Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI have given my objections which you seem to have ignored. As I explained I have read the book. But I have only been able to read on and off. You may choose to refute the points I made above; I welcome you to. But all I am saying is that try not to be so aggressive (because I know you have an inveterate habit of being so) when I have made an obvious mistake (which I have already explained is possible due to a heavily crammed few weeks and an interval of three books since I read Dawkins book). So be patient. And if you have any intelligent comments make them.
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 ...[text shortened]... than glancing over a few pages, let's postpone this sure to be fruitful discussion, shall we?
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesI've got a copy of Dawkins' book, but it'll have to work its way up my "to read" list.
He cites but goes beyond the obvious incidental abuse that goes with religious indoctrination (Muslim girls undergoing clitorectomy, Catholic boys having lifelong guilt complexes fostered within them, Amish teenagers being denied education, Baptists having sore asses from sitting in church all day, etc.) and provides argument and case study evidence ...[text shortened]... t is a lifelong crippling of the mind, the effects of which are worse than a physical crippling.
I have two comments:
Firstly, you can't judge the validity of a system/proposition by its abuse. There could be something said about a system's predilection for abuse, but then we'd have to start a body-count as atheism has more than its fair share of the hall of shame in the last century.
Secondly, I'm somewhat amused when Dawkins shows moral outrage at religious institutions or practices when I have yet to see him posit a tenable methodology to objectively differentiate right from wrong without resorting to some form of moral law (the acceptance of which is not incompatible with atheist views, yet is somehow anathema to the hardcore Dawkins-ilk).
Originally posted by DoctorScribbleswhat grounds does he give for these claims?
He makes a wide variety of interesting claims and compelling arguments in support of them. One idea that I found particularly interesting was his claim that indoctrinating children with religious beliefs constitutes child abuse.
He also claims that it is very unlikely that God exists.
1 edit
Originally posted by DoctorScribblesErased.
He cites but goes beyond the obvious incidental abuse that goes with religious indoctrination (Muslim girls undergoing clitorectomy, Catholic boys having lifelong guilt complexes fostered within them, Amish teenagers being denied education, Baptists having sore asses from sitting in church all day, etc.) and provides argument and case study evidence ...[text shortened]... t is a lifelong crippling of the mind, the effects of which are worse than a physical crippling.
Originally posted by jaywillI can promise you that the majority of those teaching such concepts are/were theists.
Fascinating. Does Dawkins also go into Caucasian kids asking kids of color if they have tails? You know they were taught that nonwhites are lower on the Evolutionary scale and therefore closer to monkeys.
Originally posted by jaywillNo. What you are talking about is an old prejudice updating its metaphors: suddenly the bigots had something new to taunt black folk with. Or did some paradise of racial equality suddenly vanish when the Origin of Species was published? It's sad that you can't understand this very simple process.
The concept originates with evolution. Don't try to deny it.
So if they were theists they were your pupils.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo, but suddenly racial inequality had a "rational" or (even better) "scientific" justification.
No. What you are talking about is an old prejudice updating its metaphors: suddenly the bigots had something new to taunt black folk with. Or did some paradise of racial equality suddenly vanish when the Origin of Species was published? It's sad that you can't understand this very simple process.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerTo add to the already existing Biblical justification for racism.
No, but suddenly racial inequality had a "rational" or (even better) "scientific" justification.
"In 18th century America and Europe, it was commonly assumed that Cain's "mark" was black skin, and that Cain's descendants were black and still under Cain's curse. Accepting the theory that God had cursed black people, racists have used the curse as a Biblical justification for racism." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_and_mark_of_Cain
Funny, too, the shift from Devil to Darwin as scapegoat for human iniquity.
Edit: Your post merely echoes mine, you haven't said anything I haven't. So, do you have anything to add?
Originally posted by HalitoseYes I am pretty confident. The majority of the world is theist. Or am I wrong about that? I can assure you that more than 50% of the white people during the time of aparthied here in south africa were theist.
You sound pretty confident about that. Your grandiose sweeping statements are not getting any better.
Originally posted by jaywillNo, it didn't originate with evolution nor is it implied by evolution.
The concept originates with evolution. Don't try to deny it.
So if they were theists they were your pupils.
Also evolution is not an atheist concept. At least 50% of theists officially (ie according to their churches) accept evolution as fact.
Originally posted by lucifershammerPeople love to misuse the term "scientific" to justify false claims even when there is no science behind the claim (Just look at the ID folks). Keep in mind that most racists also try to justify their claims with religious material as well.
No, but suddenly racial inequality had a "rational" or (even better) "scientific" justification.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageWell, the "Devil" can and was dismissed as superstitious nonsense. The same cannot be said of Darwin.
To add to the already existing Biblical justification for racism... Funny, too, the shift from Devil to Darwin as scapegoat for human iniquity.
Edit: Your post merely echoes mine, you haven't said anything I haven't. So, do you have anything to add?
Besides, weren't most of the influencial social thinkers of the period (e.g. Locke, Paine, Jefferson et. al. and even Voltaire) either Deists or outright Atheists (e.g. Hume)? What would they be using the Bible for?
LH
PS: I guess I have nothing new to add. Then, as now, what was (or appeared to be) "scientific" was held sacrosanct.
Originally posted by lucifershammerFunnily enough, Darwin is dismissed as nonsense by numerous posters in this forum...and treated as a scapegoat at the same time (Halitose--anything to say?).
PS: I guess I have nothing new to add. Then, as now, what was (or appeared to be) "scientific" was held sacrosanct.
By whom was science held sacrosanct? Darwin's ideas were initially ridiculed by the press. And what fools hold science sacrosanct today?