Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

[mijopaalmc]

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...

I get that your lying to make other posters look bad and that, if were Dawkins, I wouldn't want you to be my defender.

Once again, would you like to stop making baseless accusations against people in order to discredit them and present evidence that John Hewitt is a creationist or IDist?

 

[newlyfound]

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

Thank you and a lie is a lie, children are lot wiser that some could possibly concieve. Some adults are stupid enough to think that when they lie to a kid, the kid is simply just too much of a kid to notice. Once or twice maybe. But over time, they learn to read when the parent are lying vs. when they are telling the truth. Some kids are so sharp they could probably debunk their own parents, the only thing that's stopping them is the parental authority element. Then check this out, when kids start to lie too later on, then these act all outraged and completely lost, I could just see some going "Oh, just what did I do wrong?!" LOL. What a joke, they are the ones who taught them to lie by practicing it with them at the first place. Now the result is seemingly a shoke!

... By lying you aren't just trying to protect their feelings; you're trying to protect your own and what they think of you.

Yep, it's a cheap defense mechanism.

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 think for some parents, this lying business is a cheap attempt of working to find an easy way out of making a real effort to adequately communicate with their kids. So to cover up the flaw, they try to make it look like they are actually the good guys in all this by claiming the right to lie under the pretext that they are "protecting" their kids feelings. Just what is sooo bad about being bad at something? what is the bid deal? if the kid knows he/she is loved no matter what? ... and beside, it's by being bad at first that one becomes good via practice, no one starts out good right from the beginning. Or at least not everybody. Also, by telling them they are good when they friends or even themselves are telling themselves they are not, one sends out the msg that they better be good in order to have daddy's or mummy's love and approval. Parents' love and approval is supposed to be unconditional.
And ironically, this is I think the best way of stimulating the best out of them.

 

[qayak]

I get that your lying to make other posters look bad and that, if were Dawkins, I wouldn't want you to be my defender.

She isn't lying, you are making yourself look bad and Dawkins probably doesn't want anyone to be his defender.

Once again, would you like to stop making baseless accusations against people in order to discredit them and present evidence that John Hewitt is a creationist or IDist?

She did, it's correct and you are wrong . . . AGAIN!

 

[articulett]

I get that your lying to make other posters look bad and that, if were Dawkins, I wouldn't want you to be my defender.

Once again, would you like to stop making baseless accusations against people in order to discredit them and present evidence that John Hewitt is a creationist or IDist?

And you are pretending other people are lying to protect the fact that you're not saying anything different than Behe would say. I actually have the pleasure of talking to Dawkins--we understand each other just fine -- and the facts don't need defending. I have no doubts he'd recognize your smarmy obfuscations for exactly what they are, and I do so enjoy when you use other peoples arguments because you aren't bright enough to come up with your own.

Moreover, what I said is an opinion. We're allowed to have them, here at JREF. We actually don't have to provide APA reports to have them, you know. You seem to have lots of them. But never any facts-- thread derailer.

Moreover, you slander people repeatedly including Dawkins while never having passed any actual knowledge on to anybody. In fact, I think everybody I've heard you insult is more honest, intelligent, and informative than you--but boy do you fling the crap while pretending to be taking the moral high ground by shielding religion from judgment.

And you're just having a little tizzy fit because I revealed you for the dishonest guy you are while you dashed about trying to delude people as to your intent and mount a Fatwa against me. You may be able to fool some people but I've seen the Behe dodge and weave a hundred times--same ol' buffoonery and nothingness. After a while people will figure out that you aren't really saying anything, you know.

