Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

[qayak]

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 . . .

You did not! You demanded evidence that religious indoctrination was abusive for all children in all instances. There is no possible way to do this and you could never do it with your argument.

I only demand that your argument get held to the same standard as my argument and I insist religion get held to the same standard as all other systems children come in contact with.

What is it about this that frightens you so much? Do you perhaps know that religion will fail miserably? Well, you aren't alone.

I have present evidence that children and adolescents in general benefit from religion.

You have not. I have read your citations and they have severe problems as others have pointed out.

 

[andyandy]

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.

In which thread? The creationist museum one? I'll have a look.....

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.

well ok, but we are in quite nebulous value judgment territory in which a presumption that criticism of A implies support or condonement of B would often be implicit. That certainly appears to be the case with your labeling of TA as a "religious apologist". He's been responsible for some of the most entertaining anti-religious diatribes on the forum

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.

Sure, Dawkins has plenty of attributes - but it should be possible to criticize him on areas in which one disagrees without the mud slinging and insults that tend to occur.

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?

there's nothing much in your general sentiment that i disagree with - i'd prefer that children were raised with facts so they could decide for themselves - I'm sure most here would agree with that - but i fail to see how belligerence and pejorative labels will be positive in engaging others in such a cause - simple rhetoric is good for rabble rousing, but then one is left with a rabble

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.

threads are started, but the discussion does tend to get drowned out by the shouting and the hubris....

BTW
interesting choice of avater...is it a church or a lady's naughty bits...hmmm....

 

[articulett]

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.

Yep...you'll be rewarded forever for believing the right unbelievable story and getting others to believe--and punished forever for not believing! Such an all-loving god. And he wants to be worshiped but is indistinguishable from a schizophrenic delusion!

Religion never made sense...and I worried because I didn't know if I believed it or believed the right one...or believed "enough"-- But science--particularly evolution made so much sense... it was easy to understand...made perfect sense... didn't require belief...

Dawkins is honest. His critics are not as honest... I have a harder time making sense of the critics just like I could never make sense of religion. When I was young, I though it was me--and now that I'm grown, I realize that I have a pretty good brain...the stuff that I thought didn't make sense--doesn't make sense. People just didn't ask themselves the kinds of questions I asked.

 

[The Atheist]

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.

Don't you therefore find it quite bizarre that christians become scientists?

Especially these ones.

 

[The Atheist]

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

I always prefer it that people commit the crime before I shoot them. Yes, he's a raving nutter who served in Hitler Youth, but he's not guilty of any capital offences, yet.

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

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

Eh?

I note this bit:

Monica still believes in the miracle

First off, I don't believe that any miracle occurred. But the bad news is that the woman herself, still claims it was a miracle.

The article you link is hardly refutation. Or do we use differing rules for evidence when questioning religion?

Strangely enough, that's what the OP is all about.

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

Now, you see that's quite interesting, because you actually said:

That condoms cause AIDS?

and the newspaper you link to clearly refutes you.

Thanks.

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.

Well, the church isn't about to bust a gut proving their claims, so the onus shifts to us to disprove them.

Be my guest.

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

Yep, lovely article again. The trouble is that you said:

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?

(bolding mine)

Unfortunately, yet again, the article utterly fails to back up your original premise and totally refutes it.

Mate, you're losing your grip - that's three strikes.

O - U - T.

 

[qayak]

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 . . .

Done:

http://www.nospank.net/asser.htm

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/johnson/johnson7.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVsmt41aLxE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBuiSP8X6E&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBIcdoOKB9c&mode=related&search=

 

[The Atheist]

Done:

http://www.nospank.net/asser.htm

http://www.strike-the-root.com/51/johnson/johnson7.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVsmt41aLxE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hBuiSP8X6E&mode=related&search=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBIcdoOKB9c&mode=related&search=

Mate, I'm still not getting it.

These links are ALL about people in that <2% of christianity.

I can understand Arti not grasping simple concepts like that, but I'm disappointed that you cannot see what you're doing. The strawmen you create represent a tiny fraction of christians.

Bad people are everywhere. When 33% of the world's population are christian, they're bound to have quite a few loco m/f'ers in their number.

THAT IS NOT THE NORM.

Demonstrably so.

