251. Comment #240946 by Apathy personified on September 1, 2008 at 10:27 am

How about this:
'Atheist is the default term given to someone who does not believe in the existance of an object, material or otherwise, that has supernatural origins/powers'

Atheism can be criticised - but only along the lines of 'why don't you believe?'
Can people do things purely in the name of atheism?
Well, that's up for debate i guess.

Other Comments by Apathy personified

252. Comment #240947 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:28 am

Saying "Without fairies Afairieists would still fight" is a valid statement.

It does not link afairiests with fighting, it undoes the necessary and sufficient linkage between fairies and fighting.

Other Comments by J Mac

253. Comment #240948 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:30 am

Comment #240947 by J Mac

Apathy has it right. What I am talking about in terms of critique is the way Robertson does things - to suggest that people have attitudes or motivations because they are atheist.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

254. Comment #240950 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:33 am

So should we deny the truth value of true statements just so we can avoid giving Robertson ammunition?

I wont. I don't have any chills or shivers in reading or saying the statement "without religion atheists would still fight" versus "without religion people would still fight". I suspect I don't because I don't elevate "atheist" above what it is. I don't claim that atheists are any different than other people or are immune to human nature.

Aside from a desire to deny that atheists are just as human as anyone else I cannot imagine why the first of the above two statements would cause any discomfort.

Other Comments by J Mac

255. Comment #240951 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:38 am

I hope that no one thinks I am just trying to pick a fight, but I think this is a worthy area of discourse. I did not imagine in a million years that my initial statement would be met with such hostility.

I think it is worth asking where that hostility comes from. Why does having the word atheist in the same sentence with fighting get everyone all pissy about definitions?

Other Comments by J Mac

256. Comment #240952 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:42 am

Comment #240950 by J Mac

So should we deny the truth value of true statements

There are many true statements that have no sensible meaning.

"There will aways be people with brown hair who like apples".

Does it make any sense to include the "brown hair" bit?

This discussion illustrates Sam Harris' point about the very term "atheist" being a problem. It allows for meaningless associations.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

257. Comment #240953 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:44 am

Does it make sense?

Well it depends on the context. If someone might believe that people with brown hair don't like apples then yes, it makes perfect sense.

Could you imagine a brown haired person, even if they didn't know the context, getting offended at such a statement and feeling the need to fight against it? I can't.

Other Comments by J Mac

258. Comment #240954 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:47 am

Comment #240953 by J Mac

Could you imagine a brown haired person, even if they didn't know the context, getting offended at such a statement and feeling the need to fight against it? I can't.

I can. If someone said "brown haired people will always find something to fight about", I can imagine someone with brown hair being deeply puzzled as to why they were being defined as a group in that phrase.

EDIT: Without religion, there is no group called "atheists". There are just people.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

259. Comment #240955 by entreri100404 on September 1, 2008 at 10:48 am

JMac said: "I think it is worth asking where that hostility comes from."

Well, I'm not trying to pick a fight either, but to be honest the only "hostility" evident has come from yourself. Perhaps you should review the last 10-odd posts in the conversation.

Your initial comment was met with debate.

Other Comments by entreri100404

260. Comment #240956 by Fanusi Khiyal on September 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

I did not imagine in a million years that my initial statement would be met with such hostility.

Not quite so much fun to be on the receiving end, eh, J Mac?

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

To the more serious point, I do agree though. From looking at human history and the serious students of it, I think that war is part of the human condition. It'll always be with us as long as there is a gang willing to get what it wants by unleashing force and fanaticism.

Other Comments by Fanusi Khiyal

261. Comment #240958 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:50 am

Yes but if someone were going around saying "blondes are violent, blondes fight over everything. There will never be peace in the world until we eliminate all the blondes" then a blonde would be more than justified in pointing out that "even without blondes brown haired people would find something to fight about."

Christopher Hitchens makes his entire debates about the evils of religions and works to attribute all the worlds atrocities to religion. Whether he is right or wrong is irrelevant to the fact that it is fair game for someone to point out that atheists would fight too.

