31. This just in!!! dd debates the relative merits of the penis monologues, and if young Muslim boys are choosing it over scouting!

WOW! Hard-hitting stuff there from double d.

stuart joshua at 11:24AM on Dec 3rd 2007

32. 17. Athena, you obviously didn't see this debate. D'Souza notes Communism, Hitler (all Atheism-based) as responsibe for MILLIONS of deaths. Dennett did NOT disagree with this in the later part of the debate when D'Souza said, if the Christians must take responsibility for the Inquistion and the Witch Trials then Atheists must take responsibility for Atheists responsible for their horrific deeds

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

That was a good enough reason not to watch it. Hitler was a madman, but a devoutly religious one. Nazi Germany was christian. So are the fascist regimes I know about - incorporated into the manifesto. Hitler established a national church. Italy already had one.

Atheism is NOT an alternate religion. The personal ambition of people like Mao or Stalin, or for that matter Tamerlane or Atilla or Alexander accounts for their deeds.

None of the preceding gave a hairball about human life either. Why aren't they a-humanists by definition because that's what they did - kill people who resisted them.
Or a-environmentalists, or a-animal rightsists or whatever.

Not one of them said anywhere that they did what they did in the name of 'atheism'. That's an invention of dominionists.


there was no banner for atheism. Ever see an atheist flag? How about an atheist symbol - big zero maybe? I've never seen one. Never heard an atheist hymn, never heard a convocation called in the name of atheism, they don't come to my door and don't approach me on the street or at airports. I never heard of an army rallying around atheism.

That's because disinterest in others' belief systems does NOT constitute an organization.

If you've been sufficiently indoctrinated by religious dogma, you no longer have the ability to understand that. There are several examples posting here.

To that extent your mind is damaged if you think of atheism as an alternate religion.

Whether religion did it or you came by it in some other manner, I couldn't say, but I have seen too many people dissociate mutually exclusive concepts so they can keep their 'faith' intact.

But hey, if you got 'em pray to 'em. Most of us would rather you kept it out of government, though.

Clif Kuplen at 11:18AM on Dec 3rd 2007

33. Linda, the important thing I mentioned on the Atheists responsible for their own bloodshed was that Dennett did NOT disagree. If he had, he surely would have faired better in his debate. The "zeolots going too far in support of their leader" comment works on both sides. The important thing was that the leaders themselves were atheist and therefore if nothing else by depraved indifference responsible for what came as a result of their ideas and actions.
Secondly, the whole idea that Christians are indoctrinated with ideas because they are not capable of thinking for themselves is also a two-way street. Unless, in support of Evolutionism, you are scientifically testing all of these THEORIES for yourself to conclude whether or not they hold water, you yourself are also being "Indoctrinated" by someone elses views. No?

Brittany at 11:21AM on Dec 3rd 2007

34. The Goddess Athena,
Why did you have to bring up that issue again? Now for the umpteenth time we're all falling back into the Who-Killed-More-People: Christians vs Atheists Bitchfest 2007. Everyone loses, so let's please get back to topic!

MC Hammer,
The Egyptian Pharaohs were big into revisionism and writing their own version of history. Rameses II wanted people to believe he actually wielded godly powers in battle.

Mokele-Mbembe at 11:21AM on Dec 3rd 2007

35. mc hammer

i watched something on one of the discovery channels or maybe the history channel several months ago that gave a scientific explanation for every one of the plagues you mentioned. i believe it all had to do with volcanic activity. so even if all that stuff actually DID happen, we still can't say that it was absolutely the work of god and could not be explained by nature. just thought you might find that interesting. i'll try doing a search on it so i can figure out exactly what program it was on that way anyone who yells at me about it being crap can research it and decide for themselves.

Richelle at 11:25AM on Dec 3rd 2007

36. "They are the epitome of superstitious as they have great faith in chemical chance and mutational luck"

I think that is the first time I have ever heard someone claim that math=superstition.

a born atheist at 11:29AM on Dec 3rd 2007

37. Brittany:

Well, no, in that I have attended churches, synagogues, a buddhist monestary. I listen to faith programs on the radio, I even sometimes watch that stuff on TV. I have a bible, and have read it cover to cover.

Of course, every thing I know, I learned. That is true of all humans (except for a few instincts as an infant, like rooting, sucking, or bicycle legs).

But as has been mentioned numerous times already, it was not done in the name of atheism. Atheism is simply no belief in a god or gods.

Frankly, it has been shown that children of a certain age are easily indoctrinated by adults. It is during the 'magical thought' years (3-7 or so) when they also believe in Santa and Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy.

I was not indoctrinated with anything. My dad was a recovering catholic, my mother a recovering jew, and we were told that we could find out for ourselves what god and/or religion was about.

Linda at 11:32AM on Dec 3rd 2007

38. To Linda re: Post #8...
I was never indoctrinated...my family never went to church. As a matter of fact, while we are officially some religion, I'm not even sure which form of Christian, my family never had me baptised because they wanted me to be able to decide for myself what I wanted to accept. Yet I believe in a deity.

Though I do agree that churches, on a whole are definitely on the grounds of indoctrination. But of course they always have been. How else would they continue to have churchgoers? In my opinion, the christian church has lived out it's usefulness, i.e. the original use of reading the bible to the masses and explaining what it means.

