Should Dawkins be arrested for covering up atheist crimes

Pittens

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.

The name of em? the name of communism, surely. Supported by most communists in the West at the time, educated at the Sorbonne, getting his ideas from Althusser et al. Clearly he was acting in the name of a materialist philosophy, clearly atheist, and clearly a product of the Enlightenment. Marxism is still taught in Universities.

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.

That bit is true. So the argument is silly.

However the offshoots of the enlightenment has killed more people than religion.

Dades

ISAW, nobody has gone through them here as it wasn't anticipated someone would find merit in that drivel. It's the old atheist regime argument rehashed.

If you think any of his points have merit, by all means quote them here.

Pittens

If you think any of his points have merit, by all means quote them here.

While have you decided amongst yourselves that atheists, or secular, or non-Esablished regimes are not fair targets if they engage in genocide, the rest of the world is free to disagree.

Ickle Magoo

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.

Pretty much every line is pile of steaming tripe - if I was to go through the entire article highlighting the inaccuracies and over-use of artistic exaggeration in the name of sensationalism, it would take hours and involve the entire piece.

I'm not sure why he feels that expertise in such an arcane field gives him authority to pronounce on spiritual questions.

Why shouldn't it? Does he have to be a theologian to lack belief in a god? He's a biologist/geneticist - who is better qualified to suggest that faith is a delusion? Not to mention it seems rather ridiculous to suggest an eminent scholar is unqualified to comment on faith when only experts in their own arcane fields certainly hasn't hampered many theists from claiming that they have the answers to all and sundry.

Dawkins has many times tried to say that Einstein was not spiritual in the way most people understand it. Yet Einstein said this:

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble mind."

This is the same old tired quote theists always throw out to try to lay claim to einstein being a theist. Leaving aside the fact it would have been extraordinary for anyone of any prominence born in the 17th century to state categorically they were an atheist, it also conveniently ignores the numerous other quotes attributed to einstein on the topic...ie

I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and have always been an atheist.

- Albert Einstein, letter to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945, responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein to convert from atheism; quoted by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic, Vol. 5, No. 2

Through the reading of popular scientific books I soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true. The consequence was a positively fanatic orgy of freethinking coupled with the impression that youth is intentionally being deceived by the state through lies; it was a crushing impression. Mistrust of every kind of authority grew out of this experience, a skeptical attitude toward the convictions that were alive in any specific social environment - an attitude that has never again left me, even though, later on, it has been tempered by a better insight into the causal connections.

- Albert Einstein, Autobiographical Notes, edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp

Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds. The mediocre mind is incapable of understanding the man who refuses to bow blindly to conventional prejudices and chooses instead to express his opinions courageously and honestly

- Albert Einstein, letter to Morris Raphael Cohen, professor emeritus of philosophy at the College of the City of New York, March 19, 1940. Einstein is defending the appointment of Bertrand Russell to a teaching position.

etc, etc...

Sam Vimes

Pittens wrote: »

While have you decided amongst yourselves that atheists, or secular, or non-Esablished regimes are not fair targets if they engage in genocide, the rest of the world is free to disagree.

Who what where in the why now?

Ickle Magoo

Pittens wrote: »

While have you decided amongst yourselves that atheists, or secular, or non-Esablished regimes are not fair targets if they engage in genocide, the rest of the world is free to disagree.

Everyone is fair game if they engage in genocide, etc - what is universally acknowledged except by a minority of religious crack-pots is that their actions are not because they are atheists acting in the name of atheism but because they are megalomaniacs acting for their own gains and to exert power.

King Mob

Pittens wrote: »

However the offshoots of the enlightenment has killed more people than religion.

I'm sorry, which off-shoots?

ISAW

King Mob wrote: »

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.

Wher does Rory Fitzgerald say Dawkins is "the head of an atheist organisation that condoned or endorsed or aided or covered up the crimes of Stalin or Polpot et al."

King Mob

ISAW wrote: »

Wher does Rory Fitzgerald say Dawkins is "the head of an atheist organisation that condoned or endorsed or aided or covered up the crimes of Stalin or Polpot et al."

He doesn't.
So then why should he be arrested for the crimes committed by them?

What crime could Dawkins actually be accused of?

Whoo! 4000 posts!

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is why he says Dawkins should be arrested:

Followed by a quote which dodsn't say that at all!e

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.

Where does he say "arrest Dawkins because he didn't campaign against the crimes of atheistic regimes"?

As for Einstein:

I wasn't claiming Einstein was or wasnt a believer. I was claiming that the huffington post article mentioned einstein respected religion and religious belief.

