I take that as a compliment, as I respect Hitchens as a writer and speaker (though we disagree on some politics). I haven't read any of his work beyond news oriented articles on Slate (and some videos here), though, so I can't say how well we agree on this in particular. In any case, lack of originality is a pretty sad point to make against an argument. I'm fairly sure, for example, that I couldn't make an original case for the Pythagoran theorem - though I could probably submit 10 different proofs, they've all been done (and 100 others).

Your prose was matching his word for word, point for point..particularly about "thought crime". Also with the ridiculous comparisons between scientology and Christianity. It was so egregious that I couldn't help but feel I should just go to youtube and find a Hitchens video and comment there as my reply.

It's a certitude that the biggest mouths against Scientology have an agenda. It comes from a heart polluted by Thetans. Hey, this is fun!

To be fair, I'm sure many critics of Christianity (or Scientology) have some axe to grind, or are angry because the church makes them feel guilty about bad things they've done. That doesn't mean they're wrong. Similarly, most people posting bad reviews of Kias are probably people who had a bad Kia (or auto reviewers, but there aren't a lot of professional reviewers for religion). What you're doing here is an actual ad hominem fallacy (as opposed to the times you call it, when it's just you complaining because someone was mean to you). As with most fallacies, there's a grain of truth - it does make sense here to question arguments from people with a bone to pick. But you still question their points, not their backgrounds.

It's not the church that is making someone feel guilty, it's their own God given conscience that does so. People don't come to believe in Christ because they were guilted into doing so; that in itself is a ridiculous premise. People come to Christ in part because of personal conviction from their own conscience; they already knew they were guilty. They realize that it is not just other people they have offended but God Himself, and without a mediator they have no hope of standing on their own merits.

Yes, I know what you're implying, since you already shared your history with me. It's true many previous believers strike out in anger because they feel wronged for being indoctrinated. In your case, it's probably justifiable. However, it goes much farther than that. This kind of person tends to get disillusioned and emboldened, and goes to the other extreme, feeling cocky and self assured because they now perceive themselves as being elevated and enlightened over anyone who believes.

2 Peter 2:20-22

For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world by the knowledge of the Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and are overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would be better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than having known it, to turn away from the holy commandment handed on to them. It has happened to them according to the true proverb, “A DOG RETURNS TO ITS OWN VOMIT,” and, “A sow, after washing, returns to wallowing in the mire.”

These sorts of people usually become worse sinners than anyone else because they feel above Gods laws. They treasure this new found "freedom" and don't want to give it up in their self righteouness. What they perceive as freedom from the law is really mental and emotional derangement from sin. So in the same manner they still hate Gods authority because they prefer their sins.

Mr. Hubbard, obviously. It is a certainty that Dianetics perfectly describes the human condition. If you disagree, it's Thetans. Maybe I'll shorten that to IYDIT.

But yeah, people are bad. That was one of my premises, and it's why shame is so effective. Were you agreeing with me as a ploy? You know, make me feel like a moron for being on your side? Or maybe you're being like on Bugs Bunny where he would throw in "Rabbit Season" after a few rounds?

Chewbacca is a wookie from the planet Kashyyk. He has soft brown hair and talks with kind of like a growling, elk-call sound. IYDIT.

Your entire premise here is a fallacy. You are falsely equivilcating Christianity to Scientology, and then using attacks upon your Scientology strawman (which are easily refuted) to try to knock it down. Scientology was a story authored by a science fiction writer trying to deify himself.

"The way to make a million dollars is to start a religion."

L. Ron Hubbard

Dude, when I disagree with Scientology, it doesn't matter that L. Ron Hubbard really existed. Similarly, most people are happy to believe that there was a guy name Jesus who preached at that time. Also, this is a fantastically stupid point to bring up. With Jesus or Hubbard, the question isn't whether they existed, it's whether what they said was true (and, to a lesser extent, whether they or their celebrity endorsers could perform miracles).

And no, Christianity isn't a conspiracy to control people. Usually. The fact that it works like this isn't by design, it's by evolution. The churches and denominations that survive are the ones that approach things in a certain way. The people who try to be non-judgmental, independent followers of Christ? They're cool, but their churches don't last or franchise out. The ones that survive and flourish (like Scientology) in modern times tend to work this way.

