Comments by Michael

Comment #3106 by michael on October 25, 2006 at 3:22 pm

Mary seems to be making the claim that "people will believe that they want to believe so why bother trying to change their minds?"

I have trouble even comprehending this and I doubt that Mary uses this type of reasoning in her every day life. Not only do (or at least, should) we all try to change the beliefs of those around us that we find harmful and dangerous, but to say that we can't actually change the minds of people by being reasonable, well, as Richard has said, madness leads that way. All this line of thought does is allow anyone to do as they please if they attribute their beliefs to "faith". Well, I'd like to hit anyone named Tom Delay with a brick. And I've just decided that this is an article of faith for me. Or maybe anyone who slanders Richard Dawkins is an infidel? Because of An Coulter do I get to riot like muslims over cartoons? Of course not. Reason and science are the only tools that can be used by all people to come to the same conclusions. And I'd also like to make it clear that being reasonable is not antithetical to being personable, even when you're being clear cut in your arguments. Too often I see the implication that by stating fact, you somehow become a mean person no matter how you say it. This is plainly untrue.

Lastly, the idea that one must be well schooled in a particular brand of theology or sympathize with it in order to refute it is equally absurd. I'm sure Mary is not well schooled in the Roman god's and goddess but I have no doubt that she doesn't believe in them. If asked why, I can also be nearly certain that she would reply that she has no reason to believe. No evidence exists for her to place a belief on. To believe in Zeus is silly, he doesn't exist. And we come to this conclusion based upon the use of our reason. But Yaweh on the other hand, well, many people believe in him. The exact same amount of evidence exists, but here reason will not work the same as it does with Zeus. We are not told why reason is incapable of enlightening anyone. We are simply informed that it won't happen. Mary will eat her hat if it does. This ignores the fact that many atheists were once christians. Their minds were changed. My mind was changed. And many more minds will be changed.

Time for Mary to eat her hat.

52. Beyond Belief

Comment #3103 by michael on October 25, 2006 at 2:44 pm

As in every review, we hear the same comments. So lets save some time and answer the common one once and for all.
1) Dawkins is brilliant but he's is not sufficiently respectful of religion.
2) Dawkins doesn't give credit to the good that religion can do.
3) Dawkins can't be certain that there is no god. Or "this isn't a question science can answer."
1 is answered by stating that even if Dawkins cussed and told everyone who disagreed with him that they're all F-ing morons this in itself would not disprove the truth of his arguments. Placing you criticism on the tone of an argument does not refute the argument itself. Even if we agree that this is a book that looks to change peoples thinking, and tone may therefore be important it does not follow that tap dancing around an issue will be any more conductive to that end than Dawkins' hard hitting truth.
2 is answered by stating that any good which religion does can be placed on the people and not the dogma. I believe it was Sam Harris who stated that all the studies which show the benefits of going to church could simply be showing the benefits of being in a group setting. The proof would be to study the health of other non-religious groups like freethinkers associations for example. Not to mention that while the church groups may provide that group setting which is helpful, it also brings with it much destructive dogma that other groups do not have. The assumption that this good can only come from the church is not only incorrect but dangerous to maintain.
3 is answered by simply repeating Dawkins himself. A universe with a god would look quite alot different that one without one. So while we cannot test god directly, we can certainly test for evidence of his influence on the universe. Much like we can't see dark matter and we instead must look for how it effects the space around it, we must do the same with god. And unlike dark matter, there is no evidence for god.

I almost think it would be helpful to send every potential review a list of things we've already answered so as to save time. I have the sinking suspicion that many reviewers would be left with nothing to say.

53. Battle of the New Atheism

Comment #3088 by michael on October 25, 2006 at 12:41 pm

Len, I agree with you in thinking that needing a term for disbelief in god should be as odd as needing a term for disbelief in alchemy. That would make logical sense. Yet, it's not simply a logic issue. It's a social one. When nearly everyone around you believes in something and you don't, that immediately makes you different. You join another group by default. And since this group chooses to disbelieve in something so widely held it gets a title. Atheist. Otherwise it's disbelief would be socially trivial and no one would notice it enough to label it. Sadly we don't live in that world. But we are all working to make disbelief in god as socially trivial as disbelief in the Santa.

Lastly, no one is out spending the majority of their time trying to argue with Jainists and Buddhists, and the tribes of Papa New Guinea because these groups are 1) relatively small and 2) do far less damage than the major religions that start wars. It's a priority level and practicality issue. If christianity did relatively little harm then we would give it little attention until the bigger problems were taken care of.

54. The Dawkins Delusion

Comment #1652 by Michael on October 15, 2006 at 7:03 am

What warms my heart the most is as follows:

If Prof. Dawkin's book is successful Albert Mohler will have to go out into the real world and find a real job.

Religious leaders get really upset when their cover is blown.

I'm an atheist because I don't want America to become the next Iran.

Cudos to Dawkins and Sam Harris for having the "testicular fortitude" to shed light on LIES that threaten our very existence.

Albert Mohler dedicate your life to finding real solutions to real problems and let your life of fantasy go. Why is it so hard for people like you face the facts? Why are facts so hard to swallow? Is it because you have no real desire to better the world in which you live? Is it because real work frightens you?

Get a real job. Bush will not stay in office forever. Your state sponsored "Faith Based Religious Welfare" can't last forever. Then you will have to win your new converts based on a free market of ideas. Most people today (I think this is what scares your types) are no longer willing to buy what you are selling. I guess thats why Baptists et al decided to go ahead and try and lower the wall of separation between church and state as a last gasp before reason and logic have the final word.

You see how crazy certain people in the middle east look? That how people in the US are starting to recognize all people of faith.

9/11 was the true end of faith. Lets all agree to give it up and move forward into a world reason and logic; not lies and fantasy.