1. Yoko Ono, Filmmakers Caught in 'Expelled' Flap

Comment #162414 by Skep on April 16, 2008 at 10:37 pm

I'm torn between my disire to see the Expelled liars get their comeuppance and my support for Fair Use. Depending on the context of the Imagine clip it may be reasonable fair use--and since reasonable fair use benefits us all, I would support their right to use the clip even though I don't support the producers of the film otherwise.

nt #162393 by tman on April 16, 2008 at 9:06 pm
First post!

I propose that anyone who's "First Post" is, in fact, not first must stop posting "First Post." I bet you honk your horn when driving through tunnels.

2. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145206 by Skep on March 17, 2008 at 11:12 am

D'Souza calls atheists cowards. Not quite: They're like the man who perishes in a fire because he refuses to believe the net below will hold.

Yes, the invisible, faith-based net that all the previous victims fell through because it doesn't actually exist!

Tony Snow. Paid professional liar or self-deluded twit? Or both?

3. The Great Tantra Challenge

Comment #144591 by Skep on March 16, 2008 at 11:31 am

Sanal Edamaruku is lucky that Pandit Surinder Sharma is an "honest" black magician and didn't try and secretly poison him. Of course anyone who would agree to kill someone for live TV can't exactly be trusted, whether or not they actually have the ability to do so.

4. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #130337 by Skep on February 20, 2008 at 10:57 am

The Bishop on February 19, 2008 at 11:47 am
Too late! I have printed out your names and pictures, and set them up by my altar, so that I can remember you whenever I pray.

Hmm...That is pretty clearly idolatry, one of the Big Ten sins.

BTW, if you are Christian you are an atheist with regards to all gods but one:

http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/02/11/gods-we-dont-believe-in/

--and, of course, that is just a partial listing.

5. The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in 'Expelled'

Comment #128662 by Skep on February 17, 2008 at 2:16 pm

@ Duff

Science looses these battles all the time because they are decided by mobs rather than science. 20 percent of Americans surveyed think the sun revolves around the earth. A super majority of people in the US believe in a personal god--i.e., science has already lost the battle in the US.

6. The Search for Truth, God and Braver Scientists in 'Expelled'

Comment #128399 by Skep on February 16, 2008 at 11:38 pm

The Fine Tuning Argument? Oh, please. Will Professor Stein now argue that noses were made to have spectacles and thus we have spectacles? Voltaire's Candide eviscerated the fine tuning argument in 1759.

Master Pangloss taught the metaphysico-theologo-cosmolonigology. He could prove to admiration that there is no effect without a cause; and, that in this best of all possible worlds, the Baron's castle was the most magnificent of all castles, and My Lady the best of all possible baronesses.

"It is demonstrable," said he, "that things cannot be otherwise than as they are; for as all things have been created for some end, they must necessarily be created for the best end. Observe, for instance, the nose is formed for spectacles, therefore we wear spectacles. The legs are visibly designed for stockings, accordingly we wear stockings. Stones were made to be hewn and to construct castles, therefore My Lord has a magnificent castle; for the greatest baron in the province ought to be the best lodged. Swine were intended to be eaten, therefore we eat pork all the year round: and they, who assert that everything is right, do not express themselves correctly; they should say that everything is best."

via http://www.literature.org/authors/voltaire/candide/chapter-01.html

The whole fine tuning argument is silly. It is like asking a winning lottery ticket why the rules of the universe were set up expressly to allow for it's winning numbers to be drawn in spite of the odds against. What ever life formed in the universe was naturally going to be based on the laws of that universe, not the other way around, though Dr. Pangloss Stein would have you think otherwise.

7. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #127473 by Skep on February 15, 2008 at 10:28 am

@129:

see #31

8. Debate between Richard Dawkins and Madeline Bunting

Comment #126947 by Skep on February 14, 2008 at 2:43 pm

Madine Bunting is wayyyyy too hung up on the idea that subjective opinions and feeling are "truths." We really should reserve the word "truth" for things that are factually true and not allow others to get away with declaring "alternate 'truths'"

9. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126898 by Skep on February 14, 2008 at 12:57 pm

@125:

I assumed he was referring to this (via Wikipedia):

Pork Crackling is the British name for the salted crunchy pork rind produced when roasting a joint of pork. The heat of the oven causes the fatty pork skin to dry, bubble up and become crunchy. The layer of fat underneath is retained, and can be eaten with the skin or removed. Some supermarkets now sell just the layer of skin and fat (no meat), in a raw form for home grilling or roasting.

...or as in the "crackled" pork rind snacks one can buy.

10. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126687 by Skep on February 14, 2008 at 12:43 am

I felt it would have been appropriate here for Hitchens to say something like "Really? In the last debate I was in, I was told that morality came from Jesus! Whom am I to believe?!"

Er, except that Christians are rather schizophrenic about what the accept from the Old Testament. Almost universally they tout the Decalogue as the distillation of Christian morality since there is no specific equivalent in the New Testament.

11. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126637 by Skep on February 13, 2008 at 5:09 pm

Comment #126585 by pscoleman on February 13, 2008 at 3:46 pm
His notable friends are Michael Jackson & Uri Geller, neither of whom are models of religious piety or reason but do share Shmulley's passion for self promotion and creating a cult following amongst the guilable.

Boteach also co-wrote a book with Geller:

Confessions of a Psychic and a Rabbi. (Foreword by Deepak Chopra) Element Books Ltd (March 2000) ISBN 1862047243

With the forward by Chopra, that is pretty much game, set and match, a woo-woo trifecta.

As to the charm, he must have a lot of it in person, because brains were notably absent on his side of the debate. Well, actually, the charm wasn't all that evident in the debate either, in spite of always disingenuously referring to everyone, the audience, Hitchens, Dawkins, as "my friends..."

Boteach's website continues the charade using equivocation to make it seem like he had an official relationship with Oxford University and debated Richard Dawkins--neither of which is true:

Rabbi Shmuley first came to world attention through his founding of the Oxford University L'Chaim Society, an organization of Oxford students that within three years of its founding in 1988 had become the second largest student organization in Oxford's history. In Oxford, where Rabbi Shmuley served as Rabbi to the students for eleven years, he played host to, and debated, some of the world's leading thinkers, statesmen, and entertainers including Mikhail Gorbachev, Professor Stephen Hawking, Shimon Peres, Deepak Chopra, Benjamin Netanyahu, Elie Wiesel, Yitzchak Shamir, Prof. Richard Dawkins, Javier Perez de Cuellar, Simon Wiesenthal, and Prof. Colin Blakemore, to name but a few.

Note how he lumps "played host to" and "debated" to make it seem like he actually debated more people than he actually did. While he is a little more careful about making implicit lies rather than outright ones on his website he had no such qualms in the debate, falsely claiming to have debated Dawkins 4 times.

The man is a dishonest putz, IMO.

12. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126564 by Skep on February 13, 2008 at 2:42 pm

From Wikipedia on Chabad-Lubavitch:

The founder of the Chabad thought system, Rabbi Shneur Zalman of Liadi, developed an intellectual system and approach to Judaism, intended to answer the criticisms of Hasidism as anti-intellectual.

If that is true and Rabbi Boteach is a product of Chabad, then they have failed miserably. Boteach's attempted arguments failed at every instance because they were not grounded in rational thought but in religiously motivated post hoc rationalizations.

13. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #126190 by Skep on February 12, 2008 at 3:08 pm

This man should give up the rabbi nonsense and become a comedian. At least that would serve a useful purpose

.

Yeah, but did you hear the crickets every time he tried to make a joke on purpose?

