Dawkins is acting looney

[Kiljan Arslan]

Okay get this Dawkins is trying to see if childrens stories, from harry potter to Where the WIld Things are have a negative effect on kids!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/3255...d-Dawkins.html

btw if he ever labled his child as an athiest shouldn't he turn himself in as a child abuser?

[SorelusImperion]

Why does that remind me of the christian right... :hmmm:
I think Dawkins should have a look at Mickey Mouse as well and how it teaches children to believe in talking Mice.

Honestly the title of his book already indicated that he is somwhat neurotic so this does not come as a great surprise for me.

btw if he ever labled his child as an athiest shouldn't he turn himself in as a child abuser?

agreed ...

I think labelling children is child abuse and I think there is a very heavy issue

-Dawkins-

If he just wouldn't be a bigot


*waiting for Thui to crash the party*

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

*waiting for Thui to crash the party*

If you insist.

Okay get this Dawkins is trying to see if childrens stories, from harry potter to Where the WIld Things are have a negative effect on kids!

And this is "looney" because ... ?

btw if he ever labled his child as an athiest shouldn't he turn himself in as a child abuser?

Luckily we're talking about a eminently reasonable and rational man. Behold:

Although he regards it as "clearly wicked" to call the child of Catholic parents "a Catholic child", he quickly adds, "it's equally wicked to say this is an atheist child. I would never say that." He can't help adding, "Of course, some people would say all babies are atheist, because they don't believe in anything." But when I ask if he'd say that, he considers for a moment before replying, "Well, I'm not sure that's a very sensible way of putting it actually."
(Decca Aitkenhead, 'People say I'm strident', The Guardian, Saturday October 25 2008)

So let's see: consistency? Check. Lack of hypocrisy? Check. Careful consideration of what he's saying? Check. Logic and reasoned thought? Check.

Gosh - what a monster. What a "looney".

Why does that remind me of the christian right... :hmmm:

I have no idea. Here Dawkins is saying entirely sensible, well-thought out and reasonable things like:

"I haven't read Harry Potter, I have read Pullman who is the other leading children's author that one might mention and I love his books. I don't know what to think about magic and fairy tales."

Prof Dawkins said he wanted to look at the effects of "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards".

"I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know," he told More4 News.

"I think looking back to my own childhood, the fact that so many of the stories I read allowed the possibility of frogs turning into princes, whether that has a sort of insidious affect on rationality, I'm not sure. Perhaps it's something for research."

Refusing to comment on books he hasn't read? Admiting he's not sure what to think on the subject? Saying "I'm not sure"? Noting that it might be something worth researching? These things somehow remind you of the Religious Right? Because they sound precisely the opposite of the Religious Right to me.

If you read the article carefully you'll see that these comments are clearly peripheral to the subject of the book Dawkins is planning to write, though the actual subject probably sounded a bit dry for the journalist who decided to spice the story up about by focusing it in something Dawkins simply muses on in passing. But hey, let's not pass up a chance to throw Harry Potter into a headline and make Dawkins sound as controversial as humanly possible.

Honestly the title of his book already indicated that he is somwhat neurotic so this does not come as a great surprise for me.

Which shows you either didn't read "his book" (I'm assuming you mean The God Delusion, since he's written quite a few others) or skimmed over the bit where he discussed its title. Again, his choice was carefully considered and intelligently chosen, not "neurotic", and he went to the effort of explaining it in detail. For those who decided to actually pay any attention of course.

the writer likes to convert peolpe wow not at all the same as the fundies the writer is against!

(Sarcasm)

He objects to them converting people to something he considers irrational and unfounded, not converting/convincing them per se. He's a lecturer and teacher - convincing people is what they do. And there's nothing inherently wrong with doing it, so long as what you're converting them to/convincing them of is (i) real and (ii) not harmful. He'd argue religion is neither.

Your capacity for careful argument seems to fall out of your head whenever this guy's name comes up.

That man is a moron, a learned moron... The worst kind... I would've said that two years ago before I was a Christian, and I'll say it just as easily now

Saying stupid things like that is easy, so it hardly surprised me that you say it now just as you said it then. It's still an absurd and, actually, meaningless thing to bray say.

Well the article comes from a mainstream source so I don't think its exxagerated.

Read the article again. Dawkins is not saying he's writing a book claiming books like Harry Potter make people believe in nonsense. Try reading what he does say and look at how the journalist has given it a good hard spin.

