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

From the Irish Times.

"Children need to be “protected” from religious indoctrination in schools, biologist and atheist campaigner Richard Dawkins has said, backing a campaign by Atheist Ireland to overhaul our education system.

Speaking to The Irish Times in advance of a public talk at Trinity College Dublin on Tuesday evening, Prof Dawkins said: “There is a balancing act and you have to balance the rights of parents and the rights of children and I think the balance has swung too far towards parents…

“Children do need to be protected so that they can have a proper education and not be indoctrinated in whatever religion their parents happen to have been brought up in.”


Given the seemingly increasing frequency of allegations concerning radicalisation in schools it would appear he may well have a valid point.


Oirish toimes

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

He may well have a good point. While of course most faith schools don't indoctrinate and deliver an appropriate education there are it seems some that do which isn't acceptable.

It's fair to say this would meet huge resistance, especially from one particular religion, many of whose adherents appear to consider it a requirement to indoctrinate their children at as early an age as is feasible and would wish to see it happen both inside and outside the classroom.

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

Perhaps humans need to be protected from the ignorant Richard Dawkins. Such arrogance for him to suggest he can tell me the best way to bring my children up. I'm surprised he's not campaigning against parents discussing faith with our children in the privacy of our own homes.

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

I wonder if he realises every time he opens his mouth he drives people towards religion not away from it.

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

Who does tell you the best way to bring your children up, Russ? Discussing faith is diffrent from teaching faith.

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

now this has the possibility of being a descent debate as long as god doesn't instruct one of his botherers to shut it down .

i think the prof has a point "Children need to be “protected” from religious indoctrination ..;)

---------- Post added at 07:33 ---------- Previous post was at 07:28 ----------



i think that scenario covers all[or most] religions they all[or most] get at the kids as early as possible .
i put a couple of or most's in there for the pedantic peters

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

I find this guy to be a total idiot.

I went to a catholic school, but we were still taught a bit about other religions. Most people are clever enough to make their own minds up and not be brainwashed.

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

What is said in the article is quite limited in scope and appears centered around something you'd hope the man would know about, biology.

I presume it's the thing where creationists indoctrinate their kids to disbelieve all the science, utterly overwhelming as the evidence for it is, and instead believe whatever their parents' faith tells them to.

Touches onto a wider point about rational thinking and questioning dogma I imagine. It's quite a depressing sight seeing intelligent young people regurgitate 'God/Allah/Yahweh did it' and their evidence for it being 'because my holy book says so'. Pretty much coming down to 'because my parents told me so'. Since when did kids past a certain age believe their parents? ;)

---------- Post added at 08:26 ---------- Previous post was at 08:20 ----------

Context - the man is in Northern Ireland. In Northern Ireland rather strong political forces want to get creationism into schools and the education system is absurdly heavily polarised. The vast majority of schools are either Catholic or Protestant faith schools and there are relatively few where children from Catholic and Protestant families mix.

In the Irish Republic secular schools barely exist. They're about 1% of the total.

Most adult people are clever enough to make their own minds up, this can't be said for young children who are, necessarily, impressionable.

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

You sure? Have you seen how many people are still happy to vote Labour :dozey::D

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

Yeh. the ones who didn't get brainwashed by Dave :)

But yeh. he has a point. children do need to be 'protected' from religion.
they don't know whether they have a choice. whether it's the 'law' whether they have to do it from such an early age.

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

I doubt it, because he doesn't

---------- Post added at 10:54 ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 ----------

I went to a catholic school.

and I was taught that god exists, that I must believe in him, that I must confess my sins.

I soon realised it was all codswallop, around age 7/8, when my teachers and priests couldn't answer a few questions from me.

They tried to indoctrinate me into catholicism. and failed. But they weren't hard line. I bet there are some faith schools were it is really drummed into kids- which is wrong.

What faith you decide to follow, if you desire to follow one, is a decision you should come to alone.

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

This sort of debate seems to always get down to "religion" is rubbish and needs to be kept private unless it's a secular teaching. Effectively Dawkins wants to have his doctrine as the only one allowed to be taught and tries to tie his to science and others as opposed to science.

As to faith schools, if you don't want your kids to be brought up that way don't send them there. If that school overtly states such teaching is part of their ethos then you can't complain that they teach that way. Children will ask why and as already stated if they can't give good reasons children do see that and get turned off.

Parents will want their children to follow their own faith, that's pretty natural. That includes secular positions.

