Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

[fishbob]

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

Oh - your problem with Dawkins is not his content but his attitude and his demeanor?

Carry on, then.

 

[fishbob]

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

No you didn't. . . . That is down the hall.

 

[articulett]

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?

Of course not...I just am not going to condone the censure of those who speak out against religion nor pretend that religion is good for something when we know full well it isn't true and it is manipulative. Why censure you, when I can expose you for the hypocrite you are?

And I have a lot more evidence then what you allege for my claims. Suffice to say, I want to give my fellow skeptics a heads up, so they stick around and keep this forum delightful for me, and don't run away by the holier than thou judgmental woo who want freedom of speech for their own opinions no matter how inane, but want evidence of near impossible claims for those who disagree with them. The people who bug me the most...or whom I find the most "insincere" tend to be people who are causing others to feel the same things. But like the incompetents in my sig article, such people never ever conclude that they are the problem... whereas those who more socially skilled and intelligent will wonder if it's them.

I just find the people who speak out against Dawkins a lot less honest and intelligent then him on average...their complaints seem like the proverbial courtiers reply. The rush to defend religion on a skeptics forum is bizarre...religion has as much evidence in support of it as astrology or "the secret"... Dawkins is a real person giving real knowledge to many people about all kinds of things and creationists are liars who demonize him and all biologists and pretend to speak of "some higher truth" that is just a manipulative illusion.

I think society has indoctrinated people to show this bigotry to non-believers as though it's something good...

Just in case, people wonder if it's them... I want to give them the heads up that Mijo, John Hewitt, and TA are known religion apologists who show difficulty in engaging in actual dialogue and ask contentious tangential insincere questions--from my perspective. Some people are very intelligent on this forum and will go out of their way to teach you what they know...and some people think they know a lot and will go out of their way to obfuscate understanding that others might share with you. And, in my experience, knee-jerk anti-dawkinsism is a sure sign of the latter. Pretending people think he's a prophet is silly. Nobody thinks that--anymore than they think it of Randi, Sagan, or anybody else that helps us understand the truth that is the same for everyone.

I'm just sick of those who pretend lack of belief or dislike of religion is the same as religion...those who pretend science is a faith. Those 3 people I mentioned have done that...and have shown no ability to alter such conclusions no matter how long they have been posting here. You can check out their posts and see for yourself. I would never expect anyone just to take my word for something.

 

[qayak]

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

Not now, it always has been.

Even more pertinently, is teaching children atheism child abuse?

How do you teach a child atheism? Oh, you mean giving them the FACTS and having them draw their own conclusions based on those facts? No.

Should we teach our children to be agnostic about everything?

Of course not. Agnosticism is a condition you move quickly through when investigating something. At worst you will pause there for awhile until you sort through the information.

No problemo. I'll present my evidence right after you present yours that religion is harmful.

I already have on many occasions. Still waiting for yours.

You claim teaching kids religion is child abuse.

Yes I do and I claim that moderate religions and their members lend a huge hand by adding an air of legitimacy to the lunatic rantings of fundamentalists by refusing to speak out against the evil they do.

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.

And I argue that some sects are very bad and some are not so bad but all of them are bad.

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)

Yes, you are very confused. I said all these actions are abuse for the same reason and that reason is that it is the child's life, not the parents'. The child has the right to the best possible medical attention, access to the most accurate information, and the freeist thinking of the day, not the bigotted dogma of illiterate idiots from 2000 years ago.

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.

Have you seen what "The Rat" is up to? Evolution is out, intelligent design is in, etc. Isn't the catholic church the one that believes Jesus was born through immaculate conception? (Lie) That there is a god? (Lie) That Jesus died for my sins? (Lie) That Jesus was ressurected? (Lie) That Mother Theresa was a saint? (Lie) That mother Theresa performed a miracle after her death? (Lie) That condoms cause AIDS? (Lie) That statues can weep blood? (Lie) That Jesus . . . oh yeah, this is the catholic church so that would have to be the Virgin Mary will protect them from harm and cure their ills? (Lie) This could go on for a long time so I'll stop here.

 

[The Atheist]

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

Cheers

Very wise.

Given the range of commentary he (the atheist) has in his sig, I suspect many have him on ignore....

Wow. Just wow.

I'm simply staggered by your post. On one hand, detailing how "skeptics" ought to behave, then ignoring all of those rules by making assumptions based on a position of total ignorance.

It has, however, been thoroughly enlightening.

For the second time in a row I see you labelling people who disagree with you as christians or creationists or christian apologists.

What's that saying about insanity making the same mistake over and over?

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

Clearly, he is. The sheer defensiveness of the posts like the one we both responded to is a dead giveaway.

Ain't it funny how scepticism and critical thinking aren't allowed to be applied to the champions? I guess they're always right.

