Sunday, January 31, 2010

Should Richard Dawkins be arrested for incitement to religious hatred?

‘And the Lord said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Dawkins, that there is none like him upon the earth, a perfect and upright man, one that obsesseth ad nauseam about the non-existence of God, and escheweth all reason?’

With apologies to Job, is there a man on earth more obsessed with establishing beyond doubt the non-existence of that which does not exist than Professor Richard Dawkins?

Cranmer was asked during the week to fisk/respond to Professor Dawkins’ rant in The Times, but it is hardly worth it. He displays a sub-GCSE level of comprehension of theology and an utterly simplistic caricature of religious philosophy. If one were to critique evolutionary biology in such crass terms, Professor Dawkins would be the first to dismiss one as being an intellectually deficient ignoramus.

Yet it is a provocative piece of writing, inciteful even, for he appears to presume that the Revd. Pat Robertson is the archetypal Christian, and lauds him for his adherence to Christian orthodoxy.

What fate would befall Cranmer if he equated all Muslims with the ‘obnoxious’ Osama Bin Laden?

What persecution and injustice would he endure of he criticised the Qur’an; parodied the ‘nauseating’ and ‘barbaric’ teachings which emanated from the ‘nasty human mind’ of Mohammed; or said the ‘entire religion is founded on an obsession’ with killing the infidel? What if he mocked the ‘moral depravity’ of the ‘be-frocked and bleating’ imams; lampooned the ‘odious doctrine’ of Allah; or denigrated the sincerely-held beliefs of the ‘faux-anguished hypocrites’ who constitute the ummah?

Might he find himself in court, like Geert Wilders, accused of inciting hatred for daring to articulate a religious opinion?

Frankly, Cranmer is aghast that The Times has permitted Richard Dawkins to denigrate Christianity and Christians in this fashion.

Would they dare to print this address to British Muslims:

Bin Laden may spout evil nonsense, but he is a mere amateur at that game. Just read your own Qur’an. Bin Laden is true to it. But you?

You may weep for Pakistan where Bin Laden does not, but at least, in his jihadist, sub-Abu-Hamza ignorance, he holds up an honest mirror to the ugliness of Islamic theology. You are nothing but hypocrites.


Of course not. They would never permit such offensive invective against Islam or those Muslims who blamed the Indonesian tsunami on the 'loose sexual morals in tourist nightclubs'.

But neither would Professor Dawkins have parodied their beliefs or criticised their orthodoxy.

And it is also unlikely that The Times would have published such a tirade against Judaism and the Jews.

God forbid that they might be accused of anti-Semitism.

But Christianity? Yeah, why not.

Paedophile priests, bigoted bibles, patronising piety and corrupt congregations: drag the name of Jesus through the mud and no-one will really mind.

The wrath of Ruth Gledhill is the worst they have to fear.

And she is unlikely to challenge Dawkins’ monstrous fundamentalist caricature of the Christian God, not least because she does not appear to have the time (and neither does the other Times God-blog). And also they pay her salary.

Yet it is really quite astonishing that someone of Professor Dawkins’ academic stature should place the (largely inaccurate) secondary-source accounts of someone like Pat Robertson over the primary sources not only of Scripture but also over centuries of the considered and learned reflections of such literary theologians as Chaucer, Shakespeare, Dante, TS Eliot, Gerard Manley Hopkins, CS Lewis… And over the labyrinthine theologies of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Schleiermacher, Barth…

But Professor Dawkins prefers the two-dimensional spirituality of Pat Robertson and his one-dimensional god because it is easier for him to shred. When the choice is between that or Dawkins’ atheism, one can see the attraction of the latter.

But they are really two sides of the same coin of zealotry.

All religions profess a higher knowledge and supreme truth, and Dawkins is no exception. But he is not an atheist: he is religiophobic.

And phobic to the extent that many moderate and reasonable atheists will have no truck with his obsessive, demented, fundamentalist extremism and his fanatical hatred of Christianity.

While most atheists are content simply not to believe in God, Dawkins appears to be psychologically disturbed due to some trauma in his upbringing, for he loathes the very idea that God could exist to the extent that bitterness and bile pour out of every word he speaks. If God is simply an imaginary being somewhere up there with Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy, why does he get himself so worked up about it?

It is a quite irrational pursuit for an atheist.

The Professor needs to get out more and mix with a few moderate atheists. And he might learn from them that in many countries of the world the Christian faith is the tie that binds communities, gives them a moral framework, induces hope, inspires them to great acts of charity, and exhorts them to love their neighbour by doing all manner of good deeds.

Or did The Times pay him £1000 for his article?

Did he donate it to Haiti?

Or is he content to use their appalling plight to advance his insidious faith and demented doctrine and cash in on his prejudices, in exactly the same manner as he accuses Pat Robertson of doing?

It is wonderful that atheists should have the infallible professor to shepherd their flock: His Secularness Pope Dawkins.

But the man is a spineless hypocrite.

And The Times are evasive cowards.

375 Comments:

Blogger John.D said...

He has made a lucrative industry out of stating the scientifically obvious and pitching this against an imaginary army of Christian fundamentalists. But well said anyway.....shame on you Ruth Gledhill.

31 January 2010 at 10:52  
Anonymous philip walling said...

Your Grace

Dawkins has long intrigued me.

He is frighteningly irrational yet relies on his soi disant reason to rant against the existence of God and to vilify the Church.
He is vituperative to a greater degree than a woman scorned whose fury is unbounded because her love has metamorphosed into hatred.

I think he could be a Saul of Tarsus for the modern age (God knows we need one) and if his towering sense of self allows him to accept his Damascene conversion he will become one of the Lord's greatest apostles.
Because if the Lord can convert Dawkins He is mighty indeed.

Otherwise I think Dawkins is to be pitied and certainly not taken too seriously. Whenever you meet him tell him you are praying for his conversion.

31 January 2010 at 11:05  
Anonymous len said...

Dawkins is a coward, choosing the 'soft' target of Christianity to attack.
However, Corinthians 1 says "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate."
Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength.

Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth. But God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise; God chose the weak things of the world to shame the strong. He chose the lowly things of this world and the despised things—and the things that are not—to nullify the things that are, so that no one may boast before him. It is because of him that you are in Christ Jesus, who has become for us wisdom from God—that is, our righteousness, holiness and redemption. Therefore, as it is written: "Let him who boasts boast in the Lord.

31 January 2010 at 11:11  
Anonymous Ann Athiest said...

I think you will find Dawkins ally Pat Condell speaking out against Islam is exactly the way you say atheists don’t

http://www.youtube.com/user/patcondell#p/a/u/0/winu_C_X5mw

31 January 2010 at 11:24  
Anonymous len said...

The Fall of Man apparently began in the intellectual part of man
"Eve saw the tree was desired to make one wise"( Genesis 3:6)
Since sin entered through the avenue of the intellect, salvation comes by a cross which destroys the fallen "wisdom" by its very message, for the preaching of "Christ Crucified" is to the wisdom of men " foolishness".
Thus God, in His wisdom, provides salvation in a way which deals with the cause by which the Fall came about!!

31 January 2010 at 11:29  
Blogger seanrobsville said...

Accepting our evolutionary history does not mean rejecting our spirituality.

31 January 2010 at 11:39  
Blogger The Heresiarch said...

And to think, last week I felt like defending Dawkins after Howard Jacobson gave him a going-over on Channel 4. Jacobson quoted a rabbi who told an atheist, "That God you don't believe in, I don't believe in him either." And I thought, "That Dawkins you don't believe in, I don't believe in either." In most of his writings, some almost poetic in their evocations of the wonders of science, he is very far indeed from the caricature Dawkins everyone always complains about. And then he goes and writes something like that.

As for the Times paying him, it's not like he needs the money.

It was an incredibly stupid piece. That first sentence, about how science - WOW! - now knows what causes earthquakes, so that disproves religion. How insufferably smug. I wanted to thump him, I really did.

Splendid demolition, Your Grace. I'd also recommend this, on Wardman, which I'm informed is by someone called Clayboy.

31 January 2010 at 11:46  
Blogger Mark Blades said...

I watched Dawkins on the Daily Politics, a few weeks ago. His views are increasingly irrational and he displays an obsessiveness verging on pathological.

Listening to him, I was struck by the thought that, if he didn't have a 'plummy' voice and a title, nobody would pay him any attention. If his appearance could reflect, more properly, his mental state, there would be flecks of spittle coming out of the corner of his mouth and he would be crying, 'DRINK' every so often, after the manner of Father Jack from Craggy Island.

The BBC, as usual, are an absolute disgrace using viewers' licence money to allow this madman to propagate his personal vendettas. How about the Tories promising to break up this monstrous monopoly, if they come to power? I'm sure that would be a vote winner.

31 January 2010 at 12:00  
Anonymous God sucks said...

There is a vast free market enterprise for orgy and hatred out there, Cranmer's Conservative principles should understand and respect Dawkins' entrepreneurial spirit for tapping into it.

31 January 2010 at 12:01  
Anonymous len said...

I don`t believe in Dawkins god either.Dawkins god is a gross misrepresentation of the real God of the bible.
If you want to see the real God look to Jesus Christ Jesus who said:
'I and my Father are one(John 10:30)
There are may scriptures that Reveal Jesus Christ as God.
Humanity was Judged at the Cross, Jesus Christ took the sins of the world on himself at the cross.God is not judging man due to his sin performance at this time!
But ,
there still exits a Law of Sin and Death it will kill you just as effectively as grabbing a live wire maybe not as quickly but just as effectively.
Who is the god of this world? = Satan who comes to lie kill and destroy, who gave him the right to do so? WE DID when we handed him authority over us.

So the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob gets blamed for the foolishness of man, the wickedness and depravity of satan aided and abetted by the likes of Dawkins who promoted this false image of God.
This is the 'wisdom' of this world which God calls foolish.

31 January 2010 at 12:41  
Blogger Manfarang said...

Don't worry your Grace.
I haven't read any books by Dawkins and neither will I.After all they are about nothing.

31 January 2010 at 12:43  
Blogger PaulineG said...

I think this, incorporating Professor Anthony Flew's review of The God Delusion, exposes Dawkins beautifully:

http://www.bethinking.org/science-christianity/flew-speaks-out-professor-antony-flew-reviews-the.htm

31 January 2010 at 13:00  
Blogger greenalien said...

You all Christians can cry me a river. The only way you can possibly be ever happy with Dawkins is, if he will leave your irrational belief in imaginary friends alone.

Cranmer is the one who's hypocritical here. The only reason why he suggests Dawkins should mix with moderates is, simply because he enjoys moderates as useful idiots, as documented by his news article link.

It's the same with muslims.

Cranmer again points out how bad it is he can't criticise Koran. Who cares? That's a strawman issue if I ever saw one. How is that connected to Dawkins? Is Dawkins the one making equality doctrines? Does he not cover Islam in his documentaries?

Cranmer asks for tolerance, and claims he's tolerant. But he just wants everyone to be a useful idiot to his views which are dogmatic for him.

31 January 2010 at 13:01  
Anonymous Stewart Cowan said...

Sean Robsville,

We are not evolved apes. The Theory of Evolution is a fraud.

Please see my Richard Dawkins Exposed series.

31 January 2010 at 13:04  
Blogger David Gerard said...

You should definitely look into putting forward a prosecution against Prof Dawkins for his article.

31 January 2010 at 13:24  
Blogger Maturecheese said...

Your Grace,
Forgive me for keeping this short and light on content.
Time and time again you make the point that no other religion but Christianity is subjected to this kind of denigration. It makes not a jot of difference as it continues apace and will only stop when Christianity stands up and fights back with actions and not just words. It was though, pleasing to see the Lords do just that against Harmans Equality zealots.

31 January 2010 at 13:26  
Anonymous Local Member said...

Terry Eagleton's review of Mr Dawkin's book is amusing:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n20/terry-eagleton/lunging-flailing-mispunching

It makes clear the Mr Dawkins has only a very limited knowledge of theology.

31 January 2010 at 13:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Professor Dawkins is equally dismissive of all religions (including Islam) something that a cursory reading of "The God Delusion" would make plain even to the most militant of believers.

It is a common arrogance displayed by religionists to say that it is merely a simple lack of theological understanding that allows non-believers to lump them all together. In fact, the mistake is on the part of believers, assuming that theology is anything other than a self-referential set of man-made 'rules' whose 'understanding' is as unimportant as critically evaluating the magic words used for summoning a genie from its bottle (how many angels can dance on the head of pin, anyone? anyone?)

Oh, and Stewart Cowan: you are right "we are not evolved apes". We evolved from a common ancestor of other living apes. Human beings are not unique, special or favoured by anything other than the earth's changing environmental conditions that have, until now, enabled the human animal to thrive.

31 January 2010 at 13:40  
Blogger Jabba the Cat said...

Oh my, the toys are flying out of the prams today at great velocity...

31 January 2010 at 14:08  
Anonymous John Malcolmson said...

Anonymous 13.40

Have you actually read THE GOD DELUSION yourself?

If you had you would recall that there is a whole chapter rubbishing the Bible, but I don't think the Qu'ran is mentioned once. In fact Dawkins makes it perfectly clear at the beginning of the book that he is going to concentrate on Christianity because this is the religion he is most familiar with. How convenient!

There is another chapter devoted to examples of hate mail sent by religious fundamentalists. Every one of them from people purporting to be Christians. Just a coincidence, I suppose.

I could go on.

31 January 2010 at 14:12  
Blogger Theresa said...

I don't think we will need to worry about Dawkins for much longer, because he's now turning into a bore. The more he attacks us, the better he makes us look. Time to chillax I think..

31 January 2010 at 14:28  
Blogger Johnny Rottenborough said...

@ Maturecheese (13:26)—this kind of denigration...will only stop when Christianity stands up and fights back with actions and not just words.

