Login |
New User
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
Climbing Mount Improbable
by Richard Dawkins
Print
It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud
by Calgary Herald
Thanks to Justin Deveau for the link.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=dd4d9e9f-e2b3-4789-8222-3a06d507d724
It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud
Every faith, the dogmatic atheists say, contains a seed of violence and torment
Barry Cooper, For The Calgary Herald
Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The shining example of free thinking said to characterize the French Enlightenment was Voltaire. In the face of dogmatic clerics, both Protestant and Catholic, he urged reasonable people everywhere to "crush the infamous thing."
His argument was as obvious then as it is today: organized religion not only divides humanity into believers and infidels, it authorizes the former, with a beatific smile, to extinguish the latter. Often religion claims to be doing so for the good of the infidel.
That Voltaire had Christianity in mind is indicated by a rather more vulgar expression from his pen: "the people will not be free until the last king is strangled in the guts of the last priest."
Modern would-be Voltaires such as Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins are just as strident in their hatred of religion in general and revealed religion in particular.
For my money, their arguments don't amount to a hill of beans. They simply oppose one dogma with another. Truth to tell, such analysis as they advance has little to do with serious and existentially commanding descriptions of religious experience. Their questions like those of the village atheist are just plain silly: can an omnipotent God make a rock bigger than he can lift?
So the question that comes to mind is: why are they shouting so loudly?
The two most obvious explanations are, first, that they think their opponents are so powerful that they must amplify their own arguments just to get a hearing.
Second, they know full well that their own arguments are so weak that they have to obscure this fact with a high-decibel diversion.
True, these "evangelical atheists," as Roger Scruton called them, do think religion is both powerful and malign. They can point to Islamists for contemporary proof, but add that the current crop of fanatics has hordes of angelic predecessors, stretching back to antiquity.
Every faith, the dogmatic atheists say, contains a seed of violence and torment, even (or especially) among those who see in their religion a command to love their neighbours, including neighbours as obnoxious as these atheist critics.
In short, the atheists' dogmatism is as much an expression of the weakness of their position as is the dogmatism of the believers.
We can see it all on a daily basis, played out in the letters pages of this and many other newspapers, with the heated and mutual denunciations of the atheist Darwinians versus the Creationists of the supporters of Intelligent Design.
To use Dawkins' formula, we are machines that ensure the survival of our genes, which are nothing but complicated molecules that obey the laws of organic chemistry. They emerged one fine day, the story goes, from the primordial soup. How that actually happened in detail is so far unknown, but science, not religion, will one day explain.
What Dawkins and his pals don't seem to get is that religious people are quite happy to think of themselves, for purposes of genetic biology, as survival machines for genes. But they have a few other questions to ask.
They wonder, for example, where the first gene, selfish or not, came from. Or, if it came from the soup, where did the soup come from? Or the universe as a whole?
When the atheists reply, "The Big Bang," the curious have one more question: what caused the Big Bang?
The answer of physicists is clear: close to the "time" of the Big Bang, the number of unknowns in our matrix of mathematical equations is greater than the number of knowns. This means there is no unique mathematical solution. Which is to say: if there is an answer, physics cannot provide it.
Karl Marx, who was equally dogmatic regarding such questions, said that even raising such questions was a waste of time. They were, he said, "abstract."
And then he told his inquirer to shut up. "Socialist man," he famously declared, "does not ask such questions." That is probably true. Socialist man does not wonder about where it all came from.
The problem, however, is that some people find raising the question, even if they don't know the answer, a meaningful act. They are going to wonder about such things whether Marx or Christopher Hitchens approves.
Wondering means tolerating mysteries. Interestingly enough, it was Socrates, not some religious fanatic so pilloried by the evangelical atheists, who said that philosophy begins in wonder.
Wonder is something enlightened atheists never could abide. No wonder they shout so much.
Barry Cooper, PhD, is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.
http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=dd4d9e9f-e2b3-4789-8222-3a06d507d724
It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud
Every faith, the dogmatic atheists say, contains a seed of violence and torment
Barry Cooper, For The Calgary Herald
Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2008
The shining example of free thinking said to characterize the French Enlightenment was Voltaire. In the face of dogmatic clerics, both Protestant and Catholic, he urged reasonable people everywhere to "crush the infamous thing."
His argument was as obvious then as it is today: organized religion not only divides humanity into believers and infidels, it authorizes the former, with a beatific smile, to extinguish the latter. Often religion claims to be doing so for the good of the infidel.
