Should Dawkins be arrested for covering up atheist crimes

Dr. Loon

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

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

GLaDOS

Piss take? Please tell me it is...

Bottle_of_Smoke

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

PeakOutput

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

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

iUseVi

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Piss take? Please tell me it is...

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

seanybiker

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

checkyabadself

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

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

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

Dr. Loon

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

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

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

OxfordComma

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

iUseVi

Dr. Loon wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Made me quite angry.

taram

Must have missed the memo where Dawkins is our overlord?

ColmDawson

taram wrote: »

Must have missed the memo where Dawkins is our overlord?

I, for one, welcome...

fitz0

Dr. Loon wrote: »

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

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

Half-wit reporter wrote:

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

Ickle Magoo

Dr. Loon wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Stercus Accidit

fitz0 wrote: »

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

Canis Lupus

seanybiker wrote: »

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

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

bnt

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

Benny Lava

That article was pure shite.

Soul Winner

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

bnt

Soul Winner wrote: »

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

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

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

drkpower

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

strobe

drkpower wrote: »

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

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

Dr. Loon

Some responses linked at Dawkins website;

http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5459

MikeC101

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

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

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

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

robindch

MikeC101 wrote: »

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

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

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

MikeC101 wrote: »

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

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

Sam Vimes

MikeC101 wrote: »

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

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

ISAW

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

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

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

Daftendirekt

Soul Winner wrote: »

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

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

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

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

ISAW

robindch wrote: »

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

Really? How about Unitarianism? Or Christian anarchists?

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

As this thread has done with the Huffington Post author?

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

ditto

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

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

By the way i have read him.

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

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

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

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

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

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

This is why he says Dawkins should be arrested:

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

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

As for Einstein:

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

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


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




As if it was relevant

Pittens

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

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

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

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

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

That bit is true. So the argument is silly.

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

Dades

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

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

Pittens

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

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

Ickle Magoo

ISAW wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

etc, etc...

Sam Vimes

Pittens wrote: »

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

Who what where in the why now?

Ickle Magoo

Pittens wrote: »

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

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

Pittens

Pittens wrote: »

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

I'm sorry, which off-shoots?

ISAW

King Mob wrote: »

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

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

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

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

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

What crime could Dawkins actually be accused of?

Whoo! 4000 posts!

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

This is why he says Dawkins should be arrested:

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

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

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

As for Einstein:

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

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

As if it was relevant

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

ISAW

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

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

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

The article is called "Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering up Atheist Crimes?" and he says "Dawkins is right to be angry about the awful cover up of child abuse in the Catholic Church, but he seems to have a tendency himself to be very selective in the issues he shouts about, and those he remains silent about. In that sense, he can be seen to hush up the many horrendous crimes committed by atheist ideologues in the 20th century". So that's where he says Dawkins should be arrested for not campaigning publicly against the crimes of atheistic regimes communist dictatorships.

ISAW wrote: »

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

Yes you were:

ISAW wrote: »

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

ISAW wrote: »

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

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

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

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

ISAW

ISAW wrote: »

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

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

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

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

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

And this:

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

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

Sam Vimes

ISAW wrote: »

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

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

Ickle Magoo

ISAW wrote: »

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

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

ISAW wrote: »

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

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

ISAW wrote: »

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

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

ISAW wrote: »

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

Wrong! See above

ISAW wrote: »

they have reason to comment on that field.

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

ISAW wrote: »

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

What's Sni?

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

Dades

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

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

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

ISAW

Sam Vimes wrote: »

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

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

and he says "Dawkins ...seems to have a tendency himself to be very selective in the issues he shouts about, and those he remains silent about. In that sense, he can be seen to hush up the many horrendous crimes committed by atheist ideologues in the 20th century". So that's where he says Dawkins should be arrested for not campaigning publicly against the crimes of atheistic regimes communist dictatorships.

No it doesn't!

Yes you were:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Mad Hatter

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

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

robindch

Dades wrote: »

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

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

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

strobe

robindch wrote: »

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

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