101. Christopher Hitchens - God is Not Great

Comment #40121 by bouwe on May 13, 2007 at 7:55 am

Church TAX!!!!?? No wonder Europe is becoming more irreligious!!

btw, since this thread relates to an Australian radio program. A reminder for anyone in Oz that next week on ABC compass program, they will be showing Dawkins documentary "The Root of All Evil?"

102. Christopher Hitchens - God is Not Great

Comment #40059 by bouwe on May 12, 2007 at 11:08 pm

I submitted this two days ago, after I had listened to it on my (as Phillip calls it) "wireless", and have been posting the link in other threads. Glad admin listened to someone (not me) and finally posted it.

I have been listening to Phillip, off and on, for many years...had a little correspondence with him about ten years ago too. He is well known as our high-profile atheist in Oz, and it is always good to hear him give some air time to
Dawkins or Hitch (at least on this subject!).

Yes, I was a little surprised when Hitch mentioned that Germans pay some sort of "Church tax". As we say downunder "What THE....????"

If anybody knows any more about this I would like to know. I had never heard of such a thing. Maybe in the past it was the case that everybody had to pay a church tax, and that was what Hitch was referring to (?).

103. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39597 by bouwe on May 11, 2007 at 8:54 am

91. Comment #39576 by flyingscot :

I thoroughly enjoyed your post, certainly made me chuckle

104. Anderson Cooper interviews Christopher Hitchens

Comment #39563 by bouwe on May 11, 2007 at 6:22 am

Comment #39485 by Electric Monk on May 10, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Don't know how to post this so I'll put it here...

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/

48. More on the Atheism Front
Comment #39506 by bouwe on May 11, 2007 at 2:47 am

105. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39542 by bouwe on May 11, 2007 at 5:02 am

Apologies for a few typos in my long screed.
I just noticed I wrote "buy" instead of "by". I am aware of the edit function after one has posted, but unfortunately my old iMac won't allow me to take advantage of it. Apologies.

Bye.

(Sorry, or should that read "By" or "Buy"? ha da ha).

106. World's most prominent atheist takes on the Biblical God (and other topics)

Comment #39540 by bouwe on May 11, 2007 at 4:54 am

This stuff is priceless. Comedy gold. You could easily play it to someone and tell them it is a "brilliant new satire", and they would say "This is BRILLIANT!! Incredible satire! Who is the genius behind this? Is it Ricky Gervais?"

We get this sort of entertainment in the early hours of the morning on Australian TV. I'm an insomniac, so it is a (I was going to say god)__send.

My favourite is Kenneth Copeland (ch.10, 2:30am). His "Believers Voice of Victory" is must-see-tv. The other week they had this witchy old bag called Billie Brin, and I had to do a double take because I thought it was the Church Lady from SNL. It is fun to count how many times they say the word "Satan" (they should have a little bell that goes off everytime they say it, along with a deep echo for a special effect).

And then of course there is Benny Hinn (3:30am, same channel), the guy in the white suit, dancing with the guy who jumps out of a wheelchair shouting "I'm healed! I'm healed!". I'm sure Steve Martin must have studied him for his role in "Leap of Faith".

As I said, you couldn't get actors and writers to do a better job at satire. I mean, he's even got this weird accent that is impossible to place. He just has to open his mouth and say "Jesus" and you're already laughing.

I prefer the Kenneth Copeland show, because they just sit around a coffee table and talk religious gobbledegook. The fun is trying to work out what they actually believe and then coming to terms with the fact that these are real people leading "real" lives. The fact that it is not satire takes it to another level of funny....and "scary" as well of course. And just when it starts getting tedious, they mention SATAN and another round of entertainment begins.

Benny Hinn (in his ridiculous white suit and equally improbable accent) is of course the most visually entertaining of all the late-night comedians. However, once you've seen his schtick, it is the same thing over and over again. You can only watch a guy throw away his crutches and do a dance and then fall to the floor so many times, and then it gets pretty stale.


I guess it is the same with Kenneth Copeland's Believers Voice of Victory, but at least in that one they are expressing "ideas" (I use the word loosely) and so there is more to hold your attention. (Yeah, that's right: I'm saying it is the cerebral , "intellectual"(sic) sitcom -- and by "cerebral," I'm saying you may get a cerebral haemorrage if you try too hard to work out what exactly it is that they believe!!)

Benny, on the other hand, is just an aerobics work-out, but there are no sexy girls to keep you interested. However there are exceptions to this.

Occasionally Benny has a "coffee talk" show (ie. same format as Kenneth Copeland), in which case, YOU'VE HIT THE COMEDY JACKPOT (or should I say "CRACKpot"? Actually, when you consider the things he says, they sound as though they are the result of taking both crack and pot!!!)

Late last week, there was an episode -- er, sorry, I mean program ...I have to keep reminding myself that this is not a brilliant comedy series -- where Benny was talking to this guy with a very bad haircut (it looked like a wig, actually -- and a very bad wig at that!). The guy's area of "expertise" was that he had studied the number seven as it appears throughout the bible. He then proceeded to list all the times the number appeared in the Good Book and its context (eg. "Seven pairs of animals boarded the ark" -- yeah, that's right. There are TWO stories juxtaposed in the bible, one has two animals entering, the other has SEVEN -- creationists conveniently ignore the latter, as it gives even less room to fit all the animals on the ark -- but I digress...).

After doing this, he suddenly looks to the heavens and then looks straight into the camera and says "I know you're out there, God is telling me, He has a message for you -- OOOH Oh Benny! This is a momentous event! A glorious event! -- God is speaking to me now" etc. etc. Cut to Benny, shaking his head in wonder: "Oh dis iz ah-ma-zing, paraisa Got! Lord be paraised!! Hallelujah!"

At this point, the guy with the bad haircut / bad wig, looks earnestly into the camera and tells me that God wants everyone listening to send SEVENTY-SEVEN dollars to his "Ministry". He then makes sure to clarify that, if there are two people watching, God wants each of them to send SEVENTY-SEVEN dollars, and not $77 between them.

Benny goes along with this, speaking in hushed tones with his ridiculous accent, mumbling something about how privileged we have all been to witness this momentous event. (Who would have thought that, after all this time, the Lord would choose to deliver his new "message" through a guy with a bad haircut AT 3:45 a.m. on Australian late-night TV!!! I felt very privileged to have witnessed this great awakening -- oh sorry, wrong choice of words, I'M AN INSOMNIAC!!)

Benny's wife sits dutifully buy his side through the whole thing and doesn't say a word. It is the same with all these shows: the wife just sits next to her man and nods her head like one of those dolls with the spring-loaded heads. I am always half-expecting the husband to gently whack the wife at the back of the head every now and then to keep the momentum going.

