The God Delusion and its Repercussions

[Tao_Equus]

No not a plug or a discussion of Dawkins book exactly, though of course the book does deal with this subject, but an attempt to discuss why the illusion of an omnipresent deity in peoples mindset leads directly to actions that are counter to the greater good.

For example:

Familial abuse. Statistics show that the more religious and fundamental the 'head' of a household to be the more likely they are to physically and sexually abuse their children and partner. Or the more outspoken on immorality an individual is the more likely that person is to behave immorally toward his own family. Incidence of child sex abuse and divorce are higher among such people than amongst atheists for example. Why?

Moral authority: Groups like the right wing organisation "Moral Majority" seek to witch hunt and destroy by any means those that say anything contrary to their dogmatic Christian principles. This has resulted in Artists going to jail for political commentary presented as art. The same thing happens regularly with Islamic fatwas on freedom of expression. Why do religious extremists feel the need to not only gag alternative points of view but to punish them too?

Political Inclusion: Is it right that religion should appear anywhere in the political arena?

Education: Is it not against the basic human rights of a child to be taught as truth the dogma of religion? Is not such brainwashing tantamount to an assault on the liberty of mind of those incapable of defence against it. If no religion has any empirical evidence to sustain their claims religion should not be taught as truth?

Is religion an assault on reason itself?

Is religion the most harmful single issue at work in our world today?

Can we fairly claim religion to be a disease endemic in every society?


Tao

 

[cyberpi]

Tao I'm failing to see the statistics or the scientific method in your vendetta. It looks to me like an Assertion.

 

[wil]

I think it has to do with moderation. Yes those religious extremist are, well extreme. Doh.

It is known that an amount of exercise is good for you. But if you go to the extreme lengths our sports stars do, you shorten your life.

Eating, a requirement for life, eating in the extreme increases disease.

You want to claim religion as a disease where most religious people are calmer, live longer, are recorded to be happier and more fulfilled. And that is a disease? No the extreme, the abuse of religion, which is often not done by religious people actually, but power hungry people that have found a convenient tool. There are those same type of power hungry people using other tools like politics, nationalism, etc.

Cars kill more people than guns, are you ready to ban cars? Like religion improper use of these tools are dangerous.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Tao I'm failing to see the statistics or the scientific method in your vendetta. It looks to me like an Assertion.

Yes in some sense it is an assertion and I am paraphrasing from something I saw on origins.org rather than any scientific paper, if you as I think you are referring specifically to my first question. But it is no vendetta. Rather the questions I pose are serious issues that the mainstream media fail to report honestly. That religious people especially fail to discuss at all. There is a canker at the root and simply dismissing me and what I am trying to say is a part of the problem. You are aware I am of no doubt of the child sex scandal of the Catholic Church and how this was made worse for all concerned, except perhaps the lawyers, by the Church refusal to acknowledge a problem existed. So bearing that in mind you can go ahead with your chosen path of ostrich like denial or get involved in a valid topic of discussion. The choice is yours.

 

[cyberpi]

Is it ostrich like denial to probe for your alleged statistics and scientific method presented here as the basis of your generalizations?

Personally I agree with Dawkin's Boeing 747 gambit... that is: entropy was the designer of his book. Behold, you've naturally selected it as fact.

 

[Tao_Equus]

You want to claim religion as a disease where most religious people are calmer, live longer, are recorded to be happier and more fulfilled.

I believe that was from a report commissioned by some church or another?

No the extreme, the abuse of religion, which is often not done by religious people actually, but power hungry people that have found a convenient tool. There are those same type of power hungry people using other tools like politics, nationalism, etc.

But how do you define extreme? I find the very notion of sending any child to a school that teaches religion as truth as extreme and if I had my way I would make it punishable as a form of psychological abuse. But I have a feeling you and many others would say that it is me who is extreme for saying that. But the difference is I want the child to grow with freedom of thought, where as the school/parents wishes him to be brainwashed into accepting its "truth". It is that simple: freedom v indoctrination. But people of religion that you would not call extremist think it perfectly natural to emotionally torture a child into the beliefs they, most likely, were brainwashed into themselves.

