351. 'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam': Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #20790 by Riley on February 6, 2007 at 2:35 pm

I love this woman.

--

352. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20778 by Riley on February 6, 2007 at 1:21 pm

I clearly didn't say "hate", I said "telling children that they should commit acts that violate the human rights of another person". This is a clear definition (in the law as well as in common sense)

In the U.S. at least, I think laws already exist making it illegal to tell (conspire with) someone (a child or an adult) to commit an act that would violate the human rights of another person.

Teaching 'hate', however, gets you the human-rights-violating results without the need for getting bogged down in directly traceable details. For instance, I don't think that teaching any of the following lessons would violate your law, and yet such lessons certainly create a cultue that encourages 'acts that violate the human rights of another person':

"Children, abortion is murder. Now, how do you think murderers should be treated? No, don't tell me, you just think about that for yourself. Let's now get out our Bibles and read from Numbers, Chapter 35."

"Children, those who died in the tube bombing died because they would not obey God: they were blasphemers, adulterers, abortionists and those that mingled with them - such people do not deserve our sympathy, but rather we should rejoice for God is just."

"Children, it's time for us to celebrate the 7/7 martyrs who had the courage to wholly give their lives to God."

"Girls, it is God's will that you cover yourselves. If a women does not cover herself from head to toe and as a result gets raped, she does not deserve our sympathy; it was her own choice to dress herself up like a whore."

In a free society, if someone believes this crap and wants to teach it to children, they'll find a way and I don't believe trying to change people's beliefs through legislative force will change that.

The best I think you can do is increase exposure to more attractive alternatives. Do a better job at marketing.


--

353. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20746 by Riley on February 6, 2007 at 9:01 am

Luthien wrote: If someone wants to set up an institution teaching children, they will simply have to prove that they meet certain standards.

Luthien, it might sound good in theory, but think it through; in practice you would create more problems than you solve.

How can a person or institution prove that they are not teaching 'hate'? A 24hr child cam? What 'institutions' would be subject to the burden of proof? The cub-scout meetings at my home? Summer camps? hiking groups? and swim classes?

To regulate all children group activities all the time would be unworkable, but if not done, then circumnavigating these laws would be trivial.

Even if feasible, can you not also see how easy it would be for the religious-minded majority or an authoritarian group to co-opt the intent of such laws to oppress minority and counter-culture groups? For example, how hard would it be for them to expand the definiton of 'hate' to include calling God a delusion?



--

354. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20657 by Riley on February 5, 2007 at 2:27 pm

Luthien wrote: if a Muslim is telling children that it is a Husband's "right" to beat his wife, or that women who are not covered from head to toe are inviting sexual assult, then I do not think the state is intervening in "private matters".

If it was made a crime for an adult to tell a child that "uncovered women invite sexual assult" and sufficient evidence could be presented to an independent judiciary that this law is being broken, then yes I agree, it would no longer be a private matter. But that doesn't sound like what you are suggesting. There's a difference between checking someone's criminal history as a means of qualifying that someone before hiring, and intruding upon private day to day activities. The latter, which does sound like what you're suggesting, amounts to treating everyone as if they were a criminal suspect without probable cause and perhaps even would shift the burden of proof onto the accused.

And as a practical matter, how do you think the practice of such investigations would be carried out over time? How does one adequately define "religious education"? And no doubt investigations would be an effective tool for intimidating political enemies and attacking social pariahs. I don't see how abuse could be avoided.


---

355. Tolerating intolerance is still this country's besetting sin

Comment #20648 by Riley on February 5, 2007 at 11:53 am

Luthien wrote:We could require the "Sunday schools" (or whatever the equivalent is for that particular religion) to be vetted on what they are teaching / exposing children to.

For much the same reason I would not want my government to interfere with daily family activities, I would also not want my government requiring families and organizations that cater to families to report on private matters.

However, what I think society and government can do for the sake of children is insist that all children receive the basics of education. It's common to think of reading, writing and arithemetic as the basics of education (that part of education that is considered the right of every child) . To deprive a child of these basics is considered criminal neglect in many places.

I think the best way to counteract the impact of faith-schooling is to expand the basics of education to include "critical thinking". Using the scientific method as the benchmark for "critical thinking", government could require all children to demonstrate at least an adequate ability to evaluate evidence and apply the scientific method. Such a test could be conducted much the same way that tests evaluating reading, writing, and mathematic capability are conducted with the goal of ensuring that every child is receiving an adequate education. Also, if a perochial school or "home school" is not providing adequate critical thinking skills, then such schools can be shut down for much the same reason they would be shut down if not providing adequate reading and writing skills.

It's the attempt to isolate children that I think is the biggest threat. "Sunday school" is less likely to cause too much harm if students manage at the same time to get adequate exposure to better alternatives.


--

356. U.S. 'Satisfied' With Religion's Public Role, But More Want Less

Comment #20580 by Riley on February 4, 2007 at 2:22 pm

I read: 67% of Americans want organized religion's influence in the U.S. to remain if not increase.

and that's depressing.

--

357. Root of All Evil? Discussion

Comment #20573 by Riley on February 4, 2007 at 12:14 pm

As we all know, Richard makes no distinction between "faith in the supernatural" and "religion", and clearly this is not understood by most people. As a result, a lot of silly and needless bickering ensues. God is love, and Religion likened to a political point of view: everyone is using the same words, but no one is using the same definitions.

Because of this, I think it would be better to avoid these less-agreed-upon terms "god" and "religion" all together in favor of: "belief in the supernatural" and pointing-out the pitfalls of ideology-based decision-making. When I read history, in every case that I find institutionalized evil I also find a powerful authority inadequately restrained by the rules of critical thinking and scientific inquiry. This applies to Stalin and Hitler as much as to the Inquisition.

Also, the statement: "it takes Religion for good people to do bad things" has been shown to be wrong by the Milgram experiments. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment.

--

358. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #20568 by Riley on February 4, 2007 at 9:36 am

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind for all the details on Hovind's dishonest past. Including where and how he 'earned' his doctoral degree: "Hovind was awarded a master's degree and doctorate in "Christian Education" through correspondence from the unaccredited Patriot University (now Patriot Bible University) in Colorado."




