(1) a short list of all the harm religion does
(2) a simple timeline of the bible’s creation and outline of its contradictions (belief or works, etc.)
(3) Proof that doubters may come out of the closet because they are actually a majority.
Well they get behind gays and trans and whatnot. But now we’re quibbling about tactics. I’m looking for an organization with a Mission.
Nobody’s talking about coercion!
Yes! For starters, I would love to see the day when the Supreme Court does not have 6 Catholics striking 50 years’ precedent on abortion and allowing football coaches to force public school students to pray.
Thanks for the replies everybody. My question is answered: nobody here knows of an Offensive organization.
We’ve got good Defensive organizations. CFI features self-congratulatory intellectuals complaining about politicians who pander to religion. FFRF leads courageous uphill litigation before judges appointed by such politicians. SSA will help secular students feel better about themselves when politicians and judges enable religious teachers and coaches.
But nobody’s trying to lift the cloud of religion from voters’ minds, so those politicians will not change.
LOL what we have here is a failure to communicate.
So you go to conventions. What about the people who don’t. That’s whom I worry about.
Your bibliography is impressive, to me. I have heard of Sam Harris and Richard Carrier and their good work. You have heard of Sam Harris and Richard Carrier and their good work. At least 95% of this forum have heard of Sam Harris and Richard Carrier and their good work. But 95% of this country’s voters have never heard of Sam Harris and Richard Carrier and their good work. I was wandering whether somebody was trying to change that. Sounds like not. Thanks.
There isn’t some other way to be heard other than billboards, legal work, news media, books, public talks, TV commercials, call-in shows, and this list could on. It’s the things that have been done and are being done. They are making a difference. Your critique seems to be that the 6,000 year old patriarchal structure has not yet been taken down. Thanks.
CFI does have public discussions on these matters on YouTube.
Do a search with “Center for Inquiry” and most of CFI sponsored presentations will be visible.
LOL some folks are so desperate to post an immediate witty reply that they forget what question they are replying to,
Any video including both Gervais and Dawkins will have already been boosted to the top of my YouTube suggestions, because I search for stuff like that. The question was, what about the people who do NOT search for stuff like that?
“Things that have been done and are being done” - that is news to me because I have never seen any such billboards or commercials, But it is “being done” - great, I want to support it with money. The question was, what organization is doing it?
Vitolear, I don’t have any answer or suggestion for your challenge.
But, if you want to look at the problem a little deeper, you just might find these comments by Prof Lisa Feldman Barrett interesting. It doesn’t answer your question either, but it is an interesting examination of the situation.
Sam Harris is a psychopathic maniac who advocates for a nuclear first strike policy on muslim countries
full quote “What will we do if an Islamist regime, which grows dewy-eyed at the mere mention of paradise, ever acquires long-range nuclear weaponry? If history is any guide, we will not be sure about where the offending warheads are or what their state of readiness is, and so we will be unable to rely on targeted, conventional weapons to destroy them. In such a situation, the only thing likely to ensure our survival may be a nuclear first strike of our own. Needless to say, this would be an unthinkable crime—as it would kill tens of millions of innocent civilians in a single day—but it may be the only course of action available to us, given what Islamists believe. How would such an unconscionable act of self-defense be perceived by the rest of the Muslim world? It would likely be seen as the first incursion of a genocidal crusade. The horrible irony here is that seeing could make it so: this very perception could plunge us into a state of hot war with any Muslim state that had the capacity to pose a nuclear threat of its own. All of this is perfectly insane, of course: I have just described a plausible scenario in which much of the world’s population could be annihilated on account of religious ideas that belong on the same shelf with Batman, the philosopher’s stone, and unicorns.”
Harris says a lot of things, usually in long speeches like this. I’m still not clear if he is racist or not. I don’t dismiss a person’s entire body of work based on parts of it.
As for this, he is not making a case for a first strike, he’s presenting a plausible scenario where the people who have their finger on the button would get us into a nuclear exchange because of reliogious extremism.
No. He is saying all muslims as their faith makes them capable of extremism on par with what nazis claimed about the jews. Thoughts from Norman on this.
"Sam Harris prides himself on his exquisite, cool rationality. It is “obvious,” he says, that Muslim society is “powerfully deranged.” It produces a prodigious number of suicide bombers. Even Muslim children are “rigged to explode.” It is thus “obvious” that this “powerfully deranged” culture poses a lethal threat to Western civilization. What is to be done? Israel has found one answer that Harris has embraced: do unto them as was done unto Amalek–i.e., kill every man, woman, and child. It happens that Harris’s coolly rational Nazi precursors faced a comparable dilemma. Jews exerted a “disintegrating effect” on Aryan civilization. For all I know, that’s as true as the postulate that every time a Muslim student steps into my class, I should be on the alert that he might explode. What was to be done? Isn’t it “obvious” that the only solution was to kill all the Jews. Himmler, who was a smart fellow (obviously not as smart as Harris, who is Jewish), famously elocuted that “we had the moral right, we had the duty to our people, to destroy this people which wanted to destroy us.” It’s such a rational argument–how could Harris disagree? But even the children? Yes, said Himmler. Isn’t it obvious that, once we murder their parents, the offspring will eventually want to kill us: “We, as Germans, however deeply we may feel in our hearts, are not entitled to allow a generation of avengers filled with hatred to grow up with whom our children and grandchildren will have to deal because we, too weak and cowardly, left it to them.” Now, isn’t that obvious, isn’t that logical? "
What exactly are “we” clarifying??? john defends Sam Harris’s rationalising the annihilation of a muslim country by highlighting Norman’s thoughts on the laughable claims for the rise of new antisemitism in the UK and the weaponizing of the holocaust
Good job John Dub .