Christopher Caldwell, in Reflections on the Revolution in Europe, considers the differences between Islam and Christianity regarding ‘action’:

❛To others, there is a difference in the ethical style of Islam that makes its adherents quicker to resort to violence than the adherents of traditional Christianity. One often-adduced difference is Islam’s lack of a concept of original sin. In sura 14:22 of the Koran, for instance, Satan allows he has no real power over man. The novelist Salman Rushdie has been a forceful proponent of this view: “The Western-Christian worldview deals with the issues of guilt and salvation, a conception that is completely unimportant in the East because there is no original sin and no saviour. Instead, great importance is given to ‘honour’. I consider that to be problematic.”❜

Caldwell also quotes an article by Mordechay Lewy, The West Cannot Act Freely. Lewy labels Christianity a guilt culture, Islam a blame culture.

❛In the open or undeclared conflict between the two cultures, the West cannot act freely, by reason of its self-imposed moral constraints. This self-restraint is not honoured by the blame-attributing culture of the East, but is instead taken for weakness.❜

31 January 2010 at 15:02  
Blogger Miss Snuffleupagus said...

Interesting post Your Grace - and convincing. It has me wondering why Dawkins always attacks Christianity in particular, rather than the simple existence of God. Other religions, he mentions, but not, as you say, in the same way. Is it fear? Or is it that he is surrounded by Christians, lives in a Christian country and therefore sees them as his ultimate enemy? Would he see things differently if he lived in India or Saudi? I wonder...

31 January 2010 at 15:24  
Anonymous not a machine said...

Thankyou for that your grace , i have often looked upon his progress as interesting debate in the early years , but now find his movement beggining to show heresies , making his own new infidel .

It is astonishing that no one has yet realised that he sees no order in nature at all , imagine him as mayor ! soon be issueing the uniforms of athiest stasi to rid the town of its drag anchors for darwinian reprocessing .

31 January 2010 at 15:37  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure why you did this to me but you did. I have to defend that self-righteous, smug, Dick. The reason, you've chosen martyrdom complete yet again. "Why can't Muslims be persecuted, why me?" If (and I take this as a given) Dawkins is such an intentionally obnoxious so and so, nobody deserves to be caricatured by this man. He takes one idiot who is willing to identify themselves as religious and pretends the said idiot is representative of the entire religion. Strawmen have no religion. The man is attacking religion (badly) in a primarily Christian society therefore he targets primarily Christianity. You should be thankful he has acknowledged what some Christians have always shrilly screeched - that England, the U.S., Australia (where I am writing from, not for) have a strong Christian foundation. Dick is still a tit though.

31 January 2010 at 15:46  
Blogger Bishop Alan Wilson said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

31 January 2010 at 16:01  
Blogger Bishop Alan Wilson said...

It seems poor dear Richard D, brainy as he undoubtedly is, seems to be rapidly positoning himself as the village idiot. Could anybody apply a similar logic to his own field of eminence? I suppose it would involve an article in the Times saying that proper butterflies sting because they are, after all, merely insects.

Some would wonder from the intensity of his reaction to what he calls “religion” whether he is actually on the verge of some kind of Evangelical conversion?

Ooer... be very afraid.

31 January 2010 at 16:02  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

John Malcolmson: And yet my main point that theology is an empty vessel remains unanswered...

The reason I think that the Professor gets so much hate mail from Christians and not Muslims is that Christians expect men like Dawkins (white, male, heterosexual, middle/upper class, Western) to be one of them. The fact that he isn't is seen as an unexpected and hurtful betrayal; Muslims, on the other hand, see exactly the same and view him as just another Western heretic along with the rest of us.

You may not like Professor Dawkins' views on religion but to imply that he does not view Islam in the same way that he does Christianity or any other religion is disingenuous to say the least. He has stated publicly over and over again that all religions, not just Christianity, have no basis in fact and are merely wishful thinking, something that is no more deserving of 'respect' than a belief in ghosts, aliens or a truthful Tony Blair.

31 January 2010 at 16:26  
Blogger srizals said...

He isn't asking anyone of taxing the cross worn by nuns nor starting another fresh inquisition, nor banning the bell from churches, so I would say no.

31 January 2010 at 17:42  
Anonymous len said...

Dawkins views on religion are not based on facts but theories.
And why should God, Creator of the Universe be summoned to prove His existence to the likes of Dawkins?.

Jesus Christ( God in the flesh)came to this Earth, preached the gospel of the Kingdom, healed the sick, raised the dead.Jesus Christ fulfilled hundreds of very exact prophesies about himself, prophesies no one else could possibly fulfill.!There is the proof. Did everyone who saw Jesus believe Him, no!. Man says 'show me proof and I will believe'.
God says' believe and I will show you proof.'

So you either believe Jesus is God or you believe Jesus was mad or a liar, you make your choice.You have free will.

But to set out to deliberately subvert the Gospel of Jesus Christ (as Dawkins does,) to deny anyone the chance of coming to salvation is an act of calculated evil.

31 January 2010 at 17:57  
Blogger srizals said...

With your kind permission, your grace,

[14:21]
All of them shall appear before Allah. Then, the weak shall say to the arrogant, “We were your followers. So, can you relieve us a little from Allah’s punishment?” They will say, “Had Allah guided us, we would have guided you. It is all the same for us whether we deplore or endure, we have no way out.”

[14:22]
The Satan will say when the matter will have been decided, “Allah promised you a truthful promise while I gave you a promise and did not fulfill it. I had no authority over you, except that I invited you and you accepted my call. So, do not blame me, but blame yourselves. Neither I can come to your help, nor can you come to my help. I disown your associating me with Allah in the past. Surely, there is a painful punishment for the unjust.”

[14:23]
And those who believed and did good deeds shall be admitted to Gardens beneath which rivers flow, living there forever by the will of Allah. There they shall greet each other with “Salām.”

The salvation is mentioned in 14:23, and the reason for what Satan had said in the previous verse. Thank you.

31 January 2010 at 17:59  
Blogger greenalien said...

Ien, your miopic attitude never ceases to amuse me. With that sort of disdain for need of factual evidence, How come we don't see you promoting church of scientology yet?

31 January 2010 at 18:03  
Anonymous len said...

Srizals, Doesn`t make sense at all!
Try reading the new testament.

The Koran is made up of odds and ends which do not connect or make sense!

31 January 2010 at 18:05  
Blogger srizals said...

Hi Len, would you be kind enough to give me the number of the verses you said of odds and ends that do not connect or make sense in the Koran and also in the new testament for my references for salvation, so that I could look it up. Thanks.

31 January 2010 at 18:18  
Blogger srizals said...

2.30 a.m. on the 1st February in the blessed lands of the Malay. Got to sleep. Be here tomorrow, God willing.

31 January 2010 at 18:32  
Anonymous GTGTWG said...

The problem with a scientist such as Dawkins is: they believe only in what is termed ‘rational.’ This is a huge disservice. They can’t get their brain around the magical mind, only the rational mind. They forget that intangible things such as feelings, dreams, imagination etc, are every bit as important to all things creative. For example, a scientist once said to me, ‘without rational thinkers you would have nothing. You wouldn’t have the car you drive, the computer you type from.’ He had no comprehension regarding the fact that all things come first from creation…from inspiration, thoughts, feelings, imagination. A computer has to be inspired/thought/imagined first for it to manifest. Besides how can the rational mind be responsible for everything? It isn’t possible. Dawkins is lost in facts, figures, and dogman (facts often being the biggest liars). If one only listens to one sided viewpoints, one sided education systems, and one sided religions, then they can only come to a one sided stalemate. His book should be renamed the Dawkins Delusion. People who think planet Earth and human life is all there is miss out on magic. I can’t ‘imagine’ having to live my life in such a boring way? Now that would be hell on earth to me—no sense of anything more? When you’re dead, you’re dead? Get into some Quantum Physics Richard please. At least collect some other information. Only then would I listen to the man. And how arrogant—how a scientist changed the way we think! Not me Richard, not me! Thank God! ‘Be the guide not the sheep.’ Just because ‘science says’ doesn’t mean it’s right! However, I do believe in the law of attraction and Dawkins believes that God does not exist so for him this is probably true. Whatever we think we can create.

31 January 2010 at 18:42  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

Anon at 13.41 asks the question: how many angels can dance on the head of pin, anyone? anyone?

Yes. Me anon.

31 January 2010 at 18:44  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Your Grace,

The question how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, was merely a device used to sharpen the intellect of the Christian student.

As Dorothy L. Sayers wrote in The Lost Tools of Learning:

"A glib speaker in the Brains Trust once entertained his audience (and reduced the late Charles Williams to helpless rage) by asserting that in the Middle Ages it was a matter of faith to know how many archangels could dance on the point of a needle. I need not say, I hope, that it never was a matter of faith; it was simply a debating exercise, whose set subject was the nature of angelic substance: were angels material, and if so, did they occupy space? The answer usually adjudged correct is, I believe, that angels are pure intelligences; not material, but limited, so that they may have location in space but not extension. An analogy might be drawn from human thought, which is similarly non-material and similarly limited. Thus, if your thought is concentrated upon one thing say, the point of a needle it is located there in there in the sense that it is not elsewhere; but although it is there, it occupies no space there, and there is nothing to prevent an infinite number of different people's thoughts being concentrated upon the same needle-point at the same time. The proper subject of the argument is thus seen to be the distinction between location and tension in space; the matter on which the argument is exercised happens to be the nature of angels (although, as we have seen, it might equally well have been something else); the practical lesson to be drawn from the argument is not to use words like there in a loose and unscientific way, without specifying whether you mean located there or occupying space there."

There is one twist to all this, I suggest. Physicists are beginning to entertain the idea of ‘extra-terrestrial’ life. The question is going to be resurrected.

Professor Dawkins: eat your heart out!

31 January 2010 at 18:59  
Blogger srizals said...

Wow, I'm confused. And I'm not the type that is easily confused D Singh. Are you actually a Singh?

31 January 2010 at 19:04  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr srizals

It is a convention on these sites that you do not probe the identity of a poster.

You exclaim ‘Wow’. I’ ‘afraid’ there is more to all this; the crop-circles you are observing are revealing, to mathematicians, new geometric theorems. There is either a brilliant artist-mathematician out there who deserves the Nobel Prize for Mathematics or something is hinting (at something) and playing with us.


Mr Len and Mr Preacher - please desist, for the time being, discussing Ezekiel's chariot.

31 January 2010 at 19:14  
Anonymous len said...

GREEN ALIEN,
There is a difference between facts and truth,
Facts change, truth doesn`t.
I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, not a follower of the church of anything.

31 January 2010 at 19:15  
Anonymous len said...

Mr Singh,
Ezekiels Chariot?

31 January 2010 at 19:17  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Len

I do not wish to discuss this subject further.

My kind regards.

Well, anon at 13.41: how now?

31 January 2010 at 19:19  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D. Singh: "The question how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, was merely a device used to sharpen the intellect of the Christian student."

Oh, dear. Leaving aside the oxymoron that religious belief has intellectual properties, yes, of course it was a theoretical question; however, it is indicative of the closed 'logic' that theology employs: "the universe exits, it is too wonderful not to have been created by a deity, therefore there must be a god, therefore there are angels, therefore what is the mass of an angel? Is it small enough to stand on the head of pin? If it is, does this mean it has two legs?..."and so on and on.

It is no different from: "the universe exists, it is has so many stars and planets that life must exist elsewhere, therefore aliens must be real, therefore aliens must be visiting us, so why do some spacecraft leave physical evidence of their existence and other don't?..."and so on and so on.

31 January 2010 at 19:22  
Blogger srizals said...

Ezekiel's chariot? Hmm. Is it like another secret kind of Da Vinci code to uncover or shall I say, discover. Well, actually if I may explain myself, surely you can understand my poster like appearance as you can understand Cranmer's persona. It helps a lot, when we are getting close with sources that would shy away, if the identity of the jackal is so obvious. Since you desist, I have to conform, I'm sleep typing anyway. Good nite, until the next time.

31 January 2010 at 19:25  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Mr Srizals

You are travelling in the right direction: 'surely you can understand my poster like appearance as you can understand Cranmer's persona. It helps a lot..'

String theory! That is the door-way. Cranmer exists here in two-dimensional space. But suppose he existed in another dimension? Suppose, in addition there is more dimensions?

Anon - if the modern physicist proceeded along your 'thematic logic' - the new emerging physics would not make sense.

The physics of centuries ago - suddenly makes sense.

31 January 2010 at 19:33  
Blogger greenalien said...

"Just because ‘science says’ doesn’t mean it’s right!"

1+1 = Whatever God says.

31 January 2010 at 19:40  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Your Grace, I read the article and thought it was a complete load of hot air. It insults not only the thoughtful atheist (who by and large simply say they do not believe in any God and that is that) as well as the devout Christian. I find that this chap is on a one-man band 'crusade' against anything Christian or religious and he really adds zero to any kind of intellectual debate, or of theological value.

Finally, I find it mad that there is an implication between enlightened sciences on the one hand a group of mad Christian fundamentalists on the other. This is untrue; you can be both a Christian and a scientist. It is just that Christian scientists (such as my wife) thank God for their intellect and ability to seek knowledge and greater understanding. So I would say to Dawkins, chill out and get back to the day job. Which is presumably not about writing fiction in a respectable paper.

31 January 2010 at 20:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

God works in many mysterious ways....
I imagine that Saul was a type of Dawkins person, endlessly persecuting the Jews.
But look what happened to him!
Be careful, Dawkins.
Brgds
Peter Melia

31 January 2010 at 20:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

D Singh: "Anon - if the modern physicist proceeded along your 'thematic logic' - the new emerging physics would not make sense"

Why do you care about physics? Surely your god controls space and time and everything? With god in control why do humans need to understand anything at all? Isn't the fate of humankind in the hand of your god, to do with us as he wishes? Especially if we don't 'worship' him in the ways dictated to by 'his' agents?

