1. US TV Commercial for The God Delusion during Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Comment #26556 by Pastafarian on March 20, 2007 at 11:08 am

I TiVo Olbermann every night, and always zap through the commercials. I actually had to rewind back to this ad to make sure my eyes weren't deceiving me. I do not know if Keith Olbermann himself has any say over the ads run during his program, but this is certainly in keeping with the overall tone of his show. For those of you unfamiliar with Olbermann, he is the loudest voice of reason on the American airwaves against the Bush Administration, and if you look up any of his "Special Comments" on YouTube, you will quickly see what I am talking about. Anyway, it's good to see a commercial certain to get the believers' panties in a wad on a prime time broadcast. Let the fallout begin...

2. When They Came for the Homosexuals...

Comment #25787 by Pastafarian on March 15, 2007 at 6:03 am

I completely agree that religious discrimination against homosexuals, as well as any other group, like us, is a serious problem for any society and it could lead to a far worse situation. However, I am somewhat heartened by a couple of studies I read about last year. I do not recall the specifics, but one study showed that an overwhelming majority of American students accept their gay and lesbian peers, and seem not to have inherited the bigotries of their elders. The other study was even more uplifting, as it detailed evangelical Christianity's trouble recruiting more kids than adults. Evangelical leaders who were quoted seemed very worried.

Perhaps I'm needlessly optimistic, but despite the overt religiosity I deal with every day, I see signs that the tide is slowly turning. If our children reject the hateful religious worldviews of their parents, perhaps there is hope.

3. Atheist Apostle

Comment #24706 by Pastafarian on March 8, 2007 at 6:10 am

The first thought that comes to mind whenever I read or hear criticism of Harris or Dawkins is that they are attacking the messenger and ignoring the message. Even if Sam Harris, whose work I admire greatly, were the worst sort of person, (unethical, uncaring of others, etc...) it would have no effect on the validity of his argument. Nor does tearing him down somehow make religion's claims any more compelling. An article like this highlights the type of thinking (or, non-thinking, I suppose) that passes for reason in the religious mind. It speaks of an entrenched, "fortress Christianity" worldview in which any thought not enclosed within the walls of faith is an enemy and a threat. Professor Dawkins is spot-on in calling attention to childhood indoctrination into religious belief. We have little hope of getting a grown adult to reconsider their worldview, no matter how much reason one hits them in the face with. A child, however, is a natural skeptic, and with only the encouragement to use their powers of reason, would almost certainly not entertain the wild beliefs of their parents.

4. Daggers Drawn

Comment #23974 by Pastafarian on March 3, 2007 at 9:32 pm

I realize that I am "preaching to the choir", as it were, but I would like to make a couple of observations:

1) Professor Dawkins was asked about Fundamentalist Atheists, and his response was, naturally, spot on. He said that he knows what it would take to change his mind. (Literally an act of God, I presume). Try finding a religious apologist who'll admit to certain parameters which would cause them to change their minds. Yeah, good luck with that.

2) Once again, believers cannot tolerate even the slightest hint of criticism. How many times has someone like Professor Dawkins been portrayed as boorish and rude? Why not attack his arguments, and not him? I really believe that deep down most believers realize, perhaps subconsciously, that their faith would crumble under the pressure of critical scrutiny. Attack the messenger seems to be their only defense.

3) If they aren't vilifying anyone who dares besmirch their precious faith, the believers distort and misrepresent what is said. No one I know of seriously talks of banning religion. The money in my wallet assumes that I trust in God, yet I do not feel compelled to not use it to defend some atheistic principle. But the faithful must rile up the rest of the faithful, and demonizing non-believers is a pretty good way to do it.

But, for all that, at least those of you in the UK are able to listen to a show like this. In America we're stuck with Anna Nicole Smith, Fox News and American Idol. Oh, and on behalf of most Americans, sorry about that whole George W. Bush presidency thing. At least it's nearly over.

5. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23310 by Pastafarian on February 27, 2007 at 6:43 pm

If only television in America had the testicular fortitude to devote so much time to Professor Dawkins, or Sam Harris, in such a civilized forum. We Americans are so afraid of having our happy fantasies challenged in even the slightest way that a show like this would be impossible to air today. It is that aversion to honest debate that leads so many believers to think of Professor Dawkins as an arrogant, malicious attacker of their faith. They are very unlikely to ever read any of his books, or listen to him speak, and so will likely never develop a true sense of the message he is trying to convey. Yes, the message is a tough pill to swallow, but critics who attack the messenger both ignore and confirm Dawkins' point simultaneously.

6. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22181 by Pastafarian on February 13, 2007 at 6:46 am

Ellen Johnson's work on behalf of atheists in America is valuable. Every day her organization tries to put out the brush fires of religious intolerance wherever they pop up. However, I do not think she is nearly as good of a public face of atheism as Professor Dawkins of Sam Harris. If it were me on that panel, I would certainly have asked the good reverend if he thought his behavior would become criminal if he no longer had the imaginary firewall that his belief in the bible supposedly affords him. I imagine Professor Dawkins long ago learned to stifle the hair-pulling frustration he must feel every time he encounters those whose reasoning abilities are not up to snuff. His calm yet straightforward demeanor must get through to some believers at some level, I would imagine. And Sam Harris is one of the most powerful advocates for anything I have ever seen. He wields reason like a samurai wields his sword. In a way, it was good to see the reverend immediately use bad arguments in contrast to what Professor Dawkins had to say. I thought his irrationality spoke for itself very well. And, as an aside, think you, Professor, for mentioning our Noodly creator, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, sauce be upon him. May his noodly appendage touch you.

RAmen

7. Do stop behaving as if you are God, Professor Dawkins

Comment #21164 by Pastafarian on February 7, 2007 at 8:31 pm

This raises a question I've always wanted an answer to. McGrath claims to be a former atheist. Every time I hear this my bullshit-o-meter goes crazy. I would really like to know the reasons why such people became atheists in the first place. I doubt very much that their reasons would be the same as those we cite on a regular basis to justify our heresy. In fact, I am really skeptical about whether they were even atheists at all. I feel in my bones the power of reason. I cannot simply shut it off whenever it might be convenient to do so. If my wife and kids suddenly fell terminally ill, I would still not be inclined to turn to religion for comfort. My suspicion is that most other atheists realize the power of reason as well, and would not be easily persuaded to stop using it, which is why I have a difficult time taking people like McGrath at his word about his alleged atheistic past. I wonder if anyone has any experience asking "former atheists" this question, and what the answer or answers might have been.

8. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20495 by Pastafarian on February 3, 2007 at 7:19 am

So atheists are starting to get in the faces of believers? Well, isn't that just too damn bad. As Professor Dawkins has mentioned, there are probably far more non-believers than polls would indicate, but they think they're alone. They need to know that they are not alone, nor are they wrong to reject the fantasies of their friends and family. If it takes entities like the Rational Response Squad, the RDF, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (sauce be upon him), and Landover Baptist Church (highly recommended satire) to tap into the lonely atheist's outrage at religious hegemony in our world, so be it. Since when has religion earned special immunity from inquiry and criticism, and why on earth should one be considered "rude" for doing so? Religion has no peer-reviewed, testable and falsifiable positions. They simply made it up, and society has for far too long deemed it improper to question this madness. I have thought for a long time about the proper approach a non-believer ought to take with regard to religion. Should we seek to be the better person by not offending religious sensibilities, and let the reason of our position speak for us? Or, as I now believe, should we cast away such niceties and seek out those of us who do not yet know millions of like-minded rationalists do exist, and that there may be a "strength in numbers" advantage somewhere down the road? Perhaps a blending of both approaches is needed, depending on the situation, but I certainly do not think we need to apologize for anything. It's not our fault their arguments are so feeble.

9. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20396 by Pastafarian on February 2, 2007 at 7:17 am

Newton30,

I couldn't agree with you more. How Professor Dawkins manages to keep his cool in the face of a tsunami of sheer ignorance baffles me, but then, he's had far more experience with it than have I. In the US, we have NO shows on television like this that would dare question the validity of religion. My hat is off the the CBC for having the balls to do it, however it might have been executed. My only gripe with the show was actually with Professor Dawkins, but only because he didn't squash more of the inane arguments as soon as they were made. I've now read TGD twice, and I was somewhat disappointed that he didn't share more of it's ideas in a more forceful manner. Someone else posted that at least the conversation is starting to become more widespread, and that is a good thing. I take heart that TGD has been on the NY Times Bestseller list for so long (along with Letter to a Christian Nation, another marvelous tome). At any rate, it was a good show, and I would just like to see more of Professor Dawkins mixing it up with the believers.

10. Grief Without God

Comment #19554 by Pastafarian on January 28, 2007 at 8:55 am

Carol,

Thank you for your bravery and integrity in the most trying of circumstances, and for sharing the experience with us. You are an example to us all.

11. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19173 by Pastafarian on January 25, 2007 at 11:21 am

I actually feel some measure of sympathy for Haggard. He is obviously a gay man, something that he has been ignoring all of his life thanks to the required bigotry of his faith. Perhaps if he had fallen into more enlightened circles, he might have taken a healthy, honest look at who he really was, and not hidden behind the stained-glass curtain (my thanks to Billy Joel for that one). Lie upon lie was needed to cover up the truth, and in the process his wife and children suffer. I lay the blame at the feet of religious intolerance. Yes, Haggard should have been honest with himself from the beginning, and that is his responsibility, but in America's hyper-religious culture, his actions are at least understandable.

12. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18984 by Pastafarian on January 24, 2007 at 7:17 am

Having read these back-and-forth exchanges in their entirety (and I look forward to the next installments) I have to admit that there are no surprises here for me so far. I have read both of Mr. Harris's books, and have a hard time imagining him ever writing a dull sentence, or succumbing to the human knack for gullibility. Mr. Sullivan has demonstrated intellectual courage on other subjects, but his dodging and weaving responses to Mr. Harris indicate to me that he is in the thrall of irrational belief. Perhaps I am merely biased, but I found Mr. Harris's arguments to be concise, erudite, and devastating. Mr. Harris, I look forward to you next book.