The Dawkins Delusion

Cineaste says:

Oh, and here is the satirical counter to “The Dawkins Delusion”
A humorous religion parallel between God and “Hank”

Cineaste says:

It’s not that clever because there is a big hole in the satire. Science can prove humans like Richard Dawkins exist, and specifically that Richard Dawkins himself exists. Do you seriously doubt science can’t prove the Dawkins exists? :) The parody even starts with a photo of Richard. Is there a photo of God anywhere? hmmm? The parody would have been dead on if he was denying the existence of Hitler, for example.
Dawkins is not a supernatural being. Nothing has proved God’s existence. Do you see the difference between proving the existence of a human being and a proving the existence of a supernatural deity? I do! So does Richard :) And you do too.
I did like the parody though. I think Richard liked it too. Just remember Seeker, every child ever born in every time was born an atheist until he/she can be indoctrinated into their culture’s religion.

Cineaste says:

You have to be taught to be an atheist…
No Lawanda, you’re mistaken. Many theists have this misconception. See below…

“The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses ‘atheist’ to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would strongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term ‘god’ has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.” (Stein 1980, p. 3)
…most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[6][7][8] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.[9][10]
– Wiki

I don’t deny God’s existence Lawanda, I just lack a belief in God.
Here is more…

There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.
The broader, and more common, understanding of atheism among atheists is quite simply “not believing in any gods.” No claims or denials are made — an atheist is just a person who does not happen to be a theist. Sometimes this broader understanding is called “weak” or “implicit” atheism. Most good, complete dictionaries readily support this.
There also exists a narrower sort of atheism, sometimes called “strong” or “explicit” atheism.
With this type, the atheist explicitly denies the existence of any gods — making a strong claim which will deserve support at some point. Some atheists do this and others may do this with regards to certain specific gods but not with others. Thus, a person may lack belief in one god, but deny the existence of another god.
Below are links to a variety of references pages to help understand how atheism is defined and why atheists define it the way they do.
– Austin Cline
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm

Cineaste says:

YOU deny (over and over, I might add) the existence of God, any God. ;)
Again Lawanda, you’re mistaken. Here is what I said about the blasphemy challenge….
I will accept your challenge Seeker. I hereby disavow Islam and Mohammed. I also disavow Christianity and Jesus. I reject literal interpretations of both the Bible and the Koran. – Cineaste
I don’t deny that God (a supernatural being, a creator) might exist. I disavow your religion though. I think it as unlikely as a leprechaun sitting on a 4 leafed clover.
Babies are born ignorant, with no knowledge of anything. They are not born atheists.
That means they lack a God belief. That means they are born natural atheists until you indoctrinate them with religion.
You have to be taught your beliefs (or lack thereof)
This is wrong. Donald Rumsfeld shows why…
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.
You ask a child of an atheist (any atheist by whatever definition you wish to provide) what they believe, they will tell you exactly whatever it is their parents have told them.
By the time they are talking they have been indoctrinated. Parents have already indoctrinated them into their religion. If they had just left the child alone, they would not have become Christians or Muslims, they would have still lacked a God belief, they would still have been atheists.

Cineaste says:

Where should be were.

Cineaste says:

The definition of atheist is someone who denies God.
That’s the definition of strong atheism hun. I know it’s a bit confusing and hard to understand. Weak atheism, which is what most atheists are, is the LACK of a God belief. Look it up for yourself. To put it in terms you can relate to, not all Christians are the same. Some are Catholics. Some are Protestants. This goes for atheists as well. Some deny God. Most lack a God belief. People who lack a God belief are atheists and this means everyone is born an atheist. Weak atheism is what I am talking about when I say “Atheism.” Evangelical Protestant is what you are talking about when you say “Christian.” Atheism is not a religion any more than bald is a hair color.
They were born not knowing anything at all. NOTHING.
Agreed. This is what makes newborns atheists.
An atheist’s children would be taught that there is no God.
Nope. An atheist parent will usually never even mention God unless the child asks. This is so that they don’t indoctrinate their child with religion. There are more atheists and agnostics in the world than you might think.
The lack of belief in a god or any god is not atheism.
Yes, it is. As discussed earlier, this is what you theists can’t seem to comprehend no matter how many times you’re told.

