Dawkins: "Being raised Catholic is worse than child abuse"
355 replies, posted
I am a pretty militant atheist, and I strongly respect Professor Dawkins, but when he says things like this...
[QUOTE=PuppetSeagull;38952954]I am a pretty militant atheist, and I strongly respect Professor Dawkins, but when he says things like this...[/QUOTE]
he's entirely right...?
instilling the concept of hell and damnation in a child is incredibly damaging and we shouldn't ignore that. we're acting like the only damage that can be done is by other people to kids
but kids have imaginations we literally don't have anymore, and putting these ideas in their heads is not helping them at all.
[QUOTE=Cone;38942568]well you do kind of need to convince yourself of some radical and unfounded notions in order to be a theist, having faith in something you have no reason to follow is a prerequisite of most religions
[editline]23rd December 2012[/editline]
Dumbest argument I always hear; Surprising it comes from a group of people that back their beliefs with reason.
nah man they're [I][B]telling it[/B][/I] like it [B]IS[/B][/QUOTE]
Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism are all beliefs. They're all equally wrong, and it proves one's own stupidity to claim one is wrong while believing in another. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I choose to be a theist. Others do not. Does that mean they're wrong? I don't have any rational means by which to say that. Neither do you have any to assert the reciprocal.
Now, onto the tough question. Do I think you're going to hell if you don't believe in my God? As much as I hate to say it, I believe that someone that refuses to believe in God and never, in his heart, accepts Him afterwards won't be viewed favourably by God.
Does that mean I have to inform you of this every time? Certainly not. I don't see why my other fellow believers feel the need to either. Most would do it because they care about you, or out of fear of something they don't understand, or because they're scared the young and impressionable will catch atheism from you.
For the first type, them telling you that you're going to burn in hell would most likely further entrench you in your belief, and distance you from theirs. Someone that genuinely wanted you to believe in God should have allowed you to find Him by your own devices, and not shove it down your throat.
For the second and third types... Well, I don't know what to say. Some folks are just ignorant.
[QUOTE=CAPT Opp4;38947727]He's what most people refer to as a "militant atheist". In place of the acceptance and tolerance that [B]good atheists (as well as good theists)[/B] try to show, he bashes religion time and time again, to the point of insensitive nature.[/QUOTE]
No true Scotsmen insult haggis.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953017]Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism are all beliefs. They're all equally unable to be proven.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.[/QUOTE]
atheism isn't a belief.
it's literally the lack of one
why do people say this shit
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38953078]atheism isn't a belief.
it's literally the lack of one
why do people say this shit[/QUOTE]
Atheism. A - No; Theos - god. No God. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. I never meant to imply that there existed piety in the belief, but it is a belief.
Atheism doesn't imply a lack of spirituality either. One can believe in spiritual things and still be an atheist.
Saying atheism is a belief is is like saying bald is a hair color.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38953118]Saying atheism is a belief is is like saying bald is a hairstyle.[/QUOTE]
It is if one so chooses it. If it's what he's presented with, then it's not.
I don't understand why people can't get this.
"Oh my beliefs are on a different level than yours and thus aren't equally right or wrong"
An atheist believes not in something, but in a lack of something. It's still a fucking belief, shit :v:
Atheism is a rejection of a belief system. It is the antithesis of belief.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38953134]Atheism is a rejection of a belief system. It is the antithesis of belief.[/QUOTE]
Believing something = belief system? Nah.
Go find me an atheist that doesn't believe that there are no gods.
An actual person that rejects all belief systems related to gods would be properly labelled agnostic, no? With that said, I'll back down on agnosticism being a belief, since it is actually an anti-belief.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953107]Atheism. A - No; Theos - god. No God. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. I never meant to imply that there existed piety in the belief, but it is a belief.
Atheism doesn't imply a lack of spirituality either. One can believe in spiritual things and still be an atheist.[/QUOTE]
atheism doesn't have shit to do with spiritualality so don't go there
it literally only means not having a belief in a god
athiesm is literally the lack of a belief. There's no way to cut this besides that. You can believe that atheists have a belief system, but it's a single and solitary line of thinking that defines atheism
lack of a god. that's it.
