All aboard the atheist bus?

So when a child asks about what happens when their favourite pet dies, what would you tell them? Try telling them that there's nothing but a long slow decay in store for Rover and they'll never see him again and you'll soon find out that however noble sticking to the truth is, in some cases it is not a good idea.

 

I'd explain that Rover's life has come to an end, as do all lives, but we were lucky to have known him, or some such. I wouldn't say Rover's grown wings and is currently playing a harp, or whatever.

 

I am afraid not bub - it is the truth. You dont know anything about codes, coded sets, genetics or information I am afraid. Those are dawkins words and they are backed up by both science and mathematics. You are wrong but you are just too insecure to admit your oafish misunderstandings. Dawkins is very precise - if what you say were true he would say "like" but he does not. What he says it is exactly how it is to his mind.

DNA... genetic code... information carrying genes. Surely its sinking in by now? Maybe you should just stick to what you know best - "torquing your bottom end"?

 

Goodness me! We agree (almost) on something!
I would question whether it is only "important things" that children expect the truth about. Whose idea of importance? What may be relatively unimportant to an adult may be extremely important to the child.
Conversely, an adult then has a responsibility to convey what they believe to be true to their children - however wrong you may think they are. By your own standard, it is incumbent on them to convey what they sincerely believe to be true.

 

and Fiction has made it the success it is, the fact that children crave supernatural thrills.

Quote: "I get letters from children addressed to Professor Dumbledore [headmaster at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry, the books' setting], and it's not a joke, begging to be let into Hogwarts, and some of them are really sad. Because they want it to be true so badly they've convinced themselves it's true."

J.K. Rowling

Do you find this and it's similar... offensive, being that children are attaching themselves to a type of spiritual warfare .

 

It's fine so long as it's known to be fiction, and your quote from JKR shows just how impressionable children can be. There's nothing offensive about fiction -- except when it's packaged as reality, which is what religion is.

BBV there's no point in continuing with you. I already know you don't like me very much.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=11585099

If that's you, then I can't see much to like, either, quite frankly.

 

Therefore, as you say "It's fine so long as it's *known* to be fiction" and therefore whilst taking into account the impressionable minds of the young, their ability to differentiate would make little or no difference as to the way it be packaged/promoted real or otherwise.
Would not then... your proposed threat of a fictional higher reality dressed as fact.. be any less of a danger upon the impressionable than any work of earthly none fact ?

I must disappoint you as to myself being your *imaginary friend*... but i have a healthy head of hair, dont wear glasses or sport short sleeved tshirts outside of perspiratory acts.

 

I don't think the grandiosity displayed by the oft quoted Mr.Dorkin sets a particularly good example from which to draw for this, or any other, discussion. A quick trawl around the narcissistic emporium that is http://richarddawkins.net/ will tell any rational human being all they need to know!

Here's a quick quote from one of his business offshoots - which can be found at http://outcampaign.org/ - 'Atheists have always been at the forefront of rational thinking and beacons of enlightenment....'

This, I believe, was from Spike Milligan. 'My father was a great man. I know this because he told me so himself. He said, "Son, I am a great man." And you just can't argue with facts like that.'

I am sure 'The Great Man' has something of interest to say. He certainly has a great deal to say. But if religion really is 'the new evil' then surely he should be campaigning for changes to the law? As far as I know all recognised forms of child abuse are illegal in this country. If our elected representatives have missed a couple out then they should be told to correct the matter immediately.

Unfortunately, it would appear that 'The Great Man' is more interested in channelling his prodigious intellect into selling books, dvd's, T-shirts, lapel pins, coffee mugs, ..................... Pretty much the self-appointed David Beckham of the 'educational elite' - a social group quoted in the preface to 'The God Delusion' - clearly a group to which Mr Dorking fervently believes he belongs.

I don't believe in any religion, but nor do I believe that religions are in any way inherently evil. Nor do I subscribe to the view that those that do 'believe' should be subjected to ridicule and public abuse. When Mr Porking equates atheism with homosexuality he displays a crass disregard for social history and a deep understanding of marketing 'hooks'. 'Unbelief' is not a cause to be rallied to. It is not unfairly subjected to public discrimination, misunderstanding and prejudice. It is not illegal.

