Reason Magazine

Site Search

RIchard Dawkins -- Atheists Should Be as Powerful as Jews in America?

First, I am a great admirer of biologist Richard Dawkins. I thoroughly enjoy his fierce defense of evolutionary biology and his advocacy for atheism. However, I am dismayed by his recent comment on alleged Jewish power in the Guardian a couple of days ago. To wit:

"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

Naturally, this remark has been making the rounds of the blogosphere. One interesting comment comes from Chris Dillow's blog on Dawkins' resort to "social proof." To wit:

[Dawkins] seems to believe Jews are small but monopolize US foreign policy because others tell him so. But you could use exactly the same method to believe in God - or at least to be agnostic. God exists as far as many people can see - indeed, many more, for much longer, than believe in Jews' influence on foreign policy.

So, why is Dawkins happy to use social proof in one context, but reject it so violently in another? It would be too glib to say this is an example of how rational people cease to be rational in thinking about politics, because there's something to be said sometimes for the use of social proof.

The comment editor, Daniel Finkelstein, at the (London) Times writes:

So Dawkins, a liberal hero, believes, er, that Jews control world power. And, judging from the Guardian, it is now a part of mainstream debate to say so. Perhaps you think I am over-reacting, but I am a little bit frightened.

I think that's a bit overwrought; nevertheless, those of us who esteem Dawkins are right to be distressed by this uncharacteristic lapse in judgement.

Final note - there is now an atheist lobby in DC, the Secular Coalition for America.

Full disclosure: I have been an atheist since I was about 13 years old.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Send this article to:

« 'End This War on Drugs' | Main | Ron Paul Rising (and Winning… »

Comments to "RIchard Dawkins -- Atheists Should Be as Powerful as Jews in America?":

BakedPenguin | October 9, 2007, 11:34am | #

Full disclosure: I have been an atheist since I was about 13 years old.

I knew it. Bailey's shilling for Big Nothing.

The Democratic Republican | October 9, 2007, 11:41am | #

I can understand respecting Dawkins as a biologist, but his arguments against religion are just silly and are as amateurish as are many of the "scientific" arguments made by Creationists.

As Bailey hints, although he really needs to take it more seriously, the real problem is that Dawkins is as intolerant about Jews, religion, and pretty much anything he disagrees with as he perceives people to be about atheism. Viewers of South Park would already know this.

GM | October 9, 2007, 11:42am | #

Oy vey'z mir, Richard! The tsurris you've given me!

Momerath Outgrabe | October 9, 2007, 11:42am | #

This is because rationality, like God, does not exist. Modern science is destroying both.

Humanism is the next big religious scam. "Hey gang, we can act just as moralistic and rigid as the Xtians, but without the unsupportable metaphysical structure!"

Russ R | October 9, 2007, 11:44am | #

It's fine to be question the existence the Jew's deity, but whatever you do... don't question the Jew's mantle of perpetual victimhood.

Warren | October 9, 2007, 11:46am | #

I'm right with Ron on this. I've been an admirer of Dawkins and have been inspired/heartened at his championing of atheism. However, he has lately shone signs of loosing his grip. It's so dismaying, he's in danger of undermining everything he's built.

Warren | October 9, 2007, 11:48am | #

Oh, and I nominate BakedPenguin as a first post threadwinner.

Syloson of Samos | October 9, 2007, 11:48am | #

Bailey,

If I recall correctly Dawkins has been making arguments like this for some time. Correct me if I am wrong.

Douglas Westerman | October 9, 2007, 11:48am | #

Bailey's comment shows just how powerful the Jewish lobby actually is:

The FBI will only say a couple of things about 9/11; one they lack sufficient evidence that Bin Laden was responsible, and two the evidence linking Israel to the attacks is “classified

Andreas von Bulow served on the parliamentary commission which oversees the three branches of the German secret service.

Von Bulow believes that the Israeli intelligence service, MOSSAD, is behind the September 11 terror attacks. These attacks, he said, were carried out to turn public opinion against the Arabs, and boost military and security spending. "You don't get the higher echelons," von Bulow said, referring to the "architectural structure" which masterminds such terror attacks. At this level, he said, the organization doing the planning, such as MOSSAD, is primarily interested in affecting public opinion.

The architectural level planners use corrupt "guns for hire" such as Abu Nidal, the Palestinian terrorist who von B'low called "an instrument of Mossad," high-ranking Stasi (former East German secret service) operatives, or Libyan agents who organize terror attacks using dedicated people, for example Palestinian and Arab "freedom fighters."

The terrorists who actually commit the crimes are what von Bulow calls "the working level," such as the 19 Arabs who allegedly hijacked the planes on September 11. "The working level is part of the deception," he said.

"Ninety-five percent of the work of the intelligence agencies around the world is deception and disinformation," von Bulow said, which is widely propagated in the mainstream media creating an accepted version of events. "Journalists don't even raise the simplest questions," he said adding, "those who differ are labeled as crazy."


On the day of the 9-11 attacks, former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was asked what the attack would mean for US-Israeli relations. His quick reply was: "It's very good…….Well, it's not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)"

A Mossad (Israeli Intelligence) surveillance team made a public spectacle of themselves on 9-11. The men set up cameras by the Hudson River and trained them on the twin towers. Police received several calls from angry New Jersey residents claiming “middle-eastern” men with a white van were videotaping the disaster with shouts of joy and mockery. "They were like happy, you know … They didn't look shocked to me" said a witness.

They were seen by New Jersey residents on Sept. 11 making fun of the World Trade Center ruins and going to extreme lengths to photograph themselves in front of the wreckage. Witnesses saw them jumping for joy in Liberty State Park after the initial impact. Later on, other witnesses saw them celebrating on a roof in Weehawken, and still more witnesses later saw them celebrating with high fives in a Jersey City parking lot. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park. One anonymous phone call to the authorities actually led them to close down all of New York's bridges and tunnels. The mystery caller told the 9-1-1 dispatcher that a group of Palestinians were mixing a bomb inside of a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel. Here’s the transcript from NBC News:

Dispatcher: Jersey City police.

Caller: Yes, we have a white van, 2 or 3 guys in there, they look like Palestinians and going around a building.

Caller: There's a minivan heading toward the Holland tunnel, I see the guy by Newark Airport mixing some junk and he has those sheikh uniform.

Dispatcher: He has what?

Caller: He's dressed like an Arab.

Why would this mystery caller specifically say that these “Arabs” were Palestinians? How would he know that? Palestinians usually dress in western style clothes, not “sheikh uniforms”. What is really going on here?

Based on that phone call, police then issued a “Be-on-the-Lookout” alert for a white mini-van heading for the city’s bridges and tunnels from New Jersey. When a van fitting that exact description was stopped just before crossing into New York, the suspicious “middle-easterners” were apprehended. Imagine the surprise of the police officers when these terror suspects turned out to be Israelis!

According to ABC’s 20/20, when the van belonging to the cheering Israelis was stopped by the police, the driver of the van, Sivan Kurzberg, told the officers:

"We are Israelis. We are not your problem. Your problems are our problems. The Palestinians are your problem."

Why did he feel that Palestinians were a problem for the NYPD? No Palestinian suicide attacks have taken place in New York City, and none of the supposed 9/11 hijackers were traced to Palestine!

The police and FBI field agents became very suspicious when they found maps of the city with certain places highlighted, box cutters (the same items that the hijackers supposedly used), $4700 cash stuffed in a sock, and foreign passports. Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives. The Jerusalem Post later reported that a white van with a bomb was stopped as it approached the George Washington Bridge, but the ethnicity of the suspects was not revealed. Here’s what the Jerusalem Post reported on September 12, 2001:

”American security services overnight stopped a car bomb on the George Washington Bridge. The van, packed with explosives, was stopped on an approach ramp to the bridge. Authorities suspect the terrorists intended to blow up the main crossing between New Jersey and New York, Army Radio reported. TCM Breaking News reported that the van was laden down with tons of explosives.”

