1. The Dawkins delusion

Comment #45980 by relevo on May 30, 2007 at 12:08 am

Professor Dawkins,

it's not that you don't 'get it', but rather that others you are trying to reach who don't 'get it' think you don't 'get it', because they have psychological comfort groups from which within they consistently encourage themselves with the notion that you don't 'get it'. There's a reason atheists aren't majority rule, and that is a lack of comfortable answer to an anxious existence, an answer equal in analgesic effect to that of religious fantasy. With organized religions come religious edifices, evangelizing representatives, and other familial forms of customer service. These provide the illusion of respectability. Even in the intellectual arena, the illusion is carried on through departments of divinity. If you want to make society more ethically atheist, you have to out-compete these organizations by using the natural sociopsychological inclinations toward survival, and security people carry which leads them to choose religious delusion. You must use natural selection to your advantage, as religious organizations have learned to do, however, oblivious they may have been in the process of doing so.

I'm pretty sure Martin Kettle is saying that if you want to make a noticeable lasting effect on the religious, you must study their technique to find what is it that keeps them ticking so successfully, then improve on that technique in such form that achieves the ethical secular scientifically honest society we all desire.

2. Freethinking Ruins All Things

Comment #43149 by relevo on May 20, 2007 at 2:28 pm

I'm not sure if anyone here's already recommended it, but the article's site has a comment section below it. Perhaps it would be most productive to the dialogue to provide double comments for this article both here at RichardDawkins.net, and the article's homepage.

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

Comment #38361 by relevo on May 7, 2007 at 10:03 pm

My only concern is that Bunting may be right. If Jonathan Miller's Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief is any historical indication of what we have before us, she may be right. All non-authoritarian movements of Atheism in the past have never resulted in any real hindrance to religious dissemination, and in modern large numbered demographic, the recent "cultural revolution" authoritarian ones were even worse, I'm guessing because it involved forcing ineffective pseudo-Communist policy. The thing is, religion isn't the only opium of the masses. One could say the new more effective religion is modern mass consumption of fast food media, not that I have any problems with it. However, it still remains that modern monotheistic culture is still much more effective at its information dissemination not to mention its ability to force its government standards in places where its not wanted. The modern fascist movement of the religious right involves both appealing most effectively to people through fast food media, and counter-liberty government action.

What we have now are problematic governments which are too authoritarian for anyone's good, be they theocratic in the west/middle east, or aristocratic/secular in the east (China, North Korea, etc).

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

Comment #37166 by relevo on May 3, 2007 at 2:31 pm

Of course, I'm always for giving acclamations to Brian and Kelly, but in this case I don't think even the network will at all be on their side. My guess is people will see Kirk, and think, "Hey, that's the guy from the sitcom who was on those Christian movies advertised on NBC. What a great guy."

My hope of course is that people not jump to immediate negative conclusions of Brian, and Kelly based solely on the fact that they are atheists challenging majority religious dogmas, even though statistical studies have already demonstrated differently.

5. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37162 by relevo on May 3, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Does anyone here know if TIME gave any reason for why they decided to choose someone anathema to Dawkins in writing his summary? Did they do this with every person in the list?

6. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #36241 by relevo on April 30, 2007 at 3:41 pm

Hey, I know. How about we round up a group of public school students, and call up the local Catholic church. We ask if there'll be any religious preaching the coming Sunday, because we plan on attending as a group. Then when we show up at the church we act surprised at the content of speaker's wording, and cause a huge stink by being jerk-offs who throw the holy water in the preacher's face. When asked to answer for our actions as we leave, we self-righteously boast that we're a nonreligious group.

Oh wait, no, because then we'd be uberdouchebags as this supposed Christian group was on Mike Daisy's private show. Nevermind that this supposed Christian group is really supposed to be a NON-RELIGIOUS representative public school group. If this school is receiving government funding, it should be noted that the school's representatives are abusing their posts, and should be fired.

7. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33988 by relevo on April 23, 2007 at 1:42 am

Membership in a group that dictates the proper way to not believe. They always use the same arguments. "Join us and we'll all get together to form a common methodology for converting believers into non-believers so we don't offend anyone". Next, we'll have baskets passed around to fund the effort. Ultimately someone will get really pissed off and begin a "Reformed" group of non-believers.

