I don't normally engage in battles like this, but just briefly...

Why do you all like to argue with retards?

Why do you deal only with the dumbest possible "religious" people all the time?

Why do you find Dawkins a useful ally in this? I wouldn't come within 100 yards of him. This is Mr Sociobiology by the way (asinine from page 1 through to the end), not a serious scientist, and an extraordinarily egotistical and sexist man in the bargain (in my opinion), who is entirely likely to lurch off in any direction on any issue, should it further his own shiny ass' progress through life. My thoughts on him, I would note, being about as relevant as the comments about Kirk whassisname's TV life.

That said, I find it kinda obnoxious - after about the 1001th blog, that all religious people and all human spirituality is stuffed - by you guys - into the same categories as the morons that happen to have infested the TV stations of your particular country. A bit like me taking apart the Khmer Rouge, daily, as the best example of atheists in action.

Ha ha! All religions kills peoples! None of them religious peoples are educated! They just hates and kills a lot, and have stupids in their holy books. After a while, it starts to sound like atheists hee-haw.

And believe me, I really do know WHY you wanna spend time taking these morons apart. Really. Just try and mix it up now and then, eh? And maybe leave the window open that 1/2 inch, you know, systematic doubt, size of the universe and all. Things are big, kids... not all that easy to pin down... and this show has been running a long time. There could be surprises.

This is in response to Quinn above: I'm gonna take this whirlwind of bullshit piece by piece, okay?

First of all, you need to sort out just who in the hell you're at war with, eagle-eye.  Me?  Dawkins?  Liberal blogosphere?  The disembodied voices in your head saying all of the other stuff not said by any party even tangentially related to this discussion?  Can you even hit the broad-side of a barn with that thing?

I fully understand what your little quip was all about.  You obviously didn't get the irony that is making some kind of plea for civil discussion in the midst of slinging a bunch of ad hominem crap.  Someone was saying something about slinging crap earlier.  Oh, yeah, that was you, but I guess you were just doing it in this case to make a point, whereas the people you're attacking were just.. oh shit.  Guess you'll have to let me know what you think the solution to that chicken-ang-egg game is.

The funny thing is that your analogy doesn't even understand what Dawkins, or any of the other "aggressive atheists", are saying.  Since you're fixated on Dawkins, down to his sexual habits apparently, let's start with what he's actually saying in The God Delusion.  His assertion is this: Since there is no evidence for the god that people claim, then we should regard such belief as belief in a personal god, which would in all other circumstances, save for when we label such circumstances with the word "religion", be regarded as a delusional belief.  Pretty simple.  He's essentially developed an argument similar to the observation by Robert Pirsig that "when one person suffers from a delusion it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called religion."  I suppose Pirsig can simply be added to the list of arrogant, aggressive, dim-witted atheists.

This is an argument about the nature of religious belief and our relationship to it in the general.  Your analogy is specific, but more important personal.  It only lives and functions on this level.  Perhaps it would have been better to ask me whether I had been raped by a priest.  After all, that's a story that's been in the headlines so many times that we can all instantly recognize the story arc.  And we might as well revisit this cliche since your whole diatribe contains nothing but rehashed arguments that have been revisted in these debates ad nauseum.

How's that story go again?  Priest abuses children, church covers it up for decades, child grows up, finally comes forward, church floods locality with money and lawyers, arbritration and settlement occur, priest is re-located.  That sounds like proper behavior on the part of the organization claiming to represent God on Earth to me.

What's important here is to note that not I nor Dawkins nor Hitchens nor anyone else that I'm aware of ever makes the claim that being a priest necessarily leads to abusing children, although I'm sure some clever person could perhaps account for the percentages on the basis of the code of behavior that priests are sworn to (insert big, flashing arrows pointing to men trying to live up to vows of chastity here).  However, the church claims moral authority.  Not only that, but it's claimed in such a way as to be the highest moral authority that can possible exist.  Those are two exceedingly bold blaims when made in tandem.

Yet what does it say about this claimed authority when we see the utter hypocrisy, the violation of trust?  There's no one that I know of who claims that only priests rape children.  However, the utter denial of the claim to highest moral authority on the basis of a god that isn't at all evident is due.  Furthermore, that the church has any claim whatsoever to moral authority should be based on, oh I don't know, their fucking actions and not the mandate of some sky-fairy.  You know, sort of like everybody else?

