251. Evolution IS a Blind Watchmaker

Comment #51626 by Spinoza on June 23, 2007 at 9:17 pm

Steve didn't understand it I think...

Even among us atheists, one needs to learn to separate the contingent from the necessary in an analogy... He wasn't showing how evolution in the natural world works, he was showing how it might work among a very specific population of pre-established entities...

In any case I thought this was quite well done.

252. Bill O'Reilly and Kirk Cameron on Atheism

Comment #51179 by Spinoza on June 21, 2007 at 9:16 pm

I am SO fucking tired of idiots bastardizing Einstein. The man did not believe in your retarded man-God... he believed in Spinoza's "infinite natural Substance" "God"... which is atheism at its best anyway, he just chose to take the word "Deus" and redefine it as the knowable, infinite, natural Universe, devoid of mysticism, miracles, supernatural powers, a creator, an all powerful, all good, all knowing being... none of that.

You're damn right I'm an angry atheist... I'm angry because you're all a bunch of fucking morons!!!! AHHHHHHH!

253. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47552 by Spinoza on June 5, 2007 at 12:10 am

Methinks you are unaware of your own biases.

They're ALL fucked up, but if we think G.I. Joe or toy soldiers, or war re-enactments are okay for OUR children, then I really see nothing wrong with the above display.

I don't like Hamas any more than the next guy.

I certainly think Israel's right to exist has absolutely nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with political philosophy, law, and the facts.

The Palestinians are indeed guilty of wanting to have their cake and eat it too... I have good friends who are Palestinian, one of whom is anti-nationalist and thinks both sides are wrong, he just wishes the Palestinians could live in peace in Gaza and the West bank (that is, without provoking Israel via Hamas's rockets).

That said, if there is nothing wrong with North American children playing with guns, acting in Civil War plays, etc. etc. and watching G.I. Joe cartoons, playing with the toys, etc. Then there is nothing wrong with this. It's more of the same, and either it's all wrong, or none of it is.

254. Hamas Kindergarten Graduation Ceremony

Comment #47536 by Spinoza on June 4, 2007 at 10:52 pm

Um. How is this worse than G.I. Joe?

Come on... yes, they LOOK scary to you... but there's no evidence of "indoctrination" in this video, any more than there is evidence of propaganda in the old G.I. Joe cartoon.

"And now we know!"

255. Christopher Hitchens at Politics and Prose

Comment #46267 by Spinoza on May 30, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Spinoza and Einstein were NOT "deists" in the sense that the man around 34 minutes says they were.

That's sheer and utter nonsense from an old man who doesn't understand what either of those two great thinkers (both of whom are my greatest "idols" in the most meaningful sense of that word) meant when they used the word "God".

256. Christian sports workers degree ridiculed

Comment #44817 by Spinoza on May 25, 2007 at 10:41 am

University of Glasgow's Dean of Arts is a Pottery professor... so yeah...

257. Another Christian Science Fair embarrasses itself

Comment #44813 by Spinoza on May 25, 2007 at 10:35 am

FUCK!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!

Phaeonix... you've just made me so angry... not you... but... man... WHAT THE FUCK!!!! ARRRRRRGH!!


I'm torn between force-educating these idiots and hording knowledge for only those that deserve it.

Anyone with an IQ under 130 should not be allowed to MENTION the name Einstein, because YOU DON'T FUCKING UNDERSTAND HIM. PERIOD.

AHHHHHHH FUCK!!!!

258. 'Einstein - His Life and Universe'

Comment #44106 by Spinoza on May 23, 2007 at 10:21 am

Einstein did believe in "God"... He was an atheist about the Judeo-Muslim-Christian personal God, of course... but he CLEARLY believed in Spinoza's "God" (he said so, many times).

Like Spinoza, he DID refer to "Natural infinite Substance" as "God"... And like Spinoza, he can clearly be construed as an atheist by believers in the personal God of religion (and should be).

But certainly, it's crystal clear what he believed. His favourite book, by the way, was Spinoza's Ethics (he read it to his sister when she was in the hospital, and told her that it was the greatest book ever written).

It's a great book for anyone to read, albeit one of the most difficult to comprehend (and also happens to be my personal favourite, and one of the major subjects of my specialization in philosophy).

He PROVES the existence of "God" geometrically, from axioms and definitions... and choses to refer to the entity he has established as necessary, as "God".

