Whoops.
See those cute un-indoctrinated kids…
Turns out they’re Christians. And worse. Evangelicals…
Tag: atheists
Things science can’t do
William Lane Craig on science and its limitations…
Who is Bert Erhman you say?
Bert Erhman has been mentioned pretty frequently in the continuing conversation on Dave’s post about why he’s not an atheist.
Other than the fact that his surname is an anagram of Herman I didn’t really know who Ehrman was, or much about him. But luckily, Stephen Colbert, America’s most trusted news hound, has interviewed him…
So now I know all about him. And that he’s wrong.
The answer is that he’s an atheist writer who questions the validity of the claims that the gospels represent an accurate history of who Jesus is.
Siege mentality
It’s funny that all theists immediately assume atheists have it in for their brand of belief in particular.
It’s like commenters who assume that every slur or use of the word “you” is directed at them personally…
There’s a pretty funny opinion piece in the Age from a Catholic who thinks that their rock solid beliefs make them a target for the new atheists. It’s worth a read. I like this quote.
“For some reason, contemporary Australian atheism seems to consider itself terribly funny. Its proponents only have to wheel out one of the age-old religious libels to lose control of their bladders. To outsiders, of course, it is a bit like watching a giggling incontinent drunk at a party. This is not to say that believers – and perhaps especially Catholics – do not get seriously irritated by atheists. They do, but not because atheists are fearfully clever or Wildely funny.”
Jeff posted this this morning, so I’ll give him the kudos – but my dad also emailed it to me to read. Keep the tips coming people…
Dawkins in Brisbane
I’m going to this (in March next year. You should come too. Tickets are $15-$18. I’m sitting in the balcony.
Here’s the blurb…
“Britain’s greatest science writer, Richard Dawkins, comprehensively rebuts the creationists by pulling together the incontrovertible evidence for evolution.”
One can only wonder what all the other science writers in the United Kingdom think of such a bold claim. It doesn’t even say “arguably” the greatest science writer.
The problem with Dawkins
An atheist scientist takes up the case from Eagleton, criticising Dawkins for his approach to the discussion with Christians.
The trouble with Richard Dawkins from CPX on Vimeo.
On Hitchens
Four interesting little articles or events surrounding Christopher Hitchens have piqued my interest in the last few weeks. For the uninitiated, Hitchens one of the more prominent voices of the New Atheist movement.
Hitchens, in a recent column on Slate, described himself essentially as the modern day champion of atheism – in the same sense that medieval kings had champions who would throw down the gauntlet to knights from near and far…
Ever since I invited any champion of faith to debate with me in the spring of 2007, I have been very impressed by the willingness of the other side to take me, and my allies, up on the offer.
Hitchens is making his big screen debut shortly. A series of debates he held with American pastor Douglas Wilson is being turned into a feature film called Collision.
Some of his preconceptions about Christians have been challenged in the process – and they’re the issues I find most offensive about the manner in which atheists conduct themselves in debates.
On one hand they say “don’t generalise us, we’re all different” and on the other they throw all Christians into the same boat as the Westboro Baptists or (medieval) Crusaders.
Hitchens made this comment on his interactions with Christians in debates:
“I have discovered that the so-called Christian right is much less monolithic, and very much more polite and hospitable, than I would once have thought, or than most liberals believe.”
Who’d have thought that some Christians might actually act like Christ.
Then he ends up committing what I think is the other great error in the discourse – the inability to split the Bible up into literary sub-genres.
Wilson isn’t one of those evasive Christians who mumble apologetically about how some of the Bible stories are really just “metaphors.” He is willing to maintain very staunchly that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ and that his sacrifice redeems our state of sin, which in turn is the outcome of our rebellion against God. He doesn’t waffle when asked why God allows so much evil and suffering—of course he “allows” it since it is the inescapable state of rebellious sinners.
Some stories in the Bible are clearly metaphors – like the parables. Others are not. The fact that some Christians can’t tell the difference doesn’t mean that every piece of the Bible needs to be taken at literal face value, and it doesn’t make anyone who sees a place for metaphor or symbolism a liberal.
Hitchens was in Sydney recently speaking at the “Festival of Dangerous Ideas” – his presence earned him a gig on the ABC’s Q&A. You can watch his exchange here. I only hope that Christians presenting their belief in an absolute truth can avoid the smugness the he occasionally exhibits. I know we often don’t.
