251. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63632 by Jack Rawlinson on August 15, 2007 at 6:19 am

I have a lot of time for Mark Steel, so it's a shame to see him indulging in lazy straw men at the end of this piece. I don't know any modern atheist who sneers at Afghan peasants or pre-enlightenment people for ignorance which is not their fault. For Steel to suggest such an attitude is common amongst atheists is simply dishonesty in pursuit of a cheap laugh. He's usually better than that.

252. Church and State: Divided we stand

Comment #63526 by Jack Rawlinson on August 14, 2007 at 5:17 pm

So Dershowitz the noted Zionist nutcase defends separation of church and state because... it's good for the church.

Pretty typical. I can't stand this guy and this crappy little piece reminds me why.

253. Charles Brooker's screen burn

Comment #62977 by Jack Rawlinson on August 12, 2007 at 6:00 pm

I've loved Brooker ever since the glorious and much-missed "TV Go Home". This is classic. Absolutely hilarious.

254. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61871 by Jack Rawlinson on August 7, 2007 at 8:13 am

We need to respond to each of these articles whenever and wherever they emerge -- with reasoned arguments and not flippant scorn (however enjoyable that might be).

You're right of course, discipline. In fact I've been doing that for most of my life... I just get tired sometimes. These people are very tiring :-)

255. Arrogance, dogma and why science - not faith - is the new enemy of reason

Comment #61852 by Jack Rawlinson on August 7, 2007 at 6:12 am

Melanie Phillips is a well-known nutjob and her barking-mad rants have found their natural home at the Daily Mail. Pieces like this are so packed with swivel-eyed irrationality they aren't even worth dismantling. It'd be like beating up a three-week old corpse.

256. The Out Campaign

Comment #59794 by Jack Rawlinson on July 30, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Good to see Richard weigh in on this, and to see him do so with his customary clarity.

By nature I am not a "joiner". I am not a very clubbable chap. But I feel so strongly that atheists need to become more visible, more open, more exposed. Remember that chilling recent statistic which showed that atheists are amongst the most mistrusted people in America? That, right there, is why this is a worthwhile campaign. It's not about getting in people's faces in order to be provocative or aggressive; it's about being open, about showing all those people who so mistrust atheists that we're actually decent, moral, non-scary people. And it's about making it okay to be openly atheist in those many areas of the world where it is anything but that right now.

I've always been an extremely vocal and unapologetic atheist, but I've also always recognised that to be so isn't easy for everyone. The anti-atheist prejudice is real, and in some areas quite vicious. So I'll wear the shirt as an expression of solidarity with those people more than as a personal expression of belief (or lack of) And also because I agree with Richard when he says, "We need to stand up and be counted, so that the demographically savvy culture will come to reflect our tastes and our views. That in turn makes it easier for the next generation of atheists."

Those of us who grew up in the relatively enlightened post-war era, in which religion was very much in retreat in the west, have been complacent. That has allowed the madness to take root and thrive again. No more complacency. This is worth shouting about.

257. Come Out!

Comment #59575 by Jack Rawlinson on July 29, 2007 at 6:19 pm

have just re-read P Z Myers comments at the top of this thread, and I am struck by arrogance and condescension that are bordering on the papal

Aww, poor bunny. PZ's comments were totally justified. Sometimes arrogance and condescension is the most appropriate response. It certainly is when faced with religious idiocy, and it certainly is when faced with the sort of fatuous and inane whinings we've seen here from the likes of the startlingly inappropriately-handled Henri Bergson. If you want to demand respect and civility even when you make asinine comments I suggest you attend an Anglican tea afternoon.

258. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59348 by Jack Rawlinson on July 28, 2007 at 8:53 pm

Bergson, you make no sense. And by the way, isn't it very "weak" of you to use a famous philosopher's name for your handle. Hmmm?

- Theists say atheism is a religion. By making a symbol for atheism you're playing into their hands.

I see no argument here that leads to that conclusion. You've simply made a declaration without showing how it logically follows.

- The symbol is a Zapfino font (dull, used before).

Dull? Merely a matter of opinion. The direct simplicity of it is appealing, to some tastes. Used before? Oh, shall we invent an entirely new font for our little letter? To show how exciting we are? Be reasonable.

- Wearing something that tells people what you do not believe in is defensive - showing a lack of confidence.

