/sci/ - Science & Math

Religions seek to indoctrinate young children

Quite a lot of reading then.

Dawkin's is a whore.

We already know.

I would rather people thought for themselves and disregarded any supposed stigma when assessing the likelihood of there being a god(s).

If you objectively balance the evidence for and against and come to conclusion that there is a god - good for you.
If you objectively balance the evidence for and against and come to the conclusion that there isn't a god - good for you.

At least you have thought about it.

be waiting at the b&n and move them all to 'religion' section.

>>3085528
kids don't do that, they do what they are told. Example being the afterschool methodist place I work at. Every day we have about 30 min of "devotion" in which case the teacher reads a bible verse and discusses it or just talks about the bible in general. The kids are in grades k-2.

One day we were discussing whether the bible was true or not and some of the kids guessed yes and the others guessed no. The kids who guessed no did some thinking and said "well some of them are true but the ones where people come back to life or the big floods are untrue", the teacher then told them that they were wrong and that even those bible stories were true. One kid challenged that asking how is that even possible people can't come back to life and the teacher just said god makes miracles happen... The kid no longer questioned/s his beliefs.

also what is it with richard dawkins having his name as the first thing you see and larger than the actual title of the book

>>3085550
>I've never been to a bookstore in my entire life. What's the deal with books having letters on the cover???

>>3085542

My parents neither condemned or condoned religious belief, but I unequivocally became an agnostic atheist when I was ~5 years old.

I did so by innocent observation and questioning and I realised that the answers I was getting didn't make correlate with reality (in particular the flood, deathbed conversions, do people who have no knowledge of the Christian god still go to hell, infant death etc)
.
Hell, I was even threatened with suspension when I was ~14 years old for flat out refusing to attend RE classes (UK) and not praying in assembly. Retrospectively I do realise that RE classes aren't strictly indoctrinating, and once I stated my case everything was A-OK.

Of course my reasoning now is more elegant than then, but my position has remained the same.

>>3085519
Precisely why it's a good idea to dislodge the bullshit early before they start to believe it.

Pretty good, pretty good, but, if he wanted to demonstrate REAL magic, he should have went for the DOUBLE RAINBOW!

>>3085550
It's so people can see at a glance what the general message and tone of the book will be. If that book just had The Magic of Reality on the cover, and his name in small print in the back, mouth breathing trend followers wouldn't know to buy it. It's just brand recognition. Good for business, but book publishers don't think much of their audience.

protip: Most books written by big names are like this.

cool book bro

>>3085575

Sadly, by exposing an opposing position you will invite people on the other side to say that it is also indoctrination.

That is, "don't listen to Richard Dawkins kids. He is trying to indoctrinate you into atheism so you can reject JC".

Teaching kids (and people in general) to think for themselves and categorically making it clear that there is nothing wrong with questioning/skepticism is by far the best approach (imo).

Holy crap. (excuse the pun). I just realized....

> 288-page book aimed at children in October.
> 288-page book...children...
> 288-page...children
> 288-page

Yeah...stupid kids aren't going to read this....even smart kids might have a challenge...

>>3085510
>288 page
but the answer is 2, not 288

>inb4 christian shitstorm

>>3085565
You sound like me (Britfag), though it took me until I was 10/11 to actually realise that I was an atheist (before that, I had been what you might call a selective Christian, i.e. I believed in god when it was convenient, but over time I became more apathetic towards religion). To be fair, I did go to a Catholic school, so I was predisposed to it...

>>3085528
>If you objectively balance the evidence for and against and come to conclusion that there is a god - good for you.
>objectively balance the evidence for and against
>balance the evidence for and against
>evidence for and against
>evidence for
>for

I lol'd.

>>3085565
yeah, I explained all that in my post.

I stated that there was one kid who thought about it and challenged his beliefs but the teacher was quick to put an end to that and now he doesn't question his beliefs anymore.

>>3085589
It's also the more difficult approach; but I think it is worth it. That's what I would try to do if I had kids.

>>3085589
How do you know this book doesn't promote skepticism?

