1. Debate between Sam Harris and Chris Hedges

Comment #50763 by Fishpeddler on June 19, 2007 at 10:11 pm

Comment #50747 by ramboner32x
"Also, if I remember correctly at one point in the debate Harris did say that poverty/opression is a variable in the equation, so I don't think he discounts it altogether."

Absolutely. And I haven't read all 62 preceding posts, so I have to simply hope that no one here is under the impression that Harris DOES discount poverty and oppression as contributing factors toward violence, or they need to rewatch the debate.

It's not altogether clear to me why these two were put on opposite sides of a debate, because their positions were not (or did not have to be) mutually incompatible. Hedges efforts went almost exclusively toward demonstrating that, at root, despair is an important cause of violence. Sam argued that religious dogma is an important cause of violence. THEY ARE BOTH RIGHT. Where I believe Sam deserves a great deal of credit in this debate is that he made clear that he is not trying to discount the role of the factors Hedges cites. Hedges refuses to make a corresponding acknowledgment or concession about the contribution of religion, and I think his argument fails because of it.

2. Scopes Two

Comment #48246 by Fishpeddler on June 7, 2007 at 7:32 am

Comment #48204 by _J_
"Lately I feel increasingly as though I'm living in some warped Phoebe-world."

That reminds me of a similar reaction I had once when watching the MTV show "Singled Out". (Hey, don't blame me -- my darned roommates always had that crap on). That show's main gimmick was that they would determine which of three contestents got to go on a date with the bachelor/bachelorette of the moment by comparing their answers to random questions. The host asked the three young women, "Astrology: Fact or Fiction?". Two of the three said, "Fact". I just about fell over. Granted, it was a tiny sampling, but 67% believed astrology was factual!

I feel much better about that episode now, though, because it pales in comparison to the stomach-turning absurdities on display in the Republican debates.

3. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46937 by Fishpeddler on June 2, 2007 at 10:02 am

Thinking some more about my above comment, I suppose one might argue that the correct default position in response to an unsubstantiated claim of existence is not disbelief, but non-belief. I've been arguing from the assumption that this distinction, while not meaningless, is not significant to the discussion.

4. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46934 by Fishpeddler on June 2, 2007 at 9:49 am

Comment #46921 by DaveK
"Atheism is logically indefensible but interesting."

Logically defensible atheism is not dependent on showing god does not exist inside or outside of the universe, but is dependent only on god having not been shown to exist inside or outside the universe.

5. Atheism shall make you free

Comment #46919 by Fishpeddler on June 2, 2007 at 7:55 am

The agnosticism v atheism issue comes up so often that I feel like I should print-up a pamphlet I can hand out rather than having to waste time discussing it. Pamela Bone, like so many, is working from the false impression that atheism and theism represent 100% certainty in the non-existence or existence of god, and agnosticism covers everything in between (i.e., the reasonable position). Atheism is the disbelief or denial in the existence of god or gods. The term says nothing about the level of certainty of that disbelief, so there is no good reason to consider agnosticism a more appropriate label in the absence of certainty.

Perhaps the problem is with the word 'belief' itself. People like this piece's author may be interpreting a profession of belief to imply a profession of certainty as well. The more reasonable interpretation, though, is that belief in a proposition simply means that you consider it more likely than its opposite to be true.

I think Descartes more or less got it right when he suggested that the only thing of which we can be absolutely certain is our own existence as a conscience entity. If you couple Bone's argument with Descartes, you would be forced to conclude that we have to be 'agnostic' about every other fact of our existence. While this is logically correct, this is not how we represent our beliefs to one another about any other matter. For example, last night I introduced a friend to my mother. I did not give a long explanation about how I was actually 'agnostic' about whether or not she was my mother because there could have been a mix-up of babies at the hospital, I could be adopted and never told, or my real mother could have had an identical twin that murdered her and took her place. No, I just said, "This is my mom." Not at all intellectually dishonest, despite the lack of disclaimers.

This is simply how we relate to the world. Otherwise, every statement we ever make, about any subject, would have to be concluded with "... to the best of my knowledge." It would be silly to have to elaborate on our intellectual openness or uncertainty every time we make any claim of fact or belief, and this includes our discussions about our belief in god(s). When I call myself an atheist, I am saying, "To the best of my knowledge, no god exists." If you insist on calling that agnosticism, so be it, but that so extravagantly expands the meaning of the word -- while simultaneously contracting the word 'atheist' -- that the terms lose almost all their utility in our language.

I prefer it the way the terms are generally used now: If you believe in god(s) you're a 'theist', if you don't you're an 'atheist', and if you truly have no clue one way or the other you're an 'agnostic'.

6. Importing a slave class

Comment #45164 by Fishpeddler on May 26, 2007 at 4:41 pm

Comment #45011 by Dreamer's Dilemma
"I love Ann Coulter."

Wow.

I really can't think of anything more to say. Just 'wow'. I think I may be having one of those 'spiritual' moments that some atheists talk about, when they stand in awe of the marvels of the universe.

7. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37770 by Fishpeddler on May 5, 2007 at 4:30 pm

The thing that is most shocking to me is not that this guy claims to have proven the existence of God, but that the news station didn't give us a good look at the proof and didn't have Tipler guide us through it, but for some reason decided to air the story anyway. If they believed he really had something there, wouldn't they have treated it more seriously? And if not, why are they wasting their viewers time on it? At least they could have directed us to a source to learn more about his theory. They didn't even give the title of the book! Garbage journalism, at its finest.

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

Comment #37636 by Fishpeddler on May 5, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Weefree's post just disappeared. I was about to advise him that if he wants to truly distinguish Christianity from the people who commit these kind of acts, a good start would be to remove endorsement of these very acts from the bible. Christian morality will always be deeply suspect as long as it cannot bring itself to improve or excise the most grossly immoral parts of its own holy book.

9. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37316 by Fishpeddler on May 4, 2007 at 4:35 am

Comment #37256 by Bonzai
"In that case shouldn't we be more worried about nuclear proliferation..."

Absolutely.

10. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37254 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 9:51 pm

Comment #37253 by Bonzai
"But the fact is that the Church has been booted out, the faith itself has undergone reformation and most Christians nowadays no longer believe in the literal interpretation"

I feel that you've captured the general situation nicely, but the advent of nuclear arms means that just a few loons with a button can wield power previously unmatched in human history. Mass persuasion is no longer necessary, only individual delusion. Perhaps I'm a bit alarmist at this exact moment, but it's an increasing concern as nuclear weapons proliferate or simply go underground.

[OK. I mean it this time. I'm going to bed}

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

Comment #37252 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 9:33 pm

Comment #37249 by Beth
"The RRS should all wear T-shirts with an image of a banana and the words 'Atheists' Worst Nightmare'!"

Dang, that's a good idea! I might have to make one of those for myself. And for those not familiar with that strange argument, it will serve as a representation of how theists are always trying to give it to us up the... as sleep comes over me, I must bid you adieu. Night all.

[Geez, I must really be drunk and tired. That's a weird post. Oh well, I'm going to hit the 'Submit' button anyway]

12. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37251 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 9:23 pm

Comment #37231 by ghostbuster
"If Christianity seems less backwards it is only because it has been stripped of its power--at least for a while."

Excellent, crucial point. The foundation (i.e., the bible) is still in place for Christianity to again be at least as bad as any faith in any historical period. Violent Islam may be in the ascendancy now, but do not discount the destructive potential of Christianity faced with a vital foe. I can't help but think of the words of Japanese Admiral Yamamoto in the movie "Tora, Tora, Tora", when he says, "I fear that all we have done is awakened a sleeping giant, and filled him with a terrible resolve." My hope is that the atheists' call for reason can diffuse the ticking bomb that is all faiths before the slumbering giant of Western Christianity is filled with its own terrible resolve against the world's Muslims.

13. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37248 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 9:03 pm

Comment #37217 by oao
"So I will stop responding to nonsense and insults like those from sane1..."

Sane1, you lucky devil. Can we all borrow your alias for a while... say, eternity?

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

Comment #37244 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 8:43 pm

Comment #37212 by Riley

Very interesting. Nice post. I wholeheartedly agree with pressing the theists to define their god right at the outset. Every time I watch a debate of this sort, the theist ends up arguing in support of a god that no one believes in and no one has ever heard of, but is vague enough to withstand assault. Don't let them scurry down that rabbit hole. Make them be forthright about their claim, and highlight the fact that the God they are reduced to believing in during a debate in no way whatsoever resembles the god the rank and file theists believe in.
[Sorry if there are typos. We ordered a lot of pitchers after softball tonight. I'm a little loopy right now.].

