Richard Dawkins would have an Aneurysm

[vectorcube]

I thought that other Richard Dawkins fans might be interested in this. Not too long ago, I was flipping through the channels, and I was going through the religious networks when I saw a program entitled Tiny Tots for Jesus. I was so appalled that I turned on the information for the program and snapped a photo, which I wanted to attach, but I’m a little scared of any copyright issues that might stem from that. It would probably be safe, but these day you can’t be too careful when it comes to that sort of thing. Anyway, I personally think that it is absolutely idiotic that the producers of a children’s television program could ever think that it’s appropriate to say that “tiny tots” are “for Jesus.” The program itself was disgusting too, acting as though babies cared about religious dogma. Richard Dawkins would completely go off the deep end over this, and I can’t at all say I blame him. I don’t know who runs these ridiculous programs, but some of these producers need this idiocy brought to their attention. Can something be done to stop this?

Richard Dawkins fans, and others, please comment.

I am no dawkin fan, and i think it is ridiculous you would consider this child abuse.

 

[GeorginaS]

I don't see any justification for your claim that a secular culture would be bad. I argue otherwise, a completely secular culture would be far better. For example, teaching children that they will burn in hellfire if they don't obey god at a young age, and that man did not evolve is shameful and ignorant.

Since you have made a claim that not all secular culture is ethical and good, you are now required to provide some evidence for this point of view.

More words: consumer culture, materialism, capitalism

 

[Cyrus]

However, I'll give you two words from secular culture: death penalty.

I honestly don't know what you mean by this, or this

More words: consumer culture, materialism, capitalism

nor do I understand why you incorrectly attribute materialism to secularism.

 

[ideasrule]

The same rights that allow atheists and agnostics to freely express there beliefs and air Dawkin's documentaries, etc. are the same rights that allow Christians to air programs like "Tots for Jesus."

You have a right to think that TV shows like this are stupid. However, you can't say that these TV shows should be "stopped."


If you strip away the right for Christians or other religious folk to teach and express their beliefs you inadvertently do the same to atheists and agnostics. Either we all have the freedom of religion, or none of us do.

If any atheist aired a commercial for tots called "Tiny Tots for Dawkins" or "Tiny Tots for Darwin", I'd be quite appalled. This is despite the fact that I am much more of an atheist than anybody else here can ever be.

Child indoctrination is appalling, regardless of the validity of the information being forced in. Once children are subjected to religious dogma day in, day out, it is extremely difficult for them to change their minds as adults. The same is true in dictatorships like North Korea and China; in principle it is possible for indoctrinated children to discard their childhood illusions as adults, but how many people actually do? Many Chinese Canadians I know still refuse to believe China is a dictatorship with prevalent human rights abuses. I've lived in China before; I know that its brainwashing is far, far less extensive than the indoctrination that most religious parents subject their children to. Considering what a little tinkering with the education system has done in China, it's not surprising that religion has managed to survive for all of human history.

 

[math_04]

Sometimes, I think we use the 'freedom to practice religion' sentence a bit too much. It really depends on the situation. If you are going to teach a child in school about intelligent design and creationism with a strong emphasis that what is been taught is true, then it is wrong. If you take a child out to a hell house and make him watch those grotesque images of hell and torture, then you are certainly inflicting emotional harm on the child. Sending your child to Bible School or having a small prayer at the dinner table is acceptable and within a parent's bounds. Of course, it is important that religion is not forced upon a child by fear mongering, corporal punishment etc. There are boundaries for everything including religion.

 

[ideasrule]

More words: consumer culture, materialism, capitalism

Wait, are you saying that capitalism is not ethical and good? History and current world affairs both suggest it's by far the most effective economic system, capable of achieving the highest living standards and the fastest advances in technology.

Since you seem to be struggling with examples, I'll help you out here: China is officially atheist and communist; it tortures dissidents. There. Not all atheist cultures are ethical.

That misses the point, of course, which is that evil arises when people are trained not to think critically. When children are told to accept God "by faith", they'll make moral judgements based on the Bible, the Quran, or another religious book simply because they accept "God's word". Instead of thinking about every issue rationally by listing out the pro's and con's of every choice and critically examining them, they'll oppose pornography because God doesn't like it or stem cell research because God thinks killing is wrong in every case. Similarly in China, children are taught to praise the Communist party and regard it as the saviour of the Chinese people. Instead of examining the evidence for China's human rights abuses, these children--when they grow up and leave for the West--dismiss it off-hand as extremist or biased without thinking.