Your pitiful delusions are all too plain...

31 January 2010 at 20:08  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Richard Dawkins speaks out against all irrational religions, not just the so-called Christians.

You only WISH you could honestly claim persecution. Whereas the truth is, most of us just ridicule your superstitious fancies. The latter isn't quite so romantic for you, is it?

LOL at the Faith Heads on this blog. No wonder the ridicule is growing.

31 January 2010 at 20:35  
Anonymous Prodigal son said...

I was drifting towards agnosticism when I watched a God bashing progamme presented by Dawkins in the expectation that my views would receive some endorsement.

On the contrary. This sheep has returned to the flock. Dawkins' superficiality, cheap shots and hostility indicated a disturbed mind and a weak grasp of the position of intelligent believers.

31 January 2010 at 20:38  
Anonymous IanCad said...

'But he is not an atheist: he is religiophobic'
Exactly Your Grace, and as such he needs medical treatment. Broadmoor comes to mind.

31 January 2010 at 20:54  
Blogger John.D said...

We know what science has to say, and we know what sits in our hearts and speaks to us, so do we give a flying fuck what Dawkins has to say about what we love to believe?

I have been a prodigal son that many times it has got to the point where I give up trying to give up. We are grateful for science I am sure, I know I am grateful for all learned things, but I need God in my life so get out of my face or I will stick one on you!

Yah baby! Put that in your book Dawkins.

31 January 2010 at 20:56  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

"Whereas the truth is, most of us just ridicule your superstitious fancies. The latter isn't quite so romantic for you, is it?No wonder the ridicule is growing."

Clearly the anon is talking about the made up religion of climate scientists, who fiddle data to make their beliefs look like facts?

Also, I do not know if this anon is the same person who keeps leaving quite crude and nasty comments on nearly all of his grace's posts, but I have to say that these people or he/she is quite nasty, crude and vicious. So much for non religion being head and shoulders above people of religious faith.

31 January 2010 at 21:03  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chill out man, just pray for the geezer that the God whom holds his life in His hands will break his pride and take the veil from hi eyes, either way Dawkins is going to meet God, either as judge or saviour.

31 January 2010 at 21:13  
Anonymous Martin Sewell said...

To communicate that there is intelligent life here on earth, radio signals are being transmiited in prime number sequence - 1 3 5 7 11 13 etc.

If we recieved such a signal, it is reasoned, that would be conclusive proof of intelligent life as no casual random event could account for such rational organised mathematical sequence.

That was the scientific test constructed as the test for intelligence in the universe beyond our own.

Subsequent to this test, the genome was discovered. Page after page, volume after volume of complex logical coding which Bill Gates described as resembling nothing more than the computer code - the most complex fabulous code beyond anything Microsoft has yet come up with.

The militant atheists have a real problem with the fact that what pre-dates and lies behind our existance, passes our own test for a separate intelligence to our own.

31 January 2010 at 21:18  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You mention approvingly John Calvin's "labyrinthine theology," which led him to call for the murder of Christians who disagreed with him on religious questions, such as Michael Servetus, who was burned alive atop a stack of his Christian writings. If John Calvin is one of the best examples of a Christian theologian, what does that say about Christianity?

31 January 2010 at 21:34  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Excellent post, Your Grace. The usual feeling of depression brought on by reading Dawkins has been lifted.
Edward Sutherland

31 January 2010 at 23:05  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good grief. A christian poster on here actually calls for a non believer to be locked in Broadmoor.

There's an interesting post on youtube, where Dawkins reads out hate mail and death threats from christians and muslims.

You must be proud of your followers, who are only calling for the hatred and locking up of non believers. Such a bunch to be proud of, eh? Condemn a man from chinese whispers. But then evidence never was necessary for the Faithful, was it?

31 January 2010 at 23:07  
Anonymous Adrian P said...

Someone should ask him publically if Allah exists, that will shut him up.

31 January 2010 at 23:09  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why would it shut him up? Clearly, you have not read his works or attended any of his seminars or public engagements.

What an ignorant comment, Adrian P. Do further research before you spill your oat-filled head again.

31 January 2010 at 23:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Four Horsemen of the Apocolypse -

[For Adrian P. and other ignoramuses]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuyUz2XLp1E&feature=PlayList&p=2CDBF60331BD46AD&index=0

31 January 2010 at 23:15  
Anonymous len said...

Anons,atheists,agnostics, Dawkins supporters,
Just a cursory glance at biblical prophesy would tell you that the probability of Jesus Christ fulfilling a few of these would be unlikely, to fulfill hundreds of these impossible,But Jesus Christ fulfilled every one of these!

These are facts which the unbelieving do not care to look at because these facts would blow away their delusions.

Christianity is based on solid fact and truth but the Dawkins delusion is without fact, truth or any foundation other than based on one mans (wrong) perception of God.
Dawkins and others like him are blind leading the blind.

I pray for Dawkins and his followers that their eyes might be opened.

31 January 2010 at 23:20  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

LOL at Len. Dawkins points to scientific evidence, which is there to see and feel and touch - and you hold up a bronze aged text.

Dawkins OWNS you, man. You can marvel at the tales of a pithy burning bush and the rest of us will marvel at evolution and the sights brought to us from the hubble telescope. You don't need to worship Thor, or Diana, or Jehova, or Allah, or any other of the Gods gone before to appreciate the wonders of the universe. You can be a man of one book, while the free thinkers can appreciate many - and we can question them without fear of death threats from each other.

31 January 2010 at 23:37  
Anonymous Stewart Cowan said...

Anonymous, above - you are not a free-thinker by shutting off your spiritual side. It makes you the least 'free-thinking' of people.

1 February 2010 at 00:21  
Anonymous Michal said...

Thinking is not the same as Feeling.

Feeling is great, but we should not rely on it to answer the great questions of the day, and as it was proven by History, dark ages in particular, we can't expect it to provide accurate portrayal of the world.

1 February 2010 at 00:40  
Anonymous len said...

Anon 22:37
What is the evidence that Dawkins points to?
As for Dawkins owning me, Dawkins doesn`t even own himself, satan is his master, he controls his thoughts and controls his destiny.
The only one laughing is satan and I bet you don`t even believe in him, clever isn`t he?

1 February 2010 at 00:46  
Anonymous Michal said...

I agree with His Grace in the respect that Islam would not get the same treatment as Christianity, however, if His Grace has previously always insisted that Muslims must simply get used to that sort of treatment of their faith, because Britain is based on liberal principles, why did he suddenly turn 180° and is upset by the fact that Dawkins is using his right to put Christianity under the scrutiny of scientific method? Why is he suddenly asking whether Dawkins should be prosecuted?

Did His Grace suddenly decide to become the Christian equivalent of Taliban?

He asks: "Why can't Dawkins leave Christianity alone if it's really a myth." That question has two faces: "Why is His Grace so upset by Dawkins if he is really so misguided and unhinged?"

1 February 2010 at 00:49  
Anonymous not a machine said...

SETI project has always puzzled me , being as universe is est to be 15bn years old and our earth is 5bn .Our galaxy is 100,000 light years across and should contain 1000s of earth like planets with life.
Whilst radio signals have been travelling through space from our planet for about 100yrs , the sheer time span and number of planets , you would assume we would be hearing intelligemt signals from somewhere , yet zilch .

Despite the view that once life gets going , earth had a very long basic life phase , there must still be life forming planets that have existed before the earth was formed , yet we hear nothing .

There is also the problem , that Darwinism explains form change , but does not explain why life moves beyond simple energy efficient goo .

1 February 2010 at 01:13  
Anonymous IanCad said...

Anon 23:07
My comments were offered somewhat tongue in cheek. However, your earnestness prompted me to reflect a little more and I have come to the conclusion that I may be nearer the mark than I thought.
His Grace's subject was the mental state and likely criminality of Prof. Dawkins under current law. Given a zealous prosecutor and D's gross arrogance a jury could possibly make a finding of guilt on the latter issue if the State were so unwise as to proceed with the matter.
As to the insanity question, I have heard D. advocate for the outlawing of religion. Yes! he was quite serious. He would appeal to the power of the State to enforce his own particular prejudices. History is richly supplied with tyrants of all persuasions persecuting their fellows for their consciences. To add to this sorry list, as D suggests, is insanity.
Broadmoor is an institution for the criminally insane. I submit that D has, at least marginally, both characteristics.

1 February 2010 at 03:31  
Blogger Steve said...

If you're a Christian who is a better human being than Pat Robertson, then good for you. But if you pretend that your good morals are biblical when you know perfectly well how you had to throw out vast parts of the bible to get that way, then shame on you for lying. There's nothing wrong with throwing away large parts of the bible and only cherry picking a few bits out you like to follow, but there is something very wrong with giving credit to the bible for a philosophy that requires rejecting large portions of it. So tell me, have you killed people who come to your town and are of a different religion? My guess would be no. But this is exactly the sort of vile behavior the Bible not only condones, but in fact actively commands.

The point of Dawkins' article was not that Christians are bad people, but that they lie about the source of their nice morality, and that lie causes harm when a doofus like Pat Robertson comes along and actually tries to follow the more vile teachings that exist within the writings of your religious book that you thankfully don't follow but unfortunately pretend to.

You can be an honest person.
You can call the Bible the "good book".
Too bad you can't do both.

The Bible has some small number of good teachings, wrapped up in a large package of bad ones. The good teachings don't make up the majority of the text, even by the most conservative person's concept of "good teachings", and yet they lie constantly about this and pretend it's crystal clear within the text which parts its telling you to follow and which parts it's telling you not to.

Well, it's NOT crystal clear, which is why people like Pat Robertson exist.

We're very glad modern Christians are nice people instead of the people they'd be if they attempted to actually follow all the contradictory commands within the bible. We just wish they were more honest about that fact. This is the point you have missed, and most commentators to this blog have missed.

Just like most muslims are good people, unlike the sort of people they'd be if they followed all the commands in the Qu'ran and Hadiths

1 February 2010 at 04:54  
Anonymous Rob said...

len, how could Jesus have done "every single one of those" when there is NO contemporary account other than what's in the Bible.

Taking the Bible for Jesus' existence is the same as taking "Harry Potter and the Philospher's Stone" for Voldemort's.

1 February 2010 at 04:55  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Anon at 8.08 pm

'Why do you care about physics? Surely your god controls space and time and everything? With god in control why do humans need to understand anything at all?'

That is the same view that is found within Islamic theology: what will be will be. I take it that you are a Muslim?


We conduct science with the same attitude as Sir Isaac Newton; because God created (an ordered universe with laws) we belive by doing science we will be able to think God's thouhts after Him.

1 February 2010 at 04:58  
OpenID Danny said...

Richard Dawkins does not hold up Rev R as the be all and all of christianity. He points out that RR takes the bible "as is". Those that do not do so are simply acknowledging that the bible is not a fundamental document upon which their faith is built. This means that what is written in the bible is considered ideas that you may pick and choose from, and not something to wield as support in arguments about moral authority.

The same is applicable to the Koran and the Torah. The fact that they were not mentioned this time does not mean that they are exempt from criticism.

1 February 2010 at 05:33  
Blogger phauna said...

Perhaps you all need to understand the logical fallacy called "no true Scotsman".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_scotsman

Dawkins is calling Pat Robertson a true christian because he seems not to sweep the Old Testament fire and brimstone stuff under the table, as most christians do these days. He actually adheres to more things in the bible than most christians.

Picking and choosing from the bible is what all christians do these days, so in effect no one group is any more or less christian than the other, objectively. There is no authority to which one could say this thing in the bible is important but those other things aren't. Who is to be the final arbiter of the "true christian"?

1 February 2010 at 07:41  
Anonymous len said...

Jesus Christ.

1 February 2010 at 08:07  
Anonymous len said...

Rob, Cornelius Tacitus
Lucien of Samosata
Seutonius
Pliny the younger
Thallus and Phlegon
Mara-ben Serapion
Josephus
I could probably find more
All the gospels are confirmed by the dead sea scrolls( a good a record as any)

The bible stated the world was round when scientists and scholars thought the world was flat!
Truths in the bible are constantly being validated.

Its you who live in delusion!

Blessing to you in the name of the risen Lord Jesus Christ.

1 February 2010 at 08:15  
Anonymous Bruce said...

Angels are quite large and make a fair bit of noise with wing flapping.I have held several in my
arms.

1 February 2010 at 08:29  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Why Dawkin is becoming shriller by the day
But then something happened. In 1993 Professor Phillip Johnson, University of California, invited a small group of scientists from major academic centers to Pajaro Dunes, CA, to question an idea that had dominated scientific thinking for 150 years—Darwinian Evolution. This was a turning point for all who attended. Each had questions they dared not express before. Each brought something of their own into this critical inquiry. As the discussions intensified, excitement rose as a new way of looking at the origin of life dawned. This was the beginning of a community of scientists who were willing to follow their doubts concerning evolution to new horizons of understanding the origin of life and the symmetry of the universe.
Earth was no longer viewed as a speck of dust adrift, without purpose or significance, in the vast cosmic sea. They now knew that a finely-tuned array of factors throughout the universe worked together to make Earth suitable for complex life. All of this wealth of knowledge could be summed up by one phrase—“Intelligent Design.”
They returned to academia and dialogued with their associate scientists. Now many of Dawkins’ fellow atheistic evolutionists deserted him for “Intelligent Design.” Many books supporting “Intelligent Design” were published. Yes, there is a God behind it all. What audacity! No longer was Dawkins debating with biblical simpletons, but with “Intelligent Design” scientists, or simpletons buttressed by the arguments of “Intelligent Design” scientists.
The next blow to Dawkins was the deflection of Fred Hoyle, the dean of cosmology and hero of atheistic evolutionists, who aggressively opposed theism and Christianity. Hoyle originated the longstanding “Static Universe” theory that excluded the need of an intelligent Creator.
But Hoyle discovered that an incredible fine-tuning of the nuclear ground state energies for helium, beryllium, carbon and oxygen was necessary for any kind of life to exist. If the ground state energies of these elements proportioned to each other were just four percent higher or lower, there would be insufficient oxygen or carbon for life anywhere in the universe, including the planet Earth. This fine-tuning forced Hoyle to conclude—a super-intellect (God) “monkeyed” with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology in order for life to exist on Earth. Hoyle becoming a theist shook the halls of atheistic evolution.
Then Hoyle did the unforgivable. He dared to attack Dawkins’ pet theory of chemicals sloshing about in a “prebiotic soup” catalyzed by extreme convulsions of nature and presto, microscopic life appeared. The total probability of this happening by chance is 1/10^167,626 Thus, without an intelligent Creator, life’s probability was next to zero.
Hoyle compared this chance of spontaneous life as equal to a “tornado sweeping through a junkyard” that afterwards settled down uniquely assembled into a Boeing 747 from all the debris. Dawkins’ anger bristled as he retorted Hoyle, a recognized giant in science, “doesn’t understand the first thing about natural selection.”

