Diabolical drivel from dawkins?

[tonyrey]

"On 7 October, I recorded a long conversation with Christopher Hitchens in Houston, Texas, for the Christmas edition of New Statesman which I was guest-editing.

He looked frail, and his voice was no longer the familiar Richard Burton boom; but, though his body had clearly been diminished by the brutality of cancer, his mind and spirit had not. Just two months before his death, he was still shining his relentless light on uncomfortable truths, still speaking the unspeakable (“The way I put it is this: if you’re writing about the history of the 1930s and the rise of totalitarianism, you can take out the word ‘fascist’, if you want, for Italy, Portugal, Spain, Czechoslovakia and Austria and replace it with ‘extreme-right Catholic party’”), still leading the charge for human freedom and dignity (“The totalitarian, to me, is the enemy – the one that’s absolute, the one that wants control over the inside of your head, not just your actions and your taxes. And the origins of that are theocratic, obviously.”

independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/richard-dawkins-illness-made-hitchens-a-symbol-of-the-honesty-and-dignity-of-atheism-6278298.html

Didn’t Fascists and Marxists have Catholics imprisoned, tortured and executed?

The beginning of that is the idea that there is a supreme leader, or infallible pope, or a chief rabbi, or whatever, who can ventriloquise the divine and tell us what to do") and still encouraging others to stand up fearlessly for truth and reason (“Stridency is the least you should muster … It’s the shame of your colleagues that they don’t form ranks and say, ‘Listen, we’re going to defend our colleagues from these appalling and obfuscating elements’.”).

Have there been no atheists who were “supreme” leaders?

And in the very way he looked his illness in the eye, he embodied one part of the case against religion. Leave it to the religious to mewl and whimper at the feet of an imaginary deity in their fear of death; leave it to them to spend their lives in denial of its reality. Hitch looked it squarely in the eye: not denying it, not giving in to it, but facing up to it squarely and honestly and with a courage that inspires us all.

Has Dawkins never heard of Archbishop Romero and the other Christian, Buddhist , Hindu, Jewish and Moslem martyrs who in the face of certain death have had the courage to speak out against the exploitation of the poor?

During his illness he added another weapon to his armoury and ours – perhaps the most formidable and powerful weapon of all: his very character became an outstanding and unmistakable symbol of the honesty and dignity of atheism, as well as of the worth and dignity of the human being when not debased by the infantile babblings of religion.

Aren’t the worth and dignity of the human being debased by the infantile babblings of Richard Dawkins with his fanatical and lunatical onslaughts on religion and reduction of persons to sparks in the dark?

Every day of his declining life he demonstrated the falsehood of that most squalid of Christian lies: that there are no atheists in foxholes. Hitch was in a foxhole, and he dealt with it with a courage, an honesty and a dignity that any of us would be, and should be, proud to be able to muster. And in the process, he showed himself to be even more deserving of our admiration, respect, and love.

One of the most squalid of Dawkins’s lies is that Christians believe all atheists are in foxholes and that religious people “mewl and whimper at the feet of an imaginary deity in their fear of death” and “spend their lives in denial of its reality”.

Farewell, great voice. Great voice of reason, of humanity, of humour. Great voice against cant, against hypocrisy, against obscurantism and pretension, against all tyrants including God.

If Dawkins were in power it is not difficult to imagine how tyrannical he would be in his suppression of religion. His identification of atheism with reason, humanity, humour, moral rectitude, honesty and tolerance reveals how irrational, inhuman, intolerant and unscrupulous he would be - following in the footsteps of other atheist dictators who have persecuted and decimated those who dare to question their infallibility. Not for one moment does he ever consider or concede that he may be mistaken. If there is an infallible pontiff for atheism there is little doubt who it is…

He quotes approvingly the words of Christopher Hitchens:

"It’s the shame of your colleagues that they don’t form ranks and say, ‘Listen, we’re going to defend our colleagues from these appalling and obfuscating elements’.

In his mind the battle lines are drawn up and all that remains is to march into war against those who threaten his most cherished assumptions - that atheism is precious and religion is evil (in a meaningless, valueless and purposeless universe?).

 

[triumphguy]

Ironically Dawkin’s atheism is a religion to him. And he’s quite fundamentalist and evangelical about it too.

 

[Pat_Payne]

That last quote you had of his: “against all tyrants including God.” is extremely telling, and makes me want to laugh. He seems to be straddling the great divide – either he belives in God and is merely using athiesm to enforce a sort of moral libertarianism (in such that he’s mad that God doesn’t tend to approve of Dawkins’ rather fascistic views on population control and would rather wish He didn’t exist so that Dawkins could set himself up as a replacement) or he is Don Quixote, tilting madly at windmills and fancying them giants.

This makes me ask all the more: If people like Richard Dawkins don’t believe in God, why do they care if others do, unless it be narcisissism and a desire to reshape the world, and a certain inconvenient (from their point of view) deity (who shall remain glorified ) is standing in their path?

Personally, it does not bother me greatly (outside of grieving the damage to their souls) when someone says “I do not believe in God.” It enrages me when they follow up that statement with “…and you are an idiot and deluded for not doing likewise.”

 

[ASimon]

This makes me ask all the more: If people like Richard Dawkins don’t believe in God, why do they care if others do, unless it be narcisissism and a desire to reshape the world, and a certain inconvenient (from their point of view) deity (who shall remain glorified ) is standing in their path?

Dawkins (and most other activist atheists) believe that the world would be better off if nobody believed in God. So yes, to reshape the world, or to see it reshaped into a world where people did not behave in certain ways based on information they could not possibly know.

 

[philial]

Unfortunately, several of the 20th century’s worse dictators were brought up as catholics:

Adolf Hitler - did the church in germany really do enough to oppose him at the beginning, or did they allow themselves to fall for his anti-communistic rhetoric?

Benito Mussolini - friend of hitler, received a lot of approval for his anti-communism

Francisco Franco - another pal of hitler, received a great deal of support from the spanish church for his anti-socialist agenda.

(in fairness, southern european facism was very different from german facism, and did not persecute the jews much. In italy, jews were rounded up & killed only after the german army took effective control of the country.)

Josef Stalin - the man who wanted to be a priest, but became a mass murderer instead!

I’m not sure whether Mao & Pol Pot has religous convictions or not…

But the truth remains that too often the bishops of a country have been too willing to co-exist with murderous regimes - S America has decades of such examples. Oscar Romero was an exception.

The self-inflicted wounds are always the worse!

 

[JDaniel]

Dawkins (and most other activist atheists) believe that the world would be better off if nobody believed in God. So yes, to reshape the world, or to see it reshaped into a world where people did not behave in certain ways based on information they could not possibly know.

ASimon:

That can’t possibly make sense to you, though. Remove Catholicism and you remove the enormous amount of aide being distributed to the poor and needy. Now, multiply that by maybe another 2/3rds, by the removal of all other Christians, and the suffering of so many would become unbearable to witness. Many Christians won’t contribute to secular causes because they’ve been witness to far too many cases of fraud, at wondrously moral secular hands. They know that little, if any, of their contribution will get to where it is needed - and the needy will still be in need. So, even if induced by a purely altruistic predisposition, the atheist should certainly want to maintain lots of Christians. You know, we even help atheists.

Furthermore, despite the tempestuous outpouring of discord the following might bring, there is no question - in my mind, and in the minds of a great many others - that real tyranny is the result of atheist governors, not theist governors. The atheist has no proper argument in hopes of preventing it - merely an excessively short litany of appeals to some sort of emotion-based mollification. (Let’s look around and see how that works out!)

Dawkins would sit in the Coliseum, raise his fist, and turn thumbs down, every time.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

That last quote you had of his: “against all tyrants including God.” is extremely telling, and makes me want to laugh. He seems to be straddling the great divide – either he belives in God and is merely using athiesm to enforce a sort of moral libertarianism (in such that he’s mad that God doesn’t tend to approve of Dawkins’ rather fascistic views on population control and would rather wish He didn’t exist so that Dawkins could set himself up as a replacement) or he is Don Quixote, tilting madly at windmills and fancying them giants.

This makes me ask all the more: If people like Richard Dawkins don’t believe in God, why do they care if others do, unless it be narcisissism and a desire to reshape the world, and a certain inconvenient (from their point of view) deity (who shall remain glorified ) is standing in their path?

Personally, it does not bother me greatly (outside of grieving the damage to their souls) when someone says “I do not believe in God.” It enrages me when they follow up that statement with “…and you are an idiot and deluded for not doing likewise.”

He certainly abuses his academic status as a scientist to paint a distorted picture of religious education as “child abuse”. That is why I regard him as unscrupulous… Thank God not all atheists descend to that level!

 

[JDaniel]

Unfortunately, several of the 20th century’s worse dictators were brought up as catholics:

Philial:

Are you sure you didn’t mean, “born Catholics?” Just take Hitler, shortly after his birth, much of Europe had already undergone a radical transformation away from Christianity, and was steadily moving in the direction of modernism, especially Germany. It can barely be said that Hitler was “raised” Catholic.

Adolf Hitler - did the church in germany really do enough to oppose him at the beginning, or did they allow themselves to fall for his anti-communistic rhetoric?

