That ‘Holy’ writer clearly doesn’t get what people like Hitchens is saying, which does nothing except prove Hitchens’ point.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The flaw in this thinking is he fails to realize that most of us “atheists” were once “believers”, and so we DO completely understand what religion and faith are all about, and we rejected it.

Not that anyone cares, but I was a devote Catholic until the age of 14. I had an internal conversation with god on a daily, if not hourly, basis. It felt good, safe, and meaningful. But, as my cognitive capacity for complexity developed, the contradictions, fallacies, and silliness of religion became overwhelming, and I abandoned religion for rationality and empathy.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Dear Religious Fanatic(s):

Your argument is so very flawed, I am not sure where to start…

Most atheists are made by choice, normally long after we have had our experience with one or more flavours of your “faith”. And most of us came to our conclusions after eventually examining religious dogma with the same logic and skepticism any incredible claim would receive. And most of us found it lacking any credible substance. I realize it may be a bit hard for you to accept, but there is no “Utopia”, just life.

In truth, I would rather live the best life I can in the harsh reality of truth than hide in a fantasy world with judgemental, hypocritical, and rather self-centered make-believe friends.

Just sayin’.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The sweet irony of writing an article to tell the world how much you don’t care about the subject you are writing about.

The thing is that the Hitchens Blair debate was sold out. So evidently enough people care to make such events economically viable.

There are all sorts of things I don’t care about.and really I’m not even motivated enough to list them, let alone write an article about them.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I’m happy for you that you have the luxury of not caring what atheists think. Atheists have religions’ bias and bigotry shoved down our throats on a daily basis, the separation of church and state constantly blurred, or ignored altogether, and tens of millions of our tax dollars spent on religious bigotry in the form of private schools for the very well off. I’d love to not care about religion, but we’re forced to.
And I won’t attack your religion. I’m sure the one you happened to be born into just happens to be the ‘right’ one.
Whew! Lucky, that.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

dear charles:  you evidently do.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

The emperor’s clothes are the most beautiful you’ve ever seen, and no one’s going to tell you otherwise.  We get it, but thanks anyway for explaining your incredibly simple Weltanschauung.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I wish we rational types could start moving the Neuro-linguistic goalposts a bit.  Atheist is always going to have that not-so-nice connotation.  It’s a shame to define yourself by what you don’t believe in. 
How about “Secular advocate” or “Sceptic” or “Truth lover”.

Meantime how about we stigmatize the zealoty types with some negative labelling?  As religions only have any power or influence as a result of the dozy hordes that shore them up by subscribing to them, and a god is only as potent as his army of animators, how about terms like “God-enabler”.
“Jesus puppeteer” or “Mohammed animator”.

We should constantly be making the point that gods are entirely dependent on their measly human agents to get anything done.

Thor an Poseidon don’t have too many rabid enablers, and as such they lack potency.

I think we should constantly be pointing this out, and weaving the idea into the language we use to describe the authority-lovers that like to pretend that “because I say so” represents some sort of reasoning methodology.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Charles Lewis said: “Dear atheists: most of us don’t care what you think”

—-

Yep, your arrogance and defensive sense of superiority comes through loud and clear when you say “most of us don’t care what you think”.  This is precisely where “most of you” and most of us really differ. Most of us agnostics really do care about what religious people think because as a group what you think is inconsistent with the nature of existence and has a seriously negative and endangering effect on the human mind, the human community, and the ecosphere that we and all living beings depend on for life. We care about what you think because religious irrationality is dangerous and a threat to healthy civilization.

