Richard Dawkins Says Harry Potter is Evil

[Maxxthepenguin]

Dawkins + Insane Christians = bff, it seems

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-children.html

The 67-year-old, who recently resigned from his position at Oxford University, says he intends to look at the effects of "bringing children up to believe in spells and wizards".

I'd say he's gone off the deep end, but we all know he jumped a long time ago.

[kuronosan]

Matt & Trey were right all along...

[Alleya]

Sadly, Harry Potter makes more sense than the bible.

[Maxxthepenguin]

Sadly, Harry Potter makes more sense than the bible.

But it's all non-scientific, so we can't tell our kids about either

[ZarakiKujata]

Sadly, Harry Potter makes more sense than the bible.

probably cause it was written by a woman

[Zosi]

That's a really badly-written article, and your post title and summary are worse. Do you just violently hate Dawkins for some reason, or are you trolling out of ignorance? -.-

He's not writing a book about Harry Potter, he even says he hasn't read it. The author of the article apparently asked him whether Harry Potter books might have a harmful effect on children, and his response was basically "Uh, I don't know, I've never read them, but they have an anti-scientific viewpoint, so maybe?". Sounds suspiciously like a "soundbite question" to get a controversial opinion to make the article more interesting than it would be if you just reported the relevant facts.

The book he's writing is just on the effects of scientific thinking versus mythological thinking (think religions and common myths like the Tooth Fairy) in children, which is a perfectly valid topic, and not one that's in alignment with "insane Christians" in any way.

[Elvis]

probably cause it was written by a woman

You're just a woman. A woman with a small brain. It's science.

[Mizango]

Sadly, Harry Potter makes more sense than the bible.

^ This.

They both are about magical wizards but Harry gets the advantage here because he actually kills and fights his myriad of evil creatures.

probably cause it was written by a woman

Couldn't have said it any better.

I still enjoy Dawkins books, I just don't know what the make of this though lol.

[Denchi]

Ugh.

Dawkins is a quack, have fun reading utter, empty shit.

[Alleya]

Ugh.

Dawkins is a quack, have fun reading utter, empty shit.

Because the alternative is so fulfilling and explanatory.

Dawkins' books on evolution are considered extremely valuable.

[heartslaught]

Ummm... do you see the extremely high amount of spin and soundbiteness in this article.

Wow... just wow is this spun FAR RIGHT...

Oh well... can't expect everyone to have a brain.

[ZarakiKujata]

You're just a woman. A woman with a small brain. It's science.

I have a penis.. but Harry Potter is better then the bible because it was written by 1 person it makes a fuckton more sense, the point of Harry Potter is less about the wizardry imo and more about using wizardry to teach morality and growing up, the Bible itself as a fairy tale isnt that bad, I just don't think the few morals it teaches outweigh all the fucking ridiculous/judgmental things in it. Also nobody kills others in the name of Harry Potter.

[Milton]

harry potter is evil. but for being on that same god awful tier of total shit literature as "twilight" and the "animorphs" books rather than because it raises children to be nonscientific thinkers or heathen satanist cultist devil witches.

what i think when i see people defending harry potter but bashing the bible within three posts of the same thread is this: "i prefer bad commercial kiddie-fare ripoff tween fantasy novels to anything that has me attempting to wrap my head around a metaphor."

i'm not a christian or a catholic or what have you. i'm not even religious. i haven't been to church since i was a young enough child that my parents could make me go. but i'm intelligent enough, and where matters of understanding literature are concerned, informed enough, to realize that the bible is not "about magical wizards."

it is my assumption that nobody who thinks that the bible is "about magical wizards," but that harry potter is better, because he fights shit, no less, or that morals are better taught by harry potter has ever read the bible, cover to cover, with its arguably intended metaphorical, figurative, nonliteral, principal-based sub-context in mind, if at all.

i think that some of the posters here would benefit from a couple of once-a-week trips to children's sunday school, where they teach how all those silly fairy-tale stories in that terrible, evil book that i see continually vilified here really, simply just teach love and respect and compassion.

the bible doesn't say "go get a gun and shoot some mother fucking heathens through the head." it's unfortunate that certain groups of people have historically considered it as such, but it's not much worse that these same people apparently give you all your opinions of religion as a whole.

as if not seeing through the aforementioned far-right soundbite spin in the article wasn't bad enough.

[Zosi]

i think that some of the posters here would benefit from a couple of once-a-week trips to children's sunday school, where they teach how all those silly fairy-tale stories in that terrible, evil book that i see continually vilified here really, simply just teach love and respect and compassion.

As someone who went to Sunday School for several years (and whose mother was a Sunday School teacher for longer), I can tell you that the problem is that they aren't presented as "silly fairy-tale stories", they're presented as HISTORICAL FACT that you should believe because it's the WORD OF GOD.

I have no problem with using fiction to teach moral values like love, respect and compassion, but you cross the line when you try to tell the kids that they should believe that the fiction is real. In fact, I think that it undermines the whole teaching process when they reach later life and figure out the truth. If you're going to teach values to kids, base it on a foundation that won't crumble when their youthful ignorance fades.

[Alleya]

the bible doesn't say "go get a gun and shoot some mother fucking heathens through the head."

Really.

Someone hasn't read the story of Joshua and Jericho, or any of the many other similar stories of love and compassion in this purely metaphorical book that commands you to take it literally or suffer damnation.

[Milton]

I have no problem with using fiction to teach moral values like love, respect and compassion, but you cross the line when you try to tell the kids that they should believe that the fiction is real. In fact, I think that it undermines the whole teaching process when they reach later life and figure out the truth. If you're going to teach values to kids, base it on a foundation that won't crumble when their youthful ignorance fades.

i agree with that. obviously not every church is the same, and presenting bible stories as irrefutable historical fact can only be the wrong thing to do. i wasn't taught like that even in sunday school, but my viewpoints towards it nonetheless come more from being taught in school by a respectable prof who held double masters in english and theology.

[Beckwin]

Unsurprising of Max to post and spin this story.

[Toth]

The Bible does contain countless stories of Israelites slaughtering THOUSANDS of innocents who had the audacity to settle on unsettled land. Just saying XD

[Milton]

Really.

Someone hasn't read the story of Joshua and Jericho, or any of the many other similar stories of love and compassion in this purely metaphorical book that commands you to take it literally or suffer damnation.

everything in the bible can be explained, discussed, analyzed etc either positively or negatively. choosing the latter is of course your prerogative. and of course there are differing versions of the bible and of its stories bearing positive and negative connotations and viewpoints to begin with.

in suggesting that you are to "take it literally or suffer damnation" what the bible really means is that you should consider the morals and values that it posits seriously, or get in trouble. this is an excellent example of biblical metaphor: frank, simple, powerful and effective.

[Churchill]

Why is there no answer to Zosi's ownage, or is this like every other topic where as soon as someone destroys whatever pathetic bullshit you were trying to display you disappear for 5 pages and come back with something new.