1. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198669 by mejdrich on June 24, 2008 at 10:58 am

"He married her at the age of six, and he consummated the marriage, by having sex with her for the first time, when she was nine. We consider the Prophet Muhammad to be our model."

"Who says all men are ferocious wolves?"

The irony is stunning.

2. Award-winning comedian George Carlin dies

Comment #197929 by mejdrich on June 23, 2008 at 12:30 am

FYI, the YouTube vids in the second link are no longer available. Here are some fresh ones:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rCz0-HY1TLU

3. From Big Bang to Us - Made Easy

Comment #192612 by mejdrich on June 13, 2008 at 3:52 pm

I've been watching Potholer54 since #4, and I'm glad to see him featured here.

He seems to be a part of a "second wave" of YouTube Atheists. The angry kids with cameras are being replaced by scientists who take on the teaching role in the debate: wonderful!

4. Random Acts of Evolution

Comment #187200 by mejdrich on June 1, 2008 at 1:22 pm

What a delightful mistake: junk text added in the process of reproduction in an article about the same.

It's just to perfect.

5. Tribute to a Beloved Mentor

Comment #183968 by mejdrich on May 23, 2008 at 10:35 am

Heartwarming and inspiring. Thanks for posting.

6. Texas Megachurch Minister Busted in Internet Sex Sting

Comment #181509 by mejdrich on May 17, 2008 at 10:25 am

Oh, this is beautiful.

I drive past this church every day on my way to work.

We've been calling it "Six-Flags over Jesus" or "The Baptidome".

What're we going to call it now?

7. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180434 by mejdrich on May 14, 2008 at 11:44 pm

Did anyone else feel like this was more of a discussion than a debate?

I think I liked it.

8. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177322 by mejdrich on May 8, 2008 at 11:11 pm

I have to agree with a few people here... perhaps not Dawkin's finest moment.

Don't get me wrong. Boteach DOES shriek like Hitler, but I can't see how pointing it out is worth the bad PR.

Besides, it's not like you need to bring up Hitler to put this little man in his place.

And it's not that I'm trying to put everything Richard says under a microscope - it's just that the theists certainly will.

9. Shaw TV Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #175150 by mejdrich on May 4, 2008 at 3:55 pm

"No, no, I've never had a letter from a Muslim. I don't think they read my books. No, I meant christian fundamentalists ... actually, I don't they read them either."

LOLOL

10. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #174739 by mejdrich on May 3, 2008 at 11:45 am

Excellent video. I love coming here not just for atheism, but to learn about science.

11. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173795 by mejdrich on May 1, 2008 at 8:49 am

Friendly hosts are rare.

Very enjoyable.

12. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156348 by mejdrich on April 7, 2008 at 11:21 am

Wow. I'm shocked. But also amused. To all you commenters, here, thank you. You just put a smile on my face.

13. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #142575 by mejdrich on March 12, 2008 at 7:25 pm

I can't wait to see this posted on video. I hope Josh was there, recording!

14. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #131751 by mejdrich on February 23, 2008 at 6:03 am

Cheney and Bush can't be neo-cons.

LOLOL

Sorry, usually comments on this forum deserve a polite response, but this is just to much. Anyone paying attention .. no, anyone alive for the past 7 years can see this for what it is.

Note to self: ignore posts by Duffman.

15. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128626 by mejdrich on February 17, 2008 at 1:21 pm

my point was that even I had it rough but I don't have my own FUND for protection-she could totally lay low and be safe if she wanted to but instead she's begging for money so she can speak out

Expecting donations so she can be famous and outspoken is really the issue.

I think the point is that there probably hasn’t been a single civil rights movement in history that didn’t come to a crossroads where they could choose between shutting up and making a public, vocal stand. Yes, it usually takes famous figure heads to rally the cause.

The issue isn't as simple as to what will make Ayaan safe, it is, and I don't think I'm exaggerating, a choice between caving in to Islamic Fundamentalism and defending Western values, including free speech.

