This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← With friends like these: Atheists against the New Atheism

With friends like these: Atheists against the New Atheism - Comments

Chris Roberts's Avatar Comment 1 by Chris Roberts

That was the year when large trade imprints in English-speaking countries began publishing forthright, unashamed attacks on the truth of religious doctrines and the moral pretensions of churches and sects

And that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the whole article, because there is nothing to be ashamed of when questioning religion, and doctrines are not truth.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:22:19 UTC | #620624

jac12358's Avatar Comment 2 by jac12358

No, but it is true. NOW one need not be ashamed, but for whatever reason, there have been periods where it seems the authors - or the buying public - were ashamed or otherwise not interested in making their atheism known. The same holds true for all other labels, like homosexuality. True, one should not be ashamed of that today (though doubtless there still are many who are), but it was not always so. I think that was the point of - at least that sentence - in the article.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:39:07 UTC | #620628

paulmcuk's Avatar Comment 3 by paulmcuk

At the risk of repeating what I've said elsewhere, I feel that the more vociferous form of atheism (or new atheism if you must) was a direct response to the new fundementalism in religion. It's easy to respect the beliefs of others when those beliefs seem to be unthreatening and in slow, steady decline. But the resurgence in fundementalism - which perhaps the "new atheists" saw coming earlier than others among us - meant a rising threat and it had to be challenged loudly. I think those who yearn for the old "respect" agenda haven't woken up to the dangers of keeping silent.

As a side issue, the popularity of books like The God Delusion probably indicates that they're fulfilling a long-existing need rather the being indicative of a sudden explosion in radical atheism. Athesists, especially those surrounded by the religious, were clearly ready for books that represented their own thinking (and provided support and ammunition where required).

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 13:46:09 UTC | #620631

BowDownToGizmo's Avatar Comment 4 by BowDownToGizmo

Comment 1 by Nails :

That was the year when large trade imprints in English-speaking countries began publishing forthright, unashamed attacks on the truth of religious doctrines and the moral pretensions of churches and sects

And that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the whole article, because there is nothing to be ashamed of when questioning religion, and doctrines are not truth.

I think he's making the point that previously it was seen as unacceptable in society to attack religion and so was done very carefully, whereas the new atheism dismisses any need to tread carefully and proceeds with the righteousness inspired by sound reasoning and evidence. He's not saying atheists should be ashamed... It's a really good article, you should try re-reading it.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:24:18 UTC | #620640

designsoda's Avatar Comment 5 by designsoda

Comment 4 by BowDownToGizmo :

Comment 1 by Nails :

That was the year when large trade imprints in English-speaking countries began publishing forthright, unashamed attacks on the truth of religious doctrines and the moral pretensions of churches and sects

And that, in a nutshell, is what is wrong with the whole article, because there is nothing to be ashamed of when questioning religion, and doctrines are not truth.

I think he's making the point that previously it was seen as unacceptable in society to attack religion and so was done very carefully, whereas the new atheism dismisses any need to tread carefully and proceeds with the righteousness inspired by sound reasoning and evidence. He's not saying atheists should be ashamed... It's a really good article, you should try re-reading it.

Or reading it once all the way through.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:38:54 UTC | #620647

JuJu's Avatar Comment 6 by JuJu

This really seems to be a response to the irrational critique of Jerry Coyne"s letter to the NCSE by the Accommodationist like Josh Rosenau, Roger Stanyard and many others. They seem to have a clear misunderstanding of what a disagreement of world views should look like. They seem to think your insulting and attacking someone if you question their beliefs and/or ask for evidence of those beliefs. Then its like pouring salt on the wounds to to explain how irrational their views appear through the lens of science.

I also noticed that the New Accommodationist have reading comprehension issues. Throughout the debates at scienceblogs and WEIT the accomodationist would respond to comments as if they were reading something else entirely, interpreting sentences as if they had some other meaning, a meaning that fit with their straw-man arguments and bias. It was an ongoing theme throughout the dialogue. If you pointed it out to them they would just resort to name calling and other insults. Which seemed ironic to me.

