Rational Response Squad based on irrational fear?
Offline This is regarding the Rational Response Squad goal of "fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism". Surely, the members of the Rational Response Squad joined NOT because of an irrational fear of religion, but because of numerous well-conducted studies showing the harmful effects of religion. Its funny, before this website informed me that I needed to be freed from religion mental disorders, I thought of religion as harmless as an *invisible pink elephant*. I guess I should join the cause upon reading all about the complete objective studies showing how harmful religion is. Surely such studies must have taken enormous work!
Any way, after reading the studies over, I'll either join this website's cause, or form a new Rational Response Squad of my own, with the stated purpose of "Fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as irrational anti-religion."
- Login to post comments
Fighting for atheism is about as logical as screwing for chastity.
I mean, seriously, I appreciate that the US has it's share of religious nutters but let's not add to it's share of non-religious nutters, eh?
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Double posts. The bane of my life.
You do a lot of babbling without making any points. Care to try again?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
"Invisible Pink UNICORN" not elephant.
That said, I think that history is enough of a study for you. Religion (and I include pseudo-religions like Nazism and Communism and Objectivism here) is dangerous, and has caused a ton of pain, suffering, strife, chaos, and general evil in our world. I don't think it's an irrational fear at this point.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
To be honest with you, there was a time I thought this too. After digging around a bit, though, I discovered just how far religion has infiltrated government and my life. I do not mind the religious folk that can keep to themselves, but there are many that just cannot seem to do that and actively seek ways for their message to be heard and to gain power. I encourage you to look around - read your local newspaper, read national and international news feeds. This is a major problem in the US. The lines between church and state are becoming more blurred everyday and one day you will wake and find yourself in "one nation under fundamentalism".
I think the point here, correct me if I'm wrong, is that religion is dangerously powerful as a political force in countries like the US. Whether or not it is dangerous per se remains to be seen.
Atheist Books
I would agree if you were to add 'certain aspects of' before 'religion' in your quote.
You would need to change the 'is' to an 'are' too but now I'm just being picky.
>_>
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Hit and run?
You must be deluded to think religion is a "harmless pink elephant".
Restriction of human rights, religious wars, scientific restriction, and theocratic govermental rule all show how religion is NOT harmless
You must be deluded if you apply that blanket generalisation to all theists.
Human rights are restricted by governments, wars are fought over political ideology, and autocratic governments rule with an iron fist. Should we ban government too?Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
I re-read my statement and NO WHERE did I say ALL theists. I was just stating some of the dangers of theism. Not all of any group is all bad, but when humanistic rights are trampled on by a majority of a group it causes concern.
A majority?
Oh come on. That's definitely a generalisation.
A generalization is saying "all". If you lived in america, you would see what a majority of chrisitians can do, if you lived in Iran you would see what a majority of muslims can do....
Religious groups who thrive on the majority of a flock voting a certain way, supporting certain issues or supporting certain candidates displays, in fact, it is a "MAJORITY". Whether you like the term or not.
Oh really?? Are you even aware of the percentage of the population that has religious ties? Are you aware of the number of politicians with religious ties? Do you think that these politicians keep their personal religious views separate from their politics? They do not. In fact, if a religious group is funding their campaign they are even more apt to appease these groups. Yes, this is a problem.
Sure, a lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion. So have a lot of good things! So far from the responses the only thing I'm told is "just look around, its obvious". And yes, it is obvious that many bad things are done because of religion. Having attended church many times, its just as obvious to me that many good things are done in the name of religion. I believe that Christians could match, meet, and perhaps exceed each one of those stories with something good that religion has done. Some churches actively help community members with financial problems. I've seen many hospitals and universities with religious foundations.
Yes, in 2001 there were at least about 3,000 people murdered because of a religion-based dispute. News focuses on the negative, which seems to be a primary cause of irrational fear of religion. Now, how many were saved that year because of religion? My point is that because both good and bad things frequently happen in the name of religion, I should expect to see rational evidence of a net negative effect before joining the club.
I'm sure you agree that fundamentalism is a problem?
