1. Comment #196997 by mordacious1 on June 20, 2008 at 10:11 pm

Always love to listen to PZ, and Point of Inquiry does a good job interviewing.

...convert people to critical thinking. Tough job.

"...the conservative churches are force-feeding kids nonsense". Science gives them the ability to question this nonsense. Succinct.

Other Comments by mordacious1

2. Comment #197037 by Elles on June 21, 2008 at 12:47 am

PZ Myers and I now have something in common. We've both been on Point of Inquiry! (For those interested, it's not because I'm a famous person with an Internet alias. I was on "Student Freethinkers Speak Out" last December representing the small number of high school students who have secular campus groups.)

Carry on.

Other Comments by Elles

3. Comment #197042 by mordacious1 on June 21, 2008 at 12:59 am

Elles

I listened to that broadcast. High schoolers of today are extremely lucky to have various means to express their opinions. In my day, we had a stupid student newspaper, where the staff was chosen by the principal and reviewed by him. Now you have the internet, what a wonderful way of getting involved and actually being heard. Even though you were on the radio, your broadcast could be heard online around the globe. You are growing up during a wonderful time. Stay involved, always let your voice be heard.

Other Comments by mordacious1

4. Comment #197073 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 3:05 am

Yes, when I was in high-school (I lived in San Diego), the only exposure to other atheists that I had was the Madelyn Murray O'Hair, American Atheists show, and it was short, not associated with science, per se, and unprofessional.

I really enjoy these atheist/science blogs... So, I am happy to see it flourish.

One aspect that I slightly dislike is the way that atheist blogs tend to be so politically dogmatic. I always end up having political arguments rather than discussing science or atheism. I wish these blogs would be as open politically as they are in terms of science.

The other thing I dislike about blogs is that the discussions are very chaotic. You make a statement and there are so many other conversations going on that you generally don't get your voice heard unless you join somebody else's discussion. Also, people misinterpret very easily because they cannot possible read all entries and so miss points that were made in the past.

There is room for improvement in the format of this blog. If, rather than text only discussions, we would start using YouTube video short clips, it might make for more interesting discussions.

That being said, I'm still very happy about this era of blogs on the internet!

Other Comments by AtheistJon

5. Comment #197077 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 3:38 am

I am a bit cautious about blogging in general being that effective. It reminds me of the Tom Lehrer song "The folk song army":

If you feel dissatisfaction,
Strum your frustrations away.
Some people may prefer action,
But give me a folk song any old day.

If we are going to be effective we need to do more than just "blogging our frustrations away", that is, unless we are sure that our blogging in a way that has an effect. Blogging alone is not action. For those without the huge audience of PZ Myers it can be equivalent to a conversation between friends in a pub. One puts the world to rights over a beer, but nothing changes.

Blogs can be used to discuss ideas, and to arrange campaigns. They can also be used as a resource, where one can archive thoughts and links.

But unless there is visibility, blogging alone is not a step forward, I think.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

6. Comment #197078 by Barry Pearson on June 21, 2008 at 3:46 am

At #197073 AtheistJon said: One aspect that I slightly dislike is the way that atheist blogs tend to be so politically dogmatic. I always end up having political arguments rather than discussing science or atheism. I wish these blogs would be as open politically as they are in terms of science.

The other thing I dislike about blogs is that the discussions are very chaotic. You make a statement and there are so many other conversations going on that you generally don't get your voice heard unless you join somebody else's discussion. Also, people misinterpret very easily because they cannot possible read all entries and so miss points that were made in the past.

I believe these blogs are good for sharing information and developing ideas. That is how I use this one.

I believe blogs like this part of the website are poor for debates and arguments, which is what comments sometimes turn into. Threaded forums are better for that.

(I'm not sure what the best format for a "rant" is! Probably getting down on your knees, putting your hands together, closing your eyes, and talking to yourself).

