Sam Harris I think comes off that way because of his personal demeanor is very friendly and inviting where as Hitchens I find to be relentless in his ability to treat his opponents as flies on the wall repeating the same boring thing over and over (which for hte most part they are) but he just gies off that air of "blah blah blah".

Harris even got dealt with politely when he was in the spin zone which shocked me.  He tends to hit a bit harder against Islam which is why I think he gets a bit of a free ride in comparison with Dawkins and Hitchens.

Either way...always fun to have people attack these guys.  Nothing new.

Good to know that they don't let lies get in the way of their holy work.

Oh, wait... Paul let them off the hook in 1 Corinthians 9:21-23.

Looking forward to part 2 

There is absolutely no substance to Field's article. It was simply whining about mean atheists. And he has the gall to call Hitchens, Harris, Dawkins and Dennet intellectual inept? It would be funny if it wasn't so sadly ironic.

I am whatever you say I am.

But angry is a good start. I'm also rude. These guys aren't our buddies. Of course we come of angry, we want to destory them.

duh!

Is it any mystery that in my mind, the above arose memories of "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"? Perish the thought!

Anger? Desperation? Dwindling numbers?

More like projection, once again... 

That's Mississippi for you.

I lived just a little north of Laurel for two years in the late nineties. In order for Mr. Fields to get any of those books, he'd have to order  them online or drive into Hattiesburg and ask the bookstore clerk to special order them. He'd have to tell them it was for research otherwise they'd tell him the books were out of print.

At no point in this 'ministers' diatribe has he asked "Why are atheists more vocal nowadays?" The thought has probably never occurred to him. 

Those are just death throws your hearing Kelly.

Just death throws.

Do you know what pisses me off the most about his article? That he states that atheists, due to our 'decline in influence' are making a desperate last stand. Seems to me that many of these religious folk are the ones who are desperate. "oh noes, my flock may SEE the truth!"

Great job Kelly!

-Renee 

Sheesh.  Pot, meet kettle. 

The Saint 

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man&quot consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

The Sapient (and wikipedia)

P.S.  Care to actually prove anything now? 

To you? Nah. What would be the point trying? Besides, if you can't recognize your own hypocrisy, it wouldn't do much good for me to point it out, would it?  I don't care enough about you or your silly crusade to "end religion" to waste more time than it takes to occasionally read your posts, get a good laugh, and make the odd comment or two.

  When I think of the RRS, all I can think about is the Monty Python movie "Life of Brian", and how much your little band reminds me of the 'PFJ'; sitting around in dark corners, plotting the overthrow of some insideous empire, but completely incompetent at carrying out any of your half-witted plans.

The Saint

Now that you're through projecting, what else you got?

If you had evidence, surely you'd have brought it by now. 

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man" consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

The Sapient (and wikipedia)

Anyone who visits this site who is possessed with a modicum of intelligence can see that the evidence of the RRS's hypocrisy contaminates this site like a virus. I don't provide you with "evidence", for good reason: It's a complete waste of my time. Or, am I to believe that you're different from all the other sycophants, and have the integrity to look at the evidence and say, "Gee, you're right--Kelly really is being hypocritical"?

Doubtful. Were that the case, you'd simply have agreed with my initial post.

The Saint

You're a funny guy.

I'm a sycophant because I share Kelly's view and not yours? Are you saying that I'd be a right thinking person if I kissed your ass instead without you providing evidence?

See, I did something that you might find foreign - I read the original articles that provoked Kelly's blog entry. Fields' article is an absolute pile of steaming dung based on a poor generalization of atheism (We're all angry, we're all desparate, we can't answer the questions on the meaning of life).

Stein's article is pure projection. He accuses atheists of doing something that they aren't supposed to do - provide a definition of "gods", Theists are the ones who need to give that definition, aren't they? They're the worshipers. Defining something I don't believe in is roughly akin to using something I don't have.

He also falls into the gerneralization trap (Atheists are hedonists, We're all afraid of a higher power that can judge us, we're all liars, unkind and uncontrolled sexual deviants, we're all narcissists and hedonists, we all deny reality)

Can you see why Kelly was offended? 

• Why Are Atheists So Angry?

