501. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80569 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 22, 2007 at 7:33 am

19. Comment #80565 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 22, 2007 at 7:15 am

I don't think you have a clear idea of what such a war would mean. The millions upon millions, perhaps billions that would be killed. You want us to start that because some of us are nervous?

I have confidence that the ideas of the enlightenment will outlive Islam, and the attempts of those who would essentially destroy those ideas to "save" them.

More than anything else we need binding and agreed international law, that the west adheres too, rather than the decades of short term, self serving, self indulgent foreign policy that has, at least in part, contributed to this crisis.

Hitler doesn't get off the hook because of the Versaille treaty, but we can see in retrospect that it was a stupid, nasty and penal document that radicalised an entire generation of Germanic peoples. It was a gift to a skilled demagogue, because it was so obviously injust. Same thing here.

We need to do everything in our power to manage and contain this, and genuine even handedness would be a start. However, launching a war that will kill millions of "them", on the off chance we may be saving thousands of "us", is not on my list of "ideas of the year". The meme of an existential threat to the west is a transparent myth. Well to those of us remotely familiar with the world we live in, and the cruel realities that determine it's course.

I will need to see bloody chunks of european and american shoppers on TV every night for a year before I'll be resigned to such an insane course of action, and maybe not even then.

I proffer this modest proposal for global governance that doesn't (generally) involve killing millions of people.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=98ScgQPt66E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1eEoTJ7hZc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRyU7BnkQLY

502. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80498 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 22, 2007 at 2:05 am

Blaming the west for putting up with Islam it is like blaming a battered wife for not leaving her husband - Yeah there is something she could have done, But it's ultimately his fault.

This is exactly what she is saying, adding that the battered wife should quit trying to love her cruel husband, and take out a restraining order. When he agrees to treat her with respect, then maybe he can move back in .... maybe:-)

It's the most cogent and convincing case, I've heard yet.

Still, the danger of over reaction lurks in the shadows, ever present. Restricting mosques that teach jihad for example is something of a no brainer, and a more coherent effort to integrate European muslims should be on everyones agenda. However, general war is completely indefensible, given the relative strengths of the parties involved.

She is some heroic individual though. She risks her life at every turn with her uncompromising outspokenness, the western press, and western politicians could learn some lessons in sheer courage from her.

Nonetheless, I reject her implicit call to war on 1.5 billion largely innocent people, that, I can't endorse.

503. Does fundamentalist religion cause the rejection of evolution? or is it the other way around?

Comment #80231 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 20, 2007 at 11:13 pm

6. Comment #80218 by Theocrapcy on October 20, 2007 at 7:47 pm

It (evolution) seems to be the most accessible, commonsense theory of anything we have come to understand. It just makes sense, in a way that religious beliefs do not.

Gotta agree. It really is rather obvious once it's pointed out. Quantum theory, relativity and mentos as an explosive catalyst, thats counter intuitive.

My daughter and I tried the mentos (the mint flavoured sweet) in pepsi experiment. It works!!! The critical component is the delivery of the mentos into the neck of the pepsi bottle, you've got to deliver a whole packet in under a second. A long necked wine bottle works well. Then WOW! Pepsi fountain, spectacular.

504. God's honest truth?

Comment #79767 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 18, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Breaking News : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7051804.stm

More lunacy, I hope she's ok:-/

505. God's honest truth?

Comment #79763 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 18, 2007 at 1:13 pm

And these are our conservatives I kid you not. Lucky me:-)

506. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79588 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 17, 2007 at 9:06 pm

Dear Coral Ridge Ministries!

I am proud to be a scary evangelical atheist. Here is my history, how I changed from being a believer to the proud apostate I am today.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7FXicdqnSA

Give Jesus a hug for me, he's going to need it.

Regards,

Brian Coughlan.

Too inflammatory?

507. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79448 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 17, 2007 at 9:21 am

Did that "Professor of Literature" call Dawkins book poignant???

Otherwise they make some really excellent points. Atheism is no longer the province of the rarified academic, and isn't that brilliant?

508. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79437 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 17, 2007 at 8:55 am

bugger, almost got an order in for $1, but it balked at my phone number. Anyone managed to order it internationally?

509. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79435 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 17, 2007 at 8:47 am

Brilliant:-) Can you say "running scared"?

I must pick up with some of my old Christian friends and see how things are going .... scare the bejesus out of them with my apostasy.

510. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79412 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 17, 2007 at 8:03 am

150. Comment #79409 by loki on October 17, 2007 at 7:56 am
I vote for Hitchens Vs Rev Ian Paisley , I would pay top dollar to see that. !!!

That would be something to see:-) What an image!!!

511. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79092 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 16, 2007 at 5:02 am

129. Comment #79091 by scooternyc on October 16, 2007 at 4:53 am
avatarThe point is WE STILL DON'T know, even Gore admitted this to Stephanopoulos on his show.

With such uncertainty, I would like to proceed, but with caution, and certainly not just throwing money at something when we really do have other global issues that are so important.

Totally reasonable. Nothing to disagree with there.

Lets cap this off with a whimsical, but potentially DEEPLY OFFENSIVE YT clip. You've been warned. I though this was funny, but I'm a sick lefty bastard as we all know.

So proceed with care, foul language and controversial commentary ahead:-) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBvDtYXup18

512. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79090 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 16, 2007 at 4:50 am

It would be like saying that Richard Dawkins has the ONLY viewpoint of the non-existence of god or reasons to NOT believe.

Well this is certainly true. Whats your point? I'm confused.

erm ... Joke?

513. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79088 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 16, 2007 at 4:45 am

I'm open minded and continue to read, research, look further into it, find more reading to do, listen, watch, evaluate motive.

Well .. certainly. However, I don't find much to contradict the view I currently hold. On the contrary.

I don't know who you are reading, feel free to send me a sample. But I won't be kind if they are bunch of Fox newsers or something. Just so we are clear.

However. I've got something here that is classic modus operandi for muddying the waters. I'm not saying you are doing it deliberatley, in fact I'm certain you're not, but check this out.

Where then was all the railing in society back in the 70's, when I was a kid in school, about global cooling and the upcoming ice age? We never heard of the issue then as today. Do we not ask ourselves why?

To quote Asimov : "When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

Here is the whole essay, it's an excellent read : http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm

To compare the climate models, computers and programming of the 1970's with those of today. It's simply a comparison which doesn't even qualify as invalid. You and I know that we are talking about millions of times more X, in a range of dimensions. It's just a daft comment, but it sounds like it actually makes sense. You should know better, but millions of others don't.

It is exactly the kind of problem we face again and again. Two second soundbites undermining complex science. Please, don't do what the "bad" guys do. You are supposed to be on our side, remember?

514. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79084 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 16, 2007 at 4:31 am

Again, none of my questions are unreasonable, but if only for those who want to turn their "faith" in this subject over to just "these scientists who agree with us".

They are unreasonable. They place a burden of proof on this discussion on non experts, to validate a particular position to your satisfaction.

Given that yours is a minority opinion (a position I recall you accepting last year) the onus is surely on you, not us!!

Hence let me repeat. Given your position is supported by only a handful of the relevant scientists, several of whom are openly funded by the Oil and Gas lobby (although not all, some are genuine), how on earth as a non expert yourself, can you account for your conclusion that AGW is not occurring?

Frankly I'm not amused by your responses at all. I'm horrifed by your utter incapacity to see what is staring you in the face. I maintain it is you who have embraced the faith position, and given the majority of relevant scientists seem to be on my team, I suggest thats tough to counter. Except with the desperate sort of obfuscation so typical of the creationist in us all.

You seem like a great guy otherwise though. I've enjoyed many of your other posts, but on this issue .... I dunno.

515. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79076 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 16, 2007 at 4:17 am

Tell you what Scooter. You answer all those questions in terms of how they apply to you, and then we'll see.

Fair enough?

516. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79073 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 16, 2007 at 4:09 am

106. Comment #79051 by scooternyc on October 16, 2007 at 1:53 am
#102 - Brian, I ask in all sincerity then, to you:

Which scientists are we discrediting?

