richarddawkins.net – see more videos like this. On Saturday, March 8th, 2008, Richard Dawkins gave this lecture on The God Delusion during his US Tour. The event took place on the UC Berkeley campus in Wheeler Auditorium, and was completely sold out. A line of hopeful attendees stretched around the side of the building, waiting to see if there would be any ‘no-show’ tickets at the last minute! There was a Q&A session that followed the talk, which will be posted to the site soon. Camera by Josh Timonen and Wayne Marsala Edited by Josh Timonen
On April 4, 2010, In Uncategorized, by admin
richarddawkins.net – see more videos like this. On Saturday, March 8th, 2008, Richard Dawkins gave this lecture on The God Delusion during his US Tour. The event took place on the UC Berkeley campus in Wheeler Auditorium, and was completely sold out. A line of hopeful attendees stretched around the side of the building, waiting [...]
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
eye you suck
“I’m an atheist with respect to the Judeo-Christian God, because there is not a shred of EVIDENCE in favor of the Judeo-Christian God.”
~ Richard Dawkins
…Dawkins, that’s because you have not visited my channel.
They can also be a result of constant denial of the information that is mainly based on fear or upon not having the power to break with what you’ve lived your life upon.
But anyway, conversions from atheism to theism are in all cases explained by weakness of the brain or weakness of the heart (that is – character).
In my experience all 4-year-olds are socialists.
Sophist- It’s not his point, it’s what is underneath. You can’t have it both ways: you can’t have a species that passes complex information onto its offspring and have ALL of it be in agreement with any specific ideology. So his motivation for telling you that he is ‘angry’ about this, is manipulative. U can’t change what U can’t change, but we can sure get mad about it, can’t we? Isn’t it horrible? Manipulation 101. Dogma peddling, 101. It’s TV preacher tricks, man…c’mon.
Sophist, I am not arguing the theist vs. atheist argument. I’m not finding fault in Dawkins ideology here. We agree that children adopt their parents norms/values/mores. Dawkins leaves out the fact that you CAN”T STOP THAT IRREGARDLESS of what is taught. Why? Parents FEED information they feel important to their child. That is humanity. Does Dawkins want to take that fact away from humanity? Or just the religion part? He can’t cuz one goes hand in hand with the other.
Zhang-First of all, my point has nothing to do with the theist vs. atheist argument. None. AGAIN: I’m talking about DOGMA and the manipulation of language to create followers AND NOTHING ELSE!!!! He’s peddling dogma here. You go to his ideology to make your points of which I am not in dispute. I am NOT NOT NOT arguing his ideology, get it? And if you think atheism isn’t being taught, then what is Dawkins doing here? THAT”S MY POINT…he’s peddling dogma to build followers and book sales.
We are getting into a lot of abstract, unfruitful and frankly irrelevant variables here. To put it simply, Dawkins point was clear:
Children are impressionable, generally gullible and lack the education necessary to make informed decisions on issues of religion and politics. For a child to call himself a Christian means that someone else instilled that in him, not that he came to that conclusion himself by examining all available evidence. That’s all there is to Dawkins point.
P.S., conversions from atheism to theism are, without exception, ALWAYS the result of lack of education or access to information.
Christian TV preachers preach logic and critical thinking?!? Since when did this happen?! Convincing thousands of viewers to donate a million dollars because “God said so” doesn’t sound like logic to me.
I’m a vegetarian, by the way. Live in a family of ardent meat eaters. A child being “indoctrinated” to eat healthier shouldn’t “anger” anyone. However, indoctrinating children to accept every word of a hateful, racist, ancient book of fairy tales is a menace to society.
It is recruitment. You’re kidding me right? It’s pure indoctrination propaganda. They scare the living daylights out of children so that they don’t dare question the obvious flaws of the Bible and religion in general in fear of eternal damnation. As far as I’m concerned, it’s psychological child abuse.
I don’t know a single individual that is religious and doesn’t share the same faith as their family. Sure, conversions of atheism to theism exist, but are still the result of their environment.
You’re completely misinterpreting what Dawkins is saying. A child born to a muslim family is indoctrinated by the religious customs of the family and is expected to adhere to that ideology. The same goes for every religion. I was born to a religious, Roman Catholic family and am now an Atheist, but if I were ever to mention that fact to my Grandfather he would be deeply hurt and upset.
The point is, children tend to look up to their parents and adopt their values, ideologies etc.
Lol, teach atheism? Atheism isnt taught anywhere or enforced on anyone, by any means, but religion is. Im not sure what your definition of the word logic is because you seem to be twisting science with a dogmatic belief system, which leads me to believe that you are of a lesser species. And I think you clearly stated a portion of your beliefs when you said Attn atheists: find somebody else…this guy is weak.
