Sunday Afternoon

I was going to watch the Bears-Bengals game. It is 45-3, Bengals going into the 4′th quarter and yes, the game is every bit as bad as that. This wasn’t a matter of the Bengals running in a few lucky fumbles; right now the Bengals have about doubled the Bears on offense (397 to 220 yards) with one quarter to go.

Ok, the Bears did fumble away one opportunity and throw an interception; it is now 45-10.

(photo from yahoo)

Sometimes, one team plays well and the other doesn’t. This is one of those times.

Rants (via Richard Dawkins)

One thing to remember: in the USA, the Christian extremists are a bigger threat. Sure, the fundies are not as noxious nor are they as violent as the Muslim fundies. But they are far more numerous and have much more influence; we even have a few in Congress and in State Houses.

That, plus our love for the Constitution, should help us avoid Europe’s fate.

Atheist Posters (from Friendly Atheist)

I do wonder why “You Can Be Good Without God” is somehow more offensive than “Jesus Saves”, etc.

Speaking of Faith, check out this Newsweek Article:

For five years, since the publication of Sam Harris’s The End of Faith, the so-called faith-versus-reason debate has been a favorite pastime of certain secularists and intellectuals, the subject of innumerable books and lecture series. Three charismatic men—Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Hitchens (who is a NEWSWEEK contributor)—have not just dominated the conversation, they’ve crushed it. And so they’ve become celebrities. Together they’ve sold more than 3 million books worldwide, which suggests they may be in this for more than just our edification.

Gee, people bought their books. Oh noes!

The whole thing has started to feel like being trapped in a seminar room with the three smartest guys in school, each showing off to impress … whom?

Uh, perhaps the people who bought their books? Maybe some of us like hearing what smart people think?

But this version of the conversation has gone on too long. We have allowed three people to frame it; its terms—submitting God to rational proofs and watching God fail—are theirs.

“We have allowed”??? Who is “we”? If you don’t like the books, don’t read them.

We in the media have to bear some of that responsibility. Just as we covered Jerry Falwell when he said the Teletubby Tinky Winky was gay, we cover the “new atheists” because following controversy is part of what we do. As religion editor of NEWSWEEK, I have done my share of enabling these battles, most recently in a September interview with Dawkins. But we can’t shoulder all the blame. The atheists are, more than other interest groups, joyous cannibals and regurgitators of their own ideas. They thrive online, where like adolescent boys they rehash their rhetorical victories to their own delight.

This whining is just pathetic. You can’t make people pay attention to you. I read what Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and Dennett have to say because their arguments make sense to me and they write well.

The mistake this clown makes is that she see seems to think that those of us who self-identify with the New Atheists somehow take our cues from people like her. Believe me, I don’t. I suspect that the “religious stoner” crowd (e. g., those who think that Karen Armstrong makes sense) might.

Hat tip: Jerry Coyne.