RE: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

 In April 2002, the Netherlands became the first country in the world to sanction euthanasia. Let us see how that is applied when nearly 100 % of the Netherlands is made up of atheists or agnostics. Perhaps they would like to "perfect" the evolution of our species by doing away with those neither needed nor wanted.

A cow in Wisconsin has better health care and shelter than any Cuban has. My cousin in Cuba writes enough that I know how miserable the lives of Cubans are. In the USA I have unlimited access to the world press. I even read Granma,

Órgano Oficial del Comité Central del Partido Comunista de Cuba, in Spanish.

We all make inferences from what people write or say. I have made my inferences about Dawkins from such data. Now I ask you, complete this mathematical equation for me since you are so wise. Dawkins + Power =? The best you can do is Dawkins + Power = Benevolent Dictator, but I doubt one can be so generous with Dawkins.

The benefits of Christianity, as you pose it, is the truth nature of it. Dawkins is burning with pride, the Great Sin, by claiming to know that Christianity is false.

Moorad

________________________________

From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
Sent: Sat 4/28/2007 11:58 PM
To: Alexanian, Moorad
Cc: AmericanScientificAffiliation
Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children

In the Netherlands, or Sweden where 40 to 80 % of the people are
atheists or agnostics, people enjoy some of the highest standards of
living. Somehow we should be careful to not overgeneralize and
stereotype. In the US up to 40 million people live at some time in the
year without health insurance. Infant mortality rates are quite high.
I believe that Cuba's infant mortality rates are lower than the US. So
are the mortality rates for most eastern european countries. Your
understanding of politics seems one of little depth and much dislike
for communism. Pretty shallow in my personal opinion. Is Cuba so much
better or worse of than the US where we are indoctrinated by a media
which can hardly be called broad. Look for instance how gullible we
were in our support for invading Iraq based on mostly hearsay and
insinuation. Seems that we have as much to fear from indoctrination
and perhaps even more. Ironic isn't it?

Your claims about Dawkins remain once again unsupported by any fact.
Imagine the field day Dawkins supporters would have with your
uninformed position?
The idea that Dawkins would want to eliminate Christians or persecute
them just has no support in what he stands for.

Let's not give Dawkins and his supporters the ammunition they need
when we as Christians are seen as stereotyping, and making unsupported
insinuations and accusations. Surely given such ammunition to Dawkins
et al seems to make it too easy for them. There are far better
reasons to reject Dawkins' claims and there are much better ways of
showing the benefits of Christianity than making such poorly supported
accusations about Dawkins.