It was kind of interesting to find out that the BCSE is mostly just a one man band fronted by Roger Stanyard trumpeting his own horn.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:45:37 UTC | #620651

pittige 's Avatar Comment 7 by pittige

comment 3 paulmcuk. Yes, correct, that exactly was what i was thinking reading the article. It's always pretty that someone has the same view.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:47:03 UTC | #620652

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 8 by Steve Zara

This has created a backlash. Inevitably, many people are now asking whether religious leaders and organisations really have the authority that they claim, whether their God even exists, whether their holy texts are more than human constructions, and whether their doctrines are credible.

As Cartomancer has pointed out on this site, the answer to those questions is "NO" and has been for a very long time.

If geologists find - as they certainly have - that our planet is four to five billion years old, that renders highly implausible a particular theological approach which, based on a literalist approach to the Bible, claims it was created by God about 6,000 years ago. Less literalist theologies thereby benefit.

But here again, the "God of the gaps" idea was shown to be nonsense long before modern geology.

The question I find very interesting is why theology has survived philosophical attacks that should have killed it off centuries ago.

I disagree with Russell that scientific findings are that effective at dismissing religion anyway - modern science hasn't stopped the Catholic Church from promoting nonsense.

I'm increasingly of the view that the attacks on religion have to be philosophical and ethical - science just isn't doing the job, as it can be too easily "accommodated".

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 14:56:01 UTC | #620655

Michael Gray's Avatar Comment 9 by Michael Gray

"...and as it happens, my views about moral theory are probably closer to those of Ruse than to those of Harris"

I should like to hear an explanation of what I consider to be this aberration in Russell's philosophical outlook.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 15:11:03 UTC | #620659

skiles1's Avatar Comment 10 by skiles1

The argument that New Atheists attack, religion, is confused. It is more appropriate to characterize New Atheists as defending themselves and secularism from religion. Secularism holds the dignity of science and history, but New Atheism is also an organized struggle for equality. At no other time in no other places has such a political movement been possible, but such a movement has always been needed - all the more reason for supporting New Atheism.

As this article mentions the Wall of Separation of Church from State, in America - albeit not exactly by that same description - gender variant peoples are banned from marriage; those convicted of driving drunk are sentenced to ecclesiastical reconditioning by way of AA; some public schools make prayers their mandates; all Americans carry around little green notes in their pockets to be reminded that "In God We Trust" - as money; religious fundamentalism is nationalized in the Pledge of Allegiance; observance of Christian holidays is imposed by the government; religion intrudes upon public school science classes; the Congress commissions religious rituals in the form of daily House and Senate opening ceremonies prayers; and churches receive tax exemptions which nonreligious charities aren't allowed. This is just a shortlist to give one better purchase on the direness of the situation regarding the Establishment Clause; there are more examples of infringement upon the natural rights of unbelievers by religions, albeit such infringement is mostly suffered at the hands of Christians, where America is concerned. Atheists abroad suffer similar abuses.

New Atheism is also a protest against the violence and bigotry resulting directly from prejudices assigned by supposed scriptures, being that such violence affects everyone, no matter our beliefs. So religion makes itself everyone's business. So we make assessments of religion. I wish atheists had a reason to quiet, rather than to question.

If Ruse disagrees with our arguments, then it is Ruse's responsibility to make what he considers to be the right arguments. One shouldn't fear that Evolution will cease to be taught as fact if atheists continue to be outspoken - as Russell Blackford here demonstrates. One should instead make the arguments Blackford made in this article, for instance. Fear, Mister Ruse, is not a part of our mandate.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:10:49 UTC | #620682

phil rimmer's Avatar Comment 11 by phil rimmer

Russell Blackford-

As for Christopher Hitchens, a slightly newer New Atheist, Ruse says that he doesn't read Hitchens because of his support for the war in Iraq.

I thought this most telling. The last thing accommodationists are about is the logic of any one's argument. (I most wanted to read Hitch 22, for instance, because I disagreed over Iraq.) The concerns are almost exclusively emotional. Negative emotions are intuited in others and then taken to infect everything around them with their toxicity. In a sense, aqccommodationists are tone nazis just as we Gnus are truth nazis. They were probably scarred by their parents continual fighting. "Oh why can't everyone just get along!", they wailed.

