dagblog - Comments for "Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron give away free copies of Origin of Species"

There is a "science of

goddess over the shoulder — Wed, 25 Nov 2009 01:38:21 +0000

In reply to This is in response to Quinn

There is a "science of mythology" to be read and studied. Were religion nothing but ignorance, why have so many gifted scholars spent lifetimes in pursuit of the universal deep structures within the stories and beliefs?

Awww, c'mon Dad. We were just

quinn esq — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:27:51 +0000

In reply to Stop it, just stop it, you

Awww, c'mon Dad. We were just playn'.

And what about Old Time Hockey? Eddie Shore?

Besides. He started it.

etc.

Stop it, just stop it, you

acanuck — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 19:07:32 +0000

In reply to Amusing that you think I'm

Stop it, just stop it, you two. I swear I'll turn this car around and you'll never get to see the Grand Canyon. Is that what you want? Well, is it?

Amusing that you think I'm

quinn esq — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:56:16 +0000

In reply to This is in response to Quinn

Amusing that you think I'm leading the ad hom attacks. My first comment was about not liking having all religious people lumped in with the freaks. Your first sentence back was about how I was stupid, followed by how you couldn't take me seriously, and concluded with one of those "nobody's making you come here" passive-aggressive things. And all based on how you being too tough to mind giving offense, which is pretty easy to say when it's YOU who's busy calling other people deluded (mentally ill.)

1. Communism & 20th Century History. Apparently, you dislike the fact that the single most explicitly, virulently, anti-religious movement of the last 150 years - Communism - slaughtered millions of own people. It's amusing, almost, how intellectually dishonest this stance is. It's anti-history, anti-fact, anti-science, but it fits your prejudices, so hey! It's ok! Like when you want to claim Obama and MLK... so you pull them toward being atheists. But you don't want the Commies... so you shove them into the religious basket. Just a fabulous exhibition of the tight rationality you atheists utilize, eh?

My thesis was on Marx, I've read everything he and Engels ever wrote, hundreds of commentaries, studied political theory and history for 7 years with some great minds. After that, I lived and worked with people of the organized, lifetime Left in 3 countries for 22 years. Anyway. Based on all that, I really do feel quite secure in stating that you cannot argue, not even for 5 minutes, that somehow Communism, its actions and its leaders exemplify RELIGION rather than atheism. Not in the sense you've spelled it out, where religion is all about belief in that external, supernatural voodoo that has no evidence, right? You just can't argue that they were more religious than atheist. Sorry. So I really will insist that Marx and Engels were quite clear on the topic, as were Stalin and Mao and a whole lot of others, and they were in fact virulent about it. And to argue otherwise - as you did - is actually quite vicious, when you stop and think of the millions (yup, count 'em) of explicitly religious people who were jailed and murdered for their beliefs in those countries.

So I'd just like to say, as someone who's been a member of those Lefty circles pretty solidly for 25 years, and who continues himself to have a lot to say in FAVOUR of Marx and the organized Left, and who understands full well how hard it is to take really shitty behaviour by MY guys onboard - that is, my own political side, the Left, did this - I call bullshit on you. You're being intellectually dishonest. If something's bad, you label it religion. If it's good, then you want it on your team. Now, that may make you feel good, but it's irrational. It is, as you put it, behaving as a child. Refusing to grow up. But DO keep on with your belief in the fabulosity of an atheist unicorn, eh? I'm sure it'll show up.

2. Catholic & Religious Immorality. Apparently the actions of the Catholic church are surprising, as well as morally repugnant and outrageous to you. To me, not so much. Why? Because I was raised Baptist, and we were drilled in what the Catholic hierarchy had done wrong for oh, about 2000 years. We knew about the slaughters, the lies, the wealth, the sexual sickness, you name it. Though I always love it when people wanna preach to the Anabaptist wing of Christianity about the shocking abuses of the Catholic church. Hello?

Considering people like the Baptists fought for decades and lost enormous numbers of people to leave the Catholic Church, and DID actually succeed in dropping some of its most egregious sins (like the buggery thing), while still remaining religious, I'm not sure how Catholic has come to stand in for all religion. In fact... you may want to check out the fundamentals of the Baptists, who believe in the priesthood of all believers, and who have no central church hierarchy, or even really any written creed. Which makes your schtick about moral authority and codes and hierarchy a bit weak. (Note - NOT arguing the Baptists have done remarkably well, just... they're different.)

