Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

[qayak]

I hardly think that an article such as Religion's Real Child Abuse, which is published on Dawkins' official website, is the "so little" you make it out to be; it is quite a strong statement of his personal belief that religion is child abuse regardless of its context

Here you go again. You made up a huge pack of BS out of what I said that had nothing to do with the subject.

I do think that religion is child abuse and I think it is an important problem, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: since I stepped in and called you on your insistence that people defending religion against baseless attacks* are automatically indoctrinated, because the only people who could possibly have and interest in defending religion are those who practice.

You are talking about something completely different. First, the attacks are not baseless, believers just wish they were. Second, I am not talking about people who defend aspects of religion on philosophical grounds. I am talking about people who claim one thing and then do exactly the opposite. The people who essentially say, "I don't believe there is a god but if you will excuse me, I ahve to go pray to him now."

*The attacks are essentially baseless seeing as religious upbringing simply does not result in the same psychopathology among all groups of children and across all forms of religion that child abuse does, a fact which has been amply demonstrated to you.

This has never been demonstrated, it is just what you believe. Even children who suffer violent sexual abuse react in different ways. There will never be a universal response. Some will be totally traumatized for the rest of their lives, some will brush it off with little or no problem. And everything in between

The fact that you expect one universal response in order to question religious indoctrination is further proof of how many special favours you are willing to give religion in order to delude yourself. If I find one person who says their childhood sexual abuse caused them little pain, will you agree that child abuse is not a problem and society should forget about it?

Or how about I demonstrate that sedating children does little lasting damage to most, would you then join me in extolling the virtues of drugging children so that parents can go out and enjoy themselves without having to worry about children misbehaving for babysitter?

I have met many people who were raised in religious households and who now say that it was a huge problem for them. I went hiking with a woman a couple weekends ago who I had lent The Demon Haunted World to. She did not have a chance to read it and was asking me questions about it. I told her that many people felt Sagan was not as hard on religion as Dawkins is. She asked me who Richard Dawkins was. I told her he was the guy who claimed religion was child abuse. To my surprise, she said, "Having lived it, I would have to agree with him. Can I borrow his book?" This woman is 46 years old, has a degree in mathematics and is very successful. Not one of her three kids was brought up to believe for this very reason. I have met her parents, they are very nice and yet they were the ones that did it.

 

[The Atheist]

btw, John, there's a forum rule about providing excerpts and links rather than pasting the whole article.

You made mod already?

I can see why Dawkins has little interest in the discussion in his book. Considering the overall hemes and thrust of the book, it is fair to say that spending much time quibbling over the possible evolutionary sources of religion is less important than its outcomes, which we can mostly agree with.

I'm not so sure. I've been giving this quite a bit of thought after the "should Dawkins debate YECs" thread. When an author entitles a book "The God Delusion", I think an exploration of the evolution of that god is almost a pre-requisite.

This bit from Dawkins pretty much nails it.

Actually, I thought this bit was far more important:

I agree that it is also interesting to ask whether religion has some kind of Darwinian survival value. But whatever the answer to that might turn out to be, it will make no difference to the central question of whether God exists.

Interesting? I find it absolutely ####ing critical!

If religion does have a survival value, that would be a hell of a lot more important to me than god being a myth. Obviously, as Dawkins states, it doesn't change the answer, but it might well change the way the answer is perceived. I, for one, would certainly contend that survival of the species is a lot more important than whether the sky-daddy patrols heaven. Given his background as an evolutionary biologist, I perhaps would have expected Dawkins to do the same.

He has added huge amounts of knowledge and conveyed evolution to many.

Has he really? Or has he just preached to the converted? I don't know one way or the other, but I hope you're right.

No, the people who claim to be atheists but their actions betray them. It is easy to say it, always much harder to live it.

You're pulling our legs, right?

hang on, since when did atheism become an ideology?

Couldn't agree more.

Sorry, Qayak, but I really don't get your point here at all. You treat "atheism" as though it were some achievement worthy of respect.

It isn't.

The reason I thought it would be interesting to hear people's comments about this short commentary was that I found it rather poor.

If the "God Delusion" is not about evolution, what area of knowledge does it actually move forward?

Good on you, John. Dawkins is often perceived as being above criticism, which is a bad thing at any time, but you're certainly making a good case for him to stand up on some counts.

