This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Religion of hatred: Why we should no longer be cowed by the chattering classes ruling Britain who sneer at Christianity

Religion of hatred: Why we should no longer be cowed by the chattering classes ruling Britain who sneer at Christianity - Comments

MarcCountry's Avatar Comment 1 by MarcCountry

"...they are positively anti."

Maybe they're actually negatively pro?

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:30:00 UTC | #346628

Onebag's Avatar Comment 2 by Onebag

"I assented to it with complete simplicity."

Well, at least he's honest...
Blessed be the simple.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:44:00 UTC | #346632

capacitor76's Avatar Comment 3 by capacitor76

Yawn. I guess there was a competition in squeezing as much hackneyed apologist doctrine as possible into one article, with 'belief in belief' lurking beneath it all. If you haven't read it yet, don't. It's a waste of time. Apologists have the nasty habit of trotting out the same stuff like a broken record, acting as though it were novel and ignoring any refutation. Not that they have much of a choice.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:45:00 UTC | #346633

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 4 by Agrajag

Well, that was a waste of five minutes.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:46:00 UTC | #346634

serotonin_wraith's Avatar Comment 5 by serotonin_wraith

What was the whole point of this sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus again?

Oh yeah, to atone for the sins of mankind when they fell 6,000 years ago, when all the suffering entered the world - even though suffering existed for billions of years before mankind evolved and there was no first human couple. So it is just a story.

I wouldn't argue that we can't take some great lessons from a made up story, but why just stick to this one? There are much better tales in the world's religions than a human scapegoat appeasing an unfair deity (who might also be him). Why not defend them too if reality doesn't matter and it's all about stories that make us feel good?

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:53:00 UTC | #346637

Liam Lord's Avatar Comment 6 by Liam Lord

I was puzzled by A N Wilson's relapse/return to Christianity- this article hasn't helped in the least.

All the verbiage condemning our secular- and according to Wilson anti-religious- culture seems to attribute this state to cultural climate. As opposed to actually examining the claims made by religion- those he noticably fails to bring up.

All he gives is an assertion that we are spiritual beings, which materialist atheism cannot account for. Is he so short of awareness?
All the things he names are easily explained by reason and logic. Wilson has no times for these apparently:

"Easter does not answer such questions by clever-clever logic. Nor is it irrational. On the contrary, it meets our reason and our hearts together, for it addresses the whole person. "

Clever-clever logic? Has someone who condemned Richard for playground ridiculing just used the term 'clever-clever logic'? Easter in no way meets 'our reason and our hearts' it is a bogus story of which religions produce many. His own professed faith commands him not to celebrate it, but vague assertious types like Wilson are never keen on details- they show his idiocy up clearer than anything.

What enraged me most was the throwing about of the term 'fanatical'- 3 times in 2 short paragraphs- at people who cite the problems of religion. Instead of refuting Miss Toynbee, she is called a fanatic who ignores the benign side of religion.
I was angered: Women oppressed, homosexuals are murdered, children are mutilated, but it's ok because this prick had a pretty palm parade?

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 06:53:00 UTC | #346638

PaulJ's Avatar Comment 7 by PaulJ

Rather than being cowed by them, I relish the notion that, by asserting a belief in the risen Christ, I am defying all the liberal clever-clogs on the block: cutting-edge novelists such as Martin Amis; foul-mouthed, self-satisfied TV presenters such as Jonathan Ross and Jo Brand; and the smug, tieless architects of so much television output.
Smugness? Well, ok. But good grief, not wearing a tie? That's beyond the pale!


Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:05:00 UTC | #346644

Tack's Avatar Comment 8 by Tack

It also lends weight to the fervour of the anti-God fanatics, such as the writer Christopher Hitchens and the geneticist Richard Dawkins, who think all the evil in the world is actually caused by religion.

