51. Comment #167363 by Gmork on April 24, 2008 at 12:50 am

Austin Cline's section at about.com already does a very good job of explaining atheism, taking comments and so on--also taking the time to bust myths and bringing up current issues.

http://atheism.about.com/

(The domain investigatingatheism.info was, according to the DNS records, registered in early March by David Goode.)

Other Comments by Gmork

52. Comment #167365 by suffolkthinker on April 24, 2008 at 1:02 am

The site as it stands is a scurrilous piece of work: perporting to be unbiased but is in fact a clearly theistic view point. There are so many things I could quote from it to back that up but the last paragraph of the Atheism and Science page gives them away most clearly:

At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism. Thus the atheist simplifies the very complicated and much contended question of the relationship between science and atheism/religion if they suppose that the evidence provided by the scientific study of the natural and social world unequivocally points to atheism. This is evident in each of the main branches of science, both natural and social, which have some relevance to the issue of the truth or falsity of atheism/religion.

The emphasis is mine to draw attention to an substantiated and unreferenced, value laden arguement.

The site's email address is the Faculty of Divinity an institution closely associated with a theist world view. Historically mainly Church of England but more recently branched out in other "faiths". Still hardly something likely to promote an unbiased arument on atheism. After all why present the arguments for abolishing your whole department?

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

53. Comment #167377 by suffolkthinker on April 24, 2008 at 1:14 am

I just spotted the following about one of the people behind the page (Miguel Farias): "His current work is funded by grants from the John Templeton Foundation (USA)".

I think that says it all really.

Other Comments by suffolkthinker

54. Comment #167379 by Ygern on April 24, 2008 at 1:19 am

Well, I'm not surprised that this exists. And on the whole, I can't see anything wrong with the idea in principle.

However, the tone of the site is far from neutral when they use phrases such as 'the strident atheist Sam Harris'. I think they are trying to remain objective.

I would like them to change this point under Atheist Goals

Religious education of children is 'child abuse'.

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/newatheistgoals.html


I think Dawkins et al have all said that children need to be educated about religion. It is religious indoctrination that is child abuse.

Maybe the Divinity Department cannot understand this distinction ?

Other Comments by Ygern

55. Comment #167380 by AllanW on April 24, 2008 at 1:20 am

Yep; plainly a biased site offering little more than sophisticated theist apologetics. Sad. Just how is Cambridge associated with this tripe? I'm sure it can't be as simple as the Faculty of Divinity fishing for Templeton money? Or is it the first example of expenditure of that grant we heard about a few weeks ago?

Other Comments by AllanW

56. Comment #167386 by Severus on April 24, 2008 at 1:30 am

took a quick look at the site. pictures and photo's of protests against atheism mmm!the argument about atheism and violence is skewed every so lightly on hinting that atheism caused all the horrors in Stalins russia.
other parts of the site are written in such a way that makes my spidey sense tingle with anxiety. remember Oxbridge is still in essence a very religious set of institutions, this site should be taken with a spoonful of caution until the background is thoroughly investigated.
keep the faith guys

Other Comments by Severus

57. Comment #167389 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 1:37 am

^
"keep the faith guys"
[/irony]

Remember if you forget to close italics & the like it sticks on following posts

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

58. Comment #167392 by irate_atheist on April 24, 2008 at 1:43 am

Do I detect the possiblity of - no, surely not - (and say it quietly):

Lying For Jesus

?

Other Comments by irate_atheist

59. Comment #167393 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 1:45 am

"45. Comment #167283 by dragonfirematrix on April 23, 2008 at 8:17 pm

6) Stop all the god-damn religious wars "


You forgot to specify that he must leave some rather solid information as to which god he was that did it.

25/04/08:
[/Stop all the god-damn religious wars]

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

60. Comment #167394 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 1:53 am

"is there a... particular reason why The God Delusion is apparently the "most notorious" of them all? Why is The God Delusion so special?"

(imo)
It's because the take home message is that the existance of a creator is unequivocally a Science question.

It blows NOMA clean out of the water.

Oh, and the Delusion bit of course.
I gradually recovered from my faith over ten or fifteen years ago, and yet I can still 'feel' the delusion, it (something from nothing?) never ever truely goes away, I still need Richard's book in the house 'in case of emergency'. (emergence-y)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

61. Comment #167399 by Barry Pearson on April 24, 2008 at 2:01 am

I too don't like the term "new atheist", but for a different reason. I disagree with "new". Examination of Jack Huberman's "The Quotable Atheist" shows that NEARLY all the themes in the latest set of books were present in earlier works.

