Home » 9/11, blog, Featured

The Dawkins Doctrine: How ‘Critical Thinking’ Atheists Become Servile Followers of Dogma

9 April 2013 70,021 views 30 Comments

By the Editor.

The ‘New Atheists’, who claim to be at the cutting edge of critical, independent thought, have adopted the false dogma of 9/11 as their religion.

I want to start out this piece by making a couple of things clear about my beliefs.  I do not suggest for a millisecond that readers should care; there’s nothing more nauseating than a person who trumpets their personal beliefs at any given opportunity. (Sadly in the case of many atheists, this is often done in the pursuit of smugly asserting one’s perceived intellectual superiority).

I will try to keep this braindump coherent; do bear with me.

I am an atheist.  I was not raised in a religious household.  I am a believer in the theory of evolution.  I find the idea of creationism quite difficult to believe in the face of an abundance of evidence for evolution and the interrelatedness of all species (but I accept the fact that I could be wrong).  I hold dear the ideals of intellectual freedom and critical thought, and I staunchly oppose all forms of dogma.

Moving swiftly on, do I think ‘Islamist extremism’ exists?  Of course I do.

But now I come to the meat of the matter.  And this is where Richard Dawkins and his army of blindly loyal followers will scoff, spit and curse like a seventeenth century congregation that’s just been thrown a copy of The God Delusion.

The ‘New Atheism’: a Vehicle for Dogma & Herd Mentality

Atheism has become a vehicle for the very thing it claims to oppose: dogma.  Buoyed by a rising tidal wave of knee-jerk bigotry, atheism is instilling a rigid dogma in its followers.  This army of self-professed ‘critical thinkers’ has now disposed of critical thought, and has instead taken up a campaign of hero worship, ultimately spreading a pernicious and baseless dogma in the form of the War on Terror.  Allow me to explain.

Richard Dawkins – one of New Atheism’s High Priests – attacks Islam on a regular basis, saying things like (on Twitter), “Of course you can have an opinion about Islam without having read Qur’an. You don’t have to read Mein Kampf to have an opinion about nazism.”.

Dawkins commands ‘decent’, moderate Muslims to come out and condemn stoning (a practice that is admittedly barbaric and indefensible on any level).

Such frequent rabble rousing against Muslim nations and cultures (while ignoring far greater human rights abuses carried out by ‘enlightened’ Western nations) constitutes a trend amongst atheists, even amongst ex-Muslims who are eagerly touted and re-tweeted by Dawkins and his over 600,000 Twitter followers.

Am I saying that we should not criticise Islam or any other religious beliefs?  No, absolutely not.

But, there is a deeper significance to this that, as ‘critical thinkers’, atheists (Dawkins included) have failed to grasp in a spectacular display of irony.

The Religion of 9/11 & The War On Terror – A Monstrous Fraud Disproved by Science

Allow me to point out before I continue: ‘Muslim’ terrorists and extremists exist.  They behead those they see as ‘infidels’.  They mercilessly slaughter women and children in their pursuit of misguided ‘jihad’.

And they do this with the active and tacit support of every single Western nation that so loudly decries ‘Islamist terrorism’.  For a recent example, please refer to the 2011 decimation of Libya and the ongoing war on Syria, both orchestrated on the ground by hordes of brainwashed and misguided ‘jihadis’ wielding NATO rifles in their left hands, and Qatari paycheques in their right.

If ones traces further back in time, one will see that the mercenary army often referred to as ‘al Qaeda’, was created by the USA as a proxy force, which was used to fight the Russians in Afghanistan throughout the 1980s – precisely as they are being used today in Libya and Syria.

But I digress.

Aside from ‘al Qaeda’ being a proxy army that is literally airlifted on demand to wherever NATO requires manpower, it is also used as an instrument of fear.  The notion that these braindead savages are in any way a threat to Western nations, is laughable.