A tad? Comparing labelling a child by a religion they follow, to physical abuse, both of which the man himself probably never went through

PLease show me where he said anything about it being equivalent to physical abuse. He's said it's like child abuse. I'd say it's like brainwashing and - as someone who went through it - I can assure you he and I are right. Being told that if I left "the faith" it would "destroy the family", that if I ever stopped going to church it would "kill your father" or that if I didn't maintain the religious beliefs I would be "disowned" isn't a form of child abuse? Give me a break. I was 10 BTW.

Some peoples' desire to turn this perfectly reasonable man into some slavering bogeyman is bizarre and ridiculous in equal measure.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Of course he isn't doing the same thing as the Christian right he's just doing it for the kids! (Oh wait that's why they say their doing it to!)

by the way they say atheists don't act like religious types

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/20...-science-books

the writer likes to convert peolpe wow not at all the same as the fundies the writer is against!

(Sarcasm)

[Pious Agnost]

That man is a moron, a learned moron... The worst kind... I would've said that two years ago before I was a Christian, and I'll say it just as easily now

[MaximiIian]

Dawkins is generally pretty chill and not wacko.
He's let his fame go to his head a bit, and has made a few intolerant remarks. But nothing that bad, really.

I think he's still an okay guy, a very smart and reasonable man, and surely a brilliant biologist; I have a couple of his biology books, like The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. He makes valid points against Creationism in The Blind Watchmaker. And even in The God Delusion, he's not really criticizing theism in general- only theism when it claims empirical evidence; it's not that radical a book, really, despite the title.

The stuff saying negative things about him are probably exaggerated a tad and biased; though Dawkins isn't doing much to counter them. However, I still think that he's not as much of an as some people think. Furthermore, he classifies himself as a Weak Atheist, which shows that he's not really as rabid an anti-theist as some media portray him as.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Dawkins is generally pretty chill and not wacko.
He's let his fame go to his head a bit, and has made a few intolerant remarks. But nothing that bad, really.

I think he's still an okay guy, a very smart and reasonable man, and surely a brilliant biologist; I have a couple of his biology books, like The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. He makes valid points against Creationism in The Blind Watchmaker. And even in The God Delusion, he's not really criticizing theism in general- only theism when it claims empirical evidence; it's not that radical a book, really, despite the title.

The stuff saying negative things about him are probably exaggerated a tad and biased; though Dawkins isn't doing much to counter them. However, I still think that he's not as much of an as some people think. Furthermore, he classifies himself as a Weak Atheist, which shows that he's not really as rabid an anti-theist as some media portray him as.

Well the article comes from a mainstream source so I don't think its exxagerated.

[MaximiIian]

Well, then that goes with what I said about him taking a turn towards intolerant remarks as of late.
It's, again, his fame and stardom kinda going to his head.

Doesn't mean he's stupid, or a moron, or any less brilliant than he has been. He's human, and like all of us, can get a feeling of "I can prove or do anything" when he has his 15 minutes of fame. That's probably amplified by the like-minded company he has, who might also be influencing him towards a less tolerant viewpoint vis-a-vis other people's beliefs. Nothing is as simple as "he's an ass", or "he's intolerant, or "he's stupid".
It's a myriad of factors that have made Dawkins act a tad dickish recently, several of which are probably beyond his complete control.

[Pious Agnost]

Well, then that goes with what I said about him taking a turn towards intolerant remarks as of late.
It's, again, his fame and stardom kinda going to his head.

Doesn't mean he's stupid, or a moron, or any less brilliant than he has been. He's human, and like all of us, can get a feeling of "I can prove or do anything" when he has his 15 minutes of fame. That's probably amplified by the like-minded company he has, who might also be influencing him towards a less tolerant viewpoint vis-a-vis other people's beliefs. Nothing is as simple as "he's an ass", or "he's intolerant, or "he's stupid".
It's a myriad of factors that have made Dawkins act a tad dickish recently, several of which are probably beyond his complete control.

A tad? Comparing labelling a child by a religion they follow, to physical abuse, both of which the man himself probably never went through

[Kiljan Arslan]

hmm thinking its anti scientific kinda suggests to me he really dosn't appreciate good old fashion make believe. TG

Oh and you do know that rationality is based on ones own perceptions. What is irrational to you, I might find completely rational.

I frind his assertion that their unscientific a bit loony I stick by my thoughts TG.,Implying that another user is a animal how mature!

I've lost my respect for you.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

hmm thinking its anti scientific kinda suggests to me he really dosn't appreciate good old fashion make believe. TG

Again, in your rush to make what he says sound as bad as possible, you've not bothered to read what he said. He says he loves Pullman's novels. And that he enjoyed such stories as a kid. All he says is that he wonders if such stories pave the way for anti-scientific thinking later. It's a valid question.

