1. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #122078 by Miri on February 4, 2008 at 3:30 pm

I originally "read" this as a book on CD and am so happy its out on paperback because I want to read it again for real this time. It's one of my all time favorite books - made me cheer and cheer and cheer!

2. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86933 by Miri on November 10, 2007 at 1:07 pm

My dad and I were talking about why the f%#$ Robertson would be endorsing Giuliani, and I joked that he probably thought it would hasten the apolcalypse somehow. Nice to see other people think like me.

That pic of Giuliani smiling with Robertson sure makes me want to start kicking some furniture.

3. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #82492 by Miri on October 26, 2007 at 12:55 pm

Sam Harris' reason is, as usual, virtually inescapable. Speaking from a standpoint of diplomacy, he is probably right. The only problem is that his proposal, though reasonable, is impractical. Most atheists (see? I've already used the term) find avoidance of this word either undesirable or impossible. I agreed with everything Harris said - but I do not believe it can possibly be achieved. Even if we all agreed to send the word 'atheist' to the trash bin, we would (because as human beings we have to) simply replace it with another word with the same essential meaning, which would inevitably become just as stigmatized as the term 'atheist' was. I would love to be under the radar and therefore harder to attack and demonize - I just fail to see a practical way in which it could be achieved.

Accepting that, I believe the next best (and far more attainable) option to be an ever more vocal thrusting of our "atheism" into the public sphere. If we cannot eliminate the term in its entirety, we should attempt the strategy of overusing it to the point that the humanity behind the word cannot be ignored, thus weakening the impulse to demonize it.

4. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50771 by Miri on June 19, 2007 at 11:58 pm

"Don't worry about offending those who are irreverent during the service, because they have already offended everybody else by their lack of reverence." In other words : "Go get the noisy sods!"

I agree with you, Richard. Yet I still find it difficult to offend someone even if they have offended me. I know we have to stand up - they have left us no choice. But part of the reason it is so difficult is because many of us are sensitive to the feelings of others beyond what is called for.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it or that it's not necessary. It's just difficult.

5. Atheists: stand up and be counted

Comment #50527 by Miri on June 18, 2007 at 3:23 pm

I call upon atheists everywhere to stand up and be counted. Take pride in being rational. I'm a humanist and a Darwinist, but not all atheists are. There is a positive message in atheism, which is that it is a position of intellectual curiosity, and our children should not be subjected to the bullying negativity of faith schools towards the atheist. I live a full and moral life. It is untroubled by fear or deference of supernature, and I am proud of that.

I don't think it is that we are not proud of what we believe (I am proud indeed) - it is just that we are sensitive to the idea of offending the beliefs of others. This, of course, makes the claim that we are amoral and pessimistic all the more ironic and undeserved.

6. A Quote Against Theocracy

Comment #49536 by Miri on June 12, 2007 at 9:57 am

But the inquisitor who mistakes his own cruelty and lust of power and fear for the voice of Heaven will torment us infinitely more because he torments us with the approval of his own conscience and his better impulses appear to him as temptations.

Very well said, Mr. Lewis.

7. How dare you call me a fundamentalist

Comment #47773 by Miri on June 5, 2007 at 1:24 pm

A politician may attack an opponent scathingly across the floor of the House and earn plaudits for his robust pugnacity. But let a soberly reasoning critic of religion employ what would, in other contexts, sound merely direct or forthright, and it will be described as a shrill rant.

8. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47378 by Miri on June 4, 2007 at 9:29 am

Where does the argument from morality assert that a case cannot be made for morality until God is proven?

It is not implicitly asserted. It is merely a logical flaw which has been overlooked. The Christian apologist's way of proving morality is simply by stating how torturing children (for example) is self-evidently wrong. But they also claim that it cannot be wrong if God does not exist. Therefore, God exists. The problem is, if you cannot justify the claim that torturing children is wrong if God does not exist, then you cannot prove morality without first proving God. Instead, the apologist asserts the truth of morality unjustifiably (according to his own definition of what is justifiable) in order to prove the very thing morality is said to be contingent on (God). If you cannot prove morality without God, you cannot prove God with morality.

9. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #47266 by Miri on June 3, 2007 at 8:20 pm

First of all "prove" is a loaded word, because strictly speaking proofs in the sense of demonstrations that offer complete certainty do not exist. In that absolute sense, for example, we don't have any "proof" that Abraham Lincoln has existed, or that electrons exist, or that the Pythagoras theorem is correct. So what religion should produce is not so much such a "proof" but rather a sufficiently good reason for somebody to believe in the existence of the supernatural realm.

I agree, and this is what I meant by the word proof.

Contrary to what popular atheism dogmatically believes there are several good arguments for the existence of God, and knowledgeable atheist philosophers have to struggle long and hard to try to counter them. Examples of such arguments are the argument from morality and the argument from consciousness. Even the traditional argument from design (or teleological argument) that appeared to have been buried by Darwinism has found new life recently in the form of the argument from the fine-tuning of the universe. But there are also good arguments that justify the atheist worldview including the argument from evil and the argument from non-belief. So the question of how reasonable it is to believe either in the existence or the non-existence of God is far from settled. There is a good book I can recommend you read in this context: "God? A Debate between a Christian and an Atheist" by William Lane Craig and Walter Sinnott-Armstrong.

I actually have read this book, and several other works of apologetics which similarly deal with the argument from morality. I find it suffering from a logical flaw, and that is it assumes the existence of morality in order to make its case for God, yet at the same time asserts that a case cannot be made for morality until God is proven. It's conclusion jumps its premise.

The "fine-tuning" argument is another I find unconvincing. We are judging the universe's natural laws from the perspective of benefit to ourselves. This is far too human-centric to take seriously.

The evidence that theism has in its favor is that atheism (or naturalism) is unable to deal in a satisfactory manner with fundamental questions such as the existence of consciousness or ethical truth.

Ethical truth does not pose a problem for the naturalist at all.

It even fails to account for such basic concepts as "meaning" or "value".

Meaning and value are subjective concepts.

10. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46914 by Miri on June 2, 2007 at 7:30 am

if believers need to be open to the idea that faith is wrong and there is no god, unbelievers need to be open to the idea that faith is true and there is a god. Right? The case in question I suppose is sufficient evidence to support one's belief. Out of curiosity, what would that evidence look like to persuade an Athiest to become a Christian?

That's a very good question. Perhaps this is just due to lack of imagination on my part, but I cannot picture what truly compelling evidence for Christianity (or any other religion, for that matter) would look like. For now I'll just say that if something extraordinary were to happen (like the rapture, or like all of the evil in the world disappearing - something really out there!) I would have no problem admitting I was wrong and changing my beliefs.

It is imperative for all people to be willing to be persuaded by where the evidence leads; that is, if you profess to be led by evidence. A Christian who merely confesses to having faith does not necessarily have to be open to evidence, but a Christian who claims his beliefs are confirmed by evidence (particularly scientific evidence) must, for his own intellectual consistency, be willing to go however far from his own beliefs that evidence may lead.

11. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46841 by Miri on June 1, 2007 at 11:41 pm

If one camp was really true and the evidence was so obviously in favour of one or the other, then we would all be either an atheist or a Christian. Since we're all over the map, what does that say about both sides? That we're both wrong?

But that is assuming a perfect world, where everyone believes based on evidence, and not on a multitude of other factors. I recently read a book which mentioned how as adults, our ideas feel like a part of ourself, so when someone attacks our ideas, we feel as though our self is being attacked. This may be a large factor concerning belief without evidence.

The way I see it, the evidence that atheism (or naturalism) has in its favor is religion's failure to prove the supernatural realm. Everyone, religious or not, accepts that there is indeed a natural world, so the naturalist bears no burden of proving that. If one is going to claim that there is also a supernatural world, however, one has to provide some sort of evidence.

Also, the fact that the world is split on this issue does not change the fact that one side is indeed right and one side is wrong. There either is a God or there isn't; either the natural world is all there is or it isn't. I can't help but think the atheistic side more reasonable if only because it adds nothing to what everyone already accepts.

12. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46815 by Miri on June 1, 2007 at 7:13 pm

I can't seem to give up my "faith". I've had serious doubts of all kinds for most of my life, but I have a gut feeling that there is something supernatural out there - based on my own subjective experiences as a Christian. I don't know what to believe these days, but I know I'm more honestly open than most of the Christians I know. That's a start I guess. Question everyting, right?

I can already tell you're more honest than most Christians because you admit that your belief is based on a gut feeling. Conviction is such a personal thing. The evidence could be neutral, or even pointing in an opposite direction, but that's not always enough (even for a reasonable person) to shake a core belief. I don't think religion would be the threat it is if all religious people acknowledged that their faith is indeed faith, instead of pretending like all the evidence is actually in its favor, like McGrath and others do. The pressures from living post-enlightenment seems to force Christians into pretending their beliefs are the rational ones, when it should be acknowledged it is based on faith - if this were widely acknowledged, I don't think religion could gain political dominance, and would not represent a danger, and hence would not be provoking such outcry from the atheist community.

13. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #46742 by Miri on June 1, 2007 at 10:46 am

I wouldn't be so hard on McGrath for getting owned in this interview. He is trying to defend the indefensible; to make a rational case for what is highly irrational. It should come as no surprise that his answers were evasive and all over the place; that is exactly what we should expect. If he were to manage not looking foolish, he would have had to abandon his beliefs and nod solemnly to all of Richard's points.

14. Is Your Baby Gay? What If You Could Know? What If You Could Do Something About It?

Comment #26230 by Miri on March 17, 2007 at 10:27 pm

This article made me want to cry.

