1/13/09

Richard Dawkins - "Brave New Schools - Dad links son's suicide to 'The God Delusion'"

FYI: this post has been moved here.
Share |

TwitThis

Posted by Ken
Labels: ,

41 comments:

  1. ReynoldJanuary 14, 2009 at 3:33 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. ReynoldJanuary 14, 2009 at 3:50 AM

    I'm sorry, but that nonesense has been thoroughly dissected already.

    a more realistic assessment of any "effects" of Dawkins' book, and a more realistic assessment of the potential reasons for the suicide.

    ReplyDelete
  3. ReynoldJanuary 14, 2009 at 3:54 AM

    As has been pointed out, the son had hidden the copy of Dawkin's book from his father. That should tell you something about how "approachable" the father must have been in the first place.

    ReplyDelete
  4. metalozJanuary 14, 2009 at 4:10 AM

    These are merely assumptions and spectulation and until you can dissect the cognitive processes of what was the cause (And no one can) reading blather on RDFs board doent mean much.

    ReplyDelete
  5. ReynoldJanuary 14, 2009 at 5:50 AM

    Guess what? It's all assumptions and speculation when that guy is trying to blame a book for his son's suicide.

    At least the "blather" on Dawkins site includes some more reasonable speculation than what that guy's father is putting forth. They are people who've actually read the book in question in several instances and report that there's nothing in there to make a person commit suicide.

    They also at least have actual facts backing them up when they note from the sources that the guy was too afraid to even talk about the book to his father. That's got to indicate something about his father.


    I notice that you've said nothing about the "blather" that his father or the WND people put forth about his son's death, even though you yourself admit that no one can dissect the causes of his suicide.

    Why aren't you consistent?

    You want to try again?

    ReplyDelete
  6. metalozJanuary 14, 2009 at 7:06 AM

    "Guess what? It's all assumptions and speculation when that guy is trying to blame a book for his son's suicide".

    The word was linked not blamed.
    From the evidence the book may have affected his mental state

    "At least the "blather" on Dawkins site includes some more reasonable speculation than what that guy's father is putting forth. They are people who've actually read the book in question in several instances and report that there's nothing in there to make a person commit suicide"

    Real life hands on to an internet message board speculation give me a break.
    So Dawkins apostles have given it a safety tag, nice.

    "They also at least have actual facts backing them up when they note from the sources that the guy was too afraid to even talk about the book to his father. That's got to indicate something about his father"

    when your minds that messed up you may want to keep things to yourself but it would have been nice if he did or could. These kinds of subjects are very personal and some people dont discuss these with family I know theres many things I prefer to keep to myself.

    "I notice that you've said nothing about the "blather" that his father or the WND people put forth about his son's death, even though you yourself admit that no one can dissect the causes of his suicide.
    Why aren't you consistent?"

    Ok its a statement from a father describing what my have contributed to his son committing suicide. There you go

    ReplyDelete
  7. LeslieJanuary 14, 2009 at 7:31 AM

    Reynold says:

    "Guess what? It's all assumptions and speculation when that guy is trying to blame a book for his son's suicide."

    Then Continues:

    "They also at least have actual facts backing them up when they note from the sources that the guy was too afraid to even talk about the book to his father. That's got to indicate something about his father."

    So you don't like speculations unless you get to do the speculating. Fair enough.

    And to save you the time of saying that I ignored the part about him not being able to talk to his father: yes I did read that part but it does not change the fact that you're still speculating as to why he did not talk to his father. You have no evidence whatsoever that there was something wrong with the father (i.e. you are speculating).

    ReplyDelete
  8. ReynoldJanuary 14, 2009 at 7:56 AM

    metaloz said, quoting me:

    "Guess what? It's all assumptions and speculation when that guy is trying to blame a book for his son's suicide".
    The word was linked not blamed.
    Ever give any thought as to why it was linked, in a sight like this, by a person who has more than one specific "anti-Dawkins" blog? Do you realize that the linked article does assign blame to Dawkin's book?

    Think now. The whole purpose of this site is to attack atheism, and Dawkins is a prominent atheist. So the story is linked without comment, yet you can't see why the story was linked here in the first place?

    From the evidence the book may have affected his mental state
    Right...so why has no one else ever killed themselves after reading Dawkin's stuff? Ever think that maybe it's something else besides the book that may be the issue?

    One thing I've seen and experienced is that when one is raised in fundy religion, one's self-worth is deliberately associated with god-belief. Creationists are always saying that without "god", if we just evolved, that we have no value, our lives have no meaning.

    If that rubbish was true, the suicide and crime rates would be lower in the xian-dominated States as opposed to the more secular Europe countries and places like Japan and New Zealand. That's not the case.

    It's the theists/creationists who are planting the seeds of poison in people's minds, not the atheists. As was said here:

    You can bet that this will immediately become part of that artifice of silly myths that make up the fundamentalist "worldview" (a term I despise), a cautionary tale against reading dangerous ideas because they'll make you go crazy and kill yourself. Because obviously, having been raised for 22 years in a Christian household had no effect at all on him psychologically, but reading a single book pushed him over the edge.
    If that guy's father is correct, then all the years of raising his son was blown away by one book. Is he trying to attribute biblical-type power to Dawkins' book or something?

    Let's face it: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if reading one innocuous book that had no suicidal effects on anyone else was supposedly able to drive this kid over the edge, then there was something wrong with that kid in the first place.

    For one thing, it's been noted that:
    Given that the suicide rate for Iraq veterans keeps rising, I'd look past Jesse's reading list before claiming that reading about evolution and atheism results in suicide. Perhaps I'm just overly squeamish about treating anecdotes as data.

    He goes on to talk about a relevent psychological phenomenom where gays whose parents reject them have a higher suicide rate. He notes that the Disco people, who pretended to care about Kilgore say nothing about that.


    "At least the "blather" on Dawkins site includes some more reasonable speculation than what that guy's father is putting forth. They are people who've actually read the book in question in several instances and report that there's nothing in there to make a person commit suicide"
    Real life hands on to an internet message board speculation give me a break.
    You have no problem with the speculation of others who also, as I've pointed out earlier:
    I notice that you've said nothing about the "blather" that his father or the WND people put forth about his son's death, even though you yourself admit that no one can dissect the causes of his suicide.

    Why aren't you consistent in your condemnation of people speculating on something that they can't prove?


    So Dawkins apostles have given it a safety tag, nice.
    Note that so far, no one else among the readers of that book has committed suicide, "apostle" or not. That should tell you something.

    I wasn't aware that Dawkins had any apostles, If you'd actually bother reading something over there you'd see that they disagree with him on things more than any so-called "apostle" does.

    As well, I'll note that his board is not the only place where that WND article is being shot down, as I've shown.

    Lastly, don't project your religious cult-style of "thinking" onto others.

    "They also at least have actual facts backing them up when they note from the sources that the guy was too afraid to even talk about the book to his father. That's got to indicate something about his father"
    when your minds that messed up you may want to keep things to yourself but it would have been nice if he did or could. These kinds of subjects are very personal and some people dont discuss these with family I know theres many things I prefer to keep to myself.
    So what was the cause then? Was the kids' mind "messed up", or did Dawkins little book do it? Do you really believe that one book that affected no one else like that, is to blame?

    Don't you think maybe if the kid went to his father and talked with him, it might have helped??


    "I notice that you've said nothing about the "blather" that his father or the WND people put forth about his son's death, even though you yourself admit that no one can dissect the causes of his suicide.
    Why aren't you consistent?"
    Ok its a statement from a father describing what may have contributed to his son committing suicide. There you go
    As you said though: no one can dissect the causes of the kids suicide.

    Again, you have no problem with the people who blame the reading of a single book that doesn't actually promote suicide, yet when other people point that fact out, then you have a problem with their speculation.

    Speculation is only good so long as the proper "villian" is pegged, right?


    Something else to consider:

    While we can only feel sorry for a tragic loss of life such as this, the fact remains that many of us have had our faith challenged by science, and have lost that faith as a result, but have not committed suicide. A desire to cling to fairy tales should not be used as an excuse to ignore the scientific evidence.

    In other words: even if that nonesense is true, it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

    What the Disco Institute, WND and now Mariano is trying to do is to try to make evolution look "bad" or "distateful" so that people won't want to believe it, while ignoring the fact that: even if that nonesense is true, it has no bearing on the truth or falsity of the theory of evolution.

    One thing to think about: If ond insists on believing that nonsense charge was true, then it was able to shoot down the faith of a person who was raised in the xian faith and he was unable to find any counter-argument for Dawkins' book.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ReynoldJanuary 14, 2009 at 8:13 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  10. ReynoldJanuary 14, 2009 at 8:16 AM

    Leslie says, quoting me:

    "Guess what? It's all assumptions and speculation when that guy is trying to blame a book for his son's suicide."

