…and this is a 
An hour of radio inanity
Category: Kooks
Posted on: May 8, 2008 4:58 PM, by PZ Myers
I've tuned into KKMS, although to be honest, I lost all respect for these evangelical radio cretins when they had that Simmons "debate" and left me out. We'll have to see if their guest's attempts to criticize atheists in their absence will be as effective.
I'm trying to grade exams while simultaneously listening — it's like listening with half my brain tied behind my back.
The host claims that it is important to understand the perspective of the "New" Atheists…so why are they inviting this Aikman clown on, instead of an actual atheist?
Aikman claims the atheists are bringing "pestilence", and claims that we only pick on Christians (what? What about Hitchens?) because Christians are so good and kind and generous and won't blow them up. We're already in stupid territory: the atheists criticize Christians because they are the dominant element in our culture.
We get some whining about how Christianity is portrayed in the media (ubiquitously?), and an uncontested claim that the religion is a benefit to society.
So far, I'm still waiting to hear a real criticism of atheism and atheists.
Oh, yeah…"I used to be an atheist". I knew he'd say that eventually. It's amazing how 99% of the evangelical world seems to have been godless, once.
Now we get another predictable claim: atheists have done all the evil of the 20th century, and communists and Pol Pot get dragged out.
Another predictable point: there is no basis for atheist morality. To which I always wonder, if there is no god, then there must be no basis for Christian morality either.
These guys are completely clueless. This isn't an exercise in learning more about the New Atheists, it's 3 ignoramuses making up stuff with one another.
Good — August Berkshire called in to criticize, and hit them with a good question: if god is a source of morality, what is the Christian position on the death penalty? On contraception? Would you believe the Aikman clown tried to claim that the death penalty is not a moral issue? The DJs tried to run away and claim that their belief in the crucifixion is the core of their belief...which is not a moral issue, either. Aikman tries to dig up Hitler, and claims everything is about the basis of morality, while avoiding the simple fact that Christianity does not provide simple moral guidance.
Berkshire throws their own claim that the ten commandments are the basis of morality by pointing out that the punishments for violating most of those rules was death. When they try to duck and weave by saying they don't follow the Old Testament rules anymore, Berkshire hammers on the obvious fact that there has been a rather substantial change in the treatment of moral issues.
Another caller: Jeff from Maple Grove, who babbles a bunch of apologetics for the Old Testament. God Hates Sin. He didn't change his mind! Dear dog, I'm feeling my brain leaking away as I listen to these idiots.
Now Damon in Las Vegas calls in. Points out that atheists can't disprove the Christian god, but Christians can't disprove the other gods, but dismiss them — how do they do that? Aikman answers (?) that Christians believe they can have a relationship with god mediated through Jesus, and that the historical evidence for Jesus is strong, and then makes up a bunch of bullshit about evidence for the resurrection (making it up all the way). Then he claims again that he used to be an atheist.
He doesn't answer the question!
Bob calls in to address August, and again, he claims god didn't change, the people did. August clearly hit a nerve with that one.
Tony (Toni?) calls in to explain that she lost her Catholic faith and is an atheist, and her old associates all think she's going to burn in hell. She asks how a loving and just god could do that. Aikman chickens out and refuses to answer. The DJs try to dig into her Catholic background, and then basically tells her to accept it, and that you have to be perfect to live forever, and that's Jesus's gift…they're essentially telling her that she gets to burn in Hell. Aikman butts in and tells her to read Strobel. Strobel! That guy is awful.
I must apologize for mentioning this radio show to everyone. It's pathetic. It's three buffoons babbling on the air. I didn't learn a thing about atheism (how could I? They had no knowledge between them), but I was reminded once again how foolish theology is.
Comments
Half a brain is better than none.
Posted by: Mark B | May 8, 2008 5:05 PM
Hoo boy, not even 5 minutes in, and already they're playing the persecution card.
I don't know if I have the strength...
Posted by: Raynfala | May 8, 2008 5:07 PM
Half a brain is better than none? Bah! Don't try to pull some sort of "irreducible complexity" crap on us!