Other Comments by J Mac

262. Comment #240959 by John Locke on September 1, 2008 at 10:52 am

jmac

sorry you seem to have misunderstood one of the key concepts of TGD.

stalin et al. killed for other reasons, not because of atheism. nobody here ever said that atheists are beyond criticism, and i should hope nobody thinks that. the point made is, and it has been made by many eloquently including mr. steve, its daft aiming criticisms at someone for a lack of belief. atheists dont commit crimes, start wars etc in the name of atheism but for other reasons, so thereby atheism isnt the area up for criticism. when russia invaded ossetia was it for putins lack of belief in woden?! because he's an a-woden. daft point but i think illustrates it.

on the argument itself, it is indeed you, not peacebeuponme who is implying atheism as a sort of doctrine, whether you wnt to or not. by saying it has a distinct line of principles etc. that are open to attack, as you did, it implys its more like a religion. the only attack that could feasably be levelled at an atheist is "you did that because you dont believe in a god" but for the reasons above that is absurd to all except the faithful and their belief that it is because you dont believe in THEIR god that you might do somehting bad.

secondly, to be honest, having been a spectator to the argument, was it not you who first levelled disproportionate hostile criticisms to peacbeponme?

Other Comments by John Locke

263. Comment #240960 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:53 am

My overall point in this thread recently has been that atheists will thrown stones at religions saying that religion causes war and suffering, but as soon as someone says that atheists will fight wars in the absence or religion suddenly some atheists call foul saying that atheism is immune to such criticism.

That is a cheap and disingenuous way out of a debate against religion, it is a cowardly tactic that does not put rationality first.

Other Comments by J Mac

264. Comment #240961 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:53 am

Comment #240958 by J Mac

then a blonde would be more than justified in pointing out that "even without blondes brown haired people would find something to fight about."

No, I disagree. It is factually correct, but suggests a property associated with brown-haired people specifically - that they would find something to fight about. This property is true of people in general, but in that sentence it is implied that it is restricted to a sub-group of "people".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

265. Comment #240962 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 10:57 am

Comment #240960 by J Mac

that atheism is immune to such criticism.

Unless you can come up with doctrines and motivations that arise from atheism, it is immune. What you are talking about are characteristics of people, not specifically atheists

Other Comments by Steve Zara

266. Comment #240963 by Apathy personified on September 1, 2008 at 10:57 am

I think the point that South Park and J Mac were trying to make (though i have no right what so ever to speak for them and i apologise to J Mac if i get this wrong) is that no matter what people label themselves or believe, there will always be differences which have the potential to escalate and start some 'playground scuffles' and the like - South Park using the monty pythonesque names of organisation joke (from Life of Brian to those who haven't watched it) to show this.

There is a serious debate here along the lines of 'Can someone act, purely in the name of atheism?'

Other Comments by Apathy personified

267. Comment #240964 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:57 am

Yes Steve, but in responding to someone singling out blondes as the violent ones it is reasonable to point out that brown haired people are just the same.

John Locke:
"atheists dont commit crimes, start wars etc in the name of atheism but for other reasons, so thereby atheism isnt the area up for criticism."

Now your missing the starting point of the discussion. It came out of an episode of South Park where various atheist factions DID start a war in the name of atheism. Of course it was satire and not factual. But to say that they have no grounds to make a satire warning of possible futures is crazy.

Other Comments by J Mac

268. Comment #240965 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 10:59 am

Apathy, I think you framed my view fairly.

"'Can someone act, purely in the name of atheism?' "

They SHOULDN'T no. But CAN they? Yes people certainly can, as the satirical future in south park demonstrated.

Other Comments by J Mac

269. Comment #240966 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:00 am

Comment #240964 by J Mac

Yes Steve, but in responding to someone singling out blondes as the violent ones it is reasonable to point out that brown haired people are just the same.

True, but the phrases that you have used, because they only mention one group (atheists, brown-haired people), imply that you are saying that that group has a characteristic; that people have attributes because they are in that group.

In the "hair" case, what you end up saying is not "all people fight", but "brown-haired people as bad at fighting as blondes".

Other Comments by Steve Zara

270. Comment #240968 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 11:02 am

"Unless you can come up with doctrines and motivations that arise from atheism"

No matter what someone responds to that challenge you will undoubtedly say that it is not a doctrine or motivation of true atheism.