I'd like to have heard something like the following said in respnse to Hovind's primary argument:
"If there is a painting, there must be a paint-er? If there is a watch, there must be a watch-make-er? If your logic is correct and this is the 'only logical scientific conclusion', then we must conclude that 'the creator' must also be the result of a creator. Either it is possible for complexity to evolve from the less complex, or it's not. Which is it Kent ?"

Also, the issue of tax payer funded schools is a serious political threat coming from Christian evangelicals, and I'm glad Pigliucci tried to address it. Unfrotumately, in this debate, Pigliucci relied too much on making what sounded like appeals to authority. By describing science as being whatever scientists decide it is and the importance of having government certified experts, he assists Hovind's own popular appeal to those suspicious of authority and elite societies.

The surgeon doing surgery example isn't bad, but to be more effective I think Pigliucci would do be better to add emphasis on evidence-based decision-making and add to his argument that children, like parents, also have rights. Does a child have the right to learn how to read, even if reading is contrary to the will of the child's parents? If a parent were preventing a child from learning to read, don't we have an obligation to the welfare of the child to intervene? --- then segue back into the topic of evidence and what makes science, science.


--

359. God and gorillas

Comment #20267 by Riley on February 1, 2007 at 11:25 am

It appears that our ancestors probably had a deep respect for their surroundings because their very survival depended on that respect, where as modern religion is disconnected from this.

Hey Luthien, I've often thought that this term "respect" was very loaded. Is "worship and fear" the same as "respect"? I think that early civilizations feared nature, then anthropomorphized it as a means of coping with this fear, and then took to worshipping/appeasing the powerful personalities they saw in nature. Modern religion (for all its ills) was really a positive step forward. Because modern religions did not embue nature with supernatural human-like emotional needs and motivations, but instead regarded nature as an impersonal phenomena, people from such religions were more apt to study and master nature. It was a step in the right direction toward a more scientific thinking. It's only in our contemporary context (last few hundred years) that overcoming our fear of nature has become a particularly dangerous and destructive thing.

--

360. Neil deGrasse Tyson - Death by Black Hole

Comment #20266 by Riley on February 1, 2007 at 10:47 am

MIND_REBEL wrote: I feel Neil Tyson does a disservice to the work of prof Dawkins by tolerating the theistic worldview. People like him are giving just as much cover to the extremists as the religious moderates.

wow. did you even listen to that interview?

Tyson (30:58):
"...other views are rife with conflicts that come about simply because you are born to a differnt time, born to different parents, or born to different cultural values. Of course every religion identifies its own religion as the one and only religion one should be, nearly every religion postures themselves this way. And so that's a non-convergent approach to understanding. And in fact, most people who are a religion are that religion because that was the religion of their parents. And that should force a person to take pause, and refelct on what role that belief system will play in coming-up with an unambiguous understanding of reality, when someone else in another land, in another time, born to different parents will have a completely different view of that same reality and they'll be no less convinced of its truth. There's something wrong there."

what more do you want?

Tyson has a real talent for communicating his uncompromising critical view toward irrational thinking (e.g. religion), while at the same time focusing on the positive aspects of science.


--

361. God and gorillas

Comment #20251 by Riley on February 1, 2007 at 9:20 am

I liked the article, but King's conclusion that science and religion can be compatible relies on a definition of "religion" which is not the same definition being used by Dennett and Dawkins. I'm guessing that by her definition, religion can remain "religion" without belief in the supernatural. This, in a nutshell, seems to be her definition of religion:

"I would say that because we're made to relate, we think and feel that we're in relationship with something bigger."

She's of course free to define what she's talking about however she wants to, but it's apparent that she hasn't really followed Dennett's argument on the matter nor managd to adequately translate her terminology to the terminology being used by Dawkins (which I would think would be a prerequesite to her strong critique of him).


--

362. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20124 by Riley on January 31, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Brian "Sapient" and Kelly (a.k.a "Brian and his cohorts" who have -according to ABC News- "an answer to everything") did a good job in that interview (certainly a lot better than I could have done under the gun like that from a disingenuous interviewer ). When Brian was able to keep the focus on "I just want people to embrace reason" I think he was strongest.




But, that was certailny not a balanced interview conducted by John Berman and ABC News.
An unfriendly preset narrative was apparent throughout this piece; it read something like this:
Atheism is just another belief-system, but more like a cult. Let's handle it as a phenomena that we will frame as another silly, misguided "angry youth" fad. We'll still want to scare our audience so let's also try as much as we're able to blurr the lines between atheism with satanism (since much of our audience equates the two already) and focus on how children are being targeted. Did you see the tattos on that girl Kelly? - do any of the other cohorts have tattoos that we can get on camera to show our aged viewing audience?

Do I have that about right?

"What's wrong with God?"
A beautifully loaded question to start-off the interview. God of-course exists a priori and the interviewer's question is code for: "but Kelly and Brian, God loves you, why are you attacking Him?"

"Brian is simply missing the point [about faith]"
Nice paraphrasing. The editors of the piece use "expert critics" like Rev. Kathlene Lile to advance their narrative and tritely explain-away the atheist "phenomena" withiout giving Brian a chance to respond in-kind. The faith-heads are made out to be the wise and rational thinkers and "Brian and his cohorts" are limited and reduced to asserting how confident and certain they are. Back to the ABC News narrative: "Brian and his cohorts" are passionate, young, misguided, fundementalists, and they just don't understand -- we pity them. But don't be too sympathetic. What "Brian and his cohorts" are doing is dangerous!!! irresponsible!!! And targeting your kids!

"Do you think you might enjoy Hell?"
you just know the producers were fishing here with that question to see if they could get "Brian and his cohorts" to jokingly say "yes", in order that they could strongly associate atheism with satanism. No doubt it would have been great for ratings.

"It stikes me that you're absolutely certain that you're right."
code for: atheism is just another religion, and"Brian and his cohorts" are fundementalists.

"What if there was a 1 in a million shot that hell existed?"
Message to doubters: remember, you should believe just in case, because what if you're wrong!?! It's the Pascal's Wager as Sam correctly pointed out.

