Richard Dawkins, just miss understood

a reply to: borntowatch

I hope that satisfies your curiosity and answers your question - See more at: www.abovetopsecret.com...

Well, if you're going to use an apologist creationist's blogs that insult the man with things claiming things such as this statement

The moderates’ [liberals’] position seems to me to be fence-sitting. They half-believe in the Bible but how do they decide which parts to believe literally and which parts are just allegorical?7

equals "hate," when it's obviously a simple, true observation and a question, yes, that explains a lot. That you are posting based on a bunch of words in an apologist rant labelling Dawkins, rather than accurately discussing his views.

As for child abuse, see what Pinke said and quoted.

Religion is fine as a social study - but ALL religions should be accurately represented to kids as EQUAL, just like all cultures, nations, climates, and languages are EQUAL, but different. Religion is for adults. Social studies that teach diverse views are appropriate for school. Evolution is a fact. Creation is a philosophy, and nothing more.

just for the record: I am a fence-sitter. I find the universe and planet so extraordinarily amazing that I don't deny it may be some cosmic Source's recipe for getting things going....

but you did not specify which flavor of Creation you subscribe to.

Even Pat Robertson says it's stupid to believe in a Young Earth.

Pat Robertson Says 'You Have To Be Deaf, Dumb And Blind' To Believe In Young Earth Creationism
Tuesday, 5/13/2014 11:40 am
Fielding a question about the age of the Earth on today’s “700 Club,” Pat Robertson once again criticized Young Earth Creationists who believe the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old. Robertson, who earlier this year described Young Earth Creationism as “a joke,” today said, “You have to be deaf, dumb and blind to think that this Earth that we live in only has 6,000 years of existence, it just doesn’t, I’m sorry.”

- See more at: www.rightwingwatch.org...

I agree with Robertson on nothing, other than that.

Heed the answers you've received here. Lame source and a lame thread. Using words like "nasty" and "aggressive" also belies your premise.

The only "hate" I see is the smearing coming from you and your source.
"People cling even harder to their beliefs when presented with evidence that refutes them."

(Thanks to windword for posting the videos. Watching Dawkins calmly read the hate-mails, complete with expletives and emotion, cracked me up!! Yeah, bunch of loving people, those. Welcome to this Word. )

originally posted by: TinkerHaus

Again, you prove my point. You don't even know what Dawkins actually said, do you?

Let me enlighten you.

"[I]sn’t it always a form of child abuse to label children as possessors of beliefs that they are too young to have thought about? Yet the practice continues to this day, almost entirely unquestioned."

Let me paraphrase, because I realize this statement might be difficult to understand and misinterpreted, as we see by the zealots trying to discredit Dawkins without actually responding to the charge.. Dawkins is saying it's child abuse to remove a child's choice and brand them, almost like you would brand cattle, with some religious affiliation that they are too young to even comprehend.

I find it humorous you try to insult me by saying I'm too dense to research the issue when you are so obviously guilty of exactly that.

So, now that you have been spoonfed the actual statement that is being twisted and LIED about (pretty unchristian, no?) do you have anything intelligent to say?

Try to insult you by calling you dense? I copy and pasted your own words as my reply.


In remarks to Qatar-based TV network Al Jazeera, he said: ‘Horrible as sexual abuse no doubt was, the damage was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.’
Interviewer Mehdi Hasan asked: ‘You believe that being bought up as a Catholic is worse than being abused by a priest?’.
Professor Dawkins replied: ‘There are shades of being abused by a priest, and I quoted an example of a woman in America who wrote to me saying that when she was seven years old she was sexually abused by a priest in his car.
‘At the same time a friend of hers, also seven, who was of a Protestant family, died, and she was told that because her friend was Protestant she had gone to Hell and will be roasting in Hell forever.
‘She told me of those two abuses, she got over the physical abuse; it was yucky but she got over it.
‘But the mental abuse of being told about Hell, she took years to get over.’


Read more: www.dailymail.co.uk...
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Wow
Reading the replys here I must be an atheist blasphemer.

taking his holiness's (RD) name in vain.

