All Comments (45)

Mr. Reynolds has a lot of nerve. He calls today's atheists "intolerant." This is a shameful smear, coming from a man who belongs to a religious movement that gleefully practices bigotry against gays.
Mr. Reynolds, the Nazis of the 1930's and 40's were intolerant. They killed people. Such was also the case with other intolerant groups -- Southern segregationists, Al Qaida. We "new atheists" don't kill people; we leave that to good Christians like George Bush.
Instead, we do something that is far more dangerous to your children's religious faith: We ask them to use reason, and to question authority. If kids listen to these suggestions, then we atheists have the power to reduce religion from its enormous current role in the world to a mere curiosity in human affairs in a single generation. This terrifies you believers, and with good reason; it is a very real threat now that we atheists are speaking out.
This leaves you with two choices: kill us, or vilify us. Now that we live in the youtube age, religious believers cannot afford the negative public relations that killing atheists would engender, so you are left with slander and ostracism as your only weapons. (You can't use reason against us, because you live in a fantasy land ruled by your magical, invisible friend, and you have no evidence of any kind to support your beliefs in the supernatural.)
So, good luck! But be advised that reason is as potent a weapon as the lies and fairy tales in which you believers wallow. You should also be aware that we atheists are waiting with out sharp ideas and pointed words and explosive rhetoric. These weapons do much greater damage to religion than any mere physical arms like knives, guns and bombs. Go ahead and imply that our intolerance for bad reasoning is in any way equivalent to acts of segregating, legally marginalizing, deporting, torturing, raping, and killing people; we will be there to call you on your slander and dishonest methods of persuasion. We rationalists have an enormous advantage over those who promote belief in magic: Magic isn't real -- and reason is enormously powerful.
Be afraid of our words and our critical thinking, for we are coming with these weapons to steal away your children from the fairy tales that you believe.
"Evangelicals are committed to reason," you wrote. I assume that was supposed to be a joke.
You have a magical, invisible friend and fear his magical, invisible enemy. That sounds like the thinking of a four year old child, not like reason at all.

All I can say is, if that's what Evangelicals want to be, great, but there are still attitudes of theirs that need examining, such as their presumption that it's 'intolerance' for people of other beliefs to want the protections our government is meant to provide. Even in the Manifesto, there are casual mischaracterizations of the positions of others, ...still blame for all society's ills... even what Evangelicals have done and tacitly-supported, on people who aren't Evangelical Christians, and a lot of the same stuff we hear from the radical crowd, just said more 'nicely.'

Within the avowed desire to commit to a *civil* public square, more than proclaiming 'We're better,' is necessary.

I really hope Evangelicals among us will live up to some of the ideals stated, but I'm not holding my breath: things don't happen overnight, but the real proof will be in your choices.

Can't argue that holding to, "reason, truth, authenticity, moderation, and charity" isn't a good way to run a railroad. Let's take them one at a time and see if evangelicals actually represent them.

reason - be reasonable. Is $4 going on $5 a gallon gas reasonable? Yall have anything to do with Bush / ""Chaney"" getting elected? Did they pay you yet with tax money for your efforts? Others have been paid millions at taxpayer expense.

truth - that word covers a lot of ground so let's settle on just one acre. Is the Bible God's word? Which God? Could the Bible actually be the word of Devil? Which Devil? Are evangelical ministers leading their flocks to heaven or to hell?

authenticity - for real. Have you bothered to authenticate the Bible or are you assuming it's God's word? Do evangelical ministers teach and preach to the children from the Bible? Is what they tell the impressionable youth the truth or the word of the "other" supernatural being, the one that wanted to be God, the Devil Lucifer Lord of hell? Good or bad idea to check that out?

moderation - all things in moderation except respect. Respect by the train loads but don't squander, (waste) respect on that which is not respectable. Is evangelical respectable or is what you claim to be the truth, the Bible just another, "I spoke to God" hoax? Respect spent on the word of either Devil or Devil's agents is a waste of respect isn't it? Faith in a hoax of one kind or the other is the heart and soul of the confidence scam. Evangelical ministers aren't into raking in the collection by gaining people's confidence claiming they represent God or God's word are they?

charity - is it true evangelical charity begins at home. There was a mega church minister who boasted about his usual, $20,000 Sunday collection and how charitable his ministry was. I didn't get an answer though to a simple question - how much of the twenty grand went to po' folks? What percentage of your take goes to charity? Are evangelicals ministers really charitable or do they just say that? Jesus said, "sell all your earthly possessions and give what you get to the poor." Done that yet? Come around to my house when you have and then I'll know you've got charity.