What's really intriguing is that ABC's 20/20, the New York Post and the New Jersey Bergen Record all clearly and unambiguously reported that a white van with Israelis was intercepted on a ramp near Route 3, which leads directly to the Lincoln Tunnel. But the Jerusalem Post, Israeli National News (Arutz Sheva) and Yediot America, all reported, just as clearly and unambiguously, that a white van with Israelis was stopped on a ramp leading to the George Washington Bridge, which is several miles north of the Lincoln Tunnel.

There may have been two white vans involved, one stopped on each crossing. This would not only explain the conflicting reports as to the actual location of the arrests, but would also explain how so many credible eye-witnesses all saw celebrating "middle-easterners" in a white van in so many different locations. It also explains why the New York Post and Steve Gordon (lawyer for the 5 Israelis) originally described how three Israelis were arrested but later increased the total to five. Also, it is possible that the story was changed in the Israeli newspaper to discredit the original.

Perhaps one van was meant to drop off a bomb while the other was meant to pick up the first set of drivers while re-crossing back into New Jersey? If a van was to be used as a parked time-bomb on the GW Bridge, then certainly the drivers would need to have a "get-away van" to pick them up and escape. And notice how the van (or vans) stayed away from the third major crossing -the Holland Tunnel- which was where the police had originally been directed to by that anti-Palestinian 9-1-1 "mystery caller". A classic misdirection play. From there, the story gets becomes even more suspicious. The Israelis worked for a Weehawken moving company known as Urban Moving Systems. An American employee of Urban Moving Systems told the The Record of New Jersey that a majority of his co-workers were Israelis and they were joking about the attacks. The employee, who declined to give his name said: "I was in tears. These guys were joking and that bothered me." These guys were like, "Now America knows what we go through."

A few days after the attacks, Urban Moving System's Israeli owner, Dominick Suter, dropped his business and fled the country for Israel. He and his Israeli co-workers were in such a hurry to flee America that some of Urban Moving System's customers were left with their furniture stranded in storage facilities.

It was later confirmed that the five detained Israelis were in fact Mossad agents. They were held in custody for 71 days before being quietly released. Some of the movers had been kept in solitary confinement for 40 days. Several of the detainees discussed their experience in America on an Israeli talk show after their return home.

Said one of the men, denying that they were laughing or happy on the morning of Sept. 11, "The fact of the matter is we are coming from a country that experiences terror daily. Our purpose was to document the event." How did they know there would be an event to document on 9/11?

Here is a possible scenario:

1. The Israeli “movers” cheered the 9-11 attacks to celebrate the successful accomplishment of the greatest “false flag” spy operation ever pulled off in history.

2. One of them, or an accomplice, then calls a 9-1-1 police dispatcher to report Palestinian bomb-makers in a white van headed for the Holland Tunnel.

3. Having thus pre-framed the Palestinians with this phone call, the Israeli bombers then head for the George Washington Bridge, instead, where they will drop off their time-bomb van and escape with Urban Moving accomplices.

4. But the police react very wisely and proactively by closing off ALL bridges and tunnels instead of just the Holland Tunnel. This move inadvertently foils the Israelis’ misdirection play and leads to their own capture.

5. Helping to muddle things, the U.S. Justice Department rounds up over 1000 Arabs for minor immigration violations and places them in New York area jails. The Israelis therefore become less conspicuous as the government and media can now claim that the Israelis were just immigration violators caught in the same dragnet as many other Arabs.

6. After several months, FBI and Justice Department “higher-ups” are able to gradually push aside the local FBI agents and free the Israelis quietly.

According to a 61-page report, drafted after an investigation by the DEA and the US immigration service, the Israelis were organized into cells of four to six people. The significance of what the Israelis were doing didn’t emerge until after September 11, 2001, when a report by a French intelligence agency noted "according to the FBI, Arab terrorists and suspected terror cells lived in Phoenix, Arizona, as well as in Miami and Hollywood, Florida, from December 2000 to April 2001 in direct proximity to the Israeli spy cells".

The report contended that Mossad agents were spying on Mohammed Atta and Marwan al-Shehi, two of leaders of the 9/11 hijack teams. ...

A French intelligence report says the leader of the Mossad cell in Florida rented apartments "right near the apartment of Atta and al-Shehi".

Osama bin Laden was immediately blamed for the 9/11 attacks even though he had no previous record of doing anything on this scale. Immediately after the Flight 11 hit World Trade Center , CIA Director George Tenet said "You know, this has bin Laden's fingerprints all over it."

The compliant mainstream media completely ignored the Israeli connection. Immediately following the 9-11 attacks, the media was filled with stories linking the attacks to bin Laden. TV talking-heads, “experts”, and scribblers of every stripe spoon-fed a gullible American public a steady diet of “Arab Terrorist” propaganda.
But bin Laden strongly denied any role in the attacks and suggested that Zionists orchestrated the

9-11 attacks. The BBC published bin Laden's statement of denial in which he said:

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks. ...

A number of intelligence officials have raised questions about Osama bin Laden's capabilities. "This guy sits in a cave in Afghanistan and he's running this operation?" one C.I.A. official asked. "It's so huge. He couldn't have done it alone." A senior military officer stated that because of the visas and other documentation needed to infiltrate team members into the United States a major foreign intelligence service might also have been involved.

To date, the most damning evidence against Bin Laden is barely audible fuzzy amateur video that the Pentagon just happened to find "lying around" in Afghanistan. The real Bin Laden has a thin face, is left-handed and does not wear gold rings on his finger (Forbidden by Islam). The Bin Laden in the video who “confessed” to being behind the 9/11 attacks had a fat face, is right handed, and is wearing gold jewelry, which is why a number of foreign intelligence experts say the video is a fake.

Gen. Hameed Gul, head of Inter Services Intelligence, the equivalent of a CIA-cum-FBI combination of Pakistan, during the war against the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, was interviewed shortly after the 9/11 attacks, and repeated the accusation that Mossad agents were involved in the operation.

Asked to consider the possibility that bin Laden -- or OBL as he is referred to in Pakistani conversations -- was lying to him and is indeed guilty as charged by the United States, Gul said, "If Taliban are given irrefutable evidence of his guilt, I am in favor of a fair trial. In America one is entitled to a jury of peers. But he has no American peers. The Taliban would not object, in the event of a prima face case, to an international Islamic court meeting in The Hague. They would extradite Osama to the Netherlands."

Gul said that his friend bin Laden had sworn to him on the Koran that he was not involved.

"From a cave inside a mountain or a peasant's hovel," Gul asked, how could bin Laden mount such a sophisticated operation? "Let's be serious," he said with a smile. "Mossad and its American associates are the obvious culprits," he added by asking,
"Who benefits from the crime?"

Asked why Israel would benefit, Gul replied, "Israel knows it has a short shelf-life before it is overwhelmed by demographics (and it) has now handed the (Bush administration) the opportunity it has been waiting for to consolidate America's imperial grip on the Gulf and acquire control of the Caspian basin by extending its military presence in Central Asia."

Asked if the United States was now his enemy, Gul replied, "Is the U.S. national interest in contradiction with the Muslim world? The U.S. needs oil, as do its European allies. You have between 6 and 8 million American Muslims and their ranks are growing. About the same number in Europe. Israel aside, we are America's natural allies. Professor Sam Huntington in his (book) 'Clash of Civilizations' puts Confucius and Judeo-Christians in one corner, and us in the other. His prescription is wrong but is being adopted by Bush 43 who has now put 60 countries on his hit list. This is the diabolical school that wants to launch an anti-Muslim 'crusade.' Muslims understood what Bush meant when he used that word. We need a meeting, not a clash, of civilizations."

Horst Ehmke, who coordinated the German secret services directly under German prime minister Willi Brandt in the 70s, predicted a similar terrorist attack in his novel, Torches of Heaven, published last year, in which Turkish terrorists crash hijacked planes into Berlin.

