51. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98087 by Stephen Maxwell on December 13, 2007 at 4:05 am

So you'll take back the question in post 297 about us condemning evil actions of atheists who poorly represent 'our views'?

Let me show you a response from the 'Richard Dawkins on Have Your Say' post.

I grew up under the holy trinity of Lenin, Marx and Engels, having missed uncle Joe by quite some years. Nonetheless, whatever dogma or ritual christianity has, the 'communism' of my youth had an equally dogmatic/ritualistic answer for. Just because christianity was suppressed (and this in itself is false, orthodox clergy learned to 'get along' with new masters fast enough and lived happily ever after) doesn't mean the system wasn't deeply religious.

In fact, this lead to my own atheism. After the fall of USSR going to church became quite popular. But many, like myself, quickly noticed the obvious similarities. Didn't help that I was the only one in the congregation (quite probably including the pastor) who had actually read the bible from end to end.

I think Dawkins acknowledges that you can't disprove God, so your assertion is fallacious. However, the onus is on the believer to provide evidence for their God.

52. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98080 by Stephen Maxwell on December 13, 2007 at 3:47 am

"I am giving up because I do not want to exchange insults, not because I have been cowwed by youre arguments."

Then ignore the insults. I've asked a question and been plain ignored. I can only deduct from this that you are consciously refusing to answer.

Do you accept that you have either misunderstood atheism, or do you accept that you are trying to redefine it?

53. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98073 by Stephen Maxwell on December 13, 2007 at 3:39 am

Okay, I'll accept that. It's not necessary relevant to the discussion anyway.

Do you accept that you have either misunderstood atheism, or do you accept that you are trying to redefine it? If you don't, then I can't see how a rational debate is possible.

54. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98067 by Stephen Maxwell on December 13, 2007 at 3:25 am

No I responded to his insult, with reason. I could say prove there is no god by using impirical evidence or admit that you are a liar. You cannot do it. Prof Dawkins is trying to do that, and found that is not so easy.

Have you read The God Delusion?

Also, I'm beginning to think you're not really an Anglican priest at all. Just another troll.

Call it a hunch.

Mass belief in a God is not decent evidence, not when which God you believe in is mostly a matter of culture. And so on....

...and considering there is more non-Christians, than there are Christians, it doesn't do FatherMike any favours. They can't all be right.

55. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #98063 by Stephen Maxwell on December 13, 2007 at 3:20 am

That is not true either. You are confusing a belief in rational and scientific investigation with atheism. The two need not be linked at all.

Exactly. Ken Miller would be a good example.

Father Mike, steve99 is indeed correct. You cannot redefine atheism to suit yourself. You cannot assert anyone else's strength of belief. You cannot claim that atheists have a foundation of beliefs.

You may experience us defending Professor Dawkins. Why? This is an atheist website? No.

This is Richard Dawkins official website. That's why. Defenders of him are inevitable.

If you want to enter a rational debate, you seriously need to think about a new question, because your question posed at 297 is just silly.

56. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97434 by Stephen Maxwell on December 12, 2007 at 4:52 am

"I know most of you disagree with Fr Morris about religion, but do you condemn the evil actions of atheists who poorly reresent your views? "

Stalin's actions do not poorly represent our belief system because there is no belief system to represent, poorly or otherwise.

I think there's no doubt that humanity condemn the actions of Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot since I haven't met anyone who thinks otherwise. But since they're dogma is nothing to do with atheism, why should atheists be held accountable?

Someone made a good point earlier by asking how long Dawkins, Dennet, Harris etc would have lasted in the Soviet Union before being killed/imprisoned. My guess is, not so long.

57. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97189 by Stephen Maxwell on December 11, 2007 at 5:07 pm

zapawarrior.

"Various sources state that the Ratzingers' views towards the National Socialist German Workers Party caused the family some hardship, including the family having to move several times in the 1930s."

I don't know how easy it was to leave the country if the father was a policeman. I don't know how many police officers fought for the resistance either. Do you? I'm sure they would've been made an example of anyway.

But if you want to use a process of deduction to say: "therefore Joseph Ratzinger was a Nazi." When there is absolutely no evidence for it, then okay.

I'm just saying that since we're in a clear-thinking oasis, we should be applying reason and rationality to form conclusions on such questions. I've not come across convincing evidence of The Pope or his family being Nazi's, since the Hitler Youth was mandatory. I haven't read any information alleging he actually fought with the Nazi's in battle either.

Believe me, I'm open to information, but you don't seem to be giving anything solid. As an ex-Catholic, there's not much I'd like more than to have concrete evidence that The Pope was a Nazi supporter.

58. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97166 by Stephen Maxwell on December 11, 2007 at 2:34 pm

looks in light of the fact that the great "papa" himself was a member of the hitler youth and fought on the side of the nazis in WWII? There is NO excuse for that, particularly from a man who is supposed to be the moral guardian of the planet.

Am I about to defend The Pope?

I think we're jumping to conclusions about The Pope and Naziism. From that Wikipedia article cited by zapawarrior, it seems clear that Ratzinger wasn't a Nazi. I don't see sufficient evidence for him being a Nazi.

Everything I've read says that the Ratzinger family were enemies of National Socialism, particularly his father. Since the Second World War finished as he just turned 17, I don't blame him for not wanting to die pointlessly so young, killed by a regime which was crumbling anyway.

Let's not forget, Oskar Schindler was a Nazi

59. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96268 by Stephen Maxwell on December 10, 2007 at 8:58 am

Tridhos:

"It wouldn't have done him any harm to mention that the priest's present boss went off to fight for Hitler, no becoming a martyr for Herr Ratzinger."

That's not really true though is it? :)

60. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95901 by Stephen Maxwell on December 9, 2007 at 12:42 pm

Fr. Morris made me laugh out loud at the 'secular humanist utopia of Stalin and Hitler' comment. Also when Morris called Jesus 'The Prince of Peace' all that ran through my head was "Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire." :P

I loved when Morris remarked how ridiculous it was of Dawkins and that caller to label Stalin as a practicing Christian. Oh Wait! They didn't even suggest he was.

Prof. Dawkins hit it on the head when he asked what would be the point in killing someone in the name of atheism.

Denying the fact that Hitler was religious is delusional. Denying the fact that the Nazi's were influenced by Christianity/Catholicism is delusional. Asserting that Hitler, Stalin and Mao committed their crimes in the name of atheism is delusional.

As for the small numbers killed in the Inquisition etc. I guess we can just be grateful that the inquisitors and the Vatican didn't have weapons of mass destruction, otherwise that number would be a lot higher.

Finally, going on what he said, I simply think Fr. Morris doesn't know anything about the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin and Mao.

Straw-men flying everywhere.

61. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94442 by Stephen Maxwell on December 5, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Wow!

Spoilt for choice. As a Scot, I get particularly pissed off with the Keith O'Brien comment (which I never knew he made). But in the grand scheme of things Archbishop Francisco Chimoio surely takes the biscuit.

What's the chances of Chuck Norris becoming President?
Who takes the Church of England seriously these days?
Not even Christians want to associate themselves with Westboro Baptist Church.

But I have a scary feeling that people from Mozambique might actually listen to what this guy says about condoms.

62. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93550 by Stephen Maxwell on December 3, 2007 at 12:58 pm

When D'Souza basically criticized Nietzsche's writings of gender inequality, I just wanted to scream.

He must've skipped past St. Paul's letters.

63. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92551 by Stephen Maxwell on November 30, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Great!

I'm looking forward to seeing Dennett in the debate format, and might even be persuaded to buy his book after the debate.

Did D'Souza use his 'mosquito in the nudist colony' 'joke' in the opening of his rebuttal. I might punch a wall if I hear him say it again. :P

64. Mother dies after refusing blood

Comment #85192 by Stephen Maxwell on November 5, 2007 at 9:10 am

Simply flabbergasting.

65. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79735 by Stephen Maxwell on October 18, 2007 at 11:14 am

I can't help but balk at the idea of these 'freethinker' camps for kids. Seems to me that it's just us lowering ourselves to their level.

Why should we need to send children to camps for this?

66. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79179 by Stephen Maxwell on October 16, 2007 at 11:47 am

There's something very comical about the way that this McGrath person moves about as he talks. Don't you find?

It's hilarious that the camera keeps moving from side to side to follow him. steve99, I'll be talking about the ideas when I finish watching the debate. This was just an observation I picked up on

67. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76097 by Stephen Maxwell on October 4, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Judging by the discussion between the two hosts at the end, they have absolutely no idea about evolution.

Looks like they're equating evolution to the origin of the universe. Laughable.

68. Democratic Candidates on a Personal God

Comment #64492 by Stephen Maxwell on August 20, 2007 at 9:08 am

I couldn't help but cringe when Clinton said "I am dependent on my faith."

I thought Biden's answer was probably the best of the lot. A couple of them (I don't know their names because it's not vastly reported at the moment in UK) were just rambling on, though.

69. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57390 by Stephen Maxwell on July 19, 2007 at 5:51 am

"It doesn't matter how ill-advised or self-destructive you believe someone is being. So long as their choices don't infringe upon YOUR life"

He just proved our point. When Christian Evangelicals have as much political sway as they do in America with the Bush administration, it affects a lot of peoples lives.