1. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #236805 by Thor on August 25, 2008 at 10:59 am

Shane,

I really hope I don't come across as in any way condescending - but the accents, especially the guy at around 19:00 (the name was "Hugh", I believe) are just... adorable :-)

2. Atheism FLEAmix

Comment #221554 by Thor on July 29, 2008 at 6:39 pm

Mohler is an interesting character. Despite the fact that I do not agree with him on anything, TIME's characterization is probably right.

Now, given the underlying premises of Evangelical thinking, being deemed "the reigning intellectual of the evangelical movement in the US" by Time magazine is admittedly not such a big deal as one some might think.

However, I sometimes listen to his radio show. It is fascinating insofar as it helps me to understand how these people think.

This book grew out of a lecture he gave on this very topic at some evangelical bible college. I listened to it online (you can find it on his website under "Sermons and Speeches")

I found it interesting because it has nothing to do with the usual old argument about god's existence or who killed more people etc., but instead he only talks about culture.
These evengelicals are quite afraid of the secular culture they see around them - they see themselves as a "countercultural" movement that has to stay its course and try to remain "pure" in the face of all the temptation around them.

It makes me cautiously optimistic to hear them complain about the problems they have with their younger generation. Still, we must NEVER underestimate them either, and to that end it is always helpful to follow Sun-Tzu's advice.
"Know thy enemy"

(Sorry for the martial undertones, but I believe we all understand that I mean the context of the "culture war", and in this context I want to fight and defeat this people, i.e. dimenish their influence on society, maybe one day even destroy the very respectability of their belief)

3. Richard Dawkins on Doctor Who

Comment #201056 by Thor on June 28, 2008 at 10:08 pm

@Stephen Maxwell:

not only Dawkins and the anchor. From what I have seen so far (about 2 episodes of Dr. Who - I am not from the Anglosphere so I wasn't familar with the show until recently) the whole show and all the actors seem "deliberately over the top and camp".

It's not necessarily atrocious, but I don't quite get what people find so appealing about Doctor Who. It exudes has the atmosphere and feeling of some trashy sixties sci-fi series - bad costumes, absurd plot, ham-fisted acting - which is apparently when the show was originally developed, so no surprise there.

Just a matter of individual tast, I guess...

4. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181656 by Thor on May 17, 2008 at 8:14 pm

@Caudimordax,

J.S. Mill's original formulation of utilitarianism is often summed up as "the greatest good for the greatest number"

Negative utilitarianism is the converse concept of striving for the "the least suffering for the smallest number".
However, negative utiliatianism has one rather important logical pitfall, very well explained in the following:

"Positive utilitarianism recommends the promotion or maximising of intrinsic value, negative utilitarianism recommends the reduction or minimising of intrinsic disvalue. At first sight, the negative kind may seem reasonable and more modest in what it recommends. But one way of ending human misery is by putting all human beings out of their misery. This course of action is usually considered unacceptable.[Understatement of the century] This has led to a search for reformulations of negative utilitarianism, or to its rejection."


Personally, I prefer a balance of positive and negative utilitarianism, with some good old rational hedonism à la Epicure thrown in. :-)

5. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #157293 by Thor on April 8, 2008 at 9:17 pm

I am so glad C. Hitchens made the very important distinction on nihilism vs. atheism, that is he in many cases shares his brother's worries about social breakdown and overboarding relativism, but this should never be equated with atheism.

As he has said on many other occasions (I am paraphrasing): would a society built on the ideas of Epicure, Spinoza, Hume, Einstein etc... be a nihilistic society? Hardly.

6. THE FOUR HORSEMEN - Available Now on DVD!

Comment #99068 by Thor on December 15, 2007 at 12:27 pm

I can't really add anything that hasn't been said by other commenters before, but I still want to thank everyone who was involved in making this happen for doing so.

Above all, of course, I would like to express my sincere thanks and my deepest respect and appreciation to the 4 participants in this incredibly fascinating and intellectually stimulating talk.

Simply the best I have seen so far.

7. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94394 by Thor on December 5, 2007 at 3:19 pm

A small piece of advice for those who want to download the videos instead of watching them on Google Video:

use the Free Download Manager, a free open-source program (http://www.freedownloadmanager.org/) to download the video from the Google link and save it as a Flash video file (.flv).
It can then be viewed either with the FLV Player or the VLC Media player (and probably others as well).

I am sure there are also other programs that can achieve the same results, but this is what I would recommend.

8. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93068 by Thor on December 2, 2007 at 5:40 am

I am no fan of D'Souza and I don't share any of his opinions but as in the debate with Hitchens I feel compelled to point out that he is indeed a formidable opponent.

Many here will not like hearing this but I agree with some other comments here along the lines of "D'Souza handed Dennett his ass".

Dennett's initial presentation was good, but his rebuttals and answers to D'Souza fell way short, both in specifically addressing D'Souza's points and, specifically, in the manner Dennett presented them. He was no match for the skilled rhetoric and quick-paced sophistry of D'Souza.

D'Souza is one of the most talented and skilled demagogues I have seen in the whole unbeliever-vs-theist debate lineup so far.
Juvenile slurs against him or a stubborn denial that one of "ours" could have been outperformed in a debate will not change the fact that just as the visiblity of unbelievers grows, the other side will also improve its tactics and bring forth increasingly more experienced and skilled proponents of a theistic worldview and morality.

Carping and complaining about this won't help. Our side has do its job and refine their arguments and tactics for increasing the public appeal of a naturalistic and materialist worldview.

9. Sunday School for Atheists

Comment #92208 by Thor on November 30, 2007 at 3:59 am

If you want to see how the fundies react to this kind of article, you should go here:
http://albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1061

Albert Mohler is the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary - that pretty much says it all.
He rambles on about how

these atheist Sunday Schools will not be as successful as these parents hope.

because he is convinced that

slogans like "I'm Unique and Unrepeatable" just can't really compete with "Jesus Loves Me."

But here is the best part:

"Children have not yet developed cynicism and, in general, are quite eager to believe in God. Children taught from the Bible in Sunday School learn that they were made by a loving God who cares for them -- and then move on to learn much more about what the Bible teaches. No 'secular parable' can compete with that."

