Richard Dawkins mocks Christians for 'pretending' there's war on Christianity

[rug]

Top academic and atheist Richard Dawkins has mocked Christians in an extraordinary outburst on social media.



By CHARLIE BUCKLE
PUBLISHED: 12:52, Fri, Dec 30, 2016 | UPDATED: 17:33, Fri, Dec 30, 2016

The British scientist, who is famed for his atheist beliefs took to Twitter on Christmas Eve.

Writing to his 1.66million followers, the 75-year-old wrote: "Merry Christmas to anyone who might appreciate it, especially those Christians who enjoy pretending there's a "War on Christmas."

Some twitter users were quick to hit out at Dawkins for making a 'political' point during the festive season.

One twitter user wrote: "You can't even wish people a happy holidays without being petty. Come on, man. You're making secular folk look bad."

Another wrote: "You sound small and pathetic here. What alternative or anything have you offered that invents a similar good?"

Others raised the timing of the Berlin terror attacks during the festive season, one wrote: "Were the images of crushed Christmas trees and Christian corpses in Berlin not enough 'evidence' for you?"



http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/748479/Richard-Dawkins-pretending-war-on-christmas-christians

[Buckeye_Democrat]

1. Christians who whine about a "War on Christmas" remind me of some rich people...

complaining about "class warfare" against them.

Good grief.

[amuse bouche]

2. So true

And are these the same outraged "Christians " backing Disgusting Don?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

4. Excellent comparison... I'm more concerned about the war on people's minds.

[whathehell]

3. "Christians" don't believe that, only idiot Fox News watchers

and I'd say they're a miniscule proportion of world Christianity.

[griloco]

5. HEY! Stop it! Bill O'Reilly sez so and that's good enuff for me...

[guillaumeb]

6. A desperate cry for attention from the "professional" atheist?

And yes, small and petty well describes his comment. Is Dawkins the atheistic counterpart to the Christians who insist on throwing their Christian views at people?

[Goblinmonger]

7. So do you defend those who believe there is a war on Christmas?

Interesting that you go after the atheist here and not those that feel their Christmas is being attacked.

[guillaumeb]

10. My comment was directed against Dawkins.

The so-called war on Christmas is a rallying call. Which does not modify my opinion of Dawkins, or people like him who are as strident in their anti-theism as the Christians who would establish a theocracy in the US. Neither side shows any respect for people who differ from them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. So Dawkins makes the equivalent comment to your use of 'so-called'

but you think it's a problem when he makes it?

Here's a difference - Dawkins wishes people Merry Christmas. Not just this year, but regularly:

The writer and evolutionary biologist told singer Jarvis Cocker that he happily wishes everyone a Merry Christmas - and used to have a tree when his daughter was younger.

Dawkins, one of the most famous atheists in the world, was interviewed by Sheffield born Cocker when he stepped in as a Christmas guest editor on Radio Four's Today programme.

'I am perfectly happy on Christmas day to say Merry Christmas to everybody,' Dawkins said. 'I might sing Christmas carols - once I was privileged to be invited to Kings College, Cambridge, for their Christmas carols and loved it.

'I actually love most of the genuine Christmas carols. I can't bear Jingle Bells and Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer and you might think from that that I was religious, that I can't bear the ones that make no mention of religion. But I just think they are dreadful tunes and even more dreadful words. I like the traditional Christmas carols.'

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1100842/Why-I-celebrate-Christmas-worlds-famous-atheist.html

[guillaumeb]

14. As I said in my response, I object to what both sides are doing.

Intolerance by either side is a bad thing.

Condescension by either side is a bad thing.

SO I am not sure what motivated your comment, given that I already said I object to both sides doing it.

Allow me to edit to include my comment that you apparently objected to:

The so-called war on Christmas is a rallying call. Which does not modify my opinion of Dawkins, or people like him who are as strident in their anti-theism as the Christians who would establish a theocracy in the US. Neither side shows any respect for people who differ from them.

[muriel_volestrangler]

15. You're being condescending too, with "so-called"

Now, I think you're quite justified in being condescending, because those who claim there is a 'war on Christmas' are prats. But you are happy to condescend yourself, but you object when Dawkins does it.

[guillaumeb]

16. I disagree that it is condescension.

I said "so-called" because there is no real war on Christmas. That is simply a pretext to attack any who object to the right wing attempting to create a theocracy.

What I object to with Dawkins, and some few others on the non-theist side, is their apparent need to treat people of faith as simply too stupid to realize how stupid they are for having faith.

[AtheistCrusader]

17. Dawkins is a product of his environment.

I'm far younger than he, (and I didn't grow up in a monarchy with a state church) but I recall when a sitting US president questioned whether an atheist like me could be considered a patriot or even a citizen.

Some of us didn't appreciate decades of mistreatment.

Keep that in mind when you sling insults like 'strident' at him.

[guillaumeb]

20. I understand that atheists were, and still are, treated badly by some theists.

Does that excuse behaving similarly?

[AtheistCrusader]

25. I consider that false equivalency.

[guillaumeb]

26. And I do not. Either one is against intolerance or one is not. eom

[AtheistCrusader]

29. Yet you tried the 'intolerant of my intolerance' thing last week.

It didn't work.

[muriel_volestrangler]

19. So it's not the tweet you're objecting to, just the existence of Dawkins

which the tweet has reminded you of?

I suppose that does fit with your characteristation of him using Twitter as a 'desperate cry of attention'. Hundreds of millions of people use Twitter without you complaining, but Dawkins doing so is a 'cry for attention'. You'd rather he didn't use social media at all, so there's no chance you ever hear of him again.

[guillaumeb]

21. A reminder:

I said:

What I object to with Dawkins, and some few others on the non-theist side, is their apparent need to treat people of faith as simply too stupid to realize how stupid they are for having faith.