It seems that the "reasonable" believer is the one that dismisses most of the literal-isms of their respective holy books and use reason and contemplation to arrive at their "reasonable" worldview...just like the non-believer (a.k.a. atheist). All the while massaging and compartmentalizing and warping their concept of God to fit with reality.

Is it not more reasonable to take one step further back and question the value of basing a worldview on discredited, flawed, bronze-age texts?

The problem is that, by respecting the "reasonable" believer's mode of thought means we have to leave the holy books that have been (and always will be) interpreted by the unreasonable to foment hate and intolerance.

I merely ask that one of the gazillion super-natural narratives be demonstrated as something more than mythology so we can have an intelligent conversation...it only seems reasonable.

This is not a *war,* Pierre, ..the problem is people treating it as one.

I mean, I think that's really important, Pierre, and Evangelicals, and all.

Reason and the truth are not arrived at through 'war,' that's why those who want us all to abandon reason for their purposes are so big on war and *calling* things war.

Cause the truth is the *first casualty.*

In the words of a character I like from 'Firefly,' ..

"I start fighting a war, I guarantee you'll see something new."

Now that you mention it, Pierre. Irony of ironies, that character's named Reynolds, too. Not that it really relates. I don't think. :)

This isn't a war. This is a pluralistic country.

I suggest we treat each other as such.

I am pleased to read this clarification of what an ideal Evangelical can and should be. I particularly like the part of the definition stating that "Evangelicals desire charity to govern human relations." We should all strive to operate on this level. The pure love of Christ should govern all our interactions.

The Evangelicals I know personally seem to share the same high moral principles that I do relative to modesty, chastity, honesty and the like. I hope to continue to explore and act on common ground with them on these issues.

Particularly important right now is to do what we can to preserve and protect the importance and role of traditional marriage and the family in society. I hope we can work together on this important matter.

It is difficult at times, though, to communicate when we differ in some respects as to theological understandings. As a believing and active member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I try to make any exchanges in this area kind and fair. I believe with all my heart that Jesus Christ is the God and Savior of this world. We should love one another as he loves us.

My Church takes the position that we should not find fault or attack other religions. I would hope that any Evangelical would be committed to the same. Let us respect each other and our differences. I hope that a new day is dawning in this area.

Phillip C. Smith, Ph.D.

Phil said: "My Church takes the position that we should not find fault or attack other religions."

It seems to me this is the position of "don't show off the obvious fallacies of their religion, so they won't show off the obvious fallacies of my religion."

If you have the "one, true way" to salvation, it would be immoral to not share and debunk the "other" way. If I were standing on a train track and you knew a train was bearing down on me and you had the chance to inform me of that fact; it would be immoral for you to withhold that information.

If you knew the way to salvation was through the Koran and sharia law; you had better be opposed to efforts to do anything else. If you knew the way to salvation was through the bible and J.C.; you had better be opposed to anything contrary to that.

Instead we get this milk-toast, pseudo intellectualism of "as long as they believe SOMEthing, it's all cool." That is intellectually vacant and, in my book, immoral.

Expanding the definition of evangelicals: (new entries found on global Google)

1. "Propheteers" for profit
e.g. "Propheteers" for profit?? Mohammed and Paul

2. Militants with a religious zeal for a cause. e.g. Muslims, Zionists, Sunnis, Shiites, members of the IRA.

3. Militants who erroneously follow the "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of a religion.

e.g. the "fems" of Christianity:

Jesus was an illiterate Jewish peasant/carpenter/simple preacher man who suffered from hallucinations and who has been characterized anywhere from the Messiah from Nazareth to a mythical character from mythical Nazareth to a mamzer from Nazareth (Professor Bruce Chilton, in his book Rabbi Jesus). Analyses of Jesus’ life by many contemporary NT scholars (e.g. Professors Crossan, Borg and Fredriksen, On Faith panelists) via the NT and related documents have concluded that only about 30% of Jesus' sayings and ways noted in the NT were authentic. The rest being embellishments (e.g. miracles)/hallucinations made/had by the NT authors to impress various Christian, Jewish and Pagan sects.

The 30% of the NT that is "authentic Jesus" like everything in life was borrowed/plagiarized and/or improved from those who came before. In Jesus' case, it was the ways and sayings of the Babylonians, Greeks, Persians, Egyptians, Hittites, Canaanites, OT, John the Baptizer and possibly the ways and sayings of traveling Greek Cynics. earlychristianwritings.com/theories.html

For added "pizzazz", Catholic/Christian theologians divided god the singularity into three persons and invented atonement as an added guilt trip for the "pew people" to go along with this trinity of overseers. By doing so, they made god the padre into god the "filicider".

The muck and stench of Catholicism you ask?

Pedophiliac priests, atonement theology and original sin!!!!

Luther, Calvin, Smith, Henry VIII, Wesley et al, founders of Christian-based religions, also suffered from the belief in/hallucinations of "pretty wingie thingie" visits and "prophecies" for profits analogous to the myths of Catholicism (resurrections, apparitions, ascensions and immaculate conceptions).

The muck and stench of non-Catholic Christian churches you ask?

Adulterous preachers, "propheteering/ profiteering" evangelicals and atonement theology

Expanding the definition of evangelicals: (new entries found on global Google)

1. "Propheteers" for profit

Other "Propheteers" for profit?? Mohammed and Paul

2. Militants with a religious zeal for a cause. e.g. Muslims, Zionists, Sunnis, Shiites, members of the IRA.

3. Militants who erroneously follow the "fems" (flaws, errors, muck and stench) of a religion.

Well bgone lets take it from the top shall we?

Bush Chaney has little or nothing to do with the price of oil. Oil prices are what the are due to two things:

1. An increase in demand world wide for oil especially in India and China who have been doubling their use every year for the last decade.

2. The cast iron refusal of the American left to permit drilling anywhere in the continental US or along it's shore or to permit the building of new refineries.

Truth? Until God changes your heart you wouldn't recognize the truth if it walked up and kissed you on the lips.

Yes, I have bothered. So have countless others. Against them stands the half-witted comments of assorted atheist hard heads who just don't get and in fact can't possibly get it.

Respect? Obviously you haven't a clue. Respect isn't about accepting some one else's view but about accepting their right to hold that view regardless of your opinion of that view.

Charity? My Church builds a habitat house every year or so helps at various soup kitchens and a host of other functions most mainline Protestant Churches do so and frankly name an atheist charity that does something other than promote atheism.

So you are only intolerant if you murder those who annoy you now? Pierre you sound very intolerant to me. But I seriously doubt you've murdered anyone.

By the way thanks for proving Mr. Reynolds case.

GaryD,

I basically agree with much that you say. Defining secularism, however, as a form of atheism and our government as being secular then the charity of the US "secularist/"atheist" taxpayer far exceeds the charity of any religion. Even keeping the crazy Sunnis and Shiites under control in Iraq could in some bizarre way be considered an act of charity.

......"2. The cast iron refusal of the American left to permit drilling anywhere in the continental US or along it's shore or to permit the building of new refineries."

This "American Left" would then have to include Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, who refused to allow drilling offshore because of the drastic impact it would have on Florida's tourism industry.

I swear, nobody makes up stuff like Christians.

http://atheists.more-advanced.com/2008/03/02/pat-condell-interview-new-dvd/

Pierre JC:

You proved Mr. Reynolds post to have substance.

Like The Vatican via the American Catholic Leaderships, that the EVENGELicals of America, via Canterbury et al,

Are Up To No Good, here & Abroad! There is another great Conspiracy (via Satan & his Puppets) and something strange is happening!

This article wasn't the least bit honest.

Wow!

NEWS CORP., NEWSWEEK.WASHiNGTONpost.com , aka WAPO, and GerogeTown & Berkley Center.. & Roman Catholic Church, aka Vatican et al, "Hi-Jacked" and Devilishly , outright (wrongly) stole O.U.R.

