digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Richard Dawkins To Write Book For Children

godbegone.blogspot.com — Professor Richard Dawkins, In response to a question at AAI 07, Said that he is contemplating the idea of writing a childrens book.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • phnx0221, on 11/10/2007, -18/+53Oh man, that's great! I hope he does it! I actually just watched some of his lectures the other day. My 2 year old didn't watch the whole thing with me, but she did love the animated evolution, and the props he was using.. Some were live, some were not, but they were all just as captivating to her.
    He seems to have a natural ability to speak with any audience. I can't wait to see if he's going to, and then pick them up!
    • puto, on 11/07/2007, -8/+11I want to buy it for my little one too.
    • cnot3, on 11/08/2007, -24/+11I fail to see how this is any better than forcing your kids to go to church or read Christian literature. Its still brainwashing. At least wait til they are of reasonable age to make decisions for themselves before you try to endoctrine your own beliefs in them. The existence of God or other deities is not pertinant to science.
      • Instaa, on 11/08/2007, -7/+21"I might try to do a children's book about how to think for yourself and how to ask questions about interesting topics and how you might go about answering them"

        Yes, exactly the same as brainwashing.
        • hirak99, on 11/08/2007, -13/+3May be, but I do not disapprove even if it is brainwashing. Fight fire with fire.
        • Birdoftruth, on 11/07/2007, -6/+3than you are a hypocrite
        • Intangible360, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7Teaching someone to think for themselves is the opposite of brainwashing...
        • Intangible360, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1.
      • insllvn, on 11/08/2007, -2/+12There is a difference between science and religion, and how they reason about the world. If you don't understand the difference between teaching and brainwashing maybe you got a little to much of the latter. This is the problem with religion, it is allowed to exist on the same level as science, in other words to be seen as an equal alternative, because it is....... old? No one would say, for example, "How can you tell your child the earth is round, at such a young age? Isn't that brainwashing them against the flat-earth theory?"
      • Lythium, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4"Teaching a child to be Atheist is as bad as teaching them to be religions. But teaching them to be inquisitive, logical and encouraging them to ask questions is something that even the most fundamental christian would have a hard time arguing against, Though no doubt they would try."
        You just proved their point. Well done.
    • pAq6Swad, on 09/16/2008, -9/+2I was thumbing through the Selfish Gene the other day and it's basically clear to me. . .thus far he's written for adolescents and uneducated adults. I read it in high school and in college; what a world of difference a few years did! Now for children, that makes sense. Because I find the poor fellow surprisingly shallow. His practical scientific field is zoology, of which he is a 3rd rate scientist.
      And, considering that all of his 'honorary' doctorates are literary ones, not scientific, that nearly all of his publicity is just that: publicity, I have really built up a resentment towards him and his extremist ideals. His outspoken atheism was basically the only thing that I found intriguing as a kid, and contributed a lot to my enjoying his stuff. Adolescents or uneducated adults. . .now children. Maybe one day he'll right a novel for old people and his legacy will be complete.
      • pAq6Swad, on 09/16/2008, -4/+2write*
      • drachemorder, on 11/08/2007, -10/+2Of course he writes for adolescents and uneducated adults --- those are the only sort of people who will buy into his bovine excrement.
      • Intangible360, on 11/08/2007, -1/+5Making Ad Hominem attacks only helps us dismiss your statement.
        • pAq6Swad, on 09/16/2008, -2/+2I have an emotional aversion to him. That is because of my tastes in literature, as is reflected by his purely literary honors. Thus I will offer a critique of him based only on his literary merits. It is a literary critique, not a philosophical or scientific one -- because he is hardly a philosopher or a scientist. The fact that you use the word ad hominem at all means that you should know: his philosophical arguments, whether pragmatic or ontological or you name it, are a century old or more. Nothing new to see here, move along.
  • fishgeekva, on 11/10/2007, -23/+4I'm an atheist and a fan of his writings, but I can't see him writing a kids book.
    • Twoodge, on 11/10/2007, -3/+23This idea has actually been thrown around by users on his forums for a while now. I think the idea is more to give an introduction to science and perhaps touch on religious belief without launching into anything specific - Dawkins is strongly opposed to imposing religious belief on children, and certainly preteens.
  • mikesbaker, on 11/10/2007, -41/+44its going be titled "How To Hate Christmas"
    • Groovemaster, on 11/10/2007, -13/+60Christmas is no longer a religious festival.

      It's really just about taking time off work, spending quality time with your family and friends and showing them how much you appreciate them.

      Irrational, outdated superstitions no longer have anything to do with it.

      You didn't get the memo?
      • MewTwo, on 11/10/2007, -33/+5You're a grade A idiot. "Irrational, outdated superstitions" make up the ***** culture you live in. Deal with it, stop judging the past.
        • JeffD, on 11/10/2007, -3/+23Whats wrong with judging the past? How else can we improve our society if we are not allowed to judge the results of past methods and decide weather or not they are worth repeating?
          • gettophilosophr, on 11/07/2007, -12/+3I can judge your spelling. It's "whether", not "weather".

            Use the ***** spellcheck, Luke.
          • hirak99, on 11/07/2007, -1/+4gettophilo-whatever, and you think spell-check would have caught it?
      • nick111, on 11/07/2007, -4/+9In London Citybank recently kept cristmas (so as not to seem insane), but (so as not to upset non-christians) too out all references to christianity.

