1. Death for apostasy?

Comment #267694 by godspot on October 21, 2008 at 1:57 am

Comment #267426 by j.mills

I watched Charlie Wilson's War recently, interesting movie, Tom Hanks and all. I recognise this is hardly primary source material :)

Hardly, indeed! I've seen it too, it was a bit too casual about supporting terrorism for my taste - as long as the terrorists are on "our" side, it all seems OK what they do. Until it bites you in the ass, of course.

This is mainly true of the warlords and international mujahedeen, then dubbed freedom fighters. The taliban came up only in the 90s, after Soviet collapse. IMO they can only very indirectly be linked to the US, in the sense that they were a product of a 10 year war that might not have been necessary had the mujahedeen not been given arms and training. As far as I know, the Taliban came mainly out of the refugee camps in Pakistan where they were indoctrinated with crazy radical Islam.

I remember that in the 90s all mainstream media lovingly called them "students" - this seems to be the translation of the word Taliban, and sounds much less threatening. Maybe the media had no idea what was to become of Taliban rule, or maybe any government seemed better at the time than the thugs and warlords the US, the Pakistan secret service ISI, and of course dear old Charlie Wilson had brought to power.

As movies go, I prefer War Inc, partly because the somewhat cynical message seems more to my taste, and partly because it has John Cusack and a very sexy Hillary Duff. Tom Hanks, eat your heart out!

2. Death for apostasy?

Comment #267063 by godspot on October 20, 2008 at 6:57 am

Comment #267046 by al-rawandi

All of the Islamic resistance was created by Muslims. At the very end the US decided to give them some weapons.

Al, when was the very end according to you?

Brezinski said in an interview with nouvel observateur:

"According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise: Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
[...]
That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war. Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.

Q: And neither do you regret having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?"

http://www.counterpunch.org/brzezinski.html

3. Death for apostasy?

Comment #267027 by godspot on October 20, 2008 at 5:57 am

Comment #266863 by j.mills

Reading these last few posts is like witnessing the birth of an atheist 'wedge' document...

Anything to promote athemoderate religionism...

4. Richard Dawkins at Conservative Party Conference 2008

Comment #264286 by godspot on October 14, 2008 at 4:13 am

Comment #264269 by hungarianelephant

I can see significant problems in how you would design these experiments. We know, for example, that the need for consistency is psychologically important. Humans will often stick rigidly to a position once expressed (including a written one they don't actually agree with); the more forcefully, the more rigidly.

And you have to define a "rant" in objective terms.

You're right on those points. Actually the studies address not so much ranting per se (form of expression), as rage or anger (the emotion). The question is whether expressing the emotion is likely to make you less angry or more so.

5. Richard Dawkins at Conservative Party Conference 2008

Comment #264281 by godspot on October 14, 2008 at 3:44 am

Comment #264271 by Styrer-

So who the fuck are you, shit for brains?

What a wonderful example of disputation you set as the gold standard for this site.

Got anything more to say, directly to me? To Fanusi?

What a weasel.

Nope, I've got nothing to say to you.

6. Richard Dawkins at Conservative Party Conference 2008

Comment #264268 by godspot on October 14, 2008 at 2:31 am

Comment #264266 by hungarianelephant

Do you have references for this? TIA

I didn't have the studies ready for you, but I did a quick google search, I know there has been quite a lot of research in this field so if you're interested you will easily find more.

From http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3892/is_200605/ai_n17178357

"A number of studies have examined the relationships between levels of anger and various patterns of expressing anger in adults (Deffenbacher et al., 1986; Siegman, Anderson, & Berger, 1990; Tafrate, Kassinove, & Dundin, 2002). Historically, the use of anger-out or the outward expression of anger was purported to reduce the level of anger and the accompanying physiological arousal (Dollard, Dobb, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939). However, more recent work with adults has noted increased levels of anger with the use of anger-out (Ausbrooks, Thomas, & Williams, 1995; Deffenbacher, 1992; Deffenbacher, Getting, et al., 1996; Drummond & Quah, 2001; Siegman et al., 1990; Siegman & Snow, 1997; Thomas & Williams, 1991). Among the first studies that found adverse effects with the use of anger-out was the work of Ebbesen, Duncan, and Konecni (1975) who measured attitudes toward their employers among groups of aerospace workers who had recently been laid off. Those workers who were encouraged to ventilate their angry feelings maintained higher degrees of anger thereafter than workers who did not ventilate. In later studies (Deffenbacher, Lynch, Getting, & Swaim, 2002; Drummond & Quah; Siegman et al; Siegman & Snow), researchers found that loudly expressing anger-arousing events or using anger-out caused participants to feel significantly angrier. Tafrate et al. noted, in a study of 93 community-dwelling adults, that high trait anger adults exhibited more negative verbal behaviors and physical actions than low trait anger adults and that the angry reactions were more frequent, intense, and enduring. Further, the high trait anger individuals demonstrated more negative feelings after their angry reactions."

