301. Blame Abraham

Comment #25622 by sane1 on March 14, 2007 at 10:44 am

Kristian Z,

Its simple - The "gods" are the same in that they are both imaginary omniscient beings the idea of whom inspires devotion, worship and violence against non-believers.

302. Blame Abraham

Comment #25620 by sane1 on March 14, 2007 at 10:39 am

"Me, I blame Abraham"

A nice bumper sticker.

303. An apology to Peter Kay

Comment #25093 by sane1 on March 10, 2007 at 4:53 am

So, I didn't see the Guardian "spot," living out here as I do in god's Country in Colorado. I do have to say, though that I support the apology. It comes accross as gracious and kind - and that is never bad - it helps win friends and disarm enemies. Good luck Professor with the award business, and keep up the good work.

304. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23584 by sane1 on March 1, 2007 at 3:47 pm

I found it to be an excellent interview. Sometimes more subtle than many others, perhaps becasue RD was given sufficient time to answer. He didn't "dumb this one down."

Devolve: Something like this on mainstream American TV - Forget it! You may have a chance on PBS.

305. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23137 by sane1 on February 26, 2007 at 1:31 pm

I saw Cameron and the reporter on the Today show. They make factual claims, they say. The DNA tests were to confirm that the remains in the tomb of "mary" were not those of a sister to "jesus," which apparently was a possibility. Not sure what else they used the DNA for - probaly to establish the relationships among the buried. And don't worry, Christians will attack the messenger, insist on the truth of utter nonsense, and make up all sorts of arguments to hold on to their myths. Don't expect to be vindicated as an atheist. I hope the show when it airs is well done.

306. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21440 by sane1 on February 9, 2007 at 7:35 am

Mr. Blackford:

I appreciate your concerns and point of view. She expressed her views hostile to atheists, and I brought them to the attention of her employer, and potentially her students. Same as I would have done had she been prejudiced and hostile to pagans, jews, democrats or christians. She is supposedly a "professor" of students. They have a right to know her prejudices too.

She can go on tv all she wants and publicly express her views.

307. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21319 by sane1 on February 8, 2007 at 4:15 pm

Sent this off to John Rose at Hunter
Acting Dean for Diversity & Compliance


Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:07 PM
To: 'john.rose@hunter.cuny.edu'
Subject: Professor Hunter

Mr. Rose:

You should be offended by the appearance and remarks of Karen Hunter on CNN recently. Apparently, she has something to do with your university. She was billed by CNN to as a professor at Hunter College.

In effect, she was openly hostile to atheists who were subjected to hate. She apparently thinks atheists have no civil rights and should just "shut up." What happened to defending the rights of minorities? Not only did she not defend them, she is openly hostile to them!

Does your university system support the notion that people should not be discriminated against based on their race, creed or color? Atheism is a creed and she is quite hostile to it. I would worry about being an atheist in her class.

You should also be embarrassed by her writing and thought process as exhibited in my email exchange with her below. But maybe worse from your perspective, her written words are manifestly absurd and sloppy.

Sincerely concerned,

Ken


*The transcript of our email exchange is reproduced below*

308. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21298 by sane1 on February 8, 2007 at 3:08 pm

Cancelled!?! In favor of Anna Nicole Smith?!?

That may just explain everything!

309. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21285 by sane1 on February 8, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Hunter wrote back: "reconsider what? What should i reconsider?"

I wrote her back twice:

first:
I am asking that you reconsider your hostility and intolerance to atheists demonstrated by your comments on CNN and your emails below.

Thanks, Ken"

and second:

"Professor:

You might also reconsider your argument that because atheism is not as obvious as skin color, and I can not be discriminated against unless I make my atheism know (your words: "because no one would know you are an atheist unless YOU made an issue of it."), it is not a "civil rights issue."

Granted, it is not a skin color/race issue. However, your apparent definition of who deserves "civil rights" is unreasonably narrow. What about Jews? You can't tell they are Jews by their skin color. You can only tell if they speak up, like an atheist. Or if a neighbor "outs" them. Or falsely accuses them. Would persecution of Jews not be a civil rights issue because they lacked black skin? What kind of country do you think we live in?

