Dawkins is making the simple point that whenever you hear the term "christian child" thrown around, you should point out that what is actually meant is "child of christian parents". By projecting your faith onto your child, you are violating their integrity as thinking individuals. Just like the feminists once had to raise general consciousness to change the slogan "one man, one vote" into "one person, one vote". It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination EQUATE it to other, more direct,abuse.
@Habalabama Oh, but when an atheist teach children about atheism, well, by jo, that just can't be a "violation of their integrity", because we all know that it's impossible for atheists to do anything wrong, right? Anyway...
For the sake of freedom of speech, yes keep them with their parents. Hopefully one day they will think for themselves and see that Religion is just one of many stymies toward rational, studied and logical thinking.
drcraigvideos you have completely missed the point of what Dawkins is saying. He is NOT saying that parents are being abusive by teaching their kids religion. He is saying that society is being abusive to kids by labelling them with the religion of their parents when they are too young to know any better. It is not a case of the kids "staying with their abusive parents" because the parents are not being abusive. It is society that is doing the abusing. He wants to change society.
LOL! What's the difference? It's abuse for society to label children with religious names, but it's not abuse when parents label their children with religious names? Whatever.
It means that WLC's (and your) criticism of RD (at least in this case) is offbase. If you want to criticize RD, criticize him for what he actually says. If you take what he says, misinterpret it and then exagerate your misinterpretation to end up very far from what he did say in an attempt to make him look bad, you do a disservice to your side of the argument.
citizenghosttown has it right, WLC's argument should be "it is not abuse because..."
"It's subtle, but there is a big difference." You haven't shown that to be the case. All you did in your reply is attribute a position I never held to. In other words, you're just knocking down a strawman. After I exposed the falsehood in your thinking you just attacked me. Typical.
Isn't it pretty obvious that there's a world of difference between physical abuse and psychological abuse? (ie. lying to children, terrorizing them etc.)
What' s disappointing is that Craig instead of refuting Dawkins (It's not abuse because...) resorts to a disingenuous slander. ("Well, clearly Dawkins is seeking police or government intervention.")
You don't seem to be thinking straight. You still think a child who is being a bused should stay at home with their abusive parents. Your logic is nonsense.
"You still think a child who is being a bused should stay at home with their abusive parents."
Obviously. Who doesn't? The key is: what kind of "abuse" are we talking about?
Find me a person who DOESN"T agree....that unless you are talking about PHYSICAL abuse, there is absolutely no grounds for seizing kids from their homes.
It was cute game you tried to play. Disingenuous and unconvincing, but cute nonetheless.
Yes, it's very obvious. Obviously sick! I don't care what kind of abuse. Abuse is abuse. It's always wrong and cruel and damaging. And you think it's perfectly rational for a child to live in that environment! I'm glad I'm at least cute. You on the other hand are a complete wacko. At least I'm rational enough to say that a parent who abuses their child should be away from their parent. You think it's perfectly fine and okay for an abused child to stay at home with their abusive parent. Wake up!
Abuse is abuse? Sorry, but the law doesn't see it that way.
You have every right to lie to your kids, to terrorize them and inflict psychological damage on them. In fact, all of religion DEPENDS on that right. (which of course is Dawkins point).
What's ironic is that YOU apparently embrace the facistic notion that the state HAS the power to seize children who are not physically abused, but who are lied to and scared by adults.
*SHRUGS* Okay. But he still thinks that abused children should stay at home with their abusive parents; instead of doing the common sensical thing of taking children away from abusive parents.
It's amazing really. The video confirms exactly how utterly disigenuous Craig was when he said that Dawkins, by using the word "abuse," was implying that there was a civil rights issue and or that he was calling for the state to intervene to protect such children from relgious upbringing. So utterly dishonest.
Who do con-men like Craig think they are fooling?
You have got to be kidding me. Dr. Craig reiterated what Dawkins said. Dawkins said that merely labeling a child with a religious name is a form of child abuse. If you don't think child abuse has anything to do with civil rights at all, you're a complete sociopath!
He calls it "child abuse". "child abuse" implies that social services need to be called up to take the kid away. That's what happens to child abusing parents. So it clearly IS what is implied. Although Dawkins (in light of this response) doesn't really mean it so it is HIM who is being disingenuous! He's implying that it is a severe crime when he in fact believes it to be a minor one.
no, you're saying that Dawkin's is suggesting that bringing a kid up in a religious household is child abuse. That's not what he's saying. He's saying labeling children socially as a Christian child and a muslim child and treating them differently according to that is child abuse. We're debating on two different planes here.
Again, you're lying. First you say I'm claiming it's "teaching" (which I never said), now you say I'm saying it's "brining up" (which I never said). For the billionth time, I know full well he thinks that merely labeling a child is a form of child abuse. You lie over and over and over again, because you know you cannot defend yourself in this argument. You hack and troll because you are unable to reason honestly. It's sickening how u guys would treat children in religious homes.
nlgatewood, You're not a very smart person are you? You're gullible enough to think (like Dawkins) that merely labeling a child a religious name is child abuse. But you don't think it's child abuse to teach a child a religion, nor do you think it's child abuse to bring him up in a religion. I think you're the stupidest atheist in youtube. No offense.
But he's not even talking about the parent teach the kid religion. He's talking about society unjustly labeling children a religion just because there parents are of that particular religion. lol A prince? That's kind of ridiculous. And the personal put-downs are a bit tacky
nlgatewood,I didn't say anything about "teaching" at all. I granted the "label" argument for argument's sake. And from what we've seen here is that you haven't even refuted the aforementioned catch-22 situation Dawkins put himself in. And all you've done is dodge and repeat yourself and do more damage control for your prince charming. That's not tacky but accurate. The fact that you look up to shallow-thinkers like Dawkins is sad.
so..you misquote him and make him out to be a fascist atheist who thinks we should take kids out of homes, then turn it around when he corrects you to make it sound like he wants kids to stay in an abusive home? I have to say, that's a good debate tactic, a little dirty, but bravo.....
LOL! Okay then. So what does Dawkins want, nlgatewood? Does he want the child out of the house and away from their parents so they won't be abused by them anymore (which would vindicate William Lane Craig's and Francis Collins' claims); or does he want children to stay home despite being abused by their abusive parents (which proves that Dawkins is an idiot)? Don't you see the catch-22 situation that Dawkins put himself in? He bit off more than he can chew and now he looks like a moron.
You haven't even addressed this problem. You put a blind eye to it, and bowed at the altar of Richard Dawkins who is a no talent when it comes to reason and logic.
No, I see what ur talking about. It's safe to say he's not for taking kids out of the homes. He said he's not taking a stance on the law because this is not a law issue it's a social one, he's taking a stance and trying to enlighten people about how you can't label a child Christian or muslim because they are too young to know where they stand. Just like in politics or any other philosophical stance.
nlgatewood, it's funny how you're doing damage control for your prince. So, what if it is a social issue? I don't deny that. But he still thinks an abused child should stay at home with their parents who continuously, well, abuses them. Try using logic. Just think. I know that may be hard for you but just try it for once. It is absolutely insane to keep a child at home with abusive parents. U and Dawkins disagrees. That's incredibly stupid.
Oh, and, by the way. You just admitted that abusing children is not a law issue. That is to say it wouldn't necessarily be against the law to treat children like crap. nlgatewood, are you this incredibly dunce?
