Dawkins: Religion equals 'child abuse'

WorldNetDaily ^ | 1/8/06

[LibWhacker]

Scientist compares Moses to Hitler, calls New Testament 'sado-masochistic doctrine'

Controversial scientist and evolutionist Richard Dawkins, dubbed "Darwin's Rottweiler," calls religion a "virus" and faith-based education "child abuse" in a two-part series he wrote and appears in that begins airing on the UK's Channel 4, beginning tomorrow evening.

Entitled "Root of All Evil?," the series features the atheist Dawkins visiting Lourdes, France, Colorado Springs, Colo., the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and a British religious school, using each of the venues to argue religion subverts reason.

In "The God Delusion," the first film in the series, Dawkins targets Catholicism at the pilgrimage site in Lourdes. "If you want to experience the medieval rituals of faith, the candle light, the incense, music, important-sounding dead languages, nobody does it better than the Catholics," he says.

Dawkins, using his visit to Colorado Springs' New Life Church, criticizes conservative U.S. evangelicals and warns his audience of the influence of "Christian fascism" and "an American Taliban."

The backdrop of the al-Aqsa mosque and an American-born Jew turned fundamentalist Muslim who tells Dawkins to prepare for the Islamic world empire – and who clashes with him after saying he hates atheists – rounds out the first program's case for the delusions of the faithful.

In part two, "The Virus of Faith," Dawkins attacks the teaching of religion to children, calling it child abuse.

"Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods," he says. "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. Isn't it weird the way we automatically label a tiny child with its parents' religion?"

"Sectarian religious schools," Dawkins asserts, have been "deeply damaging" to generations of children.

Dawkins, who makes no effort to disguise his atheism and contempt for religion, focuses on the Bible, too.

"The God of the Old Testament has got to be the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous, and proud of it, petty, vindictive, unjust, unforgiving, racist," he says. Dawkins then criticizes Abraham, compares Moses to Hitler and Saddam Hussein, and calls the New Testament "St Paul's nasty, sado-masochistic doctrine of atonement for original sin."

John Deighan, a spokesman for the Catholic Church, took issue with Dawkin's denunciation of religion, telling the Glasgow Sunday Herald, "Dawkins is well known for his vitriolic attacks on faith, and I think faith has withstood his attacks. He really is going beyond his abilities as a scientist when he starts to venture into the field of philosophy and theology. He is the guy with demonstrable problems."

Madeline Bunting, a columnist for the Guardian, who reviewed the series, wrote: "There's an aggrieved frustration that [atheist humanists] have been short-changed by history – we were supposed to be all atheist rationalists by now. Secularization was supposed to be an inextricable part of progress. Even more grating, what secularization there has been is accompanied by the growth of weird irrationalities from crystals to ley lines. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out, the problem when people don't believe in God is not that they believe nothing, it is that they believe anything."

Dawkins, perhaps best know for his much-cited comment that evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist," appeals to John Lennon in a commentary he authored for the Belfast Telegraph on the eve of his program's premiere: "Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true. But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads. "You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one."

[Tribune7]

There is not even evidence, other than the bible, that the ancient Israelites committed any massacres of Canaanites or Midianites or Moabites. If the bible is just a bunch of made up myths, it never even happened.

LOL. Nice point.

[r9etb]

Hitler was a fruit loop. You're utterly dishonest if you think his insane ideas are representative of the tenets of Christianity.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" Then how about doing a bit of retracting yourself and stop associating Hitler with Christianity."

Because he used a perverted form of Christianity. He associated himself with it; to deny that would be to lie. I have made it clear that he didn't speak for 99% of Christians. I will retract nothing. There is no evidence Hitler was an atheist.

"Ha given what is scientifically known about genetics, creationists whether they realize it or not do subscribe to a form of evolution. There is no recorded miracles that inserted different genes to result in what many creationists claim happened."

How is this a refutation of my statement that it was pre-Darwinians, and creationist ones to boot, who developed the concept of race? Why must you always ignore the question and change the subject?

"I understand better than you thing what is called 'natural' selection. Problem is that the natural dies and rots hardly something to get to entrenched in."

You prove my point; you haven't a clue as to what natural selection is, yet you feel obligated to keep communicating your ignorance to the world.

"Guess you missed that evolutionary post, I am not going to spend the time finding it but I will promise the next time I see a similar or exact response posted to give you a ping."

In other words, no citations. :)

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Hitler was a fruit loop. You're utterly dishonest if you think his insane ideas are representative of the tenets of Christianity."

And you obviously didn't read my posts where I made it clear that Hitler's was a perverted form of Christianity. My point was that he was no atheist as some claim.

[r9etb]

And you obviously didn't read my posts where I made it clear that Hitler's was a perverted form of Christianity. My point was that he was no atheist as some claim.

I did read your posts, and unfortunately the main point I got from them is that you were equating Hitler with Christianity.

Hitler may well have been a non-atheist. But he was also insane. Your mistake lies in equating the views of an insane man as being indicative of a theistic point of view.

I'm sure we can also find an insane person who reflects your general POV. Shall we tar your beliefs on that basis?

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" I did read your posts, and unfortunately the main point I got from them is that you were equating Hitler with Christianity."

Even after I say Hitler's is a perverted form of Christianity? Your reading comprehension isn't very good.