There may be a point to this, however, so long as you have organized government collecting the tax collection plate, then citizens will continue to enforce rule of law with military backing enforcing the group mores. The ideology itself is only a byproduct of a group enforcing its ethos on weaker groups around. If organized diplomacy is a means to ensuring a lifestyle not depending on rule of bullying forceful cabals, then I'm for it, and in order to ensure rational liberties are set in law, one must organize enough to attain political clout, which does require funding. Funding is required for pretty much anything in monetary society, including a secular political media cause, including a media cause intent on dissuading all forms of dogmatic violent extremism, the very kind now advocated by irrational religious ideas instigating religious violence. I'm not for setting the precedent that all must follow Epstein's methods to press a cause, but I am for allowing, even encouraging that anyone, including Epstein organize however one can to press on, and defend voluntary civil philosophical ideas not advocating anything violently harmful.

8. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33977 by relevo on April 23, 2007 at 12:11 am

The fact is that while the religious organize to influence politics, secularists, including humanists are removed from rights they'd otherwise have. Historically, dogmatic religions have been institutions of control setup to deny equal rights to the outgroup. This is why in a certain sense I agree with Epstein. We need to team up with anyone, including the willing religious, who defend secular civil liberties in the face of totalitarian extremists who see such liberties as a threat to their dogmas of control. What I don't agree with, is his labeling of people like Harris, and Dawkins as "fundamentalists". Applied to them, the idea makes no sense, because what Harris, and Dawkins advocate are non-abusive honest civil liberties. There is nothing viciously restrictive being pushed here. What is being supported is a defense against what is otherwise full blown theocratic fascism. Dawkins may be called prickly at times, but such a perception is to be expected from people who otherwise are accustomed to being revered for absurd ideas for which no person in his/her right mind would expect to be humored, let alone revered through public policy. Neverthless, if Epstein succeeds in turning more people into secular humanists, then he's doing a good thing, and for that I give him acclaim.

9. In the beginning

Comment #33973 by relevo on April 22, 2007 at 11:50 pm

Their ideas are flourishing and their numbers growing. As Mr Krauss has caustically argued, the anti-evolution movement is itself a prime example of evolution and adaptability—defeated in one arena, it will resurface elsewhere. ... Whether they are atheists or theists, other supporters of Darwin's ideas on natural selection will have to inspire as well as inform if they are to compete with their growing army of foes.

Yep, it's an information dissemination issue. There's the continual barrage of indoctrination from religious people on the world, as well as the lack of feel-good secularist solutions to life's obstacles that have kept the world from moving on to something honestly better. Atheists simply haven't accrued enough positively effective media resources to inspire large enough noticeable difference in people's psychology, otherwise poetically identified as 'hearts'.

10. Against God

Comment #32432 by relevo on April 17, 2007 at 3:51 am

I think the issue is that secularists have yet to market the preferred alternative to religious ritual. It's not just a matter of proselytizing people like the monotheists have been doing. It's also a matter of making the religious community product within which is the image of being part of something seemingly philanthropically ethical. It's a PR, as well as lack of serious community effort problem that secularists face. The real truth is not that the religious message is verifiably valid in any way honest, but that the religious have historically done a better job spreading their belief culture.

It's also that people tend to go with whatever belief tingles them the most. Even recently when some guy crafted a fake dead fairy, and let everyone know of his hoax, there were still people believing the fairy to be real.

The site got 20,000 hits in one day from fairy believers. "Although I've said it's a hoax, people still believe that it's real," said Mr Baines.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/derbyshire/6514283.stm

If it's enjoyable, people are willing to believe it, despite whether it's honest or not. The key is to make actual reality more enjoyable than any arbitrary fantasy reality, so society in general embraces honest scientific practices which result in betterment to the general quality of living. The key is to make a positive inspiring artful message with science, so people become willing to personalize it the way they've been doing with organized religious ritual. That psychological need for happy wellness can be met without resorting to dangerous superstitious antiquated dogmas.

11. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32343 by relevo on April 16, 2007 at 11:08 pm

A universe that isn't God-centered becomes ego-centered. People come to see choices through the prism of self: what promotes the individual's well-being and happiness. Such a worldview does not naturally lead to benevolence or self-sacrifice.

