The atheist’s comments continue an irresponsible pattern of demonizing one religion while celebrating the one he grew up with
How many millions of deaths has the “fundamentally decent” religion been responsible for so far?
A little preliminary research; The Crusades: 1-9 million French Wars of Religion: 2-4 million The Thirty Years War: 3-12 million War of the Three Kingdoms: 315-868 thousand The Eighty Years War: 600-700 thousand German Peasants’ War: 100-200 thousand
Which totals out at: 16.24 million people taking the average of the high and low estimates, WWI would be 18.5 million by the same metric for reference.
Things I can’t find numbers for in a quick search: The Reconquest of Spain The various Inquisitions Excess mortality rate from anti-birth control advocacy (ie excess spread of STDs).
Things I’ve thought of but don’t have time to go looking for: Violence in the Bible that actually happened Roman persecution of non-Christians Violence perpetrated by Christians between the fall of Rome and the Crusades Deaths from intentional medical neglect favoring proselytizing over medical care (Teresa comes to mind) Whatever proportion of the Native American Genocide and Holocaust should be attributed to Christianity
The USA killed millions of secular revutionaries in the name of anti communism and Christianity, which is a large part of the reason why there are so many right wing extremist Muslims in the first place so you can add those millions and the ones caused by the Muslims to Christianity too
Yeah, that’s another category I missed. Just the book-keeping of finding all the categories of deaths to attribute to the world’s largest apocalyptic death cult is a major task. No wonder the adherents of the vile faith are so insistent on the subjective moral framework of their fictitious tyrant, there’s scarcely an objective framework that wouldn’t paint the faith as among the greatest forces of evil Humanity has ever been subjected to.
Dawkins is a weird guy. And a troll.
He lost me years ago when he claimed being raped by someone you know is better than being raped by someone you don’t know.
Yikes.
Right? He says he can’t judge pedophiles from his youth because it was another era and we can’t judge them by today’s standards.
I wasn’t there at the time, but I’m pretty sure people didn’t take kindly to pedophiles in the 1940s when he was born either.
In fact, I would be very surprised if there was any time within the past few centuries, if not longer, that no one would judge a school teacher sticking his hand down a pupil’s pants and feeling him up. I’m guessing that’s been a thing that is totally unacceptable for a very long time. I certainly don’t remember reading about Mr. Darcy longing for his school days back when the masters played with his willie.
It’s sad that he rationalises being molested as a kid, but that’s his prerogative if that’s how he copes. But it’s not okay for him to try to say everyone else should be cool with it too.
Like you say, he was at boarding school in UK 1949 and it was unacceptable then as well!!
It’s pretty standard for aNoTheR ErA arguments to conveniently ignore the many people who weren’t okay with whatever it was at the time either.
I agree, but I also think the “it was another era, you can’t judge them” argument is bullshit no matter what era you’re talking about. Rape is rape and slavery is slavery. I’m not going to excuse a rapist or a slave master because “it was another time.” I absolutely judge those people.
I don’t care what era you lived in. If you were hurting people, I’m going to judge you for it. Hurting people should never be something acceptable.
I agree with you. And it always turns out not everyone was onboard at the time.
There were always people who were anti slavery, anti rape etc. Even egregious stuff like, say, Colombus on Hispaniola, there were other people from his own civilisation who thought he was terrible.
In fact when hurting people is a systemic thing there’s consistently a system built around making people ok with it, including doing their part of the perpetration
I mean if you go back marriage age was basically teenage years so I could see it. Don’t have to go back very far for 16 or 17 to not be to uncommon. Now if he is talking 12 I don’t think there is a historical period where that was cool although you could still be arranged at that point or such.
Outside of Spartan Greece, I don’t know of a time period where it would have been acceptable for a grown man to sexually abuse a boy. It wasn’t even acceptable for a grown man to do it to another grown man in general.
oh I was thinking just the age thing and what sexual maturity was considered. not so much the appropriateness of sex. But yeah usually it revolved around procreation and children and such.
Pretty sure he’s talking age 8-12, I had a glance at his bio and that’s how old he was when he attended the school in question.
Also, “young boy” normally means grade school age in British English not teenager.
yeah in the US to but nowadays im never sure especially when you don’t know what slant folks may want to put on things. Wow. 12 on the high side!
Fair point.
Yup, 8 to 12 and he somehow thinks it was okay and that people back then were just fine with it.
It’s the same shit though, just with emphasis on different parts. What a twat.
Sure, there are people that are largely normal yet still hold a Christian or Muslim faith, but then there are sects and cults of both that are oppressive and abusive.
Neither is “fundamentally decent”.
