Dawkins Choice: Abuse and Religion

[S.A.M.]

Pray harder.

Its the only reason I would be on the roof at that time of the morning.

When taken out of context, yes. You left out the middle bit I see..Again.. context.. Everything appears as it is not meant to be when it is taken out of context.

There is no context to "He simply cannot understand why they are thiests"

Does what apply to atheists? Believing in God and keeping one's scientific research outside of one's religious beliefs? Atheists don't believe.

They clearly believe that more scientists being atheists is a meaningful statement. Don't you think being a confident atheist is an intellectually silly position?

 

[S.A.M.]

Bells:

I'll read it a bit at a time (between bouts of unrelenting nausea presumably) and tell you what I think.

 

[Bells]

Its the only reason I would be on the roof at that time of the morning.

Be thankful you don't live in a cold climate. I guess that's why eskimo's aren't Muslim.

There is no context to "He simply cannot understand why they are thiests"

He doesn't say they are clueless or stupid. Simply that he cannot understand their need and desire to believe in God. He also covers the need to believe in the book as well... about why some people have this need to believe in something.. even atheists..

They clearly believe that more scientists being atheists is a meaningful statement. Don't you think being a confident atheist is an intellectually silly position?

One could say the same about a confident theists.

 

[Bells]

Bells:

I'll read it a bit at a time (between bouts of unrelenting nausea presumably) and tell you what I think.

It's an interesting read.

 

[sniffy]

To move on - whereto? From one situation that is bad in one way to another situation that is bad in some other way. From one unhappiness into another. From one set of fears to another set of fears. From "neurotically unhappy" to "normally unhappy".

- This is what psychotherapy is actually offering. So don't try to present it as if Salvation was being offered.

If you think you can lead a life without fear or unhappiness then you will find yourself sadly disappointed as experiencing such things is part and parcel of life and pretty much impossible to avoid. I'm talking about irrational fear and irrational unhappiness which certain proponents of religion (and politics and others interested in manipulation and control) play on and use as control techniques. This is what can be so damaging. I quite deliberately do not use the word 'salvation'. Psychotherapy might work for one person or might not for another. It is not the only option and I didn't say it was. I said it is possible to recover, to move on from abuse.

 

[(Q)]

Okay I googled it, it was ignorant bigot.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&...HfM&q="an+ignorant+bigot"+dawkins&btnG=Search

"Wesley Pruden might find it "sophomoric" tell a bigot that they are a bigot, but if the shoe fits then the person should wear it — and Wesley Pruden is himself just the sort of person who deserves to be informed that they are bigot. There is no ethical obligation to be so "polite" as to not tell people when they are bigoted, when they are ignorant about something, or when they are simply wrong about something.

Would Wesley Pruden have called it "sophomoric" for a black civil rights leader to tell a KKK member that they are an "ignorant bigot"? That wouldn’t surprise me — Pruden has a history of embracing the Confederacy"

 

[Gustav]

so ahh
dawkins is an apologetic for himself

chapter 1
asshole!

chapter 2
well, not really

chapter 3
some of my best friends are assholes

 

[sniffy]

Can we not acknowledge Dawkins for starting a debate at least? Is it not an important and healthy one to have? I certainly think so.

 

[S.A.M.]

"Wesley Pruden might find it "sophomoric" tell a bigot that they are a bigot, but if the shoe fits then the person should wear it — and Wesley Pruden is himself just the sort of person who deserves to be informed that they are bigot. There is no ethical obligation to be so "polite" as to not tell people when they are bigoted, when they are ignorant about something, or when they are simply wrong about something.

Would Wesley Pruden have called it "sophomoric" for a black civil rights leader to tell a KKK member that they are an "ignorant bigot"? That wouldn’t surprise me — Pruden has a history of embracing the Confederacy"

W(ho)TF is Wesley Pruden?

Can we not acknowledge Dawkins for starting a debate at least? Is it not an important and healthy one to have? I certainly think so.

What debate?

His kind of polemic is fruitless chin stroking. Not really amenable to debate.

Be thankful you don't live in a cold climate. I guess that's why eskimo's aren't Muslim.

They aren't?

He doesn't say they are clueless or stupid. Simply that he cannot understand their need and desire to believe in God. He also covers the need to believe in the book as well... about why some people have this need to believe in something.. even atheists..

So basically he thinks they are clueless and stupid, since if they had his wonderful vision, they would be educated out of it.

One could say the same about a confident theists.

Not really, we have faith.

