Christian Children do not Exist

[False Dichotomy]

The Raging 4Skin

False Dichotomy

Not all parents throatstomp their child and shove religion down their throats.

Also, quoting ol' d**k Dawkins is not a great idea when it comes to describing religion. His parents were right to name him Richard.

Post of the year.

I imagine this view is shared by the majority of intellectuals, religious or not. Dawkins just made civil conversation impossible.

[stealthmongoose]

False Dichotomy

The Raging 4Skin

False Dichotomy

Not all parents throatstomp their child and shove religion down their throats.

Also, quoting ol' d**k Dawkins is not a great idea when it comes to describing religion. His parents were right to name him Richard.

Post of the year.

I imagine this view is shared by the majority of intellectuals, religious or not. Dawkins just made civil conversation impossible.

While some would find civility to be a precursor to acquisition of knowledge, i don't find that any of Richard's manners or mannerisms changed the facts he presented about religion, including the extreme examples of actual brain washing and manipulation.

Crass and perhaps rude skeptic? Possibly. Wrong? Not on principle, that's for sure.

Once the naughty and nasty bits are removed from holy books and religious teachings, then maybe you'll have a case against him.

[False Dichotomy]

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

The Raging 4Skin

False Dichotomy

Not all parents throatstomp their child and shove religion down their throats.

Also, quoting ol' d**k Dawkins is not a great idea when it comes to describing religion. His parents were right to name him Richard.

Post of the year.

I imagine this view is shared by the majority of intellectuals, religious or not. Dawkins just made civil conversation impossible.

While some would find civility to be a precursor to acquisition of knowledge, i don't find that any of Richard's manners or mannerisms changed the facts he presented about religion, including the extreme examples of actual brain washing and manipulation.

Crass and perhaps rude skeptic? Possibly. Wrong? Not on principle, that's for sure.

Once the naughty and nasty bits are removed from holy books and religious teachings, then maybe you'll have a case against him.

My case is he froths at the mouth any time someone talks about God in his near vicinity, and seemed to be under the delusion that all Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible and church tradition. Despite his academic success in his field, he's no historian, he's no philosopher, and overall, he's just a very unpleasant person to debate with in general.

[stealthmongoose]

False Dichotomy

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

The Raging 4Skin

False Dichotomy

Not all parents throatstomp their child and shove religion down their throats.

Also, quoting ol' d**k Dawkins is not a great idea when it comes to describing religion. His parents were right to name him Richard.

Post of the year.

I imagine this view is shared by the majority of intellectuals, religious or not. Dawkins just made civil conversation impossible.

While some would find civility to be a precursor to acquisition of knowledge, i don't find that any of Richard's manners or mannerisms changed the facts he presented about religion, including the extreme examples of actual brain washing and manipulation.

Crass and perhaps rude skeptic? Possibly. Wrong? Not on principle, that's for sure.

Once the naughty and nasty bits are removed from holy books and religious teachings, then maybe you'll have a case against him.

My case is he froths at the mouth any time someone talks about God in his near vicinity, and seemed to be under the delusion that all Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible and church tradition. Despite his academic success in his field, he's no historian, he's no philosopher, and overall, he's just a very unpleasant person to debate with in general.

I suppose i can accept that his attitude towards a majority of Christians was not the best.

This doesn't change the message of scripture or any other teaching (embarassing or otherwise) that was refuted as a process of Dawkins' mannerisms or the facts that he presented regarding the message of scripture and other such things.

Credibility only goes so far when assessing a truthful statement. There are plenty of quack doctors, self-proclaimed holy men, and selfish politicians who would have you enthralled by the credibility of their professions while exercising equal eagerness to lie for selfish reasons.

For all of the self-propogating rumors about Dawkins and his approach, none of it can be contended without resorting to personal attacks on the man's character, and even then i doubt he was as hateful of Christians as he was of Zealots whom he reacted to in kind.

[False Dichotomy]

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

The Raging 4Skin

False Dichotomy

Not all parents throatstomp their child and shove religion down their throats.

Also, quoting ol' d**k Dawkins is not a great idea when it comes to describing religion. His parents were right to name him Richard.

Post of the year.

I imagine this view is shared by the majority of intellectuals, religious or not. Dawkins just made civil conversation impossible.

While some would find civility to be a precursor to acquisition of knowledge, i don't find that any of Richard's manners or mannerisms changed the facts he presented about religion, including the extreme examples of actual brain washing and manipulation.

Crass and perhaps rude skeptic? Possibly. Wrong? Not on principle, that's for sure.

