Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

[PixyMisa]

what game? Are you honestly saying that white lies told to protect other people's feelings are wrong?

"Actually, since the birth of our second child you've really gone downhill"

"son, I know you practised every day for the last six months for that concert, but I thought it was dreadful."

"On Earth we have a word -"
"Had a word."
"Called tact."

 

[articulett]

"On Earth we have a word -"
"Had a word."
"Called tact."

Indeed. How about-- "you're the best looking 30 year old I know"-- or "I can't imagine what a babe like you sees in a tactless boob like me?"

Or -- to kid-- "you must be proud!" or "I'm proud you are my kid"... or
"bravo"

Gee whiz... Opinions aren't facts.

And I don't understand this mad dash to make lying just another way of making nice or keeping the peace.

Guy: Am I losing my hair?
Girl: I can't tell...(you that you are because it will hurt your ego). The latter part is silent, of course Or better yet-- "hair or no hair, I think you're HOT".

People have all sorts of opinions; I like being around the people have a positive opinion of me. But I suppose if someone was a tactless boob, I'd appreciate the knowledge so I could seek a more appreciative mate.

Lying about opinions is not the same as lying about having knowledge regarding the creator of the universe and the rubric for how one will spend eternity (or obfuscating to keep others from speaking up about such lies).
All these side issues to avoid the fact that religion is a lie-- no matter how you slice it--and people are claiming access to higher truths that there is no reason to believe they have.

 

[articulett]

andyandy...enough with the diversions about when lying is fine and fabulous and who isn't or isn't lying. What about the OP. This question was about Dawkins and his response to Sloan, remember? Do you agree with Sloan that Dawkins should have written a different kind of book? Doesn't newlyfounds opinion of newly found freedom from religion merit a comment other than your continual snideness towards anyone who dares say anything nice about Dawkins.

 

[andyandy]

This question was about Dawkins and his response to Sloan, remember? Do you agree with Sloan that Dawkins should have written a different kind of book?

I agree that the God Delusion could have been better yes. There was a long thread on this in RP.

Doesn't newlyfounds opinion of newly found freedom from religion merit a comment other than your continual snideness towards anyone who dares say anything nice about Dawkins.

"continual snideness"? You continue to lie. I asked newlyfound one question as to why he believed Dawkins was in many ways like a god which he himself had said. That is not snidey but a relevant question. Should I not ask because it's dawkins?

One more time. I dislike religion, you dislike religion. Apparently I don't hate religion as much as you - that's hardly surprising we live in very different countries with regards to religious influence. But this is not good enough for you. I like Dawkins, you like Dawkins. Apparently because I don't think that every word that Dawkins says is true, this is not good enough for you. So because of that I am now an "apologist," because of that you can now start misrepresenting my posts, because of that you are immune from any criticism, because of that you can lie, hurl insults and be thoroughly unpleasant to anyone and everyone. Spare me your rhetoric and spare me your sanctimonious lectures. I've nothing more to say to such an unpleasant individual.

 

[articulett]

No, Andyandy... you lie... you hijacked this thread from the get go-- not by talking about the OP...but by attacking gayak (in your first posts, no less)... and then anybody who said anything positive about Dawkins... no reason... apparently... nothing to do with the OP... and then Mijo came in and did the same... didn't talk about the OP... and then you dragged the conversation over to the last place where Mijo derailed a thread about a creationist tour guide... again to turn it into a thread about whether people can or can't call something child abuse and who is and isn't a liar while ignoring the pretty egregious lies being shoved into kiddies in the OP. Real lies. Harmful lies. But you apologize for them or ignore them and turn the discussion into people's rights to have opinions you don't like.

Newlyfound answered your question and you ignored the answer...just like Mijo and his insincere questions --that are meant to imply something while never even responding to answers.

Both you and Mijo hijacked two threads never discussing the OP, but instead critiquing those who commented on the OP! You both attacked gayak and others for their opinions while protecting the sacred cow he was talking about. And you both derail and go into side issues about white lies and APA studies and antisemitism and so forth all in an attempt to keep the thread from being about the OP. You trade in manufactured issues for the real ones and vilify those who speak out rather than those who cover up.

