1. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    11 Dec '06 03:47
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    That's exactly what it is and the reason it is done.
    thats second worse thing next to abortion
  2. Joined
    02 Jan '06
    Moves
    12857
    11 Dec '06 03:492 edits
    What about children who are taught that God does not exist? Is this child abuse as well? After all, can one prove that God does not exist? I think not teaching a child something purposefully is the same as teaching something to them purposefully. What it really comes down to is teaching your children what you know or think to be right.

    I think his main beef is probably with the war creationists have chosen to fight against science and some of the tenants of evolution and geology in regards to tthe age of the earth etc. I think someone needs to tell him, however, that not all creationists have chosen to take up this jihad such as myself. So what is left? Teaching your child the values of the Bible such as love your neighbor as yourself perhaps. Having said that, I also think there is a difference between those that teach the truth in love and those who do not. Just because someone may be right about a truth does not preclude them from being abusive about it. If you do not agree with those who commit adultery and have sex outside of marriage etc. or give into a lifestyle of drug use I think a parent should have the right to tell there child so and give reasons as to why. However, you can either do so with an attitude of love or with a attitude of superiority and judgementalism. This attitude is also passed down to your children as well as the specifics of what you are teaching them.

    Hopefully Mr. Dawkins will not take up a jihad against the religious the same way many of the religious have taken up a jihad against men of science. Both are equally as guilty.
  3. Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    9895
    11 Dec '06 03:50
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    At least one of us is very confused.

    Why would I, how could I, and what would it mean for me to agree with something that I think is false?

    That you think the Koran is true has nothing to do with your agreement with it? I simply can't understand this. Can you give an example of something you agree with that you think is false?

    I'm not claiming that agreeing with something imparts truth unto it.
    Ok I mean if I agree with the book, then you think it is true, but that doen't make it true.

    And I don't like the word true , or false.

    Your book is not stating facts that could be true or false, it simply presenting the opinions of the author which you may agree with or not.

    Same goes for Quran but the difference is that I belive that the author of Quran is GOD.

    I don't know if I'm clear. sorry for confusion.
  4. Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    9895
    11 Dec '06 03:53
    Originally posted by whodey
    What about children who are taught that God does not exist? Is this child abuse as well? After all, can one prove that God does not exist? I think not teaching a child something purposefully is the same as teaching something to them purposefully. What it really comes down to is teaching your children what you know or think to be right.

    I think his main ...[text shortened]... many of the religious have taken up a jihad against men of science. Both are equally as guilty.
    I agree with for the first time I think, but I don't know why you use the word Jihad, I don't think it is an English word.
  5. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    11 Dec '06 03:53
    Originally posted by whodey
    What about children who are taught that God does not exist? Is this child abuse as well? After all, can one prove that God does not exist? I think not teaching a child something purposefully is the same as teaching something to them purposefully. What it really comes down to is teaching your children what you know or think to be right.

    I think his main ...[text shortened]... many of the religious have taken up a jihad against men of science. Both are equally as guilty.
    it should be a choice for the kids
  6. Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    9895
    11 Dec '06 03:55
    Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
    it should be a choice for the kids
    do you want to tell me that a 3 or 4 years old child is able to make a choise related to GOD existance.
  7. Joined
    06 Jul '06
    Moves
    2926
    11 Dec '06 04:00
    Originally posted by ahosyney
    do you want to tell me that a 3 or 4 years old child is able to make a choise related to GOD existance.
    kids grow up dont they? one day they will be old enough, that was a stupid statement.
  8. Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    9895
    11 Dec '06 04:05
    Originally posted by EcstremeVenom
    kids grow up dont they? one day they will be old enough, that was a stupid statement.
    And until they grow up what should the parents do?
  9. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    11 Dec '06 04:28
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    I would be interested in hearing rebuttals from this forum's theists to the arguments Richard Dawkins presents in his book The God Delusion.
    I haven't had the chance to read it thoroughly yet, though just the few pages I have glanced at seem to contain errors. Just simple errors. I will collect a list of them when I have finish the book.

    One criticism already made of the book is that there is small representation of well-established theologians in his bibliography. He seems to make all these arguments against the existence of God but never investigates the works of many theologains addressing these arguments (it should be noted that none of the book is original. It is just a hodgepodge of previous atheist arguments).

    Anonther issue is that Dawkins restricts his arguments to the monotheistic religions. He does not confront, say, aboriginal spirituality, and there are loads of religions in which arguments are not articulated against.

    He also tends to ignore the good that religion does. And I think that the books persuasiveness is compromised by his tendency to rant.

