Dawkins

Post Reply New Topic

He doesn't tell you what to believe. He merely indicates that if you believe certain things there are consequences.

Yeah I haven't seen Dawkins state anywhere that religious people need to change their views, merely that such views need to lose their 'protection' that they can claim from governments and whatever and need to face the facts, the facts being that religious views don't always bring peace or happiness.

I mean seriously, I wouldn't be surprised at Dawkins if he did start to shove atheism onto believers because a lot of them do it to each other and non-believers, which they shouldn't do, because religion should be wholely a personal thing, not something to force others (even your own children) into.

Why not? Any number of things are essentially inaccessible past a certain point in life because the brain more or less solidifies in its setup. If religion is a truth which is largely inaccessible past a certain period in time, then is it illegitimate to inculcate such values into a child? Values and worldviews, in general, are learned early in life; is it unfair to instill them then at the formative years if one believes them to be correct? Why should religion be personal? It's whole evolution is intimately connected to a shared worldview ritual etc. which contributes to social cohesion. You can't just take it out of that and expect any success.

and you can't expect by simply throwing religion would help.

Why shouldn't you force children into a set of beliefs? Well think about it, don't you think saying to a small 6 year old child, who cannot really see through lies and frauds, that he will burn for eternity if he doesn't pledge his life to god, doesn't that sound slightly like child abuse? Yeah it isn't physical but telling a child that he'll burn for eternity does wonders for his mental health, in fact i'm sure a lot of murderers who kill for 'God' were brought up with that hellish eternity view stuck into their minds.

And as to religion being personal, look what it does in public, look what grave mistakes it makes. I have a few friends who are christian, they are not associated with any church or temple and are very nice people, they believe in pacifism, no death penalty, all forms of sanctity of life. They know i'm atheist and accept that its my personal choice, again it needs to be personal. Whereas, I used to be in a school where everyone was part of the church, now some were fine with me being an atheist, but the teachers, well they hated me, a few said i'd burn in hell, not to my face, but I heard them talking about me. Other students would tell me that I was 'Evil' and 'Satan', I mean yeah telling me that now I would laugh, but when I was around 7 years old? How the hell would you take it?

If you believed in the existence of hell, and that knowing about it could help your chances of avoiding it, wouldn't it be almost child abuse not to tell it to children?

The 'child abuse' argument isn't any good. It presumes that religion is wrong in order to prove religion wrong, which is circular. It also cuts both ways -- I could easily make an argument that teaching kids atheism is child abuse. Atheists, after all, are often viewed with suspicion by society, and are, statistically speaking, less happy than theists.


That wasn't a very Christian thing to do. If they were acting in accordance with their beliefs, they wouldn't have done that.

I do remember him saying that parents raising children in theism should be considered child abuse - THAT bothered me. Other than that though he's a biologist who, like many of the current atheist hard-leaders, is well-achieved in one profession, reckons himself an amateur philosopher, and shows the later by not being able to logically sort out where evolution's ontological value stops.

As to the child abuse part I have to say, that isn't the point is it? Whether you believe in hell or not isn't the point, the fact is you are telling someone, a small child, that they will burn for eternity, if they do not believe in a god they cannot see, touch or feel, is that not mental abuse? Whereas teaching a child atheism is little more than teaching science, everyone is born atheist, you are born with the desire to learn and decide for yourself, not the desire to have it forced upon you. Its like one family making their children in their own beliefs, while another family ignore it completely, because atheism has no special code saying about hell or punishment or judgement, the closest thing atheism has is its science, because any good atheist will use science as their support. And I don't think the unhappiness arguement is valid because honestly unhappiness is life, you'll get it one time or another, just because I can't say 'well at least I have god' doesn't mean i'm always unhappy or always depressed. The suspicion arguement is equally invalid, its like telling someone who is black to bring their children up white to avoid negative stereotypes or similar situations. And in Britain where I am, atheists arn't looked upon badly, over here religion isn't as serious as it is over in the US, over here we don't really care, we have hindus, muslims, jews, sikhs, pagans, atheists, buddhists, but nobody makes a big thing, we just live life.

