1. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #177542 by Vendetta on May 9, 2008 at 9:17 am

OMG, how could he have told the story of his 'wound' with a straight face? I mean, seriously... that would take a level of self control that I can only imagine.

2. An Atheist Goes Undercover to Join the Flock of Mad Pastor John Hagee

Comment #176577 by Vendetta on May 7, 2008 at 4:02 pm

Wow. That was some read. I really like Matt's writing. I've never read anything of his before, I've only seen him do the political reporting on Real Time w/Bill Maher.

3. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #116017 by Vendetta on January 25, 2008 at 9:54 am

Great letter William Kaiser, I 'borrowed' most of it in my letter to my congressman, hope you don't mind. :)

4. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114718 by Vendetta on January 22, 2008 at 3:58 pm

What, no more psychotic posts from Summer Seale? I'd love to see her responses to the questions that have been asked. Personally I would like to know if we should go ahead and torture and kill every muslim in the US, since they are "potential terrorists". And if so, why stop there? I am an atheist, so presumably I might be spared from her jihad against muslims, but perhaps we should just rid the world of all religious people, since they are all potentially dangerous?

Her entire stance ignores the glaring fact that because of this presidents power grab, any US citizen can be grabbed off the street and locked away forever and tortured without trial as long as they are accused of being an enemy combatant.

5. Science, Evolution, and Creationism

Comment #112957 by Vendetta on January 18, 2008 at 10:32 am

Some silly religious apologist recently wrote a letter to the editor bashing evolution as only a theory and therefore we shouldn't accept it. I couldn't resist responding, here's my response letter (it's 250 words, which is the limit):


Most people think the word "theory" means educated guess, so it's no wonder that many are hesitant to believe in the "theory" of evolution. In the scientific community, however, an educated guess is called a hypothesis. A hypothesis must survive rigorous scrutiny, predictions, and experiments before it can become a "theory."
There is overwhelming evidence supporting the theory of evolution in many different fields. As a result of this massive evidence scientists debate how evolution happened, not if. If evidence that disproved evolution appeared, scientists would be forced to change or abandon the theory altogether.
The National Academy of Sciences just released a report on evolution. If you have internet access, you can read it for free at www.nap.edu If you are pressed for time be sure to at least read the FAQ section.
Mr. Wareham JR (the person this letter responds to) said that if evolution were in court it would be dismissed for lack of evidence. Perhaps he missed the Intelligent Design (ID) case in Dover (2005). ID advocates lost because ID was found to be an attempt to insert religion into public schools. The evolution advocates displayed why the theory of evolution is the best explanation we currently have for the diversity of life we see around us, and the evidence was impressive. The decision was made by Judge Jones, a republican appointed by George W. Bush in 2002.
If you don't "believe" in evolution, be sure to avoid flu shots, which rely on the germ "theory" of disease and predicting evolving strains.


I just got a call from the newspaper, they were very happy with my letter and are putting it in asap. :) The fight continues...

6. Carl Sagan's COSMOS begins airing on Jan 8th

Comment #106082 by Vendetta on January 2, 2008 at 10:39 am

I went to the website and yes, unfortunately, the science channel is different than the discovery channel that most people have with their basic cable channel. I suspect I would have to contact my local cable provider to find out how I could get this channel.

Poopies. Just looking at the programs showing on the science channel, it's a shame that this isn't part of the mandatory cable packages. Much more important for the shop at home channels and fox news to be included. Sad.

7. This Is Not a Test

Comment #100730 by Vendetta on December 19, 2007 at 8:24 am

44. Comment #100077 by Rtambree on December 18, 2007 at 8:07 am

Nader "gave" Bush the White House? Pardon?
Gore gave Bush the Whitehouse for being a doormat after the debacle in Florida. He didn't contest it - he had a backbone of jelly. Gore couldn't even hold onto his own state of Tennessee - nothing to do with Nader. All Gore had to do was win his own goddamn state.

Nader is good for American politics - he highlights the Two Party Debate duopoly, corporate welfare, tax cuts for the wealthy, the lack of universal public health, excessive military spending, and he doesn't thump any Bibles. Why shouldn't there be a third voice (and fourth, fifth, etc)?

8. ...and another FLEA...

Comment #96356 by Vendetta on December 10, 2007 at 12:40 pm

14. Comment #96352 by Diacanu on December 10, 2007 at 12:36 pm

Still no Hitchens fleas!

Come on people, get your shit together!

Get "God is SO great!: Why religion cures everything", out on the shelves already.