In America I believe it is your first amendment that guarantees the separation of Church and State yet parents are allowed to send their kids to schools that teach a bias. So your country is failing its most vulnerable citizens of that most valuable thing each of us has, freedom of thought. I do not think that an extreme view but a rational one. But if someone was to try and implement the bones of my argument into law over there, or here for that matter, there would be uproar.

Cars kill more people than guns, are you ready to ban cars? Like religion improper use of these tools are dangerous.

Of course. Bad drivers, drunk drivers, reckless drivers are all sought out prosecuted and banned. But call it a religion and you can get away with any slanderous, hate-fuelled nonsense and get tax deductible benefits for doing so. Call it a religion and it becomes taboo territory, beyond scrutiny, almost a law unto itself. Like President Bush, throw in the God word and you have sanction to invade other countries with impunity. No other tool has such power. And it is the mass assent of all religious people that gives it this power. And this is the core of what I want to get to.

I know the positive things that a religion can bring to a person. Again and again when I try to raise issues such as I do here I am fed this "but you fail to take into account".... Well my issue is not about the good religion brings but the very many problems religion raises for our global community. And I feel strongly that it should not be left to atheists to discuss this but that people of religion should be putting their own house in order.

As an atheist I again assert that there is absolutely no evidence for a single deity that the majority of the worlds population are brainwashed and coerced into believing in. Man like every organism arose by the evolutionary process. And this is provable. The Universe shows no sign what so ever of having 'intelligent design' and our little globe is far from being the purpose of its 'creation'. These two facts are enough to refute any notion of God in the Abrahamic sense at least. Yet two such kindergarten easy to comprehend and irrefutable facts seem never to percolate down through the thick mush of religious dogma. Through history the different religions have used various methods to keep up with science, an attempt to remain credible. But if they were true they would never have to have done so. This is what bugs me. That the world is made to suffer on the back of something so clearly untrue. That every time religion is challenged the goal posts are shifted. And I feel that people who are religious have no justification for talking about the good that it brings until they are also willing to analyse its wrongs.

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Is it ostrich like denial to probe for your alleged statistics and scientific method presented here as the basis of your generalizations?

.

For example:

• Over 400 Catholic priests in North America were caught molesting children between 1984 and 1992.
• The typical molester abuses scores to hundreds of children.
• The Church has paid out over $400 million in settlements, and the total is expected to reach $1 billion before they are done.
• The Church tried to cover it all up.
• The press has underreported it. The New York Times refused his stories, saying, "We want to do a child abuse story, but not in the context of the Catholic Church." (any lights coming on?) Subsequent refusals came from The Washington Post, Rolling Stone, Vanity Fair, The Nation, and Mother Jones.

Abuse in Religion Statistics

You can say what you want Cyberpi, you can either believe that what I stated to be true or not as you so wish. I have had enough life experience for me to be in no shadow of a doubt of their validity.

 

[cyberpi]

A whole 400 sex offender Catholic priests in North America? Is that the basis for your statement:

Familial abuse. Statistics show that the more religious and fundamental the 'head' of a household to be the more likely they are to physically and sexually abuse their children and partner. Or the more outspoken on immorality an individual is the more likely that person is to behave immorally toward his own family. Incidence of child sex abuse and divorce are higher among such people than amongst atheists for example. Why?

Statistics show? Here are some more statistics:
offender counts

That would be 486,184 registered sex offenders in the USA. The Catholic priests represent what: .08%. So do I count the rest of the registered sex offenders as the religious and fundamental 'head' of households that you've described... or since you have counted 400 priests as the basis of your statistics then shall I just count the other 99.92% as the lesser counted atheist sex offenders. Well?

