Dinesh D'Souza: You Atheists Just Don't Get It!

[Roadtoad]

Ummmm... Yeah.

Contemporary atheism marches behind the banner of science. It is perhaps no surprise that several leading atheists—from biologist Richard Dawkins to cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker to physicist Victor Stenger—are also leading scientists. The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator.

But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence. One sign of this is the public advertisements that are appearing in billboards from London to Washington DC. Dawkins helped pay for a London campaign to put signs on city buses saying, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Humanist groups in America have launched a similar campaign in the nation’s capital. “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake.” And in Colorado atheists are sporting billboards apparently inspired by John Lennon: “Imagine…no religion.”

What is striking about these slogans is the philosophy behind them. There is no claim here that God fails to satisfy some criterion of scientific validation. We hear nothing about how evolution has undermined the traditional “argument from design.” There’s not even a whisper about how science is based on reason while Christianity is based on faith.

Gee, Dinesh. Perhaps because most people realize that religion assumes the answer will be given at the end, while science has shown that we ought to seek out the answers ourselves. Science is not about the a priori assumption. It's about making an observation, testing said observation, and reviewing the results. Religion is little more than fatalism.

You can read this travesty of pseudo-intellectualism here. (http://townhall.com/columnists/DineshDSouza/2008/11/24/when_science_points_to_god?page=1)

[Zep]

Funny, I understood the central argument of scientists had nothing to do with atheism. Simply that science has nothing to say about God. Sounds like D'Souza is trying to conjour an argument out of nothing my mis-stating someone else's ideas. Maybe he's trying to get another book out of it?

[hgc]

God doesn't fail to satisfy any scientific criteria. God isn't testable by science at all. You don't need science to not believe in God. You only need to realize that you lack any credible evidence for God's existence, which is easy.

[schlitt]

What's he expecting; an extensive treatise on the side of a bus?

He says this:
What is striking about these slogans is the philosophy behind them. There is no claim here that God fails to satisfy some criterion of scientific validation. We hear nothing about how evolution has undermined the traditional “argument from design.” There’s not even a whisper about how science is based on reason while Christianity is based on faith.

Then fails to mention that Victor Stenger who he has just previously mentioned, has a book on exactly what he is just talking about. A comprehensive book from a scientist is hardly the thing you are going to find on the side of a bus.

The rest of the article is just the typical argument from personal incredulity.

Moron.

[Roadtoad]

Funny, I understood the central argument of scientists had nothing to do with atheism. Simply that science has nothing to say about God. Sounds like D'Souza is trying to conjour an argument out of nothing my mis-stating someone else's ideas. Maybe he's trying to get another book out of it?

Maybe he is. What bothers me is the blatant dishonesty of his column. I realize it sells well in the Bible Belt, but out here in the real world, it's damned insulting.

[Hokulele]

Huh. And here I thought public advertisements supporting atheism was due to the fact that it is no longer a taboo subject in certain cultures, rather than losing "its scientific confidence". Whatever the heck that is.

[Roadtoad]

Touche, Hoke! That's part of the dishonesty.

Seriously, if Dinesh had even read the damned flyleaf of Dawkins' book, his column might have made a bit more sense. Instead, we get this obtuse, bland, wannabe intellect, this pseudo-wisdom created from a deliberate misreading of what atheism is and is not.

[arthwollipot]

God doesn't fail to satisfy any scientific criteria. God isn't testable by science at all.Which surely is the first scientific criterion, is it not?

[Roadtoad]

Which surely is the first scientific criterion, is it not?

True, but that's never stopped the intellectually dishonest before, has it?

[articulett]

I don't think scientific treatises make for very catchy bus ad slogans.

[Pardalis]

As physicist Andrei Linde puts it, “We have a lot of really, really strange coincidences, and all of these coincidences are such that they make life possible.”

Not that old tired nonsense again... :rolleyes:

[Ron_Tomkins]

Yes, Dinesh D' Souza is one of many carriers of the Fallacious Arguments that so proudly Creationists wear on their sleeve as if they had the ultimate rational explanation for Creationism and the final argument against Evolution.

You can actually watch him ridiculize himself on a debate he had with no other but Daniel Dennett himself.