        Which is pretty cool in some ways because Christmas was basically just superimposed over existing pagan festivals - and most of the symbolism is still pagan. What Citybank were in effect doing, was returning it to a purer form - before it was corrupted by middle-eastern influence.
        • SharkyTech, on 11/07/2007, -0/+4A man I knew once described christmas as "a pagans pissup". He was suprisingly spot-on.
      • mikesbaker, on 11/07/2007, -1/+3no i still celebrate christmas - and the crass commercialism is just what it is.
    • chillypacman, on 11/10/2007, -30/+10ah yes... atheists both trying to discredit religion yet enjoy religous holidays....
      • Rickler, on 11/10/2007, -4/+49Christmas is a pagan holiday and was at one time banned by the catholic church. Now it's just a capitalistic holiday to turn profits. The more you know.
        • chillypacman, on 11/10/2007, -4/+0Thats besides the point, paganism is also a religion.
        • Zettabyte, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Damn those capitialist pigs.
      • arcooke, on 11/07/2007, -4/+3Mail me presents, bitch.
      • arthurdent3, on 11/10/2007, -2/+10Like we have a choice. Its a Federal holiday. Maybe we should make it an optional holiday like all the other religions have.
        • Lythium, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1Wait... you want the option to NOT celebrate Christmas? As in, you want to go in to work on the 25th and don't want to buy presents for your friends and family? Who the heck is stopping you?
      • bugsy187, on 11/07/2007, -5/+2Who needs got to enjoy a day off?
      • hirak99, on 11/07/2007, -3/+3Atheists are smart people.
      • mikesbaker, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1were you talking to me? because you've got the wrong idea about me there
      • blazes816, on 11/10/2007, -1/+5I don't care if it's skip with Jesus day, if there are presents I'm in.
    • riskybeats, on 11/08/2007, -6/+21better than the "happy jesus zombie day" version.
      • cranium, on 11/08/2007, -2/+7Easter = Zombie Day, lol

        been drinking, took me a minute.
      • TVarmy, on 11/07/2007, -5/+2That's easter. Christmas is Jesus' Birthday. It's also my birthday, and I'm prone to paranoid fantasies. What was reality thinking when it had me share a birthday with our lord?
        • insllvn, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3Um, welcome back?
        • TenebrousX, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1It's celebrated as Jesus' birthday. Keep in mind that shepards usually aren't in their fields at night in the middle of winter
    • ModernMindofM, on 11/08/2007, -4/+2I heard his follow up to 'The God Delusion' will be directly aimed at the Religious Right. The working title is 'The God Delusional: Why Biblical Fairy Tails Are Easier To Believe"

      Chillypacman, don't fret - I'll buy a copy and send it to you in Imagination Land.
    • annoia, on 11/08/2007, -2/+10Dawkins actually likes and celebrates Christmas. And why wouldn't he? It wasn't originally a Christian event anyway, and the way it's been bastardized now, it's hardly religious in any way any longer.
    • nullnvnvnv, on 11/07/2007, -3/+4Christmas was originally a Pagan festival (had a different name, obviously, same time of the year though). Then it was a Christian festival. But now its changing yet again, into a secular festival. I'm sure Dawkins, along with other atheists such as myself, celebrate it (especially if they have children).
    • fuzzynyanko, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7How to hate Christmas? Corporate America is doing it for us. Start putting up Christmas displays with Christmas music around late September. Christmas music is fun, but you can take the best songs ever written and if you hear them every day, you get tired of it.
    • wileyAU, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7How about "The Santa Delusion"?
    • queenstarsha, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1how to hate christmas? have republicans politicize it and start saying "merry christmas" like they'd say "***** you".
  • jmpeagle, on 11/07/2007, -27/+4why would he stoop to such a low level of authorship?
    • borninda818, on 11/07/2007, -2/+22To reach a wider range of people. He should write a shorter version of the God Delusion too. Kids these days (even teens) don't like long books unless they have gay wizards in them.
      • riskybeats, on 11/07/2007, -1/+4Richard Dawkins is my Dumbledore.
      • Hayaemsay, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2I find that a bit judgmental on my age group, then again I'm rather inclined to agree with you.
      • sleeknerve, on 11/07/2007, -1/+4im 16 and i read it, (on tape) although it was meant for Christians, i throughly enjoyed it being an athiest
    • MattBD, on 11/07/2007, -2/+4Because children are the people who need this kind of thing most! Encouraging your child to learn and to decide things for themselves, rather than forcing them to go along with whatever you believe, is very important. Many children are forced to observe religions by their parents, and aren't taught anything that goes against that religion.
      My father was raised a Catholic, although he's now lapsed, and he had to go to a Catholic school where he had religion shoved down his throat (although he was actually taught about evolution). Many children are still brought up in that kind of environment, where you only get taught about what someone else wants you to be taught about - I've heard a lot about the home schooling movement in the US, which apparently some parents opt for if they don't want their kids to learn about evolution, among other reasons.
    • drachemorder, on 11/07/2007, -3/+2Because that's who his lousy excuse for ideas are most appropriate for.
  • andrewcsayer, on 11/08/2007, -14/+34Titled "Don't Listen To Them - Mommy & Daddy Don't Know *****"
    • ch4os1337, on 11/08/2007, -3/+5My Mom and Dad are dead...
    • banmaster, on 11/07/2007, -1/+0Did they know ***** though?
    • MattBD, on 11/07/2007, -2/+6I was thinking "Mummy and Daddy are lying - God doesn't really exist".

      Seriously, I think he should do it. A book for children that explains evolution would be a great idea - a lot of people plain don't understand it nowadays and if anyone could change that, he could. If I had a child, I'd be getting them to read it.
    • Blah_Blah_Blah, on 11/14/2007, -11/+5evolution is an incredibly flawed theory and there are so many people who *think* they know what it is but actually have no idea. the theory has become more of a cult than a scientific discovery.