Two problems: first, how Hitler began and what he originally did made what he did later inconceivable to the rest of the world. Second, once the rest of the world caught on to what he was doing, it was, in a real sense, in shock and fear. The Vatican, surrounded by Mussolini, and with Hitler just up the road, and Franco, right around the corner, operated with great courage, despite the potential for obliteration.

Benito Mussolini - friend of hitler, received a lot of approval for his anti-communism

Well, I wouldn’t necessarily call them “pals.”

Francisco Franco - another pal of hitler, received a great deal of support from the spanish church for his anti-socialist agenda.

And, Francisco Franco, el caudillo de Espana pro la gracia de dios, another cautious neighbor of Hitler’s, might not be counted on.

Josef Stalin - the man who wanted to be a priest, but became a mass murderer instead!

So, he just instantly turned from wanting to be a Priest to wanting to be a “mass murderer?”

I’m not sure whether Mao & Pol Pot has religous convictions or not…

Not too much, and certainly not Christianity.

But the truth remains that too often the bishops of a country have been too willing to co-exist with murderous regimes - S America has decades of such examples. Oscar Romero was an exception.

Do you think “fear” might have played some part in a few of them? Do you think the problem of communication might have played a part in the few that occurred? Do you give any accolades to the Priests, Bishops, and Popes who helped the victims of those regimes? Or, should they have pre-known and become hit-men, preventing those regimes?

The self-inflicted wounds are always the worse!

Yes they are.

God bless,
jd

 

[tonyrey]

Dawkins (and most other activist atheists) believe that the world would be better off if nobody believed in God. So yes, to reshape the world, or to see it reshaped into a world where people did not behave in certain ways based on information they could not possibly know.

Dawkins and his fellow atheists prefer to see the world reshaped according to their view that they alone decide what is good or evil, right or wrong, just or just. Having conveniently dispensed with God they become self-invested plenipotentiaries%between% whose assumptions are based on a preconceived conclusion for which they have no evidence whatsoever!

 

[ASimon]

ASimon:

That can’t possibly make sense to you, though. Remove Catholicism and you remove the enormous amount of aide being distributed to the poor and needy. Now, multiply that by maybe another 2/3rds, by the removal of all other Christians, and the suffering of so many would become unbearable to witness. Many Christians won’t contribute to secular causes because they’ve been witness to far too many cases of fraud, at wondrously moral secular hands. They know that little, if any, of their contribution will get to where it is needed - and the needy will still be in need. So, even if induced by a purely altruistic predisposition, the atheist should certainly want to maintain lots of Christians. You know, we even help atheists.

I simply reject the notion that atheists and secularists don’t or wouldn’t or couldn’t put their shoulders to the wheel for the sake of helping those less fortunate. I’m not in the least bit denying the all-to-human propensity to be selfish and solipsistic. But I am saying that, ultimately, it would become in our collective self-interest to help others. And there is no categorical defect in atheists or secularist that makes them fail to recognize this.

 

[dandingo]

I simply reject the notion that atheists and secularists don’t or wouldn’t or couldn’t put their shoulders to the wheel for the sake of helping those less fortunate. I’m not in the least bit denying the all-to-human propensity to be selfish and solipsistic. But I am saying that, ultimately, it would become in our collective self-interest to help others. And there is no categorical defect in atheists or secularist that makes them fail to recognize this.

No one’s saying that atheists and secularists don’t help but they definitely do not help on the level that Christians do. The Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world. Without them, millions and millions of people would die.

It absolutely would be in your self-interest to help others. The problem is, atheists and secularists aren’t doing it nearly on the level that Christians are. And if they are, it is mainly through forced taxation of the more rich in order to distribute to the less rich. Not because of volunteerism or charity. And you, as well as all other militant atheists, want to completely abolish religion and all of the good it does.

 

[JDaniel]

I simply reject the notion that atheists and secularists don’t or wouldn’t or couldn’t put their shoulders to the wheel for the sake of helping those less fortunate. I’m not in the least bit denying the all-to-human propensity to be selfish and solipsistic. But I am saying that, ultimately, it would become in our collective self-interest to help others. And there is no categorical defect in atheists or secularist that makes them fail to recognize this.

Perhaps you should peruse the internet. There’s one after another, after another, not Catholic, not Protestant, not Jewish.

As a Christian Catholic, I would be hard pressed to contribute to a secular charity. I would want all kinds of preventatives in place before I did. And, until a few years ago, I did not realize how wide-spread this sentiment was. It’s hard to imagine a Christian and a secularist seeing eye-to-eye on these matters, despite your hopes.

Even our little Catholic Parish, of merely 6,600, is governed by the County and State (we are a charitable distribution center), in order that someone does not come to us twice (in one time period, such as a month) for food. What we contribute to our own food cupboard, we are disobliged from that control. When someone comes in need, unless they are known to us to be fraudulently receiving too much, we give. But, for all others, we are able to buy at much lower than market prices, for distribution. We feed lots of needy people. And that’s the only reason why we are in bed with the government on this.

