UNC study refutes Richard Dawkins’ claim of religion as “child abuse”

[wavelength]

no evidence of leprechauns or anything else. What then can tell us what exists?Philosophy, no.

There is also no scientific evidence for the existence of a gravitational field. That's just a name given to a set of formulas. My scientific evidence for the leprachauns is exactly the same as yours: the observed movement of objects. Since they are invisible, just like your field, that's all we can observe.

I agree that naming it a "field" instead of "an army of invisible leprachauns" provides an easier imagination for the mind. The point was that it doesn't matter one bit for the purpose of science. As I said, most scientists, like e.g. Hawking, would agree with me on that one. The others are pseudo-philosophers.

[wavelength]

i also dont accept your definitions because your not defining anything, just telling what the scientific method cant do and offering no explanation for how to go out defining what is real. Looks pretty pseudo-intellectual to me to be honest.

your pretty much throwing your hands up and saying all is unknowable.

Ha, there it is again.
You forgot to add "huge clusterfuck" this time, though.

[Necrosis]

There is also no scientific evidence for the existence of a gravitational field. That's just a name given to a set of formulas. My scientific evidence for the leprachauns is exactly the same as yours: the observed movement of objects. Since they are invisible, just like your field, that's all we can observe.

I agree that naming it a "field" instead of "an army of invisible leprachauns" provides an easier imagination for the mind. The point was that it doesn't matter one bit for the purpose of science. As I said, most scientists, like e.g. Hawking, would agree with me on that one. The others are pseudo-philosophers.

i dont know dude, gravity is the description of the process and the mathematics are the how. Gravity is also caused by the relative mass of objects. We know this since we can increase or decrease the effect of gravity or strength. Your explanation is adding something, ie invisible leprechauns, we must then describe leprechauns, but we have already described weight, and einstein came up with some neat mathematics in the theory of relativity to describe the gravity of large objects.

If you think both are the same then your mistaken. You are adding unfounded and confounding variables to the equation, not even close.

[wavelength]

i dont know dude, gravity is the description of the process and the mathematics are the how. Gravity is also caused by the relative mass of objects. We know this since we can increase or decrease the effect of gravity or strength. Your explanation is adding something, ie invisible leprechauns, we must then describe leprechauns, but we have already described weight, and einstein came up with some neat mathematics in the theory of relativity to describe the gravity of large objects.

If you think both are the same then your mistaken. You are adding unfounded and confounding variables to the equation, not even close.

What you require of me would be to describe things about my imagination that are not relevant to the scientific theory. I could very well ask you just the same about your magic, invisible field, which somehow manages to draw objects together based on their mass, etc. That's just as mind boggling (if not more so) as intelligent leprachauns with a plan.

The point is, it is just a name, or an imagination. If you think it is more than that, tell me, from a scientific point of view, what exactly is added to the set of formulas by naming them a "field". Everything you will be able to come up with must be outside the scope of science.

[Necrosis]

What you require of me would be to describe things about my imagination that are not relevant to the scientific theory. I could very well ask you just the same about your magic, invisible field, which somehow manages to draw objects together based on their mass, etc. That's just as mind boggling (if not more so) as intelligent leprachauns with a plan.

The point is, it is just a name, or an imagination. If you think it is more than that, tell me, from a scientific point of view, what exactly is added to the set of formulas by naming them a "field". Everything you will be able to come up with must be outside the scope of science.

why do you think they called it a field, why is there "plasma" physics. One is adding info, especially intelligent movement, the other supported by the theory of relativity which has mathematics based on the fact that space is like a fabric, the math wouldnt work if it wasnt.

so what can science do according to you?

[wavelength]

why do you think they called it a field, why is there "plasma" physics. One is adding info, especially intelligent movement, the other supported by the theory of relativity which has mathematics based on the fact that space is like a fabric, the math wouldnt work if it wasnt.

All just imaginations. Doesn't change the fact that it's just names, which, scientifically speaking, add nothing to the set of formulas.

so what can science do according to you?

Science is the basis for modern applications (computers, modern medicine, automation, etc.).
Science debunks superstitions about scientific aspects of the world.
Science, within its boundaries, delivers a very beautiful description of the world. The beauty stems from its simplicity.

[Necrosis]

All just imaginations. Doesn't change the fact that it's just names, which, scientifically speaking, add nothing to the set of formulas.

Science is the basis for modern applications (computers, modern medicine, automation, etc.).
Science debunks superstitions about scientific aspects of the world.
Science, within its boundaries, delivers a very beautiful description of the world. The beauty stems from its simplicity.

WHAT

simplicity? ya when i think of the world i see simplicity, barring the massive amounts of details in small processes like photosynthesis.

the names refer to the differet properties of the objects which are described. If you think an intellgence is more beleivable then a field which has a conceptual and even abstract framework in theoretics and mathematics thats your deal.

[wavelength]

WHAT

simplicity? ya when i think of the world i see simplicity, barring the massive amounts of details in small processes like photosynthesis.

the names refer to the differet properties of the objects which are described. If you think an intellgence is more beleivable then a field which has a conceptual and even abstract framework in theoretics and mathematics thats your deal.