Oh and you do know that rationality is based on ones own perceptions. What is irrational to you, I might find completely rational.

I frind his assertion that their unscientific a bit loony I stick by my thoughts TG.

,

I can't see how. Rationality isn't just a matter of opinion, you should be able to explain what's "irrational" about the perfectly sensible idea of pondering if magical stories for children pave the way for magical thinking in adults. Where's the irrationality?

Implying that another user is a animal how mature!

I've lost my respect for you.

WTF? Where did I imply you were an animal?

[SorelusImperion]

Which shows you either didn't read "his book" (I'm assuming you mean The God Delusion, since he's written quite a few others) or skimmed over the bit where he discussed its title. Again, his choice was carefully considered and intelligently chosen, not "neurotic", and he went to the effort of explaining it in detail. For those who decided to actually pay any attention of course.

When talking about "his book" it is obvious that I refer to "The God Delusion" since that is what brought him to the attention of the masses. To fight religion even a specific one with such a vehemence certainly is neurotic. The title all in itself is very agressive in nature and not at all "intelligently chosen".

All he says is that he wonders if such stories pave the way for anti-scientific thinking later. It's a valid question.

No he is not wondering at all makes a clear statement that the novels are "anti-scientific":

"I think it is anti-scientific – whether that has a pernicious effect, I don't know,"

-Dawkins-

It is laughable to call a fairytale like Harry Potte "anti scientific" and certainly it is very close to the statement of the Christian right that Harry Potter is unchristian. Even entertaining the thought that Harry Potter may be dangerous indicates that within Dawkins body there is a very troubled mind. Perhaps his parents tortured him with Cinderally or forced him to accept the Brother's Grimm doctrine.

I think labelling children is child abuse

-Dawkins-

PLease show me where he said anything about it being equivalent to physical abuse.

It's a form of child abuse, even worse than physical child abuse.

-Dawkins-

He goes even further than saying it is the equivalent. He compares it and considers it even worse.

Being told that if I left "the faith" it would "destroy the family", that if I ever stopped going to church it would "kill your father" or that if I didn't maintain the religious beliefs I would be "disowned" isn't a form of child abuse? Give me a break.

What you are talking about is indoctrination what Dawkins talks about is labelling children. This is also why I made that referral to you (*waiting for Thiu to crash the party*) since you were doing what Dawkins considers "child abuse" when you labelled infants as Atheists. While I consider Dawkin's statement true I think that he looses his sense of reality when links the assigning of labels such as "Christian" or "Muslim" to children to what they learn about religion in school since he does not limit it to special cases but makes a general judgement.

[Exarch]

hmm thinking its anti scientific kinda suggests to me he really dosn't appreciate good old fashion make believe. TG

Oh and you do know that rationality is based on ones own perceptions. What is irrational to you, I might find completely rational.

I frind his assertion that their unscientific a bit loony I stick by my thoughts TG.,Implying that another user is a animal how mature!

I've lost my respect for you.

LOL
pwned, big time

[Kiljan Arslan]

not me Alaksam rather disapointing.

Hmm lets see here the books are marked fiction one knows fiction means make believe therefore there not real. Thefore an adult wouldn't believe it to be real. As well as a child wouldn't think their real.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

not me Alaksam rather disapointing.

OFFS - it's an analogy. And his comment was moronic.

Hmm lets see here the books are marked fiction one knows fiction means make believe therefore there not real. Thefore an adult wouldn't believe it to be real. As well as a child wouldn't think their real.

He's not saying either would think they are real. Are you now trying to be obtuse? Talk about disappointing ...

[Kiljan Arslan]

know its an attack on him.

Am I trying to be obtuse? Wow now claiming I'm not intelligent.

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

know its an attack on him.

It's an attack on what he said - a stupid, braying insult that adds nothing to the discussion.

Am I trying to be obtuse? Wow now claiming I'm not intelligent.

No, I'm implying that you are acting unintelligent by pretending you don't actually understand what Dawkins is implying. And that adds nothing to the discussion either.

It is laughable to call a fairytale like Harry Potte "anti scientific"

No it isn't - it's accurate. You seem to be understanding "anti-scientific" as "ideologically opposed to and hostile to science". That's not what he means - he means anti-science in the same sense as anti-matter vs matter: ie opposites. That's why he says that the question of whether its anti-science aspect is "pernicious" is another issue altogether.

He goes even further than saying it is the equivalent. He compares it and considers it even worse.

Then I'd disagree with him on that point. But to see religious brainwashing as a form of child abuse is entirely reasonable.

What you are talking about is indoctrination what Dawkins talks about is labelling children.

