Richard Dawkins on Child Abuse
Faith and Philosophy
| February 10, 2010
| Tim
I noted earlier that Richard Dawkins admitted he had detested the idea of "hijacking" a word by a special interest group — until that group was his own.
There's a second example, in the same essay, of Dawkins' philosophical consistency (or lack thereof): His stance that it's wrong to indoctrinate children into a particular worldview:
A phrase like 'Catholic child' or 'Muslim child' should clang furious bells of protest in the mind, just as we flinch when we hear 'one man one vote'. Children are too young to know their religious opinions. Just as you can't vote until you are 18, you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society's impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit those of your parents. We'd be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child. So isn't it a kind of child-abuse to speak of a Catholic child or a Protestant child?
Here also, taking inspiration from one of history's greatest thinkers, John Lennon (is Dawkins similarly impressed with Lennon's pretended hatred of private property?) Dawkins fulminates against the evil of raising a child after one's own metaphysical tradition:
If a social engineer set out to devise a system for perpetuating today's most vicious enmities, he could not come up with a better formula than sectarian education. Faith schools that taught all religions comparatively might do some good. But the whole point of faith schools is that the children of 'our' tribe must be taught 'their own' religion. Since the children of the other tribe are simultaneously being taught the rival religion with, of course, the rival version of the vendetta-riven history, the prognosis is all too predictable.
So, then, we'd assume Richard Dawkins would never, say, support an educational experience geared to pass on atheism to the the children of atheists, right?
Ha! Don't be silly! Of course he would. And did:
Richard Dawkins, the evolutionary biologist and author of The God Delusion, has helped launch an atheist summer camp for children.... Dawkins is not personally involved in Camp Quest, which originated in the United States, but helped subsidise the cost of the camp through his Richard Dawkins Foundation.
More on Camp Quest:
The camp's programs and activities introduce campers to the history and ideas of freethought. Campers also learn about science, the scientific method, critical thinking, world religions and church-state separation. Biblical stories and metaphors are discussed in the context of cultural literacy. Campers are taught that ethical behavior is not dependent on religious belief and doctrines, that religious belief and doctrines are sometimes a hindrance to ethical and moral behavior, and that irreligious persons are also good and fully capable of living a happy and meaningful life.
Recall, also, Dawkins is on record as saying religious indoctrination is "child abuse." But I suppose it's no crime as long as Dawkins agrees with the values being instilled. Or perhaps they've deluded themselves to think a child won't be unduly swayed by such experiences, and will really "think for themselves" in the way "Christian children" wouldn't, given a parallel experience at a Bible Camp.
For the record, I fully support Richard Dawkins' (and every other atheist's) desire to pass along their worldview, assumptions, values, etc. to his or her own children. There's no such thing as raising a child without values, and it's reasonable to expect a child will be most influenced by his or her parents' choices.
Nor would I criminalize someone of another belief (including Richard Dawkins) for teaching their children values someone else might consider harmful or wrong. To the contrary, if a prominent Christian stood up and announced they thought it should be illegal for atheists to teach their children atheism, I would publicly denounce them and have nothing to do with them. And I don't know a single Christian who I think wouldn't.
So I find it sadly telling that the vast majority of atheists seem to still honor Dawkins and take him seriously, given that he's said the same. But hey, as long its your side advocating it, then it's okay, right?
Sigh.
You are relying on assumptions that are not at all self-evident.
(1) Atheism is a religion.
Atheism is a religion in the same way that sobriety is a drug. There are some similarities, but more fundamental differences.
(2) If someone says that something is bad, it is the same as if he said it should be illegal.
mgarelick - Re: 1
I'd say that atheism is a not a religion in the same way that theism is not a religion. Some religions are theist. Arguably, depending on your definition of 'religious', some religions are atheistic.
So what is your definition of religion? Would you say that Communism is an atheistic religion, for instance? I've had a few atheistic friends make that argument, in part, possibly, as a way of distancing themselves from Communism. Of course, the corollary to claiming that Communism is a religion is to admit that not believing in God doesn't actually prevent "religious behavior."
I certainly think it'd be better for more atheists to start describing their worldview based on their affirmative atheistic beliefs (objectivist, materialist, nihilist, hedonist, Buddhist, Marxist-Leninist, Epicurian, etc.) rather than simply by negation. Everyone has a basis for deciding good vs. bad. It doesn't help for people to obscure what that criteria is.
