Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

[TTLer]

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?

articulett, I agree with you 100%.

In fact, after reading several other threads here, I'm disappointed at how many half-hearted skeptics appear to be members of this forum, sieving evidence through their non-scientific personal-feeling mesh. It makes for good debate here sometimes, but mostly it's just grist and crap the true skeptics must wade through to find proper posts about genuine critical thinking and discussion.

Like Richard Dawkins' sentiment in The God Delusion - It's time Religion stops getting a free ride from criticism. Well, IMHO, the same goes for posters like TheAtheist. No more free ride. Members like articulett and myself will criticize you, other will (and are) ignoring you.

 

[andyandy]

articulett, I agree with you 100%.

In fact, after reading several other threads here, I'm disappointed at how many half-hearted skeptics appear to be members of this forum, sieving evidence through their non-scientific personal-feeling mesh. It makes for good debate here sometimes, but mostly it's just grist and crap the true skeptics must wade through to find proper posts about genuine critical thinking and discussion.

Like Richard Dawkins' sentiment in The God Delusion - It's time Religion stops getting a free ride from criticism. Well, IMHO, the same goes for posters like TheAtheist. No more free ride. Members like articulett and myself will criticize you, other will (and are) ignoring you.

Have you spent much time in RP? If you think that religion gets a free ride from criticism from most posters then perhaps you should read some more. Generally the debate revolves around the focal point

1) lots of stuff about religion is bad/silly/ridiculous

Because this in itself is rather dull as there is broad agreement, there is often a good deal of heat generated by

2) Everything about religion is bad

which apparently some people believe quite passionately. I look forward to your "true sceptic" contributions to the debate.

 

[qayak]

so you know what people really believe? When they say "I don't believe in God" but then don't subscribe to some subsiduary action which you deem that such a statement requires, then you know they were never a True Atheist (TM)?

That's right. In order to claim to be an honest person you must refrain from lying and cheating so if you say you are honest and yet you lie and cheat, I can pretty much say you are not honest.

If you claim to be an atheist and yet do things that demonstrate you are not an atheist, like go to church and pray to your god, I pretty much know you are not an atheist.

This is the same technique I teach my daughters to get rid of losers before they make the mistake of dating them. "If their actions are not consistent with their words, they are lying to you."

 

[andyandy]

That's right. In order to claim to be an honest person you must refrain from lying and cheating so if you say you are honest and yet you lie and cheat, I can pretty much say you are not honest.

If you claim to be an atheist and yet do things that demonstrate you are not an atheist, like go to church and pray to your god, I pretty much know you are not an atheist.

This is the same technique I teach my daughters to get rid of losers before they make the mistake of dating them. "If their actions are not consistent with their words, they are lying to you."

nice example there -

if you say you don't believe in God but pray to your God then you can't not believe in God

You might have well have said

if you don't believe in God but believe in God then you can't not believe in God

which is facile.

back to Homoerotica the god of simian oil rubs

I don't believe in Homoerotica the god of simian oil rubs but I go to the Chapel of Homoerotica once a week because I enjoy the company.

am I not a "true atheist"?

There is no ideological baggage to the statement "I don't believe in God" beyond the statement itself. Even if your actions lead others to believe that you do believe in God they do not change what you actually do believe.

so back to Wilson, you don't believe he's a true atheist because why exactly?

 

[qayak]

Religion can be child abuse, but it isn't, per se.

You're right, religion isn't child abuse unless it is taught to children. Taught to adults it is just stupid.

They would simply be hypocrites.

Isn't that what I said, someone pretending to be something they are not?

And when I find atheists who are shocking parents, will you agree that atheism is bad and should be outlawed as well?

Obviously you would never be able to but if you could show that it was atheism that was the root of the problem then, yes.

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.

I know a couple people who suffered terrible physical and sexual abuse as children and they say they have no problems resulting from it but that doesn't mean I am going to start thinking sexual abuse of children is okay.

The point is that the life is not the life of the parents, it is the life of the child. Withholding medical treatment based on the religion of the parent is WRONG! That child does not have the information necessary. They are led to believe that their parents religion is true and that a god exists who will protect them. They are allowed to think nothing else. Teaching children that facts are lies and lies are facts is just as abusive for the exact same reason. Teaching intolerance of others is abusive to children for the same reason.

 

[qayak]

nice example there -

Thank you.

There is no ideological baggage to the statement "I don't believe in God" beyond the statement itself. Even if your actions lead others to believe that you do believe in God they do not change what you actually do believe.

Yeah, maybe in some philosophical fantasy world that you live in. However, some of us prefer to live in the the real world.

so back to Wilson, you don't believe he's a true atheist because why exactly?

I never said he wasn't so you will have to figure it out. I only said he was one of many nobodies trying to make a name for themsleves riding on Dawkins' coat tails.

 

[andyandy]

Thank you.

Yeah, maybe in some philosophical fantasy world that you live in. However, some of us prefer to live in the the real world.

In the real world, people who don't believe in God actually do believe in God because you say so?