I'd be amused by Boteach except that he takes himself seriously. After utterly lost every facet of the debate far worse than if he'd merely stayed home ("better to keep quiet and be thought and idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"), he has now retreated to the refuge of scoundrels. He has written a followup to the debate which mentions nothing of whether god exists--the subject of the debate--but is instead playing the anti-semite card by grasping at a tangential issue with Hitchens.

Both Hitchens and Rabbi Boteach are loudmouthed narcissists. Funny that the chain smoking, bourbon swilling atheist is the honest, funny, intelligent and better educated one. No surprise to me, but somebody should rescind Boteach's ordination for being an such an embarrassment.

14. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125667 by Skep on February 11, 2008 at 8:04 pm

Botech is trying to distract people from his pathetic showing at the debate by going off on a tangent about Christopher Hitchens. Don't let him get off so easily.

You can leave pointed but polite comments at the following sites where his article has been posted:

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1202064581260&pagename=JPost/JPArticle/ShowFull

http://www.shmuley.com/articles.php?id=575

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rabbi-shmuley-boteach/a-racist-jewish-court_b_86141.html

Keep in mind that Huffpo comments are moderated, but a few may get through (funny how my response to a Depak Chopra article never got through...)

And, of course, at the 92nd St. Y, as mentioned earlier:

http://blog.92y.org/index.php/weblog/item/rabbi_shmuley_boteach_and_christopher_hitchens_full_god_debate_video/

15. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125477 by Skep on February 11, 2008 at 12:21 pm

Did the good rabbi just say he would not call the hospital if someone was dying in front of his house on the sabbath because it is prohibited?

I've been wondering that myself. Boteach always seemed to emphasize a the lack of prohibitions against gentiles being aided. But, I think this is due to Boteach's poor argumentation. In this Jerusalem Post article he is more clear:

Eli Beer, of Hatzolah Jerusalem, who oversees 1,100 medical volunteers, approximately 60 percent of whom are Orthodox, told me, "If someone would say we won't save a non-Jewish life on Shabbat, he is a liar. Regardless if the person in need is Jewish, Christian, or Muslim we save everyone's life on any day of the year, including Shabbat and Yom Kippur, and I have done so myself. Indeed, as an Orthodox Jew it is my greatest honor to save the life of a non-Jew, and I would violate any of the Jewish holy days to do so."

...and yet I suspect that Boteach is still not reporting the whole truth on this matter.

16. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125414 by Skep on February 11, 2008 at 10:33 am

60. Comment #125398 by arunkj on February 11, 2008 at 10:09 am
"I have debated many evolutionists including Richard Dawkins...blah blah blah"... doesn't this guy ever feel bad after countless defeats?

See Comment #8 by RD.

It seems that Boteach is a bald-faced liar. RD has never debated Boteach.

17. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125351 by Skep on February 11, 2008 at 9:16 am

Note that you can also leave comments at the 92nd St. Y's site:

http://blog.92y.org/index.php/weblog/item/rabbi_shmuley_boteach_and_christopher_hitchens_full_god_debate_video/

(The RD.net link below to the "website that accepts comments" is to YouTube rather than the Y.)

18. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125086 by Skep on February 10, 2008 at 11:40 pm

Has anyone followed up on the Jewish court that Hitchens sited

Boteach ("America's Rabbi" (whether they want him or not)), having thoroughly lost the debate decided to latch on to this straw, even to the point of publishing an article in the Jerusalem Post, reproduced on his own website:

http://www.shmuley.com/articles.php?id=575

There is a followup on the 92y website:

http://blog.92y.org/index.php/weblog/item/rabbi_shmuley_boteach_and_christopher_hitchens_the_debate_continues/

I am writing on a point of principle and a point of information. I quote from the opening page of Chapter 1 ["A Closed Utopia?"] of Dr. Israel Shahak's book Jewish History, Jewish Religion (Pluto Press 1994):

This book, though written in English and addressed to people living outside the State of Israel, is, in a way, a continuation of my political activities as an Israeli Jew.

