More Intolerance from the Religious

Ron at The Frame Problem informed me of a University’s refusal to recognize an atheist group. The vice-president of the club, blogging in Cosmopolitan, has the actual response to the atheists’ application, from the Campus Clubs department:

While the Campus Clubs department understands the goals and visions of your organization, they are not compatible with the guidelines of what may be approved and incorporated into our department. While the promotion of reason, science and freedom of inquiry are perfectly legitimate goals, what is most in question in regards to your club’s vision is the promotion of “a fulfilling life without religion and superstition“. While this university is indeed technically a secular institution, secular does not denote taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs and practices. To be clear, this is not meant to say that the promotion of science and reason are illegitimate goals. But due to the need to respect and tolerate the views of others, the Campus Clubs department is unable to approve a club of this nature at this time.

I’m afraid they don’t understand the meaning of the word “tolerate”. To “tolerate” the views of others doesn’t mean you can’t criticize them, it just means you don’t prevent those views from being heard. Only by actually trying to prevent views from being heard – for example, by refusing to approve a club whose views you may disagree with – are you being intolerant. I guess they also need to look up the word “irony”.

Once again, despite the nice sounding wording (that it took them nine months to craft), what we have here is the usual intolerant attitude of the religious, whose only response to people who don’t accept their delusions – is to ban them. And yes I know, this group hasn’t been “banned”, strictly speaking. They can still exist (I presume); they just don’t get the freebies the religious groups get. But make no mistake, they would ban this group if they could. And this group isn’t even an in your face atheists’ group. Their name is the Laurier Freethought Alliance.

The Freethought group recently responded in an extremely conciliatory way, in an attempt to get the decision reversed, and it’ll be interesting to see what happens. But why should they have to kowtow in this way? Can you imagine a Christian group (in the West) having to explain itself in such apologetic and conciliatory terms to get approved? If you can, I’d like to hear about it. 

Comments

[stavros]

I guess students can freely create and join any clubs they want, so long as they remain outside of the realms of propaganda and violence. Obviously being an atheist makes you appreciate that bit more your current life :-)

In any case, what disgusts me personally is the provision of pray rooms and churches *inside* the University buildings! A University is supposed to be an educational institute, there is absolutely no room for religious support in there. But you get my point: as long as there are fundamentalists and religious bigots running pretty much every institution and taking most decisions, things will not look good for atheists... This is full blown discrimination

[Big Al]

My brother-in-law, while becoming quite irate, claimed that atheism was just my particular belief system. He didn't listen to my asking how not believing in something because I saw no reason to was any kind of belief system at all.

Still, he has a PhD and I don't, so it must be true.

Therefore, I shall soon be founding a Holy Church of God the Non-Existent, where people are exhorted to express their wonder at a universe that gets on perfectly well without an old guy with a beard fiddling with it.

Let's see these people knock an establishment with the "can't touch me" word "CHURCH" in the title!

[JC]

Although atheism isn't a belief system per ce, it usually comes as part of a belief system, usually amounting to something like the belief that the universe is an ordered system, that which exists leaves evidence, etc.

As far as belief systems go it is pretty reasonable.

[Joseph]

"technically a secular institution"

That was funny.

[Karl Withakay]

RE: While the promotion of reason, science and freedom of inquiry are perfectly legitimate goals, what is most in question in regards to your club’s vision is the promotion of “a fulfilling life without religion and superstition“.

Don't most religions have a vision of worldwide conversion of the unbelievers and essentially of a fulfilling life without those without their faith, of bringing all people to salvation/enlightenment?

Don't most religions (and even denominations within religions) have a philosophy that their religion/denomination /church /faith /etc is the one true religion, that all others are false, and that the only way to enlightenment/salvation/etc is through their one true religion?

How are these fundamental tenets of most religions any different that of the atheist group in question? The philosophy that all theological religions are false and that true enlightenment can only come through the embrace of science and reason and the rejection of belief in the supernatural.

[genewitch]

Karl your logic is flawed. Just because you can cause atheism and religion to share similar descriptions doesn't mean they're anything alike. I believe the fallacies involved are straw man and a red herring, you could argue that it's also an accident fallacy (because not all atheists say that you should promote science and reason, therefore you're ignoring the exceptions); possibly the two wrongs make a right fallacy (pointing to other wrong doing as an example of why this wrongdoing is ok); and a similar fallacy that i cannot for the life of me recall. it goes thusly:

Most religions would call atheism a form of religion.
Most religions have traits A, B, C.
Therefore it is probable that atheism has traits A,B, and C.

