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

← Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering Up Atheist Crimes?

Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering Up Atheist Crimes? - Comments

TheCroatianGuy's Avatar Comment 1 by TheCroatianGuy

Another moron who believes people have done crimes *in the name of atheism*, proving he obviously doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:05:00 UTC | #460473

shawnh's Avatar Comment 2 by shawnh

Ah yes, The Huffington Post, that icon of journalistic integrity and balanced views.

I think Rory is indeed suffering from a feeble mind. He should perhaps try a little harder to look into Albert's religious views.

I fear for humanity when I read what people like this write, I do.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:06:00 UTC | #460474

Chrysippus_Maximus's Avatar Comment 3 by Chrysippus_Maximus

I am so very tired of people failing to understand that the word 'God' doesn't have one meaning. Einstein was a Spinozist. Period.

You may want to say "Oh, but he used the word 'God'.", but that doesn't mean what you think it means. Cherry-picking these claims from Einstein out of context is just ... stupid.

This might actually be one of the dumbest articles I've ever read, and that's saying a lot.

Then again, I don't particularly think trying to arrest the pope makes any sense either.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:10:00 UTC | #460475

Deek's Avatar Comment 4 by Deek

This is getting tedious.

I find myself responding to these in the following way.

A) read first two paragraphs
B) realise the author has obviously not read anything that Richard/Christopher/Sam etc. has written
C) read the remainder but feel dirty for doing so
D) weep for the 5 minutes that I'll never get back again.

Is this what passes for journalism? people get paid for this?

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:14:00 UTC | #460476

rajesh_shenoy's Avatar Comment 5 by rajesh_shenoy

These ramblings seem indistinguishable from the random ramblings of a moron!

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:14:00 UTC | #460477

pbarreto's Avatar Comment 6 by pbarreto

"Dawkins, however, has nothing but contempt for the majority of human kind who believe in God"

AFAIK Richard's contempt is restricted to religion itself, not by people. Quite on the contrary, his work as a researcher and an educator clearly shows he has nothing but the deepest concern for the whole mankind, including (and in a sense especially) "the majority of human kind who believe in God."

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:15:00 UTC | #460478

billpg's Avatar Comment 7 by billpg

"Should Richard Dawkins be Arrested for Covering Up Atheist Crimes?"

This is news to me. What crimes were they and how did he cover them up?

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:16:00 UTC | #460479

remijdio's Avatar Comment 8 by remijdio

I think the funniest thing about the article really was what came after. The comments completely dissected all of the incorrect information he spouted out.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:21:00 UTC | #460480

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 9 by mordacious1

Richard Dawkins has become a sort of Messiah for some atheists. He is a biologist, a geneticist. I'm not sure why he feels that expertise in such an arcane field gives him authority to pronounce on spiritual questions.


ARCANE? Really? The study of life is arcane? WOW!

[edit] I thought I'd throw in Merriam-Webster's definition of Arcane: : known or knowable only to the initiate : secret ; broadly : mysterious, obscure

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:23:00 UTC | #460481

Mr-discovery's Avatar Comment 10 by Mr-discovery

Spinoza:you don't see sense in arresting the pope?

it makes people aware of human rights and how law and science and reasoning go together.

getting the pope arrested will bring doubt in somespeople's minds about if there's really a god or far more importantly if its the god in there religion.

meaning they might finally look to logic and reason meaning less resources are wasted on pointless religions that only help people delay the inevitable fact that science is, has and will continue to show truth of reality and the faster we speed this up the faster human kind become most efficient at focusing on its goals to excel its understanding of reality and of-course with this comes fairness, high tech to save lives to grow food ...ect.

its gonna happen ...

statistics clearly show a smarter person more in-tuned with reality is less likely to cave into nosence like the bible.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:24:00 UTC | #460482

pbarreto's Avatar Comment 12 by pbarreto

Addendum: "Dawkins, however, has nothing but contempt..." -> Oh, they changed the wording in the original site already! Now Richard "often seems to have only contempt..." How subtle...