And now we know why. You are a religious apologist. And yes, the evidence is here for all to see.

I don't hate religion. I'm just saying it's not true. That's it. Quit interpreting for me. You suck at it. I don't care what good people imagine it does... it still isn't true. Dawkins had the balls to write a book about the elephant in the room. You attack him and everyone else who likes him to avoid talking about the BIG LIE he exposed. I don't care whether you agree with him or not. What have you added to the world of science? I was interested in the OP. I was trying to hear if anyone had any valid complaints of Dawkins or if it was all off topic about the book he should have written or the equivalent of the courtiers reply. You speak of little lies and diversions and semantics all to avoid the main topic and cover up the fact--you both attacked gayak without provocation while never having any intention of discussing the OP in either thread. You attacked first and then pretend that people are being mean to you. Unreal.

The nice thing about the facts... is that they speak for themselves.

The frightening thing about religion is that it keeps people apologizing for it long after they've claimed it no longer runs their lives... while making them blind to the fact that they do so-- in denial even. (And to suggest it ensures a subject change by the apologist and an ad hom tossed at you.)

 

[qayak]

my comment was simply pointing out the error in strathmeyer's logic. We were i believe trying to nail down a rigorous definition of "abuse" sufficient for use with regards to religion. Direct applicability was neither implied nor required.

To paraphrase a famous person, "In order to have any value an argument must be for or against something." Re-reading your post, it seems that you thought this was an important point to be made in the discussion. Now you are saying it had no point. Having no point to the discussion implies that you are simply trying to confuse issues.

since i've answered your question, how about you answer mine as to

Sure

why you think atheism is an ideology

I believe that someone who doesn't believe in a god or any gods, naturally rejects any claim as to what a god, or gods, can do. For instance, if you don't believe in god, you can't believe that god created the universe in 6 days and then rested on the seventh. You can'd believe that the bible, koran, or talmud are the inspired word of god. Etc.

And I extend this to include the fact that someone who doesn't believe in god cannot believe in religion because, by definition, religion is based on a belief in god.

Some might think this reflects an ideology but I don't think it does. It is more the fact that atheism rules out all religious ideology.

how you know (with examples) that many of Dawkins' critics who purport to be atheists really aren't.

Asked and answered. But as you seem to have missed that post, I know by their actions.

you've been very reticent on both points since they were raised quite some time ago.

You must be watching a different thread because it seems to me I have argued them to death.

 

[andyandy]

To paraphrase a famous person, "In order to have any value an argument must be for or against something." Re-reading your post, it seems that you thought this was an important point to be made in the discussion. Now you are saying it had no point. Having no point to the discussion implies that you are simply trying to confuse issues.

Not at all - strathmeyer made a comment which opened up the term "abuse" to actually apparently beneficial situations. That was what I was commenting on. It was part of a larger debate to bring some rigour to the concept of "abuse" and to its applicability to the situation of religion.

I believe that someone who doesn't believe in a god or any gods, naturally rejects any claim as to what a god, or gods, can do. For instance, if you don't believe in god, you can't believe that god created the universe in 6 days and then rested on the seventh. You can'd believe that the bible, koran, or talmud are the inspired word of god. Etc.

And I extend this to include the fact that someone who doesn't believe in god cannot believe in religion because, by definition, religion is based on a belief in god.

Some might think this reflects an ideology but I don't think it does. It is more the fact that atheism rules out all religious ideology.

Ok - well thanks for clarifying your position. However, your earlier comments required that actions and not belief be associated with the statement "I don't believe in God." What actions does the negation of a concept require? Regardless of ones' actions, ones' beliefs are separate.
What actions do all these "self proclaimed" atheists carry out - how do you know these actions, and how do you know these actions are not distinct from their actual beliefs?

Asked and answered. But as you seem to have missed that post, I know by their actions.

yes I know you said that - but I asked for evidence of your statement that many of dawkins' critics who called themselves atheists were in fact not. What examples can you give? What actions gave them away? If "many" of Dawkins' critics are "self-proclaimed" atheists then you should have no trouble in actually presenting some examples of who they are.

