1. Escape or betrayal.

Comment #218178 by Communist on July 25, 2008 at 3:06 am

Black-Mamba wrote:

I'm sick of these lies but lying scumbag media hungry anti islamists.

Women have much more rights in islam today than they ever had. They can leave whenever they want. I'm tired of people only focusing on the beliefs of the radicals. The majority of muslim people do not find the behavior of radicals acceptable. You just want to fit it in your own little box so that you have an excuse to be atheist or whatever other religion you follow.

I find it amusing how people who aren't in a religion think they know it all.

Stop focusing on the bad in islam and start focusing on yourselves. Get your own lives together, you godless blasphemic heathens.

This response is so typical and tiresome. I propose what I like to call the Aleister Crowley test. The Aleister Crowley test goes as follows: Take any point of view that religious or culturally intensive people have, and then imagine that a secular spokesperson og movement expressed that same point of view, and imagine the public reaction.

Black-Mamba claims that women in islam can leave whenever they want. The fact is that even moderate islamic scholars think that it is too easy for women to get a divorce in secular sosieties. And the lack of academic progress, the lack of gay liberation and the lack of good female athletes in the islamic world as well as in muslim communities show that it's not just a problem among a small number of 'radicals' (who ought to be called reactionaries instead).

And does Black-Mamba really think I need an excuse to be atheist? Then what is his/hers excuse for being a muslim?

I don't think I 'know it all' about islam. I don't think I know everything about the ancient religion of my viking forefathers either. I nevertheless haven't seen anything that has impressed me so far, and Allah is for me is exactly as probable as a real entity in the universe as Thor with his hammer is.

And the last sentence in Black-mamba's post is just an evasive move. Secular people (and marxists in particular) are in general much more capable of self criticism than religious people are.

2. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207517 by Communist on July 10, 2008 at 1:45 am

Richard - Thank you very much for your response. The up and coming Hitch/Lennox discussion is very good news indeed! I have had mixed feelings about Christopher Hitchens since his sad mistake on the Iraq war, but he has since then at least denounced waterboarding as torture. I hope we will be able to see and/or hear at this site video or audio of him nailing Lennox's verbal fossils from an ancient society to the wall.

As for "hang him" versus "let him hang himself", I'd like to remind you of how you confronted, exposed and hanged Ted Haggard in an absolutely wonderful manner. People like Haggard just don't hang themselves voluntarily. The rope must be handed forcefully to them, like you did so well.

3. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #207497 by Communist on July 10, 2008 at 12:24 am

Glad to see PZ gets it, even if not everybody here does.

http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/07/dawkinslennox_round_2.php

Richard

I deeply respect and admire your work. But I find the tactical position that you and PZ Myers take on this debate worrisome. You and PZ Myers are making a tactical mistake if you think that people like Lennox will hang themselves by their own rope. If that was the case then the Islamic world, Israel and USA would have gone atheist (or at least secular) a long time ago.

Here in Norway we have a political party called Fremskrittspartiet (the progress party). This is a populist party similar to Berlusconi's movement in Italy. When they came upon the scene in the 1970's, all the other parties ignored their rhetoric, thinking that these idiots will expose thmeselves as fools to the public and fall as a result of their own devices. This was a huge tactical mistake. The other parties didn't see the danger until the progress party reached somewhere around 12% - 15% of the electorate. Now it is perfectly possible that the progress party leader will be the next prime minister of Norway.

Occam's razor should be applied. The simplest theory here is that when one particular viewpoint is allowed to dominate a debate, then that viewpoint actually does dominate the debate. Richard Dawkins - You are far more effective when you speak than when you are silent. I say that as a compliment as well as bit of tactical advice.

4. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #205968 by Communist on July 8, 2008 at 1:38 am

Oh my Marx. John Lennox is sounding like Tariq Ramadan here, trying desperately to bridge a vast gap between ancient thinking and modernity. The argument that Luke was a doctor is pretty typical.

I wish religious people would study Aleister Crowley and the emerging religion known as Thelema. Crowley has been dead for just sixty years, and the thelemites are already beginning to sound like other religionists when the interpret Crowley's text. Just check them out on YouTube. Christianity, Islam and Thelema all reflect either the societies in which they emerged, or the societies that came immediately afterwards. John Lennox is stuck in ancient times when he is impressed of Luke being a doctor, and of the sun and the moon not being presented as gods in genesis.

5. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #198452 by Communist on June 24, 2008 at 2:26 am

The Discovery Institute is absolutely right here. Nobody outside the US should ever take any interest whatsoever in what is strictly the internal affairs of the United States of America. This is precisely how the US right wing never wants to meddle in the internal affairs of other countries... cough... argh... never mind...

