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.
He congratulated Barack Obama, the US President, for having overturned a ban imposed by his predecessor, George W. Bush, on state funding for stem cell research.
Prof Dawkins, who recently stepped down as the Professor for Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, is renowned for his strident views
Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived.
~ Oscar Wilde
The Telegraph article didn’t get it quite right; as Richard himself points out in the first comment on the thread here;
http://richarddawkins.net/article,3697,Richard-Dawkins-says-Pope-is-stupid,Telegraph
Go Prof!!!
The pope should be charged with crimes against humanity for what he said regarding condoms! Hang him now dammit!
You gotta love Dawkins (even with the crazy eyes in that picture)
Pope is apparently going to visit Ireland next year… start organising the protest now!
I like how Dawkins is apparently the “strident” one, when spokespeople for the Catholic Church act like this regarding the issue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUuUxe8mfCM
I agree with what Dawkins said – the title of the article gives the wrong impression. I’d love to see anti-pope campaigns on buses!
Jesh!! Go Ricky!! Smack that pope
“The Pope is either stupid, ignorant or dim” -> me likes
“Prof Dawkins, [ ... ], is renowned for his strident views”
People keep saying that, but it\’s simply not true. There is nothing at all strident in Dawkins’ views. But if the papers keep printing it, it will eventually become true by repetition.
I agree with him on a lot of things but wish he’d be a bit calmer about it. People listen more when you aren’t ranting at them. I know it’s all rantworthy stuff but you’re just playing into people’s hands if you just get angry, it makes it much easier for them to dismiss you.
BB; one comment;
It’s not HOW he says it that irrational people turn away from and close their ears to, it’s what he is saying. The ‘Dawkins is strident’ meme really only equates to a five year old going ‘I’m not listening la la la la la’ and sticking their fingers in their ears.
When people complained to Frank Zappa about the names he gave his children, his response was ‘It’s not their first names that will ever get them in trouble.’
Ok, I know we\re on the same side of the argument here, but the title of this blogpost is link-bait of the highest degree. You even put it within quote marks! Can\t really blame Telegraph for getting it wrong.
My problem with Richard Dawkins is that he generally ridicules people for having an opinion he disagrees with. He’d get a lot further by presenting arguments in a logical fashion without belittling. So, whilst I don’t disagree with him per se, for that reason – I’m out.
AllanW, I agree that irrational people turn against him because of what he’s saying. But the rational, undecided people can get turned off because of how he is saying it. I agree with what I’ve read of him, but I just wish he’d do it in a more calm way like Derren does (for example in Messiah), then perhaps those people on the fence about the subjects he covers wouldn’t just get immediately put off and would listen to him more.
When have you seen him ridicule people? I’m genuinely curious. I’ve read the God Delusion, Ancestor’s Tale and Selfish Gene and in the latter two I noticed a bit of an obsession with creationism, but he never came across to me as mocking instead of simply disagreeing. You could say that arguing that the Pope might be “a bit dim” is ridiculing him, but he’s a public figure who is not only completely ignoring factual evidence, but has life and death influence in some of the poorest parts of Africa. He kind of deserves a little bit of harshness.
When I saw Enemies of Reason, it was more like the other way around – people yelled at the guy and he’d just stand there taking it while occasionally trying to interject something like “yes, but DNA doesn’t have twelve strands.” Some Dawkins fans can be quite nasty to people and lack sympathy for their positions, though.
I don´t see why people try to demonize Richard Dawkins? Calling him Harsh or strident….the things he say are Utmost Subtle Chosen but the truth in his words are what might make it sound rough for ´the not so truthfull at heart´…..
´´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.´´
On basis of this, i can only say that:
Scientifically seen, Richard Dawkins is only stating facts and that the title of the article is strident, not so subtly choosen … above all deceitfull and left vulnerable to other interpretations which some do really like to walk of with…
I think the pope is mental and dangerous for stating what he did and the excuses he makes each time, dont stand for anything anymore…
Just to say, I’m not demonizing him at all, I agree with him. Also I agree that the Pope is a dope.
I envy Michaelangelo… an openly gay man who somehow managed to persuade the then pope to have his residence plastered from top to bottom in blatantly homoerotic imagery. Even the women on the Sistine chapel ceiling are modeled on male models with a couple of oranges down their blouses! Check out the size of the shoulders compared with the size of the hips.
Trannys and gay people featuring in one giant mural as a major selling point of the most right wing catholic institution in the world! That’s the power of persuasion in action! Perhaps he had some selacious gossip on the pope to use as leverage. The last word in irony…
I know someone else connected to this site with similarly persuasive powers, and a talent with a paintbrush! I think we could add some condoms to those male figures. Just a suggestion!
Round of applause for Prof Dawkins!
I would like to remind you all that the pope is infallible.
Peter H- For a moment there I thought you said the pope was ‘inflatable’.
I think that would actually be a huge improvement. You could take him in the swimming pool, use him as an airbed, and when he gets too full of hot air, you let him down roll him up and stick him in the attic.
It must be the only gap I know of in the crowded marketplace of tacky Vatican souvenirs! We should patent it now, split the prophets 50/50.
Dawkins looks like he is overdue for a haircut.
I thought he said inflammable…
The pope is a figurehead to a belief system that is failing to serve the changing needs of human evolution and society. He is not a \’dope\’ even though the rhyme is attractive.
People can tire quickly of a fanatical ranter, (as with religion & non- religion). I’m all for well thought out reasoning when point making, (Yay Derren’s post), but to turn to insults and slants makes me not want to take his views seriously. I’m with Giant Alex on this one.
SGC – It’s quite possible for him to be both inflammable and inflatable if you fill him with hydrogen!
Yeh, the old ‘Strident atheists are turning moderate people away from the arguments’ canard. Try a little something from Canadian philosopher George Williamson;
‘It seems quite clear that in the eyes of many, including some atheists, the only acceptable way to be an atheist is to shut up about it and not disturb believers’ complacent presumption of their unassailable metaphysical and moral position, their conviction that anyone who could oppose governance by their religious principles must surely be beyond the pale, if not actually evil.
The new atheists’ principal fault would seem to be failure to abide by this. But there has never been a congenial relationship between believers and non-believers to be spoiled. The fault for this, though, must belong to religion, given its historical track record for aggression toward dissent. Maybe the new atheists are arrogant, but so far, no one has been burned at the stake for apostasy from reason. ‘
http://richarddawkins.net/articleComments,3703,Atheists-should-be-allowed-to-argue-their-case,George-Williamson,page1#359276
Flapjack: I thought the old-skool Vatican was meant to burn heretics, not be burned by them. This new order of things is confusing.
Saying the pope is infantile is a slander on the intelligence of three year olds.
I agree, not strident … i dont know how many people have said the same already. The media is not worthy reading quite often any more. I truely wonder what they are seeing while writing their pieces … bored stiff with their job and therefor writing a lot but the truth …still thinking it is the public that otherwise wont read it whereas it is nowadays them theirselfes .. the journalists … who cant see it clearly anymore ..
Anyhow .. some people will only believe in those quoted words from vips, not when they are being said by ‘normal’ people .. so maybe they will be able to turn a few more minds to the right side ..
SGC – it’s really quite straight forward. Remember the Hindenberg airship? My proposed inflatable/ inflammable pope is quite a similar concept, except the Hindenberg was originally adopted by the Nazis and full of hot air, whereas the pope… oh wait… I’ve lost my train of thought.
Oh, Flapjack. Never change.
Just to say @BB…i didnt mean you, your point is clear as cake too…just goes to question when you deal with life and death issues if it is a wishfull thing to do, to be clear or to be persuasive…the later is excellent but better left for another arena if you ask me….
I do agree with Dawkins on this one. The Pope is a bit… fucked!
[...] Manual (OK, now THAT’s funny); Lancet Scolds Pope’s Idiocy; Catholicism Kills; Richard Dawkins Says Pope is Stupid Whilst Looking a Bit Mental ; Pope sticks to script in Africa – Dogma More Important Than Lives; Catholic Church’s Hypocrisy [...]
@Giant Alex – I haven’t read a whole lot by Dawkins but I am in the middle of the God Delusion now and I think I’ve seen some of what you’re getting at. While I wouldn’t characterize what I’ve read thus far as ridicule, he certainly does take some opportunities to exaggerate the rightness of his point and the wrongness of the opposite one. And to say that if someone disagrees with you, they must be “stupid, ignorant, or wicked” is certainly dismissive.
It’s not the way that I like to present an argument, but I agree pretty wholeheartedly with just about every syllable the man utters. For me, this outweighs the differences in communication styles and I declare myself on board.
My respect for him has improved. And to think I thought at times he gave atheists a bad name, Well done, well done, Kudos and congratulations Richard! Finally, someone hasn’t let him get away with ‘murder’ and homophobia just becasue he’s the pope. I am thankfull, and I only hope that the pope (ryme! yay) listens to him, even though they share no common grounds as such..
ugh-look at this =gif, it is from a documentry called “jesus camp”- its scary> this is the effect celebrating Jesus Christ does to these kids :/
http://i43.tinypic.com/1zb8eq1.jpg
the lizards head has been added as a joke
I don’t agree with the Pope on this issue but doesn’t he have some sort of point? Condoms aren’t fool-proof, STDs can be (albeit rarely) transmitted through them. The existence of a contraceptive system encourages people to be more sexually active. The more people you have having sex increases the rate at which AIDs can be transmitted which then increases the number of adults and children that are infected and then you have an escalating problem. Condoms probably have decreased the rate at which the disease has spread but it hasn’t got rid of the problem and it won’t. It’s a band-aid solution. Until we get proper medical treatment and general sexual education through those communities heavily effected by AIDs will we see some remarkable difference. And this is already happening and what’s sad it’s that it’s funded by local community groups not foreign aid organisations. It’s simply easier to hand out condoms. The more condoms we hand-out the more we validate the spread of the disease. In my opinion anyway.
well said emily- i get what you are meaning with that- ppl have to remember that condoms arent foolproof, I have heard a lot splitting in the small group of pals i have, and luckily these are ppl in serious relationships. I know I couldnt risk having sex with a condom with ppl with whom I didnt know if they had any STD’s or HIV- and I can never get over how ppl can take that risk- is a fuck worth dying for? This is how I can never get over ppl having one night stands with ppl they met down the pub/club etc- madness!
lol – such an accurate description.
Christopher Hitchens memorably said that the abstinance school of sex education is like the “hold it in” school of potty training. Impractical and as can be seen across Africa, potentially dangerous. How the Catholic church has the gall to suggest that only condoms make people sexually proliferate is a mark of how out of touch with reality and human nature they are.
I remember Derren himself explaining his tube experiment by saying “If I tell you not to think of a black cat, what’s the first thing you think of?” The Catholic church goes round telling people not to think about sex the whole time, with similarly predictable results.
Flapjack is right. The thing is, unless you persuade the entire population of Africa to become asexual, people do have this tendency to have sex. Not necessarily prollific sex with everyone they meet, but they do have sex. Of course condoms are not 100% effective. No educator in their right minds would tell somebody so. However, if you have sex with a condom you reduce the chance of catching an STD or getting pregnant very dramatically. And when it comes to sex ed, remember that the Catholic church does not want to teach most of it – the parts involving condoms anyway…
this is so true and a huge problem! it makes me so mad that the pope is doing this, what a fucking cuntface, along with his stupid fucking religion
Oh I completely agree with you Flapjack. I certainly didn’t suggest that abstinence is in someway a ‘better’ or more productive way of reducing AIDs because as you say, you can’t stop people having sex. What I meant by the term ‘sexual education’ is literally that. Many of the poorer and ignorant communities in Africa don’t even know what AIDs is, they don’t know what an STD is, they don’t know why they half of their families have disappeared to some strange illness. When they do have access to contraceptive measures such as condoms they don’t feel the need to use them, some don’t believe the diseases is transmittable, some attribute the disease to women or witch-craft. There is gross ignorance regarding AIDs. There are local community groups that have realised this and they travel communities explaining the disease, how its transmitted sexually, the importance of practising ‘safer sex’ and dispelling common cultural myths and fears about the disease. The reason why the Western world is so good at containing AIDs is because we are so well educated about it. Why should these communities not have the same privilege? It’s easier to hand out condoms, and we’ll keep doing it and we probably should economically speaking. But I hate seeing a three year watch her only remaining family member, her grandma, die from AIDs because not only can they not afford the medication needed to treat the illness they didn’t even know of the illness until it got to this stage.
According to PZ Myers, who was in contact with Dawkins on just this issue, he did not use the word “dim” in his description of the Pope’s comments. Rather, Dawkins says he used the word “wicked”. I agree with Dawkins either way.