Skip to main content

Dawkins and the Jews

These are old news, but still interesting:

Dawkins: Jews Control US Policy

(IsraelNN.com) Professor Richard Dawkins, a senior British evolutionary scientist and outspoken atheist, drew fire on Monday for saying that Jews “more or less monopolize American foreign policy.” Religious Jews are a small group, Dawkins said, but are “fantastically successful” in lobbying the US government. Dawkins, who is currently in the US in an attempt to promote atheism and fight religious influence, expressed hope that atheists would be similarly successful in determining government policy.

A number of Jewish leaders responded immediately, with ADL head Abe Foxman calling Dawkin’s remarks “classic anti-Semitism.” Malcom Hoenlein, a senior official in the Conference of Presidents of Major American Organizations, was quoted by Yediot Acharonot as saying the statements represented “the poisoning of the elite.” Even top scientists can “demonstrate ignorance and fall victim to misinformation,” said Hoenlein, adding “This impact spreads within the intellectual community, and then trickles down to the general populace.”


I agree with Dawkins about the Jews.

But look at Dawkins's attitude.

What amazes me is not Dawkins's authoritarianism, it's his candid way to express it. Why should the majority of population -who believes in God- accept without opposition the imposition of an atheistic agenda? No wonder people fight against the imposition of the teaching of neo-darwinism in schools.

It's clear Dawkins doesn't believe in Democracy.

Comments

Jime said…
Dawkins has an authoritarian ideology. He wants a imperialism of atheism and scientism based on darwinian theory.

He should ocuppy himself to give scientific evidence of his "memetic" theory, that is a considered by experts as a non-scientific hypothesis:

http://science.jrank.org/pages/10160/Meme-Criticism-Memetic-Theory.html

Stephen Jay Gould used the concept of "darwinian fundamentalist", applied to Dakiwns:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1151

But Gould couldn't live longer to see that Dawkins' fundamentalism would excede the specific field of biology, and would have the same absolutist ideological pretentions on philosophy, religion studies, social sciences and other fields.

Popular posts from this blog

The Santa Claus Argument

"There's no reason to believe in God" says the atheist, "there's no evidence of his existence".

"But what is the evidence that God does not exist" replies the theist. "Sure you have faith that God does not exist".

"I don't have to provide evidence that God does not exist more than the evidence I have to provide to show that Santa does not exist. If you are congruent and reject the existence of Santa you should also reject the existence of God. Where's the proof that Santa does not exist?”

Such is a line of reasoning popular among atheists. I call it "the Santa Claus argument". It conveys the idea that God is a fiction character.

But what is the basis of this idea?

It seems to be based in the idea that God does not exist. But if this is the case, this argument (sic) is question begging, because this is precisely the issue at stake.

Some atheists seem to imply that God does not exist because the concept of God is a human c…

Abiogenesis and the atheist's faith

Taken from this forum.

Everyone has some faith in an ultimate something that cannot be substantiated solely by physical evidence.

Atheists have faith in naturalism alone - their faith is nakedly exposed in topics such as the origin of life or, as they term it, abiogeneis. Abiogenesis is the idea that life originated from non-living matter in the sense that it arose naturalistically. The naturalistic (and therefore “scientific”) concept is that life ("bio") must have originated ("genesis") without ("a-") any outside help.
Life, ALL BIOLOGICAL LIFE anywhere in the universe, ultimately either arose naturally or supernaturally. So, ultimately, there are really only two alternatives.

With abiogenesis, atheists must ulimately rely upon the "unknown process" of the gaps in contrast to the theists' so called "God of the gaps" argument (a criticism of ID). The reason this explanation is not any better than their own sarcastic carature of God,…

Ten reasons why God is different than Santa Claus

Santa is an intentional fiction. God is seriously believed to exist.

Santa's existence is irrelevant for the universe's existence, but if God exists she is the foundation of all existence.

Santa is a contingent being, he could or not exist. If God exists, she is necessary, she could not not exist.

Santa's existence is falsifiable. God's existence is not.

God's existence is an issue of serious reflection for unbelievers. Santa's is not.

Many famous people of high intellectual caliber believe in God. There's no serious intellectual known for her belief in Santa.

There are different kind of arguments that seriously pretend to support the case for God's existence. No such arguments exist for Santa.

God's invisible and inmaterial. Santa is not.

Belief in God is a basic tenet of many religious organizations. There is no organization known to defend belief in Santa.

There is no philosophical basis for belief in Santa, but there is for God.

See also:

The invisible pin…