51. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25470 by Stewart on March 13, 2007 at 1:33 pm

Re: eternity, just a small addition to what Jessie wrote that came to me after I went on about it a few days ago. The kind of suffering involved is presumably of a kind to make anyone "learn their lesson" after just a few seconds. And yet, "learning a lesson" seems to play no part in all this. The most sincere recanting will do no one a whit of good. With eternity to play with, god supposedly gives us a tiny flash of time to get things right and those who don't get nothing but torment ever after. It can't be punishment as an educational tool, because there's no chance to use what you learn from it. The only thing that does make sense is that the idea (as we know, anyway) was developed by power-hungry humans who wanted as near as they could get to absolute obedience from people and used absolute fear to obtain it. Modifying your behaviour in "this life" can still be meaningful (regulating behaviour in the here and now was and is, after all, the whole point for those inventing and perpetuating all this bogeyman hell claptrap), but if you don't do it exactly the way "we" tell you now, nothing can help you later.

I echo, of course, the question: does DR (or any other believer) think it is a good and fitting fate for all the people in question (most human beings now alive, as far as DR is concerned) to go to hell for eternity with no possibility of getting out ever? I'm not asking whether or not it makes him sad; I'm asking whether the most apparently cruel acts mandated by his god could possibly be anything other than completely good and perfect.

52. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25450 by Stewart on March 13, 2007 at 7:11 am

It is extremely wearying to reply again, when I feel DR is doing so much mischaracterisation (see below), but there are nonetheless a couple of points.

"The kind of proof you ask for means that you will never accept anything."

I accept many things, but have yet to find a reason to accept what are called miracles. You seem to think that if a miracle is described in an ancient text it is more likely that it actually happened than that a myth was created and embellished. There are miracles in other religious traditions that you presumably don't accept. Does that mean you require the same level of proof for them that you think we are unreasonable in expecting for miracles claimed by any religion?

"Dawkins no more believes that there is the possibility of a God than there is the possibility of the tooth fairy."

Are you suggesting that such an attitude is unreasonable? All of us here are as open to real possibilities as observed reality justifies.

"you do have certain beliefs in common namely the view that you will answer to no one when you die, that the churches are irrelevant and wrong, that mankind is the highest evolved species, that the strong overcomes the weak, that euthanasia is right. Amongst others."

We don't think there is "anyone" to answer to when we die (but you seem to think there's something wrong with being that realistic or that that somehow impugns our possibilities for being moral in the one life we have). We do think all religions (not just the churches) are wrong and should not therefore be believed if they claim relevance on the strength of no evidence. As for those last three (ok, the middle one is just silly, but I expect you meant that we think it's somehow morally good if the strong overcomes the weak), I suggest that you find a forum where such views are actually held and fight that lot rather than erroneously accusing us of what you merely imagine we think. Sometimes I wonder whether your real aim isn't to convince us that we do hold the most reprehensible views that you fantasise are held by atheists. When you finally do give me a straight answer to an explicit question, your answer suggests you're hallucinating. For someone who's written a book about Dawkins, you seem not to have read him very well. How often has he stated that we have evolved to the extent that we are able to decide not to indulge in social Darwinism? I'm sorry, but it's becoming really tiresome to be attacked for views one doesn't hold. I thought you claim truth is important to you; at least familiarise yourself with the standpoint of the side to which you're opposed.

"The Third Reich did persecute Christians"

That's an assertion. May we please have chapter and verse of German legislation between 1933-45 that is anti-Christian. And something sweeping enough to count, please, something that specifically denies rights to someone if they are Christian. If all you're going to say is that the Nazis' victims included Christians, just don't bother.

"It does not mean that every religious person is a potential suicide bomber, nor does it mean that atheists cannot be suicide bombers."

Neither of which, to my knowledge, has ever been claimed by anybody, on this forum or anywhere else (it has been argued that blind belief can increase the risk and that moderate belief - tolerance of the idea that unevidenced faith is a virtue - provides a safe haven for radicalism to flourish). An extraordinarily high percentage of those who could be categorised as suicide bombers state explicitly that they are acting in the name of their religion. We are not wrongly accusing them; we are merely quoting them verbatim. Are they all liars - atheists doing their damndest to make religion look bad?

"they are condemned if they ingnore the internal and external evidence which tells them that they are a lot more than a coincidental speck of dust in the Universe and that they were created for relationship with one another and with God."

In other words, interpret reality the way I do or fry for eternity. That, as a bottom line to your argument, makes us all look like saints. You are telling us that our existence means what you and the books claimed as holy that you accept as holy say it does and "ignorance is no excuse!"

David Robertson, you are a very intolerant man.

53. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #25363 by Stewart on March 12, 2007 at 3:07 pm

While I agree with Flamula that most further posting will not be productive, I shall reply to DR's replies to me. I do not think he and I agree regarding what is and is not reasonable and I am replying more on the off-chance someone else may find something useful in my arguments. I can myself recall a time not too long ago when, although never a believer, I did not yet know how to counter some of the illogical but forcefully argued points I had thrown at me (the most important understanding since that time being that there is no onus upon me, but upon the believer).

"any religion which refuses to recognize the role of reason and the need for evidence is in conflict with science"

So, if you consider a 2,000-year-old text describing miracles that we know are violations of the laws of physics to be literally true, although you dismiss other texts of similar age and character as legend and myth, you must have evidence to back this up. And it must be evidence acceptable to those who have no a priori belief in the truth of your chosen text. Am I making sense?

"That may be true for you but it is certainly not true for the vast majority of believers on this site"

I note your use of the word "certainly." Most of the people on this site are dismissive of the idea of god, because there is no evidence for it. Many may be able to bring up arguments that they think are persuasive. Could you provide names and (non-sarcastic) direct quotes for anyone who claims certain (not almost certain, like Dawkins) knowledge that there is no god?

Hitler: nitpicking about quotes from him and whether they are fabricated or accurately translated is, I agree (with Flamula) not to the point. Yes, he was Catholic, yes, he saw religion as something to be replaced with his own occult mumbo-jumbo, yes, he claimed divine destiny was at work in his actions. It is much more wrong to attempt to tar atheists with a brush linking them somehow to Hitler, than it would be to attempt to link a moderate non-violent Christian today to the Inquisition. The core text serving both of the latter is, after all, identical. No such text or other belief can link Hitler to the average atheist. The Third Reich is not remembered for persecuting Christians, with the exception of Jehovah's Witnesses and individuals who were politically opposed to the Nazis. Being openly Christian under Hitler hardly put one at risk.

I don't see that you answered my specific question about secular suicide bombers: are you claiming that they are killing in the name of atheism? If so, some evidence please. If they happen to be dangerous and coincidentally secular, what is that supposed to prove?

Lastly, I would like to point out an enormous imbalance that I think is at work in all these exchanges with you. To the best of my knowledge, not one of the atheists arguing against you is of the opinion that you are inherently evil and depraved and that you are destined for hell. To the best of my knowledge, you believe that everyone is born a sinner and will go to hell unless they accept Christ as their personal saviour, meaning that you have beliefs about all your atheist interlocutors here that we consider manifestly false, certainly unproven, grossly prejudicial and hardly conducive to civilised discussion. How can we regard you as anything but severely handicapped in your ability to conduct a dialogue with those who do not share your beliefs, if one of your main beliefs is that we are utterly condemned by the mere fact of not sharing them?

54. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24420 by Stewart on March 6, 2007 at 2:25 pm

"Eternal punishment. Does making a wrong choice on earth really necessitate that?"

That's from our point of view. Trying looking at it from god's point of view. Here are these beings he created. He gave them free will, but there's no aspect of them that can't be traced back to what he created. Neither any temptations to which they were exposed, nor anything about their abilities to react to them. All but a very few make mistakes that can never be forgiven. So, as the being bearing ultimate responsibility for all that exists, barring not even the tiniest component of any single atom, who can do absolutely anything except truthfully say "I didn't know" or "I didn't mean it" or "I did not intend it," what do you do? The obvious: you fry those creatures in "conscious torment" forever. No amount of their suffering will ever suffice to atone for what they did. The amount of their suffering you demand is - literally - infinite. At no point - ever - will you free a single one of those you consign to hell, whose mortal lives are in any case long behind them, from the existence you decided they must have. As time moves on, more and more will be added to this torture pit, but no one will ever leave. You do, of course, have the power to prevent all suffering, but you prefer to continue along the course already begun and, because you know everything, you also know that it is right. You are all-powerful, but you can still not do anything wrong. One of your creations, going by the nickname "Shrink," would have some very interesting things to say about you.

People say Dawkins was being mean, describing god as he did. I think he was being positively benign about him. If you think about it, that is, instead of just believing and accepting.

55. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24383 by Stewart on March 6, 2007 at 9:59 am

I think we may all take heart; if the recent offerings by Dawkins, Dennett, Harris et al had as little merit as some of the criticism claims, they would simply be ignored. The fact that they are both selling well and prompting such a backlash is the best indication that they are being perceived as potentially as boat-rocking as we wish and our opponents fear.

56. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24381 by Stewart on March 6, 2007 at 9:45 am

Jenny,

Ditto apologies for back-slapping, but that hasn't been pointed out enough.

You mention pessimism and of course it isn't pessimism, it's dogma. You can go through life and meet people you think treat their fellows better or worse, but to know for certain that all, without exception, are sinful by default, even as newborns, for that you need to meet no one in person, if you have it written in a book.

57. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24290 by Stewart on March 5, 2007 at 5:23 pm

"bottomed out" - DR's optimistic certainty that secularism must have its limits and things will always return to his favourite religion, which, as Fedler points out, no existing god chose to give to the majority of human beings now living.

58. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24248 by Stewart on March 5, 2007 at 2:35 pm

Apologies if this ends up here twice; I thought it had been accepted, but it didn't seem to show up.

Original post:

Some more reactions to DR, most not addressed to him directly due to his announced imminent absence. I am glad my questions drew out some interesting specifics from him. Some points:

There are some scientists respected for their science who are also firm believers. It is also true that the more rarefied the scientific atmosphere, the fewer of them there are. A case may be made for investigating why such a small percentage of those with great understanding of the physical world still make room for a deity in their lives.

I find it interesting that DR does consider some religions, but not Christianity, to be in conflict with science. Which ones, how and why?

I think Dawkins would agree that he is more familiar with Christianity than with other religions, but I doubt he would agree to harbouring more animosity for it than for other religions. In fact, he's quite outspoken about having a soft spot for certain aspects of Anglican tradition, despite his atheism. And if you look to Sam Harris, there can be no question that "The End of Faith" reserves its loudest alarm bells for Islam.

"I think atheism is largely based on faith."

This is a claim I would like to see either backed up or withdrawn. I'm wondering whether DR does think Christianity deserves the respect he does not have for other faiths or for an absence of faith.

True. The fossil evidence says nothing about god. What does?

"they [atheists] behave in a way which means that they do not accept any contradiction of their position and never allow for the possibility that they might actually be wrong"

Now this is out and out strawmanning. They (the most prominent among us) argue their (our) case strongly and forcefully. Atheists are such a tiny minority that anyone not living in complete isolation is mercilessly exposed to the contradiction of their position. No certainty is claimed. Great likelihood is and it is backed up with reasons. If only this were the case with the most prominent believers.

I think many of us might well be angry and with good reason, seeing how various beliefs enjoy a protected status in different places and that some of us live in places where it is considered a risk to let it be known we don't share those beliefs.

Sri Lankan suicide bombers: are they killing in the name of atheism or are they merely devoid of the explicit religious motivation that is claimed by all the others?

Please stop bringing in Hitler. If he had wanted religion eradicated in Germany, why did he reach agreements with the churches instead of treating all believers as he did the Jews? Let us not forget one other crucial fact, since it's been brought up. What everyone required in order not to fall under suspicion of racial impurity was proof, going back several generations, that the parents had married in church and had been baptised. Those records were provided by the churches. You were in trouble if you couldn't prove you had only Christians among your ancestry. The mutual dependence of the churches and Nazi policy was enormous.

It is a shame that DR uses doubt in his reaction to the atheist claim that nothing is predetermined, opinions are based on evidence and new evidence can change beliefs already held. By doubting the truth of a clear statement made by an atheist regarding his/her methods of making sense of the world, DR is merely helping to confirm our (he claims false) suspicion that he has a notion of atheists that does not conform to reality.

As to the repeated praise for Plantinga, I can only continue to shake my head...

59. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24191 by Stewart on March 5, 2007 at 7:58 am

Re: Fedler (Comment #61)

Thank you for drawing DR's specific attention to those instances. I only replied to what had been directed at me. I haven't read any of the three books that began this thread, but I have read material by at least two of the authors. It is common decency not to misrepresent one's opponent in a disagreement. If, as has been suggested, these authors are trying to give their readership a false picture of Dawkins' arguments, it is simply reprehensible. I know I hate being misrepresented and if any believers who happen onto this or similar sites feel that's what is being done to them, they are the ones who can demonstrate that they are as rational and reasonable as they claim to be by ensuring that their contributions to the debate reflect that. I would find it very interesting if a believer were for once to come up with something compelling that would us force us to pause and say "I never thought of that." No, I don't expect it, but I would like any discussion to be at a level aiming for that. Those trying to fight evolution have museums full of fossils to explain away. When will someone from the other side give us something that really does defy any explanation other than "god did it?"

60. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24187 by Stewart on March 5, 2007 at 7:42 am

David,

Thank you for confirming that I wasn't indulging in abuse.

I don't know if there are different versions of atheism. There are a variety of different kinds of atheist, but unlike believers, they have no common basis for an alternative belief (no, I don't count science at all, because it isn't at all dogmatic, being merely the result of observation, and is ceaselessly self-correcting). So, while "religion" is something you can get your teeth into, I don't see "atheism" as a "thing" at all. As to the "myths" you ennumerated:

- All violence that can be laid at the doorstep of religion would not exist without religion (obviously). All speculative violence you might think would erupt without religion is just that - speculative.

- Assuming you have read Dennett as well as Dawkins, I must say I agree with him that those who "haven't conscientiously considered, on their own, whether their pastors or priests or rabbis or imams are worthy of this delegated authority over their own lives [...] are in fact taking a personally immoral stand."