Look. Let me give you some adjectives I'm quite happy for christians to bear - in my eyes:

Deluded, stupid, ignorant, childish, self-serving, selfish, weak, even unhealthy* but I won't stand by and see them labelled as "bad", simply because some of them are insane.

This argument is very similar to, and as dumb as, the argument that atheism is bad because Stalin and Mao were atheists.

Square peg/round hole/don't work.



*I wouldn't necessarily use any or all those myself, but I wouldn't dispute them.

 

[The Atheist]

Religion never made sense...and I worried because I didn't know if I believed it or believed the right one...or believed "enough"-- But science--particularly evolution made so much sense... it was easy to understand...made perfect sense... didn't require belief...

(edits mine)


haha! Gotcha!

Sorry about that, I see that Articulett has had her ID stolen and it's actually De_Bunk posting as her, taking the piss.

How are you, mate?

 

[qayak]

First off, I don't believe that any miracle occurred. But the bad news is that the woman herself, still claims it was a miracle.

The article you link is hardly refutation. Or do we use differing rules for evidence when questioning religion?

Are you sure you know anything about the catholic church? Do you know what their rules are for a miricle? It doesn't matter what the woman believes, the event doesn't pass the the test set out by the catholic church but it was used anyway to get Mother Teresa into the sainthood process.

Form Previously Linked Article: "They apply criteria established in the 1700s by Pope Benedict XIV: among them, that the disease was serious; that there was objective proof of its existence; that other treatments failed; and that the cure was rapid and lasting. Any one can be a stumbling block. Pain, explains Ensoli, means little: "Someone might say he feels bad, but how do you measure that?" Leukemia remissions are not considered until they have lasted a decade. A cure attributable to human effort, however prayed for, is insufficient. "Sometimes we have cases that you could call exceptional, but that's not enough." says Ensoli. 'Exceptional doesn't mean inexplicable.'"

and the newspaper you link to clearly refutes you.

You lie. The article says "The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HIV

Well, the church isn't about to bust a gut proving their claims, so the onus shifts to us to disprove them.

You are kidding right? They have already been disproved.

Unfortunately, yet again, the article utterly fails to back up your original premise and totally refutes it.

You do know what Lourdes is and why people go there don't you? They go to be cured and as the article said, all miracles (cures in this case) there are attributed to the Virgin Mary. The catholic church has recognized 68 miracle healings. So, the catholic church claims that the Virgin Mary can in fact cure people.

Mate, you're losing your grip - that's three strikes.

I think you are far less knowledgable than you claim. You do not seem to know anything about the catholic church. You do not know what the catholic church officially says about anything and you lack the ability to put two and two together and come up with four.

But thanks for coming out. I'd say it was a pleasure kicking your ass but that would be a lie. It was too easy to be fun.

 

[Herzblut]

I always prefer it that people commit the crime before I shoot them. Yes, he's a raving nutter who served in Hitler Youth, but he's not guilty of any capital offences, yet.

TA, your posts are excellent but I'd be very cautious before I'd put somebody into the Nazi twilights without knowing exactly what I was talking about.

Following his fourteenth birthday in 1941, Ratzinger was enrolled in the Hitler Youth — membership being legally required after December 1939[4] — but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings[5]. His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism, believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome, was killed by the Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI

Herzblut

 

[articulett]

BTW
interesting choice of avater...is it a church or a lady's naughty bits...hmmm....

What...it's just a mouse...

People tend to see what they want to see, I guess...

 

[qayak]

Mate, I'm still not getting it.

These links are ALL about people in that <2% of christianity.

I can understand Arti not grasping simple concepts like that, but I'm disappointed that you cannot see what you're doing. The strawmen you create represent a tiny fraction of christians.

Bad people are everywhere. When 33% of the world's population are christian, they're bound to have quite a few loco m/f'ers in their number.

THAT IS NOT THE NORM.

Demonstrably so.

Look. Let me give you some adjectives I'm quite happy for christians to bear - in my eyes:

Deluded, stupid, ignorant, childish, self-serving, selfish, weak, even unhealthy* but I won't stand by and see them labelled as "bad", simply because some of them are insane.

This argument is very similar to, and as dumb as, the argument that atheism is bad because Stalin and Mao were atheists.

Square peg/round hole/don't work.