You started things here with a thread derail attack of gayak... and you revealed your hypocrisy and buffoonishness in spades. I just like to give some people a heads up so they don't take the blowhards, like you seriously. All they need to do is look at any of your posts where your obfuscating nothingness is in full color display as well as your repeated attacks on those who aim to inform, state opinions, and spread the truth--you know...the one that is the same for everybody. When have you ever posted anything useful and valuable to anyone? Or even something clever? Not once that I can tell. Just pedantry, accusations, insincere questions, thread derailments, the insistence that scientists can't explain the discontinuity in the fossil records, and the silly assertion that "evolution is really random" and Dawkins et. al are so much less clear than you. As if!

 

[articulett]

Oh the irony... he accused me of making a baseless accusation when he entered this thread and the other one with a baseless accusation. Irony. Creationists are so bloody good at it!

 

[mijopaalmc]

Oh the irony... he accused me of making a baseless accusation when he entered this thread and the other one with a baseless accusation. Irony. Creationists are so bloody good at it!

You have not in any way proved your assertion that religion is child abuse or anything close to universally detrimental to humanity.

And you're your constant shill refrain of "religious apologist" and "creationist" are only made to discredit other posters by implication without actually considering their evidence.

 

[articulett]

You have not in any way proved your assertion that religion is child abuse or anything close to universally detrimental to humanity.

And you're your constant shill refrain of "religious apologist" and "creationist" are only made to discredit other posters by implication without actually considering their evidence.

You have not proved your assertion in any way that evolution is random and that scientists can't explain the "discontinuity" in the fossil record. Nor have you proven in any way that you can inform anyone on anything much less hold a candle to Richard Dawkins. You have not distracted people from the fact that you derailed a thread before so you wouldn't have to talk about the purposeful lying to kids to make them believe an old primitive book is true and that evolutionists are "evil". You have not distracted people from the fact that you derailed this thread to take the focus off the discussion so you could attack Gayak for calling religion on the lying that it's doing. You have failed to discredit Dawkins or any of the people you think you are discrediting and succeeded in making yourself into one big obfuscating dishonest buffoon in front of many. Methinks thou dost protest to much.

Neither thread was about you or Gayak. One was about Sloan and Dawkins; the other was about a creationist tour guide telling kids falsehoods wrapped up with the words of skepticism and sounding all "sciency".

You chose to defend the latter because gayak asked "who said that religion isn't child abuse?" You chose to demonize the person who said said this rather than the actual immoral ignorance promoting lie in the OP. You're a silly, self-righteous fool. It's been a pleasure watching slimething and cyborg hand you your merry pompous ass... while I act act as a cheerleader for facts. Got any?

(oh, it's my "shrill" refrain... not my "shill" refrain... creationists like to call all non-believers shrill. I believe they like to use that one for Dawkins. And why not? If you can't argue the facts--just label the person shrill-- strident is another one... but they never can quote the supposed shrill and strident things the evil atheists are saying--just wacky paraphrases and the strawman allegation that they are demonizing ALL religions--some of them are super duper groovy after all --and parents should be able to inflict them willy nilly on their kids with nary a care.)

 

[articulett]

Stick up for people--kids-- and truth.

Quit sticking up for religion. The omniscient one can fight his own battles. Quit changing the subject every time someone dares to mutter a bad word about the almighty and the institutions that claim to represent him.

Do your preaching at a religious forum.

 

[mijopaalmc]

You missed the post where I withdrew my assertion of "discontinuity" of the fossil record and clarified the I was confused because I had trying to understand how evolution could be portrayed as a continuous morph form one to another as in this The Simpsions opener:



And I have provided numerous resource that have modeled evolution as a stochastic process and demonstrated that all the resources that you have provide simultaneously and contradictorily refer to evolution as "non-random" and to adaptive mutations as "increasing the probability of survival and reproduction".

Anyway, your insistence that I have not provided evidence of these things is irrelevant to the fact that you have provided evidence that religion is universally child abuse. You have instead provided evidence that some religious tradition are damaging to some children.