      No im not close-minded. I DO want to know and I have read a lot abou tthe subject for my own curiosity.
      • Lythium, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2Have you read Dawkins himself? "Selfish Gene," "Blind Watchmaker," "Ancestor's Tale"? He explains the supposed "flaws" quite nicely - all the while reminding us that even such interpretations are open to debate, should further evidence call for it.
      • captric, on 11/08/2007, -2/+0The only thing incredibly flawed is your critical thinking skills. Do not confuse the semantics of theory,a scientific theory is a way that science explains the physical universe, not he LAY form of a theory which is nothing more than an opinion about a subject of interest. You may have a "theory" that John Lennon of the Beatles was an alien form outer space or that 9-11 was a conspiracy by the US government to take over the world. Evolution i a LAW exactly like the LAW OF GRAVITY. It is indisputably true, although the supporting details are STILL being gathered. But no one DOUBTS that GRAVITY exists or that the world is round. This is why THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION is a favorite phrase for religious nut cases. It influences the thinking of the "unthinking" and the politically polarized to show that Evolution is only a theory, when every scientist in the world knows that Evolution is a LAW.
      • Blah_Blah_Blah, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1no its not a law, its a theory. thats why its ***** called the THEORY of evolution. and no i havent read dawkins but i will read some of the texts you recommended. thanks lythium.
    • cristianorem, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2Yeah,pretty flawed - other than the fact that it has been proven. What do you believe, if you don't mind me asking?
      • republicker, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1Proven? " Proof" of events occurring hundreds of millions of years ago is total *****, I dont care what you believe.
  • Apokalyps2547, on 11/08/2007, -5/+53Did anyone read the article?
    "...it's also good that it won't be a book denouncing religion and god, Because like Richard said at AAI, Teaching a child to be Atheist is as bad as teaching them to be religious. But teaching them to be inquisitive, logical and encouraging them to ask questions is something that even the most fundamental christian would have a hard time arguing against, Though no doubt they would try..."
    • mikesbaker, on 11/08/2007, -19/+2Which might be subversive to religion but i don't think would be explicit about that".
      critical reading for the win. as soon as he says what posted he then says that it will be anti religion just not overtly
      • bajesus, on 11/08/2007, -1/+20What he means is that teaching kids to be inquisitive and ask questions is subversive to religion in its own right, not that he is going to sneak in anti-religious messages.
      • saehn, on 11/08/2007, -0/+8When children being inquisitive and asking questions is a threat to your belief system, you have to wonder if you're doing something wrong. :)
    • riskybeats, on 11/08/2007, -1/+20Stop trying to make me actually read articles before blindly digging and giving my opinion on the title!
  • JustinHorne, on 11/08/2007, -4/+18But realistically... None of the kids who need the book would ever get access to it, and those who don't, would.
    • insllvn, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5Nothing makes something cooler than being forbidden....
      • Waterrat, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2 So true...But if the parents see them reading a Dawkins book...
        • queenstarsha, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1out with the 2-inch rods, advocated by all the good christian child abusers like james dobson.
  • tjdoom, on 11/08/2007, -1/+22"Richard Dawkins to Write Book..."
    below that: "...he is contemplating the idea of writing a childrens book..."

    Contemplating.
  • JD52, on 11/08/2007, -6/+12I don't even have any kids yet and I'm buying a copy for when I do.
  • MewTwo, on 11/08/2007, -48/+7***** Richard Dawkins
    • RomgRim, on 11/07/2007, -7/+18No. ***** YOU.
    • aguitarhero, on 11/08/2007, -2/+11Be a little more constructive with your feedback.
    • MewTwo, on 11/08/2007, -24/+2See that comment below mine? A very nice reasonable statement by a very nice honest person, getting down to what we really should be worried about.
      I'm through with that ***** ***** I just want you hateful naive ignorant little atheists to shut the ***** up already. And for the record I'm not religious at all.
      • Drogoganor, on 11/07/2007, -3/+17"And for the record I'm not religious at all."

        Don't believe you
        • MewTwo, on 11/07/2007, -3/+3Oh my god. See this is what I am talking about. Dumbass teenagers who think that the world is black and white. I'm annoyed by Richard Dawkins therefore I am religious. ***** retards.
        • joshuabowers, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1"...hateful naive ignorant..."

          @MetTwo: Pot, kettle.
      • pkonink, on 11/07/2007, -5/+4You shouldn't get too upset, if you haven't realized yet, it's only a couple "atheists" with some alt accounts to make it seem like there are many. I use the quotes "atheists" because these I'd say these people give sensible atheists a bad name. They're as pig-headed as the most fervent evangelicals.
      • tylerjames, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1How can you even criticize the comment below yours? It's basically a rewrite of your original comment.

        So is RomgRim an ***** for pointing out that you're an *****?
    • lordtyros, on 11/08/2007, -5/+6On digg, you might as well type "I fully support the RIAA"
    • ryanwarnersteel, on 11/08/2007, -7/+3***** you mom
    • queenstarsha, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1okay! his accent is sexxxy.
  • abatch, on 11/08/2007, -11/+42As a Christian I obviously disagree with most of the conclusions in his previous work, but I think it would be great if he came through with a book for children encouraging kids to think for themselves. Brainwashing kids is bad, regardless of the material or intent, and unexamined beliefs aren't worth having in the first place.
    • commernie, on 11/08/2007, -16/+12So you must be pissed off at your parents for brainwashing you with all the superstitious ***** you believe.
      • ch4os1337, on 11/07/2007, -4/+11I know I am.
        • Waterrat, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2 I always was...i hated being dragged to church every Sunday and sometimes Wed. nights as well..
          Lucky for me the brainwashing didn't take.
      • changyang1230, on 11/07/2007, -2/+1If you are pissed off, your parents weren't successful in what they were doing.
      • CressCrowbits, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7My parents seem to have no religious beliefs particularly, neither were they particularly atheist.

        I chose to be a christian through my own judgement.

