Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, July 30, 2007 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments

Document The Out Campaign

by Richard Dawkins

In the dark days of 1940, the pre-Vichy French government was warned by its generals "In three weeks England will have her neck wrung like a chicken." After the Battle of Britain, Winston Churchill growled his response: "Some chicken; some neck!" Today, the bestselling books of 'The New Atheism' are disparaged, by those who desperately wish to downplay their impact, as "Only preaching to the choir."

Some choir! Only?!

As far as subjective impressions allow and in the admitted absence of rigorous data, I am persuaded that the religiosity of America is greatly exaggerated. Our choir is a lot larger than many people realise. Religious people still outnumber atheists, but not by the margin they hoped and we feared. I base this not only on conversations during my book tour and the book tours of my colleagues Daniel Dennett, Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens, but on widespread informal surveys of the World Wide Web. Not our own site, whose contributors are obviously biased, but, for example, Amazon, and YouTube whose denizens are reassuringly young. Moreover, even if the religious have the numbers, we have the arguments, we have history on our side, and we are walking with a new spring in our step – you can hear the gentle patter of our feet on every side.

Our choir is large, but much of it remains in the closet. Our repertoire may include the best tunes, but too many of us are mouthing the words sotto voce with head bowed and eyes lowered. It follows that a major part of our consciousness-raising effort should be aimed, not at converting the religious but at encouraging the non-religious to admit it – to themselves, to their families, and to the world. This is the purpose of the OUT campaign.

Before I go any further, I must forestall one major risk of misunderstanding. The obvious comparison with the gay community is vulnerable to going too far: to 'outing' as a transitive verb whose object might be an unfortunate individual not yet – or not ever – ready to confide in the world. Our OUT campaign will have nothing, repeat nothing to do with outing in that active sense. If a closet atheist wants to come out, that is her decision to make, and nobody else's. What we can do is provide support and encouragement to those who willingly decide to out themselves. This may seem trivial to people in parts of Europe, or in regions of the United States dominated by urban intellectuals where support and encouragement is unnecessary. It is anything but trivial to people in other areas of the United States, and even more so in parts of the Islamic world where apostasy is, by Koranic authority, punishable by death.

The OUT campaign has potentially as many sides to it as you can think of words to precede "out". "Come OUT" has pride of place and is the one I have so far dealt with. Related to it is "Reach OUT" in friendship and solidarity towards those who have come out, or who are contemplating that step which, depending on their family or home town prejudices, may require courage. Join, or found local support groups and on-line forums. Speak OUT, to show waverers they are not alone. Organize conferences or campus events. Attend rallies and marches. Write letters to the local newspaper. Lobby politicians, at local and national level. The more people come out and are known to have done so, the easier will it be for others to follow.

Stand OUT and organize activities and events in your local area. Join an existing local neighbourhood atheist organization, or start one. Put a bumper sticker on your car. Wear a T-shirt. Wear Josh's red A if you like it as much as I do, otherwise design your own or find one on a website such as http://www.cafepress.com/buy/atheist; or wear no shirt at all, but please don't carp at the very idea of standing up to be counted with other atheists. I admit, I sympathize with those sceptics on this site who fear that we are engendering a quasi-religious conformity of our own. Whether we like it or not, I'm afraid we have to swallow this small amount of pride if we are to have an influence on the real world, otherwise we'll never overcome the 'herding cats' problem. If in doubt, read PZ Myers's exuberant hortation at http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/come_out.php.

"Keep" OUT worried me at first, because it sounds unfriendly and exclusive, like the Barcelona Travel Agent whose travel poster, in well-meant English, read "Go Away!" "Keep OUT" here means, of course, keep religion out of science classes, and similar expressions of the US constitutional separation between church and state (Britain has no such separation, unfortunately). As yet another delightful T-shirt put it, "Don't pray in our school, and I won't think in your church." Lobby your local school board. Quote Christopher Hitchens: "Mr Jefferson, build up that wall."

Chill OUT (exhort others to do so). Atheists are not devils with horns and a tail, they are ordinary nice people. Demonstrate this by example. The nice woman next door may be an atheist. So may the doctor, librarian, computer operator, taxi driver, hairdresser, talk show host, singer, conductor, comedian. Atheists are just people with a different interpretation of cosmic origins, nothing to be alarmed about.