Well, yes, children are indeed eager to believe in God - just as they are eager to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny...
I know it's a cliché, but it's so TRUE: children WILL believe in absolutely anything, anything at all, as long as it is told by an adult and repeated often enough. They have not yet learned how to think critically. That's exactly why they need a secular education with an emphasis on critical and rational thought.

10. Fear Is Stronger Than Hope When It Comes To Fitness

Comment #91968 by Thor on November 29, 2007 at 4:13 pm

Have to agree with Limey here.

An article about interesting discoveries in cosmology and astronomay, a field that always fascinates people and gives us a feeling for our place in the cosmos, will always find an audience here. (Okay, any spectacular finding in physics will probably do)

Biology, especially insofar as humans and our evolutionary heritage and our genetic makeup are concerned, is also very much something one would expect here, considering who Richard Dawkins is.

But while psychology, especially evolutionary and cognitive psychology also tells us a lot about how we "function", it strikes me as a little odd to post just any old story about the psychological mechanisms involved in getting in shape...

Now, if the reason for posting this was was the "fear is stronger than hope" angle of the story, that is indeed a "big issue" so to speak, one that deserves paying attention to. Whether it should be done in this specific context however, is arguable.

11. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91845 by Thor on November 29, 2007 at 12:55 pm

I agree with pretty much every single statement Prof. Dawkins makes in the article above, but I am also aware that this is THE perfect way to get the "there are no morals without Jesus"-crowd to come crawling out of the sewers.

I salute your courage, Professor, in taking a necessary further step: attacking one of the many ways in which so-called "Judeo-Christian morality" still forms and defines our culture.

Not all of it is bad, mind you. Just as one can find wise counsel and helpful advice in all human traditions of thought, be they religous traditions like Buddhism, Taoism, Hinduism (hell, maybe even in Islam, though I am doubtful) or in more secular traditions as Stoicism, Epicureanism, Confucianism etc... one will, of course, find some useful ethical tales in the Bible.
(and yes, I know that categorizing Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism and Stoicism into either "secular" or "religious" is not a straightforward proposition - personally, I couldn't care less which way they fall)

But the arbiter of what is useful and what isn't must be factual knowledge about the way this world works (i.e. science, and in this specific case various branches of psychology, evolutionary biology and neuroscience - all that which informs us on how we humans function) AND a thorough examination of our own conscience with ethical principles that are informed by the all-surpassing achievement of the Enlightenment: the idea of human rights.

If anyone is interested in knowing more about the way in which even thoroughly secular people often unquestioniongly accept moral principles of 2000-year old middle-eastern sky-gods I recommend Michel Onfray's "Atheist Manifesto: The Case Against Christianity, Judaism, and Islam".

12. Getting Overheated

Comment #89381 by Thor on November 20, 2007 at 1:36 pm

Yep, what SonOfPearl said ...and it bears the wonderful name "Blessays, Blogs and Blisquisitions", a title only such a "well-rounded" (read the blessay, you will get the joke) literary wonk as Stephen Fry could come up with.

Have I mentioned that I am a big fan of his? :-)

13. Getting Overheated

Comment #89371 by Thor on November 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Let me blaspheme here for a moment (I know, how very contrarian of me do that here): Stephen Fry is a god!

Okay, maybe my enthusiasm is taking me a little too far, but the man could literally write about the dirt under his feet and it would still be a riveting and enjoyable read.

By the way: go and read all his "blessays" and don't let their lenght scare you away - they are definitely worth it.

14. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81237 by Thor on October 24, 2007 at 1:15 pm

What oxytocin said: as much as I dislike D'Souza, he is the most able debater I have seen go up against Hitchens or any of the others on our team yet.

One more point I'd like to make
we atheist are sometimes at a disadvantage when debating Christian who tell us how Christianity ended all kinds barbaric traditions that had existed all over the world: human sacrifice, cannibalism, slavery etc... (as if these were prime examples of humanist thinking and not often functions of religous believes themselves - sometimes even the earlier forms of Christianity)
Even if we accepted this claim at face value - and I don't, but let's assum it for the sake of the argument - an atheist should not feel the necessity to praise or endorse Christianity. We have to remember that all the Christian is saying is that his religion is better than that of some prehistoric stone-age culture. If that's the standard you want to measure yourself on...

Christianity is but one of a huge number of religions that have existed in the history of mankind mankind. History, however, is nothing but the long march of cultural evolution of humanity. That some religions/traditions, in this case Christianity, contained values and practices that proved superior in terms of social cohesion and civilizational advance to those of other religions, like those of the Celts or some African tribes does not mean that we have to embrace Christianity - no we should embrace that which has proven even more beneficial, in terms of explaining to us the truth about the world and in its effects for how we live together in society: a naturalistic worldview that leaves all those irrational bronze-age myths behind.

Just to give you an example: I have no problem stating that globally speaking the tradition of Christianity as it exists nowadays in the world is one I prefer over Islam. That doesn't make me a Christian - on the contrary: I strongly dislike many parts of the so-called Judeo-Christian morality and there countless exapamples of deeply troubling developments among Christian fundamentalists.
However, the tooth of time has simply done its work on Christianity than it has on Islam.

So when people like D'Souza say that Christianity is better than the cult of headshrinkers on the island of Tonga I am charitable enough to grant him that. I would still insist on pointing out that my worlview, which doesn't include the possiblity of people rising from their graves or the earth stopping it's orbit around the sun if god happens to wish it is one I very much prefer over a tradition based on the belief in a 2000-year old middle-eastern sky-god.

15. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81188 by Thor on October 24, 2007 at 11:17 am

Just saw that calbear77 said it much more consicely than I did:

we have to evolve our arguments just like they do. Evolution, yay :-)

16. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81185 by Thor on October 24, 2007 at 11:12 am

While I agree with many here who have expressed their dislike of D'Souza and the opinions he espouses I want repeat what I have said in the comments to D'Souza's debate with Michael Shermer:

he is good. "Good" in the sense that he an extremely skilled and eloquent debater. It is important to acknowledge this, because we must realize that among theists there are much more formidable adversaries than, let's say, the epitome of nebulous pablum, Alister McGrath.

And just as Shermer didn't do well against D'Souza and Hitchens had a much thougher opponent than he usually does there will be other times in the future where the struggle between naturalism and supernaturalism (I prefer this way of describing it - it puts the other side in the "outsider"-category") will depend on how well either side is able to present itself - both in terms of logical consistency and emotional appeal (one must NEVER forget the latter, we are quite obviously not entirely rational beings).