If you can find in this an objection on my part to the existence of Dawkins, or his ability to use Twitter, or his right to say whatever he wishes, you must be reading a subtext that I cannot find.

What I find in my comment is a criticism of his rude and ignorant attitude.

[muriel_volestrangler]

22. Yes, I think I can sum up your feeling as "just hearing 'Dawkins' makes me object to him"

because it's not the content of the tweet that's set you off, just the appearance of him in a crappy newspaper article. You actually have the same attitude that Dawkins expressed in the tweet (that the 'War on Christmas' is BS, and I agree with that too), but you still cannot help being anti-Dawkins, and posting about it. You complained that him using Twitter was a "desperate cry for attention". So, yes, you object to him ever using Twitter, even if he says something you agree with.

[guillaumeb]

23. Again, you are finding some sort of sub-text.

Perhaps because you are looking for one.

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. There's no other explanation for your attitude that I can see

You agree with the message in the tweet, but you object to Dawkins tweeting it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

8. "quick to hit out at Dawkins for making a 'political' point during the festive season"

Ha-ha.

Ha-ha.

Ha-ha. Ha-ha. Ha-ha. Ha-ha. Ha-ha. Ha-ha. Ha-ha. Ha-ha. Ha-ha. Ha-ha. Ha-ha.

My, the hypocrisy of those idiots 'hitting out' after years of Fox News, Donald Trump, and endless holier-than-thou fools who have explicitly made up the idea of the "War on Christmas" for political reasons is hilarious. No surprise it's the Express, the paper with the biggest mismatch between its actual morals and its own idea of its morals, that published this crap.

A good bit of mocking by Dawkins, though, aimed at exactly the right people.

[rug]

9. It's actually quite lame.

Hardly worth a Ha, let alone 26. Unless, of course, you're into the forced mockery he's so fond of.

[guillaumeb]

11. The multiple ha ha could have been a muscle spasm.

I get them some time.... time..... time..... times.

Whew.

[muriel_volestrangler]

12. "Hitting out" at Dawkins was lame, yes. That's why I laughed at it.

'Forced' mockery? What's 'forced' about it? Yes, the whiners who claim there really is a "War on Christmas" deserve to be mocked, especially when they hypocritically complain someone else taking the piss is being "political".

[hrmjustin]

18. I have my issues with him but I thought it was a good tweet.

The Fox News War on Christmas is bogus. My problem is with the commercialization of Christmas.

[okasha]

30. I agree with you on the commercialization.

Last time I was in Hobby Lobby--to which I am driven only by emergency--there was Halloween decor in one aisle, Thanksgiving in another, and Christmas trees and accessories in several more, obviously in mid-October. I grabbed my one sheet of necessary drawing paper and practically ran through checkout.

[rug]

31. That admission has been bookmarked somewhere.

[okasha]

32. I'm sure.

So I'll enter this as well.

1. My local Michael's no longer sells drawing papers other than Bristol. I use Canson's Mi-Teintes.

2. If I order through my regular supplier, I have to buy 10 sheets, and to get it next day is $30.00 shipping. Total bill ~$60.00.

3. I'm an artist, and when I need a certain material for an assignment, I fucking need it.

4. So to the bookmarker(s)--we all know who you are--find yourselves another hobby.

I'm sure the folks over at JPR will find this thrilling. Me, I find it thrilling that so many of them are gone.

[AtheistCrusader]

33. Since the two of you want to make such a big deal out of it

find another supplier, if HL's social agenda bothers you. If you feel 'self conscious' about who might be cataloguing that for later use... do business with people who are aligned to your values.

Yeah, it can be inconvenient, or additional money out of your pocket. So what.

What's more important to you?


At the very least, you can talk to the manager at Michaels and request they carry whatever you are looking for again.

[okasha]

35. Did you miss point 2, AC?

I have a regular supplier, namely Dick Blick Art Materials. Since Blick has no store in my state, let alone my city, I normally order online, and I keep a supply of materials I normally use on hand. Some things I might not have I can get at Michael's or a locally owned business. Usually this works pretty well.

When it doesn't, I steel myself against the horror, the horror, and spend three bucks at Hobby Lobby. The penance is built into the sin--I have to look at hundreds of pieces of kitschy pottery and sentimental wall hangings to get to the drawing paper.

[rug]

36. .

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Did you miss your point 1?

"No longer".

Implies they did. If they did, they can again if you can impress upon them a desire to purchase it.

It's ONE option out of many.

[okasha]

38. What makes you assume I haven't done this?

I have, and the manager told me that they have lost too much of their open stock to damage by customers or their kids. Since I have actually seen this--eg., footprints on the paper, irreperable creases, staining--I'm inclined to sympathize.

[AtheistCrusader]

39. I see what you're doing here.

You want to say 'I'm get things at hobby lobby, go ahead, make fun of me for it'.

Very clever.
There are always alternatives. If you didn't really care, you wouldn't have brought it up, and wouldn't feel self-conscious enough about it to go all 'herp derp bookmark it if you want'.

[okasha]

40. Uh, no.

It would have been a clever jab at a conspiracy theory, though.

Our minds don't seem to work alike, dear man.

[AtheistCrusader]

41. You're right. I don't do business with companies I deem to be reprehensible.

I don't 'need' anything, that much.

[okasha]

42. I hear buttons popping off your shirt.

[AtheistCrusader]

43. Wearing a Seahawks jersey at the moment.

Casual Friday.

I have no idea what your allegedly amusing comment is for.

[Runningdawg]

27. His tweet

was as snarky and classless as trumps holiday tweet.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. Why?

[DavidDvorkin]

34. Probably because kneejerk attacks are the standard response to Dawkins.