Pharyngula

Posted by: Ray Moscow | October 21, 2009 9:08 AM

Poor Dawkins -- wasting all that time with a small-brained blowhard.

Unfortunately he'll find this again and again in the US media. Fortunately, he has smart friends he can ask for advice before getting dragged into crap like this.

Posted by: Richard Smith | October 21, 2009 9:10 AM

HH: Yes. My God, actually, not yours. But let me...

I love when they say things like that. Betrays a bit of the truth behind their beliefs. How can he believe in a One True God if that god isn't also Dawkins's, whether Dawkins believes in that god or not? If Hewitt was an honest True Believer, rather than a holier-than-thou egotist, he would have said something like, "Yes. Our God, actually," instead. Then again, these are the sorts who also refuse to keep their prayers in their closets.

Posted by: Kilre | October 21, 2009 9:23 AM

My brain hurts.

Posted by: Cuttlefish, OM | October 21, 2009 9:42 AM

Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior,
Son of God; Divine,
Clearly has the power to turn
Water into wine.

Jesus Christ can walk on water,
Make the Blind to see,
Heal the sick, or raise the dead
Or die for You and Me.

Jesus Christ Is God and Man,
His followers explain;
So why, then, can't He get this Hugh
To use his fucking brain?

Posted by: kopd | October 21, 2009 9:45 AM

As someone who used to believe in that sort of thing (and is closely related to people who do), I sorta understand a bit. I mean, that's the definition of "miracle." I realize now that there's no excuse to believe the miracles in the Bible actually happened due to lack of corroborating evidence. But evidence aside, it's exactly because it sounds like magic that it is such an important event. If it had said "and lo, Jesus mixed one part flavor mix and four parts sugar into the water and stirred for 30 seconds until all the sugar was dissolved" then it wouldn't be so special. But Jesus can make jungle juice with his mind! That makes him pretty special. At least, to them it does. To me it just means that the old Baptist minister I used to listen to was full of crap when he was railing about how wrong Catholics are for using real wine because "Jesus could never be associated with alcohol." At that point I figured if I know the book better than he does, there was no point in going there any more.

Posted by: Rey Fox | October 21, 2009 10:02 AM

On another note, I find it a little surprising that a guy with a name like "Hugh Hewitt" isn't just pulling our collective leg.

Posted by: Sarah | October 21, 2009 10:03 AM

I don't understand the "snap", either. If HH is a Christian believer (and not just faking it) of course he believes in miracles and such.

That's the fundamental disconnect between supernatural belief and scientific thought. One requires evidence and the other just faith. You cannot have a rational discussion with such a believer, all you can do is counter the evangelism with rational ... uh, what's a word for the opposite of evangelism? devangelism? enlightenment?

I did think RD was hilariously funny in a dry English way by saying "My God..." :) It has to be deliberate.

Posted by: kopd | October 21, 2009 10:08 AM

Doug @12

It was better than the wine they had before they ran out, according to the host of the party.

Posted by: Zifnab | October 21, 2009 10:10 AM

Wait till Dawkins asks Hewitt if he believes the crackers and wine served at Communion are actually bits of human flesh and blood.

There's no accounting for crazy.

Hewitt and his audience aren't just about "God of the Gaps", they're true believers in the strictest sense. Jonestown style. It's like arguing the merits of snake oil with a snake oil salesman and his most loyal clientele. How do you think they're going to respond to you?

Posted by: ostranenie | October 21, 2009 10:15 AM

RD: "...there already isn’t an argument left, because if you actually look at the evidence, it is completely conclusive."

game over.

and as for HH, i'm sticking with my hypothesis: believers aren't necessarily idiots, they're hypnotized. and it's up to us to de-hypnotize them, to--dare i say it?--"enlighten" them. primarily with articulate arguments that back their conditioned brains into logical corners, and force a crack in their imaginary world. kinda like zen koans. yup, pz & rd: modern zen masters! (on horseback!)

Posted by: Darwin's Bulldog | October 21, 2009 10:29 AM

"Wait till Dawkins asks Hewitt if he believes the crackers and wine served at Communion are actually bits of human flesh and blood."

Mocking transubstantiation only works on Catholics. Protestants do not believe in the Real Presence in the cracker and wine, so they celebrate Communion as a commemoration of Jesus's death, not a reenactment.

Talking snakes, floating axheads, and arks full of every animal on the planet, OTOH, are fair game in every denomination.

Posted by: dk | October 21, 2009 10:35 AM

As a US expat in Australia, I frequently encounter incredulous reactions from Australians when they hear about the religious and anti-science nutjobs back home. There are people like that here too, but they are successfully marginalized with regard to the mainstream culture and so no one has to really deal with them. The Australians really have a hard time believing that these people are taken seriously in any way.

I suspect this also has something to do with Dawkins's tepid reaction to Maher's wingnuttery...

Posted by: Fred The Hun | October 21, 2009 10:39 AM

Hewitt is a ridiculous puffed-up blowhard of very little brain,

After reading the transcript of the interview that was not the impression I came away with.

It seemed to me me he was doing exactly what any smart lawyer would do if he was trying to get an acquittal for a guilty client. He was trying to create doubt in the eyes of the jury about the evidence.

He most certainly didn't convince me but I'm not who he was trying to convince.

The bar for conviction or acquittal in a court of law falls far short of proof of a scientific theory by the scientific method this is not a level playing, field the rules are not the same.

On the charge that Hewitt has very little brain, I for one find him not guilty. He is one savvy lawyer and thus shares my contempt for most in his profession!

Posted by: KemaTheAtheist | October 21, 2009 10:40 AM

So why, then, can't He get this Hugh To use his fucking brain?

My hypotheses:

1.) Hugh doesn't have one because he's an android and was programmed based on databanks of all of Bill O'Reilly's recordings.
2.) Hugh was brainwashed by aliens who want the human race to kill ourselves off so that they can harvest our planets for minerals with no chance of any casualties to their species.
3.) Jesus can't affect free will.
4.) Jesus doesn't exist.

Personally, I'm going with number one. One day, mark my words, Hugh will say, "Fuck it! We'll do it live!" and I'll have my evidence...

Posted by: fishyfred | October 21, 2009 10:43 AM

HH: All right. At the outset of your book, early in your new book, The Greatest Show On Earth, you write about science teachers, “when they explore and explain the very nature of life itself, they are harried and stymied, hassled and bullied, even threatened with the loss of their jobs.” How often has that occurred?

RD: It’s never occurred to me, I am very happy to say, and I would give short shrift to anybody who threatened me. However, I have heard over and over again from American school teachers, especially at school rather than at university, over and over again, I’ve heard from them, more or less heart cries, that they are not able to teach their subject properly, because they are indeed hassled and harried, and all those other words that I used.

HH: You see, I’m flabbergasted by that. That would be big news. I’m in the journalism business, and if that had happened even once, especially the idea of someone being fired for teaching evolution, it would have been an international cause celeb, and I’m…

RD: Oh, well, that’s very interesting then. I mean, I’m interested to hear you say that, because that makes, that suggests to me that what I should do is collect together some of the letters that I received. I thought that was undisputed. I thought it was well known.

HH: Oh, it’s absolutely disputed. I think actually, you’ve been bamboozled by people claiming your sympathy, when they in fact have never been fired. I don’t know of anyone who’s been fired from the public school system for teaching evolution in the thirty years I’ve been doing this.

Hooooo boy.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 21, 2009 10:53 AM

As a US expat in Australia, I frequently encounter incredulous reactions from Australians when they hear about the religious and anti-science nutjobs back home. There are people like that here too, but they are successfully marginalized with regard to the mainstream culture and so no one has to really deal with them. The Australians really have a hard time believing that these people are taken seriously in any way.

This is relevant for US atheists/skeptics that are going to speak here in Australia, at the upcoming atheist convention or at any other time in the future.
We are much more concerned about the odd out wingnut that gets to decide most policy decisions in the senate, like Steve Fielding say, or the influence of religious freaks working on politicians in the background, or the open but sort of accepted for not being too in-your-face and over-the-top religiosity of our PM, then about creationist nutcases messing up our everyday lifes.

Posted by: fishyfred | October 21, 2009 11:07 AM

@ #32 InfuriatedSciTeacher

parents who have apoplectic screaming fits in the middle of a full classroom about the topic (firsthand experience with that one)

Oh, please tell me they embarrassed the crap out of their child and that the kid looked like he/she considered it their worst nightmare.

Posted by: RamblinDude | October 21, 2009 11:09 AM

Dawkins needs to stop being confounded by American bull-headed stupidity in the area of religion vs. science. He often seems flummoxed, and then irritated, by American contrarianism to the point where it throws him off his game and he gets snippy.

That won't fly with people as arrogant and committed as Christian fundamentalists.

To spread rational thought in this country, you’ve got to be a patient teacher, not just an eloquent presenter of ideas.

Posted by: Richard Eis | October 21, 2009 11:14 AM

-HH: You see, I’m flabbergasted by that. That would be big news. -

Would he like to see the document "creationist top 10 questions to ask your teacher?" specifically made available to kids so they can demand the (usually first year) teacher answer quite difficult questions about a subject before they can even start.

As a journalist i'm sure he would be investigating that like a shot...hmmm...