I think what we have something like "new platform", or "new media". Here is a thought experiment:

Suppose that Richard Dawkins had an outline of "The God Delusion" in earlier decades - 1996, 1986, 1976, .... Would there have been sufficient incentives for Richard to expand the outline to its current comprehensive version, rather than release it in more limited form? Would there have been sufficient incentives for a publisher to publish it as widely and as well-translated?

For example: 1996. The web existed, but was not widely used. There were no web forums, no video-viewing such as YouTube or video downloads, little or no on-line publication of news articles, etc. There were fewer TV stations available to most people in the UK, and probably less need to find material to fill the air-time, and perhaps less need for controversial material to attract viewers.

Another factor in 1996 was "this was pre-9/11"! That influenced both some of the content and the audience. Given all of this, how far would people have taken such an interest in even the comprehensive version? Surely far fewer people would have been aware of it, and there would have been fewer opportunities to debate it? Would people even have been talking about "new atheism"?

In earlier decades, there might have been times when such a "disrespectful" topic would not get air-time at all.

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

62. Comment #167401 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 2:10 am

^ Richard is quite clear on the fact that he was ready to address it earlier but his publishers were more open to it post-911.
He must feel rather sad that Douglas Adams didn't get to see it.

Before 911 I think it appeared to be a 'beneath' Science question.

There's also the problem of the 'Martydom' aspect of even going there from Richard's pre God-delusion reputation - a sacrifice for which we are all indebted.
(Oh fuck did I really say that)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

63. Comment #167412 by dj2baduk on April 24, 2008 at 2:30 am

I just read the 'definition of Atheism' on this site and immediately I started to get annoyed. To start with, their very first statement is that Atheism is a 'belief' that God does not exist. True, they then explore some further possible meanings, but they chose this one first. That suggests an agenda to me.

Secondly, they picked on Dawky stating that: 'Richard Dawkins does not provide such a strict definition of atheism, and the fact he opposes describing a child as 'Atheist' or 'Christian'[5] suggests that he views atheism as a conscious position and thus leans towards the dictionary definition of atheism as necessarily an active disbelief'

WTF!? It suggests that he doesn't see the need to label a child full stop (point A) and that a default position of every uncorrupted child i.e. no belief in gods, does not require ANY label (point B).

I confess at this point the red mist descended and I stopped making any sense of what I was reading. This is a site with an agenda, pretending to be a site for reasoned debate on the subject, based on what I have read.

Other Comments by dj2baduk

64. Comment #167437 by Uriox on April 24, 2008 at 3:34 am

I am a physicist from the University of Cambridge (Cavendish Laboratoy) and I can tell you this website does not represent any *official* view held by the University academics. Thus I see the use of the name of the University as an insult, as the site is clearly biased. Let's face it, the only publicity this site got was because it was associated to the University. Now I could also make a blog/site using the University logo and claiming all sorts of absurd things.

Other Comments by Uriox

65. Comment #167443 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 3:50 am

^ "Thus I see the use of the name of the University as an insult"

This will have to be handled with kid-gloves won't it?

In light of the obvious 'Expelled' bleating on free speech grounds that any attempt at dis-associating pressure will bring about.

I can see how you can get the 'non-subject' of theology past, as 'god' does exist as a subjective object/concept.

But Atheology is an 'empty set' - even my non-philosophy brain tells me there's no subject.

Oh of course, I see it now - we're studying an Ism,
Why didn't thet say that, oh - they did.
Marxism Stalinism Nazism Atheism.

The agenda I see is destroying the 'Out' campaign.

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

66. Comment #167445 by CJ22 on April 24, 2008 at 3:51 am

This site is a subtle piece of propaganda. Clearly "Lying for Jesus (tm)" is seen as an excellent way for Oxford theologians to pass the time. I guess we shouldn't be too surprised that theologians have too much time on their hands, given that their chosen profession is a non-subject. Can't we force these people to get proper jobs?

Other Comments by CJ22

67. Comment #167453 by Enlightenme.. on April 24, 2008 at 4:18 am

^ "Can't we force these people.."

Careful CJ, they'll be quotemining ;)
I thought it was Cambridge theologians?
Ah, no, it's Oxbridge theologians, they took care of that one. (Verylee, post #12)

Other Comments by Enlightenme..