Once the naughty and nasty bits are removed from holy books and religious teachings, then maybe you'll have a case against him.

My case is he froths at the mouth any time someone talks about God in his near vicinity, and seemed to be under the delusion that all Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible and church tradition. Despite his academic success in his field, he's no historian, he's no philosopher, and overall, he's just a very unpleasant person to debate with in general.

I suppose i can accept that his attitude towards a majority of Christians was not the best.

This doesn't change the message of scripture or any other teaching (embarassing or otherwise) that was refuted as a process of Dawkins' mannerisms or the facts that he presented regarding the message of scripture and other such things.

Credibility only goes so far when assessing a truthful statement. There are plenty of quack doctors, self-proclaimed holy men, and selfish politicians who would have you enthralled by the credibility of their professions while exercising equal eagerness to lie for selfish reasons.

For all of the self-propogating rumors about Dawkins and his approach, none of it can be contended without resorting to personal attacks on the man's character, and even then i doubt he was as hateful of Christians as he was of Zealots whom he reacted to in kind.

I don't assault the man's intelligence. He was obviously a very educated man, and in his field of science, I'm sure he was quite remarkable. I'm not terribly interested in biology, so I'm not incredibly familiar with Dawkins in his expertise, although I am aware his credentials are quite remarkable, that he prides himself in objective research via scientific method, and that he is anything but a crackpot.

I'm also aware he's quite a p***k when it comes to the issue of religious and/or spiritual beliefs, and refused to view himself as an equal when debating it, which lends itself to his inability to accept anything his opponents might have said, which makes him a terrible candidate for understanding anything of a religious matter because he would never remove his bias, or condescending intent.

[stealthmongoose]

False Dichotomy

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

I imagine this view is shared by the majority of intellectuals, religious or not. Dawkins just made civil conversation impossible.

While some would find civility to be a precursor to acquisition of knowledge, i don't find that any of Richard's manners or mannerisms changed the facts he presented about religion, including the extreme examples of actual brain washing and manipulation.

Crass and perhaps rude skeptic? Possibly. Wrong? Not on principle, that's for sure.

Once the naughty and nasty bits are removed from holy books and religious teachings, then maybe you'll have a case against him.

My case is he froths at the mouth any time someone talks about God in his near vicinity, and seemed to be under the delusion that all Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible and church tradition. Despite his academic success in his field, he's no historian, he's no philosopher, and overall, he's just a very unpleasant person to debate with in general.

I suppose i can accept that his attitude towards a majority of Christians was not the best.

This doesn't change the message of scripture or any other teaching (embarassing or otherwise) that was refuted as a process of Dawkins' mannerisms or the facts that he presented regarding the message of scripture and other such things.

Credibility only goes so far when assessing a truthful statement. There are plenty of quack doctors, self-proclaimed holy men, and selfish politicians who would have you enthralled by the credibility of their professions while exercising equal eagerness to lie for selfish reasons.

For all of the self-propogating rumors about Dawkins and his approach, none of it can be contended without resorting to personal attacks on the man's character, and even then i doubt he was as hateful of Christians as he was of Zealots whom he reacted to in kind.

I don't assault the man's intelligence. He was obviously a very educated man, and in his field of science, I'm sure he was quite remarkable. I'm not terribly interested in biology, so I'm not incredibly familiar with Dawkins in his expertise, although I am aware his credentials are quite remarkable, that he prides himself in objective research via scientific method, and that he is anything but a crackpot.

I'm also aware he's quite a p***k when it comes to the issue of religious and/or spiritual beliefs, and refused to view himself as an equal when debating it, which lends itself to his inability to accept anything his opponents might have said, which makes him a terrible candidate for understanding anything of a religious matter because he would never remove his bias, or condescending intent.

I'm sorry, but in debate a person's etiquette is not marked by their ability to accept things their opponents say just to facilitate their arguments.

It is not my obligation, for example, to accept that Jesus was a deity for us to understand what his deific powers might be if he was. Dawkins did not have to accept any premise his opponents made without proof in order to understand their meaning. I don't have to accept things to understand them either, and neither do you. I personally think Dawkins was taking a step in the right direction by holding his opponents to that higher standard, which is more a sign of respect rather than condescension.

Can you actually cite a debate or instance in which Dawkins condescends on his opponent without reason? Or is it more likely that his opponents take his demand of equal proof as an insult?

[The Raging 4Skin]

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

I imagine this view is shared by the majority of intellectuals, religious or not. Dawkins just made civil conversation impossible.

