Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

I don't agree that history should be optional, if you don't know about the world's history and your nations history it just makes you ignorant and racist, lack of knowledge is dangerous...if you want evidence look at what happened to Turk's in Turkey. I would say you can never learn enough history, and its important to have at least a little history in your head (and in your heart).

So what is the point of learning history if it wasn't factual? Americans believe what is being written about events leading up to, during and probably decades after the occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Also you are incorrect to blame atheism for the political and economic system of the USSR, it was communist and communist atheists have a different ideology to capitalist atheists, and democratic socialist atheists.

In addition atheism is not a system of control it is simply the idea that there is no god. Communism, Capitalism and Socialism are forces that can control and shape society, simply having no belief in god doesn't cause the world to come to the end.

Communism, Capitalism and Socialism are systems used to distribute the Earth's resources among the populations. Atheism and Religion form the ideology of the people. Who decides which system you're born into and what ideology you should follow?

Also that statement I made is not insult but fact, ignorance and stupidity is one thing that will always exist, regardless of how well we try. If you don't believe me look at history, we have had more genocides, events of mass murder, terrorism, and genocide denial in the last 2 centuries than in the entire history of the world, even though we have the internet and greater access to knowledge and information.

We have also had more advanced weapon systems, easier manipulation of information through centralized media sources and entire generations who have spent more than half their lives being programmed by television and media rather than actually living life.

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Communism, Capitalism and Socialism are systems used to distribute the Earth's resources among the populations. Atheism and Religion form the ideology of the people. Who decides which system you're born into and what ideology you should follow?

Atheism is not an ideology; it's the rejection of a certain set of ideologies characterized by supernatural beliefs.

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Atheism is not an ideology; it's the rejection of a certain set of ideologies characterized by supernatural beliefs.

I think it's a cleverly disguised ideology.

The Soviet and Chinese communists' murders were not fueled by their atheism but by politics. It has no relation. It is the same argument O'Reilly used in the clip when he told Dawkins that Hitler and Stalin killed a lot of people and they happened to be atheists (Hitler was in fact not but that is beyond the point). These two also have mustaches, does this mean there is a correlation between having a mustache and being a mass murderer?

The atheist's response is foolish to such a magnitude that it is
not really deserving deserving of an answer. Nonetheless, for the
sake of fairness, we will endeavor to assess his objection.

Was the philosophy of atheism espoused by communists responsible
for the mass murders perpetrated by communist leaders such as
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Ceausescu? Let's look at some enlightening
facts that militant atheists prefer not to acknowledge.

1. Communists leaders were motivated by a strong desire to impose
an ideological "package" over the whole world. The package included
the eradication of Religion, defined by arch-atheist, Karl Marx, as
"The opium of the people." According to Marx, religion helped keep
the masses passive before the abuse of the wealthy and powerful,
and the only way to free them from the "stupor," God and religion
had to be eradicated. Lenin embraced Marx's views and so did
Stalin up to the Second World war. The enforcement of Atheism was a
"critical" requirement for Communism's success, and thus it had to
be implemented at all costs. This meant oppressive measures, such
as brainwashing in state schools, the closing of houses of worship
and arresting countless religious leaders.

2. Karl Marx's extremist followers were not in any way impeded in
their blood-thirsty global quest by fear of a Higher Power. Atheism
took very efficient care of this "limiting factor." Since the end
justified the means, as Machiavelli had instructed, they could do
whatever was necessary to bring about a workers' paradise. Because
the opposition in some cases proved to be powerful and resilient,
drastic means were used. Large numbers were killed for refusing to
abandon their religious beliefs. A great many were sent to
concentration camps. (For an enlightening, "first-hand" account of
suppression of Religion and other "enemies" of Atheistic-Communism
in Russia, please read, The Gulag Archipelago, by Alexander
Solzhenitsyn -- especially Chapter 2.)

3. Communist-atheist leaders, in their own eyes, became supreme,
all-knowing, all-wise and all powerful "gods." They had total
control over people's lives and over who lived and who died. Being
"gods," they asserted their evil schemes over the masses with
brutality and mercilessness.

4. People like Stalin were interested in propagating an ideology,
not a look. Nobody was persecuted in the Soviet Union for not
having a mustache like Stalin, or for not wearing a uniform similar
to his, or for not liking the same food, music or sports. Large
numbers were persecuted and killed for practicing religion, and for
being interferences to atheist-communist expansion. Now some would
retort that Stalin had a change of heart during the Second World
war and that he recognized and elevated anew the Russian Orthodox
Church. This is a historically correct statement, but in no way
does it indicate that Stalin moved toward theism. The move was
strictly utilitarian. Steven Merritt Miner in his work Stalin's
Holy War informs us that Stalin had ulterior motives behind the
move. "Moscow's religious policy at this time can only be understood in
the context of Soviet security considerations, especially Moscow's
concerns about the disaffection of non-Russian nationalities. The
Kremlin saw the church not only, and perhaps not even primarily, as
a tool for mobilizing and harnessing Russian nationalism throughout
the union, but rather as one of several instruments for countering
and disarming non-Russian, and anti-Soviet, nationalism. As most
tsars could have told Stalin, the Russian Orthodox Church was an
effective agent for the Russification of the ethnically diverse and
contentious western regions." This move, though "seemingly" noble, did
not neutralize or excuse his heinous actions toward countless Christians
and Muslims who were killed so as to facilitate the spread of Stalin's
atheistic-communistic ideology. Militant atheism, therefore, was a major
factor in the murder of countless millions, during the past century.