"A
..S
...T
....R
.....O
......N
.......O
........M
.........Y

2009
(dot)
ORG"

ECLAT{ARiAN} 'promotion' , a UNESCO United Nations endeavour, on This Blogg and hath Blocked's my Monikor "JO{ZE}{VZ}" & many Key Woerds but

it's O.K. if one goes to 'NEWS CORP.'s so called

http://www.myspace.com/2009yearofastronomy

Wow!

----

Shame Newsweek! "i" & (WE) Caught ye Red Handed!

Wow!

WAPO, aka NEWS CORP. & Crew et al, are a bunch of Low Lifes!

Mr. WATERS! MRS. QUiNN! Mr. Zakaria, et al!

---

Served by JACOB

Please go To:

.J
..O
...Z
....E
.....V
......Z
(dot)
US

Thank-o-Shame!

I know evangelicals very well and intimately. I have never seen an evangelical that's committed to reason, truth, authenticity, moderation and charity.

I have seen evangelicals that lived for more than 20 years in my country without a single convert.

I have seen evangelicals that desperately nodded when the guy they are talking made some crazy-even insulting-comments about Christianity. They don't have the guts to openly express their beliefs, because they fear to push back the person they are talking to. They use sneaky tactics. They just can't afford to be open.

I have seen evangelical churches surfing the internet, sending out letters to every single Christian organisation they find, asking for money.

I have seen people coming to evangelical churches, hoping to get a certificate of baptism, which they hope will help them in getting a visa to the U.S. I have seen the pastor of the church pretend not to be aware of this fact.

I have seen churches so desperate in making converts that they accepted a mentally ill person as member, promoted him as a born again and baptized him. Afterwards, this person created havoc in the church, that they regret so much now.

I have seen converts that deconverted in just a year. I have seen ignorant pastors. Illiterate people in bible studies. I have seen pastors that do this as a profession, and because they couldn't succeed-although they wanted-in any other job.

The evangelicals your2e talking about are living in a world of utopia, a world of dreams!

Torcant
http://criticizingchristians.blogspot.com/

Oh, I forgot to tell...

I have also seen young fellows from the BIOLA University coming to my country, travelling around it, talking nicely to the people, staying in the houses of the members of the small community, and going back, with a persistent smile in their face, pretending that they had sown seeds in the hearts of the people.

Don't believe them. I have never seen such incapable and emtpy people. They can't even heard real sheep!

Dr Reynolds would have done well to consult a dictionary - ANY dictionary - before holding forth on "reason, truth, authenticity, moderation, and charity."

Instead, he takes the path of too many religionists and redefines words to suit his fancy. Ergo, his belief in the supernatural is belief in "a greater reality," an oxymoron of - well - Biblical proportions (ie: there can be no greater or lesser reality. Reality IS.) By "a greater reality," Dr Reynolds actually means "giving fantasy the same standing as reality when contemplating life."

The rest of the article is an exercise in the same lame attempt to stuff the squareness of language into the Xians triangular slot. It doesn't work...and, frankly, it's intellectually ingenuous and insulting to witness.

As an atheist myself, I have to wonder about my fellow atheist who always goes tangent on these religious blogs, why?
The fact is, evangelicals have been more complex in their argumentation for the faith, and those that comment here are probably not following the latest development in the field of epistemology
The empirical atheist cannot account for anything, not even empiricism itself, and for us atheist we have to slow down before we dismiss the new evangelicals because they are beating us in our own game by refuting things like materialism
What do I mean?
http://www.proginosko.com/docs/knowledge_and_theism.html
http://www.teamtruth.com/articles/art_preconditionforempiricism.htm
Have you seen the new works by the gentleman Plantinga on critiquing naturalism and knowledge?
Also, JP MOreland's work on the soul was a superb work in my opinion, and their are serious things that the village atheist needs to read up on, such as myself

LOL! Eben Llamas, even without following your links, I can tell you are not an atheist as claimed. At best it would seem that you are a deist with a poor underderstanding of the meanings of words. More likely, you are a theist, claiming atheism as a front trying to challenge your flawed conception of a non-believer.

