Richard Dawkins would have an Aneurysm

[Liger20]

I thought that other Richard Dawkins fans might be interested in this. Not too long ago, I was flipping through the channels, and I was going through the religious networks when I saw a program entitled Tiny Tots for Jesus. I was so appalled that I turned on the information for the program and snapped a photo, which I wanted to attach, but I’m a little scared of any copyright issues that might stem from that. It would probably be safe, but these day you can’t be too careful when it comes to that sort of thing. Anyway, I personally think that it is absolutely idiotic that the producers of a children’s television program could ever think that it’s appropriate to say that “tiny tots” are “for Jesus.” The program itself was disgusting too, acting as though babies cared about religious dogma. Richard Dawkins would completely go off the deep end over this, and I can’t at all say I blame him. I don’t know who runs these ridiculous programs, but some of these producers need this idiocy brought to their attention. Can something be done to stop this?

Richard Dawkins fans, and others, please comment.

 

[Liger20]

By the way, to anyone who might question this, I think this post is appropriate here. I believe it very much falls under the category of world affairs, because we’re dealing with the well being of children, and therefore society as a whole.

 

[Math Is Hard]

They just look like DVDs that teach Sunday school lessons. Sunday school has been around for ages.

 

[Astronuc]

I thought that other Richard Dawkins fans might be interested in this. Not too long ago, I was flipping through the channels, and I was going through the religious networks when I saw a program entitled Tiny Tots for Jesus. I was so appalled that I turned on the information for the program and snapped a photo, which I wanted to attach, but I’m a little scared of any copyright issues that might stem from that. It would probably be safe, but these day you can’t be too careful when it comes to that sort of thing. Anyway, I personally think that it is absolutely idiotic that the producers of a children’s television program could ever think that it’s appropriate to say that “tiny tots” are “for Jesus.” The program itself was disgusting too, acting as though babies cared about religious dogma. Richard Dawkins would completely go off the deep end over this, and I can’t at all say I blame him. I don’t know who runs these ridiculous programs, but some of these producers need this idiocy brought to their attention. Can something be done to stop this?

Ummmm - there's something called freedom of religion by which one may choose to believe or not to believe. If one objects to such things, then one is free not watch such networks or buy such material. Some people do watch such network and buy such material for their children or grandchildren.

 

[Liger20]

Astronuc, I think you’re missing my point entirely. I completely respect freedom of religion, and if these corporations choose to express their religious opinions on television, I have no problem with that. What I have a huge problem with is that there are people who label children by the religion of their parents. I believe that it is wrong to label children in this way. Why is it that it’s perfectly okay in our society to label children as for example, a “Christian boy,” or a “Muslim boy?”

Let’s turn this situation around a little. What if there was a T.V show called “Tiny Tots for Obama?” You see my point? It would be insane to suggest that babies care about politics, and likewise it is idiotic to assume that they care about religion, and I believe that to do so is not only utterly ridiculous, it has a damaging effect on children.

 

[rootX]

I believe that to do so is not only utterly ridiculous, it has a damaging effect on children.

How?

 

[Math Is Hard]

Let’s turn this situation around a little. What if there was a T.V show called “Tiny Tots for Obama?”

Well, there was that YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtGrp5MbzAI&feature=related

 

[Astronuc]

Astronuc, I think you’re missing my point entirely. I completely respect freedom of religion, and if these corporations choose to express their religious opinions on television, I have no problem with that. What I have a huge problem with is that there are people who label children by the religion of their parents. I believe that it is wrong to label children in this way. Why is it that it’s perfectly okay in our society to label children as for example, a “Christian boy,” or a “Muslim boy?”

Let’s turn this situation around a little. What if there was a T.V show called “Tiny Tots for Obama?” You see my point? It would be insane to suggest that babies care about politics, and likewise it is idiotic to assume that they care about religion, and I believe that to do so is not only utterly ridiculous, it has a damaging effect on children.