The fact that the similarity to the theist tactic of claiming that those who fight wars in the name of religion are not following the true doctrine of religion, the fact that this similarity eludes you is sad.

Other Comments by J Mac

271. Comment #240969 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:02 am

Comment #240965 by J Mac

Acting in the name of atheism makes no sense. What is there specifically about atheism that can cause a person to act a certain way?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

272. Comment #240972 by John Locke on September 1, 2008 at 11:05 am

i get you

however, i think it is wrong to make a satire if the idea is entirely misguided and will lead people to jump to the wrong conclusion. (wrong is not to say it should be banned) essentially their satire fails horrendously if it puts accross a different message to that intended. many will simply see that idea as proving their points about atheism being dogmatic and all the historical attrocities attributed to atheism. so as a satire it fails terribly and it would have been better to not have made it.

Other Comments by John Locke

273. Comment #240973 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:06 am

Comment #240968 by J Mac

The fact that the similarity to the theist tactic of claiming that those who fight wars in the name of religion are not following the true doctrine of religion, the fact that this similarity eludes you is sad.

There is not the slightest similarity at all.

Atheism is not the opposite of religion. It is the opposite of theism.

It is just as inappropriate to say that someone acts in the name of theism, as bare theism has no implications for actions. What you need is religion - a framework based around the idea of a God - that he tells us what to do.

The mistake that there is similarity between atheism and religions - that they are sort of alternative frameworks, even "faiths" is a common one.

Atheism is merely the absense of the core belief of theistic religions. There is nothing associated with it but that absense.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

274. Comment #240975 by John Locke on September 1, 2008 at 11:11 am

sorry to divert but just saw the colbert o'reily interview.

was exceptionally good. sorry if im ignorant of more humour like it but colbert contains a lot of what much american humour lacks. very subtle and my only downside is that i assume many dont get it.

i think that because how can a clown like o'rielly actually be on tv? do people take him seriously?

what point got me most was about him trying to pin colbert for being french..was he just trying to be funny? (as i hope) or was he actually implying he was un-american of sorts?! think o'rielly needs a little history lesson of his beloved country. summed up in a simple question: where did the statue of liberty come from and why?

Other Comments by John Locke

275. Comment #240976 by Bonzai on September 1, 2008 at 11:11 am

Steve

Acting in the name of atheism makes no sense. What is there specifically about atheism that can cause a person to act a certain way?

I think he means people using atheism as an excuse/banner to act in a certain way. This is not the same as saying that there is anything intrinsic in atheism that causes them to act that way. There is a subtle difference here.

People with an agenda and a poor understanding of atheism can turn it into a banner for nasty acts. This should hardly be controversial. The South Park episodes are indeed a good illustration of the process (I know SP is not a serious scholarly source but hey, I am a fan, you feel free to illustrate your points with Buffy. :))

Other Comments by Bonzai

276. Comment #240977 by J Mac on September 1, 2008 at 11:12 am

Hmm, it seems no one will see my point, so I will just make it in the most clear way I can and be on my way:

I think it is disgraceful and cowardly to measure religion by its worst adherents rather than giving it the benefit of the doubt to analyze what it should be while simultaneously only measuring atheism by what it should be and ignoring its worst adherents.

It is not a fair measure.

I am not one to defend theists in most circumstances, however if those who call themselves atheists are not acting fairly and rationally I will point it out. I need not skew the evidence in favor of atheism to not believe in god; the truth is sufficient.

In a debate between Hitchens and D'Sousa all the atheists applaud Hitchens and conclude that he "won" the debate while all the theists applaud D'Sousa and think he "won." Neither side is looking for the truth, they are both engaging in a confirmation bias. The last debate with Hitchens and D'Sousa I saw was disappointing, I was impressed with D'Sousa who made many good points, of course not changing my mind, but rather than address those points Hitchens played childishly assuming he was right regardless of what evidence was presented.

Such tactics are shameful. If we refuse to give our opponents arguments the same credit and weight that we give our own then we have no grounds on which to call ourselves the rational thinkers or clear thinkers. If we balk at any criticism of our views rather than address them fairly we will not sway any theists.

