WIP

Many atheists would not say there is proof that God does not exist, but would contend that the existence of God does not have any unambiguous evidence to support it. The problem is that if you ask 'how' did the Universe come into existence, you are not answering that question by stating that you know 'who' created the Universe -- God. Even if that's true, all that we have is one mystery (the origins of the universe) being added to by another mystery (God) that has no explanation for where it came from or how it created a universe. This answer may seem satisfying at a superficial level because in our everyday world everything works by cause and effect, and we don't observe anything being created out of nothing. But our cause and effect bias probably does not apply when answering such big questions, since what we consider common sense is how things work in what physicist call the 'world of middle dimensions.' If we go to the grand scale, we have to incorporate General Relativity, which has effects such as curvature of space-time, and time slowing down on objects approaching the speed of light -- and at the other extreme, at the level of subatomic particles, virtual particles pairs transmit forces of attraction by popping into existence from the spacetime fabric for a brief period of time, before they come together and annihilate each other. There is no cause and effect involved, just as there is no cause and effect relationship in the transitions of particles from one energy state to another -- it just occurs on the basis of probability. If particle events don't work by cause and effect, and virtual particles are uncaused, the implications for physicists are that there is nothing stopping an entire universe from being an uncaused creation. Science philosopher Mark Vuletic has put together some explanations of some difficult concepts in his argument for a real Creation Ex Nihilo It mostly boils down to those uncertain probabilities that occur at the subatomic level in the fabric of spacetime, where random probability can lead to an uncaused emergence of energy called a vacuum fluctuation. How would a universe grow from that tiny fluctuation? Vuletic quotes a nice brief explanation from Stephen Hawkings "Brief History of Time" to explain how a universe can grow out of "nothing": "The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero." It's a bizarre concept to try to grasp, but essentially the balancing of positive mass energy with its negative gravitational fields means we have a big universe made out of NOTHING! It's worth keeping in mind that our sense of tangible objects is another one of those illusions of the senses that help us navigate our world -- but have no connection in the underlying physics. It's one more reason why we can't use our notions of solidity and cause and effect to describe the Universe and try to figure out where it came from. There are other amazing coincidences that are used to support an anthropic principle, such as our solar system was likely created closer to the middle of the Milky Way Galaxy because we have a higher content of heavy elements than the stars that are located in our local group; and if our solar system stayed there, the high radiation levels would have prevented life from forming, but it was somehow kicked out to its present location of relative calm -- and just as amazing, our solar system's orbit around the Milky Way is in perfect sequence with the spiral arms of the Galaxy. This is also lucky for us because if we went through those spiral arms of hot, radioactive gas, we would be fried. There are also many amazing coincidences at the subatomic level, such as the ratios of the four basic forces being just right to allow the formation of stars, planets, galaxies etc. The problem with anthropic explanations for these coincidences is that if they didn't happen, we wouldn't be here to ask 'why not'. It's possible that life could have arose under different conditions that would have led to something else besides us. Anti-theist would be a better description than anti-Christian, since atheists who believe that supernatural beliefs and religions are harmful, apply this as a general principle to all religions and concepts of God, souls, spirits etc. The stories of atheists being smarter than religious adherents likely comes from some recent polls that may or may not be accurate, which contend that the higher a person's level of education, the less likely they are to believe in God or be an adherent. There are Christian academics and alternatively, atheists like me who only have a high school education -- these are supposed to be the exceptions, but it's worth keeping in mind that there may be a downside to being too skeptical or too prone to believe in the supernatural. Some recent psychological tests done on rational skeptics and intuitive believers by a Finnish psychologist Marjaana Lindheman (cited in Supersense by Bruce M. Hood) tested the subjects with the white noise snow patterns of an analog television screen. Faint patterns were displayed in the static, and what was fascinating was that the intuitive thinkers often saw patterns in the noise that did not exist, but the skeptics were not only less prone to see non-existent patterns, they were also more likely to miss seeing the patterns that were embedded in the noise. Being a skeptic prevents drawing to a lot of poor conclusions, but it is nevertheless possible that being too skeptical could mean missing a few clues along the way. There are religions that have many atheists and agnostics, and believers in God who hate religion... a few of them are members of MLW.