An improvement I would like is always to have the date of the original material clearly identified. One recent article quoted in full a 2001 article in a newspaper without giving the date. With no reason to go to the original article, I wonder how many people realised that it was old news?

I wrote the above before this was posted:

At #197077 Steve Zara said: If we are going to be effective we need to do more than just "blogging our frustrations away", that is, unless we are sure that our blogging in a way that has an effect. Blogging alone is not action. For those without the huge audience of PZ Myers it can be equivalent to a conversation between friends in a pub. One puts the world to rights over a beer, but nothing changes.

Blogs can be used to discuss ideas, and to arrange campaigns. They can also be used as a resource, where one can archive thoughts and links.

Precisely! I like to quote to myself (and sometimes to others, which probably irritates them!) "I am in the solution business, not the debating business".

The reality check is "what difference will what I am writing make to the Real World?"

Other Comments by Barry Pearson

7. Comment #197079 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 4:00 am

If we are going to be effective we need to do more than just "blogging our frustrations away", that is, unless we are sure that our blogging in a way that has an effect. Blogging alone is not action. For those without the huge audience of PZ Myers it can be equivalent to a conversation between friends in a pub. One puts the world to rights over a beer, but nothing changes.

Steve, I agree with you. But, then this begs the question, why do we continue this way? You're probably the most prolific blogger on this site? Is there anybody who has posted more?

What would be a good alternative activity in your opinion?

I have to say, that conversations on this blog have (as of yet) not led me to one concrete action... so I am 100% guilty of the beer hall atheism... perhaps I need to change my avatar ;-)
...Now there's something concrete to talk about when people tell me to get off my high horse ;-)

Now that I think about it more... I think the thing that really attracts me to this site are all the video/audio postings of professionals that are way better than what used to be available in the general media.

EDIT

I believe these blogs are good for sharing information and developing ideas. That is how I use this one.

Barry, I agree here, also, but the chaos does tend to make the sharing and developing of ideas very laborious and difficult. I recently started using those other forum blogs, and they tend to be less chaotic than these feature article discussion threads.

Would you concur with that? In other words, are the forum threads more constructive? Or is that just beginners luck?

Other Comments by AtheistJon

8. Comment #197080 by ksskidude on June 21, 2008 at 4:04 am

Elles,

Its pretty cool to be able to express yourself to a large audience. It makes you feel like your doing a small part in potentially changing the world. While I have not be on Point of Inquiry, I have been fortunate to be a guest on The Infidel Guy Internet broacast, "healing Without God" is the title of the show. It was alot of fun, and very rewarding.

i am off to the golf course now, 6am local time, but will listen to PZ as soon as I return. I always learn a great deal when listening.

Other Comments by ksskidude

9. Comment #197083 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:14 am

Steve, I agree with you. But, then this begs the question, why do we continue this way? You're probably the most prolific blogger on this site? Is there anybody who has posted more?

I am nowhere near the volume of others, such as Al-rawandi in full flow.

Also, I would not call this blogging myself. Blogging is when I post on my own site (sorry to be pedantic).

I continue here to rehearse tactics, to exchange ideas. I have learned a lot, and it has been useful. I have publicly (albeit in writing) debated theists elsewhere, and I believe those debates have been successful, because of what I have learned here. This site is also visible. People have come here to try and show that they can "deal" with us "militant atheists", and the consequent interactions here are followed by many, I am sure. There have been important discussions and demonstrations of tactics by epeeist and Brian English recently.

This is where we can "spar" in public and if we do so carefully, we may have an impact.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

10. Comment #197086 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 4:19 am

I continue here to rehearse tactics.

Yes, it's sort of like a video game called, "virtual arguments".

It's funny how, when you engage in argumentation, it forces you to think about what you really believe... it's harder to challenge ones own arguments alone. Especially, if you haven't been doing it for long.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

11. Comment #197087 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:21 am

Comment #197086 by AtheistJon

Absolutely. I used to think that non-supernatural dualism was a reasonable idea until I came here.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

12. Comment #197089 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 4:23 am

What's non-supernatural dualism?

