51. Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion'

Comment #18284 by Mr. Mark on January 19, 2007 at 10:06 am

Well, that was just wonderful.

I've been spending some time at the "On Faith" area at the Washington Post. It's amazing how many religious types on that blog ask the very questions that Mr McNally asks here of Richard. The mindset is rigid. The questions are unimaginative.

I've had some ongoing discussions with a few on that blog who might be considered more moderate in their beliefs. Funny, but they become less and less moderate as one takes apart their arguments. I've noticed that they ask a lot of questions, but that they respond to very few questions asked of them. They often resort to saying, "your arguments are all over the place," when the more-likely reality is that their beliefs are being shot down from every angle.

It's also amazing how many of these bloggers pose "gotcha" questions. One almost gets the sense that they've been handed a pamphlet at their local church that tells them what questions to ask and what answers to expect. When the atheistic response doesn't match their playbook, the issue is often dropped and the discussion ends. If the issue is engaged, it is only on a tangential level with the religionist trying to spin the discussion off into an area unrelated to the original train of thought.

At the end of the day, I think most religious types are simply scared. They're scared of life and they're more afraid of death. They find comfort in their belief that not only is there an eternity, but they've got the Willy Wonka Gold Ticket to the event, complete with a front row seat next to their god.

I like to call it the "FIG Principle" of religion - the unholy alliance of fear, ignorance and guilt. The fear gets you into the religion, the ignorance keeps you going once you're in, and the guilt keeps you from leaving the fold.

Thanks to Richard for starting the dialogue and for keeping it going. I believe that more and more non-believers ARE coming out of their closets, and Richard's latest book has a lot to do with that.

Things are looking better.

52. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18094 by Mr. Mark on January 18, 2007 at 9:26 am

Finally! Sam has let go of the talking points of his books in discussing faith. Having read Sam's books, I often find myself disappointed when seeing him on TV or reading a "new" article by him because he tends to crib entire sections of his books, laying them out as an argument. We all do that to some extent (why reinvent the wheel?), but in Sam's case it had gotten to the point where I stopped reading his articles because there was nothing new there.

His opening salvo with Andrew, however, is original and refreshing, even if he's putting forth the same ideas he has in the past. Maybe it's because he has respect for Andrew, or maybe he's suddenly got some time on his hands to write a fresh response, but this is one exchange that I read in its entirety.

I look forward to Andrew's response(s).

53. You come up here and say that, Dawkins!

Comment #17316 by Mr. Mark on January 12, 2007 at 10:25 pm

Ha! God said "up."

54. The Nodder

Comment #16755 by Mr. Mark on January 8, 2007 at 1:20 pm

I guess nodding in agreement is better than nodding off to sleep...

55. God-less

Comment #16488 by Mr. Mark on January 6, 2007 at 9:20 pm

gimlibengloin writes:

"I havn't read the God Delusion your quite correct. I have read Devels Advocate and The Blind Watchmaker. I'm having to wait for the God Delusion from my library as apparently its rather popular. How did Dawkins address it?"


I won't spoil it for you, but Dawkins addresses "The Roots of Religion" in Chapter 5 (pgs 161-208) which segues nicely into Chapter 6, "The Roots of Morality: Why Are We Good?" (pgs 209-234). The subsections of Chapter 6 ("Does Our Moral Sense Have A Darwinian Origin" and "A Case Study in the Roots of Morality") will give you a strong sense of his argument.

56. God-less

Comment #16422 by Mr. Mark on January 6, 2007 at 2:46 pm

"But surely if it is true that there is no Absolute authority behind our conceptions of right and wrong then morality is up for grabs?
If humans are merely the product of natural processes over billions of years ultimately deriving from an expolosion then they have no more worth than any other collection of matter. Since this was the view of Stalin and Mao its not difficult to follow the logic.
This is not to claim that atheists per se are amoral but it is to say that they have no way to judge one action as wrong against another. Dawkins seems to conveniently ignore this."


Had gimlibengloin actually read The God Delusion he would have spared himself this embarrassing misrepresentation of Dawkins' writings. In fact, Dawkins answers this question qute directly and at some length in TGD. If that's "conveniently ignoring" the question, then my name is Jesus.

57. God-less

Comment #16398 by Mr. Mark on January 6, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Levin writes:

"Dawkins, though, thinks that religions are responsible for most of the human-inflicted horrors in the world: wars, inquisitions and their like. He acknowledges that atheists such as Mao and Stalin have inflicted incalculable damage, but, somewhat naively, not because they are atheists."

It's amazing, isn't it? The writer posits a ridiculous cause-and-effect and then calls Dawkins naive.

Can't god's apologists do better? Surely they realize that they're going to be hacked to pieces by penning such illogic.

58. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16377 by Mr. Mark on January 6, 2007 at 10:49 am

Mr Schulman wrote:

"Finally, I will bet one person fifty cents that within the next 15 years Sam Harris, whose oonvictions seem as brittle as his prose is dismal, ends up as C.S. Lewis-toting converted religious bore."

That, sir, is perhaps the most childish thing you have posted in this thread. It smacks of the "you'll burn in hell" crapola that theists have long thrown in the face of atheists. It's the, "I told you so (in advance, this time!) - narny, narny na-na...my dad (god) can beat up your dad" taunts of the elementary schoolyard. It expresses the glee of believers watching non-believers getting their comeuppance like unto the heavenly host reveling in the eternal torture endured by non-believers in a Hieronymus Bosch painting.

What a childish, futile effort to make a ridiculous point - attacking Mr. Harris not for what he's written but for what you assure us he will do in some imaginary future.

You, sir, are deluded.

59. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16367 by Mr. Mark on January 6, 2007 at 9:33 am

So, today's atheists have "no new ideas." That stands in sharp contrast to the myriad "new ideas" posited by the world's religions every day of the week.

Why is it that the theists insist on setting up strawmen to make their points? And why, having done so, do they fail to make those points?

60. Letter From America: Atheists throw down the gauntlet

Comment #15848 by Mr. Mark on January 3, 2007 at 10:27 am

"...Christian fundamentalism engaging in no violence or threats."

Yep. It's Islamist fundamentalists bombing those abortion clinics all righty. And how about those Islamic fundamentalists who hold the protests at the funerals of dead American servicepeople? The ones who say god is glad they're dead?

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Xianity." Which Islamic fundamentalist uttered that bon mot?

And how about the current leaders of the US government, those Islamic fundamentalists who have taken Ms. Coulter up on her challenge and have invaded countries, killed their leaders and - in the words of at least one GOP Congressman - should be converting Islamists to Xianity?

One could go on, but who wants to eat up all of Richard's bandwidth?

61. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15559 by Mr. Mark on January 1, 2007 at 9:52 am

Jonathan Dore wrote:

"In comment #15445 Mr. Mark asks whether the modern usage of "gay" was thought up by someone specifically or whether it just "arose". But surely it isn't a case of either/or. Almost certainly the usage of "gay" was originally thought up by one individual and simply caught on because it was a strong meme. Similarly, if the term "bright" conveys no advantage to its users, there's no need to actively oppose it: it will simply wither away naturally through not being sufficiently used."


Fair enough. Your point reinforces my thought that one cannot assign a date certain to the moment that the term "gay" was coined. One can do that with the term "brights."

In that sense, the origin of the term "brights" bears more resemblance to the birth of the idiodic term "Freedom Fries" - another echt-American exercise in pettiness and stupidity.

62. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15445 by Mr. Mark on December 31, 2006 at 11:37 am

Daniel points out that two atheists in Sacramento sat down and decided that the word "brights" would from now on be used to label all atheists in the country. Apparently, the rest of us had no say in coming up with this ridiculous terminology, but we're told to get over it and accept the labeling.

Daniel compares it to the word "gay" becoming a positive label for homosexuals. That begs a question: was there a point in the past where two gays got together and decided on a date certain that "gay" would from hence forth be the term used to identify the homosexual community? Is that what happened, or did the word "gay" grow organically out of the community over the course of time? I don't know, I'm asking.

Unless the word "gay" was coined through the same process used to come up with "brights," I don't see a parallel. For contrast, I'd think a more-realistic way that terminology changes would be the current move by some liberals to redefine themselves as progressives. AFAIK, there was no self-appointed committee of two convened to decide that liberals would now be called progressives. Rather, it is a linguistic change that has been happening slowly over time...and it's a move that has happened as a reaction to the word liberal being used as a pejorative label by RWers in this country. But before the progressive-ites get up a full head of steam, it should be noted that the word liberal seems to be coming back into vogue. At this point, there's probably more of a chance that "liberal" will regain its popular and proper (ie: non-pejorative) connotations than the word progressive replacing it in the lexicon.

For many of us, embracing the label of "atheist" was a real life decision, a decision that impacted our relationships with friends and family. Having gone through that process, I'm not about to desert the term for some idiotic label that says nothing. I certainly didn't come up with the term atheist, and I certainly don't enjoy being labeled as a "not something," but for better or worse, that's how society has defined us.

