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

GWright's Profile

GWright's Avatar Joined over 3 years ago
Gender: Male

Latest Discussions Started by GWright

More Discussions by GWright

Latest Comments by GWright

Go to: Turin Shroud resurrected

GWright's Avatar Jump to comment 328 by GWright

@ Tecknical, Comment 4

"Another lost opportunity for the church to admit it's mistakes and look for the real evidence, if any exists at all."

What mistakes? The Church has never said anything about the shroud, one way or the other, other than it "reminds" Christians about Jesus.

Atheist in "speaking from position of complete ignorance" shock.

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:40:22 UTC | #906646

Go to: The Archbishop of Canterbury is a Welsh bard

GWright's Avatar Jump to comment 120 by GWright

"I respect people who like poetry (obviously, I am one myself) but I do not respect those who fool simple people into thinking their poetic language is to be taken literally, and I mistrust the judgment of those who go further than fooling others and even manage to fool themselves."

So, does Richard feel the AoC - universally recognised as a nice, harmless and well meaning man - sets out to "fool simple people", or indeed himself? Is that what he is suggesting, in a roundabout way?

If not, what is the point of this article exactly?

It quite sad that neither Richard nor a few dozen of his disciplies had anything better to do on New years day than yet another discussion about that which they claim not to believe in.

I dont believe in Goblins. Accordingly, I didnt waste my breath on Goblins once on new Years day. Not once, I tell you.

Mon, 09 Jan 2012 15:34:49 UTC | #906643

Go to: Religion's forgotten holocaust

GWright's Avatar Jump to comment 71 by GWright

Witch hunts were nasty products of their time. Most, if not all, people, in the periods mentioned, believed in witches - it was an era of little scientific progress, and so beliefs such as magic were entirely common. Who do you think reported suspected witches to the authorities? Their friends and neighbours of course, who feared them, or suspected them, or wanted to slander them for some reason.

For a long time, people of all kinds believed in magic and witches and things. People believed in it before the advent of Christianity, and many still do today. Atheists, pagans, all manner of people. Magicians are popular today, as are horroscopes, tarot cards, occultism and all kinds of bunk.

Schrodingers cat's piece is exceptionally one sided and attributes all of the blame on the Catholic Church.

S/he mentions the period 1450 to 1750, yet makes no recognition of the fact that the protestant reformation began in 1517, which led to many Christians leaving Catholicism and forming their own protestant religions.

This meant that a great deal of european witch hunts would in fact have been carried out by people who were not Catholics. Indeed, in Countries which broke with Rome entirely - for example Holland and Britain - such hunts would have been carried out exclusively by protestants (alongside their hunting of Catholics). Indeed, statistics show that witch hunts actually increased in some areas, after the reformation (such as Denmark)

Many witch hunts still occur today, in places entirely unrelated to Catholicism, such as Saudi Arabia and India. In parts of Africa people believe in voodoo and witches and even that the bodies of albino people can be used to make special magic potions (leading to many albino africans being murdered, even in the modern era).

Despite all of this, Schrodingers Cat's article strives to associate full responsibility for witch hunts with the Catholic Church, and the Popes in particular. Not one single other person or organisation is mentioned, secular or religious, in relation to this "holocaust" of suspected witches - despite it being an evil practice which all of humanity indulged in (through ignorance) at one time or another. Many still do.

Witches and magic are not Catholic religious beliefs, they are (were) human beliefs. As stated, people believed in witches before Catholicism, some still do today, and in the unlikely event the Catholic Church ever disappears, some people will still believe in Witches then.

Yes, I am sure Catholics do have liability regarding trials of "witches" etc, but it was not because they were Catholics.

Such a deeply biased and one-sided piece could equally be written attributing all of the blame to people with ginger hair, or african people, or muslims, or old men - because all of them have their hands dirty from a less enlightened era (regarding witches and magic) also.

In short, this piece is a bitter attack on the Catholic Church, it is not a piece about the plight of the many women who were thought to be witches in less enlightened periods of history. Its various strong accusations are also completely unreferenced. It even falls back on the tired, hysterical and grossly over-exaggerated scare-stories about the Inquisition.

It is absolutely worthless as an informative document, without a shred of credibility.

Thu, 28 Jul 2011 17:53:28 UTC | #855252

Go to: Why Are Atheists So Angry?

GWright's Avatar Jump to comment 195 by GWright

@ Comment 8 Steve Hill

Hi Steve,

Just wanted to comment on your quote here:

Catholics deny contraception to AIDS victims, or abortions to women whose lives are in danger.

This is quite innaccurate on several grounds. For starters, Catholicism only has opinions on contraception or abortion, it is not actually involved in the issuing or provision of either of these - and so is in no position to "deny" access to them. Access to these things is normally a matter for the health system of whichever country an individual resides within. Whether or not a person accesses these things is down to them alone, not the Catholic Church (though if the person is a Catholic, then they may face some sanction, such as excommunication in the case of abortion).

Next, I would ask - what good does contraception do for someone who already has AIDS? Nothing. I hope you are not suggesting that it is safe for someone with AIDS to sleep with a non-infected person, if they use a condom? That is an exceptionally foolish and risky thing to advocate, given condoms are not 100% effective at preventing the spread of disease. If someone has AIDS, it is responsible of them to be celibate, or to only sleep with other infected persons. Advocating that it is safe for people with AIDS to sleep with non-infected persons shows how dangerous and warped the debate becomes, when atheists try to blame religion for the ills of STDs, including HIV-AIDs, to the extent that they will advocate downright dangerous practices themselves.

Lastly, the Churches opinion on abortion is that the life of the child is of equal worth to that of its mother. That a mother might accept some risk to her own health, for the good of the child, is no different to (eg) someone accepting personal risk upon entering a burning building to rescue someone else. You would never criticise such a selfless act of herosim, so why criticise mothers who show the same selfless heroism?

In any case, such arguments against abortion are straw men. Preganancy is natural and entirely safe for the majority of women. The greater vast majority of abortions are carried out for pure convenince alone - not due to any danger or health risks - and so it is not correct to frame the debate around the literally neglibile amount of cases where the mothers life may be at risk.

Tue, 26 Apr 2011 14:01:36 UTC | #619579

Go to: Two requirements to be a Catholic priest

GWright's Avatar Jump to comment 46 by GWright

@ comment 44 mmurray

What I find odd is that an organisation can understand so little about people that it thinks that it is possible for healthy young men to suppress their sexual urges without doing psychological damage.

So, are you saying that unless men have sex constantly, they are causing themselves psychological damage?

Therefore, someone who choose to wait till marriage before sex is damaging themselves?

And someone who is celibate after their husband or wife has died is damaging themselves?


Celibacy is a normal and common part of the human condition. As I said before, millions of people in all societies are celibate, long and short term, for all manner of reasons.

The sad thing is that anyone in this day and age would be an apologist for the RCC.

II wouldnt say that correcting blatant lies (wrt worship in schools and the nonsense that taxpayers money pays for church buildings) quite constitutes an "apologist". More someone who is interested in a fair and accurate factual debate.

Have a good weekend!

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 12:32:16 UTC | #606920

More Comments by GWright