Your views come across as remarkably intolerant, insensitive and poorly considered.

Thanks, Ken"

310. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21281 by sane1 on February 8, 2007 at 12:23 pm

My recent exchange with Prof. Hunter (I've also gone to the hunter college website to complain about her.)


-----Original Message-----

To: professorhunter@aol.com

Sent: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 12:35 PM

Subject: intolerance against atheism

Professor Hunter:

I just viewed on youtube the CNN segment "beliefs under attack" regarding atheists who complained about being driven from a town in
Mississippi town because of their atheism and objection to prayer in schools.

You displayed a remarkable hostility and intolerance against atheists, and the constitution. I can't help but think that you have not carefully considered the issue.

Maybe you are supposed to be provocative and that is what drove your comments. I do not know. It is no excuse anyway. I do know that no one should be persecuted for their belief in a god, or their lack of a belief in god. Or told to "just shut up." I also know that the
Supreme Court has ruled that prayer in school violates the anti-establishment clause, which I understand is all that the family in the taped segment was complaining about – their constitutional rights being violated.

You may not agree with atheists. But how can you defend intolerance and express intolerance toward them? Atheists are a minority, and as
your segment and your own comments showed, the subject of plenty of hatred! No one should be discriminated against, or told to "just shut up," for their political or religious views, or exercising their rights as citizens.

You ought to reconsider and apologize publicly.

Thanks, Ken

-----Original Message-----
From: professorhunter@aol.com [mailto:professorhunter@aol.com]
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 12:30 PM
Subject: Re: intolerance against atheism

My opening salvo was an attempt at humor...it seems that along with a lack of belief in God, a lot atheists also lack a sense of humor. Okay, perhaps it was a poor attempt on my part, but certainly not meant to offend. The sound-bite style of tv is not conducive to having a real conversation about the issue.

Here is how I feel: I am a follower of Christ and I believe in God. You may not and that's your right. I don't hate you, I wouldn't burn a cross on your lawn, nor would I engage in an argument with you, telling you you're wrong. You're no more wrong to not believe in God as I am to believe. Now I would not impose my views or will on you, please don't impose yours on me.

Atheism is a choice, unlike race and ethnicity. You cannot be stopped from holding a job, living in a neighborhood, going to certain clubs,
etc. because no one would know you are an atheist unless YOU made an issue of it. As far as living in a Judeo-Christian society, which this
is (and it is far more accepting than living in a Muslim society), you say you are subjected to things like the Pledge of Allegiance, our money, Christmas, etc. But none of that infringes on your ability to be an atheist. You can choose not say the "under God" part, you can refuse to pray when everyone else is praying. You can simply not do it.
Regarding your minority status, how many atheist had to drink from an Atheist Only water fountain, or have been hung from a tree for their beliefs? How many have been dragged behind a truck until his limbs fell off or shot at 50 times by police, simply because of his beliefs? How many had to sit at the back of the bus or have been denied access to a school? Please don't mix apples and oranges. Yours is not a civil rights issue.

> Thanks for your email. I do appreciate your perspective.

>

> karen

> PS: I didn't book the show, nor did I direct it. Instead of attempting to beat me up for my views, you should direct your venom toward CNN for
not having an atheist defend yours. I will never be on the side of an atheist and I should be expected to.

__________________________________

Professor Hunter:

Thank you for your reply. Unfortunately, it is largely unresponsive to what I wrote to you. I can only conclude that it is a form response.

For example, you say: >

> PS: I didn't book the show, nor did I direct it. Instead of attempting to beat me up for my views, you should direct your venom toward CNN
for not having an atheist defend yours.

Well, I did not display venom nor complain to you about the lack of a balanced panel.

But more importantly, in case you actually do bother to read this or my prior email, can you really mean:

" I will never be on the side of an atheist and I should [not] be expected to." ("not" added by me on the assumption, based on context, that you meant the opposite of what you wrote)

Really? What if that atheist is subjected to hatred and hostility based on his non-belief in a god as the very people in the Paula Zahn piece claimed? You wouldn't defend their right not to be subjected to that sort of intolerance? What if that atheist is fired from his job? You would not defend his right to not be fired on that basis? What if that atheist stands up for his constitutional rights?

