Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
gnuneo

1. A Message To Richard Dawkins. (uk Athiest)

Recommended Posts

this was a message to richard dawkins on the NewStatesman website, in reply to an article he had written, but was censored by the web-site for reasons unknown. (unlike IF, they do not feel they have to give reasons for such acts, so much for western values of 'free speech' ...huh?). I am posting it here instead. I hope it does not give much offense.

 

the original article responded to is here:

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetnewstatesman(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/religion/2009/04/tony-blair-faith-children"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetnewstatesman(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/religion/2009/...-faith-children[/url]

 

-------------------------------------

 

 

there is little quite as phlegm inspiring as to hear one True Believer mocking all the other True Believers who happen to have True Belief in something slightly different.

 

and it is SOO easy to mock tony b'liar - heck, it is far harder to find something good about the bloke to say, but to hear this from the fanatic Dawkins - who quite clearly is so intolerant of other viewpoints, as 100% convinced of the Rightness of his doctrines that he could match most Jesuit Inquisitors with his zeal and zest in his single-mindedness (or should that be simple-mindedness?) - somehow makes it stick in the throat.

 

how many wars have been started by people for truly religious reasons, and how many because those 'in the know' wanted to grab lands, wealth and power? I think most are intelligent enough to guess the true answer to that.

 

but of course, Dawkins (hauling along a baggage of truly awesome ignorance, that even many teenagers would be embarrassed about), like every religious fanatic in history, does not question his own prejudices, and instead merely throws it all upon a Shadow... but being such a monumentally ignorant materialist, as he is, he has not even the limited grasp of psychology to understand what that refers to.

 

many people are bigoted - that doesn't require religion.

many people are greedy - that doesn't require religion.

many people are amoral - that doesn't require religion.

many people are seduced by power - that doesn't require religion.

many people are utterly convinced that their smallest opinions are correct - that doesn't require religion. (Dawkins however is no proof of that - his religion is the Christian Athiest Cult, although he appears to match in the other prerequisite...)

many people are willing to kill others - that doesn't require religion.

 

...so why is Dawkins so fixated upon 'religion'? well, that is presumably between his shrink and himself, but one thing is clear to me - i have met fanatics in virtually all religions (except Taoism) yet of them all, it is only the soulless, materialist atheists who i would be hesitant to invite to my wedding.

 

the Muslims would be upset at the drinking and dancing, the Buddhists at the open licentiousness, the Christians at the open mocking of their own faith, and neo-Paganism is such a broad umbrella there is *always* something that would annoy some of them, AmerIndians at the techno-worship, Asatru & Rasta upset at the lack of racism - Hades, the list goes on and on.

 

(even Thelemites would find something to complain about... perhaps a lack of human excrement in the hallway? LMAO :sl:)

 

yet all of them would have something in common - they would find meaning in our actions, even if they accept that the meaning found came from within themselves. But those who clad themselves within the grey, soulless, colourless, supposedly 'value-free' (pause for a belly-laugh) materialistic, 'objectivist', pseudo-scientific Atheism, what Joy could they bring? What Life can such fanatical believers bring? What could they add to a wedding, compared to what they would take away?

 

Dawkins is little more than the 'Office Bore', the high-IQ-yet-no-personality who grabs innocents and holds them in a corner until they are rescued by more compassionate souls, brow-beating his own small-minded, narrow-focussed beliefs upon any who have not the heart to tell him to go f*ck himself, which is, in intellectual essence, exactly what he does anyway.

 

and so here he manages to attack both B'liar, and the catholic pope - well gee whizzy, pretty much every acne-spotted angst-ridden teenager could have done that, and probably better too. Is Dawkins now so addled that he can only attack those who are so clearly already down and out? How pathetic.

 

perhaps he should get back to the proper application of Science, and remember a true Scientist is willing to Question *Everything* - including their own beliefs. Too hard 4 u, Dicky?