At any rate, I do agree, being a skeptical is one of the most valuable personality traits in my opinion.

>>3085589
Children do not exist in a vacuum.

If theists use the indoctrination argument against this they lay bare their own wrong-doings.

Also what is Dawkins doing if he's not
>Teaching kids (and people in general) to think for themselves
?

>>3085601

People experience re-re miracles. That's sort of like evidence....

>>3085601

Ah, the summer breeze is in the air.

>>3085604
He will, that teacher just set him back. But that spark of questioning what your told is still there. He'll be alright.

>arguing about content of a book
>not even read it yet


Stay classy, /sci/.

>mfw the book will educate more adults than kids

>>3085601

I know, I know.
My point is that such people woudn't know that there is no evidence in favour unless they objectively looked for it.
That is, they should approach the problem with no preconceptions for/against.

>>3085597

Maybe the text is big and there'll be pictures inside. It's a children's book.

>... oh, Dawkins I hope you know what you're doing.

>>3085624
Having no preconceptions is impossible.

Hell look at us, we have preconceptions about a book we haven't even read.

>>3085627
If it's anything like the book on the front page you will be disappoint. Just look on the left that's like 7th grade science in America.

Fuck persons who act like the general theory of relativity is necessarily true and everything that it assume is necessarily true it's only a theory so stop doing that please.

>>3085611

His previous books prompted some religious groups (creationists in particular) to go on the defensive and basically launch a smear campaign against him.
Not strictly because of the content, but because they think his 'message' can be distilled into such things as 'he believes there is no god. if you agree, you are also going to hell' etc

This man sickens me. Whats next, a childrens book about homosexuality, or abortion?

>288-page book aimed at children

And Atheists still wonder why their religion is failing.

>>3085668
1.8/10, only because gaffigan is kinda funny.

>>3085598

Oh hi EK, die in a fire. I hate you.

This has been my daily I hate you message.

>>3085678
i love you too darling. it's always nice to meet a fan.
Also, Dawkins is fucking awesome, i'll read this when it comes out.

>>3085658
They do that to anyone who publicly states anything that runs contrary to their fantasy worldview though.

>>3085634

Actually yeah. I worded that badly.
I meant to temporally relinquish all emotional/social ties and look at it 'from above' so that your ability to assess something as being true/false is not influenced by your pre-existing belief that it is already true/false.

Cans of worms ....

>>3085663
That man sickens me, whats next? a self improvement book or a book about thinking critically?

>>3085686

But they are muddying the waters further.
After the God Delusion became widespread, you could literally see on a day-by-day basis the amount of people with the same arguments against it.
Some of who admitted that they didn't even read the book.

In essence, they got all their objections from just a few sources.

here, stfu.

I doubt very much this book will mention God or atheism whatsoever. It's about how to think rationally, I suspect.

>>3085687
I hold that this is impossible for a person to do. As bias is inherent, even in our sub-conscious. Rendering any decision a person makes simply a product of past experiences and genetic disposition.

But I do judge or consider your view invalid. Simply contrary.

>>3085727
You mean arguments like they put up in these videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY

Somehow I feel less than threatened by such stunning arguments.

>>3085744

Ok ok, i'll refine it.

The mental "endurance" that would allow for the *possibility* that the person could change their opinion/position.

Otherwise how could something change their mind about something like denouncing theistic beliefs?

>>3085774
I'll tell you know I was able to drop my christian beliefs in favor of skepticism.

I've always had a inquisitive mind. So at first, I was learning everything I could about Christianity. And when I got older and developed my own interests in science, history, math, and electronics. I realized that faith isn't the same thing as evidence. So, over time, I replaced my beliefs with different ones.

I don't think I've answered you at all. But basically, humans are bias, but what they are bias to can still change over time.

>>3085733
I'm with you. A book about "how we know what's really true" should stick to just that. He'd be shooting himself in the foot to bring up God or atheism at all.

Those two topics really aren't in the scope of this book.

>>3085822

That pretty much exemplifies what I was trying to convey (albeit poorly).

