Richard Dawkins' Speech at Protest the Pope March

  • Thread starter Thread starter Abeyta85
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am planning to make a Youtube video responding to him. I am not a Roman Catholic, but he says some really silly things which I don’t think should go unchallenged. I am actually quite surprised that no one else seems to have made a proper response to him already.

I would appreciate any insights anyone can offer me on this. I particularly appreciate the if people could direct me to the following:

(i) Some information regarding Roman Catholic positions on whether Adam was a literal person. Dawkins makes the sweeping statement that Catholics admit that Adam never actually existed. I suspect that there is diversity of opinion within Roman Catholicism on this issue.

(ii) Roman Catholic position on faith and reason (although I am probably going to use Thomas Aquinas for this).

Regards,

Jason
Why bother? Every time I’ve seen a Christian try and argue with an atheist I cringe. I’ve seen it on Youtube and various forums on the internet. It’s just embarrassing and I’ve never yet seen one atheist won over.

I used to try and argue points with atheists myself but eventually gave up. In their eyes, they have scientific proof of evolution and we just have a dusty old book full of fairy tales (that’s how they see it). They see faith as a lack of reason, and thus all religious people are chronically stupid (and, to be honest they have a point because American Christians have embraced anti-intellectualism out of fear that it negates faith, which is untrue because God gave us a capacity to reason). So if you’re really going to argue with an atheist, especially Richard Dawkins, make sure you have something intelligent to say rather than “The Bible says”, because atheists don’t believe in the Bible.
 
First of all, I am not giving my response in order to win Dawkins over. Far better Christians than I have tried and not succeeded so I don’t hold out much hope that I will do any better. However, I respond for the sake of truth and for the third party. God is also glorified when his truth is proclaimed.

Richard Dawkins said some pretty inaccurate things in that speech which should not go unchallenged. To name a few examples, he didn’t take into account a mountain of evidence that demonstrates that Hitler was in fact not a believing Roman Catholic, he misrepresented what the Pope said about condoms in Africa and he implied that Roman Catholics believe in faith without evidence. I am also going to question whether Dawkins has any basis for asserting any moral opinions given his worldview. It is in contradiction to what he has said elsewhere.

So, that’s a little insight into what you can expect in my upcoming response. Dawkins may be an excellent scientist, but when he steps outside his own field he doesn’t have a clue what he is talking about.
 
Which statements did he make that were misjudged or sweeping outside of his area of expertise? What area of expertise does a layperson have?
What reasons do you have for reccomending the book you have?
Richard Dawkins is not “a popular biologist” but a biologist that has credentials one should take seriously.
Popularity has nothing to do with credentials.
Popes have had both popularity and credentials in their areas of expertise.
So, it is not a bad thing to have both. Stop trying to discedit the man without a reason to.
Antony Flew Reviews “The God Delusion”

Antony Flew said:
The God Delusion by the atheist writer Richard Dawkins, is remarkable in the first place for having achieved some sort of record by selling over a million copies. But what is much more remarkable than that economic achievement is that the contents – or rather lack of contents – of this book show Dawkins himself to have become what he and his fellow secularists typically believe to be an impossibility: namely, a secularist bigot. (Helpfully, my copy of The Oxford Dictionary defines a bigot as ‘an obstinate or intolerant adherent of a point of view’).

The fault of Dawkins as an academic (which he still was during the period in which he composed this book although he has since announced his intention to retire) was his scandalous and apparently deliberate refusal to present the doctrine which he appears to think he has refuted in its strongest form. Thus we find in his index five references to Einstein. They are to the mask of Einstein and Einstein on morality; on a personal God; on the purpose of life (the human situation and on how man is here for the sake of other men and above all for those on whose well-being our own happiness depends); and finally on Einstein’s religious views. But (I find it hard to write with restraint about this obscurantist refusal on the part of Dawkins) he makes no mention of Einstein’s most relevant report: namely, that the integrated complexity of the world of physics has led him to believe that there must be a Divine Intelligence behind it. (I myself think it obvious that if this argument is applicable to the world of physics then it must be hugely more powerful if it is applied to the immeasurably more complicated world of biology.)

