1. Stephen Hawking's explosive new theory

Comment #202089 by Zamboro on June 30, 2008 at 8:57 pm

Hi Oystein! I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the way your expert knowledge enriches comment threads related to astrophysics.

2. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195545 by Zamboro on June 18, 2008 at 12:52 pm

I think Oystein would do well to author a book address to liberal Christians. He seems to nail the rationale underlying their defense of theism as well as the tactics used to do so. He is therefore uniquely suited to the task of reaching out to them, not only in a confrontational sense but in a sympathetic one as well. I suspect many want to lay down the burden but feel as though they need 'permission', or the understanding of someone who has been through the tunnel and come out the other side; perhaps the guidance of a former moderate theist would ease the transition.

The reason I suggest this is because above all else I was impressed at the way in which he came clean and identified what we all suspected were the intellectually dishonest motivations behind using specific bits of apologetics; He's like a magician who has revealed his tricks, much to the consternation of other magicians. If he were to then turn around and address those other magicians and call them out on their tricks, explicitly laying out their arsenal of tactics and their real motivations behind using each one, it would be at once a devastating blow and an invitation to come forth as he did and admit that it's all smoke and mirrors. After all, once the curtain has been thrown back to reveal Oz, the jig is up.

3. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195511 by Zamboro on June 18, 2008 at 11:23 am

Rawhard Dickins: "So why did it take this guy so long to work through some pretty simple logic?"

Have you ever been religious? Simple though it may be to follow the path of reasoning from the available evidence to atheism, there are significant emotional roadblocks in the way. None of us are robots; as human beings we are swayed strongly by emotion, and a combination of childhood conditioning and societal pressures can form some pretty solid obstacles. Nothing to scoff at, anyway.

4. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195466 by Zamboro on June 18, 2008 at 9:27 am

Oystein: I often hear the names of accomplished astrophysicists and other scientists who believe in God trotted out in support of the notion that a God exists.

This is usually a response to books, videos and well known arguments put forth by famed atheistic scientists. The theist sees only the authority of the scientists involved and doesn't realize they're meant to be persuaded by the arguments themselves. So, in an effort to fight fire with fire, they bring on the parade of theistic scientists....Often dropping names from literally centuries ago, their list suspiciously bereft of modern theistic scientists with the same sort of clout.

I don't believe this is a dishonest tactic because I don't believe any intentional dishonesty is behind it. Theists I've spoken to honestly do perceive the atheist majority within the national academy of sciences to be more persuasive than all the articulate, well reasoned books we could ever throw at them. Consequently the "famous thinkers who believed in God" approach is just a misguided response to a perceived appeal to authority.


What's the significance of all this? Simple: The core misunderstanding on the part of the theist is thinking that the scientists on their list were great because they believed in God. In truth, it was because they practiced good science; because despite their critical blind spot when it came to theism, they were otherwise quite rational and discerning. It was reason, rationality, logic, intelligence and a dedication to practicing the scientific method as objectively as possible that made them great scientists. They were such in spite of, not because of, their anciliary religious beliefs.

From what little I've seen this seems to be true of you as well. Had you continued in your career as a token theistic scientist you'd likely have wound up on a lot of "look how many scientists believe in God" lists. Instead of recognizing that you practiced solid science, the credit would go to your assent to theistic ideas; You would be valued by theists not because of your sharp mind and dedication to science, but because you happened to also share their beliefs.

I personally value you because you're evidently a very capable, intelligent scientist. The things you've discovered and will continue to discover will do real, concrete good in the world. A billion people praying for increased harmony and wellbeing wouldn't accomplish a damned thing; if I were to isolate a single force in the world which has reliably provided drastic improvements in quality of life throughout history, it would be technology. The judicious application of discoveries made by scientists like yourself has done infinitely more to alleviate suffering, feed the hungry and mend the ill than any priest in any church in all the world.

..And you know what? I'd feel the same if you were still a theist. =]

5. Debating creationism in Louisiana schools

Comment #191713 by Zamboro on June 11, 2008 at 1:42 pm

I didn't mind the troll, it was moderately funny. The idea of dawkins presiding over the 'practice' of atheism and ordering us to "resume" it made me chuckle. "Proceed with the skepticism!"

6. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164211 by Zamboro on April 19, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Vanitas: Agreed, thanks for the clarification.