WOW, YOU'RE BATTING 1000! 

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man" consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.

The Sapient (and wikipedia)

Ah, the time-honored theist tactic of compartmentalization. Don't try to attack the substance of the argument (as you know you'll fail) but instead label the whole thing "hypocrisy" and invite everyone who doesn't want to be hypocrits to throw it out unexamined.

Do you have any actual argument against anything that Kelly wrote? 'Cause so far we aren't seeing one. 

Would you passively take label and slander? No, you'd defend yourself against it in the court of law and/or the court of public opinion.

Would you stand there while someone threw vitriol in your face? I'd hope you'd do what was necessary to keep that from happening.

The writers came off as Arrogant. Their concept of atheism is Delusional and Fatuous. They have an obnoxious, contemptible attitude that was reflected in their writing so while calling them Pricks is crude, the appellation is appropriate.

Where was Kelly hypocritical, again? Not in her description of the article writers.

Oh, yeah. she didn't agree with you. I guess she should've kept silent as your Bible demands.

There's a big difference between the shit we talk on theism and the shit the afforementioned theists talk about atheists and atheism. Our shit don't stink.

I'll take a special pleading and compare it to your 20+ ad homs in this thread, and deem you the winner. Good job. <taps on head>

P.S. That wasn't special pleading.

The person committing Special Pleading is claiming that he is exempt from certain principles or standards yet he provides no good reason for his exemption. That this sort of reasoning is fallacious is shown by the following extreme example:

1. Barbara accepts that all murderers should be punished for their crimes.
2. Although she murdered Bill, Barbara claims she is an exception because she really would not like going to prison.
3. Therefore, the standard of punishing murderers should not be applied to her.

I didn't say they mentioned the RRS. I asked you if you would stand by and allow yourself or those you cared about to be libeled or slandered or simply lied about. the RRS has taken the job of speaking for some atheists. Those articles maligned and lied about all atheists. Kelly defended against those attacks to the group of atheists she reaches here. If someone told lies about Christians would you stand idly by or reach your community? Maybe you would keep quiet - I don't see you putting your faith in action when the heat's on (I could be and hope I am wrong here)

As far as your substitution - two points.

1. Atheists (at least those I've seen here) bring backing for the points they claim as fact. Damn shame you think backing up what you claim as fact is a wasted exercise.

2. We're still back to the main reason behind your complaint - the RRS and atheists in general don't agree with your view concerning your supreme being. Since you don't want to bring up evidence for scrutiny, you're left with using ad homs and lies

Keep defending Christianity just the way you are - you guarantee people will see it the arrogant foolishness it is.

Just to follow up on that in the same vein.  The small print in her first post gives some information about this point....

This piece is part of a year long series (ends Oct 31, 2008) that Kelly of the Rational Response Squad will be writing to address theist talking heads in the media.

If you would like Kelly to address any major media story from a theist talking head, please post a link to the article in her blog. We welcome messages from leading atheists asking us to refute stories attacking them and their views.

Which is the main factor for the rightful anger Kelly and many other atheists feel: these posts unfoundedly suggest that atheists are perverted, sexually irresponsible (in which of all possible meanings of that phrase?), selfish, and ignore science. If that is not slander (against all atheists, by the way), then you have to wonder what is.

And if you, The_Sain, want to quote law, evidence means something tangible, not just any possible account given - there is good reason to include a punishment for those who falsely testify in a court of law.

Kelly,

Fields and Stein, like all vitriolic purveyors of fantasy over facts, are emblematic of the most virulent of this morass of pious imposters that uses the art of “projecting” to abstain from a personal reality check.

As long as a substantial segment of our credulous society accepts mythology as indisputable fact beyond reproach, by virtue of ancient, apocryphal manuscripts, contemporary civilization will never be free of these unreasoned and unwarranted deliberations.

More people have been executed, persecuted, tortured, oppressed, and  needlessly divided, over this fruitless bearing ideology and circular debate of whether a mythical, supernatural being exists and who, as a people, this esoteric deity curries favor.

God and divinity are fabled fantasies born out of a frantic need for ancient man to rally round to explain things he did not understand. God’s continual subsistence in our limited minds today is out of an innate yearning to pacify the fear of our own mortality and errantly justice the purpose of life.