I agree
Dawkins calls out women’s and LGBTQ+ rights being a fundamental issue for all Islam
It’s a fundamental issue for a whole lot of the “fundamentally decent” religion too.
See multiple Christian countries in Africa.
Don’t pretend that Islam has a monopoly on bigotry and hate when it comes to religions.
All abrahamic religions are equally terrible on those issues. If you look at the fundamentalists they all believe the same. And there’s moderate wings of those religions that are better on those issues. The specific religion has little bearing on this. You can’t even claim there’s a relation to religion at all, even in the atheist USSR they went back and forth on those issues for political expediency reasons.
The context of the discussion was contemporary UK and in that respect Islam does have a worse problem even though, as part of the secular UK, almost all Muslims do not attempt to enforce their beliefs on the rest of society
If you look at the death toll in the present then no, they are not equal.
The death tolls are more tied to whichever empire happened to have a certain religion as its dominant religion as opposed to characteristics of the religion itself.
And then there’s the tricky bit of attribution. Were the crusades strictly driven by religion, or was it about control over trade routes? Is the British Empire a Christian Empire or was it more of a capitalist enterprise even if the head of state is also the head of the church? Was Mohammed driven by religious fervor when he started his conquests or was it imperialism? Was the genocide of the Rohingya done because of Buddhist teachings or because of a military junta trying to hold on to power? Do we start tallying the deaths by the Roman Empire under Christianity from 313 AD, or 323 AD? Can we just attribute what Israel is doing in Gaza to Judaism? Etc.
Honestly I wouldn’t even know which religion would be the most murderous if you looked at all of human history.
This guy has well and truly lost the plot. Sad to see, really.
He is right.
Atheists are murdered for being atheists in 12 countries.
All 12 are muslim.
That’s going to change pretty soon, if Donnyboy wins again. Saying that Muslims somehow have a monopoly on religious extremism is just ludicrous. Many Muslim countries, unfortunately are ruled by oppressive regimes that use religion as a tool of oppression. Incidentally (or not) a lot of those regimes are also the result of the US overthrowing democratic governments.
You cant be real.
Read this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostasy_in_Islam
12 Muslim states officially murder atheists. Zero Christian States. Or any other.
Dawkins is right and you are delusional.
That doesn’t address any of the points I made.
Oh well, a well-known figure in our community is an oddball. Really does not matter as he doesn’t have any authority to dictate the beliefs of atheists as would a Pastor or the Pope. One of the many perks of not having a hierarchy baked into your belief system. Nothing Dawkins says affects my beliefs beyond the simple matter of my opinion of the man.
His statements of Christianity being “fundamentally decent” has no effect on me considering it “fundamentally no better than Smallpox”, a view I hold toward religion in general.
im not sure why dawkins said this, but it’s a drop in the bucket compared to the atheism advocacy work he’s done
In the same way that “regular Christians” and “regular Muslims” need to denounce their idiots and evil doers, athiests need to do the same. It doesn’t matter if the individual holds no real power. If a public figure associated with your movement does wrong, failure to denounce it leads others to associate the ideas with the entire movement.
There’s a reason people associate Mormonism with polygamy, Catholics with pedophilia, and Muslims and evangelicals with their own flavors of religious fascism.
Fair enough.
I’m distinctly and expressly opposed to the downplaying of the exceptional harm done by religious faith and Christianity especially. It isn’t “fundamentally decent”, if anything it’s fundamentally abhorrent and antithetical to human well-being. As stated in my original comment it is no better than Smallpox, and to expand on it I believe that it should face the same fate as Smallpox.
I’m sorry, my reading comprehension is lacking today. What exactly is the author upset about?
Dawkins favouring Christianity over Islam? Islam not being given more rights in non-islamic countries? That all religions should be hated equally? Cultural nationalism? US batshit crazy fundamentalists? All of the above?
In particular, I find it a little silly that someone asking for their identity to be respected doesn’t like it when someone else would prefer their own cultural identity over others. More so when their argument against this is that only a few extremists in power killing people are at fault, while the rest are peacefully living their lives.
I get why the author would be upset with Dawkins, I understand it. But their exposition is seriously flawed.
I think he’s getting at how Christianity fundamentally teaches turn the other cheek and Islam teaches eye for an eye. Also there’s a lot of stuff about killing infidels which is selectively at odds with the living peacefully. Don’t really know though, happy to be enlightened
Christianity fundamentally teaches people: worship Jesus or else face an eternity of torture. Something Dawkins should be aware of when he calls it decent.
12 countries kill atheists today. All 12 Muslim.
What’s your point? That Christians are good because there aren’t any Christian countries in 2024 where atheist specifically aren’t given capital punishment?
