Richard Dawkins to Atheist Rally: 'Show Contempt' for Faith, the Eucharist

  • Thread starter Thread starter Catholic_Press
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bellasbane said:
So you agree that the Republican lawmakers are anti-religious disciples of the atheist Ayn Rand?

If that is the case, then we have no disagreement.
Click to expand...
Wait what? Paul Ryan’s pretty ignorant of Ayn Rand then.

Ayn Rand hated Reagan for being Pro-Life and injecting his faith into politics… I can’t even imagine the conniption W. or Santorum would cause her.
 
I believe the parties switched identities sometime in the mid 20th century, when Northern Democrats embraced the Civil Rights movement and the Dixiecrats completely abandoned the party. Now the Democratic party is the liberal party of the North and the Republican party is the conservative party of the South.
Click to expand...
Correct, in my opinion, Lincoln would not recognize the current Republican party.

John
 
bellasbane said:
Mitt Romney probably has a higher approval rating than Obama among members of the Ku Klux Klan - should that mean anything to us?
Click to expand...
COnsidering that he’s mormon, I shouldn’t think anyone in the KKK supports him. The KKK isn’t big on organized non-evangelical fundamentalist types.
 
oldcelt said:
Correct, in my opinion, Lincoln would not recognize the current Republican party.

John
Click to expand...
Just like Jefferson wouldn’t recognize the current Democrat party. In fact, he’d be appalled by it.
 
oldcelt said:
Correct, in my opinion, Lincoln would not recognize the current Republican party.

John
Click to expand...
I think you could make that argument on both sides pretty easily.

I lament the fall of the media the most, though. At least we can remember the days when they didn’t openly cheerlead for candidates, like they do now.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
COnsidering that he’s mormon, I shouldn’t think anyone in the KKK supports him. The KKK isn’t big on organized non-evangelical fundamentalist types.
Click to expand...
They don’t like Catholics either, so I guess that just leaves Ron Paul! :eek:
 
Havard said:
I think you could make that argument on both sides pretty easily.

I lament the fall of the media the most, though. At least we can remember the days when they didn’t openly cheerlead for candidates, like they do now.
Click to expand...
I don’t remember those days very much, but I hear it was nice when it was just the three networks and men like Walter Cronkite anchored the news. I think the rise of cable news networks was the big game changer.

On the other hand, newspapers have traditionally been unabashedly partisan.
 
Can we get back to busting on atheists now?

I for one think they are so twisted in their logic. Since they cannot prove that God does NOT exist (logic 101: you can’t prove a negative), they are really just acting on faith. Yet they act as if they know something we are all too stupid to figure out.

Too bad for them really.
 
bellasbane said:
Can we get back to busting on atheists now?

I for one think they are so twisted in their logic. Since they cannot prove that God does NOT exist (logic 101: you can’t prove a negative), they are really just acting on faith. Yet they act as if they know something we are all too stupid to figure out.

Too bad for them really.
Click to expand...
It has been said that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. You have the believe that nothing is absolutely true, a statement which is in itself impossible to prove.
 
Those blasphemous words Dawkins spoke weren`t “invented” by him: is he becoming more and more a mouthpiece for…umm…the fella down below?
Is Dawkins just a talking head…a braying donkey?

Let em go on with with their ranting. If their "Reason" continues to collapse at the current rate, pretty soon their ravings will be so obvious that their only disciples will be the extreme lunatic fringe. At which point, theyll have enough rope to hang themselves.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
It has been said that it takes more faith to be an atheist than it does to be a Christian. You have the believe that nothing is absolutely true, a statement which is in itself impossible to prove.
Click to expand...
Exactly.

Last Sunday, Chris Hayes had a panel of “humanist” atheists on his show. Richard Dawkins was one of them. He was his usual annoying self and attacked the doctrine of Transubstantiation - as if Catholics haven’t heard the “god of dough” argument before. That’s what I find most irritating about him, he acts as if this 16th century argument is something new and “scientific”.

Apart from totally distorting Catholic doctrine in order to prove a point, the other members of the panel seemed to put a lot of stock in how atheists were really about protecting individual human rights. From what I can tell, the whole idea that every human, no matter how poor or weak, should be treated with dignity and respect started with Jesus (Mat 25: 31-46). If we want to use Dawkins own terminology, we would call it “the Jesus meme” since he introduced the concept to the world. Before that if a person wasn’t rich or powerful, nobody cared if he or she lived or died.

The irony is that any atheist who thinks Jesus was just a great humanist teacher has to ignore the fact that he also believed he was the Son of God. The only other options are: a) to admit that he really is the Son of God, or b) admit you are agreeing with the teachings of a mad man.

They all agreed that the “Ayn Rand sort of atheist” was bad though. I found that quite funny.
 
bellasbane said:
My guess it that most Klan members would not vote for Obama!

As for the Dixiecrats, they abandoned the Democratic party a long time ago.

During the 1860 presidential election, the Democratic party was the party of wealthy conservatives and businessmen. The issue of slavery, however, split the party into Northern and Southern factions. Southern Democrats (i.e., Dixiecrats) were pro-slavery & pro-states rights and nominated Beckinridge for president in 1860. Northern Democrats were also pro-states rights, but were opposed to the spread of slavery and nominated Douglas in 1860.

