrecise: Thank you God. Without you I am nothing.
@MediaEntMogulB Without God there's no foundation. That goes for friendships, business and relationships.
@adventeizha I can live without you, but i can't live without God.
And it just goes on and on and on like that. Thousands upon thousands of people, eager to devalue themselves. "I suck! I'm worthless! I'm nothing, nothing, nothing...without GOD."
This is quite possibly the most unspeakable form of brainwashing a person can endure. It is what George H. Smith in Atheism: The Case Against God is talking about when he states that Christianity has "a vested interest in human misery." First, convince the believer of their innate lack of value. Get them to believe that there is nothing good about themselves in any way, shape or form. Then offer them a thin straw of hope: God can give you worth. Sure, you're a completely undeserving piece of shit, but no worries. If you pray and genuflect and abase yourself just enough, he might — if he happens to be in a good mood that day — might condescend to let you past the velvet rope into his Heaven. What's that? You say you answered the altar call at church? Well, that's great and everything, but you know, that still might not be good enough. Because without God you're nothing, you miserable little shitstain! So just remember that.
By this time, you have the believer so utterly intimidated they're afraid of their own shadow. Even the tiniest scrap of joy they experience in life, they'll be damn sure to credit immediately to their God, just to make sure they don't fall out of favor.
You know who else uses these kinds of brainwashing techniques? Abusive spouses. "Without me you're nothing" is the biggest hammer in the toolkit of the controlling, abusive partner. It's why abused women don't leave their men when you'd think all common sense would have them fleeing at the first opportunity. It's like Stockholm Syndrome. And it's why it's so difficult to use reason when arguing with believers about their beliefs. You're calmly and soberly trying to lay out objective facts, while they're thinking that if what you say is true, then they're doomed to a worthless, miserable void of a life, because THEY. ARE. NOTHING.
When you read these tweets, you should understand that when Dawkins refers to the religious indoctrination of children as child abuse, he isn't fucking around. These tweeters are folks who grew up with that indoctrination into an adulthood defined in its entirety by fear and self-loathing. They hate themselves, pure and simple, and see no pleasure in anything their brief time on this earth can offer them if it cannot be attached in some way to their God.
If this parade of misery isn't all the reason you need to stand against religion, I don't know what else is. And any accommodationist who tells me religion should be "respected" even though I don't believe it will frankly get a swift kick to the jewels. Are you going to tell me to "respect" wife beating even though I'd never do it?
http://atheistexperience.blogspot.com/2010/04/religion-is-abuse-pure-and-simple-just.html
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
- Login to post comments
But the ability to mine the mental states of the world's believers in real time is fascinating and confirms points many former Christians often bring up.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Sadly enough, that seems to be the general opinion by believers. They give a God all the credit for everything good in their life and blame themselves and free-will on everything bad in their life. They give God all the credit for every stroke of good luck, they give God the credit for everything that THEY have worked hard for and if anything bad happens, then it is either God turning his back on them because of sin, God testing them (Never understood why the all powerful deity needs to test his creations) or the most famous excuse of all "God doesn't let anything bad happen, WE let bad things happen, God gave us free will and we abuse it,". Another one that seems ridiculous to me is "God let this bad stuff happen to me so that I could learn a lesson,". Hmm, so God tortures you to FORCE you into learning a lesson ? But it is a lesson that he imposed by his creation is it not ? So why would he need you to LEARN anything ?
Yet, they say that primitive institutions like the churches, with totally outdated notions of ridiculous morality, somehow have contributed to making the world a better place ?
Hmm, your born a slave, punished for a sin that your parents did, told that all natural desires and feelings are just plain horrible cause God gave those to you only when HE wants you to use them, told that intellect, science and reason are pretty much your enemies cause blind faith in unproven concepts is so much better, that your entire life on this Earth has got to be renounced because worldly things (everything) is bad, BUT there is good news, HE HAS A PLAN FOR YOU ! Yeah, I think I want a new plan if that were to be the case. That plan sucks.