Posted by: Luke Vogel | October 21, 2009 11:18 AM

I found that to be an interesting interview and that Richard handled himself quite well. Hewitt was working the questions, but at no time did I find him disrespectful or way out of line. I also don't think that Richard was wasting his time - he has a job and he's doing it (as he made quite clear).

However, the one thing that did jump out at me (since in reality I've heard interviews played out like this for the past 20 years or so) is what fishyfred pointed out.

HH: Oh, it’s absolutely disputed. I think actually, you’ve been bamboozled by people claiming your sympathy, when they in fact have never been fired. I don’t know of anyone who’s been fired from the public school system for teaching evolution in the thirty years I’ve been doing this.

It hit me for two main reason - one, Hewitt is adding the bit about being "fired" when Richard hadn't claimed anyone had lost their jobs - he says; "threatened with the loss of their jobs". However, Richard comes back after Hewitt says that about nobody being fired and says; "I thought that was undisputed. I thought it was well known". Clever, he got Richard, in essence, to admit something he didn't say.

I was somewhat surprised, given all that Richard has said the past couple of years, to hear him flatly say..

RD: Well, I’ve debated Francis Collins, whom I have great respect for.

Lastly, as funny as the Jesus quote's are, Richard did agree to revisit the conversation.

Posted by: Mbee | October 21, 2009 11:23 AM

I think it is sometimes good for someone like Richard to go on these shows because he gets to talk to people who do believe that all of the bible is factually true. So to come out and question the belief that they actually think water could be turned into wine in the way that he did might just make some people start to question it themselves. To set the seed of doubt is the first step in obtaining an understanding that you might be wrong.

Posted by: Richard Eis | October 21, 2009 11:35 AM

of course as evidence in the discussion if he turned down a debate with certain people...

Can't beat em, don't wanna join em.

Posted by: Marc | October 21, 2009 11:36 AM

BlueIndependent,

actually, Hitchens has been a rather frequent guest on Hewitt's show thoughout the whole Iraq War debacle.
On this Issue they are kindred spririts - they both vigorously defend it - even though they probably strongly disagree on many other issues, specifically religion.

As to what others have said about Hewitt's intelligence: leave aside for a moment what you think of his religious beliefs. I have listened to his show quite often (know thy enemy) and let me assure you, he is NOT stupid.

He is a master propagandist for the far right and quite skillful when it comes to using his lawyerly tactics to confound, confuse, mislead and discredit guests he disagrees with.

Given all that, Dawkins did quite well. Whether he should have gone on a show like this in the first place is another question.

Posted by: Rorschach | October 21, 2009 11:43 AM

Orac @ 42 being his usual dickhead self,

Perhaps Dawkins would send you his proposed media schedule; you could warn him.

If you have seen any of Dawkins' docus, like 'Enemies of reason", you would have seen those priceless moments when he just stands in awe and unbelief before a stupid/deluded/irrational adherent of some sort of woo, and just can't believe that person is actually that braindead.
I think the same happens to him in some of those radio interviews.

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | October 21, 2009 12:07 PM

Posted by: fishyfred | October 21, 2009 11:07 AM

@ #32 InfuriatedSciTeacher

parents who have apoplectic screaming fits in the middle of a full classroom about the topic (firsthand experience with that one)
Oh, please tell me they embarrassed the crap out of their child and that the kid looked like he/she considered it their worst nightmare.

Posted by: raven | October 21, 2009 12:20 PM

InfuriatedSciTeacher:

No, unfortunately the kid had called mom on the way to the bathroom to complain about the topic being covered, so is was more a look of smug satisfaction. Doesn't help when the principal tells the parent "yeah, go on down and see him about that" in the middle of class. Want to guess where I no longer work?

Oh gee, you weren't harrassed and pressured into quiting were you? Wait until they slash the tires on your car or something.

I know one science teacher, in Minnesota no less, who used to get anonymous death threats in the mail. And have heard from a few secondary science teachers who got harrassed until they quit.

Mind telling us what state your incident took place in? Guessing, somewhere in the south central USA.

Posted by: savagemickey | October 21, 2009 12:27 PM

At the point where HH said that yes he does believe that the water actually was turned to wine I would have had to ask him if he also believes in the miracles in the Koran and other non-biblical holy books. If not, why?

Posted by: IaMoL | October 21, 2009 12:39 PM

Nobel winner slams Bible as 'handbook of bad morals'

Posted by: InfuriatedSciTeacher | October 21, 2009 12:54 PM

Raven>
This was in extreme southeastern NC... if you pull out an NC map, you can't get any further south and east and still be in NC. To be fair, I"m still in that state, although in an area of it that isn't stuck in 1920, and these issues are greatly reduced. The area from my anecdote is the sort where people still burn crosses on other people's lawns... or (in the case of one man on four separate occasions) burn down buildings with crosses on them because the people who go there have more melanin than the one with the matches and gasoline.

fishyfred> It would be if the phone used hadn't been the one in the main office, at the suggestion of the secretary. There isn't a whole lot of recourse for that from my end.

Posted by: bobxxxx | October 21, 2009 1:13 PM

Dawkins talked about harassment of American biology teachers. Perhaps most of PZ's readers have already seen this story from Georgia. The best science teacher this school ever had, decided to retire early because being yelled at by Christian parents was not worth the stress.

http://tinyurl.com/228z58

Ms. New said the parents, "badgered, got loud and sarcastic and there was no support from administrators."

Creationist thugs always lose in court, but that doesn't stop them from harassing the best teachers so that they want to leave their jobs. In my opinion these Christian extremists need to be ridiculed relentlessly. They are no better than terrorists and they should be treated like terrorists.

Posted by: bojangles | October 21, 2009 1:25 PM

I'm pretty much from right around there. I'm from the Clear Lake area of houston, and I went to a public high school. It was thoroughly secular when I went through, in fact I can specifically remember my biology teacher during senior year explaining that the class is going to be taught as if evolution was true. No students objected. I realize this is fairly anecdotal, but it really does seem like everyone I know who was educated around here roundly dismisses creationism.

Posted by: Polyester Mather DD | October 21, 2009 1:36 PM

And seeing that there was no wine, Jesus said unto the steward of the wedding, " Bringest thou a jug of water from the well of Cana , that I may smite forth an alpha particle from two-thirds of the motes thereof, that they may be carbonized. "

And the Lord smote the jug with hadrons until it gloweth like the wash-pot of Moab in the fiery furnace and from it arose a pillar of helium and an exultation of gamma rays which ionized the guests of the wedding mightily so that they did thirst. And when the jug ceased radiating , the bridegroom's father poured forth wine from it and said " Verily, this is better than what the caterer served !"

So Jesus sent forth the caterer to Pontius PIlate to be crucified, for the son of a bitch hath charged the Cananites a talent of silver for three loaves, two fishes & ten nebuchadnezzars of Dom Perignon.

Here endeth the lesson.

Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 21, 2009 1:43 PM

I don't think the "Do you really believe Jesus turned water into wine?" is all that effective in prising apart someone's mythology. Of course Hewitt believes this, and it's just the mundanity of that miracle that makes it all the more compelling: If Jesus could turn water into wine for the sake of a couple who hired a shitty wedding coordinator, it's clear he could end war with a wink and yet chooses not to because god-works-in-mysterious-ways/ gave-us-free-will/ any-of-the-million-other-non-sequiturs-that-comprise-most-peoples'-theology. (Of course, I'm only speaking from the Catholic perspective, where the inconsistency of God's actions aren't seen as problematic, but squeee-inducing mystery.)

Instead, cast doubt on the issue of faith. Bring up Thomas the Doubter, and ask what that story compells you to do when you meet a follower of Shiva. (savagemickey's Koranic miracles are also good, but I prefer non-Abrahamic polytheistic ones so your interlocutor can't wriggle out with some syncretist "It's all one God, just with different names" bullshit. Mention that there's even more evidence that statues of Ganesh drink milk when offered than Jesus turned water into wine.) Bring up justice, and the impossibility of life on Earth being a plausible test for acceptance into the Kingdom of Heaven by mentioning that while you and your interlocutor have your however-many-year-long lifetimes to succeed or fail in meeting God's stringent moral test, somewhere right now a 4-year-old is being raped and murdered. Does she automatically get into heaven or hell, and is she in fact lucky for being raped and murdered so young or not? Ask them what kind of a favour it could possibly be for Jesus to die and rise again, given that in his incarnation as his own father he created the universe. How the hell can an omniscient, omnipotent god die in any meaningful sense of the word? Oh, he's still alive? Well, I guess that answers that.

It's not being forced to come up with answers to these that destroys one's faith--because you can and will, quite easily--it's realising that your answers are so obviously facile.*

Then again, Dawkins has been doing this for a lot longer than I have, and those are just a few of the sticking points of Abrahamic theology for me; YMMV.

*Cue trolls from two different sects insisting that I don't know what I'm talking about, that their theology is completely robust, and the above questions have been settled definitively centuries ago while disagreeing completely as to what the answers are in 5...4...3...2...

Posted by: DJ | October 21, 2009 1:46 PM

The transcript of the whole interview was interesting. The interviewer seemed to be trying his best to push RD in the direction of the answers he was looking for, kinda Comfort-esque. Such disingenuous interviews should definitely be sniffed out beforehand so as to be prepared for the stoopid.

