Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

In his defence, Dawkins is a well educated man. by no means does it make him an authoritative figure on everything, but he isn't a stupid man.

why do you feel he is not being honest about his intentions if you also state he openly admitted he is trying to get people to lose their faith?

which 'real facts' are you referring to when you say he should look into things in more depth. I agree that if one is to speak about a topic with authority, one should absolutely know what they are talking about.

there will be people whose lives are a misery and a joy regardless of whether or not religion plays a part in their lives. a transition between a heavily religious life to one where God no longer holds any real meaning will of course be tough. it will likely take years to gain that self confidence and elf awareness. after all, that person will have spend the best part of their lives devoting vast amounts of effort, time and dedication into something that suddenly, they find no longer holds merit. but that decision is theirs to make. if they want to dismiss their own findings and go back to God, there is nothing to stop them. and we all know that the church would welcome them back with open arms.

There is no shame in questioning ones beliefs, or indeed being questioned about ones beliefs, be them for or against a subject of any kind. if we all thought the same, it would be a dull place. and as someone who does have faith, you can offer those friends your own time and friendship to help them through. but then, so could someone without faith. in that respect, it makes us no different. we can all be good, caring, considerate people with or without a god in our lives. just because one person chooses to believe and another doesn't, what should it matter? and to that point, why should you allow Richard Dawkins comments to cause you so much upset?

---------- Post added at 17:32 ---------- Previous post was at 17:28 ----------

exactly. if someone questions their faith, and finds that actually, it no longer makes sense to them, then so be it. likewise, if someone with no faith reads the bible and suddenly thinks that religion is for them, so be it.

The issue I have here, Russ, is that your comments on this thread seem to be very one-sided. that if someone were to read the bible and accept God, you would be absolutely ok with that. But if someone reads something that makes them question their faith, you find that offensive and upsetting. yet in both cases, it will have been the individual's choice to do what they did.

however, when we question indoctrination, which is about manipulating someone into a belief system, you seems to skip around it. you know that manipulating someone into anything is wrong. why should religion be any different? so surely then, by getting people who may have been indoctrinated into a belief system to question that belief, are we not doing them a favour by allowing them the opportunity to make a fair, unbiased judgement on how they conduct their lives and what they actually want to believe in rather than what they have been told to believe in?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Dawkins refers to faith as a 'virus'. Well that 'virus' brought me a great deal of comfort and assurance when my father died 2 years ago. Who the hell does Dawkins think he is to want me to lose the comfort that got me through very difficult times?

I have never said there's anything wrong with questioning beliefs as you know. What I do have a problem with is people wanting to eradicate or limit someone's faith purely because they have the audacity to believe in something people like Dawkins "know" to be wrong.

One of the people Dawkins made lose their faith is a dear friend of mine who went on to attempt to take his own life as a result. Fortunately he wasn't successful.

---------- Post added at 18:37 ---------- Previous post was at 18:35 ----------

No you're not right there, if someone reads something objective that leads them to lose their faith then that's one thing. Anything Dawkins does or says about religion is not objective.

---------- Post added at 18:40 ---------- Previous post was at 18:37 ----------

It's nobody else's business how weak or strong a person's faith is but their own.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

No doubt it has. and perhaps his choice of expression could have been less offensive, but we need to allow him his opinion. as I've already said, those views that one person holds are by no means necessarily held with the same regard by another. in the same light, I'm sure when Dawkins loses someone very close to him, he will deal with it in his own way, but without God. in that respect, I believe he is asking, if both ways are possible, why would we need to depend on a system that has no proof behind it? no tangible, credible, tactile evidence that cannot be explained or dismissed in 2015 through the use of science. a belief system, he feels, actually imposes rules and guidelines that aim to dictate the way a person should live. don't forget, he is not singling out your religion, Russ. he is referring to all religion. more intensely, I would expect, to those religions that demand heavy sacrifices by the members not only mentally, but physically. having to pray at certain times every day. not being allowed to educate members of their population. limiting mobility of it's followers. frowning upon those who seek answers to questions that the faith chooses to ignore.

as discussed, 'belief', 'truth' and 'fact' are mutually exclusive.

Belief does not necessarily require any solid, physical or tangible evidence.

Truth can be borne from a fact or a belief. for example, if I told you my car is blue, you would have no real reason to question that and so would likely accept that as the truth. if you were then to tell someone else my car is blue, you would believe that you were telling them the truth, when in fact, my car is white. you mis-informed that person, but you were not intentionally misleading them. you were telling them what you thought was true.

Fact requires measurable, tangible evidence. it cannot be disputed. 2 + 2 is 4. there is no changing that.

The problem I believe Dawkins has with faith (belief), is that the rules imposed by those religions can be seen as limiting in 2015. is it beneficial for someone in 2015 to be told that if they do not follow certain rules, that when you die a man in the sky will decide how you will spend the rest of eternity? in 2015, do we even need that threat to be good people? religion, in that sense, can be considered redundant. as people find that which the bible passes as miracles and wonder become proven and explained through science, that faith, that fear of God, dissipates and becomes less prevalent. yet people continue to be good and moral. of course, there are some that are nasty buggers, but then regardless of location, time or faith, they will always be there.

