Abusing the term “child abuse” is dangerous

Craig Hendry says:

08:28am | 25/08/09

People who make such claims have no idea of the type of world they are promoting under the guise of “concern”.  Take this line of reasoning to its inth degree and give it government legislated power and we quickly fall in a police state.

Jolanda Challita says:

08:47am | 25/08/09

When the word abuse is abused then when real abuse occurs people do not react.  This makes our children unsafe.

iansand says:

09:38am | 25/08/09

And the prime offenders are ... wait for it ... journalists.

Dwest says:

09:41am | 25/08/09

In terms of deathrates, lifespan and serious disease (heart disease,diabetes etc), is giving fat kids KFC any different healthwise to starting kids early on ciggies or second hand smoke? Sugar and fat is the new nicotine, pushed at every turn just like smokes were once. Common sense?Sounds like you want a PC definition of abuse.

Stumped says:

10:20am | 25/08/09

Having read Dawkins’ “The God Delusion” - his focus, to me, appeared to be the idea that teaching children to believe things on faith rather than thinking for themselves and making their own decision based on the evidence. It’s also important to note that he DIDN’T say that it was child abuse just that it could do more lasting harm (specifically that failing to give your children the ability to think rationally is stunting their development, and may, if neglected in the early years, be impossible to introduce later. In fact, on my reading, I felt that Dawkins thought that ADULTS have the right to believe whatever they want (despite his belief that god is a fictional character), but he didn’t agree with the indoctrination of children.

I think that it is completely disingenuous to compare his criticism of faith in the existence of a god with the support for a football team or political ideology. His gripe isn’t with the Christian ideology but with the belief in God and a literal interpretation of the bible - (see also the invisible pink unicorn and Russell’s teapot). This is as egregious as the trivialising of ‘child abuse’.

Having said that, I agree that the adding of behaviour to child abuse is detrimental to the cause. Such as labeling a ‘smack’ by parent as child abuse, but there has to be a line. One paper ran a story yesterday (I think it was the Daily Telegraph) saying “Should this father be punished for smacking his child”... implying that an open handed slap on the hind-quarters had resulted in a criminal conviction. The article later admits that there was a hit to the head and some other injury sustained that was clearly inconsistent with a ‘smack’. When we put ebony (the little girl from Tea Gardens) and Dean Shillingsworth (the little boy from Campbelltown) in the same ‘category’ as feeding a kid a happy meal then we have cheapened the suffering that those children encountered at the hand of their parents.

My parents are foster carers - I’ve seen some young kids that have gone through some pretty terrible things at the hand of their parents or others that should have been caring for them. I agree that some parents need to spend more time feeding their children the right thing, or reading them books, but lazy parenting is NOT the same as abusive parenting - when you’ve spent a few hours with the kids you can tell the difference.

@Dwest : Second hand smoke is a bit of a grey area, no one denies that it causes caner but until we make it a criminal offence to smoke while pregnant (which is just as dangerous) we are drawing the line between reckless/negligent behaviour and abusive behaviour - and I would agree that’s the right place to draw the line. They are not the same thing nor should they be treated the same - one should be attended to with education and training, the latter should put you behind bars.

G says:

10:31am | 25/08/09

Feeding children rubbish until they burst is child abuse.  You people need to grow a brain and then use it, kids don’t make themselves fat, and when I say fat I don’t mean overweight I am talking about 6 yr olds weighing 60 kilos and kids as young as 10 developing Type 2 diabetes.  Yes all rag on people who dare to question the consumption of the #@$@ some of you call food, if you starve a child it’s child abuse, if you beat a child it’s child abuse, if you do anything that is continuous and negatively impacts the child IT IS child abuse. Feeding a child high fat crap continuously because you are lazy and pig ignorant and so that by the age of 10 those kids are made of at school, cannot participate at sport and develop high risk medical conditions at 14 IS CHILD ABUSE.  You are to blame for their predicament and for those of you pathetic creatures that cry fowl and blame it on advertising grow up accept responsibility for the abuse you are inflicting on your children.  Fat kids are a product of their home environment they are a direct product of their parents, fat lazy kids usually live with fat lazy parents who have taken their fat lazy ways into how they raise their children including how to feed them.  Poor parenting IS a huge factor in this debate and anyone who looks at this issue with open honest eyes can only agree with that ascertain.

