Sam Harris does it again -- competing with Ann Coulter

[Gurdur]

“If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion,” Harris explains, “I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.”
-- Sam Harris in this interview (http://www.thesunmagazine.org/369_Harris.pdf)

:shock:

Then, Sam Harris, using some obvious strawmen, bitterly attacks atheists deemed to be too soft. (http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=library&page=harris_27_2)

And after all that Sam Harris returns to beating up a theist instead -- but still using his standard crappy hyberbole. (http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html)
_________

This is really an important issue, since it goes right to the heart of much of what the HH is all about; so it really needs a proper OP from me and good follow-up. Unfortunately, as you know, I'm obsessed with doing the board upgrade preparation, so all that will just have to wait, and I can only do the above for the moment.

[verte]

I suppose "pompous twat" really isn't a well-reasoned response, is it? I will try to come up with something better when I stop sputtering into my coffee.

[Gurdur]

I suppose "pompous twat" really isn't a well-reasoned response, is it? ....
To make it a well-reasoned response, you need at least one more adjective in there, like "stupid" or "self-righteous" or something.

[verte]

To make it a well-reasoned response, you need at least one more adjective in there, like "stupid" or "self-righteous" or something.

Pompous, self-righteous, smirking twat. There you go.

[retrow]

Thats one of the reason I oppose the idea of having a spokesperson for a group, or even worse, a self-appointed spokesperson. I guess Sam Harris thinks of him self as the new 'Messiah' for atheists. While some of his works have removed some of the stigmas related with atheism, he doesn't speak on my behalf. In a nutshell, I don't hide the fact that I am an atheist - with those theists who have no trouble accepting this, I get along pretty well; for those that get all worked up about it, I can't care less.

This going out of their way to seek debates with theists ala Sam Harris accomplishes nothing - or maybe it is his way.

[Bud]

“If I could wave a magic wand and get rid of either rape or religion,” Harris explains, “I would not hesitate to get rid of religion.”Hmmm.

One of my main oppositions to religion in general is its often mysoginistic attitude. Hearing this kind of thing from an atheist demonstrates his own blindness to this as even an issue, in my honest opinion. That or flagrant hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty.

[Pyrogenesis]

I find it just unbelievable how frequently atheists fail to realize that what is bad is being a zealot and a fanatic, irrespectful of what you believe or not believe in. The fact that many atheists think it's okay to be a complete fundie as long as you are an atheist just boggles my mind.

Then again, points 2 and 3 of "silly retorts" really are pretty silly.

[Jinx]

Where does this guy get his funding from? He seems to piss absolutely everyone off.

[Bud]

Then again, points 2 and 3 of "silly retorts" really are pretty silly.Indeed. But I'd like to hear some actual quotes relating to these points, rather than hear them summarised in his own bullets.

[verte]

Heh, religious moderates seem to be the red-headed stepchild, getting bashed on one side by the religious fundies, and bashed on the other by the atheist fundies.

[Bud]

Atheist moderates also.

[verte]

Atheist moderates also.
True. I feel so unloved. :-D

[Jinx]

True. I feel so unloved. :-D

*Pats verte*

It's nothing personal, you're just dirty liberal scum.

[Gurdur]

Atheist moderates also.
Bingo.

One of the things --- in fact the main thing --- that got me banned from IIDB was being an atheist moderate; no joke, no exaggeration.

But it just isn't IIDB; it's also similar sites; and more, it's not just atheists, it's also skeptics -- being a moderate, reasonable skeptic gets you a lot of heat from the nastier cliqueists.

One obvious point: a criticism of moderate Xians is often how come they aren't vocal "enough" against Xian fundies. well, we atheists and skeptics need to ask ourselves the same question; how come we moderates don't speak up enough against the looney atheist or skeptic extremist arseholes?

One reason is that it is often strongly discouraged on many boards, by a number of official, non-official and semi-official means. which is why I make such a point of the HH providing overt support not just to atheists and nontheists per se, but also it provides support for an openly anti-extremist, moderate and above all humanist nontheism.

Look, I really want to do a long discussion on this very matter, and I also want to invite dann to give us his POV as a moderate but committed skeptic who was given a hard time by the extremist arseholes.

But damn; I gotta tear myself away from this and get back to working on the board upgrade.
:(

But after the upgrade I will return to this, I will return.

[Gurdur]

Where does this guy get his funding from? He seems to piss absolutely everyone off.
The extremists love him. Take a look at how he goes down on IIDB for example; the main reaction is applause.

