This neither worries nor surprises me. We ceased relying upon individual brain power tens of thousands of years ago. Our civilization now gets all its inventive and creative power from the linking of brains into networks. Our future depends on being clever not individually, but collectively.

I disagree with this statement. It used to be that smart men would go off to college and marry some hometown girl or secretary based on looks and homemaking skills. Now that smart women are going to college (more than men), smart men are meeting and breeding with smart women, producing smarter offspring.

I read a study where more autistic spectrum kids are successfully going to college and that they may end up in the same careers, like computer technology. They meet, fall in love, and may have more children on the spectrum. This was one reason given for the rise in diagnoses of Asperger's. It may take several generations, but the descendants of these people will be your overlords. We Aspies may be a more socially awkward ruling class, but I promise you we'll do better than the clowns that now run the country. /tongue in cheek.

Jebus was supposed to come back in one generation, then he forgot. Now he's embarrassed to just show up late. He'll look pretty foolish, so he just procrastinates and hopes people will forget he ever promised to come back.

And what do you do with a T-shirt that says the world will end on a specific date? You'd look pretty stupid wearing it after the date has passed. Not that you didn't look stupid wearing it to begin with.

Comment 8 by IDLERACER

There are many normal men that don't have that desire.

Still, Mr. Kobre confirmed that the event would be broadcast live on the Internet,..

Oy vey!

I get this a lot from christians. Even as an atheist, you have faith: faith in your doctor, faith in science, faith that your wife isn't cheating on you.

Baloney!

I have trust in my doctor based on evidence. I trust the university that she attended and I've questioned her on her knowledge and she has given me informed, rational answers. I wouldn't trust my wife's doctor. She's a quack who believes in homeopathic remedies. So, through experience I don't trust her. I trust science because it's testable and if they get it wrong they try to fix it. I trust my wife because we've been together for 27 years and through experience I've learned to trust her.

Trust, not faith. Never faith, ever.

Well, my very christian neighbor and I spent Sunday filling in potholes on our road for the benefit of the other cheap/lazy neighbors. I didn't mention it was the sabbath and he didn't try to pray for the holes to fill themselves. So the job got done without a hitch, except the one in my back.

I've recently had to seek out a psychiatrist and therapist for a family member and was amazed at how many of these professionals graduated from religious universities. The ones that were providers for my insurance were 80-90% from christian colleges. I'm wondering if this is planned for some nefarious purpose, like having access to people when they're at their most vulnerable.

This is, of course, a step in the right direction but until the church loses its unwarranted privileges, it will only be one step. The most important issue is tax benefit restrictions for churches and their members. Tax them like any other business and their power will wane.

Too many people are using "atheist" when they really mean rationalist, humanist, secularist, egalitarian, anti-theist, or something similar. Atheist just means that your don't believe in a god or gods. It has nothing to do with whether or not you think all races are equal or not (unless the god says: blacks are inferior, then atheism would come into play).

I think most atheists are rationalists (a lot are not) and most are secularists (maybe all are). But to lump all atheists into a group and say they should do something about race inequalities is ludicrous. It's those other labels I hold that affect my thoughts about racism. Maybe a new phrase such as "atheist progressive" needs to be coined if people want to make this a wider movement involving civil rights for various groups. As elevator-gate proved, not all atheists think the same on any given issue.

Well, there goes that suit...

Comment 1

...or pornflakes.

Comment 67 by Roedy

The black churches in North Carolina have picked a scapegoat, gay people and are actively persecuting them promoting a constitutional amendment to make gay couples legally disappear. If they are going to behave that way, darned if I will stick my neck out to protect and support them.

Whereas, a larger portion of African Americans are against gay marriage than some other groups, it's not productive to say you won't stick your neck out to protect and support them. I don't see this as a black issue as much as it's a christian issue. Many blacks are gay and many others support gay marriage. Because a lot of blacks are bigots against gays (or whites, Hispanics, or whatever), doesn't mean the African Americans as a group shouldn't be supported when it comes to civil rights. Justice and civil rights for everyone, picking and choosing is a slippery slope, IMHO.

I thought it was the other end that did most of the damage.

Quine

Ha! You're correct, so I'll change that to "some atheists are racists, or bigots".

Comment 6 by AtheistEgbert

Thus, we can distinguish between egalitarian atheists and non egalitarian atheists. Egalitarian atheists (which I suppose includes the majority of freethinker atheists here) then have shared goals with most of the feminists, the lesbian and gay movement, the anti-racist movements and many others.

