1. Comment #430161 by Mr Blue Sky on November 7, 2009 at 3:32 pm

Great idea but how do we get the required numbers to be interested enough to go out and buy it let alone read it?

Other Comments by Mr Blue Sky

2. Comment #430171 by TIKI AL on November 7, 2009 at 5:39 pm

Mr Blue Sky @ 1: "how do we get the required numbers to be interested enough to go out and buy it"

... petition the help of a Nigerian Prince to send E-mails thru out the world?

Other Comments by TIKI AL

3. Comment #430182 by effymeral on November 7, 2009 at 7:14 pm

Mr Blue Sky:"Great idea but how do we get the required numbers to be interested enough to go out and buy it let alone read it? "

yeah, really difficult getting religious people to take seriously what they think would make them question what they're already so comfortable with. perhaps books that use the positive approach would help to build interest for the "anti" books?

Other Comments by effymeral

4. Comment #430192 by NewEnglandBob on November 7, 2009 at 8:35 pm

I just received my copy of the book today (November 7) and this discussion makes me even more enthusiastic to read it.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

5. Comment #430200 by prolibertas on November 7, 2009 at 9:02 pm

'Should no longer be allowed to remain private'?? I thought the whole point was KEEP religion private, and out of the public sphere. If religion was always private, there'd be no problem.

Other Comments by prolibertas

6. Comment #430203 by Russell Blackford on November 7, 2009 at 9:15 pm

@ prolibertas I think what DJ meant by that was "should not be allowed to hide from public criticism". I don't think he meant "should be allowed to exercise political power/influence".

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

7. Comment #430210 by j.mills on November 7, 2009 at 10:07 pm

Plus, prolibertas, I'd still have a problem with parents filling their children's heads with groundless beliefs "in private"; though I guess we can't legislate that away, so the best remedy is decent secular education that constantly emphasises critical thinking.

Other Comments by j.mills

8. Comment #430218 by ARSENELAPIN on November 7, 2009 at 11:20 pm

My neighbour who has just returned from Afghanistan snorted when I mentioned Dawkins and other eminent atheists. "There are no atheists in fox-holes" he said.
Would Richard Dawkins like to go to Afghanistan and put himself in harm's way in order to test the truth of this assertion?

Other Comments by ARSENELAPIN

9. Comment #430220 by SaintStephen on November 7, 2009 at 11:30 pm

8. Comment #430218 by ARSENELAPIN on November 7, 2009 at 11:20 pm

We'll both go. You and me. Howza bout that?

Other Comments by SaintStephen

10. Comment #430228 by sidelined on November 8, 2009 at 12:32 am

8. Comment #430218 by ARSENELAPIN on November 7, 2009 at 11:20 pm

You could always straighten your buddy out by having them contact the military association of atheists and freethinkers at the following site

http://www.maaf.info/

Atheists have been around for as long as humans. They just have not spoke up most of the time since it is hard to get a word in over the proselytizing masses.

Other Comments by sidelined

11. Comment #430231 by Crazycharlie on November 8, 2009 at 1:19 am

ARSENELAPIN-

This is your second post on RDnet. Welcome!. Your first post was back in March of 09, titled, "THEISM AND ATHEISM". That post was a very,...very long analysis--or maybe just a statement--on the limits of science being able to explain the "unknowable" as you said. At least I would presume that's what it was about since you weren't exactly clear in my opinion. But, then again, I'm no philosopher.

I'm a bit curious though. Why are you asking Richard if he would,... "like to go to Afghanistan and put himself in harm's way in order to test the truth of this (your neighbors) assertion"?, The assertion being, there are no atheists in fox holes.

Are you suggesting that Richard isn't being entirely honest with us all about his unbelief? That if he was, "in harm's way", he would crumble at the first sign of danger and start praying to God for deliverance?

If this is your "assertion" by innuendo then that's about the oldest and lamest criticisms anyone can make about an atheist.

Come up with something a little less dated.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

12. Comment #430234 by Bonzai on November 8, 2009 at 1:56 am

ARSENELAPIN

Would Richard Dawkins like to go to Afghanistan and put himself in harm's way in order to test the truth of this assertion?

This is retarded.