So then you tell me all about this genius distinction between moral authority and moral actions. Ummmm, DF? You ever read anything by Christians with an IQ above 110? i.e. Are you retarded? Because you'd have to be a moron to not understand that MOST religions and religious people kinda get that difference between moral claims and moral actions. There's been a few debates in the church over a few moral issues, and hypocrisy and such, over the years. Prophet vs Priest, Jesus vs. the Authorities, and so on....

BRIEF MUSICAL INTERLUDE. Just FYI, I fell 1 unit short in my undergrad from having all the classes I'd need to become a United Church minister in Canada. The Uniteds being the most left, liberal, feminist, green, ecumenical, liberation, death of god types imaginable. Eventually I decided not to, left the church, took my other courses - economics and politics - and went to study in England. But which training in ethics/morality, New & Old Testament, etc. etc. is part of the reason I'm pissed at your cartoonings here.

Because truth is, your stuff is actually quite... vicious, DF. Everybody - and everything - bad, ever, is on the other side. While anyone good, you wanna claim (or wipe free of blame.) You know, Hitchens and Dawkins you're setting up as moral individuals? Really? The Commies were religious? Obama isn't? Bush is? And I'm "singularly reactionary to questions of faith?" Gotta say old man, I've dealt with other faiths, Catholics, Muslims, Buddhists, evangelicals and charismatics, and truckloads of atheists (seeing as Western Europe only has about 17 Christians left) --- but it's the first time I've been called that.

Now, as to the priests, why... it raises just such an interesting and particular case, doesn't it? Because there are other circles in society that were really quite keen on assaulting/raping boys. As in... private schools, but also, universities such as Oxford. Amazing thing, how in that protected setting, rafts of men - believers and non - could get away with certain things. Oddly, I happened to be someone who insisted on opening these behaviours up. And getting them stopped. Odd, I say, because I was still quite religious at the time, and you would have thought the atheists - like our beloved Dawkins - might have led an action to protect little boys from being fucked by Dons, but... it seems to have escaped his interest. Maybe he was too busy chasing his own preference. I donno.

So, let's just say I enjoyed your smartass little comment about me being fixated on his sexual habits. DF. I risked an awful lot, and got something stopped. I stepped up. A lot of assholes, religious and atheist both, did nothing. They had their codes, written and non, atheist and theist. But they continued their predations. You owe me an apology on this one, but what the hay.

I'm more pissed though, because there's something wider that taints how you talk. Take my Baptist Ministers growing up. Some were the complete sexist, egotistical, hatred-spewing, homophobic, irrational, science-hating types you'd recognize in a second. But then there were the people who weren't. A Brit who'd worked in the Underground to save Jews from out of Europe. A staggering, shining, example of a human being. Or the two women Ministers I had, that taught me about how religion and science can and should meet, talk, deal with one another. They were opposed, in the most hateful way, by lots of other ministers. But they themselves? Shining. Courageous.

Your prejudices have no room for these people, DF. You either dismiss them, or claim them. Just as with Obama, MLK, Communism, religious scientists etc.

Which leads back around to the way moral claims and moral codes and moral authority sometimes run - in your words - "in concert" with poor moral behaviour. But to state the screamingly obvious, sometimes the codes and the actions MESH, and people do really really well. Sometimes they're courageous and noble and good. They oppose slavery, fight for civil rights, protect the weak. And sometimes, atheists don't. And from the world-historical examples like Pol Pot through to the failure to act of some people at Oxford, life is complex.

Boil it down? Let's make it personal. Your bottomline position is that you, as an atheist, are more likely or better equipped somehow to lead a moral life, than I am. Because the extraordinary claims of religion, and their justification for moral codes, has been made in concert with acts that are decidedly immoral, and this is shown by history - and I'm more tightly wired to religion than you are. Therefore, you're freer, more able to think rationally, more open to realities that go beyond some book, less tied to prejudices and nonsense handed down by authorities. So you'll be more moral. Correct? I doubt you'll want it spelled out quite this bluntly, but if we erase "religious people" and "atheists" and insert our own names, it just makes it easier.