“The average theologian (there are exceptions, of course) uses ‘atheist’ to mean a person who denies the existence of a God. Even an atheist would agree that some atheists (a small minority) would fit this definition. However, most atheists would strongly dispute the adequacy of this definition. Rather, they would hold that an atheist is a person without a belief in God. The distinction is small but important. Denying something means that you have knowledge of what it is that you are being asked to affirm, but that you have rejected that particular concept. To be without a belief in God merely means that the term ‘god’ has no importance or possibly no meaning to you. Belief in God is not a factor in your life. Surely this is quite different from denying the existence of God. Atheism is not a belief as such. It is the lack of belief.” (Stein 1980, p. 3)
…most atheistic philosophers and groups—define atheism as the simple absence of belief in deities[6][7][8] (cf. nontheism), thereby designating many agnostics, and people who have never heard of gods, such as newborn children, as atheists as well.[9][10]
– Wiki

[There is, unfortunately, some disagreement about the definition of atheism. It is interesting to note that most of that disagreement comes from theists — atheists themselves tend to agree on what atheism means. Christians in particular dispute the definition used by atheists and insist that atheism means something very different.]
^^^ The above sounds just like you Lawanda ^^^
http://atheism.about.com/od/definitionofatheism/a/definition.htm
I think the road block in your understanding is that you are thinking Atheism is like a religion. It’s not, unless you also consider lack of belief in the Tooth Fairy a religion as well and parents who tell their children the Tooth Fairy doesn’t exist are indoctrinating their children in the Anti-tooth-fairy religion.

Stewart says:

This is a case of a word being used, not for its definition, but for its emotional connotation. For that reason, I think that “indoctrinate” is a poor choice of vocabulary. Anywhere you can write it, you could substitute the word “teach”, and all you would lose would be negative emphasis. Indoctrination is essentially teaching someone something that another person disagrees with. It’s application is subjective, and therefore devoid of any factual meaning.
On the other hand, I agree with Cineaste in saying that children are born atheists. Children don’t come up with 2000 years of Christian dogma on their own. I know that the Christians here believe that they have a personal, communicative relationship with Jesus, or God, or whatever, but everything they believe about “Him” is based on something that was written by, or something they have been told by another person. And the bulk of those sources are not the canonical. The past two millenniums have been so inundated with Christian theological writings that even when we read the Bible itself (whichever version you like), we’re still reading it through the earlier interpretations of others.
Here’s a short though experiment: Imagine your young child (let’s say ten years old) has never been exposed to any religious teachings of any kind. One day you hand them the Bible and say “This book contains the truths of the universe. It tells you where we come from, and why we’re here. Read this really carefully and then tell me what you think about it.”
When your child comes back to you, do you think that, without any guidance or “clarification” from you or from other Christians, his concept of religion would look much like yours? I think any reasonable person would understand immediately that it would look very, very different.
This is not how children or adults are introduced to Christianity, though. Existing Christians instruct them about what different verses mean, placing emphasis on books that they think are important, and spending little time on books that they don’t. If there is a question about what something means, there is almost always an answer: “This is what it means…”
Christianity does not come from a single book, or from direct messages from a god. It comes from people. It comes from Christians. Although I disagree with the choice of wording, I think this is basically what Cineaste means when he accuses you of indoctrination.