[Bud]

If someone were to say to my face that they'd sooner get rid of religion than rape, my first instinct would be to slap him. That statement is wrong on just so many levels.

[verte]

If someone were to say to my face that they'd sooner get rid of religion than rape, my first instinct would be to slap him. That statement is wrong on just so many levels.
It's also mindbendingly stupid on so many levels. Does this eejit actually think women can't read his tripe? Does he honestly expect a woman to say, "ooh, sure, I'd much rather face off with a rapist pounding on my door than some silly arse Mormons!"

Pompous twat.

[Master Taran]

Now tell us what you really think verte.

[verte]

Now tell us what you really think verte.

:smt046 It's making my hair stand on end, I tell you.

http://www.4alfalfa.com/ImagesMain/AlfalfaNation/cowlicksprucin20.jpg

[Bud]

It's also mindbendingly stupid on so many levels. Does this eejit actually think women can't read his tripe? Does he honestly expect a woman to say, "ooh, sure, I'd much rather face off with a rapist pounding on my door than some silly arse Mormons!"I have a sneaking suspicion that he is trying to demonstrate his radicalism by being controversial for the sake of it.

I ought to know, too. I used to do that all the time when I was a teenager.

[Gurdur]

It's also mindbendingly stupid on so many levels. Does this eejit actually think women can't read his tripe? Does he honestly expect a woman to say, "ooh, sure, I'd much rather face off with a rapist pounding on my door than some silly arse Mormons!"

Pompous twat.
Being an extremist is seen by many as being "sexy", while being a moderate is seen by many as being all wimpish. Quite a few women will buy his crap.


For an extremely close parallel, I refer you to the internal debates of the SDS * in the late 1960's and very early 1970's, and especially at one of its last conferences, the one that solidified the split described below, where a Weathermen-faction-invited gangleader ** stood on the stage and repeated the famous line in all seriousness to the assembled student delegates that,
"The position of women in the revolution is .. prone!".

___________

* SDS = Students for a Democratic Society. The SDS was the main anti-Vietnam student-organising body; it split finally into a Maoist faction (IIRC named the PLP) and into the Weathermen, the Weathermen becoming famous for a short while, and all the rest simply stopped being organised into anything at all.

** Literally. He was a street gang leader, from NYC IIRC. No more, no less.

[verte]

Being an extremist is seen by many as being "sexy", while being a moderate is seen by many as being all wimpish. Quite a few women will buy his crap They're all quite welcome to him, I will donate the gift wrap. :-D

[verte]

....stood on the stage and repeated the famous line in all seriousness to the assembled student delegates that,
"The position of women in the revolution is .. prone!".


:shock::shock::shock::shock: Well, don't look at me, y'all, I'd make him eat soap.

[Jinx]

I have a sneaking suspicion that he is trying to demonstrate his radicalism by being controversial for the sake of it.

Undoubtedly. Which makes the thread title all the more appropriate.

[Gurdur]

:shock::shock::shock::shock: Well, don't look at me, y'all, I'd make him eat soap.
The one who actually first invented the line, "The position of women in the revolution is prone", was Stokely Carmichael of the Black Panthers. Apparently he used it first in a speech to Smith College students. It quickly became famous and was used by the gangleader at the SDS conference I mentioned.

[Puck]

Well, other than wishing that some folks would get a good proper, old fashioned spanking, I reckon if he wants to make an ass out of himself, that's one thing, but to make it harder for the rest of us atheists who would just as soon get along with the theists, that's another.

How can I make an impact on theists with my decent life and happiness, when a fellow atheist is getting their backs up? Cripes. Being happy, with strong ethics and morals has more impact on a theist than stupid hate filled words.

If I hear some twit say all atheists are immoral/sinners/bad, etc., I'm gonna write them off as fuckwads and ignore them. What does this fool think theists are thinking when he spews shit?

And that whole rape vs religion thing is fucking STUPID. It sure tells where his strengths and morals lie. Not to mention is logic, or lack thereof. Fucktard.

[Gurdur]

In case you didn't believe me.... (http://www.heathen-hangout.com/forum1/showthread.php?t=6762)

[Mason]

Atheists, theists, they're all annoying to me. It doesn't matter much.

[Gurdur]

Obviously.

[verte]

Atheists, theists, they're all annoying to me. It doesn't matter much.

