









Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propagandaNow I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!
Yes I have. You know, I respect you as a human being and you have done great work exposing psychics and frauds, but this is a very touchy issue that affects me and family emotionally. Our family business was affected because of Auschwitz because now, our family has nothing. It is gone. Things began to make sense once I saw the movie and I am just appalled. I have learned a lot from Ben Stein, a Jewish brother, who has opened my eyes up a bit.
Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are! You people believe that it was okay for my great-grandparents to die in the Holocaust! How disgusting. Your past article about the Holocaust was just window dressing. We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!Just look at those words of yours. Probably you regret them by now. I certainly hope so, but I'll continue to write my letter to you, on the assumption that you still feel at least a part of what you wrote.
Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.Hitler's obscene anti-Semitism was able to hold sway in Germany because there was a deeply embedded history of anti-Semitism in Germany, and indeed in Europe generally.
2. Comment #164732 by Matt7895 on April 20, 2008 at 4:17 pm
A very good letter, Richard. I hope he has the decency to reply, and like you I can sympathise with his position. The exploitation of the holocaust in 'Expelled' is nothing short of outrageous and disgusting, and by the box office figures it looks like many people will see the film and many of those people may be drawn in by Ben Stein's lies.3. Comment #164738 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 4:32 pm
4. Comment #164739 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 4:32 pm
We Jews will fight to keep people like you out of the United States!
5. Comment #164740 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 4:33 pm
6. Comment #164741 by Fuller on April 20, 2008 at 4:33 pm
A sincere thank you for your tireless efforts, Prof Dawkins.7. Comment #164743 by Chris Jackson on April 20, 2008 at 4:39 pm
8. Comment #164745 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Hitler's horrible opinions were not all that unusual for his time, not just in Germany but throughout Europe, including my own country of Britain, by the way.
9. Comment #164746 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 4:43 pm
10. Comment #164748 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I don't think Darwin was responsible for the holocaust...but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest. Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion? What part of naturalism argues against helping nature out?11. Comment #164749 by Christopher Davis on April 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm
12. Comment #164751 by phil rimmer on April 20, 2008 at 4:46 pm
It is a wicked, evil thing they have done to you
13. Comment #164754 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 4:48 pm
14. Comment #164757 by Chris Jackson on April 20, 2008 at 4:51 pm
15. Comment #164761 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 4:56 pm
but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest.
16. Comment #164762 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 4:56 pm
I don't think Darwin was responsible for the holocaust...but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest. Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion? What part of naturalism argues against helping nature out?
17. Comment #164764 by mjwemdee on April 20, 2008 at 4:57 pm
18. Comment #164766 by alexmzk on April 20, 2008 at 5:01 pm
ah yes, the real point of the film becomes clear: demonise atheists yet further. *sigh*19. Comment #164767 by Jamougha on April 20, 2008 at 5:03 pm
A letter? As in, on paper? Wow.20. Comment #164768 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 5:04 pm
A letter? As in, on paper? Wow.
21. Comment #164769 by Vaal on April 20, 2008 at 5:06 pm
22. Comment #164773 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:08 pm
No one really answered the question...and I am curious. I understand your point about naturalism not being a philosophy, if someone really believes we evolved from inert chemicals, what is the basis for goodness to our fellow man.23. Comment #164774 by Steve Zara on April 20, 2008 at 5:11 pm
No one really answered the question...and I am curious. I understand your point about naturalism not being a philosophy, if someone really believes we evolved from inert chemicals, what is the basis for goodness to our fellow man.
24. Comment #164775 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 5:11 pm
25. Comment #164777 by qomak on April 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to the science of how life has actually evolved, but a passionate ANTI-Darwinian when it comes to the politics of how humans ought to behave.
26. Comment #164778 by Dog Boots on April 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm
Now I truly understand who you atheists and darwinists really are!
27. Comment #164779 by Layla Nasreddin on April 20, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I don't think Darwin was responsible for the holocaust...but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest. Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion? What part of naturalism argues against helping nature out?
28. Comment #164781 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Comment #164748 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 4:45 pm
I don't think Darwin was responsible for the holocaust...but it does seem to me to a logical end point to a purely naturalistic philosophy based on survival of the fittest. Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion? What part of naturalism argues against helping nature out?
29. Comment #164782 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:15 pm
Conscience and conversation. We have the ability to empathise with others. We have always done things this way, and clearly without any supernatural guidance, as no-one has been able to agree on what that guidance says.30. Comment #164784 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:18 pm
Thanks for the references Zaphod. I'll check them out.31. Comment #164786 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 5:22 pm
How did empathy evolve...does it really help organisms survive?
32. Comment #164788 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 5:25 pm
33. Comment #164790 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:29 pm
That's helpful...would have been even more helpful without the jab...34. Comment #164791 by GabrielJBuckley on April 20, 2008 at 5:29 pm
How did empathy evolve...does it really help organisms survive?
35. Comment #164792 by Count von Count on April 20, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Hmmmm:
Anyone care to explain the naturalistic basis for morality and compassion?
36. Comment #164795 by mordacious1 on April 20, 2008 at 5:34 pm
The links by Quine above are surely pieces of crap and yet they speak volumes about what these people are all about. My BP started to rise, then I realized it's the same old, well "crap".37. Comment #164796 by Zaphod on April 20, 2008 at 5:34 pm
38. Comment #164797 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 5:37 pm
That's helpful...would have been even more helpful without the jab...
Ok...but there are plenty of nature specials that explain animals eating thier own young as being benefical to the species.
It obviously compassion isn't always selected.
39. Comment #164798 by Quine on April 20, 2008 at 5:38 pm
40. Comment #164799 by LaTomate on April 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm
41. Comment #164800 by BillG on April 20, 2008 at 5:39 pm
Hello Mr. Dawkins,42. Comment #164801 by BigChiefRainInFace on April 20, 2008 at 5:47 pm
Cooperation helps the group, and thus the individuals within it survive.
This is beneficial.
I'm surprised this is a question that actually had to be asked.
43. Comment #164802 by home8896 on April 20, 2008 at 5:50 pm
44. Comment #164803 by Diacanu on April 20, 2008 at 5:51 pm
45. Comment #164804 by MaxD on April 20, 2008 at 5:51 pm
46. Comment #164805 by Hmmmm on April 20, 2008 at 5:52 pm
OK...I have plenty of reading material on that one.47. Comment #164806 by alexmzk on April 20, 2008 at 5:57 pm
Bill:
One wonders upon what basis do you delineate between the proper and improper applications of Darwin's theory? If all is "nature" (i. e. there is no "super-nature" or "supernatural") would that not also include our behaviour? Why then, would a theory of the development of biological organisms, including their (presumabely) biologically determined behaviours, not apply as well to that behaviour?
48. Comment #164807 by jaytee_555 on April 20, 2008 at 5:57 pm
This is the kind of human story that newspapers are interested in. If it gets picked up by them, I believe that Ben Stein's cunning plan may well become unraveled. He may not be a Holocaust Denier, but it is easily demonstrated that he is a 'Holocaust Dissembler'.49. Comment #164809 by alexmzk on April 20, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I have heard many different aguments from homology...similar body stuctures...DNA based, etc...and they all seem to provide different "family trees". If the science is truely as sound as it appears to be, shouldn't there be more convergence in the research?
50. Comment #164810 by Mitchell Gilks on April 20, 2008 at 6:02 pm
I have heard many different aguments from homology...similar body stuctures...DNA based, etc...and they all seem to provide different "family trees". If the science is truely as sound as it appears to be, shouldn't there be more convergence in the research?
1. Comment #164731 by Madphatcat on April 20, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Excellent letter.At first I assumed the message from David J was a prank, but you can never be sure of these things, can you. In any case somebody out there actually believes in the things David J said so an open letter like this is necessary.
Other Comments by Madphatcat