Gibbot says:

10:32am | 25/08/09

And what exactly would you class the lasting psychological trauma of having a child believe that they run the risk of an eternity of torture?

Mondo Rock says:

11:03am | 25/08/09

Platell’s branding such behaviour child abuse is part of a growing trend in which the definition of child abuse has been radically expanded to include pretty well any behaviour or point of view to which someone, somewhere objects. Platell isn’t the only one who subscribes to this view.

This is where you lost me Christopher.  You set up a deliberately weak strawman by extrapolating Platell’s argument to a ridiculous extreme - i.e. “any behaviour” to which someone objects is child abuse (not even close to what Platell actually argued) - and then blithely attributed that extreme back to Platell.  It is an extremely dishonest way of making your case.

Platell argues that taking obese children to McDonalds is child abuse, not because she personally objects to it, but because it risks lasting physical and psychological damage to the child.  In other words she sets out a definition of child abuse and then constructs a reasoned argument as to why this particular behaviour meets that definition.  It’s called constructing an argument Chris - you should try it out.

But I guess it’s easier to dismiss someone if you simply pretend that their arguments have no rational basis and are simply expressions of personal preference.

Arnold Layne says:

11:52am | 25/08/09

I don’t think there’s any doubt that raising children as Collingwood supporters fits the definition.

Chris says:

12:40pm | 25/08/09

@ Dwest

I don’t think the author is crying for a “PC definition” of the term abuse, but more for a balanced one. There is a difference between poor parenting and child abuse. If parents are locking their kids up and force feeding them Big Macs against their will 24/7 - sure, let’s call that abuse. But don’t lump in physical beating with one too many trips to McDonalds. Obesity should be treated as a very serious issue, but if you were to take physical violence and poor diet to triage, don’t tell me these two situations would be met with the same vigour in the emergency ward.

Liz says:

12:57pm | 25/08/09

You forgot the naming of children in the list of poor parental behaviours which some see as abusive.Lets concentrate on keeping kids safe,removing them from harm, finding and training effective carers and supporting young people in being better parents.

Leah says:

01:08pm | 25/08/09

It’s among many other abused buzz-words these days… “racism”, “discrimination”, “sexist”, etc.

If a parent fed their child ONLY fatty junkfood, that might be abuse. But if you take them to McDonalds once every month or so and the rest of the time they eat fruit, veggies, cereal etc, then that is NOT child abuse.

em says:

01:13pm | 25/08/09

Re the food/abuse- Children are not harmed by having the occasional junk food treat. However when I see a 5 year old kid with boobs and a gut and thighs rubbing together as they walk, I do think they are being neglected, not sure about abused though. Then again when I think about it- what if they end up with diabetes which will affect them for the rest of their lives? Or what about the fact they get mercilessly teased and ostracised by their peer group for being fat? Why would you make your child a walking target by letting them become obese? They cannot buy or prepare their own food. Parents do it for them. A lot of the time overweight or obese kids are actually malnourished because the food they eat is so devoid of anything but fat and sugar.  If I took my underweight malnourished child to the doctor would I be reported for child abuse, I wonder. That said, my 3 year old is watching cartoons on TV at the moment. Some people would say that is child abuse!

Leah says:

01:23pm | 25/08/09

To “Stumped”: I was raised in a specific religion by my parents. I am fully capable of thinking for myself, and when people ask me why I believe what I believe, I can give them a full answer. Throughout primary school and highschool I was consistently near the top of my class (sometimes the very top). My mother is a teacher and both she and my father tutored me in maths & chemistry at home when I had assignments I struggled with. They didn’t just teach me ‘religion’, they taught me a lot more, including how to learn and how to think for myself. I was always taught I needed to know why I believed what I believed and not just accept what someone else told me. 

I’ve not been indoctrinated and my ability to learn and think for myself has not been stunted. I’ve seen several kids who were “raised” in the same religion who were perfectly capable of deciding at a later age they didn’t believe that stuff and left. That’s not what “indoctrination” is.

Oh, and by the way: Dawkins may not have explicitly said raising your child in a certain religion is child abuse, but by saying it is worse than the actual child abuse of the pedophile priests, he may as well call it child abuse.

