Very nice parody of Dawkins’ arguments – The Dawkins Delusion.
HT: Prosthesis
38 Responses
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Very nice parody of Dawkins’ arguments – The Dawkins Delusion.
HT: Prosthesis
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Richard Dawkins just chimed in on that parody…
Oh, and here is the satirical counter to “The Dawkins Delusion”
A humorous religion parallel between God and “Hank”
If that’s his best retort, I’d say he isn’t clever enough to see what’s clever (or not) about it. It points out the silliness of his arguments and approach. It turns his own illogic on him. It’s funny (except to “believers”).
So what if the accent is poor? Nonsense.
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.
Actually every child ever born was born ignorant. Not an atheist. You have to be taught to be an atheist just like you have to be taught to know about God.
You have to be taught to be an atheist…
No Lawanda, you’re mistaken. Many theists have this misconception. See below…
I don’t deny God’s existence Lawanda, I just lack a belief in God.
Here is more…
I don’t deny God’s existence Lawanda, I just lack a belief in God.
YOU deny (over and over, I might add) the existence of God, any God. ;)
Babies are born ignorant, with no knowledge of anything. They are not born atheists. You have to be taught your beliefs (or lack thereof). No matter what they are.
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. Same with any child of any person who has any religion (or lack thereof). :)
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.
Where your babies born with a belief in Jesus? No! Where your babies born with a belief in Allah? No! Where your babies born with a belief in any God? No!
Case closed.
Your babies were born atheists. They were born without a God belief.
Where should be were.
The definition of atheist is someone who denies God. Your claim that babies are atheists would be similar to saying all babies are Goblins, because when they do speak they speak gobbledegook.
And as to this: Were your babies born with a belief in Jesus? No! Were your babies born with a belief in Allah? No! Were your babies born with a belief in any God? No!
True. They were born not knowing anything at all. NOTHING. But once they started noticing things, they wanted explanations. My explanations were from my beliefs. An atheist’s children would be taught that there is no God. Because an atheist denies there is one. While most of the world says there is some kind of god. So an atheist has to teach their child there is none, because left to the rest of the planet, there is a huge chance the child will start believing in a god.
Christians teach their child about the God in the Bible because if left to the rest of the planet, there is a huge chance the child will start believing in another god, or none at all. As you have pointed out: christians deny other gods or that there is no God at all.
The lack of belief in a god or any god is not atheism. If you ignore gods, that doesn’t make you an atheist. Denying them does. Even unbelief or disbelief requires the action of rejection. Atheism is an active word, not a passive one.
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.
[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.
Evangelical Protestant is what you are talking about when you say “Christian.”
I definitely do not agree with that statement. When I talk about christians I mean disciples (students, learners) of Christ.
Anyway.
In the sort of way you are using the terms, I can concede your point. (Astonishing eh?)
ALTHOUGH, the discussion is strongly reminiscent of the other arguments (abortion, homosexuality) in which you on the other side do not like how we on our side “define” things. (babies in the womb and healthy family relationships)
And one more thing.
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.
I know there are many atheists and agnostics. There are many people who say they believe in God, and who really do not, too. But.
I very much dislike that you refer to religious people as indoctrinating their children, but will not accept that an atheist can do the same.
If you say that what I teach my children about the origins of the world (which I think holds as much water as confusing, messy scientific theories + is much easier to understand when you are 4 years old) is indoctrinating them, why isn’t it the same when you teach your children that the world has evolved and all life comes from an amoeba.
And when your answers are not good enough for them – an inevitable situation IMO, perhaps because they have heard others talk about God or perhaps because they are going through a very defiant time – and they ask you about God, you will tell them what you think about God, and if they agree with you (according to your way of thinking) they have just been indoctrinated!!
Btw, are babies born in the U.S. considered American babies? How about those born in Italy? Not until they’ve been indoctrinated in the culture, right? ;)
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.
[Evangelical Protestant is what you are talking about when you say “Christian.”]
I definitely do not agree with that statement. When I talk about christians I mean disciples (students, learners) of Christ.
