Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Movie Mix

An Atheist Bullies the Faithful

By Lakshmi Chaudhry, In These Times. Posted December 15, 2006.


Oxford University biologist Richard Dawkins reveals his fundamentalist approach to atheisim in his new documentary, The Root of All Evil.
Advertisement

"Religion fucking blows!" declares comedian Roseanne Barr in her latest HBO special. Her pronouncement, both in its declarative certainty and self-congratulatory defiance, could easily serve as the succinct moral of Richard Dawkins' documentary, The Root of All Evil.

The big-screen version of a two-part British television series follows the noted biologist as he embarks on a global road-trip to the veritable bastions of theological conviction -- the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, a Christian conservative stronghold in Colorado Springs, a Hassidic community in the heart of London -- bullying, berating and heckling the devoutly faithful he encounters along his way.

Confronting cancer patients who have traveled to Lourdes in hopes of a cure, Dawkins tells the viewer in the first scene, "It may seem tough to question the beliefs of these poor, desperate people's faith." By the end of the documentary, Dawkins' bravado is not in doubt. When talking to Ted Haggard, a New Life Church pastor (more recently infamous for his predilection for crystal meth and gay prostitutes), after witnessing one of his sermons, Dawkins tells him, "I was almost reminded of the Nuremberg rallies ... Dr. Goebbels would have been proud." To a hapless guide at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, he taunts, "Do you really believe that Jesus' body lay here?" And then there's his remark -- "I'm really worried for the well-being of your children" -- to a Hassidic school teacher, Rabbi Herschel Gluck, whom Dawkins accuses of brainwashing innocent kids.

As he storms his way around the world in the state of high dudgeon, Dawkins' attitude can be best described as apocalyptic outrage. The effect is in turns bewildering, embarrassing, grating and even unintentionally comic, as we watch the distinguished Oxford University Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science channel his inner Borat. When the astonished rabbi exclaims, "You are a fundamentalist believer," even a sympathetic, true-blue San Francisco audience cannot help but chuckle in assent.

As his rabbinical nemesis rightly suspects, Dawkins' fondness for sweeping generalizations reflects his own deep-seated fundamentalism, a virulent form of atheism that mirrors the polarized worldview of the religious extremists it claims to oppose. "They condemn not just belief in God, but respect for belief in God. Religion is not just wrong; it's evil," writes Gary Wolf in his Wired Magazine cover story, "The New Atheism," whose leading exponents include -- in addition to Dawkins -- Daniel Dennett, a philosophy professor at Yale, punk rocker Greg Graffin and Sam Harris, author of The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason. These are the self-styled "Brights," the moniker of choice for Dawkins to describe "a person whose worldview is free of supernatural and mystical elements."

The "bright" worldview is also remarkably free of complexity. Dawkins' view of faith can be summed up thus: Religion is dangerous because it requires that we suspend our powers of reason to place our faith in the shared delusion that is God. This, he asserts, is the first step on that "slippery slope" to hatred and violence.

When we cede our "critical faculties" to believe in the idea of a higher power, Dawkins claims, we are immediately invested in a panoply of increasingly ludicrous propositions: that the Virgin Mary ascended directly to heaven, Moses parted the seas, God created the world in seven days, or beautiful virgins await good Muslims in heaven. Why not, he asks, believe in fairies or hobgoblins?

Faith, in his universe, is interchangeable with superstition, eccentricity, madness, and, at its most benign, infantilism. Religious conviction is a marker of human backwardness, both in a historical and psychological sense. According to Dawkins, human beings invented religion as a "crutch" for ignorance. Without science to help us understand the world around us, we turned to gods/faith/superstition to cope with our sense of helplessness. Today, religion remains a source of succor to those unable to outgrow their childish desire to see the world in terms of "black and white, as a battle between good and evil" -- unlike atheists who are "responsible adults and accept that life is complex."

"We're brought from cradle to believe that there is something good about faith," says Dawkins, as he compares this belief to "a virus that infects the young, for generation after generation." Fortunate are the "responsible adults" who grow up to shake off these beliefs, unlike the rest of humanity who remain trapped in their infantile desire to be taken care of by an all-powerful deity.