The point is, religion cannot 'prove' anything is preaches, whereas science can. religion says "you should think this. but do not question it, ok?". but it is getting harder for religion to get away with that as science gets better and better. in that respect, is religion going to hold people back because they are scared to accept what science can teach us if it causes cognitive dissonance in those who have a faith? should civilisation allow it's members to be told how to live their lives by a group of men in robes and superiority complexes (as some may see it)?

That is very sad and I'm glad people where there for that person. but if religion was merely masking serious emotional issues, it was not a cure. faith or not, they should be treating the problems, not masking them. I believe the same can be said for psychiatry, which at times does nothing more than mask mental problems with pills when in fact, confronting the emotional problems will allow the sufferer to get out the other side in one piece. suppressing it cannot last forever. confronting it means you deal with it.

we might beg to differ here. I do not agree with militant atheism, as i do not agree with militant religious groups. as I've said many times, let people believe what they like so long as it is not detrimental to them or others around them. However, I do think Dawkins makes a valid point that we should all question what we do and what we believe in to get an objective view point, rather than just going along with what we are told. unfortunately, religion, in this day and age, is a massive culprit of telling people how to live. But it is one that people have a choice about. Governments also tell people how to live, but we don't have an easy choice about that like we do with religion. with religion, people have the option to just say no and walk away. or at least, they should have that option. and the same applies the other way.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Well it's lucky for you then that you're under no obligation. You are free to ignore him and treat anything that comes out if his mouth as codswallop[/QUOTE]

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

not sure I would want my co-pilot to be someone who didn't whole-heartedly believe he could land the plane if need be.

I understand that you are upset and unhappy by Dawkins because you feel he is telling you how to bring up your children, or telling you what to believe. Yet isn't that what religion does?

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Again I've said there's nothing wrong with questioning. However Dawkins' agenda runs far deeper than simply questioning.

Regarding my friend who survived a suicide attempt. Unless he kept something hidden from me for 15 years he had nothing in his past that would have given off suicidal tendencies. Having Dawkins tell him everything he'd lived for over the previous 10 years being a 'lie' is what pushed him over the edge.

You say for me not to take Dawkins' words personally. If you make it your mission to try to destroy a part of my life that had helped me through many potentially devastating situation over the year you're damn right I'm going to take it personally.

If you longer on the notion that religion "can't prove" anything then it suggests you have a lack of the very basic understandings of what 'faith' is.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------

Intententionally taking my point out of context. You knew exactly what I meant.

---------- Post added at 19:18 ---------- Previous post was at 19:18 ----------

Intententionally taking my point out of context. You knew exactly what I meant.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

did he meet and talk with Dawkins or buy the book and read about it

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Mine doesn't, unless you take comfort in believing stereotypes.

---------- Post added at 19:23 ---------- Previous post was at 19:21 ----------

I'm glad I have your blessing to do so.

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:23 ----------

He read it after being challenged to do so by some rabid atheists who believed it would be 'best' for him to pay more attention to its contents than his Bible.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

rabid atheists ?
or just people with a different opinion

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

The former.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

how could someone with an undiagnosed or unrecognised mental, psychological or emotional issue be expected to tell you about something they would be aware of themselves? even the insane think they are sane. (not saying your friend is in any way insane - it was just a comment to highlight how an individual may not recognise they have an issue, like those with anger problems or alcoholism)


on the contrary...

yeah, fair enough - the pilot comment was a little facetious! I apologise. but the question regarding irony stands.

---------- Post added at 18:36 ---------- Previous post was at 18:33 ----------

you see - it's this sort of thing (rabid atheist comment) that loses you credit with me. you're ok saying this stuff, but if we called you a mental sky-pixie worshipper, you go bat-s**t crazy on us!!

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

wrong answer

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

Russ, if we are expected by yourself to accept your beliefs and point of view without ridicule and with respect, you need to offer the same respect back. as a mod, this should be done without question. you should be leading by example here.

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

No I have no problem with the general atheist feel of CF. The rabid attitude I mean are those who go blue in the face crazy over any perceived notion that a religious belief might just possibly not be a bad thing. The ones who want it "banned" (although how you legislate for someone's thought process is never quite explained). The ones who criticise those with faith just because they have the audacity to believe in something the rabid ones simply "know" is wrong and therefore must be weak-minded fools who blindly follow what some crazy-eyed preacher tells them to on a Sunday morning.

---------- Post added at 19:45 ---------- Previous post was at 19:44 ----------

Thanks for the tip on how to be a mod. Have I ridiculed you?

---------- Post added at 19:51 ---------- Previous post was at 19:45 ----------

What's interesting here s it seems ok to refer to some religious types as "fundamentalist nutters" but "rabid atheists"? Now that's just wrong!!

Re: Richard Dawkins says children need to be ‘protected’ from religion.
 

you're welcome. I don't easily get offended. especially on a forum. But others might feel you have and I think it a moderators duty to take into account all members who may post here and respect whatever their views may be. it's qualities like that, that should get you a mod position in the first place. I wouldn't expect opinionated, blinkered and/or bullish characters to be given a role ordinarily reserved for people who can show restraint, fairness, common sense and respect.

---------- Post added at 18:52 ---------- Previous post was at 18:51 ----------

and Dawkins labelling is also wrong. he should not say that. as you rightly said elsewhere on the forum....

no one's opinion is necessarily fact. facts require evidence. i'm glad we agree on this.