Exactly. Then we have (albeit fewer) egalitarian theists and I suppose there are some atheists in the KKK, I don't know how they'd react to this gentleman's proposals.

Too long and boring? That's not the problem with this post. The problem is that it really doesn't make sense. If he wants to talk about what humanists should do to help the black community, fine, that's a good topic. If he wants to talk about how more African Americans should be included in the atheist movement, great. But linking atheism with the tragic death of that young man and reparations or any other such connections is nonsensical. A more focused article may have better communicated what he is thinking, but this one's all over the map and is confusing, to say the least.

Our country would be better off if we had 364 days of reason and one day of national foolishness, say April 1st.

Being immortal, I'm positive that the world is going to end in my lifetime. Or is that immoral? Okay, now I'm confused.

It's not easy being an atheist in the U.S., but in some countries it can be fatal. Sometimes we take our 1st Amendment rights for granted and this gives us cause to remember that we have to be ever vigilant.

I'm sure that Richard would be willing to debate the pope. The next time a catholic throws out the "Why won't Dawkins debate William Lane Craig" bs, just say, "Richard has answered that a thousand times, but how come the pope won't debate Richard Dawkins?". I'd like to hear their response.

My favorite part of that clip was the commercials, Catholic Answers magazine with shorter articles which are marked with level of difficulty...you know, for those of you who are too stupid to understand a long article.

Comment 96 by Quine

I wonder if The Clergy Project would help nuns who want to leave the church or is it just for ministers? After being treated this way, a few of them might be thinking of changing careers.

As far as allowing women to be members of private clubs, the courts have ruled that if membership in a private club opens the door to new business contacts and clients and confers upon an individual an ability to meaningfully participate in business and professional opportunities that would otherwise be inaccessible, then the club must allow women. This happened to the Elks Club, who changed their policies. A woman was able to prove that business deals were being made at the club and she was excluded. The Elks now allow women members. If Augusta has a "no business deals policy" they may have protected themselves from this type of lawsuit. Or if they can prove that there are other clubs open to her in the area where business deals are made and she's allowed to join. The IBM CEO may be the first woman to have "standing" to sue Augusta, if she chooses to do so, since traditionally she would have been offered a membership.

The Elks, btw, do not allow atheists to join. Anyone want to file a lawsuit?

Comment 3 by davidckahn

The suit alleges the club violated Title II of Civil Rights Act of 1964, and the Michigan Civil Rights Act, which prohibit discrimination in public places based on religious beliefs — or lack thereof, claims CFI Michigan.

That should answer your complaint.

The group is asking for a jury trial.

I don't understand this. First, and I may be wrong about this, I thought the defendant (the country club) got to choose what kind of trial they got. And secondly, if CFI got to choose, why would they choose a jury trial? Certainly, a trial by judge would be more likely to ignore religious prejudices and rule fairly. The odds of getting religious people on the jury is really high in the U.S.

He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford and has written several books on atheism.

He has? I'd like to get those and add them to my collection, or does the author of this piece consider The Selfish Gene a book on atheism?

Comment 25 by cynicaloptimistrealist

If you've been to Arlington Cemetery, you will notice little crosses on many of the headstones, isn't the cemetery on government land?

Yes Arlington is government land, but as I stated above, you'll also see Stars of David, Wiccan symbols, that atomic thing some atheists use...they're not preferring one belief over another, so a cross at Arlington is constitutional. If they only allowed crosses at Arlington, it would be unconstitutional.

Comment 14 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee

If they had discriminated based on political parties, there wouldn't be a problem. They discriminated based solely on religious (or lack thereof) beliefs. This is illegal and they should lose this case, if it comes to trial without a settlement.

Well, I had a slight problem with this particular case, only because the damn thing has been there for 91 years (originally to honor WWI vets). More of an issue to me is the fire department's website that has christian prayers and what not. You can't argue history for a website.

This situation can easily be rectified by the town paying to erect similar symbols for any one who requests it (and pay for it). So if some Jews want a Star of David, they put one up. If atheists want the atomic symbol, or a declarative plaque, then one is put up also. This is how military cemeteries have handled this and the courts have supported it. The law does not say you can't have religious symbols on public property, it just can't promote one group over others (and that includes wiccans or anyone else).

...or BREACH of contract....duh.