Amazingly, despite some detours into incoherent rage (“Goddamn [your 'god'] seems like a fucktard”) or just plain incoherence (“Ok pansy ass wuss, the world suck ass! Whether or not god exist or god evil is still suck ass!”), the debaters actually try to make real arguments, using actual evidence to back up their points and everything.

Naturally, I gave up reading part of the way through, because real arguments with real evidence make me sleepy after a little while. And besides, it’s hard concentrating when you know the debaters probably look like this:

Apparently people who have no problem believing themselves to be Level 40 Blood Elves riding giant purple chickens have a harder time imagining there’s a big bearded guy in the sky watching over them. Yep, atheism has come to the World of Warcraft, and to hear some tell it, that’s not such a good thing:

Atheism these days has gone from a belief system to a lifestyle. Now you have all these kids running around screaming “SKREW U GOD!! LULZ” because they think its the cool thing, not because they have come to any decision regarding their beliefs.

Others have a more positive view of the development:

Well, I’m 16 which is a bit better than 13…. I’ve gone to church 2 times. Bad experiences. There is ZERO proof that any of that religion stuff is real, and there is ZERO way to ever prove it. So, until it’s proven that there really is a god I will continue to stay athiest. And if I ever found out it was real, I would convert to satanism, simply because that’s what’s up.

Still others think the whole debate is for squares, daddy-o!

Psch, Aesthetic is old and busted, Nihilism is the new hottness

Speaking of hotness, if you’d like to buy a sexy Level 70 Blood Elf Paladin lady, here’s one for only $950

She comes with:

225 riding skill with 5 mounts; a summoned horse for paladin’s only, one level 40 ground mount (blue hawkstrider), two level 60 ground mounts (swift purple hawk strider and a Frostwolf from battle ground reputation), and an Outlands flying mount (Green Windrider).

And (imaginary) boobies!

Ok, let me just start off by saying that not all white atheists are racist dicks, or even just dicks. Some of my best friends are white atheists and none of them are racist, at least as far as I know, and none of them — ok, well, maybe some of them, ok, a lot of them — are dicks. And to be honest, I’m an agnostic, and I am definitely a dick, though definitely not a racist.

Well, actually, the other night I had a dream in which I was sort of in a comedy/action movie, and maybe also sort of writing the screenplay of that movie — it starred Clive Owen — and I have to kind of sort of admit that one of the characters was a sort of colorful sidekick who drove a cab and had lots of wisdom and who just happened to be a Jamaican-accented black woman, and I realize that’s sort of a stereotyped role, I mean, why couldn’t she be the hero of the thing, instead of Clive Owen (though admittedly he was doing a bang-up job in the part. I think I might have a little man-crush on Clive Owen). Does that — the sidekick thing, not the Clive Owen thing — make me maybe a little bit racist? I promise to do better in the future in casting my comedy/action movie dreams.

Anyway, the whole point of this post is that sometimes, jsut sometimes, atheists can act in ways that seem just a little bit racist, or at the very least racially obtuse, and not only while they’re asleep.

I ran across this interesting article by Carole McDonnell describing some of her experiences, as a black Christian, dealing with white atheists online and off. Some choice tidbits:

Whenever a white atheist hears that I’m a Christian, the first thing he brings up is Christianity and slavery. When they do this, I wonder: “What ploy do atheists use against white Christians? … And do they all go to the same school, a school which tells them that when talking to a black Christian they must always discuss slavery and race?”

Because I’m black AND a writer, I suppose they think that I should behave like a true enlightened black person – one who is free from the evils of Christianity. But why this fixation on slavery? … I certainly wouldn’t mind white atheists trying to destroy my faith by philosophical and existentialist arguments. When they argue religion with white folks, that’s the route they probably take, right? … Don’t they think I’m deep enough to discourse about Hegel, Mill, Pascal, or Nietzsche?

I would say “you go girl!” but that would be a little bit patronizing and, well, maybe just a little bit racist. (Is it ok if I say that sometimes to myself?)