Everybody wants to question Christianity and Christ but dare I question Mr Dawkins

This would be funny if it wasnt so creepy.

a reply to: borntowatch

I am agnostic. I don't know what's out there, but I have seen no evidence of any god or anything of the Bible being even remotely true.

My father is Catholic, my mother is LDS. I was brought up going to both services to satisfy both sides of the extended family. I recall being an 8-10 year old, listening to people bear their testimony on Sunday mornings and hearing about their interpretations of the second coming, and how those who had not accepted Christ would be tortured, mutilated, and killed in the most horrid ways.

I can tell you that the teachings of both churches left an indelible mark on my psyche. I would actually agree with Dawkins that the psychological trauma of hearing these horrible depictions of what is almost certainly a mythical event was indeed profound.

I also agree that as a child you should not be told that your friend who died will burn in hell because their parents branded them as the WRONG religion.

I don't think your argument really holds any water, and I feel that if you actually stepped back from your emotions and examined the statements Dawkins makes in full context you would have a more robust understanding of his philosophy. Good luck.

It should also be noted, and I think you've missed this, that Dawkins was relaying the experiences of another person who actually experienced both types of abuse.

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: borntowatch

Communism is a branch of atheism, just saying.

The first Christians were Communists and so were the Essene, who proceeded them.

These men (the Essene) are despisers of riches, and so very communicative as raises our admiration. Nor is there any one to be found among them who hath more than another; for it is a law among them, that those who come to them must let what they have be common to the whole order, - insomuch that among them all there is no appearance of poverty, or excess of riches, but every one's possessions are intermingled with every other's possessions; and so there is, as it were, one patrimony among all the brethren.

Nor do they either buy or sell any thing to one another; but every one of them gives what he hath to him that wanteth it, and receives from him again in lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they want of whomsoever they please.
ancienthistory.about.com...

I cant see communism in what you describe, socialism that accepts religion, definitely not communism.
Do you know the difference

www.diffen.com...

a reply to: TinkerHaus

Indeed!

I still bear the scars of the terror I experienced as a child believing that Jesus was coming, any minute now, I might be left behind for some unconfessed sin that I might have forgotten about. I was terrified to come home to an empty house and got on the phone to call my pastor's house, because I knew Jesus would take them. If there was no answer I would call a deacons home, and on and on til someone that I knew Jesus would take answered the phone. Then I just hung up!

Believing and teaching that Jesus was coming, any minute now, and, that we were living in end time, I was encouraged to NOT earn a degree or go to college to plan for my future, or to save for retirement. Why bother? Such ambitions were a direct result of a lack of faith!

I was also encouraged to NOT have children, because "Woe unto those with child or who give suck in those days"......But, I refused to have the abortion my church and family tried to force on me.

My grandparents, who were both atheists, but the most generous, loving and gregarious people I've ever met, were going to burn forever in hell. That cause me more torment than the sexual abuse I suffered at the hands of adults.

originally posted by: TinkerHaus
a reply to: borntowatch

I am agnostic. I don't know what's out there, but I have seen no evidence of any god or anything of the Bible being even remotely true.

My father is Catholic, my mother is LDS. I was brought up going to both services to satisfy both sides of the extended family. I recall being an 8-10 year old, listening to people bear their testimony on Sunday mornings and hearing about their interpretations of the second coming, and how those who had not accepted Christ would be tortured, mutilated, and killed in the most horrid ways.

I can tell you that the teachings of both churches left an indelible mark on my psyche. I would actually agree with Dawkins that the psychological trauma of hearing these horrible depictions of what is almost certainly a mythical event was indeed profound.

I also agree that as a child you should not be told that your friend who died will burn in hell because their parents branded them as the WRONG religion.

I don't think your argument really holds any water, and I feel that if you actually stepped back from your emotions and examined the statements Dawkins makes in full context you would have a more robust understanding of his philosophy. Good luck.

It should also be noted, and I think you've missed this, that Dawkins was relaying the experiences of another person who actually experienced both types of abuse.

I understand that and appreciate your view
but
teaching children religion does not constitute child abuse
Yes I agree sometimes it does but Dawkins makes a broad and unfair statement

originally posted by: borntowatch

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: borntowatch

Communism is a branch of atheism, just saying.

The first Christians were Communists and so were the Essene, who proceeded them.