 

--------------------------

 

peace and love :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

Hi

 

very thought provoking article, thank you :sl:

 

Peace all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not at all surprised that these sensoring occur in such fanatical forums. I have never understood why many religous individuals feel that there god needs protection. If I were a god I would simply see it as if ants were insulting me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams peeps,

 

I thought the following response to the article was quite good:

 

Ruggles got it in one. Ultimately however, Blair's grasp of theology is as limited as that of Dawkins. In life it's usually best to stick to what one's own field of competence. Neither of these individuals are trained in history, theology or philosophy and are therefore poorly equipped to understand the myriad complex metaphysical issues upon which the God/No God debate rests. Dawkins ignores all forms of causality except the material (in defiance of Aristotle) whilst Blair avoids any attempt to define faith and belief in the form of propositional statements that may be subject to logical scrutiny. The absence of a close definition of Christian belief in Blair is as worrying as the numerous lacunae in Dawkins' neo-Darwinist hypothesis. No Darwinist has ever dealt adequately with the problems raised by a closed order mechanistic universe, particularly first principles and the origin of matter. No Blairite liberal religionist has ever succeeded in giving a defence of 'faith' that wasn't couched in the most absurdly general ecumenical terms - a generalist approach that is finally at odds with the divisive exclusivity of the Christian Gospel.

 

Read Dennett, not Dawkins. Read the New Testament, not Blair.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaams peeps,

QUOTE....... No Darwinist has ever dealt adequately with the problems raised by a closed order mechanistic universe, particularly first principles and the origin of matter. .....

Peace

 

I dont see why any evolutionists needs to give an explaination. For that matter I dont know of anyone that back up there explaination.

 

Evolution does not deal with anything except evolution. It doesnt even deal with the origin of life it only deals with why we have a variety of life. And it explains that quite well with plenty of evidence.

Edited by ranma1/2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams peeps,

 

If evolutionists cannot answer these questions then why does Dawkins dismiss and ridicule any philosophies or theories that attempt to, in such a militant manner? He should stick to what evolutionists do, as you said. That is what the person I quoted was saying, that Dawkins should stick to what he knows.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

disabled0335: i quite agree.

 

its amusing how these "Professors" of subjects feel quite free to mouth off and insult everyone who looks at the world differently, off their own speciality interests, but they take incredible umbrage if someone does it to their own fields.

 

and then they wonder why "religionists" feel such worry about secularism.

 

 

its sad, and harms their own influence tremendously.

 

 

peace and love. :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaams peeps,

 

If evolutionists cannot answer these questions then why does Dawkins dismiss and ridicule any philosophies or theories that attempt to, in such a militant manner? He should stick to what evolutionists do, as you said. That is what the person I quoted was saying, that Dawkins should stick to what he knows.

 

Peace

 

In regards to the article in the OP it seems that Dawkins ( and really anyone) would have all the knowledge they need to respond comment on Blair's Foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its amusing how these "Professors" of subjects feel quite free to mouth off and insult everyone who looks at the world differently, off their own speciality interests, but they take incredible umbrage if someone does it to their own fields.

I don't think that Dawkins intends to insult but he does speak his mind and is forthright with his views.

 

Most people are like this about things they deem as ridiculous, absurd or unbelievable.

 

How would you regard someone who insisted and truly believed the world was flat or that the sun orbited the earth? Or that fairies cause the tides and earthquakes? How about if they thought a common cold was the work of a demon or evil spirit?

 

You would likely pity them, ridicule them and/or attempt to educated them. Dawkins sees no difference between fairies causing earthquakes and the existence of god.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

canacolin, thank you for demonstrating so well the tendency of atheists to project their own immoral behavior onto everyone else and treat mockery and obnoxiousness as the natural product of disagreement for all people, so long as it's something you disagree with so arrogantly that you'd automatically associate it with things that you know nobody alive believes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't really understand what you are saying.

 

Are you saying I am immoral? Please tell me more about my immorality...

 

How am I being obnoxious?