What other OUTs might we imagine? Well, suggest your own. Vote OUT representatives who discriminate against the non-religious, the way George Bush Senior is alleged to have done when he described atheists as non-citizens of a nation "under God". Politicians follow where the votes are. They can only count atheists who are OUT. Some atheists are defeatist in thinking we'll never be effective simply because we're not a majority. But it doesn't matter that we're not a majority. To be effective, all we have to be is recognizable to legislators as a big enough minority. Atheists are more numerous than religious Jews, yet they wield a tiny fraction of the political power, apparently because they have never got their act together in the way the Jewish lobby so brilliantly has: the famous 'herding cats' problem again. And the argument applies not just to politicians but to advertisers, the media, merchants across the board. Anyone who wants to sell us anything caters to demographics. We need to stand up and be counted, so that the demographically savvy culture will come to reflect our tastes and our views. That in turn makes it easier for the next generation of atheists. Fill OUT 'Atheist' on any form that asks for your personal details, especially the next census form.

Break OUT! Some might like to throw 'coming OUT' parties where they joyously celebrate the courage of those who have decided to put behind them the habits of a lifetime, or the habits of their ancestors, embrace a realistic and superstition-free life and Break OUT into the real world. Break OUT of religious conformity and, in celebration of your new found freedom, Break OUT the champagne.

http://OutCampaign.org


Comments 201 - 250 of 728 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

201. Comment #60053 by Robert Maynard on July 31, 2007 at 5:14 pm

 avatar
Henri: I agree with him that many of you are Dawkin ACOLYTES. Of course the flea's beliefs are absurd, but you help his cause by your herd-like behaviour.
Riiight. So if someone made a statement which was incorrect in very specific ways, and everyone seemed to reply to him and correct or scorn him in the same manner, that would be 'following'.
(Leave aside that people are less patient with him now, he has been corrected on all of these issues in the past by many individual people, and his latest was a dirty bomb of heavy stupid)

Oh, and apparently, the more people there are correcting his arguments or expressing exasperation, the better his argument becomes, because we're herding.
No, you say, in order to be truly "individualistic", everyone needs to develop unique opinions about everything, including the best way to make bread. Has anyone here tried including sand? Oh come on, don't follow the flour-herd!
In order to be "true" atheists (as you sickeningly declared yourself to be in another thread, at the exclusion of those present) we must all have non-overlapping, incompatible goals and beliefs!

This is false. It is as false as the notion (held in other social spheres) which demands individual fashion sense as a pre-requisite for a well defined self-identity.
Telling people to "become their own gods", or that you are "the true atheist here", is to call on people to be like you. "Once you are all like me, you will be true individualists!" Again, this is extremely silly and childish.

I have to ask, seeing you didn't respond to me last time, to what extent are you glorifying independence? And, given that you see it as a form of weakness, and a property of children and the elderly for example, do you think weakness is something to be protected or extirpated?

Ricey: At least the Flea has individuality on his side.
Ah, I see, so according to you, 'individuality' is a relative function which fluctuates depending on company and context.
SO, a minister for a religion whose general adherents are the most populous on the planet, and whose beliefs are in alignment with those of his faith, is an individual so long as he is alone on an atheist website, surrounded by atheists. Clever! Or not.

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

202. Comment #60055 by Herbsmoke on July 31, 2007 at 5:27 pm



Other Comments by Herbsmoke

203. Comment #60057 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 5:33 pm

 avatar_J_:
I'm 'a credit to this site'. Stick that in your pouch, marsupial.

_J_ until this comment, I've always admired your posts. But this is a discriminatory speciest remark. I cannot let it pass unrefuted We, who are pouched, should not be singled out. You're implying that being different, having a pouch, somehow makes us less of a mammal. I reject that. Females of my species lactate, and have hair. We are therefore mammals, as are monotremes like the echidna who lay eggs. It's a typical chauvinistic placentalist attack against us marsupials. We just care more for out young by giving them a place to develop after birth. If humans had pouches so that their young felt safe and warm, then I'm sure there'd be less angry people like WeeFlea.
Maybe I shouldn't have eaten that dead possum who was seen munching on that strange weed that the hippies have been planting before he jumped in front of a truck......Got the munchies, and a strange urge to listen to Pink Floyd.....

Other Comments by BAEOZ

204. Comment #60059 by Henri Bergson on July 31, 2007 at 5:37 pm

 avatarMaynard,

Methinks the lady doth protest too much!

Probably because you are a prime acolyte, as shown by your avatar...

You're not logical: I didn't deem commentators to be acolytes because of their responses to the flea, I deemed them to be so because of their general Dawkins worship before I'd even heard of that pathetic little flea. Not everyone, obviously.

Secondly, your wording is muddled. I presume you mean that I think dependence is a weakness (not independence as you wrote).

Please clarify your last question. Think about wording rather than meadows fresh.