6. How Are Humans Unique?

Comment #184699 by Communist on May 26, 2008 at 1:52 am

It is noteworthy how dodgy many people are about the uniqueness of humans. Of course humans are unique. Human beings have evolved the ability to accumulate information, technology and social structures across generations. This remarkable ability means that the collective (and indeed the individual) behaviour of humans differ strikingly from generation to generation, quite unlike other species. Our actions determine the surroundings of future generations, influencing their actions, which then will change the surroundings further. This is evolution in the Marxist sense, many orders of magnitude faster than Darwinian evolution.

Both religious fundamentalists and some misguided movements within science such as behaviourists try to place this evolving historical collective trait as something outside the essential human being, preferring the study of rats in labyrinths instead of earnest studies of society. This is a fallacy which removes a core human trait from the discussion. We are unique because we are the only history making species on this planet.

7. 3QD interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #180433 by Communist on May 14, 2008 at 11:41 pm

I've just enjoyed another wonderful interview with Richard Dawkins.

The debate about the counterintuitiveness of certain statistical problems and puzzles is fascinating. Not only are some of these puzzles counterintuitive, but people's intuitions also disagree.

For instance, if red comes up six times in a row in roulette, then many people seem to think that black is more likely than red in the next play. In a real roulette situation, my intuition would tell med the another red is more likely.

I remember discussing the Monty Hall puzzle with a job collegue of mine once. She thought about the puzzle for a few seconds, and then gave the correct answer straigth away. What astounded her was the fact that so many people actually thought of such a simple puzzle as difficult.

8. Sexpelled: No Intercourse Allowed

Comment #163138 by Communist on April 18, 2008 at 2:59 am

This video was an absolute gem. Richard Dawkins the sex maniac had me coughing with laughter. My only criticism is that they should have left out the 'Ben Stein is an ignorant fool' bit. Explaining the joke weakens the satire.

By the way, this sort of thing could have been done easily with Lysenkoism as well as storkism. Trofim Lysenko's theories were in fact less nuts than creationism, and a Lysenko parody would have been so to the point that it wouldn't even have been funny.

A comparison with Lysenkoism also tells us what is at stake. Lysenko ruined agriculture under Stalin, just like creationists have ruined science in many islamic countries.

9. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156842 by Communist on April 8, 2008 at 10:11 am

epeeist wrote:

Comment #156824 by al-rawandi

Do you propose the one party solution of communism?

As opposed to the two pseudo-parties of corporatism you mean?

Touche!

10. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156837 by Communist on April 8, 2008 at 10:06 am

Hi al-rawandi. Thanks for the nice words about the bear. The story about the Sudanese teddybear named Muhammed was the inspiration.

No, I don't propose the one party solution of communism. I'd like to see those rights that were won when the middle class was progressive, to be kept and indeed expandeed. I support fridom of expression and multiparty system.

I live in Scandinavia, and social programs and the protection of individual and collective rights are already quite good. The main change I'd like to see is an end to the class divisions within the economy.

(Note to fundies: No, we Scandinavians don't sleep while hanging upside down from the rafters just because the percentage of secular people is high.)

11. Get out of here, atheists!

Comment #156822 by Communist on April 8, 2008 at 9:52 am

AdrianB wrote:

Most of what Monique Davis says is so predictable, but one thing puzzles me:

I don't know what you have against God, but some of us don't have much against him.

She does have something against him then? Shocking!

Indeed, and she speaks of god as 'him'. I wonder if she thinks he is white too.

12. Biologists Take Evolution Beyond Darwin Way Beyond

Comment #156133 by Communist on April 6, 2008 at 11:57 pm

I have no problems with most of the Wired article. My father used to be a bee-keeper, and we discussed several times how a bee society could be viewed as one organism. Likewise, one individual bee may be seen as a collective of cells and genes.

But then comes the following sneaky sentences:

But does it all happen mechanically? Or does evolution obey some larger imperative?

University of Nevada evolutionary biologist Guy Hoelzer calls that imperative biospheric self-organization. "The idea of evolution is embedded within self-organization," he said. "It coordinates the ecological roles of species so that ecosystems persist and process a great deal of energy."

What is this imperative hinted at? One or several gods? Or Lysenkoist 'Marxism' applied to nature? I see no evidence for evolution not happening mechanically. Wired's foggy talk about 'some larger imperative' is just the sort of phrase which may catch on among fundies. Beware of out of context quotes in fundie propaganda.

13. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #149634 by Communist on March 26, 2008 at 3:07 am

So this is what passes as Marxism these days. It is depressing to see how often various left wing categories such as Marxism, antiimperialism and antiracism are used to advance postmodern, culturally intensive rant.

Mick Hume is leaning back comfortably, at a safe distance from the millions of people who suffer under the tyranny of ideological constructs such as sharia law, Eretz Israel, the cast system in India and american neoconservatism. In his secular, pluralistic comfort, Mick Hume deserts the downtrodden. His article is petite burgoise, not Marxist.

14. Writer Arthur C Clarke dies at 90

Comment #146325 by Communist on March 19, 2008 at 12:43 am

I am saddened by these news. The most striking trait that Arthur C. Clarke had, was his ability to combine scepticism with an open mind, to combine realism with visions. May he not be forgotten.

15. Two More Fleas

Comment #142667 by Communist on March 13, 2008 at 1:41 am

The book description says among other gems:

... he turns the scientific community's cherished skepticism back on itself, daring to ask and answer some rather embarrassing questions:

Oh yes. These questions are indeed embarrassing - for Berlinski. They have been investigated and beaten into the ground by rational people again and again. The only question that deserves a comment is this one:

Has secularism in the terrible twentieth century been a force for good?
Not even close to being close.

It is true that secularist ideology in various forms has killed hundreds of millions in its worst forms, but in its better forms it has saved BILLIONS. People like Berlinski should ask themselves why there is a worldwide population explosion despite the fact that birth rates are going down.

It's about time that people start to defend the twentieth century. Never before have so many people suvived childhood. Never before have so many people learned to read and write. Never before have so many people lived in relative freedom. And this is mostly due to modern economy with a secular superstructure.

16. Bulldozers tear down giant religious teapot

Comment #138917 by Communist on March 5, 2008 at 12:20 am

I hope they will leave my dear Lenin mummy and my Karl Marx teddybear in peace.

But there is a more serious undercurrent in this. Islam is holding back the Malay economy, and the nonmuslim minorities are getting more and more restless and inpatient. They feel discriminated against and the big teapot that is Malaysia (Islam's economical showcase) is heading for an explosion. Look for the confidense of the Indian and Chinese minorities to grow as the economies of India and China grow.

The greatest victory of modern society is how new ideas in science and technology have been transformed into either private or state owned mass production of goods and services. This process has saved billions of lives. I can't think of ONE SINGLE EXAMPLE of this ever happening in the wonderful world of Islam.

17. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123741 by Communist on February 7, 2008 at 3:12 pm

philosowizer - Vidkun Quisling was a strident nazi from the mid 1920's and onwards. He led a Norwegian nazi party called 'Nasjonal samling' (National union) throghout the thirties, fronting germanic purity, antisemitism, antifeminism and trade union smashing. So he was not a naive useful idiot who went along, but an instigator. Quisling was tried for betraying his country at the end of the war. He had among other things ordered executions of trade union leaders and assisted the german occupiers in their roundup of jews. He was found guilty and shot. I oppose capital punishment, but I also believe that the verdict was formally correct given Norwegian law at the time.

I therefore think that comparing Rowan Williams to Quisling is way too harsh.

18. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123713 by Communist on February 7, 2008 at 2:42 pm

philosowizer - That reference to my countryman Vidkun Quisling was a bit too harsh. Quisling was not a man who bended over backwards. He was quite the opposite: One of those who made others bend backwards. If there is a Norwegian that the bishop of Canterbury resembles, it is the famous figure skater Sonia Henie. Sonia Henie was a very naive person who was charmed by the top nazis' interest in arts, arcitecture and music.

19. Sharia law in UK is 'unavoidable'

Comment #123701 by Communist on February 7, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Richard Morgan wrote:

Perhaps we should hold fire here until he tells us precisely which aspects of Sharia law he is referring to.

I disagree with that. I think atheists and secular people have been holding their fire for way too long. I can't think of any interpretation of Rowan Williams' reasoning that should escape hash criticism.

20. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #119911 by Communist on February 1, 2008 at 2:28 am

Darwin's shitsu wrote:

notsobad and Communist
you should be careful not to confuse Arab scientists and mathematicians (who acheived some great things) with muslims (who greatly hindered the advancement of science, even banning the wheel because it is'nt in the Qu'ran).
for more info see comments 59/60.
cheers

Point taken, and thank you very much for an interesting link. I listened to it this morning.

21. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #119904 by Communist on February 1, 2008 at 2:03 am

babrock wrote:

Like Gymnopedie, I also thought the worst was the the muslim guy santimoniosly going on about how tuff it is that someone (salmon r. in this case) keeps forcing them to try to kill them by offending their particular imaginary friend. Like " If only my wife/child would stop pissing me off, I could stop beating her.

Agreed! This transfer of responsibility from those who commit violence (or threaten to do so) to those who express opinions is a common theme among islamists. This is done as an insidious and gradual rethorical technique, and it has been successfull to such a degree that even sensible people have began to regard Danish cartoon publishers as somehow responsible for violent threats and attacks upon embassies.

Another typical ploy is to say that barbarities such as huddud punishments and capital punishment for apostacy are only applicalble in an Islamic state. This is a way of saying 'I don't have such attitudes here and now, but I will have them somewhere else in space and time'. Religiuous people get away with such subterfuge, secularists do not. Suppose that I said that Gulag, mass executions and show trials are good options in a Marxist state, but not something that I have to defend now. I would either be scorned, laughed at or gently told to seek psychiatric help.

22. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #118885 by Communist on January 31, 2008 at 5:43 am

bamboospitfire wrote:

Communist - there is a difference between democracy (which is what notsobad is focussing on) and universal suffrage (which is what you are focussing on). Just because some demographics were not enfranchised under the original Greek system doesn't stop it being a democracy.

I disagree. It was not just a matter of some demographics. It was a matter of a majority of adults in Athens lacking not just the right to vote. They also lacked citizenship in a democratic meaning of the word. They were not individuals like we think of individuals. The integrity of the single individual is a relatively recent invention, a product of a modern and complex economy with a capitalist class structure rather than a class structure based on slavery and inheritance.

23. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #118755 by Communist on January 31, 2008 at 12:08 am

notsobad wrote:

You disagree and then confirm what I said. The Greek democracy was first. The Romans and later Europeans used it and improved it. Without Ancient Greece there would probably never be democracy in the world on a larger scale than a tribe.

No, I did not confirm what you said. The Greek democracy was not first because it was not a democracy. It was a strict class state where slaves and women barely had human status.

This part was played only after the Renaissance started, inspired by Greek and Muslim writings as I already stated.
BTW, Islam was much more progressive than Christianity before the Renaissance. Muslim scholars adopted Indian decimal system and came up with advanced mathematics. It was later imported into Europe, which was still using the Roman numerals inadequate for advanced mathematics.

The renaissance emerged because capitalism emerged as the new, dominant mode of production. The inspiration from Greek and Muslim writings was an inspiration that they actively chose, given the conditions. Merchants in cities all over Europe broke out of their feudal chackles in post black death Europe. Christianity (and in perticular protestantism) fit the new system perfectly. It's no coincidence that every single protestant country is a rich, democratic country today.

The latest god-is-love Christianity may resemble secularism but it's not because of Christianity. And there still are many denominations, dogmas and particular believers who are as silly and ignorant as always.

I agree that the god-is-love stuff is Christianity transformed because of external influences. But I also believe that Christianity's inherent respect for the material world was essential in the emergence of capitalism.

24. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions

Comment #117902 by Communist on January 30, 2008 at 12:15 am

notsobad wrote:

I concur. Thanks go to the Ancient Greeks. The only nation in the world that invented democracy.
And the Italians came with the Renaissance after translating classic Greek writings and Muslim writings.

I disagree with this. The so-called democracy of the ancient Greeks is totally hyped up. The massive suppression of slaves and women was a matter of course to the 'democratic' ancient Greeks. There is evidence that certain Roman emperors such as Domitian did more for women and slaves than the leaders of Athens ever did.

Modern pluralistic democracy is a superstructure on top of the capitalist economy. It is a product of the progressive struggle of the middle class from about 1700 and onwards, and the working class from about 1820 and onwards.

And Christianity probably played a part. In Christianity, god became man of flesh and blood in Jesus. This translates into a respect for the material world (and for work as a virtue) that you don't see in for instance Islam. I am not a Christian, but I regard Christianity as probably the most progressive religion, because it resembles secularism and atheism most closely.

25. A Letter From Hell

Comment #116257 by Communist on January 26, 2008 at 4:26 am

I see there are lots of people in here who promote ridicule and sarcasm as the proper response to this video. I am against that. You may think of such debates as a battle for the minds of the majority of people. But the makers of such propaganda material as this video are playing a different game. They aim for two goals:

1. To strengthen the convictions of those who are already true believers.
2. To recruite the small minority who may be vulnerable to this sort of thinking.

They don't care about the secular majority. They are not trying to convert us (yet!). This is a slow and gradual military campaign, with endless patience as their trusted weapon.