    "They also at least have actual facts backing them up when they note from the sources that the guy was too afraid to even talk about the book to his father. That's got to indicate something about his father."

    So you don't like speculations unless you get to do the speculating. Fair enough.
    I notice you don't level that charge against those who blame Dawkin's book; fair enough.


    I'm pointing out that those people who blame Dawkins' book are assigning blame without any evidence. Yes, they are speculating; what I'm doing is I'm pointing out that there are other issues at work.

    That he felt he couldn't talk to his father is fact, there has to be something behind that since that's not how the family's supposed to work, is it? The idea that Dawkins' book led the kid to kill himself is speculation.

    Think about it: there has to be something else wrong since no one else in record has killed themselves after reading Dawkin's book. Perhaps the articles I linked to previously about the high suicide rates among veterans may be a factor.
    At least with that, there's amble evidence to show that it happens, unlike say: people killing themselves after reading Dawkins book

    And to save you the time of saying that I ignored the part about him not being able to talk to his father: yes I did read that part but it does not change the fact that you're still speculating as to why he did not talk to his father.
    The fact that he hid the book from his father indicates something. He felt he couldn't confide in his father. That's apparent fact.


    You have no evidence whatsoever that there was something wrong with the father (i.e. you are speculating).
    Given that he felt that he couldn't go to his father with his problems? That's "speculation" that's a lot stronger than blaming one book that no one else killed themselves after reading, for the kids death. Talk about "speculating with no evidence".

    The fact that he felt that he couldn't go to his father is indicative that there were other problems other than some book. Besides, as I've shown with the cases of homosexuality in my last post, there is a strong correlation between how the parents accept their children's gayness and the depression/suicide rates of homosexuals who come out. Just how idle is that speculation?

    This seems to have been the same thing, only it deals with religion, not homosexuality. Even speculatory as it is, it's got more evidence going for it than the idea that Dawkin's book led him to kill himself.

    ReplyDelete
  11. LeslieJanuary 14, 2009 at 8:36 AM

    I don't know what the book had to do with things. I have no idea at all about the guy's background or any of that. I think it's odd to blame a book for a guy's suicide, but honestly I think it more odd that any media outlet should pick it up considering the man is clearly stricken with grief. People say all sorts of stuff in periods of trouble.

    As it is, I don't see it as the dad blaming just Dawkin's book for the suicide. I see him blaming the entire atheistic worldview, of which Dawkin's book is a rather large part in our modern times. Dawkin's book is almost a symbol for it. And while I don't really know what led this fellow to carry out this particular deed, I can say one thing fairly confidently - the atheistic worldview can do little to prevent such a thing. A philosophy of despair and ultimate meaninglessness has little to offer a person who feels his life his meaningless. But I suppose that discussion is beyond the scope of this particular issue.

    Anyway, my point is, I don't know what led the fellow to kill himself, but I think it's at least just as odd to suggest the father had some issue. Maybe the son just didn't want to disappoint his dad, which would not be a problem with the father but a rather typical relationship between father and son. Or maybe the son was afraid he'd end up making his father lose his faith, and didn't want to take that joy from him. Or maybe ... (you fill in the blank). The evidence really doesn't seem to go in favor of the father having some sort of problem, and that is speculation just as much as anything else.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Scary JesusJanuary 14, 2009 at 9:18 AM

    Leslie said: "I think it's odd to blame a book for a guy's suicide, but honestly I think it more odd that any media outlet should pick it up considering the man is clearly stricken with grief. People say all sorts of stuff in periods of trouble."

    Thank you Leslie, I think you put your finger right on it.

    Trying to connect this book to someones suicide is a cheap shot. I think Mariano should reconsider this post. This is not the level of "answering atheism" that I believe he is striving for.

    ReplyDelete
  13. AnonymousJanuary 14, 2009 at 2:53 PM

    Am I the only one who thinks that "..he went into a forest and shot himself.." indicates something? He obviously had easy access to a gun. Most suicide attempts are impulsive, desperate acts. When attempted with drugs or other methods, the victim is often given a second chance, to seek help and treatment. Guns don't usually leave people with a second chance, so there the impulse of the moment decides the outcome.

    ReplyDelete
  14. AnonymousJanuary 14, 2009 at 4:10 PM

    Way to go tremor, you're almost there.

    ReplyDelete
  15. jdhueyJanuary 14, 2009 at 4:34 PM

    This topic has led me back to a bunch of questions that I have regarding promoting rational thought and debunking woo. I know that I have intentionally NOT engaged in discussions about religion and other weird beliefs with certain people because I did not think that they were mentally well balanced enough to deal with any significant challenges to their delusions. My question has been how do I decide when that position is just paternalistic elitism, when is it justifiable prudence, when is it just intellectual laziness and when is it merely good social form? There are any number of people and religions that strive to make people emotionally dependent on their particular brand of woo and, in general, I know it a bad thing for that to happen. However, given that someone IS already emotionally dependent, I'm reluctant to accept the moral responsibility in attempting to 'detox' them.

    ReplyDelete
  16. metalozJanuary 14, 2009 at 6:31 PM

    "Ever give any thought as to why it was linked, in a sight like this, by a person who has more than one specific
    "anti-Dawkins" blog? Do you realize that the linked article does assign blame to Dawkin's book?
    Think now. The whole purpose of this site is to attack atheism, and Dawkins is a prominent atheist.
    So the story is linked without comment, yet you can't see why the story was linked here in the first place?"



    "Right...so why has no one else ever killed themselves after reading Dawkin's stuff?"

    There may be others who knows sorry but I dont have access to police files.

    "Ever think that maybe it's something else besides the book that may be the issue?"

    Absolutely there could be a number of contributing factors

    "Let's face it: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if reading one innocuous book that had no suicidal
    effects on anyone else was supposedly able to drive this kid over the edge, then there was something wrong with
    that kid in the first place."

    Sheez glad you had a summary for that last passage. Of course there was something wrong with the boy his
    head was obviously messed up he needed psycological the point being made is The Dawkins guide to life
    did not help. Please stop the copy pastes or at least summarise them briefly.

    "Note that so far, no one else among the readers of that book has committed suicide, "apostle" or not.
    That should tell you something."

    Yes it does. Its news

    "I wasn't aware that Dawkins had any apostles, If you'd actually bother reading something over there
    you'd see that they disagree with him on things more than any so-called "apostle" does."

    I have but can only stomach so of his shit dont stink so I prefer to watch his videos read his books then
    think for myself

    As well, I'll note that his board is not the only place where that WND article is being shot down, as I've shown.
    Lastly, don't project your religious cult-style of "thinking" onto others.

    My religious cult style thinking lol. Amazing how youve twisted a very simple opinion to come to that
    conclusion. You know nothing about me. Its the other way round bro Im afraid

    "So what was the cause then?"

    Dont know

    "Was the kids' mind "messed up"

    Obviously

    "or did Dawkins little book do it?"

    may have contributed to the boys mental state

    "Do you really believe that one book that affected no one else like that, is to blame?"

    ReplyDelete
  17. Lou GojiraJanuary 14, 2009 at 7:28 PM

    All I can think to say about this article is that I'm sorry to hear about this young man's suicide. But I have to agree with Leslie when he wrote:

    "...I think it more odd that any media outlet should pick it up considering the man is clearly stricken with grief. People say all sorts of stuff in periods of trouble."

    It makes me think of how certain video games or certain songs have gotten the blame in the past for other suicides. The people most affected by the suicide(s) are grief-stricken and desperate for answers, and in my opinion it's really nothing short of exploitation whenever a media outlet puts a microphone in front of these folks in their times of sorrow.

    I'm a little past the halfway point of reading The God Delusion for myself, and while I think the book is really nothing more than an exercise in hyperbole and wishful thinking (at least so far), I can't honestly think of the book as a push toward suicide. Odds are there were many other factors at work in this young man's death, but unless we're friends or family of the guy it's really none of our business. I wish the media would learn to leave certain things alone.

    ReplyDelete
  18. ReynoldJanuary 14, 2009 at 8:10 PM

    metaloz said quoting me:

    "Ever give any thought as to why it was linked, in a sight like this, by a person who has more than one specific
    "anti-Dawkins" blog? Do you realize that the linked article does assign blame to Dawkin's book?
    Think now. The whole purpose of this site is to attack atheism, and Dawkins is a prominent atheist.
    So the story is linked without comment, yet you can't see why the story was linked here in the first place?"




    "Right...so why has no one else ever killed themselves after reading Dawkin's stuff?"
    There may be others who knows sorry but I dont have access to police files.
    Given that Dawkin's books have circulated among millions of people for years and this is the first time we've heard of this happening, I think it's a safe assumption.

    If one were to think otherwise, he'd be the one to have to gather up the evidence that other people have committed suicide after reading his books.