Probably the best takedown of the fat little fart of a book that is Dawkins’ God Delusion is this one, by biologist H. Allen Orr, in the New York Review of Books. It’s well worth reading, whatever your take on Dawkins.

A few quotes will give you a taste of Orr’s bitch-slappery

Dawkins when discussing religion is … a blunt instrument, one that has a hard time distinguishing Unitarians from abortion clinic bombers. What may be less obvious is that, on questions of God, Dawkins cannot abide much dissent, especially from fellow scientists … Indeed Dawkins is fond of imputing ulterior motives to those “Neville Chamberlain School” scientists not willing to go as far as he in his war on religion … The only motive Dawkins doesn’t seem to take seriously is that some scientists genuinely disagree with him.

The most disappointing feature of The God Delusion is Dawkins’s failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. This is, obviously, an odd thing to say about a book-length investigation into God. … Having no patience with the faith of fundamentalists, he also tends to dismiss more sophisticated expressions of belief as sophistry (he cannot, for instance, tolerate the meticulous reasoning of theologians). … The result is The God Delusion, a book that never squarely faces its opponents.

One of the most interesting questions about Dawkins’s book is why it was written. Why does Dawkins feel he has anything significant to say about religion and what gives him the sense of authority presumably needed to say it at book length? The God Delusion certainly establishes that Dawkins has little new to offer. … Dawkins is obviously entitled to his views on God, ballet, and currency markets. But I doubt he feels much need to pen books on the last two topics.

Though I once labeled Dawkins a professional atheist, I’m forced, after reading his new book, to conclude he’s actually more an amateur.

So go read it now!

If you enjoy New Atheist hissy fits, you may also want to read Daniel Dennett’s outraged response to this review, and Orr’s response to it. (They’re both here.) Orr gets off a nice parting shot:

It’s one thing to think carefully about religion and conclude it’s dubious. It’s another to string together anecdotes and exercises in bad philosophy and conclude that one has resolved subtle problems. I wasn’t disappointed in The God Delusion because I was shocked by Dawkins’s atheism. I was disappointed because it wasn’t very good.

But this, it turned out, wasn’t enough for the angry Dennett, who continued the “debate” on TheEdge.org. Orr tried to bring an end to the increasingly unproductive discussion:

Daniel Dennett seems to think that the author of any review he doesn’t like is obliged to spend the rest of his days debating him— even if the review in question was of someone else’s book, not his.

But naturally, as you’ll notice, PZ Myers had to stick his fat little head in as well. (Start at the bottom and read your way up.)

More atheist goths here.

Well, they don’t know what real bravery is. You want to know what real bravery is? Watch this:

Scarlett Johansson’s new album is GREAT! All you HATERS can SUCK IT! I’ll say it loud and I’ll say it proud: I actually really love it.

Granted, that’s less a function of her voice than of the songs (she covers Tom Waits) and the producer (some guy from TV on the Radio), but who cares. The album’s got a great doomy-goth-shoegaze-meets-Portishead-meets-Jesus and Mary Chain-meets-Arcade Fire sort of sound on it, all distortion and reverb, and Scar Jo sounds like a sleepier version of Anja Huwe from Xmal Deutschland mixed with Sinead O’Connor.  And I mean that in a good way!

Also, Scarlett is way prettier than Richard Dawkins, and I bet he can’t sing as well either.

The picture below shows what Scarlett does every time I get within 50 yards of her:

That Richard Dawkins, such a charmer!

The Archbishop of Westminster, the dude who a year ago complained about a “new secularist intolerance of religion,” is now urging Christians to treat atheists and agnostics with “deep esteem.”

Dawkins, of course, has replied to this olive branch with his usual subtlety:

Referring to God as an “imaginary friend”, Mr Dawkins [told the BBC]: “When talking to a politician you would demand proof for what they say, but suddenly when talking to a clergyman you don’t have to provide evidence.

“There’s absolutely no reason to take seriously someone who says, ‘I believe it because I believe it.’”

Yet more evidence that the name of this blog is justified, if not by God, than by science!