I find it interesting that theologians find Dawkins very easy to dismiss, simply because his theology is so weak. That tends to confirm the "selling to the converted bit", although he's doubtless sold plenty of copies to those theologians who crap all over him.

... but we seem to be woefully short of understanding why we found it necessary to invent God in the first place...

Yeah, we even agree, Beady!

There are plenty of theories on the subject, but as far as I can tell, they're philosophy-based rather than science-based.

hang on, since when did atheism become an ideology?

Hand your bleeding card back immediately!

I don't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs. That statement is true regardless of how I choose to live my life.

How can you not believe that, you deluded fool?

I will be over later with a bottle of monkey oil laced with the excretion from bonobo chimpazee anal glands.

Never fails.

 

[The Atheist]

I do think that religion is child abuse and I think it is an important problem, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

Sorry, but that's a joke. Religion can be child abuse, but it isn't, per se.

I am talking about people who claim one thing and then do exactly the opposite. The people who essentially say, "I don't believe there is a god but if you will excuse me, I ahve to go pray to him now."

They would simply be hypocrites.

Plenty of them of all types in the world. Personally, I've never met anyone who behaves as you suggest.

The fact that you expect one universal response in order to question religious indoctrination is further proof of how many special favours you are willing to give religion in order to delude yourself. If I find one person who says their childhood sexual abuse caused them little pain, will you agree that child abuse is not a problem and society should forget about it?

And when I find atheists who are shocking parents, will you agree that atheism is bad and should be outlawed as well? No atheists abuse their children?

I have met many people who were raised in religious households and who now say that it was a huge problem for them.

You know, I only find that comment in here. Maybe it's a North American thing, because I know lots of Poms, Kiwis and Aussies who were brought up in religion and none of them ever felt in the slightest abused by it. Most of them are now atheists, but some remain christian. No scars.

 

[andyandy]

snip.

did you lean on the multiquote tab? That must be the most quotes within a post like ever. I'm happy to see i was profound enough to be quoted twice for one of my comments

I will be over later with a bottle of monkey oil laced with the excretion from bonobo chimpazee anal glands.

I think you're being a bit unfair to New Zealand lager - it's not that bad

 

[articulett]

You're cynical.

Yes, yes, that's what it's used for (as John Adams, Lenin and Napoleon, et al, have remarked), but I mean "Why is this tool so readily available? Why are people, both individually and in groups, so susceptible to it? Why are the willingness, compulsion and need to believe in something so dominant in virtually every human?"

ETA: Dawkins does a fair enough job of arguing against organized religion, but I don't think he adds very much to an understanding of faith.

Actually he does. And he doesn't deride the religious. They are far ruder to him. Faith evolved in children because trust is essential to the survival of our species. Religion hijacks this--authority figures tell you that you can suffer forever--but they have the key to prevent it (the make the problem and then heroically provide the solution)--Believe and get others to believe--show obedience to the faith. "Yours is not to wonder why, yours is but to do or die". Then enforce it with shunning of dissenters...protection and favors for those kissing the asses of the people in the hierarchy the most. Make belief and faith a "necessary" insurance plan--ala pascal. It spreads just like a chain letter but the stakes are much higher--ETERNITY... based on what you believe! Such a simple meme... and it works so well with human primal need to have explanations and make them up when they don't have them... it exploits human error in mistaking correlation for causation... and enforces it stories like Pandoras box and the suffering of humanity after Eve bites from the "tree of knowledge". It promotes us vs. them thinking where your in-group watches your back from that scary other group who are evil. Faith is easy to understand. The way religion hijacks it and promotes it as essential to salvation is easy to understand. Also, most religions encourage the minions to go forth and multiply spreading whatever genes that influenced their "faithfulness" along with the faith meme into a ready supply of new vectors.

I think Dawkins et. al. understand faith quite well--he just thinks humans have been deluded into thinking it's a good think--necessary for salvation--a path to higher truths.

 

[articulett]

Mijo and John Hewitt are both religious apologists and Dawkins loathers. They use arguments of Behe while denying being "creationists" and side stepping the issue of whether they believe in "intelligent design".