The Republican party was the liberal party of the North that nominated Lincoln in 1860. Massachusetts was so Republican at the time, that southerners called our senators “Black Republicans” - “Black” because men like Charles Sumner had the audacity to advocate that the United States pass laws granting African-Americans human rights.

I believe the parties switched identities sometime in the mid 20th century, when Northern Democrats embraced the Civil Rights movement and the Dixiecrats completely abandoned the party. Now the Democratic party is the liberal party of the North and the Republican party is the conservative party of the South.

Times change, but not that much. If you look at what is happening in the 2012 primaries, you see the same North vs. South split in todays Republican party that characterized the Democratic party in 1860. Santorum is your Beckinridge & Romney is your Douglas. It will be very interesting to see how things turn out in the end.
Click to expand...
I stick by what I said, I think the Klan would dislike it if a Republican president was nominated and wanted abortion restrictions and finally Roe vs wade to be reversed.

That is the argument I think I thought you would use, that the parties switched sides. No, what really happened was the progressive racism that had been a hallmark of the Democrat party took a new subtle form to keep Blacks working on the plantation, working for them, like they used to; free food, free housing, and free medical care not in exchange for cotton but for votes, they did this by telling Blacks that the Republicans were the real racists because Republicans were against shackles like Affirmative Action and entitlement programs which keep people perpetually bound to their Democrat masters.
 
Geist said:
Atheist simply means “anti-Christian” 99% of the time.

When atheists bash jews let me know.

I wouldn’t hold my breath.
Click to expand...
Because, they know that if they openly attack Jews as they do Catholics that the inordinate media exposure they are permitted would instantly dry up, and that their movement would be pushed back into the shadows where it belongs. That is a plainly spoken fact.

Also, if public mockery is the strategic directive from the great Dawkins himself, why weren’t all of his courageous, rabid followers given posters with the projected likeness of Mohammed printed on them, to be held high with all of that supposed defiant rage?

I will say this, Dawkins comes very close to inciting violence against Christians with this diatribe. He nearly crosses that thin line that separates rhetorical agitation from violence. If these “New” Atheists ever take things to that level, the pushback could get quite severe, in my view.
 
Whats the percentage world-wide that actually perscribe to this radical aspect of Dawkins atheism? Isn’t this a small percent of atheism itself?
 
It’s funny how the demonstrations of intolerance and hostility keep getting bigger and bigger from the crowd who denounces religion as the world’s biggest source of hostility and intolerance.

They say they are rallying to push for a totally secular society that reflects THEIR “rational” values. Considering that we live, ostensibly, in a democratic society, wherein the majority rules, and atheists account for less than 2% of the population, why do they expect the mores of society to reflect their worldview? I suppose they want an atheist autocracy. Paging Dr. Stalin.

After all, aren’t atheists the ones always coldly proclaiming that the universe (and, by extension, the world) is indifferent, cruel and unfair and that we should all just get over it? Well, atheists, clearly, from your worldview, evolution has produced a strong majority of religious human beings whose morals and cultures you are going to be subjected to. What? It’s not fair? Show some consistency and get over it.

They claim they’re holding this rally to raise awareness and try to push for changes in public policy, but I honestly don’t believe it. About the only considerably “religious” issue they have to fight for, to my knowledge, is gay marriage. Religion has already been pushed so far in the background of American life. As so many of the remarks made during this rally indicate, they were gathered to raise bile against religious people and congratulate themselves on being so much more intelligent than 98% of their fellow citizens.

The funniest thing about this all is that, through the comments of people like Richard Dawkins, this rally has really cast mainstream American atheism in the same light as the most extreme of American religion. I think mainly of Fred Phelps, whose atheist son spoke at the rally. Well, the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree. It was just a different color than the rest of the apples.
 
prodigalson2011 said:
It’s funny how the demonstrations of intolerance and hostility keep getting bigger and bigger from the crowd who denounces religion as the world’s biggest source of hostility and intolerance.

They say they are rallying to push for a totally secular society that reflects THEIR “rational” values. Considering that we live, ostensibly, in a democratic society, wherein the majority rules, and atheists account for less than 2% of the population, why do they expect the mores of society to reflect their worldview? I suppose they want an atheist autocracy. Paging Dr. Stalin.

After all, aren’t atheists the ones always coldly proclaiming that the universe (and, by extension, the world) is indifferent, cruel and unfair and that we should all just get over it? Well, atheists, clearly, from your worldview, evolution has produced a strong majority of religious human beings whose morals and cultures you are going to be subjected to. Get over it.

They claim they’re holding this rally to raise awareness and try to push for changes in public policy, but I honestly don’t believe it. Religion has already been pushed so far in the background of American life. As so many of the remarks made during this rally indicate, they were gathered to raise bile against religious people and congratulate themselves on being so much more intelligent than 98% of their fellow citizens.

The funniest thing about this all is that, through the comments of people like Richard Dawkins, this rally has really cast mainstream American atheism in the same light as the most extreme of American religion. I think mainly of Fred Phelps, whose atheist son spoke at the rally. Well, the apple didn’t fall too far from the tree. It was just a different color from the rest of the apples.
Click to expand...
Intestesting point of view to consider in this period of social transition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top