Here's part 1 of what I believe is something like 16 parts:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iw7J15TeDG4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iw7J15TeDG4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Skeptic Ginger]

I saw this silly straw man. Why should advertisements promoting atheism be required to promote science in the same sentence?

[Mashuna]

I don't think scientific treatises make for very catchy bus ad slogans.

It's true. They start off ok, but by the time you get to the footnotes. . .

[Safe-Keeper]

Dinesh D'SouzaYou could pretty much just leave the post at that. No need to elaborate with actual quotes... we know that whenever his name comes up here, it's because he's said something ******* crazy again.

[leonAzul]

Yes, Dinesh D' Souza is one of many carriers of the Fallacious Arguments that so proudly Creationists wear on their sleeve as if they had the ultimate rational explanation for Creationism and the final argument against Evolution.

You can actually watch him ridiculize himself on a debate he had with no other but Daniel Dennett himself.

Here's part 1 of what I believe is something like 16 parts:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/iw7J15TeDG4&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/iw7J15TeDG4&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

It would seem we were not watching the same debate. Dinesh is decidedly not anti-evolution. What he did claim is that Darwinism is frequently mis-applied beyond its original scope of speciation.

The dynamics of the debate are interesting to observe. First Dennett intentionally deviates from the agreed to resolution. Dinesh responds by assuming an early and protracted rebuttal without ever presenting a coherent argument. It then proceeds with continued rebuttal without ever addressing the resolution "God is an artifice", although both agree that the forms of religion are obviously devised by humans. Never the less, it is great discussion that remains remarkably civil, all things considered.

[CaptainManacles]

Contemporary atheism marches behind the banner of science. It is perhaps no surprise that several leading atheists—from biologist Richard Dawkins to cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker to physicist Victor Stenger—are also leading scientists. The central argument of these scientific atheists is that modern science has refuted traditional religious conceptions of a divine creator.

But of late atheism seems to be losing its scientific confidence. One sign of this is the public advertisements that are appearing in billboards from London to Washington DC. Dawkins helped pay for a London campaign to put signs on city buses saying, “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life.” Humanist groups in America have launched a similar campaign in the nation’s capital. “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness sake.” And in Colorado atheists are sporting billboards apparently inspired by John Lennon: “Imagine…no religion.”

What is striking about these slogans is the philosophy behind them. There is no claim here that God fails to satisfy some criterion of scientific validation. We hear nothing about how evolution has undermined the traditional “argument from design.” There’s not even a whisper about how science is based on reason while Christianity is based on faith.

I think that's because if you put that on a billboard, you would have a hard time reading it.

"We are claiming that god fails to satisfy the criterion of scientific validation, and evolution has undemined the traditional 'argument from design' " Isn't catchy.

But here we see the wacky cherry picking of these people. "In some mediums, atheists don't state that evolution undermines creationism, therefore god exists."

[LarianLeQuella]

Sounds like D'Souza is trying to conjour an argument out of nothing my mis-stating someone else's ideas.

He's a practitioner of Manufactroversy: http://www.scienceprogress.org/2008/04/manufactroversy/

Sadly, it seems to fall on people who are rational to actually defend themselves from this sort of tripe. Which obviously takes away from an actual message, and validates the manufatctroversy folks in their own mind... Rock and a hard place. Well, no one ever said being a skeptic is easy!

[Safe-Keeper]

You gotta love the way they shoehorn reality into their narrow worldview, though. Their assumption is that all atheists are science-freaks, and when a billboard comes up that doesn't have anything to do with science, it's not that atheists aren't all like the stereotype, it's that we've changed:rolleyes:.

[Morrigan]

The hubris this idiot is capable of is mind-boggling.

[phantomb]

So some atheists discuss god using philosophy and suddenly this constitutes an admittance by all atheists that there is no evidence that gods do not exist and that god has now become scientifically falsifiable? What?

By this logic, because some theists have discussed god in terms of scientific evidence, all theists have admitted that there is no scriptural evidence that gods exist.

[Lonewulf]

By this logic,

Please don't call it that. That offends me. :o

[Safe-Keeper]

What will D'Souza say when atheists start to talk about science again? That we're flip-flopping?

[Hokulele]

Worse, what will D'Souza say when scientists start to talk about science again?

[Safe-Keeper]

Sigh. Watching the YouTube debate linked to now. Dinesh hasn't changed a bit since I first heard of him, when he used the VT shooting to attack atheism.