From my perspective Mijo was acting like a creationist tour guide of a museum producing a kid asking evolutionists "why do you teach false facts" was no big deal because religion supposedly does these great things. Gayak responded to the article by asking, "who says religion isn't child abuse" because it's pretty egregious to lie to kids under threats of hell. Then Mijo went around like all creationist demanding evidence that religion causes harm to people...and lots of evidence was provided, but none that he would accept, of course... But Mijo failed to provide evidence of religions benefits--just a meta analysis of nurses that showed there was a weak correlation between people who consider themselves spiritual and mental health. Of course, for gay youths the opposite was true. Religion made them more prone to dysfunction...and religion and failure to understand evolution is widely correlated with societal dysfunction.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Since that is the case, Dawkins is doing society a favor in showing them the facts their religions made them afraid to learn.

And Dawkins never said Religion IS child abuse. He said threatening people with hell is an abusive way to enforce belief and that children should not be labeled by their parents religions anymore than by their parents politics.

I just think everything an atheist says, including Dawkins is exaggerated to the nth degree because everybody thinks they have the true woo that they think Dawkins should respect. Nobody has an actual credible argument against anything he says as far as I can tell. And those who dis him are usually those who haven't even read him--

And if they are non-believers, I suspect they still are showing the deference towards faith that society promotes--or envious of his ability to say what so many have been wishing they could say.

 

[articulett]

That's pretty much my point. We are awash with chronological histories of the development of the idea of God; explanations, critiques and denunciations of the various religions in specific and general; catechisms, holy books and whatever; and even philosophical treatises (is that the correct plural?), but we seem to be woefully short of understanding why we found it necessary to invent God in the first place. So far, the concept of the need for God as a byproduct of our compulsion to adore something, which itself is a manifestation of our reproductive instinct, is the closest I've seen Dawkins come to a truly scientific explanation. I don't find the concept wholy satisfactory, mind, and think it's a bit of a reach, but it's the best I've seen to date. I wish there had been more in this vein.

Dennet did. But it's pretty easy to see... humans have been making up explanations for things they don't understand for eons...lots of gods and demons before we started figuring out how things work. And religions hijack human tendencies like us vs. them mentality. You protect your group against those evil "others"-- good guys and bad guys... And capitalizes on human fear--especially fear of death...by offering an answer and telling you that it will only happen if you really really believe...

Humans evolved to notice patterns, design, and meaning...even when none is there. They are agency detectors...they look to see how they can control things...and they so they see agency that isn't there. A tornado comes on the same day that stranger visited your village...you don't want another tornado...you assume the stranger brought the tornado...you kill him...and you never have another tornado. Naturally your belief about humans and tornados is reinforced. I don't see how religion wouldn't evolve once men saw how easily you could gain allegiances and spawn minions by using it... People have invented it again and again to the delight of those who can convince others that they have access to the divine.

Isn't Randi a testament to how easily beliefs can spread...and they do ensure the survival and reproduction of adherents and the expense of non believers.
Heck, missionaries all over the world offer much needed help in exchange for "belief". Humans had to at least get good at pretending to believe in order to survive.

 

[articulett]

And yes, the atheist, Dawkins has discovered much about evolution and disseminated his discoveries to all who are interested only to be misquoted and lied to be creationists and demonized for bearing facts rather than faith.

 

[andyandy]

But Mijo failed to provide evidence of religions benefits--just a meta analysis of nurses that showed there was a weak correlation between people who consider themselves spiritual and mental health.

there are studies which show evidence of religious benefit - but as these don't fit into an angry atheist mypoia they are ignored. Now this benefit may simply be one of increased social network or other mundane and entirely plausible factor but it is disingenuous to pretend that such studies do not exist.

Philadelphia–Depressed seniors who believe their life is guided by a larger spiritual force have significantly fewer symptoms of depression than those who do not use religious coping strategies. Moreover, this relationship is independent of the amount of social support those individuals receive, according to results of a prospective study presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

"This is a pretty remarkable study–and when you see these kind of data coming out from both medical and psychiatric populations, it’s hard to continue ignoring religion as a variable in the recovery from depression," said Harold G. Koenig, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

According to study author Hayden Bosworth, PhD, attempts in the literature to distinguish the effects of religion from the effects of social support on depression have led to mixed success (Husaini BA et al. Int J Aging Hum Dev 1999;48:63-72). Dr. Bosworth, associate director, health services research and development, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and his colleagues attempted to address the issue by examining the effects of religious practices, coping mechanisms and social support on recovery among individuals diagnosed with major depression.

The research team assessed all patients (n=114; average age, 67.5 years) using the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at baseline and at the end of six months. They also asked each patient about the extent of their religious practices and religious coping (Table).

The results indicated that higher patient-reported levels of religious practice correlated with significantly lower MADRS scores at baseline (P <0.02), after adjusting for covariates such as social support. However, the analysis of 90 patients at the six-month follow-up showed that religious practice did not significantly predict lower MADRS scores after adjusting for other factors (P <0.08).

The analysis also revealed higher levels of positive religious coping were related to lower MADRS scores at baseline (P=0.03). Moreover, positive religious coping significantly predicted lower MADRS scores at six months (P <0.03).

The investigators reported that higher levels of negative religious coping were associated with higher MADRS scores at baseline (P=0.02), although similar findings did not appear at six months.

"These results indicate that clinicians should encourage reconnection with religion as a way of coping in patients whose spirituality has been important to them," concluded Dr. Bosworth.

"Physicians need to pay attention to their patients’ religious beliefs and practices," added Dr. Koenig. "Rather than continuing to see it as a liability or unhealthy crutch, they should see it as a potential strength in overcoming depression."

http://www.mental-health-today.com/a...irituality.htm

from the medical journal of australia
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...ed/hassed.html

Many studies have linked a lack of religiosity to depression. Religious commitment is associated with a reduced incidence of depression13 and a quicker recovery from depressive illness for the elderly.15 Two separate reviews of the literature have supported this: those with high levels of "religious involvement", "religious salience" and "intrinsic religious motivation" were at reduced risk,14 and religious commitment was inversely related to suicide risk in 13 of 16 studies reviewed.13 One study showed a fourfold increased risk of suicide for non-churchgoers compared with regular attenders,22 and no study has shown an increased risk of suicide among churchgoers.

Other data suggest that religiosity protects against drug and alcohol misuse, one of the most commonly used and maladaptive ways for dealing with depression. One study showed that 89% of alcoholics (but only 20% of the control group) had lost interest in religious issues during their teenage years.20 In another study it was found that doctors (who are a high-risk group for substance misuse) were less likely to develop an alcohol problem in later life if they had had a religious commitment while in medical school.21 Religious affiliation, even if accompanied by alcohol misuse, seemed to protect against heavy use or the associated extreme clinical and social consequences.

The reasons why people with a sense of religious commitment are less likely to become depressed may include a feeling of social connectedness, exposure to messages about healthy living, or perhaps the reduced exposure to drug-taking behaviour. However, studies controlling for these factors have still found religiosity to be independently protective. So there may be other reasons, such as the comfort that comes from believing in a benevolent and caring God, the view that justice always prevails in the end, or that adverse events always have a meaning and a message. Such attitudes would buffer enormously against the ill-effects of life stresses and the depression that often follows.

The important role that mental health plays in the development and progression of physical illness goes part way to explaining why religious commitment is associated with reduced risk of conditions such as hypertension, heart disease and cancer.26,27,29,30 A population study over nine years showed that all-cause mortality was significantly reduced and life expectancy increased (to 82 years v. 75 years) for regular churchgoers. The findings were not explainable by the accepted lifestyle and social variables,24 and were consistent with other data.25

cite 24

We use recently released, nationally representative data from the National Health Interview Survey-Multiple Cause of Death linked file to model the association of religious attendance and sociodemographic, health, and behavioral correlates with overall and cause-specific mortality. Religious attendance is associated with U.S. adult mortality in a graded fashion: People who never attend exhibit 1.87 times the risk of death in the follow-up period compared with people who attend more than once a week. This translates into a seven-year difference in life expectancy at age 20 between those who never attend and those who attend more than once a week. Health selectivity is responsible for a portion of the religious attendance effect: People who do not attend church or religious services are also more likely to be unhealthy and, consequently, to die. However, religious attendance also works through increased social ties and behavioral factors to decrease the risks of death. And although the magnitude of the association between religious attendance and mortality varies by cause of death, the direction of the association is consistent across causes.

http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=007...3E2.0.CO;2-H


cite 25

Longitudinal Study of Religiosity and Mortality Risk
Kathleen M. Clark
Department of Psychology, University of California, USA