Mark says:

01:27pm | 25/08/09

The real abuse to children occurs when parents first introduce their children to the notion of a god that will punish them for all eternity if they dont do what the church says.
Whatever Macca’s does is a far cry below this mass abuse

mike j says:

02:12pm | 25/08/09

OMG, people who abuse statistics are just as bad. Child obesity IS a simple matter of poor parenting. Factors such as education and location and blah blah whatever may CORRELATE with obesity, but THEY DO NOT CAUSE IT!!!@!

Perhaps these factors CAUSE poor parenting, which in turn CAUSES an inability to tell children to put the doughnut down and go play sports, which in turn CAUSES obesity.

See how that works?

There should be a law preventing people from citing anything a NUTRITIONIST says about statistics until they’ve done a basic course on causation.

Jack says:

02:32pm | 25/08/09

Mike, you just laid out a pretty decent chain of causation there. Nice work invalidating your own point, genius. Same as ‘smoking -> cancerous cells -> cancer -> death’.

oh, and before you start, I’ve done alot more than a ‘basic course’ on causation.

Julie Coker-Godson says:

03:00pm | 25/08/09

Having lived in the UK for 8 and a half years I can truthfully say that I have watched as the PC brigade have taken over the use of language.  e.g. remember the gollywog doll?  God help you if you call it that in the UK, you’ll be jumped on from a great height.  The left wing run councils are the worst. My cousin was driven from fear out of one of them because her boss asked her to investigate a colleague’s absenteeism. Her colleague was black and, guess what? she was accused of racism, threatened, followed etc. She left in the end.  PC insanity I call it.

To suggest that a child is abused because they eat junk food is so way out as to be unbelieveable but typical of the UK nowadays. Its in line with all those exercise fanatics who say that unless you exercise (the way they do!) you are lazy!  I believe it is very wrong to intimidate or bully people (by passing judgment on them), into a particular way of thinking about issues, especially lifestyle and family.  That is a personal choice for each family regardless of whether those looking on like it or not.  Only if there is real abuse of a child should there be intervention.  We would do better working to improve our own foibles before telling others how to improve theirs.

COF says:

03:03pm | 25/08/09

There can be many causes that people could say constitute child abuse, but lets concentrate on the EFFECT - the destruction of a potentially happy life.
Look at all these examples of what people say constitutes child abuse as written here - poor diet choices, religion, etc. and ask: will each of these actions destroy my child’s ability to live a happy life?
Note that I have not said extended life, as it is only the view of many people, not all people, that an extended life constitutes a happy life. In fact, the definition of what constitutes a happy life would almost be completely unique to each person, regardless of the attempts society and politics make to normalise the difference.
There are a few categories where there is no grey area, severe mental and physical abuse, and obviously murder. But the rest of the categories cannot be put under this definition with any degree of certainty. In essence any move to legislate further is an exercise in Fascism.
Everyone is a program of their upbringing, and no program is the definitive version. Please learn to deal with it people.

Great article Chris.

davido says:

03:13pm | 25/08/09

Definitely time to draw a line in the PC sand.

T-shirts with slogans and Junk Food are not forms of child abuse. Child slavery in India is.

Having said that, you are not doing your kids any favours by feeding them Junk.

Elle says:

03:45pm | 25/08/09

Life is ‘soooooo dramatic’ nowdays. Commentators and the average joe all use those killer terms that show how serious the issue is. My blood pressure went up quite a few points a while back, when some well-meaning ‘expert’ called for obese children to be taken ‘into care’ if their parents didn’t feed them properly. Someone actually thought that breaking a family up over the wrong diet was an acceptable thing to propose. I have a child in care and let me tell you, it’s no walk in the park. It’s a dramatic thing to deal with, and shouldn’t be used except in the appropriate circumstances.
So I get a bit tired of all the drama from people who aren’t at the pointy end. Abuse is a serious allegation. As an educated gent Mr Dawkins should choose his words with more care, or come visit me. I’ll fill him and Mem Fox in on all the real forms of child abuse out there.

Jayne says:

03:46pm | 25/08/09

Child abuse may not be the right term for feeding kids junk food to point of obesity but endangerment and neglect are.
Perhaps the author should spend his time advocating for more important things than correct terms.

Mem Fox’s view is riduculous though, parents have been relying on others looking after their children since the stone age. Even animals form chreches.

