Everyone has heard of them, the Jehovahs Witnesses knocking at your door with a watchtower publication, those kooky Christians inviting you over for bible study the list no doubt goes on...

Anyhow I have very little to do with religion but I've come to see that these people, the same people saying those with a belief, faith in something existing without knowing firsthand - are the ones that pester you about religion more than any other.

I'd never had my beliefs questioned until the other night when an aetheist asked what I was

Me: Oh I was raised a catholic but...
Them : How fucking stupid *rant rant rant*

Although I was going to say "but I'm not interested in exploring it at all" he pissed me off.

Honestly if I don't give a rats ass about religion and this asshole that supposedly doesn't shouldn't he not be caring what others think?

It was really annoying to say the least. I can understand there are reasons they want others to be aetheists too but being so abupt and saying what I might believe in is wrong isn't going to get me on side.

"Oh so I'm wrong am I? Considering how unintelligent, wrong and misguided I am I may as well become an aetheist afterall"

...get it? Oh the irony. I think that's irony anyhow *shifty eyes*

I don't care enough about my own religion...isn't that enough? I had always joked with my mother saying "Good luck to anyone trying to convert me...I mean I don't pay any attention to the one I'm aligned with what makes them think I'd put any effort into even considering changing?"

:p

Personally, the only people who've 'pestered' me about my belief (or mainly lack of it) are Christians.

Personally, the only people who've 'pestered' me about my belief (or mainly lack of it) are Christians.

And how did they do that exactly? I'm curious

atheists do it for the lolz

Atheism is Myth-Understood.

(great sticker from evolvefish.com)

OP: From your post I can tell you're a fuckstick, and whoever it was who was talking to you was right to berate you.

"Aetheist", eh? I like that.


I vote we change the official spelling of the word to Ætheist.

OP: From your post I can tell you're a fuckstick, and whoever it was who was talking to you was right to berate you.

:rolleyes:

Actually he is a friend of mine and he does it to everyone. I thought I'd be spared from his beliefs but I obviously thought too soon

He's brother is the biggest aetheist I've ever encountered, so is my supervisor at work. The way I see it is they are probably right but I'm not one to tell considering worrying myself over the existance of something no one is 100% certain about doesn't exactly excite me to waste my time on.

He has this calendar on the month it's set on now it has "People that believe in hell deserve it". Pretty amusing I thought.

And just because I prefer not to have anything jammed down my throat doesn't make me a 'fuckstick' and definately doesn't mean I deserve it you stupid clown.


Has anyone read "The God Delusion" ?

The authors bullshit about 'informing' a parent that their children are not jewish, catholic, or whatever children as they aren't mature enough to to determine what they are yet...is exactly the sort of shit he started spruking before I fucked him off away from me.

:rolleyes:

Actually he is a friend of mine and he does it to everyone. I thought I'd be spared from his beliefs but I obviously thought too soon

He's brother is the biggest aetheist I've ever encountered, so is my supervisor at work. The way I see it is they are probably right but I'm not one to tell considering worrying myself over the existance of something no one is 100% certain about doesn't exactly excite me to waste my time on.

He has this calendar on the month it's set on now it has "People that believe in hell deserve it". Pretty amusing I thought.

And just because I prefer not to have anything jammed down my throat doesn't make me a 'fuckstick' and definately doesn't mean I deserve it you stupid clown.


Has anyone read "The God Delusion" ?

The authors bullshit about 'informing' a parent that their children are not jewish, catholic, or whatever children as they aren't mature enough to to determine what they are yet...is exactly the sort of shit he started spruking before I fucked him off away from me.

Some people are just pushy morons. Be they atheist, christian, morman, accountants, truck drivers or whatever. They are right, everyone else wrong, their opinion needs to be forcibly shoved down other peoples throats, blah blah blah....

These type of people are generally less intelligent than most, but think they should get an invitation to join Mensa any day now. Just ask them.

Religion tends to be something that comes up often simply because people feel strongly enough about it to have an opinion. If you were a vegetarian, I guess this guy would tell you how you should be eating meat. If you were gay, he'd tell you all about the wrongness of it all.

It takes all kinds, I guess.

I'd never had my beliefs questioned until the other night when an aetheist asked what I was

First of all, noone who shares your beliefs is going to question your beliefs. Secondly, if they've never been questioned...you don't really have any beliefs.

Jehovas Witnesses are not Christian.

They are cult!

that bugs me too.

i could understand if it was a christian. hell, if i were a christian, and i truly believed in heaven and hell, i would be out in the streets shoving christianity down people's throats because i would want to 'save them.

now athiesm is a different story. why does it matter if they know there is nothing after death? if there is nothing, then it isn't going to matter!

Secondly, if they've never been questioned...you don't really have any beliefs.