Is it any wonder that atheists are concerned by your hostility?

Again, you may want to reconsider.

Thanks, Ken

311. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21262 by sane1 on February 8, 2007 at 10:05 am

Just sent this off to the "Professor":

"Professor Hunter:

I just viewed on youtube the CNN segment "beliefs under attack" regarding atheists who complained about being driven from a town in Mississippi town because of their atheism and objection to prayer in schools.

You displayed a remarkable hostility and intolerance against atheists, and the constitution. I can't help but think that you have not carefully considered the issue.

Maybe you are supposed to be provocative and that is what drove your comments. I do not know. It is no excuse anyway. I do know that no one should be persecuted for their belief in a god, or their lack of a belief in god. Or told to "just shut up." I also know that the Supreme Court has ruled that prayer in school violates the anti-establishment clause, which I understand is all that the family in the taped segment was complaining about – their constitutional rights being violated.

You may not agree with atheists. But how can you defend intolerance and express intolerance toward them? Atheists are a minority, and as your segment and your own comments showed, the subject of plenty of hatred! No one should be discriminated against, or told to "just shut up," for their political or religious views, or exercising their rights as citizens.

You ought to reconsider and apologize publicly.

Thanks, Ken"

312. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21253 by sane1 on February 8, 2007 at 9:02 am

CNN Website today:
(http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/paula.zahn.now/)

RD is a guest...

"Thursday's show

Discrimination - against atheists? Backlash from one of the most controversial stories we've ever brought "Out in the Open." Tune in Thursday at 8 p.m. ET."

313. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21251 by sane1 on February 8, 2007 at 8:55 am

That was offensive and horrible!

I registered my complaint.

Per the home page: Richard Dawkins will be the guest with Paula Zahn on Thursday, February 8th 2007 at 8pm EST on CNN.

Can't wait.

314. Believing In Things Unseen Is Not Delusion

Comment #20748 by sane1 on February 6, 2007 at 9:03 am

Thanks for the Carlin link. Very entertaining, and skewers much of the nonsense for what it is.

I like his worshipping the sun because there is no "setting people on fire simply because they don't agree with us."

315. 'Friends of God' Documentary

Comment #20250 by sane1 on February 1, 2007 at 9:03 am

This is frickin amazing and nightmarish. No wonder adults can believe their bible nonsense. Its pounded into them as kids. And the hostility to science is terrifying.

316. Richard Dawkins interview about 'Unweaving the Rainbow'

Comment #20246 by sane1 on February 1, 2007 at 8:54 am

I wonder if RD's thoughs on consciousness have evolved. Has he written on the topic?

The interviews by Pinker in the archives on this topic show Dan Dennett has a very different view.

317. Richard Dawkins interview about 'Unweaving the Rainbow'

Comment #20240 by sane1 on February 1, 2007 at 8:38 am

Just reading this book now, so glad to see this interview. I've read many books for the non-scientist explaining the science behind our everyday world, and this one is an inteesting addition to the genre. Not sure its the best one, though. I do appreciate Dawkin's point of view and sensibility to the beauty of science.

Rose is often a decent interviewer, asking interesting unusual questions. More often, he just talks too much.

318. Robert Wright interviews Daniel C. Dennett

Comment #18994 by sane1 on January 24, 2007 at 8:11 am

Always pleasant to hear Dennett speak. The interviewer makes a lot of interesting statements, for Dennett to engage with.

319. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18885 by sane1 on January 23, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Wow! Just read Sam's response at beliefnet.

Excellent - best line It is not my intention to go on at tiresome length, but your last post has opened so many doors to the winds of unreason that I can't resist running from room to room trying to settle things down.:
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_1.html

(The sequence is a bit fouled up on their site.)

320. Interview with Richard Dawkins

Comment #18386 by sane1 on January 20, 2007 at 9:15 am

Sancus: An interesting post, and a reasonable criticism. but you take it all too far.

Some things are sure:
Kids, and to a lesser extent, adults, are gullible.
People are subject to self deception.
people are subject to superstition.
People yearn to explain what they see around them.

To me, this is a perfectly good explanation for religious beleif. Certainly a better one than that gods actually exist.

