1. Comment #177556 by toomanytribbles on May 9, 2008 at 9:47 am

methinks the cardinal is feeling the heat.

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

2. Comment #177557 by exquisitetruth on May 9, 2008 at 9:49 am

I dearly hope that this new trend of arguing against atheism through such absurd associations, and tenuous lines of reasoning are (as opposed to the older, more reasonable arguments, ;)), a sign of last ditch desperation.

Other Comments by exquisitetruth

3. Comment #177560 by animavisual on May 9, 2008 at 10:00 am

Oh man. Boteach and now this.
There's something poignantly oxymoronic about "a dictatorship ruled by reason," no?

Other Comments by animavisual

4. Comment #177561 by Jack Rawlinson on May 9, 2008 at 10:01 am

Humphreys? Pwned.

Well done there, Richard. You nailed him with that line about the difference in his approach to politicians. He said he wished he had more time at the end but you could tell he was glad he didn't!

I like Humphreys quite a lot but he does have a bit of a double standard where religion is concerned, sadly.

Other Comments by Jack Rawlinson

5. Comment #177563 by Matt H. on May 9, 2008 at 10:03 am

By the way, to anyone who isn't sure who John Humphrys is... he recently wrote a book called 'Confessions of a Failed Atheist'. He is an agnostic.

Other Comments by Matt H.

6. Comment #177564 by Mark Smith on May 9, 2008 at 10:07 am

Just listened to RD's interview and thought he pressed home his points superbly. Why should believers be allowed to get away with 'I just believe it' in the public forum?

Other Comments by Mark Smith

7. Comment #177565 by FreeYourMind on May 9, 2008 at 10:08 am

"I'm astonished that somebody could spend 5,000 words saying absolutely nothing at all."


Well played Richard.

Other Comments by FreeYourMind

8. Comment #177566 by bitsphere on May 9, 2008 at 10:08 am

The Cardinal's voice and message seemed as though it is a cry for mercy after an aknowledged defeat. Hmm, I wonder why?
I sense a paradigm shift in the way religion is addressed. Instead of superimposing itself on cultural and individual boundaries, it is trying to blend as an important cultural component to people. A survival mechanism, perhaps an extended phenotype too.

Other Comments by bitsphere

9. Comment #177567 by mordacious1 on May 9, 2008 at 10:09 am

Too brief, but thanks Richard for getting up early to respond to this nonsense.

Other Comments by mordacious1

10. Comment #177569 by Angels On a Pin Head on May 9, 2008 at 10:10 am

BBC Radio 4 listeners out there might like to consider contacting the weekly radio highlight programme "Pick of the Week" suggesting they play the interview with Richard. It would give it a chance of being heard by people who aren't up listening to the news at 7:15 in the morning.

Other Comments by Angels On a Pin Head

11. Comment #177572 by Diacanu on May 9, 2008 at 10:15 am

Reason leads to terror and opression?

Well, I'm sure the American revolution was a bitch for the limeys for awhile there, but come on....

Other Comments by Diacanu

12. Comment #177573 by Matt H. on May 9, 2008 at 10:16 am

Diacanu: Let's not bring the American Revolution into this. I tend to think 'reason' as applying to peace treaties and agreements, not wars fought over tea.

Other Comments by Matt H.

13. Comment #177574 by Star Spangled Eagle on May 9, 2008 at 10:18 am

people, whether it's like Hitler or Stalin, bringing up - having a country in which, if you like, a God free zone, a dictatorship ruled by reason, and where does it lead? To terror and oppression

This must be one of the most stupid fucking things anyone could ever say.

Reason leads to oppression and terror?

This man is evil.

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

14. Comment #177575 by Star Spangled Eagle on May 9, 2008 at 10:20 am

not wars fought over tea.

Uh?

I'm guessing this is a joke or something.

Otherwise, it's time to dust off a history book.

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

15. Comment #177578 by Diacanu on May 9, 2008 at 10:23 am

Matt7895-

Diacanu: Let's not bring the American Revolution into this. I tend to think 'reason' as applying to peace treaties and agreements, not wars fought over tea.

Hey, we tried to be reasonable.

We were like "um, limeys, could you um, like, go away?".

And they were like "noe".

And we were like "please?".

And they were like "*bang* noe".

And we were like "okay, we tried *bang, bang, bang, bang*".