“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno
the entire premise of hand-me-down human evil is a titanic genetic fallacy, notwithstanding the complete lack of proof for a divine origin for human morality.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
Without God I'm not sure. . . but I know I'm pissed when the idiotic child abuse argument arises.
Let's get on the dishonesty here (or deception about cognitive states of affairs).
1. Dawkins is a liar. He is quite aware that "self-esteem" and "worth" and "value" are simply constructs to be hijacked by the loudest voice. While I don't think you are lying (well I changed my mind later), I think you've simply taken a paradigm (view of world) and concluded that those who do not subscribe are brainwashed--which is a common theme in any propaganda. Once he (dawkins) leaves micro-biology, he's a moron who wants his childhood back.
2. On child abuse, a fucking lie. Sure there are some who cross lines into abuse, but that is not an indication of the shared belief--just one of individual belief. It's a morbid quality that one has when they can dismiss all of cognitive science, social philosophy and linguistics (both hard and soft) simply because they will fuck up their argument.
So AE, show me the standard or model of "worth" and "value" so that my kids are no longer being abused in my house. You will only point to another socially constructed paradigm. Which is worse, the "flying spaghetti monster" or the "I'm full of shit too, but I'm smarter?"
You concluded, "If this parade of misery isn't all the reason you need to stand against religion, I don't know what else is. And any accommodationist who tells me religion should be "respected" even though I don't believe it will frankly get a swift kick to the jewels. Are you going to tell me to "respect" wife beating even though I'd never do it?"
Another reductio absurdium, and a fucking lie. You once accused me of cherry picking, and the band played on.
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
Child abuse is a complicated and in many ways subjective issue; you seem to be simplifying it even more than your opponents though.
Yes, there are psychological metrics that attempt to be as objective as possible- and objectivity can be good. It gives us perspective regardless of the culture we're examining in terms of whether the child is fed and cared for on a basic level, whether the child feels safe and loved, and is given stimulation.
On this most basic level, it doesn't matter how ignorant, uneducated or wrongly educated about the world, the child is. It doesn't matter how poor the family, or how many children are crammed into a room with a cow in a straw hut in the middle of Africa- or how rich the child is with an entire wing of a mansion and a pony.
However, though it may have some benefits, that designation is also arbitrary and short sighted. Insisting that it is the only designation for child abuse- or that anybody who suggests anything else might be abusive as well is "lying" is in itself very ignorant.
A more considerate approach is not what is merely in the immediate interest of the child's present psychological well being (which can be easily satisfied in a straw hut in the desert), but what is in the ultimate interest of the person, both physically and psychologically, and from a social standpoint what is in the mutual best interest of the members of society.
An understanding of that issue places abuse relative to what would be best for the person as he or she develops and grows to join society, and with consideration for what is available compared to what is actually provided.
An education founded on mythology and acceptance of magical thinking in the context of what is available in the age of reason- necessitating a rejection of the core principles of science and logic- an 'education' which teaches the person to use assumption and tradition to answer all questions instead of focusing on progressive reality, relying on a dogmatic implantation of certitude of that often divisive and anti-social world view which stands still opposed to all reason and evidence... and upon which a fragile ego hinges: that is not in the best interest of the person, and it's not in the best interest of society.
Theism is potentially and quite easily qualified as child abuse by vice of it being abuse of the person and abuse of humanity, regardless of any other attempted metrics (Such as those other arbitrary and short sighted ones I mentioned prior which it sometimes meets, and sometimes does not).
"An understanding of that issue places abuse relative to what would be best for the person as he or she develops and grows to join society, and with consideration for what is available compared to what is actually provided."
Ok. . . you are fine here. You do toss "society" around a bit too freely.