What he means is this. You can raise a child any way you like, as long as it is not abusive, but society as a whole shouldn't label a child with the religion of its parents. For example:
we shouldn't assume that a child isn't later going to regret getting circumcised, because he is being raised muslim or jewish.
We shouldn't label people with their religion and make different laws apply to each religion (like in Malaysia)
We shouldn't assume children will inherit the religion of its parents.
This is double-think of the highest order. Either he thinks a child growing up in a Christian/Muslim/Jewish, etc, family and being labelled with the tag is child abuse or not. Presumably, any child who believes in God and loves the notion of the Judeo-Christian or Islamic God is a victim of child abuse? Isn't the logical conclusion that children should not be taught the religion of their parents, and if they are, then the parents are guilty of child abuse and so the state should intervene?
Richard Dawkins and his minions don't seem to catch the flaw in the argument. Apparently, Dawkins bit off more than he can chew. And it's apparent that he doesn't have much sophistication or common sense.
Brutalfate: Uh, Yeah, I'm irrational because I think Dawkins is a doofus for thinking that children should stay at home with their abusive parents. You're too fast for me, Brutalfate.
Coolgerb: Uh, okay, then I guess Dawkins contradicted himself, because NOW, according to you, Dawkins wants children to NOT be in abusive homes. LOL! You're a joke. Try thinking straight for a change.
drc, Great vid, despite atheist adhoc attacks on u. It is truly scary especially here in the "we know whats best for u idiots" nanny state direction that we in the US are headed for. Give then 10-20 more years of indoctrination and it will be a "serious discussion" if parents should be allowed to teach their kids their religion.
It's not unreasonable to interpret Dawkins' statements to mean that he thinks that we can improve by reflecting on our actions and their underlying assumptions. He, like Sam Harris, emphasises that personal action and interaction are solutions preferable to that of government intervention, which would inevitably be controversial, overbearing, inefficient, and likely inhumane in many of its effects. Thence his goal of "raising consciousness" about the issue.
DevoutAtheist42: My goodness! That's a load of damage control if I ever read of one. Dawkins put himself in a catch-22 situation. He's either saying children should stay at home with their abusive parents. Or, they should be taken away from their abusive parents. Speaking of Sam Harris, you speak of him without knowing that he openly says he'll kill people just for their beliefs. I doubt you even know what you're talking about.
Dawkins is clearly stating that religious indoctrination is currently seen as a normal, accepted thing to do to children, and his point is that it shouldn't be
To force your opinion or belief onto a child, under the guise of being some sort of absolute truth, *is* a form of abuse, especially when done by organisations
At a family-level we can't do anything, just like we can't stop parents who force their racism onto their children. But we shouldn't accept indoctrination as normal or healthy
LOL. Awesome video. Rather than just admit he was being over-the-top and hyperbolic with his language for attention/sales/whatever etc. he tries to stick to his guns, when it's clear he's been caught in a contradiction.
BTW, I checked the statistics of the child protection agency in my city (Toronto). They report: "For every child taken into care, six more are served in their own homes." Not that it's the main error of this video, but it disproves the claim that child abuse necessarily results in removal of the child from his or her home.
psychotrane: You and Canada apparently like it then when abused children stay at home with their abusive parents then. That makes no sense. It's just common sense, if a child is being abused by their parents, then you separate the child from the parents.
ChristianMission: Don't you think society *should* step in in some cases? How about Shirley Phelps-Roper, for example? Are you OK with the way she's bringing up her 11 kids?
Dawkins is equally opposed to labelling children as atheist. He advocates the position held by the Brights, which refuses to admit any child who is told he or she must or should be a Bright.
Spiritual belief (or the lack thereof) should be a personal choice. Most children of religious parents are denied that choice.
In an interview with Gary Wolf in Wired Magazine, Dawkins does suggest there is a role for society to "step in" if children are being brought up with religious values. Dawkins only sees religious upbringing in this light as he is silent on children being brought up with other value or belief systems, like atheism, liberalism, racism etc.
I am not a Dawkins fan by a long shot, but I will say that what he says is not completely without merit. What I mean by that is that there have been atrocities committed against children in the name of religion. In the country of Eritrea, when a girl is suspected of sexual impurity, it is common practice to "circumcise" them (basically cut their clitoris off) and this has been done as early as age 11. Let's not forget the Jehovah's Witness who deny blood transfusions to their kids.
Just like a creationist to think that, just because they follow some strict mythical authority, that anyone else has to also follow some other authority. Dawkins (in this clip!) explained what he meant, and never implied that 'state run children farms' should raise children. So for you it's 'this' prison, or 'that' one? He thinks kids should learn to think critically, not be a slave to ANY indoctrination.
shtosuka: Dr. Craig is not a creationist. Please, get your facts straight. He has no theological problem with evolution. Religious education isn't the same as indoctrination. However, Dawkins said that we are but chunks of matter. I guess, it wouldn't hurt to call a child nothing but a big chunk of matter then, huh?
Oh, he isn't? Does he then reject this "doctrinal statement" of the Talbot school, where he is on faculty:
"God specially created Adam and Eve (Adams body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms."
psychtrane: You have absolutely no understanding of the creation/evolution debate. Saying God created the universe doesn't make you a creationist, otherwise, that makes Ken Miller a creationist! Dr. Craig is one of the few faculty members who attends a university where his own personal beliefs conflicts with Biola/Talbot. For instance, Dr. Craig is NOT dispensational like Biola/Talbot. Get your facts straight. Craig is open to evolution: watch?v=OuhVAV7xlBc.
Nice try. Not a word of that suggests that Craig accepts evolution, though he certainly parses his words carefully to leave the impression he is open to the idea. What he says is he rejects evolution for scientific reasons, not religious ones (LOL!), but even if evolution were true, it would STILL be evidence of God (ROTFLOL!),
If he truly accepts evolution, then he is a liar of a hypocrite for remaining at a school that requires he reject it.
psychtrane: I didn't have to try because it's the truth. He says evolution does not conflict with Christianity. Listen to the video again. He doesn't accept evolution. So, that doesn't make him a liar or a hypocrite. But that doesn't make him a creationist either. Again, get your facts straight.
"He doesn't accept evolution. So, that doesn't make him a liar or a hypocrite. But that doesn't make him a creationist either. "
He rejects evolution, but he's not a creationist. Ohh-kaay, if you say so. I guess Craig believes human beings and other complex life just popped out of thin air, WITHOUT the help of God. That's the only way I can see reconciling your claims.
psychtrane: You have no understanding of my claim. It's a false dichotomy to say, you're either a creationist or an evolutionist. Again, you don't know the people behind the debate. I specifically mentioned Ken Miller who is a theist yet wholeheartedly believes that evolution happens. And yet he's not a creationist. That's a possibility. Craig believes the universe to be billions of years old. This by definition does NOT make him a creationist. Please, read more on the topic.
"Craig believes the universe to be billions of years old. This by definition does NOT make him a creationist."
No, it just doesn't make him a Young Earth Creationist. Old Earth Creationists also exist, and are only marginally less ignorant than the YEC's. By your definition, Harun Yahya (Use Google if you don't know of him) is not a creationist. Theistic evolution (a la Miller) is not creationism.
It seems you're the one who need to do some more reading.
psychtrane: Creationism traditionally means "young earth creationism." The terms "old earth creationism" was invented by evolutionists who are critical of Christians' view on creation and evolution. U finally admit that Ken Miller is NOT a creationist, yet earlier you made it look like those who hold o evolution are only atheists. You contradict yourself over and over again. And I keep correcting you over and over again. You know nothing of the issues.
