Richard Dawkins - Too much Sherry

[D.P.]

Believing in a god isn't a problem though. It's having prejudice / discriminating / oppressing / segregating / misinformation in relation to science etc on the basis of mere beliefs / organised religion that's a problem. They aren't the same thing.

Is it morally objectionable to teach children lies? That is the main issue Dawkins has. He doesn't care about adult's beliefs, he cares how children are educated and brainwashed into thinking evolution doesn't exist, together world us 6000 years old, dinosaurs didn't exist. There are school districts in the US that want to ban the teaching of evolution, or make sure children spend equal or more hours learning about intelligent design and present ID as an equal or superior "theory".


I'm very much with Dawkins on this. Adults can believe in whatever they want but it is morally reprehensible to brainwash children with known lies and conceal the scientific truth.

 

[Sliver]

I'm very much with Dawkins on this. Adults can believe in whatever they want but it is morally reprehensible to brainwash children with known lies and conceal the scientific truth.

Agreed. It's also morally reprehensible to label children with any religious tag. Children should be taught about religions but not inculcated into them.

 

[Deleted member 66701]

And I know the pope. Personally.

You're not special, depsite what he's told you.

Being Catholic, loads of boys know him "personally".

I'm very much with Dawkins on this. Adults can believe in whatever they want but it is morally reprehensible to brainwash children with known lies and conceal the scientific truth.

Like the tooth fairy, the Easter bunny and Father Christmas?

 

[estebanrey]

I'm very much with Dawkins on this. Adults can believe in whatever they want but it is morally reprehensible to brainwash children with known lies and conceal the scientific truth.

Problem with that is even Atheists like myself happily pretend Santa is real or the Tooth Fairy when talking to kids. Dawkins isn't so het up those "lies" told to children.

 

[estebanrey]

I agree. He is far more fanatical than any religious person I know.

You're comparing someone who don't know with people you do, apples and oranges.

Dawkins is no where near as fanatical as fanatical religious people.

 

[FoxEye]

What's it got to do with Santa?

I sometimes wonder if a militant atheist teaching their kids to believe in Santa is not a slight contradiction...

e: that'll teach me to skip pages 2 and 3 I'm late to the party!

 

[D.P.]

Problem with that is even Atheists like myself happily pretend Santa is real or the Tooth Fairy when talking to kids. Dawkins isn't so het up those "lies" told to children.

There is a big difference between telling a 3 year old about Santa and a 12 year in a classroom that intelligent design is more credible than evolution. Moreover, making stories about Santa isn't concealing the scientific truth.


We can also flip this a pruned. Do you think it is morally justifiable to withhold education from a child, e.g. Force them never to learn language so never being able to communicate, or never teach them fundamental arithmetic, reading, writing skills?



And actually, I won't be telling my children any rubbish about Santa etc.

 

[FoxEye]

There is a big difference between telling a 3 year old about Santa and a 12 year in a classroom that intelligent design is more credible than evolution. Moreover, making stories about Santa isn't concealing the scientific truth.

And actually, I won't be telling my children any rubbish about Santa etc.

If you abstract away the specifics (ie, claims that the Earth is only 7000 years old, etc), intelligent design in principle is not unscientific incredible.

It's only when you come across people that /do/ believe the Earth is only 7000 years old that it becomes less than credible.

But if you were to throw away the Bible, the Qu'ran and just ask "Could there have been some kind of intelligent design?" it's perfectly plausible.

Note: I'm not trying to discredit the Bible, etc.

 

[Sliver]

But if you were to throw away the Bible, the Qu'ran and just ask "Could there have been some kind of intelligent design?" it's perfectly plausible.

No it isn't. That still leaves you with the question of where the designer came from. So we end up with an infinite regress. Complexity arises from simplicity incrementally over time. The origins of existence are a bottom up premise not a top down one.

 

[FoxEye]

No it isn't. That still leaves you with the question of where the designer came from. So we end up with an infinite regress. Complexity arises from simplicity incrementally over time. The origins of existence are a bottom up premise not a top down one.

Evolutionists can't account for where matter/energy came from, so what's the difference?

If you want to say that "energy has always existed", then how is that different from saying "God has always existed".

Are there any theories that account for energy spontaneously coming into existence from nothingness?

 

[dirtychinchilla]

It's rather funny you should post that kedge as the ones whining in this thread are the religious nuts or ones who think a well respected evolutionary biologist is a "loon".

Firstly, we enjoy it. Secondly, very few of us think that Dawkins is a loon; they're the minority in this thread. Thirdly, I don't think it's acceptable in any way for people to be teaching blatant lies to the innocent.

With regards to Santa and the tooth fairy etc, I've deliberated over this for a long time. I didn't ever really care about the tooth fairy, but I was a massive Father Christmas fan, and it never caused me any unhappiness. It was obvious that a fat guy wasn't going to come down our chimney because it's too small. He obviously couldn't go around the world in one night....and then people on the other side of the fence are saying Jesus could change water to wine and they genuinely believe it! Father Christmas is just as bloody believable, and never asked you to demigrate anyone for their existence.