    "Ever think that maybe it's something else besides the book that may be the issue?"
    Absolutely there could be a number of contributing factors
    Yay, a breakthrough. Thing is, why do you suppose that the WND and the religious right people are harping on Dawkin's book as if it's the main or only cause?

    "Let's face it: it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that if reading one innocuous book that had no suicidal
    effects on anyone else was supposedly able to drive this kid over the edge, then there was something wrong with
    that kid in the first place."
    Sheez glad you had a summary for that last passage.
    Well, I don't know anything about you, as you pointed out, so I've no idea of the level of your reading comprehension.

    Of course there was something wrong with the boy his
    head was obviously messed up he needed psycological the point being made is The Dawkins guide to life
    did not help.
    Uh, "guide to life"? Are we talking about the same book here? Dawkins was arguing against religion in that book. As far as I know, the only "guide" he gave was for people to practice more critical thinking.

    Books about knitting wouldn't have "helped" that boy either but you don't see any instances where they're being blamed for suicides.

    The point that I tried making earlier which you didn't bother to read was that even if that accusation was true, it has no bearing on the truth or falseness of the claims in Dawkins' book. The xian right is trying to imply that Dawkin's book is wrong because of it.

    Please stop the copy pastes or at least summarise them briefly.
    What good would it do? You missed the point at the very end of one of my replies. I do more than just "cut and paste" you know. Try reading.

    "Note that so far, no one else among the readers of that book has committed suicide, "apostle" or not.
    That should tell you something."
    Yes it does. Its news
    Or, given that Dawkins' books have been out for years among millions of people without nothing like this happening, this could be b.s. or just plain scapegoating?

    That didn't occur to you, did it?


    "I wasn't aware that Dawkins had any apostles, If you'd actually bother reading something over there you'd see that they disagree with him on things more than any so-called "apostle" does."
    I have but can only stomach so of his shit dont stink so I prefer to watch his videos read his books then think for myself
    "his shit"? Please, tell us why you think that. If you'd bother reading more you'd have seen the accuracy of my above statement.

    Gee, I bet you think that we don't think for ourselves? If that's the case, then you're the one who knows nothing about me, or about skeptics, humanists, or atheists in general.

    It's religion where they have holy books that tell them what and how to think.

    As well, I'll note that his board is not the only place where that WND article is being shot down, as I've shown.
    Lastly, don't project your religious cult-style of "thinking" onto others.
    My religious cult style thinking lol.
    I take it then that you're not religious?

    If it turns out you are then....

    Amazing how youve twisted a very simple opinion to come to that conclusion. You know nothing about me. Its the other way round bro Im afraid
    Oh? Justify that statement please. In what way have I exhibited cult-like behaviour?

    You used a religious appelation to describe the people on RD's forum. It's inaccurate, I called you out on it.



    "So what was the cause then?"
    Dont know
    So why aren't you taking umbrage at those who, like WND and Mariano who posted this article are wildly speculating that Dawkin's book was the cause?

    Oh that's right, you have an escape clause: "It may have contritbuted".

    So, if someone goes nuts after reading the bible and say, kills those who he suspects are witches then, is the bible to have any blame, or is it all just because of whatever prior conditions the person may have had?

    "Was the kids' mind "messed up"

    Obviously
    Yay, one point of agreement.

    "or did Dawkins little book do it?"
    may have contributed to the boys mental state
    How so please? And what caused the "mental state" to begin with?

    ReplyDelete
  19. metalozJanuary 17, 2009 at 6:25 AM

    "Ever give any thought as to why it was linked, in a sight like this, by a person who has more than one
    specific "anti-Dawkins" blog?

    Your point ?

    "Do you realize that the linked article does assign blame to Dawkin's book?"

    No and Ive just read it again and the word blame doesnt arise once

    "Think now. The whole purpose of this site is to attack atheism, and Dawkins is a prominent atheist.
    So the story is linked without comment, yet you can't see why the story was linked here in the first place?"

    Well done it is a critique of atheism ? I havent seen anyone from this site blaming Dawkins

    "Given that Dawkin's books have circulated among millions of people for years and this is the
    first time we've heard of this happening, I think it's a safe assumption."

    This is probably a rare and isolated case as in the suicides of people who have listened to Judas Priest
    and Ozzy records. People have committed suicide over many things losing their jobs etc etc
    The sole point Im making is you are trying to discmiss the account of the sources closest to
    the boy and replace them with assumptions and specualtion from a radical internet
    message board

    "Yay, a breakthrough. Thing is, why do you suppose that the WND and the religious right people are

    harping on Dawkin's book as if it's the main or only cause?"

    Again you really should read it again there were many factors mentioned

    "Uh, "guide to life"? Are we talking about the same book here? Dawkins was arguing against religion in
    that book. As far as I know, the only "guide" he gave was for people to practice more critical thinking."

    So if one thinks critically and comes to the conclusion God exists is that OK with you people ? Coughs

    "Books about knitting wouldn't have "helped" that boy either but you don't see any instances where
    they're being blamed for suicides."

    Actually you may be wrong here knitting can be rather therapeutic you should try it. Dawkins book is an
    attack on peoples beliefs.

    "What good would it do? You missed the point at the very end of one of my replies. I do more than just
    "cut and paste" you know. Try reading.'

    Sorry but I have a tendancy to skip arduous irrelevant side tracking banter. Time is short

    "Or, given that Dawkins' books have been out for years among millions of people without nothing like this
    happening, this could be b.s. or just plain scapegoating?
    That didn't occur to you, did it?"

    Im araid I can only read it as written and Im afraid I interpretted it as a sad story
    and are not the one concocting the idea of it possibly being a sick joke

    "I wasn't aware that Dawkins had any apostles, If you'd actually bother reading something over there
    you'd see that they disagree with him on things more than any so-called "apostle" does."

    Ok Is devout followers better then

    "his shit"? Please, tell us why you think that. If you'd bother reading more you'd have seen the accuracy
    of my above statement."

    I was referring the Ilk on his message boards not Dawkins himself I actually quite like him occasionally.
    But I can only take so much before the adulation and intransigence portrayed by his followers postings

    cause my eyes to get tired from rolling.

    "Gee, I bet you think that we don't think for ourselves?
    If that's the case, then you're the one who knows
    nothing about me, or about skeptics, humanists, or atheists in general"
    It's religion where they have holy books that tell them what and how to think."

    This is another thread you are really starting to sidetrack the innitial point raised

    "You used a religious appelation to describe the people on RD's forum. It's inaccurate,
    I called you out on it."

    At least we're back where we started . My was what point is what presidence does an internet message

    board has over those closest to the source

    "So what was the cause then?"

    Dont know

    So why aren't you taking umbrage at those who, like WND and Mariano who posted this article are wildly
    speculating that Dawkin's book was the cause?

    Making up stories are we ? Where have they speculated that ? They have simply posted a story made
    no accusations, and made no comment . I have no reason to take umbrage.

    "Oh that's right, you have an escape clause:

    "It may have contributed" Thats right

    "So, if someone goes nuts after reading the bible and say, kills those who he suspects are witches then,
    is the bible to have any blame, or is it all just because of whatever prior conditions the person may have
    had?"

    Id say yes burn it and condemn it to hell for all eternity. lol

    "or did Dawkins little book do it?"
    How so please?

    Read the article and keep on interpretting it your way!

    "And what caused the "mental state" to begin with?"

    Oh dear, Now your asking me to play psycologist

    ReplyDelete
  20. ReynoldJanuary 17, 2009 at 12:15 PM

    metaloz said quoting me:

    "Ever give any thought as to why it was linked, in a sight like this, by a person who has more than one
    specific "anti-Dawkins" blog?
    Your point ?
    Isn't it obvious? Mariano is just another fundy who's got an axe to grind against Dawkins because Dawkins dared to criticize his religion, and so in the tried-and-true tactic of theists, he's mud-slinging.

    "Do you realize that the linked article does assign blame to Dawkin's book?"
    No and Ive just read it again and the word blame doesnt arise once
    Do you really need to see the word "blame"? Can't you tell from the context that that's what the article is doing? By your standard of thinking then, since "rapture" isn't in the bible, there won't be one. Context and reading comprehension. Look at the title for god's sake: Brave New Schools - Dad links son's suicide to 'The God Delusion'


    "Think now. The whole purpose of this site is to attack atheism, and Dawkins is a prominent atheist.
    So the story is linked without comment, yet you can't see why the story was linked here in the first place?"
    Well done it is a critique of atheism ? I havent seen anyone from this site blaming Dawkins
    It's an attack on Dawkins who is himself a prominent proponent of atheism. As I said, read the article, and note it's title. It's basically an ad-hom attack against him.

    "Given that Dawkin's books have circulated among millions of people for years and this is the
    first time we've heard of this happening, I think it's a safe assumption."
    This is probably a rare and isolated case as in the suicides of people who have listened to Judas Priest
    and Ozzy records.
    Yep. So you're taking back that comment about how you don't know how many people died because of Dawkin's book because you haven't read the police records? (that statement implied that there may be lots more people who killed themselves over it).