Lazy bums! Type faster!
All you gotta do is "Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot! Pascal's wager! Fine tuned constants! Did I mention Stalin!?", and wrap a cover around it.

9. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #95390 by Vendetta on December 8, 2007 at 8:54 am

Okay, so I've only watched about the first 3 or 4 hours, but I'm sorry, so far this is no where as good as last year's conference. The two talks on the enlightenment (a poor choice to start the conference with) were varying degrees of boring, and the born again economist with the speech impediment was even worse. I wouldn't want to skip ahead to parts that I know would be interesting because to me that would be too much like skipping ahead in a book or novel, but wow, so far this isn't in the same league as last year (so far).

I haven't made it to this year's version of Atran yet (I've only had to deal with his pompous attitude in the few questions he's asked) but I don't see how anyone can really defend his attitude. Every time I hear him talk I wonder why he even bothers to condescendingly attend these things when all the other scientists are obviously below him in intellect?(in his own mind)What a bore.

10. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #95062 by Vendetta on December 7, 2007 at 9:21 am

50. Comment #94754 by MelM on December 6, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Makes me wonder about what she thinks of the "Earth going around the Sun" idea.

11. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93858 by Vendetta on December 4, 2007 at 10:32 am

Well, I tried. I made it to vid 9 and then I just couldn't take it any more. To those that soldiered on and watched it all... wow. Dinesh is just too much to take. Why? Well perhaps if I talk like him it will be clearer. DINESH IS JUST TOO MUCH TO TAKE!!!!! I'M SHOUTING BECAUSE I'M RIGHT!!!!

What a fucking spud. He's exhibit A in the case against intelligent design.

12. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #92436 by Vendetta on November 30, 2007 at 1:45 pm

39. Comment #92416 by Rtambree on November 30, 2007 at 1:02 pm

Just speculating on how the theists would rationalize it.

13. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #92305 by Vendetta on November 30, 2007 at 9:02 am

Comment #92190 by Rtambree on November 30, 2007 at 3:00 am

The Lord was calling young Dennis to be with Him, and who are we to disobey our Father?

14. A third of adults believe God watches over them

Comment #87561 by Vendetta on November 12, 2007 at 1:12 pm

Comment #87557 by Diacanu:

...Geez, it's like these stories were constructed by child-minded primitives from the bronze age or something.

15. Allan Gregg interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #87491 by Vendetta on November 12, 2007 at 9:26 am

Comment #87296 by Spinoza on November 11, 2007 at 5:18 pm

I am so tired of idiot atheists.

Those of you on this site who idolize Prof. Dawkins to the point of sexual desire, you DO do atheism a disservice by not educating yourself on just why Dawkins omits the things you wonder why he omits.

He is following a LONG tradition of intelligent atheism, one in which he is penultimate, but rests upon solid foundations he must utilize, or risk crumbling. (like a bridge).

Please atheists, learn some philosophy, some very very basic philosophy, or shut up.

(I await the expected lambasting I am going to incur).


Truth is one thing, justification is another.

If a legion of atheists rises up, and only one in 50 of them has any semblance of the justificatory structure of their beliefs (liberal estimate, real number may be much much less, given my experience with atheist groups and this website), then WE (as a group) are no better than the theists, most of whom who only remain so because they are too lazy or jaded to think critically and carefully.

I am not annoyed because I think those whom I referred to as "idiot atheists" are INCAPABLE of becoming justified, it is, rather, that they don't seem to care.

You OUGHT to care.

The answer to "Why are you an atheist?" is not "Because there isn't a God.", the answer ought to be that you were persuaded by good argument (very specific ones) to reject beliefs that have weak or nil justification.

God-belief DOES have weak justification, and the atheists, in virtue of identifying themselves that way, have a duty to both explicate the weak justification for God-belief AND understand what they are logically entitled to conclude from that basis.

Dawkins is well within his boundaries, and his comments about Einstein belie his deep understanding of the problem.

I am worried about the developing and rampant cult-of-personality surrounding "The New Atheists".

16. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86957 by Vendetta on November 10, 2007 at 2:27 pm

35. Comment #86944 by nancy2001 on November 10, 2007 at 1:46 pm

Sacrificing a goat might work. Better yet, let them sacrifice a Fundie.

