Richard Dawkins defends “mild pedophilia". However teaching a child faith is evil.

smacl

JohnMc1 wrote: »

You might want to re-think that with Atheist Churches popping up now.

Many atheists, myself included, reckon that the use of the word atheist to describe anything beyond not believing in a God or gods is bogus. Some discussion here; http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057045280

Of course there is nothing to stop anyone using words in a manner contrary to their dictionary definition in such a way as they could cause offence. Atheism doesn't have an orthodoxy, so using the word as a pronoun is of limited value. e.g. you can talk about a Catholic Church and the pronoun Catholic makes sense. You could talk about Catholic cycling, but it doesn't make much sense beyond suggesting a bunch of Catholics who also happen to be cyclists (apart perhaps from a muttered prayer on arriving at the foot of a particularly steep climb). Using atheist as a pronoun simply means a bunch of people who don't believe in God who have some other connection.

iainbumerford

smacl wrote: »

Many atheists, myself included, reckon that the use of the word atheist to describe anything beyond not believing in a God or gods is bogus. Some discussion here; http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057045280

Of course there is nothing to stop anyone using words in a manner contrary to their dictionary definition in such a way as they could cause offence. Atheism doesn't have an orthodoxy, so using the word as a pronoun is of limited value. e.g. you can talk about a Catholic Church and the pronoun Catholic makes sense. You could talk about Catholic cycling, but it doesn't make much sense beyond suggesting a bunch of Catholics who also happen to be cyclists (apart perhaps from a muttered prayer on arriving at the foot of a particularly steep climb). Using atheist as a pronoun simply means a bunch of people who don't believe in God who have some other connection.

Say what you like, but atheism bears all the hallmarks of a belief system.

Virgil°

iainbumerford wrote: »

Say what you like, but atheism bears all the hallmarks of a belief system.

Nah, it doesn't.

Turtwig

iainbumerford wrote: »

Say what you like, but atheism bears all the hallmarks of a belief system.

Say what you like, but being bald bears all the hallmarks of having a hair color and not playing sports bears all the hallmarks of a hobby.

iainbumerford

Jernal wrote: »

Say what you like, but being bald bears all the hallmarks of having a hair color and not playing sports bears all the hallmarks of a hobby.

I thought you were going to do the stamp collecting thing there.

iainbumerford

Virgil° wrote: »

Nah, it doesn't.

There's even atheist "churches" now.

JohnMc1

iainbumerford wrote: »

There's even atheist "churches" now.

They're even looking for Atheist Chaplains in the military now.

Benny_Cake

JohnMc1 wrote: »

They're even looking for Atheist Chaplains in the military now.

If it's the case I'm thinking of, the person in question wanted to be a humanist chaplain, not an atheist one:

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/31/207320123/should-military-chaplains-have-to-believe-in-god

Soul Winner

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If it's the case I'm thinking of, the person in question wanted to be a humanist chaplain, not an atheist one:

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/31/207320123/should-military-chaplains-have-to-believe-in-god

What's the difference between a humanist and an atheist?

Soul Winner

Just because the effect of the infraction on the child Dawkins didn't affect him as much as maybe it would another child, doesn't make the infraction any less of a crime. This teacher - a 'trusted' pillar in the community - sat a child on his knee and consciously crossed the line by deliberately moving his hand(s) into an area of the child's person that he very well knew was a no no area.

In the molester's mind he wasn't to know what affect his actions were going to have on the child in the future, nor did he care at the time. It could have easily went the other way but he didn't care regardless, so even though it turned out (thankfully) not to have affected Dawkins in a bad way that does not make the crime any less.

That man could have been a teacher to whom the child trusted and loved only to find out in later life that he was just a child molesting predator preying on young kids in their innocence years. That kind of thing can do all kinds of damage to a child's perceptions of the world and of his fellow human beings and can have serious knock on affects.

There is no such thing as 'mild-paedophilia' if you ask me, even the slightest breach of trust has the potential to do all kinds of damage.