These men (the Essene) are despisers of riches, and so very communicative as raises our admiration. Nor is there any one to be found among them who hath more than another; for it is a law among them, that those who come to them must let what they have be common to the whole order, - insomuch that among them all there is no appearance of poverty, or excess of riches, but every one's possessions are intermingled with every other's possessions; and so there is, as it were, one patrimony among all the brethren.

Nor do they either buy or sell any thing to one another; but every one of them gives what he hath to him that wanteth it, and receives from him again in lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they want of whomsoever they please.
ancienthistory.about.com...

I cant see communism in what you describe, socialism that accepts religion, definitely not communism.
Do you know the difference

www.diffen.com...

You cite is extremely biased! Communism doesn't have to be a political system.

Communism is where there is no money or social status, and all goods and resources are pooled for community resources.

Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a socioeconomic system structured upon common ownership of the means of production and characterised by the absence of classes, money, ....... en.wikipedia.org...

The Essene and the first Christians lived in communes. Do you know what a commune is?

I agree with him about religion.
I think Hitchens is a better speaker here are a few examples.

Just watched Hitch again and I can not believe ANY woman would be religious...like Hitch says religion has put down women since it came into being, Every Holy book puts women down and expects them to follow mens orders.
Even Buddhism will not admit he was born from a vagina because the religious texts teach that women are dirty when they menstruate it is dirty and sinful.
I hope women start waking up.

Even In Iran they are waking up with the "My stealthy freedom" by taking off their Hijab and taking pics of themselves here you can read more.

www.bbc.co.uk...

a reply to: boymonkey74

Well, Jesus came out of a vagina, one that, apparently, never saw a penis! So, what is dirty, really?????? LOL

a reply to: windword

Look at the Bible and the texts against women.

a reply to: windword

Oh she saw plenty of penis lol...pity Joe fell for her lie.

a reply to: borntowatch

You are telling a child that he will suffer eternal unimaginable agony if he/she doesn't abide by the testaments in your holy book. Let's say that I told a young boy that if he doesn't do his chores, he will be abducted at some point in the future and tortured. Stabbed with hot pokers and boiled alive. Kept alive for decades in perpetual agony. That's pretty #ed up isn't it? Yet it is infinitely less severe than what some Christian's have their children convinced of. They are bullying their children into obedience through the threat of irreversible eternal pain. It is pure exploitation. Why is it okay that adults can exploit a child's naivety and use their position of authority to dictate the child's world view?

I agree whole heartedly with Dawkins. There should be no such thing as a Christian child. There should be no such thing as a Muslim, or atheist child. They lack the faculties necessary to weigh the options themselves, which tends to persist into adulthood as a result of their childhood indoctrination.

I understand the urge for parents to project their beliefs onto their children, and that is where this issue ultimately begins. I have no doubt that the parents of these children whole heartedly believe that what they are doing is right. I don't think that they are bad people. I think that is is unfortunate that a belief system has within itself commandments condemning doubting of that same belief system. It takes a very particular belief system to even consider this question. Atheists, maybe some Catholics [under this new pope], Buddhists and Sikhs are the only people I can imagine understanding this issue. It isn't an issue of education. It's an issue of belief. Imagine that you knew, with 100% certainty, the secret to get into an eternal utopia. You are 100% convinced. Wouldn't you give your child this secret? That is the issue. This indoctrination is out of love and compassion. The people indoctrinating their children believe it so strongly themselves. They wouldn't dare risk sending their child to hell over some ethical principal. But just because it is done in love doesn't mean that it is right. That is where everyone misses the point.

There are my two cents.

Edit: I totally missed the main point of this thread. In regards to Richard's "aggression", I do think that it is over-exaggerated. People simply aren't used to Religious beliefs being examined and debated so bluntly. Richard's tone when speaking about religion is not extreme. He is passionate, and straight forward. Just like Religious people, just like Politicians, just like anyone else. It's just that nobody is accustomed to that sort of tone being used when speaking about religion, and many religious people tend to be overly defensive when their belief systems are questioned/judged. There is a sort of persecution syndrome among the religious, and they tend to feel that [because they have been in the past] they are immune to rigorous debate.

a reply to: boymonkey74

That was spectacular. Thanks for the vid.
I agree with him, too.