Same comment as for the first point. You have made a declaration without backing it up. Not impressive. If I wear an anti-nazi T-shirt does that make me unconfident?

- It's simply unstylish, sad.

Mere opinion. Mere difference of taste.

- By making atheism a more coherent group, you may actually proliferate religion: instead of questioning their own beliefs, theists may question atheists' 'beliefs' (now that it is a symbolised system).

What's wrong with theists questioning our beliefs? I welcome that. I welcome such opportunities for debate. Let them question; I will answer. If it starts a dialogue or an argument, great. That's part of the point.

- Moreover, by creating an atheist 'sect', you may make people turn to religion as they simply see it as a matter of sides rather than a matter of reason.

Oh, rot. No one is creating a sect here, and you're being hysterical to suggest such an asinine thing. It's a bloody T-shirt logo, for Christ's sake. Get a sense of proportion.

259. Come Out!

Comment #59335 by Jack Rawlinson on July 28, 2007 at 8:21 pm

By the way, I particularly agree with you about those who are worried that the symbol is too prominent. Lordy, isn't that the point? You don't "come out" by trying to be unobtrusive and hoping no one notices!

I still have a fondness for my old Negativland T-shirt, which says in great big letters: "Christianity is Stupid. Give Up". That goes down well in the south. :-)

260. Come Out!

Comment #59333 by Jack Rawlinson on July 28, 2007 at 8:17 pm

A-men, PZ. I'm a Brit who has been living in the States for over five years now. Back in my relatively godless homeland I wouldn't see much point in this, but over here I definitely do. I'll be ordering one.

261. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59332 by Jack Rawlinson on July 28, 2007 at 8:09 pm

PZ is right. Those who are fretting about wearing a logo T-shirt as being a "sign of weakness" or somehow the same thing as wearing a religious symbol are just being silly, frankly. Good grief, have none of you ever worn band T-shirts or T-shirts with amusing quotes or pictures on them? Expressing an opinion on a T is an ancient and extremely common thing to do, just like wearing a badge or an item of clothing expressing support for a sports team or a political party. It's not the same as "I have to wear this veil because my religion declares that it is immodest not to"!

I have a variety of aggressively anti-religious T-shirts and I see them as being:

a) Funny
b) A good way of letting people know where I stand on an issue I feel is important.
c) A great way of shutting many religious people up before they even start with their nonsense.

These shirts are pretty cool. Lighten up.

262. Richler defends atheism

Comment #58809 by Jack Rawlinson on July 26, 2007 at 7:36 am

I know Richard is in favour of the "Brights" thing: I am not - even though I do think that atheists who have considered their position are generally smarter than religious believers. It just seems a tactical error, to me. Still, it's one of those areas of minor disagreement that we atheists can have fun debating. We're not going to declare each other heretics for disagreeing, are we? :-)

263. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58802 by Jack Rawlinson on July 26, 2007 at 7:26 am

Same old same old. More disingenuous blethering about some unspecified (always unspecified) "serious" theological basis for religious belief, coupled with the totally unsupported slur that the atheist is behaving no better than the fundamentalist believer.

Once again, it's blackly hilarious that these dimwits still seem puzzled by the fact that many of us hold so little respect for them.

264. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52324 by Jack Rawlinson on June 26, 2007 at 6:16 pm

PaulEmecz: I think if you want to troll this site you'll need to do rather better than that embarrassing attempt. I'd suggest that if you want to give it another shot you:

a) Don't make a fool of yourself by making your point hang on the silly suggestion that scientists and philosophers are two non-intersecting sets.

b) Don't delude yourself that merely declaring that your arguments undermine certain conclusions counts for a damned thing other than making you appear to be a blowhard who doesn't back up his claims.

265. In Defense of Witchcraft

Comment #52299 by Jack Rawlinson on June 26, 2007 at 4:42 pm

Well, I think this is excellent: a more extended riff on the "You don't believe in Zeus or Odin; I go one god further" routine, and a very mischievous one for using real reviews of the atheist books to make the point.

I may send a link to this to that ridiculous religious apologist Madeleine Bunting at The Guardian.

