I like the zoom in on Richard Dawkins face at 5:48 when his voice starts getting more intense, because it makes it seem that much more dramatic. None the less he is a brilliant man
Hmm... Well, I guess I'm looking for a quick way to quantify my world view if someone asks. Otherwise I'd have to make up a term for specifically mine and explain everything about it.
Russell642: Thank you. I'm not aware of anyone having said it before. With that said; I'd not be surprised to find that the thought has been expressed by many other people in various forms. I would be very surprised, and delighted if I were the first.
Why would anyone state such a thing? These people who don't state the truth are the same ones who have children and probably want to pass on their own beliefs to their children without respect to the truth. Allowing children to decide for themselves opens the door to have your own beliefs challenged. Many people are frightened of this idea.
No, it doesn't anger him because there are rational reasons to be a vegetarian. You can make a lucid, logical argument for why it's more compassionate and healthier than eating meat. The same can't be done for religion; indeed there are many arguments to be made for why religion is a negative and even dangerous thing.
Sophist-2nd: any human can be part of a group culture that is not of his/her choosing. If you teach your 8 year old child to strive to give 100% in everything they do, and they happen to be good at sports, he'll be labeled a "jock". The parent's intention isn't to put him in a category and piss off people who think jocks are stupid. What Dawkins objects to is that he sees it as "recruitment." Which is a separate point than "no child can be a part of a group they don't choose"
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God." ~ Richard Dawkins ...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
anetchi.. I too visit Dawkins "church" often... as well as Hitchens, Harris and other great thinkers who are all emerging at the same important moment of our time. That we should have at least these few intellects who so vastly overshadow the hordes of miniscule and myopic minds and rantings of fundamentalism appears to me to be a glimmering inspiration for a better future for those still to come.
I first started questioning whether God exists or not when I was about 8 years old and I heard Santa doesn't exist. It made sense to me that a civilization would create a God to explain mysteries of life
Zahng-If a TV preacher said "It makes me mad that atheists are teaching their kids that there is no God and attempting to create a Godless society." would you cry bullshit because of the idoelogy or because of the manipulation inherent in the argument? I'm saying that he makes his point with dogma rather than logic. ALL HUMANS WILL TEACH THEIR KIDS THEIR OWN IDEOLOGY. So then the point is "don't teach what I think is wrong". He wouldn't be pissed if were athiesm taught. Dogma, pure and simple.
There are children that have a genetic predisposition to be fat. This does not mean they will be fat. So, you're point that genes determine whether kids will be fat not only has no relation to religious ideology, it's also not even true. Again, genetic predisposition, yes; however, it can be prevented by a proper diet and exercise, and that is a fact. Social and cultural conditioning shape behavior, values and beliefs above all else. This is a testable hypothesis, and has been studied in depth.
You're completely misinterpreting what Dawkins is saying. A child born to a muslim family is indoctrinated by the religious customs of the family and is expected to adhere to that ideology. The same goes for every religion. I was born to a religious, Roman Catholic family and am now an Atheist, but if I were ever to mention that fact to my Grandfather he would be deeply hurt and upset. The point is, children tend to look up to their parents and adopt their values, ideologies etc.
I personally don't see the need of the God hypothesis for explaining natural phenomena, like organic life and the motion of the planets. Actually, as Dr. Neil Tyson points out, this assumption actually delays scientific progress. If He/She/It is out there, it's for something else...
God forbid your children don't share your world view. I'm also sickened by people who would balk (understatement of the century) if their children didn't have their sexuality. I'm sure this can be explained using some sort of sociological study, but that doesn't change the fact that I can't stand people who cannot keep up with changing social ideas (and what we're talking about isn't even that big a leap)
We are getting into a lot of abstract, unfruitful and frankly irrelevant variables here. To put it simply, Dawkins point was clear: Children are impressionable, generally gullible and lack the education necessary to make informed decisions on issues of religion and politics. For a child to call himself a Christian means that someone else instilled that in him, not that he came to that conclusion himself by examining all available evidence. That's all there is to Dawkins point.
Yes, they believe in santa, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and sometimes a god. The problem comes when parents tell them that only three of these are made up.
Zhang-You are making assumptions that I am a Christian and/or a Bush supporter. In my posts I NEVER mentioned my beliefs. I'm talking about Dawkin's LOGIC AND PRESENTATION. Period. Nothing more. You are not paying attention. Let's make it simple...Can a child be a part of a culture by proxy? If the answer is yes (and it is), then Dawkin's point is dogmatic. It's that simple. Why is that so hard to see? Don't respond to Dick's rhetoric like a reactionary Christian to a tv preacher.
I hope you're right. Your explanation is a bit like saying religion is a gigantic, inter-generational "addiction" of sorts. However, even if we break ourselves off "cold turkey" there will still be some idiots out there that want to "try it out". I think there will always be believers of religion but hopefully their numbers will dwindle to next to nothing.