I totally agree with you Sam:

Sam wrote: Again, the whole point of this is not to insult a non-existant god. This is about turning Pascal's Wager on its head. If there was even the slightest probability that christianity was true, blaspheming against the holy spirit would be a very dangerous thing to do. So the real message being sent here is: "I am so confident that christianity is bul***it that i am prepared to bet my soul on it.".

I think the pledges are great.

--

363. He Calls Himself God

Comment #19746 by Riley on January 29, 2007 at 6:21 pm

"why do these things always seem to be in the Southern United States?"

because they attract tourists: Elvis, Disneyland, and religious wing-nuts. good family entertainment.

364. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19670 by Riley on January 29, 2007 at 7:30 am

Check out Rupert Murdoch media ownership:
http://www.ketupa.net/murdoch1.htm

The highlights:
"Fox News", "The Weekly Standard", and the "New York Post" in the U.S.

"The Sun" in the U.K.

FOX, "The Daily Telegraph" and the "Herald Sun" in Australia.

all have about as much integrity, concern for accuracy, and intelectual balance as a tv-evangelist. Ruppert Murdoch is a cancer on the earth.


--

365. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy

Comment #19588 by Riley on January 28, 2007 at 4:41 pm

I don't see anything moronic in hoping that the violence that results helps them to, you know, no longer resort to such violence?

Sancus,

1) I condemn Hitchens because he promoted resorting to violence in the name of ridding Israel of an ideology he finds undesirable, just as I would condemn other religious sorts who promote resorting to violence in the name of God. One could always hope for a positive outcome from such violence (isn't that always the case?), but I suppose someone could just as well hope that God will one day send us a messiah too. It's baseless wishful thinking in both cases.

2) It's great to hear that you do not support the violence, but if instead of Hitchens, it was a religious imam advocated resorting to violence for the purpose of irradicating an undesirable ideology in Israel, would you be defending the Imam in the same manner that you are defending Hitchems now? or would you be using the example to further condemn the practice of religion for invoking violence? I would guess the latter would be the response of most people on this site: that's hypocrisy.

3) After the American civil war, the regions that suffered the most destruction of infrastructure and loss of liberal institutions tended to be the regions where religious-fueled intolerance and institutionalized bigotry most flourished. The relatively free-thinking and prosperous North existed in stark contrast to the relatively depressed, suffering and religious fundementalist South. As such, your example of the American civil war better supports my position than your own.

4) I am applying Max Weber's explaination of religious belief as a means to satisfy soteriological needs. (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology_of_religion) The judeo-christian-islamic faiths "offer people soteriological answers, or answers that provide opportunities for salvation -- relief from suffering, and reassuring meaning". The fact that the world-view and practice of such religions might also exacerbate or create suffering does not preclude their ability to effectively relieve it (similar to cases of drug addiction and masochism ).

5) I can't prove my point to you any more than I could prove evolution to a creationist: I'm not an expert and can only refer you to an approaching concensus among experts.

I will add this:
- If you accept the data that indicates supernatural belief is indirectly proportional to demonstrated acheivement in science.
- And you accept that it would be detrimental to scientific acheivment if the institutions and infrastructure that facilitate scientific education, scientific research and free speech (exchange of information) were to be destroyed.
- Then it's reasonable to predict that the destruction of such institutions and infrastructure will lead to a net per capita increase in supernatural-based beliefs and ideologies.

--

366. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy

Comment #19364 by Riley on January 26, 2007 at 2:16 pm

I hope that it is swift but potent enough to cause more people to wake up to the fact that religions are not helping them.

This is the moronic thinking that I find so scary. We need some "potent enough" violence to wake people up to the fact that religion is not helping them. Obviously, if the problem isn't sovled by violence, it's just that we haven't gotten violent enough. The beatings will continue until morale improves! Lunacy! simple-minded numb-headed lunacy.

Why, with all the violence that occurs in the world on a daily basis do you believe that a little more violence this time will do the trick to teach people a lesson? Just the opposite, When has it ever occured that bloody violence didn't further entrench beliefs? It simply extends the period we must wait before the emotionally unscarred can attempt to recover civility.

Maybe that apparent relationship exists because religion causes suffering?

no doubt it does. But the promise of relief (or just emotional comfort) from suffering is the marketing pitch of religions. When there is a lot of suffering, there are a lot more people to sell to. Suffering need not be the modern-day cause of religion, but it's certainly its key marketing opportunity.

My history books don't show that it works the other way around. America started its golden age of freethought right after the Civil War, still the bloodiest war in American history.

Golden age of freethought??? A country defined, and in many ways crippled, for the next one hundred years after the civil war by black-white segregation, the formation of terrorist groups such as the Klu-Klux-Klan, and the domination of politics in the South by the Southern Baptist Convention? The war in no way ended the belief system of the southern gentry class; these people still believed themselves to be a righteously priveleged class and still believed that no "black" should pretend to be equal better in ability than any white.

To the point: Wars don't change beliefs. There's no reason to believe that a war in Isreal will change the belief systems of anyone involed, and every reason to believe that it will further entrench their faith-head beliefs.

Religious fundamentalism prospers in the peaceful 80s and starts to take over conservatism during the very optimistic 90s. Then after 9/11, Sam Harris becomes the star author of The End of Faith, existent religious conservatism makes more conflict, and then Richard Dawkins' publisher says the market is ready for a book on atheism. The God Delusion remains part of the national discussion indefinitely.

There's no arguement from me that religion can flourish without war, but it does tend to do much better with it than without. The march to war after the 9/11 attacks was a powerful political force solidifying the fundementalist religious base in the United States. Had the United States itself sustained continued ongoing attacks and a real serious threat to its soverignty, do you really think the political atnmosphere here would have been receptive (if not outright intolerant) of the clear thinking Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins or any other voice that suggested Christianity and God were not righteous? It's exactly *because* there has not been a great deal of blood spilled here that rational people are able to speak and be heard.

I hear this Marxist garbage about religion being the natural effect of suffering all the time but curiously I never see the evidence. So, if anyone can show that there may be some actual empirical verification to this claim, I'd very much appreciate it.

I don't see why this needs to have anything to do with Marx, except that he along with dozens of other famous thinkers and scholars have noted a connection - including Freud and apparently Hitchens himself. The simple matter of opportunity for religious marketing to take hold is inescapably obvious. Religion provides comfort (or at least the promise of it); the more a person suffers, the more desperate and susceptible a person is to buy into the sort of comfort that religion promises (and apparently delivers).