 

[articulett]

You missed the post where I withdrew my assertion of "discontinuity" of the fossil record and clarified the I was confused because I had trying to understand how evolution could be portrayed as a continuous morph form one to another as in this The Simpsions opener:



And I have provided numerous resource that have modeled evolution as a stochastic process and demonstrated that all the resources that you have provide simultaneously and contradictorily refer to evolution as "non-random" and to adaptive mutations as "increasing the probability of survival and reproduction".

Anyway, your insistence that I have not provided evidence of these things is irrelevant to the fact that you have provided evidence that religion is universally child abuse. You have instead provided evidence that some religious tradition are damaging to some children.

Yeah, yeah... so now you could explain the fossil record thing, eh? And sure, evolution is random per your definition--the one no credible scientist is using...the one that makes you actually call Dawkins wrong. The definition of random that is so loose that you can't distinguish poker from roulette.

And I have provided plenty of evidence regarding damage cause by religion. It's just that you, like all creationists, demand wild proof for your tangential arguments while ignoring the proof that is exactly what you ask for while providing not a smidging of proof for your own inane assertions. You ask questions as though you really want the answers and then never even look at what is provided.

Plus, neither thread was about religion as child abuse--you made it into that so that you could defend the fact that people claim to have higher truths and inflict them on people with nary a care as to how they may effect these people. I don't need your approval over whether religion is child abuse. I am capable of reaching my own conclusions about what is and isn't child abuse, who is changing the subject, and who is a religious apologist or creationist. No amount of evidence will convince those with faith based claims or weird semantic definition of what random is or the notion that "religion is good". You ask loaded questions--and even when you get exactly what you ask for, you never concede.

This thread is about Dawkins--not who needs to prove to Mijo that lying to kids and making them into little rttjcs is crappy for all concerned. Yes, I'm sure nothing will ever lead you to conclude religion is child abuse--even dead kids who got faith filled prayers instead of medical attention. But that is beside the point.

Dawkins--the one that you think is wrong when he says natural selection is not random... the one you think you are somehow more informative than even though there isn't a scintilla of evidence that you have conveyed any actual factual knowledge to anyone-- Did you read the OP--the Sloan Wilson report? Dawkins' response? Any thoughts?

Or did you just decide to hop over to this thread to stalk gayak for daring to infer that religion is child abuse (after an OP describing a particularly egregious act of brainwashing on par with Jesus Camp, I might add...) Are you still so upset that he dared speak bad about the BIG LIE that you needed to follow him here and attempt to derail this thread? What a big ego you have! Can't your "intelligent designer" fight his own battles? What's it like to feel so "holier than thou?" Nice to see someone endorsing lying to children with such zeal, Mijo. And demonizing those who dare to say so.

 

[The Atheist]

Would you care to present evidence of that?

She can't, there is none.

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

She can't display that, either. The thread in question was about evolution, but I never even touched on that subject, I was busy just pointing out Arti's incorrect assumptions, just as I have been here.

I love Arti (N.B. a science teacher, not a scientist - incapable of original work) constantly making her claim about incompetents making the loudest noises.

Whose are the longest posts with the most drivel in them?

Me! Me! Don't forget me!

I'm an "apologist" too!

Sorry, John, but as Arti pointed out, you don't even make the apologist team - she continues to mis-label you a creationist despite having been given evidence to the contrary.

Fascinating that a "skeptic" makes so many assumptions. You should just be glad she was never smart enough to get involved in real science. God forbid considering what kind of morons come out of her classes. Cloth ears would help - I'm assured that her conversational style is identical to her posting style. "Never shuts up", apparently. I was surprised to hear that!



Teacher = A woman among girls and a girl among women.

QED

 

[mijopaalmc]

articulett-

I find it interesting that you accuse me of hijacking the thread when the original question I asked was about "skeptics" ingneral providing evidence for their positive claims to knowledge:

So asking people to provided evidence of their assertions (e.g., religion is an evolutionary atavism, religion is child abuse) and then denouncing them as having an unsupportable position when they can't produce said evidence betrays those who claim to be atheists as not really being atheists?

