Richard Dawkins takes only 3 minutes to slam both and Cardinal Murphy O’Connor and his interviewer, John Humphrys for the false privilege given to religion. Listen and enjoy.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Reason leads to killing people?
And there we have it. One of the highest ranking and most “respected” of the UK’s religious community spouting the same rubbish as the most literal fundies. Reason was used by Hitler, therefore reason is a bad thing.
I wonder if Richard Dawkins pointed at him and shouted “Godwin’s Law! Godwin’s Law! and then made a big L sign at the Cardinal.
I saw Ben Goldacre miniblog it earlier. Glad to see Dawkypoo get room to rebut in the online piece as well.
I heard the original broadcast where the feckin’ high priest traduced atheism, & I was very annoyed with the feckin’ edjit’s remarks, & that there was no one to respond to it. The next morning, one of my daughters, (who’s moved in with us), heard RD, & she was really pleased with what he had to say.
I’m pleased that the BBC, (which has a religiot Director General), did redress the imbalance.
John Humpheys is among the best of the BBC radio interviewers and it was fantastic to see Richard Dawkins control the interview the way he did.
Sometimes RD can be brusque; this interview took place early AM, perhaps he’s best as a “morning person”.
Direct, convinced and fearless: classic Dawkins – listen to this interview if you haven’t already.
@#5 David —
Memes of Solace: The Rise of Unreason
“I’m pretty hostile”
It’s really hard to be effective in a three minute slot, so the pleasure is all the greater in seeing RD do it in such an accoumplished manner. Well done!
The rc church is highly motivated to distract attention away from their own role in WW II. If we only left them in peace so they could continue to molest little boys.. Lying for the holy trinity and that german zombie in his robe, not just for jesus alone. Asswipes.
(…bloody spelling…)
interesting – in the second link on RD’s page (the BBC news story), they quote the Cardinal as saying that the world is increasingly hostile toward religion.
I find it to be the opposite…the world, IMO, is increasingly aware and tolerant of a multiplicity of religions…at least those parts of it where Shrub isn’t held in veneration…
of course, that does mean that tolerance for christian dominance in on the wane in the western world (and rightly so, IMO), but that would probably be the same thing as a general intolerance of religion to someone like the Cardinal, wouldn’t it.
Having now heard mr McMurphy-FitsConnor, methinks he coulda benefited from being limited to three minutes, himself. He does not come across at all well. And Humphreys didn’t let him off easy either in my opinion. Pity he and Dawkins weren’t in the same slot since now most listerners won’t have had the chance to contrast and compare.
Also – since this forum has made me so aware fo xtianist projection – his shtick about “There are people in this country who want to …” scares me rather.
Dawkins of course bang-on. Humphreys would never let a politician get away with so many unproven assumptions. He’d savage them and rightly so. And why? Because he is demanding they back-up what they claim to ‘believe’. QED John.
@#10 CanadianChick —
Rule of substitution: when an Xian dogmatist says “religion”/”religious,” etc, substitute in “Christianity”/”christian.”
When you believe your religion is the One True Religion™, it’s easy to see anything that threatens the dominance of that particular belief as a threat to religion in general.
I love how it always comes down to Hitler and Stalin. They must be #1 and #2 on every Christian’s talking-points list. Cardinal O’Connor says Hitler and Stalin’s dictatorships were because of “reason without faith,” which is so far off the mark that it is laughably obtuse. Of course, I think what most all clergy have to say is laughably obtuse. Though, I have to admit, talking crazy in a British accent does lend him an aura of gravitas lacking from our oily American TV God-hucksters.
He’s soooo polite. He must of left his fangs at home.
So the good Cardinal thinks we must avoid reason at all costs? And this makes him good just how?
I like to see the apologeticist argument on that one.
UprightAlice typed:
They must be #1 and #2 on every Christian’s talking-points list. Cardinal O’Connor says Hitler and Stalin’s dictatorships were because of “reason without faith,” which is so far off the mark that it is laughably obtuse.
Absolutely, because Nazism (now neo-Nazism) and Communism are religions even if they don’t admit it.
As Ken Miller has pointed out: “The … claim that the theory of evolution is responsible for 300 million deaths is absurd and insulting. The murderous totalitarian states led by Hitler and Stalin were driven by ideologies of socialist utopianism, racism, and anti-Semitism, not by a scientific theory relating to the origin of species.”
The barbarity of such regimes was made possible not because its leaders were atheists (Hitler wasn’t an atheist), but because its leaders were granted unquestioned power and loyalty.
@#18 Roger Scott —
IOW, because the people had blind faith in those leaders.
So much for “reason without faith.” The real culprit was faith without reason.
A related (but longer) recent talk, this one by Alan Sokal:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/audio/2008/mar/03/alan.sokal.podcast
The really astonishing thing said by Cardinal Murphy O’Connor (in his interview with John Humphrys, which followed mine) was this:-
Note that this goes far beyond the usual blaming of atheism for Hitler etc. The Cardinal actually says that Hitler’s regime was ruled by REASON, and that reason leads to terror and oppression. Not atheism, REASON.
Listening to him completely control that interview was amazing. Especially considering how strong John Humphry usually is in interviews.
Listening to Dawkins always gives me inspiration and motivation to continue addressing the religious fundamentalists that surround me here in the bible belt.
It’s very revealing that this man tries to make reason the enemy, it just showcases the complete moral vacuum in which theists operate to me. Apparently this man cannot make a reason based argument why the third reich shouldn’t have killed all those jews and invaded the rest of Europe.
It’s on par with the guy in RD’s documentary where a faith school teacher explains how he would go and rape kids if his god wasn’t there to hold him back.
Wow. We seriously live in sad times. Hey! Lets argue over common sense some more!
Addendum…
It seems only reasonable to petition the government to maintain a register for people like the cardinal. I’d can’t be expected to take the word of someone elses god that they’ll be a good person.
Dr. Dawkins, after reading about the Cardinal’s statements a few days ago on the BBC News website, I couldn’t help but think “I wonder what Richard Dawkins is going to say about that.” I knew you wouldn’t let that little outburst go unchallenged. I can only say well done sir, a magnificent rebuttal!
People have been conditioned into respecting faith simply because it is faith
Reason was used by Hitler, therefore reason is a bad thing.
Hitler had a nose, therefore you should cut yours off.
@#25 Dutch Delight —
Careful with that word. We all know that “reasonable” = Nazist/Stanlist/fascist/evil.
I forgot already :P
I will enjoy informing the creotards when they appeal to their personal versions of reason. Although those usually boil down to arguments from personal incredulity.
Unquestioned faith in a dictatorial, judgmental, dogmatic leadership without reason. Seems to me O’Connor’s religion and Nazi Germany/Stalinist Russia have more in common than the good cardinal would care to admit. Seriously, this cannot be his first interview. He can’t possibly be a naif when it comes to arguing his side of the religion/reason debate, which leads me to believe he is unsuited to his high position in the church. If the world had more clergymen like Cardinal O’Connor, flailing for an enemy as ridiculous as REASON, then, just maybe, the believers would be less like mindless lemmings and begin to think for themselves.
The world will be a better place when deceiving, pompous, religious jackasses like Murphy stop parading around in their pretty costumes spouting nonsense.
The house of cards will fall. Eventually.
Church of Scotland to bring in mediators to quell disputes:
Of course, John Murphy misses the point altogether.
>And there we have it. One of the highest ranking and
>most “respected” of the UK’s religious community spouting
>the same rubbish as the most literal fundies. Reason was
>used by Hitler, therefore reason is a bad thing.
Yeah, because Hitler was such a nice person and he didn’t do anything wrong.
Are you people blind?
It is very dangerous to have a society like that.
You think “Reason” can be reasonable when you deal with people? People are flawed and they can turn reasonable into unreasonable in a heart-beat. You think just because they believe in science they will not use persecution and eventually do like what was done to Jews.
Your logic is broken.
Humans will act the way they do with religion or with something else, humans are humans and they react in the same way and it does not matter what the source is.
>Reason leads to killing people?
People lead to killing people, reasoning plays very small role. Reason as you all call it will not stop a nuclear war from happening. People are flawed and will use science as an excuse to kill Christians who stand up against what is happening in the World.
I seriously can’t believe that you people can’t see that.
It’s the simplest things that the people here just do not seem to understand.
@#35 Kenny —
You completely missed the sarcasm, and in so doing, the point: Hitler didn’t use reason. Fascist regimes such as those of Hitler and Stalin did not come into being due to reason without faith, but rather due to faith (in the leaders and in the nation-state) without reason.
People lead to killing people, reasoning plays very small role. Reason as you all call it will not stop a nuclear war from happening. People are flawed and will use science as an excuse to kill Christians who stand up against what is happening in the World.