Blatant straw man.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:07:00 UTC | #346645

infinitum17's Avatar Comment 9 by infinitum17

what utter inanity.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:08:00 UTC | #346646

memeweaver's Avatar Comment 11 by memeweaver

"Our bishops and theologians, frightened as they have been by the pounding of secularist guns, need that kind of bravery more than ever. "

Let them bravely continue to denounce London homosexuals for causing flooding in Carlisle.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:10:00 UTC | #346649

AdamMil's Avatar Comment 12 by AdamMil

Materialist atheism says we are just a collection of chemicals. It has no answer whatsoever to the question of how we should be capable of love or heroism or poetry if we are simply animated pieces of meat.
I'd really like to hear his explanation, then. How is "we can feel love and write poetry because we have a soul" any better than "we can feel love and write poetry because we have a complex brain"? And the scientific understanding is growing deeper all the time...

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:10:00 UTC | #346650

greekatheist's Avatar Comment 10 by greekatheist

"The Resurrection, which proclaims that matter and spirit are mysteriously conjoined, is the ultimate key to who we are."


Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:10:00 UTC | #346648

robotaholic's Avatar Comment 13 by robotaholic

all i have to say is HA HA to A N Wilson- in your face

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:13:00 UTC | #346652

firstelder_d's Avatar Comment 14 by firstelder_d

What a waste paper/memory/bandwidth this article is. I'll I got from it is "Easter is such a great story so I believe in it, its shame more people don't"

Of course, only hard evidence will satisfy the secularists, but over time and after repeated readings of the story, I've been convinced without it.

I found this especially priceless. I wonder if this idiot reads Lord of the Rings enough he'll be convinced Middle Earth exists. Hope this guy is never on a jury, idiot.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:15:00 UTC | #346653

Stafford Gordon's Avatar Comment 15 by Stafford Gordon

How is it that because I don't believe in the supernatural that I'm a fanatic?

Evidence could be forthcoming from CERN at any moment that the "god particle" has been found, establishing that life in the universe was indeed created by a supernatural entity or God; evidence may at any momment be found for life after death, in either of these cases I would have no option other than to accept the findings, since I believe in progress by means of Scientific enquiry, and these findings would be based on verifiable evidence.

And why do people of faith make such a song and dance when their religion is questioned; after all many of them claim to know the mind of God and speak on her behalf, so with a direct line that hot what's the problem; all they need to do is pity us non believers and ask God to forgive us.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:16:00 UTC | #346654

Roland_F's Avatar Comment 16 by Roland_F

Of course, only hard evidence will satisfy the secularists, but over time and after repeated readings of the story, I've been convinced without it.

Then read some more Cinderella, Snow-white, Frog King, Rapunzel and the like, and after repeated reading you will be also convinced without evidence of them.

And it was not Jesus who died on the cross but Judas - or do you want to insult 1,100,000,000 Muslims who read this in their holy book ? Read the Koran often enough you will be also convinced of this "fact"

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:19:00 UTC | #346655

Russell Blackford's Avatar Comment 17 by Russell Blackford

Much of this reads like pure spite: he admits he has no answer to the problem of evil, but he's going to believe anyway just to get back at Polly Toynbee for not liking the Narnia books. Or something. And then there's all the sonorous, but empty, rhetoric. Ugh!

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:22:00 UTC | #346656

Quiddam's Avatar Comment 18 by Quiddam

And it is true to say that no one can ever prove - nor, indeed, disprove - the existence of an after-life or God, or answer the conundrums of honest doubters (how does a loving God allow an earthquake in Italy?)

What, I wonder, would a dishonest doubter be? One who knows God was responsible for the Italian earthquake but doubts anyway?

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:24:00 UTC | #346659

epeeist's Avatar Comment 19 by epeeist

Folks - this is the "Daily Heil" remember, home of such luminaries as Melanie Phillips.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:28:00 UTC | #346661

George Lennan's Avatar Comment 20 by George Lennan

What a glaringly unoriginal mendacious casuastic boring petty uninformed self-contradictory self-righteous self-loathing whining holier-than-thou cherry-picking bullshit-filled negative negatory wishful-thinking clever-clever tiresome repetetive repetetive repetetive credulous dismissive acquiescent illogical puerile unsubstantiated egregious ego-massaging vacuous torpor-inducing vacillating sectarian dull and hallucinatory pile of CRAP.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:34:00 UTC | #346664

PrimeNumbers's Avatar Comment 21 by PrimeNumbers

What a "waste of time" article. I'm sorry A N, but easter pre-dates Christianity, just as the winter holiday does too.

