Welcome to Gaia! ::

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.


You've expressed the different angles of this argument elegantly; well done.
The Failure of Atheism to Account for Morality
http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-ac…
Richard dawkins fraud
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion1.html
In this sort of thing, you really have to look at the motives. When parents teach their children about their religion, they aren't trying to exploit them, or set them up so that they can give more money and power to their church. Parents truly believe that their church is correct, so they want the best for their children, which (as they see it) means that their children should follow their own church. Of course every person should choose on their own, but if a kid really feels some misgivings about his church he can just research some other religions without his parent's help. In my church, kids don't get baptized till they're 8 years old, which I think is old enough to make you're own decision.
keito-ninja
In my church, kids don't get baptized till they're 8 years old, which I think is old enough to make you're own decision.


I don't think that's nearly old enough. At 8, children still have the mindset that their parents are always right. At 8, they are not making an informed decision. They're being pushed into that decision, either by their parents and family, those in authority at their church, or their friends who have already gone through the process. I was around 10 when I was saved and baptized and there is no way I truly understood the decision I was making, even though I thought I did at the time and for several years after. I don't think children should be able to make those decisions until well into their teens, when they have the mental capacity to understand what they are doing and why.
chinchinchiller
keito-ninja
In my church, kids don't get baptized till they're 8 years old, which I think is old enough to make you're own decision.


I don't think that's nearly old enough. At 8, children still have the mindset that their parents are always right. At 8, they are not making an informed decision. They're being pushed into that decision, either by their parents and family, those in authority at their church, or their friends who have already gone through the process. I was around 10 when I was saved and baptized and there is no way I truly understood the decision I was making, even though I thought I did at the time and for several years after. I don't think children should be able to make those decisions until well into their teens, when they have the mental capacity to understand what they are doing and why.


So what's wrong with changing your mind when you're older. It may be a sin to break the covenant of baptism, according to the church, but if you want to leave the religion then you don't believe all that stuff anyway. Or do just not like the fact that it's a guilt trap?
Well no one is actually a Christian until they are born again. So technically speaking there are no Christian children generally. Children in that designation are usually children raise by Christin parents or raise in a Christian community.

Its only brainwashing if it is something wrong. Teaching children about God is only wrong when you are doing it wrong.
Kurokage Z's avatar

6,550 Points
  • Befriended 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Profitable 100
Pinkitha
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 religion because it is a part of my life, just as I intend to make them eat the way I do because that too is a part of my life. I'm not going to threaten them or brainwash them. In fact, I think it's good if they learn about other religions as a part of being educated people. If they decide to pick one other than mine, fine, but I'm not going to go out of my way in a futile attempt to seem not biased toward my own beliefs.


You have every right to do what you like with your children, however, I find that rather selfish. Instead of educating your child to the best of your abilities so it can progress as an individual thinker, you would instead urge them to follow your own beliefs. As a child, that's all it takes to be convinced.
Exactly that's how racism, ignorance and religious hate have spread all throughout the years.
It was never forced on me and I was a better Christian when I was younger then I am now.
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
medic61310
It was never forced on me and I was a better Christian when I was younger then I am now.
By what virtues were you a better Christian back then?
stealthmongoose's avatar

Dangerous Conversationalist

7,550 Points
  • Beta Forum Regular 0
  • Beta Citizen 0
  • Beta Contributor 0
Kurokage Z
Pinkitha
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 religion because it is a part of my life, just as I intend to make them eat the way I do because that too is a part of my life. I'm not going to threaten them or brainwash them. In fact, I think it's good if they learn about other religions as a part of being educated people. If they decide to pick one other than mine, fine, but I'm not going to go out of my way in a futile attempt to seem not biased toward my own beliefs.


You have every right to do what you like with your children, however, I find that rather selfish. Instead of educating your child to the best of your abilities so it can progress as an individual thinker, you would instead urge them to follow your own beliefs. As a child, that's all it takes to be convinced.
Exactly that's how racism, ignorance and religious hate have spread all throughout the years.


I'd have to agree. Much of what causes detriment in society is due to a lack of knowledge and a willingness to keep one's eyes closed on the subject.

Rather than tell my children murder is wrong, for example, i will explain what happens to a body when it dies and allow the impact of suffering upon others due to death stand on it's own merits rather than attribute it to something supernatural. In this way i will teach kids that life is precious, and not to be taken at face value.

In regards to religion, i will give them my personal opinion on the matter and allow them to decide for themselves. I will, however, also measure out every angle of religion i can and place it before them to judge clearly, without the influence of evangelical non-investigation.
Ryo Tarn's avatar

Tenacious Genius

2,450 Points
  • Restorative Spirit 250
  • Vicious Spirit 250
  • Hygienic 200
The thing with it is that there's really only two options with teaching children to be christian. One, you brainwash them by only telling them the good parts of the religion and that it's all true.
The other options is child abuse by telling them about all of the religion; including that they are sinful creatures unworthy of salvation who deserve to be tortured for all eternity and must believe in God and love him with all their heart and pray for his forgiveness if they wish to be saved.
Ryo Tarn's avatar

Tenacious Genius

2,450 Points
  • Restorative Spirit 250
  • Vicious Spirit 250
  • Hygienic 200
Cadasa52
The Failure of Atheism to Account for Morality
http://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-ac…
Richard dawkins fraud
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/the_god_delusion1.html
Dude, Christian morality idolizes ***** (God was like 14 billion years old when he banged 12 year old Mary, ugh).

Besides, I counter your God with my Iron Chariot (Judges 1:19).
stealthmongoose
medic61310
It was never forced on me and I was a better Christian when I was younger then I am now.
By what virtues were you a better Christian back then?


Still stalking I see. Not playing these games with you, sorry. God Bless.
Mechromancer4Life's avatar

Invisible Gekko

8,950 Points
  • Bunny Spotter 50
  • Bunny Hunter 100
  • Bunny Hoarder 150
Well that depends on your definition of children. I was six when I was a Christian and I quit being one at twelve. Newborns and infants can't be Christians because they don't have the knowledge or brain power to do much, including worshipping a god. Our brains aren't created to believe in a god just like they aren't created to make you want drugs, it is all about the people you are around and the choices you make.
medic61310
stealthmongoose
medic61310
It was never forced on me and I was a better Christian when I was younger then I am now.
By what virtues were you a better Christian back then?


Still stalking I see. Not playing these games with you, sorry. God Bless.

Please answer the question; I'm very curious on this matter myself.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games