I was referring to the simplicity of its methods, not the obvious complexity of its outcome.

The point is not what imagination is more believable. The point is that it is arbitrary for the resulting scientific theory. The only thing essential to science is if the theories match the observation (also a quote from "Universe in a Nutshell"). But as I said, a certain imagination can be more useful than another in finding new theories or extending an existing theory. The "field" as in a mathematical concept is OK of course.

[Necrosis]

I was referring to the simplicity of its methods, not the obvious complexity of its outcome.

The point is not what imagination is more believable. The point is that it is arbitrary for the resulting scientific theory. The only thing essential to science is if the theories match the observation (also a quote from "Universe in a Nutshell"). But as I said, a certain imagination can be more useful than another in finding new theories or extending an existing theory. The "field" as in a mathematical concept is OK of course.

Not really disagreeing with that.

You still havent shown me how the concept of energy, and law of this observation as you put it doesnt show us that all the energy in the universe was always the same. If it wasnt, then the law is violated. I wouldnt bet against it.

[wavelength]

You still havent shown me how the concept of energy, and law of this observation as you put it doesnt show us that all the energy in the universe was always the same. If it wasnt, then the law is violated. I wouldnt bet against it.

You said "material world" and "all that exists". The error is not the scientific law itself (which I fully accept), the errors are confusing the scientific/mathematical concepts of energy with any of the other terms you use (including your image of "energy"), and confusing the holistic human concept of time with a certain scientific abstraction used in scientific laws.

[loco]

Not really disagreeing with that.

You still havent shown me how the concept of energy, and law of this observation as you put it doesnt show us that all the energy in the universe was always the same. If it wasnt, then the law is violated. I wouldnt bet against it.

usmokepole, is that you?  You changed to Necrosis?   

[Necrosis]

usmokepole, is that you?  You changed to Necrosis?   

yes sir. Thought you knew that?

[loco]

yes sir. Thought you knew that?

No, I didn't know, but now I do.   

[Necrosis]

You said "material world" and "all that exists". The error is not the scientific law itself (which I fully accept), the errors are confusing the scientific/mathematical concepts of energy with any of the other terms you use (including your image of "energy"), and confusing the holistic human concept of time with a certain scientific abstraction used in scientific laws.

i dont trust human inquistion more then objective evidence. I dont trust philosophy  more then science, i cant think of one good philosophical argument presented by theism, and i see it as a waste of resources.

[wavelength]

i dont trust human inquistion more then objective evidence. I dont trust philosophy  more then science, i cant think of one good philosophical argument presented by theism, and i see it as a waste of resources.

Yet you constantly resort to philosophy, apparently without even noticing. That's pseudo-philosophy.
There is no need for "trust" in science at all. It does exactly what it's supposed to do. Everything else must be done by something beyond science, whether you "trust" in the results or not.

[Necrosis]

Yet you constantly resort to philosophy, apparently without even noticing. That's pseudo-philosophy.
There is no need for "trust" in science at all. It does exactly what it's supposed to do. Everything else must be done by something beyond science, whether you "trust" in the results or not.

like what. Logic, reason are useful tools but also falible, why do you assume they are more valid the objective evidence gathered through perceptions. I dont thing any theologian can offer more insight into the nature of the cosmos moreso then a particle physicist.

[wavelength]

like what. Logic, reason are useful tools but also falible, why do you assume they are more valid the objective evidence gathered through perceptions. I dont thing any theologian can offer more insight into the nature of the cosmos moreso then a particle physicist.

We're running round in circles. Let's just agree to disagree.

[MCWAY]

yes sir. Thought you knew that?

I knew these comments sounded familiar. Name change? I thought the wedding was a couple of years from now  .

[wavelength]

I knew these comments sounded familiar. Name change? I thought the wedding was a couple of years from now  .

LOL!

[liberalismo]

Dawkins said that indoctrinating children into the belief that they will burn in hell if they disobey the bible is child abuse.

[Necrosis]

Dawkins said that indoctrinating children into the belief that they will burn in hell if they disobey the bible is child abuse.

it is

[MCWAY]

Dawkins said that indoctrinating children into the belief that they will burn in hell if they disobey the bible is child abuse.

it is

Then, why aren't all these allegedly abused children committing such deviant acts at the same rate as (or higher than) those who were physically/sexually abused, especially, since Dawkins claims that religious indoctrination (Christianity, in particular) is worse?

That's the question asked initially on this thread. All the graph and stats done from that UNC study consistently show a lower level of crime/offense-committing among those who deem church attendance as important and are taught religious values ("indoctrinated", as it were).

As the author of the site mentioned, where are Dawkins' scientific studies to back his claims? So far, it seems that his views are skewed significantly by his being molested as a kid. Furthermore, few Christians of which I know say that their faith and becoming (or remaining) a Christian are based on fear of burning in hell.

[liberalismo]

Then, why aren't all these allegedly abused children committing such deviant acts at the same rate as (or higher than) those who were physically/sexually abused, especially, since Dawkins claims that religious indoctrination (Christianity, in particular) is worse?