1 February 2010 at 08:39  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The Last Straw
Antony Flew, Dawkins’ fellow professor at Oxford and the leading Philosophy Professor championing atheism for over 50 years, startled the intellectual world in 2004 by announcing that he now believed in God.
Once a legendary proponent and debater for atheism for decades, Flew concluded, “the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.” Flew stated, “It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.” Flew also renounced naturalistic theories of evolution. This proved devastating to Dawkins. So Dawkins struck out with a vengeance in THE GOD DELUSION. “The fool says in his heart, ‘There is no God.’” Psalm 14:1, ESV.
Evolution’s Roots of Morality???
To Dawkins all religions are evil. They pervert and brutalize mankind. He attributes the good in man to Darwinian Evolution: “Altruistic genes have been selected through the process of our evolution, and we possess a natural empathy.” According to Dawkins, if mankind threw off the evil contaminations of all religions they would stand united as atheists, allowing their altruistic genes to propel them into a brave new world. Well, the 20th century shot that theory full of holes.
Evolution and atheism proved to be a disastrous mix. In his book OUT OF CONTROL, Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s National Security Advisor, noted “The 20th century became mankind’s most bloody and hateful century.… Totalitarian utopias caused the death of approximately 175 million people in this history of insanity.” Why?
The roots of Nazism came out of the writings of Friedrich Nietzsche and his theory of the Superman. Nietzsche’s philosophy, in turn, drew from the writings of Darwin and Herbert Spencer. Spencer coined the phrase “survival of the fittest,” yet it was Nietzsche who most clearly articulated that evolution showed that strength was the most desired quality and weakness the only failing. Yet, the atheistic rule of Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc., resulting in 175 million deaths proves the utter bankruptcy of the evolution-atheism mix.
Are All Religions Evil?
Global Islamic Jihad bombings, 9/11, mass murders, and beheadings all in the name of Allah seems to confirm Dawkins. What about Judaism? The God of Judaism gave us the moral laws of Moses and the utopian ideals of the Prophets.
The second President of the US, John Adams, had this to say of the Jewish people and their religion: “They have done more for civilized men than any other nation…. They are the most glorious nation that ever inhabited the earth. The Romans in their empire were but a bauble in comparison to the Jews. They have given religion to three-quarters of the globe and have influenced the affairs of mankind more, and more happily, than any other nation, ancient or modern.”
Jesus indicted the religious rulers for corrupting Judaism, but the religion God gave to the Jewish people was pure. Matt. 23.

1 February 2010 at 08:40  
Blogger D. Singh said...

What about the Christian religion? The teachings of Jesus and his twelve Apostles are pure and noble. The Sermon on the Mount and Paul’s dissertation on love are sublime. But the Christian era has been bloody. There is no evil in the Christian religion. Whereas, there is evil in the Christian church to the extent these systems have been influenced by Satan’s false teachings and follow his spirit. During the centuries of the Holy Roman Empire, the Popes claimed to be God on earth, and The “Holy” Inquisition was born amidst the screams of tens of thousands as they were stretched on the racks or burned at the stake.
Calvin in Geneva, percentage wise slaughtered or burned more than the Papal Inquisition. Then there was Luther’s bloodbath of the Anabaptists, whose only sin was they opposed infant baptism. Jesus in Matthew 13 predicted that the tares, nominal Christians, would vastly outnumber the wheat, true Christians. The true Christians were a light of nobility by word and deed during the darkness of the Christian era.
Christ’s Kingdom
The story of Christianity is far from ended. Atheism lasts only for the present life— short or long. But Christianity lasts for eternity. Why? The God of the Christian religion so loved not only Christians, but also non-Christians including atheists, that He gave His son to die for every man. (Heb. 2:9) For God “will have all men to be saved [from Adamic death—‘For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive,’ 1 Cor. 15:22] and [then] to come to an accurate [Gk.] knowledge of the truth,” 1 Tim. 2:3,4. Why? Because Jesus “died a ransom for all,” verse 6.
During this life God is calling a special class, a “little flock,” who will have the unique honor of reigning as kings and priests (to bless) with Christ in his thousand-year kingdom, Rev. 20:6. Meanwhile, all non-Christians, including atheists, are learning the consequences or “travail” of sin (Eccl. 1:13; 3:10) so that in Christ’s kingdom, when “the earth shall be full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the waters cover the sea” (Isa. 11:9) the “remainder of men” (who are not of the “little flock”) will have the opportunity “to seek after the Lord.” Acts 15:14-17. Oh yes, throughout eternity the “little flock” will be special, very special. They will be the “apple of God’s eye,” Psalm 17:8.
Dawkins’ Basic Challenge
Remember Hoyle’s Boeing 747 satire to disprove spontaneous life by chance. Dawkins turned it around to argue that, “God almost certainly does not exist.” He said, “However statistically improbable the entity you seek to explain by invoking a designer, the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable. God is the Ultimate Boeing 747.”
Notwithstanding Dawkins’ sarcasm, forget his Boeing 747. Our God is the ultimate of what an ideal God should be. No amount of superlatives can fully describe His greatness and goodness. Justice is the foundation of His rule. He is the epitome of Paul’s dissertation on love in 1 Corinthians 13. He knows the beginning from the end and has the wisdom to plan for eternity for the best interests of all, without the possibility of failure. And He has the power to carry out His benevolent purposes.

1 February 2010 at 08:40  
Blogger 3Finker said...

yawn - what a parody apologists are - 'you don't understand my sophisticated religion' - 'we are the poor oppressed' - all very contrived and very dull - you believe in bullshit - own up and stop your whining when you get called out on it.

1 February 2010 at 08:41  
Blogger D. Singh said...

This God Exists
The Judeo-Christian Bible is unique in that it contains hundreds of prophecies, some making predictions from over 3,000 years ago that are being fulfilled in our day. Over 200 prophecies were written up to 1,000 years before the 33-½ years of Jesus’ life on earth. They predicted minute details about Jesus, which were fulfilled. Many prophecies have been fulfilled down through the ages. How does this prove there is a God? Only a God can make predictions from 300 to 3,000 years ahead of time and know in advance what will happen or use His power to fulfill these predictions.
Also, our Bible contains many scientific observations that anticipated scientific discovery by up to 3,000 years. Again, only a God, our Heavenly Father, could predict and cause these scientific discoveries to happen. Your faith needs the free booklet, How Do We Know There Is a God and Is our Bible His Inspired Word? Its four-color cover will make it an inviting coffee table piece for a Christian Home.

From The Bible Students Congregation, New Brunswick

1 February 2010 at 08:41  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

"Yawn - what a parody apologists are - 'you don't understand my sophisticated religion' - 'we are the poor oppressed' - all very contrived and very dull - you believe in bullshit - own up and stop your whining when you get called out on it."

And of course the same could be said of science as well, 3Finker. Besides which, you are being quite irrational yourself, by calling religion "bullshit", without attempting to verify or back up this statement with any opinion, argument or evidence or thought.

I have to say that by and large there is an absence from the Dawkins/Atheist side about really wanting to do what you say you do, e.g. 'I do not believe in God because x, y x', the arguments being displayed are on a par with what you allege the Christian thought pattern is, i.e. unthinking, slavish fundamentalism, with zero use of the grey matter to propose an argument. And whilst I already know what I believe, I do not think people are going to be convinced by this level of debate.

But the thoughtful atheists (such as the glovy) must be hiding somewhere because they are perhaps ashamed of reading what, as his grace says, the arguments being put forward by the atheists and dawkins apologetics as sub-GCSE standard. And this from the so -called intellectuals who do not need God in their life.

So, who is being the real bores in this debate now?

1 February 2010 at 09:10  
Blogger Dennis Rydgren said...

Quick answer on:

"If God is simply an imaginary being somewhere up there with Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy, why does he get himself so worked up about it?"

- If you can't figure that out maybe you should be thinking, not writing. Of course there is a lot of things not true worth criticizing and proclaiming wrong or/and immoral.

And every time the religious of any denomination or special God cult talks about "incitement to religious hatred" you clearly make use of people like Mr Dawkins.

1 February 2010 at 09:11  
Blogger Drosera said...

You Christians wailing in self pity are a pathetic bunch. Do you disagree with atheists who claim that the gods of the Hindus, the ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Mayas, and any number of primitive tribes do not exist? I would think not. And yet I am fairly sure that you know next to nothing about the sophisticated theology of these belief systems.

But when atheists dismiss Christianity for being equally silly as any other cult, they are always accused of not taking into account the subtle theology that envelopes the edifice of Christianity as cobwebs entangling the junk in an old cellar. The cobwebs of Christian theology ultimately cover nothing but a lot of musty rubbish.

Your religion is all fantasy, and rather childish fantasy at that.

1 February 2010 at 09:31  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Did you read Dawkins article? From your response it appears that either you didn't read it, you didn't understand it or you are being intentional dishonest in your review. It would take too much space to deal with all your mistakes/lies so I will only deal with a few, and I hope other readers will then realize your other errors.

1) you say "for [dawkins] appears to presume that the Revd. Pat Robertson is the archetypal Christian, and lauds him for his adherence to Christian orthodoxy.

Your statement is dead wrong, dawkins starts with "Loathsome as Robertson's views undoubtedly are" I would hardly call that "lauding" Robertson.

2. "What fate would befall Cranmer if he equated all Muslims with the 'obnoxious' Osama Bin Laden?"

Your statement here shows a deep misunderstanding of Dawkins point. Dawkins was not equating all christians with Pat Robertson. He is whole argument is that christians cannot disown Robertson as not being a true christian. Dawkins is simply making the point that Robertson's views come from a rational interpreation of the bible.

In fact Dawkins main point is that the bible is full of acts of god that today we would consider evil. I assume that he is trying to point out this out to make people stop to consider what the bible really says. Of course the bible has good things in it as well, and Dawkins does not dispute that anywhere in his article. He is simply drawing peoples attention to the fact that the god detailed in the christian bible did perform acts that we would consider evil.

3) "But neither would Professor Dawkins have parodied their beliefs or criticised their orthodoxy."

Dawkins is not parodying christianity. He is in fact simply stating directly what your bible says. You simply seem to be offended that he is actually willing to criticize what he sees as evil in your book. I doubt that you would find the murder of people by a vengeful god to be a good act either. So either you can agree with Dawkins, that yes there was evil performed by the god of the bible, or you can deny that his acts, such as the flood, were evil.

4) "he displays a sub-GCSE level of comprehension of theology and an utterly simplistic caricature of religious philosophy"

You are a hypocrite. How can you state this about dawkins when you clearly didn't understand his brief article. Its one thing to say that someone else doesn't understand your beliefs and is mischaracterizing them, but you lose credibility when your whole response shows that you didn't understand what your opponent was saying.

All I ask, is that you take a second read of Dawkins article and see what he is really saying and then perhaps write a response to the article that Dawkins wrote, instead of responding to the article that you think Dawkins wrote.

1 February 2010 at 09:39  
Anonymous bluedog said...

Steve @ 4.54 pm,which part of the New Testament should a Christian throw away?

1 February 2010 at 09:45  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

"He displays a sub-GCSE level of comprehension of theology and an utterly simplistic caricature of religious philosophy"

Theology is no more worthy a subject of study than is astrology.

1 February 2010 at 09:45  
Anonymous Richard Dawkins said...

Dear Cranmer

I am intrigued by the Christian vitriol that is being thrown in my face after my article in The Times. You, Cranmer, have even suggested that I should be arrested for incitement to religious hatred. Here’s a brief summary of what I actually said. Cranmer, please explain, calmly and coolly, what is wrong with it.

Whether Christian, Muslim, Jew or atheist, we all agree in condemning Pat Robertson’s suggestion that the earthquake was God’s punishment to the Haitian people for making a pact with the devil. But Christians, unlike Muslims, Jews or atheists, are hypocrites to condemn Robertson, because he is the one who clearly and unapologetically stands up for Christian theology. As follows:-

1. God metes out terrible punishment for sin. The doctrine of post-mortem punishment for sin in Hell is fully sanctioned in the New Testament (not in the Old Testament, incidentally, although the Old Testament has plenty of wholesale punishment for sin in this world). Cranmer, are you now saying that Pat Robertson is mistaken in his emphasis on divine punishment for sin?

2. Humanity is so deeply sinful that the only way God could forgive us was to have his own son punished vicariously for all our sins. He was tortured and crucified so that humanity’s sin could be purged. Cranmer, are you now denying that Jesus died for our sins? Moreover, the principal sin for which Jesus died was the sin of Adam, who actually never existed. Cranmer, are you saying you think Adam existed and therefore that evolution is false?