You get it upside down man, it is the theists who should deliberately put themselves in harm's way to test if prayers really work.

Atheists don't believe that God or angels are watching over our shoulders. It is all probability, we have no theory to test. Since we believe it is all probability why would any rational atheist deliberately increase his chance of being killed for no reason?

When are you going to Iraq to test your theory, mate? But then if you are right about no atheist in the foxhole the other side would pray too. What if God listens to them instead of you because you are praying to the wrong God? Haven't you thought of that?

Other Comments by Bonzai

13. Comment #430236 by alovrin on November 8, 2009 at 2:09 am

I'll just bring up the rear and poke a bit of fun.

My neighbour who has just returned from Afghanistan snorted when I mentioned Dawkins and other eminent atheists. "There are no atheists in fox-holes" he said.

Are there foxes in Afghanistan?
Do foxes live in holes?
Could a man fit in a fox-hole?
I thought it was all dry waddi's and caves up there?

Would Richard Dawkins like to go to Afghanistan and put himself in harm's way in order to test the truth of this assertion?

Ummm, I think Richard's age might be an impediment to him enlisting in the armed forces even before all the other reasons.
But does having a verbal stoush with Harun Yayha count?
It got pretty heated there for a while.

Other Comments by alovrin

14. Comment #430237 by prolibertas on November 8, 2009 at 2:11 am

@ Russell- I know what he meant, the wording just sounded backward to me. But I take j.mills' point about religion being problematic even in the private sphere.

Other Comments by prolibertas

15. Comment #430238 by j.mills on November 8, 2009 at 2:16 am

Hmm. If there are no atheists in foxholes, then the only people who get killed in foxholes must be theists. Just god's little joke, I expect.

Other Comments by j.mills

16. Comment #430240 by Bonzai on November 8, 2009 at 2:21 am

j.mills,

Good one.

Maybe this is the explanation for the theists killed in the foxholes:

You can't deny
The other side
Don't want to die
Any more than we do
What I'm trying to say,
Is don't they pray
To the same God that we do?
Tell me, how does God choose?
Whose prayers does he refuse?
Who turns the wheel?
And who throws the dice
On the day after tomorrow?

From Tom Waits' "Day after Tomorrow".

So, yeah, it is all probability afterall, even God has to play dice to decide who live or die,--hey it rhymes! :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

17. Comment #430241 by alovrin on November 8, 2009 at 2:39 am

Anyway Arsepineapple aside.

Its great to see this site's support of posters from this here website, who are now doing great work.

Paula and Russell,
All the best.

Other Comments by alovrin

18. Comment #430243 by rkher531 on November 8, 2009 at 3:43 am

Couple of Issues regarding India First
1. Caste System is not a logical extension of Hindu Theology but has been sanctioned by it as the politics of that time demanded it ( of course Hindu theology like all good religion need to do that).
2. Atheism is an accepted thread within Hindu thinking. Charvakas deny God. Buddha denied it. However in recent times organised Hindu revivalist Religion has emerged and as in all organised religion you are either with them or else against (Kafir) them. Still the opposition to being atheist is not much as in Western and Islamic countries.
3. So is Evolution OK. Again there is no strong opposition to it so as Hindu we do not have to reconcile to any religous notion. I am sure Hindus have penchant of creating completely self contained system so some one will be able to show that we had known all along any way.

Other Comments by rkher531

19. Comment #430247 by SaintStephen on November 8, 2009 at 4:17 am

6. Comment #430203 by Russell Blackford on November 7, 2009 at 9:15 pm

You just sold another book, Mr. Blackford. Thanks for informing me about this fine work.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

20. Comment #430249 by Scot Rafkin on November 8, 2009 at 4:25 am

comment #430218 by ARSENELAPIN

Do you believe everything your neighbor tells you?

http://freethoughtranch.blogspot.com/2009/11/atheists-in-foxholes.html

Other Comments by Scot Rafkin

21. Comment #430258 by SaintStephen on November 8, 2009 at 5:31 am

Here is a good review of Russell Blackford and Udo Schuklenk's book on Steve Zara's Blog... remember him?