Those activities began in 1965-6 with a protest which caused a considerable scandal at the time: I had personally witnessed an ultra-religious Jew refuse to allow his phone to be used on the Sabbath in order to call an ambulance for a non-Jew who happened to have collapsed in his Jerusalem neighborhood.

Instead of simply publishing the incident in the press, I asked for a meeting with the members of the Rabbinical Court of Jerusalem, which is composed of rabbis nominated by the State of Israel.

I asked them whether such behavior was consistent with their interpretation of the Jewish religion. They answered that the Jew in question had behaved correctly, indeed piously, and backed their statement by referring me to an authoritative compendium of Talmudic laws, written in this century. I reported the incident to the main Hebrew daily, Haaretz, whose publication of the story caused a media scandal.

As you may remember from the event at the 92nd Street Y on Wednesday evening January 30th, I was challenged by Rabbi Shmuley Boteach to provide a source for an assertion I had made on Orthodox teaching in this respect, and promised by him that he would buy 100 new copies of my book if I could materialize my point. I hereby submit this excerpt, and beg three things of you:

1) That those who subscribed to the broadcast version of the debate are made aware of my response.
2) That Rabbi Boteach is likewise made aware of it (I have no channel of communication to him).
3) That one of you agrees to act as arbiter until the task - surely quite easy - of consulting the relevant Haaretz files has been completed. I think the burden here now rests with Boteach, though I shall meanwhile institute some inquiries of my own.

I take this opportunity to say that it is always a distinction to be invited to appear on your platform.

Sincerely,
Christopher Hitchens

To which "America's Rabbi" responded:

Dear Christopher,
Thank you very much for your email which I only received this morning. And, let me thank you for agreeing to the debate the other night. Your email divined my own weekly article on the subject (Jerusalem Post: "Christopher Hitchens and the racist Jewish court") which was written Saturday night and Sunday. After you mentioned that Shahak was your source, I investigated the incident. As you surely know, Lord Immanuel Jacobovits, one of the world's leading medical ethicist's [sic] and the highly respected late Chief Rabbi of the United Kingdom and member of the House of Lords, exposed Shahak's letter as a fraud a year after it was written. I enclosed my article on the same. Interestingly as you will see, Shahak does not mention name of the Rabbinical court (there are hundreds of Rabbinical courts in Jerusalem). Less so does he cite a single source within Talmudic law, because he knows the Talmud says the exact opposite, that the Sabbath is desecrated to save the life of a non-Jew. Even if Shahak were to be a source, and Shahak, as you know (he was a close friend of yours) has made many sourceless defamatory allegations against Jews, such as my article says, your book still says that, "many" Rabbinical courts say that Jews must not save the life of a non-Jew on the Sabbath. I ask you to please therefore cite another source which would justify your statement of "many."

Shahak refers to a single incident, and even then, not one where the Sabbath would even be desecrated. There is no prohibition in allowing one's phone to be used on the Sabbath, as you no doubt know. The prohibition is using it yourself. And, second, after reading my article on the subject, would you please respond? I, too, asked that the readership of the 92nd Street Y please be made aware of my article on the subject, and of Christopher's email citing Shahak as the source, and my comments on the same. I welcome the appointment of an arbiter and I agree that those who watched the debate around the world should be made aware of my article and Christopher's email. And, I will await Christopher to bring more sources to justify the "many" he cites.
Wishing you all the best.
Sincerely,
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Boteach is grasping at straws, having nothing else to grasp after his rather pathetic showing at the 92nd St. Y debate. As is the tradition with people who have lost all rational argument regarding their main claims, Boteach is attempting to distract people from his utter failure to prove his points by now attacking Hitchens on a minor tangential issue.

So, Rabbi, how about that proof that natural selection is impossible and that only the Hebrew god can be the source for morality (apparently all Buddhists are busy raping and pillaging since they don't follow the Torah)? Don't forget to explain the rationality of requiring a first cause for humans but not for god...

