Caving for infidels

[Rhys]

video - The trouble with Christianity

I'm not a churchgoer or religious myself, but I have to say that I find evangelising atheists like the bloke in that video really annoying. Almost as annoying as the fundamental religious types. Talk about stating the bloody obvious and doing it over and over again in a massively sanctimonious, patronising fashion.

Don't get me started on that Dawkins bloke...

Rhys

 

[cap n chris]

What Dawkins bloke? 

 

[graham]

What Dawkins bloke? 

I think he's referring to the one who eventually got so pissed off with fundamentalist religious nutters who, despite having no understanding of it, kept trying to denigrate his scientific work and that of his colleagues that he started actively responding to their lies and deceit.

 

[Bob Smith]

Rhys, have you actually read anything by Richard Dawkins? I think it would be wrong to describe him as an evangelical atheist, but I suspect others would disagree. I have read both the Old Testament, and most of Dawkins books, and I find they are all surprising good to read. But I know which I beleive.

 

[Rhys]

I've not read any of Dawkins' books. I seen and heard him speak on TV quite a few times and found his manner and style quite unpleasant. I'm guessing I wouldn't like his writing either, but perhaps I should give it a try.

 

[graham]

I seen and heard him speak on TV quite a few times and found his manner and style quite unpleasant.

Really? I find that he tends to be, if anything, too polite to idiots.

 

[grahams]

I've not read any of Dawkins' books. I seen and heard him speak on TV quite a few times and found his manner and style quite unpleasant. I'm guessing I wouldn't like his writing either, but perhaps I should give it a try.

Read 'The God Delusion' - very well written and has loads of interesting info; it's not just an anti-religious diatribe. On the other hand, the Old Testament, which Dawkins recommends that we read, is the most depressing tale of ethic cleansing, murder, animal cruelty and misogyny (all under the direction of the little man in the sky) that I've ever had the misfortune to read. No wonder the Middle East is such a mess. If you want to rid yourself of any religious afflictions, read the OT.

 

[Tony_B]

I've not read any of Dawkins' books. I seen and heard him speak on TV quite a few times and found his manner and style quite unpleasant. I'm guessing I wouldn't like his writing either, but perhaps I should give it a try.

Rhys, I wholeheartedly recommend that you read Richard Dawkins?s The Greatest Show on Earth ? The Evidence for Evolution.  It is a fantastic piece of science writing but, as well as explaining evolution in a clear, concise and entertaining way, Dawkins patiently and eloquently explains why scientists and atheists need to be so vigilant and so proactive against religion ? the tactics of the other side.

In the USA those who refuse to accept evolution hold an unbelievable (and frightening) degree of power and influence. They get elected on to legislatures and on to school boards, they raise vast amounts of money to fund credible-sounding institutions and even universities that present so-called ?intelligent design? as scientific fact. There are plenty of schools in the US, and not just in Utah, where the creation myth has to be given equal weight to the teaching of evolution. And biology teachers across the country have to put up with the folded arms and closed minds of children who insist that evolution is a lie and the earth is 10,000 years old. 

Think it couldn?t happen here? Take a look at some of the faith schools that religious groups are using the coalition?s free schools initiative to set up.

If religious people want to waste their time in church that?s fine by me. But the moment that they start trying influence children?s education, or insist on exemptions from the law of the land to allow them to discriminate against women or gay people, I draw the line. As should all right-thinking people.

I can also thoroughly recommend The God Delusion, another excellent book, although that is more likely to fulfil your preconceptions about Professor Dawkins. 

 

[Fulk]

Personally I don't find Dawkins's style at all unpleasant; but perhaps he ruffles feathers for the simple reason that for hundreds (thousands?) of years the religious have had it all their own way, to the extent that if you challenged the accepted view of things you could expect to be punished ? even up to the point of being murdered  ? in some more or less unpleasant, painful way. Not for nothing did Bloody Mary earn here sobriquet ? and she was putting to death fellow Christians, who happened to differ from her in their interpretation of the bad book. Does the communion wine 'actually' become the blood of Jesus? You'd better believe it does, otherwise I'll have you burnt to death ? so much for Christian love and compassion.

Anyway, in an effort to refute all this mind-numbing, dangerous, infantile crap, it's possible that Dawkins lays it on a bit thick in the eyes of some folk ? ?

 

[kay]

Think it couldn?t happen here? Take a look at some of the faith schools that religious groups are using the coalition?s free schools initiative to set up.

About 20 years ago we were deciding which local primary school to send our son to. In answer to another set of parents on one visit, the headmistress said "well first we teach the scientific view and then we teach the Christian view".

 

[Pitlamp]

I've not read any of Dawkins' books. I seen and heard him speak on TV quite a few times and found his manner and style quite unpleasant. I'm guessing I wouldn't like his writing either, but perhaps I should give it a try.

Rhys, I wholeheartedly recommend that you read Richard Dawkins?s The Greatest Show on Earth ? The Evidence for Evolution.  It is a fantastic piece of science writing but, as well as explaining evolution in a clear, concise and entertaining way, Dawkins patiently and eloquently explains why scientists and atheists need to be so vigilant and so proactive against religion ? the tactics of the other side.

In the USA those who refuse to accept evolution hold an unbelievable (and frightening) degree of power and influence. They get elected on to legislatures and on to school boards, they raise vast amounts of money to fund credible-sounding institutions and even universities that present so-called ?intelligent design? as scientific fact. There are plenty of schools in the US, and not just in Utah, where the creation myth has to be given equal weight to the teaching of evolution. And biology teachers across the country have to put up with the folded arms and closed minds of children who insist that evolution is a lie and the earth is 10,000 years old. 

Think it couldn?t happen here? Take a look at some of the faith schools that religious groups are using the coalition?s free schools initiative to set up.

If religious people want to waste their time in church that?s fine by me. But the moment that they start trying influence children?s education, or insist on exemptions from the law of the land to allow them to discriminate against women or gay people, I draw the line. As should all right-thinking people.

I can also thoroughly recommend The God Delusion, another excellent book, although that is more likely to fulfil your preconceptions about Professor Dawkins.

Tony_b; in one breath you point out that the biblical version of creation is taught with equal emphasis to evolution (thus giving students the opportunity to make their own mind up) - then you decry it if people "start trying to influence children's (sic) education".

I have been a biology teacher for many years and have also regularly taught a general studies module at A level on "evolution vs creationism" - with no problem at all. There is, of course, some overlap and only by examining both in a balanced discussion situation can you really empower students to think properly for themselves. During this work (as with any intelligent discussion) it's important to respect others' views even if you disagree with them. Otherwise such discussions lead nowhere useful.

Which brings me to what I really wanted to say. I'm very surprised by just how pompous and obnoxious certain of the posts in this thread have become. Especially as I know that some have originated from very intelligent people who should know better. They are verging on the abuse of this caving forum; aren't there rules about that sort of thing? I'd argue hard about your right to make a point but do us all a favour and try and be a bit more tolerant and less abusive.

 

[bograt]

B.T.W. and a-propos of nothing really, has the lad mentioned in the O.P. managed to get his head under the sods yet??

 

[mikem]

I expect he's in hiding from religious zealots (so maybe he has...)

Mike

 

[bograt]

Isn't that what Bin Laden did? :-\ :-\

 

[graham]

I have been a biology teacher for many years and have also regularly taught a general studies module at A level on "evolution vs creationism" - with no problem at all. There is, of course, some overlap and only by examining both in a balanced discussion situation can you really empower students to think properly for themselves. During this work (as with any intelligent discussion) it's important to respect others' views even if you disagree with them. Otherwise such discussions lead nowhere useful.

Pitlamp

Do you teach a general studies module on Lavoisier's oxygen theory versus the Phlogiston theory of combustion? If not, why not? Why favour one piece of outmoded non-scientific story telling over another?

Which brings me to what I really wanted to say. I'm very surprised by just how pompous and obnoxious certain of the posts in this thread have become. Especially as I know that some have originated from very intelligent people who should know better. They are verging on the abuse of this caving forum; aren't there rules about that sort of thing? I'd argue hard about your right to make a point but do us all a favour and try and be a bit more tolerant and less abusive.

This does not concur with my view of this thread to date, sorry Pitlamp.

 

[Tony_B]

Tony_b; in one breath you point out that the biblical version of creation is taught with equal emphasis to evolution (thus giving students the opportunity to make their own mind up) - then you decry it if people "start trying to influence children's (sic) education".