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:25:00 UTC | #460484

danhayes's Avatar Comment 11 by danhayes

Can I suggest we email Mr Fitgerald and politely tell him what we think of his article? His email address can be found at http://www.roryfitzgerald.com/

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:25:00 UTC | #460483

Chrysippus_Maximus's Avatar Comment 13 by Chrysippus_Maximus

Arresting the pope has nothing to do with making people more logical or reasonable, and nor should it. But what I actually said was that I don't see any sense in *trying* to arrest the pope, because it isn't going to happen.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:27:00 UTC | #460485

Mr-discovery's Avatar Comment 14 by Mr-discovery

and if you dont see how it would help human kind take a step in the right directions.....

sight... why cant the pope be arrested??

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:30:00 UTC | #460486

Pilot22A's Avatar Comment 16 by Pilot22A

I also have contempt for anyone who fervently believes in a god, then tortures and commits despicable acts against children, or for that matter, any creature that inhabits this planet.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:32:00 UTC | #460488

Degsy's Avatar Comment 15 by Degsy

Does this prick get a cheque? Just horrible journalism.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:32:00 UTC | #460487

William T. Dawkins's Avatar Comment 17 by William T. Dawkins

This an interpretation of how I understand this article.

Richard Dawkins wants the Pope arrested because he thinks he is God! He is not the Devine Messiah. I wish to show that he and his liberal, deluded, militant atheist followers are demons of Satan! Under the guise of Science and Reason, These virulent, disrespectful, narrow-minded, fundamentalist are marinated in fear and hate. These people are obsessed with Darwin's natural selection. Using its arcane authority of mechanistic principles as a standard, they seek to undermine all religion in the world. Thinking his personal philosophy the ultimate truth, he deceives his indoctrinated ring and teaches them to use noise and hatred to mock and deride the respectful religious opinions of others. We are the good guys and they are not playing fair! Instead they are being selective, not objective. Dawkins appears to bring only discord and convey contempt. He calls attention to religiously motivated barbarism over the horrendous crimes committed by atheist ideologues, of course we will ignore that in these situations The State was God! To show how these Socialistic Commie people create a lot of noise and do not contribute significantly. In a spirit of co-operative discourse, I have submitted an out of context divine quote by Einstein. Score one for the good guys!

I am envious! Maybe because he sells more books or has more notoriety. Must be nice! As a credible pretend disgruntled Atheist, I think I've done my best to bash this evil lot. Just wanted to do that before we got to the real issue. "Dawkins is right to be angry about the awful cover up of child abuse in the Catholic Church." " It is perfectly reasonable to be critical of the many bad things done in the name of religion." "Theocracy is as bad a place as a secular dictatorship." I just wanted to discredit this author and his issue before the truth hits the US conservative media.

We All Know! "Liberal secularism is endangered," The dogmatic religious conservatives shall inherit the earth. Were makin more babies than they are, and do not have abortions, which I hope, are "killing the atheists of tomorrow." In our world, everything always leads to abortion, gay marriage and other perpetual arguments, which derail progress. What difference is all that manly sex going to make? We are only going to be here until 2012. But, "there are more things on heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophies." "For as soon as we begin to think that we have all the answers, curiosity and wonder dry up."

My Comment: I will let Richard's integrity, passion for his work and his work speak for itself. Richard, has never claimed to know the ultimate truth about the universe and the nature of humanity. Please read it! Myself, and most of his readers do not have blind faith! Science and Reason do not allow for it. I do not disrespect the beliefs of others, I agree, that "neither side has a monopoly on truth or on virtue." Logically, I remain on the side of evidence. As far as the "Moral Compass" goes, you might check with Sam Harris. He must be laughing big time.

William Dawkins

(No Relation to Date)

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:38:00 UTC | #460490

Chrysippus_Maximus's Avatar Comment 18 by Chrysippus_Maximus

Maybe I can make my point clearer.

I see sense in writing/editorializing that the pope SHOULD be arrested, or at least investigated by international law, for his role in the cover-up and abetting of child abuse. I take this to involve the use of reasons to convince others of justified moral outrage.

My not seeing any sense in actually trying to arrest the pope is solely a matter of pragmatics and a particular opinion about the big picture. There's no law that says as a card-carrying anti-supernaturalist I have to agree with everything my compatriots support.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:40:00 UTC | #460491

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 19 by mordacious1

Spinoza

Whether the Rat gets arrested or not, Richard and Christopher are certainly keeping this story alive in the press. Hopefully, at the very least, it will force the rcc to change its policies. If just one innocent child is saved from being raped/tortured, then it's all worth it.