 

[articulett]

I think Sam Harris says it rather well:

The problem is that wherever one stands on this continuum, one inadvertently shelters those who are more fanatical than oneself from criticism. Ordinary fundamentalist Christians, by maintaining that the Bible is the perfect word of God, inadvertently support the Dominionists — men and women who, by the millions, are quietly working to turn our country into a totalitarian theocracy reminiscent of John Calvin's Geneva. Christian moderates, by their lingering attachment to the unique divinity of Jesus, protect the faith of fundamentalists from public scorn. Christian liberals — who aren't sure what they believe but just love the experience of going to church occasionally — deny the moderates a proper collision with scientific rationality. And in this way centuries have come and gone without an honest word being spoken about God in our society...

Why do you stick up and cover for a lie?... change the topic... not demand evidence from those who are spreading the lies... vilify those who say that God is a delusion-- can we please stop inflicting this fairytale on people under the guise that we are doing something good? Why would you attack people and defend religion rather than the other way around. I think it's just indoctrination where you learn never to associate anything bad with god and everything good.

But if any of it is good or true than it's up to those proffering it and defending to show us reasons why we shouldn't speak out about this primitive lie that threaten to destroy us all. If faith is the key to salvation-- than extreme faith is insurance. And every faith thinks they are doing god's will no matter who they kill.

Yet any biologist or cosmologist can see how connected humanity is... it just seems so disparately sad... All life forms are related on this tiny planet in a huge universe and we're slowly putting our story together-- and people fight imaginary wars of good and evil for some next life and some invisible god and fritter away energy demonizing those who say, "can we stop this madness". It isn't true. There's no good reason or evidence to believe any of it or shoving it into kids brains so that they can't enjoy the wonders humanity can know for the first time ever.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-witchcraft_b_53865.html

 

[The Atheist]

I am now an "apologist,"

Hey! Welcome to the club.

Other than me, the club has a highly exclusive membership:

DrKitten, Ichneumonwasp, CEO_Esq...

 

[Beth]

I agree that the God Delusion could have been better yes. There was a long thread on this in RP.

I'm in agreement with you there. The God Delusion wasn't bad at all; he made many good points. But I was quite disappointed at the anger and hostility he's shown towards those who don't believe as he does.

I've nothing more to say to such an unpleasant individual.

I agree with you here too. That's why I've given up responding to most of those who would argue that a religious upbringing is tantamount to child abuse. I disagree, but I don't enjoy being abused the way you have been in this thread.

Why is so often the case that those who are so concerned about the abuse of others have no qualms at all about verbally abusing people on the internet for holding a different opinion? I've noticed it in spanking debates, circumcision threads, etc. The 'defenders of children' seem to almost universally care not one whit that I agree with them personally in regards to the issue at hand. The fact that I disagree with them in regards to whether or not other parents should be allowed to make a different choice than the one they are advocating is enough to find myself the target of too may snide comments and insinuations about being a child abuser myself. I rarely find myself in the mood to bother publically disagreeing with such rude people.

Anyway, just thought I'd let you know I agree with you - in this thread anyway .

 

[articulett]

Hey! Welcome to the club.

Other than me, the club has a highly exclusive membership:

DrKitten, Ichneumonwasp, CEO_Esq...

I know I've never said that about DrKitten or Ichneumonwasp-- I like them both and they are well versed in evolutionary biology. I don't know who CEO_Esq is.

That's the nice thing about opinions...we're all free to have them.

And I must say, I find you a club all unto yourself.

 

[mijopaalmc]

I know I've never said that about DrKitten or Ichneumonwasp-- I like them both and they are well versed in evolutionary biology. I don't know who CEO_Esq is.
But I must say, I find you a club all unto yourself.

So when has The Atheist displayed a lack of knowledge of evolutionary biology?

 

[articulett]

So when has The Atheist displayed a lack of knowledge of evolutionary biology?

It's an old thread, off topic, and something you wouldn't understand given your inability to comprehend the non-random aspects of evolution, but nice try at derailing with an insincere question once again...

 

[John Hewitt]

Hey! Welcome to the club.

Other than me, the club has a highly exclusive membership:

DrKitten, Ichneumonwasp, CEO_Esq...