Have you poisoned your well today?

I included religion as child abuse as an example of a topic where the most outspoken "skeptics" are not skeptics, but followers who blindly parrot prominent people without actually doing any research on their claims. You were the one who took that example and ran with it. I honestly see no reason why you or qayak couldn't have elaborated on my first example "evolution is an evolutionary atavism", but here we are hundreds of posts later discussing the scanty evidence that (all) religion is (always) child abuse.

 

[newlyfound]

"Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us a worthy evidence of the fact." --George Eliot--

I think you guys are more interested in "being right" than in being truthful. Those are 2 distinctly separate things. A debate is not about proving one's "righteousness". It's about exploring the road to Truth, Truth as Art said is the same for all. Articulett is actually the one who so far went out her way to illustrate her stand, all you have done is turn around the pot without really proving or saying much. And to keep on "empty-ly" claiming you're right and she's wrong just because that's how you wish things will turn out isn't enough to make them do. Your attitudes are the typical attitudes of religionists (even fundamentalists) and she is right to refer to you as apologists, if you don't want her to, then stop reasoning as if you are.

 

[mijopaalmc]

"Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us a worthy evidence of the fact." --George Eliot--

I think you guys are more interested in "being right" than in being truthful. Those are 2 distinctly separate things. A debate is not about proving one's "righteousness". It's about exploring the road to Truth, Truth as Art said is the same for all. Articulett is actually the one who so far went out her way to demonstrate everything she says, all you have done is turn around the pot without really proving or saying much. And to keep on "empty-ly" claiming you're right and she's wrong just because that's what and how you wish things will turn out isn't enough to make them so.

That's rich.

It is the "religion is child abuse" crowd who has not dealt honestly with the evidence. I have yet to see an honest critique of the two reviews I cited, one that found 18 independent studies that said that religion was positively correlated with mental health in adolescents and the other that found 36 independent studies that said religion was negatively correlated with mental illness in adolescents. Instead, they have been dismissed out of hand as "meta-analyses in nursing journals that found a weak correlation due to indirect effects".

Why doesn't dismissing numerous independent studies that find that religion has beneficial effect (indirect or otherwise) for children in general in favor of broad generalizations from research done on specific groups of children in specific religious contexts considered intellectually dishonest?

 

[The Atheist]

I think you guys are more interested in "being right" than in being truthful.

Demonstrably the opposite, in fact.

John, Mijo, Andy and myself have all just posited differing views and backed them up with actual evidence. Arti, on the other hand, has done nothing but write screeds of blather and make ad hominem attacks. Yes, I respond in kind; that's what I do.

Those are 2 distinctly separate things. A debate is not about proving one's "righteousness". It's about exploring the road to Truth, Truth as Art said is the same for all.

Lovely. To arrive at the Truth^TM, it's usually quite useful to explore all avenues.

Articulett is actually the one who so far went out her way to illustrate her stand, all you have done is turn around the pot without really proving or saying much.

Jesus. I must've missed that. Can you point me to where she "illustrates her stand". All I've seen is constant reference to her two boringly favourite cliches.

And to keep on "empty-ly" claiming you're right and she's wrong just because that's how you wish things will turn out isn't enough to make them do. Your attitudes are the typical attitudes of religionists (even fundamentalists) and she is right to refer to you as apologists, if you don't want her to, then stop reasoning as if you are.

Emptily is a perfectly adequate world, not needing quotation marks.

Nobody's actually claiming Arti's wrong, just that she's refusing to consider views different from hers. That would make her closed rather than open-minded. Personally, I like to keep an open mind until something has been proven incorrect. That is something lacking in a couple of posters in this thread, and glaringly so. Glaringly to everyone but their dear selves, of course.