Posted by: Eximious Jones | May 8, 2008 5:09 PM
Is anyone keeping up with a recording of this like they had with the real debate? I'd kinda like to have a copy of their "arguments against atheists" so that I can be amused time and time again.
Posted by: HumanisticJones | May 8, 2008 5:10 PM
MAN THE HARPOONS, PHARYNGULITES!
I'm already waiting on hold. We'll see what happens.
Posted by: BoxerShorts | May 8, 2008 5:11 PM
Well, with the half-of-brain you have for listening, you'll only have a slight intelligence advantage over the hosts.
Posted by: Alex | May 8, 2008 5:12 PM
Any appeals to emotion yet? Pascals Wager yet?
Posted by: Suspect Device | May 8, 2008 5:13 PM
Posted by: HumanisticJones | May 8, 2008 5:17 PM
Yup, we've had Pascal's Wager and the Hitler was an Atheist argument already. Right now they're on "atheists have no basis for morality."
Posted by: BoxerShorts | May 8, 2008 5:17 PM
Right. Now we need a design argument and and argument from ignorance and that should just about do it. These species of Christians will not meet atheist criticism on the same level.
Posted by: Suspect Device | May 8, 2008 5:19 PM
I would have thought it would be like grading while being slowly put under general anaesthesia.
Posted by: JM Inc. | May 8, 2008 5:21 PM
That advert just now about "Do you have responsibilities in the Church" and then went on to mention Judas.
Did anyone else think of Catholic Priests and paedophilia as it ran?
Posted by: Big Dave | May 8, 2008 5:23 PM
Man, these guys are just stroking each others' egos and bantering about the some old inane bull. What a hollow dialog, hollow hosts, and hollow belief system.
Posted by: Graff | May 8, 2008 5:23 PM
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | May 8, 2008 5:23 PM
So it's a Fox News roundtable?
Posted by: AC | May 8, 2008 5:24 PM
"Christians are so good and kind and generous and won't blow them up.".
Do these people really need to be slapped upside the head with the dishonesty behind that type of statement.
Lets see...Timothy McVeigh, Christian suicide bombers in Lebanon, 188 attempts of bombing or fire bombing of abortion clinics in the US between 1989 and 2004 (Reference: http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm)
Oh noes, theres NO such thing as a christian bomber. Snark.
Frigging liars.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | May 8, 2008 5:28 PM
Aikman just got embarrassed on the "God changed his mind" issue.
Posted by: Alex | May 8, 2008 5:32 PM
August Birkshire (President of Minnesota Atheists) it pwning these morons. Awesome.
Posted by: BoxerShorts | May 8, 2008 5:32 PM
Posted by: HumanisticJones | May 8, 2008 5:33 PM
I really have to feel bad for believers who listen to drivel like this, thinking they are now equipped to go forth and Set the Unbelievers Straight. It's almost painful to watch them wade into debates with a sack full of bravado and these great honking blind spots that all their opponents know about.
It makes me wish you could put a disclaimer on apologetics as a whole:
WARNING: The following material is intended to make you feel better about suppressing the doubts you have about your faith. They are not designed to defeat the arguments of people who actually believe differently from you. The substance contained herein is subject to evaporation when exposed to close scrutiny. Under no circumstances should the following be compared, combined, or cross-referenced with other facts and arguments, as this may lead to structural collapse.
Posted by: DaveL | May 8, 2008 5:33 PM
I'd love to hear the discussions while the commercials are aired.
Posted by: GBruno | May 8, 2008 5:37 PM
Read "Whose Word Is It" by Bart D Ehrman - "He who is without sin cast the first stone" is a later addition to the Bible.
On top of that the radio dudes haven't read their New Testament, Jesus himself endorses, explicitly, the stoning of children to death, I wish the caller could call them on that. alas, I'm across the pond and don't have the funds to call!
Matthew 5:17-20 Jebus endorses all of Old Testament Law
Mark 7:9-13 and Matthew 15:4-7 Jebus endorses the stoning of children
Posted by: Big Dave | May 8, 2008 5:39 PM
Let me know when they ask listeners to send money to help fight these evil atheists.