Me! Me! Don't forget me!

I'm an "apologist" too!

 

[articulett]

Me! Me! Don't forget me!

I'm an "apologist" too!

Well, I say you are a creationist, or rather, "an intelligent design proponent..."

But hey, did you know that Behe concedes that humans and apes share a common ancestor? And have you read his latest book?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Well, I say you are a creationist, or rather, "an intelligent design proponent..."

Would you care to present evidence of that?

 

[qayak]

. . . But I was quite disappointed at the anger and hostility he's shown towards those who don't believe as he does.

. . . The 'defenders of children' seem to almost universally care not one whit that I agree with them personally in regards to the issue at hand. The fact that I disagree with them in regards to whether or not other parents should be allowed to make a different choice than the one they are advocating is enough to find myself the target of too may snide comments and insinuations about being a child abuser myself. I rarely find myself in the mood to bother publically disagreeing with such rude people.

What a load of hooey. You are pissed because Dawkins and others have a different view on the damage done by these issue.

You want us to respect your belief that parents should be allowed to amke "different choices" based on the fact that you don't see the abuse as being that bad and yet you won't allow that others may feel that their choices should be restricted because they believe that damage is greater than you do.

You and your ilk are equally as rude. In fact, more so. It seems that the apologists are always the first to start the personal attacks.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

what game? Are you honestly saying that white lies told to protect other people's feelings are wrong?

I'm saying if you make a habit of it someone is bound to get hurt more in the end.

"Actually, since the birth of our second child you've really gone downhill"

If you really thought that then you should tell them your perception of them has changed. By lying you aren't just trying to protect their feelings; you're trying to protect your own and what they think of you.

"son, I know you practised every day for the last six months for that concert, but I thought it was dreadful."

Why is it kinder to lie to the child if the consensus of the people listening was that it was dreadful? Should you let the child believe they have a talent that they do not? When do they find out that they really are crap at playing that instrument? How big a fall will it be for them then?

I don't like pissing on someone's dreams, but if they ask for my opinion I'll probably tell them what I think. I usually manage to do it without being as blunt as in your examples.

 

[articulett]

Would you care to present evidence of that?

Oh, rest assured, it's nothing you would understand.

It's the same ol', same ol'-- bitching about Dawkins without saying anything you can pin down, rushing in to defend the hooey of Behe, failing to show interest or current knowledge in science, obfuscating rather than clarifying... answering attempts to pin him down with oblique answers or none at all...

But, he's a lot more honest than you, Mijo. And I haven't really heard him defend religion--just allege a science conspiracy like a milder version of rttjc...

 

[articulett]

What a load of hooey. You are pissed because Dawkins and others have a different view on the damage done by these issue.

You want us to respect your belief that parents should be allowed to amke "different choices" based on the fact that you don't see the abuse as being that bad and yet you won't allow that others may feel that their choices should be restricted because they believe that damage is greater than you do.

You and your ilk are equally as rude. In fact, more so. It seems that the apologists are always the first to start the personal attacks.

Yes, while telling others how rude they are for stating an opinion. Self righteous smoke, mirror, and distraction to keep the delusion alive and spawning. They are told that religion makes them more moral and every person agrees that members of their own particular belief system are the most moral--the ones with "higher truths". Nothing like someone not believing in your delusion to bring out the smoke screen of apologists and start changing the subject to something tangential rather than confront the fact that someone may have been fooling themselves. Sure all those other religions are wrong and bad and foolish-- but my belief system made me the stellar wonderful truthful god warrior I am today.

Instead of talking about lying preachers and believers and whether there are "higher truths" or whether religion even helps anyone be more moral... lets ignore all that and vilify those who declare the emperor isn't wearing any clothes, and their sick of having to defer to the feelings and delusions of those who are so damn sure that their beliefs are the true woo while pretending they are all about integrity, academics, and standards. Nobody thinks that their religions are harming their kids. Not even the ones you'd call abusive. That's the creepy thing about religion. Why care what your fellow man thinks if it means you and your kiddies get to live happily ever after instead of boiling in oil like those wicked scientists and atheists who want to rain on the parade.