 

[Tao_Equus]

A whole 400 sex offender Catholic priests in North America? Is that the basis for your statement:


Statistics show? Here are some more statistics:
offender counts

That would be 486,184 registered sex offenders in the USA. The Catholic priests represent what: .08%. So do I count the rest of the registered sex offenders as the religious and fundamental 'head' of households that you've described... or since you have counted 400 priests as the basis of your statistics then shall I just count the other 99.92% as the lesser counted atheist sex offenders. Well?

Either I am a terrible writer or you have a particular talent for ignoring what I am saying. Why dont we agree for once and say that both are true?

If you look above I said, "Yes in some sense it is an assertion and I am paraphrasing from something I saw on origins.org rather than any scientific paper, if you as I think you are referring specifically to my first question".

Then I said, "I have had enough life experience for me to be in no shadow of a doubt of their validity."

Do I trust what I hear on Origins.org? A bloody damn site more than I would ever trust any religious establishment, given their track record. Do I believe my own eyes and ears on my own observation of physical abuse endemic within mainstream religious communities...too damn right I do.

But lets use you're statistics. First read this:


The 615 priests represent 14 percent of the 4,351 priests accused of abuse with someone under 18 during the same period, said the study by the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York.

The low number of priests investigated resulted from the few allegations reported to police, it said.

There are currently 42,307 Catholic priests in the US which means that almost 10% of Catholic priests have had an allegation of abuse made against them. The US population is around 300m which makes the number on the sex offenders register roughly 0.2% of population of which not all would be child sex abusers. Clearly this establishes beyond doubt that child sex abuse is more prevalent with a religious establishment than in the overall population. QED

Now do you want to discuss the issues or just pop at me?

Tao

 

[wil]

a. there is no separation of church and state in the US. There is freedom of religion, there is congress shall pass no law. Separation was a from a letter by Jefferson to another, not part of our constitution.

Freedom means we have freedom to worship as we choose. Which means we can be atheist if we wish but we cannot impose our atheist ways on others. We also have the freedom to raise our children as we see it best for them, our choice, not yours. Just as I can't force you to raise your child in any manner.

Your free to express your beliefs, but it seems to me you are treading a thin line. Some of the most vehement vocal atheists have to eat their words later when they find their way to G!d. I find that so interesting. I can actually understand how the intellectual scientific mind can say there is no proof and decide to become atheist, but that same mind switching back after years of disproving and ranting, awfully interesting.

I love the argument that some religious organization did the study that said religious folks are happier, more content and live longer! Does that mean I have to dismiss every scientific report on science due to the inherent bias?? Republicans are more charitable than liberals too, yikes. Oh and the spotted owl's favorite nesting place is not in old growth forest but telephone poles. And the "head phones" to play Bach to a fetus in utero are sold mostly to abortion rights advocates that deny it is human, go figure.

Sometimes stats just piss us off. Speaking of which Cyberpi if Priests make up .08% of sex offenders you missed proving your point. What percentage do Priests make up of the general population. Then you can show that they are either less likely or more likely, however me thinks there is a reason that is not calculated.

 

[cyberpi]

If you look above I said, "Yes in some sense it is an assertion and I am paraphrasing from something I saw on origins.org rather than any scientific paper, if you as I think you are referring specifically to my first question".

Then I said, "I have had enough life experience for me to be in no shadow of a doubt of their validity."

The US population is around 300m which makes the number on the sex offenders register roughly 0.2% of population of which not all would be child sex abusers. Clearly this establishes beyond doubt that child sex abuse is more prevalent with a religious establishment than in the overall population. QED

You've claimed assertion, read it somewhere, personal experience, and then claimed an establishment beyond doubt. The first methods are actually non-scientific because your personal data is biased by the relationships you became involved in. I don't think you conducted a larger unbiased study and if you did then present your data and method of collection. So I will contend with the last... your alleged establishment beyond doubt. You've established little to nothing with me. Doing some brief internet reading I come across the following study:

http://childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

Findings 1. Demographics: Child molesters match the U.S. population in education, percentage married or formerly married, and religious observance.