Although Ehmke had long expected "fundamentalist attacks," when he saw the televised images from September 11, he said it looked like a "Hollywood production." "Terrorists could not have carried out such an operation with 4 hijacked planes without the support of a secret service," Ehmke said, although he did not want to point to any particular agency.

"The most important thing in the struggle against terrorists, who are abusing religion, is the battle for the soul of the people and the nations," Ehmke said. "If this isn't resolved successfully, the 21st Century could be bloodier than the last."

A former Stasi agent who had warned the German secret service of terror attacks in America between September 10-20 told AFP that a high ranking Stasi chief named Jurgen Rogalla, who is "an airplane terror specialist," was probably involved in the attacks of September 11 along with Abu Nidal.

Both Nidal and Rogalla work with the Mossad, the former agent told AFP. Nidal, was said to be in Baghdad, and is a "leading officer for some Mossad agents." The agent said that Nidal was "involved directly" in the events of September 11.

On October 10, 2001, CNN made a briefly mentioned a foiled terrorist bomb plot on the Parliament building in Mexico. They promised to bring any further developments of this story to their viewers, but the incident was never heard of again in the mainstream U.S. media outlets. But the story appeared in bold headlines on the front page of major Mexican newspapers and was also posted on the official website of the Mexican Justice Department.

Two terror suspects were captured in the Mexican Chamber of Deputies. They had in their possession a high powered gun, nine hand grenades, and C-4 plastic explosives (great stuff for demolishing buildings!) Within days, this blockbuster story not only disappeared from the Mexican press, but the suspects were quietly released. The two terrorists were Salvador Gerson Sunke and Sar ben Zui Sunke. Gerson is a Mexican of Jewish origin, and Zui is a colonel with the Israeli Intelligence Services. (MOSSAD).
The story in El Diario de Mexico went on to reveal that the terrorists possessed forged Pakistani passports. Israel worked diligently to secure the release of these two suspects, who were then quietly deported. Many Mexicans expressed outrage at their prompt release, but to no avail.

The probable motive of this unsuccessful terrorist operation was to involve oil rich Mexico in the "War on Terrorism". Mexico is no military power, but the psychological trauma of an "Arab" attack on Mexico would have encouraged Mexico to provide more cheap oil to her American "protector", as well as aligning her more closely with Israeli against the “War on Terror.” Had the operation against Mexico succeeded, it is probable that the fake passports from an Arab country would have been discovered (in this case Pakistan), along with the usual copy of the Koran, or other references to “Muslim Jihad.” Most likely there would have been “connections” with Osama Bin Laden and “El Qaeda.”

The following is a synopsis of the material which appeared in the Mexican Press:

Two Israelis were arrested inside the Palacio Legislativo de San Lázaro (Mexican Congress) in Mexico City. Both were armed with 9 mm automatics and one was carrying a military hand grenade, electrical wiring and other bomb related materials. The Israeli Embassy at Sierra Madre 2155, colonia Lomas de Chapultepec has close its doors to the Mexican Press and are refusing to talk. The incident has been independently verified through Mexican diplomatic, press and other sources in Mexico City.

The Chief of Legislative Security, Salvador Alarcón, has also confirmed the arrest of the two Israeli terrorists. One of them Saur Ben Zvi is a confirmed citizen of Israel and the other, Salvador Guersson, recently immigrated to Mexico from Israel. It is has been determined by the Procuraduría General de la República (Mexican Department of Justice) that Guersson is a retired Colonel of the Israeli Defense Forces and that he may now be operating as a MOSSAD agent. It is not known how they were able to penetrate the extensive security system of the Mexican Legislative Palace.

The two Israelis had entered through the highly secured front entrance of the Palacio Legislativo de San Lázaro. the two terrorists had taken advantage of a situation that occurred around 1700 hours of Wednesday October 10 when a large contingent of Sugar Industry Unionists were entering through the metal detectors. The two Israelis followed about 50 of the unionists to the office of the President of the Mexican Congress Beatriz Paredes. The two Israelis were first pretending to be press photographers but called the attention of the sugar unionists because of their nervous and out of the ordinary behavior. About ten of the unionists confronted them and observed that they were carrying guns and and what looked to them to be explosives. They held the two Israelis until Official Congressional Security personnel took them into custody. The head of Congressional Security Salvador Alarcón verified that the Israelis had in their possession nine hand grenades, sticks of dynamite, detonators, wiring and two 9mm "Glock" automatics.

The PGR has released the retired Israeli I.D.F. colonel with the official explanation that he had a legal permit to carry a gun. They also released the illegal Israeli immigrant on about $4000 bail and the case turned over to the Mexican immigration authorities. Mexican Congressional Press Secretary Lic. Adriana Lopez was surprised to hear from La Voz de Aztlan of the release of the two Israelis.

The Israeli Embassy used heavy handed measures to have the two Israelis released. Very high level emergency meetings took place between Mexican Secretary of Foreign Relations Jorge Gutman, General Macedo de la Concha and a top Ariel Sharon envoy who flew to Mexico City specially for that purpose. Elías Luf of the Israeli Embassy worked night and day and their official spokeswoman Hila Engelhart went into high gear after may hours of complete silence. What went one during those high levels meetings no ones knows, but many in Mexico are in disbelief at their release. Guns and any kind of explosive is highly illegal for Mexican citizens and the fact that these two Israelis had them inside the Mexican Congress makes their release highly suspect. What is really going on?

Jorge Gutman, the Mexican Foreign Secretary, has very strong political connections with Israel and himself is of Jewish descent. Mexican Army General Macedo de la Concha has strong connections to the U.S. Military Industrial-Complex and through this to the Israeli Defense Forces. Have any of these connections influenced the decision to release the two terrorists?

Ron Bailey | October 9, 2007, 11:50am | #

S of S: Really? I haven't seen if he has been. That would be bad. Have you any links to share?

ChicagoTom | October 9, 2007, 11:50am | #

"When you think about how fantastically successful the Jewish lobby has been, though, in fact, they are less numerous I am told - religious Jews anyway - than atheists and [yet they] more or less monopolise American foreign policy as far as many people can see. So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

Judging by the quoted piece alone, this doesn't strike me as implying that Jews control world power or monopolize anything. Just that their influence seems disproportional to their numbers and that if atheists could get their shit together in a similar manner, maybe the whole "Christian Nation" and "God Fearing Nation" shtick could be knocked down a peg

Now maybe he has said other stuff that implies he thinks TEH JOOS control the world, but I don't see to get it from this quote. In fact this quote seems downright reasonable and more of a knock on the ability of atheists to organize and lobby than anything else.

GILMORE | October 9, 2007, 11:51am | #

Full disclosure: I have been an atheist since I was about 13 years old.

This disclosure is inconsistent with previous disclosures. I thought you'd mentioned being methodist or something, then trying something else, until you just dumped the whole mess?

Dawkins is a total jerk. Im shocked those who 'esteem' him took this long to get a glimpse at it.

And why does a 'Secular Coalition' = Atheism? Is there no grey area here?

"The Secular Coalition for America is the only organization in the nation whose primary purpose is lobbying Congress on behalf of atheists, humanists, freethinkers, and other nontheistic Americans"

Self-described "Athiests" would represent the tiniest fraction of this constituency, so I think thats a little misleading.

Don't Matter | October 9, 2007, 11:52am | #

I don’t get what is so compelling about Dawkins in the first place. After reading his work, I always feel I am supposed to believe his view simply because his view is impregnated with smugness and pomposity. His remarks about the Jewish Lobby align exactly with his line of thinking on everything else I’ve read of his. Dawkins sees black and white in a world full of shades of grey, and frankly, I want my intellectuals to see in color. He is nowhere close.....nowhere.

J sub D | October 9, 2007, 11:52am | #

Full disclosure: I have been an atheist since I was about 13 years old.