68. Comment #167467 by Logicel on April 24, 2008 at 4:45 am

irate_atheist wrote: Do I detect the possiblity of - no, surely not - (and say it quietly):

Lying For Jesus
____

No, when theologians do it, it is creative misrepresentation.

I dutifully went through the site, and as I did, my skin got itchy and I started to sneeze. As I am allergic to theologians, I think we got the proof that this site is a theologian's wet dream come true. They can pretend to themselves that they are presenting an intellectual, in-depth coverage of their favorite fluffy topic.

Other Comments by Logicel

69. Comment #167508 by emmet on April 24, 2008 at 5:39 am

How extraordinarily badly written!

Since the publication of Sam Harris' The End of Faith in 2005, the English speaking world has seen a spate of books on atheism, [...]. The publication of [...] Sam Harris' The End of Faith (2005) [... has] added and expanded the debate.

Huh? SH's TEoF not only started it, but added the debate, how interesting. How do you "add a debate" anyway? "Added to the debate" is surely what is intended.

If the second reference to SH was to "Letters to a Christian Nation", and they added a "to" it would be OK, but in the first two sentences from Cambridge?

I wrote better than that when I was 12.

Other Comments by emmet

70. Comment #167519 by Jonathan Dore on April 24, 2008 at 6:08 am

This Cambridge centre is another aspect of the institutional advantages that the religious continue to enjoy but which are seldom remarked on. They have their own cadres of academics at universities, specifically employed to teach and research their beliefs, organized in faculties that provide an institutional launching pad -- providing funding, facilities etc. -- for their "investigations". Atheists, of course, are spread about in every department, which is as it should be (a "department of atheism" would be a meaningless concept). But that does mean they have no institutional focus to allow them to conduct similarly privileged "investigations" into why people love to believe unevidenced nonsense. I suppose the most we can hope for are those conducted by philosophers and psychologists.

Oh, and a "spate" of atheist books? No mention then of the veritable tsunami of anti-atheist responses, feeble as they were.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

71. Comment #167534 by John Desclin on April 24, 2008 at 6:36 am

MeIM said it very well before, and I fully agree with him, and I am wary of these people. What's a "Faculty of Divinity", how does "religious cognition" make any sense?

Other Comments by John Desclin

72. Comment #167540 by nalfeshnee on April 24, 2008 at 6:39 am

If the site was neutral, then it would be "understanding atheism" (or some such suitable synonym for researching, looking into, etc.).
"Investigating" atheism on the other hand seems to be suggesting that atheism is a criminal case that needs to be solved.

Other Comments by nalfeshnee

73. Comment #167555 by emmet on April 24, 2008 at 6:57 am

"Investigating" atheism on the other hand seems to be suggesting that atheism is a criminal case that needs to be solved.

Their definition of atheism as "denial of the existence of God" is equally telling. "Denial" carries a negative connotation of contrarily rejecting something true (as in "holocaust denial") or belligerently withholding something which is due (as in "denial of a right"). It subtly suggests both that God definitely exists and that atheists are doing something bad in not accepting this as true.

Other Comments by emmet

74. Comment #167557 by fieldri1968 on April 24, 2008 at 6:58 am

I ran a whois on the domain and found its owned by a guy who works for Cambridge University's UNIX service. But the page has the air of being a University sanctioned page (use of their logo etc).

Interestingly enough he has a website here:

http://www.cus.cam.ac.uk/~djg39/

Which outlines the position from which he chooses to write the site.

Basically *another* flea...

Other Comments by fieldri1968

75. Comment #167602 by CJ22 on April 24, 2008 at 7:49 am

The site owner is one David Goode, and his email address is djg39@cus.cam.ac.uk. He tells lies.

Other Comments by CJ22

76. Comment #167620 by dj2baduk on April 24, 2008 at 8:07 am

How on earth was a 'faculty of divinity' ever conceived of anyway?

Other Comments by dj2baduk

77. Comment #167673 by Zaphod on April 24, 2008 at 8:56 am

Richard Dawkins is a molecular biologist who currently holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at the University of Oxford.

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/whoswhocontemporary.html


I am pretty sure that is incorrect.

