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

← Santorum, Satan and the Fate of the Freeworld

Santorum, Satan and the Fate of the Freeworld - Comments

ThisCanNotBeTheFuture's Avatar Comment 1 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Santorum makes bat shit look sane.

Oh, and since Santorum thinks academics are evil, I'm sure he eschews any piece of technology that was invented at a university setting, right?

Thu, 23 Feb 2012 23:56:54 UTC | #921334

Pawtucket's Avatar Comment 2 by Pawtucket

Great article, but circumcision is not a Catholic tradition, so I think you mean, "altar-boys," not "alter-boys."

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 01:04:36 UTC | #921347

Elisabeth Cornwell's Avatar Comment 3 by Elisabeth Cornwell

Thanks Pawtucket- not sure if that was a Freudian slip or auto-spell check bedeviling me.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 02:15:30 UTC | #921361

ECook's Avatar Comment 4 by ECook

When President Obama was elected I was so surprised to see how many people were quick to show 1) their fear that Barack Obama might be the "anti-christ" and 2) their previously hidden racism. I wonder now how many people are more eager to have a Christian in the White House now that everyone got so flustered; like an excessive rebound after an uncomfortable change.

And this is happening in 2012??? Amazing. Thank god I'm an atheist....me, I mean Me, Thank Me I'm an atheist.

ECook [link to personal blog removed by moderator]

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:18:47 UTC | #921365

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 5 by aquilacane

My brain refused to allow me to listen to Santorum's speech. I just kept thinking about something else. Is it boring?

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:38:51 UTC | #921367

aquilacane's Avatar Comment 6 by aquilacane

Comment 1 by ThisCanNotBeTheFuture

Santorum makes bat shit look sane.

Oh, and since Santorum thinks academics are evil, I'm sure he eschews any piece of technology that was invented at a university setting, right?

I know, I know. WTF? I am for ever hearing about naughty science and give us the old days. Fine, have the old days, just turn in your cell phone, car, life saving medication and all that bad science shit. Whether their own fault or not, they are stupid fucking people. Don't get me wrong, I'm stupid but not fucking stupid.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 03:42:50 UTC | #921370

Tony d's Avatar Comment 7 by Tony d

I think it is very interesting the way the religious are happy to bang on endlessly about their faith in whatever God floats their boat.Yet they are curiously reticent to publicly make a big deal of their deity's arch enemy.Almost as if they fear losing credibility.

Most of these all powerful omniscient deity's do have there Nemesis. And for some deep reason the God thing can't seem to do away with the Devil type thing.

Now most good stories have a hero and a villain, Holmes and Moriarty,Superman and Lex Luther, Robbin Hood and the Sheriff of Nottingham,Dracula and Van Helsing.

Is it possible that the less dim witted theist's avoid mentioning their Gods arch enemy much, because they run the risk of making their deeply held belief system sound like other works of fiction.Who knows?

I like it when the religiously inclined talk about the Devil and all the little imps and all that Halloween stuff i think it really shows the childish nature of the crap that they actually believe in.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:10:58 UTC | #921394

susanlatimer's Avatar Comment 8 by susanlatimer

Comment 7 by Tony d

Yet they are curiously reticent to publicly make a big deal of their deity's arch enemy.

I've heard Satan referred to as the "christian god of evil". Not by christians, though.

Yet they are curiously reticent to publicly make a big deal of their deity's arch enemy.Almost as if they fear losing credibility.

Ya think? Not if they're around one another, though. Or if they're appealing to the right "target group".

Is it possible that the less dim witted theist's avoid mentioning their Gods arch enemy much, because they run the risk of making their deeply held belief system sound like other works of fiction.Who knows?

Or just that there's not enough meat on the bones in the bible for the devil? In the bible, it's hard to tell who the devil is. Is she the serpent in the garden of eden? Is he Yahweh's henchman in the book of Job? Is he Satan in Jesus' trials in the desert? The anti-christ in Revelation? There's no reason to think that these aren't four separate characters. And none of them seem evil compared to Yahweh the genocidal, bloodthirsty narcissistic maniac.

