Richard Dawkins Books for Children an Teens

[+DieChecker]

On 9/23/2018 at 1:10 AM, danydandan said:

As mentioned earlier, Mark is probably the most relevant. However one can see the argument for advocating either Gospels.

What I've been taught is that each Gospel was written for a different audience.

https://www.christianity.com/jesus/is-jesus-god/the-gospels/four-gospels-four-audiences.html

Quote

...So Matthew speaks to the Jews and the deeply religious of our day.

Mark spoke to the Romans. ...

Luke was a Greek speaking to the Greeks. ...

John wrote to everyone, because everyone needs to meet God and only Jesus can reveal Him. ...

What I've been told is that John was an emphasis on the supernatural, to shock/awe people. Mathew was to the Jews, Mark to the Romans, and Luke to the Greeks.

The styles and emphasis was thus different for each.

[+DieChecker]

On 9/23/2018 at 3:37 PM, psyche101 said:

I really don't think so, where is the line between indoctrination and teaching in this case? 

It is indoctrination if you are telling people what to believe. And not simply presenting facts, and/or your opinion. Saying, "X is not true, and thus you must believe Y." is indoctrination. Saying, "My opinion, based on this data, is that X is not true." is NOT indoctrination. But note that in the second one the speaker isn't telling what must be believed, just what is untrue.

[+DieChecker]

On 9/23/2018 at 6:55 PM, psyche101 said:

I disagree  I feel politics is very much a science. There is a lot of variables to be calculated and accounted for. That's how I've come to the realisation that we are doing it wrong. Politicians should not be left to the public vote, but should be a qualified position like any job that one should have to pass tests for. The smartest people in the world are on the road of discovery. We need those people making informed decisions too. 

I'd disagree. Political Science is not science, but how to manipulate. Just because there are variables to consider doesn't make something science. A madman takes lots of variables into consideration just before he rushes the police officer with a broken bottle.

I'd disagree again regarding elected politicians. They represent the will of the people, and force change when desired. If the government was run like a corporation with people coming up from below, it would be stagnant and change would be retarded endlessly, as it would be in their best interests to do so. 

Quote

Not per capita, one group in Idaho is responsible for ten times the states death count alone. Then think of the indoctrinated youths who's lives are spent for religious causes and I really doubt that would be correct. A lot of people does by lighting, one estimate has it at 24,000 a year, in 1954 to 1999 7 people died in Iidaho from lighting strike, 130 died in one decade in idaho due to religious abuse. 

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/apr/13/followers-of-christ-idaho-religious-sect-child-mortality-refusing-medical-help

http://lightningsafety.com/nlsi_lls/fatalities_us.html

Hum... The 10 times rate for Idaho is based off counting in a cemetery in one location and the reasons for the deaths of those children (40 children in a decade) was not recorded. They could have died of cougar/bear attacks and we wouldn't know. 

I just did a bit of Google searching and Can Not find the statistics on how many kids die due to religious medical neglect. I find lots of articles that have individual cases though. This leads me to believe that it is NOT common. The 40 suspected cases in Idaho were over a decade, and in the last bastion of protection of such religious practices. 

The lightning articles says 756 over 13 years, or about 58 per year. Can we find a source that says more then 58 children are dying from religious neglect each year?

Quote

It only took 20 of them to kill thousands at 911. 

The fanatics are encouraged by the moderates who are accepted generally. The only way to isolate them is to be honest and recognise that the God theory is an old superstition that simply does not stand to scrutiny, and if the church accepted that and continued to do good in the name of tradition as opposed to pretending some omnipotent being exists, the church would be respected a great deal, moreso across society as well. Continuing to role play a god into the picture is where all decency and respect is lost I feel. 

