51. The Future Forum Presents: Christopher Hitchens and Marvin Olasky

Comment #50049 by drbreakfast on June 14, 2007 at 5:44 pm

Response to 36. Comment #49945 by Linda on June 14, 2007 at 8:01 am

Marvin Olasky and others cite comments from ancient texts as if the proof of god is in the olde thyme tomes where apparently the supernatural talked to illiterate peasants. Come on now fella is that the best you can do? Does he and others who romanticize Bronze Age science fiction ever wonder why the gods don't talk to modern literate people? Why do aliens only abducts hillbillies?
_______________________________________________
I often wondered about this myself, particularly coming from otherwise seemingly grounded, intelligent people. A client of mine, whom I would describe as being a biblical literalist, said that the reason why "God" does not intervene in modern life as frequently as he did back in the Bronze Age (and apparently in only the Middle East) is because we are now in a "blackout period" in which "God" has decided not to "speak to us" for the time being unless absolutely necessary.

Huh?? And this is from a guy who acknowledges that the Mormons are "truly nut cases." It truly never ceases to amaze me that people can put so much stock in an internally contradictory work written by 1st Century men in a long dead ancient language, with an English translation that is obscure and nonsensical. If there have ever been any miracles, this is truly it.

52. Atheists: Get off of our country!

Comment #44971 by drbreakfast on May 25, 2007 at 5:35 pm

"Atheists have caused the ruin of this great nation by taking prayer out of our schools and being able to practice what can only be called evil."

Um. OK, I work 6-7 days a week running a small business and employ college students; I have a wife and two children, (both gifted and well adjusted), and I support them; I do pro bono work; I pay my taxes; I've never been arrested, etc. But I refuse to believe in something for which there is no evidence of. What evil am I practicing?

53. I'm Sure God is Scared

Comment #44882 by drbreakfast on May 25, 2007 at 12:51 pm

16. Comment #44794 by goatboy on May 25, 2007 at 9:48 am

Similarly, you say "if one did exist; it would be repugnant"...how can you make this assumption? Surely you are basing that on the model of God as presented by Christianity or Islam, say.

-------------------------------------------------
I'm in general agreement with goatboy. Clearly, the "God" of the "great monotheistic faiths" is a horror, and frankly, ridiculous. The god/gods other faiths are generally just absurd. While, I think that there is NO evidence of any all powerful "creator," if one were to exist or did exist, that conceivable fact alone is not a horrible thought.

The fact that so many people have such differing (and truly vague) views on "God," to me constitutes substantial evidence that "God" is entirely a human construct. Additionally, when one considers the fact that intelligence without any type of corpus whatsoever would tend to defy all known scientific laws, the very notion of such a being is almost certainly impossible.

54. The root of all evil?

Comment #43813 by drbreakfast on May 22, 2007 at 6:42 pm

Perhaps it does not matter how softly Dawkins talks, how gently he probes. As his wife once said - and several of his Root of All Evil? interviewees would surely agree - "He seems so nice, but can say such shocking things." As he does in Root of All Evil?

For example, his statement that the God of the Old Testament is jealous, petty, vindictive and unforgiving.

------------------------------------------------
I've been an atheist for most of my life, so until reading TGD, I never read the bible in any real way. I made prior attempts, but all the "beholds" and other arcane language therein get really tedious fast(and I'm a lawyer!!).

Anyway, after reading RD's account of the dude who offers his daughter up to a crowd of thugs for them to gangrape her, I decided that I had to actually take a look these "sacred" texts. The more I read, the more I realize that most Christians/Jews either never read any of this crap or they are simply insane (or both!).

55. For the God Question, a Biological Perspective

Comment #43809 by drbreakfast on May 22, 2007 at 6:23 pm

11. Comment #43774 by bluebird on May 22, 2007 at 2:54 pm
avatarRazzleDazzle 'em ---- 'Chicago'
Bamboozled --- Carl Sagan

Are there any Frank Zappa or Neil deGrasse Tyson fans on this site? Just curious...

______________________________________

Bluebird: I'm a HUGE Zappa fan. (I think that FZ would really dig this site as he was at worst an agnostic, but likely an atheist). Check out his song, "Dumb All Over" from you "You Are What You Is." A great anti-god tune. In that tune, FZ depicts the murderous absurdity of that writing known as "The Old Testament."

As far as Neil deGrasse Tyson, I saw him on CSPAN and in the Beyond Belief lecture series. Like what I've seen so far and just picked up his "Death By Black Hole" book. Will get to that one after finishing Victor Stenger's "God: The Failed Hypothesis."

BTW, has anyone ever heard ANY response from the bible crowd to the simple observation that if "God" is all powerful, why would he need to rest on the 7th day of creation? In response to this, all I've gotten is a perplexed look.

Another question for the fundies is, if "God" created the Earth only 6,000 years ago (and for us), what the hell was he doing before that? Did he suddenly get lonely? The response that I've gotten to this one is, "well, God is outside of our understanding and therefore your question is illegimate." But, yet these are the same people who insist that evidence of "God" is all around us.

56. God grief

Comment #42017 by drbreakfast on May 17, 2007 at 1:05 pm

6. Comment #41894 by David on May 17, 2007 at 9:21 am
I think atheists, as I am, need to consider engaging more serious thinkers who are not fundamentalists such as John Polkinghorne, George Ellis, Robert Pollack, Freeman Dyson, Paul Davies, Francis Collins, Karen Armstrong, Chet Raymo, etc.
--------------------------------------------
David:

I certainly think that you're speaking from the right place. However, respectfully, this is not realistic. Intelligent, reasoned debate sadly does not make healines, particularly in the U.S. Instead, name calling and pyrotechnics grab everyone's attention. This is one of the reasons why Hitchens' book is getting a lot of attention. (As well, he is a highly visible political and social commentator).

I'm a long time atheist, but a converted "atheist-activist," after reading The End of Reason. Religion is a dangerous thing as it can cause people to committ great evils all while being convinced that they are doing "God's work." We as atheists need to reach out to the greatest number of people out there. It will be interesting as to whether other journalists/commentators who are closet atheists will come out and vocal.

57. Hitchens' flat world

Comment #41638 by drbreakfast on May 16, 2007 at 12:45 pm

Yet another example of a theist not really addressing the real issue. They love to trot out the "well, there must have been something to create all of this and science cannot explain how the universe came into being," and then go to the "therefore God exist" assumption. Only to be followed by, the argument that "Stalin's atheist state committed its unspeakable acts because it believed that there would be no accounting to God." And thus the implication is, "humans need religion."

As to their first rebuttal, they can never admit that it is equally possible that the universe could have always existed just as "God" allegedly always existed. So, at best, they can only arrgue on this point that it's a draw.

It is clear that things may occur without any intelligence behind it at all. No one plans car accidents, yet they happen every day, merely by reason of a collection of random things and events interacting within the same time and space. (Unless, of course, the accident was within "God's Divine Plan").

As to the second rebuttal argument, Hitler's regime was filled with Christians, and yet they supported mass murder of "undesirables." Did they not fear "God's" wrath? Indeed, how about all those Catholic priests molesting young boys? Somehow "the knowledge" of "Judgment Day" did not come into their minds at the time. Um.

But, yes, despite the very weak rebuttal arguments against the taking an atheist view, the believers still proclaim "God(s)" as self evident.

Why, oh why, can they not get just a little more creative?

58. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39367 by drbreakfast on May 10, 2007 at 12:23 pm

12. Comment #39340 by carnitine on May 10, 2007 at 11:02 am
I suppose I would miss it a bit as well, but only because I wouldn't be able to have so much fun laughing at the fundies.
_______________________________

I totally agree with carnitine. If it weren't for the abortion clinic bombers, bin Ladens, etc., religion would be largely a surrealistic comedy show. I remember reading an article years back in a skeptics' magazine which argued that there is an evolutionary basis for religion. When discussing this, the author (can't remember who), cited to the tradition of all religions having their "high priests" wear rather outlandish outfits.

I was doubled over with laughter when he/she said that there was subliminal message in these outfits saying, "hey, my religion truly does work. If it didn't, do you really think that I would be wearing these ridiculous clothes?"

Let's face it, if there were no religion and we saw the pope running around with the pointy hat, staff and gown, mumbling Latin, in New York at least (where I live), most people would just laugh and maybe offer him some spare change.

59. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38332 by drbreakfast on May 7, 2007 at 4:22 pm

This article is brilliant. Mr. Gardner really hits the spot when he addresses the "fundamentalist atheists" proproganda. There is nothing extreme in saying, "hey, show me your god" and waiting patiently for real proof. The only reason such a position is deemed "extreme" is because for centuries, one would be burned or suffer some other unpleasant fate as a result of reasonable questioning.

60. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35585 by drbreakfast on April 27, 2007 at 5:00 pm

I enjoy Maher's show and while I don't agree with him on everything and I find his overall perspective as articulated on religion/god to be somewhat wishy-washy, the fact that he is a popular celebrity in the U.S. who has enough balls to be hostile to all religious beliefs is a very good thing.

Most the Hollywood set give uncritical lip service to religion. Just watch the Oscars or any other Hollywood award show and "God" drips from the lips many of these people. I find it encouraging that many people in his audience will cheer when he makes an anti-religious remark. I think that RD would be a great guest on Maher's show, giving him and the causes of science and reason a wider audience.

61. The Video: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #34385 by drbreakfast on April 23, 2007 at 11:39 pm

In addition to Charlie Rose as one other poster suggested, other decent forums in the U.S. are "60 Minutes," "Real Time With Bill Maher," (Maher himself is an agnostic), and of course C-SPAN.

The "interview" with O"Reilly was about as good as could be expected. However, RD missed a great chance to rebut O'Reilly's tired assertion of "Hilter, Stalin, Mao were 'confirmed' atheists."

In addition to adding that they did not act out of their puported atheism, RD could have mentioned that the countries with the highest number of atheists per captia tend to have the lowest crime, best social welfare, the least societal discord, etc. O'Reilly gave RD an opneing when he rattled off the stats on places such as Sweden, Denmark, etc.

62. Dinesh D'Souza says I don't exist: an atheist at Virginia Tech

Comment #33530 by drbreakfast on April 20, 2007 at 1:51 pm

Dinesh D'Souza has always had a talent for making statements so inane that you're left speechless. But this one is truly remarkable. It appears as if he trying to say that atheists cannot "explain" evil and therefore cannot offer solice.

But is it not more difficult for the theist to explain evil when they believe in a purportedly all-powerful, all-knowing and loving God who allows these tragic, evil events occur? Does religion offer more than the "God works in mysterious ways" cop out?

I truly don't get D'Souza's point.

63. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33258 by drbreakfast on April 19, 2007 at 6:16 pm

While I will be watching O'Reilly "interview" RD and I'm sure that the good Professor will be clear, concise and polite as he always is, it's truly a shame that RD cannot appear on an American program with greater intellectual depth.

In the early '90's, Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree used to host 2 hour debates that appeared on PBS on a variety of topics such as the 1st amendment, abortion rights and other controversial "issues of the day."

All points of view on a given topic would be present and rather notable people would appear, for example Supreme Court Justice Scalia and liberal law professor Lawrence Tribe, together with other experts. These shows were informative, balanced and -- gasp -- entertaining. Too bad RD cannot appear in such a forum to have a sensible discussion on his views.

For a mass audience, a better forum would be to see RD on "60 Minutes." Not only is 60 Minutes seen by a wider audience than O'Reilly, it also features commentator Andy Rooney who is an atheist too.

64. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33204 by drbreakfast on April 19, 2007 at 2:54 pm

26. Comment #33187 by filthyatheist on April 19, 2007 at 2:28 pm
I just had a look at the two Sam Harris clips. You can see how O'Reilly would go for Sam's sweeping attack on Islam.

___________________________________

I'm in total agreement with filtyatheist. O'Reilly was suprisingly cordial with Harris and mentioned "The End of Faith," but did not address SH's points against religion generally. I think O'Reilly's relative calm affect during that segment was due to the focus on Islam.

In direct contrast, when O'Reilly had Dr. Newdow (the atheist-parent who had sued on 1st Amendment grounds over the Pledge of Alliance containing the words "under God") on his show, O'Reilly was all over him despite Newdow's moderate stand and informed discussion.

I suspect that O'Reilly will be far more aggressive with RD. O'Reilly is a loud Bible thumper who regularly has segments denouncing the ACLU and secular groups for pursuing separation of church & state causes. "God is under attack!!" he frequently cries.

While I have little hope that RD will be allowed to get in more than 30 seconds of discussion, I think his appearance on that show is generally a good thing. Let the theists like O'Reilly continue to trot out the same tired, baseless and irrational justifications for their beliefs. To anyone paying attention and keeping an open mind, they can only realize that it's the theists who can't justify their beliefs without shouting, not the "new atheists."

65. Flea Circus!

Comment #33153 by drbreakfast on April 19, 2007 at 1:46 pm

48. Comment #33082 by Coel on April 19, 2007 at 5:44 am
Dear weefree,
You say "Two days ago in Virginia. The student concerned yelled out his hatred of rich people and religion as he killed. Which is not to say that all atheists are responsible . . .".

Can you point me to a reputable news source that says he was an atheist or that he "yelled out his hatred of . . . religion"?

The reports I've seen of his videos say they "show Cho talking to the camera and discussing religion and his hatred of the wealthy", which is not quite the same thing.

_________________________________________________

Given the anti-atheist bias of the media, I'm sure that if there were any soundbits of Cho in his videos being either anti-religious and/or anti-god, we would have heard of them by now, with Jerry Falwell, et al., appearing on the talk shows proclaiming that this is just another example of why we need the 10 Commandments posted in the schools.

Remember when it was revealed that the Columbine murderers listened to Marilyn Manson? The 10 Commandments-in-the-schools remedy was trotted out there too.

66. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32921 by drbreakfast on April 18, 2007 at 5:50 pm

60. Comment #32429 by Hip_Priest on April 17, 2007 at 3:46 am

Comment #32354 by moopet on April 16, 2007 at 11:46 pm

"history reveals the unmistakable footprints of something greater than man"
...

Is this guy after Bigfoot?:



LOL

This "unmistakable footprints" statement is particularly idiotic because if anything, there is such a lack of evidence to support belief. (Tellingly, the guy omits giving examples of these "footprints"). If the so-called "footprints" were so "unmistakable" would there not be only ONE religion as opposed to hundreds, if not thousands? Indeed, why does an all-powerful "God" need to have mere mortals to speak for him. Should we all not hear the booming VOICE OF GOD denouncing all us athiests?

Oh, yes, that's right, I forgot that "God" wants to choose to believe in him because he gave us the "gift of free will." Though I thought that there was a "divine plan" which tend to make "free will" impossible because "God" already knows our choices in advance. You know, I'm am truly baffled as how these theists will continue to believe this crap with all of the internal contradictions of their own doctrines. I'm not as familiar with the doctrines of the non-Abrahamic faiths, but I suspect that they are as looney as Christian/Jewish/Islamic traditions.

67. As Religious Strife Grows, Europe's Atheists Seize Pulpit

Comment #32286 by drbreakfast on April 16, 2007 at 5:04 pm

While perhaps a bit off-topic, I do find several of the remarks concerning the U.S. vs. European religious/quality of life discussion fascinating. If I may weigh in, though many of my remarks are anecdotal. However, much of what I have to say is based on "hard numbers":

(1) religious people in New York City, (where I live), tend to be rather charitable, the stinginess many here have attributed to America's religious types generally, is more fairly associated with regional differences. The American South tends to be more religious than the country as a whole, less educated and poorer. This is true, irrespective of racial/ethnic categories and other demographic considerations;

(2) the religious debate in the U.S. tends to be led by Southern conservative Christians and their apologists. Therefore, U.S. Media is saturated by Christians who have a lot to say about homosexuality, abortion, the ten commandments, creationism, and other "moral issues." To the extent that they speak of poverty here and abroad, these folks tend to blame government run welfare programs or the poor themselves. I believe that this notion of blaming the poor comes from the Southern Christian tradition of believing that God rewards those who are "true believers" and visits suffering upon those whose belief is not strong or otherwise "sinners";

(3) poor people do tend to be rather religious as a whole. Even among the handicapped beggars who ride the NYC subway system begging for change, every one of them will give a "God bless you" tag line as they hobble through the train. I agree with one of the comments above that poverty (or a lack of hope generally) causes a tendency to increase religiosity, not the reverse correlation;

(4) I'm a first generation American, though I've known a lot of foreigners generally, and many Europeans, in particular. My impression in comparing the two is that, in general, Americans tend to trumpet "traditions" more, despite evidence that the traditions no longer make sense (if they made sense at all) than the typical European. Therefore, Americans tend to sprout all sorts of nonsense without thought on a whole host of issues whereas Europeans (and even Asians and Africans I've met) tend to be more reflective and able to see nuance more clearly. An example of this can be seen with the whole 10 commandments debate. Even though most of the list concerns the Christian/Jewish God's irrational vanity, polls show that most Americans believe that public schools would be better places if they were posted in classroom. How "thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above," will make public school student better behaved or increase their test scores is beyond me, but this is what a WHOLE lot of Americans believe.

68. For God's Sake

Comment #31621 by drbreakfast on April 13, 2007 at 2:07 pm

I typically enjoy reading Krugmen and share his alarm with regard to Bush's religious zealots. But one of the chief problems here in the States is that so few in the media are willing to truly take on the nutty beliefs bundled in that "philosphy" known as the Christian faith. This is why Sam Harris and RD are truly correct in being equally critical of the religious moderates as well as the fringe Christians.

While most of us here recognize religion as being as intellectually and factually sound as astrology, Holocaust denial "scholarship" and other fantasies, no one in American mainstream media is willing to be critical of "mainstream" religious beliefs. Indeed, virtually every mainstream review of Harris' and RD's books on these questions basically take the position of the books being "too aggressive" and dismiss them because, the reviewers will allege, there is no recognition by Harris and RD that religion has been a force for good.

Of course, if you actually read the books, Harris and RD do acknowledge that many people have acted with kindness and charity because of religious convictions. However, despite the fact that these may be motivated by their religions to do good, this in and of itself does not validate the truth of their beliefs. While the analogy is not perfect, it's a little like saying, "hey this guy who was stone cold drunk did the wonderful thing of buying me a sandwich at the pub because I mentioned I was hungry. Therefore, having a bunch of drunks roaming around is a good thing for feeding the hungry."

BTW, a little off-topic, but I'm surprised that there has been no posting on this site about Kurt Vonnegut's passing. Vonnegut was a long time atheist and made several public remarks about his atheist outlook. I will miss his wit. "So it goes."

69. Atheists come in last

Comment #31208 by drbreakfast on April 11, 2007 at 1:18 pm

91. Comment #31198 by 7027A on April 11, 2007 at 10:32 am
Who can be surprised about the low political standing of atheists, given the stupid legal actions and inept PR of the ACLU? People think atheist = ACLU = malcontented, misfit jerks.

7027A:

I have mixed feelings on this. For one, far too many people are simply ignorant and think that an atheist is a satan worshipper or some other anti-Christian god theist.

More importantly, until recently, I never gave much thought to my atheism on a day-today basis. Assuming that you do not believe in unicorns, I'm sure that you don't think about their nonexistence on a daily basis. So, the same with god. If he/it doesn't exist, why think about it. Therefore to think of atheists as an identity group is a little odd and should be unnecessary.

Unfortunately, too many extremely insane theists are thrusting their 1st Century gibberish on us all and therefore as a rationalist, I must pay more attention to these dangerously delusional folks. I think that the more politically viable approach is for us atheists to simply champion rationalism and challenge irrational, whether religious or not.

Sorry for the ramblings.

70. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #31048 by drbreakfast on April 10, 2007 at 7:33 pm

"As for me, Christianity is more a call to rebellion than an insistence on narrow conformity, more a challenge than a set of certainties."

WHAT?? Why do these believers insist that they are not dogmatic? I'm nearly certain (I suppose this is one of my "set of certainties") that any atheist here will acknowledge that while it is possible that the Christian god exists, its existence is highly improbable. Therefore in the absence of any evidence, there is no reason to believe.

Has anyone ever heard a Christian admit to any uncertainity with respect to their core beliefs???

71. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31047 by drbreakfast on April 10, 2007 at 7:22 pm

I have never understood why so many believers get SO worked up about atheists. (Then again, it's hard to understand much of their beliefs when it comes to religion). I'm 41 years old and have been an atheist since I was 20 (and started doubting when I was 10), yet I cannot bring myself to tell my mother -- who lives in Florida and I'm in New York -- about my non-belief because I know that she will engage in an incomprehensible ranting spree. Presumably, the thinking of my mother (and likely this woman) is, "but I love you. I'm concerned about your soul."

The irony, in my case at least, is that my parents otherwise encouraged rational thinking and never promoted such fantasies as Santa Claus, the tooth fairy or the stork. In fact I remember my mom telling me when I was 5 or 6 years old about how children are conceived, all in rather clinical terms. (Mom was a nurse at the time). "God" actually never came up.