Howard S. Friedman

Department of Psychology, University of California, USA

Leslie R. Martin

Department of Psychology, La Sierra University, USA

The relation of adult religiosity to longevity was studied in 993 participants from Terman's 70-year Life-Cycle Study. Key social and behavioral variables of physical health, psychological well-being, socio-economic status, social support, and health behaviors were also considered. Results indicate that women who viewed themselves as more religious in adulthood (approximately age 40) had a lower risk for premature mortality than those who were less religiously inclined. These women had healthier behaviors, more positive feelings about their futures, and reported being somewhat happier than their less religiously inclined peers. In this bright, middle-class, 20th century sample, religiosity among women seems to be part of a generally healthy lifestyle, but not necessarily a direct cause of it.

http://hpq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/3/381


cite 27

The perceived or self-reported degree of 'religiousness' was obtained by interview from 715 colorectal cancer patients and 727 age/sex matched community controls, as part of a large, comprehensive population-based study of colorectal cancer incidence, aetiology and survival (The Melbourne Colorectal Cancer Study) conducted in Melbourne, Australia. Self-reported or perceived 'religiousness', as defined in the study, was a statistically significant protective factor [relative risk (RR) = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.6-0.9, P = 0.002]. This statistically significant protection remained after the previously determined major risk factors found in the study, namely a family history of colorectal cancer, dietary risk factors, beer consumption, number of children and age at birth of the first child, were statistically corrected for (P = 0.004). There was no association between Dukes' staging of the cancer and perceived degree of 'religiousness' (P = 0.42). Although self-reported or perceived 'religiousness' was associated with a median survival time of 62 months compared with 52 months in those self-reporting as being 'non-religious', this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.64).

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1294223

cite 28

David B. Larson1, 7, Harold G. Koenig2, Berton H. Kaplan3, Raymond S. Greenberg4, Everett Logue5 and Herman A. Tyroler6

(1) Biometrics and Clinical Applications Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health in Rockville, Maryland
(2) The Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina
(3) Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, USA
(4) Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
(5) College of Medicine at Northeastern Ohio University in Rootstown, Ohio
(6) Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
(7) Present address: BCAB/DBAS/NIMH, Rm., 18c-14, 5600 Fishers Lane, 20857 Rockville, MD


Abstract Most clinical studies examining the relation between religion and blood pressure status have focused on church attendance, finding lower pressures among frequent attenders. The present study examines the effect on blood pressure status of a religious meaning variable, importance of religion, both by itself and together with frequency of church attendance. The relation between blood pressure, self-perceived importance of religion, and frequency of church attendance was examined among a rural sample of 407 white men free from hypertension or cardiovascular disease. The data confirmed an interaction between the effects of both religious variables on blood pressure status, with importance of religion having an even greater association with lower pressures than church attendance. Diastolic blood pressures of persons with high church attendance and high religious importance were significantly lower than those in the low attendance, low importance group. These differences persisted after adjusting the analyses for age, socioeconomic status, smoking, and weight-height ratio (Quetelet Index). The difference in mean diastolic pressures based on response to the religious importance variable alone was statistically and clinically significant, particularly among men aged 55 and over (6 mm) and among smokers (5 mm). These findings suggest that both religious attitudes and involvement may interact favorably in their effects on cardiovascular hemodynamics.
Funding for this study was provided by the Department of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; the Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, Duke University Medical Center; and the Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
The authors thank Dan Blazer for his advice, assistance, and encouragement. They are also grateful to Dana Anne Mlekush for her help with manuscript preparation and her thoughtful input to this project.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/g484435055217w1p/

These [ESM studies by Wilson and Csikszentmihalyi] studies were performed on such a massive scale and with so much background information that we can compare the psychological experience of religious believers vs. nonbelievers on a moment-by-moment basis. We can even compare members of conservative vs. liberal protestant denominations, when they are alone vs. in the company of other people. On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality. More fine-grained comparisons reveal fascinating differences between liberal vs. conservative protestant denominations, with more anxiety among the liberals and conservatives feeling better in the company of others than when alone. Religions are diverse, in the same way that species in ecosystems are diverse. Rather than issuing monolithic statements about religion, evolutionists need to explain religious diversity in the same way that they explain biological diversity.