----

But please don't misunderstand me: I am in favour of this political atheist movement in America.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

205. Comment #60062 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 5:59 pm

Henri Bergson, you are incorrect in your assertion that Nietzsche was not an individualist. Schopenhauer als Erzieher (Schopenhauer as Educator), Jenseits von Gut und Böse. Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft (Beyond Good and Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future) are two of his seminal works where individualism and originality are touted as being almost supremely important -- this being a recurring theme in his writings.

Also, as I am intimately acquainted with a christian presbyterian minister, I can assure you he is an individualist as well. Many of that denomination's ministers are individualists, and are constantly bucking the system. Which is why that denomination has been at the forefront of social progress for a couple hundred years.

Perhaps you are confusing them with the PCA (Presbyterian Church in America) which is staunchly conservative, not allowing non-whites or women as ministers (for instance).

Other Comments by gr8hands

206. Comment #60063 by Henri Bergson on July 31, 2007 at 6:10 pm

 avatargr8hands,

Do not attempt to fight me on Nietzsche, you will not win. You mentioned 'Beyond Good & Evil' – read §41. As I wrote, N argued that individualism was for the few, not for all. Thus he is not an 'individualist' in the common sense. Hierarchy, command and obedience is essential in his thought.

A clergyman 'bucking the system' is not for that reason an individual! Tell him to buck the religion if he wants true freedom (his church calls itself the 'free church').

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

207. Comment #60064 by Robert Maynard on July 31, 2007 at 6:11 pm

 avatarI am also an acolyte of rock bands, and I worship coca cola. Here's to making words lose all meaning! :D

You're quite right though - a rewording is in order:

I have to ask, seeing you didn't respond to me last time, to what extent are you glorifying independence? I take it you buy groceries and go to the doctor, so you must concede the benefits of human fellowship to some extent.
Given that you see dependence as a form of weakness, and a property of children and the elderly for example (as mentioned in another thread), what is your opinion on dealing with weakness?

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

208. Comment #60065 by Charlou on July 31, 2007 at 6:15 pm

 avatarQuoting Wea Flea: "As regards the clarification on original sin - I bleive that all human beings are born with a sinful human nature and that that nature develops throughout the course of their lives. It is not that much different from those who argue that some people might have a gentic predisposition towards a bad temper but that other factors can also contribute - both in a negative and positive way."

People are products of their upbringing, their environment, and the most negative aspect of religion, the belief that humans are inherently sinful is self fulfilling and self perpetuating.
New people, children, are like blank canvases and susceptible to believe what they are told. If told they're sinful (naughty, wicked) often enough, and with strident conviction, is it any wonder their behaviour will eventually reflect that? Once started down that path, it's often difficult to undo the damage. We have a world full of people whose behaviour reflects exactly what it is they've always been told to accept about themselves: inherently sinful.
What is the best way to bring up a happy, confident, well behaved person with positive values? A positive, nurturing environment and positive reinforcement. Religious preoccupation with inherent sinfulness fundamentally undermines this. This is borne out by studies across countries which show the higher the density of religious belief the higher the rate of crime, both against society, and against humanity. I see religion as the root of very much evil.

It's our preoccupation with and emphasis on good and evil that gives both such prominence in our behaviour. From the cradle (even as early as during pregnancy) we are endowed with value laden labels, described as either good or bad (naughty), an angelic child or a little devil, depending on our demeanor and behaviour and how that is interpreted by those who bestow the labels, without consideration of the surrounding issues, of why we are the way we are or do the things we do, nor the effect that such attitudes and labeling has upon the psyche. We carry that baggage around with us throughout our lives, accumulating more and more along the way. In our quest to divest ourselves of such a burden we must acknowledge that we are neither inherently good or bad, and reconstruct our sense of self from a perspective of who we are in relation to the natural world, not who we are in relation to the imposed values and ideals of others.

Other Comments by Charlou

209. Comment #60066 by Graham on July 31, 2007 at 6:20 pm

 avatarHi Wee Flee, a few comments

1)"Quasi religious nature of this site" - Should it therefore be considered quasi religious whenever a like minded group of people chat about issues that concern them. Funny definition of religion.

2) "widespread informal surveys of the Web" -
Should no scientist ever have an opinion or cast a vote in an election because of insufficient data?

3) "We know we are right" - A manner of speech. We know we know nothing 100% and we have perhaps a better idea of what we don't know than those of a more credulous bent.

4) "as Hitchins sticks the boot in and RD himself walks in all the subtilty of hob nail jack boots" - Depends who you are comparing to, the little old lady at the back of the church or the 911 terrorists.