That Voltaire had Christianity in mind is indicated by a rather more vulgar expression from his pen: "the people will not be free until the last king is strangled in the guts of the last priest."
Modern would-be Voltaires such as Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins are just as strident in their hatred of religion in general and revealed religion in particular.
For my money, their arguments don't amount to a hill of beans. They simply oppose one dogma with another. Truth to tell, such analysis as they advance has little to do with serious and existentially commanding descriptions of religious experience. Their questions like those of the village atheist are just plain silly: can an omnipotent God make a rock bigger than he can lift?
So the question that comes to mind is: why are they shouting so loudly?
The two most obvious explanations are, first, that they think their opponents are so powerful that they must amplify their own arguments just to get a hearing.
Second, they know full well that their own arguments are so weak that they have to obscure this fact with a high-decibel diversion.
True, these "evangelical atheists," as Roger Scruton called them, do think religion is both powerful and malign. They can point to Islamists for contemporary proof, but add that the current crop of fanatics has hordes of angelic predecessors, stretching back to antiquity.
Every faith, the dogmatic atheists say, contains a seed of violence and torment, even (or especially) among those who see in their religion a command to love their neighbours, including neighbours as obnoxious as these atheist critics.
In short, the atheists' dogmatism is as much an expression of the weakness of their position as is the dogmatism of the believers.
We can see it all on a daily basis, played out in the letters pages of this and many other newspapers, with the heated and mutual denunciations of the atheist Darwinians versus the Creationists of the supporters of Intelligent Design.
To use Dawkins' formula, we are machines that ensure the survival of our genes, which are nothing but complicated molecules that obey the laws of organic chemistry. They emerged one fine day, the story goes, from the primordial soup. How that actually happened in detail is so far unknown, but science, not religion, will one day explain.
What Dawkins and his pals don't seem to get is that religious people are quite happy to think of themselves, for purposes of genetic biology, as survival machines for genes. But they have a few other questions to ask.
They wonder, for example, where the first gene, selfish or not, came from. Or, if it came from the soup, where did the soup come from? Or the universe as a whole?
When the atheists reply, "The Big Bang," the curious have one more question: what caused the Big Bang?
The answer of physicists is clear: close to the "time" of the Big Bang, the number of unknowns in our matrix of mathematical equations is greater than the number of knowns. This means there is no unique mathematical solution. Which is to say: if there is an answer, physics cannot provide it.
Karl Marx, who was equally dogmatic regarding such questions, said that even raising such questions was a waste of time. They were, he said, "abstract."
And then he told his inquirer to shut up. "Socialist man," he famously declared, "does not ask such questions." That is probably true. Socialist man does not wonder about where it all came from.
The problem, however, is that some people find raising the question, even if they don't know the answer, a meaningful act. They are going to wonder about such things whether Marx or Christopher Hitchens approves.
Wondering means tolerating mysteries. Interestingly enough, it was Socrates, not some religious fanatic so pilloried by the evangelical atheists, who said that philosophy begins in wonder.
Wonder is something enlightened atheists never could abide. No wonder they shout so much.
Barry Cooper, PhD, is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Wednesday, August 27, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 240 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #237953 by Pattern Seeker on August 27, 2008 at 1:03 pm
This shit again?! I really do think they enjoy hearing themselves spew the same 'ol shit. They really need to try something new. Other Comments by Pattern Seeker
3. Comment #237954 by PrimeNumbers on August 27, 2008 at 1:03 pm
Barry Cooper, the idiot who has not read Dawkin's books, but instead shouts at a straw man parody - perhaps he shouts so much because his argument stinks. Other Comments by PrimeNumbers
4. Comment #237956 by rod-the-farmer on August 27, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Of course, asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is truly significant. What a load of crap. I will submit a longer response directly to the newspaper. Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
5. Comment #237957 by JLD Calgary on August 27, 2008 at 1:05 pm
I've submitted a letter to the editor regarding this naive article, I'm hoping it gets published in response. Wish me luck!Justin
Other Comments by JLD Calgary
6. Comment #237958 by SharonMcT on August 27, 2008 at 1:07 pm
*sigh*
It almost sounds like parody.
This is what we are up against here in the bible belt of Canada. How utterly embarrassing.
