More Dawkins idiocy...

[Rick O'Shez]

Of course. Any representation of his view that cast him in a negative light would definitely be met with repudiation.

That's because he is a Saint and therefore can do no wrong.

 

[Augustus]

What?? He's all about evidence.

He relies on evidence for the question "Why doesn't god exist?" Much of the rest of his diatribe is based on uninformed assumptions.

For example, when he says being brought up Catholic is arguably worse for a child than being sexually assaulted is he reflecting the scholarly consensus of child psychologists?

Or is it rational and evidence based to say "only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people" (a view so obviously and demonstrably false that it is remarkable that any knowledgable person can believe it)

[both from the god delusion]

Because of his ethos, many tend to assume that all of his views are rational and evidence based, many people would disagree with that though.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

For example, when he says being brought up Catholic is arguably worse for a child than being sexually assaulted is he reflecting the scholarly consensus of child psychologists?

Paedophile Catholic priests haven't helped.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He relies on evidence for the question "Why doesn't god exist?" Much of the rest of his diatribe is based on uninformed assumptions.

For example, when he says being brought up Catholic is arguably worse for a child than being sexually assaulted is he reflecting the scholarly consensus of child psychologists?

Or is it rational and evidence based to say "only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people" (a view so obviously and demonstrably false that it is remarkable that any knowledgable person can believe it)

[both from the god delusion]

Because of his ethos, many tend to assume that all of his views are rational and evidence based, many people would disagree with that though.

I'm always wary of picking random sentences out of books without any context. I do know that with the quotations you've given, Dawkins gave very specific examples in the book in order to illustrate his point.
So when you say, for instance, that he said "only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people," if you go back to the book you see that he is talking about a specific suicide attack in London which doesn't seem to make sense unless the people who carried out the attack were acting out of religious fervour. So while I understand to some extent what you're getting at, I just find that when you put these things in their proper context they suddenly seem a lot less inflammatory than they may otherwise seem when they're just viewed on their own.

 

[Augustus]

So when you say, for instance, that he said "only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people," if you go back to the book you see that he is talking about a specific suicide attack in London which doesn't seem to make sense unless the people who carried out the attack were acting out of religious fervour.

He doesn't confine it to a specific context though, he must post a similar quote once a month at least on his Twitter. I'm pretty sure he's posted it in the last week or 2. It's just nonsense though.

There is no way you can say "the only" force strong enough, as non-religious people have also carried out suicide bombings (which he actually acknowledges later).

He has decided that religion is worse than all other motivators, and repeats this ad nauseum. For someone who "cares passionately about truth", he shouldn't be peddling such blatant misinformation.

I just find that when you put these things in their proper context they suddenly seem a lot less inflammatory than they may otherwise seem when they're just viewed on their own.

So, even within the context that he puts it (which mitigates the statement somewhat), do you think that saying being raised Catholic might be worse than being mildly sexually assaulted is a rational and evidence based position?

Do you think that raising a child Catholic constitutes genuine child abuse? All of the catholics I know seem to be happy enough about their upbringing, never met anyone who's been sexually assaulted that has a positive thing to say about the experience though.

 

[McBell]

Paedophile Catholic priests haven't helped.

The massive decades long cover up of it didn't either.

 

[SkepticThinker]

He doesn't confine it to a specific context though, he must post a similar quote once a month at least on his Twitter. I'm pretty sure he's posted it in the last week or 2. It's just nonsense though.

There is no way you can say "the only" force strong enough, as non-religious people have also carried out suicide bombings (which he actually acknowledges later).

He has decided that religion is worse than all other motivators, and repeats this ad nauseum. For someone who "cares passionately about truth", he shouldn't be peddling such blatant misinformation.

The quote you gave can be found embedded within the context he is talking about. He is talking about a very specific situation where 4 men in London blew up a subway and a bus, and the consequences of those actions. He even points out that this isn't a characteristic of all religious groups and gives other specific examples of members of other religions who don't necessarily match his description.

I can't speak to his tweets as I don't know anything about that.

So, even within the context that he puts it (which mitigates the statement somewhat), do you think that saying being raised Catholic might be worse than being mildly sexually assaulted is a rational and evidence based position?

