Richard Dawkins: Children need to be ‘protected’ from religion

[cbayer]

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/richard-dawkins-children-need-to-be-protected-from-religion-1.2116281

You have to write off those people’ who put the Bible ahead of science, author says

Richard Dawkins: Children need to be ‘protected’ from religion
‘You have to write off those people’ who put the Bible ahead of science, author says

Joe Humphreys

Wed, Feb 25, 2015, 10:07
First published:
Tue, Feb 24, 2015, 22:27


Richard Dawkins, who appeared at the Burke theatre, Trinity College on Tuesday at an event organized by the Origins Project Dialog in which they discuss Randomness and Uncertainty. Photograph: Fergal Phillips

Children need to be “protected” from religious indoctrination in schools, biologist and atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins has said, backing a campaign by Atheist Ireland to overhaul our education system.

Speaking to The Irish Times in advance of a public talk at Trinity College Dublin on Tuesday evening, Prof Dawkins said: “There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents…

“Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.”

Prof Dawkins was in Dublin on the second-leg of a pair of talks organised by Arizona State University’s Origins Project, which is aimed at promoting public understanding of science.

more at link, including video

[pipoman]

1. People need to be protected from idealogs who wish to take

Away parental rights for the greater good....dangerous slope regardless ones ideology...

[trotsky]

3. What do you think about parents telling their children...

they will be tortured for eternity if they are homosexual?

[pipoman]

8. They will get what they deserve....estrangement from their kids...

The rights of the extreme protect everyone else from infringement. People teach their kids all sorts of wacky shit..not cause to "protect their kids" from them..

[trotsky]

9. That is hardly guaranteed.

And why should a child suffer, some to the point of committing suicide?

[pipoman]

90. Children suffer all the time...

Poverty, hunger, dangerous neighborhoods, the list is long...we should seek answers, we must be very careful the line we draw because it will move...

[trotsky]

93. Yes, which is why we do things to help.

I think parents telling their children that being gay is wrong, is a form of child abuse. YMMV I suppose.

[pipoman]

110. We are all entitled to our opinions

But they shouldn't be legislated imo...

[Goblinmonger]

115. So the Mormon cults where they marry young kids? Is that OK?

I mean, are you arguing for no lines?

And when you say the above isn't OK, then please tell me why you draw the line at a religion that tells a gay child that they are an abomination, are going to hell, and that god hates them for what they are doing. That leaves a pretty significant mark on the kid, don't you think?

[pipoman]

175. Every state has standards for what constitutes "abuse" few disagree with . ..

People have great latitude in how they raise their kids, as it should be...if we start legislating abusive ideology it is just a matter of time before your ideology is affected...

[Lordquinton]

154. Personally I draw the line at child abuse

I wonder why you're not fighting against ideologues who promote it, calling it "normal" as long as you don't hit their face.

[pipoman]

174. Some would say raising a child a vegetarian is abuse,

Or an atheist, or a hunter,...usually ideology isn't "abuse", "abuse" is an easily moved line...."abuse" has a pretty unambiguous legal definition in most states that nobody or nearly nobody would disagree with...

[trotsky]

182. Enjoy the view from your ivory tower.

Meanwhile, gay and transgendered kids are dying because their religious parents shame them and won't accept them.

Many of us think we should do something about that. Your response appears to be "Meh, there's always abuse." Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[cbayer]

4. I agree that this is a very slippery slope.

While I think he is talking about particular anti-science religious teachings, some of his statements are concerning.

What would he do, take children out of their homes and put them in camps where they could be indoctrinated in the right way? Press charges against parents who raise their children religious?

[skepticscott]

6. Why don't you try asking him? Try actually finding something out

Rather than implying that he would put children of religious parents in concentration camps.

[longship]

7. Well, my friend, that's a bit of a straw man.

One of Dawkins' positions is that children are inherently non-believers. What springs from that assumption is that religious belief is learned, not inherent.

But one can both study this hypothesis, and advocate it without simultaneously advocating taking children out of their homes and putting them in camps.

Dawkins is many things, but he, above all, understands the power of the meme (after all, he was the originator of the term). Dennett expands on this. His solution is simple and elegant. Religion is so important in world culture that understanding how it works may be a very important thing. So understanding how it propagates, especially to new generations, is a concept that is on the table for discussion.

But mere discussion of a topic does not necessarily mean advocacy for a specific solution, or even any solution. And although I have heard and read Dawkins express this opinion on many occasions, I have never heard him express any opinion on a solution, except maybe secular schooling (with which I heartily agree).

Sorry, my friend.


Still Fscking cold here. Brrr. Hope you are well.

[cbayer]

10. Dawkins' position about children's inherent lack of belief really has no basis in fact.

If he wants to pursue actual research to give some backbone to his hypothesis, that would be great. In the meantime, he is making statements that are pretty outrageous, such as:

There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents.

Seriously? I wonder how he would like it if that were applied to what he taught his daughter? Was she brainwashed (indoctrinated) by some of his fairly radical ideas?

I am fully in favor of assuring that curriculum is consistent with accepted scientific fact and that religion should not every override that when it comes to public education.

Beautiful here. Wish I could send you some of it.

[longship]

17. Re: balancing the rights of parents.

AFAIK, Dawkins sole position on this is the need for secular education. Again, to state otherwise is likely invalid. And his concern for balancing the rights of parents would certainly be a discussion that should be made. I see nothing wrong with that. The fact is that some parents do some pretty horrible things to their children in the name of religion. And I don't mean mere home schooling.

Dawkins has said some things which are unhelpful to his cause. But I see nothing wrong the statement you cited. He is right. This is a discussion we should have, whether one agrees with his conclusion about where the balance has swung or not.

Send some warm my way. Mild winter, snow wise; but February, colder than hell (so to speak).

Best regards.

[cbayer]

21. When you say "secular education", do you then exclude all parochial schools?

One of my kids went to catholic school. There was nothing objectionable at all about either the science or the religious teaching. I think it is the curriculum, not the affiliation, that is important.

I agree that some parents do some pretty horrible things in the name of religion and some do some pretty horrible things for completely non-religious reasons. If children are being abused, there are mechanisms in place to address that. If parents rights need to be restricted, their are agencies that do just that.

He had an opportunity here to do something positive and he blew it.

[longship]

45. I would argue that the Jesuits do a very fine job at secular education.

Also, Dawkins went to Anglican schools and got a secular education.

But I would argue that there's a reason why the GOP is trying to undermine public education. Their religious right core has put that high on their agenda. In Texas and Louisiana, charter schools are wholly fundamentalist Protestant, where science pretty much means creationism. I imagine that is the GOP's shell game pretty much everywhere in the USA where charter schools spring up. I am a very strong opponent of such shenanigans, as I know you are as well.

BTW, I agree with Dawkins on this, at least to the extent that a discussion on this issue is entirely appropriate. This is especially true because religious right support for their rubbish is nearly universally framed as religious choice, parental rights, or -- horrors -- religious persecution. All are equally rubbish. Parents do not have the right to abuse their kids. Certainly I would not forbid taking kids to church (or not). But I would argue that things like Jesus Camp or gay therapy go too damned far.

There is a line. A discussion is appropriate, whether or not the issue is resolvable. It may not be under the US Constitution. That may be one of the things we have to live with.

[cbayer]

55. I agree with much of what you say.

I just wanted to make sure that by "secular" you didn't mean the elimination of parochial education.

As I said, it's about the curriculum and not really about who is teaching it. Dawkins had the opportunity to make that case and be a strong proponent for science education. Instead he used language that scares the bejesus out of parents.

I agree that a discussion is appropriate. Like NDT, I think it should be approached in a way that does not threaten the basic benign underlying beliefs of those you are trying to educate and persuade.

Dawkins sledge hammer approach defeats the purpose.

[muriel_volestrangler]

79. When you say "parochial education", are you talking about state-funded education

that parishes get to have some control over - ie the topic of discussion in the video?

Are parents scared by the thought of churches not getting public money? Is that scary language?

[cbayer]

83. I think we use different terminology in the states.

We basically divide between public and private schools (I'm going to leave out charter for the sake of clarity).

Public schools are publicly funded. Private schools are not.

Some private schools do not have any religious affiliations. Others do, and they are generally referred to as parochial.