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think Dinesh actually understands atheists. Nor do I think he wants to.

[schlitt]

There are 2 things that make it nigh impossible to watch a full debate involving Dinesh.

Firstly; his incessant regurgitation of fallacious arguments, and failure to comprehend why they are not adequate arguments.

Secondly; his voice.
Seriously, I could probably sit through his inane ramblings if it weren’t for his voice.

[Ron_Tomkins]

It would seem we were not watching the same debate. Dinesh is decidedly not anti-evolution.

No, I didn't say he was.

What he did claim is that Darwinism is frequently mis-applied beyond its original scope of speciation.

Agreed. Obviously there was a misunderstanding in how I phrased things.

The dynamics of the debate are interesting to observe. First Dennett intentionally deviates from the agreed to resolution. Dinesh responds by assuming an early and protracted rebuttal without ever presenting a coherent argument. It then proceeds with continued rebuttal without ever addressing the resolution "God is an artifice", although both agree that the forms of religion are obviously devised by humans. Never the less, it is great discussion that remains remarkably civil, all things considered.

Indeed, it is quite interesting watching it.

I think, in the end, the conclusion that I reach (after listening to the question-and-answer bit) is that what Dinesh mostly relies on is the philosophical manifesto of "You can't prove this reality is not some virtual reality artifice that we're all swimming in and that our senses aren't stopping us from seeing the whole REAL picture of what reality actually is" and use it as if that was correlational with the conclusion "therefore, there has to be a God that accounts for the creation of everything we have".

And yes, I agree with what others said about his voice. It wouldn't be so hard listening to him if only he didn't feel like he has to yell to make a point.

[Foster Zygote]

He's correct. I just don't get how he could be so dense.

[Safe-Keeper]

I think, in the end, the conclusion that I reach (after listening to the question-and-answer bit) is that what Dinesh mostly relies on is the philosophical manifesto of "You can't prove this reality is not some virtual reality artifice that we're all swimming in and that our senses aren't stopping us from seeing the whole REAL picture of what reality actually is" and use it as if that was correlational with the conclusion "therefore, there has to be a God that accounts for the creation of everything we have".It's the last desperate stand of most Creationists. "OK, so there's tonnes of evidence for the Theory of Evolution and none for God, but your senses aren't perfect and therefore you could be wrong!". When you reach that point, you've essentially won.

Secondly; his voice. Seriously, I could probably sit through his inane ramblings if it weren’t for his voice.Indeed. It's possible to make a speech without working yourself into a fervor. We're in the US, not in some sort of rally.

[articulett]

How do you work science and atheism into a catchy slogan anyhow?

I can think of a catchy science slogan I saw-- it said, "Obey Gravity: it's the law"

I wonder how they'd react if it said: "All religions are fairy-tales (except for yours)"?

I guess you could get kind of sciencey by saying "there's no more evidence for the god(s) you do believe in than the gods you don't"

"Atheism is a non-prophet organization?"

I think D'Souza may be expecting the impossible, but if he thinks we are at fault for not coming up with any catchy atheist/pro-science slogans, he ought to provide evidence that such things exist. It's a hell of lot more cheery than signs telling me that Jesus died for my sins or images of crucifixes.

Didn't The God Delusion come with a Christmas card that said, "O come all ye faithless"? See, that's the thing-- the bus slogan has a seasonal tie in; I heard Mel Lipman on a podcast discussing all the reasons they decided on it--they never thought of a science tie in. It's... well ... it's "merry". I think asking for a merry atheist seasonal science slogan may be impossible-- (but I'll ask Santa anyhow.)

The slogan was from the American Humanist Association anyhow-- not the American Academy of the Sciences. Jesus! Brains seeped in faith just seem to lose the ability to reason after a while.

[Safe-Keeper]

"Atheism is a non-prophet organization?":chuckles:

[Silentknight]

God doesn't fail to satisfy any scientific criteria. God isn't testable by science at all. You don't need science to not believe in God. You only need to realize that you lack any credible evidence for God's existence, which is easy.

What are you talking about? All we need is to build a large enough tranquilizer gun, track down God in heaven, and shoot him in the arse. Then haul his giant unconscious body back to the lab to run experiments on. Of course, he might be quite mad when he wakes up...

