Why do we respect religious beliefs?

Tim Robbins

Zillah wrote:

*bangs head off desk*

Ah, yea old "ignore the argument and make some tangental jab" method.

I occasionally get confused between the symbols for "therefore" and "implies", but I'd have thought that maybe if you tried really really hard (:rolleyes: ) you might have been able to work out my meaning.


Would you like to try again now that we've sorted that out?

No.
Here is your argument:

Rugby player: One who plays rugby therefore my child is a rugby player.
GAA player: One who plays GAA therefore my child is a GAA player.
One who understands and believes the Catholic teachings therefore my child is not a Catholic. He is fundamentally unable to understand such teachings.

I assume the last therefore should be a "but". I disagree with your argument for two reasons:
1. No child fully understands GAA or Rugby or the pros and cons of having to play one sport over the other.
2. You leave out that many parents refuse to allow the kids play Rugby it must be GAA and vice versa which is what I was referring to.

Your rebuttal is an argument by assertion. You simple state that the Rugby player and GAA player can make their children play their sport but leave out the logic why it is ok for them to do this.

Finally in some respects you agree with my point, you state:

"I would agree that in terms of gaining sympathy for your position using the term "child abuse" is not wise, but I think it is technically accurate."

It's not great terminology. I would question the intent and the consequence. I think it is commercially driven, it's simple more sensationalist and made to sell more not to make people think more.

The Dawkins worshipers will of course agree and those of a Religious persuasion will just think he sounds arrogant and stupid. He's not going to make them think anymore with that argument but he will sell more books.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think that's what one calls a generalisation.

Well obviously, but then the statement "drink driving is dangerous" is a generalisation as well. You might wrap your car around a tree, but more likely you will get home perfectly safe and sound. Ultimately that isn't the point. The point is you don't know that before you leave the pub, and therefore its a bad idea to start with.

The same principle applies with religious teaching to children. The effects it will have on a child are hard to measure and impossible to predict. You might do nothing to them, you might f**k them up for life. It is a bad idea to begin with.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

1. No child fully understands GAA or Rugby or the pros and cons of having to play one sport over the other.

Says who? Some kids eat, sleep and live for soccer, rugby etc. There is no big picture to understand - it's a sport with rules - therefore a competitive child knows exactly what they are doing.

Tim Robbins wrote:

2. You leave out that many parents refuse to allow the kids play Rugby it must be GAA and vice versa which is what I was referring to.

That's irrelevant. The only relevant point is (1) that a child can understand all there is to know about a sport they are involved in.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Child abuse is a bit strong a word because of the connotation sassociated with it. Usually the terms child abuse denote something entirely different.

It is hardly Dawkins problem that some people today are so gripped with tabloid fever over pedophilia that the phrase "child abuse" triggers an irrational response in some people.

You are confusing Dawkins being sensationalist with people taking his points and making them sensationalist due to miss-understanding or wanting to make him sound sensationalist. Reminds me a bit of the "bigger than Jesus" incident with the Beatles

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Says who? Some kids eat, sleep and live for soccer, rugby etc. There is no big picture to understand - it's a sport with rules - therefore a competitive child knows exactly what they are doing.

Some kids like being altar boys.

That's irrelevant. The only relevant point is (1) that a child can understand all there is to know about a sport they are involved in.

A Religious person could put the same argument to their Religion.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

Some kids like being altar boys.

Indeed. And a child might mistake that for religion.

Tim Robbins wrote:

A Religious person could put the same argument to their Religion.

And they'd be wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

It is hardly Dawkins problem that some people today are so gripped with tabloid fever over pedophilia that the phrase "child abuse" triggers an irrational response in some people.

You are confusing Dawkins being sensationalist with people taking his points and making them sensationalist due to miss-understanding or wanting to make him sound sensationalist. Reminds me a bit of the "bigger than Jesus" incident with the Beatles

Well this is where we disagree.
I think he is using the world deliberately to make the argument sensationalist. I think it is gratuitous. You give him the benefit of the doubt.

Dawkins loves sensationalism. Go through his book titles:
"The Devil's Chaplain"
"The Blind watchmaker"
"The Selfish Gene"
"The God Delusion"

All involve a sarcy pun on a Religious hypotheisis or else a sensationalist word.

