Deconstructing the Strategic Rhetoric of Richard Dawkins.

sneaky dick

The popularity & influence of Richard Dawkins is quickly diminishing as people become hip to his cunning strategy to usurp the Religious & Moral authority of Judeo-Christianity and indoctrinate everyone into Scientism.  It is noteworthy that Hitler made science the state religion and was under the delusion that he was doing science (scientific socialism).  Richard Dawkins famously defended Hitler when he said: “If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?”, Richard Dawkins replied, “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.”

While he asks leading questions that invite people to think that morality can have anything to do with Atheism he doesn’t offer an explanation for how morality evolved.  While suggesting that humans are innately moral without religion he doesn’t offer any explanation of what morality is, & what is moral.  Does the morality of people from Papua New Guinea that allows them to eat other humans constitute morality?  This is also happening in Islam in Syria and in South East Asia in Myanmar.  Do the Muslim virtues of child brides and cutting off the heads of infidels constitute morality?  It is of note that he ignores the fact that the Sabbath was a human rights coupe and that in order to make the first holiday so that any person wouldn’t have to work 7 days a week or compete with someone who worked 7 days a week or who owned slaves and forced them all to work seven days a week god had to be asserted as a reason why a day of rest was necessary and people had to be forced to comply.  While it is obvious that some psychopathic authoritarians took enforcing the laws to seriously the intent of the original law was obvious and good.  It is also of note that stoning was a common punishment back then and just because it was mentioned in the bible doesn’t mean that God or Religion invented stoning.  Judeo-Christianity started when the Hebrews were individuating their identity from that of the Babylonian/Persians.  In Jesus time it was these same people who were using the practice that Jesus frowned on. He told his disciples not to go to the Romans or even enter a Samaritan camp.  Today there is one religion that is stoning people.

It would be one thing if this was the first time he had used this strategy, but it isn’t, he repeated and benchmarked the very same devious argument he used in the opening chapter of his book the GOD DELUSION (  Richard Dawkins must think himself quite clever when he equivocates all religions with each other, excuses Muslims from personal responsibility, & then says that Christians are actually being “self-Centered” when they try to “curry favor” with their god, & that is their motivation for doing good in life.  Notice that he only asks inviting questions, he doesn’t communicate transparently explaining what constitutes virtue & morality and how those virtues came to exist.  He suggests that humans might be innately moral which tacitly suggests that all virtues humans possess are equally moral.  Christopher Hitchens used this same strategy with his Hitchens challenge ( is not a moral system. Atheism is amoral.  To suggest that you can have a society in which people pick and choose what constitutes their morality is anarchy.  You can’t actually get people to agree on what the laws of the state will be and you can’t force compliance.  You cannot rely on the innate morality of people and have a successful society.  If atheist picking and choosing of their values allows them to lie, or communicate in a crafty and scheming way then their testimony is worthless.  Now that I have shown you his modus operandi, and how he obfuscates using arbitrary polemics in the form of false dichotomies, conflates, conceals, and asks leading questions let’s see if you can see his strategy now.  Let’s see if you notice the repetition of the exact same wily tactics.

“They were not in and of themselves evil, they were following their faith. And faith is pernicious, because it can do that to people,” (referring to the 9/11 hijackers)
This is called the fundamental attribution error, not only is he removing them from responsibility of their own actions he is transferring the essence of evilness from the individual to Religion itself, remember that he conflates all religions with each other, & equivocates between all religions.
“If you’re good because you want to carry favor with God, if you’re good because you want to avoid going to Hell, or if you want to go to Heaven, that’s a rather ignoble, self-centered reason to be good,” 
Notice that he is only criticizing his understanding of someone else’s stance while simultaneously presupposing their narrative and offering testimony on it.  As a deist my god is the faculty of reason in man.  My god represents my own highest good.  As such I use the concept of god as a tool to reward myself internally when I have strived to be perfected in the eyes of the god I conceive of.  A rather nuanced and sophisticated approach to the use of the science of self control and self discipline through the use of a tool thought technology.  Furthermore you will notice that Richard Dawkins has precluded religion as a conscious self manipulation.  He also doesn’t explain what is the proper incentive or motivation is for being good.
“I fully accept that an awful lot of good deeds are done by people who happen to be religious, but I think it’s rather insulting to suggest that you need religion in order to be good.”
This is a tacit emotional appeal.  He is inviting his cult to feel insulted and therefore attacked by religious ideas.  This presupposes that the person feeling insulted has the authority to feel insulted which presupposes that they are moral.  Remember the Richard Dawkins said “I can’t bring myself to condemn mild paedophilia.”  When he was attacked for defending mild pedophilia he responded in tweet saying, “Are you really saying you don’t see the difference between putting your hands in a child’s clothes & raping a child to death.”  In linguistics we have noticed that people can escalate or de-escalate rhetoric by word choice.  What Dawkins did above was remove the original sexual nature of the molestation he was originally referring to.  Notice there was no sexual content or intent.  Your hand accidentally ends up in a child’s clothes.  He follows this up with an arbitrary comparison set in order to make the first activity seem less evil in comparison.  This is how he attempts to manipulate people into agreeing with him.
In the interview Richard Dawkins attempts to thwart the argument that Adolf Hitler was an atheist, insisting that his crimes can’t be associated with Atheism but can be blamed on his being a Catholic.  Ignoring the fact that Germany at that time only really elected Catholics.  And pretending that these quotes by Adolf Hitler don’t exist… (

The manipulative charismatic leader of the Dawkinite cult recently said in an interview in Ireland that the 9/11 hijackers weren’t responsible for their actions but that Religion makes people do evil things. Presupposing that Islam is a Religion & not a death cult he went on to equivocate between all religions & assert that Christians who do good deeds to “curry favor” with God are “self-centered”. He argues that it is insulting to suggest that people can’t be good without Religion but fails to offer a scientific explanation for the origins of morality.


One thought on “Deconstructing the Strategic Rhetoric of Richard Dawkins.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s