While some would find civility to be a precursor to acquisition of knowledge, i don't find that any of Richard's manners or mannerisms changed the facts he presented about religion, including the extreme examples of actual brain washing and manipulation.

Crass and perhaps rude skeptic? Possibly. Wrong? Not on principle, that's for sure.

Once the naughty and nasty bits are removed from holy books and religious teachings, then maybe you'll have a case against him.

My case is he froths at the mouth any time someone talks about God in his near vicinity, and seemed to be under the delusion that all Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible and church tradition. Despite his academic success in his field, he's no historian, he's no philosopher, and overall, he's just a very unpleasant person to debate with in general.

I suppose i can accept that his attitude towards a majority of Christians was not the best.

This doesn't change the message of scripture or any other teaching (embarassing or otherwise) that was refuted as a process of Dawkins' mannerisms or the facts that he presented regarding the message of scripture and other such things.

Credibility only goes so far when assessing a truthful statement. There are plenty of quack doctors, self-proclaimed holy men, and selfish politicians who would have you enthralled by the credibility of their professions while exercising equal eagerness to lie for selfish reasons.

For all of the self-propogating rumors about Dawkins and his approach, none of it can be contended without resorting to personal attacks on the man's character, and even then i doubt he was as hateful of Christians as he was of Zealots whom he reacted to in kind.

I don't assault the man's intelligence. He was obviously a very educated man, and in his field of science, I'm sure he was quite remarkable. I'm not terribly interested in biology, so I'm not incredibly familiar with Dawkins in his expertise, although I am aware his credentials are quite remarkable, that he prides himself in objective research via scientific method, and that he is anything but a crackpot.

I'm also aware he's quite a p***k when it comes to the issue of religious and/or spiritual beliefs, and refused to view himself as an equal when debating it, which lends itself to his inability to accept anything his opponents might have said, which makes him a terrible candidate for understanding anything of a religious matter because he would never remove his bias, or condescending intent.

I'm sorry, but in debate a person's etiquette is not marked by their ability to accept things their opponents say just to facilitate their arguments.

It is not my obligation, for example, to accept that Jesus was a deity for us to understand what his deific powers might be if he was. Dawkins did not have to accept any premise his opponents made without proof in order to understand their meaning. I don't have to accept things to understand them either, and neither do you. I personally think Dawkins was taking a step in the right direction by holding his opponents to that higher standard, which is more a sign of respect rather than condescension.

Can you actually cite a debate or instance in which Dawkins condescends on his opponent without reason? Or is it more likely that his opponents take his demand of equal proof as an insult?

Oh come the ******** down off your high horse, dude. Dawkins is a ******** d**k. He belittles people and calls them idiots before he even knows their damned names. This criticism isn't even coming from religious people. The last three pages are all atheists/near-atheists bashing him because HE'S A ******** t**t.

Now, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, there is a man who knows how to have a civil, intelligent conversation about. s**t. That. Matters.

What does Dawkins do? Wastes his brilliance, every ounce of his intelligence and ability as an accomplished biologist... To sell books talking about how Christians are retards. Yeah dude, good job on that one. Working on curing cancer or the rising rate of autism or why primetime TV still sucks after all these years CERTAINLY would not have been a just use of his talent and genius.

Nope, we gotta make sure the WHOLE WORLD knows Christians are idiots, and if anyone defends them they're just padding a bedding for them.

[False Dichotomy]

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

stealthmongoose

While some would find civility to be a precursor to acquisition of knowledge, i don't find that any of Richard's manners or mannerisms changed the facts he presented about religion, including the extreme examples of actual brain washing and manipulation.

Crass and perhaps rude skeptic? Possibly. Wrong? Not on principle, that's for sure.

Once the naughty and nasty bits are removed from holy books and religious teachings, then maybe you'll have a case against him.

My case is he froths at the mouth any time someone talks about God in his near vicinity, and seemed to be under the delusion that all Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible and church tradition. Despite his academic success in his field, he's no historian, he's no philosopher, and overall, he's just a very unpleasant person to debate with in general.

I suppose i can accept that his attitude towards a majority of Christians was not the best.

This doesn't change the message of scripture or any other teaching (embarassing or otherwise) that was refuted as a process of Dawkins' mannerisms or the facts that he presented regarding the message of scripture and other such things.

Credibility only goes so far when assessing a truthful statement. There are plenty of quack doctors, self-proclaimed holy men, and selfish politicians who would have you enthralled by the credibility of their professions while exercising equal eagerness to lie for selfish reasons.