Unlike fairytales, however, our religious beliefs are not harmless, says Dawkins, they instead lay the foundation for the murder and mayhem inevitably wreaked by true believers. His evidence: the Inquisition, the Holocaust, the Crusades, the 9/11 attacks, and less spectacular crimes against humanity like suicide bombers, anti-abortion killers, and so on.


Digg!

See more stories tagged with: religion, dawkins, evolution

Lakshmi Chaudhry is a senior editor at In These Times and a former senior editor of AlterNet.


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Atheism: A New Age Cult?
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Dec 15, 2006 12:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Clearly you can't make yourself smarter simply by calling yourself an atheist. I agree with Russell that religion belongs to the infancy of human reason, however you're blatantly not going to enlighten someone with a stick -- all you can do is show people how you see the world; if you pursuade them (in some measure) great but if not, then that's just how it goes. Furthermore, I don't see how "debunking" the faith of suffers of terminal illness is defensable. In fact, chemothearipy itself is mainly used to give people hope -- in most cases it probably does more harm than good (I have been told this by a doctor).

» RE: Atheism: A New Age Cult? Posted by: aouie01
» RE: Atheism: A New Age Cult? Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Atheism: A New Age Cult? Posted by: jack alexander
» RE: Atheism: A New Age Cult? Posted by: gilliani
» RE: Atheism: A New Age Cult? Posted by: jack alexander
» RE: Atheism: A New Age Cult? Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Atheism: A New Age Cult? Posted by: jmooney
» chemotherapy Posted by: owleyes
» Depends what kind of cancer... Posted by: medstudgeek
» RE: chemotherapy Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: chemotherapy Posted by: Bibs
» RE: chemotherapy Posted by: theistfree
» Not "like the others" of course. Posted by: ABetterFuture
So?
Posted by: unsorted on Dec 15, 2006 12:37 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This sounds like a defensive reaction from a mildly spiritual liberal who is uncomfortable with Dawkins' bluntness ("Yes but why does he have to be so harsh?"). Science and religion "both inform and reflect our changing ideas about ourselves and the world around us"?? Get real. Science is based on the search for truth and has done much more good than harm. Religion is based on faith and faith alone, and has unquestionably done more harm for than good. Yes Dawkins is blunt, but I'd rather have that than cowardly deference to all things religious. I get defensive too sometimes, but then I ask myself why I get that reaction. All god-believers need to do the same. Only by brutally honest reflection will we break free from the shackles of god and religion.

» RE: So? Posted by: Jordon
» Even the rock and club Posted by: Bic Pentameter
» RE: So? Posted by: aislinnluv
» Re-writing history. Posted by: MatthewSavage
» RE: So? Posted by: pancho
» RE: So? Posted by: Bibs
» RE: So? Posted by: edith
» RE: So? Posted by: montims
» RE: So? Posted by: willymack
» RE: So? Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: So? Posted by: jmooney
» RE: So? Posted by: izeit
» RE: So? Posted by: Bibs
Excellent Article
Posted by: Jordon on Dec 15, 2006 12:39 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
As the my title says, excellent article. I was woried, given Alternet's sometimes history of supporting this type of stuff, that this would be another rave review; thank you for proving me wrong. We cannot combat religious fundamentalism, or dogmatic fundamentalism of any kind, by inventing another form of our own.

» RE: not so fast Posted by: chutzpah
» RE: not so fast Posted by: nha16
» RE: not so fast Posted by: bwmathis
» RE: not so fast Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: not so fast Posted by: theistfree
» RE: Duh, theistfree Posted by: carcinoid112
» RE: Duh, theistfree Posted by: theistfree
» RE: not so fast Posted by: jmooney
» RE: xcellent Article Posted by: Dale Dressler
It's a bit more nuanced Mr. Dawkins...
Posted by: timebomb734 on Dec 15, 2006 12:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I love how he likes to claim that atheists see the world as more nuanced that relgion while simultaneously claiming that the world's violence is primarily caused by religion. To do so is ignoring secular ethnic violence, market-based conflict, and power mongering. While violence in the name of these latter reasons may claim to uphold relgious principle, they are actually defending more strategic ideas...power, anyone?