While he was in Sydney Michael Jensen had an opinion piece published in the SMH that thanked Hitchens for getting people talking about God…
He points to certain passages in Hitchens’ work that fail to grasp any form of nuance in Christian thinking and buy into other people’s subjective hatchet jobs…
“Please repeat your completely erroneous claim that, in the Old Testament, God never shows or speaks of compassion or mercy; or that one about how the gospel writers can’t agree on anything. Or drop once more that clanger about how the Christian doctrine of the resurrection means that Christ never died.
Say again, in front of an audience, your historically laughable tale of how the Maccabees of the 2nd century BC were responsible for both Christianity and Islam. Say that the missing document called “Q” influenced all four gospel writers (p. 112) – when everyone who knows anything about it knows that this is just plain false.
Give full vent to your magnificent spleen. Remind us of the lack of marsupials in the book of Genesis and watch us squirm with embarrassment. Display once more that you read the Bible with no more sophistication than a snake-handler. Dismiss with an elegant wave of your hand the whole exercise of New Testament scholarship, especially the authors you haven’t read.
State again, with the conviction of someone who knows he is right, why it is that you can’t stand people who know they are right (p. 242).”
This was followed by a piece in the SMH this week by a Jewish scholar – who again points out the problems with the way Hitchens handles both the Jewish and Christian Bibles (particularly the OT).
Hitchens cites the Binding of Isaac and “eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth” injunction as brutish and stupid. Yet, scholars have interpreted the binding as ending child sacrifice and the injunction as a caution against excessive vengeance. Hitchens says that the God of Moses never refers to compassion and human friendship, overlooking “love your neighbour as yourself”.
For his part, Dawkins is clearly out of his depth when it comes to Jewish teachings and ethics. He claims, for instance, that “love thy neighbour” meant only “love another Jew”. He apparently is not aware that in the same chapter, Jews are commanded to love the stranger that lives in their land as they would themselves. When Jesus, himself a Jew, was asked “Who is my neighbour” he did not refer to other Jews, but to a Samaritan, considered at that time as heretical and unclean.
Which prompted this response from an atheist physicist also on the SMH website. The reason I post this is that in one paragraph he raises two of the points that Dave wrote about in post two of his “Reasons I’m not an Atheist” series.
The human brain has evolved over millions of years to be well adapted for dealing with and surviving the challenges thrown up by the kinds of environments in which human beings live. It has been suggested that the same adaptations that have contributed to humanity’s success as a species have also, as a side effect, predisposed us towards accepting certain kinds of mystical and religious beliefs. Our brains may well be “hard-wired’ for religion. Add some cultural nurture to our evolved nature and we have the beginnings of an explanation for why so many people follow some form of religion. When it comes to choosing one particular religion over another, it seems to be largely a matter of indoctrination; the best predictor of a person’s religious beliefs is the beliefs held by his or her parents.
Meanwhile, my conversation with the “friendly” atheists on the post I linked to yesterday is still going.
Why I’m not an atheist #2 – Scientific Naturalism is powerful, but not enough.
I resist naturalistic explanations of my belief in God.
Atheist still use philosophical arguments, but it seems they are more a tool for unsettling Christians rather than the lifeblood of atheism. What seems to give much of modern atheism its strength is that in scientific naturalism it has found a way of explaining the world that doesnʼt need God. The philosophical argument still has its place of atheism, but it is less urgent and less pressing. The best argument against understanding the world in a theistic way is to provide an elegant, attractive, powerful mode of explanation that has no need for God.
The scientific naturalist mode of explaining the world is very powerful. It is indeed an impressive and elegant human achievement to have come up with this naturalist explanation of the world.
And yet I hold out on this very powerful way of understanding the world.
Why maintain a belief in God, when there is a very reasonable explanation of the world that doesnʼt require God? Indeed why am I not an atheist?
A couple of reasons:
Firstly, I maintain a difference between the conclusions reached by science, and the
assertions made by naturalism.
Science is a methodology. It takes as its starting point observation – physical evidence of
one sort of another is the means by which science discovers physical causes.
You can do lots with the methodology of science. Itʼs very powerful! But one thing you cannot do with science is prove that physical causes is all there is. You assert a conclusion if it has already been woven into your methodology at the start. Naturalism conscripts science — it says: Look at all the physical causes science has discovered, and science can explain how it all works, so there must be no other causes.