If you're unable to separate someone apologising for religion and someone standing up for factuality, then you're quite welcome to keep mistakenly thinking so. I know very well Andy is no apologist and if you think along the lines of people who even begin to consider that I might be one, then you'd be: A) stupid and B) completely ignorant of the vast majority of my posts on religion.

I made a comment the other day, when I stood up for my arch-enemy, that I will always stand up for fact over fantasy, no matter who or what is involved. Just because the target is religion and I'm an atheist, it isn't going to stop me acting the way. Shallow-minded people may think differently.

 

[John Hewitt]

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?

That's not fair! In post 46 you said I was and "apologist and a Dawkins loather." I demand my (divine) right to be an apologist.

If I apologise to Dawkins can I be an apologist?

 

[Herzblut]

I think you guys are more interested in "being right" than in being truthful.

In addition to mijo and TA who prove you wrong I'd like to remind you of your recent shrieking about Einstein being called a religious man. You scrolled thru your little booklet and found that Einstein had "no personal god", thus he wasn't religious. You failed to understand totally that having no personal god does not mean at all being irreligious. I gave you vast evidence about Einstein's belief and you still didn't understand. I did not put any personal notes then because I wanted to let Einstein speak undisturbed by my own words. But now I put it clearly:

Einstein was a highly religious man.

Accept the truth or keep being blinded by the weasel words of your small booklet. Just because you like it to be true.

Don't be afraid to do so, you're by far not the only one.

If human nature were not base, but thoroughly honourable, we should in every debate have no other aim than the discovery of truth; we should not in the least care whether the truth proved to be in favour of the opinion which we had begun by expressing, or of the opinion of our adversary. That we should regard as a matter of no moment, or, at any rate, of very secondary consequence; but, as things are, it is the main concern. Our innate vanity, which is particularly sensitive in reference to our intellectual powers, will not suffer us to allow that our first position was wrong and our adversary's right. The way out of this difficulty would be simply to take the trouble always to form a correct judgment. For this a man would have to think before he spoke. But, with most men, innate vanity is accompanied by loquacity and innate dishonesty. They speak before they think; and even though they may afterwards perceive that they are wrong, and that what they assert is false, they want it to seem the contrary. The interest in truth, which may be presumed to have been their only motive when they stated the proposition alleged to be true, now gives way to the interests of vanity: and so, for the sake of vanity, what is true must seem false, and what is false must seem true.

Arthur Schopenhauer, Die Kunst, Recht zu behalten

Herzblut

 

[qayak]

articulett-

I find it interesting that you accuse me of hijacking the thread when the original question I asked was about "skeptics" ingneral providing evidence for their positive claims to knowledge:

I included religion as child abuse as an example of a topic where the most outspoken "skeptics" are not skeptics, but followers who blindly parrot prominent people without actually doing any research on their claims. You were the one who took that example and ran with it. I honestly see no reason why you or qayak couldn't have elaborated on my first example "evolution is an evolutionary atavism", but here we are hundreds of posts later discussing the scanty evidence that (all) religion is (always) child abuse.

Lies! It was demonstrated that religion meets the definition of abuse which is all that is required for it to be abuse. You don't want to face the fact because it casts your precious religion in a bad light. Suck it up, Princess.

The problem with your "religion is an evolutionary atavism" is that you do not know the definition of atavism. Religion is not a reversion to a trait that was present in a more primative anecstor but not in intermediaries. Religion seems to be the result of human traits that evolved to help ensure our survival. However, religion itself is not necessary because it is based on fabricated lies. In-group favouritism is a quality that helps ensure survival of the group. Religion exploits that quality.

With advanced technology, religion is, in fact, a detriment to the survival of the species. In-group favouritism has not changed but the group has gotten larger. Religion is unable to adapt to larger groups and because of its violent nature, has grown to be a liability to human survival.

It is like the saying, "Each person is given a key to the gate to heaven. The same key opens the gate to hell." In-group favouritism is the key. Survival of the species is the gate to heaven and religion is the gate to hell.

