57 thoughts on “For the love of god! -Love Letters From Christians to Richard Dawkins.

  1. Just curious, what makes Dawkins or you assume those letter writers are Christian?

    Have u ever heard such things from CTom, ib22, myself, etc?

    Surely even you could find an ounce of fairness and agree with this observation.


    1. You are absolutely correct. However, an element of trust is extended to Dawkins- honesty, that he would have very likely checked, as far as is possible, the source.
      While much of the language is ”profane” I’ll wager many ex-believers will vouch for this behaviour.


      1. Sorry ark, but it is more than profane- you and I have said things that many would call profane-

        I have never in all my years heard ANY believer spew such things from the bottom of a sewer.

        It’s more than the words though- it’s a frame of reference. When a certain man called a religious persuasion (in the scriptures) ‘brood of vipers,’ he was correct, and it was not profane, but look at WHO he was talking to- the alleged birthright of prominence was a delusion by men who refused to see their own adulterous ways while berating other for lesser crimes.

        Just trying to bring a tad of balance here/ I’m sure u wish many atheists would keep their mouths shut.

        Btw, when a man says ‘ye are OF your father the devil,’ this is mild language when compared to the mail received by Dawkins-

        People boasting of their pedigree ( we have Abraham as our father) were clueless as to the bigger picture and I would argue that many believers (who may have good intentions) are equally clueless in some areas.

        But the rants in the vid- of questionable character to be sure, whoever said them.


        1. As you know I do not hold to biblical rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims of biblical characters.
          Dawkins continuously comes in for some serious flak so until shown otherwise I am inclined to accept that these were more than likely Christians who wrote these emails.
          To date, Dawkins integrity has been rock solid. It would be suicidal for his career to be in any way disingenuous in this regard.
          And it would be a fairly straightforward matter to follow up on IP addresses.

          If Christians can burn people at the stake, commit genocide across the globe and hand wave child rape by Priests for the better part of 1500 years I can’t imagine a few vile emails would bother them in the least.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. You may want to reconsider ark THIS fact. Your last paragraph makes my point. Hardly the behavior of people who claim to have been brought darkness to light.

            A person can SAY they are a Christian, but surely you can identify a rotten apple as opposed to one that attracts and begs to be picked and eaten.

            So by their fruits you shall know them. There is not one command to burn a witch, commit genocide, kill the gay, and wink at any kind of rape.

            Therefore, the conclusion is inevitable, that people who do such things are hired hands, and Dawkins apparently doesn’t know the difference.


          2. There is not one command to burn a witch, commit genocide, kill the gay, and wink at any kind of rape.

            Except for those commands in the bible , of course.


          3. Do u understand that the law was given to ISRAEL ALONE? I do.

            Do u understand the difference tween law and grace? I do.

            Do u know that there is not one command for a believer to burn a cat, dog, or human? I know.

            Why u must focus on dead branches and miss the fresh fruit is beyond me- and it explains why Dawkins is lost as fog in his attempt to combat Christianity.

            Who cares what idiots say? Geezo, how many people think the earth spins like an amusement park ride with not a single drop of evidence????


          4. Really? Then why do put so much stock in the Ten Commandments?

            Why must you always try to shift the focus from the complicity of your revolting religion and its adherent?

            Who cares what idiots say?

            Idiots such as Wally, for example?
            What sort of Christian tells a non believer his father is Satan?


          5. Number 1: because I understand context, purpose, principle, practice, and dispensational relevance. Also, the 613 commands (elaborated of the ten) are wrapped up in 2, just as scripture presents. In other words, a righteous man need not be told not to steal his neighbors cow.

            Number 2: If Wally said THAT, he would have been wrong, and he would agree with me. The correct wording is ‘ye are OF your father the devil……………..’

            Hopefully you can see the difference. Heck, the devil believes in God and trembles, so its no surprise that they who follow his tracks are unaware of deception- his prime prize.

            You have heard: I am OF the persuasion that Tiger Woods is one of the greatest golfers. Others are not OF that persuasion.

            And this really addresses Dawkins gripes also. Hope that helped.


          6. Context my arse!

            Remember what the character Jesus of Nazareth supposedly said ….
            For verily I say unto you, Till. heaven and earth pass, one jot or one. tittle shall in no wise pass from. the law, till all be fulfilled.

            There are former Christians who visit this site that are far more conversant on the Law than you and your narrowly focused interpretation.

            And Yes, Wally said THAT.
            I think the most he came to acknowledge it was something along the lines of ”Get over yourself.”
            I laughed like a drain.

            He is a poster boy for fundamentalism –
            Ignorant and full of hubris.


          7. 5 sighs ark.

            Former Christians who are more conversant when they do not even believe there is a God?

            You really should have a laugh button.


          8. Really ark? In the same book I am reminded that ‘the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,’ and this is reverential awe such as how great God must be to fashion oceans, wings for birds, a brain for man, the heights of K-2,

            So yeah, where pray tell do your friends acquire this wisdom since the understanding they claim is in opposition to the book they pretend to know?

            Geez, it’s a good thing you allow voices of sanity such as mine. 😎


          9. Geez, it’s a good thing you allow voices of sanity such as mine. 😎

            Now that is the funniest thing I have read in a long time


        2. Never heard a believer say things like this? Westborough Baptists come to mind. My grandmother the baptist as well. In all fairness though most have the restraint to keep those comments private and just have the thoughts. Some of those comments were doctrinal.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. West Boro Jim? Heck I’ll add another: the now deceased Pete Peters of ‘Scriptures for America’ fame, that foaming at the mouth self made Identity cult-

            Your greater concern should be: why I don’t submit to such stench. And as an equal opportunity finger pointing, there are just as many vile atheists who have said as much regarding believers.

            A careful reading of the New Testament tends to make one alert as to the WHY the difference tween Saul of Tarsus and Paul the apostle.

            Trouble is, far too many refuse to see the connection, and the ensuing implications. His epistles are killers to fraud.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Well, I don’t really think anybody believes all this anyway. If they did they would behave like God is in the room with them. After looking through the Old Testament, maybe that’s what they think they’re doing?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Really? Perhaps you would like to reference one nonbeliever or deconvert that has said; ”I hope you die of cancer.”
            I think you are grasping now CS.


          4. What’s worse ark:

            Hope you die of cancer, or
            You are already brain dead if you believe the bible?

            Enough blame to go around.


          5. Ah .. well if this is what you believe and are unable to spot rhetoric from others and are now forced to resort to theological drivel then your credibility just nose dived. But why am I not surprised.
            You might as well join the ranks of those that emailed Dawkins. You are disgusting.


          6. Sorry ark, but many have said I am the most consistent and well rounded believer on word press. I am as fair as the day is long.

            My word is good as bread, so others have said. Just saying, so if you find disgust do so because you do not agree with me, and not because I am wrong.


          7. Yes, you are wrong. The term brain dead in context is obviously not a literal statement.
            Hope you die of cancer is.
            So yes, you are wrong ,,, about a great many things.


          8. Both are lousy commentaries on the human race. And evolution should be so embarrassed at the words and deeds of miscreants, who by the way, come in many flavors and colors.

            I knew a man (I heard the words come from his mouth three feet away) who said: I would rather have cancer than be married to a woman. True story.

            Obviously a statement made in the heat of the moment, and many people say things they regret.


          9. Then stop trying to tacitly defend Christians. You will remember, I’m sure that Wally once stated my father was the Devil. And there was no rhetoric in that particular accusation.
            Considering his view of Satan and Hell such a piece of slander coming from a Christian’s mouth I’d imagine is even worse than ”I hope you die of cancer.”
            But then, fundamentalists do have a very poetic turn of phrase do they not?

            I think we’re done here now.
            No more comments from you … thanks.


          1. Here are her exact words :
            “Child sexual abuse is another difficult issue because if we start embracing people as if their sexuality were their entire identity, what message are we sending to child victims of rape? Recently there was much outrage over the alleged anti-homosexuality law in Uganda, but if you read the actual law it was speaking of forced sexual contact with minors with the intent to give them aids. Think about that. “Forced sexual contact with minors.” I’m not the one who defined the rape of children as homosexuality, so called LGBT advocates did when they spoke out in opposition to this law.”

            So when she misrepresents a dangerous law this way, defending it, she is essentially promoting the murder of gay people and the cover-up of said murders.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. I’m pretty sure we have already strayed from the comedy vid here, but perhaps you should pay the good lady a visit- ask her to reclarify/

            Time is a helpful tool for perspective.


          3. Sorry pink u missed my point. You need to show me where she said what u accuse her of.

            I followed the narrative, and u are asserting that which she never intended.

            Perhaps your interpretation is a tad loose. I have read her for years, and never has she insinuated death for sinners.

            If there is paedophilia, that is criminal obviously- but I’m sure she is not of the ‘death for homosexual’ ilk.


          4. I gave you a paragraph long quote where she defends the Ugandan law. Not a French law, not a Icelandic law, but a law that was designed to punish and execute gay people for being gay in Uganda.
            When she pretended the law was about paedophilia and didn’t punish consenting gay couples she was lying and creating cover for persecution and hate. There’s no two ways about that.


          5. That’s a serious charge Pink to accuse a good woman of lying. It appears still you have not satisfied my contention that she SAID the gay should be killed.

            Your magnifying glass is cloudy. Maybe you should overuse her blog to find a twin testimony/ rest assured u will look in vain


          6. Okay, let’s make it simple so you can understand.
            Let’s say in Iran they have a law called 587B. Law 587B states that anyone caught practising Christianity (including owning a bible) will be imprisoned or put to death. In fact the text of the law says explicitly: “Anyone caught practising or promoting Christianity shall be imprisoned for life or put to death by hanging.”

            Now imagine someone comes along, let’s call him John, and misrepresents the text of that law. John says the problem isn’t Christianity, the problem is the bible has violent passages, that’s why the bible is prohibited. And the law should be respected and allowed to stand because the violence in the bible could adversely affect the reader.

            See what just happened? By misrepresenting and attempting to justify a law that puts people to death, John is de-facto supporting the legalised murder of Christians through a law designed to promote those murders. He doesn’t need to say Christians *must* be killed if what he’s doing is supporting the process designed to persecute and kill them.
            So your contention here is a smokescreen.

            Liked by 1 person

          7. Tkx P.A.

            While I see your point, I can’t concede the leap you make. You are pushing her off the cliff and say she jumped.


          8. How many laws are on the books that I despise? Romeo oh Romeo let me count thy way.

            Stay out of Iran. Don’t like the laws in the US? Leave the country.

            Don’t like dog laws in France? Sell your dog, keep quiet, move, or petition to change dog laws.

            Do I agree with countries who cut the hands off thieves, when they may be thieves or liars themselves? Of course not.


          9. Don’t try to change the subject. What I’m talking about is someone actively defending a law where the result is the imprisonment and execution of innocent people. Actively defending.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Can I direct you to the nearest brick wall, Pink?
            You might get a more satisfying and honest response even if you have to resort to banging your head against it.

            Liked by 1 person

        3. CS, you may not have heard believers “spew such things,” but there’s plenty of it in writing. There are blogs where Christians attack atheists with such viciousness it truly makes one wonder if they are truly “washed in the blood.” And the same is true on Facebook … or actually, any website (e.g. forums) that caters to Christians. It may sound prejudiced, but in my meanderings through blog-world, I’ve never read atheists attack with the same level of vehemence.

          Liked by 1 person

    1. Jim, have a look at Colorstorm’s comment will you and tell me if you think it is a valid criticism/concern?
      Personally ,I tend to agree with him (shock horror) on one level but also trust that Dawkins would have vetted the emails before reading them.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Sure. I think he has a valid point, but I know I’ve heard these comments myself directed at me even recently over at watchtower. No f bombs but the threats to invoke fear to make me believe. I did write about my baptist neighbors in Panama a couple years ago. The profanity parts in Dawkins video are just angry emphasis (who cares about cussing any more) The core of what is said about being sorry, burning in Hell (while they get to watch) is pretty much a cultural and doctrinal fact in certain sects. My baptist grandmother used to tell me these things all the time, without swearing of course.


  2. One doesn’t know whether to laugh or cry at the sublime stupidity of those who believe that foul language makes any sort of point, or the irony of those who speak of torments of hell and how good and decent God is in one breath. Carbolic applied to mouths and brains might help.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. This video is an old favorite of mine. The stupidity of the messages is far more striking than the coarse language.

    As for who wrote them, who but a bunch of religious nuts would get this foaming-at-the-mouth at a prominent atheist and evolutionary biologist? And there are plenty of religious references in some of the messages.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. “People boasting of their pedigree ( we have Abraham as our father) were clueless as to the bigger picture and I would argue that many believers (who may have good intentions) are equally clueless in some areas.”

    I thought the Father was (technically) the guy who bonked Eve in the Garden of Eden? Failing that, was it perhaps Our Father, who art in Heaven (wherever that is)? Or is it any man-in-a-frock lurking in a church, drooling for youngsters to ‘convert’?


Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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