1. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82535 by Roll on October 26, 2007 at 3:47 pm

Simply call yourself whatever the freakin hell you like, according to the occasion.

In 20 years time when Sam has established himself as the Second Cumming of Our Lord and Saviour, none of you are safe.

2. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82533 by Roll on October 26, 2007 at 3:43 pm

Of course we could all sit around here with our fingers in our butts, wondering what to call ourselves, while Rome burns.

3. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81278 by Roll on October 24, 2007 at 2:24 pm

RD: Only depressing if you acknowledge that there is a 50/50 chance of these ideas being correct - my point at #23. Why give these fantasists equal space to debate their loony tunes ideas?

He had good debating skills. This is what makes you depressed. He can have these skills without one good idea in his head. And I repeat, he came much better prepared to this debate.

4. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81260 by Roll on October 24, 2007 at 2:03 pm

"Hello, Mr. Hitchens? We at the Christian College wondered if you wouldn't mind awfully, coming along to discuss why Christianity doesn't really suck that badly..."

"Thank you, for your most acceptable offer. I would be glad to kick your head in for that amount of gratuity."

"Thanks, we must all accept our suffering for our faith in nonsensical shite"

"You're welcome!"

5. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81227 by Roll on October 24, 2007 at 1:04 pm

As entertaining as I find these debates, I can't help but think that they give too much credence to theist view.

This reminds me of the creationist v science, 50/50 possibility of being right point of view, attempting to lever itself into our classrooms.

By offering these nutters equal air-time, as it were, the rationalist is accepting that the nutter may have a valid argument that needs debating at all.

I assume this prostitution of rational thought in this context, is usually done with the intent of exposure to ideas, or to line the back-pocket, in the hope that they are exposed as the fools they obviously are.

Is the only forum for atheistic and rational views to be expressed in the public arena to be in debate with more deranged lunatics? They have the pulpit, countless television opportunities to fleece the vulnerable and pseudo news channels to bang on about their worthless, crass and childish notions. What do normal people have? Forums preaching to the converted and...

D'Souza seems to have one hugely inflated opinion of his own worth. But he comes with well prepared and researched bullsht.

I wonder if derision, spiced with humour and a refusal to take to the stage on equal terms is not a more appropriate way in which to to deal with these over-inflated, self-congratulatory, charlatans and twits.

6. In God we doubt

Comment #67322 by Roll on September 3, 2007 at 4:01 am

It looks to me like the next phase of the public debate has just taken off.
People like Humphrys and Alibhai-Brown that have so far held themselves to be outside the religion/atheist debate. They have a much more balanced and nuanced view of the world than these warring extreme factions, as they see them. It is interesting to see where this will go. It seems, this disenfranchised group in the childhood of defining its own position in the world, feels itself set-upon by both the dogmatic religiously defined God and unfeeling scientific reductionism.

There is I think, affecting an awful lot of people of the same mindset, a growing dislike of cold-hearted, out of control science, globalisation, climate change, destruction of the planet, wars, religious or otherwise all lumped into one threatening bundle. A wish to return to better simpler times when we could just all get along…

We must accept that there are a huge number of people that have no interest in science or reason, are quite happy to live there lives not knowing (like most of us to one degree or another) and find happiness in this way. These authors do not really believe in God, but they see something not described by science or religion, that really happens to them.

These people are not to be loathed because they see the world in a different way. In fact all we lack is a common language to describe the world we see about us.

Do these authors really think that an atheist, does not, can not, see beauty in the reflection of a full moon over the sea? Do they imagine that we observe these physical events in terms of photons, atmospheric conditions and Newtonian physics? I really think they must.

7. Interview with Michael Behe

Comment #61040 by Roll on August 3, 2007 at 11:54 am

What else is there to say? Wouldn't it be cool if my post was the last in this thread? Why butter the mans ego? Leave it - pls.

