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

[unafraid]

Where was the ‘reason’ in this rally? Dawkins is hate mongering. Tim Minchin, ‘comedian’ went on a stage for over 20 minutes making derogatory comments about the Pope, and swore over 75 times, even though there were children around.

Although I have never heard of “comedian” Tim Minchin, this new phenomenon of radical, venal atheistic bombast being deceptively shielded behind the facade of “comedy” is very disturbing, and illustrates how sophisticated the counter-cultural fanatics have become. Suddenly, hatred has been turned into a “schtick”, or “routine”.

I recall Joy Behar once defending the always noxious Bill Maher by disarmingly stating, “well, you know, that’s just his act”. It is a subterfuge by which rabble-rousers are permitted to spew the most hateful, hostile, anti-religious rhetoric imaginable with impunity. The hatred is palpable, however the humor escapes me. Hatred is now somehow funny? Not to me.

 

[bellasbane]

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 not the impression I get when I visit the KKK website (kkk.bz/). I did a search for “abortion” and one of the things that popped up was this page with a link to a Ron Paul video about his pro-life position: kkk.bz/?p=2072

Does that mean Ron Paul is a supporter of the KKK? Certainly NOT! What it means is that the KKK finds Ron Paul to be a pretty good spokesman for their position on abortion, which diametrically contradicts the assertion you make in your post.

The KKK also has a lot of other Christian “messaging” on their website. The front page is currently running these headlines:

Hurry and Register Today for the 2012 National Faith and Freedom Conference
2012 White Christian Youth Conference

The National Faith and Freedom Conference is generally regarded as a Republican White-Evangelical event: Faith And Freedom Conference: How Will Religion Affect Evangelical Votes?

Do you agree with that? Is the KKK promoting a Republican White-Evangelical event?

The bottom line is that the KKK represents a distorted view of reality and is part of the Republican “big tent” in the same way as humanist-atheists represent a distorted view of reality and are part of the Democratic “big tent”.

If you are going to caricatured one party based on it’s fringe group, then it is hypocrisy not to caricature the other party in the same way. It is the quintessential example of what Jesus meant when he said:

“How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,’ when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye.” - Luke 6:42

I would prefer that people stop using this forum as a tool for making unsubstantiated right-wing attacks on the Democratic party - most of which prove to be false. Such carelessness with the truth is a form of deception, which is a mortal sin and tool of Satan. There are plenty of real and substantial differences in how the two parties would lead this nation that we could talk about.

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.

You may not realize how racist it is to suggest that African-Americans represent a voting block that is too stupid to understand what is really going on. Have you considered instead that the Republican party’s problem is that it fails to articulate a reality that corresponds to what African-Americans experience on a day to day basis? I think your argument is extremely insulting to the super-majority of African-Americans who work hard, believe in social justice, and vote Democratic.

If you want to know why an entire group of people reject the Republican party - maybe you should take a hard look at what the GOP is doing that turns them off.

 

[bellasbane]

Although I have never heard of “comedian” Tim Minchin, this new phenomenon of radical, venal atheistic bombast being deceptively shielded behind the facade of “comedy” is very disturbing, and illustrates how sophisticated the counter-cultural fanatics have become. Suddenly, hatred has been turned into a “schtick”, or “routine”.

I recall Joy Behar once defending the always noxious Bill Maher by disarmingly stating, “well, you know, that’s just his act”. It is a subterfuge by which rabble-rousers are permitted to spew the most hateful, hostile, anti-religious rhetoric imaginable with impunity. The hatred is palpable, however the humor escapes me. Hatred is now somehow funny? Not to me.

If anything, they learned it from the master - Rush Limbaugh, who has been spewing hateful, hostile rhetoric over the public airwaves with impunity for three decades. Bill Maher might seem as bad from a right-wing perspective, but at least he works for HBO and is not in the public forum.

 

[Persuader]

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.

There is no logical rule saying you cannot prove a negative. That’s a myth. If you can demonstrate a contradiction, you can disprove the concept defined. This is called a logical contradiction, and is generally what is attempted in deductive arguments from evil. Those arguments stand in contrast to the inductive versions, which are probabilistic and can merely make it unlikely that certain God-concepts exist.

In any case, you don’t need to disprove something in order to disbelieve it. Normally, you require reasons or evidence for believing something is the case, and barring good reasons or evidence, you don’t believe it’s the case. Atheists may simply be people that don’t think adequate reasons have been provided. Nothing needs to be taken on faith in this scenario.