Zhang-First of all, my point has nothing to do with the theist vs. atheist argument. None. AGAIN: I'm talking about DOGMA and the manipulation of language to create followers AND NOTHING ELSE!!!! He's peddling dogma here. You go to his ideology to make your points of which I am not in dispute. I am NOT NOT NOT arguing his ideology, get it? And if you think atheism isn't being taught, then what is Dawkins doing here? THAT"S MY POINT...he's peddling dogma to build followers and book sales.
@goldeyeblue I was baptised Mormon at age eight. I haven't believed in years, yet Mormons still attempt to tell me that I am Mormon. It's completely preposterous.
What are you talking about? What you stated makes no literal sense. Children tend to adopt the political/religious ideologies and family values of their parents. Sure, but that's precisely why religion is so nonsensically pervasive to begin with. There's nothing manipulative about Dawkins "rhetoric." I can't say the same of yours. Children are not born with christianity, or islam etc., written in to their DNA. They get it straight from their parents. That's his point.
You are obviously missing the point, 3shiftgtr. Dawkins is angry at the fact that children are being forced into these bullshit roles, and that these children are being labeled at the age of 4, even though they most likely have no understanding of the religion they are filed under. You keep making these comparisons to vegetarians and fat kids and jocks, but they have absolutely nothing to do with this topic, you pretend as if having imaginary friends is the same as being a vegetarian.
Yes but when a man reaches 17 and he only heard fairy tales without learning facts like evolution, then he is preety much doomed to be ignorent for the rest of his life. Take a baby, teach him that the world is flat and he will belive it.
Lol, teach atheism? Atheism isnt taught anywhere or enforced on anyone, by any means, but religion is. Im not sure what your definition of the word logic is because you seem to be twisting science with a dogmatic belief system, which leads me to believe that you are of a lesser species. And I think you clearly stated a portion of your beliefs when you said Attn atheists: find somebody else...this guy is weak.
I love Richard Dawkins
I like the zoom in on Richard Dawkins face at 5:48 when his voice starts getting more intense, because it makes it seem that much more dramatic. None the less he is a brilliant man
Currently reading it.
I visit Dawkins on youtube at least once a week, this is my church :) here and libraries, museums, theaters, the beautiful outdoors
Hmm... Well, I guess I'm looking for a quick way to quantify my world view if someone asks. Otherwise I'd have to make up a term for specifically mine and explain everything about it.
You should watch the arrivals.
Russell642:
Thank you.
I'm not aware of anyone having said it before. With that said; I'd not be surprised to find that the thought has been expressed by many other people in various forms. I would be very surprised, and delighted if I were the first.
Please cite your source with a synopsis.
A keynesean child! hysterical. I never thought of that. He's so right!
v. nicely said. Your own or are you quoting / paraphrasing?
Have you read it?
So true.
@gesiyeso "lose their head" I meant. Excuse me.
Why would anyone state such a thing? These people who don't state the truth are the same ones who have children and probably want to pass on their own beliefs to their children without respect to the truth. Allowing children to decide for themselves opens the door to have your own beliefs challenged. Many people are frightened of this idea.
Hey, Dawkins said 20 but I counted 21 "flea" books...
Infidel is a fantastic book, I wish I had enough money to purchase all of those..
he also said don't go into it reading it as a biased reader
No, it doesn't anger him because there are rational reasons to be a vegetarian. You can make a lucid, logical argument for why it's more compassionate and healthier than eating meat. The same can't be done for religion; indeed there are many arguments to be made for why religion is a negative and even dangerous thing.
I loved the 747 fish.
Sophist-2nd: any human can be part of a group culture that is not of his/her choosing. If you teach your 8 year old child to strive to give 100% in everything they do, and they happen to be good at sports, he'll be labeled a "jock". The parent's intention isn't to put him in a category and piss off people who think jocks are stupid. What Dawkins objects to is that he sees it as "recruitment." Which is a separate point than "no child can be a part of a group they don't choose"
"I'm an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God."
~ Richard Dawkins
...Dawkins, that's because you have not visited my channel.
anetchi..
I too visit Dawkins "church" often... as well as Hitchens, Harris and other great thinkers who are all emerging at the same important moment of our time.
That we should have at least these few intellects who so vastly overshadow the hordes of miniscule and myopic minds and rantings of fundamentalism appears to me to be a glimmering inspiration for a better future for those still to come.
@Drakon222 both weaknesses are really brain weaknesses.
I first started questioning whether God exists or not when I was about 8 years old and I heard Santa doesn't exist. It made sense to me that a civilization would create a God to explain mysteries of life
Zahng-If a TV preacher said "It makes me mad that atheists are teaching their kids that there is no God and attempting to create a Godless society." would you cry bullshit because of the idoelogy or because of the manipulation inherent in the argument? I'm saying that he makes his point with dogma rather than logic. ALL HUMANS WILL TEACH THEIR KIDS THEIR OWN IDEOLOGY. So then the point is "don't teach what I think is wrong". He wouldn't be pissed if were athiesm taught. Dogma, pure and simple.
There are children that have a genetic predisposition to be fat. This does not mean they will be fat. So, you're point that genes determine whether kids will be fat not only has no relation to religious ideology, it's also not even true. Again, genetic predisposition, yes; however, it can be prevented by a proper diet and exercise, and that is a fact.
