Who would have thought that the source of my next blog would be from the Daily Mail, a British newspaper. Specifically, a man named A. N. Wilson, who contributes occasionally to the paper. The article was about the London riots, and was most probably 90% of the other content. This article however, which I shall link at the end of this blog post, really made me mad for multiple reasons. Looking into this writers backgorund did nothing to help, and brought me to a worrying realisation.
The article, summed up, implied that the London rioters were effectively atheists, or like atheists, and those cleaning up were religious. Such content was based around a story of one man, Tariq Jahan, who’s son was murdered in Birmingham. Basically, Wilson argues that Tariq’s dignified and reasoned response to the rioters showed how religion makes everything so good. Wilson essentially dismissed all but Tariq’s words in writing this article, seemingly missing out some extra details, some common sense, and most importantly, reality.
I usually prefer to keep things calm and respectible when refuting another persons commentary, but for perhaps the first time I think such is not so appriate. The appropriate response would be to point out what an ignorant and dim-witted person Mr. Wilson is. His verbal vomit would be among the worst of sites like Conservapedia, let alone a British newspaper. Perhaps Mr. Wilson could apply for a sysop job at Conservapedia. He would fit in with the other brain-dead self-important idiots.
Of course, such claims require reason on my side. But I have plenty. Throughout the article, Wilson to an almost uncountable numbers of myths and rumours he appears to have revealed from his rear-end or ill-informed blog sites. The first major claim is the overall implication of the article: religious people are good people, and atheists aren’t. Such a statement does not even require a rebuttal, simply because of its breath-taking inanity. However, I feel the need to point out how such an argument is absurd.
Take a look at the Catholic church, and then take a look at me, an atheist. Who of the two of us has raped children on a regular basis? Which of us has denied contraception to millions of Africans? These are just two examples of a list I could probably spend hours writing.
You’ll find that I have done neither, and the Church has done both. Unless Mr. Wilson sees the allowed spread of diseases and the rape of children as good, then his point is already refuted.
Another misguided claim is that we atheists are obsessed with the current celebrity-culture. Atheists generaly hold up people like Amy Winehouse and Jade Goody as role models. He claims, “The misguided and vacuous thinking of these so-called intellectuals is compounded by a sordid celebrity-culture which holds up role models who should be despised rather than admired. Amy Winehouse, a pathetic drug-infused alcoholic girl of very modest talent, is held up as great diva; and when she died, her house was surrounded by fans, laying empty vodka bottles as a ‘tribute’.
Jade Goody, the foul-mouthed, racist daughter of a pimp and drug-pusher who died of a heroin overdose in the lavatory of a Kentucky Fried Chicken, appears on Big Brother and becomes a heroine despite — or because of — her ignorance and tendency to strip off in front of the cameras.”
Let alone the fact that Jade Goody died of cancer and not a heroin overdose (showing that he has not bothered to do any research), my existence alone shows, again, that he has no idea what he’s talking about. I am as anti-celebrity as they come. Of all of my icons, Stephen Fry comes closest to being a celebrity. A similar claims he make in another article (which I will link to at the end of this blog post) is that we atheists have no ear for music. The exact quote: “When I think about atheist friends, including my father, they seem to me like people who have no ear for music, or who have never been in love.”
Does he realise that there are many atheist musicians out there, including myself? Again, a simple 5-second search on google defeats his narrow-minded claim. And before he asks, no, I don’t listen, or like, modern chart music.
I the same article as the last quote I gave, he spews this verbal diarrhoea: ” haven’t mentioned morality, but one thing that finally put the tin hat on any aspirations to be an unbeliever was writing a book about the Wagner family and Nazi Germany, and realising how utterly incoherent were Hitler’s neo-Darwinian ravings, and how potent was the opposition, much of it from Christians; paid for, not with clear intellectual victory, but in blood.
Not only was Hitler Catholic, he was also rather critical of Darwin and the Theory of Evolution in many of his speeches. If Hitler wasn’t Catholic, then why did German Nazi soldiers wear the words ‘God Mit Uns’ (God with us) on their belt buckles?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gott_mit_uns Not only that, but even criticised atheists as Germanys “communist enemy”. Again, quick googles searches. People without a brain can find this stuff.
So let’s finish with the worst of the worst, the final sentance of the first article I mentioned, and I will leave you to refute the claims myself. You don’t need me for this one.
“By his religious response to his son’s death, he humanised not only the dreadful and immediate tragedy. He showed us that without a religion we are all less than human.”
First article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2025393/UK-riots-Haroon-Jahan-death-Legacy-society-believes-nothing.html
Second article: http://www.newstatesman.com/religion/2009/04/conversion-experience-atheism