However, this God is identical with the entirety of the natural universe, ALL its constituents, us humans, our passions, thoughts, and physical bodies... and an infinite number of other modes considered under an infinity of attributes, only two of which are available to us humans.

In any case... Whether this book delves into that or not... it's quite clear what Einstein believed, and it was certainly a brilliant view of the cosmos.

259. Hitchens vs. Hannity on Religion and God

Comment #41718 by Spinoza on May 16, 2007 at 5:03 pm

I LOVE Hitchens... love his style... but man.. is he DRUNK as FUCK here?... what the hell!! lol.

With respect to what the last person said... you're absolutely fucking WRONG.

The LAST thing anyone should do is purposefully ignore or downplay their weaknesses... the only intellectually honest position is one which is completely and utterly critical of itself. To fail to do that is to be just like "them"...

260. God . . . in other words

Comment #39073 by Spinoza on May 9, 2007 at 11:58 pm

And he believes in the possibility of a transcendent "intelligence" existing beyond the range of present human experience. It is just that he refuses to call it God.

261. Richard Dawkins on Canada AM

Comment #38374 by Spinoza on May 7, 2007 at 11:02 pm

She's funny... she seems genuinely surprised at the things he's said, and either finds them intriguing or she's patronizing him... I can't tell...

It's odd.

By the way Bonzai, our current PM scares me more than Stockwell Day (who is still around in our parliament and is a cabinet minister under Harper).

I say "scares me" because his eyes creep the fuck out of me...

He seems to have done a good job of separating himself, politically, from his religious beliefs though (unlike before he got elected).

262. God Exists. A Formula Proves it.

Comment #37819 by Spinoza on May 5, 2007 at 9:27 pm

Tipler is an idiot.

His "proof" doesn't prove any particular religion's God exists... it proves that SOMETHING exists... the same way Spinoza's proofs in The Ethics do... but that thing, Spinoza said, was Deus sive Natura... and every Christian who read Spinoza cried "ATHEIST! NIHILIST! FATALIST!"

And wanted nothing whatsoever to do with him.

Tipler is trying to take something like Spinoza's "God" and apply Christian rhetoric over top of it and pretend that the proof applies to the latter.

How fucking dumb is that?!

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

Comment #37090 by Spinoza on May 3, 2007 at 11:11 am

Unfortunately I think this is going to make atheists look stupid...

It's a shame that atheist philosophers know better than to debate theists... because they'd at least have a better chance of getting the point across... the Rational Response Squad sounds like a bunch of teenagers who are just angry with "God"...

264. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35801 by Spinoza on April 28, 2007 at 10:53 pm

Morality has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution.

The only reason idiots bring it up is because they think you have to believe in God to believe in "morality" (because they mean God's commands).

It's too bad these guys are morons, otherwise I would point out that Plato made divine command look utterly foolish 2500 years ago (in the Euthyphro Problem), well before any twinkle of Jesus was in God's eye... lmfao. (whatever the hell that means)

265. Bill Maher - APATHEIST

Comment #35260 by Spinoza on April 26, 2007 at 6:20 pm

I like Maher's affect. I don't know him as a person so I can't judge his personality beyond what I've seen...

Who the hell knows what these people are like off camera?

He didn't say he was an atheist... he's CLEARLY an agnostic... he just said he doesn't CARE... lol

266. Is this another Sokal Hoax?

Comment #35015 by Spinoza on April 26, 2007 at 1:09 am

The stuff about Leibniz's Monadology is all wrong.

Yikes... I am not surprised, but rather, disheartened... that this sort of thing is being promulgated by my very university.

... Actually... you know what... never mind... I figured it out:

Quantum Feminist Mnemotechnics:

The Archival Text, Digital Narrative and the Limits of Memory

Evolving out of the evocative echoes between three countercultural discourses, hypertext, cyberfeminist theory and the Canadian feminist school of writing known as fiction-theory, my dissertation undertakes a study of the function of memory in digital narrative. Both fiction-theory and hypertext fiction arose at a particular moment in time, the 1980s, out of like-minded concerns with language and narrative. Fiction-theorists (especially Nicole Brossard, Daphne Marlatt and Gail Scott--now seen as early practitioners of a form known as 'hypertext-in-print') used the conjunction of fiction and theory to make a self-reflexive space for feminist politics in their writings. Fiction-theory, like cyberfeminist theory, "work[s] the interface" between the creative process and reading, between language and content, between bodies and materialist concerns, and between typographic conventions and discourses within texts (Moyes 309). The method deflects the hegemony of patriarchal thinking by breaking it up into pieces where the syntax and context can be analyzed.