Tim the Toolman says:

04:07pm | 25/08/09

Dawkins is right.  Just because the scars aren’t physical doesn’t mean they’re not there.  You are as responsible for giving your children the best intellectual preparation and looking after their minds, as you are for their bodies.  Raising a child who cannot think critically and is a caveman in terms of their understanding of the world is abuse.  Raising a child who thinks it’s acceptable to hate a group of people because of made up reasons is child abuse.  If you were to beat a child to the point where they hated a person without knowing them, because of their faith (or lack of), sexual preference or race, then that’d be considered abuse.  Why not brainwashing?

AJ says:

04:08pm | 25/08/09

OK, put simply, the premise of the article is fair.  ‘Child abuse’ is a term that should be attached to behaviour that requires intervention by criminal justice elements (DOCS/Police).  ‘Poor parenting’ shouldn’t be.

That said, I can envisage a situation where a parent of a morbidly obese child with diabetes, under strict instruction to lay off the calories, could require DOCS/Police intervention.  But the idea of someone who takes an otherwise healthy child to a fast-food joint being equated with child abuse is ludicrous.

As an aside, yes, it’s bad that sugary and fatty food and drink is marketed a lot. That said, it’s not like this country has a shortage of fruit and vegetables as healthy snack options.

COF says:

04:42pm | 25/08/09

Tim the Toolman: “Raising a child who cannot think critically and is a caveman in terms of their understanding of the world is abuse.”

Did you think critically about your own diatribe there Tim? Does that qualify as self abuse?

It reminds of the Dawkins themed south park episode “Our branch of atheism is the correct one! All those who dare to disagree will be destroyed.”

MarK says:

04:56pm | 25/08/09

It makes child obesity seem like a simple matter of poor parenting, which flies in the face of advice from nutritionists and health experts
It is a matter of poor parenting,
Parenting involves feeding your kids, Chris find me one nutritionist that says obesity has nothign to do with what you eat?

D.Boyd says:

06:40pm | 25/08/09

Just wanted to point out that Mem Fox’s comments on childcare was not July of this year, but rather 2008.  Also she wasn’t saying that childcare in general was a form of abuse, but rather putting very young BABIES (aged from 3weeks to 6 months) in FULLTIME care (that’s 7am till 6pm, 5 days a week) was abuse.  Which is obviously not true if they are in a quality and respectable centre, however in a way the child is being neglected by their parents, during the most important first months of life where quality time and bonding with Mum & Dad is most vital.

Cazzy says:

08:04pm | 25/08/09

I grew up in the 70’s in a large family and we had fish and chips every Friday, ice-creams after Mass on Sunday and frozen pizza on Sunday nights.  We all ate some sort of junk in the middle of the week from the tuck-shop to after school visits to McDonalds (our parents were not aware of the tuck-shop and McDonalds transgressions). We ate cereal and toast for breakfast, white bread sandwiches for lunch and a meat-&-three stodgy veggies for dinner,  followed by desert.

Yes, we were a “normal” large ‘70’s Catholic family and all skinny despite our rather dubious diet.  I think what is terribly overlooked today is the fact that many children are fat today, not because they have McDonalds or fish and chips a couple of times a week but they just don’t do anything else.

We all played at least two organised sports several times a week, spent loads of time playing in the pool, played street cricket amongst other things, with the neighbourhood kids and walked or rode our bikes everywhere. (Parents with a family our size didn’t drive you around).

Personally, I played netball, belonged to little athletics, played tennis and did jazz ballet.  Along with some of those already mentioned, my other siblings did gymnastics, football, cricket, Judo and hockey.

We had our daily and weekly chores and homework, which was a drag but I think if all we had been stuck in front of computers, (and I am not - this is telepathic) video games, and crappy TV, we would have been a dysfunctional, fat family.

Of course we sat and read books or watched TV for an hour or two after dinner, depending on our respective bedtimes but we MOVED during a great deal of our waking day.

As for being brought up a Catholic - it is no more child abuse than being told about santa claus.  If you still believe it when you are adult, then you are just plain stupid!

We were not The Walton’s by any stretch of the imagination, I just think that over the past 30 years, people are just not moving enough and when they think they should be, they join a gym.  WTF???????? - walk the dog, mow the lawn, mow the neighbour’s lawn, don’t get the paper delivered - walk to the shops and get some milk, then read it online.