It's not a cause and effect, suffering simply provides the sales opportunity.


--

367. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy

Comment #19338 by Riley on January 26, 2007 at 9:20 am

Comment #19312 by LookToWindward "I suppose, Riley, that Hitchens is merely of the opinion that war is the only thing that will settle certain of these questions and may, in the very long term, end up being less awful (according to some measure of awfulness that includes death and suffering together) than the alternatives."

He contradicts his own stated conviction that religion exists as a way of escaping fear of death by promoting the idea that an increase in violent and unpleasant death (certainly the kind of death I'm most afraid of) could lead to a net decrease in religion. If this idea is not contradicted by his own convictions, then it's certainly contradicted by the events of recorded history. This notion that Hitchens is promoting is irrational and destructive and deserves uncomprimised condemnation.

--

368. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy

Comment #19335 by Riley on January 26, 2007 at 9:03 am

"The man understands the science, he's merely using the misinterpretation of natural selection as having a goal to make a joke."

Glad to hear it. It is a pretty amusing self-effacement of humanity, even though it's sure to further promote a common misunderstanding about the science.

--

369. Stephen Fry and Christopher Hitchens debate blasphemy

Comment #19308 by Riley on January 26, 2007 at 7:12 am

I definitely appreciate Hitchens' way with words, but I think he is often too willing to sacrifice accuracy for style and/or effect.

Does he really believe that the curse of religion persists in part because humanity is only "partially evolved" ? -- or is he so enraptured by this turn of phrase, that he doesn't care that it's really quite a moronoic thing to say?

Add to that his explicit yearning for another bloody war which he apparently believes is necessary to eradicat religious extremeism in Israel or to teach a proper lesson in othe regions, it becomes difficult at times to differentiate the morality and logic of Hitchens from the morality and logic of the God of Exodus.

--

370. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19236 by Riley on January 25, 2007 at 5:16 pm

nine9s wrote: "But really, it's not as bad here as the news reports sometimes make it seem."

You're right, it's worse:

2001 Gallup poll:
45% of Americans believe that: "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so"

----
November 18-21, 2004 CBS poll:
65% of Americans want creationism taught along with evolution in schools and 37% want evolution science outright replaced by creationism in schools.

-----
2,000 Christian radio stations an 250 Christian TV stations preach everyday to Americans, 44% of who believe that Jesus (and His wrath) will return to earth within the next 50 years.

-----
U.S. Senator James Inhofe, former chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has argued that the U.S. should ally itself unconditionally with Israel "because God said so." Quoting Genesis 13:14-17 as justification from the divine Word of God. And he leads the way in claiming that the science on global climate change is a hoax citing bogus scientific evidence to support his claims.
(wikipedia on Inhofe: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Inhofe)

-------

Look up some more details on the state and background of the rising American theocracy here:
http://www.theocracywatch.org

--

371. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19160 by Riley on January 25, 2007 at 9:58 am

The United States is a first-world economic and military power and yet home to tens of millions of third-world educated people.

It's worse than you think; not only are known atheists not electable to federal office here, electability to federal office usually requires politicians prove their "faith in god" by being seen actively worshipping at church.

The value of changing the public image of atheism is a critical social problem here - not just an individual problem. I'm certainly scared by it, and it should scare non-Americans too I think.

Seriously, as funny as it sounds, we really do need something like an atheist pride march. We need something, because apparently the problem wont correct itself (it hasn't corrected itself) by individuals taking principled actions in isolation.

--
I'm Godfrey, think about it and you can be too.

372. The Bright Revolution

Comment #19042 by Riley on January 24, 2007 at 1:23 pm

"Godfrey" - yes!

A tactic that I think served the gay community well was to adopt symbols which were only recognized inside the gay community. The immediate motivation for this probably had more to do with signaling eligibility to a potential partner than anything else, but no doubt it also had the effect of building morale in the community by signalling to the others that you're not alone.

Thirty years ago homosexuals would never display a symbol that publicly identified themselves to the world as "gay", because they would not want to suffer the resulting grief. Today, I would not be willing to wear an "I'm an atheist" t-shirt or bumper sticker for the same reason; too much grief.

If atheists had an "inside-joke" or symbol that was not publicly recognizeable, but simply served to communicate to other atheists that "you're not alone", that would be a great way build morale; I'd go out and stick it on my car right now. Eventually, gradually, the symbol or name would become widely known, like the gay-pride rainbow, and that process would be constructive as well.

I think I'm going to go get myself an "I'm Godfrey" t-shirt. And maybe a "Vote for Godfrey!" bumper sticker.

I love it.

--

373. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18849 by Riley on January 23, 2007 at 7:57 am

Comment #18840 by drcowboybc: I think that both the "good cop" and "bad cop" strategies (or however you want to label them) have their merits

I would love to hear someone who sees merit in the "bad cop" technique, explain how engaging in behavior intended to shame, intimidate and/or belittle a segment of people can work as an effective means of persuading such people (or anyone else observing or participating) to be more rational. Or is there some other goal involved?

--------
--------
16. Comment #18753 by Dogbreath "Imagine, in our wildest dreams, that this "debate" took place AT Liberty University."

If the situation and behaviors were reversed, I think members on this site would be praising the brave Randolph-Macon students for organizing themselves, showing-up at Liberty, and posing tough questions to the speaker, and at the same time no doubt members of this site would be demonizing the classless crowd at Liberty for being caught-up in self-congratulatory behavior and discourteous treatment of the Randolph-Macon students; in fact, we'd probably use the event to illustrate how bad the situation is that atheists must endure - and rightfully so.

---------
---------
16. Comment #18753 by Dogbreath "I'm not excusing bad behavior, I just didn't see any at Lynchburg. [...] I saw absolutely nothing at all wrong with the Lynchburg audience response. I applaud them.

best example of bad behavior at Lynchburgh: In response to a question from a Liberty studen, Richard explained that it is more difficult for the Theory of Evolution to account for the amount of uncritical thinking that exists in the world than to account for the existance of critical thinking. It's a point that made me stop and think: very interesting. In contrast, why did the audience laugh at this point? It appeared to be an emotionally-fed need on their part to intimidate and mock the other members of that audience who were in earshot. Would the members that laughed, have laughed so aggressively (or at all) had the audience not contained the Liberty students? I don't think so.