7. Interviews with Richard Dawkins and Michael Shermer

Comment #164193 by Zamboro on April 19, 2008 at 5:24 pm

"the more you make a stand for yourself, the easier it becomes and the more you gain the respect you deserve."

We all certainly deserve a basic degree of ethical consideration on account of our humanity, but I hope you don't mean to imply that being an atheist entitles one to additional respect, any more than accepting gravity, evolution or the shape of the earth does....although I suppose there's some merit to championing these scientific truths in an era of opposition (much as we'd champion abolitionists *not* for their common sense conclusion that slavery is ethically impermissible, but instead for their tireless struggle to thwart the regressive forces which greatly outnumbered them)

I'm not saying we can't take pride in our advocacy of reason, only that we oughtn't pat ourselves on the back for doing something which is a moral necessity.

8. A New Flea

Comment #161502 by Zamboro on April 15, 2008 at 10:54 am

Big promises from theistic apologists are nothing new. Had they ever delivered on their promises, even once, the world should be a very different place than it is today.

9. Victims: Pope Benedict Protects Accused Pedophile Bishops

Comment #161495 by Zamboro on April 15, 2008 at 10:52 am

It's as though nothing they're convicted of will ever 'stick'. This incident should have been the end of the church as a whole, when combined with their interference with condom distrubution and campaign of misinformation about contraception in Africa.

Instead, they poop out some conciliatory platitudes and go on about their business as though nothing happened, and somehow they get away with it every time.

10. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #159521 by Zamboro on April 12, 2008 at 12:01 pm

I enjoy the imaginative plots, but Doctor Who too often resorts to warm, fuzzy, semi-spiritualist deus ex machina to save the day such as when Rose absorbed the time vortex or when the Doctor was restored to youth and near godlike power by the simultaneous prayers of everyone on Earth in the last episode of the arc where The Master takes over the Earth with the help of the 'Toclafane'. It seemed like they wrote themselves into a corner and then came up with some ridiculous "power of prayer" nonsense to pull the Doctor's ass out of the fire. We need less of that, and more clever, well thought out last minute solutions.

11. Inadequate, private and late apology with grotesquely inadequate excuse

Comment #159514 by Zamboro on April 12, 2008 at 11:33 am

Whatever, I forgive her. I am not so easily offended that I'd demand an apology to all atheists, what I really want is for her to research Lincoln's actual ideological leanings and learn something.

12. Expelled Overview

Comment #154880 by Zamboro on April 3, 2008 at 10:04 pm

It's frankly a bit confusing and scary that there are really people in the world unwilling to make a statement like "It would be good if nobody were born with mental or physical defects".

Who would honestly wish that children *continue* to suffer from such conditions when an ounce of prevention and the moral bravery necessary to apply it could make the beautiful dream of a world nearly free of hereditary defects into a reality within a matter of decades? No trampling of rights, no forcible sterilization, no anything of the sort. A sensible, unashamed public dialogue concerning the proliferation of hereditary mental defects (and the responsibility of any who has a mentally defective family member to recommend sexual suppressants to them) would do so much good within such a short time that it would leave even the most ardent opponent of the program wondering why we didn't do it sooner.

13. Expelled Overview

Comment #154875 by Zamboro on April 3, 2008 at 9:46 pm

"In these studies, there aren't controls based on white people raised under similar conditions of oppression, and economic conditions"


I dunno how you'd quantify oppression, but there have indeed been tests which drew white applicants from the same economic level, and the results were the same: A difference of around one standard deviation, nearly two between asians and blacks.

Interesting stuff but an awful lot of people seem to have decided what they want the results to be already and are arguing with others based upon that assumption. This goes for both sides. Just keep in mind that sometimes really ugly, unpleasant notions turn out to be true. There is after all a great difference between "is" and "ought".

It's whether we act on such knowledge and how that determines whether we are ethical or not, rather than whether or not we choose to acknowledge it. I for one oppose any sort of discrimination based upon knowledge of genetic background, as we haven't any control over our own ancestry.

14. Expelled Overview

Comment #154547 by Zamboro on April 3, 2008 at 12:25 pm

"This is inherently subjective not objective. If "crippling hereditary conditions" are not inhibiting the ability of its sufferers to procreate then it cannot be objectively said that it is 'derailing the human endeavour entirely'."

Yes, it can. You seem to have confused evolution with the human endeavor. Evolution has no specified goal. Most human beings share the goal that our species should survive in the longterm and continue to become more intelligent and advance, those last two words being key.


"Yes many humans have very well formed definitions of superior and inferior. Many of these humans are referred to as white supremacists. A quick glance at your avatar (olive skin, brown hair, brown eyes) suggests that you would not meet their definitions of superior. I consider myself superior to clearmind, but I would not want to live in a country where he would have the police come and forcibly take him to the hospital to have involuntary surgery."

Well done, you've invoked Naziism. Not that your godwin invalidates your argument in itself, but given the recent damning dissection of Ben Stein's similar smear on evolution you'd think you might be a bit more hesitant to trot out that old chestnut. The problem with your reasoning is that such definitions weren't based on solid factual ground and weren't anchored to a specific goal, they were simply held to be self-evident and worth pursuing for their own sake. Our modern understanding of genetics invalidates notions of racial superiority, but corroborate notions like the heredity of intelligence and the role of genetics in behavioral inclinations.

It's as close to an objective standard of human superiority as we'll ever get to say that a smarter, less aggressive, more compassionate human species would be better than the one we have now. Of course this standard is based upon an axiom in the form of an "if" statement: IF you would like to ensure the longterm survival and continued advancement of the human species, THEN these are the traits which best facilitate that end.

15. Expelled Overview

Comment #154473 by Zamboro on April 3, 2008 at 10:32 am

Even vasectomies are unnecessary in an age of libidinal suppressants, the sort they use to rehabilitate sex offenders. After a patient explanation of why it would be irresponsible to have a child and what effect the suppressants would have, provided that they agree to take them, they could simply be included in their allotment of meds.

Simple, cheap, painless and ethical. Not all will volunteer to suppress their own libidos, but if even half of them do, it would make great headway towards reducing the birthrate of mentally defective children (and yes, I stand by that term.)

16. Expelled Overview

Comment #154425 by Zamboro on April 3, 2008 at 8:06 am

Jon_Sociologist: I think you misunderstand his position. We've not escaped from the selective process, but it is acting on us differently and favoring different traits as a result of civilization mitigating the selective pressures against what would normally be poor genetic fitness. It's true that evolution is blind and has no notions of superiority or inferiority, but the same is not true of human beings nor should it be. We have very well formed definitions of superior and inferior, however controversial they may be to hyper-sensitive sophists.

Operating under the axiom that the human endeavor to preserve our species by expanding our power and influence is something we all wish to continue, it's objectively true that persisting in policies which favor the reproduction of individuals who have mentally crippling hereditary conditions will inhibit and potentially derail the human endeavor entirely. There's simply no getting around the fatal impracticality of providing for and even assisting the reproduction of individuals who cannot themselves (nor can their offspring) ever contribute anywhere near as much as they consume. It's societal suicide, and only a backwards and self-destructive sort of person would advocate it.

17. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #154233 by Zamboro on April 3, 2008 at 12:23 am

Douglas: "I also disagree with Dr. Dembski's use of farting noises in mocking the puppetry of Judge Jones."


Do you actually think he was a "puppet"? Seriously? The man was a Bush-appointed Republican Christian. The ID side couldn't have asked for a more sympathetic judge. Isn't accusing him of having been a puppet merely a way to rationalize ID's defeat by appealing to paranoid notions of the "evil atheist conspiracy"? Isn't that what every discredited ideology sinks to, making it out to seem as though the sole reason it fails is because the world is out to destroy it?

18. Christopher Hitchens on Real Time with Bill Maher

Comment #137535 by Zamboro on March 3, 2008 at 5:21 am

As a counter-point to the Buddhism love-in going on in here:

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d21/lardnardo/9TM.jpg

19. Stop revisionist Christian nation House Resolution 888

Comment #114283 by Zamboro on January 21, 2008 at 6:24 pm

Over. My. Rotting. Corpse.

20. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111413 by Zamboro on January 14, 2008 at 2:31 pm

Dear Mr. Scales;

In all nations, in all times, there has been a constant pressure to descend into theocratic brutality. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Italy, Spain and Germany at only a few historically popular examples. Nobody knows this better than you. While millions remained credulous, gullible, and easily led by these superstitiously justified tyrants, you refused to buy it. While even many of your theistic countrymen sympathized with the unification of government and church, you stood stubborn and hard-nosed, confident not in government propaganda or theological kinship with dictators, but in the power of your own reason to sort ethical from unethical, and truth from falsehood.

