I'm Jonathan. Currently 21 years old and studying physics engineering and theoretical mathematics in Lund, Sweden.
I'd like to dedicate this blog to the subject of religion but also science, philiosphy and politics to some extent.
The initiative for this comes from RebelHeart's blog which surprises me with even more riddiculus entries all the time. From my perspective religion is essentially bad for the society. While bringing comfort to some people, it undermines science and rationality and I simply think the world would be a better place without it. I know many other atheists think different about the role of relgion in society, but I'd be happy to discuss any such issues.
So! Let's start with introducing some of the important actors!
------------------- Name: Richard Dawkins
Description: Professor of the "public understanding of science" in oxford, UK. Probably the most famous atheist there is. He regularly attends debates, interviews and seminars conserning religion. He has written many books, mainly about evolutionary biology. In his latest book "The God Delusion" he argues against religion and its position in society. He has also produced a large number of TV programs about religion, science and evolution.
Introductionary video:
Short Video intreview.
Jtans comments: This guy is awesome, an oldschool englishman with a sharp mind and a quick tongue in the debates. I've read 3 of his books: "The God Delusion", "The Selfish Gene" and "The Blind Watchmaker". I recommends all of them, especially the first one. The way he writes is just beautiful! -------------------
Name: Sam Harris Description: The younger and American version of Dawkins. Argues stridently against religion and attends many TV-interviews in the US. He recently wrote "The End of Faith" mostly decribing the problems with Islam but also religion in general. As he recieved thousends of mails from angry christian Americans he wrote "A letter to a Christian Nation" as a response to the letters.
Introductionary video:
Well Bill is just stupid, Sam gives him a beating.
Jtans comments: I read his "The end of faith", a great book with a lot of controversial ideas. Sam is especially great during his interviews. He is really smart, and always stays cool no matter how much some stupid fox news gal tries to offend him. Don't think I've seen him "lose" an argument (even though that is based on ones point of view).
------------------
Name: Daniel Dennet Description: Oldschool philosopher, the pic says it all His major critique to religion is in his book "Breaking the spell".
Introductionary video:
A talk at Caltech after publication of his "Breaking the spell"
Jtans comments: Did not read "Breaking the spell yet", but read his "Understanding Consciousness in Humans and other Animals". He's smart and brings forth a lot of great ideas on how to look upon things.
----------------------------------
Name: Christopher Hitchens Description: American citizen as of late. Author, columnist, journalist etc... His main fields of interests are religion and free speach. Often gets himself invited to comment about different things in the american TV-channels.
Jtans comments: I really like this guy even if he's a real asshole to some people. He generally shows up drunk for his interviews and once said that his daily intake of alcohol was enough "to kill or stun the average mule". He also smokes heavily Ignoring these things he's an awesome person. He is intelligent and doesn't hesitate a minute to say what he thinks.
Here is an awesome interview with him. It's after Jerry Falwell died and Hitchens had said a lot bad things about him like "I'm sorry there's not a hell for him to go to". So fox brought him in just to pretty much make him say he atleast was a little bit sorry for him and his family. Enjoy.
--------------------- Ecen though there are a lot of other interesting names, the above four are often described as the frontier of those questioning religion.
So which of the above do you enjoy listening to the most? If you think all of them are full of shit, don't vote.
Poll: Which one will it be? (Vote): Dawkins (Vote): Harris (Vote): Dennet (Vote): Hitchens
Please someone find the YouTube video with the guy in Salt Lake City trying to convert Mormons to atheism.
Dawkins ftw. I like his eloquence with words, and I've heard good reviews for The God Delusion. Even as a Christian, it's on my to-read list. EDIT: btw, soci"E"ty.
I've studied Dennett's book Breaking the Spell under a professor who knows Dennett personally. He made it clear that Dennett is not as open-minded as he likes to present himself in his public material.
I don't like the direction I've seen Dawkins taking in recent programs and speeches. It seems like he's gotten into the atheism movement without knowing how to lead a movement. Or at least he has nothing new to bring to the table. When using mass media, it takes more than a logical argument to convince people and he lacks anything else. It seems he's relied on reasoning too much because he comes to a dead-end with people who prefer to make major decisions in direct opposition to what reason advises. Perhaps he should consider the fact that the percentage of the population that can act on logic and reasoning all of the time is in the minority. And this is a broader issue than atheism and religion.