Other Comments by SaintStephen

22. Comment #430259 by mmurray on November 8, 2009 at 5:36 am

@ARSENELAPIN

Richard puts himself in harms way every time he speaks out on religion in the fearless way he does. You don't have to go to Afghanistan to be killed by a religious nutter. Don't you find it kind of ironic coming on a website and accusing the ower of it of cowardice while you hide behind the anonymity he has kindly offered you ?

Oh and you (I mean your neighbour) should have a look here

http://forum.richarddawkins.net/viewforum.php?f=11&sid=abf2545988d0c6deb83f1ad49ce26638

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

23. Comment #430263 by cafeeine on November 8, 2009 at 8:22 am

Re:ARSENELAPIN

Is this a new tactic for raising troops in Afghanistan? Goading foreign intellectuals to prove their godlessness by supporting American warfare?

It can't be to disprove an old canard, this: http://www.ffrf.org/foxholes/
is sufficient.

Other Comments by cafeeine

24. Comment #430267 by RainDear on November 8, 2009 at 9:09 am

Actually this old "no atheists in foxholes" is an interesting point.

I think war is one of the main reasons religion still exists. Much too little has been said about the fact that state religion, or any religion with promises of an afterlife is a product of monarchy.

Religion and war make good bedmates. As tribal leaders started proclaiming themselves kings, they usually claimed to be appointed by a god. Defending the king's power equalled defending gods. So, for a poor peasant, dying for a king was a certain ticket to paradise. That still works today, as deeply religious soldiers fear death less and their families are less bitter when their loved ones come home in body bags or shred to pieces. That's why kings and governments have always been so eager to encourage religion. Faith in a blind dogma builds strong armies.

So, I do think there really are somewhat less atheists in the foxholes. An atheist can't be sold the vacuous promise of an afterlife. While a religious nut can easily be sent to war just by appealing to authority, a rational atheist won't kill or die unless there really is a strong, rational reason for it.

An atheist, who puts his life on the line, demands a very good reason for it. There are plenty of courageous atheists doing that every day. Not for kings, dynasties, countries or gods. But for saving innocent lives, helping to build a decent future, fighting disease, disasters and all too often, hatred fuelled by religion.

Other Comments by RainDear

25. Comment #430268 by Steve Zara on November 8, 2009 at 9:15 am

I was wrong.

I recently wrote a blog entry critical of Jerry Coyne for saying that promoting atheism was a way to encourage the spread of reason and science. This was a criticism along the same lines as my (very strong) objection to the AAI award to Bill Maher. However, I realise this was a mistake. Recent discussions I have had about secularism and events such as the sacking of David Nutt have made me realise that my view that science and politics must be separated was naïve. Science can't help being political as it challenges political opinions, just like it challenges religious opinions. So, the promotion of science and reason has to involve politics at some level, and politics is a messy business sometimes. But what kind of politics?

Russell's excellent book has helped me realise that political atheism has to be at least part of the strategy. Why? Because as the book shows, atheism, because of its lack of dogma, encourages diversity. Science, particularly public understanding of science, only thrives in an an environment of diversity of opinion.

Much as I may personally dislike the idea of an award being given to Maher, I now realise that there was at least a reasonable political motive. (Although I still think that it might be a good idea to look at the wording on the AAI award before it is handed out next time).

Books like this are important as they reveal the fascinating and diverse routes to non-belief, and help show that secularism, although important, isn't enough. We also need the freedom of thought that is anathema to most religions; we need atheism. Not enforced, not as a dogma, but as a view of reality we encourage intellectually, and a freedom of thought that we support politically.

So, I admit I was wrong, and now I apologise for the excessively ill-tempered way I reacted to the AAI award.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

26. Comment #430272 by kev_s on November 8, 2009 at 10:44 am

Respect for admitting a mistake Steve Zara.

Personally I don't think anyone knows what the correct approaches are to promoting reason and science so I'm not sure one can be wrong about this. Perhaps we have to try all sorts of approaches and see which work. There will be some mistakes made.

Other Comments by kev_s

27. Comment #430275 by Ole on November 8, 2009 at 10:58 am

Russel,

Thanks for a very good book.
I enjoy reading the different perspective while jumping around in the book (no need to read it like a novel).