You are relying on assumptions that are not at all self-evident. (1) Atheism is a religion.
While I do believe that atheism can function as a religion every bit as much as "theism" (or not — Ryan makes the point very well), the argument above doesn't "rely on" that in the slightest.
First, note the actual words used: I say that Richard Dawkins is opposed to assuming a child should be presumed to accept the "worldview" or "metaphysical outlook" of her or her parents. That's correct; even his own statement says as much:
Just as you can't vote until you are 18, you should be free to choose your own cosmology and ethics without society's impertinent presumption that you will automatically inherit those of your parents. We'd be aghast to be told of a Leninist child or a neo-conservative child or a Hayekian monetarist child.
He's not against the presumption of passing these things on because they're religious, but because they are significant parts of a worldview, presumed upon one who can't yet grapple with the concepts, in full, intellectually.
Perhaps this is what you're looking at: I do suggest (correctly, I'd add) that Dawkins is against "religious indoctrination", but then accuse of him of doing something parallel. That isn't to say that I think he's indoctrinating children into a religion (nor does my point rest upon saying such — see above) — just that he is, contra his own complaint and standards, acting as though the children of atheists should most likely grow up to acquire the views of their parents, by supporting a practice which (deliberately) parallels that of Christians.
(2) If someone says that something is bad, it is the same as if he said it should be illegal.
I'm responding to Dawkins' assertion that passing on one's religion to a child is a form of child abuse — which currently IS (not merely "should be") illegal. Dawkins (not me) has already equated the practice with a crime, so my parallel response is written in the same terms.
Ryan: Would you say that Communism is an atheistic religion, for instance? I've had a few atheistic friends make that argument...
Sam Harris offers the same argument, for the same reason. If true, it doesn't show that "atheism" is a religion, but it does show, historically, that "atheism" does nothing to inoculate the "atheist" against rather nasty, extreme, and intolerant kinds of religious fervor. (To the contrary, per (alleged) Chesterton, it may even leave the subject even more vulnerable to such than a general amorphous "theism".)
Ryan W:
My choice is "nontheist," for a couple of reasons. It is the most inclusive term, and it nails the essential quality we're interested in. In other words, all of the viewpoints you list share, in common with many others espousing myriad other beliefs or no particular worldview, the belief that there is no reason to believe in a personal god. (I suppose this would include those currently known or identifying as "agnostic.") One of the essential features of "nontheism" is that it stands apart from sectarian and chauvinistic conflict between different "faiths" about the nature of god and god's relationship with humans. I would argue that this earns it the recognition that it is not a religion (and does not have the characteristics of "religion" that Dawkins is worried about, vis education of children).
The problem with naming Communism (etc.) as "religion" is that it removes all of the content of religions and applies the term to the structure and features of a "faith-based" belief system. One of the problems with Communism (or despotic governments generally) is the requirement that the people maintain a belief that the political structure functions well, despite the evidence to the contrary. This is more similar to "religion" than it is to "atheism."
Boy you guys are really obsessed with Richard Dawkins, aren't you?
Why not talk about the invasion and annexation of Pepperland by the Blue Meanies? And then find some way of linking Richard Dawkins to that too.
mgarelick
(Communism)... does not have the characteristics of "religion" that Dawkins is worried about, vis education of children.
Sure, Communist socieities didn't indoctrinate kids into theism. But they certainly did indoctrinate kids into sectarian beliefs that were far more harmful than the sectarian beliefs Dawkins seems to be arguing against, no?
Part of my point is that societies have the same (or worse) types of sectarian conflicts, even when God isn't in the picture. Agree or disagree?
If true, this indicates that the theistic nature of certain beliefs is not the source of sectarianism, but incidental to it. The atheistic Chinese communists persecuted atheistic Taoists and Buddhists during the Chinese cultural revolution, for instance. If the two groups had been theistic, how would Dawkins have differentiated that from the sectarian conflicts which he opposes?
One of the essential features of "nontheism" is that it stands apart from sectarian and chauvinistic conflict between different "faiths" about the nature of god and god's relationship with humans.
That's certainly true, in that they don't specifically use the word 'God.' But replace "God" with, say, "What is good" or "historical inevitability" or "Science" (where what is claimed to be "scientific" differs from what actual experimental evidence shows) and you absolutely have sectarian and chauvinistic conflicts that are as bad or worse than seen between any religious group.