BTW, in addition to being on faculty at the creationist Talbot School, Craig is also a Fellow of the creationist Discovery Institute. But he's not a creationist, you say?
psychtrane: ID is not creationism. Get your facts straight: watch?v=14YYS44aAkg. Also, there are some people in DI who don't hold to ID. Dr. Craig is one of them. Again, you are very ignorant of the facts behind the creation/evolution debate.
thesangster: Dr. Craig used the term "progressive creationist" which is NOT young earch creationism. Dr. Craig said he's somewhere between pc and theistic evolution.
It is possible to just simply disagree. I think the main issue you have with Craig is that he is not a darwinist. You can support evolution and subscribe to, let say, Punctuated equilibrium. It is funny that if you are a darwinist you believe in randomness that can't scientifically be proven. Those last lines are so sad. what blindness on your part.
drcraigvideos: I was actually referring to the maker of the video (you?). But you are right in that you may not be a creationist. I would like to change 'creationist' to 'theist', but I still stand behind everything else in my comment about authority and Dawkins' actual stance.
Dawkins is not saying that people who bring up their children in religious homes are abusive? O - kaaay! That's certainly not the impression one gets when one reads The God Delusion ! Dawkins may want to say he is simply "raising consciousness" in this area but consciousness for what? It is clear to me that the suggestions are being given to people here to begin to despise religious people and quite literally (eventually) step into their children's lives to take over. "Farms" indeed.
Basically, Dawkins is holding a double standard here. It's okay for HIM to use inflammatory language and emotional rhetoric to strengthen HIS position.
Labeling religious teaching as child abuse is nothing more than emotionally charged rhetoric and does a major disservice to BOTH sides of the argument.
Craig on infanticide: " So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? ....Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged?"
Would it be fair, from this, to claim that Craig advocates murdering children?
psychtrane: LOL! You just quoted Dr. Craig saying "not the children." Anyway, it would be fair, according to Dawkins, to say that when people abuse and murder and kill and rape children they are only killing chunks of matter. So, Dawkins advocates that, since he thinks we're only chunks of matter.
"psychtrane: LOL! You just quoted Dr. Craig saying 'not the children.' "
You didn't understand what I wrote. Craig says "not the children" in response to his own question of who is wronged by God's command to murder every single one of the Canaanites, including infants in their mother's arms. Craig says the slaughter of these infants was not wrong. I'm surprised you find that a laughing matter. Then again, I'm not.
psychtrane: I'm only laughing at the matter that you've quote-mined Dr. Craig. I didn't misunderstand you at all. But you're obviously making it look like he's okay with children being murdered. On the other hand, Dawkins would have to admit that the Israelites were only causing damage to chunks of matter.
Odd thing: The labeling is usually not done by the parents. It is usually done by other people(news papers etc.). The instance he refered to was a news paper article which labeled 4 year olds as a mslime and a christian child.
It would be absurd to demand these kids taken from there parents, as the parents did nothing.
Religion is also different from names or natinonality as some here have implied. As religion is a opinion.
What if Dawkins had used the word 'childhood indoctrination' instead, clearly a form of child abuse by any standard, comparable to a three year old child who attends a madrasah. You don't need a child psychologist to explain the dire consequence of such abuses when the child grows up. Dawkins pointed out the tragic case of the famous geologist, Kurt Wise, is testimony to what he meant by child abuse.
And the reason why Dawkins' comment makes no rational sense (yes these kids are being abused but no they should not be removed from their respective abusive homes...) is because he is an atheist who has not thoroughly thought through his own philosphy to it's logical end, which is this: if there is no God, then there is no objective morality, only subjective morality, which then means nothing ultimately matters at all. Peter Singer is honest and logical enough to admit this is true.
Well, from an atheistic, Darwinism point of view, child abuse is just selection pressure, just like disease or climate change. Maybe Dawkins and his lot believe that humanity will be better for the genes which arise from the selection pressures of all kinds of abuse. Why fight against something that may ultimately make humanity better? Sink or swim, kids!
Dawkins ideas are essentially an argument to persecute those who would disagree with him. This is transparent fascism. Unfortunately, to half the people he sounds "progressive" and "liberal".
But his ideas are nothing but the primitive brute force of majority rule the lead to enslavement and the grave.
You should do whatever you can to speak out against such tyranny. Whether you are a Theist or a Non-Theist.
What is truly frightening about people like Dawkins is what they would have us do if their influence over society were any greater. I mean how do you expect he will stop everyone from believing anything? That is ultimately his goal, you know.
Child abuse is illegal. If he can argue faith is child abuse, then he can put all religion on a collision course with the rule of law. Does not sound much like a free thinker, does he?
Does Dawkins state that all child abuse should be punishable? No.
Showing an R-rated horror movie to a 5 year old is also a form of child abuse, I would argue. Would I then go on to say that the child should be taken away from those parents? No, of course not.
"Child abuse" is just a term which refers to the act of harming a child, however insevere it might be. If every act of child abuse was answered with CPS coming and taking the child, nobody would have children.
timschuit: Personally, if anybody thinks that child abuse should go unpunished, well, then they aren't rational. Maybe that's why Dawkins is saying that abused children should stay with their abusive parents.
JosephSchejtman: Yes, I know he said it's about raising consciousness, and not changing the law. But he said he wouldn't have children taken out of abusive households. This means that the child WILL stay in their abusive households. At least acknowledge that, because that's the point. My solution? Simple. I don't think it's child abuse for merely labeling your child a Christian. Who in the world has heard of abuse by labeling? Get real.
JosephSchejtman: Being a Christian has nothing to do with ethnocentrism. Also, then Dawkins was abusing himself for calling himself a "cultural Christian" since he's far from being any kind of Christian. Furthermore, it would have to be abuse if u label a child an atheist or agnostic then.
Dawkins saying he never said children should not be taking from the home and yet why do I see so many atheist saying now that CPS should investagate the homes of christians? Did they also misunderstand Dawkins also? Dawkins has a history of planting the seed and letting his followers do his dirty work. Dawkins is a evil man as far as I'm concerned! God will take care of him eventually.
"Dawkins saying he never said children should not be taking from the home and yet why do I see so many atheist saying now that CPS should investagate the homes of christians?"
Haha yes Dinesh did say that! I read it in his book "What's so Great about Christianity?" Dawkins wants to sue Dr. Craig? Wow. I guess he's against free speech, which is an ABUSE of our rights. Now dawkins is not only ignorant, but he is a hypocrite as well.
drcraigvideos, are you aware that Richard Dawkins has seen your other video and commented on it? Judging by his comments, it seems he's thinking of suing Craig for libel, or at least entertaining the thought. WOW
Christianjr4: Yeah, I read that over at Richard Dawkins' forum, which led me to make this video! If he wants to sue Craig (and Francis Collins) for saying that, then it's not going to look good for Dawkins. I think by taking Craig to court, Craig will finally have his opportunity to debate Dawkins! Seriously though, this libel suit is complete nonsense. Christian parents in turn should sue Dawkins for accusing them of abuse then.
LOL yeah, at least if they go to court, they'll get to debate each other (Finally!!). On a serious note though, I completely agree with you on how ridiculous it would for this to go to court. Your last sentence says it all. If Dawkins could sue Craig for libel, then virtually every religious parent could sue him as well.
There are degrees of abuse and the state doesn't intervene in all instances of them.
Saying to a child "you're not very good in school and you'll likely never amount to anything" is child abuse. However, the state would not remove this child from the home, now would it?