That's what I said...I don't but happened to mention I was 'raised' a catholic.

I don't get why people are so pushy about their beliefs. Why can't people just shut the fuck up, keep to themselves, and accept people for who they are and not what they believe in?

:rolleyes:

Being pushy and in your face
...
The authors bullshit about 'informing' a parent that their children are not jewish, catholic, or whatever children as they aren't mature enough to to determine what they are yet...is exactly the sort of shit he started spruking before I fucked him off away from me.


How fucking ironic.

:rolleyes:



Has anyone read "The God Delusion" ?

The authors bullshit about 'informing' a parent that their children are not jewish, catholic, or whatever children as they aren't mature enough to to determine what they are yet...is exactly the sort of shit he started spruking before I fucked him off away from me.

What the.....? Dawkins is entirely correct and didn't suggest informing parents as far as I know. He stated that since children are not able to determine what they believe in, they shouldn't be labeled with a certain faith.

atheists do it for the lolz

So true, so true. Do it all for the lulz

How fucking ironic.

how so? I told him to fuck off because I'm not interested in what he had to say I can make my own decisions I don't need the likes of these people trying to 'enlighten' me.

And what sort of douche would actually say something like to a parent rather than shutting the fuck up?

It's basically a side step in telling them "don't bring them up believing in what I don't".

It would be the same as me saying don't let your child play football because they don't know whether they enjoy or not...the fuckwit needs to give children at least some credit.

And if a child was baptised under the name of Jesus or whatever is it really their choice later in life. Having a boy infants foreskin removed, does he have power to decide to go back and undo that later in life if he decides the religion he was brought up as isn't his bag?

Ever think people know their beliefs are far fetched and that they don't care because even if it's not right they think its a good life to live having their faith?

how so? I told him to fuck off because I'm not interested in what he had to say I can make my own decisions I don't need the likes of these people trying to 'enlighten' me.What do you think the parents of those children are doing? Exactly that! Forcing (i.e. "enlightening" ) their belief system on their children since birth.

That you don't see this, and automatically accuse Dawkins of being pushy for pointing this out (like Uranium238, I don't recall Dawkins ever saying we should be asses about this with the parents), is ironic.


It would be the same as me saying don't let your child play football because they don't know whether they enjoy or not...the fuckwit needs to give children at least some credit.Bullshit. I seriously doubt a child would plead and beg with their parents to go to Church every fucking week (or more) or to pray the rosary every day, or to have restrictive diets, or to not believe in evolution... I can, however, see him pleading with his mother to take him to baseball practice so he can spend time with his friends.

Hell, even ignoring this, the two things are still different. One is a sport, another is a world view that affects their beliefs in pretty much everything; from science, math and history, to metaphysics, the afterlife and ethics. "Forcing" the son to take baseball or football is nothing close to the same as forcing the son to a certain world view. The two are not comparable in the least.

Even if the child has the ability to change his beliefs later on, or surgically reverse any sort of genital mutilation issued by their parents, there is still something stronger to factor in, and that's the Guilt Factor.

Going against the ilk of one's own family can be devastating to the relationship, even if the positive effects of following your own path seems to reap intellectual rewards or personal satisfaction. Although a lot of families separated by belief systems manage to overcome the disparity of having an "outsider" in the bunch, it often leaves the person on the outside feeling isolated and out-of-sorts.

I have a semi-religious parent, and the only way we've managed to get through certain hurdles of conflict in belief has been to just avoid the subject altogether. I'm fortunate to have a strong enough relationship with him for it to not become a major issue, but it's evident that there is a bit of a Black Sheep element going on that will always be an unspoken "mark" against me.

I do see what you mean Rust but I still think to an extent that it is across the board...my next example would be the education system. I mean they jam shit down your throat. I know a kid that was shit at chemistry so I told him to be a smartass in his answers so where it asked "why does copper burn with a green flame" I told him to answer it by saying because that's how god wanted it.

Of course he got no marks for it and if he was serious in that he could have been offended in that he was being told what to write against his beliefs.

Anywho.

Of course he got no marks for it and if he was serious in that he could have been offended in that he was being told what to write against his beliefs.


This analogy fails as well.

He is studying Science, thus he will be quizzed on Science. He is not forced to believe in what Science says, he is not forced to practice what Science says, he is simply told what Science says. That's it. The two things are not comparable.

I know a kid that was shit at chemistry so I told him to be a smartass in his answers so where it asked "why does copper burn with a green flame" I told him to answer it by saying because that's how god wanted it.
You admit that that's being a smartass, and you think that's an okay way to answer a teacher's question?