One may have noticed how Rabbi Boteach decried the evil of rape and then invoked the morality of Ten Commandments as the antidote to evil--failing to notice the contradiction and irony in the fact that the Ten Commandments consider it more important to prohibit the coveting of one's neighbors' donkey than to prohibit rape--yes, truly the most perfect distillation of morality ever... It never occurs the the Rabbi that perhaps replacing the exhortations against adultery, idolatry and covetousness with prohibitions on torture, rape and slavery would be the moral thing to do, yet because he must claim that the Torah is the perfect distillation of morality he cannot admit this obvious fact, and humans must suffer the consequences of his cognitive dissonance.

A Rabbi in America, sure. "America's Rabbi," my arse. I fell for that shtick once above when he implied he was an official Rabbi at Oxford when, in fact, he was no such thing. While calling himself "America's Rabbi" doesn't imply an official position (in this case), the unmerited egotistical self-aggrandizement is nauseating. The man appears to be a remarkable narcissist. I'm not granting him any benefit of doubt again.

19. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125079 by Skep on February 10, 2008 at 10:40 pm

11. Comment #125050 by peahix on February 10, 2008 at 8:35 pm
however, i'd like to point out a couple things. on the whole business of the high court in israel, etc, if you listen back you'll find that hitch DID in fact slip up in his statement and tried to smooth it over after he was caught out by saying something like "...the rabbinical court AND the high court..."

I think Hitch might be on a bit of a ledge on this issue, but to find one story that might be in error in Hitchens book is not to prove that God exists and is the is the source of morality! All Hitchens has to do, if the story turns out to be false, is say so and move on. All the rest stands and the issue has no bearing on the rest of his book.

There are follow ups by Hitchens and Boteach on the 92nd St. Y on this issue. Hitches provides the proof of the citation he was referring to. But, the source is vague on details and could be apocryphal. What is clear, though, is that Boteach's slanderous claim that Hitchens is just "making things up" is a crock. Hitchens did not make the claim up and the citation proves it. Botaech's argument was false. And regardless of whether the story relayed by the source is accurate or not, Boteach has not proven that natural selection is false, that morality requires god (well, not just "god" but the Hebrew God), nor that Stephen J. Gould didn't believe in natural selection!

20. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125077 by Skep on February 10, 2008 at 10:29 pm

"Why did I debate him 4 times? I didn't. He organized debates, with himself as chairman, and I sometimes took part in debates with the outside visitors that he imported, for example Robert Winston. Boteach was a surprisingly impartial chairman, but he was always just a chairman, never a debater in any of the debates that I attended."

My apologies. I made the mistake of assuming his characterizations in the 92nd St. Y debate were based in fact rather than farcical extrapolation or bald-faced lies. In the debate Boteach said he was a "Rabbi at Oxford" and that he "debated Richard Dawkins 4 times" (I'm paraphrasing). I fell for his claim hook, line and sinker. He used that characterization in the debate to bolster his credibility and supposed amateur "expertise" in evolutionary biology, implying that your knowledge either rubbed off on him or that he held his own against you. Alas, such attempted bootstrapping turned out to be in vain as Hitchens was more than a match for Boteach even on the topic of evolutionary biology. And even where Boteach should have had some home field advantage (the 92nd St Y was founded as the "Young Men's Hebrew Association") it was clear from the audience reaction that Hitchens had the crowd, not Boteach.

I had thought that to imply a falsehood was considered wrong in Judaism even if a statement is technically correct. One would think this would be especially true for Rabbis. Apparently not in Boteach's case.

By Boteach's logic, I suppose I could become a "Resident Skeptic" at Oxford by taking a nap on an Oxford park bench and could also claim to have "debated" Richard Dawkins merely on the basis of the one response above--but such claims would be knowingly disingenuous.

I consider myself a tad foolish for having presumed the honesty of someone because of his authority in a religious organization. Sigh...I really should know better.