I seriously can’t believe that you people can’t see that.
It’s the simplest things that the people here just do not seem to understand.
People don’t lead to killing; people kill, and there are a lot of causes. However, that error was the closest you got to reality.
Kenny: Get some help. Really.
#36 Kenny spouted:
You have got to be kidding. Do you not realize that reason is solely responsible for not having nuclear war? I don’t want to live in your world, Kenny. You keep it. What’s left of it anyway, after it is cleansed by fallout.
>The world will be a better place when deceiving, pompous,
>religious jackasses like Murphy stop parading around in
>their pretty costumes spouting nonsense.
Yeah, well dawkins’ reason is really going to solve the problem of humanity killing themselves even without religion. Nothing pompous about that is there?
“People are flawed and will use science as an excuse to kill Christians who stand up against what is happening in the World.”
…what?
No, seriously. What?!
No, seriously. What?!
That’s been a constant theme of Kenny’s.
At least we’re helping him suffer for his faith, good little martyr that he is.
Fantastic!
As an aside. This type of spin is exactly what we can expect if the “framers” of science have their way. Nesbit etc. There is not any amount of reason in Stalin’s stance. Also I’d like to add that the cardinal is out of his fucking mind. The seams are beginning to show.
Did Dawkins claim to hold the holy grail that will solve humanities problems?
It’s been said before, you should really get some help with all that projecting going on.
I cannot help but to wonder, at what point in either of their lives were either Hitler or Stalin lead by reason? It seems that both appealed to the irrational while making use of brute force. These were not the flower of enlightenment but the rejection thereof. Both are prime examples of the denial of reason and humanity.
Science clearly leads to killing people.
Kenny, I do not quite understand your point.
Nice takedown by Dawkins but it really is pretty simple stuff! Many have tried it and many have prayed for Jesus to give the unbelievers some evidence so they can shuddup with the takedowns, but nobody ever prays for Jesus to stop throwing people into hell for eternity. Weird!
Look who’s back!
David Mabus “is that even a *REAL* name?”
what is it with all the sockpuppets this week?
Kenny: You’re a very special person.
Very special indeed.
I have a very special message for you.
You’re a fool, Kenny. An utter, shameless fool. I’ve had it with you. You annoying little mosquito. You slithering slug. You brainless, writhing worm. You squalling infant. You mental amoeba. You crack-pated swine.
You’re a complete moron. Take your asinine, paranoid persecution fantasies and put them back where they belong.
Sideways.
Twice.
Oh yeah, one more thing. You never admitted your mistake about the ACLU. You’ve had ample opportunity. I can only conclude that tou’re a coward and a liar.
Ok, to be fair, there is one other possibility: you’re too stupid to understand what’s been said about it.
You’re part of something big, Kenny. Yes indeed. You’re part of the problem. Understand? You. Are. Part. Of. The. Problem. It’s imbeciles like you who’re dragging this country down, and you’re too smugly ignorant to realize it. A pox on you.
Are you embarrassed yet? You should be.
btw, now that Kenny has invaded another thread, isn’t it about time to just give him the number of a good therapist in his area and send him on his way?
where is it you live again, Kenny?
well, not important. you can google up a therapist in your area yourself.
try this one:
http://www.psychdirectory.com/
I mean, after all, you don’t want to end up like David Mabus, right?
You’re a fool, Kenny. An utter, shameless fool. I’ve had it with you. You annoying little mosquito. You slithering slug. You brainless, writhing worm. You squalling infant. You mental amoeba. You crack-pated swine.
is it time to break out the shakespearean insults?
goody.
@Kenny:
Thou reeky tickle-brained lout!
In the spirit of the mean, world hating, zombie of Big Science, dawkofascistoatheist that I am, I give you the END of Kenny.
over and over and over again.
Kenny! Shall I taunt you again?
You have issues. You are a liar. You are a coward. You keep running away from the real issues, to pop up in a different thread with the same “Science Suxxors” bullsh*t. Go away or learn something.
Reason leads *AWAY* from killing people. Reason leads to people “talking” and “compromising” and “working together”. Faith leads to killing in the name of JEEEEZZZZUSSS!
You’re just another liar for Jebus. And you’ve gone and upset Kseniya. (Crack-pated swine??? How novel! Can I use that one? I’ll give credit!) Go away or we shall taunt you some more.
PS have you stopped all that masturbating yet?