And if you'd bothered reading the relevant section in The God Delusion you'd see that what he's talking about is indoctrination.

This is also why I made that referral to you (*waiting for Thiu to crash the party* since you were doing what Dawkins considers "child abuse" when you labelled infants as Atheists.

What total crap. Firstly, he's talking about indoctrination, as you would know if you understood what he was saying. Secondly, infants are atheists, but I agree with Dawkins that this technical use of the term isn't very useful because it gives people (like you) lots of irrelevant ideas.

once again attacking me.

No, once again saying I didn't think much the argument of yours that I just responded to.

Oh and lets see here, considering that any belief is harmful to a degree. The Belief dawkins espuses can be just as harmful as any theistic belief.

"Any belief is harmful to a degree"? Care to back that assertion up?

BTW I suspect the pope feels the same thing about converting someone to catholicism as Dawkins does.

The Pope is meant to be very happy about conversions. He traditionally baptises a number of adult converts every Easter Saturday vigil Mass with great fanfare and rejoicing. So how does this make his attitude to converting to Catholicism the same as Dawkins' again?

[SorelusImperion]

No it isn't - it's accurate. You seem to be understanding "anti-scientific" as "ideologically opposed to and hostile to science". That's not what he means - he means anti-science in the same sense as anti-matter vs matter: ie opposites.

If he would have realy meant what you think he would have said "unscientific" that would have been the correct opposite while "anti-scientific" implies much more and Dawkins is intelligent enough to be aware of this difference.

And if you'd bothered reading the relevant section in The God Delusion you'd see that what he's talking about is indoctrination

We are not discussing "The God Delusion" but his most recent escapade. While it can be interesting and usefull to refer to "The God Delusion" you have to recognize that it is not the main topic and thus his statements in the interview are of greater relevance.

Firstly, he's talking about indoctrination

Amongst other issues he is but he specifically says:

labelling children is child abuse

"Do not ever call a child a Muslim child or a Christian child – that is a form of child abuse because a young child is too young to know what its views are about the cosmos or morality.

It is evil to describe a child as a Muslim child or a Christian child.

Secondly, infants are atheists

invoking Dawkin's law:

labelling children is child abuse

[ThiudareiksGunthigg]

If he would have realy meant what you think he would have said "unscientific" that would have been the correct opposite while "anti-scientific" implies much more and Dawkins is intelligent enough to be aware of this difference.

Not at all - "unscientific" usually refers to something that is trying to adopt the trappings of science and failing (His methods of psychological analysis are flawed because of their unscientific basis.") "Anti-scientific" means the precise polar opposite of "scientific" - where one involves actions and reactions according to the laws of the physical universe the other (in this case magic) involves their deliberate suspension.

Dawkins is being very precise with his terms.

We are not discussing "The God Delusion" but his most recent escapade. While it can be interesting and usefull to refer to "The God Delusion" you have to recognize that it is not the main topic and thus his statements in the interview are of greater relevance.

And you have to realise that his comment about why "labelling" a child is abusive can only be understood in the context of what he has said on this elsewhere. Of course simply using the word "Catholic" in reference to a child isn't "abuse" - he's referring to telling the child they are "a Catholic", raising them to believe certain things as a result, not allowing them to consider other things, making them see themselves according to this label and threatening them with punishment if they don't. That's not just using a label in relation to them, that's indoctrination.

"Any belief is harmful to a degree"? Care to back that assertion up?

Hmmm well I've got the Nazies, I've got the crusades, I've got the French revolution, the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Civil war both slavery and the right to seceed. Need I say more?

Yes, you do. Of course some beliefs are harmful or can be harmful, but that's not what you said.

Lets see here they both believe that what their doing is helping the people and saving them from irrational and harmful beliefs.

So you mean that both Dawkins and the Pope have similar attitudes to conversion to their respective ideas? Sure. So?

btw maybe critisize not attack arguments or don't use words that would be misconstrued.

I choose my words very carefully thanks.

[Kiljan Arslan]

QUOTE=ThiudareiksGunthigg;3904123]

"Any belief is harmful to a degree"? Care to back that assertion up?
[/QUOTE]
Hmmm well I've got the Nazies, I've got the crusades, I've got the French revolution, the American Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Civil war both slavery and the right to seceed. Need I say more?

The Pope is meant to be very happy about conversions. He traditionally baptises a number of adult converts every Easter Saturday vigil Mass with great fanfare and rejoicing. So how does this make his attitude to converting to Catholicism the same as Dawkins' again?

Lets see here they both believe that what their doing is helping the people and saving them from irrational and harmful beliefs.

btw maybe critisize not attack arguments or don't use words that would be misconstrued.