The best response to such propaganda is straightforward arguing without sarcasm or ridicule. Ridicule will most likely provoke sympathy among those who are already vulnerable.

26. Creationists plan British theme park

Comment #99512 by Communist on December 17, 2007 at 12:16 am

theantitheist wrote among other things:

Good Thing - They will lose money and it will be treated as a joke, only damaging the creationist cause further. Plus let's face it, if you build it in somewhere like Wigan you will have some scum (i'm from Bury, i know the area) writing shit all over it and people breaking in just to trash it for kicks, further making it a joke.

I have seen this sort of reasoning before, and I think it is a dangerous underestimation of the opponents. Here is a possible outcome:
* 1. The theme park opens.
* 2. The majority laughs and ridicules.
* 3. The laughter gradually dies down.
* 4. The theme park goes on, with a steady trickle of believers.
* 5. Believers establish a compromise with surrounding society, siphoning off a steady amount of tax payer's money or tourist incomes.

We should have in mind that the true believers have an impressive endurance, and that when it comes to tactics and incremental moves, they may suddenly act in very smart ways.

27. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96083 by Communist on December 10, 2007 at 12:11 am

phasmagigas wrote:

The lady from turkey seemed to be of the school 'freedom of speech, just watch what you say' im not sure she realised she was contradicting herself though.

I think she was torn between conflicting emotions and viewpoints. I have noticed this within many muslims that I have debated. Deep down they are intensely aware of how the Islamic world is lagging behind in verious areas such as academic productivity, emancipation of women, degree of democracy and trade union organisation. They are either in vigorous denial or they try to address the symptoms without adressing problems with the core ideology. But deep down, doubt has set in...

28. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #95878 by Communist on December 9, 2007 at 11:51 am

I saw the program, and I must say I was a little bit disappointed. Richard Dawkins did fabulously well as always, but the opposition was weak. Did any of you notice how much that catholic cleric sounded like Dinesh D'Souza? I am reminded of Dan Dennett's description of how the parasitic liver fluke changes the mind of it's host. D'Souza and their like sound like they are reprogrammed by some malicious computer virus.

29. Keith Olbermann talks about the Romney 'Religion' Speech

Comment #95513 by Communist on December 8, 2007 at 1:32 pm

Did any of you see the whole Family Research Council conference video? The video was referenced at this side in the article with the headline ''Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer'. Here is the link:

http://www.c-spanarchives.org/library/stream_it.php?format=rm&program_id=201624-3

After Mitt Romney, Ben Stein and others delivered there standard reactionary, antifeminist, antigay, anti-lone parent, antiscientific rant, Phyllis Schlafly took the podium.

What was remarkable about her speech, was how strongly she came out against free trade, against international agreements and against globalism. Her speech was stunningly ANTIBOURGEOIS. Since the context was reactionary and religious fundamentalist, I will say that her speech was FASCIST. I also fear that such a message may gain support among many american workers and unemployed when China and India continue to expand their economies. I hope that those who believe in the free market will agree with me on this. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

30. Pascal's Wager

Comment #95125 by Communist on December 7, 2007 at 11:54 am

Comment #82001 by TranshumanAtheist on October 25, 2007 at 2:15 pm:

Those emails from African bank clerks offering us money to help unlock the funds from dead people's accounts look like a better deal than Pascal's wager. One, a real person had to compose and send that email. Two, we know that Africa exists. Three, we know that huge sums of money exist in foreign in bank accounts. Four, we know that banks can wire money from one account to another anywhere in the world. Why not take one of these clerks up on his offer? I mean, what can possibly go wrong?

The comment above is spot on. Pascal's Wager implies that adopting a specific view of the world is a cost free exercise. It isn't. There is always some form of investment. The world view doesn't even need a supernatural promise of heaven or a supernatural threat of hell.

Suppose that I offer you a messianic version of Marxism which says that a classless paradise will be attained here on earth soon. The only requirement is that you follow my orders. If you are right, then classless utopia is yours. If you are wrong, then you really haven't lost much. Will you take my offer?

31. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #94183 by Communist on December 5, 2007 at 1:21 am

Listening to Dinesh D'Souza is depressing. He is loud, fast and full of points that don't connect into a coherent logical structure. I think the true message in his delivery is this:

Dennett and other atheists may win the debate today, tomorrow and next year. But I'll still be around decades into the future. I am more fanatical than you are, and I and my followers are more fanatical than you are. We will wait you out!

This is an implicit threat to all secular people, and it holds a promise to his followers. I bet his followers love the rambeling style of this charlatan.