Posted by: ThirdMonkey | May 8, 2008 5:41 PM
PZ sounds pissed. Glad he's not grading one of my papers as he listens to this drivel ...
Posted by: David | May 8, 2008 5:44 PM
The Resurrection is a historical fact? Ha!
Posted by: BoxerShorts | May 8, 2008 5:45 PM
He just said he became a Christian "against any working of reason." No shit.
Posted by: BoxerShorts | May 8, 2008 5:46 PM
PZ sez....Oh, yeah..."I used to be an atheist". I knew he'd say that.....
I've lost count how many converted Christians have said that to me also. But when closely questioned, they don't have a clue what an Atheist really is, as in, "I just don't believe in deities" They think they were an Atheist because they just didn't go to church for awhile. I think this magnitude of misunderstanding on their part is what leads them to think an Atheist can "just convert".
And PZ sez ......Another predictable point: there is no basis for atheist morality.
When I tell Christians of course I have morality, I am a Secular Humanist, with as much or more demonstrated morals than any Christian, of course they say I cannot be without god. Their version of god. So, in effect, only they can define morality!
Posted by: RAM | May 8, 2008 5:46 PM
#16
Nice, but I think all someone needs to do is mention Northen _freaking_ Ireland.
"Christians are so good and kind and generous and won't blow them up.". lol
Posted by: Crake | May 8, 2008 5:48 PM
Has this idiot even MET an atheist? My biggest problem with other atheists is that they give christians too much of a pass just because they aren't blowing themselves up.
At least in America the christians are WAY more dangerous and way more annoying and they get way too much of a free ride from most atheists, especially given their enormous power politically and economically in this country and around the world. Something that the "islamist extremists" who are blowing themselves up do NOT have.
Posted by: Timothy | May 8, 2008 5:49 PM
RAM #27
Great post.
"I just don't believe in deities"
This is not a criticism, but personally I hate using the word "belief". It seems so loaded, and that's how they try and normalize their idiotic world view (i.e. beliefs) with a scientific one. I prefer to say:
There is not 1 compelling reason for me to think that deities are real.
Just my preference.
Posted by: Alex | May 8, 2008 5:52 PM
"It's amazing how 99% of the evangelical world seems to have been godless, once.
PZ"
100% of the evangelical world is "godless", just like reality is godless.
.
Posted by: Jaycubed | May 8, 2008 5:52 PM
"Expert" hands over the loving god versus eternal damnation issue. Wow, some expert.
Posted by: GBruno | May 8, 2008 5:56 PM
The historical evidence for Mohammed is 22 metric fuckloads stronger.
Just sayin'.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 8, 2008 5:57 PM
Anyone playing Bingo? Or a drinking game? Just remember not to drive yourself home tonight.
"Aikman claims the atheists are bringing "pestilence""
"Actually, I'm bringing potato salad."
Even worse! Ack!
But seriously, be careful with that potato salad, or you really will be bringing pestilence.
Posted by: Rey Fox | May 8, 2008 5:59 PM
Now they're claiming that there's plenty of evidence for the existence of God/Jesus.
Mind you, they're not telling us what it is or where to find it, just that it exists.
Posted by: BoxerShorts | May 8, 2008 5:59 PM
The point of such a show is NOT to provide apologetics that believers can use in talking with atheists--it's to make Christians feel superior, or at least justified in what they believe. Every atheist I know is smart. Not just science smart or philosophy smart, but the kind of smart that is a real threat to religionists. I would LOVE to talk to some poor Christian bastard about this stuff in a one-on-one setting. Truth is, as wrong-headed and juvenile as this junk is, it's beyond that sophistication of the only Christians who have ever tried to "share their faith" with me. Once I hear the standard "why are there still monkeys" question (which is just so comical), I know I have nowhere to go. It's like trying to play tennis without a net, where the other player gets to call all the plays. If "the Bible says it, I believe it, and that settles it" passes as an argument, there is nowhere for a reasonable person to go. At the back of their minds, the people who say such things will assume that, because there are smarter-sounding people saying things they don't understand on the radio, then they must actually have some reasons for their beliefs, though they cannot grasp them and could not articulate them.