On to another topic: I find GeorginaS's speculation about Liger quite rude. Seriously, have you never heard phrases like "Newton/Occam/Einstein/whoever would be rolling in his grave by now"? Dawkins was mentioned because he's a well-known atheist; that's all. Can we stop second-guessing the OP and get on with more worthwhile topics?

I'd agree that Dawkins is too sharp with his criticism. If someone asked me for my opinion on religion, I'd give a much harsher attack than he could ever imagine, but unfortunately such bursts of rationalism don't have much persuasive power; they are simply seen by religious followers as extremist. *sigh*

 

[math_04]

Since you seem to be struggling with examples, I'll help you out here: China is officially atheist and communist; it tortures dissidents. There. Not all atheist cultures are ethical.

The Chinese government does not torture dissidents because they are religious. They torture because the dissidents represent a threat to the ruling government. Purely political and not religious.

 

[ideasrule]

Sometimes, I think we use the 'freedom to practice religion' sentence a bit too much. It really depends on the situation. If you are going to teach a child in school about intelligent design and creationism with a strong emphasis that what is been taught is true, then it is wrong. If you take a child out to a hell house and make him watch those grotesque images of hell and torture, then you are certainly inflicting emotional harm on the child. Sending your child to Bible School or having a small prayer at the dinner table is acceptable and within a parent's bounds. Of course, it is important that religion is not forced upon a child by fear mongering, corporal punishment etc. There are boundaries for everything including religion.

I certainly agree the law should not forbid parents from forcing children to pray or go to Bible School, but that doesn't make it any less counterproductive. Suppose 80% of American parents told their children to pray to Darwin at dinner and attend a school where the theory of evolution is taught as the absolute truth. 30 years on, if scientists find irrefutable proof that God created Earth and all its species, we'd have 80% of the population worshipping Darwin and rejecting overwhelming evidence! What would the scientists do?

There's nothing wrong with teaching evolution if it is taught to children with the biological background needed to comprehend it and understand the supporting evidence, and as long as it isn't portrayed as undeniable dogma. Similarly, there's nothing wrong with teaching children about the Bible if they have the proper historical background to judge the Bible's reliability, and if it isn't presented as undeniable dogma. In both cases, expert consensus should be presented as valid; children should be taught that the overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution and that almost no historian, scientist, linguist, or archaeologist thinks the Bible is the absolute truth. The problem is that this doesn't happen; children of religious parents are not given the expert consensus of historians on the validity of the Bible.

 

[Monocles]

The only way I can see religious indoctrination as not being child abuse is if one does not believe that people have a right to not be brainwashed. I have no problem with people being religious by their own choice, but I think that it is a violation of human rights to force children to believe in something and stunting the possibility of them ever being able to choose a religion (or lack of one) for themselves.

 

[Pupil]

I would present my personal ideas and supportable opinions as they apply to my thinking and give credit where due to any influences. To say that expressing one's ideas necessitates a long list is fallacious.

Well you're certainly free to present your personal ideas -- just as Liger20 or I or anyone else here is free to list a man who holds the same ideas as we do for convenience. When did I say expressing one's ideas always necessitates a long list?

 

[Pupil]

required[/I] to do anything. However, I'll give you two words from secular culture: death penalty.

More words: consumer culture, materialism, capitalism

Please provide the argument one uses to get from "there is no god/we won't invoke a god for the sake of argument," to "therefore we should put people to death for a certain criminal charge." Or an argument for any of the other things you seem to think follow from atheism or secularism. I don't see how you can get to those conclusions -- they seem non sequitur.

 

[Tibarn]

Children do not possesses the faculties to logically examine every position and reason out their own belief systems. It's nice to teach critical thinking skills, but that's a faculty that takes years to develop. Meanwhile, children need guidance to get on with their everyday lives. They adopt their parents' beliefs until they're old enough and mature enough to question those and come up with their own. Children have trouble understanding the various subtleties that show up in things like ethical theory or science making them rather unsuited to create their own beliefs on the matter. In short, children are compelled to take almost everything on faith. (I shall refer the reader to the observations made by Jean Piaget and others concerning the timeline for the development of logical faculties in children)

Even science isn't exempt. Children have to simply believe that scientists did whatever it is they do and found that the Earth goes around the sun. They don't have the background to understand how this information was found out. Developing the necessary background and getting there from first principles is pedagogically unsound. First come the facts and the accurate theories, then come the explanations and exceptions.