Ole

Other Comments by Ole

28. Comment #430277 by Bonzai on November 8, 2009 at 11:18 am

Ole

Russell has two 'l's. He is annoyed with people misspelling his name, just saying. :)

Other Comments by Bonzai

29. Comment #430279 by Roland_F on November 8, 2009 at 11:41 am

Comment #430268 by Steve Zara : I recently wrote a blog entry critical of Jerry Coyne for saying that promoting atheism was a way to encourage the spread of reason and science.

Political strategy how to defend the ground of science against the ever encroaching religious undermining of science teaching is of course prone to very different opinions, and no optimal strategy will fit all needs.

Jerry Coyne made some explanations of his stand in the lecture he gave on RD.NET :
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,4561,Why-Evolution-Is-True,Jerry-Coyne-AAI-2009-RDFRS-Josh-Timonen
which is in a nutshell: whatever evidence is provided for evolution, however more facts are piled up on the mountain of evidence -- still 2/3 of the religiots deny it and ignore the evidence when they think it contradict their holy scripture. Then Coyne showed a statistic about trust in evolution versus religious believe which has a high negative correlation. So Coyne concluded that the only way to get his scientific truth unchallenged taught, not to tackle just the symptoms and provide even more evidence, but to tackle faith (the unchallenged believe despite any contrary evidence) as root of all problems iself.

Carl Sagan in is last interview in : http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,4578,Happy-Saganseve-Everybody,Maggie-Koerth-Baker---BoingBoing is also highlighting the need for scientific training and engagement of politicians, as the decisions and grants for scientific funding have to be made well informed.

I just finished the book “new atheist” from V. Stenger and he also gives similar reasons to be loud and noisy and not show devout respect from any kind of superstition as promoted from many liberal philosophers and scientists. Stenger highlights the unholy alliance of US Neocons and Theocons with their anti-scientific stance of ignorance and faith, which needs to be challenged, to avoid that the US is loosing is lead and even worse resulting in the Armageddon which is so desperate whished for from many religiots.

So my next book to read now, will be the 50 voices of disbelief.

Other Comments by Roland_F

30. Comment #430281 by Mark Jones on November 8, 2009 at 11:46 am

Comment #430268 by Steve Zara

Nice one Steve, and an interesting outlook on the 'what's the good of atheism?' debate. The range of opinions on this site often shows how content-free 'atheism' is. It's not a strength or weakness, just a fact.

I have an atheist friend who reads the Daily Heil. As a consequence, his views on most things are wrong. He is atheist because he says he just 'knows'. I say that is what theists say too. He ignores me and returns to the mad rantings of the Heil.

It's regrettable that he cannot arrive at his atheism rationally, but I have to be thankful for *small* mercies.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

31. Comment #430282 by phil rimmer on November 8, 2009 at 11:50 am

Comment #430268 by Steve Zara

If you were wrong, Steve, I think it was only a question of emphasis. In the real world of politics (as opposed to the more perfect-able world of ideas) all actions are contaminated by the complex attachments of their history. There is no clean and clear action.

The award was still one of the most contaminated acts we have seen so far. It is reasonable to say "this grubby" and no grubbier.

Other Comments by phil rimmer

32. Comment #430284 by Crazycharlie on November 8, 2009 at 12:24 pm

Welcome back Steve.

Everyone knows Bill Maher's a crackpot when it comes to the subject of vaccinations.

Let him have his award.

Other Comments by Crazycharlie

33. Comment #430287 by the great teapot on November 8, 2009 at 1:07 pm

"My neighbour who has just returned from Afghanistan snorted when I mentioned Dawkins and other eminent atheists. "There are no atheists in fox-holes"
No there probably aren't too many. Most of the people our glorious leaders send to die in our name are just out of their nappies, and not known for their powers of critical thinking.
Apologies to the military who don't fall in to this category.

Other Comments by the great teapot

34. Comment #430290 by j.mills on November 8, 2009 at 1:26 pm

Yo, missed your insights around here, Steve. And how refreshingly different to theist trolling to witness someone changing a serious opinion in the light of considered evidence.