8. They let anybody onto the faculty at Oxford nowadays

Comment #61037 by Roll on August 3, 2007 at 11:45 am

Comment #60885 by scooternyc
Never mind the leg-pulling Scooter. You made an excellent point.
It is very reminiscent of a hypnotist planting key words into your head when a child. Only to call on them again when you are feeling vulnerable for whatever reason. The brain works in some amazing ways. This is the first time I have heard this argument - so good for you :-)

9. The Out Campaign

Comment #60003 by Roll on July 31, 2007 at 12:09 pm

To all of you interested in how you might get involved in tackling the problem of faith schools in the UK. This organisation is politically active in this area.

http://www.secularism.org.uk/

I recommend to everyone, whether UK based or not, sign up to the weekly unobtrusive and informative weekly email newsletter. You might be suprised how much the religious are influencing policy here in the UK. Check the latest news column.

This whole thread is a fascinating read and an often humbling explanation by some posters of why we need to take this shit seriously.

Many of you have engaging and intelligent positions on the issues at hand. I would personally like to single out Epeeist and BillySands as having titillated some obvious but unexplored areas in my own thinking - so thanks.

10. Come Out!

Comment #59749 by Roll on July 30, 2007 at 2:19 pm

Thanks for youir encouragement Yorker, though I would like to point out to the younger viewers that this experiment has proved beyond doubt that the t-shirt is a serious 'babe-magnet'.

Please don't think this is sexist. I am still waiting for the experimetal data from the fairer sexes use of the shirt. Though I don't really like girls to wear t-shirts, when they can look so much prettier in their usual clothes.

I would like to see an atheist lingerie range, subtle of course. Wouldn't like to be reminded to much of RD when getting down to business. No disrespect intended.

Cheers

11. Come Out!

Comment #59738 by Roll on July 30, 2007 at 1:37 pm

I have been using the t-shirt as an evolutionary experiment.

I have experimented to see if I can pull more birds than usual whilst wearing it (whilst concurrently using my abundant wit and charm), than I could have by using a Jesus Luvs U t-shirt.

I will of course use a blank t-shirt as a control in this experiment.

I considered using a 75% smaller 'back motif' combined with shirt pocket area subtle designer A. But came to the considered conclusion that this was crap. Appendix A.3.34

The results after a 3 week intense period of investigation in bars and clubs and lonely hearts dates: 1 week per t-shirt.

1. Dawkins A motif t-shirt, with added website info.
17 possible pregnancies, 3 offers of permanent luxurious habitation, 1 offer of presidency of a former colony.

2. Jesus Luvs U t-shirt. With bloodstained effect on the back panel.
Had one approach from a crying woman.
Two approaches from obviously devout women who tried to hack my genitals off with a broken glass.
And another very nice person called George, who I could not imagine passing on my genes, despite several quirky attempts.

3. Blank t-shirt control.
As usual, I passed amongst the bars and clubs unnoticed.

So I draw the conclusion that if you are a bearded, middle-aged, fat bastard, you will not pass on your genes unless you wear a Dawkins.net t-shirt.

However, I have no wish to pass on my genes, so I will be wearing my Y-fronts over my vest for the remainder of my life.

Cheers

12. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57942 by Roll on July 22, 2007 at 2:17 pm

This just irritates me a lot. I just want to challenge those posters that suggest that every one of us need to actively engage in battle, in order to suggest that it is right that our respective democracies do so. The idea is preposterous.
Presumably we would have Gordon and George leading the cavalry charge and the rest of us on zimmers and clutching our copies of 'Free Inquiry".

Our people decide that that we need armies to defend our democracies. Currently these are voluntary positions (unless you want to get into the whole poor, duped, no-hope, army gives you a life arguments). It is perfectly correct for ANY of us to suggest to our MP's that our fighting forces get involved in protecting our democracy in any place that we see a danger. I have absolutely no guilt about that, even if hand-to-hand fighting is not my forte.

It is also our right to kick the government out if we think the money would be better spent on hospitals while we wait for the Caliphate! Lucky us.

But while we continue to agree as a nation that my taxes are spent in this way, I can see no reason why I should not have a say in what struggles we are involved in.
So to all of you that think I should shed my blood before opening my mouth on any issue with regard to deployment of our forces. You are just dead wrong in holding such a naive position.

13. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56832 by Roll on July 17, 2007 at 12:37 pm

What an amazing woman.

14. Yes, the universe looks like a fix. But that doesn't mean that a god fixed it

Comment #53111 by Roll on June 29, 2007 at 12:51 pm

Maybe some of you learned philosophers or scientists here could expand a little on the (common sense!) notion that the universe we inhabit is the only possible way that matter and energy could have come together. I have often wondered about it.
The thought that there is no multiverse necessary, because after any big bang, all the components could ONLY be arranged in the way that we see them today.
Humour me and educate me! Thx.

15. 'Einstein - His Life and Universe'

Comment #44378 by Roll on May 24, 2007 at 12:58 pm

Tx for the quote Healing. That was new to me, and putting it in context made a lot more sense.

If anything I'm even more in awe of this thinker that could get outside his doctrinal upbringing, and help to describe phenomena to his contemporaries in their own language.

What a giant of a human being. You can toss off to yourselves however you like, about how you fancy his religious leanings were. The matter is inconsequential. He is the father of our times.

16. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42083 by Roll on May 17, 2007 at 3:22 pm

Thanks for the thoughtm Steelman, but it seems a little too heavy on the Christian doctrine thing for me to get interested. Emerging = Wooly interpretation without the guilt factor and without to much examination of the biblical literature. (which is fine by me, but why make a new scene out of it?)

17. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42059 by Roll on May 17, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Well i suppose there is no room in your world for anyone that is not upright and sober.
I see myself as completely sober, even under the influence of voluminous amounts of Scotch.

18. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42051 by Roll on May 17, 2007 at 2:25 pm

You also don't shop 'em to the police. And you don't moralise. Either you take their keys off them or turn a blind eye. Enough analogies?
Did you read any of my arguments?

19. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42045 by Roll on May 17, 2007 at 2:14 pm

@42035
This kind of thing was what I was trying to get away from in my argument. It might well have been the reason for your robust post!

"The poison part is faith. When you encourage people to act according to faith, you open the door to many good works, but also to horrors. You open the door to deeds of charity in Jesus' name, and to suicide bombings in shopping malls. Faith is the most elastic justification imaginable. For that reason, it's got to go."

This is the extreme reaction I was referring to in my earlier post, when you correlate the author's intent with those of suicide bombers. How can you possibly hope to win over a friend when you you use these kind of arguments?

20. Christopher Hitchens to God: Drop Dead

Comment #42010 by Roll on May 17, 2007 at 12:47 pm

I have for donkey's years not bothered to trouble anyone with my own belief that there is no God, and Bill Gates is his Profit (PBUB)(sic).

But now, all of a sudden, I feel motivated to bemoan and agitate against the swelling
tide of the ranting righteous and dangerous aggressors and even their fee-paying
dupes. But I realise what I rail against is twofold and distinct.

1. The real danger that fundamentalist nut-jobs will destroy the world or my way of
life. From whichever continent.

2. That well meaning people encroach upon my government and have unreasonable demands on what I consider to be fundamental human rights.

The two things surely demand different approaches, but may converge in their ends. I think the differentiation of these two ideas are often blurred by both sides in debate.

On the first point: I have sympathy for Hitchens view on the 'real' war we must fight against Islamic fascists. I'm not yet wholly convinced, but I can see where he's coming from. We are not dealing with a reasonable political organisation that can be negotiated with. We are looking at a disparate army of fucking loonies that have it in their heads that the only reasonable course of action is to loot and burn and kill, until the whole world is run by loonies that loot and burn and kill. And they mean to come after you. And they may have already got you. If not, in their eyes, it is only a matter of time.

