"Imagined dialogues" are really not much different than deliberate disinformation - the kind we regularly lambaste the White House for, and with good reason. It seems to me that caricatures of those with whom we disagree say a lot more about the one doing the caricaturing, and not much of it complimentary. More noble, at least to me, is arguing with what the person in question actually has said, not creating a fictitious story in which that person says something ridiculous. Straw man arguments, misinformation, and ad hominem attacks are really of the same species as this petty stuff.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

that Evan is all about not hurting people's feelings on this issue, and not about reason and facing the truth for adults.

Comparing the fake controversy of religion vs. science to disillusioning kindergarten kids about Santa looks like a pathetic, ignorant right-wing tactic, not anywhere near progressive or mature.

I wouldn't expect him to realize that with this post, he's demolished his own argument about the need to have "immense respect" for unquestioned, uninvestigated dogmatic beliefs.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Is this smear a follow up to An Atheist Bullies the Faithful? Dawkins bullies imaginary classroom full of imaginary children? I suppose next you'll publish stories attacking Dawkins' fashion sense? Dawkins creates imaginary internet in imaginary world?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Have to say it was amusing to read, and I could see Dawkins delivering just such a jeremiad to a bunch of kids, because he can be a supercilious jerk.

That said, (please people, read the rest of this) I think there are funnier ways to go about it, notably the South Park episode lambasting Dawkins (and a certain NBC television show of the early 80s).

Have a sense of humor. I'm happy to engage Dawkins' argument (which I really think needs no defending on its face). I do think that Dawkins can be a bit reductionist, and he fails to appreciate the sheer complexity of human motivation and experience. He reminds me of a somewhat wittier and nastier Arthur C. Clarke, who was talking about religions as insanity when Dawkins was still a grade school student. (There are any number of ironies here for those familiar with Clarke's fiction).

Anyhow, I disagree with Evan's choice of parodies, but not his premise, assuming I understand it correctly.

(That premise being that Dawkins himself sets up straw-man ideas of religiosity and its effects, and ignores the shortcomings of the humans who practice science and its social context, and what can happen when one doesn't get a little distance, thus doing a disservice to the full panoply of human experience. Insulting religious people does no better than they do and can in fact hurt one's cause, however much it might appeal to our baser instincts).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

First you print the misguided drivel in "An Atheist Bullies the Faithful" and now this less than a week later?

Truth be told, I do find it funny, but I am concerned over what appears to be a new (?) trend at Alternet. Do you guys read the responses to these articles? You might learn something about your audience. I have read most of the responses to the earlier article (nearly 700 responses as of today) and was impressed by the the number, quality and consistency of the responses. Yes, there is the odd flake (unavoidable in a public forum) but the overall trend and high level of intelligence and eloquence in that response thread is damn impressive and strongly supportive of Dawkins. This is a clue, people!

How about Alternet being 'fair an balanced' and writing an article on Dawkins that is actually more representative about what who he is and what he is really saying?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

The author of this parody understands Dawkins’ logical argument pretty well, even if he spares us the irascibility of Dawkins himself. And moreover, he seems to support Dawkins’ point, perhaps in an unexpected way. The parody aims to put down Dawkins for telling children an apparent, observable truth when that truth may be impolite or unkind. After all, aren’t these kids allowed to indulge in the pleasant, false myth of Santa? Yes, indeed. Translated to the parodied argument, of course, the question becomes: After all, aren’t these people allowed to indulge in the pleasant, false myth of God?

If the parody works at all, it is because the reader gets that Dawkins’ intellectual argument applies equally well to all magical myth creatures. I see this as a victory for Dawkins. The parodist suggests that Dawkins' argument makes God as believable as, say, Santa Claus. Yes. Exactly. And makes those believing in a god as indulgent in fantasy as, say, Santa-faithful chidren.

Seeing as how the author spares us of the irascible tone of Dawkins’ argument, perhaps his complaint is merely about the impoliteness of the intellectual argument itself. "Please don't disturb the faithful with a cold analysis of nature and the cosmos," he appears to plead.

But I am sure any progressive should be comfortable with a rational argument, regardless of how it offends, or how disturbing its conclusions may be.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Satire folks, satire. It's not a Republican-style disinformation campaign but a post I thought was pretty funny.

For me, it captures the argument beautifully. I.e. It argues clearly and cogently for the rational approach to a fantastical idea.

On the other hand, it's buffoonish in that it misses the spirit of the thing entirely.

I'm sure Dawkins himself would be quite happy with it -- I'm sure he'd laugh.

Calls for a balanced approach to Dawkins are heard and will be heeded... soon...