Pim

On 4/28/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> In the former Soviet Union, an atheistic state, people that spoke about religion, freedom and so on were interned, at worst, in mental institutions if not in graves. Christian Armenians would not be able to baptize their children nor the youth attend church, which would lead to exclusion from higher education. In communist, atheistic Cuba, schoolchildren are taught how to read----even sympathetic, ignorant Americans brag of the 100 % literacy in Cuba-just to be able to be indoctrinated via textbooks. Surely, the greatest of all atheist Dawkins would do no less. I believe Dawkins is so sure of the truth that is trapped in his simian-evolved-skull that his reprisal against Christians would make the Spanish Inquisition look like a walk in the park.
>
>
> Moorad
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: PvM [mailto:pvm.pandas@gmail.com]
> Sent: Sat 4/28/2007 10:28 PM
> To: Alexanian, Moorad
> Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children
>
>
>
> I am far more interested in the nonsense said by Christians about
> Dawkins. Like some of your uncorroborated claims
>
> On 4/28/07, Alexanian, Moorad <alexanian@uncw.edu> wrote:
> > I suggest you approach Dawkins and defend us of all the nonsense he says about Christians!
> >
> >
> > Moorad
> >
> > ________________________________
> >
> > From: asa-owner@lists.calvin.edu on behalf of PvM
> > Sent: Sat 4/28/2007 5:11 PM
> > To: Iain Strachan
> > Cc: Ted Davis; asa@lists.calvin.edu
> > Subject: Re: [asa] Dawkins, religion, and children
> >
> >
> >
> > I am defending him against claims that were made by Ted and Moorad
> > about Dawkins. My goal is accuracy before rhetoric since a lack of
> > accurate understanding of the arguments involved will allow Dawkins
> > and his followers to quickly point out the errors.
> >
> > I am not conveniently ignoring anything, I am merely correcting
> > people's arguments or asking them to support it. Let's for the moment
> > agree for the purpose of the discussion that Dawkins' statements are
> > 'sick'. Does this mean that other statements about Dawkins are somehow
> > protected against scrutiny?
> >
> > While my position on what constitutes child abuse is irrelevant, I
> > take notice of the woman who wrote Dawkins about physical and
> > emotional abuse she endured while she was a catholic, claiming that
> > the latter was far more permanent and lasting than the former. In
> > other words, abuse and how people deal with abuse comes in all shapes
> > and forms.
> >
> > <quote>"Being fondled by the priest simply left the impression (from
> > the mind of a 7 year old) as 'yuchy' while the memory of my friend
> > going to hell was one of cold, immeasurable fear. I never lost sleep
> > because of the priest ? but I spent many a night being terrified that
> > the people I loved would go to Hell. It gave me nightmares."</quote>
> >
> >
> > While we may be far more reluctant to object to mental abuse than to
> > physical abuse, I believe that both can be quite disastrous. And that
> > is what I read in Dawkins' arguments.
> >
> > I suggest you read
> >
> > <quote>'What shall we tell the children?' is a superb polemic on how
> > religions abuse the minds of children, by the distinguished
> > psychologist Nicholas Humphrey. It was originally delivered as a
> > lecture in aid of Amnesty International, and has now been reissued as
> > a chapter of his book, The Mind Made Flesh, just published by Oxford
> > University Press.</quote>
> >
> > Full text found at source: http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/humphrey/amnesty.html
> >
> > to get an appreciation of where Dawkins comes from.
> >
> > While I certainly do not want to trivialize the effect of sexual abuse
> > on children, I also realize that the effects vary largely amongst
> > victims based on both the extent of their exposure, the relationship
> > of the abuser to the child and many other factors. But similarly we
> > see how children who are exposed to mental cruelty or physical abuse
> > often suffer similar consequences at a later age.
> > But this digresses from the issue I originally raised. Even when it
> > comes to Dawkins view of mental and sexual abuse, the actual article
> > shows a far more moderate picture than portrayed by those commenting
> > on it.
> >
> >
> > From Dawkins' book I quote
> >
> > <quote>'Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never
> > hurt me.' The adage is true as long as you don't really believe the
> > words. But if your whole upbringing, and everything you have ever been
> > told by parents, teachers and priests, has led you to believe, really
> > believe, utterly and completely, that sinners burn in hell (or some
> > other obnoxious article of doctrine such as that a woman is the
> > property of her husband), it is entirely plausible that words could
> > have a more long-lasting and damaging effect than deeds. I am
> > persuaded that the phrase 'child abuse' is no exaggeration when used
> > to describe what teachers and priests are doing to children whom they
> > encourage to believe in something like the punishment of unshriven
> > mortal sins in an eternal hell.
> > </quote>
> >
> > and
> >
> > <quote>After watching a rehearsal, in which the devil was suitably
> > diabolical in the hammed-up style of a villain of Victorian
> > melodrama, I interviewed Pastor Roberts in the presence of his cast.
> > He told me that the optimum age for a child to visit a Hell House
> > is twelve. This shocked me somewhat, and I asked him whether it
> > would worry him if a twelve-year-old child had nightmares after
> > one of his performances. He replied, presumably honestly:
> >
> > I would rather for them to understand that Hell is a place
> > that they absolutely do not want to go. I would rather
> > reach them with that message at twelve than to not reach
> > them with that message and have them live a life of sin
> > and to never find the Lord Jesus Christ. And if they end
> > up having nightmares, as a result of experiencing this, I
> > think there's a higher good that would ultimately be
> > achieved and accomplished in their life than simply having
> > nightmares
> > .
> > I suppose that, if you really and truly believed what Pastor
> > Roberts says he believes, you would feel it right to intimidate
> > children too.
> > </quote>
> >
> > As to how to raise one child
> >
> > <quote>I thank my own parents for taking the view that children should
> > be taught not so much what to think as how to think. If, having been
> > fairly and properly exposed to all the scientific evidence, they grow
> > up and decide that the Bible is literally true or that the movements
> > of the planets rule their lives, that is their privilege. The
> > important point is that it is their privilege to decide what they
> > shall think, and not their parents' privilege to impose it by force
> > majeure.
> > And this, of course, is especially important when we reflect that
> > children become the parents of the next generation, in a position to
> > pass on whatever indoctrination may have moulded them.
> > </quote>
> >
> > And yet we see accusations that Dawkins somehow wants to take away
> > children from parents raising them in a religious setting.
> >
> > Dawkins provides an insightful example of an Inca girl who may very
> > well have believed that her sacrifice to the Gods was a good thing.
> > Examples of all extremes can be provided to show that there is a
> > sliding scale. What about female circumcision? child abuse or
> > religious practice?
> >
> >
> > And then finally
> >
> > <quote>Earlier in our televised conversation, Jill had described this
> > kind of religious upbringing as a form of mental abuse, and I
> > returned to the point, as follows: 'You use the words religious
> > abuse. If you were to compare the abuse of bringing up a child really
> > to believe in hell . . . how do you think that would compare in trauma
> > terms with sexual abuse?' She replied: 'That's a very difficult
> > question . . . I think there are a lot of similarities actually,
> > because it is about abuse of trust; it is about denying the child the
> > right to feel free and open and able to relate to the world in the
> > normal way . . . it's a form of denigration; it's a form of denial of
> > the true self in both cases.'
> > </quote>
> >
> > On 4/28/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > As you can see, I already realised that and apologised (perhaps you did not
> > > receive my post of about 20 minutes ago).
> > >
> > > My point remains the same, however. In the context, I still think that
> > > Dawkins's argument is absolutely sick and it is beyond me why you continue
> > > to defend him.
> > >
> > > You are still conveniently ignoring my continuing point about the damage
> > > done by sexual abuse - whether gentle or violent, I've witnessed personally
> > > the subsequent suffering of people who are the victims of this and am
> > > outraged that Dawkins should trivialise this to make his points against
> > > religion. Are you going to continue to ignore this?
> > >
> > > Answer this:
> > >
> > > To perform sexual acts on children, whether gentle or violent is clearly a
> > > selfish and perverted form of self-gratification and is rightly called
> > > "abuse". Agreed?
> > >
> > > But to warn someone of a destruction that you GENUINELY and HONESTLY believe
> > > will befall them is NOT abuse - it's doing what you believe is your duty.
> > > It may be misguided, sure, I would have no problem if Dawkins said it was
> > > misguided. But do you not think it's sick to compare this with genuine,
> > > selfish abuse? They are just not the same thing.
> > >
> > > If you won't answer that point then I give up in despair.
> > >
> > > Iain
> > >
> > >
> > > On 4/28/07, PvM <pvm.pandas@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > Seems that we have to be careful reading that to which we respond. I
> > > > posted the actual article, not an article which quoted from it, to
> > > > allow people to see Dawkins' argument in context.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On 4/28/07, Iain Strachan <igd.strachan@gmail.com > wrote:
> > > > > Pim:
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you make a regular habit of conviently ignoring uncomfortable facts
> > > that
> > > > > are pointed out to you? I made an actual quote from Dawkins from an
> > > article
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > -----------
> > > After the game, the King and the pawn go back in the same box.
> > >
> > > - Italian Proverb
> > > -----------
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
> > "unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Sun Apr 29 10:35:21 2007