» RE: It's a bit more nuanced Mr. Dawkins... Posted by: karma_ran_over_dogma
Defensive and Thoughtless
Posted by: randcoop on Dec 15, 2006 2:03 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Alternet is not the only liberal media that is having problems dealing with Dawkins and others (The Nation comes to mind). This is a major disappointment for those of us who are thrilled to finally hear intelligent challenge to the religious dominance in our and other societies.

It is simply wrong and silly to equate Dawkins and religious fundamentalists, even as it is simply wrong and silly to equate science and religion. To point out that science has made mistakes over the centuries of human history is fine. But to suggest that is the source of as much human misery as religion is simply disingenuous. The Crusades alone killed more people than have ever been killed in the name of science. Frankly, I don't know how many people have been killed in the name of science (I suppose that there were Nazi experimenters who killed under that guise), but it's a relatively tiny number.

Perhaps more important, even that argument is a dodge of the fundamental (pardon the use of the term) point: there is no substance or reality to religious belief. Science proves itself over and over again. Religious belief NEVER does. To refer to bad science and equate it with "bad" religion is ridiculous. When science is bad, it is found out; it is disproved; it is shown to be false. But no one can ever disprove a religious tenet, because it is based solely on a fantasy.

The problem is not that all religious people believe in the fundamental truth of books like the Bible or the Quran. The problem is that all religious people believe in the myth of a god, of a supernatural power. People who pray for the intervention of this supernatural power are behaving stupidly. It makes no more sense than to practice pagan rituals.

The reaction to Dawkins by otherwise good liberal people is an embarrassment to the left. But as we've seen before, it just means that he's hit a nerve.

It's funny, though. When the civil rights movement was ascendant, no one has a problem saying that everyone who was opposed to civil rights was wrong, whether they were outspoken and ignorant racists or intellectuals who managed to cloak their racism in multisyllabic words. But today, when Dawkins says the religious emperor has no clothes, he's accused of lacking tolerance of the moderate believers.

The refuge of scoundrels is often to cry "intolerance" when no reasoned answer can be found. Sad to see liberals taking that refuge.

» Darwin was not an atheist! Posted by: rjgwood
» RE: Defensive and Thoughtless Posted by: randcoop
» RE: Defensive and Thoughtless Posted by: sailor50
» if you'll excuse the phrase Posted by: Coleman
» RE: Defensive and Thoughtless Posted by: leonardfeingold
"Not unlike the religious simpletons, he..."
Posted by: Sojourner on Dec 15, 2006 2:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Insofar as religion continues to try to do the same job as science (that is, account for nature) Dawkins is right on.

The temptation is to refer Dawkins to philosophy of science to point out the extent to which the practice of science can only be justified by its results--and those are less than admirable sometimes. I expect he would try to hide behind a distinction between pure science and technology--that resembles where theologians hide between religion as it is practiced (which is what Dawkins ridicules, rightly) and religion as exhalted affirmation--but science cannot disown technology.

Global warming is a scientific product, as are thalidomide babies and all the other "unintended consequences" that compare to organized religion's history of horrors.

The only difference is that we can do religion by ourselves. Dawkins' hands are covered in the blood of science's disasters, because he belongs to that community. Science is nothing without acceptance by its community; at least that's what every scientist I've read or heard has told me.

My point is: lose the science vs. religion contretemps. They're apples and oranges, and both can be good to eat or bad for your health. So, has Dawkins really so mastered his field that he has time left to go around ridiculing others? Or is he running from his own guilty conscience?

» Bullshit, Harris Posted by: carcinoid112
» Science, Religion, Morality Posted by: Hajoda
Fight Fire With Fire
Posted by: bcgirl125 on Dec 15, 2006 2:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The right wing has cleverly pulled the entire political spectrum to the right by posing the most bizarre, extreme, and often theocratic views as tolerable discourse. This makes slightly less crazy, but still extreme, views look like the new middle ground. Maybe we need someone on the left who is just as aggressive, strident and intolerant to pull the "middle" back to its proper place.