 

[qayak]

Such a great post, it bears repeating. All credit to Newlyfound.

""Blessed is the man who, having nothing to say, abstains from giving us a worthy evidence of the fact." --George Eliot--

I think you guys are more interested in "being right" than in being truthful. Those are 2 distinctly separate things. A debate is not about proving one's "righteousness". It's about exploring the road to Truth, Truth as Art said is the same for all. Articulett is actually the one who so far went out her way to illustrate her stand, all you have done is turn around the pot without really proving or saying much. And to keep on "empty-ly" claiming you're right and she's wrong just because that's how you wish things will turn out isn't enough to make them do. Your attitudes are the typical attitudes of religionists (even fundamentalists) and she is right to refer to you as apologists, if you don't want her to, then stop reasoning as if you are."

 

[qayak]

In addition to mijo and TA who prove you wrong I'd like to remind you of your recent shrieking about Einstein being called a religious man. You scrolled thru your little booklet and found that Einstein had "no personal god", thus he wasn't religious. You failed to understand totally that having no personal god does not mean at all being irreligious. I gave you vast evidence about Einstein's belief and you still didn't understand. I did not put any personal notes then because I wanted to let Einstein speak undisturbed by my own words. But now I put it clearly:

Einstein was a highly religious man.

"The most beautiful and profound emotion we can experience is the sensation of the mystical. It is the source of all true science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead. To know that what is impenetrable to us really exists, manifesting itself as the highest wisdom and the most radiant beauty, which our dull faculties can comprehend only in their primitive forms -- this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religion." (Albert Einstein)

Notice how Einstein said ". . . this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religion." Further notice that he did not say that this knowledge or this feeling were at the center of judaism, christianity, islam, buddhism, etc. So, Einstein may very well have been religious but he certainly wasn't in favour of your religion.

He also said: "I consider the Society of Friends the religious community which has the highest moral standards. As far as I know, they have never made evil compromises and are always guided by their conscience. In international life, especially, their influence seems to me very beneficial and effective."

In case you are not aware, The Society of Friends is more commonly known as The Quakers. Notice how he didn't name any of the big names in christianity or judaism or islam. Notice how he named a sect that almost all others see as a cult. Notice he didn't mention your religion.

When Einstein stated, "I'm not an atheist," he further explained:
"We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is."

Einstein associated the apparent order of the unknown universe with god and he equated us to children, knowing that our knowledge was going to grow and expand. He did not believe in the concept of the jueo-christian god. He did not believe in a religion or god that did not grow as our understanding grew. Your god shrinks as our understanding grows. Einstein did not believe in your god.

And most telling of all, "Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man... In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed quite different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

Your religion, indeed all religion, relies on the naivety of its followers. Notice how Einstein said his spirit is manifet in the laws of the universe which you and your religion reject. Notice how Einstein's religion and god are completely different from yours.

In conclusion: Einstein was no doubt religious although spiritual would probably be a better description. However, if you wish to use Einstein as your shining example of someone important who believed in religion and god being true, shouldn't you at least follow the religion, and god, he is talking about? Afterall, he specifically rules out your religion, your god as not being true and your naivety as not being the path to his god.

If you want to find Einstein's religion and god you will not find it in some church listening to the naive rantings of ignorant bronze age people. You will find it on the furthest edge of scientific enquiry. Einstein believed that god was the spirit responsible for the apparent order of things we do not yet comprehend. He did not say, "god can be seen in an eyeball" as you and your ilk would have us believe. God cannot be seen in things we know. The fact that you do not understand evolution, how an eyeball works, relativity, the Big Bang, etc., etc., etc. is proof that you will never comprehend the religion or god of Einstein.

In order to understand Einstein's god and religion you need to first understand all this so that you can arrive at things that are truly beyond our ability to comprehend. And then you need to turn your mind to the task of comprehending them. That is where you will find Einstein's god.