- It seems to me an awful lot of uncomfortable contortion is required to wriggle out of what are, on the face it, many outright scriptural contradictions. The fact that they exist is not something I find problematic, because a lack of contradiction is not what I would require before accepting any given text as divine. If you've read Sam Harris you may already have chuckled over his wondering how come god, if he wrote the bible himself, gave so much more literary talent to Shakespeare than he was able to summon up himself.

- De facto atheism: absence of evidence may not be evidence of absence, but I require something positive, not nothing negative. No evidence for or against does not equal a level playing field or a fifty-fifty chance. It's nothing till there's something. Beyond that, until I see a newborn capable of spouting theology, I will continue to believe we are all at least passive atheists till we acquire a belief of our own.

- Of course there are definitions of god so wishy-washy as to be meaningless that don't conflict with science. Interesting that you define the opposition as Christianity vs science, rather than belief, faith or religion. Does that mean other religions do conflict with science, or that you have mistakenly perceived atheism as inherently and above all anti-Christian?

My worldview is based upon my experiences. I have not seen anything incompatible with the view that there is no god. Were I to "decide" (if that were possible) to believe in a god, I know already that I would suddenly be the proud possessor of innumerable problems of irreconcileable facts and beliefs with which to while away the rest of my days.

Please don't take my willingness to answer seriously and at length once as evidence of willingness to do so endlessly. If you thought Plantinga was brilliant, there are obviously unbridgeable gaps between our respective perceptions and applications of logic. I am still curious, however, about the question you didn't answer: would an atheism based on faith that there was no god command your respect and how would your attitude to it differ from your attitude to faith-based non-Christian religious beliefs?

61. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24165 by Stewart on March 5, 2007 at 5:40 am

David Robertson,

"4) Stewart (comment no.20) - atheism is full of myths. That is the purpose of my own book - to challenge them. If they are not myths you should be able to stand up to them (I mean intellectually not just simply shouting abuse or crying 'idiot')."

Your comment seems to assume atheism to be some kind of body of beliefs (which I view as a theist myth about atheism), rather than a simple absence of belief in a god. I do consider myself an atheist, so I wonder what it is you think I do believe that is a myth. I don't have any beliefs that are strongly held without evidence. I don't think my comment was abusive; I think it's a point worth considering that one of the tactics used against atheism by believers is to invest it (falsely) with the attributes of a religion. What does that then say about religion? (If non-belief in god were based only on faith, for example, would that faith then be less acceptable to you than a faith that god exists? Is a faith-based atheism equal, in your eyes, to faith-based Islam, Christianity, Judaism etc? If not, why not? I dispute, however, that our bases for non-belief are in any way the equivalent of yours for belief.) As for calling people idiots, one does sometimes encounter arguments to which it is no longer reasonable to respond reasonably (the recent effort by Alvin Plantinga comes to mind). If you agree that not all possible arguments for or against any theoretical proposition must be equally good or deserving of merit or serious consideration, then you will probably also agree that there could be a corresponding spectrum of legitimate reactions. But here we are back to square one: there are many possible explanations for the questions that religion has attempted to answer over the ages and atheists think religion's answers are inadequate at best and are saying so because they think it is an appropriate response.

62. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24050 by Stewart on March 4, 2007 at 1:09 pm

Funny how two of the subtitles include "atheist fundamentalism" and "atheist myth." Two things that are more associated with religion and of which atheism is completely devoid. It's as if they'd made their minds up to say the very worst thing they could about atheism - and it turned out to be the untrue accusation that it's like religion.

63. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23648 by Stewart on March 2, 2007 at 12:22 am

Well, what a concensus. Everyone seems to agree Plantinga is one of the worst things we've attempted to read in ages. Having slept on it since yesterday, my feeling about why this is is that the strength of Plantinga's conviction is such that he'd make a less asinine impression saying he had unshakeable faith and leaving it at that. Perversely he doesn't let it go at that, but insists on trying to make his point through what he seems to think is rational argument and as a result becomes so spectacularly incoherent that atheism may as well adopt him as its poster boy for the impotence of religious apologists. I'm happy to say that articles like Plantinga's (and there are many, though scarcely any that are nearly as badly conceived and formulated) do give me hope that some desperation may be gripping our opponents. They cause me to feel that there is some panic going on there that the lights are being switched on by people like Dawkins, Dennett and Harris and those whose worldview is contingent upon the reign of darkness and confusion are making a pathetic effort to douse the flame of reason with their little buckets of backwardness. I find it difficult to believe that anyone not utterly committed to a theist point of view won't see Plantinga's piece as another nail in religion's coffin. If what he trots out are the best arguments for god that can be mustered then Plantinga's argument is itself a massive black mark against god's possible existence. Though there are always surprises. Maybe something will make me believe in god yet, even though I don't now. After all, until I tried to read Plantinga, I didn't believe anyone could argue so badly. We could claim his piece is a secular miracle, a sign from - well, not from above - from amongst us that god really is as unlikely as we always thought.