Of course he got no marks for it and if he was serious in that he could have been offended in that he was being told what to write against his beliefs.
You're being ridiculous. Do you think students should be able to answer questions to how or why things work with "that's how god wanted it" and get credit for it? Maybe you think science shouldn't even be taught in school and we can go back to the dark ages? If a math teacher asks a student what the total sum of a math question is, is "whatever god wants it to be" also an answer that should get credit and if it's not, the student "could have been offended"?

You admit that that's being a smartass, and you think that's an okay way to answer a teacher's question?


You're being ridiculous. Do you think students should be able to answer questions to how or why things work with "that's how god wanted it" and get credit for it? Maybe you think science shouldn't even be taught in school and we can go back to the dark ages? If a math teacher asks a student what the total sum of a math question is, is "whatever god wants it to be" also an answer that should get credit and if it's not, the student "could have been offended"?

They could say "I wanted the answer from the book" or whatever instead of saying it is wrong...

And being a smartass to a teacher is fine in my books. I have very little respect for most teachers out there.

This analogy fails as well.

He is studying Science, thus he will be quizzed on Science. He is not forced to believe in what Science says, he is not forced to practice what Science says, he is simply told what Science says. That's it. The two things are not comparable.

Read my previous post...talking shit is exactly that - Whether it be a teacher needing to explain exactly what answer they want or whether it be someone with their head stuck up their asses telling you how to raise your own child.

Neither impresses me really.

They could say "I wanted the answer from the book" or whatever instead of saying it is wrong...
When a teacher asks a student "why does copper burn with a green flame", the teacher should also say, "I want the answer from the book" as to avoid getting answers such as "because that's how god wanted it"? You're being idiotic.

And being a smartass to a teacher is fine in my books. I have very little respect for most teachers out there.
Goody for you. Expecting credit for giving smartass answers is another matter.

Everyone has heard of them, the Jehovahs Witnesses knocking at your door with a watchtower publication, those kooky Christians inviting you over for bible study the list no doubt goes on...


I love it when Christian's or pseudo-Christian's try to preach the Book to me. Like, they'll just cite a passage that seems relevant to current events and then insert their own translation of the passage. Then I'll invite them in or just fully engage myself into the conversation. By the end of the conversation I either get a stunned face, people babbling trying to grasp at straws, people trying to hold in their anger, or more knowledge about the Book that I didn't know before.

Most of the time I just get babbling parrots that repeat everything they were told to say. They just scramble from page to page trying to grasp what I just told them. None of these people actually study the Book, they just do as they are told and pretend like they are going to teach you something. As if you are as dumb as they are.

Read my previous post...talking shit is exactly that - Whether it be a teacher needing to explain exactly what answer they want or whether it be someone with their head stuck up their asses telling you how to raise your own child.

Neither impresses me really.

But forcing a child to believe in a certain religion, that's fine and dandy? If you believe it isn't fine, then you've made my point. If you believe it is, then you're a fucking moron. Which one is it?

Ever think people know their beliefs are far fetched and that they don't care because even if it's not right they think its a good life to live having their faith?

That's what I have generally seen. People younger than 60 just do it because they feel its the right thing to do. Because society says it is and they are just conforming with what society says. But really, they don't practice what it preaches because they think its a load of BS. However, people over 60 are at that point in their lives when their bodies start breaking down.

They know their end will come someday and they suddenly repent everything they have done in their lives just in case there is an afterlife. Just in case all that bull they've been hearing on Sunday mornings is true. Then they make themselves believe in it. This is what I've seen in western society.

Eastern society is totally different. Fundamentalism is acceptable and kind of expected within each community. Like every community is expected to have a small group of fundamentalists. Unlike the west, where we kind of discourage it, they accept it as part of society. They also, however, choose to remain ignorant on issues that conflict with their respective religions.

This analogy fails as well.

He is studying Science, thus he will be quizzed on Science. He is not forced to believe in what Science says, he is not forced to practice what Science says, he is simply told what Science says. That's it. The two things are not comparable.

Actually, you will be thrown or failed out of a science class, especially lab, if you do not practice what the science says. Not practicing what you are taught in a science class could be harmful to oneself and others within the class.

I love it when Christian's or pseudo-Christian's try to preach the Book to me. Like, they'll just cite a passage that seems relevant to current events and then insert their own translation of the passage. Then I'll invite them in or just fully engage myself into the conversation. By the end of the conversation I either get a stunned face, people babbling trying to grasp at straws, people trying to hold in their anger, or more knowledge about the Book that I didn't know before.

Most of the time I just get babbling parrots that repeat everything they were told to say. They just scramble from page to page trying to grasp what I just told them. None of these people actually study the Book, they just do as they are told and pretend like they are going to teach you something. As if you are as dumb as they are.