There's a quote I feel applies here, though I can't recall the source. I think it's actually something I picked up from a comic book when I was a bit younger, and it has lingered in my brain ever since. It's a beautiful sentiment regardless of the source, and I'd like to share it with you:

"It doesn't matter what the press says. It doesn't matter what the politicians or the mobs say. It doesn't matter if the whole country decides that something wrong is right.
This nation was founded on one principle above all else: the requirement that we stand up for what we believe, no matter the odds or the consequences.
When the mob and the press and the whole world tell you to move, your job is to plant yourself like a tree beside the river of truth, and tell the whole world -- "NO, YOU MOVE."

In a forest of noble trees who planted themselves firmly by that river, you stand above the rest in my eyes. I may be just a sapling now, but you've shown me what I may one day hope to grow into.

21. Mother Nature is Not Our Friend

Comment #106091 by Zamboro on January 2, 2008 at 10:51 am

Increased biological divergence is already a naturally occurring phenomenon. All we're doing is technologically facilitating this trend. It's not that humans as we now know them will vanish, many will probably prefer to preserve their outward appearance for far longer than we'd ordinarily stay like this. Others will branch out in a million different directions, newly created species of humanity each optimized for different environments, some even created for purely ideological/aesthetic reasons. This explosion of biological diversity is pretty much the best way to ensure the long-term survival of at least some form of human, as no matter what catastrophes strike this planet or others we may live on in the future, chances are at least one variation of humans will be suited to survive in the aftermath conditions. This gives us better longterm survival odds than basically any other species ever.

22. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #100561 by Zamboro on December 18, 2007 at 10:58 pm

AtheistJon: Not *anyone* who owns a 360. Remember they need to buy the HD-DVD addon drive.

23. This Week's Flea

Comment #100456 by Zamboro on December 18, 2007 at 4:27 pm

"scientific fundamentalism"?

When I hear this I can't help but think of hucketers on TV selling "holistic remedies", warning that they offer cures "Big Science" doesn't want you to know about.

24. The Four Horsemen: on Christmas

Comment #99892 by Zamboro on December 17, 2007 at 6:48 pm

THIRD OPTION:

HD-DVDs come in hybrid disc forms, which play both on HD-DVD players and regular DVD players. The discs contain two versions of the same film, one in HD and one in SD.

25. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98618 by Zamboro on December 14, 2007 at 12:11 am

"Why are they obliged to "make things stick" for you? I don't think religious people believe in order to debate atheists."

What? They aren't. How did you get that from what I wrote? My point was that so long as they tie themselves to a particular holy book and that book contains content which is objectively barbaric by modern standards, it's fair to take them to task for this. In fact it's the only way to do so, as even if the majority of their religious group engages in behavior which reflects badly on the religion, the theist you're pointing this out to will insist that only a tiny, fringe minority engages in such behavior, even if you've got the numbers to prove otherwise. (For instance, bishops claiming that Dawkins attacks a primitive version of religion that nobody believes in. Contrast this against stats that show the majority of U.S. citizens (let alone Christians) believe in a literal hell, angels, demons, and so on. And then there's the 43% of Americans polled who are creationists! I wonder what that figure jumps to when made a subset of Christians alone? What about the other faiths?)

"If you think religion is just about the texts obviously you don't know anything about religion except maybe U.S. styled Christian fundamentalism."

What? No, I don't think religion is just about the texts, and I take issue with your claim that I know nothing of religion having been put through two religious academies in my youth. I think you either didn't read the entirety of my post or didn't understand what I meant by it. I'm making no claims about what religious practitioners believe, only that they cannot escape the fact that their respective holy books contain teachings which are brutal and ignorant by modern standards.

"Almost all real religions are not just about the texts."

I...know? I wasn't saying anything of the sort, you're being almost nonsensical here. My point was that you cannot criticize a religious group's actions, as any given member can claim they weren't properly following the teachings of that religion. All you can hope to prove is that their holy text does in fact contain such teachings.

"Yes, they cherry pick and it has always been the case. No, they don't cherry pick arbitrarily, at least not for the established religions. There are complicated systems of mental gymnastics to do it, some parts can even pass for genuine scholarship. Go ask a Catholic priest about exegesis."

