Richard Dawkins on Children

[factseeker88]

I don't think you get it just because my kids are not as of yet socialists, it does not mean that they are by default capitalists. No matter what Ayn Rand may have told you: you are not born a capitalist.

Actually we were born with a blank slate which was gradually written with conditioned behavior (unintentional brainwashing) by our parents, sibs, teachers, and peers influence.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I don't believe it is any ones place to tell total strangers on how to raise their kids, as long as it is not illegal that is.
That is when the law should step in.
Clearly dawkins would teach his kids what he believes best for them, most parents do.
Basically what dawkins is saying with plays of words is "teach your kids what I think is best" and not sure if he said this directly but i have heard it said that teaching our kids about religious beliefs is child abuse.
It is not, if done with the intent to teach a kid to love and not hate.
Child abuse is putting 4 year old girls in two piece bikini's and teaching them to dance(grind their hips) like Lady Gaga and parade them in pageants.
Yet that is perfectly legal., why is that?
I will even go as far to say that having any child in those vogue catwalk things, walking up and down the isle is completely wrong.
Then, at the same time, TV talk shows have to undo girls who starve themselves at 9 years old.
That is what child abuse is.
We don't teach kids that they are sex objects before they even know what sex even is, let alone, make that decision for them selves, that one show, (toddlers in something)
I seen a doc, 3/4 of them girls have zero child hood, over weight mom, sits on her butt eating ice-cream while making the girls eat salad.
"I don't want to be in pageants, while crying"
"yes you do, once you get out there, you always have fun"

This is legal, how?

So, let me get this straight: you're saying that telling other people how to raise their children is wrong, then go on an extended rant about how other people should raise their children?

Thing is, I agree with you, and I think those pageants are pretty sickening. However, you can't decry Dawkins for telling other people how to raise their children, and then do the exact same thing yourself.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

I think it's very telling if a religious person finds it okay to count as a member of their religion someone who has no meaningful or considered understanding of concepts such as belief, faith, and theology. Basically, if a mewling infant who is barely conscious is capable of being a Christian, for example, then what does that say about what it takes to be a Christian?

 

[LuisDantas]

I don't believe it is any ones place to tell total strangers on how to raise their kids, as long as it is not illegal that is.

I beg to differ. If anything, law is even worse than "total strangers" far as opinion on child raising goes.

In any case, the needed solution is making people less than strangers, not reliance on just law or isolationism.

That is when the law should step in.
Clearly dawkins would teach his kids what he believes best for them, most parents do.
Basically what dawkins is saying with plays of words is "teach your kids what I think is best" and not sure if he said this directly but i have heard it said that teaching our kids about religious beliefs is child abuse.

It often is.

It is not, if done with the intent to teach a kid to love and not hate.

If it succeeds, which is often not the case, particularly when religious pressure is involved.

 

[Pegg]

Richard Dawkins has on occasion argued we should not say of very young children that they belong to any particular religion. That is, we should not call a very young child, say, a "Christian", because doing so implies that the child understands and accepts Christianity when, in fact, the child is too young and ignorant to understand and genuinely accept Christianity.

What's your opinion on Dawkins' view? Do you agree with him or disagree with him? And most importantly, why or why not?

can you imagine a tiger refusing to teach her cubs how to be a tiger? Or a bird refusing to teach its chicks how to fly because it wants them to decide if they want to be a bird?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

can you imagine a tiger refusing to teach her cubs how to be a tiger? Or a bird refusing to teach its chicks how to fly because it wants them to decide if they want to be a bird?

No, but considering that's not even remotely comparable to what the OP suggested I don't see that it's relevant. Nobody is saying that these parents shouldn't teach their children to be humans.

 

[LuisDantas]

can you imagine a tiger refusing to teach her cubs how to be a tiger? Or a bird refusing to teach its chicks how to fly because it wants them to decide if they want to be a bird?

Do you think that is at all a good parallel?

Edited to add: what I mean is that people go way beyond their instincts and biological natures. Surely that is not so hard to see and accept?

 

[kashmir]

So, let me get this straight: you're saying that telling other people how to raise their children is wrong, then go on an extended rant about how other people should raise their children?

Thing is, I agree with you, and I think those pageants are pretty sickening. However, you can't decry Dawkins for telling other people how to raise their children, and then do the exact same thing yourself.

Discussing pageants we can see with our own eyes is no where near the same thing as lumping what goes on in a whole world of households from a bias opinion.
Guilty until proven innocent and no trial in dawkins court, he is the self appointed law, jury and judge for the whole world.

 

[LuisDantas]

Discussing pageants we can see with our own eyes is no where near the same thing as lumping what goes on in a whole world of households from a bias opinion.
Guilty until proven innocent and no trial in dawkins court, he is the self appointed law, jury and judge for the whole world.

That is both a big exageration and something inherently odd for one to say.

 

[Nakosis]

Richard Dawkins has on occasion argued we should not say of very young children that they belong to any particular religion. That is, we should not call a very young child, say, a "Christian", because doing so implies that the child understands and accepts Christianity when, in fact, the child is too young and ignorant to understand and genuinely accept Christianity.

