Actually no, all you need to teach him is what classical theism is without any reference to any relgion… (weird, I did say that then you bring in the Bible, do you teach your kid to read with comprehension?). Do you know what classical theism is and how to get to it via logic and reason? Or are you fundamentally opposed to enlightening your kid about any philosophical and metaphysical enquiries about reality?
Why? To what purpose? It sounds to me like the kid has a solid grasp on the concept of “God” and why people believe in these fairy tales. It also sounds to me like Faerie has done a good job in teaching him about fundamental truths and how to arrive at solid conclusions, while sticking to them even in the face of rejection by his friends.
How in Cthulhu’s name do you arrive at any sort of episteme about “God” via “metaphysical enquiries” using “logic and reason”? You are spouting contradictory nonsense.
Thanks, here is one for you too:
Yeah so? What does evolution have to do with atheism or theism? More importantly, what does truth have to do with atheism?
I don’t think you should worry too much about ad hominems, sidestepping questions etc. You will learn that it is a trait of posters here on skeptic.za.org. Don’t worry, you will do the same so no need to act all high and mighty and be judgemental.
Obviously considerably better-informed than yours. You haven’t, as is your almost invariable habit, addressed the central question Dawkins has raised about theology.
Some mechanics are also plumbers and vice versa.
Your posting history here and elsewhere. Objective self-assessment isn’t your forte either, itself a product of mistaking idle armchair musings for Truth™ about the world.
That would explain their persistence and prevalence. :
'Luthon64
Quote mining for the win! :
Ignorance in this context mean that he doesnt know the bible back to front as I do, he has never been forced to attend sunday school (although he did go when he was little - because he asked to go - he stopped going when he lost interest) or to listen to a preacher going on about the god perception for hours and hours. He has attended Mass with his (now ex) buddy earlier this year, so I would certainly not label him as "unenlightened". The concept of BELIEF in a deity is foreign to him though, he's not been bought up to believe in anything except himself and his abilities to see him through the hard patches.
You’re assuming stuff about what the kid knows and doesn’t know.
Yeah so? What does evolution have to do with atheism or theism?
Plenty, unless you’re hell-bent on being an accomodationist. Topic for another thread, once again. Care to play?
don't think you should worry too much about ad hominems, sidestepping questions etc. You will learn that it is a trait of posters here on skeptic.za.org. Don't worry, you will do the same so no need to act all high and mighty and be judgemental.
Lulz, I point out your hypocrisy and you respond with some more hypocrisy. From what I see, self-analysis doesn’t seem to be your strong point. Oh, but that would mean pandering to a subjective framework of truth, wouldn’t it? :rolleyes:
Forgive me for not answering a question from a philosophically and theologicaly ignorant person.
No evidence that Dawkins is a philosopher and a scientist. Gosh, all evidence indicates the man has a PhD in zoology IIRC.
Yeah well, the same can be said of you.
I guess you need a lot of heads to make nonsense sound sensical even though it is epistemically sterile and worthless.
If evolution had anything to do with atheism or theism it will be taught in religious and philosophy classes. Fortunately here we are in the 21st century and it is taught in science classes.
But yeah play all you want.
Yeah? Right back atcha. What does theism have to do with philosophy (or vice versa). If one had anything to do with the other, it would be taught in classes, wouldn’t it?
Didn’t think so.
You see, you can’t so easily have your cake and eat it, too. You can’t pick and choose when to conflate religion with philosophy when it suits you, and deny the philosophical implications of either evolutionism or faith-based belief with philosophy, when it suits you.
Where Richard Dawkins is concerned, we can absurdly regress the argument about what he’s “qualified” to speak about, as much as you like, as long as you aply the same standards to yourself, boikie.
Lemme guess, you did a stint in Philo 101, and had your diploma laminated and stuck up on the fridge where it can give you constant reinforcement about how you supposedly know what you’re talking about (and have the paperwork to prove it, peeps!) ?
Ya see, in the real world, people can be knowlegable and erudite about things they didn’t have “formal” education about. Of course, playing that line of argument gives you a convenient angle of attack - seeing as you can’t deal with Dawkins’ reasoning, you simply handwave it as irrelevant because the man “ain’t trained”.
Nice try, but nobody’s fooled.