So we aim to make it clear that fundamentalist beliefs are not only hamful, but false. However, the arguments against the truth of fundamentalism also apply to moderate religion. We'd be making double standards if we only criticised 'nasty' religions for being false. Also, take note of what JCE said. Moderate religion can be subtley harmful, just by giving misconceptions in the back of people's minds.
While you're right that religious groups can do good things, surely these people are good that they'd continue to do good things, even if they dropped their belief in God?
Agreed.
Atheist Books
We have a majority of Christians in the UK. They haven't been able to influence government in over a century because the majority realise that politics and religion just don't mix. I'd also point out that Turkey has a majority of Muslims but is very keen to hold onto its secular government.
That's why they've managed to amend the US Constitution to no longer seperate church and state then? Obviously not.
Yes. So what?
I think, like all good politicians, they play to what the voters want to hear. Their own beliefs may be quite different from their public ones. As pointed out, your constitutional seperation of churchand state hasn't been changed and you have considerably greater civil liberties - most of these contrary to theistic teachings - than you did even forty or fifty years ago.
Sure, but what do they actually do?
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
There are many theists here that do want to influence goverment. Just look at a faith based initiatives for a clear violation of church/state seperation. Turkey is not a good example, they are on the verge of becoming theocratic, plus they are the only democratic country that scored lower than the United States on acceptance of evolution.
I trust you understand there are many here that deny there is a seperation of church and state and go so far as to say this is a "christian" nation.
I am not by any means painting all theists with a broad brush, the main problem I have with the "majority" christians is when they feel inclined to legislate THEIR morality. They block funding of science that they do not agree with, they encourage legislation to limit rights of other religions and the non-religious because their bible tells them to do so.
If religion in this country were the "pink elephant in the corner" as was described by the original poster I may not have such a problem with it. Hell, my parents and many people I know are the "pink elephant" type theists and I don't chase them down telling them how wrong they are, but if they want to discuss non-belief I am more than happy to oblige them.
As it stands religion is actually the "monkey on the back" of this country.
Secondly, I'd have to strongly disagree about Nazism, Communism, and especially Objectivism being psudo-religions. There isn't anything supernatural about them. They may be schools of thought. They may be ideologies. They may be philosophies. How are they psudo-religions?
We have a majority of moderate Christians, mostly C of E and Roman Catholics. Many evangelicals don't even consider them to be 'real' Christians. America has a large amount of fundamentalist Christians. If you're at Uni then show up to a couple of Christian Union events. They tend to be run by fundies.
You seem to be assuming that modern English 'traditional' Christians represent Christianity worldwide. If this assumption was true then you'd be right, the Blasphemy challenge would be a childish waste of time, but it's not.
Dogmatism. The people are forced to accept certain beliefs through various methods. Propaganda, peer pressure, threats, punishments... etc.
One of the first things a dogmatic religion does is try to extinguish or atleast nullify the political power of its rivals. That's why supernatural religions have been oppressed where the conflict with the dogma of psuedo religions.
I think you are oversimplifying the situation. Religion in and of itself doesn't necessarily have to be a problem. It's belief in the unbelievable and following that belief to the detriment of others that the RRS and myself want to end. Religious nuts blowing themselves up in civilian crowds and telling Africans not to use a condom or they'll go to hell, ensuring their even faster journey into death by decades.
Like what? I have a continuous challenge to theists to show something that religion did that was good and was only done because of religious beliefs.
Your original post was so ambiguous and sarcastic that it's hard to respond to it any other way.
Again, like what?
That isn't in the name of religion, it's in the name of community. Unless you're trying to say that all the theists who donate time and money do so only so they don't burn in hell. If god is so petty as to be able to be bought off then there's no value in following him in the first place.
I've seen twice as many better hospitals and universities that are self funded or government funded.
All religion does is negative. I've never seen one positive thing presented that was done by religion and only because of religion.
0.
Cons: War. Prejudice. Greed. Lies. Cruelty. George Bush. Etc.