So atheism is not twisted in a logical sense. And interestingly enough, atheism is very popular among logicians and philosophers. Here is a survey of faculty in top universities in the West:

Faculty in philosophy:
Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.5%)

Faculty in logic:
Accept or lean toward: atheism 67 / 92 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 16 / 92 (17.3%)
Other 9 / 92 (9.7%)

Here’s the list of universities surveyed: philpapers.org/surveys/depts.html

 

[_Abyssinia]

That is not the impression I get when I visit the KKK website (kkk.bz/). I did a search for “abortion” and one of the things that popped up was this page with a link to a Ron Paul video about his pro-life position: kkk.bz/?p=2072

Does that mean Ron Paul is a supporter of the KKK? Certainly NOT! What it means is that the KKK finds Ron Paul to be a pretty good spokesman for their position on abortion, which diametrically contradicts the assertion you make in your post.

The KKK also has a lot of other Christian “messaging” on their website. The front page is currently running these headlines:

Hurry and Register Today for the 2012 National Faith and Freedom Conference
2012 White Christian Youth Conference

The National Faith and Freedom Conference is generally regarded as a Republican White-Evangelical event: Faith And Freedom Conference: How Will Religion Affect Evangelical Votes?

Do you agree with that? Is the KKK promoting a Republican White-Evangelical event?

The bottom line is that the KKK represents a distorted view of reality and is part of the Republican “big tent” in the same way as humanist-atheists represent a distorted view of reality and are part of the Democratic “big tent”.

If you are going to caricatured one party based on it’s fringe group, then it is hypocrisy not to caricature the other party in the same way. It is the quintessential example of what Jesus meant when he said:

“How can you say to your brother, ‘Brother, let me remove that splinter in your eye,’ when you do not even notice the wooden beam in your own eye? You hypocrite! Remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter in your brother’s eye.” - Luke 6:42

I would prefer that people stop using this forum as a tool for making unsubstantiated right-wing attacks on the Democratic party - most of which prove to be false. Such carelessness with the truth is a form of deception, which is a mortal sin and tool of Satan. There are plenty of real and substantial differences in how the two parties would lead this nation that we could talk about.

The KKK may be a fringe group to all American political parties, I am sure they just want to influence whoever they can, regardless of party, but KKK were intrinsic in the Democrat party, they were never in the Republican party, that is the difference. The 1924 Democrat National Convention was called ‘The klanbake.’

Right to this day, the Democrat party refuses to acknowledge its racist history on its website.

You may not realize how racist it is to suggest that African-Americans represent a voting block that is too stupid to understand what is really going on. Have you considered instead that the Republican party’s problem is that it fails to articulate a reality that corresponds to what African-Americans experience on a day to day basis? I think your argument is extremely insulting to the super-majority of African-Americans who work hard, believe in social justice, and vote Democratic.

If you want to know why an entire group of people reject the Republican party - maybe you should take a hard look at what the GOP is doing that turns them off.

How can I be racist against people my own color? Many former Democrat Blacks have said the same thing as me. I know what is going in the Black community, I can say what I want regarding how I think voting is working. Trying to shut the argument down by claims of racism, reminds me of when someone claim somebody is homophobic just because they are against gay ‘marriage.’

 

[unafraid]

There is no logical rule saying you cannot prove a negative. That’s a myth. If you can demonstrate a contradiction, you can disprove the concept defined. This is called a logical contradiction, and is generally what is attempted in deductive arguments from evil. Those arguments stand in contrast to the inductive versions, which are probabilistic and can merely make it unlikely that certain God-concepts exist.

In any case, you don’t need to disprove something in order to disbelieve it. Normally, you require reasons or evidence for believing something is the case, and barring good reasons or evidence, you don’t believe it’s the case. Atheists may simply be people that don’t think adequate reasons have been provided. Nothing needs to be taken on faith in this scenario.

So atheism is not twisted in a logical sense. And interestingly enough, atheism is very popular among logicians and philosophers. Here is a survey of faculty in top universities in the West:

Faculty in philosophy:
Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.5%)

Faculty in logic:
Accept or lean toward: atheism 67 / 92 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 16 / 92 (17.3%)
Other 9 / 92 (9.7%)

Here’s the list of universities surveyed: philpapers.org/surveys/depts.html

Intellectuals have alway been contrarians. Poll them on a variety of topics and they will more than often lean counter to the majority view. It is a way in which they can set themselves apart (above) from the common (inferior). Their sense of superior intellect demands this. It belies an underlying arrogance. Demigods lack humility. It is an extreme weakness.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Intellectuals have alway been contrarians. Poll them on a variety of topics and they will more than often lean counter to the majority view. It is a way in which they can set themselves apart (above) from the common (inferior). Their sense of superior intellect demands this. It belies an underlying arrogance. Demigods lack humility. It is an extreme weakness.

