Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson [Archive]

John Hewitt

17th July 2007, 02:43 PM

I would be interested in what readers think of this, which comes from eskeptic, via IIDB.

Richard Dawkins Replies to David Sloan Wilson

In his Skeptic article entitled “Why Richard Dawkins is Wrong About Religion” (initially published online in eSkeptic, July 4th 2007 (http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html)), David Sloan Wilson writes:
When Dawkins’ The God Delusion (http://www.skeptic.com/productlink/b113HB) was published I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise.

Why would Wilson ‘naturally assume’ any such thing? Reasonable, perhaps, to assume that I would pay some attention to the evolution of religion, but why base a critique on an evolutionary perspective, any more than on Assyrian woodwind instruments or the burrowing behaviour of aardvarks? The God Delusion does, as it happens, have a chapter on the evolutionary origins of religion. But to say that this chapter is peripheral to my main critique would be an understatement. When I was asked to prepare an abridgment for the British audio recording, I had to decide which bits of the book were essential, and which bits could, however regretfully, be left out. My first cut, and the only chapter I deleted completely, was the chapter on evolutionary origins. Sad as I was to lose it (I was consoled by the fact that we also recorded an unabridged version for the American market) it seemed to me the least essential chapter to the central theme of the book.
The central theme of the book is the question of whether God exists. I agree that it is also interesting to ask whether religion has some kind of Darwinian survival value. But whatever the answer to that might turn out to be, it will make no difference to the central question of whether God exists. Religious belief might have a positive survival value and God might or might not exist. Religious belief might have a negative survival value and God might or might not exist. Moreover, other important aspects of my critique, dealt with in other chapters of The God Delusion, are also unaffected by religion’s possible evolutionary advantages.
As for group selection (either as normally understood or in the idiosyncratic sense of Wilson’s private re-definition, about which he has been obsessing for thirty years), The God Delusion devotes a sympathetic page and half to the possibility that something like it might apply to the special case of religion. But a page and a half was all I could spare because I had more interesting matters to talk about, for example the “moth in the candle flame” theory of the origins of religion. I referred my readers to Wilson for a fuller treatment of what he calls group selection, and moved on. I thought it a generous gesture at the time, and I see no reason now to regret my choice to write my own book rather than his.

Mojo

17th July 2007, 04:23 PM

What do you think?

Beausoleil

17th July 2007, 04:25 PM

I'd be mildy interested to read what Dawkins had to say about an evolutionary origin of religion - it's an area where he might have something original to say. I'm not at all interested in his scientific discussion of whether God exists - I've sat through his tv programmes and read his opinion pieces and they strike me as rehashing of arguments that were trite a long time ago (I'm not a theist, if it makes a difference).

So I guess I'd like to thank Wilson for the heads up, and Dawkins for confirming that Wilson's view of what the book is about is correct.

:)

Dragon

17th July 2007, 05:12 PM

Wilson writes (in that link from eSceptic) - In The God Delusion Dawkins makes it clear that he loathes religion for its intolerance, blind faith, cruelty, extremism, abuse, and prejudice. He attributes these problems to religion and thinks that the world would be a better place without it. Given recent events in the Middle East and even here in America, it is understandable why he might draw such a conclusion, but the question is: What’s evolution got to do with it?That's Wilson's question, of course, not Dawkins' (well except for the one chapter).
WIlson continues Dawkins and I agree that evolutionary theory provides a powerful framework for studying religion, and we even agree on some of the details, so it is important to pinpoint exactly where we part company.Dawkins, quite rightly, points out that this has no bearing on the truth or falsehood of religion or the existence of gods - which is actually the main theme of the book.
I must say that Wilson's review does contain rather a lot about his own interests and hypoptheses - Dawkins is quite gentle with him IMO.

btw, John, there's a forum rule about providing excerpts and links rather than pasting the whole article.

Brown

17th July 2007, 06:12 PM

Richard Dawkins said:My first cut, and the only chapter I deleted completely, was the chapter on evolutionary origins.This was a good choice to cut. This chapter was easily the weakest and least enlightening chapters of the entire book, in my judgment. I kept thinking that Dawkins was missing the point: wouldn't a more fruitful analysis begin with evolutionary origins of self-deception capacity and inclination to delusion generally? Furthermore, the ideas Dawkins put forth seemed to be speculative (i.e., Dawkins himself seemed to acknowledge a lack of scientific evidence) and non-exclusive (i.e., other fairly obvious influences may have been at work, but they were discussed briefly or not at all).

JoeEllison

17th July 2007, 07:15 PM

I can see why Dawkins has little interest in the discussion in his book. Considering the overall hemes and thrust of the book, it is fair to say that spending much time quibbling over the possible evolutionary sources of religion is less important than its outcomes, which we can mostly agree with.

fishbob

17th July 2007, 09:14 PM

Why would Wilson ‘naturally assume’ any such thing? Reasonable, perhaps, to assume that I would pay some attention to the evolution of religion, but why base a critique on an evolutionary perspective, any more than on Assyrian woodwind instruments or the burrowing behaviour of aardvarks?
my bold

This bit from Dawkins pretty much nails it.

articulett

17th July 2007, 10:23 PM

my bold

This bit from Dawkins pretty much nails it.

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

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

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

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

qayak

17th July 2007, 10:53 PM

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

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

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

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

Well put. I think one can pretty much see at which point in the road to discarding religion Dawkins' critics are at just by their response to his book.

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

I also think there is an element of nationalism at play here. Many people seem to resent an "uppity Brit" bluntly pointing out their silliness.

Mobyseven

18th July 2007, 01:07 AM

I read Sloan's article and quite frankly, it bored me. The entire critique seems to be based either upon an ignorance of what Dawkins is arguing about, or a willfully constructed strawman - that is that the question is not, "Is religion beneficial?" (Though that is part of the book) the question is, "Does god exist?"

Beausoleil

18th July 2007, 02:46 AM

Well put. I think one can pretty much see at which point in the road to discarding religion Dawkins' critics are at just by their response to his book.

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

I also think there is an element of nationalism at play here. Many people seem to resent an "uppity Brit" bluntly pointing out their silliness.

I am an uppity Brit. My "objection" to Dawkins is that his articles in the press and his recent tv programme are shallow, and for this reason I've never bothered reading his books. I think one can see how far people have come in discarding the religious mindset in their no longer needing to treat Dawkins as a prophet and in their no longer needing to rehash the arguments by reading such books. It's ok, there is no God, let it go.

I think Wilson nailed it in his closing paragraph..."At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion." Exactly.

Big Al

18th July 2007, 02:51 AM

Is it beneficial for kids to believe in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus? Possibly: I don't know.

Does that have any bearing on whether they exist or not? Absolutely not.

Does it cause irreparable damage to the kids' psyches to reveal that the TF and SC don't exist as they grow up? Not as far as I can tell.

Isn't it time for us to grow up?

clerihew80

18th July 2007, 03:13 AM

"At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion."
Funnily enough, I see nothing to disagree with in this statement. Dawkins is indeed an angry atheist. And yes, he is taking advantage of his well-earned reputation as a scientist to express his personal opinions on religion to a large audience.

So what's the problem, Bobby? Care to give an example of his alleged "shallowness"? I don't think anyone here is treating Dawkins as a "prophet."

You admit that you've never read any of his books. So why the snide dismissal of a man whose work you're only marginally familiar with? Is it just contrariness for the sake of contrariness? Are you trying to demonstrate your superiority to us run-of-the-mill atheists and skeptics?

Beady

18th July 2007, 04:42 AM

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

In defiance of your gross stereotyping, I hope to salvage nothing from religion. OTOH, I recognize that 87% of the population (extrapolating from 2000 US census figures) belong to some form of organized religion, that I have to live in close proximity to them; that I have many transactions with them in my daily life; that many/most of them are good and decent people who choose for whatever reason to attribute their goodness and decency to their religion; and that because of their goodness and decency, regardless of where it comes from, they deserve to be treated with respect and compassion.

I also disagree with Dawkins' approach, believing that it's easier to talk to a friend about the subject than it is to talk to him after first making him an enemy. 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.

As for the evolutionary aspects of religion, I find that more interesting than anything else. There are plenty of works about "How" religion developed (see, for example, Karen Armstrong's books), but comparatively little about "Why." The one thing I've gotten out of Dawkins' book so far (I've been struggling through it for months - Sagan's book is a much easier read) is the single light-bulb moment engendered by the moth and the flame referred to in the OP.

Which brings us back to the people we live among. If the "Need To Believe" really is somehow hardwired into the typical human, as Dawkins at least appears to consider, whether directly or as a byproduct of some evolutionary process, then Believers do not deserve insults and derision. It simply isn't their fault. In fact, if such hardwiring really exists, then it is we Nonbelievers who are the aberration; there is something abnormal about our thinking that we had nothing to do with, and we deserve no credit for breaking away.

andyandy

18th July 2007, 04:47 AM

The self proclaimed atheists.....

but not the True atheists (TM) like yourself? :D

articulett

18th July 2007, 05:14 AM

I am an uppity Brit. My "objection" to Dawkins is that his articles in the press and his recent tv programme are shallow, and for this reason I've never bothered reading his books. I think one can see how far people have come in discarding the religious mindset in their no longer needing to treat Dawkins as a prophet and in their no longer needing to rehash the arguments by reading such books. It's ok, there is no God, let it go.

I think Wilson nailed it in his closing paragraph..."At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion." Exactly.

Well it appears a lot of people are eager to hear his opinion as it's a top selling book in both countries. Perhaps David Sloan Wilson et. al. are jealous that their opinions are not as sought after. Sometimes people need to see smart people with conviction addressing their concerns...and I suspect Dawkins speaks for a LOT of people who have been afraid to speak out--the same for Harris and Hitchens. It isn't harmless, and it can't be true. And when you show deference it just gets more audacious. It's a mind virus...and the only way to eradicate it is to speak up. Faith never has been a good way to know anything. And deference should be shown to those who are worthy not invisible overlords and people claiming to speak for him or believe in him.

Atheists don't have prophets...but we do have heroes. And science has heroes too. We respect those who bring civilization forward and Dawkins does so on many fronts. He has added huge amounts of knowledge and conveyed evolution to many. And he shows you can be a very fine, smart, moral human being without currying favor with an invisible entity.

JoeEllison

18th July 2007, 05:52 AM

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

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

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

If he'd have written a similar book about the astrology delusion, I don't think the critiques would have been nearly as reactionary.
Yeah, that's what I see too. Mostly, though, the argument seems to run that Dawkins should have gone out of his way to find aspects of religion worthy of praise and/or respect. The critics don't seem to mind that he's "preaching atheism", but that he refuses to give religion its "due". It isn't really the anger that drives people nuts, it is the dismissive attitude.

fishbob

18th July 2007, 06:20 AM

As for the evolutionary aspects of religion, I find that more interesting than anything else. There are plenty of works about "How" religion developed (see, for example, Karen Armstrong's books), but comparatively little about "Why."

Call me cynical, but I have always suspected that the 'why' is money and power.

Beady

18th July 2007, 06:27 AM

Call me cynical, but I have always suspected that the 'why' is money and power.

You're cynical.

Yes, yes, that's what it's used for (as John Adams, Lenin and Napoleon, et al, have remarked), but I mean "Why is this tool so readily available? Why are people, both individually and in groups, so susceptible to it? Why are the willingness, compulsion and need to believe in something so dominant in virtually every human?"

ETA: Dawkins does a fair enough job of arguing against organized religion, but I don't think he adds very much to an understanding of faith.

qayak

18th July 2007, 08:07 AM

but not the True atheists (TM) like yourself? :D

No, the people who claim to be atheists but their actions betray them. It is easy to say it, always much harder to live it.

qayak

18th July 2007, 08:13 AM

I am an uppity Brit. My "objection" to Dawkins is that his articles in the press and his recent tv programme are shallow, and for this reason I've never bothered reading his books.

If you have never read his book, how can you in all honesty comment on it?

It seems you and Wilson make the same error. Neither knows what they are commenting on.

I think Wilson nailed it in his closing paragraph..."At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion." Exactly.

I think one would truly have to severely twist what Dawkins says to see him as angry. Wilson seems to have joined the ranks of unknowns trying to build their reputation by riding Dawkins' coat tails.

JoeEllison

18th July 2007, 08:28 AM

No, the people who claim to be atheists but their actions betray them. It is easy to say it, always much harder to live it.You're pulling our legs, right?

steenkh

18th July 2007, 08:55 AM

Call me cynical, but I have always suspected that the 'why' is money and power.
You forgot sex.

Beady

18th July 2007, 09:50 AM

Originally Posted by fishbob http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://72.32.2.238/forumlive/showthread.php?p=2778544#post2778544)
Call me cynical, but I have always suspected that the 'why' is money and power.

You forgot sex.

Why be redundant?

Beady

18th July 2007, 09:51 AM

You're pulling our legs, right?

No, he's like that.

John Hewitt

18th July 2007, 10:44 AM

The reason I thought it would be interesting to hear people's comments about this short commentary was that I found it rather poor.

There are really three things I disliked. The first was its tone, which I found rather rude. Sloan Wilson expected an evolutionary and it does seem to me natural to read Dawkins expecting an evolutionary commentary - evolution, after all, has been his field thus far. Of course, he is not obliged to continue in the evolutionary vein. However, those comments about Assyrian woodwind instruments look like deliberate mockery and seem to suggest that he (Dawkins) regards Sloan Wilson's views as beneath serious consideration.

That brings us to the second point I disliked. Dawkins chooses to insinuate that Sloan Wilson is some solitary loner obsessing about group selection for thirty years. The reality is very different. Many people take Wilson's views seriously and group selection is, today, a topic of active debate. One must presume either that Dawkins is unaware of this, or that he simply chooses not to debate Sloan Wilson, perhaps for the same reasons that he chooses not to debate creationism. Should I, or others, infer that he (Dawkins) places group selection into the same category as creationism?

Finally, the last point I am unhappy about, I am quite disappointed that Dawkins did not take an evolutionary view of religion. That leaves me wondering what "The God Delusion" does achieve. From objective criteria it is not hard to debunk religion, even comedians do it, for example, "The Life of Brian." Its no great achievement to debunk religion that way, so what is the point of the book? Is this work a social commentary, if so, how does it improve on Durkheim's "God is society" approach - which makes sense in terms of group selection. If it is an ethical approach to knowledge, how does he (Dawkins) add to Ghandi's "God is Truth." If the "God Delusion" is not about evolution, what area of knowledge does it actually move forward?

JoeEllison

18th July 2007, 11:00 AM

mijopaalmc

18th July 2007, 11:14 AM

No, the people who claim to be atheists but their actions betray them. It is easy to say it, always much harder to live it.

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?

Beady

18th July 2007, 11:43 AM

...I am quite disappointed that Dawkins did not take an evolutionary view of religion.

That's pretty much my point. We are awash with chronological histories of the development of the idea of God; explanations, critiques and denunciations of the various religions in specific and general; catechisms, holy books and whatever; and even philosophical treatises (is that the correct plural?), but we seem to be woefully short of understanding why we found it necessary to invent God in the first place. So far, the concept of the need for God as a byproduct of our compulsion to adore something, which itself is a manifestation of our reproductive instinct, is the closest I've seen Dawkins come to a truly scientific explanation. I don't find the concept wholy satisfactory, mind, and think it's a bit of a reach, but it's the best I've seen to date. I wish there had been more in this vein.

Mobyseven

18th July 2007, 11:47 AM

I am an uppity Brit. My "objection" to Dawkins is that his articles in the press and his recent tv programme are shallow, and for this reason I've never bothered reading his books. I think one can see how far people have come in discarding the religious mindset in their no longer needing to treat Dawkins as a prophet and in their no longer needing to rehash the arguments by reading such books. It's ok, there is no God, let it go.

I think Wilson nailed it in his closing paragraph..."At the moment, he is just another angry atheist, trading on his reputation as an evolutionist and spokesperson for science to vent his personal opinions about religion." Exactly.

Your paragraph reminds me a lot of an argument I got into with a Christian friend of mine recently. He walked into my room to borrow a calculator, and saw that I had been reading The God Delusion. The conversation went something like this:

HIM: What? You're reading The God Delusion?
ME: Yes, why?
HIM: Richard Dawkins is a wanker!
ME: Why do you say that?
HIM: He says that religion is the cause of all the wars in the world!
ME: No, he doesn't say that at all. Have you read the book?
HIM: No, I don't have to read the book.
ME: Then how can you know what he says?
HIM: I don't have to read the book because the book is crap!
ME: But you're attributing a position to Dawkins that he doesn't take! How can you criticize his argument when you don't know what his argument is?
HIM: I do know what his argument is!
[Repeat for a few minutes until he takes the calculator and storms off.]

You criticize Dawkins for a response to a critique of his book, which you haven't even read! If strawman construction were an Olympic sport, you'd be on the team for certain.

qayak

18th July 2007, 12:56 PM

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?

To answer your question, no.

You can make so much out of so little. I guess it comes from fabricating most of the evidence that supports your argument. It would be interesting if you could cite a thread where the case that religion is child abuse has not been made.

Have you poisoned your well today?

Have you pulled your head out of your butt since you were indoctrinated as a child?

andyandy

18th July 2007, 01:01 PM

No, the people who claim to be atheists but their actions betray them. It is easy to say it, always much harder to live it.

hang on, since when did atheism become an ideology?

Since when did "I don't believe in God" necessitate any subscription to a set of beliefs about the relative impact of religion upon people's lives?

Since when did "I don't believe in God" require any subscription to how one lives their life?

Atheism is not an ideological creed that one signs up to - it is nothing more than a rejection of a concept. I don't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs. That statement is true regardless of how I choose to live my life.

qayak

18th July 2007, 01:06 PM

You're pulling our legs, right?

No, not at all. It is quite pathetic. They insist they are atheists and yet they will not miss church, just to be on the safe side or because their children NEED religion!

They will speak out against religion and then vehemently defend the one they grew up with as being the one that is right, even though they claim to not believe.

They will point to islam as the reason they no longer believe in religions but they will defend christianity as if it is/was any different.

Maybe I meet these people because I live in a bible belt and will discuss religion or politics with anyone but I have run into several and a few I even see quite frequently.

qayak

18th July 2007, 01:08 PM

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

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

mijopaalmc

18th July 2007, 01:14 PM

To answer your question, no.

You can make so much out of so little. I guess it comes from fabricating most of the evidence that supports your argument. It would be interesting if you could cite a thread where the case that religion is child abuse has not been made.

I hardly think that an article such as Religion's Real Child Abuse (http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins), which is published on Dawkins' official website, is the "so little" you make it out to be; it is quite a strong statement of his personal belief that religion is child abuse regardless of its context

Have you pulled your head out of your butt since you were indoctrinated as a child?

This is exactly what I'm talking about: since I stepped in and called you on your insistence that people defending religion against baseless attacks* are automatically indoctrinated, because the only people who could possibly have and interest in defending religion are those who practice.

*The attacks are essentially baseless seeing as religious upbringing simply does not result in the same psychopathology among all groups of children and across all forms of religion that child abuse does, a fact which has been amply demonstrated to you.

colin

18th July 2007, 01:20 PM

I don't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs.
Blasphemy! Heathen!:eek:
Ohhh… as soon as the Holy Bananas are ripe, you’ll get your comeuppance! :(

andyandy

18th July 2007, 01:26 PM

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

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

I don't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs. That statement is true. Don't tell me it's false because I don't happen to fulfil an arbitrary ideological imposition.

I could actually have some good Homoerotica friends. I still wouldn't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs.

I could think that Homoerotica conferred some benefits upon its members. i still wouldn't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs.

I could let my son go to Simian Sunday School to keep my wife happy. I still wouldn't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs.

I could go on. :)

Beady

18th July 2007, 01:32 PM

Hmm... andyandy posted at 03:26 and colin replied at 03:20.

I smell a conspiracy.

Beady

18th July 2007, 01:33 PM

so you know what people really believe?