Other Comments by SharonMcT
7. Comment #237959 by clodhopper on August 27, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Total Fucktard of The Month material Other Comments by clodhopper
9. Comment #237961 by Elli on August 27, 2008 at 1:11 pm
This is parody, surely? Other Comments by Elli
10. Comment #237962 by SomeDanGuy on August 27, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Are these reviewers playing a version of 'telephone'? They seem to have written their reviews based on reviews of a review of a review. Whatever 'shouting', 'dogma', and 'weak arguments' they're talking about sure aren't contained in the original texts.Other Comments by SomeDanGuy
11. Comment #237963 by LBraschi on August 27, 2008 at 1:12 pm
Another moron with a PhD. Guess he won that on a lottery. Other Comments by LBraschi
12. Comment #237964 by Smith on August 27, 2008 at 1:13 pm
I can only take comfort that I don't know where Calgary is. Other Comments by Smith
13. Comment #237966 by Am I Evil? on August 27, 2008 at 1:16 pm
How many more 'articles' like these are we going to get?! Change the bloody record! Same old same old... What caused the Big Bang? Don't know. Yet. We're working on it.
What caused God? Don't ask that, it offends...
Ugh!
Other Comments by Am I Evil?
14. Comment #237967 by thewhitepearl on August 27, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Watching a three year old pick his nose is more interesting then this.
[yawn]
Other Comments by thewhitepearl
15. Comment #237969 by fsm1965 on August 27, 2008 at 1:19 pm
yet another "angry atheist", "another belief system". Can't they see these cliches don't wash?Other Comments by fsm1965
16. Comment #237970 by testonepatella on August 27, 2008 at 1:19 pm
What tripe! And what, Barry Cooper, will the curious (by which, one presumes, you mean the curious theist) reply to the question "and who created the creator"?Other Comments by testonepatella
17. Comment #237971 by rod-the-farmer on August 27, 2008 at 1:19 pm
Cowberry is one of the two major cities in the Canadian province of Alberta. Try looking due north of Montana, or Idaho. Here, after a bit of research, is the email for the letters to the editor.letters@theherald.canwest.com
I WILL write about this article. A PhD in Political Science. Now there is a source I would go to for reliable info on religion.
Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
18. Comment #237973 by Stella on August 27, 2008 at 1:20 pm
Ha. Ha. Ha.ETA:
1. I think I have a hell of a lot more "wonder" than most theists I meet
2. If by "wonder" she means "child-like reverence for fairy tales" or "the desire to keep the Universe shrouded in mystery," that is a fault, not a virtue
3. Invoking Karl Marx is a total non-sequitur
4. But, to boot, she is wrong about that, too
Other Comments by Stella
19. Comment #237974 by Smith on August 27, 2008 at 1:20 pm
It seems that this PhD doesn't know that it's exactly the silliness of questions like "Can an omnipotent God make a rock bigger than he can lift?" make the God concept look bad. Other Comments by Smith
20. Comment #237977 by equivocal20 on August 27, 2008 at 1:21 pm
"When the atheists reply, "The Big Bang," the curious have one more question: what caused the Big Bang?"And what caused the supernatural being that caused that supernatural being? Does he not get this argument? How does anyone ever and anywhere not get this argument? Why are people so damn dumb? That is the real question.
Other Comments by equivocal20
21. Comment #237978 by JHJEFFERY on August 27, 2008 at 1:22 pm
"In short, the atheists' dogmatism is as much an expression of the weakness of their position as is the dogmatism of the believers"So . . . there are both weak? How does that work?
This is one unintelligent human, PhD or not.
Other Comments by JHJEFFERY
22. Comment #237979 by indigo.myth on August 27, 2008 at 1:22 pm
So, Mr Cooper considers the philosophical implications of 'omnipotence' to be a 'silly question', but apparently not 'what caused the Big Bang?' Apparently the only things which are 'silly' are the things atheists question and query, but, heaven forbid we should question the foundational aspects of Christianity. Also, Cooper fails to acknowledge that such questions he dismisses as 'silly' are ones that have been the cause of much discussion by ardent theologians for thousands of years! Surely he would not criticise Aquinas's 'proofs' of Gods existence as being 'silly' and far removed from belief?Of course, this is ignoring the fallacy Cooper makes from the off by using the expression 'atheist dogma'.