Nice job there Mike Burns,
Great fallacies you commit, don't be so dogmatic, you don't know me.
Please read some more, know that the best articulation of atheism's attack is not superficial argument like the one you gave to me and not the books by your boy Christopher Hitchens that you like.

If you don't like the generalization of you, and precieve it might not be accurate, don't do it to me to there. Its people like you that makes religious people get turned off to what I have to say.

Dogmatic!?! How so. I as a non-theist finds no evidence for the supernatural at all. I do follow the "latest developments" in epistemology, and it is damning for the theists. What we understand and are learning about the brain and mind quite readily explain 'spiritual' experiences, the 'feeling of knowing' (aka Truth) and much more. (read the book "On Being Certain" by Robert Burton or read my review at http://fvthinker.blogspot.com/2008/03/book-review-on-being-certain-believing.html)

All things considered, the human mind cannot be trusted the way people would like to believe. But the empiricist at least takes stock in the best tool we have to get around the limitations of our mind. (peer review, repeatable quantifiable tests, etc) When you turn empiricism on the question of God, God lays a big fat egg!

If our untrustworthy minds are to come up with answers to big questions, empiricism kicks butt compared to supernatural concoctions.

Going further; We have people (U.S. Presidents even!) that feel non-believers should not be considered patriots or citizens. We have Supreme Court justices that argue that ONLY monotheists have anything to say about the role of religion in government! I would like to hear the reaction if that president (Bush Sr.) were to say that African-Americans should not be considered patriots and citizens. I feel perfectly justified in being indignant and royally cheesed off! There is nothing that compels me to "talk nice" about such primitive and offensive mindsets...or the "reasonable" theists that protect the unreasonable by demanding respect for their mythologies.

To Burns,
Its dangerous atheist like you that is a danger to others with your intolerance. It mask your atheistic religiousness. I'm not one who is a religious atheist like you.
What believers feel that nonbelievers should not be considered patriots or citizens? You mentioned the president, please prove it from sources that are reliable. I think you are as irrational as those 9-11 conspiracy people. And full of yourself. I have never seen any evidence for what you are saying about the president. Be rational okay and stop asserting old lines by a few Brights. Let's stop giving our cause a bad name.

George H.W. Bush. August 27th, 1987 news conference. Ohare Airport Chicago Illinois:

"Questioner: Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?

Bush: No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

Justice Antonin Scalia (with Renquist, Thomas, and Kennedy). Dissenting opinion McCreary County Kentucky v. ACLU, June 2005 (a 10 Commandments/courthouse case)

“With respect to public acknowledgment of religious belief, it is entirely clear from our Nation’s historical practices that the Establishment Clause permits this disregard of polytheists and believers in unconcerned deities, just as it permits the disregard of devout atheists.”

Re: the Supreme Court opinion by Scalia, you can find it here:
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/04pdf/03-1693.pdf

As far as the George H.W. Bush quote; I am a little red-faced. I find little corroboration of this quote at an unscheduled press conference at Ohare airport with only print media. Probably the best support that can be given was that his staff, when specifically challenged on the statement, never denied the statement and said that Bush "is not high on atheists". While this is certainly no YouTube video of the actual statement; it is not trivial that neither he nor his staff denied making it.

Mike Burns,
Thank you for trying to prove your point, but I don't think you have been successful to prove your assertion, its as plausible as the theist argument for God's existence.
I"ve started reading the case that you linked, but will continue reading it to find it. I"m not far into it yet, so if you have page numbers, that would be great!
In addition, I looked up your reference to Mr Burton's book and it really was not about epistemology. I just want to encourage fellow atheists to be more more precise.
YOu have a good day.

Eben,
Well I and Merriam-Webster understand epistemology to mean "the study or a theory of the nature and grounds of knowledge especially with reference to its limits and validity."

If you compare our recent, breathtaking insights into neurology and how our brain possesses and manifests 'knowledge' against philosophical discussions of knowledge that the human animal has been having for many millenia; I think it is pretty clear which are the more recent developments. After thousands of years of pondering, I think we can consider the results of that pretty mature.