The way I see it, People are willingly bullshitting themselves.
Since I was able to think about the concept of god I was pretty much an atheist.
Though I considered myself Christian.

As an analogy, you root and hope for your home team to win, even claim that you know they will win.
Of course all this, with 1 minute left to the game, down by 5.

I'm convinced that the majority of the population is atheist in the sense that I was age 14 and under.

It's not so much that people are stupid, it's just that they are irrationally expected to act in such a way, and so they do.

The biggest thing that could be done for atheism is simply coming out, others will follow, and surely more will have enough of the bullshit they've been feeding themselves.

>Richard Dawkins to release a 288-page book aimed at children in October.

>Naked pictures of himself performing sexual acts found on 173 pages.

>288 pages
>aimed at children

way to understand children, you fucking chode

>>3086077
I loved thick books full of beautiful pictures and interesting facts when I was a kid. I could spend hours exploring them.

>>3086084
you=/=rest of the population

Teaching children about science is wrong. It's just another form of religious indoctrination. They should chose for themselves what to believe.

Militant atheists really piss me off.

I'm assuming this book is intended to indoctrinate children to be anti-religious . What a fucking hypocrite.

>>3086091
Ahahaha, 2/10, made me smirk

>>3086077
>I was a retarded child therefore all children are retarded

I read The Lord of the Rings when I was 10 and I don't even see myself as being particularly intelligent.

>>3086095
>Critical thinking
>Indoctrination

Sure is asspained religionfag.

>>3086095
Considering the book is called "how we know what's really true" it's more likely about the scientific method and how to be skeptical. If being anti-religious is a biproduct of that, that's logic's fault, not his.

>>3085550
Brand marketing, kiddo. Learn it.

>>3086104
>Critical thinking
>There is no god

Sure is asspained religionfag.

>>3085598
iseewhatyoudidthere

>>3086112
>implying critical thinking is believing fairy tales your parents told you

I'll laugh when Dawkins recants on his deathbed.

>>3086095
>Militant atheists
Are you talking about the ones who shoot abortion doctors or the ones who blow up buildings.

Oh wait, I'm confusing.

>>3086077
Harry Potter books are longer than that.

>>3085519
/thread

>>3086077
Not every child has ADD.

There is no one of any religious persuasion on here. Only trolls and hipsters

>atheism is just too mainstream

>>>/lit/1784481

>>3086099
>I am so awe-inspiringly autismal that I am not even aware that others are different from me and I am failing to understand them

>>3086126
There are plenty of atheists who are unprovokedly agressive, rude and unpleasant towards religious people. Saying "well at least they don't murder people" is besides the point. It would be like commenting "well at least he didn't follow her home and murder her and her family" after seeing a man punch a woman in the face for no reason.

Woo hoo you're not as bad as murderers. Great! Good job guys. What fine human beings you are.

>>3086180
That's not really all that unusual. Many kids read Tolkien.

Have a point.

>>3086181
>It would be like commenting "well at least he didn't follow her home and murder her and her family" after seeing a man punch a woman in the face for no reason.
Yeah, it would be *exactly* like that, if people would still proceeded to call the guy a murderer for no reason.

Being rude and being militant are two very different things.

>>3086201
*proceed

>>3086077
>I'm a simpleton who had an intellectually malnourished childhood and didn't read anything longer or more demanding than a Goosebumps book until I was well into my teens

Seriously, fuck off. Harry Potter books get read by 8 year olds, infact often even younger than that.

>>3086201
Militant has been used to refer to agressive supporters of some a cause for a while now. but if you object to any sort of non-literal speach then fine.

I hate agressive atheists who are unprovokedly agressive and unpleasant to people who are religious.

>>3086191
And millions of kids read fucking Twilight and nothing more complicated than that. 288 pages of probably boring material isn't going to appeal to more than a select few kids, and I know it's hard to realize when your group is a small minority but failing to do so just makes you look like an ass.

>>3086266
>Militant has been used to refer to agressive supporters of some a cause for a while now.
Improperly, yes.

>but if you object to any sort of non-literal speach then fine.
I object to self-serving misuses of speech.