Casting things that are clearly on a spectrum into black and white is poor reasoning.
That's like saying: "Criminals should be put in jail. Double-parking is a crime. Therefore, those who double park should be jailed."
darktango78: So, you concede with Dawkins that abused children should STAY in abused home. What more is there to argue about. Oh, and I usually pre-screen comments because atheists tend to post pornographic or cuss-laden remarks. Why you think something like that should be appropriately allowed doesn't make too much sense to me.
I "concede with Dawkins"? One concedes a point. Also the home is not abused. The child is abused.
In any case, how the state actually functions is what's relevant. I've shown you a case of what would be considered a form of child abuse in which the child would clearly be left in the home.
I've also explained the fallacy in the reasoning you use as stemming from a poor discretization (casting into black or white) of something that clearly belongs on a spectrum.
darktango78: When I say "abused home" that normally means a home where abuse is happening. I'm not so sure why that's so hard to follow. But whatever. So, you think abuse of children is not a black and white issue? Well, when I see a parent smashing his child's head onto the concrete floor there is no gray issue about that. It's abuse, plain and simple. I don't care what degree you put it at, but abuse is abuse. And Dawkins wants children to stay in abused homes. What more is there to argue?
Again, you are not accepting that abuse falls on a spectrum. You are taking a form of abuse (smashing the child's head) which clearly belongs on one extreme of the spectrum and then insisting that the response to anything that falls on the spectrum should be the same; namely, removal of the child from the home.
The example I gave (telling a child he won't amount to much in life) is a form of abuse. Are you suggesting a child should be removed from a home where that happens?
Darktango78: Sure, I believe some forms of abuse are worse than others, and I never denied it; but u still believe abused children should stay at home. As for ur example, I wouldn't call that abuse. I don't see anything abusive if a child who acted like a slacker was told he won't amount to much if he acts like an ass. Either way, u think child abuse is a gray issue! That's crazy. Child abuse is never right. And by your own admission, u agreed they should stay with their parents anyway!
Firstly, I never said the child was "a slacker." You added that to the example, taking the liberty to embellish.
Secondly, it is not I who says that child abuse falls within a spectrum. It is the state. The state will remove a child from the home only in some cases and, even then, following due process. This is not a matter of opinion.
Darktango78: I'm not sure why you're prolonging this. But you believe that a child who is a victim of abuse should stay with their abusive parents anyway. What more is there to argue about?
Your insistence on all of the following make you impervious to argument:
1) ignoring the actual definition of child abuse as encompasing a spectrum of behaviors
2) the actual protocols by which the state is bound, even in the case where child abuse is found, which make removal of a child an open question
3) making it an issue about me and my opinions rather than what child abuse is and how the state functions, which is an objective matter (not subject to your opinion.)
drcraigvideos, Dr Craig was dishonest in his portrayal of Dawkin's comments and writings on this issue, and you know that, so instead of discussing whether or not labeling a child as religious is actually abuse, you've decided to criticize Dawkins for what he wants to be done about it (as if he's in any real position to change the law). How absurd.
How about you focus on the pertinent issue here: Do you think it is morally right to label a child without that child's consent? Yes or no.
Juggernauticali: Dr. Craig was not being deliberately dishonest. It's just common sense, if a child is being abused by their parents, you keep that child away from their parents. DAWKINS THINKS OTHERWISE, APPARENTLY! For the most part I think it's alright to label a child without their consent - for instance, if I name my baby "John" - I don't see how that's abuse. My baby never had a say in picking his name. But I gave him the name whether he liked it or not. According to you, that's abuse.
"When you hear a child labelled as a Christian child simply because its parents are Christian, then that is child abuse." Two things: 1) how is it abusive to have others label one's child a Christian solely because the parents are Christian?
2) And whose doing the labelling? Remember when he was asked "what if you're wrong?" and he assumed that the woman asking the question was Christian solely because she was from the West? Whose labelling who?
I think Dawkins use of the term child abuse is either absurd or hyperbole (although labeling a child Christian because their parent's are is ridiculous)
Nonetheless he has clarified for both you and Craig that he never suggested that children should be taken away from their parents.
And forgive me for thinking that Dawkins should do the right thing and let abused children out of the house away from their abusive parents. But of course he thinks it's better that the child stay in the house.
Dawkins is making the simple point that whenever you hear the term "christian child" thrown around, you should point out that what is actually meant is "child of christian parents". By projecting your faith onto your child, you are violating their integrity as thinking individuals. Just like the feminists once had to raise general consciousness to change the slogan "one man, one vote" into "one person, one vote". It doesn't by any stretch of the imagination EQUATE it to other, more direct,abuse.
Habalabama 4 months ago
@Habalabama Oh, but when an atheist teach children about atheism, well, by jo, that just can't be a "violation of their integrity", because we all know that it's impossible for atheists to do anything wrong, right? Anyway...
drcraigvideos 4 months ago
For the sake of freedom of speech, yes keep them with their parents. Hopefully one day they will think for themselves and see that Religion is just one of many stymies toward rational, studied and logical thinking.
oldarney 2 years ago
drcraigvideos you have completely missed the point of what Dawkins is saying. He is NOT saying that parents are being abusive by teaching their kids religion. He is saying that society is being abusive to kids by labelling them with the religion of their parents when they are too young to know any better. It is not a case of the kids "staying with their abusive parents" because the parents are not being abusive. It is society that is doing the abusing. He wants to change society.
prockets337 2 years ago
LOL! What's the difference? It's abuse for society to label children with religious names, but it's not abuse when parents label their children with religious names? Whatever.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
It's subtle, but there is a big difference.
It means that WLC's (and your) criticism of RD (at least in this case) is offbase. If you want to criticize RD, criticize him for what he actually says. If you take what he says, misinterpret it and then exagerate your misinterpretation to end up very far from what he did say in an attempt to make him look bad, you do a disservice to your side of the argument.
citizenghosttown has it right, WLC's argument should be "it is not abuse because..."
prockets337 2 years ago
"It's subtle, but there is a big difference." You haven't shown that to be the case. All you did in your reply is attribute a position I never held to. In other words, you're just knocking down a strawman. After I exposed the falsehood in your thinking you just attacked me. Typical.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
Isn't it pretty obvious that there's a world of difference between physical abuse and psychological abuse? (ie. lying to children, terrorizing them etc.)
What' s disappointing is that Craig instead of refuting Dawkins (It's not abuse because...) resorts to a disingenuous slander. ("Well, clearly Dawkins is seeking police or government intervention.")
It's such obvious nonsense.
citizenghosttown 2 years ago
You don't seem to be thinking straight. You still think a child who is being a bused should stay at home with their abusive parents. Your logic is nonsense.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
"You still think a child who is being a bused should stay at home with their abusive parents."
Obviously. Who doesn't? The key is: what kind of "abuse" are we talking about?
Find me a person who DOESN"T agree....that unless you are talking about PHYSICAL abuse, there is absolutely no grounds for seizing kids from their homes.
It was cute game you tried to play. Disingenuous and unconvincing, but cute nonetheless.
citizenghosttown 2 years ago
Yes, it's very obvious. Obviously sick! I don't care what kind of abuse. Abuse is abuse. It's always wrong and cruel and damaging. And you think it's perfectly rational for a child to live in that environment! I'm glad I'm at least cute. You on the other hand are a complete wacko. At least I'm rational enough to say that a parent who abuses their child should be away from their parent. You think it's perfectly fine and okay for an abused child to stay at home with their abusive parent. Wake up!