Yes, he does. Trust me.

andyandy

18th July 2007, 01:40 PM

Blasphemy! Heathen!:eek:
Ohhh… as soon as the Holy Bananas are ripe, you’ll get your comeuppance! :(

all orangutans know that there is only one true Godall foretold by the mighty Prophet Pongo - a bodily hairless ape with a golden head and endless supply of figs.

qayak

18th July 2007, 01:41 PM

I hardly think that an article such as Religion's Real Child Abuse (http://richarddawkins.net/article,118,Religions-Real-Child-Abuse,Richard-Dawkins), which is published on Dawkins' official website, is the "so little" you make it out to be; it is quite a strong statement of his personal belief that religion is child abuse regardless of its context

Here you go again. You made up a huge pack of BS out of what I said that had nothing to do with the subject.

I do think that religion is child abuse and I think it is an important problem, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

This is exactly what I'm talking about: since I stepped in and called you on your insistence that people defending religion against baseless attacks* are automatically indoctrinated, because the only people who could possibly have and interest in defending religion are those who practice.

You are talking about something completely different. First, the attacks are not baseless, believers just wish they were. Second, I am not talking about people who defend aspects of religion on philosophical grounds. I am talking about people who claim one thing and then do exactly the opposite. The people who essentially say, "I don't believe there is a god but if you will excuse me, I ahve to go pray to him now."

*The attacks are essentially baseless seeing as religious upbringing simply does not result in the same psychopathology among all groups of children and across all forms of religion that child abuse does, a fact which has been amply demonstrated to you.

This has never been demonstrated, it is just what you believe. Even children who suffer violent sexual abuse react in different ways. There will never be a universal response. Some will be totally traumatized for the rest of their lives, some will brush it off with little or no problem. And everything in between

The fact that you expect one universal response in order to question religious indoctrination is further proof of how many special favours you are willing to give religion in order to delude yourself. If I find one person who says their childhood sexual abuse caused them little pain, will you agree that child abuse is not a problem and society should forget about it?

Or how about I demonstrate that sedating children does little lasting damage to most, would you then join me in extolling the virtues of drugging children so that parents can go out and enjoy themselves without having to worry about children misbehaving for babysitter?

I have met many people who were raised in religious households and who now say that it was a huge problem for them. I went hiking with a woman a couple weekends ago who I had lent The Demon Haunted World to. She did not have a chance to read it and was asking me questions about it. I told her that many people felt Sagan was not as hard on religion as Dawkins is. She asked me who Richard Dawkins was. I told her he was the guy who claimed religion was child abuse. To my surprise, she said, "Having lived it, I would have to agree with him. Can I borrow his book?" This woman is 46 years old, has a degree in mathematics and is very successful. Not one of her three kids was brought up to believe for this very reason. I have met her parents, they are very nice and yet they were the ones that did it.

The Atheist

18th July 2007, 01:47 PM

btw, John, there's a forum rule about providing excerpts and links rather than pasting the whole article.

You made mod already?

I can see why Dawkins has little interest in the discussion in his book. Considering the overall hemes and thrust of the book, it is fair to say that spending much time quibbling over the possible evolutionary sources of religion is less important than its outcomes, which we can mostly agree with.

I'm not so sure. I've been giving this quite a bit of thought after the "should Dawkins debate YECs" thread. When an author entitles a book "The God Delusion", I think an exploration of the evolution of that god is almost a pre-requisite.

This bit from Dawkins pretty much nails it.

Actually, I thought this bit was far more important:

I agree that it is also interesting to ask whether religion has some kind of Darwinian survival value. But whatever the answer to that might turn out to be, it will make no difference to the central question of whether God exists.

Interesting? I find it absolutely ####ing critical!

If religion does have a survival value, that would be a hell of a lot more important to me than god being a myth. Obviously, as Dawkins states, it doesn't change the answer, but it might well change the way the answer is perceived. I, for one, would certainly contend that survival of the species is a lot more important than whether the sky-daddy patrols heaven. Given his background as an evolutionary biologist, I perhaps would have expected Dawkins to do the same.

He has added huge amounts of knowledge and conveyed evolution to many.

Has he really? Or has he just preached to the converted? I don't know one way or the other, but I hope you're right.

No, the people who claim to be atheists but their actions betray them. It is easy to say it, always much harder to live it.

You're pulling our legs, right?

hang on, since when did atheism become an ideology?

Couldn't agree more.

Sorry, Qayak, but I really don't get your point here at all. You treat "atheism" as though it were some achievement worthy of respect.

It isn't.

The reason I thought it would be interesting to hear people's comments about this short commentary was that I found it rather poor.

If the "God Delusion" is not about evolution, what area of knowledge does it actually move forward?

Good on you, John. Dawkins is often perceived as being above criticism, which is a bad thing at any time, but you're certainly making a good case for him to stand up on some counts.

I find it interesting that theologians find Dawkins very easy to dismiss, simply because his theology is so weak. That tends to confirm the "selling to the converted bit", although he's doubtless sold plenty of copies to those theologians who crap all over him.

... but we seem to be woefully short of understanding why we found it necessary to invent God in the first place...

Yeah, we even agree, Beady!

There are plenty of theories on the subject, but as far as I can tell, they're philosophy-based rather than science-based.

hang on, since when did atheism become an ideology?

Hand your bleeding card back immediately!

I don't believe in Homoerotica the simian god of male monkey oil rubs. That statement is true regardless of how I choose to live my life.

How can you not believe that, you deluded fool?

I will be over later with a bottle of monkey oil laced with the excretion from bonobo chimpazee anal glands.

Never fails.

The Atheist

18th July 2007, 02:01 PM

I do think that religion is child abuse and I think it is an important problem, but that wasn't what I was talking about.

Sorry, but that's a joke. Religion can be child abuse, but it isn't, per se.

I am talking about people who claim one thing and then do exactly the opposite. The people who essentially say, "I don't believe there is a god but if you will excuse me, I ahve to go pray to him now."

They would simply be hypocrites.

Plenty of them of all types in the world. Personally, I've never met anyone who behaves as you suggest.

The fact that you expect one universal response in order to question religious indoctrination is further proof of how many special favours you are willing to give religion in order to delude yourself. If I find one person who says their childhood sexual abuse caused them little pain, will you agree that child abuse is not a problem and society should forget about it?

And when I find atheists who are shocking parents, will you agree that atheism is bad and should be outlawed as well? No atheists abuse their children?

I have met many people who were raised in religious households and who now say that it was a huge problem for them.

You know, I only find that comment in here. Maybe it's a North American thing, because I know lots of Poms, Kiwis and Aussies who were brought up in religion and none of them ever felt in the slightest abused by it. Most of them are now atheists, but some remain christian. No scars.

andyandy

18th July 2007, 02:18 PM

snip.

did you lean on the multiquote tab? That must be the most quotes within a post like ever. I'm happy to see i was profound enough to be quoted twice for one of my comments :D

I will be over later with a bottle of monkey oil laced with the excretion from bonobo chimpazee anal glands.

I think you're being a bit unfair to New Zealand lager - it's not that bad :)

articulett

18th July 2007, 02:37 PM

You're cynical.

Yes, yes, that's what it's used for (as John Adams, Lenin and Napoleon, et al, have remarked), but I mean "Why is this tool so readily available? Why are people, both individually and in groups, so susceptible to it? Why are the willingness, compulsion and need to believe in something so dominant in virtually every human?"

ETA: Dawkins does a fair enough job of arguing against organized religion, but I don't think he adds very much to an understanding of faith.

Actually he does. And he doesn't deride the religious. They are far ruder to him. Faith evolved in children because trust is essential to the survival of our species. Religion hijacks this--authority figures tell you that you can suffer forever--but they have the key to prevent it (the make the problem and then heroically provide the solution)--Believe and get others to believe--show obedience to the faith. "Yours is not to wonder why, yours is but to do or die". Then enforce it with shunning of dissenters...protection and favors for those kissing the asses of the people in the hierarchy the most. Make belief and faith a "necessary" insurance plan--ala pascal. It spreads just like a chain letter but the stakes are much higher--ETERNITY... based on what you believe! Such a simple meme... and it works so well with human primal need to have explanations and make them up when they don't have them... it exploits human error in mistaking correlation for causation... and enforces it stories like Pandoras box and the suffering of humanity after Eve bites from the "tree of knowledge". It promotes us vs. them thinking where your in-group watches your back from that scary other group who are evil. Faith is easy to understand. The way religion hijacks it and promotes it as essential to salvation is easy to understand. Also, most religions encourage the minions to go forth and multiply spreading whatever genes that influenced their "faithfulness" along with the faith meme into a ready supply of new vectors.

I think Dawkins et. al. understand faith quite well--he just thinks humans have been deluded into thinking it's a good think--necessary for salvation--a path to higher truths.

articulett

18th July 2007, 02:48 PM

Mijo and John Hewitt are both religious apologists and Dawkins loathers. They use arguments of Behe while denying being "creationists" and side stepping the issue of whether they believe in "intelligent design".

From my perspective Mijo was acting like a creationist tour guide of a museum producing a kid asking evolutionists "why do you teach false facts" was no big deal because religion supposedly does these great things. Gayak responded to the article by asking, "who says religion isn't child abuse" because it's pretty egregious to lie to kids under threats of hell. Then Mijo went around like all creationist demanding evidence that religion causes harm to people...and lots of evidence was provided, but none that he would accept, of course... But Mijo failed to provide evidence of religions benefits--just a meta analysis of nurses that showed there was a weak correlation between people who consider themselves spiritual and mental health. Of course, for gay youths the opposite was true. Religion made them more prone to dysfunction...and religion and failure to understand evolution is widely correlated with societal dysfunction.

http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Since that is the case, Dawkins is doing society a favor in showing them the facts their religions made them afraid to learn.

And Dawkins never said Religion IS child abuse. He said threatening people with hell is an abusive way to enforce belief and that children should not be labeled by their parents religions anymore than by their parents politics.

I just think everything an atheist says, including Dawkins is exaggerated to the nth degree because everybody thinks they have the true woo that they think Dawkins should respect. Nobody has an actual credible argument against anything he says as far as I can tell. And those who dis him are usually those who haven't even read him--

And if they are non-believers, I suspect they still are showing the deference towards faith that society promotes--or envious of his ability to say what so many have been wishing they could say.

articulett

18th July 2007, 03:03 PM

That's pretty much my point. We are awash with chronological histories of the development of the idea of God; explanations, critiques and denunciations of the various religions in specific and general; catechisms, holy books and whatever; and even philosophical treatises (is that the correct plural?), but we seem to be woefully short of understanding why we found it necessary to invent God in the first place. So far, the concept of the need for God as a byproduct of our compulsion to adore something, which itself is a manifestation of our reproductive instinct, is the closest I've seen Dawkins come to a truly scientific explanation. I don't find the concept wholy satisfactory, mind, and think it's a bit of a reach, but it's the best I've seen to date. I wish there had been more in this vein.

Dennet did. But it's pretty easy to see... humans have been making up explanations for things they don't understand for eons...lots of gods and demons before we started figuring out how things work. And religions hijack human tendencies like us vs. them mentality. You protect your group against those evil "others"-- good guys and bad guys... And capitalizes on human fear--especially fear of death...by offering an answer and telling you that it will only happen if you really really believe...

Humans evolved to notice patterns, design, and meaning...even when none is there. They are agency detectors...they look to see how they can control things...and they so they see agency that isn't there. A tornado comes on the same day that stranger visited your village...you don't want another tornado...you assume the stranger brought the tornado...you kill him...and you never have another tornado. Naturally your belief about humans and tornados is reinforced. I don't see how religion wouldn't evolve once men saw how easily you could gain allegiances and spawn minions by using it... People have invented it again and again to the delight of those who can convince others that they have access to the divine.

Isn't Randi a testament to how easily beliefs can spread...and they do ensure the survival and reproduction of adherents and the expense of non believers.
Heck, missionaries all over the world offer much needed help in exchange for "belief". Humans had to at least get good at pretending to believe in order to survive.

articulett

18th July 2007, 03:07 PM

andyandy

18th July 2007, 03:14 PM

But Mijo failed to provide evidence of religions benefits--just a meta analysis of nurses that showed there was a weak correlation between people who consider themselves spiritual and mental health.

there are studies which show evidence of religious benefit - but as these don't fit into an angry atheist mypoia they are ignored. Now this benefit may simply be one of increased social network or other mundane and entirely plausible factor but it is disingenuous to pretend that such studies do not exist.

Philadelphia–Depressed seniors who believe their life is guided by a larger spiritual force have significantly fewer symptoms of depression than those who do not use religious coping strategies. Moreover, this relationship is independent of the amount of social support those individuals receive, according to results of a prospective study presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Psychiatric Association.

"This is a pretty remarkable study–and when you see these kind of data coming out from both medical and psychiatric populations, it’s hard to continue ignoring religion as a variable in the recovery from depression," said Harold G. Koenig, MD, associate professor of psychiatry and of medicine at Duke University Medical Center, Durham, N.C.

According to study author Hayden Bosworth, PhD, attempts in the literature to distinguish the effects of religion from the effects of social support on depression have led to mixed success (Husaini BA et al. Int J Aging Hum Dev 1999;48:63-72). Dr. Bosworth, associate director, health services research and development, Durham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and his colleagues attempted to address the issue by examining the effects of religious practices, coping mechanisms and social support on recovery among individuals diagnosed with major depression.

The research team assessed all patients (n=114; average age, 67.5 years) using the Montgomery Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS) at baseline and at the end of six months. They also asked each patient about the extent of their religious practices and religious coping (Table).

The results indicated that higher patient-reported levels of religious practice correlated with significantly lower MADRS scores at baseline (P <0.02), after adjusting for covariates such as social support. However, the analysis of 90 patients at the six-month follow-up showed that religious practice did not significantly predict lower MADRS scores after adjusting for other factors (P <0.08).

The analysis also revealed higher levels of positive religious coping were related to lower MADRS scores at baseline (P=0.03). Moreover, positive religious coping significantly predicted lower MADRS scores at six months (P <0.03).

The investigators reported that higher levels of negative religious coping were associated with higher MADRS scores at baseline (P=0.02), although similar findings did not appear at six months.

"These results indicate that clinicians should encourage reconnection with religion as a way of coping in patients whose spirituality has been important to them," concluded Dr. Bosworth.

"Physicians need to pay attention to their patients’ religious beliefs and practices," added Dr. Koenig. "Rather than continuing to see it as a liability or unhealthy crutch, they should see it as a potential strength in overcoming depression." http://www.mental-health-today.com/a...irituality.htm

from the medical journal of australia
http://www.mja.com.au/public/issues/...ed/hassed.html

Many studies have linked a lack of religiosity to depression. Religious commitment is associated with a reduced incidence of depression13 and a quicker recovery from depressive illness for the elderly.15 Two separate reviews of the literature have supported this: those with high levels of "religious involvement", "religious salience" and "intrinsic religious motivation" were at reduced risk,14 and religious commitment was inversely related to suicide risk in 13 of 16 studies reviewed.13 One study showed a fourfold increased risk of suicide for non-churchgoers compared with regular attenders,22 and no study has shown an increased risk of suicide among churchgoers.

Other data suggest that religiosity protects against drug and alcohol misuse, one of the most commonly used and maladaptive ways for dealing with depression. One study showed that 89% of alcoholics (but only 20% of the control group) had lost interest in religious issues during their teenage years.20 In another study it was found that doctors (who are a high-risk group for substance misuse) were less likely to develop an alcohol problem in later life if they had had a religious commitment while in medical school.21 Religious affiliation, even if accompanied by alcohol misuse, seemed to protect against heavy use or the associated extreme clinical and social consequences.

The reasons why people with a sense of religious commitment are less likely to become depressed may include a feeling of social connectedness, exposure to messages about healthy living, or perhaps the reduced exposure to drug-taking behaviour. However, studies controlling for these factors have still found religiosity to be independently protective. So there may be other reasons, such as the comfort that comes from believing in a benevolent and caring God, the view that justice always prevails in the end, or that adverse events always have a meaning and a message. Such attitudes would buffer enormously against the ill-effects of life stresses and the depression that often follows.

The important role that mental health plays in the development and progression of physical illness goes part way to explaining why religious commitment is associated with reduced risk of conditions such as hypertension, heart disease and cancer.26,27,29,30 A population study over nine years showed that all-cause mortality was significantly reduced and life expectancy increased (to 82 years v. 75 years) for regular churchgoers. The findings were not explainable by the accepted lifestyle and social variables,24 and were consistent with other data.25

cite 24

We use recently released, nationally representative data from the National Health Interview Survey-Multiple Cause of Death linked file to model the association of religious attendance and sociodemographic, health, and behavioral correlates with overall and cause-specific mortality. Religious attendance is associated with U.S. adult mortality in a graded fashion: People who never attend exhibit 1.87 times the risk of death in the follow-up period compared with people who attend more than once a week. This translates into a seven-year difference in life expectancy at age 20 between those who never attend and those who attend more than once a week. Health selectivity is responsible for a portion of the religious attendance effect: People who do not attend church or religious services are also more likely to be unhealthy and, consequently, to die. However, religious attendance also works through increased social ties and behavioral factors to decrease the risks of death. And although the magnitude of the association between religious attendance and mortality varies by cause of death, the direction of the association is consistent across causes. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=007...3E2.0.CO%3B2-H

cite 25
Longitudinal Study of Religiosity and Mortality Risk
Kathleen M. Clark
Department of Psychology, University of California, USA

Howard S. Friedman

Department of Psychology, University of California, USA

Leslie R. Martin

Department of Psychology, La Sierra University, USA

The relation of adult religiosity to longevity was studied in 993 participants from Terman's 70-year Life-Cycle Study. Key social and behavioral variables of physical health, psychological well-being, socio-economic status, social support, and health behaviors were also considered. Results indicate that women who viewed themselves as more religious in adulthood (approximately age 40) had a lower risk for premature mortality than those who were less religiously inclined. These women had healthier behaviors, more positive feelings about their futures, and reported being somewhat happier than their less religiously inclined peers. In this bright, middle-class, 20th century sample, religiosity among women seems to be part of a generally healthy lifestyle, but not necessarily a direct cause of it. http://hpq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/4/3/381

cite 27

The perceived or self-reported degree of 'religiousness' was obtained by interview from 715 colorectal cancer patients and 727 age/sex matched community controls, as part of a large, comprehensive population-based study of colorectal cancer incidence, aetiology and survival (The Melbourne Colorectal Cancer Study) conducted in Melbourne, Australia. Self-reported or perceived 'religiousness', as defined in the study, was a statistically significant protective factor [relative risk (RR) = 0.70, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.6-0.9, P = 0.002]. This statistically significant protection remained after the previously determined major risk factors found in the study, namely a family history of colorectal cancer, dietary risk factors, beer consumption, number of children and age at birth of the first child, were statistically corrected for (P = 0.004). There was no association between Dukes' staging of the cancer and perceived degree of 'religiousness' (P = 0.42). Although self-reported or perceived 'religiousness' was associated with a median survival time of 62 months compared with 52 months in those self-reporting as being 'non-religious', this difference was not statistically significant (P = 0.64). http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/art...?artid=1294223

cite 28
David B. Larson1, 7, Harold G. Koenig2, Berton H. Kaplan3, Raymond S. Greenberg4, Everett Logue5 and Herman A. Tyroler6

(1) Biometrics and Clinical Applications Branch of the National Institute of Mental Health in Rockville, Maryland
(2) The Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, North Carolina
(3) Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill, USA
(4) Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, Georgia
(5) College of Medicine at Northeastern Ohio University in Rootstown, Ohio
(6) Department of Epidemiology School of Public Health at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
(7) Present address: BCAB/DBAS/NIMH, Rm., 18c-14, 5600 Fishers Lane, 20857 Rockville, MD

Abstract Most clinical studies examining the relation between religion and blood pressure status have focused on church attendance, finding lower pressures among frequent attenders. The present study examines the effect on blood pressure status of a religious meaning variable, importance of religion, both by itself and together with frequency of church attendance. The relation between blood pressure, self-perceived importance of religion, and frequency of church attendance was examined among a rural sample of 407 white men free from hypertension or cardiovascular disease. The data confirmed an interaction between the effects of both religious variables on blood pressure status, with importance of religion having an even greater association with lower pressures than church attendance. Diastolic blood pressures of persons with high church attendance and high religious importance were significantly lower than those in the low attendance, low importance group. These differences persisted after adjusting the analyses for age, socioeconomic status, smoking, and weight-height ratio (Quetelet Index). The difference in mean diastolic pressures based on response to the religious importance variable alone was statistically and clinically significant, particularly among men aged 55 and over (6 mm) and among smokers (5 mm). These findings suggest that both religious attitudes and involvement may interact favorably in their effects on cardiovascular hemodynamics.
Funding for this study was provided by the Department of Public Health, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill; the Center for the Study of Aging and Human Development, Duke University Medical Center; and the Geriatric Research Education and Clinical Center, Durham, North Carolina.
The authors thank Dan Blazer for his advice, assistance, and encouragement. They are also grateful to Dana Anne Mlekush for her help with manuscript preparation and her thoughtful input to this project. http://www.springerlink.com/content/g484435055217w1p/

These [ESM studies by Wilson and Csikszentmihalyi] studies were performed on such a massive scale and with so much background information that we can compare the psychological experience of religious believers vs. nonbelievers on a moment-by-moment basis. We can even compare members of conservative vs. liberal protestant denominations, when they are alone vs. in the company of other people. On average, religious believers are more prosocial than non-believers, feel better about themselves, use their time more constructively, and engage in long-term planning rather than gratifying their impulsive desires. On a moment-by-moment basis, they report being more happy, active, sociable, involved and excited. Some of these differences remain even when religious and non-religious believers are matched for their degree of prosociality. More fine-grained comparisons reveal fascinating differences between liberal vs. conservative protestant denominations, with more anxiety among the liberals and conservatives feeling better in the company of others than when alone. Religions are diverse, in the same way that species in ecosystems are diverse. Rather than issuing monolithic statements about religion, evolutionists need to explain religious diversity in the same way that they explain biological diversity. http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/07-07-04.html

i could go on, but it's utterly pointless - no amount of evidence is good enough if you've already made up your mind.