The gist of my statement was that the word “Christian” does not mean the same thing to all Christians. The point being that when Lawanda says “Christian” you mean something specific that might differ from a Mormon, or a person who believes in Jesus but does not take the Bible as literal truth. I was just pointing out that there are also differences in Atheism. There are a few who categorically deny God but they are in the minority. Me personally, I HOPE there is an all loving supreme being. I hope there is an afterlife. I hope to see my dead mother again. However, like when I was a child and hoped there was a real Santa Clause, it made no difference on whether or not it was actually true.
In the sort of way you are using the terms, I can concede your point. (Astonishing eh?)
I’m not astonished. I’ve always thought that you’re more open minded than some people here give you credit for. I’ve conceded points to you in the past without a second thought. You were right and I’d be a petty person indeed if I couldn’t ever admit I was wrong. If neither of us could ever concede anything we may as well start talking to the walls. Where I sometimes get frustrated, and I am trying to get better at this, is that religious people not only want to believe, they have to believe in creationism. If evolution is is true, then creationism is false, and all the creation stories that they’ve been taught were lies and all the creation stories they taught their children were lies. It can be too much to bear for some people so they dig their heels into the ground and deny anything contrary to the Bible. 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!
ALTHOUGH, the discussion is strongly reminiscent of the other arguments (abortion, homosexuality) in which you on the other side do not like how we on our side “define” things. (babies in the womb and healthy family relationships)
You must be referring to the a person is a person at the moment of conception debate I’ve had with Aaron. Well, if a two cells make a person, my girlfriend and I could fertilize about 20 of her eggs with my sperm, freeze them and then write them off as 20 dependents on taxes. As far as the the gay marriage debate, I usually leave that to Louis and Sam.
I very much dislike that you refer to religious people as indoctrinating their children, but will not accept that an atheist can do the same.
Lawanda, like it or not, after watching the documentary “Jesus Camp” if that’s not indoctrination, what is? Strong atheists can indoctrinate their children to deny God. As you said, strong atheism is an active belief not passive. I don’t know of any examples of this though. If my daughter came to the conclusion that Christianity or Islam, or Buddhism was for her, I would be perfectly fine with it because I know full well, I didn’t raise her to be a Christian, it is and always was her decision. I myself come from a family of Catholics. My Dad was almost a priest and my Mom took me to church often. That should tell you right away that I was not indoctrinated into atheism, on the contrary… :)
If you say that what I teach my children about the origins of the world (which I think holds as much water as confusing, messy scientific theories)
Did you understand the evolution primer? It answered those questions you posed in the last topic thread. I made sure by going through the primer myself, on my own time, for you twice. Did you read the primer with an open heart and open mind? Truly? If so, what are you still having problems with?
(If teaching Genesis) is indoctrinating them, why isn’t it the same when you teach your children that the world has evolved and all life comes from an amoeba.
First, all life didn’t come from an amoeba, both Humans and the amoeba had a common ancestor way way back in the ancestral tree.
To answer your question though, because evolution happens. Here is where you might say that evolution is just a scientific theory, not fact. I reply that gravity is also a scientific theory. You reply, but I can see gravity happening and I can’t see an amoeba turn into a person. I reply that you can’t see gravity itself, only its effect on things. That’s why gravity is still a scientific theory as well. I can very easily argue that God makes things fall and no scientist on Earth will be able to give me any evidence that God is not the cause of gravity. Well, it’s like that with the theory of evolution as well only the theory of gravity is not in conflict with religion. If it was, we would have “intelligent falling” instead of “intelligent design.” So, to get back to your question, when I teach my daughter about the theory of gravity I am not indoctrinating her and when I teach her about evolution I am not indoctrinating her. There can be people out there whose religion might state that God makes things fall. That is their religious belief. When I teach my daughter that an object’s mass determines the force of attraction, that is not indoctrination. What fundamentalists (people who take the Koran or the Bible word for word as literally true) are doing by teaching their children their religious creation stories is indoctrination. The people who are teaching their children empirical science (systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation – dictionary.com) are teaching them about the world as it IS which is not indoctrination.