    Dawkins also notices that religion runs through ethnic lines. That the religion and nationality are related. Now as the evolutionary biologist he, quite embarassingly, fails to deal with the obvious conclusions that can be drawn here. It is quite obvious that religion could have genetic antecedents, that religion could confer a reproductive advantage that allows for the groups' success and the perpetuation of the gene. We can also predict that this religion, obviously tied to the tribe or group, would be antithetical to any other religion, because that religion would be tied to an opposing group or tribe. And yet he then calls religion "the root of all evil" when in fact it is the "selfish gene" that here seems to be "the root of all evil". He seems to have forgotten his own arguments from previous books that he wrote.

    And as many have remarked, for a person criticizing religion for its intolerance, his book displays a glaringly obvious lack of tolerance.
  10. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    11 Dec '06 04:362 edits
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I haven't had the chance to read it thoroughly yet
    You should have ended your post here. You will be ashamed, or at least ought to be, by the rest of what you wrote after you have actually read the book.

    In particular, the author does in fact address the work of a great number of theologians, he does address polytheism, he does address the evolutionary value of religion, he does address the good religion does, etc.
  11. Joined
    03 Sep '06
    Moves
    9895
    11 Dec '06 04:38
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    You should have ended your post here. You will be ashamed, or at least ought to be, by the rest of what you wrote after have you actually read the book.
    It is interesting!!!!

    I see myself defending Quran in this post.
  12. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    11 Dec '06 05:101 edit
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    You should have ended your post here. You will be ashamed, or at least ought to be, by the rest of what you wrote after you have actually read the book.

    In particular, the author does in fact address the work of a great number of theologians, he does address polytheism, he does address the evolutionary value of religion, he does address the good religion does, etc.
    I have read the book. I never said that I hadn't. But I have had to pick it up and put it down over the pasts weeks due to a pretty time-full weeks.

    In particular, the author does in fact address the work of a great number of theologians

    A number? There are many theologians at the moment, not to mention thousands over the past centuries. And many have addressed the arguments he has already given. He may diagree with them (I doubt that he wouldn't) but he does not even acknowledge them.

    he does address polytheism

    Yes between pages 32-36, most of which is devoted to Christianity anyway. Does he try to refute polytheism? No. Does he address other religions (despite Islam, Christianity, and Judaism)? Not often.

    he does address the evolutionary value of religion

    He does. But he doesn't explore the consequences. If we say religion is an evolutionary bi-product, how can it then be "the root of all evil" (which he has described it). He seems content say that morality has Darwinian origins, but not immorality.

    he does address the good religion does, etc.

    Yes of course he would. As he discusses, religion has to have an inherent good. That is why it could have developed through evolution. But I think it is lip service. I think if he was really aware of the good it does, in fact its continued necessity, I would think he would be a little more sympathetic.

    EDIT: I should probably explain what I meant here:
    I haven't had the chance to read it thoroughly yet, though just the few pages I have glanced at seem to contain errors. Just simple errors. I will collect a list of them when I have finish the book.

    I intend to read the book again because when I first read it, it was like "glancing" over it because my brain was only been working at 50% for half of the time. Just thinking back, one minor error was when he said that the Latin "insipiens" translated to "fool" when in fact it is an adjective and hence means "foolish". It's a small error but when they are repeated I just think that he doesn't know what he's talking about.
  13. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    11 Dec '06 05:223 edits
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    I have read the book. I never said that I hadn't.
    You said in your very last post:
    I haven't had the chance to read it thoroughly yet, though just the few pages I have glanced at seem to contain errors


    Does this mean that glancing at a few pages constitutes reading a book?
  14. R
    Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    11 Dec '06 05:241 edit
    Originally posted by DoctorScribbles
    You said in your very last post:
    I haven't had the chance to read it thoroughly yet, though just [b]the few pages I have glanced at seem to contain errors


    Does this mean that glancing at a few pages constitutes reading a book?[/b]
    See my edit. I wrote it, in fact, before I saw your objection.

    EDIT:

    You're right though. It does look suspicious when I write:

    the few pages I have glanced at

    I think I was being hyperbolic. I am not saying that I have comprehensively read the book, but I have gone over it. I think my reading is better than glancing over "a few pages" though.
  15. Standard memberDoctorScribbles
    BWA Soldier
    Tha Brotha Hood
    Joined
    13 Dec '04
    Moves
    49088
    11 Dec '06 05:383 edits
    Originally posted by Conrau K


    I think I was being hyperbolic. I am not saying that I have comprehensively read the book, but I have gone over it. I think my reading is better than glancing over "a few pages" though.
    Well, I'd have to be an insipiens to continue a discussion with a person who not only cannot say what means and mean what he says, but doesn't even seem to know what it is that he means to say. For someone with such a meticulous command of Latin grammar, your lack of rudimentary English composition skills is difficult to comprehend.

    Until you can commit to a decision regarding whether you are writing hyperbolically or not, and whether you have read the book, and whether your reading is better than glancing over a few pages, let's postpone this sure to be fruitful discussion, shall we?
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree