In God We Must

[Martinus]

Also, being in a relationship kinda made me realise I don't need to invent pet causes to feel meaningful.

[Razgovory]

Here's a hint.  Dawkin's offensive when he says "You theology is as harmful as child abuse".  But of course you and Marty have a hard time understanding things because bigots always do.

I take it you don't know how to use quotation marks. Dawkins did not say that. He said something completely different. I know that some people think that Dawkins is strident based on faked quotations and deliberatly misleading misrepresentations of what he said.

What he said, when asked about that misrepresentation he said "When you hear a child a child labelled as a christian child simply because it's parents are christian then that is child abuse." See, thats how you use quotation marks. It's the labelling that is the child abuse not the stuff you made up.

More of a paraphrase.  The man wrote a whole article on it, but then was forced to backtrack because it made him sound like a totalitarian fuck.

Priestly groping of child bodies is disgusting. But it may be less harmful in the long run than priestly subversion of child minds.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118

The quote you use was his backtrack.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xT3d5RFNATA  But it is interesting.  He denied he wanted parents prosecuted for this type of thing, but that leads us to a conundrum.  Mr. Dawkins doesn't think child abuse is worth prosecuting?  That's peculiar.  Abusing a child is against the law.  If you want child abuse to be against the law you have to have the state step in somewhere.  If he says something is child abuse then he is saying it is a crime.  He can't have it both ways and say it's child abuse but he doesn't want to the state to step in.

[crazy canuck]

The reason you are not liked Marti has nothing to do with being gay or Polish.

[Razgovory]

I don't dislike Marty, but his general shallowness, selfishness, and stupidity can be annoying.

[Viking]

Still a stupid thing to say. Dawkins is an agitating self-righteous dick.


And before you go that route, I'm an atheist.

The difference between what he actually says and what people say he says is quite staggering. Chistopher Hitchens might have been a aggitating self-righteous dick, Dawkins is not. He doesn't knock on doors and he only speaks when invited, which is much more than you can say about the randomly picked preacher. 

[Razgovory]

Well, unlike the randomly picked preacher he has made a lot of money in his efforts.  He doesn't have to knock on doors, he has fanatics to bother people about religion.  I do think he helped with an advertising campaign, though.

[Viking]

Well, unlike the randomly picked preacher he has made a lot of money in his efforts.  He doesn't have to knock on doors, he has fanatics to bother people about religion.  I do think he helped with an advertising campaign, though.

Don't buy his book then, you don't need to read it. You still have declined to comment on your gross slander and misrepresentation of Dawkins.

[Malthus]

Here's a hint.  Dawkin's offensive when he says "You theology is as harmful as child abuse".  But of course you and Marty have a hard time understanding things because bigots always do.

I take it you don't know how to use quotation marks. Dawkins did not say that. He said something completely different. I know that some people think that Dawkins is strident based on faked quotations and deliberatly misleading misrepresentations of what he said.

What he said, when asked about that misrepresentation he said "When you hear a child a child labelled as a christian child simply because it's parents are christian then that is child abuse." See, thats how you use quotation marks. It's the labelling that is the child abuse not the stuff you made up.

Sadly, Raz is right in substance, though he ought to have used paraphrase marks rather than quotation marks.

Here's a direct quotation, from the Dawkins website:

Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place.

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/118

I dunno how you parse it, but to me that appears to be Dawkins saying that in his opinion being brought up Catholic is "menal abuse" and worse (in that it does more "lasting damage") than the "physical abuse" of being raped by priests. 

He expands on that theme:

First, just because some pedophile assaults are violent and painful, it doesn't mean that all are. A child too young to notice what is happening at the hands of a gentle pedophile will have no difficulty at all in noticing the pain inflicted by a violent one. Phrases like 'predatory monster' are not discriminating enough, and are framed in the light of adult hang-ups. Second (and this is the point with which I began) the mental abuse constituted by an unsubstantiated threat of violence and terrible pain, if sincerely believed by the child, could easily be more damaging than the physical actuality of sexual abuse. An extreme threat of violence and pain is precisely what the doctrine of hell is. And there is no doubt at all that many children sincerely believe it, often continuing right through adulthood and old age until death finally releases them.

[Eddie Teach]

I think Dawkins may be onto something there.

[Razgovory]

Why is it sad when I'm right?  Also I don't know how to make paraphrase marks.

[Razgovory]

Well, unlike the randomly picked preacher he has made a lot of money in his efforts.  He doesn't have to knock on doors, he has fanatics to bother people about religion.  I do think he helped with an advertising campaign, though.

Don't buy his book then, you don't need to read it. You still have declined to comment on your gross slander and misrepresentation of Dawkins.

I guess you missed my other post.  Or Malthus's.  The man was quite clear.  No misrepresentation needed.

[fhdz]

I think Dawkins may be onto something there.

Yep. He's not saying that teaching kids religion is mental abuse, he's saying teaching kids a doctrine that there is an eternal hell is abusive. He's correct.

[Malthus]

Why is it sad when I'm right?  Also I don't know how to make paraphrase marks.

It's sad not becaise you are right but because a respected thinker has revealed himself as a bigot.

Quotation marks are like this: "this is a quote". The enclosed words are exact from the source.

In academic works, you either don't use quotation marks (but rather reference with a footnote), or you tell people you are paraphrasing, like so:

-- In summary, the author's basic point is "blah blah blah".

On forums like this, the usage has informally arisen that quotes use the double comma "quote" while paraphrase use the single comma 'paraphrase'.

[Razgovory]

I think Dawkins may be onto something there.

Yep. He's not saying that teaching kids religion is mental abuse, he's saying teaching kids a doctrine that there is an eternal hell is abusive. He's correct.

Odious as the physical abuse of children by priests undoubtedly is, I suspect that it may do them less lasting damage than the mental abuse of bringing them up Catholic in the first place.

Sounds like simply bringing them up Catholic is mental abuse.  I didn't see the word "Hell' in there at all.  Of course Hell is part of Catholic theology, so perhaps you have a point.  If it is abusive then it follows that it should be banned.  Unless Dawkins is cool with child abuse.  The only conclusion I can make is that either Child abuse shouldn't be a crime, or teaching religion to children should be.  If there is a third way to interpret it, please tell me.

[Razgovory]

Why is it sad when I'm right?  Also I don't know how to make paraphrase marks.

It's sad not becaise you are right but because a respected thinker has revealed himself as a bigot.

Quotation marks are like this: "this is a quote". The enclosed words are exact from the source.

In academic works, you either don't use quotation marks (but rather reference with a footnote), or you tell people you are paraphrasing, like so:

-- In summary, the author's basic point is "blah blah blah".

On forums like this, the usage has informally arisen that quotes use the double comma "quote" while paraphrase use the single comma 'paraphrase'.

Sorry, I'll try better next time.