Cineaste says:

This is a case of a word being used, not for its definition, but for its emotional connotation. For that reason, I think that “indoctrinate” is a poor choice of vocabulary. Anywhere you can write it, you could substitute the word “teach”, and all you would lose would be negative emphasis.
I disagree Stewart because the word indoctrinate implies a “doctrine.” By using this word I refer to religious doctrine. But how can one indoctrinate their child in mathematics? Pure math and science have no doctrines, no dogma. So one can’t be indoctrinated with the belief 2+2=4, it’s a fact. They can be indoctrinated to believe 2+2=5 but then it’s not real math anymore, it’s false. “Teach” and “Indoctrinate” have similar meanings but they are not completely interchangeable because teach is more general and indoctrinate refers specifically to doctrine. Hehe, sorry to argue semantics here.

danielg says:

Lawanda believes that God is a fact and that evolution is a myth.
She at least believes that it's not a fact, and that's the rub – evolutionists claim fact when no such thing can be proved, even beyond a reasonable doubt.
And the fact that most evolutionists are willingly blind to the mythical aspects of evolution, that is, in explaining origins and the related ideas it implies about God, man's nature, etc., is more reason to resist it – because it's proponents ignore these implications as if they don't exist – denial at it's best.
Until evolutionists learn to separate their data from their assumptions from their philosophy, they will continue to be a hindrance to science AND religion. Real science is not at odds with the realities of faith, they are partners in revealing what is true. Evolution is, in the opinions of many not brainwashed by evolutionary pseudo-science, an elegant deception.

Cineaste says:

For her, teaching a child that species evolve is indoctrination, and your disagreement about the terminological application is based soley on your opinion about what position is more accurate.
Which one IS more accurate Stewart? If she teaches her child that 2+2=5 that is indoctrination. 2+2 does not equal 5 so it becomes a “doctrine” as opposed to 2+2=4 which is not a doctrine, it’s the truth. Now I ask you, which is doctrine, religion or evolution? Just because someone who is brainwashed into believing 2+2=5 has a different position does not make their position equal. That’s why the negative connotations of “indoctrination” are justified. You are letting her get off easy by in essence, saying evolution and creation are equal, that it’s just a difference of one’s “position” or viewpoint. Stewart, is evolution a doctrine or is it like gravity in that it does occur but has not been explained completely?
The word “indoctrinate” is, ironically, a tool for propaganda. It serves to create a division where none actually exists.
Is this your own opinion or a fact? What’s the etymology of “indoctrinate?” Does it not mean to teach an opinion as opposed to teaching fact? Is not doctrine defined as…
1. a particular principle, position, or policy taught or advocated, as of a religion or government: Catholic doctrines; the Monroe Doctrine.
2. something that is taught; teachings collectively: religious doctrine.
3. a body or system of teachings relating to a particular subject: the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Doctrine is opinion and facts are facts correct? “Doctrine” is part of “indoctrinate”

danielg says:

f she teaches her child that 2+2=5 that is indoctrination. 2+2 does not equal 5 so it becomes a “doctrine” as opposed to 2+2=4 which is not a doctrine, it’s the truth.
The problem here is that you are trying to illustrate the evolutionist’s commitment to his interpretation of historical data with a mathematical standard that we have defined. This is as invalid as comparing it to an empirically testable phenomenon like gravity. Evolution is not in the same class of science as such definitions or empirical truth. It is based on a philosophical interpretation of historical data, and as such, is open to significantly less certainty and to manipulation by one’s pre-conceived assumptions.
…you have indoctrinated her in “I don’t know”
As I have said, what is really taught in most agnostic homes is not just “I don’t know, but it could be true,” but rather, things like “it is impossible to know”, “only mental weaklings really pursue such nonsense as revealed religion” and “even if you could know, it’s really immaterial and of little value.”

danielg says:

Evolution is an empirical standard.
Describe for me an empirical experiment that can demonstrate evolution.
You really have no clue about my household or how "typically agnostic" it is.
You are right. But I grew up in an agnostic household, and am not unfamiliar with yours and other agnostic views on religion. As to your question, no, that would not be indoctrination.
But if you insinuate that many, most, or all religionists are intellectual idiots, or that religion is of little real value, or that it contradicts reason and science, or that all religions are equally valid or invalid, or if you display cynicism, displeasure, or ridicule when religion comes up on TV or in conversation, you most certainly are passing that along to your children, and that may be viewed as indoctrination, especially since you SAY these things, which in effect is teaching them.
If, as you have agreed, you find no difference between Islamic and other types of fundamental religions, then you are failing to give your child the tools with which to honestly evaluate faiths, but rather, are indoctrinating her into your world view. Sure, you may tell her "you are free to make your own decision," but then you are the same as the religionist who teaches their kids the bible and says the same.
The line between imparting values and beliefs, while also teaching our children to think freely, is a bit of a gray area. But precious few agnostics are impartial towards religion (my parents were, but I still caught the "religion is for hicks" vibe loud and clear).