7. Richard Dawkins at Conservative Party Conference 2008

Comment #264263 by godspot on October 14, 2008 at 2:18 am

Comment #264112 by Mark Jones

State control over the means of production suppresses the natural entrepreneurial human spirit, so should be abandoned!

That's a social-darwinist argument. Luckily Mr Dawkins is not likely to use it.


Comment #264241 by Steve Zara

Ranting can be a very healthy form of release, both for the ranter and those who read the rants.

Psychological experiment suggests there is not much gained by ranting. Contrary to popular belief, there's no such thing as letting off steam; rather, raging just feeds the rage.

I don't enjoy reading these rants by Styrer and other hatefilled people, if I want that stuff I might as well go visit a local church or mosque. I like this website in spite of the deport-and-kill-crazytalk, not because of it.


Comment #264254 by Styrer-

Fanusi Khiyal is one such, at least. He has spent many years trying to bring himself up to speed on the Islam issue. This has resulted in his vociferous ability to debate - with even the likes of our resident Islam expert, Al-Rawandi - to a level of which this site should be immensely proud.

Fanusi believes that national-socialism is socialism. He is an idiot. I for one hope he stays away, it's irritating enough to have you around.

8. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260894 by godspot on October 6, 2008 at 6:51 am

Comment #260876 by Peacebeuponme

You may be right, but that is just one quote,

No it's not, you totally made it up!

and still sidetracks debate and puts Richard on the back foot speculating about Condell's intentions.

Who is sidetracking debate by inventing quotes for Condell that Dawkins should be prepared to answer?

Hitchens has proved himself to be a respected intellectual over years of journalism. Any theist worth their salt would have respect for him and understand Richard's general support

Well you've got me, can't beat an argument from authority.

9. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260883 by godspot on October 6, 2008 at 6:35 am

Comment #260877 by al-rawandi

So Pat's indictment there is an indictment of Islam in general, in my book, and good for him.

Of islam, maybe so, but not of all muslims. In this quote that seems to infuriate Peace and Steve, he was only talking about Saudi Arabia.

Judging from his other videos, I would say that Condell thinks all forms of religion are crap anyway, but he's careful to judge people by what they actually believe. So if some muslims quietly started cherrypicking from their holy books, much like Christians do, well more power to them.

Or maybe I'm just putting words in Condells mouth here. That seems quite on topic in this thread.

10. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260865 by godspot on October 6, 2008 at 5:59 am

Comment #260851 by Peacebeuponme

No-one can ever say to Richard though that "You supported Stalin and he carried out pogroms and mass slaughter", while they can say "You support Pat Condell, who claims that all muslims are mentally ill." Richard has no real come back to that right now.

Well I don't want to pretend to do Richard's work, as you seem to be eager to do Dinesh's, but I'd imagine Mr Dawkins might start out by saying Condell never said that. He was (mockingly) trashing wahabi Saudi Arabia, definitely not all muslims. Condell is not against muslims, as he repeatedly has stated in his videos.

(Is that what this is about?)

Anyway, they might as well say Richard supports Christopher, who thinks religion poisons everything, or that Richard supports himself, who claims that all religious people are deluded. And they definitely already say Richard supports atheism, which was responsable for the Holocaust and the Gulag.

Does it make sense? It wouldn't be religion if it did.

11. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260845 by godspot on October 6, 2008 at 5:23 am

@ Comment #260841 by Peacebeuponme

You would think. But if that were the case, the "atheism leads to Stalin and Hitler" argument would never be used.

Stop worrying what the theists might use as ammunition against us, it has no basis in reality anyway.

12. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260840 by godspot on October 6, 2008 at 5:16 am

Comment #260829 by JAMCAM87

I do not find him funny

I cannot see how others find him funny.

I think it is a mistake for RD and PZ to support a second rate "comedian".

Comment #260830 by Peacebeuponme

I guess the main criticism of Pat is that, for a comedian, he's just not funny.

So maybe there are different tastes for different people. And maybe, just once, Dawkins, Myers and others do not completely share yours. Live with it.

There will come a time soon, in a debate, when Richard will have to defend his support of Pat and some of his more bone-headed comments, which he will struggle to do.

Dawkins already has to answer for the Gulag and the Holocaust in every discussion, thanks to the outstanding quality of his opponents. I'm sure he will do fine when it comes to this newest, baddest incarnation of Hitler.

13. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260815 by godspot on October 6, 2008 at 4:14 am

@Steve

Saudis are insane

Well, at least they are in large majority extremely religious, don't you agree? Would the phrasing "Saudis are deluded" be more to your taste?

Are you kidding me?

I admit I am a kidder, but this time I seriously wondered. And I still don't get it. Your "Condell gets nasty so it's a different story"-argument just doesn't convince me.

@Keith

Spot on.

14. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260802 by godspot on October 6, 2008 at 3:50 am

@ Steve

You were not dealing with his point

...because I already had given my opinion on this point in comment 111. Besides, it's a very small part of the whole video. Which is not your cup of tea, I get it.

The only other point? Implying that everyone in the country is mentally ill?

Why does this shock you so much? Is it the obvious exaggeration? Would you have been just as indignant if a comedian did a sketch using one of these generalizations?

"Everyone knows all of Britain has a stick up its rear end"
"Everyone knows the Germans have no sense of humour"
"Everyone knows that France is one big night club"

Who is hurt - someone sane in Ryad who managed to get through the country's censorship and see this video? Do you have a problem with it because it is about religion, or because it is about poor little super rich Arabia? Or some other reason? I really wonder.

15. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260783 by godspot on October 6, 2008 at 3:25 am

@ Steve Zara

His point is sound. I suggest you listen again

I'm sure you mean well, but not listening close enough is not an issue. I've listened to all of Condell's videos and I love them. I have no problem with Condell being crass at times. I think he's funny. And I think he's mostly right.

So we just disagree on those points.

About the strawman, you're joking right? What great insight by Graham did I blend out by focussing on his repeated misuse of the term ad hominem?

The only other point I can detect is a repetition of the one you and others made before, about Saudi Arabia being a mental asylum.

Which it is, as I already said in my previous comment #111. Just no doctors to be found.

16. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260767 by godspot on October 6, 2008 at 2:51 am

@ Graham

Apparently you don't understand what an ad hominem argument is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Please read it carefully.

a high profile representative of the atheist movement

Wow, is that what Mr Dawkins is? Does he know? Can I be Captain of the Movement?

I would like to be called Cappy.

17. YouTube Reinstates Pat Condell

Comment #260730 by godspot on October 6, 2008 at 1:03 am

@ dragonfirematrix

He already did address American Christians, see

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7f01IBDoZGg

and

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Zqbz563pNQ

Or any of the videos that have Jesus in the title, on http://www.youtube.com/patcondell

I think he's hilarious. And of course Saudi Arabia is a country full of religious nuts - not just the government. Although this is probably the least interesting point in this video.

18. Comedian Sabina Guzzanti 'insulted Pope' in poofter devils gag

Comment #246209 by godspot on September 12, 2008 at 1:03 am

rod-the-farmer

Even back in 1929, I can't see any country A punishing its own citizens for criticising the leader of country B.

You're wrong about that, many countries at least in Europe have laws against insulting "befriended heads of state". I know in the Netherlands people were tried before WWII for being too critical of our good friend A.Hitler.

And even in the sixties, Dutch protesters against the US war in Vietnam couldn't call befriended president Johnson a murderer. Instead of murderer (moordenaar) they started to use miller (molenaar), a word that in dutch sounds almost the same.

http://www.iisg.nl/edu/vietnamoorlog/hvv231067.php
I believe those laws still exist today.

19. Why we evolved to be superstitious

Comment #246203 by godspot on September 12, 2008 at 12:35 am

The arguments remind me mostly of another Pascal: Boyer, author of religion explained. I read that book years ago. What new data do the guys in this article bring to the table?

20. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241757 by godspot on September 3, 2008 at 3:15 am

John Locke

admitedly less aggressive) fanatics

I share all of your concerns over the possible Nuclear proliferation to Iran, and its horrifying theocratic regime in general. Therefore I would hate to even sound like I'm defending that country, but let's keep some perspective. How many wars has Iran waged over the last decade? How many the USA?

21. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #241747 by godspot on September 3, 2008 at 3:02 am

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmToGmw2DDw

Great stuff Fanusi, Bill Maher points out rightly the very obvious similarities between both religious nuts in office now in the US and Iran. he might have added (hadn't Hitchens bullied through) that the US government regards Iran (among other nations) as Evil in exact mirror rethoric to the Big Satan speeches blurted out in Iran. Today much less so than under Khomeini, I believe by the way.

I didn't watch the propaganda part afterwards, so no comment on that.

22. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #238360 by godspot on August 28, 2008 at 3:18 am

these "evangelical atheists," as Roger Scruton called them

The "philosopher" Roger Scruton once stated in an interview that the democratically elected president of Chile Salvador Allende was actually a dictator, and that the bloody coup and subsequent 17 year military dicatorship against him was a democratic expression of the people's will.

That made it real easy for me to value any author using him as a source.