As for why I personally pick on Christianity, I consder it the supreme complement to the faith--it's the only one really worth bothering to attack. As far-fetched and inane as Christianity is, it represents top-shelf theology. Throughout Christianity's history, it has had a number of remarkable thinkers--Augustine, Thomas, Kierkegaard, Pascal--who have made some provocative arguments. They ultimately fail to make their case, but they are worth refuting. In every other case I knew of, the best thinkers used their intellects to moderate faith rather than to prop it up...in this, Christianity is unusual. That its most gifted thinkers wasted their talents spinning increasingly unlikely excuses for the things they wished to believe true is a tragedy of historical proportions.
Posted by: Greg Peterson | May 8, 2008 6:00 PM
Christian apologetics sounds an awful lot like rhetorical squirming.
Posted by: JM Inc. | May 8, 2008 6:00 PM
After listening to your debate with Dr Simmions I can`t take anymore today!I find it hard to believe a Doctor did not know what a theory in science is.Is he really that stupid PZ,or was he just throwing it out there for his bible thumping buddies?I also noticed the fine hosts found the need to interrupt you, but not the moron who had no idea what he was talking about!I did feel the urge to tell him to shut up.You creamed him PZ.
Posted by: Ed | May 8, 2008 6:02 PM
"It's amazing how 99% of the evangelical world seems to have been godless, once.
PZ"
Well, everyone's an atheist at birth, do you suppose they're talking about before they could talk, back when they had so much potential...
Posted by: Big Dave | May 8, 2008 6:03 PM
Why do you guys even bother to listen to that programme? The weather is great, the beer is cold. PZ might be stuck doing marking but what's everybody else's excuse? Life is too short.
Posted by: Konrad Talmont-Kaminski | May 8, 2008 6:03 PM
Did anyone catch the female caller at the end of the show? She was quite compelling--an ex-Catholic who now doesn't believe in God but keeps trying to give all the "evidence" for Christianity a chance. She said that the evidence is just too weak, even though she wants to believe.
The guest blustered that there was lots of evidence and recommended a book to her, but she had already read it. Religious blowhards can't seem to imagine that anyone can dismiss their flimsy little ideas.
The woman seemed sad that she couldn't believe, but the hosts of the show and the guest just bloviated rather than trying to seriously engage her questions and comments.
Posted by: Tosser | May 8, 2008 6:04 PM
Dammit... I didn't get on. Oh well.
Posted by: BoxerShorts | May 8, 2008 6:06 PM
"Why do you guys even bother to listen to that programme? The weather is great, the beer is cold. PZ might be stuck doing marking but what's everybody else's excuse? Life is too short."
Well, I though every thing once, and I had laundry to hang up, and in England it's nearly bed time.
It was good to hear in a peculiar way - but not something I shall repeat.
Posted by: Big Dave | May 8, 2008 6:08 PM
Hey, if you're stuck inside like I am, might as well have a laugh.
Posted by: JM Inc. | May 8, 2008 6:08 PM
Tosser (#41):
Which book? I'm morbidly curious to find out.
Posted by: Blake Stacey | May 8, 2008 6:10 PM
It is important to listen to this crap and refute it. Especially when it's on their dime and directed at their audience. Painful, yes, but necessary.
Thanks to PZ and all the rational callers.
Posted by: GBruno | May 8, 2008 6:11 PM
"Why do you guys even bother to listen to that programme? The weather is great, the beer is cold. PZ might be stuck doing marking but what's everybody else's excuse? Life is too short."
Personally, I've been stuck all day in an office crawling with creotards, and I can't think of a better way to unwind than in the company of my favorite horde of atheists.
PZ, you and everybody else here are like a second family to me. Keep up the good work!
Posted by: DaveH | May 8, 2008 6:19 PM
Standard fair as far as these things go. I couldn't bare to listen past the Los Vegas caller as they ducked and weaved and congratulated themselves for it.
A couple of things to point out.
The issue of disproving god kept popping up. And yes it is possible to disprove gods. But only when a claim or proof has been offered. The prefix 'dis' clearly means to remove. So to disprove god is to remove a proof that has been offered. That is we get to refute claims put forward by theists. In this way we can disprove or more properly refute particular claims for gods.