JohnMc1

Benny_Cake wrote: »

If it's the case I'm thinking of, the person in question wanted to be a humanist chaplain, not an atheist one:

http://www.npr.org/2013/07/31/207320123/should-military-chaplains-have-to-believe-in-god

I believe they have tried this a few times. It seems like one of those " If at first you don't succeed. Change the wording and try again" deals.

Benny_Cake

Soul Winner wrote: »

What's the difference between a humanist and an atheist?

Humanism is a word that's been used in a lot of different contexts, the 16th century theologian Erasmus is usually described as a humanist, for example. In modern usage it refers to secular humanism, which is defined by the International Humanist and Ethical Union as:

"...a democratic and ethical lifestance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality". (source)

Atheism is simply a lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods. While most if not all secular humanists are probably atheists or agnostics, not all atheists or agnostics are necessarily humanists.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

I believe they have tried this a few times. It seems like one of those " If at first you don't succeed. Change the wording and try again" deals.

My problem with this, though, is usually that when you read about "atheist chaplains" or "atheist churches", they are simply eyecatching headlines used by the media. When you actually read what the people themselves are talking about they use no such phrases. I know I'm sick of reading inaccurate and uninformed stories about Christianity in the media, so it would be a bit hypocritical of me not to dig a little deeper when the same media sources write about other faiths or philosophical positions.

Soul Winner

Benny_Cake wrote: »

Humanism is a word that's been used in a lot of different contexts, the 16th century theologian Erasmus is usually described as a humanist, for example. In modern usage it refers to secular humanism, which is defined by the International Humanist and Ethical Union as:

"...a democratic and ethical lifestance which affirms that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives. It stands for the building of a more humane society through an ethics based on human and other natural values in a spirit of reason and free inquiry through human capabilities. It is not theistic, and it does not accept supernatural views of reality". (source)

Atheism is simply a lack of belief or disbelief in God or gods. While most if not all secular humanists are probably atheists or agnostics, not all atheists or agnostics are necessarily humanists.

Thanks. Labels do tend to change with the times. When I think of 'humanism' it is usually in the light of modern humanism which as you correctly alluded to is the idea that we (human beings) don't need God or any deity to tell us what is right and wrong etc. This was not the idea (as you also correctly alluded to) in the time of Erasmus and what-have-you.

'Atheism' is a much slippier term. Some maintain it simply means the lack of belief in God. A stronger meaning would push it to the more 'positive' - as opposed to the previous 'neutral' - position and say it is the belief that there is no God. There is a bit of room in there I suppose to play around with. You could be someone who lacks belief in God without positively believing that there is no God, depends on where one wants to place their individual atheism on that scale.

The real militant atheists though are the 'naturalists' who positively assert that there is nothing other than nature. That there is no supernatural whatsoever, only the natural. No God or gods or demons or devils or deities of any kind. They don't believe there is any spiritual realm at all. This position can rightly be called a religious position because they don't 'know' if there is such thing as God or not, they just pre-suppose their conclusion with no supporting evidence whatsoever. That's is faith based ideology.

Anyway, thanks again for your reply.

Ray Palmer

Anybody think it is strange to talk about Dawkins and ignore the fact Mary would have been 12-14 when married to Joseph and had Jesus?

Soul Winner

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Anybody think it is strange to talk about Dawkins and ignore the fact Mary would have been 12-14 when married to Joseph and had Jesus?

How do you know that she was 12? Does it say it anywhere? Just curious, I've heard this bandied about before. I'm not saying its not true I'm just curious to know how you know, or where you got that from. I couldn't be arsed Googling it :rolleyes:

Cheers

Ray Palmer

Soul Winner wrote: »

How do you know that she was 12? Does it say it anywhere? Just curious, I've heard this bandied about before. I'm not saying its not true I'm just curious to know how you know, or where you got that from. I couldn't be arsed Googling it :rolleyes:

Cheers

Because the role she had in the church and when they married them off in those days.

It is a bit like knowing what age people are when they make their confirmation in Ireland in this time. 12-14

Soul Winner

Ray Palmer wrote: »

Because the role she had in the church and when they married them off in those days.