    People have committed suicide over many things losing their jobs etc etc
    The sole point Im making is you are trying to dismiss the account of the sources closest to
    the boy and replace them with assumptions and specualtion from a radical internet message board
    "radical internet message board"? Until I start seeing calls for suicide bomers on there, I really don't think there's any basis for saying that it's "radical".

    No, the point I'm making is that the father is blaming a book that, at least unlike the lyrics in some of those groups songs you mentioned, does not talk about or promote suicide or murder. True, those songs only affected those already touched in the head, but that shows that this kid must have also had problems. There's even less reason to assume that Dawkin's book was responsible for that kids' death than there was for blaming those other suicides on those songs. (ie. NONE).

    The father is scapegoating, pure and simple.

    "Yay, a breakthrough. Thing is, why do you suppose that the WND and the religious right people are harping on Dawkin's book as if it's the main or only cause?"
    Again you really should read it again there were many factors mentioned
    Hello...I did read it, but the emphasis was on Dawkin's book. Again, one can see that from the TITLE of the linked article.

    "Uh, "guide to life"? Are we talking about the same book here? Dawkins was arguing against religion in
    that book. As far as I know, the only "guide" he gave was for people to practice more critical thinking."
    So if one thinks critically and comes to the conclusion God exists is that OK with you people ? Coughs
    Nice dodge. I pointed out that Dawkins' book was not a guide to life. Are you agreeing with me now?

    As for people coming to believe that "god" exists, it doesn't matter to me, but the vast majority of experience I've read and heard about, it goes the other way around. From what I've experienced, thinking critically defeats religion, not enforces it.

    "Books about knitting wouldn't have "helped" that boy either but you don't see any instances where
    they're being blamed for suicides."
    Actually you may be wrong here knitting can be rather therapeutic you should try it. Dawkins book is an attack on peoples beliefs.
    So what? Now you are trying to link Dawkins' book to the suicide? Guess what? All sorts of books out there attack people's beliefs in one thing or another.

    One thing you've left out: many people say that they feel better about themselves once they've deconverted. Check out exchristian.net.

    "What good would it do? You missed the point at the very end of one of my replies. I do more than just
    "cut and paste" you know. Try reading.'
    Sorry but I have a tendancy to skip arduous irrelevant side tracking banter. Time is short
    So's your attention span, it seems. Not good when you're trying to have a debate. There was nothing irrelevent about the links and excerpts I had posted. You're just ignoring them.

    "Or, given that Dawkins' books have been out for years among millions of people without nothing like this
    happening, this could be b.s. or just plain scapegoating?
    That didn't occur to you, did it?"
    Im araid I can only read it as written and Im afraid I interpretted it as a sad story
    and are not the one concocting the idea of it possibly being a sick joke
    I certainly don't take the story as a sick joke, where did I say I had?

    "I wasn't aware that Dawkins had any apostles, If you'd actually bother reading something over there
    you'd see that they disagree with him on things more than any so-called "apostle" does."
    Ok Is devout followers better then?
    Devout followers don't disagree with the person they're following do they? While they admire the man, they do disagree with him from time to time.

    As I said: try actually reading over there. "Devout followers" is just as much bs as "apostles". As I said earlier, stop projecting fundy religious views on people who aren't even religious.

    "his shit"? Please, tell us why you think that. If you'd bother reading more you'd have seen the accuracy
    of my above statement."
    I was referring the Ilk on his message boards not Dawkins himself I actually quite like him occasionally.
    Then maybe you shouldn't have said his shit then, should you?

    But I can only take so much before the adulation and intransigence portrayed by his followers postings
    Adulation? Please. At most it's respect and some admiration, but "adulation"? Then I guess "adulation" is the word for all the apostles of George Bush among the repugs then?


    "Gee, I bet you think that we don't think for ourselves?
    If that's the case, then you're the one who knows
    nothing about me, or about skeptics, humanists, or atheists in general"
    It's religion where they have holy books that tell them what and how to think."
    This is another thread you are really starting to sidetrack the innitial point raised
    Wrong. I'm just shooting down an accusation that you implied. If you don't like it, stop doing it.

    "You used a religious appelation to describe the people on RD's forum. It's inaccurate,
    I called you out on it."
    At least we're back where we started . My was what point is what precidence does an internet message board has over those closest to the source
    The one "closest to the source" doesn't bring up any evidence for his accusation. We're just pointing it out, and if you bothered to read the board, you'd have noticed that Dawkins' board isn't the only place where that was brought up.

    One thing you've left out, oftentimes, the one "closest to the source" isn't all the reliable in diagnosing illnesses. Doctors generally are. For example, think of the cases where the parents ("the ones closest to the source") of troubled kids tried to excorcise them because they thought the kids were "possessed".

    "So what was the cause then?"
    Dont know
    So you now agree that the "person closest to the source" was wrong by linking his son's suicide to the "God Delusion"?

    So why aren't you taking umbrage at those who, like WND and Mariano who posted this article are wildly speculating that Dawkin's book was the cause?
    Making up stories are we ? Where have they speculated that ? They have simply posted a story made no accusations, and made no comment . I have no reason to take umbrage.
    You're not thinking at all about this, aren't you? Why would Mariano post this story in the first place? Hello??? The story made the accusation for him, based on nothing but speculation.

    Do you honestly believe that he posted that story for any other reason than to attack Dawkins and the atheist viewpoint in general? Remember, this is an anti-atheist blog, run by a person who has an axe to grind against Dawkins and atheists in general.

    By not commenting on it, he's left wiggle-room for people like you to come along and deny that Mariano's doing what he's doing.

    Too bad Mariano's too busy to come and explain himself and what his motives are for posting the story.

    "Oh that's right, you have an escape clause:
    "It may have contributed" Thats right
    Nice to have a way out; you can accuse and not get called out on it. So, what's the evidence that it may have contributed, please?

    "So, if someone goes nuts after reading the bible and say, kills those who he suspects are witches then, is the bible to have any blame, or is it all just because of whatever prior conditions the person may have had?"
    Id say yes burn it and condemn it to hell for all eternity. lol
    Nothing funny, because that had been going on for centuries in europe. Those were actual commands in the bible, you know.

    "or did Dawkins little book do it?"
    How so please?
    Read the article and keep on interpretting it your way!
    The article has no actual evidence. Just some guy lashing out. The kid was obviously disturbed, but the father didn't catch it before it was too late.

    "And what caused the "mental state" to begin with?"
    Oh dear, Now your asking me to play psycologist
    No, you obviously don't have the skills for it; I'm just pointing out that the kids' mental state was not caused by Dawkins' book, so there's no reason for it to be linked to the kids' death.

    ReplyDelete
  21. KenJanuary 17, 2009 at 10:11 PM

    I am beginning to notice a trend and thought to comment:
    When I post something that I have not written myself or hyperlink to another person’s website I do not provide the caveat “The views espoused by…do not necessarily reflect those of AiD” as I consider this to be obvious.

    It is an interesting news story and I am not connecting the book to a suicide, the news story is doing that.

    If you must know, I am more stunned that anyone would be the least bit troubled by an argument that Prof. Dawkins makes. It makes me think that there was a whole lot more going on in that young man’s troubled life.

    I will only point out that when Prof. Dawkins was asked by Nick Pollard,
    “Suppose some lads break into an old man's house and kill him. Suppose they say: ‘Well, we accept the evolutionist worldview. He was old and sick, and he didn't contribute anything to society.’ How would you show them that what they had done was wrong?

    He responded thusly,
    “If somebody used my views to justify a completely self-centred lifestyle, which involved trampling all over other people in any way they chose roughly what, I suppose, at a sociological level social Darwinists did - I think I would be fairly hard put to it to argue on purely intellectual grounds.
    I think it would be more: ‘This is not a society in which I wish to live. Without having a rational reason for it necessarily, I'm going to do whatever I can to stop you doing this.’
    I couldn't, ultimately, argue intellectually against somebody who did something I found obnoxious.
    I think I could finally only say, ‘Well, in this society you can't get away with it’ and call the police. I realise this is very weak, and I've said I don't feel equipped to produce moral arguments.” [from “Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins” – interviewed on February 28th, 1995 published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition - vol 18 no. 3]

    One of the lessons is that if you don’t feel equipped then just say, “No comment” or “I’ll get back to you.”

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  22. metalozJanuary 20, 2009 at 4:41 AM

    "Isn't it obvious? Mariano is just another fundy who's got an axe to grind against Dawkins because Dawkins dared to criticize his religion,
    and so in the tried-and-true tactic of theists, he's mud-slinging."

    Plenty of fundy mud-slinging on both sides from what Ive seen.