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

He's preaching to the converted... ;)

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

A lot of this discussion really depends on what the Dork meant by "indoctrination". I see several posters assuming the discussion to be about the teaching of religious ideas within science lessons in schools. However, Dawkins clearly touched on parents, and therefore the private relationships that exist within a family home.

It is not the State's job to legislate for private belief and it is conceited nonsense to claim that it is even possible to bring up a child in a moral vacuum. Children learn from their parents, by what their parents do and say to one another and to other people outside the home, as much as (if not more than) they do by what the parents say directly to their children. If a child is brought up in an evangelical Christian home, then that will be the child's outlook, at least until that child is old enough as a teenager to begin to resist it or embrace it for themselves.

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

I disagree they need to be protected. What they need to be taught is about life in the 21st century and how to fit in with their religion.

I had a friend who died 7 years ago who was gay and he had 2 children with a lesbian friend and they were bringing up the kids as Catholic as they both had catholic roots from Ireland and one of these kids happens to be my God Daughter. Even though they are Catholic they will be taught about all aspects of life including sex education when old enough which will include LGBTQIA.

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

Nobody 'tells' me - I do what I believe is best for them

Not always. Of course I'm going discuss and teach them about Christianity but do I 'demand' they comply? Do I threatend them with 'fire and brimstone'? Of course not. If they want to know about other faiths (and they will) then by all means, I won't stop them.

His blinding hypocrisy and double standards will be lost on many.

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

This talk was given in the Republic of Ireland. Less than 1% of the schools there are secular. Northern Ireland isn't much better.

I can't comment for everyone on that one but I have at no point made any attempt to influence my daughter's faith, or lack of, and leave it up to her. I'm not a fan of indoctrination or influencing children on such matters when they are unable to properly consider these things and have very much adhered to this tenet in my own home. It's not a coincidence that the fastest growing religion in the world with the most 'retention' across generations is the one where most of the children are forced to study said religion from perhaps the age of 4 or 5, even in the UK, despite that religion making Christianity appear downright plausible in comparison.

Incidentally it's perfectly possible to be secular and religious. Secularism is the basis of complete religious freedom with no bias, or prejudice, shown to anyone depending on their faith. Many religious people are secular in that they seek no bias from the state and don't seek to prejudice others.

The UK is, obviously, not secular, and the Conservative party, especially around election time, aren't either.

---------- Post added at 13:07 ---------- Previous post was at 12:52 ----------

I'm not always a fan of his delivery but his key point always remains that we should be rational and follow the evidence.

I have to admit to being one of those his blinding hypocrisy and double standards are lost on.

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

Which is obviously, therefore, based on your opinion. That is what Dawkins is doing, exercising and articulating an opinion. By what barometer do you gauge what is best for them? Where do you seek guidance from?

I think you'll find teaching and discussing are essentially two different things.

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

I have always been of the belief that religion has no place in education, politics or everyday life. It should be a choice by consenting adults practiced behind closed doors. Indoctrination of the young outside of their own homes should not happen.

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

Every time I hear him speak I'm tempted to go to church just to cheese him of and I'm sure there's many lapsed Christians that feel the same, up till now though I've got by just ignoring the boring little man.

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

No it doesn't, if any of my children came to me andsaid that they had thought long and hard about it and they had decided that they had put their faith in a god and wanted follow that religion, they would have my blessing.

If they go on to have children and then indoctrinate their own children into that religion from birth, I would remind them that I didn't do that to them and let them find their own faith, and I would advise they did the same for their children.

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

My niece was always sceptical about there being a God.
I felt that she was forced to believe it was true. and I suppose she thought the same too because she doubted it.
but she doubted it thinking that it was wrong to doubt it. as if she thought she wasn't allowed to doubt it.

now she knows there isn't one and she's ok.
you could say she has been 'saved'

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

Think there are enough labels there, Chris?

I would hope no-one defines themselves by their sexuality in the modern UK, and that simply informing the kids that people are different and to accept it would work. Running out of letters of the alphabet breaking down every possible permutation seems excessive.

---------- Post added at 14:22 ---------- Previous post was at 14:21 ----------

Looking at the attendance figures, stripping out newly arrived immigrants, he doesn't seem to be having that effect on the whole.

Not entirely convinced Dawkins is stalking you and monitoring your church attendance, mind. ;)

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

That's a bit of a mouthful.