The show that is sandwiched between these two is not as good, but only because it is just plain boring. Between the insane ramblings on Kenneth Copeland's Believer's Voice of Victory and the ridiculous dancing and speaking-in-tongues of the unctuous Benny Hill -- er, Hinn, sorry!! -- we find a bizarre Christian fundy mutation of a "Talk Show" which seems like it is being broadcast from a wormhole in spacetime from another dimension, a parallel Christian universe:

His name is James Robinson (I think, not sure - it is plain boring and I can't stand it for more than two minutes). Conceit and self-satisfaction practically ooze out of his pores, while his poor wife sits dutifully by his side, nodding her spring-loaded neck intermittently with a shaggy-dog look on her face, NEVER UTTERRING A WORD!! If you can imagine a female version of William H. Macy then you've got the picture. If anybody sees the show they'll know what I mean. Her role seems to be that of a mute Paul Schaffer sans band duties. Homeduties, on the other hand, I suspect, feature very heavily on her god-ordained CV.

Well, that's about it for Bouwe's late night Christian TV review downunder. These shows air all round the world. They are in Britain as well. I suspect that my fellow British insomniacs would have the opportunity to view this brilliant satire as well. I know that Benny Hinn has his tentacles in England as much as down here.

I wish it was only Benny Hill!! Then there'd be nothing to worry about.

In the words of Benny:

"Pra-haise da name of da prrrrecious blood of Jeeeee-zzzzzz-aaasssssss!!!!!!!"

As they said in South Park:

Science help us!!!

107. More on the Atheism Front

Comment #39506 by bouwe on May 11, 2007 at 2:47 am

Comment #39350 by tomjlawson

Nice one, Tom. You may have saved everybody a lot of time, lol. (Actually, I'm looking forward to it.)

I just heard Hitch on Australian radio, it's "Starskey and Hitch". (Starskey = Philip Adams, ie. they are pals, he's a fellow atheist and it goes for almost an hour .) Good stuff. I submitted it for the site, but I've submitted things before and they haven't shown up. So here it is:

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/

Nice change from the usual context of Hitch having to deal with someone non-receptive to his arguments. Phil gives him free reign.

108. Lou Dobbs w/ Hitchens on Al Sharpton's Bigoted Remark

Comment #39469 by bouwe on May 10, 2007 at 7:36 pm

Romney is on record saying his favourite book is "Battlefield Earth".

109. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39222 by bouwe on May 10, 2007 at 7:40 am

The college professor-and-his-students analogy is so patently inappropriate. It would only be relevant if the curriculum he taught was so flawed that it contained, alongside the proper lessons which lead to the good student passing, a whole other bunch of lessons on how to be a dropout .

Most culpably, the professor taught the "How to be a Dropout" lessons with the same sincerety as when he gave his "How to be Good" lectures!

And then the good student happened to fall asleep during all the dropout lessons. (This, by the way, is the only reason why he passed, because he himself "dropped out" of the How-to-be-a-dropout lectures!! Confusing?)

Meanwhile, the bad student fell asleep during the "How to pass with flying colors" lecture, but took copious notes on "How to Be a Dropout"!

Please note that even though the students intermittently did not pay attention during the semester at various times, this does not let the professor off the hook. We must remember that the Divine Professor wrote the textbook.

Yeah, I know. It hurts my brain too!!! However this is the only way to make "sense" of his analogy.

110. Is Christianity Good for the World?

Comment #39208 by bouwe on May 10, 2007 at 7:09 am

Nevermind the unfortunate downside of these "Blogalogues" is that one can avoid the other's points. If they go on long enough, objective readers will be able to spot the evasive party. I say "objective readers" because we must remember that this is in Christianity Today!! Hitch needs to have this debate in a more neutral forum, where there is maximum benefit derived from his efforts, ie. his target audience should be the undecided and the indifferent. Not much chance of deconverting Christianity Today subscribers!!

Having said that, who knows? He could still make a few stagnant light bulbs flicker in the dark recesses of a few fundy brains.

111. God . . . in other words

Comment #39071 by bouwe on May 9, 2007 at 11:25 pm

Thank you Ruth Glendill for not misrepresenting RD and giving an honest and fair portayal of RD (albeit, according to her own misguided religious lense). Definitely refreshing change from the usual seemingly deliberate misrepresentations. This might have something to do with her having actually MET the man in person.

It seems to me that usually the religionist's screed is based on (a) never having read the book, or carelessly misreading it, or deliberately distorting RD's words. And of course (b) never having talked to the man.

Even though she is not on my side (and I share your frustrations, Janus), she certainly has won my respect for this piece -- considering the usual crap we get. You couldn't expect anything better, cosidering where she's coming from.

112. Sam Harris in conversation with Oliver McTernan

Comment #38792 by bouwe on May 9, 2007 at 7:48 am

Comment #38770 by krispar

Yes: Does he pray? That is the first question that came to my mind when I read the transcript. No one asked him this question. As you pointed out, a non-interventionist god makes prayer superfluous.

I could imagine his response. For example, he might say: "Yes I pray, but not for God to help heal the sick or to re-direct the hurricane, but rather simply to ask God to give me the strength and understanding so that I may better serve Him, and do his bidding by helping others to make the world a better place."

(I just realized that's one hell of a long hypothetical sentence I have accused him of, but it at least sums up a possible response).

Of course, this response presupposes an interventionist God as well. So the question remains, why would he pray? I have never met a Christian who doesn't do it.

Perhaps he would just say it is a type of "meditation" or "contemplation" or some other evasive, nebulous notion?

113. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38710 by bouwe on May 9, 2007 at 2:19 am

Comment #38634 by Flagellant

Thanks for going to the trouble of doing that. Appreciate it.

In Australia, our (conservative) Govt. has come up with the hare-brained scheme of funding chaplains for our public (govt.-run) school system. Idiotic. So divisive.

114. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38433 by bouwe on May 8, 2007 at 4:53 am

I really do implore people not to use the phrase "converted to" in regard to atheism. It sends out the wrong message which plays into the hands of religionists who promote the lie that atheism is some sort of ideology of even some other religious belief system.

One could use the term "de-converted" from christianity/mormonism/islam/etc, and that would be perfectly concomitant with the logical process.

However, I find the best way to get the message across in the most accurate way, with minimum chance of unintenionally prolonging this misunderstanding, is to say "realized" : "I realized I was an atheist when I....( thought about the issues more carefully/ read such-and-such a book, etc.)"

After all, atheism is the default position. Don't give ground to theists who deliberately misframe the debate by painting atheism as an "idiology", as if agnosticism is some sort of middle ground, where atheism is painted as some sort of "insistance" or claim to have "proven" that god doesn't exist.

I am an atheist - by default - because I examine the evidence for god and find it utterly unconvincing. I didn't need to be converted to atheism, I just looked up the meaning of the word in the dictionary, framed the question in the context of elementary logic, and then REALIZED that I was an atheist.

Agnostics are just people who haven't quite realized their own atheism. No need for conversion, just consciousness-raising.

