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

← I have no faith in these unholy warlords

I have no faith in these unholy warlords - Comments

SaganTheCat's Avatar Comment 1 by SaganTheCat

ffs

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:11:24 UTC | #520472

devogue's Avatar Comment 2 by devogue

Good article. It's pretty much how I feel.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:16:30 UTC | #520476

ajs261's Avatar Comment 3 by ajs261

This woman misses the point completely, descending into the child language she attacks people like Dawkins for. Atheists have nothing against consenting adults believing whatever they want in their private time but when religious organisations have control over 36% of our schools and are allowed to preach whatever they want in religion lessons, when the C of E has 26 automatically placed bishops in the House of Lords and when religion gets tax-breaks that no-one else can receive, that is unacceptable.

The Catholic Church goes around declaring scientific falsehoods over contraception to get its own way. Even now, it uses Canon law to judge its own, leading to a mass cover-up when ALL cases should have been referred to the secular authorities. The Pope and other Catholics wield considerable political influence on the basis of a baseless belief. The Catholic Church preaches to the world that it alone has the correct moral code and it preaches that it alone knows the truth. As long as it does all these things and more, protest is entirely justified.

Updated: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:20:59 UTC | #520477

Ode2Hitch's Avatar Comment 4 by Ode2Hitch

What an odious, self appraising concoction of poorly formulated opinions.

One can, however, console oneself that the stenched spewings of the Holy Fuhrer and all his supporters are evidence of the sheer desperation of their current situation. They are losing their hold and they know it.

Updated: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:27:22 UTC | #520479

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 5 by Alan4discussion

Janice Taylor - The Times,?? Has she seen any of their books or TV programs? I know university scientific research is a bit heavy for some journalists' brains.

Is she so thick as to claim " As if the rest of us need professor of theoretical physics and evolutionary biology in order to ponder the big questions.....?" I suppose not, you can always read "The Sun", or listen to "Fox News". There's education for you!

Would she really leave the massively funded creationist work of perverting science unchallenged?

Does she not know that Hitler, a professed Christian, for years called on Christians to rally behind him!-- and the pope (from Germany) has the cheek to ask athiests to apologise for this!!

Yeah - right! Let's not upset the militant attackers of fact and reason and pose as nice moderate wishy-washies!

Updated: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:47:48 UTC | #520483

Atropa's Avatar Comment 6 by Atropa

IMO it isn't a good article. I dig better stuff than this into my roses. This is the sort of journalism that makes me wince. The Roman Catholic Church is reactionary, repressive, authoritarian and corrupt. I know, I was bought up in it, though not, fortunately, buggered by any of the priests with whom I came into contact. It, RCC, also requires its members to believe some laughably incredible nonsense eg transubstation (what? How can anyone believe that a priest, perhaps just having left the vestry where he has been abusing some poor child, can walk up to a piece of unleavened bread, mutter some words at it and turn it into God. Beyond ludicrous I think.) Did anyone hear the lady on the BBC Today program this morning? Raped by her family priest at age thirteen and her mother, coming into the room just afterwards and finding her daughter sobbing and bleeding tells her that it is part of God's plan and to pray for the priest. Now that is what I call wicked. And encapsulates my view of the RCC.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:38:38 UTC | #520485

Dax's Avatar Comment 7 by Dax

Another example of "shoot the messenger". It is the "unholy warlords" — who, might I add, are peaceful, so the name warlord is just name calling — refuse to back down when secularism is under attack, when an evil, powerful religious organisation breaks secular law and any ethical boundaries, when an old tyrant starts to throw Godwin mud, et cetera, et cetera. But Janice Taylor finds it necessary to attack the messengers, the people who stand up and also try to protect her from the evils of religious tyranny.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:38:51 UTC | #520486

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 8 by Richard Dawkins

Typical "I'm-an-atheist-buttery." When somebody describes Christopher Hitchens's prose as boring and unreadable, you know they either haven't read him at all or are driven by a hidden agenda.

Likewise, when Stephen Hawking announced recently, with messianic certainty, that God could not have created the Universe, he sounded only like a spiteful child, hoping to make his baby brother cry by revealing there is no Santa Claus.