Another classy defense by Dawkins though.

Come fight my brute! Come get your virtual butt kicked: http://killa-jigg.mybrute.com

Posted by: qbsmd | October 21, 2009 2:04 PM

Posted by: Bill Dauphin

In my experience, it's very difficult for sane, rational, well-meaning people to take onboard how insane, irrational, or ill-meaning others are capable of being. I run into this when talking to my wife about some of the issues we regularly discuss here: She finds it so hard to believe that people are as batshit insane as I tell her they are that she usually assumes I'm overreacting and being hypercritical.

I think that's also at the root of the difference between accomodationists and "new atheists".

Posted by: BlueIndependent

I'm surprised Dawkins and others like Hitchens don't know who these people are beforehand.

I doubt Hitchens cares; he seems to do interviews in similar situations often. Dawkins seems to be developing a pattern of not researching people thoroughly enough early enough, most notably Bill Maher.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | October 21, 2009 2:20 PM

I'm proud of my Texas heritage

How does that work? Did you contribute to it?

Mention that there's even more evidence that statues of Ganesh drink milk when offered than Jesus turned water into wine.

Though that one is so easy to explain – porous rock, capillary effect – that I wouldn't bother bringing it up.

Posted by: Darwin's Bulldog | October 21, 2009 2:43 PM

@sqlrob
The floating axe head story is found in II Kings, 6:1-7

5 But as one was felling a beam, the axe head fell into the water; and he cried out and said, “Alas, my master! For it was borrowed.” 6 Then the man of God said, “Where did it fall?” And when he showed him the place, he cut off a stick, and threw it in there, and made the iron float. 7 And he said, “Take it up for yourself.” So he put out his hand and took it.

Posted by: Dark Jaguar | October 21, 2009 2:44 PM

Ah Glenn Beck... I believe the best parody of this guy was made before he even got his job on Fox News.

Ah Kids in the Hall, how I love thee.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=83tnWFojtcY&feature=player_embedded

There's plenty of irreverent religious bits they did on top of that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=At-dM_2kEQI&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgILxqN_jxE&feature=player_embedded

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGQRBkv4di8&feature=player_embedded

Posted by: vanya | October 21, 2009 2:57 PM

If Jesus could turn water into wine, what does that imply about the nature of the Universe? How can God just step in and ignore natural laws (laws he presumably created in first place?)? If Jesus could turn water into wine, doesn't that imply that none of us are in fact real? We would all have to be simulacra living in a program to which God posesses the cheat codes.

Posted by: Zetetic | October 21, 2009 3:18 PM

tiger @ #68

wow. as i heard the show on the radio. dawkins got his brit-butt kicked around ugly bad!

he couldn't take the heat nor give direct answers when his "truth" claims are put under the microscope...!!

I wonder if there will be any further contact with this bizarre and backwards alternate reality?

Posted by: Brownian, OM | October 21, 2009 3:24 PM

Hey, look at this: my chest has a panel that opens with buttons inside.

[pressing] ↑, ↑, ↓, ↓, ←, →, ←, →, B, A, Start.

Blam! Blam! Why didn't the bible say anything about power-ups?!

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM4jebus | October 21, 2009 3:33 PM

Brownian:

Geographers call that 'topophilia'

Oy! Should I be taking antibiotics for that?

('topophobia' being its opposite.)

And that sounds like it requires a series of painful injections!

Posted by: random guy | October 21, 2009 3:37 PM

"My God. I've realized the kind of person I'm dealing with now."

As an atheist I can't tell you how many times I've started a conversation with someone who appeared to be intelligent only to say that exact phrase five minutes in. Dealing with deluded believers is the only thing that makes me go back to calling for divine assistance.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | October 21, 2009 4:12 PM

Should I worship them?

That makes at least as much sense as praying to Jebus. At least Penn & Teller exist.

Posted by: lose_the_woo | October 21, 2009 4:35 PM

If Jesus could turn water into wine, doesn't that imply that none of us are in fact real? We would all have to be simulacra living in a program to which God posesses the cheat codes.

You see!?...there's that "thinking" thing that god warned us about. Those who seek answers to these kinds of questions are fools. Do not be foolish. Just love the baby jebus. Love him with all your heart and your soul will be saved...as long as you accept him as your lord and triune deity, who died for your sins, and pray, and stop thinking of those foolish questions!

note: italicized words may or may not have relevant, static, or realistic meaning depending on the emotional state and intellectual capacity for reasonable thought of the reader.

Posted by: tc99mman | October 21, 2009 4:57 PM

#40 Blueindependent
Hugh Hewitt never said that aborting black babies would reduce crime. You are mistaken.
et. al.: Believing that all theists are stupid is prima facie false. Someone having some beliefs that one concludes are stupid indicates a lacuna or two in that persons belief system. He is wrong about the existence of God. Judging this as overall stupidity is, well, stupid. Is Kenneth Miller stupid?
Some avowed Leftists believe that socialism can work even though a socialist commonwealth cannot determine the price of goods and services because this economic calculation requires a system of profit and loss, a market, which is anathema to socialism. Hence, socialism cannot work and belief in socialism is stupid. Otherwise smart people believe in this unworkable system. I have read that the late renowned evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould was a socialist. No reasonable person familiar with his work would call him stupid. Get the point?

Posted by: aratina cage | October 21, 2009 5:17 PM

Hey, look at this: my chest has a panel that opens with buttons inside.
[pressing] ↑, ↑, ↓, ↓, ←, →, ←, →, B, A, Start.
Blam! Blam! Why didn't the bible say anything about power-ups?!

Posted by: MickyW | October 21, 2009 5:31 PM

RD: That would be a pretty unpleasant sort of God. I think, I would say you’re welcome to believe in a kind of God who would do that, but it’s not the kind of God that would appeal to me.

HH: Well, it’s not about what appeals to us, it’s about what is.

Every Christian apologist that I've ever read or heard of will inevitably revert to one or another form of "says the clay to the potter" argument when their "evidence" runs out.

Posted by: Paul Burnett | October 21, 2009 5:41 PM

"sqlrob" (#18) wrote: "A section was prefaced with a Jefferson quote "Question With Boldness". I notice that he was too chicken shit to have the entire quote. "Question with boldness even the existence of god."

Jefferson was full of these sorts of things. Here's one of my favorite Jefferson quotes: "Religions are all alike -- founded upon fables and mythologies."

Posted by: raven | October 21, 2009 6:10 PM

Richard Mullen was apparently fired for being an atheist. He was not a (gasp, horrors) science teacher.

This is just witch hunting. Biologists, physicists, geologists, atheists, they are all the same. Fundie xians never got the memo that the Dark Ages are over.

No idea how often this happens. From what I've seen, atheists in some parts of the USA might be advised to stay in their closet or find other employment.

Atheism Blog By Austin Cline, About.com Guide to Atheism since 1998

My BioMy BlogMy ForumAdd to: iGoogleMy Yahoo!RSSRichard Mullens: Teacher Fired for Being an Atheist?
Thursday February 12, 2009
In Brookeland, Texas, Richard Mullens was a school teacher — but why isn't he teaching anymore? Why is he on indefinite suspension? According to Mullens, it's because he's "too liberal" and an atheist, though he has never said whether he believes in any gods or not. Instead, Mullens says it's simply the perception of some parents that he's liberal and atheist which outrages them and caused the school board to suspend him.
Is it possible that he was suspend for other, justifiable reasons and he's just using this as an excuse to gain sympathy? Yes, because there isn't a lot of information coming out right now and there's just no way that anyone has a full picture of what's happened. On the other hand, there is evidence that that the school board were the ones looking for excuses for their suspension of him and there's plenty of examples of schools in the south behaving in a similar manner towards people perceived as "outsiders." So Mullens' story is more than plausible and credible.

Posted by: WowbaggerOM | October 21, 2009 6:30 PM

[pressing] ↑, ↑, ↓, ↓, ←, →, ←, →, B, A, Start.

Just because we use cheats doesn't mean we're not smart...

Posted by: Arvedui | October 21, 2009 6:42 PM

Hell, if he gets on Glenn Beck, it'd be the first time I've actually sat through an episode of the damn thing. And even if I drop a few IQ points, it'd be so worth it.

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 21, 2009 6:56 PM

If Jesus could turn water into wine, what does that imply about the nature of the Universe?

So it gives a reasonable platform for atheism - that is no violations of natural law have ever passed scientific scrutiny.

Posted by: Sili | October 21, 2009 7:05 PM

That makes at least as much sense as praying to Jebus. At least Penn & Teller exist.

Posted by: Lola | October 21, 2009 7:46 PM

Poor Dr.Dawkins. He must go into these interviews thinking "This is it. This is the interview that will be hosted by an intelligent being for a change." It almost sounded like he was babysitting the host. He does not deserve that. Thoroughly enjoyed his responses to the lawyer though.

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 21, 2009 7:59 PM

I read the whole interview, it wasn't as bad as I expected it to be. The bit about transitional fossils were annoying; it's not the amount of transitional forms, rather that any exist at all (and some so clear as day as archaeopteryx) counts as evidence for evolution. The gaps aren't really gaps, just because some go out of their way to claim there are no transitional forms*, it doesn't mean they don't exist.