Whether you follow a God concept or not, there is no escaping egocentricity. In actuality, God concept is a step further in egocentricity than materialistic naturalism alone, because God concept anthropomorphizes reality to fit human centered creeds. For egocentricity, you need look no further than a view where one feels "Man is created in God's image", and where the enormity of the universe is altogether ignored for the prospect that a personal anthropomorphic deity concerns itself with every single people matter no matter how insignificant on a tiny blue spec teeming with extremely fragile life. God concept isn't as egocentric as solipsism, but its premises do hold to the same standards of evidence, meaning pure ego, nothing else. Faith in itself IS NOTHING BUT EGO.

Self-sacrifice also isn't necessarily a noble thing, especially when it requires the detriment of one helper party, when what should really be the case is that people take actions that result in the betterment of all parties involved. Benevolence, in fact, any ethical view is not intrinsic if not consistently reinforced, and reassessed for effectiveness.

However, I do agree with the author's concession that secularists haven't ever done enough to influence society in a manner that leads people to drop disingenuous religious mystic superstitions. The sooner ethical secularists form a front that outdoes classical religiosity in terms of natural selection, the sooner people will focus on making society more progressively fair through more effective use of evolving transhumanist technological methods. There is no noble savage, but there is an ignorant savage which must be continually re-enlightened with the best honest knowledge people have been able to muster. The problem is that this knowledge isn't made available to everyone, and the information that is being most disseminated is that being provided by religious proselytizers, now being further subverted into venues as illusorily valid above other required knowledge in what are supposed to be secular high schools. I mean, really. Bible electives? Why not something many times more honestly useful, like basic logic, or philosophy?

12. For Some Hispanics, Coming to America Also Means Abandoning Religion

Comment #32112 by relevo on April 15, 2007 at 7:46 pm

I disagree that American culture is really barren. American culture is based on freedom of conscience/expression, progress in education, and full civil liberties. Freedom to purchase, and live as you want is precisely what makes consumer culture such a great thing. So long as you aren't actually aiming to harm others, there is liberty to potentially accumulate an abundant lifestyle of your own making. Without strength in secularization, without the freedom to voice challenge against all forms of authoritarianism (including religious), such progress would not have been possible. If people aren't going to church, it is because more people are realizing that such habit is a boring waste of life, and mind. More fruitful things are afoot in free society that don't require the koolaid restrictions that come with religious ritual.

13. Is God a Delusion?

Comment #29925 by relevo on April 5, 2007 at 2:18 pm

Indeed, when I glance around me on this site I notice a host of atheist "fundamentalists" with ideological notions that, though secular, are nearly as inaccessible to reason as the faith of a theist.

Helian, if ever you come across this kind of atheistic individual, why don't you actually point out to him/her how exactly it is that this person is being fundamentalist, and in what sense exactly. What is the fundamentalist dogma you are noticing from such a person? Otherwise, you are simply lobbing a word around with no real sense for its meaning. If it's the case that the person in question is being an antagonistic prick, then say so, but even just being a prick doesn't equate to being particularly dogmatic. Instead of simply mislabeling people, why don't you actually point out the specific irrational doctrinal text/manual/bible/whatever fundamentalist creed- with which such an individual is being fundamentalist? Surely, you must realize doing so is the honest thing to do.

14. Religion useless to Dawkins

Comment #29456 by relevo on April 3, 2007 at 1:49 am

... one Sunday when I elected to listen to Dawkins on my iPod rather than go to church, I managed to fall into the swimming pool, thus rendering my iPod waterlogged and useless.

That's a pretty cynical religious affirmation by Miss Rife. Let's see, when I first completed a first run of Dawkins' book, I had a pleasant cup of tea reflecting on ideas. It was a nice experience, and I hadn't been to church on any Sunday at the time. But then, I do tend to find living on its own merits a wonderful thing. Perhaps she was undergoing a bit of cognitive dissonance at the time, or perhaps she found the book so enthralling, that she forgot to watch her step, perhaps both? I mean, wouldn't that be the reason she'd given to rationalize clumsily falling into the pool, if she'd been reading an enthralling book of some other sort? I think so. :)

15. Atheist says he's victim of religious hate crime

Comment #29453 by relevo on April 3, 2007 at 1:34 am

We don't know the real story, but you can see the reluctance to defend atheists as a "group."

This kind of thing is precisely the reason why atheists, and other honest civil libertarians should organize in number, to accumulate greater number, so people become informed on why any sort of such hate is wrong. Civil rights come because people demand them, and the greater the organized effort, the less atheists have to worry about being disrespected by meat-headed bigots who could care less about violently mangling what they oafishly perceive as a supposed evil. Bullies don't go away by others bending over, and remaining silent. People don't act like bullies if they're willing to know there's no good reason to attack another simply because that other doesn't agree with metaphysical meanderings.