As to morality we may be saved from the terror that is Moral Relativism by our own nature. As was mentioned by one of the callers the discovery of Mirror Neurons is showing great promise in understanding our nature as moral beings. There is an excellent commentary in the current issue of New Scientist that eloquently discusses this issue. We seem to be wired to be the natural arbiters of our own morality. By means of our sense of interconnectivity we are able to cobble together a moral system by means of Self, Society, and Reason. And this is true of everyone, including the theists that believe their morality comes from the bible. We each keep our own sense of right and wrong and strive together with others to improve upon it.
Posted by: Robert | May 8, 2008 6:24 PM
For an excellent discussion of where atheists get their morality...and how flawed a Divine Command theory of morality is...I recommend Austin Dacey's new book, "The Secular Conscience." It's well-written and persuasive.
http://www.amazon.com/Secular-Conscience-Belief-Belongs-Public/dp/1591026040
Posted by: Greg Peterson | May 8, 2008 6:28 PM
"Berkshire throws their own claim that the ten commandments are the basis of morality by pointing out that the punishments for violating most of those rules was death. When they try to duck and weave by saying they don't follow the Old Testament rules anymore, Berkshire hammers on the obvious fact that there has been a rather substantial change in the treatment of moral issues."
I just took a quick run over to the KKMS radio site and happened to catch information on an upcoming guest speaker they are having who is going to speak on the application of the ten commandments in Christian life.
I should believe the morality they wish to side with is rather a the flavor of the month variety dependent upon whom they wish to address.
Posted by: Richard | May 8, 2008 6:37 PM
Brilliant. I'm getting that put on a rubber stamp or something.
Posted by: K. Signal Eingang | May 8, 2008 6:53 PM
"The issue of disproving god kept popping up. And yes it is possible to disprove gods."
Replace "god" with bigfoot, trolls, Loch Ness monster, faries, Thor, Zeus, etc. and ask your questioning Christian to disprove those myths using the same criteria and rational he is using. Can't be done.
Posted by: RAM | May 8, 2008 6:55 PM
Hahaha, "What's that they say? That you know a book by its cover?"
duuuuuh
Posted by: Escuerd | May 8, 2008 6:57 PM
You haven't had my German Potato Salad. A pound of bacon makes almost anything taste good :)
Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 8, 2008 6:59 PM
I think that most of these "ex-atheists" that they parade before the religious were more on the order of merely hating religion. It does happen, you know.
And because they hated it, without knowing much of anything about it, they were vulnerable to the apologetics of religion once they actually listened to the religionists. Their simple questions and simple "proofs" against religion were met with convoluted reasoning and assumptions which snuck in with the apologetics, and they didn't know how to reply to the responses they got. So they ended up being theists, hating atheists from the same ignorance that led them to previously react against theists.
That's why the "ex-atheists" are generally lame at arguing about atheism. They weren't atheists in any meaningful sense in the first place, and the religious folk just eat up their claims that atheism is only a way of "hating God" or some such thing.
It has been claimed by a few atheists that only those smart enough and learned enough to be able to sort through all of the religious claims have any right to be atheists. Naturally that's not true, though it is plenty snobbish, for one may simply learn good epistemics and epistemology and judge religion against those, refusing to accept the premises that religion must insinuate into the discussion before any of its claims make sense. That said, though, dealing fully with the assertions of religion is not easy, and requires knowledge of the history of thought to do properly.
On the other hand, these "ex-atheist" bozos" get paid almost entirely in order to assure the religious that their unquestioned presumption is correct, especially the one that says that atheism is simplistic hatred of religion and the religious. Because they'll always preferentially put these simplistic boobs onto programs "about atheism", neither the "ex-atheists" nor their audience will ever learn anything about intelligent secularism, and thus a symbiotic (mutualistic) relationship is formed.
Understanding their religion's claims about atheism is what it's all about. To understand atheism itself is self-defeating for the religion, for to understand non-theist critiques of religion would only undermine same.