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.

 

[articulett]

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.

Oh, you have a whole thread on the answer with multiple links. You just have no capacity for absorbing any information that answers your insincere questions. Nobody said all, you twit--quit pretending. Straw man generator.

The thread is about Dawkins...go back to your own thread if you want to resurrect that strawman again.

 

[The Atheist]

I want to give them the heads up that Mijo, John Hewitt, and TA are known religion apologists .

I would never expect anyone just to take my word for something.

Very, very wise.

Of course, you could try to supply some evidence yourself...

 

[qayak]

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.

Your criteria is absurd. No one can show that anything will be damaging to all members of all groups of all populations. this is as absurd as me demanding you demonstrate that all children in all religious communities have had only positive experiences from their religious indoctrination.

Once again, you make special allowances for religion. Why can't religion stand up to the scrutiny put on all other things children come in contact with?

 

[andyandy]

Just in case, people wonder if it's them... I want to give them the heads up that Mijo, John Hewitt, and TA are known religion apologists.

I'm still interested by how you are defining "apologists" - is it a case of not disliking religion as much as yourself? It does seem to be that if one has the temerity to deviate from a very narrow hate-religion base, that the "apologist" mud gets thrown pretty quickly. For you to brazenly label forum members "known religious apologists" is rather depressing. I've not seen anything on this thread to suggest that either Mijo or John deserve that perjorative and i've not seen anything that comes remotely close in several hundred posts by TA. Perhaps you could provide evidence of what you believe constitutes being an "apologist" rather than simply being content to throw around blanket generalised insults - otherwise the only "heads up" you're giving (me at least) is a negative impression about yourself.

There are studies (cited earlier) that show people who are religious are better at coping with depression. There are studies (cited earlier) which show that people who are religious seem happier and more sociable. That is not being an apologist -but citing what the scientific literature seems to suggest. And it should be a fascinating question as to why that is - are certain personality types attracted to religion? Does the religious framework provide happiness in delusion, a greater access to a social network, or something else entirely? The trouble is, we can never have that discussion on JREF because of all the shrill cries of "apologist!" And that truly is quite disappointing - that otherwise incredibly intelligent and articulate individuals are somehow clouded by their visceral hatred that on this issue rational debate is seemingly impossible.

 

[The Atheist]

I already have on many occasions. Still waiting for yours.

What evidence are you waiting for from me?

I still haven't seen yours, though.

I asked for evidence that teaching children religion is bad. I'm still waiting on the detail for the remaining 99.3%.

Yes I do and I claim that moderate religions and their members lend a huge hand by adding an air of legitimacy to the lunatic rantings of fundamentalists by refusing to speak out against the evil they do.

That's actually bloody funny, because the only lunatic rantings I've seen in this thread are from the keyboards of atheists.

Have you seen what "The Rat" is up to? Evolution is out, intelligent design is in, etc.

Now you're just showing your ignorance. No matter that Ratzinger is an idiot looking for intelligence in the design, the official position of the RCC is that evolution happened and ID is not. 1

Who's telling lies now?

Isn't the catholic church the one that believes Jesus was born through immaculate conception? (Lie) That there is a god? (Lie) That Jesus died for my sins? (Lie) That Jesus was ressurected? (Lie)

Ah, those are lies are they. 1,2,3

While I think those things are all complete and utter bollocks, I fail to see how they can be "lies", given that we cannot prove god didn't do it any more than the left-footers can prove he did?

Of course, if you want to join Piggy, Articulett, EGarrett, Thaiboxerken & others as people who believe that those things have been proven to be false, you're most welcome.

That is every bit as deluded as any christian.

That Mother Theresa was a saint? (Lie)

Interesting you mention her. It took Andyandy to persuade me that she's guilty of manslaughter - I was going for premeditated murder, so you'll get no argument from me that she's no saint, but then, I'm an atheist.

Even then, I'd regard the difference between my position (guilty of manslaughter) and the RCC (saint) as available through philosophical differences than being a lie. If you start with my buddy Thomas Aquinas' a priori, "god exists", Theresa could well be a saint. Doesn't work for me and I'll argue the point with anyone, but it is no "lie". D

That mother Theresa performed a miracle after her death? (Lie)

Open to dispute at best. Of course she didn't, but you'd have an impossible task proving it. D

Why do you need to try to prove the impossible?

That condoms cause AIDS? (Lie)

Sorry, but the only lie here is that is official RCC doctrine, because it certainly is not. 2

That statues can weep blood? (Lie)

Again, I find this impossible to class as a "lie". I know it's crap, but since I cannot disprove god, I sure as hell can't disprove that. 4

That Jesus . . . oh yeah, this is the catholic church so that would have to be the Virgin Mary will protect them from harm and cure their ills? (Lie)

Another error by you. That is no position of the RCC. 3

This could go on for a long time so I'll stop here.