Pros: 0 and counting.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Vastet, its easy for me to agree that we should end "Religious nuts blowing themselves up in civilian crowds and telling Africans not to use a condom or they'll go to hell, ensuring their even faster journey into death by decades." I'd bet 99% of Christians and Muslims will agree too. Ending religious extremism is something nearly everyone on Earth likes the idea of. But RRS isn't talking about that. It wants to end Theism, which encompasses both the extreme parts and the benign parts.
I could list many specific positive things that religion has accomplished, but not "religion alone". I think of religion alone as some text... I'm imagining a copy of the Bible trying to help an old lady across the street. The lady sees the Bible floating there, which gives her a heart attack and she dies! A bystander then yells "Religion alone tried to help that woman... but it killed her!" Seriously though, what is "religion alone"? Please give examples.
Fair enough, however have they actually managed to meaningfully do so? I appreciate I'm not American so it would be interesting to see the risk these initiatives pose to your democratic way of life. Can you give me a coupe of examples to look into? That would be much appreciated.
Turkey is a good example. It's a country that has only had a secular government for just over 80 years and, whilst I agree that there is the danger of them reverting to a theocratic government, particularly with the AKP's pressure for a referendum on presidential election, the military and the opposition parties - who need to get off their arses, stop their bickering and work together - support secualrism. Considering the revival of fundamentalist Islam in Iran, Pakistan, Syria and others they're doing pretty well.
It takes time, but they'll get there.
Absolutely, but as far as I can see they haven't been able to do anything meaningful about it. I mean you could argue that the ban on partial birth abortions is a victory for the religious right but I see it more as a sop to the howling masses - banning a procedure that can be covered by others and which accounts for less than 2% of all abortions in any event is a hollow voctory indeed.
OK - I apologise if I implied that you mean "all" theists. I still think that a lot of this is more about political manipulation than religious manipulation because when fundamentalist Christians have tried to interfere with the secular/church divide they've been goven a sound beating, usually administered by a mixture of atheists and moderate theists. Kitzmiller vs Dover Area School District is a classic example.
Sounds good to me.
That's where we differ. I think the US has far, far worse problems than religion. The second amendment being near the top of that particular list.
But you're right about the fundies - they need tobe kept in check. I think that's being managed so far.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
I think you're seeing too many wolves amongst the sheep. America also has a majority of moderate Christians. Since most Christians aren't that bothered by religious activisim are you actually surprised that the Christian Union events are run by the fundies? It's the same here in the UK; it's just our student unions don't let them step out of line as demonstrated in Exeter, Birmingham and Edninburgh.
Firstly, since Catholicism is the dominant Christian sect your first stament is worng. It's also a bit patronising - I am well aware of faith distribution worldwide. Secondly, the Blasphemy challenge is a stupid, pointless and utterly childish waste of time. I mean, seriously, all it does is make moderate theists think the people doing it are a bunch of tossers - which they are - and just makes it harder for the rest of us.
Important my arse.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
I bet you they wouldn't.
There is very little about theism that is benign.
Rofl. The image is quite amusing.
I can't think of an example since I have never seen it happen. But it would be something that was positive for all, negative for none, and done only because of belief in a religion. No other cause could be attributed to the action. Religion often claims it has accomplished great things, but can never point to any of them. Every time a theist points it's obvious that they aren't clear about what they're pointing at. Many will point at mother teresa, until I point out that she was a sick bitch who would and had let a child die instead of administering antibiotics because "he was going to see god anyway".
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
How about not being able to be elected into office unless believing in a higher power? That enough of a hole in the wall between church and state for you to realize how bad off the Americans actually are?
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Not really. Do you think a Muslim or a Hindu would have any better chance? Heck, the US hasn't even elected a President from the group that represents more than half its population yet.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
I don't just think a Moslem or Hindu would have a better chance, I know it as fact. A Moslem has such a good chance that one will be running for office. I don't see any atheists there though.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Please tell me what is wrong with fighting for reason and the scientific method??
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
Vastet: You seriously think a Muslim has a chance of the US Presidency? If it happens I'll eat my hat. Hell, I'll eat all of my clothes.