Nony is making a good point here. Not everyone is persuaded by reason right away. Though I feel like a total sellout for doing so, sometimes you need to play the emotional-argument card first so that you can bring them into the reach of reasoning. We all know religion is playing arguably the dirtiest game on Earth, and it feels like shit having to rely on their methods, but employing a step-by-step method is probably more effective in the long run.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people.
On September 25 2007 02:15 NonY[rC] wrote: I've studied Dennett's book Breaking the Spell under a professor who knows Dennett personally. He made it clear that Dennett is not as open-minded as he likes to present himself in his public material.
I don't like the direction I've seen Dawkins taking in recent programs and speeches. It seems like he's gotten into the atheism movement without knowing how to lead a movement. Or at least he has nothing new to bring to the table. When using mass media, it takes more than a logical argument to convince people and he lacks anything else. It seems he's relied on reasoning too much because he comes to a dead-end with people who prefer to make major decisions in direct opposition to what reason advises. Perhaps he should consider the fact that the percentage of the population that can act on logic and reasoning all of the time is in the minority. And this is a broader issue than atheism and religion.
I don't know the other two.
I agree with you; Dawkins can hold a real solid argument, but he doesn't really fit for a leader figure.
What he says is probably best appreciated by an educated audiance, but I think he does a good job trying to reach out to the public via TV-series like "the root of all evil" and "the enemies of reason".
On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people.
Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong.
On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people.
Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong.
I think you, like most people who subscribe to your position, simply misunderstand the people you criticize (hell, I think I just nailed a larger population subset than I meant to).
On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people.
Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong.
At least use intelligent debate rather than having to resort to prejudicial stereotyping
On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people.
Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong.
At least use intelligent debate rather than having to resort to prejudicial stereotyping
Sure, I knew someone might say Christians don't think they are better and blah blah
But are you seriously saying Dawkins thinks he knows so much better? Compare it to a republican debating a democrat, both are sure they are right and think the other one is plain stupid. Dawkins is sure that he is right, but at least he is being pretty humble when talking to religious people.
On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people.
Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong.
At least use intelligent debate rather than having to resort to prejudicial stereotyping
Sure, I knew someone might say Christians don't think they are better and blah blah
But are you seriously saying Dawkins thinks he knows so much better? Compare it to a republican debating a democrat, both are sure they are right and think the other one is plain stupid. Dawkins is sure that he is right, but at least he is being pretty humble when talking to religious people.
Well I wasn't the one who said that. But you're resorting to the same tactic by responding the same way. Unless, of course, you were just being sarcastic.
the end of faith was interesting, but harris' views on some of the fringe topics like parapsychology were kind of odd
breaking the spell was an excellent book, dennet is probably the best suited for the leadership position that dawkins isnt. whether its genuine or not he comes off as much more open minded and accepting, while still making the same points in the end.
On September 25 2007 06:27 IdrA wrote: the end of faith was interesting, but harris' views on some of the fringe topics like parapsychology were kind of odd
Haha, exactly what I thought when reading about that. He has some very controversial ideas. He also had some discussion where he -almost- justified torture of prisoners by comparing the situation to having to accept certain civil casualties in wars.
i really dont think secularism is where it is at as far as The principle for crusadings etc, try something like humanism, which is in this present condition rather necessarily secular. at leat in the sense that it is devoid of all the bad religious tradition.
On September 25 2007 05:16 jtan wrote: Care to expand on what it is we misunderstand?
I already know you and like-minded people (ie, those who look to people like Dawkins for the last word) are incredibly static, so your challenge is not genuine, but a primer for all the ways you could inform me of my ignorance. But since you do not come to the table with an open-mind, you remove my motivation to have a discussion. In general, if I come to the table fronting "Position-A", and you come with "Position-B", I would normally listen-to and discuss Position-B, but since Position-B's primary precondition is that "Position-A" is wrong, there will undoubtedly be circular reasoning. And name-calling. Additionally, this speck of a topic is localized to the blog section, where my prose would not see it's deserved audience, and so I have chosen to forego the effort entirely.
On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people.
Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong.