Irrational religious beliefs give the mind permission to believe all other kinds of irrationality. The mind doesn’t do very good at sorting irrational thoughts. For example, the mind can’t distinguish between the irrationality of an all-knowing, all-seeing male creator sky fairy that watches over and punishes/rewards 6.5 billion people daily…and the irrationality that says that women are more sinful than men… that humans are superior to nature…and that aggression and hate are the ticket to heaven. Once the irrational doorway of perception is opened, any irrational thought becomes acceptable…and the next thing we know the natural environment upon which we all depend for continued life is being trashed and poisoned because religion has declared humans to be separate from and superior to nature. People are being demonized, burned at the stake, imprisoned, stoned to death, ostracized, bullied,  physically and psychologically tortured, etc…ad nauseum,  because religious people find them to be evil for not believing as they do. Wars are launched to destroy any challenge to religious belief and the powerful institutional infrastructures that are driven to conquer nature and all living beings in the name of a delusional story. Millions of gallons of blood are spilled over and over, century after century,  in the defense of irrationality. Religious people don’t have a problem with this, but the rest of us are getting pretty darned sick of it.

Those of us who are agnostic understand religious people’s obsession for aggression and blood very well and we see how this defensive protection
of a delusion has contaminated and corrupted every aspect of human life. We understand the reason why most of you don’t care what we think. What
we think challenges the morality of what you think. What we think questions the sanity of what you think. What we think challenges the madness of your blood thirst and lust for power in order to defend your mental delusions and emotional disturbance.

Religious belief and the psychological state of religiosity require that there be a closed heavily fortified system of thought and perception. They require a closed system in order to defend against anything that might challenge hardened religious beliefs that can only be described as elaborate mental fantasies that are at odds with the realities of existence. This closed system can’t be examined closely by religious believers because if it is scrutinized rationally, it quickly begins to unravel, and then the believer’s rigid mental structure that protects him/her against reality begins to crumble, plunging them into a madness of defensiveness. Those that don’t believe the fantasies of religion and religion’s irrational perception of existence must be rejected (along with realities of existence), demonized, punished, even murdered in order to preserve the delusional castle in the sky that religious people build and move into.

When religious believer’s castle of delusion is challenged by rationality, religious people resort to aggression and violence…which can no longer be tolerated as the population of the world grows from 6.5 billion people to 9.5 billion in the next 40 years (another irrationality that can be traced directly to religious delusions).

Those of us who are rational and agnostic care very much about what religious people think, because we value life and will no longer let your delusions threatened rational people who don’t share them, and that threaten the world to the point of catastrophe.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Anyone else notice how poorly written this article was?  I swear I see more typos and bad writing coming from the religious side.  This is something Dawkins makes sure to point out every time he reads his email.  The levels of hatred vary, but the bad grammar is a constant.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Just because you believe in something strongly doesn’t mean it’s true.

He seem to be saying that religion is about unwavering belief in something, no matter the views of others, or the evidence to the contrary.

This may be a comforting philosophy, but it is not a strong argument for the existence of god.

PS To suggest North Korea’s problems are caused by atheism highlights a profound ignorance of politics, history, international affairs, and reality generally.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Dear theists who claim not to care what we atheists think.

If you’re paying attention, it kind of implies you do care.

So don’t.

Thanks for playing.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

There is nothing wrong with faith that is properly directed. However, faith in external entities, be they real or imaginary, leads to reliance upon something other than oneself. This in turn leads to the separation from nature which is the cause of hatred, war, bigotry, greed, et al.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It isn’t about what the faithful believe or how they choose to delude themselves.  It’s about the fact that they aren’t able to simply leave it at that. They wish to convert you and I to their way of thinking; change our laws to reflect their beliefs;inject their nonsense into every aspect of our lives. That’s what the rest of us are vocal about.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I wonder why those who make appeals to Faith, never see that their arguments could equally be made for the 9/11 Hijackers.

“Faith is a light of such supreme brilliance that it dazzles the mind and darkens all its visions of other realities, but in the end when we become used to the new light, we gain a new view of all reality transfigured and elevated in the light itself.”

That quote sounds like it could be a recruiting tool for Al’Qaeda. If Faith truly is a leap because it makes no sense, how can you possibly tell which faith is correct?

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

“have no need to ask permission of anyone to justify what they do and what they believe”

Of course they do; that’s the point of it all.

People want justification for their own beliefs and actions, and justification for their condemnation of their neighbor’s actions.

They want a Master to to serve and justify their actions. It doesn’t matter whether He is God, the Inevitable Historical Material Dialectic, the Volk, Reason, Man, or Evolution.