"Now to you who believe, this stone is precious. But to those who do not believe, "The stone the builders rejected has become the capstone, and, “A stone that causes men to stumble and a rock that makes them fall.” They stumble because they disobey the message–which is also what they were destined for. But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people belonging to God, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out of darkness into his wonderful light.

 

[buffalo]

When your arguments run dry you can always resort to mocking. That is where the New Atheists are. Sad…

 

[ringil]

Heck, most angry Christians annoy me.

I’m with you. I can’t stand Bill Mahar or screaming Evangelicals.

 

[ringil]

Intellectuals have alway been contrarians. .

What the heck is an intellectual? I mean the Holy Father is a pretty bright cookie as are most of our bishops. Heck, every Priest has a graduate education which puts them in a small minority of the US population, at least.

I’d call myself an intellectual if I was a little quicker on the draw, but alas. . . .

 

[MacBP]

Back to the rally in question…

If anything, this is a loss on behalf of Atheism. They’ve lost a golden opportunity to foster a real sense of community and fellowship. Now, I suppose their hatred of theists might serve to unite them, but it is hardly something with which to build a long term community. The reason rally could have been about working together to better humanity, an appreciation of the liberal arts, or any number of common interests. The reason rally could have helped Atheists network, to develop long term connections and places to share their beliefs in fellowship. In other words, instead of attempting to create a community for themselves they blindly attack the communities of others. Unfortunately (and given the name this was not at all surprising), all the reason rally seems to have done is paint their movement as a bunch of screaming, intolerant radicals.

My Atheist friend once told me that, by definition, all Atheism is tolerant. In their brief existence as a notable movement they worked really hard to catch up to Theism in the intolerance category. This rally shows that Atheists can (and by the numbers present often are) as intolerant as they straw men they erect.

How should we as Theists react? I’d say this highlights the need to build interfaith ties and conduct interfaith dialogue. Moderates of every ideology need to be united in their condemnation of intolerance and bigotry, no matter the source. Other than that we can really do nothing but attempt to live a Christ-like life. I remain confident that if we even begin to fulfill our baptismal promises humanity as a whole will see what Catholicisim, Christianity and religion as a whole can offer to our collective human existence.

 

[Tenofovir]

Simple. It isn’t. Ridicule and mocking are what children do when they know that they’re wrong.

Ridicule and mocking are externalisations of hate. The rally is not only against reason, since it encourages conformity and group think, but also propagates hate and discrimination towards people of faith. Dawkins is a bigot, he needs to be denounced over that and he needs to apologise. The world does not need hate. It is fine to disagree and not believe in God or whatever, it is not fine to mock those who do. Atheists, at least those who support this sort of thing, are supporting bigotry. Maybe we can have some atheists stand up and denounce Dawkins and his fans?

(Personal note: I’ve never disliked atheists. I always had atheist friends. I had no problems with them. I never forced my views on them. I did not mind when they disagreed with me or the Church. It was something between them and God. However, internet atheists and people who run these almost-Nuremberg like rallies are making me dislike atheists. I am sure that most educated and reasonable people will respond in a similar way. Reasonable, intelligent and tolerant atheists should denounce these rallies and such bigotry.)

 

[qui_est_ce]

**Are you suggesting that Obama, who cites his Christian values as the motivation behind his public policies is an atheist? **

Not at all. I found it an interesting dichotomy. I do believe Christian values are scientific and reasonable, especially Catholic ones.

 

[bellasbane]

The KKK may be a fringe group to all American political parties, I am sure they just want to influence whoever they can, regardless of party, but KKK were intrinsic in the Democrat party, they were never in the Republican party, that is the difference. The 1924 Democrat National Convention was called ‘The klanbake.’

Right to this day, the Democrat party refuses to acknowledge its racist history on its website.

1924 is a long time ago. I don’t think you can simultaneously accuse the Democratic party of being the party of atheists, liberals, gays, ethnic minorities AND white supremacists. All of the evidence I provided leads me to conclude that today’s KKK has more in common with the current GOP than it does with today’s Democratic party.

How can I be racist against people my own color? Many former Democrat Blacks have said the same thing as me. I know what is going in the Black community, I can say what I want regarding how I think voting is working. Trying to shut the argument down by claims of racism, reminds me of when someone claim somebody is homophobic just because they are against gay ‘marriage.’

It doesn’t matter to me what your skin color might be or what group you identify with - if you are going to use an artificial construct like “race” to generalize and make assumptions about people you do not even know - then your comments are by definition racist.

By all means, lets continue the discussion…

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.

