Comments by Appleby

301. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186831 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 11:29 am

epeeist wrote:

Oh good, then I am free to call you a misogynistic, racist bigot.Care to deny it?

I think you have completely missed the point. However, your reaction is a good example of someone not being amenable to the possibility of certain truths that go against their own standards (refer Comment #186821).

Here's a thought experiment. If homosexuality was rightfully found (nevermind how, for now) to be detrimental to society and homosexuals therefore sentenced to exile (for the good of society, perhaps even the species), could you possibly have the fortitude to accept that "truth" despite its consequences, maybe even to yourself? Or will you choose to do the "immoral" thing and resist punishment?

Even the "possibility" is difficult to swallow, isn't it?(your above reaction cited). This is why many atheists seem to be on a path not much different from religious people. But even that is difficult to admit, isn't it?

302. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186827 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 11:06 am

epeeist wrote:

I take it then that you would be perfectly okay with a woman rejecting you because you have slept with other women?

No, I wouldn't because I don't see men and women as equal in that way.

You would have to tell me what you mean by "intelligent" and what evidence you have for your claim. Otherwise I am free to dismiss it as valueless.

Unless of course, you are using the statement to justify actions by yourself and others against black people.

We don't always have all the evidence required to form an opinion. Some are formed over a long period of time and mainly through personal experience. Perhaps I don't necessarily believe what some politically correct scientists say about the matter (one can probably find another scientist who says something to the contrary). In such a situation, what else can we rely on but personal experience? And I don't care if you believe the same things as I do.

As far as my treatment of black people goes, it depends on a variety of factors. Perhaps I will treat the more intelligent ones differently from the less-intelligent ones (with regard to certain matters, that is). Experience has also taught me that you should get to know people before forming an opinion of them. For me, there is no contradiction with the idea that white people are still generally more intelligent than blacks. Do you find all this strange?

303. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186821 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:54 am

Mitchell Gilks wrote:

I fail to see what your point in all of this is? What is it exactly?

Excellent question. It's simple. Assuming there is an objective morality of some kind independent of us, we have to be willing to accept the possibility that certain "truths" may not be politically correct, conventional or even acceptable by our own standards. Here's an example (and I'm not insisting it's true): Men really are superior to women.

If people, religious or not, cannot accept the possibility of such things, then we have not come far in the last thousand years and may not have a thousand left.

304. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186816 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:48 am

mordacious1 wrote:

Appleby
I have bantered enough here. I'll let other more errudite posters handle your comments if they feel like it. Hope you become a little more accepting of other's differences as you go through life.

The problem with this is, you cherry-pick what "differences" people should be accepting of. And more to the point, my personal opinions on the matters discussed here are not necessarily reflected in the form of actions. Am I not even free to *think* what I please?

305. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186811 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:42 am

Mitchell Gilks wrote:

As I stated, if you state "unconventional" statements of fact, then expect to get funny looks.

"Funny looks" and being "unconventional" are hardly going to dissuade me from my true opinions.

306. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186810 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:40 am

mordacious1 wrote:

Appleby
Your opinions lead to hate, that's sad too.

Only for the feeble-minded. And the attempt to demonize me is pathetic.

307. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186805 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:31 am

Mitchell Gilks wrote:

You stated that you are free to have the "opinion" that white people are generally more intelligent than black people. That is a matter of fact, not opinion. You are of course free to have an opinion, but don't expect to be taken seriously about it.

I'm not so sure the facts are against me. Based on my experience, that is my opinion.

308. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186803 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:29 am

mordacious1 wrote:

Appleby
If you avoid "fat/ugly women" you might miss an opportunity to be around some very intelligent and witty persons. How sad for you.

Why assume fat and ugly women are the intelligent and witty ones? Personally, I've experienced quite the opposite but wouldn't use that as an argument because it has no basis either way.

309. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186801 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:25 am

Mitchell Gilks wrote:

Opinions are of little interest over matters of fact. You are of course free to have "unconventional opinions" like that 2 plus 2 actually equals 3. You would however rightly get some funny looks if you are unwilling to support your "opinions" with anything.