Who are you arguing with? What *position* are you arguing with? Near as I can tell you scanned the first sentence of my post, decided you knew what my position was without finishing, and proceeded to rebut the argument you assumed I had made. I don't recall ever accusing all theists of cherry picking, arbitrarily or otherwise, and I certainly never implied that religious studies aren't challenging. My one and only point, which I've repeated a few times now, was that there is sufficient diversity in belief and action within a single religion that one cannot effectively criticize the group for actions undertaken by its adherents, even the majority. Moderates in particular seem to believe that they are the gold standard of a "real Christian" or "real Muslim", setting a shining example of what their religion is "really about". As a result, when confronted with embarrassing news about other members of their faith behaving according to some of the more backwards teachings of their holy text (unless you can show them that those teachings are inarguably part of the holy book that they swear by) they'll claim that the people in question "weren't truly following the teachings of the Bible/Torah/Qur'an".

This is tremendously dishonest, not to mention frustrating, hence why I suggested that a better polemic approach is to hold them to the contents of their holy book. Whether they live by the contents or not, the Bible/Qur'an/Hadith/Talmud/Torah say some pretty terrible things that they can't deny are in there.

26. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98599 by Zamboro on December 13, 2007 at 11:27 pm

"Religion is not the just texts, it is what people believe, and how they behave."

However there is such a wide variety in what people believe and how they behave, even within a single religious group, that it's impossible to make anything stick. They can simply claim whoever behaved badly/believes something silly isn't a 'real christian', a 'real muslim', and so on.

The only concrete dirt you can provide that is tied inextricably to each religion is the originating holy text, hence why there's so much misinformation about what the Bible and Qur'an actually say. Christians don't relish defending verses in the Bible legitimizing and regulating slavery, relegating women to a position below men, stuff like that. Likewise Muslims perpetuate the meme that theirs is a religion of peace and insist that there is no violence in their holy texts when both the Qur'an and Hadith call for the murder of apostates in several places.

People who find themselves defending an indefensible position (protecting the image of a cherished belief system demonstrably based upon regressive writings) can be expected to bend, twist and contort themselves all over the place. Religious apologists are consequently some of the slipperiest people you'll ever meet, as the brazen deception uncovered in the Dover trials ought to demonstrate. To them it's not about finding out what's factually correct, it's about defending their specific cherished beliefs at all costs, including lying outright.

This is why scrutinizing the texts themselves is an effective approach: It's set in stone, more or less. There are a few tactics they've come up with ("Old Testament quotes don't count! Only things Jesus said count! Any verse which reflects poorly on the faith is taken out of context, no matter how much context you provide!") but even working within these limitations there's a wealth of embarrassing content in the holy books of all three Abrahamic religions. Short of denouncing the Bible/Qur'an/Hadith/Torah/Talmud, there's no way for them to get around certain shamefully primitive, brutal verses present in each.

27. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96011 by Zamboro on December 9, 2007 at 5:37 pm

Hear hear, gensek. Communism was not the only political movement to tie itself to atheism and it won't be the last. I'm constantly wary of such pairings, in case I let my atheism become a back door into my mind for dogmatic political ideologies.

I do my best to apply the same standards of scrutiny to political constructs as I have to religion, and determining which are built upon sound reasoning and which are not. It's difficult sometimes when you have strong "gut reactions" to certain suggested means of governance, but I really do think it's possible to objectively examine political theories so long as you do so in an emotionally disciplined manner.

That said, I'm a capitalist democrat who occasionally finds himself sympathetic to Libertarians. I'm certain that for some people, that'll invalidate everything I said above. =P

28. Richard Dawkins - Science and the New Atheism

Comment #95651 by Zamboro on December 8, 2007 at 11:00 pm

Meat is a potent source of proteins that we're already adapted to be partially reliant upon. A vegetarian lifestyle is potentially healthier but also far more complex in that you need to worry about getting the proper doeses of all the proteins and vitamins and such (which you'd normally get from meat) from other sources.

I find the healthiest and happiest thing for me is to eat meat in small amounts, no more than a pound a week. A little bit goes well with greens, and that's about the proportional quantity we'd be eating in the wild anyhow.

29. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #95614 by Zamboro on December 8, 2007 at 7:17 pm

I'm leery of the following bit:

"But where are the moderates? Where are the Muslim voices raised over the terrible injustice of incidents like these? How many Muslims are willing to stand up and say, in the case of the girl from Qatif, that this manner of justice is appalling, brutal and bigoted — and that no matter who said it was the right thing to do, and how long ago it was said, this should no longer be done?"

Not because she's wrong, but because for the sake of Islam's image there have indeed been a few token protests. A drip in the pond compared to the reflexive defense of Islam that is the far more common response, but all it takes is a few such "moderate condemnations" to provide articles that Muslim apologists can link to when you ask where the moderate outrage is. The actual quantity and frequency of moderate outrage doesn't seem to matter to them; so long as it has occurred at least once, they're in the clear.

30. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92579 by Zamboro on November 30, 2007 at 7:44 pm

Vinelectric: "Generally speaking you won't win the hearts of any group of people by being readily offensive."

More flies with honey than vinegar, sure. But there's a point past which you've stopped simply being polite and you've begun to humor what you know to be falsehoods in order to avoid giving offense.

I would be happy to protect the free exercise of Islam within the United States. I would not however pretend that the actual tenets of Islam as laid out by the Qur'an and Hadith are ethical or progressive by modern standards, even if saying otherwise might offend a great many people.

I will bend over backwards to be friendly and accomodating in most senses, but I will not compromise where intellectual honesty is concerned.

31. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92575 by Zamboro on November 30, 2007 at 7:40 pm

Bonzai: "Even without supporting the moderates, what is the rationale of trying to shoot them down by effectively arguing on the side of the Wahabis ? Can you please explain that logic to me?"

This approach is meant to demonstrate that Islam, when sincerely observed, entails violent and regressive behavior. There's a reason fundamentalist Muslims behave insanely; it's because the fundamentals of Islam are insane.

32. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92573 by Zamboro on November 30, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Vinelectric: "Your fired up antagonism is most unwelcome."

I do not find his language antagonistic, but rather appropriately critical. Is it unwelcome? To you perhaps, you certainly don't speak for me.

33. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92566 by Zamboro on November 30, 2007 at 7:20 pm

Bonzai: "We keep asking "where are the Muslim moderates?" Here you have a genuine moderate and atheists show up to attack him by channeling the Wahabis (see Zamboro above and FK)"

Huh? I quoted directly from the Qur'an. I don't know how that's "channeling Wahabists".

If she's a moderate, good for her. But both you and she ought to recognize that it speaks volumes about the value of religion when the more diluted and impotent it becomes, the safer we all are.

34. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92546 by Zamboro on November 30, 2007 at 6:31 pm

>>There is no command to kill apostates in the Qur'an<<

Yes there is. Fanusi Khiyal already pointed out that commands to kill apostates exist in the Hadith, but contrary to popular misinformation, they exist in the Qur'an as well;

Sura (16:106) posted:

Any one who, after accepting faith in God, utters Unbelief,- except under compulsion, his heart remaining firm in Faith - but such as open their breast to Unbelief, on them is Wrath from God, and theirs will be a dreadful Penalty.

Sura (4:89) posted:

- "They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them"

Sura (9:11-12) posted:

- "But if they repent and establish worship and pay the poor-due, then are they your brethren in religion. We detail Our revelations for a people who have knowledge. And if they break their pledges after their treaty (hath been made with you) and assail your religion, then fight the heads of disbelief - Lo! they have no binding oaths - in order that they may desist." This verse is speaking of infidels (ie. "slay the infidels wherever you find them" 9:5) who obviously become Muslims to escape the sword, but the Hadith make no distinction of how a Muslim came to be a Muslim. Apostasy is always punished by death.

35. 'Growing Up in the Universe' now available free online

Comment #88201 by Zamboro on November 15, 2007 at 9:53 am

I have completed downloading all of them and will gladly seed for as long as anyone needs me to.

36. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84964 by Zamboro on November 4, 2007 at 11:12 am

I'd hazard a guess that by employing what I like to call "I know you are but what am I" apologism she hoped to turn atheists against atheist, fracturing us by turning our criticism inwards towards one another.

