Interesting list of theists reactions, many of which I have experienced. The only thing I can say is that the various true believers really feel threatened. It is a cruel irony that theists enjoy a competitive advantage in our societies and we atheists pay an unfair price for reason.

I understand why folks want to engage others of differing opinions - it's broadening. It's pointless, however, to engage the ignorant, especially an aggressively ignorant individual as Dawkins did in a disturbing clip posted here not long ago. Engage the religious, but don't even try to sway them. Dawkins tried that in the clip posted yesterday. He wasted his breath.

I'm a Zen Buddhist, an atheist and anti-religion, but I do have faith in the teachings of Buddha and in the cosmos. Faith is easy. I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow, though it may not. Having faith and believing in a god or gods aren't the same. I think faith is important for everyone, especially those of us that feel the spiritual force. End of sermon.

i agree. one of their fallacies is "all people have faith in something" this seems to me to be equivalent to "all people have assumptions" which is true, you would go crazy if you didnt.

Online discussions seem to bring out the worst in people, in my experience. We need to be careful not to compare our best with our opponents' worst. That said, many christian forums are immature and unpleasant. For a sensible one, try http://forum.ship-of-fools.com.

Ok, I checked out Ship-of-Fools, and this is some of what I found.

I got a purple lacy "push-up" bra which is really cool (because it's purple, but also for the obvious reason) and a couple of plain black ones.

I made sure the cups were moulded to avoid, ahem, issues with 'headlights'. (I'm a bit obsessive about that.)

But my question is, what about all those women out there who are buying bras without moulded cups? Don't they have the same problem?

Cute things kids say Pages: 1 2

The recipe thread: Pages: 1 2 3 4 ... 28 29 30

Serious contenders for our soul can only be other actual religions, like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, ..., or indeed Agnosticism and Atheism, if the latter are actually thought through carefully rather than just being knee-jerk rhetorics. The argument for and against any of these can proceed for quite a bit, but at some point must stop. Here be faith...

*Are Mega Churches Spiritual WalMarts?

*Teapots, Spaghetti Monsters and God Pages:

*Church attendance question on UK Citizenship

*Will God allow anyone to go to hell?

*The Da Vinci Code - any one read it? What did you think?

*yawn *

Norm, thanks for letting through some non-QT 7 videos now and then. Being a linux user I really enjoy these snips from the Daily Show etc.

On the Dawkins show: has anyone posting here ever heard of the naturalistic fallacy? It's what Dawkins does. Anyone heard of the deist fallacy? It's what his opponents do. To me the greatest breakthroughs in ethical thought are (1) the biblical golden rule, and (2) the Kantian notion that morality is man made. (Which Kant tried to combine.)

Will that ensure that ethical thought but more important ehtical practice will move mankind forward? Hell no, soon after the formulation of the golden rule Europe descended into the Middle Ages and 200 hundred years after the enlightment Europe descended into the darkest periods mankind has known to date: The Holocaust and the Gulag Archipel.

However profound breakthroughs in science, philosophy or arts may seem, these are no insurance document that ensure progress in our practical affairs.

Greetings Mark

Was that "True Christian" a salute to Landover Baptist Church? Easily one of the best parody sites I know. www.landoverbaptist.org Try their www.whitehouse.org Great stuff.

That was "True Christian(tm)".

That was an interesting read, and provided a great link.

i dont like the golden rule. not everyone wants the same thing, so projecting your feelings on others can cause conflict. usually it works out though.

Hey-

I recently stumbled on to your site and adore it, mostly as a means of catching great Daily Show clips, and as a means of hearing about media that otherwise wouldn't be on my radar (Dawkins). But the questions on atheism vs. christianity have me befuddled. I'm a self-described dyed-in-the-wool Christian, but please don't stop reading at that point.

My confusion lies in the survey of Xtian (assuming christian) boards, and the tendency to assert what I would call a very modern view of empiricism and science as a basis of what we know. Can anyone explain this further?