And this does not take into account money donations to help the poor, not just here, but also, in other countries.

Even if such a collaboration could take place, until the two sides could work everything out, there would be terrible suffering.

You say that “there is no categorical defect in atheists or secularist that makes” . . . this so. But, I do. Why, because I was an atheist secularist. None of my atheist secularist associates exhibited any impetus to help the poor. Sorry. That was from everything that I saw (and “I’ve been around for a while, you know”). I wonder how many other’s would corroborate this right here in this forum?

God bless,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

No one’s saying that atheists and secularists don’t help but they definitely do not help on the level that Christians do. The Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world. Without them, millions and millions of people would die.

It absolutely would be in your self-interest to help others. The problem is, atheists and secularists aren’t doing it nearly on the level that Christians are. And if they are, it is mainly through forced taxation of the more rich in order to distribute to the less rich. Not because of volunteerism or charity. And you, as well as all other militant atheists, want to completely abolish religion and all of the good it does.

Dandingo:

Can you just imagine that Utopia?

God bless,
jd

 

[ASimon]

No one’s saying that atheists and secularists don’t help but they definitely do not help on the level that Christians do. The Catholic Church is the largest charity in the world. Without them, millions and millions of people would die.

It absolutely would be in your self-interest to help others. The problem is, atheists and secularists aren’t doing it nearly on the level that Christians are. And if they are, it is mainly through forced taxation of the more rich in order to distribute to the less rich. Not because of volunteerism or charity. And you, as well as all other militant atheists, want to completely abolish religion and all of the good it does.

See, in one breath, I’m being told just how outnumbered atheists and secularists are compared to religious people, and in the next being told their charitable efforts don’t match up to those of Christians. As though they ever could. Though, I wonder whether the billions of dollars contributed by Bill Gates and Warren Buffett count for anything.

 

[ASimon]

You say that “there is no categorical defect in atheists or secularist that makes” . . . this so. But, I do. Why, because I was an atheist secularist. None of my atheist secularist associates exhibited any impetus to help the poor. Sorry. That was from everything that I saw (and “I’ve been around for a while, you know”). I wonder how many other’s would corroborate this right here in this forum?

That you and your atheist secularist friends weren’t inclined to be charitable does not make it a categorical defect. It just made you and your atheist/secularist associates kinda lazy. Atheists don’t have the market cornered on lazy any more than Christians have it cornered on charity.

 

[JDaniel]

That you and your atheist secularist friends weren’t inclined to be charitable does not make it a categorical defect. It just made you and your atheist/secularist associates kinda lazy. Atheists don’t have the market cornered on lazy any more than Christians have it cornered on charity.

ASimon:

And, I’d make the categorical assertion that you are very wrong. I remember the pre-emptive statement one of the group used to brag about making to people who might come to him for a charitable donation. It became a localism.

Below are some websites that don’t support your claims:

conservapedia.com/Atheism_and_charity

atheistethicist.blogspot.com/2010/01/atheist-charity.html

By the way, we weren’t “lazy,” we were downright “selfish.”

God bless,
jd

 

[MindOverMatter2]

When it comes to philosophy Richard dawkins is a joke. Everything he says is biased and uncritical in regards to the evils of humanity as a whole. He always speaks of evil as if it is something that is inevitably and historically born out of the Church while the innocent atheists are trampled underfoot. He fails to distinguish between those who actually follow Church teaching and those who are only catholic by name. But he is not concerned with that so much as he is concerned with making the Church as a faith look evil.

His brain is too close to his anus.

 

[JackVk]

His brain is too close to his anus.

Now, now, them’s fightin’ words. Let’s not sin against charity. Sure, Dawkins has a lot of intellectually hollow opinions and is really rude about it. But haters gonna hate, and Christians are supposed to be lovers. If we start calling Dawkins and his ilk names too, are we so different?

 

[MindOverMatter2]

Now, now, them’s fightin’ words. Let’s not sin against charity. Sure, Dawkins has a lot of intellectually hollow opinions and is really rude about it. But haters gonna hate, and Christians are supposed to be lovers. If we start calling Dawkins and his ilk names too, are we so different?

I am actually not that much different. I can be very hypocritical when I want to be. I never said I was a good Christian.

 

[JackVk]

I am actually not that much different. I can be very hypocritical when I want to be. I never said I was a good Christian.

Not a good Christian? Welcome to the Church. We’re all a bunch of recovering murderers, adulterers, shysters, devil woshippers, blasphemers, and thieves. What makes us different is that we are all willing to admit it and be fixed.

Pax