I'm currently reading Baron Cohen's "Zero Degrees of Empathy", and wondering about the other end of the empathy bell curve (away from the anti-social) and considering the disadvantages of the excessively "pro-social". Without the possibility of a little distance from others, problems become irresolvable I suspect. If tone trumps truth they will never see that in fact their father was a blithering, domineering idiot and their mother at the end of her tether. The only solution in their kit is "getting along" or "don't go near each other", when the most efficacious solution would have been for mum to be in charge of the family finances and dad to just suck up the consequences.

I find it fascinating that those at the anti-social end of the empathy bell curve are more able perhaps to apply evidenced logic to situations and may be the ones more able to solve problems, including social problems. Logic makes emotion tractable at least. At the pro-social end where social niceness triumphs, they have no primary tool to comprehend the anti-social nerd and reptilian politician. It is not their wont to to lay aside the all important emotional ruler and deal with the facts alone. Hyper-pro-socialsim probably demands an utter fairness (equality) of outcomes despite even the wishes of those involved. Utopias, social or heavenly are their dream. A society with its entropy maxed out....

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 16:11:23 UTC | #620683

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 12 by Peter Grant

People who say stupid shit are going to get laughed at, mocked and even ridiculed. They either need to get used to it or stop saying stupid shit.

He complains that Dawkins is "simplistic" in analysing arguments for the existence of God, that Dennett is "naive and simplistic" in analysing the attractions and growth of religion, and that Harris is "crude beyond belief" in his science-based approach to morality.

As for Christopher Hitchens, a slightly newer New Atheist, Ruse says that he doesn't read Hitchens because of his support for the war in Iraq.

The arguments for the existence of God are pretty simple arguments to begin with and the faith of most believers isn't exactly complex. I doubt that Dawkins is aiming his arguments at theologians, most of them are closet atheists already.

Us gnu atheists may occasionally come across as dicks, but this Michael Ruse guy sounds like a real asshole. Therefore, I'm not really interested in his positions on morality.

Comment 9 by Michael Gray

"...and as it happens, my views about moral theory are probably closer to those of Ruse than to those of Harris"

I should like to hear an explanation of what I consider to be this aberration in Russell's philosophical outlook.

Me too, as long as he keeps it short, sweet and to the point. Philosophers like to waffle on almost as much as theologians.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 17:09:01 UTC | #620711

Chris Roberts's Avatar Comment 13 by Chris Roberts

I think he's making the point that previously it was seen as unacceptable in society to attack religion and so was done very carefully, whereas the new atheism dismisses any need to tread carefully and proceeds with the righteousness inspired by sound reasoning and evidence. He's not saying atheists should be ashamed... It's a really good article, you should try re-reading it.

Or reading it once all the way through.

I did read the whole article, albeit rather quickly. This comment stuck in my mind from the off, it appeared to me to be more like a "how dare anyone publically disrespect religion, let alone question its ethical viewpoint or doctrines"

If I have taken this as outright opposition to religious dissenters without foundation, then I will happily take on board your suggestions and re-read the article later tonight.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:27:30 UTC | #620747

Peter Grant's Avatar Comment 14 by Peter Grant

@Nails

Give it another read, it's a good article. Russell Blackford is still cool :D

That Ruse guy sounds like everything that is wrong with philosophy though. He seems to want to take the most fundamental and important truths about reality a bury them under so much obscuring "complexity" and "sophistication" that almost no one will ever find them.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 18:49:50 UTC | #620761

quisquose's Avatar Comment 15 by quisquose

Phil #12

I thought this most telling. The last thing accommodationists are about is the logic of any one's argument. (I most wanted to read Hitch 22, for instance, because I disagreed over Iraq.) The concerns are almost exclusively emotional. Negative emotions are intuited in others and then taken to infect everything around them with their toxicity. In a sense, aqccommodationists are tone nazis just as we Gnus are truth nazis. They were probably scarred by their parents continual fighting. "Oh why can't everyone just get along!", they wailed.

Yes, how telling. It's just like Chris Patten's admission recently when he said "It makes people think I'm peculiar and lack intellectual fibres because I don't have any doubts about my faith, but I'd be terrified to have doubts."

The reason I visit blogs, and engage in debate, is precisely because I want to change my opinion on things. I enjoy the process.

It seems that some people seek knowledge to challenge themselves, whilst some merely seek information to reinforce their beliefs. Now it is proposed that the former should remain silent for some strange reason.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:05:40 UTC | #620773

KenChimp's Avatar Comment 16 by KenChimp

Comment 3 by paulmcuk :

At the risk of repeating what I've said elsewhere, I feel that the more vociferous form of atheism (or new atheism if you must) was a direct response to the new fundementalism in religion. It's easy to respect the beliefs of others when those beliefs seem to be unthreatening and in slow, steady decline. But the resurgence in fundementalism - which perhaps the "new atheists" saw coming earlier than others among us - meant a rising threat and it had to be challenged loudly. I think those who yearn for the old "respect" agenda haven't woken up to the dangers of keeping silent.

As a side issue, the popularity of books like The God Delusion probably indicates that they're fulfilling a long-existing need rather the being indicative of a sudden explosion in radical atheism. Athesists, especially those surrounded by the religious, were clearly ready for books that represented their own thinking (and provided support and ammunition where required).

I wholeheartedly agree. Although I'm far from being a militant atheist in spirit, the rise of BIG THREE literalist fundamentalism has, since the late 1980s when it began to vehemently raise its ugly hydra heads, set me completely on edge. These absurd fascists are the ones who declared war....against reason and science. Reason and science have never been in a direct state of conflict with religion until the rise of the "Moral Majority" back in the late 1980s. When that group found little traction in the political and social fabrics of the U.S., they disbanded their little overt groups and began a systematic campaign of covert war on science and reason and the liberal, pluralistic society science and reason make possible.

Once they assumed they had enough political clout, they once again have taken their war above-ground, and are attempting to shove their stupid beliefs down the throat of every man, woman and child in America. Although I'm reserving my outrage here for what is occurring in my own neck o' th' woods, it is occurring everywhere that Judeo-Christo-Islaam has a presence. As to the other religions? Their adherents haven't declared war on science and reason.

This is exactly why I'm outraged and fearful of the future of my nation specifically, and the future of humanity in general. This is exactly why we need the latent efforts of well educated, rational, anti-theists such as the Four Horsemen.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:05:59 UTC | #620774

chawinwords's Avatar Comment 17 by chawinwords

The foundation for Christian "faith" is a belief in the Holy Bible, which many believers claim is the inerrant, divinely inspired, and literal word of the living God -- which proves one important thing about such believers -- they have never read that book, written by men who actually believed that sticks can turn into snakes or make water turn into blood or that a human body can withstand the bone dissolving hydrochloric acid of a fish's digestive tract for three days -- and on and on. My advice: don't argue with the certifiably insane who sincerely believe in such crap regardless of the natural world reality they deny, and deny, and deny. I actually believe in the old adage, that if you argue with a nut for a long enough period of time, the listening audience can't tell the difference -- or the who is who. Yet, many people encourage the certifiably insane by lining up to give an entertainment measure of sanity credence to the crackpot through pretending serious, rational argument.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 19:50:39 UTC | #620795

BanJoIvie's Avatar Comment 18 by BanJoIvie

Comment 8 by Steve Zara

...I disagree with Russell that scientific findings are that effective at dismissing religion anyway...

I'm not sure that Russell - at list in this article - is arguing for the effectiveness of science against religion. It seems to me that his examples of scientific findings which impact theistic claims are offered here merely to refute the idea that science and religion may be considered in isolation from eachother.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 20:16:32 UTC | #620809

Steve Zara's Avatar Comment 19 by Steve Zara

I'm not sure that Russell - at list in this article - is arguing for the effectiveness of science against religion. It seems to me that his examples of scientific findings which impact theistic claims are offered here merely to refute the idea that science and religion may be considered in isolation from eachother.

That's true. The problem with this position is that it sadly doesn't seem to work. We can keep saying that science and religion can't be considered in isolation, but somehow the message just doesn't seem to be getting across. I have absolutely no idea why.

Fri, 29 Apr 2011 21:49:51 UTC | #620853

Neodarwinian's Avatar Comment 20 by Neodarwinian

I found the leading comment by one " Bart " quite telling. A lot of this; " I am an atheist, but, " stuff going around.