…perhaps because they have heard others talk about God or perhaps because they are going through a very defiant time – and they ask you about God, you will tell them what you think about God
I told my daughter that I don’t know. I told her Christians believe in a certain God. Muslims believe in a certain God. Hindus believe in many Gods. Some people think God’s are improbable. I’m one of those who thinks God is improbable but possible. It’s up to you my dear to make up your own mind about this. I love you all the same. If you think I have just indoctrinated her, I plead guilty as charged.
Btw, are babies born in the U.S. considered American babies? How about those born in Italy? Not until they’ve been indoctrinated in the culture, right? ;)
Nope. They are considered American citizens. If the parents (both American citizens) have a child in Mexico, that baby is also an American citizen. I’m not sure what you are getting at here. Arnold Schwartzenegger was born and raised in Austria I believe. So, do you think he is still Austrian or is he American? What if Arnold couldn’t speak English? American, yea or nay?
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.
The difference is one of position. Lawanda believes that God is a fact and that evolution is a myth. 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.
She’s wrong, but that’s not the point. My dismissal of the word indoctrinate is based on its heavy bias. It suggests that there is a qualitative difference between what you and Lawanda are doing with your children, which there isn’t. She is not indoctrinating her kids with myths while you teach yours the truth. Rather, you are both teaching what you believe is true, and one of you is doing so from a better position.
The word “indoctrinate” is, ironically, a tool for propaganda. It serves to create a division where none actually exists.
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.
I am so sorry. I have still not had time to finish the primer. But I will soon, if I live! ;)
What I have read though, is basically the same as any textbook I have ever read on evolution… with different theories (of course)… It has changed since I last read any textbook info on it. What I do not like about that textbook style is that it doesn’t give any proofs, references, or anything. Basically says: this is fact.
And that is the funny part, because I have an old biology textbook somewhere in my house, that I studied from in 10th grade, and I remember differences in theory. And even my 8th grade science teacher taught different theories. The whole reading of those textbooks also implies it is fact though. (The differences, actually were about micro evolution! I wish I could find that book!)
Anyhow, I really will read the whole thing. I like to read scientific theory, even if I do not think it is all necessarily fact. :)
Meanwhile, I looked up indoctrination and education. They are basically synonyms, except indoctrination implies brainwashing. Which I very much dislike being implied. Because in fact I try very much to be open and honest with my children.
But I also teach them, starting very young, bible stories and concepts. Sharing and being kind to one another even if you don’t want to are the biggest concepts. I also try to be a good example of that as well, by being nice to their dad (and not leaving or getting mad at him every time I could…)
I also go to church every time I can. And so do they. This to me is not indoctrination, it is living my life. They happen to be a huge part of my life, and I theirs. It is impossible to separate their beliefs from mine at this point. (Although my 11 year old is starting to show what she is capable of believing and doing ;) )
Which is why I do not understand how you cannot see how just by saying to your daughter, “I don’t know” means you are not indoctrinating her. Does she know yet? No. So in your use of the term, you have indoctrinated her in “I don’t know”…
I do believe that I am indoctrinating my children in good behavior. It better stick too. ;)
But in religion, other than living my life the way I think is right and appropriate, I do not think I am indoctrinating. I am educating them, yes. But I know that when they grow up, they will choose to live their life however they see fit. I hope they will choose to read the bible and take wisdom from it. That is what I am trying to do with my life.
In all honesty, when we see people who are living what I consider to be unrighteously, I do point out to my kids that while they may be having “Fun” they will likely end up depressed and unhappy for much of their life ;)
But also, when I see religious people trying to make everyone do what they want only, I also point out how that is limiting other people’s freedoms to my kids.
And I do think that you have to be indoctrinated into a culture. Look at the Amish. Look at the gangs of the urban youth.
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”
…you have indoctrinated her in “I don’t know”
How is that even possible?
Sarah: Is there life on other planets?
Cineaste: I honestly don’t know sweetie.
Lawanda: You’re indoctrinating your daughter with “I don’t know!”
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.”
This is as invalid as comparing it to an empirically testable phenomenon like gravity.