"An education founded on mythology and acceptance of magical thinking in the context of what is available in the age of reason- necessitating a rejection of the core principles of science and logic- an 'education' which teaches the person to use assumption and tradition to answer all questions instead of focusing on progressive reality, relying on a dogmatic implantation of certitude of that often divisive and anti-social world view which stands still opposed to all reason and evidence... and upon which a fragile ego hinges: that is not in the best interest of the person, and it's not in the best interest of society."
A little hasty on your ascription that religion (and the abusers) are automatically required to reject science and logic. You also represent a society that has no reference, which makes you a prophet. Science is disinterested in your view of religion. Logic is simply a tool for epistemology, all kinds. You have to leave hard science and move into soft sciences to provide anything close to your requirements of an "age of reason" and anything close to a standard of evidence.
I'm not sure what the medical term "abuse of humanity" is in reference to, other than an abstract creation to make your world a bit easier to relate to. You have no metric for that accused abuse, it doesn't exist outside of atheist propaganda.
"So we'll integrate non-progressional evolution theory with God's creation of Eden. Eleven inherent metaphoric parallels already there. Eleven. Important number. Prime number. One goes into the house of eleven eleven times, but always comes out one. Noah's ark is a problem." River
This is not my post, it's pasted from another forum entirely and I stated I thought it heated. Check the link.
The point I was highlighting, as my topic heading and first post comment almost makes clear, was the ability to mine the language of religious abuse on social media in real time through the presence of words that show the destruction of self esteem across a huge cross section of community. The point I am highlighting as my topic heading states, is the tweets themselves, which clearly show a negative mental state. They make no mention of any physical or sexual abuse and I doubt such things are behind these sentiments. My sole attraction to this piece is that the data relates to the fledgling science of mining social media to better understand human thought process and behaviour.
I'm the son of an evangelical preacher and a missionary, and a former christian, and my personal experiences and observations of others suggest strongly that teaching kids from the age they can speak that they are born into sin and deserve eternal punishment is profoundly negative. These negative self esteem issues are still at the core of me and taking these tweets into account, I am clearly not the only one. The other stuff in that post was ancillary to the central point as I saw it. Perhaps I should have deleted it.
I certainly don't equate christianity with child abuse. Catholic priestly abstinence - that's an issue tho' in my opinion it doesn't reflect on christians but on the structure of the church. For the record I grew up in the manse and in and around churches, church camps and never saw any such things. In fact, it was often a bloody good, outdoor upbringing when my old man was not re-hashing Revelations and whacking me with a stick.
Physical abuse - mmmmmmm - I feel there's a powerful fallacy from force at the heart of christian and muslim fundamentalism and this is a hate crime but I don't know any gospel christians who are violent (except my parents) and most are more than usually decent. I tend to think christians would go nuts if subjected to a Dante-style judgment day. The chances they would not intervene are remote.
Dawkins is a good biologist but I agree he's not on strong footing away from his topic. In many ways his vitriol in Delusion has been detrimental to the idea of positive atheism. It's certainly been detrimental from the point he laid himself open to deserved criticism from moderate christians with a philosophical bent. I can understand his pain but there's no great value in raging when you are claiming to be rational.
The original poster of this material obviously has some anger going on but let's not get mixed up in it, eh?
P.S. As a non-believer raised on the lie that morality depends on the belief in a specific doctrine, I can understand your anger at being accused of immorality when there is no actual basis for such an accusation - when you know you are behaving properly. As an atheist this is exactly how I feel about things like the garden of eden and more centrally, the entire concept of calvary. The genetic fallacy and the threat that underlies the Jesus story generates an enormous sense of rage in me. I see the cross as a fist. I don't see the love of jesus on that hill but the implacable hatred of god for his creation and his total inability to personally forgive.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
A theist may either be ignorant of science and logic, or must necessarily reject one or both, or reject theism. Ignorance does not imply a need to reject science and logic- they just may not be aware of it- the vast majority of theists are very ignorant, the vast majority of people are at least quite ignorant, and even the vast majority of scientists are a little ignorant of these.