The Atheist

18th July 2007, 03:26 PM

there are studies which show evidence of religious benefit - but as these don't fit into an angry atheist mypoia they are ignored. Now this benefit may simply be one of increased social network or other mundane and entirely plausible factor but it is disingenuous to pretend that such studies do not exist.

You do realise you're doing all my research for me?

Cheers!

John Hewitt

18th July 2007, 03:27 PM

Good on you, John. Dawkins is often perceived as being above criticism, which is a bad thing at any time, but you're certainly making a good case for him to stand up on some counts.

I find it interesting that theologians find Dawkins very easy to dismiss, simply because his theology is so weak. That tends to confirm the "selling to the converted bit", although he's doubtless sold plenty of copies to those theologians who crap all over him.

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

By the way, I see that Articulett has changed her views of me. It seems that, while she once felt I was a creationist, now I have become a religious apologist and Dawkins loather. (I'm not sure whether that is a promotion or a demotion.) Are you still a creationist?

articulett

18th July 2007, 03:30 PM

Andy Andy... I don't doubt that it has some benefit. I'm just saying that it definitely causes harm and it isn't true... Mijo felt no one should be able to liken it to child abuse. This is a skeptics forum... all people are free to call it child abuse...the OP illustrated someone making a kid purposely ignorant and bigoted in the name of god. They were made ignorant in the exact same way that is correlated with societal dysfunction-- http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
Religiosity and failure to accept evolution is strongly associated with much higher rates of teen pregnancy, drug use, venereal disease, abortion, and homicide. Religion does not confer the benefit it's adherents claim. It does not make people more moral. It reward obedience and ignorance and faith over reason and doubt and facts.

But my point wasn't about religion--only that Mijo brought up another thread and mischaracterized it from my perspective. He is a religious apologists and instead of showing concern over the lying tour guide the thread was about, he attacked skeptics who dared say what the the tour guide was abusing the trust of his subjects while seemingly under the badge of science. He was proffering ye ol' "be skeptic of the skeptics" to kiddies promoting antiscience bigotry with pious ignorance and threats of hell mixed in.

Mijo is a religious apologists. He defends the indefensible while insulting skeptics for being critical of falsehoods on a skeptics forum! And, it's a sure sign that someone has some belief that they don't like Dawkins disbelieving when they have this visceral dislike of him without having actually read him...their arguments just seem so petty... and it's so obvious that they wouldn't have the same reaction if he wrote a book about disbelieving in astrology or scientology. Society teaches people to shun and punish those who don't show deference to religion. I think mijos tangent was merely a defense of his beliefs. The same with Hewitt.

I don't care whether religion is good or bad--I just care whether it's true--and there is no reason to think any of it is--so don't inflict it on me or my kid. I'm glad Dawkins has a number one best seller. He speaks for me. And he speaks out against those who would make future generations both arrogant and ignorant of the knowledge Dawkins has been instrumental in gathering in regards to evolution. There's rooms for all kinds of approaches in enlightening people and getting rid of old superstitions that oppress people. Raising consciousness by talking about these things is one way. It's what this forum is all about I thought. And Dawkins is doing that.

Billions of people are afraid not to believe because they think they will suffer forever. Isn't it time someone let them out of their cages of fear?

The Atheist

18th July 2007, 03:32 PM

And yes, the atheist, Dawkins has discovered much about evolution and disseminated his discoveries to all who are interested only to be misquoted and lied to be creationists and demonized for bearing facts rather than faith.

Certainly, but I am just a little concerned that he hasn't approached religion itself from an evolutionary perspective. He is the ideal person to do it and it seems to me to be far important than "Does god exist?"

And I know we've been through this before - but will you please stop classing John Hewitt as a christian apologist or creationist. He is clearly neither. I know where John's problem with Dawkins stems from and it's got nothing to do with god. I'm not saying John's right or wrong - it's way above my simple level - but I understand his reasons and none of them are because John started with "goddidit".

articulett

18th July 2007, 03:39 PM

Oh please, the atheist... everyone knows that you are a religious apologist...and few actually think you are an atheist. Do you have any valid reasons for your visceral dislike of Dawkins?

The Atheist

18th July 2007, 03:44 PM

Religiosity and failure to accept evolution is strongly associated with much higher rates of teen pregnancy, drug use, venereal disease, abortion, and homicide.

Given that figure then, we could reasonably expect New Zealand to have far lower rates than USA in teen pregnancy, drug abuse, STDs and abortion. (I won't consider homicide as we don't have pistols in NZ.)

The bad news is that NZ and USA jointly lead the world in those troubles. USA is the most-christian English-speaking nation and NZ is the least-christian English-speaking nation [or very close to it].

I'm personally very confident that not a single one of those things has anything to do with religion. At all.

I don't care whether religion is good or bad--I just care whether it's true--and there is no reason to think any of it is--so don't inflict it on me or my kid.

Again, I wonder whether that's right. If religion contains benefits we don't yet know about, wouldn't it be nice to know about them?

Billions of people are afraid not to believe because they think they will suffer forever. Isn't it time someone let them out of their cages of fear?

Do you have any evidence to back up this very broad-brush statement? I think is ignorance is a far better motivator for belief than fear. Fear may change a person's attitude, but I can't see how it could stop him becoming an atheist. Fear may give him the impetus to hide his atheism, but it isn't going to change the way the person feels.

andyandy

18th July 2007, 03:56 PM

The Atheist

18th July 2007, 04:00 PM

Oh please, the atheist... everyone knows that you are a religious apologist...

I'm sorry, but unless that's meant in jest, it is so far from the truth that it's quite absurd.

Please show me one single example of where I have made comments that could even be remotely classed as religious apology. And please don't confuse me refusing to spread lies and propaganda as apologetics.

I won't even begin on the "everyone knows" about it.

...and few actually think you are an atheist.

Well, if that's the case, most people here must be a magnitude dumber than I thought.

Fortunately, it doesn't bother me for a nanosecond what people think. I'm just surprised anyone is that shallow and ignorant.

Do you have any valid reasons for your visceral dislike of Dawkins?

Yep, I've said many times, he is the type of namby-pamby Pommy I dislike on principal. I have the greatest of respect for him as a scientist and I agree with most of what he says. Doesn't mean I'm going to like him as a bloke.

See, with me, whether or not I dislike someone never stops me treading the path of what is actually right. Christ, only last week, I was told that I was cheerleading for Unter, because I agreed with him on a forum issue! Of all people! Even if someone I totally despise is right, I'm not about to hide the fact.

That's the difference between us, I feel. I really don't care about people's philosophy as much as their honesty. Emotions don't rule me in any way.

You have a good example yourself. We had a huge barney a while back, yet my feelings towards you are quite ambivalent, despite what my sig line says. I think I proved that when I tried to talk you out of using salvia divinorum - because I'd prefer that no harm happen to others, regardless of whether that person is on my ####-list or not.

andyandy

18th July 2007, 04:08 PM

I won't even begin on the "everyone knows" about it.

.

we had a vote on the forum last week, you must have missed it,

"Is The Atheist a religious apologist?"

YES 100%
No 0%
On planet x no one makes such ridiculous generalizations 0%

It received votes from all 13,114 members which was pretty impressive.

see, it's that kind of evidence based approach that True Atheists (TM) use that separates them from Chamberlain apologist scum like yourself.

:D

The Atheist

18th July 2007, 04:19 PM

i previously had a higher opinion of you than this....

"religious apologist?" "Few think you're an atheist?"

good grief.

Well, apart from Grayman, who tells people that I'm actually a Southern Baptist preacher in disguise.

The difference being, I know Grayman's joking.

The Atheist

18th July 2007, 04:22 PM

we had a vote on the forum last week, you must have missed it,

"Is The Atheist a religious apologist?"

YES 100%
No 0%
On planet x no one makes such ridiculous generalizations 0%

It received votes from all 13,114 members which was pretty impressive.

see, it's that kind of evidence based approach that True Atheists (TM) use that separates them from Chamberlain apologist scum like yourself.

:D

Damn, the secret's out! I am shamed. Even further proof:

Members: 13,114

I even voted that way myself!

*&^%$$%##!!@

Hang on, wasn't it me telling you to hand your atheist card back, in this very thread???

Now I see it. You're doing this to deflect from the fact that YOU are the religious apologist!

Nailed.

TTLer

18th July 2007, 05:26 PM

Oh please, the atheist... everyone knows that you are a religious apologist...and few actually think you are an atheist. Do you have any valid reasons for your visceral dislike of Dawkins?

articulett, I agree with you 100%.

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

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

andyandy

18th July 2007, 05:53 PM

qayak

18th July 2007, 06:17 PM

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

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

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

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

andyandy

18th July 2007, 06:36 PM

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

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

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

nice example there -

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

You might have well have said

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

which is facile.

back to Homoerotica the god of simian oil rubs

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

am I not a "true atheist"?

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

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

qayak

18th July 2007, 06:41 PM

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

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

They would simply be hypocrites.

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

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

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

You know, I only find that comment in here. Maybe it's a North American thing, because I know lots of Poms, Kiwis and Aussies who were brought up in religion and none of them ever felt in the slightest abused by it. Most of them are now atheists, but some remain christian. No scars.

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

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

qayak

18th July 2007, 06:50 PM

nice example there -

Thank you.

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

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

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

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

andyandy

18th July 2007, 07:03 PM

Thank you.

;)

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

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

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

so...

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

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

qayak

18th July 2007, 07:29 PM

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

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

so...

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Atheist

18th July 2007, 07:43 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even more pertinently, is teaching children atheism child abuse?

Should we teach our children to be agnostic about everything?

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

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

You claim teaching kids religion is child abuse.

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

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

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

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

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

Ok. So that covers 0.7% of the world's christians (http://www.adherents.com/adh_branches.html), as I'm pretty sure you're referring to Jehovah's Witnesses. Is the other 99.3% of christianity bad because JWs are christians?

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

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

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

Christians teach their kids lies as fact.

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

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

andyandy

18th July 2007, 07:43 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

TTLer

18th July 2007, 08:45 PM

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

Cheers

TTLer

18th July 2007, 08:46 PM

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

Cheers

articulett

18th July 2007, 08:56 PM

articulett, I agree with you 100%.

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

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

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

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=1&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DfDp 7pkEcJVQ&ei=idGeRsGfJYvYigGVxuTHCw&usg=AFQjCNFOkbpmbIOWxB32gTgtpMIymsaodg&sig2=Se3WQllTcE-tziUEHpgt-g

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

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

mijopaalmc

18th July 2007, 09:00 PM

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

Cheers

Suddenly, the discussion got a little more intelligent.

andyandy

18th July 2007, 09:06 PM

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

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

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

Why is TA a religious apologist?

Am I a religious apologist?

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

mijopaalmc

18th July 2007, 09:16 PM

qayak

18th July 2007, 09:23 PM

As has already been agreed by yourself. . .

I didn't agree.

andyandy

18th July 2007, 09:32 PM

I didn't agree.

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

Atheism is not an ideological creed that one signs up to - it is nothing more than a rejection of a concept.
Absolutely, they claim to reject the concept but in their actions they do not.

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

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

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

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

mijopaalmc

18th July 2007, 09:34 PM

fishbob

18th July 2007, 09:38 PM

Yes, yes, that's what it's used for (as John Adams, Lenin and Napoleon, et al, have remarked), but I mean "Why is this tool so readily available? Why are people, both individually and in groups, so susceptible to it? Why are the willingness, compulsion and need to believe in something so dominant in virtually every human?"

ETA: Dawkins does a fair enough job of arguing against organized religion, but I don't think he adds very much to an understanding of faith.

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

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

fishbob

18th July 2007, 09:48 PM

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

18th July 2007, 09:53 PM

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

18th July 2007, 10:02 PM

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

18th July 2007, 10:05 PM

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

18th July 2007, 10:06 PM

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.

:bigclap

articulett

18th July 2007, 10:06 PM

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

18th July 2007, 10:11 PM

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

18th July 2007, 10:14 PM

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

18th July 2007, 10:19 PM

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

18th July 2007, 10:34 PM

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

18th July 2007, 11:13 PM

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

18th July 2007, 11:13 PM

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

18th July 2007, 11:13 PM

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

18th July 2007, 11:19 PM

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

18th July 2007, 11:24 PM

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

18th July 2007, 11:31 PM

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

18th July 2007, 11:34 PM

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

18th July 2007, 11:54 PM

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! :eek:

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

18th July 2007, 11:58 PM

Articulett,

Great Avatar! :D

articulett

19th July 2007, 12:02 AM

Articulett,

Great Avatar! :D

it's not too mousy?

qayak

19th July 2007, 12:06 AM

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

19th July 2007, 12:07 AM

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 :D

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.... :D

articulett

19th July 2007, 12:10 AM

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

19th July 2007, 12:56 AM

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. (http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html)

The Atheist

19th July 2007, 01:18 AM

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

19th July 2007, 01:20 AM

The Atheist

19th July 2007, 01:53 AM

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

19th July 2007, 01:56 AM

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

19th July 2007, 02:05 AM

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

19th July 2007, 02:27 AM

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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth) — membership being legally required after December 1939[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#_note-3) — but was an unenthusiastic member and refused to attend meetings[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_Benedict_XVI#_note-4). His father was a bitter enemy of Nazism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism), believing it conflicted with the Catholic faith. In 1941, one of Ratzinger's cousins, a 14-year-old boy with Down syndrome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome), was killed by the Nazi regime in its campaign of eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics).

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

Herzblut

articulett

19th July 2007, 02:30 AM

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

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

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

qayak

19th July 2007, 02:41 AM

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

19th July 2007, 02:49 AM

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

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

:whistling

The Atheist

19th July 2007, 03:40 AM

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

19th July 2007, 04:02 AM

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

19th July 2007, 04:17 AM

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

19th July 2007, 04:37 AM

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

19th July 2007, 08:32 AM

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

19th July 2007, 08:56 AM

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

19th July 2007, 10:49 AM

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.

John Hewitt

19th July 2007, 11:27 AM

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.
Obviously I did not make myself clear; I was suggesting that a professional responsibility might exist within the context of the debate about group selection. Has Dawkins recently presented an up to date position group selection? If so, I would like to know about it. If not, why the barbed comments about Sloan Wilson?

I do realise that a large majority of professional scientists could not support ID or creationism so that is a quite different situation, so this is quite different from the group selection issue. However, I also realise that many members of the public do support ID. Richard Dawkins is, I think by his own choice, a Professor of the public understanding of science. Both in that role, and by virtue of his writings, it seems to me that he places himself into the "ID or creationism" arena and, in those circumstances, I personally feel he should debate with that movement.

newlyfound

19th July 2007, 12:21 PM

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

Especially these ones. (http://www.adherents.com/people/100_Nobel.html)

Your list should not have started with Einstein since he doesn't believe in a personal god, this is what Dawkins quotes him saying in TGD, in response to the constant creationist blubber claiming him one of theirs when he is not:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Since he is # 1 on the list and he is not a theist, that could suffice in itself to nock the rest of the others out as well. If the page's creator (who clearly is a believer) lied about him, chances are they have about at least others as well.
Also, religion is an outdated and and soon to be absolete useless tool. It already is for many. It got us here (if it must get credit for anything), now it should get outta the way and let timely tools take over in getting Man where he wants to go. An analogy to illustrate the need: Once, we used to use tapes and tape players to listen to music, at that time, they were the only thing there was for one to be able to enjoy music they want to listen to. Then CD's and CD players came along, there was a transitional phase where while tape players and tapes were still being used, cd's and cd players were being introduced to the masses. Now a days, tapes and their players are absolete. And it would really be dump for one to continue using them when they have much better, much sophisiticated option before them. This is just an example, another good one is computers. I heard the first computer there was, was the size of a whole room, and I image it probably cost a bundle as well as its probable performance was negligeable compared to that of the PC's that are currently out in the market. Why would one persist in wanting to use such cumbersome piece of junk when they could buy a laptop or even a handheld computer for a fraction of the cost, that processes info much rapidly and has lot/many more capabilities than the first? etc. IMHO, I think the same idea applies to religion vs. the Body of Sciences. Man is constantly evolving and developping, religion is not, and therefore it needs to be dropped off and properly disposed of gradually.

The Atheist

19th July 2007, 01:27 PM

You can try twisting what I said but, unfortunately for you, it is all right there for anyone to read.

"Twisting what you said"?

Fortunately, having quoted your own words to you twice, verbatim, anyone with even a moderate standard of English will be able to read them and see that I twist nothing. The fact that you are unable to differentiate between "will" and "might" is entirely your own problem.

The Atheist

19th July 2007, 01:55 PM

Your list should not have started with Einstein

Unfortunately, lists of christian scientists aren't something I have handy, so I used a convenient one. Certainly Einstein was nobody's theist, but I do recognise plenty of the others as being theists.

They do also include a disclaimer as to beliefs. The point is that there are lots of scientists at even very highly acclaimed levels, who were theists.

The statement had been made that religious upbringing suppressed scientific minds and that is clearly garbage.

Herzblut

19th July 2007, 03:17 PM

Your list should not have started with Einstein since he doesn't believe in a personal god, this is what Dawkins quotes him saying in TGD, in response to the constant creationist blubber claiming him one of theirs when he is not:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."

Einstein and Faith

Around the time he turned 50, he began to articulate more clearly--in various essays, interviews and letters--his deepening appreciation of his belief in God, although a rather impersonal version of one.

Shortly after his 50th birthday, Einstein also gave a remarkable interview in which he was more revealing than he had ever been about his religious sensibility. It was with George Sylvester Viereck:

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many 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. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Is this a Jewish concept of God? "I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew."

Is this Spinoza's God? "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."

Do you believe in immortality? "No. And one life is enough for me."

In the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo, "What I Believe," that he recorded for a human-rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."

Orthodox Jewish leader in New York, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein sent (Einstein) a very direct telegram: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words." Einstein used only about half his allotted number of words. It became the most famous version of an answer he gave often: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

But throughout his life, Einstein was consistent in rejecting the charge that he was an atheist. "There are people who say there is no God," he told a friend. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. "What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos," he explained.

In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Einstein later explained his view of the relationship between science and religion at a conference at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. The realm of science, he said, was to ascertain what was the case, but not evaluate human thoughts and actions about what should be the case. Religion had the reverse mandate. Yet the endeavors worked together at times. "Science can be created only by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding," he said. "This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion." The talk got front-page news coverage, and his pithy conclusion became famous. "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God's existence. For Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine providence. The fact that the world was comprehensible, that it followed laws, was worthy of awe.