I don't know that they are not.

IF they are not, I don't think that this means that it is any less abusive. I've seen the fear in the eyes of children who are told that they will burn in hell if they are bad, and this is abusive.

That's the question asked initially on this thread. All the graph and stats done from that UNC study consistently show a lower level of crime/offense-committing among those who deem church attendance as important and are taught religious values ("indoctrinated", as it were).

Church attendance and religious values aren't indoctrination. Not the kind that I'm talking about which occurs in hardcore churches or a lot of catholic schools. I went to a religious school also and it was quite moderate and there was no "hell fire and brimstone" sermons meant to put fear in me.

As the author of the site mentioned, where are Dawkins' scientific studies to back his claims? So far, it seems that his views are skewed significantly by his being molested as a kid. Furthermore, few Christians of which I know say that their faith and becoming (or remaining) a Christian are based on fear of burning in hell.

Richard Dawkins was never "molested" as a child. He mentions a time where, in an Anglican school, he was fondled by his Latin teacher, but he says that as creepy as this experience was, it doesn't compare to being convinced that your friends or family will burn in hell for eternity.

From an article by Richard Dawkins:

Happily I was spared the misfortune of a Roman Catholic upbringing (Anglicanism is a significantly less noxious strain of the virus). Being fondled by the Latin master in the squash court was a disagreeable sensation for a nine-year-old, a mixture of embarrassment and skin-crawling revulsion, but it was certainly not in the same league as being led to believe that I, or someone I knew, might go to everlasting fire. As soon as I could wriggle off his knee, I ran to tell my friends and we had a good laugh, our fellowship enhanced by the shared experience of the same sad pedophile.

So basically, if an adult fondling a 9 year old is child abuse (and it is), then so is telling a 9 year old that they will burn in hell if they are bad or that their friends and family who are not religious will burn in hell for all eternity. Since Dawkins brushes off his experience with his Latin teacher as skin-crawling and creepy, I doubt it had any influence on his becoming an atheist.

But then again, It's always easy to try to say that Richard Dawkins is only an atheist because of that experience. It's an Ad Hominem sort of thing intended to make all of his arguments seem less convincing. Essentially irrelevant.

[MCWAY]

I don't know that they are not.

IF they are not, I don't think that this means that it is any less abusive. I've seen the fear in the eyes of children who are told that they will burn in hell if they are bad, and this is abusive.



Church attendance and religious values aren't indoctrination. Not the kind that I'm talking about which occurs in hardcore churches or a lot of catholic schools. I went to a religious school also and it was quite moderate and there was no "hell fire and brimstone" sermons meant to put fear in me.

EXACTLY!!! As I said, few (if any) I know became or remained Christians, due to a fear of the lake of fire.

Richard Dawkins was never "molested" as a child. He mentions a time where, in an Anglican school, he was fondled by his Latin teacher, but he says that as creepy as this experience was, it doesn't compare to being convinced that your friends or family will burn in hell for eternity.

I read that (in fact, there's a link to that article on the site that I used for this thread). Last time I checked, a 9-year-old being fondled by a grown man COUNTS as being molested.

If a man does that to my kids, he's going to the hospital and I'm going to jail.

So basically, if an adult fondling a 9 year old is child abuse (and it is), then so is telling a 9 year old that they will burn in hell if they are bad or that their friends and family who are not religious will burn in hell for all eternity. Since Dawkins brushes off his experience with his Latin teacher as skin-crawling and creepy, I doubt it had any influence on his becoming an atheist.

But then again, It's always easy to try to say that Richard Dawkins is only an atheist because of that experience. It's an Ad Hominem sort of thing intended to make all of his arguments seem less convincing. Essentially irrelevant.

I didn't claim that his being fondled/molested (or whatever you want to call it) was the SOLE reason for his views. But, you can't deny that such an incident played a significant role in shaping such views.

Where I take exception is his claim that a child being taught religious beliefs (speficially those of the Christian faith) is on the same level of his molestation, in terms of being abuse. If he were just talking about the whole "fear of hell and brimstone" thing, he could become a member of a denomination that teaches hell as a permanent destruction of the wicked, not an everlasting lake of fire.

[liberalismo]

EXACTLY!!! As I said, few (if any) I know became or remained Christians, due to a fear of the lake of fire.

I read that (in fact, there's a link to that article on the site that I used for this thread). Last time I checked, a 9-year-old being fondled by a grown man COUNTS as being molested.

If a man does that to my kids, he's going to the hospital and I'm going to jail.

I didn't claim that his being fondled/molested (or whatever you want to call it) was the SOLE reason for his views. But, you can't deny that such an incident played a significant role in shaping such views.

Where I take exception is his claim that a child being taught religious beliefs (speficially those of the Christian faith) is on the same level of his molestation, in terms of being abuse. If he were just talking about the whole "fear of hell and brimstone" thing, he could become a member of a denomination that teaches hell as a permanent destruction of the wicked, not an everlasting lake of fire.

I doubt it. There are plenty of people who were molested by priests who still are religious.

Also, Telling kids that their non-religious family will be "permanently destructed" is also abusive.