OH, HAVE A PUPPY ALREADY.

http://ddl.dyc.edu/~zwickera/puppy.jpg

[Bud]

And that whole rape vs religion thing is fucking STUPID. It sure tells where his strengths and morals lie.What it demonstrates is an inability to distinguish ideological issues from human pain.

Which, incidentally, is why I turned away from the far left. That and most of them were tossers.

[Mason]

Plus they're the tastiest if you're into cannibalism.

[Bud]

Plus they're the tastiest if you're into cannibalism.I'd tell you I still have the bite marks, but you'd probably think I was shitting you. I'm not.

*off topic* I may be a little bitter about that whole period in my life, but to be fair most of the people I knew weren't tossers. They just mutated into such when it came to discussing political matters*

[Pyrogenesis]

Isn't far left supposed to be communism?

[Jinx]

Which, incidentally, is why I turned away from the far left. That and most of them were tossers.

Ditto. A pair of them accosted me at a socialist party (don't ask) and started explaining to me that Lenin had nothing to do with Stalin because Lenin and Trotsky saw eye to eye on everything. Never mind that Lenin wrote a book called Left Wing Communism is an Infantile Disorder.

[Never]

Atheists, theists, they're all annoying to me. It doesn't matter much.

Thats one of your charms Mason - equal opportunity curmudgeonous. ;-)

[Ikari Gendou]

Sam Harris is a bastard. It seems to me that he has been consumed in his war against religion, that it has become a vendetta. He does not care about morals, only the destruction of religion. If I had to choose between abolishing rape or religion, I would obliterate rape in a heart beat. People have done many bad things in the name of Relgion, but Atheists [the Soviet Union, China] have done some pretty bad things as well. Granting atheism was not the reason the Soviet Union and China were doing those evils, it enlightens us to the reality that Atheists are as human as religionists.

Do not hate someone because he believes in a god in the sky.

[Quath]

I guess I take a utilitarian approach to these types of questions. If you could go back in time and magically get rid of rape or religion, which would make humanity happier?

I guess I don't really know which would. I can see arguments for both sides. For abolishing rape, it is pretty simple to see how the harm is removed (and thus people will be happier).

If religion was removed, then would the dark ages os little to no scientific advance never have happened? Would we have today's technology and civil situation back in the 1000's or eralier? If so, I think that would make society happier. I believe that the rate of rape goes down with a country's prosperity (though it doesn't go away).

But I also think that prosperity tends to dilute fundamentalism in religion. I think the poblem is that Sam Harris's question requires magic to work and that makes it a game for some and an insult for others.

Now, if he said "I rather make religion illegal instead of rape" then I think he could be shown to be wrong a lot more easily.

I guess I don't have much of a beef with Dawkins or Harris. The gay community had some people that represented the community, but some from the gay community disagreed with them. (Like the SF mayor who authorized gay marriage.) But I tend to think that at least they are stirring up debate. I think some religious people should hear the idea that religion is not a good thing. (I have heard so many times that parents should tkae their children to church since it is good for them.)

[Jinx]

I don't like seeing Dawkins lumped with Harris. Dawkins is (sometimes overly) passionate. Sam Harris is an obnoxious moron.

[verte]

I don't like seeing Dawkins lumped with Harris. Dawkins is (sometimes overly) passionate. Sam Harris is an obnoxious moron.

I've gotten annoyed with Dawkins. Actually, sometimes I've gotten very annoyed. But I've never been repulsed and appalled by him as I have by Harris.

[Master Taran]

Well, I don't need some sod like him trying to explain what I feel. It's like Pat Robertson trying to cover all the christians.

[Quath]

So I figured that since I commented on the interview, I probably should really read it. He gives two examples of concerns that seem to be sort of the basis of his view. The first is that religion could lead to a potential WWIII. If Iran, Iraq, Israel, and Ireland (damn those countries that start with "I") use religion for justification, then diplomacy can easily fail and could lead to a massive war that is preventable.

The other problem is the more subtle stuff where religion interferes with science and politics based on faith. You can see several examples where it has and could hurt us. His example is based on some Christians saying they think that sexually transmitted diseases should not be cured because they would increase premaritial sex. I remember a professor saying that AIDS was misunderstood because some conservatives blocked sex studies because they did not like the conclusion of them (one of them is that people may naturally be bisexual). So when AIDS came out, they used bad data and concluded that AIDS was spreadable by anal sex, not vaginal. It took awhile to correct this mistake.

