Jeeeeeeeeeebus! That Al Sharpton vs. Hitchens thing almost melted my brain.

Hitchens drew me in; his arguments were intriguing, eloquent and sensible. Then, when Sharpton started his rebuttal -- which I can only describe as dumbfounding, banally formed, and utterly fucking irrational -- I started feeling like HAL...

Thanks very much for the mention, Norm!

You don't fix faith, River...

Yeah... unless the "faith" is different from yours.

Firefly was a fucking awesome show. Words cannot describe the injustice of its untimely death at the hands of Fox.

On the Kirk Cameron article:

Here was an intimate, makeup-chair moment with Comfort, who applauded his partner's bravery in continuing to risk his Hollywood career for the sake of his beliefs, which suggested that Comfort had let his Variety subscription lapse 15 years ago.

ZING!

Tom Cruise is the real Hollywood hero of irrationality. No matter how batshit crazy he is, he is willing to really risk his Hollywood career (his respect is already past risked, it's lost).

Kirk Cameron? I didn't know he was a "Hollywood celebrity" until people started making fun of his banana (read it as you wish).

That Al Sharpton vs. Hitchens thing almost melted my brain.

Ugh. I should have heeded your warning. Sharpton started out sounding friendly and charismatic enough, but he immediately lost me when he started talking about electricity.

Not only was I turned off by this silly analogy from very the start, but according to his line of thinking, attributing electrical effects like lightning to divine wrath would have been enough; further inquiry into "electricity" would be pointless and any scientific insight resulting would be blasphemy against established dogma.

So if we all led "faith-based" lives, we wouldn't even know about electricity, never mind use it to improve our lives and culture. Every natural system not immediately obvious, from disease to electricity to cosmic evolution, would be most easily explained by belief in superstitions, leaving humanity in the dark ages.

And Hitchens covered this point at the very start! And as far as I watched this brain-melting escapade, Sharpton completely failed to address it.

Heh.

This debate on God's existence or non-existence is without interest and takes a lot of energy. Nobody ever asks about what is God, how one defines it, this seems to be a solved question. If you want to discuss the existence, you first need to know what you're talking about. After all "God" is only a word.

Nobody ever asks about what is God, how one defines it, this seems to be a solved question.

Like hell it is. That's really part of the problem; since the concept of God resides soley in the imagination, it is a moving target. One minute someone is simply and literally interpreting the Bible's white-bearded-man-in-the-sky, the next you're chasing them down obscure philosophical corridors.

If you want to discuss the existence, you first need to know what you're talking about.

Dawkins et al. generally assume the definitions used in mainstream Abrahamic and Judeo-Christian scriptural interpretations and dogma.

After all "God" is only a word.

One that a rational person might define as virtually meaningless, especially considering its mainstream religious (as opposed to philosophical and metaphorical) usage.

This debate on God's existence or non-existence is without interest and takes a lot of energy.

It would be pointless to pursue if the mindless faithful weren't killing people, or tearing down separation of church and state, or establishing brutal theocracies, or spreading hate and intolerance, or subjugating women. But they are, so it more than worth it to debate the core of these violent and destructive memes.

Hi Frenetic.

I almost agree completely with you. Right if Dawkins and others consider the monotheistic bearded guy as God. Of course we know that's pure imagination. But philosophically speaking you cannot wipe out a concept such as God by saying that "it does not exist". "God" is a word and since words aren't beings, this is only endless discussion and energy spending around a non-being (reminds me of the famous Frank Zappa interview on Crossfire around porn music: "We're talking about words", with his serious accent). I agree with you when you write it kills people. But I doubt that harsh opposition will bring back excited crouds and their fanatic and cynical leaders to reason. Praise Mr. Dawkins of course, his fight is very difficult. Best.

Right if Dawkins and others consider the monotheistic bearded guy as God. Of course we know that's pure imagination.

Maybe I misunderstand what you are taking exception to, but a majority of the American public don't think the "monotheistic bearded guy" is "pure imagination". It's a serious problem; they actually believe in this childish superstition and mindless dogma, and it's not "philosophical" to them, its part of their way of life!

The "new atheists" like Hitchens and Dawkins aren't being academic! They're addressing a serious problem!

But I doubt that harsh opposition will bring back excited crouds and their fanatic and cynical leaders to reason.

What else are we supposed to do? Use violence? Violence doesn't work, it ends up making you no better than the religious nutcases, and its the first step on the way to a new era of genocide. (See: Iraq War).

But you can't let religious people alone. Their resistence to reason and thinking for themselves has made them complicit in too many atrocities to count, to this very day. Leave the religious to stew in their own juices long enough, and history has shown they will develop a penchant for flying planes into buildings and blowing shit up and starting wars.