If you don't see this as base-instinct-driven bad behavior (or at least in-kind to the behavior we criticize christian funamentalist for engaging in) then I guess unfortunately we must agree to disagree.


--

374. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18713 by Riley on January 22, 2007 at 3:07 pm

10. Comment #18681 by Dogbreath: "What exactly was "cruel" or "sad" about what Dawkins said?"

There was nothing cruel about what Dawkins said. I support Dawkins and believe more people should point out that Liberty University teaches garbage 'science'. It was the crowd's eagerness to laugh at the Liberty students -who were not hostile- that I found cruel.

No doubt many of the laughing audience members have been victimized by having someone else's "religious point of view rammed down their throats" or been subjected to condescending and mocking comments from the religious right in that community, but tit-for-tat doesn't really justify anything.

At times I think the Lynchburgh VA audience resembled a mob that seemed to be drawing its energy in no small part from enjoyment at mocking that select group of human beings present in the room; and that's sad.

--

375. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18661 by Riley on January 22, 2007 at 9:13 am

I think it is in all cases a deluded idea to think that the "bad cop" approach (e.g. demeaning someone personally, intentionally inciting anger, using pejoratives, etc) is a reasonable approach to persuading someone to be more rational. But I think that Dawkins and Harris try to avoid doing this (and usually succeed). Daniel Dennett is particularly good at not allowing his baser instincts to get the better of him, and deserves credit for it. By contrast, I find it a bit disturbing when I hear my fellow fans of Dawkins praise him for his occassional "bad cop" behavior. The talk in Lynchburg, VA is a prime example ... The crowd there seemed disturbingly eager to jump on even the smallest opportunity to laugh, cheer and geer at the expense of those pitiful Liberty University students; it struck me as cruel and sad.

What I find especially effective in Dennett's approach is that he does more than just tell the faithful why faith is a delusion, he builds the bridge to a positive alternative and he encourages the faithful to walk across without shame.




--

376. Guest Host Bill Moyers with philosopher Daniel Dennett

Comment #18643 by Riley on January 22, 2007 at 7:29 am

Bill Moyers and Carl Sagan were the two most formidable and positive figures of my youth.

Bill Moyers' "World of Ideas" interviews was as influential to me as Cosmos. He is one of the truly great journalist in the world I think. He can interview people of integrity from a spectrum of ideas and give everyone of them a thoughtful platform and foil against which to express themselves.

His own recent thoughts On Democracy are speeches much worth listening to in their own right. He is a moving speaker. Listen to it here: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/12/24/1731220

I enjoy and appreciate Daniel Dennetts' approach to atheism and the atheist movement as well. If the goal is truly to convert the convertable to atheism, it is his gentle yet strong approach that I think will work, not an approach that demeans.

--

377. Some stars and planets in scale

Comment #18639 by Riley on January 22, 2007 at 7:09 am

For most of my life, my mental picture for the scale and size of the planets and our solar system was based on pictures in text books and mechanical models in science museums.

It was only just about 5 years ago that I realized (by trying to draw a scale model for myself of the sun and the earth) how far off I was ... and the awe it triggered in me was a religious experience of the first order. It was the outrageously large distance between the sun and the earth, relative to the size of the earth that really grabbed me.

Really great to be re-reminded of these things.

This is a bit of revelation again for me, I hadn't realized that the sun was so small relative to some of the other common stars.

This stuff is great! I love it!


---

378. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18486 by Riley on January 21, 2007 at 7:16 am

6. Comment #18456 by Zappi
"Chomsky never mentions they are anti-market communist groups that happen to use this version of the 'Catholic Church' as a way to reach as many people as they can. Chomsky is much too intelligent not to notice what he's doing, I wonder what his real political motivations are."

Why is it that so many people seem willing to sacrifice the open market of ideas in order to make way for an open market of commercial products?

If people want socialism in their country, that's their right; Denmark, Sweden and France do well enough if not better than most for their people - so who are we to judge, much less to be mettling in the politics of other soverign and democratic nations who might want to follow such socialist models? Markets are great tools of democracy, but just as evolution is a process blind to the future and our genes indifferent to human happiness and suffering, "free" markets are similarly blind to the future and indifferent to human happiness and suffering; markets need to be regulated to a greater or lesser degree to ensure they are broadly serving human needs and happiness.

Chomsky is right to point out the hypocracy of U.S. politicians who claim to be supporting one ideal, while they undermine it in support of another.

The same dynamic is occuring now as politicians proclaim to be working to eradicate terrorism and to spread democracy, but readily employ terrorism and sacrifice democracy in order to achieve the forceable "freeing" of markets. Why is that? Judging such people on their actions, we'd have to conclude that they don't really care as much about democracy and terrorism as they do about opening up markets to the business interests they represent.

A prime and latest example of this hypocritical behavior is the Bush administration and Venzuela. Bush supported a terrorists-lead coup which temporarily overthrew the democratically elected government of Venezuela (Hugo Chavez). Iraq/Afghanistan is another perfect example - the actions by the Bush administration show that they were far more concerned about the privatization of the Iraqi oil industry and securing the Afghanistan oil pipeline, than they were in creating institutions of democracy and dismantling the terrorist organizaitons in those countries.



--

379. Evangelical Scientists Refute Gravity With New 'Intelligent Falling' Theory

Comment #18100 by Riley on January 18, 2007 at 9:59 am

The Onion, truly "America's Finest News Source".

BTW, The Onion was founded and originally published in Madison, Wisconsin by two juniors at the University of Wisconsin-Madison; my current home town and university.

380. A Mission to Convert

Comment #17328 by Riley on January 12, 2007 at 11:46 pm

24. Comment #14915 by Nikki on December 26:
"Perhaps Riley would like to comment on "God and the Fight Against Aids"?"

Involved in this AIDS mess are political organizations led by complex ideologies and motives. It just so happens that George Bush and the Catholic Church claim their decisions are guided by God. If they were'nt claiming authority from God, they'd find some other faith based reason: "Conservatism", "Family Values", whatever.

