I think religion and religious leaders deserve to be scruitinized and their leadership questioned.

Sent by Liz Homer | 10:05 PM ET | 05-11-2007

!! "Response to religious extremists." !!

Most Atheists I've seen in public (I'm excluding friends who call themselves such) are the very embodiment of "religions extremism."

Your examples above prove the point. Anyone who would argue that Rick Warren is more of a theat to one's freedom than Dawkins or Harris isn't paying attention.

Nearly every religious movement, particularly the three branches of Abraham, entails some submission of one's will to a "higher power."

What does an Atheist "submit" to? Submit to nothing but one's self, and one is set up "God" or "a god". That's a good recipe for becoming a sociopath or a narcissist.

If an Atheist has the intelligence (most do) to see how that can't work out too well, and they fall back on the next biggest thing they can 'submit' to. The "collective", the "will of the people" (unless Christian, mind you), or some other 'human' creation.

That's always worked out well, hasn't it?

Regardless, the differences between the "fire and brimstone" preacher, Dawkins and Harris, and the Wahhabist absolutist are tiny.

Anyone can set up a caricature of one's 'enemy' and then lay waste to it. The vast majority of the Religious bear no resemblance to the caricatures set up by Atheists and their buddies who write nearly all of today's prime time scripts.

Sent by Bruno | 7:44 AM ET | 05-13-2007

I guess the "brouhaha" over Al Sharpton's slur was not strong enough to warrant an on-air story from NPR. Do a NPR search for "Imus", and you get seven recent stories -- but zero for Al Sharpton. How about the Opie and Andy comment about punching Sec Rice in the face while raping her? Zero stories on that one as well -- where's the outrage? Is it because Sec Rice is black but her conservative credentials make her fair game? And the double standard continues.

Sent by matthew lince | 10:36 PM ET | 05-13-2007

In (brief) response to "Bruno": name one ware waged in the name of no god, gods, Gods, or God.

The challenge of a personal [G,g]od is the it is metaphor for the greatest and most grotesque expression of ego. When Muslims stop killing each other, when Christians stop killing each other, when Jews and Christians stop killing/arguing with each other, when Muslims and Jews stop arguing/killing each other and when Muslims and Christians stop arguing/killing each other then the so-called [G,g]odly can have an informed conversation with an Atheist. But, first learn what Atheism actually is, which will require you (and those like you) to learn what Theism is. Here's a hint, Deism is not Theism. Until all of the above happens, stay off of my porch and don't impose yourself on me in parking lots.

Sent by RONIN | 12:34 PM ET | 05-14-2007

To Bruno, Regarding Bruno's Comments:

What an idiotic tirade (Bruno's), from the initial unproven non-point to the unintended irony of the last paragraph.

Equating the atheist "submission" (Bruno's chosen word, not mine) to reason with the believer's submission to dogma, faith and unreson is a clear indication of Bruno's lack of basic understanding of the issue at hand.

In what way is Dawkins and Harrris a threat to your freedom? You'll always be free to worship the myth of your choice.

And your argument about the likely path for becoming a sociopath/narcissist makes of your reasoning ability not only a source of embarrassment to anybody w/ half a brain, but also alerts me to the likely pointlessness of having this exchange w/ you.

Cheers.

Sent by Sergio Acosta | 5:00 PM ET | 05-14-2007

I completely agree with the commentary sent by Bruno, as in my opinion, he really hits the nail on the head.
The one thing I would add is a quote I once heard, although I do not know the author, and the statement is regarding faith in God: Faith {in God} is a wise wager. If the believer is correct, he has gained everything. If the believer is incorrect, he has lost nothing.

Sent by D. Belloli | 9:28 PM ET | 05-15-2007

To D. Belloli

Perhaps the believer hasn't lost anything, but what price has he exacted from the earth and those in it through his idols: war, intolerance, and stripping of other's rights?

Sent by esther | 2:14 PM ET | 05-16-2007

Bruno's comments and comparisons here are virtually unintelligible. Atheists by definition cannot be "religious extremists" and if by that Bruno means the recently assumed aggressive posture towards religion by certain public intellectuals then perhaps he should consider their actual arguments rather than engage in mere ad hominem attack.

Neither Dawkins nor Harris are a threat to anyone's freedom. They simply use reason to question the privileged status which is enjoyed by religion in the United States.
Ethical claims and public policies which affect all people such as policies regarding abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, high school science education, physician assisted suicide, and fitness for political office are usually grounded in religious belief. Yet somehow those beliefs must "respected" and remain immune from rational criticism. You can't have it both ways; use religion in ethical discourse and insert it into political life in a manner which will affect others, including nonbelievers, and then hold that it is off limits from criticism. We do not allow this immunity for any other kind of belief system and should not with religion either.

One need not "submit" to anything, especially false beliefs and doctrines. Furthermore, it is a matter of fact that most atheists are no more selfish than religious people. One can care about the well being of one's family, friends, and fellow citizens and lead an ethical life without having to "submit" or surrender to the "will" of God. Dawkins and Harris are both superb examples of this.

Finally, there is no similarity whatsoever between the unbelief of Dawkins and Harris and the Saudi version of Islam. However, there is considerable similarity between the moral police in Saudi Arabia and the Christian Coalition. Bruno might ponder than comparison instead of engaging in straw man caricatures and faulty analogies that have no points of contact with reality.