Have you seen the History of the Devil? I saw it a few years back. It provides more information than the bible does on "the devil". I'm not qualified to perceive its flaws, if it has any. But it's an interesting watch.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 07:55:49 UTC | #921405

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 10 by Alan4discussion

Comment 8 by susanlatimer

I've heard Satan referred to as the "christian god of evil". Not by christians, though.

That's a very good description! Next we have to educate the fundies in the meaning of the word "atheism", so that they can stop making silly claims, and work out that we do not worship gods.

Then they will have to work out if this "Christian god of evil", is a troooo "Xtian god of evil", or a "false Xtian god of evil"?

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:59:11 UTC | #921442

Tony d's Avatar Comment 11 by Tony d

@Comment 8 by susanlatimer Thanks for the clip.

According to WikiAnswers

The only killing in the bible that possibly be blamed on Satan is in the book of Job and is 10, however Satan was a servant of god at that time following the orders of God and God instigated a bet with Satan which started things. God however killed about 2.8 million people according to the bible

LOL those Christians are such crazy mixed up kids.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:30:37 UTC | #921445

cheesedoff17's Avatar Comment 12 by cheesedoff17

Amusing article. I watched that Ava Maria U. video clip yesterday and was glad I wasn't an American!

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 11:45:09 UTC | #921448

Ignorant Amos's Avatar Comment 13 by Ignorant Amos

Comment 11 by Tony d

The only killing in the bible that possibly be blamed on Satan is in the book of Job and is 10, however Satan was a servant of god at that time following the orders of God and God instigated a bet with Satan which started things.

I posted this on another thread recently.....

Of course there are a lot of sick and twisted individuals that hold Yahweh up as a role model too. Godly aspirations abound in woo woo land.....and that really is something else all things considered....a conservative figure for the number of deaths at the hands of that nasty piece of work gives a running total of 2,270,971, not including the victims of the Flood, Sodom & Gomorrah and in some of these cases, women and children e.g. the first born of Egypt.

Lot's wife for looking back 1
Er who was "wicked in the sight of the Lord" 1
Onan for spilling his seed 1
Pharaoh and 600 chariot captains (plus his entire army) 601+
For dancing naked around Aaron's golden calf 3000
Aaron's sons for offering strange fire before the Lord 2
A blasphemer 1
A man who picked up sticks on the Sabbath 1
Korah, Dathan, and Abiram (and their families) 12+ Burned to death for offering incense 250
For complaining 14,700
For "committing whoredom with the daughters of Moab" 24,000
Midianite massacre (32,000 virgins were kept alive) 90,000+
God tells Joshua to stoned to death Achan (and his family) for taking the accursed thing 5+
God tells Joshua to attack Ai and do what he did to Jericho (kill everyone) 12,000
Joshua kills 5 kings and hangs their dead bodies on trees 5
God delivered Canaanites and Perizzites 10,000
Ehud delivers a message from God: a knife into the king's belly 1
God delivered Moabites 10,000
God forces Midianite soldiers to kill each other 120,000
The Spirit of the Lord comes on Samson 30
The Spirit of the Lord comes mightily on Samson 1000
Samson's God-assisted act of terrorism 3000
"The Lord smote Benjamin" 25,100
More Benjamites 25,000
For looking into the ark of the Lord 50,070
God delivered Philistines 20
Samuel (at God's command) hacks Agag to death 1
"The Lord smote Nabal." 1
Uzzah for trying to keep the ark from falling 1
David and Bathsheba's baby boy 1
Seven sons of Saul hung up before the Lord 7
From plague as punishment for David's census (men only; probably 200,000 if including women and children) 70,000+
A prophet for believing another prophet's lie 1
God delivers the Syrians into the Israelites' hands 100,000
God makes a wall fall on Syrian soldiers 27,000
God sent a lion to eat a man for not killing a prophet 1
Ahaziah is killed for talking to the wrong god 1
Burned to death by God 102
God sends two bears to kill children for making fun of Elisha's bald head 42
Trampled to death for disbelieving Elijah 1
Jezebel 1
God sent lions to kill "some" foreigners 3+
Sleeping Assyrian soldiers 185,000
Saul 1
God delivers Israel into the hands of Judah 500,000
Jeroboam 1
"The Lord smote the Ethiopians." 1,000,000
God kills Jehoram by making his bowels fall out 1
Ezekiel's wife 1
Ananias and Sapphira 2

The amount of other suffering, if your going to believe in the Buybull as divinely inspired literal truth, on top of all that, must be astronomical. So you'll understand why the three characters you mention can be considered as very good role models in comparison with this Old Testament monster.

God however killed about 2.8 million people according to the bible

As you can see above, 2.8 million might be a very conservative figure if one considers in Noah's Flood for instance. I know, it never happened....but really what did? But the woo woo's believe it so it is on Gods hands. A few factors to consider....

The first of these is the acceptance that the flood was worldwide. This is made clear by the Biblical record repeatedly.

Secondly is the time frame from creation to the flood. A number of figures are available on this - even people like Newton and Keppler did their calculations and came up with similar time periods. The best known calculation is of course Ussher's time of 1656 years.

Thirdly, the rate of reproduction - using conservative figures of population growth based on the information provided in the Biblical record, then the figure arrived at would be around 7 Billion people.

Source: Henry M. Morris The Genesis Record: Baker, Grand Rapids,1976. p 143-144.

Stop laughing at the back. The figure of 7 billion seems fanciful I know, but remember, folk in those days lived into their 800-900's..it was only after the big clear out of the Flood that God clipped the life expectancy to 120 years. Even though a generation was made 40 years.

Population of the PreFlood World

Although it is difficult to obtain an actual value of world population at the time of the flood, 5 to17 billion people would appear to be reasonable populations, with an average of around 10 billion. The best ages for childbirth would be 80.8 to 92 years with 6 to 7 children per family. This would be 20 to 18 generations produced from Adam to the Flood in 1656. The Book of Genesis indicates (Chapter 5) that each family had at least 5 children. Adam and Eve had a total of 7 (including Abel). However, Noah apparently had only 3 children. (It is possible that he could have had sons and daughters that aren't recorded and who weren't on the ark.)

Stop sniggering you lot, some serious research was carried out here. This man Morris and others took this stuff very seriously indeed, so if he estimated his God wiped out 7 billion...who am I to disagree?

Henry Madison Morris (October 6, 1918 – February 25, 2006) was an American young earth creationist and Christian apologist. He was one of the founders of the Creation Research Society and the Institute for Creation Research. He is considered by many to be "the father of modern creation science." He wrote numerous creationist and devotional books, and made regular television and radio appearances.

So all things considered, Satan ain't such a bad egg....morally speaking.

LOL those Christians are such crazy mixed up kids.

Indeed they are....and I'm being militant in some eyes for calling it crazy...go figure.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:28:05 UTC | #921468

Tony d's Avatar Comment 14 by Tony d

@Comment 13 by Ignorant Amos

Bravo. Thanks for the education.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 14:44:14 UTC | #921484

Savant's Avatar Comment 15 by Savant

We shouldn't hit Satan-torium too hard, just yet. Having him as the nominee would be the best thing for the Obama campaign. He's got such a hard-on for his fascist papist extremism that he couldn't possibly keep from politically self-immolating by November..

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:00:56 UTC | #921613

TeraBrat's Avatar Comment 16 by TeraBrat

I watched "Jesus Camp" a few weeks ago. I think that's the brand of Christianity Santorum belongs to. Right now he is the absolute worst (or best depending on how you look at it) GOP candidate running as far as pushing religious beliefs onto the public. Santorum probably sends his kids to Jesus Camp.

Before I moved back to the US I thought all Christians were basically the same and just disagreed on a few theological issues.

I was so wrong.

