1. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77254 by chrisrkline on October 8, 2007 at 9:38 pm

I am not sure I understand this whole controversy. Obviously everyone has to decide on their own what to do. But let's be realistic. What were all of you doing before? Were you all meeting in dusty free-thinkers bookstores plotting to write really angry letters to the newspapers? Or maybe editing that little response on these forums that will send that poor theist home crying? I mean are you going to quit your humanist groups, or whatever group you are in, so that people won't get riled up? Or maybe you will change the name to the rotary club or something. Do we meet in the street and draw a half a fish (but with little feet) hoping to meet someone else who will draw the other half?

I mean seriously, what do we do? I don't meet people and announce I am an atheist. But I get asked all the time what I believe, because everyone is looking to get you to their church. I have family and friends who are religious and I am OK with that. But who is Sam talking to? It can't be your average local atheist (at least here in the states) because away from universities and some rare communities, they are about on their own. He must be speaking to the big Atheists in these large groups. No wonder they are a little miffed.

PZ is right. We are not going to get away from our label. If you critique religion in any serious way, you better be a member of a moderate religious group, or they will find out. And over here, they don't like or trust atheists who critique religion. And they will like you less if you are found out and they think you are not being honest. In the area of science, it is probably appropriate to keep atheism out of it--or is it. We right now face the problem that even moderates can't go very long in a science debate without invoking some back door god to explain the big picture. That is not going away.

2. Mother Teresa's '40-year faith crisis'

Comment #65628 by chrisrkline on August 25, 2007 at 7:42 am

#28

I don't think she proved she can be good without a god, since it is debatable that she was good.

It does show though, that doubt is not always an immunity against doing harm in the name of dogma. I have always wondered if for some people, it is doubt that leads them to commit atrocities in a frantic effort assuage that same doubt.

Doubt may be the first step to a reasonable life, but many go kicking and screaming.

3. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41416 by chrisrkline on May 16, 2007 at 5:17 am

Before everyone jumps in with the "De Souza is an idiot posts", let me add something.

De Souza is wrong in many places and unfair, but we should hardly be surprised he would argue the way he does. He feels that Hitchens has unfairly represented him. While I don't see the point in dealing with every bizarre theological argument for why there is evil in the world, it is understandable that De Souza wants us to. There are many liberal moderates (De Souza may not be himself, I don't know) who are equally troubled by Hitchens. Now, I like Hitchens, and I do think that what he writes is important, but I know it does not move my liberal Methodist wife at all. She still likes the social aspects of church, the singing, the working in soup kitchens, the meditative aspects of prayer, etc. Pointing out to her the absurdities of some of her positions is unhelpful. As an argument, I am moved by the fact that God does not answer the prayers of amputees, but needless to say she is not--she is disgusted that people claim that God answered their prayers anyway.

In the end, Hitchens' book may well be a necessary high colonic for religion, but we just should not be too bothered if some fight back.

4. Richard Dawkins' lecture at the State House Convention Center

Comment #40411 by chrisrkline on May 14, 2007 at 9:00 am

You can just download it and save it where you like on your computer. If you play (double click) the file, ITunes should open and it will be there. If you have some other media player that is default, like WMP, then you may need to right click the file and choose open with....

5. Atheism's Big Night In Little Rock

Comment #35873 by chrisrkline on April 29, 2007 at 7:00 am

I live in LR, and could not attend. It is true, mentioned above, that Arkansas is maybe not as bad as some might thing, but it is bad. There are many mega churches, and many, many, Baptists, and quite a few Pentecostals. You can buy both Dawkins and Harris' books at the two Barns and Nobel book stores.

6. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #33617 by chrisrkline on April 20, 2007 at 6:07 pm

If this is a double post, sorry.

Here is good response to D'Souza.

http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2007/04/to-bear-with-unbearable-sorrow.html

7. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #31981 by chrisrkline on April 15, 2007 at 5:43 am

I enjoyed much of Mooney's Republican War on Science, and as an atheist married to a wonderful religious moderate, I am sympathetic to his argument.

But I do agree with the overall thrust of the comments here. But something else strikes me as a problem with the article. If I were a creationist, I would use columns like this in my pulpit to "prove" that when evolutionists claim to be religious moderates, they are really just atheists in disguise, since that is the strategy people like Nisbet and Mooney are suggesting.

Scientists will be accused of saying one thing in public--"we are OK with religion"--while secretly believing (promoting) a different one--"We really hate religion." This is too easy to play up as a conspiracy.

It would be much better for scientists simply to be honest.

8. Is God poison?

Comment #30857 by chrisrkline on April 10, 2007 at 5:13 am

Dawkins, in particular, seems spiritually deaf to everything from the sense of wonder to the pull of family and community.

This one struck me too. It is not so much that the author cannot have read anything by Prof. Dawkins, but that he is assuming that religious people have a particularly strong sense of wonder and pull of family and community.

I think he is confusing the smile and claims of joy that so many Christians have learned to affect on Sunday mornings with true "spirituality".

There are many Christians who do have a sense of wonder about the world and feel the pull of family and community, but they feel them despite the teachings of religion, not because of them. Every person can feel wonder at a new born baby, but anyone who believes this feeling is enhanced by first reading parts of the Bible or Koran is deluding themselves.

9. Saving believers: Former Christian finds calling to preach the good news of atheism

Comment #29964 by chrisrkline on April 5, 2007 at 6:50 pm

Imperatoromnium,

And it is significantly more loving (or just)for God to send a bear to kill 42 young men than children?

What, did God make a big change from when he killed every man, women and *child* on the planet (other than the Noah clan) during the flood?

10. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27378 by chrisrkline on March 24, 2007 at 9:47 am

Should we just live with theism and hope that if we form an alliance with moderates, that it will make things better. Or should we attack theism whole heartedly and in particular moderate theism as the great enabler of extremism.

I will admit that I am unsure. My rational side is clearly on Harris' side; My love for my moderate/liberal Methodist wife makes me wonder.

But Clarkson's position is, I think, ultimately untenable. We are dealing with a dangerous (and growing) fundamentalist mindset, that holds that all differences of opinion is apostasy or heresy.

It may be that Harris is too extreme, but it is shortsighted to simply dismiss him out of hand. Moderates have not been successful at keeping conservative elements in their churches, and they should fear their ability to keep more liberal elements, too, especially in light of what we are learning about the historicity of Jesus (and other faiths).

11. Lonely Atheists of the Global Village

Comment #26345 by chrisrkline on March 18, 2007 at 7:49 pm

Harris and Dawkins argue that it is irrational to believe in things without good reason. Rather than look at that argument head on, theists like Novak become offended. In his mind he is not irrational. After all, he might say, he has extensively studied Aquinas, and has attended fine universities. He has read reams of deep theological musings on exactly why God hates amputees. He even knows why this is a sign of God's love. He can prove it in less than 20,000 words, with only 1000 in Latin.

But Novak has really two options. He can ignore atheistic arguments, or he can deal with the central question. Is it irrational to believe in things with no good reason? And is it fair for others to question this belief in the same way they question a person's belief in astrology? It is unfair to begin with the assumption that there is a God, and then reason from there. It is also unfair to force people to debate with one arm tied behind their backs in order to show respect for people's beliefs.

12. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25959 by chrisrkline on March 15, 2007 at 8:19 pm

kkant, great link.

I am just returning to the refreshing freedom of atheism after a decade of the suffocating embrace of liberal/moderate Methodism (still better than fundamentalism.)

This is weird, because I have just played around with my own ideas on how to use the problem of amputees as a "proof" that the God most Christians worship is not real.

Must be some psychic connection. ;)

13. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #25953 by chrisrkline on March 15, 2007 at 7:37 pm

What I find when debating theists, is that God sometimes answers yes, and sometimes answers no, and the rate of each is always, coincidentally, exactly equal to what one would expect from mere chance. This explains why He does not ever cure amputees.