» RE: Fight Fire With Fire Posted by: babs
» RE: Fight Fire With Fire Posted by: bigbad
Ideas
Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver on Dec 15, 2006 2:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I always thought Dawkins's thinking was too reductionist for his hypotheses to hold water, and now I'm sure of it. The fundamental mistake he makes in his crusade is to hold the idea responsible for those who believe in it. "Ideas are not responsible for those who believe in them." Rabid, foaming-at-the-brain fanatics of any stripe are solely responsible for the choices they make. All of them. Not God, not the Bible, and not atheism. Richard Dawkins is an idiot, people, but do not make the same error he has and assume that all atheists are equally imbecilic.

» RE: Ideas Posted by: harris
» RE: Ideas Posted by: aonghus36
» RE: Ideas Posted by: wolfcry
» RE: Ideas Posted by: Fang-Face Dreamweaver
» RE: Ideas Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: Ideas Posted by: Bibs
If truth and reality matters then help the faithful lose blind faith.
Posted by: aouie01 on Dec 15, 2006 2:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
A harsh approach may do more for those who think similarly than to reach those who don't.
Sincerely,
Aouie

Dawkins brave in a world of religious intolerance
Posted by: vitualis on Dec 15, 2006 3:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Equating Dawkins' new production with "religious fundamentalism" is a complete mischaracterisation, and if anything, confirms his well delivered argument.

It is not fundamentalism or "intolerance" to state facts truthfully and rationally. It it not intolerance to state that the world is round or that gravity exists. It is not intolerance to proclaim the reality of evolution.

As per others have described, Dawkins has simply revealed that the religious "emperor" has no clothes, and done so in a clear and eloquent manner. There is nothing extreme about his arguments; there no rational reason to believe that god exists, or that any of the supernatural beliefs of the organised religions have factual truth. As he has clearly illustrated, we live in a society that at present tolerates the religious indoctrination of children with beliefs that are clearly factually false (e.g., the age of the Earth).

His other arguments counteract some of the myths perpetuated by religious devotees. He argues (and I agree) that morality, altruism, ethics and many of the other admirable qualities we see in humanity need not (and often do not) come from any organised religion. He argues how from a position of atheism one can find morality just like from a position of faith. Moreover, as this morality is understood without a supernatural context, I concur that it can be more profound and subtle than the dictums of religious faith.

Dawkins argues for the position of rationality. If this is "fundamentalism", then "liberals" need to take a cold hard look at themselves.

In addition...
Posted by: vitualis on Dec 15, 2006 3:11 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"An atheist bullies the faithful?"

Take off the rose tinted glasses and stare at the cold face of reality. The "faithful" have been bullying everyone else (apart from their own faith) for centuries and now an atheist is publically calling "bullshit!"

» RE: In addition... Posted by: aislinnluv
» RE: In addition... tax 'em. Posted by: symcokid
» RE: In addition... Posted by: righteousbabe
» RE: In addition... Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: In addition... Posted by: righteousbabe
» RE: In addition... Posted by: Doubtom
For every action ....
Posted by: ebliso on Dec 15, 2006 3:10 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
With the resurgence , across the globe, of hardcore, fundamentalist religion, is it really a surprise that we non-believers are getting a bit edgy these days? I used to be a very tolerant atheist. Used to be, as in before the last 6 years. Then religion morphed from what I thought of as a somewhat quaint , mostly harmless mythology, into a rabid , dangerous and hyper violent orthodoxy. I find myself cringing at Barrack Obama and other Dems with their new found ease in using g*d talk. I get tired of dumbing down conversations so as not to seem rude to believers. I've spent the last 6 years growing angrier and more scarredat the prospect of living in a country ruled by the whims of sectarian fundamentalists. I've lain awake at night wondering if I'll awake to a world where reason is literally outlawed. I've cried at the thought of a large new generation of "faithful" little facist bigots . I've tried to keep my humor (Stewart and Colbert, among others, help) and be tolerant and understanding, but everyday it gets harder and harder. I no longer smile politely when people mention prayers or "the spirit" or g*d...I have a knee-jerk reaction, these days. My face turns flush, my hands in my pockets turn to fists, my teeth clench, my eyes show my fear and apprehension. I'm not saying that Dawkin's approach is super-cool happy fun time stuff, but it is 100000000% understandible. Frankly, I'm surprised it's taken this long for confrontational atheism to rise up, if only through a handfull of the famous. Rude, uncooth, whatever. The argument needs to be made. Forcefully. Loudly. Rudely. Fundamentalist religion has gotten a free pass for far too long . We , as a species need to reclaim our faculties, we need to nurture reason, we need to grow the fuck up and get over the poisonous g*d delusion. Rudeass , though he may be, Dawkins has thrown down the gauntlet and challenged the myth. The meme he not-so-eloquently shouts out to the world is important. Whether or not his manners are good.

