1. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #136898 by m76 on March 2, 2008 at 1:26 am

Moderate: I looked at the pictures. Although they seem innocuous to me, I respect your right to be offended by those cartoons.

Extremist: Ah, thanks. Yeah, I am offended. So much so, I think the offender should be killed.

Moderate: Now hang on. Taking offence is fine, but you mustn't kill anyone - thats out of order.

Extremist: But you just said I have the right to be angry about a cartoon! Surely that right depends on my Holy Book being respectable. (It is, after all, where my hatred of such cartoons comes from.) So, if my Holy Book is respectable when it says a cartoon is a terrible crime, isn't it also respectable when it demands I kill the cartoonist?

Moderate: I'm sure it doesn't say that.

Extremist: It does actually.

Moderate: Well, that bit's misguided.

Extremist: But the cartoon-hating part isn't?

Moderate: Well, ideally you wouldn't take it so seriously.

Extremist: Hang on, you just said you respected my 'right to be offended'.

Moderate: Yeah, but ideally you'd grow up and not be so sensitive.

Extremist: That's not so much 'respectful' as 'patronizing'.

Moderate: What can I tell you? I'm a moderate, I'm patronizing. And, although I've not read my own Holy Book particularly closely, I've seen films of it and the hero does 'patronizing' better than anyone- "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do." Great stuff. Hell of a guy.

Extremist: 'HELL of a guy'? Isn't that blasphemous?

Moderate: Hey, MY God has a sense of humour. Look at the Old Testament. If it was meant to be taken seriously, we'd all be in the poop.

Extremist: I thought you said you never read it.

Moderate: I looked at the pictures.

2. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #109979 by m76 on January 10, 2008 at 8:09 am

Atheism itself is not the key issue here. In terms of this debate, the most important thing about me is not that I don't believe in God, in the same way that it isn't that I don't believe in fairies or astrology. No, the most important thing about me is WHY I don't believe in these things: I advocate independence of thought, intellectual honesty and the freedom to challenge others' ideas. I request that people justify their beliefs. I reject blind faith and the surrender of reason. These attributes necessarily make me an atheist, but they also put me squarely in opposition to the regimes of Mao, Stalin, Hitler et al. So, although one could argue that these regimes were not religious (technically), they were nonetheless made possible by precisely the same human failings that perpetuate religion: the surrender of reason and the suppression of independent thought. Maoism is not the result of too much skeptical enquiry. Nazism is not an example of too much intellectual honesty. Stalinism does not demonstrate what can happen if people are too independent of thought. These regimes were not immoral because they did NOT believe in God. They were immoral because they DID believe in similarly crazy notions: the Master Race, Lysenko's harvest, take your pick. Reason, debate, independence of thought and so on would have precluded the mass credulity that facilitated these regimes, and continues to facilitate religion.

3. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #82489 by m76 on October 26, 2007 at 12:48 pm

When debating a believer, I find it's extremely useful to demonstrate to them that they're not making the argument they think they're making. They claim to have a problem with atheism, and they channel their energies into undermining 'unbelief'. But of course, everyone's an atheist. The Pope's an atheist. The Taliban are all of them atheists. The non-believer should point out that the believer reserves the right to be an atheist when it comes to every other God but theirs and that, therefore, it would be hypocritical for the believer to reject atheism. This Straw Man dispensed with, the non-believer can go on and demonstrate that what believers are REALLY rejecting is CONSISTENT atheism, and what they are REALLY calling for is belief in AT LEAST ONE GOD. They would then have to demonstrate why it is defensible to accept one extraordinary and fantastical claim, while at the same time being 'rational' and incredulous about all the others.



I think we non-believers should proudly claim to stand shoulder-to-atheistic-shoulder with believers when it comes to all but one God. We should make believers feel uncomfortable about this undeniable common ground, and insist they accept it. Then we should request they explain why their atheism turns a blind eye to their own God.



I think Sam Harris is right. If we self-apply the name 'atheist', we imply that this makes us different from believers, and this hands them a Straw Man with which they can divert the discussion. I think the argument is much more effective if we force believers to concede they're JUST LIKE US when it comes to every faith but theirs. This neutralizes their atheist attack, and they're forced to speak specifically about their particular favoured fantasy. And this will inevitably see them wading deep into the embarrassingly wishy-washy and achingly self-aware obscurantism of McGrath and his ilk.

4. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #82488 by m76 on October 26, 2007 at 12:45 pm

When debating a believer, I find it's extremely useful to demonstrate to them that they're not making the argument they think they're making. They claim to have a problem with atheism, and they channel their energies into undermining 'unbelief'. But of course, everyone's an atheist. The Pope's an atheist. The Taliban are all of them atheists. The non-believer should point out that the believer reserves the right to be an atheist when it comes to every other God but theirs and that, therefore, it would be hypocritical for the believer to reject atheism. This Straw Man dispensed with, the non-believer can go on and demonstrate that what believers are REALLY rejecting is CONSISTENT atheism, and what they are REALLY calling for is belief in AT LEAST ONE GOD. They would then have to demonstrate why it is defensible to accept one extraordinary and fantastical claim, while at the same time being 'rational' and incredulous about all the others.



I think we non-believers should proudly claim to stand shoulder-to-atheistic-shoulder with believers when it comes to all but one God. We should make believers feel uncomfortable about this undeniable common ground, and insist they accept it. Then we should request they explain why their atheism turns a blind eye to their own God.



I think Sam Harris is right. If we self-apply the name 'atheist', we imply that this makes us different from believers, and this hands them a Straw Man with which they can divert the discussion. I think the argument is much more effective if we force believers to concede they're JUST LIKE US when it comes to every faith but theirs. This neutralizes their atheist attack, and they're forced to speak specifically about their particular favoured fantasy. And this will inevitably see them wading deep into the embarrassingly wishy-washy and achingly self-aware obscurantism of McGrath and his ilk.

5. Most religious people are moderate, and don't hurt anybody

Comment #82396 by m76 on October 26, 2007 at 8:20 am

Moderates are both more arrogant and less rational than extremists. Both kinds of believer make the irrational and arrogant claim that there is a God and 'He has a plan for me personally'. But the extremist stops there, whereas the moderate goes on to pick and choose what parts of the Bible/Koran/Torah are to be taken seriously and which can be dismissed as 'out-of-date' or 'symbolic'. If one truly believes in an all-knowing, all-powerful God, then such presumptious cherry-picking from scripture is deeply arrogant in the face of God, and therefore deeply irrational (due to the potential of eternal damnation or just a lightning bolt up the arse). If one really believes in God, the only truly rational and humble thing to do is to fear Him and do exactly what he says. In this way, the extremists are more consistent and more honest than the moderates. (Although still utterly doolally.)

6. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #81847 by m76 on October 25, 2007 at 9:25 am

The implication is that us non-believers who spend our days being moral are 'with' God whether we believe in him or not. (Sorry, 'Him'.) In which case, even if there IS a God, he doesn't require that anyone believe in him to have a benign influence. In short, the argument makes a significant concession: faith is unecessary.

7. Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists

Comment #81800 by m76 on October 25, 2007 at 7:49 am

Personally, I have no problem being proclaimed a 'fundamentalist'. No-one could reasonably argue that to be a RELIGIOUS fundamentalist would render me anything other than a dangerous, crazy person. Whereas, to adhere to the 'fundamentals' of the Enlightenment necessarily makes me utterly benign, because these are the fundamentals of debate, reason, dialogue, discussion, evidence and so on. My point is this: religious fundamentalism wouldn't be a problem if religion wasn't fundamentally crazy in the first place.