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

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

Exactly, with reference to the other thread you were alluding to. So do you consider it acceptable to add a disclaimer such as mine above? I know this is all drifting away from the main topic but I do like to establish the rules where possible.

Do what you want Russ. If you feel the need to insert a disclaimer then knock yourself out but in the interest of fairness (and in keeping with your interest in rules) you cannot expect to demand facts, proof and verification of statements from others and not be held to the same level of scrutiny yourself. "Do unto others" and all that jazz. Is that fair enough?

[Russ]

It is but I'm sure you'll agree there's a difference in expectation of availability between facts that given the gravitas of what they represent ought to be easily found via Google, and those requiring someone to sign up to a forum and join in a discussion, especially as I'm not even sure what he could provide as evidence short of a scanned copy of his psychiatric report.

[Mr Angry]

Originally Posted by Russ

It is but I'm sure you'll agree there's a difference in expectation of availability between facts that given the gravitas of what they represent ought to be easily found via Google, and those requiring someone to sign up to a forum and join in a discussion, especially as I'm not even sure what he could provide as evidence short of a scanned copy of his psychiatric report.

A scanned copy of his psychiatric report will do fine.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

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.

Ah but sadly debate/discussion all too often descend into downright argument..and this thread is no different from the large number we have already seen..

What would really novel is if we all just agreed to disagree and left it there and if Dawkins would cease using the issue to create publicity to sell his work.

[idi banashapan]

sorry, this might be a long post, but those who are interested in this thread will of course read the below and the thread in it's entirety before commenting on what I have said!

Originally Posted by Maggy J

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.

I agree that we should all let everyone believe what they like so long as no one is being hurt or hindered. And I also think that openly discussing different views is vitally important. yes, we can agree to disagree, but if taken too far, people with differing views would end up never speaking and we would end up with a self-created utopia where we can block out anyone with a different view and back-slap everyone with the same view, which I think would be far more dangerous to society. that's exactly how things like racism and stereotypes come about. No one should throw any view down someone else's throat. that said, an internet forum, everyone has the choice to walk away. the same as everyone has the choice to read the bible or read Dawkins' book.

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

the best person to make any diagnosis on this would be a trained psychologist or psychiatrist, not an internet forum - this applies to both sides of the argument. as for self-diagnosis when it comes to psychosis, unresolved emotional issues, mental issues, personality disorders or however you want to term it, well no. you can't do that. like i said earlier, even the insane believe themselves to be sane.

I have no doubt that religion helped your friend through tough times, much like it has yourself. but that does not mean there are not other ways of getting through things. saying that Dawkins' book was the soul reason for your friend to attempt to take his life just isn't fair. If I may quote from Game Of Thrones, which as with many great books / films / programmes, uses the real world and creates a parallel from it:

Lord Varys: I did what I did for the good of the realm.
Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish: The realm. Do you know what the realm is? It's the thousand blades of Aegon's enemies, a story we agree to tell each other over and over, until we forget that it's a lie.
Lord Varys: But what do we have left, once we abandon the lie? Chaos? A gaping pit waiting to swallow us all.
Petyr 'Littlefinger' Baelish: Chaos isn't a pit. Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some, are given a chance to climb. They refuse, they cling to the realm or the gods or love. Illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is.

some will find that their belief was a 'lie' to them. some will retain their belief as very real. others will never accept the stories and some will sway between what they see and what they want to see. In no way should that take away the immense value that religion brings to so many people around the world. however, if one suddenly feels that what they have been taught holds no truth, or at the very least, does not hold the truth they believed it to bring, then that is down to only one person - themselves. because they them self have chosen to abandon 'the lie' (as it is described in the quote). for you, Russ, Dawkins is the lie. And I doubt very much you will ever spend them time reading his works with an open mind to what it says, rather then what you think it is telling you. I don't know if that is because you fear the book and it's contents? maybe you have the tiniest flicker you fear may be ignitied should you begin to entertain the idea of questioning faith. maybe you are absolute in your unshakeable faith. neither scenario is wrong.

of course, you are free to believe in what you like. and no one should tell you otherwise. there are some who will tell you to lose faith, much the same as there are some of faith who come knocking on my door to tell me I should believe. but those who do that are not necessarily your faith. and you have to accept that not all atheists are trying to make you lose your faith and become godless. and I believe (rightly or wrongly) that Dawkins is merely presenting the other side of the faith argument. if you want to read it, then do. if not, then don't. whatever your thoughts though, it is unfair that you generalise all atheists with the same brush....

Originally Posted by Russ

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.

Originally Posted by Russ

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

....we do not all want you to abandon god. we just don't want your faith in god to have you abandon what everything else the world and it's people have to offer. ideologies, no matter what the subject, can cause serious flaws in judgement and focus. need we even mention world war 2? we want you to question your faith, the same as those who are religious would love godless people to question not having a god.

Originally Posted by Russ

Dawkins' purpose of that book was to get people to lose their belief. He put a lot of effort in to that and being the intelligent man he is, he succeeded in imposing it on a lot of people.

taking away any personal or bias view point, I have never myself heard Dawkins say that. I think he just wants people to question their faith, fully. then they can make up their mind about it. his beef is more with the indoctrination that often comes with religion.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

we want you to question your faith

Why?