Damned child prodigies, always bragging about their prodigiousness. ;-)

jtuf | October 9, 2007, 11:53am | #

Gould's NOMA was the best response to Dawkins. Science can tell us the likely results of our actions, no more. There are valid theist and atheist sources for morality, but science is not one of them. The war on drugs shows what happens when people talk science but enforce morals.

Syloson of Samos | October 9, 2007, 11:55am | #

Ron Bailey,

I think he made a similar comment at the talk he gave in Lynchburg. I'd have to watch the whole thing again to check, however.

Jake Boone | October 9, 2007, 11:55am | #

Mr. Westerman,

Seek help.

x | October 9, 2007, 11:56am | #

The Bush administration is full of Jews that hold dual Us-Israeli citizenship.

Mo | October 9, 2007, 11:56am | #

I agree with Tom, it sounds like a reasonable, "This group is punching above it's weight class." Does anybody doubt that AIPAC is a fantastically successful group that has more influence than one would expect with the size of its constituency?

GILMORE | October 9, 2007, 11:57am | #

Douglas Westerman | October 9, 2007, 11:48am | #

(Warren, watch this...)

Douglas: "I find your ideas intregueing, and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter"

See what I mean?

As a side note, what the fuck. All you do is have to say something like "jewish lobby" and it's like a super-powered asshole magnet. If we combined that power with the effect of "illegal immigrants" we could probably create some new form of energy... it might even be the key to unified field theory. Gravity is in fact a function of assholes.

| October 9, 2007, 11:57am | #

So, Douglas Westerman, 9/11, teh joooos did it, huh?

That seems to be the gist of your long piece of crap rant.

Not that anyone with any sense would bother to read it. The first couple of sentences give it away.

John | October 9, 2007, 11:57am | #

What exactly does Dawkins want "Atheists" to use that power for? What would be an "atheist" political agenda? Jews, if you believe the Dawkins, have an agenda, saving Israel. I don't see how many of the nuts and bolts political issues of the day have anything to do with Atheism. What about Atheism makes you say a communist or believer in the welfare state or radical libertarian or any a free trader or nativist? I can't think of one pressing issue of the day where atheism would define one's views on it. The only thing I could see that would be unique to atheists would be some kind of coordinated program to deny religious liberty and destroy religion as a force in society. If that is what Dawkins means, then yeah he is pretty creepy and has little or no respect for freedom. I don't think he means that. I don't think he knows what he means other than that he is smart and should be in charge of everything. He seems pretty certain of that.

Mo | October 9, 2007, 11:58am | #

That Westerman rant is frightening. $5 to anyone that can read the whole thing and keep their sanity.

me9 | October 9, 2007, 11:58am | #

Note to wingnuts: break your crazy rants into several shorter, more easily digested posts. You'll get more readers and we'll get more laughs.

StephenDedalus | October 9, 2007, 11:58am | #

It's so incredibly annoying when all people can say about Dawkins is that he's a "smug" "arrogant" "jerk." Actually, he's quite a personable man, a brilliant scientist, and quite correct about there not being a God. Something besides ad hominems please, children?

Syloson of Samos | October 9, 2007, 11:59am | #

Ron Bailey,

It was at Lynchburg, though the talk was hosted by Randolph-Macon Woman's College (as i understand it the college is in a town around Lynchburg).

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 11:59am | #

Is anybody here saying that the Jewish lobby isn't powerful? Or even that the Jewish lobby is less powerful than the secularists? Given the fact that the Jews have a country and the atheists don't, is it surprising that they are more influential? Sure, the word "monopolize" goes too far. But surely you aren't denying his fundamental point...that certain minority religions exert influence disproportionate to their population?

You say the word "Jewish" and everybody stiffens up and thinks of the most PC thing they can say.

Dan T. | October 9, 2007, 12:00pm | #

I must admit that I don't understand the religion of atheism. It's like being a hardcore fan of a football team that you know will never win a game.

GILMORE | October 9, 2007, 12:00pm | #

Actually, he's quite a personable man, a brilliant scientist, and quite correct about there not being a God

Dude, i spit coffee on my mac.

That shit is so funny i dont know where to start.

Lets try here = maybe you dont find him pompous because... (guess? Hint - start with your username, then work backwards)

har har

GILMORE | October 9, 2007, 12:03pm | #

Dan T scores a point =

It's like being a hardcore fan of a football team that you know will never win a game.

I like that. Possibly because I'm a knicks fan.

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 12:04pm | #

"I must admit that I don't understand the religion of atheism. It's like being a hardcore fan of a football team that you know will never win a game."

No. Religion is like going to the game, and even though there are no players on the field, you convince yourself that a game occurred. Atheism simply skips the game and goes duck huntin'.

StephenDedalus | October 9, 2007, 12:06pm | #

"Lets try here = maybe you dont find him pompous because... (guess? Hint - start with your username, then work backwards)"

I happen not to find him pompous because I've seen him speak. From my point of view he's objectively actually quite humble--since in comparison his adversaries are the ones claiming to know how the universe works sans evidence.

But really my point is, pompous or not, his personality has nothing to do with the correctness or incorrectness of his ideas. It also indicates that those who engage in these ad hominems haven't actually read his work but are just jumping on the sacred middle-ground bandwagon, which requires calling atheists pompous.

Episiarch | October 9, 2007, 12:06pm | #

$5 to anyone that can read the whole thing and keep their sanity.

IT'S FOREVER IN THERE

Ron Bailey | October 9, 2007, 12:07pm | #

Hi all: The work I particularly admire are his books The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene.

John | October 9, 2007, 12:07pm | #

Look at the other things Dawkins says. He says

"I would free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community"

How would he plan to do that? Would Dawkins really want to make it illegal to take a child to church or for parents to teach their children religion? Note, he doesn't say by the government he says indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or community. He is talking about real totalitarian control of parents and family life here.

I don't care how personable the guy is. Hell, even Hitler had a girlfriend. If you believe in freedom and personal choice that is really disturbing stuff.

John | October 9, 2007, 12:08pm | #

"From my point of view he's objectively actually quite humble--"

I am sorry but humble people don't want to control the way people raise their children. There is nothing humble about saying that you know what is good for everyone else.

jtuf | October 9, 2007, 12:08pm | #

Most of the colonial colleges started as seminaries. The science and humanities departments split from the seminaries so they could keep their funding after the 1st ammendment came arround. Humanities professors already get tons of government support to write papers about how we should live our lives. What more does Dawkins want?

GILMORE | October 9, 2007, 12:09pm | #

John sez

The only thing I could see that would be unique to atheists would be some kind of coordinated program to deny religious liberty and destroy religion as a force in society.

I agree... I think the main thrust would be to rewrite the establishment clause to more clearly mean "Freedom FROM religion" which many on the left are convinced it means... despite 1000s of judgements to the contrary.

Dawkins is simply offended by humankinds inability to 'advance' to his level, where he can confront the void alone and contemplate the universe without the stain of mysticism or poetic-anthropomorphic interpretation of the way things work.

basically, he wants everyone to be a boring shit like him. If Burroughs were alive he'd call Dawkins a True Shit for refusing to leave people to their own chosen myths. There's always a busybody out to convince you to be more like them.

Jake Boone | October 9, 2007, 12:09pm | #

To trot out the old quote yet again:
Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Syloson of Samos | October 9, 2007, 12:10pm | #

Anyway, I find Dawkins to be a rather humorous individual. Certainly he doesn't pull any punches, but, from what I've seen of him in interviews, he's seems quite witty and a conversation with him would likely be a heck of a lot of fun and informative.

The duck | October 9, 2007, 12:11pm | #

To deny that the Israel lobby has a great deal of power and influence is just silly. It's not a conspiracy or some big secret, the facts are in plain sight. Some groups have influence and some (like anti-war groups or libertarians) don't. And gov't policy behaves accordingly.

