An exchange with gods-denier Richard Dawkins on Twitter:
Richard Dawkins: "I do not believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose." - Clarence Darrow, 1930
Madame Arcati: I do believe in God because I do believe in cunnilingus.
Richard Dawkins: lol, I may have to RT that. This is the Twitter for www.RichardDawkins.com btw, I've run it since 1999.
24 comments:
“Cunnilingus”… adorable darling, you are so wicked. What is to RT?
I see you playfully called Carol McGiff a tart and told her to stop name dropping, but I think your message should have been intended for Richard Dawkins. It seems he can’t make his point without citing every atheist quote he has collected from thinkers along the way. I’ll use one of his quotes against his case: "If fifty million people say a foolish thing, it's still a foolish thing." - Bertrand Russell. It works both ways, dear Richard…
Can he convince us of the inexistence of a higher being by his own reasoning? Too bad I can’t think of who originally said there is more evidence that God exists than that He doesn’t; certainly, to me, the fact that all the energy that goes into a mind not just to function, but to CREATE goes nowhere when that brain stops working, is hard to accept.
I’m pretty sure that people like Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens are the same kind that would have gone "…prrrrft…no way!" 150 years ago when told that one day people could speak to one another around the world through tiny little devices they could put to their ears and that we would be able to send images around the globe for others to watch because there were forces capable of doing so… where do all these forces come from?
Sceptics always amuse me with their dedication to non-believing. But I've yet had one accept my challenge-a million $$ to the one who can definitevly prove there is no God or afterlife.
Dawkins' central weakness is that he knows little about religion. I had a conversation at a Julie Burchill salon recently (there I go, name-dropping) and I talked with this radio geek atheist. I said to him that he did not have the faintest clue what clairvoyance is. He replied: "I don't have to know, I just know it's rubbish." With that attitude, ships would still be toppling over the horizon.
Hitchens at least reads source materials but tries to hold anyone of faith to literal interpretation, as if he were in a school moot, scoring points. My enduring experience of highly educated worldly types who have rejected God at the age of 10 is their unbelievable vanity and arrogance. They make a god of themselves.
As I say repeatedly, atheism is a faith system. It requires a belief even if phrased in the negative.
As to the second anon, would that be Victor Zammit?
“[Hitchens]… tries to hold anyone of faith to literal interpretation…”
X-)) darling, that is exactly my perception of Hitchens!
The way he speaks you can tell he thinks we’re all asses who believe God is literally the old man in a robe with long white hair and beard, sitting in a huge marble throne in the clouds looking down at us over his shoulder and occasionally sending “punishments” .. but he (Hitchens) is so superior to us all, so beyond those archaic concepts… he’s the only one who has evolved… His puny brain can’t conceive anything beyond his material world. Makes me wonder where he thinks his own thoughts begin.
Poor man, every time I see him interviewed I can see he is very tormented by something… no wonder he is a drunk; if I knew what is eating him inside, I might also wish I could make myself numb.
Jesus Christ !..no I don't mean my hubby- just using the expression of shock. The old man said to me that these strange miracles would happen. When I posted my post and just checked this very moment to see if the good Madame had cleared it, the tale about Victor Zammit wasn't there and then suddenly pffttt !..it appears !
This is a clear demonstration that clairvoyance does exist ! Has anyone (like Uri Geller)offered a prize for such proof ? Afterall-we can't live on just bread and wine alone despite what that book says.
Calm down dear, it's only eternity. You'll see I've just put up something on Zammit. I used to giggle about him until I watched him on YouTube, now I'm quite a fan.
Your response to Dawkins is very clever - a match in logic but satirical as well.
What is RT then?
Yes puky, please. Do you know what is to RT? Darn internet acronyms: they drive me crazy; can't keep up with them.
RT is an abbreviation for ReTweet, which is like Repeat. It’s like forwarding, but for Twitters instead of emails. If you see something really cool from one of the people you follow, you may want to ReTweet it so that the people following YOU (and not the original person) can see it.
You've rephrased atheism into believing in the absence of god. I don't believe in some void, MA, just as I don't believe in some god that will fill that nonexistent void.
And no matter how many times you and your friends repeat that atheism is a belief system, it still won't be true.