EDIT. By the way, have you considered trying your hand at debating theists, publicly and not in writing, i.e. on a stage somewhere? I think I would enjoy seeing that. I wonder if Richard Dawkins would arrange for you some such session... I think so many people on this blog know you, so it would be a good "consciousness raising" event. Or maybe you against al-Rawandi? Pick a topic. ;-)

Other Comments by AtheistJon

13. Comment #197093 by Goldy on June 21, 2008 at 4:33 am

But, then this begs the question, why do we continue this way? You're probably the most prolific blogger on this site? Is there anybody who has posted more?

Dunno about Steve, but I find it cathartic. Otherwise the students I work with would have to put up with my ranting against the sheer fuckwittery of life that's been addled by superstition and idiocy. I write because I have to tell people how fucking wrong they are and that I can't believe grown people can be so fucking stupid. And hopefully, fingers crossed, there's someone somewhere that might, just might, read my diatribe or even my fairly well researched answer to a question and think, actually think, that maybe they are wrong and that maybe, just maybe, there's something other than some god or fairytale that has real meaning in life.
And, as Steve said, one learns so much, not just about life, the universe and everything, but on how to talk to those that are....damn, what can I say...people that I cannot comprehend, people that I cannot see getting through a day never mind a whole lifetime. I can, here, talk to people who are in my mind more intelligent than any I could ever hope to meet and people who really should have been institutionalised for their extreme lack of intelligence.
This site is a drug. I'm hooked.

Other Comments by Goldy

14. Comment #197096 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:37 am

Comment #197089 by AtheistJon

What's non-supernatural dualism?

That there is some extra factor that makes up our minds, that is more than just the activity of neurons. One example is the ideas of the philosopher David Chalmers.

By the way, have you considered trying your hand at debating theists, publicly and not in writing, i.e. on a stage somewhere? I think I would enjoy seeing that.

I would be very reluctant. Such debate are won by rhetoric, not by facts. It can be about who talks more loudly and faster.

The kind of debate I enjoy is like this:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/135785.html

you against al-Rawandi? Pick a topic. ;-)

I would not stand the slightest chance, either in terms of facts or energy!

Other Comments by Steve Zara

15. Comment #197097 by Apathy personified on June 21, 2008 at 4:44 am

Steve,

On your list of reasons why you post, surely you forgot, 'because it's fun'.

A lot of my friends aren't interested in the issues we discuss here, so it's great to have the chance to at least see the debates, even if i choose not to post.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

16. Comment #197098 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 4:45 am

The kind of debate I enjoy is like this:
http://zarbi.livejournal.com/135785.html

Jeez Louise, that's more like a short book or magazine article than a debate... To me this kind of debate is in the famous words of Bart Simpson, "Boring"... I much prefer short back and forths. Although, I don't mean that it should be a sound-bite debate. Facts are essential to good debates, but a main thing about a good debate is it's good arguments. Arguments don't always have to be 3 pages long.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

17. Comment #197100 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:51 am

Comment #197097 by Apathy personified

On your list of reasons why you post, surely you forgot, 'because it's fun'.

Also naive optimism. I have this dream that someone - even if it is only one person - who comes here supporting creationism or ID will, when it is pointed out that trying to persuade us to abandon the tested work of generations of biologists based on their personal opinion of science and an old book, realises how deeply arrogant and embarrassing that is (I get embarrassed just reading their posts), and they say "Oh dear! I do look a twit, don't it? Terribly sorry to bother you".