We have to hone our arguments, we must continue to think both about the points we want to make and how to most effectively present them. I know it is an overused and clichéd phrase, but this is indeed "a struggle for the hearts and minds".

This struggle is of course an eminently political issue - not in the sense of party politics but in the much more important context of defining the predominant worldview of our society.

We shouldn't fall into the trap of simply emoting about people like D'Souza - yes, by all means, you can call him names if you wish, but it won't do us any good. For those of us who have been enaged in these issues for a while already, his arguments are well know and may seem easy to rebut, but we shouldn't fool ourselves into thinking that those "on the fence" will necessarily see it that way too.

Basically I could have spared myself this long post and simply said: don't underestimate them. Just because the majority of believers isn't very firm on the issues that come up in such debates doesn't meant that there aren't also some very smart and skilled populists and demagogues on their side who we need to take seriously.
After all, the power of religion in this world would not be as great as it is if such people didn't exist, would it?

17. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80582 by Thor on October 22, 2007 at 8:31 am

Oxytocin,

thanks, I just read this piece - "Why Atheists are Not Very Bright" - and I must say I totally agree with what what catinabox and Last Man in Europe said above:

He is good, very eloquent and therefore dangerous. The problem is that most of the guys on our team are good debaters when it comes to political issues and the real-life consequences of religion, but I have to admit that the many centuries of experience in running circles around their opponents' heads with empty, nebulous sophistry and all kinds of pseudo-philosophcial theological blather sometimes gives the religious an advantage when the debate comes to deeper philosophical issues.

Our guys often neglect to address some of the the deeper philosophical foundations of the argument about supernaturalism, in this case Kant's problematic category of the "noumenous", which is often used in Christian apologetics.

Dennett, of course, is an exception because he is a philosopher and we are lucky to have him on our side. But I sometimes get the impression that Hitchens and Dawkins don't give the philosophical arguments in the areas of ethics and epistemology as much attention as they should.

Some people on our side of the argument who eloquently talk about philosophical naturalism and related issues are the historian Richard Carrier (he has a blog,a book and many essays up on infidels.org), the philosopher John Shook from the Center for Inquiry and Tom Clark, founder of the "Center for Naturalism".

Check out their websites and writings if you are interested

18. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80321 by Thor on October 21, 2007 at 10:43 am

I have no clue how these things usually work or how the candidates are chosen but isn't a public campaign the sort of thing that actually lessens someone's chances to be knighted?

You know, not "gentlemanlike" enough and unbecoming of "british understatement" - or maybe I am just buying into obsolete clichés here...?

19. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79173 by Thor on October 16, 2007 at 11:39 am

Here is another good writeup of the debate:
http://christopherhitchenswatch.blogspot.com/2007/10/house-divided-hitch-at-georgetown.html

(As you can probably guess from the title this is an Anti-Hitchens site, but one of the authors there sent a friend as "correspondent" to the conference, someone who didn't know anything about Hitchens before and so didn't have any preconceived notions, be they good or bad, and he was obviously quite impressed by the way Hitchens dealt with McGrath. Kudos to them for posting something positive about Hitchens, though.)

20. Christopher Hitchens on BookTV

Comment #67798 by Thor on September 4, 2007 at 8:46 pm

Beware of part 16 of the Youtube clips: there is a crazy religious woman calling in and holding a longish monologue about... well, I don't really know what it was about, I probably purged my my memory in order to remain sane.

Okay, maybe it wasn't that bad - I skipped over most of it, but I found myself grinding my teeth while listening to her inane drivel.

21. Christopher Hitchens on BookTV

Comment #67695 by Thor on September 4, 2007 at 11:59 am

The whole program will probably be up rather soon on the "In Depth" homepage at the CSPAN website:

http://www.booktv.org/programs_archive.aspx?SectionName=In%20Depth
(videos there are RealPlayer streams)

BTW: I just noticed they also did an interview with E.O.Wilson - could be interesting.

22. Rational Atheism

Comment #65394 by Thor on August 24, 2007 at 2:57 am

pewkatchoo - fair enough, thanks for clearing that up.


One more thing, though: I believe much of the disagreement in this comment thread comes from (at least) two rather different readings of Shermer's letter:

I and presumably many others see Shermer as saying: "Great job, people. Right on! You really did some neceessary and important work. [I mean, did you guys actually READ what he is saying? What about the "Amen, brother?"] It's great we have gotten to where we are, but here are some things we ought to keep in mind if we want to successfully build up on this:..."

Many others seem to understand him as saying:
"...mmmh, okay... I guess if that's your way of doing things, it has some merit. But I believe here is where you go wrong:..."

A subtle but important difference that obviously has a big influence on how people react to it.

23. Not So Fast, Christian Soldiers

Comment #65346 by Thor on August 23, 2007 at 5:54 pm

I was pleasantly surprised by the content of this article, since my expectations are usually rather low whenever I see "Reza Aslan" in the byline...

He is a preppy Iranian-American journalist who constantly enthuses over various modern trends and pro-secularism developments inside Islam and complains about what he sees as the misrepresentation of Islam as a monolithic whole.
I even believe him that this is really his experience - but the circles of his well educated and thorougly secularized Iranian diaspora are hardly an indicator for large scale trends in the Islamic world.

24. Rational Atheism

Comment #65289 by Thor on August 23, 2007 at 1:27 pm

With all due respect, pewkatchoo, I don't quite see how I could possible have incorrectly inferred something from a DIRECT QUOTE - one that rather speaks for itself, I might add.

So, "attacking (however mildly)[!!!] the principal atheists alive today" diminishes the argument!? (the argument against religion, I presume)
That's about as unequivocal as it gets. However, I am ready to be enlightened and proven wrong - but maybe YOU meant something else but it came out wrong?

BTW, I would be devastated if this spirited discussion would lead you to abandon me as your favorite superhero (though I have to admit that I chose the avatar more because fo my love for old Greek and Norse mythology; to each his own, I guess) :-)


Generally speaking, what annoys me so much about the reactions to this particular piece is that Shermer so OBVIOUSLY goes out of his way to praise Dawkins and parses his recommendations in the least critical way possible by instead using positive imagery ("I suggest that we raise our consciousness one tier higher") - but he STILL gets hammered.