17. Can we at least demand 'Secular Communion'?

Comment #86846 by Vendetta on November 10, 2007 at 9:42 am

Norman's line of reasoning...makes this false presupposition that the atheists are incapable of working together with their fellow human beings because they also find fault with their flawed religious beliefs. We can do both! Watch us — where we find common goals, we will work together without a pang of regret; and where we disagree, we will forcefully argue. That's the way our world works. Get used to it.

18. Georgia plans service to pray for rain

Comment #86795 by Vendetta on November 10, 2007 at 7:02 am

As Dennett would say, "yes, thank you, but have you sacrificed a goat?"

19. Pat Robertson Says Giuliani Presidency Appears in Book of Revelation

Comment #86553 by Vendetta on November 9, 2007 at 2:53 pm

21. Comment #86449 by arogop on November 9, 2007 at 8:54 am

He was right to Demand an apology from Ron Paul. In this day and age it is virtually never right to kill civilians.

20. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83878 by Vendetta on October 31, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Bravo!

21. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #83516 by Vendetta on October 30, 2007 at 9:48 am

"But maybe this one reason is why we have not progressed very far in the last 250 years. Maybe we need to set high standards of achievement for our leaders. Maybe we need to expect timely results. If we are satisfied with the status quo, then maybe not. I have seen first hand how things like fighting to keep nativity scenes out of the public square distracts us from our goal of being a major cultural force. In this sense, for all of their successes, Tabash and others leaders/activists in the atheist community have let us down."


Chris,

You've made it very clear that even if you agree with what Tabash says, you question his style and effectiveness to the point that you think he is a failure. I wanted to point out that if we've lost ground despite his successes, aren't we still better off than we would have been without him? In other words we should be thankful for every asset we have. Tabash doesn't work for you.. fine. But he CAN reach different types of people that care about church/state separation but would never consider aligning themselves with our heroes.

22. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #81116 by Vendetta on October 24, 2007 at 6:53 am

I'm sure Tabash's atheist activism pales in comparison to yours, ChrisMcL, your highness.

23. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #80945 by Vendetta on October 23, 2007 at 3:30 pm

Diacanu and Veronique are spot on, I was thinking the same thing as D.

24. Downward, Christian soldier

Comment #80860 by Vendetta on October 23, 2007 at 8:21 am

Johnny O, I live in Montana and about a month ago there was a returning soldier that was hit by a truck while stopped at a red light (he was on a motorcycle). I can't imagine how hard that would have been for his fiancee and child to take, especially after returning home safely from such a hell hole, and being killed while doing nothing wrong. It's just so sad and horrible.

Of course people used this as an opportunity to turn to their faith. It makes me nauseous. How can they believe in, much less worship, a God that would do such a thing, and just chalk it up to him working in mysterious ways?

25. Christopher Hitchens at AAI 07

Comment #80151 by Vendetta on October 20, 2007 at 8:41 am

Riley, are you still here?

I can't believe you think that Hitchen's challenge is hypocrisy. Oh my god. It is a CHALLENGE. He does not supply a quote because he is not quoting anyone. If someone were to actually respond to the challenge, THEN he could quote them. I don't see what's so hard to understand about this.

Dennis Prager (a religious apologist) has his own 'challenge'. It basically says if you were walking alone at night and came upon a group of men, would you be comforted by the knowledge that they had just left a bible meeting? He asserts that yes, a person should be comforted by that knowledge. He challenges people to deny that. Strangely enough, just like Hitchens, he does not QUOTE anyone. Bizarre. It's because he's issuing a challenge, not quoting atheists. Is he asserting that atheists are running around saying that if you came upon a group of men that you somehow knew were just in a bible study meeting you would be less comforted? Of course not, because Prager is the one framing the argument. He can't quote atheists asserting the negative because no atheists are saying that, just like no christians are claiming what Hitch is challenging them to.

I feel like I'm going in circles here, because I am. But this is such an obvious point that it makes me want to bang my head against the wall.

26. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #79469 by Vendetta on October 17, 2007 at 11:17 am

Do you suppose they realize how silly an "army of monkees" is? Is it another victory for cognitive dissonance?

27. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #78961 by Vendetta on October 15, 2007 at 2:22 pm

Okay, my laughing fit has passed. Now I'm crying, because this is just so tragic... if only it were just a joke.

Alkal is right. Imagine what it would be like without all this nonsense.

28. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78958 by Vendetta on October 15, 2007 at 2:17 pm

Should we go ahead and just rename this the "Al Gore and global warming: True?" thread?

Back on topic, Congrats to Professor Dawkins. Too bad this award isn't as financially beneficial as the Templeton.

