1. Mammoths moved 'out of America'

Comment #242867 by urbster1 on September 4, 2008 at 3:40 pm

I thought that one of the latest theories postulated that early humans killed off a lot of the megafauna? 10,000 years ago puts the mammoths right in the path of human destruction. It would not surprise me if they were pushed out because of human predators.

2. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122604 by urbster1 on February 5, 2008 at 3:31 pm

The ending was my favorite! This may well be the best debate I've seen Hitchens do so far. Nice job!

3. Christians and Atheists to Debate Existence of God in First-Ever 'NIGHTLINE FACE OFF'

Comment #37160 by urbster1 on May 3, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Brian Flemming just posted about this in his blog (http://www.slumdance.com/blogs/brian_flemming/archives/002645.html):

"My predictions:

1. Ray's argument will not be able to meet the above test. It will fail to hold together logically even if its premises were true, and, to boot, most or all of its premises will be false. It will be a train wreck of an argument, an absolute failure by any objective measure.

2. Nonetheless, moderator Martin Bashir, in order to achieve 'balance,' will turn the tables on the atheists and ask the them to defend a host of challenges that have nothing to do with Ray's argument. In other words, Ray's case will fail so miserably that Martin Bashir will feel compelled to politely turn away from the wreckage and turn up the heat on the side that hasn't come to the event with any claims at all. Because that's what's 'fair.'"

4. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16221 by urbster1 on January 5, 2007 at 4:00 pm

Why does this article sound so haughty? The author doesn't take on any of the points of the books directly, just dismisses them all off-handedly because he doesn't like the tone of the books:

"They write as if they were the first to discover that biblical miracles are improbable, that Parson Weems was a fabulist, that religion is full of superstition. They write as if great minds had never before wrestled with the big questions of creation, moral law and the contending versions of revealed truth. They argue as if these questions are easily answered by their own blunt materialism. Most of all, they assume that no intelligent, reflective person could ever defend religion rather than dismiss it."

Yes, and, so what? What's the use of making Dawkins and the others' arguments sound ridiculous, but not actually stating why you think so?

At any rate, I suspect it won't be much longer until people start taking atheists seriously in mainstream culture-- at least I hope so.