Social and cultural conditioning shape behavior, values and beliefs above all else. This is a testable hypothesis, and has been studied in depth.
So your saying a 4 year old child would still become a Catholic if he was raised by wolves?
You're completely misinterpreting what Dawkins is saying. A child born to a muslim family is indoctrinated by the religious customs of the family and is expected to adhere to that ideology. The same goes for every religion. I was born to a religious, Roman Catholic family and am now an Atheist, but if I were ever to mention that fact to my Grandfather he would be deeply hurt and upset.
The point is, children tend to look up to their parents and adopt their values, ideologies etc.
I personally don't see the need of the God hypothesis for explaining natural phenomena, like organic life and the motion of the planets. Actually, as Dr. Neil Tyson points out, this assumption actually delays scientific progress. If He/She/It is out there, it's for something else...
@ytsejam6891 problem comes when they tell them any of them exists
God forbid your children don't share your world view. I'm also sickened by people who would balk (understatement of the century) if their children didn't have their sexuality.
I'm sure this can be explained using some sort of sociological study, but that doesn't change the fact that I can't stand people who cannot keep up with changing social ideas (and what we're talking about isn't even that big a leap)
dawkins for president
Beatiful!! Simple.. even for creationists.
We are getting into a lot of abstract, unfruitful and frankly irrelevant variables here. To put it simply, Dawkins point was clear:
Children are impressionable, generally gullible and lack the education necessary to make informed decisions on issues of religion and politics. For a child to call himself a Christian means that someone else instilled that in him, not that he came to that conclusion himself by examining all available evidence. That's all there is to Dawkins point.
Right, that's two religions ticked off, one more to go!
take it easy, the 21st century has barely begun.
THERE you go! So what do I call myself? A rationalist? Well, I guess it'd be a Naturalist actually, I'll stick with that.
man IE mankind
one man = one human
I can be bias, I am right ;)
Yes, they believe in santa, the easter bunny, the tooth fairy, and sometimes a god. The problem comes when parents tell them that only three of these are made up.
lol
Zhang-You are making assumptions that I am a Christian and/or a Bush supporter. In my posts I NEVER mentioned my beliefs. I'm talking about Dawkin's LOGIC AND PRESENTATION. Period. Nothing more. You are not paying attention. Let's make it simple...Can a child be a part of a culture by proxy? If the answer is yes (and it is), then Dawkin's point is dogmatic. It's that simple. Why is that so hard to see? Don't respond to Dick's rhetoric like a reactionary Christian to a tv preacher.
I hope you're right. Your explanation is a bit like saying religion is a gigantic, inter-generational "addiction" of sorts. However, even if we break ourselves off "cold turkey" there will still be some idiots out there that want to "try it out". I think there will always be believers of religion but hopefully their numbers will dwindle to next to nothing.
Zhang-First of all, my point has nothing to do with the theist vs. atheist argument. None. AGAIN: I'm talking about DOGMA and the manipulation of language to create followers AND NOTHING ELSE!!!! He's peddling dogma here. You go to his ideology to make your points of which I am not in dispute. I am NOT NOT NOT arguing his ideology, get it? And if you think atheism isn't being taught, then what is Dawkins doing here? THAT"S MY POINT...he's peddling dogma to build followers and book sales.
But the Bible is a wonderful book. Most 'talking snake' books are pretty good.
@goldeyeblue I was baptised Mormon at age eight. I haven't believed in years, yet Mormons still attempt to tell me that I am Mormon. It's completely preposterous.
What are you talking about? What you stated makes no literal sense. Children tend to adopt the political/religious ideologies and family values of their parents. Sure, but that's precisely why religion is so nonsensically pervasive to begin with.
There's nothing manipulative about Dawkins "rhetoric." I can't say the same of yours.
Children are not born with christianity, or islam etc., written in to their DNA. They get it straight from their parents. That's his point.
YEEEEEAAAAAAH
Brigstocke ftw
You are obviously missing the point, 3shiftgtr. Dawkins is angry at the fact that children are being forced into these bullshit roles, and that these children are being labeled at the age of 4, even though they most likely have no understanding of the religion they are filed under. You keep making these comparisons to vegetarians and fat kids and jocks, but they have absolutely nothing to do with this topic, you pretend as if having imaginary friends is the same as being a vegetarian.
Yes but when a man reaches 17 and he only heard fairy tales without learning facts like evolution, then he is preety much doomed to be ignorent for the rest of his life.
Take a baby, teach him that the world is flat and he will belive it.
@oraclecrank Agreed, but When in tantrum mode they are more like little fascists lol.
P.S., conversions from atheism to theism are, without exception, ALWAYS the result of lack of education or access to information.
Lol, teach atheism? Atheism isnt taught anywhere or enforced on anyone, by any means, but religion is. Im not sure what your definition of the word logic is because you seem to be twisting science with a dogmatic belief system, which leads me to believe that you are of a lesser species. And I think you clearly stated a portion of your beliefs when you said Attn atheists: find somebody else...this guy is weak.