Also, I wonder about what I always thought was the most prevalent reason for being an atheist- the fact that there is a delightful stereotype of christians as douchebag fundamentalists that is sooooo easy to throw punches at. I thought that most people were like well hell, if that's what a Christian is like, then I'm out. I recognize that my understanding is very limited- and I beg pardon from anyone who is offended by my word choice. I mean no offense to anyone, I'm just looking for clarification and some understanding of a worldview I know next to nothing about. I do ask though, if one holds that empirical evidence is the only source of knowledge, don't try and make me state my beliefs, because it would be oil on water- and I would feel like I had to choose my words carefully to avoid attack or seeming ignorance, and I would like to try and maintain a level of free discourse- and a lack of 'fuck off christian hillbilly'.

Thanks for reading, and please keep in mind I'm a poor overworked Pre-Med student with golden dreams, so I might not be able to read a million posts, or respond promptly. I beg for the benefit of the doubt, being 'out' and all. Sorry, I had to make the dig on the Xtian surveyor.

Peace

Jake

i have wondered about something related to the above post: it seems like from a scientific viewpoint for something to be true it has to be repeatable or verifiable in some way. if this is the view, then arent you inherently going to miss some things?

Atheist - atheism - non-believer in God, supernatural beings, a divine creator, a not-so-divine creator... (my own inner pseudo-definitions).

What I know to be true for me is that there is no valid proof that there is anything beyond what can be viewed, studied, validated, and reviewed by a disinterested third party that proves that there is a God, G_d, Alla, etc.

What I do know to be true is that there is a Jack In The Box. And they have great hamburgers. But IN and Out has the best double double.

Why the cheeseburger refrence? Because I can validate it, review it, research other opinions and based upon empirical evidence, I can KNOW that there are good burgers in town.

Not so with the whole theist thing. My frustration comes from in-duh-viduals not being willing to let me have my beliefs. Most especially since my family lineage and blood line is of the Kohn (Cohen) family. An athiest Jew is just to hard to handle.

I am of the simple opinion that I honour you (as a Christian or other practicing Theist) in your beliefs and support you in how ever you want to practice them - AS LONG AS - you do not infringe upon my NON-practice of your beliefs or non-acceptance of them. This includes public or private attempts to convert, inundate, inculcate, mentally masterbate, spiritually blackmail, fearmongger or intimidate me into believing your way of personal spiritual beliefs. It also includes that you do no have the right to legislate your particular spiritual mindset into my life by law of the land. Period.

You want to live in a land where God is the ruler - go buy an island and go for it, but not in the USA (or Australia, for that matter).

I have on my desktop (I have a 30" monitor) a photo from APOD (Astronomy Picture of the Day Archive) (http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/archivepix.html) of the most recent photo of the centre of our galaxy. There are thousands of stars - no, millions; possibly billions - in our galaxy alone. I look at this photo often when I want to just take a break and I contemplate all of the possible inhabitated planets. It is truly mindboggling. Amazing and humbling.

When I consider that there are people who firmly believe that this little planet that we live on is the only planet in the entire Universe that has people living on it and that God created all of this in 6 days... I shudder. "How can anyone who is clear thinking feel this way?", I ask. Because someone told them to believe that way.

Why am I am atheist - because I think for myself and do not accept anything because someone says so.

To be clear, I do not hate, despise, pity or feel superior to someone who has a theist based life. I understand where many come from. I just don't want to be there.

Holy crap-

Hoooray! For Lya!!!! I am also a writer for GiFS and seeing one of our own appear here is quite invigorating!

Hey-

I still don't really get it. Sorry YankInOz. I just walked out of my first Ethics class, where the age old distinction between fact and value came up. I'm completely reeling at the moment, but I think it relates. The distinction between fact and value is hard for me to apply here, but let me have a go. Err, maybe not, I only have a moment.