For all of the self-propogating rumors about Dawkins and his approach, none of it can be contended without resorting to personal attacks on the man's character, and even then i doubt he was as hateful of Christians as he was of Zealots whom he reacted to in kind.

I don't assault the man's intelligence. He was obviously a very educated man, and in his field of science, I'm sure he was quite remarkable. I'm not terribly interested in biology, so I'm not incredibly familiar with Dawkins in his expertise, although I am aware his credentials are quite remarkable, that he prides himself in objective research via scientific method, and that he is anything but a crackpot.

I'm also aware he's quite a p***k when it comes to the issue of religious and/or spiritual beliefs, and refused to view himself as an equal when debating it, which lends itself to his inability to accept anything his opponents might have said, which makes him a terrible candidate for understanding anything of a religious matter because he would never remove his bias, or condescending intent.

I'm sorry, but in debate a person's etiquette is not marked by their ability to accept things their opponents say just to facilitate their arguments.

If you cannot entertain a thought, you will not learn anything. Dawkins didn't set out to learn anything. He set out to discredit theists, using abrahamic religions as a poster child. Etiquette in debate will not prevent one side (or, in this subject's case, both sides) from being unwilling to understand a viewpoint. In this case, it's less of a debate, and more of a petty argument using citations, but not civility.

My point is that Dawkins is not a reputable source for talking about God, he's a reputable source for talking about biology and evolution.

Quote:

It is not my obligation, for example, to accept that Jesus was a deity for us to understand what his deific powers might be if he was. Dawkins did not have to accept any premise his opponents made without proof in order to understand their meaning. I don't have to accept things to understand them either, and neither do you. I personally think Dawkins was taking a step in the right direction by holding his opponents to that higher standard, which is more a sign of respect rather than condescension.

If you do not make an attempt to see from your opponent's viewpoint, you will not understand the the argument your opponent proposes.

Quote:

Can you actually cite a debate or instance in which Dawkins condescends on his opponent without reason? Or is it more likely that his opponents take his demand of equal proof as an insult?

There was a particular time Alistar McGrath (An Oxford educated Theologian) made a similar point that I did, stating that Dawkins was ignorant of the intricacies of Christian theology, and therefor was not able to engage in debates about it intelligently. Dawkins, instead of taking any time to look into whether or not his arguments actually applied to Christian theology on a doctrinal level, decided to make a sarcastic sneer of, and I quote "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?" Which was a cleaver way to get out of admitting he was not knowledgeable in that area.

What I frequently find in people who have these massive hate boners who make such a big deal out of how they despise religion,(Let's make things simple, and say Christianity for now) is that they frequently cite things that are sectoral doctrine, but not biblical doctrine. Now, while shooting down such things like this might hurt the claims of a particular sect, to others it is seen as insulting, as it is to them, and/or others as a misunderstanding of the concept or doctrine that was described. In which point, what he said might have been a powerful argument against, say, Catholocism, or Baptist belief, but it shows ignorance to the beliefs of others who interpret things quite differently, or hold separate beliefs, yet are classified under the same religion.

[Foxjewel]

Majnooni

I think moderation is in order here. I plan to raise my children (that I may or may not even have) in my own occupation because it is a part of my life

FTFY.

You can replace that with all sorts of other words, and each one is a new reason why your kids may need therapy. Same with the religion one. Just because you think it's all that doesn't mean it won't be a source of trauma to them, to have to go along with a belief system that does nothing for them or is harmful to them.

This, for the record, is why the "one true church" meme needs to die. And why atheism needs to stop propagating it and claiming to be it.

[stealthmongoose]

The Raging 4Skin

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

My case is he froths at the mouth any time someone talks about God in his near vicinity, and seemed to be under the delusion that all Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible and church tradition. Despite his academic success in his field, he's no historian, he's no philosopher, and overall, he's just a very unpleasant person to debate with in general.

I suppose i can accept that his attitude towards a majority of Christians was not the best.

This doesn't change the message of scripture or any other teaching (embarassing or otherwise) that was refuted as a process of Dawkins' mannerisms or the facts that he presented regarding the message of scripture and other such things.

Credibility only goes so far when assessing a truthful statement. There are plenty of quack doctors, self-proclaimed holy men, and selfish politicians who would have you enthralled by the credibility of their professions while exercising equal eagerness to lie for selfish reasons.

For all of the self-propogating rumors about Dawkins and his approach, none of it can be contended without resorting to personal attacks on the man's character, and even then i doubt he was as hateful of Christians as he was of Zealots whom he reacted to in kind.