266. An Inquisition in science's name

Comment #51076 by Jack Rawlinson on June 21, 2007 at 11:14 am

Dear Mr Manning,

I am writing to you as one who was once as convinced as you are that I understood the nature of reality and how it was best interpreted. Like you, I also regarded those who embraced alternative conceptions of reality as dangerously deluded, and did everything in my power to prevent their further propagation. I wish therefore to suggest that you are more-or-less like me, that your beliefs are more-or-less like mine, and that the actions likely to result from your beliefs are more-or-less the same as those which resulted from mine.

Yours sincerely

A. Hitler

PS: boy, are you dumb.

267. We stand awed at the heights our people have achieved

Comment #49732 by Jack Rawlinson on June 13, 2007 at 7:19 am

Beautiful article.

pewkatchoo: trolling is not impressive.

268. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48899 by Jack Rawlinson on June 9, 2007 at 12:08 pm

devolved: I suggest you read "The God Delusion". The answers to your questions are in there and I for one am mighty tired of repeating them.

269. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48859 by Jack Rawlinson on June 9, 2007 at 8:09 am

Again, does anyone know an Atheist run organization for the needy?

Is this relevant to whether atheism is right or not? No.

And why would we set up charitable organisations in the name of atheism? I don't see any sense in that at all. But we can be atheists and still be charitable. We can be atheists and do good. We can be atheists and live in a way that makes us feel proud of ourselves.

270. Can we really learn to love people who aren't like us?

Comment #48856 by Jack Rawlinson on June 9, 2007 at 8:03 am

This is a reasonable and thoughtful article. However, Rabbi Sacks has chosen to focus only on one of the numerous reasons people become atheists. Prof. Dawkins has mentioned the most crucial one: we simply do not find any evidence that god exists, and truth matters to us. For me, too, that was the first and most crucial thing that made me an atheist. The negative effects of religious beliefs don't actually say anything about the truth or otherwise of those beliefs. They say something about the consequences of them. It was becoming aware of those things that made me anti-religious, which is not the same thing as being an atheist.

271. Observer Diary 27th May 2007

Comment #45329 by Jack Rawlinson on May 27, 2007 at 7:40 am

Richard, you are so right about the irrationality of current airport security restrictions. As someone who needs to make fairly frequent transatlantic flights I too have experienced the frustrations and the need to bite one's tongue when being subjected to the many and various pointless procedures. The one which always drives me crazy is the restriction on any and every sharp object. I've seen tearful little girls have tiny nail clippers confiscated and yet... we can take glass bottles of our precious duty free spirits on board! They worry about nail clippers and small items of cutlery yet they don't care about the truly deadly possibilities of a broken bottle? Insane.

Well, not insane, of course. Just revealing. It reveals that what this nonsense is really about is appearances. They need to be seen to be doing something; never mind whether that something actually makes sense, or is likely to be effective. And of course, they wouldn't want their vital security measures to impact duty free profits, would they?

Aside from that little rant, I am envious of the Galapagos trip. It sounds absolutely fascinating and it's something I hope to do one day.

272. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42429 by Jack Rawlinson on May 18, 2007 at 7:31 am

Wolpert's one of the good guys, although I also disagree with his laissez-faire attitude to religion. I have a fond memory of him on "Desert Island Discs", when Sue Lawley started discussing his atheism, and I guess she decided he sounded a bit arrogant and condescending. She came right out and asked him something like, "Are you saying that atheists tend to be intellectually superior to religious believers?" He left a brief pause and then just said "Yes". That left her speechless. :-)

273. The Colbert Report: The Intolerant

Comment #42122 by Jack Rawlinson on May 17, 2007 at 4:49 pm

"Intolerazis"

Classic Colbert!

274. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41288 by Jack Rawlinson on May 15, 2007 at 7:32 pm

Well my mother always used to say "If you can't say anything nice..." so:

Dude. Please. Doing something because mummy told you to isn't going to impress the girls. You know?

275. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41262 by Jack Rawlinson on May 15, 2007 at 6:08 pm

Ah hell, Hitchens, you were drunk again! I respect that, but you could have wasted Hannity so much better if you'd laid off the sauce for 24 hours!

I would very much like to go out on the lash with Chris Hitchens.

276. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41261 by Jack Rawlinson on May 15, 2007 at 5:58 pm

While I do agree that rejoicing in someone's death is not acceptable

Why not? Why isn't it acceptable? When someone unquestionably evil dies, why is it wrong to rejoice in the fact? Had you been a Jew in Auschwitz, wouldn't you have rejoiced at the death of Hitler or Mengele?

Seriously, I respectfully ask you to consider that this idea we should always respect the dead is about as rational as the idea that we should always respect religion. If a person was a wicked son of a bitch in life and we pretend we're not happy when they die, I'd suggest there's a word for that: hypocrisy.

277. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41212 by Jack Rawlinson on May 15, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Oh, and on the subject of flagging posts as offensive: how about not? How about instead we do that thing of recognising that free speech involves the freedom to offend? See, I like that thing. I happen to think it's important. I do it all the time. When someone posts something that offends me I either post back criticising them for it or I ignore it. What I don't do is stick my hand up saying, "Ooh sir! Ooh sir! Smith farted! It was Smith, Sir! Punish him, Sir!"

Perhaps I'm an old-fashioned sort of atheist. I don't like censorious behaviour. No matter where it comes from.

278. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41206 by Jack Rawlinson on May 15, 2007 at 4:03 pm

I'm not someone who believes you shouldn't speak ill of the dead just because they're dead. No one has any problem speaking ill of Hitler or Pol Pot, do they?

So, Falwell: you make me sad that you weren't right about the day of judgement. Because had you been so, you'd be toasting nicely right about now; you evil, malevolent louse.

279. Jerry Falwell's God

Comment #41042 by Jack Rawlinson on May 15, 2007 at 11:49 am

And now Jerry Falwell's dead. Good riddance.

280. One side can be wrong

Comment #40863 by Jack Rawlinson on May 15, 2007 at 5:51 am

Indeed, the origin of the first self-reproducing system is recognized by many scientists as an unsolved problem for evolution, and thus evidence for a Creator

Let's rephrase this, shall we?

"Indeed, the existence of something we don't understand yet is recognized by many intelligent people as being an inevitable state of affairs for limited entities such as ourselves, and by many unintelligent people as being evidence for the God of the Gaps."

Tiresome how many faith-heads still cling desperately to this dead-end tack as opposed to being thoroughly embarrassed by themselves for trotting it out in public yet again.

281. Among the Disbelievers

Comment #40504 by Jack Rawlinson on May 14, 2007 at 11:26 am

But while united in their resolve to throw the bum out--God, that is--the antireligious forces appear to have given little thought to what to replace Him with should He go.

I stopped reading this article at that point. Firstly because the capitalisation of "Him" and "He" revealed what kind of person wrote it but mainly because I can't be bothered to waste time on the thoughts of someone who thinks that a bad thing needs a replacement. If something is bad, get rid of it, PERIOD. You do not need to replace it with anything. You don't feel the need to replace a tumour with something else after the surgeon cuts it out, do you?

282. Let us pray for the soul of Richard Dawkins

Comment #40349 by Jack Rawlinson on May 14, 2007 at 6:46 am

Odone is an inveterate catholic idiot. She even used to edit the Catholic Herald. At that time I spent many happy minutes firing off sarcastic letters in response to her pieces, which were far more frequently of this witless nature in those days. Since she's been writing for The Guardian/Observer she's kept her religious cards a bit closer to her chest and generally let Mary Kenny be the paper's resident foaming Catholic nutcase. But it seems RD really does get under their skin to the extent that they cannot help but reveal the true depths of their religious silliness. Which is a good thing. Now more people know Odone for what she is.

283. Unintelligent Design

Comment #39887 by Jack Rawlinson on May 12, 2007 at 7:21 am

Science is not particularly well-suited to deal with problems of human existence that have no enduring logical and or factual solution, such as

- avoiding death. Oh right, genius. Science has had absolutely nothing to do with advances in medical treatment or healthy living.

- preventing deception. Sure. Forensic science is just a misnomer, right? It's all done by Jesus!

- anticipating catastrophes. Yep, right again, you colossus of the IQ. Science can't detect earthquakes or volcanic activity in advance; seismology, vulcanology and meteorology simply don't exist

- overcoming loneliness, finding love. Yeah. Because psychology has nothing to say about those things.

- ensuring justice. DNA testing and all the other manifestations of the aforementioned forensic science is just so much useless mumbo-jumbo, right?