What's your opinion on Dawkins' view? Do you agree with him or disagree with him? And most importantly, why or why not?

I suppose I agree with him. I felt my children need to find for themselves beliefs that were right for them. If they asked me I told my beliefs but also told them they should be willing to question(doubt) what anyone says, including myself.

 

[kashmir]

can you imagine a tiger refusing to teach her cubs how to be a tiger? Or a bird refusing to teach its chicks how to fly because it wants them to decide if they want to be a bird?

Odd how some fundies use the animal world when its relevant, but then ignore it when it is not.
Your comparison is quite vague (if that is the right word)
But no where near as vague as some of the ones fundies like dawkins use to support their positions.

Just to be clear, I serve no God, have no doctrine other than my own, and have no title.
I just like to discuss what I feel is right and wrong, just like everyone else. :yes:

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Discussing pageants we can see with our own eyes is no where near the same thing as lumping what goes on in a whole world of households from a bias opinion.
Guilty until proven innocent and no trial in dawkins court, he is the self appointed law, jury and judge for the whole world.

And that's your educated opinion, is it? Not a knee-jerk reaction based on little to no knowledge whatsoever of the man and his actual beliefs?

All I did was point out the hypocrisy of your argument. You could at least admit to it. Or, are you suggesting that cruelty always happens as a result of raising your children to be in pageants, but never results from raising your children to adhere to strict religious doctrines and forcing acts on them such as circumcision, arranged marriage or homophobia?

 

[Robert.Evans]

I don't believe it is any ones place to tell total strangers on how to raise their kids, as long as it is not illegal that is.
That is when the law should step in.
Clearly dawkins would teach his kids what he believes best for them, most parents do.
Basically what dawkins is saying with plays of words is "teach your kids what I think is best" and not sure if he said this directly but i have heard it said that teaching our kids about religious beliefs is child abuse.
It is not, if done with the intent to teach a kid to love and not hate.
Child abuse is putting 4 year old girls in two piece bikini's and teaching them to dance(grind their hips) like Lady Gaga and parade them in pageants.
Yet that is perfectly legal., why is that?
I will even go as far to say that having any child in those vogue catwalk things, walking up and down the isle is completely wrong.
Then, at the same time, TV talk shows have to undo girls who starve themselves at 9 years old.
That is what child abuse is.
We don't teach kids that they are sex objects before they even know what sex even is, let alone, make that decision for them selves, that one show, (toddlers in something)
I seen a doc, 3/4 of them girls have zero child hood, over weight mom, sits on her butt eating ice-cream while making the girls eat salad.
"I don't want to be in pageants, while crying"
"yes you do, once you get out there, you always have fun"

This is legal, how?

good point Thankyou

 

[kashmir]

And you're educated opinion, is it? Not a knee-jerk reaction based on little to no opinion whatsoever and a very limited knowledge of the man and his actual beliefs?

All I did was point out the hypocrisy of your argument. You could at least admit to it. Or, are you suggesting that cruelty always happens as a result of raising your children to be in pageants, but never results from raising your children to adhere to strict religious doctrines and forcing acts on them such as circumcision, arranged marriage or homophobia?

Complete strawman because it is not what I said at all.

But I will help you change the subject of what I am saying and to discuss those things
Circumcision.
Science tells us that is has huge merit for health reasons.
Forced act?
strawman of circumcision itself, I didnt realize every male views it as being a forced act.
Is vaccination a forced act too?
edit:
never thought f it until now, how did uneducated people back then even realize that circumcision is done for health reasons without science?
Coincidence, but since doctrine is man made, how did they even come up with it?
I need to google that one.
Thanks for opening that door for me.
end edit

Arranged marriages, wrong to marry kids to adults.
Too many doctrines to claim religion is child abuse because of it.

Homophobia
Are vegans meataphobes?
I support gay rights, even the Pope does.
Too vague to generalize.

"adhere to strict religious doctrines"
Parents that are strict to things such as army brats.
Child abuse too?

about this hypocrisy, in a broad spectrum, we can all be labeled as hypocrites.
There is no way around it other than to not have a position at all.
Pageants are in fact sexual exploitation of a child and everyone involved is guilty.
It teaches children that we should judge others by their looks
If having that position makes me a hypocrite, then yes, I am one and will wear it proudly.

I have to say this about circumcision.
Science says its good to do for health purposes
Why is it a strawman to attack religion?
What happened to the very emperical evidence that some fundies hold so dear to?
So even when science and religion agree on something, it is ignored by the fundie completely.
Odd

 

[Sabour]

God is a specific narrative. Children alone on a desert island may or may not come up with it. They are predisposed to all kinds of bizarre and imaginative beliefs. Like the idea that mummy has psychic superpowers - that one is nearly universal. They basically imagine anything they hear about to be real, like Santa claus, fairies, unicorns, ghosts, etc. On top of that, they add their own fictions from whole cloth - imaginary friends, the idea that their teddy bears and dollies are really alive, the idea that their are alligators in the sidewalk so you have to hop over it.