So what should he have done, falsified the physics just in case the truth makes somebody blub their wickle eyes out?

always male

Isn't that a bit insulting to women?

As if the rest of us require professors of theoretical physics or evolutionary biology in order to ponder the big questions of human existence . . .

Actually yes, in your case it probably is what you require. But you'll need to read their books, not just the titles and not just third-hand opinions about them.

Richard

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:39:26 UTC | #520487

Glen Allan's Avatar Comment 9 by Glen Allan

Sanctimonious snivelling silliness

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:41:37 UTC | #520489

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 10 by Stevehill

Who is this idiot?

Hawking has merely asserted that the scientific evidence shows there was no need for a god to create the universe. He has not proclaimed the non-existence of a god (although the lack of necessity for a creator weakens a number of theological arguments). What does she expect one of the world's greatest physicists to do: carry out his research and decide the conclusion might be thought a bit "strident" or "shrill" by a halfwit journalist, so in the interests of her precious sensibilities he'd better not publish his findings?

Since Murdoch owns both Glenn Beck and this useful idiot on the Times, do I detect a pattern emerging?

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:44:58 UTC | #520492

Narvi's Avatar Comment 11 by Narvi

"Always male"? Just because you haven't heard of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:46:57 UTC | #520493

keithapm's Avatar Comment 12 by keithapm

Likewise, when Stephen Hawking announced recently, with messianic certainty, that God could not have created the Universe, he sounded only like a spiteful child, hoping to make his baby brother cry by revealing there is no Santa Claus.

I've read Hawking's book. There is no messianic certainty in it at all. Throughout he is cordial and witty. The only messianic certainty I'm aware of comes from, well you know, the religious. She does get one thing right however, believing in a God is on the same level as believing in Santa Claus and eventually, despite the feelings of your little brother, there comes a time when you have to tell him it's all made up. Sometimes they'll figure it out themselves, but you can't take the risk of having them grow up to be a pathetic adult sitting by their fire place praying for the jolly red man to appear just one more time.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:47:21 UTC | #520494

Ode2Hitch's Avatar Comment 13 by Ode2Hitch

Comment 8 by Richard Dawkins :

Typical "I'm-an-atheist-buttery."

So thickly spread the mental toast is soggy

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:51:29 UTC | #520497

God fearing Atheist's Avatar Comment 14 by God fearing Atheist

A hack in Rupert Murdoch's pay is shrill and strident about new atheists. Yawn.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:57:49 UTC | #520500

Aztek's Avatar Comment 15 by Aztek

Likewise, when Stephen Hawking announced recently, with messianic certainty, that God could not have created the Universe, he sounded only like a spiteful child, hoping to make his baby brother cry by revealing there is no Santa Claus.

Did she just compare religious people to little kids who start crying when you tell them the truth?

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 10:57:49 UTC | #520501

helen sotiriadis's Avatar Comment 16 by helen sotiriadis

this drivel is behind a pay wall? and a newspaper paid her for this?

what a waste of resources.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:00:01 UTC | #520503

hairybreeks's Avatar Comment 17 by hairybreeks

Like the majority of British people, I have little religious faith, but . . .

My mummy always told me to ignore everything preceding the word "but". Good advice in this case.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:05:42 UTC | #520507

Atropa's Avatar Comment 18 by Atropa

IMO it isn't a good article. I dig better stuff than this into my roses. This is the sort of journalism that makes me wince. The Roman Catholic Church is reationary, repressive, authoritarian and corrupt. I know, I was bought up in it, though not, fortunately, buggered by any of the priests with whom I came into contact. It, RCC, also requires its members to believe some laughably incredible nonsense eg transubstantiation (What? How can anyone believe that a priest, perhaps just having left the vestry where he has been abusing some poor child, can walk up to a piece of unleaven bread, mutter some words at it and turn it into God. Beyond ludicrous I think.) Did anyone hear the lady on the BBC Today program this morning? Raped by her family priest at age thirteen and her mother, coming into the room just afterwards and finding her daughter sobbing and bleeding tells her that it is part of God's plan and to pray for the priest. Now that is what I call wicked. And encapsulates my view of the RCC.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:06:32 UTC | #520509

mmurray's Avatar Comment 19 by mmurray

Likewise, when Stephen Hawking announced recently, with messianic certainty, that God could not have created the Universe,

He didn't announce that he announced that God wasn't necessary to create the Universe.