On the second point: I have sympathy for the author of this article. Reread that last
paragraph from Leora Tanenbaum and tell me that you don't find some hope that the fundamentalists can be, at least weakened, from the inside. There is an empathy for my values of human rights writ large here. There is also a distinct realisation that the nut-jobs are taking over the asylum, and a willingness to tackle the problem.

I have noticed a distinct change in the tone of these kind of articles over the last few weeks. From dismissing atheists as fundamentalist aggressors in their own right, towards a more
conciliatory approach.

"Religion offers community, a framework in which to celebrate
lifecycle events and mourn loss of life, distinctive recipes, and a code of values
for moral living, among many other positive things." She says.

Exchange the word 'Religion' to 'Atheists', and how far apart are we really?

I've said it before here, but I think we should be trying to engage and harness this
attitude, not to try and bludgeon it to death.

I think all major pioneers of reform, like the feminist revolution, have to go in with a big club, and a hard message, to wake people from their slumber. Dawkins, Harris, and now Hitch have done this. It seems as though the faithful have woken up. We don't necessarily have to go on swinging the club when faced with similar arguments to those expressed in this article.
Indeed, my own aims are more easily accomplished by encouraging this kind of understanding about our mutual hatred of those that have hijacked a specific doctrine for their own political means.

@Comment #41907 This is increasingly looking like a tired argument to me. I think it was well made my Harris & Dawkins in the face of fundamentalist aggression, I think also, now, that this should be an area of give and take where journalists like Leora, offer a way out of the mire for us all. We maybe should be looking at how we can help the liberal 'soft' religious to accomplish their aims. Then I can also put back to bed my need to go on & on about my own atheism and fears that I hold about the future.

I am only concerned with our secular political values, and our condemnation of those that seek to take them away. I find myself sympathetic towards those authors and activists that reach out in ways that are also sympathetic towards my cause.

At some point, the secularist, scientific, atheistic hammer-headed argument runs out of steam. I mean you can only repeat the obvious so many times.

I would like now to begin how to explore how we engage the potential of the atheistic-religious, to further our desire to rid the world of the extremist.

I think that the argument is worth having - and worth winning - but now we must shift tack, and think about objectives. Just for a little while ;-)

21. The Official Infidel Guy Podcast Page

Comment #40578 by Roll on May 14, 2007 at 2:19 pm

A bit of light relief. Lovely satire and gentle interview. Will have you laughing.

Don't forget to visit http://www.landoverbaptist.org/
The hatemail on there is particularly entertaining.

22. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39687 by Roll on May 11, 2007 at 2:20 pm

You very nearly had me u basts

23. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39685 by Roll on May 11, 2007 at 2:17 pm

lol - now i am falling in to the same thing. n1 Baron/IQHQ

24. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39684 by Roll on May 11, 2007 at 2:13 pm

Come on - the guy was crying his eyes out for that, cosmetically enhanced, second rate Butlins performance? I know it it is difficult to bite the bullet with American skills at irony, but don't you think this is pushing it?

25. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39680 by Roll on May 11, 2007 at 2:09 pm

Wouldn't you tart up and maintain wiki, if you were perpetuating a hoax?

26. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39667 by Roll on May 11, 2007 at 1:37 pm

I reckon u've all been had.

An excellent spoof.

http://www.catalaw.com/detox/reverse/14.shtml

27. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39397 by Roll on May 10, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Hi, Machoduck
Hang around for a while. listen to that feeling in your gut. Read a lot more of these posts and watch a few vids. Things will become more clear. Nice to have you on board.

28. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39390 by Roll on May 10, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Wonderful stuff.
A triumph of of cosmetic surgery over reason.
I defy you sinners not drink some human blood after listening to the sighs of the cosmetic blonde woman. She got off on that one. Hmmm.

29. An ecumenical contempt for religion

Comment #38315 by Roll on May 7, 2007 at 1:29 pm

#1 ' "I don't think (Bush) has any religious convictions of any kind, but he's a sap for the idea of faith," Hitchens says.

That's the kind of absurd statement that makes Hitchens such a mixed "blessing" for the cause of rationality. '

I don't understand why you think this statement absurd. It paints a perfectly informed picture of reality to me. Also, what is the 'cause of rationality' that you ascribe? Who has bestowed this "blessing" that is now being mixed?

30. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #38295 by Roll on May 7, 2007 at 12:49 pm

_J_
I try to understand your pacifistic and optimistic view, that there can, in the end, be a base understanding of what it is to be human and have compassion in the world without resort to ancient, cruel and horrific instruction. But I find myself struggling to believe that this is a feasible approach to bringing about this desired outcome.

I suppose I'm looking for more reasons, that I should not think, that this is deeply rotten, it needs killing off, these people have declared themselves avowed to aboloshing my way of life. My reasonable, live and let live, each to their own, you go your way, I'll go mine, you take the low road, way of life.

They want to pervert and destroy my way of life. Simple as that. Why should I stand by and let them? Why are we standing on the airplane steps waving a paper saying "peace in our time", when the islamic facists have shown us the road-map to our own destruction? Folly.

Tell me why I should not wish war against these facists. Tell me why Hitch is wrong. Why are you not sleepwalking into oblivion?

31. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #37126 by Roll on May 3, 2007 at 12:37 pm

Thanks Russel Blackford. It is worth the time you have to spend on your postings. You articulate so well many of my own concerns and bemusements.

32. Now Muslims Get Their Own Laws In Britian

Comment #36583 by Roll on May 1, 2007 at 4:14 pm

"Ever since I arrived here in the 1960s there has been a case of women being forced to get married, others forced to get married, but unhappy afterwards. Until now there was no organisation which could Islamically solve their problems."

Ahh! So this is the vanguard of women's rights! Silly me.

33. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36545 by Roll on May 1, 2007 at 1:31 pm

And what's more. @Roll climbs up on to the table, without regard for his own safety.@
Hitch is usually bang-on about the Western reaction to Iraq. I don't know how many of you have actually read any of his stuff in relation to this, or are just assuming the worst kind of Bush/Blair affiliation without reading the meat of it. But his ideas and reactions that are described as Neocon, are a journalistic simplification for what he is actually saying. I would urge anyone interested in understanding his real attitude, to listen to Hitchens and not the people that would compartmentalise him on this issue. There is something to be heard there IMO.

34. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36535 by Roll on May 1, 2007 at 12:53 pm

"...showing up drunk for interviews, not once, but repeatedly, is completely unprofessional."

Who are you to tell Hitch, the proper way to comport yourself publically, is with sobriety?

"It's hardly "cheap" to point that out."

Yes, it is. You don't come close to attacking the ideas, in fact you seem to support them. What then do you find repulsive about the method of delivery? Perhaps they pander to your own prejudices about what kind of person is allowed to elaborate on your own firmly adopted philosophy.

"I like a lot of what Hitchens writes, but lets face it, the man's a boor. Give me Dawkins any day."

Hitch adds the required boorishness in his interviews, to the eloquent argument in his writing. Boorishness bludgeons the platitudinous rantings of the faithful perfectly.

35. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36497 by Roll on May 1, 2007 at 10:36 am

Many great people have been, or are, big drinkers. Or have even become great because of alcohol, their drug of choice. Please stop attacking this and listen to the man.

36. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36496 by Roll on May 1, 2007 at 10:33 am

Does anyone know how to do Wikipedia editing, without me wasting any more of my life trying to learn how to? This page needs an edit here:

Christopher Hitchens - English journalist who has a reputation as a drinker. Hitchens wrote that "in my time I've met more old drunks than old doctors", and noted that many great writers "did some of their finest work when blotto, smashed, polluted, shitfaced, squiffy, whiffled, and three sheets to the wind."[22] His 2007 book is titled Hitch Is Not Great: How Everything In My Body Is Filled With Poison, Particularly My Liver where he writes that he is "a self-centered fantasist and an Scotch-centered ignoramus."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iconic_drinkers

Cheers

37. Convention ends with Satan and immigrants

Comment #36211 by Roll on April 30, 2007 at 1:53 pm

I'm sorry for you 3legcat. I'm sorry too. Unfortunately my voting rights for the constituents in Utah are limited.

However the church of LSD does sound rather interesting... oh, wait... LDS, damn. Maybe next year.

38. Scientists look to disrupt the brain chemistry of violence

Comment #35579 by Roll on April 27, 2007 at 4:21 pm

"Not to worry; the beds are clean, there are television and Internet privileges - nothing violent, though - and your family will be allowed to visit twice a week as long as you continue to exhibit good behavior"

I'd really like that, as long as I could cut down on the family visits. Where do I sign up?

39. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35575 by Roll on April 27, 2007 at 4:13 pm

"I'd take a Christian or a Muslim who is intelligent, informed, witty, etc. over a glib, obnoxious atheist like Maher any day."

I think what it takes to have a multi-million audience on the telly in the US, you have to be glib, and a tad self assured. Whether you call this obnoxious or not is surely subjective.

I would also have along people of any faith that want to tackle the dangerous aspects of the religious holding political power. Including those that are glib and obnoxious (though I tend to disagree with your example here).

Isn't this what we have been asking the soft-religious and the agnostics to do all along? Stop protecting the hardline right-wing dogmas and their politician puppets?

40. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35558 by Roll on April 27, 2007 at 3:42 pm

William: Your post @88 betrays your condecension @85. This is your lot. I share it with you.

41. Scientists look to disrupt the brain chemistry of violence

Comment #35543 by Roll on April 27, 2007 at 2:53 pm

"Clinical research as well as animal testing, particularly on cats, over some 40 years has shown that there are specific zones in the brain linked to aggression and violence, he said."

Like whooahh dude, stop putting pins in my head man! No really! If you don't stop that now I'm gonna have to scratch ur head up bad.

Ergo, proof of violence!

Errr.. I'll get me coat.

42. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35535 by Roll on April 27, 2007 at 2:09 pm

ScooterNYC: "he does make some interesting points; but unfortunately he shouldn't be the one debating someone like Joe, you need someone more articulate like Richard, Sam, Daniel or Christopher"

Here I disagree. Maher shows excellent mastery of the 4 min slot that apparently is the max time available for serious debate on US TV. You have a few bullet points, if you can get in the word cult, you accuse the rest of people that believe in people bodily flying heavenwards of supporting this cult, then you have scored.

People watching this stuff aren't interested in the nuances of (to them) academic argumentative polemics of their whole belief system. They need sound-bites of why the Hedges described dominionism is wrecking their lives and others. Maher desribes perfectly in the 4 minutes allowed, why ordinary Americans should be concerned about this. And the fresh faced Christian interviewer has no response to this. I thought it was absolutely blinding.

In academic, discussive and thoughtful arenas you need one type of response, in other media, you need another EXPERT type of response. Maher showed this to me in this clip. We in the UK are so unused to this limited air-time, low attention-span way of 'debating'. I thought this showed that Maher as the master of his art. So much better in this arena than the Dawkins wry smile ;-)

CDG & Crucifiction & MrEmpirical & pissintothewind & flyingscot and others; are bang on the money here. This guy is reaching millions, because millions want to hear his views. Forget how funny he is, whether the media companies brand him as a comic is besides the point. He gets attention and viewers and must be the only mainstream talk show host out there allowed this amount of 'liberalism'.

The real problem of the cultish dominionism in the highest ranks of global power, is what he's after in this clip. I think he succeeds brilliantly.

43. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32589 by Roll on April 17, 2007 at 1:47 pm

While I'm logged on for a change, I would like to add one more thing which is high on my irritation list.

To all of you people that like to add 'Sir!' to your sentences, in various ad-hoc places, while you think this is in some way adding gravitas to the weight of your argument. FFS please STFU. You just sound like wankers. You are not living in the last century and you are not sounding clever, quite the contrary, you sound like you are right up your own arse.

I thank you.

44. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32585 by Roll on April 17, 2007 at 1:11 pm

@Andrew Brown "I think Oxfam and Medcins sans Frontieres are secular organisations as well."

Someone commented that they were not sure about Oxfam after your post. I cannot verify this one way or the other, except to say, that Oxfam actively seek the promotion of equality in backward societies, especially towards the equality of women oppressed in those societies.
Expressions of patriarchal dominance often stem from superstitious roots in religions that we in the West like to think are only history.

Let us not forget, in our haste to dis. the monotheic biggies, there is still a job to be done for the people that are suffering from religious superstition that demands the clitoral circumcision of their women, and continued disregard for what the rest of us, Christian, Muslim, Jewish (of course some of 'em still like to mutilate male babies) or none of the above, would regard as beyond the pale of what it is to be human.

And I would add one other group to your list Andrew.
Amnesty International.
While not being proactively secular, they are free from religion also. They only support the rights of the human individual, whatever their circumstances. I would think think this chimes well with the ethics of rational, 'freethinkers'.
Cheers

45. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30487 by Roll on April 8, 2007 at 7:47 am

I have a LOT more facial hair than you, I scare myself regularly ;-)

46. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30483 by Roll on April 8, 2007 at 7:37 am

"Incidentally Roll, if you think I'm baiting you, you're correct! Wanna bite?"

Well, perhaps I came across a tad aggressive, if I did, I apologise. I'm just a little jaded with this format I suppose. One angry face looks much like the next, and whether they are adding to the "more atheistic posts the better" or not, seems like a moot point to me - I kinda switch off to these kind of vids.
You still look scary tho Brian ;-)

47. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30478 by Roll on April 8, 2007 at 6:41 am

Briancoughlanworlcitizen (gobfull)

"On another note, I have taken the plunge and begun to publish stuff on youtube, let me know what you think."

I think you should stick to writing stuff. You don't half come across as being a right self-opiniated toe-rag, that might enjoy frightening children.
Cheers.

48. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30462 by Roll on April 8, 2007 at 5:53 am

You've got to hand it to David Klinghoffer of the 'Discovery' Institute. He knows how to do marketing and PR. Don't concentrate on the substance of the argument, but create a new religion called atheists, that can be just as easily sidelined and dismissed by good Christian people, as all the other religions out there. Use lots of similar language to make this correlation (he is very good at this), but once again, never mind the content.
Once atheism is established as another religion in the minds of the followers, it is a piece of cake to use the old tools and techniques to keep the worthy on-side. All very clever. Here are some excerpts.


...a religious phenomenon that has been dubbed the "new atheism,"
He fails to point out this was dubbed "new atheism" by the faithful, and quickly taken on board by apologetic journalists.


Two recent atheist gospels, by Richard Dawkins ("The God Delusion") and Sam Harris ("Letter to a Christian Nation"), are the country's top two bestsellers among "religion" books,
Associate with the many other religions - but why gospel? Strange one that. The usual sense of the word is the teachings of Jesus. Maybe God missed out some important stuff...

The new religion has a scientific appeal, with orthodox evolutionary theory recruited to provide a rationalistic "proof" for atheist teaching.
Evolutionary theory of course has nothing to do with your stance towards the existence or not of any gods. In fact the ham-fisted attempts of creationists to debunk science is the reason this is in the realm of 'debate' at all.