The "Einstein was a believer" or "Einstein was an atheist" point is just argument from authority. Also if hitler liked roses would you be wrong for liking them as well?

As if it was relevant

Exactly! it isn't! what he believed isn't relevant. That hge respected religion and didnt support the atheistic communist or nazi attempts to remove religious believers IS relevant!

ISAW

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Pretty much every line is pile of steaming tripe - if I was to go through the entire article highlighting the inaccuracies and over-use of artistic exaggeration in the name of sensationalism, it would take hours and involve the entire piece.

So you admnit you don't go through the article and just dismiss it without proper critique.

Why shouldn't it? Does he have to be a theologian to lack belief in a god?

No and he could also be a theologian and be an atheist. But being a theologian WOULD give him some authority to comment on Theology!

He's a biologist/geneticist - who is better qualified to suggest that faith is a delusion?

Well if the scientism element of Dawkins says "no faith necessary" and "science is the uperiour way" then the theologian would probably be better qualified.

Not to mention it seems rather ridiculous to suggest an eminent scholar is unqualified to comment on faith when only experts in their own arcane fields certainly hasn't hampered many theists from claiming that they have the answers to all and sundry.

Wrong! the philosophers field is that of theology philosophy etc. they may have no idea about technical science . just as in cosmology there is the science but there is also the philosophy behind the science as well as philosophy of the cosmos.
they have reason to comment on that field.

This is the same old tired quote theists always throw out to try to lay claim to einstein being a theist.

Sni already dealt with. doesnt matter if he was or wasnt for this debate as long as he didn't support militant atheism or militant christians nazis etc.

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

Followed by a quote which dodsn't say that at all!e

Where does he say "arrest Dawkins because he didn't campaign against the crimes of atheistic regimes"?

The article is called "Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering up Atheist Crimes?" and he says "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". So that's where he says Dawkins should be arrested for not campaigning publicly against the crimes of atheistic regimes communist dictatorships.

ISAW wrote: »

I wasn't claiming Einstein was or wasnt a believer.

Yes you were:

ISAW wrote: »

the bit about Einstein is applicable as well: he was a believer who respected religious belief.

ISAW wrote: »

I was claiming that the huffington post article mentioned einstein respected religion and religious belief.

The "Einstein was a believer" or "Einstein was an atheist" point is just argument from authority. Also if hitler liked roses would you be wrong for liking them as well?

Exactly! it isn't! what he believed isn't relevant. That hge respected religion and didnt support the atheistic communist or nazi attempts to remove religious believers IS relevant!

Dawkins says in the god delusion that Einstein wasn't an atheist but that he also doesn't believe in a personal god. He mentions it only to clarify that in the book he is not talking about the kind of god Einstein believed in but in the personal prayer answering homosexual smiting type of god that theists believe in. There is no argument from authority from Dawkins in this matter.

King Mob

ISAW wrote: »

Exactly! it isn't! what he believed isn't relevant. That hge respected religion and didnt support the atheistic communist or nazi attempts to remove religious believers IS relevant!

The article doesn't say that at all.
It bangs on about how Einstein said he didn't know for certain and how that the human mind was fallible.

But the article makes a rather big deal about scientists who are also believers.

Ironically after saying how Dawkins isn't qualified to comment on religious matter he then goes on to say:

... , people may wish to consider the thoughts of Nobel Prize winning microbiologist Werner Arber, or eminent geneticist, Francis S. Collins, who led the Human Genome Project. Both are believers in God, and both find evidence for the divine in science itself.

And this:

Here is perhaps the most important scientist of all time, with an incredibly profound mind, but with the humility to acknowledge how feeble and frail the human mind really is.

What was Einstien's qualifications again? Was he more qualified than Dawkins?

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

Sni already dealt with. doesnt matter if he was or wasnt for this debate as long as he didn't support militant atheism or militant christians nazis etc.

What do you mean by militant atheism? Do you mean communist dictatorships were religious belief was suppressed? Because I don't think Dawkins would be too supportive of that either............

Ickle Magoo

ISAW wrote: »

So you admnit you don't go through the article and just dismiss it without proper critique.

I did go through the article, it's just one piece of nonsense after another - it doesn't deserve a detailed critique. When you read an article in the daily mail about "Pedo priest, blah, blah, blah" do you critique it or do you read it shaking your head astonished at the lack of honest journalism it must have taken to write?

ISAW wrote: »

No and he could also be a theologian and be an atheist. But being a theologian WOULD give him some authority to comment on Theology!

