A great post over at Atheist Haven on how many religious parents react when they find out atheists aren’t teaching their children about God.

A great read in the spirit of moderation and cooperation.

Man, this guy is not as eloquent, and therefore not as pleasant to listen to as Hitchens, but I think the direct nature of his rhetoric is even stronger.

This clip is stellar.

Man, this is so incredibly good, but I continue to grapple with the best line to take in order to convince people.

At times I am quite certain this is the best approach, i.e. shame and disrespect, which is precisely what we give other belief systems that have been left in the past. Alchemy, Astrology, etc. But at times I feel a softer hand is needed, and that this direct and forceful push will do little more than create a vigorous counter-force.

But I think I mostly have my answer. Be aggressive at the abstract level, e.g. in public debate or when encountering attempts to shape policy based on faith, but gentle at the individual level. So if someone comes to you and genuinely wants to have a conversation about the topic, you don’t go all Pat Condell on them, as it would be counter-productive.

So that’s my current approach: aggressive at the abstract level, and gentle on the individual level. ::

This guy, Dr. Zakir Naik, is a popular and respected debater and supporter of Islam around the world. Here he argues that you don’t allow non-Muslims to teach their religion in muslim countries for the same reason you don’t allow math teachers to teach people that 2 + 2 = 5.

My favorite quote:

Non-Muslims are the experts at science and technology, and we invite them from the U.S. and Europe to teach us those things, but in the matters of religion we are expert.

It’s both hilarious and deeply sad that he can’t see that his “expertise” in religion is precisely what keeps him–and people like him–from making any progress in science and technology. ::

An interesting interpretation, but unfortunately we’re not allowed to simply go with what “makes sense”, or with what resonates with us–we have to yield to actual definitions.

And on that point the OED calls atheism ‘the belief that there is no God’–as it’s primary definition, no less–which kind of puts the matter to rest.

But either way, I think this rhetoric from Penn here is quite good.

I’d rather watch this than magic tricks.