As for poor Judas, if he'd not done his job, then the whole Christian myth would be totally screwed. Come on - he was essential and it was vital he did as he did.

Yes, as pointed out, this seems much more belief in belief. But if she's going to argue for a religion she's got to do a better job than that.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:35:00 UTC | #346665

theolgit's Avatar Comment 22 by theolgit

What a complete and utter pratt.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:35:00 UTC | #346666

babel76's Avatar Comment 23 by babel76

OK, this is so embarrassingly inane that it's not worth even commenting on. These 'I too used to be an atheist until I drank the Kool-Aid' types are the worst.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:42:00 UTC | #346668

quisquose's Avatar Comment 24 by quisquose

Yesterday I listened to a 5 min debate between the agnostic Mark Vernon, a former Church of England priest, and the atheist physician, philosopher and poet Raymond Tallis.

A N Wilson, Karen Armstrong and John Grey all got mentions in the increasing volume of people wanting to paint new atheism as bad.

The argument seems to be:

Moderate Religion = Agnostic = Moderate Atheist = Good
Fanatical Religion = Fanatical Atheist = Bad

But this is just stupid. Atheism is just the opposite opinion to theism, and both are neutral. neither can motivate towards good or bad on their own, for that requires dogma.

As George Williamson wrote:

This is a thorny political problem for greater minds than mine. But it seems to me that what is moderate about a believer is rarely their religion. Rather, their moderateness is so to the extent of their secularity, to the extent that they are not religious.

So for all these moderate religious people who defend their religion for it's niceness, and yet attack Dawkins and the rest of us for our fanaticism, i would ask how precisely we could become less atheist for them to become more moderate?

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:46:00 UTC | #346669

NewEnglandBob's Avatar Comment 25 by NewEnglandBob

A N Wilson - cowardly Fuckwad. Afraid of death.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:48:00 UTC | #346670

Ascaphus's Avatar Comment 26 by Ascaphus

Is the daily mail a substantial publication? It's hard to believe this survived the editorial board of a real paper. "Clever-clever?" The author complains about a "playground attitude" but this response reveals a petulant and juvenile approach to both religion and life.


Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:52:00 UTC | #346673

epeeist's Avatar Comment 27 by epeeist

Comment #363048 by Ascaphus:

Is the daily mail a substantial publication?
No, it is a publication so noxious that irate_atheist won't even use it to line his cat's litter tray.

In the 1930's it supported Mosley's Black Shirts and its form proprietor Lord Northcliffe supposedly had the policy of giving his subscribes a "daily hate". It has grown little better since.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:56:00 UTC | #346676

Lisa Bauer's Avatar Comment 28 by Lisa Bauer

Par for the course for the Daily Mail/Fail.

The part referring to "that great saint Thomas More" (only among the Roman Catholics, of course) puzzled me until I discovered that A N Wilson was at one point a convert to Catholicism (and later apparently reverted to Anglicanism -- I don't know what church he considers himself to belong to now, if any). Interesting...and perhaps explains a few things about him.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 07:58:00 UTC | #346678

Diogenes of Sinope's Avatar Comment 29 by Diogenes of Sinope

This is the most complete collection straw men, fallacies and non sequiturs that I've come across for some time. A.N Wilson revells in the tweedy, unorthodox intellectual persona that he's created. He just loves the sound of his own voice, or rather thinks that his vacuous ramblings are eccentric and original in the best English tradition.

He became an atheist for the most stupid reason imaginable -

To my shame, I believe it was this that made me lose faith and heart in my youth. It felt so uncool to be religious.

Stupidity only equalled by his reason for rejoining the GodSquad-
My belief has come about in large measure because of the lives and examples of people I have known - not the famous, not saints, but friends and relations who have lived, and faced death, in the light of the Resurrection story, or in the quiet acceptance that they have a future after they die.

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:01:00 UTC | #346679

Damien Trotter's Avatar Comment 30 by Damien Trotter

Heh heh.

According to A N Wilson's biography of Sir John Betjeman, "A N Wilson is a shit".

Google it to find out why.

(I couldn't agree with him more.)

Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:04:00 UTC | #346681