Further in the past, they had more strategies available, like just killing people who didn't believe - now they have to be a bit more subtle.

What's completely stupid here is your chain of reasoning. Christianity is centered on Christ; whether or not He existed is central. Most of what Christ said centered around His claim to be God, and judge of the entire world. If He didn't exist it isn't true. This is just babble at this point, dude.

Regardless of how people may have abused Christianity in the past does not speak to its truth. If anything it confirms it, as the bible warns countless times of false teachers and prophets who will try to distort the message and use it for gain. The early church flourished under heavy persecution, and Christians were murdered continually for the truth they shared. Do you think the church was so successful in controlling people that they could make them sing praises to Jesus while they were being burned alive? Give me a break.

What you're talking about is the catholic church, and they aren't Christians. They are basically a pagan religion that worships Mary and the Pope. There is a conspiracy in that so called church, a will to power. Among Christians, however, we exist in fellowship. You were part of a church once and you still apparently want to stay that way, so I think you understand about fellowship.

1. The logic is simple; The only true God could be the being that no one else created. If a God was created by something else, then he wouldnt be a God. This points to one true God.

The Universe had an absolute beginning, including all matter energy time and space. Therefore this points to a reality beyond the Universe, a transcendent non physical immaterial reality beyond space and time. This points to a supernatural cause.

How could something come from nothing? Only nothing can come from nothing. Therefore there had always had to have been something for there to be anything. This points to an eternal cause.

The Universe appears to be designed. The are dozens of physical constants which, if altered even slighty, would result in a lifeless Universe.

Two good examples:

Imagine a ruler 14 billion light years wide, which is the length of the Universe. It's divided into one inch increments, which is the range of settings for the strength of gravity. It just happens to be set in just the right place for life. If you move the setting one inch life to any other setting as compared to the length of the ruler, life becomes basically impossible.

The cosmological constant is finetuned to 1:1 with 53 zeros behind it. It has been compared to throwing a dart at the earth from orbit and hitting a bullseyes 1 trillion trillionth of an inch.

Taken together, their level of fine tuning is to a precision of 1 in one hundred million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion. Which is like one atom out of the entire universe.

That's just the periphery of it..

2. Sounds like you were a pretty terrible Christian..you did as you were told and prayed a lot. lol. This a Christian does not make. The total actual knowledge you seem to have about Gods will, or what is in the bible, could probably fit on the head of a pin with room to spare. You ever stop to think that you never saw God because didn't have any real faith to begin with? Sounds like your parents didn't understand their own faith, therefore raised you in ignorance..you became worldly..and tada, you're an atheist. For the record, every ex-christian atheist I meet never knows shit about the bible..they're also usually ex-catholic.

3. It's not really your fault..you're just totally disillusioned. I wasn't raised Christian so I was never disappointed by it. I made an informed decision to become a Christian after God showed me definitively He is the God of the bible. Otherwise I would just be a theist.
Because you used to be a Christian, it's in Gods hands if He wants you back. Nothing I say to you is going to make any difference what so ever. All I can tell you is that I'll pray that God has mercy on you, though with comments like "non-existant facist dictator" I can tell you you aren't helping your case.


