1. Comment #85407 by Janus on November 5, 2007 at 6:46 pm

Ah, I've been waiting for this. I hope we get lots of comments from theists on Youtube. :P

Other Comments by Janus

2. Comment #85408 by zarcus on November 5, 2007 at 6:51 pm

When will the first video become available? Or is it , I am getting a "no longer available message".

Other Comments by zarcus

3. Comment #85410 by Diacanu on November 5, 2007 at 6:52 pm

Nope, I don't get it either.

Other Comments by Diacanu

4. Comment #85411 by USA_Limey on November 5, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Zarcus...

It's still uploading. Must have done part two first.

It'll be there soon enough. :-)

Other Comments by USA_Limey

5. Comment #85412 by maton100 on November 5, 2007 at 6:55 pm

Bravo!

Other Comments by maton100

6. Comment #85418 by toomanytribbles on November 5, 2007 at 7:36 pm

finally. thanks.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

7. Comment #85420 by Socrates on November 5, 2007 at 8:17 pm

A very interesting speech from Professor Dawkins. What we need now is action, action, action! :) We people of reason need to unashamedly make some noise.

Other Comments by Socrates

8. Comment #85422 by mejdrich on November 5, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Nice. The crowd loved him, too. Did anyone else notice how much more warmly the good Doctor was received, even in comparison to Harris and Hitchens?

Other Comments by mejdrich

9. Comment #85426 by kryptoknightmare on November 5, 2007 at 8:36 pm

Far too few questions in the Q&A!

I hope that the children's book he mentions (assuming he writes one) will not be a picture-book or something along those lines. I think that his intentions (and his ideas) aren't suited for younger children. He ought to strive for a reading level and tone similar to his fantastic "Growing Up in the Universe" series- he could probably organize a whole children's book out of what he presented in that series alone (properly updated and revised, of course). As a teacher, I've often felt that children read far too much fiction. That book might be the antidote.

Other Comments by kryptoknightmare

10. Comment #85434 by notsobad on November 5, 2007 at 9:33 pm

The points regarding children and education are especially valuable because I don't think any other speaker at AAI 07 focused on that.

Other Comments by notsobad

11. Comment #85436 by toomanytribbles on November 5, 2007 at 9:42 pm

i just finished watching the videos. richard dawkins, very well-done! plus: please, please, please do the children's book.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

12. Comment #85447 by ADH on November 5, 2007 at 11:00 pm

I have just been listening to the first part. I must say I found myself agreeing with a great deal of what RD said. As a Christian theist, I am all in favour of atheists, feminists and everyone else doing what they can to get children and their parents to "think for themselves", to think critically about what is being "spoonfed" to them, from whatever source. When we do that, I hope atheists won't be too surprised to find that we won't necessarily come to the same conclusions as they have. I agree wholeheartedly that there is no such thing as a Catholic child, a Protestant child, a Buddhist child, just as their is no such thing as an atheist or a Marxist child. We need an education system which trains children to think through issues, to read widely, to weigh up the evidence in their minds, to observe and draw conclusions, and which encourages rather than debilitates their innate curiosity. We do not need a system which simply teaches them to jump through the exam hoops. I, and many other Christian theists, are completely with RD on this issue. But I think we need to make sure (as RD himself stated very clearly) that we are not replacing one form of indoctrination with another.

Other Comments by ADH

13. Comment #85448 by windweaver on November 5, 2007 at 11:16 pm

...to think through issues, to read widely, to weigh up the evidence in their minds, to observe and draw conclusions, and which encourages rather than debilitates their innate curiosity

ADH, what conclusions do you draw from the following article?

http://www.skepticfiles.org/skep2/anomaly0.htm

Other Comments by windweaver

14. Comment #85452 by ADH on November 6, 2007 at 12:07 am

Windweaver, I don't want to derail this thread. But you asked me a question about the said article, so I'll answer it. Nobody who approaches these texts on the basis of a holistic understanding of the Bible would be troubled in the slightest by these socalled conradictions. You can't wrench phrases out of their context and thrust them alongside other phrases likewise wrenched from their context and say that they contradict each other. If you want me to I can deal with them one by one, but this thread is not the place for Biblical exegesis! I would like to say though that the way the Bible has long been dealt in Sunday schools and RE lessons has actually given wings to this "decontextualising", and also to articles like this one.