So we had 20 out of 1 billion who attacked on 911. Are you seriously saying that such a statistic required the end of religion? What is the total number of Islamic fanatics known to have targeted, or attacked, others due to religion? I expect it is a fair number considering the Muslim on Muslim attacks in corners of the world like Africa, and the Middle East. However, I'd still say that, though the attacks make a lot of noise, they aren't any more dangerous then other, non-religious, attacks. Just in Chicago/Detroit people are dying at record rates due to gun violence that has nothing to do with religion, but with gang membership and the promoting of violence in the community.

I'd also tend to disagree that the fanatics are tolerated by the moderates. I've seen a fair number of Christian fanatics (who hate people that watch Harry Potter, or play Pokemon, or who dance, or who pick up a playing card...) who were tolerated for a time, and then thrust out of the community. I do tend to disagree with that practice though, as it only marginalizes those people and ends up making them even more "crazy".

Quote

I think that considering our progress since evolution became a supported theory that things like the industrial revolution and university progress illustrates that it would most likely be the case. 

I'd argue that during that same progress the populations of the world were 99.9% religious.

Quote

As you can see when logic is applied over emotion, good things happen such as gun regulation which does benefit the community.

I didn't say governments are logical, considering voting preferences concerning atheists I'd call the voting process illogical. But they are capable of logical thinking, as in that instance  and when it's applied, we all benifit. 

The problem I have is that those who espouse logic are often the same people who fall into using emotion and appeals to emotion to try to influence others. Humans, few of them anyway, act only our of logic/reason. Almost all of them act out of their opinion, based on experience and facts. The fact that we all have different experiences, and that a great number of people believe they have experienced the supernatural, means that almost everything on any single day is influenced by religion and/or emotion.

Quote

When there is more than enough resources, and people like Dawkins offering an easy way to real knowledge it cannot be anything but deliberate the way I see it. There are plenty of resources the more religious people openly scoff at to uphold a personal ideal, physics goes to the window altogether in some cases to satisfy an egotistical personal conclusion. Posters here eschew such sciences for belief driven superstitious based conclusions. Those people know better, and have the opportunity to learn more but reject it for a personal pet theory. That's not respectable, logical, or commendable. It's outright deliberate ignorance.

Well, the answer is right there... "..the way I see it.". Is everyone trained to think the way you do? Are they going to make the same decisions you do? Does everyone you know make good decisions? If not, then why don't they think the way you do? Since it is so rational? See.... Other people have other ideas and opinions.

What you consider obvious is not to them. It may be actually stupid to them. And these ARE the people making life and death decisions every day. For you... And me... And yet you and I haven't died yet. So, then... Is how they are running things so very bad?

Quote

I do feel l that it's representative that there are many people in society just like that. The majority of people in the beliefs section I do find make up plenty of stuff. They are but a couple with the cajolies to enter the skeptic section. Yourself and those like you I find more the minority here who can discuss a religious subject thoughtfully and amicably. 

So now we are going with "feelings"?  What happened to facts? The fact is that you took a tiny % and said "this is representative.". 

Quote

That's one of my objections. There's no reason one should pretend to be an authority based on cultural superstitions. That is indeed ridiculous, yet the majority of religious adherents do it. I find this a deplorable aspect of religion. The self confidence it offers is false. 

Yet again, it is the real world. Humans are pack animals. Darwin shown us that right? Animals... Thus we are subject to instincts and acting stupidly. I imagine a society based entirely on logic would do well, for a time. Until someone (a flawed human) took charge who becomes a tyrant, and then what is logical is what the tyrant wants. This is why democracy and representation is necessary. And with democracy we must accept that the religious, and the stupid, and the horribly bias, and the haters... are all going to be represented to some degree. It must be accepted as a necessary evil. No human system can be perfect, and without perfection, the best thing is representation. 

Quote

I would be OK with that. Logically comfort rest  and community support are very beneficial. 

I would not like to live in a Darwinian society. That would be cruel and harsh, but recognising that with knowledge shows us what we don't want to be. It's as good as the treat others as you wish to be treated lesson but from a scientific angle. 