Perhaps if those who post here don't, the message may get across to others who don't. Even if they don't change their minds, they may actually realise it is a good idea to shut up.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

18. Comment #197101 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 4:54 am

Comment #197098 by AtheistJon

OK then... this:
http://atheistandchristiandialogue.blogspot.com/

Other Comments by Steve Zara

19. Comment #197102 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 5:03 am

OK then... this:
http://atheistandchristiandialogue.blogspot.com/

Yes, that's much better. I wonder why you think you couldn't use your, IMO, excellent writing skills, and convert them to oral debate sessions? You seem to blog pretty fast... I wouldn't think that doing it out loud would present you much of a challenge? Unless you suffer from stage-fright... in which case, a few good sessions of Karaoke singing might help get you ready.

Anyway, sorry for pushing it on to you, if you are dead set against it. Just thought it would be valuable to get to know your face and voice. ;-)

Other Comments by AtheistJon

20. Comment #197103 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 5:18 am

Comment #197102 by AtheistJon

I am pretty much against it. I don't much suffer from stage fright - in past years I have been a regular lecturer and teacher of university students.

Those debates were on specific topics, and time could be taken to respond. Spoken debates are about pace. They aren't usually about exploring issues, but about making the best impression.

It reminds me of Scott Adam's assessment of who usually wins presidential elections - the one who is tallest and with the best hair.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

21. Comment #197111 by Frankus1122 on June 21, 2008 at 6:09 am

Steve Zara said:

I am nowhere near the volume of others, such as Al-rawandi in full flow.

Other comments by Steve Zara: 5398
Other Comments by Al Rawandi: 4185

Other Comments by Frankus1122

22. Comment #197113 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 6:17 am

Comment #197111 by Frankus1122

Not fair. I started much earlier. There was also the Dianelos debate. A detailed statistical analysis is required.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #197115 by Frankus1122 on June 21, 2008 at 6:25 am

Goldy:

This site is a drug. I'm hooked.

I know what you mean. As I said earlier I will be without Internet access for most of the summer. Although I will most definitely enjoy my time with my children in the wilds of north-eastern Ontario, it may seem a bit like rehab at first.

As to the point of these threads and blogging:
I was thinking it could be like adding straw to a camel's back.
RtG and txp and the like must at some point get overwhelmed by the evidence against their position. And if not them, then the others who silently observe.
If all one hears is the rantings of the preacher on Sunday about the evils of Darwinism they have here an alternate source of information. If they are truly honest with themselves about discovering truth they have a source of it here.
I prefer the "naive optimism" of Steve.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

24. Comment #197122 by robotaholic on June 21, 2008 at 6:56 am

cool - I love Point of Inquiry too - I listen to it every week - and of course PZ - I want to subscribe to both their magazines lol -

One Point of Inquiry show made me mad tho - it was the one where Chris Hedges talked about his new book "I Don't Believe in Atheists"- First he came out with a pretty good book criticizing religion and then his second book (just for the sake of controversy IMO) criticized alot of the "new atheists"-

I don't know about you, but my favorite writers, bloggers,etc are the ones that totally FLAME religion harshly - those weak, mild, moderate atheist are bla to me. I like how PZ says "I'm pushing at the edges- speaking out for people who havn't really had a voice in America for a long time" he "sqwaks loudly" lol - and he really has made me appreciate cephalopods lol

Other Comments by robotaholic

25. Comment #197123 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 6:57 am

By the way, guys. To back up my opinion that video is good... I just wanted to try posting a video blog.

So, I made a video blog introduction of myself on YouTube.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1J_ukU_fII

Feel free to make any constructive criticism.

If anybody (obviously not Steve) ever wants to debate with me over this medium... I am now prepared for you! Bring it on ;-)

I warn you that I'm a novice with almost zero debate experience, but I'm ready to get me ideas challenged.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

26. Comment #197124 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 7:04 am

Comment #197123 by AtheistJon

Sorry, I misunderstood you.

Video blogging debate is fine by me. (Not that I particularly fancy it myself)

I assumed you meant some sort of live debate.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

27. Comment #197126 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 7:09 am

Well, I did mean live debate. It's okay... if you don't like that, it's no sweat... Personally, I've never participated in live debate (other than in my high school civics class)... but I enjoy it much more than text based debates. This is because people on blogs tend to say a lot more venomous things than when they are talking with people live.

