Richard Dawkins On Mormons.

[_Ray A]

Dawkins with Ted Haggard:

Richard Dawkins Interviews Ted Haggard.

Just a reminder of what Dawkins is really criticising.

[_Some Schmo]

Regarding his attitudes about religion, he inclines very much in the direction of fundamentalism. One need not be a fundamentalist in every area to be justly considered a fundamentalist in at least one area.

Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist? Um... ok. That's news to me. I wonder what his atheist friends think of that!

[_marg]

I see so what particular religious beliefs do you think should be taught but aren't?

Now there's one hell of a ginormous leap. Since I never suggested supporting such a thing, there is no reason to discuss it. By the way, have you stopped beating your husband yet?

There was no huge leap. Let's look at the exchange;

You: You have some strange utopian ideal of how children must be raised, even against the will of their parents, because religious education is, in your mind, a form of abuse. You tread dangerously in the direction of undermining the freedom you claim to champion, and yet the irony of that is completely lost on you.

Me; Trevor it's called raising conscious awareness. No one is doing anything against the will of parents, but there are many parents who may not even appreciate they are indoctrinating or that it might be abusive because the child is defenseless and in no position to critically evaluate.

You: "Yes, no one is doing anything against the will of the parents, except teaching their children secular values in the schools. Now, I am a fan of those values, but it is fairly clear that the will of many parents is not represented in the way the curriculum is set. We ought not to pretend otherwise."

Me: I see so what particular religious beliefs do you think should be taught but aren't?

You are arguing that parent's will is being violated by schools. What is the point of such an argument unless you disagree with the way things are?

So what if some atheists think it would be desirable that parents couldn't indoctrinate their kids with religion? That concerns you but it doesn't concern you that churches are multibillion dollar organizations peddling lies and feeding off people's insecurities?

Isn't it grossly contradictory that you fear the influence of religious fundamentalists in the school system preventing evolution from being taught, but you would turn around and keep parents from educating them in the family faith? One simply can't have it both ways.

I should hope that you'd be in favor of high quality education in schools, and opposed to forcing a particular faith based belief onto all students in a school system. Don't read more into my words than what I say, I didn't say I would legally restrict how parents teach their kids.

Ok, be honest with me, are you teaching your kids that the Book of Mormon is a fictional book and J. Smith not a prophet or if you aren't teaching them at this point, what about in the future do you plan to indoctrinate them as you were?

What I teach my kids is none of your business.

My questions follows from the discussion. You said : "To compare what your dad did with what Dawkins is doing simply does not work. The issue here is one of honesty. If your sister-in-law does not believe in something, then there is good reason to say that she shouldn't lie to her daughter about it. That is quite different from your sister-in-law believing in that kind of thing, and then your father verbally assaulting her for her BS beliefs that make no sense. The latter is the Dawkins way."

My dad was raising my sister in law's consciousness. Dawkins is doing that with readers when he discusses indoctrination of children. So giving your comment I'm wondering if you are being honest with your kids or intend to be, since the issue is one of honesty. Isn't there good reason to say you shouldn't lie to your kids, to raise your consciousness about it ?

Why are you so emotionally invested that J. Smith must be the author of the Book of Mormon? Why are you unable to look at evidence which leads to a different conclusion?

Again, you are ignorant of my views or what I am willing or unwilling to do. I invite you to peruse past threads in which I defended people exploring the Spalding-Rigdon hypothesis, including the Criddle study. That you imagine me to be "so emotionally invested" in the notion that Joseph Smith is the author of the Book of Mormon is such an incredibly daft distortion of who I am and what I commonly do that it completely beggars the imagination how you come up with such garbage.

You called it a bogus theory, and said the historical case for it is truly bad. You also seem to want to downplay the significance of the Stanford study. by the way, I'd like to point out something. You said it was incomplete until they include J. Smith. No matter what the study shows multiple authors unless you think Smith could write as if a number of different people. And what do you think the chances are that Smith could happen to write like Spalding, Rigdon and Cowdery?