You could just as easily argue that French is a less obscene language than English because it doesn't use English curse words. That's certainly true. But it seems like a pointless argument since French has its own analogs of English curse words.
One of the problems with Communism (or despotic governments generally) is the requirement that the people maintain a belief that the political structure functions well, despite the evidence to the contrary. This is more similar to "religion" than it is to "atheism."
As Tim mentioned, this would seem to indicate that "atheism" (or non-theism) does not prevent "religious" behavior. In any experiment, you can't just have an experimental group. You have to have an experimental group along with a control group, so you look for differences between the two. If a trait is found equally in both experimental group and control, then the experimental variable is not the operative factor. Agreed? In this case, this would indicate that religious behavior occurs without theism, and does so quite commonly. In recent history, communist-styled belief systems have been the predominant type of atheism among the world's population. (So perhaps you would want to be careful of being too inclusive?)
Personally, I've found that first principles are the best tools for classifying a particular belief systems. Some atheistic systems based on 'compassion' are more similar to theistic systems based on compassion than they are to other atheistic systems based on, say, the importance of equal distribution of material wealth. Similarly, Christians are more like sometimes atheistic Mahayana Buddhists than they are like worshipers of, say, Zeus or Hecate.
I realize that some of the "up with atheism" movement may very well be an understandable reaction to theists who insist that belief in God is a requisite for morality. But I think that such a reaction leads to a bad paraphyletic religious taxonomy which groups very dissimilar belief systems together and separates similar ones.
that are as bad or worse than seen between any religious group.
Should read "any theistic religious group."
Ryan W -- I haven't had time yet to respond, but I'm not sure it's worth the time. Your misquote from my post is pretty egregious.
I'm responding to Dawkins' assertion that passing on one's religion to a child is a form of child abuse — which currently IS (not merely "should be") illegal. Dawkins (not me) has already equated the practice with a crime, so my parallel response is written in the same terms.
Not all child abuse is illegal; for example, verbal abuse is not.
nitori_is_the_smartest:
Boy you guys are really obsessed with Richard Dawkins, aren't you?
Um, if your private definition of "obsessed" means posting twice about a topic in a year, then yes, I suppose so.
Thom accuses me of being hopelessly ignorant, because I mention a years-old post from Dawkins (I'm not paying enough attention!); now you accuse me of being "obsessed" with him. Too funny!
And if I'm "obsessed" for writing two (or even ten!) posts about Dawkins in a year, what do you make of a man whose full time preoccupation, every day, is opposing religious beliefs?
This is, by the way, precisely what the Amway people accused me of, also (I was allegedly *obsessed* with Quixtar/Amway); so resorting to that tactic puts you in really good company.
Why not talk about the invasion and annexation of Pepperland by the Blue Meanies? And then find some way of linking Richard Dawkins to that too.
What a stunning deployment of non-sequitors! You really *are* the smartererest!
mgarelick; in addition to Ryan's comments:
My choice is "nontheist," for a couple of reasons. It is the most inclusive term, and it nails the essential quality we're interested in...
You're aware that a good chunk of the New Age movement is non-theistic, right? Interesting group to throw your lot in with, if you're at all concerned with rationality and science.
One of the essential features of "nontheism" is that it stands apart from sectarian and chauvinistic conflict between different "faiths" about the nature of god and god's relationship with humans
Ryan's point is good here: you're minimizing "conflict between different 'faiths'" while perhaps not minimizing conflict itself at all. (Or even increasing it.) You're focusing on a tiny part of the problem, without looking at larger impacts.
I remember, for example, reading arguments about gun control. I noticed pro- gun-control groups claimed their favored polices "reduced gun violence". But I wasn't interested in minimizing "gun violence", but "violence" as a whole! It turns out they only said their policies reduced "gun violence" because it appears their polices actually increase violence as a whole, and they couldn't make that larger claim.
Likewise, those who identified themselves as atheists (surely included among "nontheists", right?) have, in a short century, done far more to increase bloodshed and conflict around the world than theists achieved in a millenia. So yes, these atheists (with claims exactly the same as yours, about reducing religion-based conflicts) produced political systems where people no longer fought about the nature of God. Instead, they were obsessed endless political conquest, and, ultimately with anyone having dissenting thoughts of any variety at all.