But is that it then, because there is no way to factually analyze any spiritual entity then we must conclude that there is no such entity? Now please don't take me the wrong way, no mental masturbation intended, but wouldn't it be more reasonable to say well, since this is beyond the quantitative analysis that we crave, then we should dismiss the thing as an anomaly?

Please help me understand the jump between lack of evidence and conclusion to the contrary.

Also, I'm not a personal fan of creationists, not because they won't listen to science, but because they have a terribly misguided view of the nature and purpose of scripture. I think that is for another thread, though.

Thanks for the help, I'm still a little in the dark, but hopefully I'll at least be able to understand the position.

And if anyone can give a good argument for why we can tell other people that their value system is incorrect, I would give an arm and a leg for the answer. (In reference to YankInOz's righteous fury at people trying to tell him that he or she has no right to make his or her own decision)

Peace

Jake

JAKE: "Please help me understand the jump between lack of evidence and conclusion to the contrary."

There is lack of evidence for the existance of unicorns. Is it therefore a jump to say that unicorns do not and never have existed? How about Zeus?

JAKE: "Also, I'm not a personal fan of creationists, not because they won't listen to science, but because they have a terribly misguided view of the nature and purpose of scripture."

Whose view of the scriptures is the correct one? Baptists? Catholics? Unitarians? Mormons? Are you saying that you have a view of the scriptures which is the right view? What view might that be?

Peace to you too.

Two things that make converstations between two sides of any issue tough - 1) mixing opinions of individuals on the other side into an incoherent synthesis and 2) adherence to over-simplified view of one's own position.

1 - I catch myself (and others) doing this all the time. It's kind of like a strawman falacy, but generally I think done by accident. An example might be how some folks on the political right might conflate left-winger A saying we should leave Iraq and left-winger B criticizing the conduct of the war on terror, and synthesizing a position that persons A & B both want to leave the war on terror. So you end up arguing against this artifical position that no (or few) individuals actually hold. It usually isn't malicious I think, more just a case of misunderstanding (or not trying hard enough). I'm struggling to come up with an example in the current context, but hopefully you get the idea.

2 - I see this in my own life quite a bit. I think that people who post in places like this generally "like ideas". And it's natural when trying to explain your ideas to try to present them clean of distractions, complications, etc. And the tendancy, if left unchecked is to end up defending (or attacking) a sort of sterile, phony version of your real beliefs.

As an example, I see some people talking about scientific process in over-universal terms, as though it can be applied to all aspects of life. In trying to point out the inherent flaws in faith, they come off as stating that the only valid way to acquire knowledge and beliefs is through logic. But obviously big questions like 'what career should i choose', 'should I marry X', 'should I move to city Y' aren't really accessible to straight-up hypothesis-verification/logic. Nor would these people (I assume) refuse to make decisions on these questions because they require a little bit of faith (faith with a little f).

Anyway, I hope that made sense. I've tried a few times to type this out and can't quite express this like I want to. Also, just in case it wasn't clear, I don't think these are problems specific to one camp or the other, just behaviours that people can fall into subconciously

Jake,

I think one thing you must comprehend is the old addage: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is not the whole picture though, because absence of evidence is certainly not evidence of presence. For example, there is no evidence that there is a teacup orbiting Jupiter. That does not necessarily mean there is not a teacup orbiting Jupiter. But just because we can not prove there is no teacup orbiting Jupiter does not mean there is a teacup there.

This is really basic induction (I hope I'm using the word correctly). This is part of how we pry knowledge from the unwilling hand of the universe. When someone posits a God for which there is an absence of evidence we can not necessarily conclude this God does not exist. But in this you have to consider the big picture. There is as much evidence for this God as there is evidence for a teacup orbiting Jupiter. Do we conclude there is a teacup orbiting Jupiter?

There are of course many more examples, such as the name of any other deity, invisible dragons, Santa-claus, an eternal immaterial soul, and demons. Does the lack of evidence, or the complete inability, as you say, to factually analyze any spiritual entity, necessarily mean such a thing exists?