        It always amuses me how intolerant many who criticise religion for being intolerant can be. I'm sure Richard Dawkins would have something to say about that.
        • carpespasm, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4well i appoloigize for commernie's comment, that's being a douchebag and i whole heartedly side with you on "Brainwashing kids is bad, regardless of the material or intent, and unexamined beliefs aren't worth having in the first place."
          If you can examin your beliefs, and include any evidence we have for and against it and still believe in something, go right on. I only have a problem when people are pig headed about thinking something without knowing the reasons they think it. Be they religious or not.
        • ashmael, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2Why should anyone be tolerant of the _beliefs_ of people who ignore reality?
    • Instaa, on 11/08/2007, -6/+2Ahhh yes, there's nothing like disagreeing with logic.
    • gropo, on 11/08/2007, -4/+7I'm pissed at my parents for raising me agnostic. Life would be so much easier if I was always walking around blissfully ignorant of reality. Stupid red pill.
  • sleeknerve, on 11/08/2007, -12/+7I think this is a good idea. Try convincing an adult religois person that god doesnt exist. its impossible, no matter how much evidence you have. This is because it is already loged in there minds, nothing will ever change their opinion. Nothing. I think if children get both sides of the argument, they will be less likely to get almost "brainwashed." He is very intelligent, and i assume he would know how to tackle this sort of thing.
    • CressCrowbits, on 11/08/2007, -2/+1How can you have 'evidence' that a god figure, something claimed to be outside of the realms of existence, does not exist?
      • insllvn, on 11/07/2007, -2/+2God lives in imagination land. Imagination iiiimagiiination imaaagination iiimaginaaaaation......
    • drachemorder, on 11/08/2007, -3/+1What if it's because God really exists and they know it?
    • queenstarsha, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1you can convince that they don't have to pretend or try to believe, though.
  • RomgRim, on 11/08/2007, -10/+16Good for him. Go Richard Dawkins!
  • UncleBadTouch, on 11/08/2007, -9/+22Why are people so quick to indoctrinate young children into the Christian faith, but "god" forbid we have a book that helps our children see the other side of the coin?
    • cusoman, on 11/08/2007, -18/+3Do you say "frodo" when you talk about the character from LotR? No you don't. Just because you don't believe in him doesn't mean he doesn't all of the sudden lose his status as a proper noun.

      Also, please read the article before you comment - this has nothing to do with "the other side of the coin". Christians don't deny logic and reasoning, they just add another layer with faith.
      • Drogoganor, on 11/08/2007, -6/+16"Just because you don't believe in him doesn't mean he doesn't all of the sudden lose his status as a proper noun."

        Oh spare me the political correctness!

        "Christians don't deny logic and reasoning, they just add another layer with faith."

        To have faith is to deny reason. To claim both is to have neither.
        • armor, on 11/08/2007, -13/+2no.. not really..
        • pkonink, on 11/08/2007, -9/+2"To have faith is to deny reason. To claim both is to have neither."

          Keep posting that quote so I can keep digging you down. lol Now digg me down you closed-minded zombies.
          • Lythium, on 11/07/2007, -0/+2Trust me, you have nothing to fear from zombies - they're only a threat to people with brains.
        • tbydal, on 11/07/2007, -0/+0Actually, to claim to have both would be an act of pure faith i think.
        • cusoman, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1tbydal gets it.
        • mGARANDEUR1, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1I know plenty of religious people who also happen to have their PhDs in chemistry,physics ect. When people talk about how science somehow disproves religion, they obviously do not know ***** about science. Even scientists know very little about the world that we live in.
      • pkonink, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2Even though I don't think I'm politically correct, just polite and respectful, I get accused of it more than I would like.

        That being said, that capitalization comment was a p.c. jab if I ever heard one given the medium and site we're on.
      • SharkyTech, on 11/07/2007, -1/+3But god isn't a proper noun. Its just a noun, as in "a god", no-one else uses it as a proper noun but Christians.
        • cusoman, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1It's a proper noun, the name Christians have given their god is God. They just happen to have the market on the name, like Rollerblades or Kleenex or whathaveyou. It's no different that Zeus or Buddha, etc.
      • ashmael, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Simply put, because saying god pisses off idiots like you.
        • cusoman, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1You're a shining example of Atheists all around the world. Actually, wait, no, that's not true... the real atheists live in peace, respecting other beliefs, in countries like Switzerland, Finland, Czech Republic, etc. Learn from them.
  • biseor, on 11/08/2007, -26/+5The only reason he wants to write a book is so he can get close to kids and diddle their jelly-sacks.
    • ch4os1337, on 11/08/2007, -4/+3I think its smart targeting kids before there parents get to them.
    • Instaa, on 11/08/2007, -3/+9Last I checked he wasn't a priest.
  • dayull, on 11/08/2007, -11/+6I think he really enjoys how enraged Christians get about his work. He's just ***** with them and playing innocent.
    • bingobongony, on 11/07/2007, -16/+3The funny thing is how enraged HE gets over someone else's beliefs. IT is pathetic really.
      • Drogoganor, on 11/07/2007, -3/+9Were you enraged over the beliefs held by the terrorists that destroyed the twin towers?
        • pkonink, on 11/07/2007, -4/+1I wasn't at all enraged by their beliefs. I was enraged by the act of mass murder and the attack on my homeland, yes. But because they did it in the name of some god? Does that mean I should be less enraged if they were communists or fascists or some other non-religious (yet equally dogmatic) ideology? With comments like that you have the makings of a flip-side Ann Coulter.
          • ashmael, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1So not once did it cross your mind that those men and everyone who supported them thought they were doing the right thing by that act of mass murder? That's the problem with religion; it can make people who are set out to do the right thing do the most despicable evil imaginable, purely based on their beliefs. That is why we must be intolerant of ridiculous beliefs, so that people don't get carried away with them.
        • tbydal, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2Of course people are enraged at their beliefs. They believe its ok to kill innocents in the name of god. And that rage would be the same if it was in the name of ones country/ideology/race/etc just the same as ones god.
  • bingobongony, on 11/08/2007, -8/+2Contemplating writing a book is not thesame as "Richard Dawkins to write books for children" Honestly, moron submitter...are you that stupid?
  • vertice, on 11/08/2007, -11/+7Possible title:
    "Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny and Jesus are all made up"
    • max1574, on 11/07/2007, -1/+2you obviously haven't read the article, sir
    • ch4os1337, on 11/07/2007, -2/+3Everybody knows that.
    • queenstarsha, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1jesus was real. it just doesn't seem likely that he was the product of god raping a married virgin.
  • Yage2006, on 11/07/2007, -6/+9Maybe it will be a book about critical thought and how to spot logical fallacy's.
    Cause if you can teach that to children they will be able to take care of them self and wont fall into religion or operah or anything of that nature :)
    • pkonink, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2God forbid children develop a taste for opera, high culture could ruin their lives.
    • tbydal, on 11/08/2007, -2/+0OperaH. You know. That crazy lady that people worship.
      • hilo4321, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Oprah doesn't have an "e" in it.
        • Lythium, on 11/08/2007, -0/+3And opera doesn't have an "h" - so both guesses are equaly valid. That's the scientific method ;)
    • queenstarsha, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1i like oprah. maybe she's religious, but her humanism's great.