 

Are you saying I am arrogant because I don't share your religious beliefs? I would argue that you are more arrogant for believing that Islam is the one true religion whilst rejecting every other one without proof that they are false. Prove to me that is Allah is the one true god and that every other one false and I will agree with you and convert to Islam. Actually, prove to me that any religion is wrong if you can. Even proving that fairies don't exist would be a good start.

 

I'm a little puzzled as to why you post was so rude. Maybe I misunderstood?

 

Salam.

 

canacolin, thank you for demonstrating so well the tendency of atheists to project their own immoral behavior onto everyone else and treat mockery and obnoxiousness as the natural product of disagreement for all people, so long as it's something you disagree with so arrogantly that you'd automatically associate it with things that you know nobody alive believes in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You and Dawkins are the ones being arrogant about others not sharing your beliefs, as evidenced by the puerile and stale fairy analogy. It's so widespread that nowadays atheists don't even know which toddler-level cliche insulting loaded analogy to go with: flying spaghetti monsters are the most common I've seen though.

 

I have proved Islam to be true with logic all up and down my site, along with an even higher number of disproofs of Christianity. Google "House of the Crescent Moon" (for some reason I can't post links yet) and try the "process of elimination" one on for size.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also notice how nowhere on the whole site do I say anything like, "Christianity is like believing in an invisible pink unicorn," or that anyone who can see how false it is as well as I can is bound to make fun of it as being on level with belief in fairies. I get blunt here and there but I never stoop *that* low.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again, another dodge.

 

I'm going to flat out ask you, and unless you can provide an actual answer, without ducking and diving, I'm left only to assume that you have no answer.

 

Why is your god Allah real, and The Matrix not?

 

The fairy analogy is so widespread because it's such a good analogy. But so is the Matrix analogy, basically the same point.

 

A point that seems lost on you, seeing as how you've yet to actually address it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Again, another dodge.

 

I'm going to flat out ask you, and unless you can provide an actual answer, without ducking and diving, I'm left only to assume that you have no answer.

 

Why is your god Allah real, and The Matrix not?

 

The fairy analogy is so widespread because it's such a good analogy. But so is the Matrix analogy, basically the same point.

 

A point that seems lost on you, seeing as how you've yet to actually address it.

May the Peace and Blessings of Almighty God be Upon You All,

 

You have probably not received an answer, because my brothers and sisters in Islam can see by your character, revealed through the language you use in your posts, that you do not have true intentions, and even if proof was brought to you, clear and plain, you would not accept. We experience this all the time, and are quite frankly tired of wasting our day speaking to those who will not listen. However, I will give some thought provoking statements incase I have misunderstood. (If I have, please forgive me.) I will tell you a story I heard a while ago..

 

A Muslim man had setup a date and a time to meet with 2 acquaintances he had met a few weeks earlier. These two individuals did not believe that a God existed, but were open to discussion of the topic and agreed to meet this man and share each others points of view and ponder the evidences each gave. The two gentlemen arrived at the location that was agreed upon and waited for the Muslim man to meet them. They waited about an hour before he showed up. "What happened?" They asked. "You are a Muslim, are you not suppose to be punctual and keep good on your promises?" "Yes," the Muslim man explained, "I am very sorry. I came to a bridge on the way here that was not complete and there was no way to cross." "Then how did you get here?" The two men asked. "Well, I was waiting there, and out of no where the wooden boards and nails just appeared, completed constructing the bridge and I was again on my way!" exclaimed the Muslim. "What?! You're crazy, that could never happen!" they shouted. "Then how is it you believe the entire Universe and everything in it came from absolutely nothing by mere chance?"

 

-The End

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

great work, but trying to convince arrogant people like that man dawkins or whatever his name is, or that aggressive idiot christopher hitchens isnt going to get you anywhere, Allah subhanawatullah talks about them in his ayat, he says they will never believe in the proofs and are full of arrogance, Allah misleads them from the right path for their crimes, and whoever he misleads none can guide, so give it up, hes a lost cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is written the fool says in his heart there is no God!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is also written:

######you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_legacy-cdn.smosh(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/smosh-pit/4/stupidsigns-14.jpg[/img]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×