Therefore, only the light of reason – that man made god out of ignorance, fear, and wholly unscientific observations – will mankind be free from the oppressive heat of deliberation about imaginary deities.

-Frank J. Ranelli, Senior Editor – Op Ed News

Since my editorial I have received a good bit of name-calling rhetoric form sites such as this, so I thought I would take a look. I appreciate the design, but reason seems to be absent Kelly's response to me. And in fairness my editorial was just that - an editorial, a brief analysis of this onslaught of atheist books that - for the most part - are really not very good. But I made no attempt to argue specifics. That's hard to do when you are limited to 700 words.

Having read Michael Martin and George Smith sites such as this should be embarrassed by people like Dawkins and Hitchens. The latter are nowhere near the caliber of the former. But apparently they are the patron saints which says much as to how "rational" this website really is.

BTW- I did not say all atheists are angry. I was referring to the recent diatribes posing as works of scholarship. But Kelly apparently wants to be angry. That's her prerogative. - Marty

Kelly was angered by the theist talking heads ability to lie to the masses and live in a world where people fall for it. It wasn't a matter of how harsh he was saying it, and not being able to dish it out. You are trying to change the issue so you can avoid it. You should provide proof for the claims you've been making, this is semantical masturbation. Our skin is as thick as they come around here. Tone doesn't frustrate us nearly as much as lying to the masses with arrogant certitude.

In order to show we're unable to take what we dish out, you're gonna need to convince us that the actual content of what we dish out is false.  We make no claim that being condescending is universally bad, our argument would be (if you bothered to ask) that one shouldn't be condesceding when they hold the intellectual low ground. 

As I sit next to Kelly, I can assure you we're more concerned with the content than his tone. Your claim is that we can't take the tone, which we dish out. We'll be the first to admit we dish out harsh words, however when the arguments get held up to a window, a reasonable person can see, our words are backed up by facts, and the words of Stein and Fields are dishonest/ignorant.

Kelly showed the problems in their arguments through studies and statistics, now it's time for your retort. The tact you've chosen to tact shows much of us that you don't really have an argument, other than this one you're playing with now.

Were you to know us well, you'd know that we tend to give what we get from our "opposition." If someone writes an article in an intelligent manner, they're likely to get an intelligent response. If someone writes a condescending attack, they're likely to get a condescending attack in return. (Kelly and I are conversing about this as I write, and in agreement)

Agreed, the way to do it is to trash their arguments with logic, facts, and counter evidence. Which is exactly what was done here.

If the goal is to prove that the theist ideology is the intellectually superior one, then I suggest you look for different spokespersons than Stein and Fields.

For us to be hypocrites on this issue you would have to show us that we don't think it's ok to be condescending when you're right, or that we do think it's o.k. to be condescending when you're wrong.

In order to do so you'll have to argue the actual points, and not simply exclaim hypocrisy!

You don't need to mention God, we get it.  Are you really capable of escaping the bias that your whole life revolves around?

Then you probably should stop attempting to defend a few of it's biggest windbags by launching an ad hom campaign against the opposing side.  From here it looks to us like you're attempting to defend Christianity, you can claim the opposite all you want.   It becomes hard to trust people who are lying to themselves to get through life, nevermind lying to others.

Religion is a rhetoric answer to a rhetoric question. The device infects people when their brain is malfunctioning - in time of personal crisis, desperation and poverty. This is precisely when people are indeed terrified witless, looking for an answer to an acute mental paroxysm - unfortunately the brain has evolved with massive bugs and errors and malfunctions under those conditions, coming up with a wide range of error states.

Religion can effectively be regarded as avery inadequate patch to systemic brain defects.

Imagine one day neuroscience coming up with a medication that obliviates this disorder. Goddists would refuse taking it, and would probably push for a type of medication that replicates or enhances the severe error mode of the brain leading to religious experiences. This battle is set to become nasty in the next century.

Also consider this - we are seeing a world where increasingly very fundamental questions, and their answers can cause unspeakable misery. As an example - some goddists claim they can plunder and loot the earth, this being part of a "manifest desitiny". They can persevere in this disastrous belief system claiming authority provided by some unprovable SkyDaddy (tm), leaving the rest of humanity in deep deep shit.