I don't want to be cast into the dreaded "Pedant's Corner," but these subtle differences can make a difference between playing along with a theist stereotype and actually breaking through their bullshit to get closer to the truth.

Another example of these subtle-but-telling differences appear in Ms.Bunting's article:

She defines creationism as "a literal reading of the book of Genesis" and keeps ID in a seperate category, as if it is not creationism and instead has some quasi-scientific value. It is of course a sub-species of creationism.

These two examples both misframe the debate out of our favour, muddying the waters of the debate.

------------------------------------------------------------
Comment #38318 by Harlon57

Thanks for sharing that, Harlon. I think quite a few here could relate to your situation.

115. The New Atheists loathe religion far too much to plausibly challenge it

Comment #38415 by bouwe on May 8, 2007 at 3:49 am

knox = weefree = David Robinson

116. A Split Emerges as Conservatives Discuss Darwin

Comment #38185 by bouwe on May 7, 2007 at 7:27 am

Yet it is that very embrace of intelligent design — not to mention creationism, which takes a literal view of the Bible's Book of Genesis...

117. Martin Amis reviews The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Hussain

Comment #37917 by bouwe on May 6, 2007 at 8:57 am

Thanks for that post Matthew. We should have an archive dedicated to exceptional posts, where others who didn't happen to be following a particular thread will still be able to retreave it. I think Pandasthumb or talkorigins used (or still do) have "post of the week/month" . A suggestion for Josh perhaps? Unfortunately you called him a motherfucker...he will probably base his entire next post around the fact that you called him a "dirty word" and be blind to every well-argued point you just made. Nevertheless, I and others appreciate the elucidation you have brought to the subject.

Here is the Weinberg quote in full:

"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion."

118. Martin Amis reviews The Islamist: Why I Joined Radical Islam in Britain, What I Saw Inside and Why I Left by Ed Hussain

Comment #37814 by bouwe on May 5, 2007 at 8:15 pm

I hope some of you guys send your own letters to the Times to pre-empt weefree's malicious attempts to spread misconceptions about atheists/secularism.

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

Comment #37365 by bouwe on May 4, 2007 at 7:41 am

I think Riley is right in regards to framing the issue. The "we're all atheists, I'm just an atheist about one more god than you are" approach gets to the heart of the issue as quickly as possible, and in a conciliatory manner as well. After establishing this framework, one is always tempted to make the jibe: "You've come so far, you're almost there, only one more god to go!!" It is sarcastic, but if you are jocular enough you can pull it off -- it depends on the situation and the person you're talking with. Last thing you want to do is come across as a smarmy, arrogant, sarcastic son-of-a-bitch. But you can avoid that if you make it a friendly jibe in good humour. Have to use your discretion with that one!

As much as I love Russell's Teapot, I think the Invisible Pink Unicorn gets the point across better because there are other things inherent to the concept which can be "unpacked" and utilized to demonstrate your point further.

Christian apologists will often talk about "faith and reason". For your average Fundy Faithhead, reason is only a "tool" that is useful insofar as it serves to prop up the faith. As soon as reason goes against their faith, it is dropped like a hot potato and replaced with the faith belief.

(Naturally, they don't see it that way. To them reason "in the service of" faith is the correct"use" of aforesaid reason. To them, we're all "fundamentalists" because we go "over the top" by having everything contingent upon rational thinking. "I mean, it has its place guys, but there's no need to become EXTREME!!" lol)

You can demonstrate this point best with the Invisible Pink Unicorn example/analogy: He (the IPU) has proved His existence from the fact that He is invisible. If we ever saw the IPU then that would go against His existence. Therefore (sounds so logical, right?), it only stands to reason that His very invisiblenessproves his existence, by definition!

This demonstrates the faulty thinking of many theists as they attempt to hijack "reason" to "prove" their god. It exposes the absurdity of their often self-referential circular logic.

Then you get to use the "pink" part, which demonstrates how the faith belief comes in to cover up the superficial reasoning. We believe "by faith" that the IPU is pink, even though we have never actually seen him. But it is not an "unreasonable faith"(sic -- or is that sick?lol), for He has already "proved" His existence through his invisibility....you get the picture.

Once the debate is framed in this way, you can have hours of fun...just "riff" from there. You have a gentle parody of their "faith and reason" schtick....now schtick it to 'em!!!

For reasons just stated, I personally find that the IPU is the most efficient and productive analogy with which to make as much headway on the issue as possible.

Russell's Teapot, and its more recent reincarnation, the Flying Spagetti Monster, are fun, but IPU gets the job done.

120. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36781 by bouwe on May 2, 2007 at 9:49 am

Well, I would contend that people ARE born atheists. You don't come out of the womb with an automatic belief in an invisible friend by default. It takes indoctrination to do that.

In order to believe in anything, you need language to formulate that belief, and that, of course, needs to be taught. A child brought up by a pack of wolves isn't going to be able to talk, let alone formulate any belief in a god. That much is obvious.

Atheism, to repeat for the billionth time, simply means NOT having a belief in a god or gods.
The fact that we are born with no beliefs at all, demonstrates by logical necessity that we are therefore all born a-theists.

Hence, unless a baby pops it's head out of the womb praising Jesus, we can pretty much assume that the baby is an atheist, ie. doesn't have a belief in a god or gods...due to the fact that baby doesn't have any beliefs WHATSOEVER.

Then again, they DO speak in tongues.....lol
===================================

"challenging atheist myths"? More like "mythologising atheism" by misrepresenting what and how atheists think.

To say the following:

"Indeed. People are not born atheists. They have to be indoctrinated that way."

displays either a wilful ignorance or an inability to understand what atheism is. A theist almost invariably falls for the same old fallacy: that of interpreting atheism as a mirror image of their own beliefs. Coming from a world of belief, they, rather absurdly, see our non-belief as a form of "belief". They can't bear the onus of proof (because they have no proof!) and therefore, in a depressingly predictable pattern, try to turn logic on its head and require one to "prove that god DOESN'T exist" or some such nonsense.

In this case, weefree appears to view atheism as some sort of ideology that requires indoctrination. He sees atheism as an "idea" that one "believes" when it is in fact not an idea of any sort, but simply the lack of a belief in an idea, namely "god".

It is as though he has this massive blind spot whenever he sees "atheism" in a dictionary, and he superimposes his own fantasy-world definition (whatever that is exactly). This act of mental self-sabotage enables him to turn logic upside down in order to stay in his faith-fuelled fantasy world of supernatural beliefs. You see, he can turn non-belief into a "belief" simply by speaking it into being, much like his Supreme Being speaks everything into being. From there, our quite reasonable lack-of-a-belief-in-space-fairies -without-evidence becomes an "idea" and an "ideology" that we are trying to "indoctrinate".

The basic fact is that even weefree and devolved were born atheists - in the strict sense of the word - much to their horror.

121. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36730 by bouwe on May 2, 2007 at 5:38 am

This particular thread, in my opinion, is not up to the usual high standard for this site. Talk about Hitch's level of alcohol consumption is driving ME to drink.