My point is that religion is just an emergent property of the underlying problem, and that there's no special case to be made about the evils committed in the name of God that can't be equally made for the evils committed in the name of loyalty to a charsmatic leader, institution, or ideology. Belief in God is not the decisive factor - take away belief in God and large populations of people will still do evil things.

The root problem that seems to exist across the board is faith. Faith which leads people to follow ideologies despite evidence, and to kill and be killed at the command of charismatic leaders and institutions.

-------------------------------

25. Comment #14923 by JohnC on December 26:
"Riley, it should be noted that Richard and Sam are not the same person, and that perhaps your reservations (and mine) may not be particularly applicable to TGD. Dawkins' outrage has always been at the baseless intellectual privileging of religion, while Harris's End of Faith was actually a direct response to 9/11 and his concerns are very much about the political dangers religion poses. "

I'm speaking generally about Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the current atheist movement, not just the content of TGD. And in this broad movement, I see a counterproductive claim being made that "belief in God" is the decisive factor in much of the evil committed in the world - and I think this is a mistake.

Its far stronger to attack "faith" (which by extension combines an attack on the belief in God and the belief in Stalinism alike) than to single-out an attack on the belief in God. As a result of Sam Harris singling-out belief in God as a decisive factor in the 9/11 attacks in the U.S., Richard's very own message (which at one time I think was more selectively targeted on "faith") is now distracted by the need to argue that Stalinist atrocities are not related to Stalinist atheism. Theists then retort by using the very same arguments to disconnect Theist atrocities from Theism.

Can no one else see what an unproductive mess this creates?

---

381. A Mission to Convert

Comment #14892 by Riley on December 26, 2006 at 12:36 pm

JohnC wrote: "In reality, religion (and opposition to religion) did not play a central role in the innumerable killing fields of the 20th century, and it is probably time people on both sides stopped cynically summoning the ghosts of the murdered in this debate."

It's a point worth repeating I think, and should be applied to more than just the 20th century.

I hear atheist-evagelists (Dawkins and Harris included) claim that a belief in a personal god has been a (the?) decisive factor in many of the word's large-scale killings, and I think this claim is not very well supported by evidence and worse leads to pointless pissing matches. Numerous historical examples exist of people oppressing, killing and willingly sacrificing their own lives for the cause of familial, national and/or ideological interests conspicuously without appeal to any sort of god (e.g. Stalin-led Russia, et al) and should be evidence that a belief in a personal god is not a necessary requirement for "good people" to do bad things.

Prof. Dawkins, you had me at: "faith is not a virtue", your other political* arguments weaken this simple and powerful truth.

--Riley

---------------------
* notably distinguished from scientific arguments about the improbable existance of God.

382. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14815 by Riley on December 25, 2006 at 12:41 pm

rydrum2112 wrote: "Stalin killed people because they didn't follow his views, which had nothing to do with his being atheist- [...] He killed, so people would obey him and his political views not atheism."

Replace "atheist" with "theist" and the same defense would apply to theism and the terrible acts commited by theists.

Rosenhouse's final point is a very good one. I'll add to his point by saying that the really important distinction between what's right and what's wrong in society is the degree to which faith (into which I include ideology and charismatic leadership) is relied upon as an authoritative source for governing decisions; it is not the belief or non-belief in a personal god.

Instead of articulating sweeping attacks upon institutions and "religion" in general (and inviting unconstructive retaliatory comparisons to non-theists such as Stalin and Mao), I suggest that there is much more to be gained simply by identifying and attacking the problematic behavior itself, namely: faith-based decision making. By attacking the behavior and not the group-affiliation, we can humbly acknowlege that all institutions to at least some extent suffer from this human malady, wether the institution officially claims a belief in the supernatural or not.

We can recognize and point-out that this problematic behavior exists more prominantly in religious institutions than in say, "The Department of Agriculture" (if in fact it does), but going overboard to point this fact out is just prodding an emotionally charged pissing match, and what is gained by that?

I would suggest that more is lost than gained as attempting to assassinate the character of an institution mostly evokes defensiveness among its self-identified members and further entrenches group identification and group loyalty.

If there could be a root of all evil in human society, first on my list of candidates would be "us-them think".


--

383. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14463 by Riley on December 22, 2006 at 2:45 pm

Are mammals with an XXY chromosome coupling infertile? or is it possible for them to have offspring?


--

384. The Only One in Step

Comment #14448 by Riley on December 22, 2006 at 1:32 pm

--------------------------------------------------------
Joadist wrote: When man tries to apply his science to the works of God, he creates errors of magnitude.
--------------------------------------------------------



On one side of the argument we have men who claim knowlege by appealing to a book created by men in the language of men: fickle and context dependent.

On the other side of the argument we have men who claim knowlege by appealing to the the universe, created and in a language that could only be of God: consistant and universal.

I'll side on the truth revealed by God's creation over the sacriligeous worship of a book every time.

--

385. Richard Dawkins on the Mike Dickin Show

Comment #13785 by Riley on December 19, 2006 at 12:36 pm

Hearing now about the guy's death, I'm going to feel guilty about pointing this out and saying what I'm about to say, but:





listen to 2:03:40 - 2:04:20 of the radio program
-----------------------------------------------------------
Mike Dickin explaining evlolution:
Because of our intelligence, "over time, if we continue to try to reach that ceiling we will grow a little taller until we do . . . "
-----------------------------------------------------------

Spreading this non-sense as a professional broadcaster purporting to be on the side of science and reason, makes him far worse than the worst of his religous-minded callers.

I can't forgive the hypocracy of a person who is himself so mecilessly unforgiving and demeaning to others.

But I feel sympathy for those hurt by his sudden death,

--Riley

386. When Atheists Have Their Say (5 Letters)

Comment #11527 by Riley on December 5, 2006 at 10:37 am

#11507: "Atheists idolize to the same degree that Christians idolize their pastors. In doing so the atheists are demonstrating religious inclinations."

I'm most amused when I hear this from a religious zelot because it's really a desperate and childish ranting more succinctly worded as:
"Look! The atheists are just as bad as we are!"

of course that's true - except that atheists are a little more inclined to say "I don't know" where the theists claim inexplicable knowege.