You know these idiots are really in trouble when they just resort to outright lying in order to try to defend their delusions.

284. Abstain With Me

Comment #39880 by Jack Rawlinson on May 12, 2007 at 7:13 am

Okay, this guy is good. Sort of like a modern Tom Lehrer. Check out the other songs on his page. "Chickenhawk" and "Dick Cheney" are particularly funny.

http://www.royzimmerman.com/index.php

285. Those fanatical atheists

Comment #38176 by Jack Rawlinson on May 7, 2007 at 7:12 am

Excellent. And the perfect rebuttal to this nonsense

http://richarddawkins.net/article,993,The-New-Atheists-loathe-religion-far-too-much-to-plausibly-challenge-it,Madeleine-Bunting

286. The torture of the grave Islam and the afterlife

Comment #37971 by Jack Rawlinson on May 6, 2007 at 2:16 pm

It would be funny if it wasn't so utterly pathetic.

287. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37798 by Jack Rawlinson on May 5, 2007 at 6:32 pm

And as an aside, I haven't seen any comment on this thread that would seem deserving of removal. I do think we have to be very careful not to become censorious, especially where dissenting opinion is concerned. Good god people, one thing we should stand up for as rationalists is the right to free speech and dissent. Even - no, especially - speech we don't like.

288. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37796 by Jack Rawlinson on May 5, 2007 at 6:26 pm

"They are killing impurity: they believe they are the hand of god"

http://www.comedycentral.com/motherload/player.jhtml?ml_video=86217&ml_collection=&ml_gateway=&ml_gateway_id=&ml_comedian=&ml_runtime=&ml_context=show&ml_origin_url=%2Fmotherload%2Findex.jhtml%3Fml_video%3D86217&ml_playlist=&lnk=&is_large=true

289. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37688 by Jack Rawlinson on May 5, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Again, for anyone tempted to try to take the religious aspect out of the equation, here's Wikipedia, under the "Religious Practices" section of their entry on Yazidism. The italics are mine:

"Purity and Taboos

The Yazidis' concern with religious purity, and their reluctance to mix elements perceived to be incompatible, is shown not only in their caste system, but also in various taboos affecting everyday life. Some of these, such as those on exogamy or on insulting or offending men of religion, are widely respected. Others, such as the prohibition of eating lettuce or wearing the color blue, are often ignored when men of religion are not present. Others still are less widely known and may be localized. The purity of the four elements, Earth, Air, Fire, and Water, is protected by a number of taboos–against spitting on earth, water, or fire, for instance. Spitting on the ground, or pouring hot water on the ground, is discouraged by some Yezidi, because they believe that spirits or souls that may be present would be harmed or offended by such actions, if they happen to be hit by the discarded liquid. These may also reflect ancient Iranian preoccupations, as apparently do the taboos concerning bodily refuse, hair, and menstrual blood. Too much contact with non-Yazidis is also polluting. In the past Yazidis avoided military service which would have led them to live among Muslims, and were forbidden to share such items as cups or razors with outsiders."

290. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37679 by Jack Rawlinson on May 5, 2007 at 12:57 pm

Bonzai: I didn't say that religion is the sole factor behind this. I said religion shouldn't be taken out of the equation. There's an unhealthy measure of cultural patriarchal misogyny involved too, but again, in almost every case where "honour" killings take place, the people involved use their religious beliefs as at least partial justification for their despicable actions. Religion is used to justify wickedness time and time again - witness the Catholic church's stance on contraception, gays and on and on. This is just a particularly extreme instance of it.

I'm going to resist the urge to go after your silly straw men about what strong atheists advocate with regard to religion. You'd know very well what we advocate if you spend any time reading the contributions on this site. And if you don't, I suggest you go do so. I don't have the patience to spell it out right now, I'm afraid.

291. The moment a teenage girl was stoned to death for loving the wrong boy

Comment #37640 by Jack Rawlinson on May 5, 2007 at 12:09 pm

I just watched the whole shameful thing on YouTube. Disgusting beyond words. A bunch of sadistic subhumans bludgeoning this poor girl to death while loads of the vile savages stood around recording it on their cellphones.

And make no mistake: those who try to say this is just all-too-human mob savagery are being disingenuous by trying to take religion out of the equation. It was their foul religious beliefs that allowed them to declare this girl was immoral, so that they could then "dignify" their savagery with that excuse.