They want an approving “good boy” and pat on the head when they obey His Will, and a Celestial “sick ‘em” when they enforce His Will on others.

The will to justification is just another name for the will to servility and domination,

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

He cares just enough to write drivel like this.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

In the article, Charles Lewis wrote:
“Thomas Merton also said: ‘Love seeks one thing only: the good of the one loved. It leaves all the other secondary effects to take care of themselves. Love, therefore, is its own reward.’
He could have said the same thing about faith.”

Well, yes, I’m certain that he could have said that, but he didn’t, did he? An important thing to notice.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Oh yes Charles, faith is the thing.  Would you hold the same view if the faith involved something like, say, female circumcision?  Cannot let ‘mindless thinking’ get in the way can we.

I suspect Charles and his lot do not like engaging atheists is that they do not like this thinking thing.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Atheists do not have a clue what religion is about? Hardly surprising given that it is not about anything really. It is not even about anything real. ‘Faith’ is the ultimate cop out. 

Maybe some religious person - even Charles - could explain why ritual canibalism is practiced in Christianity.  But of course I cannot ask about all this, it is believed on faith.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Can we add North Korea to Godwin’ Law, please? Maybe Pol Pot and Stalin, too? They all seem to be a big part of the Religious Right’s Litany of Lunacy.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

My thesis: North Korea better reflects a religious operation. An all-powerful and unquestionable leader, the subjugation of everyone else, the subordination of health and wellbeing to the “greater good”, and a rigid, authoritarian dogma that persists despite the utter despair and destruction it causes.

Not to mention the exclusivity, secrecy, bigotry, and paranoia that keep it intact.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

You are right Kevin F and bigjohn 756, North Korea, Stalin Pol Pot, Hitler et al are equivalent to religious leaders. They are examples of the dangers of religion not atheism.  Not one of them lauds thinking.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Allow me to state what everyone on this site is thinking but are too polite to explicitly say:

STFU DUMBASS

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Hi, 

I’m a Canadian, and just read this article.  I apologize for this member of our society.

CC

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I wanted to comment on the piece. but wasn’t going to sign up to do it. Ultimately he and anyone else can have faith in whatever they want. I could care less. Just don’t use govt funds to build your Noah’s Ark Park or argue to teach Creationism in my kids school. Don’t preach to me on Sunday or protest at Elizabeth Edward’s funeral. Believe whatever you want, just don’t look for special treatment for your faith. Of course, that’s exactly what you look for.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

a prophesy: : on the evolution from Go to GOD to GOOD religion figured. GOD was on the path from GO to GOOD. GOOD is GOODer than GOD ” (c)2010 Philly Hayden aka Jyb

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

I cannot help coming back to Charles. I suppose he does not want to listen to atheists is because he is afraid that his Faith will be shaken by Reason.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

It is interesting to see someone declare that they don’t care what other people think, and then go on to tell us what they think.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

And after the backlash from non-superstitious folk, Charles Lewis bleats in his next blog:

Dear atheists: can’t we all just get along or whatever?

Charles Lewis December 16, 2010 – 11:13 am

Earlier this month I wrote a column for Holy Post about the endless debates between atheists and the religious. I called it: “Dear Atheists: most of us don’t care what you think.” I have been a journalist for close to three decades but nothing I have ever written before came close to the kind of negative reaction that this piece called forth.

Most of the 800 or so responses on the blog were either incredulous or hostile.

One professor wrote on his own blog that I was a “dishonest bigot” and my story “was an appalling piece of dreck.” I wrote back to him to wish him a Merry Christmas; he wrote back to say I was passive aggressive. I also wanted to know why he called me a bigot. We will not be going on holidays together in the near future or ever.

Yet another respondent called the story “linguistic genocide” — an ingenious term that I wish I had come up with myself. Another wrote that he did not put his faith in an invisible god but in “mankind.” I wrote back to ask what part of mankind he puts his faith in: the religious, the non-religious, everyone ….? He did not get back to me.