    "Do you really need to see the word "blame"? Can't you tell from the context that that's what the article is doing? By your standard of thinking then,

    since "rapture" isn't in the bible, there won't be one. Context and reading comprehension. Look at the title for god's sake: Brave New Schools -

    Dad links son's suicide to 'The God Delusion'"

    This is becoming perpetual

    "Think now. The whole purpose of this site is to attack atheism, and Dawkins is a prominent atheist.
    So the story is linked without comment, yet you can't see why the story was linked here in the first place?"

    Again its news

    "Yep. So you're taking back that comment about how you don't know how many people died because of Dawkin's book because you haven't

    read the police records? (that statement implied that there may be lots more people who killed themselves over it)."

    No it simply means I dont know

    "radical internet message board"? Until I start seeing calls for suicide bomers on there, I really don't think there's any basis for saying that it's

    "radical".

    Your opinion

    No, the point I'm making is that the father is blaming a book that, at least unlike the lyrics in some of those groups songs you mentioned, does not

    talk about or promote suicide or murder.
    True, those songs only affected those already touched in the head, but that shows that this kid must have also had problems. There's even less

    reason to assume that Dawkin's book was responsible for that kids' death than there was for blaming those other suicides on those songs. (ie.

    NONE).

    Of course hes not responsible

    "Thing is, why do you suppose that the WND and the religious right people are harping on Dawkin's book as if it's the main or only cause?"

    What harping? The sources closest to the boy have made a statement which has become a news articleI havent seen anyone jump on board
    trying to crucify Dawkins because of it.

    "Again you really should read it again there were many factors mentioned
    Hello...I did read it, but the emphasis was on Dawkin's book. Again, one can see that from the TITLE of the linked article. "

    Perhaps a warning to people who may be overly sensitive for a strong themed book that everyone is encouraged to read

    "As for people coming to believe that "god" exists, it doesn't matter to me, but the vast majority of experience I've read and heard about, it goes

    the other way around. From what I've experienced, thinking critically defeats religion, not enforces it. "

    fair enough thats YOUR opinion

    " Dawkins book is an attack on peoples beliefs.
    So what? Now you are trying to link Dawkins' book to the suicide?"

    No just implying that it may be a little heavier than Knitting

    "One thing you've left out: many people say that they feel better about themselves once they've deconverted.
    Check out exchristian.net."

    If they were from a suppressed religious environment they probably would

    "I certainly don't take the story as a sick joke, where did I say I had?

    You said "this could be b.s"

    "I wasn't aware that Dawkins had any apostles, If you'd actually bother reading something over there
    you'd see that they disagree with him on things more than any so-called "apostle" does."
    Ok Is devout followers better then?
    Devout followers don't disagree with the person they're following do they? While they admire the man, they do disagree with him from time to

    time. "

    Yes must be very rare because all Ive seen is adulation and praise he can do no wrong.

    "As I said: try actually reading over there. "Devout followers" is just as much bs as "apostles". As I said earlier, stop projecting fundy religious

    views on people who aren't even religious."

    I have but only read the main articles not the comments as my eyes do get tired from rolling

    "You used a religious appelation to describe the people on RD's forum. It's inaccurate,
    I called you out on it."

    At least we're back where we started . My was what point is what precidence does an internet message board has over those closest to the

    source

    "The one "closest to the source" doesn't bring up any evidence for his accusation. We're just pointing it out, and if you bothered to read the board,

    you'd have noticed that Dawkins' board isn't the only place where that was brought up. "

    Verbal statements from the boy not counted ?

    "One thing you've left out, oftentimes, the one "closest to the source" isn't all the reliable in diagnosing illnesses. Doctors generally are. For

    example, think of the cases where the parents ("the ones closest to the source") of troubled kids tried to excorcise them because they thought the

    kids were "possessed"

    Obviously to you RDs forums are on this one

    "So you now agree that the "person closest to the source" was wrong by linking his son's suicide to the "God Delusion"?

    It wasnt just that and again was obviously other factors. Im saying is the book could have helped affect his mental state but
    is no reason for suicide

    "So why aren't you taking umbrage at those who, like WND and Mariano who posted this article are wildly speculating that Dawkin's book was

    the cause?"

    Making up stories are we ? Where have they speculated that ? They have simply posted a story made no accusations, and made no comment . I

    have no reason to take umbrage.

    "You're not thinking at all about this, aren't you? Why would Mariano post this story in the first place? Hello??? The story made the accusation for

    him, based on nothing but speculation."

    read his statement

    "Do you honestly believe that he posted that story for any other reason than to attack Dawkins and the atheist viewpoint in general? Remember,

    this is an anti-atheist blog, run by a person who has an axe to grind against Dawkins and atheists in general."

    I dont see why anything of interest in regard to the new Atheist movement being posted here being a problem thats what this sites about.


    "By not commenting on it, he's left wiggle-room for people like you to come along and deny that Mariano's doing what he's doing.
    Too bad Mariano's too busy to come and explain himself and what his motives are for posting the story."

    He now has

    "Oh that's right, you have an escape clause:
    "It may have contributed" Thats right
    Nice to have a way out; you can accuse and not get called out on it. So, what's the evidence that it may have contributed, please?

    Read on

    "So, if someone goes nuts after reading the bible and say, kills those who he suspects are witches then, is the bible to have any blame, or is it all

    just because of whatever prior conditions the person may have had?"
    "Nothing funny, because that had been going on for centuries in europe. Those were actual commands in the bible, you know"

    I dont know much about the Bible so wont comment on it but where and when apart from the Salem Witch trials has this occured from which
    14 too many were killed. This is something I would be interested in reading about though so if you could give me any references it would be

    appreciated.

    "No, you obviously don't have the skills for it; "

    Then why did you ask

    "I'm just pointing out that the kids' mental state was not caused by Dawkins' book, so there's no reason for it to be linked to the kids' death"

    No it may have added a little more fuel to an already burning fire, the book may have affected his mental state as suggested but neednt have he
    was obviously already disturbed

    ReplyDelete
  23. ReynoldJanuary 21, 2009 at 9:52 AM

    him, based on nothing but speculation."

    read his statement
    I did, and I don't buy it; I doubt that if the story didn't have any anti-atheist or anti-Dawkins overtones he would have bothered posting it. As I said, it's an anti-atheist blog, and Dawkins is a prominent atheist. Why post it otherwise? Look at all the brainless atheist-bashing that guy does. Imagine if it was a xian book that made a gay guy commit suicide.

    Verbal statements from the boy not counted?
    He said the book made him lose his faith...so what? Why should that make him kill himself?

    It's not Dawkin's fault because his books say nothing about your life becoming worthless without a belief in god. If he did, then maybe that guy's father would have a case. As it is, if the kid believed that without faith his life is worthless, we have to look elsewhere for that. I know full well that evangelicals like to teach that to kids, see for example this, this. That cartoon is especially idiotic since "under god" wasn't even in your pledge until the 1950's!


    I dont know much about the Bible so wont comment on it but where and when apart from the Salem Witch trials has this occured from which 14 too many were killed. This is something I would be interested in reading about though so if you could give me any references it would be appreciated.
    Just google "witch burning". You'll get sites like here. Between 50,000 and 100,000.

    ReplyDelete
  24. KenJanuary 23, 2009 at 7:54 PM

    It seems that Darwin can have a “Dangerous Idea” but Dawkins cannot.

    From the moment I read the article I could not imagine the issue being a simple clash of ideas seeing as Dawkins’ are less than convincing particularly to someone who, as the young man did, claims to have debated likewise issues.

    As for Dawkins let us, again, let him speak for himself:
    “A foreign publisher of my first book confessed the he could not sleep for three nights after reading it, so troubled was he by what he saw as its cold, bleak message. Others have asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings. A teacher from a distant country wrote to me reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book, because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless. He advised her not to show the book to any of her friends, for fear of contaminating them with the same nihilistic pessimism.”
    [Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (London: Allen Lane/The Penguin Press, 1998), p. ix]

    Also, don’t forget to do a Google search for atheism and the bloodiest century in human history.

    One cannot formulate a reasonable, viable, logical argument for anything like the witch burning from the Bible. One wonders how atheist would condemn such actions besides appealing to their personally preferential arguments from outrage.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  25. AnonymousJanuary 24, 2009 at 4:46 AM

    "One cannot formulate a reasonable, viable, logical argument for anything like the witch burning from the Bible. One wonders how atheist would condemn such actions besides appealing to their personally preferential arguments from outrage."

    Keep living in your fantasy world, Mariano, you would like the real one much.

    I think it's about time you rename this blog "Mariano's Delusion about Atheism."

    Where does one draw the line?

    When does obstinate and stubborn ideology become denial and rank insanity?

    ReplyDelete
  26. AnonymousJanuary 24, 2009 at 4:47 AM

    -> wouldn't !