I'm not missing the point - no one is being labeled. The OP was going through "religious networks when he/she saw a program entitled Tiny Tots for Jesus." Tots aren't going to buy that stuff - but their parents would. These are Christian parents who will try to raise their children with similar beliefs.

I imagine that if the OP is in the US, then the religious network in question is likely a Christian oriented channel, which means Christian parents are probably the target audience and the audience is likely exclusively Christian. The parents are free to decide if they will buy this stuff for the children or not.

There are advertisements for Christrian music, including Christian rock. People can buy it if they like it.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Astronuc, I think you’re missing my point entirely. I completely respect freedom of religion, and if these corporations choose to express their religious opinions on television, I have no problem with that. What I have a huge problem with is that there are people who label children by the religion of their parents. I believe that it is wrong to label children in this way. Why is it that it’s perfectly okay in our society to label children as for example, a “Christian boy,” or a “Muslim boy?”

Let’s turn this situation around a little. What if there was a T.V show called “Tiny Tots for Obama?” You see my point? It would be insane to suggest that babies care about politics, and likewise it is idiotic to assume that they care about religion, and I believe that to do so is not only utterly ridiculous, it has a damaging effect on children.

It is generally reasonable to assume that the children of persons of a certain belief system will become adherants of that belief system aswell, including atheism and agnosticism. Parents are supposed to teach their children. To say that someone is damaging their children by bringing them up with a certain belief system is to say that parents should not be allowed to raise their children they way they wish. Would you like to see the government get involved in telling people what they may and may not teach their own children? Perhaps you would only want them to get involved when what is being taught is something you personally don't like? You know sort of like the christians who don't want the government telling them what their children should or should not be learning in school but think that homosexuals should not be allowed to raise children because they may be leading them into sin.

And who ever said that these televangelists made any sense? I once saw a televangelist running an infomercial for a book all about how the banks and credit card companies were the anti-christ and your bank account and credit card numbers are the mark of the beast. He then said everyone should whip out there credit cards and call to place an order.

 

[math_04]

Well, there was that YouTube video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtGrp...eature=related

That is appalling, a kid made to sing praises about Obama.

It is generally reasonable to assume that the children of persons of a certain belief system will become adherants of that belief system aswell, including atheism and agnosticism. Parents are supposed to teach their children

Yes, but they can change if they wish. I think Richard Dawkins was commenting on the absurdity of labeling a child Christian or Muslim or Jew etc. But that does not mean that you cannot parent the child according to your belief system, as long as you allow the child to make up his own mind whether he wants to continue believing or change when he matures.

 

[G01]

The same rights that allow atheists and agnostics to freely express there beliefs and air Dawkin's documentaries, etc. are the same rights that allow Christians to air programs like "Tots for Jesus."

You have a right to think that TV shows like this are stupid. However, you can't say that these TV shows should be "stopped." If you strip away the right for Christians or other religious folk to teach and express their beliefs you inadvertently do the same to atheists and agnostics. Either we all have the freedom of religion, or none of us do.

 

[GeorginaS]

Liger20, I'm curious to know when Dawkins became such a central thought guru that what he would or wouldn't approve of is a leading question in someone's mind. Criticise or question something on its own merit from your own (hopefully) informed, researched opinions. Condemn something based of the opinions of one particular person doesn't seem a balanced approach to an issue.

 

[Proton Soup]

Richard Dawkins is the RaptorJesus of Atheism, a constant source of low-brow commentary and knuckle-dragging followers.

 

[GeorginaS]

Indeed, Proton Soup. I'm unfortunately pretty aware of the gentleman's current work and efforts. It's too bad that he can't seem to forward a theological argument beyond a grade-school knowledge of the subject.

 

[math_04]

It's too bad that he can't seem to forward a theological argument beyond a grade-school knowledge of the subject.

What do you mean?

 

[Cyrus]

Indeed, Proton Soup. I'm unfortunately pretty aware of the gentleman's current work and efforts. It's too bad that he can't seem to forward a theological argument beyond a grade-school knowledge of the subject.