29. Report on Hindu god Ram withdrawn

Comment #78951 by Vendetta on October 15, 2007 at 2:01 pm

"...bridge built by Ram and his army of monkeys..." Are you kidding me? LOL!

Holy crap (pun intended) that's the funniest thing I've read in days. I think I just wet myself.

30. John Templeton's Universe

Comment #78949 by Vendetta on October 15, 2007 at 1:57 pm

It makes me angry to read and listen to people from the Templeton Foundation. When I watched the Beyond Belief videos on this website, I couldn't help but get a little nauseous listening to the gentleman that was representing Templeton. You could tell almost everyone there was very uncomfortable listening to him speak and my first reaction was to reject their rejection of him. Basically I was going with the "give him a chance to speak" attitude. After a few minutes I, too, was uncomfortable and wanted him to shut up. He painted himself and the organization as being very pro-science and reason, but it's hypocrisy.
Unfortunately, I think they are very successful at convincing people that they are reasonable and not at odds with true science.

31. New Rules: A Religious Test

Comment #78921 by Vendetta on October 15, 2007 at 11:58 am

Sorry Summer Seale (actually I'm not sorry, just being polite) but I have to strongly disagree with your rant. Exactly how much of time should we spend (by spend I mean waste) reading the Bible and Koran before we're allowed to call a spade a spade? If you have to become an expert in something (as you apparently are) before criticizing it, hardly anything would ever get criticized. RD himself gets criticism for not knowing enough theology to criticize religion, but this is just a stupid argument. Consider what he says about this:

"...Moonies and scientologists get a bad press, but they just haven't been around as long as the accepted religions. Theology is a respectable discipline when it studies such subjects as moral philosophy, the psychology of religious belief and, above all, biblical history and literature. Like Bertie Wooster, my knowledge of the Bible is above average. I seem to know Ecclesiastes and the Song of Solomon almost by heart. I think that the Bible as literature should be a compulsory part of the national curriculum - you can't understand English literature and culture without it. But insofar as theology studies the nature of the divine, it will earn the right to be taken seriously when it provides the slightest, smallest smidgen of a reason for believing in the existence of the divine. Meanwhile, we should devote as much time to studying serious theology as we devote to studying serious fairies and serious unicorns. "

Richard Dawkins
from The Independent, 23.December.1998

This same argument is put against Al Gore, saying he's not a climatologist. Bill Maher probably can't cite chapter and verse like a preacher, but is it possible that he could still know enough about religion to know that it's complete batshit? Of course it's possible. Or should he read volumes written on magic Mormon underwear before he's allowed to say that we're not the crazy ones?

32. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78496 by Vendetta on October 13, 2007 at 9:02 am

I'm torn between which is funnier: Fox claiming they're "Fair and Balanced" or Bill-O saying his show is the "No Spin Zone"

Pathetic.

33. A Revelation

Comment #78493 by Vendetta on October 13, 2007 at 8:51 am

I can appreciate what miaka, Cartomancer, and Polydactyl are saying (as they obviously make some very valid points). I do think it's worth noting, however, that even though we bash the tactic all the time, it is actually very hard to avoid generalizations and subsequent strawmen. Generally (see, another generalization) only experienced debaters can self-censor every statement.

Cartomancer obviously knows medieval history and can comment on this at length, but sometimes people only want to make a point in a single paragraph and not 9. If we really want to be fair, we should give religious apologetics a chance to back up their generalizations. There's a chance that they MIGHT actually have more to say to back up their simple statements. Doubtful, but still possible. Usually by urging them to elaborate their points, they end up burying themselves further with weak arguments. Let them beat themselves.

34. A Revelation

Comment #78369 by Vendetta on October 12, 2007 at 2:36 pm

V, based on your post I'd say that pride and reverence are called for.

Cheers!

35. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78351 by Vendetta on October 12, 2007 at 1:27 pm

Dog Boots, credit the Great Teapot for that quote. I like it, sounds like a t-shirt or bumper sticker.

36. Patience, fairness and the human condition

Comment #78347 by Vendetta on October 12, 2007 at 1:23 pm

Some of these points sound similar to some made in The Selfish Gene. If only more people read articles like this, they might see that there are real discoveries to be made by studying behavior of humans and animals.

Of course most don't believe that science could ever have anything to say about morality. They rely on ancient texts. Nevermind that their morality isn't morality at all, it all boils down to fear of punishment and hope for reward - neither of which reflect true moral behavior.