5) "This whole political campaign is actualy a call to discriminate." - I agree, this "campaign" is all about being more discriminating about beliefs, NOT people.

6) "What else will you do, united around your lack of belief?" - Unite around a common respect FOR reason, rationality, evidence and awe and wonder of the natural (as opposed to imaginary supernatural) world

7) "you would all be shouting about commercialism and making money etc. Does this not apply here?" - Dunno, who gets the money, what is it used for and how much?

"is time for him to resign from his post at Oxford as the Professor of the Public understanding of Science?" - Absolutely not, this is the most dramatic and public defence of the scientific method in the face of primitive superstition in living memory. Keep it up.

Other Comments by Graham

210. Comment #60067 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 6:22 pm

 avatarWeeFlea:
It is not that much different from those who argue that some people might have a gentic predisposition towards a bad temper but that other factors can also contribute - both in a negative and positive way.

Terrible analogy. Behaviour can be experienced. Twin tests can be done. Any hypotheis can be falsified. Original sin, on the other hand, is a myth, not testable or falsifiable.

Good post there Charlou. Is that a veil you're wearing in the photo?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

211. Comment #60071 by Yorker on July 31, 2007 at 7:04 pm

 avatar201. Comment #60047 by Russell Blackford

That would be nice, but at my age I confess I couldn't handle that many, 20,000 tops, and you have to give me at least month to deal with them. :)


Disclaimer:

In the light of the recent displays of thin-skinned high sensitivity, ladies please note that this is a joke.

Other Comments by Yorker

212. Comment #60072 by Yorker on July 31, 2007 at 7:07 pm

 avatar202. Comment #60050 by BAEOZ

I made the 60K comment, it's my prize, hands off!
If I fail at 19,999, you can have the rest. :)

Other Comments by Yorker

213. Comment #60073 by Charlou on July 31, 2007 at 7:15 pm

 avatarQuoting BAEOZ: "Good post there Charlou. Is that a veil you're wearing in the photo?"

Thanky you. :) It's a gloved hand. In this context I guess it looks like some kind of religious female covering reminiscent of the hijab. I can assure you it is not.

Actually, I'm just hiding my vampiric fangs so as not to alarm all you good mortals. ;)

Other Comments by Charlou

214. Comment #60074 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 7:19 pm

 avatarCharlou:
Actually, I'm just hiding my vampiric fangs so as not to alarm all you good mortals. ;)

Cool, I have heamachromatosis (probably spelt wrong), does that make me more or less appetising? I didn't really look too hard at your avatar to notice the glove. Anyway, my mistake.


Yorker:
I made the 60K comment, it's my prize, hands off!
If I fail at 19,999, you can have the rest. :)

Shh! my wife will chop off my marsupial goolies if she reads that. I'd just like to state that I was only enquiring about how the virgins are to be administered to the winner, not trying to get my paws on one....... :)

Other Comments by BAEOZ

215. Comment #60075 by Charlou on July 31, 2007 at 7:29 pm

 avatarQuoting BAEOZ: "Cool, I have heamachromatosis (probably spelt wrong), does that make me more or less appetising?"

Ahhh, I see symbiotic potential here - you with too much iron, me who can't get enough...But, are you a smoker? ;)

Other Comments by Charlou

216. Comment #60076 by BAEOZ on July 31, 2007 at 7:32 pm

 avatarCharlou:
Ahhh, I see symbiotic potential here - you with too much iron, me who can't get enough...Are you a smoker? ;)

Very funny. I did smoke years back. I regularly do therapeutic donations at the blood bank. All that iron in my blood, they should give me more than fruit juice and party pies as recompense I reckon. How much do you pay a pint?

Other Comments by BAEOZ

217. Comment #60077 by Yorker on July 31, 2007 at 7:33 pm

 avatar211. Comment #60065 by Charlou

"...the belief that humans are inherently sinful is self fulfilling and self perpetuating."

Yes Charlou, it is. But more than that it's obviously man-made garbage, our Mother Nature has no concept of sin. Imagine a lovely world where only Nature's laws had to be obeyed, I could kill and eat The Rev., ...well some of him and Nature would if anything, reward me.