Did you see his program last year called wait for it:
"The Root of all Evil"
where he went out to got a very good sample of the average Church goer - ehh - not.

Did you read his analysis of Northern Ireland and the Protestants killing Catholics and vice versa, but he's act of omission of not pointing out the Irish Rugby team has had a selection of Protestants and Catholics for over 100 years with no sectarianism, arguing that maybe social inequality is the root of the problem in the North and not Religion?

We can all find arguments for whatever we want if we only look at the evidence that suits the arguments we wish to have.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

It is hardly Dawkins problem that some people today are so gripped with tabloid fever over pedophilia that the phrase "child abuse" triggers an irrational response in some people.

You are confusing Dawkins being sensationalist with people taking his points and making them sensationalist due to miss-understanding or wanting to make him sound sensationalist. Reminds me a bit of the "bigger than Jesus" incident with the Beatles

I am sure you would also offer Kevin Myres the same benefit of doubt for his infamous use of the word b*stard as you offer Dawkins and his use of the word abuse. they are both technically correct. Did you blame people's outrage on Mr Myre's then on their misunderstandings and their inclinations to make "him sound sensationalist"?

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Indeed. And a child might mistake that for religion.

And they'd be wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

An argument by assertion there.

Scofflaw

Tim Robbins wrote:

An argument by assertion there.

Indeed - in response to yours, which are not only assertions but irrelevant generalisations. Sometimes, TR, it would be nice if you applied your 'strict definitions' and 'standards of debate' to your own arguments, rather than only trotting them out to attack others.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dades

Says who? Some kids eat, sleep and live for soccer, rugby etc. There is no big picture to understand - it's a sport with rules - therefore a competitive child knows exactly what they are doing.

Tim Robbins wrote:

Some kids like being altar boys.

Some kids like smoking. What's your point - if they like it it's okay?

That's irrelevant. The only relevant point is (1) that a child can understand all there is to know about a sport they are involved in.

Tim Robbins wrote:

A Religious person could put the same argument to their Religion.

I also would assert that no child could grasp all that is needed to understand what it really means to be part of a faith. We're all adults, and are still debating it.

bonkey

Tim Robbins wrote:

1. No child fully understands GAA or Rugby or the pros and cons of having to play one sport over the other.

That makes no difference. A child who plays a sport is a player of that sport. All that is required is that they partake.

To say the same of a child being a Catholic, or religious in any form, is to say that the "basic requirement" to becoming a member of that religion is that one partakes.

In short, to fail to distinguish between the two means that belief in a deity is not a requirement of being religious. One can, by your reasoning, be Catholic without even being aware that there is a God. As long as you partake in the activities, you qualify.

Either that, or there is most certainly a distinction between saying "my child is a rugby player" and "my child is a Catholic". Similarly, as Zillah indirectyly pointed out, there is a distinction between "my child is a soccer player" an "my 2-year-old son is a Manchester United supporter".

One is defined by partaking in an activity. No more, no less.
The other is not defined solely by your partaking in predefined activities.

No doubt that there will be some who argue that being baptised makes you a Catholic, but the point is that this argument basically implies you do not need to believe in the God your religion is based around in order to be a member.

Such reasoning is badly flawed.

2. You leave out that many parents refuse to allow the kids play Rugby it must be GAA and vice versa which is what I was referring to.

Irrelevant, unless as I've already stated, you see partaking in the activities of an organised religion the prime and only pre-requisites for membership in that religion.

It's not great terminology. I would question the intent and the consequence. I think it is commercially driven, it's simple more sensationalist and made to sell more not to make people think more.

The Dawkins worshipers will of course ...

I find it ironic in the extreme that you use the term "worshippers" after commenting on the sensationalist nature of another term in a manner that apparently attempts to make it clear you don't hold such techniques in high regard.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

I am sure you would also offer Kevin Myres the same benefit of doubt for his infamous use of the word b*stard as you offer Dawkins and his use of the word abuse. they are both technically correct. Did you blame people's outrage on Mr Myre's then on their misunderstandings and their inclinations to make "him sound sensationalist"?

No, I actually read Myer's piece and then disagreed on what he was actually saying.

For someone who complains about the lack of intellectual debate Tim you don't seem to mind rolling around in the mud from time to time.

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

Some kids like smoking. What's your point - if they like it it's okay?