3. Robertson’s devil talk may sound barbaric, but all Christians subscribe to the belief that Jesus ‘cast out devils’. And this cannot just be an archaic way of saying ‘cured mental illness’, because on one occasion the devils departed from a madman and entered a herd of swine, causing them to stampede over a cliff. Christians who believe that Gospel story are therefore committed to the belief that ‘devils’ are actual entities or agents, capable of leaving one brain and entering another. Cranmer, are you denying the truth of that Gospel story? (Many modern Christians would, but Pat Robertson would stay true to the Gospel).

If you are denying some parts of the Gospel but not others, how do you decide which parts? As it happens, Pat Robertson, like the true Christian he is, chooses to deny none of it.

Cranmer, you accuse me of a “sub-GCSE level of comprehension of theology and an utterly simplistic caricature of religious philosophy.” My comprehension of Christian theology is set out in points 1 and 2 above (and arguably point 3, depending on what kind of Christian you are). My understanding of Christian theology is that all true Christians stand by at least 1 and 2. Cranmer, do you deny either of them? Please answer clearly and honestly, and without personal venom or irrelevant sideswipes.

Richard Dawkins

1 February 2010 at 09:54  
Blogger Gordon Goblin said...

Why is it that whenever people want to cry religious persecution they alwas add a dose of fatwa envy.

"Oh you'd never dare say this about Muslims"

Well [i]many people do criticise Muslims. Islam is a religion of peace in an ironic fashion only.

But, more importantly, [ii] what you are really saying is

"I wish my fellow Christians and I could also threaten you like our barbaric cousins"

The Emperor has no clothes. We do not need to be fashion experts to point this out.

1 February 2010 at 09:59  
Blogger InYourFaceNewYorker said...

Yes, Dawkins should be arrested for stating his opinion.

::rolls eyes::

1 February 2010 at 10:08  
Blogger some hamsters said...

Yes, of course the average churchgoer takes into account "the labyrinthine theologies of Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Schleiermacher, Barth..." ...it's silly to make any religious criticism that fails to recognise that fact. (Also rolls eyes.)

1 February 2010 at 10:21  
Blogger gsw said...

They would never permit such offensive invective against Islam

Who please is "they" - the islamists who blow things up and throw fire bombs if you "insult" their so-called god or the Dhimmi media & government who kow-tow to them?

Nobody would print my opinion of Ratzinger either.

Just because the christians have stopped openly torturing and burning people (at least here in the west) doesn't suddenly make them blameless.

Personally, I think he is far to polite to the conmen in the various churches of the world.

1 February 2010 at 10:23  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Professor Dawkins,

If His Grace were a believer in the 'real presence' of your distinguished self upon his august blog, he might be inclined to respond in the manner you quite reasonably request. But, alas, he contends daily with a thousand Tony Blairs and a hundred David Camerons, not to mention one or two who have the audactity to profess to be a bishop or archbishop of the Church of England. Authenticity is fiendishly difficult to discern, and the time to dedicate to the pursuit so very short.

1 February 2010 at 10:27  
Blogger InYourFaceNewYorker said...

Archbishop Cranmer,

It is indeed Richard Dawkins. Just go to his website www.richarddawkins.net and you will see his comment-- in response to a link to this blog entry-- where he stated that he posted this letter here. It is not an impostor.

1 February 2010 at 10:30  
Anonymous Chris said...

Checkmate to Dawkins. I wonder if any of the apologists will get it this time? Far from suggesting he should be prosecuted, he should be thanked for pointing out so succinctly to the apologists how absurd and hypocritical their position is.

1 February 2010 at 10:32  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Professor Dawkins refers to "Christian vitriol" accorded to himself on this blog, but perhaps the enlightened atheists, who have posted on this blog, would mind sorting out the planks in their own eye, rather than looking at the sawdust in others, especially when there are comments, which may be described as opinionated vitriol by others (and with no back up to the statements; not that I am not easily offended as the only one who looks stupid are these posters themselves). Let’s review some of them shall we?

"Christianity is a fantasy"

(Nothing to back this up)

"Why is it that whenever people want to cry religious persecution they always add a dose of fatwa envy. “?

(I cannot see anyone who claims they feel persecuted on these set of blogs, expect Mr Dawkins himself)

"Theology is no more worthy a subject of study than is astrology."

(So what should be taught in its place? And why does this poster state on his website that freedom of speech is important, so long as it is about disparaging religion- but race, oh, no, no, no can't let freedom of speech extent to that!)

"Oh, dear. Leaving aside the oxymoron that religious belief has intellectual properties"

(Again equating the billions of people who hold religious views beneath contempt because you cannot be "religious and intelligent").

"All very contrived and very dull - you believe in bullshit - own up and stop your whining when you get called out on it."

(Quite how this backs up a statement that an atheist is some-how a more enlightened/intelligent person is beyond me)

Before anyone accuses me of taking these quotes out of context, I would suggest that these are the conclusions or thrusts of the commentators and I am unable to see (with a few exceptions) how any of these commentators are justifying coming to these conclusions or indeed engaging in what was written by Crammer in this first.

1 February 2010 at 10:34  
Blogger Rob said...

What a bizarre article. Dawkins is wrong because he doesn't criticise Islam enough?

All you have to do is to show that Christianity is true with evidence and Dawkins will happily shut up. As you can't and never will be able to he and an increasing number of other people are going to point it out to you.

There is no evidence for any kind of god, Christian, Muslim or any other kind. Until there is then it is totally silly to base your life on an irrational belief. That is all he is saying. And I can't see how anyone can disagree with it. He is not asking you to follow him but to try to use your brain.

1 February 2010 at 10:37  
Blogger Robert said...

or alternatively Cranmer
"I can say I don't believe you're the real Dawkins and then I don't have to justify my appalling article"

It should be noted that cowardice, like faith, is not a virtue.

1 February 2010 at 10:40  
Blogger some hamsters said...

Cranmer: re your response to Richard Dawkins (and evidently it is he): surely his questions are valid no matter who asks them? I for one would like to see them answered.

1 February 2010 at 10:40  
Anonymous Chris said...

>>surely his questions are valid no matter who asks them? I for one would like to see them answered.

Not Cramner: judging by his misguided missive above he prefers to go after the person, not the argument.

1 February 2010 at 10:43  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Hmmmm ... have I missed something? I've read & re-read his grace's article and can't find anything that says Dawkins should be arrested.

There is good grounds to say that he would find himself arrested if Dawkins had written his article about certain other religious faiths who do far more regularly espouse the sort of doctrine that he takes to task. However, it might be worth noting that all the major Christian organisations that I am aware of lobbied AGAINST there being a religious hatred law.

His pre-occupation with Christianity rather than deism can be rather irksome but then I discovered something truly remarkable. I used to be worried that he might be a very effective atheist evangelist. But then talking to lots of people - ordinary people, the sort who make up the bulk of the population i.e. non-academics - made me realise that his writing & ranting only really appeal to people who are already angry, atheistic fundies. His snobbery, arrogance & smarminess either (a) is completely ignored or (b) turns off most 'undecideds' which is why I say let him rant away. It actually drives many I know closer to Christ.

1 February 2010 at 10:46  
Blogger Drosera said...

Most amusing to see that Archbishop Cranberry has no problem believing in a fictional character like Jesus of Nazareth, but can't believe in the presence of the real Richard Dawkins.

1 February 2010 at 10:47  
Blogger InYourFaceNewYorker said...

Yes, Rebel Saint, Dawkins is arrogant and smarmy. Whatever. You only think that because it's religion he's criticizing.

1 February 2010 at 10:49  
Blogger gsw said...

@Lord Lavendon:

We atheists are not necessarily "more intelligent" just more "adult".

Defining adulthood as the state of maturity when one is willing to accept responsibility for one's own life and one's actions.

Most religions demand submission to the will of their god (meaning their priests) while atheists accept that they themselves are responsible for the consequences of their actions and act accordingly. If we commit a crime - it is because we are nasty, greedy, power-hungry, murderous, lazy whatever. Not because we are fulfilling the "will of god" or expect to have our corpses resurrected at a later date.

Therefore, many atheists consider religionists to be immature and unreif.
If you find this offensive, as you seem to find most of our comments, please be consoled with the thought that I find shamans &Co. extremely offensive almost every day.
(And yet I do not harm them.)

1 February 2010 at 10:51  
Blogger Jonathan said...

Cranmer-

It is indeed the real Richard Dawkins. Here is a link to the comment he made on RD.net stating that he had commented here:

http://tinyurl.com/y9ggq85

Now, please be so good as to deal with the points he raised, since he did take the time to respond directly to your criticism of him.

1 February 2010 at 10:54  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Oh dear. If it is true that the Prof has posted a link to the article from his site then I prophesy a marked deterioration in the quality of the comments in the next few days & weeks from a deluge of anonymice.

Can I please ask all the faithful not to take the bait of agent provocateurs (a.k.a. 'Trolls') who will undoubtedly appear (as they do from the gay sites whenever the subject of homosexuality is mentioned no matter how fleetingly). Many a good blog or forum has been sent on a downward spiral by those who think that they must respond to every goading. The principle of "Don't feed the trolls" is very wise & timely (they will accuse you of being too cowardly, inadequate, defeated etc ... so be forewarned!). What you feed grows, what you starve dies.

1 February 2010 at 10:58  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Observing Dawkins and his supporters recalls that scene in 2001: Space Odyssey – where the chimpanzees suddenly awake to find a large monolith (evidence of another and advanced civilisation) in the midst of their primitive environment.

The chief chimp summons the courage to advance with trepidation, touches it, and rapidly retreats in fear.

The retreat is not only from scientific data (the monolith) but the logical inference that it has been designed – but from reason itself.

1 February 2010 at 11:00  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

GSW, I am not offended by the statements themselves, because the substance of the atheist argument is that religion is terrible full stop and the tone of which is nothing more than what one would expect to find in the local public house. The statements, which followed, had no follow on, examples or acknowledgement that religion is often confused with belief or an ability to view the world other than in black and white (the critique used by atheists of religion funnily enough).

However, I do acknowledge that you have in the post at 10.51, at least attempting something more than this blokey bar room feel. Even if they are to me the wrong conclusions.

On other comment is I cannot quite understand the persecution complex amongst a lot of the posters, including you. No-one is actually persecuting you here and certainly not in the UK- I would actually say that atheism and the anything goes relativism is more in the ascent that traditional Christianity.

1 February 2010 at 11:01  
Blogger Jumped Up Chimp said...

"The Professor needs to get out more and mix with a few moderate atheists. And he might learn from them that in many countries of the world the Christian faith is the tie that binds communities, gives them a moral framework, induces hope, inspires them to great acts of charity, and exhorts them to love their neighbour by doing all manner of good deeds."

...whilst telling them that they are filty, dirty sinners who must live under a permanent cloud of guilt and submission. That is sort of critical to your faith, and was the whole point of Dawkins' article. If you had at least a GCSE level in Integrity, you'd have mentioned that.

1 February 2010 at 11:03  
Anonymous Graham Martin-Royle said...

It is a great pity that you Mr Cranmer cannot be bothered to respond to the actual points made by Richard Dawkins, either in his original article or his response on here, but instead insist on just attacking him.

As for the point made by so many in response to the original article that Richard Dawkins is attacking christianity but not islam, the whole point of the original article is that it was in response to Pat Robertson's comments about Haiti and his (Pat Robertson's) religion, which just so happens to be christianity. I'm reasonably sure that islam would have been criticised had that been Pat Robertson's religion but as it isn't, it wasn't.

1 February 2010 at 11:04  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Your Grace, you are under no compulsion to answer the Profs questions. They have been answered a 1000 times over on other blogs/websites & debates. There is no answer at all that will satisfy him. He has made up his mind, so rather than letting your blog descend into chaos can I suggest you merely refer him to one of the other places where his question has already been answered.

This will then be taken as a sign of failure/weakness/cowardice by the baying mob but so be it. I know of another who stood silent before His accusers.

1 February 2010 at 11:07  
Blogger Mark Jones said...

Please stop with the persecution complex. And if you or any Christian commenters doubt this, just read the blog again:

"What fate would befall Cranmer if he equated all Muslims with the ‘obnoxious’ Osama Bin Laden?
...
Frankly, Cranmer is aghast that The Times has permitted Richard Dawkins to denigrate Christianity and Christians in this fashion." - it's all about us poor Christians. Have a go at the Muslims instead, bwaah.

"Would they dare to print this address to British Muslims..."

"But neither would Professor Dawkins have parodied their [Muslim] beliefs or criticised their orthodoxy."

"And phobic to the extent that many moderate and reasonable atheists will have no truck with his obsessive, demented, fundamentalist extremism and his fanatical hatred of Christianity."

Here are some quotes from Richard Dawkins on Islam:

"Labour are constantly sucking up to Muslim voters, whereas the Tories don't, or not to the same extent. Islam is surely the greatest man-made evil in the world today, and I think I'd feel a tiny bit more secure against the menacing threat of Islam and Islamic faith schools, under the Tories than under Labour."

"There is much that is disgusting in the film [Fitna], but it is all contained in the quotations, which I presume to be accurate, from the Koran and from various Muslim preachers and orators, and the clips of atrocities such as beheadings and public executions. At least as far as Fitna is concerned, to call Wilders 'disgusting' is surely no more sensible than shooting the messenger. If it is complained that these disgusting Koranic verses, or these disgusting Muslim speeches, or the more than disgusting Muslim executions, are 'taken out of context', I should like to be told what the proper context would look like, and how it could possibly make any difference."

"The Editor and the Publisher of The Statesman have been arrested for "hurting the religious feelings of Muslims" by reprinting Johann's article. Oh it must hurt so, it must be agony, I do so sympathize. Feelings are so important, aren't they? So much more important than beheadings and stonings and honour killings."

And there are many more where they came from, so do not repeat the lie that Dawkins doesn't dare criticise Muslims or Islam. You'll have to address your criticisms of The Times to their offices, but the article you criticise was invited as a response to Robertson's ravings, so it could hardly not be about Christianity.