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
@drcraigvideos
Abuse is abuse? Sorry, but the law doesn't see it that way.
You have every right to lie to your kids, to terrorize them and inflict psychological damage on them. In fact, all of religion DEPENDS on that right. (which of course is Dawkins point).
What's ironic is that YOU apparently embrace the facistic notion that the state HAS the power to seize children who are not physically abused, but who are lied to and scared by adults.
Is that REALLY your view? Wow.
citizenghosttown 2 years ago
Yes, I think it's ok for a child to be separated by their abusive parents. So, sue me. You think they should still be together, you're a sicko.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
Child neglect involves no physical abuse whatsoever. What do you have to say about child neglect?
Don't bother, I'm sure your response won't be convincing.
eubanksd 2 years ago
Ok. Let's say that a father smokes in front of his children. We all know that's a form of child abuse. Right?
For Dawkins, labelling children with their parent's religion is another form child abuse. Right?
In both cases we want the conduct of the parents to be corrected. Right?
In none of these cases we imply that the state ought to intervene to remove these children from their home.
What Dawkins implies is just a consciousness-raising campaign for these parent to stop this child abuse.
vorodin 2 years ago
*SHRUGS* Okay. But he still thinks that abused children should stay at home with their abusive parents; instead of doing the common sensical thing of taking children away from abusive parents.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
It's amazing really. The video confirms exactly how utterly disigenuous Craig was when he said that Dawkins, by using the word "abuse," was implying that there was a civil rights issue and or that he was calling for the state to intervene to protect such children from relgious upbringing. So utterly dishonest.
Who do con-men like Craig think they are fooling?
citizenghosttown 2 years ago
You have got to be kidding me. Dr. Craig reiterated what Dawkins said. Dawkins said that merely labeling a child with a religious name is a form of child abuse. If you don't think child abuse has anything to do with civil rights at all, you're a complete sociopath!
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
He calls it "child abuse". "child abuse" implies that social services need to be called up to take the kid away. That's what happens to child abusing parents. So it clearly IS what is implied. Although Dawkins (in light of this response) doesn't really mean it so it is HIM who is being disingenuous! He's implying that it is a severe crime when he in fact believes it to be a minor one.
awesomewelles90 2 years ago
no, you're saying that Dawkin's is suggesting that bringing a kid up in a religious household is child abuse. That's not what he's saying. He's saying labeling children socially as a Christian child and a muslim child and treating them differently according to that is child abuse. We're debating on two different planes here.
nlgatewood 2 years ago
Again, you're lying. First you say I'm claiming it's "teaching" (which I never said), now you say I'm saying it's "brining up" (which I never said). For the billionth time, I know full well he thinks that merely labeling a child is a form of child abuse. You lie over and over and over again, because you know you cannot defend yourself in this argument. You hack and troll because you are unable to reason honestly. It's sickening how u guys would treat children in religious homes.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
nlgatewood, You're not a very smart person are you? You're gullible enough to think (like Dawkins) that merely labeling a child a religious name is child abuse. But you don't think it's child abuse to teach a child a religion, nor do you think it's child abuse to bring him up in a religion. I think you're the stupidest atheist in youtube. No offense.
bibleapologetics 2 years ago
But he's not even talking about the parent teach the kid religion. He's talking about society unjustly labeling children a religion just because there parents are of that particular religion. lol A prince? That's kind of ridiculous. And the personal put-downs are a bit tacky
nlgatewood 2 years ago
nlgatewood,I didn't say anything about "teaching" at all. I granted the "label" argument for argument's sake. And from what we've seen here is that you haven't even refuted the aforementioned catch-22 situation Dawkins put himself in. And all you've done is dodge and repeat yourself and do more damage control for your prince charming. That's not tacky but accurate. The fact that you look up to shallow-thinkers like Dawkins is sad.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
so..you misquote him and make him out to be a fascist atheist who thinks we should take kids out of homes, then turn it around when he corrects you to make it sound like he wants kids to stay in an abusive home? I have to say, that's a good debate tactic, a little dirty, but bravo.....
nlgatewood 2 years ago
LOL! Okay then. So what does Dawkins want, nlgatewood? Does he want the child out of the house and away from their parents so they won't be abused by them anymore (which would vindicate William Lane Craig's and Francis Collins' claims); or does he want children to stay home despite being abused by their abusive parents (which proves that Dawkins is an idiot)? Don't you see the catch-22 situation that Dawkins put himself in? He bit off more than he can chew and now he looks like a moron.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
You haven't even addressed this problem. You put a blind eye to it, and bowed at the altar of Richard Dawkins who is a no talent when it comes to reason and logic.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
No, I see what ur talking about. It's safe to say he's not for taking kids out of the homes. He said he's not taking a stance on the law because this is not a law issue it's a social one, he's taking a stance and trying to enlighten people about how you can't label a child Christian or muslim because they are too young to know where they stand. Just like in politics or any other philosophical stance.
nlgatewood 2 years ago
nlgatewood, it's funny how you're doing damage control for your prince. So, what if it is a social issue? I don't deny that. But he still thinks an abused child should stay at home with their parents who continuously, well, abuses them. Try using logic. Just think. I know that may be hard for you but just try it for once. It is absolutely insane to keep a child at home with abusive parents. U and Dawkins disagrees. That's incredibly stupid.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
Oh, and, by the way. You just admitted that abusing children is not a law issue. That is to say it wouldn't necessarily be against the law to treat children like crap. nlgatewood, are you this incredibly dunce?
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
What he means is this. You can raise a child any way you like, as long as it is not abusive, but society as a whole shouldn't label a child with the religion of its parents. For example:
we shouldn't assume that a child isn't later going to regret getting circumcised, because he is being raised muslim or jewish.
We shouldn't label people with their religion and make different laws apply to each religion (like in Malaysia)
We shouldn't assume children will inherit the religion of its parents.
FrederikKay 2 years ago
FrederikKay, Why argue Dawkins point when you concede with him that merely labeling a child is a form of child abuse?
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
This is double-think of the highest order. Either he thinks a child growing up in a Christian/Muslim/Jewish, etc, family and being labelled with the tag is child abuse or not. Presumably, any child who believes in God and loves the notion of the Judeo-Christian or Islamic God is a victim of child abuse? Isn't the logical conclusion that children should not be taught the religion of their parents, and if they are, then the parents are guilty of child abuse and so the state should intervene?
athlete117 2 years ago
Richard Dawkins and his minions don't seem to catch the flaw in the argument. Apparently, Dawkins bit off more than he can chew. And it's apparent that he doesn't have much sophistication or common sense.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
"that makes perfect atheist sense" disturbs me somewhat.
Also quite ironic for you to label Atheists as 'irrational'.
Brutalfate 2 years ago
Brutalfate: Uh, Yeah, I'm irrational because I think Dawkins is a doofus for thinking that children should stay at home with their abusive parents. You're too fast for me, Brutalfate.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
Good job on the video and on psychtrane.
imermiguel 2 years ago
Pathetic little video :)
Go back to school, so you might learn to not twist a person's words!