Fri, 24 Feb 2012 20:51:25 UTC | #921625

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 17 by Richard Dawkins

Comment Removed by Author. Entered on wrong thread by mistake.

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 11:49:10 UTC | #921767

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 18 by Alan4discussion

Satan so dislikes our American goodness that the only country for Satan left to attack is the United States(2). If only we had invested in ‘Star Wars’ defense technology.

Ah! Ronnie's ray-gun!

Gosh, I guess we really have irritated Satan of late - in fact Santorum was clear about that - its been two decades ago when Satan went into a full offensive - about the time George I was President.

Perhaps someone should write a book on T-party and Republican anti-science anti-intellectualism is trying to push rationality and education down the drain, while promoting "Devil belief"!

Let's think of a suitable title: THE SATANIC VORTEX perhaps?

Sat, 25 Feb 2012 22:26:16 UTC | #921914

SuedeStonn's Avatar Comment 19 by SuedeStonn

I decided to listen to Santorum's speach, and this is what I came away with...

1) "...pursuers of truth..." -... , ... , ....... OK, what that truth is I don't know. From past experience in listening religious people the truth they're seeking is God, and sure as Hell isn't scientific truth which the religious just love trying to keep down. Could be wrong, but I doubt it. So let's just file away that little comment. :P

2) SATAN is the cause of all our problems! -Yes, I know, he's throwing blame from people taking responsibility for their own actions, and using religion to scare-monger the people, nothing new.

3) Intellectuals and the academia are bad people! -I'd like to make a deal with Santorum, give me California and send all your bad academia and intellectual types there, and kick out all the religious people... see who caves first. (I can dream, can't I?)

4) The gov't ('body politeec' [roll-eyes emoticon]) has been going downhill the last few years. -My take is it's been going downhill since FDR introduced socialism to the US by way of the so-called 'Four Freedoms', but that's all debatable. I shudder to see just how much speed it would pick up after Santorum took office.

5) Materialism is bad, so sayeth Santo... I mean, The Lord. -You're quite right, Mr. Santorum. ...OK, I'm joking, you're not right. That is one of the dumbest tenets of religion and anyone who gets swindled by that line of bullshit doesn't deserve to have anything. As far as I'm concerned it's just another way for religion to subjugate the masses to the holier-than-thou heirarchy of the church. My reward is commensurate to my work and how much people make use of it. Sue me, but if I can buy a Ferrari 612 GTO (I know it's only a concept car right now, but I'm patient) then you better f'in believe I'm going to get one!

6) This is bewildering, but Santorum says that being religious means that you will be ridiculed (in some cases, and rightly so), will not be popular, and lose most if not all battles. That last part gets me, and if I read it correctly pretty much says that religious has nothing (or almost nothing, according to him) to stand on... and he knows this! Freudian slip?

7) "God spoke to me..." -Run. Just run, as far and as fast as you can, from anyone who says this. Crazy is a disease, and this dude is carrying a plague.

8) I've heard it time and again in his speech, "Have faith in God and He will have faith in you." This sounds an awful lot like pray to God and he will deliver, or in other words 'wish fulfillment'. My biggest problem with this is I don't want a POTUS who HOPES, I want a POTUS who KNOWS.

In the end I came away feeling like I just listened to a preacher for 30 minutes and got nothing out of what this guy means to do for our country other than get all holier-than-thou on us. What's crazier than that? Ron Paul is ten times as smart as Santorum, has a plan, knows what the Hell he's talking about, and no one takes him seriously. Satan is killing us, indeed. :P (*I do indeed know that Paul is religious but he doesn't use it in an effort to gain office, a very admirable statesman for that alone.)

non est deus

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 02:19:20 UTC | #921982

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 20 by Alan4discussion

Comment 19 by SuedeStonn

5) Materialism is bad, so sayeth Santo... I mean, The Lord. -You're quite right, Mr. Santorum. ...OK, I'm joking, you're not right. That is one of the dumbest tenets of religion and anyone who gets swindled by that line of bullshit doesn't deserve to have anything.