Episiarch | October 9, 2007, 12:13pm | #

I don't know anything about Dawkins other than the fact that Trey Parker and Matt Stone think he's a smug asshole. However, as an atheist who refers to himself as an agnostic, all I can say is that I refer to myself as an agnostic so as not to be associated with athiests, many of whom are...smug assholes.

One has to take care that we do not become the monsters we fight (thank you Nietzsche). If you are so absolutely convinced about how correct you are, you sort to resemble somebody that operates on--wait for it--faith.

Syloson of Samos | October 9, 2007, 12:13pm | #

jtuf,

As I understand it, religion was shunted off into its own department largely during the 19th century. That's not particularly surprising as a materialistic outlook grew throughout that century.

Marcvs | October 9, 2007, 12:14pm | #

I must admit that I don't understand the religion of atheism. It's like being a hardcore fan of a football team that you know will never win a game.

Better than being a hardcore fan of a football team that regularly kills people for beings fans of other teams.

Dave Woycechowsky | October 9, 2007, 12:15pm | #

Interesting, recent below-the-fold on Mr. Bailey, the Jewish people and atheism:

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/122721.html#796020

Rattlesnake Jake | October 9, 2007, 12:17pm | #

"Now maybe he has said other stuff that implies he thinks TEH JOOS control the world, but I don't see to get it from this quote. In fact this quote seems downright reasonable and more of a knock on the ability of atheists to organize and lobby than anything else."

I think Chicago Tom is correct in his analysis. That's also my take.

Dan T. | October 9, 2007, 12:19pm | #

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

Perhaps, but then again nobody refers to themselves as a non-stamp collector or attends meetings with other non-stamp collectors where they discuss not collecting stamps.

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 12:19pm | #

"I don't know anything about Dawkins other than the fact that Trey Parker and Matt Stone think he's a smug asshole."

...and it turns out, both the pot and the kettle are black!!!

John | October 9, 2007, 12:20pm | #

"I would free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community"

I am going to beat this dead horse some more because it really pisses me off. The assumption behind this seems to be that if you are indoctrinated into a religion as a child, you have no choice but to follow that religion as an adult. Of course Dawkins himself, at least according to wikipedia, admits to being raised Anglican. I guess only super beings like he can raise themselves beyond this indoctrination and know the truth. God knows it is just rare and unheard of for someone to be raised in a religious tradition to later renounce that tradition. The solution clearly is to free people from religious propaganda by curtailing their freedom of expression, assembly and thought through strict prohibitions against prophesizing religion, even to ones own children.

Dawkins is a piece of shit. Thank God, he doesn't hold any position of responsibility or power.

Jim Bob | October 9, 2007, 12:20pm | #

Coraxo de Unepeh: Adraman, Arzulge, Belmagel, Paulacarp, Sendenna- niis pahmabet! Mahorela des Ors- de dosig od bagie od ciaofi. Quasbe Lucifitian od olprit! Chiso hami de cnila drix siatris od teloc. Chiso tibibp enay de Caosga der phama te eol nos ialpor drilpa lansh peh ors de.

Vaoan arbepesa ar argedco!

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 12:20pm | #

"Perhaps, but then again nobody refers to themselves as a non-stamp collector or attends meetings with other non-stamp collectors where they discuss not collecting stamps."

And this is the vast minority of atheists. I have to assume you know this, so what's your ultimate point? That a not-stamp collector who browses through a stamp shop ruins it for everybody who couldn't give a shit about stamps?

Dave Woycechowsky | October 9, 2007, 12:21pm | #

Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby.

No, agnosticism is a religion is like not collecting stamps is a hobby. Atheism is a religion like agitating against stamp collection is a hobby (and wotta stoopid hobby!).

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 12:22pm | #

"I am going to beat this dead horse some more because it really pisses me off."

Go for it. Dawkins is brilliant when discussing the existence of God. He is not very good when discussing the policies that should be borne by the non-existence of god.

John | October 9, 2007, 12:22pm | #

"And this is the vast minority of atheists. I have to assume you know this, so what's your ultimate point? That a not-stamp collector who browses through a stamp shop ruins it for everybody who couldn't give a shit about stamps?"

If you don't collect stamps, that is your business. But if you walk around claiming that those who do collect stamps are the root of all evil in the world and how stamp collecting and the teaching of stamp collecting to children needs to be stopped, you become a bit more than just a "non-stamp collector".

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 12:23pm | #

"Atheism is a religion like agitating against stamp collection is a hobby"

No, that's a small, but perhaps vocal, minority. If this weren't the case, Ronald Bailey wouldn't have to announce that he's an atheist, because it would be pounded into our ears by now.

J sub D | October 9, 2007, 12:23pm | #

Does the "Jewish Lobby" have a dispropotionate influenc on U.S. policy? Propbably. Jews are more educated than the average American. Jews are wealthier than the average American. Jews have valid historical reasons to desire influence on governmental policies. Add it up. It's not a conspiracy any more than MADD is a conspiracy. Jeez.

Rattlesnake Jake | October 9, 2007, 12:23pm | #

"Perhaps, but then again nobody refers to themselves as a non-stamp collector or attends meetings with other non-stamp collectors where they discuss not collecting stamps."

Atheism is a lack of a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 12:23pm | #

John, I assume we posted 12:22's at the same time. Perhaps my post clarifies.

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 12:25pm | #

Hell, why couldn't I be a vocal agnostic? Instead of saying there is no god, I could just as easily be shrill about ambiguous evidence or my uncertainty. The distinction between atheism and agnosticism is not defined by the number or loudness of cranks on the fringe of each belief system.

Dan T. | October 9, 2007, 12:25pm | #

And this is the vast minority of atheists. I have to assume you know this, so what's your ultimate point? That a not-stamp collector who browses through a stamp shop ruins it for everybody who couldn't give a shit about stamps?

There are plenty of people, myself included, who are not religious one way or another. My point is simply anybody who self-describes as an "atheist" is religious as he's adopted on faith a collection of subjective and unprovable beliefs.

It's strange that anybody would choose this religion as it doesn't bother giving you a purpose or reason to live. Oh well.

Jake Boone | October 9, 2007, 12:25pm | #

Had a post, but Rattlesnake Jake said it better.

JasonL | October 9, 2007, 12:26pm | #

Dawkins argument doesn't seem especially well thought out. Even granting his premise (with which I disagree), it is pretty obvious why there is no athiest coalition. Uh, athiesm in itself is insufficient common cause to become politically motivated? I understand saying that reasonable people need to ferret out policies proposed for religious reasons, but to identify all reasonable people with the sort of activist atheist Dawkins wants to see is probably unrealistic.

Jake Boone | October 9, 2007, 12:27pm | #

Dan, I'm an atheist. I lack belief in the existence of a god or gods. What "collection of subjective and unprovable beliefs" have I adopted?

Syloson of Samos | October 9, 2007, 12:27pm | #

In a lot of ways for an atheist there is something of a Catch-22 regarding the public discussion of atheism. If one discusses the matter publicly one is often labelled an evangelical atheist. On the other hand, staying in the closet on the matter doesn't seem that great of an option either.

Episiarch | October 9, 2007, 12:28pm | #

...and it turns out, both the pot and the kettle are black!!!

Ha, good point. However, I would say that Matt and Trey are more smart-ass punks than smug assholes. Shades of grey.

More seriously, though, they had a point with their episode(s) regarding Dawkins, which was that once you get too sure about being right, you become intolerant of other viewpoints.

John is right that any guy who advocates taking children away from their parents to be raised how he thinks they should be raised has serious problems, especially from a libertarian viewpoint. Just because you agree with his athiesm shouldn't blind you to any authoritarian impulses he may have.

notme | October 9, 2007, 12:29pm | #

Dawkins is being distorted behind comprehension intentionally by the very lobby in question. He should not have said Jewish lobby, he should have been more precise and said Israeli lobby, which indeed is very powerful in US politics. And they are unrelenting over two things 1) anyone who doesn’t toe the line on Israel and 2) anyone who mentions that the Isreali lobby exists. And they intentionally confuse opposition to the Isreali lobby with anti-semitism. It’s disgusting but it works.

Dawkins hedged what he said a couple of times. First he said “more or less monopolise” and he said “as far as many people can see.” Considering he is saying this how many people see it, and it is, what is the controversy? His statement is true on the face of it, many people do see it this way.

He doesn’t say control foreign policy but “more or less monopolise” it which is different. Anyone who doesn’t think a disproportionate share of US foreign policy is centered on Israel hasn’t been paying attention. Isreal gets more attention in foreign policy than South America and Africa put together.

Finkelstein was borderline insane with his analysis. He turned the statement into a claim of Jewish world control. That was just an outright lying interpretation of the statement. From saying that many people perceive there to be inordinate influence over US foreign policy to controlling the world is a leap not warranted by the statement but typical of partisans for Israel who frequently resort to such over-wrought, hand-wringing statements of woe.

Dave Woycechowsky | October 9, 2007, 12:29pm | #

Atheism is a lack of a belief in the existence of a god or gods.

No, agnosticism is a lack of affirmative belief. Atheism is an affirmative belief in the non-extistence.

thoreau | October 9, 2007, 12:30pm | #

If I were an atheist, I'd want Dawkins off my team. He's good on the science, but he's a horrible PR guy on atheism.

Note: Saying that he's a horrible PR guy is not the same as saying he's wrong. That's a separate matter.

Rattlesnake Jake | October 9, 2007, 12:30pm | #

"I am going to beat this dead horse some more because it really pisses me off. The assumption behind this seems to be that if you are indoctrinated into a religion as a child, you have no choice but to follow that religion as an adult. Of course Dawkins himself, at least according to wikipedia, admits to being raised Anglican. I guess only super beings like he can raise themselves beyond this indoctrination and know the truth. God knows it is just rare and unheard of for someone to be raised in a religious tradition to later renounce that tradition. The solution clearly is to free people from religious propaganda by curtailing their freedom of expression, assembly and thought through strict prohibitions against prophesizing religion, even to ones own children."

I bet the chances are about 99% that a person picks the religion he was born into.

Dawkins does not say that people should not be free to teach their kids what they want to teach them. You're setting up a strawman, John.

Syloson of Samos | October 9, 2007, 12:32pm | #

Episiarch,

In the episode isn't it Ms. Garrison who is the one who is "too sure?"

thoreau | October 9, 2007, 12:32pm | #

Oh, goodie: Another debate on the distinctions between different schools of atheism and agnosticism.

What's really funny is when the non-atheists jump in and try to help draw the lines. Me, I'm prepared to recognize whichever sects and divides the atheists agree on, or whichever sects and divides the survivors of the schism agree on. Whatever.

There should be an Atheists' Front of Judea and a Judean Atheist Front. With non-atheists leading the charge. That would be funny.

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 12:32pm | #

"My point is simply anybody who self-describes as an "atheist" is religious as he's adopted on faith a collection of subjective and unprovable beliefs."

Ahh, let's stretch those definitions so far that language doesn't mean much anymore.

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 12:33pm | #

"I would say that Matt and Trey are more smart-ass punks than smug assholes."

Sorry, can't be a smart-ass punk once you turn 30.

J sub D | October 9, 2007, 12:35pm | #

I'm an atheist, freethinker, whatever you want to call it. All of you theists are free to believe in your fantasies and fairy tales. No skin off of my nose. Your claims that your "faith" is somehow superior, intellectually or morally, to my reasoning gets scoffed at.

IMHO, Posters at H&R possibly should exercise caution before criticizing others smugness.

Syloson of Samos | October 9, 2007, 12:36pm | #

thoreau,

Will the Reformation be over any time soon?

Dave Woycechowsky | October 9, 2007, 12:36pm | #

What's really funny is when the non-atheists jump in and try to help draw the lines.

Something to ponder next time you are tempted to call somebody a socialist, or a neo-con or anything else.

Anyway, the line between agnostics and atheists (err, "secularists) were drawn before we were born and it is a bit late in the game to change definitions now.

Mike | October 9, 2007, 12:36pm | #

All this stuff about Jewish lobbies drives me nuts. Most Jews are not supporters of AIPAC, call it the Israel lobby.
Richard Dawkins is one of the few dominionist atheists and believes that it is his (god given?)
duty to cull religion from the world.

Jake Boone | October 9, 2007, 12:37pm | #

Dave W.,

There is a language problem with the words "atheism" and "agnosticism," and the fluctuating definitions for each.

I had a solution for that some time back, but it doesn't seem to have caught on. Perhaps the words I selected lacked the appropriate gravitas.

Mad Max | October 9, 2007, 12:37pm | #

"distressed by this uncharacteristic lapse in judgement."

"he has lately shone signs of loosing his grip. It's so dismaying, he's in danger of undermining everything he's built."

He seemed so reasonable and sensible when he was preaching militant atheism, but now he's just gone off the rails!

Seriously, why is it surprising that someone who vehemently denounces the monotheistic conception of God should have an animus against the people who introduced this God to the world?

It's quite common for those who reject the Jewish God to have low opinions of Jews, as well. Why do you think so many neo-Nazi types are into Odinism and the like? Why do you think the original Anti-Semites (the nineteenth century political movement) gave us the term "Judeo-Christian"? It wasn't as a compliment to Christianity, it was a rejection of key theological concepts of both religions.

Nietzsche denounced Christianity as a religion of the weak, which encouraged people to be compassionate to the poor and humble, thus crimping the style of the Supermen. It was Judaism which Nietsche blamed for this inexcusable weakness of Christianity.

"Given the fact that the Jews have a country and the atheists don't . . ."

There's Cuba and North Korea, and possibly Venezuela. I would probably add the PRC, still a nominally Marxist state.

thoreau | October 9, 2007, 12:37pm | #

J sub D-

I have no problem with you guys. I just think it's funny when a vocal few insist on drawing fine distinctions between different variants of atheism and agnosticism. On the surface it looks like a religious schism.

It's especially funny when some theists try to jump in and lecture them on how to draw the lines. They have no dog in that fight.

Me, I stay out, as do most atheists/agnostics/whatever that I know. Although I do reserve the right to laugh at the few who want to fight over lines.

J sub D | October 9, 2007, 12:38pm | #

BTW theists, I don't think you're evil or stupid. You're just wrong.

Alan Vanneman | October 9, 2007, 12:38pm | #

AIPAC is definitely a powerful lobby--they'll tell you so themselves--but Dawkins, like too many Brits (one is too many), loves to wax anti-Semitic, in part as a way of pissing off Americans. Particularly amusing/reprehensible is Dawkins' use of the phrases "I am told" and "as far as many people can see" to cover his wrinkled Limey arse. "I don't know this for a fact, but I thought I'd pass it along." Classy, Mr. Scientist!

(OK, I don't know that Dawkins' arse is wrinkled. That's just an educated guess.)

Dan T. | October 9, 2007, 12:39pm | #

Oh, goodie: Another debate on the distinctions between different schools of atheism and agnosticism.

The argument is really framed poorly. All people are religious by nature and "God" is a metaphor, not something to be denied or accepted.

J sub D | October 9, 2007, 12:39pm | #

I just think it's funny when a vocal few insist on drawing fine distinctions between different variants of atheism and agnosticism.

thoreau, you and me both.

thoreau | October 9, 2007, 12:41pm | #

J sub D-

You and I may be laughing together, but I think it is important to recognize that there are different categories of people who laugh during these debates. There are the chucklers, the gigglers, the coffee sprayers, etc.

I, for one, refuse to be lumped in with the coffee sprayers. It's clearly a different type of laughter, despite the efforts of some to blur the lines. They persist in their irrational belief that these types of laughs have anything in common, when they are clearly derived from different foundations.

Dave Woycechowsky | October 9, 2007, 12:42pm | #

I had a solution for that some time back, but it doesn't seem to have caught on. Perhaps the words I selected lacked the appropriate gravitas.