Einstein and Faith
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-1,00.html

Herzblut

articulett

19th July 2007, 04:12 PM

:whistling

You must have been thinking about my avatar too much...
An admin. picked up the vibes, and asked that I change my avatar to something less suggestive. He/she must have seen more than a mouse, I guess.

articulett

19th July 2007, 04:39 PM

Obviously I did not make myself clear; I was suggesting that a professional responsibility might exist within the context of the debate about group selection. Has Dawkins recently presented an up to date position group selection? If so, I would like to know about it. If not, why the barbed comments about Sloan Wilson?

I do realise that a large majority of professional scientists could not support ID or creationism so that is a quite different situation, so this is quite different from the group selection issue. However, I also realise that many members of the public do support ID. Richard Dawkins is, I think by his own choice, a Professor of the public understanding of science. Both in that role, and by virtue of his writings, it seems to me that he places himself into the "ID or creationism" arena and, in those circumstances, I personally feel he should debate with that movement.

I don't. Intelligent design is not science and Dawkins presence just makes them look credible. Evolution is not a debate, it's a fact. Dawkins has been instrumental in furthering understanding in this area and sharing that info. with millions--and religion is a thorn in his side as much as they were with Galileo-- each step of the way. They have no truth and they seek to obfuscate understanding of the truth--the one that is the same for everybody--the one that only science and mortals are accumulating over time. They are dishonest, ask loaded questions, appeal to emotionalism, interrupt, and have nothing at all in support of their claims except to say "I don't understand how evolution could be true" in a million different pedantic ways. They use so many words to say nothing at all. Nothing they say clarifies understanding of anything. And the same goes for Dawkins critics. they never really "say" anything. It's all the same BS that Behe says...lots of pedantry but no real claim. It all sounds like the courtiers reply to me http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

In a book, Dawkins can't be interrupted and forced into silly digressions. He has as much a right to comment on God as Behe does to write his silly, anti-scientific gobbledy gook about how things must somehow be designed. Behe and his ilk do nothing to forward understanding--it's all about making sure people don't understand evolution. Because once you understand it, those who speak for some intelligent designer seem to be full of crap. I endorse his books and his educating in the manner that he chooses, and many people, apparently, want to hear what he has to say. Governments and Religions are having a harder time in spinning out the truth they want people to have because there is a world of people connected by the internet making sure that everyone has access to the FACTS. The facts are the same for everybody. Dawkins illuminates those facts and is more than eager to show people where they can find those facts themselves. His critics offer no facts.
It's just emotionalism and opinions and spin and self aggrandizement and apologetics for an invisible man and the people who spend their only life trying to curry favor with him.

I think those who critique Dawkins recognize this on some level. They want to be the person people go to for credible information. But, instead, it's Dawkins. Because Dawkins doesn't need to appeal to emotions or obfuscations--the facts are there for anybody who wants to look at them.

articulett

19th July 2007, 04:43 PM

Newlyfound --
I agree!

Gayak--
Your views on TA are shared by many; but give him credit for using his sig line to warn others of how he comes across to other forum members.

qayak

19th July 2007, 06:03 PM

You must have been thinking about my avatar too much...
An admin. picked up the vibes, and asked that I change my avatar to something less suggestive. He/she must have seen more than a mouse, I guess.

:D Well, I guess you got your answer as to whether it was appropriate or not! Damn shame though.

mijopaalmc

19th July 2007, 06:07 PM

newlyfound

19th July 2007, 06:26 PM

Unfortunately, lists of christian scientists aren't something I have handy, so I used a convenient one. Certainly Einstein was nobody's theist, but I do recognise plenty of the others as being theists.

They do also include a disclaimer as to beliefs. The point is that there are lots of scientists at even very highly acclaimed levels, who were theists.

The statement had been made that religious upbringing suppressed scientific minds and that is clearly garbage.

Einstein was not even christian, he was a jew. And the scientists that are on your list are only an elite. What is the % age of masses that get exposed to and washed in religion inside and out, that do turn out to be these guys? that's what needs to be considered. On the other hand, what is the percentage of the people that gets exposed to and washed in religion inside and out, that do turn out to be total sick wackos, that for example at some point in their lives, start to think one of their kids is possessed by satan (mainly due to their religious upbringing), so the only way they see fit to "get satan out of him" is beat him to death? I didn't reseach it but I'd say quite few since every once in a while the news has the toughtfulness of covering such stories for us. Also, what is the %age of the traumatised due primarely to their parents sick obssessiveness with religion and the "proper way" for it to be practiced? many. Also, there are many who continue to go to those worshipping places for reasons that have nothing to do with their religious beliefs. That entices one to ask, what do they get out of it then being forced to practice hypocrisy along the way (and who knows what else)? etc. Those are just examples that one could think of right off the top of their heads. Anyway, if one weights the total # of all those examples along whith the ones I didn't think of against that of those few scientists, they'd find that Mr. Dawkins is right.

...Beside, if religion could produce "3" scientists, it is still time for it to move to the side because Science clearly can produce many more and of much higher Caliber. So the Point still remains. We are having this nice talk via satellite thanks only to science. Religion didn't do anything good for me personally, I don't know about you but anything I have and enjoy today, I do only thanks to science, it took skeptic.com and Dawkins to wake me up to this fact. Science now a days got to a point where it supports as well as permeates virtually every aspect of our lives, yet when time comes to award some credits, theists shamelessly recognize only their paganic garbage. That's quite dishonest.

qayak

19th July 2007, 06:26 PM

Here is probably a more accurate study than the list mentioned earlier.

Memebers of NAS: 72% atheist, 21% agnostic, 7% believers.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

Larson and Witham close their report with the following remarks:

As we compiled our findings, the NAS issued a booklet encouraging the teaching of evolution in public schools.... The booklet assures readers, 'Whether God exists or not is a question about which science is neutral'. NAS president Bruce Alberts said: 'There are many very outstanding members of this academy who are very religious people, people who believe in evolution, many of them biologists.' Our survey suggests otherwise."

Godless Science

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm

articulett

19th July 2007, 07:19 PM

articulett-

If you want to be taken seriously, you need to find some evidence that actually say that religion in general is damaging to children in general, not just that conservative religious traditions are damaging to homosexual children and then generalizing that effect to religion in general and children in general.

Also, you need to stop cherry-picking the Creighton study. The author may have found a correlation between religion and social ills but he explicitly eschewed any discussion of causation, and as anyone who has taken even the most basic statistics course knows, correlation is not causation.

Yes... as did your studies. Correlation. And I had multiple studies of how faith based abstinence education is also causing harm--it's very expensive, it costs tax payers money, it spreads misinformation and it doesn't work. Your study showed a mild correlation that was indirect...it included "spirituality" and the studies showed that having a good family life was the intermediate factor and more direct. I also posted a study showing religion as damaging to homosexual youth. Moreover, none of it is true. Even if it has some mild positive correlation--is it worth lying to kids over. I think not. Religions spread a very snotty and manipulative lie--that faith is good and believers are special and non-believers are damned. It idolizes the imaginary and keeps kids ignorance of facts. In fact, I blame your religion for your inability to understand the very basics of evolution and the "discontinuity in the fossil record". It's made you ignorant, but you just don't know what you don't know--and worse, it made you think you do know something that you can't.

And YOU are the KING of cherry picking. I do not worry about you taking me seriously, because I am well respected amongst colleagues. Those who matter (the ones I respect), respect me--and those that don't (creationists and religious apologists) seem to have some vested interest in paying certain facts no heed at all while trumpeting nebulous data in support of some semantic game they are playing with themselves. I consider it a badge of honor that I piss you off.

Goal post mover.

This thread was about Dawkins and Sloan. The last thread was about creationist tours. You've used both as a platform to apologize for faith... even though neither thread was about the glories of religion.

I rest my case, religious apologist. Every word that comes out of your mouth sounds all too much like Behe--obfuscating, tangential, pedantic, insincere, misleading, and ultimately useless. I think it's you who are having trouble garnering any respect from what I see. I take your assessment on par with rttjc's assessment of me and Behe's assessment of Dawkins. Laughable.

newlyfound

19th July 2007, 07:21 PM

Einstein and Faith

Around the time he turned 50, he began to articulate more clearly--in various essays, interviews and letters--his deepening appreciation of his belief in God, although a rather impersonal version of one.

Shortly after his 50th birthday, Einstein also gave a remarkable interview in which he was more revealing than he had ever been about his religious sensibility. It was with George Sylvester Viereck:

To what extent are you influenced by Christianity? "As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

You accept the historical existence of Jesus? "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Do you believe in God? "I'm not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many 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. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Is this a Jewish concept of God? "I am a determinist. I do not believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew."

Is this Spinoza's God? "I am fascinated by Spinoza's pantheism, but I admire even more his contribution to modern thought because he is the first philosopher to deal with the soul and body as one, and not two separate things."

Do you believe in immortality? "No. And one life is enough for me."

In the summer of 1930, amid his sailing and ruminations in Caputh, he composed a credo, "What I Believe," that he recorded for a human-rights group and later published. It concluded with an explanation of what he meant when he called himself religious: "The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion that stands at the cradle of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. To sense that behind anything that can be experienced there is something that our minds cannot grasp, whose beauty and sublimity reaches us only indirectly: this is religiousness. In this sense, and in this sense only, I am a devoutly religious man."

Orthodox Jewish leader in New York, Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein sent (Einstein) a very direct telegram: "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid. 50 words." Einstein used only about half his allotted number of words. It became the most famous version of an answer he gave often: "I believe in Spinoza's God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."

But throughout his life, Einstein was consistent in rejecting the charge that he was an atheist. "There are people who say there is no God," he told a friend. "But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views." And unlike Sigmund Freud or Bertrand Russell or George Bernard Shaw, Einstein never felt the urge to denigrate those who believed in God; instead, he tended to denigrate atheists. "What separates me from most so-called atheists is a feeling of utter humility toward the unattainable secrets of the harmony of the cosmos," he explained.

In fact, Einstein tended to be more critical of debunkers, who seemed to lack humility or a sense of awe, than of the faithful. "The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres."

Einstein later explained his view of the relationship between science and religion at a conference at the Union Theological Seminary in New York. The realm of science, he said, was to ascertain what was the case, but not evaluate human thoughts and actions about what should be the case. Religion had the reverse mandate. Yet the endeavors worked together at times. "Science can be created only by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding," he said. "This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion." The talk got front-page news coverage, and his pithy conclusion became famous. "The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

For some people, miracles serve as evidence of God's existence. For Einstein it was the absence of miracles that reflected divine providence. The fact that the world was comprehensible, that it followed laws, was worthy of awe.

Einstein and Faith
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1607298-1,00.html

Herzblut

What do you make out of the given quote then? are you saying it's a made up one? also, if he was a believer, then why so many, as printed in Dawkins book, theits sent him very nasty vicious letters attacking him for questioning the existence of god?
As Dawkins said:"The one thing all his theistic critics got right was that Einstein was not one of them." If you have the book you can look those letters up starting from page 14.

In respect to mystery, Dawkins is quoted in his Gift to Us or at least perhaps to me LOL. (I named TGD) as follows:

"Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do." He goes on to say: "More generally, as I shall repeat in chapter 8, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." ...and that's exactly what religion does, it promotes ignorance.

Regardless of what Einstein believes, as I said to The Atheist, he is a part of very tiny elite. We need to consider the general effect of religion on the masses. That's what needs to be carfully scanned.

mijopaalmc

19th July 2007, 07:24 PM

articulett

19th July 2007, 07:30 PM

Here is probably a more accurate study than the list mentioned earlier.

Memebers of NAS: 72% atheist, 21% agnostic, 7% believers.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

Godless Science

http://kspark.kaist.ac.kr/Jesus/Intelligence%20&%20religion.htm
Well, there's Francis Collins...

Yes, understanding evolution does make god unnecessary--but we have to pretend that it doesn't or we can't teach it. Religion will manage to enslave minds as long as it can...just as they managed to adjust after Galileo...though they didn't absolve him for his facts until Eons after his death. Pathetic. I suspect Dawkins will be similarly appreciated in retrospect while all the views of apologests etc. will fade into history way they belong.

Facts trump faith. And I am all for anyone spreading the idea that FAITH is a bad way to know anything true. It's the number one tool religions use to manipulate other people.

mijopaalmc

19th July 2007, 07:48 PM

For those of you that are interested here are the studies that I cited and that articulett says show only a weak correlation between religiosity/spirituality and mental health:

A systematic review of recent research on adolescent religiosity/spirituality and mental health. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16418077&ordinalpos=7&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

et al[/I] (2006)"]There is accumulating evidence that religiosity/spirituality (R/S) are important correlates of mental health in adult populations. However, the associations between R/S and mental heath in adolescent populations have not been systematically studied. The purpose of this article is to report on a systematic review of recent research on the relationships between adolescent R/S and mental health. Twenty articles between 1998 and 2004 were reviewed. Most studies (90%) showed that higher levels of R/S were associated with better mental health in adolescents. Institutional and existential dimensions of R/S had the most robust relationships with mental health. The relationships between R/S and mental health were generally stronger or more unique for males and older adolescents than for females and younger adolescents. Recommendations for future research and implications for mental health nursing are discussed.

A systematic review of associations among religiosity/spirituality and adolescent health attitudes and behaviors. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16549305&ordinalpos=5&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

PURPOSE: To systematically review and synthesize literature concerning the relationships among religiosity, spirituality, health attitudes, and health behaviors in adolescents. METHODS: Forty-three studies between 1998 and 2003 were systematically reviewed to (a) determine if the studies were based on conceptual or theoretical frameworks, (b) identify the types of religiosity and spirituality measures used as well as their effects on health attitudes and behaviors, (c) evaluate the quality of these measures, (d) determine categories and frequency of measures of health attitudes and behaviors, (e) evaluate the quality of the research designs, and (f) determine the effects of religiosity or spirituality on adolescent health attitudes and behaviors. RESULTS: Over half (n = 26) the studies were atheoretical or had an unclear framework and the other half were based on a wide variety of conceptual and theoretical models. A total of 37 distinct religiosity/spirituality variables were identified and varied in specificity. Less than half (n = 21) reported reliability of the measures and only seven contained information about validity of the measures. All 43 studies included measures of health-risk behaviors and/or attitudes but only seven addressed health-promoting behaviors. Most studies (84%) showed that measures of religiosity/spirituality had positive effects on health attitudes and behaviors. CONCLUSIONS: The variety of studies and measures indicate that religiosity and spirituality may be important correlates of adolescent health attitudes and behaviors. Although the majority of the studies reviewed were well designed, there was no consistency in the theoretical bases and operational definitions of religiosity/spirituality phenomena.

Religiousness and mental health: a review. (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=16924349&ordinalpos=3&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsP anel.Pubmed_RVDocSum)

et al[/I] (2007)"]OBJECTIVE: The relationship between religiosity and mental health has been a perennial source of controversy. This paper reviews the scientific evidence available for the relationship between religion and mental health. METHOD: The authors present the main studies and conclusions of a larger systematic review of 850 studies on the religion-mental health relationship published during the 20th Century identified through several databases. The present paper also includes an update on the papers published since 2000, including researches performed in Brazil and a brief historical and methodological background. DISCUSSION: The majority of well-conducted studies found that higher levels of religious involvement are positively associated with indicators of psychological well-being (life satisfaction, happiness, positive affect, and higher morale) and with less depression, suicidal thoughts and behavior, drug/alcohol use/abuse. Usually the positive impact of religious involvement on mental health is more robust among people under stressful circumstances (the elderly, and those with disability and medical illness). Theoretical pathways of the religiousness-mental health connection and clinical implications of these findings are also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: There is evidence that religious involvement is usually associated with better mental health. We need to improve our understanding of the mediating factors of this association and its use in clinical practice.

articulett

19th July 2007, 07:55 PM

I have always required that you provide evidence that religion in general is harmful to children in general, articulett. I have never moved the goalposts, although that is on of your favorite ad hominems when it is revealed that you have know evidence what so ever for your thesis.

What thesis is that? That you're a religious apologist. I'd say every single post of yours is about either obfuscating evolution or flogging others for supporting facts over faith. I don't need to provided evidence that religion is harmful (although I provided lots), because it's an opinion. I can also say that locking kids in cages is child abuse as is indoctrinating them with bigotry. And I don't need to provide evidence to say so. Moreover, I'd say anyone that wants me to provide evidence on a skeptics forum regarding my opinion ought to be able to provide support that his opinion is valid and worth considering. You don't.

Yes... you are a goal post mover. That is not an ad hom. That is a fact. You change what posts are about when someone is about to nail you down on your attempts to obfuscate or change direction of the stated issue in the OP.

The threads you start are all started with insincere mealy questions that you've already decided the answer on. You show no interest in having the questions you ask, answered--and no interest in current information about evolution while making snide commentary about Dawkins and others who might share that information and help others understand the FACTS. You have an immediate kneejerk hostile reaction against anything related to Dawkins and his lack of belief... though you haven't read anything he has to say and you are too mired in your own delusions to absorb it anyhow.

mijopaalmc

19th July 2007, 08:14 PM

articulett

19th July 2007, 08:55 PM

You know, articulett, it is ironic how you accuse me and the tother who argue against you here as having "an immediate kneejerk hostile reaction against anything related to Dawkins and his lack of belief", when that is exactly the type of response you have had to every single piece of evidence that contradicts your "religion is evil" monomania.

I do agree with you that the only benefit that religion provides to its practitioners is that it acts as a mediator for mental health, a benefit that need not include a belief in the metaphysical and the supernatural; but I think that you are deliberately ignoring the fact that such mediation is observably beneficial, and that is what annoys me the most.

Bring it.

Look up the word Irony. You're not really using it correctly. And I don't consider you to be arguing against me. Usually I am having what I think is a discussion--and then you butt in with some tangential accusation of another person in defense of religion or in an angry diatribe against anything Dawkins might say...

I don't think religion is evil. It just isn't true. I don't think it's a good idea to lie to people. I especially don't think it's a good idea to obfuscate understanding of facts--the facts we humans are the first to be able to know thanks to eons of people and accumulated data--people like Dawkins, Darwin, Sagan, Randi, etc. I want people to know these things and all the damn apologetics and obfuscations on behalf of religious apologists along with their continual demonizing of such people turns my stomach. I live with it every day. On my skeptic forums I fight against it.

I don't doubt that some people derive some benefit from religion. That does not make religion true nor does it excuse it from the terrible wrongs committed on behalf of the religion (including the creationist tour guide). I think faith is a very bad way for knowing anything, and I think religions are the main profferers of this nutty notion.

I think the fact that lack of understanding about evolution shows a strong correlation with societal dysfunction is telling. It shows a stronger correlation than any other factor!. Religiosity of an area is the best predictor of societal dysfunction in every part of the developed world--and probably the undeveloped world as well. I know that some of this is because religion provides "community support" for the poor. But it also encourages ignorance and the notion that they (and god) will take care of you in return for your faith and allegiance. It encourages denial and a lying to oneself and others while blinding oneself to fact that they are doing so.

mijopaalmc

19th July 2007, 10:14 PM

You know, articulett, it's too bad that you only consider discussants who agrree with you to worthy of your respect and attention. You might actually learn something if you weren't so burdened with confirmation bias.

articulett

19th July 2007, 10:46 PM

mijopaalmc

19th July 2007, 11:00 PM

Now THAT, is irony.

And that demonstrates that you don;t know what irony is.

I have acknowledged the validity of the sources you have provided on "religious abuse" of homosexuals, but mentioned that you are overgeneralizing the results in order to say that religion in general is harmful to children in general. You have ignored or minimized the research that I have provided and not explained how the results fit into you worldview on religion.

I have also explained that Creighton study shows correlations between religion and social ills, but that removing religion might not actually solve those ills because religion may not be causing them. Yo have flat out ignored me on this point except to say that my evidence only showed correlations as well (which is true but begs the question of why you find your correlations so much more compelling) and to call me a "religious apologist" (which, given the context in which you use it, is and insult and a lie).

articulett

19th July 2007, 11:27 PM

And that demonstrates that you don;t know what irony is.