      if you mean opera, wtf?
  • schrutefan, on 11/08/2007, -3/+42I heard the book has already been banned from Kansas public schools.
  • donkeySays, on 11/08/2007, -7/+10Richard Dawkins FTW
  • repran, on 11/08/2007, -12/+3Does truth matter?
    Sure it does. Science is all about The Truth ™. But what about fitness? Yes, I mean Darwinian fitness as in ’survival of the fittest’. According to my AI friendliness theory, that is good which increases fitness. In that sense knowledge of truth is good if and only if said knowledge increases fitness. Is there a set of false believes - as in scientifically unjustifiable believes - that if held by an individual would increase said individual’s fitness? Yes there is: religion.
    Sorry folks - there is no way to prove or disprove neither the existence nor the absence of a God. But that’s why it is called a religious believe and not a religious truth - right? Richard Dawkins, Dan Dennet and Sam Harris have written book after book in defense of The Truth and science versus the misguided belief in religion.
    Most popular counter beliefs aimed at ridiculing religion are the Pastafarian belief in a flying spaghetti monster and the more sophisticated Celestial Teapot by Bertrand Russell.
    It stands to argue however that the belief in an undetectable monster or a celestial teapot on the one hand does not add to an individual’s fitness while the belief in Christianity, Islam or the Jewish faith on the other hand does. Religions increase an individual’s fitness by allowing for the development of groups larger then what can be evolutionary stable by sheer face to face monitoring by creating internalized restraints in their followers and thereby increasing the likelihood of sticking to a shared moral code.
    For an in depth explanation I suggest reading Selection of Organization at the Social level: obstacles and facilitators of metasystem transitions. Particularly chapter four: Social Control Mechanisms.
    The sentence ‘No Good without God’ becoming true in the sense of religion increasing fitness must burn like chili sauce on the eye lids of intelligent designers and religion bashing Darwinists alike. Oh the sweet irony!
    Other examples of false beliefs increasing an individual’s fitness include the optimism bias for example.
    Time out! Reality Check: Is the truth bad? Or are some truths good while others are evil? Far from it… The solution lies in the big picture. The truth is not that there is no God but that internalized restraints improve how well humans function as part of large groups. The truth is not that Joe average is less likely to succeed as he thinks but that those that try may loose but those that don’t have lost already.
    These truths just happened to have manifested themselves in the course of genetic and memetic evolution in phenotypes that don’t make them immediately deducible from said phenotypes. So before you argue for the abolishment of religion please design a set of implementable internalized restrains that are at least as efficient and effective.
    Or more generally put: before you argue for the truth make sure it is not just the debunking of a false belief without replacing the false belief with something that is not at least as effective and efficient at increasing an individual’s and/or a group’s fitness respectively.
    from: http://www.jame5.com/?p=13
    • Instaa, on 11/07/2007, -1/+4So ummm....people should believe in lies because it makes them feel better? I would rather not waste time and money worshiping something that doesn't exist.
      Oh and morals and behaviors are set by people's general goodness and desire to be free of the confinements of prison, not by God/the bible. Basically what religious people are saying is that they should be nice not because they are nice people, but because if they don't they will be punished in the afterworld? I prefer just to be nice because it is right.

    • shazzb0t, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1TL;DR
    • ashmael, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1And on the other hand of the side of "fitness" of beliefs, we have a long history of mass murder in the name of such beliefs. How does that promote the fitness of anyone?
  • JustinGN, on 11/08/2007, -11/+4See, this is the problem with religious discussion in general. There's a saying that goes something like, "Politics and Religion don't belong at the dinner table", and I think that the same rule might be applicable here. Any discussion on religion tends to end very, very badly.

    That being said, while I encourage a children's book that would help kids think for themselves and draw their own conclusions on the world itself, I really think it should be done by someone who ISN'T a figurehead for any sort of religious/anti-religious affiliation (Atheism, Christianity, Judaism, etc), or even colaborated on by authors from different religious/anti-religious backgrounds. Having Richard Dawkins himself do the book would be a hinderence, if anything.

    As for religious discussion on Digg itself, I'm starting to get a little fed up here. It seems that everytime any sort of religious link is posted, it's from an "Attack" site, or a heavily biased point of view. I understand that, in terms of mainstream religion, that such sites are the norm; however, hunting for a link from a less biased website could encourage more meaningful discussion and less insults. I say, let people believe what they want to believe, while striving to educate them on scientific discovery and fact, supported by hard, verifiable evidence. Saying "God doesn't exist" and proceeding to throw a slew of theories at someone's face isn't good enough; likewise, saying "God does exist" and proceeding to throw Holy Books at people has similar ill effects.