Sarah says:

08:06pm | 25/08/09

I agree with Amanda Pattell.  Consistently allowing children to eat deep fried, processed junk food IS tantamount to child abuse. 

An unhealthy diet and minimal nutrition content in childhood is linked to type 2 diabetes and obesity amongst other serious medical issues. 

With this in mind, if a care giver allows junk food to become a regular staple then of course it is a form of abuse..

Nathan Tommy says:

08:08pm | 25/08/09

The kids who grow up being taught to believe in God are actually more informed and are better able to make a choice as to what they want to believe. That is simply because throughout their schooling they get bombarded with enough information which tries to disproof the existence of God. They HAVE to learn about evolution and all the rest of it. So I would say that they are aware of both sides of the argument.  Whereis the kids who grow up without any religious influence are only aware of one point of view and cannot really make an informed choice because by the time they finish school, university, etc, they are completely and utterly indoctrinated with one point of view.
I’m not talking about extreme cases where people lock their kids up trying to ‘protect them from the world’. I am talking about ordinary people who believe that there is a God and that we are not just a meaningless accident heading nowhere.
So, on one hand you have people who teach their children that there is a God who created them, who cares about them, loves them and who gives meaning to their existence. On the other hand you have people who very forcefully teach children that they come from nowhere, mean nothing and are heading nowhere. Hmmm, I wonder which of these situations our kids would pick if they really had a choice.

Jason says:

08:49pm | 25/08/09

Mark K, could not agree more and others with similar opinions. Working in Child protection its a worry that it would be rare to even investigate a case of child obesity. But during a childs early years who feeds them?? When a child is say three to seven yeats old? If you ask the majority of children this age what they want for dinner, they would say Maccas!  But that does not mean they should have it every night.  By the time I was 15 I would of been lucky to have Maccas 10 times and I loved the stuff.  I can not believe this artic le.  If feeding a child to the point that they are obese at 6 or 7 is not abuse then what is?

John in Alice says:

09:34pm | 25/08/09

Dawkins is a rabid animal that ought to have been put down years ago and this discussion is pointless.  There have always been poor parents and there undoubtedly always will be unless government assumes control over breeding, at which point all freedoms will have been surrendered.

Stumped says:

11:21pm | 25/08/09

@ leah (at 12:23pm) -  indoctrination is “To imbue with a partisan or ideological point of view” - if your parents took you to one religion only then you were indoctrinated. Dawkins’ thinks that indoctrination is bad, you don’t. I think you’ll have to agree that most religions have a policy of indoctrination whether paedobaptism (various branches of Christianity), circumcision (judaism) and in Islam a father has a duty to teach his children the Quran - as such indoctrination is a substantial part of joining people to the faith. The Amish are probably the most direct in avoiding indoctrination, with the concept of rumspringa (a chance for adolescents to see life outside of the faith during which they are not bound by the rules of the faith), after which they can choose to join or choose to leave.

For the record, the fact that the indoctrination was unsuccessful (as in the case of your friends) does not mean that it was not a process of indoctrination.

K says:

11:46pm | 25/08/09

Mem Fox was saying that feeding seriously OVERWEIGHT kids junk food is child abuse, not normally-sized kids.  I have to say I agree with her; feeding kids foods high in energy content and low in other nutritional content when they are already nearing obesity is totally irresponsible and leads to low self-esteem, heart disease and diabetes in later life. 
I think it is your article that is an over-reaction.

K says:

11:50pm | 25/08/09

Apologies, I wasn’t referring to Mem Fox’s statements at all but those of Platell

Erin Deppeler says:

12:56am | 26/08/09

Cazzy’s description of her 1970s childhood provided an obviously (very overlooked) facet of the whole childhood obesity debate. Diet alone will not help anyone lose weight as thousands of people have begun to realise. You need EXERCISE as well. Cazzy and her siblings ate fattening foods but worked off the kilojoules in EXERCISE. Overweight children do not get enough exercise - but never blame the poor parents. Blame the cost of gyms and organised after school activities, employer demands on parents’ time which might be spent with the kids (or in preparing nutritious home cooked meals), the dangerous child molesters, druggies and psychos on the streets (no responsible parent dares to take the kids for a walk anywhere or even let them outside the house after school). Blame these factors - not the parents.