As Einstein said:

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

37. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78341 by Vendetta on October 12, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Here at work Fox News (or Fixed Noise as Keith Olbermann calls it) is on 2 televisions every second that we're open and the radio is tuned to the Bill O'Reilly & sean Hannity talk shows. This is what it's like living in Montana. Sigh...

Here's the thing with Fox News. Even though they half-heartedly try to promote themselves as a real news station (their motto is 'Fair and Balanced' LOL) they often come close to admitting that they are biased. It's ok if they're biased, though, because they always talk about the "Liberal Media" and so they have to be a little biased to combat the liberal bias they say exists everywhere else. While it's sickening to watch or listen to, it's an undeniably brilliant marketing ploy.

They've convinced a huge majority of people that get their news from television that other channels like NBC, CBS, and CNN (which they call the Communist News network) are all too liberal, so if you want news that isn't slanted to the left, tune into Fox News to get "Fair and Balanced" news. Get the real story in Bill O'Reilly's "No Spin Zone".

This is my take on the situation (warning - generalizations ahead...) The "Liberal media" label is an urban myth that Fox mentions many times every day. It's necessary to keep repeating this label to keep this idea present in the national discourse. This idea of a liberal media originated in the Vietnam era. The public was largely against the war (sound familiar?) and the media correctly reported these feelings with poll after poll. When the US pulled out of Vietnam, many republicans blamed the liberal media bias for losing the war. Since then, the republicans have been the party associated with having a strong military and the democrats have been seen as anti-war.

Republicans have used this perception in the recent elections to advertise their patriotism and insinuate that the democrats are weak. By not directly condemning republicans for making this insinuation, they have meekly proved that the republicans were right.

38. The benefits of 80 million years without sex

Comment #78259 by Vendetta on October 12, 2007 at 10:01 am

This is blasphemous, quit saying there could be benefits to years without sex.

39. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78257 by Vendetta on October 12, 2007 at 9:55 am

Death to those that say Islam is a violent religion. What?? You drew a cartoon of Mohammed? Off with your head and the same for your family!

I am a very tolerant person. The only people I can't tolerate are intolerant people.

40. A Revelation

Comment #78252 by Vendetta on October 12, 2007 at 9:34 am

bamafreethinker -

Apparently these people paying lip service and going to church "just in case" haven't yet realized how naive Pascal's wager is.

I recently moved from Seattle back to Montana, where I was born. Let me assure you, there are MAJOR differences. These differences go beyond Democrat & liberal vs Republican & conservative. You can tell religion is far more powerful here based on church attendance, conversations at work, letters to the editor, jewelry, bumper stickers, etc.

It's no surprise that there's also a similar abundance of belief here in other superstition such as astrology, alien abduction, psychics, etc. It's not that there is a lack of skepticism, it is where that skepticism is directed. For the most part people here don't point their skepticism towards religion, they are skeptical of science (how do we know they're right when they keep changing their theories?) and the government.

I wish the Professor would come to Montana, this state is at least as ignorant as the South.

41. A Revelation

Comment #78238 by Vendetta on October 12, 2007 at 8:18 am

Forgive me for going off topic for a sec:

College and university are pretty interchangeable terms here in the US as well, which I understand is also a bigger difference for those of you across the pond.

Google answers: In a global context, the words "college" and "university" can
inspire confusion. Different countries use the same words to name
different things. What is usually called a "college" in Europe is
really more like the two-year institution called a "Community College"
in the U.S.

In the United States, when you ask someone what differentiates the
two, the first response is likely to be "not much"

42. 'Dirty War' priest gets life term

Comment #78234 by Vendetta on October 12, 2007 at 8:11 am

"Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" - Diderot

Even though I'm not religious, I feel an "Amen!" coming on.

43. A Revelation

Comment #78226 by Vendetta on October 12, 2007 at 7:54 am

You are right, MartinSGill, there is a difference in terms of rank and title between the US and UK. You don't necessarily have to be a Dr. to be an instructor in a college (and hence be called a professor) although about 99% of professors have doctorate degrees or PHDs. There is no formal "professor" rank that is similar to what you have described in the UK. That explains some comments I've seen on here where people point out that they should address RD as PROFESSOR. Someone from the US (like myself) would read that comment and scratch their head, wondering what the big fuss is. Of course he's a professor since he works at a college, so what?

Thanks for explaining the uproar over the proper way to address RD. :)

44. God not out of the question for most Canadians

Comment #77744 by Vendetta on October 10, 2007 at 11:28 am

Oh my God! Jesus Christ!