I agree by the way that a "comparative religions" approach is better than turning RE classes into an extension of Sunday School, which some fundamentalists would like to see. I think that even in Sunday Schools children questions should be raised in children's minds, but that they can be told, or shown, how the Bible has answers to the deepest questions that they are already asking by the age of four or five.

By the way, I have two teenage kids, both of whom went attended Sunday school. At no point did we ever discourage them from thinking for themselves. It has always been, and always will be completely up to them whether they believe what we believe. At the moment they do not, and maybe they never will. We have never done anything to "filter out" the influence of their peers or of their teachers, who in every single case are completely secular in their outlook. We do try to redress the balance when we are aware that the Christian faith has been misrepresented to them. We would like them to come to faith, but we have never DRILLED them into an acceptance of our convictions. If they do, it will be their choice, not ours.

Other Comments by ADH

15. Comment #85454 by JamesDB on November 6, 2007 at 12:39 am

Awesome speech, i enjoyed it thoroughly. Does anyone else find RD's voice somewhat comforting like I do?

I also loved the part with the comedian who i have never heard of before. Are there youtube videos of things hes done?

Other Comments by JamesDB

16. Comment #85480 by Logicel on November 6, 2007 at 2:04 am

Nicely focused speech, thanks RD!

Especially enjoyed:

Thorealogy
Scratch that Hitch

Other Comments by Logicel

17. Comment #85482 by Logicel on November 6, 2007 at 2:10 am

ADH wrote: We do try to redress the balance when we are aware that the Christian faith has been misrepresented to them.
________

You mean when your interpretation of the Christian faith was not stated as the true version? In that case, hopefully you prefaced your elucidation with that reality, that you are giving them your version of the faith and be honest that there are various interpretations.

And yes, per eric.malitz comment, how do you handle Christ's focus on eternal punishment? Do you interpret that focus in such a way that it does not disturb you that your children, if they reject Christianity, will be at the very least separated from God for all eternity (if not actually languishing in flames)?

Other Comments by Logicel

18. Comment #85484 by ADH on November 6, 2007 at 2:15 am

"If you children are raised secular like you say, I still will find it hard to believe you don't interfere in some way, as you state about 'correcting' what it 'realy' means to be a christian."

Of course I "interfere" if by interfering you mean "representing" to them what faith in God is all about, and how it impacts the way I behave and think. My kids DO respect me for that, and they respect what I believe. That is not hypocrisy. It would be hypocrisy if I mouthed on about Christian values but did not love and respect them or other people. I'm not saying that my lifestyle is always consistent. That does not mean that my faith is hypocritical.

Other Comments by ADH

19. Comment #85487 by ADH on November 6, 2007 at 2:21 am

"And yes, per eric.malitz comment, how do you handle Christ's focus on eternal punishment? Do you interpret that focus in such a way that it does not disturb you that your children, if they reject Christianity, will be at the very least separated from God for all eternity (if not actually languishing in flames)?"

I am hoping and praying that they come to faith. But I am not going to alienate them by coercion. They know what we believe about the consequences of shutting God out of their lives. We don't mince our words about that. But we will not resort to fear tactics. Materialists also believe that people are separated from God indefinitely, because they don't believe that God exists. They will have to make up their own minds about which "paradigm" they find more convincing, and which they feel will satisfy their deepest longings.

Other Comments by ADH

20. Comment #85488 by windweaver on November 6, 2007 at 2:27 am

It would be hypocrisy if I mouthed on about Christian values but did not love and respect them or other people. I'm not saying that my lifestyle is always consistent. That does not mean that my faith is hypocritical.

ADH, presumably when you talk about Christian values you hold up the example of Jesus Christ and the way he lived his life. I'd be interested to hear your opinion on the article below:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jesus.htm

Other Comments by windweaver

21. Comment #85490 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 2:28 am

Materialists also believe that people are separated from God indefinitely, because they don't believe that God exists.