It's similar to hasty generalization, but it's almost an inverse. Oh well. :-D (oh and note i toned the language down to represent the more sinister form of the fallacy. i didn't say "ALL" i said "most" and "probable")

[genewitch]

Oh and leave us not forget the old comeback to "Isn't atheism just a religion without a god?"

"Atheism is no more a religion than NOT collecting stamps is a hobby."

[Karl Withakay]

genewitch,
I'm not sure what logical arguments you think I was making about atheists, or specifically which comments you think were logically flawed. I was not making any comments about atheists in general; my comments about atheists applied exclusively to the specific group in question, about whom I drew no unsupported conclusions that I know of. My other observations, posited as questions, were in regards to religions in and of themselves. I don't see a straw man, red hering, or accident fallacy here here.

At no point did I compare or equate atheism to a religion, equate the specific group to a religion, or make any comparison of said group to a religion beyond the common goal of (essentially) a world without religious differences.

My point was that the group in question had their application denied because the club's goals "are not compatible with the guidelines of what may be approved and incorporated into our department." in spite of the fact that said stated goals do not appreciably differ from most world religions in the points that the university found objectionable.

Is there really much difference between the goal of a world free of religion, and the goal of a world free of any religion that is not the one you follow? Most religions, even if they won't come right out and state it in those words, have just that goal or hope.

I don't use the argument to make any conclusion that the university's decision to refuse to recognize the atheist group was right or wrong, merely that it was inconsistent with respect to their recognition of other groups with essentially similar goals.

I personally believe the university acted unfairly and should reverse their decision. I guess we believe in a society with freedom of religion, as long as you have one

[stavros]

Karl:

Is there really much difference between the goal of a world free of religion, and the goal of a world free of any religion that is not the one you follow?

There is a huge difference here for many reasons: first, atheists spend their time doing actually valuable stuff like promoting reason, science etc. Religious people mostly waste their time praying, feeling guilty, and going to the church. Same goes for resources: where religious people would build churches, atheists would build schools!

Second, religious people actively embark on propaganda, and are blinded by their dogmas, thus discouraging scientific progress and ultimately the progress of human kind.

Third, there is difference in the means: religious fanatics would simply kill everyone else, while atheists would use reason and logic to persuade others

However, it is true that the club's statement sounds a bit propagandistic (is this a word!?) in a sense... But this doesn't justify the University's decision in my opinion

[genewitch]

Karl, I, myself, do not want religion abolished. I just want it to leave me alone and stop invading politics and education.

Apologies for not noticing the stringent set of criteria set in your first post, the entire post sounded like a anti-atheist devil's advocate. i don't like hearing about atheism as a pseudo-religion with quasi-zealots who want to quash religion.

If i say "i think stamp collectors are wasting their time" i'm not saying that there shouldn't be stamp collectors, to each their own.

Also, the club council misquoted their club idea, it wasn't without religion and superstition, it was something that didn't have as negative a slant to it. I believe the links provided shine light on that subject, as i don't recall where i read that today. i think the words were something like "to promote the ideas of science and reason, and show you can have a good life while being free from religion and superstition"

[Karl Withakay]

genewitch, I think we are on the same page here, thanks for the reply.

Science, atheism, and critical thinking are NOT religions or even pseudo religions, but they do largely eliminate the need for most theological religions when fully embraced; an argument could be made for the usefulness of purely philosophical "religions" for some people, I suppose.

stavros, in all objective fairness to many organized religions:

1 Many religions do more than pray and build churches: they build schools, hospital, etc, and are responsible for a great deal of charitable work. Also, atheists are no more homogeneous than the religious. Many atheists replace religion with belief in the paranormal, astrology, new age malarkey, or UFO's and don't really embrace critical/ scientific thinking- these are the ones that give atheists a bad image.

2 No argument there in regards to a great number of fervently religious persons, and they are the loudest voice and biggest problem, but your statement was at bit of a big blanket.

3 Again, most religions do not believe (anymore) in forceful conversion, but they do generally believe theirs is the only real truth. I'll just refer to my point about the lack of homogeneity of atheists in general in regards to the statement "atheists would use reason and logic to persuade others" and suggest changing that to "critical thinking atheists would use reason and logic to persuade others".