15. A 'Sad First' in the History of the Congress

Comment #25747 by Miri on March 15, 2007 at 2:02 am

I cannot believe the hatefulness and bigotry of this absurd little escapade. These people have more in common with the Inquisitors than they do their own Christ. I feel utterly repulsed and ashamed of my country, that prejudice like this is considered acceptable behavior.

When I read the words "It is time for religious members of Congress to push back" I just about threw my computer across the room.

16. Books on Atheism Are Raising Hackles in Unlikely Places

Comment #23921 by Miri on March 3, 2007 at 2:33 pm

"there is a limit to how many times one can stub one's toe on the thick idiocy of some mullah or pastor" or be told that "Leviticus and Deuteronomy are full of really nasty things."

Really? I believe the limit will have been reached when the religious STOP insisting that the book which contains those 'nasty things' is the divine moral code of the creator of the universe.

"is Dawkins's failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology"

Um...wow. What do you even say to this. If I believe that a rock in my backyard has magical powers and moral prescriptions for all of mankind, do you REALLY need to 'seriously examine' the magic rock's opinions in order to debunk the concept of a magic rock in its entirety???

gripe about Mr. Harris's and Mr. Dawkins's equation of religion with fundamentalism and of all faith with unquestioning faith.

Shameless lies. Dawkins repeatedly states that there are more sophisticated forms of religious belief than fundamentalism and that adherents to this moderate form of religion are not dangerous EXCEPT for that they allow fundamentalism to prosper in their insistence on 'respect' for religious faith and for instilling their children with the notion of faith as inherently virtuous.

his silence "on the horrors that science and technology have wreaked on humanity" and the good that religion has produced.

More lies. Evil people may use scientific inventions or discoveries to do or justify bad things, which Dawkins has CLEARLY STATED A NUMBER OF TIMES, but the scientific method does not inspire people to commit atrocious crimes in the name of morality. And Dawkins has also mentioned the good which religion inspires, rightly adding that that good in no way must be accredited to religious faith, when humanitic love is almost always what lies behind acts of charity even if it is done in God's name. In other words, there is no reason we must be irrational, or praise irrationality, in order to do good.

"Dawkins has a difficult time facing up to the dual fact that (1) the 20th century was an experiment in secularism; and (2) the result was secular evil, an evil that, if anything, was more spectacularly virulent than that which came before."

This has been addressed and debunked a thousand times already, and the fucking nerve of these religious people to insist that the crimes of the 20th century were WORSE than anything mankind has seen before is appalling. One gets the feeling when they make statements such as this that they have never read evem a single page on the history of the Inquisition.

"The great achievements of physical science do not make it capable of encompassing everything, from mathematics to ethics to the experiences of a living animal.

Strawman alert!!! WHERE DOES DAWKINS SAY IT DOES???

17. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23455 by Miri on February 28, 2007 at 10:26 pm

Thank you, BaronOchs!

I didn't like the way Crawley was glaring at Richard during that interview. He was kind of smirking too.

18. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23406 by Miri on February 28, 2007 at 1:23 pm

"Well, tough. Your life's worthless. So what?"

I was startled by this illuminating statement; in my opinion the greatest statement of the entire interview. It never occured to me, in all the many, many times I have heard the objection "but if there's no God, life is meaningless!!!" to simply respond, "TOUGH!" I would always argue life is what you make it (as Dawkins did here as well), but it never occured to me to rip that petty little cloak of comfort away from the believer by bluntly stating the actual truth.

I love Dawkins for saying that. You da MAN, Professor.

19. Richard Dawkins: You Ask The Questions Special

Comment #23009 by Miri on February 25, 2007 at 9:30 pm

The more I read and hear from Richard the more I love the man. It's like the two of us have the same brain, except he's really, really smart!

20. The sexiest man living!

Comment #23007 by Miri on February 25, 2007 at 9:17 pm

I am glad to be one of MANY girls who think Richard Dawkins is a PAINFULLY sexy man. I got a huge crush on him from the part of "Root of All Evil," when he was watching the Ted Haggard conference. Everyone around him was acting all fruity and Jesus-freaky and he was just sitting there so calm and stoic, silently observing the freaks. I was thinking, I WOULD SO NAIL HIM!

To the guys shaking their heads in bewilderment...ya'll just don't understand women!

BTW, I think he should have gotten the #1 slot (although Colbert is sexy, too) for being the sexiest man living at 65. ;)

21. Atheists come in last

Comment #23002 by Miri on February 25, 2007 at 6:15 pm

Are anybody else's feelings actually hurt by these poll results? Or am I just a total pussy?

22. Lynchburg, VA Photos : Batch 2

Comment #22955 by Miri on February 24, 2007 at 11:46 pm

Richard Dawkins is an unbelievably sexy man. There. I said it. That pic of him standing outside Liberty University is HOT.