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

Comment #37178 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 3:10 pm

Comment #37171 by KRKBAB
Good to hear from you! And happy 50th birthday next week!

16. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37157 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Comment #37149 by oao
"It is insanity to REFUSE to see the reality I describe..."

C'mon, Sane1. Are you ready to accept Oao into your life as your personal lord and savior?

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

Comment #37143 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Comment #37136 by VanYoungman
"Should I accept the excuse?"

She claimed a theist engaged in an irrational act of violence in the name of their faith? And you doubted her? ;)

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

Comment #37137 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 1:00 pm

Comment #37121 by Rtambree

LOL. Press #7 if the sun comes up, the sun goes down.

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

Comment #37135 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Comment #37130 by roach
"All they have to do is let Cameron and Comfort talk."

Presumably those two feel they have a new trick up their sleeve, but I hope to god they break out that banana:

"See, out of a mere 350,000 species of plants, one of them produces a fruit that we can easily hold, peel, and eat. The only way that can possibly be explained is that God exists."

20. Richard Dawkins in the Time 100

Comment #37101 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 11:35 am

I guess I'm torn. The piece wasn't all that bad, but it was a strange choice, nonetheless. I'm hoping they didn't similarly choose Rudy Giuliani to write Barak Obama's bio, or Jennifer Aniston to cover Angelina Jolie.

21. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37054 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 9:37 am

Comment #37047 by SRWB
"Richard, I think you may be overreacting. I cannot see anywhere in oao's posts where he has accused you of anti-semitism."

I think he took particular offense to this part:

"Whether consciously or not, I suspect that he either (a) senses that referring to judaism is not as dangerous as to islam (b) given the current general anti-semitism/anti-zionsim, judaism is a more acceptable example or (c) both."

I don't blame him. Part '(b)' sounds like an accusation of pandering to anti-semitic sentiment, and while only suggestive of anti-semitism on RD's part, it is unquestionably offensive by any interpretation.

22. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37018 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 6:48 am

Hmmm. I think Baron left the bold text on.

23. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #37015 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 6:46 am

Comment #36943 by Bonzai

"What do you care that people believe in fictional supreme beings if they don't bother you?"

I care because that is the fundamental idea from which all their other false beliefs and religiously inspired violent acts stem. You can carry-on about the terrible symptoms of the beliefs all you want, but at some point you have to move beyond bemoaning symptoms and beginning working toward a cure. RD is addressing the root cause, and I say more power to him. Sure, there are other ways the problem might be approached, say by working toward some sort of era of Islamic Enlightenment, but again, RD is fighting an important battle, and he's doing it better than anyone else.

"If in your critical framework these two groups of believers are indistinguishable or only mildly different ..."

I'm not sure if that remark is still directed at me. I certainly made no suggestion that that was my position. As a helpful reminder, here's my earlier comment: "Calling those faiths 'Abrahamic' isn't the same as calling them, say, 'identical'." If there are real people -- as opposed to straw men -- out there who still believe all the faiths are currently equally dangerous, by all means, you and oao go set them straight. Meanwhile, RD will continue in his mission as he sees fit.

24. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #37010 by Fishpeddler on May 3, 2007 at 6:17 am

Comment #36774 by weefree
"Faith in things that you cannot prove and have no evidence for. (multiverse, the origins of life, matter from non matter etc)."

More of the 'you're-just-as-bad-as-us' argument, which never fails to amuse. And another failure to make a distinction between believing in something because it's the best explanation one has found, and believing in something just because. I'm becoming convinced that weefree honestly doesn't believe atheists' claim that our beliefs are provisional. Understandably, the trait may seem alien and implausible to one who is immersed in a culture where it doesn't exist. If I may alter a line from Arthur C. Clark: Any sufficiently advanced objectivity is indistinguishable from Magic.

25. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36934 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 8:51 pm

Comment #36911 by Jessie

"...so here he goes with the whole "atoms banging around" thing again."

Reminds me of O'Reilly's "the sun comes up, the sun goes down."

26. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #36932 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 8:44 pm

Comment #36927 by oao

At least now, 10 hours later, I see that the coherence is coming together a bit. If I could be convinced that the violent nature of Islam in some parts of the world was a particularly well kept secret, I might even be ready to sympathize with your concerns. I doubt, however, that your going to convince me of that. Additionally, I don't believe that RD should have to bear the burden of every load atheism has to carry right now. Don't try to dictate his message -- open the word processor and get it out there yourself. You obviously have the passion needed for the job.

27. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #36929 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 8:33 pm

Comment #36869 by oao

"As to your animals comment, it does not warrant a response. If you don't see how ridiculous the comparison is, I won't bother pointing it out."

Hey, that's not fair. I bothered pointing out your ridiculousness. Oh well, 'not bothering' has always been the refuge of the unpersuasive. Over(your head) And Out(of your league) is about right. Looks like we're both living up to our names.

"If he offers examples as evidence from mostly two which were quite tamed and one is pacifist, when another which is murderous comes up much less relative to its preponderance. I have a problem with that. You apparently don't."

Precisely. And you certainly haven't given a satisfactory reason why I should. My understanding of your argument is as follows:
1. Islam is presently a greater danger than Christianity and Judaism.
2. When arguing against religion, one must focus on the presently most dangerous faith.
3. Thus, RD should focus more on Islam.

You have come no where near to justifying the second assumption. That claim is false within an enormous variety of conditions, affected by variables such as audience education vis-a-vis the various monotheistic faiths, audience receptivity, speaker short-term (and long-term) objectives, speaker expertise, etc. The explanation you've given so far is inexcusably weak. Forgive me for asking that you "bother" to hold your argument to a reasonable standard.

28. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36888 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 4:32 pm

Comment #36772 by metzler

I am deeply, deeply hurt that Mr. Wilson suggested that Aquinas, the greatest theologian in Catholic church history and a monk, would not envy Richard Dawkins an audience that included someone like me, who doesn't go to church, disbelieves in God, sleeps with women I hardly know, drinks often, and doesn't share his tendency to hear things like crosses talking to him.

29. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36865 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Comment #36818 by briancoughlanworldcitizen
Comment #36853 by SRWB

test

30. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #36835 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Comment #36817 by oao
"Since I stated I am a militant atheist, by what logic do I confuse anti-religious to anti-jewish?"

Oao, your comment is apropos of nothing. I'm starting to wonder if you're posting while hang-gliding or alligator wrestling or something equally distracting. Your misreadings are substantial. You seem to be responding to me, but regarding a comment by RD about someone other than you. Mystifying.

"I did NOT say "politely refuses to talk about it".

Of course not, but that's the remainder of the standard metaphor you were using. When else does anyone refer to "the elephant in the room" except in reference to the thing nobody is willing to talk about, despite its enormity?

"What I said is that FOCUSING on christianity and judaism in the presence of jihadism today makes one cringe. And to sort of bundle them together as "abrahamic" is just plain ignorant and it is the real confusion."

I'm not even sure how to point out what's wrong with this comment, because I disagree with so much of it. Here's a start:
1. Again (and again and again), using terms associated with Judaism and Christianity in one's arguments against theism isn't "FOCUSING" on those faiths, it's using them to provide a point of reference and a source of greater comprehension to your western audience. The power of the arguments is just as compelling against Islam, as RD makes abundantly clear.
2. If your main beef is with jihadism, fine, but please let RD pick his own battles. He rightly sees that a crucial step (probably the crucial step) in addressing the problem is to attack the core false belief, which is shared by all the monotheistic faiths. He's doing a fantastic job in the particular battle he's chosen to fight. May you do as well in yours.
3. Bundling together Judaism, Islam, and Christianity as 'Abrahamic' is ignorant and causes confusion? Excuse me? In the same way that bundling together dogs, cats, and horses as mammals is ignorant, because people might then confuse them? Damn those biologists for confusing me into riding my cat around and teaching my horse to fetch my slippers! Damn that RD for confusing me into thinking Christians' holy book is the Koran and Jews make pilgrimages to Mecca! Calling those faiths 'Abrahamic' isn't the same as calling them, say, 'identical'. They are, however, identical in at least one important respect -- they believe in a fictional supreme being. That is the main problem RD is addressing, so it is perfectly sensible for him to lump them together in that context.

31. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36813 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 11:59 am

Brian, for the boxes, the tag is "blockquote" and "/blockquote" with the '<' and '>' around them.

32. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #36811 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 11:46 am

Comment #36688 by Richard Dawkins

"The accusation of anti-Jewishness is ludicrous, offensive, and one might almost say paranoid."

"To him, the very word "religion" was apparently synonymous with Judaism, and therefore to be anti-religious was tantamount to being anti-Jewish."

Comment #36796 by oao
"As an aside, I invite RD to ponder why ONE SINGLE person on a ship who accused him of anti-semitism prompts him to infer what seems to be general jewish paranoia."

Oao, RD was talking first about you, then about the guy on the boat. At no point did he go from the specific to the general. Please read with more care.

Also, your "elephant in the room" metaphor regarding Islam is misplaced, since Islam is most certainly NOT something that everyone in the room is politely refusing to talk about, especially not RD. He can hardly be said to be letting Islam off the hook. If one is arguing against theism, all the Abrahamic faiths are seriously impugned. And I agree with RD about his selected pronoun: what the heck else is he supposed to call the god of those faiths? 'Gojiac' (God of judaism, islam, and christianity)? It certainly doesn't have much of a ring to it.

33. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #36801 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 11:12 am

"What do you think would happen if you spelt "hell" in full?"

"A leftover habit from apparently offending people's sensitivities once too often, in other groups. Wasn't really thinking."

You're just as well off to stick with the old habit. I have emails kicked back at me all the time because somebody's company screening software didn't like me saying things like, "Traffic was a bitch" or "Work was hell today". It's a total pain in the b*tt.

34. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36746 by Fishpeddler on May 2, 2007 at 6:34 am

Comment #36568 by Rob Slane
"So whilst I understand why you, as an unbeliever, see the all those who profess to be disciples under the same umbrella, you must recognise that this is not how Jesus (and Paul and the rest of the Apostles for that matter) saw things. "

Please note that the key to your maintaining the disagreement was to switch from people who profess to be Christians to people who profess to be disciples. The terms are not synonymous. I'm not sure we have any disagreement that people who call themselves 'Christian' don't necessarily fit Jesus' criteria of a disciple. My point was that their failure to meet that criteria does not make them not Christians. As I explained above, 'Christian' is a broad term that, according to standard English usage, actually does cover the true and the false disciples under one umbrella. You may choose not to call them Christians, but that doesn't invalidate others' broader usage. From my understanding of your perspective, it would be far more accurate and appropriate to say that former Christians were not 'true disciples' than to say they were not 'true Christians'.

35. 'god is not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything' by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36232 by Fishpeddler on April 30, 2007 at 3:08 pm

What more is the guy supposed to do to not just 'preach to the choir'? Maybe he should have reached out to the masses by winning a spot on American Idol, and then singing songs like "Ain't No God You Stupid Toff" sung to the tune of "Ain't No Mountain High Enough"? Or maybe he could have had Jessica Simpson tattoo 'DARWIN' on her breast so it would be talked about by millions after her recent wardrobe malfunction?

Get real. Hitchens' is a major writer, whose book is a major publishing event. This is about as earnest an effort to not just 'preach to the choir' as a person can make. And serving it up with a spoonful of sugar is not likely to have earned him a significantly larger audience. Sometimes people actually appreciate just being given the darned medicine.

36. Believe in God Spray

Comment #36216 by Fishpeddler on April 30, 2007 at 2:03 pm

I tried it, and the spray worked great... until someone slipped me a 'Supostasy' brand suppository. Now I'm right back where I started.

37. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36202 by Fishpeddler on April 30, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Come to think of it, I'm not sure why I even bothered with the above post. For anyone embarrassed by having formerly been a Christian, it might come as welcome news that their rejection of the faith counts retroactively, so they were never actually Christians. Now that's what I call Absolution!

38. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36196 by Fishpeddler on April 30, 2007 at 1:08 pm

Comment #36171 by Rob Slane
"In other words, the reason I am able to make such seemingly outrageous claims is that I am defining a Christian using the terms laid out by the founder of Christianity."

Can Jesus be said to be the 'founder' of Christianity in any meaningful sense? I would think it would be more appropriate to call him the 'foundation' of Christianity, and Paul its founder. To my understanding, Jesus was teaching the right path to God, not the right path to 'Christianity'.

I can't help but think of the development of the game of basketball. One of Naismith's founding rules was that after a made basket there was to be a jump ball at center court. No one follows that rule anymore, but it would seem strange to say that no one today qualifies as a 'true' basketball player.

Christianity, as it evolved, clearly imperfectly applied the principles of worship outlined by Jesus. Generally, the word 'Christianity' denotes a monotheistic religion the believes Jesus is the son of God and focuses on his life, teachings, and crucifixion. A 'Christian' is someone who practices that religion. Your clarification of your own use of the term is helpful, but wouldn't it be even more helpful to clarify your usage in advance if you are going to debate using a variant definition that is far from standard? And it is most certainly incorrect to insist that someone is wrong to use the word according to the more commonly accepted definition. Jesus did not himself define 'Christian', so you're going to have to live with what the word has come to mean. Like it or not, that's just how language works.

39. Against All Gods, by A C Grayling

Comment #36122 by Fishpeddler on April 30, 2007 at 8:35 am

Comment #36109 by Damien Trotter
"Suffolk Blue, try and get your wife to read The Demon haunted World by Carl Sagan. It's very gentle, yet persuasive."

I agree. It doesn't sound like she'll tolerate a book like TGD that essentially says, "This belief is wrong, and here's why." DHW instead raises awareness of how we come to our beliefs about the world, which is a crucial starting point if our basic assumptions are to be challenged.

I think Breaking the Spell is a good follow-up, because it is somewhat less offensive in that it allows people to see their faith as a natural, if unfortunate, outgrowth of their humanity rather than mere stupidity.

I'd save TGD for the next stage. After a couple of books demonstrating how we're prone to false beliefs, then you can give her a book that deals with the mac-daddy of them all.

40. Sam's Flea!

Comment #36035 by Fishpeddler on April 30, 2007 at 2:51 am

322. Comment #35762 by The Burly Gates

"b) It is invalid and improper to infer that God does not exist because some theists have done awful things."

Burly, it's becoming clear that the main source of discord between you and everyone else on this thread isn't that we have an honest difference of opinion (which we certainly do), but that you cannot -- or are unwilling -- to directly and forthrightly engage anyone's arguments. That you could make the above comment after reading the comment in #304 demonstrates either an utter lack of understanding or a disrepectful and deliberate misreading of a simple statement. You have severely distorted my own statement -- in fact, it's completely disconnected from your own paraphrase of it -- and misrepresented it as something I believe. I don't expect you to embrace atheism, but a healthy dose of intellectual integrity and debating in good faith would be a nice change.

41. Hubble Celebrates Its Seventeenth Birthday with the Birth of a Star

Comment #35749 by Fishpeddler on April 28, 2007 at 7:04 pm

Wow. I really want a big print of that picture. Genuinely AWE-SOME.

42. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35541 by Fishpeddler on April 27, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Comment #35517 by The Burly Gates
"if there is (no) God, how does evil exist?"

Yet another example of how theists and atheists should not even bother discussing an issue without first defining their terminology. I would be willing to bet my (after)life that Brian and Burly mean something wildly different when they use the word 'evil'. [I was about to explain the difference for Burly, until I realized that he almost certainly understood Brian's meaning, but in bad faith interpreted the word according to his own preferences, for rhetorical effect].

43. We aim to misbehave

Comment #35199 by Fishpeddler on April 26, 2007 at 2:40 pm

Comment #35181 by sir_russ
"I've seen the statutes from various states prohibiting atheists from serving on juries..."

That's interesting. Anyone falsely accused should want the jury to be loaded with atheists -- you know, people not impervious to evidence.

44. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35194 by Fishpeddler on April 26, 2007 at 2:28 pm

Comment #35186 by The Burly Gates
"A reference to actual atheists murdering actual millions is an "inane observation" how, exactly?"

I'll be interested to hear Brian's take on this, but one answer seems obvious to me:

If you are going to hold 'atheism' responsible for every crime ever committed by an atheist, it would then be consistent to hold 'theism' responsible for every crime committed by a theist. Hopefully that provides some perspective on what made that an "inane observation". You may personally be fine with such illogic, but it is not made less inane for your embrace of it.

Some of the other answers -- such as the fact that the crimes of Stalin were enabled by the same dogmatism that we so deride in religion -- are widely available and I'll leave it to you to investigate on your own. It is worth noting again, however, that dogmatism is the real enemy -- atheists mainly pick on theists because they are the most prevalent and pernicious proponents of dogma in the present day. Rest assured, we're doing our best to ensure the others don't get a free pass either.

45. Sam's Flea!

Comment #35185 by Fishpeddler on April 26, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Comment #35159 by Rob Slane
"In the one breath you claim that the Bible was written just by men, rather than being divinely inspired, but in the next breath the fist-shaking is always directed at God."

I don't know to which comments you're referring specifically, so I can only assume that you are making a mistake commonly (chronically?) made by the theists who post here. When atheists say (I'm just picking something at random), "Why would God let an innocent baby die of starvation?", we are not railing against God. In fact, to an atheist the question is no more meaningful than to ask why the Tooth Fairy lets us get cavities. However, when the existence of God is one's starting assumption, then the question makes perfect sense, so we are directing these questions not at ourselves but at theists, in hopes that they will give them more serious consideration.

Personally, I feel that so many unsatisfactory, glib answers to the problem of evil are available and accepted by theists that I hardly bother raising the question anymore. They remind me of comedian Louis Anderson talking about bringing home stray animals, and his Mom always having some bizarre reason he couldn't keep them:

Louis: "Mom, I found this cat! Can I keep him?"

Mom: "Oh, no. They lick the butter."

After hearing about 1000 variations on the theological equivalent of "they lick the butter", I have to admit that I entertain little hope of denting the armor of rationalization theists have built up in that area. I applaud, though, the atheists who have not succumbed in that particular mind-numbing debate.

46. We aim to misbehave

Comment #35150 by Fishpeddler on April 26, 2007 at 11:05 am

Comment #35142 by Aaron SF
"Feminazi? Yes, that's right because women are rounding up men into forced labor camps and gassing them."

LOL. I think use of the term "Feminazi" really started to take off when historians discovered that picture of Himmler holding a "HANDS OFF MY UTERUS" placard. ;)

47. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #35117 by Fishpeddler on April 26, 2007 at 9:04 am

Comment #35111 by weefree

"When Dawkins comes along and starts them thinking often they do not like the atheist answers and that leaves the door wide open for the real truth to get in.

Of course they don't like the atheists' answers. Similarly, I remember being distraught when I found out I had to eat vegetables if I wanted to grow up to be big and strong. Yuck! I was ready to embrace any argument Ronald McDonald had to offer. If you're correct about the door being wide open for the real truth to get in, though, that is music to an atheist's ears. Keep spreading the good news!

48. We aim to misbehave

Comment #35103 by Fishpeddler on April 26, 2007 at 8:01 am

Comment #35089 by Steven Mading
"I don't like this practice. It leaves behind landmines in the legal system to be discovered later on that can stealthily be reactivated later when court opinion changes.

Worse still are the old laws that are rarely enforced, but aren't clearly overridden, either. The anti-sodomy laws are a great example, generally enforced only when someone needs a convenient excuse to harass gays. For those not familiar with them, these laws usually ban any form of oral or anal sex, so it's pretty hard not to imagine everyone (at least everyone who's having any fun) being arrested if they were fairly applied.

I went to a Democratic County caucus in the '80s in a very conservative area (the farmers all voted as Democrats no matter how socially conservative they were), and there was a group whose only mission was to make sure the ancient sodomy laws stayed on the books in Minnesota. I sure hope I can find a more noble cause to devote my own life to. Actually, just my quest to find a brand of litter that the cat doesn't track all over the house seems more noble than that.

Try to wipe the old anti-atheist laws off the books, and you can be sure there will be someone to contest you. As Metallica would growl, "Sad but true."

49. We aim to misbehave

Comment #35094 by Fishpeddler on April 26, 2007 at 7:26 am

Comment #35079 by Fanusi Khiyal

I might as well have quoted the whole post, because I can find very little in it with which I can agree:

1. The implication that atheists are in no danger of persecution. By historical standards we have it easy, but it is naive to suggest that coming out as an atheist in our society is without serious risks. Do we really have to suffer to the degree of blacks under Jim Crow laws to justify our activism?
2. The notion that 'feminazi' became part of the misogynists' lexicon in response to the debacle around the Harvard President's remarks. That term is far older than that, and is trotted out seemingly every time a conservative doesn't like something a strong-willed woman has to say.
3. The accusation that the women's movement is just a bunch of self-satisfied has-beens. The "self-satisfied" part alone is enough for this comment to achieve the acme of inanity. Everyone I know working for women's rights today is deeply frustrated with how much progress is still to be made, against such general apathy, and frustrated with their own relative impotence. Self-satisfied they most definitely are not.
4. "A religion, Islam, is trying to kill me." "I do not wish to play another load of 'victim' or 'minority' politics." Um, you just did. Oh, I'm sorry -- you're playing potential victim politics. Close enough. Just because your attention is only aroused once you feel your life is threatened doesn't mean the rest of us should sit on our hands that long.

50. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34953 by Fishpeddler on April 25, 2007 at 5:23 pm

ROFL