Religions start from beliefs and ethics.

I thought this was wrong, but I was confusing morality with ethics. Ethical thinking is centred around the question “How should I behave?” and that’s the primary issue with religion. You have relationships with the in-group and the out-group and it all gets a bit odd when you decide the weather is conscious and part of your in-group.

Religion is not just belief in a superpower. That is one small silly lie at the centre of a massive social construction. Organised religion is a social construction.

I’m far quicker to agree with this. Even if the Christian God did exist that wouldn’t make any of the religions palatable. The problem isn’t the existence of a God, it’s the process of justification. Organised religion builds the social structures which place personal revelation and authority above verifiable evidence. The existence, or lack of it, of gods is a trivial issue as far as my atheism is concerned. It’s someone laying down the law based on their unquestionable personal bigotry and the social systems which enforce this ruling which is the problem.

Someone with a personal hotline to a god with no social support is merely a lunatic (as defined by the rest of society).

I’m sick and tired of being accused of sycophancy every time I happen to agree with Myers or Dawkins. Irrational contrarianism is just as irrational as irrational sycophancy.

I think you have taken the comments a little too personally. I would suggest however, that if lots of different people are regularly accusing you of being sycophantic (which is the only conclusion I can draw from what you have said, I am sorry if I am wrong here), then you may want to look at how you are putting yourself across to others.

I doubt any one who has read this blog would say either Heather or myself are “Anti-” Dawkins (or PZ Myers), but there is a definite problem of ascribing greater authority to them than they deserve. Both are respected scientists and I for one would never doubt their authority in the field of biology – however, we need to always be wary of falling for the false authority fallacy. Expertise in one field does not mean de facto brilliance in all others.

This is one of the fundamental flaws of the theist and it does sadden me that many, otherwise “right-thinking,” atheists have a tendency to head down this path.

Religions start from beliefs and ethics.

Half baloney. First of all, religion is a particular kind of belief, and it’s about the irrational justification of particular ethical beliefs. Only irrational ethics require irrational justification, and one must challenge the irrational justification directly to challenge the irrational ethics.

I am not sure what “Half Baloney” means, especially as nothing you say really falsifies the initial premise. Defining religion as a particular kind of belief is a given, and still encompassed in what Heather wrote. You are arguing against religion by attacking a post which never attempted to defend religion.

Good points in general. I don’t think you can separate ideas and their consequences either. I just don’t think that irrational beliefs do much harm until they get translated into the real world, which involves organsiation

I certainly didn’t mean to imply that agreeing with Dawkns or Myers means that the person who does so is a sycophant. I agree with more or less 99% of what they say myself.

It’s just a general impression that a lot of people want to fawn at their feet. Everyone is talking everything I say so bloody personally today.

I may just have to blog about Bush and achieve some real good….

Baloney. Organized religion is indeed a social construction, but the superpower is not just a small silly lie pushed off in a cranny, but the heart and soul of this social construction. Remove belief in the superpower and religion qua religion, even as a social construction, collapses.

Religions start from beliefs and ethics.

Half baloney. First of all, religion is a particular kind of belief, and it’s about the irrational justification of particular ethical beliefs. Only irrational ethics require irrational justification, and one must challenge the irrational justification directly to challenge the irrational ethics.

Our tendency to search out venerable white male authority figures to be sycophantic and obedient to them is one of the problems of religion, not the solution.

I’m sick and tired of being accused of sycophancy every time I happen to agree with Myers or Dawkins. Irrational contrarianism is just as irrational as irrational sycophancy.