It's one thing to go after bloviating fools like Stanley Fish or Alistair McGrath, but when SHERMER gets this reaction... sorry, but that's not good, not good at all.

25. Rational Atheism

Comment #65284 by Thor on August 23, 2007 at 1:10 pm

What J.C. said.

To clarify:
There will always be disagreements between atheists on various points. Some may concern the more abstract philosophical disputes concerning Naturalism, Materialism, Skepticism, Humanism, Rationalism etc. while others will arise through differences in the more immediate political sphere, where some atheists will be on the left, some on the right, some centrist, some libertarians, some moderates, some radicals...

That's why there is this old cliché about organizing atheist being like herding cats. I, for one, am not so sure that's entirely a bad thing. Yes, it may sometimes inhibit our efficiency in the public arena - but I simply can't bring myself to have any sympathies for doctrinaire and rigid ideological movements.

To even believe that public disagreements can be avoided is naive - to find it desirable, and trying to actively discourage it (by denouncing and rejecting even mild criticism from higly esteemed and deserving skeptics and rationalists) is in my eyes deplorable and runs counter to the principles of free inquiry, reasoned debate and intellectual openness that we should strive for.

26. Rational Atheism

Comment #65219 by Thor on August 23, 2007 at 8:11 am

pewkatchoo,
first you make a point that I couldn't agree with more

There is room for all sorts of approaches, including the softly softly approach.

but then you go on to say something that I couldn't possibly disagree with more - but nevertheless thank you for, because it beautifully delineates what a lot of the outcry over this "letter" by Shermer is about:

However, what there is not room for is an article in the form of a letter that diminishes the argument by attacking (however mildly) the principal atheists alive today.

This is EXACTLY the kind of thinking that I DO NOT WANT ANY PART OF:
"Let's present a united front."
"No disagreements in public, please."
"Don't criticize the leader."
etc...

While it was to be expected, since these tendencies have always been a part of human nature and of any broader ideology throughout human history, the very fact that this mindset seems to be getting hold of some people here makes me sad and angry at the same time.

27. Rational Atheism

Comment #64870 by Thor on August 22, 2007 at 6:12 am

Dr Benway,
well put, I couldn't agree more with your statement about atheism vs. secularism - which, again, does in no way preclude us from arguing theist vs. atheist methphysics in other, more philosophical contexts.

ClemIsMe,
well, as you said there was "... a larger and very complex movement".
Which is what WE should also strive for, because as of yet we don't have that.

I am glad to see that not everyone here gets all worked up about some smart, nuanced and mild-mannered remarks by a fellow rationalist like Michael Shermer - who, by the way, went to great pains in the first paragraph of his column to point out his overwhelming agreement with Dawkins on some central elements of his worldview.

28. Rational Atheism

Comment #64845 by Thor on August 22, 2007 at 4:19 am

All right, let's get into the fray here...

I very much admire Shermer and generally enjoy his writings - as I did with this piece, apparently unlike most others here. That doesn't mean I disagree with Dawkins, Hitchens et al. one bit. I am also a big fan of theirs.
I find pretty much all of Shermer's points here very persuasive and am rather disappointed that most commenters seem to throw him in with the "let's not be so uppity about religion"-crowd.
Read more closely, people. That's not what he is saying AT ALL.
Let's go by the numbers:

1. Anti-something movements by themselves will fail.

Some here seem to disagree, invoking the "anti-racism" of MLK: that's exactly the wrong analogy, because MLK was not anti-racist as much as he was PRO civil rights (or, in a larger sense, human rights). The same goes for whoever argued above that what people want to achieve is "the rejection of evil" - not in the world I know, they don't. The primarily strive for what they consider to be "the good".
Anyone who thinks that this is an automatism, that this is self-evident, logically equivalent or just an issue of "framing" is utterly missing the point (which I am happy to discuss, but not in this post)

2. Positive assertions are necessary.

Shermer's second point is a corollary to his first argument, but one that obviously needs repeating:
as long as there is no positively described and actively promoted, coherent worldview that argues from its own principles rather than predominantly against a theist concept of the world, we will always be on the defensive (a point that Michael Onfray often makes in his "Atheist Manifesto" with regard to Christian ethics in the West)

To avoid misunderstandings here - I have no problem with the current upsurge of "new atheism" (not sure if I like the term but everyone understands it, so...), but my attitude towards it can best be summarized as follows:
It is necessary, but not sufficient

Yes, Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens etc. deserve great credit for the publicity atheism is getting (although Hitchens likes to point out that he sees himself rather as someone who has profited from a change in the zeitgeist than as someone whoe is bringing it about - chicken-and-egg problem, if you ask me)
This encourages many people to finally start thinking about their own beliefs more deeply than they have done before. A necessary first step.

3. Rational is as rational does..

I'll just say that the statements by fonex_86 above demonstrate most eloquently the point that Sagan was trying to make - unintentended though it may be...

4. The golden rule is symmetrical.

I have no problem with this - and I don't see why anyone would. The golden rule's symmetry, taken with a little nuance, doesn't necessarily prevent us from calling Jerry Falwell all the nice things that Christopher Hitchens said about him. It's still a matter of individual taste, but one where I personally very much agree with Hitchens.
However, it should give us pause before using the same words against, say, the Bishop of Oxford, with whom Dawkins has had some very friendly and amiable conversations.
I don't quite understand why this should in any way be controversial: treat kindness with kindness and RESPOND (never initiate) to aggression with all means necessary to defend yourself.
Now, there is the whole "moderates provide cover for extremists" argument - which I agree with. That shouldn't prevent us from respectfully telling moderates how and where and why we disagree with them while on the other and hand calling a fundamentalist crackpot a fundamentalist crackpot.

As for #5: I will just be dogmatic here and say that anyone who seriously disagrees with this statement I consider to be an enemy of any free society that I would want to live in.


Finally, though, I will admit that I sympathize and partly agree when some of you are not happy about Shermer's choice of the word "militancy".

29. A Matter of Faith

Comment #64761 by Thor on August 21, 2007 at 5:12 pm

www.buildupthatwall.com

MilesSmiles, thanks so much for that great link. It's a perfect resource for all things Hitchens; must be very recent - I hadn't heard of it yet.

I have been a Hitchens-Fan for a long time but up until now the best way to keep up with his output was hitchensweb.com, which has a rather Spartan design, to put it mildly, and is never really up to date.
Neither of these two claims to be an "official" website, though, and a domain name lookup gives you the names of private individuals.