Other Comments by Yorker

218. Comment #60079 by gr8hands on July 31, 2007 at 8:11 pm

Henri Bergson -- you are wrong. Here is a translated text of §41:
41. One must subject oneself to one's own tests that one is destined for independence and command, and do so at the right time. One must not avoid one's tests, although they constitute
perhaps the most dangerous game one can play, and are in the end tests made only before ourselves and before no other judge. Not to cleave to any person, be it even the dearest--every person is
a prison and also a recess. Not to cleave to a fatherland, be it even the most suffering and necessitous--it is even less difficult to detach one's heart from a victorious fatherland. Not
to cleave to a sympathy, be it even for higher men, into whose peculiar torture and helplessness chance has given us an insight. Not to cleave to a science, though it tempt one with the most
valuable discoveries, apparently specially reserved for us. Not to cleave to one's own liberation, to the voluptuous distance and
remoteness of the bird, which always flies further aloft in order always to see more under it--the danger of the flier. Not to cleave to our own virtues, nor become as a whole a victim to any of our specialties, to our "hospitality" for instance, which is the danger of dangers for highly developed and wealthy souls, who
deal prodigally, almost indifferently with themselves, and push the virtue of liberality so far that it becomes a vice. One must know how TO CONSERVE ONESELF--the best test of independence."

(You would have done better to reference §29 which starts out: "It is the business of the very few to be independent; it is a privilege of the strong. And whoever attempts it, even with the
best right, but without being OBLIGED to do so, proves that he is probably not only strong, but also daring beyond measure." Of course, by saying that whoever attempts it achieves it, makes it within the grasp of not just a few.)

You are also in error about what a "fight" is -- pointing out where you are in error is not fighting, it is correcting.

It appears that you are confused about what it means to be an individualist. Perhaps you need a better (or at least different) dictionary.

But this bores me, so don't bother wasting time responding.

Other Comments by gr8hands

219. Comment #60084 by alovrin on July 31, 2007 at 9:58 pm

 avatarFlea had a holiday dropped by to say some silly and boring things and is now jetting to Bulgaria, to pollute the minds of people who just want to get into the ECC, anywhere... anywhere... anyhow, to make some bucks. If only they knew about Flea they'll turn up in, wherever it is he lurks, and will be bitterly disappointed.
So Flea heres something for you, alas I didnt write it Robert Heinlein did, I saw it on a very good website called onegoodmove.
The most preposterous notion that H. sapiens has ever dreamed up is that the Lord God of Creation, Shaper and Ruler of all the Universes, wants the saccharine adoration of His creatures, can be swayed by their prayers, and becomes petulant if He does not receive this flattery. Yet this absurd fantasy, without a shred of evidence to bolster it, pays all the expenses of the oldest, largest, and least productive industry in all history. The second most preposterous notion is that copulation is inherently sinful. —Robert A. Heinlein


Other Comments by alovrin

220. Comment #60103 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 2:36 am

 avatargr8hands,

It 'bores' you as you are mistaken. You quote the section that proves what I wrote (that independence is for the few, not to be prescribed for all), and you even back that up with another quotation. There are many more.

My point about him not being an 'individualist' in the common sense is that he does not pre/describe individualism for all (see §257, say). Let's not argue about semantic issues here.


Other Comments by Henri Bergson

221. Comment #60105 by irate_atheist on August 1, 2007 at 2:49 am

 avatarWee Flea -

If I may quote:

" 105. irate_atheist clearly has enormous personal issues and emotional reasons for being an atheist. You obviously provide him with the intellectual justification for that. However his intensity and his hatred of religion is somewhat frightening. Such fear and hatred can only lead inevitably to violence and intolerance."

Sorry to disappoint you David, but this is not the case. My reasons for being an atheist are purely intellectual.

So, I will inevitably become a violent and intolerant person?

Certainly not.

Fear? My only fear is that the lunatics may well end up running the asylum once again thus plunging us into a new dark age. This is already the case in parts of the middle east and the Indian subcontinent - it is '...as if the inquisition had nuclear weapons.'

Hatred? The plain fact is that I am utterly fed up with ancient myths being portrayed as facts - no matter what damage this practice does to its adherents or others. That the irrational clinging to of this ludicrous notion - in the face of all the evidence - is to be respected, even admired, strikes me as an intellectual and emotional failure of human society as a whole. Infantilism is not to be aspired to.

Violence? Absurd notion, my friend. I abhor violence and have been known to intervene - at no small personal risk - to prevent it. On one occasion, whether the male individual having a violent confrontation with his female companion had a knife or not, I did not know. I considered that he may well have, but would rather be stabbed myself than walk past knowing I could have prevented another from being so attacked. A punch or two in the head seemed to me a reasonable price to pay as the girl escaped. Not once did I strike back.

