Dawkins Calls Pope 'Stupid'

The ineffably wise, knowledgeable and profound theologian, Professor Dawkins

Courtesy of The Telegraph

Professor Dawkins, the prominent biologist and atheist, said that Benedict XVI would have blood on his hands if his beliefs were followed by Catholics around the continent.

Speaking at a university in Spain, he said: "I wonder on what basis anyone can say condoms make Aids worse. The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim. If people take his words seriously he will be responsible for the deaths of thousands, perhaps millions of people."

Prof Dawkins, 67, was speaking at a press conference at the University of Valencia after having been awarded an honorary degree. He also urged people to think for themselves on the subject, adding that the more they did, the less they were likely to believe in God.

Dawkins, mate...

1. Pope Benedict XVI believes that if men and women lived in accordance with Church teaching, in a monogamous relationship that respects the sanctity of marriage, in service of each other and their families, that the HIV/AIDS crisis would be greatly reduced.

2. Pope Benedict XVI believes that condoms promote sexual promiscuity and that HIV/AIDS is a sexually transmitted disease spread by sexual promiscuity.

3. Therefore Pope Benedict XVI believes that the HIV/AIDS problem in Africa, far from being worsened by Church teaching, would, in fact, be reduced. There is nothing 'stupid', 'ignorant' or 'dim' in what Pope Benedict XVI believes, nor does the Pope have 'blood on his hands', since if men and women took his words seriously, sexual promiscuity and therefore the rate of HIV/AIDS infection would decline drastically.

All this is coming from a man who donated vast sums of money to a bus advertising campaign for the British Humanist Association with the slogan, "There's probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life." This is a slogan which is 'stupid', 'ignorant' and 'dim'. Why?

This is why...

1. As long as God 'probably' does not exist, it is not a conclusive, immutable or provable fact.

2. There remains therefore the stark possibility that He does exist. Scientifically speaking, this possibility cannot be even empirically calculated or verified.

3. If God does not exist then death for each human being, one can assume by the slogan, is the end and there is no life beyond or after death. If God does not exist then death is still something of deep concern to the human psyche for there is no future beyond death and the human person is extinguished utterly. Death has been a great worry for generations of men and women and the absence of God has not eradicated the fear of death. Therefore, death itself, is still a 'worry'.

4. If God does exist, the slogan connotes that there is something to worry about should His existence be a reality.

5. If God does exist, and the 'worry' described in this slogan concerns Death, Judgment, Heaven, Purgatory or Hell, then the slogan has misinformed countless souls into error in suggesting that there is no God and no Judgment at the end of our lives. If men and women followed the advice of the slogan and lived by its moral relativism and heresy and departed from this life in final impenitence, then the slogan has possibly contributed to the damnation of countless souls spending eternity in Hell. Who, then, has 'blood on his hands', Professor Dawkins, if He does exist? And if He does exist, how many people is your book, 'The God Delusion' leading into error, heresy and possibly damnation, Professor Dawkins? I'd say it was 'thousands, perhaps even millions of people.'


Jo Flemings said…
Bravo! I can't stand that guy!
Henry said…
Does Dawkins exist? Where is the evidence?
Joe S.R. said…
But...But.. If you don't think about it , it makes sense! Just accept Dawkins face value.
pogperson said…
I share many of your beliefs, but I also know how they look to people who don't share them. You think you're making a rational argument, but you're not doing so in any accepted scientific method. You haven't proven your case, nor can you. Your case depends upon shared belief and, to a person who does not have that belief, your statements seem deluded because you cannot back them up with anything that constitutes scientific proof. Now, I mean this in the sense that, if a scientist wants to find out whether God exists, he asks for proof that will hold up in a laboratory and that can be repeated at will under the same conditions and by anyone. To a scientist, other "evidence" of God is just anecdotal stories and urban myths. Our ancestors wrote other books besides the Bible that were considered as holy books, but we have no trouble dismissing as untrue all those which aren't the ones we've chosen. Yet others believe in them with all their hearts and souls. For myself, I don't waste my time trying to convince scientists of things that lie outside the realm of science. Nor do I mind in the least when they find my beliefs faulty by scientific standards. I don't see any reason why people who are opposed to religion should censor their own words so as not to offend against people holding views they think are wrong and harmful. As a person who, as I already said, shares many of your views, I take exception to the attitude that in the marketplace of ideas, religion gets a free pass and doesn't have to present its arguments through the ordinary tools of debate. You want an unfair advantage, which is to say that, while others make reasoned arguments based on logic and the scientific method, your argument is always the same: "allow us, peacefully, to practise ours (our religion)." In other words, don't speak up against it or argue against it in the newspapers, or employ any of the means one uses when one is opposed to something and believes it to be wrong. Don't do those things, because we're a religion and we get a special pass. What you really need to understand is that people who are opposed to religion believe that it is false and wrong, and they believe it is their duty to oppose it - just as YOU would oppose, for instance, slavery or child abuse. I do NOT compare religion to these things, I'm merely using them as an example of things people believe are wrong and which they don't think should get a polite pass, even though many people do not agree. Every Christian church evangelizes, and uses enormous amounts of money and energy to persuade others to their belief. Yet, you think those who oppose religion should refrain from doing the same kind of evangelizing for their lack of belief. They have every right to oppose you with the best arguments they can make. I suggest you let it go and don't engage them, because on purely logical grounds you will lose. Your arguments make clear that you don't understand science. Religion cannot argue with science because they have no way to actually talk about the same things.
Michael Petek said…
Can someone tell me why Darwinian natural selection hasn't eliminated Richard Dawkins?
Physiocrat said…
Give it time, Michael.