I have been a biology teacher for many years and have also regularly taught a general studies module at A level on "evolution vs creationism" - with no problem at all. There is, of course, some overlap and only by examining both in a balanced discussion situation can you really empower students to think properly for themselves. During this work (as with any intelligent discussion) it's important to respect others' views even if you disagree with them. Otherwise such discussions lead nowhere useful.

If you were teaching the history of the Second World War, would you give equal weight to the established facts of the conflict and to the views of those who insist that the Holocaust didn't happen? Thought not.

It's the same thing. One version of events is supported by all the evidence that is currently available, the other is clearly nonsense but is vociferously and robustly championed by a minority with an agenda. 

 

[graham]

It's the same thing. One version of events is supported by all the evidence that is currently available, the other is clearly nonsense but is vociferously and robustly championed by a minority with an agenda.

Am currently watching Alice Roberts' BBC2 programme about Neanderthals & Human evolution. Fascinating stuff.

 

[Pitlamp]

I have been a biology teacher for many years and have also regularly taught a general studies module at A level on "evolution vs creationism" - with no problem at all. There is, of course, some overlap and only by examining both in a balanced discussion situation can you really empower students to think properly for themselves. During this work (as with any intelligent discussion) it's important to respect others' views even if you disagree with them. Otherwise such discussions lead nowhere useful.

Pitlamp

Do you teach a general studies module on Lavoisier's oxygen theory versus the Phlogiston theory of combustion? If not, why not? Why favour one piece of outmoded non-scientific story telling over another?

Which brings me to what I really wanted to say. I'm very surprised by just how pompous and obnoxious certain of the posts in this thread have become. Especially as I know that some have originated from very intelligent people who should know better. They are verging on the abuse of this caving forum; aren't there rules about that sort of thing? I'd argue hard about your right to make a point but do us all a favour and try and be a bit more tolerant and less abusive.

This does not concur with my view of this thread to date, sorry Pitlamp.

My apologies Graham - I've been really busy and I only just saw your (extremely civil) post above. To try to answer your two points:

1. I've changed my emploment situation, so I no longer do that.

2. There have been expressions used such as "idiots", "that sort of crap", "religeous nutters" and "infantile crap". Wouldn't you say these sort of articulations are, well, less than polite to a significant number of reasonable and decent readers of this forum?

(These are just plucked at random from a quick glance at some of the above posts - and I deliberately didn't look at who expressed themselves this way.) All I'm suggesting is that folk make their points politely - use of unnecessarily confrontational language rarely persuades anyone to change their mind. I suspect it also doesn't help the world at large to form a favourable impression of us cavers either.

 

[Tony_B]

2. There have been expressions used such as "idiots", "that sort of crap", "religeous nutters" and "infantile crap". Wouldn't you say these sort of articulations are, well, less than polite to a significant number of reasonable and decent readers of this forum?

Pitlamp, I saw your earlier post about the language on this thread and hoped that it did not refer to any of my posts. I think I have a pretty good track record on UKC so I looked back through my earlier comments on this thread. I hold my hand up and admit that I used the word 'idiots'. However, I used it in combination with the word 'Creationist'.  I was - as I think my post made clear - referring to the sort of individual who dismisses all of the scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution (and of the formation of our planet) in favour of the idea that the world was created by a divine being, in six days, about 10,000 years ago. I think the sobriquet is thoroughly deserved, and more to the point I don't believe that I was being 'less than polite' to any of the readers of this forum. So no apology on that one. 

If you will allow me, while I'm on, I'll make one more brief response to your earlier point. Personally I have no problem with the idea of A-level students engaging in an 'evolution v. creationism' discussion as part of a general studies module. Sounds like a worthwhile exercise. However, that is a world away from teaching young children that the Creation myth offers as valid an explanation of the natural history of our planet as the theory of evolution. Let us not forget that to do so is a legal requirement in many schools in the USA.

Would you want your children to be taught that dinosaurs and human beings walked the earth at the same time? 

Teaching an understanding of the bible is one thing. Teaching that the Old Testament's version of the creation of the world is historical fact is quite another, and that's what makes us atheists so angry.   

 

[graham]

Pitlamp

This is today's first example of the sort of posturing that makes people like me angry. This is not a statement of my views on abortion, but of my views on religious justification for a stance. It is intellectually poor in that it takes a pre-formed conclusion (that something must, willy-nilly, be god's will) and warps the discussion to reach that end point regardless.

To coin a phrase you cannot reason someone out of a position that they did not reason themselves into.