EDIT-
But seriously, the reasoned bit was the conclusion that kings/dictators are cocksuckers, and we'd be better off without that system of governemnt.

History has proven our forefathers right.

Other Comments by Diacanu

16. Comment #177579 by mordacious1 on May 9, 2008 at 10:26 am

I suppose god was on OUR side in that one, or was that the French?

Other Comments by mordacious1

17. Comment #177580 by mordacious1 on May 9, 2008 at 10:29 am

Basicly the cardinal is saying that if we could get rid of reason, then we could return to the good ol' days when faith ruled supreme, ie. the dark ages. What a Nork.

Other Comments by mordacious1

18. Comment #177581 by Star Spangled Eagle on May 9, 2008 at 10:31 am

Founding Fathers: limey's please, stop ruling from afar, we'd like to self govern.

King George: just try, you'll die.

Founding Fathers: It's liberty or death pal.


We chose liberty.

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

19. Comment #177582 by flibble on May 9, 2008 at 10:32 am

I listened to Richards (very short) interview first and thought what a good job he'd done in the time allowed, but after listening to the cardinal's (much longer) interview, I have to say that Richard wasn't nearly as effective in showing religion up to be the vacuous nonsense it is.

Other Comments by flibble

20. Comment #177584 by Logicel on May 9, 2008 at 10:34 am

Sanderson's article is fantastic! (under RELATED at the bottom of the above post).

I only have this to add to Sanderson's evisceration of what this idiotic person who wear funny robes stands for: shove your corrupt business model (oh, sorry, meant your church) up your arse.

Stick a fork in it, the Catholic Church is done.

Other Comments by Logicel

21. Comment #177585 by HandyGeek on May 9, 2008 at 10:35 am

Idiocy keeps lowering the bar on rational thought. What the hell?!

Other Comments by HandyGeek

22. Comment #177586 by thewhitepearl on May 9, 2008 at 10:36 am

wtf is a "new atheist"?

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

23. Comment #177588 by Logicel on May 9, 2008 at 10:38 am

Now we know why Catholics don't reason, they don't know what the f reason is!

Other Comments by Logicel

24. Comment #177591 by Diacanu on May 9, 2008 at 10:39 am

mordacious1-

Basicly the cardinal is saying that if we could get rid of reason, then we could return to the good ol' days when faith ruled supreme, ie. the dark ages. What a Nork.

I think that's exactly what they want.

I don't think they've really reasoned it out (the clergy reasoning, hah!!) as far as the regressive backwardsness, and it's impact on the world, and thus the resultant dark ages, but they blindly want everyone back into the cult where they can be back in line, and damn the consequences.

And shit, some of 'em would love the loss of modernity, they hate it.

There's been shows on PBS of people living in recreations of colonial and frontier times, and the church-heads fucking love it, and hate coming back to our world.

They're as bad as the Taliban in that regard.

Gotta watch these people.

Other Comments by Diacanu

25. Comment #177592 by kram50 on May 9, 2008 at 10:39 am

O'Connor said:
Unbelievers construct their own god so that they can knock him down easily.

I don't ever recall constructing a god. I do remember years and years of listening to the story told by an endless number of pastors, ministers, church elders, relatives, school teachers, girl friends, TV crooks...et.al.
Now you tell me who constructed the sky daddy!
Then he goes on to say that nonbelief is dangerous...what a crock!!!

I don't need religion to find truth and meaning...I find no comfort in a fairy tale.

Keep up the good work Richard!!

Other Comments by kram50

26. Comment #177595 by adamwilcox on May 9, 2008 at 10:41 am

Good interview, although I don't know if John Humphrys really got the 'you question and require evidence from a politician when they say they believe something to be true, why not a cardinal?' point.

I find it stunning though, that Cardinal Murphy can claim that Christian views are in danger of being silenced... whilst giving a lecture at Westminster Cathedral. Only when you are outside Asda trying to be heard, then you are in trouble Archbishop!

(first comment at richarddawkins.net- go easy on me)

Other Comments by adamwilcox

27. Comment #177596 by Matt H. on May 9, 2008 at 10:42 am

Getting a little off topic but I'm wondering why the admins/moderators are allowing a derogatory slur like 'limey' be thrown about willy-nilly like it has been in this thread?

Back on topic, Humphrey's refusal to hold religious people to account over their views may be frustrating, but it's the worst religion has to offer right now. Well, that and the opposition to embryo research :(

Other Comments by Matt H.