The catholic parochial schools are generally associated with an order, though they may be parish based.

These schools do not receive public funds.

The situation is much different in Ireland, of course. I would support a system similar to the US.

What scares parents is the statement that the balance between their rights and the rights of children has swung too much towards parents and that children should be protected from religious education. That can be perceived in a very threatening manner.

He missed an opportunity here.

[trotsky]

85. "Public schools are publicly funded. Private schools are not."

False.

Please tell me you've at least heard of vouchers. Sweet Koresh.

http://www.politico.com/story/2014/03/education-creationism-104934.html

Taxpayers in 14 states will bankroll nearly $1 billion this year in tuition for private schools, including hundreds of religious schools that teach Earth is less than 10,000 years old, Adam and Eve strolled the garden with dinosaurs, and much of modern biology, geology and cosmology is a web of lies.

Learn the facts, cbayer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

87. I've only seen the edited video in the OP

so I wonder how 'scary' what he said actually was. I wonder if any Irish parents have seen an unedited version, and if they find it 'scary'.

[cbayer]

92. I can't disagree, but I think he missed a great opportunity

to make the case for teaching science and for the state not funding religion.

These are the quotes that I would propose could be very scary to some parents and are very poorly thought through.

There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents…

Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.

Perhaps they are different when seen fully in context, but that's hard to imagine.

I must tell you, though, that I am unable to watch the video and am only going on what the print press is reporting.

[muriel_volestrangler]

96. The transcript of that bit is in #20

The end of the interviewer's question is cut off in the edit; the view changes from him to Dawkins, and it's one hand-held camera doing this interview in a corridor, so we know there's some kind of edit before the quoted bit from Dawkins. But it is presented as an answer to the 'right to denominational schools', which is, in Ireland:

In the Republic of Ireland, the vast majority of the country's primary schools are owned or managed (or both) by religious organisations.[1] In 2007, and of the national total of 3,279 schools, 3039 (92.7%) were controlled by the Catholic Church, 183 (5.6%) were controlled by the Church of Ireland, 0.7% were controlled by other religious organisations while 1% were controlled by organisations which were not affiliated with any particular religion.[2] This system of religious control was instituted according to the Stanley Letter of 1831. Amongst the country's secondary schools, voluntary secondary schools, comprehensive schools and community schools, the majority are again generally controlled by religious organisations.[3]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_education_in_the_Republic_of_Ireland

[cbayer]

97. What is being proposed that would eliminate a parent's right

to a denominational school? Certainly parents should have that right, as they do in the US.

But from what you have posted here, it appears that what they don't have is the option of a non-denominational school, as they are quite rare.

It's going to be very hard to make a transition to a system where the state does not sponsor religiously based education.

OTOH, it might be easier to address issues around curriculum. There are many schools in the US that are "denominational" who do a fantastic job with both science and religion.

This is where he could have taken a very positive tone and endorsed increased emphasis on good scientific education.

[muriel_volestrangler]

98. The state doesn't provide denominational schools in the USA, though

At the moment, the denominations are meant to be 'divesting' some of their schools, to take into account demand among parents in areas for the option of non-denominational education: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/education/non-religious-patrons-to-run-four-new-primary-schools-1.2102032

But it sounds like the Catholic school has been dragging its feet. And there may be some parents demanding the church hold on to the schools.

[cbayer]

101. That's good news, right?

If there is a public demand for non-denominational schools, then the church will have no option but to close some of theirs.

But I think the real money is on control of the curriculum. If the state is paying for the education, then it seems they would have the right to standardize curriculum, particularly when it comes to science.

[AlbertCat]

161. Dawkins' position about children's inherent lack of belief really has no basis in fact.

I dunno....seems obvious to me.

They may have an inherited urge to be "spiritual" or something, but it's pretty obvious that children are not born with any religion, like Christianity or Judaism. And without threats of torture and banishment, beliefs in god might disappear as they grow up just like any belief in an imaginary friend or security blanket.

And there may be studies.... I don't know. Do you?

[cbayer]

181. Well, since i assume you are someone who relies on facts and reason

and data, seeming obvious to you just isn't' going to cut it.

You may be right, but it's currently just an untested hypothesis.

The issue at hand is not whether children are born with a specific religion, it's about whether they have an inherent lack of belief or not. People go from no religion to religion and from religion to no religion. While I agree that nurture plays a role, I'm not convinced that nature is not also relevant.

If you are so sure, then I would ask you to provide studies. I am not sure at all and have never seen anything either way and Dawkins has certainly never provided anything to back up his assertions.

[trotsky]

183. No, cbayer, the issue really *is* whether children are born with a specific religion.

Or more precisely, whether it is fair or reasonable to label them "X" religion before they are old enough to think for themselves.

But I understand you would rather paint Richard Dawkins as an evil monster who wants to take away the children of religious parents and indoctrinate them in atheist camps.

[saltpoint]

213. In agreement here. Kids will eventually

Last edited Thu Feb 26, 2015, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)

grow into grown-up kids and that's when they first hear the wolf's howl.

They may replicate their parents' belief system or they may bolt away into the woods, trying to get to the howl's source.

More than fair to say that the issue is in fact whether children are born with a specific religion.

The stronger argument is Dawkins' position as regards indoctrination; the weak argument is the OP's, insofar as it's an argument at all. It's clear why it was posted. Far less clear that it means anything to take a swipe at Dawkins.

[saltpoint]

214. Ooooo. You said 'brainwashed' !!

Love how you slip them buzzwords in there.

You seem quite freaked out by this Dawkins fellow. He's pretty smart. Must be some other reason why you're so sour on the man.

[cbayer]

215. Freaked out? Hardly.

He's very smart but he's' an anti-theist, and I'm not really fond of that position.

I'm an advocate for improving scientific education, an opponent of biblical literalism and particularly object to religious ideas that are embraced when they fly in the face of scientific evidence. However, statements like this cause more harm than good, imo.

Indoctrinated is just a codeword of brainwashed. It's what he means.

How do you feel about him?

[saltpoint]

216. Yeah, but you know, what you're fond of

Last edited Thu Feb 26, 2015, 09:04 PM - Edit history (1)

is not the point, is it.

I get the celebrity thing from Dawkins on the web but scholars like him and feel he's done good work. They don't mind that he's on the tube. I guess I don't either. I like him a lot. And I think he's right on this and that you're wrong.

And not least, he's got the high ground on philosophical inquiry. Your OP was kind of a cheap shot.

[cbayer]

217. You asked me why I didn't like him, and I gave you my reasons.

He's done great work as an evolutionary biologist and I have never criticized him for that. In terms of his "work" on religion, what scholars are you referring to.

Ah, you are fond of him? That's nice. We disagree.

[saltpoint]

218. He's gotten under your skin, looks like.

Why else would you be screaming in the streets about him?

Yeah, you know, I'm going to stick with 'freak out.'

[cbayer]

219. Under my skin? Screaming in the streets?

You are hilarious. Perhaps I have gotten under your skin?

What do you like about him, btw?

[saltpoint]

221. Just can't help but notice how

much Dawkins annoys you.

It's like you're holed up in a building and you think you see him out in the lawn no matter which window you pass...

Dear god, there's Richard Dawkins! There he is! I must go on DU immediately and denounce him!

He's selling lots of books and winning many converts here, there, and everyplace. Very likely a lot of younger folks are reading his stuff.

Can't say I blame 'em.

[cbayer]

222. He doesn't annoy me. I disagree with him on multiple issues

and I take him to task on those things. Your fantasies have really gotten the best of you here. I hope you are able to use that active imagination for something pleasurable and not just conspiracy theories.

I posted this article about Dawkins. I post several articles in religion pretty much every day. Over the past 30 days, I have posted exactly 3 articles about Dawkins. That's hardly an obsession.

He sells books and is making a good living out of promoting his anti-theism, but you still haven't told me what you like about him. He just loves the twitter. Do you follow his tweets?

[saltpoint]

223. Three articles on Dawkins in a month?

Wow.

He's in the bushes, the back yard, and the nearby park bench. Dear Christ, he's on the roof!

Looks like his books are selling, too.

You haven't written anything on any of Dawkins' positions to refute his claims. In fact, his stuff is looking pretty persuasive.

You've got a big Dawklins obsession, no doubt about it.