"Hitler may well have been a non-atheist. But he was also insane. Your mistake lies in equating the views of an insane man as being indicative of a theistic point of view."

*Insanity* is a legal definition. I don't know that he was *insane*. I do know he was evil. And I also know of no evidence he wasn't a theist, though a twisted one. I made it very clear that this was not saying that theists or Christians are like Hitler. What part of that do you not comprehend?

[Just mythoughts]

"Because he used a perverted form of Christianity. He associated himself with it; to deny that would be to lie. I have made it clear that he didn't speak for 99% of Christians. I will retract nothing. There is no evidence Hitler was an atheist."

Wait a minute to pervert a thing changes what was, yet you associate the original as the perverted thing. Hitler was an evil pervert and he was not Christian. Yet you keep pushing the word Christianity as a form of Hitlerism. There is a Book that instructs what standard Christ set, very easy to discover that Hitler used the political and economic situation to pervert the thinking of a whole nation under education and his form of religion.

" How is this a refutation of my statement that it was pre-Darwinians, and creationist ones to boot, who developed the concept of race? Why must you always ignore the question and change the subject?"


Was not intended to be a refutation rather a commonality of belief systems.

"You prove my point; you haven't a clue as to what natural selection is, yet you feel obligated to keep communicating your ignorance to the world."

As Christ said you are in this world but not of this world, like I care what the world thinks.

I told you that I was not going to take the time to dig out the citation, but I will ping you the next time I see the crowing of an evolutionists of the lessor among them for being lessor to preserve their environmental conditions.

[r9etb]

What part of that do you not comprehend?

The part where you clearly don't understand what you're saying.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"Wait a minute to pervert a thing changes what was, yet you associate the original as the perverted thing. Hitler was an evil pervert and he was not Christian."

He was a Christian to some extent, though his was a perverted Christianity. He was not following the teachings of the Bible as we know them, but he did include a sick version of Jesus in his *theology*. Why is this distinction so hard to grasp?

"Yet you keep pushing the word Christianity as a form of Hitlerism. "

No, I never did that. Stop lying. I said the opposite.

" Was not intended to be a refutation rather a commonality of belief systems."

That's why you posted it as a response to my statement that it wasn't Darwin who invented the concept of race? It was not invented by pre-Darwinian evolutionists, it was invented by pre-Darwinian creationists (as 99% of scientists were then). Does that mean that creationism is racist? Not at all. It means that some creationists were.

" As Christ said you are in this world but not of this world, like I care what the world thinks."

So, you don't really care what natural selection is as long as you can use your definition to suit your aims?

"I told you that I was not going to take the time to dig out the citation, but I will ping you the next time I see the crowing of an evolutionists of the lessor among them for being lessor to preserve their environmental conditions."

I won't hold my breath. :)

[Lazamataz]

Scientist compares Moses to Hitler, calls New Testament 'sado-masochistic doctrine'

I believe in evolution, but this a-hole makes me wanna puke.

On him.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

" The part where you clearly don't understand what you're saying."

Ah, a non-answer. :)

[Just mythoughts]

"He was a Christian to some extent, though his was a perverted Christianity. He was not following the teachings of the Bible as we know them, but he did include a sick version of Jesus in his *theology*. Why is this distinction so hard to grasp?

"Yet you keep pushing the word Christianity as a form of Hitlerism. "

No, I never did that. Stop lying. I said the opposite."


I think you need a break you are in a conflict with yourself.

[aculeus]

Science is hard. Blasting religion is easy.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"I think you need a break you are in a conflict with yourself."

I think you need reading comprehension lessons. I did not say that Christianity was a form of Hitlerism, I said that Hitler used a warped for of Christianity. There is difference, at for those who are not illiterate.

[r9etb]

It isn't a "non-answer." You really don't seem to understand the implications of your statements. Or perhaps you do.

[trisham]

He was a Christian to some extent, though his was a perverted Christianity. He was not following the teachings of the Bible as we know them, but he did include a sick version of Jesus in his *theology*. Why is this distinction so hard to grasp?

****************

To what Christian church did Hitler belong? How often did he attend?

How does the definition of a "Christian" involve someone who "was not following the teachings of the Bible as we know them"?

[AD from SpringBay]

Dawkins discovers hypebole can be leveraged to make money, film at 11.

[Just mythoughts]

Well there you go, that fittest intellectual god declaring what is and what is not to us mere lessor fit. After all is it not the 'mind' that is what is the superior and fittest in the evolutionary chain???

To pervert Christianity means it is no longer Christianity, what part of that does your brain not process.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"It isn't a "non-answer." You really don't seem to understand the implications of your statements. Or perhaps you do."

Sure it's a non-answer. This one you sent is another. I understand the implications of what I wrote; why don't you actually say something and tell me what YOU think they are.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"To what Christian church did Hitler belong? How often did he attend?"

Is that what makes someone a Christian?

"How does the definition of a "Christian" involve someone who "was not following the teachings of the Bible as we know them"?"

He believed that Jesus was the son of God. He also thought that Jesus was an Aryan warrior against the Jews; that's the perverted part of his theology. That is why, if you read what I said instead of posting without reading, you would know I said he was a Christian TO SOME EXTENT. He was also Evil. Does that mean I am saying that Christians are Hitler and that Christians are Evil? Only if you are a kindergarten level in logical thinking.