>> ^MaxWilder:
1. You have "stated" that there can be only one God, but you have not put any logic into it. Things are created by individuals, by teams of individuals, and by natural forces without any outside assistance. There is no reason to believe that the universe could only have been created by a single force, much less a single conscious entity. It is an unknown, and you don't have a shred of evidence or logic to indicate otherwise.
2. As I have already explained here and here, I was raised a Christian. I went to church. I did as I was told. I prayed for strength and guidance. And when my natural curiosity began to reveal the flaws in Christianity and the Bible, I prayed about it quite a bit. Over the course of many years. I got no response. God never revealed himself to me. So you can shove that "God will reveal Himself to you if you seek Him out" crap. It simply isn't true. You may think that God has revealed himself to you, but as far as I know that was a total hallucination brought on by some sort of temporary brain trauma. Unless the same thing happens to me, there is absolutely no reason for me to trust your word on the matter.
3. As far as spirituality in atheists goes, there is a huge spectrum. I can only speak for myself. I often find myself wishing for some sort of insight or revelation about the nature of the universe. But for the most part I am ok with not knowing. I understand that nobody really knows, and that comforts me a little. I still hope that there is something more to life after we die, but there's no way of knowing until after it's over, and I'm not going to waste my life hoping that there's something better afterward. So yeah, occasionally I still find myself in a "prayer-like" moment, hoping that there is some force out there that may help me solve a problem I'm facing. Then I get over it and start working on the task myself. Even if there was some sort of "miracle" that fixed what I was thinking about, that wouldn't mean it was Jesus! Again, there would still be no link between what I experience and the Bible, unless like you I had a hallucination about Jesus revealing the secrets behind the curtain. Heck, even if that happened I'd probably assume I had a brain injury and go see a doctor about it as soon as possible.
By the way, your little jabs like "It's obvious you don't really know anything about the bible, or even comparative religion." and "your viewpoint is not very sophisticated" are called Ad Hominem attacks. They fail to make any point. I know I occasionally will throw in an insult when I'm feeling weak, so I don't take it personally. Just be clear that you are dodging my points without answering them whenever you dismiss them like that. To quote you, "you're just making yourself look foolish", "childish at best", and "not very sophisticated". Sheesh, this coming from a guy who seriously thinks satanists on a website are throwing spells around. Holy crap. Keep it up man, you are making my case for me.

Do you have an actual argument, or what? Creation could ultimately only come from a single source; it makes logical sense there is only one God. A true God is a being whom was not created by anyone else, for which whom no one is a God to Him. Humanity has worshipped many Gods, but it doesn't mean there isn't one God. Humanity has worshipped, the sun, the earth, clay, stone, wood, themselves, money, power, sex..there are a million different things that are a god to people. Still has no bearing on the argument there is only one God. And if there is, then you will answer to Him one day.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
I think it's an apt comparison. There's spmething in her sneering commentary that reminds me of her. This isn't a girl who is disillusioned about the bible, this is someone who hates God. For all you idiots know she could be a satanist. There are quite a few satanists who put out this kind of commentary to smear God, knowing full well He exists..but just playing to the religious beliefs of secular humanists.
Hell is for sinners who won't turn from their sins. You don't seem to care where you're going so I don't why you are acting so outraged. You don't want to spend an eternity with God; He'd be giving you what you want..eternal seperation from Him. And when it does happen you won't be able to act surprised or claim no one tried to warn you either.

I also hate Zeus. And Shiva. And Woden. Oh, no wait, I don't hate them, because I don't believe in them. If, however, there were Woden worshippers who kept getting in my face about how I couldn't go to Valhalla unless I did as I was told, I might start getting a little pissed at them. Not their god. But how could I fail to believe in him? I mean, we named a day of the week after the guy!
How can you deny that Woden exists, Shiny! Do you skip directly from Tuesday to Thursday? You're just a Woden hater! Come back to Woden before it is too late! You can still have a seat in Valhalla! If you don't, then when you die you will be left out to shiver in the cold before the gates, never to be warm and welcomed! And you will have nobody to blame because you have been warned!
“Wôld, Wôld, Wôld”!
Heaven’s giant knows what happens,
Looking down from heaven,
Providing full jugs and sheaves.
Many a plant grows in the woods.
He is not born and grows not old.
“Wôld, Wôld, Wôld”!

>> ^shinyblurry:

I think it's an apt comparison. There's spmething in her sneering commentary that reminds me of her. This isn't a girl who is disillusioned about the bible, this is someone who hates God. For all you idiots know she could be a satanist. There are quite a few satanists who put out this kind of commentary to smear God, knowing full well He exists..but just playing to the religious beliefs of secular humanists.
Hell is for sinners who won't turn from their sins. You don't seem to care where you're going so I don't why you are acting so outraged. You don't want to spend an eternity with God; He'd be giving you what you want..eternal seperation from Him. And when it does happen you won't be able to act surprised or claim no one tried to warn you either.


I also hate Zeus. And Shiva. And Woden. Oh, no wait, I don't hate them, because I don't believe in them. If, however, there were Woden worshippers who kept getting in my face about how I couldn't go to Valhalla unless I did as I was told, I might start getting a little pissed at them. Not their god. But how could I fail to believe in him? I mean, we named a day of the week after the guy!

