Dawkin's God Delusion

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by finlma

I didn't once say priests or nuns. I said Catholics in general. You or whoever else is Catholic. Priests and nuns are generally PC but they have to believe that all other faiths are nonsense, the Bible teaches that.

The word abuse has bad connotations when it comes to children but to teach something to a child as the truth without a single shred of evidence is wrong, very wrong.

---

But aren't they the teachers in Catholicism? I agree they are PC, but for the most part they are generally good people in life, and so have respect for other people's views. The Bible as you have read it teaches us that, people have different readings of it, thats something yourself and Gavin need to understand when quoting Old Testament or other religious text.

And again, I agree with you that to teach a child something as fact is wrong, unless you are 100% sure it is fact, but the point I have been making before I was taken off topic is that the use of the term child abuse is too harsh for that point

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

Then why go on about magic tricks as child abuse? That has nothing to do with Dawkins use of language, thats just you trying to pretend you're superior to religious people again. Plus the use of the word psychologically (by the way, I'm pretty sure everyone realised that that was what Dawkins meant, no-one thought he was talking about physically molesting a child here) wouldn't take from the harshness of his use of the term 'child abuse'. In any context its a harsh and insulting phrase to use for people who...well aren't child abusers.

---

not by choice. you know what they say about child abuser, very often they were abused as children themselves. they probably just have a warped view that what they do is normal.

look - you're taking the frontpage scandalous connotation of child abuse. dawkins isn't. as bill o'reilly said, whats the beef?

Quote:

---

And blatant ignorance? Ignorance of what here Gavin? That you're still smarting from the pasting you took off 5 of us in the last thread? I'm not ignorant of that at all, and I realise thats why you are trying to twist this discussion to suit your own needs

---

if the "pasting" you gave me was yourself and LTID's utter inability to grasp the concept of purchasing power parity, and the subsequent name calling before calcio jack brought you back on topic with an actual post relevant to politics, i can assure your ignorance in this thread is quite enough to make me want to post. as for twisting things, who's ducked and dodged every question thrown their way in the last 20 minutes before resorting to dragging in another thread?

Quote:

---

I'm defending peoples right to have an opinion on this that you don't, I'm defending people not being referred to as idiotic simply because they believe something that you don't. Oh and thats the last of this off topic back and forth between us as far as I'm concerned

---

there are opinions, there are lies, and then theres religion - "faith" in something, that happens to be a lie. How is this off-topic? im pretty sure its the topic of the book in question :confused: its ok for people to have opinions on subjective things, like the economy, or whether or not the irish language should be compulsory. it is not ok for them to have "opinions" on things like creation or the basic rules of physics, and it is not ok to pass these opinions on to children too young to think for themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

look - you're taking the frontpage scandalous connotation of child abuse. dawkins isn't. as bill o'reilly said, whats the beef?

---

Are you saying that anytime that term is used it isn't loaded with negative connotations?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

who's ducked and dodged every question thrown their way in the last 20 minutes before resorting to dragging in another thread?

---

sorry what point of relevence to Dawkins use of language have I ducked here?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

its ok for people to have opinions on subjective things, like the economy, or whether or not the irish language should be compulsory. it is not ok for them to have "opinions" on things like creation or the basic rules of physics

---

Theres been a lot of rubbish talked in this thread by a lot of people, myself included, but that has to be the biggest pile of garbage I've read here, I'm not even going to go into that one but I'm sure you won't get what I'm actually outraged about in relation to that paragraph

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

Are you saying that anytime that term is used it isn't loaded with negative connotations?

---

:confused: abuse? of course. thats the point! however, it doesn't always mean physically beating someone or sexually assaulting them and if you choose to take that inference, thats your own problem, stop whining about it and stay on the topic of what he says rather than the way he says it.

Quote:

---

Theres been a lot of rubbish talked in this thread by a lot of people, myself included, but that has to be the biggest pile of garbage I've read here, I'm not even going to go into that one but I'm sure you won't get what I'm actually outraged about in relation to that paragraph

---

of course you won't, the same way you pretty much can't go into anything, can you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

:confused: abuse? of course. thats the point! however, it doesn't always mean physically beating someone or sexually assaulting them and if you choose to take that inference, thats your own problem, stop whining about it and stay on the topic of what he says rather than the way he says it.

---

Haha, good tact of coming back to me about straying off topic, bravo gavin :rolleyes: I think I even quoted Dawkins directly a few posts back, so I think I have stayed on what he says in that interview, you can choose to live in your 'i'm always right' bubble if you wish gavin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

of course you won't, the same way you pretty much can't go into anything, can you?

---

How are you supposed to get into it with someone who says this,

"its ok for people to have opinions on subjective things, like the economy, or whether or not the irish language should be compulsory. it is not ok for them to have "opinions" on things like creation or the basic rules of physics"

anytime anyone says 'it's not ok for people to have opinions' on something that hasn't been outright disproven is a warning sign as to that person's psyche. I'm sure you'll shoot back on something about creationism or some other random thing, but at this stage I'm not going to bother explaining what I believe in all over again

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

Haha, good tact of coming back to me about straying off topic, bravo gavin :rolleyes: I think I even quoted Dawkins directly a few posts back, so I think I have stayed on what he says in that interview, you can choose to live in your 'i'm always right' bubble if you wish gavin

---

yes, but what you're saying is wrong. Funny that, although I do say I'm usually right. Otherwise I'd be omniscient, wouldn't believe in myself, would infallibly be right that there is no god, and would disappear in a puff of logic.