Well, why stop now while you're losing?

Look at the total so far:

Red = completely false accusation
Blue = ideological difference, not a lie
Green = disputed

Of your accusation, two disputed, four differences of opinion and three outright falsehoods by you.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Your criteria is absurd. No one can show that anything will be damaging to all members of all groups of all populations. this is as absurd as me demanding you demonstrate that all children in all religious communities have had only positive experiences from their religious indoctrination.

Once again, you make special allowances for religion. Why can't religion stand up to the scrutiny put on all other things children come in contact with?

Thank you for yet again demonstrating the you are willing to misrepresent my position to suit you preconceived notions of the way things should be,

My standard of evidence is not absurd. I merely asked that you find evidence that addresses the effect of religion on children and adolescents in general, rather than generalizing from a specific group of children and adolescents, especially I have present evidence that children and adolescents in general benefit from religion.

 

[newlyfound]

The title of Dawkins' book goes a long way toward setting up a confrontation as opposed to a discussion and, consequently, will convert virtually no one.

Are you sure about that? it converted me. ...And cold turkey. I suggest you check out his website. There are more of us than one can absorb.

 

[articulett]

I'm still interested by how you are defining "apologists" - is it a case of not disliking religion as much as yourself? It does seem to be that if one has the temerity to deviate from a very narrow hate-religion base, that the "apologist" mud gets thrown pretty quickly. There are studies (cited earlier) that show people who are religious are better at coping with depression. There are studies (cited earlier) which show that people who are religious seem happier and more sociable. That is not being an apologist -but citing what the scientific literature seems to suggest. And it should be a fascinating question as to why that is - are certain personality types attracted to religion? Does the religious framework provide happiness in delusion or simply just a greater access to a social network? The trouble is, we can never have that discussion on JREF because of all the shrill cries of "apologist!" And that truly is quite disapointing - that otherwise incredibly intelligent and articulate individuals are somehow clouded by their visceral hatred that on this issue rational debate is seemingly impossible.

Yes, and there's also evidence that is far more thorough showing that religiosity is associated with societal dysfunction. In fact multiple such studies were presented. By religious apologist I mean someone who takes ready offense at those who criticize religion but no offense or make apologies for more egregious acts by religionists. Dawkins is responsible for many people understanding quite a bit about evolution. But nothing he says is good enough so that people don't get their panties in a bunch when he says there is no evidence for any god and lots of evidence to show that people have been making this crap up for eons. On the flip side, religious apologists will ignore the most egregious acts of religion while hyperventilating about those who criticize it. Lying to kiddies and making them scientifically ignorant is worse than saying I don't think people should be lying to kiddies. If it was racism or other kinds of bigotry like racism...people would not be so quick to defend the racist or so eager to make a villain out of those who said it was wrong. They wouldn't demand proof that all racism was harmful or that an APA study showing that being raised as a racist produced the same effects as child abuse... Why not? Because religion gets special protection. People are trained to see it as good and not to point out that the emperor isn't wearing any clothes.

Nothing Dawkins does will be good enough for believers--because he threatens their delusion; and nothing religion does will be awful enough to get apologists to see that it's really ought to be encouraging all people to speak up and raise the consciousness of others--because innocent young minds don't have a choice--and they trust what they are told. And just like we shouldn't spread racist bigotry--we should also not spread science bigotry or make kids think that faith is a good way to know anything. Why should anyone be made to feel bad for displaying their skepticism about the benefits of religion on a skeptics forum?

And we do have those discussions on JREF. Read the thread in question--it was about "new creationist tactics--a tour guide teaching kids to be skeptic of the skeptics"-- I'd give a link, but I don't really care that much. I get enough preaching and religious apology and obfuscation in my daily life...I am tired of showing deference to it. I don't go to woo forums and club them over the head with facts, and I resent people coming to a skeptics forum and trying to censure those who speak out against woo. I was raised with religion, and I wouldn't do it to my kid--and I'm glad Dawkins speaks up, because I am afraid of theists and their bullying ways And I think it's dangerous to teach people that "faith" is a good way to know facts. It isn't. It's a good way to become easily manipulated.

 

[articulett]

Are you sure about that? it converted me. ...And cold turkey. I suggest you check out his website. There are more of us than one can absorb.

Yes there are...at the converts corner...

And I've met some of them.

Congratulations.

Most people here probably see his book as you do too.
He has said that he's surprised at the welcoming response he's gotten--the book is being translated into 13 languages--good news travels fast.

 

[articulett]

Thank you for yet again demonstrating the you are willing to misrepresent my position to suit you preconceived notions of the way things should be,

My standard of evidence is not absurd. I merely asked that you find evidence that addresses the effect of religion on children and adolescents in general, rather than generalizing from a specific group of children and adolescents, especially I have present evidence that children and adolescents in general benefit from religion.

