51. 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.

52. 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.

53. Young Muslims begin dangerous fight for the right to abandon faith

Comment #69366 by Zamboro on September 11, 2007 at 2:20 am

Hats off to them. I wish I could do more to protect them...if one sought shelter in my home I would provide it, no questions asked, for as long as they needed.

Keep fighting you brave young men and women. The future belongs to thinkers like you.

54. Foreword for the UK edition of 'Letter to a Christian Nation'

Comment #69365 by Zamboro on September 11, 2007 at 2:18 am

"Nothing comes from nothing... think about it." ~Vegas2kc

Okay, let's assume this premise is true. Unfortunately for you, it causes a fairly predictable problem for theists:

Where did God come from?

Either God came from nothing or God has always existed. Either way, the moment even one exception is provided (God) the premise that "nothing can come from nothing" is shattered.

At this point, I could argue that if God has "always existed" then the Universe "always existed" in some form or another. This makes god unnecessary to explain the origin of the universe, and so he is eliminated via parsimony.

Check and mate.

55. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #68644 by Zamboro on September 8, 2007 at 2:01 am

For all the desperate insistence I have heard that atheists buy The God Delusion out of some need for reassurance in their 'beliefs', I never hear it acknowledged that books like these actually *do* fill that role for the theist.

In many ways The God Delusion is similar to its theist 'rebuttals'; both contain arguments that have been bandied about for literally centuries. The difference is that the reason we're already familiar with the counter-apologetics contained within The God Delusion is that the arguments they rebut have been dismantled to the satisfaction of any objective standard since before most of us were born. Theists don't seem at all deflated by the fact that their most popular arguments for God have been shown to be logically (and in some cases factually) untenable for multiple centuries. They don't use them because they're logically sound (because they aren't) instead they use them because, to a potential convert who has yet to read the rebuttal, these old theist chestnuts remain awfully compelling. In this sense they knowingly reuse discredited lines of argument because they are especially effective in convincing the ignorant.

I suppose they have no choice but to attempt a rebuttal. Their silence would be damning, after all. Better to pretend at a rebuttal (in large numbers!) in order to create the appearance that there are valid complaints with the reasoning laid out in The God Delusion. Believers distraught by the mere existence (and popularity!) of books like The God Delusion, The End of Faith, and Why God is Not Great can reassure themselves that Dawkins did not have the last word by purchasing one of the feebly constructed 'Christian Responses'. In fact the majority will never even purchase these works; If they were in the habit of critically examining religious apologism rather than taking it at face value, they wouldn't be theists in the first place. As The God Delusion and similar books demonstrate, you don't have to prod theistic arguments very hard at all before they completely fall apart.

For all of these reasons I think that rather than referring to these books as "Fleas", we should rightly refer to them as "damage control". Because that's more or less what they are, an effort to contain, through misdirection and impotent contrarianism, the damage done to the field of theistic apologism by The God Delusion, Why God is Not Great, and the various other books in that vain.

56. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46237 by Zamboro on May 30, 2007 at 4:25 pm

I suspect Hitchens' support for the war stems from a private, selfish delight in seeing extreme Muslims get bombed into oblivion. Of course that's not the proper way to solve the problem but I won't deny that it's satisfying.

57. Richard Dawkins to appear in Second Life

Comment #45970 by Zamboro on May 29, 2007 at 9:56 pm

I showed up. There was a prerecorded video. There is to be no actual appearance or speech by Richard Dawkins, is that correct?

58. Exorcism exercise for fired-up faithful

Comment #45057 by Zamboro on May 26, 2007 at 3:57 am

Aww, it's like those Harry Potter summer camps where kids pretend to be wizards! :-3

59. Happy 66th Birthday, Richard Dawkins!

Comment #41725 by Zamboro on May 16, 2007 at 5:34 pm

May he live to see 100.

60. Travolta spearheads Scientologists' attack on BBC

Comment #41717 by Zamboro on May 16, 2007 at 4:51 pm

"And what's the difference between a religion and a cult anyway?"


Age. A religion is a cult which has reached maturity.

61. Study: Religion is Good for Kids

Comment #35020 by Zamboro on April 26, 2007 at 1:42 am

I would liken the difference between moral atheists and moral theists to the difference between two children told by their parents that they shouldn't steal.

The first of the two children asks his parents why they shouldn't do such a thing, to which the parents reply "Because we said so." This is satisfactory for the child.

The second of the two asks the same question and receives the same answer, but finds it unsatisfactory. "I need to understand *why* it is wrong to steal", he begs. So naturally his parents sit down and explain to him in detail how if we expect to live in a civilized society where we are not constantly at risk of being stolen from, we must do our part by not stealing from others.

The first child behaves only up to a point: He does not really understand *why* stealing is wrong, only that his parents will punish him if they discover he has stolen. The second child abstains from stealing not out of fear of punishment, because he fully understands *why* it is wrong to steal and that it is in his own best interest as well as that of his loved ones if he upholds this moral standard.

62. 'Everyone Is Afraid to Criticize Islam': Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #22591 by Zamboro on February 19, 2007 at 6:01 pm

I consider myself left-leaning, but I'm certainly not afraid to say what is already apparent: Islam is tremendously regressive and rightly criticized for it.

63. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22121 by Zamboro on February 13, 2007 at 12:42 am

Isn't there any way Richard could get a decent chunk of time on American television? OPB? PBS? What about an interview on NPR?

The fact is that the case he makes against religion is a compelling one, and the only way to argue against it is simply to limit his screentime. We need to find some way to give him and his ideas exposure in America if we're to effect the return to secular government that we all hope for.

64. The problem with secularism

Comment #14575 by Zamboro on December 23, 2006 at 12:46 pm

I feel dumber having read that, and would like to know how to go about requesting compensation from mister Blond.