Now for religion. Used properly, it's a quick and easy way to instill morals and virtues in a child. These beliefs can always be reexamined later. Some even treat religion as little more than a part of one's culture: like the study done in England a few years ago showing that more people belonged to the Anglican church than believed in God. I would even go so far as to argue that the kind of dissonance liable to be caused when religious parents are prohibited from passing on their religion can be more harmful than making the kid go to church every Sunday. The trouble comes when the parents are religious zealots and end up teaching their children hatred and passing on the vilest prejudices. However, this is hardly unique to religion and the actions of a small minority ought not lead to arbitrary restrictions upon the majority.

 

[Proton Soup]

Here is my hypothesis on why he (and I) are so "sharp" with criticism. By training he is a biologist. When he gives talks, he has to constantly listen to people tell him the biologist how evolution is 'only a theory' because the bible says so and therefore he is wrong. You can only stomach so much of that before you pull your hair out and just give nasty responses, like this:

zoologist, actually.

 

[Cyrus]

zoologist, actually.

Evolutionary Biologist, as far as I am aware, is the same thing as a zoologist. Unless someone can clarify the difference between the two. I omitted the insertion of the word 'evolutionary' in front of Biologist when I wrote that, assuming it was a given.

 

[Proton Soup]

Evolutionary Biologist, as far as I am aware, is the same thing as a zoologist. Unless someone can clarify the difference between the two. I omitted the insertion of the word 'evolutionary' in front of Biologist when I wrote that, assuming it was a given.

Steve Irwin was a zoologist, too.

 

[Cyrus]

Steve Irwin was a zoologist, too.

That doesn't answer my question.

 

[bleedblue1234]

Evolution or Evolutionary Biology - the study of the origin and decent of species over time


Zoology - the study of animals, including classification, physiology, development, and behavior (See also Entomology, Ethology, Herpetology, Ichthyology, Mammology, and Ornithology)


cut from wiki

 

[Cyrus]

Evolution or Evolutionary Biology - the study of the origin and decent of species over timeZoology - the study of animals, including classification, physiology, development, and behavior (See also Entomology, Ethology, Herpetology, Ichthyology, Mammology, and Ornithology)cut from wiki

Sorry, I don't want wiki definitions. Anyways, who cares its off topic and not important. I'll look it up myself later.

 

[Proton Soup]

That doesn't answer my question.

maybe not, but I've got more questions.

anyone got a link to Dawkins' peer-reviewed research articles?

 

[Pupil]

maybe not, but I've got more questions.

anyone got a link to Dawkins' peer-reviewed research articles?

You might try Wikipedia for that sort of thing. Perhaps you can elaborate on how this relates to the discussion the OP brought up.

 

[Proton Soup]

You might try Wikipedia for that sort of thing. Perhaps you can elaborate on how this relates to the discussion the OP brought up.

yeah, i don't see anything beyond his work as a research assistant in grad school and his phd work. it relates to his credentials as a scientist, as opposed to say someone qualified to write articles for Popular Science.

 

[Pupil]

yeah, i don't see anything beyond his work as a research assistant in grad school and his phd work. it relates to his credentials as a scientist, as opposed to say someone qualified to write articles for Popular Science.

How do his credentials (or lack of) have anything to do with his opinion on teaching religion at an early age being child abuse? Is this an opinion a non-scientist can't hold?

 

[Proton Soup]

How do his credentials (or lack of) have anything to do with his opinion on teaching religion at an early age being child abuse? Is this an opinion a non-scientist can't hold?

thank you. so we agree that Dawkins is no different than a layperson.


as for the OP, and the OP's views on religion as child abuse, well, i would simply point to those societies that tried to squash religion in the previous century and killed tens of millions of people in the process. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, these are the fruits of intolerant societies that decided to destroy their local religion and culture.

in fact, attempting to undermine the social fabric of a religious group is a tool of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide" .