Not really. I don't believe that Narnia exists, but that does not mean I believe that we are all isolated from that magical land....

Other Comments by steve99

22. Comment #85496 by ADH on November 6, 2007 at 2:52 am

Windweaver, I've had a look at the article. I don't agree with it. You didn't really expect me to say that it opened my eyes did you? More about it later maybe. GOt to rush now.

Other Comments by ADH

23. Comment #85497 by Logicel on November 6, 2007 at 2:56 am

ADH wrote: But I am not going to alienate them by coercion. They know what we believe about the consequences of shutting God out of their lives. We don't mince our words about that. But we will not resort to fear tactics.
_______

Your taking so seriously their possible fate of being separated from God for eternity is why you are so wise as not to coerce them. I am taking coerce to mean forcing them to be Christians, eg., not letting them even question your faith, insisting that they guard themselves from criticism of Christian faith, etc. You want them to choose faith because you take it so seriously. Very commendable.

All well and good. However, is not fear a part of faith, is that not a reason for embracing it, you want to be with God for eternity and if you do not embrace the faith, you will not be with God for eternity? I regard that as 'circular' fear or faith with a built-in fear factor.

I know if other threads with dialog with Christians are any indication, you will be inundated with challenges. Keeping that in mind, when you do have the time, please inform me what faith means to you (if you have already done that, refer me to those comments).

Faith, for me, means belief without evidence. Therefore, with faith, you can believe in anything, even beliefs that can lead to violence, murder, etc. How do you impart to your children the dangers of believing without evidence? How do they identify the kind of faith that will not do themselves and others harm?

Other Comments by Logicel

24. Comment #85498 by geru on November 6, 2007 at 2:56 am

It's peculiar how words like "indoctrination" and "dogma" are used when people criticize books by Hitchens, Harris and Dawkins, etc.

I believe that the most important thing about these books is that they raise consciousness about facts that are unpopular, because of the power religion has over societies. These books of course contain claims that are only opinions of the writer, but at least the writers make sure that the reader always knows, that this particular argument is only the opinion of the writer, not an universal truth. (Argumenting without making claims that are universal truths seems to be an alien concept to many.)

If you look past the personal opinions (what no critic ever seems to be capable of doing), these books contain very significant and alarming facts. And I do not think anyone can seriously claim that presenting these facts to raise consciousness, is a process of indoctrination.

Or at least any more a process of indoctrination, than explaining the gravity of theory to someone.

Also, it is obvious that these books must contain opinions and examples. Without them they would only be a compilation of facts, and they wouldn't qualify as literature. But the problem seems to be that critics only attack the opinions and examples, without commenting the ideas behind them.

Other Comments by geru

25. Comment #85499 by jaf on November 6, 2007 at 2:59 am

ADH said -
"They know what we believe about the consequences of shutting God out of their lives. We don't mince our words about that. But we will not resort to fear tactics."

Do I detect a paradox?
Methinks 'tis so.

Other Comments by jaf

26. Comment #85529 by Clemens on November 6, 2007 at 4:23 am

I really liked this talk and I agree wholeheartedly with the basic premise.

There is only one issue that I think was not really considered fully. There must be a good many people who are only casually religious. Perhaps they are also a little uncritical about their own beliefs but the point is that these people regard religion as a natural part of their lives (by tradition/upbringing) and might see the rise of the 'new atheism' as somewhat threatening, maybe preventing them from seeing its true merits (even without it having to be too agressive). I think this is a legitimate scenario (originally coming from a moderate Christian background myself) and should not be discarded as fast as Richard appeared to do. These people (and I think there are quite a lot of them) might have the largest potential to develop a critical sense of their belief and their world, rather then the 'extremist' side where much attention has been directed.

Of course I fully agree with Richard that much of the so called 'agressiveness' is blown way out of proportion. My personal concern is that such characterisations may be harmful to the central message.

I'm interested to see where Richard and the other proponents of this new movement will take us.

Best,

Clemens
The Netherlands

Other Comments by Clemens

27. Comment #85531 by LB on November 6, 2007 at 4:53 am

Where has that video come from that Dawkins plays during his speech? The one where he tells McGrath to EFFF OFF!