How can you deny that Woden exists, Shiny! Do you skip directly from Tuesday to Thursday? You're just a Woden hater! Come back to Woden before it is too late! You can still have a seat in Valhalla! If you don't, then when you die you will be left out to shiver in the cold before the gates, never to be warm and welcomed! And you will have nobody to blame because you have been warned!

“Wôld, Wôld, Wôld”!
Heaven’s giant knows what happens,
Looking down from heaven,
Providing full jugs and sheaves.
Many a plant grows in the woods.
He is not born and grows not old.
“Wôld, Wôld, Wôld”!

I think it's an apt comparison. There's spmething in her sneering commentary that reminds me of her. This isn't a girl who is disillusioned about the bible, this is someone who hates God. For all you idiots know she could be a satanist. There are quite a few satanists who put out this kind of commentary to smear God, knowing full well He exists..but just playing to the religious beliefs of secular humanists.

Hell is for sinners who won't turn from their sins. You don't seem to care where you're going so I don't why you are acting so outraged. You don't want to spend an eternity with God; He'd be giving you what you want..eternal seperation from Him. And when it does happen you won't be able to act surprised or claim no one tried to warn you either.

>> ^MaxWilder:
>> ^shinyblurry:
>> ^MaxWilder:
Guys, you are talking to a brick wall. If you are enjoying watching the logic bounce off, then by all means continue. Just remember you will never get him to budge an inch, much less change his mind. Remember, in his eyes, this intelligent young woman is "one of the least well adjusted girls I've ever seen". He also has no problem with anyone who doesn't worship his god spending eternity in hell. Because that is what well adjusted means to him.

she's about as well adjusted as gogo from Kill Bill. And you're missing the point, entirely. The only people who go to hell are the ones who deserve to be there. No one is going to be in hell going "hey, you've got the wrong guy!" If you end up there, its entirely your fault, and nothing I can do or say will change that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9iIKn1Bl6c
You are seriously comparing this girl to a raging psychopathic murderer? Because she sees the bible stories for the myths that they are? Man, you are fucked in the head.
And don't mince words about your beliefs about entering heaven. You either get down on your knees and worship the invisible, unprovable fascist dictator, or you spend eternity in hell. Because he loves you, and that's what you deserve even if you lived your entire life as a good, honest, loving, caring, giving person. Well, it's your own fault, right?

>> ^Xax:

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:
Nothing is going to change until we get mad enough and take to the streets to demand real change.

I think you're right. But the scary thing is, I don't see that ever happening... and if it ever did, the government would shut it down with as much force as required.
It's over.


Mebbe they will, mebbe they won't. The armies, the government, the police forces etc, there are people there who would be as disillusioned and disenfranchised as anyone.

All great empires have fallen. From Babylon to Persia to Greece to Rome to the British empire. The cycle shortens each time and the US is already teetering on the edge with it's enormous debt and continued deficit spending. I feel for people like RP who can see clearly what is coming but can do nothing on their own to stop it other than the "cry out in the wilderness".

My God..

I don't even know what to say or think. I remember reading a small article on this very case in the Ottawa Citizen several months ago, I was disappointed, but they didn't really talk of this particular case in detail. I really didn't know what to think. After watching this footage I'm only left disillusioned, disgruntled and utterly speechless.

John T. Williams wasn't a thug or some kind of violent gang member, he was a troubled 50 year old man without a home, whom struggled with horrible bouts of alcoholism. He came from a family of woods carvers, which was just about the last output of livelihood the man could afford. He carried only a pocket-knife, one shorter than the legal limit which he used for carving.

So many of my friends and fellows insist on believing that racism suddenly "disappeared" across Canada and the United States.

They can go ahead and believe whatever the hell they want. Next time I go out drinking with my friends downtown, it sure as hell isn't going to be in Seattle.

Democracy gives a voice to all the citizens, but not control. Democracy simply gives the impression of control to the citizens, that aspect of it is just a facade.

People will eventually become dissatisfied and disillusioned, even if a government fulfills all of their needs. It is just natural.

The value that voting and democracy brings is that it incorporates peaceful means of "revolting", this eliminates the high cost of restructuring that comes after revolutions, as we know them.

@gwiz665 @Lann

Ha, that's funny. I used to think it was a cute cartoon dog that curiously had no face. I thought it was some kind of philosophical sentiment. I'm now disillusioned.

I hate* the 'crats because they aren't left at all. Their constant efforts to triangulate allow conservatives to move the 'center' further and further to the right. There is nothing remotely left wing about the current democratic party. Obama received far more corporate funding than McCain. Do you think Karl Marx would find Obama's healthcare gift to the insurance industry 'socialist' in any way?

I'd be curious to hear you explain why you find FDR's New Deal unconstitutional? Why is it that the New Deal was so much more successful in dealing with depression than current 'free market' deregulatory policies that have not only failed, but made things worse? (Deregulation of the energy sector, financial sector, banks, mortgage industry, derivatives, etc.)

*hate is such a strong word. Let's substitute "exceeding disillusioned".

First of all, the book is being charged because the staff members of NYTimes had to read through piles upon piles of information, sifting through the redundant text and picking out things that are actually worth of note (U.S. Diplomatic cable leak alone were over 250,000 classified cables from various U.S. Embassies).

http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/over_250000_us_diplomatic_documents_released_by_wi.php

And they summarized the information they found into a book, and is charging a service fee for the work they've put in. I have no disillusions about why the book is being charged as it is called a 'service fee' and that's how a free market works, you trade in resource or capital value in exchange for goods and services.

I heard the story on NPR interviewing NYTimes executive editor Bill Keller and he explains the situation a little further than just purely relying on this little video clip for all the information on the matters involved (do some research of your own over this matter. It wouldn't hurt). It seemed that NYTimes as well as other journalistic organizations couldn't really trust this Julian Assange guy, as he acted on this hidden agenda of his own that Assange never fully reveals; an alterior motive separate from fighting against the evils of the world and taking down giant corporations.

http://www.npr.org/2011/02/01/133277509/times-editor-the-impact-of-assange-and-wikileaks

Keller also mentions his doubts against the demand for full disclosure of everything, including exposing his staff writers to the public eye to be hassled and receive death threatened from this numerous yet anonymous people. But that's another issue.

I have my own reasons to be skeptical about Assange's full motives.

http://videosift.com/video/Julian-Assange-helps-a-falling-old-man?loadcomm=1#comment-1135222

And from the looks of it the guys at NYTimes had a reason of their own, whatever it may be and have cut ties with Julian Assange. They suspected something was off with Assange, though they never fully reveal just exactly what it was. But they are a journalistic organization and I'm sure they've had plenty of research done on their part. Anyways that's what Keller suggests in his interview, and that's what most other journalistic organizations are saying as well at this point who has also cut ties with Assange.

Now I highly doubt NYTimes is doing this because they are somehow a part of the media conglomerates trying to undermine the works of Julian Assange. NYTimes may have gotten a bit inattentive over the years and let a few things slip (especially during the Bush years). But that doesn't mean they are ones to shy away from criticizing the wrongs of our society. They've took on Nixon's administration before, they've dealt with Daniel Ellsberg. It's not like this was the first time dealing with a situation like this. So there must have been a pretty damn good reason why such reputable journalistic organizations decided to cut ties with Assange.

We all have our doubts and suspicion. And as I've already mentioned I have my own doubts about this Assange guy. All I can say for now is that Julian Assange is just a human. Of course we shouldn't undermine the fact that he did a very difficult and brave thing as well as muster up quite a resource around him using his skills and talent. But when someone has a motive of their own that does not coincide with what he preaches himself to be, it creates a disconnect from its audience and raises suspicion amongst his partners. If he is working for the good of humanity, why is he censoring himself or trying to manipulate how the story is leaked? Why is he trying to make a career out of whatever that he is doing? If he is really serious about the cause, why won't he just go balls out against the government like Ellsberg did who was very clear about his intent, who gave up his career, his friends and his life, instead of going around the world putting himself on this role of elusive vigilante?

Assange is not this knight in shining armor on a white horse that you guys make him out to be, in my opinion. But perhaps he was just a curious boy who managed to climb up a tall tree and kicked the hornet's nest and watch the shit go down. While the rest of us down on the ground doesn't know exactly why or how it all happened.

Not much of an Olbermann fan these days, but he nailed this one.

Here's an article at The American Prospect, Why Democrats Are Deserting Obama. Here are the opening paragraphs:

Dorothy: You’re a very bad man for pretending to be a wizard. Wizard: No, I’m a good man, just a very bad wizard.

Barack Obama, you might say, is a very good man who is just not turning out to be a very effective president. And he makes a serious misjudgment if he thinks that it is just the liberal base of the party that is disillusioned both with the deal that he cut and with his leadership skills. Centrists like House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer are every bit as dismayed at the agreement Obama made -- a deal that increases the deficit by some $900 billion in a fashion that is both inequitable (too much to the top) and not very efficient as economic stimulus.

It was nothing short of astonishing to see Obama, at his surprise press conference Tuesday, with harsher words for members of his own party than for Republicans. It is the Republicans, after all, who have been blocking his efforts, wall-to-wall, while the liberal Democrats who have been his staunchest if often exasperated supporters.

I still believe Barack Obama is probably a decent man, and I agree with the majority of his political opinions. However, I agree much less with his political actions. He might be the smartest wonk to occupy the Oval Office in decades, but he has no political savvy. On the big issues he almost always blinks first. He never calls the Republicans' bluffs. Let's be frank: he's been at the helm for 2 years now, and his leadership has been weak. And just in the last 24 hours he has caved AGAIN, this time on the Israeli settlement issue. So if he's still wondering why so many Democrats are pissed off at him right now, it's because we have every right to be pissed off. EVERY right.

*quality

@NetRunner, I don't know about it being that easy here in Ohio. My ex and I are on full agreement on everything and the magistrate still sent it into continuance for December. Largely as we were still living together in the same home, though separate rooms for cost reasons, and it keeps the kids close to me... apparently you can be roommates any time in your life except while getting a disillusion. The magistrate also wants us to get one of the $30 consultations with a lawyer to make sure the Shared Parenting Plan is saying what we want it to say. Of course we may have just had a jerk for a magistrate.


Things really depend on their parenting agreement. We really need to see that before we can jump to any conclusions. However, the judge shouldn't have signed the order with the religious references in it, even if he is just signing what the mother's lawyer handed in. It would be nice to get a better follow-up to this story once more details come out.

The tea-party started out as a decent movement. Then all of the private interests saw a way to pay less in taxes. I live in Wisconsin, and I'm terrified that my favorite senator Feingold (who earned my lifetime vote when he alone had the sense to vote against the patriot act) is trailing in the polls to a tea-party business owner who is backed by the Catholic church. The ironic thing to me is that this guy might win on the premise of cutting taxes, and appealing to the religious voters. I relate more to democrats, but don't vote the line. I was disillusioned with Obama after he made it clear he lied about raising the tax on incomes over 250k (most of the reason he had my support, and yes I'm slightly socialist). However I will be truly crushed if a politician who is actually credible loses to a guy because people vote on their religious beliefs, and false promises of tax breaks for the middle class. When really I think it will be aimed more at the upper class. Oh and this video is mostly bullshit. Either party would have probably done just as bad a job in most of these situations. Vote for people not parties.

America should go back to the old system of taxing income of over 2-3 million at 50-80%. That is the only realistic way of recovering the insane amount of money we've spent. If we cut services to do it instead there would be even more problems.

@SDGundamX

I hope I've done the tag properly. I prefer notifications to be set to 'off' because I get enough junkmail from the other bazillion websites I'm registered to as it is, so yeah I don't pay much attention to that stuff.

Anyway, on to your reply!

Speaking of assumptions...

Oh boy! Here we go!

...I’m noticing that you tend to make a lot of them. You assumed, for instance, that I was a Christian. You assumed that I was trying to defend a particular religion or religious practice.

Yes, I did, as I've already admitted. It was a fine display of all the common symptoms of a religious apologist/troll, touting all the usual old and tired canards I've heard repeated ad nauseum; unjustified and arrogantly pronounced assertions with no evidence to ground them to reality, a blatant false equivocation, and flat out wrong characterizations of Hitchens et al's position. I'm genuinely sorry I had you falsely pegged but when it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck...well, y'know. In other words, you probably could have done a better job of elucidating and then justifying your opinion.