"...justify his love-in with Netanyahu?" Is this guy for real? Obama would love to toss Bibi over the side, the problem is having even more problems with the Religious Right, in the form of outraged Christian Zionists who support the most extreme political movements in Israel, and have been providing most of the U.S. dollars for building new settlements in the West Bank. These are the "friends" that Rosenberg needed to focus on, because it's not AIPAC or rich Jewish businessmen that have the most influence in guiding U.S. policy towards Israel -- it's Pat Robertson, John Hagee and the throngs of believers in end times prophecy who are anxiously awaiting the outbreak of WWIII so that the Rapture, Armageddon and the 2nd Coming prophecies can be fulfilled! These people who are preaching that one third of Israelis will soon be incinerated, and the rest convert to Christianity when Jesus comes back, are the "friends" that even the most zealous hardline Israelis should be nervous about having around.

Where did you get these quotes from that are attributed to me? I didn't write this:

I'm reminded also that Unitarian/Universalists don't even have a creed to follow to start with. Most religions are a combination of doctrinal beliefs and moral rules, or at principles that are supposed to be followed. The Unitarians just have the moral principles part, and members are free to develop a view of the world that makes sense to them as long as they are in harmony with the Seven Principles. It becomes a problem lumping religion and belief in God together as one and the same thing, when there are religions that don't even make supernatural beliefs a requirement.

There is no way to unravel religion from culture or cultural influence. The modern enlightened secular humanist values did not just fall out of the sky. They started developing over the centuries by Church theologians, and there's no sense in trying to maintain that the secular movement in the West marks a complete break with Christian tradition. We've taken the things we find useful, and discarded what we don't like. It has to be stressed also that religion is not the only source of supernatural beliefs. The prevalence of secular supernatural beliefs like ESP, clairvoyance, astral projection, astrology etc. indicates that these beliefs come from very fundamental roots in the way people learn to think and make sense of the world. Developmental psychologists point out that very young children divide the things they see into domains. Children under four years make a sharp distinction between living and non-living things, but make category errors when they ascribe personalities and desires to their favourite toys. A favourite doll or teddy bear is considered something more than a mere object, and this is where a lot of supernatural thinking gets started. Children may put this behind them when they get older, but the predisposition to attribute life forces to objects is a natural response that stays with us through life. It's a big part of the reason why otherwise mundane items that belong to famous celebrities become valuable collectibles for example. Long story short, a world without religion will still have supernatural beliefs. My question is can anti-theists prove that believing in wrong doctrinal beliefs causes harm? Or at least is there proof that a collection of what we consider wrong beliefs mean that entire religions are harmful and need to be discarded? It may be possible to prove that intelligent, personal Gods do not exist, like physicist Victor Stenger contends, but that's not the same thing as having proof that having this belief is harmful. The claim that belief in God causes harm is not a fact claim, and is the equivalent of a faith position to believe that people will be happier after being deconverted and organized religions are gone.

Like I said before, I am not interested in wading too far into the waters of a debate that has been going on for 40 years. I can agree that pictures and videos of the seal hunt have kept Greenpeace and the WWF going over the last 30 years, but that pales in comparison to the interests of people out to make money from the hunt, including the sealers! And the purchasers of these products are among the wealthiest and most powerful of the world's elite, who will pay any price for unique status symbols. The Federal Government has financial and political reasons for maintaining the hunt, if possible, and it's foolish to insist that there isn't an incentive to bias data in support of seal hunting. Put it this way, how much confidence do you have right now that our offshore oil developments are safe? They can churn out stacks of reports to back the desired conclusion. My bias generally runs against the side with the most money to throw around, and a need to buy influence with politicians and civil servants. Like I said before, if the main argument for this hunt was really the harp seal population, they could take steps to reduce it without blending in collecting fur pelts. The fur industry is using this as an excuse to continue skinning seal pups for their fur, and if this argument wasn't available, they would just go down the list to the next excuse to keep their industry going. Really, until the Gulf disaster started overturning rocks in U.S. federal monitoring and regulating agencies, the same argument would have been made about fact sheet data from the EPA and the Minerals Management Service. If I had the resources to investigate the Fisheries dept., I suppose there's no chance I would find civil servants who move in and out of government and the industry they are supposed to be regulating!

Stop right there! You stuck one of those stupid rolly eye icons right in front of "Thanks Guys." That either indicates sarcasm, condescension, or insincerity...take your pick! And so that had an influence on my impressions of the rest of your post.