    I fully believe both Science and Religion can live happily together. It's just a shame that the more 'vocal' atheists seem intent on starting a second Crusade, similar to what the Catholic Church did in Medieval times. What's next, burning God-believers at the stake?
    • valrus, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4"It's just a shame that the more 'vocal' atheists seem intent on starting a second Crusade, similar to what the Catholic Church did in Medieval times. What's next, burning God-believers at the stake?"
      Blatant exaggerations and straw men like this are why religious discussions always turn out so badly.
    • CressCrowbits, on 11/08/2007, -5/+1Its got to be saying something about the militant atheists on digg that a perfectly rational and balanced post like Justin's gets dugg down. Hey guys, you listening? You're just as bad as the religious nutjobs!
    • dahlek, on 11/07/2007, -2/+1Do you live in the USA? Many "hot" political issues are supported by "religious" evidence by evangelical Christians. Does god(s) dislike gays? Where is the evidence? - The Bible, they say. Ok, now we must decide if the Bible is accurate and is a worthy source of that evidence. If the religious in the USA decide to back up public policy with religious dogma, that dogma itself is on the chopping block, it's up for debate, not because of atheists, but because of the religious. Try telling your evangelical buddies to keep their dogma out of public policy. It's not the atheists who are starting a crusade, rather, it is the secularists, some of whom are Christian, some of whom are conservative (a minority, yes - Barry Goldwater types come to mind) who want to PREVENT another crusade,
    • browny1978, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1Athiests may be in a minority, but just because eveyone else is doing it doesnt always make it right, for instance, more people bought Sony VHS recorders than betamax, and more people bought PS1's over N64's, but the latters are better technology, so what do you do, religious people rely on the fact that belief is the backbone of their faith, whereas science doesnt think anything is wrong with that if it can be backed up by facts (there is always more than one side to a story!)
    • ashmael, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1So, by ridiculing your beliefs verbally, that's the same as burning you at the stake? Seriously, your persecution complex is showing. Beliefs should stand on their own merit, and if they can't, they face the ridicule they deserve. Just because you choose to hang on to ridiculous beliefs doesn't mean we should respect that choice or those beliefs. We will still respect you as a person, but not as an intelligent person.
  • mrhaines, on 11/08/2007, -16/+8Ahhh gotta love fundamentalist atheists...never thought i would see the day.
    • Instaa, on 11/11/2007, -2/+13I agree. Hopefully it will spread and sometime in the future, religion can be all but eliminated.
    • SharkyTech, on 11/08/2007, -2/+8What is fundamentalist about Richard Dawkins? He simply demands proof. How can that position be equated with suicide bombers and doctor murderers? Indeed how can that be considered fundamentalist even when compared to run of the mill idiots who believe that a cosmic jewish zombie will give them eternal life if they symbollically (or literally if you're a catholic) each his flesh and telepathically contact him. Richard Dawkins asks only for proof, and yet fools like you call HIM the fundamentalist.
      • mrhaines, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1Dawkins used to be an intelligent philosopher, but his writings have been reduced to popularist jargon in order to appeal to the masses. His arguments are no longer academically relevant.
  • 0260, on 11/08/2007, -2/+6i read a couple of his books and god delusion was his easiest read. maybe he can dumb things down even further for kids. this is awesome either way
    • NightEmber79, on 11/07/2007, -6/+1Yeah, the pop ups of graves and rotting bodes that go nowhere are a great read for kids. Dash their hopes now so that being a Janitor for 40 years won't hurt so much. I'm not saying take the kids to a southern methodist chuch, but come on. Lower the expectations so that dissapointment doesn't hurt. It's the same outlook that an abused person takes when they don't interact with people. Think man.
      • Instaa, on 11/07/2007, -1/+5Imagine a place where people think for themselves and decide a religion on their own as they grow older, if they decide to follow one at all. No brainwashed kids?? Ohh the horror!
    • cam2009, on 11/07/2007, -2/+1He definitely knows how to change his tactic and accessibility for different audiences, but even in God Delusion, he had to spend a lot of time getting the reader over all the misconceptions of evolution (which he will bring up, he has a tendency to tie it into every section of every part of our lives). If he dumbs it down too much, you're just going to have more misconceptions. That's we're the "I didn't come from a monkey!" thing comes from now - simplifying it.

      Also - he's not that nice. He spends a lot of time covering himself at the beginning, but after that, he needs to be honest. If he's going to write a kids book, he just needs to say "You aren't a Christian yet - that's for you to decide, not your parents, and nobody knows if their religion is right over any of the countless number of others, so think for yourself". He can't just write "God Delusion for Kids". Remember, it's the parents that are buying these for their kids, if anything, they have to appeal to the religious.
  • NightEmber79, on 11/08/2007, -17/+2Well, although it will probably be published (if it happens) and make lots of money, this is a bad idea. I will say that I am a religious person, but I am angry at all of the "organizations". I think that Dawkins is in the same vein as Falwell, Robertson, and all other people who manipulate good ideas for financial gains. He is just as wrong as Taliban members and "Islamo-facists" (great made up Fox News word that makes no sense, kinda like Jaberwocky). Dawkins does not want people "to know the truth". He wants people to know his truth and "worship" him as a (Athiest) God figure. Just a bit of social mastubation. I am all for people beliving what they want, even if it is nothing. As a person of faith, I know what it is like to have doubts and some days think that I may be wrong. But Dawkins wants people to say "Yes, Lord Dawkins, I do not believe. Thank you for showing me the way. Now where can I dump my earings into your collection plate." He is a reprehensible human being who cares for nothing but himself and all who "believe" in him. He is Koresh. He is Bin Laden. Major media outlets should find a reputable source of the Athiest opinion. Everyones beliefs should have a voice. But he should be relegated to public access cable with old tapes of Falwell and Robertson. He can be the Athiest voice on the 700 club! Athiest movement, get a real voice. Not a money grubbing whore. Please do to him the worst thing you can. Ignore him. He does not speak for people, just his own megalomania. Hawking is a better choice, even though he hasn't ruled out a God. Like I said. Nothing wrong with believing in nothing, just find someone who isn't the bar-time-closing whore of Athiests.
    • aiken, on 11/11/2007, -0/+8So what you're saying, if I got the gist of that huge paragraph, is that you're opposed to the content of the book that he's contemplating writing because he is willing to kill people to get the U.S. military presence out of Saudi Arabia.