Coolgerb 2 years ago
Coolgerb: Uh, okay, then I guess Dawkins contradicted himself, because NOW, according to you, Dawkins wants children to NOT be in abusive homes. LOL! You're a joke. Try thinking straight for a change.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
drc, Great vid, despite atheist adhoc attacks on u. It is truly scary especially here in the "we know whats best for u idiots" nanny state direction that we in the US are headed for. Give then 10-20 more years of indoctrination and it will be a "serious discussion" if parents should be allowed to teach their kids their religion.
agnostaxian 2 years ago
It's not unreasonable to interpret Dawkins' statements to mean that he thinks that we can improve by reflecting on our actions and their underlying assumptions. He, like Sam Harris, emphasises that personal action and interaction are solutions preferable to that of government intervention, which would inevitably be controversial, overbearing, inefficient, and likely inhumane in many of its effects. Thence his goal of "raising consciousness" about the issue.
You mock him unjustifiedly, sir.
DevoutAtheist42 2 years ago
DevoutAtheist42: My goodness! That's a load of damage control if I ever read of one. Dawkins put himself in a catch-22 situation. He's either saying children should stay at home with their abusive parents. Or, they should be taken away from their abusive parents. Speaking of Sam Harris, you speak of him without knowing that he openly says he'll kill people just for their beliefs. I doubt you even know what you're talking about.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
Dawkins is clearly stating that religious indoctrination is currently seen as a normal, accepted thing to do to children, and his point is that it shouldn't be
To force your opinion or belief onto a child, under the guise of being some sort of absolute truth, *is* a form of abuse, especially when done by organisations
At a family-level we can't do anything, just like we can't stop parents who force their racism onto their children. But we shouldn't accept indoctrination as normal or healthy
ByeCruelWorld 2 years ago
LOL. Awesome video. Rather than just admit he was being over-the-top and hyperbolic with his language for attention/sales/whatever etc. he tries to stick to his guns, when it's clear he's been caught in a contradiction.
TheIllegit 2 years ago
BTW, I checked the statistics of the child protection agency in my city (Toronto). They report: "For every child taken into care, six more are served in their own homes." Not that it's the main error of this video, but it disproves the claim that child abuse necessarily results in removal of the child from his or her home.
psychtrane 2 years ago
psychotrane: You and Canada apparently like it then when abused children stay at home with their abusive parents then. That makes no sense. It's just common sense, if a child is being abused by their parents, then you separate the child from the parents.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
ChristianMission: Don't you think society *should* step in in some cases? How about Shirley Phelps-Roper, for example? Are you OK with the way she's bringing up her 11 kids?
Dawkins is equally opposed to labelling children as atheist. He advocates the position held by the Brights, which refuses to admit any child who is told he or she must or should be a Bright.
Spiritual belief (or the lack thereof) should be a personal choice. Most children of religious parents are denied that choice.
madrobot 2 years ago
Scary guy
Esandero 2 years ago
In an interview with Gary Wolf in Wired Magazine, Dawkins does suggest there is a role for society to "step in" if children are being brought up with religious values. Dawkins only sees religious upbringing in this light as he is silent on children being brought up with other value or belief systems, like atheism, liberalism, racism etc.
ChristianMission 2 years ago
lol!!!!!! Love the video!!!
abrimestome 2 years ago
I am not a Dawkins fan by a long shot, but I will say that what he says is not completely without merit. What I mean by that is that there have been atrocities committed against children in the name of religion. In the country of Eritrea, when a girl is suspected of sexual impurity, it is common practice to "circumcise" them (basically cut their clitoris off) and this has been done as early as age 11. Let's not forget the Jehovah's Witness who deny blood transfusions to their kids.
apologeticsman 2 years ago
Does Dawkins know that for a child to be Hindu they must have Hindu parents?
Hinduism has no evangelical effort because you can only be a Hindu if born into it.
I think Children need to be taught critical thinking skills so that they can see for themselves how fallacious and logically incoherent atheism is.
rusty2029 2 years ago
Just like a creationist to think that, just because they follow some strict mythical authority, that anyone else has to also follow some other authority. Dawkins (in this clip!) explained what he meant, and never implied that 'state run children farms' should raise children. So for you it's 'this' prison, or 'that' one? He thinks kids should learn to think critically, not be a slave to ANY indoctrination.
shtosuka 2 years ago
shtosuka: Dr. Craig is not a creationist. Please, get your facts straight. He has no theological problem with evolution. Religious education isn't the same as indoctrination. However, Dawkins said that we are but chunks of matter. I guess, it wouldn't hurt to call a child nothing but a big chunk of matter then, huh?
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
However, Dawkins said that we are but chunks of matter.
Citation?
psychtrane 2 years ago
Go to this video: watch?v=6ti133bg_zc and you'll see the citation in the description area. It's pages p. 366-367, Richard Dawkins, "God Delusion"
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
"Dr. Craig is not a creationist."
Oh, he isn't? Does he then reject this "doctrinal statement" of the Talbot school, where he is on faculty:
"God specially created Adam and Eve (Adams body from non-living material, and his spiritual nature immediately from God). Inadequate origin models hold that (a) God never directly intervened in creating nature and/or (b) humans share a common physical ancestry with earlier life forms."
Maybe his employers should know of his heresy.
psychtrane 2 years ago
psychtrane: You have absolutely no understanding of the creation/evolution debate. Saying God created the universe doesn't make you a creationist, otherwise, that makes Ken Miller a creationist! Dr. Craig is one of the few faculty members who attends a university where his own personal beliefs conflicts with Biola/Talbot. For instance, Dr. Craig is NOT dispensational like Biola/Talbot. Get your facts straight. Craig is open to evolution: watch?v=OuhVAV7xlBc.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
"Craig is open to evolution: OuhVAV7xlBc."
Nice try. Not a word of that suggests that Craig accepts evolution, though he certainly parses his words carefully to leave the impression he is open to the idea. What he says is he rejects evolution for scientific reasons, not religious ones (LOL!), but even if evolution were true, it would STILL be evidence of God (ROTFLOL!),
If he truly accepts evolution, then he is a liar of a hypocrite for remaining at a school that requires he reject it.
psychtrane 2 years ago
psychtrane: I didn't have to try because it's the truth. He says evolution does not conflict with Christianity. Listen to the video again. He doesn't accept evolution. So, that doesn't make him a liar or a hypocrite. But that doesn't make him a creationist either. Again, get your facts straight.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
"He doesn't accept evolution. So, that doesn't make him a liar or a hypocrite. But that doesn't make him a creationist either. "
He rejects evolution, but he's not a creationist. Ohh-kaay, if you say so. I guess Craig believes human beings and other complex life just popped out of thin air, WITHOUT the help of God. That's the only way I can see reconciling your claims.
psychtrane 2 years ago
psychtrane: You have no understanding of my claim. It's a false dichotomy to say, you're either a creationist or an evolutionist. Again, you don't know the people behind the debate. I specifically mentioned Ken Miller who is a theist yet wholeheartedly believes that evolution happens. And yet he's not a creationist. That's a possibility. Craig believes the universe to be billions of years old. This by definition does NOT make him a creationist. Please, read more on the topic.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
"Craig believes the universe to be billions of years old. This by definition does NOT make him a creationist."
No, it just doesn't make him a Young Earth Creationist. Old Earth Creationists also exist, and are only marginally less ignorant than the YEC's. By your definition, Harun Yahya (Use Google if you don't know of him) is not a creationist. Theistic evolution (a la Miller) is not creationism.