This is no different than "teach the controversy" advice in many U.S. school systems that have degraded science education. There is no debate based on the science, the so called skeptics are only interested in creating confusion. They don't have to have a coherrent alternative theory, and that's why they don't bother presenting any. Some climate skeptics like Lord Munk, say the Earth has been cooling for the last 15 years, and there are no connections between atmospheric CO2 levels and temperature; others say, yes it's warming and there's a greenhouse gas connection, but that's because of solar activity or other natural causes; and then there's the Bjorn Lomborg school of confusion, who says yes, CO2 levels are rising, yes the Earth is warming, and yes the spike in temperatures is primarily caused by what we're doing, but guess what? It's not worth our while to take action against climate change, instead we need to prepare ourselves for a world with higher CO2 levels and higher temperatures. This suggestion is the stupidest of all in light of new paleo-climate research that provides more accurate and more detailed analysis of past CO2 levels. I linked this article before, but it needs to be put out again in light of Lomborg's bad advice: Last Time Carbon Dioxide Levels Were This High: 15 Million Years Ago, Scientists Report Needless to say, trying to adapt to a climate that hasn't existed in 15 million years would be something that the human race, let alone human civilization has never had to deal with. If you step back and look at the range of climate change denial arguments, you see that Munk and Lomborg have nothing in common except that they both advocate a do nothing strategy. And that's what the climate change denial strategy is all about! It's just a strategy of creating confusion, and thereby preventing public pressure for action on climate change. It's a game played by energy companies that want to keep business as usual and stand in the way of efforts to prevent a disaster that the CIA estimates will cause mass migrations of millions of people over the next 20 years.

I missed the point you're trying to make here. I guess you mean teaching religion is brainwashing. That's why Dawkins made the declaration in the God Delusion that teaching religion to children is child abuse. This is nonsense since the religious traditions that parents may want to teach to their children might also include a lot of cultural aspects as well as doctrines and rituals. Even though I am an atheist, I don't like the string of negative descriptions applied to a complex set of beliefs, rules and rituals that are lumped together under the name 'religion.' For many people, their religious beliefs provide a sense of purpose and motivation to show concern beyond their own narrow personal interests. There are a lot of benefits to society provided by religious beliefs and by being part of an organized religion. We know what the bad things are: hostility and possible conflict with those who have different beliefs, and rejection of scientific evidence that contradicts religious dogma, would be the two biggest concerns; but it would be a mistake to assume that the problems associated with religion mean that the harms outweigh all possible benefits of religion. Hitchens's claim that "religion poisons everything," and the similar claim of other celebrity New Atheists like Dawkins and Sam Harris, that everyone will be happier and the world will be a safer place without religion, are all claims that cannot be substantiated. In a sense, these are New Atheist dogmas, since Dawkins, Hitchens and Harris have to take their hope of a better world free of religion on faith, not on evidence. And that child abuse claim also implies that children will be taught something better and of more value, if they are not given any religious training. It's more likely that they will be taught nothing about ethics and philosophy in the religion-free home. People who lack curiosity and accept their religious training without question are predestined to be followers; while many, such as myself, start questioning the faith at a young age and have to leave it behind. The power of brainwashing is greatly exaggerated. That's what I've been saying all along...religions have good aspects and bad. If a religion teaches universal values of love and respect for others, especially others with different beliefs, and has progressed far enough to be able to incorporate new scientific information, then it's a good thing! While religions that teach only the believers are worthy of concern and all else are enemies, is a dangerous religion. The problem is that both extremes exist in all of the major religions in the world today, so a simplistic judgment like Christianity good, Islam bad, doesn't work.