I hear your internal dialogue: “But what about 9/11?  What about the London bombings of 2005?”

Well, the very kernel of the ‘Muslim terrorist’ meme is the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.  One of Dawkins’ favourite quips is “Science flies you to the moon, religion flies you into buildings”.

The ‘official narrative’ of 9/11 however, which has formed the basis for the global ‘War on Terror’, is an out and out lie, nothing more than a political dogma.

More than a decade on, any thinking person worth his salt has begun to ask questions about the events of 9/11.  As a learned scientist of global repute, it is surprising that Richard Dawkins apparently has such an elementary grasp of physics.  Most secondary school students can figure out that steel cannot be melted to a liquid by jet fuel.  A 110-storey steel-framed skyscraper cannot explode entirely into dust, roof to street, in a matter of seconds due to airplane impact, fire, or both.  Perhaps Dawkins can get a physics lesson from the over 1,700 architects, scientists, and structural engineering professionals who are asking these questions, to be met with silence:


It may seem insignificant to talk about the manner in which the World Trade Center was destroyed.  Bearing this in mind however, if you do employ the scientific method and a dose of critical thought, then you will eventually see that this fundamental problem with the 9/11 account actually precludes the possibility of any of the central tenets of the 9/11 dogma being true.  Bearing this in mind, along with the bewildering number of other inconsistencies and lies surrounding the 9/11 attacks, it becomes clear that 9/11 was, in military intelligence speak, a ‘false flag’ operation.

Of course at this stage, believers of the 9/11 religion will sneer and laugh at this heretic ‘conspiracy theory’.  Well if you’ve made it this far, I ask you to employ your critical thinking faculties and question your faith in the 9/11 religion that has been thrust upon us all.  Apply the scientific method in order to fill the hundreds of fundamental holes in the official story of 9/11. I will not attempt to explain the 9/11 false flag on this page, but the following articles make a start.

9/11 ten years on: there are no excuses for buying the myth:

September 11, 2001: Zionist shock therapy and the birth of the lie:

There is a mountainous wealth of information and evidence, accessible online, that will answer your objective, honest, and scientific questions relating to 9/11, as well as the 7/7 London false flag.

Atheists: put your money where your mouth is – drop ALL dogma and cease being an unwitting weapon of war

What we need to realise as thinking people is this: the ‘Muslim terrorist’ meme serves a deeply nefarious purpose in our mass media and popular culture.  Through the fraud of the War on Terror – which subsists on the omnipresent ‘Muslim terrorist’ meme – at least four nations have been attacked and well over 1 million people have been killed.  The numbers maimed, orphaned, displaced, and otherwise consigned to a life of perpetual misery completely dwarf this very conservative estimate.

Yes ‘Muslim’ terrorists and extremists exist, but it is wrong to characterise a miniscule minority as being representative of the wider group.

And let us be honest: there are far more non-Muslim terrorists than Muslim ones, and the piles of skeletons in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria attest to this.

As free people we should be free to discuss anything we like in an open forum, including criticising any religious beliefs. People should be free to criticise any and all ideas and beliefs, including Islam, but this should be done in a principled and well-researched manner that does not feed into destructive, warmongering, and false dogma.

And how absurd is it for a person to stand on a soapbox, bashing Islam because of its followers’ supposed moral failings, while diligently spreading a far more deadly and dangerous dogma that has directly resulted in the death and misery of millions?  I call for all decent atheists to put their money where their mouth is and reject ALL dogma, and this includes the naked lie of 9/11.

If a central tenet of atheism is resisting dogma and employing critical thought, then by measure of its adherents, New Atheism is failing pitifully.

P.S. It is incredibly telling that the anti-stoning petition posted by Richard Dawkins on his Twitter feed, comes from Avaaz – an empire propaganda mill that seeks to demonise Muslim nations in order to make anti-Muslim wars of aggression more palatable.