I have an easier solution:

Those who are uncertain about the existence of god(s): "Smart"

Those who are sure there are not god(s): "Fools"

shecky | October 9, 2007, 12:42pm | #

Chicago Tom has it right.

Jake Boone | October 9, 2007, 12:43pm | #

*Sigh.* Do I really have to drag out the old quote again?
Coffee-spraying is laughing like crapping one's pants is farting.

Max | October 9, 2007, 12:43pm | #

"You never know where anti-Semitic propaganda will pop up"

http://www.slate.com/id/2080027/

Makes the point that Jewish groups (and their friends) make more grandiose claims for Jewish influence than anyone.

Ronald Bailey, what is your problem? This is your second "there's a Nazi under my bed!" post in recent days. One more and you'll be an honorary member of the ADL.

Dan T. | October 9, 2007, 12:43pm | #

Me, I stay out, as do most atheists/agnostics/whatever that I know. Although I do reserve the right to laugh at the few who want to fight over lines.

Right, thanks for chiming in strictly to let us all know how above this you are. Duly noted.

thoreau | October 9, 2007, 12:44pm | #

Those who consider coffee spraying a form of laughter: Dumb.

Those who are unsure about the status of coffee spraying: Dumber.

thoreau | October 9, 2007, 12:44pm | #

Right, thanks for chiming in strictly to let us all know how above this you are. Duly noted.

It's worth chiming in when the fight bears an ironic resemblance to a religious schism among the non-religious.

Jake Boone | October 9, 2007, 12:45pm | #

I have an easier solution:

Those who are uncertain about the existence of god(s): "Smart"

Those who are sure there are not god(s): "Fools"
Those who listen to lectures on proper use of language by Dan T. and Dave W.: "Hilarious"

Syloson of Samos | October 9, 2007, 12:46pm | #

Mad Max,

Seriously, why is it surprising that someone who vehemently denounces the monotheistic conception of God should have an animus against the people who introduced this God to the world?

I don't recall any discussion so far regarding Zoroastrianism.

As for Jew hating, well, Christianity has a long and bloody history of such. As is often noted the Crusaders stated the First Crusade by slaughtering the Jews in their midst and then journeying to the Levant.

Nietzsche denounced Christianity...

Actually, he more than anything lamented the loss of Christianity. That's what the whole "God is dead" line is about. Anyway, it is fair to say that Nietzsche's views of Christianity were over his career more nuanced than say what can found in a particular work like the Anti-Christ.

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 12:47pm | #

So where do people who think there is enough evidence to deny the existence of a god, yet can readily concede that there is no smoking gun proof of non-existence? By strict definitions, these would be agnostics, and indeed, it appears that Dawkins is using this definition to label himself.

Episiarch | October 9, 2007, 12:47pm | #

In the episode isn't it Ms. Garrison who is the one who is "too sure?"

Yes, but Dawkins goes along with her which seemed to me to be an indictment of his overconfidence.

Sorry, can't be a smart-ass punk once you turn 30.

Maybe not, but when you are still producing top-notch work after 11 years while most other people's comedy goes to total shit after just a few, you can sort of fake it.

Timothy | October 9, 2007, 12:47pm | #

If you're drawing lines, they might as well be invisible, pink lines.

I've become comfortable with "atheist" over the years. Heathen and non-believer are also acceptable. But, seriously, if you're the sort of person who defines yourself by what you don't believe in: and I have known some people, particularly "free thinker" types for whom their non-belief is the central defining characteristic of their life...I think you've some sort of problem.

Timothy | October 9, 2007, 12:48pm | #

Thoreau: I think you mean "hilarious resemblance".

Dave Woycechowsky (always 1 step ahead of the "ban hammer") | October 9, 2007, 12:48pm | #

Those who listen to lectures on proper use of language by . . . Dave W.

Which reminds me. I gave a lecture on the purposeful miseuse of language, in song form, back in 2003 and called it "Grammarchy" (which is short for grammatical anarchy). Those who like my lectures can and should check it out at:

ftp://www.farceswannamo.com/If_Not_Why_Not_mp3s/

Franklin Harris | October 9, 2007, 12:49pm | #

What Dawkins doesn't realize is that the Jewish lobby's power comes in large part from the rather large number of Christian evangelical wingnuts who are part of it -- because they believe the modern state of Israel is the centerpiece of God's ultimate urban renewal program.

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 12:50pm | #

The only time I ever think about the non-existence of god (my not-stamp collecting hobby) is when threads like this come up, or some bible-thumper introduces some asinine religious legislation. Aside from that, I don't really think about it. Given that it means eternal damnation and whatnot if we're wrong, I tend to think that agnostics have made a decision about it whether they feel like arguing about it or not.

Dave Woycechowsky (always 1 step ahead of the | October 9, 2007, 12:50pm | #

So where do people who think there is enough evidence to deny the existence of a god, yet can readily concede that there is no smoking gun proof of non-existence? By strict definitions, these would be agnostics, and indeed, it appears that Dawkins is using this definition to label himself.

Apropriate label: "Inconsistent"

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 12:51pm | #

So anybody who formulates an opinion based on incomplete evidence, and recognizes that fact, is inconsistent? Isn't that all of science?

Dave Woycechowsky (always 1 step ahead of the | October 9, 2007, 12:53pm | #

So anybody who formulates an opinion based on incomplete evidence, and recognizes that fact, is inconsistent?

No, only people who purport to use reason (as opposed to faith) to draw firm conclusions based on less-than-firm evidence are inconsistent.

Syloson of Samos | October 9, 2007, 12:54pm | #

So we've established that many people think that arguments over how one defines atheism, etc. have reached a point where such a discussion is no longer particularly useful (I myself think that it is useful up to a point).

J sub D | October 9, 2007, 12:57pm | #

Right, thanks for chiming in strictly to let us all know how above this you are. Duly noted.
Dan T. Sometimes posts are just conversation and not part of a moral crusade. Lighten up for Chrissakes.

Art-P.O.G. | October 9, 2007, 12:59pm | #

I re-read Dawkins' quote and it doesn't strike me as anti-Semetic, but it isn't exactly reasoned out too clearly. I don't know how many individuals in the 'Jewish Lobby' are particularly religious, or at least devout.

So it's at least possible that people who are more or less atheist or agnostic are influential in the aforementioned lobby.

And even though Dawkins is absolutely right that religious thinking is almost invariably deleterious to rational and scientific thought, there is this quote, which is more or less unsupportable:"So if atheists could achieve a small fraction of that influence, the world would be a better place."

Why? Even though the atheists I know are moral and decent people, I see no proof that they are invariably *more* moral than Agnostics, Deist, Mormons, Catholics, etc. simply because of their superior capacity for rational thought.
Even though many religious people *are* immoral, I have never been convinced that believing in God somehow destroys a person's ability to draw fine moral or philosophical distinctions.
Sorry, some of Dawkin's views do seem arrogant.
Having the voices of atheism become more prominent is a fine thing, I suppose, but what political solutions would an atheist lobby really offer?

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 1:01pm | #

"only people who purport to use reason (as opposed to faith) to draw firm conclusions based on less-than-firm evidence are inconsistent."

Ehhh, I'm not convinced. We draw conclusions from less-than-firm evidence all the time. The key is to be open to revising your conclusions. I don't see that as inconsistent at all.

J sub D | October 9, 2007, 1:01pm | #

This will surely be ignored by the "saved". Don't waste your time. I don't even listen to your sophistry anymore.

JBinMO | October 9, 2007, 1:01pm | #

German intelegence cheif, critical of Isreal? I can't be sure but it seems like their might be some history there?

ed | October 9, 2007, 1:03pm | #

Agnostics are fence-sitters, meekly refusing to use their brains and thereby safely evading the only logical conclusion a rational person can arrive at: that there is simply no evidence that a god exists or has ever existed.