Thou gutter-born, yeasty-eyed rook-pie!
Thou encrusted boil on a donkey’s arse!
Re: Hitler and Stalin
I’m not a historian, but I have always interpreted the suppression of organised religion by authoritarian regimes as a straightforward effort to remove political opposition. Faith or religion seems like an irrelevant side issue.
@#57 Ichthyic —
OMFSM, you killed Kenny! You reasonable, scientific bastards!
Science leads to YouTube, thou jaundiced, unconjugated bilirubin!
We blinded him with SCIENCE!
Crack-pated swine??? How novel! Can I use that one? I’ll give credit!
*psst*
Thou tongueless dismal-dreaming minnow!
Thou unwholesome long-tongued giglet!
Apes to people,
Hobbits to Wombles.
It’s all the same
wait, that one was pretty contradictory.
assume for the sake of argument that 66 came before 65.
carry on.
…Thou rancorous ill-bred puttock!
Perhaps we should stop….
After all, it is a slippery slope. Today, Shakespearean insults; tomorrow, mass murder of Christians in the name of Science and Reason.
Yep, but once you get the hang of it, you can make ’em up youself! Thou clay-eyed, incontinent fly-nest!
Shakespearean insults; tomorrow, mass murder of Christians in the name of Science and Reason.
*considers*
tomorrow, you say?
@#71 Ichthyic —
Well, I was thinking of the time between today/tomorrow in the same way biblical non-literalists consider the “days” in Genesis, but….
Today, “Thou roach-hearted, cuckolded slop-magnate!”
Tomorrow, “Get off of my lawn!”
You know, after all those 100% deaths, I bet Kenny’s had his fair share of NDEs….
#72, 55, 50
Canadian Bacon David Mabus is baaacccckkk again. You would think that this psycho f*ck would get tired of getting his ass kicked all over the Internet. It must be embarassing for any of his family to be associated with a loser such as this.
Kick’em again Dr. Myers!
Is it just me or have the comments in this thread started to get a little…weird.
NDEs….
NDE’s nothin!
He’s come back from full-dead at least 3 times I can think of.
now THAT’S evidence, baby!
Aren’t you putting the cartman before the horseshit?
we crush that little worm called myers
like this, David?
Good talk by Dawkins, but – presumably because of time – it let Humphrey’s off the hook a bit; the problem is not just that the cardinal believes in absurdities for which there is no evidence, it’s that he not only believes in such absurdities, but that he is using those absurdities as the basis for making public policy. Humphrey’s ducks the question by saying “it’s what they believe”, but precisely the same argument applies to politicians.
Spamming #80, 72, 55, 50
Hey Dickweed,
You mean the Million Dollar Challenge that is still on offer?
http://www.randi.org/joom/challenge-info.html
So in your reality stopping something means having absolutely no affect
on it at all? That must make driving quite a fun experience.
Another Canadian kOOk or would Loon be more appropriate for this hoser, eh?
like this,
DavidDennis Markuze?might as well get past all the sock puppets.
see it is *TERMINATED*….FUCKERS
uh huh:
see?
you still have two more years to claim your prize, Dennis!
go man, go!
oh, btw, I think they mention you “by name” in that notice as well:
hey, that’s you!
O’Conner has gotten it wrong on both Hitler and Stalin. Hitler was openly religious while Stalin had conflicting policies. He suppressed some religious groups but supported others.
http://www.marxist.com/religion-soviet-union110506-7.htm
Stalin had irrational beliefs about science as the book “Stalin and the Soviet Science Wars” by Ethan Pollack describes.
http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/s8283.html
It sounds much like the Republican War on Science today.
To the Spammer #86, 82, 75, 55, 50
Dear Dennis Markuze – former computer salesman – IP resolves to Montreal, Canada.
Obviously you demonstrate a great need for mental health care. I am under the impression that Canadian Health Services are covered under the Universal Health Care for Canada. You really should check out the following facilities that provide services for mentally ill persons such as yourself. Despite the evidence you present of severe psychiatric issues, I hope it is not too late. There may yet be a way back from your evident breakdown.
http://www.montrealtherapy.com/
1-800-THERAPIST network
Montreal Psychology Office
Obtain help for depression, anxiety, smoking cessation, relationship issues, and more…
http://www.psymontreal.com
If you are more comfortable in a French speaking environment
Luc Blain, psychologue clinicien
La vie est une succession d’événements qui amènent l’individu à les subir, à les nier, ou encore à les transformer pour les rendre digestes psychiquement. Dans le processus de transformation, la personne retrouve une plus grande liberté intérieure dans différentes dimensions de sa vie: capacité d’avoir du plaisir, d’aimer et d’être aimé, de s’épanouir dans un travail ou des activités.
http://www.lucblain.ca
Please don’t wait – call NOW, the mind you save IS your own.