The other thing that was annoying was the hounding of evidence for Jesus. Historical accounts may attest to a historical person, but mythic accounts don't attest to a mythic person. Eyewitness accounts of miracles don't attest to miracles, case in point Uri Gellar. No need to invoke Humean scepticism, it's blindingly obvious that people attesting to a violation of causality is not sufficient to establish it.

So a really high threshold of evidence for a naturalistic process, and a really low threshold for claims of the supernatural. Such an idea should surely be can be captured in a cartoon...

*by definition, which is as useless as saying every fossil is a transitional fossil

Posted by: Patrickp | October 21, 2009 8:18 PM

Funny how emotional and insulting comments are used to attack, "little brained" " blow-hard" " retard" , and are used to defend science. It is embarasing and makes you look desparate. Even though I do not, Somehow Einstein was able to fit spiritualism and science in his life view. Maybe people shouldn't be so small and intolerant. I find it illogical to dismiss faith without having a firm answer for all of life's questions, so am an agnostic. What I know about Hewwitt is he is an environmental lawyer, so I imagine he has some grasp of science and logic. Judging from the fact Dawkins saw fit to agree to the interview, you should not try to deligitimize it.

Posted by: Patrickp | October 21, 2009 8:20 PM

Funny how emotional and insulting comments are used to attack, "little brained" " blow-hard" " retard" , and are used to defend science. It is embarasing and makes you look desparate. Even though I do not, Somehow Einstein was able to fit spiritualism and science in his life view. Maybe people shouldn't be so small and intolerant. I find it illogical to dismiss faith without having a firm answer for all of life's questions, so am an agnostic. What I know about Hewwitt is he is an environmental lawyer, so I imagine he has some grasp of science and logic. Judging from the fact Dawkins saw fit to agree to the interview, you should not try to deligitimize it.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 21, 2009 8:33 PM

Somehow Einstein was able to fit spiritualism and science in his life view.

I find it illogical to dismiss faith without having a firm answer for all of life's questions, so am an agnostic.

What I know about Hewwitt is he is an environmental lawyer, so I imagine he has some grasp of science and logic.

Posted by: Meathead | October 21, 2009 8:57 PM

I wonder if Jesus can turn flour into blow. I'm almost out.

Do you have any LSD? If so you might at least be able to think Jesus was turning your flour into blow.

Posted by: Rey Fox | October 22, 2009 1:30 AM

"I find it illogical to dismiss faith without having a firm answer for all of life's questions, so am an agnostic."

They got you where they want you. They've made you think that because we don't have firm answers for all of life's questions, then you need to give credence to their faith. I find it logical to dismiss faith because it has never led to any new understanding of anything. It's an intellectual dead end. They don't have the answers, they don't have a method of finding those answers, so it's perfectly necessary to call them out on it. They didn't earn respect, and we won't give it to them.

"Judging from the fact Dawkins saw fit to agree to the interview, you should not try to deligitimize it."

What kind of bollocks is that?

Posted by: Cerberus | October 22, 2009 8:52 AM

On Dawkins and it being a shtick, I get the impression that he's genuine. To make this case, I present a common psychological thing I encounter often in my day-to-day life that is the difference between "knowing something" and "viscerally knowing something."

I may know for instance that there are people like Orly Taitz who don't believe the president was born in this country. I could write about them, explain their motivations, understand exactly what they are really objecting to. I could even chart the origins of the myth through the John Birch Society "foreign interlopers" ideas.

But all of this wouldn't be much of a shield against the visceral knowledge of having a chat with someone and them casually mentioning that the president is a secret Kenyan muslim. That visceral knowledge brings home all of these facts.

I get that Dawkins is very British and in Britain proud ignorance isn't that popular and the society in general is more stoic and secular than ours in America. He may intellectually understand the poison of organized religion on modern life and may have charted exactly why people are attracted to the God Hypothesis, but he hasn't had much personal interaction with the nutcases outside of dismissable forms such as angry letter writing campaigns or the more apersonal medium of the internet or written statements.

He had the same puzzled reaction to meeting atheists who were angry about their ex-religions despite writing a book detailing how corrosive such religious upbringings were. Why? Because he hadn't seen first hand the damage and hadn't been directly connected on a visceral level to that rage. Similarly with this interview. He may understand that there are nutcases that believe the bible is inerrant historical record, certainly he has debated them before, but I think he's starting to approach visceral knowledge of what it is like to have to deal with these fuckers on a daily basis.

Visceral knowledge we all take for granted in the same way Brits take for granted their visceral knowledge of horrors like mushy peas and those packaged sandwiches that sit out all day.

Quick summary: There's a difference between knowing and "oh god, you're really serious."

Posted by: Benedict | October 22, 2009 11:35 AM

The greatest irony the world has ever known is that atheists actual believe they're the smart ones.

God help us all.

The blind lead the blind into the pits of idiocy.

Jesus is Lord!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 22, 2009 11:52 AM

The greatest irony the world has ever known is that atheists actual believe they're the smart ones.

God help us all.

Jesus is Lord!

Posted by: Benedict | October 22, 2009 1:04 PM

a) What is the "fallacy that religion presents"?
A: That there is a God. And yet, this arises from what evidence? None. Simply your presupposition there is no God.I'll pass on hearing the results of an IQ test of believers versus non-believers. The results would simply show me who conducted the survey.
b) What is the "evidence" against the historical life of Jesus? A: There is none. In fact, there is more evidence for the historical life of Jesus than for any other ancient figure.
c) What is your "evidence" for proclaiming the testimonies written about Jesus to be false? A: Simply your presupposition that there is no God and that miracles are impossible.
So, here is where the atheist's "evidence" comes from. His/her own false premises that were implanted in his/her mind by a modern mindset that seeks its salvation through its own technology rather than receiving salvation from a loving God. It's human pride, the story of humanity since Eve grasped at being like God on her own terms. There's nothing new under the sun.

If Alanis Morisette uses the term in its original context as a thing phrased such as to hide connotation behind denotation, then yes, I do agree with her definition. The atheist asserts the unassertable. Only an omniscient Being can know whether God exists; a finite being cannot know any such thing. There is no earhtly experiment that can prove or disprove God's existence. The atheist, in an utter contradiction, needs to proclaim his/her intelligence to mask the truth of his/her ignorance. And this is irony in its true sense.

Hope this helps.
BTW - if the Creator of all that is wants to turn water into wine, what is it that could possibly stop Him. The natural law? What a foolish thing to believe, that the Creator of the natural law couldn't usurp His own law.
Give me a break. Think before you speak.

Posted by: Benedict | October 22, 2009 1:34 PM

Actually you have it backwards Senor Nerd.
Faith does not require evidence. Actually, faith can only exist in the absence of evidence. If I had what you would call 'proof', then I would no longer need faith, would I? I am not putting forth a scientific fact that God exists. As I said in my post, science can neither prove nor disprove God. I am rather stressing the latter point --- that your 'proof of God's non-existence' is no proof at all, but simply your own presupposition.

As for the evidence for believing whether Jesus was who he claimed to be, actually the textual and archaeological evidence that we have supports his claim more so than it supports the other two options (i.e. that Jesus was a lunatic or a liar). There are only 3 conclusions one can legitimately make when evaluating the claims of Jesus. He is either Lord, lunatic or liar. In fact, Jesus' central question to his disciples and to all who read the New Testament accounts of his life is this: Who do you say that I am? And so I ask you, who do you say Jesus is?

If you come back with some nonsensical reply that states something like "we don't even know if Jesus really existed" or "we don't know if he really said what his disciples claimed he said", then I call you a phony. You are neither educated in the matter nor are you concerned about truth. Your only acceptable answers are Lord, lunatic, or liar. If you can furnish some evidence for why you think Jesus is a lunatic or a liar, I will listen to what you have to say.

Good luck.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 22, 2009 1:47 PM

Faith does not require evidence. Actually, faith can only exist in the absence of evidence. If I had what you would call 'proof', then I would no longer need faith, would I? I am not putting forth a scientific fact that God exists. As I said in my post, science can neither prove nor disprove God. I am rather stressing the latter point --- that your 'proof of God's non-existence' is no proof at all, but simply your own presupposition.

Because science can neither prove nor disprove your idea of a deity, by default, your deity is real because faith demands it. Nice job there, one can use that to "prove" any religion.

This is also funny because you claim that their is more proof of Jesus then any other historical figure. I am assuming that you are taking that statement on faith.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 22, 2009 1:57 PM

There are only 3 conclusions one can legitimately make when evaluating the claims of Jesus. He is either Lord, lunatic or liar.

And one conclusion one can make from anyone using the trilemma.

That that person does not think very deeply.

Posted by: Cerberus | October 22, 2009 2:00 PM

Ookay, big bag of crazy, but let's play. Assuming that an actual Jesus figure or one so designed actually did exist in the time period he was assumed and assuming the record keepers (a set of entirely human actors possibly with their own motives) were entirely accurate (despite the well-known biases of those selecting which gospels went in and which were decried as false and the fact that many humans if they knew their words would be taken as God's would be tempted to slant such coverage and of course the long, sometimes decades long time between hearing and writing when memory especially during traumatic times is notoriously tetchy). Also assuming that the well known dichotomies, outright contradictions, and battling apostles of the NT gospel section alone did not exist.