Now what's your point? You were arguing saying some kids like:
"Some kids eat, sleep and live for soccer, rugby etc."
and have now rebutted yourself
"Some kids like smoking. What's your point - if they like it it's okay?"

That's irrelevant. The only relevant point is (1) that a child can understand all there is to know about a sport they are involved in.

You could say the same about Religion.

I also would assert that no child could grasp all that is needed to understand what it really means to be part of a faith. We're all adults, and are still debating it.

[/QUOTE]
And you could say the same about Fooball.

Tim Robbins

Scofflaw wrote:

Indeed - in response to yours, which are not only assertions but irrelevant generalisations. Sometimes, TR, it would be nice if you applied your 'strict definitions' and 'standards of debate' to your own arguments, rather than only trotting them out to attack others.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well you need to be more specific please.

Tim Robbins

Wicknight wrote:

No, I actually read Myer's piece and then disagreed on what he was actually saying.

For someone who complains about the lack of intellectual debate Tim you don't seem to mind rolling around in the mud from time to time.

You avoided the question:

"Did you blame people's outrage on Mr Myre's then on their misunderstandings and their inclinations to make "him sound sensationalist"?"

Did you have a problem with many peoples' problem of him using that word even though it was technically correct?

Tim Robbins

Flipping heck, I questions Dawkins sensationalism and I get Bonkey, The Atheist, Wicknight, Zillah and Scofflaw all up in arms.

bonkey wrote:

That makes no difference. A child who plays a sport is a player of that sport. All that is required is that they partake.

Dito religion.

To say the same of a child being a Catholic, or religious in any form, is to say that the "basic requirement" to becoming a member of that religion is that one partakes.

In short, to fail to distinguish between the two means that belief in a deity is not a requirement of being religious. One can, by your reasoning, be Catholic without even being aware that there is a God. As long as you partake in the activities, you qualify.

The issue isn't the Deity hypotheisis the issue that many parents pick a religion for the kids and many other parents pick a sport for their kids.
Personallu, I don't agree with either, but I don't call either child abuse it's more like conservatism not child abuse.

No doubt that there will be some who argue that being baptised makes you a Catholic, but the point is that this argument basically implies you do not need to believe in the God your religion is based around in order to be a member.

Such reasoning is badly flawed.

Irrelevant, unless as I've already stated, you see partaking in the activities of an organised religion the prime and only pre-requisites for membership in that religion.


I find it ironic in the extreme that you use the term "worshippers" after commenting on the sensationalist nature of another term in a manner that apparently attempts to make it clear you don't hold such techniques in high regard.

Sorry, I didn't follow any of that.

Acid_Violet

Hivemind187 wrote:

First, finish the book and try to understand that Dawkins actually has a viewpoint that he is trying to get across. Villifying him for puttiing it into words and concisely making his argument is unfair. But this isnt a row about Dawkins ...

... although I take the comparrison, however it was intended, as a compliment.

Ah now, I said a lot in praise of Dawkins. I understand why one's reasons for not tolerating religion but my point regarding Dawkins viewpoint was that he is so bullying and aggressive in his tone that it's almost as bad as believing what a priest is preaching at you. Don't get me wrong, I admire him greatly and I did say already that I agreed with most, if not all of the points in his book. Just his deliverance is so snobbish and he takes such an intellectual elitist approach to it, I almost need a sick bucket beside me when I'm reading it.

Secondly, regarding the "its a tradition that provides comfort" argument. Tish and piffle! It also used to be tradition to tie rocks to maidens and chuck them into ponds and that provided comfort to people because they believed it would ensure a good harvest or some such nonsense - we dont do it anymore and we have even less excuse to adhere to such things today. With everything that we know of science, the nature of the universe and reality its pretty arrogant to sit there and say "I don't care. I believe in my god and thats all that matters."

I said it's a tradition that provides comfort, I was trying to explain why it's still around, I didn't justify it. Old habits die hard, let alone beliefs that have been intrinsic to our social development.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

Flipping heck, I questions Dawkins sensationalism and I get Bonkey, The Atheist, Wicknight, Zillah and Scofflaw all up in arms.

But don't you love the attention! "Up in arms"? Hmmm, i.e. some people disagree.

I've no particular love for Dawkins (a bit like Acid Violet) but like you, if I see a comment I disagree with, I'll wade in.