I guess the video blog idea was just because I wanted to break open my new camera and try out my hand.

EDIT: I don't know what the hell happened with the audio-video timing... hmm I need to figure that one out before I blog that way ;-)

Other Comments by AtheistJon

28. Comment #197129 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 7:31 am

I don't know about you, but my favorite writers, bloggers,etc are the ones that totally FLAME religion harshly - those weak, mild, moderate atheist are bla to me.

Define moderate atheist.

I consider myself a full-fledged hardcore atheist, but I don't like to FLAME anybody, unless they FLAME me first.

You know in the Selfish Gene, RD talks about Tit-for-Tat strategy and nice strategies. I'm a Tit-for-Tatest (or maybe a 2 Tits for Tat) kind of guy. So, if a religious nut case will talk with me reasonably, I won't immediately jump down his throat and threaten to call the insanity ward to come pick up an escaped prisoner... I'd rather use the power of persuasion in a non-flaming way.

If that doesn't help, then it's almost better to just avoid discussing altogether. No point duking it out with insults. You might as well challenge them to a duel, or at least a boxing match... it'd probably be more productive (unless you are going up against Mike Tyson... I'm sure he's a religious nutcase by now).

Other Comments by AtheistJon

29. Comment #197144 by robotaholic on June 21, 2008 at 8:04 am

when I say FLAME the religious I mean “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Other Comments by robotaholic

30. Comment #197150 by mordacious1 on June 21, 2008 at 8:21 am

robotaholic

Yes, I agree with you about the Hedges interview. I didn't get mad, just rolled my eyes. But this is ok, we don't just need to hear things we agree with.

AtheistJon

Video debates: Have you ever seen a video of clearth..I mean David Robertson? That guy is hard enough to take in writing, without having to see and hear him. Way too much for my senses.

Ps. did you notice how, by the third post, I was able, not intentionally, to derail the thread? This is a problem, but sometimes it goes in a good direction. It is when you have a poster with an ax to grind, like DR, that the threads can be all on the same subject. Trying to make mincemeat out of DR, for example.

Other Comments by mordacious1

31. Comment #197154 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 8:31 am

Robotaholic... I made a video response to you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xfMJ8nrBFA

By the way, mordacious, (first of all, no, I haven't seen clearth's videos)... I hope you aren't implying that I shouldn't do any video blogs? Or that I remind you of that crazy nut case guy? I suppose he's one of those Christian fundamentalists?

Anyway, I got some "hello's" and other good feedback from people already, even though my previous video sucked (technically). So, I'm encouraged anyway... maybe I will continue this meme.

EDIT. By the way, with respect to the RD quote from TGD. I think it was not really flaming, but a general criticism of the Old Testament (which I agree with, BTW). In general argumentation and debate, criticism is fine because the other guys are asking for it. I think RD has done a perfectly good job in TGD in criticizing religion, because he wasn't engaging in a flame, but rather he was using argumentation that invites a rebuttal. You can't get mad at RD for writing that... it's a debate.

What somebody will get pissed at, is if they write something innocuous sounding, and you tell them to "Fuck off, idiot"... or something in that direction.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

32. Comment #197162 by rod-the-farmer on June 21, 2008 at 9:02 am

The Richard Dawkins Foundation web site has Richard asking for volunteers to pick up some of the invitations he receives for debates. He gets far too many to respond to them all. So, over to you Steve. I would be happy to do some myself, but my scientific background is nowhere near as impressive as yours, or many others. I think I could be described as moderately well-read in a several areas of science, but I might do more harm than good. What I offer is some passion for the subject, extensive experience in public speaking on four continents, plus (brags here) I am one of the minor contributors to the BBC "Have Your Say" program. They have called me four times in the past year and a bit, to appear on their radio show. I am, in their words, 'articulate and thoughtful', and a Canadian. That, and a dollar, will get you a coffee or a tea in the local shops. Could have knocked me over with a feather the first time they called. My sisters' response was "Of COURSE you have an opinion, you're a {insert family name here}."

