From: The Ages, Australia
Apr. 15, 2007
Thornton McCamish
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/17975/against-god

In this article, apparently a few months old, the author reviews some of the current books and trends in this "New Atheism" thing we keep hearing about. He seems to maintain journalistic integrity and doesn't appear particularly biased--until you get to the last sentence:

Huh? Could you repeat that? O_O

So this is the first time i've blogged on here. First of all, I'd like to introduce myself. My name's Sam and I live in north Mississippi. I first came out as an athiest in the seventh grade as a result of influence from my family and the contradictory behavior I observed from my Christian classmates. I have never recieved more ridicule in my childhood than I did in the proceeding weeks after I first shared my non-belief with some teammates after football practice. It is noteworthy to establish that I didn't grow up in MS, but central Oklahoma, an area that seems like the secular center of the world in contrast with where I currently live.

[Edit: Title changed -- Thanks Brian ]

Just curious... is there a reason why the RRS seems to avoid going after AiG? Going after Kent Hovind is like a high-schooler beating up a middle-schooler. I agree that the whole Youtube thing was a wash, and I've been rooting the RRS on throughout this whole fiasco -- But AiG is, from what I've seen, a much more potent threat. If you don't know what I mean, or don't believe me, go read some of their content on answersingenesis.org -- it's maddening!

Anyways -- any RRS [O]fficial stance on this issue? When Mike Riddle (an AiG spokesperson) came to town a few weeks ago, he actually specifically mentioned the RRS (by name, I think..although he may have said "Those Rational Response fellows from the Internet" or something) and said that he more or less verbally pwned you all.

If a proposition is undemonstrated, as things requiring faith are by definition, then the position requiring fewest assumptions is rejection of it.

"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." -- Christopher Hitchens, God is not Great

There is an infinite number of undemonstrable propositions, each of which would be untenable from a view based on evidence, but most are never articulated. Most that are described, are rejected without fanfare even by those that believe other undemonstrated things. Faith is not applied uniformly, generally favoring the assumptions of one's native culture.

It's been a hectic morning, as usual. Jake is in town and we've spent several hours brainstorming and picking ourselves apart to become better at what we do. Our conversation has been stopped a few times to help handle a "situation" with videos that were posted on our RationalResponse Youtube Channel. The videos were removed at first due to the AAI videos that will be coming out for sale next month. I believe RDF was also licensed to make a dvd, and AAI didn't expect so much material to get onto youtube. So AAI asked for RDF who uses our youtube account to upload videos to pull the videos. They complied swiftly.

Bruce Bain is going to respond to every review of The End of Faith at Amazon, with his bizarre straw-man arguments, until he up and dies of acute tedium. Todd Friel isn't as old or as fat as he sounds. We all know a historical Jesus wouldn't look like a white dude from the Southern United States, and yet... Alister McGrath and Lee Strobel both have doll eyes. Christopher Hitchens needs an intervention.

I consider myself a person with a reasonably standard range of emotions. One my society deems good, like empathy, love, and occasional courage; and ones considered harmful and selfish, like anger, spite and cowardice. I don't rule out the possibility of dualism, though I don't think it adds anything to the natural explanation of emotions: their reasons, their sources, their development, their physiology. Many Christians take it for granted that certain emotions, if powerful enough, must certainly transcend the corporeal human experience. I recall reading once that the sensation of "itching" is actually two kinds of pain sensation to encourage scratching to stimulate circulation in the affected area; but in a dualistic view, there must be an ultimate source of itchiness. It seems as fair as saying there's an ultimate source of love. Hopefully, they're not one in the same.

So I was alittle pissed today with the way my freelancing meeting went, but that's another story...After the meeting, I had a talk with one of the people about none other than Jesus. I think anyone should have the freedom to believe what they want.....in reason of course...no killing at thevery leasing involved...hopefully....anyways...
They said that they were a christian...and in that slipt second...I said "me too"...Why should I have to even lie about my belief or lack there of to anybody? I wonder when would the First Amendment become a first offence? I dunno.... I realize that picking and choosing your fights are a skill in itself.

Wrote this about 5 years or so ago. Let me know what you think.

Were Moving on

For god so loved the world that he fucked over his only son.
Now were all going blind, listen to the song and start moving on.....

Religion is a lie to cover the pain
Just like Able was struck down by his brother Cain
just like the millions, killed by Religions
Yes look at us now, we are the fucking stool pigeons,
that run with a book and kill for a belief
Rational thinking can only bring relief

but we are…

Killing our fellow man, and putting entire generations to sleep