Nevertheless, knowing how to use a handy pepper spray dispensor, or tazer also goes quite far in quelling such hot heads. The worst one can do in such a matter is give in to such hateful action by staying silent instead of steadfastly openly critical.

16. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28915 by relevo on March 31, 2007 at 3:04 pm

"And what to do now? Retreat and let hell break lose in the Middle East? It's like riding a tiger. Once you dismount he devours you."

Actually, it's more like a pride of lions moving their attention away from a hyena not worth so much time, or energy.

17. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28732 by relevo on March 30, 2007 at 2:29 pm

What is it called when you obsess about not collecting stamps, write books about not collecting stamps, argue that not collecting stamps is damaging our children and that the world would be a better and sunnier place if collecting stamps was wiped from the earth. Collecting stamps causes most of the worlds problems and is an evil that needs to be stopped. I have never heard anyone who didn't collect stamps speak about it on a lecture tour and end up argueing with fundamentalist stamp collectors who believed that collecting stamps was a moral neccesity.

It's called an ethical outlook. Atheism in itself has nothing to do with ethics, and does not require being as passionate on the ethical issues Dawkins brings up, as Dawkins has been. What needs to be noted is that Dawkins pushes more than mere atheism, thus to refer to him as an atheist fundamentalist is incorrect. It's more of a bio-ethicist sort of view he advocates. He's telling people there are more honest humane things to do with resources, than to invest them all into stamp collecting.

I also doubt that stamp collecting of the 'collect, or be bludgeoned into eternal torment' kind is in anyway a good thing for children. However, if it were more of the kind of stamp collecting done in private without the will to publicly ostracize, even through government, anyone who doesn't care for stamp collecting, then there'd be no cause for concern.

Not a very good analogy is it?

Not the way you've phrased it.

18. Richard Dawkins Explains 'The God Delusion'

Comment #28583 by relevo on March 30, 2007 at 1:21 am

To the Collins' of the world, I think you then have to present the Earl Doherty, and Bob Prices of the world to show there is no evidential reason to resort to religious mythical explanations over materialistic existence. What scientists like Dawkins need to do if they wish to carry their point further, is not only keep spreading the psychological explanations for why there have been god concepts, but then move forth to present the scientifically accurate explanation (in other words, the correct Anthropology) over religious ideas in the world today. Realize that Dr. Collins doesn't just believe a generic God concept; he professes to believe the religious mythology as well which follows in accordance with his fabled tale of a Jesus Christ genetic programmer in the sky looking over every little coded molecular segment. As a scientist, this is just plain dishonest.

19. Richard Dawkins: Author of the Year!

Comment #28264 by relevo on March 28, 2007 at 3:02 pm

This is excellent, but what Dawkins really deserves is the Templeton Prize. Congratulations indeed!

20. Believers are away with the fairies

Comment #27982 by relevo on March 27, 2007 at 1:38 pm

It's obvious that an 'organisation' of rational atheists could do far more damage to religion - I'm not doubting that for a moment, and nor could anyone who understands the power of media - but I am suggesting that it should be avoided simply because any organisation will more and more closely resemble the very structures, complete with internal politics and corruption of people and ideas, to which it is opposed.

Your suggestion is noted, however, I think your worries are unfounded. Internal politics, and corruption of people are a base human trait of which everyone must worry. Even if you did eliminate religion, you would still have these. However, this is why even in an organization you consistently account for these by letting members know of such possible corruption. Being part of a constituency does not remove you from being able to note corruption in the constituency whenever you see it. There is no need to resort to religiophobia when it is clear that you can always use your critical thinking skills to sort issues out.

I maintain that Darwin was an individual who probably changed more of the population's ideas about religion than any single human being.

It's obviously the case that people like him won't 'stop religion' - I doubt it's possible to stamp it out because it's so well adapted to our brains.

It is well that you note this, however, religion is no more well adapted to our brains than is any other noncritical thought people can be taught to believe as true. Religion has succeeded, because its franchise methods of organization have enabled it to grow, be it through government, or missionary evangelism. If you don't have someone out informing people of a different idea, people will continue to go with someone else who will. This is precisely what religion does, disseminate religious information. Whether it's actually correct is of no consequence to those who believe it. It is possible to have a naturalist organization analyze demographics, to see where rationalists can be sent to be teach others to question with scientific rigor, and use critical thinking in all areas so they no longer resort to voting whatever their local parish advocates.