267. Fighting Words: A wartime lexicon

Comment #34976 by Spinoza on April 25, 2007 at 7:53 pm

He's bang on about this:

While some religious apology is magnificent in its limited way—one might cite Pascal—and some of it is dreary and absurd—here one cannot avoid naming C. S. Lewis—both styles have something in common, namely the appalling load of strain that they have to bear. How much effort it takes to affirm the incredible!

268. Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Comment #34894 by Spinoza on April 25, 2007 at 2:13 pm

This type of comparison is silly for various reasons.

Not the least of which is that SUGAR and TELEVISION have more to do with kids attention and behaviour than anything else does.

If it contingently happens that more religious families' children are more attentive, then fine, you have a correlation... but you CERTAINLY don't have causality...

And it's pretty obvious that this is a ridiculous study.

269. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34390 by Spinoza on April 24, 2007 at 12:17 am

[quote]You can all dodge the question till the cows come home but without scientific evidence of a mechanism for adding new genetic information the evolutionary hypothesis is just that.[/quote]

What the hell do you think heterosexual procreation does?

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

Comment #34366 by Spinoza on April 23, 2007 at 10:14 pm

I'm so confused...

What does atheism have to do with mass murder?

The ONLY reason religion has anything to do with evil is the goddamned dogma and hierarchy cause it directly.

The reason Stalin was bad wasn't the "dogma" of atheism... and lack of moral BEHAVIOUR is a contingent property... it can be a property of atheists or theists...

Why doesn't someone mention that?

271. One Hell of a Religious Read

Comment #34356 by Spinoza on April 23, 2007 at 9:33 pm

It's so funny... I got so much shit back in Catholic High school (I was never a Catholic, just FYI.. i went there to fuck with them), for saying I thought Ghandi and Theresa were both immoral.

I also got shit on for saying we have no conscience and charity is immoral.

Hitchens is clearly me mate. (if I can speak like a Brit for a minute).

This is one book I actually will purchase. I didn't buy The God Delusion because I wouldn't have read it... it's not written for me... I read the first chapter and just went "Duhhh...", being the atheist philosopher I am, it wasn't all that interesting (I'm so jaded...)

Dennett's book was awesome though.

And this one looks like it's going to be very good.

272. Pope abolishes limbo

Comment #34126 by Spinoza on April 23, 2007 at 10:04 am

We can only hope that this is the beginning of a perfect slippery slope, where this and subsequent popes reconsider each and every article of dogma and faith, and reject the "hypothesis" of each one, rank and file... until we're left with nothing.

Heh heh heh.

273. Street Evangelist Saves 300 Souls From Enjoying Park

Comment #33937 by Spinoza on April 22, 2007 at 6:26 pm

I didn't notice that this was an Onion article...

I rescind my prior outrage, and substitute laughter.

274. In the beginning

Comment #33925 by Spinoza on April 22, 2007 at 5:41 pm

The world is more and more idiotic every fucking day.

I wouldn't care so much if it weren't so damned painful to see intelligence squandered and all the advances of the Enlightenment crashing down around us all...

275. Atheists split on how to not believe

Comment #33922 by Spinoza on April 22, 2007 at 5:28 pm

This is why humanists bug the shit out of me and I've always felt it would be weird as hell to belong to an "atheist organization".

276. Street Evangelist Saves 300 Souls From Enjoying Park

Comment #33772 by Spinoza on April 21, 2007 at 5:27 pm

Ya know... if a guy like that ever got in my face... and ruined my day out with my family at a park.

I'd grab his fuckin' microphone and scream at him instead, like the following:

"No. YOU'RE GOING TO HELL. YOU'RE NOT SAVED. I'M RIGHT. I'VE READ THE BIBLE MORE TIMES THAN YOU. I'VE TAKEN MORE RELIGION CLASSES THAN YOU. I'VE STUDIED AND UNDERSTOOD MORE PHILOSOPHERS AND THEOLOGIANS THAN YOU CAN COUNT. FUCK YOU. GO HOME AND SHUT THE FUCK UP AND LEAVE PEOPLE ALONE YOU MISERABLE PIECE OF SHIT!"

And then I'd break his microphone.

277. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33668 by Spinoza on April 21, 2007 at 2:39 am

I really hope Brian is joking.... really really hope...

278. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33643 by Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 9:24 pm

Ah... interesting... I find most people misunderstand both Blackburn and Mackie... so we are in good company with each other I suppose.

I remember arguing in a seminar in undergraduate with someone who just kept railing against Mackie's position from a theistic perspective... I just said to the guy "But Mackie can't be THAT stupid, you're just straw-manning his position if you construe him that way!"...

But I latched onto Blackburn from the first minute I read him because the guy just brilliantly captures the metaethic of moral discourse, imho.

It's so funny though because the first time I ever read Richard Boyd I went "Oh fuck! What do I do now?" Because he takes the EXACT line of reasoning I wanted to go on in MY philosophical career, namely that we ought to make ethics a science... BUT HE'S A REALIST ABOUT VALUE!!!

He thinks moral judgments point to homeostatic property clusters...

And I agree with him...

But I get off the wagon as soon as he says "And those homeostatic property clusters ARE where the moral values lie"...

Because I just think he's wrong... and so does Blackburn... the value IS THE ATTITUDE... but the types of things we call morally good certainly do line up in homeostatic property clusters... and as such we CAN use observation to improve our moral discourse, and moral METHODOLOGY (this is the Boydian line)...

I am not sure that Mackie would allow this though... and in that sense, perhaps, his is a deficient position... but I shall have to go and re-read the second half of his book...

I also have to finish a paper I'm currently working on on a totally unrelated topic (Leibniz on Free will, LOL)...

But I will certainly check out your blog, and drop you a line via email. :)

279. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33638 by Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 8:28 pm

Russell, we're hijacking this article... but this is one of my "specializations" so to speak...

Mackie doesn't provide an account of ethics... that's why he's an error theorist. He thinks our ordinary moral discourse DOES talk about moral value as if it is objective, and thus, every time we use it, we ARE IN ERROR. He does think it is a useful fiction (famously) though.

Now, while I agree with Mackie's argument from queerness, wholeheartedly... I think he is not the end of the story... I REALLY suggest you read more of Blackburn's stuff... really really really. Especially the article "How to Be an Ethical Anti-Realist".

Interestingly I think Richard Boyd's "How to Be a Moral Realist" is COMPATIBLE with Blackburn's quasi-realism...

That is, I think moral judgments are attitudes, but that we OUGHT to have certain attitudes towards certain events and acts, just in virtue of being moral beings. AND that it's possible to have a logic of values.

Really, check him out... can't stress that enough.

I have not read Richard Garner's book, but I own, and have read many times, Michael Smith's "The Moral Problem" (the book I believe you must be references when you name-dropped Smith, LOL).

I agree with you about M. Smith... I think he is uncharitable to the anti-realist position. But I also think you are leaving yourself in a rough spot if you stick with only Mackie.

I think the RESPONSES to Mackie are where most of the good stuff lies. If you want more suggestions, or to discuss the intricacies of Quasi-Realism. I would be happy to discuss them either on the board, or through IM.

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

Comment #33630 by Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 7:18 pm

You guys have NOTHING to worry about.

Bill is clearly outgunned, he's going to allow a brilliant scientist on his show... there's no way he will be able to talk or argue his way out of this one... The only thing I can see Bill doing is taking what Richard says and deflecting it a little bit... like if Richard says "We don't take our morals from the Bible, or to the extent that we do, we cherry pick.", Bill might say "But you agree, some of us do take our morals from the Bible, and in that sense, for those people isn't that good enough?" and then Richard will say "No, it isn't... because is that really truly a good person?" and Bill will then say "Yes! I think so."

And so it will go on... lol.

281. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33621 by Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Russell, if you like Mackie, check out Blackburn's version of expressivism (Quasi-realist projectivism)... that is, if you haven't already... I think he provides a better ethical stance than Mackie's "meh", though Mackie is of course right to think objective moral values would be "queer".

282. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33603 by Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 5:23 pm

Very amusing guys... Ahahaha.

283. Gay hate church to picket VT gun rampage funerals

Comment #33592 by Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 4:44 pm

Someone get Children's Aid to remove the children from that cult, they're border-lining on having permanent harm done to them.

The younger children might still be salvageable.

This is CLEAR child abuse... they are willfully bringing their children into their twisted protests and harm is being done to them (see: getting hit by stuff thrown at them, and getting hit by cars, I think)

It's not JUST that they're evil.. Fred Phelps IS evil.. and the parents are ignorant AND evil. The children are just ignorant.