On September 25 2007 09:55 HeadBangaa wrote: Because as a community, we've walked this path many times, and today, I'd like to step out of the box and comment on the context of such questions.
making an unfounded statement and then refusing to provide any reasoning behind it is hardly any better than the endless religious vs atheism debates.
i would assume your initial statement simply meant that secularists dont understand that most religious people have no problem basing their beliefs off of faith at the expense of rationality or logic. thats not true, we realize theyre willing to do it, but that doesnt make it any easier to accept.
On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people.
Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong.
where u get that from?
if you believe you're right and people who disagree are wrong, obviously you think your position is superior to theirs.
On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people.
Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong.
where u get that from?
if you believe you're right and people who disagree are wrong, obviously you think your position is superior to theirs.
yeah were talking about superior persons not positions, which is not true ,i like how u twist that one tho. and about what you say about different positions that goes for atheists and all people in the world too.
On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people.
Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong.
where u get that from?
if you believe you're right and people who disagree are wrong, obviously you think your position is superior to theirs.
yeah were talking about superior persons not positions, which is not true ,i like how u twist that one tho. and about what you say about different positions that goes for atheists and all people in the world too.
a person is defined by what how they act and what they think, believing you are right about a very important issue, and that others are wrong, would make you a superior person. at least in that respect
and yes, i never denied that. its kind of inherent in what i stated. religious people are not the only ones who believe they are right and people who disagree are wrong.
On September 25 2007 04:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Sorry but Dawkins sucks ass.
Everyone who thinks they are so enlightened and look down and frown upon people with religious beliefs are close to being fascists. Dawkins serves as a role-model here, it definately appears like he thinks that he is better than alot of people.
Yeah, just like every christian think god loves them more than any athesit. People always think they are better then people they believe are wrong.
where u get that from?
if you believe you're right and people who disagree are wrong, obviously you think your position is superior to theirs.
yeah were talking about superior persons not positions, which is not true ,i like how u twist that one tho. and about what you say about different positions that goes for atheists and all people in the world too.
a person is defined by what how they act and what they think, believing you are right about a very important issue, and that others are wrong, would make you a superior person. at least in that respect
and yes, i never denied that. its kind of inherent in what i stated. religious people are not the only ones who believe they are right and people who disagree are wrong.
If we play along in what you say, being superior in a subject according to you , would just make you superior in that subject according to you, not the ENTIRE person. "Superior" its a terrible choice of word anyways, its like suggesting right now that you are being superior than me in this argument just because we disagree.
if i am right and you are wrong then yes, objectively i would be superior to you. assuming all else is equal.
its common sense, you're just annoyed by the wording because you're trained to think of everyone as equals and the idea of one person being superior to another seems odd.
na im more annoyed at the term "trained to think" than a person being "superior". I dont think Dakwins thinks his superior to anyone who disagree with him Christians.. its just different positions, believing in a superior position =/= being a superior human being. anyways are we really debating about this?
On September 25 2007 11:59 TesisMech wrote: na im more annoyed at the term "trained to think" than a person being "superior". I dont think Dakwins thinks his superior to anyone who disagree with him Christians.. its just different positions, believing in a superior position =/= being a superior human being. anyways are we really debating about this?
yes we are, because you questioned someones statement about christians believing they are better than non believers.
and you're still missing the point, but theres not much more to do but reiterate what ive already said so you're just going to keep missing the point. so i wont bother.
The problem Idra, is that you and the others will not respect the person you are arguing with, which makes nobody want to discuss. We don't need to relive it to substantiate it, we've been here long enough, we've seen enough religion vs atheism threads. You asking me to substantiate that fact is an attempt to obfuscate.
On September 25 2007 17:21 HeadBangaa wrote: The problem Idra, is that you and the others will not respect the person you are arguing with, which makes nobody want to discuss. We don't need to relive it to substantiate it, we've been here long enough, we've seen enough religion vs atheism threads. You asking me to substantiate that fact is an attempt to obfuscate.
previous religion vs atheism threads dont support that 'fact'. more often than not they are reasonably civil discussions that calmly die out as people run out of arguments. overt flame wars are rare and are usually sparked by someone being an idiot outside the context of the discussion itself.
and i said you should substantiate your claim that atheists misunderstand you, if you want respect you probably shouldnt make unfounded blanket statements about the other side.