*I wouldn't necessarily use any or all those myself, but I wouldn't dispute them.

See, now I know you are not reading anything I post. The links were not all about christianity and most assuredly not about the 2% you pull out of your butt.

I am talking about religions, all religions and some are worse than others. If you think christianity is a good one, all the more power to you. I don't. I think it is no better than islam or judaism.

You are right that there are crazy people eveywhere but you are wrong to say that only crazy people do these things in christianity. In christianity as in islam, judaism and many others, these types of behaviours are the norm, not the exception.

http://human-nature.com/nibbs/01/ogilvie.html

http://www.arabnews.com/?page=0&section=9&article=27148&d=8&m=6&y=2003

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23384657-details/We+do+use+books+that+call+Jews+'apes'+admits+head+of+Islamic+school/article.do

 

[qayak]

What...it's just a mouse...

People tend to see what they want to see, I guess...

 

[The Atheist]

TA, your posts are excellent but I'd be very cautious before I'd put somebody into the Nazi twilights without knowing exactly what I was talking about.

Cheers. I was up with all that, but I like to throw it in anyway - looks good, if not very relevant.

I don't think there are many 14 year olds who'd swap a few songs around the campfire for martyrdom.

You lie. The article says "The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk."

Jesus. I even quoted your own words for you. You said the RCC is saying:

That condoms cause AIDS?

They are NOT saying that. They're saying that condoms may not stop you from getting AIDS. Ther is a big difference and what the church says is quite right, condoms are no guarantee of avoiding AIDS.

Read your own posts if you don't read anything else.

You do know what Lourdes is and why people go there don't you? They go to be cured and as the article said, all miracles (cures in this case) there are attributed to the Virgin Mary. The catholic church has recognized 68 miracle healings. So, the catholic church claims that the Virgin Mary can in fact cure people.

Again, I point you to your own words for the second time:

the Virgin Mary will protect them from harm

Not "might" or "may", you said it WILL protect them from harm, thenquote the 68 official miracles.

Given that at least 100,000,000 people have visited Lourdes in hope of a miracle, the RCC is saying you have a <0.000068% chance of a miraculous cure. That doesn't seem to be giving too much of a promise. Going on the figures, I'd expect more than that in spontaneous cures.

I repeat, you're making life difficult for yourself - these are your words, not mine. If you meant "may" or "might", I'd agree with you wholeheartedly, but you didn't.

I think you are far less knowledgable than you claim. You do not seem to know anything about the catholic church. You do not know what the catholic church officially says about anything and you lack the ability to put two and two together and come up with four.

Ah, You got me. Shamed twice in one thread.

But thanks for coming out. I'd say it was a pleasure kicking your ass but that would be a lie. It was too easy to be fun.

Well, nice try, but you're making yourself look pretty stupid declaring victory when I've proven - twice in a row with the very same posts, by you - that you are simply making this up as you go along.

Now you can declare victory again - twice is my limit for pointing out the same fatal errors.

 

[qayak]

They are NOT saying that. They're saying that condoms may not stop you from getting AIDS. Ther is a big difference and what the church says is quite right, condoms are no guarantee of avoiding AIDS.

The catholic church is not right. They are lying to people. Condoms do not have holes that HIV can pass through. If you wear a condom and get HIV it is not because you wore the condom as the catholic church says.

Not only that but they have been corrected by the WHO and yet they still spread their lies.

And you defend them, a church that has caused the death of millions. Worse yet, you defend the very action that caused those deaths. And you wonder why I think moderates are as bad as the fundies.

 

[qayak]

Not "might" or "may", you said it WILL protect them from harm, thenquote the 68 official miracles.

Given that at least 100,000,000 people have visited Lourdes in hope of a miracle, the RCC is saying you have a <0.000068% chance of a miraculous cure. That doesn't seem to be giving too much of a promise. Going on the figures, I'd expect more than that in spontaneous cures.

Once again you lie. I never said the Virgin Mary would protect anybody. I stated that the catholic church tells people the Virgin Mary will protect and heal them. They encourage people to pray to her for their protection and they have stated that 68 "cures" at Lourdes are directly attributed to her. All of this is true.

You are simply caught in a lie that you can't get out of. You can try twisting what I said but, unfortunately for you, it is all right there for anyone to read.

"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?"