But the interpretation of your scientific conclusions depends not on your science, but on your philosophy.
I look at the conclusions of science, and I see in them a discovery of how God has done things in the world.
A naturalist looks at the conclusions of science and says, There is no need for God.
Both assertions are beyond the realm of science — there is no scientific experiment you can do that can prove one over against the other. Any observational data you find will just fit into a prior philosophical framework you have established for yourself.
This is why some of you are agnostic rather than atheist. You are committed to the scientific method, but have seen that it is not in itself sufficient to say anything about God, for or against. We decide on other basis. Science is like a big bucket — an enormous bucket — that you can plumb the depths of the ocean with. But just because youʼve got a full bucket doesnʼt mean youʼve got the whole ocean. Itʼs far too imperialistic to claim that!
But secondly, I reject naturalism as a philosophy because it is too powerful.
Iʼll need to explain what I mean!
Naturalism explains my convictions about God in evolutionary terms. This is one of the humorous back and forths that always happens when atheists and Christians engage: the Christian will present some sort of reason or fact why the atheist should believe in God, and the atheist will respond with: Well I can explain fact using just natural physical explanations. I point to the fine tuning of the universe as evidence that God made it; the naturalist says, that doesnʼt prove God, because, as unlikely as it is, sheer random forces just made it like this.
I point to the number of people around the world, and throughout history who believe in God, as evidence that we are hardwired for God — but the naturalist explains all such belief as a kind of by-product of our evolutionary development … religion has helped us survive, but that doesnʼt prove thereʼs a God. I point to the beauty and design in the world and all the things we value, as signs that we are built and created by and for someone greater than ourselves; but the naturalist will encourage me to be suspicious of my perceptions “The illusion of design is a trap that has caught us before” Dawkins writes.
Thereʼs a long list of things that evolutionary naturalism is powerful to destroy and tear down, and the harder atheists use it with entertaining and formidable skill.
But hereʼs my question: why stop with religion? If religion is the product of evolutionary
adaptation, then why not rationality? Why ought I to be suspicious of my perceptions of design, but not suspicious of my perceptions of whatʼs rational?
If evolutionary naturalism is true, then ʻrationalityʼ is not to be explained as some characteristic of our species that connects us with the real world — it is merely a characteristic of the species that helps us survive better in the real world. The power of reason depends on its objectivity — that it is really true and connects me to the world in a way that is true. But evolution is not interested in truth — itʼs just interested in survival. What we think about the world may be nothing more than a dream, an invention of our pragmatic minds.
Darwin himself realised this, and wrote to a friend:
“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of manʼs mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.”
Naturalism is a very powerful sword. Naturalism does away with God, to be sure. But in the process, it does away with everything. Nothing we know or perceive can be depended on as connecting us to the real world — anything our brains tell us are merely the product of evolutionary adaption. If physical forces really do explain everything, then they must truly be allowed to explain everything — even my own explanations. It is just a case of special pleading to ʻexemptʼ naturalism from its own razor.
Naturalism, and atheism, in terms of what it actually teaches, seems to me to be a counsel of despair. My love for my family, my concern for others, the reasons I get out of bed in the morning — all of them are illusions, and irredeemably so.
Now please donʼt misunderstand me: I donʼt mean that every atheist is living in despair!
Iʼm glad to say thatʼs not the case. But if the physical evolutionary causes are the only explanation for life you have, how can you assert the reality of meaning of any kind? Itʼs not enough to say that you do assert the existence of meaning and love and beauty! When I hear atheists do that, I just think they are talking as a semi-Christianised atheist, still spending some cultural credit hanging around from Christianity! Itʼs not enough to say evolutionary naturalism doesnʼt lead to meaningless for you — you have to show why it shouldnʼt?
Why I’m not an Atheist #1 – Because my Parents weren’t
I put this as the first reason for not being an atheist, not because itʼs most important, or because it is representative of how someone stays out of atheism — itʼs not. But because for many atheists this is the great explanatory factor behind my theism.
Only a fool would deny the influence of parents and society. Itʼs a helpful analysis of the way in which we come to believe the things that we believe — the sociology of knowledge.
But is that sufficient to sink my “non-atheism” right in the beginning?
Well that would only be the case if in fact other forms of knowledge were free from the same kind of sociology. But all knowledge is sociological to one degree or another. Only a fool would say that every thought he ever had, heʼd come up with himself. Most of our thoughts come from others. We all belong to a community of one sort or another that reinforces the plausibility of some beliefs and discourages other kinds of beliefs.