» Is it g*d or god? Posted by: scott balogh
» RE: Is it g*d or god? Posted by: theistfree
» I am burning in Hell Posted by: scott balogh
» RE: I am burning in Hell Posted by: Spot
» RE: Is it g*d or god? Posted by: aebartle
» RE: Is it g*d or god? Posted by: ebliso
» "...death is not a question..." Posted by: Sojourner
» NO, NO, NO, It's CAKE or Death... Posted by: carcinoid112
» "...when i die..." Posted by: Sojourner
» RE: "...when i die..." Posted by: ebliso
» RE: For every action .... Posted by: famouspipeliner
» RE: For every action .... Posted by: yellow
No Solicitors
Posted by: kepstein7777 on Dec 15, 2006 3:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Sounds like another big mouth guru with all the answers.

I'd tell him to go convert my neighbor. That'll fix him for partying at 3am on a weekday.

If somebody wants to worship Barbara, Liza, or their cat, leave them alone, so long as they're not bothering anybody. Maybe it'll keep them quiet for a while.

» RE: No Solicitors Posted by: harris
» RE: No Solicitors Posted by: theistfree
» RE: No Solicitors Posted by: AppleMommie AZ
» RE: No Solicitors Posted by: theistfree
» RE: No Solicitors Posted by: AppleMommie AZ
» Howdy diddly doo... Posted by: kepstein7777
» RE: No Solicitors Posted by: Paul D
Hamish
Posted by: JDBishop5 on Dec 15, 2006 3:25 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'm, with Dawkins, and reason.

Superstition blows.

Show me one worthwhile thing that religion has ever done that could not have been accomplished without a superstitious adherence to a sky daddy. There is nothing. There are, however, multitudinous examples of tragedies and abominations that have been executed BECAUSE of an adherence to a belief in a sky daddy.

Now these morons (To Wit - George W. Bush) have atom bombs!

What would Jesus do?

» RE: wwjd? Posted by: aislinnluv
» RE: Hamish Posted by: aonghus36
Let Dawkins Speak
Posted by: katrivers64 on Dec 15, 2006 3:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I have not seen this film, but I have read a lot of Dawkins's writing and writing about him. I think the guy is right on most counts. I was surprised to see this article on Alternet -- but I've noticed it's had a couple of "right wingish" articles on here before (and, dare I say it, even some that go left to a way silly degree -- never thought I'd say that!). Anyway, religion is the invention of man, and that is true whether or not one is a "believer" of any type. - Kathy

Amen, I agree!
Posted by: katrivers64 on Dec 15, 2006 3:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
LOL. I am glad to see you pick this comment out and make a good point.

Wake up call
Posted by: Nature12345 on Dec 15, 2006 3:41 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Ive been back and forth in my belief of a GOD but I think that the war in Iraq and global warming are 2 major wake up calls telling me that humans are not gods gift to the universe. I hope that the tiny-minded, knuckle-dragging, god-fearing can come to the realization that they have their focus on the wrong thing and consider that our planet is quickly going down the tubes. But we can also blame unchecked resourse consumption and the temptation of a materialistic/capitalistic society.

The Failure of Men, Not Science
Posted by: igoeja on Dec 15, 2006 3:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The crimes against humanity you attribute to science are the sins of men unencumbered by science. The atomic bomb was often fought by the men that created them, particularly Einstein. Eugenics, although conceptually quasi-scientific, was implemented by non-scientists, and most likely pushed by god-fearing men. It’s kind of like attributing the internet bubble to the people that work in technology, not to the irrationality of business people and to the general public.