What will be next? What arbitrary laws will these goddists enforce on secularists because they deem it necessary?There may be a LOT at stake.

Hey Kelly,
what i think they seem to miss is not that we are desperate and that is why we are more vocal but that we are more. People are becoming more self aware and without a doubt aware of the lack of a god/gods of our world. Fear struck in the hearts of humans and they dreamed fanciful gods up for protection and a mental retreat from the end of their days. It is those weak of mind and self that need to go on forever in some godly way, those that cannot see the chance they have to truly celebrate their own life and the miracle of any and all lives of creation, and those that are the same ones that devestate humanity with the neverending dark age oppression of science.
Imagine life without human oppression and the garden we could cook up from there.

So you're just bitching for bitching's sake?

You just came on to say "Well, you guys do it too?" 

Again, how would you defend yourself against someone deliberately misrepresenting a position you hold? Oh yeah - you'd grow a thicker skin and not vent or provide evidence in support of your side.

I'm not sure whether you're trying to project a false air of superiority or you're just a coward. For all I know you're both. 

*sigh* Your weak attempt to characterize my post as "psychoanalysis" (which it was not even close to being) aside, I'd like to point out that someone can't be a hypocrit when they are making true statements. Example:

1. Bill has a dog.

2. John does not have a dog.

If Bill says that John has a dog, he is obviously lying. If John says that Bill has a dog, he is stating an accurate fact. But Bill can attempt to confuse the issue by calling John a hypocrit for making dog-owning accusations just like he does. How can John get up on his high-horse about me saying that he has a dog when he has said the exact same thing about me?

Of course, the real issue is who has a dog and who is telling the truth. You haven't even attempted to determine whether the writers Kelly is talking about are actually arrogant, deluded or any of the other things she has said about them. As you say, you aren't really interested. Instead, you want to sling mud about our supposed hypocrisy. Well before you can do that, you have to show that Kelly isn't simply being factual. And you can't do that, because she is.

Enter Scumbag/Brainwashing expert #1

Can you bring Ben Stein over as well? 

Maybe an appearance on our radio show is in order? 

How exactly is that? I feel that any significant point you made was countered. You used an example of a radio debate claiming that they were more respectful towards eachother--I showed you Hitchens, whose work you labeled visceral and angry, being perfectly polite under similar circumstances. 

You claimed that we are experiencing a decline in influence which is the farthest thing from the truth considering our numbers and power are growing as more people realize that we aren't all as people like you would have us portrayed. Do you need more examples?

True, but what you did write was quite enough. I can't imagine it would have improved by the addition of more insults. 

Just to show how wrong you are again, I love Martin and Smith. Smith's The Case Against God is slightly dated, but I consider Martin's Atheism: A Philosophical Justification to be the best defense of atheism I've ever read, and I've read more than a few. Unfortunately, Martin's work isn't going to be accessible to the average reader. Even Dennett can get a little complex for somebody with no background in the field. That's why Dawkins, Harris, and Hitchens are more popular, and Martin's never been near the NY Times bestseller list.

At any rate, none of those men are anything even close to a patron saint to me or anybody in this organization. Have I met atheists like that--sure. And I like all of these men; I've met them all and interviewed them and even had dinner with some. I am more than willing to criticize if it is deserved, and I have done so--even publicly. 

Ok - how then should I have taken these quotes:

" What is it with atheists these days? It seems like over the last few years something has really gotten into their godless craw."

 "Atheism as a worldview has fallen on hard times and is losing adherents."

 “The hard-core atheist, once a stock figure in American life, has gone the way of the freak show.” Why? Because atheism is arrogant in its stance and simplistically dismisses life’s ultimate questions..."

"  Christians — in particular — can expect more name-calling from these intellectually inept neo-atheists because Christians won’t call for jihad against those who ridicule them. But rest assured that belief in God is not in any danger from the attacks of atheists. They are gasping for air, desperate to be taken seriously, and are doing whatever they can to try to sway people away from faith. Given their pathetic track record what’s next: saying something bad about my mother?"