I've never seen it before and can't find it on YouTube.

I knew that quote from Beyond Belief would eventually crop up in this sort of video!

Other Comments by LB

28. Comment #85543 by Nighttripper on November 6, 2007 at 6:09 am

Well that is somewhat of a leap from what ADH actually wrote. I don't think there is any reason to assume that ADH is an insane christian fundamentalist (uhm...right?).

I would like to hear what "consequences" ADH thinks that shutting God out of their lifes would have for his children though.

and indeed, great speech by RD. I enjoyed it.

Other Comments by Nighttripper

29. Comment #85554 by gaving on November 6, 2007 at 6:32 am

Comment #85531 by LB on November 6, 2007 at 4:53 am
Where has that video come from that Dawkins plays during his speech? The one where he tells McGrath to EFFF OFF!

I've never seen it before and can't find it on YouTube.

I knew that quote from Beyond Belief would eventually crop up in this sort of video!

As far as I know it's the uncut interview Richard did with him for the root of all evil:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6PSM887YIs4

Other Comments by gaving

30. Comment #85559 by Matt H. on November 6, 2007 at 7:01 am

JamesDB wrote "Awesome speech, i enjoyed it thoroughly. Does anyone else find RD's voice somewhat comforting like I do?"

Absolutely, in the same way I also enjoy listening to Harris, Dennett and Hitchens. Their speeches are ambrosia for the mind.

Other Comments by Matt H.

31. Comment #85566 by Friend Giskard on November 6, 2007 at 7:49 am

An mp3 would be appreciated.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

32. Comment #85574 by flyingscot on November 6, 2007 at 8:21 am

Excellent!

Other Comments by flyingscot

33. Comment #85581 by Bonzai on November 6, 2007 at 9:08 am

ADH wrote:

, but that they can be told, or shown, how the Bible has answers to the deepest questions that they are already asking by the age of four or five.

Can you demonstrate with some examples? We're all ears.

Other Comments by Bonzai

34. Comment #85590 by RascoHeldall on November 6, 2007 at 9:49 am

ADH wrote:

"I am hoping and praying that they come to faith. But I am not going to alienate them by coercion. They know what we believe about the consequences of shutting God out of their lives. We don't mince our words about that. But we will not resort to fear tactics."

So you accept, then, that the way things stand, your kids are dooming themselves to an eternity of torment. You seem remarkably calm, even blase, about this.

Gotta ask - why on earth are you having a debate on an internet forum with complete strangers, when you could be using that time to plead with your kids to save themselves? If I thought my kids were about to be spit-roasted I'd be doing everything I possibly could, every second of every day, to stop that.

Two possibilities spring to mind. Either (a) you don't really, deep down, care what happens to them or (b) you don't really, deep down, believe it's true.

Which is it?

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

35. Comment #85599 by nattyadams on November 6, 2007 at 11:04 am

Hey, who's that handsome young man asking the last question? Oh yeah, it's me!!! If only I'd been more eloquent and clear, I'd be an internet celebrity by now.

Other Comments by nattyadams

36. Comment #85606 by D'Arcy on November 6, 2007 at 11:43 am

Like others I found the talk persuasive and interesting. Dawkins had a few minutes on selective editing, which although it doesn't surprise me, strikes me as the utterly disgusting tactic of people who are not so sure of their ground as they make out. Why do people seek to misrepresent what Dawkins and others say? For the same reason that Darwin was vilified and misrepresented, and still is, - because the views undercut the house of cards that religions are built on.

The American electorate will no doubt be exposed to many such examples of selective editing next year when they have the chance to vote for their president.

Other Comments by D'Arcy

37. Comment #85616 by Zzyx1170 on November 6, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Friend Giskard, I placed an mp3 of this on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/67908305/Richard-Dawkins_AAI-07.mp3

Other Comments by Zzyx1170

38. Comment #85623 by ADH on November 6, 2007 at 2:09 pm

RascoHeldall, I do believe and I do care. But I don't have and nor do I want to have control over my children's choices! They have to get on with their lives, and I have to get on with mine, in my case in accordance, as fr as possible with my convictions. But I cannot and would never try to force my convictions on anyone. I believe in dialogue as a means of persuasion - rational dialogue (believe it or not!)