Be that as it may, it doesn't matter to me whether it's a new "official" website or simply something a fan put up: it really is a great resource.

30. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64141 by Thor on August 18, 2007 at 2:54 am

BAEOZ,
your are right, of course. It's just that Chistianity has had 2000 years to develop their mind-games and pseudo-rationalizations - so they are, unfortunately, quite good at it.

But just to drive the point home: the piece that Neil S linked to above is really a perfect example of what we are talking about here - it makes my head explode:

The problem is this: Sam [Harris], like many atheists, has assumed that all factual claims are determined to be true of false in exactly the same way. This just simply is not the case, especially when we address the Unique Subject of God. Atheists often claim that there is no immediate physical evidence for the existence of God, and therefore God's existence cannot be proven, but this so far begs the question that did not so many atheists buy the argument and wear it as a badge, it would be pointless to refute it. The problem is, God is so far different from anything we experience by our natural senses, that to try to use only natural "evidentiary" data to pin Him down is as ridiculous as trying to find dark matter with a magnifying glass. God is not an element under the microscope. Rather, it is we who are under His microscope, and the most obvious evidence that He exists is not some sorted set of data that we can analyze, but the supreme clockwork of the universe and humanity, as well as the lights of human reason, logic, meaning, art, and everything else that transcends us on a cosmic scale, as well as the intimacies of human life that defy analysis with a single wink.

So here is the real logical dilemma for atheism when it comes to talking about "evidence" for the existence of God: if a God does exist, One Who created the universe, then it will not be a matter of finding evidence here and evidence there that can be weighed against other contrary evidences. It is simply not a matter of that kind of empirical probability. Rather, in a God-created universe, there can be nothing but evidence for the existence of God. Such a universe - and I believe this is such a universe - declares God's existence and His glory at every turn. It can do no other. Even evidence that is popularly considered to weigh against the existence of God, can be re-evaluated, and if God exists, must be. Likewise, data that heretofore have seemed to have no point or meaning at all, must be re-learned to point to the One Who has creates meaning. It was this type of thinking that, I believe, led Francis Bacon, the founder of the scientific method, to state, "God never wrought miracle to convince atheism, because his ordinary works convince it." To this I would add that every ordinary work confirms it.

This is crazy talk. This is the stuff of brain-washing procedures.

I hope that makes clear what I meant to say above: there is no way of arguing with this. When somebody simply claims "God is special! The rules don't apply" then you can only tell him he is a poor fool who, sadly, seems to be misdirecting the considerable resources of his mind into deluding himself.

31. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64140 by Thor on August 18, 2007 at 2:20 am

Neil S,
I have looked at the link you provided to the piece by Joel McDurmon.
My problem with skillfully crafted pieces of Christian apologetics like this is that I often cannot even read it without getting very angry and emotional about this incredible abjection of the human faculty of reason and rational thinking in favor of utterly delusional and self-defeating circular-logic sophistry - but getting so worked about it is a weakness that I haven't been able to conquer yet.

Also, I have neither the time, nor the experience, nor the patience to engage in an argument with someone whose mission in life (!!) it is to write pieces like that and play deceptive wordgames (by which I don't mean to imply that he is lying - well, he is, to himself) to undercut the principles of a naturalistic worldview.
Someone who does this quite well, however, is Richard Carrier , a young historian, who has published various articles at infidels.org, has written a book titled "Sense and Goodness Without God" about secular morality and naturalism and generally is quite a formidable debater in online discussion with theists.

32. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64133 by Thor on August 18, 2007 at 1:11 am

One more remark about Mohler: I didn't mean to say that he is somehow exceptionally convincing, far from that. He simply helped me to understand how these people think. It is all spelled out very clearly in his writing - I just hadn't encountered this open and unabashed talk in categories that are sp completely unfamiliar and alien to me before. To quote another religious radio talk show host, Dennis Prager (not a Southern Baptist but Jewish, therefore much less extreme, but also with many strange ideas): "I prefer clarity over agreement".

In case some of you are wondering now: I do like to listen to these religious types because some of them are quite good debaters and interviews - theology is obviously the perfect field to hone your skills for logical rationalization.
Yes, I disagree with them 9 ouf 10 cases, but I have learned much from their attention to detail and exact language - it helps me to better understand and, ultimately, to counter their arguments.

Dr Benway,
I agree with what you say about the equivocation regarding interventionism: that's where I seem to have been slightly inconsistent before.
Of course theists can claim anything they want about some supernatural realm that is not accessible to us (except, apparently, after we die - clever, that) since the truth value of these claims is utterly irrelevant.

But of course they really are concerned with THIS world, thus problems arise when they make theology-based claims, mostly in the realm of ethics but, unfortunately and to my continuing amazement, in large parts of the world they even make claims about physical reality of our universe.

Let me reiterate my basic point, though: theists do not accept our epistemology. Many of them simply say that evidence-based reasoning doesn't apply to god in the same way as it does in other areas.
Philosopher and theologians might be able and willing to conduct a debate even on this level, but this is where my powers of argument leave me. I only know and accept one way of knowing and understanding the world and if someone says "No, reason is not applicable here, god is not a testable hypothesis, he simply IS etc..." then I can only disagree - I cannot think of any way to seriously argue with this position.

Now I really feel bad for continuing this rather off-topic discussion.
Richard Dawkins has recently complained in one of the comment sections that everyone seems to gather there to spout off on any issue that comes to mind instead of perusing the forum section for longer debates on issues they are interested in.
While I understand his frustration to a certain degree, I believe that the only remedy would be a change in the design of the website. People will naturally convene at the most frequented and most recent article on the front page. It's human nature: we are often lazy and whimsical - blame god for the imperfect design :-)

33. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64074 by Thor on August 17, 2007 at 2:04 pm

Well put, Dr Benway.
However, while this may not be an apropriate place to dissect at length the metaphysical and epistmological foundations of our worldview, something that smart people have been arguing over for thousands of years, let me state again where I see a foundational axiom beyond which we cannot argue:

As you pointed out, metaphysical assumptions are not what really matters, what matters in this context is how we perceive and know that which exists, i.e. epistemology.
This concern was alsoc included in my original post, however, though I might have expressed it poorly. It's a rather complex and tricky matter, what with all the arguments about a priori knowledge, induction and Popper's falsifiability principle etc...