It is a bit like knowing what age people are when they make their confirmation in Ireland in this time. 12-14

Well if that is the case then we can't rightly judge that practice by modern standards can we? Even Dawkins agrees on this point when it comes to the era in which he was interfered with. And that wasn't that long ago. So if that logic applies to the era when Dawkins was growing up then all the more to Mary's era no?

nozzferrahhtoo

Faith2013 wrote: »

Abuse is very serious and nobody should make light of it.

I am not sure he is. A lot of people have misrepresented it thusly however. I actually disagree with him on this issue but I disagree with him based on what he ACTUALLY said and not what people have misconstrued it as. Many people make careers out of misrepresenting what Dawkins says. As is evidenced by the vast misrepresentation that goes on around the claims he says "Religion is child abuse".

He has never said mild pedophilia is ok. What he is saying is that he can not hold animosity towards people who perpetrated mild pedophilia against HIM as a child because he does not want to judge the actions of the past by the standards of today. He holds no anger or resentment but forgiveness.

I disagree. I think what happened then is just as bad as if it happened today. And it is a shame that legal justice can not be visited on the perpetrator. But if this is how a 70 year old man finds peace for a horrific though RELATIVELY mild act that was acted upon him in his youth then so be it.

His ability to forgive where I would fail to in his place is probably something you Christian folk should be lauding praise on rather than... as some have done.... using it as a stick to beat the Atheist Figurehead with.

But anyone anywhere that is trying to make out he is ok with mild pedophilia in the where and now today is someone you should distance yourself from because they are engaging in a level of strawmannery and dishonesty you would do well to not associate with.

As I said... disagree with him.... I do... but do it based on his actual position and not the one people are inventing to make him look bad.

Faith2013 wrote: »

teaching a Child to believe in God was wrong because it meant they were Afraid of Hell.

Cajoling a child through threats of hell to believe the same religion you do IS wrong and immoral. Egregiously so. Where and when it happens. I doubt he... and certainly not I.... think that this is the methodology all Theists use to spread their dogma to children however. Or even the majority. But where it happens it is something theist and atheist alike should be condemning.

Peregrinus wrote: »

I don't know that he was ever lauded for anything done in the lab in the way that he has been for his communication work.

Not all science is done in the lab. Something a new way of looking at things, or a new understanding of things that were staring people in the face, are just as much science as playing with beakers and Hadron Colliders.

Dawkins has contributed as much to the science of Evolution as he has to the Communication of it to the public. From his concept of the Selfish Gene to his concept of the Extended Phenotype he has moulded the way Scientists themselves look at Biology and Evolution in a way few others have.

He has taken, and popularised in the science world, a "genes eye" view of evolution where most people were focused on group selection, species selection, or selection at the level of the individual. A view that sheds light on many things that otherwise make little or no evolutionary sense.

So no, I do not think you are going to be awe struck in any way by his lab work. I certainly am not. But at the same time it would be equally disingenuous to suggest his only success has been his clear and near unparalleled skill of the communication of science. He is not quite a Carl Sagan in that regard, but he is not a whole way off.

Geomy wrote: »

The only problem with some religion's is, they give people a moral slide rule that's almost impossible to live by.

Actually that is one of the great psychological tricks OF religion. It is kind of a mental Stockholm syndrome trick. You present an impossible set of goals to reach... and then present a loving lead figure (in the case of this forum Jesus) who loves you despite your failure to attain those goals.

As someone well versed and interested deeply in human psychology I stand in awe of the little tricks that have evolved into religions, likely without anyone intending it, that manipulate the human psyche so well and this combination of unattainable ideals with a loving figure who loves you despite and even FOR those failings.... is one of the most insidious yet arresting of them all.

Yet at the same time so tragic. I remember vividly almost every night in my mind the beautiful face of a girl in a documentry called "Deborah 13". It was a docu that follow a home schooled girl of evangelist parents. She was beautiful physically as well as mentally and a stunningly intelligent girl for her age.

But in one scene she breaks down crying at how pathetic and awful and sinful she is. Disgusted at her own self and her own failings. And through her tears she is talking about how undeserving she is of Jesus' love and how wonderful he must be to forgive her those failings.