The problem for woo-salesmen is that material products can be tested and rubbish products exposed.
Sales of the immaterial are untestable, and much preferable, as they can be argued over for eternity, so wooists never have to admit an error or fraud, or give a refund!

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 10:32:13 UTC | #922033

Helga Vieirch's Avatar Comment 21 by Helga Vieirch

Never mind Satan… Satan is a red herring. So is God. But Santorum is, unfortunately, all too real, and actually has some "popular support". I could laugh at the man, but for the sweater vests. I can't help it. Much as I shudder to think of it, I desperately want to see the President of the United States deliver a State of the Union address in a sweater vest!

It would be a fitting end to the whole charade of homey democracy, while Homeland Security brutalizes homeless protestors, the European Union goes down in ruins, millions starve, London and New York build dikes to keep the water out, the ocean ecosystems finally crash, food becomes poison, and the fight over the remaining oil ignites WWIII.

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 17:48:31 UTC | #922124

Saiph's Avatar Comment 22 by Saiph

          [Comment 17](/articles/645075-santorum-satan-and-the-fate-of-the-freeworld/comments?page=1#comment_921767) by  [Richard Dawkins](/profiles/53)          :


                 Comment Removed by Author. Entered on wrong thread by mistake.

shock, horror, RD posts in wrong thread, therefore god exists.

Sun, 26 Feb 2012 20:15:06 UTC | #922181

steveb0503's Avatar Comment 23 by steveb0503

Isn't it OBVIOUS? Label the one thing that might be capable of bringing a person out of the ideological morass that at least 84% of the population suffers from "EVIL" and you staunch the flow.

Why do I spend most of my time in state of overt frustration? Hmnnn - let me think.

Mon, 27 Feb 2012 17:56:34 UTC | #922505

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 24 by Agrajag

@Comment 13 by Ignorant Amos:

Another source would be Steve Wells's "DRUNK WITH BLOOD", which is at once an interesting and humorous read. According to Wells, the bible actually accounts for 2,476,633 killings by the heavenly father; however, if the "collateral damage" is included (eg, the victims of The Flood), the total is 24,634,205. He credits Satan with 10 deaths, though since these were as a result of a bet with god it's not completely clear that Satan gets all the glory.
Steve

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 02:27:24 UTC | #922631

Anonymous's Avatar Comment 25 by Anonymous

Comment Removed by Moderator

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 03:14:58 UTC | #922655

Richard Dawkins's Avatar Comment 26 by Richard Dawkins

Morons of the kind that Elisabeth Cornwell so chillingly exposes here should not come anywhere near spitting distance of supreme power. It is alarming that the democratic system has no real safeguards against them getting there.

When any large organisation other than a government is seeking a new CEO, they go to elaborate lengths to screen candidates. The hopefuls are exhaustively interviewed, their backgrounds, relevant experience and past career achievements are rigorously checked, references are taken up and soundings taken. When a man is to be entrusted with military or state secrets or "For your eyes only" documents, he is vetted and "background-checked" with scrupulous care. But to become president, with your finger on the nuclear button and in possession of all state secrets, all you need do is get millions of people to vote for you. And if significant numbers of illiterate idiots think the person to vote for is someone just like themselves, every election is a time for worry. In the case of the USA, the worry extends to the whole world – all those of us who can't vote for the individual who is to be, in many ways, our leader as well as the leader of US citizens themselves.

I don't really know what to suggest, because Winston Churchill was probably right when he quoted the saying that "democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time". But I wonder whether part of the problem lies in the way we have been conditioned to think of "elitism" as a dirty word. The ultimate in anti-elitism is to vote for "somebody just like me" rather than for one of those extremely rare individuals who are actually well qualified to be president. It's been said before but can't be said too often, that when you are in a plane you want the pilot to be a very well qualified pilot. When you are about to have a delicate and dangerous operation, you want the surgeon to be among the elite of surgeons. Isn't it even more important when we vote for a president that we should be unrepentantly elitist in the way we go about it?