Yes, atheism is a belief system simply because in the absence of knowing what we are essentially, whether there's a god or an afterlife, you opt for a view or belief. If you say you "know" there is no god or afterlife then you must cite your source(s) for this knowledge (as opposed to interpretations).
Many atheists I know vest their belief in humanistic values or science or both - but whatever the form, a view of the world is formed and so in effect you have another faith.
Obvious really.
What we are essentially? What dated sensibility is this? What we are essentially, Madame, is matter - animated matter, but matter.
I don't concern myself with the afterlife. Why would I? If my only two semantic options are belief or knowledge, then I concede that I subscribe to an absence of belief or knowledge. Even if that compromises a belief, one belief does not a system make, does it?
There we go, you have a belief system as I said. You say: "What we are essentially, Madame, is matter - animated matter, but matter." That's a statement of belief, fervently expressed may I say. You do not know whether we are more than matter, but you believe that humanity is not.
You seem also preoccupied with the vogueness of an idea: "What dated sensibility is this?" you ask. Is it that you worry about philosophical hemline lengths as you you journey through the ideas- catalogues (published by orthodox publishers, natch, not self-published) currently available in all good book shops?
Far from having an "absence of belief" you positively effervesce with beliefs and assumptions about life. You have all the symptoms of a priest, but one that is fashionably secular.
I give you a soapbox, gratis.
I effervesce? Actually, you seem to the foamy one. Did I touch a tender spot?
I'd congratulate you on generously providing a democratic forum of debate - except for two things: 1) it's free to you as well courtesy of Google and 2) you moderate comments.
I love my tender spots being touched - couldn't you tell? I suppose it is annoying to be challenged and corrected. But don't take it to heart - to err is human and I'm divine.
He wishes he had touched a nerve, MA darling - that is what he tried to do. He is all vovvered because we started by saying their kind tries to stop the search for knowledge and stunts progress, because they don’t trust in anything beyond their noses and he thinks that by saying our ideas are dated we will take his words seriously and engage in a silly game of “no, you are”. He wants to believe the notion of God’s existence is just for savages that don’t understand physical laws, rather than for those that, because we can and the more we do understand them, the more in awe we are of His creation.
Sit in your bum dear and think there is nothing else to look for spiritually. I for one know that God is present in my life here and now - not just the afterlife, which I don’t concern myself with either, because that is to be dealt with at that point. When I trust in Him the outcome of my everyday little enterprises, forces that seem extraordinary (coincidences - umhum) move me in the best direction (people keep telling me I’m so “lucky”; I know better, because I purposely look for enlightenment and somehow things happen).
But maybe you are right, Mr. Moving Matter: maybe not all of us are God’s children and made to His image (in mind and spirit), who knows; maybe some which we are trusting to be just like us are just “decoys”, just animated matter or one should say lumps in motion.
MA darling, did you really “moderate” someone - I would be very sad if that where true.
I find it funny that in the sermon you delivered, you accused me effervescent and priestly. Now you choose to see me as properly chastened. I don' feel corrected, and I'm certainly not standing in a corner.
Your sentiments are dated, in that way that all deism is or becomes dated. Zeus is no longer in fashion having been replaced with something, what?, christ? And he'll be replaced with something else in due time. Religion will exist so long as people need a crutch.
It's not a hemline issue for me. I don't read philosophy. I don't worry about the afterlife. I don't look to Hitchens or Dawkins or anyone for some affirmation about what I don't believe. You still cling to the idea that I'm filling some void where god ought--by your reasoning--to be.
Even if I concede (for the sake of argument) that the absence of a belief constitutes a belief unto itself, it's just one belief - not a belief system.
So sermonize away, Madame. I'm not converted.
Dear Anon (the spiritual one) - yes comments are moderated but not censored or edited. Either a comment goes up or it doesn't, and the main reason for blocking a comment is libel or tasteless abuse (tasteful abuse is fine).
Sometime back, a twat tried to drive Madame Arcati from Blog World by putting up a load of ads to a Nazi war site. The poor twat then started sending me threatening messages - I know who HE is and HE knows that if HE tries it on again I'll pass the matter onto the police (HE's a senior editor on a national newspaper who used a well known private investigator who specialises in the internet). The problem with journalists is thay they can't cope with criticism. The soul of many staff journalists is mindlessly fascistic - until they lose their jobs, that is, then they turn to New Age therapies to get over the trauma, and affect a humble mien.