One of the problems with Communism (or despotic governments generally) is the requirement that the people maintain a belief that the political structure functions well, despite the evidence to the contrary. This is more similar to "religion" than it is to "atheism."
Ryan makes the point again, and I will too: this indicates "atheism" or "non-theism" doesn't prevent religious behavior. (And may even predispose those holding it to worse tendencies than their counterparts.)
I think there are 'religious' sects and movements which are non-theistic (Communism, for example, as well as non-theists who participate in the environmental movement), just as there are within theism. Again, if you're echoing Harris's point and saying that Communism was essentially a religion, then you're agreeing exactly with what I'm saying here.
...the people maintain a belief that the political structure functions well, despite the evidence to the contrary
If this is your definition of 'religion' then I'd say the "New Atheist" movement, as a whole, is quite "religious". Again, Communism was a system in which atheists took control and enforced the stuff John Lennon later sang glowingly about (no religion, no international boundaries, no property — banning, it seemed, all sources of conflict) to awful effect.
Again, that doesn't prove all atheists are awful. But it does prove that banning or opposing "religion" doesn't automatically lead to increased human rights nor rational behavior. Yet "New Atheists" still seem quite convinced of that anyway, utterly ignoring a century's worth of evidence to the contrary.
By your own definition, that's a "religious" behavior.
Similarly, you keep saying Communism was a religion. Lovely! And Ryan and I have pointed out the obvious: this means that "non-theism" (or even the more specific "atheism") does nothing to prevent behavior you yourself would apparently consider "religious."
Not all child abuse is illegal; for example, verbal abuse is not.
I think that's a pretty good comeback, considering the situation you're in, but I'm not sure it'll save your argument: at best, it says I should have said something better or more clearly, rather than undermining my core argument. Worse, I think it depends upon a number of assumptions which are not at all evidence.
The first is whether "verbal child abuse" is indeed legal. Look at Oregon's guidelines for identifying abuse, it would seem, at least in some locales, you are wrong. I would guess Dawkins' UK, and Europe as a whole, would be to the "left" of Oregon in this regard.
Second, you're assuming Dawkins believes "verbal child abuse" is legal, and should continue to be legal. (Have any evidence for this?) Otherwise, he is indeed comparing to something he considers to be a criminal act.
Third, even if you can prove both those, the effect is simply to say that my analogous response was a little overstated. Instead I should have written (bold indicates changes):
Nor would I allege someone of another belief (including Richard Dawkins) should be considered a "child abuser" for teaching their children values someone else might consider harmful or wrong. To the contrary, if a prominent Christian stood up and announced they thought it should be considered "child abuse" for atheists to teach their children atheism, I would publicly denounce them and have nothing to do with them. And I don't know a single Christian who I think wouldn't.
The point — my characterization of the general Christian response, and thus strongly contrasting levels of tolerance between the two groups — still stands.
For the record, I think Dawkins does think that "child abuse", including "verbal child abuse", including teaching children religion, should be considered the same as physical child abuse. I see three bits of evidence for this:
1. For Dawkins, the operative concern seems to be emotional suffering (if they, for example think of hell) or other kinds of resulting "damage": "'Sectarian religious schools,' Dawkins asserts, have been 'deeply damaging" to generations of children.'" [source] So I don't think Dawkins' own primary concern is based on whether a physical cause is behind suffering or damage. So I don't think he personally would distinguish between the two.
2. Given that lot of people have been giving him heat for this, he could have simply clarified: "Oh, I only meant it should be stigmatized, not that it should be criminalized, as most forms of child abuse are." Lacking such, it appears his critics (myself included) *have* gotten his main intent.
(If you know of such a retraction or clarification from him, feel free to post it!)
3. He has often appeared with Sam Harris, who HAS explicitly endorsed the idea of banning certain religious beliefs. If Dawkins found such an idea abhorrent (as abhorrent as he finds belief in God) then he should have condemned Harris's calls for such, and publicly distanced himself from Harris. As it is (again, post if I'm wrong) he doesn't seem particularly bothered by such statements.
Ryan W -- I haven't had time yet to respond, but I'm not sure it's worth the time. Your misquote from my post is pretty egregious.
Aside from replacing "it" with "(communism)" where "communism" seemed pretty clearly to be the subject. My quotes of your comments were simple copy and paste, word for word. That should make misquotation close to impossible.