And to the second part yeah Ancalagon, that's what happens when people bring their children up with a strange 'moral highground' the view that they are christian therefore they are good, a lot of people twist religion to meet their own needs, religion is never set in stone, so although you may decide it is not very christian, they were kids, they knew little better, and as for the teachers, well they had it set in their minds that anything different is automatically incorrect.

No. Certainly not as it normally is done, without excessive morbidity, and paired with the concept of heaven. You seem to think that Christianity is primarily concerned with vivid, horrific pictures of hell, and passing them on to children as early as possible. That is not the case.

I could make the case that an atheistic concept of no life after death is at least as potentially damaging to a 6 year old.


People don't have a philosophy when they're born. And science is quite different from atheism.


The question of the existence or non-existence of God isn't a scientific question, so using science as a support would be a silly thing to do.


I don't think those arguments are actually good, just that they aren't worse than the idea that teaching kids religion is child abuse.


Unfortunately, this is true.


In deciding that all I did was apply ordinary Christian principles in the ordinary way.


This is unfortunately a very common problem, which applies to everyone, including atheists.

I'm going to ignore the first portion of that because us two could argue infinitely because its all down to opinion, however, if god exists or doesn't is a very scientific question, because its basically whether or not an entity is material, existant and actually there, i'm sorry but that is science, to prove that such an entity exists, if its non physical it might as well not exist because it lacks empirical evidence and will never gain that evidence because nothing physical can detect the non-physical. And if you still say that god's existence is a non scientific question, the rationality and logic play no part, which means it is entirely faith and no substance, basically god doesn't exist if he is non-scientific.

Atheism is the lack in a deity, not specifically a certain philosophy, all atheists think differently in ways, but when a child is born it has no concept of god, therefore no belief in god, therefore until they are conformed into a belief system they are atheist, simple logic behind that one, after all, you cannot be born with a concept of god because the human mind, rationally as it is, cannot automatically create that entity upon birth or conception, because it is an irrational concept. And atheism is not so different from science, both are based on rationality and logic, both lack specific deities, and above all, science supports atheism, atheism supports science, the two go hand in hand. And if you try to use science to support theism, it can only harm your foundation of beliefs because science requires empirical evidence, something god does not currently have.

Is the existence of God, gods or other supernatural beings falsifiable by empirical means? No. Does the hypothesis of God, gods or supernatural beings lead to testable hypotheses? No.

Then it is not a scientific question at all. It is a philosophical and theological position and has nothing to do with science.

ruveyn

I'm sorry but they believe something exists, if you don't verify it with science its completely meaningless, if thats what your getting at then sorry, but my point is this: If god is a material entity, it must be verified with science, because science is our physical verification. If god is non-material, then you cannot verify it with any material concept, therefore god is meaningless.

It entirely depends what your view is of the entire thing, basically a god non varified by science is a pointless and entirely fictitional entity.

Is testimony by 'religious experience' not being counted as acceptable verification then? Not saying that it's perfect by any means, but you'd only have to take a handful of cases from people who have never shown any signs of psychosis or any other neurotic illness which might cause hallucinations etc. and you'd probably have thousands of cases of people who could verify that they've seen or heard God or something.
Of course, it is all subjective, but IMO there's a huge body of evidence ignored by Mr. Dawkins simply because it's not 'scientific enough' more or less.
While I think he has a great deal to offer to people, I would agree that he lacks to sensitivity to successfully challenge the belief systems which have been more or less mandatory for the last 2000 or so years. He's probably right, there probably isn't a God in the 'guy with a beard and tunic' sense, but there's no reason to lead such an apparent assault against like I say, a belief system that's reaching it's 2,000th birthday. So no wonder some people don't like him.
That South Park with him in is pretty funny, though. 'Mrs Garrison, what are you doing?' 'How should I know?! I'm a f*ckin' monkey!'

Using the same criterion for demarcation for science and meaning is ludicrously strong. Is abstract math "meaningless" too?

That's a bit of an odd jump don't you think? Logical calculations (I.e: Maths) and Deities with no evidence some how land in the same boat? Sure not all mathematical equations are viable, but if they are possible you will find them, sadly I don't ever see that happening with the god of classical theism

No it isn't an odd jump. You proposed a criterion for meaning which excludes non scientific propositions. By almost all definitions of science and most definitions of math, that implies that mathematical propositions are meaningless.