Re: Religion

If you're interested in giving your readers an accurate view of things, you might want to post something on this, as I seem to recall you guys attacking Obama for allegedly approving of this anti-free speech nonsense the UN is proposing. Giving credit where credit is due is a good habit to get into.

On Sat, Oct 24, 2009 at 1:11 AM, Darleen Click <darleen@darleenclick.com> wrote:

Hi Barrett,

What did I say about atheists, specifically? I didnt. However, I still willing to be what you will find from those that spent $9000 for a feelly-touchy New Age self-styled guru are people who have almost no to none relationship with what an be described at mainstream Christianity or Judaism. While they themselves might not describe themselves as atheist (which is an article of faith itself) they are agnostic in that they dont believe in ethical monotheism but are seeking some sort of spiritual plane. They reject God in search of something more.

Parents never feel the need to agonize over whether or not their child should be forced to brush his/her teeth or get to choose whether to bathe or not, wipe his/her butt after toilet or not but too many parents sniff they wouldnt think of exposing their child to God or religion until they are old enough to make a choice. It is those kids who become young adults vulnerable to any weird cultish thing that comes along. They have nothing to compare it with, indeed they may have picked up from their parents that mainstream Christians or Jews are something kind of dirty since the parents were so adamant in avoiding them.

Physical hygiene = good. Moral hygiene = bad.

Of course at this point you might be thinking Im saying atheists cant be moral. Im not. Atheists are as good and thoughtful and caring as theists. But their morality is subjective. That is NOT a judgment, it is merely descriptive.

YOU may write for The Skeptic and many of the writers there are also skeptical. Believe it or not, being a skeptic, a thinker and even a scientist is not the exclusive province of atheists. Science is a process. Science is a tool. Science attempts to describe the physical world and how it works (and sometimes fails spectacularly). But it doesnt occupy the same space as religion or morality or ethics and it should not try to.

Which is why I pointed you to the Dawkins interview, it shows how much Dawkins believes his own beliefs about there is no God gives him absolute moral judgment to hold everyone who doesnt believe as himself as inferior.

Darleen

From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 1:04 PM

To: Darleen Click
Subject: Re: Religion

Hi, Darleen-

First off, I'd like to apologize for addressing you as "sweetheart" - that was extraordinarily immature on my part and entirely inexcusable no matter what issues I may have with you. My mom didn't raise me to behave like that towards women, or anyone.

Thanks again for bringing the Dawkins/Hewitt debate to my attention. I don't see anything within it that relates to the saying about those who disbelieve in God believing anything, though; is there a particular exchange that you think is somehow emblematic of that? Perhaps you could write a post on it.

At any rate, that saying is bunk. Atheists who are generally skeptics, such as myself - I write for Skeptic, in fact - certainly don't "believe in anything." We're a notoriously careful bunch. This is not to say that some atheists don't believe in nonsense and otherwise engage in sloppy thinking, as some of them obviously do. But to try to single out atheists as being particularly prone to believing just any little thing that comes along compared to religious people is, I think, not an assertion that holds up against even the slightest scrutiny.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:59 AM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

Will do, thanks.

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 8:54 AM, Darleen Click <darleen@darleenclick.com> wrote:

Find a transcript of Hugh Hewitts interview of Richard Dawkins from earlier this week.

From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 23, 2009 2:37 AM

To: Darleen Click
Subject: Re: Religion

http://www.skeptic.com/

On Fri, Oct 23, 2009 at 12:23 AM, Darleen Click <darleen@darleenclick.com> wrote:

Shot myself in the foot?

No, I think not, dearest. To paraphrase, those that deny God dont believe in nothing, they will believe in anything.

Does the name Johnny Walker Lindh mean ring a bell?

Kisses,

Darleen

From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2009 2:27 AM
To: Darleen Click
Subject: Re: Religion

Wow, you really shot yourself in the foot with this sweat lodge thing. Better luck next post, sweetheart.

On Sat, Oct 17, 2009 at 10:34 PM, Barrett Brown <barriticus@gmail.com> wrote:

I don't see how anything in this paragraph implies a desire to have religion "banned from the public square altogether." Which clause are you thinking of in particular?

On Fri, Oct 16, 2009 at 11:11 PM, Darleen Click <darleen@darleenclick.com> wrote:

Barrett,

We oppose all governmental programs, violations and special rights for religious individuals, groups and organizations. These include private school vouchers, organized prayers in public venues, the faith-based initiatives and laws exempting the religious from abiding by federal and state civil rights, health and safety laws.

If you do not abide by this principle of a group you are affiliated with I will retract my assertion. As I read this paragraph, it is hostile to faith and organized religion in particular. I am open to your disabusing me of my conclusion.

Sincerely,

Darleen

From: Barrett Brown [mailto:barriticus@gmail.com]
Sent: Friday, October 16, 2009 4:56 AM
To: Darleen Click
Subject: Religion

Would you please identify where I've said or implied that I would "like religion banned from the public square altogether," as you claimed last night?

Thanks,

Barrett Brown