As an aside, although Saerain is perfectly capable of defending herself, I can’t help but point out that the irony was in robotaholic’s insinuation that he was better because of his superior lack of typos, when in fact making a fuss about typos actually hurt his own credibility. Doubly ironic that he didn’t “get it�.

16. Ayaan Hirsi Ali asks for protection

Comment #128013 by mejdrich on February 15, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Tch, the poor bitch is still having to beg?

Watch your mouth, Diacanu.

(wow, that's something I never thought I'd say on richarddawkins.net)

17. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125091 by mejdrich on February 11, 2008 at 12:16 am

Thanks, Skep. It'll be interesting to see how this all plays out.

18. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125082 by mejdrich on February 10, 2008 at 11:10 pm

Has anyone followed up on the Jewish court that Hitchens sited?

19. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #113789 by mejdrich on January 20, 2008 at 3:03 pm

I really appreciate Dawkins finally responding to Sam Harris's ideas about not using the "atheist" word.

w00t!

20. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #105669 by mejdrich on January 1, 2008 at 1:40 pm

Thought of a new sound-bite answer.

Mao, Stalin, and Hitler are all examples of cults of personality. Like all good monotheists, they tried to kill off their divine competition.

They are examples of combining religious fervor with dictatorship.

21. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98841 by mejdrich on December 14, 2007 at 3:06 pm

Summer Seale said:

I don't think so at all. I think his view is full of crap. You think it's a good thing to be "nuanced" the way he wants to be?

How much "nuance" should we give creationists? Do you actually "listen" to evangelicals?

My guess is you don't.

Yes, you've expressed this point of view quite loudly. My comment was intended in the direction of Steve99.

Incidently, I enjoyed a roughly two hour conversation with a Bible Literalist last week in the chat part of this website. I found him to be quite polite and nuanced, even where I disagreed with him the most. Instead of making guesses about what I believe, he asked questions. All around a refreshing and worthwhile exchange - sadly, more so then many conversations I've had with fellow Atheists.

22. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98793 by mejdrich on December 14, 2007 at 10:40 am

steve99said:

I tend towards Ali's views, but we need to listen to what others have to say, and not abuse them.

Right on.

I also have to agree with Saerain. I actually thought he was articulate and persuasive. I don't see how Ayaan pwnd Ash, as many here seem to believe.

I also want to add that it's refreshing to see a "European" debate, for once. Two people talking unashamedly of being liberals is a rare sight in the States. I sensed that these two had a somewhat long history that played into this debate, though. It was hard not to notice that Ayaan didn't in any way accept Ash's withdrawl of "enlightenment fundamentalist".

Anyone from Europe want to clue us Americans in on some of the backstory between these two?

23. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98115 by mejdrich on December 13, 2007 at 5:04 am

Not trying to fight over semantics, but an apostate is also an unbeliever, and the punishment is still apparently beheading.

It's like saying, "no, no, the Koran doesn't say to kill all westerners. That would be barbaric. It says to kill all foreigners."

24. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #97981 by mejdrich on December 13, 2007 at 12:22 am

I've got to agree with Gymnopedie. The censorship of this clip is really irritating. The producers are saying, in essence, that they disagree with the comments of BOTH debaters.

Otherwise, an interesting debate.

25. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92537 by mejdrich on November 30, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Bonzai, doesn't Ed Husain illustrate the problems of moderates? His response to Ayaan was, 'there is no room for godlessness in the reformation of islam'. That in and of itself is pretty backward.

In any case, we don't have to fool ourselves about the issue. I'd rather have Ed Husain than Osama Bin Laden, but we have enough experience with gods in the western world to know that the bigotry involved in claiming a special relationship to a deity is a problem, regardless of how modernized the deity.

26. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #92173 by mejdrich on November 30, 2007 at 2:24 am

lol Question #2 was exquisite. Dawkins eyes got huge, 'are you serious?'

27. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92171 by mejdrich on November 30, 2007 at 2:19 am

Amazing how strong the taboo against religious criticism, that Ed Hussain was too offended by Ayaan's Atheism to realize all she was saying was that the modernity of Muslims didn't have to be an exclusively religious reformation.

28. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91307 by mejdrich on November 28, 2007 at 2:28 am

adonais:
I don't feel personally attacked, but I would find your points more clearly articulated if they weren't cluttered with things like, "You're supposed to be a free-thinker" or "[what you mean is] patently absurd". I understand you're pissed, but of course being angry isn't an argument.

Keep in mind that none of us are reclaiming our donations, burning our copies of The End of Faith, or even talking as stridently as Sam has. The worst we've done is worry out loud how Christians could misinterpret him, at our expense. You may say that this is a non-issue next to Ayaan's situation, but I still have yet to hear why we can't have Ayaan's saftey without offering Warren the moral highground.

29. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91271 by mejdrich on November 27, 2007 at 9:48 pm

adonis said:

Don't be daft ... Everybody who is complaining ... whatever twisted logic you come up with ... you are indeed whining about them ... are you trying to bullshit me ... all this whining ... [etc, etc]

Well, do you feel better, getting all that out of your system?

As I said before, Sam told us that we have a "moral obligation" to help him fund-raise for Ayaan Kirsi Ali. Turn around is fair play, especially when we are trusting our money with him.

No one is saying Harris doesn't have the right to say whatever he wants. What we are expressing seems more on the line of, 'if he wants to ask for my money, he better well be more careful with what he says'. That doesn't violate free speech, and it doesn't come close to a crime, so please do us a favor and lighten up. Making points instead of personal attacks is a plus.

30. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91226 by mejdrich on November 27, 2007 at 5:11 pm

adonais:
"Deprived ourselves of free speech"? "Silence ourselves"? Who here is saying any of that? Sorry, but saying anyone here is advocating against free speech is both inaccurate and inflammatory.

Looking through the posts, the most anyone seems to be asking for is a little consideration with Sam's choice of words, as expressed by Janus post #54:

I like Shuggy's idea. If Harris had said, "Rick may yet convince me that Christians are as moral and socially engaged as atheists", I'm sure everyone would have applauded!

31. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91187 by mejdrich on November 27, 2007 at 2:07 pm

BaronOchs

Surely the objection to the comment seem to assume Sam (or anyone) is a sort of representative of an atheist movement with obligations regarding what he should and shouldn't say. ... Maybe exploiting this to ensure Hirsi Ali's safety is an end that justifies the means?

Well, he did just advocate that financially supporting Ayaan Kirsi Ali was our "moral obligation". If we have a moral obligation to her, then it doesn't seem unreasonable that Sam may have some responsiblity to Atheists. At the very least, we can expect that the dollars and pounds we donate won't be mischaracterized for a punch-line. Everyone here wants Hirsi Ali to be safe (obviously), but there are no good reasons why that should require us to offer Warren the moral highground he wants so badly.


eric711

I'm bothered because I feel the "misgivings" expressed have exceeded reasonable questioning and have turned to reactionary badgering. ... As I've pointed out, some of the comments here have been quite nasty.

Which comments do you find nasty, Eric? I re-read all 85 comments, and I find the posts by annabanana, wednesdayguevara, Jack Rawlinson, eXcommunicate and others to be sincere and measured. People are expressing their heart-felt dismay, not burning copies of The End of Faith.

32. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91130 by mejdrich on November 27, 2007 at 11:24 am

BaronOchs said:

mejdrich ... The comment was probably just gratitude and humour but it is also correct. If significantly more came in donations from christians that would suggest they are more generous and engaged.