Oh please... you are the biggest misrepresenter of evidence and you brought the argument to this thread. You never present the evidence you ask for and you refuse to acknowledge the evidence even when someone presents you with exactly what you demand. You have a ridiculously over inflated opinion of both yourself and your knowledge--and a ridiculously inability to comprehend the answers to the insincere questions you are always asking.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Oh please... you are the biggest misrepresenter of evidence and you brought the argument to this thread. You never present the evidence you ask for and you refuse to acknowledge the evidence even when someone presents you with exactly what you demand. You have a ridiculously over inflated opinion of both yourself and your knowledge--and a ridiculously inability to comprehend the answers to the insincere questions you are always asking.

You have got to be kidding me.

That is all.

 

[newlyfound]

I asked for evidence that teaching children religion is bad. I'm still waiting on the detail for the remaining 99.3%.

If I may, there is this exquisite Richard Dawkins quote that goes along the lines of:

"Teaching religion to children is like raising a fire wall in their brain to block scientific inquiry."

The way he said it is really beautiful. And it does, since being programmed to have a tunnel vision type of mind set* prevents a child brain from expanding as much as it is capable of. In fact it contributes to shrinking it**.

ETA:
*if they are taught to believe that the world has been created in 6 days and all the rest that accompanies it, they are unlikely going to consider other possibilities, and this is the equivalent of restraining oneself to the inner limites of a box as far as thinking goes. I think Dawkins brought up how a child is mentally soft and easily impressionable, so as result, they are easily programmable. He also pointed out that, the child's parents should wait until he is an adult to teach him religious basics, but of course by then, the person might have their own notions about what religion is and therefore might resist the endoctrinating. So they do it early on. That is abuse right there because it is robbing a child of its innocence and mis-using its trust.

**I think the hell factor does just that. If they are taught not to wonder off the beaten path, not to question anything they are told about god and religion, that if they use their mind, and in an "undesirable" way, hell will be wating for them, I think they are going to simply repress themselves (subconsicously of course) into being and acting dump. And this is only the beginning.

Actually I don't know if it's him or Hitchens that brought that up. Because Hitchens also makes some really good points to support that religion is abusive to children, one of the points he brought up is circumcision, he had on his book an exerpt from "guide to the perplexed" that contends that the main purpose to circumcision is to tame the sexual organs and get rid as much as possible of the sexual pleasures. This is most definitly abuse by definition. The exerpt is on page 224 off "god is not Great".

 

[qayak]

Now you're just showing your ignorance. No matter that Ratzinger is an idiot looking for intelligence in the design, the official position of the RCC is that evolution happened and ID is not.

You're showing yours by believing that "The Rat" can't change things to suit his ultra-conservative views.

While I think those things are all complete and utter bollocks, I fail to see how they can be "lies", given that we cannot prove god didn't do it any more than the left-footers can prove he did?

Except that the only evidence that these things happened is the bible and textual studies have shown many claims were added later and in fact did not happen.

Of course, if you want to join Piggy, Articulett, EGarrett, Thaiboxerken & others as people who believe that those things have been proven to be false, you're most welcome.

Thank you, great group.

That is every bit as deluded as any christian.

Well, at least we agree that christians are deluded.

Interesting you mention her. It took Andyandy to persuade me that she's guilty of manslaughter - I was going for premeditated murder, so you'll get no argument from me that she's no saint, but then, I'm an atheist.

I agree with you take but i heard you were a closet christian!

Open to dispute at best. Of course she didn't, but you'd have an impossible task proving it.

Why do you need to try to prove the impossible?

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,501021021-364433,00.html

There's your miracle. It's a lie.

Sorry, but the only lie here is that is official RCC doctrine, because it certainly is not.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/aids/story/0,7369,1059068,00.html

Again, I find this impossible to class as a "lie". I know it's crap, but since I cannot disprove god, I sure as hell can't disprove that.

You don't need to. The church must prove that they can and they have not been able to. In fact, every single incident has been shown to be a fake but the church still claims it happens.

Another error by you. That is no position of the RCC.

http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,982807,00.html

From the article: "There is another major miracle-validating body in the Catholic world: the International Medical Committee for the shrine at Lourdes. Since miracles at Lourdes are all ascribed to the intercession of the Virgin Mary, it is not caught up in the saint-making process, which some believe the Pope has running overtime. Roger Pilon, the head of Lourdes' committee, notes that he and his colleagues have not approved a miracle since 1989, while the Vatican recommended 12 in 1994 alone."

Well, why stop now while you're losing?

Only when you ignore the facts.

 

[qayak]

Articulett,

Great Avatar!

 

[articulett]

Articulett,

Great Avatar!

it's not too mousy?