The atheist PR machine likes to talk as if itʼs the exception — it talks as if atheism is the conviction one arrives at when you start thinking for yourself.
But the more I look at atheism, the more it seems to me that there are plenty of others to help you do your thinking. Richard Dawkins writes about the aim of his book like this:
“My dream is that this book may help people to come out. Exactly as in the case of the gay movement, the more people come out, the easier it will be for others to join them. There may be a critical mass for the initiation of a chain reaction.”
Dawkins aim is not simply to present the arguments, and let the arguments speak for themselves. Rather his aim is, one might say, a sociological one — he hopes to give people courage to own their convictions through the knowledge that there are others who share them. And through that, others might be encouraged to join the thronging crowd.
But Dawkins is not being deceptive. Itʼs the way all human knowledge works. We are not just rational beings — we are also relational beings, who depend on each other for all sorts of things, knowledge included. The fact that I depend on something for my knowledge does not make me irrational, it makes me human.
I talk to a lot of university students who are atheist or agnostic, who all use the same kind of arguments. Did they all really, somehow astonishingly, come up with the same arguments independent of each other? No, the majority have just bought into intellectual trends of the day — they have been ʻindoctrinatedʼ, and most donʼt have the sense to see it. (They really think they think for themselves!) They disbelieve, in other words, because they were born in the West! If theyʼd been born in Iran, odds are, they would believe something completely different.
Luckily for atheists, their beliefs might still be true irrespective of the fact that they got them from their culture — but that would need to be demonstrated in some other way. Which is how I treat my Christian convictions — theyʼre not true because my parents believed them, but neither are they deceptive just for that reason either.
Degrees of delusion
I’ve been having an interesting debate with some atheists (well I think it’s interesting and this is my blog afterall) over at the Friendly Atheist after the Friendly Atheist himself made this claim:
“Now, how do we shame those people who believe in reincarnation?
Or those people who believe that Heaven or Hell are actual places?
Or those people who believe that a god created the world in a week, that Adam and Eve were actual people, or that Jesus came back to life after being killed and has any ability to cleanse us of sins now?
It’s all the same degree of delusion“
Emphasis mine.
I didn’t like the idea that Christians, who are monotheists, are as delusional as either pantheists those who see God in everything, everywhere (eg Hindus who, crudely speaking, believe in reincarnation because spiritual matter can not be lost), or polytheists who believe in many Gods.
I think as soon as you add the word “degree” into a statement like that you have to show that all these beliefs are equally ridiculous. I think it’s patently clear that they’re not. Mostly because there are certain beliefs that are universally ridiculed – like Scientology.
I think it’s funny that atheists seem quite happy generalising about Christians using the most crazy fundamentalist doctrines they can find while at the same time refusing to allow Christians to generalise about atheists – because they’re all different.
In the discussion I put forward a proposition, which I think was a good one, and as yet nobody has addressed it in their responses… I’ll reproduce it here.
“I often wonder if the atheist cause would be better served by supporting the Christians who are trying to teach other Christians good doctrine rather than throwing out the proverbial baby and bathwater.”
Six areas atheists and Christians should agree
I had the chance this week to head along to JCU’s Society of Atheist Philosophy (SOAP) meeting where Dave Walker was invited to speak on the reasons he’s not an atheist.
The meeting itself had all the trappings of a Christian meeting. It had a nice positive tone.
Dave did a great job. I’m hoping he’ll turn his three reasons into guest posts.
But here are six areas I think Christians and atheists should agree.
- The separation of church and state is a good thing
One of the big branding problems facing Christianity, and one of the major problems atheists have with Christians, is that we’re inconsistent in our approach to politics.We can’t want to impose Christian morality on people through the legal system unless we’re happy for an atheist government, or Islamic government to do the same to us. If we all believe we’re right and everybody else is wrong we need to make accommodations for this in the way we deal with each other.
- Freedom of speech
I’m a bit shocked at how Christians respond when atheists want to advertise or gather. This week two atheist websites were hacked – probably by crazy Christians. Complaints flood in every time an atheist association puts up a billboard or advertises on a bus.If we want to be free to discuss and promote our beliefs we need to uphold the rights of others to do the same. Even if we don’t like what they’re saying.