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

Been down this before but if you do have a belief that there is an eternal consequence to actions and such then you will want your children to be "protected" by that belief.

Since Dawkins doesn't believe in eternal consequences he is fine to insist that the young are simply left to make their own minds up, after being taught through school that anything that can't be proven to his standards isn't worth it of course.

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

imo that excuse is getting a bit old and tired

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

Glad I don't believe in your God if they're so embittered, resentful and petulant as to hold the actions of children against them for all eternity.

EDIT: Sorry, apologies for holding God up to the same moral standards we expect other from human beings. Keep forgetting that as far as morality goes we, imperfect and mortal as we are, are held to far higher standards than the gods we worship.

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

Err he hasn't had the effect on me either as I already said, he just tempts me to and speaking of figures I'm pretty sure the biggest demographic re religion will be lapsed Christian, what do you think these constant attacks on the religion do for them, makes them remain lapsed or encourages them to refind their faith? Still what does it really matter to Dick, the mans a business and he has books to flog

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

When all's going well. it's God's doing.
When you're being tortured, abused, raped, bullied, dying as soon as you're born, suffering immensely.

that's God too.

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

So you're God's fault?

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

If you're going to hate the contents of the Bible that much, you might try reading what it actually says first.

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

No, the man who met my mum when she was drunk.

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

Sorry. Must've misread the accounts of genocide and mass-murder of innocents perpetrated by God.

My bad.

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

When someone gives a homeless man 10p in the street.
somebody wil say that God sent that man to give him that 10p.
they will say to either the homeless man. or the donator that God is holding out his hand to them.
(ironically a few days earler God took that homeless mans family away from him in a tragic and painful way)

but when Hitler or any other murderer kills many many people. they say that this was not Gods doing. he didn't make them do it. he didn't stop them either.

they think he didn't. they hope he didn't. but I know he did.

I know that if God can do all the good. then he's obviously doing a lot of the bad.

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

Fair play to Richard Dawkins, but they should not be protected from knowing about all religious beliefs. When they are of a certain age they should be allowed to decide for themselves.

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

That's what happens right now, certainly within my own experience. I really have no idea where this idea comes from, that bringing up a child in a certain religion is akin to brainwashing them and rendering them incapable of functioning in society as adults. Having been brought up in a churchgoing household, I walked away from it as soon as I was old enough to refuse to get out of bed on a Sunday morning. I then thought things through and, a few years later, made my own commitment, freely, of my own choice. Since then I have seen countless young people do likewise. In one family I am acquainted with, one son is considering training for ministry while the other is a committed atheist. Both were brought up in a Christian home.

Dawkins seems to think that all families who bring their children up in their faith can be equated with Waco-style cult houses and his remedy is to use the power of the state to force families to bring up their children like Dawkins. Which is actually a horrible thought.

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

I don't tend to get involved in these threads but by and large I believe that there's nothing wrong with religion per se, the problem comes with those who seek to manipulate or 'interpret' it to their own negative ends.

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

He did specifically reference 'religious indoctrination'.

No-one would, I hope, advocate banning study of religion in schools, it's a vital part of a rounded education.

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

rounded ? warped more like

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

You may not like it but it's part of our history and society. For many people, for better or worse, it is part of their lives and for some shapes it, so should be studied.

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

I would contrast "Religious education" compared to "Education about religion"

The second is much preferable.

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

There go I but for the grace of god.

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

the problem is people do study it then they go and commit murder in its name,and that's been going on since god was invented .

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

Yeah I've lost count of how many people I've off'd.

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

42 including the one you told me about last week.

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

Jihadi Russ? Who'd have believed it.:D

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

Only Muslims have Jihad..:rolleyes:

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

sense of humour failure.

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

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

I think that if parents follow religion there is no problem with encouraging their children to follow, unless of course the religion is extreme. (encouraging sacrifices, devil worship, harming others etc)

The problem with some devout families is that they almost forcibly encourage their children, and if the children decide it's not for them they are then ostracised from the family.

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

oh bless

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

there's a difference between being taught about religion and indoctrination, the later being what is referred to by Richard Dawkins. I think anyone in their right mind wouldn't argue with that. to be fair, they actually couldn't argue with that unless they simply do not understand the difference.