Evolution is an empirical standard. The only people who do not hold this view are creationists in Islam and Christianity because it conflicts with their religious doctrine. Perhaps you should argue “scientifically” which creator you are talking about, Allah or Jehovah.
As I have said, what is really taught in most agnostic homes is…
You’ve erected another straw man Seeker. You really have no clue about my household or how “typically agnostic” it is. My question still stands, If I tell my daughter I don’t know the answer to something how is that construed as indoctrination?
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).
Describe for me an empirical experiment that can demonstrate evolution.
I can answer this easily. I’ll provide multiple examples. Scientists like Frances Collins will accept them as valid experiments but you probably won’t because of your religious beliefs. Promise me that you will in turn provide empirical experiments demonstrating creationism as written in Genesis. You being a biologist, you know that experiment means you can reproduce the results.
But if you insinuate that many, most, or all religionists are intellectual idiots…
I don’t. My own parents were religious.
I still caught the “religion is for hicks” vibe loud and clear
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?
. 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.
I could demonstrate gravity.
You can demonstrate gravity's effects but not it's cause. Empirically prove to me that God is not the one who makes objects fall toward each other.
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.
Funny, you seem to display that opinion here, or maybe I am mistaking.
I have no problem with religion for the most part. Like all things, religion has it's strengths and weaknesses. While religion is fine and dandy fundamentalism is not. If one takes their holy books as infallible, whether it's the Qu'ran or the Bible makes no difference, you are ignorant. Ignorant as in deluded. Ignorant, not stupid.
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!
Fundamentalism is a sign you have been indoctrinated into the doctrine of your religion so completely that you believe Every Single Word of your holy book is true. Both Christian fundamentalists and their Islamic counterparts have this in common.
Perhaps you can tell me how you view religion and faith…
It's always repetition whenever I converse with you Seeker because you don't read very carefully or if you do, it makes no impression on you. Just scroll up and read the conversation with Lawanda about atheism. The only thing I would add is that regarding a deistic God, I am probably closer to an agnostic than an atheist. As far as Jesus and Allah are concerned, atheist.
…and then tell me how you keep those biases from influencing your kids.
They don't. Of course not. 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. Again, indoctrination is more specific in meaning than teaching. It's closer in meaning to inculcation. I quoted the definition already, just scroll up. Examples: "Jesus Camp" = indoctrination = fundamentalism. Hitler Youth = indoctrination. Telling my daughter that I am not a Christian or Muslim does not equal indoctrination.
That is, unless you are a "do as I say, not as I do" type of parent.
Wouldn't this characterize you more than me? You're the one who points to scripture as the ultimate source of authority not I. Where your daughter might be thinking "What would Jesus do?" in a moral dilemma, my daughter might be thinking "What should I do?"
Like I said, you can only demonstrate the effects of gravity, not it's cause. Therefore…
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 (gravity's cause) is true
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?
No, it’s repetition because (1) you don’t communicate clearly, and (2) you are often duplicitous, one moment feigning neutrality towards faith, the next, condemning it as anti-science. Your view of “fundamentalism” is basically anyone who is not liberal, it seems.
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.
Depends what you mean by ignorant.
I told you in my post.
When Paul the apostle says “no homosexual will inherit the kingdom of God,” am I supposed to take that metaphorically?
Yes, because you take this metaphorically…
Deuteronomy 22:21 Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father’s house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.
If you don’t take Deuteronomy 22.21 literally anymore that means you are picking and choosing the passages of scripture you believe are still relevant. If some Christian Fundamentalist started throwing rocks at your daughter because she wasn’t a virgin on her wedding night would you be pleased that he is taking the bible literally as infallible truth? No! You would kick his butt for the religious nut case he really is for taking the Bible word for word and stoning your daughter.
No, it’s repetition because (1) you don’t communicate clearly, and (2) you are often duplicitous
Fine, Lawanda understands the nuances of atheism and my “lack of a God belief.” Ask her if it needs to be explained to you again.
Your view of “fundamentalism” is basically anyone who is not liberal, it seems.
No, again, for the billionth time… I view religious fundamentalists as those who take their holy books, Qu’ran or bible, as literally true word for word infallible. This includes creationists from both religions.