I never said he wasn't so you will have to figure it out. I only said he was one of many nobodies trying to make a name for themsleves riding on Dawkins' coat tails.

so...

The self proclaimed atheists who express their dislike for him and his writings seem to base their dislike in a hope against hope that there really is something to be salvaged from the ashes of religion. They seem to be angry at the fact that Dawkins has sifted through the ashes and reported that there is, in fact, nothing there.

the "self proclaimed" atheists was meant more generally? Ok - who is a "self proclaimed" atheist and why do they deserve that qualifier?

 

[qayak]

In the real world, people who don't believe in God actually do believe in God because you say so?

Not because I say so, because their actions show it. Why do you have so much trouble with a simple concept?

so...

You brought it up so you must have thought it was important.

the "self proclaimed" atheists was meant more generally? Ok - who is a "self proclaimed" atheist and why do they deserve that qualifier?

I agree. I can never make sense of Dawkins' critics. It always sounds like the courtiers reply to me.

I think everyone sees Dawkins' critique as being more shrill or pointed than it is because we are raised to give deference to religion, faith, and the invisible gods people believe in.

If he'd have written a similar book about the astrology delusion, I don't think the critiques would have been nearly as reactionary.

This was the post I was responding to and it is pretty obvious I am referring to many of Dawkins' critcs who claim to be atheists but, by their actions, show they aren't.

 

[The Atheist]

Well, IMHO, the same goes for posters like TheAtheist. No more free ride. Members like articulett and myself will criticize you, other will (and are) ignoring you.

Hello, n00b. N.B. that n00b is not a term I ever use for real as putting newbies down. Well, not until right now, anyway.

Your problem is that you're showing your n00bishness and making conclusions based upon only a very small percentage of my posts. I know this for a fact, because if you've read any worthwhile percentage of my posts, you wouldn't make such a demonstrably idiotic statement.

You talk of "skeptics". "Skeptics" to me, are people who peruse the evidence before making stupid statements. You'll learn.

You're right, religion isn't child abuse unless it is taught to children. Taught to adults it is just stupid.

So, now the mere teaching of any religion to children is child abuse?

Is telling kids that Santa delivers presents child abuse as well?

Even more pertinently, is teaching children atheism child abuse?

Should we teach our children to be agnostic about everything?

Obviously you would never be able to but if you could show that it was atheism that was the root of the problem then, yes.

No problemo. I'll present my evidence right after you present yours that religion is harmful. Aside from the fact that I'm not contending that atheism creates bad parents, I think the onus is on you to back up these claims. You, Arti and my little n00b friend above, at least.

You claim teaching kids religion is child abuse.

Provide evidence that it is harmful in any way. I'm not going to argue that some sects' teachings are tantamount to child abuse, but then again, it isn't me labelling all religion as bad.

I know a couple people who suffered terrible physical and sexual abuse as children and they say they have no problems resulting from it but that doesn't mean I am going to start thinking sexual abuse of children is okay.

Silly analogy. Whether or not they have lasting harm is a non-issue. They have unquestionably had harm done to them, or you would not describe it as "terrible physical and sexual abuse". Show me where teaching religion does harm - again, other than in extreme cases - Phelps, Hinn, et al.

The point is that the life is not the life of the parents, it is the life of the child. Withholding medical treatment based on the religion of the parent is WRONG!

Another completely silly point, because nobody is going to suggest that it isn't wrong.

Ok. So that covers 0.7% of the world's christians, as I'm pretty sure you're referring to Jehovah's Witnesses. Is the other 99.3% of christianity bad because JWs are christians?

Teaching children that facts are lies and lies are facts is just as abusive for the exact same reason. Teaching intolerance of others is abusive to children for the same reason.

Sorry, I'm getting a little confused here, you seem to be saying two things:

Teaching kids lies is as bad as murdering your child (which withholding a transfusion would be, in my courtroom)

Christians teach their kids lies as fact.

Can you just confirm that that is what you're saying, and if so, can you just give me a list of the "facts" which christians lie about?*

*Taking into account that some 50% of christians are catholics, which church doesn't teach any lies as fact and which denies no scientific facts, that I'm aware of, and given my sooper-seekrit christian badges, I'm not too bad at doctrine.

 

[andyandy]

Not because I say so, because their actions show it. Why do you have so much trouble with a simple concept?

As has already been agreed by yourself, "I don't believe in God" has no ideological baggage beyond the statement itself. Why you continue to attempt to force ideological baggage upon it is rather strange. It is not an ideological position and is distinct from one's actions - Someone can choose to go to church, if they don't believe in God then their action of going to church does not change that belief. Someone can choose to send their child to sunday school. Their action does not change their belief. Someone can be friends with a vicar. Their action does not change their belief. And so on.
You can only construct meaningless sentences like
believing in God changes one's belief that there is no God
to fall back upon - but when you are forced to rely upon such sophistry it's often wise to rethink your position

You brought it up so you must have thought it was important.

The "so..." was a lead in to your quote

I am referring to many of Dawkins' critcs who claim to be atheists but, by their actions, show they aren't.