On September 25 2007 11:59 TesisMech wrote: na im more annoyed at the term "trained to think" than a person being "superior". I dont think Dakwins thinks his superior to anyone who disagree with him Christians.. its just different positions, believing in a superior position =/= being a superior human being. anyways are we really debating about this?
yes we are, because you questioned someones statement about christians believing they are better than non believers.
and you're still missing the point, but theres not much more to do but reiterate what ive already said so you're just going to keep missing the point. so i wont bother.
Hm yeah if we generalize the statement like you did, i wanted to point out also that christians are not the only ones that believe that too, atheist and everyone in the world who think their version is superior than other according to you will be saying that he is better than him. So what jtan is saying its misleading.
.. if you would read what i posted you would see i readily admitted that. its not like im trying to insult you or anything, that is just a necessary byproduct of believing you are right about something.
On September 25 2007 11:59 TesisMech wrote: na im more annoyed at the term "trained to think" than a person being "superior". I dont think Dakwins thinks his superior to anyone who disagree with him Christians.. its just different positions, believing in a superior position =/= being a superior human being. anyways are we really debating about this?
yes we are, because you questioned someones statement about christians believing they are better than non believers.
Hmm....I challenge anyone who thinks this to go to a church, and talk to people. They really aren't full of themselves.
Anyway, believing you are right and someone else is wrong doesn't really have anything to do with superiority. For starters, everyone has had different experiences in their life, so you are really saying that your experiences are more convincing than others experiences. + Show Spoiler +
For example, if I have a college degree and I disagree with someone who doesn't have a college degree (in my field of study) I would probably be justified in saying I'm "right" and hes "wrong", without the accusation of being superior. Even if I turn out to be wrong in the end.
Just like a slower car can win a race if it has a head-start, an inferior person can be right if hes studied longer.
Put another way, I may think albert einstein is far superior to me, However, if I've fixed cars all my life, and we have a disagreement as to whats wrong with a car, I will surely think I'm right and hes wrong, while at the same time thinking I'm inferior to him.
On September 26 2007 08:42 oneofthem wrote: well, not necessarily. you could be in a cooperative or groupy mood.
its not a matter of choosing to pass judgement on the other group. if you think you're right, and you think its better to be right than to be wrong, then you automatically consider yourself superior to them, with respect to that topic at least.
-- "to that topic at least"? now your changing what you said, you said that you as a whole PERSON not regarding to that topic/ or regarding to you position to that topic are superior ,now your just contradicting yourself .
well again, your attitudes are at least dependent on more factors than a disagreement in one matter, even something like fundamental metaphysics. this is just a plain observation.
Honestly I didn't like the god delusion even though I am against religious extremism in general. And WTF hitchens is an idiot, I never knew he fully supported the Iraq war until now.
anyways, I respect Hitchens to be able to stand up for himself and speak his mind. I wonder why FOX news invited him though if they wanted to just ask him to say that he's sorry for someone's death even though he's not.
Ok, by this moment I've only watched Harris, and he's somewhat crappy. He brings rationality as the main argument that should support his claims. And his claims are that both the "cracker situation" and the "kill babies" situation share the same lack of rationality in their basis. What he misses completely though is that not killing babies is an action that doesn't hold any default rationality in the first place. Not killing people does NOT hold any rational point, it is based on morality, but whoa, morality itself is irrational in nature, therefore, his whole argument crumbles. Rationality can not be the basis for any kind of social philosphy, it has become clear in the middle of 20'th century so I'd say that guy just doesn't have the appropriate level of education to enter such debates.
On November 02 2007 02:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Dawkins sucks. So does "humanisterna" in Sweden.
My view on this is that people should be able to belive whatever, as long as they don't hurt other people.
Oh btw, I would love to see Dawkins prove that god does NOT exist ;p
wow, how do people say this again and again;( No one respectable is claiming they can prove a "general" God doesn't exist;p But we all know this a moot point anyway since the burden of proof is on the claim;o
Just so you know, your view is the same as Dawkins and probably most other atheists;/ Just cause they argue there points doesn't mean they think their beliefs should be forced on others.
that Question: "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome"
The answer: an exmaple would be from fish of millions years ago to we human today showed increase in the information in the genome.
misconception for this is that people are not looking into the 4th demension in searching for an answer. They didn't count time as a factor. Fish of Today of course you can't see them turning into a human, the process took place over millions of years through natural selection.