You can never entirely disconnect metasphyics/ontology from epistemology: they always intertwine. If you posit a supernatural realm that only connects to our world through some kind of divine intervention then accepting such strange ideas as revelation is entirely logically consistent.

Theists will never run out of phenomena in our world that we cannot yet explain through the eyes of science and there may even be some ultimately unanswerable questions (I am thinking of such head-scratcher as "Where do the laws of physics come from?" or "Why is there something instead of nothing?").
Sure, their god will always be a "god of the gaps" and their religion will never make accurate predictions about THIS world, but that doesn't, in principle, take away from the logical consistency of their position.

34. The Pentagon Sends Messengers of Apocalypse to Convert Soldiers in Iraq

Comment #64061 by Thor on August 17, 2007 at 1:12 pm

It's not that they don't understand. The problem is this little issue called "faith" with which most were brainwashed since they were infants.

Well, yes, that's true enough for most believers. But personally, I find it quite fascinating to listen to some of the smarter fundamentalists thinkers, like e.g. Albert Mohler, who really construct a logically consistent alternative worldview to our naturalist/materialist conception of the world.

What it comes down two are two entirely contradictory axiomatic assumptions about this world:
Either the natural world as we perceive it and that we try to explore and explain with everything at our disposal is all there is, or there is some realm apart from it, that can only be accessed through something the religious call "divine revelation"
Both views are logically consistent but have at its core unprovable axioms. I'd love for someone to prove me wrong, honestly, but at the deepest philosophical level I don't quite see how the assumption that this world and its natural laws are all there is and can be explained and understood by us is entirely falsifiable or verifiable, i.e. testable.

35. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63592 by Thor on August 15, 2007 at 2:59 am

In a just and fair world, these ideas would be no more harmful than the irrational following people have for football teams.

Well, yes, maybe so. However, religions do on occasion take it upon themselves to define what is "just and fair", don't they?
Which is more often than not part of the problem...

36. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62575 by Thor on August 10, 2007 at 7:02 am

TinyRobot,

thanks for the quote from Dennett re the Naturalistic Fallacy. That's a VERY good point - I had often wondered how to logically counter the religious argument that morality has to take precedence over science, since science doesn't give us our morality or something along those lines.

Dennett's distinction between necessary and sufficient factual knowledge is a very salient point in this context.

However, I would also argue that when it comes to knowledge about ourselves, humans, things get somewhat murky again:
here morality, in this case I believe most likely based on empathy for human pain and suffering, certainly takes precedent over scientific inquiry, because otherwise we would simply do all kinds of medical or psychological experiments on humans that might indeed have real scientific value - but because we don't want to be like Mengele (whose work, as morally abhorrent his practices were, has increased scientific knowledge about how the humand body functions, as terrible as that sounds - please, don't misunderstand me as in ANY way condoning this atrocious part of human history) we don't allow these kinds of things.

37. Richard Dawkins on Hardtalk

Comment #58369 by Thor on July 24, 2007 at 4:21 pm

Come on, people, it wasn't THAT bad, was it?

Yes, the interviewer was very persistent but that's his job. He HAD to voice the arguments that are commonly used to counter Dawkins because he wanted Dawkins to answer these counterclaims - I for my part think that is perfectly reasonable.
Why would you blame him for challenging Dawkins on his positions?
It's what this TV format is supposed to do.

The interview was very thorough and straightforward and Sackur gave Dawkins all the time he needed to make his points.
Comparing this to the tendentious drivel of a Sean Hannity is really an insult to this British journalist.

No offence, but sometimes the knee-jerk attacks on anyone challenging Dawkins' positions - and be it only for the sake of journalistic clarity - get a little out of hand here.

38. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58129 by Thor on July 23, 2007 at 3:25 pm

Whoever at the Guardian was responsible for the sound and/or recording equipment for this interview is an incompoetent twit and should be banned from ever again getting his hands on any kind of electronic sound recording device for the rest of his miserable existence.

That is all.

39. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57397 by Thor on July 19, 2007 at 7:05 am

Henri,
thanks for the response. While I don't quite share your rather cynical outlook and the conclusions you draw, I don't really disagree with your underlying assessment of morality.

You say
"All so-called moral concepts boil down to power. To moralise is to judge."
Well, yes. Every moral value I have is an implicit value judgement I make.
Moral values are to an overwhelming degree social conventions. You parse it in the language of power, I prefer framing it as a matter of consensus - maybe that makes me one of those you refer to when you say
"Humans are deluded animals generally, tricked by language." :-)

Now, I am very much in the camp of evolutionary pschologists who attribute much of what we see as morality as based on behaviour traits that evolved in us due to their added survival value, e.g. incest taboos, empathy towards close kin, aggression towards outsiders etc...
But that shouldn't blind us to the fact that these innate moral "instincts" of ours are in the end formed and directed by our social and cultural norms:
+) defining "the other" in terms of race, country, tribe, clan or religion as "inferior" or "sub-human" has proven quite effective at eliminating the "normal" moral qualms most people have when dealing with their own kin
+)the sexual morals that have been encountered in different cultures around the world are incredibly diverse => function of culture
etc...

But where I perceive you as rather cynical towards and dismissive of "Western values" I happily embrace them. (my underlying moral principles being to a large extent defined by some combination of humanism, utilitarianism and rational hedonism, but that just as an aside)

I know they are not perfect, they may not always work out as we want them to and not be applicable the same way in every circumstance, but so far they have, in my view, proven to be the best humanity has ever come up with.

40. Why I Believe Anti-Evangelism Is Wrong

Comment #57334 by Thor on July 19, 2007 at 1:06 am

What Logicel said.

It's always a difficult balance but there should be something or someone out there to turn to. Unbelievers should try to establish a certain presence in society - now which activities one desribes as "framing", "awareness building", "invititation to debate" or on the other hand "offensive rhetoric", "attacking religion" etc... will always me a matter of contention.

Even the current crop of "strident" atheist authors is not aggressive in any sense that would be applied in any other issue but religion.
For heaven's sake (sorry), these people do book tours and give interviews. Period.

Those who are interested buy the books and watch the debates. Hard-core believers will not fall away from their faith just because there is a certain amount of publicity right now. It may be that there are many who are "on the fence" or, as the religious would say, "not strong in the faith" who are swayed by the arguments that atheists bring.
But to describe what is happening right now a atheist proselytizing is really quite a stretch.