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html

i could go on, but it's utterly pointless - no amount of evidence is good enough if you've already made up your mind.

 

[The Atheist]

there are studies which show evidence of religious benefit - but as these don't fit into an angry atheist mypoia they are ignored. Now this benefit may simply be one of increased social network or other mundane and entirely plausible factor but it is disingenuous to pretend that such studies do not exist.

You do realise you're doing all my research for me?

Cheers!

 

[John Hewitt]

Good on you, John. Dawkins is often perceived as being above criticism, which is a bad thing at any time, but you're certainly making a good case for him to stand up on some counts.

I find it interesting that theologians find Dawkins very easy to dismiss, simply because his theology is so weak. That tends to confirm the "selling to the converted bit", although he's doubtless sold plenty of copies to those theologians who crap all over him.

Thanks for those comments Atheist. I do feel that Dawkins tends, at times, to present his beliefs as if they were beyond criticism.

By the way, I see that Articulett has changed her views of me. It seems that, while she once felt I was a creationist, now I have become a religious apologist and Dawkins loather. (I'm not sure whether that is a promotion or a demotion.) Are you still a creationist?

 

[articulett]

Andy Andy... I don't doubt that it has some benefit. I'm just saying that it definitely causes harm and it isn't true... Mijo felt no one should be able to liken it to child abuse. This is a skeptics forum... all people are free to call it child abuse...the OP illustrated someone making a kid purposely ignorant and bigoted in the name of god. They were made ignorant in the exact same way that is correlated with societal dysfunction-- http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Religiosity and failure to accept evolution is strongly associated with much higher rates of teen pregnancy, drug use, venereal disease, abortion, and homicide. Religion does not confer the benefit it's adherents claim. It does not make people more moral. It reward obedience and ignorance and faith over reason and doubt and facts.

But my point wasn't about religion--only that Mijo brought up another thread and mischaracterized it from my perspective. He is a religious apologists and instead of showing concern over the lying tour guide the thread was about, he attacked skeptics who dared say what the the tour guide was abusing the trust of his subjects while seemingly under the badge of science. He was proffering ye ol' "be skeptic of the skeptics" to kiddies promoting antiscience bigotry with pious ignorance and threats of hell mixed in.

Mijo is a religious apologists. He defends the indefensible while insulting skeptics for being critical of falsehoods on a skeptics forum! And, it's a sure sign that someone has some belief that they don't like Dawkins disbelieving when they have this visceral dislike of him without having actually read him...their arguments just seem so petty... and it's so obvious that they wouldn't have the same reaction if he wrote a book about disbelieving in astrology or scientology. Society teaches people to shun and punish those who don't show deference to religion. I think mijos tangent was merely a defense of his beliefs. The same with Hewitt.

I don't care whether religion is good or bad--I just care whether it's true--and there is no reason to think any of it is--so don't inflict it on me or my kid. I'm glad Dawkins has a number one best seller. He speaks for me. And he speaks out against those who would make future generations both arrogant and ignorant of the knowledge Dawkins has been instrumental in gathering in regards to evolution. There's rooms for all kinds of approaches in enlightening people and getting rid of old superstitions that oppress people. Raising consciousness by talking about these things is one way. It's what this forum is all about I thought. And Dawkins is doing that.

Billions of people are afraid not to believe because they think they will suffer forever. Isn't it time someone let them out of their cages of fear?

 

[The Atheist]

And yes, the atheist, Dawkins has discovered much about evolution and disseminated his discoveries to all who are interested only to be misquoted and lied to be creationists and demonized for bearing facts rather than faith.

Certainly, but I am just a little concerned that he hasn't approached religion itself from an evolutionary perspective. He is the ideal person to do it and it seems to me to be far important than "Does god exist?"

And I know we've been through this before - but will you please stop classing John Hewitt as a christian apologist or creationist. He is clearly neither. I know where John's problem with Dawkins stems from and it's got nothing to do with god. I'm not saying John's right or wrong - it's way above my simple level - but I understand his reasons and none of them are because John started with "goddidit".

 

[articulett]

Oh please, the atheist... everyone knows that you are a religious apologist...and few actually think you are an atheist. Do you have any valid reasons for your visceral dislike of Dawkins?

 

[The Atheist]

Religiosity and failure to accept evolution is strongly associated with much higher rates of teen pregnancy, drug use, venereal disease, abortion, and homicide.