What she doesn't understand is that this is futile, atheist are already notoriously critical of one another. We're not a unified homogeneous whole, most arguments atheists participate in are probably with other atheists. She's basically trying to destroy a pile of sand with an ice pick; we are no more invested in one another than in any given human being, all we share is a bizarrely unpopular willingness to think rationally.

She thinks we are bound together in the same fashion as any religious belief structure because that is all her mind can conceive of. However those bindings, the ones she hopes to shatter, never existed in the first place. All she is doing is hacking at the ocean with a longsword in an attempt to part it, while we water molecules look on in amusement.

I hope this has made sense.

37. I didn't know the FLEA CIRCUS was back in town!

Comment #84940 by Zamboro on November 4, 2007 at 10:04 am

Look at the lengths to which they will go and the degree to which they'll contort themselves in order to circumvent our simple request for evidence.

To any objective observer, that behavior would seem mighty suspicious.

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

Comment #81082 by Zamboro on October 24, 2007 at 3:04 am

Why'd hitchens hold back? Those questions weren't stumpers, they were common theist apologetics we've all seen dozens of times before.

Was he tired? A little too drunk? What's the deal? Every time we fail to give the corresponding answer, they assume they've stumped us. He ought to know that.

Well whatever, he'll never make it past Dawkins with his exhaust port intact.

39. 'Dirty War' priest gets life term

Comment #78107 by Zamboro on October 11, 2007 at 9:55 pm

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio G Spafford, March 17, 1814

40. Why Christians should take Richard Dawkins seriously

Comment #77826 by Zamboro on October 10, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Whatever. So long as they dilute their concept of God and observance thereof to the point that it's hardly distinguishable from atheism, secularists still come out on top.

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

Comment #77622 by Zamboro on October 9, 2007 at 10:53 pm

There will be no sectarian secularism. We are not so foolish as to fall prey to the exact tribalism that we decry.

42. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77129 by Zamboro on October 8, 2007 at 1:56 pm

"than Richard's recent US-Zionist conspiracy theory shtick"

What do you mean by this? Perhaps you don't live in the United States, but what he said about the Jewish lobby being disproportionately influential was absolutely correct. It doesn't imply any sinister conspiracy, simply that they are better organized than most.

43. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77109 by Zamboro on October 8, 2007 at 1:30 pm

"The orthodox Western spirituality is atrocious, but it can not be replaced with nothing."


What of nations where it has been already? Sweden, Norway and Denmark come to mind as well as France, Japan and Britain to a lesser extent.

Don't accept the dogma that we cannot do without religion.

44. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77104 by Zamboro on October 8, 2007 at 1:21 pm

It is true that in modern times, noone feels the need to label themselves as being in opposition to slavery. However in order to achieve the solidarity necessary to end slavery in early America, it was necessary to form an organized movement of 'Abolitionists'.

Likewise it is probable that in a few hundred years there will be noone who feels the need to label themselves as being in opposition to supernaturalism, and yet in the present it is very much necessary to form an organized movement of "Atheists" in order to achieve our goals.

45. Poll: Are Dawkins and Hitchens good for humanism?

Comment #75170 by Zamboro on October 2, 2007 at 1:28 am

I think Hitchens is tremendously helpful if only because he espouses much of the same politics as the conservative right. This is helpful because it secures him airtime on right wing talk shows, air time in which he is not interrupted or belittled but listened to respectfully because he happens to fall on their side of the party line.

I think Hitchens helps us reach out to conservatives who might only still be religious because they've been led to believe that Christianity and Conservatism are inextricably linked. Guys like Hitchens tantalize them with the prospect of being intellectually honest and admitting their atheism without having to give up their political views.

46. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74300 by Zamboro on September 28, 2007 at 4:34 am

Exactly, yorker. If a house is ugly, you don't tear it down and wait for a new one to be built. You get off your ass and help re-paint it.

....A clumsy analogy, but I'm sure you know what I mean.

47. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74293 by Zamboro on September 28, 2007 at 4:11 am

steve99: I understand your meaning, but I think you may have missed what I was trying to get across. The RR doesn't 'fumble' anything in any substantial sense. They do about as good a job as any of us might, and we *still* descend upon them like a pack of hungry wolves because anything less than perfect representation falls short of our demands. They could stand to improve in a few areas, sure, but give 'em time. Meanwhile if you don't like how they're representing our plight, then why not organize something yourself?