[editline]23rd December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953145]Believing something = belief system? Nah.
Go find me an atheist that doesn't believe that there are no gods.
An actual person that rejects all belief systems related to gods would be properly labelled agnostic, no? With that said, I'll back down on agnosticism being a belief, since it is actually an anti-belief.[/QUOTE]
agnosticism is being unsure of what's true or not, there's various forms of agnosticism and these all correspond with different thoughts and ideas
what does atheism have to do with any other form of atheism? well, there's only the one form of it and they all equally lack a belief.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953107]Atheism. A - No; Theos - god. No God. Atheism is a belief that there is no God. I never meant to imply that there existed piety in the belief, but it is a belief.
Atheism doesn't imply a lack of spirituality either. One can believe in spiritual things and still be an atheist.[/QUOTE]
i like how you break up the prefix
a-, lack of
it's a lack of belief
idk why yr arguing semantics but at least argue them correctly
[editline]23rd December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953145]
An actual person that rejects all belief systems related to gods would be properly labelled agnostic, no? [/QUOTE]
nooo
agnostic means you think that there are certain questions that cannot be answered, including the god question, so you don't reject or believe in it
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38953182]atheism doesn't have shit to do with spiritualality so don't go there
it literally only means not having a belief in a god
athiesm is literally the lack of a belief. There's no way to cut this besides that. You can believe that atheists have a belief system, but it's a single and solitary line of thinking that defines atheism
lack of a god. that's it.
[editline]23rd December 2012[/editline]
agnosticism is being unsure of what's true or not, there's various forms of agnosticism and these all correspond with different thoughts and ideas
what does atheism have to do with any other form of atheism? well, there's only the one form of it and they all equally lack a belief.[/QUOTE]
Go read a book. Agnosticism neither accepts nor rejects a belief in anything because of a lack of an ability to verify any of them. So it's an anti-belief. Anti-belief and rejection are not one in the same.
Tell me this, how can an atheist go around saying there are no gods if he doesn't believe that there aren't any?
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953229]Go read a book. Agnosticism neither accepts nor rejects a belief in anything because of a lack of an ability to verify any of them. So it's an anti-belief. Anti-belief and rejection are not one in the same.
Tell me this, how can an atheist go around saying there are no gods if he doesn't believe that there aren't any?[/QUOTE]
because there's a predominent culture that suggests god/gods do exist
the way you phrase that is essentially like saying atheists are just hiding a belief in god behind their atheism
ridiculous.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38953267]because there's a predominent culture that suggests god/gods do exist
the way you phrase that is essentially like saying atheists are just hiding a belief in god behind their atheism
ridiculous.[/QUOTE]
wat no
I'm just saying they believe in no gods. Also, why are you speaking as if there is believed in only one god?
Here it is in crayon. Disbelief in anything and belief in nothing are exactly the same thing.
Well, Dick Dawkins sure lives up to his name.
What an asshole; he quickly takes any reasonable argument he has and fucks it up with his harsh anti-religious undertones. It makes watching his videos infuriating and I just can't take him seriously.
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38953299]Well, Dick Dawkins sure lives up to his name.
What an asshole; he quickly takes any reasonable argument he has and fucks it up with his harsh anti-religious undertones. It makes watching his videos infuriating and I just can't take him seriously.[/QUOTE]
There's a difference between being an atheist and being a child :v: One doesn't have to be disagreeable to disagree.
And well, this guy isn't the most mature about it.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953283]wat no
I'm just saying they believe in no gods. Also, why are you speaking as if there is believed in only one god?[/QUOTE]
I'm going to rephrase this so you get it
if you believe in no unicorns, then you lack a belief in unicorns.
A- for lack of. Lack of theism. It's not a belief because it's the lack of one.
[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;38953318]I'm going to rephrase this so you get it
if you believe in no unicorns, then you lack a belief in unicorns.