...intelligent design (ID), the alternative to neo-Darwinian evolution
He we go again with the 50/50 alternative of either 1. many decades of research and a testable theory. Or 2. "God did it".

Harris is similarly preoccupied by ID, which evidently provoked the new atheism's present evangelistic push.
Well it is easy to why he might be interested in you. You are certainly the freakiest bunch of politically motivated and religio drug dealing nutters on the block.

The novelty here lies in the new faith's missionary fervour. Dawkins writes explicitly about making "converts."
We'd all like to live a bit longer under peaceful democracies. What's so hard about that?

...far from being politicians, the new atheists seek religious influence for its own sake.
This is so far from any reality I am aware of I don't know where to begin. So I won't. We just want the nutters out of our lives and our politics.

...in other ways the new atheism will be familiar to historians who have studied the trajectory of upstart faiths. A favorite strategy of such groups has long been to attack cartoon versions of older rival religions.
It seems that a good atheist evil tactic is to invent a 'comic' version of the religion that is under attack! Well, luckily there is never the need, that comes ready pre-packaged.

Frankly, the success of the new atheist faith would be hard to imagine without today's soaring levels of societal religious illiteracy.
The success of the 'new' atheist IS hard to imagine. Not because of religious illiteracy, but because of science illiteracy. But that is where you would like to keep all of your Christian followers isn't it? More bible teaching will sort out the nasty atheists?


God gives objective definition to our ideas of right and wrong,
Unless you're God. Then I suppose it's pretty subjective.

That's what we see happening now in formerly communist Russia, with its Christian and Jewish revivals.
They never went away. They are not reviving. Merely coming back out of the closet.


Enough. Just watch this increasing tendency to make atheists another religion. This pure rhetoric intended to cloak rationalist ideas in terms of religious alternatives. Guard against it, it is just a device to soften our voice in a religious world of poor alternative beliefs.
Cheers.

49. Gimme That Old Time Religion (Bashing)

Comment #27383 by Roll on March 24, 2007 at 10:15 am

I think what Harris, Dawkins and to some extent Dennet have done is to reawaken the dormant atheist position of, "oh, don't worry, everyone is bound to come to their senses eventually", to one of, "these lunatics and dreamers need a wake up call!".

I think Clarkson's main theme in this article is to make the point that Harris is way off beam politically. If Harris actually wants to change hearts and minds of people unprepared to make the leap to unbelief, and progress to that which would benefit us all, the opposition towards Christian Right Dominionism, then I tend to agree that this may not be the right course of action. I would say though, that it takes a little intellectual 'bra burning' to get the political process underway. I think that is where we are at.

What the books of Dawkins and Harris have done, is to lay down the boundary marker at one end of the sports field, that has been indistinct for some time. The people left in the centre now, need to be encouraged to support the move away from the attempt to religionise politics, which can only be a bad thing.

We do not want to scare people away by being more bleak and ferocious, than the comforting, morally righteous and indigenous alternative.

So while many of you posters continue to berate all that hold a mildly alternate view to yours (and mine), as stupid, intolerant and ignorant and their views as 'mumbo jumbo', wishful thinking and sheep-like, think this. Who is more likely to be able to influence your future, free of religious power? Is, for instance, Wallis trying to gain political power in government or the Christian church, or is his stance (and strength) something we should be trying to harness against the Dominionists?

http://richarddawkins.net/article,730,Evangelicals-battle-over-agenda-environment,Stephanie-Simon

It is all to easy to see things in black and white. I enjoyed this article and it clarified a few things for me on the subs bench. It is fun and like a breath of fresh air to take the Harris/Dawkins line on things, but what do we do if we want to affect real change?

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

Comment #26175 by Roll on March 17, 2007 at 1:19 pm

This has probably been picked over by some huge brains somewhere, but I have not come across it personally yet.
I just wondered why there ARE homosexuals (not just in humans), if evolutionary natural selection working over many millinea, continues to select the individuals that are most successful in passing on their genes.
Thanks.