Assuming such a world, the figure Jesus could be many things. A pastor (unless you assume all pastors are Lord or liar), a well-meaning, well-intentioned person trying to make his philosophies heard and understood in a strictly religious community, a reformist minded well-intentioned man of delusion (see the Buddha), just a man who liked hyperbole and magic tricks (with a gullible audience) to make his well-intentioned points, a joker, or even just some dude who had some followers who were way more intense than he was.

And that's just a handful of suppositions beyond the far more likely.

And furthermore, you rely on "faith", that is to say a hunch. Fair enough, say I, you live your life the way you'd like. Except, see here's the problem. You fuckers keep barging into MY life and saying "you can't live like that, you can't marry who you want." Or you try and say "that man can not be a good man because he doesn't share my hunch, hate him." Or you say, "that woman cannot get that surgical procedure, that necessary medicine, because my hunch hates women, sorry, I love my hunch so much." Or :my hunch should be believed by everyone who surrounds me so that I don't go through life realizing I've enslaved myself to a chunk of words on a page." Or you try and kill my scientific field because it threatens the veracity of your hunch.

See, that's a problem for me. Because your hunch is you telling yourself a comforting bedtime story about a guy who does indeed have some nice philosophies on empathy and the importance of being a communist. And well, good on you if that helps you sleep, but the rest of us don't have to spend our lives scrubbing reality of the truth that your hunch has zero impact on how the world actually operates and that your hunch's "lack of proof" and "faith" are a demonstration of that. It has not impacted "real" life other than the actions of the fanatic cultists of the hunch who try and bully and slaughter us into following along.

And that shit is quite reprehensible.

So take your hunch and talk to your fellow hunchists and tell them they don't get to bully around the world anymore. They either interact with the world as it is while they chase their delusions or they get the fuck out.

Capiche?

Posted by: Benedict | October 22, 2009 2:08 PM

As for textual evidence, the best two early extra-biblical sources that reference Jesus are Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews and Tactitus's Annals. There are others. All, are, of course, debated. Best archaeological evidence comes from 1st century ossuaries found throughout the Middle East and as far as Rome. Marked with a cross, these ossuaries point to the existence of Christians, and you don't have Christians without a Christ.

I find it interesting, however, that you are so eager to put aside biblical testimony, as if 1st century historical writings that are written by people who believe in him are for some reason to be automatically disregarded.

Yes -- I say that in our lives we all live by faith in one thing or another. You seem to have faith in some notion that for a thing to be actual it must be provable and testable within an empirical framework. (i.e. truth can only come from a science lab). Do you actually live your life in this manner...where you "make sure" of something before handing yourself over to it. If this be so, I suspect you never get in a car, cross a street, go out to eat or certainly never allow yourself to fall in love. What a sad way to live...

I am sorry.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 22, 2009 2:13 PM

I find it interesting, however, that you are so eager to put aside biblical testimony, as if 1st century historical writings that are written by people who believe in him are for some reason to be automatically disregarded.

What's even more funny is that you think that the bible is an unchanged 1st century written account of events. Lets not even get into the first 33 years part.

Posted by: Janine, Vile Bitch, OM | October 22, 2009 2:15 PM

Yes -- I say that in our lives we all live by faith in one thing or another. You seem to have faith in some notion that for a thing to be actual it must be provable and testable within an empirical framework. (i.e. truth can only come from a science lab). Do you actually live your life in this manner...where you "make sure" of something before handing yourself over to it. If this be so, I suspect you never get in a car, cross a street, go out to eat or certainly never allow yourself to fall in love. What a sad way to live...

I am sorry.

I am sorry that you are such a sloppy thinker that you cannot understand how other people can live. I am sorry that you cannot understand how your argument for faith can work for any religion. I am sorry you do not understand that the Josephus quotes are frauds. I am sorry you do not understand accounts of the live of Jesus from a couple of centuries after he supposedly lived is not proof.

Posted by: kopd | October 22, 2009 2:21 PM

Do you actually live your life in this manner...where you "make sure" of something before handing yourself over to it. If this be so, I suspect you never get in a car, cross a street, go out to eat or certainly never allow yourself to fall in love. What a sad way to live...

I'll trust my car more than your god any day. At least I know it exists, and the reviews say it's much more reliable and less likely to make me burn to death than that asshat in the Old Testament. But more to the point, you don't seem to understand the difference between "reasonably sure" and "100% certain." I'm wasting my time here explaining this, but oh well. It's impossible to be 100% certain about most things, but 100% absolute knowledge isn't required for most things. I don't need omniscience to decide that leprechauns probably don't exist, or that I should probably not exit my office through the second story window. With an absence of evidence to show that one bronze age myth is better than any other myth, I decide it is reasonable to assume they are all wrong. Am I absolutely sure? No. Does that matter? No.

Posted by: CJO | October 22, 2009 2:27 PM

As for textual evidence, the best two early extra-biblical sources that reference Jesus are Josephus's Antiquities of the Jews and Tactitus's Annals. There are others. All, are, of course, debated.

All written after the synoptic tradition is established, and therefore all easily explicable as simply reports of the beliefs of the writers' Christian contemporaries. The passage in Josephus, the so-called Flavian Testimony, is a later Christian interpolation.

Best archaeological evidence comes from 1st century ossuaries found throughout the Middle East and as far as Rome. Marked with a cross, these ossuaries point to the existence of Christians, and you don't have Christians without a Christ.

And what, you don't have Mithraists without Mithra? No cult of Asclepius without Asclepius? Osiris must have been a King of Egypt? How far does your formula extend, or is it just a blatant double standard? Mythmaking was a constant in the ancient Mediterranean, and plenty of religious revival movements occured based wholly on this kind of literary activity. We have no warrant to make an exception for the foundational mythology of Christianity.

I find it interesting, however, that you are so eager to put aside biblical testimony, as if 1st century historical writings that are written by people who believe in him are for some reason to be automatically disregarded.

It's begging the question to call the gospels "historical writings." They are literary texts, of a piece with the larger Near Eastern mythical tradition, and overwhelmingly concerned with theological issues, not history. They are also all anonymous. Anonymous ancient texts are not given the imprimatur of history uncritically, even when they treat the doings of figures otherwise known to history, which minimal test Jesus doesn't meet. Even accounts found in histories by named individuals known to history, like Plutarch, Tacitus et al, are not just accepted uncritically as true by modern historians.

Posted by: Cerberus | October 22, 2009 2:37 PM

Do you know what empirical data is? What research and academic rigidity are for? What those lab tests are for?

When I get in my motor vehicle. I'm engaging the byproducts of hundreds of scientific groups and industries that have been market tested and regulated to ensure that when I turn the key, it will operate said vehicle and not say blow up. This process is observable as many others turn the key and operate their vehicles.

When I go for a license, they test me on the rules and defensive driving. I can then assume that those also operating said vehicles will be following the rules and practicing similar driving tactics. Each iteration of this event is another empirical datapoint supporting that hypothesis and allowing it to be assumed truth or a theory. This theory can then be relied upon but still allow both statistical fluctuations (somebody doesn't follow the rules thus endangering me) or to be proven wrong (internal combustion tomorrow turns out to stop working, all the rules of physics changed). The more trials, the more runs, the more we can assume the latter to be unlikely to the point of dismissable. The less likely the former, the more we can rely on said experiences in the day to day.

And science relies on innovation, hence creativity, hence trying out a new hypothesis. I can go explore that random hiking trail no one walks down. I can find empirical evidence from this. Nope, it's filled with poison ivy, ok, it works, but it doesn't go anywhere. Oh, hey, that was neat, why wasn't anyone taking this path before it saved 10 minutes off my route.

It can also be changed with new evidence. Ok, the fact that I'm being shot at now is a big hint of why no one goes down here, apparently it cuts through a crazy man's property.

Life is full of experiences. We experience it and we learn from it and we learn from the fruits of others who record their experiences so we can rely on their knowledge. We know World War 2 occurred because we have painstaking records of those experiences that can be verified. We also have ways of double-checking thanks to that work whether something is false (say the attempts to whitewash the holocaust (done by protestants in the name of God)). If a myth threatens it (say that the nazis were atheists working with the commies), we can turn to that record or any new evidence to disprove the claim (at least in the arena of history, contemporary myths are often harder to pierce)

All of this is good fine work we rely upon to operate civilization as we know it. To just say, "welp, it looks tough, jesus x 10" is to denigrate that work and to work towards undermining it in support of an emotional state that wishes for ephemerality over the raw creative spirit.

Oh also, it's one thing to love a work of fiction, another to assume the world is that work of fiction. I like books about wizards. There are no wizards on Earth. If I demand the historical record add wizards for the peace of my mental state, I'm a douchebag, even if I point to Harry Potter and call it a religious artifact. Even if I point to a really old work of fiction like The Odyssey.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | October 22, 2009 2:42 PM

Oh but Cerberus, think of all the people who have read the bible.