Do you think that raising a child Catholic constitutes genuine child abuse? All of the catholics I know seem to be happy enough about their upbringing, never met anyone who's been sexually assaulted that has a positive thing to say about the experience though.

I tend to agree, to some degree at least, with what he says. I do think it's a terrible and damaging thing to teach young children (or anyone) about being tortured to death in hell for all eternity if you don't do what god wants you to do - it can result in an enduring mental, emotional and psychological distress. However, so can (and does) sexual abuse. I would say it would depend on the person. Dawkins isn't saying that sexual abuse is a positive experience though.

My father is someone who was raised in the Catholic church, and he worried until the day he died that he was going to forever separated from his family because he believed that we were all going to be in heaven and he would surely end up in hell. I have read his personal writings and I know that this is something that kept him up at night. I wouldn't say he was "happy enough" with his upbringing. Nevermind the thousands of children who grew up in the Catholic church being told about the horrors of hell AND being sexually abused by priests.

Going back to Dawkins though, this is another one where he gives a very specific example where the woman in the story says herself that the mental abuse she suffered from being instilled with the fear of hell was worse (to her) than the sexual abuse she had experienced at the hands of a priest:

"Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from the mind of a 7 year old) as ‘yucky’ while the memory of my friend going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep because of the priest – but I spent many a night being terrified that the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."

 

[Augustus]

The quote you gave can be found embedded within the context he is talking about. He is talking about a very specific situation where 4 men in London blew up a subway and a bus, and the consequences of those actions. He even points out that this isn't a characteristic of all religious groups and gives other specific examples of members of other religions who don't necessarily match his description.

So if he used an example of the Tamil Tigers carrying out a suicide bombing it would be equally correct to say "Only secular nationalism is a strong enough force...."?

I can't speak to his tweets as I don't know anything about that.

Repeats it frequently with zero context or qualification.

I tend to agree, to some degree at least, with what he says. I do think it's a terrible and damaging thing to teach young children (or anyone) about being tortured to death in hell for all eternity if you don't do what god wants you to do - it can result in an enduring mental, emotional and psychological distress. However, so can (and does) sexual abuse. I would say it would depend on the person. Dawkins isn't saying that sexual abuse is a positive experience though.

But he ignores that religion can be a positive experience. The child whose gran dies might be a lot happier 'knowing' she is in heaven than that she was just burnt in an oven.

Sexual abuse though can only be a negative.

A religious upbringing can be positive or negative. Lots of people like being religious, and lots of people dislike being irreligious. What he is trying to do is generalise from a single negative anecdote, without looking at the evidence that may disprove his assertion.

 

[icehorse]

Augustus said:

But he ignores that religion can be a positive experience. The child whose gran dies might be a lot happier 'knowing' she is in heaven than that she was just burnt in an oven.

??!, burnt in an oven?

Also, on the whole "positive experience" idea. That doesn't hold much water. If ANY institution "can be positive", but *sometimes* encourages pedophilia, homophobia, and misogyny, than that's simply a bad institution.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The massive decades long cover up of it didn't either.

I went to a Roman Catholic boarding school in the 1970s and back then that kind of thing was considered "normal".

 

[Osal]

I do think it's a terrible and damaging thing to teach young children (or anyone) about being tortured to death in hell for all eternity if you don't do what god wants you to do - it can result in an enduring mental, emotional and psychological distress.

I was taught that as a child. Believed it, too.

I was also taught that a bunch of Russians were getting ready to obliterate all life on Earth.

I was afraid of dogs would bite me, or kids in other neighborhoods would beat me up. For awhile, there I believed that Santa was makin a list and checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty and nice and all that ****.

I joined a fundamentalist cult as a young man, but managed to survive that.

I found out, many years later than my best friend, a Roman Catholic, was abused by the parish priest when we were children.

I grew up, learned a few things, wised up and moved on. No enduring mental, emotionals or psychological distress or damage. I turned out ok. So did my best friend, thankfully.

I think humans are a great deal more resilliant than you give them credit for. Not everyone, of course, but if we let them be resiliant, more often than not, they will be.