You are only correct in saying that statistically, the number of cures is very low which is not an indictment of anything I say, it is an indictment of the claims made by the establishment you are defending.

The catholic church, just like fundamentalist churches, makes a $hitload of money by lying to people. I don't condone it and you do. That is our main difference.

Your ass must be getting sore from my continually planting my foot in it. Your being obtuse doesn't help your cause.

 

[Herzblut]

The catholic church is not right. They are lying to people. Condoms do not have holes that HIV can pass through. If you wear a condom and get HIV it is not because you wore the condom as the catholic church says.

Not only that but they have been corrected by the WHO and yet they still spread their lies.

The organisation (WHO) says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%.

That leaves 10% rest risk (plus additional risks based on incorrect usage) and basically confirms the RCC that there is a certain risk. It helps, if you can read. Try!

The RCC does not just disengage people from using condoms, that would be stupid, but also from ****ing around. The concept is abstinence and faithfulness. That's the package, you know a better one?

And you defend them, a church that has caused the death of millions.

You are accusing mass murder to an organization. Run, run, they will catch you, freak.

Herzblut

 

[qayak]

The organisation (WHO) says "consistent and correct" condom use reduces the risk of HIV infection by 90%.

That leaves 10% rest risk (plus additional risks based on incorrect usage) and basically confirms the RCC that there is a certain risk. It helps, if you can read. Try!

It helps that you will lie for the catholic church. They do not say anything about the 10% risk. They say "DO NOT USE CONDOMS BECAUSE THEY HAVE LITTLE HOLES THAT LET HIV THROUGH AND INFECT YOU."

They lie and you lie.

The RCC does not just disengage people from using condoms, that would be stupid, but also from ****ing around. The concept is abstinence and faithfulness. That's the package, you know a better one?

Abstinence doesn't work. That has been proven over and over. This world would be in a hell of a lot better shape if the AIDS rate was reduced by 80%

You are accusing mass murder to an organization.

Yes, just like in WWII where they conspired with the Nazis.

 

[John Hewitt]

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

No, that seems to be missing the point. I do not know what his attitude is, though I may draw inferences about it, and his demeanour is not normally exceptionable in any way. My problem is the content of what he is saying.

In an earlier thread, he is described as not debating with creationists and a link describes why he feels that to be appropriate. Well and good, nobody can force him to take part in debate with creationists, though I am left wondering why he places himself in that arena. I also note that he pokes fun at creationism - "teapots in orbit" may not be his original phrase but he does use it.

In his response to Sloan Wilson and his position on group selection, Dawkins seems to take a position that is very similar to his position on creationism. He pokes fun at it and at Sloan Wilson - "Assyrian woodwind instruments" and references to Sloan Wilson's "obsessing" about the subject for thirty years. Well, Sloan Wilson is nobody's creationist but there seems to be a real parallel between Dawkins treatment of group selection and his treatment of creationism. The impression must be that his views on group selection likewise parallel his views on creationism.

On this issue, as on creationism, one has to say that Dawkins has the human right to decline debate but, in this area, I think that position is much more difficult to justify and I don't know of him trying to do so. The fact is that there are enough qualified scientists who do support group selection that it is not easy to dismiss such work as completely empty. There does seem to be a real scientific point at issue here. Moreover, Dawkins works in this field as a professional scientist and clearly takes a professional stance on group selection. Does he have no professional responsibility to explain or to take part debate?

 

[Mojo]

On this issue, as on creationism, one has to say that Dawkins has the human right to decline debate but, in this area, I think that position is much more difficult to justify and I don't know of him trying to do so. The fact is that there are enough qualified scientists who do support group selection that it is not easy to dismiss such work as completely empty. There does seem to be a real scientific point at issue here. Moreover, Dawkins works in this field as a professional scientist and clearly takes a professional stance on group selection. Does he have no professional responsibility to explain or to take part debate?

Why should he have a "professional responsibility" to present his ideas in debate, rather than in books and articles, where a more complete picture can be given, and references can be provided and followed up? He has addressed the arguments of creationists perfectly adequately in this format.

The "debate" format places an argument without real evidence on the same footing as one that is well supported, because shortcomings in the alleged evidence referred to cannot be researched and exposed in the same way as when dealing with a published article. That is why creationists prefer it, I suppose.