Just sad...

284. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33568 by Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 3:38 pm

I'm a little confused about purchasing (a) book(s) that just confirms or reiterates something I already know.

I love these guys for speaking out, but I somehow get the sense that the books are written for someone else... lol.. Like the people who aren't going to read them (or are going to pretend to and then denounce them for no good reason).

Ah well, keep on keeping on. Allied Atheist Alliance or United Atheist League? LOL

285. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32375 by Spinoza on April 17, 2007 at 1:03 am

I have no problem with infant circumcision... not because it's medically beneficial (that is either not true, or not certain)... but because many women like it (and many other women are turned off by uncircumcised men)! :P, and the pain is probably (given various factors I don't need to delve into) not all that bad for an infant... and you don't remember it anyway.

To force a 12 year old child to maim himself is ridiculous... definitely child abuse. It should not be about "doctors opposing circumcision", but "doctors opposing religiously motivated child abuse".

... I just don't know about infant circumcision though... It's not clear that it's unethical...

286. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32371 by Spinoza on April 17, 2007 at 12:49 am

Corylus, about Dennett, the reason they probably avoid him is likely that Dennett went to such great pains to write a book that wasn't antagonistic, and treated the subject fairly and objectively, that most theists probably either didn't realize what sort of book it is (Breaking The Spell I mean), or don't know about it.

It is a great book though... philosophically not amazing... even atheist philosophers can find several bones to pick over the methodology... but I don't expect my pop-philosophy to be anything more than what it is. Dennett has contributed so much to academia that he's allowed to write these pop-philosophy books...

287. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32356 by Spinoza on April 17, 2007 at 12:00 am

To be fair, that's probably the least stupid thing he said... The great Leibniz thought the argument from design was pretty good... obviously for much more complicated reasons... and he was a genius AND an uber-Christian... of course... the argument from design isn't very good. Leibniz probably wouldn't have believed it today... he was bordering on Spinozism at the time anyway...

288. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32353 by Spinoza on April 16, 2007 at 11:35 pm

The COMMENTS on the actual USAToday website are insane... I reported the top one as hate speech! AHAHAHA

289. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32350 by Spinoza on April 16, 2007 at 11:29 pm

Also... it's a RED HERRING to start comparing who's done what in the history of the world... good theists vs. good atheists... I mean a real viciously fallacious argument.

If you're only nice because your religion tells you God's gonna be pissed if you're not... then YOU'RE NOT nice, you're just pretending to eat your veggies so God will let you eat dessert, of course, you've actually fed the broccoli to the dog when God wasn't looking (little did you know, the dog is God).

290. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32347 by Spinoza on April 16, 2007 at 11:24 pm

Lol... sorry... just makes me very annoyed when people talk such obvious bullshit and get away with it.

291. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32346 by Spinoza on April 16, 2007 at 11:24 pm

"What would a world without God look like? Well, for one, morality becomes, if not impossible, exceedingly difficult. "Thou shalt not kill" loses much of its force when reduced from commandment to a suggestion. How inspiring can it be to wake in the morning, look in the mirror, and see an accident of evolutionary history — the end product of the random collision of molecules?"

IDIOT! LEARN SOME FUCKING MORAL PHILOSOPHY OR SHUT THE FUCK UP!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

292. New Primate Species Found In 42 Million-year-old Texas Fossils

Comment #32237 by Spinoza on April 16, 2007 at 10:03 am

If there were a God, he'd be going "Ahahaha, I'm STILL fucking with you! Hahahahahaha!"

Which just makes me smile.

293. Kadra attacked in public

Comment #32097 by Spinoza on April 15, 2007 at 4:13 pm

What about clit rings? Heeheehee...

294. Against God

Comment #32094 by Spinoza on April 15, 2007 at 3:16 pm

" 17. Comment #32072 by cangrande on April 15, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Popular atheism is not new — Bertrand Russell's classic Why I Am An Atheist was written half a century ago

Bertrand Russell's classic is not called "Why I am an atheist" but "Why I am not a Christian," and it was written in 1927 which would make 'three-quarters of a century ago' a better choice of words."

GOOD CATCH cangrande, I was just about to post that myself, but scroled down to check whether some other yeoman had caught it himself...

Man... I wish people cared about GETTING THINGS RIGHT. (this is distinguished from caring about what is true, which usually means caring about what one either believes, or wants to be true, the use of a second verb in the sentence makes it much stronger...)