What "facts" are you postulating?

310. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186798 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:23 am

mordacious1 wrote:

Appleby
You have your right to express your opinion. No one said not to. Can your beliefs and opinions make you a "bad person"? Yes, I'm afraid it can.

"Bad" according to whom and on what grounds?

311. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186793 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:19 am

Mitchell Gilks wrote:

I tried to understand his analogy of ugly women and homosexuals...but I just can't... does he think that ugly women deserve less rights and freedoms than attractive women? Or that being support of equity for homosexuals entails being sexually attracted to members of the same sex? Unless he is implying one of these options...then I don't understand what his analogy is suppose to mean.

I said nothing of their "rights" or what I think their rights should be. Don't jump to conclusions. All I expressed was my personal opinion. If I am to be condoned for giving more attention to an attractive woman (as opposed to a fat and ugly one) than why am I not to be condoned for finding homosexuality disgusting? And to present a further "contradiction", perhaps my revulsion towards homosexuality is limited to relations among men and not women (am I still sexist, ladies?). I, personally, don't see anything wrong with any of this. Do you? If so, why?

312. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186789 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 10:12 am

mordacious1 wrote:

You should really reconsider going through your life as a sexist and a homophobe.

Negative connotations are not rulings on morality. This is a sign of lacking the sophistication required to adapt to new, challenging ideas that may go against your cherished beliefs. Not all "-phobias" and "-isms" are bad (or will continue to be forever). I suppose if I were to say that I also believed white people are generally more intelligent than coloured people, it would just send you through the roof. That, I'm afraid, would be a kind of dogmatism on your part.

Now don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are already assumptions that I'm donning a white mask as you read this. I'm not like that at all. I'm also not going to lynch the first black person I see. I'm entitled to my opinions and my right to express them in a civilized manner. Why should I be denied this right just because these beliefs are unconventional? I have my reasons. Think what you will but it does not make me a bad person.

313. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186712 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 7:12 am

GBile wrote:

Of course not. But in the case you actually dislike homosexuals, you must have a reason for that. I hope this reason is not: because it says so in a book. That goes for all other opinions and convictions.

Well I do dislike homosexuals. What they do simply disgusts me. Does this make me religious or a bigot? Am I not permitted to feel the way I do about them? Must I be at worst indifferent to them? Is this some kind of objective morality? Am I also wrong for preferring the company of beautiful women and shunning the fat and ugly ones?

314. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #186702 by Appleby on May 31, 2008 at 6:17 am

I'm not a Muslim but feel the same way about "damaged goods". I would prefer not to marry a woman who had slept with other men in the past because I suspect most have a "special connection" with some of them (especially their first time). I've seen it too many times. As a husband, why should I have to live with something like this? The marriage being annulled in this French case is perfectly logical to me and it has nothing to do with Islam.

As an atheist or agnostic, am I under some obligation to think the same of promiscuous women and virgins? Am I forced to like homosexuals? Am I forced to think that men and women are equal in every way? These are not necessarily related to religion. And before I'm chastised for my "barbaric" views, please bear in mind that it's my right to have them. Your thinking less of me on account of them is your right too. And I won't think less of you for feeling that way.

Otherwise, even without religion we are religious.

315. 'Reverse Evolution' Discovered in Seattle Fish

Comment #183533 by Appleby on May 22, 2008 at 8:25 am

I was hoping for before-after pictures.

316. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #181672 by Appleby on May 17, 2008 at 10:12 pm

Excellent discussion. Some real substance. Quite unlike my typical conversations with friends and family.

317. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176230 by Appleby on May 7, 2008 at 1:02 am

raidouglas: How do you propose to tell the difference between the "can't be helped"'s and the "can be helped"'s?

It doesn't matter. Those who "can be helped" take the effort to help themselves. We are under no obligation to educate the world. Especially those who just can't seem to learn (like Muslim extremists and many so-called moderates).

raidouglas: Wouldn't that reinforce the seeming stereotype of the west in the msulim world as "evil".
Not sure it would work in any reasonable fashion.

