Richard Dawkins Makes ISIS Stronger

Richard Dawkins could not wait to use the terrorist attack in Paris as an excuse to preach his culture wars agenda:


I see.  So over a hundred people have been murdered in Paris because of…..”religion”.  And “faith.”

If you ask me, Dawkins and the New Atheists are actually supporting and strengthening radical Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS.  How?

At a time in history when those of us who are part of Western civilization should stand united against the threat of ISIS and its allies, Dawkins tries to divide us.  By blaming “religion” and “faith,” Dawkins is simply trying to exploit this horror to generate more support for his simple-minded, anti-religious bigotry.  And in doing so, he sows seeds of division which make us weaker. 

Remember the old saying – United we stand, divided we fall.  In their attempt to shift blame to score points for the culture wars battle, the New Atheists divide and weaken us, and thus end up supporting and strengthening radical Islamic terrorist groups like ISIS.

Shame on Richard Dawkins and his allies.

This entry was posted in New Atheism, Richard Dawkins and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Richard Dawkins Makes ISIS Stronger

  1. Kevin says:

    If an atheist had to use his brain and be specific instead of saying “religion”, it would undercut 95 percent of his arguments.

  2. TFBW says:

    Dawkins is staggeringly oblivious to the fact that the black-and-white “THEY are EVIL” extremism to which he gravitates is rather more central to the problem of human conflict than any religious consideration. Then again, if you suffer from that kind of black-and-white thinking in the first place, it’s usually accompanied by confirmation bias so strong that it produces relativistic space-time distortions in its vicinity. In this case, the fact that some people associated with a particular religion committed an atrocity acts as confirmation of Dawkins’ singularity-belief, “religion is evil.” This produces a kind of truth event horizon, making all other observations about the subject (no matter how reasonable) appear as desperate, desperate, DESPERATE attempts to avoid acknowledging this one mother-of-all-truths, which blots out the sun, moon and stars with its sheer obviousness.

  3. Jakeithus says:

    You’re conpletely correct on this one. This is not simply a fight between people or nations, it is a fight between ideologies, worldviews and what gives life meaning. The fact of the matter is that our secular, materialistic, individualistic, nihilistic worldview has not proven it is capable of defeating Islam in this war of ideas, let alone at even inspiring its adherents to fight the battles in the first place. Dawkins might believe that you can divorce western civilization from its Christian roots and end up with something stronger, but we’re less than 50 years into that experiment and the results aren’t all that great.

  4. Shecky R says:

    The strength of ISIS is simply the end result of the asinine policies & incompetencies of GW Bush, President Cheney, Paul Wolfowitz, and Richard Perle.

  5. The irony is that the meme says atheist republic. Those are, without fail, very violent. After all, early republican France slaughtered Catholics like it was its job.

  6. mechanar says:

    You are 100% Right on this one. This is what guerilla warfire is all about to Provoke a Overreaction of goverments and its people in order to start a war.Its a form of taichi using the strengh of your enemy against him. This is EXACTLY what the terrorists want.

    its funny and sad that these self proclaimend warriors of reason are so easy manipulated. Shame on them indeen for falling for such a simple trick. But the most depressing part is it is not “Us” who will suffer the most from this attackt its the muslim/arabic/foreigner having to apologise for people they have never met and did not know. It will be now interesting what will happen in the coming years when such events will happen again. If the new atheist will remain a toothless tiger or if they will start activley support an actual “war on religion” and become warmongers the Idea is not far fetchetd considering some new atheist leaders spoke about neo nazo groups on europa as “The only ones how say how it is”

  7. Dhay says:

    Back in 1968 the British Tory politician and racist, Enoch Powell, delivered his infamous “Rivers of Blood” speech in Parliament. It’s a long speech, so I’ll cut it down to just two brief key sentences which, rightly or wrongly, summarise the speech for me – and, I think, for most of my compatriots also.

    In this country in 15 or 20 years’ time the black man will have the whip hand over the white man.

    As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see “the River Tiber foaming with much blood.”

