101. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66411 by roach on August 30, 2007 at 12:39 am

Richard Morgan,

Your posts tend to confuse me. I believe Hitchens means "if it matters (to you the reader), I concur". We can hardly blame Hitchens for not knowing the minds of every individual who reads his words.

102. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66410 by roach on August 30, 2007 at 12:33 am

I believe BAEOZ was referring to himself with the "ducks and runs away!" remark.

103. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66370 by roach on August 29, 2007 at 8:27 pm

EvolvedDNA,

I've noticed that too. It happens in all types of debates. I like to think that the insipid smiles are the result of the speaker being incapable of not laughing at his/her own bullshit.

104. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66354 by roach on August 29, 2007 at 6:53 pm

Richard Morgan,

I see nothing wrong with communicating my admiration for someone because of his/her obvious talent. I wish I could write/debate like many people. Sam Harris just happens to be one of them and his style is particularly appealing to me (it reminds me of Mark Twain). Just as I admire Tiger Woods for his golf talent, or Zakk Wylde for his guitar playing abilities, or my mom for her patience, or my favorite teachers for actually making their classes/lectures interesting and fun, or many other humans (including members of this and other forums) for many different reasons, I admire Sam Harris for his razor sharp wit. Given your posts on this forum, I suppose it is possible that you have never marveled at anyone's artistic/technical/conversational expertise. You seem disgustingly self-assured.

Also, you appear to think that I want to be dignified. Ha! I gave up on that overrated bullshit years ago.

105. The Sacrifice of Reason

Comment #66321 by roach on August 29, 2007 at 5:26 pm

Sam is so cool. His writing style is so simple and powerful. He almost always delivers devestating one liners i.e. "Ask yourself, when even the doubts of experts are thought to confirm a doctrine, what could possibly disconfirm it?" Awesome.

106. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66320 by roach on August 29, 2007 at 5:21 pm

Ugh. Donahue is such a blowhard. What the hell does "The Missionary Position" have to do with MT's letters of doubt? It would have been nice if Matthews kept them on point.

107. The world's oldest bacteria

Comment #65996 by roach on August 27, 2007 at 6:27 pm

This article confused me.

108. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #65527 by roach on August 24, 2007 at 3:24 pm

Maybe they'll show the results on tonight's show. Here's hoping.

109. Rational Atheism

Comment #65474 by roach on August 24, 2007 at 11:41 am

Thor,

I found Shermer's use of "Amen, brother" to be quite annoying. I hate it when skeptics use religious language. It really just feeds the idea that atheism is another religion.

But I think you could well be right about the two different interpretations of the article. Let's stick with the "It's great we have gotten to where we are, but here are some things we ought to keep in mind if we want to successfully build up on this:..." Why does Shermer think that Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett have to be reminded of this? It would kinda be like Phil Mickelson telling Tiger Woods "Keep your head down" before the first round of the Masters. It's a good piece of advice in general. But it just doesn't apply in this situation. It's unneeded and potentially insulting.

It appears that all four men have accomodated each and every one of Shermer's concerns. And if all four have not done this individually, they certainly have collectively.

110. Send In the Clergy!

Comment #65366 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 10:56 pm

82abhilash,

Wow. That's all very interesting and depressing. Thanks for your reply. I may ask you to educate me a little more about life in the UAE later.

Cheers

111. Send In the Clergy!

Comment #65352 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 6:47 pm

82abhilash,

Unless the UAE has become pro-western by creating a new clergy core that toes the government line, preaches peace, love, and brotherhood "in the name of Allah", and through the other happy fantasies expressed in your first post, bringing up the UAE and Qatar is irrelevant to your hypothesis. It does not offer an example for us to examine.

Also, the people can just bypass the government's clergy and support their own radical clerics.

You said: "People will gladly do what they are normally inclined to do, if it is religious sanctioned." There are two problems with this reasoning. First, religion is entirely unnecessary under this assumption. Second, people are "normally inclined to do" plenty of horrible acts and they are often religiously sanctioned.

You seem to think that humans are generally good or altruistic. I disagree. I think humans are generally selfish.

