I liked penn before. Now I like him more.
(not for being snarky to theists, but for being an Atheist)
Richard Dawkings rings a bell. What did he write?
Wasn’t Douglas Adams a pretty ‘hard’ Atheist? And what about Terry Pratchett?
And then, the oral sex!
The Selfish Gene, among others. Douglas Adams was a fan.
Adams liked to describe himself as a ‘radical atheist,’ but wrote that he used the term to keep people from thinking he meant agnostic or trying to argue with him about it. I don’t know that he ever tried to convince people of the folly of their views or did anything extreme, but I kinda doubt it.
I don’t know much about Pratchett, but based on what I do know, I imagine he was pretty much the same, just not as good. 
I don’t know if it is a shame. He may be using too broad of a brush, but he has a point, I think. I am going to make a flawed analogy between racism and religion, from the perspective of an atheist looking in.
Racist thought is flawed because it is applying illogical stereotypes and hatreds to a particular race or to any other race but the Racist’s.
Religious thought is flawed because it accepts as true (and for the most part proven) what is unprovable, unknowable, etc.
I would think that most people would see teaching racism to young children is wrong and could, I guess, be considered abusive in that it prevents healthy thought patterns to form naturally. In the same sense an atheist could see the teaching of religious thought as preventing healthy thought patterns. This is where he seems to use too broad of a brush, since he seems to assume that all religious teaching stifles free thought.
Just to hijack a skosh, why is being snarky to theists a problem? It’s not enough that theists have control over every aspect of public life, they also have to demand total respect for their unsubstantiated beliefs?
It’s not nice to be snarky to people.
I personally don’t think it should be, but try spending Christmas Eve with a bunch of practicing Lutherans, and you’ll see how very disruptive of everyone’s happiness derisive skepticism, however well deserved, can be.
If the Dawkins speech quoted above is considered extremist, then atheists really do need the summit I proposed, because we need to get some aggressive PR going.
Well, that’s a different matter–one ought not to go out of one’s way to be offensove on a special holiday. However, that does not mean that religion should be immune to critical analysis completely.
But it’s only a special holiday because the faith says so. What better time to express doubt than when the effects of faith are most evident?
Anyhow, every day may as well be Chrismas in the minds of some. If you are skeptical, you are churlish. Used car salesmen? Fair game. Politicians? Of course. Jesus? Go get your kevlar vest, buddy…
Since I was the first to bring it up, I merely used it as an example of someone not just simply saying, “Well, that’s fine, but I don’t believe in X, so I’ll do my thing and you do your’s,” but as actively looking down on someone else and using their beliefs to feel superior.
Honestly, I don’t think Jillette or Randi are even in remotely the same field as Falwell (or for that matter, as O’Hair or Rand). Jillette was the only prominent, outspoken atheist I could think of. That’s all.
Well, but that has been addressed before – if we insist on a true parallel to Falwell then the role becomes almost necessarily vacant. The most that can be aspired to is an equivalency of perception and in that case, the only one that came even close to creating a widespread public perception of (strident) advocacy of an “agenda” was Murray-O’Hair.
BTW, it seems “agenda” is one of those words like “liberal” that has been hijacked into some sort of negative connotation. Of course there’s an atheist agenda, for those who want to sign on to it. It’s to do what it takes to reverse a set of prior actions that have had the result of “shoving religion down our throats (and into our politics, and on our money, and in our Pledges)”. And a fine agenda it is, for those interested in fighting that fight.
I agreed with that in advance. Since it was the OP posting and (I felt) asking out of curiosity, I thought I should tell him more about Michael Newdow and why he doesn’t fit the role. I don’t think Newdow annoys atheists the way Falwell annoys tolerant theists.
Isn’t Sigmund Freud a prime candidate? Never heard of this falwell guy before but I must say that his website is pretty bad.
hmmmm
Doesn’t work for me as a band name.
How about a line of clothing?
alterego writes:
> Never heard of this falwell guy before but I must say that his website is pretty
> bad.
Say what? Where have you been the past 25 years?
Well, not born for the first three. This could be simply an example of a youth unconcerned about the passing scene or it could be someone who has not been in the U.S. during the various shenanigans Falwell has pulled. (Outside a brief eruption in September, 2001, I have not heard from Falwell for several years, except when following Gay Rights issues (with his gay assistant who announced he could no longer pretend that he had been “cured” to heterosexuality).
Terry Pratchett would take the piss out of just about anything, I would guess. A position more complementary to atheism than theism I suspect.
Well, it’s not so much a matter of feeling superior (unless believing oneself to be right is "feeling superior), but merely being able to express disbelief in sacred dogma without getting oneself killed or maimed by the one of the flock. For instance, I’m sure that some Christians believe that Penn & Teller should be arrested or killed for mocking the Bible on their Showtime program. The surest way to get death threats sent to a skeptic is to treat the Bible or the tenets of Christianity with levity.
Saying that you, Guin are stupid for believing in the Bible is rude and wrong; but I see no problem with showing the Bible’s flaws and examining the inconsistencies of theism. I don’t think that relgion should be excluded from skeptical analysis.
And that’s yet another thing that we mentioned before – Falwell (or O’Hair) is iconic mostly to some segments of American public opinion. If you were not in a position to be up to speed of the goings-on of American church-and-state politics and the “Televangelist” phenomenon during the 1975-95 period, Falwell is at most just one more blowhard from the American far right.