The thesis of my story was this: that debates between the religious and atheists are useless because most atheists do not understand religion, particularly the idea of religious faith.

I made particular reference to journalist and author Hitchens, who has made millions of dollars off of being a professional atheist. Saying bad things about Hitchens, it turns out, is a very bad thing to do. Apparently he is the only atheist “born without sin.”
It was finally made clear to me that I should no more insult Hitchens than someone should insult the Blessed Virgin Mary or Jesus — something no atheist would ever dream of doing.

One reader called me a coward for not wanting to debate Christopher Hitchens — which is funny because I have never been asked to debate him. And perhaps if I was offered the kind of fees that people like Hitchens receive I might find it in my heart to take part in a debate and ditch my “no-debate” argument. Hitchens recently received $15,000 for a single talk at an American university. Not bad for an hour.

I also went on to say that former British prime minister Tony Blair should not have bothered to debate Hitchens at a recent event in Toronto.

I wrote: “Blair probably should not have even bothered and instead should have gone to mass that night or spent an evening helping out at a shelter or visiting someone who was lonely and sick in a hospital. That would have said a lot more about his faith than wasting a lot of words on a pompous ass whose main intellectual arsenal is sneering and using sarcasm.”

I am not a big fan of Blair because he is too wishy-washy and likes to talk about vague issues of faith rather than the tough teachings of his adopted Roman Catholic Church.

I do not like Hitchens’ ideas about religion but I actually have more respect for him than I have for Blair because at least he is not tepid. Hitchens is also one of the great political writers of our time so he is warrior with words.

But when he said during the debate that Pope Benedict believes “condoms are more evil than AIDS” (the Pope said condoms are not the answer to the AIDS crisis, a much different, more subtle statement) and that any charity performed by churches is simply penance for all the evil they have done in the name of faith, I wanted to throw up.

I do support debates about religion in the public square. There are many people who ask, for example, whether religions should get tax breaks — particularly when every press release from certain denominations has to do with global warming or some other political issue. And I think that is completely valid. When a school starts handing out Bibles in the classroom, that must be debated because a line has been crossed.

But faith is different. It is private. It touches on a different reality that either you get or you do not. Faith is like love and how do you debate love? Faith has driven untold millions, billions, of people through history and cannot be dismissed so easily.

I have read Hitchens’ God Is Not Great and I have heard him speak about religion and there is nothing that is reasonable in his argument that can be debated. He believes religion poisons everything. What could I or anyone really say to that?

I am not a bigot. I do not hate anyone except maybe Hitler and Stalin. I do not hate atheists and nor do I hate the chief atheist, St. Christopher. Long may he write and speak.

But when he calls me stupid for my beliefs, when he calls what I hold dear “poison,” then he and other like him have crossed a line into supreme arrogance. They begin to sound exactly like the things they say they hate about religion. And I just have no time for it.

National Post
(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)

Read more: http://life.nationalpost.com/2010/12/16/dear-atheists-cant-we-all-just-get-along-or-whatever/#ixzz18acLtngb

The addition of “or whatever” in Lewis’ title illustrates his own insincerity. “Or whatever” means “Can’t I just vilify and spout bile about you atheist infidels, and rally everyone I can against you, and you just keep your mouth shut and take it?” 

The reason we “can’t get along” is precisely because of the attitudes and actions of people like Lewis, who think they can hate and take pot shots at atheists and expect no one to speak up against their bigotry.

The answer, Mr. Lewis, is no, we cannot “get along”.  And we will never ‘get along” with arrogant and ignorant bastards like you.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

Typical of the religionists’ need to hold on to their beliefs, they still canonize saints based on ‘miracles’ and still fail to understand the mind, instead employing ‘exorcists’ to cast out demons.
If one were to make such claims anew in these days, everyone would scoff.  But because of the history, the weak of mind cannot seem to let go of their silly beliefs.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.

If all people of faith routinely subjected their religious beliefs to the same kind of rigorous examination that scientists as a matter of principle apply to all extraordinary truth claims,religion would have gradually died out a very long time ago.

You don't have permission to flag this entry.