Cheers.

321. Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion'

Comment #18308 by sane1 on January 19, 2007 at 1:49 pm

Mr. Mark: I have the same experience:

It's also amazing how many of these bloggers pose "gotcha" questions. One almost gets the sense that they've been handed a pamphlet at their local church that tells them what questions to ask and what answers to expect. When the atheistic response doesn't match their playbook, the issue is often dropped and the discussion ends. If the issue is engaged, it is only on a tangential level with the religionist trying to spin the discussion off into an area unrelated to the original train of thought.

I enjoyed your speculation on what it means. It is difficult to work through the defenses to their really re-examining their beliefs. It is difficult for me too to change my belief system, but I assure you experiencing and examining and confirming a religious miracle, would do it for me. An argument that I couldn't answer with a better one, probably would do it as well. Until that happens, I'll continue to use critical thinking skills, and debate the issues with those that disagree and see what happens.

322. Atheist Richard Dawkins on 'The God Delusion'

Comment #18306 by sane1 on January 19, 2007 at 1:40 pm

Really a fabulous interview.

323. Deliver us from the god delusion that imperils our humanity

Comment #18153 by sane1 on January 18, 2007 at 3:45 pm

Pantore: "Religion is a danger to humans that's obvious but it isn't as dangerous as the tornado of greed that's roaming around on this planet triggered by capitalist-extremists."

Religion and greed and lust and envy and communism can all be destructive. Only religion is a fantasy.

Anyhow, please write us an excellent book on the dangers of capitalist greed. I'll read it.

324. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18143 by sane1 on January 18, 2007 at 3:08 pm

If you haven't been there, some of you might be interested in participating in the "God Delusion Forum" at Amazon.com:

Click Here

325. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18142 by sane1 on January 18, 2007 at 3:06 pm

This Harris/Sullivan discussion is designed to be an ongoing email debate.

You can follow the whole thing at: http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904_1.html

Should be excellent.

326. 'God Is Not a Moderate'

Comment #18141 by sane1 on January 18, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Lionel A and Friend Giskard:

pablum PAB-luhm, noun:
Something (as writing or speech) that is trite, insipid, or simplistic.

--dictionary.com

327. Discussion of The God Delusion

Comment #17948 by sane1 on January 17, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Can't get it to play...

328. Conservative Atheists

Comment #17672 by sane1 on January 15, 2007 at 12:17 pm

To Posman - Glad to hear you are a newly enlightened atheist conservative. Welcome to the world of reason.

329. Conservative Atheists

Comment #17635 by sane1 on January 15, 2007 at 8:33 am

Thanks for the Heather Mac Donald articles. She is on the right side of the religion debate, and any conservative who will speak out against the religious take over of her political party is an important voice.

330. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #16764 by sane1 on January 8, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Comparing atheists who are sure of their beliefs about the non-existence of the myriad of gods (because there is no decent evidence that they do exist) with religious fundamentalist who is certain because he wants to be is nonsense as RD points out.

This is a bizarre point of view. Where else is the most important comparison that both sides of a point of view have a strongly held point of view, so their viewpoints are equally valid?

331. The Trouble with Atheism

Comment #16762 by sane1 on January 8, 2007 at 2:06 pm

He says: Atheists are "becoming as intransigent as the people they so despise."

Huh? It is the fundamental ideas of the religious which are foolish.

I don't see anyone prominent who despises the religious. Of course, there are crazies everywhere.

Should we also accept the truth of Santa, also, to prove we are not intransigent? I've got nothing against being polite, however.

332. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #16132 by sane1 on January 4, 2007 at 7:59 pm

Bright is not a good term - seems arrogant when we would benefit from a more positive term. I prefer "free-thinker."

333. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #16130 by sane1 on January 4, 2007 at 7:38 pm

My brain spoke to me and told me that Pat Robertson was a nut case and to take no notice of anything that he said.

334. Atheists challenge the religious right

Comment #16129 by sane1 on January 4, 2007 at 7:23 pm

This was interesting to me - an atheist conservative who attacks the religious right: http://www.amconmag.com/2006/2006_08_28/article14.html

With all the noise from the "religious right" these days, I forgot that you can be conservative and rational.