This is exactly the same as if two political parties compete on some issues and one accuses the other of "evangelizing", i.e. making the case for their point of view. To quote the eminent philosopher Homer Simpson: "Well, duh."

And yes, there are indeed many political issues where religious people and unbelievers will clash, but that results less from evangelism on either side but from the simple fact that we have groups of people here with stongly diverging worldviews and moral values in certain areas which necessarily results in different policies.

That's the real issue right there: we would all just get along fine and not bother with who is a believer or an atheist if it had no consequences - BUT IT INVARIABLY DOES. On certain issues atheists and believers will inevitably differ and therefore we need to have a voice in society.

I know I am repeating myself but again: the resulting media uproar over religion vs. atheism has nothing to do with evangelizing - we are only claiming the same rights as every other group with certain ideas and intersts in our society.

41. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57329 by Thor on July 19, 2007 at 12:37 am

roach,

I take that as a compliment :)
No, seriously, I strongly disagree with many of Henri's statements but I am genuinely curious about his position and usually yelling, screaming and insulting people is not the most effective way to get an answer.

You might say I am utilitarian in that respect: politeness and civility is often - not always, mind you - more effective than people think.

42. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57313 by Thor on July 18, 2007 at 9:52 pm

Henri Bergson,

just out of curiosity: I am really not trying to pick a fight here but I can't make sense of your comments about human rights only being secularized versions of Christian myths that are today used by the West as an imperialist ploy or similar remarks in this vein.

You apparently oppose Islam or Islamism or whatever the case may be - alright, no argument there, but I just can't discern any coherent picture from you comments as to what your are FOR?

You ridicule the idea of human rights as just another hypocritical emotional appeal to further Western domination. Well, be that as it may, do you think those principles - the principles which, beginning with the Enlightenment started to dominate Western society and brought us the relative freedom and prosperity we have today - are not really such a good idea then or not really important after all?

That's the impression I get from you - I apologize if that's just a misunderstanding on my part. The latter seems likely because if our Western ideals don't matter to you (I mean, what's with the approving mention of Mussolini?), why would you be opposed to Islam?

Long story short: I don't want to get into any skirmishes you have with other people here, but I simply don't understand where you are coming from.
And, no, I really don't think that's because I am caught in a simplistic left-right worldview.
It's just that no matter how I look at it I can't really discern any coherent worldview from your comments.
I know, I know, that's really only my problem, but I would be very grateful if you would be so kind and explain away my confusion.

43. An Atheist Responds

Comment #56214 by Thor on July 14, 2007 at 2:04 pm

I totally understand where you are coming from, but ultimately it really is a matter of taste, isn't it?
Personally, I am a fan of Hitchens and I very much enjoy his flowery and very embellished prose. Then there are those, like you, who prefer the clear, crisp style Harris uses (this ability of his to make concise and logical points is especially effective in debates whereas Hitchens - although a highly effective debater - sometimes has the tendency to ramble on about tangential matters)

But then there are also those who accuse Hitchens of deliberately using his writing style to show off, to make a point about his great skill with the English language.

That's really an argument I can't follow. Liking or disliking Hitchens' position on various topics is one thing, preferences in literary style another, but inferring character traits from his style is going into irrational-dislike territory...

44. Bill Moyers interviews E.O. Wilson

Comment #55025 by Thor on July 9, 2007 at 6:15 pm

In case any of you wants to know more about Wilson and his thoughts about god and the world then you only need to go to this discussion between him and Dan Dennett from 2005 that has also been posted here:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1187,EO-Wilson-and-Daniel-Dennett,seedmagazinecom

45. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #51387 by Thor on June 22, 2007 at 3:03 pm

Bonzai, Fanusi Khiyal:

I have to disagree with both of you because I think BOTH Marx and Rand were troubled individuals with deeply dysfunctional and disturbed psyches and private lives, utterly unrealistic views of human nature and a penchant for self-aggrandization.

They both had some brilliant ideas and insights or at least broke some taboos that deserved to be challenged - like many other thinkers in history. The problem with both of them is their claim to an absolutist system that explains everything. I will admit that Rand's radical individualism has obviously less destructive potential - but that is only due to the fact that she knew nothing of our inherent and evolved sense of solidarity which condemns her "Objectivist" followers to being a small group "enlightened" loners.
Marx, on the other hand, knew full well how strong and tempting the call for solidarity and equality is in us and either knowingly or unknowingly used this appeal for his purposes.
In his case I am extremely glad that he thorougly underestimated the human drive towards selfisness and personal gain that fuels the "creative destruction" (Schumpeter) of capitalism - in my mind, with all its existing drawbacks, still one of the most beneficial ideas in the history of mankind.
It is just like any other discovery - nuclear power, biotech etc...: the results depend entirely on how you use it.

The big philosophers in the history of mankind, from Socrates onwards to Hume, Hobbes, Locke, Hegel, Kant etc... up to more modern thinkers like Russell and Popper, they all made valuable contributions to the "warehouse of ideas" that is our civilization.
However, most people today would probably not like to life in a society formed after Hobbes' idea of a Leviathan or would want to follow the insane mind-twisting acrobatics that are involved in Kant's and Hegel's German Idealism etc...
We cherry pick their ideas - and we should do the same with Marx and Rand, and even with some religious ideologies - after all, how does the saying go: " Even a blind man may sometimes hit the mark."

However, calls for absolute truth should always be viewed with absolute caution, even - or especially - when they proclaim to seek only the greatest good for mankind.

Sorry for this longish tangent - but whenever someone start extolling the virtues of Marx I cannot resist replying to it.

46. The New Atheists

Comment #49378 by Thor on June 11, 2007 at 5:31 pm

I agree with pretty much everything Aronson writes - and I am usually a little cautious when it comes to The Nation.

This article is very comprehensive and well-balanced in its take on this whole, very complex issue of religion in society and the recent atheist response to it. In a rational and pragmatic tone Aronson points out the strengths as well as the weaknesses of Dawkins, Dennett, Harris and Hitchens and draws a realistic picture of the situation of atheism in (American) society.

I am especially pleased that he pointed out the limited effect - in terms of low absolute numbers of people who read books - this recent boom will have, while not dismissing its significance in changing the political discourse. Too often I read comments where people go overboard in their euphoria over the recent publicity atheism has been getting and predict the imminent demise of religion. Although I sympathize with them and can understand where they are coming from this attitude is patently naive.