[edit] I posted this before I read your post above.:)

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:41:00 UTC | #460492

AndrewP's Avatar Comment 20 by AndrewP

This also from HuffPo is to be taken much more seriously. The letter from the bishop to his boss may turn your stomach:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-ruse/the-catholic-church-why-r_b_532987.html

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:48:00 UTC | #460493

Bernard Hurley's Avatar Comment 21 by Bernard Hurley

There is so much wrong with this article that it's difficult to know where to start. Here are a few observations:

He is wrong about Einstein.

He is wrong about the relationship between Nazism and Nietzsche's philosophy.

He quotes Bacon as if he were an ultimate authority.

He says very strange things like "Richard Dawkins has become a sort of Messiah for some atheists" (Hands up all of you for who think Dawkins is a Messiah) or "Dawkins feels certain that he has unravelled the mysteries of the universe.", which, even if true, have nothing to do with covering up crimes.

He discusses Kaufmann's book as if it were somehow relevant to whether Dawkins should be arrested.

Strangest of all, Fitzgerald he can only substantiate the charge that Dawkins covered up any crimes by invoking a different sense of the phrase "cover up". What he actually says is:

Dawkins is right to be angry about the 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.


Well, let's, for the sake of argument concede this point. The fact remains that hushing up crimes in this new sense doesn't happen to be a crime. Whereas hushing up crimes in the sense in which Herr Ratzinger did most certainly is.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:50:00 UTC | #460495

mordacious1's Avatar Comment 22 by mordacious1

OT, but it isn't the jews, homosexuality, atheists, etc. that cause priests to molest children. According to a prominent rc bishop in Mexico, it is eroticism on television and Internet pornography that causes children to be abused by priests:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/04/16/AR2010041604091.html

Did they have eroticism on TV or the internet in the '50's? I guess that adorable Jerry Mathers really got these guys hot.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:55:00 UTC | #460497

GodlessHeathen's Avatar Comment 23 by GodlessHeathen

This stuff just gets stupider by the day.

The "nouveau journalisme": Making stuff up and twisting/ignoring facts to sell ads.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:02:00 UTC | #460498

Chrysippus_Maximus's Avatar Comment 24 by Chrysippus_Maximus

The article is simply a transparently failed analogy. Nothing more really needs to be said.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:04:00 UTC | #460499

JSB2024's Avatar Comment 25 by JSB2024

Utter fool. I'm not surprised though. I have grown disdainful for the HuffPo in recent months, all of their articles on religion are about dialogue, cease-fires, NOMA, and accommodation of religion in science, one of their religion columnists went so far as to say yesterday that "evolution presupposes design, so where's the controversy?". They're too nice for their own good, it seems the collective attitude is one of caring more about the views of the opposition rather than actually establishing which ethos is the most truthful.
Appeasement will get us nowhere.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:06:00 UTC | #460500

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 26 by aquilacane

Sorry dude, but I don't answer to Richard and he's not my senior in charge where I work nor is he in any way at the head of any athiest organization to which I am a member simply by being an atheist.

What a douche!

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:09:00 UTC | #460502

mrjohnno's Avatar Comment 27 by mrjohnno

I think it's satire guys

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:27:00 UTC | #460504

JuJu's Avatar Comment 28 by JuJu

Doesn't the Huff post promote vitalism or something along the Deepak Chopra way of thinking? Isn't Ms. Huffington into that stuff? If she is then they almost have to allow nonsense like this to be written in order to fool themselves into thinking alternatives are plausible. They can't completely shut them out because it would beg the question as to why they don't shut out their own deluded beliefs. All that said I find alot of the Huff post information worth reading. Its just when they get sideways that I wonder what in the world they were thinking.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:29:00 UTC | #460505

TIKI AL's Avatar Comment 29 by TIKI AL

I have not read this flavor of childish bull-Rory since receiving a "I know you are but what am I" note in kindergarten.

At least he admits that godbots brainwash their children and are counting on out-reproducing us for survival.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:39:00 UTC | #460506

superatheist's Avatar Comment 30 by superatheist

So Rory Fitzgerald doesn't know that Prof. Dawkins is an evolutionary Biologist, why? he can't google him?? He hasn't read any of his bestsellers??. Anyway, I have never heard of a person killing others and going " there is no god" before nor while nor after doing it, but I have seen people say religious terms before killing somebody.

Sat, 17 Apr 2010 14:45:00 UTC | #460508