- Most religious beliefs are crazy
I think it was Peter Jensen who said that atheists are the closest group philosophically to Christians because we’ve both made a deliberate decision regarding the existence of God. We believe there is one, they believe there is none, the rest of society is either undecided, pluralistic, or quasi-spiritual.In most cases we’ve applied logic and reason to the rejection of other Gods. We shouldn’t be overly upset when atheists do that to us. Even if we think they’ve discounted one God too many.There are also a lot of subsets of Christianity that fit the crazy bill. Anyone who bases a distinctive on one verse in a part of a gospel that is not even in all the original manuscripts (like the snake holders and poison drinkers do) should be considered crazy.
Most people who read Revelation as though it’s a literal description of what’s going to happen (even though it is introduced as a vision) can also rightly be labeled crazy.
- Pluralistic relativism is a dumb idea
If there’s one idea that truly unites atheists and Christians it’s the idea that we can’t all be right. Both groups make absolute claims. All religions make contradictory claims. Even the monotheistic Abrahamic religions that are theoretically following the same God make claims that can not be reconciled. Islam teaches Jesus didn’t die. Judaism teaches Jesus isn’t the Messiah, and that he didn’t rise. We can’t all be right. We can’t pretend that we are. - Morality is not dependent on belief in God
Atheists are capable of doing good things. The group contributing the most money to developing small businesses in developing countries on Kiva is an atheist society.Christian statements about morality are slightly confused, which in turn confuses atheists. There are two definitions of good at play in the Bible. One describes actions. It’s “good” to feed the hungry. The other describes our nature. Where nobody can be “good enough” for God.
It’s true that Christians believe that all goodness, and good actions of people come from God. Whether you’re a Christian or an atheist. And that good atheist actions come because they too are made in the image of God.
But you don’t have to believe in God to be good.
To throw further confusion into the mix – not even Christians are “good” in the complete sense. And nobody is good (or righteous) except Jesus.
- Science is a great tool for understanding the world
Christianity’s stance on science (particularly in America) is confused and confusing. Science has no scope to prove or disprove God, unless you think the Bible (written before the scientific method was developed) somehow seeks to be a scientific textbook.Science teaches us about the way God does things. It reveals more about the world we live in. Christians should love science. Not fear it. The reason some Christians fear it is the same reason someone attacked by a vicious dog fears all dogs. Science handled badly is dangerous.
What Christians shouldn’t like (and one of Dave’s points) is the idea of naturalism – that only what we can sense and test is real. This is a philosophy that embraces science as a sword. It’s not science.
On sticks and logs
Here’s a little story, picked up by the Friendly Atheist, that highlights why getting people who think they’re Christians to rightly understand how Biblical law works, how it should (or mostly shouldn’t) be applied today.
At the very least we should be able to point out that the law was written for the Jews, who were God’s people. So that they could be different to the people around them. It wasn’t written for the Jews to impose on everyone else.
An American redneck decided to use a little bit of Old Testament sanctioned force to bash a homosexual man.
He even has a tattoo that proclaims the need to understand homosexuality as an abomination.
Now, it’s all well and good emblazoning that sort of verse on your arm. But, as even atheists know, this is problematic given a verse that appears just a chapter later…
"You shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD. Leviticus 19:28″
We need to fix this kind of thing if we want to (rightly) argue that God’s intention for relationships between humans is for sex to occur in a marriage between a man and a woman. And that Christians should not be practising homosexuals (because the New Testament reaffirms God’s intentions and understandings of sexual expression).
Even Answers in Genesis can understand that this definition of marriage applies to Christians – they commented on a recent story where a judge in the US ruled that an interracial couple could not marry because the Bible forbids it… Which is strange.
What the Bible does say in the Old Testament is that Jews (the people of God) should not intermarry, and in the New Testament that Christians should ideally marry Christians – but that if two non-Christians marry and one becomes a Christian they should stay married.
Here’s what Ken Ham said (again mentioned in an article on the Friendly Atheist) when he was asked about interracial marriage in the Bible. It’s somewhat convoluted, but at the end of the day it is useful. From the Answers in Genesis website…
At AiG we have always taught that biologically there is only one race (Adam’s race), however, spiritually, there are two races (the saved and unsaved). It is the two spiritual “races” that God clearly instructs in His Word not to mix in marriage. In other words, when someone asks me “does the Bible deal with interracial marriage?” I answer, “it sure does, it makes it clear the saved ‘race’ should never knowingly marry the unsaved ‘race’—and that’s all the Bible teaches about ‘interracial’ marriage.’” Biologically, there is no such thing as “interracial” marriage as there is only one “race”—we are all descendants of one man, Adam.