I'll skip the next part college boy, because what you've found is confirmation bias. Do you think both sides here didn't already know that seals eat a lot of fish and fish stocks are collapsing? The objection I have is that this excuse for the seal hunt has done nothing to stop the decline in fish over the last 40 years! So, at best it would be considered a bandaid solution for a more fundamental problem. You seem to think for some reason that we have to insert ourselves into maintaining the balance of nature, otherwise seals will kill all of the fish in the North Atlantic and then starve to death. This is ridiculous, since it never seemed to happen previously in the millenia before the modern fishing industry arrived, and there's nothing in those data sets about seal populations and fish stocks that justify such an outlandish conclusion now. I don't know if you're paying attention or not, but the main reason I say ethics is part of this debate is because of what it says about us and some changes in attitude we need to adopt if our species is going to survive the next few centuries. If our circle of concern stays limited to the human race, and we believe animals are just products for our exploitation -- we're screwed, plain and simple! This is the worldview that's given us the messes we have now, and a new paradigm is needed...fast! First of all, there are nine dissenting veterinarians who did not accept the official line and issued their own report, so they can't claim unanimous agreement. And about those statistics; isn't there a saying in statistical analysis that goes something like:'garbage in, garbage out'! Your low probability number is assuming that those 200 charges are the only examples of misconduct on the ice floes, rather than an indication that most of the sealers are not being monitored by federal authorities to begin with. You linked the same damn article from the CBC that everybody else is using here! I found an anti-sealing website that contains some pertinent information about the policing of the seal hunt, which indicates that finding and prosecuting abuse on the ice flows is not much more than finding a needle in a haystack: In 1986, the Royal Commission on Seals and the Sealing Industry reported on the inability of fisheries officers to adequately monitor the seal hunt. They noted, “the area that they must patrol is very extensive, the number of sealers is large, and sealing operations are multifaceted. For these reasons it is impossible to keep all parts of the seal hunt under close supervision at all times” (8-9). Today, government monitoring of the commercial seal hunt in terms of humane killing is conducted by fisheries officers stationed on coast guard vessels. While there are over 1000 sealing vessels that participate in the commercial seal hunt, only a couple of coast guard vessels are deployed to the region. The massive coast guard vessels are normally stationed miles away from the smaller sealing boats, and thus observation of hunting methods from this platform is not viable. Enforcement agents are able to leave the coast guard vessels by helicopter or small speed boat, but are rarely seen to do so by animal protection groups that document the seal hunt. Regardless, the handful of enforcement people stationed on coast guard vessels would be unable to monitor the thousands of individuals hunting over hundreds of thousands of square miles of ocean this way. The scale of the hunt presents another challenge, with hundreds of thousands of seals slaughtered in just a few days. Not surprisingly, HSUS filmed consistent and serious violations of the Marine Mammal Regulations in 2007, with a Coast Guard vessel stationed nearby. To further complicate the situation, Coast Guard vessels are often called away from monitoring and enforcement of the hunt to perform other duties, such as icebreaking for other vessels (IVWG 2005). Shouldn't the question be: why the hell doesn't the WTO make provisions for human rights!

Starting wars and occupying foreign territories isn't exactly peaceful either! Ever read your Old Testament? If Christians and Jews can stickhandle what's written in the books that deal with the Conquest of Canaan and Kings & II Kings for example, I'm sure the Muslims have many creative ways to reinterpret the seige of Mecca and conquest of Arabia. Numbers 31 KJV 31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 31:10 And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 31:11 And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. 31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive? 31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves. Paranoid nonsense! It's as if they are going through the motions when they go to work, send their kids to school, buy houses, cars etc....all that means nothing to them by this logic. What they are really focused on is waiting until their sleeper cells are activated. Here in the real world, my neighbourhood has a sizable Muslim population. The only thing that annoys me is the way they react when I'm walking my dog...something to do with dogs being unclean and so forth. Well, everybody knows dogs aren't clean! That's why you wash your hands after handling them. Fighting wars is one of the greatest consumers of those resources! And as soon as nukes are involved, it's game over for everyone...and that makes it ultimately a non-zero sum game. Reducing over-consumption of those resources would be a preferred route to follow...especially taking control of energy policy away from the oil industry.

I listened to an audio program that included several excerpts from the hearings. "Lord" Monckton got raked over pretty bad. It was noted by one member of the Senate panel that he doesn't even have a legitimate claim to using the title "lord" in the first place, and of course he doesn't have the scientific credentials to justify his appearance before the committee as an expert witness. I guess he was the only phony expert available that the Republicans could call upon that day.

What a total piece of crap! Didn't you notice that your Newsweek article says nothing about the science? All it talks about is a fickle, scientifically illiterate populace that is questioning global warming. Should we be surprised? Half of U.S. adults question the Theory of Evolution, and believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. And Newsweek says nothing about the multi-billion dollar disinformation campaign run by oil, gas and coal companies which funds phony climate science organizations, think tanks and their media mouthpieces to push the ridiculous message that we can just keep belching smoke and raising atmospheric CO2 levels, without suffering any consequences. If Newsweek had any credibility they wouldn't run this piece without any rebuttals. But, since we're hearing lately about Newsweeks cashflow problems, and that they may stop publishing in the near future, a suspicious person may jump to the conclusion that they've just taken a bag of money from Exxon or BP to run this crap.

