When Atheists Attack

Hey Julie you know why It will take 7 to 10 years to get it done While China and Russia drill 80 miles off our coasts? Because of the regulations the liberals have set up plus the environmenal wackos get to have 10 years of litigation and keep trial lawyers like the ambulance chaser obamba in business....Go America...that will solve the problem.3

So in 5 years when Obamba and the trial lawyers and the enviromentalists have you down to living in a wood shack...oh wait that will contribute to deforrestation..........and you are cold and want to burn some wood to keep warm...oh wait again deforrestation.....ok well maybe some coal...crap that will contribute to global warming......at least you can go to the bathroom...no that uses the water supply ...thank goodness you can dig a hole in the ground...well you will probably have to bag it and take it to the center.......So enjoy your life sitting in the cold......

There, I'm done.

Failures of energy-Hmmmm? That one???s difficult. Maybe if we would actually decide to drill on our own land we wouldn???t have that problem. Instead the Democrats want to save the environment so they???re letting the few oil reserves that we do have left disappear. Or how about the new ethanol idea? That was a half-baked idea, whole failure. The idea was to save the environment, right? But, just recently we had one of the largest dead zones in the gulf because of the run-off from all of the fertilizer used to produce that corn.

"When Atheists Attack"? Who put that title on this piece? Is this some gutless way that Newsweek decided to marginalize their own guest editorial contribution? Whatever the case, Harris is dead-on - the frightening choice of Sarah Palin as Vice President is a disgrace and confirms the further descent of John McCain into the vile morass that is the modern Republican party.

Global climate change- Ha-ha, you people are funny. May I suggest getting another bag of environmentally friendly popcorn and enjoying Al Gore's mind-numbing documentary??? again?
Global warming is a hoax. First off, global warming fanatics say that ALL scientists support global warming, yet there happens to be a petition with the names of a few (31,072) of the scientists that are against it. It is called the Oregon Petition. Here's the link: http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p1845.htm
I suggest clicking on the link for signers with names starting with S and scrolling up and down it. It gives me much pleasure.
Also, the global warming theory is based off of temperatures recorded over just a few hundred years. After all, one of the first accurate temperature scales was devised by Daniel Fahrenheit and proposed in 1724. The instruments needed to accurately measure this scale, however, didn???t come until much later. These measurements are obviously not a substantial base of evidence to support global warming considering that according to New Earth theorists the world is around 15,000. I need not remind you that there are still those out there who believe that the world is billions of years old. They base this off of fossils from dinosaurs that were actually found to have existed during the same time period as humans (thanks to our friend, Jacques Cousteau).
Last of all, the Earth experiences climate trends, such as the Ice Age. Temperature has fluctuated on its own for thousands of years without the burning of fossil fuels. This global warming that so many believe in was only a few decades ago global cooling because of these same trends. Let???s make up our minds. Will the polar bears drown or freeze?

Nuclear proliferation- If we are seeking to stop nuclear proliferation, which by the way is the spread of nuclear weapons, (that???s for you democrats out there) then we might want to start with strengthening the military instead of getting rid of it. This by the way is what Obama is planning to do. (Something I found quite ironic while I was typing this is that my spell check doesn't like the word Obama, but it likes McCain.)

This one is pretty long and the comment box won't take it all as one. So, I'll do it in parts

Let's see. I'll start with the fact that I am only 15 and seem to see a little more than those far beyond my years.
I am responding to the 5th paragraph on page 1 that begins with, ???The next administration..." and ends with," much less address any one of them.??? I???ll respond to the issues stated in order, so that nobody gets confused. We wouldn't want that now would we?
Nuclear proliferation- If we are seeking to stop nuclear proliferation, which by the way is the spread of nuclear weapons, (that???s for you democrats out there) then we might want to start with strengthening the military instead of getting rid of it. This by the way is what Obama is planning to do. (Something I found quite ironic while I was typing this is that my spell check doesn't like the word Obama, but it likes McCain.)

I've learned from Sam Harris himself that the decision to change the title of his article from "In Defense of Elitism" to "When Atheists Attack" came from the man at the top, Jon Meacham, the editor of Newsweek.

It would seem that Meacham has allowed his own Christian beliefs to influence his good judgment as an editor. Sam's article is not about religion vs. atheism. It's an argument for the wisdom of choosing our presidents from an elite set of qualified candidates. Sarah Palin's appeal seems to be the very fact that she does not come from an elite. Whether you are Christian or not, wouldn't it be wise to want our presidential candidates to be among the brightest, most relevantly experienced, most courageous, most wise (and most rational) among us--in short, from a very elite group of people? It is quite reasonable to evaluate all of the candidates according to those qualities and there is room for disagreement about our conclusions. But let's admit that very few of us are truly qualified for the most important and difficult job on the planet these days.

Meacham's headline obscures the important issues here and is clearly intended to distance Newsweek from anything Sam Harris says and perhaps even paradoxically to discourage reasonable people from reading the article. His headline labels Sam as simply a "noted provocateur" atheist and his article as just an "attack," when it in fact is a very reasonable call for rationality and wisdom in the way we select our president.

This, of course, begs the question as to why Meacham chose to publish the article at all if he is so much at odds with its sentiments. You'll have to ask him that.

I'd be interested in knowing what title Harris put on his this piece. "When Atheists Attack" - what is that? - Newsweek's way of marginalizing their own guest editorial contribution?

Definition of a pathological liar: Someone who fibs even when they don't have to.

Is Palin really that stupid? Did she not think the REAL "Miss Congeniality" would come forward and say, "uh, no, actually that nod went to me?" Did she not think that reporters saw her teleprompter in St. Paul and knew it wasn't "all messed up?"

Folks, anyone who lies as easily as she breathes is someone fit for a job in a glue factory.