Brainwashing of any kind is a very dangerous thing, be it religion, any ideology, propaganda or any other form of focusing a belief so tightly that rational and free thought processes become seen as dangerous or against the state / society / mainstream. The problem we have is that influence is far easier than we would all like to think. in fact, we are all subjects of it on a daily basis. Cialdini's 6 principles of influence (Reciprocation, Commitment/Consistency, Scarcity, Likeability, Authority and Social Proofing), can be seen every day in many, many places. religion is no exception to it. in fact, one could very easily argue that religion employs all 6 principles.

A knife in the hands of a skilled chef can create works of art. but a knife in the wrong hands is a very dangerous weapon. skills in influence are no different. if it's used for the wrong purposes, forcefully or used unwisely, it can create monsters. indoctrination by definition is to focus the subject's belief system around a particular ideology - in this instance, religion. this is vastly different from simply teaching children about what religion is.

in my view, children should be openly taught about what religion is and the varied types, but should not be forced to follow that ideology by anyone. if the child is subjected to all the religions and is allowed to mature being aware of what they stand for, then they can make their own choices when old enough. but labelling someone 'Christian' or 'Catholic' or whatever else when they don't have any real comprehension of what that means, let alone have a say in the matter, is just not right in my opinion. it's unfair and very selfish of those who forcefully (and it is forceful as the child has no educated or unbiased, cognitive, reasoned judgement or choice in the matter) bring a child into such an ideology.

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

Idi - I suspect you have no real comprehension of what "parenthood" means.

A family home is not a university campus.

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

That's a very bold statement. How do you come to the conclusion I don't know what parenthood means? And what makes you believe I think a family home is like a university campus?

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

Because your previous post bears absolutely no relationship whatsoever to the reality of what goes on in a normal family home.

With the possible exception of Guardian-reading households, families do not sit round the dinner table holding dispassionate seminars on comparative religion. Kids want to know what makes the world go round; every adult has a view on the answer to that question and every adult is free to offer it. Anyone who goes round the houses saying "some believe this, some believe that" will pretty soon be pestered with the response, "but what do you believe?" Actually, it's as likely to be "what do we [i.e. we as a family] believe?".

Insisting that every comment should be prefixed by "IMO" is a fun trick for winding up other posters on an Internet forum but its applications in real life are severely limited.

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

http://journeyfree.org/childhood-rel...ndoctrination/


Factors in Childhood Indoctrination in Fundamentalist Christianity
From this graphic, it should be clear that a child in a fundamentalist Christian environment faces a powerful array of factors influencing indoctrination. Many of these techniques are quite deliberate, such as keeping children at home for their schooling to control what they learn and don’t learn. The primary goal of sincere Christian parents is to pass on their faith, not help their child develop critical thinking to make a fully informed decision about religion. Christians do not present their offspring with literature on all the religions of the world and make field trips to temples, churches and mosques to help them decide. Yet in their theology they claim that “accepting Jesus” is a personal choice of free will and only those who reject God’s free gift of salvation will go to hell.
;)

The fact that parents go along with churches inducting toddlers into the belief system and programs for preverbal children are readily available only indicates the depth of internalized fear and anxiety that would ignore such a blatant contradiction. The saddest example of teaching toxic messages to preschoolers is the widespread use of the “Wordless Book,” with just colored pages for major concepts. Gold is for heaven where you can’t go, black is for your sinful heart, red is for Jesus blood shed because of you, and so forth. This is used in thousands of churches and now thousands of after-school Good News Clubs on public property.

Christians are likely to counter this diagram with wanting a vector listing the good things that are given a child – the love of God being the top of the list. But in the fundamentalist scheme this comes at such a great price that it is greatly overshadowed by the anxiety of not knowing for sure about salvation and the intellectual suicide required to accept the irrationality of the system.

In effect, the indoctrination of a child with immature cognitive abilities in the helpless context of a family is an abuse of power. The child has no perspective and no choice but to cooperate in order to survive. The messages are received and embedded in the brain while certain areas of brain development are repressed through lack of stimulation, chief of which is critical thinking. This, combined with accepting the teaching that one is unable to trust one’s own thoughts, and the abject fear of terrifying consequences, completes the trap. Even as the child gets older, there are social forces in place to enforce these dynamics and the circular reasoning can continue on, making the child feel highly disturbed but not have any idea why.

The typical pattern is for a person to keep trying harder to make the religion work because the doctrine always makes the individual at fault. Many describe a pattern of highs and extreme lows much like the mind-twisting cycle of abuse in domestic violence. The victim is always to blame and escape is extremely difficult because there is periodic emotional relief but no overall perspective. The attribution for the pain is always put on the victim’s bad behavior. For Christians, even when they are living exemplary lives and still miserable, they are charged with searching themselves for “secret sin” to explain the problem. It’s no wonder there is so much depression and “feeling crazy” when this mental abuse is happening.