A much more interesting fact, which I posted earlier but has not received comment, is that - I repeat - his younger brother seems to be some kind of creationist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

One is naturally drawn to make the easy cliched assumptions about sibling rivalry: one taking an extreme opposite stance in order to forge their own identity from shadow of older brother, and all that crap. However, they were both "Trotskyites", so they originally must have come from the same place, ideologically as well as biologically.

Sorry to repeat myself from an earlier post, but his brother seems not to believe in evolution for typically facile creationist reasons. With a brother as intelligent, eloquent and inebriated or not) lucid as Christopher, how could he maintain such a mentality? He is also a journalist and also not unintelligent (probably quite bright), and yet he maintains this position. Amazing.

In short, it seems Christopher Hitchen's brother is a living example to prove the basic proposition of his book : that is, how religion poisons everything.

Christopher Hitchens may be poisoning his liver, but staying "dry" from religion has kept his mind razor sharp. On the other hand, his brother may have a fully inteact, functional healthy liver (perhaps due to Christian temperence?), but the absinthe-like poison of religion has corrupted his naturally-endowed intelligence to the point where he falls for creationist objections to evolution, of the "you can't prove it 'cause it waz all in the past" variety.

(Disclaimer: I'm basing all this only on what I read in wikipedia. If it is wrong on this matter, then apologies in advance.)

122. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #36467 by bouwe on May 1, 2007 at 8:38 am

Interesting to contrast his views with that of his younger brother (also a journalist). Apparently he is a godbeliever who doesn't believe in evolution:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hitchens

Interesting dinner conversations at family gatherings, that is for sure.

Interesting to note his brother's "reasoning" for not believing in evolution: he has fallen for typical creationist claptrap aka "no one was there at the time, so how can you prove it?" mentality. No wonder poor Christopher turned to the bottle, having to put up with crap like that from his little brother-who-turned-Tory. I'd be drinking too!

123. Why the Gods Are Not Winning

Comment #36419 by bouwe on May 1, 2007 at 4:40 am

Reply to----# 9. Comment #36335 by devolved

devolved wrote:

"...the horrors of pre-war Germany and WW2 and the outworking of atheistic ideas of making the world better by eliminating the weaker."

Yeah, that well-documented atheistic urge to kill Jewish people that we all know about. I mean, where else could that hatred come from? lol.

I will assume you are referring to things like eugenics -- but that also has nothing to do with atheism. You can be a god-believer and a eugenicist, or social-darwinist for that matter.

devolved wrote:

"...and the outworking of atheistic ideas of making the world better by eliminating the weaker."

This is not the "outworking of an atheistic idea". Atheism, as newatheist (above) just pointed out, is simply the absence of a belief in a god. In fact, atheism isn't even an "idea". Eugenics is an idea, and a theist may subscribe to it just as an atheist might (or might not!).

The only sense that it is an "atheistic idea" is the sense that it does not have "god" as a part of its consideration at all. And in that absurd sense, everything without god in its consideration (one way or another) is an "atheistic idea". The game of cricket is a set of "atheistic ideas" - are you gonna blame atheists for England's poor showing in the world cup?

(I'm an Aussie, ha ha)

124. The problem with secularism

Comment #36115 by bouwe on April 30, 2007 at 8:10 am

Just reading this old thread and it is quite a hoot. The fact that the thread ends on this unresolved note makes me wonder if it was another hoax on the postmodernists, this time of the theological variant.

Does anybody know if Barry England (aka "dogbreath") got a reply from Mr. Blond? He doesn't leave an email address, so I guess we will never know.

Postmodernist comedy gold. Good fun going through the archives.

125. Pundit Christopher Hitchens picks a fight in book, 'God is Not Great'

Comment #35908 by bouwe on April 29, 2007 at 9:12 am

Watch out Alistar McGrath! Can you hear the rumble of the on-coming avalanche? You are about to be buried in a pile of atheist "screeds" falling off the bookshelf at your local bookstore! Don't worry -- quick! -- open up your own copy of "The Twilight of Atheism" and cower under it as if it were your own little "faith umberella". I'm sure all your strawman-notions of atheism will protect you from the big boulders of reality!!!

While this thread is about Hitchen's book, it is an example of the rise in profile of atheism. And so this is a good a place as any to comment about how absurd it was/is for anybody write a book with THAT title.

I mean, the arrogance and presumption of a Christian to appoint himself as an "expert" on atheism ("I was an atheist myself, when I had a brief teenage hissy fit, so I know all about it") and then to call his tome "The TWILIGHT of Atheism", well....all he proved was just how prone to wishful thinking Christians actually are. One is reminded of a certain quote from Mark Twain concerning rumours of his supposed death being "greatly exaggerrated" - except here we replace the human individual with an idea (not an IDEOLOGY...that would be McGrath's idea - of atheism!!)

Atheists don't write critiques of Christianity and call it "The Twilight of Christianity". We know enough about it to know it ain't going away any time soon. Sure, we're a small minority, but these books -- Hitchens just the latest -- show that WE AREN'T GOING AWAY EITHER and, hell, our numbers might actually be GROWING.

So, thanks Christopher, for your contribution. Now someone get the hardcover and give that McGrath guy a decent wack on the proverbial faith-filled head, for giving his worthless tome that idiotic title, which is looking more idiotic with every new edition of atheist book that comes out. McGrath is like Eric Idle in the "Bring out your dead" skit in "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" : atheists keep popping their heads up saying "I'm not dead yet," and he just pretends that they are, just for his own convenience.

Twilight my arse -- apologies again. I know this thread is supposed to be about Christopher Hitchens. But I'm just wondering if McGrath will have to re-title his book in future editions, with something that reflects reality. Something like: "Atheism: the Second Coming" or "Atheism: I'm not quite dead yet, Alistair!"

Or maybe, best of all, "The TRIUMPH of Atheism".

Ahem.....sorry folks, just letting off steam....back to the subject of Christopher Hitchens....normal service to resume shortly...

126. The God disunion: there is a place for faith in science, insists Winston

Comment #35440 by bouwe on April 27, 2007 at 6:51 am

How the hell does a guy with a godawful furry brown ferret under his nose get a gig presenting tv documentaries?

Well, I guess downunder we have George Negus, he still presents TV with that same furry fungus above the upper lip.

127. Jesus 'Love-Bombs' You

Comment #35055 by bouwe on April 26, 2007 at 5:14 am

This article is incredible (at least to me). It is uncanny, every sentence rings true. I was born and raised in this shit, and he describes it to a tee. If only I had had the benefit of reading it in my teens I would have managed to extricate myself out of there sooner. I needed intellectual ammunition but couldn't get it anywhere.

As a child, I had no choice in the matter as I was "born into it", but witnessed the love bomb and its inevitable emotional shrapnel.

