Theism vs. Atheism ... will it ever be settled?

@Iván: I don't care about this particular petition, or about whether Dawkins signed it or whether he retracted his signature. Atheism carries no dogma, and when you get 20 Atheists to debate on an issue you might easily get 20 different opinions. What most Atheists agree on though is that each of us should think for themselves. I skimmed the petition and what it was about and then said I agreed with what it was about - but I also said before and afterwards that this can't be done if the rights of the parents are violated in the process. Maybe Dawkins later realized that the petition was going too far, or that some details were wrong - I don't know. But even then, the petition wasn't about "forbidding religion".

And about why I chose the video: My point was that some religious people abuse their children - for religious reasons. I also stated numerous times that there are many Theists who would never do something as extreme as that. But why should I not choose an extreme video to make the case? I also think that, numerically speaking, the attitude represented in that video is not a *small* minority. I really think that moderate Christians should watch the documentary. The source of the evil actions is faith - believing without evidence.

Don't bother - I found it:



Now: is there anyone who thinks that in this context it is offensive?

And some more context:



See? Just a few more words of context totally change the meaning.

CCVP wrote: Atually Mike, though you wasn't so uneducated, you basically did the same thing some pages ago, so I can pretty much see a pattern here.

How so - which particular incident are you referring to?

@Iván: More details about the petition:

http://www.heardworld.com/higgaion/?p=496

and in particular, Dawkins' comment to clarify:

"I did sign the petition, but I hadn’t thought it through when I did so, and I now regret it. I have asked the organizer to remove my name. Unfortunately, it seems that the list has already gone off to Downing Street but the organizer, Jamie Wallis, has kindly asked their web manager to remove my name. I suspect that he himself may be having second thoughts about the wording, and I respect him for that. It isn’t always easy to get the exact wording right.

I signed it having read only the main petition: “We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to make it illegal to indoctrinate or define children by religion before the age of 16.” I regret to say that I did not notice the supporting statement with the heading, “More details from petition creator”: “In order to encourage free thinking, children should not be subjected to any regular religious teaching or be allowed to be defined as belonging to a particular religious group based on the views of their parents or guardians.” If I had read that, I certainly would not have signed the petition, because, as explained in The God Delusion, I am in favour of teaching the Bible as literature, and I am in favour of teaching comparative religion. In any case, like any decent liberal, I am opposed to the element of government coercion in the wording. Furthermore, the Prime Minister, thank goodness, does not have the power to ‘make’ anything ‘illegal’. Only parliament has the power to do that.

I signed the main petition, because I really am passionately opposed to DEFINING children by the religion of their parents (while ‘indoctrination’ is such a loaded word, nobody could be in favour of it). I was so delighted to hear of somebody else who cared about the defining or labelling of children by the religion of their parents (how would you react if you heard a child described as a ‘secular humanist child’ or a ‘neo-conservative child’?) that I signed it without reading on and without thinking. Mea culpa."

I choose to believe that there are more options than those two. Besides, what would be the point of your profession if everyone was reading the fine prints of what they sign?

EDIT: Now there are three options ... I don't buy the third one either. How about

4. I made a mistake, and I have no problems admitting it

?


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 06 2010 at 13:44

I actually agree with the line that you quoted, and I actually don't care much about it.

There you go with communism again. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you, so I won't make the mistake to keep trying to.

BTW: If you find any videos that draw a connection between Atheism and the slaughtering of priests ... by all means, go ahead and post them.


Edited by Mr ProgFreak - September 06 2010 at 14:00

^ Yeah, bend the truth some more to bolster your case. And don't dare to show any sense of humor.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: I actually agree with the line that you quoted, and I actually don't care much about it.   Explain us how is this play of words...You agree with the document but you don't care about it.

I don't believe you when you say you don't understand that.

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: There you go with communism again. It is impossible to have a rational discussion with you, so I won't make the mistake to keep trying to.   Mike, you want to make an abstraction that doesn't work, there are ATEIST governments who massacred prriessts, pastors, monks and small religious ethnias, cassually the same vcountrieds that made atheism official, yes most f them are also Communists, but this doesn't take their atheist believes.

It's ridiculous to call those "Atheist governments". I explained what the Atheist position is, and there is no logical pathway from that to violence. BTW: Hitler was a vegetarian, and both Hitler and Stalin had mustaches. Go figure.

Iván wrote: Mr ProgFreak wrote: BTW: If you find any videos that draw a connection between Atheism and the slaughtering of priests ... by all means, go ahead and post them.   No Mike, I leave the videos to you.   Iván

I see ... and I thought your post was just an empty threat.

No videos, but this article on State Atheism: