I find it ironic that he calls Hitchens a "contrarian" when he himself argues against Christian fundamentalists and then claims "New Atheists" (whatever the hell THEY are) are just as dangerous. Where does that put him? Would the label "contrarian" maybe fit him as well? The Salon byline even claims he's trying for controversy. How can he plant any flags on the moral high ground?

Let's see.

Christian fundamentalists have historically held back civil rights time and again. They've worked to hold back black civil rights until the tide had turned, and they've worked to hold back gay civil unions and gay marriage anywhere they can.

They've held back scientific endeavors across the board, with hysterical rantings against evolution, stem cell research, and even medical treatment for their own children.

They've attacked and killed people who disagree with them philosophically, or who provide services that they abhor, or who otherwise run in ways contrary to what they believe.

And atheists have done what exactly that's comparable to any of that?

Several other commenters have stated it plainly already, but clearly it needs to be said time and again until someone picks it up as a "fundamentalist battlecry:" atheists don't need religion.

When atheists start blowing themselves up in packed churches or sniping at children in schoolyards, then you can say we're "just as bad as fundamentalists."

But until then...well...STFU.

Serai,

You state:

"There are many ways to view a religious belief, and most of them are not literal. It's not religion that causes harm, limits freedom and impedes science, it's the literal view of religious ideas."

Really? And what about how religious moderates permit and even encourage religious extremism? Who defines what is a "literal" interpretation of a religious work? A priest? A layperson? You? Your argument is a crock: religion itself frequently causes harm.

"If my science teacher conscientiously guides my class through learning and understanding our lessons, urging us always to remain open and curious, and to acquire as much knowledge as possible, that's good, right? What if she does all that at the same time as being a Catholic nun, and telling us that scientific knowledge is the greatest testament to God's glory there is? Does that change things?"

Yeah, sure. And then that same nun teaches you that condoms are a sin. Or that the Church is the "highest authority," and should never be questioned.

"Science is about the reality of the world, and religion has been part of our make-up since before we were human."

Just because something existed in our past doesn't mean it's necessary now. We've moved away from the Earth being flat and at the center of the universe, from a belief in most forms of supernatural...why are we still clinging to this one?

Faith (and therefore religion) is problematic because it doesn't just exist in one tiny part of the mind. It's not simply an intellectual artifact, a tiny pebble of thought that a person can set aside when they're in a laboratory or teaching a class. It colors all sorts of ideation and discourages rational thought or analysis. It's not a necessary counterpart to science, and it's not equivalent at all. It's RELIGION that tries for "wish-fulfillment." There's no concept of "prayer" in science, after all.

Duh.

No.

Morally, he's the equivalent. Murder is murder, whether you kill yourself in the process or not.

But hey, feel free to find me an actual case of just such an event, huh?

If we're headed for a new dark ages, literally an absolute collapse all the way back to preindustrial ages, what are YOU folks doing about it? I don't think blogging will be a paying job in the non electric economy. I mean really, if you're so certain the end is near you should be taking more steps than predicting it for the rest of us.

I'd really like to hear what the New Survivalists are planning. It might even be helpful. Are you learning to tan hides, weave, and hunt? Are you learning blacksmithy? Have you applied to Colonial Williamsburg, just in case?

By the way, when the canary is dead, then so are you.

Did anyone say that we're heading back to the dark ages and a "literal" collapse of civilization over an economic downturn? Still and all, I think it's bad enough that we're heading for an unnecessary recession. This one could have easily been avoided.

In this case, the canary is running our country, and the hides that need tanning all belong to wingnuts.

I thought everyone knew that people are biased towards things they enjoy / covet / own. It's no secret that they'd therefore see bias in evenhanded reviews, right?

And yet I'm continually amazed at how many people in the modern world seem incapable of grasping this seemingly simple notion. Almost everyone thinks of themselves as fair-minded and right-thinking, yet almost everyone also agrees that subjective truths are slippery and...well...subjective.

And they frequently have no problem with this. So many people are inclined to accept that which they read or hear or see in the MSM, or coming from the mouth of an authority figure, or maybe even from a journalist whose opinion they respect. So few people are prone to questioning, to skepticism, to critical thinking.

Why is that? Is it that the modern world is wholly predicated on faith? Are there simply no objective truths that people adhere to anymore? Is this purely an American phenomenon? Are we just getting soft in the head?

Something kind of makes me think that latter one might be the answer.

Maybe it's because Bush is still in office after nearly 8 years of befuddled incompetence and the adamant insistence of an alternate reality that rational thinking beings can't abide?