3. Dawkins' & His Selfish Genes. I laid out my problems with him, went back in his history, quoted sections from his key book to show the problem, and you still claim that I argue with no particulars. Frankly, I don't think you have any understanding of what an impact Selfish Gene had, and your comments try to shove the blame over to EO Wilson and others. I don't think you'll admit to this though.

I also gave you direct quotes where he's clearly writing crap that is non-scientific, and you respond by claiming that he's like Gould because they're both scientists and interpreters. Jesus, man. Of course they're both bleeding interpreters, and popularizers, etc etc. The question is, do their writings take liberties by enflaming, by cartooning, by distorting, by pitching for media attention? And on any of those scores, I see absolutely no way Dawkins and Gould are in the same class.

4. Science and/Or Religion. What I was trying to argue from the word go was that the American Left has been so reduced in its intellectual capacity, by only arguing with religious monsters morons fundamentalists and retards, that they've lost any ability to hold discussions with more interesting issues and people. You couldn't have won that case for thoroughly for me if you'd tried.

Do you honestly think I oppose science? Not sure you noted, but I studied biology, genetics, ecology - and loved it. I gave the example of the stars and the neurons to SHOW, deliberately, that the universe is far beyond the abilities of our puny science, and our puny religions. Brian Greene was going through our college at the time, and a friend (though not one I could ever participate in serious scientific discussion with, just to be clear.) But do you honestly think the universe those guys are dealing with is so clear cut and dried as to have no room to even have a sensible discussion? Are you so dim you don't think science and religion hold together quite happily for many intelligent people? Do we need to do that stupid thing by listing scientists who are also religious? Are you really so far out on the atheist freak wing that you refuse to permit the possibility of any such stance? And if I may ask... do you actually know much science, or philosophy or history of science? Because I found the latter two to be incredibly enlightening.

FWIW, I'm with Quinn about

kgb999 — Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:10:15 +0000

In reply to Quinn, whether or not Dawkins

FWIW, I'm with Quinn about Dawkins. That list of publications is pretty light on what I consider real science and heavy on atheist vs. christianist religious sniping. Being an institutionally accepted academic is nowhere near the same thing as being a serious scientist.

IMO, there are two sides to evolution: evolution (small "e") which is the group of legitimate scientific principles extracted from actual contemporary scientific research (heredity, mutation, extinction, adaptation, natural selection, etc). Very few people dispute these principles regardless of religious belief as there is actual science to back it up. Sure there are some, but you have to go to the fringes of religion to find them and then cast those people as "The Christians".

The other side is Evolution (capital "E") which is the religious belief that the principles of "Darwinism" are the sole mechanism by which terrestrial life came to exist and the only factor that impacted the course of life after it's appearance. It is the atheist's equivalent to the 7 days of creation. There simply isn't any science that proves this, yet religious atheists insist that their interpretation be taught in government mandated education as integral to the legitimate scientific observations. People with other beliefs naturally (and correctly) protest the desire to utilize the public school system to indoctrinate children with a religious belief as if it were science. When you strip all the "it's better than any traditional religion's explanation" pontification, the decision to believe evolution-as-sole-mechanism-for-the-existence-of-life as "truth" is a choice of faith not a result of scientific proof.

The way the religious have entertwined their beliefs with the science that used to be attributed to the word "evolution", and the inability for most folks to recognize the dual meaning of the word, lead those who reject the religious aspects to challenge the combined theory ... which also includes the legitimate scientific observations.

For practical purposes, life on earth simply *IS*. Biology is the study of that life in the contemporary. Where it came from is irrelevant to how it works. Mitosis works no differently if someone asserts a cell was created by "God", spontaneously erupted from chemicals in an as-yet-unexplained set of conditions that existed in primordial times, or came into existence when Thor smote the ground with his mighty hammer. The mechanics are science, the narrative beyond what is provable is not. The "danger" from those who challenge religious atheism seems to be a political and social one, not one of human ignorance - evolution is not the only or even the primary line of battle between these opposing sides.