Shits don't Evolve from a hydralist to a lurker in 25 seconds like in starcraft. that's a misconception, because in the theory of evolution bad mutations die out from one generation and maybe 1 out of maybe a million of these mutation is actually beneficial and continue to pass that one good mutated genome on to the next generation. And this one mutation isn't anything big, one mutation doesn't make a fish to become man, one mutation might be just that some of the cells is better adapted to dry environment. and maybe in the next few thousands of years this one genome is lucky enough to continue and not die off, one of this genome containing fish might have another mutation amount millions of this fish that is beneficial, and then pass on to the next generation and this process goes on for a very very long long long time.
One confirmation for this process that is still happening today is very easy to spot, we have millions of people have cancer, and millions of people die because of cancer, ppl goes fat die of hearth attack etc, all these are natural selection, those genomes will be eliminated and only those who doesn't have cancer continue on, Some of those cancer doesn't cause a problem some of those cancer might actually beneficial to human, aka this one mutation on this own somewhere in europe is immue to HIV, if HIV kills everybody on earth, those are the people that will carry on the human race and every other offspring will be immue to HIV because of that mutated genmoe from their fathers and mothers.
On November 02 2007 02:21 JensOfSweden wrote: Dawkins sucks. So does "humanisterna" in Sweden.
My view on this is that people should be able to belive whatever, as long as they don't hurt other people.
Oh btw, I would love to see Dawkins prove that god does NOT exist ;p
Your view is that people should be able to belief whaterver, as long as they don't hurt other people, but by calling Dawkins sucks you did just what your view opposes.
And the burden of prove doesn't lies on Dawkins who beliefs any kind of god don't exist, but lies on YOU to prove YouR God out of all the other millions of other god out there DOES exist.
They didn't at any point attack the other PERSON, they didn't at any point make baseless arguements. it doesn't matter how weak the arguement is, it still has at least something in atempt to back it up
Wars? as in war of ideas? a war win and lose by supporting evidence for and against an idea?
Here are the facts:
1) There are two stories, one story is being back up by overwhelming evidences, the other story is being back up by literally NO evidence.
2) Therefore, One theory can be tested with all those evidence, the other thory can not.
3) The story supported by evidence doesn't require every living human to support it. On the other hand the story supported by no evidence says anyone who doesn't support it will be punished.
4) more than half the world's population does not belief this one particular story that is not being supported by any evidence. Because there are millions of other storys.
Finally, to win a war of ideas, one side must be able to demonstray and vailidate their Ideas against other ideas. Followed by the simple facts listed above, it is a it is logical to conclude that the evidenceless idea can't demonstray can't vailidate against many other evidenceless ideas. It is also a logical choice for all of those who belief Evidenceless Ideas to prove Science WRONG, and the only logical way to do that is to beat science on their own game, you prove science wrong with science.
Because we have to remember the most important fact, Science is not claiming their Idea is true, Science is claiming the Evidence supporting these ideas are true, On the other hand Religion claims their Idea is true, and does not require any evidence to support it. The only way for religion to win this war is to deconstruct the Evidences that are supporting science.
argueing for an idea without anything backing it up is not an arguement at all, it is better to use your fist than your mouth at that point to prove yourselves being more ignorance than everybody
i'd rather fight moral ineptitude and human suffering before engaging silliness and ignorance.
i take the generous interpretation of this silly 'rise secularists!' declaration to be a misapplication of the spirit of human reform/development as a result of lack of sociological understanding (and in your case, rei, you seem to lack awareness of the difference between engaging religion as idea and as a form of life. i take the latter to be more meaningful, since it is a sincere engagement with the social question, 'is this for a better society/humanity.') which deprives you of awareness of the more urgent problems facing society today. it is not a wonder that few people who actually study society and make efforts at changing it through ideological criticism place religion or, in this case, 'secularism vs xxx' as the centre problem. as a result, when you pose like you are tackling the greatest evil of the world, i can't take your advocacy seriously.
note that i did not say, you are biased etc, whichwould be the immediate response if you shouted out this cute slogan in a srs institution of learning.