The idea that God guided evolution is... is...I don't even think there are words to describe how stupid I think that idea is. Evolution is an elegant explanation, but it is not beautiful. How do they reconcile scripture with God "guiding" the creation, mutation, and extinction of species to eventually arrive at "MAN?" What kind of mental gymnastics must these people do in order to hang onto their religious beliefs?

I've met people that don't believe in dinosaurs. Up until that point, I didn't even know it was something that needed to be "believed" in. Really? So these fossils were planted by Satan to tempt us into believing that the Earth might be a little older than 6,000 years old? Do they not "believe" in carbon dating? Really?

So the astronomers are measuring light that has been travelling for billions of years from across the universe, they are mistaken? So they don't "believe" in redshifting? Really?

Or do they hide behind that tired excuse: 1 day for God can be billions of our years. Complete garbage.

Sometimes I feel like my head is going to explode from the ignorance I'm confronted with. I'm going to go stick my head in an oven and pull a Plath.

45. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77434 by Vendetta on October 9, 2007 at 9:46 am

Nah, Richard's used to it. I've seen him call himself a prick :)

46. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77420 by Vendetta on October 9, 2007 at 8:45 am

Thank you for your post, IanG. It was well thought out and makes many good points for us to consider.

I would say that for "us" (atheists, brights, agnostics, secularists, rationalists, non-theist anti-theists, whatever you want to call or not call yourselves) to be successful in overcoming superstitious thought, it is going to take ALL kinds on all fronts.

There are many things I disagree with Sam on, but that doesn't diminish my view of him in the slightest. He wasn't trying to establish the atheist agenda at the conference, he was pointing out inherent problems with the term atheist that some people might not have fully considered. If you have already wrestled with those issues yourself, good for you. He prefers not to proclaim himself an atheist. He also is very much into meditating and neuroscience. He points out moderates are a HUGE problem (which I agree with), but he demonizes them (which I don't agree with). I don't have to agree with every one of ideas to look up to him.

PZ makes some good points in his responses, but could he come up with a more patronising and condescending title? Come on guys, just agree that you disagree on a few points and move on, there are bigger battles to be fought with fundies and moderates everywhere.

Or maybe we should get RD and Hitch to join this 'debate' and all four could go in circles for a few weeks over what rational people should (or should not) call themselves, and who misrepresented whom. This would be like re-arranging the deck chairs while the Titanic sinks.

47. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77159 by Vendetta on October 8, 2007 at 3:53 pm

I haven't read this book but I have heard her talk and will put it on my to-do list. It seems to be a remarkable story.

48. A Nation of Christians Is Not a Christian Nation

Comment #77151 by Vendetta on October 8, 2007 at 3:38 pm

If the distinction between an American and Australian seems silly to you, consider that at every football game here in the US is proceeded by both teams praying to the same god.

Even if this silly god existed, wouldn't he have better things to do than determine if the Hurricanes cover the spread against the Seminoles?

49. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77131 by Vendetta on October 8, 2007 at 2:03 pm

konquererz-

I understand what you're saying, sometimes it can be liberating to point out exactly what you think of someone's ignorant view.

When I am in that situation I usually reply that I am not superstitious. I could say I don't believe in fairies or unicorns or some other silly thing, but I think this is the point that Sam is making.

If you really want to get people to look at what they believe and get a meaningful dialogue going, it's probably not the best move to start by saying something that they will perceive as pointedly insulting. This is exactly like Sam's example: why insert the loaded label atheist into the statement? Why provoke unnecessarily?

You don't start a debate by saying your opponent is an idiot, even if they happen to be one. This is like a conversation stopper, much like how most of us would look at someone saying that "God is truth and all arguments we can give are simply the devil's work."

That stunned face they have as you walk away smiling isn't them asking themselves if their beliefs can really be compared to believing in fairies. That look is them wondering how you can be so foolish to believe that, combined with bewilderment and pity that you are probably going to hell.

I would view it as another lost opportunity to educate the ignorant... but that's just my opinion. We're both on the same side :)

Cheers!

50. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77111 by Vendetta on October 8, 2007 at 1:35 pm

After reading his books, debates, letters, and watching his videos, I couldn't believe what so many were saying: that Sam was suddenly backing off and endorsing subterfuge. This should help clarify what he was saying (sadly this implies his speech at AAI was unclear, which I don't think it was). Perhaps it was how he prefaced the speech by saying it might not go over well, people may have assumed the worst.