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

Now what's your point? You were arguing saying some kids like:
"Some kids eat, sleep and live for soccer, rugby etc."
and have now rebutted yourself
"Some kids like smoking. What's your point - if they like it it's okay?"

My point that I shouldn't need to explain was that kids who eat, sleep and live for soccer, completely understand it in a way that they could never understand religion at that age.

PDN

Scofflaw wrote:

Essentially, it's because if I were to say on public occasions "gay people are condemned, and will all die by burning", it would be classed as hate speech, particularly if I exhorted them to "give up their gayness or face awful penalties" etc etc.

Saying "if you don't believe you will go to Hell and burn for Eternity" can be almost identical - or not. In some cases, it definitely is hate speech - in most cases it certainly isn't. As a result, I wouldn't be in favour of classifying it automatically as such, but I think it ought not to be respected where it palpably is hate speech, simply because it happens to be "religious" in tone.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I agree that there are occasions when such language is hate speech. For example, Fred Phelps and his little 70-strong group of disciples, or some extremist mullahs, preach about hell with joyful relish at the thought of gays or infidels burning in the flames. Such hate speech does not deserve any exemption or protection because it is religious.

However, your average fundamentalist Christian, while she may be extremely annoying in her efforts to convert you and 'save' you, is actually quite anxious that you don't go to hell. Irritating? Quite probably. Hate speech? No.

Most Christians I know, while believing in Hell because of their (in your opinion 'misguided') faith in the Bible as a revelation from God, actually wish that Hell didn't exist. I personally will be wonderfully delighted if, when I die I get to heaven, I find that I was wrong all the time and that God lets all the atheists into heaven anyway (although, to judge by some posts I've read, some of you would have to be dragged in kicking and screaming while you insist on your right to reject God and go to Hell anyway).

I can only remember one occasion in the last 27 years when I've actually been glad that Hell exists, and that feeling only lasted for about 5 minutes. (It was just after I had visited Yad Vashem, particularly the section of the memorial devoted to the children who died in the Holocaust).

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

But don't you love the attention! "Up in arms"? Hmmm, i.e. some people disagree.

I think when it's 5 against 1 over something which is very debatable there's an undercurrent actually.

I've no particular love for Dawkins (a bit like Acid Violet) but like you, if I see a comment I disagree with, I'll wade in.

I know that. Care to elaborate why?
I find him a bit senationalist and totalitarian and have tried to argue my point but to you one of them seems invalid. So it would be interesting to hear your reasons why?

Tim Robbins

PDN wrote:

I agree that there are occasions when such language is hate speech. For example, Fred Phelps and his little 70-strong group of disciples, or some extremist mullahs, preach about hell with joyful relish at the thought of gays or infidels burning in the flames. Such hate speech does not deserve any exemption or protection because it is religious.

However, your average fundamentalist Christian, while she may be extremely annoying in her efforts to convert you and 'save' you, is actually quite anxious that you don't go to hell. Irritating? Quite probably. Hate speech? No.

Most Christians I know, while believing in Hell because of their (in your opinion 'misguided') faith in the Bible as a revelation from God, actually wish that Hell didn't exist. I personally will be wonderfully delighted if, when I die I get to heaven, I find that I was wrong all the time and that God lets all the atheists into heaven anyway (although, to judge by some posts I've read, some of you would have to be dragged in kicking and screaming while you insist on your right to reject God and go to Hell anyway).

I can only remember one occasion in the last 27 years when I've actually been glad that Hell exists, and that feeling only lasted for about 5 minutes. (It was just after I had visited Yad Vashem, particularly the section of the memorial devoted to the children who died in the Holocaust).

Any chance of your view on Dawkins' "child abuse" argument?

PDN

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think when it's 5 against 1 over something which is very debatable there's an undercurrent actually.

5 against 1 sounds quite favourable compared to what I usually get around here.

Zombrex

Tim Robbins wrote:

Did you have a problem with many peoples' problem of him using that word even though it was technically correct?

No not really given the context that it was used. In fact in the context of the paragraph Myers was using the term "bastards" to specifically offend people.

How many girls - and we’re largely talking about teenagers here - consciously embark upon a career of mothering bastards because it seems a good way of getting money and accommodation from the State? Ah. You didn’t like the term bastard? No, I didn’t think you would.

The use of the term bastards there is meant to be offensive.

If Dawkins had said that raising children in a religion produced "retards" or "nut jobs" you might have a point. But that isn't what Dawkins is saying -

Dawkins (2002)
[T]he mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is.

Dawkins (1996)
Religion is the one field in our culture about which it is absolutely accepted, without question — without even noticing how bizarre it is — that parents have a total and absolute say in what their children are going to be, how their children are going to be raised, what opinions their children are going to have about the cosmos, about life, about existence. Do you see what I mean about mental child abuse?

Dawkins use of the word "abuse" isn't to insult every parent who raises their child in a religion.

The purpose is to highlight the dangers that mental abuse of a child can do, abuse that is often excused in society because it is done under the banner of religious teaching

Tim Robbins

The Atheist wrote:

My point that I shouldn't need to explain was that kids who eat, sleep and live for soccer, completely understand it in a way that they could never understand religion at that age.

Soccer is more a game for the masses. I was talking GAA and Rugby where you get more labelling and more segregation.
I was specifically referring to parents (and schools) who pick one sport and don't let the kids play the other for no rational reason. Is that abuse?
If ross O'Caroll Kelly picks Rugby for his kid, labels him a Rugger bugger and doesn't let him play GAA - is that abuse? I would just call it conservatism.

5uspect

Tim Robbins wrote:

Dawkins loves sensationalism. Go through his book titles:
"The Devil's Chaplain"
"The Blind watchmaker"
"The Selfish Gene"
"The God Delusion"

Have you actually read any of these books?
Only the God Delusion deals directly with religion and in the introduction he laments the title "Root of all Evil" given to the TV show and points at Channel 4 for the decision to call it that. He also defends his decision to use the title "God Delusion" and discusses letters he received from Psychologists that didn't like his use of the term.

The Blind Watchmaker is a reference to the divine watchmaker theory of Paley (which was the favoured stance at Darwin's time). The title is a clever play on the notion of a grand designer and I think is a good way to describe evolution. The same applies to the selfish gene. They are both books that deal with evolution and for Dawkins to use emotive yet descriptive titles for biology books is hardly sensationalist in they way you seem to think.

The Devil's Chaplin is basically a collection of articles and lectures by Dawkins having a rant about all sorts of non-scientific nonsense (and religion is one section). He does explain the reason for using the title but it currently escapes me (I think it may have been selected by the editor).

Dades

Tim Robbins wrote:

I think when it's 5 against 1 over something which is very debatable there's an undercurrent actually.

Or just maybe there are 5 users active online who think you've made an incorrect assertion.

Tim Robbins wrote:

I know that. Care to elaborate why?
I find him a bit senationalist and totalitarian and have tried to argue my point but to you one of them seems invalid. So it would be interesting to hear your reasons why?

The only point I made any comment about it here:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53449813&postcount=64
And you seemed to me to get a bit lost on it.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

Tim Robbins wrote:

Flipping heck, I questions Dawkins sensationalism and I get Bonkey, The Atheist, Wicknight, Zillah and Scofflaw all up in arms.

But don't you love the attention! "Up in arms"? Hmmm, i.e. some people disagree.

I've no particular love for Dawkins (a bit like Acid Violet) but like you, if I see a comment I disagree with, I'll wade in.

Same here. Dawkins represents a strand of atheism I'm not particularly fond of, but your arguments are frankly much sillier than his.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

Have you actually read any of these books?
Only the God Delusion deals directly with religion and in the introduction he laments the title "Root of all Evil" given to the TV show and points at Channel 4 for the decision so call it that. He also defends his decision to use the title God Delusion and discusses letters he received from Psychologists that didn't like his use of the term.

I have read three of them, yourself?

The Blind Watchmaker is a reference to the divine watchmaker theory of Paley (which was the favoured stance at Darwin's time). The title is a clever play on the notion of a grand designer and I think is a good way to describe evolution. The same applies to the selfish gene. They are both books that deal with evolution and for Dawkins to use emotive yet descriptive titles for biology books is hardly sensationalist in they way you seem to think.

I know read both of them.

The Devil's Chaplin is basically a collection of articles and lectures by Dawkins having a rant about all sorts of non-scientific nonsense (and religion is one section). He does explain the reason for using the title but it currently escapes me (I think it may have been selected by the editor).

It's on my bookshelf will be read soon hopefully.