Finding a path out of this morass is also complicated by the Christian training against self-reflection. Just thinking about oneself is considered bad, so it is very difficult to sort out feelings. Believers who are troubled manage to stay in the faith using self-deception and medication for their mental health issues. Those who leave struggle with recovery issues both from the faith and also the trauma of leaving. Beyond basic mental health, they also have the task of catching up with important areas of human development.

The most difficult thing to overcome, by far, is overcoming the intense indoctrination of early years. As an adult, for example, the fear of hell can pop up and cause panic attacks even if a person rationally rejects the doctrine. They have to learn how to label the emotion as “conditioning” instead of “truth” in the process of healing what is essentially early brainwashing. Gradually people in recovery can learn to trust their own feelings and discover critical thinking. Self-trust is the key to reclaiming one’s own life, and not easy when there has been mental abuse. However, understanding what has happened can help to disengage the power of early messages.

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

Clearly, for the author of that piece, it's intensely personal. It's sad that they have apparently suffered some form of abuse, and it's disappointing that their response is to project their own experience into the lives of people they don't know, and have never met - especially as the implications of their argument would be an extremely authoritarian shift in the balance of responsibility in the family, from parents to the State.

Anybody who thinks that State interference in the family is a good idea, just because at this precise moment their own ideology is aligned with that of the State, is being very naive and short-sighted.

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

I'm not sure how you deduced that. In my opinion, the role of a parent is to guide a child to be the best they can be without using forceful tactics. Speak to the child as you would any other person. don't talk to them in silly child-talk. call things by their proper names, explain things so the child understands the best they can (appropriately for age), listen to the child (which is something so many people seem to not do these days and are too intent on just telling a child what to do or what to think) and help that child reach an equilibrium where they are able to express their thoughts and feelings to a level you can understand. With psychology diplomas under my belt, which include but are not limited to child development and cognitive development (and with a 13 year old daughter and a sister 10 years my junior whom I saw grow up, plus my mother was a childminder whilst my sister was between the ages of 2 years to 11 years), I do have some experience in children, how they learn and raising them. I am fully aware of what happens in a home, and in my home I will not use force of any kind to make a point, be that smacking or shouting, or press an ideology/preference such as religion, sexual orientation or musical tastes, to give a few of examples.

I'm afraid that I may not have been quite as clear as I could have been. I believe that schools play a bit part in teaching children about religion. But teaching about religion, as already mentioned, is not the same as indoctrination. The later being quite dangerous in certain circumstances. You are absolutely correct - children do want do know what makes the world go round. And thank goodness they do. I'm still trying to find out myself! if we ever stop questioning, it would be the end of us. And when that child asks a question, it is the role of the parent / main caregiver to give a valid and unbiased answer. And yes, I will offer my answers to explain that different people have different views and beliefs - that is extremely important. and if I am asked what my opinion or view is, I will give it honestly and openly and justify those opinions with reasoning and rationale. My daughter has not been brought up by myself or my partner to rely on what a hive mind thinks. We want her to think for herself.

For example, I am in no way religious. But I do understand that it holds great value to many people, and that's great. My partner is somewhat religious. Not an every-Sunday churchgoer, but she celebrates Easter and Christmas and welcomes Christenings and Baptisms as 'the right thing to do'. My partner's mother and family is even more religious and will attend church and mass more often. My daughter has never, ever been forced to go to church and she is always offered the choice to either go along or stay at home. It is always phrased as "Would you like to come to church?", with no emphasis towards either option and with plenty of time for her to make her mind up. She has been many times with my partner (obviously, I do not attend) and as a 13 year old girl believes that religion if not for her. I have never ever told her not to believe in a God, or rubbished religion to her. Her mum has never ever told her she should believe in a God and has never 'bigged up' religion to her. she has made a balanced and thought out decision derived from learning what she can and asking very sensible questions. she is well aware that religion can be very beneficial to some people, but likewise, she is aware that not everyone feels the need to have religion in order to live as a good and moral person. The big thing is however, that she may well change her mind at any time. She may now decide that actually, religion is for her. And I will be happy with that, because I know that it will be her own choice (provided she is not indoctrinated by another, external force).