That said; my citing of research on neurology and its role in 'knowledge' are certainly 'the most recent developments' and are arguably far more important than the latest philosophical discussions on the matter. ...and as I said previously; these developments are damning for those claiming 'theistic knowledge'.

My citation stands.

The Scalia quote is somewhere in the 60's or 70's page range. You can have your Adobe reader search for the work 'atheists' to locate it.

Mike Burns,
I'm afraid that with your way of arguing, it might not be as effective with theists. An example was especially with your appeal to just a general dictionary to qualify R. Burton's work as 'epistemology', when 'epistemology' (the narrow field which concerns about knowledge) is not the theme of the text. There is a difference between neuro-science and epistemology! Look that up in your general dictionary too, if you may. To qualify what I am saying, I am not saying that I don't believe in using the general dictionary, I am just amazed at how you utilize this to attempt to defend this book by Dr. Burton as being about epistemology when it really is something else. This is just sloppy. In case you respond back, I want to make it clear that I understand that there is a relationship between neurological studies and epistemology, but this was not what I was talking about nor related to what I was saying at all, or any of the comments for that manner. Why cite it? Moreover, how does the general thesis of this book somehow interacts with what I am saying? Or the new sophisticated theists? I'm pulling at straws here, wondering.
Again, you have my sympathy being a fellow atheist, but I wonder how you would do with hostile theist opponents, would you be getting shot down by more articulate theists if you think that you can pull a fast one on a fellow atheist online?
Your citation does not stand. I finally did the search on the document for the Scalia quote, and I think you quoted Scalia out of context. By the way, it was not around page 60s-70s page range by the way, but 54. Let's not be sloppy Mike. The reference to monotheists was not about them being the only one who has a role in government. Read it again.
Furthermore, in light of all this, I really doubt Bush really said what you claim he said.

C'mon Eben!

Maybe you can give me a definition of epistemology that that you would like for me to use! Just because the book does not have 'epistemology' in the title means nothing. Dr. Burton's book focuses, quite specifically, on the the primary neurological sensation of "the feeling of knowing" and how the brain/mind "knows" things. If you use the definition from Merriam-Webster; you can't cut much closer to the core. I don't look at symptoms, I look at root causes. I don't give favor to philosophical discussions of knowledge when we have empirical knowledge on the the engine that creates what we perceive as knowledge. The citation of Dr. Burton's book is not sloppy as you claim, but rather a magnitude more precise.

With the unreliable human mind; philosophical discussion cannot conflict with what we 'know' empirically. Hence; claimed knowledge of God must (in this case) not dismiss the evidence that knowledge is a neurological sensation and can be associated with 'facts' both true and untrue.

As far as being more precise in citing the page number of the quote...I suppose I should not assume that everyone knows how to use the 'search' functions to find text on a page. My apologies.

As far as the context of the quote...I don't know what contextual nuance you might put to this. My interpretation is that non-monotheists don't have authority to say anything about religious displays on 'public' (read as 'taxpayer-owned') properties. Maybe you read it differently. The natural extension is that monotheists can determine if our government buildings have religious references and the rest of us can be ignored.

As far as the factuality of the Bush quote...I retract it and shan't cite it as fact again. Thank you for making me research it further. What DOES seem reasonably corroborated, though, is that Bush and his staff were specifically challenged on the alleged statement and it was neither denied nor confirmed. Even if the statement never occurred; it would seem that if Bush thought it offensive, he would deny it. Imagine if he said "I don't think BLACKS should be considered as citizens or patriots". If challenged, he most certainly would deny it (or have to admit his bigotry). I would suggest that it was neither denied or confirmed so that the religious would think he said it and the non-religious wouldn't know. With such a clearly offensive statement, in this case, non-denial is not trivial. I don't think he found the statement offensive...which is troubling enough.

Mike,
In reference to Scalia's quote, it was in the context of his argument that HISTORICALLY there were specific forms of religions (monotheism of some kind were invoked) that have influenced America historically. His whole point was descriptive rather than PRESCRIPTIVE.
I think we will leave it at that, I don't want to discourage you or anyone. We're both atheists and more rational than the theist who have a neurological defect to think that God exists.
Let us keep walking the high road of rationality, and impact the theist around us, whereever we are at.