112. Poll: Which religion do you associate with?

Comment #65334 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Christiane Amanpour was on Larry King discussing God's Warriors with a panel of four men. They consisted of a Jew, a Muslim, and two Christians. It would have been great if they showed this poll. They all would have crapped themselves.

113. Not So Fast, Christian Soldiers

Comment #65331 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 4:39 pm

Decent article. The fact that some in the US government are taking up Christian rhetoric is quite alarming. But I'm not about to "actively strip the so-called war on terror of its religious connotations". I don't think that religion is entirely to blame for the mess we have put ourselves in but I see no reason to ignore the obvious. Religion is playing a role. A dreadfully significant one.

Off topic: I wonder if Weinstein is a practicing Jew. And I wonder if he and Reza each think the other is going to hell.

114. Send In the Clergy!

Comment #65326 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 3:47 pm

82abhilash,

Your scenario is a pleasant fiction but I don't think it would work. Who would give the new core of clergy legitimacy? The secular government? I doubt that would work. Ideally, the chage will happen organically. Moderate muslims like Reza Aslan and homegrown moderates will have to redefine the religion. The problem with these holy books is that they are bursting with violent and divisive nonsense. The people who are advocating jihad and "death to the infidel" are on firm ground according to the Quran.

115. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65310 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 2:46 pm

sapient and kelly,

Yeah it's impossible to please everyone. But I think you both did an admirable job. And my approval is the only thing that matters.

Richard Morgan,

Keep that other half for later.

Dr Benway said: "Revolutions are decided by the twenty-somethings"

Uh oh. I hope this isn't true for all of your sakes. I'm 25.

116. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65302 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 2:16 pm

sapient and kellym78,

I'm sure we've all poked around enough internet forums to know that worrying about other people's grammar, spelling, and syntax is a waste of time. This becomes quite clear when one considers that the internet is global and English is not the only language the world has to offer. I used to call people on their poor grammar but then I realized I felt like a complete tool for doing so. Luckily, as sapient points out, you don't have to have perfect spelling, grammar, and syntax in order to produce valid arguments.

Kelly, I think Richard's point is that "too" is unnecessary and out of place in the phrase "entirely too". "Entirely" doesn't allow for the increase in degree that the word "too" is supposed to describe. You'd have to say something like "much too..." Anyway, grammar games are fun at first until you realize there are better ways to spend your time. For example, watching paint dry, standing on your head and trying to drink soda, watching Pluto Nash and Gigli, etc.


BTW, loved you guys in the debate against the banana boys. That was you right?

117. Rational Atheism

Comment #65290 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Thor,

Where are these doctinare and rigid ideological movements of which you speak? I haven't heard or read anything from members of this site or from the New Atheist authors that would suggest a rigid ideology. A reasonable and scientifically informed movement is what they are hoping to encourage.

Also, it is precisely because Michalel Shermer is such a "highly esteemed and deserving skeptic and rationalist" that his open letter is confusing to so many people here. I suggest you read Janus' and Russell Blackford's responses to Shermer's letter again for reasons as to why this is the case. It would be one thing if Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens, and Dennett actually were using the tactics that Shermer rightly calls into question. But they are not doing anything of the sort.

Let's take Shermer's points one at a time...later.

118. Rational Atheism

Comment #65267 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Thor and J.C. Sammuelson,

Why don't you guys want to present a united front? I see nothing wrong with that.

I'm sure that all the current athiest spokesmen/authors disagree with each other in some ways. This shouldn't surprise any of us. Especially since we can all change our minds and are self-critical. But why not rally around some common goals?

119. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65257 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 11:12 am

Richard Morgan,

You're creeping me out. Next time break the prozacs in half.

120. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65126 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 1:03 am

"more pefect"?

"most unique"?

I suppose I could be playing right into the hands of a linguistic joke. It's happened to me in the past.

121. Rational Atheism

Comment #65123 by roach on August 23, 2007 at 12:55 am

82abhilash,

This is going to be a little rambling and disjointed as I am tired and slightly drunk.

