Richard Dawkins to citizen arrest the Pope

[Solly]

This thread is about Richard Dawkins and his agenda

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rory-fitzgerald/richard-dawkins-should-be_b_541387.html

Tink, here's a response, to the above Huff Post article "Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering up Atheist Crimes?", by Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago. He has also written a book called 'Why Evolution Is True', so his starting position is clear.

I found this an interesting read plus the reader comments that follow his post.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/huffpo-arrest-richard-dawkins/

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Tink, here's a response, to the above Huff Post article "Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering up Atheist Crimes?", by Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago. He has also written a book called 'Why Evolution Is True', so his starting position is clear.

I found this an interesting read plus the reader comments that follow his post.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/huffpo-arrest-richard-dawkins/

As usual Solly mate, an excellent pick up from an interesting article.

A quote from Jerry Coyne.

As recently as 1979, the Cambodian genocide killed 1.7 million people. These were murdered by communist atheists. War crimes tribunals are now being set up in Phnomh Penh. It is perfectly reasonable to be critical of the many bad things done in the name of religion, but I don't see Dawkins loudly decrying the actions of atheists in Cambodia. Why? Because his preference appears to be to emphasise religiously motivated barbarism over the many atheistically motivated wrongs.

Many now see Dawkins as something of a narrow-minded fundamentalist himself, increasingly redolent of a man with no sense of smell going around shrieking to everyone that their sense of smell is a delusion.

Perhaps Dawkins imagines that by promoting his grim personal philosophy as the ultimate truth, and by viciously attacking ancient moral systems upon which Western Civilization is founded, he will bring about some sort of atheist utopia. He seeks to magnify wrongs done by religions, and to breeze over the immense horrors brought about by some atheist belief systems. Yet we have seen what atheist utopias can look like.

The godhaters are just as mad as the godbotherers.

gg

 

[gooner]

As usual Solly mate, an excellent pick up from an interesting article.

A quote from Jerry Coyne.

The godhaters are just as mad as the godbotherers.

gg

"communist atheists"??

No doubt that communism was the driving force for the Cambodian genocide. But not atheism. The communists suppressed the church and trade unionists and any possible opposition to the regime. But this does not make them atheist. Where is the evidence that the Cambodian genocide was in the name of atheism?

 

[Solly]

The godhaters are just as mad as the godbotherers.

gg

gg, very well said.

Also here's another timely tweet from that "Cranky old man" on the front-line from South Melbourne.

http://twitter.com/FatherBob/status/12319665892

 

[Ruby]

Tink, here's a response, to the above Huff Post article "Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering up Atheist Crimes?", by Jerry Coyne from the University of Chicago. He has also written a book called 'Why Evolution Is True', so his starting position is clear.

I found this an interesting read plus the reader comments that follow his post.

http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010/04/17/huffpo-arrest-richard-dawkins/

Thanks Solly. Both of these article should be compulsory reading for Tink, Fishbulb and Atlas........... the first as an example of totally flawed logic, lack of factual information and apalling journalism full of conjecture and bias; and the second to give a sensible, logical, factually correct (claims can be substantiated), non-hysterical view.

People do not have to like Dawkins, or even to agree with him, but that is not a reason to make absurd statements about what he does or doesn't do/think/believe.

 

[Calliope]

It is obvious that this thread was opened with the intention of inciting moral outrage against Dawkins. It starts off;

"This arrogant missing link is now proposing to arrest the Pope."

This putdown has been taken up by by many as an invitation to denigrate all Atheists while at the same time denying any support for the Pope's shortcomings.

Atheists, like GW sceptics, have become a convenient scapegoat for all sorts of people with chips on their shoulders whose favourite sport is to attack dissenters.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Thanks Solly. Both of these article should be compulsory reading for Tink, Fishbulb and Atlas........... the first as an example of totally flawed logic, lack of factual information and apalling journalism full of conjecture and bias; and the second to give a sensible, logical, factually correct (claims can be substantiated), non-hysterical view.

People do not have to like Dawkins, or even to agree with him, but that is not a reason to make absurd statements about what he does or doesn't do/think/believe.

From Fitzgrald's article.

His particular bile is reserved for the Judaeo-Christian traditions. You will not see him spouting off so vociferously about Mohammed. He is too cowardly for that. . .

Atheists don't have the bottle to attack Islam with the same ferocity as they attack Judaism and Christianity. Is it because they hate Western thought, or just pure cowardice?

gg

 

[Tink]

I just dont understand why people all just dont get along

What ever you believe is your choice.

As I said at the start of this, if Dawkins was interested in helping 'Crimes to Humanity' he would be cleaning his own backyard.

End of story.

 

[Ruby]

As I said at the start of this, if Dawkins was interested in helping 'Crimes to Humanity' he would be cleaning his own backyard.

End of story.

this is exactly the sort of comment I was referring to. You are assuming without any supporting evidence that there is something in his own backyard that needs cleaning and that if there is, he is not already attending to it. Assumptions like this add nothing to a debate

 

[Calliope]

Atheists don't have the bottle to attack Islam with the same ferocity as they attack Judaism and Christianity. Is it because they hate Western thought, or just pure cowardice?

gg

Who are you talking about? The vast majority of Atheists have never attacked anybody and certainly not with ferocity.