Posted by: Richard Eis | October 22, 2009 2:49 PM

-Oh but Cerberus, think of all the people who have read the bible.-

Read SOME of the bible. Anyway bibles are 10 a penny..in fact they are given away free. I've got 3, none of them bought. Possibly more in the loft.

It's easy to become popular when you give it away for free and tell everyone it's a self-help book. And it comes with glowing recommendations.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | October 22, 2009 3:06 PM

Oh, look, a goddist is trying to school the skeptics in presupposition by demanding that we prove a negative. Now that's comedy.

Do you actually live your life in this manner...where you "make sure" of something before handing yourself over to it. If this be so, I suspect you never get in a car, cross a street, go out to eat or certainly never allow yourself to fall in love. What a sad way to live...

Odd; I don't find it difficult to do those things at all. I know the car isn't going to blow up, I follow the pedestrian signals on traffic lights, and I figure if a restaurant's been in business for more than a year, its product's been tested and found safe. No belief-without-evidence necessary. Falling in love is a trickier business but hormones will be hormones, ah well.

Faith does not require evidence. Actually, faith can only exist in the absence of evidence. If I had what you would call 'proof', then I would no longer need faith, would I?

You seem to think this is a sensible way to think. This is the opposite of logic and antithetical to science. Nonbelievers eschew this logic-free placeholder for thinking. This is why we heathens think we're in general the smart ones.

I am not putting forth a scientific fact that God exists. As I said in my post, science can neither prove nor disprove God. I am rather stressing the latter point --- that your 'proof of God's non-existence' is no proof at all, but simply your own presupposition.

Has anyone ever shared with you the logical axiom that you can't prove a negative? Your belief in God is a positive assertion, and as such, it is your presupposition, and not our conclusion, that requires evidence. Science cannot prove that God is impossible, but it has so far done nothing but an increasingly effective job of proving that God is not necessary to explain what goes on in the universe. If God is not necessary, then assuming he does not exist is a perfectly reasonable conclusion. If you expect us to buy into your positive hypothesis and behave accordingly, then you'd best come up with some solid, mutually observable evidence. So far all the believers have had to offer is an edifice made of fear built on a foundation of wishful thinking and decorated with one hoax after another.

Posted by: Cerberus | October 22, 2009 3:23 PM

156-

Also Diablo. And that one will be hard. People have been playing that game for decades and it is popular throughout the western world. Obviously this means that Diablo, Baal, and Mephisto really did arrive in our planet via the Burning Hells before being banished by generic hero player but not before the destruction of the World Stone.

On that note, where's the disproof of Haruhi Suzumiya?

Or Lain?

Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM4jebus | October 22, 2009 3:29 PM

woozy (@120):

In my experience, it's very difficult for sane, rational, well-meaning people to take onboard how insane, irrational, or ill-meaning others are capable of being.

Actually, I tend to be the other way. I kinda assume if someone believes in the gospel, then I assume they do believe in the water into wine, walking on water, and all that stuff. I mean, why is it in those books if folks aren't supposed to believe it?

I'm not sure our positions are that far off of each other. I agree that, logically speaking, god belief ought to be a you-buy-the-premise-you-buy-the-bit sort of deal: Once you posit the existence of an omnipotent supernatural being, there's no basis for denying the reality of — or being surprised that anyone takes seriously — any sort of miracle at all.

The thing is, I don't think most people who profess religious belief are really very thoughtful about it. Instead, I think a very large percentage of nominally religious people are really just people who go to church on Sunday because they always have, and their parents did and their neighbors do. They nod thoughtlessly through the sermon (or homily, depending on what flavor of church we're talking about), go home to the NFL, and don't think about God (or any of his supposed wonders) 'til next Sunday.

I think these people really are surprised when they learn fundamentalists and literalists actually believe — seriously and consciously — all the things they ostensibly believe but in fact never think about.

So yes, I think it's perfectly normal and understandable that, for instance, a good churchgoing Episcopalian could be shocked, shocked! to learn that people believe Jebus literally changed water into wine, however incongruous such a reaction seems from a purely rational external point of view.

I also think this is at the heart of the irksome statistic — so worried over in Dawkins' new book — that some 40 percent of us profess belief in the biblical account of creation. I strongly doubt that any such percentage of Americans have thoughtfully considered the question and consciously decided to reject evolution in favor of young-Earth creationism. Instead, I think large numbers of the casually, nominally religious don't take the question seriously, reading it as something equivalent to "do you believe in God" or even "do you go to church," and answer in the socially least challenging way. If this sounds implausible to you, think of all the people who listen politely to impassioned sermons about the social gospel of Jebus and then, without a moment's pause, drive themselves home in $50,000, 12 mpg cars with heated leather seats and multi-screen entertainment systems for the kiddies.

I don't mean this as cynically as I know it's going to sound, but most people just don't think very hard about much of anything beyond the immediate material realities of their lives... even if they go through the motions of something like religious devotion.

The other side of this is that people who are not extremists, generally, find it hard to truly accept that extremists exist. Normal people, for instance, who may share some received prejudices but who are essentially fair-minded may see news stories about white supremacists or virulent anti-gay groups, but it's emotionally difficult for them to truly accept the reality of people who look for all the world like fictional supervillains instead of the humans of their everyday experience.

This, I think, is why my wife, for whom the centrality of public education is a given, almost without thinking about it, looks at me like I'm nuts when I try to convince her that there are people out there whose serious, real agenda is to undermine and ultimately destroy public education as we know it.

But her exasperated disbelief doesn't mean, sadly, that such people don't exist.

Posted by: raven | October 22, 2009 3:33 PM

Well, it looks like after calling us idiots, Benedict gave up. Silly xian.

The customary xian good bye is, "All you atheistic, pseudointellectual, cannibals are going to hell." {Insert favorite death threats here} Then claim that xians are being persecuted.

Lame, no wonder the religion is on the skids.

Posted by: Benedict | October 22, 2009 4:18 PM

Last post from me here, since you are all obviously much 'smarter' than I.
a) Don't you think it's kind of convenient to state that any evidence in favor of Jesus' historicity is false? If that is the way you proceed, basically anything you don't want to believe can be set aside as false. In the same manner, I can state simply that Charles Darwin never existed. You say, but we have pictures, and letters, and his writngs, and I retort, "Yes, but these are all forgeries...all made up." You are not testing evidence and coming to conclusions, you are tossing out the evidence that does not support the conclusion that you've already drawn. This is not science, it is propaganda.
b) Alyson, what conversation have you been reading? I am not trying to prove anything. I am refuting an utter rejection of God purely on the basis of scientific inquiry. The word atheism means literally, "there is no God". What I have said is this: there is nothing science can say for or against the existence of God. The only thing modern science can speak about is what is testable and provable through scientific inquiry --- sorry to say, this isn't a whole lot. You say that the evidence you have examined allows you to draw a "perfectly reasonable conclusion" that God does not exist. Again, this depends on the evidence that you have examined and the interpretations you have drawn. The one thing neither of us can do is put God into a laboratory. God is not a thing to be proven, He is a Person to be known.
c) Re: the evidence thing, it would not matter how much evidence I put forth in favor of the veracity of the Christian story. It would be rejected outright. For example, it has been stated by a couple of people here that Nazareth didn't exist until centuries after Christ. This is a very odd statement, considering there exist at least 4 1st-century documents that mention a town named Nazareth. Either the authors foresaw the creation of a town named Nazareth, in which case they'd be prophets; or there really was a town named Nazareth in the 1st century, in which case your source(s) are incorrect; or, as I predict you will say, "these documents were made up or falsified later". Similarly, I can put forth evidence that many, perhaps all, of Jesus' original disciples were martyred for their faith. I can make the logical statement that people don't die for something they know to be false (i.e. something happened to make his disciples believe in what he had told them). Perhaps his resurrection? But you would answer, "but people don't rise from the dead", and I would say, "Yes, you're right, that's precisely why we believe Jesus is not a normal person." Furthermore, we can trace the growth and expansion of the Christian faith from its earliest days, even amidst persecution from both Jewish non-believers and gentiles. Again, something more than "mere hope" moved these people. I can state that Jesus himself foretold that the gospel would be preached to all the world. Low and behold, it has. I can tell of hundreds of thousands of miracle accounts, real events that go against natural law. The response will be, "these are made up", or "there is a natural explanation for that", etc. Most of all, I can put forth abotu a hundred 1st-century documents written by real people who testify that Jesus preached that he was the promised Jewish Messiah, that he did indeed perform miracles and work wonders, and that he rose form the dead. But you will reply, "these are made up", or "these were forgeries from a later time written by people who wanted to start a religion for some other agenda"...yada yada yada. So, it's kind of difficult to put forth evidence knowing that it will be rejected from the outset simply because your worldview refuses to let it in. Noone can make a case for anything in a court that operates in that manner.
d) Because the ancient world believed in false gods does not negate the facticity of Jesus Christ. I don't have any work to do. These ancient religions have nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity does not derive from nor depend on them. In short, Jesus has nothing to do with Ra, Mithras, Zeus or any other ancient deity. Jesus depends only on the Hebrew Bible and the story of Israel.
e) In the end, it's a futile discussion. From an experiential perspective, when someone has seen a ghost they cannot live as though they haven't. From a philosophical perspective, faith and science are not at odds. They are after truth in different ways. Science looks at the natural world and tests her hypotheses in controlled experiments, and faith looks to the wisdom of revealed truths and tests them amidst the random experiences of life.
The difference is the person of faith can easily conduct the science experiment, but the atheist HAS OUTRIGHT REFUSED to enter into the experiment with God. This is a copout, which is why I say that you are no more concerned about truth than about what you're going to have for dinner.
Peace to you all.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 22, 2009 4:32 PM

Yep, as we all knew, Benedict is an arrogant, willfully ignorant coward. Demand evidence for his claims and he runs away screaming in abject terror. He's got nothing, and he knows it. Just too much of a pathological liar to admit it.