danielg says:

. Scientists like Frances Collins will accept them as valid experiments but you probably won’t because of your religious beliefs.
Despite the fact that francis collins accepts evolution, that does not prove it true – experiments prove it true. And, I doubt that he would claim, as you do, that it can be proven empirically, but rather, he may believe it because of his view of the historical data, which is a very different concept.
Promise me that you will in turn provide empirical experiments demonstrating creationism as written in Genesis.
Actually, because I claim that creationism is not observable, I would not claim, as you do for evolution, that an empirical experiment COULD be designed.
What I would offer instead would be:
– a model that fits the HISTORIC data and makes predictions about future data
– experiments that would demonstrate the reality of my underlying assumptions about how existing natural processes fit my model (some processes, such as natural selection, fit both the creation and evolution models, so could not be considered direct evidence for either)
So, I am still waiting for that experiment by which you may prove evolution. Perhaps you will be forced to admit that your proposition is merely a historical one, where you interpret the data according to your assumptions, but can not prove in any empirical sense that it is true, since you can not demonstrate it, like I could demonstrate gravity.

danielg says:

But if you insinuate that many, most, or all religionists are intellectual idiots…I don’t.
Funny, you seem to display that opinion here, or maybe I am mistaking. Perhaps you can tell me how you view religion and faith, and then tell me how you keep those biases from influencing your kids.
How much of that is your own feelings which you brought to the table and how much of that is your parents purposefully indoctrinating you into their “religion is for hicks” brand of agnosticism?
Indoctrination does not have to be purposeful, unless you want to define it that way. We teach through our attitudes and what we say and do, not just a formal program of instruction. That is, unless you are a “do as I say, not as I do” type of parent.

danielg says:

If one takes their holy books as infallible, whether it’s the Qu’ran or the Bible makes no difference, you are ignorant.
Depends what you mean by ignorant. When Paul the apostle says “no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God,” am I supposed to take that metaphorically?
If I believe Jesus, or Moses or Abraham or Adam were real historical people, am I taking it too literally? Is that fundamentalist? How about if I believe the reported words of Jesus “I am the way, the truth, and the life, and no man comes to the father except by me”? Do I have to force some egalitarian definition on that to not be a “literalist” in your humble opinion?
If your definition of indoctrination is so general that any influence at all is the equivalent of indoctrination then I would say you are being disingenuous.
I believe what we are saying is that you view any structured teaching of any value system as indoctrination, where we are saying that you can raise your kids in a biblical household and NOT indoctrinate, and you can raise them in an agnostic household, but you still have a significant level of indoctrination AGAINST religion even if you don’t do it consciously. If you don’t want to call that heavy influence “indoctrination,” then that’s fine, but to call all religious instruction “indoctrination” may be true according to your bible (Webster’s inspired dictionary), but in the pejorative sense, I don’t think that is always true.
you can only demonstrate the effects of gravity, not it’s cause.
I see you are retreating to semantics. Let’s put it this way – I can directly measure and observe gravity, or let’s say the explosion of gun powder.
How do you directly measure and observe evolution? You can not. It is educated speculation based on data, interpreted through your grid of assumptions – they may be good ones, but that is not empirical science, that is historical, which is why you can not claim it as anything near fact, any more than I can claim that the Noahic flood absolutely happened. But I CAN unearth evidence that supports it.
The evidence that is missing or in contradiction to evolution is significant, and the evidence for it is not as significant as evolutionary believers want you to believe. But I know I can’t sway you with facts.