Hmm, I am going to have to say stereotyping is a bad thing. I am a Christian, but I know why I believe and am not just mimicking what I have heard. I do indeed study the word and make sure that if someone asks me a question that I either have an answer or can look for one and respond in a timely manner. Granted I do not think that I have all the answers, but I believe that I am intelligent enough to give you a well thought out response. Please, I do not go around saying that atheists only have half a brain and mimic what they hear in science class ... and I do not believe that, so I would enjoy it if you would not degrade me in that way. Thank you.

Rust,
Is forcing a child to eat vegetables ok with you? I would hope so. Is forcing your child to do something you know is good for them ok with you? I hope so. Children do not know better in some areas, so why would a parent leave out something as important as religion. If vegetables are a given do you not believe that the parent would care enough to inform them on what is going on in religion. You can not force anything on people because they have free wills. Yes you can brain wash them, but then what does brain washing entail? I know that in my household I will bring my child up in Christ because I know that is the greatest gift you can give. So, if I think something is a gift ... and you think it is a curse, who has the right to decide that? I believe the parent in this case. Just because you may see religion as a bane or some other burden does not mean that everyone holds that view and parents will raise their children in what they believe to be best. Thus I understand why this Dawkins character has no right to tell parents how to raise their children.

Actually, you will be thrown or failed out of a science class, especially lab, if you do not practice what the science says. Not practicing what you are taught in a science class could be harmful to oneself and others within the class.

I obviously mean believing in or practicing other thing,s like evolution or heliocentrism for example.

Is forcing a child to eat vegetables ok with you? I would hope so. Is forcing your child to do something you know is good for them ok with you? I hope so. Children do not know better in some areas, so why would a parent leave out something as important as religion. If vegetables are a given do you not believe that the parent would care enough to inform them on what is going on in religion. You can not force anything on people because they have free wills. Yes you can brain wash them, but then what does brain washing entail? I know that in my household I will bring my child up in Christ because I know that is the greatest gift you can give. So, if I think something is a gift ... and you think it is a curse, who has the right to decide that? I believe the parent in this case. Just because you may see religion as a bane or some other burden does not mean that everyone holds that view and parents will raise their children in what they believe to be best. Thus I understand why this Dawkins character has no right to tell parents how to raise their children.

Shitty analogies don't help your case.

First of all, forcing your child to eat his vegetables (and I use "forcing" here lightly because parents don't usually use a mouth speculum to jam in vegetables in their kid's mouth) is nothing like forcing a child into a certain belief system. As I already said, a world view would be relevant in anything that child does or believes; vegetables would not. Not to mention that one could argue that eating vegetables is objectively better than not eating them, in terms of health.

Second of all, I understand that the parents might believe that's best; when did I say otherwise? I'm arguing against that belief. The child should make up his own mind, the parent shouldn't make his mind for him.

Third of all, the whole point of my argument was to show how the parents themselves were doing exactly what Trousersnake accused others of doing, yet apparently he didn't see a problem with it.

Rust,
Is forcing a child to eat vegetables ok with you? I would hope so. Is forcing your child to do something you know is good for them ok with you? I hope so. Children do not know better in some areas, so why would a parent leave out something as important as religion. If vegetables are a given do you not believe that the parent would care enough to inform them on what is going on in religion. You can not force anything on people because they have free wills. Yes you can brain wash them, but then what does brain washing entail? I know that in my household I will bring my child up in Christ because I know that is the greatest gift you can give. So, if I think something is a gift ... and you think it is a curse, who has the right to decide that? I believe the parent in this case. Just because you may see religion as a bane or some other burden does not mean that everyone holds that view and parents will raise their children in what they believe to be best. Thus I understand why this Dawkins character has no right to tell parents how to raise their children.

You can justify anything with that, including beating them till they bleed because they tripped and poured your lordship's soup all over the carpet. Parents know best and all that, who has the right to claim they know better?

I guess you can call it a gift to scare your kid into submission

Please, I do not go around saying that atheists only have half a brain and mimic what they hear in science class ... and I do not believe that, so I would enjoy it if you would not degrade me in that way. Thank you.

Are you one of those missionary type people that go around trying to convert people? If you are, I'm just saying that most that do your work really just repeat what they were told to say. I'm not saying that all theists have a half a brain. I'm a Deist myself and I consider myself to be pretty aware. But seriously, if a missionary were to come up to me and preach the Word to me and then I suddenly just started rambling on about the Apocrypha or some old Essene writing that predates any other canonical scripture in existence today, what are the chances that they will be able to hold a conversation with me?

If I mix a little history in with the book they are reading the passage from, what is the probability that they can converse with me about the history surrounding that book? They just read the passage and interpret based on how they were told to. They have no real insight or scholarly knowledge with what they read. Most of the time, that is. I have met one... the conversation lasted forever. It was like two Hasidic Jews going on about the Law, except it was two non denominational theists going on about the semantics of calling Jesus the Passover Lamb.