Scooter, first we must start by defining whom you mean by "we". Then we must list every climatologist, living or dead, categorising their work into pro, anti .... blahh ... blahh

Seriously though, the list of everyone that worked on the IPCC report for a start. Republican politicians have repeatedly attempted to discredit them. You know the whole they are "lying to us for the money, all of them!" talking point. Yeah ... sure they are, that makes sense. That kind of thing.

You contribute to that by denying , when the relevant community overwhelmingly disagrees, that AGW is happening up close and personal.

Or simply muddying the waters by insisting that the jury is out. Which jury? The Republican House Committee for the promotion of Oil and Gas welfare funding? C'mon. Pull the other one, I was right last year when we had the same argument, and it appears I'm even "righter" today:-)

You should read a little more Chris Mooney, and a lot less Michelle Malkin. Here is a link : http://scienceblogs.com/intersection/

I refer you to Steve's comment to cover off the rest of your post.

517. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #79024 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 11:21 pm

101. Comment #79010 by Steve Wrathall on October 15, 2007 at 9:37 pm

How ironic that RD should rightly decry the subverting of science by the Templeton Foundation, and then praise the equally science-subverting Al Gore.

Four polar bears!!! Thats it? Thats all they've got? My eyes are opened:-)

Seriously Steve, time for some self reflection. Maybe, just maybe, Dawkins has come to another conclusion, one supported by millions of experts in relevant disciplines across the world .... because that's where the evidence leads him. I know it's a radical stretch, particularly given his well established propensity for leaping to conclusions, embracing dogma and refusing to examine opposing points of view. Compared to your own world renowned capacity for sober reflection, as evidenced above by your penetrating and detailed analysis of the Gore film, Dawkins plays 2nd fiddle. But hey, my unthinking ideology is driving me here. I'm a crazy lefty (like Dawkins apparently) for even thinking there might be something to this stuff:-)

I'd love to hear from Richard about now. Do tell Richie Baby (I may call you Richie Baby?), why do you think Gore receiving the Nobel prize is so laudable. Surely you don't endorse all this over hyped, AGW nonsense ... do you?

518. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78963 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 2:26 pm

Kaiserkriss ... Sorry, but it is such a critical issue, and you are simply making our point. We all, including experts defer to the majority opinon of experts in other fields when drawing our fully rounded conclusions. We don't pick minority positions to support some ideological position. Well we might, but it's dishonest AND self defeating.

It is absurd for random people to pontificate in the teeth of the prevailing, and lets face it, overwhelming scientific opinion unless they are experts in the relevant discipline. Even, if they are an expert they are at best a maverick, otherwise they are just cranks. Thats how this thing works, you put in the time and make the case. If you are a lone genius, time will tell.

Every single one of the criticisms raised here (by mercifully few these days) is familiar and in current use by the creationist lobby, 9/11 conspiracy theorists and moon landing hoaxers. It makes me sick to see fellow Atheists using the same flawed rethoric that does as much damage to science as creationism does.

OK I'm done for tonight:-)

519. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78952 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 2:05 pm

Anyone disputing general relativity, who doesn't have a Phd in general relativity and several well received peer reviewed studies on the subject is in exactly the SAME position as a fundamentalist christian imagining they have anything relevant to say on the subject of evolution.)

Nice Steve, High Five:-)

520. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78940 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 1:31 pm

...the party line.

Across the whole world. And there isn't even a party!! It's called reality, and it has a well known liberal bias:-)

521. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78919 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 11:47 am

73. Comment #78904 by USA_Limey on October 15, 2007 at 10:33 am
Hey Brian , (world citizen), why not just point everyone to here:

Good point:-) Check it out. Thanks USA_Limey.

522. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78916 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 11:45 am

Well I've been pro, anti and then pro nuclear power. But then new nuclear power technology is much safer than hitherto. I changed my mind on the Euro too, currently anti for Blighty. Such is life's rich tapestry!

We are on the same wavelength here at least:-) A pebble bed, a pebble bed, my kingdom for a pebble bed!!