Other Comments by Zaphod

78. Comment #167676 by Hasan on April 24, 2008 at 9:00 am

I found the website to be going out of the way to accomodate religion but quite willing to bash atheism on the flimsiest of reasoning. This is not what one would expect from a university of Cambridge's stature. I, quite frankly, think that Cambridge is doing a great public disservice by mis-representing the information. USSR was not an atheistic state, it was a communist state, driven by a totalitarian ideology. The organisers of the website seem to be as ignorant as is humanly possible in understanding secularism and ethical notions associated with it. This is exceptionally shameful stuff coming from Cambridge.

Other Comments by Hasan

79. Comment #167683 by Ian (South Africa) on April 24, 2008 at 9:05 am

(I think they deserve a tarding)

Go on Irate...you know you want to.

Other Comments by Ian (South Africa)

80. Comment #167714 by Dinah on April 24, 2008 at 9:27 am

This is akin to vegetarians running a site about carnivores, or should that be the other way around? Anyway, it is highly unlikely that unbiased information will be obtained from such a source. If the people running this site are aiming to refute atheism, then they should say so. But as we know, theologians/god botherers/faithheads or whatever we wish to call them, are rarely honest about their motives, or indeed anything else.

Other Comments by Dinah

81. Comment #167826 by Border Collie on April 24, 2008 at 11:08 am

"Investigation" of the impartial, scientific and reasonable is "the big thing" in the US now. So many people here are absolutely driven to mistrust impartiality and evidence. But, if I stood up and claimed to have seen Jesus riding a unicorn, escorted by fairies, chasing a UFO, I'd have people lined up around the block to touch the hem of my garment. I can tell you that there is enormous resistance to impartiality in the occupation in which I work. I work within an impartial component of a very large "industry" wherein there are three primary service occupations which function as impartial checks on the larger industry. The three largest components of the industry which function primarily on B.S., superstition, control/ coercion, etc. are constantly attempting to undermine the three impartial components. Well, impartiality and reliance on facts and evidence prior to drawing conclusions simply doesn't support the larger fantasy paradigm, does it? And, when the three largest components of the industry have all the political power and money, I can tell you that superstition and fantasy reign. This is a very sad state of affairs, when superstition and fantasy drive things. And everyone here wonders why this industry collapses about every ten years in the US. So, it's not just science that's suffering. Religious superstition and fantasy and the modes of non-thinking it produces and promotes penetrates and poisons everything. Wow! "Religion poisons everything" ... maybe I'll write a book! Sorry, Chris.

Other Comments by Border Collie

82. Comment #167883 by rabidskeptic on April 24, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Excerpt from the "About Us" page of the website:

http://www.investigatingatheism.info/aboutus.html [The website has been put together by a group of academics and researchers at the faculty of Divinity at the University of Cambridge, and at the University of Oxford. The team have no set view on the subject, and aim to give a fully independent, but informed statement about this important subject.]

faculty of Divinity - and have no set view on the subject. yeah right! read about the people involved in birthing this unnecessary junk...

and besides what ever the hell they mean by "'God Wars' in their historical context"???? there are no god wars among us non theists. smacks of creating a rift where there is none. imho.

Other Comments by rabidskeptic

83. Comment #167962 by _riverrun_ on April 24, 2008 at 12:52 pm

I've sent the following email to 'investigatingatheism@divinity.cam.ac.uk'

To whom it may concern.

I've just spent an hour reviewing the University of Cambridge, Faculty of Divinity website Investigating Atheism.

Below are a few observations and criticisms which I felt obligated to submit, regardless of the very real possibility that heat death will consume the Via Lactea.

At the sites ideological core are a series of non sequiturs, including a fear the not believing in a creator god, (who belatedly intervened in an obscure part of the middle east, after approximately 98,000 years of watching human suffering with folded arms) will ineluctably lead to nihilism and despair. That atheism leads to Hitlerian Nazism (a crypto-pagan cult which relied on many sources including millenarian, messianic, gnostic and occult writings) and Stalin, ignoring what they believed, their political ideology, and the well documented ties between the Catholic Church and Fascism). The churches role in undermining social progress in Spain, and it's use of a complex web of Monasteries to ferret away Nazis is, for example, discussed at some length in Michel Onfray's Traité d'athéologie : Physique de la métaphysique (Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam). Interestingly General Francisco Franco is rarely discussed within this framework, for reasons that need no explanation.

I can think of many well argued rebuttals of all of these claims, and I'm more than happy to provide you with them, upon request. The purpose of this email, however, is to correct some specific misinformation and ideological bias noted on a number of the site's pages.