Many of Dawkins' critics? like who? If there are so many you should be able to find more than a few examples - and explain why despite regarding themselves as atheists you know that actually they're not.

 

[TTLer]

I'm leaving this thread as it in no way resembles a discussion between intelligent minds.

Cheers

 

[TTLer]

I'm leaving this thread as it in no way resembles a discussion between intelligent minds. That's what I came here for.

Cheers

 

[articulett]

articulett, I agree with you 100%.

In fact, after reading several other threads here, I'm disappointed at how many half-hearted skeptics appear to be members of this forum, sieving evidence through their non-scientific personal-feeling mesh. It makes for good debate here sometimes, but mostly it's just grist and crap the true skeptics must wade through to find proper posts about genuine critical thinking and discussion.

Like Richard Dawkins' sentiment in The God Delusion - It's time Religion stops getting a free ride from criticism. Well, IMHO, the same goes for posters like TheAtheist. No more free ride. Members like articulett and myself will criticize you, other will (and are) ignoring you.

Given the range of commentary he (the atheist) has in his sig, I suspect many have him on ignore. Although this is a skeptics forum we have some people who run around protecting their favorite sacred cow and demonize anyone who casts it in an unflattering light. Just stick around...the religious apologist crowd is loud and tangential at times but they are a minority. Most people who dislike Dawkins have some sort of belief they I trying to protect I imagine... or they are envious. They usually haven't even read him. It's those who apologize for religion the most that seem the most blinded to how much deference we show this nuttiness...how we've been taught to pretend that religion and god are necessary for all that is good... There really isn't a shred of evidence for anyone to believe any of this stuff...and there are lots of facts that religion gets in the way of understanding...facts that we humans can know for the first time. And I do think it's very wrong the way religions invent a problem (eternal damnation) and then proffer the solution and make you kiss their asses for it and convert others as well. Aren't all religions just a variation on this meme?

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=r...B32gTgtpMIymsaodg&sig2=Se3WQllTcE-tziUEHpgt-g


I wish someone had prodded my thinking out of the mind meld when I was younger. It isn't true and it isn't necessary and it can be terribly harmful and ignorance/fear promoting. Moreover, scientific bigotry and ignorance isn't good for anyone, and we are all at risk from those who think it's good to follow the dictates of invisible man in this world so their ETERNITY can be blissful. You never know what that invisible man is going to tell them to do next.

I'd prefer if my skeptics forum was troll free... but one can always use them for one's own amusement. And there are some really smart, funny, great posters who are eager to share their knowledge and experiences with you and learn from you.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I'm leaving this thread as it in no way resembles a discussion between intelligent minds. That's what I came here for.

Cheers

Suddenly, the discussion got a little more intelligent.

 

[andyandy]

Although this is a skeptics forum we have some people who run around protecting their favorite sacred cow and demonize anyone who casts it in an unflattering light.

Quite, and Dawkins seems to be the holiest cow of them all

Perhaps you could define religious apologist? You seem to be using it somewhat arbitrarily towards anyone who you don't think dislikes religion as much as yourself.

Why is TA a religious apologist?

Am I a religious apologist?

Are you one of the unfortunate devotees of Dawkins' "Chamberlain atheists" rhetoric?

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

How can an atheist "run around protecting their favorite sacred cow and demonize anyone who casts it in an unflattering light" if they believe nothing is sacred in so far as nothing deserves religious devotion?

Seriously, the whole notion that defending religion against outlandish statements such as "religion is child abuse" somehow makes you suspect as an atheist or skeptic is absurd.

Do you think that the ACLU seriously approves of all of the speech that it fights to protect?

Would you oppose a law that banned discussion of creationism from public forums?

 

[qayak]

As has already been agreed by yourself. . .

I didn't agree.

 

[andyandy]

I didn't agree.

You didn't agree that atheism is not an ideology?

Atheism is not an ideological creed that one signs up to - it is nothing more than a rejection of a concept.

Absolutely, they claim to reject the concept but in their actions they do not.

Was "absolutely" used in a sense other than "I agree"?

If you now do believe that it is an ideological creed perhaps you could outline what it is beyond "I don't believe in God."

Whilst you're at it, is "I don't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of oil rubs" an ideological creed?
Is "I don't believe there is a magic sprite under my desk" an ideological creed?

and I'm still waiting for all those examples of "self proclaimed" atheists

 

[mijopaalmc]

So what is the evidence that religion in all its forms is damaging all groups of children?

I am trying to ask this question in a way that acknowledges that there is going to be in-group variation in the the correlates examined; therefore, I am interested in the research that shows that the mental health all groups of children (not just, e.g., homosexuals*) is negatively correlated with religiosity in a statically significant way.

*The psychological damage done to young homosexuals by conservative religious communities is deplorable but does not automatically generalize to all groups of child in all religious communities.

 

[fishbob]

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.

Why does a shark try to chew your leg off?
Does not know the answer influence in any way your decision to not stick your leg into a tank full of sharks?

In the near term, the warning is enough.
In the long term, the 'why' might be an interesting subject for research.
Or not.