[cbayer]

224. Yes, out of over 60.

I would suggest, dear salt point, that it is perhaps you that are obsessed.

Now you take your pop psychology and have you a really nice evening, bless your heart.

And if you ever get around to telling me why you like him, I will be all ears!!

[saltpoint]

225. Didn't think you could handle it.

You like going front and center against a respected scientist but you have no cards in the deck. He's made points people are following now. People are listening to him. You seem to present unusually petty points against his reputation.

Rather small of you.

And then, when you're confronted, you duck out the back door.

Your claim in your OP was pretty much shredded up. Like, pretty much a whole lot.

[cbayer]

226. Yes, I am fully defeated, have only petty points, am very small and

prone to ducking out the back door. And now I'be been shredded up!! The horror.



Ad homs are the white flags of internet discussion, and I accept yours.

I made no claim in the OP, BTW. I merely c & p'ed an article.

Now go collect your brownie points. I sure hope I'll be seeing more of you around these parts.

Please have the last word and make sure to pepper with insults, otherwise it would just be so bland.

[saltpoint]

228. Don't turn tail, now. You posted the

damn post. And you didn't persuade very many people that it made any sense.

Again, Dawkins has found an audience. He's a respected scientist. While he has his detractors, his success is solid and his books are being read. Very likely a lot of young people are reading them. In the future, those young people may not be nearly so inclined to join a church as they might have been without the benefit of Dawkins' work.

Very sorry you're upset, but you threw the punch. People who disagree punched back.

And it's clear you can't take the disagreements.

I would suggest that you write to Prof. Dawkins and apologize for being so petty and one-sided. Who knows -- he may even write you back!

[randys1]

227. How dare Dawkins come out against thousands of years of dogma and brainwashed minds.

Maybe our religious friends need to watch another movie, this time "Dogma"

[saltpoint]

229. Yep. the sheer outrage of an intelligent

man questioning long years of nonsense.

[randys1]

230. You can see it with who you are arguing with, they are uncomfortable, uncertain.

Not sure what to say or do as it challenges that dogma.


I once was a believer, I get it.

I dont like passing judgment on believers but eventually I insist that they must outgrow this as the harm it causes is just too much

Although I also believe that you could have a group of people with no dogma, who pray and that this could be a good thing

I believe the science says that prayer helps, not because there is a god of course, but positive thinking etc

[saltpoint]

232. And that makes sense in the way a humane

person makes sense in a difficult situation.

And which Dawkins has stated he understands.

There's no question that Dawkins is freaking out a lot of people, but so far I've heard none of those people refute him.

They scream and holler a lot, but they don't allow themselves to be confronted.

I agree with you, they are "uncomfortable, uncertain."

[cbayer]

233. Yes, yes. I am very uncomfortable, very uncertain.

Can you help me?

I'm not a believer randy, and if you knew even a little about me you would know that.

Passing judgement is exactly what you are doing, and basing it on your own faith based beliefs about who people are and who they are not.

[saltpoint]

234. You're the one passing judgment.

You should own up to that. Your original post, your judgment.

That was the intent of the post. You are not "uncomfortable" or "uncertain." You seek to undermine Dawkins -- three times in a month no less -- and yet you have failed to do that. A young person reading Dawkins reads as a pilgrim. To explore and learn.

There is nothing in your post anything close to that at all.

And now you lay into randys1? What bullshit. I think randys1's posts here are excellent and fair-minded.

Unlike yours.

[cbayer]

231. Dogma is another of my favorite films.

We certainly do like a lot of the same movies!

[phil89]

60. They are born non believers

Unless you think infants believe in deities.

[cbayer]

62. Do you have any evidence at all to support your statement.

Data, it's not just for breakfast.

[gcomeau]

100. Besides the entirety of human history

...that establishes that human beings do not have genetically encoded heritable knowledge?

In addition to having no knowledge of your deity of choice, other things babies are born without any knowledge of include:

*Calculus
*The content of the US Constitution
*Their parents names
*The rules of major league baseball
*How to spell "cat"

...and, well, it's a very long list that can be summed up as BASICALLY EVERYTHING. Are you seriously disputing that?

[cbayer]

104. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There are indeed heritable adaptive behaviors.

While I am not going to make the argument that humans are born with a belief in deities, I don't think the argument can be successfully made that they aren't, at least not at this time.

Dawkins' assumption is a hypothesis and may very well be true, but he has no evidence.

The other things you list are clearly the result of learning and not adaptation through natural selection.

Do you think people are born homosexual, heterosexual or other variants?

This is likely the only response I will offer to you here.

[gcomeau]

107. But evidence of absence is evidence of absence.

And in this case it is not absence of evidence but rather evidence of absence we are talking about. We have EVIDENCE OF the absence of knowledge at birth of the ability to spell cat. Because every human in history who had ever been able to spell cat has had to be taught that.

Similarly we have EVIDENCE OF the absence of knowledge at birth of an understanding of calculus.

We have EVIDENCE OF the absence of knowledge of pretty much everything at birth


So no, babies don't believe in God. They have no knowledge of the concept TO believe in it. They have to be taught what God is and then have the concept of belief in it introduced to them first.


(And behaviors are not knowledge to answer your last question)

[F4lconF16]

113. Not posting any more than this

Because I have to leave for my lunch break, but comparing innate sexuality to belief in a deity is utterly ridiculous. Might as well compare being born with white or black skin to a deity--that's literally the same sort of logic you just used.

[cbayer]

121. I disagree very much with you and do not think it is utterly ridiculous at all.

I think there are similarities and one of the strongest indicators is that I don't think people choose whether to believe or not. I think it may very well be an innate part of who they are. My logic is fine, thanks.

Enjoy your lunch.

[F4lconF16]

143. Well, we disagree then.

I for one don't think that religious belief is as innate as sexuality, and consider it actually a rather preposterous idea. Religions change, people change affiliations, people change religion itself, etc. You've provided all of zero evidence to back up your assertion. If you have some, I would be delighted to see it.

If you meant that we have a tendency to engage in the creation of myths and deities in order to explain what we don't know, then I might agree with you after a discussion. But religious belief, or belief in a deity at all, is most certainly not inherent, and to compare it to sexuality is a huge leap if you don't back up your assertion.

Apologies for my brisk tone. It was unnecessary, though I disagree. I had an excellent lunch--got to stop by and join the Black Lives Matter protest that was going on. Police were everywhere and the protest had a ton of people, so it's a good sign that we're making them nervous. I like it. Hope you have a good day.

[cbayer]

144. Yes, you have made it clear that you think it's preposterous.

Just remember that many people beleived that innate sexuality was equally preposterous not that long ago.

The lovely thing about hypotheses for which there is not yet supporting evidence is that you could be right and you could be wrong.

I've made no assertion at all, only proposed a hypothesis that religiosity and belief may be innate characteristics.

The assertions have been made that those that say it's preposterous and "most certainly not" and a "huge leap", despite any evidence to support their contentions. If you have some, I would be delighted to see it.

I am glad you had a good lunch and kudos to you for participating in some activism.

[AtheistCrusader]

146. There is a predisposition to faith in general, but you are correct.

There is NO predisposition to a particular faith identity.
http://phys.org/news/2011-05-humans-predisposed-gods-afterlife.html

[F4lconF16]

149. Thanks for the link. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

145. You are confusing predisposition to faith, and innate knowledge of organized faith.

People are apparently wired, somewhere around 70% or so, to be predisposed to adopting/seeking faith. We are predisposed to it as a species. It's not absolute, but it's a large majority.

But we are NOT predisposed to an innate faith of any kind. No one is born knowing about and knowing the difference between the Abrahamic god, and a hindu deity.

http://phys.org/news/2011-05-humans-predisposed-gods-afterlife.html

Dawkins point is valid, because he's specifically addressing state indoctrination to a specific faith. These are state schools, and they are not teaching all faiths equally.

I know this must really grate on your nerves, but Dawkins is perfectly correct in this instance.

[saltpoint]

171. Yes. This thread would have gotten off

to a much better start if you had done the original posting.

There's kind of a sour whiff about cbayer's comments. Dawkins is a pretty smart guy and he's got the inside track on this point, as you indicate.

