You’re a Nazi murderer

If you wish to contest this irrefutable charge, allow me to guide you through a simple logical process even you could understand:

Man is just an animal.

He may be marginally smarter than other animals, but that’s only a difference of degree.

Therefore a cow is no less of a moral agent than man.

Hence no moral difference exists between killing a person or a cow.

Laws stipulate that aiding and abetting a crime is tantamount to perpetrating it.

Therefore anyone who aids and abets the killing of a cow is as guilty as anyone who aids and abets any old murder.

Eating the flesh of a murdered animal undoubtedly constitutes aiding and abetting murder: if nobody ate meat, animals wouldn’t be slaughtered.

Therefore every time you tuck into a boeuf Bourguignon, you brand yourself as a murderer.

Since over a lifetime you’ve consumed many animals, you’re not just a murderer, but a mass one at that.

The only way for you to redeem yourself is to become a vegetarian, if you aren’t one already. Ergo, since at least 95 per cent of my readers are carnivores, it’s a safe assumption that you’re a mass murderer.

Now either you accept the validity of this logical structure or you agree that the professional atheist Richard Dawkins is an idiot. For the above is exactly what he’s saying, albeit not in the same strict logical sequence (he’s incapable of sequential thought).

And verbatim? “When I pass one of those lorries with little slats and see fearful eyes peering out, I think of the railway wagons to Auschwitz.”

That’s supposed to move Richard to a higher moral plateau than the one occupied by you and me, Nazi murderers for whom the same sight only means boeuf Bourguignon.

Even as Auschwitz was inspired by an ideology of racial superiority, so is meat eating inspired by what Dawkins (and those who are similarly deficient intellectually) describes as ‘specieism’, the belief that man is qualitatively superior to any other species.

This, believes Dawkins, will one day be viewed with the same revulsion as racism: “We put humanity on a pedestal miles higher than the surrounding territory. A human foetus that has approximately the anatomy and brainpower of a worm is accorded more status than an adult chimpanzee.”

That Richard Dawkins is no great mind should be instantly obvious to any intelligent person. So obvious, in fact, that it’s hardly worth talking about. I’m only quoting that deranged drivel to show the depth of the intellectual abyss into which an atheist inevitably falls.

Even Dawkins has enough brain power to realise that – speaking in strictly secular terms – the principal difference between a human foetus and a worm or a chimpanzee is the dynamic potential. Man is the only part of the biological world (I was about to say God’s Creation, but stopped myself just in time) whose lifespan isn’t determined by his chemical, physical or biological makeup.

Thus a worm will remain the same worm as long as it lives. However, something that starts life with “approximately the anatomy and brainpower of a worm” will develop into a human being, even if only one as flawed as Richard Dawkins.

A worm or even an adult chimpanzee won’t be able to explain, not even in Dawkins’s asinine way, why man is no different from them. A human being may arrive at such thoughts at age five, though most, with a few notable exceptions, leave them behind by the time they grow up.

In that sense a worm or an ape is much closer to vegetables or minerals than to man. Their lives are predetermined at birth, whereas man’s conscious choices can direct his life into an endless variety of conduits.

For example, Dawkins could have chosen to read things like philosophy, theology and logic, which might have helped to turn him into an intelligent person, or at least not one manifestly stupid. Instead he chose to make millions writing strident atheistic gibberish that lamentably appeals to our comprehensively educated masses.

Had he taken a different path, he could have learned not to ignore facts that contradict his ideological bias. And had he been able to walk up another couple of intellectual steps, he might even have realised that atheism, especially if taken to its logical conclusion, is an intellectual death trap.

Refusing to see the qualitative difference between man and worms naturally flows out of atheism, and Dawkins is foolishly consistent here (Emerson: “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.”). Equally consistent is his sermon of vegetarianism, and his woolly arguments in its favour.

In our anthropocentric civilisation, killing animals doesn’t constitute murder, as Dawkins claims. In fact, the Western position on carnivorism was manifestly laid down in Genesis: “Every moving thing that liveth shall be meat for you; even as the green herb have I given you all things.”

We no longer follow Biblical prescriptions, but they’ve seeped into the genetic make-up of our civilisation. Therefore even those unaware of the scriptural origin of their everyday practices unwittingly follow them every day.

Ideological vegetarians don’t, not this practice anyway, thereby implicitly denying the spiritual provenance of our civilisation. Intellectually, they’re as anomic as they are anaemic.

Dawkins, who illogically hates God who, according to him, doesn’t exist, practices anomie explicitly and stridently. His turgid musings prove yet again, if further proof is needed, that any intellectual process starting from a false premise will end up like a house built on a termite-ridden foundation – so much rubbish strewn about.