295. Coming out as atheist: Noel Gallagher & Gabriel Byrne

Comment #31801 by Spinoza on April 14, 2007 at 10:57 am

1. Colbert is not an atheist.
2. Why the hell do people want "publicity" for atheism? That seems very silly to me... indeed, foolish. I don't want people "converting" to atheism for the wrong reasons, and I don't want people professing to be atheists for no good reason.

I happen to like the Gallagher brothers (I think they're just hilarious, and consistent in their attitudes), but I could give a fuck if famous people are atheists... famous people aren't necessarily SMART people.

3. David, that's stupid (though admirably attempted). There is a term out there in the world, used by a great many people. The term is "God". Whether it has a referent or not, it doesn't matter, those who don't believe it has a referent are in a literal sense, taking a stance about the epistemological and ontological status of that referent, and that's what is meant by "atheism". It's like saying I can't say I'm a non-believer in Santa Claus or Unicorns because there's no referent for the negation of the proposition. That's just a misunderstanding of what is being negated. What atheists are negating is the BELIEF in a non-existent entity. "atheism" can just as easily mean "without belief in the non-existent entity denoted by the term 'God'".

This pop-philosophy BS of "atheism is the wrong word to describe us" is just untenable, in my opinion (as a philosopher).

296. Medical 'Miracles' Not Supported by Evidence

Comment #31678 by Spinoza on April 13, 2007 at 8:10 pm

I am so tired of CRAZY fucking retards usurping Quantum Physics to suit their cracked out bullshit.

I don't know how many times I've repeated the Feynman mantra "If you think you understand QM, you don't understand QM."

The Internet is breeding these insane people like crazy though... they get these chain-letter emails, and they read the wikipedia versions of complex theories and think they understand it... so they try to apply it to some bullshit they already believe, and they figure because no one they speak to understands the concepts or words they're USING (but not understanding themselves) that that serves as adequate justification for their claims...

Man... I'm just so tired of it... I can't keep reading these things... It's too painful.

297. Einstein & Faith

Comment #31574 by Spinoza on April 13, 2007 at 10:37 am

""The fanatical atheists," he wrote in a letter, "are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who--in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses'-- cannot hear the music of the spheres.""

Einstein had a point.

In the zeal to denigrate, atheists (I am one) often misunderstand the is/ought distinction.

He was, though, for all intents and purposes, according to every major religion, an atheist with regard to their conceptions.

As am I.

The subtlety of the language ought not to be overlooked.

298. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30364 by Spinoza on April 7, 2007 at 9:00 pm

Hehehehe...

299. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30239 by Spinoza on April 7, 2007 at 10:20 am

"At least they will not blow themselves up."

Of that, I am not certain... if the collective intelligence of atheists wanes, then we will end up with something a lot like those 2 episodes of south park (the one where they parody Richard Dawkins).. with atheists fighting each other for stupid reasons...

Like the atheists who think we shouldn't be trying to convert theists (dumb people), and the atheists who think we should be... we might have an atheist schism :|

300. Militant atheists: too clever for their own good

Comment #30091 by Spinoza on April 7, 2007 at 12:25 am

To be perfectly honest,... one of the issues I have had with Dawkins (though I LOVE the guy's work for a great many reasons) and many of his followers is that they want to "win" people over to the right side (the atheist side)...

But I don't want that... I WANT atheism to be an elitist position.. I want it to REMAIN true that most of the most intelligent people on earth are atheists, and most of the least intelligent are theists...

I hate it when there are stupid atheists... And there are (let's not lie to ourselves)... It really makes me angry... because they ARE damaging the integrity the atheist position has always held (that of regarding logic, consistency, and truth higher than blind faith and allegiance to tradition).

I am starting to wonder if the recent movement to gain more people to the atheist "cause"... the fence-sitters, as it were, is going to irreparably damage the virtuousness of the intellectual atheist position...

I don't want people to blindly follow Dawkins, or Dennett, or Harris, to just repeat their arguments over and over and over, and scream and shout at the "stupid theists"... to hate religion, and to glorify themselves as righteous upholders of the absolute truth...

And it's starting to scare me that more and more DUMB atheists are crawling out of the woodwork to follow the POPULAR trend that these pop-philosophy books have started...

WilliamP, I think we are already starting to see those "faith-based atheists" abound... and it is making me sick.