Unfortunately, militant atheism, is still driven by some of the same extremist
views reminiscent of atheist-communist regimes of old. They, like
their predecessors, do not hesitate to admit that they hate God,
religion and that they would like to see both disappear forever.

Dinesh D'Souza, eloquently expresses similar
concerns in the following quote:

The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a
hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of
values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man
seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of
course if some people - the J-ews, the landowners, the unfit, or the
handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve this
utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists
have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the
truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is
permitted. --

___________________________

So we see history repeating itself again... but instead of Russia, it is the USA that seems to be following the same path.

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

I think it's a cleverly disguised ideology.

I'm sorry that would establish such a precedent that any disagreement would be an ideology. For example, if someone were to start a cult based around Johnny Depp actually being a female tarantula and I were to disagree and point out that no such evidence exists, I would be as bound to an ideology as the person starting the cult. As a matter of fact, if one extends that train of thought, it would in fact assert that the acceptance or rejection of anything is an ideology, making the term practically meaningless. That's quite absurd. I don't think you understand epistemology.

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Dinesh D'Souza, eloquently expresses similar
concerns in the following quote:

The crimes of atheism have generally been perpetrated through a
hubristic ideology that sees man, not God, as the creator of
values. Using the latest techniques of science and technology, man
seeks to displace God and create a secular utopia here on earth. Of
course if some people - the J-ews, the landowners, the unfit, or the
handicapped - have to be eliminated in order to achieve this
utopia, this is a price the atheist tyrants and their apologists
have shown themselves quite willing to pay. Thus they confirm the
truth of Fyodor Dostoyevsky's dictum, "If God is not, everything is
permitted.

Mr. Dinesh D'Souza is ignorant and a slave to rhetoric. In addition to there being no ideology to speak of, there is also no hubris. Humans didn't consciously collaborate and concoct rules to elevate themselves to the level of a god. Morality was instilled in humans as a result of evolution in the same manner that wolf packs operate by rules. It is necessary for society which has developed as a way to insure the survival of species. One cannot seek to displace something he doesn't believe ever had an influence. This man obviously does not understand the issues.

It is obvious with his treatment of Dostoevsky that he also doesn't understand what research is:

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/cortesi1.html

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

I'm sorry that would establish such a precedent that any disagreement would be an ideology. For example, if someone were to start a cult based around Johnny Depp actually being a female tarantula and I were to disagree and point out that no such evidence exists, I would be as bound to an ideology as the person starting the cult. As a matter of fact, if one extends that train of thought, it would in fact assert that the acceptance or rejection of anything is an ideology, making the term practically meaningless. That's quite absurd. I don't think you understand epistemology.

You're right, I wouldn't waste hard earned money going to a liberal arts school. Ideology is a system of thought that is imposed on other people through an organization. Atheism leads to other branches of thought just the same as theism. They are equal but opposite.

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Mr. Dinesh D'Souza is ignorant and a slave to rhetoric. In addition to there being no ideology to speak of, there is also no hubris.

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../cortesi1.html

Hubris is what people call pride before the fall. It is what has occurred before the fall of every empire in history.

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

You're right, I wouldn't waste hard earned money going to a liberal arts school. Ideology is a system of thought that is imposed on other people through an organization. Atheism leads to other branches of thought just the same as theism. They are equal but opposite.

Sorry but atheism doesn't depend on institutions. As for leading to other branches of thought, well, that is just vague and meaningless. I'm not really convinced that you have a point anymore. There is no dogma in the position held by Dawkins or those who agree with him. Period. Knowledge or the pursuit thereof are no more ideological than you opening a cupboard to see what's inside. This is similar to the "science is a belief" argument which is also tiresome and ridiculous.

[Stark Evade]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Hubris is what people call pride before the fall. It is what has occurred before the fall of every empire in history.

I know what hubris is and it is quite obvious from my response. But thanks for your concern.

[HyeClown]

Re: Richard Dawkins interview with Bill O'Reilly

Sorry but atheism doesn't depend on institutions. As for leading to other branches of thought, well, that is just vague and meaningless. I'm not really convinced that you have a point anymore. There is no dogma in the position held by Dawkins or those who agree with him. Period. Knowledge or the pursuit thereof are no more ideological than you opening a cupboard to see what's inside. This is similar to the "science is a belief" argument which is also tiresome and ridiculous.

What does science or the pursuit of knowledge have to do with theism or atheism?