>I hate agressive atheists who are unprovokedly agressive and unpleasant to people who are religious.
Yeah, that's fine by me.

>>3086285
>probably boring
I like how you base your entire argument on your own intuition. Very scientific and stuff.

>>3086305
>implying that most kid will love science

Who gives a fuck if its 288 pages? It's obviously aimed at children that are able to read that much, it's not fucking made to "entertain" children so they keep on reading but to educate them.

What does /lit/ think?

>>3086305
Look, I have nothing but disdain and annoyance toward Dawkins but even I don't think he's going to be writing at a level even close to Twilight, and so what he does write will probably be boring to the majority of the kids he's trying to aim it at.

>>3086314
You could probably say "hurr most kids don't like history", or any other academic subject yet childrens book for those things still sell.

Besides he's obviously written it as a popsci book and aimed it at children, it isn't going ot be written the same way as a text book.

considering that I've been forced to read bible since I was 7, I wholeheartedly welcome this

>>3086322
The reason why I have trouble agreeing with you is because this book has "KIDDIE AS FUCK" written all over it. Most of the pages are only short paragraphs (pic related), and some may not even contain any words at all. After all, the thing was co-created by an illustrator. There is no coherent narrative either, so it's not like kids are expected to read it in one go from beginning to end.

so is this the thread for pre-emptively reviewing a book we know next-to-nothing about?

i thought it was a real page turner.

Good, good. Indoctrinate kids with this instead of religion.

>>3086361
we know dawkin's an idiot, so his work is reflective of his character.

>>3086372
>dawkins is an atheist
>atheism is just too mainstream
>dawkins is an idiot

>>3086366
that's more like indoctrinating kids with dawkin's religion

I'm not really in a position to judge the basic literacy of an average 5 year old, I was reading full length novels at age 5. It helps when your parents read to you a lot and encourage you to learn.

That said, I'd have read a book like this when I was young. I think I did read a few, though for me it was more an interest in space and technology.

It would depend on how it's marketed. Kids won't care much about the New York Times list.

>Richard Dawkins makes a book encouraging critical thinking
>Ad hominem attacks everywhere

Wow religionfags, are you that insecure?

>>3086386
>dawkins has a ceritification in the field of Atheism

>>3086400
>Critical thinking
>hurr durr evolution is true
>hurr durr big bang came out of nothing for no reason
>creation is not intelligent
>there is no god buy my books derpa derpa hurf

>>3086451

I know it might be hard to grasp, but it is possible for someone who holds a view on something to not let that view become the main focus of everything he ever writes.

Also, as no one has read this book yet, you can't attack or support it by using content from previous works which may have nothing to do with the content of this one.

Critical thinking is for agnostics only. Atheists shouldn't tarnish it with their ignorance.

>>3086400
I'm not a religionfag, Dawkins didn't make this book about critical thinking. Any parent could buy a "logic for dummies" book at a book shop which a 12 year old could understand, all Dawkins has done is mix this in with his religion.

>>3086464
Well, you appear to be confused.
Agnosticism isn't mutually exclusive with atheism. Seems you think all atheists are gnostic atheists, you are wrong. Most atheists are agnostic. This has been said so many times it's not even funny.

This thread was insightful until Tony the Troll and the Herp-a-Derp gang came along.

>>3086470
Atheism is a religion like Bald is a hair color or not believing in the tooth fairy is a belief.
Try harder, troll.

>>3086484
And no amount of repeating this over and over makes it any less true.

>>3085510

I'm not going to criticize the book, becuase I'm not sure what its contents are, but the question I'd ask;(and please Disciples Of Dawkins feel free to answer) If you wanted to make kids more aware of science and the universe why not simply write a science book for children?


I grew up in a "God fearing" household and we had many of those.

Is that what this is? Simply a kids science book?

If so; why the fuss? If not; what is it?

>illustrated by Dave McKean

I'll take twelve.

>>3086546

That's all it is.

Dawkin's writes plenty of pure science (well pop science) books that have nothing to do with religion. Relligiousfags just ignore those ones.