So I took the question as changing the past, whereas he sees it changing the future. I think it is an interesting question though. If religion did leads to WWIII with nuclear weapons, would rape be less bad?

I did find one quote he said interesting:

I just think it’s(atheism) an unnecessary term. We don’t have names for someone who doesn’t believe in astrology or alchemy. I don’t think not believing in God should brand someone with a new identity. I think we need to speak only about reason and common sense and compassion.

It seems that in the labeling game, "atheism" may lose by acting like atheism is a choice instead of the default.

[verte]

I think it is an interesting question though. If religion did leads to WWIII with nuclear weapons, would rape be less bad?

Given that Harris is an atheist who supports torture in interrogation, I don't think he can blame all violent acts of war on religion.

[Gurdur]

Given that Harris is an atheist who supports torture in interrogation, I don't think he can blame all violent acts of war on religion.
Oh, well-said, well-said.

[Meathead]

I think the difficulty with the idea of eliminating religion is that one has to hypothesize what the result would be. And who knows what that result would be because the variables in that equation are seemingly endless.

Notwithstanding, I think it's safe to say that the "evil" deeds of man would persist despite the elimination of religion. Oppression, murder, violence, rape, nuclear threat, stunting of growth, all these things will persist independent of whether religion does or does not exist. Past examples include slavery, feudal system, rape of nanking, serial rapists, US v. Russia, China ceasing all advances despite having reached Madagascar before Columbus reached Hispaniola, Japan and Korea becoming hermit nations, Russia, Cuba, China, the death of some estimates of 10 to 70 million american indians, racism, endless violence between the Tamils and Singhalese in Sri Lanka, other numerous civil wars, the list goes on and on. We're like a bunch of rats in a box. We will find a reason to hurt each other whether it's in the name of religion or not. This seemingly is in contrast to the elimination of rape where there is a bona fide removal one of the heinous acts that we commit against each other.

[Gurdur]

.... endless violence between the Tamils and Singhalese in Sri Lanka.....
Bingo bingo bingo.

It is entirely forgotten by most that the most vicious and longterm campaign of actual planned overt suicide bombing is that carried out for decades now and still being carried out by the Tamil Tigers --- and the Tamil Tigers are resolutely secular nontheist, deliberately and consciously so, and always were.

[Quath]

Given that Harris is an atheist who supports torture in interrogation, I don't think he can blame all violent acts of war on religion.
For all I have seen, I don't think he is saying that all violent acts are due to religion. I see him saying that religion leads to unquestionable decisions which tend to be bad for all. He seems to rail against blind ideolology.

I think torture can be debated and could find times for it to be acceptable. (I am against it as a rule, but I see situations where it seems to give the better outcome long term.)

Notwithstanding, I think it's safe to say that the "evil" deeds of man would persist despite the elimination of religion. Oppression, murder, violence, rape, nuclear threat, stunting of growth, all these things will persist independent of whether religion does or does not exist.
I think a key difference is that religions gives an easy out for some decisions. For example, the Spanish would have their priests claim that God wanted the Native Americans to be plundered and put into slavery. Without that easing of consciousness, would they have been so quick to pirate?

I think it would have been a little harder. My guess is they would have had to set up a treaty and then find an excuse for why the Native Americans have broken it. That takes longer and may alter how things would have progressed.

I also worry a lot more about religious people with nuclear weapons. After all, if there is an all out nuclear war, someone may think America wins if more of its people go to heaven than the opponent. Or they may think they are helping to bring Jesus to this world. Or they may feel that God has wrath towards the Jews or Muslims. The bad thing is that once politicans have this idea, you can not reason them out of it. I much rather have someone who doesn't believe in a magical being that may save the day be in control of the world's nuclear weapons.

We will find a reason to hurt each other whether it's in the name of religion or not.
I think this is a key point. If we throw away one set of dogma for another (such as Democracy or Communism) then we are no better off. I think the government that is needed is one that is open to all criticism and as transparent as possible. In that case, the hope is that bad logic will be exposed through public debate.

I don't want to seem callous to rape either. I know how bad it is and how the victims are scarred. But if rape was gone, would another human trait take its place? For example, my grandfather was forced by a bunch of bullies to eat a cigar. I think a lot of rape is about domination and if rape were gone, it could take a different form.

The really cool concept is that this decision will be faced in the near future. For example, if DNA is discovered that is linked to rape, should it be removed? What ways will humanity clean up its DNA? But that goes beyond the magical nature of the question asked.