A- for lack of. Lack of theism. It's not a belief because it's the lack of one.[/QUOTE]
Oh hey look he agrees with me.
Fun Fact: Equality is reciprocal.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953017]Atheism, Agnosticism, and Theism are all beliefs. They're all equally wrong, and it proves one's own stupidity to claim one is wrong while believing in another. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I choose to be a theist. Others do not. Does that mean they're wrong? I don't have any rational means by which to say that. Neither do you have any to assert the reciprocal.
Now, onto the tough question. Do I think you're going to hell if you don't believe in my God? As much as I hate to say it, I believe that someone that refuses to believe in God and never, in his heart, accepts Him afterwards won't be viewed favourably by God.
Does that mean I have to inform you of this every time? Certainly not. I don't see why my other fellow believers feel the need to either. Most would do it because they care about you, or out of fear of something they don't understand, or because they're scared the young and impressionable will catch atheism from you.
For the first type, them telling you that you're going to burn in hell would most likely further entrench you in your belief, and distance you from theirs. Someone that genuinely wanted you to believe in God should have allowed you to find Him by your own devices, and not shove it down your throat.
For the second and third types... Well, I don't know what to say. Some folks are just ignorant.[/QUOTE]
if there's no evidence for either side then there's no reason to believe in a claim until it is proven otherwise (ie god).
don't try to pull the "they're all equally wrong" card because it doesn't fucking work that way. if one person believes in unicorns and someone does not, are they equally wrong?
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;38953363]if there's no evidence for either side then there's no reason to believe in a claim until it is proven otherwise (ie god).
don't try to pull the "they're all equally wrong" card because it doesn't fucking work that way. if one person believes in unicorns and someone does not, are they equally wrong?[/QUOTE]
I backed off on agnosticism, but yeah, if two people believe in opposing beliefs, and neither of them can prove their case, then neither of them are more correct than the other.
Whatever an atheist has to tell himself to sleep at night, knowing he's not as dumb as those religious fundies, it's fine with me.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953392]I backed off on agnosticism, but yeah, if two people believe in opposing beliefs, and neither of them can prove their case, then neither of them are more correct than the other.
Whatever an atheist has to tell himself to sleep at night, knowing he's not as dumb as those religious fundies, it's fine with me.[/QUOTE]
burden of proof is on the one making the claim. if they can't meet that burden there's no reason to accept that claim and that [I]would[/I] make them more incorrect.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953392]I backed off on agnosticism, but yeah, if two people believe in opposing beliefs, and neither of them can prove their case, then neither of them are more correct than the other.
Whatever an atheist has to tell himself to sleep at night, knowing he's not as dumb as those religious fundies, it's fine with me.[/QUOTE]
if you insist that there's an invisible unicorn behind me at all times, and I don't believe in that unicorn, what you're saying is...
it's up to me to prove that this invisible unicorn isn't real in order to "sleep at night" with my dumb belief
that's not how it works
[QUOTE=BFG9000;38953299]Well, Dick Dawkins sure lives up to his name.
What an asshole; he quickly takes any reasonable argument he has and fucks it up with his harsh anti-religious undertones. It makes watching his videos infuriating and I just can't take him seriously.[/QUOTE]
You can't take his anti-religious arguments seriously if he's harsh against religion?
Again, I can't find any specific examples of Dawkins being an asshole anywhere. Just article titles like this one making him out to be.
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
Here is the actual interview: [url]http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/general/2012/12/2012121791038231381.html[/url]
The quote in question is at the 20 minute mark.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;38953134]Atheism is a rejection of a belief system. It is the antithesis of belief.[/QUOTE]
I think you have a bit of a warped view on what Atheism is. Just look at the word and break it down. The word Theist means, belief in a deity; when your put an "A" in the front it means without. Atheism means in the most simple form; Without God/Without a Deity.