Other Comments by j.mills

35. Comment #430293 by Roger Stanyard on November 8, 2009 at 2:08 pm

ARSENELAPIN claims

My neighbour who has just returned from Afghanistan snorted when I mentioned Dawkins and other eminent atheists. "There are no atheists in fox-holes" he said.
Would Richard Dawkins like to go to Afghanistan and put himself in harm's way in order to test the truth of this assertion?

This is bog standard fundamentalist boilerplate. It's utterly unsubstantiated rhetoric. The "evidence" here is that someone has spoken to someone who went to Afghanistan and says so.

It's meaningless garbage. The whole issue has been dealt with time and time again (part of the RD Forum is a section for military people). Soldiers don't suddenly become Christians when under fire. Anyone who thinks so has got a drink problem or something.

Other Comments by Roger Stanyard

36. Comment #430295 by Quetzalcoatl on November 8, 2009 at 2:34 pm

It's also rather simplistic to assume that anyone who shouts "Oh God" or something similar while under fire is actually making an appeal to a deity. Such phrases are commonly uttered when under stress. I sometimes yell "For God's sake" when particularly annoyed, it doesn't mean I'm invoking Jesus.

Other Comments by Quetzalcoatl

37. Comment #430296 by AfraidToDie on November 8, 2009 at 2:34 pm

Most people in those foxholes are there irrespective of religion or atheism. They joined the military for various reasons and when thrust into a conflict they either go with the flow or face lots of negative ramifications. We've been in Iraq long enough that anyone joining should understand the chance of being sent there, but still sometimes making a living wage overrides the statistical possibility of being killed. You have similar chances in everything you do. My point is that there are atheists in foxholes, but they won't be doing anything to increase their risks of being killed because they know they only have one life to live. Backed into a corner, the atheist will kill to survive, but will not forfeit their life for illogical reasons, such as a belief in an after life. I'd rather fight with a band of atheists any day than a group of nutters who think that death would or could bring them eternal bliss.

Other Comments by AfraidToDie

38. Comment #430301 by Steve Zara on November 8, 2009 at 2:59 pm

I have to say I really enjoyed this interview. I think Russell brings a different perspective to the New Atheist movement, with his political and philosophical background.

I am not sure I agree with all he says. I don't think that the issue of whether religion can deliver what it says (I assume that Russell means whether or not religion is true) is important as Russell says. This may sound an odd point of view, but I will try and justify it because the unsound epistemology of religion means that even if it is true, that truth is not accessible to us, for reasons given by Hume combined with the unreliability of our own internal experiences. So, it isn't reasonable to use claims of the truth of religion to justify anything. Science and reason are the only sound methods of investigating what is true about reality. However, I may be misunderstanding his point.

Apart from that, I find little else to disagree with, and much that is important in this interview. Of particular importance is Russell's point that we tend to label religion 'moderate' just because its supporters accept biological evolution, and yet these religions can be very immoderate and dogmatic in other areas. I think this is a point that isn't emphasised enough.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #430302 by locutus7 on November 8, 2009 at 3:02 pm

Having spent 21 years in the military, I speak from experience when I assure theists that there are indeed atheists in foxholes.

I just finished Vic Stenger's new book on the New Atheists, which I found to be excellent, and am half way through Russell's book. Most of the 50 non-believers in the book are unknown to me (many are Australian), but their stories are nonetheless interesting.

Kudos to Steve Zara for his post. Such admissions are rare indeed.

Other Comments by locutus7

40. Comment #430326 by SaintStephen on November 8, 2009 at 4:40 pm

25. Comment #430268 by Steve Zara on November 8, 2009 at 9:15 am

Great to see you back, Steve. The cockroaches have multiplied in your absence. Please return to work. Thank you.

Other Comments by SaintStephen

41. Comment #430344 by clunkclickeverytrip on November 8, 2009 at 6:06 pm

Hey Quetzalcoatl, I usually say that I am an Athiest but I swear in Christian (Jesus F-ing Christ, etc.).

Other Comments by clunkclickeverytrip

42. Comment #430354 by Mitch Kahle on November 8, 2009 at 6:46 pm

"There are no atheists in fox-holes"

HOGWASH! Here is a true story of an atheist inducted into the Army:

Army: "What do you want on your dog tags, soldier: Protestant, Catholic, or Jew?"

Atheist: "Nothing. I'm an atheist."

