Richard Dawkins is an idiot

[The Flying Cow]

How can someone say Mao or Stalin were not atheists when they quoted in proclamation (repetitively, I might add) that "religion is the opium of the people", and proceeded to ban all religion where they ruled?

And what sort of "terrible disasters" can we accredit to religion on the par of things like the death and destruction caused by the rules of the aforementioned dictators (Dawkins justifies that these demons were not acting in the name of atheism, even though they not only banned religion in their regimes, they persecuted all manner of religious folk, claiming as part of their slogans "religion is the opium of the people - the slaughter of Tibetan monks en masse here comes to mind) (and saying Hitler was a Roman Catholic - which he evidently was not, having made up his own Nazist religion (using the argument that him being that didn't however mean he acted in the name of it [his supposed "Catholicism"] is superfluous in analyzing his xenophobic attitudes towards the Jews, which he butchered more likely due to his pathological imbalances))?

Finally, though his mostly arrogant overtones seem to show him as all-knowing (and he contradicts himself quite a few times, even if he is able to, via argument, keep himself from blatant embarrassment and humiliation in front of Stephen Sackur), he seems to think (as he proclaims) that suicide bombers can or do have "moderate teachers", when anyone with the least bit of knowledge about the breeding grounds for such radical political acts knows that the leaders and indoctrinators of those specific cells not only do not use religion solely (Velupilai Prabhakaran, the man behind LTTE (the most fecund suicide terrorist group to boot) is a secular Marxist-Leninist), but are far from "moderate teachers"!

Frankly, I'm completely put off (if there ever was a chance) reading his work, especially considering how he throws faith in with one's taste in music, or other trivialities, comparing Christians to Marxists, and seems to argue or feel annoyed that one can't "prove one's faith" (I can't remember his exact wording) when clearly faith is something that does not require or depend on proof (this would, I presume, be the dictionary definition of it?)

He is also arrogant in the way he seems to believe religion cannot hold answers for truths science cannot reach, thus never giving it a chance, yet he believes (here is his evident faith) that science can or will.

That's the end of my anti-Dawkins rant.

Feel free to flame me, atheists of this world (he is, after all, one of your preachers).

[devilsadvocate]

How can someone say Mao or Stalin were not atheists when they quoted in proclamation (repetitively, I might add) that "religion is the opium of the people", and proceeded to ban all religion where they ruled?

Do you think someone can believe in God and not be a member of a religion or follow any religious dogma?

Dictators like Stalin and Mao ban religion because it threatens their power, it's about control, not belief in a God.

[bigboab]

How can someone say Mao or Stalin were not atheists when they quoted in proclamation (repetitively, I might add) that "religion is the opium of the people", and proceeded to ban all religion where they ruled?

And what sort of "terrible disasters" can we accredit to religion on the par of things like the death and destruction caused by the rules of the aforementioned dictators (Dawkins justifies that these demons were not acting in the name of atheism, even though they not only banned religion in their regimes, they persecuted all manner of religious folk, claiming as part of their slogans "religion is the opium of the people - the slaughter of Tibetan monks en masse here comes to mind) (and saying Hitler was a Roman Catholic - which he evidently was not, having made up his own Nazist religion (using the argument that him being that didn't however mean he acted in the name of it [his supposed "Catholicism"] is superfluous in analyzing his xenophobic attitudes towards the Jews, which he butchered more likely due to his pathological imbalances))?

Finally, though his mostly arrogant overtones seem to show him as all-knowing (and he contradicts himself quite a few times, even if he is able to, via argument, keep himself from blatant embarrassment and humiliation in front of Stephen Sackur), he seems to think (as he proclaims) that suicide bombers can or do have "moderate teachers", when anyone with the least bit of knowledge about the breeding grounds for such radical political acts knows that the leaders and indoctrinators of those specific cells not only do not use religion solely (Velupilai Prabhakaran, the man behind LTTE (the most fecund suicide terrorist group to boot) is a secular Marxist-Leninist), but are far from "moderate teachers"!