Dawkins, like me, has little patience (probably for similar reasons): which doesn't bode well for converting religious people. I would recommend that you look into Sam Harris though. He is well versed in theology.

 

[Pupil]

Liger20, I'm curious to know when Dawkins became such a central thought guru that what he would or wouldn't approve of is a leading question in someone's mind. Criticise or question something on its own merit from your own (hopefully) informed, researched opinions. Condemn something based of the opinions of one particular person doesn't seem a balanced approach to an issue.

And when did Liger20 ever say he followed Dawkin's opinions and didn't weigh sides of an issue based on their own merit? Could it be that he shares the same beliefs and convictions that Dawkins does using his own critical thinking skills?

 

[Pupil]

How?

When would it be a good idea to bias a child toward one belief system and brainwash him or her to dogmatically accept a belief without questioning it?

Suspending critical thinking of a child or of any person to me is one of the greatest moral crimes a parent could commit. And it has been done in thousands (millions?) of homes across the globe.

 

[GeorginaS]

Dawkins, like me, has little patience (probably for similar reasons): which doesn't bode well for converting religious people. I would recommend that you look into Sam Harris though. He is well versed in theology.

Why should I look into Sam Harris? We're discussing Dawkins. What makes you think I need to look into anyone's work for good theological information? And how does Dawkins not "bode well" for converted religious people?

 

[Cyrus]

Why should I look into Sam Harris? We're discussing Dawkins. What makes you think I need to look into anyone's work for good theological information? And how does Dawkins not "bode well" for converted religious people?

I was simply offering a less controverical source for an objective opinion that supports what the OP is saying. I was not suggesting you look into anyones work for theological information. Dawkins does not bode well for coverting religious people because he is rather harsh in his criticisms, which turns religious people away since they view their beliefs as being under 'attack'.

 

[GeorginaS]

And when did Liger20 ever say he followed Dawkin's opinions and didn't weigh sides of an issue based on their own merit? Could it be that he shares the same beliefs and convictions that Dawkins does using his own critical thinking skills?

The OP advised us that the Liger20 is sufficiently acquainted with Dawkins such that Liger20 can predict Dawkins' responses to certain television programming. If Liger20 had an opinion of his/her own that they felt they wanted to advance to us, then why not do so without hauling in someone's name as some sort of authority to shore up Liger20's opinion. For example Liger20:

Richard Dawkins would completely go off the deep end over this, and I can’t at all say I blame him.

If Liger20 was so confident and comfortable in his/her own independently formed opinion, why speculate as to Dawkins' potential response to the teevee show? Why not stand on his/her own argument and/or evidence and/or opinion?

 

[GeorginaS]

I was simply offering a less controverical source for an objective opinion that supports what the OP is saying. I was not suggesting you look into anyones work for theological information. Dawkins does not bode well for coverting religious people because he is rather harsh in his criticisms, which turns religious people away since they view their beliefs as being under 'attack'.

Ah, my misreading. I read your "ing" as an "ed". Changes your meaning entirely. Mea culpa.

So, then, out of curiosity, who were you addressing, Cyrus, with your reading recommendation? Dawkins is absolutely attacking religion and does it with a sensational flare. I believe that's his intent. In your opinion, Cyrus, do you think Dawkins' is attempting to convert people away from religion?

 

[math_04]

Dawkins does not bode well for coverting religious people because he is rather harsh in his criticisms, which turns religious people away since they view their beliefs as being under 'attack'.

:rofl: I think he is just being frank, attempting to take a more aggressive stance and push people out of their comfort zone. You get different styles, Sam Harris with all his data and figures, Richard Dawkins with mostly irrefutable logic and Christopher Hitchens with extremely colorful adjectives and damning conclusions.

 

[Cyrus]

Ah, my misreading. I read your "ing" as an "ed". Changes your meaning entirely. Mea culpa.