28. Comment #177597 by MikeV on May 9, 2008 at 10:42 am

Richard totally mopped the floor with this John Humphrys guy. Hymphrys was at a loss when he tried to explain why you don't need to demand evidence when talking to religious people. He was lucky that the "interview" was so short.

Other Comments by MikeV

29. Comment #177600 by Diacanu on May 9, 2008 at 10:46 am

kram50-

nonbelief is dangerous..

Someone should ask the cardinal if he considers his non-belief in Muhammed and Allah to be dangerous, and given that some muslims indubitably must consider it a bad thing, whether or not they can go piss up a rope, or if he'd be willing to concede to their wishes that he convert or die.

Other Comments by Diacanu

30. Comment #177603 by Star Spangled Eagle on May 9, 2008 at 10:53 am

Getting a little off topic but I'm wondering why the admins/moderators are allowing a derogatory slur like 'limey' be thrown about willy-nilly like it has been in this thread?

probably the same reason they allow users to write historically inaccurate statements about the past.

I wasn't aware that was a "derogatory slur"

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

31. Comment #177604 by mordacious1 on May 9, 2008 at 10:55 am

New atheists=babies.

Sanderson's piece says it all. I hope he is read by many.

Why is the word limey more offensive than say "fucktard"?

Other Comments by mordacious1

32. Comment #177605 by Matt H. on May 9, 2008 at 10:55 am

Star Spangled Eagle, you seem quite persistent in changing the subject to the American Revolution, but I'll humor you just this once. Search for 'Boston Tea Party' in a textbook on American history, or look for it on Wikipedia.

Other Comments by Matt H.

33. Comment #177608 by Quetzalcoatl on May 9, 2008 at 11:00 am

Hah, Humphrys was completely wrong-footed by Dawkins' question, wasn't he? His attempt to answer it wasn't very convincing, either.

Star spangled eagle-

the British were going to allow American independence until they threw all their tea into the sea. After that, it was WAR!

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

34. Comment #177609 by Star Spangled Eagle on May 9, 2008 at 11:03 am

Matt7895:
I did not bring it up, but you made an obscure reference to it:

I tend to think 'reason' as applying to peace treaties and agreements, not wars fought over tea.

No need for the condescending remarks by the way ("humor me, just this once") I am familiar with American history which is why I asked why you said it was a war over tea. It wasn't, and I first asked you to dust off the history book to take a look and read a little bit.

If you think the American Revolutionary war was just "fought over tea" you'll need do a tiny bit more research.

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

35. Comment #177611 by mordacious1 on May 9, 2008 at 11:03 am

You can say "screw you" to GeorgeIII but throw tea into the ocean, now you've gone too far.

Other Comments by mordacious1

36. Comment #177612 by Star Spangled Eagle on May 9, 2008 at 11:06 am

Damn, I guess the British really do love their tea...

Other Comments by Star Spangled Eagle

37. Comment #177614 by Demotruk on May 9, 2008 at 11:11 am

So, the Cardinal thinks that dictatorships are ruled by reason...

It shows you the problem with faith, when their most prominant spokespeople make remarks like this. I think the "morality from God" thing has been deeply engrained in these people.

Is it so hard for these people to understand the value of moral laws that aren't dictated by some greater authority to them? Perhaps morals based on the notions of harm/good? Morals can be based on reason, you don't have to throw morals out the door along with your silly superstitions.

Other Comments by Demotruk

38. Comment #177615 by Angels On a Pin Head on May 9, 2008 at 11:11 am

It's funny that the Cardinal's god is all ineffable when people use critical thinking to show that such a being is unlikely to exist - he says "You can't talk easily, simply about God. God is mysterious beyond all our comprehension." (audio @ 4:20).

But then, on specific issues, like (to choose a few random examples) homosexual relationships, contraception, research on embryonic stem cells, God stops being ineffable, and it's absolutely clear what God's views on specific current political issues is. Where has this "mysterious beyond all our comprehension" thing gone?

I don't mind people using the ineffable deity argument. However, once you have used that argument then you have automatically foregone your right to make any statements about either the specific nature of your god, or about the morals that your god espouses. In particular, you have no right to increase other people's suffering because of your comprehension of something that you describe as incomprehensible.