[arthwollipot]

I don't think Dinesh actually understands atheists. Nor do I think he wants to.It has been my experience that most theists actually understand atheists, and don't want to. There have been a few exceptions.

[Hokulele]

What are you talking about? All we need is to build a large enough tranquilizer gun, track down God in heaven, and shoot him in the arse. Then haul his giant unconscious body back to the lab to run experiments on. Of course, he might be quite mad when he wakes up...


Hmm, is God really all that big? After all, "made in his image" suggests otherwise. And weren't people smaller back in ancient times?

I mean, if we can save some money on the darts and all...

[Achán hiNidráne]

What are you talking about? All we need is to build a large enough tranquilizer gun, track down God in heaven, and shoot him in the arse. Then haul his giant unconscious body back to the lab to run experiments on. Of course, he might be quite mad when he wakes up...

Can I put the tag in his ear?

[UnrepentantSinner]

Secondly; his voice.
Seriously, I could probably sit through his inane ramblings if it weren’t for his voice.

Imagine what I went through the other night listening to Michael Medved interviewing him. I wanted to sream.

[schlitt]

Imagine what I went through the other night listening to Michael Medved interviewing him. I wanted to sream.

You engaged in this willingly? :eek:

[Olowkow]

Quote:
"Atheism is a non-prophet organization?"
:chuckles:

Just in case you are not familiar with these guys, worth a listen:
http://www.nonprophetsradio.com/

[Achán hiNidráne]

Imagine what I went through the other night listening to Michael Medved interviewing him. I wanted to sream.

Ugh! The amount of pure, unadulterated, stupidity that was generated by that conversation must have been terrifying.

[UnrepentantSinner]

You engaged in this willingly? :eek:

Sometimes you have to step into the lions den. I usually switch back to something saner like C2C when my blood pressure gets too high.

Ugh! The amount of pure, unadulterated, stupidity that was generated by that conversation must have been terrifying.

It was one of the few times when I've been at work and really really wanted a drink.

[leonAzul]

And yes, I agree with what others said about his voice. It wouldn't be so hard listening to him if only he didn't feel like he has to yell to make a point.

Agreed. Furthermore, seeing his words in print it becomes obvious just how much he uses his voice to rhetorical effect. Without the excitement and bluster, the non sequiturs become blatantly obvious.

[Roadtoad]

I've yet to see the video. I've no interest in it, particularly after reading the article.

D'Souza comes into this, arrogantly claiming in so many words that if we'd just see the "facts" as he sees them, we'd turn back to god, however we're supposed to define "him." He ignores the very credible reasons why some of us choose atheism, as many of faith do, claiming we're being childish, that we don't understand the whole idea of "God," and if we'd just grow a little, we might have a chance.

I'm sorry, Dinesh, but there's several problems with this, not the least of which being that it's not so much "God" we reject, but your interpretation of who "God" is supposed to be. This includes the "Sacred Santa," preached by the Health and Wealth crowd, even as some of us on this board are on the verge of homelessness, the Smiter of Evil, who still manage to sit and smirk atop the pile of skulls they've gathered by their acts, and the Healer of the Wounded, as the rest of us are forced to watch as those we love die slowly, painfully.

So many of us bought into the press presented by everyone from Jimmy Swaggart to Benny Hinn, that when we finally saw the Truth, unvarnished and unwavering, it forced us to look at those who presented a Gospel that could actually be followed and accepted, including that presented by J. Vernon McGee, Chuck Swindoll, and Charles Stanley. Funny thing: I can look at those three, recognize they believe what they teach, and still not accept it myself, simply because belief is not enough.

I can believe there's a bridge across a 300' chasm. I can believe it so thoroughly, that I'll run a truck up to the redline and charge across that chasm at 75 MPH. My belief, though, will not prevent that rig from heading nose-first into the rocks below. There's nothing under the wheels to keep my flesh and bone safe. I'll die.

D'Souza, sad to say, has yet to show any rational explanation for why he chooses to believe there's a God. I can tell you why I choose to not believe, and it goes well beyond the obvious contradictions in the Bible, to the logical contradictions of the idea behind a God. I don't think I've missed much, but that's another point of distinction between D'Souza, his allies, and me. I can admit I don't have all the answers. He can't and won't.

[Silentknight]

Hmm, is God really all that big? After all, "made in his image" suggests otherwise. And weren't people smaller back in ancient times?