Erin from B’dale

rioski says:

02:07am | 26/08/09

If your going to quote someone (Dawkins) at least be faithful to the context the quote was used.  He wasnt saying that ceremonial aspect of religion is child abuse.  He was say that instilling a false fear of eternal hell and torment was.  Such a belief can harm a child (I spent a year of my childhood not being able to sleep for that very reason)

I agree he might be a bit extreme, but atleast quote correctly if you insist on doing so

Jack says:

02:10am | 26/08/09

Amazing, not one comment on those legal social activities of cigarettes and alcohol and how they affect our children. Whilst no advocate of fast foods, I think it is sad that the focus rarely points to these factors within our society that really do cause harm to our children. I am sure that the government accept these forms of abuse because of the relaxing effects they have on the parents and not the revenue that they raise

Dan says:

03:15am | 26/08/09

Stumped, Dawkins is a hyppocrite. He believes in indoctrination, except for it’s in athiesm. Do you really think he would give his children an objective view of religion and would embrace them if they made a rational decision to be Christian/Muslim/Jewish etc..? Of course he wouldn’t. He’s all for rational choice, as long as the choice is to reject religion. His bringing up of child abuse to refer to someone raised Catholic (or any religion) is indefensible. He’s just as much of an extremist as those he claims to hate.

Venus says:

09:18am | 26/08/09

Moure must be done to educate parents.  Help them, dont crucify them.

Hmm says:

10:11am | 26/08/09

@DAN

You CAN"T make a *rational* decision to be religious. 

Its entire premise is AGINST rationality.

It’s interesting that you seem to have missed this while trying to bag Dawkins.

Steve S says:

10:40am | 26/08/09

Cazzy says:07:04pm | 25/08/09

Cazzy’s comment hits the proverbial nail smack bang in the middle of the head…........moderation, exercise and mental well-being are the pre-requisites for a healthy life style….....I’d suggest that a lot, if not all, obese people became that way due to either a medical condition or a mental issue perhaps resultant from their up-bringing.  They certainly don’t choose to be that way and lack the capacity to overcome their problem whether it be physical or mental.

LB says:

10:44am | 26/08/09

In relation to Richard Dawkins’ statement about religion. I disagree. I was raised as a christian and while I would never call myself that now I dont regret it. It establishes a strong basis of moral grounding that children can understand through stories and song. This is such an important way for children to learn. People forget that children do not think on the same ‘logical’ mind set that aduts, who have ‘life experience’ do. Anyone who has children will know you can not always rationalise with them. As I got older my parents talked to me, they discussed religion with me and answered my questions. My mother was a believer, my father was not but they stood united in giving us the chance to grow up in the family of a church and later make the choice as adults.

Absolute blind belief is unhealthy for anyone. That is not what being ‘raised catholic’ has to be about.

Pete says:

10:49am | 26/08/09

Actually Hmm I have made the rational decision toward Christianity.  And when I begin family I will be educating my children on my faith.  That said they will not be repremanded for exploring idiology outside of my faith in fact I would encourage the exploration of religion (or atheism) and have much literature and yes from Dawkins to aid their search.
However at a young age children require guidence from their parents and this will involve my parental ideals pressed open the child (as with every parent) and it is in these decisions where you instill the values upon the child.  In the circumstances of this article, dietry and fitness requirements are values that are underestimated by parents.  I grew up in a meat and three veg family and take away one night a week, but the biggest factor as others have said is I have always been a member of a sporting team.  We have a playstation generation and we need to encourage our children to be active.  This involves the parent’s being active with their children.

daz says:

11:30am | 26/08/09

Hmmm, what is your basis for that statement.  Why can’t you make a rational decision to be religious?  I did, as an adult.  I researched different ones then picked the one that suits me.  I weighed the candidates I had against each other in using my own criteria….I used books, the internet, opinions of people I trusted and the religious texts themselves to decide.  Many people have used this rational method to find religion.  Religion isn’t about a deity in the sky, it’s about a way to live your own live.  If you look at Christianity, you could say it’s “premise” is the 10 commandments….now you say the premise of religion is not rational so exactly what isn’t rational about rules like “Don’t kill”, “don’t steal”, “don’t cheat on your spouse”.....and by the way, you’ll notice that even atheists like Dawkins believe in many of these commandments.