Glen Davidson
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Posted by: Glen Davidson | May 8, 2008 7:03 PM
'I was an atheist once' means 'I wasn't as religious as I am now.'
Posted by: Brendan S | May 8, 2008 7:06 PM
"Replace "god" with bigfoot, trolls, Loch Ness monster, faries, Thor, Zeus, etc. and ask your questioning Christian to disprove those myths using the same criteria and rational he is using. Can't be done."
You cannot make the positive assertion that there is no god(s), bigfoot, trolls, or Nessi. But you can examine a person's claims regarding any of those and determine if the evidence they provide is sufficient to make their case. And if you find a means to refute their evidence then you have effectively refuted that particular claim. Be it for god or Nessie.
The only effective means a theist has against a well informed atheist is to not offer any evidence at all for god and remain in a stalemate. Once evidence is offered it can be picked apart. Thus the inevitable fall back to the faith based position of most theists.
Posted by: Robert | May 8, 2008 7:16 PM
re. Disproving god.
A common error is to mistake a class/group (gods) for the specific (God).
It is easy to disprove the existence of the specific. I will say with certainty that the god of Abraham, Moses, Jesus & Mohammed does not exist; because the claims, predictions & explanations allegedly given by the god are both internally inconsistent (they self-contradict) and externally inconsistent (they contradict the external world).
Even the properties attributed to such a being are self-contradictory: if god is omniscient how can he be omnipotent. In other words if god knows everything he can only do what he already knows will happen and therefore has no power to effect anything; if god can do anything than he can do what he cannot foresee and therefore doesn't know everything.
I will admit that there is a chance for magical beings to exist in reality; I believe that chance is infinitesimal but still possible.
I will assert that the chance that the god worshipped by Abrahamic Monotheists exists is zero.
Posted by: Jaycubed | May 8, 2008 7:18 PM
Thanks for the references, Robert @ #48 and Greg Peterson @ #49.
This problem they have with not recognizing any sources of morality other than god is undoubtedly what lies beneath their confused thinking on the fascist and Communist regimes. I was reading Orlando Figes' The Whisperers,an oral history of the Stalin era, recently and it comes through so clearly in people's accounts how much they saw their own actions in terms of right and wrong. So not turning in family members or colleagues, or having sympathy with scientists or bureaucrats who had been declared enemies of the people, etc., was a great source of guilt for many. The parallels with the Inquisition - captured beautifully in Danilo Kis' A Tomb for Boris Davidovich - are striking.
Yet it seems impossible for so many religious people to accept that terrible, twisted moral systems and ideals can and do exist (much less that their own might be one). Or that it is precisely our innate capacity for moral thinking that can lead people to fall prey to such systems. They have to see people in these societies as having no moral code and no ideals, despite all evidence to the contrary. Of course, they've never very been big on evidence...
Posted by: SC | May 8, 2008 7:22 PM
Does the radio station have the guts to have an atheist-only panel on the air some day soon? Just for balance?
As a sop to the godders, they could have an atheist who used to be a Christian as part of the panel. Those aren't hard to find.
Posted by: Hank Fox | May 8, 2008 7:35 PM
"Oh, yeah..."I used to be an atheist". I knew he'd say that eventually. It's amazing how 99% of the evangelical world seems to have been godless, once."
... I've always wondered about these statements...
By "atheist" do they just mean "half-assed pseudo-Christian", or do they mean they went through a period of rejection of their parents' religion as teenagers, or some sort of brief doubt?
... That doesn't really constitute "being" an atheist.
... but actually, that's one of the reasons I've been quite wary (and critical) of the "New Atheism" movement, esp. as represented at RD.net... I often wonder if a lot of the more vocal (and often exorbitantly facile/rude/angry/violent) posters there are really just teenagers of fundamentalist parents... or what might be termed "fair-weather atheists" who are quite likely to slip back into old habits as they age... only to break out the "I used to be an atheist." card 30 years later as if that constitutes some kind of proof.
Weird stuff...
Posted by: Spinoza | May 8, 2008 7:35 PM
Spinoza, I thought "New Atheism" was a name cooked up by the Christians, or the idiot news media -- like "Darwinist."