Art-P.O.G. | October 9, 2007, 1:08pm | #

ed sez: Agnostics are fence-sitters, meekly refusing to use their brains and thereby safely evading the only logical conclusion a rational person can arrive at...

Gee, way to make a blanket statement.

I like the theory, supported by both evolutionary psychology and millenia of philosophy, that things are a little more complicated than that. In fact, I think the words, 'premise,' 'God', 'sense', 'consciousness' and 'nature' are pretty loaded.

Dave Woycechowsky | October 9, 2007, 1:10pm | #

Ehhh, I'm not convinced. We draw conclusions from less-than-firm evidence all the time. The key is to be open to revising your conclusions. I don't see that as inconsistent at all.

Not exactly. To give the slightly longer vers, Dawkins (as you characterize him) is inconsistent because the degree of firmness of his conclusions is highly disproportionate to the degree of firmness of his evidence.

Really, what he has is a faith-based belief that there are no god(s). Because he effectively claims that his faith-based belief is based on something other than faith, that is the key thing that makes him an atheist and a fool.

I am not sure how I would label someone who said that they believed there was no god(s), but believed so based on faith, rather than reason. Fortunately, I have never met a person like that. Generally speaking, if a person affirmatively believes that there is no god(s), then they are sure to claim that that conclusion is driven by scientific evidence, reason and syllogistic logic.

ed | October 9, 2007, 1:17pm | #

You either conclude from the evidence of your senses that existence exists, or you don't. Atheists (and theists too, for that matter) choose to question nature. They come to very different conclusions, however. Agnostics take the coward's way out and admit to the world that they are incapable of evaluating the evidence of their senses. Their catch-phrase is: "Who am I to judge?" What they are admitting is: "Who am I to think?"

Syloson of Samos | October 9, 2007, 1:19pm | #

ed,

Well, first off, one would have to ask whether the senses can be trusted? Which gets us back to Descartes, brains in vats, etc.

gaijin | October 9, 2007, 1:21pm | #

Agnostics take the coward's way out and admit to the world that they are incapable of evaluating the evidence of their senses. Their catch-phrase is: "Who am I to judge?" What they are admitting is: "Who am I to think?"

Or perhaps they just conclude that there is some room in their existence for self doubt?

Randolph Carter | October 9, 2007, 1:24pm | #

wow I went to lunch and this thread took some HGH

JLM | October 9, 2007, 1:32pm | #

ed | October 9, 2007, 1:03pm | #

"Agnostics are fence-sitters, meekly refusing to use their brains and thereby safely evading the only logical conclusion a rational person can arrive at: that there is simply no evidence that a god exists or has ever existed."

Anybody that insinuates that hard scientific evidence can be found to prove or disprove a purely faith-based belief has their head in their ass. I used my brain to formulate that statement. Up yours.

Borscht Blackbelt | October 9, 2007, 1:35pm | #

It's fine to be question the existence the Jew's deity, but whatever you do... don't question the Jew's mantle of perpetual victimhood.
Are you trying to be hurtful?

dhex | October 9, 2007, 1:36pm | #

HGH?

High Gructose HornSyrup?

Agnostics take the coward's way out and admit to the world that they are incapable of evaluating the evidence of their senses.

some of us just get bored of the whole "be a man! agree with me!" routine because some of us don't care one way or the other. and because the ineffable is pre-rational and well, out there somewhere (above, beyond or within, or all three, or none, or whatever) so it could conceivably be outside of my sense abilities. either way, whatever, non serviam etc etc and so forth...

a while back - like three years ago - i had to go through the whole pre cana thing and someone here on hit and run, in a thread much like this one (oh deja vu) did the whole "you're a coward and collaborating with the enemy thing" which i still think is both grossly out of bounds and totally inaccurate - i'm *sleeping* with the enemy, bruh!

Jewish Lobby | October 9, 2007, 1:36pm | #

I am garish, with velvet wallpaper, chintzy fake-gold chandeliers, excessive drapery. Yep, that's me.

John | October 9, 2007, 1:37pm | #

"Dawkins does not say that people should not be free to teach their kids what they want to teach them. You're setting up a strawman, John."

Read the damn article Jake. Read the quotes that gave. What part of "I would free children from being indoctrinated with the religion of their parents or their community" is so hard to understand? You can't free children from being indoctinated by their parents and community without controling what the parents and community are teaching them. Fucking a I can't see how the guy could be more clear about it. What strawman are you talking about? The guy is an authoritarian fruitloop.

Lamar | October 9, 2007, 1:37pm | #

"Dawkins (as you characterize him) is inconsistent because the degree of firmness of his conclusions is highly disproportionate to the degree of firmness of his evidence."

Oh, I get it. He's inconsistent with your views. His evidence isn't up to your standards.

I'm surprised that you would base your argument on the conclusion (negated by your own post) that Dawkins is purely faith-based. You admit that he has evidence supporting his ideas (i.e., you don't believe that evidence is sufficient which means you admit he has some evidence). If you admit he has evidence, how is it purely faith-based?

I guess you could be referring to having faith in testable phenomenon as an indicator of "truth". I really don't understand how requiring evidence is purely faith-based, unless there is some sort of faith in evidence. Are you trying to pull some switcheroo of definitions here?

dhex | October 9, 2007, 1:40pm | #

jewish lobby wins the thread.




then again, they win *all* the threads, don't they...

Art-P.O.G. | October 9, 2007, 1:42pm | #

Maybe 'Pro-Israel lobby' is more appropriate a phrase?

Art-P.O.G. | October 9, 2007, 1:47pm | #

dhex said: jewish lobby wins the thread

hear, hear!

Dave Woycechowsky | October 9, 2007, 1:51pm | #

Oh, I get it. He's inconsistent with your views. His evidence isn't up to your standards.

No, he is being objectively inconsistent here. I was using a "reasonable person" standard for consistency in rendering my judgement here.

If I were to use my own personal subjective standards then inconsistency's net would be deemed to ensnare a lot more people than just Bailey and the Dawk.

thoreau | October 9, 2007, 1:53pm | #

Everybody knows that the Corn Syrup Lobby runs the world.

They even control science. Which means that Dawkins is under their thumb. Which means that they must have told him to act anti-Semitic.

Arbeit macht corn. I'm telling ya, the corn lobby is evil!

Rattlesnake Jake | October 9, 2007, 1:54pm | #

"My point is simply anybody who self-describes as an "atheist" is religious as he's adopted on faith a collection of subjective and unprovable beliefs."

The burden of proof is on the person who makes a claim. If you claim there are unicorns, it's not up to me to prove they don't exist. Until I see evidence of the existence of a god or gods, there's no need to believe in their existence.

ed | October 9, 2007, 1:57pm | #

Anybody that insinuates that hard scientific evidence can be found to prove or disprove a purely faith-based belief has their head in their ass. I used my brain to formulate that statement. Up yours.

Not what I said, knuckle-dragger. Rational atheists don't attempt to disprove a negative. That would be stupid. Like your statement.

John | October 9, 2007, 1:59pm | #

"I really don't understand how requiring evidence is purely faith-based, unless there is some sort of faith in evidence. Are you trying to pull some switcheroo of definitions here?"

You either get it or you don't Lamar. The older I get the more Calvinistic I become in that I more and more see things as pre-destined. Some people will never believe and others can't help but believe. I really don't think there is a way to bridge between the two. The idea that I can convince someone to believe in God is just laughable. He might change his mind, but it will be because of him and God not me. What is important, in this life at least, is making sure that no one tells anyone else what they can and cannot believe and what they can and cannot say. It is only when Dawkins starts talking about freeing people from religion that he loses me. Truthfully, what should an atheist care what people believe? Yeah, people do a lot of evil in the name of religion, but people do a lot of evil in the name of just about everything. Surely, Dawkins isn't as stupid as to believe that man would cease to be evil or that the world would be something than what it is if only man ceased to believe in religion? After a century in which 100s of millions died in the name of utopian atheistic pseudoscientific movements, communism and facism,