I mean, if we can save some money on the darts and all...

Eh, you might be right. After all, gestures such as bowing or kneeling originated as signs of submission to human monarchs because nobody was supposed to hold his or her head above that of the monarch. Given that even small children are taught to kneel in prayer, or that Muslims touch their heads all the way to the floor, I imagine God couldn't be much taller than Jiminy Cricket (which explains the initials he gave his son).

[Achán hiNidráne]

D'Souza comes into this, arrogantly claiming in so many words that if we'd just see the "facts" as he sees them, we'd turn back to god, however we're supposed to define "him." He ignores the very credible reasons why some of us choose atheism, as many of faith do, claiming we're being childish, that we don't understand the whole idea of "God," and if we'd just grow a little, we might have a chance.

I've encountered this "argument" from religionists on more than one occasion: "You'll understand when you've settled down and had a family." "You'll think differently toward the end of your life." In the Orwellian world of religon, subjecting yourself "God" is "Freedom," while showing any true independence of thought or action is seen as youthful rebellion. Somehow, believing in fairy tales of magic and miracles is seen as a sign of "maturity."

Sorry Dinesh, I stopped believing in Santa when I was a kid and Yahweh is no different.

D'Souza, sad to say, has yet to show any rational explanation for why he chooses to believe there's a God. I can tell you why I choose to not believe, and it goes well beyond the obvious contradictions in the Bible, to the logical contradictions of the idea behind a God. I don't think I've missed much, but that's another point of distinction between D'Souza, his allies, and me. I can admit I don't have all the answers. He can't and won't.

Here's the thing: I don't think D'Souza and his allies really believe either.
D'Souza is a neoconservative court-intellectual, and the one thing about neo-cons--from Leo Strauss all the way through the repugant Kristol clan--is that they have a cynical attachment to religion. They reject the notion that the average human being can be left to their own devices and must be kept in check by cututral myths like nationalism and religion.

D'Souza and the neo-cons are afraid of the "new atheism" gaining any ground becasue they fear it will weaken the powerbase of the "Big Lie" they think is so necessary to maintain civilization. It's the primary reason why many neo-con are so insterested in backing ID and other psudeo-sciences because they fear that wide-spread acceptance of evolution will undermine religion, leading (at least in their own paranoid dream world) to bedlam and destruction.

But as too whether the neo-cons belive themsevles?

Because of Strauss' teachings, [William] Kristol continued, "There are in Washington today dozens of people who are married with children and religiously observant. Do they have faith? Who knows? They just believe that it is good to go to church or synagogue. Whether you believe or not is not the issue -- that's between you and God -- whether you are a member of a community that holds certain truths sacred, that is the issue." Neoconservatives are "pro-religion even though they themselves may not be believers."

--Ronald Bailey,
"The Voice of Neoconservatism" (http://www.reason.com/news/show/34900.html)
Reason, October 17, 2001


Apparently, freedom of thought is a luxury only for the anointed few.

[Radrook]

Would an extraterrestrial being like the character "Q" on Star Trek fill the bill as a god?

[Roadtoad]

Apparently, freedom of thought is a luxury only for the anointed few.

Hmmm. Must be why I chose to leave the masses of the neocons, and decide for myself what I chose to believe.

Funny business, this "thinking:" It requires a lot of practice. Part of what I have found so offensive about the jingoism of both liberals and conservatives is that the slogans and cliches become substitutes for thought. I find when I have to thread my way through the thickets, the mantras don't work so good. Ultimately, I have to use my brain, and reason my own way through.

And, ultimately, it reveals that "liberal" and "conservative" are usually worthless as labels. If you have to be one or the other, you're probably not worth associating with the rest of us. Good luck with that.

(And having said so, it leaves me asking: Where the hell is Kittynh when you need her?)

[Roadtoad]

Would an extraterrestrial being like the character "Q" on Star Trek fill the bill as a god?

Nah. He's too nice a guy. The "God" I'm familiar with from my association with the Church is a pretty nasty SOB.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Would an extraterrestrial being like the character "Q" on Star Trek fill the bill as a god?

And now, another epsisode of Radrook's Moronic Non Sequiturs.

Not that you're reading me, but, STICK TO THE GORRAM TOPIC!