    ReplyDelete
  27. ReynoldJanuary 24, 2009 at 4:46 PM

    From the moment I read the article I could not imagine the issue being a simple clash of ideas seeing as Dawkins’ are less than convincing particularly to someone who, as the young man did, claims to have debated likewise issues.
    If his arguments were "less than convincing" which you've given no evidence of, then you'd have to admit that Dawkin's book had nothing at all to do with the kids death then, right? So why post the article in the first place, Mariano?

    As for Dawkins let us, again, let him speak for himself:
    Just without any context, eh? Typical


    “A foreign publisher of my first book confessed the he could not sleep for three nights after reading it, so troubled was he by what he saw as its cold, bleak message. Others have asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings. A teacher from a distant country wrote to me reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book, because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless. He advised her not to show the book to any of her friends, for fear of contaminating them with the same nihilistic pessimism.”
    [Richard Dawkins, Unweaving the Rainbow (London: Allen Lane/The Penguin Press, 1998), p. ix]

    Now, how's about some of that context? Just google the words "Dawkins" "misquoted" "nihilistic pessimism" and the first link that came up was this: On that page do a search for "nihilistic pessimism" and you'll find the proper context of the quote you mis-used:

    =======
    I have previously described a pair of similar responses from readers:

    A foreign publisher of my first book confessed that he could not sleep for three nights after reading it, so troubled was he by what he saw as its cold, bleak message. Others have asked me how I can bear to get up in the mornings. A teacher from a distant country wrote to me reproachfully that a pupil had come to him in tears after reading the same book, because it had persuaded her that life was empty and purposeless. He advised her not to show the book to any of her friends, for fear of contaminating them with the same nihilistic pessimism (Unweaving the Rainbow).

    If something is true, no amount of wishful thinking can undo it. That is the first thing to say, but the second is almost as important. As I went on to write,
    Please note that last bit, Mariano: "As I went on to write"...that provides the context you tried to avoid:

    Presumably there is indeed no purpose in the ultimate fate of the cosmos, but do any of us really tie our life's hopes to the ultimate fate of the cosmos anyway? Of course we don't; not if we are sane. Our lives are ruled by all sorts of closer, warmer, human ambitions and perceptions. To accuse science of robbing life of the warmth that makes it worth living is so preposterously mistaken, so diametrically opposite to my own feelings and those of most working scientists, I am almost driven to the despair of which I am wrongly suspected.

    A similar tendency to shoot the messenger is displayed by other critics who have objected to what they see as the disagreeable social, political or economic implications of The Selfish Gene. Soon after Mrs Thatcher won her first election victory in 1979, my friend Steven Rose wrote the following in New Scientist: etc.

    ==========



    Also, don’t forget to do a Google search for atheism and the bloodiest century in human history.
    Also don't forget that Hitler built his anti-semitism on centuries of Xian anti-semitism. Check out Martin Luther's book "On the Jews and Their Lies".

    Also, do some further checking: In the twentieth century there were two factors that apologists will never mention when they complain about "atheism's" bloody century.

    1) There were more people around than in the time when xian pograms were implemented

    2) There were far more efficient weapons around than in the time when xian pograms were implemented.

    For some thinking on this: Do a google on the Thirty Years War...obout 1/3 of the people in the Germanic states died in that religiously-motivated war. What would that be in today's numbers?

    People like Mariano would have you believe that the only reason that xianity didn't kill as many people as "atheism" did was that they were more "moral" or "value human life more" or some such malarky.

    Wrong. They didn't have as many people to kill, and they didn't have the efficient weapons that people in the twentieth century did.

    Something else: Besides Hitler who used some weird version of xian anti-semitism as his base, did Stalin, Pol Pot et al kill people in the name of atheism as the Crusaders et al used to kill people in the name of christianity?

    To anyone who cares about logical thinking though, it should be recognizable that Mariano is engaging in the Appeals to consequences fallacy. Whether athiesm actually is responsible for murders and bad things happening has NO bearing on whether it's actually true or not.


    One cannot formulate a reasonable, viable, logical argument for anything like the witch burning from the Bible.
    Odd, Mariano's xian associates had been doing that for centuries. You know..."Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" kind of thing...

    One wonders how atheist would condemn such actions besides appealing to their personally preferential arguments from outrage.
    Ever hear of emapthy, or the argument from consequences, or the "golden rule" which was around before xianity was?

    I'm sick of this bull where xians are always saying that atheists have no reason to condemn brutality other than "personal preference" or "argument from outrage".

    When your god orders the deaths of pregnant women and children in the OT and we protest against that, it's "argument from outrage".

    No, it's holding you clowns to a consistent "absolute" morality that you people are always taking credit for.

    ReplyDelete
  28. ReynoldJanuary 25, 2009 at 7:00 AM

    This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  29. ReynoldJanuary 25, 2009 at 9:58 AM

    violation of xian rules? So the bible explicitly said to not kill witches?

    That stuff about the "new covenant" etc sure didn't sink in to all those religionists who for centuries went after those who they thought were witches.

    It's not in violation of christian (actually Judaic law, it is in the OT before Christ, remember...) so much as it could be called perhaps a misinterpretation of it. The fact remains, they got that from the OT, and presumably the same "god" that xians worship today.


    I replaced my last post because of all the spelling errors

    ReplyDelete
  30. ReynoldJanuary 25, 2009 at 2:49 PM

    But speaking of Christanity. Breaking two of 10 Commandments and commandments of love along with numerous other teachings you'll find virtually in any book of New Testament still doesn't change image of witch hunters as disciples of Christ following His teachings?
    Is cruel execution of one of hundreds of OT laws and ignoring all others an example of religious spirit?
    It had been for centuries. Only with the secular enlightenment did christians stop the practice. If you have a problem; don't argue with me. Argue with them.

    ReplyDelete
  31. metalozJanuary 26, 2009 at 3:53 AM

    "I did, and I don't buy it; I doubt that if the story didn't have any anti-atheist or anti-Dawkins overtones he
    would have bothered posting it."
    "As I said, it's an anti-atheist blog, and Dawkins is a prominent atheist.
    Why post it otherwise? "

    Atheism + Dawkins = News on this kind of site

    "Look at all the brainless atheist-bashing that guy does".

    I have not seen any maybe Ive missed some or have bypassed some topics I have not found stimulating. The main objection from what Ive seen

    on this site is to refute the ideals
    of Atheism or should be and if theres fringe news elements big deal

    " Imagine if it was a xian book that made a gay guy commit suicide"

    Ive read accounts of where Xian books or interpretations have caused gay people to become depressed which
    is wrong.

    "He said the book made him lose his faith...so what? Why should that make him kill himself? "

    Also said it upset and destroyed him but still no reason to kill oneself

    "It's not Dawkin's fault because his books say nothing about your life becoming worthless without a belief in god.
    If he did, then maybe that guy's father would have a case"

    No its not his fault but his ideals are interpretted as a pretty grim outlook by many.


    "As it is, if the kid believed that without faith his life is worthless, we have to look elsewhere for that. I know full well that evangelicals like to teach

    that to kids, see for example this, this. That cartoon is especially idiotic since "under god" wasn't even in your pledge until the 1950's!


    Well those evangelicals IMO are wrong no one should be forced into a suppressed situation . Its a purely subjective matter and people should be

    free to interpret the evidence the way they see it as long as it hurts no one"

    ReplyDelete
  32. KenJanuary 29, 2009 at 7:00 PM

    Shalom aleikhem to one and all.

    Adonais;
    I appreciate your participation on this blog. However, arguments for embarrassment, arguments from outrage, ad hominems, etc. are a waste of my precious time. If you cannot offer a reasoned response please abstain.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Reynold;
    My evidence is contained primarily in the entire blog that I devoted to refuting Dawkins’ countless fallacious assertions and also dispersed within this blog.
    So why did I post it? 1) it is a news item 2) it is relevant in that it mentions atheism 3) relevant in that it mentions Dawkins 4) since this blog allows comments it was meant to be discussed 4) as I posted it I thought that I would be the first one to argue against its ultimate conclusion.
    I do not disagree that Dawkins paints a dismal picture but I do not think that his arguments are the least bit reasonable nor effective. Also, as you can see it has made for a good discussion.
    You are making a category mistake. The category into which I placed that quote was that people have had such reactions. The category into which you are placing it is that Dawkins argues against people’s reactions. This does not undue the very fact that people have those reactions and that was the point. The fact that Dawkins believes that you can find purpose in life by for example, finishing a book, notwithstanding. This is one of atheism’s consoling delusions: subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence.