I don't assault the man's intelligence. He was obviously a very educated man, and in his field of science, I'm sure he was quite remarkable. I'm not terribly interested in biology, so I'm not incredibly familiar with Dawkins in his expertise, although I am aware his credentials are quite remarkable, that he prides himself in objective research via scientific method, and that he is anything but a crackpot.

I'm also aware he's quite a p***k when it comes to the issue of religious and/or spiritual beliefs, and refused to view himself as an equal when debating it, which lends itself to his inability to accept anything his opponents might have said, which makes him a terrible candidate for understanding anything of a religious matter because he would never remove his bias, or condescending intent.

I'm sorry, but in debate a person's etiquette is not marked by their ability to accept things their opponents say just to facilitate their arguments.

It is not my obligation, for example, to accept that Jesus was a deity for us to understand what his deific powers might be if he was. Dawkins did not have to accept any premise his opponents made without proof in order to understand their meaning. I don't have to accept things to understand them either, and neither do you. I personally think Dawkins was taking a step in the right direction by holding his opponents to that higher standard, which is more a sign of respect rather than condescension.

Can you actually cite a debate or instance in which Dawkins condescends on his opponent without reason? Or is it more likely that his opponents take his demand of equal proof as an insult?

Oh come the ******** down off your high horse, dude. Dawkins is a ******** d**k. He belittles people and calls them idiots before he even knows their damned names. This criticism isn't even coming from religious people. The last three pages are all atheists/near-atheists bashing him because HE'S A ******** t**t.

Now, Neil DeGrasse Tyson, there is a man who knows how to have a civil, intelligent conversation about. s**t. That. Matters.

What does Dawkins do? Wastes his brilliance, every ounce of his intelligence and ability as an accomplished biologist... To sell books talking about how Christians are retards. Yeah dude, good job on that one. Working on curing cancer or the rising rate of autism or why primetime TV still sucks after all these years CERTAINLY would not have been a just use of his talent and genius.

Nope, we gotta make sure the WHOLE WORLD knows Christians are idiots, and if anyone defends them they're just padding a bedding for them.

Right, while that's all a very good assessment of his personal issues regarding Christianity, i don't think that says much for either his debate skill or his ability to get the truth of a matter across.

I've already pointed out that there are douches and idiots from every walk of life, and while i'm willing to admit that Dawkins is kind of douchey, it says nothing about the points he raises or his ability to understand the point of his opponent.

The crucial mistake everyone in this thread seems to be making is in assuming that an acceptance of a point is equivalent to the understanding of that point.

It's not.

I can understand a Christian viewpoint by merely analyzing it. I do not have to accept it. I applaud dawkins for not accepting false preconceptions and instead analyzing them for what they are.

As to your point about Neil DeGrasse Tyson (An astrophysicist and scientific popularizer) in comparison to Richard Dawkins (An Ethologist and Evolutionary Biologist, as well as author) seems to be another appeal to their attitude towards religious people rather than their knowledge on any given subject.

Granted, even I find astrophysics a bit more interesting than biology and ETHICS DEBATES, but that neither makes DeGrasse a superior Atheist nor Dawkins an inferior Debator.

Writing a book outlining observations on ethics in regards to religion, whether or not it is insulting to a group of people who claim to be Christian, is not rude or even "d**k"ish as you put it.

I suppose the next obvious question should be "Why u mad bro?" What is it that Dawkins does that is so different in it's approach from anyone else who debates the ethics of religious belief, even a non-specific religious beliefs.

So far the jist of your argument seems to be "This man is a bad debater and truth teller because his truths are insulting. He's wasting his time telling these truths and it's childish for him to do so. He does not accept my beliefs as his own so he is a bad debater. By comparing him to an astrophysicist who does not discuss the ethics of religion, I am proving that this man is a bad debater."

An argument which doesn't appear to hold much weight beyond your typical shouting contest in a schoolyard between children.

[stealthmongoose]

False Dichotomy

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

stealthmongoose

False Dichotomy

My case is he froths at the mouth any time someone talks about God in his near vicinity, and seemed to be under the delusion that all Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible and church tradition. Despite his academic success in his field, he's no historian, he's no philosopher, and overall, he's just a very unpleasant person to debate with in general.

I suppose i can accept that his attitude towards a majority of Christians was not the best.

This doesn't change the message of scripture or any other teaching (embarassing or otherwise) that was refuted as a process of Dawkins' mannerisms or the facts that he presented regarding the message of scripture and other such things.

Credibility only goes so far when assessing a truthful statement. There are plenty of quack doctors, self-proclaimed holy men, and selfish politicians who would have you enthralled by the credibility of their professions while exercising equal eagerness to lie for selfish reasons.

For all of the self-propogating rumors about Dawkins and his approach, none of it can be contended without resorting to personal attacks on the man's character, and even then i doubt he was as hateful of Christians as he was of Zealots whom he reacted to in kind.

I don't assault the man's intelligence. He was obviously a very educated man, and in his field of science, I'm sure he was quite remarkable. I'm not terribly interested in biology, so I'm not incredibly familiar with Dawkins in his expertise, although I am aware his credentials are quite remarkable, that he prides himself in objective research via scientific method, and that he is anything but a crackpot.

I'm also aware he's quite a p***k when it comes to the issue of religious and/or spiritual beliefs, and refused to view himself as an equal when debating it, which lends itself to his inability to accept anything his opponents might have said, which makes him a terrible candidate for understanding anything of a religious matter because he would never remove his bias, or condescending intent.

I'm sorry, but in debate a person's etiquette is not marked by their ability to accept things their opponents say just to facilitate their arguments.

If you cannot entertain a thought, you will not learn anything. Dawkins didn't set out to learn anything. He set out to discredit theists, using abrahamic religions as a poster child. Etiquette in debate will not prevent one side (or, in this subject's case, both sides) from being unwilling to understand a viewpoint. In this case, it's less of a debate, and more of a petty argument using citations, but not civility.

My point is that Dawkins is not a reputable source for talking about God, he's a reputable source for talking about biology and evolution.

Quote:

It is not my obligation, for example, to accept that Jesus was a deity for us to understand what his deific powers might be if he was. Dawkins did not have to accept any premise his opponents made without proof in order to understand their meaning. I don't have to accept things to understand them either, and neither do you. I personally think Dawkins was taking a step in the right direction by holding his opponents to that higher standard, which is more a sign of respect rather than condescension.

If you do not make an attempt to see from your opponent's viewpoint, you will not understand the the argument your opponent proposes.

Quote:

Can you actually cite a debate or instance in which Dawkins condescends on his opponent without reason? Or is it more likely that his opponents take his demand of equal proof as an insult?

There was a particular time Alistar McGrath (An Oxford educated Theologian) made a similar point that I did, stating that Dawkins was ignorant of the intricacies of Christian theology, and therefor was not able to engage in debates about it intelligently. Dawkins, instead of taking any time to look into whether or not his arguments actually applied to Christian theology on a doctrinal level, decided to make a sarcastic sneer of, and I quote "do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in leprechauns?" Which was a cleaver way to get out of admitting he was not knowledgeable in that area.

What I frequently find in people who have these massive hate boners who make such a big deal out of how they despise religion,(Let's make things simple, and say Christianity for now) is that they frequently cite things that are sectoral doctrine, but not biblical doctrine. Now, while shooting down such things like this might hurt the claims of a particular sect, to others it is seen as insulting, as it is to them, and/or others as a misunderstanding of the concept or doctrine that was described. In which point, what he said might have been a powerful argument against, say, Catholocism, or Baptist belief, but it shows ignorance to the beliefs of others who interpret things quite differently, or hold separate beliefs, yet are classified under the same religion.

Entertaining a thought is not the same as accepting it. I accept your resignation of your previous point regarding acceptance and now will entertain the idea of your new argument regarding entertaining a notion. Dawkins entertains notions regarding belief on a level of ethics, because that is the medium in which the subject is debated with Dawkins. Given this fact, i think your attempt at defamation falls flat on it's irrelevance to the subject matter.

Quote:

Etiquette in debate will not prevent one side (or, in this subject's case, both sides) from being unwilling to understand a viewpoint

You yourself have just pointed out the relevance of etiquette in a formal debate, which is to say minimal if at all. The points and information of every truth are there, and any willingness to ignore such is an appeal to personal preference, NOT the subject.

1. This gun is loaded.

2. This gun is ******** loaded.

Both statements contain equal validity on the subject of a gun. You are arguing as an analogy that the second sentence is not valid. I argue that both are valid and that in the absent of the first the second would still be true.

My point is that Dawkins is a reputable source for talking about biology and ethics, which include the subject of God when a claim is made on the part of God towards Biology and Ethics.

Aside from that, i'd also like to assert that Dawkins is as much of an authority on God as anyone. On Christianity? I might turn to Matt Dillahunty for that information, but in truth we're all pretty much experts on a fictional idea.