I'm rather sick of watching atheists pat each other on the back while they grow complacent in their perceived superiority. It is childish and disgraceful.

And on that heart warming note I think I will be leaving this group for a while.

Other Comments by J Mac

277. Comment #240978 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:14 am

Comment #240976 by Bonzai

People fight wars in the name of religion because the religion supposedly provides them with certain rules.

Atheism (like bare theism), provides no such rules.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

278. Comment #240979 by Bonzai on September 1, 2008 at 11:15 am

Atheism (like bare theism), provides no such rules.

Did jmac say it does? Maybe I am missing something.

Other Comments by Bonzai

279. Comment #240981 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:18 am

Comment #240977 by J Mac

I really do think you are missing the point which I had hoped I had explained clearly in Comment #240966.

This isn't about trying to avoid critcism, it is about basic definitions and use of language. Language can be a minefield. If you say "atheists will do something" then someone will justifiably assume that you are talking specifically about atheists, who are doing that thing because they are atheists. I really do think it is that simple.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

280. Comment #240982 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:20 am

Comment #240979 by Bonzai

Did jmac say it does? Maybe I am missing something.

Not explicitly, no. But implicitly, and I suspect unintentionally, in his use of language. I was trying to point out why that implicit statement was a problem, and so language should be changed.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

281. Comment #240984 by SharonMcT on September 1, 2008 at 11:22 am

J Mac:

Steve said:

Atheism is not the opposite of religion. It is the opposite of theism.

It is just as inappropriate to say that someone acts in the name of theism, as bare theism has no implications for actions. What you need is religion - a framework based around the idea of a God - that he tells us what to do.

The mistake that there is similarity between atheism and religions - that they are sort of alternative frameworks, even "faiths" is a common one.

Atheism is merely the absense of the core belief of theistic religions. There is nothing associated with it but that absense.

I thought maybe if you read it again, you might see the distinction. That you haven't been able to see the point yet doesn't mean it's not there.

Everyone and their actions are open to critisism. That point is not in dispute, but atheism is not equal to religion.

Edited

Other Comments by SharonMcT

282. Comment #240985 by Bonzai on September 1, 2008 at 11:25 am

J Mac

I think it is disgraceful and cowardly to measure religion by its worst adherents rather than giving it the benefit of the doubt to analyze what it should be while simultaneously only measuring atheism by what it should be and ignoring its worst adherents.

I agree. It is a way to score a cheap point and people who do that should be called out (like some who argue as if Fred Phelps is typical of Christians) But the better thinkers here don't fall into that trap, As steve says there is nothing in theistic beliefs in and of itself that inspires violence, most of us here would agree with that.

But the Abrahamic faiths do lend themselves to violent interpretations. Now this is not to say that they are always the "causes" of people acting horribly, but they do act as enablers by providing the doctrinal covers and justifications. In many cases they do appear to be the actual motivators.

Other Comments by Bonzai

283. Comment #240986 by Hellene on September 1, 2008 at 11:26 am

Hm....

Robertson lobs a stink bomb in the room and starts an argument about who farted.

Other Comments by Hellene

284. Comment #240987 by John Locke on September 1, 2008 at 11:27 am

i have read a few of the main books on the theme (including the king james bible) and been an agnostic since a very early age, turning gradually atheist. only recently (due to boredom at my summer job and too much free time) have i been delving into the world of the atheist/theist debates.

im sorry you feel that way jmac, but i really dont think its true. hitchens of all, is the more smug (if you like) of the major atheists and also uses shoddy history at times, but he plays the theists like d'souza at their own game and is the best debater IMHO of the major atheists.

hitchens is strident indeed. but often he is dealing with a well-spoken intellectual equivalent of a child going "lalalala i am right...lalalala..because i am". (as i've said before) as any teachers here will now how it is actually nearly impossible to argue reasonably with a child when their mind is made up. you cant argue rationally with the irrational.

what you say would be true if it was an equal sided debate. "percieved superiority"?!

the fact is one side is arguing from the basis of no fact or evidence WHATSOEVER. superiority does not need to be percieved.

i agree with you that we will win over few theists if we too are too strident, even arrogant. but i think most of us have given up swaying them. its not the point (see daniel dennets speech at atheist alliance for good sociological and psychological reasons as to why people will almost never change faith).

the point is to demonstrate to younger people, and to influence future education to move away from religion etc. so that in the future there wont be a debate, hopefully.