    Why raise that, and here? Well, if we look at Sam Harris’ 2009 paper, The Neural Correlates of Religious and Non-Religious Belief, we find in its Introduction:

    While most developed societies have grown predominantly secular, with the curious exception of the United States, orthodox religion is in full bloom throughout the developing world. Indeed, humanity seems to becoming proportionally more religious, as the combination of material advancement and secularism is strongly correlated with decreased fertility. When one considers the rise of Islamism throughout the Muslim world, the spread of Pentecostalism throughout Africa, and the anomalous piety of the United States, it becomes clear that religion will have geopolitical consequences well into the 21st century.

    There doesn’t seem to be any point in Harris’ making this side-remark, particularly in a paper on neuroscience that goes on to conclude that ‘belief is belief is belief’, ie that the brain of a Christian pressing Yes looks like the brain of an atheist pressing Yes; and with the obvious implication that had Harris run the experiment with different subjects eg Republicans and Democrats and with appropriate political questions substituted for the religious ones, the paper would have achieved the very same results and conclusions, though it could then have been entitled The Neural Correlates of Political and Non-Political Belief.

    Or The Neural Correlates of Philosophical and Non-Philosophical Belief, or The Neural Correlates of Partizan and Non-Partizan Belief, the conclusion being so general that any variant of belief that induces binary polarised responses – even which of two sports teams and their players and playing style etc are the best – any such variant could have been used instead of the Christian/atheist religious divide, making the actual choice of a religious divide somewhat irrelevant to the result conclusion and introduction, and the quoted side-remark about the growth of the two religions also somewhat irrelevant.

    Because the side-remark is so irrelevant, it has stuck in my mind as odd; but in the light of Harris’ anti-Christian and especially his anti-Islamic stance, his fears that those nasty religious people will breed and take over the world, probably violently, the sentiments implicit in Harris’ quote above – showing what is so omnipresent in Harris’ mind that it creeps even into a science paper – look to me rather like Powell’s racist “Rivers of Blood” sentiments.

  8. @Dhay, thanks for the info. Sam Harris doesn’t seem well to me. I think Michael shared an article once which featured him talking about self defense gun ownership, etc. Neither of these things are offensive, but he came across as very paranoid. Of course he has a giant ego. Part of me wonders if he doesn’t revel in religious violence, as he’s the go to guy for days on end.

  9. Dhay says:

    Let’s change the wording slightly on Dawkins’ tweeted meme (see the top link in the OP):

    If you don’t like atheist fundamentalists, then maybe there’s something wrong with atheist fundamentals

    I am minded to alter the wording because of the billboard posters that Sam Harris and his promoters wanted to put up — or claimed they wanted to put up, for I’m sure (see below) that it was a stunt to get free publicity — ahead of Harris’ January speaking tour of Australia. The posters were deliberately offensive, so offensive that they easily transgressed the Outdoor Media Association’s code of ethics — which states ads cannot include material that vilifies religion — and then transgressed some again. Take a look:

    Harris and his tour promotion company are playing the role of ‘poor innocent little me’ who, er, genuinely wanted a few mildly controversial posters displayed, except a huge and horrible backlash by bigots who somehow found out about it has prevented Harris & co from doing so, to Harris & co’s surprise and dismay, and contrary to their rights to free speech.

    But no, the proposed posters were deliberately and provocatively and cynically over-the-top, knowing that that way Harris & co would never actually need to print them or to rent billboard space at the appropriate expense to themselves; and also knowing that following a cynical pre-planned complaint to the media about how badly they had been treated, the media would then plaster copies of the posters in every newspaper and TV outlet that would run run with this carefully manufactured-to-be-newsworthy story, cost again nil; if you think about it, even the comments the media sought from religious and humanist spokespeople were free publicity.

    Harris and his promoters are horribly cynical but expert media-savvy media manipulators. They have used the media buzz to create awareness of and discussion of Harris and his talks in a large section of the Australian population — for free — the dates and locations of the talks publicised — for free — their ghastly advert posters displayed in newspapers etc as part of the “story” — again for free.

    The people who are offended don’t, of course, matter at all to Harris — these are the people who were never going to pay to listen to him anyway — but he has expertly got his atheist fundamentalism to the attention of that atheist fundamentalist target audience who will pay to attend.

    I have to say that it’s very clever of Harris to achieve such a splash of publicity for free; that must boost the profits of the tour by quite a bit; it’s a very cynical media-savvy ploy whereby Harris and the promoter have managed, without spending any money whatsoever on poster printing and billboard rental, to splash the offensive posters and talk-tour advertising all over Australian newspapers and media, for free.