The Cardinal does get it wrong. The longer tradition in Christianity, excepting for bits in Augustine (when he in a really bad mood), is to see that the good is the natural goal of reason. All people of good will can discover good through reason. Of course reason may be impeded in its search for its natural goal by ill-will, or evil (that being, strictly, a lack of good, not a thingy with cloven hoofs). People then do evil things with their reason. But it is because they abuse reason that they do evil, not because they have reason. Faith should support reason in reaching its goal… but as we so sadly see so often, religion (which is not quite faith) impedes reason as successfully as ill-will.
To the Spammer #86, 82, 75, 55, 50 and the booby prize for
#89
Dennis,
Well I tried. Talking to you is like trying to teach a pig to sing. It is really frustrating, and it just annoys the pig.
One of these days you might heal up from that big red letter L that you carved into your forehead for all to see. Being an Internet and USENET Loser is not the end all and be all of existance. I know you have dedicated your life lately to the pursuit of Loonyness, but one of these days you will have to turn a new leaf, err wing, whatever…
Your family must be real proud. I can’t imagine any of them being seen in public with you. Oh the embarassment! Everyone knows Dennis!
jorge,
oh, btw, guess what is inside Angel’s envelope?
To the Spammer #86, 82, 75, 55, 50 and the booby prizes for
#89, 92, 93, 94
Dear Dennis Markuze – former computer salesman – IP resolves to Montreal, Canada.
X-URL:
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/narcissistic-personality-disorder/DS00652/DSECTION=2
Signs and symptoms
Narcissistic personality disorder symptoms may include:
€ Believing that you’re better than others
€ Fantasizing about power, success and attractiveness
€ Exaggerating your achievements or talents
€ Expecting constant praise and admiration
€ Believing that you’re special
€ Failing to recognize other people’s emotions and feelings
€ Expecting others to go along with your ideas and plans
€ Taking advantage of others
€ Expressing disdain for those you feel are inferior
€ Believing that others are jealous of you
€ Trouble keeping healthy relationships
€ Setting unrealistic goals
€ Being easily hurt and rejected
€ Having a fragile self-esteem
€ Appearing as tough-minded or unemotional
Although some features of narcissistic personality
disorder may seem like having confidence or strong self-esteem,
it’s not the same. Narcissistic personality disorder crosses
the border of healthy confidence and self-esteem into thinking
so highly of yourself that you put yourself on a pedestal. In
contrast, people who have healthy confidence and self-esteem
don’t value themselves more than they value others.
When you have narcissistic personality disorder, you may
come across as conceited, boastful or pretentious. You often
monopolize conversations. You may belittle or look down on
people you perceive as inferior. You may have a sense of
entitlement. And when you don’t receive the special treatment
to which you feel entitled, you may become very impatient or
angry. You may also seek out others you think have the same
special talents, power and qualities ‹ people you see as
equals. You may insist on having “the best” of everything ‹ the
best car, athletic club, medical care or social circles, for
instance.
But underneath all this grandiosity often lies a very
fragile self-esteem. You have trouble handling anything that
may be perceived as criticism. You may have a sense of secret
shame and humiliation. And in order to make yourself feel
better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to
belittle the other person to make yourself appear better.
Further references available here:
http://tinyurl.com/2c9ypm
To the Spammer #86, 82, 75, 55, 50 and the booby prizes for
#89, 92, 93, 94, and especially 96
Dear Dennis Markuze – former computer salesman – IP resolves to Montreal, Canada.
May I have your mailing address please there in Montreal?
Been listening to John Humphreys for about 15 years and have never heard him so thoroughly mugged as by Prof Dawkins. For those not Brits and listeners to the Today Programme, there is a slot called ‘thought for the day’ where a faith head gets 2.5 minutes to seize on a news story, muse on it and twist some kind of theist point out of it. The sane amongst us think it has no place in a news and current affairs programme and needs dropping.
To the Spammer #86, 82, 75, 55, 50 and the booby prizes for
#89, 92, 93, 94, 96, and the appropriately obscene 99
Dear Dennis Markuze – former computer salesman – IP resolves to Montreal, Canada.