Although I wouldn't consider myself ... pro exactly, just reluctantly rational about nuclear. Still, terrorism is a bit of a wild card on that front.

523. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78900 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 10:21 am

Brian I really don't go with the Gore is correct on the essence, we can ignore the details line.... That just doesn't work for me. The devil IS in the detial. The correct policy approach is by no means clear, there certainly is no consensus on this.

Well, you are thankfully part of an evaporating (hah! geddit!?) minority. Clearly your view is at odds with the majority of the relevant community, and merely getting the US as efficient as Europe is a useful goal in complete isolation of climate change.

There are some downsides to making the wrong energy choices, and we need to consider carefully the choices we make. However continuing to do absolutely nothing is bad for more reasons than just climate change, we all know that.

524. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78895 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 9:50 am

63. Comment #78891 by Nick Good on October 15, 2007 at 9:21 am

Nick, there will always be someone to represent an opposing view, regardless of how overwhelming the evidence on the other side. There are still people who think the Earth is flat!

At the moment the view that climate change is an urgent problem which has been left on the back burner for far too long is the prevailing view amongst the majority of relevant experts. Instead of surfing the web for quotes bolstering your minority position, in fact almost crank position at this juncture, you should be seeing what you can do to help.

If you respect the scientific method, and the scientific community that is what you should be doing. It's not a compulsion or a duty, but it seems to me to be the logical outcome of the rationalist position. At some point you have to accept the evidence has defeated you, no matter how ideologically unpalatable that may be. That time has come and gone on the subject of AGW.

However you do have a point about what specific actions we should take, I've been enthusiastic, ambivalent and violently opposed to Ethanol from food. Now I'm warming to it again:-) Why? Because the evidence is all over the place, and there is no clear consensus. I may be a flip flopper, but I have reasons:-)

525. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78890 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 9:19 am

I can assure you that there is nothing approaching a "consensus" amongst specialists on a goodly number of claims made in Gore's 'Inconvenient Truth' film. Gore does not limit his brief to global warming and it's causes and effects.

Nick, this is just more of your own ideological bias blinding you to what is simply obvious to an objective person. An Inconvenient Truth was not a scientific paper, it was a movie popularising complex science. It does that very, very, well and to the significant satisfaction of the majority of climatologists in the world.

Gore is guilty of some hyperbole, and yes there were errors in the movie, many of them pointed out at it's release last year by the same climatologists lauding it!! Nonetheless the primary point stands as fairly indisputable, as explicitly noted by the judge in a recent court case. I believe you've been supplied the reference.

The Republicans have been anti science, and overtly pro religion for some time now, this is not a secret:-) Gore, gawd bless 'im, is part of the crucial fight back, and we atheists should be pulling with him, not recycling long discredited republican talking points.

526. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78878 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 7:52 am

Nick my china, that was an interesting survey:-)

I came out as a non-fiscal liberal in the longer test, and slightly left leaning libertarian in the shorter one.

I think Professor Dawkins has been reading too much Guardian and Independent and lurking around lefty blogs a little too much for his own good. He does seem to have learnt a goodly few of the hard left's favorite mantras.

His views are hardly "hard left". They are mainstream European views, and he is after all a European. Bush has been a global disaster, and I really didn't intend any "bait and switch" earlier, but complaining about people beating up on Bush sounds too much like support. Richard was merely behaving like any responsible and well informed individual by commenting however obliquely on the outrages of the Bush administration.

Bush should be under verbal and legal assault night and day. In fact, it would do much to restore confidence in American decency if he were drummed out of office before the end of his term. Well we can hope:-)

Are you a South African, or an American?

527. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78866 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 6:17 am

Presumably that also includes non climatologist
Al Gore? Assuming so, presumably you'd agree with my point that the award made to Gore was....ummm ignoble... and the good Professor Dawkins was ill advised to mention it?

Nick you misunderstand me. People can say whatever they like, but they must expect a hammering if they have bad reasons for saying the things they do.