I'd much rather fight the fight to make atheist an acceptable, nay, a respected term in our society than wasting time promoting a lame band aid of a term that pisses off people on both sides of the argument.

63. Ghosts in the Machine

Comment #15305 by Mr. Mark on December 30, 2006 at 9:18 am

It's never a good sign when a writer needs to use 100-year-old ideas/quotes to challenge modern research. Ultimately, the writer seems to come down on the side of modern research...doesn't she?

64. God's Enemies Are More Honest Than His Friends

Comment #15179 by Mr. Mark on December 29, 2006 at 10:10 am

Aussie said:

"It is a pity Sam has to waste his time using his extraordinary talent explaining the obvious to those who refuse to understand."



As an old boss once told me, "if you're unwilling to come in here and explain the same thing to the same people every day of the week, you're in the wrong business."

65. A Mission to Convert

Comment #14894 by Mr. Mark on December 26, 2006 at 1:16 pm

Hopeful wrote:

Regarding Comment #14749 by denoir:

"Demanding sophisticated arguments against religion is like demanding a sophisticated argument against the existence of Santa Claus. The basic premises of religion are so trivial that it does not need any particularly sophisticated arguments. There are of course people who try to make religion into something more sophisticated - but all they are doing is making arbitrary constructions upon a deeply flawed foundation."

Hopeful then expanded:

"Very well said!

"The fact that legions of biblical scholars have invested their lives studying and discussing the minutae of religious doctrine does not make their beliefs one bit more valid. It does however make them extremely determined to protect their personal investment.

Pretending that religion and faith are mysterious, deeply complex topics that require expert understanding (and therefore could not be addressed satisfactorily by an "amateur") is simply another ploy to protect religion from criticism."



Good thoughts. Richard covered this in TGD with his section on asking meaningless questions (Ex: "Why are unicorns hollow?"). Religion does this all the time, no more so than in the tradition of midrash.

BTW - is anybody surprised that so many negative reviewers of Dawkins belittle his work as middlebrow? Even if we were to grant them that TGD is middlebrow, what does it say about the reviewers when they can't even get the point of a "middlebrow" book? It seems that many of them are holding Dawkins to an impossible & unscientific standard, ie: Dawkins must write the be-all-and-end-all book, a book that totally demolishes the concept of god in a way that instantly and totally makes non-believers out of any and all who care to read it. Since Dawkins hasn't written that specific book, then TGD must be a failure. One wonders if they hold every individual book ever penned on religion to the same impossible standard, ie: to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that god does indeed exist, and to prove it to the point that all believers and non-believers alike embrace the one religion that such a book expounds. By such a standard, any book would be a failure, even if the world had only one religion...but it existed with two competing sects.

No, what Richard has done has been to start a dialogue, a dialogue that is long overdue and far from over. There are other books out there that complement Richard's, and they are well worth a read.

The power of what Dawkins has penned is clear, no more so than in the shallow reviews of certain writers who hope the whole thing will just go away. It's the literary equivalent of labeling John Kerry a flip-flopper or Al Gore as wardrobed-challenged. As in those cases, once the power of the soundbite has faded, we're left with the bitter truths that both of those politicians expressed while their character was under assault (ie: bush's war is wrong & global warming is real).

The point is that it's up to those making the claim for god to prove it. That Dawkins demolishes the sophistry of such beliefs (and the attendant processes and politics that keep such beliefs alive) so effortlessly makes one wonder why it took so long to do so in the first place.

66. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14686 by Mr. Mark on December 24, 2006 at 10:11 am

Sancus asked why I said that this article makes me embarrassed to be an American. I think the answer was given above in posts 19 and 9 in more-succinct and elegant ways than could I.

67. Fallen Angels Assault: Heaven at Christmas

Comment #14618 by Mr. Mark on December 23, 2006 at 6:29 pm

Yet another article that makes me embarrassed to be an American.

68. Atheist Chic

Comment #13481 by Mr. Mark on December 18, 2006 at 1:10 am

So, atheists need to be nice to theists?

Funny, but as a Democrat living in America, I have heard the same kinds of claptrap from Republicans over the past 6 years. Democrats should do this. Democrats shouldn't do that. Democrats better be careful or this (or that) might backfire. Strange how no matter what the circumstance, my Republican friends have always been there to offer advice on how to avoid the pitfalls of gaining power.

I've learned that Republicans offering advice to Democrats is like snakes offering advice to mice on how to avoid being eaten. It looks like the same gambit is evolving - the friendly theists telling atheists how to avoid the pitfalls of offering reason in place of blind faith to the religious...and how to avoid the pitfall of converting more and more theists to the logic of atheism.

69. The Grinch Delusion: An Atheist Can Believe in Christmas

Comment #13360 by Mr. Mark on December 17, 2006 at 8:52 am

So what?

We're atheists. We have a Chritmas tree, but it's a Christmas tree in the Santa Claus mode. There are no angels, no Jesus references, no creche anywhere. There are lights and ornaments that reflect the non-Xian aspects of the holiday. There's no star on top of the tree. It's a secular celebration of the season. We celebrate Halloween & Thanksgiving in the same way (just as Richard points out in his remarks above), ie: as secular holidays.

During the holidays I listen to what some might call Xmas music - Handel's Messiah, Bach's Xmas Oratorio and lots of other classically oriented fare. I enjoy the music as music. I don't need to believe that the story being told is true to enjoy the music any more than Verdi or Brahms needed to give up their atheism to write their respective Requiems (they didn't give up their atheism, BTW).

We've also attended High Holiday seders at the homes of our friends, not because we believe in the Jewish god any more than the Xian god, but because we want to show respect for the beliefs and cultural heritage of our friends. Our friends know we're atheists, and they're certainly not on a mission to convert us to Judaism. That works for all of us, so where's the problem?

The author seems to think that there's something wrong with partaking of such celebrations...that if you're an atheist, you need to show contempt or ignore religious traditions or you'le a hypocrite.

This article is yet another large dose of misunderstanding of atheists, aimed at believers to show that atheists are hypocrites.

Too bad the author's world view is so limited.

70. Response to Richard Dawkins' Criticisms in The God Delusion

Comment #13243 by Mr. Mark on December 16, 2006 at 10:48 am

I compliment Swinburne responding to Dawkins and doing so in a civil way. A little bit of civility from the belief wing is a good thing.

That said, Swinburne basically talks past and arond the points made by Dawkins. And offering apologies post-mortem that Swinburne didn't provide references from his other writings to support writings that Dawkins criticizes is both sloppy and insincere. As a writer, he should know better than to engage in such practices, no matter what the publisher of the article sets as ground rules. The writer can always decline to write the article. In fact, any writer who cares about words and perceptions owes it to his readers to refuse to agree to strictures that will, in the end, misrepresent his beliefs.

71. Atheists' bleak alternative

Comment #12787 by Mr. Mark on December 13, 2006 at 9:16 pm

"without God, the difference between good and evil becomes purely subjective."

While that may be true for theists like Jacoby, it isn't true for the rest of us.

What a sorry existence it must be to believe such claptrap. The FACT is that any morality Mr Jacoby is practicing is being accomplished without the help of the imaginary eye-in-the-sky. He's doing what most of us do in civilized society.

This is one of the more idiotic articles I've read at this site. Maybe, anywhere else, for that matter.

72. Let's Be Rational

Comment #12612 by Mr. Mark on December 12, 2006 at 10:23 pm

Mr Dalrymple makes a meal of the supposed low success rate of 25% of IVF, yet he doesn't point out that fully 25% of "natural" pregnancies do not come to term (these are stats in the USA. I'm sure it's different elsewhere).

That's something they don't tell you when you're starting a family. It's all joy and "blessings" when you finally get pregnant. When do you learn that statistic? Well, in our case, it was when we lost a baby in the 23rd week. The doctors throw that 25% figure at you at that point to let you know how chancy a pregnancy is (and how lucky you were on the ones that didn't have problems).

If we follow Mr Dalrymple logic, it should be the duty of every doctor to tell every couple that's looking to have kids that "there's a 25% chance you'll lose that baby" to head off the disappointment and grief they'll feel if their worst fears come true.

I know a few couples who have yearned to have children and tried just about everything. A 25% chance at success when you've been batting 0% is a damn good bargain in such cases.

Honestly, Mr. Dalrymple's railing at IVF is silly at best, disheartening at worst. There are no absolute guarantees in life outside of death. Why should IVF be any different?

73. An Exercise in Contempt

Comment #12564 by Mr. Mark on December 12, 2006 at 3:25 pm

The predictability of the attacks on Dawkin's book have reached the level of advanced snore-dom. Have they no original thoughts or strategems to put their opinions forward?

I'm all for giving the other side a chance to weigh in on Richard's books/beliefs, but at this point, this website would do well to employ an editor to sift through the dreck and limit such anti-Dawkins posts to the more-entertaining/creative (?) screeds out there. I see no reason to post every ill-informed, fantasy-based article that appears on the subject.

Of course, it's not my website.

74. Vicars in a Twist

Comment #12558 by Mr. Mark on December 12, 2006 at 3:19 pm

Funny stuff, this. Love the names of the various vicars!