Other Comments by John Locke

285. Comment #240988 by Bonzai on September 1, 2008 at 11:29 am

Actually not even all religions,--so I mean it more specifically than "theism",-- are equally liable to be used for violent end. Hari Krishna doctrines maybe a little goofy, but nothing in it is liable to violent and nasty interpretations like the Abrahamic religions are.

Other Comments by Bonzai

286. Comment #240989 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:32 am

What Robertson desperately wants is to convince people that atheism is a competing framework of belief that can be put alongside religion. If someone implies "atheism is as open to criticism as religion" that is basically agreeing with Robertson. It is not that we don't want to agree with Robertson, it is that his proposition is wrong. Atheism is not a framework.

What he should be attempting to critique is not atheism, but rationalism and materialism - the frameworks that do compete with religion.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

287. Comment #240991 by Bonzai on September 1, 2008 at 11:38 am

Steve

What Robertson desperately wants is to convince people that atheism is a competing framework of belief that can be put alongside religion. If someone implies "atheism is as open to criticism as religion" that is basically agreeing with Robertson. It is not that we don't want to agree with Robertson, it is that his proposition is wrong. Atheism is not a framework.

Perhaps instead of "atheism" we should just say "non belief",--the absence of theistic belief,--that way it would hopefully clear things up. When you say "-ism" people usually associate that with a positive system of doctrines.

I am thinking of Escher's background-foreground pictures. Well sometimes a background is just a background. No belief just means the absence of belief, it is not a "foreground" no matter how you turn the bloody picture.

Other Comments by Bonzai

288. Comment #240992 by Hellene on September 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

287. Comment #240989 by Steve Zara

Yes. Thank you sir.

Other Comments by Hellene

289. Comment #240995 by Quine on September 1, 2008 at 11:53 am

I would not worry too much about winning, as in winning or losing the debates. Religion does not play by the rules of reason, so you can't expect to 'win' but there is still important value in the introduction of doubt. Religion becomes particularly dangerous when there is a perception of consensus. That is when laws will be passed that assume agreement about what people should and should not be allowed to do because "everybody knows" what divine will is in the matter. Having people stand up and say that religion is bogus breaks this perception of consensus, even if few religious come over officially.

Other Comments by Quine

290. Comment #240996 by Steve Zara on September 1, 2008 at 11:53 am

Comment #240991 by Bonzai

I agree.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

291. Comment #240997 by Tigermoth on September 1, 2008 at 11:56 am

Colbert really is an exception in the world of satire. His performance at the 'whitehouse correspondance dinner' event demonstrates his courage and commitment to ridiculing the ridiculous.

I think the fact that he didn't spare an ally (to wit, the request to name atheists artists) reflects his integrity I feel.

If Colbert is to lampoon the right for their ignorance he should not spare anyone else. If he had done so, it would have been pandering.

South Park is another matter. They regularly sink to depths that riducule the unlucky and unfortunate that cannot be commended. I have yet to see Colbert sink to such depths.

Other Comments by Tigermoth

292. Comment #240998 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 11:58 am

Twice now my internet connection has dropped as I started to write…

I've just been on a train journey, so couldn't post, and see that the flurry of posts started by my (seemingly) minor point has continued. I'm glad to see most observers saw what I was getting at, and noticed that hostility was coming toward me without merit rather than from me.

Just to recap, as there are people (including J Mac) who seem confused over what we are arguing about. J Mac said this:

If we get rid of religion atheists will still find other banal ideas to fight about. Just browse through the other threads here, I'm involved in several such arguments.

If that was the same episode I'd say they did make one valid point against atheism.

To which I made the point

Not at all. That atheists may believe and act on other nonsense says nothing about atheism.

From thence the invective flew.