Dear Anon (the godless one) - you're still preoccupied with the age of an idea, I see. I have never worshipped Zeus, or any named god, so I can't comment about that. However, you'll find that the Classics are still read and appreciated and no one's too concerned about the millennia that have elapsed.
I am confident that an analysis of your ideas would reveal a fully fledged belief system - you have already revealed all sorts of assumptions and prejudices about the world and what you think life is - an evaluation would simply join up the dots.
To MA:
If I'm making assumptions, I'm not the only one MA. You've jumped to loads of conclusions about me that simply aren't true. I trust you will hold to them unswervingly come what may.
Yes, the classics are read and appreciated, but not all the wisdom of the ages has held. You've heard of the Copernican Revolution, I trust? So much for perfect orbs in circular orbits... and so on. There you go, you've caught me sneaking in science. Once. No doubt you'll feel smug. (But isn't smug a constant for you?)
To Mr/Ms Spirituality:
Actually I wasn't trying to touch any tender spots. I only thought I might have because Madame seemed out of sorts. Not very Christian of you to believe the worst motives of me, is it?
It's a funny thing that we are both seen as lucky people. You attribute your luck to divine intervention; I attribute mine to hard work and human kindness. So it goes.
godless Anon
Plainly your spots are as tender as my own.
X-)) Tender! I’d say, MA Darling! …oooh you poor darling Mr. Matter,
You really think you are so clever by brandishing the “so you think you’re Christian” argument indiscriminately over something as inconsequential as this
debate. Got all upset over me being … what? too mean for you, sweetie? Can’t handle it? Tell us: what do you know of Christian teachings? Do you really know enough to make an analysis and show us the difference between having compassion - or human kindness - and attesting perception of a fact? Do you always turn all pouts like this over nothing? Is this why you disdain the concept of believing in God? Is it too hard for you to stop yourself from erm… believing that anyone that dares challenge your opinion cannot also be spiritual?
You know, I’m not one to assume (or believe?) too frequently, because although I cannot take responsibility for what it makes of someone I’ll probably (oops assuming!) never meet - as U -, for sure I can control what it makes of me. But, I’m going to make ONE assumption right now and think that your -repeatedly- trying to “touch a tender spot” with your arguments is not THE WORST motive you could hold - maybe I’m giving you too much credit, though.
Since you mention the Christ, I tell you this: you know, regardless of not wishing to ascribe yourself as a Christian, Jesus’ parables and the recounts of his reactions to his detractors’ attempts to defame him are very useful examples and advise - from someone very wise and clever himself - to confront many of today’s situations. I invite you, NOT to read the whole Bible at once (so that you could then say with authority “what a load of lies and manipulations” it holds - you may find that very boring, rather than “threatening“), but treat yourself to skimming through the four gospels, skip passages up to where it specifically quotes Jesus or relates his actions and reactions (they are quite secular, I promise); you may be very surprised by all the good advice you’ll get just by example and may be encouraged to move on to other parts of the Bible and understand why the word has such power over the outcome of most events. Try a more contemporary version though, not King James’, which may be a drag to follow
www.biblegateway.com/versions/
The English Standard Version may be much more entertaining.
On a side note, I don’t quite attribute my success to “divine intervention” as much as I attribute it to my willingness to be in touch with His power every minute of my LIFE and having the certainty that it is my confidence that tapping into it, empowers me to achieve the goals I set for myself, despite whatever negative influence I would have to deal with. God is a breathing living entity as is the Universe and we should understand Him as such.
MA darling, as usual I apologize for clogging your blog like this. I promise you I really try hard to be brief… but it's too much temptaaation! ;-)... oxox
My, my. You both assume I'm upset because I don't agree with you? It can't be that "plain" to paraphrase Madame, because it isn't so. (Yes, you'll maintain you're right and I'm lying. And since I'm godless I have no morality... yawn.)
But let me make this much clear to the Christian: I've read the bible. In fact, I spent my formative years steeped in religion. It just never took. Can't say I bothered to read the whole of your rant. It was tediously boring. Try making a point without writing a fucking novel next time.
Ta.
Upset? Never occurred to me. Perhaps you talk to yourself in the bath too much.
Post a Comment