» RE: The Failure of Men, Not Science Posted by: Camin Harner
» RE: The Failure of Men, Not Science Posted by: Camin Harner
» Secualr Humanism Posted by: igoeja
» RE: Secualr Humanism Posted by: Camin Harner
» Religions Growth Posted by: igoeja
Religious People are Stupid
Posted by: igoeja on Dec 15, 2006 3:58 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Have you ever seen the correlation between intelligence and religiosity? The more religious a person or group, the more stupid.

An article published last year showed the relationship of religiosity and country social dysfunction. Regardless if religion is chicken or egg, it correlates with measure of social dysfunction, from STD's to murder. The secular and humanist societies, i.e., European ones, have better performance on measures of social welfare.

God is garbage!

» URL 1: Religion and IQ Posted by: igoeja
» URL 3: Race and IQ Posted by: Krotos
» URL 4: Height and IQ Posted by: Krotos
» Muddy the Waters Posted by: igoeja
» Small correlation Posted by: igoeja
» RE: Muddy the Waters Posted by: Krotos
» Belief-O-Matic Posted by: igoeja
» Nonsensical Dichotomy Posted by: igoeja
» RE: As stupid as you? I doubt it. Posted by: theistfree
» Stupid as Who? Posted by: igoeja
» RE: Stupid as Who? Posted by: MAD
» RE: eligious People are Stupid Posted by: carcinoid112
An Atheist Bullies the Faithful
Posted by: cul on Dec 15, 2006 4:02 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and its about time.

Is it intolerant to be intolerant toward intolerance? Do racial or religious bigots have an inalienable right to be such?

I say "no" to both questions.

Is there a difference between blind faith in exclusionary religions and acknowledging a sense of awe about universal existence?

Yes.

Is rationality superior to spirituality. No.
Is rationality superior to faith? Yes.

an extremist to tip the balance
Posted by: schnoggi on Dec 15, 2006 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
religions go way too far in the direction of ignorance, and almost everything Dawkins says is quite right on, so while I may not ultimately approve of his obvious smug fundamentalism (using the word "wrong" is so incredibly lazy, on either side), his is the towering voice of rejection of all this stupid religious bulshit that the world has been waiting for for too long. I hate religions too, but i also realize you don't lead anyone to health by simply disdaining what they've been force-fed their whole lives. And we have no idea whatsoever about the unseen forces that shape the world; if someone crows with certainty that science showed them the answers to this question, then they're just as much of an idiot as some verse-quoting peasant.

» ahhh...spoken like a true agnostic Posted by: psychochurch
All I Can Say Is...
Posted by: pcushniesr on Dec 15, 2006 4:06 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
... Go, Richard!

The religious right is atheist so why support atheists?
Posted by: superfeduphoosier on Dec 15, 2006 4:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I guess there's no respect for the religious left here. Very Sad !

» Jeff, thanks. :) Posted by: superfeduphoosier
Lakshmi whistles past the graveyard
Posted by: Moonray on Dec 15, 2006 4:14 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
What an elaborate rationalization this article is. Somehow the author has managed to turn the truth-teller into a villain -- and the villainous dealers in bloodthirsty fantasies into heroes.

Using this same approach one could warn the world about those who dare complain about superstitions of all stripes. How dare they question our fear of walking under ladders or of spilling the salt? They must be narrow-minded and doctrinaire if they fail to share our horror at offending unseen spirits. (Just because we can't see those spirits doesn't mean they're not there.)

Actually, it's sad that today many of us have to defend ourselves for not believing in Zeus or Thor or Whoever, while the myth-peddlers continue to pillage the planet. And people like Lakshmi certainly aren't much help.

» RE: Lakshmi whistles past the graveyard Posted by: famouspipeliner
» RE: Lakshmi whistles past the graveyard Posted by: outsideagitator
Religion at its core
Posted by: Camin Harner on Dec 15, 2006 4:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Religion at its core is an alternate pathway to understanding, one that uses stories and symbols to express the very human longing for something bigger and more durable than our brief lives and for some kind of communal oneness with that something. Religion may well be