“How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?” Dawkins asks. “It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children?

Absolutely not. Dawkins (and his ilk) should be forced to send his kids to conservative muslim schools.

See this event in Lagos, Nigeria, known as “the day Lagos stood still” with 3.5 million in attendance. Makes the athiest movement look rather impotent.

http://www.christembassy.org/GFMNreport/index.htm

Me neither, but according to Dawkins and the rest of his ilk there’s nothing random about evolution at all. At least that’s what he’s always preaching. True, the mutations may be random, but they are filtered through the decidedly non-random process called “natural” selection – non-random, and at the same time non-purposeful. So then, life is created non-randomly solely by the forces of nature. But where did the universe come from? The answer I see by many atheists is m-theory. Our universe is one of trillions of others and this one just happened, by chance, to have the right conditions for life. So my question is, if nature itself is the product of randomness (read blind, dumb luck), how can life *not* be the outcome of randomness? Is this a valid question?

My line stands about the “one world view indotrination.” Just fill in the blank.

_Dawkins_ Center for One World View Indoctrination.

Why do parents have a choice, when it is obvious their “property” should be regulated by the STATE. Property of the STATE should wear the same grey unisex jumpsuits, have the same haircuts. Property should all eat the same food, every day, every night, all year in the same designed homes made of the same square grey cement blocks, listening to the same music, watching the same TV program about evolutions gradual random(but not really random) outcome eventually leading to:

Dawkins is god. Dawkins is god, Dawkins is god.

Woman. Have baby. Give baby “property” to Dawkins Center for One World View. Have more baby “property”. Give all “property” to Dawkins Center for Indotrination.

You Have No Choice… Obeeeeyeyyeeyyy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....038;search=

Dawkins shoul add the above video to his new site for the Foundation of Indoctrination of Dawkins One World View.

He only needs to put his face in the middle.

“How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?” Dawkins asks. “It’s one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?”

And this is the lynchpin of their strategy. Since this topic is expressly about the war on religion, I want to put in my 2 cents. If I need to teach my children minor falsehoods to explain the larger truth- that the holy spirit will give them strength when they feel weak and resolve when they need to make hard choices- then I would hope that, as my child grows (and I have 3 children, all grown) they will learn fact as it relates to them and understand that truth is subjective compared to the power of god. I suppose god can be anything you want him to be but our Bible holds the wisdom of the ages and should not be mocked by those who wish to see our children spiritually starved.

I for one do not want to live in a world where we are nothing more than random chemical processes that poof out like a flame at the end of our chemical half-life. (Pun intended)

But, there is nothing to fear. Even from an evolutionary perspective, the “tribe” is never going to allow such beliefs to gain the upper hand. It just doesn’t work that way.

I am not sure what you mean by that. The athiests managed to gain the upper hand a few times in the last century, including in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, China, and Cambodia. It was not a pretty site.

It’s reasonable to think about the limits of reason.

Also, I hope that IDist’s can think about the difference between evolution and, then, Darwinian evolution. The former is, hopefully, a revelation about the development of life on this planet. The latter is a metaphysical speculation about the meaning of those facts.

Excellent point, we don’t need to respond in kind. Overcome evil with good.

Speaking of this, I note in the article how the Atheists abhor the violent and destructive actions of the Islamo-Fascists, as they should. And since they are sincerely interested in rooting out the evils of religion, I suspect I know just what they are going to do in their evangelical campaign.

Yes indeed, they are going to waste no time in their quest, their first target list will include Riyadh, Mecca, Medina, Tehran, Baghdad, and finally, in the grand finale, it is to the West Bank they go. Oh, the Billy Graham crowd will be green with envy.

And yes, can’t you see it now, Dawkins and Dennet and Harris will walk straight up the steps of a mosque in each location to present their message of salvation and freedom. Nothing less will do than a gloriously grand performance. And the devout will no doubt be astounded by such deep and inspiring message from the three that they will fall to their knees and pledge complete fidelity.

What evidence is there that Dawkins, Dennett, and Harris are even using logic and reason in the first place? Given the available evidence, it is logical to conclude an “uncaused cause” But theirs is a blind faith. Darwinian evolution is a leap of faith, a finite universe (a logical and reasonable universe) without a God is a leap of faith, and truthfully this leads me to believe that these 3 atheists are simply venting frustration that God never answered their prayers when they were young. I can understand being an agnostic, but being an evangelical atheist is an untenable position, and cannot be the outcome of logic and reason given the available evidence.