| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ShaSha
Forum Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 5541
Local time: 7:35 PM
Location: Minnesota
|
 Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:05 am Post subject: |
  |
|
Dawkins goes overboard when he calls it child abuse to label your child with your tag. I agree with all of you that children should be allowed to choose. Mine were. I agree with AR that none of us are in any position to know what most people do with their children. So to put all theism under one umbrella especially cult, makes Dawkins or you look foolish.
His being a good scientist which I respect, doesn't make him a good philosopher or parent. I daresay most of you love what he says because it is in agreement with your own views and not because it is scientific and not because you have used it as a parent.
Being a scientist or skeptic doesn't make you immune to any of the foibles of the negative side of humanity. It is a job not a declaration of sainthood to be a scientist. Dawkins is fair game like any other human being and he is out of his expertise. Yet there are people who love Dawkins so much that they will not see anything wrong with anything Dawkins says.
He makes good controversy which sells whether it is a tv show or an article or a book.
As a former parent of small children, his broad brush IMO is one more attempt at abusing parents, not enlightening anybody. Throw out the word child abuse today and it catches like wildfire and is used in an abusive way. Many of you are using it that way in this thread.
How many of you would like to see laws passed where it is actually child abuse? What is your solution then to parents who do take their children to church with them against the law? Will you fine them or jail them or take away their children? The latter is definitely abusing children if you separate them from parents they love over a frickin reason like being in a church building.
Get over yourselves. Live life as an atheist and parent your child hopefully with wisdom. Don't jump on the bandwagon of child abuse against others even if you think it is just a forum and you are ranting.
Think. If you really believed it was abuse, you would be stepping in just like you would if you saw someone beating their child up.
Think and think freely independent of your gurus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23105
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
or, Sha Sha, how about you try to think independently of your indoctrination.
you are totally ignoring the REASONS why he said what he said. you're falling back on the "thats mean" defense... instead of addressing the logical and reasonable points as to WHY filling a young child's head with falsehoods is inherently unhealthy and uncalled for.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ShaSha
Forum Master
Joined: 21 Oct 2003
Posts: 5541
Local time: 7:35 PM
Location: Minnesota
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Moloth wrote: | or, Sha Sha, how about you try to think independently of your indoctrination.
you are totally ignoring the REASONS why he said what he said. you're falling back on the "thats mean" defense... instead of addressing the logical and reasonable points as to WHY filling a young child's head with falsehoods is inherently unhealthy and uncalled for. |
And you don't know how to read Moloth. I said I raised my kids that way, free to choose so I am hardly thinking within indoctrination. I did it without a support group and without calling other people names. I have the experience of not filling my kids' with falsehoods. I also have the experience that it doesn't make them any better than those who might have.
They are great, their "theist" friends are great. My kids have their problems, their theist friends have theirs.
It is small minded of Dawkins to think his opinion without any experience or any research should be accepted. It is mean if any of you would pass a law to have the parent punished.
You avoided my question, how do you vote on the punishment? There's another thread going here where o'reilly mentioned social services in a similar but opposite view and I don't like that either.
Big brother anybody? O'reilly and Dawkins are bed partners. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23105
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 11:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
there is a disconnect with what is legal and what is morally right.
unfortunately, it will never be possible to enact or enforce certain laws... they would trample on personal freedom. and that freedom trumps just about everything, in my opinion.
you may have the RIGHT to do something, but that doesn't mean that its the right thing to do.
personal drug use, for instance. you have every right (as far as I am concerned) to do with your body whatever you like... but does that make heroin addiction a GOOD thing? no. Should people abuse drugs? no. do they have the personal RIGHT to? yes.
Do people have the right to raise their kids how they see fit? yes (within humanitarian limits). does that make whatever they do healthy or good? no.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sal1981
Do you hear me now?
Joined: 23 Mar 2006
Posts: 2799
Local time: 1:35 AM
Location: Behind the computer
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I showed signs of apostasy at a young age, and my parents did by intimidation and force try to instill a religious upbringing. So, AR, go eff yourself, you don't know shit.