Gores reasons are sufficient for me (and many, perhaps most Atheists) because the bulk of his position is endorsed and supported by the majority of the relevant scientific community. An authority group I have an awful lot of ... ummmm .... "faith" in:-)

The alternative view, that nothing is happening, or that something is happening but it's nothing to do with us, is not supported by the relevant scientific community. Worse still, it is enthusiastically supported by an authority group I have absolutely no faith in whatever, that I consider actively suspect, specifically conservative politicians.

I'm not an expert on climatology, and neither is Gore (although I imagine, he is better informed than either you or I are), but we refer to people that are experts, whom we consider reliable.

If you think about it for a bit, you'll find thats actually what most of us do with regard to almost everything we are not experts in.

Now I'll grant you the particular group of experts one trusts is a critical junction point, but I'm pretty confident the bulk of climatologists worldwide trumps the Republican party.

I think it's a pretty sound policy, and the best I can do (as well as keeping myself broadly informed) given the complexity of the subject, and the overwhelming flood of data at our disposal. It's pretty much my modus operandi with regard to evolution, plumbing and electricity too:-)

When people want to argue the detail of global warming I generally say "find an expert, or get yourself a Phd and change the minds of the experts, I rely on them for my information." I say exactly the same thing to creationists about evolution.

528. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78851 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 4:45 am

I do wish Professor Dawkins would be less crazy lefty -

Nick .... have you considered that is not Dawkins who is the "crazy lefty", but you who are the "crazy righty"? Although IQ, personal acheivement and razor sharp wit are not everything, not quite, he has us trumped wouldn't you say?

It is hard to argue with the position that Bush has been bad for science, the secular world view and unbelievers generally. Thus, Dawkins comments, although somewhat outgroupesque, strike me is quite rational from an atheist point of view. Still I'm a "crazy lefty" too, but Atheists do seem to lean that way.

Something about reality having a liberal bias:-)?

529. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78847 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 15, 2007 at 4:27 am

30. Comment #78805 by steve99 on October 15, 2007 at 1:24 am
avatarmarcdesm:

Unless you are personally an expert in climate change, the only intellectually honest approach is to go with the (overwhelming) consensus in the subject.

It is not appropriate to pick the expert who's views you like and simply declare them to be correct. It is as bad as when the religious cherry-pick the bible for passages to support their views.


I'd like (as usual) to put the boot in here as well. Anyone disputing climate change, who doesn't have a Phd in climatology and several well received peer reviewed studies on the subject is in exactly the same position as a fundamentalist christian imagining they have anything relevant to say on the subject of evolution.

They have no reason for doing it except naked ideology, and they lack either the honesty or the self reflection to see this. Depressing, but all part of the problem.

It's not just religion that can force people to ignore megatons of contrary evidence, it's unthinking ideology of any kind. Just think Lamarkism in the Soviet Union, a classic example almost as bad as Bush vetoing stem cell research.

Congrats to Dawkins, by golly he has started something amazing, the Enlightenment Part II?

530. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78352 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 12, 2007 at 1:29 pm

It can't imagine any European media outlet pandering to such tripe. Is it any wonder that the US is such a mess?

They really have become the new Soviet Union. I wonder if we'll see the whole sorry thing come apart at the seams? The economy seems very rocky at the moment, and US society seems incredibly polarised. Interesting times.

531. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78116 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 11, 2007 at 11:16 pm

The challenge is not Christianity versus Islam, it's a rational world view versus an irrational one. Religion, nationalism and racism are irrational and dangerous dogmas which leverage cognitive short circuits in the human brain.

The ingroup outgroup mentality in all it's forms is the issue, religion is just a particularly nasty subset.

532. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77723 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 10, 2007 at 9:52 am

We as Atheist have a rational response to why we don't believe in god, zeus .... History and evidence has proven that Paul Wolfowitz and his Ilk responsible for the misery of millions of people ... this is a matter of looking at the evidence and of the plethora of facts that exist.

Exactly what I've always said about issues as diverse as the Iraq War and AGW. Nonetheless, while some of her associations have been distasteful, and I think everyone knows how viscerally I despise Bush and his toadies, I can certainly understand her motivations.

There is no question in my mind whatever, that the "free world" should be stumping up the cash to protect this woman, and anyone else like her. Muslims need to hear these criticisms ... and simply suck it up, freedom of speech is bedrock as far as I am concerned.

533. Ban teachers from religious dress, Quebec group says

Comment #77639 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 10, 2007 at 1:02 am

The line to draw has to be where your religious conviction begin to interfere with your ability to do your job.

Don't want to treat STD's, scan alcohol or teach kids using the full spectrum of expression available? Then get another job. Nice to be on the same side as the rest of the atheists on this one:-)

534. If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

Comment #77473 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 9, 2007 at 11:55 am

Totally on board with this article, what a lot of precious whiners!!!

535. Sam Harris seems like a nice fellow, but very confused

Comment #77303 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 9, 2007 at 2:11 am

23. Comment #77286 by matlot on October 9, 2007 at 12:45 am
Ok, there are far more important things for Sam, Myers and Johnson to be talking about. Either Sam's thinking on this is off-base and some atheists are making a bigger meal out of it than they have to (you can see Sam's point (whether you agree with it or not, surely)). I personally disagree with Sam on this (although I understand his thinking) but surely this bickering over semantics is distracting from the effort of confronting ignorance and delusion in the world. Sam, we know you hate losing an argument, but, on this occasion, please shut the f*** up and move on - we still love you geezer.

This strikes me as the most sensible position. Storm in a teacup, and not terribly edifying for anyone involved. Moving quickly on ...

536. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76974 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 8, 2007 at 2:02 am

46. Comment #76966 by zoltix on October 8, 2007 at 1:25 am

Lets take a step back shall we? Does Islam, "they" if you prefer, represent an existential threat to "us". Really, honestly and truly?

The only reasonable response to this question is an overwhelming and obvious no, and this simply collapses your entire position. That is, unless you endorse the idea that killing "them" merely to limit risk to "us" is acceptable. This view, although also flawed, can at least be construed as rational and entirely consistent with the in/out group paradigm.

I do not endorse that view because I see the problem holistically, there is no "them" and "us", except in the sense of groups that are at risk. To limit deaths on one side, we must balance the equation with risk on the other, this is what you subliminaly, or perhaps even overtly, reject.

Is islamic terrorism dangerous? Yes. Is it even very, very dangerous? I'm afraid so, but it is a global law enforcement problem, not a cause for "Totaler Krieg".

537. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76953 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 8, 2007 at 12:06 am

Do you honestly think Bush and Cheney are more culpable than this lot....really....honestly? Because that's what you, and all too many others, are EXPLICITLY asserting.

Suicide bombers kill tens, hundreds and in a single case thousands of people. Bush, Cheney and Blair are ultimately responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, and perhaps as many as a million human beings.

Call me crazy, but in my book, launching an invasion on a trumped up pretext which immediately and directly results in tens of thousands of dead, and indirectly in hundreds of thousands, clearly trumps the sum total of suicide bombing deaths in this war to date, including 9/11. Although I'll grant you, that there is plenty of culpability to go around, and at this state of "play" attributing blame gets fuzzy around the edges:-(

There is also the question of relative power. The most powerful nation state in history, has exponentially greater recourse to options other than brute force.

So yes, it is self evident to someone thinking clearly, that those who unleash the entire resources of a state to wage indiscriminate war on millions of innocent individuals, are at least as culpable as an individual who simply follows orders, however depraved or deranged.

If merely putting the gun up against a head and pulling the trigger, was the requirement for guilt, what war criminal could ever be tried?

538. Be Good Now, Or Else

Comment #76869 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 2:04 pm

But would that throw up ethical concerns too? Let's say it were possible to "re-program" an offender's brain to reduce the likelihood of re-offending. I can see the argument in favour, from a purely utilitarian point of view. But could it be argued that this would be interfering with their personality in some way and would therefore constitute an infringement of their human rights?

Well this is course the very relativistic business that has the more educated theists so exercised. Who decides what human rights even are?

The simple answer is we collectively make this stuff up as we go along, so in a very real sense, there is no right and wrong. Eeeek!!!

Of course this is rot, there is a baseline morality, and it's becoming increasingly clear it's embedded into our genes. It expresses itself most clearly in the golden rule, but is of course plenty fuzzy as we get down to specifics.

This kind of technology, and plenty of others (heard of crowd dispersal by intense pain?) are going to give ethicists plenty to talk about in the future.

539. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76864 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 1:54 pm

23. Comment #76851 by The author on October 7, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Let's see what happens if I write something critical about Daniel Dennett here.

Blasphemer!!! By the beard of Dennett, the vulcan stare of Harris and the juggernaut of Hitchens wit you are thrice curs'd.

Not once, not twice, but thrice curs'd!!! Take that heathen renegade, and now kneel at the feet of the great Dawkins, feel his polite yet skillful evisceration wash over you, and beg for the forgivness of Atheism's glorious Quatronidigity.

How was that?

540. Be Good Now, Or Else

Comment #76854 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Yes, so did I, BCWC ... but to what end? What should society do with a potential criminal (or whatever) who has not yet committed any wrongdoing? I'm not normally someone who sees threats to civil liberties around every corner, but I confess to feeling a little twitchy about this. IF I've understood Raichle's comment correctly, of course.


Ah ... no, I didn't see it in a "Minority Report" sense, where the "criminal" is arrested prior to the crime. I would imagine this used post crime to identify optimal .... treatments?

Some crimes are entirely rational, don't have enough to eat, anywhere to live etc. Some are an uncontrollable compulsion. There is a whole continuum in between, and each type of underlying cause of crime, would benefit from tailored treatment. I guess. The more knowledge you can bring to bear on the subject the better.

541. Be Good Now, Or Else

Comment #76847 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 1:14 pm

2. Comment #76839 by Northern Bright on October 7, 2007 at 12:48 pm
avatar

I'm not sure I've understood what Raichle is suggesting by "pull out" here. Is it just me, or does it - in the context - sound vaguely sinister?

I took it to mean "identify". In the sense there is little value in punishing someone who is blind for not seeing (as the article notes), there is also little benefit in processing someone through a criminal justice system that will do nothing to help them or deter them from further offences. Tricky stuff this knowledge ....

542. Be Good Now, Or Else

Comment #76846 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 1:11 pm

Certainly we don't get our morals from the bible.

The more we know, the less meaningful the idea of punishment becomes. Looks like the namby, pamby liberals have been right all along.

In fact an all knowing God, fully briefed on every impulse, every neuron, every event pushing a person in direction X instead of Y, is the very entity that should eschew the concept of punishment altogether. Another nail in the coffin, keep 'em coming.

543. Debate between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #76830 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 12:14 pm

One geologist looking at the Grand Canyon may conclude that it was the result of water erosion over a very long period of time, and another that it was created over a very short time span by water ...

There is not a single geologist, that is not also an outspoken creationist, that would endorse this latter view. Their "conclusions" are based on ideology, not science. Feel free to cite some names and studies that don't qualify. I prepare to be amazed.

There are literally hundreds of thousands of geologists, of all religious, and non religious types that agree on the former position. You are willfully deluding yourself by selecting the evidence of the manifestly biased, vanishingly small minority of "experts", over the megatons of evidence and neutral experts pointing in the other direction.

544. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76769 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 7:17 am

Having just completed Dans "Breaking the Spell" I can endorse this whole heartedly. I frequently point out to theists, that the only reason we are having a conversation at all, the only reason those of us over 30 are even alive, is directly because of science.

545. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76753 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 3:48 am

Wow Veronique!!! Great rant, and thank you for your kind sentiments:-) It has been a while hasn't it? Here is an example of what I've been up to : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0lRffYTStw

In my travels on the interweb tubules, I often bump heads with a particular minority within the "atheist camp". Basically those who although they have dumped the God delusion, still fully embrace the nationalist delusion. This is basically the same thing, but the focus of worship has transferred to a nation (America) or ideology (Free markets). Really nothing more than a subtle variation of Stalinism, or Emperor worship. Americans are especially prone to this, and it is so ingrained, so relentlessly butteressed by their culture, media and educational system, that it is truly a bugger to help them see it.

It generally manifests itself in support of American militarism, violent opposition to taking action on global warming (although here, realisation is finally dawning on even the most pathologically resistant) and a kind of subliminal indifference to the fate of anyone who isn't part of their particular ingroup, which rarely extends beyond North America, or the EU.

I now feel compelled to reject it when I see it.

546. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76741 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 7, 2007 at 12:58 am

I know this is getting way off topic - I thoroughly enjoyed Andy Thomson's lecture - but I have to say that when you try to defend the indefensible you display the same level of delusion that this forum is striving to overcome.

Detox I completely agree and it drives me bonkers.

Nick : the British very clearly won that one. Though it took about 30 years!

That was exactly my point. The British "won that one" primarily through restraint. The lack of restraint in the 60 and 70's is what fueled "the troubles" in the first place.

Simply inventing a legal system by fiat, and then applying it to anyone you choose, will no longer wash in a in a connected global world. According to Bush he can arrest and imprison you, or me or anyone for no reason whatever. That at root is what is endorsed by the casual acceptance of gitmo. Hence I have "issues" even if they are now wildly off topic:-) Apologies to all.

547. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76348 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 5, 2007 at 3:15 pm

i wouldn't torture, i would allow visits by the red cross/crescent, it would be open to scrutiny, but yes i would hold them and i am not sure i would use the domestic justice system or jails? what would you do?

Isn't it obvious? They should be tried or released. The Bush administration simply made up a class of combatant in order to detain these people indefinetly. Several of those released have been shown to be have simply been in the wrong place at the wrong time, others were "sold" to coalition forces. How do we know that the same is not true for every other individual currently interned? We don't of course, we must simply take the word of the same people that unleashed a war that has to date probably killed a million people, several thousand of them americans.

That is why it is injust, and that is why it is breeding terrorism .... right now. Even the most cursory glance at recent British/Irish history shows how morally bankrupt this kind of stategy is.

548. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76276 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 5, 2007 at 10:22 am

3legcat, I'm genuinely not comparing it. Merely noting that it at least has the potential to lead to similar outcomes. Certainly full blown torture seems unlikely to be going on (although there is some doubt even about this) but gitmo represents a major injustice.

That makes people want to kill other people, always has and most likely always will:-(

549. We Few, We Happy Few, We Band of Brothers

Comment #76235 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 5, 2007 at 7:04 am

Scooter and Nick, Dennett's point was spot on, and the general consensus arrived at by those that have studied Qtub's life. He was radicalised by a brutal regime. The same pathology has been observed in hundreds of trouble spots around the world, not least my own country of birth.

As regards those in Gitmo. We cannot meaningfully comment on their guilt or innocence, because they have never been tried. The comment the 500 guys in Gitmo are there because they are Jihadi's, not Jihadis because they are there. cannot, in absence of transparent legal procedures, reasonably be substantiated.

The ongoing imprisonment of those in Gitmo is a kind of modern day witch trial. With the entire panalopy of cognitive dissonance, truism and group think that characterises this kind of hysterical reaction.

Dennett was right, and I was very glad he made the comment he did. Scooter, I'd be intruiged to know what Dennett replied to your question.

550. Is 'Do Unto Others' Written Into Our Genes?

Comment #72499 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on September 21, 2007 at 10:00 am

1. Comment #72401 by Russell Blackford on September 21, 2007 at 1:50 am

I'd like to enthusiastically second Russells comment and expand on it. I have over the last 18 months formed the view that Atheists have in general a bias towards the "harm" and "fairness" nodes described in the article.

I would even go so far as to say that in the context of a rapidly globalising world the other three nodes are inherently irrational, and this is why Atheist now have this bias. Even if they don't realise why.

It no longer makes sense to protect the narrow interests of your nation, religion or cultural tradition at the expense of an integrated, peaceful and homogenous global culture. Especially if you realise the God you were brought up with was a lie, your nation is as criminal as the rest (and possibly worse than some) and tradition a lot of pointless poncing about. We face the narrow or the broad view, and one will come at the expense of the other, this is a zero sum game that is going to upset a lot of people. I hope we survive it.