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!
we are saying that you can raise your kids in a biblical household and NOT indoctrinate
Raising children to believe the Qu’ran is infallible, literally true is indoctrination. Raising children as Islamic creationists is indoctrination. The same applies to the Bible.
…according to your bible (Webster’s inspired dictionary)
You’re saying the dictionary is my bible? Don’t be absurd.
Let’s put it this way – I can directly measure and observe gravity
So what Seeker? I can measure and observe gravity as well but it’s called “intelligent falling” because God is the cause. I’m making an important point here which you don’t seem to be able to grasp.
How do you directly measure and observe evolution? You can not.
Nor can you directly measure and observe gravity on Pluto. You have to infer right? You’ve exhausted your objections to evolution long ago. Everything I hear from you now is simply a rehash. I’ve heard it all before.
But I know I can’t sway you with facts.
Correct, because the “facts” you reference in Genesis are not really facts at all, it’s your religious creation myth. God created the universe in 6 separate 24 hours periods? Save it for the gullible.
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.
Yes, because you take this metaphorically…
Your hermeneutic is lacking. The passage you quoted makes no sense as a metaphor. It was a specific punishment specified for Israel. For some odd theological or humane reason, Christians do not feel bound to the punishments specified in the OT, but believe that they were specifically for Israel, though the moral laws they support are still considered true. So I *do* interpret that literally – I mean, it’s really impossible to consider that a metaphor.
If you don’t take Deuteronomy 22.21 literally anymore that means you are picking and choosing the passages of scripture you believe are still relevant.
There are logical reasons to do so. For example, all of the ceremonial law was fulfilled by Christ, and so we are not bound to it. That is perfectly logical without being dishonest about picking and choosing. Same with the dietary law. I suspect there is a similar logic for why we don’t follow the specified punishments against the moral law, even though the moral laws holds. I understand how you think that it duplicitous, but it is not picking and choosing.
Fine, Lawanda understands the nuances of atheism and my “lack of a God belief.”
I have already demonstrated my renewed understanding of atheism, both soft and hard atheism. You don’t have to repeat any of that for me. However, when it comes to evolution, you evade the questions with meaningless rejoinders about how you view gravity.
I view religious fundamentalists as those who take their holy books, Qu’ran or bible, as literally true word for word infallible. This includes creationists from both religions.
I don’t think that is clear enough. I think parts of the bible are historical narrative, some metaphor, poetry, parable, apocalyptic, aphorisms, etc. So by that definition, I am not a fundamentalist. I think your real beef is that you (1) reject the miraculous, and (2) reject creationism a priori. Because I believe in creationism, I am a fundamentalist? What if I believe it because it makes scientific sense?
I can measure and observe gravity as well but it’s called “intelligent falling” because God is the cause.
The point is, you can not measure or observe evolution, now can you? I’m still waiting for that experiment. Don’t worry, I don’t really expect an answer, because there is no such experiment. But every time you claim evolution as a fact, just remember that you are really claiming that your interpretation of historical data is a fact. You have not and can not actually observe your “fact.”
You’ve exhausted your objections to evolution long ago.
That’s true. 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. But again, those who NEED something to be true are unwilling to critically examine their faith.
because the “facts” you reference in Genesis are not really facts at all,
Again, you keep shifting your focus to avoid my real challenge. I readily admit that creationism rests on supernatural assumptions, and that it can’t be observed. But you fail to see how evolution as a theory of origins is not a proven fact, it’s a theory only. And please don’t go into semantics about a theory v. a hypothesis blah blah. Just stop pushing your pet theory as a forgone fact when it can never be more than a pretty theory.
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.
Did you see this Seeker? It’s our debate in a nutshell right?
Family Guy Evolution Clip
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 ;)
However, just as YOU pick and choose based on your own rules, so do I
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.”
They (religious moderates) purposely misrepresent and misinterpret the NEW testament, which is a more critical error.
This is exactly what you don’t like about moderates. 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?
Another thing I have wanted to ask you is what are the scientific arguments that Jesus is the creator of existence and not Allah? Do they have this at AIG as well?
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: