1. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82226 by mbcraig11 on October 25, 2007 at 10:32 pm

very well said First Dark

2. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82224 by mbcraig11 on October 25, 2007 at 10:30 pm

3. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82219 by mbcraig11 on October 25, 2007 at 10:21 pm

Janus.... When someone asks me what my religion is I say I don't have one. If they ask me whether I believe in God, I say no.

This inevitably leads to them saying "oh......so your an athiest" to which I reply "I guess you could call me that,,, but I don't really know what that means" at which time you mention similar things like what Sam says about being labeled a non-racist or non-astrolagist. We are obviously all athiests and if someone asks specifically whether we are or not then you have to say yes but I think it needs to be very clear to people that that word means nothing in terms of how we all think as a group and that it really isn't a philosophy of life as some people like to think. Again I think Sam has hit the nail on the head in terms of there being a negative stigma attached to the label which is a conversation stopper and it is best to avoid it if possible and just deal with individual arguments as they arrise. I don't think it is necessary for us to band together and develop the tribal style mentality that is indicitive of relgious groups because that only makes us easy targets for sterotypes and misconceptions.

4. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82214 by mbcraig11 on October 25, 2007 at 10:06 pm

Sam is a brilliant speaker. Anyone who views him as a traitor to the athiest cause or who was offended by his speech presents what I think is the perfect reason not to be an athiest. We can't get bogged down in a tribal style mentality where we don't allow disagreements amongst ourselves. I myself would agree with Sam here. There is such a negative stigma attached to the word athiest that it really is a conversation stopper and it doesn't help any of our causes when debating or discussing issues over faith.

5. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56443 by mbcraig11 on July 15, 2007 at 7:34 pm

Hitchen's keep making this argument about "name one good thing done in the name of religion that couldn't be done by a non-believer?"

I don't think this is what most religious people argue. They say that yes non-believers can do all of these good deeds but from their view many religious people do good deeds because of their faith.

Without faith would we have just as many charitable organizations working thoughout the world?

6. Would the World Be Safer Without Religion?

Comment #43483 by mbcraig11 on May 21, 2007 at 4:44 pm

I hate this garbage where people say religion is not the sole cause of the viloence. Of course is not, how many times does it have to be said that there are many variables that lead to or contribute to the cause of violence and religion is one of them. It would be no different if we blamed money as the source of violence and conflict and some idiot wrote "if you really want to get to the heart of it, ethnicity, religion, and tribilism are the real source and so we can't blame money or financial inequities"

religion is a variable that works in conjuction with other variables. what makes religion the most absurd though is that it is based on lies, or at least a lack of evidence and that is why we want to see it removed, at least have its previously respected spot in society questioned more regularly by the masses and not given a free ride

7. Thought vs. feeling in religion

Comment #41760 by mbcraig11 on May 16, 2007 at 9:52 pm

lol I think everyone stopped after the second sentance lol.

8. Why Christopher Hitchens is not Great

Comment #41250 by mbcraig11 on May 15, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I couldn't even get halfway through this crap. I am supposed to be working but when I take a break to read something like this my mind goes on overload with all of this crap he said. I feel the need to refute it like I alwasy do when I read articles like this but this one if just to overwhelmingly stupid.

9. Furor over author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit stirs debate on religious freedom

Comment #41246 by mbcraig11 on May 15, 2007 at 5:12 pm

I also love the girl who said my understanding of the Prophet Muhammed........

well maybe you check YOUR understanding against some of the many historical accounts of the life of Muhammed and see what they have to say

10. Furor over author Ayaan Hirsi Ali's visit stirs debate on religious freedom

Comment #41245 by mbcraig11 on May 15, 2007 at 5:11 pm

Although ElBayly believes a death sentence is warranted for Hirsi Ali, he stressed that America is not the jurisdiction where such a crime should be punished. Instead, Hirsi Ali should be judged in a Muslim country after being given a trial, he added.

"If it is found that a person is mentally unstable, or a child or disabled, there should be no punishment," he said. "It's a very merciful religion if you try to understand it."

PRICELESS

11. Christopher Hitchens Explains It All for You: Move over, Sam Harris; another atheist wants the pulpit

Comment #41237 by mbcraig11 on May 15, 2007 at 4:59 pm

Is anyone else getting sick of the argument that these new athiest publications aren't saying anything new? I HATE THIS rebuttal. This says nothing about argument itself. Simply because an argument has been made in the past (many times) and people have not listened does not give the least bit of credability to other sides position.

And for god's sake. How many times is a relgious person going to bring up the Stalin/Mao/Pol Pot argument. Hasn't it been acknowledged but every athiest on the planet that we recognize religion is not the only source of violence, and that there are many different unreasonable dogmas that can do so. These massacres were not the result of reason run amuck as Sam Harris says.

And this idiot also brings up the usual argument that the overwhelming number of people who have lived have been religious is some way. Has he even read Sam Harris. It's not that athiests are saying religion has to be destroyed or that any of the benefits of spirituality can't be maintained. There just needs to be a certain level of intellecutal honesty in which people don't make impossible claims to certainty.

12. Kirk Cameron Proves That God Exists

Comment #40053 by mbcraig11 on May 12, 2007 at 9:55 pm

This was an awkward debate to watch. I applaud the RRS for debating this issue but everytime Kelly spoke I felt my own face turning red out of embarrasment for the way she delivered her responses.

How anyone can listen to this debate and not have a profound respect and admiration for people like Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins and their ability to articulate the athiest postion is beyond me.

13. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #39059 by mbcraig11 on May 9, 2007 at 10:06 pm

IQHQ-- I could be wrong, but I don't think Sam realistically thinks we will rid the world of these crazy beliefs all together. He has said numerous times that it would be fine if we could make everyone a moderate or if everyone had a rational perspective on their relgions but the fact is MANY don't. I think we all agree that religions are based on myths but I fail to see why you are so opposed to Sam's approach. You laugh at him as an intellect but the fact is he is out there putting himself in these public discussions on a constant basis and helping to bring more publicity and public discussion to a very important issue. The man is not stupid. He is a brilliant writer without question, despite that some of his views may be slightly over-simplistic especially when it comes to religion being the sole cause of suicide bombers which has been hotly debated by people like Scott Atran.

We probably will never eradicate the world of crazy beliefs, but, that does not mean we should criticize all religious beliefs like we criticize beliefs in all other fields.

14. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38381 by mbcraig11 on May 7, 2007 at 11:31 pm

Sam was only talking about the most extreme scenerio imaginable when he made that comment. The example being if a group of people or even a nation with the mindset of the Sept 11 hi-jackers gets their hands on a nuclear bomb and we know they feel like they are justified by their religious beliefs in detonating the bomb to "help cure the world of impurity" then yes it may be ethical to launch a first strike and kill these people. He's not advocating it and no one wants this to happen but its a reality that some people can pose such a danger to civilization in general that we could find ourselves in a situation where killing them first is the only option.

If you want to put them in jail for life too that fine but that is not necessarily an easy option and for the benefit of humanity I would hope some nut job wanting to detonate a nuclear bomb because of crazy unfounded fanatical beliefs was attacked or somehow taken out of play before he could do so.

15. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38377 by mbcraig11 on May 7, 2007 at 11:16 pm

The frustration of reading articles like this is almost unbearable.

"In a another passage Harris goes even further, and reaches a disturbing conclusion that "some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical to kill people for believing them". This sounds like exactly the kind of argument put forward by those who ran the Inquisition. As one New York commentator put it, we're familiar with religious intolerance, now we have to recognise irreligious intolerance."

IRRELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE????? for GOD sakes.....arguements like this are the equivilent of saying we half to tolerate any fanatical or unfounded belief despite the lack of evidence or reasoning that may have led to it. It's not that difficult to understand the new-athiest argument. We expect reasoning and evidence as the basis for any belief in any area of discourse.

Forgive us Madedeline if we are sick of completely unfounded and downright obsurd beliefs being respected and allowed to have (in many cases) terrible impacts on society at large. You can't keep beliefs out of politics and if you think people should be free to believe anything they want no matter what its external impact then there's not much worth while to even say to you.

She also completely ignores the fact that Dawkins and Harris have both publically said many times that they don't expect their writing to change any fundamentalists beliefs and that their style of writing is not suited to changing the minds of true believers. Their works have succeeded though in bringing this issue back to the forefront of public discourse and helped revitalize an athiest viewpoint that was quieted for many years. At the very least, they have given many people who were uncertain about the religious claims being made everywhere around this world something to think about from a rational and reasonable perspective.

This article was ridiculous

16. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38070 by mbcraig11 on May 6, 2007 at 10:40 pm

actually I would like to say that I would love to see a game of full contact football between Team Imam and Team Priest.

I wonder what Team Imam would call the "Hail Mary" pass.

17. Unholy row at clergy soccer game

Comment #38069 by mbcraig11 on May 6, 2007 at 10:38 pm

I love this story. It is priceless.

I don't even know what to say.

18. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38057 by mbcraig11 on May 6, 2007 at 10:07 pm

"Don't you know Stalin was an atheist? That's the way it goes. First you read Richard Dawkins. Then you have an abortion. Then you're putting a fresh coat of paint on the Gulag."

lol I like that line. That really is how many feel about the thought of abandoning religion.

19. The torture of the grave Islam and the afterlife

Comment #38010 by mbcraig11 on May 6, 2007 at 4:23 pm

On the bright side......in the odd chance that Nakir and Munkar show up to my grave I can fake my way through that three question exam no problem :)

lol unbelievable

20. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37198 by mbcraig11 on May 3, 2007 at 4:23 pm

I agree with you bhyde. The existance of god is a very hot topic right now and any opportunities to debate on national television at this point are extremely important. I like the RRS but I would much rather prefer to see someone like Sam, or Christopher participate in this debate. Both of the men are extremely articulate and are excellent represenatives of the athiest postion on this issue.

I truly hope the RRS does a good job in articulating their arguments and taking the intellecutal high road in this debate in which they are sure to be presented with some absurd statements about the existance of God.

I forget who said it too but the name "Rational Response Squad" really does sound like a high school club of upset teenagers. I just don't know if its best to have an organization like this representing the athiest viewpoint in any national debate.


Final note......could you imagine they actually pulled out the banana. YouIt would be one of the greatest moments in television history.