We are "evil" to them any way you slice it. It's a tactic to make us feel guilty when we have no reason to be. We *owe* none of them anything. Don't we have the right to choose our friends?

318. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #176222 by Appleby on May 7, 2008 at 12:38 am

Sam,

There is one more important thing Western nations can do about this problem. Reinforce the floodgates of Muslim infestation into the West. They are studying, working and breeding in uncontrolled numbers in our very neighborhoods and therefore a threat to us whenever something like the Danish cartoons or Fitna comes up. I know this may sound politically incorrect, but you just can't help some people. It's best they writhe in their own backwater nations and come to the realization themselves that Islam is a poor choice of ideology. We also have much less to fear from them if they are thousands of miles away.

Let us give them what they want. They want to be left alone. Let's forget about them completely and find new sources of income instead of trying to cash in on their governments' obsession with Western degrees and recognition. It's obvious they do not want our recognition where it counts. Let us focus more on our own children, education and safety. I see nothing wrong in that.

319. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172533 by Appleby on April 29, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Would it not be easier if we all just agreed to relegate religion to the category of a personal hobby and nothing more? There are already many people practicing "personal versions" of established religions (even Islam) - which basically means using their inherent sense of morality to cherry-pick elements from both religion and atheism - that it makes little sense to discuss if "religion" (what exactly are we talking about here anyway?) leads to good or bad deeds.

The moment someone tries to convince you to adopt his "personal hobby"; you, whatever you are, have the right of politely declining and getting on with your life rather than debating the usefulness of said hobby. Even if said hobby is good for me in some sense, I don't *have* to adopt it. I don't have to eat my vegetables if I don't want to, damn it.

320. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #143415 by Appleby on March 14, 2008 at 5:20 am

While I laud Professor Dawkins' efforts, all this stuff is getting a little old for me. Do we atheists have anything more to say? By the way, I'm currently reading, "In God We Doubt: Confessions of a Failed Atheist" by John Humphrys. He's actually agnostic.

321. Charles Simonyi Professorship in the Public Understanding of Science

Comment #125535 by Appleby on February 11, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Would the new Charles Simonyi professor have to be an atheist?

322. 'Letter to a Christian Nation' now available in paperback

Comment #111188 by Appleby on January 14, 2008 at 12:30 am

I read the whole book in the bookstore when it first came out. I think I'll buy it this time.

323. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #96687 by Appleby on December 10, 2007 at 8:33 pm

I guess the "Prime Directive" (for those who watch Star Trek) is not something that we should apply to the Muslim world. We *must* interfere.

324. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93120 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 8:45 am

Well, I can see nothing unreasonable in that. I think your position illustrates the point that Sam Harris makes about problems with use of the term "atheist". It has much baggage.

Add to that that I'm now also a bit more open to the possibility that we may actually be more than the sum of our parts.

325. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93113 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 8:26 am

I don't see how that relates to the truth value of religions.

Well that depends on how you define agnosticism. Perhaps the mistake is mine for even trying to classify my position using a hackneyed term. I wouldn't even call myself "believing" or having lost belief in anything. I'm simply less dogmatic about my atheism and a bit more respectful toward theism.

This is not because I think religious propositions are any less false than I did before but rather because I try not to caricature religion as often, try to listen more intently to what theists are saying and be a bit more forgiving toward their ignorance.

326. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93104 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 7:55 am

But you were suggesting you were moving towards agnosticism. That implies more than just respect - it implies a change of belief.

This is true because I find atheism and theism (even at their best) to be wanting. Theism in the ways you just pointed out and atheism as I have. Therefore agnosticism seems like the best option for me now.

327. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93100 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 7:47 am

steve99,

I'm not defending religion. I thought that was clear from my last post. The mutual respect I'm talking about comes not from looking at the worst examples of religion but the best; and not at the worst of atheism, but the best.

328. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93092 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 7:22 am

I've been an atheist for a while now but to be honest, I've become less and less impressed with atheism over the years (and not just because of Josh's shenanigans in the Ayaan Hirsi Ali threads). There really isn't much substance to our position and I still find myself wondering sometimes about why things are the way they are. I know, there need not be a purpose to existence (human or otherwise) but I can't shut my mind off to such things because it's what a scientist is "supposed to do" in that situation.

Our growing immaturity (as someone in the audience even pointed out to Dennett) toward religion, even among the vanguards of modern atheism, betrays an insecurity I thought we didn't suffer from. I don't think religion, any religion, is better than atheism but I can't argue that they're any worse either. This is why I'm leaning toward agnosticism. It's not because of this one debate but rather many little things adding up over time. I think I now opt for mutual respect between atheism and theism. It just seems right. It seems like the mature thing to do.

329. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93088 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 6:59 am

In D'Souza's defense, I think what he's basically trying to say is that there is probably something greater than ourselves out there and science doesn't provide sufficient answers to the really big questions. Unless you're well educated and self-actualized, life becomes difficult without believing in some kind of continuity after death. Hence, even if you don't believe in any such thing (for whatever reason, really) it's probably a good idea to adjust to those who do.

330. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93085 by Appleby on December 2, 2007 at 6:47 am

This was a good debate. I just watched all of it and actually tried hard to grasp the meaning behind D'Souza's words, despite his overenthusiasm and oversights. I've read enough of Dennett to understand his position. I certainly don't plan on becoming a Christian but I'm leaning more toward agnosticism now. I think this happens to a lot of atheists after a while. The position of theism - if debates like this are any indicator (and I've heard many) - is apparently not as untenable as we're made to believe.

331. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #91773 by Appleby on November 29, 2007 at 8:04 am

After reading all this talk about atheists willing to take a bullet for Ayaan Hirsi Ali, I wonder if they would be willing to do the same if she looked like Salman Rushdie. If not, what exactly is their point?

332. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #90134 by Appleby on November 23, 2007 at 6:13 am

If they register as a charity in the US they will have to file accounts. Details of what their charitable activities are and how much of your spend goes on their charitable activities (as opposed to administration) should also be available on the web.

I was thinking more along the lines of something posted on this site showing how much we've accumulated so far (and how much there is to go etc.). Of course those who've committed to recurring payments might cancel them (is this possible?) but still, I'd like to see the progress we're making. Any harm in that?

Also, I'm still not clear exactly how Ayaan Hirsi Ali is worth (at least) 2 million dollars a year. No doubt her life is worth more than that but we're trying to raise this money because of all the "work" she's supposedly doing. Is there any empirical evidence available attesting to her effectiveness in whatever it is exactly that she's doing for the atheist community or the world? I read Sam Harris' FAQ but he seems far less lucid about these things than he usually is about other stuff. If I could just get some crisp answers to these questions, I might actually come out and support this endeavour myself. You'll have to forgive my scrutiny. I'm an academic.

333. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #90113 by Appleby on November 23, 2007 at 4:04 am

You know what I'd like to see? I'd like to see how much money is in the pot and how fast it's growing. I'd also like to know - assuming I've donated something - where my money goes eventually.

334. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89882 by Appleby on November 22, 2007 at 3:19 am

I'm not that desperate to comment on these threads but behaviour like this from the admin is making donating to Ayaan Hirsi Ali feel more and more like extortion. I can't imagine how many other possible donators have been alienated by his obviously emotional response to some of our misunderstood comments.

Even if I am granted reprieve, I'm so intimidated I'm not sure I'll ever be able to speak my mind anywhere on this site ever again. I was labeled a troll after just one or two posts that were taken out of context and misunderstood by a few people who then subjected me to a witch-hunt. Never did I use foul language or insult anyone so there's no telling what will set the admin (or others who will incite him) off. This is a conflict of ideas and I lost out not through healthy debate but rather appeal to emotion. I hate to admit this but in all honestly I can no longer say that atheism is really any better than theism (all things considered). It may be a viable alternative but better? I'm really not so sure anymore.

335. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89502 by Appleby on November 21, 2007 at 1:08 am

Ridiculous. Looks like I'm condemned as a troll for all eternity. Let the punishment fit the crime (if there was any to begin with).

336. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89501 by Appleby on November 21, 2007 at 1:07 am

Testing

337. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89186 by Appleby on November 20, 2007 at 12:44 am

I've been reading the regular thread and am frankly amazed. Why is everyone worshiping Josh and trembling at his every word for simply running this site? You'd think the Richard Dawkins FOUNDATION would be able to afford a full time administrator that doesn't need a superficial pat on the back just to do his job. We atheists are becoming a sorry lot and very much like a religion starting out. Every time there's a problem, just milk the community for more money. Sheesh! We've also got some people (cough! Logicel cough!) trying to throw political correctness at us or threaten to leave. Good riddance to people like her, I say.

You know, I kind of hope Ayaan gets her 4 or 6 (even 10) million dollars from us. It'll certainly encourage a lot more people to "come out". They'd have to write a bestseller first, though. Otherwise you're not worth protecting.

338. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89144 by Appleby on November 19, 2007 at 8:39 pm

Well I don't know why exactly I've been sidelined into the "Alternate Comment Thread" but am glad there is at least some semblance of free inquiry on this site in that I've not been completely silenced for my dissenting views. Never mind that Josh has irreversibly intimidated other atheists from "stepping out of line" (whatever that means at this particular moment) and shamed me with the label "troll", which I am certainly not. Here's what I think. We are (perhaps unconsciously) unnecessarily showing a special kind of support to Ayaan because she's a black woman. White people (liberals in America, especially) are so ashamed of their racist past - and they should be - that they will use an example like Ayaan to prove to the world that they are no longer like that. So much in fact, we probably wouldn't go as far for even a white woman. If it takes millions of dollars to protect each Muslim dissident like Ayaan, we are fighting a losing battle or at the very least, taking the wrong approach. I admire Ayaan for all the things she does for free thought but she is a poor example for the rest of the Muslim world and girls like her former self. How many of them would receive the same support and protection from us when they no doubt face a similar threat? We are sending the wrong message to future dissidents in the Muslim world and might even be responsible for *their* deaths which we simply cannot afford to prevent. If Ayaan's life really is so threatened, perhaps she shouldn't be doing any of this at all or stop doing it now. It certainly isn't worth her life. She's better off living out her days quietly somewhere. A few bodyguards are not going to stop determined extremists from getting their way, especially with all her public appearances and their willingness to give up even their own lives.

I never used to give much credence to the theist argument that "religion is not to blame for its bad reputation but the people who practice it are" until my experience in this thread. It's obvious being an atheist does not rid people of their tendencies to silence dissenters and unfairly persist in what "they think is right" for everyone. I'm sure some posters would like me banned altogether and prevented from ever posting again in any thread. What does this tell us about the future of atheism? I've never been less proud to be an atheist than I am now. And Josh, until you reinstate my comments as part of the regular thread, you are setting a very bad example - especially as the administrator! - for all atheists who come here. What would Richard Dawkins do in your position? I'm sure it's NOT this. Those who genuinely believe in giving money to this cause will do so regardless of what others say. Unless you think most of us atheists cannot think for ourselves and are easily taken in by "foolish" arguments.

339. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89037 by Appleby on November 19, 2007 at 2:53 pm

PS: (SilentMike) Appleby's comments were removed. He crossed the line.

Dear Josh,

As an administrator of the site, I have to say you have read very negatively into (apparently ALL) my comments and perhaps your judgement was clouded by some of our more emotional members. I certainly did not suggest that Ayaan should die as a martyr but merely responded to SOMEONE ELSE'S question about how I would feel IF it happened. I also did not ONCE say I would not donate something myself even though I might have questioned the general idea of trying to raise millions for one Muslim dissident's personal protection. Your actions and the comments of many others here have however, illustrated the point that atheists - despite claiming to be rational - are generally quick to adopt the methods used by theists to quell any opposition to particular, mainstream viewpoints. If there are any hard line theists in our midst, they are certainly enjoying a good laugh. Your erasing of my comments was certainly out of line and I'm sure if Richard Dawkins or Sam Harris himself were to read them, they would not have done the same thing.

340. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88917 by Appleby on November 19, 2007 at 6:59 am

"In the event that money remains after these costs have been met, it will be used to encourage and protect other dissidents in the Muslim world."

And if the costs are not met? Sorry Sam, but money can't buy freedom. Not in the Muslim world.

341. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88877 by Appleby on November 19, 2007 at 5:35 am

66. Comment #88875 by SilentMike on November 19, 2007 at 5:30 am
That's a good point appleby. I don't know about you but I have yet to receive any concrete death threats in my many years of atheism.

Tell that to every Muslim girl in the third world who decides one day to become an atheist.

342. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88872 by Appleby on November 19, 2007 at 5:20 am

63. Comment #88868 by SilentMike on November 19, 2007 at 5:12 am

Some of us assume greater risks than others.

And some of us are simply more popular.

343. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88865 by Appleby on November 19, 2007 at 5:01 am

I'm sure we're all open-minded enough not to be swayed by comments either way. Unless of course, there are some people who think that only supportive comments should be made lest others be dissuaded from making a contribution. And seriously though, are they really expecting to get 4 to 6 million dollars out of us for this? Part of "coming out" is assuming the risks just like everyone else.

344. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88836 by Appleby on November 19, 2007 at 3:50 am

I wonder if we'll also be obliged to finance the protection of every other Muslim who stands up against Islam or is it just the pretty ones?

345. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88817 by Appleby on November 19, 2007 at 3:06 am

Even if something were to happen to Ayaan Hirsi Ali, we can rest assured there will be others who will follow in her example. Our time has come.

346. The Out Campaign

Comment #60500 by Appleby on August 2, 2007 at 5:00 am

irate_atheist,

"Can you be absolutely certain that a radical Islamic government in Pakistan would not launch a strike against the infidel in India? I don't suggest it will happen, but Jihadist logic would suggest it was the 'right thing to do' to smite the unbeliever."

I can't be certain *any* government wouldn't do it. Why would you equate murdering 3,000 people with the intention to murder 300,000,000?

"And any way, don't you care about the people who ARE living in a Muslim (or other) theocracy? Or do you feel it's fine to watch on the sidelines as you enjoy the fruits of (liberal) democracy and the rule of (secular) law?"

Well I doubt this "atheist coming out" campaign is gunning at Muslim theocracies to begin with.

"How can one murder religion anyway?"

It was a metaphor for the approach that might be used. People are generally beginning to realize their supernatural beliefs are silly, whether they admit it or not. Trying to "end religion" once and for all (within say a certain someone's lifetime) is not something very far-fetched as far as atheists are concerned, you know. There are nuts on both sides.

347. The Out Campaign

Comment #60480 by Appleby on August 2, 2007 at 3:19 am

You know I've always suspected that it's the minority of people who actually "truly" believe in god. Most others are simply indifferent. As long as you're not living in a Muslim theocracy, what's wrong with that? All this business about t-shirts, however well-intentioned, feels like a bastardization of atheism. If I wore a t-shirt that read "Jesus" in large font across my chest, it would be understandable if people thought I was trying to proselytize. Do we want the same to be said of us? What does "atheists coming out" actually hope to achieve? That someone like Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, you or I will finally muster the courage to rally for the straight-up murder of religion? I'd rather best the religious in behaviour and achievement and let that speak for itself instead of playing their game. Much better I think is an effort towards better education and letting the number of atheists (closet or otherwise) increase. A t-shirt that say explained evolution (or any of the other subtle arguments against supernatural beliefs) in simple terms would be more informative and useful. Let religion die peacefully instead of screaming in defense of itself. I doubt Dawkins wants to become something of an "Old Major" one day but fear that's exactly what might happen. People are people; atheists or not.

More Pages: Previous | 1 2 3 4 5 6 7