I’m not sure that Ham’s stance would extend to the unsaved being able to enter into any marriage they want…
But at the end of the day we (Christians) need to make sure our house is in order before throwing stones, literally or otherwise.
They even provide this helpful infographic.
b.jpg)
Driscoll’s apologetic
Mark Driscoll has been invited to write occasional columns for the Washington Post. In his first he was asked how to best present the gospel to atheists and skeptics.
His answer, as his answers always are, was beautifully Christocentric.
Q: What makes the best ‘case for God’ to a skeptic or non-believer, an open-minded seeker, and to a person of faith and Why?
Answer
Jesus.Christianity is not first and foremost about a sacred place to pilgrimage to, a philosophical system to ponder, a moral code to live, a religious tradition to honor, or an impersonal god to experience. Rather, Christianity is about a person who claimed to be the only God and said he would prove his unprecedented claim by living without sin, dying for sinners, and conquering death through resurrection.
It’s a nice opener. The gospel in a nutshell. And he doesn’t shy away from addressing other areas, but he starts with Jesus. And that’s worthy of respect. More respect than others who like to sit on their blogs and throw stones because they don’t like his sense of humour…
His conclusion is helpful too…
“And so while there is no “best case” for presenting God, there are false ways of presenting God: as anyone in addition to or other than Jesus Christ. As Christians, our goal is never to lie to people by only telling them what they want to hear, or manipulating them to feel what they want to feel. Instead, we want to respect them enough to tell them the truth, and love them enough to do so in a way that is compassionate. We care more about the truth and the love than having the “best case.”
I’ve been wondering, given recent experiences with atheists right here, how to move the debate away from discussing theism/atheism towards Christianity/atheism. It’s a great tactic the atheists have adopted to avoid dealing with Christianity specifically. It’s much easier to dismiss a non-specific deity on the basis of dismissing all deities (Christians do something similar all the time, by rejecting all other Gods) than it is to actually dismiss the specifics of the deity people are actually putting faith in. But it’s a case of moving the goal posts to suit the game you want to win.
The temptation, when discussing the existence of God in the theism/atheism paradigm is to throw our lot in with other theists (Muslims, Hindus, Mormons etc) and see them as allies – when a better, more Biblically consistent model is the one Driscoll advocates. Using an apologetic based on Jesus.
That’s why I’m a Driscoll fanboy. That, and the description he gives himself in his byline on the article.
“A nobody trying to tell everybody about Somebody.”
Comical discussion
A week after the PZ effect my traffic is just about back to normal… But for some of us the fun continued after discussion on that thread concluded.
Andrew Finden – opera singer extraordinaire (seriously, YouTube him) was in the blue corner, while a Canadian “stand up comedian” going by the name of Salvage was in the red corner.
I am going to call Andrew the winner in their 30 round match up. Salvage, like so many atheists before him, made the mistake of assuming:
a) that Andrew would be shocked to find out that Christians disagree about stuff.
b) that Christians have no idea about conjecture about the historicity of the Bible.
c) that Christians fail to grasp the basics of logic and argument.
d) that they, the atheist, on the basis of their rejection of Christianity, are in a better position to understand and critique the Bible.
He also couldn’t get past his notions of what Christians believe and actually engage with what it is that Andrew, and to a lesser extent me (he dismissed me on the basis of my disclaimer).
I’ve been pretty proud of the way Christians have conducted themselves in these threads – firstly Stephen on the original thread and then Andrew have handled obstreperous comments with grace and aplomb.
Colbert v Dawkins
Given that (thanks to PZ Myers) 90% of my current visitors are atheists, I’m going to keep writing about atheism.
Here you go, a nice dialogue, between two people, about God… both are smug.
Everybody wants to claim Colbert as one of their own – either he’s a Christian satire, a conservative satire, an actual conservative, or a Christian… He’s probably a mix of all of those. He certainly has a track record of active involvement in church. And he looks like Will Bailey from the West Wing…
Anyway. This made me laugh. If only atheists were really like Richard Dawkins. Online, anyway.
| The Colbert Report | Mon – Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| Richard Dawkins | ||||
|
||||