Having checked the Democrat and Republican nominees (because, let's face it, no-one other than one of those is going to win) I couldn't find a Muslim candidate. I would be grateful if you could provide his or her name.
The US hasn't even had a coloured, hispanic or female president yet. Perhaps Obama - who is only the fifth African American to hold senate office - will change that. Who knows? It certainly seems there are much bigger barriers to overcome than that of religion.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Nothing. Please tell me what that has to do with individual faith.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
The fact is that we would have to add up all the bad AND all the good that religion has done, and thats almost impossible. Also, we'd have to take into account that it takes roughly 3 "good" things to make up for one "bad" thing, assuming that the good things and bad things are equal, at least from a psychological standpoint. So, for example, if someone broke your camera, someone would have to buy you a camera that's 3 times as good as the one you lost, or 3 things of the same value as the camera you lost, in order for you to get over it. For your 3000 dead, there would have to be 9000 lives saved to make up for it. (I'm being overly simplistic, but I think you can catch the drift) Now, I'm counting Communism, Nazism, and all other pseudo-religions as religions. I'm also including things like repression of science, minorities and women as a "negative". I'm also counting the fact that many religious hospitals, especially Catholic and Muslim ones, refuse to give out birth control as a point against them. I'm also discounting Mother Teresa, who really did nothing for the people she "helped". Given all that, the chances of religion benefitting humanity more than it has harmed it are very, very slim, despite the fact that it's not 100% provable.
Actually, the UK does have a state religion, but its influence is small. So, you don't have a separation of church and state, you just have a weak church and monarch. Regardless, Turkey and the UK are exceptions to the rule, it seems. Name 2 Muslim-majority middle eastern countries outside of Turkey that aren't theocracies. Can you? You could have had Iraq before the current war, but now it's a clusterfuck with a huge power vacuum and a strong Islamic extremist faction looking to take control. You could have Lebanon, which has a strong christian minority and a secular government, but Hezbollah is gaining more and more power all the time, so its days as a free country are numbered. After that, that's prettymuch it, it seems. Given that Lebanon has only 4 million people, you're really just left with Turkey, whose secular government is in danger of being taken over by religious extremists, as you noted. In the U.S.A., christians are really controlling things, and in a very bad way. George W. Bush as an example.
Strafio really hit the nail on the head, so I'll let his/her reply be my answer, because that was basically my thought anyway. Outside of a supernatural element, the ideologies I listed have all required elements to be a religion.
less trusted than Muslims, according to almost every opinion poll asking which groups are more trusted. I agree, the U.S.A. needs to overcome other things as well...but religion is a barrier to that more than it is a helper, or a benign third party.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Alot!! Faith is completely contrary to reason and the scientific method. Faith is not based on reason and evidence.
What I think you implying is that science has nothing to do with faith?? Does communism have anything to do with capitalism??
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
In that their both government systems, yes.
But, come on, it's an apples and oranges argument. The application of scientific method to experimentation is fine. The application of scientific method to people's individual beliefs - and note that I think it's perfectly fine to apply SM to organized religion - is a bit off.
After all, where do you stop if you begin that? No-one wants to be a Vulcan.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Why? Why should a persons beliefs not be based on evidence?? Why believe in something that doesn't make sense and you cannot verify??
Actually, there is an entire paradigm of psychotherapy, Empirically and scientifically supported psychotherapy, based on people doing experiments on their thoughts and beliefs. Individuals are asked to provide evidence for and against their belief and to develop more reasonable and balanced belief systems.
Yes, they are both forms of govt, but capitalists do concern themselves with communisms as it is an antithesis to capitalism.
As for the Vulcan thing, I need some education there.
"Those who think they know don't know. Those that know they don't know, know."
It's not a clear majority.
Besides, the point isn't number, it's influence.
Entire communities are strangled by evangelical beliefs, where non-believers are ostracized and the faithful are manipulated. Something needs to be done about it.
Come on, it was quite obvious what I was reffering to by 'traditional' and both C of E and RC count.
There's two possibilities:
1) You don't understand the political climate of America.
2) You're a hopeless idealist who'll criticise other people's attempts to make change but don't seem to have any ideas of your own.
Either way, you're not being helpful.
What are you even doing on this site?
35% of Christians identify themselves as 'born again' in terms of evangelical fundamentalism. That means nearly double don't. That's a clear majority although the number of fundies remains worrying.
Source: religioustolerance.org
Yes it is, but the influence they hold is less than is popularly portrayed.
Don't deny it. However something needs to be done about the ghettos where poverty is rife, crime is endemic and people die on a daily basis. That takes priority over social ostracization.
Perhaps. However I'm Scottish so CoS, URC or Catholicism - which are somewhat different - would have been a better example. That's why it's best not to generalise.
Having followed it since the early 80's I don't think it's that.
Or I could be someone who believes that winning over hearts and minds generally yields more results than needless confrontation. Sure, confrontation as a tool is useful if it's exercised properly - the civil rights marches of the 50's and 60's and the Stonewall riot of the late 60's helped bring their issues to public atention. It was, however peaceful protestation that moved them forward.
That's where I am. Give people the knowledge, help free them from ignorance but let them decide themselves or you're no better than that you wish to destroy.
And you have the nerve to call the Fundies close minded? Take a look at yourself first. Open forums are for debate. Always have been, always will be.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Maybe clear was the wrong word to use. 'comfortable' would be better. When I said that traditionals were a clear majority in England, I meant that other groups were almost insignificant in comparison.
This 35% have a lot of political power behind them, especially as only about 50% of Americans care about politics enough to vote. It was clear from the beginning that there's a major difference between the Christian politics of America and England.
But enough to warrant action, no?
So we should leave this problem alone because there are other problems in the world to deal with? That's a lame argument and you know it.
We don't disagree with this. What makes you think that the RRS is all about confrontation? The Blasphemy Challenge wasn't random "stick to the Christian, yeah!", it was a political planned "We are here", partly to give a message to people who think that atheists are isolated trouble makers, to give a message to atheists out there who thought they are alone, and partly to bring publicity to the Rational Response organisation that is about educating and debating.
Several of the videos posted the line "I'm not afraid anymore".
Your critcisms haven't come across as debate. They've seemed more like cheap shots at something you don't really understand. Maybe it wasn't intentional, but I've not seen you do much more than slag people off. The moment you start debating constructively, people will take it constructively.
Take a look in our Atheist vs Theist forum if you're interested in the debating we do, but you've really got to stop with the baseless insults. I'm not the only one here who you've wound up. I know, other people (including myself) have probably also snapped. Let's just end it here and start fresh.
However, "born again" christians aren't the only ones that are a threat. Catholics aren't "born again" but they oppose gay marriage and abortion, and contraception, and support abstinence only education. Even some "moderates" are behind these ideas. And a lot of the others are for these ideas, and others.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
BenfromCanada, I'll agree that a complete comprehensive proof is likely impossible. But we don't even have the smallest start as far as I see. I think an objective observational study could determine without too much difficulty what people do because of religion. For example, the study could ask a sample group what they have done in the past week for *primarily* religious reasons. That would be a start.
As for including what you call psudo-religions, I'd rather see the study focus on what RRS seems most afraid of: the big organized religions.
This is an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy. The fact is that there are states which specifically outlaw the running for office of an atheist. Any attempt to deny that this is a hole in the wall between church and state is ridiculous.
I didn't mean to imply one was running for president right now, but to say one will run. The moslem population of the US is growing. It's only a matter of time. My apologies for the poor composition that led to the wrong idea.
Obama has a pretty damn good chance if he runs. All it would take for a moslem, jew, or non-caucasian to win the presidency is popularity and being in one of the big parties. Somewhere on the forum it was posted who has the worst rep and least likelyhood to be voted for. Atheist was the top of the list.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Given Vardy's insidious activities and Ruth Kelly's (amongst others) religious agenda I'm not convincved. The British Humanist Society is certainly concerned at the influence religion has on UK politics - a recent poll showed that 42% of the UK populace believes that the government pays too much attention to religious groups and leaders.
But yes, it's certainly more obviously active over there.
Absolutely, but let's be careful as to what that action is. America, like it or not, is a country predominately populated by Christians. The trick - to me anyway - would be to get the moderates to see what the fundies are up too and how it affects their lives as well as that of non-theists. Remember, fundie interpretation of how religion should be implemented in daily life is quite different from that of the religous moderates.
No, but I think that America has several issues that are causing it a great deal more harm than religion. The free availability of firearms, the two-tier health system, the widening socio-economic gap and an aggressive (actually borderline suicidal) foreign policy amongst them. Then again, if you could strip the opiate of religion away from the ignorant masses they might actually start paying attention to them so who knows?
"Fighting to free humanity from the mind disorder known as theism" isn't confrontational? Don't forget the people who you need to sway are the moderate Christians.
Perhaps that was it's intention. I would doubt it achieved that goal though. I do understand the reason behind it, I just think the methodology could have been better.
Which is really, really good news for the individuals concerned. My concern is the damage that the challenge may have caused to theist/atheist relations.
Butt time will tell. If I'm wrong then kudos to you guys.
What can I say? At times I'm an abrasive arsehole but I'm also an abrasive arsehole who knows what he's talking about.
But yeah, I've toned it down because here's me preaching tolerance and then going in with the boots. A bit hypocritical, isn't it?
Oh well, live and learn!
If you read the majority of my posts you'll see that I do.
Sounds good to me.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Consider 2 things:
1: You are here. You would not be were it not for the blasphemy challenge.
2: American advertising standards and tactics. In a culture such as theirs, the best way to get attention is to stand up and shout. Why? Because everyone else is standing up and shouting. Only way to get the message across. You ever seen a car lot commercial from the US? Guy standing and screaming for 3 minutes about the cars in his lot? Priests shout from their pulpits and politicians shout from the floor. It's how you get noticed.
I think the blasphemy challenge is a bit arrogant, and said so early on in my posting here. But that's what was needed, and I knew it then too despite it coming across as a bit much. Sapient and Kelly would never have been invited to debate Ray and Kirk at ABC if not for the blasphemy challenge. It's the way things happen in the states.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Well, I'm here because of the debate and some of the guys on another board I frequent (mainly moderate theists and atheists - we tend to barbecue fundies) mentioned the site.
I largely agree with you, I just worry that it's being noticed for the wrong reasons. If I as an atheist can think "WTF!?" then what do the moderate theists think?
You're right though - i's just my opinion and it may not be how things actually pan out.
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
A sample study like what you said would not help. Why? The problem is not what the little people do, but what the big ones do. One hand waving by George W. Bush does more than a million dollars donated by an average citizen. Also, well...how many people will say "I neglected a relative for being an atheist" or "I picketed an abortion clinic" or "I spit on a gay person" or any other bad thing they did. People rarely try to make themselves look bad. So, it would be useless on at least two fronts.
As for pseudo religions, I think that the RRS would go after the big organized pseudo religions just as much, if they were as big a threat nowadays.
Look at my blog! It's awesome!
I'm also on this Twitter thing
Yeah. I like to think that this would be a positive
Sapient and Dawkins have often called themselves 'bad cop' atheists. They go a bit further than maybe they should, are a bit more confrontational than they should and rock the boat a bit. I think it's politically necessary. 'God cop' atheists have been trying for years but have been ineffective. Obviously RRS are going to find it difficult to win people over with such slogans, but part of the job is challenging people, putting the question in their heads.
I guess time will tell whether this methodology works.
Anyway, welcome to the site.
I reckon that the more you get to know us, the more understandable our actions will become to you.
True, I love Dawkins as an intellectual proponent of reason whilst hating his smugness and confrontational approach.
But then again he's sold gazillions of books, some of which might have opened people's eyes so what do I know?
Freedom of religious belief is an inalienable right. Stuffing that belief down other people's throats is not.
Regardless, does the lack of objective research showing that religion is a negative force indicate that the RRS exists for emotional reasons? I believe it does.