Are you one of those missionary type people that go around trying to convert people? If you are, I'm just saying that most that do your work really just repeat what they were told to say. I'm not saying that all theists have a half a brain. I'm a Deist myself and I consider myself to be pretty aware. But seriously, if a missionary were to come up to me and preach the Word to me and then I suddenly just started rambling on about the Apocrypha or some old Essene writing that predates any other canonical scripture in existence today, what are the chances that they will be able to hold a conversation with me?

If I mix a little history in with the book they are reading the passage from, what is the probability that they can converse with me about the history surrounding that book? They just read the passage and interpret based on how they were told to. They have no real insight or scholarly knowledge with what they read. Most of the time, that is. I have met one... the conversation lasted forever. It was like two Hasidic Jews going on about the Law, except it was two non denominational theists going on about the semantics of calling Jesus the Passover Lamb.

Haha, No I am not a missionary and only the Holy Spirit can convert a person. I do understand your frustration with Christians not being very literate with the Bible, but I think that also has to do with a lot of the watering down movements that are going on today in Church. Everything is based on feeling and such. Though I must say that I am overjoyed to here that you can have scholarly conversations about scripture and I was also wondering what the convo about semantics entailed. Just curious.

A response to all of you on the analogy I have used. Indeed you can use it to justify anything. But Christianity is good for the child and can be proven as such by psychologists, scientists and others. Prayer is known as a major stress reliever. Being able to cope with life's burdens with a helping hand is not a bad thing. They are also more equipped to love their neighbor, which will lead to much better relationships throughout life. So that is why I related raising your child as a Christian to eating green beans. It has many benefits besides simply believing and these can be proven objectively.

The child should make up his own mind, the parent shouldn't make his mind for him.

Third of all, the whole point of my argument was to show how the parents themselves were doing exactly what Trousersnake accused others of doing, yet apparently he didn't see a problem with it.

NO NO NO

And if you actually read Dawkins book he pulled out his arse you would have known that he thinks a child isn't smart enough to make up their own mind...don't you see children need guidance - And their parents are the ones that should be giving them that not some headstrong ass who wants little children to grow up to be a dipshit like them. They can decide who and what they want to be when they are at the stage in their life upon which it becomes clear to them.

It fucking fails all the way through, people's thoughts and beliefs don't remain constant throughout their lives so what's to say an 'informed' person wouldn't have a revloation in life making him turn from atheist to 'born again' Christian?

In Dawkins crap he basically admits he himself is trying to recruit people and have people more accepting of the non-believers.

As for your third point - Anyone trying to recruit people are asses in my books no matter what the hell they are however I will point out there is a huge difference between strangers and your own flesh and blood. Do I expect some white trash to come up to me and want me to become more like them? No. But I'd be be that if I were raised that one would assume.

Call me overly crictical but its all down to the environment in which someone is set upon. Perhaps one day these dipshits will forcefully take children away from parents and keep them in a dark room away from all influences eh? So they can decide exactly what they want. Bullshit.

The overall result of this thread is 'one of them' hassled me, didn't listen and it's never happened before. All respect for these people is out the window and Dawkins shit is the cherry on top for their 'cause'. I hope they take comfort in knowing all these religions they think are a joke are totally above them in my books.

/thread

\thread:

You made it sound in your first paragraph as if children could not only read and comprehend The God Delusion, but that Dawkins himself was out pushing kiddie propaganda in the form of his latest book. That's distorting things a bit, wouldn't you agree?

The God Delusion isn't a recruitment ad for ATHEISTS UNITED, it's an examination of all major religions and the effects it's had on societies since the beginning of time. Did you only read the reviews, or just the hand-picked out-of-context excerpts spewed by the media?

Your inconsiderate friend doing the hassling is the dipshit, not Dawkins. Suggest to him that if he wants to have his perspective heard, he should write it all out, bind it in a book, and let the public masses choose whether or not they want to investigate his beliefs further. That's what Dawkins did. Last time I checked, The God Delusion wasn't mandatory reading for humans.

In fact, last time I checked, The God Delusion was on all the international bestseller lists. That must be indicative of people worldwide searching for alternative answers to God.

The God Delusion isn't a recruitment ad for ATHEISTS UNITED, it's an examination of all major religions and the effects it's had on societies since the beginning of time. Did you only read the reviews, or just the hand-picked out-of-context excerpts spewed by the media?

Actually I downloaded it and am about halfway through it. The guy who irritated me has access to a copy his brother has. I had a flip though to see if my copy was the same thing and it was.

I really don't like the author of the book and honestly believe he choose a good time to cash in on people and how they see things and that's the only thing I can say about him. Excellent at opting in at the right time.