Once again you've bought into propaganda, by saying there isn't a case for Spalding/Rigdon. There is so much strong evidence, so much so that it is overwhelming and no other theory even comes close.

Except the most obvious one, of course. The one that the evidence in plain sight points to. The one that does not rely on ex post facto affidavits and speculations about the possibility that Sidney Rigdon appropriated a manuscript that is now missing, or that an unknown stranger in Palmyra who was dressed well was actually Rigdon. Really, marg, there are enough gaping holes in this argument to drive a fleet of Mack trucks through.

I'm quite sure you didn't listen to Craig Criddle's talk, which gave the various types of evidence, plagiarism parallels, word prints, witnesses statements and more. It's not just one type of evidence that points to Rigdon/Spalding. And no other theory is a better explanation. That is the likelihood of Smith dictating day after day, no preparation, to revisions etc given his background and information known about him is next to nil probability.

With all due respect to Uncle Dale and the many other intelligent Spalding-Rigdon theorists, the case is so far from being made that your confidence in it only detracts from your credibility.

Trevor you accused the theory of having a bad historical case. You are absolutely wrong on that.

[_marg]

Regarding his science, I would agree. Regarding his attitudes about religion, he inclines very much in the direction of fundamentalism. One need not be a fundamentalist in every area to be justly considered a fundamentalist in at least one area.

What is the point of calling Dawkin's a fundamentalist as if that's derogatory. You miss the point, a religious fundamentalist views religious texts literally, that's all it means.

(I'm not posting more this evening)

[_Trevor]

Well in the "other area", I'm seriously considering his statement that religion serves no evolutionary purpose.

I am seriously waiting for the science to back that speculation up.

If anything, religion may be some kind of deceptive means to make (some) people more altruistic, as we see in nature, often. That's about the only valid "purpose" I can see (speculating of course). We know that it doesn't make the fundies very altruistic. And that's the group he targets most, and their "accomplice moderates" who, instead of calling BS where it should be called, turn on Dawkins himself. It's a sort of fuzzy feelgood thing that, in my opinion, they may not have scrutinised as closely as Dawkins has.

Well, if we don't like religion, it is easy to imagine it doing all kinds of naughty things we don't like. Speculation seems to be the rule of the day. Before science grapples with the problems of religion adequately, it seems that its detractors, flocking to a banner of scientism, are eager to trash it in anticipation of their desired conclusions about it. And once one has decried not only the fundamentalists themselves, but the moderates who have purportedly failed to rein them in, then who is innocent but the poor atheists? Surely none of the religionists are innocent. They are either brown shirts, or the boobs who sat on the sidelines unwilling to stop Hitler.

[_Trevor]

Dawkins with Ted Haggard:

Richard Dawkins Interviews Ted Haggard.

Just a reminder of what Dawkins is really criticising.

And, of course, the moderates who have not executed Haggard on the spot for being a charlatan. They are obviously just as guilty, no?

[_Trevor]

Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist? Um... ok. That's news to me. I wonder what his atheist friends think of that!

Come on, Schmo. You know that is not what I was saying. It is possible to use the term fundamentalism to describe something other than religious belief.

You know that. I know you do. And you are pulling my leg, right?

[Guest]

You are arguing that parent's will is being violated by schools. What is the point of such an argument unless you disagree with the way things are?

What are you even asking, when you say "the way things are"? The way things are in what respect?

You do understand that the parents' will can be violated and it is still perfectly legal right? And you do understand that I am able to acknowledge that their will is being violated, while approving of both the means and results, right?

I should hope that you'd be in favor of high quality education in schools, and opposed to forcing a particular faith based belief onto all students in a school system. Don't read more into my words than what I say, I didn't say I would legally restrict how parents teach their kids.

Yeah, right. You only find it desirable to consider keeping parents from "abusing" their children by indoctrinating them in their family faith at a young age. There's a world of difference there.