The introductory text on the home page claims that "the purpose of this site is to set these contemporary 'God Wars' in their historical context, and to offer a range of perspectives (from all sides) on the chief issues raised by the 'new atheists'". [emphasis mine]

Having reviewed the list of contributors I am keen to know which, if any, are presenting the atheist position [A cursory glance at the contributor page reveals that all are of a theological Christian bent. David Goode, who is the registrar of the website "[goes to] Little St Mary's church, and [is] a member of the Society of Mary, the Confraternity of the Blessed Sacrament, the Guild of All Souls, and other societies and guilds of the Church of England"]. I would also like to know whether you accept articles and contributions for publication on the site, or intend to have a more open site that includes, perhaps, a forum for discussion.

Below I list some of my concerns:

- The arguments page consists of 3 short paragraphs, and offers nothing more than an assertion that both sides have "equally ably defended" their positions. It would be more useful if an attempt was made to enunciate the actual arguments. On the atheist side, I would include those of David Hume, George H. Smith, Robert Ingersoll; of contemporaries including Dennett and Dawkins, and many others, such as the 16th century freethinker Giovan Domenico Campanella who took a courageous stand against the Catholic Churches treatment of Galileo. Not easy at a time when heresy could result in death, and not a quick one either.

- In a number of places on the site you use phrases such as " [atheism's] strict negation of God's existence" and "perhaps the most obvious meaning to many people now is the belief that there is no God, or gods". Many thinkers, including Richard Dawkins, mentioned frequently on the site, would deny this, as you must know. Bertrand Russell's famous teapot analogy summarizes the position:. You cannot prove a negative. Contemporary parodies such as the Flying Spaghetti Monster highlight this position. The position held by most (if not all) atheists that I know is simply this: There is insufficient evidence to believe in the claims, if the evidence appears then we will re-consider.

None of the atheists that I know deny the existence of something they have no evidence for; this would be an absurd position. Christopher Hitchens has stated that he hopes it is not true, and outlines his position in God is Not Great. It's the wish to be a slave. We don't have to waken up each morning reminding ourselves that we are a-fairyists, or a-astrologers. The burden of proof always lies with those who make a positive claim (god exists), not the other way around. Atheism is *not* a belief, it is a lack thereof.

- Your 'who's who' of atheists includes just 33 names. I have included a more complete list at the end of this email, with more than 350 names, many of them remarkable thinkers, who have made contributions in numerous fields, and whose work must be taken into consideration in any genuine investigation. I trust you will take the time to update your who's who page accordingly.

- The following claim is made, regarding Jean Meslier: "Whether or not Meslier's views as expressed in the Testament strictly count as atheistic rather than deistic remains a matter of contention." I would appreciate sources for this claim. It is well known that Voltaire (a deist) edited the (voluminous writings) of Meslier in such a way that this led many to conclude Meslier was a deist. This is not supported by the original French document at all. Meslier wrote that religion is "but a castle in the air", and theology is "but ignorance of natural causes reduced to a system". Meslier denied the existence of the soul; he also dismisses the notion of free will. Furthermore he wrote "If God is incomprehensible to man, it would seem rational never to think of Him at all".

- The site also makes the following claim: "At the beginning of the twenty first century the situation remains very similar: for every atheistic scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their atheism, there is a religiously inclined scientist who supposes that science supports (or does not undermine) their theism." I am keen to see documented evidence of this, and would appreciate if you could provide a resource or source for this finding. The studies of scientists that I am familiar with, for example the study of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), conclude that 7% or less believe in god and immortality.

- You assert that Richard Dawkins is a Molecular Biologist, this is patent nonsense. Richard Dawkins is in fact a British ethologist and evolutionary biologist.


It would appear that genuine and unbiased presentation of the cases against theism are unlikely to find their way onto this site. I understand that intellectual suicide is not particularly rational, it would be the equivalent of Phillip Morris sponsoring and promoting an anti-smoking campaign, additionally it would not bode well for the Department of Divinity's long term funding.

I do hope that this is not the case and the site does not reveal itself as one of theological apologetics. I do hope you correct some of its assertions and present an intellectually honest account of the arguments. Atheism is not a philosophy, it says nothing about a person.

Looking forward to your response,

Tim Wilson.

Other Comments by _riverrun_

84. Comment #167973 by Aquaria on April 24, 2008 at 1:01 pm

I don't like the "new" atheist label, either.

I'm the same atheist I was before I read any of the Four Horsemen books.