When I was about 16, though I was brought up in an evangelical home, I was about to chuck it all in. The questions I was being asked left me without answers (typically they were the same quesions that I see coming out on this thread). But then a book by CS Lewis "fell into my hands", and then others followed suit. I realised that there were answers to these questions, which, even if they didn't convince all my "interrogators", did satisfy me intellectually. I have to say that my faith is real. God is for me the foundation of everything that is. Life seems to me to be absolutely meaningless outside of a relationship with Him.

But that is "my" journey (a brief sketch of it). Everyone's journey is different. I don't know where my kids will end up in relation to the Christian faith. All I can do is keep praying and loving them for the wonderful young people that they are, irrespective if what they believe. I do believe that they will encounter God, that they will, and they will have to make a choice to follow or not.

I believe that all of us, including the posters on this thread, are still on a journey, and there may be surprises in store even for the most vociferous and belligerent atheists among you. Stranger things have happened.

Other Comments by ADH

39. Comment #85627 by Friend Giskard on November 6, 2007 at 2:13 pm

41. Comment #85616 by Zzyx1170 on November 6, 2007 at 1:36 pm
Friend Giskard, I placed an mp3 of this on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/67908305/Richard-Dawkins_AAI-07.mp3

Woohoo! Nice one.

Other Comments by Friend Giskard

40. Comment #85634 by Fedler on November 6, 2007 at 2:35 pm

ADH:

When I was about 16, though I was brought up in an evangelical home, I was about to chuck it all in. The questions I was being asked left me without answers (typically they were the same quesions that I see coming out on this thread). But then a book by CS Lewis "fell into my hands", and then others followed suit. I realised that there were answers to these questions, which, even if they didn't convince all my "interrogators", did satisfy me intellectually. I have to say that my faith is real. God is for me the foundation of everything that is. Life seems to me to be absolutely meaningless outside of a relationship with Him.

But that is "my" journey (a brief sketch of it). Everyone's journey is different.

It's interesting to see differences in the paths that people get on. I read CS Lewis, also, and it turned me even further away from faith. Other books that followed suit for me were science books (Sagan, Greene, Hawking, etc.). It would be interesting to examine the circumstances that leads one person away from faith, yet can lead another person into faith. Or how two people with very similar information can draw two very different conclusions. I have no credentials to do so, but it would be interesting reading.

Other Comments by Fedler

41. Comment #85635 by notbadfora human on November 6, 2007 at 2:35 pm

"Woohoo! Nice one"

Yes, indeed. Now how about mp3 files for the other talks given during this meeting? Anybody?

Other Comments by notbadfora human

42. Comment #85636 by notbadfora human on November 6, 2007 at 2:41 pm

"God is for me the foundation of everything that is. Life seems to me to be absolutely meaningless outside of a relationship with Him"

I love this stuff. No point in living without a relationship with an imaginary friend... Guess I'd better go back to bed then.

ADH, you seem an OK, sort-of-normal kind of fellow. Please, please share with us the evidence on which you base your belief in God (excluding waffle which incorporates verbage such as "I exist, the world is beautiful, therefore there is a God" etc)..

Other Comments by notbadfora human

43. Comment #85638 by steve99 on November 6, 2007 at 2:45 pm

I have to say that my faith is real. God is for me the foundation of everything that is. Life seems to me to be absolutely meaningless outside of a relationship with Him.

Sorry, but I have to ask... with who? Have you heard him speak, seen him? I am just so fascinated by people with this opinion that I would love to get an answer. Remember - to show that someone is actually there, you need evidence of some kind, not faith or vague feelings.

Other Comments by steve99

44. Comment #85639 by mejdrich on November 6, 2007 at 2:49 pm

"I am hoping and praying that they come to faith. But I am not going to alienate them by coercion. They know what we believe about the consequences of shutting God out of their lives. We don't mince our words about that. But we will not resort to fear tactics."

I desperately hope that ADH hasn't done what he has said. To tell a child that they must believe certain things or be eternally tortured with Hellfire - yes, it is "coercive", it most certainly is a "fear tactic", and Richard Dawkins has been right to point out what it really is: child abuse.