>>3086541
Well, they learned that from religions, so it's not really fair to blame them.

>Oh irony, when will you reach these atheists?

>assert baseless fact to refute baselss fact.

>>3086531

>Atheism is a religion

It depends on the atheist.

If we're talking about say Bruce Willis's atheism then yeah it's simply his understanding about the nature of reality. If we're talking about Dawkins and his cult following it is most definitely a religion.

Oh lord, this isn't a pro-atheism/anti-religion book is it? If so, could the man get any lower, picking on the kids?

I know most atheists idolise Dawkins, but personally I can't stand the guy. When it comes to religion, he possesses the same narrow-minded arrogance as you find with those Bible-bashers that say "Silly scientists, why are you trying to prove the Big Bang theory? Of course there's a god and you're all going to hell."

>>3086546
>>3086556

Dawkins' description:
"Each chapter is a question like: What is an earthquake? What is a rainbow? What is the sun? Each chapter begins with a series of myths seemingly answering those questions, and then I counter that with explanations about the true nature of things. There is something very cheap about magic in the supernatural sense, like turning a frog into a prince with a magic wand. Reality has a grander, poetic magic of its own, which I hope I can get across."

So basically it's Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World for kids. I'm pretty okay with this.

I'd like to read that book... Unless it's too preachy, which it probably is.

>>3085668
I read The War of the Worlds as a child (age 10) and that's around 300 pages. It still remains as my favourite work of fiction to this day.

>>3086572
So it's just a basic, ordinary science book? No religion at all?

>i'm-ok-with-this.jpg

>>3086550
I know I recognised that name from somewhere

>Richard Dawkins to release a <span class="math">48\div 2(9+3)[/spoiler]-page book aimed at children in October.

>>3086572
Sagan's book isn't difficult to read (to kids) so all he has to do is make sure he illustrates it with plenty examples to keep them interested. Still it'll be adults that read it.

?

Why are people so quick to point out 288 pages?

Children are mostly able to read by the first grade. If it's a CHILDREN'S book, then it wont be something overly complex for children to read. In fact, children are most influenced at their age, I know most of you fuckers got interested in science as a young child rather than in your teens. I know I did.

You what annoys me about book stores?
They have like, two full rows on Christianity.
Then they have a few shelves for religion general.
And then in another part of the store, just like, two shelves for science.
And they aren't even science books.
It's fucking Richard Dawkins "HURR NOGOD" books.
Metaphysics =\= Science

These people are just making atheism look like a doctrine instead of a simple worldview, you dont teach atheism you let people find out themselves. Those self called 'militant atheists' and 'antireligion' make me rage so hard, they are no different than those arabs preaching violence in the middle east

>>3086677
Metaphysics = Science

whether you like it or not

>>3086687
>>Why is the worst thing religious people say about atheists that they are religious fanatics?

>>3086677
This is why I'm glad I don't live in America.

>>3086688
I don't agree. It should be
>Metaphysics => Science

>mfw dawkins causes children to realize life is meaningless at age 5

So uh, I want to study atheism, where can I get a PhD in atheism? The same kind of degree that makes dawkins an authority figure different from a priest being an authority on god. Should I go into theology?

>>3086759
You don't. Also, Dawkins was never an authority on the subject more than that he read and talked a lot about it in his life. He never called himself an authority in it.

What's the point of your post?

>>3086759

Religious studies

>>3086807
So if dawkins is an authority on religions, he would have done religious studies?

i'd be OK with this if dawkins wasn't such an asshole with an enormous ego and this really annoying pompous attitude (which has nothing to do with him being an athiest)

>>3086745
oohh noo, how dare they know the truth!

>>3086745
fuck it just show them an imendham video and they will beg for death.

>>3086840

It's kind of weird because he isn't actually an asshole and doesn't have much of an ego.

Religious people just project that on to him ('how DARE anyone criticise religion') and non religious people parrot it. If you watch any interview by him or read his books you will find him respectful and polite.