At present our consciousness has been raised against the word "elitism" so far that it may be irretrievable, just like – as some have argued – the word "atheism". Just as some people are trying to rally around more palatable alternatives to the word "atheism", might we think of alternatives to "elitism" that carry the same meaning but not the stigma. Consciousness-raising yet again.

Richard

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 11:21:35 UTC | #922742

Tyler Durden's Avatar Comment 27 by Tyler Durden

Satan didn’t have to mess with any of the other nations either, because of course they weren’t America - and America is, well God’s special place. That made me wonder if Santorum was perhaps more Mormon than Catholic. The head of the Catholic Church is in Rome, so I would have thought that’s where Satan would have started - but I would be wrong. That made me wonder though because according to the Mormons the US is more sacred than the Vatican - and that is rather confusing when it comes to why Satan would pick America and not the Vatican to start his evil overthrow.

I thought Satan already lived in the Vatican, according to Catholic hierarchy:

Chief exorcist says Devil is in Vatican

"The Devil is lurking in the very heart of the Roman Catholic Church, the Vatican's chief exorcist, Father Gabriele Amorth, claimed on Wednesday."

This sophisticated theology sure is tough going on the ol' grey matter, and irony meters worldwide.

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:00:26 UTC | #922750

Alan4discussion's Avatar Comment 28 by Alan4discussion

Comment 27 by Tyler Durden

I thought Satan already lived in the Vatican, according to Catholic hierarchy:

So what is now needed is a Berlin-type wall encircling it, with one-way gates leading in! Any RC devils found wandering in the world outside, can be sent there for exorcism, away from the rest of us, followed by a monastic life of the type they venerate! They could take turns organising themselves in "gods v devils" teams!

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 12:37:14 UTC | #922761

Zeuglodon's Avatar Comment 29 by Zeuglodon

At present our consciousness has been raised against the word "elitism" so far that it may be irretrievable, just like – as some have argued – the word "atheism". Just as some people are trying to rally around more palatable alternatives to the word "atheism", might we think of alternatives to "elitism" that carry the same meaning but not the stigma. Consciousness-raising yet again.

Professionalism? Meritocracy? Part of the problem is that the definition of leader is vague enough for people to make up their own definitions, and that leaves it open for candidates who can talk a good game (at least, their electorate's game) and charm their way to the top. It's obscene how much money can be spent on a political election campaign for advertising, with all the psychological trickery that implies.

I sincerely hope the next generation is far smarter than ours. If democracy is ever held by too many ignoramuses, we'll all end up on the wrong side of a political event horizon.

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 14:59:51 UTC | #922808

Starcrash's Avatar Comment 30 by Starcrash

Comment 26 by Richard Dawkins :

When a man is to be entrusted with military or state secrets or "For your eyes only" documents, he is vetted and "background-checked" with scrupulous care. But to become president, with your finger on the nuclear button and in possession of all state secrets, all you need do is get millions of people to vote for you.

Why is this the case? It frustrates me that we have this double-standard when it comes to producing a new leader. Sure, election is better than the old systems of "rule by bloodline", but there should still be some stipulations in place.

Since the job of US President also includes the job of Commander-in-Chief, the candidates for the position should have experience in the US Military and preferably a position of leadership in it. The job also entails scrutinizing laws and passing them, so it would be a good idea for a presidential candidate to have legal experience. We often elect governors and senators because of their similar job experience, but why isn't this a requirement?

I like the idea of personally having some responsibility in electing a new president, but I don't think it's a good idea. Like junior high student council elections, most of us are uninformed (or misinformed) and so it becomes a popularity contest, which is probably why tall candidates for president tend to beat short candidates and why there's still a glass ceiling for women.

The Founding Fathers were smart, but not infallible. How would our country look today if the application process for the country's highest position was stricter? I guess we'll never know now.

Tue, 28 Feb 2012 17:24:50 UTC | #922847