Given that figure then, we could reasonably expect New Zealand to have far lower rates than USA in teen pregnancy, drug abuse, STDs and abortion. (I won't consider homicide as we don't have pistols in NZ.)

The bad news is that NZ and USA jointly lead the world in those troubles. USA is the most-christian English-speaking nation and NZ is the least-christian English-speaking nation [or very close to it].

I'm personally very confident that not a single one of those things has anything to do with religion. At all.

I don't care whether religion is good or bad--I just care whether it's true--and there is no reason to think any of it is--so don't inflict it on me or my kid.

Again, I wonder whether that's right. If religion contains benefits we don't yet know about, wouldn't it be nice to know about them?

Billions of people are afraid not to believe because they think they will suffer forever. Isn't it time someone let them out of their cages of fear?

Do you have any evidence to back up this very broad-brush statement? I think is ignorance is a far better motivator for belief than fear. Fear may change a person's attitude, but I can't see how it could stop him becoming an atheist. Fear may give him the impetus to hide his atheism, but it isn't going to change the way the person feels.

 

[andyandy]

Oh please, the atheist... everyone knows that you are a religious apologist...and few actually think you are an atheist. Do you have any valid reasons for your visceral dislike of Dawkins?

i previously had a higher opinion of you than this....

"religious apologist?" "Few think you're an atheist?"

good grief.

 

[The Atheist]

Oh please, the atheist... everyone knows that you are a religious apologist...

I'm sorry, but unless that's meant in jest, it is so far from the truth that it's quite absurd.

Please show me one single example of where I have made comments that could even be remotely classed as religious apology. And please don't confuse me refusing to spread lies and propaganda as apologetics.

I won't even begin on the "everyone knows" about it.

...and few actually think you are an atheist.

Well, if that's the case, most people here must be a magnitude dumber than I thought.

Fortunately, it doesn't bother me for a nanosecond what people think. I'm just surprised anyone is that shallow and ignorant.

Do you have any valid reasons for your visceral dislike of Dawkins?

Yep, I've said many times, he is the type of namby-pamby Pommy I dislike on principal. I have the greatest of respect for him as a scientist and I agree with most of what he says. Doesn't mean I'm going to like him as a bloke.

See, with me, whether or not I dislike someone never stops me treading the path of what is actually right. Christ, only last week, I was told that I was cheerleading for Unter, because I agreed with him on a forum issue! Of all people! Even if someone I totally despise is right, I'm not about to hide the fact.

That's the difference between us, I feel. I really don't care about people's philosophy as much as their honesty. Emotions don't rule me in any way.

You have a good example yourself. We had a huge barney a while back, yet my feelings towards you are quite ambivalent, despite what my sig line says. I think I proved that when I tried to talk you out of using salvia divinorum - because I'd prefer that no harm happen to others, regardless of whether that person is on my ####-list or not.

 

[andyandy]

I won't even begin on the "everyone knows" about it.

.

we had a vote on the forum last week, you must have missed it,

"Is The Atheist a religious apologist?"

YES 100%
No 0%
On planet x no one makes such ridiculous generalizations 0%

It received votes from all 13,114 members which was pretty impressive.

see, it's that kind of evidence based approach that True Atheists (TM) use that separates them from Chamberlain apologist scum like yourself.

 

[The Atheist]

i previously had a higher opinion of you than this....

"religious apologist?" "Few think you're an atheist?"

good grief.

Well, apart from Grayman, who tells people that I'm actually a Southern Baptist preacher in disguise.



The difference being, I know Grayman's joking.

 

[The Atheist]

we had a vote on the forum last week, you must have missed it,

"Is The Atheist a religious apologist?"

YES 100%
No 0%
On planet x no one makes such ridiculous generalizations 0%

It received votes from all 13,114 members which was pretty impressive.

see, it's that kind of evidence based approach that True Atheists (TM) use that separates them from Chamberlain apologist scum like yourself.

Damn, the secret's out! I am shamed. Even further proof:

Members: 13,114

I even voted that way myself!

*&^%$$%##!!@

Hang on, wasn't it me telling you to hand your atheist card back, in this very thread???

Now I see it. You're doing this to deflect from the fact that YOU are the religious apologist!

Nailed.