All his shit is that, shit...to me. If I was really interested, and so was everyone else they could piece it together themselves, not have to put up with his additional crap that has been thrown in and he wouldn't be sitting pretty on stupid bestselling lists counting his money.

$0.02

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dawkins_Delusion%3F

Why is Alister McGrath immune from your "How dare you shove ideas down my throat" wrath?

Why is Alister McGrath immune from your "How dare you shove ideas down my throat" wrath?

Because his was a reponse? Because it promotes acceptance more rather than simply laying down on the subject as someone like Dawkins would what (I assume :) )

No one has that right. Now it's your turn to say "so what about parents?" which is a whole different ball game to me. My parents taught me how to read, dressed me, sent me to a education institution of their choice, etc, etc. Why shouldn't parents be able to provide guidance in religion to which they feel fits?

I mean you said it yourself that your relationship with family has the potential(??) to suffer because of differences in religious belief.

Why should a catholic family take their child to church? I mean what are they supposed to do? Employ a baby sitter to watch them? Wouldn't it be better to promote togetherness in family?

You can't shelter kids from this. There are all these religious holidays out there. Christmas day is a religious holiday and I'm sure atheists have a nice old day off. How about non-believers work as normal on Christams day with no penalty pay considering it should be no different to any other?

Ever see the South Park where they had to alter the Christmas Play because of opposing beliefs? Yes. It's going to spawn into such nonsense one day.

If his book is such shit, and it irritates you so much - why on earth did you download it and suffer yourself reading halfway through it?

I really don't like the author of the book and honestly believe he choose a good time to cash in on people and how they see things and that's the only thing I can say about him. Excellent at opting in at the right time.

I don't think Dawkins was exactly hurting for "cash" at the time he published The God Delusion. He's a professor of sciences at Oxford, has had numerous other bestsellers in decades past, and is in top demand as a public speaker. You know he's getting paid handsomely. First you unfairly portrayed him as a kiddie propaganda pusher, now you're painting him as a get-rich-quick scam artist who is only after the bread.

You're right about one thing, and that is that his timing couldn't have been any better. Clearly, the public is thirsty for what he has to say, else he wouldn't be held in such high esteem by his professional peers and he wouldn't have his books placed (by the public) on national and international bestseller lists.

If his book is such shit, and it irritates you so much - why on earth did you download it and suffer yourself reading halfway through it?



I don't think Dawkins was exactly hurting for "cash" at the time he published The God Delusion. He's a professor of sciences at Oxford, has had numerous other bestsellers in decades past, and is in top demand as a public speaker. You know he's getting paid handsomely. First you unfairly portrayed him as a kiddie propaganda pusher, now you're painting him as a get-rich-quick scam artist who is only after the bread.

You're right about one thing, and that is that his timing couldn't have been any better. Clearly, the public is thirsty for what he has to say, else he wouldn't be held in such high esteem by his professional peers and he wouldn't have his books placed (by the public) on national and international bestseller lists.

Because I'm open to it? i downloaded it because he isn't going to get a cent that was made from hard work :p

I don't care for his financial status and considering he is an academic I don't care much for him fullstop (that's another personal story)

Uhh his professional peer is trying to tear what he says to shreds.

I stand strongly on my statement that no one should tell a parent how to raise their children, whether the opposing stance be on what clothes they wear, what school they go to or religion they are taught. Although again as with most things their has to be a line drawn. I do think someone has the right to step in for extreme scenarios like steering a child to be violent or something along those lines.

Because his was a reponse? Because it promotes acceptance more rather than simply laying down on the subject as someone like Dawkins would what (I assume :) )

His book promotes more than acceptance, Trousersnake. His book was published by The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, and his wife authored a book petting on psychological encounters with God, and how God yearns for his lost people. Both McGraths clearly have more than just their big toes dipped into the Belief Pool.

No one has that right.

Everyone has that right. Are you suggesting people don't have a right to write about what they believe in?

Now it's your turn to say "so what about parents?" which is a whole different ball game to me. My parents taught me how to read, dressed me, sent me to a education institution of their choice, etc, etc. Why shouldn't parents be able to provide guidance in religion to which they feel fits?

They can provide all the guidance they want to. In fact, it would be odd if they didn't provide their children with methods of guidance that they feel have helped them personally along the way. Guidance is one thing, but a strict, forced and structured law of adherence is another. How do you think perspectives are formed? Most are borrowed upon and expanded upon by adopting other people's methods. It would be unnatural to not be exposed to your parent's spiritual beliefs, yet cruel and unusual to be forced to adhere to them if one didn't genuinely reap the same amount of satisfaction from practicing it that their parents did.

I mean you said it yourself that your relationship with family has the potential(??) to suffer because of differences in religious belief.