[stavros]

Karl:

1) yes obviously there are exceptions to all such "communities", but I believe you can understand we are talking about the majority and the norm. And even if it wasn't the majority, it is still a waste. I accept that there are many religious organizations that build schools etc. but these actions are typically for propagandistic reasons. For instance, usually schools build by such religious organizations then have the power to dictate the syllabus or at least influence to a *very* large degree the educational content of the school. There are a number of such examples in the UK where Blair introduced a controversial scheme to financially support building of schools by wealthy individuals but then granting them the control. For crying out loud there was/is a school in North England that was/is teaching the plausibility of Noah's Ark in its Science Class! And the same is true for charity work: "we give you this pack of rice, and you make sure you pray the Lord for it"...

2) OK, second argument was probably too generic but the idea remains. you only have to look at the US to witness that...

3) Again, it is the majority, and just have a look at Islam, American fundamentalists, the constant wars in middle-east, the constant hostility between Pakistan and India, the IRA case (which thankfully seems to have closed finally) and so many more countless examples of religious hatred!

[Celladore]

I believe some of you may be misinterpreting the points Karl is trying to make.

It is stated that one of the visions of the club, which has caused its formation to be denied, was "to promote a fulfilling life without religion and superstition."

On the other hand, we can assume that, even if not specifically written or stated, a Christian club's vision would be something along the lines of "to promote a fulfilling life through the teachings of Jesus Christ"

In this sense, a Christian club would meet the criteria "taking an active stance in opposition to the principles and status of religious beliefs" (i.e. all other religious beliefs that don't include following Christ) by which the Atheist club had been denied.

I hope this may clear things up.

[Tom Foss]

I hope this may clear things up.

Thanks, Celladore, you saved me from having to post the same thing. Karl's post approached the subject from a different angle than I think many of us would (and that "how is it any different" phrase, I think, sets off alarm bells in the mind of the average atheist debater), but his point is valid: the school finds objectionable (their interpretation, which I doubt is quite accurate) a position that is implied or stated outright by any religious organization, of which (as I recall) there are several on that campus. For the school to deny a freethought group for "promoting a fulfilling life without religion" and to allow a Christian group which would necessarily promote a fulfilling life without all other religions, is hypocritical.

[genewitch]

Tom, it wasn't the school, it's a student government sort of thing.

And as i stated before, the "without religion" was a misquote (or really poor interpretation by the Club Council).

To reiterate, the administration knew nothing of this (or at least took no active hand in it, as far as i could see).

[Tom Foss]

Tom, it wasn't the school, it's a student government sort of thing.

The criticism stands, so long as there are religious student organizations on campus.

And as i stated before, the "without religion" was a misquote (or really poor interpretation by the Club Council).

I imagine it's the latter; I (and I think most freethinkers would) read it as promoting the fact that one can lead a fulfilling life without religion or superstition, contrary to popular belief. The council, it may appear, read this as 'promoting a fulfilling life without ever having to deal with religion or superstition' or 'promoting a fulfilling life without religion or superstition for anyone.'

What I think Karl was saying is that even if you interpret it in that hard-line latter way, it's still an invalid reason to deny the club, so long as there are Christian and Muslim organizations on campus that, explicitly or implicitly, would promote fulfilling lives without any other religion, for everyone.

[debbyo]

It must be very scary for atheists in the US, where religion and politics are so intertwined. In Australia, politicians rarely mention god and certainly never in important speeches. We’ve had several atheist Prime Ministers since I’ve been alive (the last one and our present PM are low-key Christians). It’s changing though – and some evangelical churches are starting to have some impact on the conservative parties. We have a conservative, family values senator (who also is a prominent leader in a church) and unfortunately may soon have the balance of power in the senate. But it would be considered embarrassing for any public figure to mention, let alone go on about, god. One of the things that amazes many Australians about the US is - when even wild rock chicks, barely dressed, and just out of rehab, get an award they thank god. We don’t associate sex, drugs and rock n roll with Christianity. BUT the last few winners or runner-ups in Australian Idol were from one evangelical church. But it's still uncool.

[Karl Withakay]

Tom Foss:
That was exactly my point. There's really no point to discussing what the group's statement really means, or whether it was properly stated or not. There's also no need for the group to kowtou and try to clarify their goal because even if you take the most extreme literal interpretation of “a fulfilling life without religion and superstition“, it would still be inconsistent to deny their application while approving applications from various Christian and Muslim groups.

[chanstar]

As an agnostic (and, I might add, a fallen Catholic, so I do hate the church and may as well say so) I find this hilarious. If you are an atheist, you believe there is no god - sorry, but that counts as a statement of belief, and atheists do tend to have a "party line" that they get pretty heated about - it's simply disingenuous to say it's not a belief system.