I'm against your vision of Western Civilization that you have already tipped us off as being white and Christian. Just as I don't judge everyone professing to be a Christian by what Tim McVeigh did to the Oklahoma City Federal Building, I likewise don't judge every Muslim by Al Qaeda....especially after how much I have learned over the intervening years about how several U.S. administrations have supported the development of Islamists movements as allies against Communism. Sometimes the Frankenstein monster comes back to bite you in the ass! Now, the trick is to keep the bridges open to the majority of Muslims who don't believe this is a zero sum game, and realize that they have to find ways of living in harmony with the rest of the world that does not share their beliefs. As in Christendom, there are those who want a winner-take-all solution to the so called 'Clash of Civilizations' and those who realize we are all losers if resources continue to be spent on war-making rather than finding solutions to big problems that affect everyone on the planet.

I already noted this argument that sealing is needed primarily to save fish stocks, since that is usually the first card to be played by the industry. If it was a matter of culling the numbers of seals, that still does not equal taking harp seal pups and skinning them for fur. Once there is money to be made, any and every excuse will be given to keep the hunt going. If the decline in fish stocks also leads to a decline in harp seals, the advocates for the fur industry will resist all efforts to stop the hunt because of the money involved. I don't even think culling predators should be given this sort of knee jerk approval without any investigation of wider ecological issues. Why are fish stocks in decline? Remember, according to legend, John Cabot's boat got stuck off the coast of Labrador because of a dense school of cod fish swimming in their path. Now, cod numbers are so low, they may be headed for extinction and the fishing industry keeps pulling any and every species of fish out of the waters to keep their business going. Rather than ask what can be done to save the oceans, the first suggestion is to just kill off the other predators that compete with ocean-going trawlers. The seals did not cause over-fishing before the first commercial trawlers showed up to vacuum the oceans, so how can anyone seriously consider harp seals to be a primary cause of decline in fish numbers. It's already happening from market forces. Fish is getting expensive and is already out of many people's price range. That is the same link I provided! I don't know much confidence a report in the veterinary journal should receive since there could be money and influence involved in getting that judgment. How much confidence can we have in the 98% figure? How many speeders are prosecuted for driving 20 - 30 kmh over the speed limit? The cops have to write out a few tickets to prove that they are earning their pay. "Only 200 charges have been laid" doesn't tell me how actively the feds are trying to find and prosecute evidence of abuse, especially when they parade that number as evidence of how hard they are working to find signs of abuse. It could be not much more than a PR effort. I raised the ethical issue because I did not find an argument for banning the hunt on the basis of age (killing baby seals) to be very compelling. Even if the ethical arguments against the seal fur industry are not the most important, they have to be acknowledged because modern ethics is being informed by new information about animal life, and changing our Judeo-Christian worldview that humans are the pinnacle of life on earth, and other life is just here to be exploited (dominion over the animal creation, yadayada) -- a modern appreciation for where we really stand, tells us that we are a branch of the primate family that developed an overly large pre-frontal cortex, which has allowed us to do great things but also to act recklessly towards our own detriment. We have developed an illusion of having dominion over all living things for the last 10,000 years, ever since we developed agriculture; now we have to adopt a new paradigm that we are part of the ecosystems of earth, not standing over and above them! If we do not learn as a species to act in harmony with the planet's ecosystems, our species will become extinct in one to five centuries. And part of living in harmony with nature depends on a new appreciation for the welfare of other sentient creatures on earth. Again, we are not something separate and superior to them, we merely have superior abstract reasoning capabilities that they don't have. If we do not have any empathy for the welfare of other advanced creatures that have the same capacity for emotional states that we have (like dogs for example), then that's a slap against any ethical claims made regarding humans. When it comes to animals that are close to our cognitive abilities, such as whales and dolphins, they should be accorded something close to the human rights that we guarantee to the few hunter/gatherer still in existence, such as the residents on the Andaman and Nicobar Islands.

No society beyond hunter/gatherer is able to sustain itself by hunting, but that is essentially how fishing, whaling and sealing is conducted. It is hunting on the wide open oceans. Ecologists have warned us for decades that the growing human population cannot just keep taking more and more out of the seas without end. The trawlers are bigger, the nets drag deeper and scoop more and more out of the seas, and people on land think that this can go on without end...just like the oil industry! And yes, 99% of the meat and dairy that finds its way to the supermarkets is also an environmentally unsustainable industry. Traditionally, in most of the Far East, most people learned how to eat with a lot less meat in the diet because of the cost. In the future, if we are going to escape ecological disaster, meat is going to have to be priced at a level that properly accounts for taking on average: ten pounds of plant food to produce one pound of meat.