I don’t know why losers like you feel the need to make threats. It must be your deteriorating mental condition.
The observation from earlier still holds concerning the ego disorder. You need help and you’re not getting it.
From earlier this evening…….
But underneath all this grandiosity often lies a very
fragile self-esteem. You have trouble handling anything that
may be perceived as criticism. You may have a sense of secret
shame and humiliation. And in order to make yourself feel
better, you may react with rage or contempt and efforts to
belittle the other person to make yourself appear better.
It appears you have a weakness for obscenity also.
Tsk, Tsk, too bad.
Were still waiting for that address Dennis. Be a good little kOOk and give it up.
Great! I didn’t hear Dawkins’ interview (such “controversial” interviewees usually get put on before I’m up), and hadn’t got round to downloading it. Humphreys has quite a reputation as a savager of politicians, but Dawkins wiped the floor with him.
FAO Kenny, and “Cardinal” Murphy-O’Connor, if he should drop in, some quotes from Adolf Hitler:
I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so.”
— Hitler 1941
“I go the way that Providence dictates with the assurance of a sleepwalker.”
— Hitler, Speech on March 15, 1936, Munich
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.”
— Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol. 1 Chapter 2.
“May divine providence bless us with enough courage and enough determination to
perceive within ourselves this holy German space.”
— Hitler, Speech, March 24 1933
“I would like to thank Providence and the Almighty for choosing me of all people
to be allowed to wage this battle for Germany.”
— Hitler
Even today I am not ashamed to say that, overpowered by stormy enthusiasm, I fell down
on my knees and thank Heaven from an overflowing heart for granting me the good fortune
of being permitted to live at this time.”
— Hitler, Mein Kampf, Vol 1, Chapter 5
To the Spammer #86, 82, 75, 55, 50 and the booby prizes for
#89, 92, 93, 94, 96, the appropriately obscene 99, and Mr. Severely Mentally Ill #101
Dear Dennis Markuze – former computer salesman – IP resolves to Montreal, Canada.
Well, I guess the address isn’t necessary after all. I am sure the Montreal Police’s version of the Rubber Room Looney Squad has your address handy. From your atrocious behaviour here, you must be at the top of their kOOk list.
The good Dr. Myers will get around to deleting all of your posts in the morning anyway, and ban you again from this blog. You are certainly a glutton for punishment.
#105
Stupdity by Dennis®
Where do these crackpots and cranks come from? I know Reagan let the loonies on the street in the US, but who is responsible for this prize winning Canadian Loon?
#102
Some more Adolf. Some reference and some just found floating on the net unreferenced.
“It is always more difficult to fight against faith
than against knowledge.”
– A.Hitler
“The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty
to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will
preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has
been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national
morality, and the family as the basis of national life”
‘My New Order’, Adolf Hitler, Proclamation of the German Nation
at Berlin, February 1, 1933)
“Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country] … I pledge that
I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We
want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn
out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and
in the press–in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which
has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess
during the past … [few] years.”
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London,
Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871-872.
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator”
—Adolf Hitler
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of
the Almighty Creator: – by defending myself against the Jew,
I am fighting for the work of the Lord”
Adolf Hiter, Psychotic German Nutcase
“Who says I am not under the special protection of God?”
Adolf Hitler, German Dictator
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because
such a school has no religious instruction and
a general moral instruction without a religious
foundation is built on air; consequently, all
character training and religion must be derived
from faith…. We need believing people.”
—Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933
#102
Some more Adolf. Some reference and some just found floating on the net unreferenced.
“It is always more difficult to fight against faith
than against knowledge.”
– A.Hitler
“The National Government will regard it as its first and foremost duty
to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation. It will
preserve and defend those basic principles on which our nation has
been built. It regards Christianity as the foundation of our national
morality, and the family as the basis of national life”
‘My New Order’, Adolf Hitler, Proclamation of the German Nation
at Berlin, February 1, 1933)
“Today Christians … stand at the head of [this country] … I pledge that
I never will tie myself to parties who want to destroy Christianity .. We
want to fill our culture again with the Christian spirit … We want to burn
out all the recent immoral developments in literature, in the theater, and
in the press–in short, we want to burn out the poison of immorality which
has entered into our whole life and culture as a result of liberal excess
during the past … [few] years.”