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;38953363]if there's no evidence for either side then there's no reason to believe in a claim until it is proven otherwise (ie god).
don't try to pull the "they're all equally wrong" card because it doesn't fucking work that way. if one person believes in unicorns and someone does not, are they equally wrong?[/QUOTE]
Exactly! People have this misconception that Atheists are equally as wrong because they don't believe in a God without evidence of one not existing. Richard Dawkins explains in one of his books about a scale; on the far left is Theists, on the opposite end is 100% Atheists. The problem with either extreme is that there isn't any proof for either ideas. Being an Atheist that 100% says God doesn't exist is just as dumb as someone who says that %100 God exists. However, most Atheists sit somewhere further down the scale.
IE, we strongly don't believe an omnipotent being actively controls the universe, but to 100% refute the idea is scientifically wrong. I believe a good saying is, "Any smart Atheist will be Agnostic" because Agnosticism more or less is the belief that there isn't a God but the idea can't be proven just yet. The blanket term Atheist just covers everyone who currently doesn't believe in a God.
[editline]24th December 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953392]I backed off on agnosticism, but yeah, if two people believe in opposing beliefs, and neither of them can prove their case, then neither of them are more correct than the other.
Whatever an atheist has to tell himself to sleep at night, knowing he's not as dumb as those religious fundies, it's fine with me.[/QUOTE]
Ahem, Russell's Teapot would like to have a word with you:
"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;38954051] Being an Atheist that 100% says God doesn't exist is just as dumb as someone who says that %100 God exists.
[/QUOTE]
While I agree it most certainly is dumb, but still not "just as dumb". Because the one saying "there's no god 100%" is a) closer to the scientific idea, as his belief has at least something to back it up, because he's not the one to make the statement, he merely regects one with counter-statement; b) is not an atheist, because atheism regects the concept, not an entity itself.
While the correct statement for reasonable atheist is "God [b]most certainly[/b] doesn't exist", the concept of religion is wrong 100%. Because religion itself is basically a sugar-coated ideology, and as such, [b]can[/b] and [b]was[/b] proven wrong many times, which forced religion to "adapt" ("god of the gaps").
if raising a catholic child is worse than child abuse wouldnt that make it child abuse on its own
[QUOTE=Bredirish123;38954051]I believe a good saying is, "Any smart Atheist will be Agnostic" because Agnosticism more or less is the belief that there isn't a God but the idea can't be proven just yet.[/QUOTE]
Correct, but I also get annoyed with people who identify themselves as Agnostic "because there is no way of knowing". There is no way of knowing a lot of things (such as the teapot idea you mention) but people do not identify themselves as Agteapotists, they just say it doesn't exist. Just because you can't disprove something does not necessarily mean you have to entertain the possibility it exists.
[QUOTE=Irkalla;38953392]Whatever an atheist has to tell himself to sleep at night, knowing he's not as dumb as those religious fundies, it's fine with me.[/QUOTE]
I don't quite understand this "well how do you get up in the morning without God" argument. It baffles me, I get up in the morning the same way everyone else does. By using my body to move. I don't need a belief in anything to make me move from day to day, more than the fact that I am alive and it would benefit me to do these things. If some people can seriously only get up in the morning/go to sleep at night because there is a juju man in the sky I pity them, life is worth more than that.
[QUOTE=Death_God;38954503]if raising a catholic child is worse than child abuse wouldnt that make it child abuse on its own[/QUOTE]
Yes.
[QUOTE=Matriax;38954762]
I don't quite understand this "well how do you get up in the morning without God" argument. It baffles me, I get up in the morning the same way everyone else does. By using my body to move. I don't need a belief in anything to make me move from day to day, more than the fact that I am alive and it would benefit me to do these things. If some people can seriously only get up in the morning/go to sleep at night because there is a juju man in the sky I pity them, life is worth more than that.
[/QUOTE]
What he meant was that atheists are just as dumb as theists, and in denial as much as them. To feel better about themselves, dumb atheists hypnotize themselves into believing they are smarter and more reasonable, when in fact it is not the case.
So that's same old "atheism is a form of religion, checkmate!".
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.