21. Hitchens and Boteach Debate on God

Comment #125021 by Skep on February 10, 2008 at 6:12 pm

Boteach was terrible. He couldn't even make a good case, let alone a successful joke.

Is there more than meets the eye? How did he get to be a Rabbi at Oxford? Why did Dawkins debate him 4 times? Watching Hitchens debate this guy was like watching the Harlem Globetrotters trounce the Washington Generals. Were Boteach not so irrationally confident, vitriolic and just plain wrong all in the guise of being "friendly" watching the "debate" would be like watching someone kicking a puppy (Boteach would be the puppy, of course). You cold practically see Hitchens checking his watch.

22. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121539 by Skep on February 3, 2008 at 3:20 pm

Comment #121511 by Partisan on February 3, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Thanks - now I know to ask not to have muslim nurses or doctors whenever I'm a patient at a hospital.

No, you'll just need to ask for someone who washes to their elbows. Note that men are allowed to do this, it is only the women who are taught that god requires them to keep their forearms covered (but, for some inexplicable reason, female babies are not born wearing bruqas...)

Hmm, surely as doctors they must have to do plenty of stuff that's against the teachings of the koran?
What about looking at naked man bits for one.. how do they justify that but not rolling up their sleeves?

God help these students Muslim female patients if they injure anything but their exposed face or hands since they will not be able to expose any part of their body for treatment...

23. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121453 by Skep on February 3, 2008 at 12:31 pm

" nogodsever on February 3, 2008 at 11:52 am
How about a compromise. Let them do what they want with sanitation, but they can only work on other Muslims. That will kill two birds with one stone. Hopefully. "

As "agn" notes, that sort of attitude leads to the death of innocents, not just the adult "faith" trumps "reason" religious crowd who one might wish to see hoisted on their own petard--and, and yet I don't want to see even those who would rather infect patients than allow women to expose their forearms be infected even if it would serve them right. Hospital infection are systemic and precautions must apply universally.

24. Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Comment #121424 by Skep on February 3, 2008 at 11:38 am

...and this is all because they think it is "immodest" to uncover their elbows???

Already, doctors have been asked not to wear ties to reduce infection, as ties tend not to be washed on a daily basis. These measures are needed for patient safety and they are not a special burden on any religious group.

25. Are Darwin's Theories Fact or Faith Issues?

Comment #120322 by Skep on February 1, 2008 at 1:07 pm

P Zed was outstanding. I especially appreciate his willingness to go on the offense and call attention to the tactics of his opponents and even calling Simmons' proposed topic "Is Darwinism fact or faith?" the stupid attempt at deflection that it was.

PZ seems especially well suited in temperament to take on this ignorant Fellow who would have tried RD's patience. What works for PZ may not work for others without his style and knowledge.

Go P Zed!

26. Minnesota Atheists Interview Richard Dawkins

Comment #116064 by Skep on January 25, 2008 at 12:41 pm

"32. Comment #114491 by Snowman on January 22, 2008 at 10:01 am
Has there ever been more obnoxious breathing by a group of radio hosts? I love the idea of an atheist broadcast, but that was terrifyingly amateurish. For the love of FSM, they need a new sound engineer."

All agreed. This show can't last long with the on air talent and production values it has. It was almost excruciatingly amateur. It isn't enough to be atheists and have something to say, the radio show has to be produced to professional standards. This show sounded worse than the non-broadcast podcasts I subscribe to.

While it was great to hear Dawkins, the woman who "interviewed" Dawkins sounded really odd, more like she was lecturing him or reading off cards or something.

And Robert Ingersol! To hear the great orator's work read rather than performed did it an injustice.

I wouldn't mind a show produced by the Minnesota Atheists, I just don't think I want to hear a show performed by them.

27. Atheists: Get off of our country!

Comment #45429 by Skep on May 27, 2007 at 5:50 pm

It would seem that it isn't the hoax letter that is of note but the newspaper that would publish it that is of interest.