Intolerance? Of what? Individuals, institutions or ideas? To tolerant the intolerable seems to me a failure of duty to society. I have a great many religious friends and colleagues, many of whom I choose to be friends with. The fact I find aspects of their mindset ludicrous does not lead me to throwing them off my sofa in a fit of (unrighteous?) rage. And what do you define as intolerance anyway. Please elucidate for my, and others, benefit.

No one directly provided me with my original '...intellectual justification' except perhaps for my Sunday school teachers. If I recall correctly, and I must have been perhaps only 6 or 7 at the time so forgive me if I am wrong, but my reasoning went something like this:

'So, early Christians were persecuted and in fear of their lives. To identify themselves, secretly as it were, they put fish symbols on their doors to identify them to other Christians. Are you seriously expecting me to believe that the Romans were too stupid to put two and two together to make four when it came to these signs popping up all over the place? If even some of your most basic propositions (I was a precocious child, I'll admit) appear so ludicrous when set against reality, why should any of the rest be more plausible?' It is then but a simple step to grasp the absurdity of an invisible, ever present being, that (with no eyes or ears) knows what you're up to all the time. My more intimate knowledge of science and philosophy was gained much later. My innate recognition of the absurd when I encounter it, has not faded, nor will it.

If I were a betting man, which I am not (too much knowledge of statistics I suppose) I would lay a fiver that you and I could wile away many a happy hour together discussing many things without either of us resorting to violence. Of course, this presumes you are not a violent man by nature, but I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that point.

To conclude, I could resort to an ad hominem attack on your own personage and wonder what "...enormous personal issues and emotional reasons" make you not only want to believe the absurd but spread it to the needy and gullible. But unlike you, I won't stoop to that level of childish speculation and virulent unpleasantness.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

222. Comment #60111 by scottishgeologist on August 1, 2007 at 3:14 am

 avatarirate_atheist. the Flea accused me of hatred in a previous thread - cant remember where it was. These types seem to get SO UPSET when you start questioning their cherished irrational beliefs. They've got this persecution complex.

Anyway, for what its worth, the Flea has a reputation for this sort of combativeness. I have a lot of friends associated with his and similar churches, so I know quite a lot about it, and when you check the recent history of Free Church events, you'll find the Flea, the Free Church "Enforcer" dealing with the opposition (from within his own ranks) with the same spirit you get here. He just loves a fight. He goes out of his way to be provocative.

And he always gets the last word, to the extent its like the Monty Python "argument sketch"

I suppose he has to, as he is trying to carve out a niche for himself as the UK's leading christian apologist.

Other Comments by scottishgeologist

223. Comment #60113 by Henri Bergson on August 1, 2007 at 3:22 am

 avatarMaynard,

What are you trying to lure me into? "The reich shall rise again"? Something like that? No.

Other Comments by Henri Bergson

224. Comment #60116 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 3:55 am

 avatarBAEOZ, 206,

Sorry, my pocketed pal. Just my pathetic placentalistic envelope-envy. You carry on carrying young. So long as you don't mix them up with your car keys, it's a great system.

Other Comments by _J_

225. Comment #60118 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 4:09 am

 avatarWelcome to the club irateatheist. I have been told that I have a diseased mind and an intolerant hatred of religion - despite having religious friends. Apparently when I hit him with reason I am being laughable. It's all quite amusing really and just rolls off me. I would take it as a compliment, because he cant deal with your comments.

Nice evaluation Corylus. I'm reminded of the Fawlty towers episode where the psychiatrist visits. Just as he leaves, he looks at Basil curled up with his hands over his head and hopping, and says "there is enough material there for a whole conference"

I wonder if Richard's comment made his day. However it was more like a boot in the nuts before being told to get out of the way than an acknowledgement of a worthy advesary.

Concerning his martyr complex. There are apparently 12 000 members here. Let's assume about 200 have ever bothered to respond to him, and that 10 were gratuitously abusive. That means a staggering 1.67% members gave him any attention and an even more mind bogglingly small 0.083% were down right rude to him with no reason (I can however only recall one such poster- who incidentally I told was out of line - David never acknowledged that) So, to my knowledge only 0.0083% of posters have been gratuitously rude without provocation (Actually, cant remember if this guy was provoced or not - he's called Mika and on Davids letter thread if anyone is interested - David can quote the post number off the top of his head). So, the overall data suggests that the people here are not like David makes them out to be. That sounds like a mental illness and he really should seek proper help - none of this praying to jesus rubbish, but real psychiatric help

J
I'm 'a credit to this site'.