_________________
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" --- Richard P. Feynman
"Why not just make your null hypothesis be that..." - Philosophos |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AmericanIdle
Forum Plebian
Joined: 25 Apr 2006
Posts: 270
Local time: 11:35 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ShaSha wrote: |
Think and think freely independent of your gurus. |
You're absolutely right... I need to think. I've seen the light now that it's come from the keystroke of someone who embraces blind faith, the absolute certainty of an omnipotent being who created this spinning orb and an ideology that has a source about as "independent" as the earth is without the sun.
One of us has trouble with thinking and specifically with independent thinking. I'm glad I found out it was me. Thank You.
_________________
Fundamentalism: "The hallmark of the collective non-indivduated life" - C.G. Jung
"All our problems arise from man's ceaseless attempts to impose his fictions on the natural world" - Otto Rank |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4811
Local time: 11:35 AM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| actualrationalist wrote: | "The only thing you're mad about is that he doesn't pretend to be nice. If he pretended to be nice, you'd praise him for it and he'd hate himself for being a liar in his own eyes. "
well sure I do, I love science, he is an embarrassment to science with his outspoken views (which aren't agreed on by all scientists), and I think it gives scientists a bad image, so I strongly contest Dawkings format. He needs to look at Michael Shermer for some inspiration. |
Dawkins is not The Official Spokesman For Science.
| Quote: | "The only difference between religion and superstition is the spelling. Get over it. "
Apparently you think their is one only one type of religion. I suggest you start looking up religions. BTW this comment was unwarranted because it had nothing to do with what was stated, it was rather an attack or Red Herring. |
There are 1000s of conflicting religions. But that they all contain some amount of superstition is a commonality, the religious part.
| Quote: | "A child SHOULD look at his parents with growing doubt if they truck him off to church to learn about magic spells every week (or day), but few child ren yet have the CAPABILITY to wield that sort of healthy doubt. "
I don't know what church you have been too, but at my prior ones, we never practiced magical spells. |
Did you engage in intercessory prayer? Prayer is an attempt to cast a spell so god will work magic for you.
| Quote: | "Don't be a moron and deny that there are many parents who do exactly as Dawkins said they do. "
sure theres one, but you neither I possess such statistic that portrays either way, so it is irrational to look one way or the other based off ones empirical observation or the typical stereotype. |
I don't know what word to use to describe your apparent denial that there are millions of families in America that enforce their religion on their children and other family members. You're like a holocaust denier. Among only people I know, the MAJORITY try to force their religion on their children (and other family members). Hell, my wife's dad tried to do it to us just a few months ago. My dad's second wife tried it on us a couple years ago. And we're both pushing 40. But here's the thing, we're very wary adults and will not be fooled by them.
| Quote: | "How many ways can I look at this?: 2+2=4. "
mathematics is the one and only field of learning where it captures 100% truth, conjectures are the only things not proved. |
Thanks for admitting you were wrong in your original absolutist contention that nothing is true. What about these?: the Earth is spheroidal, President Kennedy was assassinated, Auschwitz-Bierkenau was used to gas people.
| Quote: | "He did not say it was IMPOSSIBLE. He said it was HARD. "
I nor you can't say either way, there is no statistic to base this off of as of this conversation. |
You misunderstand, again. It's not a matter of statitics. It's the same thing as saying that before the discovery of the telescope it was hard to believe the other lights in the sky were stars like the sun. Before a certain point in our advance of knowledge, there would be very few capable of reaching conclusions that we understand as obvious facts today. Not to say that the non-existence of god is an obvious fact, the same is true of atheism in that before the accumulation of certain knowledge the atheist hypothesis was hard to derive.
| Quote: | "Which event probably never happened...IF you are educated enough in the field to understand that...ergo no basis in your example."
I admit it (along with scholars and historians) that their is a grain of truth in most stories of the bible, some bigger than others. |
Burning bush that talked: never happened. Enslaving of Jews to build Egyptian monuments: never happened. Adam and Eve: never existed. Etc etc. Almost no events described in the Bible actually happened. I am not talking about interpretive grains of truth. In the same sense, Gone With the Wind (a plainly fictional novel) has grains of truth such as the fall of Atlanta at the end of Sherman's march. If you want to say the bible is the rough equivalent of Gone With the Wind, I can grok that.