Here are some more stats:
Child Abuse Research and Statistics

An average 5.5 children per 10,000 enrolled in day care are sexually abused, and an average of 8.9 per 10,000 are abused in the home. (Finkelhor & Williams, 1988)

Should I make the same conclusions about the institutions of child care and the institution of family as you have done with the institution of religion? Or are those somehow exempt. A child molestor takes advantage of any relationship available to him, and the overwhelming majority of child molestations are NOT by strangers.

According to the renown scientist Oprah Winfrey: experts indicate one in twenty men are child molesters. That is: 5% of all men. If this is true then what percentage of the Catholic priests would we expect to be child molesters?

I see religion being questioned by you in the same way that anyone who questions those who teach a set of standards in morality or ethics. Many of the concepts taught seem reasonable but those who teach it are subject to being a hypocrite... saying it but not internally believing it or holding themselves to the same set of standards. So then why teach any standard at all and risk being a hypocrite? I submit that issue exists outside and inside of religion. To help answer the question I'd refer to the statistic of child molesters that indicates the majority were themselves also molested as a child. It was somehow taught. If religion were somehow wiped from the face of the planet would child molestation go with it? No... there are molesters outside of religion. Furthermore I submit that any and all education about it including that found in religion and in public schools and in families will help... within the very same institutions where the molestation exists.

On another level I see you asking how if there were a God how he could allow individuals to molest or harm each other. You have assumed for now that God is a delusion that even causes a person to commit these crimes. But if instead God were real to you then you would be faced with the deeper problem of understanding how or why he allows it. I submit that everyone here is faced with the horror of crime, of loss and ultimately of death... one way or another. A question though for you to take to God is... why is it allowed? Why is it here? Why do some seemingly get away with it? I believe you would be given answers.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Cyberpi,

If you take another closer look at the study you linked to you will find that 93% of abusers were religious. In fact religion is the most striking statistical link between all paedophiles.

I submit that everyone here is faced with the horror of crime, of loss and ultimately of death... one way or another. A question though for you to take to God is... why is it allowed? Why is it here? Why do some seemingly get away with it? I believe you would be given answers.

There is only one rational answer. God does not exist. But I have no doubt you will now tell me why it is good that God brings innocents into the world so they can be maimed, tortured and made fearful and miserable for all of their childhood. And then spend the rest of their lives trying to blot out the pain or go on to become abusers themselves. Go on...tell me....tell me why it is that your omnipresent deity is so cruel?

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

a. there is no separation of church and state in the US. There is freedom of religion, there is congress shall pass no law. Separation was a from a letter by Jefferson to another, not part of our constitution.

Freedom means we have freedom to worship as we choose. Which means we can be atheist if we wish but we cannot impose our atheist ways on others. We also have the freedom to raise our children as we see it best for them, our choice, not yours. Just as I can't force you to raise your child in any manner.

Your free to express your beliefs, but it seems to me you are treading a thin line. Some of the most vehement vocal atheists have to eat their words later when they find their way to G!d. I find that so interesting. I can actually understand how the intellectual scientific mind can say there is no proof and decide to become atheist, but that same mind switching back after years of disproving and ranting, awfully interesting.

I love the argument that some religious organization did the study that said religious folks are happier, more content and live longer! Does that mean I have to dismiss every scientific report on science due to the inherent bias?? Republicans are more charitable than liberals too, yikes. Oh and the spotted owl's favorite nesting place is not in old growth forest but telephone poles. And the "head phones" to play Bach to a fetus in utero are sold mostly to abortion rights advocates that deny it is human, go figure.

Sometimes stats just piss us off. Speaking of which Cyberpi if Priests make up .08% of sex offenders you missed proving your point. What percentage do Priests make up of the general population. Then you can show that they are either less likely or more likely, however me thinks there is a reason that is not calculated.

There as many, if not more, former worshippers declaring atheism as the converse. Like you say statistics are more a toy than a tool most of the time. The only reason I will ever have to 'find God' is to make a lot of filthy lucre. As I am not greedy or materially ambitious that is not going to happen either.