[quote]There were frequent prayers during the seminar I attended for relatives who were "unsaved," those who remained beyond the control of the movement. [/unquote]

(by the way, apologies if the quote/unquote appears in the text, something about my browser/old iMac may not allow it)

Regardless of how it appears, that quote really resonates with me right now. I KNOW they're all PRAYING for my "lost soul"...I am the one that "got away" and didn't EVER fall for the bullshit. Not even when I was an impressionable twelve year old. I still find it hard to believe I come from the same gene pool. I mean, we LOOK related, but I was blessed with a finely-attuned bullshit meter and theirs was non-existent. If it did exist, just re-read the article to learn how it is systematically destroyed.

The process so brilliantly dilineated and described in this article is almost identical in fundy churches in all parts of the world. My experience was in Australia and about 25 years ago. He is describing what is happening in America today. Nothing has changed! "Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and FOREVER"!!!!

If his book is as good as what I've read here, then it will be well worth getting. In fact, I know a few people for whom this article will ring a few church bells in their heads.

This guy has done a great job in this piece.

128. Where Is Atheism When Bad Things Happen?

Comment #33654 by bouwe on April 20, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Comment #33331 by mandrellian

As a fellow Melbournite, I really enjoyed your post.

Also-M

129. Flea Circus!

Comment #33116 by bouwe on April 19, 2007 at 9:16 am

"Spending $200,000 promoting a small essay like Harris's was done because without it, it would not have become a bestseller. " - weefree.

How the hell would you know? You make all sorts of assumptions based on little evidence, but then again, this tendency is to be expected from people who think they know that God exists and that Christianity is the one true faith. (Notice that I haven't made the assumption that you are in fact a Christian, although if I had to take a guess....)

Harris' s FIRST book (or is it Harris' ? The Great Apostrophe Red Herring) was a bestseller. He was pretty much unknown until it came out. When a new writer's first book becomes a bestseller, I would expect that it is normal that his publishers would then spend some money promoting the next book, as there is a good chance that they may have another bestseller. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, and it is probably not an uncommon practice in that business. And so what if it is a short book? Is there some unwritten rule that says your follow-up book has to be a long-winded verbose tome? Is the promotional dollar doled-out on a per-word basis of quantity and not quality?

I wouldn't know whether it would or would not have been a bestseller without $200,000 spent in promotion, but, once again, you seem to be quite sure of yourself in a matter in which it is impossible for either of us to determine.

You ask: "Or are you suggesting that the money was wasted and the book would have been a best seller anyway?"

It could have been a bestseller in any case, but naturally the money wouldn't have been wasted because it no doubt would have boosted sales even further. To what extent, who knows? However, so what? This is normal business practice. What are you implying? That the publishers have a secret agenda to promote atheism? I am sure they would follow the same practice if a Christian Apologist book was a bestseller and then they were about to publish the follow-up. Next you're going to tell me that publishers have an agenda to promote witchcraft because they spend money promoting Harry Potter.

Considering that you don't dispute that Harris is (in your own words) "an excellent writer," all you are saying is that Sam Harris has sold more books than he otherwise would have due to money spent on promotion, but implying that somehow it wouldn't have become a bestseller, when in fact there is no way you could know that.

It seems that you want to believe that it was a bestseller largely due to money spent on promoting it, rather than the (perhaps) unsettling notion that it has genuinely resonated with a lot of people.

To reiterate, you said:

"Give me that kind of promotion and I assure you I could get a book to the top of the best seller list."

No one should take your assurances on anything. However, again, in your own words:

"There are many books that get to the top of the Bestsellerse list which are just trash. "

I still can't work out whether you think Harris is "an excellent writer" or "trash" -- I suspect it is both, as religious types have no problem maintaining self-contradictory notions in their heads.

Our discussion would have been much more fruitful if you had taken the bait and responded to my objection to your other implication that atheism is some sort of "religion". Humpty Dumpty always falls off the wall when he tries to crack that bad egg of an argument. Go ahead, make my day.

130. Flea Circus!

Comment #33042 by bouwe on April 19, 2007 at 3:55 am

"Give me that kind of promotion and I assure you I could get a book to the top of the best seller list." -- sour grapes and arrogance in the same sentence, Weefree. Sam Harris is a best-selling author because he is, quite clearly, an exceptional writer. Even his cast-off blog pieces are incredibly lucid and eloquently to-the-point, unlike your meandering diatribe.

In your upside-down world, you seem to think that not having a belief in a bunch of stuff, and giving reasons as to why one doesn't, can be called a type of "religion". Thanks, Humpty Dumpty...and not collecting stamps is a kind of hobby.

131. Atheism isn't the final word

Comment #32798 by bouwe on April 18, 2007 at 9:10 am

What would a world without God look like?

Um...like the one we are living in...one with excessive sufferring, survival of the fittest and Tsunamis and the holocaust. A world where a Sydney funnel web spider can kill a child playing in her back yard, yet if it had bit her pet rabbit instead, Mr.Bunny would show no ill-effects whatsoever. Remembering, as well, that the spider only needs a toxin to kill INSECTS.

Yeah, we're living in a "fine-tuned universe," Don....fine-tuned for killing little innocent children!!! God's footprints are everywhere, and he is stomping all over us.

A world WITH a god would be....oh, I dunno.... maybe where animals don't have to kill each other (either directly or in competition for resources) in order to survive? (That includes us too, because -- and I know you still haven't come to terms with this, Don -- we are animals too!). Probably a world where you can just walk up to trees and break off some bark and it tastes like flake chocolate, and you can eat as much as you want and not get sick, ie. a world without starvation and malnuitrition. A world where God makes himself known in an unambiguous manner, like maybe "god-was-here" spelt out in our DNA when a scientist looks under the microscope, instead of endless repeats, mistakes, and molecular junk (a gene to grow a TAIL!!!! What's that doing there, Don?) Or...maybe in big neon letters written in the stars at night for everyone to see, so we could all agree that there is a god and which one it is......in other words: NOT THIS WORLD, DON!!!!


Don't get me started on CS Lewis -- is that your great intellectual hero, Don? A guy who wrote CHILDREN'S BOOKS? Fantasies? Hello?

132. Thanks for the Facts. Now Sell Them.

Comment #32218 by bouwe on April 16, 2007 at 8:12 am

Maybe scientists need to learn to play "good cop, bad cop" -- Dawkins and Harris shine the stark headlamp of reason into the squinting eyes of the creationist, threatening to beat him up with atheism: "We got enough on your Friend, this Guy, to put him away for (eternal) LIFE! I mean, this guy has practically confessed. He's already admitted to crimes in the books of Exodus, Samuel, Joshua!!! And the boys from the lab have confimed with DNA evidence that we come from monkeys!"

Then they walk out of the room: "Over to you guys..." an exasperated Dawkins says, throwing his Science Badge on the desk. Then the appeasers tag team take over, take the creationist aside and say "Hey, we believe in God TOO, y'know? You don't want THOSE GUYS to win, do you?"