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music
Last edited by kmisho on Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:33 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kmisho
Stochastic
Joined: 05 Dec 2005
Posts: 4811
Local time: 11:35 AM
Location: Richmond, Virginia USA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | It is small minded of Dawkins to think his opinion without any experience or any research should be accepted. |
But there IS research on the rape of children's mind by religion, and Dawkins sites in his book...which I assume you haven't read.
Child after child tried to find reasons to justify genocide in the bible. But when the gencodie story was made non-biblical (by simply changing names and places), the children almost universally said it was flat wrong.
Clearly, CLEARLY, these kids, in learning that the bible was a good book of sacred teachings, had learned that the most horrible evils can be justified as long as they are orthodox.
_________________
K Michau
Now this religion happens to prevail/Until by that one it is overthrown/Because men dare not live with men alone/But always with another fairy tale.
al-Ma'arri, Syrian Poet, died 1057
You deny the existence of 999 alleged Gods. I merely deny one more - yours.
John MacKinnon Robertson, "Godism" 1896
"Never is a long time." Robert Fripp, 1998
Poetry, Art, Music |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Strafio
Forum Leader
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 687
Local time: 1:35 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Although I agree that it's abusive to force a religion on a child (especially 'hell' threats!) but I think AR was arguing against Dawkins claim that it's abusive to label your child as a Christian or Muslim.
I'm not sure this is so abusive.
AR, have you seen the Rational Responders video with Richard Dawkins? He's not a bad or malicious guy, he just doesn't pussyfoot around. If he thinks you're wrong then he'll tell you honestly and bluntly. He also acknowledges that he might go too far sometimes with his criticism of religion, but there are good political reasons why this is necessary.
One thing he and the rational responders were saying was that any atheist arguments are seen as extreme in the current political climate. If they go too far, play 'bad cop' then it means that people will appreciate the 'good cops' (like Reggie and Shermer) and take them more seriously.
Watch the video.
Also, I'm certain that if you were to have a one to one personal debate with him then he'd be a perfect gent. He made it clear that an important distinction was to be made with 'rational theist' who might've made a mistake in their reasoning but you could have a reasoned, decent conversation with and brainwashed fundies who just barrage vile dogma. You'd certainly be one of the former! 
_________________
Let's all google bomb scientology!!!
Last edited by Strafio on Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:14 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23105
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
yes, as much as i may disagree with AR's points or arguments, i'm honestly glad that he is here and still respect him as a person.
If i saw him on the street, i'd be happy to see him, not wanting to clock him in the jaw... lol.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Strafio
Forum Leader
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 687
Local time: 1:35 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For some reason I thought AR was a 'she'... 
_________________
Let's all google bomb scientology!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23105
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
well, i'd rather default to "he" than "it".
*shrug*... i'm sure AR will correct me if i'm mis-guessing their gender...
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Strafio
Forum Leader
Joined: 23 May 2006
Posts: 687
Local time: 1:35 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 1:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah... besides, I'm probably the one who got it wrong! 
(talking of which, I find 'them' to be a good 'genderless' term.)
_________________
Let's all google bomb scientology!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zotikos
Forum Plebian
Joined: 29 Mar 2006
Posts: 215
Local time: 11:35 AM
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Mr_C wrote: | | The point is that these people are religious in the NAME of their Gods, and it is this fundamental truth that makes the religious so dangerous! Dawkins would rather eliminate God and religion in one fell swoop than try to methodically operate on religion without touching people's imaginary friends. It's easier and more affective to take an atheistic approach rather than an anti-religious approach. |
He wants to convert people to his world view, no? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Moloth
Fateless
Joined: 27 Aug 2003
Posts: 23105
Local time: 8:35 PM
Location: Warner Robins, GA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 07, 2006 3:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
no, he wants people to exposed to the truth... what they do with it is their business.
it just so happens that reality has a definite atheistic bias.
_________________
-=The Believer is Happy; the Skeptic is Wise=-
www.Moloth.com
Last edited by Moloth on Tue Feb 30, 2026 13:61 am; edited 426 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Live Video and Chat Room
Freethought Videos
FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Register