Cineaste says:

Okay, I think it’s time to inject a bit of humor into this conversation before it gets too serious…
Family Guy Evolution/Creationism/Origins clip 56 seconds long.

Cineaste says:

There are logical reasons to do so. Christians do not feel bound to the punishments specified in the OT, but believe that they were specifically for Israel
This is no different than what religious moderates (who you despise) do. They have to pick and choose what is relevant in the Bible because taking it (the old testament) literally would make them into psychopaths in today’s moral climate. When you say “Christians do not feel bound to the punishments specified in the OT, but believe that they were specifically for Israel” you are simply being a hypocrite and relying on special pleading (Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption.) This describes your statement to the letter Seeker. It’s hypocritical and you know it. Look at me! I’m a fundamentalist Christian who takes “no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God” as binding but I’m not bound by Deuteronomy 22:21 because that’s just for the Israelites. I need to go take a shower to remove the stench of fundamentalist religious hypocrisy off of me.
I think parts of the bible are historical narrative, some metaphor, poetry, parable, apocalyptic, aphorisms, etc.
How do you determine which parts are historical narrative, metaphor, poetry, parable, aphorisms, etc..? You pick and choose these don’t you? Don’t you? Yes, you do!
I think your real beef is that you (1) reject the miraculous
My thoughts on miracles were already covered in Aaron’s post about the miraculous. I’ll just say you’re wrong about me as usual and if you want support for this go look up the post. I’m tired of repeating things to you.
Because I believe in creationism, I am a fundamentalist? What if I believe it because it makes scientific sense?
Species “popping” into existence makes no scientific sense. I’m sorry Seeker but you need to learn that. Yes, being a creationist makes you a fundamentalist because you are taking Genesis literally. Moderate Christians don’t take Genesis literally because they know it makes them look like loons. Again my example which you haven’t touched…
Talking snakes? Perfectly logical. Make a women from a rib bone? Sound reasoning. A dead guy coming back to life? Sure, why not? Mohammed riding a flying horse to heaven? Wow, those Muslims are totally CRAZY!
The point is, you can not measure or observe evolution, now can you?
Sure you can! I can prove it too. But first I need to establish that you are not holding the theory of evolution up to a creationist double standard, demanding standards that you don’t apply to either the theory of gravity or your own “creation science” (species popping).
So, to get back to gravity, I asked you to directly measure and observe gravity on Pluto. You can’t can you? Nope. So you must infer. So, using Seeker’s own words he was
forced to admit that [his] proposition is merely a historical one, where [he] interprets the data according to [his] assumptions, but [he] can not prove in any empirical sense that it is true, since [he] can not demonstrate it (gravity on Pluto’s surface)
Will you now allow inference in my evidence for evolution as you use inference for gravity? I.E you infer that it is not God causing objects to fall though you can’t directly observe this. You infer there is gravity throughout the universe though you can’t observe directly everywhere. The point is I don’t need to fly you to the dark side of Pluto to show you that gravity works there through direct observation. Nor do I need to show you an amoeba turning into Ted Haggard to show you macro evolution. If we are agreed in the use of inference, then I’ll be happy to provide you with a 100+ experiments showing macro evolution. If not, you’re just applying a creationist double standard to evolution which you hypocritically do not apply to evolution.
You fail to see the difference between empirical facts, historical data, and your primary assumptions. If you can not see this, you will continue to believe that your myth is science, and will continue to impede real science with such mental self-deceptions.
Seeker, if the Hindu religion turns out to be true, you would be reincarnated as a Fruit Bat since the name describes your rhetoric so well.
I readily admit that creationism rests on supernatural assumptions
So you admit it’s not science but religion?
But you fail to see how evolution as a theory of origins is not a proven fact, it’s a theory only.
Like gravity. Only, in some respects evolution is even more solid than the theory of gravity since gravity conflicts with quantum mechanics and there is no scientific theory which evolution is in conflict with.
Just stop pushing your pet theory as a forgone fact when it can never be more than a pretty theory.
You are grasping at straws here my friend.