Quote:

---

anytime anyone says 'it's not ok for people to have opinions' on something that hasn't been outright disproven is a warning sign as to that person's psyche. I'm sure you'll shoot back on something about creationism or some other random thing, but at this stage I'm not going to bother explaining what I believe in all over again

---

which one hasn't been outright disproved? creationism or some of religion's wackier interpretations of the laws of physics? (water into wine, walking on water, feeding 5000, resurrecting the dead, ghostly apparitions, transubstantiation - this isnt even 'only the moral' stuff from the old testament, this is new testament, basis-of-faith stuff)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

yes, but what you're saying is wrong.

---

Whats wrong? That Dawkins should use less harsh language than child abuse when saying that teaching a child about one faith and one faith alone is wrong? Whats wrong with that? Keep in mind that I have stayed on the topic of Dawkins language in relation to this, all the talk of physical/psychological child abuse has come as a direct result of your posts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

which one hasn't been outright disproved? creationism or some of religion's wackier interpretations of the laws of physics? (water into wine, walking on water, feeding 5000, resurrecting the dead, ghostly apparitions, transubstantiation - this isnt even 'only the moral' stuff from the old testament, this is new testament, basis-of-faith stuff)

---

Creationism hasn't been totally disproven, you can say the probability rate is miniscule, but it still hasn't been totally disproven, hence you can't say that people shouldn't be allowed have opinions on this matter. And keep in mind what I'm actually arguing about here, its you saying that people shouldn't be allowed have opinions, this has nothing to do with creationism (I don't believe in it for the record)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

Whats wrong? That Dawkins should use less harsh language than child abuse when saying that teaching a child about one faith and one faith alone is wrong? Whats wrong with that? Keep in mind that I have stayed on the topic of Dawkins language in relation to this, all the talk of physical/psychological child abuse has come as a direct result of your posts

---

yes, wrong. the language dawkins uses is entirely appropriate and, given that he has written at least two outstanding best sellers in two very different fields, i would hope you'd trust his judgement about his choice of words.

Quote:

---

Creationism hasn't been totally disproven, you can say the probability rate is miniscule, but it still hasn't been totally disproven, hence you can't say that people shouldn't be allowed have opinions on this matter. And keep in mind what I'm actually arguing about here, its you saying that people shouldn't be allowed have opinions, this has nothing to do with creationism (I don't believe in it for the record)

---

creationism has been disproved, at least the christian version of such. neither conflicting creation story from genesis (there are two) is possible, given that poof exists for evolution, and the various canonical suggestions surrounding these stories, e.g. the flood, the universe only being 6000 years old are also disproved. to believe any of these is to fly in the face of evidence and reason and to say one is entitled to have a differing "opinion" is comparable to suggesting it is ok for me to be of the opinion that the sky is a bright green tonight.

I'm loving this thread again. I'm staying out of it for another while as I'm enjoying just watching the joust ...:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

The problem is, everyone stops believing in santa, and everyone realises eventually that Beauty and the Beast is just a tale of equality. With religion there are still people killing each other over which particular santa they prefer and until recently, people on this island killing each other over the equivalent of what the reindeer's names were.

---

Beautifully put.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GavinZac

With religion there are still people killing each other over which particular santa they prefer and until recently, people on this island killing each other over the equivalent of what the reindeer's names were.

---

Gavin, you're warping conflicts to reductionist explanations to suit your point. The Northern Ireland conflict is/was the combination of a number of factors.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Gavin, you're warping conflicts to reductionist explanations to suit your point. The Northern Ireland conflict is/was the combination of a number of factors.

---

I wouldn't lump the NI conflict in as a religious ones but the general jist of what Gav says is right. The unscrupulous use religion to divide the masses into warring camps.
Bottom line though is I don't believe Rudolf was one of Santa's reindeer. He was the anti-deer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Poor Student

Gavin, you're warping conflicts to reductionist explanations to suit your point. The Northern Ireland conflict is/was the combination of a number of factors.

---

...And religion was variably either the engine or the petrol to drive the thing on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lionel Ritchie

...And religion was variably either the engine or the petrol to drive the thing on.

---

But was that religion's fault? that people have mis-used it to suit their own needs?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jebus

But was that religion's fault? that people have mis-used it to suit their own needs?

---

Yes because you never hear the church complaining in fact it is usually up to its eyeballs in the manipulation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohsPartisan

Yes because you never hear the church complaining in fact it is usually up to its eyeballs in the manipulation.

---

In relation to Norn Ireland though? I don't the church was hugely at fault up there to be honest. I do agree with you on the Churchs lack of involvement in other countries though

"Child Abuse" is a perjorative term and in its modern sense means either sexual abuse of children or cruelty to children.

Dawkins knew this full well when he chose the term to insult the way religious people think about indoctrinating their children.

If religious believers object to the insult then fair enough because that it is.

They have a point and I think Dawkins is letting himself down here.

Even here on foot.ie when a load of gob****es start monging each other in a debate - the one who resorts to petty insults first is coinsidered "King Retard."

Dawkins is supposed to be an intellectual for Spagetti Monsters sake.

http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20070514.gif

Simpsons' Evolution intro :D