Those types without any sin are sure doing a lot of harm in the name of their own goodness. See (Diane and) my blog, I just found out that our U.S. of A. won't sign onto the U.N. convention against use of child soldiers. This slays me.

hmmm Lord of the Gray? are you saying atrios can't be unmixed?

... on "The Man in the Grey Turtleneck," which for those of you who are really "old school," was a reference to Atrios before he was also "Duncan Black."

But I think what CD is also saying is what I would put as You can't UNsay "Fuck" (short of, say, putative religious conversion. And Atrios not only says Fuck, he explains why we say it.

So, I guess that, at least for the forseeable future, Atrios will not be working on a Democratic campaign. So?

No authoritarians were tortured in the writing of this post.

Gracias for the explanation and history lesson, Lambert. I don't know why Atrios loves turtlenecks! Myself I like going shirtless.

I like the idea of bloggers that cannot be appropriated for political campaigns. I like the idea of Blogger as Gadfly rather than Blogger as Political Tool for sure.

he's all over that today. being one of him minions, and pressed for time, i thought i'd join him. see the above post as well.

ruth, you can post that here if you'd like. indeed, i wish you would. i won't have time to.

are getting fused together, IMNSHO.

Atrios' and CD's point, that religious people are wrongly placed above non-religious folks when it comes to morality in our public discourse, is a great point.

It can be argued, easily and convincingly, to a large number of people, even people of faith that some Atheists have strong morals and that some religious people do a lot of immoral things (See Bush, G.W.). So there should be a level playing field when it comes to discussing matters of morality as they pertain to politics and policy.

The other discussion is whether Atheism is "better" (rationally or for the good of society,or whatever other reason) than Religion. Hell (if it exists) will freeze over before anyone "wins" this argument.

Persuading religious people to abandon their religion is an impossible task. Persuading the vast majority of people that all citizens have a sense of morality and should have equal say in what is right and wrong for their governemtn to do is doable.

On that same vein, I disagree with the GreyLord when he says:

I'm puzzled why some religious people seem to get upset by more outspoken atheists. I can turn on the teevee and be threatened with damnation and hellfire. Who cares if Sam Harris thinks you're stupid? If atheists want to engage in their own brand of proselytizing, good for them. I'm not especially interested in it, but what's wrong with it? There are Christian missionaries all over the world.

Atheists get pissed when Christians tell them they're Bad Peole and they're going to hell, so why shouldn't Christians get pissed when Atheists tell them they're Bad People and they're morons?

I think a lot of what start out as rational discussions get confused and emotional because of Group Identity issues. "They're attacking people like me, so they're attacking me! Let's attack Them!"

My bottom line: beleive whatever you want to believe or nothing at all, just as long as you don't cause harm to others based on your beliefs or lack thereof.

Persuading religious people to abandon their religion is an impossible task.

people leave, and have left, their religions easily, and often, across history. dammit, i'm too tired to make this point with the backup i need, but this is a "meme/meta" idea. the short version goes something like "everyone is an atheist...but for one(some) god/s."

that is the pressure point, the important moment. it's no harder to convince a fence sitting hindu that shiva is a myth than it is to convince a fence sitting christian that "jesus" is an amalgam of myth. it's simply a matter of finding the right lever. that varies, from individual to individual, but it's not that much harder than, say, converting a fiscal and libertarian "conservative" to the idea that in fact, they are liberal, and just have to shed the rhetorical baggage that prevents them from admitting that.

/mutters about exhaustion after a long day of nonunion labor installing floors/

...is a very personal thing, cd.

Either you feel it, or you don't, and the more someone labors to convince you against your heart one way or the other, the more you're going to dig in your heels.

Rationality, you can reason with. The God meme is by definition unreasonable. I know excellent careful analytical scientists who are in the same breath ardent Catholics (I'm married to one). Others who are Jews. Or Hindu. Or Muslim. Despite years of, say, biological training, knowing the world doesn't work that way.

Lean on that lever too hard, and they tip in a direction you don't rationally anticipate. Why don't you anticipate it? Because you aren't wired that way.

You or I or any of our regular colleagues here could walk away, because we are mentally wired that way.

And, incidently, you still write fine even if you are exhausted.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky

hmmm. you're the scientist, so i'll let you back that up. but it sounds dangerous. in the sense that it could excuse people from their pogrom-loving, crusade-starting behaviors.

There is absolutely no proof for that statement, which is why I led you to put the words "god" and "gene" together instead of saying it myself.

No matter how much evidence there is of its expression in humanity.

And as far as my being a scientist goes, there are tenured teaching faculty here that would disagree. Fortunately so far this does not include the people that pay my salary.

No Hell below us
Above us, only sky