Other Comments by indigo.myth
23. Comment #237984 by NewEnglandBob on August 27, 2008 at 1:30 pm
The premise of this article is false and everything in it is a fallacy. Someone please spray some air freshener here since this guy stunk the place up with lies. Other Comments by NewEnglandBob
24. Comment #237986 by textnotspeech on August 27, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I'm gonna call this the "Straw Man in the Mirror" fallacy. Every attack levied against the so-called "dogmatic atheist" is merely a reflection of the weaknesses in his own argument.Other Comments by textnotspeech
25. Comment #237991 by irate_atheist on August 27, 2008 at 1:33 pm
7. Comment #237959 by clodhopper -
A gold plated fucktard award.
What an ignorant, cretinous, twat of a human being - redolent of David Robertson wearing a bow tie.
Every day, the list of people that get on my tits grows a bit longer.
Wondering means tolerating mysteries.Bullshit. Wondering means trying to learn about what you don't already know. Wondering does not mean staying wilfully ignorant and claiming 'goddidit' because you're too fucking stupid or lazy to investigate it.
Every faith, the dogmatic atheists say, contains a seed of violence and torment, even (or especially) among those who see in their religion a command to love their neighbours, including neighbours as obnoxious as these atheist critics.Witch trials. Anti-semitism. Anti-birth control. The Inquisition. The doctrine of hell. The crusades. And on. And on. And on.
Other Comments by irate_atheist
26. Comment #237992 by 8teist on August 27, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Another idiot for jesus..................just what we need. Other Comments by 8teist
27. Comment #238004 by pedantic_semantic on August 27, 2008 at 1:45 pm
Of course, asking how many angels can dance on the head of a pin is truly significant. What a load of crap. I will submit a longer response directly to the newspaper.
rod-the-farmer, I would like to read your response. Would you mind also posting your response to the newspaper in this thread?
Other Comments by pedantic_semantic
28. Comment #238007 by NMcC on August 27, 2008 at 1:49 pm
What utter drivel from first word to last!No doubt Cooper has included the little bit about Marx at the end to tar the atheist view with 'communism'.
Unfortunately, Cooper is just as hopeless here as he is in the first part of this tripe, and evidently knows nothing about Marx.
Firstly, as a matter of historical record, Marx was famously lacking in dogmatism in the matter of religion. That's why, when the Russian Anarchist, Michael Bakunin, tried to set up a secret society within the First International Working Men's Association, one of Marx's main criticisms of Bakunin was that he was trying to introduce "atheism as a dogma".
Secondly, far from being a dogmatist, Marx's self-declared favourite maxim was De omnibus dubitandum (doubt everything).
Thirdly, far from 'famously declaring' that 'Socialist man doesn't ask such questions' I have a strong suspicion that Marx never declared anything of the sort and that Cooper has simply made that quote up. I certainly have never heard of it before and it sounds more like some crap-merchant from the Russian Communist Party than Marx himself.
So, three statements about Marx, and all of them lies.
Other Comments by NMcC
29. Comment #238012 by scottishgeologist on August 27, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Sigh....
"Barry Cooper, PhD, is a professor of political science at the University of Calgary"
as opposed to "Dr Barry Cooper etc etc..."
This "milking the qualification for all its worth"... Big Deal!!
a PhD means f*ck all if its the postnomial predicate to total insanity. Look at Kurt Wise for instance:
a PhD in invertebrate paleaontology from Harvard. Yet this is the guy who said: "if all the evidence in the universe turns against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate"
Meaningless.
:-))
SG
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
30. Comment #238014 by Szymanowski on August 27, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Second, they know full well that their own arguments are so weak that they have to obscure this fact with a high-decibel diversion.This is very ironic.
Christopher Hitchens / Richard Dawkins, etc: soft-spoken, polite, dense but clear prose.
Rabbi Boteach / Dinesh D'Souza / Muslim Rage Boy / (Adolf Hitler), etc: shouts, ad hominems, pithy slogans.
But it's a very good tactic - if you make the unsubstantiated accusation that a group of people are whingers - they can't write in to complain about it.
Other Comments by Szymanowski
31. Comment #238015 by squinky on August 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I'm an atheist and I shout because I'm fucking pissed.
Here's why: Me and my fellow scientists KNOW the real reasons for why shit in the world works the way it does. We shout because the facts are so obvious and there is nothing quite as frustrating and patronizing as a goober like Ted Haggard looking you in the eye and saying "Gawd made the Grand Canyun and he loves yew even tho you haven't accepted Him as yer personal savure"
Fucktards doesn't even begin to capture it (nod to irate_atheist)
Other Comments by squinky
32. Comment #238016 by robotaholic on August 27, 2008 at 1:59 pm
I don't get it... He states that atheists and the religious are both dogmatic. So....if you're not atheist and you're not religious then what in the hell are you?