[Jinx]

For all I have seen, I don't think he is saying that all violent acts are due to religion. I see him saying that religion leads to unquestionable decisions which tend to be bad for all. He seems to rail against blind ideolology.


There's no 'seems' about it; it's what makes him so useless. He sees blind ideology around every corner and in every discussion. Don't like extraordinary rendition? You're blindly inflicting absolutes on his poor malleable brain. Prefer oranges to apples? Just admit you're a closet fruitist, you partisan!

[Meathead]

I think a key difference is that religions gives an easy out for some decisions. For example, the Spanish would have their priests claim that God wanted the Native Americans to be plundered and put into slavery. Without that easing of consciousness, would they have been so quick to pirate?

I think it would have been a little harder. My guess is they would have had to set up a treaty and then find an excuse for why the Native Americans have broken it. That takes longer and may alter how things would have progressed.

This is where we get into hypothesizing about what could or could not have been. And that makes this discussion all the more difficult since none of us really knows. However, if I had to speculate, I would guess that things really would not have been all that different. The reason I say this is that the nations like Denmark, France, Portugal, Spain and England were already in a heated race to fill up their coffers centuries before even the Jamestown colony. By that time, England was already competing with the other nations like Portugal, Spain and France for the western hemisphere and to find a shorter route to the Far East. The outcome of some significant wars such as the spanish armada against England and Denmark may have been different if Spain's imperialism went unchecked. I think further evidence that things would not have really changed is manifest destiny, the US's governmental policy to expand which was not religious. It seems to me that it was all just imperialism.

I don't want to seem callous to rape either. I know how bad it is and how the victims are scarred. But if rape was gone, would another human trait take its place? For example, my grandfather was forced by a bunch of bullies to eat a cigar. I think a lot of rape is about domination and if rape were gone, it could take a different form.

I admit that this is the part of my own post that left me contemplating some more. I'll get back to you after some more thought.

The really cool concept is that this decision will be faced in the near future. For example, if DNA is discovered that is linked to rape, should it be removed? What ways will humanity clean up its DNA? But that goes beyond the magical nature of the question asked.

I'll keep my fingers crossed.

[Puck]

Here's my thoughts.

Rape is a tool. To control, to force into submission. And other fucked up psychological madness. When you use rape to stop the voice of fifty percent of the population, you create an imbalance that allows for the other fifty percent of the population to run amok. Women are half of society. Our voice is needed to keep the balance.

Women are more apt to desire reasoning and compromise when there are differences of opinion. It is safer for them and their children. But if the shit hits the fan, women can and will turn very dangerous, and become a formidable enemy. But first, women will talk to their men and tell them where they think the men are wrong. Rape silences that voice. Rape is so horrible that women will shut the fuck up and cower and let the men run amok to avoid it. They will sit quite and meek and let nukes be used before living that nightmare of rape.

If men were smart, they'd use women as a gauge to determine if their desire for war is necessary, or a male gut reaction to perceived affront. And if it is necessary, they would then have 100% of their population to fight the battle. And they would find that the female 50% would be very, very, useful in winning.

Thus, removing rape would be safer for the world. Religion would have less influence, even if the women tended to be more religious, because the rape tool would be removed. The balance of womens voice would help temper things when they get heated.

And like rape, religion is a tool for supposed 'leaders'. But it's power is reduced when women have an equal say in it. Like rape, religion is used to cower women in most modern cases.

I say, remove rape and women lose fear. When they lose fear, they become strong; they become equal partners. Balance in society is restored. Religion loses it's power as a tool to be used to control the masses when women have as much power in it as men.

Men and women may bitch about each other, but the truth is, we need our differences. We temper each other.

[Bud]

Thus, removing rape would be safer for the world. Religion would have less influence, even if the women tended to be more religious, because the rape tool would be removed. The balance of womens voice would help temper things when they get heated. I hadn't thought of that, Puck. Excellent point.

[verte]

For all I have seen, I don't think he is saying that all violent acts are due to religion. I see him saying that religion leads to unquestionable decisions which tend to be bad for all.
Personally, I think the unquestioning acceptance of any kind of fundamentalist dogma, whether dictated by religion, atheism, or political party leads to unquestionable decisions which tend to be bad for all. And I think Harris is an excellent example of that.

Aside from that gem about rape, he's also been quoted as saying that "we should be willing to torture a certain class of criminal suspects and military prisoners."