You need to grow up and start addressing the arguments instead of running off to mummy every time someone criticises you and your beliefs. Society is moving on, and so is religion, naturally. Perhaps one day it will have evolved enough to have dispensed with the magical mumbo-jumbo, but until that day, expect to be criticised, and be prepared to argue your corner, not *moan* about the critique.

1 February 2010 at 11:07  
Blogger Jonathan said...

Rebel Saint-

While it is true that the posting of this article on RD.net has resulted in an influx of commenters who would not otherwise post here (myself among them) to dismiss all or most of them as trolls seems rather judgemental on your part.

In any case, I am simply interested to see if the Archbishop will take the time to respond to Richard Dawkins' reply, or continue to insist that he does not know that it is the real Dawkins, despite ample evidence being provided.

Or would you care to address the points Dawkins raised? I would be interested in your thoughts on the matter.

1 February 2010 at 11:10  
Blogger Richard Emmanuel Jones said...

More faith Cranmer! It was indeed the Dark Lord Dawkins come to destroy thy sinister cruciphile ring. Now is your chance to show us what a supernaturally created magic mind can really do. And feel free to consult your invisible friend!

1 February 2010 at 11:19  
Anonymous Kevin said...

It's unfair to accuse Dawkins of prejudice. This implies pre-judgment. What Dawkins has done is look at the evidence for religious belief and found it wanting.

1 February 2010 at 11:20  
Blogger gsw said...

@Lord Lavendon:
persecution complex is a little strong, but then for so many centuries, we were persecuted - and please don't forget, in many countries we still are - so maybe a little paranoia is not so surprising.
Just because, in the UK, this persecution is more subtle does not mean that it is not very much existent.
Every time a government knuckles under to a religious fraction - whether condoms, child beatings, or special privileges for people on the basis of their religion (such as permission to cover their faces in the bank, a right denied to the rest of us) - we, the non-religious feel discriminated against.

Our paranoia is not limited to UK-2010, but spans centuries and continents to plead for sanity (have you read the reports from Somalia, Malay etc.?)

Unlike some religionists, we care more about this planet, our future grandchildren and our fellow creatures than some mythical heaven or the wishes of a being whose existence is still doubtful and, even were he to be proved to exist, obviously not relevant to our current problems.

1 February 2010 at 11:22  
Blogger Bruce said...

Lord Lavendon

Okay, so lets start with the demolition shall we?

"Christianity is a fantasy"

Well, lets see here, the book includes witches, sorcerors, dragons, unicorns and a Roman empire that was so gosh darned nice that it offered clemency for people who were found guilty of treason.

It isn't even "low" fantasy.

"Why is it that whenever people want to cry religious persecution they always add a dose of fatwa envy. “?

(I cannot see anyone who claims they feel persecuted on these set of blogs, expect Mr Dawkins himself)


Umm, you might want to bone up on your reading comprehension, from the blog post: "What fate would befall Cranmer if he equated all Muslims with the ‘obnoxious’ Osama Bin Laden?"

He then goes on to talk about how unjust it is that he can't criticise Islam the same way, even though Pat Condell, Dawkins, Hitchens and particularly Ophelia Benson actually have done.

"Theology is no more worthy a subject of study than is astrology."

(So what should be taught in its place? And why does this poster state on his website that freedom of speech is important, so long as it is about disparaging religion- but race, oh, no, no, no can't let freedom of speech extent to that!)


If you want to study theology, knock yourself out. But don't expect us to take it any more seriously than we do fan theories on the meaning of Star Trek.

And while we are all sorry that you feel constricted from revealing how much of a racist moron you are...

In other words you can say quite a lot of racist nonsense, society as a whole however, is not obliged to respect you for it.

"Oh, dear. Leaving aside the oxymoron that religious belief has intellectual properties"

(Again equating the billions of people who hold religious views beneath contempt because you cannot be "religious and intelligent").


A stupid belief can be held by a smart person - blood letting was once an accepted means of curing illness by very smart people.

Religion holds that criticising it is in some way a taboo, and thus is anti-intellectual. That is without even getting into the nature of faith.

All very contrived and very dull - you believe in bullshit - own up and stop your whining when you get called out on it."

(Quite how this backs up a statement that an atheist is some-how a more enlightened/intelligent person is beyond me)


You didn't actually read the original blog post, or indeed your own posts did you?

1 February 2010 at 11:53  
Blogger xipasduarte said...

"What fate would befall Cranmer if he equated all Muslims with the ‘obnoxious’ Osama Bin Laden?
...
Would they dare to print this address to British Muslims:

Bin Laden may spout evil nonsense, but he is a mere amateur at that game. Just read your own Qur’an. Bin Laden is true to it. But you?
..."

They would not let you print it because you would smply be talking against yourselves. It is like punishing others for the things you do all the time, and still forget to punish yourselves!

1 February 2010 at 11:57  
Blogger Preacher said...

Frankly I don't care what Richard Dawkins believes or doesn't, for that matter any others who hold a similar position are free to do so. I believe what & who I know, if anyone is a genuine enquirer I am pleased to assist, if not then they have chosen to face any consequences that occur. I preach to the lost because of Gods love for them in my heart, but if a person decides to ignore warning signs & act in an irresponsible way, that is their choice & although I pity them that's what free will is all about. Perhaps Anthony Flew would be a good place for Mr Dawkins to start searching, if thats what he wanted to do, but that's up to him.
On another note Mr Singh I have no recollection of posting about the Wheels of Ezekiel, I'm afraid you have me at a disadvantage sir.

1 February 2010 at 12:02  
Anonymous Hereward said...

@gsw

"atheists accept that they themselves are responsible for the consequences of their actions and act accordingly. If we commit a crime - it is because we are nasty, greedy, power-hungry, murderous, lazy whatever."

So do Christians. See, for example, the General Confession for Evensong in the Book of Common Prayer:

"We have followed too much the devices and desires of our own hearts. We have offended against thy holy laws. We have left undone those things which we ought to have done; And we have done those things which we ought not to have done; And there is no health in us."

And elsewhere.

1 February 2010 at 12:03  
OpenID paulat33 said...

Cranmer didn't just happen to be the ABC at the time. He was plucked from nowhere because he was sufficiently malleable that he would do whatever Harry told him. Which he duly did, continuing to preside while the king went on a spree of looting, vandalism and cronyism.

I'm not saying there is any comparison to this Cranmer, of course. Not at all. Hungarianelephant

The Christian cage has been welland truely rattled...oh ye of little faith that you have no confidence in your supreme being to protect you from the wrath of the Atheist.

Ignorant Amos

1 February 2010 at 12:05  
Blogger Ron said...

Cranmer asks this about Dawkins -- "If God is simply an imaginary being somewhere up there with Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy, why does he get himself so worked up about it?"

Some food for thought --
To those who believe that Father Christmas created the heavens and earth, I say thank you for suppressing this belief when enacting legislation that impacts all our lives.
And to those who believe the Tooth Fairy was tortured, executed, then got up and walked away to prepare a place in heaven for the faithful, I say thank you for suppressing this belief when sending young men to die in unjust wars.

It's too bad I can't offer the same thanks to those who believe in your deity. To them, I can only say "Go ahead and believe what you want -- just stop forcing your insanity on the rest of us!"

1 February 2010 at 12:06  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 February 2010 at 12:10  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1 February 2010 at 12:12  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Sorry ... had to delete due to atrociously poor english construction!!

What I meant to say was ...

Oh dear, oh dear. They've arrived.

If I can humbly offer some counsel Your Grace - maybe close this topic to further comments? Whilst it is always pleasing to the ego to have a 100+ comments article, nothing more constructive is going to be said. Quality trumps quantity (order-order being a case in point)

1 February 2010 at 12:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I too would not normally comment here, and have clicked on the link from Richard's website.

C'mon your grace. You've got more verification for the above response being the actual words of Richard Dawkins than you have for believing that the Gospels contain the actual words of Jesus, and you don't seem reluctant to comment on the latter.

I'm a teacher of religious studies who thinks a frank exchange of views between yourself and Dr Dawkins would be of great benefit to my students.

Obviously you're not Cranmer, but are you actually a bishop or clergyman?

1 February 2010 at 12:18  
Anonymous Graham Davis said...

Lord Lavedon said
(So what should be taught in its place? And why does this poster state on his website that freedom of speech is important, so long as it is about disparaging religion- but race, oh, no, no, no can't let freedom of speech extent to that!)

I say....
How about Alchemy?

I say....
Freedom of speech is not just important it is the bedrock of a free society that is why we will defend your right to express your loony views. You chose your religion but not your race, a category difference.

1 February 2010 at 12:18  
Anonymous Simon said...

Shorter Rebel Saint: Dissent will NOT be tolerated.

1 February 2010 at 12:19  
Blogger InYourFaceNewYorker said...

@Anonymous...

ZING!!!

1 February 2010 at 12:20  
Blogger gsw said...

@Hereward:
Yep, and then they go get absolution.

You see saying "whoops sorry" is not the same as accepting the consequences.
Asking a god to forgive your 'transgressions' against another person is just more vicariousness.
And what if your god tells you in the {insert holy book} that it is ok to do it?

But mainly you have totally missed the point - I am not talking about "offending against holy laws" I am talking about "crimes against humanity", I am talking about not being 'forgiven' but actually doing something in reparation to earn it from those you damaged (apart from praying).
If you did not damage or hurt anyone then it was not a bad crime.

1 February 2010 at 12:21  
Blogger Richard Emmanuel Jones said...

No need for Cranmer to run away Rebel Saint! I'm sure he's got the answer - maybe he's looking it up in the book god couldn't make...the one he had to dictate with telepathy...the book when noone could read and when he could talk directly into people's heads - the whole world at once! But then books are hard aren't they Rebel? You know, when you can't see your hands! When your fingers are invisible!

1 February 2010 at 12:21  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The views of an ex-atheist (Prof Anthony Flew) that atheists want censored…

Anthony Flew: There were two factors in particular that were decisive. One was my growing empathy with the insight of Einstein and other noted scientists that there had to be an Intelligence behind the integrated complexity of the physical Universe.
The second was my own insight that the integrated complexity of life itself – which is far more complex than the physical Universe – can only be explained in terms of an Intelligent Source.

I believe that the origin of life and reproduction simply cannot be explained from a biological standpoint despite numerous efforts to do so. With every passing year, the more that was discovered about the richness and inherent intelligence of life, the less it seemed likely that a chemical soup could magically generate the genetic code. The difference between life and non-life, it became apparent to me, was ontological and not chemical.

The best confirmation of this radical gulf is Richard Dawkins' comical effort to argue in The God Delusion that the origin of life can be attributed to a "lucky chance." If that's the best argument you have, then the game is over.

No, I did not hear a Voice. It was the evidence itself that led me to this conclusion.

Benjamin Wiker: You are famous for arguing for a presumption of atheism, i.e., as far as arguments for and against the existence of God, the burden of proof lies with the theist. Given that you believe that you only followed the evidence where it led, and it led to theism, it would seem that things have now gone the other way, so that the burden of proof lies with the atheist. He must prove that God doesn't exist. What are your thoughts on that?

Anthony Flew: I note in my book that some philosophers indeed have argued in the past that the burden of proof is on the atheist.
I think the origins of the laws of nature and of life and the Universe point clearly to an intelligent Source. The burden of proof is on those who argue to the contrary.

Benjamin Wiker: As for evidence, you cite a lot of the most recent science, yet you remark that your discovery of the Divine did not come through "experiments and equations," but rather, "through an understanding of the structures they unveil and map." Could you explain? Does that mean that the evidence that led you to God is not really, at heart, scientific?

Anthony Flew: It was empirical evidence, the evidence uncovered by the sciences. But it was a philosophical inference drawn from the evidence. Scientists as scientists cannot make these kinds of philosophical inferences. They have to speak as philosophers when they study the philosophical implications of empirical evidence.

1 February 2010 at 12:26  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Benjamin Wiker: You are obviously aware of the spate of recent books by such atheists as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. They think that those who believe in God are behind the times. But you seem to be politely asserting that they are ones who are behind the times, insofar as the latest scientific evidence tends strongly toward—or perhaps even demonstrates—a theistic conclusion. Is that a fair assessment of your position?

Anthony Flew: Yes indeed. I would add that Dawkins is selective to the point of dishonesty when he cites the views of scientists on the philosophical implications of the scientific data.

Two noted philosophers, one an agnostic (Anthony Kenny) and the other an atheist (Nagel), recently pointed out that Dawkins has failed to address three major issues that ground the rational case for God.

As it happens, these are the very same issues that had driven me to accept the existence of a God: the laws of nature, life with its teleological organization and the existence of the Universe.

1 February 2010 at 12:27  
Blogger D. Singh said...

The descendants of chimps are not permitted ad hominem attacks.

Illogical, you see? (From your own stand-point)

1 February 2010 at 12:29  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

...and another thing...

As a teacher of religious studies I feel well-enough qualified to dismiss the ridiculous and insulting charge of Richard's "sub-GCSE" comprehension.

That particular complaint is never backed-up. It's merely a cheap-shot.

1 February 2010 at 12:30  
Anonymous Hunter Zolomon said...

Your Grace. You can easily confirm Professor Dawkins post as authentic in just a under a minute. Have a look at post 41 in this thread on richarddawkins.net:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5022,Should-Richard-Dawkins-be-arrested-for-incitement-to-religious-hatred-,Cranmer,page1

I for one would be delighted to witness a direct debate between the two of you.

1 February 2010 at 12:31  
Anonymous GFA said...

"He [Dawkins] displays a sub-GCSE level of comprehension of theology and an utterly simplistic caricature of religious philosophy."

Go on they Cramer, write the 100 page book that clearly lays out the theological and philosophical arguments for god/religion that a dunce like Dawkins could understand. I submit you can't because it is all "smoke and mirrors". Theology relies on obfuscation, warped logic, and poetry to persuade those who really, really want to believe it anyway.