Sent by Michael | 11:10 PM ET | 05-20-2007

I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian home. Around the age of 16 I started trying to make sense of the world; as a part of my search I called the local library and asked if they had books on atheism. From the reaction of the librarian, I might as well have stabbed her mother. Needless to say, there were none.
I am SO insanely grateful for all of the books on atheism now.
As for the person bringing up Pascal's Wager... please, give it a rest. Getting on my knees to a picture of a pink unicorn just to hedge my bets on an afterlife makes just as much sense as worshipping a god for the same reason.
Also, if the only reason a person (first post in this string) is a good person is because of fear of a god and not because it's just the right thing to do, there is a problem.

Sent by Ricky | 6:11 PM ET | 05-27-2007

I would LOVE to see someone do a scientific survey of the percentage of atheists in this country.
However, let's not simply look at atheist or christian. The gray areas should also be considered. In my experience there are a lot of people who define themselves in a lot of ways that are just short of atheist. There IS a stigma attached to being an atheist. Most of us sit quietly and just hope not to be noticed and simply avoid religious topics. I agree we are the minority in this country but I am confident we are a much larger minority than most people think.

Yes, let's do a census of the non-believers and the doubters even though the christians will not accept the results because they have not "faith" in science.

Sent by Michael Stephenson | 2:01 PM ET | 06-22-2007

Unfortunately, I don't think it will be possible to calculate the numbers we atheists comprise. Theists have ready-made statistics in their church membership rolls; we're generally not aligned with an organization. It's like trying to count the number of Linux users in the US vs. the number of Windows users, which is equally difficult for the very same reason.

As for altruism, I prefer to be altruistic knowing I have no reward waiting for me after I die. I feel much better about the good things I do in life, knowing there's no pat on the head and a trip through the pearly gates after I draw my last breath.

Sent by Chris Evans | 3:45 PM ET | 06-22-2007

I suspect there is a significant percentage of Americans that identify themselves as Christians as a cultural group that are really are atheists and are either in the closet for any number of reasons or because they simply haven't given the matter much thought because they see it as benign.

Sent by Michael | 11:07 PM ET | 08-09-2007

Saturday I read the beginning of The God Delusion where Dawkins imagines how wonderful the world would be without God. Then I watched a PBS travel show on Florence that showed the amazing religiously inspired art of the renaissance. Then I realized that the society without God has already been tried... Russian communism. I remembered hearing a Lithuanian pastor talk about how the communists took over his home church and turned it into a tanning factory and destroyed all of the beautiful paintings and art inside. I remembered watching The Killing Fields sitting next to a Cambodian friend who had escaped from one of the camps of the Kemehr Rouge. I recalled how I felt reading the Gulag Archipelago and I couldn't help but smile as I realized it is Dawkins who is delusional, not believers in God.

Sent by Darren | 2:27 PM ET | 10-01-2007

Darren- yes things are the same between what you saw: destroying the beautiful paintings of the church to our Government killing people in Iraq and our President claiming that God told him to start that war!
Dawkins is not delusional, he is trying to explain what science has found.
Maybe you are delusional fighting with the wind mills.

Sent by Kris | 9:31 PM ET | 10-02-2007

Darren said......Then I realized that the society without God has already been tried... Russian communism.

Hate to dispute you on this point, but it was a Western propaganda that Stalin outlawed the Russian Orthodox Church's existence.

Stalin was never that foolish a politician. Stalin understood the importance of Orthodoxy to the Russian people.

In fact, during the Nazi invasion of the Russian motherland, the Russian Orthodox Church was extremely instrumental in raising money for Russian armored divisions to protect Stalingrad and Leningrad.

Stalin was very politically astute about maintaining a close relationship with the Orthodox Church, and allowing the people to continue their reliance on the mother church of Russia.

Actually, the Russian Orthodox Church has had a longer running battle with the Vatican than with Stalinism.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 10:42 PM ET | 10-02-2007

The reason there are so many wars is not whether there is a god or there is not a god, it's that there are too many gods. And the instance of the Cold War myth that Soviet Communism was a "Godless" organization is a prime example of how wars are created and sustained.

The Orthodox Church has always been strong in Russia, the Ukraine and elsewhere in the region of some eleven time zones. The Orthodox Church never shut down, right on through the three hundred year Romanov rule and on through the Bolshevik takeover right up to today. The problem began centuries ago when the Orthodox bishops told the Vatican not to meddle in Russian religion. Hence, the myth that the Soviets eliminated the Orthodox Church became a Western propaganda tool to bolster the Cold War propaganda tossed by both sides.

Only recently the Vatican and the Orthodox Church emissaries have restarted negotiations to mend fences. The Vatican, having had a succession of a Polish and a German Pontiff, have got some work to do to mend those fences with the Russian Orthodox bishops.

Meanwhile, the ongoing thousands of years long war of the Abrahamic tradition ....Christians, Jews and Muslims... continues to fuel the oil wars in Iraq (sorry for the pun), And there are no plans anywhere in Washington to end that war any time soon. Hence, political religion continues to be a nexus in global conflict.

Ergo, God must exist.

I love these theological debates and Salvador Dali's religious iconic paintings. They are both so surreal.

fred call

Sent by fred call | 10:11 AM ET | 10-03-2007