  • Marc Veilleux said:

    Martin, since you agree that there are flaws in the (stubborn)mind of Dawkins, perhaps you will have the humility to expose the flaws in your own mind by showing that «overwhelming abundance of evidence for evolution»

    You wrote: «I am a firm believer in the theory of evolution – which I see as a readily observable and beautiful fact and no mere theory. I find the idea of creationism quite silly in the face of an overwhelming abundance of evidence for evolution.»

    May I remind you that a theory cannot be a fact! No matter how much evidences you could find to confirm a theory, it will remain a theory. The day we will observe it happening, it will simply stop being a theory. Perhaps, you are not aware either that the theory of evolution was developped and put in circulation with the avowed purpose by its main apostles to destroy the belief in God. It uses deceit from the beginning. It constantly gives false evidences, which consist non only in scientific frauds, but in scientifically biased interpretations and worst of all by hiding real facts. Evolutionnists constantly refer to what they assume as being new evidences that cannot be answered right away without more knowledge. After the knowledge comes (sometimes it takes many years), it always refute their evidences. But then they go again with new evidences; this has been going on since the beginning of that theory.
    Marc Veilleux

  • Phil Malone said:

    Martin, thank you for writing this piece. That is all.

  • Clyde said:


    Which hypothesis for the events of 911 makes the fewest assumptions?

  • Martin said:


    Occam’s Razor is a simplistic argument that is cited very often. Look at the evidence and draw a conclusion instead of offering this punchy-sounding cliche.

  • Daniel Noel said:

    Very thoughtful article! Atheistic fanaticism is as silly as any other religious fanaticism: dogmatic, arrogant, impermeable to observation and reason. Dawkins’ writings are no exception, as he clumsily — or cleverly? — sidesteps the possibility of extrasensorial perception and telekinesis even though there exist not only ample objective evidence of their existence, but also simple, albeit subtle, ways for reasonable atheists to leverage them, e.g. http://www.know-reason-love.com.

    Regarding 9/11…deeply religious people deserve tolerance for believing in Mohammad’s trip to the heavens on horseback or in Jesus’ virgin birth, as no hard evidence exists that would readily disprove their beliefs. By contrast and per Martin’s references, a superficial examination of the videos of the twin towers’ destruction (not to mention Building 7’s) proves with minimal mental effort their criminal controlled demolition. As such, 9/11 fanatics are to be respected much less than other religious fanatics. Given the nefarious activities Martin reminds up their views foster, they are to be firmly opposed, and ridiculed when appropriate.


  • Darwin26 said:

    i appreciate the article ~ i’ve heard of this New Atheism thing ~ certainly doesn’t fit my sense of being born and living as an Atheist.
    i’m not one to blame the Catholic Church if the perpetrators were catholic priests (they have their own sex trade issues) so i don’t blame Muslims for anything ~ i blame the USA for its heinous State Dept etc.
    i’m shocked that someone doesn’t recognize fossils as facts… seems someone is trying to wrap Evolution into some hypothesis which is waaaaaay short of a Theory based on peer reviewed products; and those are called facts after enuff review … and keep in mind Gravity is also a theory …
    i’ve never read any Dawkins and i’m not likely to as there are much bigger issues at stake.

  • Ingrid B said:

    “And let us be honest: there are far more non-Muslim terrorists than Muslim ones” : most of them are politicians of jew controlled governments..

  • Marc Veilleux said:

    What makes some of you believe that the Occam’s Razor would play in favor of the theory of evolution?

    For example, what is the simplest explanation: the evolutionary theory of mineralized fossils in a period of millions of years rather than a sudden mineralization at a cataclysm? Keep in mind that the slightest traces of organisms are sometimes kept intact in mineralized fossils, for example, you can see all the grooves on the leaves. Or the sedimentary rock strata were they formed in tens of millions of years (impossible to observe or reproduced in a laboratory) or are they formed by flooding (as can be observed and can be reproduce in the lab) which of these two hypotheses best explains the many fossils that cross several layers? or many modern objects found in strata estimated at tens of millions of years old? You’ve probably never read these details in the scientific media controlled by Jews, Freemasons or their fellow travelers.