As to freedom. You say 'our children', it is as though they are your possesions. Remember the Kahlil Gibran verse on children? Well this is the way I look to my own. It is my job to provide for their physical needs and safety, to insure they are able to grow and learn as individuals in their own right. Not as clones of me. The fact that we all come here to discuss the broad spectrum of theology, including the very valid beliefs of the atheist, day after day and never reach a consensus is testament to the complex nature of spiritual belief. The effort of reductionism to convert a child inevitably and invariably instils a set of unprovables as facts. So the children are in fact taught to believe a series of lies. If we establish in the youth this gullibility then we make the pawns that mass society has as a whole become. This is why I object to it. Religion in schools is an abuse of rational of those least capable of understanding it.


Tao

 

[cyberpi]

Sometimes stats just piss us off. Speaking of which Cyberpi if Priests make up .08% of sex offenders you missed proving your point. What percentage do Priests make up of the general population. Then you can show that they are either less likely or more likely, however me thinks there is a reason that is not calculated.

The stats don't piss me off... why should they piss you off? I recognized the lack of stats in Tao's assertions so I questioned it and provided a few stats I found. Not enough? I will dig up and work with some more numbers for you. From here I read: An estimated 0.2% of Roman Catholic priests have been proven to be abusers, cited from Philip Jenkins, Pedophiles and Priests: Anatomy of a Contemporary Crisis (Oxford University Press, 2001). ISBN 0-19-514597-6 If there are 486,184 registered sex offenders in 300 million, that is .16% of the population. Those numbers are alarming but are very close. I expect to find similar numbers for a public school and even higher for a daycare.

My point initially was that Tao did not show scientific reason or statistics that religion is the cause of the molestations. I was trying to show that the overwhelming majority are outside of the church, whereas you are asking whether being in a Catholic church whether a child is more or less susceptible to being raped. Or whether or not a Priest is more or less likely to be a child molester than the average adult found in society. It is a good question but doesn't give credence to Tao's claims of a God delusion and its repercussions.

As an example: I can show a strong relationship between drinking water or eating food and those who get cancer because everyone who got cancer also drank water and ate food. If I can show an overwhelming majority who did not get cancer but did drink water and eat food, or those who did get cancer but did not drink water and eat food, then I can show that the correlation and claims are bogus. Similarly if I can show a majority who are part of the church who do not get cancer, and a majority who get cancer that are not part of the church, then I show that the correlation and claims are bogus. But if you are asking if a person is more susceptible to getting cancer for drinking water and eating food... I don't know. Maybe so. Upon hearing the 10 commandments a person may be more likely to break one of them.

 

[Francis king]

Tao_Equus...

I fail to understand why "the illusion of an omnipresent deity in peoples mindset leads directly to actions that are counter to the greater good"...

Yes, I can see your examples, but... I think you are attributing the causes or features of these examples to God without considering the more likely reasons first...

For instance... in terms of familial abuse, the usual personality profile of the head of household would be overly authoritarian, emotionally cold, with a harsh and punishing parenting style, but I do not think religion is the cause of this, as, if this was the case, then atheists would never abuse children or batter their wives... and they do...

Nor do I think there is a higher incidence of incest or domestic violence in religious households versus that which occurs in atheist households, and think that religious persuasion has little to do with it when socio-economic variables and personality factors are considered.

I agree with you though, that freedom of expression and freedom of thought is being undermined by religious fanaticism. As you say, this ignorance is known in all faith groups; muslim, christian, buddhist, atheist. Again, this has nothing to do with believing or not believing in God- a fanatic will always find a cause...

the personality factors of most fanatics appears very similar accross all fanatical groups... traditionally, most are men, aged 18-35, they are idealists, and naive fantasists...