I would have left at your last comment were it not for your quip: "We're both atheists and more rational than the theist who have a neurological defect to think that God exists."

Neither I, nor any atheist I know (even the strident writers), claim that that theists have a neurological defect. This would be saying that 80% of the earth's population has a neurological defect...and I don't know why you would say it.

You clearly misinterpret my position. I have, not once, eluded to any mental or neurological shortcoming of believers. The human animal seems predisposed to invent gods where empirical knowledge is missing and there will always be those that use gods to fill the gaps in their knowledge. I respect (and would defend) ones right to believe anything that they wanted. My position is simply that public policy should be based on real knowledge as opposed to mythology. None of the gazillion religions have demonstrated they are something more than mythology; hence I speak out for church/state separation.

Again; this shows me that you are not really an atheist as you wouldn't have so grossly misinterpreted my arguments or misundertood the motivation of the vocal non-believer. Instead; it is consistent with the theist that takes any criticism of religion to be a personal attack.

It is not easy to shine the harsh light of reason on a belief system where one might have a great personal investment, but everyone is capable of doing so. It often takes research to discover the natural explanations to seemingly supernatural phenomena (i.e. the diversity and complexity of life). It is hard work, but there is a reason that theism drops as level of education increases.

As opposed to the theist who offers a utopia (albeit after death), the atheist offers nothing but clarity of thought...and one less reason to do bad things. You were circling a truth when you said that atheists "can't account for anything". Where the theist invokes an evidence-devoid god in the face of the unknown, the non-theist keeps looking for the real answer. I am perfectly comfortable with the unknown. I even revel in it. It means inquiry. It means problems to solve. It means deep thought. It means awe and wonder. It means deeply satisfying rewards in their solution. Invoking a god squashes all of that.

Pierre:

You are angry because Christians believe in "fairy tales", but will, with much vitriol, threaten to "steal away their children"? (Your words!)

How enlightened.

Susan,
Pierre's user of "stealing" was used metaphorically. He is merely stating that children, when exposed to reason and evidence, will less likely be taken in by religious indoctrination.

Your literalist interpretation brings up an interesting point, though. Let's say that there was a cult whose followers believed red-headed children were evil and should be ritually killed. What if those followers were teaching their children the same from early childhood? Would you not have a problem with that? Would not your instinct be to get those children out of such a corrosive environment? Do you think the state should intervene?

There are valid arguments on both sides as to whether it is right an proper to take those children for their own protection.

Let's dilute it a little bit and look at "modern" religions (note the quotes). It is arguable that it is damaging to children when supernatural worldviews are foisted upon credulous children...particularly when some of those religions demonize segments of society, subjugate women, and preach intolerance...all on bronze age texts.

I am not stating a position on the matter, merely that there are valid arguments for "stealing" the children on both sides of the matter.

Mike,
You are good at being quick to jump the gun are you?

"Neither I, nor any atheist I know (even the strident writers), claim that that theists have a neurological defect."

I'm beginning to wonder how knowledgeable you are with the atheist community? Are you familiar with the guys from Rational Response Squad and what they have to say? I'm not the only atheist that thinks Christians have a neurological disorder.
Secondly, when did I say that you said it? Your whole entry has been one of saying things I did not say and talking about things I did not talk about. For the record, I believe that theist have a neurological defect, I'm just being consistent but you are not.

"This would be saying that 80% of the earth's population has a neurological defect...and I don't know why you would say it."

So what if it's 80%? That's 80% wrong and with problems. That is not a personal attack, its just what it is although I would not say it outright to a theist in order to have the conversation continued.

"You clearly misinterpret my position. I have, not once, eluded to any mental or neurological shortcoming of believers."

I have not misrepresent your position, please stop misrepresenting me and what I am saying. This is not a hallmark of being rational. I never eluded to you saying that believers have neurological problems. Please make a public retraction of your accusation.

"My position is simply that public policy should be based on real knowledge as opposed to mythology."

This is also my position, but I don't think we were discussing about this as it appears you are prone to making fallacies when you respond. I am questioning your ability to articulate well to the theists of the new evangelical kind. What does this have to do with your proving that the supreme court has members who believe theists should (prescriptively) have the only role in government? I expected that if you were to respond back to my final comment you would interact with what I am saying, not what I am NOT SAYING.