So, then, out of curiosity, who were you addressing, Cyrus, with your reading recommendation? Dawkins is absolutely attacking religion and does it with a sensational flare. I believe that's his intent. In your opinion, Cyrus, do you think Dawkins' is attempting to convert people away from religion?

Here is my hypothesis on why he (and I) are so "sharp" with criticism. By training he is a biologist. When he gives talks, he has to constantly listen to people tell him the biologist how evolution is 'only a theory' because the bible says so and therefore he is wrong. You can only stomach so much of that before you pull your hair out and just give nasty responses, like this:



I think he was very harsh and cruel to this man in his answer, but its a product of being subjected to ridicule from people like this:

wO-g8FsmvGA[/youtube] You can find...tornation of children to religion is a no-no.

 

[Pupil]

The OP advised us that the Liger20 is sufficiently acquainted with Dawkins such that Liger20 can predict Dawkins' responses to certain television programming. If Liger20 had an opinion of his/her own that they felt they wanted to advance to us, then why not do so without hauling in someone's name as some sort of authority to shore up Liger20's opinion.

If Liger20 was so confident and comfortable in his/her own independently formed opinion, why speculate as to Dawkins' potential response to the teevee show? Why not stand on his/her own argument and/or evidence and/or opinion?

Suppose someone asked you what your ideals were on the subject of politics. Would it be easier to give a long list of a lot of the ideas or simply say "I'm a Republican" or Democrat or something? 'Republican' represents a certain set of ideas you sympathize with, as does the mention of Dawkins. I knew Liger20 would bring up categorizing children by a certain religion child abuse because he shared the same ideas Dawkins does on the issue. As do I. As do many people. That says absolutely nothing about how we got to those ideas. Assuming he or anyone else just accepted those opinions because Dawkins said so is unwarranted speculation on your part.

 

[Cyrus]

Suppose someone asked you what your ideals were on the subject of politics. Would it be easier to give a long list of a lot of the ideas or simply say "I'm a Republican" or Democrat or something? 'Republican' represents a certain set of ideas you sympathize with, as does the mention of Dawkins. I knew Liger20 would bring up calling children by a certain religion child abuse because he shared the same ideas Dawkins does on the issue. As do I. As do many people. That says absolutely nothing about how we got to those ideas. Assuming he or anyone else just accepted those opinions because Dawkins said so is unwarranted speculation on your part.

Do we really need this back and forth about what Liger20 meant? Seriously, moving along...

 

[Pupil]

Do we really need this back and forth about what Liger20 meant? Seriously, moving along...

I really don't think we do, but GeorginaS asked a question and it would have been rude of me not to explain. If I ask a question I would expect the same courtesy.

 

[Cyrus]

I really don't think we do, but GeorginaS asked a question and it would have been rude of me not to explain. If I ask a question I would expect the same courtesy.

To be clear, I meant the last sentence in the paragraph.

 

[humanino]

What I have a huge problem with is that there are people who label children by the religion of their parents.

Why is this a problem really ? Children not able to think by themselves adhere to their parents belief in reality. And when they grow up a brain and think by themselves, they will question those beliefs. At this point they do not count in the label anymore. If they never think by themselves, I can understand the beginning of a problem. But why do you assume they will never think by themselves, I'd be interested to understand. There are so many examples of children turning in another direction from their parents (one way or another) in their teens. Is this negligible ?

 

[Cyrus]

Why is this a problem really ? Children not able to think by themselves adhere to their parents belief in reality. And when they grow up a brain and think by themselves, they will question those beliefs. At this point they do not count in the label anymore. If they never think by themselves, I can understand the beginning of a problem. But why do you assume they will never think by themselves, I'd be interested to understand. There are so many examples of children turning in another direction from their parents (one way or another) in their teens. Is this negligible ?

How many people change their religion at adulthood from that of their family? For that matter, consider remote areas that are strongly religious with intense social pressures to be a certain way (small towns and rural areas).

It would be nice to see a statistic that shows the % of people that change their religion from that of their upbringing. I have no statistic to offer, but hopefully someone else can furnish such a number from a credible source.

