1. The New Theology

Comment #113175 by jamienewman on January 18, 2008 at 6:46 pm

I'm with agg on this, although I recognize that it may be atheistically incorrect to think we'd all be better off in a world in which Unitarian Universalists and Quakers outnumbered Catholics, Evangelicals, Jews, and Muslims.

2. Irreligion: A Mathematician Explains Why the Arguments for God Just Don't Add Up

Comment #110268 by jamienewman on January 10, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Memo to "The Stone" and other: I think that a number of books by and about ordinary schmo's who lose their religion are readily available. You might have a look at "Letting Go Of God" by Julia Sweeney (it's actually a book/cd combination). Julia -- for those who don't know -- is a semi-ordinary schmo whose main claim to fame was a brief run on "Saturday Night Live" some year ago, where her most memorable character was an individual of unsettlingly ambiguous sexuality named "Pat."

Anyway -- she was brought up in the Catholic Church, which she loved and reveled in for many years -- but then, as an adult, began to actually read the Old and New Testaments, was appalled by what she discovered, and eventually became a card-carrying atheist. The book/CD is very funny, far more accessible than anything the Professional Atheists have published, and, for a believer, probably far more persuasive.

3. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #105962 by jamienewman on January 2, 2008 at 8:14 am

Biologically engineering the human species into some sort of "perfection" seems a fairly remote prospect, for reasons scientific, technological, and political. Far more likely, I think, are the practices envisioned by Stanislaw Lem in his little masterpiece, The Futurological Congress, which would involve the universal (albeit involuntary) consumption of narcotizing psychotropic drugs that would make us all feel as though things were perfect, no matter how abjectly wretched our objective circumstances. Imagine a world in which heroin or opium addiction were universal -- we could be wallowing in our own filth, and still be feeling groovy.

And the universe, of course, would remain indifferent.

4. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90917 by jamienewman on November 26, 2007 at 4:48 pm

Mr. Khiyal: Good luck, then, in the pursuit of your agenda. And while you're at it, perhaps you could build a bubble around the planet to protect us from the asteroid that surely will extinguish our species long before the Caliphate gets a toehold here in the States.

Actually, I have an alternative, and far simpler proposal:

(1) End all covert and military intervention in the Muslim world.

(2) Compel Israel to return to its 1967 borders, and grant Palestinians in the diaspora a right to return to their property in Israel, or just compensation for that property.

(3) The technologies to dramatically reduce dependency on oil already exist. Compel their deployment.

(4) Mount an even-handed attack on ALL religious belief and practice --- Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, whatever. It's all rubbish. No special protection for favored religions. Repeat -- it's all rubbish.

5. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90796 by jamienewman on November 26, 2007 at 11:41 am

Since Mr. Khiyal clearly will not allow himself to be knocked off his hobbyhorse, let me ask him this -- just what are we in the West supposed to do about the dire menace he alleges Islam in all its forms to be?

(I'm sure that he doesn't have to be reminded that Western covert and directly military intervention in the Middle East has been an unmitigated disaster. So, what now? A straightforward policy of total annihilation, beginning with our great "friends", Saudi Arabia and Pakistan? )

6. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90699 by jamienewman on November 26, 2007 at 7:01 am

As an atheist, I make no apologies for any form of religious belief or practice, and worry about the damage done by all such beliefs and practices But I do wonder about the striking similarity between the intensely focused anti-Islamist vitriol found on this and other atheist web sites and that of Christophilic nut jobs like Ann Coulter, Dinesh D'Souza, and Pat Robertson.


Viewed rationally, the threat to local and global security posed by Muslim extremists-- whose most lethal weapons appear to be the strap-on suicide belt and the occasional hijacked airliner -- pales into insignificance when compared to that presented by the Christophiles in the US who now have the ability to obliterate the planet at the push of a button, and whose theology all but mandates that, at some time in the not too distant future, they do so.

I've got limited energy for expressions of outrage. I'll save mine for the real,imminent threats posed by the godbots who govern my country country secure in the belief that, should they unleash nuclear (or even non-nuclear) chaos on the world, they'll be doing so at the behest of their god.

7. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75649 by jamienewman on October 3, 2007 at 8:00 am

Sam's remarks about meditation, etc. only begin to approach a problem that atheists frequently refuse to address: People often are drawn to religion not for its concomitant "beliefs", but for its practices, ritual and otherwise. Sitting quietly with others, singing with others, chanting (whether "Hail Mary" or "Nam Yaho Renge Kyo ), lighting candles, the annual repetition of ritual holiday observances and recitations of texts, even confessing "sins" or speaking in tongues, induce mental states that many find extremely compelling irrespective of the "beliefs" that may underpin them. The greatest cathedrals, mosques and synagogues are shrewdly designed to induce and heighten those states. And we know that, psychology aside, there are distinct physiological benefits to these states.

I don't have time at the moment to expand on this idea, but I do think it important that we acknowledge the power of these mental states, and work to demonstrate that they can be achieved -- through meditation, exercise, good works, whatever -- through techniques not burdened with the irrational burdens of religious belief.

8. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75458 by jamienewman on October 2, 2007 at 5:39 pm

In no way, shape, or form am I a scientist. (I am, of course, an atheist). But I find the approach to the question of the relationship between religious belief and social action found in RD's work, and in the comments of posters on this forum, to be remarkably, and embarassingly, unscientific. Let's put the questions crudely: Do people who hold fundamentalist religious beliefs (however defined or characterized) engage, on balance, in more socially beneficial action (however defined or characterized) or more socially detrimental action? And do people who hold fundamentalist religious beliefs engage, in balance, in more or less socially beneficial action than do, e.g., atheists, agnostics, secularists, etc?

The answers to these questions are, presumably, matters of fact subject to rigorous empirical investigation. But the only evidence adduced here is hopelessly anecdotal, and reflects all manner of biases that have only the most tenuous roots in reality. I'm looking this moment at "Eric Blair's" claim that "[o]f course jews are responsible for less horrid stuff then Christians and Muslims." And where, precisely, are the peer-reviewed studies that support this claim -- or any of the other equally untested (and perhaps, given the current state of science, untestable) factual assertions appearing herein.

We do "the cause" no good in addressing this extremely complex constellation of historical, biological, geographical, and ideological issues with anecdotes, suppositions, and just plain old BS, because it's precisely what we'll get -- and have gotten -- in return.