 

[Gustav]

Can we not acknowledge Dawkins for starting a debate at least?

well yeah
the troll would love it here

 

[greenberg]

If you think you can lead a life without fear or unhappiness then you will find yourself sadly disappointed as experiencing such things is part and parcel of life and pretty much impossible to avoid.

I'm talking about irrational fear and irrational unhappiness which certain proponents of religion (and politics and others interested in manipulation and control) play on and use as control techniques.

"Irrational fear" and "irrational unhappiness" according to whom? According to whom are they "irrational"?

Anyone who is serious about their life will at some point have to consider things like eternal hell, the Universe being chaotic or ruled by an evil or insane God, that everyone else might be enlightened except oneself.

The "religious abuse" is simply the trigger for such considerations.
But the problem is that in society, there are very few, sometimes even no people who have seriously considered such things and came to reliable solutions.
Instead, things like "eternal hell" etc. are usually simply labeled "absurd", "irrational", a "waste of time" - without actually having been investigated.

 

[sniffy]

Greenberg
What does 'serious about their life' mean? How can you possibly know what considerations people have made about their lives or the origin of the universe or anything else? Are you in touch telepathically with the 6 billion plus people who live on earth to know what they have considered? Or are you well, arrogant?

Are only people who have been brought up with religion capable of thinking about such matters? Or are people brought up with religion capable of seeing things from one perspective only and dismissive of other perspectives?

Eternal hell? Eternal heaven? Some people derive comfort from religion and these notions; the thought of an afterlife; the thought of seeing loved ones again after death. Others don't spend too much time worrying about it because they are too busy getting through each day or they have thought about these matters and found the subject to be interesting but personally unresolvable!

Many people have thought about these concepts and come to their own conclusions; if they believe in the notion presumably they then behave according to the numerous and contradictory 'rules' set out by various religious tenets and philosophies to avoid 'going to hell' or away from the path to enlightenment. If they don't believe in such concepts then presumably they too behave accordingly.

When I use the word 'irrational' I mean to the extent that an individual has an inability to function on a personal or social level because fear and unhappiness are all encompassing.

 

[sniffy]

What debate?

His kind of polemic is fruitless chin stroking. Not really amenable to debate.

and yet here you are debating

 

[greenberg]

What does 'serious about their life' mean?

Considering worst case scenarios.

How can you possibly know what considerations people have made about their lives or the origin of the universe or anything else? Are you in touch telepathically with the 6 billion plus people who live on earth to know what they have considered? Or are you well, arrogant?

Are only people who have been brought up with religion capable of thinking about such matters? Or are people brought up with religion capable of seeing things from one perspective only and dismissive of other perspectives?

What is your point? In all our conversations that we've had so far on the topic, you have not presented a solution that would be viable in my case. Should I feel bad about this? Should I mould myself in accord with your idea? Should I lower my standards for happiness and embrace a life of silent despair and convince myself that this is as good as it gets?

Others don't spend too much time worrying about it because they are too busy getting through each day or they have thought about these matters and found the subject to be interesting but personally unresolvable!

Now you sound like Myles.

When I use the word 'irrational' I mean to the extent that an individual has an inability to function on a personal or social level because fear and unhappiness are all encompassing.

Again, "inability to function on a personal or social level" according to whom?

 

[Bells]

So basically he thinks they are clueless and stupid, since if they had his wonderful vision, they would be educated out of it.

Does he say that?

No. He does not.

Not really, we have faith.

Yes. And?

You do realise one does not have to be a theist to have faith, don't you?

 

[(Q)]

Instead, things like "eternal hell" etc. are usually simply labeled "absurd", "irrational", a "waste of time" - without actually having been investigated.

Test subjects have been hard to come by. No one seems to want to volunteer the mission. Go figure.

 

[iceaura]

It had to happen. Even atheists defend their fundies.

? Who would they be ? The Dalai Lama ?

I'm listening to what he is saying and judging him by what he is doing.

You dont' appear to have a clue about either one of those. The poll questions on this thread, for example, are based on bizarre misrepresentations of any words or deeds of Dawkins.

I started it, read the whole shebang about the "confusion" between Einstein's "religion" and "other religions" and had a good laugh and set it away

So "no" is the answer. That would explain your odd take on what Dawkins is actually up to here, and your inability to present refutations or responses to Dawkins's actual arguments.