[trotsky]

180. "kind of a sour whiff" - saltpoint, you have a way with understatement. :)

Dawkins is public enemy #1 in this group for some people. As bad as religious fundamentalists like ISIS. Far worse than someone like the pope, who leads a church of a billion people and continues to actively speak out against marriage equality, self-identification of gender, and reproductive rights. Actually, the pope is an awesome liberal who is fighting for change, or so the story goes.

[saltpoint]

212. Hi, trotsky. Yep. Dawkins has only to walk

onto a stage and begin speaking, and no matter what point he's making -- and he makes many very good ones all the time -- there's a group that just can't deal with him.

Which is why he deserves to be heard.

It would be good if young people all over the place paid him some mind instead of listening to the establishment Church folks who try to bat him down.

[skepticscott]

185. Behavior and knowledge are not the same

Why are you dishonestly pretending that they are?

And can you prove that "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"? Or are you just parroting something you heard because it suits your agenda at the moment? Is your argument going to be "Hey, a Famous Skeptic said that, so you can't possibly disagree!"?

[AlbertCat]

162. BASICALLY EVERYTHING

Well, the "Blank Slate" theory of newborns is pretty much defunct.

I mean one has to at least be born with the ability TO learn something otherwise one would remain a blank slate.

Man, being like any other animal, is born with instincts (like making a language) and inclinations. Inclinations may include a feeling of "spirituality"...or maybe not. What has to happen is the environment either supports it or not.

So most likely children must be told what their "spiritual" urges are supposed to be....and voila! they take on the religion of their environment. This seems the case as something like 95% of religious people are the same religion as their parents.

So you are indeed most likely correct about children must learn their religious inclinations....but not the inclination toward some religion or spirituality....which is then supplied by their environment.

And like an imaginary friend or a security blanket, they SHOULD outgrow such nonsense...if it were not hammered into them 24/7 with threats and fear.

[gcomeau]

163. Please reacquaint yourself with the word "knowledge".

To get you started...

Knowledge =/= Instincts

Knowledge =/= Potential.

Knowledge =/= Inclinations.

[AlbertCat]

165. I know what knowledge means..... Mr Snarky

I was just clarifying the inevitable mix up that was about to happen.... and DID happen.

[longship]

65. Yup. That's basically my opinion, too. But Santa is a different story... ;-) nt

[randys1]

126. Religious belief is of course learned...Some of these folks need to see movie

"The Invention Of Lying"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1058017/

Actually one of the most important movies of ALL time in that it presents a thought that most simply have never had that all should have.

[longship]

131. I have Netflicks.

Thanks.

[cbayer]

136. Are you a believer or not?

Could you choose to be the other?

If it is solely learned, then why do some raised with belief no believe and some raised without belief end up believing.

Loved the movie, but don't see how it pertains to anything that is being discussed here, unless you are calling those with differing views liars.

[randys1]

137. are you a moderator of this forum? or whatever you call them here?

[cbayer]

138. No. Why do you ask?

[Warren Stupidity]

152. Just so you know, this person is the self appointed leader of the self selected

Defenders of the Faith here. She has no authority at all. Also, while defending all things faithy, and scolding all who write posts here that cross some fuzzy line of appropriateness with respect to faith, she professes to not be a believer herself, she claims to be agnostic, or something.

[AtheistCrusader]

147. I could choose to believe if certain pieces of evidence became available to me.

Yes. In fact, I've enumerated many specific tests that could potentially be satisfied if a god actually exists and wishes me to perceive it.

And then I would still be free to choose to ally myself with that faith, or tell that god to fuck off forever for what he/she/it has done.

[skepticscott]

159. Um, because some people manage to learn things

from someone other than the people who raised them.

Duh. Did you really not even consider that? Hard to believe.

[AlbertCat]

164. why do some raised with belief no believe and some raised without belief end up believing.

Because of their life experiences.

There may be a genetic inclination toward some kind of "spirituality"...which is then supported or unsupported by the environment in which the subject lives.

And parents have no more....and even LESS influence on children than their peers. This is obvious when looking at children born to immigrants. The children speak (something you start learning VERY young....accents are established as they go "goo goo"...even before they speak properly) in the accent of their peers, not their parents.

Of course this "spiritual" inclination has varying weight in different people.

It's really not much of a mystery, your question.

[cbayer]

184. You are again making assumptions with no basis in fact.

Ask yourself if you could choose to believe.

It is the spiritual inclination, as you call it, that I am addressing. Dawkins takes a definitive stance regarding children being an empty set when it comes to belief, and I propose that he may be wrong and really needs some evidence if he is going to take that position.

Until we have data, it is a mystery and all we have are hypotheses, no matter how badly he would like it to be otherwise.

BTW, in terms of peers, I was raised in the church and my peers were all involved in religion to some degree. However, I have no religious belief and couldn't choose to have them even if I wanted.

[AlbertCat]

190. You are again making assumptions with no basis in fact.

Sorry... it must be beyond you.


"have no religious belief " So you do not believe in God. Alrighty then.

&spfreload=10

[cbayer]

191. I don't understand how my pointing out that you are making non-fact

based assumptions has anything to do with something being beyond me. As I already pointed out, I repeated that phrase after you used it in order to make a point. You said it.

And if the moonwalk video is supposed to be some kind of accusation that I am dishonest, it's a major fail. I am not a believer in god and have never said I was. I have no religious belief. If you think differently, then maybe it is you that thinks you have some other way of knowing.

You know, I think you are probably a nice person and that we would probably like each other in real life. We share some interests and sympathies. But I would ask you to consider whether you have fallen for a caricature that isn't really me.

[saltpoint]

236. Nasty little zinger there at the end.

Typical of your posts, though.

And the question can be explored without your insistence of others telling you whether they're believers or not.

Nasty little zinger. Real nasty.

[Warren Stupidity]

139. a propensity to belief may be a heritable trait, a specific belief is learned.

I think the confusion, perhaps deliberate, of the two is causing some mis-communication here.

[AtheistCrusader]

148. Bingo (NT)

[PassingFair]

118. Yes, I heard him say exactly that!

Oh wait, he said this: "Children need to be “protected” from religious indoctrination in schools"

[randys1]

127. Oh crap, this again? We are talking about something he didnt even say? Naturally

[cbayer]

140. You could take the word of others or just decide for yourself.

Here is the quote:

"Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in."

[skepticscott]

160. Which is quite different

than the dishonest title and comments in your OP.

[AtheistCrusader]

172. Doubling down on the lie in the OP.

Why don't you post it in full context, including the question the interviewer asked, and the follow-up answer Krauss gave?

Because it'll blow that little lie to smithereens.

[pipoman]

178. That's usually something the one making the accusation does....

"Why don't you post it in full context, including the question the interviewer asked, and the follow-up answer Krauss gave?"

[AtheistCrusader]

188. I have in post 20, and other places in this thread.

And lo and behold, every single time I do, each poster in question blithely ignores it.

Because it doesn't fit the narrative.

[AlbertCat]

156. parental rights

Parents don't have the "right" to abuse their children.

Some parents are the worst thing that can happen to a child.

[pipoman]

176. Where does nosy idealog neighbor let off and a criminal act begin when speaking of "abuse"?

Exactly the slope I'm speaking of...changing the definition of "abuse" to suit ones personal ideology will bite you in the ass when someone you disagree with gets to decide your ideology is abusive.. .no, the line should be extremely slow to move..

[skepticscott]

2. Why do people have to lie about what Dawkins says?

He never said "Children need to be protected from religion". Why falsely imply that this is a direct quote from him? Why not just quote what he actually said, fully and in context, rather than just cobbling together bits of it to fit your agenda?

Gee..I wonder.

[trotsky]

31. It's also fun to watch those who whitewash and make excuses...

for the bigoted vomit that spews from the mouth of the pope, who leads a billion Catholics, turn around and try to judge and condemn Richard Dawkins for speaking only for himself.

Too funny.

[hrmjustin]

5. Parents should have the right to raise their children in their faith.

[cbayer]

11. Unless there is evidence of actual harm, I agree completely.

And he doesn't have any such evidence.

[hrmjustin]

12. Dawkins is in love with the sound of his voice.

[cbayer]

13. What bothers me the most is that he has a huge missed opportunity here.

Instead of making the case for good science education and a move towards secularizing schools, he chooses words that are guaranteed to scare the shit out of parents who are raising their kids religiously.

In doing so, he alienates them and loses their support completely.