I realize just how radical and offensive and outrageous a notion this must be, that the holy men of the world might have to actually behave in a moral way instead of just claiming ultimate moral authority by fiat and birth-right, to wallow in the soup of moral ambiguity like the rest of us, with no life-preserver from on high.

Then, there's this:

And since I apparently don't bring in enough particulars for you, try
seriously responding to my charge that Dawkins is a popularizing,
egotistical, hack who would say whatever he could in order to get
famous.

Not to put to fine a point on it, but you haven't put forth any particulars that I can see. You want a serious response, but this no serious charge. It's a bunch of ad hominem crap. What exactly am I defending here? This is nothing but pure vitriol. Classically, you haven't refuted one specific point he's made, scientific or otherwise. This deserves no rebuttal. If you have something specific to say, I can tell you what I think.

As for taking a second run at your MLK/Obama appeal to authority (what a double-header!), if you want to know what I think it's this: From what I have read and known of the man, I highly doubt MLK would be as singularly reactionary to questions of faith as you've proven to be. I think he could probably understand that some of what Dawkins, for example, says echoes doubts in faith on the part of Darwin himself. Similarly, you can't convince me that Obama is a true believer in the sense of being so obtuse either. First, I know his family background. Second, I've read his words on the matter. Third, he's the first President to go out of his way to make inclusive statements about non-believers on several occasions. Again, I'll remind you that his mother was one. And you may also be aware that he didn't really join up with religious organizations until he was starting to build his political career.

But let's stipulate that they both were/are/will be true believers. So what? Again, what's at issue here isn't whether someone can be otherwise sane. If you think that's what's being said, then I'd like to know who's saying it. It's not a view I've forwarded. What's important to me about evaluating religious belief in the context of evaluating leadership is this: Religious belief requires a wholly separate epistemology. As a result, it becomes a way to introduce illogical constructs into discussion and decision-making. That's the real trouble if you ask me. Keep in mind, the people who had been running the free world for the previous eight years were of precisely this ilk. How did that work out for you, pal? You think God is on our side in the Middle East?

As for Obama, like I said, I doubt he's really on the order of true believers, but if he was, then I definitely would find that as a reason to question his judgment. In reality, even his espoused views on faith are decidedly moderate and not at all at odds with science and rationality. Oh, and of course you completely avoided my question about what it says
about the control of religion over discourse if we stipulate that Obama is a non-believer, but cannot afford to be honest about this publicly.

It's this simple: Religion and religious belief do not inexorably lead to immoral behavior. Religion does, however, make extraordinary claims to moral authority. Religious belief does require extra-logical constructs and the suspension of disbelief. It must necessarily posit a supernatural world, but it takes these supernatural claims as premises for arguments about what must be done in the real world. And it has been observed that these extraordinary claims, on the order of authority and of justification for moral codes, have been made in concert with acts that are decidely immoral by nearly any measure.

But I guess historical arguments are weak, only to be made by the dim, yes?

Quinn, I figured you for smarter than the old "Communist regime = atheist" yarn. Before I get to that, I did enjoy that you placed Hitler in the list. That's always fun. Of course, Hitler is great fodder for this debate. Believers always claim he was an atheist. This is, of course, easily rebutted by noting his writings, even Mein Kampf itself. However, I like to split the difference just a bit. I like to think of Hitler as being Christian in the finest modern tradition. You know, someone who pays lip service to Christianity because they know how much control that will buy them, while implementing a policy that would break the Christ's heart. Sort of like all the people here in America who busily oppose pretty much every policy initiative you'd like to see pushed through. You know, rank hypocrites who exploit that gaping hole in rational faculties that we call religious belief.

But I guess the real problem with society is a handful of bastard atheists, giving talks on college campuses. Fucking assholes.

As for the communists, I hope you don't honestly expect me to defend them as atheists or their behavior as the actions of atheists. They didn't do what they did in the name of atheism. They did it in the name of totalitarian state. Banning religion was one dimension of the abuse of this power, not the singular focus. No modern atheists that have been the focus of this discussion, not me, not Dawkins, not Hitchens, not Dennett, not Harris, not anyone else that I'm aware of would possibly support such a state. All of these people firmly believe in First Amendment protections, which include the right to believe what you will in a free society.

