Richard Dawkins forum closure: the true reason according to the New Humanist

Following the announcement about the “revamping” of the Richard Dawkins forum, which created a global wave of panic, alarm, anger and frightened responses from atheists, the New Humanist website revealed a sinister plot was a afoot.

The New Humanist’s discovered a Christian website called Christwire attributing the closure of the forums to the power of prayer; here’s what Christwire had to say:-

For years we warned atheists that we would take down their site entitled, by the power prayer.

The atheists laughed and said prayer did not exist. They cursed us and said there was no God. I warned them time and again, and now, we see the true power of God as he has closed their sinful site,

This was the New Humanist response to these claims:-

So there you have it. And if you’re wondering why they hate Dawkins so, here it is:

“For those of you who do not know, Richard Dawkins is one of the worst offenders before God. He promotes bestial relations. He thinks that a “less evolved” human man and a monkey woman had sexual relations to create us.”A fairly accurate summary of The Selfish Gene, wouldn’t you say?

The laugh was on the New Humanists however, when they discovered the following about the website Christwire:-

Update: Okay, so it turns out the Christian website is a spoof (thanks Jared). Still funny though, and to be fair we’ve seen plenty of non-spoof evangelical statements even more ridiculous than that, so you can see how it got us!

Just shows even humanists can be wrong :)

On a more serious note, Matt Wardman over at the Online Journalism Blog, has written an excellent post looking at the coverage of the Dawkins forum “episode” in the Telegraph:-

Telegraph invents comparative degrees of atheism. Dawkins = “athiest”


8 Responses to “Richard Dawkins forum closure: the true reason according to the New Humanist”

  1. Jim Says:

    Humanists are frequently wrong. After all, we are only humans.
    We do tend to admit when we are wrong though, unlike some. :-)
    Thank goodness for Humanists.
    Without them, religious fundamentalists of different persuasions would spend more time throwing barbs at each other – which would probably not be as harmless as throwing them at Humanists.
    When did you last hear of a Humanist suicide bomber?

  2. Caral Says:

    When did you last hear of a Humanist suicide bomber?

    I don’t know, but Richard Dawkins dropped a rather large bomb, hurting many of his beloved followers by closing Although I doubt it will kill him :)

  3. Caral Says:

    RD has apologised.

    “I would like to start by apologising for our handling of this situation. We have not communicated well with our forum volunteers and users (for example in my insensitive ‘Outrage’ post, which was written in the heat of the moment). In the process we have caused unintended hurt and offence, and I am very sorry about that. In a classic case of a vicious circle, some of the responses to our announcement also caused considerable hurt and distress to us, and in the atmosphere of heightened emotion that followed, some of our subsequent actions went too far. I hope you will understand the human impulses that led to this, and accept my apology for them. I take full personal responsibility.”

    I did think that RD actions and words were a little rash, and (not quite suicidal) with all the cash that his fundie followers generate for him.

    Most of his ‘sheep’ seem appleased with his apologetic ‘soothing balm’, but there was still one or two poor souls who faith has been rocked to its very core. One hurting soul said…..

    “I’m still unsure as to whether I will ever regain the faith and confidence I have lost in the last few days”

  4. Jim Says:

    The problem now of course will be to separate genuine comments from spoofs and plants. Don’t believe everything you read! ;)

  5. Caral Says:

    haha, I don’t Jim, no worries!!

    I was reading the initial comments, posted last night immediately after the apology.

    Have a look.

  6. Jim Says:

    Yes, I know Caral. There’s also of course a danger of selective quote mining. I’m sure it was unintentional, but your quote above was part of a longer post. In context the quote may be understood in a subtly different way. Words, words, words… ;)

  7. Caral Says:

    Hi Jim. Selective quote mining?

    I’m not a fundie and it isn’t Scripture. ;)

    My post was totally tongue in cheek, and not serious at all, my aim was to subtly alike it to the Christian faith. :)

    I must have failed

  8. Jim Says:

    No problem. My jibe was light hearted too. I guess if there was a serious point it was that the quote taken out of context could be misconstrued, and also that this is but one of many posts, the majority of which do not display this tone.
    No hard feelings! ;)

Switch to our mobile site