But beyond that, the question I always ask when someone rags about the "new" atheists is: "So you think that these new atheists are militant and rude, but you thought an "old" atheist like Madlyn O'Hair wasn't? Really?"

Other Comments by Aquaria

85. Comment #168119 by hopeful on April 24, 2008 at 2:31 pm

I too found much of the text seemed to have a theist bias.

As others have mentioned, I also checked the "About Us" page.

The first person in the list:

"Fraser N. Watts, Ph.D.
...
Director of Studies in Theology, Queens' College.
...
Fraser was ordained in the Church of England in 1990 and is now Vicar-Chaplain of St. Edward King and Martyr, Cambridge. In 1994 he took up the Starbridge Lectureship in the Faculty of Divinity. "

and so it goes on.

Perhaps I am naive but I find it disturbing that a major university would endorse this site.

It is clearly an attempt to hit back at atheism by pretending to study it in the same way that disciplines like psychology, anthropology and philosophy study religion and religious belief. It is perfectly valid to include atheism in a study of belief and non-belief, however not when it is clearly being carried out by people with a non-scientific agenda.

Other Comments by hopeful

86. Comment #168149 by BeyondBelief on April 24, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Regarding Comment #47, on the dislike of the term "new atheists".

Every time I hear it, The Who song springs into my brain: Meet the new atheists, same as the old atheists.

It's a dismissive phrase that works quite effectively. Those branded by it should actively rebuff the branders!

I like the comeback: "I'm not a "new atheist" The only new atheists are the thousands of babies born every minute.... now let's get on with discussing my IDEAS, not labeling me."

Other Comments by BeyondBelief

87. Comment #168151 by ukvillafan on April 24, 2008 at 3:37 pm

also, it seems to me that the link to Christopher Hitchen's web site on the "who's who" page is, in fact a link to some sort of listing site rather than his actual own site. Check it out and please correct me if i am wrong.

Other Comments by ukvillafan

88. Comment #168152 by robotaholic on April 24, 2008 at 3:41 pm

I wish a Denial of Service attack on that website

Other Comments by robotaholic

89. Comment #168159 by Stuart Paul Wood on April 24, 2008 at 4:10 pm

This seems to be a very sloppy site.

The "Atheism and Violence" page again dredges up the whole Hitler/Stalin "argument". Without getting into the Catholicism of Hitler or the psuedo-religious ideals of Stalin it should be quite obvious to any reasonable person that belief or lack of belief is not in itself sufficient in order to live by a decent moral code.

What is surely more probable is that in choosing to be atheist we (in numerous if not all cases) reject the morally repugnent aspects of religion, having been educated enough about it to make our choice.

The problem for the Jew, the Christian or the Muslim is that their doctrines specifically endorse and encourage the most disgusting and morally reprehensible behaviour! Anyone who claims to follow a monotheism could rightly be considered morally suspect on this basis. One can only be certain of their good intentions if they can be heard to denounce those specific aspects of their religion. And if they do - why on earth tether themselves to system of beliefs or practices they don't fully agree with in the first place! It amounts to intellectual dishonesty.

That is the key difference. At least with an atheist all you establish in the first instance is lack of belief in God. What follows is very much a blank page and requires free-thinking to develop other, unrelated opinions.

Its irritating that the continual inference is that atheists should explain themselves when clearly it needs to be the other way around.

Other Comments by Stuart Paul Wood

90. Comment #168182 by jo5ef on April 24, 2008 at 5:14 pm

It smelled fishy to me also, thanks to all those who took the time to expose the motivations behind this weak-ass site. It seems to be another example of religious types trying to scare would-be atheists by exaggerating the nihilism and pointlessness of an atheistic world view.
I'd also like to make the comment, as an "old" atheist who hasn't even got round to reading any of the 4 horseman books yet (sorry, but there are so many other great books to read, and I don't need to be convinced) that I actually disagree with the frequently stated position on this site that humans are born atheists. My six year old son, despite unbelieving parents and little or no religious education (one of the primary sources of his religious ideas appears to be "The Simpsons"), appears at this early stage to harbour a firm belief in God. I have a feeling he'll come around, and don't feel the need to convince him out of it (actually its quite charming) but I do attempt to subtly plant questions in his mind.
I'm wondering if an "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" argument might be applicable here â€" hopefully the enlightenment will arrive at around 10 years old!