 

[GeorginaS]

Suppose someone asked you what your ideals were on the subject of politics. Would it be easier to give a long list of a lot of the ideas or simply say "I'm a Republican" or Democrat or something?

I would present my personal ideas and supportable opinions as they apply to my thinking and give credit where due to any influences. To say that expressing one's ideas necessitates a long list is fallacious.

I knew Liger20 would bring up categorizing children by a certain religion child abuse because he shared the same ideas Dawkins does on the issue. As do I.

I'm glad to know you are all in sympathy. It appears, then, that you are suggesting that one has to be intimately aware of all of Dawkins' views in order to address this thread given that shorthand vis-a-vis his name is being used. That is: the name Dawkins is uttered and the readers are to know what all that encompasses.

I disagree with you and, evidently Dawkins, about teaching religion equalling child abuse. Given your communication test, it seems that it behooves me to name a name in order to encompass my beliefs and theological understandings. I'll give you, then, Karen Armstrong, Bart Ehrman, John Shelby Spong, Marcus Borg, and the Dalai Lama and trust you'll know my position.

 

[math_04]

Why is this a problem really ? Children not able to think by themselves adhere to their parents belief in reality. And when they grow up a brain and think by themselves, they will question those beliefs.

Religion has this hold on many people, a hold that is hard to question much less break free from. If you keep hammering it into children, make them pray every day or have their life centered around a certain religious faith, as they grow older, they will find it hard to dispense with if they wish to. In my case, I grew up praying every day before I went to sleep because my parents told me it was something worth doing. Eventually, I just did it even when I grew older without ever questioning why. Fortunately, one day, I did question why I prayed and spent quite a while thinking about it and religion as a whole. Since then, religion never played any role in my life and I gradually became a 'godless infidel'.

By the way, obviously there are people who do reflect and question their religious beliefs as they grow older, but there are also many out there who don't, and go on with their lives practicing a religion due to it being a relic of their childhood. Again, it is certainly acceptable to parent a child based on a certain religious belief but parents should exercise caution in teaching too much of it or constantly hammering religious beliefs and ideas into a child.

 

[GeorginaS]

Here is my hypothesis on why he (and I) are so "sharp" with criticism. By training he is a biologist. When he gives talks, he has to constantly listen to people tell him the biologist how evolution is 'only a theory' because the bible says so and therefore he is wrong. You can only stomach so much of that before you pull your hair out and just give nasty responses, like this:

I'm not a fan of radicalism and extremism on either end of the spectrum.

The point of the OP still stands though, and I support it. Religion is something adults should have the right choose. But indoctornation of children to religion is a no-no.

Parents teach their children their own culture. If religion is part of their culture and informs a part of who they are and how they conduct their lives, then so be it. As humano later points out, children become adults and think for themselves. Not all secular culture is ethical and good, nor is all religion. Conversely, nor are either of them all bad.

 

[Cyrus]

Parents teach their children their own culture. If religion is part of their culture and informs a part of who they are and how they conduct their lives, then so be it. As humano later points out, children become adults and think for themselves. Not all secular culture is ethical and good, nor is all religion. Conversely, nor are either of them all bad.

I don't see any justification for your claim that a secular culture would be bad. I argue otherwise, a completely secular culture would be far better. For example, teaching children that they will burn in hellfire if they don't obey god at a young age, and that man did not evolve is shameful and ignorant.

Since you have made a claim that not all secular culture is ethical and good, you are now required to provide some evidence for this point of view.

 

[GeorginaS]

I don't see any justification for your claim that a secular culture would be bad. I argue otherwise, a completely secular culture would be far better. For example, teaching children that they will burn in hellfire if they don't obey god at a young age, and that man did not evolve is shameful and ignorant.

Since you have made a claim that not all secular culture is ethical and good, you are now required to provide some evidence for this point of view.

Not all religions teach any of what you just posited.

I am not, by the way, required to do anything. However, I'll give you two words from secular culture: death penalty.