No.....don't buy it, at your age, that you are 'dead' unless you believe as they do.
And the bit about Totalitarianism/Tyranny especially.

Thanks again for posting that.

It depresses me to see the state of religion these days. Just for perspective, I do believe in a loving Father who gave life to this universe.

I do not, however, believe in organized religion because every, single, one of them, is a cult of mans misguided conception. Religion is a personal relationship between you and your own spiritual awareness. There's nothing wrong with voicing your opinions about life, but no man or woman has the right to teach anything he/she knows as axiomatic, irrefutable truth.

There's a reason we call it "faith". It is not discernible by the scientific method. No matter how much any of us thinks we know the truth, I grantee you will be knocked flat on your a$$ for that presumption at a later point in your life. None of us know the real truth. In fact, truth in and of itself is an illusion; it is the birth place of relativity. What is true for us today, is fiction tomorrow.

Telling children about the "good" and "evil" ideology is tantamount to abuse when their minds are not ready for such concepts. Any kind of teachings that curtail the individual critical thinking process, is child abuse. Some examples: "You're going to hell", "gays are abominations", "anyone who doesn't believe in God is of the devil", "mother knows best", "religion is the real evil", "the government protects our rights". Those types of blanket statements, leads to the abrupt halt of any critical thinking into the truth of those statements, as a child. This of course persists into adult-hood because the child has now become inculcated into acceptance without question.

Instead of telling children "this is how it is", we should ask them the questions and provide them with multiple sources of information, for them to do their own analysis.

I was brought up in a Christian family, but I did not find my Father because my family was Christian. If I didn't have unfettered access to the internet and a desire to learn, I would not have come to the conclusions which have made me who I am today. There are ages at which we become more curious and more enlightened, to implore about who we are and what we're doing here. Parents should all stay out of the way of their child's growth, instead of stunting them before they're mature enough to handle the larger scope of reality.

In closing. I have to say I despise all organized religions. All of them are detrimental to understanding the Father. This life is a personal experience, and our spirituality is no different. My hope is that one day, we can all come together under the simple understanding that none of us have all the answers, but respecting, understanding, and loving each other is the first step toward progress.

The problem I have with Richard Dawkin:s is that he has a lot of faith in that Materialism is true and ridicule things that do not follow his faith even when part of the scientist community things materialism is false and reality is holographic in nature.

Quantum entanglement have in a way already proven Materialism untrue. And some people who are spiritual have even more proof of this than people who only observe the physical and play around with the third eye.

In 50 years this video will be a testament to how small minded humanity was in 2012 ridiculing people who where still trying to quantifying the next leap of understanding everything in existence and some scientist being in the way of progress instead of creating a greater understanding.


holographic universe

I was raised Catholic, went to Sunday school, & was an Alter Boy for a while...

& I was never threatened with eternal Hellfire if I disobeyed...

My Magistrate Granddad did say he'd send me down if I committed a crime though
At the time I never realised he'd have to admit he knew me and would have to step down as Case Ruler, but then it worked for years before I found that out!!!

So the problem is quite clearly, obviously, really just Fundamentalism & not Religion!!!


Peace everybody!!!

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Fundamentalism is merely strict adherence to something. If a religion requires its adherents to apologize for, alter, dilute or cherry pick their beliefs to be considered "good" then the religion IS bad. Fundamentalism is neither good nor bad.

You and your circle not being fundamentalists proves that the religion is the issue. If the religion was fine, then fundamentalism in regards to that religion would be a non-issue.

a reply to: LeviWardrobe

Me and my people (circle) have never threatened a living or passed on Soul with the levels of Hell...
So don't be so condescending!!!

Fundamentalism is a massive problem...
In Politicis as well as Religion, & many other day to day aspects!!!

Raised Catholic I was taught forgiveness... Nothing to do with a Hellfirey afterlife but a paradise for all!!!
Because Jesus loves you all!!!


I'm no longer Catholic through personal choice, but blaming Religion is just as warped and cynical as preaching Hellish consequences & very Ironic to call it abuse when Christians, Jews & Muslims get nothing but abuse from non-believers!!!