Other Comments by jo5ef

91. Comment #168216 by aprilmb on April 24, 2008 at 6:57 pm

I also have a problem with 'new atheists.' If you've been an atheist for, say, 40 years are you an 'old atheist?' Or does it describe newly "converted" atheists? And is there a difference between old and new? If atheism defines lack of belief - what adjectives do you need to describe that non-belief?

Other Comments by aprilmb

92. Comment #168220 by Phadrus on April 24, 2008 at 7:06 pm

Your right "Comment 92" jo5ef.

I visited the website before I read any of the comments here.

Without really thinking about the website, I smelled a particular fishy smell.

What I am not sure about, is what they expect to get from us, and what will they do with this information?

But, the website is Snazzy-Cool !!!

But, I'm not buying it.

How about you?

Other Comments by Phadrus

93. Comment #168249 by Serious on April 24, 2008 at 7:45 pm

Does anyone have a contact in the Cambridge University divinity school? I very much doubt that site is within the university rules for a site marked "university of Cambridge" only. I even doubt that it would meet the rules for a departmental site (even divinity). Looks like a rogue sysadmin.

Other Comments by Serious

94. Comment #168263 by PrimeNumbers on April 24, 2008 at 8:21 pm

The whole site is a straw man. As pointed out many times above, it reads like a case of "lying for jesus".

Other Comments by PrimeNumbers

95. Comment #168275 by whatyouthink on April 24, 2008 at 9:37 pm

...choose to bring about their collective annihilation. As Minois points out, in many respects these forms of atheism can be regarded as the most complete atheisms, since they allow for no God replacements: nation, race, progress, democracy, etc. Existence is looked in the face and is judged futile.

I am quite offended by the fact that they choose the term "new atheists" and make the claim that complete atheism leads to the futility of existence! I believe they find it difficult to identify with people without religious beliefs.

Other Comments by whatyouthink

96. Comment #168283 by PJG on April 24, 2008 at 11:02 pm

Do they understand what "atheist" means and distort it to mislead people who don't, or do they simply not understand?

If it is the first, they are "Lying for Jesus". If the second, what makes them think they have the knowledge necessary to teach others about atheism - as if it is a complex subject?

Atheism is not complex, it is the most simple thing to understand... ATHEISTS DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD.

Other Comments by PJG

97. Comment #168294 by Wosret on April 25, 2008 at 12:09 am

"The truth is never complicated, people are." I forget who said that.

All of atheism can be summed up in a single sentence: "Bullshit! I don't believe you, prove it."

Other Comments by Wosret

98. Comment #168339 by MrPickwick on April 25, 2008 at 3:57 am

Off topic, but I know you're gonna love it. New Pat Condell video!:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=EPG3-1gogXU

Other Comments by MrPickwick

99. Comment #168343 by mixmastergaz on April 25, 2008 at 4:16 am

riverrun:

Do please let us know if you get a reply to your email.

Irate: I agree with Ian. Surely there must be a simple word that can be coined to describe those who would employ such underhand tactics. I think two syllables ought to do it, but I can't seem to think of the right word. Can you think of any Irate?

Other Comments by mixmastergaz

100. Comment #168345 by epeeist on April 25, 2008 at 4:25 am

Comment #168343 by mixmastergaz

Irate: I agree with Ian. Surely there must be a simple word that can be coined to describe those who would employ such underhand tactics. I think two syllables ought to do it, but I can't seem to think of the right word. Can you think of any Irate?

There are lots of words that could be used. Here are a set that were culled from "Gargantua and Pantagruel":

called them prattling gabblers, lickorous gluttons, freckled bittors, mangy rascals, shite-a-bed scoundrels, drunken roysters, sly knaves, drowsy loiterers, slapsauce fellows, slubberdegullion druggels, lubberly louts, cozening foxes, ruffian rogues, paltry customers, sycophant-varlets, drawlatch hoydens, flouting milksops, jeering companions, staring clowns, forlorn snakes, ninny lobcocks, scurvy sneaksbies, fondling fops, base loons, saucy coxcombs, idle lusks, scoffing braggarts, noddy meacocks, blockish grutnols, doddipol-joltheads, jobbernol goosecaps, foolish loggerheads, flutch calf-lollies, grouthead gnat-snappers, lob-dotterels, gaping changelings, codshead loobies, woodcock slangams, ninny-hammer flycatchers, noddypeak simpletons, turdy gut, shitten shepherds, and other suchlike defamatory epithets

Other Comments by epeeist