A skeptical Oxford science Prof. like Dawkins can see it is vacuous, and just cuts the Gordian knot. You really need a better defence than whining that he can't unravel the knot - why the hell should he waste his time?

There is no evidence for god(s). Theology is the same as leprechaunology - bunk. Come up with the kind of scientific evidence that would get published in "Nature", or admit you have nothing.

1 February 2010 at 12:31  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Bruce, oh please.

You have not laid a finger on one single part of my critique of the majority of the atheists who have posted on this blog.

For example I am not quite sure how your statement about there being unicorns in the Bible or that the Bible shows the Romans in a good light (they were the one who beat and crucified Christ and locked up Paul for example) shows the Bible to be fantasy.

The section on persecution you use is a bit misleading, in that our host was asking the question would Prof. Dawkins have been able to publish this in a mainstream newspaper if he was writing about Islam. What you have shown is that Dawkins has criticised Islam, but was this in the Times and would the Times dared to have published this? But you point in itself does not prove that the Christians posting on this site feel persecuted, in fact it would appear that the atheists are the touchy ones. As I said to Gsw and he to some extent conceded that atheists feel somewhat paranoid.

Regarding your reply to theology and how this equates with star trek theories and then you go on to state the " Religion holds that criticising it is in some way a taboo, and thus is anti-intellectual. That is without even getting into the nature of faith."
The problem with this is that you assume that it merely priests or pastors or those who are Christians, which study theology. In actual fact it is an academic discipline, which is no different from any other. It is the very fact that we have theology that Christianity can be analyses, dissected and criticised. Perhaps you might want to think, that Christianity has several different denominations, which, one reason for is because of the theological differences between them. So I am not sure how you can suggest that religion or Christianity does not and cannot accept any form of criticism.

You should also consider avoiding putting words into one's mouth. For example you claim that I am upset at not being able to show myself for what a racist bigot I am. In actual fact, the point I was making was perhaps suggesting it is a contradiction to support freedom of speech to bash religion, but it unacceptable to do so on grounds of race. That is an intellectual contradiction. I am not sure how you can infer and therefore slander me as a racist (always the argument of last resort for some people).

Finally the last item; the majority of the atheists claim to be more adult or even more intelligent than the Christian. Yet that particular poster had to revert to a swearword to get their point across. And no further evidence was submitted to support the view that religion is "bullshit". I couldn't care less whether or not this is the view of that particular person. I was merely suggesting that if atheists were so enlightened and adult, why they would resort to that kind of debating tactic.

I trust that this answers you questions.

1 February 2010 at 12:31  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Graham Davies

I have replied to you in my post above.

1 February 2010 at 12:38  
Blogger gsw said...

@Lord Lavendon:

As I said to Gsw and she to some extent conceded that atheists feel somewhat paranoid.

It ain't paranoia if you really are being persecuted.

1 February 2010 at 12:41  
Blogger Jack said...

Well, this insolent piece contains the usual exhausted, barely-still-flapping anti-Dawkins canards and tattered straw men that most people involved in this argument have become sorely tired of so I won't expend any energy debunking those for the umpteenth time. Smug, pompous people like this blogger who still, astonishingly, lack the self-awareness to be embarrassed for repeating them yet again are obviously beyond reach of such efforts. Instead, I'll just let the estimable Great Christina lacerate the following apologist inanity with her usual devastating thoroughness.

"If God is simply an imaginary being somewhere up there with Father Christmas and the Tooth Fairy, why does he get himself so worked up about it?"

Try not to make a fool of yourself by asking that stupid question again.

1 February 2010 at 12:44  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lord Lavendon

I for one don't assume that only priests and the religious study theology. I've studied it myself.

Assuming that you agree with the charge of Dawkins's "sub-GCSE" graps of theology, could you explain, with examples, how a deeper understanding of theology would render Dawkins's criticisms invalid?

1 February 2010 at 12:46  
Anonymous Billy, Evangelical Preacher said...

Your Grace, the problem with the dawkins article and some posters such as RE Jones is to try and suggest that there is a simple choice between an enlightened atheism on the one hand and fundamentaist christianity on the other. This is clearly false, because it ignores that many different strands of christian thought inbetween and which is actually what theology is about- not quite sure why an atheist would want to suggest alchemy rather than theology, given that theology can also lead a person to critique the Bible and the Christian message.

Also Prof Dawkins has got the wrong man by pointing to Pat Robertson as the figurehead of Christian orthodoxy. The real figurehead of Christian orthodoxy is of course, the Lord Jesus Christ. Perhaps reading what Jesus had to say would be better than plucking out a single preacher amongst the billions of christian followers.

1 February 2010 at 12:50  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The criticism I'd most like to see answered is Dawkins' point about 'scapegoating'.

1 February 2010 at 12:50  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Anon, that would require me to start a critique of the prof's whole article and if I did that we would have another 140 plus comments; besides which I started to write a full rebuttal and it ended up being an essay. So I don't know if it is worth it, as we would simply go round and round in circles. Also as rebel saint said, for every atheist or christian who is willing to debate the issues , there are many more who simply want to come and abuse. I am struck by a lot of the comments here (as said above) which add nothing to the debate and border on hysterical.

1 February 2010 at 12:54  
Anonymous GFA said...

Are you coing to answer Richard Dawkins (1 FEBRUARY 2010 09:54)?

It is the real RD. See:- http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,5022,Should-Richard-Dawkins-be-arrested-for-incitement-to-religious-hatred-,Cranmer,page2#comments

Looks like he has called your bluff on theology. Are you going to retract and aplogise? Personally, I would prefer you tried to argue it out - I'll get out the popcorn, and beer.

1 February 2010 at 12:54  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

> Yet it is really quite astonishing that someone of Professor Dawkins’ academic stature should place the (largely inaccurate) secondary-source accounts of someone like Pat Robertson over the primary sources not only of Scripture ..

From Scripture, has your Deity ever wiped out a sizable portion of humanity, for alleged moral violations ?

1 February 2010 at 12:59  
OpenID paulat33 said...

Singh

are you sure you want to hold up Anthony Flew as standard for your arguement...he has been debunked so many times it's a shame that such a once intelligent human being of his years should be subjected to anymore of it? I mean c'mon, using the Einstien quote mine is just ludicrous. Anthony Flew was losing the plot when he wrote his book, and there is doubt that all the stuff contained in the book was entirely his own thoughts, but thats a different discussion.

ignorant amos

1 February 2010 at 13:03  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Why Dawkins is unqualified to discuss Judaeo-Christian theology:

‘Humanity is so deeply sinful that the only way God could forgive us was to have his own son punished vicariously for all our sins. He was tortured and crucified so that humanity’s sin could be purged.’

Dawkins conveniently omits the individual’s part in asking for forgiveness.

‘Moreover, the principal sin for which Jesus died was the sin of Adam, who actually never existed.’

Dawkins does not explain why Jesus would die for that which never existed.

That is bizarre thinking leading to increasingly shrill outbursts.

Dawkins: Cranmer, you accuse me of a “sub-GCSE level of comprehension of theology and an utterly simplistic caricature of religious philosophy.” My comprehension of Christian theology is set out in points 1 and 2 above… [from which the points above have been taken!]

No wonder His Grace ascribed to him ‘a “sub-GCSE level of comprehension of theology and an utterly simplistic caricature of religious philosophy.”’

1 February 2010 at 13:07  
Blogger Drosera said...

Lord Lavendon,

Here is some evidence that the Bible is fantasy:

1. Adam and Eve never existed.
2. Noah's Flood never happened.
3. The Exodus never happened.
4. There never was an empire of King David.
5. The genealogy of Jesus, going back to King David, is pure invention.
6. The virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus are physically impossible, as are all the other miracles. In the absence of any supporting evidence they must be considered fairy tales.

All these points contradict modern science (population biology, geology, archaeology, chemistry and physics) as well as logic, and are not supported by anything outside the pages of the Bible.

Please prove me wrong.

1 February 2010 at 13:08  
Anonymous Dan said...

Do you really think it takes Dawkin's to ensure Paedophile priests drag the name of Jesus through the mud?

I thought that was the actions of the Paeodophile Preists themselves.

1 February 2010 at 13:08  
Anonymous Mira said...

And what do we see here? Christians envying censoring and violent muslims and thinly veiled personal threats. Oh your 'Grace' you shouldn't have been so modest and shy away from publishing your piece in the newspaper.

1 February 2010 at 13:09  
Blogger Jessie said...

Still no reply to Richard Dawkins' post?

How disappointing.

1 February 2010 at 13:11  
Anonymous A hundred Tony Blairs and a thousand David Cameron's said...

I am now with Rebel saint- this debate is being taken over by trolls who are just being quite vindictive to people such as D.Singh and Lord Lavendon. But the other side of me thinks, give as good as you get lads, Jesus is on your side. They have no-one but themselves.

1 February 2010 at 13:18  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

So many strawmen in one thread from both sides that I feel I am standing in a forest of Scarecrows.

1 February 2010 at 13:20  
Blogger Richard Emmanuel Jones said...

Billy, Evangelical Preacher - Sorry I missed your comment, I was mutilating my children's genitals. Not with a stone like a barbarian, I used a sterile blade like a sophisticated theologian.

Yes I see your point - you're not wrong, you're all differently right. Perhaps it is indeed rather mean to mock your psychotic projections, after all your fantasy fuhrer is fake, but your feelings are real. And if you love a monster that makes you a monster.

Still, 3 best-sellers and the tectonic plates run on time!

1 February 2010 at 13:21  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

I would recommend everyone who has come here from Dr Dawkins site to avoid shaking Mr D Singh's cage.

It is a waste of your time and a waste of space on the web and the thread.

You would be far better having any conversations or debates with the other people from this site. You have been warned, nothing of note will be produced from continuing these actions.

1 February 2010 at 13:23  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

@A hundred Tony Blairs and a thousand David Cameron's

To be fair D Singh deserves everything he gets as he has proved on so many occasions to be a hypocritical vile man with disgusting beliefs with so many noon sequitar and straw men arguments that he must live in a hay loft.

1 February 2010 at 13:25  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Doresea,an atheists who is at least attempting to engage. These are you views rather than fact though. And slightly off topic as we are really discussing the dawkins article.

1 February 2010 at 13:31  
Blogger Archbishop Cranmer said...

Patience, please.

His Grace is twittering as he is able, and will respond to Professor Dawkins.

1 February 2010 at 13:32  
Anonymous Billy ,Evangelical Preacher said...

Your Grace, it is interesting that this is now degenerating into the sewer. The glovy asks us people not to debate with D.Singh. Perhaps he could also give Emmanuel Jones a ticking off as well. I am not sure how he is able to generalise about all christians- all 1 billion christians and call us all monsters. Whatever that means, given that Jesus Christ died on a cross in agony for him and the whole world. That was not a God who was a monster. But a God of love and redemption.

1 February 2010 at 13:37  
Anonymous Hereward said...

gsw

"Yep, and then they go get absolution."

We hope for forgiveness and 'time for amendment of life'. With all that that implies, including restoring relationships with those we might have hurt.

"You see saying "whoops sorry" is not the same as accepting the consequences."

Penitence is far, far more than the simple caricature you present; it is about acknowledging the fault and earnestly wishing to improve. The consequences are to be shouldered, not shirked.

"Asking a god to forgive your 'transgressions' against another person is just more vicariousness."

We ask him to forgive our failure to live up to what he expects of us; we should also ask it of those we have transgressed against.

"But mainly you have totally missed the point - I am not talking about "offending against holy laws" I am talking about "crimes against humanity", I am talking about not being 'forgiven' but actually doing something in reparation to earn it from those you damaged (apart from praying)."

The two are not exclusinve, and both are part of true penitence and atonement.

1 February 2010 at 13:38  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Here is another one who cannot comprehend logic, rules of evidence and burden of proof (Where is the evidence?):

Drosera

Here is some evidence that the Bible is fantasy:

1. Adam and Eve never existed. (Where is the evidence?)
2. Noah's Flood never happened. (Where is the evidence?)
3. The Exodus never happened. (Where is the evidence?)
4. There never was an empire of King David. (Where is the evidence?)
5. The genealogy of Jesus, going back to King David, is pure invention. (Where is the evidence?)
6. The virgin birth and the resurrection of Jesus are physically impossible, as are all the other miracles. In the absence of any supporting evidence they must be considered fairy tales. (Where is the evidence?)

All these points contradict modern science (population biology, geology, archaeology, chemistry and physics) as well as logic, and are not supported by anything outside the pages of the Bible. (Where is the evidence?)

Please prove me wrong.

Madam - you have not proved yourself correct in the first place.

1 February 2010 at 13:41  
Blogger srizals said...

How pure are thee O atheists, like the Angkar that purified Cambodia from religionist and mystics, Siberia that purge the mighty golden tribe and the animal farm, Mao and the Chinese, what is common of all these, that they believe only in the scientists, that only recently said Pluto is not a planet, and the chimpanzee cut short their desire of becoming a man, afraid what they would do with the temptation of becoming like one of the abortionists. Who is the killer of the century?

1 February 2010 at 13:44  
Blogger Richard Emmanuel Jones said...

Archbishop Cranmer - I'd change my supernatural services provider if I were you. What a slow signal. Don't go with Allah-on-line though - it only works in east-facing rooms.

1 February 2010 at 13:46  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

Can I just say that I find Richard Emmanuel Jones comment extremly offensive? I can see what Lavendon was writing about. Almost to the person the atheists here have been attacking religion without justification. how is jesus a monster? I can understand if the question was, Jesus was not the son of God or he was a nice man, but his followers let him down, but to call Jesus himself a monster is a bit nasty. Where does that come from? Why do you think it is a "psychotic projection" to have a religious faith? And by logic, you would have the UK turned into a similar type of society as the old soviet union, in which religion was treated as an insanity? So much for the stated free speech of the atheists!