Now THAT is child abuse. Of the most egregious degree. But as I say it is also one of the most amazing adaptations of the religion meme.

lmaopml wrote: »

Is there such a thing as 'mild' peadophilia?

I imagine it depends on how you define "mild". I reckon it is a relative term rather than a distinctive one. What happened to Dawkins as a child is "mild" if compared to what happened to two girls recently in our own country.

Every crime resides on a continuum. From theft to assault there are always some cases that are "mild" if you hold them in comparison to others.

Taken in ISOLATION however I take your point, and take it well. Sexual abuse of a child is sexual abuse of a child. Terms like "mild" are a seasoning the discourse does not need. You have abused a child... regardless of what the guy in the jail cell beside you might have done that was 100 times worse.

lmaopml

To be fair, I think that Richard is probably more of a celebrity scientist at this stage, with a cool accent, and persona.

He has a magnificent gift of communication with people, and he also has a lot of 'views' behind it for the discerning soul - some of which are age old really, but have been put far more eloquently imo by excellent people who are not celebrities a very long time ago. There are very many people like that..it's not new.

Then there are just people. I'm a Catholic 'person' - that's my faith, and I love it, no if's or but's for me twenty years later - this is my choice, and I am so very happy with it. I know her people, and they are my own, along with many others - and they are not always perfect, no, but they are good people and they have faith - and this being the Christianity Forum - well, there will be self appointed judges, and self appointed saints, etc. etc. and so on...but, most of all you will find quite simply 'Christians'.

Ray Palmer

Soul Winner wrote: »

Well if that is the case then we can't rightly judge that practice by modern standards can we? Even Dawkins agrees on this point when it comes to the era in which he was interfered with. And that wasn't that long ago. So if that logic applies to the era when Dawkins was growing up then all the more to Mary's era no?

It's called cultural relativism. The thing is if you want to apply it for Mary's age then you should apply it to the bible in it's entirety. So instead of saying it is ok to offer your daughter and wife up to a rape gang to save a man you could say that it wrong. You then undermine a passage many homophobic people use from the bible to point to homosexuality is wrong.

I am pretty sure many people use the bible to say what modern standards should be so when you start picking and choosing the whole thing starts to fall apart. Of course the option many people choose is to ignore the hypocrisy and ignore the conflicts

smacl

Soul Winner wrote: »

The real militant atheists though are the 'naturalists' who positively assert that there is nothing other than nature. That there is no supernatural whatsoever, only the natural. No God or gods or demons or devils or deities of any kind. They don't believe there is any spiritual realm at all. This position can rightly be called a religious position because they don't 'know' if there is such thing as God or not, they just pre-suppose their conclusion with no supporting evidence whatsoever. That's is faith based ideology.

What you're referring to there is a gnostic atheist, where you can equally well have gnostic and agnostic atheists and gnostic and agnostic theists and Christians. Nice cartoon showing the difference here. Saying that gnostic atheism is a religious position is tenuous, much like saying not believing in Santa, the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny is a religious position.

Like many atheists, I'm of the opinion there is no God, spirit world or supernatural as despite attempts made, there's no broadly accepted evidence to the support these beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't or won't be proven wrong, at which point I will change my opinion, though I doubt this will ever happen. This isn't an ideology, as atheism doesn't add much to my life apart from the two line dictionary definition of the word. It certainly doesn't provide a moral or ethical structure, or a personal philosophy, all of which I have to a greater or lesser extent coincidentally to being an atheist.

Soul Winner

Ray Palmer wrote: »

It's called cultural relativism. The thing is if you want to apply it for Mary's age then you should apply it to the bible in it's entirety.

It was Richard Dawkins who said that we shouldn't judge older generations by modern standards.

Ray Palmer wrote: »

So instead of saying it is ok to offer your daughter and wife up to a rape gang to save a man you could say that it wrong. You then undermine a passage many homophobic people use from the bible to point to homosexuality is wrong.

I haven't a clue what you mean by this. Can you elaborate please?