    “You do it too” is no response to the most secular and bloodies century. Also your 2) is virtually inapplicable since millions upon millions died due starvation, torture, and overall not very efficient weapons. The thing to keep in mind is that the millions upon millions of death which we are considering did not occur during wartime but were the result of regimes eliminating their own people. “Christians” who committed such act did not do so because they were too Christian but because they were not Christian enough (fighting wars and the maintaining of the social order are other issues).
    I will not fall for the simplistic notion of Hitler + weird version of xian anti-semitism = holocaust.
    Nor, Hitler + weird version of Darwinism = holocaust.
    Nor, Pol Pot + atheism = the killing fields.
    Each may have played a role in each instance but it is too simplistic to propose the above equations.
    Take for example the Thirty Years War which did not occur in very, very recent history but three and a half centuries ago. If we even peruse Wikipedia we find that they report,
    “The origins of the conflict and goals of the participants were complex and no one cause can accurately be described as the main reason for the fighting. Initially the war was fought largely as a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire, although disputes over the internal politics and balance of power within the Empire played a significant part. Gradually the war developed into a a [sic] more general conflict involving most of the European powers. In this general phase the war became more a continuation of the Bourbon-Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence, and in turn led to further warfare between France and the Habsburg powers and less specifically about religion.

    To anyone who cares about logical thinking though, it should be recognizable that Reynold is engaging in the Appeals to consequences fallacy. Whether Christianity actually is responsible for murders and bad things happening has NO bearing on whether it's actually true or not.

    You reference to witches only goes to demonstrate your lack of knowledge regarding that which you seek to discredit. The Old Testament law was for a particular people, in a particular place, in a particular time, under a particular governance and it was a law upon which they had agreed. It is therefore irrelevant to my point and your response.

    Argument from outrage, argument from ridicule, and tu quoque are the very reasons why I will continue to stated that all you have is “personal preference” you just proved it—again by merely making dogmatic assertions. Your frustration regarding your perception of a contradiction between “absolute morals” and the difference between Old and New Testaments is only caused by your own lack of knowledge of that which you seek to criticize.

    You make an interesting point about abortion. Allow me to momentarily grant your statement: Christians (and Jews) approve of the murdering of babies three and a half millennia ago but are pro-life today. Fine. Conversely, atheists cannot condemn the murdering of babies three and a half millennia and (at least form the ones of whom I am aware) support the murdering of babies this very day by the tens of millions.
    Seems as if some atheists have some catching up to do.

    “abortion is a blessing”—Dan Barker
    “war becomes a biological necessity”— Prussian General and Social Darwinist Friedrich von Bernhardi

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  33. ReynoldJanuary 30, 2009 at 9:41 AM

    Mariano to me:
    Reynold;
    My evidence is contained primarily in the entire blog that I devoted to refuting Dawkins’ countless fallacious assertions and also dispersed within this blog.
    Hopefully they're better than this ad-hom shot you're taking here.


    So why did I post it? 1) it is a news item 2) it is relevant in that it mentions atheism 3) relevant in that it mentions Dawkins 4) since this blog allows comments it was meant to be discussed 4) as I posted it I thought that I would be the first one to argue against its ultimate conclusion.
    No, that wound up being me. You didn't jump in until much later.


    I do not disagree that Dawkins paints a dismal picture
    Odd, I pointed out that he himself disagrees with that...check the quote that I provided in my last reply...

    but I do not think that his arguments are the least bit reasonable nor effective.
    That's your opinion.

    Also, as you can see it has made for a good discussion.
    Yes, trying to clean the well you poisoned.


    You are making a category mistake. The category into which I placed that quote was that people have had such reactions. The category into which you are placing it is that Dawkins argues against people’s reactions.
    I'm pointing out the fact that Dawkins is trying to say that science does not bring about "nihilism" like what people are trying to pin on him and naturalistic science in general.


    This does not undue the very fact that people have those reactions and that was the point. The fact that Dawkins believes that you can find purpose in life by for example, finishing a book, notwithstanding. This is one of atheism’s consoling delusions: subjective meaning in an objectively meaningless existence.
    And what, exactly is wrong with subjective meaning? Do you want there to be some outside arbitrer so you can have "meaning" in your life?

    Oh right.

    You're still playing The Fallacy of Conseqences eh? I've said before: whether an idea leads to bad behaviour or whether it's comforting or not has no bearing on whether it's true or not.


    “You do it too” is no response to the most secular and bloodies century.
    Then why did you bring it up in the first place? Still playing "Fallacy of consequences"?


    Also your 2) is virtually inapplicable since millions upon millions died due starvation, torture, and overall not very efficient weapons.
    That's why there were less numerical deaths back then...if I included the number who died due to starvation it'd have made the religous era look even worse.

    The thing to keep in mind is that the millions upon millions of death which we are considering did not occur during wartime but were the result of regimes eliminating their own people.
    Crusades, Inquisition anyone? Your point?

    “Christians” who committed such act did not do so because they were too Christian but because they were not Christian enough (fighting wars and the maintaining of the social order are other issues).
    Right, following the bible's teachings about killing witches, etc. makes them "not xian enough"....even so, they were not atheists now, where they?


    I will not fall for the simplistic notion of Hitler + weird version of xian anti-semitism = holocaust.
    Nor, Hitler + weird version of Darwinism = holocaust.
    Nor, Pol Pot + atheism = the killing fields.
    Each may have played a role in each instance but it is too simplistic to propose the above equations.
    Care to explain this then? Also, don’t forget to do a Google search for atheism and the bloodiest century in human history.

    You not only fall for that simplistic notion, you nuture it.


    Take for example the Thirty Years War which did not occur in very, very recent history but three and a half centuries ago.
    If you'd read my response you'd realize that I knew that. That's why I was making the point about their being less efficient weapons and less people around at that time...

    If we even peruse Wikipedia we find that they report,
    “The origins of the conflict and goals of the participants were complex and no one cause can accurately be described as the main reason for the fighting. Initially the war was fought largely as a religious conflict between Protestants and Catholics in the Holy Roman Empire, although disputes over the internal politics and balance of power within the Empire played a significant part. Gradually the war developed into a a [sic] more general conflict involving most of the European powers. In this general phase the war became more a continuation of the Bourbon-Habsburg rivalry for European political pre-eminence, and in turn led to further warfare between France and the Habsburg powers and less specifically about religion.
    So what? Religion started it.

    To anyone who cares about logical thinking though, it should be recognizable that Reynold is engaging in the Appeals to consequences fallacy.
    Hello...remember what you said earlier? Also, don’t forget to do a Google search for atheism and the bloodiest century in human history.

    I guess that since you committed that fallacy before I did, I had to point it out to you after all, then that means that you yourself don't care about logical thinking.

    Whether Christianity actually is responsible for murders and bad things happening has NO bearing on whether it's actually true or not.
    Since you agree that this is all fallacious, then I suppose you won't ever say anything like Also, don’t forget to do a Google search for atheism and the bloodiest century in human history ever again, right?


    You reference to witches only goes to demonstrate your lack of knowledge regarding that which you seek to discredit. The Old Testament law was for a particular people, in a particular place, in a particular time, under a particular governance and it was a law upon which they had agreed.
    And yet somehow, the Ten Commandments, given to the same people around the same time, is meant for all of us now...right.

    Besides, if you have a problem with it, talk to the xians of the past who used those verses to justify witch-killings. I'm just the messenger here.

    It is therefore irrelevant to my point and your response.

    Argument from outrage, argument from ridicule, and tu quoque are the very reasons why I will continue to state that all you have is “personal preference” you just proved it—again by merely making dogmatic assertions.
    Wrong. I threw your fallacious reasoning back in your face. You started out with argument from consequences by your statement: Also, don’t forget to do a Google search for atheism and the bloodiest century in human history.

    So, I just threw that back at you.

    If you want "argument from outrage" then one could say that your complaining of abortion is just that...after all, the bible does not specifically say that unborn babies are to be protected now, does it? There are examples of the opposite to be sure.


    Your frustration regarding your perception of a contradiction between “absolute morals” and the difference between Old and New Testaments is only caused by your own lack of knowledge of that which you seek to criticize.
    The fact that you can't seem to realize that xians for centuries were killing people because they followed OT law shows that you're ignorant of the fact that I'm only pointing out the actions that your fellow believers took. As I said earlier, if you have problems with anyone not seeing the "difference between Old and New Testaments", go talk with them, not me. I'm just pointing out what they did, and where they got their justification from, however distorted.

    You make an interesting point about abortion. Allow me to momentarily grant your statement: Christians (and Jews) approve of the murdering of babies three and a half millennia ago but are pro-life today. Fine.
    That's why theists don't have any claim to "absolute morality". The situations changed from those barbaric times and that kind of thing is no longer done. That's an evolving morality.


    Conversely, atheists cannot condemn the murdering of babies three and a half millennia and (at least form the ones of whom I am aware) support the murdering of babies this very day by the tens of millions.
    Nonsense. Why do you think that we atheists cannot condemn abortion? Where do you get that? At least some of us believe that one shouldn't throw away human life even in it's earliest stages.


