Conversations with History: Mark Steyn 

Mark Steyn does a better job 'writing for the world' than any other commentator alive today!

Mark Steyn, I could and do listen for hours. Sane analysis, realisation, foresight and by God we need more like him and Douglas Murray in these times.

I love these old Mark Steyn videos. The older comments are always indignant but the newer ones grudgingly concede that he had a valid point.

Mark Steyn and Douglas Murray are the two public intellectuals I have most respect for. Why? They express their concerns with an unusual degree of courage despite it being very difficult at times in today's climate. Throughout the western world Islam is gaining formal and informal footholds which place unique strains on society. In formal terms as the migration crisis has been catastrophically managed by most nations and the European union in particular our natural impulse is to respond with kindness and empathy. But whilst compassion is a virtue it becomes a vice when we ignore real concerns about the volume and rate of migrants being admitted and the values many of them endorse. The rate is such that assimilation is nigh on impossible. Germany is the most egregious case in point with 1.2 million migrants now dependent on government subsistence in the last year. Too many of them do not come from nations with a commitment to freedom of speech, respect for women, equality for homosexuals and the freedom to leave their religion. Any concern expressed about Islam at all is met with the meme Islamophobia which is invoked to rebuff any criticism even when perfectly justified. Since this discussion (with Steyn) much has happened concerning Islamic terrorism particularly in Europe. A series of terrorist attacks in the UK this year, attacks in Germany and very severe attacks in France killing over two hundred people within the last two years have rocked all decent people. It is no coincidence that Islamic terrorism is affecting so many countries throughout the world now and there is a marked increase in illiberal Islam even when terrorism may not be severe. Poland has refused to take migrants this year having seen all the problems young male Muslims have brought with them from their own countries. Poland does not have an Islamist violence problem. Indonesia was once the country pointed to by Islam apologists as a great example of the largest Islamic democracy. Not any more. This year we have seen creeping sharia and public floggings for adultery or blasphemy. The same is true in Pakistan. My biggest concern is that too many liberals defend intolerance. When it comes to freedom of speech or blasphemy laws we must not give in an inch. Every time we give in the intolerant and illiberal win. When we fail to show the Danish cartoons or the Charlie Hebdo publication we are saying to the terrorists 'you have won. Your blasphemy laws are in place'. For too long too little has been said and done to defeat the extremists. They are gaining ground each time we fail to defend our values. Thankfully Steyn, Murray and a few others are still talking about these very serious concerns. We need more people like them with the courage to keep standing up for our values.

Steyn is such a brilliantly spoken man.

All those who criticise Mark especially his book America Alone have got it so wrong. He is spot on. I lived in London for 40 years and travelled to a load of other cities. Islamisation is fast increasing and funded by the Saudis. More mosques and Madrassahs preaching hatred of the indigenous British. As witnessed by some of my muslim friends who had heard people in their community speaking about it. The huge birthrate amongst the muslim population. Arseholes like Anjem Choudhury and the like shouting their crap on the streets. No need for terrorism they will just outbreed us.

I could listen to Steyn for hours.

Mark really nailed the Canadian perspective on America, the outsider looking through the shop window! Well said!

RESPECTED Mark Steyn, May LORD bless you and your friends, family, working team and you please read below and pray for Christians living in Muslims Countries and do support us after reading below message. Stay blessed

Mark steyn is the greatest.

Mrs. Merkel has been like a teenager with "her own money." Not needing to pay " rent and food," [Read here as contribute to NATO] she has spent her money on bringing Middle Easterners and Africans (primarily) into Germany rather than paying the basic bills. (This comment is prompted by Steyn's musings about France and Germany, starting at around 24:00) Interesting to hear this conversation 10 years after it was made--even if only by waking up to it by "linked random play" means! Steyn has been saying that he was talking about the effects on the continent for a long time. He was right!

Mark is on no narrow tightrope......he is on a very wide and firm plank....! James Hennighan Yorkshire, England

13 years later so much has changed.

always very eloquent

Wow! Listening to this in 2019, Mr Steyn is prescient re: Brexit & the utter failure, complacency & non-responsiveness of the political class

Nice to see such an intelligent and comprehensive interview of the wonderul Mark Steyn.

WOW. I really, really like this guy's philosophies. His arguments are impossible to ignore, and if you do, you do at your own peril.

My absolute favorite Rush substitute host!! Go Mark!!!

and 80 %of todays jews are ashkenazi, meaning they are not related to jews of ancient Palestine, but instead were people originally from caucus regions of present day Russia, and converted to the religion of Judaism, not to the race.and there is absolutely no archaeological evidence for majority of stories in the bible, so whats your point. there is no doubt arabs owned the land deeds to that land, no one disputes that who is taken seriously in professional circles

Harry is such a brilliant interviewer. Never any histrionics or confrontation and a gentleman from head to toe.

He is right on many points, but wrong on the largest. Christianity gave rise to Europe and America. It was Christianity which was the focal point of England spreading her borders. I am shocked that he just left this entire element out of the equation. As Christianity declines in the western world, so does western culture. There is an obvious correlation. You erode the foundation from which an objective standard rest, and you are left with might makes right and liberal subjectivism. This is the true decline of civilization. Thus the house of cards comes crashing down. Steyn's biggest problem is that he only addresses the cards, never the table the cards are built on. The oldest magic trick in the book. But as he said, he hates Christianity just as much as Islam, thus the blind eye to the painfully obvious.

Call him a racist, dismiss his credibility and *wah-la!*... you don't have to debate the facts. Typical liberal tactic.

Respect and it’s all trueeee

Read America Alone!, no, better Listen to he audio book, this Steyn guy is as funny as wise.

In Israel, Arabs have full civil rights. They serve in the parliament, the judiciary, the military (voluntarily), they become actors, singers, models, sports stars. The Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza say openly that their goal is not to live equally with Jews in a democratic state, but to defeat and evict the Jews from the region. To keep your army close to such people until they become willing to accept your existence does not constitute apartheid. It's just survival and common sense.

Why are the Israelis not an honest peace partner? Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians a fully sovereign, fully independent state on over 95% of the West Bank and Gaza. All he wanted was a small buffer zone and a genuine peace. Israel's borders would have been almost indistinguishable from those of 1967. Arafat not only rejected this deal, he actually launched an intifada. And that was only Barak's offer. There have been half a dozen others, almost equally generous.

Mark Steyn is awesome. I'm not even particularly conservative and he's totally awesome.

Great discussion Mark.

I love listening to Mark Steyn and reading his articles. I am dying to read 'America Alone'. But I didn't know much about him, so I appreciated this video since he talked a bit about his history. Thank you.

This is 14 years ago remember

Great interview and an even greater book! Every man and woman in the Western world should read his book it is informative and absolutely entertaining.

"A Universe From Nothing" Watched about 10 minutes and while I enjoyed the science aspect, I found Mr. Krauss' contempt for religious faith to betray his devotion to science and truth. One of the surest signs of an ideologue is when they lash out at opposition to their dogma through the mechanisms of ridicule and ad hominem. The nod and wink crowd in attendance might have been too much of a temptation for him, but in the end it seems he checked objectivity at the door. I'll watch more later.

You guessed wrong. I wasn't going to say that. I was going to say that the Arab citizens of Israel have the full range of civil rights that any citizen of any democratic country has. The Israelis don't set a quota of Arab parliamentarians, and don't select friendly Arab politicians to fill those slots. Arab citizens are free to run for parliament, to raise money, to campaign, and to be elected as individual Israelis --- with no interference from the state. How is that apartheid? It just isn't.

Ahhh for more of this broadly educated clear thinking articulate participation in today's world!

Great stuff 👏

Hundreds of historians and other commentators have elaborated on that basic fact. I don't say the matter is free of controversy, but there are a great many leading lights of the former colonies who have expressed a reserved admiration and gratitude for the democratic institutions installed under British colonial rule. For example, read the recent speech of Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, appearing in print under the title "India's experience with Britain had benefits too".

Thanks for the fresh air! It's encouraging, even exciting that this level of observation and articulation is alive and holding forth! Your AMERICA ALONE is a book we want to give everyone we know! More relevant and uncomfortable truth than the current popular campaigns are presented in the most engaging style. We need to turn up the factual education and get off our whining & incomplete emotional tyrades, we lucky Americans!!

and benny morris is wrong when he states that ethnic cleansing was built into Zionist idealogy, or he's a self hating jew. iam all for jews have a therir own country. but iam also for the Palestinians having their own sovereign contiguous state as well. to argue that Israel has been an honest peace partner is laughable. and the Palestinians are not any better either. but history proves countries cannot be both a democracy and imperialist at the same time. I think zeev maoz is more of expert

I do not mean to suggest that the Palestinian Arabs never had a legitimate claim to the land on which their forefathers lived and toiled. The simple fact of their long history in the region gave them that legitimacy from the start, with no need of legal documentation of land ownership (of which precious little has ever existed). However, the point remains that the mass immigration of Jews into Palestine, and the building up of the pre-state Jewish institutions, was an entirely legal process.