Tim says:

11:47am | 26/08/09

Hmmm,
there is also no rationality in Atheism either.
Atheism is a belief system in which proponents believe there is not a god. Evidence for their belief? There is none.
Religion is a belief system in which proponents believe there is a god.
Evidence for their belief? There is none.
Saying the existence or not of God hasn’t been answered yet is the only rational stance with the evidence available.

Dan says:

08:23pm | 26/08/09

Hmm, I haven’t missed anything. One can absolutely make a rational decision to choose religion; I have. The fact that you (and Dawkins) seem to believe that the only rational choice is to to reject religion, makes me wonder whether you really know what rational choice actually means.

Stumped says:

10:54am | 27/08/09

@Tim (at 10:47am) - I’ll certain that you didn’t want to misrepresent the position of atheists, but I fear that you wording could cause others to misunderstand.

Atheism is the lack of belief in a god. i.e the refusal to believe in something for which there is no evidence. It is not necessarily a positive belief that there is no god.

The vast majority of atheists are of the opinion that there is no evidence to support the existence of god, so we shall make our way in the world in accordance with the observable evidence.

Of course there are some that argue that there is no god (i.e Nietzsche), others argue that there is no reason to believe in god.

Just like Russell’s Teapot, belief in the existence of something without evidence is not rational, it is rational to doubt the existence of something until it is proven. Those who assert that something exists have the onus of proof, the onus is not on others to disprove that assertion.

While absence of evidence is not proof, absence of evidence may prove absence. i.e if we run a net through every section of Loch Ness in a systematic fashion yet fail to find the Loch Ness Monster - it is rational to conclude that the loch ness monster does not exist.

If however, someone comes out and says yes it does exist but it is ‘incorporeal’  and invisible - of course nothing could ever disprove that.

Unless we apply simple logic: is incorporeal and invisible it does not intact exist as it does not have any of the characteristics of something that does exist such as form and other observable traits or identifiable behaviours (see the Invisible Pink Unicorn).

@daz (at 10:30am) - You make an interesting point (re religion not being about belief in god). I have not met an atheist that has objected to the philosophy of religion as a whole, while they may disagree with certain parts of the religious teaching (such as the Later Day Saints’ prohibition against the use of blood products ). However, you are trying to separate religious philosophy from religious observation. Quite a reasonable argument could be made that the two are parts of the same. If you are suggesting that your personal philosophy is consistent with that of a certain faith, yet you do not believe in their deity, you are not a member of that faith. Your participation in that faith is almost utilitarian in that is it using the faith to put you in touch with people that share your values (despite the religions dependence on a god that you don’t believe in).

I very much doubt that an atheist would disagree with your right to have a philosophy that is consistent with that of a religion (while they may disagree with your philosophy) - if you justify your philosophy on the rules of a god THEN you have drawn a nexus between your belief and the existence of a god, and as such your values are dependent on the existence of that god. If they are not dependent, then your philosophy comes from a source other than god, and as such is not part of that religion.

@Dan (at 07:23pm ) I agree that you can make a conscious decision to follow a faith, but just because it is a conscious decision does not make it rational. See the above comment to Tim - in respect of rational belief in things for which there is no tangible evidence.

Al says:

12:26pm | 30/12/09

I think the problem here is the use of the term “child abuse” for what really should be termed more as “child cruelty” or “child torture” or “even Violence against children”.  By the use of such Inoccuous terminology as “child Abuse” we try and hide from the stark and harsh reality of what we are wittnessing.
That way the less intentional forms or irresponsible parenting or even social norms that show up as harming to the young person could be refered to as “child abuse”. without demeaning or minimising the criminal harm done to young people through violence, emotional and physical. And then the debate can more easily be accessed.
Thankyou

Adam Blanch says:

09:37pm | 24/07/11

Any long term behaviour that has a significant negative impact on the health of a child is fair game for being called child abuse. Poor economic conditions may be risk factors for child obesity, but plenty of poor families don’t create obese children. Though abhorrent and terribly damaging, the more obvious forms of child abuse are no more damaging than setting a child up for a life of obesity, or failure, or repression through religious indoctrination and guilt. I’m not sure why Mr scanlon wishes to minimise the seriousness of these matters, or why he thinks the most obvious abuses deserve special status, but as a practicing therapist I can assure you that the deepest wounds are the ones that aren’t so easy to see, the ones that don’t get talked about or get minimised as almost ‘normal behaviour.