Now, as big a muck as religions make of attempting to prove there is a god, it is absolutely impossible to prove the NON-existence of something, however much you may instinctively feel it doesn't exist. Most religious people base their beliefs on 'gut instinct', too. Am I supposed to believe your gut over theirs? Frankly, most atheistic arguments against god(s) existing are no more compelling than the pro-side arguments of the religious fanatics. And many atheists are at least as arrogant in the way they present their beliefs as the religious.

Everyone should just admit that we don't know what the f*** is going on with the universe, and that creationism AND big bang/other scientific theories still fail miserably in dealing with the "who created god?/what went bang and where did it or the bang come from?" questions. I and other agnostics freely admit we don't know, or at least that we can't prove either an atheistic or a religious world-view.

Oh, and for atheists who think the world would be a better place if religion were outlawed, gotta remind you how well that turned out for the peoples of the Soviet Union and China.

Very interesting website, by the way. But I do advise people to read a lot of Carl Jung before attempting to label him a "kook" (is that the scientific term? LOL!) He might not have gotten everything right, or convinced everyone of all his theories, but he's still a hell of a lot more interesting than skeptic James Randi, who it occurs to me has gotten an awful lot of attention (and probably coin) just saying "I don't buy it" to everything.

There's a lot of religious/New Age BS in the world; there's also a lot of stuff that hasn't ever been explained, and a lot of once highly regarded scientific theories that have been disproven. Debating the nature of life, the universe and everything is a parlour game, no matter who's playing. Deal with it!

Oh,but as for the college - they are dead wrong. Students should be able to equally express views and have clubs. This is a no-brainer for anybody.

[Q]

#1. Guess you haven't heard the one where saying atheism is a belief is just like saying not collecting stamps is a hobby.

#2. You can't prove a negative. It isn't atheists who have to prove their point. That's the part of any religion.

#3. The Soviet Union, nor China were based on Atheist principles (there isn't even a strict Atheist code). You'd be looking for countries closer to Sweden or Japan on that cirteria, but even they are not formed on any such basis.

[Tom Foss]

If you are an atheist, you believe there is no god - sorry, but that counts as a statement of belief,

Yes, if you "believe there is no god," that's a statement of belief. It is not, however, atheism. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god or gods, not the positive belief that there is no god, which would be antitheism. There are some atheists who would go so far as to say the latter, there are others who wouldn't; the common thread, however, is the lack of belief in god(s). If your answer to the question "Do you believe in a god" is anything other than "yes," then you are an atheist.

and atheists do tend to have a "party line" that they get pretty heated about - it's simply disingenuous to say it's not a belief system.

What would that party line be, exactly? In any case, it's not disingenuous to say that atheism is not a belief system, for two reasons:

1. Atheism is not a belief, but a lack of belief, as I mentioned above.
2. Even if atheism were a belief, a single belief does not a "system" make. A belief system requires multiple beliefs.

On the opposite side of things, "theism," the simple belief that there is a god or gods, isn't a belief system either. It's a single belief around which a system may be constructed. Christianity is a belief system built around a core of theism, as are Islam and Hinduism and all the other theistic religions. Secular Humanism is a belief system built around (so to speak) atheism, as are Objectivism and Raelianism and various other secular philosophies. But the basic answer to the question of the existence of a god or gods is not a system by any stretch of the imagination.

it is absolutely impossible to prove the NON-existence of something, however much you may instinctively feel it doesn't exist.

You're right, it is impossible to prove a negative, which is why for any question of existence, the reasonable position is to assume the null hypothesis until evidence is presented to refute it. I don't know of anyone here (or anywhere else, for that matter) who is an atheist because of "instinct" or "feelings;" most of the atheists I talk to hold that position based on the lack of evidence to support the claim that a god exists. It's the same reason we reject claims of the existence of fairies and dragons: until positive evidence is presented, belief is unwarranted and unreasonable.

Am I supposed to believe your gut over theirs?

No, you're supposed to believe reason and evidence. "Gut" is a poor judge of reality.

Frankly, most atheistic arguments against god(s) existing are no more compelling than the pro-side arguments of the religious fanatics.

Arguments may be compelling either way; evidence generally tends to compel in one specific direction.

And many atheists are at least as arrogant in the way they present their beliefs as the religious.

And this is relevant...why, exactly? The method and attitude with which a claim is presented have nothing to do with whether or not that claim is true or false. I can arrogantly state that 2+2=4, but that doesn't make it wrong.