The genomic data in particular leave no room for doubt. Today's Ashkenazim bear the highest genetic likeness to West Europeans, centered on lower Germany, and on the Y-chromosomal line, bear the full complement of J-haplotype genetic markers which characterize the peoples of the Levant (today's Syrians and Lebanese, who by now also have significant admixture from the Arabian Peninsula). None of the Central Asian genetic markers one would expect on the Khazar hypothesis have in fact been found.

Forgive me, but you are so obviously beyond reach that it is impossible to have a discussion with you. When an act of terrorism and a logical retaliation are given the same moral, or immoral, value, it is clear that the person who is uttering these views has no moral values himself. Your dismissal of religion as a whole is your personal business. It should be easy to understand that self-defence is not terrorism, while terrorism is terrorism. Why bother having a moral discussion with a nihilist?

@ryukXsayu27 if you substract the Arab and African births in Western Europe the rates are at least as low as the Eastern European ones! And they are so low because no woman in her right mind wants to put children in this Society, where she (and her man) have to work for other peoples children first (paying for the Arabs welfare, their kindergardens etc.) and then you may spend the rest that's left for your child! (Of course she has to pay for the kindergarden because she works!!!)

That radicalism transcends any kind of normal human interaction. They want to bring about the caliphate, and have stated so explicitly. Whether the West reacts violently towards them, as it has, or not, is irrelevant. When they're attacked, they're "radicalized;" when they're not, they're just as radical. The religion was spread this way long before the "West" had even existed. I'm all for a civilized dialogue, but let's not muddy the water. Tell things as they are.

@saintsrowbadboy The root of all ignorance is in biased opinions based on intellectual laziness and emotion grandeur. Your claim makes enormous historical generalizations which are quite untrue, of which your example is quite pathetic. Through having a living Christian culture, Europe became what it was. It is through people that societies advance, not through a few renegade intellectuals. BTW, the Byzantine Empire, an extremely religious society, was a superpower until the 12th century.

@ChopJoplGershw And I'm saying that although religion plays a huge role in our culture and life, it's not the main driving factor of the success that the Western World achieved. The motivation to achieve profits and expand their dominance in the world, as well as new technology developed thanks to science is what made that possible. I'm not trying to deny my roots, do away with religion inspired feats of architecture, classical music and art.

@ChopJoplGershw Greek philosophy was in this case affecting the evolution of Christianity. Why do you think we have Christmas trees? Decorating using Christmas trees is a pagan ritual that predates Christianity itself, and know just about everyone in America has one during the Christmas season. I'm not sure what you're trying to argue here anymore, but what I was saying is that religion is changed to fit society. Next are you going to tell me that science is a product of Christianity?

@ChopJoplGershw Why indeed. Obviously Christianity has evolved in the West. Most people take the creation story and Noah's Ark literally because science has proved these things to be absurdities. Can Christian evolve to the point where Jesus's divinity was not taken literally? I hardly think so. By bringing up Hellenistic Christianity you prove my point. This was an attempt to reconcile Christianity with Greek philosophy.

@ChopJoplGershw The fact that they can pick and choose what to accept from the bible means that they have some sort of standard for which parts to accept and which to reject. This standard cannot be based in religion because it's revising the religion. Rationality doesn't come from the Jewish or Christian tradition it comes from the frontal lobe of the brain. The post hoc rationalization here is going back to the bible and finding the parts that fit with today's society and tossing what doesnt

@ChopJoplGershw You can't deny that there are passages in the Bible which support slavery, and although there were religious people who used religious rhetoric in the Civil Rights movement that fact remains. Furthermore a lot of the people in the Civil Rights movement were communist, secular, and often agnostic or atheist. The Judeo-Christian tradition indeed colors the societal backdrop in which the evolution takes place, but it doesn't drive it.