    It’s very clever — but doesn’t it just highlight just what a media creation and media-manipulator Harris is; and also how greedy and unscrupulous he is: as part of promoting and publicising his speaking tour, he has deliberately set out to offend as many people as possible and as strongly as possible — to maximise the tour’s profits.

    Personally, I feel the posters vilify Harris, together with anyone who could be swayed by the posters into attending his talks.

    Sam Harris, media personality indeed.

    Which brings me back to my start:

    If you don’t like atheist fundamentalists, then maybe there’s something wrong with atheist fundamentals

  10. TFBW says:

    From the article to which Dhay linked, above:

    Think Inc organised Mr Harris’s tour and the $20,000 billboard advertising campaign. Founder Desh Amila denied the billboards vilified religion.

    “We were quite surprised,’’ he said.

    “One can be offended by them but it is a personal opinion. We want to involve people in intellectual dialogue, not vilify,’’ he said.

    Riiiiight. Personal opinion. Involve people in an intellectual dialogue. I’d like to express my personal opinion and involve Sam Harris in an intellectual dialogue along the same lines. My proposed billboard text is, “Q: Why are Sam Harris books useless as toilet paper? A: Because they’re already full of shit when you buy them.” Do you think this is offensive enough that they’ll be refused, and I can get free press coverage for being censored instead of paying for them? Bonus points if you can suggest a way in which I can personally make a lot of money in the process.

  11. FZM says:


    If an atheist had to use his brain and be specific instead of saying “religion”, it would undercut 95 percent of his arguments.

    I can’t see this happening… Having a very general and vaguely defined concept like ‘religion’ (probably discussed in opposition to other vaguely defined and open ended concepts; ‘science’, ‘reason’ etc.) is too useful, perhaps necessary, for many of their arguments.

  12. Will says:

    Thank you, Michael, for unashamedly providing another example of religious motivation behind intelligent design. While Behe and others were silent or tacit about these religious undercurrents (not explicitly saying the designer is God while not denying it), you have truly shown what has been in your heart: pure fanaticism, bigotry and condescension towards those who do not believe as you do, that is, towards atheists. From this motivated reasoning the flower of intelligent design blooms, though it turned out to be one of those plastic flowers you buy at Wal-Mart. Thanks again and God bless.

  13. Dhay says:

    Presumably this response is targeted at the Shadow To Light blog as a whole, rather than to this particular post.

    We learn from your response that you don’t like Michael’s variant of Intelligent Design. It’s an intellectually respectable form, which even atheists such as Elliott Sober can accept fits the facts. You’ll just have to learn to live with that.

    This blog focuses not on atheists as such but on those “New Atheists” who have truly shown what has been in their hearts: pure fanaticism, bigotry and condescension towards those who do not believe as they do, that is, towards religious people. You’ll just have to learn to live with that.

  14. Kevin says:

    This appears to be a classic case of yet another Internet atheist who loves to criticize religion but can’t handle his own beliefs being scrutinized, and therefore is seeing boogeymen bigots where there are none.

  15. TFBW says:

    Will said, “thank you, Michael, for unashamedly providing another example of religious motivation behind intelligent design.” His comment demonstrates a desperate desire to find refuge in the embrace of a genetic fallacy which relates to nothing in the original post. Apparently Will “reasons” along the lines of, “I can find a religious motivation for something that you said, therefore I can dismiss without further analysis anything that you say.” Ironically, the main purpose of this blog is to point out such garbage “reasoning” among those atheists who posture as paragons of rationality, so I guess his comment is a positive contribution after all — add it to the pile.

  16. Michael says:

    you have truly shown what has been in your heart: pure fanaticism, bigotry and condescension towards those who do not believe as you do, that is, towards atheists.

    Classic case of projection. “Pure fanaticism, bigotry and condescension towards those who do not believe as you do” is a pretty good description of New Atheists, not me. Keep in mind, Will, that I distinguish between atheists and New Atheists. Also, in previous postings, I have acknowledged that atheism is a reasonable position. Can you or Dawkins reciprocate and acknowledge that Christian theism is a reasonable position?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

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