However... personally, I think religion has a place in society... I do not want religion to influence politics or legislation to the detriment of any being, and their right to choose how to live their lives, as individuals, and as citizens, but... for me, religion has been a good thing in my life...

not the orthodox, the regulation, the idiocy- I can choose to ignore the unsavoury and contrary elements, can see them for what they are, but the spirit of our religions- the exhortations to be kind, and decent, and help those less fortunate, the provision of faith for those without hope- all useful to us, even if they may be lies, if lies are all we have to cling to to prevent us drowning, then these lies are like honey from the lips of God...

-Is religion an assault on reason itself?

not everything in life has a reason... we want everything to be neat and ordered, and safe, but it is not... Humans are messed up. Full stop. That isn't the fault of God. That's the fault of man. Humans are stupid, in the main. Stupidity and ignorance are the biggest threats to the continuance of mankind, not religion. That we find ignorance and stupidity in religion is not a big surprise- we can find them everywhere else- politics, the arts, science, industry, and so why should religion be any different...?

Religion benefits society in numerous ways- without religion, the early anti-slavery movement would have taken a lot longer to become reality, religion and compassion brought about the earliest form of hospital care (in the real olden days, all nurses were nuns),

without religion, we would have far less charity- education for the worlds' poor was often provided by religions, so too many charitable aid programmes in the developing world- organisations like Oxfam, for instance, started off as christian movements...

public welfare started off in churches- parish committees would convene to provide poor relief for those in need... etc, etc...

Today...

Public health analysts in the UK have researched religion at length, and have found that belief in a religion, observance of ritual, and participation in religious activities with the community all have a beneficial effect on, not only mental well-being, but also physical health. Religion helps people to cope better with long term illnesses, enables them to cope better pre and post surgery, has a protective function on the heart and hormones, and enables people with chronic mental illnesses to be more productive and stable and less socially isolated.


-Is religion the most harmful single issue at work in our world today?

No. The most harmful things in our world are the same as they were 2000 years ago- hatred, ignorance, and greed.

-Can we fairly claim religion to be a disease endemic in every society?

rather than be a dis-ease, religion provides succour and comfort and hope and charity for millions...

you cannot simply throw all religious types into the one basket, and reject us based on the ignorance and stupidity of the few...

 

[cyberpi]

If you take another closer look at the study you linked to you will find that 93% of abusers were religious. In fact religion is the most striking statistical link between all paedophiles.

You appear to be outright lying. Show me where.

There is only one rational answer. God does not exist. But I have no doubt you will now tell me why it is good that God brings innocents into the world so they can be maimed, tortured and made fearful and miserable for all of their childhood. And then spend the rest of their lives trying to blot out the pain or go on to become abusers themselves. Go on...tell me....tell me why it is that your omnipresent deity is so cruel?

Most everyone I know has asked the same question. I'd say it depends on your material priorities... I don't see a loss. There are other rational answers. I recommend seeking and asking God for yourself.

 

[Tao_Equus]

You appear to be outright lying. Show me where.

Page 6 http://childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

Most everyone I know has asked the same question. I'd say it depends on your material priorities... I don't see a loss. There are other rational answers. I recommend seeking and asking God for yourself.

What do you mean you dont see a loss? The child loses nothing? And there are other rational answers? What the hell are they then? Hardly fair of you to try and derogatively call me an Assertionist and liar when you yourself do nothing but duck and dive.

Tao

 

[Tao_Equus]

Hi Francis,

In my OP I specifically target monotheistic, and even more specifically, Abrahamic religion. The reason for this is I believe it symbolises the patriarchal power structures that are the hallmark of the wrongs in the questions I pose. Later I go on to stress that I am aware that the spiritual experience is not invariably bad or detrimental to either individual nor society, but I did not set out to discuss these truths. But that said compassion, humility, warmth, understanding and love are not solely the preserve of the religiously minded. In truth the reasonably educated atheist, one that has thought long enough to choose it, usually has these qualities in abundance. So we can deduct these qualities from the equation. When we do what are we left with?