Furthermore, Hitchens, who has actually been to North Korea, notes just how religious the communist cult of personality truly is. Their president is fifteen years dead, yet he is still their "Great Leader." They effectively pray to and worship him. In fact, he's officially the "Eternal President." Does this honestly sound irreligious to you? The same thing can be said of the other regimes you mention. A rose by any other name would smell as religious.

Finally, I want address this, because it is truly stunning:

The universe we can see is so large that you could take each neuron in each brain of each human being alive today, and place it on its own star. 1
neuron, 1 star. That's how big this show is. On top of that, so to
speak, we may have plenty more dimensions, or more universes, etc.
However. DF and his great and grand bunch of friends have announced
that they've got this all sorted out. Though merely bipeds, lacking
ultraviolet vision, lacking an ability to cure the common cold, unable
to yet travel outside our galaxy, not knowing their own species' family
tree, and not knowing the breeding grounds of the creatures with the
largest brains on our own Earth... still and all, this brill bunch has
sorted out the deepest mystery on Earth. They've looked, thought about
it, and there is no God.

So, your response to people who are essentially saying that there isn't any evidence for a supernatural creator entity and that we should instead focus on science and rationality (amazing that this view is controversial still, centuries after the Enlightenment) is to point to scientific facts? Are you daft, man? You wouldn't have that nice little tidbit about neurons-are-to-stars-as-the-brain-is-to-the-universe without science, my friend. You do grasp that, don't you? When have you heard any scientist say that they have it all figured out? When have you heard me say that? Who exactly do you perceive yourself to be arguing with here?

Your rebuttal is that the dumb science-inclined bipeds might have something to learn from the dumb fairy-believing bipeds? The ones who were wrong about absolutely every scientific fact you just mentioned? And your evidence for this is the scientific knowledge that was attained not at the behest of the fairy-believers, but absolutely in spite of them, sometimes at a great personal cost to those who disobeyed their dictate? Pardon my blasphemy, but Jesus Christ. You want to rail against lame historical arguments and offer this?

Religion makes an extraordinary claim. For every other such claim, extraordinary evidence is required. In this case, there's essentially no evidence. Your response to this is, predictably, to behave as if science and rationa thinkers are making claims that they simply don't make. The reality is that atheists, at least those of my stripe, are simply saying that they see no more reason to believe in a supernatural creator than they do to believe in a unicorn. Do you spend as much time and energy badgering people as to why they don't take more seriously the possibility, however remote, that unicorns actually exist?

Christmas is coming up. It's a day of two myths. One is for children, the other for adults. The big difference between these two myths is that when children reach a certain age, we tell them that it was just make-believe the whole time. Some children are upset by the revelation that they've been lied to. It's understandable.

Some adults don't get the memo. When people like Dawkins show up with this message, they are understandably upset. You want to act like that's all a matter "offense," like the messenger just didn't massage it right before he broke the bad news. I say bullshit. I think that both they and you are upset because you know that he's probably right. So, you shoot the messenger. It's typical.

There's nothing new or original or refreshing about any of this. All of these arguments are tried and tired. And for all of the pleading here, you still don't say one thing in favor of religion or religious belief. Hitchens does a quick thought-experiment when he gives talks. He asks the audience first to name one thing that a supposedly religious person has said or done that could not have been said or done by a non-believer. To my knowledge, no one has ever seriously proposed an answer to his question. Then he asks a second question, which is to name a single act of evil that has been committed by a religious person or in the name of religion. Not suprisingly, the answers abound.

That's what's at issue here. Faith requires the suspension of disbelief, of critical thought. In absolutely no other realm of discussion or understanding is this considered desirable nor is it generally permitted as a mode of thought or argument. At the same time, faith wants to command not just moral authority, but absolute moral authority. Science makes no such claim. Rationality makes no such claim. All of your protestation is simply in the face of demand that religious claims be put on equal footing, judged equally alongside other phenomena. When you consider how much mileage those that command the faithful get out of their current arrangement, it's no wonder that a handful of professors and authors are considered to be so virulent.

But this is nothing new.