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Regarding the satire, I figure anything which helps expose Dawkins as the clueless, pompous ass which he is can't be all bad. (And how hard is that one?!) Actually, although I'm biased on this one, I thought the satirical piece was amusing and worth noting by Alternet during this time of year.
As to the cluelessness of this man, I refer in particular to his cartoon-like, grade school "interpretation" of human history. Being a scientist apparently allows one to assertively speak about subjects you haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about, and even less interest in educating yourself about them. I guess that would be called pursuing the "scientific method" by clueless Dick. One of my favorite statements by Dawkins, for example, involved his claiming that the true motivation of Bin Laden (which he naturally extends to "Muslims" in general) is based on religious hatred. What would it have taken for our esteemed proponent of the "scientific method," with his commitment to "a pursuit of the truth," to Google up and read Bin Laden's fatwas and declaration of war against the US, which outlines his true political gripes, and the reason that he is a hero to so many people in the Middle East? Maybe 30 seconds to find and 15 minutes to read? Just can't be bothered, much easier to to just keep mouthing platitudes and making absurd pronouncements about subjects you haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

And then.....after all this sanctimonious and ignorant crap........to have so many earnest "progressives" actually take him seriously! Wow....nice work if you can get it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Sep 21, 1897, New York Sun, Letters to Editor

"DEAR EDITOR: I am 8 years old.
"Some of my little friends say there is no Santa Claus.
"Papa says, 'If you see it in THE SUN it's so.'
"Please tell me the truth; is there a Santa Claus?

"VIRGINIA O'HANLON.
"115 WEST NINETY-FIFTH STREET."

VIRGINIA, your little friends are wrong. They have been affected by the skepticism of a skeptical age. They do not believe except [what] they see. They think that nothing can be which is not comprehensible by their little minds. All minds, Virginia, whether they be men's or children's, are little. In this great universe of ours man is a mere insect, an ant, in his intellect, as compared with the boundless world about him, as measured by the intelligence capable of grasping the whole of truth and knowledge.

Yes, VIRGINIA, there is a Santa Claus. He exists certainly as love and generosity and devotion exist, and you know that they abound and give to your life its highest beauty and joy. Alas! How dreary would be the world if there were no Santa Claus! It would be as dreary as if there were no VIRGINIAS. There would be no childlike faith then, no poetry, no romance to make tolerable this existence. We should have no enjoyment, except in sense and sight. The eternal light which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.

Not believe in Santa Claus! You might as well not believe in fairies! You might get your papa to hire men to watch in all the chimneys on Christmas Eve to catch Santa Claus, but even if they did not see Santa Claus coming down, what would that prove? Nobody sees Santa Claus, but that is no sign that there is no Santa Claus. The most real things in the world are those that neither children nor men can see. Did you ever see fairies dancing on the lawn? Of course not, but that's no proof that they are not there. Nobody can conceive or imagine all the wonders there are unseen and unseeable in the world.

You tear apart the baby's rattle and see what makes the noise inside, but there is a veil covering the unseen world which not the strongest man, nor even the united strength of all the strongest man that ever lived, could tear apart. Only faith, fancy, poetry, love, romance can push aside that curtain and view and picture the supernal beauty and glory beyond. Is it all real? Ah, VIRGINIA, in all this world there is nothing else real and abiding. No Santa Claus! Thank GOD! He lives, and he lives forever. A thousand years from now, nay, ten times ten thousand years from now, he will continue to make glad the heart of childhood.

-Francis Pharcellus Church

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A Message From Pat Robertson and The "Vote NO on Jesus" Campaign
- - - -
June 25, 2004

Fellow Christians,

The Second-Coming of Jesus Christ was a magnificent and joyous day for all. Interrupting a brand-new holiday episode of 7th Heaven with his divine electronic prowess, Jesus informed the world on the first night of Hanukkah that he would return on December 25, 2003, somewhere in Washington D.C. Cynics dismissed the announcement as a hoax, while the faithful flocked to churches everywhere in anticipation of Christ's reappearance. Doubts of His authenticity vanished on Christmas Day as He walked across the Potomac River and quietly addressed a breathless crowd gathering for the annual Anti-Kwanzaa rally at Christian Coalition headquarters. He connected with the masses as only Jesus can, mesmerizing on-lookers with profound messages of peace and hope. He outlined the steps necessary to steer the world toward a path of deliverance, stressing tolerance and compassion. With such virtuous ideals in mind, Jesus announced His intention to run for President of the United States. As President, Jesus insisted, He could rid the world of evil, unite humankind, end world hunger, and achieve eternal peace—shaping God's Land in the glorious image of Heaven.
And so it is with great sadness that I write this letter urging you to vote against Jesus Christ for President.