      I'm not a big fan of Dawkins, but I think you're misinformed about his embracing bin Laden's goals, at least, and it might do you some good to stop hyperventilating, use some paragraph breaks, and wait to see what the actual contents are of the book, should he decide to write it, before going quite so utterly ballistic.
      • NightEmber79, on 11/07/2007, -6/+1No, that is not the point. My point has nothing to do with American militaristic goals. My point is that Dawkins manipulates people for his own self gratification. Nothing more nothing less. He is a self worshiper (see Anton Levey). Nothing religious or political here. He is a piece of garbage who wants people to fulfill that most human need of "LOOK AT ME, I'M RIGHT! ME ME ME!" I want a good man who will speak for the people who don't believe in God. Maybe people would take Athiests more seriously if they didn't have a circus act such as Dawkins speaking for them.
        • tbydal, on 11/11/2007, -0/+5Stop pretending to know him and respond to the arguments instead of this endless tirade of ad-hominem fallacies.
        • ashmael, on 11/07/2007, -0/+1So you're an angry religious fundamentalist who didn't read the article at all? Thanks for clearing that up for us.
    • Instaa, on 11/11/2007, -0/+8You don't have a clue. That was just so random. Comparing him to Bin Laden and the Taliban? wtf? You know the truth is not *his* truth, because truth is not like your faith where you can follow some things and not others, and where some people can follow certain things while others say that is a sin. Like the bible says this but you don't take that literally and it says that you should kill women who cheat and if you work on the sabbath day you should be put to death, no you don't follow that part. Oh, but here is a part of the bible I agree with so I will follow that and say God is great, cross myself and say Amen and smile as I put 10 bucks into a bin.

      The truth is the truth and that is it.

      • NightEmber79, on 11/07/2007, -6/+1First off, let me say, I have friends of all denominations. Believers and non. I have a deep Christ following (not Christian) tradiation in my family and ties to a Jewish bloodline. I am for all belieifs, even if it is none. Dawkins is an idealist. It's his way or the highway. I do not think that there is room for a person like that in intellegent discourse. I want a voice to emerge from the sea of opportunists who manipulate people to speak for how people think and feel. This is NOT and attack on Athiests. This is an attack on the piece of crap that is Dawkins. He is wrong about how he approaches the subject and does a disservice to the people who he pretends to represent.
    • tbydal, on 11/07/2007, -0/+3And you're a in-the-closet gay with mental delusions and the IQ of a refrigerator.

      Funny how unfounded claims come back to bite you in the ass huh?
  • evolutionairy, on 11/08/2007, -9/+0First Attempt:
    An old man asks Dick and Jane,
    "Did you see Spot run?"
    Dick and Jane say, "no."
    The old man says:
    "Spot hates you! Burn in hell heathens!"

    Second Attempt:
    Spot runs to Dick and Jane as they are leaving school. He stops them on the sidewalk.
    Spot says: "I am your Lord, your Master, kneel before me."
    Dick says: "Make Me..."
    Spot says: "It doesn't work that way..."
    Jane says: "Pussy."
    They start walking again, Spot follows behind whining: "Come on guys! Worship me!"
  • GodIsntReal, on 11/08/2007, -4/+9Maybe if kids read this when they are growing up instead of their parents spoon feeding them biblical garbage the majority of the world wouldn't be brainwashed sheep.
    • hilo4321, on 11/08/2007, -2/+3dugg down for your name, and im not a firm believer in anything
  • minox, on 11/08/2007, -8/+8But he already wrote The God Delusion.
  • TheEclipse, on 11/08/2007, -0/+7"I haven't started it yet, But i thought i might try to do a children's book about how to think for yourself and how to ask questions about interesting topics and how you might go about answering them, Which might be subversive to religion but i don't think would be explicit about that"

    Sounds good. If the book promotes rationally questioning all ideas instead of attacking specific few, then I'd sure like to see it in every school library. But, the kids would have to truly question if Dawkin's book was even right to promote questioning. If it could be that successful, then I'd sure promote brainwashing kids to protect themselves from brainwashing.

    On his latest tour, George Carlin said something like, "It's not teaching children to read thats important. Its teaching children to question what they read thats important."
  • eclectro, on 11/08/2007, -7/+2Title of book "Hey kid, Santa is a delusion. Stop asking for presents."
    Bet it sells well.
    • sdubois92, on 11/11/2007, -1/+5The Santa Delusion by Rciahrd Dawkins
      Santa Is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens
    • FlashGit, on 11/11/2007, -0/+3The End of Santa by Sam Harris
  • mattsw84, on 11/08/2007, -7/+3Hey guys I am smarter than you, look I can make stick figures therefore I am your new god.
    • ashmael, on 11/08/2007, -2/+2Your insults only reveal that you have no critical thinking or analysis; this book would be perfect for you.
  • pinguwin, on 11/08/2007, -8/+2I would find it highly unlikely that I would give nieces and nephews anything written by dawkins. I'm no fan of the fundies, I find them to be fanatics. Same with Dawkins, he's way too dogmatic and dismissive of others who don't think the way he does. There are so many good books for the youngun's, why bother with his?
  • sdubois92, on 11/08/2007, -8/+3I hope he leaves religion out of it.
  • ThrashAssassin, on 11/07/2007, -1/+0Here's the talk that the quote is taken from
    http://richarddawkins.net/article,1839,Richard-Daw ...
  • rmeddy, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4This is great but I don't think he should be going the Bill O'Reilly route although sadly it may be the only strategy that works.In getting people out of ignorance.
    • queenstarsha, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1yeah, propping up that hatemonger o'reilly is a mistake.
  • misfit410, on 11/08/2007, -11/+5How is telling everyone they are stupid for believing in god " Making up their own minds and figuring things out for themselves"?
    He is forcing his viewpoint on people just like the radical christians are.
    • ashmael, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4So you didn't read the article, came here, and made a straw man argument. Great.
    • catbeller, on 11/08/2007, -1/+3Once again, he forces no one. Speaking is not forcing you to do anything. What you want him to do is SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP.
      • brokencrystal, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1I believe he said he is forcing his viewpoint, not forcing you to believe it. You misquoted misfit410. Telling someone they are stupid to believe in something IS forcing their viewpoint.
  • pilgrim3970, on 11/08/2007, -5/+6I am Christian who is not ashamed tht I believe that the Bible is the inerrant revelation of God to man and that the Chrsitian faith is uniquely and exclusively the true way. However, I do not want my children growing up in a spiritual or intellectual plastic bubble. Therefore, rather than be fearful of any such book from Dawkins, when the time is right, we will read and discuss his book together in light of the Christian faith. Conrtary to popular Digg belief, being inquisitive and asking questions is not counter to the Christian faith.