  • MJ said:

    Marc, just thought I’d throw out a few peer-reviewed snippets demonstrating evolution within our lifetime in response to your comment “The day we will observe it happening, it will simply stop being a theory”

    This is an overview of several articles to do with E. coli evolution which started in 1984:

    Here is an overview of John Endler’s work into Guppies:

    Please let me know if you want any more scientific evidence and to which areas you are specifically interested and I will have a look. Or of course if you want more scientific investigations into relative-time evolution let me know…

    Remember, we did it in 9 months…

  • UAZ said:

    BRILLIANT article, I could never have put it better. “Muslim terrorist meme” — nice one, that’s exactly what it is, Mr Dawkins!

    Dawkins’ brand of militant atheism (the “skeptics” movement) is itself a dogmatic meme. Their defining parameter for truth is whether something is a “conspiracy theory” or not. It’s the strangest of all new religious movements, if you ask me. There people’s critical thinking skills are more impaired than that of the Raelians and Scientologists. They are stranger (and more amusing) because they actually believe that they are at the cutting edge of critical thinking!

    You should do a piece on the skeptics’ cult leader, Michael Shermer. Dawkins is indeed a High Priest, and if there is a Skeptics Pope, it’s Shermer. I have also observed that Dawkins seems sincere, while Shermer gave up any sense of honesty a long time ago.

  • mike said:

    Marc Veilleux for your information 99.9% of mainstream scientist agree that evolution is exactly how it happened , now I’m talking real scientist’s NOT CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST’S (that’s to much of an oxymoron) for you to doubt it makes you look silly, you obviously don’t understand how rigorously tested a scientific hypothesis must be before it can be called a theory”.

    The Round earth theory ,FACT!.
    Perturbation theory and the existence of Neptune,FACT!.
    The expanding universe theory,FACT!.
    Atoms, Black holes,all theory’s that are now FACTS!
    and finally,
    The Big Bang
    Appropriately, the biggest question of all, the birth of the universe, claims the top spot. No one knows for certain how the universe started, but this theory built upon the expanding universe idea, which suggested that at some point everything was much closer together. It is now supported by the majority of scientists, and there is a huge body of evidence to support it.
    and this brings us back to evolution caused by the big bang.

    I’ll take a good theory over blind faith everyday thank you.

  • mike said:

    And for Martin Iqbal, you need to know that you are NOT an Atheist if you believe what you are saying here , Atheists have bin struggling all of there lives to be accepted and have the same rights as every one else in this world , we are the most persecuted group of people today, just because we are finally getting organized does not make us a religious organization in anyway , we are more of an army than anything else , and its out time to bring religion down to its knees , ALL! religions, from the fanatics of Islam to the crackpotery of Mormonism , the way of the future is ATHEISM. the truth shall set us free.

  • Martin said:


    When a movement begins to adopt false dogmas that are disproved by science, then it becomes a ‘religion’ of sorts. Since you seem to have completely missed the point, I would guess that you didn’t bother to read the article, though you have evidently read the title.

  • Supernoob said:

    Sorry, hit enter by mistake 🙁

    My question:

    Consider the wing. It allows some creatures to fly. You believe it evolved according to the process of evolution. That means at some point, no creatures had wings or the ability to fly. For the wing to have evolved, it must have developed over time, by random mutation. And whatever appendage first appeared on a creature, that later became a wing, must have existed for many generations, as something less than a wing, until it finally ended up in a usable form and the creature was able to use it to fly.

    Any mutation that evolution selects must have provided some advantage to the creatures survival, or the evolutionary process would have eliminated it as an impediment to survival, and favored instead the original form, or some other mutation.

    How then, did the appendage that some creatures acquired by mutation, that eventually became the wing, help those creatures survive in the many generations leading up to it’s final form as a usable wing?

    Also, this appendage, that cannot possibly have spontaneously even as something useful for gliding, but maybe as some kind of lump or flap on a creatures back. How could this appendage have adapted over time as something more and more refined as a wing, when there would never be any situation for it to be put to test as a wing, favoring those creatures with the more winglike form over those whose future-wing thing was not so helpful in flight.

    Bear in m ind, this has to occur three times, insects, birds, bats, all separate lines of development, and the wing has to begin as something that cannot support flight and end up as something that can.

    So what is the process in between? And can you describe the various stages of development as creatures learn to fly?

    You cannot. No one can, and no one ever will. It didn’t happen. Logically, we must admit, it simply does’t work.

    I have asked this question of many evolutionists. Scientists, teachers, lecturers, engineers, and on and on. I have never got an answer and I never will.

    The universe was designed.

  • Darwin26 said:

    Well, the “Design” has innumerable flaws, just look in the mirror, and open your mouth and look at those cavities, (shut up i’m funny) that’s a design flaw; Just like ebola virus or cancer ooops the devil made me do it.. the Grand Design concept is flawed from the bottom to the top.
    Because you can’t see it or doesn’t circumvent the theory of evolution… the bird wing has serveral avenues of development. There is strong evidence that appendages were adapted and used then redundant when the evolution returned the critter to the water or whatever the flip-flop.
    Because the evolution of the May-fly wing isn’t on You-tube doesn’t mean it didn’t evolve.

  • UAZ said:

    Cavities are not a “design flaw”, they are the result of the current human diet. If you eat 100% raw foods, you don’t even need to brush your teeth. Same deal with cancer. Raw food (as the “design(er)” intended) = no high-glycemic toxicity = no cancerous cells.

    Viruses? They may be designed to make living organisms stronger and more able to cope/survive in rapidly changing environments.

  • Darwin26 said:

    One can see how the Grand Designer had a sense of HUMOR coping with short sighted individuals who think tooth decay is a matter of the wrong food. That’s pretty funny how the Grand Designer eclipses anything bad or gawd forbid an Earthquake or say epilipsy blaming us humans after all he created the perfect haven for humans to fuck up.

  • MJ said:

    I think you will find that indigenous tribes in the South America’s who only eat raw food that they harvest from the forest around them actually have a shocking lack of teeth. Additionally, some of those in Papa New Guinea also demonstrate a complete lack of dental hygiene with their basic knowledge of food harvesting, In fact some of these tribes in PNG and the America’s go one step further and actually are omnivores but still tend to eat their meat raw. So I’m afraid that ridiculous point is mute (the same applies for various leukaemia based cancers, prostate cancer and cancers of the female reproductive system. I concede that some cancers are increased in likelihood due to modern inventions such as smoking but practically all cancers are present in those living the most basic pious lives! It is our increasing life expectancy that has made all cancers manifest more in addition to modern invention).

    The skeletal structure of most wings can be homologously mapped onto that of most other non-winging creatures. It is widely believed (so don’t know who you asked) that the primordial wing development aided species in balance when running and jumping it may also have provided appendages to be used in mating rituals/displays in order to make them appealing. This is much in the same way that the ostrich’s vestigial wings are used now and how the flying lemurs have developed the ability to glide. It is exactly the same reason why humans get so much back pain as we have evolved from using four legs into those that use two; we’re still ironing out the kinks but we’re getting better. Even in recent human evolutionary terms, the coccyx is regressing and the pelvis with particular focus on the ileum is altering to allow better movement on two feet.

    Hope this helps!

  • MJ said:

    BTW, Martin, good article though it’s pretty funny that you’ve managed to inspire passionate comments from both evolution supporters and opposition history deniers. In some ways no-one is happy with this article! 😛

  • wad said:

    nice article.

    a moderate and reasonable expose to pull out as many left/mid leaners as possible from the jaws of deception.

    martin=awesome journalist.

    now I shall begin my rant.
    We need to apply the 180 degree rule to all “modern science”
    it is a false religion in and of itself, Scientism, It’s high priests include paid buffons such as hawkings, kaku and the ultimate useful idiot Einstein, the wild haired buffon who killed aether science, electricity and kicked Tesla, Steinmetz and all the other real geniuses out of the picture.

    All modern day physics is a HOAX. Scientism is a Holocaust of real science. How else can you explain how physics never talks about electricity, the one thing that our modern day world runs on.

    We need to take a hard charge into these lies, these mild slaps ain’t working. We need to study up so we can speak with confidence. I can say 100% I believe in what I am saying. Soon many more shall rise up and say the same thing. We want our world back, the world we should have had 100 years ago. Flying cars are what we want, not a 145 character telescreen, aka twitter or whatever other new time wasting bullshit they are going to throw our way.

    Evolution? NO. Devolution yes. I read Both of Darwins major books, beak of the Finch and On the Origin of Species. NO WHERE DOES HE MENTION EVOLUTION AS WE KNOW IT NOW!!! Natural selection and evolution are two very different concepts.

    We need to begin reading the original texts that these Judiacs keep screaming about with authority and we shall see the lies CLEARLY.

    want a real mind bend? Read “harmonies of the world by Kepler. and be prepared to see what the 180 degree rule is really all about.

  • Gretavo said:

    The funny thing is that even on the subject of evolution Dawkins, as a neo-Darwinist, is both dogmatic and wrong in ascribing the bulk of evolution to random mutations. Is it a coincidence that a real, brilliant, and non-self-promoter like Lynn Margulis, who first proposed the now accepted endosymbiotic theory of cell evolution was also an unabashed 9/11 skeptic? Not to mention a critic of anthropogenic climate change hysteria (based on her knowledge of the huge role bacteria play in regulating the earth’s temperature), and of AIDS being caused by HIV? The mainstream mostly ignores her, and her entry in wikipedia has her 9/11 views censored by activist wp editors. Why? My guess is because even if she wasn”t right about everything, she was brutally honest. The fact that she was a non-zionist, non-religious Jewish woman may also have something to do with it. RIP, Lynn. And thank you!

  • Moshe the hasbara said:

    You have forgotten the warmongering of one of the most powerful religions of the twentieth century Holocaustinity TM

  • T said:

    Evolution is observable and documented in labs from existing life. Evolution does not explain the origin of life. Even Dawkins admits the theory of evolution does not explain how life began.

    There are many different terms used to describe atheism, agnostic, etc. The bottom line is that if you have convinced yourself that there is certainly no “god” then you are also following dogma. A truly objective and open mind should consider the fact that our human senses are extremely limited and history has proven time and time again that popular science can be the child of ignorance.

    I find this article to be overall well written and productive. That being said, you may want to consider toning down your enthusiasm for evolution without full disclosure of what that really means to you.

  • Trevor said:

    Great stuff. I’d like to add I think it’s very telling that atheists never seem to talk about Judaism. The Christian and Muslim books are all wide open for the public to look at and scrutinize, but all the books of Judaism with the one exception of the Old Testament, are hidden from the public.

  • TG said:

    Excellent article. Dawkins has a lot invested in his assertion that 9/11 was planned and executed by raving fanatics intoxicated by “Gerin Oil”. While that might be true for the patsies who boarded those flights (even the pork eating, vodka drinking, coke snorting, pink-haired stripper banging ones), there’s now an overwhelming case that the real masterminds were ruthless but rational geopolitical strategists. Dawkins has a choice: he can either change his mind in the face of the evidence (something he advocates), or he can continue his blind faith in the myths peddled by authority figures (something he warns against). How ironic.

  • William said:

    As and atheist, even I have to say I don’t know how it all began. Evolution is a theory, we have a lot of answers, but not all of them. Evolution is the best educated guess we have, but honestly, I am more concerned with how Dawkins goes about trying to prove there is no god with science. You can not prove a negative. People end up putting themselves in a box on both sides of the argument, and they forget the most important thing…..themselves. At the end of the day, if it doesn’t put food on your plate, is it worth the countless hours spent arguing about something that really doesn’t matter anyway? You said the following:

    “I am an atheist. I was not raised in a religious household. I am a firm believer in the theory of evolution – which I see as a readily observable and beautiful fact and no mere theory.”

    Evolution is a theory according to the scientific community, and you sir, have put yourself in your own box of “Servile Followers of Dogma”.

  • Martin (author) said:

    William, you make a good point that I do not disagree with, and in fact my beliefs have matured somewhat since I wrote this piece.

    Thanks for reading.

  • Darwin26 said:

    “…(Sadly in the case of many atheists, this is often done in the pursuit of smugly asserting one’s perceived intellectual superiority).”
    i went back and re-read the article and some of the comments.
    on 13 April 2013 i read: mike; mike; Martin.
    i know i can go from zero to intellectual superiority in a split few seconds. I feel simpatico with mike’s perspectives.
    i don’t care if there’s a god or not. And i gotta wonder if we’re feeling safe here in this forum expressing our non-public views? Because Martin you’re right any form of superiority is conterproductive and some of it quite lethal as the case with Dawkins… however putting our heart in here doesn’t mean we are one tune drummers in public… we have a tendancy to mature in our open minded re-re-re-thinking…
    Further, this atheist: nose to nose with the Chosenites…since i was 10 in 1956.
    All Israeli’s are Illegal Occupiers…IMO. No Religion should have an Apartheid ‘jew only’ country…it wouldn’t matter if it were Scientologists doing the same, to the “Pals”/’other’ wherever… whenever ‘merika. But, i don’t care if every Jew who wants and asks permission to move to the Palestine state from the Palestinian govt, does so that is peachy. The Warrior Culture aids the Zionists/Chosenites it is our duty to stop this.
    i wish we had more atheists on board… but it’s true we Atheists are not a welcome Lot, but it’s an individual thing.
    Stopping the spread of Religion somehow requires a sense of superiority, ego ?. Some of us aren’t comfy sitting on the couch when the insanity of religion is perverting truth/scientific method/etc. They will try anything to get prayer and creationism into the grade and secondary school mix. WHO are We to challenge that moronic intent? We are soldiers of science and rational thought.
    We just have to develope ways to bust ‘um’ with knowledge that doesn’t make us Dogma pawns.

  • Mike said:

    Science and spirituality are not conflicting theories about the nature of reality. They are approaches to different domains that can just as easily be complimentary. Einstein had a spiritual belief system as do many scientists. Atheistists who think their ideas are supported by science are guilty of scientism which is the extrapolation of science into a domain of reality which does not fit into the domain which science is designed to examine. In The Guide for the Perplexed by EF Schumacker the author discusses the different epistemilogical categories of knowledge which determine which method is suitable for their study People who believe that they represent the dominant ideas in any group tend to feel superior to those who they believe represent a minority view but this is an emotional response to the sense of relative strength they think they have and is irrational. There is no doubt that great evil and irrationality has been enacted in the guise of spirituality but people have justified evil in all sorts of ways throughout the history of the world.

  • APPAF Newsletter 09-02-2016 | APPAF said:

    […] EmpireStrikesBlack: The Dawkins Doctrine: How ‘Critical Thinking’ Atheists Become Servile Follo… […]

Leave your response!

Add your comment below, or trackback from your own site. You can also subscribe to these comments via RSS.

Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.

You can use these tags:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This is a Gravatar-enabled weblog. To get your own globally-recognized-avatar, please register at Gravatar.

Show us you\'re human! *