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 00:17:35 UTC | #620902

Red Dog's Avatar Comment 21 by Red Dog

I haven't read the complete article and I probably won't have the time for a while but i wanted to make this comment now while the article is still fresh. From what I read I think the author is really getting to an issue that I agree with. I've been an atheist since I was 12. For me atheism always went along with a world view that valued reason and science. I am constantly disappointed by the comments I see from "new atheists" on various web sites. Now that atheism is cool many adherents display the same mindless hatred as deists. How many times I've seen mindless comments denigrating those who believe in religion as people who believe in "fairy tales" or "the Easter bunny" or just plan are an "ignoramus". To be clear I definitely do not see this in the leaders of the new atheist movement. Dawkins, Dennet, Harris, are always polite and rational. But their followers often seem to be essentially the same as fundamentalist Christians, Birthers, or Tea Baggers.

In my life some of the most thoughtful, passionate, moral, and even sexy people I've known have been religious. To say (as so many of you do) that religion has had no positive impact on the world is equivalent to thumbing your nose at some of the most meaningful art, music, and literature that we as a species have created to date. Tolstoy, Kierkegaard, Dostoevsky, Dante, Milton, Shakespeare, Mahler, Beethoven, Bach, Davinci, ... Just a few names off the top of my head of some of my favorites that can't be appreciated without understanding the Bible. Or when it comes to social activism MLK, Ghandi, Daniel Barrigan, and (a movement I was personally very involved in for a while) CISPES.

If we want to go beyond religion we have to be better. We have to focus on reason and we have to understand that religion had some good things to offer even though the fundamental underpinnings and so much of what was done in the name of religion were wrong.

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 01:35:52 UTC | #620915

TheGallantSkeptic's Avatar Comment 22 by TheGallantSkeptic

I have to say that I find myself arguing with atheists as often I do with religious apologists. There is definitely a sentiment of not wanting to get involved amongst a great number of the atheist population, and I view this as a serious problem. Moreover, this attitude is particularly onerous if one considers the zealotry and passion with which the other side approaches this issue.

Overall, I find this thinking to be extraordinarily selfish and condescending. These secularists seem content to know better than others yet do nothing to enlighten.

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 04:25:26 UTC | #620928

sbooder's Avatar Comment 23 by sbooder

Some people here did not read this article at all beyond the small beginning on this page, go back and click the Read More link and read the rest.

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 07:38:07 UTC | #620942

Jice's Avatar Comment 24 by Jice

Comment 2 by jac12358 :

The same holds true for all other labels, like homosexuality. True, one should not be ashamed of that today (though doubtless there still are many who are), but it was not always so. I think that was the point of - at least that sentence - in the article.

This comment was quite resounding as an example actually. I have no shame in telling anyone I'm an Atheist and I don't belive thier silly ideas. But I rarely tell anyone in real life about being gay.

I'm not ashamed of it persay, but I think some of the reaction of people who gain that information is what I fear about it. With atheisim, there's a explanable rational reason as to why you'd conclude yourself an atheist. But with homosexuality, saying 'I was born like this' doesn't fly with people who still stubournly think it's a choice. They will hate you for no reason, even though being gay causes them no real opposition, where as at least as an athiest I know they only hate me because I oppose something they identifiy themselves with.

Neither should be something to be ashamed about, but to me the fight against irrationality will do more to open peoples minds to accepting people's sexuality, since most the hatred against homosexals is derived from religion.

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 22:49:29 UTC | #621269

xmaseveeve's Avatar Comment 25 by xmaseveeve

What an excellent article; so thoughtful, dignified and restrained. I hadn't heard of Ruse (sounds like 'just a ruse') but his theory was so daft that, champagne nothwithstanding, I took a few moments even to work out what it was. Has scunnerment with Christianity not increased more in the last ten years than at any time in history? This is astonishing to me and smacks of common or garden professional jealousy. How perverse. Silly man.

Comment 6, Juju, What's BCSE? I like your joey. I've got a wee poodle, as in my avatar.

Comment 11, Skiles, 'religion makes itself everyone's business.' What a wonderful line. And damn right.

Comment 12, Phil, '(I most wanted to read Hitch 22, for instance, because I disagreed over Iraq.)'

Exactly. How else are we going to grow? Important point. Ruse is stagnant water.