Army: "If you are wounded in battle, who should we call: a minister, a priest or a rabbi?"

Atheist: "Call a medic!"

God-believers who are injured in battle are always evacuated to aid stations or field hospitals; they are never taken to churches. I guess faith only goes so far when one is in real danger.

Just one time in my life I'd like to see a God-believer actually prove he trusts in God. Perhaps driver's licenses should have an option: "If injured, take victim to: 1) church, or 2) hospital.

How many God-believers, I wonder, would be willing to select "church?"

http://www.lava.net/~hcssc/atheistinfoxhole.html

Other Comments by Mitch Kahle

43. Comment #430465 by Tartan on November 9, 2009 at 1:41 am

Pat Tillman, perhaps the best-known American casualty of the wars of this decade, was an atheist.

Other Comments by Tartan

44. Comment #430481 by TIKI AL on November 9, 2009 at 4:41 am

Funny, I didn't hear anything on the Fox pregame show broadcast from the Pat Tillman USO center in Afghanistan today about Tillman not being a godbot. I guess it's a secret. They wouldn't want to give the good Christian soldiers that look up to him ideas.

"In 2004, the NFL donated $250,000.00 to the United Service Organizations to build a USO center in memory of Tillman. The Pat Tillman USO Center, the first USO center in Afghanistan, opened on Bagram Air Base on April 1, 2005.[31]" (wiki)

Other Comments by TIKI AL

45. Comment #430492 by SaintStephen on November 9, 2009 at 5:20 am

44. Comment #430481 by TIKI AL on November 9, 2009 at 4:41 am

What are the odds that our own Christian soldiers opened fire on Tillman?

Other Comments by SaintStephen

46. Comment #430530 by quisquose on November 9, 2009 at 9:37 am

Thanks to Steve Zara for his post above. My opinions have only recently drifted in a similar manner as those explained by Steve, and the sacking of Prof Nutt has concerned me, or brought me to my senses, considerably.

When I saw Patrick Cormak MP quoting Churchill with the line that scientists should be “on tap, but not on top” it made me quite angry.

Here is a man who is a deeply committed Christian, and he has shown quite frequently that he is prepared to bring his faith into politics. For example, he was probably the most vocal MP calling for the banning of hybrid embryos for “ethical” reasons last year. By “on tap” there can be little doubt that he means science is only valid when it agrees with him and/or his religious beliefs.

Other Comments by quisquose

47. Comment #430548 by PERSON on November 9, 2009 at 12:59 pm

"Pat Tillman"
Read about the whole sorry mess here. No doubt future conservatives will try to reclaim the story and say the actual events are an invention of the liberal media. Or only tell their "official" version.

Other Comments by PERSON

48. Comment #430573 by GBile on November 9, 2009 at 3:29 pm

ARSENELAPIN,

I don't know whether you are posting for Dembski-points here but you challenge to Richard Dawkins is as silly as your first post 'THEISM AND ATHEISM'. (Giant seabird's fossilized skull found in Peru - Comment #347783 by ARSENELAPIN on March 1, 2009 at 2:22 pm)
In that post you talk a lot about the 'unknowable' and you seem to know a lot about that. The proper word for that kind of knowledge is FANTASY.

Now I have no problem with fantasy, fantasize whatever you like. But, if your fantasies lead your life, you might be wasting it. And if you expect that I live my life according to your fantasies (or, much worse, force me to), I would strongly suggest that you return to reality.

Thanks in advance.

Other Comments by GBile

49. Comment #430579 by irate_atheist on November 9, 2009 at 3:39 pm

8. Comment #430218 by ARSENELAPIN -

My neighbour who has just returned from Afghanistan snorted when I mentioned Dawkins and other eminent atheists. "There are no atheists in fox-holes" he said.

Interesting, you have neighbours in the Taliban. Must be fun.

Other Comments by irate_atheist

50. Comment #430689 by Sally Luxmoore on November 9, 2009 at 11:41 pm

Steve
You have always had my respect. It is still the same, maybe especially so, since you have just had the guts to change your mind in public.
The main point is that you have always done us the courtesy of giving reasons for what you think.
I look forward to benefiting from your erudition in future.

Other Comments by Sally Luxmoore