@ChopJoplGershw I respectfully disagree about religion being necessary to the European Enlightenment. On the other hand, I think it's quite likely we wouldn't have had the Dark Ages without religion. Enlightenment ideals didn't evolve out of religion, they evolved with religion and I think in spite of it because if you look at the Bible it's full of barbarism. I'd be willing to admit that religion isn't primitive by definition, but as it's based on superstition, it certainly goes hand in hand

@ChopJoplGershw Yes and in India it's still only accepted by a small minority (about 2%). It was originally persecuted within the Roman Empire, but it later became the official religion in the Roman Empire under Constantine. Let's look at the Spaniards who conquered Latin America and forced their Native American slaves to convert to Christianity. You're correct the primary purpose of conquest is never to spread religion; it's for profit. But that doesn't mean they didn't burn heretics.

@Luzcvier I have to assume that you're speaking English as a second language because I can't understand at all what you said, and you mostly likely didn't understand what I said. That said I've read the bible, and it's full of violence and perversion in all its primitive glory. Religion is primitive in general and Christians in the western world are civil and enlightened in spite of religion not because of it.

@Setzer I bet you don't know what you're talking about. I recommend that you read the bible, not as a believer but think that it is a basic part of the history. Besides, didn't you realize that Muslim is quite primitive since they chop hands of a thief (an adult man was chopped from feet to hand? A 6 year old boy's arm was crushed under a wheel of a car? ) wed a child of 5 or six, decapitate head of a person committed crime, stoning,etc? Just watching your TV screen that gives few seconds ?

The only thing I disagreed with is his assertion that there is something fundamentally different about Islam and Christianity. The Christian religion was also spread by conquest. I think the real difference between the two is that Christianity has come into the 21st century while Islam has remained in the 17th. I think it's a tricky situation because on the one hand religious tolerance allows radicals a smokescreen, and on the other hand, suppression exacerbates the differences and hate.

@abdulidan > [ "Islams contribution to human development is arguably the greatest in history," ] Not so much. You can't really compare translating a few Greek texts and usurping Indian, Assyrian and Persian civilisation, to the contributions made in the secular west since the 17th century. The scientific method, Telescope, Vaccines, transport, communications systems, all kinds of tech and constantly improving knowledge. Human genome, LHC, Hubble. Islam is insignificant in this area.

Steyn's portrayal of European societies is really a portrayal of stereotypes, as is his description of why USA would be the only 1 place where Muslims could sort of reform themselves. Plus, his mention of multiculturalism might be relevant regarding UK, but it's worlds apart from what exists in other European countries. So while I agree with some points he makes, he also seems so full of shit and megalomaniac on his "knowledge" of societies.

@AQUIPARAVIDEOS I dont care if your a jew or not , what im saying is (as i hinted) you can draw parallels with the rise of Muslims and the rise of Nazisim in Germany. They started off as a loud minority mostly laughed at and the rest is history. I never claimed to be an expert in Jewish history, quant or charming or otherwise. My guess is your a left wing Jew but hey ho , Shalom.

@FireEyedMaidOfWar In the future, if you're going to write a thesis, do it via private message. No one wants to read 6 consecutive response comments, not the way RU-vid works. Do you honestly believe that the presence of token American forces (amounting to very little combat strength) in Germany and Japan actually seriously effects the politics of those countries? As if we withdrew 3rd Marine Division from Okinawa, then State Shinto would be reinstituted in Japan proper?

Id like to see Mark debate with Chomsky. I find Chomsky's arguments very one sides and i can feel something is wrong with them but he is such a high caliber scholar(or at least feels that way)that i personally cant find what is it exactly that is problematic about his arguments and logic,neither do i have the sufficient amount of knowledge on the subjects to be able to refute is well presented points.

"The Communism and religion issue has been clear for a long time" Well, Soviet Communism and Sino Communism are two entirely different breeds, different roots. Communism in China, even if influenced by Marx has as much Confucianism and Daoism as Marxism, artifacts entirely void in Soviet Communism. But just like Zen Bukkyou isn't a religion, neither is communism by the absence of a clear cut sense of deity.

"Repeating mantras" hemmo? You know better than anyone else about that: "Crusades, inquisitions, witch hunts..." You just don't like putting the shoe on the other foot, do ya? You would argue that those events were caused by ideology (HUMAN failings); but you refuse to accept the consequences of Mao's and Stalin's ideological views. Their actions are a manifestation of their belief system.

"Repeating those old mantras about atheism doesn't make them true" Actually, Zen, you started this pissing contest when you challenged what good was accomplished by two general groups of those who believe versus those who don't. So piss away and don't get frustrated if Mao and Stalin are crowding you a bit:) (P.S., I hear Stalin was built like a horse. Don't let him turn and talk to you because if old footage serves right, he tended to turn his whole body.)