Michael

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:09:26 UTC | #520514

biorays's Avatar Comment 20 by biorays

It strikes me Janice Taylor is condoning her own emotional indulgence into a spiritual cocktail; blending current legal issues; historic man-made problems; her personal neediness for a legitimate sky-god morality, and a subconscious willingness to abandon intellectual rigour for a pickled potion of a universal, all knowing, worldwide expert sky-god who dispatches post-it notes all over 'world religions' (including specific ones for catholic leaders) in some unexplained majesty plan that somehow, someway will all come good so long as we let it.

And this in spite of the traditional few thousand years of missed opportunities to get the sky-god notes consistent, equitable, charitable, benevolent and loving for an ever increasing population whose versions of the 'mind of god' defy any such possibility.

Janice, let's get this conversation back to the very basic beginnings of your accidental 'spirituality of birth' and explore the very basic tenets of why you 'feel' what you think rather than the reverse. If you are capable of doing that ( I genuinely don't mean to insult you in this regard - I know only too well how impossible it can be) then we may have the opportunity for a very rational discourse.

You see, I think, fundamentally, most believers and lapsed believers submit to a shadow of faith - a sort of nobody knows so 'Let's go along with those who claim to!', kind of etiquette. A brainless sincerity which suits their lifestyle and lets them get along without the intellectual responsibility for what 'belief' is truly claiming - that it is unquestionable and from an all powerful source. My finding is that it quite the reverse. Your position is the only position that provides it ANY power. The none thinking, all accepting, pass the parcel, I'm doing very well thank you kind of comfort zone that almost ALL of us humans love and submit to the 'feel good' of so well.

Updated: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:19:56 UTC | #520515

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 21 by Alan4discussion

What was the word for the actions of those Christians who went along with HITLER'S lies abuses and calls for support?

.........APPEASEMENT.........!

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:24:25 UTC | #520520

jez999's Avatar Comment 22 by jez999

Well my feelings have already been pretty much put by several posters already, but I'll just register myself as another who thinks that this article is insulting bunkum. It seems to equate secularism with atheism, and both with support for rampant laissez-faire capitalism ("[Secularism] might concede that the Pope has a point that secular values have struggled in the past decade when morality was wholly defined by the free market.") This is a silly common fallacy. Laissez-faire capitalism was, however, far better supported by the Catholic Blair's New Labour project, and the Wall Street clowns and the Christian US government who supported them for so long (and, to a large extent, continue to do so).

Funny, isn't it, how religion has gotten things its own way for thousands of years. What she's talking about is what the non-religious have had to endure for that time (and worse). It can't be for more than a couple of decades that strong atheism has finally begun to make its mark in the public sphere, and already the religious are squealing loudly about our daring to criticize some aspects of their faith, and whether it should be preached to children at school. If anything, this shows us that we're getting somewhere and need to push our message further and wider, not quieten down like good little puppies.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:25:34 UTC | #520523

Blaine McCartney's Avatar Comment 23 by Blaine McCartney

Victimisation, hypocrisy, spurious claims generalisations; her article has them all!

Anyone who's ever read the bible word for word, page for page, knows that it's anything but defensible. The general gist is "lots of people think the Pope's visit is nice so don't you dare rain on their parade". What I found particularly laughable was her apologist attitude towards the downright embarrassing comments of the Pope and RCC in general of late:

"The recent railings of look-at-me blowhards such as Hitchens and Dawkins are, in part, the reason why Benedict XVI arrived in Britain with his unapologetically re-evangelising message."

She's clearly not in a rational state of mind. She has misunderstood secularism, and she has misunderstood the means by which we try to attain it. This "anger" is frustration. Frustration that 2000 years after their little fairy tale was written, the Church still has the capacity to get the final say over the State as worst, and at best it influences each and every major moral decision made (though this is not exclusive to the RCC).

The fact is, in an increasingly diverse/multi-religious/multicultural world, you can't have a "Christian country", or a "Christian town" without offending someone. Secularism is -not- the desire to abolish religion. It is the desire to keep it out of the public domain and in doing so, greatly reduce the intolerance we see on a daily basis, as well increasing the potential for a tolerant society. As per usual, however, this Pope is scaremongering to the point of saying that those without religion/God will inevitably be responsible for a repeat of WW2.