What really gets under my skin is the argument that atheists are just as full of dogmatic faith as the religious. We are not. Claiming that you know for a FACT that there is a creator of the entire universe - and that you know what he/she wants - now THAT's dogmatic.
And in regards to loudly yelling atheists...what? I know he's referring to Dawkins, and Hitchens at lesat because he directly mentioned their names...but how are they yelling?
Other Comments by robotaholic
33. Comment #238017 by scottishgeologist on August 27, 2008 at 2:00 pm
smith said:
"I can only take comfort that I don't know where Calgary is"
Rather a nice sandy beach in the north west of the Island of Mull I believe....!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calgary,_Mull
:-))
SG
PS: Oh yes, BTW, it should be "loudly" (adverb) as opposed to "loud" (adjective)...
Other Comments by scottishgeologist
34. Comment #238018 by Animavore on August 27, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Yeah you see throves of atheists on the top and bottom of Grafton street handing out copies of TGD and accosting bystanders asking them to seek the truth or something bad will happen to them, please for the love of Dawk let all ears that can hear accept the truth. Other Comments by Animavore
35. Comment #238019 by Diacanu on August 27, 2008 at 2:01 pm
They wonder, for example, where the first gene, selfish or not, came from. Or, if it came from the soup, where did the soup come from? Or the universe as a whole?
Well, don't look for religion to answer any of those.
"Goddidit", doesn't cut it as any sort of real answer.
The problem, however, is that some people find raising the question, even if they don't know the answer, a meaningful act.
Raising a question you don't know an answer to, and then searching for the answer is meaningful.
Raising a question you don't know the answer to, and thinking there's something magical about navel gazing on your ignorance is just retarded.
Wonder is something enlightened atheists never could abide.
Blow it out your ass.
Other Comments by Diacanu
36. Comment #238020 by burkbraun on August 27, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Dear Editors:Barry Cooper, in his recent polemic against atheism, cites curiosity and wonder as the key difference between theists and atheists. "(theists) wonder, for example, where the first gene, selfish or not, came from. Or, if it came from the soup, where did the soup come from? Or the universe as a whole?".
Apparently Mr. Cooper does not appreciate the irony of his position, asking questions for which the only valid answers that have ever been arrived at have come from the process of science, not from religion. It takes precious little ingenuity to answer human curiosity with "God did it" and its many variations: "God created everything", or "Brahma created the earth from the lotus flower growing from Vishnu's navel". Religion expresses our feelings of wonder with great verve, but cares little for the truth of its answers. Atheists care a great deal about truth, which is why they adhere to scientific principles and regard religions as artistic expressions of human feeling, without taking them seriously as intellectual fact-finding processes.
Other Comments by burkbraun
37. Comment #238025 by shemp333 on August 27, 2008 at 2:03 pm
In the words of George Carln,
"You talk about a good bullshit story.... Hoooleee Shit!!!"
Other Comments by shemp333
38. Comment #238026 by perkyjay on August 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm
Barry Cooper is a mentor of our inglorious Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who during his regrettably long sojourn at the seat of Canadian power, Ottawa, has attended the mega-church of George McVety, a born-again preacher and eminence grise behind every piece of restrictive legislation and policy that Harper and his minions have passed or introduced in the last two and a half disastrous years.Other Comments by perkyjay
39. Comment #238027 by daveau on August 27, 2008 at 2:08 pm
It's inexcusable for a (presumably) professional writer not to know the meaning of a word he uses 7 times in one article: dogma. You don't even need to pay for a dictionary; you can look up words for free on the interwebs.Other Comments by daveau
40. Comment #238029 by stevencarrwork on August 27, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Yet another article about how the atheists are wrong which never gives a single reason why this alleged god exists.I think all theists have signed a secrecy code so that they are never allowed to speak about any evidence for god.
Other Comments by stevencarrwork
41. Comment #238031 by squinky on August 27, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Leave it to a Ph.D. in political science to quote Karl Marx like some authority. Karl Marx! that f'n wingnut of history and political philosophy!
If I ate the Bible, shit it out, and read that log like a palm reader's tea leaves I would find more facts than this article contains.
Guys like Barry really get under my skin. I don't know how Dawkins maintains such gentlemanly composure and refrains from even raising his voice.
Other Comments by squinky
42. Comment #238032 by Border Collie on August 27, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Damnit, he used the 's' buzz-word again to describe RD!Other Comments by Border Collie
43. Comment #238034 by mordacious1 on August 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm
BorderThey sent out a memo.