The Speeches of Adolph Hitler, 1922-1939, Vol. 1 (London,
Oxford University Press, 1942), pp. 871-872.
“I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the
will of the Almighty Creator”
—Adolf Hitler
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of
the Almighty Creator: – by defending myself against the Jew,
I am fighting for the work of the Lord”
Adolf Hiter, Psychotic German Nutcase
“Who says I am not under the special protection of God?”
Adolf Hitler, German Dictator
“Secular schools can never be tolerated because
such a school has no religious instruction and
a general moral instruction without a religious
foundation is built on air; consequently, all
character training and religion must be derived
from faith…. We need believing people.”
—Adolf Hitler, April 26, 1933
I don’t usually get excited about these things, but that was amazing!
Go Richard!You magnificent bastard!
Jorge: you are right but what you say is unuseful for trolls. Trolls are deaf. And when PZ connects, he likely removes his messages.
To the Spammer #86, 82, 75, 55, 50 and the booby prizes for #89, 92, 93, 94, 96, the appropriately obscene 99, and the Mr. Severely Mentally Ill series #101, #103, 104, 105, 106, 108
Predict the future? Sure – My prediction is:
Dr. Myers will sign in and delete everything Dennis posted. Then Dr. Myers will block him from this blog AGAIN. Each time Dennis harasses the bloggers, Dr. Myers will kick his ass off again. How am I doing so far?
I think it is about time to invoke Formosa’s Law for reasons that are at this time quite obvious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formosa's_law
With apologies to Thomas Dolby
“He blinded me with science
And hit me with technology”
For the Unwashed Dennis Markuze – former computer salesman – IP resolves to Montreal, Canada,
It looks like we have to spell this out for you as you are evidently incapable of understanding anything at all (see post #117).
Formosa’s law is an unofficial rule of Usenet groups, coined by David Formosa, that states, “The truly insane have enough on their plates without us adding to it.” That is, flaming someone with an obvious mental problem can’t make it any better. Formosa first came up with this rule for the net abuse newsgroups, which had many trolls and spammers, but also many people who got into trouble for not understanding or being able to deal with others effectively.
It is common, both on the Internet and in real life, to seek amusement by ridiculing people who spout bogus nonsense or engage in silly behavior, on the basis that they have effectively invited this ridicule by their own overt behavior, usually some combination of stupidity, hypocrisy, and pomposity, but in any case behavior that they presumably have control over. However, in some cases, the behavior is the result of actual mental illness or dysfunction, rather than mere boneheadedness or intentional misconduct. Formosa’s law states that if someone’s weird behavior is caused by an actual pathology, it is inappropriate for others to increase their suffering by adding ridicule. Instead, ridicule should be reserved for people who know better than to engage in their improper conduct.
This law is most often used as an explanation for not engaging a legitimately mentally-disturbed individual in a flamewar or hostile discussion, or encouraging such actions. It is often cited on alt.usenet.kooks as a reason not to issue a “Kook-of-the-Month Award”, and is also often cited as a companion to Godwin’s Law.
jorge, run away before you get HURT…..
GUESS WHAT IS INSIDE ANGEL’S ENVELOPE?
Umm, a bomb?
seriously, your posts sound threatening, and I’m beginning to think you should be reported both to your internet provider, and to Canadian and US security authorities.
Science kills people….
Reason kills people…
The message is clear…
The enlightment was evil, lets go back to the dark ages
Wow. Just … wow. The stupid is burning pretty brightly in here today!
But on to the topic at hand … those of you in the UK may want to petition Humphreys to have Dr D and Cardinal ‘Fang’ on his show at the same time!
That would be HILarious to hear. :)
If reason is so bad, let’s see the good cardinal dispense with it completely, the way I have done with faith and religion.
Without faith or religion, it turns out to be quite easy to lead a normal, productive, and happy life. The only real difference is that on Sunday I sleep in rather than going to church, and I tell the pompous fools who want to tell me how to live what they can do with themselves.
I would be much amused to watch this Cardinal attempt to dispense with reason entirely: walking into closed doors, causing havoc on the streets and freeways, eating rocks, etc.
I guess there’s a reason for deleting the troll droppings, but it’s an odd Bob Newhart monologue to read the responses after the Great Deleting has occurred. Or perhaps a test of whether one spends too much time in a place such as this…I think I could reconstruct the trollage based on the Pharyngulean responses. That’s scary.