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I am pretty sure many people use the bible to say what modern standards should be so when you start picking and choosing the whole thing starts to fall apart. Of course the option many people choose is to ignore the hypocrisy and ignore the conflicts

Again I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. Maybe its me

Soul Winner

smacl wrote: »

...Saying that gnostic atheism is a religious position is tenuous, much like saying not believing in Santa, the tooth fairy or the Easter bunny is a religious position.

No, gnostic atheism is not the same as simply lacking belief. It positively asserts something by means of a truth claim. i.e "There is no such thing as God." That is not like not believing in santa at all.

smacl wrote: »

Like many atheists, I'm of the opinion there is no God, spirit world or supernatural as despite attempts made, there's no broadly accepted evidence to the support these beliefs. That doesn't mean I can't or won't be proven wrong, at which point I will change my opinion, though I doubt this will ever happen. This isn't an ideology, as atheism doesn't add much to my life apart from the two line dictionary definition of the word. It certainly doesn't provide a moral or ethical structure, or a personal philosophy, all of which I have to a greater or lesser extent coincidentally to being an atheist.

I believe the reason atheists can be moral agents is because they were created in God's image and endowed with a sense of moral responsibility and the freedom to act otherwise, just like everyone else. Not believing in God would not affect this at all. It's is what differentiates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom.

Brian Shanahan

iainbumerford wrote: »

Say what you like, but atheism bears all the hallmarks of a belief system.

That's about as truthful as the statement "the only truly democratic state is a national socialist state", as well you know.

smacl

Soul Winner wrote: »

No, gnostic atheism is not the same as simply lacking belief. It positively asserts something by means of a truth claim. i.e "There is no such thing as God." That is not like not believing in Satan at all.

I said Santa, not Satan, difference being I'm not aware of any grown ups that actually believe in Santa, though I do see the parallels. Red supernatural being used to scare kids into behaving properly, and all that. While I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't agree that someone who states there is no God or gods is being irrational to the extent that their view could be deemed religious, any more than my kids not believing in the tooth fairy is religious.

I believe the reason atheists can be moral agents is because they were created in God's image and endowed with a sense of moral responsibility and the freedom to act otherwise, just like everyone else. Not believing in God would not affect this at all. It's is what differentiates mankind from the rest of the animal kingdom.

And I similarly believe that some Christians can by times behave in very immoral ways in the name of their God who I believe they created in their own image.

Brian Shanahan

smacl wrote: »

And I similarly believe that some Christians can by times behave in very immoral ways in the name of their God who I believe they created in their own image.

By its very nature christianity demands of its adherents to behave in immoral ways in certain situations. It is an exclusionary religion, allowing no other point of view the luxury of a chance of being right, and because of it demands that christians act immorally to those of other or no religion.

Just because the vast majority of christians fail to follow these demands doesn't mean that christianity is not making them.

Soul Winner

smacl wrote: »

I said Santa, not Satan

Apologies, I know you did. My typo my bad.

smacl wrote: »

...difference being I'm not aware of any grown ups that actually believe in Santa, though I do see the parallels. Red supernatural being used to scare kids into behaving properly, and all that. While I'm an agnostic atheist, I don't agree that someone who states there is no God or gods is being irrational to the extent that their view could be deemed religious, any more than my kids not believing in the tooth fairy is religious.

I never said they were being irrational. The main reason religious people get a lot of guff is because they can't back up their beliefs with hard evidence which puts their beliefs into the realm of the non-falsifiable domain which is outside of science's purview to investigate. My point is that that's exactly where the gnostic atheist's beliefs go as well. We can disagree on whether it can be called a religion or not but as far as science goes it is in the same category as religious belief. The statement: "God does not exist." is not supported by any scientifically verifiable evidence. If you disagree then by all means show the evidence.

Soul Winner

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

By its very nature christianity demands of its adherents to behave in immoral ways in certain situations. It is an exclusionary religion, allowing no other point of view the luxury of a chance of being right, and because of it demands that christians act immorally to those of other or no religion.

Just because the vast majority of christians fail to follow these demands doesn't mean that christianity is not making them.

What demands are these? If you would be so kind...

Benny_Cake

Mod note: This thread no longer relates to Dawkins, since it's starting to cover the same territory as the Atheism/Existence of God megathread I'll have to ask you to continue it there.