He has, however, been consistently shooting himself in the foot during this visit, and, as Napoleon one said, "Never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake". With our "government" making sure that there is as little interruption as possible, as well as our media cherry-picking what they support (i.e. omitting much of the protesting), it seems Napoleon's words of advice will prove fruitful.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:25:42 UTC | #520524

SomersetJohn's Avatar Comment 24 by SomersetJohn

Who is janice Taylor. What are her qualificalions (if any, precious little evidence for them here) for communicating with rational people. Degree in flower arranging perhaps. She seems to have some dificulty stringing words together in sensible order.

I might be wrong, but I got no feeling of passion, or belief, from her writing. No conviction that what she was saying about Richard, Christopher et al, had any real meaning for her. Was she perhaps handed a brief by her boss and told to write a diatribe, hastily dashed off while she was thinking of something perhaps more important, or closer to her heart? It just comes across as a general piece of Murdock hackery to me.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:33:53 UTC | #520528

ahmunnaeetchoo's Avatar Comment 25 by ahmunnaeetchoo

So wait.... is she being intolerant of new-atheism's intolerance to the intolerance of the religious to engage in rational argument and accept secularism?

I don't think I can tolerate this!

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:36:31 UTC | #520529

carlitoernesto's Avatar Comment 26 by carlitoernesto

Having just seen the documentary "The Trouble with the Pope", I'm even more convinced that Pope deserves little respect. I've spent the first 24 years of my life in the Philippines, and I've worked with some of the poorest families, teaching them about artificial contraception. The Catholic church has done a lot of harm there by ordering its masses against the use condoms. I've seen households where there is only one bedroom, but there are up to fifteen or eighteen children. Incest obviously is a problem in this kind of setting as well. In a country where many people, especially the gullible poor, believe that the pope's every word is infallible, the actual consequences are just devastating. The Philippines is a prime example of what happens when the distinction between politics and religion blur.

The author of this piece thinks that she knows what she's talking about. I think the opposite is true.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:41:26 UTC | #520531

phill marston's Avatar Comment 27 by phill marston

Dawkins, Hawking, Hitchens: these male (always male)

Errrmmm.... Polly Toynbee, Ophelia Benson, Christina Patterson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali,,,, perhaps she's never heard of Skepchick either.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 11:49:26 UTC | #520534

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 28 by Cartomancer

If the pope limited his activities to merely sitting quietly in chapels, delivering babies or giving people colourful pictures while wearing a hat, I don't think any of us would have a problem with him.

I'll note the article does not once touch on the actual REASONS we despise the pope. Misogyny, AIDS in africa, opposition to contraception, abortion and stem cell research, the psychological torment of millions, the abuse cover-up. You'd think from this piece of work that all he's done is warn against the bankrupt morality of the bankers.

It takes some gall to say that those who protest against undue respect and influence offered to religion are failing the cause of secularism.

Also, this made me grimace:

As if the rest of us require professors of theoretical physics or evolutionary biology in order to ponder the big questions of human existence, any more than we need a priest.

Given that the big questions of human existence are, in fact, questions of physics and evolutionary biology, how can they be answered in isolation from the specialists in those disciplines?

Updated: Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:05:27 UTC | #520541

Stevehill's Avatar Comment 29 by Stevehill

@Somerset John

"Who is janice Taylor."

Who knows? A search reveals little but someone with the same name who writes for the Huffington Post. Possibly someone on work experience for a couple of weeks before she retakes her A-levels?

To her (very modest) credit, her last paragraph is bang on: five of the first 16 new academies are faith schools, and for all you or I know the next five will indeed be madrassars. Her heart may be in the right place, but she spectacularly misses the target.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:06:08 UTC | #520542

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 30 by Tyler Durden

Comment 27 by phill marston

Dawkins, Hawking, Hitchens: these male (always male)

Errrmmm.... Polly Toynbee, Ophelia Benson, Christina Patterson, Ayaan Hirsi Ali,,,, perhaps she's never heard of Skepchick either.

Paula Kirby.

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 12:07:30 UTC | #520543