One of my beliefs as a child was that my shadow was a separate entity that followed me around, and if I watched it very carefully I'd catch it moving independently of me. I also believed my parents were not my real parents for a while and insisted on calling myself some other name. And I believed I could call up a breeze through the power of concentration. (I think I saw that one in a movie).

What I'm saying here is that it should surprise noone that children believe in magic. However natural that is, it is equally natural that we eventually grow out of it as our brains develop a greater capacity for deductive reasoning.

You call it magic and unreal. I call it the truth.

You are born as a believer. That is your nature.

Anyone was born as a disbeliever ? No

Believing in God and worshiping him alone is the only way to peace, because this is how we are born, this is our nature, this is the truth.

I am nothing without God. I am happy to be the servant of Allah.

That is a great honor.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Complete strawman because it is not what I said at all.

Which is why I phrased it as a question. I'm trying to clarify your position.

But I will help you change the subject to discuss circumcision.
Science tells us that is has huge merit for health reasons.

For starters, no it doesn't. It has minimal benefits, at best (and most of those supposed benefits are largely speculative), for men and has absolutely no benefits whatsoever in women.

Forced act?
strawman of circumcision itself, I didnt realize every male views it as being a forced act.
Is vaccination a forced act too?

The health benefits of vaccinations weighed against the cost is significantly lower.

edit:
never thought f it until now, how did uneducated people back then even realize that circumcision is done for health reasons without science?
Coincidence, but since doctrine is man made, how did they even come up with it?
I need to google that one.
Thanks for opening that door for me.
end edit

Well, it can hardly be doctrinal. Circumcision is a practice that is around 15,000 years old.

Arranged marriages, wrong to marry kids to adults.
Too many doctrines to claim religion is child abuse because of it.

Homophobia
Are vegans meataphobes?
I support gay rights, even the Pope does.
Too vague to generalize.

You seem to be constructing strawmen yourself. I was merely pointing out that there are things that can be forced on children due to a religious reasons. Why is it that when I bring up these examples you call it a generalization, while your statements about parents who put their children in pageants is a perfectly accurate depiction of reality? This was entirely the point I was making, and one that you seem to have missed entirely and, in fact, just totally confirmed.

"adhere to strict religious doctrines"
Parents that are strict to things such as army brats.
Child abuse too?

Could you reformulate this sentence so that it makes sense?

about this hypocrisy, in a broad spectrum, we can all be labeled as hypocrites.
There is no way around it other than to not have a position at all.
Pageants are in fact sexual exploitation of a child and everyone involved is guilty.
If having that position makes me a hypocrite, then yes, I am one and will wear it proudly.

Well, congratulations.

 

[InChrist]

I think at least as far as Christianity is concerned no one is a "Christian" until they believe on the Lord Jesus Christ (Acts 16:31) and are born again (John 1:2-13;John 3:3)

Nevertheless, I believe those who know Jesus, including parents, are called to introduce children to Him.

But Jesus said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of heaven.”Matthew 19:14

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

can you imagine a tiger refusing to teach her cubs how to be a tiger? Or a bird refusing to teach its chicks how to fly because it wants them to decide if they want to be a bird?

Non-religious people are still people.

Religion is optional, regardless of how much you like yours.

 

[kashmir]

@immortal flame.
I simple made the example that religion itself is not child abuse and it is not.
Pageants are.
If religion itself is abuse is, then so is public schools itself, simply using dawkins generalization and bias methods, and your methods as well.

Public school teachers do things such as ignore bullying, and kids die by killing themselves, teachers molest kids, and all kinds of stuff they are not supposed to do, and many times even the whole school board itself covers things up, big example is a school in Pa, kids told the school board for years that the football coach was molesting them and the whole thing was suppressed because the team was doing very well and they didn't wish to loose their coach and/or were too blind to see he was a sicko.

We do not hold the whole entire school system accountable for discussing one school, or even hundreds of schools, there are plenty of decent schools too.
We hold the guilty accountable, not the innocent.

My page
We hold the guilty accountable, not the innocent.
your page
pick at negativity to give support that generalization has weight to show support for dawkins or just to make me the hypocrite.

If religion is child abuse to you.
Congratulations.

 

[kashmir]

Here is what I find rather completely inconstant.
There is a video on YT of a child singing along with a christian song, completely innocent, and fundies are all over the video claiming it is child abuse.
Every single one of them that I have checked, go on other videos where children are singing along with songs that have sexual natures to them, and they support it completely.

So its ok to raise a kid with sexual content, but to sing and praise a groups doctrine that teaches love, is child abuse?
That is not a strawman attack, that is clearly what is a huge part of YT with the fundie and makes zero sense.

just to be clear:
this video is completely innocent, I don't know a person that does not love this video:
I love it.
the view count speaks for itself.( 39,272,419 views and counting)
[youtube]C5L1TrqhUJ4[/youtube]

and so is this one but fundies will call anyone who thinks this video is ok are sickos'
We are sickos?
but if she is singing about sex, its ok and cute?

[youtube]VrTRmcABjvo[/youtube]

Have to put this one up, perhaps it will make everyone smile
seen it in recommended and could not resist
Sorry for the derail

[youtube]RUeLjNvjz9E[/youtube]