"Again; this shows me that you are not really an atheist as you wouldn't have so grossly misinterpreted my arguments or misundertood the motivation of the vocal non-believer."

Where did I misunderstood the motivation of vocal nonbeliever? Which nonbeliever? YOU? If you think I misrepresented you, I've already responded in the above for this comment.

This assertion cuts your own throat; I could question you as a nonbeliever, given your messy lack of proving things or knowing the subjects you are talking about. let's stop questioning if I have true atheism, I'm use to people in the past questioning my Christianity, and now here I have an atheist questioning my atheism? Unbelievable. It's people like you that makes me concern with the new atheist movement and the BRIGHTS, you are almost a fundamentalists of sorts who somehow think you know me, even though you do not.

"You were circling a truth when you said that atheists "can't account for anything". "
What are you talking about? Show me where I said that, you are putting words into my mouth. Quote me where I said it. Stop saying things in broad stroke, anybody can do that. What you are doing is irrational and is giving the cause of nonbelivers a bad name, and stop shadow boxing and going into weird conspiracy about the Supreme Court and the president too, while you are at it.

Eben,

This is an odd little exchange we are having, is it not? For the purposes of this thread (if it continues) I shall not question your lack of belief again despite any suspicions I might have.

As far as some thinking belief is a defect; you are right…I did speak too broadly. There are actually some people that can consider the normative state to be a defect if it does not jive with their view of things. Since the vast majority of human species has always invented gods for their gaps in knowledge, I would consider it a *characteristic* of humankind (that we are predisposed to create gods) as opposed to a defect. (Just as sloped floors in an old house are a characteristic and not a defect.) This is an important distinction and I do not wish to be interpreted as positing the latter. As far as the Rational Response Squad…they are just kids. While I appreciate their motives and what they do, I don’t look to them for scholarly insights into the matter. If you take the current popular writers (Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins, Dennett, Stenger, et. al.) none of them use such stark terms as “neurological disorder” or “mental defect”. In that pantheon; the worst that is said is that a believer may not have the intellectual capacity and fortitude to recognize the innate credulity of the human mind or may not be able to understand scientific/naturalistic explanations for some things.

You challenge me by claiming never having said that atheists “can’t account for anything.”!?!?! If you are using a PC to view this page (as opposed to a Mac), press Control-F and search for the phrase “for anything” (without quotes). You will find that you said it on May 20th at 9:00pm (go look, I will wait). You said it in the context of citing the “latest development in the field of epistemology”. That evoked an exchange between us on “what is epistemology”. I guess I would like for you to lay it out and tell me just what is the great leap that the “new evangelicals” have made that is so difficult for the non-believer to refute or how they are beating us at our own game.

I have a feeling that I know what you will say and I am tempted to respond proactively…but I don’t want to jump the gun and respond to the wrong thing. I will hold my thoughts until you tell me what that latest development is.

Clarification:
When I said "In that pantheon; the worst that is said is that a believer may not have the intellectual capacity and fortitude to recognize the innate credulity of the human mind or may not be able to understand scientific/naturalistic explanations for some things."

That was to convey that *some portion* of the believing population may not have the sufficient intellect. I (and the authors) believe the the vast majority of believers DO have that intellectual capacity, but may have not been exposed to (or motivated to seek out) that knowledge.

Mike,
Let's not get too much on the table, but riddle me this, what kind of atheist was I talking about that can not account for their epistemology?
Did I say atheist in general or a certain type of atheist with a certain type of epistemology?

Eben,

Ok. The "empirical" atheist...but does ANY atheist claim to account for anything? I am certainly empirical and I certainly can't account for a good many things...and as an empirical person I don't make stuff up to explain what I cannot account for. I don't know that I know ANY atheist that is not empirical to some significant extent.

Riddle me this: What “latest development in the field of epistemology” beats the atheist at their own game?

Mike,
They've been using the criteria of empiricism and self-refuting the empirical atheists with it.

Well, I suppose if one dismisses the empirical method then we are left with the unreliable human brain. Apparently we can dismiss anything from anybody! :-) Oh well....