"Psychological evidence contradicts your claim - believing scientists keep their logical thinking and religious side in different mental compartments" If you listened to Dawkins for an ear stinging 3 minutes you could rule him out as a scientist then. Even Krauss couldn't get to the point of his lecture until 2 minutes of deist bashing. Couldn't even make one hour without getting at least two jabs in at Jesus! These guys are as objective as a weepy schoolgirl. Maybe they should get lobotomies:)

"Both of whom subscribed to religions - the first to Communism, the latter to Nazism" Whaaahahahaha! Nice try. Yes, they were certainly dogmatists, but if the debate is about Creationism v Evolutionism, one was a Eugenisist and the other a Michurinist and neither believed in God. And in response to your insistence that science is self correcting, with these two clowns it was only after 10s of millions had died and the admission of error was only posthumously.

"pissing competition" No, I clearly stated that it is irrelevant. While you could extrapolate the "rightness" of men by the fruits of their labors, it's not evidence in and of itself. I was simply responding to your inquiry because you seemed to hold the misconception that the religious experience doesn't have a societal benefit. I retract Einstein from the list, but the others were deeply devoted men of faith.

"He didn't claim he was a god or anything" He draws conclusions as if he feels that way. He may be the best in his field and I don't have any issue with the FACTS he presented, nor find any of them to be in controversy with the nature of God, but he extrapolates beyond a plausible theory of the state of the universe into whether or not God exists, which compounded with his derision of all things religious, detracts from his objectivity on the matter. "Scientists love mysteries, not knowing."

"It's quite reasonable to mock religion" I hope that this isn't the sum of your argument, because you're depending on the same flesh and bone that turns you off to religion to "enlighten" you on the order of the universe. Do you honestly think that someone who goes through a post graduate degree has any less personal investment than a priest graduating from seminary, or relies any less on his grant money than what the priest brings in on the collection plate? You're far too trusting!

"his "contempt" has nothing to do with the factual concepts he presents" No, but unless he believes that HE'S God, he's just flesh and bone and subject to all the same frailties as you and I. So, I have to factor in his biases. I understood most of what he was telling me, but what ISN'T he telling me. It was a monologue, not a debate, and he relied upon assertions that short of pursuing my own PHD in particle or astro physics, I wouldn't know if they survived even a peer review.

"With classical physics, things are quite simple, but when it comes to quantum physics, things get extremely complicated" On this I beg to differ. Classical physics still govern the properties and behaviors of all that we have discovered in the realm of Quantum physics and we are not so far from merging our conclusions therefrom into simply, "physics". The human mind can better comprehend models adjusted in scale, so we may continue to learn and understand from Quantum versus Classical models.

@Zenhemmo Complex or elegant, the order of the universe simply is. God does not break, nor need to break the natural laws. To the lay person, it may seem that He can at will break natural and eternal laws, but that's only because He understands those laws and we don't (yet). So on the matter of creation, He uses the matter that exists, the laws that are, and creates in perpetuity. It need not detract from our admiration or aspirations, and certainly inspires humility and obedience to His laws.

To me, atheism is irrational and illogical as it triumphantly (and flatly) declares something as an impossibility. Agnosticism is a more reasonable position than atheism, as it implies a healthy skepticism awaiting certainty. It's more logical to say that "you just don't know" when you realize that : 1) All the facts aren't in yet, if they ever will be. 2) The only aspects of the universe that we can measure and model are those we can perceive and comprehend in the first place.

"let us surrender self and all selfishness, and as all things are fixed by causation, let us practice good so that good may result from our actions" Certainly you would not be in error practicing these principals, but you would remain ignorant of grander things, which is why I suggested that in your dogmatic battle to reject theism, mortality will pass you by. Eastern philosophies can only get you so far and moral relativism similarly fails to encompass the fulness of human experience.

@Zenhemmo You presuppose that Isvara's will would be to compel his creatures to do good only. But there would be no purpose in said creatures without their agency to act according to their own desires, good or bad. Admittedly, this is a stumbling block for most atheists... "if there's a god, how could there be anything bad in the world?" But there is opposition in all things, for without evil, there is no such thing as good, without misery and suffering, there is no pleasure nor happiness.

