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

Really, were you there?

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------

If you or anyone else think I've been insulting or offensive feel free to report the comments. Admins/mods are allowed opinions too.

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

of course. like I said, I'm not easily offended, and your comment did not offend me in the slightest. I'm just considering that others may be upset by being labelled. that's all.

anyway, enough off-topic talk. I'd still be interested to hear why you are upset by Dawkins telling you what to think or how to bring up children, yet do you not feel that is what the church (or religion generally) actually tries to do?

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

That's because it doesn't.

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

as someone outside of the church and religion, I do feel that it defines certain rules or codes of conduct by which it expects it's followers to live by. granted, I am someone out of touch with religious teachings, I acknowledge that, but doesn't religion focus a bit on the 10 commandments for example? and the bible is full or moral guidance for those who read it, isn't it? do you not think that these are telling people how to live? in Catholicism, there is original sin which children must be cleansed of, only by devoting themselves to the faith - which kinda forces the hand of the parents who love/fear (they seem to be the same thing as far as I can work out in religion) god. do you not consider that manipulative?

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

[QUOTE=Russ;35762086]Really, were you there?

---------- Post added at 19:57 ---------- Previous post was at 19:56 ----------



could you describe the rabid atheists and give some dates i'll check

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

So an expectation to live by, not 'telling them how to live' then right?

No, it's as you say - an expectation.


No more than the atheists or some humanists who want all traces of religion removed from their children's lives.

---------- Post added at 21:53 ---------- Previous post was at 21:43 ----------

Easy. I used to work with a guy at Asda who was crazily atheist. Before he knew about my beliefs we'd have the odd chat about any kind of rubbish when he'd bring reports to my desk. When he later found out about my beliefs his attitude changed totally, he'd just dump them on my desk and leave.

One time in the canteen he loudly told everyone how he considered anyone with religious beliefs to be "weak-minded fools". When I told him one of the GPs at my doctor's surgery was a Christian he asked which practise it was and the name of the doctor as he wanted to make a complaint that he didn't think someone "who believes in fairy tales could be trusted with people's lives".

Another time he'd go utterly nuts if anyone said "bless you" when he sneezed. So during the summer when he suffered with hay fever we'd all be saying "bless you". When I did it he reported me to HR for "imposing religion" on him

That is rabid atheism.

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

Funny thing is I can bless someone, as I am actually a certified ordained minister.

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

....and at that point, the christian family tells the child what they believe and the child has that imprinted on their developing brain

---------- Post added at 22:27 ---------- Previous post was at 22:15 ----------

I was brought up to believe and then I became an atheist because priest who was tasked with educating me before my confirmation couldn't answer my questions to my satisfaction (I was 15, ffs, how difficult could that be?)
......and yet, all that indoctrination up to that point has left its mark. I know that it's rubbish but I still have to occasionally fight its effect since it was laid down in my brain at a very young impressionable age.

---------- Post added at 22:50 ---------- Previous post was at 22:27 ----------

I'm sad that they are miserable once the crutch of religion has been cast aside and that they can't find anything less intangable to help them back up.
I envy you your unshakeable faith. I really do.
I just know that if I was to consider believing in your god again I would have to, once again, discount all the other gods that have been; and that is a really bleak prospect.....to consider all those lives wasted believing in this or that god. All those millenia, all those lives lived in the absolute knowledge that their belief is the true belief, in the (their) true god......and it's still going on today. Yes, it gives many comfort and solace but it's also causing death and the misery that you mentioned.
So, as a man who has faith. Tell me again, or help me choose which god I should follow when I look at this list of the gods that have been considered worth believing in?

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

I'm not telling you to believe/disbelieve anything of the sort. I leave that sort of thing to the atheists on here, plenty of then will take it upon themselves to decide what you ought to believe.

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

I can understand the attraction. When we are children we need and crave a higher authority to tell us what to do and that role is fulfilled by our parents. Once we are adults we are cut adrift from that comfort of someone else who looks after us and guides us in our lives. That is, unless we 'believe' in some higer power. It's a very seductive option and I don't blame people for taking the easy route of religion when the sh*t hits the fan in their lives and they have no where else to turn but faith and belief. It's the way our brains are wired. :(

---------- Post added at 23:05 ---------- Previous post was at 23:03 ----------

And yet, christians/muslims/jews tell their kids what to believe :shrug:

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

Yeah, generalisations are cool. Much easier to deal with too.

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

Just wish we could all get along and actually stop arguing/debating about our differences.It is what is dividing our society as a whole..

Just because I don't believe in a deity doesn't mean I should have the right to shove my views down the throat of someone who does believe in a deity..and the majority of those don't actually go around indoctrinating anyone.

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

In the case of the first paragraph your friend had pre-existing psychiatric issues and evidently was using things as crutches. No-one of sound mind contemplates suicide because they start doubting their 'faith', and no-one of a solid faith doubts it because of what Dawkins writes. There has to be pre-existing doubt there.

Regarding the second paragraph Dawkins repeatedly and emphatically states that some people use religion as a comfort and he doesn't frown upon that, but states that it doesn't make the beliefs themselves any more likely to be reality rather than 'beliefs'.

Take it as personally as you want to, his words are not a personal attack on you but on concepts. Sometimes the truth is unpleasant, but being admonished to look at things in order to understand them isn't a personal attack on anyone.

Were it hard drugs or alcohol that got you through these potentially devastating situations you'd potentially be taking criticism of them personally too. Doesn't make the criticism any more personal and before you get offended I'm not equating faith with either of those but using them very loosely as I'm half-drunk and my brain won't come up with anything better as a comparison.

This is why humanism / atheism isn't so popular in many cases. We can't offer the idea of meeting family or friends in a utopian afterlife, we can't offer a happy ending to anyone, all we can offer is what the evidence points to. In many ways I find this far more comforting, profound and awe-inspiring but at the most base of human levels it's most definitely no match for immortality and again at that most base level won't ease the mourning process.

I am sorry about your Dad by the way. Please take comfort in that whatever belief system anyone may hold he lives on through you and any other children he may have, along with his works, and the memories his life made in others.

---------- Post added at 23:56 ---------- Previous post was at 23:54 ----------

Debating our differences is what makes society progress towards a greater understanding between said differences. You can't understand, accept and 'get along' with something without discussing / arguing / debating it.

It may not be the most harmonious solution in the short term but it's perfectly healthy.

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

My sister was the same when she found out the tooth fairy didn't exist.
she was really miserable for a while.

but for all those that are miserable. there's got to be many more that are happier?

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

Carl, with respect you know nothing about him or his circumstances. If he had pre-existing conditions then you know him better than he knows himself. There was nothing along those lines in his medical history.

It would be better for you to simply accept the devastating effect he had coming away from Dawkins' words left him doubting every facet of what he'd previously 'known' to be true. His life was simply turned upside down completely after read that crap.