Are you seriously suggesting that only theologians may be considered an authority on matters of faith? How convenient.

ISAW wrote: »

Well if the scientism element of Dawkins says "no faith necessary" and "science is the uperiour way" then the theologian would probably be better qualified.

Not on matters of science. You seem to be assuming that the two are mutually exclusive. Studying human behaviour with regards to faith doesn't require an indepth knowledge of the faith.

ISAW wrote: »

Wrong! the philosophers field is that of theology philosophy etc. they may have no idea about technical science . just as in cosmology there is the science but there is also the philosophy behind the science as well as philosophy of the cosmos.

Wrong! See above

ISAW wrote: »

they have reason to comment on that field.

Theology/theists consider they have reason to comment on every and all fields, regardless of their personal or professional expertise. I think someone who has studies anthropology, biology, genetics, etc is eminently qualified to discuss why numerous civilisations have made up numerous gods.

ISAW wrote: »

Sni already dealt with. doesnt matter if he was or wasnt for this debate as long as he didn't support militant atheism or militant christians nazis etc.

What's Sni?

You asked for reasons as to why the article was a load of tosh citing the authors remarks on einstein & claiming they have merit and now suddenly it's irrelevant that the quote has been completely taken out of it's time and context?

Dades

What apologists such as Rory Fitzgerald overlook is that communist regimes such as Stalin's Russia promote state atheism in response to the threat offered to their complete authority by the next more powerful authority - the church.

It's not an atheist regime because they believe, ideologically, that religion is a man made fabrication, it is an atheist regime so that their ultimate goal - total power - is not diluted.

It should really be referred to as "State Anti-Churchism", to be correct.

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

The article is called "Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering up Atheist Crimes?"

that is the title yes. a question. Where does it state he should?

and he says "Dawkins ...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". So that's where he says Dawkins should be arrested for not campaigning publicly against the crimes of atheistic regimes communist dictatorships.

No it doesn't!

Yes you were:

Yes i stated "a believer" not necessarily Jewish or Christian but a believer.

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" (24 April 1929)

Dawkins says in the god delusion that Einstein wasn't an atheist

Well there is one opinion based on the above I happen to agree with.

He mentions it only to clarify that in the book he is not talking about the kind of god Einstein believed in but in the personal prayer answering homosexual smiting type of god that theists believe in.

That SOME theists believe in! Einstein didn't and most Christians for example don't believe God hates homosexuals.

The Mad Hatter

ISAW: Few people have the time or inclination to dissect the pitiful arguments in that article. But here, Jerry Coyne does just that.

Incidentally, the original headline was "Richard Dawkins should be arrested for covering up atheist crimes." No question mark. It was edited later. Though obviously, even with the question mark, the article is attempting to argue the case (incredibly feebly) that he should.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

What apologists such as Rory Fitzgerald overlook is that communist regimes such as Stalin's Russia promote state atheism in response to the threat offered to their complete authority by the next more powerful authority - the church. [...] It should really be referred to as "State Anti-Churchism", to be correct.

While the Bolsheviks were concerned about the church as a competing center of ongoing political power, I suspect they were also worried about militant christianity showing up in Russia and organizing something like the Taiping Rebellion which happened in China some sixty years before.

In these contexts, the suppression of organized religion makes a lot of sense to a paranoid dictator.

strobe

robindch wrote: »

In these contexts, the suppression of organized religion makes a lot of sense to a paranoid dictator.

I'd agree with this. For any totalitarian group, any organisation that isn't in direct alignment with yourself has to be suppressed. Pretty much by definition. "If you aren't with us or if there is the slightest chance you will oppose us, then you must go." Take Falun Gong in China for instance, it wasn't neccessarily in direct conflict with the communist party but it was unlikely it was aligned to it and it was gaining in popularity. Better safe than sorry.

ISAW

Dades wrote: »

ISAW, nobody has gone through them here as it wasn't anticipated someone would find merit in that drivel. It's the old atheist regime argument rehashed.

If you think any of his points have merit, by all means quote them here.

Dades please look up "shifting the burden" under "logical fallacy"

Someone posted the thread and claimed a load of arguments made in an article were wrong. But they don't refer to the arguments and how they are wrong. instead they personally attack the original writer of the article.

It isn't for ME to show the original poster right! it is for the person making the argument to support THEIR argument with evidence and not with throwaway comments like "we all know " or "it is the same as..." etc.