It seems you're the one who need to do some more reading.
psychtrane 2 years ago
psychtrane: Creationism traditionally means "young earth creationism." The terms "old earth creationism" was invented by evolutionists who are critical of Christians' view on creation and evolution. U finally admit that Ken Miller is NOT a creationist, yet earlier you made it look like those who hold o evolution are only atheists. You contradict yourself over and over again. And I keep correcting you over and over again. You know nothing of the issues.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
BTW, in addition to being on faculty at the creationist Talbot School, Craig is also a Fellow of the creationist Discovery Institute. But he's not a creationist, you say?
psychtrane 2 years ago
psychtrane: ID is not creationism. Get your facts straight: watch?v=14YYS44aAkg. Also, there are some people in DI who don't hold to ID. Dr. Craig is one of them. Again, you are very ignorant of the facts behind the creation/evolution debate.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
dcv: I actually heard from Dr. Craig that he is a creationist, but not a "young earth creationists". He made that clear in one of his debates.
thesangster 2 years ago
thesangster: Dr. Craig used the term "progressive creationist" which is NOT young earch creationism. Dr. Craig said he's somewhere between pc and theistic evolution.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
It is possible to just simply disagree. I think the main issue you have with Craig is that he is not a darwinist. You can support evolution and subscribe to, let say, Punctuated equilibrium. It is funny that if you are a darwinist you believe in randomness that can't scientifically be proven. Those last lines are so sad. what blindness on your part.
imermiguel 2 years ago
drcraigvideos: I was actually referring to the maker of the video (you?). But you are right in that you may not be a creationist. I would like to change 'creationist' to 'theist', but I still stand behind everything else in my comment about authority and Dawkins' actual stance.
shtosuka 2 years ago
Dawkins is not saying that people who bring up their children in religious homes are abusive? O - kaaay! That's certainly not the impression one gets when one reads The God Delusion ! Dawkins may want to say he is simply "raising consciousness" in this area but consciousness for what? It is clear to me that the suggestions are being given to people here to begin to despise religious people and quite literally (eventually) step into their children's lives to take over. "Farms" indeed.
Shazoolo 2 years ago
Shazoolo: "consciousness for what?"
Did your copy of the God Delusion have a few pages missing?
If I don't know anything about economics, I could hardly describe myself as a supporter of protectionism or free trade.
And if a child doesn't understand transubstantiation or mariolatry, then how could you describe that child as being "Catholic"?
madrobot 2 years ago
2:35 ATHEISM doesn't make rational sense!
Basically, Dawkins is holding a double standard here. It's okay for HIM to use inflammatory language and emotional rhetoric to strengthen HIS position.
Labeling religious teaching as child abuse is nothing more than emotionally charged rhetoric and does a major disservice to BOTH sides of the argument.
gmbrannan 2 years ago
Craig on infanticide: " So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? ....Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged?"
Would it be fair, from this, to claim that Craig advocates murdering children?
psychtrane 2 years ago
psychtrane: LOL! You just quoted Dr. Craig saying "not the children." Anyway, it would be fair, according to Dawkins, to say that when people abuse and murder and kill and rape children they are only killing chunks of matter. So, Dawkins advocates that, since he thinks we're only chunks of matter.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
"psychtrane: LOL! You just quoted Dr. Craig saying 'not the children.' "
You didn't understand what I wrote. Craig says "not the children" in response to his own question of who is wronged by God's command to murder every single one of the Canaanites, including infants in their mother's arms. Craig says the slaughter of these infants was not wrong. I'm surprised you find that a laughing matter. Then again, I'm not.
psychtrane 2 years ago
psychtrane: I'm only laughing at the matter that you've quote-mined Dr. Craig. I didn't misunderstand you at all. But you're obviously making it look like he's okay with children being murdered. On the other hand, Dawkins would have to admit that the Israelites were only causing damage to chunks of matter.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
Shockofgod: "Atheism is madness upon madness."
lol
ViciousAnimus 2 years ago
Odd thing: The labeling is usually not done by the parents. It is usually done by other people(news papers etc.). The instance he refered to was a news paper article which labeled 4 year olds as a mslime and a christian child.
It would be absurd to demand these kids taken from there parents, as the parents did nothing.
Religion is also different from names or natinonality as some here have implied. As religion is a opinion.
goodbryan 2 years ago
What if Dawkins had used the word 'childhood indoctrination' instead, clearly a form of child abuse by any standard, comparable to a three year old child who attends a madrasah. You don't need a child psychologist to explain the dire consequence of such abuses when the child grows up. Dawkins pointed out the tragic case of the famous geologist, Kurt Wise, is testimony to what he meant by child abuse.
fsxmantra 2 years ago
And the reason why Dawkins' comment makes no rational sense (yes these kids are being abused but no they should not be removed from their respective abusive homes...) is because he is an atheist who has not thoroughly thought through his own philosphy to it's logical end, which is this: if there is no God, then there is no objective morality, only subjective morality, which then means nothing ultimately matters at all. Peter Singer is honest and logical enough to admit this is true.
sunshinegirl1967 2 years ago
Well, from an atheistic, Darwinism point of view, child abuse is just selection pressure, just like disease or climate change. Maybe Dawkins and his lot believe that humanity will be better for the genes which arise from the selection pressures of all kinds of abuse. Why fight against something that may ultimately make humanity better? Sink or swim, kids!
petekang1975 2 years ago
Dawkins ideas are essentially an argument to persecute those who would disagree with him. This is transparent fascism. Unfortunately, to half the people he sounds "progressive" and "liberal".
But his ideas are nothing but the primitive brute force of majority rule the lead to enslavement and the grave.
You should do whatever you can to speak out against such tyranny. Whether you are a Theist or a Non-Theist.
xtrashed 2 years ago
What is truly frightening about people like Dawkins is what they would have us do if their influence over society were any greater. I mean how do you expect he will stop everyone from believing anything? That is ultimately his goal, you know.
Child abuse is illegal. If he can argue faith is child abuse, then he can put all religion on a collision course with the rule of law. Does not sound much like a free thinker, does he?
xtrashed 2 years ago
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha... 'What you talkin' 'bout Willas'?
2222554 2 years ago
Does Dawkins state that all child abuse should be punishable? No.
Showing an R-rated horror movie to a 5 year old is also a form of child abuse, I would argue. Would I then go on to say that the child should be taken away from those parents? No, of course not.
"Child abuse" is just a term which refers to the act of harming a child, however insevere it might be. If every act of child abuse was answered with CPS coming and taking the child, nobody would have children.
timschuit 2 years ago
timschuit: Personally, if anybody thinks that child abuse should go unpunished, well, then they aren't rational. Maybe that's why Dawkins is saying that abused children should stay with their abusive parents.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
Its about raising consciousness, not changing the law!
he said it clearly.
Its not even related to atheism or religiosity.
Its related to the fact that while these parent abuse their children, they do have the legal right to make certain things.
What is your solution to this kind of child abuse?
State run institutions, where children will be abused in other forms?
Its just stupid.
JosephSchejtman 2 years ago
JosephSchejtman: Yes, I know he said it's about raising consciousness, and not changing the law. But he said he wouldn't have children taken out of abusive households. This means that the child WILL stay in their abusive households. At least acknowledge that, because that's the point. My solution? Simple. I don't think it's child abuse for merely labeling your child a Christian. Who in the world has heard of abuse by labeling? Get real.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
I was born in a Jewish home.
Since I was little my parent labeled me a Jewish child and tried to keep me away from people who are not Jewish.
Today I managed to leave this religious identity and I consider myself a human with a cultural heritage which originates in Judaism.
Its disrespectful to define a child as a "Jewish\muslim\christian".
He is a human being, and should be treated as a member of humanity, without ethnocentrism.