It is my opinion. If I were to state what I said as a fact, it would be incorrect as others would not necessarily feel the same. I do understand fully that anything I or anyone else says does not mean it should be held in the same regard by any other person. I'm sorry you feel that my stating my opinion as somewhat of a get-out. it is not meant as that. it is meant to indicate that what I say is how I, and possibly I alone, feel on the topic. It's what debates and debate-forums are for. If everyone stated everything they said as a fact, it would simply be an argument or argument-forum as everyone would be so blinkered and blind to other options than nobody would ever consider someone else's view as valid. That, I believe, would be very sad and very selfish and would 100% halt any cognitive or practical progression.

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

Silly rational point of view. Far healthier on every level to fear 'eternal consequence' for your kids delivered by the all-loving God you worship and adore if you don't indoctrinate them appropriately.

Silly sarcasm meant largely in jest aside this has become a quite fascinating discussion. Kudos to Mr A for kicking it off and those who have participated in every manner. :)

EDIT: Hope all like the new avatar. I seem to have developed a fixation with Achmed the Dead Terrorist, sorry! :erm:

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

Spot on. If one of mine decides they want to follow a particular belief system there are those who will either accuse me of pressurising them in to believing or that I should have done my bit to discourage such beliefs.

Madness.

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

and what if you walk into the room and their all enjoying a read of the god delusion by Richard Dawkins and agreeing with it .

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

Unfortunately, you are right. There always will be those who will blanket-accuse unfairly. Not too unlike presuming or believing that just because a family may read a particular newspaper, for example, that they will 'sit round the dinner table holding dispassionate seminars on comparative religion', which I too do not think is a healthy way to express, question or build any kind of unbiased, educated or informed opinion on a topic.

For the record, in case that comment regarding Guardian readers by Chris was aimed at myself, we do not read newspapers in my house. if something in the public domain peaks our interest, we tend to search for and read multiple sources to gain a balanced view. yes, it takes a bit longer than taking up the opinion fed to us by the mainstream media or single story one might glance over, but even the media can be biased or not present all the information. as I have already said, we should never lose the thirst to question what we are told, because it is that ability that allows us to become a more rounded and open minded person.

I think that to even begin to break down the barriers between those who choose to believe, those who are indifferent to religion and those who choose not to believe, ALL parties need to stop being so defensive about their own personal stance and learn to listen and accept that other's views, thoughts and beliefs are just as valid as their own ones. Even more so those who are aggressively defensive. those who, ironically, shout that no one should tell them what to believe, or that what they do is wrong, or that they are being tarred with a single brush, and then throw back accusations or presumptions that are just as unfounded and uninformed as the ones they themselves have just been upset by.

We should all be able to believe what we wish without feeling pressured into it through manipulation, be that mental (fear, indoctrination, blackmail, et cetera) or physical (punishment, pain, restraint, et cetera). It should make no difference if someone wants to believe something or not. And no single view point should be forced upon another, especially if that person is not able to make an informed, cognitive decision on the topic - in the same way as an elderly person may be influenced, pressured or out rightly led into parting with their life savings by a callous sales person or con man - we all know that is wrong and it should be considered no different to someone telling or manipulating a child that they should, or equally, should not, believe in a God. And we would all do well to remember that a belief is not necessarily a fact, be that for or against any religious inclinations. 'Belief', 'truth' and 'fact' can be mutually exclusive from one another.

---------- Post added at 14:10 ---------- Previous post was at 13:42 ----------

This is a good question.

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

Go ahead, tell me what you think.

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

You do all realise that many children reject that which their parents believe.It does not always follow that children remain 'indoctrinated' by anything their parents say or do.;)

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

its not about what i think .its about "what if you walk into the room and their all enjoying a read of the god delusion by Richard Dawkins and agreeing with it ."

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

Yeah I'm asking why you want to know, what do you think I'd do/say.

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

never mind- if the idea is too uncomfortable for you to contemplate lets just move on and pretend i never asked.

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

lol ok

What do you expect me to say? I’d lock them in a room and refuse them food and water until they recant their heretic ways?

I’d be disappointed and hope they see through his BS.

---------- Post added at 17:44 ---------- Previous post was at 17:43 ----------

Maybe get them a copy of the brilliant "The Dawkins Delusion" instead.