[Roboramma]

Would an extraterrestrial being like the character "Q" on Star Trek fill the bill as a god?

Peanut butter and banana sandwiches are the ultimate "carry-your-own-lunch" food.

[hgc]

I've encountered this "argument" from religionists on more than one occasion: "You'll understand when you've settled down and had a family." "You'll think differently toward the end of your life." In the Orwellian world of religon, subjecting yourself "God" is "Freedom," while showing any true independence of thought or action is seen as youthful rebellion. Somehow, believing in fairy tales of magic and miracles is seen as a sign of "maturity."

Sorry Dinesh, I stopped believing in Santa when I was a kid and Yahweh is no different.

Here's the thing: I don't think D'Souza and his allies really believe either.
D'Souza is a neoconservative court-intellectual, and the one thing about neo-cons--from Leo Strauss all the way through the repugant Kristol clan--is that they have a cynical attachment to religion. They reject the notion that the average human being can be left to their own devices and must be kept in check by cututral myths like nationalism and religion.

D'Souza and the neo-cons are afraid of the "new atheism" gaining any ground becasue they fear it will weaken the powerbase of the "Big Lie" they think is so necessary to maintain civilization. It's the primary reason why many neo-con are so insterested in backing ID and other psudeo-sciences because they fear that wide-spread acceptance of evolution will undermine religion, leading (at least in their own paranoid dream world) to bedlam and destruction.

But as too whether the neo-cons belive themsevles?

Apparently, freedom of thought is a luxury only for the anointed few.


I've decided that it doesn't really matter to me whether a professed believer is a true believer or a faker. For the most part I can't discern the truth of what's in someone's heart (and in many cases I suspect they can't either) and the effect on me is the same anyway.

I don't doubt that many millions of fakers in this land present themselves to their religious enclaves as true blue, and for a panoply of reasons -- like the ones you stated here, and also for acceptance in their communities. I would be willing to bet that real atheism numbers for the U.S. are way, way higher than what the surverys say.

[hgc]

Which surely is the first scientific criterion, is it not?


Well, sure. I was saying something more along the lines that if it's not testable, it's not worth thinking of in scientific terms.

This is what annoys me about the anti-atheists' abuse of science. They use science in two distinct ways. One, they prop up the strawman that non-believers in gods are believers in science. But then they won't hesitate to tout a claim that science has born out some or other of their cherished notions.

I want to shout -- leave science out of it! Your fairy tales don't belong on the same playing field with serious endeavors in human thought. You see what D'Souza is up to here? He's trying to use science, which is scary and complicated, as some kind of foil in his argument, and if atheists leave it out of the discussion, then there's no one returning his shots from the other side of the net. He's got no game left.

[PixyMisa]

D'Souza is a neoconservative court-intellectual, and the one thing about neo-cons--from Leo Strauss all the way through the repugant Kristol clan--is that they have a cynical attachment to religion. They reject the notion that the average human being can be left to their own devices and must be kept in check by cututral myths like nationalism and religion.

D'Souza and the neo-cons are afraid of the "new atheism" gaining any ground becasue they fear it will weaken the powerbase of the "Big Lie" they think is so necessary to maintain civilization. It's the primary reason why many neo-con are so insterested in backing ID and other psudeo-sciences because they fear that wide-spread acceptance of evolution will undermine religion, leading (at least in their own paranoid dream world) to bedlam and destruction.
No.

[D'rok]

No.Seconded.

[Radrook]

Peanut butter and banana sandwiches are the ultimate "carry-your-own-lunch" food.

Can't see the point can you? So hey? Why not chortle. Ummm--OK.

[Safe-Keeper]

I've encountered this "argument" from religionists on more than one occasion: "You'll understand when you've settled down and had a family." "You'll think differently toward the end of your life." In the Orwellian world of religion, subjecting yourself "God" is "Freedom," while showing any true independence of thought or action is seen as youthful rebellion. Somehow, believing in fairy tales of magic and miracles is seen as a sign of "maturity."Reminds me of one of my pet peeves from my old high school. It was a good school, but many of the adults, when kids complained they were treated unfairly, would simply go "life is not fair" as if it was some sort of important life lesson the kid was unaware of, and that it was perfectly OK to treat someone unjustly because everyone else does and it's part of life. In the end, unless you saw through it, you thought that putting up with others' unfairness was a sign of maturity, not cowardice or defeat.

[Achán hiNidráne]

No.

Seconded.

No what?

D'Souza is not a neo-con?

Neo-cons do not believe that religion needed to control the masses regardless of its actual truth?

Could you either of you elaborate your disagreement with my post with something other than a one word response?

[D'rok]

No what?

D'Souza is not a neo-con?

Neo-cons do not believe that religion needed to control the masses regardless of its actual truth?

Could you either of you elaborate your disagreement with my post with something other than a one word response?

I had one typed up, then I went "meh" and deleted it.

My particular beef with your post is your uncritical parroting of the 'Leo Strauss is the Dr. Moriarty of neo-conservatism" narrative. To be fair, some of that comes from neo-cons themselves, but it is an intellectually lazy thing to do. Assuming that you haven't, and apologies if you have, it might be eye-opening to actually read some of Strauss' work, "On Tyranny" is a short and accessible starter if you're interested.

Also, the religious myth business is a political perversion of the Platonic "noble lie". That concept exists in Plato and in Strauss, but not in the way that you are presenting it. Especially in the case of Strauss.

The essence of Strauss' work is the project to rescue political philosophy from the graveyard to which it has been consigned by political "science", and to rescue liberalism from the scourge of post-modernist relativism.

There is a very strong disconnect between Strauss' work and the politics of neo-conservatism. Strauss never wrote a manifesto and very explicitly explained that he was not doing politics. I have no doubt that he would be appalled by what is said and done in his name.

[Achán hiNidráne]

Can't see the point can you?

Ummmm... Since you didn't actually make any point, no.

So hey? Why not chortle. Ummm--OK.

I'm not laughing. Mental illness of your degree of severity is no joke.

[Achán hiNidráne]

There is a very strong disconnect between Strauss' work and the politics of neo-conservatism. Strauss never wrote a manifesto and very explicitly explained that he was not doing politics. I have no doubt that he would be appalled by what is said and done in his name.

Fair enough, but I still stand on what I wrote about the *********** neoconservatives.

[Radrook]

God doesn't fail to satisfy any scientific criteria. God isn't testable by science at all. You don't need science to not believe in God. You only need to realize that you lack any credible evidence for God's existence, which is easy.

Claiming omniscience is not only easy, it's also loads of fun.

[Mobyseven]

I don't think scientific treatises make for very catchy bus ad slogans.

Feynman Diagrams would look kind of cool. Unfortunately, they also look like a 'how-to' for traffic accidents.

[PixyMisa]

No what?

D'Souza is not a neo-con?
He might be considered so; it's a bit of a fuzzy classification. I don't recall if he describes himself as such.

Neo-cons do not believe that religion needed to control the masses regardless of its actual truth?
No, in general, they don't. I'm sure you can find some people that believe this - in any sufficiently large group.

Could you either of you elaborate your disagreement with my post with something other than a one word response?
Everything you say in the part of it I quoted is a logical fallacy, a factual fallacy, or both.

Now, I fully agree with you that Dinesh D'Souza is an idiot, but that's no reason to launch an argumentum ad nonsensum against neo-conservatism.

[Silentknight]

Claiming omniscience is not only easy, it's also loads of fun.
Um, no. Dismissing God on the basis of lack of evidence is not a claim of omniscience, because it's not synonymous with asserting that God does not exist. It's the same reason you dismiss the gods of other religions, or are you claiming omniscience as well?

I'm not laughing. Mental illness of your degree of severity is no joke.
Please don't insult mentally ill people by comparing them to fundamentalists. (Semi-serious since that might be crossing the line, but still.)

[articulett]

It's true, we have people here who have been diagnosed with mental illnesses so it is wrong and cruel to compare them with fundies like Radrook, Rodney, or Doc. For one thing, the mentally ill are usually much more intelligent. Although fundamentalism does seem to be a kind of mental illness from many perspectives (akin to being a cult member), the general arrogance exhibited by such folks precludes the sort of sympathy that I'd feel for most of the mentally ill. Not only that, I believe it's against the forum rules to call people mentally ill-- but it's not against the rules to note that they are as whacked as the average Scientologist. And what fundie isn't?

[hgc]

Claiming omniscience is not only easy, it's also loads of fun.


Non sequitur. Look it up. The literal translation from Latin will be sufficient.