Everyone should just admit that we don't know what the f*** is going on with the universe,

There's a lot we don't know about the universe, and that's likely to always be the case. But we do have a reliable, useful method of examining the universe in order to find things out about it, to draw conclusions from evidence and re-evaluate those conclusions in light of new evidence and refine our knowledge to ever-greater degrees of precision. "Not knowing" is not an excuse to make things up, nor is it a reason to assume that all methods of evaluating the universe have equally valid results.

that creationism AND big bang/other scientific theories still fail miserably in dealing with the "who created god?/what went bang and where did it or the bang come from?" questions

First, I'd suggest actually looking into those scientific theories before dismissing them, since you're making a variety of errors regarding what the Big Bang theory says and what evidence there is to support it.

Second, there are several very large differences between Creationism and scientific theories.

• Creationism is based on a book of mythology. Scientific theories are based on the observable evidence.
• Science includes in its methodology a mechanism for re-evaluating theories in light of new evidence, and discarding ideas that are contradicted by the evidence. Creationism has no such self-correcting mechanism, since it places primacy on the text, with the evidence as a secondary consideration.
• Creationism asserts absolute authority and knowledge, derived from a supposedly perfect and complete source. Conversely, all scientific knowledge is recognized to be tentative and may be refuted by future information.

Science doesn't have all the answers, nor does it claim to. It is, however, still looking for the answers; Creationists stopped looking in 325 C.E.

I and other agnostics freely admit we don't know, or at least that we can't prove either an atheistic or a religious world-view.

First, agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive; a/gnosticism deals with what you claim to know, a/theism deals with what you claim to believe. One can be a gnostic theist (claims to know there is a god), a gnostic atheist (claims to know there is no god), an agnostic theist (claims to not know if there is a god, but believes there is), or an agnostic atheist (claims to not know if there is no god, and does not believe there is). Depending on how strictly you define "knowledge," most atheists would probably qualify as agnostic atheists.

That assumes you're not talking about Huxleyan agnosticism, of course, which tacks on additional meaning to the term; specifically the belief that the question of a god's existence is inherently nonsensical or unanswerable. But it doesn't look like you're going that route.

Second, as I mentioned before, the default position for a claim of existence (at least as far as science and reason are concerned) is to withhold belief until evidence is presented to the contrary. "I don't know" doesn't answer the question of belief; I freely admit that I don't know whether or not a god exists, but based on the current evidence, I see no reason to believe that one does.

And here's where we get into the matter of what qualifies as knowledge; there are those who would suggest that "knowledge" implies some kind of absolute or 100% certainty. As far as I'm concerned, "knowledge" in that sense doesn't exist. I care more about "knowledge" in the scientific sense, which is tentative, based on current evidence, and never 100% certain. In that practical sense of the word knowledge, I can easily say that I "know" no god exists, with the same degree of certainty that I "know" no Leprechauns or unicorns or sasquatches or space teapots exist. I don't claim to know with 100% certainty, I don't claim that I wouldn't change my position based on future discoveries, I claim only that there is no evidence to suggest existence, and there is some (in some cases, ample) evidence to suggest nonexistence.

If someone asks you "is the Easter Bunny real," what do you say? "I don't know"? If you're going to be consistent, you ought to. Otherwise, why would you answer "no" to that question and "I don't know" to the god question?

Oh, and for atheists who think the world would be a better place if religion were outlawed, gotta remind you how well that turned out for the peoples of the Soviet Union and China.

Few atheists advocate the outlawing of religion. Many atheists are actually active proponents of religious freedom. But the problem in the Soviet Union and China has less to do with the outlawing of religion and more to do with the institution of dogmatic, quasi-fascist governments. Atheism had as much to do with the problems of Stalinist Russia as Stalin's mustache did. As Q mentions, places like the Netherlands and Sweden are largely nonbelieving, and yet seem to have far fewer problems with crime and corruption than more religious nations like the United States and Turkey.

But I do advise people to read a lot of Carl Jung before attempting to label him a "kook"

What makes you assume that people here haven't read Jung? How would reading more about his arguments make them more valid? I've read a fair bit of Jung, though I'm more familiar with his philosophy than I am with his writings, but while he's interesting, much of what he says is flat-out contradicted by the evidence.

but he's still a hell of a lot more interesting than skeptic James Randi, who it occurs to me has gotten an awful lot of attention (and probably coin) just saying "I don't buy it" to everything.