For such a smart man, he says some really stupid things.

[hrmjustin]

14. Some of his friends should explain tactics to him.

[cbayer]

15. I suspect, but do not know for sure, that he doesn't take advice well.

[hrmjustin]

16. Unfortunately he has an inflated view of himself.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. OR, perhaps you are susceptible to media manipulation.

You might want to consider that as a possibility.

[hrmjustin]

38. I guess I am just too stupid to comprehend it.

[AtheistCrusader]

44. Your words, not mine.

[hrmjustin]

46. You words were clear enough.

[AtheistCrusader]

50. Honestly, I think you are blinded by your dislike of/outrage with Dawkins, and it doesn't

matter what he says, or what context he says it in, you'll find fault with it. That's what I think.

[hrmjustin]

53. Some can say the same about you and several other podters in this room when it comes to religion.

[AtheistCrusader]

173. Except I'm honest enought to go verify the context and wording of the article

whether it be about Dawkins or the pope.

Dawkins is talking about public schools that teach religion in Ireland.

[AtheistCrusader]

23. No, bullshit. He and Krauss together answered that question perfectly.

YOU are letting the author of that article get away with quote mining it down into something other than a very specific comment about state educational curriculum and what does not belong in it, because it is religious in nature.

He didn't choose words that are guaranteed to scare parents. He's a victim of quote mining, and here you are, helping heap coals upon him for it.

Fuck that.

[Buzz Clik]

34. +1

Smart guy, but holy crapoli. After a while, he's fingernails on the blackboard.

[hrmjustin]

39. Yeah he has the bility to turn people off.

[AlbertCat]

166. Dawkins is in love with the sound of his voice.

How so?

And what does that have to do with his concern for child abuse?

[Fumesucker]

18. Exactly, if you want to tell your kids they will burn in hell for eternity if they are gay..

Then that is your right, no harm done in any way.

[hrmjustin]

19. Unfortunately people spread the evil of homophobia.

[Fumesucker]

24. I know, there's anti homosexual passages even in the atheist scriptures..

But most of us try to ignore or gloss over those parts.

[hrmjustin]

26. Well I don't pay attention to them in my scripture.

[cbayer]

28. There may not be passages of scripture but there are homophobes

and misogyists in the community.

Do you just ignore and gloss over them too?

[Fumesucker]

30. I did say most of us rather than all..

Fortunately the atheist scriptures don't have the imprimatur of the Creator of the Universe so it's easier to ignore the less comfortable parts.

[cbayer]

35. You know, I am really going to object to this.

You appear to be implying that because some people have used scripture to justify their homophobia that all who use that scripture are culpable.

It's about actions and deeds, not books.

If not having a book or a creator makes it easier for you to ignore the less comfortable parts of your community, does that make it better?

[Fumesucker]

51. I don't personally know any other members of my community

I suspect there are very few theists who can say the same thing.

[hrmjustin]

56. ?

[cbayer]

58. What difference does that make?

[Fumesucker]

59. Do you think homophobia is as common among atheists as Christians (for instance)?

If I'm being blamed for what members of "my community" do it would be nice to know at least one or two of them, but I don't get that chance because most of us keep our heads down and our mouths shut.

[hrmjustin]

61. I can tell you that I have met homophobic atheists.

I am well aware we have plenty of homophobic Christians.

[Fumesucker]

64. My mother was an antique dealer, I grew up around gay men, they are common in the antique world

In fact the gay men my mother knew treated a rather odd little boy with more respect and affection than most of the heterosexual men I knew at the time.

[hrmjustin]

66. My experience in general with athiests is that they are live and let live.

But I have met a few that are homophobic.

[cbayer]

68. My father was a minister. I grew up around gay men and lesbians.

They are pretty common, well, everywhere. We all treated each other with respect and affection.

[Fumesucker]

128. Gays who were openly gay were quite uncommon where and when I grew up..

As I said, I was treated *better* by them than most hetero men, a lot whom looking back probably (and wrongly) thought I was gay because I wasn't into sports and a lot of the macho cheat beating that passed for culture then and there.

[cbayer]

135. They were quite uncommonly out pretty much everywhere.

But my parents brought them into our home, acknowledged them, embraced them.

So much for the bible creating homophobes, heh?

Glad you had some positive experiences. Kids these days are getting much, much more exposure and bigotry does not thrive when there is sunshine.

[AtheistCrusader]

78. Way to dodge the question.

Not subtle.

[hrmjustin]

80. What was the question?

[AtheistCrusader]

81. Post 59.

Good grief. You know, the post you responded to?

[hrmjustin]

82. i answered him in another thread I think but to answer you I don't have any links or data to back

up my thoughts but mosr likely yes. I said for the most part atheists are live and let live.

But I have encountered several homophobic atheists in life.

[AtheistCrusader]

84. Thank you.

I was going to contrast to Cbayer, who answered the question up front, and then pointed out additional dimensions to the issue, as an example, but we got there.

As a group, atheists overwhelmingly support progressive issues such as same sex marriage, which is not exactly the same thing as saying they aren't homophobic bigots, but it certainly indicates a trend.

There is a powerful correlation between religiosity and politics in this country, and in that space, atheists score extremely well (though not alone, compared to ALL religions) in supporting equal protection under the law.

"There are also differences in support based upon religious membership and participation. Those most opposed to gay marriage include white evangelicals (73 percent) and those who attend religious services weekly or more (65 percent). Those most supportive of gay marriage are atheists and agnostics (88 percent), those who say they have no religious views in particular (65 percent) and those who seldom or never attend religious services (66 percent)."

-PEW (2012)

Individuals, of course, may vary.

[cbayer]

63. No, I think it's more prominent among christians.

Do you think that all who have religious texts embrace everything in those texts?

You are not being blamed for anything. You are making statements that impugn everyone who uses certain religious texts.

Many of you don't keep your heads down or your mouths shut. Case in point is the person this article is about.

[Alittleliberal]

123. What aspect of their Atheism leads to having those viewpoints?

This is why the false equivalency doesn't work. Atheism is just lack of belief in god. Nothing else. Anything thing else an individual Atheist believes is the result of some other philosophy they hold or experience they've had. Some Atheists are such because they are skeptics but if their skepticism cause them to believe something unrelated to Atheism why do they rest of us have to answer for him?

[cbayer]

129. I'm not saying they are the same, except that they are both bigotry.

The source of it is of no matter to me.

What I object to is saying that it's somehow better to be a bigot without a book than a bigot with a book. I also object to holding all believers in that book somehow culpable because some use it to promote bigotry, while those without a book get a free pass and aren't in any way responsible for the bigotry found in their group.

Theism is just a belief in god. Nothing else. Anything else an individual theist believes is the result of some other philosophy they hold or experience they've had. Some of the philosophies or experiences may come from religious teachings, while others do not.

My point is that no one should have to answer for anyone else just because they share a label with them.

You just can't have it both ways.

[AlbertCat]

167. Unfortunately people spread the evil of homophobia.

By "people" you mean religions?

Because some people might think homosexuality is "gross".... but it is now ONLY religions that make it something to fight against.

Science doesn't have objections.
Most of society doesn't have social objections
Commerce doesn't have any objections


Only religion is having a fit over homosexuality. Only religions are systematically and organizationally opposing it...sometimes with death.

People also spread the evils of religion..... most unfortunately.

[hrmjustin]

168. I am well aware that religion has spread it.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. Don't hurt yourself scrambling after that dog whistle. Your response is bullshit and reveals

the effectiveness of the deception with which the article was written. This is about STATE DENOMINATIONAL EDUCATION. Public Schools teaching religious indoctrination. Dawkins isn't talking about reaching into people's homes and telling them they can't teach their kids about their faith.

If you watch the video, and realize this talk occurred in Ireland, where religious shit is actually taught in public schools, this quote starts to actually fit in the intended context.

Interviewer:

"Do you feel, and the counter-argument is coming out now that parents have a right to denominational education, and that there's a balancing act between the rights of parents and" Crosstalk "parents rights".

““There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents… Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.”

They're talking about parents insisting as a dominant percentage of the nation's population, on having specific denominational religious education in public schools.

But good job letting your hatred of Dawkins get in the way of finding out what the actual issue is.