    Compare that to xian theists like William Lane Craig who said, excusing the baby-killing of millenia ago: So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

    So who would be wronged by, say, abortion then? Don't the fetuses get "eternal life" too, just like the Canaanite kids were supposed to? Yet that doesn't stop the fundies from protesting against abortion now, does it? The sole difference: One action is ordered by "god" so it's alright. The other isn't. Yet those people call themselves "pro-life". Bull. If you're a theist like that, you are not pro-life. You may be "conditional" pro-life, but that just depends on whether you think that "god" wants a baby to live or not.


    “abortion is a blessing”—Dan Barker
    Context, please?


    “war becomes a biological necessity”— Prussian General and Social Darwinist Friedrich von Bernhardi
    Context please? Didn't I talk to you once already about context?

    I know you read it, you're responding to that very post.

    You seem to like giving quotes with no context. Ok.

    Psalm 137:9 Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.

    ReplyDelete
  34. KenFebruary 4, 2009 at 8:08 PM

    I hope to find you all well. Thank you for your comments and general participation on this blog—your presence is appreciated.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Reynold;
    There is something that I know and that you do not, something that I know and that you cannot know: I know what I thought even “as I posted it,” even before I posted it and as I read the original article. Thus, you cannot logically say, “No.”

    In stating that “Religion started it” we are getting somewhere. If you want to condemn “religion” look to your side and you will see me there saying “Amen!” and I have done consistently.

    Since I consistently refuse to make simple connections as discussed above the whole search for atheism and the bloodiest century in human history was meant to remind us of the other side of the coin. That you are attempting to make that statement into all I have to say on the matter disregards the manner in which discussions progress and I often write something presupposing what will be said in response and knowing what I will then elucidate—it is a Rabbinic streak in me and I cannot help it. I actually plan on posting on Communism, Nazism, Darwinism and atheism somewhat soonish (which sadly, may turn out to mean a month or two).

    That “the Ten Commandments, given to the same people around the same time, is meant for all of us now” is accurate because these are specifically reiterated in the New Testament as still being relevant.

    As to the “Christians” of the past who used those verses to justify witch-killings; I can condemn them biblically. It would be fallacious to assert something to the likes of: just because someone claims legitimacy they are legitimate and cannot be argued against or surely, your “interpretation” is as legitimate (or illegitimate) as theirs (these are my constructs and I am not putting them in your mouth).

    If you are just pointing out what they did, and where they got their justification from, however distorted will you say “Talk to them” if someone argues Darwinism+Nazism=holocaust?

    As to your claim that “At least some” atheists oppose abortion, I granted this. Yet, I did not see any citations not hyperlinks to voluminous atheist websites as evidence.

    Craig premises his statement upon God’s command to carry out contemporaneously specific actions. Since there is no indication that God would command people to have abortions today not carry out actions as those against the Canaanites there is no comparison. It does not follow that because human babies inherit eternal life we, today, can murder them at will.
    But feel free to ask Craig.

    Here is the context to the last quotes that I provided:

    1) an atheist refers to abortion as a blessing, please condemn him.
    2) find his context by listening to his debate with John Rankin entitled “Evolution and Intelligent Design: What are the issues?”

    1) a general and social Darwinist argues from biology to war.
    2) find his context reading Samuel J. Holmes, The Trend of the Race: A Study of Present Tendencies in the Biological Development of Civilized Mankind (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Co. Inc., 1921), p. 205

    Your turn: what about Psalm 137:9?

    Lastly, I appreciate your participation and tenacity, I truly and honestly do.
    I hope that you will not mind a request: based on you empathy, seeing how many comments I am constantly responding to, please write a cogent and succinct thought instead of cutting and pasting everything that a person wrote, parsing their statements into sentences and then phantasmagorically taking jabs at each sentence. This will go a long way towards making discourse in the comments section and help me do the tremendous amounts of reading and writing that I do on this blog.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  35. ReynoldFebruary 7, 2009 at 4:02 AM

    Mariano:
    Since I consistently refuse to make simple connections as discussed above the whole search for atheism and the bloodiest century in human history was meant to remind us of the other side of the coin.
    You should have said it then. As for the christians who have killed in the name of their god, you say that you can "biblically" refute them. For centuries, they were "biblically" justifying their actions.

    What makes you sure that your interpretation of the bible is more accurate than theirs?

    As for any links between "Darwinism" and the holocaust if someone were to throw that at me, I can show that Darwin himself never went for that kind of thing. There isn't anything in his "Origin" or in the writings of actual biologists that would justify that. Unlike stuff like "witch-killings" and the bible.


    This is a christian blog where atheism is continually bashed...what else is anyone to make of your linking that WND article about Dawkins book, but that you were trying to link the two? It doesn't take mind-reading, just looking at the context of this site, the stuff you say about atheists in general, and the source of the article itself. WorldNetDaily itself is a xian setup that also regularly bashes atheists.


    As for atheist pro-lifers? Ever hear of google?

    ReplyDelete
  36. ReynoldFebruary 7, 2009 at 4:16 AM

    Isn't Psalm 137:9 somthing that you have to deal with?

    As for the context of Barker's quote, I'll listen to the debate as it was linked to from his page when I get time so I'll know if he actually said anything that needs condemning. I suspect, from what I read of him, that it was a rhetorical device he was using, but we'll see.


    As for you second quote, you mentioned that the guy was a Social Darwinist who said that war can become a biological necessity. How much have you read about "social darwinism"? And what the scientific theory really thinks about it?

    One last thing: You shouldn't have to be asked to give the context! When you give a quote, you should automatically provide the context then and there.

    ReplyDelete
  37. ReynoldFebruary 7, 2009 at 5:34 AM

    Well, I've probably found the context here also.

    You complain because Dan considers the fetus to not be a full-fledged human yet. I'd share that view. Problem is: At what point do you consider the fetus to be fully human? Even the bible says that the life of the flesh is in the blood. The fetus doesn't get blood made until the second week. Biblically speaking, it doesn't have "life" yet.

    What about before any nervous tissue develops? Without that, there's nothing there to feel pain.

    Do people get concerned over a sperm, or an unfertilized egg? What about the instant conception happened?

    Dan is right when he says that Jesus says nothing about abortion. You argue against him by saying that the OT counts too. Problem is, the OT has your Jesus killing off babies and pregnant women who did not want to die.

    Whence youre "pro-life" stance, then?

    ReplyDelete
  38. ReynoldFebruary 7, 2009 at 5:38 AM

    One thing, you do realize that all of your attacks on Dan Barker, Sam Harris, Dawkins, etc. really amount to nothing more than ad-hominem and the fallacy of consequences?

    The horrible consequences, if we assume that you're right about all of this, of an idea has no bearing on the truth or falseness of the idea itself.

    It seems to me that you're primarily just poisoning several wells here.

    ReplyDelete
  39. ReynoldFebruary 7, 2009 at 7:07 PM

    In regards to a few posts ago: for all those who think that abortion is technically murder, what should be done to the women who have them?

    I'd go with just leaving them alone...they've been through enough. If I had my way, people just wouldn't choose it to begin with.

    ReplyDelete
  40. KenFebruary 12, 2009 at 7:05 PM

    Reynold;
    Thanks again for the interaction.
    However, I must admit that I am at a loss as to how I can respond to the multitudinous issues you raised and questions you posed plus those of everyone else.
    Go back and read your previous five comments in a row and count up the issues, questions, etc.
    I appreciate your enthusiasm but regardless of why you bring up so many issues, and so many that are completely unrelated to the post to which you are supposed to be commenting, I simply cannot take the time to respond to each and every challenge or question posed particularly when one individual poses so many that I cannot keep track.
    I do not mean to evade nor to ignore you but I believe that soon enough you will completely emphasize with why I am stating these things.
    Also, I cannot believe that you really think that you know my thoughts and motivations better than I do.

    For now, let us narrow to one issue: perhaps when you allude to Psalm 137:9 you should automatically provide the context then and there.

    aDios,
    Mariano

    ReplyDelete
  41. ReynoldFebruary 21, 2009 at 10:12 AM

    I reply to the rabbit trails your readers throw at me, mariano...as for the context of the verse Psalm 137:9, it doesn't really help. Especially when one notes that there are other verses in the bible where your god explicitly orders the killings of babies and pregnant women.

    And you are the last person around to talk about context.


    As for your telling me that:

    Also, I cannot believe that you really think that you know my thoughts and motivations better than I do...
    come on!

    Look at your blogs, Mariano. Look at what you say in them. You're trying to shoot down atheists and atheism in each one! You motivations are bloody obvious.

    This latest stunt of yours is another example of the character assassinations you continually do (remember your Dan Barker blog)?

    It is such an obvious case of linking Dawkins and his book/ideas to something bad that happened, it's not even funny.

    Given that you regularly slam Dawkins and other atheists using little tricks like character assassination and that, you should realize what it looks like when you do it again.

    I don't much care if you ever respond, because I'm getting sick of your bs.

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)