The answer is of course no. The atheist, using such induction, can not necessarily conclude there is no God, but to believe in such a proposition would be as silly as believing there is a teacup orbiting Jupiter or an invisible and immaterial dragon living in your garage.

The atheist, at least in this way, and in my case, sees the God hypothesis as both untestable and downright silly.

I hope this has helped illuminate the subject for you in some way.

right, I get that argument here a few times a week :) But I don't think it's quite accurate. There is no evidence that there is a teapot in orbit around Jupiter. There are no photographs of such, no anecdotes of people who have claimed to see the teapot, or to have put the teapot there. In fact, given our knowledge about man's technological capabilities, the frequency of life in the solar system, etc, etc, etc, we have strong reason to expect there is not a teapot orbiting Jupiter.

When we come to talking about God however, the level of evidence is NOT equal to the level of evidence for the teapot. When I use the word evidence, I don't mean proof, and I don't mean facts. I mean evidence. There is lots of evidence to support the idea that Jesus lived and claimed to be the savior for example. The church itself, the new testament writings, traditions, moving on to personal experiences. Now you're totally free to discount these pieces of evidence as constituting proof of the existence or divinity of Jesus. But you can't deny that these threads do exist.

Of course, a given assertion needs a certain level of credibility to be accepted as evidence, but that's I think a subjective call. I think the level of credibility is much lower to accept something as evidence than it is to accept it as proof.

Again, I'm not trying to say that because there is some evidence, therefore God exists - just that the evidence to base a belief in God is NOT equivalent to the evidence of a teapot around jupiter. Does that make sense?

probably the biggest problem i have with religion is, assuming there is a god, how do you know you are worshipping the right one? all religions make the same argument: that theirs is the right one and all others are false. from an objective view, it seems entirely impossible to choose; and also no matter which one you choose, (assuming there is a true one at all) the odds are that you are choosing the wrong one and are going to be punished in some way when you die. the only conclusions i can come to is either 1) god exists, but religion doesnt matter at all, since there is no sensible way to choose which one to follow; or 2) there is no god.

if there is some objective way to choose your religion then i am wrong, so if anyone can think of any that would be interesting.

the claim to exclusivity isn't universal, I think it's mostly an aspect of the abrahamic religions. I know some hindus worship jesus there are probably others who revere muhammed. Same thing regarding the concept of a hell for non-adherents.

i think you can evaluate religions based on their teachings and their historical foundations. This is a subjective personal choice obviously (regarding belief but not truth), but there are concrete differences between religions to allow one to choose some that are probably not true and some that probably are true.

But yes, you can't -know- you are worshipping the right one

thats interesting. it seems counter-intuitive to me, because if you can succesfully believe more than one religion, then what do you do with all the things that are conflicting in the religions? also i agree there are objective ways to evaluate religions based on their dogma and which ones are, for example, more humane, but i meant an objective way to evalute their claims to truth

Well, I have been posting way too much today, but I can't resist asking this question.

Snak Attack said: "but there are concrete differences between religions to allow one to choose some that are probably not true and some that probably are true."

What are those concrete differences which prove that one religion is true and the other isn't?

Hey Again-

Jo Ann, sorry I think I wasn't clear when I said lack of evidence, I meant the type of thing being dealt with is the type of thing that the scientific method is not equipped to handle- things of the spiritual realm, or immaterial, or Forms, however we call things that aren't empirical. My apologies there. I think what I was getting at then is shouldn't we conclude that because there isn't evidence either way- of that sort, then we should say we can't know? I think this gets into agnosticisim, but then again, not my bag.

Here's something that I also have difficulty with- the idea that any person can be objective in their analysis. A few years back I was walking through an airport, and I realized that dear me, all my life I have believed that I saw things as they were, and that others were in fact incorrect. I had never thought that in fact my experiences- cultural, political, family life, geographic location, have all donated their piece into my value system, my method of judging good and bad, right and wrong. I'd say that was the day I shifted from modern to post-modern thinking, if we had to name names.