Now it would seem that they are angry that the intolerant letter they published wasn't genuine. Oh, the horror. Sounds like a call for genuine intolerants to fire up the flamebait.

28. Two idiots get a forum

Comment #35711 by Skep on April 28, 2007 at 1:29 pm

Never has someone so personified Dr. Pangloss as well as Ray Comfort. I'm sure Comfort will be delighted to point out that since noses were made to hold spectacles, and thus we have spectacles!

And bananas...so perfect that they are endangered with mass extinction by a fungal epidemic. I guess the hurricanes he sent to destroy Pat Roberts weren't enough and now he is going to take away the "perfect food..."

29. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33725 by Skep on April 21, 2007 at 12:13 pm

Spinoza on April 20, 2007 at 3:38 pm
"I'm a little confused about purchasing (a) book(s) that just confirms or reiterates something I already know."

Yes, it is a little like posting in a forum where you are preaching to the converted. :-/

30. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32569 by Skep on April 17, 2007 at 12:18 pm

"I really think this is an issue with two sides to it, unlike female or adult male circumcision. Let me reiterate that we did not have him circumcised for religious reasons. On another somewhat related issue, I might point out that we did not pierce our daughter's ears because that decision could wait for her to make herself (at 19, her ears are not pierced)."

You made the same decision that millions of others have made. However, just how much naked time to kids spend with their dads? I'm not a childhood development expert, so I don't know how much it matters to "look like dad." I imagine it might be more significant to blend in with one's peers, but one has to question how much irreversible damage one should do to kids to help them blend in.

31. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32567 by Skep on April 17, 2007 at 12:11 pm

"I am not defining self-righteousness as "disagreement with my apathy."

Au contraire, you wrote:

"I would put myself squarely into the apathy camp, not the self-righteous blabbering camp."

This, I think, establishes the dichotomy you claim not to have made.

"Thanks for the affirmation."

I think your sarcasm is subtler than mine. There really should be a special font for sarcasm since we can't hear a sarcastic tone in written words. Perhaps "Sarcastica Oblique."

32. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32551 by Skep on April 17, 2007 at 11:26 am

"No. My point was that the court may not be looking at this in entirely religious terms. From a legal perspective, the reasoning of the court may have little to do with religion"

Indeed, and my point is that it will be difficult to frame this as a medical decision since it isn't. I do have to agree that the court may well choose to avoid upsetting religious tradition even if it means allowing a 12-year-old to be irreversibly mutilated.

"No. I am talking about posts displaying outrage over an infant's foreskin being snipped off."

And completely avoiding the facts of the case at hand. It is easy to avoid thinking about the plight of infants who won't remember their bris, but another entirely to ignore the plight of a pre-teen about to have part of his penis forcibly removed with the approval of the US legal system.

"Surely it cannot be self-righteous to merely point out self-righteousness."

Not in and of itself, but when you claim that you "don't give a shit" while at the same time you "give a shit" enough to feel compelled to condemn others for having an opinion on something you allegedly don't have an opinion on, you open yourself up to a critical examination for consistency.

You said, essentially, that you "don't give a shit" but that anyone who does is a self-righteous blatherer. I think such position is rather self-righteous. You are saying that anyone who disagrees with your apathy is self-righteous thus making your position artificially "critic-proof." You, of course, are free to disagree.

33. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32549 by Skep on April 17, 2007 at 11:05 am

Your statement " All this outrage over an infant's foreskin being snipped off seems misplaced" omits the fact that we are talking about forced amputation of part of a 12-year-old's penis based on the whim of the father. Should that same father have the right to cut off his son's ear if the father joins a cult? I'm guessing you'd say no.

"my guess is that this case has little to do with religion and everything to do with the parents' right to make medical decisions for their minor children'

Except this is not a medical decision. It is specifically non-medical. It is entirely religious. It is the arbitrary forced amputation of a 12-year-old's body parts based on the whim of an adult parent who believes an invisible being wants him to cut off part of his son's penis. We don't let parents cut off other body parts from their children--not even if an invisible being wants them to.