Perhaps you meant to accuse me of some different infraction? In any case, if you'd like to provide some actual support for your accusation that I "misquoted" you I'll be here.
My quotes of your comments were simple copy and paste, word for word. That should make misquotation close to impossible.
Welcome to my world.
Ryan W:
Aside from replacing "it" with "(communism)" where "communism" seemed pretty clearly to be the subject. My quotes of your comments were simple copy and paste, word for word. That should make misquotation close to impossible.
Look again -- i did not use the word "Communism" until after the sentence that you shoe horned it into.
The two paragraphs of my post had separate subjects. The first was "nontheism," the second was whether all "faith-based" belief systems, such as Communism should be deemed religious. Maybe I was unclear, but I mean to be saying that "nontheism" is not
"faith-based."
Part of my point is that societies have the same (or worse) types of sectarian conflicts, even when God isn't in the picture. Agree or disagree?
And part of my point is that putting God "in the picture" is not an incidental detail; rather, it is a remarkably effective way of turning a difference of opinion into something worth fighting, dying, hurting and killing over. Consider the difference between statement A, "I find homosexual acts distasteful, and for the following reasons I believe they are unhealthy and dangerous," and statement B, "homosexual acts are an abomination before the creator and supreme ruler of the universe."
... "Science" (where what is claimed to be "scientific" differs from what actual experimental evidence shows)...
Example? By "differs," do you mean "contradicts," or simply "goes beyond?"
mgarelick -
Okay, so let me see if this is a correct restatement of what you were saying; The word "Nontheist" "stands apart from the sectarian and chauvinistic conflict between different 'faiths' about the nature of god and god's relationship with humans" just as the word 'Theist' also "stands apart from the sectarian and chauvinistic conflict between different "faiths" about the nature of God and God's relationship with humans." Individual theists and non-theists may not, and often do not, do so.
but I mean to be saying that "nontheism" is not"faith-based."
All philosophies require certain root premesis which cannot be proved (but can be disproved and shown to be self contradicting.) It's a noble task to try to reduce such premises as much as possible. I think we agree here. But a person cannot "prove" that it is wrong to harm another person under any particular circumstance without some kind of assumption.
But hey, I'm all for evidence based belief systems. Would it be accurate to say that that's what you're really in favor of, and that you're opposed to non-theistic systems which are not "evidence based?" (again, perhaps your definition of non-theist is too inclusive, to the point that it fails to capture the quality you're actually looking for.)
And part of my point is that putting God "in the picture" is not an incidental detail; rather, it is a remarkably effective way of turning a difference of opinion into something worth fighting, dying, hurting and killing over. Consider the difference between statement A, "I find homosexual acts distasteful, and for the following reasons I believe they are unhealthy and dangerous," and statement B, "homosexual acts are an abomination before the creator and supreme ruler of the universe."
Well, what objective evidence is this 'increased violence' based on? I'm open to evidence of reduced violence due to reduction of religion if you have some. (And what counts as "violence"? Laws? What if I can find atheists supporting certain laws and asking that the police enforce them. Does that count? Or are we just talking about extra-legal violence here?)
Studies, perhaps? Communists treated gays more harshly than the West did, so, again, removing theism, per se, didn't nessicarily help reduce violence.
One of the problems with Communism (or despotic governments generally) is the requirement that the people maintain a belief that the political structure functions well, despite the evidence to the contrary. This is more similar to "religion" than it is to "atheism."
So how did the Communist (both Russian and Chinese Communist) desire to stamp out homosexual behavior, presumably for the purpose of disease control, derive from their totalitarian system?
(Note: Personally, I'm fine with same sex marriage so long as private companies like eHarmony don't get sued for discrimination because of the legal precedent.)
Consider the difference between statement A, "I find homosexual acts distasteful, and for the following reasons I believe they are unhealthy and dangerous," and statement B, "homosexual acts are an abomination before the creator and supreme ruler of the universe."