My compliments to the BBC interviewer, who again demonstrates a British superiority in the art of the interview. It takes poise and practice to be so calm at ones own disembowelling, but I detected a sense that he knew he had it coming.
ice
Kenny, thou loathed folly-fallen carrion!
(Thanks Ichthyic!)
ACLU! Remember, Kenny?
It would appear that I must be careful when using sarcasm, as so many people take it literally.
I wonder if that was how the bible started?
I think it’s important to continue to emphasize in these discussions, as Dr. Dawkins does here, the centrality of evidence and of the meaningful engagement with reality in the scientific worldview. Also, it’s necessary to challenge these people to provide their definition of reason. If they can claim that Nazism and Stalinism were guided by reason, clearly they are defining reason in their own, idiosyncratic way. It seems that they consider “real” reason to be “faith-reason” – reason illuminated or animated by faith and intertwined with faith. (I haven’t the slightest idea how they think this works; I don’t think there’s any sense in it at all, but I do think they genuinely believe it and that they should be encouraged to provide concrete examples of how it supposedly works.)
But both faith-reason and faithless reason are for them wholly abstract. So when the element of faith is removed from reason, as they see it all they are left with is something also not engaged with, much less born of, physical or social reality, but disembodied, calculating, self-interested, sociopathic,… They consider these questions in terms of the relationship between abstract faith and abstract reason (as they define them), and not, as they should, of the relationship between faith and reality or reason and reality. As long as reason is considered in this abstract way, they can choose to define it as a dangerously diminished version of faith-reason.
This is why it is necessary to continually point out that reason in public life engages with physical and social reality, and that this is in fact its defining feature. Their self-servingly reductionist view of reason is not possible if reason is appreciated not simply as thought, but as thought derived from our evolutionary relationship to the natural world, including the human social world, and interacting with it constantly. It’s crucial in this context to continue to point out that public reason means not claims to inherently superior knowledge or intelligence, but the willingness and capacity to engage thoughtfully with the social reality external to ourselves and our group as well as the larger physical reality of which we all form a part.
Humphrys asks Murphy O’Connor at the end of their interview what he thinks of the suggestion that religious people, when participating in public debate, explain their positions in non-religious terms. It doesn’t seem that the Cardinal understands the significance of this proposal, as he responds favorably but immediately begins talking about the church communicating its universal truths in language that non-Catholics can understand or some such thing. But the point Humphrys is making (or at least dancing around) is an important one, if the emphasis on language is removed: People engaged in public debate should be pressed constantly to support their position through reference to evidence.
#98
I predicted that Dr. Myers would remove the troll droppings and kick Dennis off this blog. It looks like he kicked Dennis’s posterior up between the scapula.
So, my prediction came true without having to resort to talking to satan or the batch of necromancers with which the Canadian Loon converses.
100% Accuracy is about a good as it gets.
Dawkins delivered a class performance. It just goes to show you what happens when you don’t have a lot of “creative” editing.
Lol, I gotta join this insultfest too!
@Kenny.
Thou saucy hedge-born ratsbane!
#110 Lurky
Can I get a “Varlot!” too?
SC #108 wrote:
Excellent post. And I think you put your finger directly on the issue when you point out that their own, idiosyncratic way of using terms tends to be extremely reductionist.
Right before they begin, they equate God with morality. So “reason” is the same as “reason without God” is the same as “reason without morality.” This means that totalitarian regimes, no matter how insane they are, are “reasonable.” Because they’re immoral. You just have to know the special vocabulary, and that makes sense.
“Do God’s moral laws make sense?” That innocent-sounding question is, I think, a killer. Keep it handy, and use it.
If they say they do, then SC’s point on public debate and public evidence undermines the special ethical position religion wants to assert. If they make sense, then God’s moral laws stand on their own — whether God actually exists or not.
And, of course, if the answer is “no,” then they sound silly even to themselves.
Sastra,
I just saw your comment. Thank you. That’s exactly what I was trying to say. I liked your post, too!
At the risk of being unpopular, I would like to point out one thing that O’Connor has got that neither Dawkins nor Humphreys ever had:
An APOSTROPHE!
I know I’m going to be called a Grammar Nazi but I’m getting a bit fed up of seeing Dawkin’s and Humphrey’s all over the place, from people I thought knew better.
And seeing this thread’s (yes, that apostrophe is correct) more or less dried up now I don’t suppose many people will see this little rant of mine in any case, so I thought I’d risk saying it here.