Richard Dawkins, who has published a new book, appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show to discuss science. Rather than talk about science, O’Reilly preferred to proselytize.
Richard Dawkins attempts to discuss science with Bill O’Reilly
Richard Dawkins, who has published a new book, appeared on Bill O’Reilly’s show to discuss science. Rather than talk about science, O’Reilly preferred to proselytize.
That whole line of “lookit, Mao and Pol and Joe were atheists!” is wearing thin. People like O’Reilly may be idiots because they believe in god, but they are nevertheless idiots. While it is true that Mao and Joe Stalin were self-proclaimed atheists (don’t know about Pol Pot, what interview was it where he said that?) if, as O’Reilly states’ religion is a constraining factor, then what about all the millions who followed them? Statistically speaking, the majority of them, as is the case everywhere, were believers. Most of Russia before, during, and after Stalin were dedicated Russian Orthodox. Religion didn’t seem to constrain them.
The question is not whether Hitler was an atheist and that prompted him to do all those nasty things, but why all the millions of good German christians thought he had a good program.
Mao and Pol and Joe were also men. Does that mean that their wars and devastation were the result of them being men? Down with men! And I suspect that they all liked good food, and music and sex. Down with those things too, because they apparently cause wars. On the other hand, some wars have been started for the specific purpose of converting the enemy to one’s own religion. So there are such things as religious wars. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_war
If someone starts a war with the motive of getting rid of religion then, sure, sounds like atheism was a cause of that war. But it’s a rare war (maybe it’s never occurred) that hasn’t been motivated by power-mongering, desire for resources, and/or hatred of others for any of many other reasons.