What you might do is just not bring Dawkins into your discussions, rather than starting polls and discussions and so forth about someone whose writings and arguments are unfamiliar to you. It is perfectly possible to discuss the evils of fundie atheism without bringing in stuff you haven't bothered to read.

Onthe other hand:

So do you you flinch when you see children reenacting a nativity and dial 911?

Do you think athiests on the whole, have a more independent and healthy mind?

Do you think the "fact" that more professors or PhDs are atheists automatically makes them finer and better people with vast stores of moral wisdom?

Do you think physicists should avoid the word religion and God when discussing their beliefs as intellectual treason?

etc...and this is just the preface.

if that's what you got from the preface of that book, you may be right - it wouldn't do you a bit of good to read it any more of it.

Or maybe a little:

I think he makes it very clear, through the use of so much hyperbole what he thinks of the intellectual capacity of theists.

You don't have to attain clarity by reading your presumptions into "hyperbole" - Dawkins is explicit and direct about his opinion of the intellectual capacity of theists, which he rates as highly as anyone else's on average.

And Dawkins has perhaps more excuse than most for wondering about the influence of theism on intellectual capability, considering the nonsense that so many theists - with examples right here, such as the poll questions on this thread - have apparently fumbled together as their comprehension of his own writings. He doesn't use complex sentences, his words aren't that big, he avoids jargon pretty much - wtf is the problem ?

I recall the one time he met a preacher or minister who was on the opposite side of a political debate from him and when the preacher extended his hand for a handshake, Dawkins kept his firmly to his side and said, very clearly, "You sir are an intolerant bigot". The irony is almost amusing.

Political debate ? Dawkins ? With a preacher ? Hmmmmm. I can't find the name of the preacher, the date or location or topic of the debate. But of course context doesn't matter, right ?

Don't you think being a confident atheist is an intellectually silly position?

Nope. Going with one's best judgment is hardly silly.

 

[S.A.M.]

iceaura:

What do you think of the two petitions that Dawkins signed?

1. on prohibiting parental religious upbringing of their kids?
2. on abolishing faith schools?

I notice you haven't addressed these, though you keep referring to context.

 

[iceaura]

What do you think of the two petitions that Dawkins signed?

1. on prohibiting parental religious upbringing of their kids?
2. on abolishing faith schools?

I notice you haven't addressed these, though you keep referring to context.

On the first, I think you are once again - not so flagrantly this time - misrepresenting the situation. The actual petition reads as follows:

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.

That's not the same as forbidding "parental religious upbringing".

On the second, I find Dawkins's own words relevant:

1. Comment #6891 by Richard Dawkins on November 16, 2006 at 4:54 am
The point is not to abolish Religious Education. There is value in Religious Education, including Comparative Religion (for anthropologists tell us that religion is a ubiquitous human universal) and the King James Bible as literature (there are so many allusions to it in Shakespeare and other English literature). What is wrong -- indeed, arguably a form of mental child abuse -- is the INDOCTRINATION of children into one particular faith, which they are informed is THEIR faith, automatically inherited from their parents.

Now even this is far from my own take on religion's role in upbringing. As I have said before, I have a serious disagreement with Dawkins about the role of religion in human affairs. And so do most atheists. But that doesn't matter here - on this thread we are still dealing with allegations of evangelical dogma-spreading with authoritarian political goals, that aims at removing children from religious parents' homes.

 

[sniffy]

What is your point? In all our conversations that we've had so far on the topic, you have not presented a solution that would be viable in my case. Should I feel bad about this? Should I mould myself in accord with your idea? Should I lower my standards for happiness and embrace a life of silent despair and convince myself that this is as good as it gets?

I didn't realise that was an expectation. I don't know what your standards for happiness are. But I would say that an expectation of eternal happiness is unrealistic and as undesirable as unrelenting silent despair. Let yourself off the hook greenberg! And let me off whilst your at it!

Now you sound like Myles.

I suspect Myles might feel somewhat insulted by the comparison.


Again, "inability to function on a personal or social level" according to whom?[/QUOTE]

Could an 'unrelenting silent despair' be an indicator? Or worrying about what happens after we shuffle off this mortal coil? Or whether what we do on earth has any impact on what happens when we've left it? Eternal happiness or eternal unhappiness or slow fade to black or something yet unimagined or unimaginable?

I believe we lead our lives as best we can, according to what it brings us. This is my solution for me. Some people prefer to have the guidance of a faith/religion or philosophy; others do not require such prescriptiveness. I'm sorry these aren't appropriate solutions for you. I hope, sooner rather than later, you find one that is.