Maybe that'll work?


Just some light comedy relief for you all. Enjoy the discussions here. Keep it coming.

133. Medical 'Miracles' Not Supported by Evidence

Comment #31763 by bouwe on April 14, 2007 at 6:27 am

I know a person who thinks Jesus healed her of her back complaint many years ago and always cites it as incontrovertible evidence that god is real. Funny thing is, she's still got back complaints and ongoing multiple serious health problems, but that doesn't go against her beliefs...and if I asked her, I'm sure she would still say that "god healed my back" even though she's STILL got back ache!!!

There is no logic to it, some people just believe what they want to believe. "Evidence" is whatever they want to cite to support whatever they want to or already believe, and the vast majority of facts which go against it are conveniently ignored....just put on the horse blinkers and the rose-colored glasses and believe by FAITH in whatever you want to believe and grab the bits of science that might, superficially, seem to support it, cherry pick some facts, make them up -- whatever!! It is all consistent if you ignore all the inconvenient facts that go against it.

It is a big boost to the ego when "god" intervenes in the laws of physics to personally heal you of your ailment. And of course, YOU, must be "special" because someone down the street died of cancer and, even though they were a believer and prayed a lot (along with the local church congregation), they died anyway....but god healed YOU, because you had more faith.

I grew up with all that crap and it makes me sick --- oh, hold on....that must be because I don't have any faith......

134. Coming out as atheist: Noel Gallagher & Gabriel Byrne

Comment #31761 by bouwe on April 14, 2007 at 5:40 am

Comment #31740 by Robert Maynard -- you are entitled to your opinion on XTC, I am happy to say that in matters of art one can have a subjective view and there is no harm done. Interesting that until recently the "you're welcome to your opinion" attitude concerning artistic appreciation seemed to extend to the subject of religion, as if they were somehow in the same category!

No XTC or Oasis fans flying planes into buildings (although the Gallagher boys DID get kicked off a Qantas flight for bad behaviour during a tour downunder!! lol). Hence there is good reason to change the attitude that religious beliefs should be beyond scruitiny (unlike music - who cares if you think XTC are trite, I think they are brilliant and "Dear God" is a pop masterpiece).

The song "Dear God" expresses what a lot of young people are thinking when they first start questioning the existence of god -- the first verse is even sung by a child. It isn't some sort of "last word" in a philosophical argument distilled in a three-and-a-half minute pop song. I think it is just a brilliant distillation of some of the questions one might put to the Sky God, if he weren't imaginary. I think it is brilliant, a pop song accompanyment to TGD...I hope it gets dusted off and put back on the playlists on the radio.

135. Coming out as atheist: Noel Gallagher & Gabriel Byrne

Comment #31760 by bouwe on April 14, 2007 at 5:37 am

Comment #31740 by Robert Maynard -- you are entitled to your opinion on XTC, I am happy to say that in matters of art one can have a subjective view and there is no harm done. Interesting that until recently the "you're welcome to your opinion" attitude concerning artistic appreciation seemed to extend to the subject of religion, as if they were somehow in the same category!

No XTC or Oasis fans flying planes into buildings (although the Gallagher boys DID get kicked off a Qantas flight for bad behaviour during a tour downunder!! lol). Hence there is good reason to change the attitude that religious beliefs should be beyond scruitiny (unlike music - who cares if you think XTC are trite, I think they are brilliant and "Dear God" is a pop masterpiece).

The song "Dear God" expresses what a lot of young people are thinking when they first start questioning the existence of god -- the first verse is even sung by a child. It isn't some sort of "last word" in a philosophical argument distilled in a three-and-a-half minute pop song. I think it is just a brilliant distillation of some of the questions one might put to the Sky God, if he weren't imaginary. I think it is brilliant, a pop song accompanyment to TGD...I hope it gets dusted off and put back on the playlists on the radio.

136. Coming out as atheist: Noel Gallagher & Gabriel Byrne

Comment #31726 by bouwe on April 14, 2007 at 2:40 am

Oh sorry, wrestling match is called off, if Damien Trotter's post is correct. Looks like we're lumped with both of 'em...I agree, any publicity is good publicity, so let's take 'em.

I repeat, all atheists should hear "Dear God" by XTC. I guarantee, you will LOVE it.

137. Coming out as atheist: Noel Gallagher & Gabriel Byrne

Comment #31725 by bouwe on April 14, 2007 at 2:37 am

At least we got the "intellectual" of the group (ie. the lad who wrote der songs'n'stuff). Brother Liam is the real dunderhead, so all we need now is for Gallagher the Younger to declare himself with the theists and we'll have another tabloid spat, with the "smart" one in OUR corner! Sort of like a World Championship Wrestling version of the recent Dawkins v. McGrath "debate" (except maybe Alaistar should be in the ring with Liam!!).

Andy Partridge of the (British) band XTC is the real trail-blazer in this department, he wrote "Dear God" ....anybody who hasn't heard it should really check it out, it packs a mighty punch.

138. Send The God Delusion to your MP

Comment #31488 by bouwe on April 12, 2007 at 11:56 pm

I think Letter to a Christian Nation is a better one to leave in hotel rooms and send to the pollies (for Americans at least). It is SHORTER, and much more likely to be read. Having said that, I am still pleased with anything that increases book sales of both authors, because the more they become mega-sellers, the more the publishing houses will take notice and commission more books of this nature. A snowball effect which will, hopefully, lead to a new sub-section in bookstores, right NEXT to "religion", say a "freethought" section. I would love to see a Freethought section in public libraries, where they carry literature all the way from Ingersoll to Dawkins. Atheists (and others who wish to be defined differently -- wimps, lol) becoming more organized and demanding their voice be heard will, I hope, lead to such a thing in the future.

THERE SHOULD BE MORE FREETHOUGHT LITERATURE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC IN PUBLIC LIBRARIES:

Browsing through public libraries here in Australia, I notice Freethought literature does not have it's own category and, whatever books are in the system which fit that broad definition, are scattered between the science section and the religion section. There are very few, actually. There is so much literature, especially that published by Prometheus Press (just an example), which should have a wider readership, and the first thing is that such literature should be available in public libraries.

I can't find many on the database of my local network of public libraries. TGD is there in multiple copies (as it should be, being a best-seller), Dennett is there, but funnily enough the whole system doesn't even have Harris' "The End of Faith", which was also a big seller. I found Dennett's "Breaking the Spell" under the "Religion" category, which makes sense, but shouldn't it be unde science, as he is asking that religion be studied through the lense of science. Where does the TGD go? Next to all Dawkins' other books, or to the religion section -- I hope it gets placed not with his other books, but categorized under "Religion" so that those who most need to read it will be more likely to come across it.