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

33. Comment #197164 by Quine on June 21, 2008 at 9:11 am

Steve:

... and they say "Oh dear! I do look a twit, don't it? Terribly sorry to bother you".

I do believe it happens, but just up to before that last part, so they go away without really having to make the admission publicly (or, perhaps, even to themselves).

Other Comments by Quine

34. Comment #197166 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 9:17 am

Comment #197164 by Quine

What they often then do is (to use a phrase I believe I coined during a long debate with Dianelos) go away, press their "reset" button and reload their religious software free of the virus of rationalism. Then, they come back....

Other Comments by Steve Zara

35. Comment #197170 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #197162 by rod-the-farmer

I did not realise the situation at the RDF. That may make me things look at differently.

What I offer is some passion for the subject, extensive experience in public speaking on four continents, plus (brags here) I am one of the minor contributors to the BBC "Have Your Say" program. They have called me four times in the past year and a bit, to appear on their radio show. I am, in their words, 'articulate and thoughtful', and a Canadian.

That is excellent!

I may not be a suitable debate candidate with my current views. If anyone religious starts to talk on scientific matters, I would immediately ask what their scientific qualifications were and why they feel they have the authority to speak on science from a religious position. In fact, if they were to speak about anything religious at all, I would demand that they shut up until they can provide a guaranteed definition and test for the supernatural and how we can know it exists (I have been reading up on my Hume). So, the debates might not be that long.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

36. Comment #197175 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 9:35 am

I wouldn't mind debating religious people. I am a scientist. But, the problem is that I'm a novice.

BTW, Steve, scientific qualifications shouldn't be brought up immediately should it? Isn't that using "argument from authority"?

Other Comments by AtheistJon

37. Comment #197179 by rod-the-farmer on June 21, 2008 at 9:43 am

Steve, I was thinking (hoping ?) that there may be room for a NON-scientist, just an ordinary bloke, to participate in one of these debates. Sort of the average man on the street. While we all love to watch Hitchens eviscerate a fundie who simply does not know his stuff, I think there is room for the idea that you DON'T have to be a multiple university degree holder, to be educated enough to see through the bafflegab that is much of religious thought. There are so MANY of them out there, that the Four Horsemen cannot reach them all. Local debates might help get the idea across that "Woo hoo, there are atheists among us, and actually, they are nice people. One of my best friends is an atheist."

I did not complete my university courses, and have no intention of going back now. But I feel rather strongly that I could give as good as I get in a civil debate with someone at my level, even a local preacher who irritates me no end, and prove that ANYONE can be rational. Even a dummy like me.

I am tempted to issue an invitation to a debate with this preacher, to be held in the local community hall. I am afraid it might cause problems within my family, though. Son in high school, and all that.

Other Comments by rod-the-farmer

38. Comment #197182 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 9:48 am

Comment #197179 by rod-the-farmer

You will have to forgive me. I am seeing things from my largely scientific perspective.

I am going to have a think about what you say.. it is an important point, and then I'll post something longer later.

Can I PM you with some initial thoughts first?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

39. Comment #197190 by mordacious1 on June 21, 2008 at 10:12 am

AtheistJon

To answer your questions: No, No, and Yes.

[edit]: Problems with video blogging. I can read a lot faster than I can watch a video, and it is hard enough to keep up with this site. Like I said, I couldn't stomach videos from certain bloggers, ie. DR . His video blogs on his site are difficult to take.

Pros: I like seeing the person, and the blogger can show examples (say, a fossil or some fauna, depending on subject).

Concl: An occasion video blog would be good and entertaining, if a whole thread was videos, there wouldn't be enough time in the day.