It wouldn't have the potential to suffer at all if they did not adhere to a religion that had such disdain for godless heathens such as myself. That unfortunately is out of my control. I'd never turn my back on them due to their relationship with God. They should never turn their back on me due to my lack of one.

Why should a catholic family take their child to church? I mean what are they supposed to do? Employ a baby sitter to watch them? Wouldn't it be better to promote togetherness in family?

Promoting togetherness in family is very important! Taking your child to church isn't harmful. It's exposing them to one of many ideals concerning spirituality, and again, it's only natural to drag them around to the ones the parents themselves subscribe to.

What is harmful is teaching a child that the church they are going to houses people whose belief systems are superior to all others, is correct and factual beyond a shadow of a doubt (to which they don't dare inquire further - just take it as truth), and that other people's idea of spirituality or lack thereof is so false, that those poor misinformed people are going to roast in hell over it. That's what's harmful to a child, and that's what makes the child ill-equipped to think for themselves or accept other belief systems without feeling the guilt and experiencing the suffering that I referenced before.

You can't shelter kids from this.

And you shouldn't. You should encourage them to investigate and analyze for themselves all possible explanations for that which is religious in nature. Unfortunately, most religions do not promote this. In fact, most religions warn you of the inherent danger involved should you seek out other perspectives that may oppose their own! That hell and eternal suffering bit is dangled over their heads yet again.

There are all these religious holidays out there. Christmas day is a religious holiday and I'm sure atheists have a nice old day off. How about non-believers work as normal on Christams day with no penalty pay considering it should be no different to any other?

There's plenty of national holidays out there to afford them some time off. That all seems kind of trivial, considering atheists aren't the only people who get time off on religious holidays like Christmas and Easter. You're forgetting about every single other non-Christian who works in a country that is dominated by Christian tradition and practices.

Besides, do you think all Christians observe the X-mas holiday with full sanctity and reverence for the Almighty? They are not immune to gross consumerism and overdone tradition, either. They'll buy some X-mas cards with a picture of a shepherd and some snowflakes with a God inscription somewhere, and that's the extent of their ritual.

Everyone has that right. Are you suggesting people don't have a right to write about what they believe in?

There's plenty of national holidays out there to afford them some time off. That all seems kind of trivial, considering atheists aren't the only people who get time off on religious holidays like Christmas and Easter. You're forgetting about every single other non-Christian who works in a country that is dominated by Christian tradition and practices.


1. I meant no one has the right to tell a parent how or how not to raise their offspring

and

2. Yes true but this thread is about atheists afterall. Are you saying they HAVE to have the day off? That they deserve it? Of course they don't but why should anyone deserve that day off? That's what I was sort of suggesting...that it's getting out of hand.

2. Yes true but this thread is about atheists afterall. Are you saying they HAVE to have the day off? That they deserve it?

Of course not. Did you see me say that, or even come close to suggesting it?

Of course they don't but why should anyone deserve that day off? That's what I was sort of suggesting...that it's getting out of hand.

What I read was that you suggested that atheists should be forced to work on Christmas. You didn't say "anyone", you said atheists.

And again, Dawkins doesn't command people on how to raise their offspring. The book isn't subtitled: The God Delusion: How To Instill Dawkin's Values Onto Your Kids.

I read some of The God Delusion, I thought it was pretty good as it focused on all religions and not just Christianity.

But Trousersnake does have a point about the 'cashing in' aspect. Dawkins has got a bit of a reputation for publishing overpriced hardback books.

Still, overall it is a pretty good book, but as with any other book, you have to consider both sides to every argument and not get dragged in by hype or the attraction of 'jumping on the atheist bandwagon' as it were.

Dawkins has got a bit of a reputation for publishing overpriced hardback books.


Those overpriced hardback books of his wouldn't have much success if people didn't buy them. Also, authors don't set the prices - it's in the hands of the publishing market.

Perhaps The God Delusion got such acclaim because of it's aptly bold title, or maybe it's because, as Trousersnake pointed out, it happened to be released to the public at "just the right time" - a time when the public paradigm had finally begin to shift away from the ridiculous nonsense of such ficticious accounts as told by the Left Behind authors Jenkins and LaHaye.

Those overpriced hardback books of his wouldn't have much success if people didn't buy them. Also, authors don't set the prices - it's in the hands of the publishing market.

Perhaps The God Delusion got such acclaim because of it's aptly bold title, or maybe it's because, as Trousersnake pointed out, it happened to be released to the public at "just the right time" - a time when the public paradigm had finally begin to shift away from the ridiculous nonsense of such ficticious accounts as told by the Left Behind authors Jenkins and LaHaye.