I guess my point is that not everyone can be a "perfect rationalist superman". We're gonna get some weirdos joining up, and we need to learn to work with them rather than picking and choosing who is good enough to campaign with us. Isn't that just the sort of tribalism we detest? Aren't we supposed to be more inclusive than that? Does it really matter if we accumulate a few oddballs here and there so long as we all share the same goal?

I'm not suggesting we blindly march, rank and file, in the interest of being Good Little Atheists(tm). That's the obvious danger, yes. However the polar opposite is nearly worse; a community divided not into a handful of sects but almost right down to each individual, pitting secular American against secular American over who we think is worthy of representing us.

We'd do well to strike a balance; tolerate organization efforts even if they're not what we'd ideally envisioned, but keep our eyes and ears open for even the most subtle signs of mismanagement. We need to police our own movement, to be sure; but first, there has to BE a movement. That will never happen so long as we nitpick these efforts to death before they get anywhere.

48. AAI Convention webcam

Comment #74282 by Zamboro on September 28, 2007 at 3:24 am

All this hate for the Rational Response Squad demonstrates exactly what's wrong with us, and why we're not getting anywhere.

The Christians'll follow any clean-cut schmuck who says he's a Christian, no matter how obviously in the closet/hypocritical/blatantly hateful he is. They have a sense that solidarity is important above all else, that their strength is in numbers and common ideology. They're right. Thankfully in recent years the inevitable stream of embarrassments to the faith (Haggard, Falwell, Hinn, Bush and so on) have so deeply divided the Christians as to greatly diminish their political credibility and nearly destroy the Republican party from within.

We never even got that far. Atheists are the polar opposite; we think critically for the sake of thinking critically. We're proud of our independent-mindeness to the point of being needlessly contrarian or even self-hating; I can't count the number of times I've heard a so called atheist try to win points with moderates by goin on about how ashamed he is of "those militant atheists like Dawkins." Worse yet, any time an atheist organization pops up it's subject to such intense nitpicking and scrutiny from the very atheists it exists to empower that it never gains the popular support it needs to effect change.

Of course a country of independent thinkers is exactly what Jefferson and the other framers envisioned; one where rather than sitting complacently on their asses as their civil liberties slipped away, Americans would get ANGRY and march on the capital over even minor government fuckups. That's a beautiful ideal and definitely one worth pursuing, but there's a point at which it stops being a corrective mechanism and starts being self-destructive.

Of course we don't want to be represented by any person or organization that is less than perfect. Even the most intelligent and respectable atheists have come under loads of fire simply for publishing, for opening their mouths and saying "Something's not right here". But the flack they recieve from theists is not nearly so detrimental to our cause as the flack they receive from atheists. We demand perfection from leadership, and in many cases we reject the notion of leadership altogether, attacking anyone at all who would presume to organize us.

That's a great mentality for strangling monarchies, dictatorships and theocracies in the crib. It's a terrible mentality for effecting political change when you're already fighting an uphill battle.

RR may not be perfect, but they're at least articulate and intelligent. We owe a lot to them simply for having the guts to stand up for the rest of us who are apparently too busy heckling them from the sidelines to help out.

49. Taking exception to Jake

Comment #72185 by Zamboro on September 20, 2007 at 1:53 pm

Duff, read what J said to me. He was observant enough to notice how careful I was with my language. I said "a" sign, rather than asserting that the sheer volume of believers always assures the veracity of their shared belief.

50. Taking exception to Jake

Comment #71966 by Zamboro on September 20, 2007 at 2:52 am

I often feel a little apprehensive about posting in agreement with these articles as commenters on this site are, by theistic hecklers, accused of being religious and sheeplike in our own right. (They must find the percieved irony to be delicious, but one wonders if they realize that in accusing *us* of religiosity in a derogatory context, they disparage their own religious adherence?)

I've gotten over it however; I always scrutinize every comment on every article and I find that while the consistent theme is of agreement, everyone has their own collection of nits to pick with the finer points of the presented arguments. We agree with the quoted thinkers not because we feel obligated to uncritically agree with every little thing a notable atheist says (as theists would accuse) but because we've parsed the arguments ourselves, considered them critically and found them to be both correct and sufficiently well-put as to be worthy of praise.

When a million human beings agree that the sky is blue, it is not a sign that they are sheep. It's a sign that they've all independently come to the same, correct conclusion.