That Voltaire had Christianity in mind is indicated by a rather more vulgar expression from his pen: "the people will not be free until the last king is strangled in the guts of the last priest."

Indeed not Voltaire but Diderot said really in his poem Les Eleutheromanes:
"Et ses mains ourdiraient les entrailles du pretre
Au defaut d'un cordon pour etrangler les rois."
(And his hands would plait the priest's entrails
For want of a rope to strangle kings.)

EDITED to remove weird french accent signs :)

It is believed to be an allusion to a similar comment from Jean Meslier, an interesting figure whether he said this or not (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Meslier).

23. The Darwin Lectures

Comment #237692 by godspot on August 27, 2008 at 3:16 am

Introductory comments may suck, but I love that they use Bach's chaconne to kick this off. Very tasteful & sophisticated :)

24. After Bibles seized, U.S. group won't leave Chinese airport

Comment #233126 by godspot on August 19, 2008 at 6:50 am

This is obviously not about free speech or freedom of publishing, it's about proselytizing. Several countries have a ban on proselytizing, notably France. I like to think of it as the law that guarantees the right to freedom from religion. And a great law it is.

25. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #230083 by godspot on August 14, 2008 at 8:34 am

Scooternyc - well i can't be bothered to argue with ad hominem insults, though the fact you put the word opinions in quotation marks, suggests to me you would really love to install that PATRIOT act on me.

One thing i think i know is that currently there's a war criminal running for president. You know, the guy that took actively and knowingly part in the extermination of 4-6 million Vietnamese, Laotians and Cambodians by all means, chemical warfare (Napalm) included.

To be sure, I haven't said (and will never say) anything to defend the sufferings Ayaan Hirsi Ali has underwent. Despite what your current president may say, people do have a choice to be neither with "US", nor with the terrorists.

They never fight for Reason and Enlightenment, you know.

26. Al-Qa'eda in Iraq alienated by cucumber laws and brutality

Comment #229957 by godspot on August 14, 2008 at 5:41 am

Though islamic lunacies of the cucumber kind have been reported many times before (we all remember the teddy bear mohammed incident), I wonder about this one. What influence does Al-Qaeda actually have in Iraq? I thought it was virtually none - but perhaps that has changed since (and thanks to) the US invasion.

The self-described protectors of the Sunni community now kill more Iraqi Sunnis than anyone else."

That's about the funniest thing I've heard coming from an American intelligence officer.

As for the donkeyfucking: typical pastoral behaviour, not confined to Arabs. As long as it's consensual, fine with me.

By the way, beastiality is a big market in western pornography - check the internet. Couple of years ago some people here in the Netherlands were busted by the police while forcing illigal African migrant women to have sex with a horse, for commercial video use.

Wonder how long it will take before the Dutch are called horsefuckers.

27. Defend the Individual and So the West

Comment #229884 by godspot on August 14, 2008 at 4:46 am

"While we in America are drugging our alpha boys with Ritalin," writes Lee Harris, author of The Suicide Of Reason, "the Muslims are doing everything in their power to encourage their alpha boys to be tough, aggressive and ruthless."

Yeah, that's really what the world needs: more American agression. Maybe if GI Joe took his ritalin in stead of the usual amphetamines, he would for once refrain from murdering civilians by the millions in far away countries, under the banner of freedom and democracy.

Anyone who uses the phrase "alpha boys" loses the right to talk about reason.

28. How Our Culture Keeps Students Out of Science

Comment #227064 by godspot on August 9, 2008 at 9:07 am

Roland_F

There are so many books written about that and attempts to train and handle boys and girls equally failed. One example is that give a little boy a doll and he will play football with the head soon, give a ball to a girl and she will cuddle it like a doll.

Well, a lot of stuff is written, so let's not use that as an argument. amd even if the guys 'n' dolls story is based on more than anecdotal evidence, I fail to see what showing agressive or caring behaviour in children says about their future ability to do math.

Same counts for your dismissal of the statistics given in Scientific American as politically correct.

In former communist countries like Russia, the percentage of women in science is much higher than in the USA. Guess those commies have different brains.

29. How Our Culture Keeps Students Out of Science

Comment #226314 by godspot on August 8, 2008 at 12:48 am

Roland_F

Gender ratio:
That are very few woman in engineering and math or science is depending on the brain wiring, spatial ability (left hemisphere) is more often dominant in males (85%) compared to a bigger corpus callosum plus focus on the right brain hemisphere are more dominant in females resulting in better verbal abilities. So until this is not changed maybe by injecting more testosterone for the pregnant woman in week 6-8 of pregnancy, this brain wiring and gender ratio will not change.

Is that so? http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=571F0E86-9E2C-6F6B-44A864E897AA54FE