You mentioned those particular authors, but you did not make it appear that you were speaking specifically about them and not atheism in general. I don't make it a point to protect specific atheists--they can do that themselves. I want to defend the idealogy, not Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, or Hitchens. 

Honestly I think every group whether Muslim, Christian, Hindus, and the like will have their angry zealots.

I know as many "death and disease on society" atheists as a I know "fire and brimstone" Christians.

I think each group has it's angry holier than thou set of people.

And then each group has their live and let live and respect each other.

I do think those in any group should be careful in codemning the other group of something they themselves are doing.

Such as intolerance.

You have Atheists on one side saying "you Christian are going to rot in the ground and die in ignorance" and then Christians saying "you'll burn in hell"

You have some Atheists who would assume take the rights of religous beliefs and force everyone not to believe just as you have Muslims and Christians through out history forcing people to believe or die.

I think all Atheists should stop and think before assuming the opposite side of the same coin.

Cause honestly I think Atheists are a growing force. So will they asssume the stance of their predecessors in charge?

Will they hunt down believers, force them to renounce their beliefs or kill them if they don't refrom? Seeing some of the utter contempt that mimics Muslims and Christians, I think if Atheists were in control they would fair no better than a Christian or Muslim run society. Judging by the intolerance of SOME Atheists I don't see them doing any better. Definately not taking us into some form or Nirvan or peace on Earth and advancement.

Pagans hunted christians, Christians later hunted pagans, Muslims hunted Christians and Jews, and vice versa. Atheists are bound to get in the fray when they gain power, which they will eventually as it is a growing force.

I think the problem lies in peoples' small minds. A person is smart but people in general are stupid no matter what group they belong too.

Just be careful not to be the opposite side of the same coin. You are no better than any other group.

Evolution and Big Bang have as many holes and canyons as you say the Creation accounts have. We just discovered a galaxy 15 billion light years away. Between here and there, there are trillions of secrets we have yet to discover and to rule out any possibility is arrogance.

Just a side point there has been a few Atheist countries that were no better than a Christian base country. Religion is a cause for much contempt including many Atheists contempt. It really boils down to differance of opinions.

Oh and be careful cause one of these days after we blow ourselves up and live in a post apocalyptic world our great great great great grandchildern are literally going to be worshipping the Giant Spaghetti Monster. That would be a hoot, 2020 Nuclear war 2200 followers of the Spaghetti monster persecute the non believers and force them to partake of the magic spaghetti ball. Be careful that doesn't backfire.

As atheists, we are still in the minority. This is the reason we are making so much noise. In order to be heard above the theists. Interstingly, he never made any attempts to actually justify his comments about the books by Dawkins, Hitchens, etc. He never even attempted to make a case for theism in his article. I am still new to atheism and stopped in at Godtube this week. Theists do not even recognize when atheists are trouncing their faith. Many simply quote scriptures or repudiate what is said. The videos theists put up have no kind of logical argument within them.

What theists fail to recognise is that atheism and atheists do not pretend to know the answers to life, the universe and everything. We are not here to discover the answers to those questions. We simply do not believe in deities or Gods. We do however know that Science, which has developed all of the technologies and medical advancements that theists enjoy along with us, is the one way for us to attempt to answer any of the questions that we are all asking about the origins of the Universe. Expecting anyone to have answers to those questions at this stage of our evolution is not only ridiculous, but in the case of theists, pious.

Thank you, The Saint, for admitting that religious institutions are insidious empires.

And you spelled insidious wrong.

But the next logical question is, who do you think is morally right in your analogy? The insidious empire, or the People's Front of Judea?

can either side present anything substancial as evidence? i read time and time again "atheism says this....", "christianity says this....", but never once have i been swayed by a single argument to beleive/disbelieve one way or the other... (although i do have a side)

makes me believe... (for lack of better word =P)
that all this is a waste of time.... arguments wont win anyone to either cause, because neither has enough "100% correct" evidence to prove the oponents faults without opening themselves up for their faults to point out....

once someone begins to follow one way of thinking they are straight off the block biased to that way of thinking... arguments against them is just gonna turn them more against the other....

what is the point... to both sides... maybe you should prove your point of view by what you do... if your hostile to the opposite of course they wont join you... fear drives people away from changing their lives, and argument creates fear.