One thing I find very interesting is that as anthropologists and historians who focus on the earth's biological past continue to expand their view, it continues to more closely resemble the basic narrative presented in the Bible for the progression of the appearance of life. I find this to be amazing. How did a tribal society from thousands of years ago manage to so closely describe basic evolution starting at the planetary level? This seems like an amazingly unlikely coincidence ... the sort of thing that an open minded scientific community would want to explore. And then there's the question of the amazing coincidence of DNA which essentially defines all life in a common and compatible operating system of exceptional stability. You can turn on fish genes in a tomato. That's pretty impressive system compatibility for two very different life forms theoretically existing as the result of two very different evolutionary paths. It seems almost impossible unless complex DNA itself was completely done evolving by the time the common ancestor of fish and tomatoes diversified - which doesn't make any sense at all.

Dogma is dogma. It's not the belief in God that makes one dogmatic - it's the unwavering belief that one is right. You may say there's no "God" but have you (or any of today's evolutionists) actually looked for such with an open mind and legitimate scientific rigor? It seems to me much of this is simply about ensuring that those who want approach the issue from an angle of challenging the religious beliefs of establishment science can't get funding or academic support. Pretty much same as it ever was.

My response to your original

DF — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:20:07 +0000

In reply to Bah. I give. Look. The

My response to your original comment is below. Please keep that in mind when you read it.

Above all, I just want to point out that I feel like you're dealing with straw-men here and not the actual arguments that I, or even Dawkins, might be making. I've detailed why I think is so.

And I didn't deal with your point about Dawkins v. Gould by saying that they're both famous. I said they both offer interpretations of the facts of evolution. To behave as if there isn't a huge contigent of scientists that agree with Dawkins' view, to act as if he's out there all alone on this, simply isn't accurate. Gould has his supporters, too, but as a matter of science I think there's honest disagreement over how to interpret these findings. And I even gave an analogy to another field. There's similar debate over the interpretation of quantum mechanics.

I think the Robert Pirig quote that I cite below very well illustrates what is actually meant by atheists in these arguments by "delusion." Perhaps that's offensive to some, but I think it's a perfectly valid question to ask why we put a guy who claims to be Napoleon in a mental institution whereas we're supposed to worship the guy who claims to be God.

This is in response to Quinn

DF — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 20:04:00 +0000

In reply to Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron give away free copies of Origin of Species

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.

Bah. I give. Look. The

quinn esq — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 18:27:53 +0000

In reply to Quinn, perhaps you should

Bah. I give.

Look. The "mentally ill" and "personally harmed as a child" lines were supposed to be a parallel construction to the "deluded" charges, right? To show you how easy these terms insult/irritate. I think my point was proven. No insult actually intended.

Dawkins is a not-nice guy. Offensive and manipulative, but also morally repugnant. I should just leave it there.

I don't think you in any way dealt with my Selfish Gene points by saying Dawkins was famous like Gould. Nor does your response to the MLK and Obama issues work. WERE they religious, or weren't they? And if they WERE, should they be in positions of responsibility? They're mentally ill, so what's the story?

I think aggressive atheists are pathetic, thin, shallow people, who over-rate their intellects. I avoid them like I avoid the uber-religious. Life is big, and we are very small, and know very little. You find the record of religions to be bad over the ages, I'd say atheism's coming out party in the 20th Century to be so blood-soaked that it should perhaps be put down as a failed experiment.

I wrote an alternative response earlier, in which I critiqued your points and called them "dim." My point was that to be called "dim" is less of a personal, moral, insult than "deluded." Because it suggests less personal responsibility. I just really think you should consider whether theses which are worded in such a way as to directly and personally insult people are really needed.

I'm out. Hope y'all are well.

They don't require it, but my

Nebton — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:47:26 +0000

In reply to Hmm. I wasn't aware that he

They don't require it, but my point is that they most definitely do not prevent it.

Hmm. I wasn't aware that he

DF — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 12:40:46 +0000

In reply to The connection to strong

Hmm. I wasn't aware that he identified as a strong atheist, but I suppose the distiniction is somewhat subtle even if the ultimate implications might be more profound. I'm not sure that the views either he or Feynman expressed require strong atheism per se.