 

[SkepticThinker]

So if he used an example of the Tamil Tigers carrying out a suicide bombing it would be equally correct to say "Only secular nationalism is a strong enough force...."?

I have no idea. I only think I know what he is saying in the particular context he presented.

In the passage we're talking about, he does refer to the Tamil Tigers and how their behaviour doesn't fit the description that, "only religious faith is a strong enough force to motivate such utter madness in otherwise sane and decent people."

Repeats it frequently with zero context or qualification.

I'll have to take your word for it.

But he ignores that religion can be a positive experience. The child whose gran dies might be a lot happier 'knowing' she is in heaven than that she was just burnt in an oven.

Sexual abuse though can only be a negative.

A religious upbringing can be positive or negative. Lots of people like being religious, and lots of people dislike being irreligious. What he is trying to do is generalise from a single negative anecdote, without looking at the evidence that may disprove his assertion.

I've seen him acknowledge these things. He's been in plenty of debates and interviews discussing the positive aspects and what they mean to people. But I don't know if he's done it in print or not. I haven't read much of his stuff.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I was taught that as a child. Believed it, too.

I was also taught that a bunch of Russians were getting ready to obliterate all life on Earth.

I was afraid of dogs would bite me, or kids in other neighborhoods would beat me up. For awhile, there I believed that Santa was makin a list and checking it twice, gonna find out who's naughty and nice and all that ****.

I joined a fundamentalist cult as a young man, but managed to survive that.

I found out, many years later than my best friend, a Roman Catholic, was abused by the parish priest when we were children.

I grew up, learned a few things, wised up and moved on. No enduring mental, emotionals or psychological distress or damage. I turned out ok. So did my best friend, thankfully.

I think humans are a great deal more resilliant than you give them credit for. Not everyone, of course, but if we let them be resiliant, more often than not, they will be.

That's all well and good for you, and I am certainly happy for you that you find yourself emotionally and psychologically healthy.

People are quite resilient, but many people aren't as resilient as they'd like to believe. And people who take this stuff very seriously worry about stuff like possibly burning in hell for eternity. If hell is a real place, that's definitely quite worrisome, isn't it? If someone told me I was going to be tortured to death before being murdered some time in the future, I might worry about that a lot, if I really believed it.

I'm definitely not saying that teaching kids about hell is somehow equal to sexual abuse in terms of long-term psychological distress; sexual abuse is definitely worse. But for some people, the thought of hell can be quite distressing as well, as in the example of the woman Dawkins cites in his book.

 

[outhouse]

But he ignores that religion can be a positive experience

That just it, he is an academic, and there is no room for ancient and primitive mythology in academia. Many completely refuse education and knowledge.

In CONTEXT, he would like to see improvements from religion, and that starts with education, NOT refusing it

Not sure why your here if you don't think humanity could use improvement.

 

[Osal]

That just it, he is an academic, and there is no room for ancient and primitive mythology in academia.

Actually, there is quite a bit of room for it. Ever read Campbell?

 

[Osal]

And on the subject if idiocy, Dawk is going after Ahmed Mohamed.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/11/25/europe/uk-richard-dawkins-clock-boy-ahmed-mohamed/index.html

Like Hitchens, he seems to be growing more intollerant with age. Maybe we should start calling him Dick.

 

[Augustus]

That just it, he is an academic, and there is no room for ancient and primitive mythology in academia.

He doesn't write academic articles about religion, he writes polemics that rely very little on evidence.

There is nothing academic about his writings on religion.

In CONTEXT, he would like to see improvements from religion, and that starts with education, NOT refusing it

No he thinks religion is intrinsically harmful and should be eradicated as he assumes the replacement would be superior. This assumption is highly speculative and utopian.

 

[outhouse]

Actually, there is quite a bit of room for it.

Some theist can handle the truth of education and knowledge.

But many cannot. Yes the room is not on science side though, it is on the theist side. Yes there is room for many theist to accept what is being taught.

 

[outhouse]

No he thinks religion is intrinsically harmful

It is in some societies.

and should be eradicated as he assumes the replacement would be superior

Show sources.


Ive seen many people quote mine poorly, and trust few here.

 

[Olinda]

Practice helps