Should Dawkins be arrested for covering up atheist crimes

Dr. Loon

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

I'm not sure I've ever read something so ridiculous.

GLaDOS

Piss take? Please tell me it is...

Bottle_of_Smoke

Nope, was hoping for satire but its the usual stalin was an atheist and then some accusations toward dawkins with no grounding in reality. Typical pedo-defending irish twat:pac:

PeakOutput

i couldnt force myself to read it all the author is clearly special

but what i want to know is did he ever get to what crimes dawkins has covered up?

iUseVi

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Piss take? Please tell me it is...

Stupid column title, stupid (Irish) journalist. What a load of tosh.

seanybiker

He should be shot for being a muppet. Its annoying being an athiest and having that twat being like some kind of "spokesperson".

checkyabadself

Hmmm, he says that the Khymer Rouge genocide of 1.7 million people was committed by an organisation with an atheist leader. What a hopeless argument.

Numerous genocidal maniacs have killed people in the name of god.
Pol Pot didn`t proclaim, "you are being killed in the (non)name of.....em...?

Genocide has been comitted in the name of god or under the claim of receiving direct instruction from god. While it is clearly horrendous in all it`s guises, comitting genocide and claiming moral immunity from it, seems a lot worse in my eyes.

Dr. Loon

I actually had some trouble reading on after the Einstein bit. Is that truly the best this guy can do? For me, the minute Nazism or Einstein believing in God come up, I'm finished reading.

Then the obvious question of what exactly has Dawkins covered up? Followed by very tentative linking of atheism to atrocities of the past. It's enough to drive you mental with rage.

Now that I think on it, sorry for posting this. I've probably made some of you angry!

OxfordComma

I couldn't keep reading after the writer dismissed genetics as an "arcane" field, and questioned Dawkins' authority to comment on religious matters because he's a geneticist. Ugh.

iUseVi

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I actually had some trouble reading on after the Einstein bit. Is that truly the best this guy can do? For me, the minute Nazism or Einstein believing in God come up, I'm finished reading.

Then the obvious question of what exactly has Dawkins covered up? Followed by very tentative linking of atheism to atrocities of the past. It's enough to drive you mental with rage.

Now that I think on it, sorry for posting this. I've probably made some of you angry!

100% agree with this post. He made up a shocking title so people would read it, then went on a ridiculous rant that had nothing to do with the title. Who gives two hoots what Einstein said either way? I can't believe any serious person thinks quote mining gives any weight to an argument.

Made me quite angry.

taram

Must have missed the memo where Dawkins is our overlord?

ColmDawson

taram wrote: »

Must have missed the memo where Dawkins is our overlord?

I, for one, welcome...

fitz0

Dr. Loon wrote: »

I actually had some trouble reading on after the Einstein bit. Is that truly the best this guy can do? For me, the minute Nazism or Einstein believing in God come up, I'm finished reading.

Indeed, we should have an equivalent of Godwin's Law applicable to Einstein. If a theist, deist, pantheist, atheist, agnostic, pagan, whatever quotes Einstein in defense of their position on the existence of god(s) then its instantly /thread.

Half-wit reporter wrote:

Today we view the ancient world's attitude to infanticide as barbaric and incomprehensible, but perhaps future generations will look at our attitudes to abortion in the same way - that's not because pro-lifers would have won the argument, simply that (in addition to the effect of the Pill) abortion is killing the atheists of tomorrow."

Ickle Magoo

Dr. Loon wrote: »

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

I'm not sure I've ever read something so ridiculous.

Ha! Ha! Ha! That's hilarious! I've never seen anyone fall into pretty much every anti-theist misconception trap going, in a single article before!

Yeah, Dawkins should be arrested for covering up crimes that are common knowledge...wtf are they even talking about? Even more bizarre than the usual theist clap-trap - and I didn't think that was possible! :pac:

Stercus Accidit

fitz0 wrote: »

Surely Jesus of all people can see through his palms...

Canis Lupus

seanybiker wrote: »

He should be shot for being a muppet. Its annoying being an athiest and having that twat being like some kind of "spokesperson".

Ah no one needs to be shot. Lets not get extremist.

bnt

I wonder if Arianna Huffington has seen this now? The direct link still works, but the piece has been buried. It's not even visible on the Religion page, while this article supporting the arrest of the Pope is.

Benny Lava

That article was pure shite.

Soul Winner

And for those who missed the link at the bottom of the page click here. David Quinn tears Dawkins a new one on the Tubridy Show Oct 09. I think RD is a brilliant scientist but he shoots himself in the foot all the time by boxing above his weight outside his area of expertise. Now to quote Dades: "Swishes cloak and leaves." :pac:

bnt

Soul Winner wrote: »

David Quinn tears Dawkins a new one on the Tubridy Show Oct 09.

Really? I didn't remember seeing that, and it isn't in the transcript to which you linked. I did just read Quinn reduced to claiming the existence of matter - any matter - as evidence for the god he reveres. What does any of that have to do with the topic being discussed here?

This fixation by headline writers with Dawkins is getting old. All he has to do is express support for something, and lazy journalists attach his name and assume he's behind it. He didn't start this idea (arresting the pope), and isn't directly involved. It was the same last year, with the UK version of Camp Quest. They forget that it's only in the last few years since 2001, leading up to and following his retirement from Oxford, that he's allowed himself to speak out on these topics.

drkpower

The sad/funny/ironic thing is that these guys who seemingly hate Dawkins blatantly use his name in the headline as an attention grabbing cash-cow. So they perpetuate his profile just to boost theirs a little. Slimey little f..............s:rolleyes:

strobe

drkpower wrote: »

Slimey little f..............s:rolleyes:

The farmers!? I knew it was them. Even when it was the fuckers, I knew it was them.

Dr. Loon

Some responses linked at Dawkins website;

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5459

MikeC101

Does anyone else feel that the importance that the press, and religious attribute to Dawkins has some similarites to the way the press treat Michael Moore - in that conservatives in the USA seem to think that Moore is a lot more important to the "left" in the USA than he really is?

Similarly, the media and religious commentators seem to think Dawkins is some sort of atheist "pope". (Which does tie in with the "atheism is a religion" mantra)

I personally haven't read anything by him, and the only reason I know so much about him, bar a friends recommendation of the God Delusion, is because of the shock headlines and faux outrage whenever he's involved in anything. I probably will buy some of his books at some point, and ironically a large part of the reason is to see why he inspires so much hatred and outrage in so many people.

Given the response in AH to the "Dawkins to arrest the pope" thread - where posters just ranted about Dawkins based on the title, even after it was pointed out several times that it was completely incorrect, I'm not expecting to find much basis. It seems like a significant portion of the "haters" haven't even read anything by him, and base their opinion on tabloid headlines.

robindch

MikeC101 wrote: »

Similarly, the media and religious commentators seem to think Dawkins is some sort of atheist "pope".

Seems to me that it's simply a question of what they're used to -- all of their religions are top-down, authoritarian, male-dominated, self-selecting, self-aggrandizing, personality-based hierarchies. So it's is understandable that they might think that anybody who objects to their religious hierarchies must be cut from the same cloth.

But more generally, turning him into a hate figure is good, since they can then avoid actually addressing any of his arguments, or having to engage him in an adult way. Name-calling is a lot less intellectually strenuous and does help to keep the fires stoked.

MikeC101 wrote: »

It seems like a significant portion of the "haters" haven't even read anything by him

In general, no, I don't believe that many of his public or private opponents have read anything he's written. It's a bit like creationists and Darwin -- one couldn't help but think that a lot of their ire would evaporate if they ever spent any of their copious amounts of spare time bothering to read something about evolution which was intended to inform rather than incite.

Sam Vimes

MikeC101 wrote: »

It seems like a significant portion of the "haters" haven't even read anything by him, and base their opinion on tabloid headlines.

Indeed. I also find a lot of people point to the fact that he's not a professional philosopher or theologian to say he's "punching above his weight" and just dismiss anything he says about religion. They seem to have the strange idea that you need some kind of training to spot the gaping holes in christian apologia but with arguments like "the universe can't have always existed, therefore something else must have always existed and this thing must not only be a god but the specific god that I believe in" it's really not that hard

ISAW

I havent see anyone yet go through the post from huffington post and quote it and quote counter evidence.