Others have said enough about atheism in the intervening posts, so I don't want to say anything more about that. J Mac and other bedroom soldiers who call us all cowards and fly off the handle whenever they are challenged on anything do really need to look at their actions though, it comes across pretty pathetically.

J Mac

Now your missing the starting point of the discussion. It came out of an episode of South Park where various atheist factions DID start a war in the name of atheism. Of course it was satire and not factual. But to say that they have no grounds to make a satire warning of possible futures is crazy.

I know this wasn't a comment directly to me, but it might go someway to explaining the origins of our argument. I don't actually disagree with this. I never did. All I said was that atheism cannot be responsible for the actions of atheists.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

293. Comment #240999 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Bonzai

I am thinking of Escher's background-foreground pictures. Well sometimes a background is just a background.

That is a wonderful way of looking at it.

Other Comments by Peacebeuponme

294. Comment #241000 by Tigermoth on September 1, 2008 at 12:04 pm

"And though I am a committed Christian, I believe that everyone has their right to their own religion, be they Hindu, Jewish or Muslim, I believe there are infinite paths to inviting Jesus Christ as your personal saviour".

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879

Other Comments by Tigermoth

295. Comment #241001 by JasonWilkes on September 1, 2008 at 12:18 pm

"What do Atheists yell during sex?"

Hmm....How about "I love you".

Or even better, how about "Oh my God", because after all, WE don't tend to worry about using "God's name" in vain. For Christians, that's a commandment-breaker! Not to mention:
Leviticus 24:16 "And he that blasphemeth the name of the Lord, he shall surely be put to death."

Sounds like we can say whatever we'd like during sex. But Judeo-Christian folk had better be careful...
Tehehehehe

Other Comments by JasonWilkes

296. Comment #241004 by Mark Jones on September 1, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Comment #240991 by Bonzai

Yes that's a good way to put it. I actually see what J Mac was getting at, with the South Park example, but it's important to be precise about the nature of atheism - it's easy to fall into the trap of atheism as another ism, and to forget the absence inherent in the term. I know I have fallen into that trap in the past. Steve's comparison to afairyism is a good one to remember.

I've noticed it's sometimes said that even Christians are atheists to the extent that they don't believe in any gods other than their own. Is this a fair use of the term?

Other Comments by Mark Jones

297. Comment #241006 by Spad on September 1, 2008 at 1:24 pm

Good god (ahem), lighten up! This is a parody. Colbert's character is based on a send-up of Bill O'Reilly and his ilk. Everyone appearing on his show is aware of this and nothing is sacred, in poor taste, or off limits. This is what makes it funny and, yes, sometimes hilarious.

Other Comments by Spad

298. Comment #241007 by Quine on September 1, 2008 at 1:34 pm

Comment #241004 by Mark Jones:

Is this a fair use of the term?

I would say yes, and it is also useful. Often it is difficult to explain the difference between not believing in the existence of something and asserting the case for the definite non-existence of something. As Richard Dawkins likes to pull in Poseidon to show religious people what it is like not to believe, I add to that the discussion with them as to the need for them to prove that there is no such being outside of mythology.

For some, it sinks in that they do not need to prove the non-existence in order to be justified in not believing; they get the glimmer of the clue that Atheism is the background from which the foreground requires evidence. For others, there remains the blank stare, but some tiny doubt may be seeded.

Other Comments by Quine

299. Comment #241009 by gotbruce on September 1, 2008 at 2:12 pm

Steve was purposely using absurd arguments and typical theistic stereotyping and mockery of atheism and atheists to illustrate how ridiculous that all is. Unfortunately most religious people watching the show lack the insight to realize what he was doing and probably came away quite pleased, singing God Bless America, and thinking that another godless secularist had been deservedly trashed in public. As an atheist I was offended by how he mocked the mindlessness of theistic attacks on atheism but still came across as believable to most of the theistic public. It was not a good day for atheism on the Colbert Report.

Other Comments by gotbruce

300. Comment #241010 by LB on September 1, 2008 at 2:13 pm

I don't find Colbert very funny, but I did love 'Beware the Believers'. Partly because it was so well made for a you tube video.

Other Comments by LB