And still we'll hear the religious and the weak atheists saying "Why do you care? Why can't you live and let live? Why can't you let people alone with their beliefs?"

This is why we care, idiots.

292. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #37370 by Jack Rawlinson on May 4, 2007 at 8:36 am

Bob - thank you for mentioning Ludovic Kennedy's excellent and sadly ignored book. I re-read it recently and I'd forgotten how good it was. I suppose he was a bit ahead of the curve (1999, wan't it?) in the atheist book onslaught, and it's a shame his publisher doesn't seem to have caught on and started publicising it heavily.

293. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37201 by Jack Rawlinson on May 3, 2007 at 4:28 pm

Anyone who makes the idiotic claim that they can prove the existence of god isn't going to be hard to wipe the debating hall floor with. What a pair of imbeciles these particular god-botherers must be.

294. An atheist's call to arms

Comment #36741 by Jack Rawlinson on May 2, 2007 at 6:07 am

Yes, professor Dawkins, it's a sad and hugely irritating fact of life today that you cannot breathe a word of criticism of something even tangentially connected with Judaism, Jewishness or Israel without a knee-jerk response of "anti-semitism!" from certain people who are more interested in a political angle than in fairness or truth.

I have been a critic of some of Israel's recent activities on a number of political message boards and I have to deal with this sort of response all the time. It's frustrating.

295. Are You There, God? It's Me, Hitchens

Comment #36277 by Jack Rawlinson on April 30, 2007 at 6:47 pm

I don't think Richard Dawkins would mind me saying that he looks at religious people with this sort of incredulity, as if, "How possibly can you be so stupid?"

HA! Well, I don't know about RD but that's exactly how I feel about religious people.

296. Scene Caused by Christian Group at NYC Stage Show

Comment #35926 by Jack Rawlinson on April 29, 2007 at 10:46 am

Philos: did you actually watch the video? That was quite plainly a premeditated walkout. The whole group upped and left as one. They had been told in advance that the show contained "strong language and adult situations", yet they made a block booking.

And then there's the little matter of the free speech opponent who tried to destroy the guy's notes. I have no idea why you're trying to defend these people. Interesting.

297. New Planet Could Be Earthlike, Scientists Say

Comment #35226 by Jack Rawlinson on April 26, 2007 at 4:01 pm

I would love to see life discovered on another planet. Not least so that I could enjoy the spectacle of the religious attempting to shift paradigms with all the grace and smoothness of the average clown car.

298. Iran arrests 300 'insufficiently veiled' women

Comment #35225 by Jack Rawlinson on April 26, 2007 at 3:58 pm

And the "soft liberals" in this country wonder why some of us support bans on the veil in state institutions. You have to draw a solid line in the sand against the encroachment of this sort of primitive, sexist, patriarchal vileness. And hell yes, I'll call that particular spade a spade.

299. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #34759 by Jack Rawlinson on April 25, 2007 at 6:04 am

Blah blah blah, whine whine, "insulting", blah blah, "arrogant", whine whine.

Yes, isn't it embarrassing having the innate stupidity of your stupid beliefs held up in the spotlight? TOUGH. Get used to it.

300. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34465 by Jack Rawlinson on April 24, 2007 at 6:43 am

I like Hitchens even though I disagree with some of his political views, and even though he can be a cantankerous old cuss. Actually, that's probably part of the reason I like him, come to think of it. I certainly like his bulldog obstreperousness and his unflinching honesty about his opinions. I admire anyone who isn't intimidated by opponents and is not afraid to tell them exactly what he thinks of them. He was SO right about Mother Teresa, and he said what needed saying about her at a time when to offer even mild doubts about her sanctified bullshit was akin to pissing on the flag. That took guts, and earned him a few death threats.

This book sounds like it's going to be pretty exhilarating to read and I shall be buying my copy next time I pass a bookshop. I also agree that as a matter of principle we should support works by our fellow atheists. To do so is a way of keeping atheism in the spotlight and raising awareness of just how many of us exist. Also, getting a book into the best seller list means that people who would not normally seek it out become aware of it and are more likely to take a chance with it. Maybe they see it in the best-seller pile at the airport, or when idly looking for something to read... so let's keep getting them into that pile!