    That being said, I doubt that Dawkin's ego will allow him to completely avoid jabs at theism.
    • ashmael, on 11/11/2007, -1/+6So this book would be perfect for you, because you never learned how to actually be inquisitive and search for truth, only how to be inquisitive and search for truth in the light (or shadow) of the Christian faith.
    • catbeller, on 11/11/2007, -1/+5Being inquisitive to the point of realizing Christianity is just another religion, like worship of Odin or tree spirits, is absolutely anathema to Christianity. Open Inquiry is the death of religion. There's a reason why comparative theology is treated like bomb-making courses in religious institutions and offered only to those old enough to have been previously, thoroughly indoctrinated.
    • queenstarsha, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1i don't think "inerrant" means what you think it means. for example, will you have special chairs for your teenage daughters to sit in when they're menstruating?
  • pilgrim3970, on 11/08/2007, -7/+2"Hopefully it will spread and sometime in the future, religion can be all but eliminated."

    There have been men like him before and will continue to be. Long after Dawkins becomes nothing but an obscure footnote in pages of history, people will still believe.



    • Shabonkerz, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4There will always be irrational people, but the rational population is slowly growing.
      • brokencrystal, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Are you saying that atheism is coming to an end? I can't stand the irrational.
  • Nin10dude, on 11/08/2007, -4/+4I'm all for thinking for themselves and not shoving Christian ideals onto people and all of that, but is shoving "GOD ISN'T REAL!!" that different from smothering them with a Bible? Just let them develop their own thoughts...

    If he kept it to science and that, and left religion out of it though, he could definitely do a pretty awesome job.
    • ashmael, on 11/08/2007, -2/+3Read the article before commenting next time. Dawkins himself said he didn't want the book to be anti-religious, just pro-critical thinking and analysis.
      • Mageling, on 11/08/2007, -2/+2And slight comments about how god is probably not real. :P
        Anyway, I agree that critical thinking is extremely short supply in schools. It's sad. :(
      • brokencrystal, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Yea... That sounds just like Dawkins... /Sarcasm

        Dawkins is a lier. He loves cutting down religion. That is like the "Patriot Act"! The patriotic name doesn't make it anything better than what it really is. God bless America.
  • Mier, on 11/08/2007, -11/+3I often wish that my atheist acquaintances would just do me a favor. The next time you get all depressed about how life sucks just remember that there is no God and thereby no consequences to your actions. Just go ahead and blow your brains out since it's all just a big lie anyway.
    • Hetman, on 11/08/2007, -2/+4Why would it be a big lie? I do not understand what you are saying. A man can give himself purpose their are no need for Gods.
      • browny1978, on 11/07/2007, -1/+1If you dont believe in god, but you give to charity and help little old ladies across the road, what does that make you???
        • brokencrystal, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1A sinner? Good works will not get you into heaven. In the end, every knee shall bow and every tongue will confess (even the atheists) that Jesus Christ is lord.
      • Hetman, on 11/08/2007, -1/+2It makes you a helpfull human being who has respect for other humans. If I help a little old lady or give up my seat for an old lady I do it because it is going to help her. I do not need a reward and I also do not need a book to tell me that I should be my brothers keeper. I know that it is self evident.
        • brokencrystal, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Tell that to the murderers, rapists, and the other idiots who do these awful things.
    • Shabonkerz, on 11/08/2007, -0/+5Religious people kill others to get to heaven instead of themselves, so even then, it would be a better world.

      Being religious is more depressing than being atheist I would think. I mean the whole end of the world thing doesn't look too fun.

      • CountBlah, on 11/08/2007, -0/+2Actually a bunch of them seem to look forward to it.
    • CountBlah, on 11/08/2007, -0/+4If you believe in God and that you will spend the rest of time with him and Jesus in Heaven, then why don't to just find some way to die. Not shoot yourself, because you'll go to Hell. But don't take any medicine or something like that.



      What? You won't. Why?

      Because deep down there is just that little piece of doubt about all of it.

      But I don't feel bad, because I know that I only get one life, so I try to make the very best of it.
    • queenstarsha, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1what an excellent example of christian tolerance. you're republican, i bet.
  • Vektuz, on 11/08/2007, -3/+3I was under the impression that anyone is welcome to write a book, and that parents still control what their children read / view.
    • catbeller, on 11/08/2007, -1/+4Hm. For the sake of the future of life on earth, I do hope that children slip free of parental control of what they read. There are no christian children, just children of christians. Christians are manufactured, and that process requires mind control.
    • fcukbush, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1"parents still control what their children read"

      not in schools they don't.
  • IADTatami, on 11/11/2007, -0/+5"Where the Wild Things Aren't"

    "There's No Monster at the End of This Book"

    "Horton Hears He's Schizophrenic"
  • llburns, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1Hans Anti-Christian Anderson
  • Truzseeker, on 11/08/2007, -4/+3I hope that he differentiates religion from faith because they are not the same.
    • dahlek, on 11/11/2007, -1/+0Religion is based on faith, which is bad. Faith can mean hope, hope is good I'd argue. Faith can also mean trust - trust can also be good. Faith means many things, but the nasty aspect of faith is the idea that to accept something in insufficient evidence is a GOOD thing. I hope he shows kids to be skeptical, and to NOT make exceptions for the ideas of god(s), no matter how popular.
  • queenstarsha, on 11/08/2007, -1/+1he should! i was recently several pages into reading a nice-looking book about a star to my niece and nephew when i, agnostic at most, realized there was a manger and i was about to religiously indoctrinate toddlers. not really my bag, religious indoctrination of toddlers. this dawkins book is a drop in the bucket compared to the religion industry.
  • brokencrystal, on 11/08/2007, -0/+1Why not? The children are brainwashed this way at a very young age using the dinosaurs as reference to the supposed age of the earth. Ask any 5 year old child how old the dinosaurs are... there answer is your proof. This is an awesome tool. Start them while they are young. When they get older, it will be considered fact. You do not question the obvious.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.