Here is why I don’t believe your scenario: Roughly 80% African-Americans vote Democratic, but only 24% of African-American households are on some form of government assistance. So what’s going on with the other 56%? They are not getting free food, free housing, and free medical care. A similar pattern can be found among Hispanic households. How do you account for that?

I don’t think ethnic minorities vote Democratic because they want handouts. I think they do it because they are repulsed by the hateful rhetoric of the right. Having observed quite a bit of that first hand during this GOP primary, I really can’t blame them.

 

[bellasbane]

There is no logical rule saying you cannot prove a negative. That’s a myth. If you can demonstrate a contradiction, you can disprove the concept defined. This is called a logical contradiction, and is generally what is attempted in deductive arguments from evil. Those arguments stand in contrast to the inductive versions, which are probabilistic and can merely make it unlikely that certain God-concepts exist.

In any case, you don’t need to disprove something in order to disbelieve it. Normally, you require reasons or evidence for believing something is the case, and barring good reasons or evidence, you don’t believe it’s the case. Atheists may simply be people that don’t think adequate reasons have been provided. Nothing needs to be taken on faith in this scenario.

So atheism is not twisted in a logical sense. And interestingly enough, atheism is very popular among logicians and philosophers. Here is a survey of faculty in top universities in the West:

Faculty in philosophy:
Accept or lean toward: atheism 678 / 931 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 136 / 931 (14.6%)
Other 117 / 931 (12.5%)

Faculty in logic:
Accept or lean toward: atheism 67 / 92 (72.8%)
Accept or lean toward: theism 16 / 92 (17.3%)
Other 9 / 92 (9.7%)

Here’s the list of universities surveyed: philpapers.org/surveys/depts.html

That is very interesting. Thank you for laying it out so nicely.

I can appreciate that it is possible to disprove a god that one is able to define. That is exactly what the early Christians did to the pagan gods. It is what Richard Dawkins does with the “god” he makes up and claims to be God - which is fine except for the fact that it is not God. At best it is only a cognitive model of God. Something that bears as little resemblance to the real God as a globe does to the real earth.

I would think that intelligent people would appreciate this distinction, but it seems they are so caught up in disproving their various models that they can’t appreciate a transcendent reality. Perhaps they should take a course in Quantum Mechanics. Maybe then they will learn to appreciate that we live in a world where reality is uncertainty.

Cheers!

 

[unafraid]

What the heck is an intellectual? I mean the Holy Father is a pretty bright cookie as are most of our bishops. Heck, every Priest has a graduate education which puts them in a small minority of the US population, at least.

I’d call myself an intellectual if I was a little quicker on the draw, but alas. . . .

Historian Paul Johnson, upon reflecting on the trials and tribulations of the 20th Century, stated: “Beware intellectuals. Not merely should they be kept well away from the levers of power, they should also be objects of suspicion when they seek to offer collective advice”.

Journalist Tom Wolfe offered this, regarding intellectuals: “An intellectual is a person knowledgable in one field who speaks out only in others”.

 

[ishii]

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.

Keep going, Bellasbane -and what is the “slavery” issue in this analogy of yours?
Federal funding of school lunches? Compelling catholic organizations to provide abortificients as coverage? “universal” health care?

Ishii

 

[anEvilAtheist]

If there is no Santa Claus, then why try to convince others that he doesn’t exist. If there is no Easter Rabbit, then why try to convince others that it doesn’t exist. If there is no tooth fairy, why try to convince others that she doesn’t exist. Same with leprechauns and the monsters that live under kids’ beds. And, if there is no God, why bother trying to convince others not to pay attention to that superstition?

As to your last, noted, and who cares?

Maybe I would care more about whether people believed in leprechauns if those who believed in leprechauns were a very significant percentage of the population and were, because of their belief in leprechauns, pushing for legislation that would prevent people from marrying the person they loved. I might also care more about whether someone believed in leprechauns if studies showed that leprechaun believers trusted me about as much as a rapist solely because I did not believe in leprechauns.

Atheist simply means “anti-Christian” 99% of the time.

When atheists bash jews let me know.

I wouldn’t hold my breath.

People tend to invest more time on false beliefs that are causing harm. That’s why atheists don’t spend much time focused on leprechauns. If the majority of people in the US were Jews and were writing laws that harmed atheists, atheists would probably care a lot more.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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.

I have no problem with agreeing with some of the teachings of a madman. If, as some have supposed, John Brown was insane, I would still have no problem strongly agreeing with his teaching that slavery is wrong.

 

[anEvilAtheist]

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.

People have said many things over the years, much of it wrong. I think this statement is one such example. This is clearly false by the Hebrews 11 definition of faith. Under what definition of faith do you think this is true? By the way, despite being an atheist, I believe it is absolutely true that 1+1=2.