My concern, however, is that there is a great wealth of freethought literature (the catalogue of Prometheus Books is a good example of a broad range), that should be available in public libraries, beyond just the few best-sellers above. There are so many good freethought books available when I browse through Amazon, for example, but I can't get them at my local library. However, if I want to get some religious gobbledegook or "The Twilight of Atheism" or "Dawkin's World" by McGrath, then no problemo!!

My local library has TWO copies of "Unlocking the Mysteries of Life", that shameless ID propaganda "documentary" (they just ignore the Dover trial, and continue spreading this garbage regardless)....yet "The God Who Wasn't Threre"(for example) is not available.

Local libraries carrying ID propaganda DVDs is no different to Holocaust denial DVDs or little booklets published by the Watchtower JW society all getting shelf-space at the local library. Yet they are carrying this garbage because there is a "demand". If that is their policy, then so be it, but then WE should be demanding that OUR voice be heard and that the antidote to this mind-numbing crap be placed along-side it.

139. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31100 by bouwe on April 11, 2007 at 1:59 am

I think if I had told my mum I was an atheist at that age (and I was), then I would have got a similar reaction. Life would have been hell on earth. If I didn't go to church, I'd be assigned extra tasks, like doing the dishes or something. I wish I had had enough guts to just say "I don't want to go to church anymore," but I couldn't even do that, she would have thrown an on-going hissy fit for six months. Still...I wish I had done it because the hissy fit couldn't have lasted forever and then I would have gotten out of another five years of brain-numbing church and youth group attendance...oh, and let's not forget the youth group camps, which were really an excuse for a weekend of endless brainwashing, speaking in tongues and the casting out of demons. (I don't think Jesus Camp is an exception).

If ever I had even a sniffle, a mild cold, my mum would put her hands on my forehead and start praying before I walked out the door. She'd address SATAN, and say "Satan, you have no right over this child, release this child from your bindings in the name of Jesus. This child is the LORD's. Through the precious blood of Jesus, I REBUKE YOU, Satan..." and then she would start speaking in tongues :"Shanama shinama, shinama shanama" etc, (apparantly, the Holy Spirit only uses words that start with "Sh---" -- I wish I could have just said SH-- as in, as in SHUT THE FUCK UP!!)

I can't imagine what would have happened if I had told her I was an atheist....I still can't to this day...and I am over FORTY....but, as I said in my earlier post, I think she KNOWS I am, at least, agnostic or something.

It think it would be a bit like the account given by Julia Sweeney in her "Letting Go Of God" show, where her parents say something like:

"We knew you didn't believe in God, but did you have to become an atheist? I mean, THAT'S GOING TOO FAR!!!" (that's the gist of the joke, from memory. I'm sure she worded it funnier than that. Trouble is it is not just a joke, but real life, and not just for her or me, but many, many people).

140. Hey Mom, I'm an Atheist

Comment #31097 by bouwe on April 11, 2007 at 1:03 am

Comment #30933 by Mitchie2006

Mitchie, I can identify with your comments. My parents and family know, deep down, that I don't believe in god, but I think it is too painful for them to confront. They know the answer, but they never ask. Problem is, if they don't ask, they never get to know the REASONS...they don't WANT to know, because it would mean that they would have to do some self-examining too, which is unpleasant when you've insulated yourself with a cosy belief system.

When you know how much it would hurt your parents, it is very hard to "come out". My parents are old, what is the point of hurting them? If one is young with a whole life ahead of dealing with one's family, I think it is a different story.

141. Is God poison?

Comment #31068 by bouwe on April 10, 2007 at 9:20 pm

Circumcision, and other mutilations of the genital area....another bizarre conCOCKtian of the religious mind (sorry ;-) ...there has always been a medical case made for it (don't agree), and someone asked why did the Hebrews start doing it? Perhaps sand under the prepuce, getting up their skirts as they wandered through the desert for forty years? That is the first thing that comes to my mind. However, it is an incredibly wide-spread practice amongst ancient cultures. Certain aboriginal tribes here in Australia were doing it (someone correct me if I am wrong here), and they certainly wouldn't have been influenced by semitic traditions! Again, sand getting up the foreskin seems to account for that one also.

Of course, the first thing we can all ask is what sort of a god would ask people to do such bizarre things. But, behind the question is a question for creationists: Did god design the foreskin and then realized he made a mistake and instead of recalling all products back to the manufacturer, he just sent the message out to snip off the foreskin?

By the way, on another matter, Helion has a serious fixation problem about a minor quibble, and wants to use it to bash Dawkins from a new angle. Dawkins has already gone out of his way to clarify that he is not anti-american in general...I mean, GOD, he did it with the FIRST POST at the top of this very thread!! And yet Helion ignores this and goes on with his intermittent diatribe unabated. He fixates on some side issue to distract us from the main issues, it is not the first time someone has posted in these forums and nit-picked on some side issue, distracting us from the salient points of discussion.

142. The Coulter Hoax: How Ann Coulter Exposed the Intelligent Design Movement

Comment #30815 by bouwe on April 10, 2007 at 1:27 am

This article is an absolute bloody ripper! I only hope it could receive a wider readership, getting re-published in some newspapers. Of course, anyone moronic enough to have taken her seriously would not benefit from it. It is WAY over their heads...they are still crawling on the floor, dribbling and eating their play-dough.

143. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30591 by bouwe on April 9, 2007 at 1:28 am

Logicel wrote:

Comments posted here are often written with such clarity fueled by passion and solidarity provided by the knowledge that you are preaching to the choir, that I think that these comments in their original form should be copied and pasted without much editing to provide the pow quality that our atheist stance needs to the original sites of the articles allowing comments.

Such comments should be edited for profanity and name-calling. Just do it. After writing your original comment, check to see if the original source of the article allows comments, and than copy and paste. Make our thoughtful comments work harder, give them more exposure. However, don't waste your time posting to fundy sites, they will just censor your comment. But for mainstream media, I encourage us to develop the habit of double posting posting.

Hear, hear, I say....as in "Let's post OVER THERE, and not just here, here!"

As you mentioned, there doesn't seem to be a way to post a response in this instance (but, as someone else mentioned, letters to the editor are always possible).

The frightening thing is that the Disco Institute probably are already doing the same thing, and VERY highly organized, and, above all, well funded. I wouldn't be surprised if the troll fund and have their lackeys on retainer.

We atheist cats need to overcome our evolved disinclination to hunt in packs!

144. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30586 by bouwe on April 9, 2007 at 12:57 am

"relinquishing the comfort blanket of his delusion and embracing reality " -- ooh, I like that line, RascoHeldall. Well put.

"....can we not also send our comments as letters to the editors of the papers. I would like to see a concerted campaign that replies publicaly via editorial letters. Otherwise we seem to sit around and wag our finger and preach to the choir." -- a lot of us are starting to say that, Humanist-cop, and you are absolutely right.

The guy says the Discovery Institute is where he "works"....busy setting up double-blind, falsifyable experiments to "prove" the "intelligent design" of the bacterial flagellum, no doubt....NOT! They are paying him to write crap like this and send it off to the Seatte Times!

145. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30576 by bouwe on April 8, 2007 at 9:18 pm

I just want to point out that my aluminium/aloominum isn't a very good example for what I was trying to say . (I just shoot from the hip and post, can't seem to alter or delete for some reason so I'll just try to correct things in this post). Yeah, the "aloominum" thing is just a matter of pronounciation, not MEANING, so it was a VERY lousy attempt to make a point. So please ignore. However, I think my point stands that words are often assigned a different meaning in popular culture and sometimes we are guilty of just using them in the sense that they are used in everyday speech, right or wrong, and that at some point if it is too far gone, the new meaning gets added to the dictionary definition. The point is that people mispronounce ("aloominum") for long enough it becomes accepted, and also I think there is a sense that people have "mislabelled" the slang "schizo" to mean "split personality" to the point where it really shouldn't be unacceptable to use it, with THAT meaning, in context. (Not clinical context, obviously)....phew, what a pedantic point and a distraction.

Once again, let me remind you, the point of this conversation is that God has some psychological issues (eg. father needs to kill son in order to forgive third party, ie. US), however you want to label them!!!!

146. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30575 by bouwe on April 8, 2007 at 8:59 pm

Fortytwo, you are, of course, right about the differences between schizophrenia and multiple personality disorder. The two were conflated for the longest time. So much so that the idea that "schizo" = "split personality disorder" became embedded in popular culture in movies, books, songs. Only in the last twenty-or-so years have psychiatrists actively corrected this view, but I think it was too late. "Schizo" in common parlance is still understood to be shorthand for "multiple personality disorder". Technically, it is wrong. But then again, Americans started saying "aloominum" in stead of "aluminium" and the rest of the english-speaking world said they were technically incorrect but they kept saying "aloominum" so, if I go over there, I WILL SAY "ALOOMINUM" to an american instead of "aluminium" (even though in Australia we say "aluminium") because the point of language is to COMMUNICATE and do it as efficiently as possible. At some point people give up the fight and accepted it. Now you are "saying it wrong" if you go over there and say "aluminium"............I have probably not chosen the best example for what I wanted to say, but the point is, for efficiency of communication I went with the "schizo" in the vernacular sense that people often say it, even though I was technically wrong....I guess I had given up the fight on that one because I wanted to COMMUNICATE, not get bogged down in semantics. So, to get BACK TO THE POINT, yeah, thanks for pointing that out : God isn't "schizo" after all, and it was wrong of me to take liberties with the english language like that (and reinforcing stereotypes - BAD ME). You have refined the discussion so that we now know that God is not "schizo" but he has a (three-way) SPLIT PERSONALITY DISORDER!!!

Is that the best you can do? Nit-pick on the differences between "schizophrenia" and "split personality disorder"? What about the actual discussion at hand? My faux pas is immaterial , surely.

If a believer (I don't know if you are a believer or not), but, if "a" believer read my post as I pulled apart the Doctrine of the Atonement and the only objection is that I MISDIAGNOSED god's MENTAL ILLNESS, then I think that that in itself proves a point, does it not?

147. Crucifixion 'makes God into a psychopath'

Comment #30572 by bouwe on April 8, 2007 at 8:31 pm

Thanks for your post, Agedheretic. It sounds like you were "converted" at some stage and then managed to break free (thank g...er,Zeus? No...thank YOURSELF. Credit to people who think through what they are being asked to believe and don't just accept what they are told).

As I mentioned, I grew up in it: youth group meetings, church twice on sunday (you had to stand up on a concrete floor for about an hour with your hands up in the air, because, you know, godz in da house. Everybody speaking in tongues staring up at the ceiling. I used to sit at the back and stare at the ceiling wondering if "god" or the "holy spirit" had come down and was floating in the air-conditioning ducts, when I was about sevens year old, I hasten to add!)

You wrote that your professor said:
{Most historians today believe that Jesus was in all probability the illegitimate son of a Roman soldier.} My internal response was akin to the modern one of reaching up, pumping one's fist down while shouting YES!!

I don't think that it is as cut and dried as he expressed (maybe Joe and Mary did the nooky before the big day and didn't want to admit it -- that is just as plausible). Of course, anybody copping a hard time in fundyland should just go to the "J" for "Jesus" section in the Encyclopaedia Brittanica and point out some cold hard facts to Mr. and Mrs. Fundy when they come to the door...the take-home message is "We don't have enough information to know".

The rest of my family are still living in Fundyland.

148. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30379 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 11:40 pm

Comment #30347 by Liveliest Crib

Good solid response, Crib. I hope you posted it over at Washington Post as well.

149. Answers To the Atheists

Comment #30373 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 10:37 pm

Answers? What answers? He thinks Novak's article was hard-hitting? It will put you to sleep.
Someone wrote a good critique of the Novak article, unfortunately I deleted he email which contained it and can only go from memory. I think it was a secular humanist magazine that has just come out...anyway he succinctly deals with Novak's points. In the end Novak trots out the old "The Nazis were Atheists" canard, a sure sign of how weak his arguments are that he resorts to outright lies.

It is true that we are preaching to the converted here. We really DO need to double post on the site where the article originated (I haven't done that myself yet, but others here have mentioned that it is a good idea).

The only way to overcome the stereotyping of atheists and the promotion of atheism as some sort of "dogma"; accusing Dawkins of being a "fundamentalist", etc etc. is to post a response at the source of the article every time we see it. However I suggest we (especially ME, for one!) tone it down and do it calmly. One would have to check oneself and remember that you are posting to be read by people who see things very differently. The only way to change things is to do it very incrementally, building a new "zeitgeist" (hope I spelt it correctly!). This technology empowers us to take part in doing exactly what Harris/Dawkins/Dennet are doing, but at the grassroots level.

We shouldn't just get angry when we see our views being misrepresented and stereotyped, or when we see an article where Dawkin's views are being subtly (or blatantly) shifted into some straw man to be picked apart. We should calm down, and calmly respond by pointing out what they have done. (I suspect many articles have been written by people who haven't even read TGD. It often appears that they have just flicked through it and then relied on another reviewer has said, and that reviewer has already misrepresented Dawkin's views and it snowballs from there).

Someone else on this thread already mentioned that posting at the source of the article is the only way to change the misunderstandings moderate (AND fundamentalist) Christians have of how an atheist thinks.

The hardest part is that while fundies are well organized, atheists by their nature don't want to follow the crowd, and it seems to extend to even when the crowd is one that represents your own! Organizing atheist activism, it is like herding cats (thanks to whoever came up with that one...might have even been in TGD)

150. How to defend your faith with an electric wheelchair

Comment #30358 by bouwe on April 7, 2007 at 8:00 pm

A Mormon woman in a wheelchair attacking Xian fundy street preacher? I skimmed the article and that was the gist I got. Sounds like something Larry David would make up for "Curb Your Enthusiasm" lol .