Other Comments by Angels On a Pin Head

39. Comment #177617 by mordacious1 on May 9, 2008 at 11:15 am

Is it just me, or did the Cardinal's heavy breathing remind anyone else of the stereotype of catholic priests?

Other Comments by mordacious1

40. Comment #177619 by MPhil on May 9, 2008 at 11:21 am

Aside from the fact that the cardinal's comment on reason is incredibly ignorant and hypocritical - utter lunacy to be precise, the following makes it almost amusing:

A great many theologians and theistic philosophers of religion (I'd say way over 90% of them) spent and spend a lot of time and energy arguing that faith is rational and reasonable, that god gave us reason and that it is a major factor in coming to know god and leading a good life.

This comment by the cardinal is going to elicit some *facepalm*s - maybe even some anger maybe.

One of the people who wouldn't like this at all is the pope - in fact it is catholic dogma that the existence of god and reasonableness of faith are demonstrable by unaided reason...

:)

Other Comments by MPhil

41. Comment #177623 by Apathy personified on May 9, 2008 at 11:32 am

Star Spangled Eagle,

Yes, yes we do love our tea. Also, does limey not refer to specifically English as opposed to British?

Mordacious1 is right, i'd prefer to be called a limey than a fucktard.

Back to the point at hand,
Catholic Cardinal = Complete twat who has a deluded view of the current World, of History and
can only be described as 'dickpole'

Other Comments by Apathy personified

42. Comment #177625 by Artifactorfiction on May 9, 2008 at 11:37 am

Annoyingly I can't get the 3rd link to play but here's my thoughts for what its worth.

There is no reason in religion.

(First a non religious aside)
I watched the TV tonight in growing disbelief at the Burmese government's reaction to the foreign aid response from the world - someone (finally) mentioned that this could be viewed as genocide.

(the point)
Now compare this atrocity with the catholic church's insistence that condom use is sin

Just how many people have died in Africa for the want of a piece of latex rubber (no one calls this immoral)

There is no reason or reasonableness in religion.

(Of course RD pointed the contraceptive issue out in '76 in TSG in relation to population growth - astute as ever.)

Other Comments by Artifactorfiction

43. Comment #177626 by mordacious1 on May 9, 2008 at 11:43 am

I would think being called a limey would be an honor. It was quite a scientific advance, for the time, to prevent scurvy by consuming vitamin C. The fact that it took the rest of the world awhile to "get it" caused them a lot of needless deaths and helped Britain rule the waves.

Other Comments by mordacious1

44. Comment #177628 by Big City on May 9, 2008 at 11:45 am

"But I think this is the first time I have heard any reputable spokesman...say that reason leads to terror and oppression."-Dawk

"Rum-balakasha-oom! In the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, I cast out the demon of the intellect!"

Other Comments by Big City

45. Comment #177629 by mordacious1 on May 9, 2008 at 11:46 am

Ah, here is a good example. The words twat and dickpole would normally be deemed offensive. But this site allows it because the truth is a defense...

Other Comments by mordacious1

46. Comment #177638 by Apathy personified on May 9, 2008 at 11:57 am

Hey, i can only be honest, if Cardinal O'Conner would like me not to refer to him as twat or dickpole, he should leave the church, apologise for all he's said and done and get a real job.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

47. Comment #177639 by Rawhard Dickins on May 9, 2008 at 12:01 pm

"Atheists construct their own god"

No - we demolish the gods presented by the religious.

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

48. Comment #177640 by Nova on May 9, 2008 at 12:03 pm

Matt7895 typed:

By the way, to anyone who isn't sure who John Humphrys is... he recently wrote a book called 'Confessions of a Failed Atheist'. He is an agnostic.

Also importantly a large part of that book is allocated to criticizing Richard with the same kind of spectacular failure as the theist books which criticize him.

Other Comments by Nova

49. Comment #177644 by Rawhard Dickins on May 9, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Jedi's beware! You may find this interview particularly unnerving

Other Comments by Rawhard Dickins

50. Comment #177656 by fides_et_ratio on May 9, 2008 at 12:27 pm

RD is lucky Humph didn't treat him like a politician, he certainly wouldn't tolerate a junior minister questioning him.

Is Dawkins saying that the Cardinal's views are treated deferentially because of his faith, in which case is he unaware of the criticism his views on, for example, family life and abortion receive in the media. Or is he criticising the fact that his views are given coverage solely on the basis of his position as a man of faith?

Other Comments by fides_et_ratio