--Riley

387. Intelligent Design: The Clincher. A butterfly explodes the theory

Comment #11526 by Riley on December 5, 2006 at 9:40 am

It may not be a clear refutation of Inteligent Design, this observation does at least say something about the nature of that designer.

--Riley

388. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #8799 by Riley on November 22, 2006 at 10:25 am

I guess I'm repeated what has already been stated above, but these things are worth repeating:

1) Israel defines itself as a "Jewish" state.
2) The reason why Israel exists in Palestine is because zionist Jews believe that God promised them that land - without this belief, there would be no conflict in that region.
3) Anti-sematism is the hatred of Jews because of their Jewish faith and was in large part sustained in the 20th century because of a Christian interpretation of their Bible.
4) In Nazi Germany, Christians justified the killing of Jews and gays because of their interpretation of the Bible.
5)The Nazis were a cult full of mystical beliefs used to justify world domination of their race over all others.
6) Japan was ruled by an emperor believed to be God on earth, and this was in no small part a justification for their war in Asia.
7) Stalinism replaced a devotional faith in a God, with a devotional faith in a state. Devoted faith remains the problem in both cases.
8) The practice of slavery was justified by slave owners in the U.S. becuase the Bible supported the practice.


---

389. A Free-for-All on Science and Religion

Comment #8553 by Riley on November 21, 2006 at 4:17 pm

I see the crazy old aunt.

--

390. The God Delusion? Part 1

Comment #6983 by Riley on November 16, 2006 at 12:59 pm

Without a meanigful definition for what is meant by "God", any discussion on the matter with Mr Chopra or anyone else is irrelevent.

391. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6760 by Riley on November 15, 2006 at 1:54 pm

[Riley wrote:] "How do you even propose verifying or invalidating that which exists outside the realm of human experience?"
[David Robertson wrote:]Firstly I would not declare that because it is outside the realm of human experience then it cannot exist.

You've just changed my words and responded to a strawman argument of your own making.

I never said that something outside the realm of human experience can not exixt. I questioned how you could verify its existence (and thus have a debate).

[David Robertson wrote:]Human experience (whether individually or collectively) cannot be the sole defining characteristic of reality.
Of course you're right again, and this is another irrelevent strawman argument.

[David Robertson wrote:]Secondly I would say that there are many things that scientists accept which are outside the realm of our experience.
Nope. In the end, it always comes down to verification by experiement.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[David Robertson wrote:]I think you are misunderstanding my position on the BBC. As I indicated in the article it was the BBC executives themselves who admitted that there was a cultural bias within the organization towards a secularist, atheistic philosophy as the default philosophy. Please feel free to check it for yourself.

first off, I judge people by their actions, not by what they say. The actions of the BBC programming indicate plentiful pro-faith, God evangelism in its programming. You've yet to show me by comparison more than table-scraps of programming that promotes that non-existance of God.

I checked your claim conmcerning statements of BBC execs and this is what I found: Most BBC executives admitted that "it leaned too strongly towards political correctness, the overt promotion of multiculturalism, anti-Americanism and discrimination against the countryside."

So they're pro-urban, out of touch, over the top liberalism - AND ARE THEMSELVES UNHAPPY ABOUT IT! At best you can claim that they, in an effort to promote multiculturalism, determined to promote the Islamic faith, and have done so at the expense of Christian faith. I agree, very repugnant, but what does favoring Islam over Christianity have to do with promoting atheism!?!?


I give up. Get your facts straight. Do your own research.


--------------

392. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6431 by Riley on November 14, 2006 at 8:17 am

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[Riley wrote:]"It is a non-starter to present the super-natural as evidence. The super-natural, is by its nature not verifiable and as such can not be debated. "
[David Robertson replied:] Nonsense. I think the supernatural is verifiable and can be a subject of debate.

Prove it. How do you even propose verifying or invalidating that which exists outside the realm of human experience?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[David Robertson wrote:]It really does not work because of course in theory there are plenty of things that are provable but maybe not by humans and not just now.

EXACTLY!!! There is no point debating things which are beyond current human ability to prove or disprove.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[David Robertson wrote:]The claims about the BBC still stand. Usually the religion presented on them is the most insipid and dead kind and is a real gift to atheists!

You can't defend your position as a matter of fact. You're opinion of the faith and faith practices of others has no bearing on your claim that the BBC promotes atheism and marginalizes theism (unless you are claiming these worshipers are not true theists? - is that your claim???) The facts are, measured in terms of number and frequency of programs on the BBC, unrefutable. If I'm wrong, show me the list of programs on the BBC (their frequency and number) that actively promote the non-existance of God - and we can compare. This is an opportunity to resolve a possible misunderstanding and disagreement! What a great opportunity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[David Robertson wrote:]I accept what you say about the difficulties of being an atheist in the US. Perhaps you will also recognize the difficulties of being a bible believing Christian in the UK?
I've never made any claims about what it is like to be a bible believing Christian in the UK. On the other hand, you have made wildly off-the-mark claims about atheism in the U.S.. So this reply of yours is a complete non-sequitor. However,given how irresponsible you are at gathering and checking your facts, I definitely wouldn't accept your characterizations about the UK based on your word alone.


------------
------------

393. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6307 by Riley on November 13, 2006 at 3:00 pm

David,

Retort 1:[David Robertson wrote:] "Dawkins is a fundamentalist because in effect he does not allow that any other position than his own could possibly be reasonable. "

Dawkins does not allow that any another position which is lacking the support of scientifically valid evidence and reason, could possibly be reasonable. This is the very definition of what "reasonable" is.

In this sense, he is fundamentalist in his insistance to science and reason, but here the use of the term "fundamantalist" is an oxymoron, since the very definition of "fundamentalism" is assering something as true even when evidence and/or reason suggests otherwise.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retort 2:[David Robertson wrote:] "The more I go on the more I realize that he is behaving like [a fundamentalist] – writing books for the benefit of his own followers, seeking to win people to the cause, [etc . . .]"

I understand where you are comming from, and I don't want to debate semantics, but this makes Dawkins "evangelical", not "fundamentalist".