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

(a) Killing members of the group;
(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

– Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article II

 

[Cyrus]

i would simply point to those societies that tried to squash religion in the previous century and killed tens of millions of people in the process. Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, these are the fruits of intolerant societies that decided to destroy their local religion and culture.

in fact, attempting to undermine the social fabric of a religious group is a tool of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide" .

This is a tired, disparate argument. I hope you have more to offer than this.

 

[Proton Soup]

This is a tired, disparate argument. I hope you have more to offer than this.

history is on my side.

 

[Pupil]

history is on my side.

If you don't see the fallacy of that argument then ignorance is the only thing on your side.

And we don't agree Dawkins is a lay person. Again, go to Wikipedia or read his biography on a website. He is a credentialed scientist. The point I was making was that there are no scientific appeals to authority on this subject of religion being child abuse, so even if he wasn't credentialed, it wouldn't matter. Apparently you didn't see that.

 

[Cyrus]

history is on my side.

One liners don't work on me, sorry. I require well thought out responses with sources.

Note, you don't even address the issue I raised with your post: how convenient.

What's worse, your link to secularism as 'genocide' is dishonest and should get you a warning. You are misquoting that out of context. Please remove it, or I'll warn your post.

 

[Proton Soup]

One liners don't work on me, sorry. I require well thought out responses with sources.

Note, you don't even address the issue I raised with your post: how convenient.

What's worse, your link to secularism as 'genocide' is dishonest and should get you a warning. You are misquoting that out of context. Please remove it, or I'll warn your post.

warn me, helper. there's nothing dishonest about it. it's an attempt to destroy religious groups.

 

[Cyrus]

warn me, helper. there's nothing dishonest about it. it's an attempt to destroy religious groups.

I have reported it and asked it be taken down. It is dishonest because no one is arguing to change conditions of life of religious people in the context that you have quoted.

Please explain why you think what you quoted in bold is fair, and relevant.

 

[Proton Soup]

I have reported it and asked it be taken down. It is dishonest because no one is arguing to change conditions of life of religious people in the context that you have quoted.

Please explain why you think what you quoted in bold is fair, and relevant.

you're kidding, right? you think accusing parents teaching their own religion to their own children of child abuse and wanting to stop it (implies government intervention) is not an assault on a religious group? do you seriously not understand how culture works? are you completely unaware of human behaviour?

 

[Cyrus]

you're kidding, right? you think accusing parents teaching their own religion to their own children of child abuse and wanting to stop it (implies government intervention) is not an assault on a religious group? do you seriously not understand how culture works? are you completely unaware of human behaviour?

I never used the word child abuse, so I don't know why you are saying I did. The OP used those words, if you have a problem with his wording, I suggest you take it up with him and not me.

I am arguing that legal adults have the right to follow whatever religion they choose. Children should not be force fed religion down their throats.

I'm pretty sure I know how culture and human behavior works, but thank's for asking.

 

[Proton Soup]

I never used the word child abuse, so I don't know why you are saying I did. The OP used those words, if you have a problem with his wording, I suggest you take it up with him and not me.

I am arguing that legal adults have the right to follow whatever religion they choose. Children should not be force fed religion down their throats.

I'm pretty sure I know how culture and human behavior works, but thank's for asking.

OK, it's fine that you believe that. But I happen to believe that attempting to interfere with parents' religious instruction of their children is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I know the word "genocide" is an emotional term for most people, but if you actually look at the definition you'll see that it is much broader than the popular concept of extermination. check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Problem_from_Hell:_America_and_the_Age_of_Genocide" for a little background.

 

[Cyrus]

OK, it's fine that you believe that. But I happen to believe that attempting to interfere with parents' religious instruction of their children is a violation of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. I know the word "genocide" is an emotional term for most people, but if you actually look at the definition you'll see that it is much broader than the popular concept of extermination. check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Problem_from_Hell:_America_and_the_Age_of_Genocide" for a little background.

You have not provided any evidence what-so-ever that suggest any of the criteria of genocide have been met in any of your posts.

 

[Proton Soup]

You have not provided any evidence what-so-ever that suggest any of the criteria of genocide have been met in any of your posts.

that you are uneducated is not my problem. do a little reading on the subject. understand what it is and why it is.

 

[russ_watters]

This thread was pretty useless from the start and the quality of discussion hasn't risen much (if any) above the absurd and pointless. Locked pending moderation.