"There is no evidence for a created universe or a creator. And on top fo that, the laws of nature rule out any sort of creation." The evidence is as ample as there is diversity and abundance of life. The natural laws of thermodynamics governing energy and entropy can explain life, but not the origin of life. Meaning, life is eternal and has no beginning, certainly not "spontaneously" through a random event, nor through a process of phyletic gradualism.

"The universe being random is a common false claim made by those who don't understand the basics of the theory of evolution. Randomness presupposes lack of order or law." I don't claim the universe is random, contrary, I claim it is well ordered. And I understand and accept genetic drift as part of that order, but reject spontaneous speciation for which there is neither evidence, nor a plausible theory. Randomness does not presuppose anything other than the lack of will or intelligence.

"Nor did I say I was interested in biology or atmospheric physics" You may not have said "interested", but you certainly declared a conviction which, unless I misread your statement and you believe in a creator, you believe in a random universe, "There is no controversy around evolution. The empirical evidence is overwhelming." Are you in conflict believing in a creation while denying a creator or do you believe in evolution in which case does evolution not shape your anti-theistic dogma?

@Zenhemmo Nihilism, wow, sounds really fun. Pretty exciting how you whittle away and waste your time while life goes on around you. If you've based your belief in "nothing" on the fallacies of evolution (spontaneous speciation through) or climate science, you might want to bone up on some critical thinking before the second half of your life whizzes past. Best of luck with your anti-dogma!

Actually under Stalin, Lysenko reigned as the head scientist of the state and literally cost millions their lives through the famines he created. He brashly defamed (and even imprisoned) those who opposed his theories. He was an avid atheist and evolutionist but refused to accept the discrete nature of genetic mutation and believed if you cut off enough tails from mice, you'd end up with a breed of tailless mice. He used propaganda to discredit, comparing the value of People to Drosophilidae.

The problem with many scientists (and certainly not all scientists, for such a generalization renders it meaningless), is that they carry on with a pretense that they aren't subject to emotion, or more broadly, subjective thought, when they are as "frail" as any other. Then they "preach" their theories with an unearned air of authority, very much entrenched in their investment towards those theories. The problem of course is that they have no such authority or infallibility.

Shall we shake hands now, hemmo? You must realize that neither of us is going to give ground on this subject, right? For me, you're only galvanizing my position because you apparently don't (won't) understand the concept of *faith*. I walk away from this conversion feeling even more secure in my belief in God. Face it, you and I are transitory, temporary, whatever. I'll place my Universal wager as I see fit.

hemmo:Humans are physically limited in the capacity to comprehend the complexities of the universe; we don't even know what questions to ask, or how to build a model for answering those questions. We're like a dog trying to comprehend a doorknob: we associate the fixture as a means to go out for walkies; as a dog, we can observe it but we can't figure out the mechanism itself. And we lack fingers! Like that dog, we as a species lack the means for complete understanding of universal intricacies.

hemmo: "greater chance of hitting something with my shotgun in the daylight than believers have ...single shot pistol in the dark" Hitting what? Greater truth? You might have to expand on your somewhat weird and inaccurate analogy, by noting that you have large blinders on: You are willingly shutting off an entire avenue of possibilities, *and* you're politically driven. Hey, your choice!

hemmo, You totally missed my point, and frankly I'm no longer surprised. You did understand my point, didn't you? (Maybe you need a coffee break..) Are you actually out to try to convince me? To do so, you're either going to have to grow some better arguments, or try to adopt a persuasive attitude (I realize that might be alien concept to you but it's worth looking into). If you play chess, this is called an impasse. If anything, you're galvanizing my perceptions.

Another repeat question: Why are we having this now laborious, tedious, and protracted conversation? You're athiest, I'm theist, we have different perspectives. Trust me, you're not persuading me one bit: you are now where I used to be at one time in my life, and I evolved. Science is a fantastic lens to view and analyze the world through. But science is man-made and consequently fallible and subject to change like anything else. I no longer put all of my faith in science's "egg basket."

So....got it! You're an acolyte of 'science'. Science is your deity. That's too bad when such an amazing collections of methods used to study, model, frame, and predict events becomes a virtual religion for some individuals. You might as well put on vestments and start lighting the candles on your altar, hemmo. You're closing your mind to additional possibilities, and that's the hallmark of a zealot.

hemmo...You don't need MRIs to analyze someone's rhetoric or responses. You simply have to look at what they write, how they respond, and what they're willing or unwilling (hint!) to respond to. This is how humanity has interacted since time immemorial. Like (encore question): do you actually listen to Mark Steyn? 3rd time now. Like, what drew you to Zen so much that you adopted its name? 3rd time, maybe 4th.