Other Comments by mordacious1
44. Comment #238035 by Graham on August 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm
"Wonder is something enlightened atheists never could abide."Hmmm, I guess this myopic ignoramus didn't google wonder and atheism!
Wonder plays a very big part in my personal philosphy, just like it does for Ann Druyan and did for her late husband Carl Sagan.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/ann_druyan_science_wonder_and_spirituality/
http://www.positiveatheism.org/writ/saganws.htm
Anyone prepared to send him a copy of Unweaving the Rainbow? This political science PhD needs to take a 101 course in basic philosophy and humanism.
Other Comments by Graham
45. Comment #238036 by Border Collie on August 27, 2008 at 2:17 pm
I've heard Calgary compared to Fort Worth ... sort of redneck, cowtown, pickups, big hair, etc. ... must be a little truth to it.Other Comments by Border Collie
46. Comment #238037 by Diacanu on August 27, 2008 at 2:18 pm
squinky-
I don't know how Dawkins maintains such gentlemanly composure and refrains from even raising his voice.
Yes, we're all really lucky Richard is Richard, and not me.
If I were Richard, I'd've impaled one of these douchebags in the ass with a trident, screaming "I gotcha strident right here, mothafokka!!!!", and been in jail.
Other Comments by Diacanu
47. Comment #238039 by jaf on August 27, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Wondering means tolerating mysteries.
No, it doesn't. It means finding out, by damned hard work. It doesn't mean saying 'goddidit'.
And by the stars, I *will* shout, at the top of my voice, and stridently, until the fuckwits who obstinately refuse to hear can do no other. After all, if they won't listen to sense, they'll listen to decibels.
Other Comments by jaf
48. Comment #238044 by Jefe on August 27, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Email Sent:Dear Professor Cooper,
It was with a pang of displeasure and a twinge of regret that I had the displeasure to read your editorial about atheism in the Calgary Herald from August 27, 2008, entitled "It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud".
You accuse atheists of being strident in their examination of socio-political issues of the day on one hand, while painting them with a broad-stroke of anti-inquisitiveness and dogmatism on the other hand. It seems ironic that a professor of Political Science is allowing his partisanship to a particular position in the theism/atheism conversation to allow such sweeping generalization, and misinformed trope-mongering to be his primary message in that article.
I'm ashamed of your article and your artificial tribalistic position that seems to want to belittle and ostracize those with a differing opinion to your own. I'm embarrassed for you that you would create a hollow strawman of generalized noninquisitiveness to represent your view of atheists, and that you chose that particular falacious windmill against which to tilt.
It doesn't make me proud to be counted as a Calgarian, or Canadian when our names share a geographic role call, and your opinion might be taken for indicative of echoing my own due to our civic neighborhood.
In the future, I recommend you heed the advice of your elders. If you have nothing nice to say about people, don't speak. (Or type, as this case would require.)
A Concerned Calgarian.
Other Comments by Jefe
49. Comment #238047 by Gmork on August 27, 2008 at 2:29 pm
Biology. Physics.--Wait--do I have to be a scientist to be an atheist?Fraser Barry Cooper: "Modern would-be Voltaires such as Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins are just as strident in their hatred of religion in general and revealed religion in particular."
I don't have a problem with hatred of delusion.
More about this person:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_F._Cooper
Apparently, not a very honest person either. Then again, I can't find myself really trusting the other side, but it's an interesting case against him.
Other Comments by Gmork
50. Comment #238048 by Diacanu on August 27, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Myself-
Yes, we're all really lucky Richard is Richard, and not me.
If I were Richard, I'd've impaled one of these douchebags in the ass with a trident, screaming "I gotcha strident right here, mothafokka!!!!", and been in jail.
Oh, okay, not really.
I'd just chase 'em with the trident for a couple yards to get them running, and away from me.
But I'd want them to THINK I'd use it.
Other Comments by Diacanu
Comment Entry: Please Login
Register a new account
Upcoming Events:
Mailing List
Enter your email:
DVDs
'The Enemies of Reason: The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Voices of Reason' DVD
'Richard Dawkins: Appearances & Events 2007-2008' DVD
'Enemies of Reason' DVD
'Root of All Evil?' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
'Voices of Science' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
1. Comment #237952 by Layla Nasreddin on August 27, 2008 at 1:02 pm
Other Comments by Layla Nasreddin