You assumed (and continue to assume) that I am calling Hitchens and the rest fundamentalists. I am not. I could not. Atheism by its very definition cannot be “fundamentalist” as this article explains. What I said was:

I find it ironic that those such as Hitchens, Dawkins, and Harris, in their zeal to exterminate religion, have become such zealots unwilling to admit evidence contrary to their position that they now rival the fundamentalists they profess to be fighting against.

Your words are right there above mine. They are zealots that rival the fundamentalists they are opposed to, in their zeal to exterminate (I call bullshit on this, they seek to marginalize it not destroy it) religion. On what planet is this not a false equivocation? On what planet am I to not take you at your word? You still haven't provided evidence for this or the other claim that they even wish to exterminate religion, as well. Because they don't. If you don't stand by your wording then retract it. You really haven't read anything from them other than what you have learned from secondary, tertiary sources, have you?



...that they refuse to revise their absolutist statements about religion being the cause of evil or the spreading hatred even when faced with evidence of religion instead bringing good into the world (on the blog—the story of Hitchens and the taxi driver who went to great lengths to return Hitchens’ lost wallet because the driver’s religion demanded he do so).

This evidence exists in heaps and bounds—I would guess (though I don’t know for sure, granted) in equal amounts to the evidence that religion spreads hatred. Regardless of the amount, in the face of the fact that such evidence exists at all, Hitchens’ previous statement (the one made in this clip about religion being the primary cause of hatred) becomes wholly untenable.


Are you seriously attributing the fact that moral people can exist within the institution of a religion and still be moral, to the religion itself? Could you name a single decent thing a religious person can do that a non-religious person couldn't? What kind of morality do you think preceded the origins of the Muslim cab driver's religion? The exact same morality that has always existed between humans and other humans on some level, that of mutual altruistic behavior, the "golden rule" and that the Abrahamic religion has co-opted into the rest of their vile ideology. You have your causes and effects here reversed, human morality is what it is in spite of religion, and to invoke religion where its not even a necessary requirement is to trivialize the very thing that enabled homo sapiens, as inherently social animals, to get to where we are today in this technological age without destroying ourselves in the process.


In regards to the so-called ad hom: I feel this applies to your post because you appear to be dismissing my argument before even considering it since you start off suspecting I don’t think clearly.

Well, you are wrong. I obviously read your whole reply before I responded. What you feel is irrelevant. Did you just read that one line and then ignore everything else I said? I mentioned the "not thinking clearly thing" purely as an aside, I then went on to address your points. Ad hom doesn't apply, sorry. It would've if that was all I supplied as the basis of my argument; I didn't say "You do not think clearly, therefore you are wrong". Ad hominem isn't what you wish it to be so stop abusing the term.

This brings us back to the Gnu Atheist’s confrontational tactics—in that link you gave me, the writer explicitly endorses being rude. I’m not here to tell you it isn’t a valid tactic—it most certainly is.


Being unflinchingly truthful and not kowtowing to the religious lies/claptrap and ridiculing those whose faith is threatened (who would have no qualms about being as rude and demeaning as possible in telling me so) by my sole existence is rude now. You should tell those uppity gays to be more polite and not stand up for equal treatment, in whatever way they choose as long as its non-violent/within the boundaries of the law, maybe their oppressors would stand down. No, confrontation is the answer if you want to change speak out and "business as usual". I consider lies to be harmful and rude and demeaning to an individual deserving of being treated like an adult in the marketplace of ideas, even the most comfortably benign, fluffy touchie-feelie ones.


I’m here to question it’s efficacy.

It was already pretty clear to me but thanks. It looked to me like you had already decided. You may NOW be appearing to question that, but again, what you may have meant certainly isn't what you wrote and to expect others to be able to know is dickish. I agree it's a good question still but haven't provided evidence to show its efficacy. So let's refrain from the assumptions. All I know is it wasn't some accommodationist, overly polite wank, unwilling to get his hands dirty to enlighten me, that stirred the feelings I've secretly held for so many years about my existence and God, it was someone who was NOT afraid of confrontation in surgically disillusioning my cherished notions of reality, of showing just how ridiculously absurd the whole thing is. It is a matter of ethics to value truth more than(key words) some default arbitrarily designated level of respect.