All the murder and oppression in their god’s name as long as it doesn’t involve atheists is all that it takes to be “fundamentally decent?”
I thought hell as we know it with the fire pits and burning flesh was inserted in the Middle Ages to scare people, not by Jesus. I don’t think he mentioned it in that sense at all. Please someone tell me if this is wrong
There’s plenty of killing infidels on either side. Maybe Christianity already having passed several reformations might make it fundamentally more stable than Islam, but it depends on what the interpretation of fundamental is. Alternatively, the evolution of society when dominated by Christian beliefs over Islamic might seem more favourable to him. Perhaps not being stoned in the streets for promoting atheism might also be a deciding factor. Or maybe he likes churches, architecturally speaking.
There are multiple aspects that can be considered and i don’t know the guy well enough to say exactly what he means.
deleted by creator
Both sides are bad with their killing infidels. Christianity might not be as directly violent about it, but it has had its moments in recent history. Alan Turing is a famous enough example of the means and methods used in this direction. Less famous are native and minority sterilizations en masse backed by religious “charities”, the specifics of which i can’t recall at the moment.
Though eugenics isn’t behaviour specific to religion, it seems to require cult like beliefs in order to enact in large amounts. Nazi Germany, Russia under Stalin, China under Mao and maybe even now with the Uyghur, removing deviants isn’t something Christianity alone can claim ignorance of.
He’s right. Islam today is a much bigger threat to humanity than Christianity
I mean hes right in islam is more old testament. its closer to fundmentalist judeism than xtianity. But all the fundamendalist xstians are big on old testament to.
both are
I’m thinking dawkins is talking about the words in the books, not the actions of it’s peoples
I think Dawkins biggest problem is he doesnt know how to converse with people in the modern age.
Hes getting too old, we need to find him his relay partner to pass the baton to a new generation
He lied to me, just to read his books
I blame the stroke, tbh.
I heard he touched a poop for $20.
What a shock, atheists are subject to the same xenophobia that Christians are and people will go through tortious logical arguments to justify their irrational thoughts.
It’s almost like this is a basic human condition that must be overcome with effort.
Criticism a religion is no “xenophobia”
I’m sure it’s an absolute coincidence that the British raised man thinks the religion of the areas his people colonized is inherently barbaric then, huh?
He has very much described christianity in those terms at times. Hes just a tired old angry man
Where I live there were people that supported a law preventing government workers from wearing religious clothing/symbol. It was presented as “an effort to secularize the government”. The same people did not see the importance in removing the crucifix we have at the National Assembly because it was “part of our history”. More than that, some were openly against it. Can you see the hypocrisy and how that kind of law just happens to affect more Islamic people ? This is an example of underlying xenophobia. In the same way, I feel like Dawkins is clearly biased because he grew up in a nation were Christianity is more prevalent. Let’s just think about how in Poland, a predominantly Christian nation, blasphemy is still an offense that can get you to prison. How can that be seen as “decent” ? Or how currently in the US Christianity is used to repeal laws for abortions or LGBTQ rights ?
If it matters, I (and Dawkins) would support getting rid of crucifixes and disagree with Christianity being used to support any lawmaking or law-repealing.
It’s also worth noting that a European Christian is far less likely to be a bigot than an American Christian.
He has always been cringy
He did come across like that, yes. I guess in part because he’s prominently know for being an atheist, which is not much of an accomolishment in and of itself
For advocating atheism at a level of discourse not seen often. And for being an author of some very good books on the subject.
Hes done more for the cause of atheism in our time than most people will ever be as accomplished for anything. Him being an atheist is a fact that is well known about him, it iself is not what has given him prominence in our time
Oh and he coined the term meme.
And then theres all that stuff about evolution he was able to educate everyone on.
The evolution bit was Darwin, easy to confuse the names :p (I hope you were joking)
No i meant what i said. Im not sure you understand or you are joking and i honestly i think and i cannot tell which one so heres something for you to consider because i accept it the facts in question
The following list of publications by Richard Dawkins is a chronological list of papers, articles, essays and books published by British ethologist and evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins.
(Quote from Wikipedia. Most of my knowledge comes from what i remember on wikipedia but i dont have a lot of it memorized. For what its worth)
I wasn’t joking, I honestly didn’t know him as an evolutionary biologist because all public appearances I took a glance at were focused on his talking about atheism in a way that more often than not was hard to watch. So I would feel his unique selling point towards the (non-scientific) public were his debates regarding (a)theism.
And looking at the statement that this post is about, I feel that I was right to always see him as not really worth spending too much time on. :/