As for your laughable suggestion that the left-leaning apostate professor in a state institution of higher learning who reads Skeptics magazine might not be in favor of high quality education in the schools, but rather is interested in imposing faith-based, sectarian education on all, all I can say is that you must want me and everyone else here to think you are a complete moron.

My questions follows from the discussion. You said : "To compare what your dad did with what Dawkins is doing simply does not work. The issue here is one of honesty. If your sister-in-law does not believe in something, then there is good reason to say that she shouldn't lie to her daughter about it. That is quite different from your sister-in-law believing in that kind of thing, and then your father verbally assaulting her for her BS beliefs that make no sense. The latter is the Dawkins way."

My dad was raising my sister in law's consciousness. Dawkins is doing that with readers when he discusses indoctrination of children. So giving your comment I'm wondering if you are being honest with your kids or intend to be, since the issue is one of honesty. Isn't there good reason to say you shouldn't lie to your kids, to raise your consciousness about it ?

Your reasoning skills are deplorably bad. You chose a story that really didn't work. Your father raised the issue of the honesty of your sister-in-law's actions. He was not ridiculing your sister-in-law for her God beliefs. I pointed that out. Your inability to reason has nothing to do with what I choose to teach my children. Wonder away.

You called it a bogus theory, and said the historical case for it is truly bad. You also seem to want to downplay the significance of the Stanford study. by the way, I'd like to point out something. You said it was incomplete until they include J. Smith. No matter what the study shows multiple authors unless you think Smith could write as if a number of different people. And what do you think the chances are that Smith could happen to write like Spalding, Rigdon and Cowdery?

It seems to me that you don't understand the simple concept of relative probability. If you leave out Smith, you have not determined whether or not it is more relatively probable that he wrote it. You may find it less likely based on the results without him. But it seems to me that you do not know. The authors of the paper recognized the need to establish Smith's pattern to test him against the Book of Mormon. Could you at least agree with the authors of the study?

And if I find the theory to be bogus, that does not logically necessitate my emotional attachment to the idea that Smith is the only author. To the contrary, I have been involved in years of discussion with Don Bradley concerning a competing hypothesis. My familiarity with the evidence he has marshaled in favor of Smith's authorship is something I find far more compelling than anything out of the Spalding-Rigdon camp. So, no, it is not my sentimental wish to attribute the Book of Mormon to Joseph Smith's unique genius that causes me to criticize Spalding-Rigdon, it is weighing two competing theories against each other and finding one of them wanting that does.

That is the likelihood of Smith dictating day after day, no preparation, to revisions etc given his background and information known about him is next to nil probability.

Yes, if you accept the apologetic caricature of Smith as your straw man du jour, it sounds absolutely laughable. But, there are other possibilities. For example, I never conceded that Smith made no preparations.

Trevor you accused the theory of having a bad historical case. You are absolutely wrong on that.

I am sure a person devoted to reason like you will be able to forgive me when I say that I prefer to trust my own reading of the evidence over your bald assertion.

[_Trevor]

What is the point of calling Dawkin's a fundamentalist as if that's derogatory. You miss the point, a religious fundamentalist views religious texts literally, that's all it means.

Yes. Marg is the final arbiter of meaning and usage in the English language. (Shaking my head in abject amazement)

(I'm not posting more this evening)

Dear me I hope so. Anymore of your nonsense tonight and my head will explode.

[_Some Schmo]

Dawkins is a religious fundamentalist? Um... ok. That's news to me. I wonder what his atheist friends think of that!

Come on, Schmo. You know that is not what I was saying. It is possible to use the term fundamentalism to describe something other than religious belief.

You know that. I know you do. And you are pulling my leg, right?

Yes, it was tongue-in-cheek, but your comment was kind of odd. I mean, Dawkins is mostly critical of fundamentalist religion, but it's a stretch to say that it is the only kind of religion he acknowledges (if that's what you meant - I'm not really sure). Quite frankly, I'm curious what you did mean.