Arcane means "known or understood by very few" this can apply to genetics in the sense that atomic theory particle physics or cosmology can apply. the bit about Einstein is applicable as well: he was a believer who respected religious belief.

all I have seen so far is personal attack on the author and scant actual counter evidence or citation.

Daftendirekt

Soul Winner wrote: »

And for those who missed the link at the bottom of the page click here. David Quinn tears Dawkins a new one on the Tubridy Show Oct 09. I think RD is a brilliant scientist but he shoots himself in the foot all the time by boxing above his weight outside his area of expertise. Now to quote Dades: "Swishes cloak and leaves." :pac:

Did you actually listen to the interview? Quinn's argument was entirely based around an appeal to ignorance, namely 'we don't know how matter came into existence, therefore God.' (Or should that be a non sequitur?)

He also used the amateurish debating tactic of 'the louder I talk the more convincing I am.' If people like Quinn are considered competent theologians, then it's no wonder the entire field is dismissed out of hand by so many atheists.

Incidentally, Tubs did an OK job of interviewing Dawkins this time, especially compared to his later interview on the Late Late Show.

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

Seems to me that it's simply a question of what they're used to -- all of their religions are top-down, authoritarian, male-dominated, self-selecting, self-aggrandizing, personality-based hierarchies. So it's is understandable that they might think that anybody who objects to their religious hierarchies must be cut from the same cloth.

Really? How about Unitarianism? Or Christian anarchists?

But more generally, turning him into a hate figure is good, since they can then avoid actually addressing any of his arguments, or having to engage him in an adult way.

As this thread has done with the Huffington Post author?

[qoute]
Name-calling is a lot less intellectually strenuous and does help to keep the fires stoked.
[/quote]

ditto

In general, no, I don't believe that many of his public or private opponents have read anything he's written.

One cvan move fromn the general to the particular but not vice versa. You cant claim "in general..." and then apply that assuming it is true in this case to the particular case of the Huffington Post author.

By the way i have read him.

It's a bit like creationists and Darwin -- one couldn't help but think that a lot of their ire would evaporate if they ever spent any of their copious amounts of spare time bothering to read something about evolution which was intended to inform rather than incite.

You are wrong in this assertion. There are many scientists and theologians and indeed atheists no doubt who have read Dawkins and don't agree with his position on the God delusion.

King Mob

ISAW wrote: »

I havent see anyone yet go through the post from huffington post and quote it and quote counter evidence.

Arcane means "known or understood by very few" this can apply to genetics in the sense that atomic theory particle physics or cosmology can apply. the bit about Einstein is applicable as well: he was a believer who respected religious belief.

all I have seen so far is personal attack on the author and scant actual counter evidence or citation.

Richard Dawkins isn't the head of an atheist organisation that condoned or endorsed or aided or covered up the crimes of Stalin or Polpot et all.
QED.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

I havent see anyone yet go through the post from huffington post and quote it and quote counter evidence.

Arcane means "known or understood by very few" this can apply to genetics in the sense that atomic theory particle physics or cosmology can apply. the bit about Einstein is applicable as well: he was a believer who respected religious belief.

all I have seen so far is personal attack on the author and scant actual counter evidence or citation.

This is why he says Dawkins should be arrested:

Dawkins is right to be angry about the awful cover up of child abuse in the Catholic Church, but he seems to have a tendency himself to be very selective in the issues he shouts about, and those he remains silent about. In that sense, he can be seen to hush up the many horrendous crimes committed by atheist ideologues in the 20th century.

If not campaigning publicly about something that's common knowledge counts as covering it up and is an arrestable offense then I'm off to turn myself in and I'll pick you up on the way.

As for Einstein:

It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

- Albert Einstein, letter to an atheist (1954), quoted in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas & Banesh Hoffman


The word god is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish. No interpretation no matter how subtle can (for me) change this.
-- Albert Einstein, in a letter responding to philosopher Eric Gutkind, who had sent him a copy of his book Choose Life: The Biblical Call to Revolt; quoted from James Randerson, "Childish Superstition: Einstein's Letter Makes View of Religion Relatively Clear: Scientist's Reply to Sell for up to £8,000, and Stoke Debate over His Beliefs" The Guardian, (13 May 2008)




As if it was relevant