Quote

That doesnt make it OK, and that's not a belief that deserves respect, yet the influence of religion is so strong we are told we must respect that based on cultural acceptance. Its really just pandering to egos. 

I agree. It doesn't make it OK, but it makes it what we have to deal with today. 

Quote

While that's true  we also assumed it would be half a century or more before the world was connected. Current estimates say the world will be connected by 2025. Everyone will have access  to Internet. The only hurdle now is governments that are religiously biased who will be restricting access to non religious content, which will result in a surge of popularity I expect. 

I think you are neglecting human stubbornness in your equation. 

Not necessarily religious based nations, but tyrannically ran nations. Indonesia is one of the most populous Islam majority nations, and the people there has good internet and good freedoms, yet remain Islamic to a large degree. Islamic people in industrialized nations, like the UK, despite having world class internet access have retained hard line religious views. I do believe there will be change, but it will be the work of over a century IMHO.

Quote

There are fewer gaps than ever for God to hide in, and they are being explored. It's accepted widely new that evolution is valid. Its a matter of time before the begginings of everything is worked out. I honestly don't see how one can continue to believe that despite so many cultural myths being disproven. A Universe is not both crested and naturally occurring just as mankind is not both both worked from clay as well as evolved. Far random metaphorical applications only illustrate lateral thinking, it dies nut validate the idea at all. Nothing does. Forcing the idea of a Creator into discovery is not helpful, not dies it achieve anything at all, its just testament to how stubborn our species is, and how resistant to change many of us are. Ego is more important than knowledge. 

I'd disagree. Adding one more question to anything should not hurt the conclusion. If you find a rock with weird colors on it, it is OK to believe it is natural and research to see what kind of mineral it is. It hurts nothing to also speculate if the colors were added by man, and eliminate that as a suspect along with other possibiliites.

Looking at a star, or galaxy, or just a long super fast asteroid, and wondering if it was created/artificial hurts nothing, even if there is no evidence of such. Then if the evidence points to it, at least you considered it, rather then discarding what you "knew" to false. Discarding something out of hand is the very opposite of science and logic.

Quote

We have been entertaining the possibility for thousands of years. All that hard work allowed us to realise other options that superseded the more primitive notions of a Creator. At what point does one sensibly abandon a hopeless task? 

When it is entirely shown to not be true. Which, in this case, has not been done yet.

[GoldenWolf]

4 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Discarding something out of hand is the very opposite of science and logic.

Science has made more than plenty of hypotheses regarding "God".

[+DieChecker]

4 minutes ago, MysticWolf said:

Science has made more than plenty of hypotheses regarding "God".

True, and many of them remain unconfirmed either way. To therefore assume the conclusion is not scientific.

Edited September 26, 2018 by DieChecker

[GoldenWolf]

1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

True, and many of them remain unconfirmed either way. To therefore assume the conclusion is not scientific.

Hypotheses regarding if "God" is real, not hypotheses about "God" not being real.

[+DieChecker]

11 minutes ago, MysticWolf said:

Hypotheses regarding if "God" is real, not hypotheses about "God" not being real.

Regardless, if nothing is accepted/acceptable as evidence, neither conclusion can be reached.

Edited September 26, 2018 by DieChecker

[danydandan]

25 minutes ago, MysticWolf said:

Science has made more than plenty of hypotheses regarding "God".

 

20 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

True, and many of them remain unconfirmed either way. To therefore assume the conclusion is not scientific.

It's not Science. It's not testable nor is it unfalsifiable thus pondering the existence of God is not Science. And any Hypothesis regarding it isn't Science.

[+DieChecker]

On 9/26/2018 at 1:26 PM, danydandan said:

 

It's not Science. It's not testable nor is it unfalsifiable thus pondering the existence of God is not Science. And any Hypothesis regarding it isn't Science.

So I am both right and wrong. 

Right in that no conclusion can be reached, but wrong in trying to say such is based on science?