Zahng-If a TV preacher said “It makes me mad that atheists are teaching their kids that there is no God and attempting to create a Godless society.” would you cry bullshit because of the idoelogy or because of the manipulation inherent in the argument? I’m saying that he makes his point with dogma rather than logic. ALL HUMANS WILL TEACH THEIR KIDS THEIR OWN IDEOLOGY. So then the point is “don’t teach what I think is wrong”. He wouldn’t be pissed if were athiesm taught. Dogma, pure and simple.
Zhang-You are making assumptions that I am a Christian and/or a Bush supporter. In my posts I NEVER mentioned my beliefs. I’m talking about Dawkin’s LOGIC AND PRESENTATION. Period. Nothing more. You are not paying attention. Let’s make it simple…Can a child be a part of a culture by proxy? If the answer is yes (and it is), then Dawkin’s point is dogmatic. It’s that simple. Why is that so hard to see? Don’t respond to Dick’s rhetoric like a reactionary Christian to a tv preacher.
I think what youre trying to say, 3shiftgtr, is that you like religion and you dislike the fact that Dawkins is making sense of the world. But Im sure youll disagree with this since your brain seems to rival that of a George Bush spawn. Cant wait to see what weird analogies you come up with for your next response.
You are obviously missing the point, 3shiftgtr. Dawkins is angry at the fact that children are being forced into these bullshit roles, and that these children are being labeled at the age of 4, even though they most likely have no understanding of the religion they are filed under. You keep making these comparisons to vegetarians and fat kids and jocks, but they have absolutely nothing to do with this topic, you pretend as if having imaginary friends is the same as being a vegetarian.
sophist- and 3rd, this is EXACTLY what the Christian tv preachers do with logic. They eradicate the attachment point of logic to the argument by delivering an ancillary point with an emotional appeal. He says it ‘angers’ him. Well, does it anger him if a child lives in a household where the parents are vegetarians, and the kid only eats vegetables, and has his whole life? He’s a vegetarian by proxy. Children who attend their parents’ church, are members by proxy. DUH>>>>
Sophist-2nd: any human can be part of a group culture that is not of his/her choosing. If you teach your 8 year old child to strive to give 100% in everything they do, and they happen to be good at sports, he’ll be labeled a “jock”. The parent’s intention isn’t to put him in a category and piss off people who think jocks are stupid. What Dawkins objects to is that he sees it as “recruitment.” Which is a separate point than “no child can be a part of a group they don’t choose”
Sophist-OK now, think for a second. Stop DEFENDING this logic and assuming I have an ulterior motive or disagree with your views on theism. 1st: An infant has no ability to make a conscious decision regarding theism, is his point, right? So say that in relation to the application of religious mores in the standard family structure. Period. His “anger” at the labeling of a child “mulim” etc. makes a presupposition no human can or should be a part of a group not of their conscious choosing…
There are children that have a genetic predisposition to be fat. This does not mean they will be fat. So, you’re point that genes determine whether kids will be fat not only has no relation to religious ideology, it’s also not even true. Again, genetic predisposition, yes; however, it can be prevented by a proper diet and exercise, and that is a fact.
Social and cultural conditioning shape behavior, values and beliefs above all else. This is a testable hypothesis, and has been studied in depth.
What are you talking about? What you stated makes no literal sense. Children tend to adopt the political/religious ideologies and family values of their parents. Sure, but that’s precisely why religion is so nonsensically pervasive to begin with.
There’s nothing manipulative about Dawkins “rhetoric.” I can’t say the same of yours.
Children are not born with christianity, or islam etc., written in to their DNA. They get it straight from their parents. That’s his point.
C’mon Zhang…THINK…children are FED ideology. Fact: parents are responsible for what goes into their children’s hearts, minds and souls. Ol’ Dick doesn’t even ACKNOWLEGE that a child is a part of a family. And any given family has a set of norms/mores/values that they instill in their child. That dutifies the child to the norm/value/mores, no matter what the ideology. Effin’ DUH! And Dick ain’t stupid, he knows how manipulative his rhetoric is. Pay attention.
So your saying a 4 year old child would still become a Catholic if he was raised by wolves?
DOGMA PEDDLER ALERT!!! I can’t take it anymore. Point after point, this guy reveals himself to be a shallow thinker or totally uninformed of post Darwinian science. There is no Catholic child, only a child of Catholic parents? Puhleez, Dick!!! With your logic, that’s like saying there are no FAT children, only children of parents who MISFEED their children. Over and over this guy just uses the same logic strategy that t.v. preachers use. Attn atheists: find somebody else…this guy is weak.