To address your convoluted question about proof that Mao and Stalin were "motivated by atheism": The tens and tens of millions of people exterminated *on their watch* is evidence enough. Put the shoe on the other foot: you're citing the immoral killings that have occurred under theistic leaders/movements, and you're assuming that the religion was the motivating factor, not politics, not power, but you blame religion. That is your M.O.!

Okay, hemmo, let's define "God" in the context that you've just given: Even atheists have their deities, and they tend to be on the altar of Politics. (Your question about atheistic motivations is a red herring; that is not the issue. Please re-read my previous statement.) Why won't you address my initial assertion? Are you uncomfortable with it? Lastly, belief in God is different than the quasi-political organizations called "religions" which honor God.

It's notable that atheists (who are entitled to their particular perspective) seem strangely fixated on those who believe in God; it's as if atheists are inherently uncomfortable, in fact itchy, with their chosen position. Instead of being truly at home with their ultimately existential stance, they try to pry and pick apart those who have faith in God. Why? (Especially since it all doesn't matter anyway--> life ends, there's no God and no consequences, right?)

This world is filled with information. It depends if you have the capacity to filter worthy and reliable information from bad untrustworthy information. Then again, your prejudices steers your selection of information towards similar prejudice thinkers like Steyn. Its human nature to look for diferrences in order to discriminate and self-preservate. Its has its good points but mostly carries bad effects. Just like Greed, Lust, Wrath, Pride, Gluttony, etc. So, choose.

Wrong, I work for a large global company. Various large company is cutting back on outsourcing. For example, friends of mine that work for HSBC are cutting back its outsourcing in India. They are laying off over 10,000 people in India!! That is just one example. My company is closing operations over there at the end of this year. India is heavily depending on outsourcing. Deal with it!!

Well, great news for all those whose cultures they destroyed, contaminated or otherwise ruined in the name of filthy lucre and the endless expansion of their interests. I will happily include the Belgians [ Dear King Leopold]and the Dutch of course, as they were spiritually identical monsters. In terms of present concerns, British Imperialism is certainly responsible for, in a not so distant way, for what is happening in both Iraq and Iran. GOD SAVE THE QUEEN.

Actually the term originates in the French revolution. Those politicians who sat in the right wing of Parliament were pro-monarchist. Nazism was not really about "more government". Fascism always relied on concentrated private business and wealth. If you take a look at Fox news its not that different to fascist/Orwellian/Communist propaganda.

@FireEyedMaidOfWar The US Forces Japan website has the current USFJ strength at a hair over 35,000. How in the Hell is the United States "occupying" Japan, which is a nation of 127 million citizens, with a force that doesn't even make an under-strength corps (and which is mostly Air Force and Marine personal on Okinawa, not even mainland Japan)?

Writers like him clearly widen the gaps among people then their already is, whats behind all this? our cities are vibrant with people from all walks of life, it takes time to study that form of diversity, people=complex science that everything is evolved from. Hasty generalization is becoming a bad tactic day by day.

hemmo: "...done arguing against people who don't even grasp basic high school physics and biology." Excuse me, where did that snide remark come from? I graduated college summa cum laude with a 4.0 in chemistry, calculus, plant biology, etc. I'm sorry I don't fit your cookie-cutter understanding about theists.

"religions have some very stupid ideas" and so does science, like the ice age that was predicted in the late 1970s: "If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come about by the year 2000" - Lowe Ponte, The Cooling, 1976

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." How about 25,000 genomes comprising over 3.3 Billion Base pairs, all fashioned to reliably reproduce and sustain all that is human life - is that extraordinary enough for the skeptic to believe something beyond a by-chance universe of random and spontaneous events?

"If not, there would be another cause beside him, and he would not be self-existent" Again, Gautama presupposes that there is no God unless He is self-existent or if there is another force besides Him, but that is the narrow view of someone in the finite realm of temporal life and death unable or unwilling to see the realm of the infinite.

"guess Darwin never figured that one out" Darwin was an idiot. Not one iota of his original observations uphold his far reaching theory and you exercise more faith in his conclusions than would be necessary to accept water turning into wine. To believe Darwin requires the suspension of disbelief in the irrational.