[Habitat]

On ‎27‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 6:26 AM, danydandan said:

It's not testable nor is it unfalsifiable

You mean "not falsifiable" ?

[danydandan]

20 minutes ago, Habitat said:

You mean "not falsifiable" ?

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/178/Unfalsifiability

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/unfalsifiable

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/unfalsifiable

[Habitat]

I know what "unfalsifiable" means, don't worry, my question was whether you meant to say that the "God" proposition was not unfalsifiable, which is the same as saying it is falsifiable.

[danydandan]

3 hours ago, Habitat said:

I know what "unfalsifiable" means, don't worry, my question was whether you meant to say that the "God" proposition was not unfalsifiable, which is the same as saying it is falsifiable.

Thank God. Lol.

God propositions aren't testable nor unfalsifiable.

[Golden Duck]

3 hours ago, danydandan said:

Thank God. Lol.

God propositions aren't testable nor unfalsifiable.

I still think you've got a double negation in there.

[danydandan]

5 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

I still think you've got a double negation in there.

Indeed.

[Golden Duck]

5 minutes ago, danydandan said:

Indeed.

Ok... I didn't get #459 was intended to be humorous. 

[danydandan]

10 minutes ago, Golden Duck said:

Ok... I didn't get #459 was intended to be humorous. 

No body did. Lol

[Occult1]

On 26/09/2018 at 4:26 PM, danydandan said:

 

It's not Science. It's not testable nor is it unfalsifiable thus pondering the existence of God is not Science. And any Hypothesis regarding it isn't Science.

Agreed.

Let us continue growing our imagination and facing reality with better models of existence. Going back in history to find the knowledge of forgotten gods, forbidden writings and famed but censored figures is one way to do it.

[psyche101]

On 9/27/2018 at 4:52 AM, DieChecker said:

It is indoctrination if you are telling people what to believe. And not simply presenting facts, and/or your opinion. Saying, "X is not true, and thus you must believe Y." is indoctrination. Saying, "My opinion, based on this data, is that X is not true." is NOT indoctrination. But note that in the second one the speaker isn't telling what must be believed, just what is untrue.

That's how I was thinking. 

Considering that this book is proposed to include all (or manly at least) creation stories, and a good description of evolution (and knowing Dawkins it will be precise and meticulous) offering the reader the opportunity to form one's own, if not obvious, critical evaluation, then this book, regardless of the fact that its goal is to show science as superior to religion, could not be considered 'Indoctrination' could it? 

Its based in fact, and many versions of creation are offered. 

[Occult1]

I think we can summarize this topic in one sentence:

''Now I hear that a child is using his imagination, and I've come to put a stop to it''

-Richard Dawkins

Edited October 3, 2018 by NewAge1

[Doug1029]

On 9/26/2018 at 2:59 PM, MysticWolf said:

Science has made more than plenty of hypotheses regarding "God".

As far as I know, not one of those "hypotheses" is testable.

How does one write a null hypothesis about god?

Doug

[danydandan]

On 29/9/2018 at 5:22 AM, NewAge1 said:

Agreed.

Let us continue growing our imagination and facing reality with better models of existence. Going back in history to find the knowledge of forgotten gods, forbidden writings and famed but censored figures is one way to do it.

Going back in History will only reveal that God is a human construct.

The only real model of existence is a scientific model. In my opinion. God does not fall into a scientific model of anything.

[danydandan]

On 29/9/2018 at 8:04 AM, psyche101 said:

That's how I was thinking. 

Considering that this book is proposed to include all (or manly at least) creation stories, and a good description of evolution (and knowing Dawkins it will be precise and meticulous) offering the reader the opportunity to form one's own, if not obvious, critical evaluation, then this book, regardless of the fact that its goal is to show science as superior to religion, could not be considered 'Indoctrination' could it? 

Its based in fact, and many versions of creation are offered. 

Again it depends on how the book is presented.