You can call whatever you like a religion, but us liberal secular humanists are not stupid enough to join your fundamentalist forces in a holy war against your competition.

No sale! No! Did I say that I did? This topic is your hobby horse not mine; I accidentally stumbled upon it, and I have no interest in doing in depth research on the claims of either side -- there are other animal welfare issues that I want to spend a little more time on than this one. But if there has never been proof of a sealer skinning a seal alive, then what is this supposed to mean: "The federal government acknowledges that it has laid more than 200 charges against sealers since 1996, but argues that shows it's serious about enforcing its regulations." Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/05/05/f-seal-hunt.html#ixzz0pOwO2QnQ So why were those charges laid, and how many offenders go unnoticed by authorities out on the ice floes? I know as much as I intend to know about this archaic business that serves no useful purpose.

Take a look at the Wikipedia entry devoted to atheist demographics, and tell me why the polls cited are so wildly divergent? Sweden for example, has 23% atheists in the 2005 Eurobarometer poll, while several other polls cited in one of the linked sources claim that anywhere between 46% and 85% of Swedes do not believe in God! The gap in numbers would indicate that the poll subjects have wildly different ideas of what they're being asked by the pollsters, and there is no way to have much confidence in any interpretations of the results, beyond saying that Western Europe is more agnostic than North America, or Asia, or Africa etc. Another point that needs to be mentioned is that a decline in belief in God, does not mean a decline in supernatural thinking. There is no evidence for a decline in what are referred to as 'secular supernatural' ideas like ESP, astrology, life forces, ghosts, UFO's etc.. Third world countries are filled with people who are struggling for survival, and don't have the time or the energy to ponder over the likelihood of whether their intuitions about a creator watching down on them are correct. And for people who live bleak lives in abject poverty, what comfort will they derive from not having a hereafter to look forward to? And once again, religion includes a lot more than belief in God, and there are religions where belief in God isn't even necessary. Many people belong to a religion to find higher purpose in life and focus on things beyond their own narrow self interests. There aren't any atheist or humanist organizations in a position to fill that role. That might indicate that a world without religion might end up being worse off. I didn't say anything about morality. I was talking about studies done on how people make sense of the world. As brief as possible -- there are two ways of making judgments. You've got one that is very rapid, unconscious, and untutored—the intuitive system. And the second rational experiential system, the one which is analytical, is much slower and laborious -- and has to be learned. The intuitive system is always running in the background, even in rational skeptics, so it has to be suppressed to go with the deliberative, reasoned answer. Now, the problem here is that the atheist evangelists like Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris, think that the world can be converted into a bunch of atheist skeptics who are free from supernatural beliefs. The problem is that people have varying degrees of reliance on intuition or rational reasoning. Those who give more credence to their intuitive understandings of the world are going to be far less likely to be atheists, and even if they were, they would be carrying around a lot of other supernatural baggage. Religions don't create the basic foundations of supernatural thinking, they just harness it to form their own narratives about the world. Where will these people go if there are no religions? Wherever it is, it is not likely going to be towards the atheist, humanist, or skeptic organizations.

Re: Rand Paul's comments on the Civil Rights Act; he got 15 minutes on the Rachel Maddow Show to explain his views and finally conceded that he did not agree with the provision that prevented private business owners from refusing customers because of race. It wasn't until the next day, after another grilling on Good Morning America that he made the statement that he would have voted in favour of the Civil Rights Act.....horses already out of the barn etc. But the worst blunder by Rand Paul is not on civil rights, it's his pro-business philosophy that drove him to complain the Obama Administrations handling of BP, and say:"Sometimes accidents happen." As the carnage in the Gulf grows, these are the words that are going to bury his political career and send him back to doing Lasic surgery.