Other Comments by mordacious1

40. Comment #197199 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 10:25 am

rod-the-farmer said:

I think there is room for the idea that you DON'T have to be a multiple university degree holder, to be educated enough to see through the bafflegab that is much of religious thought

Profoundly said.

For that matter, you could almost put my 9 year old son on the stage with the fundies and using child wisdom, blow their pants off.

;-)

Other Comments by AtheistJon

41. Comment #197207 by Tom Coward on June 21, 2008 at 11:04 am

Can't wait until next week.

--A card-carrying member of the reality based community!

Other Comments by Tom Coward

42. Comment #197228 by AoClay on June 21, 2008 at 12:00 pm

I have to say that Steve is probably my favorite poster here and I'd flock to watch any debate he had with a theist.

Rod,
I love that idea and it's a fair point. I'm sixteen and I feel like I could shut down a preacher so I'm sure you'd do well as you're high above my knowledge.

Other Comments by AoClay

43. Comment #197300 by AtheistJon on June 21, 2008 at 4:05 pm

For all the idiocy of religion. For all the pureness of truth that comes from a small boy. Though we atheists are far wiser than followers of the babbledy-gook crazies... there is one thing that still needs to be remembered.

It's not knowledge that is vital when going against a preacher, rather, you have to keep in mind about preachers that they and their ilk (eg. the kind you can read about in Christopher Hitchen's short book on Mother Theresa, The Missionary Position) are professional con men. They live on the money that they sucker out of their faithful flock. Con men aren't really idiots... they know all the tactics of professional car salesman and use them ruthlessly against debaters even as good as Hitchens and Dawkins. For us atheists, it is all transparent BS.

Atheists have cold facts and the truth on their side... but unfortunately, as Steve mentioned above, it doesn't always work in a debate somehow. Unfortunately, one also needs rhetoric, clarity of thought, eloquence of language, and the experience of having dealt with the typical con jobs that get thrown at you. The key to a good debate is having the right argument and presenting it in a clear manner that makes it overwhelm an irrational opponent's con job.

I wish we could put all those con artists out of business, but it's definitely an uphill battle.

Other Comments by AtheistJon

44. Comment #197405 by Ascaphus on June 22, 2008 at 1:41 am

I like that. Science and skepticism has a corrosive influence on nonsense. If you are selling nonsense, you definitely have something to worry about.

Somebody mentioned fun. I would have more fun with all of this, but it just gets personal after a while. As just one example in my life, one of my younger cousins went off to school to study engineering, but discovered that his real consuming interest was psychology. I was happy to see him finding his way in the real world. Then he came home one summer with the news that, since the psych and biology was making him question his faith, he was dropping it all and finishing in computer science which made no incursions on his Christian faith. Grrrr......... It has lost much of its amusement for me. Faith ruins lives and I'm fighting back. I hate to see any mind perverted by nonsense, especially if it belongs to somebody I know and love.

Matt

Other Comments by Ascaphus

45. Comment #197409 by black wolf on June 22, 2008 at 2:00 am

Ascaphus,
seems like your cousin closed off his mind the moment he realized how fragile and unfounded his faith is. Let's hope that that sense in his mind remains. It might grow over time. Many believers started out exactly like he did, and it took them decades to finally admit their faith was misplaced. Admitting such a fundamental error to yourself is one of the hardest things for our minds, as there are literally biochemical mechanisms blocking such unpleasant experiences. Finding value in abandoning religion often requires realizing the freedom and greater sense of beauty of and our self-determination within the universe this move brings - a sense which is greater than any conception of any god ever devised. Especially a god who requires constant worship, groveling, fear, and arrogantly praising yourself for being the goal and pinnacle of the universe and calling that humility.

Other Comments by black wolf

46. Comment #197705 by Vinelectric on June 22, 2008 at 2:11 pm

black wolf,

The real problem lies in apathy. Like Acaphus's experience with his cousin, I have come across fairly intelligent and well educated people who would rather uphold their family and social ties than to really bother about whether there is a god or not. Sometimes there's too much at stake to be lost and people feel that life really is too short to spend your few decades proving points and settling detailed intellectual differences.

In some parts of the world, e.g the Muslim Middle East, the rise in fundamentalism and its palpable immediate impact on your surroundings forces you to take the matter more seriously. You realise there's much to be lost from sitting on the fence and turning your back on the issue.

However, in any reasonably developed country, especially Europe or North America, the only equivalent violent threat from religion comes only from "foreign" groups that don't resemble "us" in any obvious manner. I can see why the loosely-Christian West is generally complacent in its attitudes towards religion. Apart from the occasional Cult suicide, religion is at worst a benign occasional annoyance and its best a ticket to a an extended social network of family-friendly peace loving people.

Stem cell research may be the only challenge to the educated religious, but with devout Christians defending Evolution and affirming the rights of Homosexuals, I bet that the progressive Christians and the religious-but-seculars will eventually embrace this field of science whilst remaining as religious as they have always been. Grrrr........!

Other Comments by Vinelectric

47. Comment #197726 by Vinelectric on June 22, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Steve Zara

I started much earlier. There was also the Dianelos debate.

That was exceptionally awfull and a pain to follow, even as a passive spectator. Sartre on a post-modernism fit, defending Christianity. I still chuckle when I remember how Veronique came down on him like a ton of bricks and told him to piss off !!! Steve you're a man of extraordinary endurance (or on an overdose of a potent tranquilizer) !!!!!!! (No offense)

Other Comments by Vinelectric

48. Comment #198356 by 82abhilash on June 23, 2008 at 4:02 pm

5. Comment #197077 by Steve Zara on June 21, 2008 at 3:38 am

I am a bit cautious about blogging in general being that effective. It reminds me of the Tom Lehrer song "The folk song army":

If you feel dissatisfaction,
Strum your frustrations away.
Some people may prefer action,
But give me a folk song any old day.

If we are going to be effective we need to do more than just "blogging our frustrations away", that is, unless we are sure that our blogging in a way that has an effect. Blogging alone is not action. For those without the huge audience of PZ Myers it can be equivalent to a conversation between friends in a pub. One puts the world to rights over a beer, but nothing changes.

Blogs can be used to discuss ideas, and to arrange campaigns. They can also be used as a resource, where one can archive thoughts and links.

But unless there is visibility, blogging alone is not a step forward, I think.

I agree blogging is a good idea. But to have a lasting impact one must move from cyberspace to the real world. I was at the Amazing Meeting which was arranged by the James Randi educational foundation and PZ Meyers was there to speak.

An environment rich with intellectually honest, realistic and level-headed people has a powerful impact. There where about 980 people this time. they do not want it to grow too big because then the event will become more impersonal.

Which means what is required are personalised interactions between level-headed people at the local grass root level. That will make for interesting situations.

Other Comments by 82abhilash

49. Comment #198958 by cortis1 on June 24, 2008 at 9:49 pm

I feel I should I add something to this argument,because of the service blogging has done for me. Which is that it has given me, a high school dropout, by the way, some focus in the way that I ought to be thinking. I have read more books and listened to more lectures and made more of an attempt to learn in the last few years because of sites like this than I have ever made in my life. I know that I am better off because of sites like this
all I can really say is that the internet has made my intellectual life somthing to look forward to instead of somthing to dread.

Other Comments by cortis1

50. Comment #198961 by 8teist on June 24, 2008 at 10:12 pm

cortis 1 ,I second your remarks 100% ,I`m in the same boat.
I enjoy reading the posts here and on Pharyngula,sometimes I can even add to the thread ..haha.
Ive been an atheist all my life R D`s TGD has focused my thoughts,good to find other people feel the same.
It`s been great to find all the links on these sites , makes me wish perhaps I should have tried harder at school,but then again perhaps not ).

Other Comments by 8teist