danielg says:

This is no different than what religious moderates (who you despise) do.
I understand what you are saying, but religious moderates do more than pick and choose. They purposely misrepresent and misinterpret the NEW testament, which is a more critical error. And not on small matters, in which we have liberty to disagree, but on the central doctrines of the faith. They are little different than any other moralist – they are like secularists who see the bible as a bunch of stories only to be seen as metaphors. In fact, I would say that the type of moderate I am talking about is not really a believer at all, just a nice person.
This describes your statement to the letter Seeker. It’s hypocritical and you know it.
Um, maybe YOU know it, but I disagree. Basically, you are saying that if I disagree with your bogus approach to literature and scripture, then I am a hypocrite. The problem is that you want a simplistic either/or solution, otherwise known as extreme and anti-intellectual. Either I take it all literally, or all metaphorically, or I am a hypocrite. However, just as YOU pick and choose based on your own rules, so do I. So back atcha.
You see, if I take it all literally and all prescriptively (that is, I see everything as a direct command to me), you find fault. If I take certain parts of it as prescriptive, while others not, you find fault. In fact, you would find fault with any application of scripture except those that obey your hermeneutic, which excludes miracles, supernatural beings, or possession of animals by spirits (see the story of Jesus casting demons into a herd of swine).
AIG has a standard evangelical exposition of the “talking snake” passage you refer to (Genesis 3:1), which I am sure you will take exception to, since it involves a literal snake inhabited by Satan.
I understand the argument for not instituting OT punishments looks like special pleading, but I contend that it is not. In fact, you would probably level the same accusation against Jesus’ application of the OT. But my hermeneutic is not a simplistic all literal or nothing like you would like to impose upon me, and I’m sorry that you don’t find my reasoning for selectively viewing some passages as prescriptive acceptable. Fortunately, I am not the extremist you seem to think all fundies are – and neither are most xian fundies ;)

danielg says:

I just wanted you to admit you "pick and choose." You might have different criteria than moderates of exactly what you pick and choose from the bible, but you still "pick and choose."
I do, but the difference is, I believe that my hermeneutic is more logically consistent and defendable than theirs. For instance, when I read the story of Moses parting the red sea, I realize that the literary type is historical narrative, so my first interpretation is literal. However, the liberal, whose hermeneutic says that miracles don't happen, must ignore the literary type for their interpretation based on their a priori rejection of miracles.
Or when I read the passage in Romans 1:26-27, I can use Occam's razor and take the straightforward meaning, while liberals have to take some serious liberties in trying to make the text NOT condemn homosexuality, including mis-applying cultural references to imply something not present in the text. They do this, not out of a worthy hermeneutic, but because they disagree with the obvious meaning of the passage. As an aside, one of the things I appreciate about Louis is that he doesn't engage in such hermeneutic slight of hand.
The big 800 pound gorilla here that needs to be addressed, is why is your criteria of picking and choosing from the bible any better than the religious moderates criteria? What makes their interpretation less valid than your own?
That is the question, what is an acceptable hermeneutic? I generally follow those listed under Biblical Hermeneutics (wikipedia). Note that excluding miracles or the supernatural is not among them. I find these logical and sensical, and I don't think that the liberal hermeneutic (wish I could find one) is consistent or logical. Note that these rules would be logical for interpreting ANY text, not just the bible.
This wikipedia definition of biblical literalism is also what I hold to:

It is commonly taught in the most conservative Christian seminaries that certain sections of the Bible should be interpreted as literal statements of the author and are not intended as parable. These include creation in Genesis, the flooding of the entire world in Genesis, the lifespans as enumerated by genealogies of Genesis, the historicity of the narrative accounts of Ancient Israel, the supernatural intervention of God in history, and Jesus' miracles. These views however do not contend the literalistic values that parables, metaphors and allegory are not existent in the Bible but rather relies on contextual interpretations based on the author's intention.