Haha. I have actually read the first Left Behind book and yeah, I see what you mean. Ridiculous nonsense does just about sum it up, but it's not good ridiculous nonsense like Surrealist literature or fantasy but rather distasteful and possibly even dangerous Zionist propaganda.

You have a good point that it is the publisher that sets the cost not the author but still, Dawkins makes his fortune from the publisher so he is partially responsible. It is not too unlike the left-wing authors who attack intellectual property rights whilst using them to build their fortune. If these people were truly left-wing they would freely distribute their media in as many forms as possible without profit no?

So if it is truly Dawkins' aim to educate the populace then he would better serve it by publishing his works for free on the internet and releasing them without copyright to all publishers, thus drastically reducing the price to consumers. Dawkins' would still benefit from his wage as a professor and as a public speaker so I think he would still be able to live very comfortably.

So why exactly should he do it for free if people are willing to pay? Bet you're one of those people that yells at boyscouts collecting money to the poor how they're hypocrites for wearing expensive Nike shoes while doing it

So why exactly should he do it for free if people are willing to pay? Bet you're one of those people that yells at boyscouts collecting money to the poor how they're hypocrites for wearing expensive Nike shoes while doing it

Can o' worms. Why should Linux programmers do it for free?

And if some rich ass boy with nikes on asked me for money I'd tell them to fuck off haha Even if I were slamming a solid gold door in their faces :D

You have a good point that it is the publisher that sets the cost not the author but still, Dawkins makes his fortune from the publisher so he is partially responsible.

I'm still not clear on why it is bad form for a scientist to be paid for the material he publishes. Can someone help me out here?

It is not too unlike the left-wing authors who attack intellectual property rights whilst using them to build their fortune. If these people were truly left-wing they would freely distribute their media in as many forms as possible without profit no?

All of his material is available online at richarddawkins.net, including his lectures and scores of debates. Everything found inside the pages of The God Delusion is published, free of charge, on his website

Dawkins isn't the only scientist who publishes books and makes a profit. He can't help it that he's become so goddamned popular. :D

So if it is truly Dawkins' aim to educate the populace then he would better serve it by publishing his works for free on the internet and releasing them without copyright to all publishers, thus drastically reducing the price to consumers. Dawkins' would still benefit from his wage as a professor and as a public speaker so I think he would still be able to live very comfortably.

So then the publishers would receive all the royalties from his work, while he gets nothing besides the satisfaction of having done his part to further the progress of humanity? That's asinine. Those fools already make a killing.

I'm still not clear on why it is bad form for a scientist to be paid for the material he publishes. Can someone help me out here?



All of his material is available online at richarddawkins.net, including his lectures and scores of debates. Everything found inside the pages of The God Delusion is published, free of charge, on his website

Dawkins isn't the only scientist who publishes books and makes a profit. He can't help it that he's become so goddamned popular. :D



So then the publishers would receive all the royalties from his work, while he gets nothing besides the satisfaction of having done his part to further the progress of humanity? That's asinine. Those fools already make a killing.

Wow, really? I didn't realise he did that, that's cool. Well disregard my previous post then.

He seems like a pretty good guy then, I wish him good luck in defeating the religions of the world..

Jehovas Witnesses are not Christian.

They are cult!

All religions are cults.

At least coming to your door and being pushy is better then going to other countries and standing in the streets yelling at everyone that if they don't become Christian then they are going to hell, like what used to happen. Fucking sick

They can decide who and what they want to be when they are at the stage in their life upon which it becomes clear to them.

That's exactly what Dawkins is saying!

Dawkins doesn't say they should indoctrinate them into atheism, he says they shouldn't indoctrinate them. Period. They should let the children decide at a stage in their life when it becomes clear to them.

It fucking fails all the way through, people's thoughts and beliefs don't remain constant throughout their lives so what's to say an 'informed' person wouldn't have a revloation in life making him turn from atheist to 'born again' Christian? Yes. A person could change his belief system. Great, who said otherwise? What does that have to do with anything?

Are you suggesting that someone who has been indoctrinated since birth into a certain belief system can change his whole world view just as easily as someone who hasn't been indoctrinated?


As for your third point - Anyone trying to recruit people are asses in my books no matter what the hell they are however I will point out there is a huge difference between strangers and your own flesh and blood.Great. You've made my point. Thank you.

And yes, there is a difference between a stranger and your parent. A stranger might bother you a few seconds of your life, your parents could indoctrinate you into their belief systems for decades. A huge fucking difference, I agree!

Atheists may be pushy and "in your face," but so are other religions.

The main goal is to get you to believe in what they believe (or convert you, in simple terms).

Ever notice that when you don't believe, they get angry, and when you disprove them, they get "in your face" because they have no response?

;)

Religion = fear in my book. (not downing anyone)