>>3086861
bullshit, he was a total douche on south park

>>3086861
>If you watch any interview by him or read his books you will find him respectful and polite.
i've watched quite a few
you're glorifying him

>>3086745
I think they will find meaning in relationships with other humans instead of with ghosts and fantasy worlds. They may even be inspired to improve things here, instead of waiting for this world to pass away in place of heaven.

>>3086861
It's not that he's rude, per se, it's that he is a stuck up prick, acting polite just makes the stuck up prick effect worse.

>>3086892
Or they'll realize that no one else exists and morality is just a problem of getting caught.

>to each their own

>>3086898
Oh look, you just described every pretentious religious fag on the face of this planet.

Except people aren't teaching atheism, they're teaching skepticism.


>but anyway, what's good is that you've found a way to feel superior to both

>>3085597
I read all three lord of the rings books when i was about 8 or 9.

>>3086909
>implying fighting fire with fire is any better than religion.

>>3086904
That kind of thinking will die with religion.

>>3086925
I disagree. They're clearly fighting fire with water.

>>3086932
But maybe it's a chip pan fire and they're only exacerbating the problem.

>>3086937
It's not a chip pan fire and I've lost track of this analogy.

>>3086926
Nope, it'll just be recategorized into something like anti-humanism, or some other social ill.

It doesn't matter what you call a turd, it all smells the same.

I would rather children believe in the things that are there, and look for the things they can't see, than believe a few things that aren't there, and ignore the things that are.

>>3086942
It could be a grease fire and now the kitchen's on fire.

>>3086952
And humans will always be this height, like we were in the garden of Eden.

Tolerating delusional idiots is NOT "acting nice" it's BEING nice.

>>3086973
No, it's being an ignorance enabler.

Progressive atheists are fucking annoying as fuck.

You aren't doing the world a favor, youre just attention whores. Fuck off.

>>3086966
Indeed, I'm a true believer in all the hippy, singularity, we ain't gonna have no problems in a rational future, because if only we erradicate an idea, then we can get on with ourselves.

>ideological godwin!

>>3086990
A nice ignorance enabler. There are those wilfully ignorant whom you are never going to convince. Best to go after their children (in a nice way)

>>3086990
So, he should -try- to piss people off!?

GREAT IDEA, HOMELESSMAN! It'll save cognitive thought!

>>3086996
You leave me no choice.

>>3087000
Yes because ignoring the history of religion in humanities (all of the global) is a good way to educate the future.

>>3087010
>going off on a tangent

You did it!

>>3087010
Now, now. Religion can be included in with the history of magic, unicorns, and witchcraft.

>>3087006
Eh? Oh man, you gonna start book burning?

>fire with fire

>>3087025
I'm not the fire with fire guy Trollio. I mean I'm converting to Unitarianism.

>>3087021
Because it's done nothing but harm, right?

>>3087014
Sure, just fighting ignorance with ignorance

>u mad bro?

>>3087025
No, recycling. Just the bibles though. A couple of copies per library is enough.

>>3087042
Yes. People do good, not religion, and just like with religious people, it's a personal decision.

>>3085565
>"agnostic atheist"
>uses 4 quandrant bullshit
Kill yourself. That's not what the words mean.

>>3087086
So religious hate is just arbitrary right? Humans do evil, it's all personal decisions.

>Lets eradicate religions!

>>3085589
>Teaching kids (and people in general) to think for themselves and categorically making it clear that there is nothing wrong with questioning/skepticism is by far the best approach (imo).
Are you suggesting that that is not what Dawkins is doing? I suspect that is what the book will be.

>>3087107
Evil. How nebulous. Don't blame "people" blame "evil."

How enlightened. Way to send humanity back to the dark ages.

>>3085729
There are objective arguments that disprove an interfering supernatural thingy. I am atheist about interfering gods, and I am militant agnostic about non-interfering gods - I don't know, and you can't know either.

>>3086181
>There are plenty of atheists who are unprovokedly agressive, rude and unpleasant towards religious people. Saying "well at least they don't murder people" is besides the point. It would be like commenting "well at least he didn't follow her home and murder her and her family" after seeing a man punch a woman in the face for no reason.

