Im just laughing because the only organ Feynman seemingly had full of purpose was his little dick that he couldn't keep from dominating his professional life.

This proves the church of purposelessness can have perverted priests in their circle of rationality.

Here's is more of Rez commenting on the evangelism new atheists stole from evangelists.

http://www.faithstreet.com/onfaith/2010 ... heists/929

You made me curious about Aslan.

Reza Aslan wrote:While studying religion at university however, Aslan came to the conclusion that the claims of the Bible didn’t hold up. Nevertheless, as a scholar of religions, he kept studying it; his new book Zealot is partly a result of all that scholarly inquiry.

It’s certainly true that the book disputes many of the New Testament’s teachings. Zealot’s premise is that the life of an ordinary man sparked the world’s biggest religion. Aslan’s contention is that Jesus had no intention of starting a religion and neither did his disciples. The real brains behind the creation of Christianity, suggests Aslan, was Paul. The Christ “is an invention of the early church.”

http://ideas.time.com/2013/07/30/is-rez ... christian/

ant wrote:Im just laughing because the only organ Feynman seemingly had full of purpose was his little dick

Right, not like he used his brain. Unlike you, he didn't set the foundation for quantum physics.

Interbane wrote:You made me curious about Aslan.

Reza Aslan wrote:While studying religion at university however, Aslan came to the conclusion that the claims of the Bible didn’t hold up. Nevertheless, as a scholar of religions, he kept studying it; his new book Zealot is partly a result of all that scholarly inquiry.

It’s certainly true that the book disputes many of the New Testament’s teachings. Zealot’s premise is that the life of an ordinary man sparked the world’s biggest religion. Aslan’s contention is that Jesus had no intention of starting a religion and neither did his disciples. The real brains behind the creation of Christianity, suggests Aslan, was Paul. The Christ “is an invention of the early church.”

Why, he's nothing more than a myther! And mythers ain't no better than flat-earthers. Q.E.D.

Actually, I enjoy Reza Aslan and he makes some good points here. However, the comparison between atheists and fundamentalists can only go so far. The hardline atheist position is itself a reaction to the prevalence of fundamentalist Christianity and, therefore, the two positions will never be equal. If, for example, we had a full fifty percent of Americans who started believing in Scientology, I think you could expect to see a fierce backlash against it. And they would be justified to some extent. There's a cultish aspect to Scientology and other religions as well. Most of the backlash is a response to some of the more dangerous religious ideas that affect society, including perennial attempts to dumb down our science and history books in order to indoctrinate our children. On another thread we've recently discussed the college professor in Kentucky who sees firsthand the end result of motivated ignorance and ideological indoctrination.

By the way, you go to any town or city in the U.S. and you may find one atheist or skeptic group. Indeed, there's a skeptic group in our town that meets every Wednesday night. I would expect that you might see 50 people in attendance. But how many churches will you find in my town? There are hundreds. And you will find a lot more than 50 people in attendance at any ONE church on both Wednesday nights and Sundays. (Baptists typically meet twice a week). The two sides aren't even remotely equal.

I always find the obsession with Richard Dawkins to be kind of strange. He's really not that interesting and really not that relevant except to those already polarized by the religion-science brouhaha. But then again, I'm probably overthinking this.

I liked Zealot. It didn't definitively answer the questions about this improbable occurrence--an anti-Roman preacher among a large group of the same, becoming the germ for a religion that took over the western world--however, I don't think anyone can do that, just provoke us into thought. Aslan did this in the book. It's obvious he is no mythicist, while believing much of the story in the Gospels is myth.

I've come to accept that there are atheists from hard to soft. I'm of the soft, mushy variety, just part of my personality. I'd rather not think too negatively of anyone, just part of my upbringing. But I find value in listening to the more passionate, polemical, even strident voices such as those already named in this thread. I'm glad they're out there, usually. And whatever qualms I might have about the "Big Four" and others, damn they're good writers. It might be as simple as it's more exciting to read these take-no-prisoners guys (still waiting for the woman). It wouldn't even surprise me too much if Hitchens, for example, cultivated his bulldog persona while person-to-person being not such a hardcore type.

By the way, you go to any town or city in the U.S. and you may find one atheist or skeptic group. Indeed, there's a skeptic group in our town that meets every Wednesday night. I would expect that you might see 50 people in attendance. But how many churches will you find in my town? There are hundreds. And you will find a lot more than 50 people in attendance at any ONE church on both Wednesday nights and Sundays. (Baptists typically meet twice a week). 

I live in a very large city on the west coast. Some of you may remember which city.
Ive been to more than several skeptics meetings. The Skeptics Society hosts some outstanding lectures at the world renowned university Cal Tech. Michael Shermer is a very gracious host. He is always cheery, pleasant, and humorous. He seems like a great guy.

Depending on the lecture topic, the type of audience varies. If its pure science (the lectures i attend) the audience is an older bunch, mostly Caucasian, retirement age. Ive talked to a few before to sample the temperament. Considering the small sample size, they all have been very pleasant.

I have attended lectures at Ca Tech that were geared toward a new atheism theme. The audience was younger on average. The atmosphere had the feel of a sporting event. One person had the word "atheist" tattooed on their body.

I had an experience with on skeptic club that is much much smaller than The Skeptics Society.
I shall not name them here. I attended one meeting and that was it. My experience was, shall I say, a weird one.

It was a very small group. The age range was from early 30's to late 60s.
I have to say I was very uncomfortable. No one said hi, or even looked at me. It wasnt a very welcoming atmosphere. The peculiar thing was that the oldest of the group (a man) was someone that I recognized but couldnt place. He looked really cranky and was glancing at me several times throughout the evening. I was certain he had remembered where he had seen me before.

at the very end I remembered:
i had served as a juror on a criminal case years ago. He was a professor at a local college back then.

I remember he was very overbearing and tried to dominate our deliberations. At one point he yelled at me for disagreeing on a an aspect of testimony. A librarian (who i later became friends with) had to keep him in check. The guy was a total arrogant and overbearing asshole. Several jurors were glad when our deliberations ended.
He's a perfect example of a weird, pompous, cranky, know it all militant atheist.

Reza on Sam Harris and his zealots..

https://youtu.be/PwpwEFmkZCc

Bad for true atheism.

Reza utterly destroys Sam Harris's understanding of religion.
(Lengthy debate)

https://youtu.be/2JJf2qC6TTg

ant wrote:Reza on Sam Harris and his zealots..

https://youtu.be/PwpwEFmkZCc

Bad for true atheism.

So let's see, he admits that he doesn't read Sam Harris, he saw a tweet about him, but then goes on to say,

"When you combine an absolute sense of certainty with the kind of literalism that I have already described, with an utter sense of siege... that's called fundamentalism"

Did you learn how to strawman from this Reza guy?

Blah blah fundamentalism!