I have acknowledged the validity of the sources you have provided on "religious abuse" of homosexuals, but mentioned that you are overgeneralizing the results in order to say that religion in general is harmful to children in general. You have ignored or minimized the research that I have provided and not explained how the results fit into you worldview on religion.

I have also explained that Creighton study shows correlations between religion and social ills, but that removing religion might not actually solve those ills because religion may not be causing them. Yo have flat out ignored me on this point except to say that my evidence only showed correlations as well (which is true but begs the question of why you find your correlations so much more compelling) and to call me a "religious apologist" (which, given the context in which you use it, is and insult and a lie).

Do you ever notice that no one else even thinks what you are saying...? That you are the only one who seems to use words and say the crap you say? It's not an overgeneralization to say religions in general tell unverifiable things and claim that they are higher truths. It's a fact. And everything I and Gayak says was in direct relation to the OP piece where a creationist tour guide had a little kids saying to an evolutionist "why do you teach false facts?". Somehow you seem to think THAT is worthy of defending by criticisizing gayak's follow up question, "who says religion isn't child abuse?". Gayak wasn't talking about ALL religions. But even if he was...it's an opinion...the OP contained an act which was egregious--you decided to defend that act and make a big stink over gayak's commentary-- and you do that all the time. You claim not to be a religious apologist or "an intelligent design proponent", but you are indestinguishable from them. You sound exactly like Behe. You just never say anything. You changed the topic on this thread and the last one to apologize for religion! You take every opportunity you can to make snide commentary towards Dawkins, evolutionists, and atheists or to obfuscate or mistate their words-- you take every opportunity to accuse anyone who says anything bad about religion of "overgeneralization" or of not having proof or some other such silliness.

Religion isn't true. It's wrong to fill kid;s heads with BS and obfuscate their understanding of general knowledge. It's wrong when you do it; and it's wrong when anybody does it. It's really wrong when people pretend this makes them better or more moral. Dawkins has facts. Religion never has--but they sure do like to make people think they have them--and when they can't do that, they do everything in their power to make sure people don't understand the facts (just like you!) and they all encourage bigotry towards science in the areas that they claim to have "divine knowledge" about.

No amount of evidence is enough to make you conclude that religion is harmful. And you offer the weakest of evidence showing that it's beneficial. But the bottom line is that all religions claim to have truths they do not have. That IS dishonest and that is true of religions in general--and I, find that harmful.

All your criticisms of others would serve you better if you applied them to yourself before spewing them.

mijopaalmc

19th July 2007, 11:38 PM

It is wrong to lie to children, but it isn't child abuse.

Equating lying to children with abusing them is the fundamental mistake you make and it is what I am criticizing you and Dawkins for.

mijopaalmc

19th July 2007, 11:55 PM

Another quick question, articulett:

What do you think Michael Savage means when he says "liberalism is a mental disorder (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062)"?

Do you see how a claim (or a rhetorical question) that implies "religion is child abuse" might be taken in the same way and how it is a bit disingenuous to argue that collective nouns with out modifiers are not universal by default?

John Hewitt

20th July 2007, 12:07 AM

From John Hewitt:
Obviously I did not make myself clear; I was suggesting that a professional responsibility might exist within the context of the debate about group selection. Has Dawkins recently presented an up to date position group selection? If so, I would like to know about it. If not, why the barbed comments about Sloan Wilson?

I don't. Intelligent design is not science and Dawkins presence just makes them look credible. Evolution is not a debate, it's a fact. Dawkins has been instrumental in furthering understanding in this area and sharing that info. with millions--and religion is a thorn in his side as much as they were with Galileo-- each step of the way. They have no truth and they seek to obfuscate understanding of the truth--the one that is the same for everybody--the one that only science and mortals are accumulating over time. They are dishonest, ask loaded questions, appeal to emotionalism, interrupt, and have nothing at all in support of their claims except to say "I don't understand how evolution could be true" in a million different pedantic ways. They use so many words to say nothing at all. Nothing they say clarifies understanding of anything. And the same goes for Dawkins critics. they never really "say" anything. It's all the same BS that Behe says...lots of pedantry but no real claim. It all sounds like the courtiers reply to me http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

In a book, Dawkins can't be interrupted and forced into silly digressions. He has as much a right to comment on God as Behe does to write his silly, anti-scientific gobbledy gook about how things must somehow be designed. Behe and his ilk do nothing to forward understanding--it's all about making sure people don't understand evolution. Because once you understand it, those who speak for some intelligent designer seem to be full of crap. I endorse his books and his educating in the manner that he chooses, and many people, apparently, want to hear what he has to say. Governments and Religions are having a harder time in spinning out the truth they want people to have because there is a world of people connected by the internet making sure that everyone has access to the FACTS. The facts are the same for everybody. Dawkins illuminates those facts and is more than eager to show people where they can find those facts themselves. His critics offer no facts.
It's just emotionalism and opinions and spin and self aggrandizement and apologetics for an invisible man and the people who spend their only life trying to curry favor with him.

I think those who critique Dawkins recognize this on some level. They want to be the person people go to for credible information. But, instead, it's Dawkins. Because Dawkins doesn't need to appeal to emotions or obfuscations--the facts are there for anybody who wants to look at them.
Yes, I know your views on that but what about Dawkins and Sloan Wilson?

articulett

20th July 2007, 12:10 AM

Dawkins didn't say it, and I didn't say it. Dawkins said threatening kids with hell is child abuse and that he thinks it's wrong to label kids by their parents religion. I agree. Moreover, I don't anyone needs permission or an APA study to call something else child abuse. Locking kids in cages is child abuse. I have no APA study to support it. But you don't rush to apologize for that, do you? It's only when someone criticizes religion that you jump to the defense...and the only real complaints people have about Dawkins is that he has the audacity not to believe their religion deserves respect. It's all a bunch of smoke and mirrors to avoid confronting the fact that they are covering for a lie just as sure as the Catholic church covers for pedophiles. Sure, not all religions are to blame...but in a society where blowhards start pontificating at the mere mention that religion is not all it's cracked up to be, the damage festers.

And I'm not going to reargue this issue with you. You were trounced by everyone on the last thread already--particularly by slimething who revealed you for the dishonest religious apologist that you are. The facts are this... What the OP was about was way worse than gayak's query. You chose to attack the later and defend the former. You make sure religion gets it's extra special deference while demonizing all those who dare to say anything about it. You make your inane strawman that it is in reference to ALL... and who cares if it is-- everyone still has a right to their opinion even if they don't jump through Mijo's hoops. You generalize about atheists and evolutionists all the time. You are all about generalizing about words like "random" when it fits your religious apologetics... heck, you threw spirituality and indirect evidence into the pile when you were claiming religion is beneficial...but no evidence was enough to support the claims that it is also harmful. But even if it wasn't--it isn't true. It manipulates peoples emotions, hopes, and fears by pretending it is. You apologize for this. I find the real heroes are the one's who don't cover up for lies and who make an effort to share the truths that are available to everyone--the stuff that you don't need to "believe" to benefit from and understand.

And I won't press your silly link. You never go to anyone's link...even when it directly answers a question you asked. This thread is not about your opinions on Gayak or religion. It never was. Go troll in your own thread. Go hang out with those who share your opinions and have get a kick out of semantic flummery like you do.

mijopaalmc

20th July 2007, 12:21 AM

articulett

20th July 2007, 12:29 AM

Yes, I know your views on that but what about Dawkins and Sloan Wilson?

I already responded... Wilson reminds me of the courtiers reply...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/12/the_courtiers_reply.php

I find almost everything Dawkins writes comprehensible and eloquent, and he is responsible for conveying much knowledge to many. I don't really understand Sloan Wilson's beef...but he may envy the fact that Dawkins is selling more books and has more people interested in his opinion. Dennett has already talked plenty about the evolution of religion...so has Shermer. It took Dawkins to mention the elephant in the room that is getting in the way of everybody understanding that, not only is evolution a fact, we are uncovering more and more everyday as we decode genomes. All humans should be able to understand and celebrate this newfound knowledge--but religion continually obfuscates and raises smoke and mirrors under the guise of deferrence or piddly non-issues. I think David Sloan Wilson also spoke at Beyond Beyond, didn't he?

It seems to me that those who actually read Dawkins and respond negatively, never really have a real "reason"--no claim of fact that you can examine--it's just...opinion... I can't relate to such opinions and I most people seem to be bending over backwards to protect the sacred cow of religion rather than actually saying anything of value. If there is no god, isn't it time for someone to make the case? We have much better ways of knowing things now.

And we've gone down the group selection road before... I know you have an alternating theory. I think genes do select for cooperation and in group amity...even in ants and bees. We know apes show altruism... and that some mammals care and protect animals form other species. We even know one of the main chemicals involved in nurturing behavior--oxytocin... and we know know that mirror neurons are related to empathy. We know where the brain can be damaged to make person unable to reason "morally"... it's irrelevant to Dawkins book... and creationists will never believe that genes can account for group selection anyhow... no matter how much evidence there is.

mijopaalmc

20th July 2007, 12:32 AM

So how can we disagree with Dawkins on the subject of religion then and not be called "religious apologists", articulett?

qayak

20th July 2007, 12:35 AM

Do you ever notice that no one else even thinks what you are saying...? That you are the only one who seems to use words and say the crap you say? It's not an overgeneralization to say religions in general tell unverifiable things and claim that they are higher truths. It's a fact. And everything I and Gayak says was in direct relation to the OP piece where a creationist tour guide had a little kids saying to an evolutionist "why do you teach false facts?". Somehow you seem to think THAT is worthy of defending by criticisizing gayak's follow up question, "who says religion isn't child abuse?". Gayak wasn't talking about ALL religions. But even if he was...it's an opinion...the OP contained an act which was egregious--you decided to defend that act and make a big stink over gayak's commentary-- and you do that all the time. You claim not to be a religious apologist or "an intelligent design proponent", but you are indestinguishable from them. You sound exactly like Behe. You just never say anything. You changed the topic on this thread and the last one to apologize for religion! You take every opportunity you can to make snide commentary towards Dawkins, evolutionists, and atheists or to obfuscate or mistate their words-- you take every opportunity to accuse anyone who says anything bad about religion of "overgeneralization" or of not having proof or some other such silliness.

Religion isn't true. It's wrong to fill kid;s heads with BS and obfuscate their understanding of general knowledge. It's wrong when you do it; and it's wrong when anybody does it. It's really wrong when people pretend this makes them better or more moral. Dawkins has facts. Religion never has--but they sure do like to make people think they have them--and when they can't do that, they do everything in their power to make sure people don't understand the facts (just like you!) and they all encourage bigotry towards science in the areas that they claim to have "divine knowledge" about.

No amount of evidence is enough to make you conclude that religion is harmful. And you offer the weakest of evidence showing that it's beneficial. But the bottom line is that all religions claim to have truths they do not have. That IS dishonest and that is true of religions in general--and I, find that harmful.

All your criticisms of others would serve you better if you applied them to yourself before spewing them.

:bigclap

articulett

20th July 2007, 12:58 AM

So how can we disagree with Dawkins on the subject of religion then and not be called "religious apologists", articulett?

Well, don't misquote him, for one...

But I don't really care. Even David Sloan Wilson's argument is weird though I don't know that I'd necessarily call him a religious apologist...he wants to look at the possible adaptations of religion... but most people really care about whether it's true or not. They don't want his pedantry on how it came to be. Even if it were as good as people pretend it is, that doesn't make it true.

Everything Dawkins says is heard with this ridiculous hyperbole by apologists and believers... and only because people have learned this deference to god. Nobody would be saying any of this stuff if Dawkins had written The Astrology Delusion-- who cares what benefit or adaptive purposes it may have had? If he said it was wrong to label kids by their astrological sign, no-one would be having a tizzy. If he has said he thought it was abusive for Muslims to tell their kids that Christians were going to hell... no one would bat an eye except Muslims. I am clicking up my heals in glee that Dawkins book is outselling the inanity proffered by Behe and the hate proffered by Ann Coulter--and that primitive best seller-- the King James Bible. It isn't a good book--it never was, and I'm thankful for those not afraid to point it out in public.

The cheesiest people come out of the woodwork with the lamest of arguments when someone dares say anything about the "god" they believe in...or "religion in general". They offer nothing in the way of knowledge or no thanks to the real heroes of our world. The same people wouldn't bat at eye if someone said teaching your kids to be white supremacists is child abuse... or "race is an illusion". And what have the critics offered to the world... nothing but obfuscation and self aggrandizement as far as I can tell.

God stays alive so long as the illusion stays alive... and people want the delusions and/or want others to be deluded or maybe they are just so used to sticking up for the naked emperor that they don't see how they partake in the continuation of the charade.

(Say, if you would have stayed on topic, no one but me and gayak would be aware of what a religious apologist your are (at least on this thread)--but now you've laid your cards on the table while using words to say yet more nothingness... and it's going to be harder to keep hiding your intent to obfuscate.)

articulett

20th July 2007, 01:11 AM

If by "trounced" you mean I left the previous threads because I was tried of dishonest argumentation that ignored the bulk of research on the benefits of religiosity and spirituality to mental health in favor of insults and rhetoric, then, yes I was trounced in the last thread.

Now, would you like to present some actual evidence of the claim you have been making?

What claim? And since when do you even acknowledge the evidence you are so fond of asking for? And yes--trounced. Of course, like the incompetents in my sig line, most incompetents don't realize how incompetent they are. And I think if we took a vote, you will have been voted more dishonest than those you claim are arguing dishonestly. You always say crap like that without a smidgen of evidence as though someone, somewhere agrees with your delusional view of that thread or anything else. If I were you I'd be demanding an APA report proving that what anyone said was dishonest like you demanding such for anyone even to infer that religion is harmful to kids.

But quit hijacking John's thread... you can at least offer him some support since you seem to share his views about Dawkins,--plus, he thinks Behe has some good ideas and I can't tell your blathering apart from Behe's blathering, so I think you guys should be best friends...

andyandy

20th July 2007, 01:15 AM

No amount of evidence is enough to make you conclude that religion is harmful. And you offer the weakest of evidence showing that it's beneficial. But the bottom line is that all religions claim to have truths they do not have. That IS dishonest and that is true of religions in general--and I, find that harmful.

I am interested in your evidence,

particularly

That in general a religious person will be harmed to a greater extent than a non-religious person.

With clear definition of "harm" and a generalised view of religion which does not focus on specific subsects.

Let's take the Church of England - a very secular religion and representative of religion in Europe as a baseline. Your anti-religious zeal may be applicable in bible belt America, how applicable is it to England or Europe?

I can agree that religion can be hugely harmful - but the generalisation that it is therefore child abuse does require some rigour.

If child abuse is "not telling the truth to children" then surely all parents are guilty
If child abuse is "telling your children something you believe to be true, (even though you have no empirical evidence for that belief)" then again most parents would be guilty
if child abuse is "telling your children something that you believe to be true, but others believe to be false" then all parents are guilty.

Perhaps I consider bringing a child up to be materialistic to be child abuse.
Materialism brings with it the false promise of happiness - plenty of studies delineate materialism from happiness, and indeed suggest that it can cause unhappiness. And yet, most parents subscribe to materialistic consumerism and as a result teach that to their children. If the term "child abuse" is to have any general applicability how is materialism not child abuse?

Or bringing a child up with a poor appreciation of diet through a lack of well thought out dinners. Is that child abuse? There are plenty of studies linking poor diet with illness, and low life expectancy - if the term "child abuse" is to have any general applicability how is imparting poor dietary habits not "child abuse"?

I could dream up a hundred more examples....if "child abuse" simply means "does some harm to some children in some way" then of the thousands of decisions parents make which affect their children's lives, some will have to be classified as "child abuse"

You ask why people are bending over backwards to defend religion - but the question should be what's so special about religion relative to everything else a parent does that constitutes such a label?

*awaits the mudslinging and shrill cries of "apologist" for having the termerity not to subscribe to absolutely everything Dawkins says* ;)

qayak, I don't believe you got round to giving me your evidence of how you know that "many" Dawkins critics who regard themselves as atheists really aren't. Or for that matter how you can regard atheism as an ideology.

qayak

20th July 2007, 01:16 AM

It is wrong to lie to children, but it isn't child abuse.

Opening up my dictionary (Collins Canadian English Dictionary) I find these definitions:

Abuse

1- to use incorrectly or improperly; misuse
2- to maltreat, especially physically or sexually
3- to speak insultingly or cruelly to
4- improper, incorrect or excessive use
5- maltreatment of a person; injury
6- insulting or course speech
7- an evil, unjust, or corrupt practice
8- see "child abuse"
9- (Archaic) a deception

The case of religious indoctrination (education) of children being abusive can be made using definitions 1, 3, 4, 6, 7 and 9.

Equating lying to children with abusing them is the fundamental mistake you make and it is what I am criticizing you and Dawkins for.

On the contrary, not equating religion with child abuse is the fundamental error you make.

Lying about Santa Claus is a mild form of abuse. However, systematically teaching children falsehoods about the nature of the world around them, the origins of that world and insisting that things that are easily refuted are in fact true, is; deceptive, insulting to the child, an improper use of authority, corrupt, unjust, evil, immoral, and a dispicable form of child abuse.

It is also an insult to call it an education.

articulett

20th July 2007, 01:18 AM

What do you make out of the given quote then? are you saying it's a made up one? also, if he was a believer, then why so many, as printed in Dawkins book, theits sent him very nasty vicious letters attacking him for questioning the existence of god?
As Dawkins said:"The one thing all his theistic critics got right was that Einstein was not one of them." If you have the book you can look those letters up starting from page 14.

In respect to mystery, Dawkins is quoted in his Gift to Us or at least perhaps to me LOL. (I named TGD) as follows:

"Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a different reason: it gives them something to do." He goes on to say: "More generally, as I shall repeat in chapter 8, one of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding." ...and that's exactly what religion does, it promotes ignorance.

Regardless of what Einstein believes, as I said to The Atheist, he is a part of very tiny elite. We need to consider the general effect of religion on the masses. That's what needs to be carfully scanned.

Just a note of warning, because I'd like you to stay around. The Atheist and herzblut are widely considered trolls--if they something that rubs you the wrong way, consider it your baptism into the JREF forum community, and don't let them drive you away. Use the ignore button if they become too offensive-- (remember, even the mentally ill have access to computers.)

articulett

20th July 2007, 01:24 AM

Andy Andy... why don't you resurrect the other thread... we can take it there.

andyandy

20th July 2007, 01:31 AM

Andy Andy... why don't you resurrect the other thread... we can take it there.

I've no great desire for a protracted discussion. I would simply appreciate a short exchange to clarify your position. It would appear to be as useful here as anywhere else. I don't know the thread in question, but if you really don't want to post in here, resurrect it and i will repost there.

articulett

20th July 2007, 02:05 AM

I've no great desire for a protracted discussion. I would simply appreciate a short exchange to clarify your position. It would appear to be as useful here as anywhere else. I don't know the thread in question, but if you really don't want to post in here, resurrect it and i will repost there.

Sure. Where is your location? I resurrected the thread and my position. If you are in the UK, you may not be aware of the insidiousness of religion in the US. read the OP first...because that is what the thread was originally about.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85338&page=13

fishbob

20th July 2007, 02:12 AM

numbered for my convenience:
1 - Has Dawkins recently presented an up to date position group selection?
2 - If so, I would like to know about it.
3 - If not, why the barbed comments about Sloan Wilson?

1 - irrelevant to this discussion
2 - also irrelevant to this discussion
3 - I naturally assumed that he was basing his critique of religion on the scientific study of religion from an evolutionary perspective. I regret to report otherwise. is irrelevant to Dawkins critique.

andyandy

20th July 2007, 02:28 AM

Sure. Where is your location? I resurrected the thread and my position. If you are in the UK, you may not be aware of the insidiousness of religion in the US. read the OP first...because that is what the thread was originally about.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=85338&page=13

cheers - i'll post in that a little later...:)

The geographical disjoint in opinions on religion is sometimes apparent on JREF - one's reality of course shapes one's judgments....

i can't speak for all English folk, but for me religion has no discernable detrimental impact on my life or on the lives of people around me, either on a societal level or on a personal level. A minority of people go to church, those that do are reticent to talk about their faith. The general reaction to someone who was openly religious and wanted to talk about it would be negative - such a person would be a bit "weird"...
most people are apathetic cultural christians or wooly deistists whose faith is no more relevant than their belief that their horoscope really does work
The church is co-opted by the state - and has little or no political impact - objections to laws it occasionally has are ignored or generally ridiculed in the press, and so for the most part it remains wholly apolitical.
This is my own impression - and whilst general and annecdotal it should give some illumination as to why some may find it difficult to share such strong general anti-religious zeal. I can appreciate from what i read on JREF that in America things are somewhat different - but to make a case for something like "religion is child abuse" one must consider religion as a broad entity.

articulett

20th July 2007, 02:47 AM

cheers - i'll post in that a little later...:)

The geographical disjoint in opinions on religion is sometimes apparent on JREF - one's reality of course shapes one's judgments....

i can't speak for all English folk, but for me religion has no discernable detrimental impact on my life or on the lives of people around me, either on a societal level or on a personal level. A minority of people go to church, those that do are reticent to talk about their faith. The general reaction to someone who was openly religious and wanted to talk about it would be negative - such a person would be a bit "weird"...
most people are apathetic cultural christians or wooly deistists whose faith is no more relevant than their belief that their horoscope really does work
The church is co-opted by the state - and has little or no political impact - objections to laws it occasionally has are ignored or generally ridiculed in the press, and so for the most part it remains wholly apolitical.
This is my own impression - and whilst general and annecdotal it should give some illumination as to why some may find it difficult to share such strong general anti-religious zeal. I can appreciate from what i read on JREF that in America things are somewhat different - but to make a case for something like "religion is child abuse" one must consider religion as a broad entity.

Yes, Andy... I thought it was like that here, but things have been insidious and growing. Look at this:http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
and this: http://richarddawkins.net/article,1206,A-Look-at-Regent-University,Bill-Moyers-Journal

It's just gotten a bit backwards here in the crazy USA...the rednecks spawn a lot, you know...

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/im_surrounded.php

I hope a creationist museum or tour guide would be laughed out of existence in the UK.

John Hewitt

20th July 2007, 05:53 AM

1 - irrelevant to this discussion
2 - also irrelevant to this discussion
3 - is irrelevant to Dawkins critique.
But not irrelevant to this thread - in fact it is the topic of this thread,

Ivor the Engineer

20th July 2007, 06:26 AM

cheers - i'll post in that a little later...:)

The geographical disjoint in opinions on religion is sometimes apparent on JREF - one's reality of course shapes one's judgments....

i can't speak for all English folk, but for me religion has no discernable detrimental impact on my life or on the lives of people around me, either on a societal level or on a personal level. A minority of people go to church, those that do are reticent to talk about their faith. The general reaction to someone who was openly religious and wanted to talk about it would be negative - such a person would be a bit "weird"...
most people are apathetic cultural christians or wooly deistists whose faith is no more relevant than their belief that their horoscope really does work
The church is co-opted by the state - and has little or no political impact - objections to laws it occasionally has are ignored or generally ridiculed in the press, and so for the most part it remains wholly apolitical.
This is my own impression - and whilst general and annecdotal it should give some illumination as to why some may find it difficult to share such strong general anti-religious zeal. I can appreciate from what i read on JREF that in America things are somewhat different - but to make a case for something like "religion is child abuse" one must consider religion as a broad entity.

Hmmm. What about the bloke* who's been running the country for the last 10 years? Faith schools? Peter Vardy? Plays being taken off the stage because they offend Sheiks? 7/7? Glasgow airport? All these and more pass you by?

Not forgetting my favorite subject: Muslims and Jews being allowed to circumcise their male children in the UK.

Religion is still given special attention and reverence in the UK, science is distrusted (e.g., mobile phones and WiFi) and new-age woo thinking abounds.

Even the science museum has a large display on current Ayurvedic medicine in the history of medicine section!

Are you sure you live in the same country as me, andyandy?

*Kinda funny a Christian (or Catholic??) is the new middle-east envoy who thinks he can mediate between warring Jews, Muslims and Muslims:D

ETA: I've just realized that the phrase "the bloke who's been running the country" may be confusing. I was referring to Tony Blair, not G.W. Bush!

articulett

20th July 2007, 07:06 AM

But not irrelevant to this thread - in fact it is the topic of this thread,

John--you and Wilson miss the point. Dawkins was writing a book about whether there is evidence for god or not--just like Victor Stenger. Plenty of people have written about religion and group selection. Sure it promotes group survival--you kill your enemies and tell your women to go forth and multiply--what more group selection could you want. Any genes that help in group alliance building and functioning and reproducing in a society are selected because they make it more likely that such genes will live and spawn. Plus, humans trust authority figures...it's essential as children. Religion hijacks this and pretends to speak for some invisible authority figure. It's a great meme that has been invented again and again in all sorts of varieties to gain allegiances, cooperation, power, access to women, and money. It perpetuates itself just like a chain letter. Why should Dawkins care about evolutionary aspects of religion and group selection if it just isn't true --and gets it gets in the way of people understanding actual facts.

I know you think that you have a better theory for group selection--but submit it for peer review instead of taking Dawkins to task for not writing the book saying the stuff you want to challenge him on. Or read Wilson...that's his specialty isn't it. Why would you expect Dawkins to write such a book when there are more pressing things getting in the way of the "public understanding of science"--? Somehow, the book you and Sloan seem to think he should have written doesn't sound quite like the bestseller he has now.

andyandy

20th July 2007, 09:59 AM

Hmmm. What about the bloke* who's been running the country for the last 10 years? Faith schools? Peter Vardy? Plays being taken off the stage because they offend Sheiks? 7/7? Glasgow airport? All these and more pass you by?

Not forgetting my favorite subject: Muslims and Jews being allowed to circumcise their male children in the UK.

Religion is still given special attention and reverence in the UK, science is distrusted (e.g., mobile phones and WiFi) and new-age woo thinking abounds.

Even the science museum has a large display on current Ayurvedic medicine in the history of medicine section!

Are you sure you live in the same country as me, andyandy?

*Kinda funny a Christian (or Catholic??) is the new middle-east envoy who thinks he can mediate between warring Jews, Muslims and Muslims:D

ETA: I've just realized that the phrase "the bloke who's been running the country" may be confusing. I was referring to Tony Blair, not G.W. Bush!

come on ivor,
1) What impact did christianity have upon TB's politics? Did you ever even hear him mention his belief? What policies resulted from it?
2) Faith schools so what? We've always had faith in school. The current policy is nothing new. In any case I think it's the best innoculation against religion there is. Nothing makes students dislike something more than forcing them to do it at school :) Much like in the drugs debate, regulation and control is far more preferable than unregulation. We have coopted religion into the state system, and from within it has been eaten away.
3) Peter Vardy? Who?
4) massively unrepresentative tabloid fodder - how many plays have been taken off due to religious unhappiness over the past decade? In any case I was specifically talking about Christianity as that is the overwhelming religious majority. What plays has Christianity pulled recently?
5) Again that there are a incredibly small muslim extremist fringe is secondary to the overwhelming religious majority to which i was refering.
6) Again not releveant to the overwhelming religious majority.
7) Religion is still given special attention and reverence in the UK..? Reverence? I'm not sure you are living in the same country as me :D How many people do you know that revere religion?
8) woo is general is of course prevalent - but we are talking about religion. One could broaden from "religion" to "irrationality" but then the subject is so dilute as to be practiaclly homeopathic.

*ok so i had to google Reg Vardy - again that there is a tiny majority of religious loons does not detract from the general point.

some polls (http://www.humanism.org.uk/site/cms/contentviewarticle.asp?article=1826&splash=yes),

British Social Attitudes Survey, 1992
31% do not believe in God.
69% believe in God, but
80% do not believe God determines our lives,
79% do not believe God gives meaning to life,
72% do not believe in Heaven or Hell,
63% do not believe that God is personally concerned with human beings,
2% attend C of E services at Easter.
(C of E survey)

Populus poll, The Sun , June 2005
27% are atheists;
70% believe in "God or some form of higher power";
3% don't know;
35% never pray;
35% never attend a place of worship;
53% said it was not important for the nation's leader to have a strong religious belief;
23% think there is no afterlife.

hurch attendance 7.9%, 2002/3
Total church attendance in GB is 7.9% of adults for all denominations (England 7.4%, Wales 7.4%, Scotland 13.4%)
( Religious Trends, 2002/2003)

68% of marriages civil ceremonies in 2003
Since 1992, there have been more civil marriage ceremonies in England and Wales than religious ceremonies. In 2003, 68% of marriages were civil ceremonies.
Office of National Statistics

I don't see anything that runs contrary to my earlier post

A minority of people go to church, those that do are reticent to talk about their faith. The general reaction to someone who was openly religious and wanted to talk about it would be negative - such a person would be a bit "weird"...
most people are apathetic cultural christians or wooly deistists whose faith is no more relevant than their belief that their horoscope really does work
The church is co-opted by the state - and has little or no political impact - objections to laws it occasionally has are ignored or generally ridiculed in the press, and so for the most part it remains wholly apolitical

do you actually disagree with anything in it?

John Hewitt

20th July 2007, 11:01 AM

John--you and Wilson miss the point. Dawkins was writing a book about whether there is evidence for god or not--just like Victor Stenger. Plenty of people have written about religion and group selection. Sure it promotes group survival--you kill your enemies and tell your women to go forth and multiply--what more group selection could you want. Any genes that help in group alliance building and functioning and reproducing in a society are selected because they make it more likely that such genes will live and spawn. Plus, humans trust authority figures...it's essential as children.
<snip>
Somehow, the book you and Sloan seem to think he should have written doesn't sound quite like the bestseller he has now.
No, you miss the point. It is true that I think my own interpretation of evolutionary theory is better than that of Dawkins but I also think it an improvement on Sloan Wilson's approach. That said, I do like Sloan Wilson (as a scientist, I don't actually know him) and I admire the way he has stood out for a sensible analysis about group selection but I really have no personal axe to grind between the two of them or between their works.

We are not actually talking about "The God Delusion" itself. This thread was introduced by Dawkins' reply to David Sloan Wilson. Neither of these men hold to any religious commitment, so your comments about religion are immaterial. This is a "dialogue," insofar as the level of Dawkins' comments can be called part of a dialogue, between professional scientists. Both have a viewpoint and both those viewpoints are supported by many other professional scientists. Yet, on the face of it, Dawkins does not try to reply Sloan Wilson. Instead, he refers to him as obsessing and to Assyrian woodwind instruments. Such comments just came over as rude mockery. They seemed to me entirely inappropriate and an entire disregard of the scientific points at issue.

It also seems to me that you exhibit an undue trust in Dawkins as an authority figure. I hope you will not build any shrines to him.

andyandy

20th July 2007, 11:49 AM

This sums up my general sentiment...

When we first moved in [from America] I told my wife not to expect to sleep late on Sunday mornings. "I bet there's a lot of traffic," I said.
.
But the first Sunday came, and then the second, and now two months have gone by — and nary a car drove past. All was quiet on Church Lane.
.
I found out why from watching a fascinating 90-minute documentary on the BBC this week, called "What the World Thinks of God." The program polled 10,000 people in 10 countries and found Britain to be among the most godless societies in the world.
.
The British were near the bottom of the list on church attendance, with only 21 percent saying that they regularly go to church. That compared with 54 percent in the United States and 91 percent in the most church-going country, Nigeria. The only country that had lower church attendance than Britain was Russia, with 7 percent. The Russians, I figured, had a good excuse — 70 years of a godless ideology called Communism. What's with the British?
.
I turned to some of the other findings of the survey for answers. The British apparently don't go to church because they don't believe in God. Only 46 percent held theistic beliefs, compared with 79 percent in the United States and 98 percent in Nigeria. The only countries with fewer believers were, not surprisingly, Russia, with 42 percent, and South Korea with 31 percent. (Given that nearly half South Koreans practice Buddhism, a non-theistic religion, belief in God wasn't going to be high on the list there.)
.
The survey, conducted in December and January for the BBC by the pollster ICM, also found that the British don't put much stock in religion. Worldwide, 80 percent of respondents said that a belief in God makes people better. Among the British, only 56 percent agreed.
.
The BBC put together a panel of experts, some in the studio and some by satellite, to discuss the results. They were hooked into Johannesburg, Jerusalem, Paris and New York among other places. I was mostly interested in the contrast with the United States, since that remains my home. Everyone agreed that despite the fact that it has an official church, the Church of England, Britain is a very secular country.
.
America, with no official church, is a far more religious country — another example of the power of a free market. Competition is apparently good, both for business and for faith. People need to have choices. In America, if you don't like one church, go to another — or to a synagogue or mosque for that matter. It's not quite as simple in England, where one church dominates — or at least tries to.
.
But there was another lesson in all this, best articulated in the BBC program by Richard Land, a leading Southern Baptist in the United States who has close ties to President George W. Bush. Land said that Americans and British often get lulled into thinking they're the same. After all, we share the same language and, in recent years, similar foreign policy. But, he added, we don't share the same religious commitments.
.
In Britain, people don't talk about religion in polite conversation, while Americans, especially the growing body of evangelical Christians, are eager to talk.
.
I can't say I mind. We sleep a lot better now on Sunday mornings here on Church Lane.
.http://www.iht.com/articles/2004/02/28/edari_ed3_.php

andyandy

20th July 2007, 12:42 PM

A little more....

More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension - greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good.
The poll also reveals that non-believers outnumber believers in Britain by almost two to one. It paints a picture of a sceptical nation with massive doubts about the effect religion has on society: 82% of those questioned say they see religion as a cause of division and tension between people. Only 16% disagree. The findings are at odds with attempts by some religious leaders to define the country as one made up of many faith communities.

Most people have no personal faith, the poll shows, with only 33% of those questioned describing themselves as "a religious person". A clear majority, 63%, say that they are not religious - including more than half of those who describe themselves as Christian.
Older people and women are the most likely to believe in a god, with 37% of women saying they are religious, compared with 29% of men.

The findings come at the end of a year in which multiculturalism and the role of different faiths in society has been at the heart of a divisive political debate.http://www.guardian.co.uk/religion/Story/0,,1978045,00.html

Herzblut

20th July 2007, 02:32 PM

More people in Britain think religion causes harm than believe it does good, according to a Guardian/ICM poll published today. It shows that an overwhelming majority see religion as a cause of division and tension - greatly outnumbering the smaller majority who also believe that it can be a force for good.
I wonder how this compares to prior to 7/7. Thereby asserting a major impact of 7/7 on the Brits' belief sets, of course.

Herzblut

Ivor the Engineer

20th July 2007, 02:43 PM

come on ivor,
1) What impact did christianity have upon TB's politics? Did you ever even hear him mention his belief? What policies resulted from it?

Only when he was tossing up whether or not to invade Iraq. Nothing important.

2) Faith schools so what? We've always had faith in school. The current policy is nothing new. In any case I think it's the best innoculation against religion there is. Nothing makes students dislike something more than forcing them to do it at school :) Much like in the drugs debate, regulation and control is far more preferable than unregulation. We have coopted religion into the state system, and from within it has been eaten away.

For middle class white children I'd tend to agree with you.

3) Peter Vardy? Who?

Try this (http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,664608,00.html).

4) massively unrepresentative tabloid fodder - how many plays have been taken off due to religious unhappiness over the past decade?

At least one:)

In any case I was specifically talking about Christianity as that is the overwhelming religious majority. What plays has Christianity pulled recently?

None that I'm aware of.

5) Again that there are a incredibly small muslim extremist fringe is secondary to the overwhelming religious majority to which i was refering.

6) Again not releveant to the overwhelming religious majority.

Where do you think extremists (of any faith) start out?

7) Religion is still given special attention and reverence in the UK..? Reverence? I'm not sure you are living in the same country as me :D How many people do you know that revere religion?

Most of the Muslims I know, some of the Catholics, many Christians of African or West Indian descent.

8) woo is general is of course prevalent - but we are talking about religion. One could broaden from "religion" to "irrationality" but then the subject is so dilute as to be practiaclly homeopathic.

Ok.

I don't see anything that runs contrary to my earlier post

A minority of people go to church, those that do are reticent to talk about their faith. The general reaction to someone who was openly religious and wanted to talk about it would be negative - such a person would be a bit "weird"...
most people are apathetic cultural christians or wooly deistists whose faith is no more relevant than their belief that their horoscope really does work
The church is co-opted by the state - and has little or no political impact - objections to laws it occasionally has are ignored or generally ridiculed in the press, and so for the most part it remains wholly apolitical

do you actually disagree with anything in it?

If you were referring just to the Christian faith then I largely agree; most British Christians are pretty apathetic. However, there are significant sized minority communities in the UK which take religion VERY seriously.

andyandy

20th July 2007, 03:09 PM

Only when he was tossing up whether or not to invade Iraq. Nothing important.

Wasn't that story just that Blair said that his faith had helped him through his decisions or something equally wooly?

here it is...

Prime Minister Tony Blair has told how he prayed to God when deciding whether or not to send UK troops to Iraq. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4772142.stm

It's a pretty unremarkable statement - there's no suggestion that his religion actually affected his decision.

If you were referring just to the Christian faith then I largely agree; most British Christians are pretty apathetic. However, there are significant sized minority communities in the UK which take religion VERY seriously.

I was refering to the religous majority...I agree that amongst some minority communities religion is much more important - but even islam, by far the biggest minority religion only accounts for 2.7% of the population - after that you have Hinduism with 1% and the rest in decimals.

Ivor the Engineer

20th July 2007, 03:17 PM

Wasn't that story just that Blair said that his faith had helped him through his decisions or something equally wooly?

What he said is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4773124.stm).

I was refering to the religous majority...I agree that amongst some minority communities religion is much more important - but even islam, by far the biggest minority religion only accounts for 2.7% of the population - after that you have Hinduism with 1% and the rest in decimals.

Seems more than that when you've lived and worked in places near Birmingham, Bradford and Leicester!

ETA: You found a better link than me!

andyandy

20th July 2007, 03:26 PM

What he said is here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4773124.stm).

you beat me to the edit :) I don't see anything especially remarkable about what he said....

prayer of the

"Dear God, please help me make the right decision"

type, would be implied rather than the

"Dear God, should I invade Iraq, if yes please make the next animal I see be a cat, if no make it a dog, if you are unsure make it a pigeon."

type....

Seems more than that when you've lived and worked in places near Birmingham, Bradford and Leicester!

quite possibly :)

Ivor the Engineer

20th July 2007, 03:31 PM

andyandy

20th July 2007, 03:46 PM

...and then Cherie walked into the room.

"But God, I really think I should invade.":D

boom boom :)

articulett

20th July 2007, 04:38 PM

you beat me to the edit :) I don't see anything especially remarkable about what he said....

prayer of the

"Dear God, please help me make the right decision"

type, would be implied rather than the

"Dear God, should I invade Iraq, if yes please make the next animal I see be a cat, if no make it a dog, if you are unsure make it a pigeon."

type....

Yes... but the Downing Street Memo...

TB was in league with a guy who flat out said "god told him to invade Iraq"

quite possibly :)

But in any case... enforced religion has helped make Brits rebellious about it--meanwhile it's been festering like a cancer in America and no one knew the power and money the nutters were accumulating... Really, Dawkins is a hero to many people in America for saying what many people think. All this endless flummery about whether religion is good or bad or why it evolved-- it's all to avoid the real question--

Is it true?

Any of it? Is there any reason we should defer to the faithful or faith or belief? Is it worthy of respect? Is it okay to teach opinions and beliefs as "higher truths"? Is it safe to encourage a populace where people think that what they believe is a key to their salvation.

Is it true?

All these nutty arguments about semantics and so forth just seem to be avoiding this very important question. Dawkins doesn't. That's why his book is a best seller.

articulett

20th July 2007, 05:07 PM

It also seems to me that you exhibit an undue trust in Dawkins as an authority figure. I hope you will not build any shrines to him.

Creationists always say that. If it was Sagan or Newton or Einstein they wouldn't play this silly semantic game.

I don't care about the evolution of religion. I care about whether there is any reason to believe that it is true.

And Dawkins cares too. That's the real thing people want to know. Is it "safe" to not believe? What questions have we been avoiding because we were taught that it is arrogant to question god? I think all these semantic games are distractions to avoid the real question--

Is it true? Any of it? Is there any good reason to believe any of it?

newlyfound

20th July 2007, 05:42 PM

I can agree that religion can be hugely harmful - but the generalisation that it is therefore child abuse does require some rigour.

If child abuse is "not telling the truth to children" then surely all parents are guilty
If child abuse is "telling your children something you believe to be true, (even though you have no empirical evidence for that belief)" then again most parents would be guilty
if child abuse is "telling your children something that you believe to be true, but others believe to be false" then all parents are guilty.

Lying to a child for any reason (religious included) on a consistant basis is being dishonest toward them. They in turn lie and practice dishonesty later on in life toward all including themselves. Some of the consequences of this is what you said about poor diet whether their parents teach them good dietary habits or not. Even knowing that some foods are not good for them they still might abuse them for reasons that might not be that bad at first sight, but the underlying one would be that they are simply being dishonest with themselves (as they have been taught and conditioned to) about how those foods are going to alter their health. This spreads to multiple areas such as drug and alcohol use, having toxic acquaintances even knowing those acquaintances are not in their interest, they still go ahead and maintain them etc. The consequences of child abuse do not have to manifest in one's early years.

I could dream up a hundred more examples....if "child abuse" simply means "does some harm to some children in some way" then of the thousands of decisions parents make which affect their children's lives, some will have to be classified as "child abuse"
True, but then religion will have to make the list and maybe as # 1. Religion and the matter of worshipping is an adult practice and subject. Children need to be kept out of it. If it is so good and healthful why then are we here? I have been brought up what I have brought up (not atheist) so have others, yet none of us still believe or practice the junk that have been shoved down our helpless tiny throats when we were little. What does that tell one? I don't want to touch the jews or muslims (simply because they are hopeless on the following platform) but for christians to be real christians they'd have to grasp the concept of unconditional love as Jesus taught. Unconditional love is loving one's child no matter what, and not only if they swallow the crap I tell about. If they really believe in how encampassing the holy spirit is, and how grand god is, what is so threatening about letting a child just grow and serenely develop on their own instead of telling them about how satan is out to get them and how if they don't listen they'd fright in hell? those 2 are some of the hard core basics of the 3 monotheistic religions. Why does a child have to worry and be frighted of having to go to a hell that doesn't exist if they don't do what mummy or daddy want then to? that is emotional and psychological abuse. Kids shouldn't have to fill their tiny heads with satan, hell and a sadistic god. They are children for humanity's sake, they shouldn't have to worry about this garbage. Parents mainly do that because they want to insure that the kids follow in their foots steps. They want them to believe what they believe whether it is real or not, whether it is good or not. They do that out of self-centeredness and pure egoism. And I'd add cruely as well.

*awaits the mudslinging and shrill cries of "apologist" for having the termerity not to subscribe to absolutely everything Dawkins says* ;)

Dr. Dawkins is Humble Brilliant Man who works to find out specific facts about our condition, and them insures that the masses know about them, nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't think he is god (though in many ways he is) and neither do his readers. On the other hand the religious establishment is the one that seems to think it is above the law and that it is owed the Utmost Deference. And for what? for bs-ing people and cunning them.

strathmeyer

20th July 2007, 06:00 PM

It is wrong to lie to children, but it isn't child abuse.

Equating lying to children with abusing them is the fundamental mistake you make and it is what I am criticizing you and Dawkins for.

Obviously some degree of lying to anyone is abuse. Why are you ignoring this fact? What is wrong with Dawkins or us discussing it?

mijopaalmc

20th July 2007, 06:07 PM

Obviously some degree of lying to anyone is abuse. Why are you ignoring this fact? What is wrong with Dawkins or us discussing it?

Doesn't that render the term abuse meaningless?

andyandy

20th July 2007, 06:12 PM

Obviously some degree of lying to anyone is abuse. Why are you ignoring this fact? What is wrong with Dawkins or us discussing it?

how about telling your wife when asked that they look lovely, despite you actually thinking they've started to look a bit frumpy?

or telling your kid when asked that you enjoyed their violin solo at school, when really you didn't?

Telling the truth would cause hurt, and "abuse" in these cases would mean saving someone's feelings from that hurt.

andyandy

20th July 2007, 06:28 PM

Dr. Dawkins is Humble Brilliant Man who works to find out specific facts about our condition, and them insures that the masses know about them, nothing more, nothing less. He doesn't think he is god (though in many ways he is) and neither do his readers.

In what of the many ways is dawkins god?

articulett

20th July 2007, 07:34 PM

Obviously some degree of lying to anyone is abuse. Why are you ignoring this fact? What is wrong with Dawkins or us discussing it?

And lets not pretend that people aren't telling the kiddies that they will live happily ever after for believing this lie. Parents just indoctrinate because to them it's like inoculation-- protecting the kiddies from Pascal's silly wager.

They don't think, because our culture has just come to expect that everyone props up the delusion. All this semantic bickering and critique of Dawkins and villification of his words or those who speak out against religion... this notion that not ALL religion's are harmfull-- all of it... is just a way of avoiding the question-- the elephant in the room. Is there a god? Is there any good reason to believe there is? If not, then there are a lot of people claiming to know things they simply cannot know. And they are manipulating trusting people with these claims and fortifying them with fear and briberies. Who cares if you call it "child abuse" or "lying" or "manipulation" or "evolutionarily advantageous"-- Is it true?

Is it true? If it's not true quit blathering around trying to get others to ask the question and explore the answers. Quit villifying those who say that it's wrong to lie to people...to mislead... to manipulate-- isn't it better to at least say, "I don't know" or "no one knows" or "uncle Fred believes..."

I just hear all this critique of Dawkins and villification of anyone who dares say religion is "child abuse" or anything similar is proof of the way religion has taught us all to ignore the ugliness... never attribute the evil to god... but praise the invisible guy without question for all that is good. It's all distracting crap to keep people from hearing the truth.

The Emperor is Naked. He always has been. It's not necessary to keep pretending that he's wearing clothes. We've evolved. The people who benefit from telling these tales are lying even if they've convinced themselves they are not. Scriptures are primitive barbaric texts written most obviously by humans to benefit themselves. They are not divine.

Sloan may have wished for a different book, but the public wanted just to know whether there's any good reason to believe in a god. And no one can ask the questions and present the case quite as well as Dawkins can. Hopefully there will be many more children not subject to idiotic indoctrination as in Jesus Camp because of continued raised awareness of this nuttiness and proud ignorance in the name of a delusion. Maybe the rest of the world can then get up to date on science and the benefits that come from being scientifically literate. Muslims will have to dismantle their religion from within...via doubt... because whenever you fight fundamentalists of any stripe..they just invent new reasons to believe or think that satan is tempting them to doubt They where their trials for their faith as a badge of honor just as the families of the hijackers and the hijackers themselves do.

When you tell people they need faith... you create people who need faith.

Chalk me up as squarely in the camp of Dawkins in this debate... Wilson makes no sense to me. Is he too chicken to say that religion is a lie... it's cost a lot of lives and caused a lot of suffering and it's time to grow up and out the liars or make them provide evidence of their claims.

articulett

20th July 2007, 08:02 PM

In what of the many ways is dawkins god?

Dawkins isn't god, but he offers real truths... verifiable truths... in a way humans can understand-- like Sagan-- he translates what Science knows to the masses even as he's vilified by religionists every step of the way because they know that his facts put their power in doubt. Original sin looks pretty lame when you understand the facts. He doesn't have to share his passion. But he does. And in comparison those claiming to have hidden truths and access to divine sources seem like the snake oil salesmen they are. Those who criticize him are seldom people who have added to the mass understanding or furthering of any true or useful knowledge... and nothing he does will allow them to concede that maybe he is a damn special human to have on this planet-- special like Sagan-- Darwin-- Newton-- Galileo-- special because he can synthesize humanities combine knowledge and explain it to lay people with eloquence and humor and clarity.

The critics seem jealous or distracting in an attempt to keep people from hearing Dawkins-- to me, the criticisms seem so tangential... as though they didn't read him or understand him or get an inkling of the important things he has to share. I mean Sloan could have written a similar review about Cosmos... because his review was about what he wanted the book to be about-- and had nothing to do with "the god delusion".

qayak

20th July 2007, 08:13 PM

I mean Sloan could have written a similar review about Cosmos... because his review was about what he wanted the book to be about-- and had nothing to do with "the god delusion".

Exactly. This was the argument I got into with the pastor in the coffeeshop. He insisted Dawkins' thesis was wrong, that Dawkins should have been arguing something else.

Completely absurd to me and the fact that the pastor didn't know what the general theme of the book was led me to believe he didn't read it but had read a review and adopted it as his point of view. Perhaps he read Sloan.

qayak

20th July 2007, 08:19 PM

how about telling your wife when asked that they look lovely, despite you actually thinking they've started to look a bit frumpy?

Telling the truth would cause hurt, and "abuse" in these cases would mean saving someone's feelings from that hurt.

I concede this point to you. Now, can you explain how this applies to the systematic lying to children done in the name of religious education? How will it cause hurt to tell them the truth? How does lying save them from this hurt?

qayak

20th July 2007, 08:54 PM

Doesn't that render the term abuse meaningless?

It make us realize that there are degrees of abuse. Everyone is going to have a slightly different opinion of at what point one needs to step in and do something about the abuse but in general we will all cluster fairly close together.

This applies to our disagreement on Dawkins. I can respect that you do not think moderate religious education is abusive enough to children for you to take action. On the other hand, I think it is abusive enough to begin doing something about. In this discussion we are probably occupy the two extreme positions. It doesn't make either one of us bad, it just makes us individuals.

articulett

20th July 2007, 09:04 PM

Exactly. This was the argument I got into with the pastor in the coffeeshop. He insisted Dawkins' thesis was wrong, that Dawkins should have been arguing something else.

Completely absurd to me and the fact that the pastor didn't know what the general theme of the book was led me to believe he didn't read it but had read a review and adopted it as his point of view. Perhaps he read Sloan.

Yes! It's always the courtier's reply http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html

Everything to change the topic from whether it's true and if not whether it's good to telling a lie and claiming it's about higher truths.

All these distractions and vilifying and semantics and words used to avoid the simple question:

Is it true?

Is god an illusion?

That's the question people want answered and that's what all the critiques of Dawkins seem to be to me. They all fall under the courtiers reply--they're all tangential opinions and "disappointments" or semantic diversions. When the facts are not in favor of what you want to believe or talk about... what else is there for one to do.

I always wonder if people are affected by some long ago pascals wager notion that was inculcated when they are young... and hence this endless verbiage that never addresses the point and makes those who bring people back to the point the victim of derision or vilification or semantic silliness. They aren't aware of what they are doing... but they all are doing just that. Missing the point completely.

mijopaalmc

20th July 2007, 10:34 PM

It make us realize that there are degrees of abuse. Everyone is going to have a slightly different opinion of at what point one needs to step in and do something about the abuse but in general we will all cluster fairly close together.

This applies to our disagreement on Dawkins. I can respect that you do not think moderate religious education is abusive enough to children for you to take action. On the other hand, I think it is abusive enough to begin doing something about. In this discussion we are probably occupy the two extreme positions. It doesn't make either one of us bad, it just makes us individuals.

Vilifying people for raising their children the way they see fit by calling the way they raise their children "child abuse" is bad and that is what I am calling you and articulett on.

I don't think that you would put up with Michael Savage (http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/mikeinfo.html) calling liberalism a "mental disorder (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062)" in order to deride it and then saying that his feeling that way and you feeling differently "makes us individuals".

So why do you supposedly apply such a double standard to your approach to religion?

qayak

20th July 2007, 11:47 PM

Vilifying people for raising their children the way they see fit by calling the way they raise their children "child abuse" is bad and that is what I am calling you and articulett on.

I don't see it as bad at all. There are a lot of things that people do with children that are bad. They don't see it that way but it doens't mean they are right.

I understand your position but I don't see it that way. I have no problem sticking up for a victim even if they are being abused by a "nice person." The hard part for me is deciding where the line gets drawn between "abuse" and "abuse that I will speak out against." Obviously, philosophically, I take a harder line with religion than I do in practice but I have stepped in where children were being abused on religious grounds. For instance, when a 50 year old man grabs a 5 year old child and tells them that they are going straight to hell for falling asleep at the table in a restaurant while the adult was saying grace. (It was after midnight!.)

I don't think that you would put up with calling liberalism a mental disorder in order to deride it and then saying that his feeling that way and you feeling differently "makes us individuals".

So why do you supposedly apply such a double standard to your approach to religion?

You are correct. I wouldn't put up with it. But why am I applying a double standard? If I didn't have a basis to believe that religion was child abuse, I certainly wouldn't argue it and if there was as good a case to be made that liberalism was a mental disorder, I wouldn't argue against it.

This is completely a matter of where I stand on the issue which I am sure it is for you as well. I am not holding this position so that I can deride religion. I deride religion because I hold this postion based on the evidence and reason.

articulett

20th July 2007, 11:49 PM

Vilifying people for raising their children the way they see fit by calling the way they raise their children "child abuse" is bad and that is what I am calling you and articulett on.

I don't think that you would put up with Michael Savage (http://www.homestead.com/prosites-prs/mikeinfo.html) calling liberalism a "mental disorder (http://www.amazon.com/Liberalism-Mental-Disorder-Savage-Solutions/dp/1595550062)" in order to deride it and then saying that his feeling that way and you feeling differently "makes us individuals".

So why do you supposedly apply such a double standard to your approach to religion?

Why do you stalk people from thread to thread to continue to bring up your religious apologetics. I don't know if Michael Savage is a JREF member or if your diversions have anything to do with this OP or any OP. It sound like his "opinion" on par with Ann Coulters and, as such, I'd pay similar heed to it. It's an opinion. It's an opinion of many of those who think homosexuality is a mental disorder, I imagine. Or perhaps I'd mock it, the way I mock religion... or maybe I'd point out that Mijo is once again trying to hijack a thread to be a religious apologist and vilify those who say otherwise with tangential, off-topic nonsense. The bad guys aren't the one's pointing out religions abuses...its people like you running around with your apologetics and your claims that not ALL religions are bad so how dare anyone call lying to kiddies child abuse or how dare anyone say "god is a delusion". All the bulls hit-- nothing is said. Spin spin spin just to avoid the facts in the OP. This thread is about Dawkins and Sloan. Had you read Dawkins then maybe someone other than you would care about your opinion on the topic. The other thread was about a creationist tour guide lying to children. Neither thread is about the pros and cons of religion or what opinions mijo demands proof for or what he thinks is ironic or unfair or whatever other logical fallacy you pretend to understand.

The more you traipse your apologetics about, the more your creationist tendencies show, you know... you can't keep up the delusion by covering for every creationist or religious misdeed while obfuscating basic understanding of evolution and showing the readily recognizable arrogant/ignorance combination associated with the likes of rttjc--only much milder, a tad less angry... and a smidgen smarter. Start your own thread for you religious apologetics and your fatwah against anyone who dares to call you on it or anyone who successfully understands and can convey evolution. I think rttjc started just the thread for that. You can work yourself in an anti-atheist frenzy there.

newlyfound

21st July 2007, 12:17 AM

In what of the many ways is dawkins god?

The emphesis was on the "He doesn't think he is god and neither do his readers" part. What was between the parentheses was one of my own private thoughts about him, being one of his newly subjugated admirers. I say "subjugated" because I am not the scientific type at all, and that not because I am stupid but only thanks to my crapy religious upbringing (one more proof). Since you asked the question, I'd day for starters, Science is responsible about getting mankind outta the woods as well as out of the dark ages. One could add out of ignorance, disease, and many other ills well known to mankind. In this sense, Science is Mankind's Savior. I am not telling you this, I am just letting you know about my humble/modest level of awareness (since it is kind of a part of answering your question).

Religionists tell one A story and just expect them to take it as is much like conmen expect their victims to bite the bate without question. If one innocently asks for clarification, then such terms as faith, hell, sacrednes, god come up and ...that's it. It's basically up to one to use their heads in association to what meanings such terms hold, how they correlate to each other and shut up or else.

Science and scientists on the other hand, allow people to breath, actually they invite and encourage them to. That is while working, and very hard, to clarify the questions the church fail to answer. One of them is Dawkins. The difference between scientists like him and clergymen, is while clergymen assume what they have been told is true and just sleep on it even though it's flawed, guys like Dawkins go out and actually do the work (the good old fashion way) that will either prove or refute what needs to be. They settle "accounts", resolve different equations, clear mysteries etc. If there is a god out there, this is what he is probably about: hard work and consistency. As I said earlier, science now a days virtually supports as well as permeates all aspects of our lives. Much like christians claim the holy spirit does in a way ("He is in all things, and in him all things hold together." Colossians 1:17). What hint does that send us? to them Christ is the Cornerstone upon which a christian life must be build as the following verse indicates:
"built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone." --Ephesians 2:20--

One can very reasonably say Science is the chief cornerstone to modern life. Just imagine it pull out of our lives in vacuum type of motion and see the armageddon that will ensue. Of course, Science is nothing without its body, the body of scientists that keep it "running", its fuel and its heart as well. That's where Daddy Dawkins as well as his buddies pop up again. Maybe I was wrong to associate him with god but he most definitely is one of her hearts. Thank you for asking :) . I hope this answered your question.

articulett

21st July 2007, 01:00 AM

Doesn't newlyfounds newfound freedom mean anything to you apologists...

I think most former believers are very glad not to believe and don't want the delusions inflicted on their children. It's kind of angst provoking to tell a smart kid that their eternity depends them believing a certain story. When I was a kid I wanted scientists to be doing the MDC on these guys... I mean OUR ETERNITY WAS AT STAKE--or so people were saying... though they seemed amazinging cavalier about the fact that there was a lot of different opinions about who was saved and damned.

I think the truth matters a lot. I think it's wrong to lie to kids. I think it's wacky the way people blather about all sorts of things but the TRUTH. Is there any good reason to think there are higher truths? No? Excellent... I don't have to worry about my eternity and I can bite from the tree of knowledge all I want in this life... without worrying about the judgement of a-holes -- invisible or carnal. I'm smart enough to understand the facts for myself, thank you. And, oddly enough, I find my life to be much more moral than those who want to inflict their delusions and bigotry upon others.

Stick up for humans and truth and science-- not delusions and fear and religions. How long do we have to defer to this fairytale?

Ivor the Engineer

21st July 2007, 02:18 AM

how about telling your wife when asked that they look lovely, despite you actually thinking they've started to look a bit frumpy?

Tell her the truth. Tactfully. Otherwise you're playing a game.

or telling your kid when asked that you enjoyed their violin solo at school, when really you didn't?

Or you could give an honest and fair appraisal based on their experience.

Telling the truth would cause hurt, and "abuse" in these cases would mean saving someone's feelings from that hurt.

Telling the truth in these examples is, IMO, always better than playing games or deluding people into thinking they have more talent than they actually do.

andyandy

21st July 2007, 02:20 AM

I concede this point to you. Now, can you explain how this applies to the systematic lying to children done in the name of religious education? How will it cause hurt to tell them the truth? How does lying save them from this hurt?

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.

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

why you think atheism is an ideology

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

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

andyandy

21st July 2007, 02:29 AM

Tell her the truth. Tactfully. Otherwise you're playing a game.

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."

articulett

21st July 2007, 02:46 AM

Tell her the truth. Tactfully. Otherwise you're playing a game.

Or you could give an honest and fair appraisal based on their experience.

Telling the truth in these examples is, IMO, always better than playing games or deluding people into thinking they have more talent than they actually do.

Moreover, these are opinions... they can change... they aren't measurable. There are ways to answer questions being both honest and kind.

But religion is a belief. It has not claim to truth while pretending it is. Lies are wrong. Threatening kids with hell if they don't believe a ridiculous story is wrong. Telling people that believing a certain way is wrong. I cannot believe the smoke and mirrors people toss about in order to allow religions to continue this abuse of trusting people. Nobody is advocating telling grandma that there is no heaven-- but please quit pretending that it's good and necessary to inflict this crap upon people.

Dawkins has facts. He speaks out against the "god delusion". People appreciate that. All the rest seems like blather to me to avoid acknowledging these facts and vilify non-belief so as to protect the purposeful infliction of these nonsensical memes on trusting people.