To paraphrase Dan Dennett, I am sorry that there is no polite way to say "Good sir. Have you considered the possibility that you're wasted a large portion of life on a lie?". It may be impolite, but it needs to be said.

>>3087121
Eh? did you even see what was referencing?

>Humans do evil, not religion

...?

>Lets eradicate religions...when humans do evil?

I'm pretty sure, had you read the troll & response, you would have noticed an illogical consistency is the desire to eradicate religion when it's clear the one calling for eradication doesn't think religions are to blame for anything wrong.

>semantics, you has an argument with a dictionary, congratulations!

I wonder how many people who stay Christians if they weren't "forced" to read the Bible or do pointless religious mechanical crap, like Catholics do. I wonder how many people have actually read a Bible and learned that it's really about love and peace, not religious sectarianism. Jesus actually prayed for unity, we fucked it up with crap like Mormonism and Catholicism. Today, I think it's easy to be an atheist.

>>3087126
>I don't know, and you can't know either.

That's not much justification for belief in n-i gods. As for belief in their non-existence, I can't *know* anything, can I? This could be The Matrix, et all those arguments. Can't know re elves etc.

>>3086546
>I'm not going to criticize the book, becuase I'm not sure what its contents are, but the question I'd ask;(and please Disciples Of Dawkins feel free to answer) If you wanted to make kids more aware of science and the universe why not simply write a science book for children?

I'm betting it is a science book. I haven't read it yet, and you haven't either. One of the most important aspects of science is critical reasoning, aka constantly asking yourself "What if I'm wrong?".

>>3087146
>That's not much justification for belief in n-i gods. As for belief in their non-existence, I can't *know* anything, can I? This could be The Matrix, et all those arguments. Can't know re elves etc.
How could you misunderstand that? I agree fully. The point is that if the god is non-interfering, then I do not know, and you cannot know. If you claim to know, then you are wrong. You are not factually wrong, but your method of acquiring knowledge is no better than a coin flip, aka wrong.

>>3087143
When I went to Catholic school in the 70's, the Old and New testaments were taught to us as facts of reality. Everything in the Old Testament happened exactly the way it was written, and if you asked questions, you were beaten.

>>3087143
The church doesn't teach what Jesus said.

>>3087163

That's the crap I'm talking about. Christianity went the way of gnosticism so fast that people distorted it and made God either too mad or too glad. To be beaten for asking questions is wrong in any Christian light. Remember that Thomas asked questions and was not beaten, but instead he was simply answered. Of course, people have made Thomas out to be a doubting dick-face over the centuries, using him as a platform for faithlessness. I'd argue that Peter's denials of Jesus were far worse.

>>3087154
I understand you. I believe absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, to coin a phrase. But a non-interfering god would have made us as an inert and static object and his existence would have zero value to us. If man is the measure of all things, your insistence on his possibility at that point is useless.

I remember one time Dawkins was talking about sitting down with a kid, and working through the calculations about how long it would take Santa to go down every chimney.

A religious person counter-replied saying "How horrible! You told him that Santa wasn't real!"

Dawkins replied "What? I did not tell him Santa wasn't real. I made him think critically."

>>3087170

Today's church is bent on winning souls for dollars, as evidenced by all the God channels. It's so very sad to see that, but the Bible literally warns against it. I suppose today's televangelists are the worse false prophets of all time.

>>3087184
I think you're attributing an argument to me that I did not make. I never argued for the existence of god. I'm an atheist. I've argued against the existence of a interfering god, and I've argued that anyone who claims to know that there is a non-interfering god is wrong - not demonstrably wrong, but his method of reasoning is wrong and no better than a coin flip.

>>3087180
I was beaten by a Catholic Priest and a nun.

The priest beat my bare ass with a belt the size of a barbers strop in 2nd grade, and the nun wailed on me with a 36 inch ruler.

I can't remember why the Priest beat me, but the nun beat me for asking if God created the Big Bang.

>>3087186
Santa's unreality wouldn't be real to the kid until he figured it out for himself. Until then he would call you a liar for doubting Santa.