We often pride ourselves so much on a dependence on reason and rational discourse, but that should not blind us to one salient fact:
while reason is the indeed the most powerful and effective tool humans have to find their way in the world, our evolutionary setup has a myriad of irrationalities and atrophied instincts from bygone eras built in that homo sapiens will not be able to overcame completely.
Yes, we should strive for a more rationals society with less superstitious nonsense in it, but we should also try to keep our expectations realistic.

47. Christopher Hitchens at Politics and Prose

Comment #46612 by Thor on May 31, 2007 at 8:02 pm

Homo economicus,

no, it's not just you - every time I see or hear one of these public discussions or readings I think to myself:
"Why do they always let the crazy people get to the microphones?"

Just to be clear: by that I don't mean religious people, but just your garden variety insecure, pompous, overbearing neurotic idiots - no matter if religous or atheist - who go to such events to talk at lengths about their "journey" or their "issues" or something or other in their life they have "struggled with", notwithstanding the fact that commone sense AND common decency should, if they possessed such qualities, compell them to simply ask a f***ing question and be done with it and not bother Hitchens, and more importantly, the other people present there with embarrasings displays of a total lack of self-control !!

Maybe I am a little harsh here, but this seemed like such a nice event in a little bookstore, beattiful atmosphere... and then you get all these weirdos asking questions. Not all of them, of course, but if you have watched it you know who I mean.

I have the utmost respect for Christopher Hitchens as a writer but I have even more respect for him - or any other writer for that matter - when I see the people he has to put up with at such events.
But I hope he finds some consolation in the current sales figures - the book is doing great.

48. Manufacturing belief

Comment #42580 by Thor on May 18, 2007 at 1:07 pm

konquererz,
agreeing or disagreeing with someone is one thing, but saying that Wolpert sounds like someone "desperately trying to saty in the good grace of the religious community" is a little harsh in my opinion.
If that is what you read into his words - fine, but I just can't see how can possibly come to this conclusion from the interview above.

Generally speaking, I found this article extremely interesting and more along the lines of a productive conversation on atheism than some other contributions here.
Now, don't get me wrong I - too each his own and I have no poblem with disrespecting and ridiculing religion. I am big fan of Dawkins and the other writers we all know, especially of Hitchens. The latter doesn't really mince words EVER and I have absolutely no problem with that, I even enjoy it.

However, I don't understand the tendency often displayed here to declare everyone who doesn't outrightly condemn everything religious - even outspoken atheists who clearly say that religion is nothing but superstition - as somehow cowardly or inconsequential.

My main interest lies in UNDERSTANDING this phenomenon and here people like Wolpert or, even better, E.O.WILSON (whose "On Human Nature" I can highly recommend to everyone), contribute immensely to our knowledge of why humans behave the way we do.

The better we understand human nature, the natural (i.e. genetic) and social forces working upon us and in us, the better we will be able to explain the phenomenon of belief in the supernatural and, as a consequence, we will be improve the way we reflect upon ourselves and our society in a knowledgeable and rational manner (I am not completely delusional, though - I am neither saying people can nor should behave "rationally" all the time)

Contrary to Wolpert, I like other philosophers besides Hume (who is one of the best and provided many of the basic principles of the modern and relatively free societies most of us live in) but I can someho understand his frustration with philosophy:
We now live in an age where we should increasingly include scientific findings about HOW we function into considerations on ethics and, further down the line, public policy and not only dabble in abstract considerations.

One excellent example - I know I am getting long in the tooth here but bear with me just a few lines more - are some recent studies that showed, in controlled psyochological tests, an innate desire in a signicant percentage of the participants for a minimum of egalitarian principle in society.
To be more precise: the researches found that, given the choice between receiving certain amounts of money themselves or having someone else, who is much more wealthy, lose some of his wealth a significant nubmer of participants chose THE LATTER! (I don't have the exact numbers and right now I don't know any links for these studies either - read about it some weeks ago)

That means that personal happiness and satisfaction has for many people a stronger correlation to their relative material wealth compared to others - they do NOT want others to possess much more than they do - than to their own absolute material well-being.

Many will argue that this is just one of these studies that show us nothing that plain common sense could have told us before. However, I think the knowldedge about such innate desires should factor into how we debate ethics and public policy instead of there "only" being discussion about abstract principles, i.e. "free market" vs. "income redistribution" etc...

And I say that as a libertarian who finds the attitude displayed by the people in the study I mentioned above just plain stupid and self-defeating - but we need a certain realism and a minimum of respect for certain uneradicable and primal instincts and tendencies in society, even if we don't like everyhting about them.

The same goes for religion: I am happy about all the attention that atheists are getting right now. But Hitchens, and I believe also Dawkins, have stated that they find the idea of completely doing away with religion neither realistic nor necessarily desirable.
All this attention right now will reach many who have been "on the fence" in this issue. But in the longer run we need more; our knowledge about how superstition and dogmatic belief "works" and how it propagates should factor into our ethics and into policy considerations - by which I don't mean to imply that atheists are in any way a homogeneous group, quite the opposite.
What we should be, however, is an ever-increasing number of people from all walks of live with different viewpoints on all kinds of issues whose interest overlap insofar as they advocate secularism and the primacy of rational thought over superstitious and dogmatic belief - "faith".
(as for "primacy": I don't want to be misinterpreted as advocating any kind of coercion, just to be clear)

Alright, I could go on for a couple of pages more, but I'll stop here - this is rather inappropriately long for a "comment" already. Sorry about that - couldn't help myself :-)

49. Bill Maher interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #41024 by Thor on May 15, 2007 at 11:05 am

Maher and Hitchens actually have a rather cordial relationsship.

Maher is in the entertainment/infotainment business - and Hitchens is always good for controversial statements, sometimes he even tends to overdo it. What better guest could you wish for as a talk-show host?

50. God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything by Christopher Hitchens

Comment #41022 by Thor on May 15, 2007 at 11:00 am

Come on Yorker, we can't all be THAT bad.

Though I have to admit that I must be at least "humor-challenged" or whatever the pc-term might be: I read it and it took me about a minute plus I had to read some of the other posts about penguins before I really "got it".
But it IS funny - problem is, I am REALLY slow :-)