ISAW

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Everyone is fair game if they engage in genocide, etc - what is universally acknowledged except by a minority of religious crack-pots is that their actions are not because they are atheists acting in the name of atheism but because they are megalomaniacs acting for their own gains and to exert power.

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism."
-Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"Our program necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism."
- Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov (Lenin)

"How can you make a revolution without firing squads?"
- Lenin

"You know, they are fooling us, there is no God...
all this talk about God is sheer nonsense"
- Stalin
E. Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin,
Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow 1940


"the state established atheism as the only scientific truth."
- Daniel Peris,
"Storming the Heavens: The Soviet League of the Militant Godless"
Cornell University Press 1998 ISBN 9780801434853

"Criticism of atheism was strictly forbidden"

"Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested.
In 1918, the Cheka under Felix Dzerzhinsky executed over
3000 Orthodox clergymen of all ranks.
Some were drowned in ice-holes or poured over with cold water
in winter until they turned to ice-pillars.
- John Shelton Curtis, The Russian Church and the Soviet State
(Boston: Little Brown, 1953)

The most destructive ideology of the modern era, in the Union
of Savagage Slaughter and Repression, Mao's Great Leap Backward
and Cultural Devolution and Pol Pot's Atheist Genocide, the atheist
regimes killed over 70,000,000 people.. naturally, like the neo-Nazi's,
the atheists are in DENIAL about their holocausts.. death tolls FAR
greater than ANY RELIGION! 8^o

And it is THESE FACTS that the athests try to bury in post modern
propaganda lies.. the work of PR Spin doctors who think it is what
criminals SAY about themselves, not what THEY DO, that matters.

From: http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/0571223d0f8d817f

Fasgnadh, by the way, is not a believer.

ISAW

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Pretty much every line is pile of steaming tripe

Pretty mush the same as above... attack the poster and refer to none of the arguments in particular. just dismiss them without going into any of them.

ISAW

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I did go through the article, it's just one piece of nonsense after another - it doesn't deserve a detailed critique. When you read an article in the daily mail about "Pedo priest, blah, blah, blah" do you critique it or do you read it shaking your head astonished at the lack of honest journalism it must have taken to write?

If i come to a public forum to comment then I critique it of course.

Are you seriously suggesting that only theologians may be considered an authority on matters of faith? How convenient.

Yes. Anyone can comment on cosmology for example or mathematics buut only a person with academic qualifications in that field or publications in peer review journals or texts etc. have the authority to comment. they may even be atheists but unless they are qualified in the field they have not the authority to comment.

You can't have it both ways! Take creationism. Say an engineer with a PhD in engineering says sameting about god and creation by refering to his opinion on genetics. Critics point out his isn't a genetic engineer or a biologist but a civil or mechanical engineer. He isn't qualified in that field and has no authority in it. You come across this argument frequently in debates on Biblical creationism for example.

Not on matters of science. You seem to be assuming that the two are mutually exclusive. Studying human behaviour with regards to faith doesn't require an in depth knowledge of the faith.

commenting as an academic on something that is not your field is allowed and may even be correct but does not in fact bestow or come with the authority to comment. If you are outside your field you have to establish your criteria and bone fides. Several posters have questioned Dawkins credentials in that sense.

Theology/theists consider they have reason to comment on every and all fields,

Theologians do! As academic philosophers they have AUTHORITY to comment on those fields. As i said it matters not whether they believe or not. what matters is that they have established that they know the field. Others can comment but they don't have authority. they have to establish authority first.

regardless of their personal or professional expertise. I think someone who has studies anthropology, biology, genetics, etc is eminently qualified to discuss why numerous civilisations have made up numerous gods.

YOU think so! But what is your evidence?

Look:

http://biblicalgeology.net/blog/archives/408

Dr Jonathan Sarfati jumped at the opportunity. In his book, The Greatest Hoax on Earth: Refuting Dawkins on Evolution, Dr Sarfati deals with the evidence chapter after chapter, covering a vast range of disciplines in his trademark crisp, clear style. He convincingly shows, for those with ears to hear, that to believe the Bible’s account of Creation/Fall/Redemption straightforwardly not only does not commit intellectual suicide, but is the intellectually superior position.


And the comment below by clint:

This “Doctor” Sarfati has a PhD in chemistry. What the hell would you know about evolution if you have a PhD in chemistry??

You asked for reasons as to why the article was a load of tosh citing the authors remarks on einstein

I cited the remarks on Einstein as a believer in something in direct contradiction of others here who claim the article was wrong because Einstein wasn't a believer!

& claiming they have merit and now suddenly it's irrelevant that the quote has been completely taken out of it's time and context?