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Why?

For the same reason you should question anything. As I've said many, many times on this forum, the moment we stop questioning and blindly follow is the moment we stop progressing - it's the moment we hold ourselves back. And so we would never become more because we cannot better ourselves or anything / anyone else. And it doesn't matter if it's an ideology, a theory or whatever. We should always question to find our own conclusion, not unquestionably follow one we are fed.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

For the same reason you should question anything. As I've said many, many times on this forum, the moment we stop questioning and blindly follow is the moment we stop progressing - it's the moment we hold ourselves back. And so we would never become more because we cannot better ourselves or anything / anyone else. And it doesn't matter if it's an ideology, a theory or whatever. We should always question to find our own conclusion, not unquestionably follow one we are fed.

Someone's beliefs aren't as conventional as say, why do you support a certain football team, why is a certain country your favourite destination etc.

It's a deeply personal thing for each person. You may get some who are happy to open up about it, that's up to them but unsolicited questioning of someone's religious beliefs is about as personal as you can get, especially if they don't affect anyone else, least of all the person doing the asking.

I expect people to ask "What/why does the bible say such and such about this" (providing it's a legitimate interest and not an excuse to to bring views out in the open to criticise and attack them), it comes with the territory. But expecting/demanding someone to have their view questioned? Don't be in too much of a hurry for a response. I'm not telling anyone how to live. I know what works for me and I'm happy with that.

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Russ

Someone's beliefs aren't as conventional as say, why do you support a certain football team, why is a certain country your favourite destination etc.

It's a deeply personal thing for each person. You may get some who are happy to open up about it, that's up to them but unsolicited questioning of someone's religious beliefs is about as personal as you can get, especially if they don't affect anyone else, least of all the person doing the asking.

I expect people to ask "What/why does the bible say such and such about this" (providing it's a legitimate interest and not an excuse to to bring views out in the open to criticise and attack them), it comes with the territory. But expecting/demanding someone to have their view questioned? Don't be in too much of a hurry for a response. I'm not telling anyone how to live. I know what works for me and I'm happy with that.

so long as that also includes people who don't have any other choice, like your children.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

so long as that also includes people who don't have any other choice, like your children.

Simply outstanding.

Originally Posted by idi banashapan

so long as that also includes people who don't have any other choice, like your children.

Or else what?

This doesn't become any less absurd, no matter how many times you repeat it. Telling children how to live is an essential part of a parent's role in their life. Telling children that there is a God and bringing them up in a life of faith is a normal, healthy expression of family. The only people who think this should not happen are - surprise, surprise - people who are atheist or agnostic in outlook, and what they always end up arguing for is - surprise, surprise - for other families to change their ways to be more like them.

No matter how you dress it up and how hard you try to sound reasonable, your argument is utterly self-serving and at the same time quite lacking in self awareness. How you bring up your kids is your business. How a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist brings up his kids is his business. It is not the State's and it is not his neighbour's.

[idi banashapan]

Chris, there is a gulf of difference between telling and guiding. Telling implies a forceful tact which requires, demands even, compliance. Guiding implies showing paths, but allowing one to choose which to take. Someone who tells demands respect and authority. Someone who guides does nothing more than advise and help.

If someone wants to believe in a god, that is fine. But to push that belief in another, no matter what their age, race, creed, whatever should be discouraged. And that goes for either side of the religious stand points. No one here is telling anyone to do anything. However, as is often the case here, a couple of people think that any religious view that differs from their own is a personal attack designed for them to abandon God. This is simply not the case and I find it increasingly sad that this happens. It is not a personal attack. You have a choice. And I think it is important that we ALL understand what makes those choices important to everyone else so we can understand the person and ultimately ourselves, better. I'f one does not understand a person, one tends to regard the as a fool' as Carl Gustav Jung once said. And I do not want to think anyone a fool because I don't understand them. However, it takes co-operation from both parties. It requires honesty, validity and questioning. When those things are denied, where does that leave us?

[Gary L]

Good point.
why not let the children wait to discover a faith or whatever?

are they going to be miserable, lost or depressed if you never tell them the story?

[papa smurf]

Originally Posted by Gary L

Good point.
why not let the children wait to discover a faith or whatever?

are they going to be miserable, lost or depressed if you never tell them the story?

its all about ownership of the children the parents own them and will teach them what ever they want .

Originally Posted by Chris

Or else what?

This doesn't become any less absurd, no matter how many times you repeat it. Telling children how to live is an essential part of a parent's role in their life. Telling children that there is a God and bringing them up in a life of faith is a normal, healthy expression of family. The only people who think this should not happen are - surprise, surprise - people who are atheist or agnostic in outlook, and what they always end up arguing for is - surprise, surprise - for other families to change their ways to be more like them.

No matter how you dress it up and how hard you try to sound reasonable, your argument is utterly self-serving and at the same time quite lacking in self awareness. How you bring up your kids is your business. How a Christian, Muslim or Buddhist brings up his kids is his business. It is not the State's and it is not his neighbour's.

---------- Post added at 15:06 ---------- Previous post was at 15:04 ----------

Originally Posted by papa smurf

its all about ownership of the children the parents own them and will teach them what ever they want .

Another generalisation..