I didn't have to consider that others had knee-jerk reactions because I read the posts. A couple were trite, call them knee-jerk. But most people responded with calculated arguments that addressed every one of Shermer's points. You're charge "that there is so much bad blood for Dr.Shermer in this forum..." is simply untrue. I would wager that most if not all people on this site have the utmost respect for Michael Shermer and his wonderful work. But this open letter is confusing and poorly presented (many have demonstrated why this is the case).

I'm not quite sure if your claiming this but it seems that you are agreeing with my absurd claim that "most people are secularists in religious disguise". How could you possibly know this? You say there are opinion polls but I have yet to see an opinion poll that bears this out. I haven't seen something like "Secularist but I just pretend to be religious" as an option on a public opinion poll attempting to collect data on religious belief. I think the big disconnect between us is the word "disguise". "Disguise" suggests that people are intentionally deceiving themselves and others. I see no reason to think this is so. And from what I understand, Dawkins is not making this claim. He does suggest that people often identify themselves as religious but they haven't really given it much thought. They just kinda went along with their social set-up. They are not fully aware of their self-deception.

Also, this claim that "if you are a humanist or a secularist, it is pretty well given that you do not think there is a God" certainly hasn't been demonstrated. Luckily, it's an easy fix. Just put "personal" or "intervening" in front of God and you're set.

One more thing, you switched the goal posts on me with the mind reading jab. I used that in response to your original claim that people who say they are religious are actually secularists in religious disguise. The fact that "non-religion is the fastest growing group in the US" had nothing to do with it. Simply because a person can change his/her mind about religion doesn't mean he/she was a secularist all along.

One more thing, the fact that many people don't take their religions all too seriously anymore doesn't suggest that they are actually secularists. It could simply (and much more likely be) that they haven't read their holy books or have cherry-picked it's contents.

122. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #65113 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 11:45 pm

Yes of course abstinence is safer than condoms in preventing STD's. Just like not playing sports is safer than wearing protective equipment at preventing injuries. But seriously, what fun is not doing things?

123. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #65104 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 11:01 pm

zarcus,

Thanks for posting RD's entry. I have now recognized Richard's thoughtful consideration. So what? He still disagrees with Shermer on the "right tactics".

124. Rational Atheism

Comment #65102 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 10:52 pm

82abhilash,

What the hell are you talking about? Your first post is all over the place. I'll get to it later.

You said: "I suspect their own social set-up make them more inclined to religiosity and superstition, than hard facts. That is why Martin Luther King had to use the faith card. I think he was a secularist in religious disguise"

Let's go a little further with this line of logic. Since religion is largely influenced by "social set-up" (indoctrination) and superstition and not on hard facts, you are essentially saying that no one can be religious. They must all be secularists in religious disguise. It's an interesting theory mainly because it relies heavily on a power I have yet to master: mind reading. Until I'm able to pull off this psychic feat (the tapes I just ordered online assure me it won't take more than a few months to learn) I'll have to do what normal humans without superpowers do. I'll simply take people at their word when they tell us about their beliefs. Also, Afro-Americans? WTF?


I read your first post again, and I still can't make sense of it. So all I'll say is people are not providing knee-jerk reactions (except for my first post in this thread, which was admitted as such), many have written well-thought out and articulate responses taking apart Shermer's letter point by point. Maybe you are operating under a strange and incorrect definition of "knee-jerk reaction".

125. Rational Atheism

Comment #65036 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 5:17 pm

chezzyd,

First of all, I disagree that the "New Atheists" are "Stick, not carrot" but let's leave that aside for now.

I think you are undermining the first half of your response with the second half and by doing so have actually exposed Shermer's article as essentially a waste of time. You "agree that if the world is to make any progress at all the carrot rather than the stick approach is going to work better for the majority" alright, that's a fair enough if unverifiable statement. But then you go on to mention that "the trickle effect of consciousness raising that people like Dawkins have started, is starting to work...blasphemy challenge...converts corner". Now ask yourself: what movement is largely responsible for the blasphemy challenge and converts corner? And who are the people who find themselves on youtube and sites like this criticizing religious ideas? Many of us were once theists. As far as I can tell, the "New Atheists" are doing a great job using an effective blend of "carrot and stick". But, much like cowbell, I gotta have more stick.

126. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #64946 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 1:14 pm

Janus,

Where is your response? In thread connected to Shermer's letter? *Goes and checks*...Yeah that was good and I'd say better.

We shouldn't take the thread off course and start talking about sexism. Although derailing threads and taking them on elaborate tangents used to be a specialty of mine on other forums.

127. Scientists should unite against threat from religion

Comment #64945 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Chastity is the second most overrated virtue right after faith.

128. Open letter to Michael Shermer in response to his letter...

Comment #64931 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 12:25 pm

Nice article. But again I hope that at least one if not all four of the men to whom the open letter is addressed responds in the coming days/weeks.


Off-topic: Referring to women as "chicks" is sexist? I suppose when I call my guy friends "dudes" I am being equally disparaging.

129. Rational Atheism

Comment #64806 by roach on August 22, 2007 at 12:04 am

It would be pretty cool if all Four Horsemen replied to this open letter.

Edit: SteveN,

I concur. I always wonder why people agree that some ideas are ridiculous but then turn around and say that we shouldn't ridicule those ideas. What the hell? Apparently they don't know what ridiculous means.

130. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64804 by roach on August 21, 2007 at 11:58 pm

Wait...people have been arguing that there is an objective morality? I find that odd, because in every other thread on this board in which the notion of an objective morality has been raised, most everyone has torn it to pieces.

131. Rational Atheism

Comment #64800 by roach on August 21, 2007 at 11:26 pm

I don't feel like writing or thinking much at the moment so I'll give a quick knee-jerk reaction to the article.


I didn't like it.

132. Ancient Protein Tells a Story of Changing Functions

Comment #64799 by roach on August 21, 2007 at 11:23 pm

MrEmpirical said:

"In the final chapter of 'How We Believe', Shermer pwns Dennett big time."

Judging from Shermer's "Rational Atheism" article just posted on this site, I simply cannot believe your assertion at the moment. The reason why I find it hard to believe that Dennett argues that humans (or was it humanoid lifeforms?) are an inevitable result of evolution is that Dennett is not an evolutionary biologist and hence relies on the words of experts. And one of those experts, Richard Dawkins, is a friend of his and admits that the human species is a fluke. I could see Dennett arguing that intelligent life will evolve given the right conditions...meh whatever.

133. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64784 by roach on August 21, 2007 at 9:18 pm

I wish I could get that Professor's job. It doesn't seem all too tough. A large part of it seems to involve reading books and not understanding them. I can do that!

134. Ancient Protein Tells a Story of Changing Functions

Comment #64783 by roach on August 21, 2007 at 8:57 pm

MrEmpirical,

I find it difficult to believe that Dan Dennett argues that humans are an evolutionary certainty. Perhaps you could provide a quote? Also, who is the et al? Surely Dawkins is not in that unidentified group.

135. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #64555 by roach on August 20, 2007 at 5:02 pm

seingalt,

From what I understand, she makes a distinction between Islam (as a religion/ideology) and Muslims (as people) in her book and arguments. She is not arguing against the people, she is criticizing the ideas.

136. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64376 by roach on August 19, 2007 at 8:46 pm

You could very well be right. I guess we'll have to wait 3 to 10 years.

137. Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Comment #64373 by roach on August 19, 2007 at 8:38 pm

Janus,

I doubt that. I bet that plenty of uneducated laymen will latch onto the idea that life must have been designed. I've noticed that many people don't have a problem ignoring the issue of an infinite regress. And the fact that the new artificial life is "going to be so weak, it'll be a huge achievement if you can keep them alive for an hour in the lab...But them getting out and taking over, never in our imagination could this happen." will likely encourage the theological idea that God is the supreme designer and infinitely more intelligent (yet somehow simpler) than us humans.

Switching gears. The idea that abiogenesis is bad science is completely absurd.

138. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64300 by roach on August 19, 2007 at 12:51 pm

I agree with Veronique but I'm going to give it one last try with darwin2.

darwin2,

You asked for some specific examples as to how your beliefs are inherently divisive so here goes. Since you beliefs are not based on any reason or evidence, they can safely be called faith based beliefs. Such beliefs will inevitibly divide people into believers and doubters. I cannot help but doubt (and even sometimes loathe) your theology. Your beliefs strike me as foolish, arrogant, and immature. And since they have no logic or evidence supporting them, I will be unable to be reasoned into believing them.