Looks like you're teachers pet :-)

Other Comments by BillySands

226. Comment #60119 by Philip1978 on August 1, 2007 at 4:15 am

 avatarBilly wrote
" J
Nobody likes a teachers pet :-)"

I see nobody has noticed what David said about me in his post

*ducks*

Other Comments by Philip1978

227. Comment #60121 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 4:17 am

 avatarPhilip,

I didn't want to destroy your street cred :-) Us followers of quetz must stick together. Young J is a quetz agnostic, but I pray that one day he will see the light.
Quetz, what will you have us do? Shall we sacrifice a shrubbery unto thee?

Other Comments by BillySands

228. Comment #60122 by irate_atheist on August 1, 2007 at 4:26 am

 avatarA thought for the day: One of Christianity's key tenets is the belief that one day Jesus will return to lord it over all of us. We will all worship him as our one true lord with no more nations, races or divisions.

This would result globally, in effect, in the establishment of one empire, one people and one leader. Or, as one German succinctly put it, "Ein reich, ein volk, ein Fuhrer".

Think about it.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

229. Comment #60123 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 4:27 am

 avatarProphet Billy- your solidarity with my High Priest Phillip is admirable, and exactly what I would expect. The numbers of my believers are as yet small, but my time is coming.

I would not have you preach to J in an annoying fashion (think fundie Christian). Rather, by treating him courteously, and engaging him in intelligent conversation you will enable him to see the light through your example.

Also, continue breeding my armies of hybrid creatures. When J witnesses the great works that my followers accomplish, he may finally realise the Truth.

I Bless you all.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

230. Comment #60124 by Philip1978 on August 1, 2007 at 4:28 am

 avatarCheers Billy,

J will soon see the light reflecting off His one and only Lab Coat that he gave unto thee.

J as High Priest of the Church of Quetz I offer you some blessed Tea that Quetz did send unto me in York, it is bloody good Tea as He commanded it should be.

I have just read the above post from He that is called Quetz, I wanted to add that this is an act of kindness because Tea is great!

Cheers
Philip

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

231. Comment #60133 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 5:09 am

 avatarAh High priest Philip, your talk of holy tea made me think about how I haven't seen lapsang souchong on sale for a while. Anyway, Quetz delivered. I was getting my lunch in a shop that I dont associate with tea, but something made me look up the back - and there it was. Even when we dont ask, he is good to his followers. What more proof do David and J require?

Other Comments by BillySands

232. Comment #60134 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 5:31 am

 avatarBillySands, 235

Proof indeed.

Any deity that supports the production or sale of lapsang souchong is undeserving of respect. It is perfectly clear to all right-thinking people that lapsang souchong is an objective and absolute wrong. I know this from personal introspection and from just knowing stuff.

Furthermore, in spite of the fancy name, lapsang souchong is not even oriental in origin - it's distilled from the air on the ride at the Jorvik Centre. This is a scientific fact.

Where will this appalling charade end? What further abominations can be expected in the name of Quetzalcoatl? Are we to anticipate enthusiastic endorsements of [stifles a shudder] Lady Grey?

Other Comments by _J_

233. Comment #60136 by Philip1978 on August 1, 2007 at 5:39 am

 avatarProphet Billy, There be no need to pressure these people, The Message will soon get to them sooner or later.

I think that now we have put across The Message of good Tea in His name, people will drink it and then think of Quetz.

Even better, when sitting down for a fine cuppa and then seeing His armies of hybrid creatures wondering past, His greatness will be there for all to see,

Cheers to you Quetz,

Philip Priest(ley)

Other Comments by Philip1978

234. Comment #60137 by Philip1978 on August 1, 2007 at 5:46 am

 avatarJ
There is Tea for everyone, not just those you mention but ALL teas! Fear not the Lapsang Souchong for that is simply the drink of The Prophet Billy and is not from the Cess Pit of the Jorvik Centre that you speak of!
Lady Grey will be blessed for those who like Lady Grey, I myself am now an avid Assam fan, for that is my Way. One day you will find your Way, just give it time!
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

235. Comment #60139 by Flagellant on August 1, 2007 at 5:52 am

 avatarOh come on, you surly lot of dissenters & heretics: there's only one proper tea (and it isn't theft) and that's 50% Sainsbury's Red Label and 50% Earl Grey. I know this because Ivor Cutler (now there's a deity to rival Q) used to recommend it. And with milk, too...