I beg to disagree. If Warren and his church out-donates us, it will be because he is already a proven fundraiser (as a pastor) with an organization already in place, ready to collect funds for ANY cause. In any case, the morality of a whole people isn't measured by a single (slightly controversial) issue of donating to a single women. If you'd like an idea about the morality of Rick Warren's church, check out: http://www.saddlebackfamily.com/membership/group_finder/faqs_smallgroup.asp?id=7509

I think Jack Rawlinson's post #78 represents my feelings pretty well. I'm a little curious as to why our misgivings are bothering so many, here. Do some of you think that any critique of Sam Harris is disloyal, or some kind of tactical error?

33. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91001 by mejdrich on November 26, 2007 at 11:16 pm

agg:
My feelings are more like watching a football game where the team I've bet money on has made a blunder of a pass. The opposing team may not have scored, but it's still troubling, especially since we have precious few star players (Sam Harris would be one of them) and the other team seems to have an endless supply waiting in the sidelines.

I think most of the outrage is simply the timing, that Sam appealed to us for cash, and like you most of us had mixed feelings. It makes us less forgiving when, in this issue, he seems to have nothing but praise for a pastor of a church:

I am very happy to say that Pastor Warren responded immediately (as fast as the fastest atheist) and pledged to help.

Atheists are not yet well organized, and Rick Warren has an entire congregation at his fingertips. There is no doubt they will out-fundraise us, in a pinch. All of this would be tongue-in-cheek, but for the fact that Sam is building a bit of a history. After all, he made a point of being provocative at the conference, and even said that he never thought of himself as an atheist until we starting calling him to attend our conferences.

I doubt Sam is going to find religion any time soon, but the fact remains that he has left us a little bewildered about exactly what he's up to. I think this uncertainty, plus the appeal for a commitment of money (even for a good cause), is the source of the unhappy noises people have made on this thread.


Russell Blackford:
There is a good reason some of us are sensitive to how this plays out. I live in Texas, and my boss and almost all of my co-workers are Christians. I've had friends tell me, to my face, they think I'm a baby-murderer for my views on abortion. I hear news stories of people kicked out of their apartments for being atheists. I've don't feel that I have the luxury of a sloppy sense of humor. So, the success of the New Atheists is going to effect me in a tangible way.

If, in the middle of this, I can exercise self-control, and if Richard Dawkins can (and he does), then it's not out of line to ask the same of Sam Harris.

34. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90978 by mejdrich on November 26, 2007 at 9:39 pm

I wonder what people will think about us when we throw one of our brightest stars under the bus because we aren't grown up enough to take a little joke.

No one's throwing him under the bus. We bought his book, we donated to his cause, and it's not unreasonable to ask (via forum that he may not even read) that he choose his words carefully.

edit - I completely agree with Janus post #54, below

35. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90969 by mejdrich on November 26, 2007 at 8:49 pm

Well, GoatBoy36, as we know, Atheists are the most hated and mistrusted minority of America. Ronald Reagen even said we shouldn't be considered citizens. I don't think we can afford to make sloppy quips, as Sam has done.

Keep in mind that Sam Harris just appealed for our help (and got it) over this very issue. I think it's fair for us to closely watch how he represents us, especially when he's giving Christians permission to call us immoral.

Trust me.. if WE can misconstrue Harris's words, then our Christian neighbors certainly will. I wonder where all of these people live, who seem to think we're making to much of this. From my perspective, in Texas, I'm surrounded by mega-churches filled with fundamentalists. The immoral Atheist is a powerful meme.

36. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90965 by mejdrich on November 26, 2007 at 8:37 pm

"Rick," Harris jokes, "may yet convince me that Christians are more moral and socially engaged than atheists."

Sure, agg, it's pretty simple. Harris has created a situation where many Christians, now with his own quote in hand, can assure themselves that they are (again) morally superior to their atheist neighbors. What happens if Warren's church donates more than atheists? Do you think they'll hesitate to claim victory?

It would be like, at the verge of testing a new stem cell procedure, Sam takes it upon himself to quip, "Well, if this doesn't work, I might be convinced that Bush was right to block stem-cell research!"

His words were sloppy, and easily misconstrued by Christians too ready to misunderstand. So, no, I'm not going to "chill out". Joking that our morality in contingent on out-donating an organized church was a stupid thing to do.

37. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #88532 by mejdrich on November 17, 2007 at 1:04 pm

This quote, from the 3rd President of the US, is just too perfect. It shows just how old (and how ridiculous) this argument is:


"If we did a good act merely from love of God and a belief that it is pleasing to Him, whence arises the morality of the Atheist? ...Their virtue, then, must have had some other foundation than the love of God."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Thomas Law, June 13, 1814

38. 'Growing Up in the Universe' now available free online

Comment #87926 by mejdrich on November 13, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Ah, yes, this has been on YouTube for a while. Nice to see an official version.

My favorite part is his show of "faith" with the solid weight on a rope. Good stuff.

39. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87710 by mejdrich on November 12, 2007 at 11:31 pm

krisking,

Thank you for this. It all seems very convincing. Plenty of people brought up in Christian homes and Christian churches have struggled with these verses, and continue to do so.

Well. You're welcome. :-) Of course, the struggle is understandable, and I don't really care what people do in the privacy of their own homes. My problem is when it boils over all of the horrible religious-based conflicts we are seeing all over the the world, including the religious-based persecution in the U.S.


DalaiDrivel,

No joke. I hear Europe is getting on pretty well, if you avoid Italy and radical Muslims. If it gets that bad, though, it probably won't matter where we go.

40. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87667 by mejdrich on November 12, 2007 at 6:43 pm

DalaiDrivel,

If and when the faithheads succeed and turn the US into a pure-bred (ill-bred, given it's intended form of government by the founders) theocracy, come on up to Canada, by all means!

I hope, for all of our sake, it doesn't come to that, but thank you for the invitation!


krisking,

I think these kinds of people who profess to follow Jesus need to read his words more carefully and see how graciously he dealt with all kinds of people that the legal and religious authorities of his day condemned.

That's the point, isn't it? I have heard this exact sentiment uttered by the radicals you are denouncing. Even Catholics against Lutherans, and vice versa, and Mormons too. I think I can say that every group of Christians I have ever met has the provincial believe that they understand Jesus better than the others.

The problem is that no moral person can follow the teachings of Jesus, because his teaching simply aren't moral. The result is that everyone cherry-picks what the think are the moral parts, everyone gets it wrong, and they fight (in some parts of the world, kill) each other over who is right.

I'm sure, as a Christian, you don't spend much time thinking about how immoral Jesus actually, but if you'd like a quick overview, you can check out this website: http://godisimaginary.com/i39.htm The important thing to remember is that it was Jesus who came up with the idea of burning in Hell forever, if you don't believe in his divinity. Jesus supported the owning of slaves. Jesus, despite popular Christian teaching, did not throw out the barbarism of the Old Testament, but endorsed it, even making it a requirement for heaven.

41. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87329 by mejdrich on November 11, 2007 at 8:21 pm

Spinoza,

Okay, I'll bite. What exactly have you learned in philosophy that all of us are taking for granted?

I haven't read Victor Stenger in God: The Failed Hypothesis, but in principle, I don't see what is unsound about saying clearly what know God cannot be. For instance, we know that, if there is a God, he can't be the kind of God that always answers prayers, because we can see prayers go unanswered. We've known for over two millennia, thanks to Epicurus, that God can't be Omnipotent, Omnipresent, and All-Good simultaneously. Kudos to us.

One day, our telescopes will be advanced enough that will be able to say with certainty that there is no teapot circling the sun. Why must God be different?

I suppose I do see the value in saying that there is nothing in the Universe we can really be 100% certain of, simply because our senses are subjective. It can be a useful tool to get the ultra-religious to doubt their certainties. But I think it's a two-edged sword, because practically speaking, we live believing that there is an objective reality that we are all sharing.

42. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87280 by mejdrich on November 11, 2007 at 4:33 pm

What is more, Christians in the UK (those who take it seriously) are appalled at what purports to be Christianity in the US and the (as it seems to us) hard-line right wing, unbending, unforgiving reactionary, dogmatic, ideas and views that are preached.

I hear this a lot, even from Christian "moderates" in the U.S. The odd thing is, it doesn't matter how extreme a Christian is, they are all appalled at the nuttier ones, and the nuttier ones are appalled at the Mormons, and the Mormons are appalled at the Scientologists. All the while, they vote for religious persecution in the form of anti-gay rights legislation, anti-stem cell, not to mention the armies of lawyers who's specific goal is to force their religious dogmas on abortion on the rest of us.

The problem is that these are the moderates. Once you allow someone to get away with saying, "you must respect my faith that Jesus, the son of God, is raised from the dead", then you must also respect him when he says, "you must respect my faith that for two men to lay together is an abomination and a threat to civilization."

I was talking to a co-worker of 3-yrs, the other day - a smart, clever guy. I mentioned the statistic that roughly half of the U.S. population believes the earth is only 6,000 years old, when he launched into a tirade about how ineffective carbon-dating is. He honestly believed he had enough expertise to judge carbon-dating (and global warming, to boot) to be a hoax. In all other ways, he is a smart guy.

I had a falling out with one of my best friends of many years, because he called Hillary Clinton a "baby killer" over her position on abortion. I was stunned, because her position isn't far from mine. Would he agree that we had a difference of opinion about the exact timing of the beginning of life? No, if my girlfriend and I had an abortion, for any reason whatsoever, we would be murderers.

I don't even want to talk about my extended family, of whom I am the only non-Christian. In that field, I simply have not had the luxury of coming "out", and I probably never will. I can say, without caveat, that I envy all of you in Canada and England. It must be nice.

43. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87193 by mejdrich on November 11, 2007 at 12:26 pm

I suppose I am wondering how life looks from an atheistic point of view; whether an atheist suffers feelings of guilt which blight her life and hold back her ability to live life to the full; what resources she has when life goes badly wrong; and (moving away from the completely personal) whether an atheist has any solutions for a suffering world; and whether any of it matters anyway.

Let me answer your questions, but they need framing, somewhat.

One thing different about the life of an atheist is that it puts you (at least in America) in the most hated, distrusted minority in the country. http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigotryprejudice/a/AtheitsHated.htm More than gays, more than muslims. George Bush senior was quoted saying, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic." Discrimination and bigotry are real problems facing atheists. Even our friends in Britain sometimes forget what the stakes are for us, here in the U.S.

Part of this is because of the outright arrogance of Christianity. Saying something like "in the U.S. our morality is a Christian morality" is not uncommon, and you yourself repeated the sentiment. What is an Atheist to do against such self-proclaimed righteousness? Especially when spoken by someone in authority. What would you do if your parents, boss, or president believed the very core of your essence was rejected by the creator of the universe?

The fact is that less religious countries seem to get on just fine without religion. If there is a connection between living well and religiosity in the 21st century, all of the data would suggest that the correlation is inverted. I don't have the numbers handy, but Sweden is not the exception, if anything, it is the rule. If you are interested I can see if I can dig up the source on this point.

The difficulty Christians have in seeing this is, I think, because they have lived so long in a Christian-saturated culture. For a long time, a Christian could proclaim that they are the source of everything good in this world and not be challenged for the self-centered lunatic that he would be. On a global level, the problems solved by religion are few, but the problems caused are many (suicidal terrorism, northern Ireland, Israeli-Palestinian, etc). Those of us who are Atheists are simply people who have better things to do with our time and money then to send it to a church once a week.