Dawkins sucks!

Alas, while AtheistPorn.com does indeed feature boobies, there are only two, and they’re partially covered. The site’s slogan is simple — “No Heaven, No Hell, Just Porno” — but so far they only live up to the first two-thirds of it. The good stuff, the site assures us, is “coming soon.” (Presumably before the Second Coming.)

But not to worry, horny atheists. Because there’s at least one porn star out there who is an actual atheist: the legendary Asia Carrera (real name, Jessica Andrea Steinhauser). And you’ll be glad to know that her arguments for atheism are as sophisticated as Dawkins’ himself. As she explained to one of her fans:

“I am a diehard atheist, and have been since I was about 5 and discovered to my annoyance that there was no santa claus, no easter bunny, and no tooth fairy. well, that was it for me – I resolved then and there that no one was going to sucker ME into believing in any more invisible characters with superpowers!”

She’s even got an assortment of atheist jokes up on her web site. Here’s the first one:

God said, “Let there be light.”
Nothing happened for a few moments.
Then God said, “Who the heck am I talking to?”

Not bad, but it’s pretty much all downhill from there:

Is it an accident that the symbol of a bishop is a crook and the sign of an archbishop is a double-cross?

If man is fallible, is it possible his interpretations of religion are as well?

Neither a rimshot or a rim-anything-else could save that last one.

If this gets any athiests reading this too hot, the quickest way to cool down is with a quick trip to XXXChurch.com, which bills itself as the “#1 Christian Porn Site.”

I don’t quite know how that could be. I spent an hour watching their videos and no one even took their pants off!

What the hell is wrong with PZ Myers? The last time we checked in on the excitable New Atheist gadfly, he was having bizarre hallucinations involving Ben Stein, eyeballs, razor blades, and urine.

Now he’s gotten even more worked up about the yearly non-event that is the National Day of Prayer. After complaining, reasonably I think, that the once-ecumenical event has now morphed into a plaything for the Fundies, he lets loose the bonds of reason and sputters:

Fuck the National Day of Prayer. I can scarcely believe my country is officially pandering to such willful stupidity — elevating evangelical kooks to positions of prestige, trumpeting the virtues of sectarian religion, and actually crediting the successes of America to the fact that a subset of deluded, demented fools sit on their asses and beg an invisible man to protect us and help us kill people in foreign countries.

And he’s only getting going. We haven’t even gotten to the part about the spitting:

I feel like just declaring this the official National Day of Derangement and writing it all off, maybe spit in the soup of people who say grace, or flip off any group I catch trying to do a collective exercise in ritual invocation of nonexistent beings… .

No need to set aside a special day, PZ. For you, it’s clear that every day is a Day of Derangement.

It’s been said that Pablo Picasso was never called an asshole.

Which isn’t actually true — he sorta was — but it makes for a nice song.

I doubt anyone will ever write a similar song about Richard Dawkins, given his remarkable ability to irritate not only fire-breathing creationists but also quite reasonable atheists and agnostics with his dickish behavior. Heck, that’s why we here at Richard Dawkins is a Douchebag started this blog and gave it that particular name.

But sometimes we get lonely. Often when we express these opinions on message boards dominated by Dawkins fanboys, we feel like we’re the only ones who realize that Emperor Dawkins not only has no clothes, but also has been dipping his dick in the mashed potatoes.

So it’s reassuring to find others out there who sort of feel the same way.

Like this guy, who kinda feels like Richard Dawkins is a douche.

Or this guy, who thinks Dawkins and Hitchens are cranky bitches.

And this one, who eloquently suggests that Dawkins “will one day occupy the circle of Hell Dante set aside for arrogant cockwhores.”

As you might have gathered by the, er, salty language used by these bloggers, they are not fundmentalist Christians. In fact, they’re atheists.

In other words, Dawkins is not only preaching to the choir — I can’t imagine a single Christian converting to atheism after reading one of his smug little screeds — but he’s actually pissing off a significant portion of the choir. Brilliant!