I am not a christian, I am a Jew, yet I would find it strange that there is so much outpouring and hatred shown by some people towards christians or anyone who holds a religious faith.

1 February 2010 at 13:46  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I'm getting a very strong sense of De Ja Vu ... like I've read these comments a 1000 times before.

Lets all just get it over and done with and recant.

I'll go first ...

With thanks to Dawkins (pbuh) the omniscient, the gracious, I hereby proclaim my belief in Jesus Christ was purely fallacious. All benefits from such fallacious beliefs are purely psychosomatic. I renounce them forthwith and embrace the one true faith - scientific materialistic ... true knowledge from true knowledge, begotten not made, through which all things were made.

Satisfied? Now will you go away? What ... you won't?! There's a surprise.

1 February 2010 at 13:48  
Anonymous Gay Anglican said...

Richard Emmauel Jones, go and read the guardian if you have nothing intelligent to say, you silly atheist.

1 February 2010 at 13:48  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Bet I can get the 200th post?

1 February 2010 at 13:48  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

A couple of points to clear up. On my lunch right now so not really got the time to go through everything and various weekend duties kept me away.

"Or did The Times pay him £1000 for his article?

Did he donate it to Haiti?"

Don't know about that, although he did make a rather sizable donation to the Haiti cause, although he ruined it a little by pointing out that it proves that those lacking religion can still do good deads. This is obvious enough without needing to point it out and the insitance of pointing it out detracts a little from the actual act itself.

Atheists (Dawkins included) do not have a faith. Their [our] "Belief" (for lack of a better word) structure is based purely on a lack of faith. It is based on what emperical evidence can prove and what a lack of any evidence points towards. No atheist can flat out say god doesn't exist. But we can say that the distinct lack of any evidence whatsoever points to an extremely high posibility that he doesn't exist. Therefore it is the intelligent position to take that he very probably doesn't exist and so we won't bother worrying about him and we therefore need no faith to believe something that cannot be proved.

However then the religious go on to ask why we would waste our time trying to disprove something that we don't believe in. This is because of the unfair breaks that religion gets. Which you [the religious] more than confirm by the points raised about whether The Times would print these articles about the muslim faith.

You are correct 100%. No The Times would not print the same sort of essay on the muslim faith, this is not because it has not been said by Dawkins, it is because of the unfair breaks that the muslim faith receives in the media. But this is just one example of one benefit that one faith receives, there are many more like the tax advantages etc. Any atheist would just like to see all these abolished as they are undeserving of these advantages as they cannot prove their beliefs or faith to be true.

Finally can you please stop putting forward the idea that atheists treat Dr Dawkins as a point of worship. The only requirement to be an atheist is a lack of any belief in any gods. Nothing more nothing less. Apart from that one point there is no requirement for any atheist to have any other beliefs or morals the same as any other atheist. And they certainly don't have to agree or worship Dr Dawkins. To suggest otherwise is pure fallacy.

Anyways, please continue, i'm off back to work now.

1 February 2010 at 13:53  
Blogger srizals said...

I thought only the Pope is omniscient. Joan of Arc keeps changing, and Galileo still lost a finger.

1 February 2010 at 13:55  
Blogger D. Singh said...

Science Museum cancels talk by Watson after 'racist' comments
The Science Museum in London said Dr Watson had gone "beyond the point of acceptable debate" during an interview this weekend in which he claimed black people were less intelligent than their white counterparts.
The 79-year-old American academic, who won a Nobel Prize for his part in unravelling the structure of DNA in the 1960s, had been due to kick off a week-long publicity tour at some of Britain's leading academic institutions, including Oxford and Cambridge Universities, tomorrow by addressing a capacity audience at the museum.
But it said that although the museum was ready to discuss difficult subjects it could no longer act as a platform for Dr Watson's views in the light of his remarks. The scientist, who is director of one of America's leading research institutions, the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, had been due to discuss his autobiography, in which he suggests that the notion of " equal powers of reason" across all races are a delusion.
In a statement, the museum said: "We know that eminent scientists can sometimes say things that cause controversy and the Science Museum does not shy away from debating controversial topics.
"However, the Science Museum feels that Nobel Prize winner James Watson's recent comments have gone beyond the point of acceptable debate and we are as a result cancelling his talk at the museum."
The move came as other academic institutions hosting Dr Watson vowed to ensure he faced tough questioning on his views, which have once more opened a debate on race and intelligence considered beyond the pale by the scientific mainstream.
Human rights campaigners called on Dr Watson, a Nobel Prize winner for his role in the discovery of the structure of DNA in the 1960s, to apologise publicly for his comments, describing them as "scientifically unethical and unjustifiable".
Dr Watson is still due to speak at five engagements, including events at the Oxford and Cambridge universities. He will also attend a reception at the Royal Society in London.
But his comments in The Sunday Times have overshadowed the visit and caused an outcry from across the worlds of science, politics and the anti-racism lobby. He said he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa ... because all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours – whereas all the testing says not really". The new Human Rights and Equality Commission, which has the power to investigate alleged infringements of race laws, has said it is studying Dr Watson's comments "in full".
Professor Dawkins, who as author of the The God Delusion is no stranger to controversy, yesterday declined to comment on Dr Watson's remarks. The two men, widely considered to be among the world's leading secularists, will appear at Oxford's Sheldonian Theatre next week. Professor Dawkins has previously sprung to Dr Watson's defence after he suggested in a 1997 newspaper interview that a woman should have the right to abort a foetus if it was found to be carrying a "gay" gene. The Oxford academic said Dr Watson was merely speaking in favour of choice for women.

1 February 2010 at 13:57  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

The Glovner, salute you to the extent you have produced an intelligent case for your atheism. Unlike some of the more obnoxious people on this site.

1 February 2010 at 13:58  
Blogger Richard Emmanuel Jones said...

Jewish Bag Lady - You seem to have trouble identifying silly ideas! What could have confused you? Perhaps turning the UK into the soviet union would be a silly idea - I can't tell, I'm avoiding pork!

The author of the obscene cruelty of the natural world is not a monster? A million abortions a day? Billions eaten alive from without by lacerating teeth, from within by rasping parasites? Torturing children to death with intricately hideous diseases?

He has got nice eyes though hasn't he?

1 February 2010 at 13:59  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rebel saint, on for 5p?

1 February 2010 at 14:00  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Archbishop Cranmer said... "Patience, please. His Grace is twittering as he is able, and will respond to Professor Dawkins."

Whilst in many ways I look forward to your intelligent & erudite response I feel you may find yourself "pissing into the wind". It will not change one persons mind either way.

Please do not let it become an exercise in vanity. You have nothing to prove and nothing to vindicate yourself of. I fear for the quality of the blog if you do ... as 90% of the comments above bear testimony too.

1 February 2010 at 14:00  
Blogger srizals said...

Faith only comes to those who lost control of himself. While he's still in control, he's a humangod and the rest are fairy tales of the ancient, only to change his mind on the death bed. The leap into the unknown and emptiness.

1 February 2010 at 14:00  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

I'll see your 5p and raise you 2p.

1 February 2010 at 14:00  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Ooh Ooh. Nearly there.

1 February 2010 at 14:01  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Come on y' bastards. Don't stop now! I've got 7p riding on this.

1 February 2010 at 14:04  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Billy ,Evangelical Preacher said

"The glovy asks us people not to debate with D.Singh. Perhaps he could also give Emmanuel Jones a ticking off as well."

Very quickly, as I have pointed out I am going back to work.

I haven't had the chance to read write through the thread (a lot of comments, i'm sure you will agree). But my point about not debating any of the facts with D.Singh is taken purely from experience, the action of doing so will get you nowhere.

If the debating tactics of Emmanuel Jones are at all similar to Singh then I would completely agree with you that it would be pointless to engage in any debate with him/her also.

Isn't it strange how I can appreciate that there can be (insert your own acceptable derogatory term here) in both camps. Go figger, maybe it isn't belief alone that makes you unpalatable.

And now I really must go, i'll check back later if I get a moment though, very busy today.

1 February 2010 at 14:04  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

Richard Emmanuel Jones,"The author of the obscene cruelty of the natural world is not a monster? A million abortions a day? Billions eaten alive from without by lacerating teeth, from within by rasping parasites? Torturing children to death with intricately hideous diseases?"

Perhaps a lot of these are to do with man's own sin and cruelty rather than God's, who has given us the free will to choose or to follow him or not?

Also ,what do you mean by the remark of avoiding pork?

1 February 2010 at 14:04  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Rebel saint, I'll raise the wager to a whole shilling!

1 February 2010 at 14:06  
Anonymous Peter Magellan said...

@Lord Lavendon:

"Theology is no more worthy a subject of study than is astrology."

(So what should be taught in its place? And why does this poster state on his website that freedom of speech is important, so long as it is about disparaging religion- but race, oh, no, no, no can't let freedom of speech extent to that!)


In the place of theology, I would suggest philosophy.

As for the point where free speech becomes non-free, that point arrives when the person being criticised can do nothing about the characteristic which is being criticised. So one's religious or political views, for instance, are legitimate targets for criticism, since they are held or modified as a matter of free will and one should be able to justify holding them. Such characteristics as skin colour, sex, and country of origin should not be open to criticism, since there is no way that their possessor or anyone else can change them.

Simple.

1 February 2010 at 14:06  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Lovd Lavendon ... a shilling eh! I'm feeling lucky. I'll raise you a euro.

1 February 2010 at 14:07  
Anonymous Atheists are scum said...

Peter, still does not sound like free speech to me, merely "selective free speech", based on what the left/liberal/atheists want !

1 February 2010 at 14:09  
Blogger Richard Emmanuel Jones said...

Jewish Bag Lady - Yes! Perhaps we could visit some hospitals and put stickers on them 'This child has the free will to not have this gruesome fatal disease'.

1 February 2010 at 14:09  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Rebel Saint, a Euro? Might not be able to stretch that far, just need to make a quick call to the IMF for a bailout? Will it be Ya or nine!

1 February 2010 at 14:10  
Anonymous Jewish Bag Lady said...

Richard Emmauel Jones, what pray tell are you doing to help these poor wretches then? I don't know why I am asking because your clearly not quite with it.

1 February 2010 at 14:12  
Blogger Rebel Saint said...

Come on Richard Emmanuel Jones ... type faster damn it. I want to get the 200th comment before lunch is over.

1 February 2010 at 14:13  
Anonymous Simon said...

I am not a christian, I am a Jew, yet I would find it strange that there is so much outpouring and hatred shown by some people towards christians or anyone who holds a religious faith.

Boo flippin' hoo. Read this and you may get a sense of why we are unhappy.

Also, do check back here the next time homosexuality is mentioned, then have a read of out that outpouring and hatred, the snide equivalences drawn between it and paedophilia are quite disgusting.

The problem with the religionists is they don't like it up 'em. There are now people who will stand up, and not idly by, to the propagation of hateful fairy tales in the public sphere.

People like Professor Dawkins have devoted their whole lives to illuminating the world around us. They are to be celebrated and applauded. If HG wants evidence of Prof. Dawkins opposition to Islam, he should google his thought on FGM and see The Root of All Evil - particularly the part where a discussion takes place between a Muslim gentleman and Dawkins re 9/11.

1 February 2010 at 14:13  
Anonymous TheGlovner said...

Atheists are scum said...

"Peter, still does not sound like free speech to me, merely "selective free speech", based on what the left/liberal/atheists want !"

I would agree, although your name lets you down a little.

I believe everything should be open to free speech, although views like racisim should be easily put down by equally free speech showing how vile and uneducated the people that hold these views are.

1 February 2010 at 14:14  
Blogger Andy Armitage said...

If you go to http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dawkins06/dawkins06_index.html (see last para on that page), you'll see that Dawkins maintains that he cannot disprove the existence of God. All he says is that God's (or any god's) existence is unnecessary as an explanation of our existence, and therefore the overwhelming likelihood is that he does not exist. I think people get too hot under the collar about Dawkins as an "arch atheist" and "militant atheist" and whatever other extreme descriptions they care to use, but all he's really doing is telling us that a god or gods as an explanatory framework for the creation and continued existence of the cosmos is simply unnecessary. It should be obvious to most thinking people, anyway, that, since explanations were at one time lacking, the gaps would be filled with theories of one sort or another. Who, after all, could make banks and light in the sky, could make water fall from the blue (or I suppose grey when it's raining)? Who could create al the other phenomena such as volcanoes and earthquakes? Of course something had to be posited, and it's understandable that it was. It never ceases to amaze me that people who are clearly of some learning, such as our blogger Cranmer (better educated than I, by a long chalk), can cling to the idea that a creator God is the most likely explanation, or that there is such a creature at all. I can't prove that there isn't, but I think it behoves those who believe in such things to prove that they exist, rather than those who don't to prove that they don't. Most atheists in my experience are not arrogant enough to say God definitely does not exist, but most Christians and those of other persuasions are never short of the arrogance, it seems, to believe that they are right, and God must exist.

1 February 2010 at 14:14  
Anonymous Not an atheist said...

I for one and fed up with the infestation of atheists on this blog. But at least Singh and go are giving them what for! Atheism= the anti christ. And ye shall burn in the fires of hell ye unbelievers!!!!!!!!!

1 February 2010 at 14:14  
Blogger andy42g said...

This is good stuff. (Sits back with coffee). Cranmer - when are you going to answer Richard Dawkins' points? Looking forward to that one...

1 February 2010 at 14:15  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only thing that can be understood, opr needs to be understood about theology, is that the term "theology" is one of the most concise examples of an oxymoron,

1 February 2010 at 14:16  
Blogger Lord Lavendon said...

Rebel Saint, the IMF is huming and aring, tried to get hold of Merv, but he's at luncheon (perhaps might be able to print a pound for me). But no such luck!

1 February 2010 at 14:16  

Post a Comment

<< Home

Newer›  ‹Older