Goodbye, and good riddance, brain-dead godbot.

Posted by: aratina cage | October 22, 2009 4:38 PM

the atheist HAS OUTRIGHT REFUSED to enter into the experiment with God. -Benedict

My findings: no evidence for a god, no trustworthy evidence for a person or persons as the basis of the Jesus character in the Bible, religion is an ancient business scam and method of controlling sectors of the human population.

My conclusion: there are no gods, Jesus did not exist but was created as purely a fictional character in the same way Harry Potter was created, and religions have no intrinsic value for humanity.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | October 22, 2009 4:46 PM

Awwww...the logic-impaired special pleader accuses me of misrepresenting him.

What I have said is this: there is nothing science can say for or against the existence of God.

To which I have already pointed out, regardless of your disinclination to listen: except that he isn't necessary.

The only thing modern science can speak about is what is testable and provable through scientific inquiry --- sorry to say, this isn't a whole lot.

*sporfle* Figurative coffee, meet monitor.

Because the ancient world believed in false gods does not negate the facticity of Jesus Christ. I don't have any work to do. These ancient religions have nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity does not derive from nor depend on them. In short, Jesus has nothing to do with Ra, Mithras, Zeus or any other ancient deity. Jesus depends only on the Hebrew Bible and the story of Israel.

Are you for real, man? This is comedy gold.

Shorter Benedict: "YOU CAN'T MAKE ME THINK! CAN'T MAKE ME, CAN'T MAKE ME! NOT LISTENING, LA LA LA LA LA!!!!"

Peace to you all.

Yeah, like we ain't heard that before.

Posted by: phantomreader42 | October 22, 2009 5:15 PM

Alyson Miers @ #170:

Also, the morality in HP leaves the morality of the Bible in the freaking dust, folks.

Hell, Bill & Ted's morality leaves the bible in the dust!

Be excellent to each other, and party on!

Posted by: aratina cage | October 22, 2009 5:28 PM

something happened to make his disciples believe in what he had told them). Perhaps his resurrection? But you would answer, "but people don't rise from the dead", and I would say, "Yes, you're right, that's precisely why we believe Jesus is not a normal person." -Benedict

Posted by: CJO | October 22, 2009 5:39 PM

Not even bothering with Benedict's latest petulant rant.

JK Rowling designed a little boy, gave him a coming-of-age story, and dutifully put her name on the cover while selling the books in good faith as fiction. Someone pureed dozens of Mediterranean god-myths into this one Messianic Jewish character and sold his story as TRUFAX.

It's an open question as to whether the story was sold as TRUFAX in the first place, as part of a sectarian Jewish piety movement. Certainly, as the narratives were removed from their original context in such a movement and got out into the gentile world, they were transmitted as such. But I think it's a mistake to automatically conflate mythmaking with knowing deception. I tend to think that the author of Mark, for one, wrote myth (a flavor of fiction) in as good of faith as any modern fiction writer, with allowances for significant cultural differences in modern versus ancient conceptions of the past. He had what he thought were some TRUFAX about God, and how to live as a pious citizen of his kingdom as opposed to as a worldly citizen of that other kingdom, also lorded over by a different kind of "Son of God" (Caesar), and he had a mythical figure around which were accreting some legendary stories and to whom was being attributed a latter-day wisdom tradition in the vein of Proverbs and the Wisdom of Solomon. Having put those things together with your puree of Hellenized Mediterranean myths, he wrote a story. Not an inherently dishonest act, or at least we can't say for sure that it was. If, in the distant future, Rowling's yarns were believed to recount actual doings at a real place called Hogwart's, that would hardly be her fault.

Posted by: raven | October 22, 2009 5:59 PM

Benedict the deluded moron:

c) Re: the evidence thing, it would not matter how much evidence I put forth in favor of the veracity of the Christian story. It would be rejected outright. For example, it has been stated by a couple of people here that Nazareth didn't exist until centuries after Christ. This is a very odd statement, considering there exist at least 4 1st-century documents that mention a town named Nazareth. Either the authors foresaw the creation of a town named Nazareth, in which case they'd be prophets; or there really was a town named Nazareth in the 1st century, in which case your source(s) are incorrect; or, as I predict you will say, "these documents were made up or falsified later". Similarly, I can put forth evidence that many, perhaps all, of Jesus' original disciples were martyred for their faith. I can make the logical statement that people don't die for something they know to be false>

wikipedia Nazareth:

James Strange, an American archaeologist, notes: “Nazareth is not mentioned in ancient Jewish sources earlier than the third century AD. This likely reflects its lack of prominence both in Galilee and in Judaea.”[26] Strange - supposing the existence of a settlement - originally guessed Nazareth’s population at the time of Christ to be "roughly 1,600 to 2,000 people", but later, in a subsequent publication, at “a maximum of about 480.”[27] Some have argued that the absence of textual references to Nazareth in the Old Testament and the Talmud, as well as the works of Josephus, suggest that a town called 'Nazareth' did not exist in Jesus' day.[28]

Many writers suppose that ancient Nazareth was built on the hillside, since this is the description given by the Gospel of Luke: [And they led Jesus] to the brow of the hill on which their city was built, that they might throw him down headlong.[29] However, the hill in question (the Nebi Sa'in) is far too steep for ancient dwellings and averages a 14% grade in the venerated area.[30] Historic Nazareth was essentially constructed in the valley; the windy hilltops in the vicinity have only been occupied since the construction of Nazareth Illit in 1957.

The Church of the AnnunciationNoteworthy is that all the post-Iron Age tombs in the Nazareth basin (approximately two dozen) are of the kokh (plural:kokhim) or later types; this type probably first appeared in Galilee in the middle of the first century AD.[31] Kokh tombs in the Nazareth area have been excavated by B. Bagatti, N. Feig, Z. Yavor, and noted by Z. Gal.[32]

Excavations conducted prior to 1931 in the Franciscan venerated area revealed "no trace of a Greek or Roman settlement" there,[33] Fr. Bagatti, who acted as the principal archaeologist for the venerated sites in Nazareth, unearthed quantities of later Roman and Byzantine artifacts,[34] attesting to unambiguous human presence there from the 2nd century AD onward. However, Bagatti also admitted that there was little evidence for first century habitation, at best the village being a small agricultural venture settled by about 20 families;[35] John Dominic Crossan, a major figure in New Testament studies, remarked that Bagatti's archaeological drawings indicate just how small the village actually was, suggesting that it was little more than an insignificant hamlet [36].

Benedict, lying for jesus is boring. There is a huge amount of evidence that Nazareth didn't exist until long after the time of jesus. This is both archeological and historical. Your 4 documents are the bible gospels. Bullcrap, you can't use a work of fiction to prove that fiction. The gospels were all based on the same sources. Matthew and Luke were based directly on Mark. No wonder they are the same.

People don't die willingly for false beliefs very often. They die daily for mistaken beliefs and delusions. Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, and the latest mall shooters, suicide bombers, and terrorists.

You are dumb and you aren't even trying to be honest.

Posted by: Kel, OM | October 22, 2009 6:43 PM

BTW - if the Creator of all that is wants to turn water into wine, what is it that could possibly stop Him. The natural law? What a foolish thing to believe, that the Creator of the natural law couldn't usurp His own law.

This is the problem with using the gospels, they claim the impossible and have one of the worst forms of evidence to back it up. If you're going to accept on testimony that water turned to wine, then why not accept on testimony those who claim to have seen aliens? This isn't second hand testimony either, many different people with no relation to each other all claim similar experiences in regard to alien abduction. Now are you going to accept that not only aliens exist but have been routinely abducting people all over the world for sexual experiments (among other things)?

What about the spoon benders like Uri Gellar? Or those who claim psychic powers? Psychics are a multi-billion dollar industry, people claiming to read others minds, to see into the future and past. I could put you in touch with many people who claim either to have witnessed psychics in action saying things they couldn't possibly know, or claim to have psychic powers themselves.

This is the problem with accepting eyewitness account as evidence of the extraordinary - people have a tendency to believe in what we know to be scientifically impossible. There are still people trying to patent a perpetual motion machine despite their impossibility. Faith healers, psychic surgeons, people talking to the dead, seeing ghosts, bigfoot, crystal healing, divining, astrology, etc. The list goes on and on and on and on and on.

It's not dogmatic to demand sufficient evidence to match the nature of the claim. If there isn't enough strong evidence to support a claim, then what reason is there to believe? What evidence is there to support that a historical Jesus is a biblical Jesus? Would that evidence be enough to distinguish it from the pseudoscience and nonsense mentioned above? Or would you concede that if you take Jesus to be real then you have to accept all these other phenomena?