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

which is why it is so important that you allow the choice to be their own. you hand them the information, and let them create their own conclusions.

indoctrination (in this case into religion) differs however;

Authority
it will involve a level of manipulation by the Authoritative figure(s) - be that a Pope, Vicar, Care-Giver, Cleric, whatever. there may even be punishment if the subject does not follow the code, such as we saw only this week (http://bit.ly/1JZBYyz).

Reciprocation
The child may also be told that the religion will give them support, love and reward if they simply abide by the rules and beliefs that the religion sets out.

Commitment / Consistency
If the child openly agrees, or is baptised, or follows through with any ceremony that the religion deems necessary as part of an inclusion or right of passage, the child has then openly committed to that faith and will be far more inclined to be consistent with the commitment they have made.

Scarcity
Some religions state that the places for eternal reward after death are scarce, so you must strictly follow the rules set out to have any chance of 'getting in'.

Likeability
The religion welcomes warmly new-comers and aims to give support and love to members within the group, much like any group of peers that like-minded people are member of.

Social Proofing
If a family is already part of a religious group, there will be a tendency for the younger members of the family to follow suit. once at the place of worship or when surrounded by those of a similar mindset, everyone that the child sees has similar interests and beliefs. when everyone else is doing it, who is the child to question why? they are far more likely to follow the lead of the adults in the group.


and there we have the 6 principles of influence at play within a religious setting. of course, not all communities will use these forcefully or manipulatively. not all religions will use all 6 principles, and if they do, they will be varying degrees of intensity. but none-the-less, the principles are at play. equally, militant atheists may well do the same to put children off religion. this is equally as bad because it does not allow a full view or fair narrative in order to base a sound judgement.

---------- Post added at 16:52 ---------- Previous post was at 16:45 ----------

I don't think Papa Smurf's question was in any way intended to be a personal attack. it was a valid question which could and should have led to a mature and adult, considerate response. your answer appears to have the hallmarks of a defensive response, which I mentioned in an earlier post on this thread as being something we should all avoid doing.

but open up your answer. why do you believe it to be BS? what specifically has Richard Dawkins said that makes you so angry or upset? we need this information to debate. giving short, nondescript, single line answers gets us nowhere. let's use this debate forum to debate, and debate well. asking questions and listening to the responses, then responding with consideration. how else can we possible begin to understand another's point of view otherwise?

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

I’ve made my feelings on Dawkins clear many times. He’s made it his mission to make people lose their faith, he’s said so in interviews promoting his book regardless of the questionable ‘evidence’ in his book. The Dawkins Delusion counters all his points and demonstrates where he embellishes, misquotes and takes things out of context.

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

do you not feel that your very first post on this thread took his words out of context? Where Richard Dawkins has said that indoctrination should be avoided, you have taken it to mean he is telling you how to bring up your child and that he wouldn't want you to even discuss religion in your own home. is your response not just as bad as how you feel Richard Dawkins has taken religion and it's teachings out of context too?

if you look into what Richard Dawkins says, he does not try to make people lose their faith. what he wants is for people to be able to step back and question their faith, religion and religion's teachings. if, after doing so, one returns to that faith, then so be it. his point is more about people blindly following a belief system without ever asking why they are doing it or whether doing so is benefiting or potentially hindering them as a person.

EDIT: but that aside, please humour us for the sake of this thread - what is it specifically that Dawkins says that you consider BS? what specifically has upset or angered you? they are simple questions.

I don't think it reasonable to make each person who reads this thread have to go trawling through years of forum posts to find snippets of your muses on him in order to further comment here. much the same as when someone on the forum makes a point which refers to a study, experiment, new article or viewpoint, you will request that a link to the evidence that is posted or referred, and do not feel you should have to google it yourself. take almost every single thread started by ArthurGray50 for example.

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

Dawkins DOES want people to lose their faith, he said so in promotional interviews for his book. He tries so hard at a gimmick of a wise scholar who warmly seeks open debate when in reality he would like nothing mote than for religion to die out. That's his right obviously, I'd respect him more if he was just more honest about it. The number of counter points made in the Dawkins Delusion indicates he put more effort in to trying to destroy someone's faith than researching real facts and quoting scripture accurately.

I know of people who have lost their faith after reading his book and their lives are now miserable as a result. I have no time for the man.

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

what about all those people who found faith from reading the bible doesn't that balance things out .

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

I haven't spoken to them all so I wouldn't know.

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

perhaps he's doing religion a favor by separating the wheat from the chaff ,if people loose their faith by reading his book it couldn't have been very strong.

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.

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: