51. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34946 by Fishpeddler on April 25, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Comment #34930 by krogercomplete
"I am thinking of a number between 1 and 9894209375928492384928304823840293840298340293840293. If my dog gets it right, I may become a believer."

Can I guess, too?! Is it 8? How about 5?

Dang, this is tough! ;)

52. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34943 by Fishpeddler on April 25, 2007 at 4:20 pm

Comment #34919 by timiusprime
"What would be a satisfactory proof for the existence of God to you?"

An interesting question, which probably many of philosophers have thought through, but I certainly haven't. I've usually come at it from the other angle -- simply evaluating what has been offered as proof (erroneously, as it turns out). Theists vary so widely in their beliefs about what God is, I wouldn't presume to tell them how to prove His existence, because I'm never sure precisely what they're trying to prove. Rather than imposing a framework for a proof to everyone proposing things I don't believe in -- telepathy, Nessie, God, good-tasting near-beer, etc -- I just say, "Give me your best shot."

Anyway, if God does exist, it's likely that I won't come to believe in Him through some smoking gun 'proof', but through a gradual preponderance of evidence for his existence that finally outweighs that against.

53. Potentially habitable planet found

Comment #34890 by Fishpeddler on April 25, 2007 at 2:09 pm

The coldest it gets is 34 degrees F? It's looking more and more likely that ours is the only planet in the universe that supports hockey-playing life forms.

54. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34869 by Fishpeddler on April 25, 2007 at 1:31 pm

Comment #34837 by Rob Slane
"A little self-righteous, aren't we?

Another beaut! 11 lines of text devoted to dodging an argument by accusing me of being self-righteous! Wholly unpersuasive of anything substantive, but admirably tireless.

You are assuming far to much of a value judgment in my use of the word "better". My meaning was obvious within the context to anyone not deliberately misinterpreting remarks, but perhaps it would have been better (there I go again) to have said that "I, as an atheist, more closely resemble the traits you'd expect in someone whose behavior is inspired by the life of Jesus." [That sounds pretty value-free to me now, but I can don the hairshirt for a while if you think I'm still being too prideful]. I'm just applying your description of 'true Christian' to those professed Christians I observe around me... and no one seems to even aspire to that ideal, let alone meet it.

You can rest assured, when I want to sing my own praises it won't be by claiming to be a great Christian. But I wouldn't expect you to understand that, because your own conceits, on display in your transparent false modesty above, suggest a worldview that unjustifiably equates 'Christianess' with 'goodness'.

55. Shout your doubt out loud, my fellow unbelievers

Comment #34808 by Fishpeddler on April 25, 2007 at 10:11 am

Comment #34712 by weefree
"Apart from the fact that atheists, because of their ready access to the secularist media, have no need of aerosol spray..."

Parris might not have been referring to spray paint, but to air fresheners, to get rid of the lingering odor of decayed beliefs. Or maybe he meant insecticides, to remove 'fleas'. ;)

"...it is slightly worrying that Mr Parris cites Nietzsche in his support."

One quote from Nietsche and we're taking civilization down the same path of Hitler and Stalin? Nice scare-tactic, but wrong.

And a general addition to all the comments about "fundamentalist atheism": The use of the word "fundamentalist" is almost completely nonsensical outside of a context of religious observance. If people want to criticize atheists who accept atheism as an authoritative belief that is not to be disputed or doubted, please use a more appropriate term, like "dogmatic". Those atheists do exist, and by all means let them have it. Calling it "fundamentalist atheism", though, just confuses the hell out of everyone and tars dogmatists with the wrong brush.

Of course, most theists using the term don't appear to really care if the people they tar are actually dogmatists, it's just a convenient fall-back tactic when the well of arguments runs dry.

56. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34566 by Fishpeddler on April 24, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Comment #34532 by Rob Slane
"Oh, I'm sure you'll come up with a load of examples of 'Christians' who have carried out atrocities in the name of God. But if you have any understanding of the Bible, you will be aware that not all those who call themselves Christians are Christians, and that there are multitudes who 'wear the badge' but don't have 'the heart to go with it'."

This one is a beaut! It's all been made clear to me now: the multitudes who called themselves Christians, killed in Christianity's name, and looked to the bible for justification... well, they just missed the spirit of the thing! If they were here now, and shown the error of their ways, they would surely say, "Whoops, my bad."

Here's one of the main practical criticisms of Christianity (as opposed to more philosophical and scientific criticisms, such as its being wrong about the existence of God): the bible is a such horrible guide to the golden rule. I've always been perplexed by how I, as an atheist, am such a better 'Christian' than any of the Christians I know, at least in terms of living according to some of Jesus' core values. The best explanation I can find for this is that the bible, and organized religion in general, lead people astray from the main decent and reasonable message buried within the faith.

Oh, I'm sure you'll come up with a load of examples of nice, happy, feel-good quotes from scripture, but taking the bible as a whole it is not at all easy to understand just what the heck God wants us to do. Attend church, and the message becomes even more obscured. It's almost impossible to see the forest for that confusing mess of trees.

Frankly, if Christians just got rid of all the confusing clutter and morally revolting parts of the bible -- in other words, eliminated pretty much everything except for "love thy neighbor as thyself" -- they would not only save a lot on printing costs, but they would probably never hear from this atheist again. I can quietly accept people who are benignly wrong in their beliefs, but not those who are dangerously and maliciously wrong in them.

57. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34441 by Fishpeddler on April 24, 2007 at 4:54 am

Comment #34365 by Douglas Wilson
"What is to prevent us from regressing or veering off into anything we please, just so long as we please to?"

The implication of this question is that the theists' God-based morality can somehow prevent this. Again, I say we can either rely on subjective human morality that we pretend comes from God, or that we openly admit is a product of both our own biology and conscious design. What will keep us from "veering off" is a difficult problem, but not new to human history. It is a problem as old as our species, and has not been -- nor will be -- resolved by resorting to fairy tales about a supernatural lawgiver.

Sorry, I'm getting ready for work, so I can't give this the time the issue may deserve.

58. Sam's Flea!

Comment #34362 by Fishpeddler on April 23, 2007 at 9:53 pm

Comment #34164 by The Burly Gates
"It appears that all you've succeeded in doing is kick the "authority" kickball out of the supernatural infield and into the "societal" outfield"

Excellent, dead-on analogy. That's what we are doing, and that's exactly what should be done. Rather than follow a subjective moral standard established by humans claiming it was established by God (your "supernatural infield"), we can follow a subjective moral standard established by humans who acknowledge that they are the ones who established the standard (your "societal outfield"). The result: probably still pretty screwed up, as always, but somewhat less so for having removed one major source of irrationality and dishonesty from the deliberations.

Comment #34186 by The Burly Gates
"But by what a priori reason is the chimp regime considered a "functioning moral system" while that of the polar bears is not?

In case you have not deliberately dodged the crux of the argument, but rather have missed it during a sincere attempt to engage the poster, I'll spell it out more clearly. There is at least one non-human animal that exhibits a moral sense. Our (atheists) explanation of the foundation of morality is consistent with this observed phenomenon. The theist's account, to my knowledge, is decidedly inconsistent with it. But perhaps this is one of those sophisticated branches of theology that people like Dawkins and Harris are always accused of ignoring (but none of us has managed to successfully uncover). So back to the original question: When did God pass moral laws down to the chimps? If he didn't, then your hypothesis lacks the explanatory power of ours, and if he did... well, this story is going to be good!

59. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34257 by Fishpeddler on April 23, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Comment #34219 by Bob Russell
"Who says the current wee babes in Limbo will be let out....just think of the queue at the gates of heaven...."

Let's see... they are all probably quite lonely and scared and hungry and crying their asses off, so that means they will most likely end up in whatever coffee shop or movie theater I'm trying to relax in.

60. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34251 by Fishpeddler on April 23, 2007 at 4:24 pm

Another interesting aspect of this notion that God was kicked out of schools is that it is simply untrue. There is not a kid in the US who could not spend the entire day praying in school, if they so desired. Certainly, this may lead to some trouble, but not for practicing religion -- ignoring their studies or teacher, or disturbing others if they do it out loud, is another matter.

To any extent we have erred in our policies in the US, it has quite understandably been toward the side of caution in trying to ensure there is no religious coercion in state directed institutions such as public education. Fundamentalists in this country consistently refuse -- or are emotionally unable -- to acknowledge that they are as much the beneficiaries of this as anyone. As has been pointed out countless times, but apparently to little effect, the separation of church and state isn't just protecting the state from religion; it is protecting religion from the state.

If little Johnny wants to pray to God to help him pass a test, or to read scripture during lunch, no one will bat an eye. To say that God has been kicked out of the schools is a deliberate distortion of the truth. Has organized religion been put under some restraints? Absolutely, but merely because organized or group events have been shown to create undo pressure to participate that is tantamount to coercion.

So it isn't God who has been kicked out of the schools, but only the people who would force it upon our country's youth. To them I say, "Goodbye" and "good riddance". Or, in the style of Heidi Klum, "Auf Wiedersehen!"

61. 'The Day They Kicked God out of the Schools' & Rebuttal

Comment #34229 by Fishpeddler on April 23, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Comment #34207 by Rtambree
"And so on... the possibilities are endless. Rationality doesn't work."

I agree completely. Once you accept the Big Kahuna of all false first premises -- that there is an omnipotent, omniscient supernatural being who is engaged in our world and whose actions are beyond the understanding of humankind -- you have little reason left to dismiss any following claim as implausible.

62. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33637 by Fishpeddler on April 20, 2007 at 7:54 pm

Comment #33631 by Jef
"The fact that atheism is demonstrably inclusive of all of the political spectrum is one of its stronger 'selling points', and something which should be emphasised."

Good post.

63. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33564 by Fishpeddler on April 20, 2007 at 3:26 pm

My copy has already shipped! I'm leaving the phone off the hook next week.

64. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33532 by Fishpeddler on April 20, 2007 at 1:55 pm

Comment #33520 by krogercomplete
"Have any fellow Americans been following the conservative reaction to the VT shootings as it pertains to gun control?"

Yeah, it's revolting. The gist: if the students had been armed, they could have fought back. Presumably many lives would have been saved. I think that's likely true in this particular example. Now consider how many people would die in situations that generally do not lead to fatalities when people are unarmed: bar fights, domestic disputes, road rage, sporting events, and so on. When people can readily fire a gun instead of throwing a fist or a chair, people die. Humans are passionate creatures, often acting out anger upon one another. Why would we want everyone to be carrying something that makes an act of anger so much more lethal?

Wouldn't the simpler solution be to make it hard to access deadly weapons, especially for those mentally ill like the VT shooter? The 2nd amendment fanatics would say that the criminals will always find a way to get a gun. As long as there are 2nd amendment fanatics, that will probably be true. A textbook self-fulfilling prophecy.

65. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #33328 by Fishpeddler on April 19, 2007 at 9:53 pm

I'm pretty much repeating the same ideas from earlier posts, but this article is so vile that I feel the need to say it in my own words.

Atheists recognize that many people have been cruelly robbed of their capacity to deal with painful events without reference to religion, so we give them the space to grieve in their own way. A time of great sorrow is a time to allow healing, not a time for exploitation of the bereaved to win converts or ideological points. Show some decency and some dignity Dinesh. That's what the atheists are doing.

66. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33192 by Fishpeddler on April 19, 2007 at 2:33 pm

Comment #33149 by Fedler
"Fishpeddler, I love the analogy of Jesus playing volleyball with the atheists. JC must be one hell of a spiker!

Heck yeah! His signature 'Arisen' move really helps him elevate. He's great at comebacks, too.
Fortunately for the atheists, his side is always shorthanded because he counts as three players.

67. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33165 by Fishpeddler on April 19, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Comment #33146 by WilliamP

"If they can't say anything here that gives me reason to think that they have an argument to make, then I'll just ignore both their books and their posts.

That sounds reasonable.

You know, there really needs to be an OMNIBUS BOOK OF ARGUMENTS FOR AND AGAINST THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. This would have two benefits:
1. We could simply ask, "Is this something new that isn't already in the OBOAFAATEOG?" to spare ourselves from sitting through rehashings of old arguments.
2. It would speed up dabates, because we could just cite the book. "Pg 49, Section D.3!" "Hah! Pg 17, Section B.6.II back at you!"

Come to think of it, that's kind of how theists use their holy books already.

68. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33138 by Fishpeddler on April 19, 2007 at 12:55 pm

"I think it's great that Mr. Robertson and Mr. Wilson have dropped by here, and I hope we can all invite them to talk."

Talk about what? Presumably the book. Then give us a chance to read the damn thing! It just hit the shelves, a thread was started announcing its existence, and we had a little bit of fun over how many response books RD and SH have inspired. God forbid.

I think you're right that we didn't create a very welcoming atmosphere for the author and the other theists who stopped by, but I also think it was unreasonable for them pop in and expect us to be ready and willing to engage them over a book that is, at this time, below even the status of obscure. And if they wanted to engage us on something unrelated to the book, then they should have started a new thread appropriate to their purposes.

69. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33131 by Fishpeddler on April 19, 2007 at 12:04 pm

Comment #33126 by Gabe Martini

"Through reading these replies, I have been made profoundly aware that a decent amount of atheists are closed-minded."

That's a relief. I was worried you might feel it was an indecent amount.

70. Flea Circus!

Comment #33121 by Fishpeddler on April 19, 2007 at 10:29 am

I gave weefree a big hug in the "Sam's Fleas" thread, but it apparently didn't make him feel any better.

"I had thought that rationality and intelligence were bound up together and I would use the terms synonymously."

This may be the single most revealing statement I have ever read to help me understand the intelligent theist's mindset. A logical outgrowth of this mistaken assumption would be, "If I am intelligent, I am rational. A rational person holds only rational beliefs. I am intelligent, therefore I hold only rational beliefs." I doubt I have to start a long list of real-life examples to convince people that this is false. Just because a mind can deliver raw horsepower doesn't mean it is well steered. We have to continually reexamine not only our beliefs, but also our methods for gathering data about the world and interpreting it, because rationality doesn't just happen of its own accord because we are smart.

71. Sam's Flea!

Comment #33093 by Fishpeddler on April 19, 2007 at 6:39 am

Comment #33009 by weefree

It looks like someone needs a hug. C'mere, big fella....

*squeeze*...

*pat pat*...

There. I feel better now, too.

Just remember: When times are tough and you're feeling down, and you no longer see Jesus' footprints beside yours in the sand, he hasn't abandoned you. He just thought you were getting too morose, so he stopped to play volleyball with the atheists.

72. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32903 by Fishpeddler on April 18, 2007 at 4:29 pm

"My point is, rather, that, absent God, if someone decides to live that way, what can an atheist use to appeal to him?"

My personal ranking of what stops someone from deliberately harming another:

1) Innate empathy (he/she doesn't like that, and that makes me feel bad)
2) Innate morality (I shouldn't do things that people don't like me to do)
3) Laws (based upon general agreements about #1 & #2)
4) Fear of social censure (I'll be an outcast)
5) Utilitarianism (one hand washes the other)
6) Religion (God said not to)

My personal ranking of what makes someone want to harm another:

1) Scarcity (I need their stuff)
2) Religion (God said to)
3) Jealousy (They took my woman)
4) Greed/Envy (I want their stuff)
5) Nationalism/Tribalism (Our stuff is better)
6) Soccer (That was a foul!)

I think religion, overall, provides a greater inspiration to do harm than to do good. It is an immensely powerful tool for overcoming the reasons for NOT doing harm to others. Of course, this is just a few minutes worth of idle speculation on my part, but it rings more true than your argument.

So what should an atheist appeal to? The first reasons 1-5.

73. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32880 by Fishpeddler on April 18, 2007 at 3:50 pm

"Hitchens', not Hitchen's. Sorry."

Thanks for not trying to tell us you were speaking metaphorically.

74. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32843 by Fishpeddler on April 18, 2007 at 12:42 pm

"For cheap (I don't wanna waste money) and lazy (I don't wanna waste time) atheists like myself..."

I would like to add 'busy' (I bought over 2000 pages of books on evolution alone this month), 'distracted' (I just met a super cute girl on Monday), and 'jaded' (I am sick of the same old excuses).

75. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32802 by Fishpeddler on April 18, 2007 at 9:30 am

"Well, how exactly can you have objective morality without some objective standard?"

When during this thread did we switch from speaking about morality to speaking more narrowly about objective morality? The terms are not synonymous. I think we're getting into that age-old problem of people arguing about 'morality' because they have differing understandings of what the word means.

76. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32800 by Fishpeddler on April 18, 2007 at 9:20 am

Comment #32777 by The_Pun_King

"He's shown more goodwill at this point than any atheist could rationally or consistently muster."

Absurd statement, for many reasons.

1) Reading Harris' book isn't necessarily a demonstration of "goodwill". Goodwill would suggest he was open to persuasion by the arguments in the book. More likely, he read the book merely as an essential first step in attempting to refute it.

2) "...than any atheist could..." That claim is doomed to failure right out of the blocks. Helpful hint: avoid 'never' and 'not any' type arguments. You'll seldom be right.

3) Has this book even been out a week? The fact that we don't all have it memorized yet isn't an act of ill will.

4) If Harris' book hadn't been a national bestseller and cultural phenomenon, there is no reason to believe that Wilson would have gone to the trouble to read it and respond. If Wilson's book achieves equivalent significance within the god-debate genre, only then should we feel obligated to devote precious time to it. Anyway, if he's right, we'll have plenty of time to read it in heaven... er, I mean hell.

77. Sam's Flea!

Comment #32748 by Fishpeddler on April 18, 2007 at 6:58 am

Comment #32735 by Ole
"If not, why bother with his arguments about 350,000 species of beetles etc."

I expect he thought he was making a clever twist on JBS Haldane's famous remark that God "must have an inordinate fondness for beetles."

Guessing what the titles of the theist response books will be is a source of amusement for me. Now that they're coming out, what should the response to the response be? I'm thinking "Letter to a Christian Abomination".

78. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32486 by Fishpeddler on April 17, 2007 at 6:45 am

Comment #32452 by Will S
"But if what someone calls 'God' is, actually, only an aspect of his/her own personality, or a set of ideas planted there by some other other human being (parent, teacher, priest) then that person's universe becomes even more ego-centred."

That's an interesting way to look at it that I haven't thought about before. When someone "listens to God" or looks to him for guidance, since He exists only within their imagination, they are only withdrawing deeper into themselves. Their own imagination becomes God.

Chilling.

79. Mozart doesn't make you clever

Comment #32453 by Fishpeddler on April 17, 2007 at 5:37 am

I find that country music is best at improving my intelligence. It's not a direct effect, though. If I hear it playing, I think, "This is terrible!", turn off the radio and pick up a good book. Presto! I feel really smart!

[I guess I'm not particularly smart if I bait the country music fans like this. They carry far more shotguns on the rack of their pick-up trucks than I do] ;)

80. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32440 by Fishpeddler on April 17, 2007 at 4:40 am

I'm glad Feder didn't write in favor of atheism. Given the poor quality of writing and logic he put on display, that would have been quite embarrassing. Even I could have made up some anti-atheism stuff more persuasive than this. The fact that this was in a national newspaper makes me sad for the state of journalism in this country.

81. The Age of Darwin

Comment #32254 by Fishpeddler on April 16, 2007 at 12:43 pm

"Fishpeddler, am I being telepathic here or do you really adore food?"

I try to live by a general principle: When you have no idea how to make your point, make a food analogy. If nothing else, people will be distracted from arguing and go looking for something good in the refrigerator.

82. The Age of Darwin

Comment #32249 by Fishpeddler on April 16, 2007 at 12:21 pm

"It is very difficult to talk about spirituality with atheists because they are so skeptical about spirituality as being equivalent with the supernatural."

I'll go on record as one of those atheists who dislike the use of the word 'spiritual' to describe non-supernatural experiences. While I consider it a technically correct to use 'spiritual' in a strictly naturalistic sense, I feel this creates too much confusion and misunderstanding. I know no religious people who use or interpret the word without a supernatural component. When they hear me use the word, they invariably mistake my meaning. Rather than try to convince the entire English speaking world to ignore the supernatural connotations, I think we should just find a more precise word. I'm open to suggestions.

While we're at it, can we please come up with different words to describe romantic love, familial love, platonic love, etc. Since love is the primary obsession of our lives, you'd think we could be a bit more exact than to describe this emotion, in all its various forms, as simply 'love' every time.

Oh, and we need to invent two separate words for authentic Mexican food and crappy chain-restaurant Mexican food.

Maybe 'Mexithentic' and 'Mexicrappy' would work. Hmmmm. I'd better work on it some more.

83. For Some Hispanics, Coming to America Also Means Abandoning Religion

Comment #32232 by Fishpeddler on April 16, 2007 at 9:02 am

"My goodness, where is Helian when you need him!"

LOL. He's going to go postal when he reads that 'barren culture' remark.

Grotesque though much in American culture may be, I certainly would not call it barren. I think the lack of homogeneity gives that mistaken impression. At any given moment in the US there is manifestation not only of uniquely American traditions (Monster Truck Rally, anyone?), but also of an astounding variety of traditions from around the planet. This cultural smorgasbord, in which everyone can follow their own tastes, results in an overwhelming plenitude that is mistaken for barrenness, in much the same way that Benday dots appear to be a single smudge from afar, but are revealed to be countless dots of color upon close inspection.

84. The Age of Darwin

Comment #32121 by Fishpeddler on April 15, 2007 at 8:35 pm

"I don't know if Mr. Brooks intended to write such a paean to the beauty of modern thought, or such a scathing indictment of religiously-based thinking..."

I can't help be suspicious of another possibility: that this is less about evolution science and more about rebuilding the heretofore devastated credibility of grand narratives. Patrick McArdle is right, though, that whatever precisely was the author's intent, the result was a very favorable portrayal of Darwinism, and I am glad for it. And this is a wonderful example of 'framing' for people put off by science's (seeming) inability to provide a clear, uncomplicated framework for an understanding of the world.

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

Comment #32100 by Fishpeddler on April 15, 2007 at 4:53 pm

"After being shot in the head I was pronounced dead...D.E.A.D-dead-D.O.A. whatever you want to call it."

Wow. Serious mis-diagnosis. Hope you sued.

"I've been there..and if were not for the physical Hand of God pulling me out of hell, telling me it was "not my time" quote unquote. I'd be in that shear terror for an eternity."

Interesting that God didn't say "not YOUR time" instead. Maybe he was confused. Did he sound a bit out-of-it, like someone who, say, had just suffered severe head trauma?

86. The God Delusion is one of the Ten Best Audiobooks

Comment #31595 by Fishpeddler on April 13, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Comment #31511 by Dr Benway

"I'm always interested in recommendations for good audible books from others."

Doc, if you liked Ender's Game, I recommend the audiobook of Ender's Shadow, which parallels the time period in Ender's Game, but from Bean's perspective.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Nighttime is worth checking out. Also, Jim Dale is such a great reader it is worth listening to the Harry Potter books, even if you think it is too 'kid stuff'.

Comment #31589 by Corylus

"Personally, though, I like them because I can get through them while travelling to and from work; without straining my eyes with a jolting book on a train or causing a crash in my car."

Here, here! Beyond that, I like the fact that I can be less physically lazy with audio books, since I can run or walk for an hour and listen to the book, rather than be stuck in a chair.

What's more, the written word was initially developed as a way to preserve the spoken word, which is the primary way stories have been communicated throughout most of human history. Just because it's generally too inconvenient to TELL stories that way nowadays doesn't mean we shouldn't still LISTEN to stories that way.

I will acknowledge that I prefer reading over listening, but I don't always have a choice.

87. The Great British Literary Census

Comment #31558 by Fishpeddler on April 13, 2007 at 8:48 am

I just started a race with someone in my office. Last one to read all 100 is a rotten egg. She's finished 15, and I'm at 14 but partway through Cloud Atlas. This should be a good battle.

88. The Great British Literary Census

Comment #31473 by Fishpeddler on April 12, 2007 at 9:04 pm

That is a VERY impressive list. Another feather in RD's cap. Nice going.

89. The God Delusion is one of the Ten Best Audiobooks

Comment #31365 by Fishpeddler on April 12, 2007 at 6:59 am

Comment #31332 by William

"A hefty tome"? It's only about 400 pages!

That was my reaction. That's a pretty low standard for 'hefty'. I just got E.O. Wilson's From So Simple A Beginning: Darwin's Four Great Books. It's 1700 pages! Now THAT'S hefty! I'm starting to wonder if I've bitten off more than I can chew. I definitely won't be reading that one on the train.

90. Pope says science too narrow to explain creation

Comment #31363 by Fishpeddler on April 12, 2007 at 6:47 am

"Just who is this 'nature' or 'evolution' as (an active) subject? It doesn't exist at all!" the Pope said."

This would be a really good time for a link to one of those articles about how we are predisposed to find agency where there is none. The pope, and millions (billions?) of others, cannot hear the words 'nature' or 'evolution' without thinking "Who?". It's an amazing phenomenon to behold.

91. The Human Body as an Evolutionary Patchwork

Comment #31186 by Fishpeddler on April 11, 2007 at 9:35 am

Damn you atheists for suggesting that my body is an evolutionary patchwork. God created me out of whole cloth in the image of a monkey. Er... wait a second! Now you've got me all confused! Damn your devilish tricks!

[In all seriousness, these are great links. Thanks]

92. Is God poison?

Comment #31128 by Fishpeddler on April 11, 2007 at 4:49 am

Comment #31051 by Veronique

Nice link. It's good for everyone to be reminded of the elephant in the room that is usually politely ignored -- overpopulation. Overpopulation, and the resulting competition it creates, will be a major source of pressure that causes simmering religious tensions to explode into violence (as it is already doing in many places). I highly recommend Jared Diamond's "Collapse" for anyone interested in this topic.

93. Is God poison?

Comment #31124 by Fishpeddler on April 11, 2007 at 4:37 am

Comment #31075 by Logicel

"Ironically, the more I read of Helian's comments, the more I dislike--in my indifferent manner, of course--America and its obsession with itself and its perceived 'great and central' role it plays in the world."

Obviously, that must mean that you, too, are anti-American, but in denial. I don't mean the kind of denial where you can't face up to reality. I mean the "vernacular" kind, where you're standing in a river in Eqypt. ;)

94. Is God poison?

Comment #31064 by Fishpeddler on April 10, 2007 at 8:59 pm

"A few days ago I watched them knock on every door in the building."

Must be a pledge drive! A couple of mormons stopped me as I walked home from the train station today. I wasn't direct with them, but just said, "You probably picked the wrong guy. I spend a lot of time on Richard Dawkins' website." They looked confused and said they'd never heard of him. I just said "nevermind" and moved on. I should have rushed home and grabbed my copy of TGD for them.

95. Is God poison?

Comment #31055 by Fishpeddler on April 10, 2007 at 8:04 pm

Comment #31026 by Helian

"It is also a word in the vernacular which is quite understandable to most people."

Nice try. The problem, though, isn't with your "vernacular" use of the word 'denial'. The problem is that you make a positive claim to knowledge you do not have. If you had merely warned that RD's comments may be interpreted as anti-American, or suggested that he MAY BE anti-American based on some questionable remarks, you might have been on firmer ground. Instead, you went far beyond that, and you're in a quagmire.

"It is an easily ascertainable, uncomplicated fact that Bush would have won the election for any scenario".

Which doesn't refute RD's statement. He said Bush got help from his "friends", and he unquestionably did. The determination of the election result was irreversible long before the definitive recount which you cite. The result isn't what makes many still view the involvement of his friends as subversive, it was the process by which the result was determined. The recount in Bush's favor merely prevented it from becoming a greater embarrassment than it was.

Also, it is not at all clear that comments made about Bush's electoral legitimacy are in any way anti-American. I happen to think Putin is a thug, but that doesn't make me anti-Russian. I think the Robert Mugabe's rule is illegitimate, but that doesn't make me anti-Zimbabwean. One can denounce a political leader, or their means of acquiring power, without denouncing the country in which they hold power. Using your line of reasoning, I would have to say you're anti-English, because of your comments about RD.

"There is nothing confusing about Prof. Dawkins' perception of the United States."
"There is nothing "confusing" about the distorted version of America portrayed in "The God Delusion."

I'm not even sure what you think you're refuting anymore. I said nothing about finding Dawkins confusing.

"Reagan's Secretary of the Interior did not, in fact, make the statement attributed to him"

You need to get over this error. Watt said a lot of bizarre things that have been verified, and he was accused of saying some bizarre things that he never said. He did say, for example, "My responsibility is to follow the Scriptures which call upon us to occupy the land until Jesus returns." RD was hardly being negligent or anti-American to not identify the other remark as fraudulent. The appropriate response for a reader of TGD is to notify the publisher and say, "This quote is wrong" or "This quote is misattributed, please correct it in the next edition".

96. Is God poison?

Comment #31018 by Fishpeddler on April 10, 2007 at 4:11 pm

Comment #31007 by TedWak
"This is a hole political liberals dug"

I'm not convinced. If this were the case, we would expect that religiously moderate political conservatives (who are presumably unencumbered by the liberal guilt you discuss) would be the strongest opponents of religious extremists. I have seen nothing, though, to suggest that they are. I believe the sense of 'being on the same team' does more to muzzle moderates than their liberalism-inspired conflict avoidance. Since I'm speaking purely from intuition though, I suppose I should quit before I say something truly indefensible.

97. Is God poison?

Comment #30983 by Fishpeddler on April 10, 2007 at 2:01 pm

Comment #30981 by Steven Mading

OK, your take on that was much more interesting than mine. :)

98. Is God poison?

Comment #30980 by Fishpeddler on April 10, 2007 at 1:50 pm

Comment #30940 by Helian

"That opinion is that you are, indeed, an anti-American, although you may be in denial about it."

Helian, you would probably help your argument a great deal if you could avoid the flaws you ascribe to RD. Opining about a complicated psychological phenomenon such as denial, without having met or directly interviewed the subject, is a quick way to relinquish credibility. Right now it is your assessment of RD's psyche vs his own, and I think he has access to a larger sample set.

"betraying an opinion of her that is not informed by any grasp of reality, but is apparently informed by uncritical acceptance of the propaganda of ideologues who are very definitely anti-American."

Again, a statement that is loaded with assumptions being passed off as facts and that are, as RD likes to say, beyond the pale (e.g., "any grasp of reality"). You have plausibly argued that he holds some incorrect beliefs about the US. Your examples, however, are of historical events about which the truth is difficult to glean even for people who devote themselves full-time to the task. We've heard your hypothesis about why misunderstandings might be held: anti-Americanism. Here's an alternative hypothesis: these issues are confusing as hell and clouded by a nearly incomprehensible amount of erroneous information from countless perspectives.

One last point: I would ease up on the you're-a-victim-of-propaganda angle. It's a reckless ad hominem.

99. Is God poison?

Comment #30870 by Fishpeddler on April 10, 2007 at 7:33 am

Comment #30860 by egmutza
I thought The God Delusion was pretty tame until I passed it along to a few moderate believers (they couldn't make it past chapter 2!). Does anyone else think Hitchens possibly has it in him to make a delicate argument to religious moderates?

I doubt it. I don't think anyone is capable of making the argument delicate enough that it won't be offensive. There is little chance that religious moderates, who probably consider themselves to be part of the solution, will ever take kindly to being told they are still part of the problem.

It continues to amaze me how many commentators portray RD as acerbic, disrespectful, excessively confrontational, etc. I consider myself to be extremely thin-skinned and conflict averse. I can hardly even stand to watch most reality tv shows because -- besides the fact that I don't want to waste my life -- they are explicitly designed to create conflict between people, and then let millions watch it play out.

So when I read TGD this past January, I went into it with some trepidation. Based on some of the things I'd read in the press, I was expecting to be embarrassed by RD's lack of decorum, his arrogance, his cruel attacks on believers. Much to my surprise, the book didn't strike me that way in the least. I thought it was clearly and rationally argued, and on the occasions where he was obviously making an attack, RD didn't seem too over-the-top and went to great lengths to explain his justifications.

Did I miraculously become thick-skinned and insensitive just during my reading of his book, or are religious readers simply too ready to take offense because they are so unused to criticism of any kind? I suspect the latter.

100. The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement

Comment #30777 by Fishpeddler on April 9, 2007 at 6:42 pm

This humorous take on Coulter -- that she is actually satirizing the extremists in her own party -- reminds me of a common temptation of mine. I often think it would be brilliantly ironic and funny to write a parody of books like Coulter's, or the Left Behind series, that are subtle enough that you could sell books to the same audience you are making fun of. Fortunately, I have read Mother Night by Kurt Vonnegut, which will prevent me from ever making such a foolish mistake. The primary moral of the story, out of many, is stated at the beginning:

"We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be."

A fascinating cautionary tale.