I'm not sure whether I'll tell my children about Father Christmas, but I know that the idea of him brought me a great deal of pleasure as a child, much more than wondering where dinosaurs came from if the world is only 6000 years old.

 

[Felon]

But if you were to throw away the Bible, the Qu'ran and just ask "Could there have been some kind of intelligent design?" it's perfectly plausible.

No it isn't, not at all.

All the evidence shows that life has evolved by itself, and has not been intelligently designed by anyone, or anything.

 

[Sliver]

Are there any theories that account for energy spontaneously coming into existence from nothingness?

Yes. Professor Lawrence Krauss has written a book outlining just such a concept. He's developed a theory, still to be tested, which explains how something can come from nothing. Also some experiments have been carried out showing particles of matter popping into and out of existence. A simple google search will suffice.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Books-Universe-From-Nothing-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/1471112683

 

[dirtychinchilla]

No it isn't, not at all.

All the evidence shows that life has evolved by itself, and has not been intelligently designed by anyone, or anything.

I don't agree with you there. We have evolved to be spectacularly good at certain things. I've caught myself many times saying or thinking "it's likely that was so well designed" when I've looked at something like a venus fly trap, or the thumb.

I'm not surprised for a second that people believe in intelligent design. Both intelligent design and evolution have the same end goal, for everything to be optimised for its environment. It's not until you look at it in depth that you realise that we weren't always like we are now.

The stupid component is that people think we came from Adam and Eve and that the earth isn't that old.

 

[FoxEye]

Thirdly, I don't think it's acceptable in any way for people to be teaching blatant lies to the innocent.

With regards to Santa and the tooth fairy etc, I've deliberated over this for a long time. I didn't ever really care about the tooth fairy, but I was a massive Father Christmas fan, and it never caused me any unhappiness.

I'm not sure whether I'll tell my children about Father Christmas, but I know that the idea of him brought me a great deal of pleasure as a child.

Snipped for brevity.

Please read what you wrote and tell me you aren't trying to justify double standards to yourself.

"I don't think it's acceptable to teach blatant lies."
"Telling kids Santa is real doesn't hurt anyone."

It honestly can't be both. Either you do believe that sometimes telling blatant lies is OK, or you don't teach kids Santa is real.

 

[Pudney]

Snipped for brevity.

Please read what you wrote and tell me you aren't trying to justify double standards to yourself.

"I don't think it's acceptable to teach blatant lies."
"Telling kids Santa is real doesn't hurt anyone."

It honestly can't be both. Either you do believe that sometimes telling blatant lies is OK, or you don't teach kids Santa is real.

Maybe that's why he's been deliberating over it for a long time? Whether it's justifiable? It's even in the bit you quoted.

 

[FoxEye]

Yes. Professor Lawrence Krauss has written a book outlining just such a concept. He's developed a theory, still to be tested, which explains how something can come from nothing. Also some experiments have been carried out showing particles of matter popping into and out of existence. A simple google search will suffice.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Books-Universe-From-Nothing-Lawrence-Krauss/dp/1471112683

So we're going to start violating the 1st/2nd laws of thermodynamics to make evolution more plausible...

So how about those perpetual motion devices, then? Can't discredit them anymore if we're accepting that energy can arise from nothingness.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

Snipped for brevity.

Please read what you wrote and tell me you aren't trying to justify double standards to yourself.

"I don't think it's acceptable to teach blatant lies."
"Telling kids Santa is real doesn't hurt anyone."

It honestly can't be both. Either you do believe that sometimes telling blatant lies is OK, or you don't teach kids Santa is real.

The difference is that I will happily acknowledge that Father Christmas doesn't exist when they've realised it for themselves, but there are many creationists who geuinely think that the earth is 6000 years old and will continue to teach that to people, with absolute convinction, until their dying day.

The likelyhood is that I won't tell my children that Father Christmas is real, they'll get it from their friends, school, television etc. and so that you don't appear a right ****, you have to just go along with it. That's what my parents did for both Father Christmas and religion, and when I realised neither existed they supported me.

 

[dirtychinchilla]

So we're going to start violating the 1st/2nd laws of thermodynamics to make evolution more plausible...

So how about those perpetual motion devices, then? Can't discredit them anymore if we're accepting that energy can arise from nothingness.

Herein lies one of the many differences between science and religion; scientists are willing to acknowledge that they might be wrong. If energy can become nothing, what's to say that it can't come from nothing? The law energy conservation is used in an identical way in either argument.

 

[Fuzz]

Snipped for brevity.

Please read what you wrote and tell me you aren't trying to justify double standards to yourself.

"I don't think it's acceptable to teach blatant lies."
"Telling kids Santa is real doesn't hurt anyone."

It honestly can't be both. Either you do believe that sometimes telling blatant lies is OK, or you don't teach kids Santa is real.

Telling a kid santa is real... is whole different level to
Santa is real and if you don't believe it you will burn for eternity...

THAT'S The problem with religion.