>>3087192
You repeat yourself unnecessarily.

>>3087199
He never even said doubt Santa. Dawkins just sat down and starting calculating how long it would take Santa to deliver all the presents. It sounded as if he was talking as though Santa was real, and he was curious how long it took Santa on Christmas Eve.

>>3087219
if a fool would persist in his folly he would become wise

>>3087192

Anyone that believes in the Bible does not believe in a non-interfering God, but I understand your viewpoint entirely. That's the kind of logic that easily defeats a fair amount of religions around the world, and I'm all too happy to agree. Of course, you probably won't agree with my first statement to an extent, since there is no non-providential proof that God has interfered with creation since Biblical times, though the Bible does say that he "lets the nations go their own for a time." Of course that's not really enough to convince a full-blown atheist of anything, which is understandable.

>>3087143
Religion is all pointless mechanical crap to get it firmly implanted in kids before they get old enough to question things. The rest is keeping up the facade.
If religious people actually read the books they wave around they'd realize how shaky the foundation of their religion is. I'm just sad people can kid themselves from the fear of death and quest for power for this long.

>>3087204
One would think, except that he's attributing some argument to me that I have not made, so the best I can do is repeat myself and be more clear. I'm not even sure what he's saying that I've said, but it's clearly wrong.

Wait... what's that about Santa not being real?

>>3087223
>there is no non-providential proof that God has interfered with creation since Biblical times

No I'm pretty sure somebody saw him in a telescope. And of course, the flood really happened, so who needs non-providential anything.

This book should be renamed "The magic of higher authorities"

>>3087236
Only for sandniggers.

>>3087223
I first agree that it appears as though there's been no miracles since Biblical times.

However:
>absence of evidence is not evidence of absence

Copypasta:
No no no. Some kinds of absense of evidence is evidence of absence. Colloquially, I can prove a negative. I can prove there is no elephant in my car. First, I can calculate the size of the elephant, and demonstrate that there is insufficient room in the car for the elephant. I can then observe my car and not see an elephant. I can then inspect my car with touch and again confirm there is no elephant. I can use infra-red. I can even get heavy equipment to turn my car on its side with the doors open to try to shake out that elephant. I have evidence that there is no elephant in my car.

Similarly, I have evidence that miracles do not exist.

>>3087200

If I could give a hug over the internet, I would :( Understand that what you were exposed to was not true to the Bible in any sense (New covenant, of course). I was fortunate enough not to be exposed to that, but I've done my fair share of questioning, too, though it's mostly private research. I have no problem with science and God co-existing.

>>3087226
Let's say the universe was created by a non-interfering entity. That's quite an accomplishment, and his existence is to our limited senses a coinflip. Is he God? A god? An alien? Who made him?
Someone or something made him. He is not self-generating. He is not god. No coin required.
But I probably just don't get you.

You cannot prove reality doesn't exist.

>>3087250
Miracles by definition don't exist, and your elephant proof begs an elephant of standard size. It could be a ghost elephant.

>>3087250

Of course this is where we separate and go our own ways in our own beliefs and evidences.

>>3087273
The Dragon In My Garage, by Carl Sagan
http://www.godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/Dragon.htm

>>3087256
>Is he God? A god? An alien? Who made him?
>Someone or something made him. He is not self-generating. He is not god. No coin required.
>But I probably just don't get you.

That's perfectly fine. I don't disagree. I don't disagree because I do not know, and you do not know either. I'm not trying to add plausibility to any kind of god.

>>3087276
>I'm not trying to add plausibility to any kind of god.

Except the non-interfering kind, whose existence or non we cannot know. Possible is more plausible than impossible. Maybe is more plausible than no.
Self-generating god is no.

>>3087275
Oh the semantic divide between thoughts, feelings and rocks.

>no one disputes the rocks.

>>3087287
(Sorry for deleting and reposting, fixing quoting issue).

Ok. Maybe I am then by that interpretation. I do not believe that you can reason factual knowledge from first principles, such as the existence or non-existence of an eternal thingy (god). That's militant agnosticism.

>>3087296
It's past that.