Other Comments by Flagellant

236. Comment #60141 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 5:56 am

 avatarYes, I too long for the day when all blends are considered equal. They are all from quetz and he give to those in accordance with their tastes. I look forward to the English breakfast drinker laying down with the darljeeling brewer. It will be so wonderful. Earl Grey will no longer be looked upon as posh by the happy shopper brand drinker, and there will be sticky scones a pleny. My pot runneth over.
So, what do you say J go on - go on go on go on

(we really are starting to sound like christians now)

Other Comments by BillySands

237. Comment #60143 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 6:00 am

 avatarRed Label's fine and Earl Grey, too. Most major brands are perfectly respectable and Assam, Darjeeling and Ceylon all have their strengths. I can particularly recommend vanilla tea if you can ever get your hands on it (proper tea with added vanilla-y goodness - not one of those debasing herbal concoctions).

But some things are just wrong and that's that. Don't pretend you don't know it.

Other Comments by _J_

238. Comment #60144 by _J_ on August 1, 2007 at 6:02 am

 avatarAnd Lady Grey is actually made of wrong.

Other Comments by _J_

239. Comment #60145 by Dr Benway on August 1, 2007 at 6:06 am

 avatarJ:
...lapsang souchong is an objective and absolute wrong. I know this from personal introspection and from just knowing stuff.
LOL. That's my favorite part of Dianelos' argument: How do we know what is objectively good, as opposed to merely subjectively good? By introspection.

The mind boggles. How can an intelligent man not see this rubbish for what it is?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

240. Comment #60146 by huxley_leopard on August 1, 2007 at 6:08 am

As the communists used to say:

"Proper tea is theft"

Other Comments by huxley_leopard

241. Comment #60147 by Philip1978 on August 1, 2007 at 6:11 am

 avatarBilly, if you read David's post we are all Atheist Tea drinkers! Besides, Christians could never be this happy, there is always the worry Yahweh would curse the Tea if they drank it on a Sunday or something equally stupid!

Other Comments by Philip1978

242. Comment #60148 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 6:16 am

 avatarHuxley-

As the communists used to say:

"Proper tea is theft"


A less benevolent deity than myself would condemn you to Hell for such a terrible joke.

Disciples- do not let the Tea Debate cause a schism! Remain loyal to your God. All teas are a matter of preference.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

243. Comment #60150 by steve99 on August 1, 2007 at 6:21 am

 avatarYou and your caffeinated teas. There is a universe of other infusions out there. Think how much tea-ism could be expanded by incorporating the vast and majestic ideas of herbs and fruits. But no! You prefer to say "mine is a little tea"...

(Sorry .. forgot the attribution.. that was taken from Sagan's "The Pale Blue Cup")

Other Comments by steve99

244. Comment #60152 by BillySands on August 1, 2007 at 6:41 am

 avatarForgive them quetz (especially Huxley and Steve) for they know not what they drink.

By the way Steve, mine's a large tea with milk and two sugar that I brew in Russells Tea pot

Other Comments by BillySands

245. Comment #60153 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 6:48 am

 avatarBilly- that is the same as mine. Clearly I move in mysterious ways.

I have already forgiven them. Their contributions show that they are intrigued by the Word of Quetzalcoatl. Soon they will be saved.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

246. Comment #60155 by Flagellant on August 1, 2007 at 7:02 am

 avatarThanks, Q, for not having excommunicated me for my subtle 239 proper tea allusion and to all your inattentive acolytes, too.

Thanks, as well, for not having erupted at my suggestion that we should enhance the deity by adding Ivor Cutler. Perhaps others of the faithful could add a few more and, while we remain a monotheistic religion, we could add elements that take it way past the trinity: we could have a 'multiplicity', instead. Wouldn't that be superior? Mind you, we'd have to have a convocation, or a synod, or something to get this formalised. And it might be a bit difficult reciting all those that make up the 'one'. Oh bugger, I'm beginning to go off this religion...

Judas


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private.

Other Comments by Flagellant

247. Comment #60156 by Quetzalcoatl on August 1, 2007 at 7:05 am

 avatarNo, no Flagellant, it needs to be kept simple. You see when you over-complicated things you started to lose interest? Simplicity is the key to retaining faith (!)

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

248. Comment #60158 by steve99 on August 1, 2007 at 7:16 am

 avatarFlagellant... surely you mean 'monothéistic'?

Other Comments by steve99

249. Comment #60160 by Flagellant on August 1, 2007 at 7:17 am

 avatarSo ten lashes of the cat for my thoughts of apostasy, eh? Oooh, I'll just love that!


Religion - an activity for consenting adults in private

Other Comments by Flagellant

250. Comment #60161 by Flagellant on August 1, 2007 at 7:23 am

 avatarYes, steve99, but my machine doesn't do 'e' with an acute - except off line in Word, of course. Perhaps Q could work a miracle...

Other Comments by Flagellant
Reload Comments | Back to Top


Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: