Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson [Archive]

View Full Version : Richard Dawkins replies to Sloan Wilson

Pages : [1] 2

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?