Personally im disapointed in the "religious" people who post on this sight... if they truely wanted to be "unlike the world" (as they often quote) then they should prove it by not becoming messed up in quarralsome arguments that tend to outway their initial purpose to argue in the first place!

And for the athiest community... is this the only way that we can get our point across? I know many people who claim to be athiest but everyone has a different persepctive of what one is... they dont back up their "belief" in no God (again for lack of better word) with what they say and do... and its the same for the supposedly "christian" people.

neither side brings forth a united front... therefore no side will ultimately win... rather people will stick to what they are already in... and on the odd ocasion players may switch sides... almost one for one... one gets converted, one looses faith.... it wont end.

my opinion: stop wasting your time on a website that creates anger between people when the world itself crys out for peace in this very age.

the winning side will be determined by who can bring the most peace and aid to the world (what the media actually looks for), not who appears to be most "interlectually smart" in their arguments.

A common saying among both sides and infact among everyone:

PRACTISE WHAT YOU PREACH! (i think the wording fits in well =P)

Thats my say.

The fact that almost all of the Christians are wrong about their God does not mean that the atheists are therefore right about the God of the Christians. To quote the character of the Warden in the movie, "Cool Hand Luke", "What we have here is a failure to communicate." Having said that, the character of the Warden proceeded to correctly communicate the situation to the prisoners. Of course in the movie, none of them believed the Warden, because hope springs eternal from within the human breast. And it will be that way in this case too, almost without exception. It is therefore for the sake of the possible exceptions that I make this post, not for the vast majority of the Christians and the atheists who will read this post. They will both be burnt toast, so to speak. But for the record and for the few exceptional people, there is a God. In fact, there are a lot of them; but one of them is labeled "the most high God". The reason for that label is that that particular god made all of the so-called realities that there are, including this one, which is not real, merely a simulation, as are all of the other so-called realities. For an over-view of the topic of simulations, please see the Wikipedia article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulism/ For additional aspects of simulations in general, please see http://www.simulation-argument.com/  For details about this simulation in particular, please see http://greatriddle.flifree.com/

Kelly,

Let me be clear about a couple of things:

I used the term "neo-atheists" to describe this new batch of offerings, and again- of the same tired old arguments (a stretch to call them "arguments"). I am currently reading Shermer's "The Science of Good and Evil" and see in there a different approach then say - Dawkins or Hitchens.

Secondly, the editorial quoted from other sources (of whom I do agree) to describe the oft-predicted demise of outright atheism, and they too were very critical of the same books I mentioned. But since you are a self-admitted "Angry" atheist... And the guy who replied above you... he would insult my mother I believe

But I will lay me essential philosophical thesis regarding atheism as a worldview out there:

1) Atheism is irrational from the outset. It cannot be defended in any way that is not inconsistent or arbitrary.

2) Many atheists employ a "cop-out" by invoking a negative - rather than a positive - definition of atheism. The so-called "presumption of atheism" is an ad hoc, arbitrary rescuing device to place the burden of proof solely on the theist. A justification for that can't be found. We all bear the burden to justify our beliefs - atheists included.

3) I appreciate Martin's work very much. I agree that it is the best (arguably one of a few) work out there. But Martin's commitment to logical positivism is ultimately found wanting in making his case. Other nontheist writers have shown the futility of that approach - Bertrand Russell no less (who is one of my heros btw.) - M

I already wake up on Saturday mornings in a good mood because - well it is Saturday.  My kids watch cartoons because they think it is funny - but there is no way that what they were watching was funnier than this:

What can be said for those who follow an acient belief system founded on magic spells and cannabilism.

That millions in China are converting to Christianity is terribly sad news. On the one hand, I am truly grieved to hear that news. On the other, I nevertheless realize that most, if not all, would have gone to Hell anyway, albeit by a different route. For instance, by Judaism, Mohammedanism, Mormonism, Hinduism, Shintoism, atheisim, agnosticism, etc, ad nauseum. So I stand well to one side, and merely hold up a sign which reads, "Bon Voyage!"