Posted by: llewelly | October 22, 2009 7:39 PM

;

While we're at it, Benedict, since you're so eager to demand other people disprove the existence of YOUR imaginary god instead of providing the slightest speck of evidence that it actually exists, you should have no problem at all disproving the existence of all the gods on this list:
[snip lots of gods]
Moradin Soulforger

Posted by: Kyorosuke | October 22, 2009 7:58 PM

Kel, OM:

The prayer battle is in 1 Kings 18:18-40, http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2018:18-40&version=NIV

Yahweh is represented by Elijah, and after he wins, he kills all of Baal's prophets, which is kind of a dick move.

Posted by: raven | October 22, 2009 8:25 PM

Benedict babbling like a loon and lying:

Most of all, I can put forth abotu a hundred 1st-century documents written by real people who testify that Jesus preached that he was the promised Jewish Messiah, that he did indeed perform miracles and work wonders, and that he rose form the dead. But you will reply, "these are made up", or "these were forgeries from a later time written by people who wanted to start a religion for some other agenda"...yada yada yada.

Benedict is probably referring to the bible and the related documents that never made it into the bible.

Really, all he can do is use a work of literary fiction to prove that the literary fiction is true. This isn't logic or evidence. It isn't proof either.

1. No one who wrote anything in the NT ever saw jesus. The whole NT is written in Greek. Jesus spoke Aramaic, as did his earliest followers, assuming they even existed.

2. Paul wrote about half the NT. There is a good chunck of the 1st century documents right there. He flat says he never saw jesus, he was a convert after the cruxificion.

3. The first gospel written was Mark in about 71 AD. Matthew and Luke were expansions of it, a fact known to St. Augustine, one of the early founders of xianity. These aren't independent documents, they are makeovers.

4. There is a huge amount of early xian literature that didn't make it into the bible. This is because these other versions of xianity were radically different from the type that won out and survived. Some xian documents claim jesus was just a person, others just a god, still others that there are two gods and this universe was just a mistake, made by an incompetent failed god.

The fact that there were radically and contradictory religions, all calling themselves xianity at the start will tell anyone with a mind something key right there. Whatever the truth of events around the 1st century is, the bible which was written long after the fact and compiled even later doesn't know.

Outside of the bible, there is no independent archaeological or historical evidence that jesus even lived. Benedict was asked to produce such evidence and he couldn't do it. Instead he fell back to the xian default, babbling while waving a bible around. Lame.

Posted by: Alyson Miers | October 22, 2009 10:21 PM

aratina @176, I'm being facetious about the offense. :p If I'm offended in any way it's because I think Harry is a more coherent character than Jesus, if anything.

Dumbledore beats Yahweh in benevolence and parenting any day, too, even the days he gives Harry the cold shoulder.

I hear of a literary character who brings unexplained disaster on defenseless outsiders, encourages his followers to turn against their own family members, preaches hatred and violence towards ignorant out-groups and disobedient members of the in-group, has many toadies but no friends, and is not above torturing his own followers. Oh, and there's also Voldemort.

Every day is Blasphemy Day!

Posted by: Mariano | October 23, 2009 10:53 PM

Dawkins' comment amounts to an argument to embarrassment.

And this from a man who believes that nothing caused nothing to explode and turned nothing into something which then turned into a planet in which parts of the nothing which became something became molecules of water that rained upon the ground, got sucked up via a grape vine's roots, become grapes, and then a life-from-non-life being ferment them into wine.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | October 23, 2009 11:07 PM

Dawkins has more going for him than any godbot. Godbots can't explain how their god came to be. Nor can they present any physical evidence for said deity. Dawkins and science ignores those imaginary deities, which gives science a head start in logic to explain the universe.

Posted by: Owlmirror | October 23, 2009 11:38 PM

And this from a man who believes that nothing caused nothing to explode and turned nothing into something which then turned into a planet in which parts of the nothing which became something became molecules of water that rained upon the ground, got sucked up via a grape vine's roots, become grapes, and then a life-from-non-life being ferment them into wine.

And when we ask for evidence for your alleged God who came from nothing and did everything you write above....

You have nothing.

I kinda think nothing wins, here.

Posted by: raven | October 24, 2009 1:31 AM

raven:

2. Paul wrote about half the NT. There is a good chunck of the 1st century documents right there. He flat says he never saw jesus, he was a convert after the cruxificion.

neil lying some more:

3. Mark was written much earlier. Paul's letters were all before 65 A.D.

wikipedia:

Writings
Main article: Authorship of the Pauline Epistles
Thirteen epistles in the New Testament are traditionally attributed to Paul, of which seven are almost universally accepted, three are considered in some academic circles as other than Pauline for textual and grammatical reasons, and the other three are in dispute in those same circles.[35] Paul apparently dictated all his epistles through a secretary (or amanuensis), who would usually paraphrase the gist of his message, as was the practice among first-century scribes.[36][37] These epistles were circulated within the Christian community, where they were read aloud by members of the church along with other works. Paul's epistles were accepted early as scripture and later established as Canon of Scripture. Critical scholars regard Paul's epistles (written 50-62)[21] to be the earliest-written books of the New Testament. They are referenced as early as c. 96 by Clement of Rome.[38]

Gee neil, how long has lying been habitual with you? Even wikipedia says Paul's letters were first. Which would make Mark later. In fact, Mark alludes to the destruction of the second temple which was in 70 CE. So after 70 CE.

Keep trying. Someday decades from now you may graduate from lying to incoherent, delusional thinking. Even logical fallacies will have to await breakthroughs in medicine for the mentally handicapped like you.

Posted by: Neil | October 24, 2009 9:55 AM

Mark refers to the Romans destroying the Temple. Which happened in 70 AD.

Try again. That was a prediction, not recording of the event itself. Do you guys ever actually open the Bible or do you just reflexively refer to your Big Book O' Atheist Sound Bites? I realize this little support group must help keep your bizarre worldview propped up, but it just shouts out your ignorance.

This will help you understand When was the New Testament written.

Godbots can't explain how their god came to be.

Gee, never heard that one. Uncreated beings don't need to be created.

And the comment implies that Darwinists do know how something came from nothing, life came from non-life, etc.

And all the references here to morality are comical. You have no foundation to explain morality. You hate to hear that, but if there is no God then Mother Teresa is no better than Stalin.

So why wasn't the NT written in Hebrew or Aramaic?

The message was going out to the whole world. Jesus didn't just die for the Jews. Greek was the common language of the time, not Eskimo.

Visions aren't acceptable proof

Nice dodge. That wasn't my claim, of course. You said that Paul specifically claimed never to have seen Jesus. I demonstrated that you were wrong. I didn't say you were a liar, just wrong.

We know why because the compilers made no secret of their criteria. It was based on theology.

Thank you, Mr. Holmes. You are quite the detective. Yes, it was based on their knowledge of God. Go read some church history such as Eusebius. It will give you an idea of what was included and why.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 25, 2009 2:07 PM

You hate to hear that, but if there is no God then Mother Teresa is no better than Stalin. - Neil the moron

Yawn. Only heard that one about a thousand times. Actions are judged morally by their likely effects on the interests and preferences of others. So are proposed ethical precepts. You hate to hear that, Neil, but if you need a justification for caring about others, you're a psychopath. As, of course, your God would be if it existed: a genocidal, lying, narcissistic, pathologically jealous sadist, as the record of OT and NT show conclusively.

Oh, BTW, "Mother Teresa" really wasn't a whole lot better than Stalin: she was a corrupt, sadistic arselicker of tyrants.

Posted by: Knockgoats | October 25, 2009 2:29 PM

You hate to hear that, but if there is no God then Mother Teresa is no better than Stalin. - Neil the moron

Yawn. Only heard that one about a thousand times. Actions are judged morally by their likely effects on the interests and preferences of others. So are proposed ethical precepts. You hate to hear that, Neil, but if you need a justification for caring about others, you're a psychopath. As, of course, your God would be if it existed: a genocidal, lying, narcissistic, pathologically jealous sadist, as the record of OT and NT show conclusively.

Oh, BTW, "Mother Teresa" really wasn't a whole lot better than Stalin: she was a corrupt, sadistic arselicker of tyrants.

Posted by: Neil | October 25, 2009 3:23 PM

P.S. You are welcome to visit my blog, provided that you behave politely. We have some interesting discussions with many of the atheists that hang out there.

And as a time saver, please don't use any of these arguments --

[url deleted. Sorry, no one shot snipe-and-run spammers will be encouraged.]

Posted by: DaveL | October 25, 2009 3:51 PM

I used to be an atheist. I became a Christian by examining the evidence.

Liar.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself | October 25, 2009 3:58 PM

Neil the Godbot wrote:

I used to be an atheist.

Why is it so many godbotherers make this claim? Do they think we'll be impressed? Do they think we'll actually believe them?

I suspect that many if not most of these "atheists" grew disenchanted with whatever church they were going to and did some shopping around until they found a new church they liked better. But they were hardly atheists during the period between going to the Evangelical Fundamentalist Washed In The Blood Of The Lamb Chapel and becoming a member of the Pentecostal Apostolic Temple of the Redeemer.