For your information this majority has never been involved in organised Atheism. You single out a few militant atheists to denigrate the rest, and even quote a ratbag like Fitzgerald. For a little enlightenment you might care to read;

Why should anyone join an "atheist" organization? Simply put -- they don't exist. The very good reason of why most atheists would never dream of joining an atheistic organization is because most atheistic organizations are not atheistic at all, they're shills for ideological commitments other-than-atheism. And when I say other-than-atheism, I of course mean self-described leftist organizations. Humanism, vegetarianism, identity politics, and all sorts of patent nonsense go under the umbrella of atheism, as any jaunt around the net or an appearance at your local atheist organization will show you

.

http://www.positiveatheism.org/crt/versluys1.htm

 

[explod]

I cannot agree with the last two posts, you are correct gg in that commentators against him have distorted the reality of his philosophy and for good reason, religion as a multi trillion industry so they are going to kick and scream at anyone with the audacity to threaten that.

In his book he does not differentiate between religions, Islam, Muslim or the other Christian derivitives. Buddism is regarded differently as that is more based in nature and a spriit within the self; and spirit in this sense not of the heavenly kind though some do believe this.

Dawkins is about getting rid of the crap. ie. there is no evidence that God, Santa or fairies exist. He is a philosopher and does not present/pretend to be as a Pope or guru or leader.

The criticism of Dawkins is unwarranted, he is entitled to his opinion first of all and to state his distinct conclusions backed up by the facts as we know them at this time.

Dawkins is an extremerly well educated, gentle and peaceful man who seeks only the truth.

Religion is based on fairy tales which of course give people a nice fuzzy feeling inside. The Pope not only presides over this but the offenders within his ranks.

 

[Tink]

Dawkins is about getting rid of the crap. ie. there is no evidence that God, Santa or fairies exist. He is a philosopher and does not present/pretend to be as a Pope or guru or leader.

So cant he live in a world with other people and other beliefs?

Thats HIS opinion

 

[Ruby]

I cannot agree with the last two posts, you are correct gg in that commentators against him have distorted the reality of his philosophy and for good reason, religion as a multi trillion industry so they are going to kick and scream at anyone with the audacity to threaten that.

In his book he does not differentiate between religions, Islam, Muslim or the other Christian derivitives. Buddism is regarded differently as that is more based in nature and a spriit within the self; and spirit in this sense not of the heavenly kind though some do believe this.

Dawkins is about getting rid of the crap. ie. there is no evidence that God, Santa or fairies exist. He is a philosopher and does not present/pretend to be as a Pope or guru or leader.

The criticism of Dawkins is unwarranted, he is entitled to his opinion first of all and to state his distinct conclusions backed up by the facts as we know them at this time.

Dawkins is an extremerly well educated, gentle and peaceful man who seeks only the truth.

Religion is based on fairy tales which of course give people a nice fuzzy feeling inside. The Pope not only presides over this but the offenders within his ranks.

Great post Explod!!

 

[explod]

So cant he live in a world with other people and other beliefs?

Thats HIS opinion

A silly question Tink, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, based on each ones individual experience but not to impose them on others if they amount to unprovable crap.

Dawkins imposes nothing he just states the facts. It is apparent that the Pope hides the facts.

 

[Tink]

Everyones entitled to their own beliefs - exactly right.

 

[Calliope]

Explod,

You say you disagree with my post #330 and yet you do not say why you disagree. You also say;

everyone is entitled to their own beliefs, based on each ones individual experience

I have been an Atheist since my secondary school days when the scales fell away from my eyes. That is a long time ago, but since then I have never been involved with any Atheist organisation. All Atheists I know are individualists and none that I know have never tried to impose their views on others.

You give the impression (I could be wrong) that you support militant Atheism. That's not my cup of tea.

 

[spooly74]

Everyones entitled to their own beliefs - exactly right.

Do you believe the Pope to be infallible?

 

[Fishbulb]

I cannot agree with the last two posts, you are correct gg in that commentators against him have distorted the reality of his philosophy and for good reason, religion as a multi trillion industry so they are going to kick and scream at anyone with the audacity to threaten that.

In his book he does not differentiate between religions, Islam, Muslim or the other Christian derivitives. - but he is most vocal where Christianity is concerned. I don't blame him, if he tried that with Islam he'd be in exile like Salman Rushdie was - Buddism is regarded differently as that is more based in nature and a spriit within the self; and spirit in this sense not of the heavenly kind though some do believe this.

Dawkins is about getting rid of the crap. - there you go elevating some dufus higher than he deserves - ie. there is no evidence that God, Santa or fairies exist. He is a philosopher and does not present/pretend to be as a Pope or guru or leader.

The criticism of Dawkins is unwarranted, - bull****, he criticises to his hearts content, he's aware the favour must be returned - he is entitled to his opinion first of all and to state his distinct conclusions backed up by the facts as we know them at this time.

Dawkins is an extremerly well educated, gentle and peaceful man who seeks only the truth. - I'm sure that's what people think the Dalai Llama is like as well. They thought the same about Mother Theresa. Any cult of personality is a dangerous thing.

Religion is based on fairy tales - populist assumption - which of course give people a nice fuzzy feeling inside. The Pope not only presides over this but the offenders within his ranks.

...

 

[Ruby]

Fishbulb.......The fact that religion is based on fairy tales, allegory, myth, partial history.......is not "populist assumption" There is ample evidence for this fact. Religion was made up centuries ago, before we had any scientific explanations for anything, to explain the unexplainable.

there is absolutely no evidence for the truth of any religious dogma.

 

[Frank D]

there is absolutely no evidence for the truth of
any religious dogma.

Fair enough comment if you truly believe that….

However, I’m happy to live by the moral standards set by the ten commandments written in the old testament.

I’m not happy to live by the moral standards told to me by governments

i.e . “Climate change is the greatest moral challenge of our time”