"Interesting" and "right" are not synonyms. And when everyone else is following the crowd, saying "I don't buy it" is pretty interesting. Then again, everything I've read from Randi is more along the lines of "I don't buy it, and here's why," which to me is a hell of a lot more interesting than discredited notions of dream interpretation, and has the added bonus of being likely to be right.

There's a lot of religious/New Age BS in the world; there's also a lot of stuff that hasn't ever been explained, and a lot of once highly regarded scientific theories that have been disproven.

None of which is cause to make things up or believe things without evidence. Yes, scientific theories have been rejected, but they've never been rejected by anything other than science. Science is self-correcting, it rejects or alters theories when new evidence requires it. Just because there are things we don't know and things we may be wrong about doesn't mean that science isn't the best available method for approaching truth. Yes, there's a lot out there that's unexplained; it doesn't mean that every potential explanation is therefore valid, it means we need to evaluate the evidence until we can arrive at the best possible explanation.

Debating the nature of life, the universe and everything is a parlour game, no matter who's playing. Deal with it!

I deal with it by looking at the evidence. It seems to be working out well so far.

[Jimmy_Blue]

As usual, there's not much I can add to what Tom already said. But what the hell.

As an agnostic (and, I might add, a fallen Catholic, so I do hate the church and may as well say so) I find this hilarious.

All this, and yet you sound exactly like your average god botherer.
Really your post should have a cop advising "Move along, nothing to see here." standing somewhere nearby.

If you are an atheist, you believe there is no god - sorry, but that counts as a statement of belief, and atheists do tend to have a "party line" that they get pretty heated about - it's simply disingenuous to say it's not a belief system.

Wrong. I lack a belief in god as Tom said. In the same way that I lack a belief in a large Rainbow Trout called Rodney sitting at the centre of the Universe and controlling everything via a full copy of the Dungeons and Dragons version 3.5 ruleset. There is no statement of belief. Let me re-iterate Tom's call though, please do elucidate on the nature of "The Atheist Party Line". Do we have a manifesto? I must have missed this at the orientation.

The irony is, there are more types of atheist than there are types of christian. Now that's funny. Ok, its not funny, but it is true. A simple click on every link Skeptico provides would have quite easily demonstrated this to you. I see you haven't completely shaken off your Catholic shackles just yet.

it is absolutely impossible to prove the NON-existence of something, however much you may instinctively feel it doesn't exist.

It is not up to athiests to prove gods do not exist. I mean really, how many times does this need to be stated? You can't prove that Rodney does not exist, so are you an agnostic about him? Or, and bare with me here, does it make more sense to just not believe in Rodney the Rainbow Trout either way? Atheists don't believe in the existence of gods in the same way we don't believe in the existence of Hobbits and any other human derived fictional character. Tell me chanstar, do you believe in the existence of leprechauns? Goblins? Trolls? Orges? Fairies? Imps? You can't prove their non-existence can you? So, by your own standards, we should therefore conclude that they may indeed exist, we just don't know. If you don't believe they exist, what is your evidence? Does your non-belief in their existence count as a belief system? Do you base your non-belief in them on gut instinct?

Or, do you just not believe in them because they were made up?

Frankly, most atheistic arguments against god(s) existing are no more compelling than the pro-side arguments of the religious fanatics.

It would appear that you haven't even exposed yourself to one, so how would you know?

And many atheists are at least as arrogant in the way they present their beliefs as the religious.

And Newton was an unpleasant wanker, what's your point?

Oh, and for atheists who think the world would be a better place if religion were outlawed, gotta remind you how well that turned out for the peoples of the Soviet Union and China.

Oh you poor dear. You appear to have confused Communism, Marxism, Leninism, Stalinism, Maoism, ancestor worship, Buddhism, Taoism (one of 5 religions recognised by the PRC in case you were wondering) with atheism. Don't worry, most religious kooks make the same mistakes.

but he's still a hell of a lot more interesting than skeptic James Randi, who it occurs to me has gotten an awful lot of attention (and probably coin) just saying "I don't buy it" to everything.

Randi could have made more money as a magician or pretending to be psychic like morons such as Uri Geller. Or pretendig to be religious. Now go to your room and think about what you said. Still don't get it? Randi makes himself MORE unpopular in the eyes of the general public by standing up for what he believes, fool.

there's also a lot of stuff that hasn't ever been explained, and a lot of once highly regarded scientific theories that have been disproven.

And now you sound like your average Newager as well.

So, do you believe in Rodney?
Do you believe in Ogres, Trolls, Goblins, Leprechauns, fairies or Hobbits?