The rate of change, of both generally held beliefs and scientific knowledge, has, over the last two hundred years, been nothing short of astonishing. There is no evidence that this rate of change is slowing. In my youth, a mere 40-50 years ago, most people held a religious belief (at least, if asked), women stayed at home and looked after the kids, people with 'learning difficulties' were locked away from public view and homosexuals, if caught, languished in prisons. Most people are now perfectly comfortable to express a lack of religious belief. The logical end-point for religions, exposed to this rate of change, is that they become at least irrelevant, if not actually illegal. They are not, in truth, far from the state of irrelevancy now, at least in our society. This is without the aid of any concerted attack on them and without any clarion call for their beliefs to be disrespected. For that, and without the assistance of the disingenuous Mr Donkey, we should be grateful.

Homosexuals, women, the disabled, all had something tangible and morally right to fight for. In what way are atheists being morally or socially wronged? They are not, of course. Which means Missed-A-Dork-in is attempting to rally support, not for the poor down-trodden, intellectually superior atheist, but for an attack on religion. In a tolerant society this is unacceptable. The current decline in church congregations and in the power and influence of The Church, will continue as a natural consequence of our increased knowledge and awareness. It is unseemly to kick a man when he's down. Unless, of course, you've got a few unremarkable books and Channel 4 documentaries to sell. And a personal profile to raise.

When I was a child I was indoctrinated, if you will, with the belief that the topics of religion and politics should never be discussed in unfamiliar company. This thread is proof-positive of the wisdom of that advice.

It's a shame indeed if members of this forum feel that they must acquiesce to the bullying of the likes of Mr Doughnut and his acolytes. He and his lackeys would garner a great deal more respect if they demonstrated, rather more appropriately, the courage of their convictions. An address to the General Synod, perhaps?

I shall look forward to reading about it.

 

All people are wronged by, for example, suicide bombers, or loopy Christians who like to murder gynaecologists. Children & women are routinely wronged by religion. Stem cell research, which will almost certainly bring many benefits, has been derailed because of religion.

If religious people just sat quietly and prayed or something, then that would be fine. Unfortunately for mankind, they don't.

 

I can't really decipher your first paragraph, but the gentleman in the myspace profile is mr n00bcakes, and not me.

 

If you heard Martin Rowson on "Start the Week" on Radio 4, 9/2/09, he told a very interesting story. Martin Rowson is cartoonist on the Grauniad BTW.

Martin did a cartoon of Mr D for the cover of "New Humanist":

http://newhumanist.org.uk/images/0711-Rowson-Dawkins.jpg

For which he received a bit of flack from the atheist crowd - they took umbrage at him picking on their poster boy. Apparently he's the only high profile atheist they have and so treat him like a minor god. Seems it's OK for them to poke fun and satirise religions but when it comes back on them, they don't like it.

Atheism might not be a religion per se but it sure as hell acts like one when it comes to tolerance.

 

Suicide bombers - yep, got laws for that one.

loopy Christians who like to murder gynaecologists - Probably covered by the laws on folk murdering folk - generally.

Children & women are routinely wronged by religion - atheists not bothered about abused men, then?

Stem cell research...... - Seen 'em getting a bit shirty, certainly. Not much evidence for the derailing bit, though. A few 'loonies', reminding our elected representatives that doctors like to play God, generally because they think they are God, and that this is not always a good thing, some of us might think is a good thing! Checks and balances aren't a bad thing because you don't like them. They are, in all probability, a good thing because you don't like them.

If religious people just sat quietly and prayed or something... - And why, indeed, can't the atheists just sit and not pray, or something? A couple of hours of not praying might do them the world of good.

 

I think you will find that atheism didnt have the advertising in those good old days of scientific discovery - certainly no bendy buses So I fear it is incorrect to assume that the ppl you mention would not have been atheist if they lived today. snot fair to promote them as religious and great, they were in deep with the rest of religious society at the time.

 

Sorry, I don't believe in revisionism.

 

No it doesnt. The kurfuffle you mention was related to the fact that Dawkins wasnt 100% happy with the effeminate impression that the characture gives. If you are heterosexual and dont want to be portrayed as being a bit gay I think you would be miffed too.

(I hate the word 'tolerance' as it says you are tolerating something in the first place - a bit of a negative in my book, but i digress)

 

Sorry I dont understand - you dont believe those ppl would act differently in different environments?

 

I don't know.

But you don't either. Your assertion is based on the false presumption that intellectualism automaticaly precludes the ability to have faith.

The fact is, when they discovered the secrets of the universe they were religious. To suggest that today they wouldn't be is totally irrelevant.

 

My assertion? I missed that one. I guess I am implying that skilled scientific people are more likley to be atheist today. (I have read that studies support this - I can dig some refs out if needed)