So, what I was trying to say in my original post is that it annoys me that Hitchens and the rest continue onward with their blanket absolutist statements despite the fact that there exists evidence to the contrary.

Saying religion, of all kinds, is the primary (meaning secondary and tertiary factors also contribute but don't even approach the monopoly religion has on spreading misery, violence, and hatred) isn't really a controversial statement at all to me. History tells us much. Can you think of any other more divisive human social construct that has caused more strife throughout history? Shall we play the game of "add up the bodies"? It boggles the mind to think of where humanity might be right now if not for the Dark Ages.

For instance, just because some people use communism to establish totalitarian regimes, doesn’t make communism evil.

Communism is as much an ideology based on fantasy as religion. In so far as it is not based on evidence and reason and being willfully enforced/propagated, it is harmful.

So, my question for you is, is being rude and disrespectful to people an effective arguing technique? Let’s be clear, I am not saying we need to respect other people’s ideas.


It certainly can be effective. I have no real evidence besides anecdotes and the correlative fact that religious membership levels in the US/Britain have been slowly declining since around the time the Gnu Atheists began to speak out and be more prominently featured in the media/Internets in general. The level of ridicule should be in proportion to the level of bat-shit insanity of the beliefs held. No one is championing a one-size-fits-all approach.

To tie all this together, let’s talk about one last assumption you made. You assumed I didn’t want to reply to your questions because I was trying to dodge the issue. I’d like us to be clear on my true reasons for not replying (so you won’t have to assume anymore).

I (like you, I imagine) happen to be a very busy person. I work full-time and put in a lot of unpaid overtime. I also have a beautiful family and good friends that I want to spend my free time with. This limits the amount of time I can spend on the Internet. So I have to choose when and how to respond to posts wisely.

Fair enough, I wouldn't accuse someone of dodging for being busy. I do not expect replies either, I hold you to nothing except your own words. I accused you of dodging because, when asked, you didn't provide much in the way of evidence to justify your assertions or a flat-out retraction. I could say this in any number of polite ways, you simply didn't.

You, from the very start of your post, set out to pick a fight.

Guilty as charged!

You made completely unfounded assumptions and then attacked an imaginary opponent that you mistook for me.

I made the assumption you were religious and was wrong, the rest still stands. You don't want others to take your word for it? Then add some more words! What you may have "meant" is not what I got pissed off at and responded to, understand this already.

Why should I spend it defending or searching the Internet for proof for an argument I never actually made (the “reality/validity” of Christianity; the fundamentalism of atheists like Hitchens)? Why should I try to reason with someone who from the very outset displays such misguided behavior?

That's my whole point! You shouldn't have said anything at all if you didn't have anything truthful to say in the first place. You really have no fucking clue what you're talking about when you talk about them and you rightly got called on it. I already addressed where I made any assumptions about you, the rest is through your own doing. You have NOT shown that they rival those fundamentalists they oppose, you have NOT shown that they wish to eradicate religion, you haven't even shown how they are zealots. You are being incredibly dishonest to the point of absurdity!


Thanks for reading this to the end. As a footnote, here is a link to a discussion on that web site you gave me that I found very interesting. Most of all, I found JoiletJake’s comments interesting—see posts #139 and #146 in particular, as I believe they are similar to my views on religion.


I've already read them and just re-read. Joilet comes off as incredibly honest, humble considering his position, and its pretty plain to see that the response he got, while initially bumpy, gradually warmed up to him as he elaborated and made it well known he is relying solely on his personal feeling in the matter and not trying to assert an attribution of those feelings onto actual reality. I think its great your attitude aligns with his, it may not be logically consistent but at least it's pretty harmless on the whole. Notice he wasn't tossing out baseless assertions, straw manning, or falsely equivocating.

I'd really enjoy it if you were to paste/copy what you said on Pharyngula and see how different the reaction would be. Such tasty schadenfreude! My guess is you would be entertainingly dismantled, rudely perhaps, but dismantled nonetheless. Welcome to the Internets.

I really have no interest in continuing this conversation, as lovely and downright tedious as it has been. I am done responding the minutiae of your several attempts at special pleading. Think whatever you want about the Gnu Atheists, whatever keeps the cognitive dissonance at bay.