I'm wondering if this this isn't the kind of attitude that is more likely to cause that "Total Nuclear War," and not the attitude of moderation he seems to despise?

He seems to rail against blind ideolology.
And moderates of all kinds. ;-)

What ways will humanity clean up its DNA?

We could eliminate all Rush Limbaugh type traits from the gene pool? I live in hope. :-D

[Gurdur]

...The really cool concept is that this decision will be faced in the near future. For example, if DNA is discovered that is linked to rape, should it be removed? What ways will humanity clean up its DNA? .....
I once read an excellent SF book on that very subject; I'll try to remember the name later. The premise was the Earthling humans actually alter their DNA to include several new strands --- in case of them or their society making an unprovoked attack, the new DNA causes a self-destruction, i.e. people die.

Since a situation can be very complex, then determining what exactly is unprovoked force is tricky, and explaining truthfully all the situation is vital; the Earthling humans come under attack from humans from another colonised planet, and even in that situation where the Earthlings have eventually to use force to defend themselves (after fruitlessly trying negotiation), despite much explanation some Earthlings still up and die because those ones were not fully convinced that the use of force was absolutely necessary at that point.

An extremely good concept.

[verte]

That sounds like an interesting book, I hope you remember the title, Gurdur.

[Quath]

Aside from that gem about rape, he's also been quoted as saying that "we should be willing to torture a certain class of criminal suspects and military prisoners."
The only case for torture that I think holds water is one in which there is a bomb counting down and you need the access codes now. Other cases tend to give bad results (long and short term).

I'm wondering if this this isn't the kind of attitude that is more likely to cause that "Total Nuclear War," and not the attitude of moderation he seems to despise?
Yeah, I worry when people make claims like this and are not careful enough with disclaimers.

We could eliminate all Rush Limbaugh type traits from the gene pool? I live in hope. :-D
I think we need to be careful, because it would be sad to have a world without Peter Griffon or Homer Simpson. :)

[Evoken]

The Secular Outpost has a blog entry responding to Sam Harris, it concludes:

I wish Harris would start behaving more sensibly, particularly as he seems to have become some kind of media spokesperson for atheism. He has an irritating tendency to insinuate that less aggressive forms of nonbelief are associated with intellectual cowardice. Nonsense. People have reasons for holding back; at the very least these need to be argued against, not caricatured and countered with slogan contests.

You can see the entry here:
http://secularoutpost.blogspot.com/2007/02/silly-retorts-to-atheism-really.html

[Gurdur]

Some whacko nutcase is trying to out-Harris Sam Harris.

From here (http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A806825)

If Darwinian theory is true then let us stop this talk of human rights, indeed of right and wrong, and focus instead on pushing the human genome forward, of conquering the weak, exploiting those who nature has written off in order that the strong might survive. ......

Those who find such a position shocking are not real atheists. Richard Dawkins is not a real atheist. The National Secular Society do not represent real atheists, rather they represent a few who wish to throw off the chains of religion merely to replace them with a new set, those of humanism. .......

Genuine atheism must be put back on the agenda. An atheism that recognises that we are animals, will always be, and that we need to use the tools of rationalism and free thinking to advance the human species without woolly, soppy, sentimental thinking holding us back. If that means people may get hurt, neglected or used in the process then so be it — that is natural selection for you. It may not be nice, but to atheists, it is reality.

The choice is simple. Choose human rights, ethics, right and wrong, and you choose theism — even if you are not brave enough to admit it.........
realatheism@mac.com

[verte]

Good thing for him we don't subscribe to his stupid ideas, or someone would have already left him nekkid and starving in the middle of Death Valley for being such an annoying jackarse.

[Dawn]

Good thing for him we don't subscribe to his stupid ideas, or someone would have already left him nekkid and starving in the middle of Death Valley for being such an annoying jackarse.

:smt046

[Master Taran]

We don't litter the Valley that way.

[verte]

We don't litter the Valley that way.

:smt023

[disgracian]

Some whacko nutcase is trying to out-Harris Sam Harris.
That looks like a troll if ever I saw one. Whoever wrote that is most likely a theist who is lampooning atheism in much the same way as Landover Baptist rips the piss out of Christianity.

Cheers,

[Evoken]

Some whacko nutcase is trying to out-Harris Sam Harris.

This has to be one of the dumbest things I've heard.


Valz

[Pastafarian]

Some whacko nutcase is trying to out-Harris Sam Harris.
Hmm. Or a sock-puppet is out to discredit atheism.