64. The Dawkins Confusion: Naturalism ad absurdum

Comment #23591 by Stewart on March 1, 2007 at 4:02 pm

I confess defeat. I couldn't finish it. Life is too short to waste on the ramblings of Alvin Plantinga. Got as far as his attack on unguided Darwinian evolution. There's plenty of evidence for evolution and none that it's guided, nor that there is a god, so how dare he pretend the only argument for evolution is "We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible?" And where precisely does he get his knowledge of possibly non-complex spiritual beings from?

There are poor arguments and weak arguments and unconvincing arguments and sometimes, no matter how generous one wants to be, one has to say straight out that there is also unadulterated crap and its author, this time around, is Alvin Plantinga.

65. Faith

Comment #23189 by Stewart on February 26, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Regarding the very pertinent comments from Ian, it just struck me that what some of the people calling Dawkins a fundamentalist don't realise they're saying is that he's speaking with a fervor that would make him dangerous IF he believed in god.

All three Abrahamic religions have texts excusing, justifying, commanding or holding up as an example various kinds of murderous violence. Anyone who claims to be faithful to these texts is admitting they're a security risk. If Dawkins were the blackest of fanatics as an atheist, the one thing that would still set him apart from his Jewish, Christian and Muslim counterparts is his lack of a text that, blindly obeyed, could make him a murderer.

66. James Cameron finds grave of Jesus & Son

Comment #23156 by Stewart on February 26, 2007 at 2:42 pm

What I find particularly rich here is that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus and yet Christians seem to have their knickers in a twist over the possibility this discovery will make people believe Jesus had earthly remains, meaning their religion is buggered.

Even if 2,000-year-old DNA could tell us that the "significant" two weren't blood relatives, nothing other than that can be established. It will mean the credulous will think it more likely it's Jesus' family. That's the furthest and most conclusive it can possibly go. Any use of the word "proof" here is totally out of place.

67. Faith

Comment #23074 by Stewart on February 26, 2007 at 5:59 am

"What I find really distasteful is not just the tone of their rhetoric, but their lack of doubt"

Of course, the lack of doubt is a strawman anyway, but if it weren't, Julia Neuberger is saying that doubt is a good thing to have on matters of religion, meaning she must doubt whether there is any truth in any religion, including her own, and given that even she admits there is doubt about the truth of religion, there can be no possible reason to permit it to be established outside the private sphere, but it bloody well is and that's what these abusive atheists are so steamed up about.

68. Faith

Comment #23028 by Stewart on February 26, 2007 at 12:02 am

What's with all these sentences that omit a sensible ending?:

"Atheists like the Richard Dawkins of this world are just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs on the tube, the hardline settlers on the West Bank and the anti-gay bigots of the Church of England [with the negligible difference that they've never even threatened, let alone carried out, acts of physical violence commensurate to their intolerance.]"

"We should be more willing to treat other value systems as coherent, reasonable and even valuable [regardless of their lack of coherence, lack of reasonableness and lack of value.]"

How much violence emanating from only one side of this conflict will it take till people realise what "intolerance" actually means?

69. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22136 by Stewart on February 13, 2007 at 2:39 am

Comment #22125 by GoodbyeGodNZ:

"We're just so fortunate to have Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Dan Dennett and so many other brilliant people like them leading our cause."

Too true. I would also add, however, that we are fortunate that we seem to have chosen the side that is right in this argument. If there is a god, then he has changed his tactics radically since biblical days, when there seemed to have been only believers in the right or the wrong gods, but no one who didn't believe in any god. The Old Testament god was not above obliging with signs when proof was needed. Obedience, the blinder the better, not faith, was the point. Christians maintain it's the same guy still running the show, yet somehow it's become very important to him that faith despite lack of evidence is better than obeying any number of commandments, so he's relaxed most of the commandments and stopped giving any sign he's there. Give the believers credit for one thing: they're unswervingly loyal, despite their god never ever weighing in to help them win the argument.

Further to my previous comment, it really is disappointing that the Zeus/Thor question isn't taken seriously, because, in a certain sense, it is almost the whole point. Paula Zahn probably thinks she doesn't have to answer such a question because, duh!, we're not talking about Zeus or Thor, we're talking about God. And while she's thinking "what, how can you compare them?," Dawkins is trying to get her to see there's no difference. Humankind will be a lot healthier when it understands that the only thing separating Sylvia Browne and Uri Geller from the pope is the number of people fooled.

70. Richard Dawkins interview with Paula Zahn

Comment #22124 by Stewart on February 13, 2007 at 12:58 am

Did anyone notice the crawl text when she was asking him if he hadn't encountered people intimidated by his message? To save your eyes and time, it was a flash about the New York teen whose heart restarted after four days amid claims of "divine intervention." Oh, how we hog the airwaves! Though I notice none of the other stories carried the tag "no claims of divine intervention were made." Interesting that Zahn didn't answer why she doesn't believe in Thor or Zeus. Surely Richard actually wanted to know and wasn't asking rhetorically. Maybe she is a closet believer in some other gods, too. Anyway, why is the woman from the country whose constitution explicitly separates church and state asking someone from elsewhere if he thinks religion should play any role on the public stage? The enormous Christian majority, that now claims the country is Christian and might as well roll over, is precisely what that separation was supposed to protect America from.