But he certainly made significant headways into the religious camp, and therefore shows that it's possible, even just by being an individual. Likewise with Richard's book, which is backed by no 'organisation'.

Really, it seems like all the religious camp has done with Darwin is absorb him as another part of the same ideology, which is why you have theistic evolution, or even just the shorter 10,000 year creationist evolution, where evolution is only acknowledged on a micro-scale. For die-hard religious conservatives, the word Darwin is equivalent to the word 'ignore' precisely because this is what information they receive from their religious organization.

Change in a system as complex as a society can be far more long-lasting when it's not 'forced', just like in an ecosystem. We have to *give* people the material to make up their own minds, not try to force it down their throats en-masse, Otherwise we risk being rejected by the same reflexes that disgust us in religious evangelical proselytes.

Who's forcing who? You make a choice to support a constituency. If you ask religious people whether they choose to believe what they do, its pretty much guaranteed they'll say yes. People make a choice everyday to support a religious institution which makes efforts to erode the civil liberty protections of others not part of the institution. Being part of an organization that strives to keep this from happening does not mean you'll become a dogma enforcing delusional crony. It means you'll help to add a voice that demands respect in the face of these people, where previous you were considered the epitome of everything wrong with the world in their eyes. If you don't develop clout, governments will not hear you, and those in religious organizations who do get heard, because they worked on expanding their clout, will continue to build on their fantasy visions of society in which the infidel is ousted, and the property/resource rewards are free to do with as stated in religious prophecy.

Really, even Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris have their own organizations under which people gather to talk ideas on how to effect consistent change toward the more scientifically honest, which is good. They also support secular groups who strive to bring about rational change. However, a lot more must be done. As it is, Richard Dawkins can't even get his documentary run on American television, or sold on Amazon.com, yet the Vatican is prep ready to establish a global multilingual media broadcast network. It's a no-brainer to see who's going to exact more influence on people. As has been done with other rational thinkers of the past, religious organizations will continue to trump above others so long as the religious continue to effect the more successful campaigns of influence on the planet, and in turn the minority will continue to bend over against their will, and whine over why the world is delusional as it is. And religious think-tanks will continue to define this hermetic infidel minority as crazy, and despicable. As always, religious followers will acknowledge in agreement through government.

21. Believers are away with the fairies

Comment #27870 by relevo on March 27, 2007 at 4:57 am

"In past centuries, in order to effect change, solitary rationalists had to influence a relatively small constituency of people, who were educated, engaged in discourse and had power far beyond their numeric strength."

Well, consider that Christianity really blew up the moment they were able to gain the support of the Roman Emperor Constantine I. However, today's world is not ruled by emperors with whom you must gain favor to dictate ideology. Today's world is setup in a fashion where you must setup political representatives to structure your rights in government.

"It may be that the general trend is slowly going against religion, but given the more dangerous and assertive nature of modern religious extremism, can we really afford to wait until the rationalist mindset filters its way into popular society solely by individual efforts?"

Exactly. If you want effective longing change, you must be willing to organize, maintain and grow an influential constituency, to defend yourself against the pernicious will of other religious constituencies who could care less if you were criminalized for having a negatively perceived lifestyle.

22. Believers are away with the fairies

Comment #27865 by relevo on March 27, 2007 at 4:41 am

"Erm, Hume, Darwin, Dawkins... practically any scientist in the past 400 years..."

Even before Christianity you had Epicurus, Democritus, and Leucippus, yet lo, and behold, Christianity is still massively more successful. Still, in the past 400 years, has Christianity stopped its juggernaut of influence? NO.

Many freethinkers from the past have continuously predicted the end of religion, yet time, and again religion shows itself to be the more successful complex, why? Because it organizes itself to survive, and propagate by any means possible. Throwing impitent rational thinkers into the mix doesn't change this. Consider that while a few rational thinkers may publish a book, or manuscript, here, and there, religious organizations are building, and maintaining institutions whose sole purpose is to spread religious propaganda. In the natural selection scheme of things, their proactive method of organized indoctrination is quite evidently extremely effective. Organized religions even have governments pushing their ideas, and everyday they edge in more in this aspect. I think it's quite obvious that unless you decide on doing something more effective in the market place of ideas, no matter how rational they may be, secular thinkers will continue to lose. Religious dictatorial monarchies of the past have only switched into religious oligarchies of the present, but rational thinkers have never really diminished this.