Comment 12, Phil, 'Negative emotions are intuited in others and then taken to infect everything around them with their toxicity' Brilliant. Reminds me of two quotes (both Lear): 'A brother noble whose nature is so far from doing harms that he suspects none' (Richard Dawkins) and 'Filths savour but themselves'. Ruse seems suspiciously like a very naughty boy. Not reading Hitch. What a philistine.

Sat, 30 Apr 2011 23:06:23 UTC | #621274

turbozed's Avatar Comment 26 by turbozed

Comment 12 by phil rimmer :

Russell Blackford-

As for Christopher Hitchens, a slightly newer New Atheist, Ruse says that he doesn't read Hitchens because of his support for the war in Iraq.

I thought this most telling. The last thing accommodationists are about is the logic of any one's argument. (I most wanted to read Hitch 22, for instance, because I disagreed over Iraq.) The concerns are almost exclusively emotional. Negative emotions are intuited in others and then taken to infect everything around them with their toxicity. In a sense, aqccommodationists are tone nazis just as we Gnus are truth nazis. They were probably scarred by their parents continual fighting. "Oh why can't everyone just get along!", they wailed.

I'm currently reading Baron Cohen's "Zero Degrees of Empathy", and wondering about the other end of the empathy bell curve (away from the anti-social) and considering the disadvantages of the excessively "pro-social". Without the possibility of a little distance from others, problems become irresolvable I suspect. If tone trumps truth they will never see that in fact their father was a blithering, domineering idiot and their mother at the end of her tether. The only solution in their kit is "getting along" or "don't go near each other", when the most efficacious solution would have been for mum to be in charge of the family finances and dad to just suck up the consequences.

I find it fascinating that those at the anti-social end of the empathy bell curve are more able perhaps to apply evidenced logic to situations and may be the ones more able to solve problems, including social problems. Logic makes emotion tractable at least. At the pro-social end where social niceness triumphs, they have no primary tool to comprehend the anti-social nerd and reptilian politician. It is not their wont to to lay aside the all important emotional ruler and deal with the facts alone. Hyper-pro-socialsim probably demands an utter fairness (equality) of outcomes despite even the wishes of those involved. Utopias, social or heavenly are their dream. A society with its entropy maxed out....

I found this comment really insightful. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

Sun, 01 May 2011 01:38:51 UTC | #621329

Kalasin's Avatar Comment 27 by Kalasin

'New atheism' arose as a phenomenon in Western culture only recently, this is true. This had its roots in the materialist philosophy which started to influence the West around 150 years ago (although materialist philosophy had existed prior to then.) This took a while to filter down into art, music, literature and finally the general culture. Christianity has taken a while to die (although I doubt it will disappear entirely, after all, it survived in the Soviet Union.) We have finally reached a point in history where the materialist philosophy of the intellectuals has influenced the semi-educated and resulted in new atheism. This is not in response to 'fundamentalism' but is simply the natural progression of the direction our culture is taking.

Wed, 04 May 2011 03:45:08 UTC | #622837

Lion IRC's Avatar Comment 28 by Lion IRC

By RUSSELL BLACKFORD - ABC - RELIGION AND ETHICS **

(AUSTRAILIA)

** [sic] 'em proof readers.

Fri, 06 May 2011 05:36:21 UTC | #623690

Lion IRC's Avatar Comment 29 by Lion IRC

I read Mr Blackford's article with interest.

May I...?

THE CHARGE OF THE “LIGHT WEIGHT” BRIGADE.

(The history of Gnu Atheism in 7 stanzas)

Intifada, Jihad. Planes hit Towers. Falling man. Religion sours.

Ditchkens and Onfray, PZ and Sam, bravely step up to slay their straw man.

Books get printed. Debates are said. Atheist best sellers by the theist millions read.

Front page news. God is BACK!. Ironic blowback. You woke the sleeping Dog Wormwood. Screwtape wants you sacked.

Campaign Come Out – into the light. All you hiding atheists, Mr Grayling picked the fight. Atheist pretension. Hiding in closets. Priests perhaps?

Deep rifts (LOL) Not a religion you say? RDF crashes. Mortality smashes, Mr Hitchens now rushes to scatters God’s ashes.

Argumentum ad nauseam versus argumentum ad pigrum. Cosmic bruising dents what quantum spookiness misses. Astro-physicists stammer about reality.

Lion (IRC)

Fri, 06 May 2011 07:08:47 UTC | #623715