Dawkins and Dennet are okay, science and philosophy, but Hitchens and Harris are both columnists and thus redundant – one of the two has to go and make room for a fourth horseman.

My suggestion would be to go for a comedian.

One of the most powerful influences I found on my atheism was the effect of comedy. I wasn’t won over by Hitchens, Harris, Dennet or Dawkins, I was won over by George Carlin.

It isn’t just that New Atheists show zero respect for religion that I admire, it is that they do it – while being genuinely funny.

The God Delusion, don’t let the prose fool you, is one of the funniest essay books I have read – and we aren’t capitalising on that enough.

If we want to be taken seriously, we need to focus on making people laugh, and hopefully get them to laugh at themselves.

Really, what reason could he have for never capitalizing the “G” in “God” except to make believers mad?

God, is a noun. It is very Christian-centric to capitalise it – it is like capitalising unicorn. If you do capitalise it, you are refering to a specific god known as Yahweh, or if you are Arabic, Allah.

Uncapitalised, god can refer to a whole class of beings that includes Zeus, Vishnu, Odin etc…

Because god is sometimes a concept, and not a proper noun? When Christians say they believe in God, they are referring to a specific being with traits and characteristics they have defined. When non-Christians refer to god, as a concept, it is not always a specific God, as described by Christians or anyone else. It is, in some contexts, synonymous with “deity” not “Yahweh.” Not capitalizing it is the correct usage in those instances.

If you think the capitalization thing is bad, check out over on Unreasonable Faith, where there is a brief article about the Malaysian government banning the use of the word “Allah” by non-muslims even though it just means “god” in the local language.

They would not use the word “physically” (nor did I) but “substantially” (“actually” as you state, might be used.):

in the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist, are contained truly, really, and substantially, the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but saith that He is only therein as in a sign, or in figure, or virtue” and anyone who “saith, that, in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist, the substance of the bread and wine remains conjointly with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denieth that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood – the species only of the bread and wine remaining

I do understand what that means. What it means is that you should ignore everything that is telling you that the thing in question is bread, and know that it is really flesh. This is regardless of the methods used; taste, x-ray, whatever. This makes philosophical sense, in a way; a sports car doesn’t cease being a speed machine when it is in park, for instance. In a very real way, though, it makes no sense — as every aspect of the bread remains bread. Perhaps Borland was right, and the problem is that the word “is” (or rather specific uses of it) suffers from linguistical problems. After all, what does “is” even mean, in this context?

Still, if I where to buy a significant other glass jewelry, and tell them that it was “substantially” a diamond despite all the glass-like characteristics (including price) chances are good I’d be back at the jewelry store making a more informed decision tomorrow.

Maybe I was in fact overly simple in my earlier description. But it is substantially correct

It is certainly possible that Dawkins et al. have misinterpreted religion, but I even granting that I fail to see how that’s relevant to the issue.

It’s called scholarship and it does atheism little good to bitch about scholarship and integrity then turn around and quote-mine.

The real reason we feel exasperation and anger when the second law of thermodynamics is misused, is because it doesn’t reflect reality.

Of course, that’s why I used it as an example. Much of what Dawkins says about religion “doesn’t reflect reality.”

The greatest mistake is that you’re confusing a rhetorical fight with an intellectual one.

I try not to fight rhetorically, because those who do confuse an intellectual fight with a rhetorical game.

J.J. Ramsey,

If we were applying the same standards even to fellow atheists, that quote mine would have either not been made or scrutinized and put in the dustbin well before Dawkins even got a chance to use it. It survived because atheists share the same faults in their rationality as the religious. The quote mine looked like support for atheism from a respected figure, so it wasn’t scrutinized as closely. Christians have done the same with their own quote mines. (bold mine)

Thank you, this healthy dose of cross-examination is very appreciated, and unfortunately, very few atheists are able to follow suit. “It’s them that are wrong, never us!”

The religious get irrational when defending their idols, and too many of us aren’t acting any differently.

Again, thank you. I think the evidence for your claims is found conveniently in the resistance they’ve received in this thread.

Sam Harris isn’t that good a counterexample, as he has gotten scrutiny from “those atheists” when he said things that went against their biases.

No justification. I’m guessing this tickles your biases. You could claim that about anyone disagreeing about anything without justifying it one bit.

True, it is part of the ‘warrant’. That wasn’t what you said, that wasn’t what I was disagreeing to

Oh, please. Fallibilism is about the fallout from humans being fallible, period, and that includes fallibility coming from imperfect reasoning. Until you disagreed, I’d never seen “fallibilism” used any other way.

Aj:

Perhaps we have different ideas about what postmodernism is

I’m used to thinking of postmodernism as the idea that there is no truth, science is a language game, etc., the sort of stuff that Alan Sokal mocked so thoroughly in his hoax on Social Text. There is a huge difference between that and simply acknowledging the existence and prevalence of human irrationality.

Aj:

If your point was that people don’t scrutinize other atheists as much, accept when they do.

My point was that your claim, “We’re applying the same standards to everyone, ourselves, all religion,” just isn’t true. If it were true, atheists (especially those atheists who have been called “militant” or “fundamentalist,” for lack of better adjectives) wouldn’t be as prone as they are to spreading misinformation and bad arguments when it tickles their biases. Sam Harris isn’t that good a counterexample, as he has gotten scrutiny from “those atheists” when he said things that went against their biases.

Take a look at the IEP’s entry on “fallibilism,” especially the section on “Empirical Evidence of Fallibility.” The existence of fallacious reasoning is definitely part of the warrant behind fallibilism.

True, it is part of the “warrant”. That wasn’t what you said, that wasn’t what I was disagreeing to, you know this, I know this. The definition clearly fits the definition I am using, fallibilism is about knowledge not rationality.

Except that what Baggini wrote is easily consistent with him being merely fallibilist. Indeed, if you Google “Baggini postmodern,” you’ll find that he doesn’t think much of postmodernism. Your interpretation is an overreach, period.

Oh it’s consistant but it can’t in itself explain the claim in question. Perhaps we have different ideas about what postmodernism is, or I’m mistaken about what he means by “once again implying that reason and evidence are strangers to religion” and “are not entitled to assume they are as rational as they seem to themselves”.

And it is equally clear from the context that Dawkins, regardless of the point that he was trying to make, misquoted Adams.

I wouldn’t call that a misquote, I’d call it an unfortunate failure to communicate. I accept that its an oversight that leads people to conclude Adams opinion incorrectly.

No, thank you for missing it.

No, it’s called moving goal posts. If your point was that people don’t scrutinize other atheists as much, accept when they do. I can’t disagree with the self-defeating claim.

When Sam Harris says stuff that goes against what most atheists believe, that is, when he stops acting like a member of the in-group, then he tends to get heightened scrutiny from fellow atheists.

Insufficient justification, shouldn’t you be describing how atheists act differently, claiming something that could potentially be refuted?

Of course, but how does that question answer my claim that there is insufficient justification for the claim that moderates enable extremists?

More than I hoped it would. Call it an opinion, you’re not void of them or resolute in nonexpression of them. Even better a hypothesis that makes reasonable sense. If it turns out that social studies strongly support no difference, or more “extremism” in societies with less religion, or less tolerance of faith then I’m willing to accept I’m wrong. Baggini has the opposite opinion, I guess that’s sufficient justification? I’m pretty sure you disagree with Harris, which isn’t the neutral position.

Anyway, I had said that I am, in fact, a huge fan of the tone of the New Atheists’ books (excepting Hitchens, only because I have not yet read it!), and find their open, unabashed call for inquiry, study, and hard looks at reality to be refreshing and desperately needed. Indeed, how anyone could quibble with the tone of the utterly-polite Breaking the Spell is totally beyond me.

But Baggini’s article is, at best, the waste of precious time he claims the New Atheists; books to be. That has not stopped me, however, from wasting my own time in dissing it.