Also, you posit this notion of a loving and perfectly just god. It should be clear to anyone who has learned of the tragedies of the world that such a being does not exist. I know you have argued that Earth is a "temporary hell" and that we have fallen here because of some other nonsensical reason. Yet, I really can't complain about this temporary hell called Earth. I live a comfortable life purely as a matter of luck. But there have been countless humans that have endured terrible suffering. What did they do to deserve such treatment? Apparently they are paying for crimes they didn't commit. If I ever meet the god responsible for this evil I'd make it a point to kick him in the nuts (if he has them).

I suspect my last point may actually hit home with you because I'm going to step into the realm of wishful thinking (kinda). Let's assume that your perfect love god and eternal souls exist. I would find this to be a horrible reality. It is something I desperately would NOT want to be true. I do not want to live forever. And I especially do not want to live forever as a disembodied spirit unable to laugh, cry, smile, hold hands, hug, kiss, make love, have sex, drink beer, eat pizza, cook food, play sports, feel the breeze, swim in the ocean, take a relaxing morning dump, become exhausted, sleep, dream, etc. I'd much rather be human.

139. Bill Maher Making New Documentary Movie, 'Religulous'

Comment #64290 by roach on August 19, 2007 at 12:05 pm

petermun,

Yes he has. And?

I'd wager there are plenty of people who will enjoy Maher's documentary more than "Root of All Evil?".

140. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #64229 by roach on August 18, 2007 at 6:33 pm

darwin2,

I'm tempted to say I'll answer your question when you respond to the points I and others have raised but that would mean that I would never be in a position to answer you. I'll borrow a tactic from your book and ignore your question for the moment and raise a different point entirely.

You say you admit that you may be wrong about your beliefs, yet you also say there is no argument or evidence that could change your mind. What an amazingly (un)comfortable position to take! As long as people are willing to talk to you, you will forever be on the defensive and be forced to use ever increasingly elaborate mental gymnastics to protect your unsupported claims. Explain to me how your theism is any different (in terms of supporting evidence) than my pretend theism in which I argue that all those who seemingly die by accident were actually killed by God because they were sinners.

141. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64196 by roach on August 18, 2007 at 3:15 pm

Paul,

Isn't that why a reasonable person would, after carefully studying the idea of theism, decide that such an idea is not in line with what we have good reason to believe about the world? It was certainly something like that for me.

142. Richard Dawkins and Alister McGrath

Comment #64137 by roach on August 18, 2007 at 1:54 am

PaulEmecz,

You seem like a nice guy who loves his kid(s) but there are way too many "if"s in your posts. It's quite easy to demonstrate that rape is actually in line with God's will. IF the Bible is the perfect word of God that is. Just thumb through Numbers, Exodus, Judges, and Deuteronomy for some disgusting and disturbing examples.

143. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64096 by roach on August 17, 2007 at 5:23 pm

According to classical leprechaun belief, leprechauns are necessary beings; it is not so much as possible that there should be no such creatures as leprechauns; they exists in all possible worlds. But if leprechauns are necessary beings, if they exists in all possible worlds, then the probability that they exist, of course, is 1, and the probability that they do not exist is 0. Far from its being improbable that they exist, their existence is maximally probable


Specious reasoning at it's finest (or worst)

144. The Out Campaign: Interview with Josh Timonen

Comment #64041 by roach on August 17, 2007 at 11:53 am

Thanks for everything Josh.

145. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63936 by roach on August 16, 2007 at 8:03 pm

darwin2,

Don't even think of attempting to equate the posts on this site with those found on religious forums. I have poked around a number of religous sites and they were nothing like RD.net. You say you want a mutually respectful dialogue with the members of this site but you do not keep your word. I have seen many different posters consider your arguments and then provide you with logical/scientific responses. Yet instead of showing them the respect of either responding intelligently or conceding their points, you merely reassert your wild metaphysical claims about the existence of souls, a "never boring" afterlife, and an all-knowing, all-loving God. By using this tactic (btw I suspect you do this unconsciously as you seem like a friendly person) you disrespect those who have agreed to debate with you and effectively move the conversation into more disparaging territory.