I'm still puzzled over the focus against Christianity by atheists and not all religions equally, which are all equally false and ridiculous by your definitions.

Strados at 11:40AM on Dec 3rd 2007

39. The most convincing argument for man having created god is that the god of the bible knew no more about the world he supposedly created than the people he was god of. Not just the flat earth and domed sky and four pillars, but the idea that bats are birds, that rabbits chew cud and that there is a creature of earth with four legs and a pair of wings is enough.

The god of the old testament seems to be long on strength and short on judgment and wisdom. Many times his prophets have to restrain and advise him. In Jeremiah he becomes a mass murderer, and of course he's a mass murderer in genesis too - drowns the entire world, not one tear shed for all the dead babies.

Clif Kuplen at 11:40AM on Dec 3rd 2007

40. Every person has his own self created God. Even Christians have their own versions of christianity hence so many different denominations. God is what you conceive him to be. A lot depends on where you were born and into which family or tradition you were born. Would Billy Graham or Pat Robertson be the fanaticial christians they are if they had been born in China or say India? I would guess not. Religion is almost for the most part an inherited trait, if for no other reason than out of respect for your parents. The golden rule is everybodys core religion it just seems that it gets pushed behind all of the other rituals and rites of the particular branch of religion you have taken up with. That to me is the biggest pitfall of religious belief. The diversity, the differences causes disrepect for the other views of God outside of your own which cause people to do terrible things to each other because they lose sight of the basic golden rule. We adhere too closely to our specific branch and allow nationalism to predominate over our religious beliefs.

Rick at 11:43AM on Dec 3rd 2007

41. I have no idea what drives people who try and convert others to their own ideas. Those who believe in God have every right to do so. Those that don't believe in God have every right to do so. I'm afraid there will never be peace on earth until humans have left the building.

dungal1 at 12:21PM on Dec 3rd 2007

42. Richelle,

Thanks! I googled it and that makes a lot of sense that an unexplainable phenomenon to them (a volcanic erruption and the ensuing "plagues") would be percieved as the work of god.

I see a lot of people saying god is different for everyone and what he means to you, etc. Wouldn't that make it more of a logical argument that god is, in fact, man-made because people mold him to better suit their feelings on a supreme being?

MC Hammer at 11:52AM on Dec 3rd 2007

43. Agnostic, here. Leaning towards athiesm, but still open to the possibility of a creator kicking this whole thing off.

I think the god (oh, excuse me: G-d)that most beleivers speak of is definitely man-made. You know the one I'm talking about: the one that has a deep need to be worshipped and admired, the one that punishes those who don't believe in him during their 70 or so years on earth with an eternity in some place called hell, the one who had a mutiny among his angels and sent the bad ones down to hang with us, etc.

THAT god is man-made.

Actually, any god who has a book, any god who anyone thinks they know anything about, they are ALL man-made.

FL Chick at 11:58AM on Dec 3rd 2007

44. ATHEIST

Dinesh didn't think a slide show... where the audience could read his EXACT words... would help Dennett win the debate?

That's about what I expected from him.

William Hays at 11:58AM on Dec 3rd 2007

45.
The debate was whether God was a man made invention. Dennett pointed to the reasons as to why it's a man made concept, where D'Souza pointed to unanswered scientific questions as proof of god.

Dennett pointed to the island where American troops landed, and the natives saw the airstrip they built, the cargo dropped were seen as the natives as godlike, and today have ceremonies and recreations. All Dinesh could say, was that most people throughout history have believed in something, therefore, god exists. Dinesh made a big presentation of the "scientific dials" - that's proof of intelligence being behind the universe.

Humans have the ability to create concepts that are humanity encompassing, yet unreal. Consider economics; there was a time when you could only get something if you had something else to give for it. Then, we came up with a system which "official" objects could be used for trade. The strength of these objects are dependent on numerous factors, the strength of the state issuing them, strength of trade, availability of goods, priority of goods.....

Those peices of paper in your wallet have no real value other than the value we collectively give them. Whether you shovel animal excrement, or write opportunistic books, those pieces of paper rule your life. It's extremely important not to have animal excrement everywhere, as we could all get sick and die from the diseases contained in them. Opportunistic books are opinions aren't necissary for anything, yet the compensation of either make no sense. Saving people from burning buildings should make you more valuable than standing in front of a camera, and pretending to be someone else.

Lines on other pieces of paper say where you can be, and what you can do there. If I "own" land, you can't come on it unless I say so, and can tell you to go somewhere else if i don't like what your doing, saying, or if I just don't like you. However, the federal government, state, county and city can limit what I can do with what I supposedly own, and I can or can't do there. I'm responsible for what I do with the land, but not if the land itself causes death or property damage.

God is no different than economics, justice or land ownership, or any other incredibly complex concepts we come up with. We didn't create the scientific laws that Dinesh used so heavily in his arguments; they are the result of observation of how objects behave given the environment they are in - I may not agree with busting my arse for a few sheets of paper, but the environment of the economic concept leaves me few options.

Ken at 12:03PM on Dec 3rd 2007