The reply on Henry's Thread is pretty good:

The point to which the Christian Cynic is responding is simple and annoying: What's to keep Christian moderates from taking the next step and blowing things up? There are so many things wrong with the question. You can read Cynic's good answer. I would answer with a counter-question: What's to keep Dawkins from taking the next step after despising religious moderates, and start rounding them up and killing them (or advocating it)? If you're an atheist and find that question offensive, then consider the offensiveness of Dawkins' approach to religious moderates of all stripes.

In case anyone doesn't care to find out the answer I gave, which Henry refers to (and I must confess, it gives me great joy to see that word travels), is reason. Henry read the other side of that answer, showing how reason can cut both ways in this context.

I will say this for Harris: If nothing else, he is much more aware (and/or concerned) with how atheists come off when they are represented by people like Dawkins. The awareness of that perception is likely his motivation for giving an out, as it were, to certain ideas. I don't like Harris much, and his statements on religious moderates are just as inane as the usual NA fare, but this is at least prudent.

Most people are bad at statistics. I don't see why atheists (new or otherwise) are worse than average.

The problem is that they take a stand on simplistic and inaccurate standings in noisy and vocal fashions. If you are going to be loud and insist on saying something stupid then you are going to draw attention to yourself.

Do you have any evidence for this? Don't worry about getting too technical, I teach advanced statistics.

For prison inmates there are lots of factors going on that skew results. First up prison inmates are the bottom of the bunch intellectually in many instances and it is reasonable to assume they don't really know they can answer questions like, "What is your religion", "None".

You get to attend church services and other perks for claiming to be religious. JP Holding noted (he was a former prison librarian) that one perk of being a "christian" was that you got to spend time in the air conditioned chapel for services.

Also there are some obvious additional factors that a simplistic collection of "religious affiliation" is going to fail to capture. Would you really think it is reasonable to call someone an "epsicopalian" if they were baptised into the CoE as a child and went to sunday a school a few times but then never went back, didn't attend church and for whom religion was essentially irrelevant to their life ? To claim such a person is an episcopalian is just plain dishonest.

The sorts of claims being based on the data available says more about the prejudice and idiocy of the person making the claims more than it does about the reality of the real religious affliation and commitments of prison inmates.

The statistics just aren't meaningful unless you are looking to do cheap propaganda that sways the feeble minded. Which probably explains it

Ah, so atheists commit fewer crimes because small-time crimes are beneath them? You have to admire atheists for their ambition. Why commit a burglary if you can commit genocide?

Well it was said with tongue firmly in cheek.

Why is it that the "new atheists" are so horribly bad at examining and understanding statistics ?

As to why they manage to stay out of jail ? Maybe it is just because they go for the "big score" like Lenin, Stalin, Pot or Mao ?

Most people are bad at statistics. I don't see why atheists (new or otherwise) are worse than average. Do you have any evidence for this? Don't worry about getting too technical, I teach advanced statistics.

Ah, so atheists commit fewer crimes because small-time crimes are beneath them? You have to admire atheists for their ambition. Why commit a burglary if you can commit genocide?

But somehow those atheists manage to stay out of jail since nearly all inmates are religious. How do they do it?

The statistics are skewed and too much is read into them by atheists. There is a lot more going on and different incentives in place for declaring oneself religious in prison.

Much like statistics cited regarding the make up of "elite scientific bodies" and things like that.

Why is it that the "new atheists" are so horribly bad at examining and understanding statistics ?

As to why they manage to stay out of jail ? Maybe it is just because they go for the "big score" like Lenin, Stalin, Pot or Mao ?

Two cases out of how many? Please be a bit more specific. Oh, and your point is?

Out of all of them. The point was simply that there were very few examples of atheists who lost their faith through "looking at the scientific evidence".

Even Darwins agnosticism and disillusionment with religion had nothing to do with his thoughts on natural selection and everything to do with the loss of his child.

The point was that contray to the claims of clowns like "the new atheists" very very few atheists become atheists by "looking at the evidence" and that appeals to the "evidence" is a post hoc rationalization in practice.

Is that not obvious from what I said ?

The new atheists are the best new argument for the existence of God.

You mean people like your psychopath president, George W Bush?

And where in the definitions I've listed do you place "psychopath?" I ask because while he's an authoritarian, I don't suspect deep down it's because of an inferiority complex. And while he's certainly a narcissist, I don't suspect he's purposefully malignant. If you've wealth enough to purchase Paraguay for your retirement home and all the power in the world, you can be as crazy as you please. The label for that is "President."

Could be that he's simply not stable enough (or intelligent enough) to have a classifiable 'type'. Though his friends are certainly a questionable bunch…

"Science" must ultimately destroy organized religion? I'd love to hear a battle plan of how to do that. While they're at it, can science also destroy racism? Authoritarianism? Libertarianism? Communism? Hell, can it destroy McDonalds?

There's a sinister way to view that, visions of people getting their water supply fortified with anti-religion chemicals. But really, I'd sooner chalk it up to the people who spout this off just plain not thinking about the words that are coming out of their mouths. Though I'd love for Sam Harris to say 'Science will destroy eliminative materialism!' at one of these conferences, just to see Daniel Dennett's expression.

You mean people like your psychopath president, George W Bush?

Yes, I do.

Societal pressure should be exerted against those whose tendencies of character are dangerous to our common life. As you mention, the authoritarians and narcissists,etc.

We should all grow to be able to spot and ostracize them in a minute.

You mean people like your psychopath president, George W Bush?