I do not have to believe in Jesus to view why someone would believe in him. I do not have to accept that the earth is flat to see why some people would be fooled into believing it. I can understand where you're coming from without walking the same way. Again, your mistake here is equating comprehension with acceptance. Dawkins does more than enough to see the argument from his opponent's perspective. Not letting them win the debate is a childish appeal to false civility.

1. Dawkins' statement regarding leprechaunology was not condescending, as leprechauns require the same burden of proof as a deity. This is no more disingenuous than the comparison regarding Superman to God or Galactus to Jesus, which are valid correlations to make. Your insinuations about his actual attitude on the subject seems to be personal, as the sneer and sarcasm were not present in his WRITTEN AND TYPED response to stanford, not part of a debate. Aside from that the man is qualified to answer any ethical question and biologically evolutionary question, including those that religious organizations decide to stick their noses in. Any more imbellishments to make this Dawkins guy out to be more than he really is?

2. In this example of Christianity, you'll have to point out these hate boners to me and how they relate to the truth. There's nothing hateful about proving something wrong. Sectoral doctrine? Biblical doctrine? Please make a differentiation between these two. It is not my responsibility to make your scripture understandable, or to appeal to the preferences of it's followers. It is not Dawkins' responsibility to appeal to these sensibilities either, especially when those sensitivities include inconvenient truths. If someone is offended by light, it's not your obligation to keep the room in the dark.

3. This is part of your same paragraph regarding scripture and personal interpretation, but i'm outlining a particular point here; When a person chooses to abandon their scripture, it is THEIR responsibility to outline how their beliefs differ from scripture. If your holy book does not match your beliefs, then present how your beliefs are different. It is not your opponent's responsibility to predict your beliefs when you are bringing them to the table to debate. If this was the way it went down with dawkins, i think he was perfectly justified in responding the way he did to this double standard of belief.

At first you say dawkins is rude for hitting Stanford back on the premise of disproving god...then you backpedal and say that scriptural differences aren't required for such a notion, while justifying people's personal deviation from scripture. Well, i have two counterpoints to this.

3a. If scripture is a qualification to the nonexistence of God, then why would it be inappropriate to disqualify the beliefs of other people using scripture?

3b. If scripture is NOT a qualification to the nonexistence of God (as your final paragraph seems to hit on relentlessly) then how is Dawkins being disingenuous or uncivil towards his opponent? All you're doing is pointing out a sect of christianity that dawkins is being disingenous towards, right?


Regardless, on the topic at hand I think dawkins has helped me prove a matter regarding faith and why there are no christian or even religious children.

The fact of the matter is that if the scripture or belief was never introduced to a child, the child would have no need to hold the belief. Other beliefs may form, but there is no inherent connection between life and religion or the belief in god. You have to teach it to children in order for them to believe it.

Our conversation revealed this through my opponent's realization that people hold different beliefs depending on how they were raised and what sources for beliefs they were introduced to.

In conclusion, i'd just like to point out that i don't need to understand fairies to disprove them, and no child is born with the belief in fairies or any other fiction including God. I would even go as far as to assert that all children are born irreligious.

[The Raging 4Skin]

stealthmongoose

derp

You have the reading comprehension of a fern, you know that? No one, that I've seen, has said s**t about Dawkins' method of debate or the points he actually attempts to make.

There's no reason to, we all agree with them.

THIS JUST IN: People believe in dumb s**t.

We ******** know, we've already been down that road. But just like the smut peddlers you can see on TBN on Sundays, here's Dawkins, making /certain/ we ALL know. And if we don't agree with him, we're backwards, or in the closet about our atheism, or needlessly 'nice'. The guy is nothing more than an atheist version of televangelists who wastes his genius on beating a horse that's been dead for two-thousand and twelve years.

[Somber Ash]

Pinkitha

I've gathered this idea from a debate featuring Richard Dawkins (Author of The God Delusion).

My opinion suggests that children are much too young to be "raised Christian" or "raised Muslim" or any religion for that matter. (Christianity is my main example here because that is what I'm most commonly exposed to and affected by, however, this point can be argued for every religion.) Children should rather be educated on all the major religions of the world and be let to choose one for themselves, or choose none when they are old enough.

Growing up in a household where your guardians constantly force upon you, "You are a Christian and MUST act as one!" is simply wicked. It is cruelty to the child, and nothing less than brainwashing. How could a child comprehend even the basics of religion when it is too young even to comprehend the idea of death? The two go hand in hand.

If all people (As Dr. William Lane Craig states in his arguments for the existence of God) have a natural belief inside them, then these children will be educated about all religions and by themselves, because of this innate knowledge that God is with them, accept God and Christianity as their own religion when the appropriate time in their education arrives.