On page 82 of The God Delusion is a remarkable note. It reads ‘We might be seeing something similar today in the over-publicised tergiversation of the philosopher Antony Flew, who announced in his old age that he had been converted to belief in some sort of deity (triggering a frenzy of eager repetition all around the Internet).’

What is important about this passage is not what Dawkins is saying about Flew but what he is showing here about Dawkins. For if he had had any interest in the truth of the matter of which he was making so much he would surely have brought himself to write me a letter of enquiry. (When I received a torrent of enquiries after an account of my conversion to Deism had been published in the quarterly of the Royal Institute of Philosophy I managed – I believe – eventually to reply to every letter.)

This whole business makes all too clear that Dawkins is not interested in the truth as such but is primarily concerned to discredit an ideological opponent by any available means. That would itself constitute sufficient reason for suspecting that the whole enterprise of The God Delusion was not, as it at least pretended to be, an attempt to discover and spread knowledge of the existence or non-existence of God but rather an attempt – an extremely successful one – to spread the author’s own convictions in this area.

There’s more, of course, if you want to read it for yourself. 🙂
 
Why bother? Every time I’ve seen a Christian try and argue with an atheist I cringe. I’ve seen it on Youtube and various forums on the internet. It’s just embarrassing and I’ve never yet seen one atheist won over.

I used to try and argue points with atheists myself but eventually gave up. In their eyes, they have scientific proof of evolution and we just have a dusty old book full of fairy tales (that’s how they see it). They see faith as a lack of reason, and thus all religious people are chronically stupid (and, to be honest they have a point because American Christians have embraced anti-intellectualism out of fear that it negates faith, which is untrue because God gave us a capacity to reason). So if you’re really going to argue with an atheist, especially Richard Dawkins, make sure you have something intelligent to say rather than “The Bible says”, because atheists don’t believe in the Bible.
The Bible isn’t the problem, it’s their apathy. In a way, the atheist plays a shell game, a valid question or a pertinent observation goes unanswered or doesn’t mean a thing to them. And having a dialogue about God & spiritual matters with an atheist pretty much sums up an oxymoron.
 
Stop trying to discedit the man without a reason to.
Dawkins discredits himself by lying.
That sickening inference that Hitler remained a Catholic shows the depths to which our enemies will stoop.
Same with certain anti-Catholic “Christian” denominations.
 
No one here is addressing this as an apologist would.

I have not seen a single post here that actually is fair or unbiased. No one is addressing his concerns with the school system as it is, and why he wishes to rectify a wrong that has been going on for too long.
Personal attacks against him are not convincing.
He’s demanding the Pope be arrested.

I think most of us would be happy to entertain atheist arguments and criticisms of the church and the Pope. He is entitled to hate the Pope all he wants.

But demanding the arrest of anyone, with absolutely no evidence against them personally, is unhinged. He is just out being a fool and a demagogue. When he talks rationally, he should be engaged rationally. When he rants absurdities, there is no point.
 
He is not the only one to be critical of the book.

I have read about him, and do really question what factors led him to this, and the age he was when he made the swift change to this.

I see conversion stories all over the place.

I just like to examine the stories.
I was using it to show that Dawkins was over-biased, bigotry, illogical and unfamiliar with Philosophy, history, and theology, all of which he feels obligated to dig himself into in spite of his lack of expertise in each, enough for the user you were questioning to be able to rightly address Dawkins’ claims, and correctly observe his lack of truth and caring about truth. It was not about the existence of God or Antony Flew’s conversion, just that.
 
I was using it to show that Dawkins was over-biased, bigotry, illogical and unfamiliar with Philosophy, history, and theology, all of which he feels obligated to dig himself into in spite of his lack of expertise in each, enough for the user you were questioning to be able to rightly address Dawkins’ claims, and correctly observe his lack of truth and caring about truth. It was not about the existence of God or Antony Flew’s conversion, just that.
Again, where did Dawkins stray from logical thought, or showed a contempt for Philosophy, history?
 