[hrmjustin]

22. I love you too AC!

[AtheistCrusader]

25. Yeah, I knew you wouldn't spend the time to watch the video and find out the truth.

Just take what the author of the article wrote as gospel. Text just carries some amazing weight of truth with you, regardless of how fabricated it is.

[hrmjustin]

27. Still love you.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Wish you loved the truth instead. How you feel about me is irrelevant.

Wish you had 2 minutes to spare to watch the video. It's fully self-explanatory.

[hrmjustin]

36. I did watch it.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. Maybe you should watch it again.

[hrmjustin]

42. I watched it three times.

[AtheistCrusader]

47. So then what does your comment about parents having the right to teach their kids their

faith have to do with the video?

Are you advocating to allow parents to inject denominational religious education into US public schools too? No, of course you aren't.

So why are you inferring (as the author of that article carefully crafted a narrative of) that Dawkins and Krauss are talking about the rights of parents in the home, rather than in adding religious baggage to public school curriculum? Because that's what the two of them are talking about.

The two are speaking extemporaneously in a Q/A setting, and Krauss very clearly reinforced and spelled out the context of the issue. PUBLIC SCHOOL CURRICULUM in a nation that doesn't have our establishment clause/Lemon Test.

[hrmjustin]

48. Dawkins never mentioned public schools and considering his history I don't trust him.

[AtheistCrusader]

52. It was part of the interviewers question.

The context is FULLY clear.

[hrmjustin]

54. The questioner never asked about public schools but yes it coukd see how you see it that way.

[Act_of_Reparation]

67. Yes, he did.

I quote the interviewer:

The counter argument is coming out now that parents have a right to denominational education... that there's a balancing act between the rights of parents and the rights of children.

And, incidentally, "public school" does not mean the same thing in Ireland and the UK that it does here in the states.

[AtheistCrusader]

73. Oh yes he did. I typed it out for you upthread.

Interviewer:

"Do you feel, and the counter-argument is coming out now that parents have a right to denominational education, and that there's a balancing act between the rights of parents and" Crosstalk "parents rights".

If you don't understand that in the context of IRELAND, you could at least ask.

[hrmjustin]

74. I don't need your help.

[AtheistCrusader]

76. So, it's willful ignorance then. Ok.

Deliberate. Willful. Intentional.

That's sad, bro. Very sad. Sorry to see it here on DU. I normally see people engaging in that sort of context mining character assassination in... other venues.

If you won't revisit, and acknowledge the actual context that quote was mined out of (public schools, not private homes), then we have nothing further to discuss.

[hrmjustin]

77. .

[Buzz Clik]

32. I'm agnostic on my most religious days, and I find Dawkins insufferable.

He is the Number One atheistic evangelist. I understood the rationale of his speaking tours pounding on the anti-science nonsense of religion, and I almost understood why he felt it necessary to have speaking tours touting that God cannot possibly exist.

But this? He now wants to start raising people's kids for them? Does he advocate taking kids away from their parents if there is some sense of "harm" being done? And who makes that decision?

I would pay the price of admission to have Dawkins STFU.

[cbayer]

40. I raised the question above as to what extent he may have indoctrinated

his own child and wondered how he would respond to the suggestion that she has been harmed by this.

[Buzz Clik]

49. Exactly.

We raise our children to the best of our abilities, and a lot of people believe that includes a heavy dose of religion.

And, as you say, if he believes that being raised in a militant atheist household involves no indoctrination, he is quite mistaken.

[AtheistCrusader]

70. He's not talking about households. He's talking about state schools.

Helps to actually read the article/watch the video.

[randys1]

130. How does one indoctrinate one into not believing in invisible men in the sky?

[Buzz Clik]

132. Listen to one of Dawkins's lectures.

It will become painfully obvious.

[randys1]

134. Does he have one where he teaches people NOT to believe in leprechauns?

[cbayer]

142. Yeah!!! God is the same as leprechauns!!

I don't blame you for not choosing to believe, because, of course, it's a choice, right?

[AtheistCrusader]

75. No, he doesn't. You're a victim of the author of this article's agenda.

The question Dawkins is answering is in response to parental efforts to keep religious denominational material in Ireland's public school system.

He's not talking about parents at home. But you won't get that from the article, because the excerpt was carefully sanitized to lead to the conclusion you just arrived at.

[guillaumeb]

37. But the Bible is perfectly consistent with current science. No really.

In Genesis 2:22, it is told that God created Eve. He did so by taking a rib from Adam and fashioning Eve from that rib.

That fits in the current biological model perfectly if we try to understand the symbolism of the words used.

The Bronze Age people who wrote the stories did not have the word chromosome on their language. No need to. So they used the word in their language for "rib" to stand for a physical movement of material. (Plus when writing with a quill or a stone hammer it is good to use short words. Less effort.)

We all know that men have the XY (heterogametic) and women have the XX (homogametic) sex chromosomes. If you take the XX and remove the right, lower leg, or rib if you will, you are left with an XY.

There you go science/theology people. Proof that the Bible fits with science.

Next question please from the unbelievers.

[cbayer]

43. Well, I"ve never heard it explained in exactly that way, but

I love it.

[trotsky]

202. And your endorsement of this "explanation"...

(you should really look up what that word means, by the way) really goes a long way toward explaining why you struggle to be taken seriously.

[guillaumeb]

238. I did not read cbayer's post as an endorsement

but if you take it as such who am I to argue with your interpretation of what he actually said.

Just as what I actually said was not what I have been accused of saying.

[Lordquinton]

155. Eve is a dick joke

They were hunter/gatherers, they had pretty good knowledge of what animals looked like on the inside, they knew that most male animals had a bone in their penis, Humans don't. The obvious leap in logic in writing the bible is the god took it out. Hey presto!

besides the chromosome idea only makes sense if you believe that god was working in English.

[cbayer]

186. Just because I think you should know this.

English has nothing to do with the chromosome idea. It is their shape, not what you call them.

[guillaumeb]

197. great graphic

THAT is why I had to respond the way I did. The idea came to me so I needed a way to reference it.

[cbayer]

198. I really enjoyed your explanation and had never heard it before.

Of course, those that wrote it would have no way of knowing that, but many have speculated that the missing part of that chromosome accounts for a lot of things.

[guillaumeb]

201. do you mean

that all of the empathy, common sense, sympathy, willingness to work together, and all the good traits that many males lack are/were in the missing leg?

That explains a lot. A Nobel Prize foe you!

[cbayer]

205. Ever since I learned of this years and years ago, I have believed

that missing a part of a chromosome can not be a particularly good thing.

[guillaumeb]

196. do you mean that

god does not speak in English? But in the movie "Oh God",

[MellowDem]

194. I can't tell if this is sarcasm...

but the problem with such "symbolism" is that it can be bent to try and fix any contradiction, it's completely subjective, and it's not falsifiable.

In other words, it's as convincing as the argument that we did not evolve but we're created because bananas happen to fit perfectly into our hands.

It's interpreting the evidence to fit a conclusion.

[guillaumeb]

200. consider the argument another way

When you say of my post:
"It's interpreting the evidence to fit a conclusion."
you are also describing the scientific method. One observes and makes a conclusion based on the observation. If the observed object behaves in such a way or presents in such a way as to "belong" to a certain, scientific category that object serves as further proof that the method of categorization is valid.

When I talked about the Bible as an example of a scientific treatise, I am merely talking about the Bible as a creation story for a Bronze Age people. The story about Eve's creation is an attempt to explain the obvious physical differences between the sexes in context of what was known circa 6000BCE.

The name "Eve" derives from the Hebrew verb "hyw" which means "to live". So Eve is symbolic/representative of life bringer. Again, the Bible tries to explain origins of the species in a way consistent with the knowledge base available to the authors.

My XX and XY observation was my attempt to show that reality sometimes validates what people symbolically represented far earlier than the representation could be proven, or validated.

This may, or may not clear up your question.

[MellowDem]

207. How is the Bible "validated"...

by the completely unsupported idea that Adam's rib was really referring to a piece of chromosome, it's just that they didn't have a word for it back then?

Of course it could have been proven or validated back then, especially by an omnipotent God, but it wasn't, probably because it wasn't a reference to chromosomes.

The scientific method is not about interpreting evidence to fit a conclusion, it's about testing hypotheses, and they have to be falsifiable. The results of tests aren't then interpreted to fit the original hypothesis.

