Richard Dawkins, no longer an atheist

His recent poll showed that a majority of Christians in Britain are illiterate of Scripture of which he took to the extreme and said that they weren’t Christian. It would seem that only a bible-idolater and a fundamentalist would go that far, but that does seem to be what Dawkins and most militant atheists are…. still fundamentalists. Anyway, Dawkins got into it on Imperial Television, God save the Queen and all that bloody rubbish, with a priest, Fr. Fraser. He forgot the title to his ‘bible.’

Giles Fraser: Richard,if I said to you what is the full title of ‘The Origin Of Species’,I’m sure you could tell me that.

Richard Dawkins:Yes I could

Giles Fraser: Go on then.

Richard Dawkins: On The Origin Of Species.. Uh. With,Oh God. On The Origin Of Species. There is a sub title with respect to the preservation of favoured races in the struggle for life.

Giles Fraser:You’re the high pope of Darwinism… If you asked people who believed in evolution that question and you came back and said 2% got it right,it would be terribly easy for me to go ‘they don’t believe it after all.’ It’s just not fair to ask people these questions. They self-identify as Christians and I think you should respect that.

via Dawkins failure to remember title of Darwin’s book proves he’s no atheist, according to his own logic « Protect the Pope.

Burn.

Enhanced by Zemanta

You Might Also Like

15 Replies to “Richard Dawkins, no longer an atheist”

  1. “On The Origin Of Species.. Uh. With,Oh God”… Proof that there are no atheists in a fox hole…since Dawkins realized at that moment that he just took a bullet.

  2. oh jeepers it doesn’t surprise me. He doesn’t understand human beings, history and evolution of ideas – and religions. Christianity has evolved since the fourth century and the emerging sciences since the Enlightenment and historical biblical scholarship have not caused critical thinking educated Christians to lose their faith, but to question and explore and recognise metaphor and storytelling as distinguished from history. But Dawkins is stuck in a time warp. We don’t have heresy trials anymore, and people identify with religions and hold beliefs in different ways. Dawkins doesn’t understand this and that’s why his writing on belief are so anachronistic and appallingly wrong. The agonising reading of The God Delusion was like reading a text book on evolutionary biology by a person whose only reading on the subject was the New Zealand school journal of seacreatures in the surrounding ocean.

    Joel, could you please give me the link to wherever he said that British Christians aren’t Christian? It’s as moronic as fundamentalists and conservative Christians saying the survey doesn’t count because the respondents don’t count as Christians. On the criteria these fundamentalists and fungusmentalists demand, the majority of the world’s Christians (outside America) would be disqualified. Neither the hardline fungusatheists nor the fundamentalist Christians have probably heard of ‘Secular Christianity’ which is Christianity without ‘God’, where ‘god’ is symbolic. If a person identifies as Christian, society recognises them as Christian. If I identify myself as someone without labels, I get furious when people try calling me a flipping ‘atheist’. Not. Never a ‘theist’, so never an ‘atheist’ and not ‘agnostic either’. Every honest person is agnostic by ‘faith’, including an honest ‘atheist’, but not necessarily ‘agnostic’ by definition.

  3. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/02/13/poll-british-christians-religion-public-policy_n_1274442.html?ref=uk
    Acutally Joel, I still need a link where he says they aren’t Christian. The first link is not a direct quote and this quote isn’t really sufficient
    ‘The results also showed that religion was “largely irrelevant even to those who still label themselves Christian”, he added’.
    He’s wrong about religion being ‘largely irrelevant’ without qualification that it is only not part of everyday life. This is not the same as ‘largely irrelevant’. However he hasn’t actually said: ‘they aren’t Christians’

    Has he or not?

  4. The first link is just commentary and in the second link with the letter correspondence, Richard makes the distinction between secularism (which is not dependent on atheism and can be religious) and atheism which is a completely accurate distinction. The other guy fails to acknowledge this and prattles about liberalism. Richard says the vast majority of UK Christians “aren’t really religious at all” which could be interpreted to mean and is probably intended to mean, they don’t make religious practice or faith part of their everyday life. This is definitely not the same as saying ‘they aren’t Christian’. And that UK Christians aren’t very religious is an honest reflection of Christians in the UK, and the majority in the Antipodean yonder too, supported by anthropological and sociological research on identity and belief.

    So Richard has the upper hand and as far as I can tell you have misrepresented him but claiming: “he took to the extreme and said that they weren’t Christian”. This is the second time I have defended Dawkins, something I never expected to do, but I cannot let misrepresentation of anyone pass unchecked.

      1. xx thank you for not being miffed. I hope you find what you were referring to. Or perhaps I just wish you were mistaken. I don’t want him to be so stupid. For once I thought he’d done something of value with that survey but if he dared suggest that the survey results don’t reflect reality because the respondents weren’t Christian then he’s still as historically illiterate as ever with no understanding of humanity or society and just as fungusmentalist as conservative Christians who reject the survey’s validity on the grounds that they don’t believe the respondents qualify as Christian either.

  5. In other words, if you can’t cite the book of Matthew as the first book in the NT, according to Dawkins you’re “not really Christian at all”.

    1. Don’t put in quotes what aren’t words spoken by the accused. Not being religious, is not the same as not being Christian. It is true, and supported by academic research, that UK Christians (and Antipodeans identifying as Christian) are not very religious.

Leave a Reply, Please!

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.