So, no, I don't have problems with guilt. At a few points in my life, things have gone badly wrong, and my atheist friends helped me out just like I expect your christian friends would help you. It took me a while to get use to the idea that I'm not immortal (a soul sounds silly when you think of it this way), but now that I have, I feel like my life is more full, my friendships more precious. Compare that to the pressure of the threat of torture forever by God, if I screw up. The only way in which atheism has not improved my life is that I'm not the punching bag of the bigotry of Christians.

44. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87175 by mejdrich on November 11, 2007 at 11:39 am

Sorry, I've scrolled back, but can't seem to find this post..

It's on page 9, 8th post from the bottom. Post #443. Comment #87125.

Anyway, the conversation has moved on, or stalled, depending on your POV.


Dr. Benway, that steak sounds good.

45. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87163 by mejdrich on November 11, 2007 at 11:20 am

Krisking,

Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I feel at last there is someone that I can have a proper discussion with about these matters, rather than hearing glib assertions about Christian morality.

Well, that was short lived. Was my reply #443 too glib?

I'm not sure what exactly you are after, here. Atheists are able to get on just fine without believing that morality is enforced by a celestial dictator. We all understand some basic strategies about living the good life without having in listed in a book. *shrug*

Are you wondering about our views on specific moral issues? Are you looking for the source of those views?

46. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #87125 by mejdrich on November 11, 2007 at 9:13 am

Krisking,

Thank you for this thoughtful reply. I feel at last there is someone that I can have a proper discussion with about these matters, rather than hearing glib assertions about Christian morality.

Thank you for the complement, but I am proud to be in the company of most of the regular posters, here. I think there are probably a few little facts to tidy up, but let me repost your main point, and go from there:

I think that the problem that atheists have not yet realised about their position is that their own system of morals is based on Christian morality

As written, you are making a sweeping statement about the foundations of morality. Help us "realise" the truth of this by providing evidence. What unique morality has Christianity actually taught us, that hasn't independently arisen outside of the West? And on what basis do you discard all of the bits of Christian morality that you don't agree with, like enslavement of women, child sacrifice, genocide, and slavery in general?

You mention the golden rule. According to the biblical account, man knew the difference between good and evil from the moment he realised he was naked.

This is a completely different argument, one that now requires you to show the biblical account is true. If if true, it begs the question. If eating the forbidden fruit made morality innate in all humans, why are you calling it "Christian"?

I want to put out a few little fires:

Slavery in the Bible is well documented and completely odious. The Old Testament endorses slavery, and Jesus himself clearly expects us to be keeping slaves. I refer you to http://godisimaginary.com/i13.htm. As Sam Harris says, "the abolitionists were on the loosing end of a theological argument". I'd also add that while the abolitionist movement was lead by a Martin Luther King, his ideas were hardly Christian. He studied the Hindu Mahatma Gandhi, who had learned the principles of non-violence from studying the Jains.

Child sacrifice. I'm surprised how many Christians find comfort in the fact that God, at the last second, changes his mind about Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac. A far cry from a basis of morality, the lesson here is that there is no universal morality that one must follow, only the fickle and distance lunacy of God. Thus follow the religiously justified genocides we have endured for millennia, properly emulating the slaughters of Exodus (don't forget God's first crack at solving the problem of sin: the genocide of the flood – not surprising that his second go involved offering his son as a bloody sacrifice to himself).

There are many other Biblical child sacrifices, enough to warrant their own wiki page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sacrifice#Abrahamic_traditions. Just to make the point, in 2 Kings 3:27 the king of Moab gives his firstborn son as a burnt offering, and Judges 11:31 recounts Jephthah's sacrifice of his virgin daughter to God for success in battle.

47. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86959 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 2:49 pm

ADH,

I have done but you weren't listening or didn't understand! Your post about an all-powerful God being able to do what is logically contradictory was frankly inane. Can he make a square triangle?

steve99's reply (#398) represents my own thoughts, as well. It's revealing that you have so compartmentalized your thinking that something can be simultaneously All-Powerful and have it's power restricted. That may fly with your fellow Christians, but not here.

I said that CS Lewis does not supersede Scripture. He offers an interpretation of Scripture which I have patiently tried to elucidate.

There is nothing particularly illusive about the plain meaning of the Bible, in regard to Hell. You have rejected the words of the bible as simple "metaphoric", and turned your trust to a writer of children's books. I invite everyone to appreciate the duplicity in your doing this while insisting that the Bible is a higher authority, equal to science, while arguing points made by christains like C.S. Lewis.

As for my kids and their fate, that is between them and God. Kindly lay off!

No, and no it is not.

If you came onto this site making vague noises about molesting your kids, you should be ready to be blasted with criticism. A child's mind (like their body) is no one's property but the child, and a parent who abuses the trust of a child (with threats of Hell) to advance their religious affiliation deserves more than the meek conversational pressure you've gotten here. I don't really care if this point makes you uncomfortable, so I repeat:

How you can tell your children that, unless they believe what you do (a thought crime), not only will you abandon them to be with God, but they will experience the worst feelings possible to suffer, forever. You haven't explained why this isn't "coercion" or a "fear tactic", even leaving aside the issue of child abuse.

48. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86943 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 1:42 pm

Look, ADH, if you can't see the contradiction in something so basic and simple, how do you expect anyone to take you seriously? If you don't want us to take you seriously, why are you here?

You are denying the plain meaning of words, avoiding dealing with even the most simple outcomes of your rationalizations, and you are basing all of it on your subjective feelings on the matter. On one hand, you tell us to respect the "authority" of scripture, then you reject the Bible for C.S. Lewis's more clever writing.

If you are a rational person, then don't make silly quips, prove it by being rational.

49. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86939 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 1:32 pm

krisking,

I think that the problem that atheists have not yet realised about their position is that their own system of morals is based on Christian morality and does not just come out of thin air...

Does it, really? If you want to claim the foundation of our morals on Christianity, you need to offer evidence, and a lot of it.

Your first problem is the assertive claim, since even monkeys have moral thinking. Not to mention that almost everything you find in the Bible is found in other societies across the globe without Christian exposure. The Golden Rule, for instance, was independently discovered all over the world, long before the Jews wrote it down in their books. Do you honestly believe that nobody had figured out "Thou Shalt Not Kill" until Moses scribbled it on a tablet?

There is also the argument against. The immoral teachings of the Bible are many. You reject the stories of the human sacrifice of children, (Issac, Moab, and God himself in your celebrated crucifixion), you reject God's commandment to ethnically cleanse your disbelieving neighbors, you reject stoning anyone who works on the Sabbath, you reject the enslavement of women, and slavery itself, even though all of these are the moral teachings of the Bible. So where is YOUR basis of morality, since it is obviously not the Bible?

It's simple, really. Ideas about how to build a good sky-scraper come from inside our brains, just like ideas on how to build a durable society and a good life come from within our experiences.

50. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #86934 by mejdrich on November 10, 2007 at 1:10 pm

"Please (re)read post 378"

ADH, I am quickly loosing patience with you.

God's being all-powerful doesn't mean that He can do the logically impossible.

All-Powerful: having or exercising exclusive and unlimited authority; omnipotent.
Unlimited: without any qualification or exception; unconditional.

This is very simple. If you qualify God's power by the condition of logical possibility, then he is not All-Powerful. Period. Either you are a rational person, or you aren't. Which is it?


And the repost: how you can tell your children that, unless they believe what you do (a thought crime), not only will you abandon them to be with God, but they will experience the worst feelings possible to suffer, forever. You haven't explained why this isn't "coercion" or a "fear tactic", even leaving aside the issue of child abuse.