The book "Getting to Yes" gives the very helpful admonition; "If you want to solve problems, ask 'what is right' not 'who is right.'" The utility of such a suggestion is that implementing it helps remove ego from a conflict, helps us treat people with the same rules we'd like applied to ourselves and those we care for and, ideally, transitions people from thinking about personal desires to thinking about universal principles applied equally to all people. Those principles may be correctly or incorrectly linked back to first premises. I'll heartily agree that it's a problem when people's faith becomes detached from the root principles underlying it, preventing rational debate of the subject at issue. But aside from that (unfortunately common) problem, discussing universal principles seems to be a vast improvement over discussing morality like it was a favorite flavor of ice cream. Why not say "I find child abuse personally distasteful, but who am I to argue if some people want to do it?" Would you REALLY say that?
So how did the Communist (both Russian and Chinese Communist) desire to stamp out homosexual behavior, presumably for the purpose of disease control, derive from their totalitarian system?
Sorry. Please disregard this section, as it's a non-sequiter regarding your argument.
Its all real simple. Not I nor anyone else really knows though I lean more toward the non existence of God, Jesus...whatever. Practicing the golden rule is a good start so long as you would not do harm unto yourself. Its also a good end. All of these words that people get from studying all of those books gets to be too complex when complexity should be minimized. Arguing over this stuff keeps more negativity in circulation and does no good but rather waste valuable time that one could use to take action and do some good during their lifetime. I used to talk for 4 to 8 hours per phone call to a good physics professor friend of mine on these subjects and its really all word games and a waste of time. It absolutely did nothing productive although I am an engineer and rather take theory and move it into application. Nobody is perfect. The world sure isn't perfect and people discussing all of this political religious stuff does absolutely nothing unless it is put to use for the general masses. Just like Jesus kind of religion is taught and thus affects people on a wide scale...then one of you should start an athiest, or should I say nontheist religion to spread the word to the masses just like that movie Religulous. That was a good one. More stuff should come out like that and that is a prime example of putting theory into application. I personally like to remain neutral, balanced...you know that Buddah kind of stuff just like being agnostic is like neutral. I just learned all of that kind of stuff from my physics buddy bc he reads all of that...I don't have time bc I am busy trying to create products to help the world. My challenge to the world would be to create a nontheist deal sort of like religion to spread the word and then people have choices to make between the two. That way when you have 10 lbs on the left and 10 lbs on the right they end up cancelling each other out and then neutrality sets in and gains a large share of the bell curve. Maybe that would change the world if that is really what you guys are after because just bickering about it won't do anything on the magnitude that is necessary for true change to occur. So long...Just Do It!
Dawkins v christians boils down to creation v evolution, to believe in evolution you must believe :
1. Nothing produces everything
2. Non-life produces life
3. Randomness produces fine tuning
4. Chaos produces information
5. Unconsciousness produces consciousness
6. Non-reason produces reason
ask yourself, NOT somebody else, ask yourself, do I really believe that lot ? If not then ask God to reveal himself, God is a revelation NOT a discovery. I can guarantee He will. He is everything you could ever want or imagine in a Father and I am enjoying His presence in my life every day. Come and join us.
Dawkins v christians boils down to creation v evolution...
Andrew, I honestly wish it were that elevated. I agree with your core point, but there's something deeper. Above, I don't take Dawkins to task for, say, some of the issues you raise above (good as they are), but for being unable to even hold to his own purported values.
Usually, when responding to vocal atheists, I'm not writing: "Well, the atheist is wrong about God!" It doesn't even get that far; usually, I'm just pointing out should-be-obvious illogic, irrationality, their inconsistency, or desire to use coercion or even murder to forward their ideological goals, or live continually in complete contradiction to their purported deepest philosophical beliefs.
Why so much irrationality? It seems to me that in most cases atheism is simply a cover for something else, and doesn't truly arise from a dogged desire to be rational, no matter what. If it did, you'd see a lot more rationality.
God is a revelation NOT a discovery...
I don't disagree with your belief that God can and will reach out to all who seek Him, but I'd also point out that Romans 1 states clearly that God can be deduced, by the same standards we use for other conclusions, from nature.
The comment rules will apply. Please post only once.
« Hijacking Words: Richard Dawkins Saw the Light |
Front Page |
Page Two
| Improving US History by Removing It »
|
You are relying on assumptions that are not at all self-evident.
(1) Atheism is a religion.
Atheism is a religion in the same way that sobriety is a drug. There are some similarities, but more fundamental differences.
(2) If someone says that something is bad, it is the same as if he said it should be illegal.
Posted by: mgarelick on February 11, 2010 06:14 PM