They have merit in the sense that Einstein both believed in something and respected and did not ridicule religious beliefs. unlike the people posting here who unfairly use Einstein as support for their argument.

ISAW

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

ISAW: Few people have the time or inclination to dissect the pitiful arguments in that article. But here, Jerry Coyne does just that.

Again you are "shifting the burden". you should repost any of coyne's arguments you support.
My argument isn't with coyne it is with people here who dismissed a whole article as "tripe" without referring to any points made in it. Saying 2someone else critiqued it" is just more of the same.

It isn't for me to go through Coynes points line by line it is for YOU to do it!
Stop shifting the burden to me!

Incidentally, the original headline was "Richard Dawkins should be arrested for covering up atheist crimes."

Did the original author write the headline? If you know anything about journalism you would know sub Editors write leading headlines. Where IN THE BODY of the work are claims made which you can argue against?

No question mark. It was edited later.

By whom? Maybe the original author actually did get involved and stated the headline was incorrect? Your "it was edited later" point only supports my side of the issue and not your own.

Though obviously, even with the question mark, the article is attempting to argue the case (incredibly feebly) that he should.

WHERE is it making such arguments? Care to list five of them and show by counter argument how each are wrong?

Delirium

I don't get where the author of the article is coming from.

He critcial of Dawkins for remaining silent on crimes committed by atheist ideologues. He lists the Nazis, which had trials and executions for the higher levels of the Nazis.

Also from the article:

As recently as 1979, the Cambodian genocide killed 1.7 million people. These were murdered by communist atheists. War crimes tribunals are now being set up in Phnomh Penh.

So the examples given by the author have had trials or trials are in the process of being set up.

Dawkins probably wants the same for Catholic church, ie trials for all those involved in child abuse and the subsequent cover up of the abuse.

Ickle Magoo

ISAW wrote: »

"Atheism is the natural and inseparable part of Communism.".....

......is not a believer.

None of that negates my point - you are just confirming exactly what I said.

ISAW wrote: »

Pretty mush the same as above... attack the poster and refer to none of the arguments in particular. just dismiss them without going into any of them.

I'm sorry ISAW, I have a lot of things to do and picking over the minutiae of an article that I struggle to find a single valid and rational point in, is just not my bag today, and neither am I under any obligation to do so. Suffice to say it falls into every single tired anti-dawkins/anti-atheist fallacy ever invoked and much as you clearly think the article is brilliant - a quick search of this forum/google regarding any of the points made would highlight exactly why it is just so bad. :cool:

Zombrex

Ah it is the old reliable argument about anyone pointing out major issues with your organisation (Fitzgerald is a Catholic as far as I understand)

It is easy to level the charge that the person is not making enough of an issue out of phenomena X and therefore is a hypocrite. Of course it is completely subjective on the person making the claim as to what is enough of an issue.

I notice that Fitzgerald has written 3 pieces on the Catholic church and not one on Cambodia. Clearly he is as bias as Dawkins :pac:

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

that is the title yes. a question. Where does it state he should?

No it doesn't!

I've spelled it out painfully obviously and if you choose not to see it I can't force you to. I can't make it any clearer than I have. The guy "asked" if Dawkins should be arrested for covering up atheist crimes and said that being "selective in the issues he shouts about and those he remains silent about" can be seen as hushing up the crimes of atheists. He classes "not shouting about" a crime that Dawkins personally had nothing to do with as covering it up and "asks" if he should be arrested for this. I don't understand what the problem is here.....

ISAW wrote: »

Yes i stated "a believer" not necessarily Jewish or Christian but a believer.

So do you retract your statement "I wasn't claiming Einstein was or wasnt a believer" since you quite clearly were?

ISAW wrote: »

I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings.

- Albert Einstein, responding to Rabbi Herbert Goldstein's question "Do you believe in God?" (24 April 1929)

Yes I've seen that quote before.

ISAW wrote: »

Well there is one opinion based on the above I happen to agree with.

Fantastic!

ISAW wrote: »

That SOME theists believe in! Einstein didn't and most Christians for example don't believe God hates homosexuals.

ALL theists believe in a different type of god to Einstein's god. Einstien did not believe in a theistic god, a god who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings. What is your point? Dawkins never said otherwise. We are all saying the same thing here.

Galvasean

Hmm, its nice to see some of teh usual suspects have leaped to the author's defense (or rather to have apop at Dawkins). Four pages in and they have yet to establish exactly what Dawkins should be arrested for. Seriously, what crime?