You do not discuss your beliefs, you merely assert them. Indeed, you cannot discuss your beliefs because they do not have a chain of logic nor a shred of evidence supporting them. I am sorry you have lost friends and loved ones as a result of your beliefs. But you must realize that you are on no firmer footing than your born again Christian and Catholic family members and ex-friends. You make faith based claims that are inherently divisive just as they do. Now you may think that your ideas of a "perfect love" god and "eternal souls" are not inherently divisive but they are. I'll go into why I think this is the case some other time.

146. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63913 by roach on August 16, 2007 at 5:31 pm

Well, spiritual1, if such a god wants to take away my ability to make choices about what to do with my life/soul, he's nothing but a total jackass and I'd consider it my moral duty to fight against this god. Luckily, I won't have to struggle since this god most likely doesn't exist.

It's interesting you brought up Francis Crick's book "The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul". I hadn't heard of the book so I decided to check out the summaries and reviews on Amazon. At first I was a little concerned that I would be looking at a book similar to Francis Collins' "The Language of God". Not that Collins presents any evidence for god in his book but it hurts my head to think that such an incredibly intelligent man can write something so amazingly stupid. Happily, this was not the case at all.

The book is described as "Geared to serious lay readers and scientists, this speculative study argues that our minds can be explained, without recourse to religious concepts of a soul, in terms of the interactions of a vast assembly of nerve cells and associated molecules. Crick delves into the nature of consciousness by focusing on visual awareness, an active, constructive process in which the brain selectively combines discrete elements into meaningful images." Sounds interesting, no? Perhaps you should give it a read.

147. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #63908 by roach on August 16, 2007 at 5:12 pm

spiritual1,

Since there is no good reason to think that souls exist, I have no problem rejecting the idea. Although I sometimes do wish that I had a soul that would live on after I die I do not believe it to be so.

Other times when I let my imagination run wild, I think the cons of living as a disembodied spirit would outweigh the pros. I'd rather remain human.

Oh and BELIEF in, not knowledge of, god (in one form of another) is a human cultural universal. It's a big difference.

148. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63818 by roach on August 16, 2007 at 2:03 am

NakedCelt,

I disagree with your assessment of the comments made by members of this site. While it is true that some members (including myself) use ridicule and other less than respectful tactics, these attacks are only used when a particular poster has proven himself to be beyond rational argument and mutually respectful discourse. Whenever a believer starts posting, asks questions, and defends religion/theism, the first posts made by members on this forum are usually very mild mannered and respectful. Of course when someone refuses to respond to the calm and well-thought out posts and also employs thinly veiled insults as a debate tactic, people start to get annoyed and upset. I don't blame them.

I imagine you are also criticizing the comments made toward articles and not just the debates that spring up between individual posters. While it is true that some comments are quite harsh, my personal experience on other internet forums (general, political, musical, etc) forces me to conclude that the disparaging comments made on this site aren't even close to being as vicious as the comments I've seen (and made) on every other open forum website in which I have participated.

You bring up this idea that "The underlying message is "If you're too stupid see that we're right and you're wrong, you deserve only contempt." I actually think it's much different than that. It is because we think these people are too SMART not to see that there is no good reason to believe that any god cares about us or even exists, that they are worthy of a little tough love. Because once we establish that there is no good reason supporting theism, the ancient superstition called religion crumbles along with all it's apologetics. Unless of course you're a utilitarian but that position runs into problems as well.

I also doubt anyone on this site thinks that Hamas is bullying people into submission. We already know that religion (in this case Islam) does that exceptionally well.

149. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63746 by roach on August 15, 2007 at 4:07 pm

After reading this article, I really have to take a dump.

150. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #63719 by roach on August 15, 2007 at 2:16 pm

Did anyone else like it when Dawkins got kinda pissed and flustered in "The Root of All Evil?" I thought it was great. It's not like he doesn't respond intelligently to the people he interviews it's only when they say nasty and boorishly arrogant statements that RD gets a little angry. As he should!