So that's what troubles me, how can we say that we are purely objective in our analysis? How can we say that, knowing that we are all coloured by our experiences and beliefs, past and present? This problem is, to me, confounded by the belief that many in my religion have that we are in the midst of a quote 'spiritual battle' and that there are differing forces affecting that which we can see or choose to see. I think this can best be understood as there may be something putting the blinders on, or focusing us more on certain things than others. The example coming to mind is the ability my eyes have to remain cemented while unabashedly staring at a woman deprived of her clothing- however my eyes got there is of no consequence. I think that many could relate to this, or other things, and while I am not one to say that there is a demon inside of use making us stare/do these things, I am interested in how blatantly unobjective I am when involved in such, and I understand why many conclude there is spiritual battle occuring when in similar situations. I'm not making a thesis for the spiritual realm here, I'm simply struggling with the idea that we can be objective observers, and the ideal of spiritual forces shaping the actions of physical beings has massive implications in this train of thought- but shouldn't be considered the main argument towards a lack of objectivity. That argument is the one of experience, at it's what rocked my boat. Any thoughts?

Also, Jo Ann, sorry about the creationist comment. That was rude of me, and I what I meant by it was that creationism- which to me means the literal translation of the first two chapters of Genesis, is a factual account of the Earth's first days. I don't think that any one denomination has it figured and the rest don't, but I would say that the more fundamentalist/charismatic a church may be, the more likely they are to believe this thing. In my VERY limited experience, I would say that the most fundamentalist groups are Southern Baptists and Assembly of God members. I love them dearly, mind you, but I disagree with them on theology in this aspect.

What I was trying to say is that my belief is that if a person has an understanding of how Genesis came to be, of how it was created over a period of time with several sources which drew upon myths and beliefs of their time- which were quite different than our present day worldview, a person would be able to say that no, Genesis was not intended to be factually accurate. This matter of intention is scholarly guesswork naturally, and the process is called exegesis. Not to be done lightly.

I think this post is long enough without delving into how we extract what I call the truth from a certain text- but I'll say that we ought to look at the author's intention to see stories demonstrating how God interacts with people- as they understood and recorded. We might not conclude from this that Genesis was written as a factual account, we might even not conclude that it was ever intended to be such, and that the authors would probably be confused about what the scientific method is exactly, and what we are trying to prove or disprove by it.

All of us would be benefited to remember that we are dealing with a religion that is founded on teaching that go back 2000 years, and that what we are doing when we are trying to understand them is extract the truth from these texts, in their context, and remembering that we invented scientific reasoning far after these teachings were recorded. I think it all boils down to remembering that when scripture is read it was first documented by most likely a scribe in an agrarian community that philosophically is in a Pre-Modern or Ancient mindset.

I beg pardon if that turned into a rant, part of it's purpose was to solidify my own opinion on the subject. I do hope though that it sparks discussion that we can all benefit from, and that I don't come across as if I am preaching, please remember that I'm no monolithic titan of ancient Hebrew knowledge, just an undergrad that knows enough to be a nuisance. Thanks.

Peace,

Jake

"thats interesting. it seems counter-intuitive to me, because if you can succesfully believe more than one religion, then what do you do with all the things that are conflicting in the religions?" - i dunno, ask a hindu

"What are those concrete differences which prove that one religion is true and the other isn't?" - I never said anything about proof, just elements to help one evaluate religions compared to each other

I'm not going to do you the service of reading the above comments.

I will, however, say that the headline, "Talking to Xtians" I find very offensive and I'm insulted that you would go so far as to blatantly and purposefully insult a group of your readers. Of course, I'm sure now you'll claim that you don't know what I'm talking about, while I'm certain you do.

CHRISTians, NOT Xtians. There's a reason CHRIST is in that word, normjenson@yahoo.com.

Consider yourself with one less reader, although I will still pray for you and your prejudice.

I think that one of our biggest problems in finding a reasonable response to the exasperating moves of the fundamentalists is our general lack of understanding of the root causes of the movement. We may, in our own way, be one of the main contributing factors! Karen Armstrong has written well about it in here book The Battle for God; A History of Fundamentalism (Ballantine Books, 2001) and argues that “It is essentially a revolt against modern secular society. Wherever a western polity has been established that separates religion and politics, fundamentalist movements have sprung up in protest.” The things that really fuel the fire of the movement are militant atheists who want to root out religion. Really, nothing could do more to spur on the movement than people like Dawkins getting a greater hearing. Also, a level of contempt shown by modern secularists towards believers makes the believers feel threatened and drives them further into the dark corner of fundamentalism. To that end, it would be just plain practical to practice a level of tolerance toward religion in general when it isn’t of the fundamentalist variety. Presently fundamentalism in American religion is small but likely to grow if we engage in a battle against all religion.

for an introduction to Armstrong’s arguments I suggest: http://www.globalagendamagazine.com/2005/karenarmstrong.asp

"you'll claim that you don't know what I'm talking about, while I'm certain you do."

Xtian

I was just thinking how nice it would be if I had one less reader and you'll certainly do nicely. There is nothing more annoying than those certain in their knowledge.

" will, however, say that the headline, "Talking to Xtians" I find very offensive and I'm insulted that you would go so far as to blatantly and purposefully insult a group of your readers. Of course, I'm sure now you'll claim that you don't know what I'm talking about, while I'm certain you do.

CHRISTians, NOT Xtians. There's a reason CHRIST is in that word, normjenson@yahoo.com.

Consider yourself with one less reader, although I will still pray for you and your prejudice."

sighs here we go again. Yet another person who can't be bothered to do a little research before they jump off the deep end with claims of victimhood.

"Xian" is not an insult. As Norm so nicely pointed out.

What really fuels the fire is not atheists militant or not, but the idea of a secular society. Atheists are not try to root out religion per se but rather non-critical thinking. What does it mean "to practice a level of tolerance toward religion in general when it isn't of the fundamentalist variety." The criticism of religion here and even in Dawkins program is primarily of fundamentalism. In Dawkins discussion with the Anglican Priest he acknowledges that the view is closer to his and is pleased that the priest values rational thought and facts and is simply bemused by his acceptance of some miracles and not others. In what ways do you think Dawkins is intolerant of religion?

Dear Norm,

I do want to say that I really appreciate your blog and have been following it for quite some time now and, for most of the time, have much sympathy for your point of view.

In my way of looking at it, I imagine that there may be a few believers out there who would find, for example, the title “Root of All Evil: the Virus of Faith?” a little bit much, and that is his underlying thesis throughout what I’ve heard, right? Also strongly worded is the phrase "religion is an insult to human dignity.”

Just invert it to “Root of All Evil: Evolution” and “atheism is an insult to human dignity” to get a sense of the tone.

I’m very curious to know how you, and other readers, perceive that.

Kevin, would root of much evil and insult to rational thought have made a difference to you? If someone produced a program "Root of All Evil: Evolution" I would be interested to see what evidence they provided. The evidence that religion is at the root of much evil seems undeniable. I think it is also important to note that Dawkin's title is followed by a question mark. What sort of criticism of religion do you believe is possible without being labeled intolerant? It has been my experience that most of those who call themselves religious are offended by any criticism. Take criticism of Pat Robertson for example, liberal christians will acknowledge that he's a nutcase, but if the criticism is extended beyond just the person Pat Robertson to religion itself they are offended. We then hear some variation of the "He's not a true Scotsman fallacy" I don't think religion itself should get a free pass and yet I think that is what is being asked for when there is a plea for tolerance.

i think a better candidate for "root of all evil" would be power. religion can involve power though.

Dear Norm,

I don’t believe that I am at all arguing for religion to have a free ride from criticism, a horrible thought indeed. If I’ve given that impression then I apologize for the lack of clarity in what I have written. I don’t think we disagree on that point. These little blog responses allow for so much room for misinterpretation that it is all too easy to have an unnecessary argument.

When you say that, “The evidence that religion is at the root of much evil seems undeniable.” That’s more careful wording than Dawkins’, isn’t it? If you change ‘much’ to ‘some,’ I can come with you and some theologians will too. Nothing is offensive. As to it being ‘an insult to human dignity?’ Well? That’s not part of any constructive dialogue. And then there’s the matter of Dawkins’ comparison of a minister to a Nazi. I could go on, but that makes the point that it isn’t an aboveboard conversation using only reasonable arguments.

I’ll give you an example of a really great argument that I bet we both can agree upon, Bertrand Russell’s “Why I am not a Christian.” He never slips away from the reasoned and reasonable and I go the distance with him. And, he makes real points about where religion does harm.

I believe that the poor Scotsman has been abused. *[see below] If there is a consensus that Fundamentalists in their practice and beliefs directly contradict the accepted tenants of the Christian faith, we can then say that those practices are unchristian in nature without it being a fallacy. We have license to go after Robertson without any need of impugning the entire religion. The fallacy is to say Robertson is a Christian, he says X, and therefore X represents the tenants of Christianity.

More importantly, let me try to clarify my main point. I believe that there is something about this strategy that will be tragic. Having one of the foremost evolutionists telling people that all religion is a ‘virus’ (even if properly defined) that is a root of evil (in a way that pulls some unfortunate punches) probably doesn’t have a good outcome. What Armstrong argues for, a healthier Christianity and Islam, is probably a more helpful approach. To that end, I think that Dawkins missed the opportunity to really find more commonalities and ally himself with liberal religionists. Maybe he could even state his disagreement, but still show allegiance toward a mutual goal. Instead he attributes them to being part of the problem when they may be the very ones who have to get us out of this mess. Unfortunate.

I’m enjoying the conversation. Thanks, Norm.

Best, Kevin

*Some elements or actions are exclusively contradictory to the subject, and therefore aren't fallacies. The statement "No true vegetarian would eat a beef steak" is not fallacious because it follows from the accepted definition of "vegetarian:" Eating meat, by definition, disqualifies a (present-tense) categorization among vegetarians, and the further value judgment between a "true vegetarian" and the implied "false vegetarian" cannot likewise be categorized as a fallacy, given the clear disjunction. In logic, the mutually exclusive contradiction is called a logical disjunction.

I think the problem is in what it means to be intolerant. Is Dawkins statement that religion is an insult to human dignity intolerant? Is it intolerant to pose the question, is religion the root of all evil. I don't think so. It is disrespectful for sure, but respect is far different question than tolerance. To be intolerant of religion would include denying or refusing others the right to differ or dissent. It would be a person who would be disposed to persecute those who differ. I think what you're asking for is not just tolerance of, but also respect for religion. Is that a fair statement? I'm disrespectful of religion, but certainly not intolerant of it and neither I would assert is Dawkins.

You say that Dawkins compared a minister with a Nazi. I don't think that is accurate. I haven't gone back and watched the segment, but I recall him saying that the service reminded him of the Nuremberg rallies. Analogies are never perfect, but I actually thought that one was apt. Both Pat Haggard and Hitler share many of the same attributes, They are both charismatic, they both appeal to emotion, and both are able to rouse a crowd to action. The parallels are striking. I wouldn't have used the analogy because it is reasonably certain that someone would mischaracterize it, as I believe you have done. Certainly you don't believe that by using that analogy Dawkins was saying that Pat Haggard would kill six million non-believers or would adopt Hitlers method of achieving his goals.

You write about Dawkins, "maybe he could even state his disagreement, but still show allegiance toward a mutual goal. What is the mutual goal you're referring too? Is it solving societies problems through rational thought if so then the allegiance already exists. It is not fair to demand that one show respect for all of anothers beliefs to share common goals. Is that not what you're asking?