71. My critics are wrong to call me dogmatic

Comment #21979 by Stewart on February 12, 2007 at 3:02 am

One really would think, wouldn't one, that, judging by the accusations of intolerance and arrogance so wrathfully hurled against Prof. Dawkins by some theist opponents, the very least he had done was to state categorically that there is no god. The person in the world probably most famous for his atheism, and so villified for it, has never even done that. We really are a bad bunch, if they can't even say that about the "worst" of us. How many promoters of "divinely" inspired morality use "almost certainly" to convince their followers there is a god, as Dawkins does when arguing against the proposition?

72. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21871 by Stewart on February 11, 2007 at 10:06 am

This discussion (which is not what it was on CNN, Smith - Stephen A., not Anna Nicole - notwithstanding) has awakened in me a desire to see a list of all organisations claiming to represent atheists that call for either violence or discrimination against believers. Next to it, I'd like to see a list of all organisations claiming divine inspiration that call for either violence or discrimination against non-believers. Just curious as to which would be longer... I already know the length of the list of atheist organisations predicting eternal conscious torment for believers.

73. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21752 by Stewart on February 11, 2007 at 1:22 am

kaiserkriss,

No problem. I can forgive you; it's Schlussel we have to worry about. Now we know how her mind works; she's very likely to extrapolate from that one missing letter that omitting the letter "l," when it's not one of the last two letters of a name, is one of the defining characteristics of atheism. And her views get international exposure...

74. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21700 by Stewart on February 10, 2007 at 4:50 pm

kaiserkriss,

You need to know your declared enemies by name and the lady (sorry, very inappropriate; that's no lady, that's a minority-basher) is Schlussel. If she had an umlaut over the "u" it would mean "key," but an umlaut is, putting it mildly, but one of many things she lacks. She seems to have learned from the antisemites who pull off the neat trick of blaming Jews for both capitalism and communism; in her variation she combines her hatred for those of a rival faith and those without any faith by declaring that if you're the latter it means you will probably turn into the former. I knew things were bad in the States, but not so bad that someone like this could be considered worthy of exposure outside the framework of her own blog.

75. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21597 by Stewart on February 10, 2007 at 3:42 am

I dropped CNN a line, too, and asked them please not to say anything about Steve Irwin in response.

Someone may already have mentioned it (go keep track of 211 comments), but the headline on Dembski's blog reads (surprise, surprise):

"Karen Hunter and Debbie Schlussel - YOU GO, GIRLS!"

76. The Chronicles of Kearnya, or, Principles of Evolution Observed in the Field at Kearny High School

Comment #20542 by Stewart on February 4, 2007 at 12:43 am

Aha, so if we can't legalise a crime, we can at least criminalise methods of detecting crime. That's what it boils down to. Next time Paszkiewicz does it, absolutely nothing happens to him, because it can't be proved.

77. James Randi on Larry King Live

Comment #20226 by Stewart on February 1, 2007 at 6:44 am

Noodly, you do see the problem in your suggestion, I trust? Randi only has one million dollars, he gives it to Altea for losing, she lives happily ever after and all the other "psychics" get away with claiming she was the only fake in bunch, feign "good riddance" and carry on fleecing the public. What, no "psychic" has ever properly been unmasked? Why waste a million on just one more? I am more impressed by a million that no one has ever succeeded in collecting, and that all the people who are supposedly best at this skill in the world refuse to be tested for it. Would you trade "proof" that one psychic is a fake for the near-certain (under the circumstances) knowledge that they all are? In other words, "one proven fake" doesn't tell me as much as "not a single proven psychic." It's not our fault that so many people refuse to get it when it's that obvious.

78. James Randi on Larry King Live

Comment #20211 by Stewart on February 1, 2007 at 4:38 am

Can we then say that by not knowing the million dollars is there, Rosemary Altea has already failed the test? Look at Randi's site and read about the people who do apply for the million but can't be tested because their claims are too vague to be testable. The big shots, who are making money from the powers they pretend to have, can't afford to do that. They know they can't get the million with proper supervision and they make too much money to risk losing it by being discredited.

79. James Randi on Larry King Live

Comment #20200 by Stewart on February 1, 2007 at 2:21 am

It is sad how much people's wishful thinking controls what they believe, i.e. that so many people think it is likelier that someone is communicating with their dead relatives than that someone is falsely claiming to be communicating with their dead relatives. It's as if making a false claim is the really spectacular, never-been-heard-of, never-been-proven phenomenon, rather than having a hot line to another world.