Frankly, I'm completely put off (if there ever was a chance) reading his work, especially considering how he throws faith in with one's taste in music, or other trivialities, comparing Christians to Marxists, and seems to argue or feel annoyed that one can't "prove one's faith" (I can't remember his exact wording) when clearly faith is something that does not require or depend on proof (this would, I presume, be the dictionary definition of it?)

He is also arrogant in the way he seems to believe religion cannot hold answers for truths science cannot reach, thus never giving it a chance, yet he believes (here is his evident faith) that science can or will.

That's the end of my anti-Dawkins rant.

Feel free to flame me, atheists of this world (he is, after all, one of your preachers).

All these things are caused by mans inhumanity to man. Most of the inhumanity is caused by power seeking, tribal, religion or just plain mistrust. If you are told when you are young that if you do wrong then "the bogey man will get you" unless you have a wee bit of intelligence you will grow up believing in bogey men.

You missed out a few atrocities like the ones in Africa, Pol Pot and various others. Religion had its atrocities as well:- The Spanish Inquisition, The slaughter of natives of South American countries and many more. Finally let us not forget slavery and the cruelty involved with that. Practiced by people who were devoutly religious.

Read your history before you claim the moral high ground.


P.S Hitler was born into a Catholic family but denounced religion later in life. If he had remained a Catholic maybe the atrocities might never have happened. The second World War would still have happened because Hitler was determined to get reparation for the 'Peace Agreement' signed after the first World War, which he fought in. I just added that wee bit in case you missed that along with all the other history lessons you missed.

[lynx]

Feel free to flame me, atheists of this world (he is, after all, one of your preachers).

I quite agree, he's a total cawk.

However, saying he speaks for me is about as relevant as saying that the Dalai Lama speaks for the Catholic Crutch.

[ilw]

... he seems to think (as he proclaims) that suicide bombers can or do have "moderate teachers", when anyone with the least bit of knowledge about the breeding grounds for such radical political acts knows that the leaders and indoctrinators of those specific cells not only do not use religion solely (Velupilai Prabhakaran, the man behind LTTE (the most fecund suicide terrorist group to boot) is a secular Marxist-Leninist), but are far from "moderate teachers"!

recent MI5 report indicated that despite what the tabloids tell us, many islamic terrorists in the uk are relative religious noobs and that the influence of clerics is not particularly big (and decreasing). The bombers are generally however, reasonably intelligent people in shitty jobs...

He is also arrogant in the way he seems to believe religion cannot hold answers for truths science cannot reach, thus never giving it a chance, yet he believes (here is his evident faith) that science can or will.

That's the end of my anti-Dawkins rant.

he does come across as a bit of a cock, but lets face it what question has religion ever answered? All you get is platitudes.
The fundamental purpose of all religions is to be a comforting and to give people a regular opportunity to socialise and sing/chant in a big group.

[Barbarossa]

I don't think he's an idiot, but I don't agree with what it appears his agenda is, which is trying to convert religious people into atheism.

Personally I don't believe in God. That doesn't mean I think everyone else shouldn't believe in God. As far as I'm concerned you can believe what you want, so long as

1. You let other people believe what they want
2. Your beliefs don't have a detrimental effect on anyone else.

Although it appears I share many of Richard Dawkins beliefs, I don't think I share his ideals at all.

He's an arrogant tit.

[The Flying Cow]

I was coming to that myself, Barbarossa, having remembered quite a few extra tid-bits to add to the rant.

1) He has a political agenda - as has been written in the post above mine. (AKA - he wants to actively convert religious folk to his situation)

2) He seems to think that "faith doesn't get criticized", has a "free pass", so to speak. Well that's absolute cock. I get much more shit for being a Catholic than any Atheist at my University. It is just not true.

Not to mention that I'm not, as, in my experience, are most other Catholics or Christians I know, actively trying to convert anyone else, and have complete respect for any other religion/absence thereof. So, the ultimate circus show is Dawkins.

[physter]

Yeah, true, Dawkins is a tit. But then, most scientists are just as blinkered as most faithists and treat their own personal interpretation of science as a religion whereas in truth neither science nor religion has any answers - just working hypotheses (some of which are more useful than others).

[Brenya]

He far from being an idiot, and you should know this. You just hate him because you know he's telling the truth.