And you are changing the subject andyandy into what degree of lying is acceptable. You seem to have a vested interest in keeping the delusion alive and you dislike Dawkins' mortal blow to the fairytale. If I get a choice in the matter--don't lie to me; Don't lie to my kid. I'd rather not know something than believe a lie. I think Dawkins is a much more honest, intelligent, and matter of fact man with ready facts than all his critics combined. Their arguments are endlessly tangential... all about not ALL religions being bad or whether its okay to call religion child abuse or what level of lying to kids is fine or some nebulous good that can come of the lies-- all of it ignoring the fact-- Religion proffers some really primitive beliefs and enforces it with threats of hell. These beliefs are strongly correlated with scientific ignorance on par with the Pope's suppression of Galileo's knowledge. That's wrong. Dawkins aims to right it. The apologist aim to keep the delusion alive for some unknown namby pamby reason and to vilify those who dare to say the emperor is naked as a jaybird. Always was, actually. But hey, you can learn about DNA and know the actual history of life on earth. Verifiable stuff. The truth that is the same for everyone. And there's no hell for finding this stuff out.

That's a damn important message you keep ignoring andyandy.

andyandy

21st July 2007, 03:26 AM

You seem to have a vested interest in keeping the delusion alive and you dislike Dawkins' mortal blow to the fairytale.

yes it's all a conspiracy. Everyone's out to "get" Dawkins. Everyone who offers any criticism of you is an apologist. They're probably fundamental christains in disguise. You're starting to sound like you belong in the CT forum.....

That's a damn important message you keep ignoring andyandy

good frickin grief. What message am I ignoring? I've posted hundreds (if not thousands) of times on religion in the past 18 months or so - and with your general sentiment I wholly agree. Quite frankly I've posted my opinions so often I'm pretty weary of the topic - so don't dictate to me exactly what I should contribute to every thread - that's really rather arrogant.

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.

PixyMisa

21st July 2007, 03:30 AM

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

21st July 2007, 03:50 AM

"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

21st July 2007, 03:58 AM

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

21st July 2007, 04:13 AM

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

21st July 2007, 04:26 AM

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

21st July 2007, 05:00 AM

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

21st July 2007, 07:03 AM

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

21st July 2007, 01:34 PM

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

21st July 2007, 02:23 PM

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

21st July 2007, 02:24 PM

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

21st July 2007, 03:46 PM

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

21st July 2007, 03:49 PM

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

21st July 2007, 03:58 PM

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

21st July 2007, 04:21 PM

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

21st July 2007, 04:24 PM

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

21st July 2007, 04:47 PM

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

Would you care to present evidence of that?

qayak

21st July 2007, 04:57 PM

. . . 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

21st July 2007, 05:03 PM

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

21st July 2007, 07:10 PM

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

21st July 2007, 07:22 PM

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.

mijopaalmc

21st July 2007, 07:41 PM

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

21st July 2007, 09:21 PM

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

21st July 2007, 09:27 PM

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

21st July 2007, 10:17 PM

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

21st July 2007, 10:31 PM

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

21st July 2007, 10:39 PM

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

21st July 2007, 10:57 PM

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

21st July 2007, 11:06 PM

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

21st July 2007, 11:15 PM

articulett

21st July 2007, 11:54 PM

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:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=u0lsx73rj-I

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

21st July 2007, 11:58 PM

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!

:bgrin:

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

QED

mijopaalmc

22nd July 2007, 12:37 AM

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

22nd July 2007, 01:05 AM

mijopaalmc

22nd July 2007, 01:25 AM

"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

22nd July 2007, 01:53 AM

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 TruthTM, 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

22nd July 2007, 02:46 AM

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

22nd July 2007, 04:04 AM

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

22nd July 2007, 04:58 AM

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

22nd July 2007, 05:06 AM

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

22nd July 2007, 05:55 AM

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.

Herzblut

22nd July 2007, 06:40 AM

Notice how Einstein said ". . . this knowledge, this feeling, is at the center of true religion." Further notice that

Kid, I noticed all of that while you were still running around the Christmas tree with a bobbin.

So, Einstein may very well have been religious but he certainly wasn't in favour of your religion.
.. Notice he didn't mention your religion.
...
Your god shrinks as our understanding grows. Einstein did not believe in your god.
...
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.
...
Afterall, he specifically rules out your religion, your god as not being true and your naivety as not being the path to his god.

I wouldn't know how a featherbrained teeny like you would be able to comprehend my beliefs. So, you consulted your cristal ball? I am really interested in the source of your inadequate self-righteousness. That's normally a protective measure against shyness and lack of self-esteem, what you demonstrate here. I don't blame you at all, several teenies have the same glitch. So, what is your problem? Don't get a girl friend to get laid with? Don't hesitate to talk. The more mature people here can possible help you out.

Herzblut

qayak

22nd July 2007, 07:01 AM

Kid, I noticed all of that while you were still running around the Christmas tree with a bobbin.

I wouldn't know how a featherbrained teeny like you would be able to comprehend my beliefs. So, you consulted your cristal ball? I am really interested in the source of your inadequate self-righteousness. That's normally a protective measure against shyness and lack of self-esteem, what you demonstrate here. I don't blame you at all, several teenies have the same glitch. So, what is your problem? Don't get a girl friend to get laid with? Don't hesitate to talk. The more mature people here can possible help you out.

Herzblut

With those words of defeat, Herzblut tucks his tiny penis back into his lederhosen and slinks off home. :k:

Herzblut

22nd July 2007, 07:32 AM

OK, I see now. So, you think your penis is too tiny? Well, you know that size doesn't matter .. that much. No reason to be too shy to contact a woman. Just give it a try!

Herzblut

newlyfound

22nd July 2007, 11:40 AM

That's rich.

It is the "religion is child abuse" crowd who has not dealt honestly with the evidence.

Evidence? any person with an IQ of 5 or less would know that frightening an innocent child with a hell that doesn't exist or a satan that is not there if they don't do as you say is abuse, dishonesty, cruely, etc. What study or reseach does one need to consult to see the light in this matter?

I have yet to see an honest critique of the two reviews I cited, one that found 18 independent studies

Independant studies? independant? how independant? or how dependant should I ask? tell me who is behind those studies and I'll tell you their real purpose. This reminds me of how some pollsters, in order to get to a specific resut, a result that they are looking to obtain, they go to a specific pool of people to survey that insures that they get what they are after. I guess that money needs to keep on flowing into those churches because their owners are not capapable of getting off their fat greedy buns, going out and getting real jobs. So whatever it takes to keep people asleep and stoned since this is the ony way their wallets can be emptied.

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?

And why despite the fact that 95 % of the worldwide population believes in god, ...and religion, the world is yet still so crewed up with famine, wars, crimes, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol use and the destruction it generates, rapes, evil, child prostitution, child exploitation speaking about what is good for kids, etc.??????why? this is my One "Study" to you. How do you explain it? ...what are you going to do about this "study"?

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.

I didn't read you in last couple of pages (beside last "kind" post you wrote about Arti) but as far as the others, they didn't say much. And yes, I didn't witness the talk that went on between you 2, but from the few posts I read of you so far, you seem to be very amicable person.

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

True, though, as old as I am I've not only explored religion but I lived it. So I know.

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.

See? I guess this is what truth is to you being the atheist that you are. Like the french say "Chacun voit midi as sa porte.", translating to "Each sees Noon from his/her own door-step (meaning from a different angle)." I find her posts very substantial, through her words, she breaks the subject down to a profound level that she does not need to bring "a study" to back up her point. One reads her and they get it. I am not a bun kisser but if somebody makes a point, I back off. All have gotten into personal attacks latey more than anything else, this is a vicious meme? LOL. you all need to step back and take a deep breath.

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

Thank you. I wasn't sure, english is not the language I was born into. ...but then why call it "world"? I meant it as a word only.

Nobody's actually claiming Arti's wrong, just that she's refusing to consider views different from hers.
Are you asking her to agree with you even though what you say does not make sense to her?

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.

What is so close-minded about asserting that religion is false and that bringing a frightful being such as satan along with hell into child's world is abuse? if it isn't, go ahead and demonstrate it please. How is terrorising a child as religion usually does going to help them develop their mental and personal faculties? They are too small to know what 'right' and 'wrong' is, let alone be exposed to such barbaric terrors. If religion is as good as it claims, it should see it, yet, it does not. how do you explain this?

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.

hey, hey, ...calm down mate. That post was not specifically addressed to you. Speaking about ignorance you've made some comments about art that are very unreasonable being the "knower" that you are. Speaking about reading one's posts, I am sure you read many of her posts and if you understood them, you'd know she is nothing like the derogatory comments you associated to her in your last note. The way you express yourself (I don't even have to read your posts) paints you as anything but ignorant, so that leaves us with the option that you wrote what you wrote out of maliciousness. And maliciousness could stem from untruthfulness or mild temporary dishonesty.

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.

That leads me to ask what made you decide to become an atheist? this is not a smart ass question. Maybe in the process of you explaining why you are an atheist on one hand, and why on the other you believe religion is not harmful to children will help some of us get to a breakthough of a sort.
This is an honest question though it might not have been asked with a level of eloquence and tactfulness someone as you would.

newlyfound

22nd July 2007, 12:01 PM

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

When you say "small booklet" you mean TGD? .. I guess "small" is as small does as much as Best Seller is as Best Seller does. You didn't answer my post, a post that pointed out that Einstein, believer or not, is a part of A tiny elite, and this is A Fact. It also pointed out that the real effect that religion has and that needs to be studied is the one that it has on the masses (I elaborated on that in a post for The Atheist he didn't answered), you know like the 6 billions and + that are out there? and if they count for anything to you? I guess they don't since the only thing you seem to be interested in is your little fantasy world and what fits in it.

The God Delusion got me out of my rot. Thank you Dr. Dawkins.

...and herzblut, this is really the only fact you wish you could change and are sorry about.

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

Good for you study that and work to apply it in your daily life.

newlyfound

22nd July 2007, 12:12 PM

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

:blush: thank you so much, I didn't mean to get credit for anything, I just needed to point something out that I thought needed to be :blush: . I love your post to Herzblut about Einstein. Very enlightening. Thank you for it.

Herzblut

22nd July 2007, 01:45 PM

When you say "small booklet" you mean TGD?

Yes.

You didn't answer my post, a post that pointed out that Einstein, believer or not, is a part of A tiny elite, and this is A Fact.

Why did you mention it then, referring to your small booklet? You have started that case, I haven't.

The God Delusion got me out of my rot. Thank you Dr. Dawkins.

Irrelevant. A typical Red Herring fallacy called Argument to the consequences.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adconseq.html

...and herzblut, this is really the only fact you wish you could change and are sorry about.

Wishful thinking.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/wishthnk.html

Good for you study that and work to apply it in your daily life.

I studied Schopenhauer while you were still .. you know that with the Christmas tree and your little child bobbin. :D

These, your speaches are lacking respect for other people, my dear. I am sometimes reacting by also quitting any respectful behaviour towards that individual. How that looks like, see above. It's a lesson you have to learn, you have to experience how that feels in yourself. You will recognize it, when I am givin this lesson to you, newlyfound. :D

Herzblut

articulett

22nd July 2007, 01:52 PM

Newlyfound,

I enjoy your posts, and I agree. Read my sig article-- truly the most obnoxious people never realize they are the most obnoxious. Other people will wonder if it's them and try redressing the issue--but it will just lead to more off topic nothingness.

http://www.wired.com/culture/lifestyle/commentary/alttext/2007/06/alttext_0620

Pugilistic Discussion Syndrome

In this curious form of aphasia, the subject is unable to distinguish between a discussion and a contest. The subject approaches any online forum as a sort of playing field, and attempts to "win" the discussion by any means necessary. The rules of the imaginary contest are apparently clear to the individual as he or she will often point out when others break them, but when asked to outline these rules the individual is reluctant, perhaps not wishing to confer an "advantage" on any "opponents." The conditions for winning are similarly difficult to pin down, although in some cases the individual will declare himself the winner of a discussion that, to all others, appears to be ongoing.

It's funny, because it is similar to that primal instinct that leads to religion in the first place-- the us vs. them thinking... in group/out group. But most of this people on this forum are really smart and really cool--and funny. They have a lot to share. (And I highly recommend The Amazing Meeting, because if the trolls are there, I sure never see them. Many of them think skeptics are arrogant anyhow. Dawkins was there one year.)

But just like Dawkins has to deal with nutty creationists that dog him and try to turn him into a lying spawn of Satan so that they can be saviors in their own minds... so to does JREF have people that love to talk while saying nothing at all. I always wonder what their goal is? Rest assured, the ones you find the most obnoxious or stupid or crazy-- they are the same ones many people feel similarly about... they just never know it's them, so they don't practice or learn from other, more socially gifted, posters.

And they never change or show any humility. Their first posts show the same insincere questions or silly claims or verbose nothingness as their most recent ones. You always think there is this one thing you can say that will answer their tangential claims or clarify the issue, but there never is. They show no ability to even find common ground. They're loud, but they are a very small minority of this forum. The rest you can get along with more or less most of the time and enjoy conversations and share info. Some posters have some real strong areas of knowledge and they are eager to share with anyone who is interested. And many are poignant and funny. And some are sad old men fighting for invisible gods trying to make themselves feel important. Remember, we have an ignore option--it comes in handy.

And the trolls are excellent for practice repartee, verbal volleying and the like. They can't throw things at you through cyberspace--just fling verbal barbs--and they are never clever. I, personally, get a spring in my step when I piss off a creationist or religious apologist

--I am a former genetics counselor and a current biology teacher, and I think it is so cool that humans have decoded DNA. I think how Darwin never saw DNA and we have the proof of common descent when he could only imagine what it might be: http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=2199739#post2199739

Humans and chimps even have the same blood types, I believe. It's very cool because we, not only have the DNA proof that shows common ancestry (the same stuff they use in DNA testing and forensic testing)--we can get a pretty good estimate how far back in time any two life forms shared a common ancestor. If you are interested in genetics, then Dawkins Book, An Ancestor's Tale is excellent.

It beats all scriptures hands down, and it's true. And rather than teaching kids scary and nonsensical lies or post the 10 commandments in schools-- I think we'd have a much better future if they posted Dawkins, Good and Bad Reasons for Believing: http://www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/dawkins2.html

All this smoke and mirrors and Dawkins criticism and tangential stuff is a fight against such learning, as far as I can tell. I keep looking for the substance behind the words, and there just never is any. I live in the United states and there are some very religious wackos in very prominent positions. It has gotten unbelievably theocratic here, and I am heartened that Dawkins book is a number one best seller. The time for dialogue on this topic is long overdue. And I have no patience for this silly notion that "not ALL religions are bad". Is there any evidence that they're true? No? Great, then lets treat them the way we treat all cults, delusions, or superstitions... and use facts when deciding public policy.

The Atheist

22nd July 2007, 03:28 PM

...any person with an IQ of 5 or less would know that frightening an innocent child with a hell that doesn't exist or a satan that is not there if they don't do as you say is abuse, dishonesty, cruely, etc...

Ok, this is the basis of my problem.

I have long and consistently agreed with your statement above and my concern in this and other threads has been that only a small percentage of christians act that way. I am quite happy to burn down the churches of [metaphorically speaking] of religious sects who do that, or who deny medical treatment to kids for religious reasons. What you fail to recognise is that I am violently opposed to christians of that persuasion and actually do something about it rather than blather in a chat room.

What I refuse to do is tar all christians with that brush, because it doesn't apply to the vast majority.

...I guess that money needs to keep on flowing into those churches because their owners are not capapable of getting off their fat greedy buns, going out and getting real jobs. So whatever it takes to keep people asleep and stoned since this is the ony way their wallets can be emptied...

See, again we agree - religious people are deluded to keep the money flowing to the church. That is a theme I've shouted out loud for over thirty years. I gave a list earlier on containing a number of adjectives I'm happy to see used, even as generalisations, about religion. "Bad" and "evil" weren't among them, even though that would apply to some sects.

And why despite the fact that 95 % of the worldwide population believes in god, ...and religion, the world is yet still so crewed up with famine, wars, crimes, teen pregnancy, drug and alcohol use and the destruction it generates, rapes, evil, child prostitution, child exploitation speaking about what is good for kids, etc.??????why? this is my One "Study" to you. How do you explain it? ...what are you going to do about this "study"?

It's actually more like 75% (http://www.adherents.com/Religions_By_Adherents.html) if you add together the non-religious and Buddhists etc. who don't believe in god.

If you are able to show me how religion causes those things you mention, I will be the first to go and beat the crap out of the pope, but unfortunately, those are all human problems and I see no evidence at all that religion causes rape, child prostitution & exploitation, war, crime or drug abuse or famine.

... but from the few posts I read of you so far, you seem to be very amicable person.

Hmm, I hope that was tongue in cheek! My reputation, rightly deserved, is for being extremely rude and aggressive rather than amicable.

:bgrin:

That said, I really only reserve the vitriol for idiots.

True, though, as old as I am I've not only explored religion but I lived it. So I know.

In that case, I'm quite surprised that you'd blame religion for all of mankind's woes. It's certainly responsible for some of them, but I find them strangely absent from the list of problems you present.

Thank you. I wasn't sure, english is not the language I was born into. ...but then why call it "world"? I meant it as a word only.

That's one of those rules where it is necessary to make a typo when pointing out an error!

Are you asking her to agree with you even though what you say does not make sense to her?

No. I really don't care what Arti thinks. I've had similar discussions with her in the past where she immediately classes everyone who disagrees with her as "creationists" or "apologists" and she's still at it. I just like to counterpoint her ignorance.

What is so close-minded about asserting that religion is false and that bringing a frightful being such as satan along with hell into child's world is abuse? if it isn't, go ahead and demonstrate it please.

Again, you will find exactly zero of my posts disagreeing with any of that. Religion is false and teaching kids that they'll go to hell is child abuse. That has been my position for over thirty years.

I will note again:

It does not apply to all, or even a majority of christians.

How is terrorising a child as religion usually does going to help them develop their mental and personal faculties? They are too small to know what 'right' and 'wrong' is, let alone be exposed to such barbaric terrors. If religion is as good as it claims, it should see it, yet, it does not. how do you explain this?

See above. I have no explaining to do. You will need to explain why you're using this particular strawman of religion to show that all religion is bad, however.

hey, hey, ...calm down mate. That post was not specifically addressed to you.

You can take it for granted, that no matter how abusive I am, I am always perfectly calm. My days of getting uptight about the written word ended long ago.

Speaking about ignorance you've made some comments about art that are very unreasonable being the "knower" that you are.

Please point them out.

Speaking about reading one's posts, I am sure you read many of her posts and if you understood them, you'd know she is nothing like the derogatory comments you associated to her in your last note.

Sorry, but when I see the same presumably intelligent person posting like a fourth-grade moron, I find it difficult to take anything else that person says seriously. I will note that neither Arti nor Qayak, nor anyone else, has posted any evidence to show that religion is "bad", beyond their own stereotypified strawmen of "religion". Feel free to have a go yourself.

The way you express yourself (I don't even have to read your posts) paints you as anything but ignorant, so that leaves us with the option that you wrote what you wrote out of maliciousness. And maliciousness could stem from untruthfulness or mild temporary dishonesty.

It certainly could, but in this case it stems from complete and utter distaste. When I offer olive branches to people only to have them then go and make ridiculous and totally incorrect aspersions about people I have respect for, I always go for the "malicious as possible" approach. I don't even care what Arti thinks about me, I know what I think about her and I'd be enormously surprised if my picture is not a lot more accurate than hers. Arti makes a living [sort of] out of science. I make mine out of words.

That leads me to ask what made you decide to become an atheist? this is not a smart ass question. Maybe in the process of you explaining why you are an atheist on one hand, and why on the other you believe religion is not harmful to children will help some of us get to a breakthough of a sort.

The reason I became an atheist is because there aren't any gods. I was never religious at any stage of life - I class myself as an atheist from age 8, which is the earliest memory I have of thinking the whole business was a complete load of crap. I spent time studying various religions during my teens and twenties to ensure that I wasn't missing any parts of the puzzle. I didn't.

Again [and I'm getting fairly sick of stating it] the breakthrough will come when someone posts some meaningful data to show: that all religion is harmful to children.