Your "not giving a shit" is only evidence of your apathy not that the case has no merit.

"but there certainly is alot of self righteous blabbering."

You say that as if you are not part of it.

34. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32533 by Skep on April 17, 2007 at 9:55 am

...and of course there is that nagging question of why we are so accepting of any religion that demands that you cut off body parts to join... Any other kind organization would be instantly and soundly condemned for such a demand. Want to be a PTA member? Sure, but you'll have to amputate part of your penis--and your 12-year-old son's, too.

How can we allow any institution to demand the body parts of children for non-medical needs???? Objectively (if there is such a thing), with the obfuscating cloud of religion lifted, such a demand is clear, black-letter child abuse, IMO.

In Turkey, I believe, it is circumcision is a standard right of passage for 12 year olds. I wonder how that fits into the EU's human rights laws?

35. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32525 by Skep on April 17, 2007 at 9:12 am

"Speaking as a circumcized male who is the father of a circumcized son, I can tell you that
1) it has no apparent influence on function or enjoyment"

In this case "Apparent influence" is the argument from ignorance. Speaking as someone who has apparently never had a foreskin you have no direct experience to claim that there is no difference in function or enjoyment between intact and circumcised. While you can still say that your circumcised genitals still seem to me functional and enjoyable you can't say from your experience whether there is a difference. The your "point" is lost on me.

Another point is the ridiculous frame of reference. Calling normal, intact genitals "un-circumcised" as if circumcised is the normal state of the human body is the wrong frame of reference. Circumcision is the abnormal state not the other way around. It is like referring to people with hair as "un-balding" or to people with legs as "un-amputated".

36. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32506 by Skep on April 17, 2007 at 7:48 am

" In fact, it appears the probability of getting AIDs is dramatically reduced if you are circumcised....So given this, is it ethical for doctors to circumcise babies in Africa for example."

Only if you think babies are going to have sex. Babies themselves will have no direct benefit. Society as a whole may be better off if they grow up and and this alleged benefit turns out to be true. My natural inclination is to say no, however your answer depends on how much priority you give to individuals vs. society. We require vaccinations in the US. These vaccinations are of unquestionable benefit to society and generally good for individuals but in a few cases individuals will get sick from the vaccinations (no, not autism!) Should we require vaccinations? I'd say yes. Require genital mutilation? I'd say no. But, if the facts were different and it provided 95% immunity I can't say I outright wouldn't consider it. However, for religious grounds? Pah..

37. Doctors Opposing Circumcision: An Appeal for Misha

Comment #32381 by Skep on April 17, 2007 at 1:21 am

Amazing. A father wants to mutilate his twelve-year-old son's penis and the courts think it is a fine idea. If the man wanted to cut off his son's pinky finger the courts would immediately find against him but genital mutilation, no problem.

This is another example of religion getting a special "rationality exemption". Were it not for religion, the idea that a father should be allowed to cut off part of his son's penis would be immediately dismissed as child abuse of the worst order, but sprinkle the magic elixir of religion over the issue and all things are permitted.

Truly despicable.

38. Why Children Love Their Security Blankets

Comment #24771 by Skep on March 8, 2007 at 12:48 pm

This really isn't surprising considering how adults like to collect ordinary objects that once belonged to someone famous. Even as adults we imbue certain objects special magical properties. Likewise with gifts or mementos that remind us of a person or event.

39. Penn Jillette Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #3301 by Skep on October 27, 2006 at 9:11 am

This may be fun for you too.

The test at this link http://www.commongood.org/worldview_quiz.htm will give you an idea about your brain, faith-based or reason-based. The “World View Quiz” is just 24 anonymous clicks. Try to take it with the frame of mind you had before you read Dawkins, Harris or Sagan and see where you end? Then take it again with the reason based mind you possess now and compare!

Richard won’t mind if we have some fun with this.

Citizen of the world