And the award for best description of Rand Paul goes to Bill Maher: "But how to describe Rand Paul! I mean he's a doctor -- it's as if Sarah Palin made it through medical school. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/22/bill-maher-describes-rand_n_585852.html

The first problem here is conflating organized religion with belief in God -- they do not necessarily go together. There are some atheists or agnostics who belong to very liberal churches for fellowship or social action. The Unitarian/Universalists estimate that 20 to 25% of members identify as atheists or agnostics. On the other hand, most of those "unaffiliated" in the survey believe in some form of God, they just don't like organized religion, or no longer feel that they need to be a member of a religion. Some pop atheist writers like Dawkins for example, have made a big production about the decline in organized religion in Western Europe and concluded that it also means a growth in atheism or agnosticism. The real story is that people living comfortably in nations like Sweden or Denmark, which have a high level of government-provided services, do not have much need for a church. But in third world countries, or in nations on their way to third world status, like the U.S.A., organized religion is growing, out of necessity. Whether the churches grow or decline in Canada will depend more on economics and what level of government services we choose to fund, rather than our metaphysical beliefs. That wishful thinking that Richard Dawkins has about atheism growing and becoming the majority is out of step with research done in psychology and neuroscience, which is drawing towards a general conclusion that we use different levels of intuition and rationalizing to form beliefs. Those who rely more on intuition also score higher on scales of supernatural thinking and belief in the paranormal...and although this does not necessarily mean belief in a divine creator, it is more likely they will continue to believe in God, rather than be an atheist.

Canada has followed the spirit of Separation of Church and State even though it's not actually in the Charter. Maybe we should start thinking about protecting secular institutions now that America has a dedicated Christian Right chipping away at their 'wall of separation.' Unless I'm wrong, the only reference to God in Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is found in the preamble, which constitutional scholars have generally agreed would have no legal force -- so a statement recognizing "the supremacy of God" could not be used to undermine the freedom of conscience of an atheist to be forced into some sort of religious observance. I don't agree with changing the tax exempt status of churches(as long as they're not mega-churches taking advantage of the church designation). Churches have historically fulfilled many roles in the community that aren't covered by government institutions, or if they were, would add to the cost of government-provided social services.

Yeah I remember! But you forgot that I'm also an atheist. The point is that you have decided to target one religion specifically, whereas I think this Hitchens and Harris strategy of supporting one form of religious fundamentalists against another is plain stupid. I haven't seen you comment about the Hutaree Militia, or other militias and tea party activists that are threatening violence. They will end up as the brown shirts of a new fascist movement...all it would take is an economic decline. Now, to bring it back to this New York mosque issue, If you want a Christian terrorist, how about this right wing radio host in Houston, who is trying to incite someone to blow up the proposed mosque in New York! just discovered it's already been posted. Oh well, it deserves repeating.

By "Israel Proper" are you referring to the boundaries before the 1967 Six Day War? If so, back at that time, the Jewish population of Israel was almost 90%. But it's a moot point anyway if governments like Netanyahu refuse to give up the West Bank. Not as high as Arab birth rates apparently....While withdrawal from Gaza and most of the West Bank-with their Palestinian Arab population of between 2.5 million to 3.8 million*-may be necessary to maintain Israel's Jewish majority, it may well not be sufficient to ensure a Jewish state. That's because Israel's own Arab minority has been growing as a percentage of the country's total population, and continuing a process of "Palestinianization." In 2004, the total population grew by 1.8 percent, or 121,000 persons. But while the Jewish sector grew at a 1.4 percent rate, the Arab sector expanded by three percent (Muslims at 3.3 percent). Even though total fertility rates among Israeli Arab women have declined, and among Jewish women recently increased, a significant disparity remains-4.4 for Israeli Muslims, 2.6 for Israeli Jews. Given that Israeli Jews are older, Israeli Arabs younger-the median age for Jews is 30.5, for Arabs 19.6, Israel's Arab population can be expected to expand in comparison to the Jewish sector, absent a significant new wave of Jewish immigration, for some years. http://www.hagshama.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=2181 Apparently this demographics issue is part of a big political dispute in Israel between Netanyahu's Likud and the Kadima Party. Ariel Sharon believed demographics was going to become a problem and set out to pull out of Gaza and build a fence in the West Bank to carve out settlements that Israel wanted to keep after pulling out of Palestinian areas. Netanyahu's group think they can have it all! But if the Aliyah is going to preserve Jewish domination, where are all of the people going to live? Are they going to reclaim the sea like Holland did! There has to be a limit somewhere to how many people can live on a fixed parcel of land. The Likud is dominated by religious parties who think some sort of divine intervention will save them from disaster...unfortunately their Christian Zionist backers in America, who fund a lot of the building of new settlements, believe that disaster is imminent, and they are helping to usher in the end times.