In the same way that I would not wish to confuse "secular" with "atheism", I believe it unfair to confuse "evangalism" with "fundamentalism" (even though it may be true that most evengelicals are also fundamnetailsts).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retort 3:[David Robertson wrote:] "[...]I have been involved with many debates and know the score. What Dawkins does in Lynchburg is not a debate nor an engagement with people.[...] "

You make excellent observations here. But they are characteristically different from the portrayal you make of Dawkins in your article.

In your article, you do not criticize Dawkins for refusing to participate in formal debates. You claim Dawkins refuses to even "discuss with " those who would be stupid enough to disagree" with him.

The Lynchburgh Virginia audience had the opportunity, and often took advantage of it, to ask follow-up questions to the answers that Dawkins' gave (how can you claim with integrity that they didn't ?). Say what you want about Liberty 'Univiersity' but its debate teams are arguably the best in the United States (famously competing and beating teams from Harvard and Yale). Formal debate is what this school lives for, and while this wasn;t a formal deabte in Lynchburgh, you should not doubt for one second that the students and faculty that showed up from Liberty, took ample time to prepare and compare notes about the questions and follow-up questions they would ask. Easily mocked you say? These people are representative of millions of evangelicals in the United States - in fact as memebers of Liberty, they are arguably among the best and brightest of the group.

You make Dawkins sound like he insulates himself from criticism and his critics, which from what I observe, couldn't be further from the truth. If he were, he would have steered his book tour away from Liberty University, instead of directly toward it.

Why doesn't Dawkins debate you? My guess, is that if Dawkins were to debate someone, no matter what the subject, the most basic first requirement would be that each side of the debate present scientifically valid evidence to be debated.

It is a non-starter to present the the super-natural as evidence. The super-natural, is by its nature not verifiable and as such can not be debated.

This is should be considered the primary reason why he doesn't formally debate you or anyone else on matters of faith. The other reasons you state for why he doesn't debate are additional negative implications he wishes to avoid; for you to site those anselary reasons without siting the primary reason, is a serious oversight on your part.

Since you describe his unwillingness to formally debate you and others as a key criticism, in the future I would expect that you will include this essential point among your other characterizations of Dawkins' reasons for not formally debating you or others.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Retort 4:[David Robertson wrote:] Yes – faith without reason and evidence is dangerous and stupid. I would totally agree with that.

I'm very very happy to hear you agree. I know some who would preach that faith requires abandoning reason.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retort 5:[David Robertson wrote:] Interesting that you think secularism and atheism are entirely unconnected. I must ask the National Secular Society in Britain why they then promote only atheism.

No doubt groups can be (and often are), both secular and atheist. They can also be secular and Christian as is Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, whose Executive Director is a Christian minister.
see: Retort 2

No doubt, many (most?) Christian organizations hate to see secularism in places where it matters (like government and media) because secularism requires a neutral position, a "we don't know" default position on matters of faith - instead of an uncritical acceptance toward the faith of their choice, which so many of them are accustomed (at least in the U.S.).

Thank god for the meager amount of secularism(neutrality) that does exists.


---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Retort 6:[David Robertson wrote:] I have deliberately tried not to [cherry pick convenient facts]. Which is why I have spent so many hours going through all this stuff. Please let me know where I have gone wrong and which inconvenient facts I have ignored.

Ignoring my list of BBC programs provided me my first clue that you must be cherry picking your facts.

But, admittedly, it's intrinsically difficult for me to point out the facts that you have cherry picked, because you don't actually present many facts to back up your statements. I assume you to be an honest person and so I also assume that you do gather facts before forming your conclusions. However, since the overwhelming majority of the facts I and others have collected and presented on this board undermine nearly all of your assertions, I assume that you must be cherry picking.

Here are two of the most blatant examples of factual claims you have made:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Faulty Factual Claim #1:"the BBC would not allow for one minute anyone to make a programme defending the existence of God". This, simple claim, is made in addition to your very lengthy general characterization of BBC programming as being unfairly skewed in favor of atheism.

I wasn't sure myself (being from the U.S.), so I took about 5 minutes online and checked the BBC programming guuide. This will be my third time siting what I found:

The BBC Presents!: "Humphrys in Search of God": a multipart series containing several hours of leading religious figures defending the existance of God to an atheist."

But for those who want to dispose of the secular BBC approach altogether in favor of some full-on "Jesus is Lord!" affirmation, there seems to be no shortage of it on BBC programming:


"In Praise of God", seems to jump straight past the question of God to the praising of Him!!

"Unitarians explain their faith" . . . more of the faithful defending the existance of their version of God maybe ?

"Sunday Worship" this doesn't sound like a documentary ABOUT worship does it? my guess is, it's the actual worship itself.

"Prayer for the Day" day after day after day . . . how long do you suppose this type of programming has run on the BBC? My guess: years and years and years.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Faulty Factual Claim #2 Atheists are not "particularly silent or poorly represented in British society (or even American)". Far from it, you claim that there exists an "atheist hegemony".

I can't speak much for the British society, but Atheists in American society, according to a recent poll (http://www.asanet.org/page.ww?section=Press&name=Atheists+Are+Distrusted), are more "distrusted" than any other minority group, including gays. We wish we could be possessing the relative hegemony commanded by those lucky enough to be gay in America. Unlike gays: in the U.S., there is not a single polititian in higher office that dares to publicly express even thoughtful doubt about the existence or non-existance of god.

It's worth repeating again the 1987 quote from then incumbent Vice President George H. W. Bush, during his successful campaign to be the 41st Preident of the United States, and also not that since 1987, attitudes toward atheism have gotten worse in the U.S. :
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."


Add to these faulty factual assertions about Dawkins being unwiling to "discuss" (your word) matters with people that disagree with him (does he shun discussion with the Bishop of Catebury?), and your unsupported presumption that atheism is an essential part of secularism (despite the existence of numerous prominent secular organizations that are run by Christians and other theists - most notably: Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Lead by a Christian minister, it is an organization founded in no small part by religious leaders from minority faiths (Jews, Hindus, Muslims, and small Christian sects) who organized themselves fro the sole purpose of promoting secularism in the U.S.).



------

394. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #6042 by Riley on November 12, 2006 at 10:09 am

Impossible for someone who confuses matters of faith with matters of fact perhaps, but certainly not impossible otherwise.