[guillaumeb]

208. my interpretation of the Adam's rib story

is not a theory. But the story itself can also be interpreted to show that the Bronze Age philosophers who wrote it were attempting to explain sexual dimorphism in a way that they, and their listeners, could comprehend. Again, just my idea of a possible interpretation of the "why" that this particular story is found in Genesis.

The part about using the word rib instead of chromosome was a bit tongue in cheek, I did mention the difficulty of using a quill or a stone chisel, but the point is that Eve and Adam share the same genetic base.

When I talked about the name "Eve" I mentioned that it means life giver or source of life. In Hebrew, Adam means "red" or "from the earth". The names symbolize the allegorical nature of the story. The story of creation in Genesis is Biology 101 for 6000BCE.

If I test a hypothesis and the test results seem to confirm the original hypothesis, the results serve to validate. My point about the story of the rib was to show that, coincidentally, Bronze Age philosophy about man/woman being the same is validated.

[MellowDem]

209. I'm not sure...

what Bronze Age philosophy about men and women was validated?

[guillaumeb]

210. the original post seems to state

that science and faith must be at odds.

My postings re: Adam's rib story are my interpretation of the Biblical story. My interpretation that the Creation story was their biology. Adam's rib as the basis for Eve's creation, in my opinion, shows how in 6000BCE the story writers/philosophers were attempting to show that man and woman are necessary to create life.
Over the centuries, there were theories advanced that posited that man alone created life. The sperm contained the life and the woman was the incubator. (Similar to the GOP position re: abortion) The Bible creation story give both Adam and Eve credit for life. Their very names symbolize their equal roles. Say "of the earth" and "life bringer" while thinking about Adam and Eve and get a better sense of what was conveyed in the story. Eve brought forth life from and with the assistance of the earth. Both are necessary and equal.

Again, my view. The part about the XX/XY missing chromosomal leg=Adam's rib being a coincidence/validation is again my view only.

[MellowDem]

211. Science and faith are at odds...

by definition. Faith is belief without evidence. Science requires evidence.

That doesn't mean they can't co-exist, but it just means a person who uses both has to engage in some compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance.

I personally think faith is always bad, because believing false things is always bad, as they can lead to actions not based on reality, which can lead to some very poor outcomes, no matter how benign the faith based belief, and faith encourages believing false things. It also discourages inquiry IMHO.

[Heddi]

220. Oh Jesus Christ

you're really not serious, are you?

Instead of this *quite* tortured analogy, why didn't they just use the word "chromosome" or "allele" instead of "rib?" The fact that they didn't have the word...how about they didn't have the fucking *concept* of chromosomes, alleles, XX and XY (what about those tricky dicks with XXY and XYY? huh?).

This is possibly one of the top 18 most ridiculous things I've read in this forum this week.

[guillaumeb]

237. do I get a t-shirt for being in the top 20?

As ridiculous as Pastafarianism?

As ridiculous as supply side economics?

As ridiculous as the term compassionate conservative?

[leveymg]

57. The best way to "protect" your child is to not force religious beliefs on them, and to be open to

the validity of all faiths.

[cbayer]

69. Agree, including being open to atheism.

[leveymg]

71. Of course, along with all other religious belief systems.

The epistemological basis of atheism is essentially a denial of the supernatural, which is a judgement about the unknown, and an assertion of the primacy of human reason. That, in my mind, is essentially a leap of faith. But, we can all differ in such speculation without killing each other over it.

[cbayer]

72. "We can all differ in such speculation without killing each other over it."

I would like to hope so.

[leveymg]

88. There is hope for humanity, after all. But, that's also an expression of faith.

I'm with Einstein on this:

[cbayer]

95. Lol! I would also add that the human imagination and capacity for love

are both infinite….

but I wouldn't want to debate him on that.

[Fumesucker]

86. It's an assertion of the primacy of evidence

The ability to reason is the primary thing that separates humans from other animals. Some animals have been shown to reason in a limited fashion but none of them on remotely the same level as say Darwin's Origin of Species reasoned out evolution as the mechanism by which speciation takes place from the evidence Darwin himself found so compelling the Galapagos.

[leveymg]

89. Fact is, we just aren't smart enough to know that.

The assumption of a lack of reasoning by other species is really unprovable according to our own rules of scientific evidence. So, this too is a matter of faith.

[Fumesucker]

91. It goes back to evidence..

I think it's possible that even some hunting spiders can reason to an extent.

Show me the evidence for a God and I'll change my opinion on the existence of God.

However you have to keep in mind Clarke's third law, a slight rephrasing of which is that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from godhood.

[leveymg]

94. I like Arthur C. Clarke's vision of our recent past a lot better than the present prospect for

the near-future. Our hopes for progress and transformation, or even affirmation of things greater than ourselves, seem a lot more limited these days. But, living through history is kind of like that. Probably the worst thing is to be proven right in one's expectations.

[trotsky]

99. "the validity of all faiths"

Including Scientology? Fundamentalist Islam? Roman Catholicism? Are those all equally valid?

[leveymg]

102. All are valid to those who hold them.

I'm in no position to judge their absolute merit. We all have our own private opinions about comparative merits, of course, and should generally keep those to ourselves or share with like-minded others.

Problems start when people universalize their own personal G-d and make that a community requirement.

[trotsky]

105. I think we are all in a position to judge merit.

Especially when a faith holds that some humans are less worthy than others.

We all have our own private opinions about comparative merits, of course, and should generally keep those to ourselves or share with like-minded others.

So there should be no discussion of religious beliefs between individuals who disagree? Everyone must keep their religious opinions to themselves?

And what happens when people don't? Do we have any right to speak our private opinions to counter theirs?

[leveymg]

108. By "like-minded others" I include those willing to civilly discuss difference.

As no two people have exactly the same beliefs, that is a given.

[trotsky]

112. So, what do you do with all other human beings?

Those who, in your humble opinion, aren't "civilly" discussing their differences?

Say, for instance, ISIS?

[leveymg]

116. I stop trying to talk to them.

Voila.

[trotsky]

117. Well that will make ISIS go away.

[muriel_volestrangler]

179. The trouble with just stopping talking to them is that it cedes ground to them

and they then do things like take over school boards and force their religious ideology into the education of everyone's children.

In Ireland, 98% of primary schools are tied to a religious denomination: http://www.educatetogether.ie/sites/default/files/educate_together_flyer.pdf

[guillaumeb]

103. if faith is defined as a belief system, then

it basically is a way to make sense of the world, and existence in the world. A faith may not answer all the questions, or any of the questions, in a scientific sense, but there is a reason that faith and science are not synonymous.

To Bronze Age man, faith was science. Early man could only know what he saw. Understanding natural phenomena came later. With the advance of science, much was explained, but much remains a mystery.

As a way of understanding the world, faith is a comfort to many people. Why mock that comfort?

As long as people do not attempt to impose their beliefs or behaviors on me I am okay with whatever people want to believe.

Except Pastafarianism of course.

[trotsky]

106. I'm going to mock a belief that views women as the inferior sex.

I'm going to mock a belief that homosexuals and transgendered individuals are sinful or wrong or should be executed.

Those beliefs bring comfort to some. Yet I'm still going to mock them because they are horrible, hurtful beliefs.

[guillaumeb]

109. those individual beliefs are no more a reflection of

or a representation of any particular faith than is Dick Cheney a representative of all males.

How exactly does one challenge a belief? With evidence? Will not work. Faith does not need evidence.

As to mockery, dialogue is difficult when all parties are screaming at each other. Solutions come with dialogue. Rarely easy or quick, but necessary.

[trotsky]

111. There are many people who identify with a particular faith...

who associate those beliefs with their faith. Who are you to tell them they're wrong?

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions." -- Thomas Jefferson

[guillaumeb]

119. I cannot tell anyone anything.

And I agree with you that faith has been used to justify many terrible things. The Crusades, the Inquisition, the Salem witch trials, pogroms against the Jews, religious wars everywhere are proof that faith does not equate with peace.

The problem with ridicule as a weapon is that people do not like being mocked. How exactly do you reason with someone after you have just mocked that person's beliefs?

I would ask Jefferson to substitute the word "reason" for ridicule.

[trotsky]

124. Baloney. You just did.

You said: "those individual beliefs are no more a reflection of or a representation of any particular faith than is Dick Cheney a representative of all males."