Brainwashing the uneducated persons is a dirty tactic that religion has used since its creation in order to gain power and money for the churches, and when exploited upon children, even more appalling. A child is then not a religious one, but a brainwashed one, unless it has come to the decision of its own volition, and not of its parents'.


Thoughts, comments and counterarguments welcome.

Religion is the greatest propaganda in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, usually the general morality's and large rules are good and I agree with them: don't kill people, don't cheat, don't steal, etc. It's the fact that it's also been used for years to push the other agenda's within churches so they could run as governments. Read some of the bibles sometime - particularly the mormon bible.

The Mormon bible teaches that your children need to also be mormon and if they stray from the mormon church - YOU SHOULD KILL THEM. Religions aren't logical, they were made to indocrinate people with some of the best threats possible: worship such and such or you'll suffer forever, accept jesus or you'll burn in hell for all eternany!

Things like this are why I have my own personal faith that I came to after deciding no other organized religion made any logical sense to me. And my personal faith won't make sense to everyone, or possibly anyone else. The world will always use religion as a way to control, and most people won't even realize they're complicating the problem, many think they are 'saving' their own kids not condemning them. Again: Mormons - they stay mormon or you shoulld slay them!

Religion and logic are about as opposite as you are going to get in many cases.

Though most people aren't so crazy as to take it to those extremes (like murder) many religous people will treat people poorly based purely on their 'personal faith' (I.E. Christians hate of gays). I've known people that are fine intellegent individuals, but when it comes to religion they suddenly turn into bigots and retards. I've seen very little good from organized religion.

[-Soul in this universe-]

Pinkitha

I've gathered this idea from a debate featuring Richard Dawkins (Author of The God Delusion).

My opinion suggests that children are much too young to be "raised Christian" or "raised Muslim" or any religion for that matter. (Christianity is my main example here because that is what I'm most commonly exposed to and affected by, however, this point can be argued for every religion.) Children should rather be educated on all the major religions of the world and be let to choose one for themselves, or choose none when they are old enough.

Growing up in a household where your guardians constantly force upon you, "You are a Christian and MUST act as one!" is simply wicked. It is cruelty to the child, and nothing less than brainwashing. How could a child comprehend even the basics of religion when it is too young even to comprehend the idea of death? The two go hand in hand.

If all people (As Dr. William Lane Craig states in his arguments for the existence of God) have a natural belief inside them, then these children will be educated about all religions and by themselves, because of this innate knowledge that God is with them, accept God and Christianity as their own religion when the appropriate time in their education arrives.

Brainwashing the uneducated persons is a dirty tactic that religion has used since its creation in order to gain power and money for the churches, and when exploited upon children, even more appalling. A child is then not a religious one, but a brainwashed one, unless it has come to the decision of its own volition, and not of its parents'.


Thoughts, comments and counterarguments welcome.

I recently tried to imagine what I'd believ eif I were not exposed to Christianity at age 7 and still found Christianity plausible. I'm 20.

[Pinkitha]

-Soul in this universe-

Pinkitha

I've gathered this idea from a debate featuring Richard Dawkins (Author of The God Delusion).

My opinion suggests that children are much too young to be "raised Christian" or "raised Muslim" or any religion for that matter. (Christianity is my main example here because that is what I'm most commonly exposed to and affected by, however, this point can be argued for every religion.) Children should rather be educated on all the major religions of the world and be let to choose one for themselves, or choose none when they are old enough.

Growing up in a household where your guardians constantly force upon you, "You are a Christian and MUST act as one!" is simply wicked. It is cruelty to the child, and nothing less than brainwashing. How could a child comprehend even the basics of religion when it is too young even to comprehend the idea of death? The two go hand in hand.

If all people (As Dr. William Lane Craig states in his arguments for the existence of God) have a natural belief inside them, then these children will be educated about all religions and by themselves, because of this innate knowledge that God is with them, accept God and Christianity as their own religion when the appropriate time in their education arrives.

Brainwashing the uneducated persons is a dirty tactic that religion has used since its creation in order to gain power and money for the churches, and when exploited upon children, even more appalling. A child is then not a religious one, but a brainwashed one, unless it has come to the decision of its own volition, and not of its parents'.


Thoughts, comments and counterarguments welcome.

I recently tried to imagine what I'd believ eif I were not exposed to Christianity at age 7 and still found Christianity plausible. I'm 20.

It's a shame that 13 years have gone by and you still can't see the contradictions within the teachings.