80. James Randi on Larry King Live

Comment #19990 by Stewart on January 31, 2007 at 2:33 am

The kind of funny thing about all this is that while we're skeptical of the powers of psychics, what the psychics are skeptical about is that there's a million dollars actually waiting for one of them if they come through in a simple demonstration of the abilities they claim for themselves. What proof do they need of that that Randi hasn't already provided or declared himself willing to provide? In my daydream version of this latest Larry King escapade, Randi tells the cameraman to zoom out to include, sitting next to him, a bigwig from Goldman Sachs who confirms the million dollars is there and waiting for Rosemary, like Woody Allen did with Marshall McLuhan in "Annie Hall."

81. James Randi on Larry King Live

Comment #19965 by Stewart on January 30, 2007 at 10:15 pm

There is a plan and it's not secret: a million-dollar prize no one is willing to take despite all their claims. Rosemary Altea's best answer throughout this appearance was that she was skeptical that the money existed. So she won't risk a little bit of time in case it doesn't exist, when Randi has been so public about its existence that she could probably sue him for the same million if it weren't there - after she's taken a - short - test.

Anyway, check out his site and read about how he's getting more active and investigating the possibilities for getting these people in court for fraudulent business practices, whether they agree to be tested or not. The huge carrot has been avoided for years now by those who know they lack the teeth to bite into it, so Randi's working on a stick. Sad that it's taken a case as obvious as Hornbeck's to wake people up to the fact that it isn't harmless fun that should be left alone; it's cruel and dangerous and the main victims are those who are already vulnerable.

82. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19800 by Stewart on January 30, 2007 at 1:49 am

Lionel, thanks for pointing that out. It is indeed a curiosity and I wonder whether it is pure coincidence that such a glitch should have occurred with the identity of a poster so obviously opposed to the aims of this website. Maybe Mr. O'Brien would care to enlighten us further. I hope Josh is monitoring this exchange and can tell us anything Mr. O'Brien doesn't. Or should we be clicking on "troll?"

83. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19644 by Stewart on January 29, 2007 at 4:24 am

I expect Kasich will achieve both what he wants and what he doesn't, respectively, great righteous Christian anger at Flemming's antics and a lot of consciousness that this is going on (without god ever unleashing a thunderbolt). If there were such a thing as a truly neutral person, I feel watching this clip would bump that person into Flemming's camp, largely on the strength of Kasich's overbearing, authoritarian attitude. Flemming may have been a little nervous at the confrontation but he stuck to his guns, while Kasich was so transparently angry he couldn't really think straight.

84. Blasphemy Challenge on FOX

Comment #19625 by Stewart on January 29, 2007 at 1:15 am

I have never before seen such an angry man demand from such a calm person an explanation as to why he is so angry...

85. In defense of atheism

Comment #19408 by Stewart on January 27, 2007 at 1:25 am

Russell, well put.

Those points belong with the consciousness-raising Dawkins is trying to achieve with the labelling of children. Horribly prevalent nowadays. Take two completely unequal things, de-emphasise the negative aspects of the one you're for, find a way of attributing their unwatered-down form to the other side and voila, you're in business selling black as white. Too many people are too easily taken in by these rhetorical tricks. Once you are properly aware of them, you don't even need to be particularly smart to dismantle them, but the awareness of the techniques is crucial.

86. In defense of atheism

Comment #19277 by Stewart on January 26, 2007 at 3:48 am

Yes, a good piece. I suspect, if one surveys this properly (as I do not claim to have done) one will find that a preponderance of those trying to demonise atheists as "jihadis" will also be those trying to play down fears of Islam and find excuses for the genuine explosive-belt-wearing article. Which is a neat trick.

Not that I think bringing up Hitler and Stalin is a tactic that works (in fact Hitler doesn't fit at all), but it's enlightening to see that desperation drives so many pro-faith writers over half a century back to find people they can simultaneously claim as atheists and killers. They are sorely disappointed that they can't find any present-day terrorists killing people in the name of atheism to balance what's being done in the name of religion. Just leading intellectuals making well-reasoned statements that they think religion is dangerous nonsense that cannot claim immunity from criticism. The hospitals and cemeteries are inadequate to deal with the dead and wounded of this dastardly assault...

Of course, it's the same people claiming that there are no atheists in foxholes. If they want that taken seriously, that means they're claiming atheists have been absent from all organised armed conflicts. Another neat trick.

87. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #15991 by Stewart on January 4, 2007 at 5:29 am

Apologies in advance if I'm misattributing, but I seem to remember it was Sam Harris who put it very nicely (I think about Bush) by pointing out that if someone claimed that god was regularly speaking to him through his hairdryer, they'd lock him up, which raises the question of why the absence of a hairdryer from such a claim suddenly removes from it all suspicion of mental illness.

88. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15263 by Stewart on December 30, 2006 at 3:44 am

"That obviously doesn't prevent them from punching, slapping, grabbing, etc. Contamination via sitting close by -- yes. Contamination via showing a woman her proper place -- apparently not."

In one of the longer accounts credited to Shear available online, she adds:

'Note: During the entire time I was being blocked in the human cage of 4 men, these holy men were pressed against every part of my body. I taunted them asking - "Ah - so this is more tzniut than me sitting there? Or is this really what you all wanted?" One of them actually replied: "Yes, this is more tzniut".'

89. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15207 by Stewart on December 29, 2006 at 2:14 pm

Actually, this one, which I came across afterwards, does make an interesting comparison of the cases and reminds us that so much of what goes on in religion depends on what those running it think they can get away with: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/805011.html

90. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15204 by Stewart on December 29, 2006 at 2:00 pm

I had been trying to think of other examples of segregation and Anat's comment about sport reminded me of another: public swimming pools. There are pools that have set times for separate male-only and female-only swimming and when those times arrive, everyone else has to clear off. I would guess that it is mainly those pools located where both secular and religious live in significant numbers that have that kind of arrangement.

More relevant to the transport arrangements in general, here is a link to the latest on the ultra-Orthodox boycott of El Al because circumstances forced them to have a plane in the air on Saturday about three weeks ago and have since lost mind-boggling sums they would normally have made from their religious customers: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/806076.html. And while we're at it, let's not forget the dinosaurs on the yoghurt containers that were pulled to avoid a boycott and that the first Rabin government fell in the mid-70s (partly) because of planes in the air after the Sabbath had begun.

91. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15137 by Stewart on December 29, 2006 at 4:54 am

On the school segregation issue, one might add that the all-male study environments of the ultra-Orthodox are rumoured to lead to more homosexuality than would otherwise manifest itself (the need for physical contact often wins out over all other taboos and when there is no one of the opposite sex around...), which then runs afoul of yet another biblical injunction.

I do not know what Miriam Shear's views on atheists are; she certainly does not appear to be one.

92. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15109 by Stewart on December 29, 2006 at 1:01 am

I hope nobody misunderstood me to be in sympathy with that kind of thing, but there was that "chapter and verse" question that nobody else had related to, so I offered what was known to me about the background. I see it as precisely reflective of the dangers of religion; when the numbers reach critical mass, a group that may be seen as strange but otherwise innocuous may start compelling others to conformity. This can be true not only of religion, but in the case of religion the authority is supposedly derived from a divine source and therefore not a matter for discussion.

93. Woman beaten on Jerusalem bus for refusing to move to rear seat

Comment #15104 by Stewart on December 28, 2006 at 11:56 pm

It isn't gender segregation as such; what is mainly behind the separation is the possibility that the woman might be "unclean," i.e. menstruating and/or not yet ritually purified. Ultra-Orthodox men "take no chances." Additionally, there's the business of keeping them out of sight so they cannot be a distraction, which is similar to the covering up of Muslim women. That is why she said "I'm dressed appropriately," because she is also religious and would have found it acceptable that they reject her had she not been. There are more detailed accounts elsewhere in which she explains that she pointed out to the man that there were other seats empty around her and also said he was welcome to sit next to her, which she knew very well he couldn't accept. A male, even non-religious, upon entering a bus, may find himself beckoned by an ultra-Orthodox man occupying half a double seat, in order that he sit there and close the option of a non-observant woman trying to sit there (an observant woman would know not to do it).

94. Home-schooling special: Preach your children well

Comment #5574 by Stewart on November 10, 2006 at 1:49 am

PHC is hardly news anymore, but those for whom it is news should also be aware of the Statement of Faith all students must sign. Taken from the PHC website (check out their Biblical Worldview, as well). Anytime you run into a PHC graduate, don't forget he/she has signed the following, conscious torment for eternity and all:

• There is one God, eternally existent in three Persons:
Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
• God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must
worship Him in Spirit and in truth.
• Jesus Christ, born of a virgin, is God come in the flesh.
• The Bible in its entirety (all 66 books of the Old and
New Testaments) is the inspired Word of God,
inerrant in its original autographs, and the only
infallible and sufficient authority for faith and
Christian living.
• Man is by nature sinful and is inherently in need of
salvation, which is exclusively found by faith alone in
Jesus Christ and His shed blood.
• Christ's death provides substitutionary atonement for
our sins.
• Personal salvation comes to mankind by grace through
faith.
• Jesus Christ literally rose bodily from the dead.
• Jesus Christ literally will come to earth again in the
Second Advent.
• Satan exists as a personal, malevolent being who acts as
temptor and accusor, for whom Hell, the place for
eternal punishment, was prepared, where all who die
outside of Christ shall be confined in conscious
torment for eternity.
I
CERTIFY THAT
: I fully and enthusiastically subscribe to the
above statement of faith. I also certify that I have accepted
Jesus Christ as my personal Savior for forgiveness of my
sins.