The rejection is not relative to average knowledge on the subject, but potential knowledge compared to what we know at present. In practice, few people are sufficiently aware to have cause to reject science or logic in defense of their theism
Perhaps I was not clear enough on that point, but I was speaking to the body of reaction that religion must percipitate to sustain itself in light of genuine education and thought on science and logic. The "god of the gaps" is an ignorance of science and logic, rather than a rejection of it, but theism as a meme must advocate rejection of science when threatened (and does in practice) as a matter of self preservation.
No, I'm speaking towards what we reasonably have access to. I will not begrudge the superstitions of an uncontacted tribe isolated deep in the Amazon. The potential knowledge we have access to was my reference.
You could make the argument that while education in science improves society to the extent we have followed it, it may have an optimal peak beyond which point in starts damaging society as otherwise ignorant people have the knowledge to build biotechnology labs in their basements and engage in bio-terrorism when they become disgrunted, heart broken, or otherwise emo.
Are you making this argument? If not, then what condition do you believe will present itself in the case of increased science education that will break the current trend of improved standards of living? Are you afraid of the technological singularity? What is it?
We should discuss this point in particular if you believe that science education is or is reasonably potentially a bad thing.
Just bear in mind that anybody else could make a very similar argument to that you seem to be making, "If some parents didn't beat the shit out of their children, humanity would become too complacent and emotionally stable, and would be ill prepared for the alien invasion looming on the horizon".
One can make any number of unreasonable and unevidenced assumptions about how ending some form of abuse could have unintended consequences. There is as of this time every reason to believe that not beating the shit out of children will only (or at least overwhelmingly) have good consequences- just as there is to believe the same about improved science and critical thinking education.
Science is unconcerned with and disinterested in opinions. Science is not disinterested in facts- science is all about discovering reality.
Science is disinterested in views on child abuse, because science doesn't care if children are 'abused' more or less- it is only concerned with the facts of the matter, rather than moralizing.
You seem to have science confused with something else, or thoroughly misunderstand my view of religion or what I am saying- science has everything to do with the nature of reality. What science is disinterested in is my view on what society should be/strive to. Science doesn't care about science education, or how many people are ignorant- it just cares about the nature of objective reality.
Some people believe that we should revert to a hunter-gather society. Some people believe that humanity should be wiped out entirely. Personally, I tend favour the hypothetical sparkling cities of glassy composite metal/plastics, and sterile hydroponic landscaping- or whatever we end up with following a course of improved standards of living and harmony.
"Science" doesn't care which reality is realized- it only cares about the facts as they are at the time.
If you prefer a drastically different future to me, then that's your prerogative- but I might ask you upon which basis you found this preference, and if it isn't at odds with the very metrics you expound.
And as applied to theism, it demonstrated internal logical contradictions. What is your point?
What are you on about?
Medical term? WTF? You're the only one here I've seen bring up that kind of bullshit argument. What you're probably looking for is "statutory definition", which would be more relevant, but there's something very obvious you're missing.
Abuse is a word in English, it is not monopolized by the medical (or legal) establishment. Terms such as diabetes and cancer have more clear medical definition, terms like murder have more clear legal definitions- abuse is very subjective. Accusation of abuse is not a medical prognosis, nor is it a legal prosecution.
More importantly, don't put words (or accusations) in my mouth. By some metrics, theism is almost always child abuse, and by some it frequently isn't- the issue, as I have said, is complicated and largely subjective.
I'm saying the argument could be easily made by this potential metric- and my entire post was a matter of presenting the basis for it.
Is this metric (or rather, class of metrics) also arbitrary and (as to which is ultimately selected and how it is normalized) subjective? Yes, but no less so than the medical metrics to which you refer, or the legal metrics which empower social workers.
You use different metrics, applied to different extents in different ways- that makes it your opinion that theism is not child abuse, but that doesn't make the opinions of others that it is child abuse any less valid within their respective frameworks.