JosephSchejtman 2 years ago
JosephSchejtman: Being a Christian has nothing to do with ethnocentrism. Also, then Dawkins was abusing himself for calling himself a "cultural Christian" since he's far from being any kind of Christian. Furthermore, it would have to be abuse if u label a child an atheist or agnostic then.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
Dawkins saying he never said children should not be taking from the home and yet why do I see so many atheist saying now that CPS should investagate the homes of christians? Did they also misunderstand Dawkins also? Dawkins has a history of planting the seed and letting his followers do his dirty work. Dawkins is a evil man as far as I'm concerned! God will take care of him eventually.
jesusrules2012 2 years ago
"Dawkins saying he never said children should not be taking from the home and yet why do I see so many atheist saying now that CPS should investagate the homes of christians?"
Care to cite a single example?
psychtrane 2 years ago
thats like saying that calling a child american would be child abuse.
logic fail!
shedininja001 2 years ago
Dawkins needs to stop trying to talk philosophically and stay in the lab.
InDefenseofChrist 2 years ago
InDefenseofChrist: LOL! I heard Dinesh D'Souza say the same thing.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
Haha yes Dinesh did say that! I read it in his book "What's so Great about Christianity?" Dawkins wants to sue Dr. Craig? Wow. I guess he's against free speech, which is an ABUSE of our rights. Now dawkins is not only ignorant, but he is a hypocrite as well.
InDefenseofChrist 2 years ago
drcraigvideos, are you aware that Richard Dawkins has seen your other video and commented on it? Judging by his comments, it seems he's thinking of suing Craig for libel, or at least entertaining the thought. WOW
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Christianjr4: Yeah, I read that over at Richard Dawkins' forum, which led me to make this video! If he wants to sue Craig (and Francis Collins) for saying that, then it's not going to look good for Dawkins. I think by taking Craig to court, Craig will finally have his opportunity to debate Dawkins! Seriously though, this libel suit is complete nonsense. Christian parents in turn should sue Dawkins for accusing them of abuse then.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
LOL yeah, at least if they go to court, they'll get to debate each other (Finally!!). On a serious note though, I completely agree with you on how ridiculous it would for this to go to court. Your last sentence says it all. If Dawkins could sue Craig for libel, then virtually every religious parent could sue him as well.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
Here, here.
ArchieLovesMe 2 years ago
Maybe one could make a case for Dawkins simply being allegoristic.
Either way - dude is unimpressive.
I've never understood the attraction.
justchemicalz 2 years ago
There are degrees of abuse and the state doesn't intervene in all instances of them.
Saying to a child "you're not very good in school and you'll likely never amount to anything" is child abuse. However, the state would not remove this child from the home, now would it?
Casting things that are clearly on a spectrum into black and white is poor reasoning.
That's like saying: "Criminals should be put in jail. Double-parking is a crime. Therefore, those who double park should be jailed."
darktango78 2 years ago
darktango78: So, you concede with Dawkins that abused children should STAY in abused home. What more is there to argue about. Oh, and I usually pre-screen comments because atheists tend to post pornographic or cuss-laden remarks. Why you think something like that should be appropriately allowed doesn't make too much sense to me.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
I "concede with Dawkins"? One concedes a point. Also the home is not abused. The child is abused.
In any case, how the state actually functions is what's relevant. I've shown you a case of what would be considered a form of child abuse in which the child would clearly be left in the home.
I've also explained the fallacy in the reasoning you use as stemming from a poor discretization (casting into black or white) of something that clearly belongs on a spectrum.
darktango78 2 years ago
darktango78: When I say "abused home" that normally means a home where abuse is happening. I'm not so sure why that's so hard to follow. But whatever. So, you think abuse of children is not a black and white issue? Well, when I see a parent smashing his child's head onto the concrete floor there is no gray issue about that. It's abuse, plain and simple. I don't care what degree you put it at, but abuse is abuse. And Dawkins wants children to stay in abused homes. What more is there to argue?
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
Again, you are not accepting that abuse falls on a spectrum. You are taking a form of abuse (smashing the child's head) which clearly belongs on one extreme of the spectrum and then insisting that the response to anything that falls on the spectrum should be the same; namely, removal of the child from the home.
The example I gave (telling a child he won't amount to much in life) is a form of abuse. Are you suggesting a child should be removed from a home where that happens?
darktango78 2 years ago
Darktango78: Sure, I believe some forms of abuse are worse than others, and I never denied it; but u still believe abused children should stay at home. As for ur example, I wouldn't call that abuse. I don't see anything abusive if a child who acted like a slacker was told he won't amount to much if he acts like an ass. Either way, u think child abuse is a gray issue! That's crazy. Child abuse is never right. And by your own admission, u agreed they should stay with their parents anyway!
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
Firstly, I never said the child was "a slacker." You added that to the example, taking the liberty to embellish.
Secondly, it is not I who says that child abuse falls within a spectrum. It is the state. The state will remove a child from the home only in some cases and, even then, following due process. This is not a matter of opinion.
darktango78 2 years ago
Darktango78: I'm not sure why you're prolonging this. But you believe that a child who is a victim of abuse should stay with their abusive parents anyway. What more is there to argue about?
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
Your insistence on all of the following make you impervious to argument:
1) ignoring the actual definition of child abuse as encompasing a spectrum of behaviors
2) the actual protocols by which the state is bound, even in the case where child abuse is found, which make removal of a child an open question
3) making it an issue about me and my opinions rather than what child abuse is and how the state functions, which is an objective matter (not subject to your opinion.)
darktango78 2 years ago
drcraigvideos, Dr Craig was dishonest in his portrayal of Dawkin's comments and writings on this issue, and you know that, so instead of discussing whether or not labeling a child as religious is actually abuse, you've decided to criticize Dawkins for what he wants to be done about it (as if he's in any real position to change the law). How absurd.
How about you focus on the pertinent issue here: Do you think it is morally right to label a child without that child's consent? Yes or no.
Juggernauticali 2 years ago
Juggernauticali: Dr. Craig was not being deliberately dishonest. It's just common sense, if a child is being abused by their parents, you keep that child away from their parents. DAWKINS THINKS OTHERWISE, APPARENTLY! For the most part I think it's alright to label a child without their consent - for instance, if I name my baby "John" - I don't see how that's abuse. My baby never had a say in picking his name. But I gave him the name whether he liked it or not. According to you, that's abuse.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
"When you hear a child labelled as a Christian child simply because its parents are Christian, then that is child abuse." Two things: 1) how is it abusive to have others label one's child a Christian solely because the parents are Christian?
2) And whose doing the labelling? Remember when he was asked "what if you're wrong?" and he assumed that the woman asking the question was Christian solely because she was from the West? Whose labelling who?
isin17123 2 years ago
I asked that before and the response I got was, no because children are born atheists. LOL!! What a cop out!
jesusrules2012 2 years ago
lol
I think Dawkins use of the term child abuse is either absurd or hyperbole (although labeling a child Christian because their parent's are is ridiculous)
Nonetheless he has clarified for both you and Craig that he never suggested that children should be taken away from their parents.
Which of course means you are both still wrong.
smpunditz 2 years ago
smpunditz: What part of "I stand corrected" didn't you get?
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
And forgive me for thinking that Dawkins should do the right thing and let abused children out of the house away from their abusive parents. But of course he thinks it's better that the child stay in the house.
drcraigvideos 2 years ago
its true, if hes going to say some crap like that, it should go both ways..
iToyRobot 2 years ago