Again, where did Dawkins stray from logical thought, or showed a contempt for Philosophy, history?
The God Delusion, this speech, his Website, two of his documentaries, A Devil’s Chaplin, almost every debate he’s participated in, A good number of lectures he has given, a LOT of interviews he’s been in, and his treatment of clergy, just to name a few.
 
The God Delusion, this speech, his Website, two of his documentaries, A Devil’s Chaplin, almost every debate he’s participated in, A good number of lectures he has given, a LOT of interviews he’s been in, and his treatment of clergy, just to name a few.
You have to break this down for me as if I am two years old. Some days I think it could be better to say one year old.

Give me something to chew on. Don’t tell me there was nothing at all in the God Delusion that was true.
Tell me what was not true, and why. Help me out here.
 
Whenever you have the time to answer my question, I am around.
Take your time.
 
It’s a weird situation with the new atheists like Dawkins, StrawberryJam. I don’t think any of us can honestly say that none of what they say is true, but they exaggerate and hyperbolize so much to the point of dishonesty. So while, yes, we should all denounce religious atrocities and blunders and so forth, they hyperbolize them to produce an incredibly childish and manichean view of history.
 
It’s a weird situation with the new atheists like Dawkins, StrawberryJam. I don’t think any of us can honestly say that none of what they say is true, but they exaggerate and hyperbolize so much to the point of dishonesty. So while, yes, we should all denounce religious atrocities and blunders and so forth, they hyperbolize them to produce an incredibly childish and manichean view of history.
I happen to lean to the catholic view, even knowing her blunders.

And, I also sympathize with those who are trying ever so hard to help us understand the cosmos and all the complexity and beauty of it.

I am so very torn apart. Why is it an either /or situation?
 
Again, where did Dawkins stray from logical thought, or showed a contempt for Philosophy, history?
He claimed Hitler was Catholic. Everybody who genuinely studies Hitler will learn he was an antitheist JUST LIKE DAWKINS, only with more power, and wanted religion especially the Church and Christianity as a whole wiped off his “perfect land”. answers.org/apologetics/hitquote.html

His rebuttal to Aquinas’ 4th proof is hilarious:

Richard Dawkins said:
“That’s an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of conceivable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God"

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
He got it wrong, first of all, and then used the worst possible analogy to try to disprove it! If he said evil, or hatred, or another moral vice, it would have some strength as a fallacy. But smelliness? He clearly knows nothing about dualism. Smelliness is a material thing, and since God is immaterial, he doesn’t have maximum material degrees (though of course he can), only those positive in our mind, our soul, such as love, and kindness, and joy. I can give more if you like.
 
I happen to lean to the catholic view, even knowing her blunders.

And, I also sympathize with those who are trying ever so hard to help us understand the cosmos and all the complexity and beauty of it.

I am so very torn apart. Why is it an either /or situation?
Its not. Look at Francis Collins, or Newton, or even Einstein - they have Christian morals, two of them are Christians, and they all have great knowledge of science and are unafraid to look at how God did it.
 
youtube.com/watch?v=q_0kFU7IfPM

This is the full speech by Richard Dawkins at the “Protest The Pope” rally, 18th September 2010.

I guess Mr Dawkins never ceases to amaze me… ( Palm to forehead) :confused:

Just wanted to share this, Thought it was … “Interesting”. 🤷

*If there is a thread already with this video, I apologize and please close thread if so.
I thought Ben Stien exposed Dawkins for the fraud he is in Expelled.

Aliens? Really? God can’t exist but some super being alien created life? Just who is delusional.

youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
 
I thought Ben Stien exposed Dawkins for the fraud he is in Expelled.

Aliens? Really? God can’t exist but some super being alien created life? Just who is delusional.

youtube.com/watch?v=GlZtEjtlirc
Did you post the correct clip or did I miss it at the very end of it? I did not hear that part but admit I ran off at the tail end to get a phone call.
 
I know I have a list somewhere of all the statements Hitler made that indicate he was heavily influenced by theology he learned as a Catholic.

Wasn’t Stalin in Catholic Seminary preparing to be a priest?

Either way, I would not say their actions were due to their beliefs they once held.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top