There are people who practice those faiths who will vehemently disagree with you. With that statement, you just told them they're wrong. How dare you?

"How exactly do you reason with someone after you have just mocked that person's beliefs?"

“You cannot reason people out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.” ― Ben Goldacre, Bad Science

[AtheistCrusader]

151. Humanity has unquestionably one really effective weapon—laughter.

Power, money, persuasion, supplication, persecution—these can lift at a colossal humbug—push it a little—weaken it a little, century by century; but only laughter can blow it to rags and atoms at a blast. Against the assault of laughter nothing can stand.

-Samuel Clemens


I don't care if I bruise someone's feelings if in the process I make a generally held pile of nonsense so radioactive, no one is willing to hold it anymore.

[Act_of_Reparation]

120. I hate to piss on your parade...

...but faith doesn't need friendly dialogue, either.

If we're talking about "true believers", there's no reason to expect those people to change their minds no matter what tactics you employ. The likelihood they'll come around to see things from another perspective is so slim as to be negligible.

The fact of the matter is the civil rights gains we've seen over the past forty years are so are the product of shame. While we still have a long way to go on the bigotry front, we're at least at the point now where a good many people believe it is shameful to hold racist or homophobic opinions.

You don't shame people with polite language. You confront them, and you tell them what you really think of their bullshit.

[guillaumeb]

125. So does one give up all attempt at dialogue

in favor of public shaming and confrontation? Perhaps a "War on Intolerance"?

Not everyone is a "true believer" whether we speak of racism or religion. I would suggest that many more people were won over to the necessity of action regarding civil rights by Dr. Martin Luther King's example than would have been convinced by riots and fighting.

Perhaps fanaticism should be substituted for belief. fanaticism in the sense of a belief that admits no possibility of an alternative. I would agree that there may be little hope for dialogue with a fanatic.

[Warren Stupidity]

141. you've admitted that faith is immune to evidence.

So pretty much dialog is useless. You aren't going to reason a believer out of her belief.

What we have to stop doing is treating religious bullshit as reasonable, as normal, as in fact superior. We have to stop coddling utterances of idiotic religiosity, treating them as statements of profound significance. By privileging religiosity the way we do in society we are making the problem worse.

Which is where mockery and satire and ridicule come in. They have no more effect on the already contaminated than dialog does, but they can make it clear to those who haven't yet bought in, that religious nuttery is exactly that - it is stupid ridiculous bullshit. Mockery satire and ridicule are a good way to attack the prevailing socialized privilege that religiosity has in american society.

[guillaumeb]

195. faith has been defined as the willing suspension of disbelief

to have faith means that scientific proof is not needed. My feeling is that whether a person feels the need for faith, or not, means nothing. I try to judge people based on how they act, not how they claim to believe. It is said: by their actions shall you know them.

I agree that dialogue limited to "do you believe or not" is useless if by dialogue you mean an attempt to convince people to believe or not believe. Good luck using logic to debate an elementarily illogical, or unproveable concept.

But I think that the act of mockery or satire or ridicule only pushes people apart. How do we talk when we are mocking each other?

Thomas Jefferson framed the argument a little differently:
"Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear."

What a great way to express the perceived divide between faith and reason.


I like reading your arguments even when I disagree with them.

[Warren Stupidity]

199. again, I've conceded that the true believers are a lost cause.

I'm not trying to reach them. My concern is for those who have not yet bought in or who are already seriously doubting their beliefs. And again, the current social norm of pretending that religiosity is profound, that the religious are morally superior to the irreligious, that we should defer to and pander to religion everywhere is what I am attacking with satire and mocking and ridicule. The emperor -religion- is a disgusting naked stinking filthy slob and that needs pointing out.

[guillaumeb]

204. somewhat harsh, but warranted in may cases

I wish I could argue with you on the point but all too true. Thanks for the clarification.

[Act_of_Reparation]

153. MLK didn't coddle up to white authorities and ask for a polite discussion.

There was nothing to discuss. No middle ground for which to be bargained. They were wrong. He was right. End of fucking story.

Instead, he did to white racists exactly what I described above: he shamed them, vociferously and publicly. He confronted them. He all but slapped them across the face and said, "I'm here. These are my problems, and you're going to pay me the attention I deserve."

And I seriously doubt he changed the opinions of a single white racist. What he did, however, was expose the viciousness and stupidity of systemic white racism to those who were unfamiliar with it. Those who were too timid or otherwise apathetic toward the issue were inspired, if not encouraged, to speak out against it.

[randys1]

133. I have been begging people to shame the bigots, racists, liars, etc. It is the only way

to expose them for what they are to the gullible.

[leveymg]

114. I have absolute photographic, scientific proof of the birth of the FSM, and the date it occurred>

July 16, 1945

Moment of Semolina Insemination:



Emergence of Glorious Pastaness:

[guillaumeb]

122. Everyone knows that the photos of the

moon landing and the moon walk were fakes. I put these obviously photoshopped photos in the same category.

PS Light more candles. The darkness is spreading.

[saltpoint]

158. Yes, yes. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

150. What about explicitly teaching a specific religion in state schools?

Because that's what is happening in Ireland, and that's where Dawkins was for that interview, and that was the issue he was speaking on. Denominational education in state schools.

The schools in Ireland don't teach the validity of all faiths either. They teach one faith. Because enough parents demanded it in the curriculum, and there is no constitutional protection against it as there is here in the US.

Dawkins (And Krauss, who is standing next to him) are addressing a question about protecting children from parent-mandated state school religious indoctrination.

[saltpoint]

157. I like spaghetti. And I love the

Flying Spaghetti Monster.

And darn it, I feel the Flying Spaghetti Monster loves me.

[AtheistCrusader]

169. For all you well-travelled Dawkins critics that don't know what denominational school means.

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

Their public schools are religious schools. And they are so, because they do not have the 1st amendment protections we enjoy, and the parents in that culture demand that sort of curriculum. A condition Dawkins is arguing they shouldn't be able to demand. They can't demand it here in the US. (Dover vs. Kitzmiller)

[saltpoint]

170. Dawkins. Pretty smart guy. He's right about

kids and religion.

[pokerfan]

177. "Children need to protected from religious indoctrination in school."

I have no argument with this insofar as it applies to public schools.

[cbayer]

187. I think we all agree, the problem is that in Ireland, there are hardly any schools

that we would consider public and all the religious schools are funded by the state.

[AtheistCrusader]

189. Before you proclaim we all agree, why don't you delete or edit post 4?

because no, 'we' do not agree with that little smear you added in, as if Dawkins was talking about ANYTHING BUT schools in Ireland.

[Rainforestgoddess]

192. I don't agree, for one

We are talking about schools that are funded by taxpayer money, and offered free of charge to any that wish to enroll.

The fact that there is a religious aspect is a difference of laws regarding separation of church and state, not access.

Therefore, what we in Canada and the USA would label "public school"

If they use different terminology in Ireland, ie 'denominational school', that's irrelevant. They could call an elite expensive school "public school" , and if it's not paid for by taxpayer money and not offered free of charge and requires academic testing to qualify, it would still be what we understand to be private school.




Oh, wait.....

[cbayer]

193. Allow me to clarify.

I was saying that I think we all agree that children should not be subjected to religious indoctrination in public schools.

I think the we probably also agree that taxpayer funded schools should be considered public schools and should be free of religious indoctrination.

That's the US way and I don't see anyone disagreeing with it.

But this is not the US, it's Ireland and the system is completely different. They don't have a 1st amendment separation clause. Neither does Britain, but they at least have more options for non-parochial education.

It's not about the terminology, it's about their laws.

There is a movement afoot to increase opportunities for non-parochial education. That's a good thing. There's a movement afoot to standardize curriculum and assure that science is taught properly. That's a good thing.

But I don't foresee Ireland instituting a 1st amendment separation clause in the near future.

[saltpoint]

235. Typical dodge. You've clarified nothing.

The points you raise support Dawkins' position about religious indoctrination.

They do not support your claims against his.

[deathrind]

203. Anyone who watched...

Jesus Camp knows this.

[cbayer]

206. Yep, that's the kind of thing that one could make a case for protecting kids against.

But "the chosen religion" of one's parents is an entirely different issue.