Theism actually has a lot to do with philosophy. Read up. So does materialism, naturalism, realism, nominalism, rationalism, empiricism, dualism etc.
Evolutionism and its philosophical implications? Surprise, what do you believe those are?
Oh well, Dawkins is not fooling anybody with his philosophical ignorance either. A waste of time imo. His knowledge about evolution is good though, although I have seen better. He does not like to go much into molecular detail, which is a great shame. His next book should focus more on those aspects in a little more detail.
Heh, sproing goes the trap. Evolutionary biology (and the deterministic chemistry that drives its current research effort) has major implications for notions of dualism, for one. Can you see or can’t you? Must I explain further? Oh, but wait, you don’t have a biology degree, do you?
Oh well, I guess it’s pointless then, seeing as none of it would be of any use to you, amirite? 
And I agree, Dawkins isn’t fooling anybody!
- What about the indeterministic nature of physics that drives chemistry? Do you know what supervenience means?
- What does evolutionary biology have to do with dualism, materialism, monism, non-dualism, pan-psychsism etc.?
- Let’s talk evolution, molecular and cellular biology, preadaptations, convergence, molecular machines, abiogenesis, bioinformatics etc. all day long. I don’t mind, do you?
- Quantum indeterminism isn’t a physical law. Black holes may indeed have hair, and very nicely combed hair at that.
- Dude, it doesn’t take scooby doo to figure out that the demonstrable evolution of intelligence obviates the need for dualism, and in fact, makes it untenable.
- Sure, we can do that. What does that have to do with the above though?
Let’s get one thing straight. Your handwaving and smoke-'n-mirrors is utterly wasted on me, I can smell that stink from a mile away. If you’re going to try and take the I’m-smarter-than-you line, I can guarantee you that you’re going to see your arse.
- I felt this list needed my own useless adendum.
Really? Where is Mefi and “sh|t happens” rwenzori? Care to support Gog’s tjops? BTW, what does determinism and indeterminism have to do with dualism, materialism, monism, non-dualism, pan-psychsism etc.?
Even if that is true, so what? That still does not make philosophical materialism and naturalism any less incoherent.
Oh, I just thought you might like to.
Oh ok smarty pants.
Really? Where is Mefi and “sh|t happens” rwenzori? Care to support Gog’s tjops? BTW, what does determinism and indeterminism have to do with dualism, materialism, monism, non-dualism, pan-psychsism etc.?
Even if that is true, so what? That still does not make philosophical materialism and naturalism any less incoherent.
Oh, I just thought you might like to.
Oh ok smarty pants.
Dude, do you even know what dualism is? You must either be incredibly dense, or deliberatly dishonest, to claim that determinism doesn’t pertain to dualism.
Even if that is true, so what? That still does not make philosophical materialism and naturalism any less incoherent.
Some arguing by assertion. I’m impressed!
Oh ok smarty pants.
Nope, you’re projecting. I simply don’t need to quote Wikipedia topic lists in order to make a point :
- That must be some kind of record for seeing through Teleological’s agenda-suffused codswallop.
I’m right here, dearie, agog at your posturings. Quantum indeterminism isn’t like most other physical laws in that it assigns probabilities to outcomes, rather than enumerating precisely quantifiable/determinable causal relations. Indeterminacy seems to be a fundamental property of nature. I thought that was clear enough.
ETA: You write “What about the indeterministic nature of physics that drives chemistry?” At the level of chemical interactions, the participating agglomerates of matter (atoms and molecules) behave largely deterministically as far as physics is concerned.
'Luthon64
The problem with QI is that its apparent inherent randomness may or may not be true. This in turn leads to it being a very convenient piece of ammo for god-o’-the-gaps type arguments, like the existence of free will.
That on its own would be bad enough, but in reality it’s actually much worse. Bits of QM are regularly abducted by poseurs of various stripes and subverted to “explain” and “prove” all sorts of twaddle and charlatanry, not just spun into quasi-religious claptrap. QM appeals to our sense of the mysterious because it seems completely weird in terms of our usual experience of the world, its language is arcane mathematics and its role in explaining the universe is both central and fundamental. It’s no wonder that it has become a target of just about every woo-woo merchant who aims to thrill an ignorant audience.
'Luthon64
Humour me.
Sell philosophical materialism and naturalism. Let’s see if you know what it is and entails.