Just six months after His re-rebirth, it has become startlingly clear that Jesus has lost touch with America. Far from being a prudent Savior, Jesus has proven to be no more than a foolhardy liberal. Aligning Himself with the far-left minority, Jesus has adopted the lofty and politically correct delusions that have come to define the liberal elite. Nowhere is this more apparent than in Jesus' irresponsible welfare proposals and pleas for universal healthcare.

"Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you," he blathered at a recent Senate hearing on Social Security, simplifying a complex issue as only a liberal would. Indeed, Jesus' socialistic remarks have enraged many would-be contributors to his campaign. After I informed him of the hundreds-of-millions of dollars I have raised in the name of the Lord through my televangelism and holy African diamond-mine interests, he had the audacity to respond: "It is easier for a camel to fit through the head of a pin than for a rich man to enter heaven." Well, the Christian Broadcasting Network will not waste its time and money supporting a candidate unwilling to recognize the blessed virtue of free enterprise. Our hard-working, god-fearing supporters regularly pay tax and tithe and are unable to continue supporting the freeloaders that Jesus would have us aimlessly throw our money at. "Tax-And-Spend Jesus" wants us to believe that our hard-earned money should be pumped into godless public schools and the sinful homes of single-mother welfare queens.

The reckless liberalism of Jesus Christ cannot be allowed to take hold of the Christian values this great country has fought so hard to preserve. Jesus' immorality becomes more heinous by the day, and what kind of example is He setting for our children by openly associating with prostitutes? Jesus' environmental advocacy resembles that of your common, everyday hippy: He has criticized our reliance on fossil fuels and insists that businesses adopt unfair and impractical pollution prevention measures. He also goes barefoot to public events and has yet to shower or shave as far as I can tell. Messiah or not, there is no room for grungy tree-huggers in the White House.

(continued on next post)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Today's America should not cater to the bleeding-heart politics of men like Howard Dean and Jesus. Frankly, the policies advocated by Christ have not only been Un-American, but, dare I say, Un-Christian. Jesus has refused to condemn homosexuals, abortion doctors, Muslims, feminists, atheists, communists, convicted murderers, or even the ACLU. His moral relativism knows no bounds: "Let anyone among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone," He whines, His words as empty and non-committal as those of a typical do-nothing democrat. Worst of all, He has gone so far as to challenge the virtue of Operation: Iraqi Freedom. As our brave men and women fight in the trenches for the liberation of the Iraqi people, Jesus has repeatedly denounced our efforts and naively pleaded for a non-violent solution. Instead of inspiring our courageous troops with the truth of God's Word, He has instead chosen to spew the same empty rhetoric of Blame-America-First liberals: "Put up again thy sword into its place: for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword." "First remove the plank from your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye," He drones. Must I direct Jesus to the Book of Exodus? How about "an eye for an eye" — did He miss that one? Grow up, Jesus. Welcome to the real world.

Jesus' foreign policy misjudgments extend well beyond Iraq, and His peacenik position on Israel's on-going war with Muslim extremists is baffling. I have, for some time now, regaled my devotees with the prophecies of Luke and Zechariah that prove the necessity of a powerful Israel to Christ's Second-Coming. Jesus knows full well that he wasn't supposed to return until an uncontested Jewish State had been established and the Palestinian menace eradicated, and His defiance of His own revelations is dishonest and reprehensible. Now, true worshippers of the Lord might hesitate to criticize the Son of our Lord. They certainly should, if this is in fact the Jesus the New Testament has told us about. But this cannot be the Christ we've all been waiting for. No, faithful believers, this must be the wrong Jesus. My colleague, Jerry Falwell, has whispered that this might not be Jesus at all, but a sneaky demon incognito. Personally, I think God just needs another do-over. It may take a re-re-rebirth, but when The Right Jesus finally arrives, I'm confident that any doubts of the righteousness of our positions will be quickly erased (read more about my vision of The Right Jesus in my new book, The Right Jesus—available now at 700Club.com for a donation of $24.95).

And so, loyal followers, I say, "We who are without sin, let us cast the first ballot. And may that ballot be a "no" on Jesus. He may be the Son of God, but He is no Ronald Reagan.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Hello,

I am the author of the piece in question. I can assure you that it was made with the utmost respect for Professor Dawkins and his beliefs. I'm just having some fun. Thank you to all who took the time to read it and who realized that yes, it is infact satire - as are most things that are found at McSweeney's.

All the best,

Mike Jones

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]