If you're not willing to devise, and partake in an effective organized marketing strategy that outdoes that of religious groups, you'll simply continue to be left out on the curb in the land of demand where governmental/industrial law is pressed on by the religious consumer.

And the reason these organizations have so much money is precisely because they've organized themselves into a financial self-sustaining culture.

23. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #27859 by relevo on March 27, 2007 at 4:19 am

I think those who claim bible class as a good thing for secular society are being foolhardy. The entire point the article makes for supporting bible class is that it gives people a finer understanding over many of the foundations in the US, yet what is not recognized is that by agreeing with such classes, you support the idea of having the bible be the foundation for US politic, and literature, as it has purportedly been traditionally. Not only is it necessary to take requisite government courses, but it also helps if you take bible class, because then you understand more of the fundamental tenets by which people run their government. When what should be asked is why ANY particular religious book should be explicitly singled out as great study material at a high school level. Why not the Mormon Bible, or the Koran? Even Thomas Jefferson owned a Koran. Why not the more ethical Thomas Jefferson bible?

24. Believers are away with the fairies

Comment #27853 by relevo on March 27, 2007 at 4:02 am

beeline,

you mistake organization with dogma. It isn't the case that you have to abandon rationalism, and watertight argumentation if you decide on supporting a group. Governments themsevles ARE organizational structures, yet just because you have government, does not mean you don't have fair law which can be setup to positively serve the citizenry that is part of government. Individual secular thinkers have existed prior to many of today's organized religious groups, yet they've never made an effective impact on society for the very fact that they chose not to organize well enough to keep organized religious groups from dictating. If you decide on remaining the same solitary rationalist, like that which has been before, then you'll only be successful in supporting the same prominent religious pattern in society that's succeeded in strengthening over time.

25. Believers are away with the fairies

Comment #27851 by relevo on March 27, 2007 at 3:51 am

As is evident from history, it is clear that not organizing into a group cohesive for the purpose of promoting intellectual civil rights only results in individuals being pegged off by religious conglomerates. There is a reason the religious have been in control, and currently number uncontestable majority, and that reason is their impulse to organize, and spread effectively. Atheists have organized before in Communistic regimes, and were actually quite successful for a while, until real Communism was supplanted with the same problematic personality cult style religious monarchies of the past, the VERY ONES COMMUNISTS WERE BENT ON OVERTHROWING! Well, it is clear that what works best in today's society isn't Communism (it doesn't carry a well enough set of checks, and balances). However, even in representative republics, atheists will get nowhere without developing organized political clout, with enough clout to persuade political representatives to respect such a constituency. Civil liberties are given to groups of people who demand them, and if your group isn't big enough to be heard, then like it or not, you'll remain under the domain of law set by those groups who did make a point to remain sovereign. A single individual's crowing means nothing if it doesn't carry with it the backing in numbers from people who support the message, and numbers is the very thing religions excel in that atheist stray cats don't.

If you really want to make a difference, support your local freedom from religion group, write a letter to your local paper informing people what atheism is about, start another relevant successful podcast, organize into secular charity groups, get media representation whenever possible, get out into society where people can note that you are a fellow respectable member. Take a note from the successful propaganda machinations setup by religious organizations. I mean, look at Catholics. As it is they now have planned to setup a whole Vatican propaganda television network set to be distributed in 7 languages.

http://www.cbc.ca/arts/tv/story/2007/03/13/vatican-pope-tv.html

Imagine what kind awesome effect atheists would have on the world if they were to organize enough to setup such great unfettered media exposure.

26. The Case for Teaching The Bible

Comment #27760 by relevo on March 26, 2007 at 3:20 pm

Teaching the bible is too specialized a matter, akin to having a class on Kantian philosophy, for example. It's simply not something that should be in high school. I could understand something more like comparative religions, logic, or mythology in ancient literature, but to specifically teach bible is too much of a special preference for religion. I can understand having such a class at a university, but as it stands, it's a subversive tact on the part of politicians to pander to a religious constituency, which of course is a violation of the establishment clause. Here's to getting one step closer to Christian Sharia theocratic society.