Tao

 

[cyberpi]

Page 6 http://childmolestationprevention.org/pdfs/study.pdf

If you take another closer look at the study you linked to you will find that 93% of abusers were religious. In fact religion is the most striking statistical link between all paedophiles.

Thank you. I have a different read of that: The person is asked if they are religious and the results perfectly match the US census demographics. So if I take any study of anything in the USA that is NOT correlated with religion and I ask a person if they are religious, then I would expect 93% will say yes. Where you claim a statistical link, I claim there is evidence that there is NO statistical link.

What do you mean you dont see a loss? The child loses nothing? And there are other rational answers? What the hell are they then? Hardly fair of you to try and derogatively call me an Assertionist and liar when you yourself do nothing but duck and dive.

Hardly fair of you to try and derogatively call me more likely to physically and sexually abuse my children and partner, and to have chosen an ostrich like denial about it. I am not ducking and diving anything. I am taking the time to contend with your words and beliefs.

Conversely, what do you think of the statistics from the same report:

9. Sexually abused boys who become molesters: Being abused as a boy appears to increase the risk that the abused child will himself eventually molest a child. More than 47 percent of the admitted child molesters had been sexually abused as children.

10. Severely sexually abused boys: Adult molesters who, as children, were sexually abused more than 50 times have triple the number of child victims compared to child molesters who were never sexually molested. Of those sexually abused more than 50 times, 82 percent can be categorized as pedophiles.

With those statistics in mind would you say that a person who has been abused is more likely doomed to be an abuser themselves, or is it possible for them to seek a higher power, to look inside and find a way to change and prevent doing the same? Are the statistics a dictation of what will occur... or merely a measure of history with the realization that the future can still be made different? What power, if any, exists in this world... within the mind... to make things different?

 

[Tao_Equus]

Thank you. I have a different read of that: The person is asked if they are religious and the results perfectly match the US census demographics. So if I take any study of anything in the USA that is NOT correlated with religion and I ask a person if they are religious, then I would expect 93% will say yes. Where you claim a statistical link, I claim there is evidence that there is NO statistical link.

lol, you call that logic? 93% of child abusers consider themselves religious and 93% of Americans consider themselves religious = the vast majority of child abuse is carried out by religious people. There is no way to slide out of it it is FACT. So religion gives society no net morality gain. That 10% of catholic priests have been investigated for Child Abuse is not a statement of general demographics but a snapshot into confirming my original assertion, that those peddling moral authority have a far higher incidence of being abusers than the general population. No you can wriggle and twist however which way you please but my assertion stands.

Hardly fair of you to try and derogatively call me more likely to physically and sexually abuse my children and partner,

Would you please quote me on where I ever did such a thing? After you have failed to do so because such a thing has never and will never happen we can tackle this:

Conversely, what do you think of the statistics from the same report:
With those statistics in mind would you say that a person who has been abused is more likely doomed to be an abuser themselves, or is it possible for them to seek a higher power, to look inside and find a way to change and prevent doing the same? Are the statistics a dictation of what will occur... or merely a measure of history with the realization that the future can still be made different? What power, if any, exists in this world... within the mind... to make things different?

From the same report the best estimate is that almost 40 million children have suffered sexual abuse which goes to show that quite contrary to the image you try to push here, ( and no I have not forgotten I have told of my own ordeal as a young boy here where you can read it), victims of abuse are no more likely than the general population to become abusers.

I said to you that it is up to you if you wish to bury your head in the sand over issues that I have raised in good faith. I raised them because I feel they have not been discussed here on CR from the perspective I come from. I have never accused nor hinted you are guilty of any crime. I have not called you a liar and I have not attempted to weave any past admission of yours into a veiled insinuation. I have had enough. I have stated in my OP an assertion that you forced me to statistically validate as fact, I have done so. Given the nature of your personal assault on my own integrity I dont see that you have anything of value to add here. You are not engaging me in good faith but only setting out to undermine what I say with foundless slurs. Which is a form of abuse. QED.

Tao