My awareness of the difference between Religion as an idea and as a form of life is this: Religion is not what people derive their morality from, Religion does not give social justice to the multicultural environment in USA today. Religion doesn't give you what's right and what's wrong, There is no where in religion you can dervive right or wrong from, where do you get your right or wrong from? certainly not from The bible, at least not from the old testament, and you can't say it's from the new testament neither, why? read below.
On the note of morality, the standards of moral in different Times have huge difference. For example if you talk to people some few hundred years ago, they would agree that slavery is acceptable, and they would all be religious people, WHERE IS THE SOCIAL JUSTICE IN THAT? WHERE IS THE MORALITY IN THAT? But today we don't belief in things such as salvery, it is not accaptable as moraly permissible. If you look into the bible ( new testament) and pick and chooses bits and pieces that agrees with today's moral standard for a social equity issue, In the same time we can also point out bits and pieces where it is totally unaccaptable by today's standard of moral. and if you try to cherry pick from yoru bibble to pick out the good parts and throw away the bad parts, but THE CRITERION by which you do that cherry picking has nothing to do with your religion, it has nothing to do with science neither, and most certainly got nothing to do with any other religion at all(they all got a holy book or something like it).
Here let me come back to the Fallacy of argumentum ad hominem ( go look it up if you don't know what it means) you made toward me.
On November 11 2007 02:26 oneofthem wrote: (and in your case, rei, you seem to lack awareness of the difference between engaging religion as idea and as a form of life. i take the latter to be more meaningful, since it is a sincere engagement with the social question, 'is this for a better society/humanity.')
My arguement above shows clearly that my awareness of a difference between engaging religion as an Idea and as a form of life ( by a form of life i assume you meant morality). Religion is merely and Idea, and religion is not where people who belief in religion derive their sense of morality from.
On November 11 2007 02:26 oneofthem wrote: i'd rather fight moral ineptitude and human suffering before engaging silliness and ignorance.
I do not believe you can fight immorality without tackling ignorance. Morality must be based upon a correct understanding of the structure of knowledge and ideas - something a lot of the world is sorely lacking.
Moral Ignorance is one of the most terrifying things to ever afflict mankind.
well, you see, you can be ignorant and immoral, or just ignorant/silly. many christian communities or otherwise religious ones do not fall into the first category, even by the most extreme atheist categorizations.
all in all, the point is, taken as a social problem, religion is tolerably mild in its structural problems to be tackled on a case-by-case basis, that is, tackling only those manifestations that are morally malignant. a general attack against anything un-secular is pretty much either bigoted or silly. bigoted if you perceive the religious as __, __, and __. silly if you are not aware of other problems.
OP, thank you for this topic, it\'s great and I appreciate the quality and effort.
In Intelligent Thought: Science verses the Intelligent Design Movement, two of your four wrote chapters. It is on the basis of their chapters, in part, that I make my preference for Dennett over Dawkins. I have also read some of The God Delusion, A Devil\'s Chaplain, and seen various video clips of him at events, so these are the remainder of the basis for some of my comments about Dawkins.
Maybe Dennett is not the most exciting speaker, or maybe the video you provided of him is not presenting him in the most charitable light for the purposes of your poll. But his writing, from what I\'ve seen, is great. Dawkins on the other hand, while mostly right in the way he debunks the most base religious quackery (importantly so, as it is the sort that has been \"fighting evolution\" and the sort that convinces people to violence, most often), I find some technical objections to when he writes about various postmodern sources. In other words I think Dennett is a better philosopher and scientist (in the general sense), while Dawkins is simply a popularizer of some very basic arguments that have been accessible for hundreds of years. Dawkins aims at the most popular forms of religion, and so while I respect his mission it is uninteresting to me, long time atheist.
As for the other two, Hitchens is the most entertaining in the videos I\'ve seen, and Harris is impressively cool, as others have said. I haven\'t read either\'s books but I do recommend Hitchens\' clips on YouTube, as most are really hillarious, so I\'m curious about his books.
I\'m sure there is a lot more I could respond to here but I feel like there is too much. Great topic though. Break up the discussion here into an ongoing serious of blogs that hits each of these many discussions from this topic, and you got my vote.
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.nndb.com/people/281/000024209/dawkins.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4b/Sam_Harris_01.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://carlosvalencia.files.wordpress.com/2006/11/filosofo.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/binary/33b5/seedo_onlineWED_01_hitchens.jpg)
I hurried to much 
and made a half-assed thread.