Are atheists actually using it?
Posted by: Hank Fox | May 8, 2008 7:37 PM
While you were listening to KKMS, you might have missed the news about NYC's only GOP member of Congress, Vito Fossella:
Fossella Admits to Extramarital Affair
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/fossella-admits-to-extramarital-affair/?hp
He has a three year old child he forgot to tell the world about. That strikes me as being the kind of secret that might be hard to keep for three years.
Posted by: MikeM | May 8, 2008 7:44 PM
"I used to be an Atheist." These people are only practicing "mere atheism".
That's all - just a way to increase their already made up credibility.
Posted by: Calladus | May 8, 2008 7:58 PM
Prof Myers must either be a masochist or a glutton for punishment to listen to such crap.
Posted by: SLC | May 8, 2008 8:18 PM
Regarding AC's comment #15, I nearly snorted my chocolate. LOL!
Seriously, One of the greatest disappointments of atheism is that I won't be around to see these folks in the "Great Hereafter" when they realize that it....isn't!
Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Rock Science | May 8, 2008 8:25 PM
The host claims that it is important to understand the perspective of the "New" Atheists...so why are they inviting this Aikman clown on, instead of an actual atheist?
Because an actual atheist might tell them something they don't want to hear, or might bring up questions they can't or don't want to answer. And guess what, when actual atheists called in that's what happened.
But Christians do this all the time; when my conservative Christian by SO connection "wanted to learn about Islam" after 9/11, did she read the Koran (like I did when I also read the other "big" religion's sacred texts)? Of course not; she read the work of a nutcase conservative Christian. Guess what? she found out Islam is evil incarnate and there's no talking to those people. And that's what she wanted to hear.
Posted by: QrazyQat | May 8, 2008 8:25 PM
I really enjoyed your post on 'Mere Atheism', Calladus. Very good.
Posted by: Brownian, OM | May 8, 2008 8:34 PM
I actually read Lee Strobel's Cases for Faith and Jesus.
This was about three months before I completely gave up on Christianity.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | May 8, 2008 8:38 PM
I got three copies of Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ (?) for my high school graduation. Not sure what my fundie friends and relatives were trying to tell me.
Posted by: molliebatmit | May 8, 2008 8:52 PM
Without reading the comments (though I will) I have to say:
I used to be an atheist.
I still am.
Posted by: MikeG | May 8, 2008 9:00 PM
#48
That mirror neuron stuff is fascinating. I'd never heard of it before and I only just googled it, but what little I read is very cool. I had no idea, but it makes perfect sense.
Posted by: OctoberMermaid | May 8, 2008 9:03 PM
The book that was recommended was probably Lee Strobel's Case for the Resurrection or the Case for Jesus. They are all basically the same book. Strobel claims in his books to present both sides of an issue and then shows how the xian side is right. He presents evangelicals giving their side then he presents other evangelicals setting up strawmen for the other side. Then he knocks down the strawmen and declares victory. He never presents real representatives of the opposition. Strobel, too, "used to be an atheist." I have come to the conclusion that to the fundies atheist = anyone who has not gone braindead for jeebus.
Posted by: wrpd | May 8, 2008 9:07 PM
Thank you for the compliment Brownian. I've been so busy with my efforts to lead an organization intent on spreading rationality through the Southern half of the California Central Valley/a> that I rarely get to write for my own purposes anymore. It makes it difficult to keep up on my blog.
Shoot, I stopped reading PZ's blog for three weeks, and came back to find over a HUNDRED flipping posts! I swear, it's like the man has 8 arms and can type on multiple keyboards at once....
Hey... waaaaait a minute...
Posted by: calladus | May 8, 2008 9:19 PM
whups. Missed an end quotes mark there. Sorry 'bout that.
Posted by: calladus | May 8, 2008 9:21 PM
Ya know, this "God is the source of morality and atheists can't have any morality" crap really irritates me. For one thing, the two best worked ethical systems of modern times, Kantian ethics and utilitarianism, do not rely on any sort of God for their substantive prescriptions or their account of why the moral law is binding. For another thing, having an all-powerful God doesn't help as a source of morality. This is freshman philosophy stuff, the famous Euthyphro dilemma. Here's the dilemma: does God do what is right because it is right, or is what is right right because God wills it? If the first, then we are still left needing an account of what makes what is right right; if the second, then what is right is completely arbitrary. If God had happened to have wanted to encourage baby-torturing, that would have been right.
Last comment: having an all-powerful God set to punish you if you do the wrong thing doesn't make you more moral. When you act just to avoid punishment, it isn't clear that you're acting morally at all! Think about someone who gives money to your favorite charity, and you think, "Hey, what a great person. How nice." Then you come to find out that this was a condition on their avoiding jail-time, set by some judge who was perhaps a little full of herself. Now, what do you think? Did this person do something good; do they deserve moral credit? No, of course not.
Bah.
Posted by: Pete M. | May 8, 2008 9:24 PM
I just watched the mirror neuron segment at PBS from a few years ago:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3204/01.html
Couldn't stop thinking of all the cool research possibilities.
Posted by: SC | May 8, 2008 9:45 PM
Anyone catch the latest Point of Inquiry podcast with DJ Grothe? He interviewed Chris Hedges about his latest book I Don't Believe in Atheists.
Hedges criticises the "New Atheists" accusing them of being "fundamentalists" in their own right - using fundie tactics and rhetoric. If I heard right he also says that humanism and science have essentially contributed nothing to the betterment of humankind.
I found the guy to be an apologist for terrorism and an arrogant know it all smart arsed pendant and sophist.
That being said it was an interesting interview.
Posted by: shane | May 8, 2008 9:54 PM
shane,
There was also some discussion of it here recently:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/chris_hedges_wastes_everyones.php
Posted by: SC | May 8, 2008 10:01 PM
You mean they are so full of shit that they can't even be recycled as toilet paper?
As with bibles.
Posted by: shonny | May 8, 2008 10:15 PM
Aikman claims the atheists are bringing "pestilence", and claims that we only pick on Christians (what? What about Hitchens?) because Christians are so good and kind and generous and won't blow them up.
PZ Myers
If this the case, I say atheists should start attacking people who practice Jainism. They will not blow anything up. Hard to say how many insects will be killed in that action.
Posted by: Janine ID | May 8, 2008 10:15 PM
I was browsing around the KKMS site, and...wow.
Here's a passage from one of their devotionals, Daily Presence ("Intimate Conversations with a Loving Father"):
I think I just threw up a little in my mouth. That kind of infantilizing behavior on the part of a father has to constitute some kind of child abuse, and the children's unwavering involvement in it (in first imagining and then accepting such a thing) is just sad.
Posted by: Etha Williams | May 8, 2008 10:33 PM
Pete M. @ 76,
That's a great point. Morality by coercion isn't morality at all.
Nicely said, and thanks.
Posted by: MikeG | May 8, 2008 10:39 PM
come on god, sends us a text message. oh, i forgot you can only whisper in old men's ears.
Posted by: genesgalore | May 8, 2008 10:45 PM
Off topic, but...
So you all heard about the Texas sinkhole-- probably caused either by gays, like Katrina, or by Darwinists. But look at what those "old earth" Nazis are saying...
"Daisetta sits on a salt dome, a natural formation created below the ground over millions of years where oil brine and natural gas accumulate. Oil drilling in the area, still dotted with working oil derricks, might have weakened the dome and caused it to collapse, Norman said."
Millions of years! Hah!! What lengths won't they go to in order to deny God?
Posted by: Dr. Cheese | May 8, 2008 10:49 PM
Janine ID
Aren't Jains and Buddhists technically atheists already ? Of course, that throws a whole 'nother monkey wrench the atheism == amorality theory.
Posted by: Reed | May 8, 2008 10:52 PM
Edward Current clears things up.
Posted by: J | May 8, 2008 11:00 PM
It's kind of funny- most of you want to just dismiss this "nonsense" but then you seem to be drawn to listen to it and try to poke fun at it. Very interesting... keep listening and try to ignore the truth, doesn't seem like you can stay away.