Other Comments by mejdrich

45. Comment #85642 by Martin S on November 6, 2007 at 2:55 pm

RD says...

I've been accused of wanting to seize people's children and take them away from their parents…

I know how he feels there. So have I. Not to mention a totalitarian.

Other Comments by Martin S

46. Comment #85643 by RascoHeldall on November 6, 2007 at 3:00 pm

ADH wrote:

RascoHeldall, I do believe and I do care. But I don't have and nor do I want to have control over my children's choices!

If one of your kids motioned to put their hand in a fire, what would you do? Intervene immediately, or enter into a gentle "dialogue" with them to allow them to find their own path, in their own time?

I hope you don't think it presumptious of me to assume that you would intervene immediately.

But according to the doctrine you are defending here, your children are currently motioning to put their WHOLE BODY in the fire, FOR ALL ETERNITY. And yet, for some strange reason, you seem rather sanguine about the chances of talking them into believing. What if you can't? What if you don't get round to it? Have you never considered these possibilities?

Since I do not for one second question your love and devotion for your children, please consider it a compliment when I say I am still not persuaded of the sincerity of your belief in this particular aspect of Christian doctrine.

Other Comments by RascoHeldall

47. Comment #85644 by phil rimmer on November 6, 2007 at 3:00 pm

ADH

I am hoping and praying that they come to faith.

Maybe the terrible risks your children run (in being roasted for getting it wrong) could be reduced if, in fact, you prayed that they come to Truth rather than faith. A little personal humility about the certainty about exactly what you know, cannot be bad.

Truth must surely tower over faiths.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

48. Comment #85646 by Bonzai on November 6, 2007 at 3:06 pm

I desperately hope that ADH hasn't done what he has said. To tell a child that they must believe certain things or be eternally tortured with Hellfire - yes, it is "coercive", it most certainly is a "fear tactic", and Richard Dawkins has been right to point out what it really is: child abuse.

To be fair, that is not the only way he can get his point across. I went to a Catholic elementary school a little more than a decade after Vatican II. As far as I can recall there wasn't much talk about hell and torture. It was "soft" emotional manipulation along the line of Jesus had suffered so much and died for us so we oughted to be good to show our gratitude. When hell was briefly mentioned it was described as a trap set by Satan rather than a place where God sent the non believers and apparently you had to be really bad to go to hell. God was nice and easy and he forgave everything if you asked sincerely and he gave us the strength to resist Satan.

Now this was a very sugar coated version of Catholicism and might not be theologically in keeping with the official dogmas. But I honestly don't feel I was traumatized.

Other Comments by Bonzai

49. Comment #85652 by walk on November 6, 2007 at 3:51 pm

ADH,

So you teach your children about the "consequences" of deciding not to believe in your imaginary friend. Christianity teaches that if you reject god, your all-loving creator condemns you to burn in hell. Is this the free "choice" you are extending to your innocent offspring, who look to you for love, protection, and truth?

Other Comments by walk

50. Comment #85657 by SRWB on November 6, 2007 at 5:24 pm

ADH said...

I have to say that my faith is real. God is for me the foundation of everything that is. Life seems to me to be absolutely meaningless outside of a relationship with Him.

I have to note that all these comments emphasize "me" and "my" thus personalizing the relationship between you and your God. But what does that kind of attitude say about the reality and likelihood that God actually exists. To me, this is indicative of a search for warm, fuzzy comfort zone, but it doesn't get us any closer to actually determining God's existence. But why would your life be "absolutely meaningless outside of a relationship with Him" considering you have children, other relatives and friends, etc.? Do they not give your life meaning?

I do believe that they will encounter God, that they will, and they will have to make a choice to follow or not.

If they actually do "encounter" God, what choice will they realistically have? I mean if God is revealed and becomes so glaringly obvious then surely only a fool would still refuse to believe. However, if you just mean encounter in the sense of a fleeting feeling, a sensation or strong belief without any hard evidence, then they will be no further ahead and will need to fall back on simple, imperfect faith.

Other Comments by SRWB