Comments by Steve Zara

Comment #222938 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:18 am

Comment #222935 by Gregg Townsend

I think it's basically that because muslims are planning to take over all of Europe and force Dawkins' daughter to wear a burka, we should sort out those who Aren't Nice (I guess we just ask "are you nice?") and dump them all in Sudan or the Antarctic (I hear penguin-meat is tasty).

Confused, me?

552. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222931 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 6:00 am

Comment #222928 by Old Sarum

The mistake-free religion would be for those are already inclined to want a mistake-free religion.

Because religion requires use of the imagination to decide about truth, the only mistake-free religion is no religion.

553. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222927 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 5:57 am

Comment #222924 by Old Sarum

Who are "they"?

Most religions.

And why they are they forever doomed to fulfil this prognosis?

Because religions (by any reasonable definition of the term) require a belief in the supernatural. The supernatural can't be accessed by reason and science.

I promise you, Steve, that if I start up a religion, it will insist on recognising the intellectual authority of science & reason in the sphere of "objective truth" :)

So what is left? And how will you convert others?

554. Breeding for God

Comment #222923 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 5:45 am

Comment #222920 by al-rawandi

I think it's worse than that. It also includes

"Agree with me or you are irrational"

555. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222922 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #222919 by Old Sarum

Religions will always make mistakes because they rate human imagination over rationality and science.

The problem with religion is the privileged position it gives intuition and imagination as ways to understand reality.

EDIT:

Quetz. There is an easy solution. All we have to do is set up a religion that is mistake free, and then convince everyone that is the right religion. Ummm... how do we do that? "My imagination is more reliable than yours?"

556. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222910 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 5:18 am

Comment #222905 by Old Sarum

If you want religion to be more than just an exercise of the imagination, then it overlaps areas of science and reason, which is inappropriate. If you remove it from those areas, then it is nothing more than just imagination, so it isn't religion.

557. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222903 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 5:02 am

Comment #222902 by Old Sarum

You seem to want to define religion as simply the exercise of the imagination. That just won't do.

558. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222900 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 4:57 am

Comment #222898 by Old Sarum

Religion is not the imaginative nature of spiritual experience.

Please see Comment #222838

559. Breeding for God

Comment #222899 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 4:56 am

Comment #222890 by Dr Doctor

Yet more baseless assertions. If I don't get browbeaten by page after page of insults, what makes you think I'll be browbeaten by you trying to do unto me what Steve Zara was doing unto you?

I am not sure I can untangle the meaning of this...

560. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222896 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 4:52 am

Comment #222893 by Old Sarum

We certainly do, but we'd be making a sad mistake if we assumed that the cognitive constraints of reason & science need to dominate all our engagements with the world, even in those spheres where they're both irrelevant & self-defeating.

That is nothing to do with religion. Religion is not about things like art appreciation.

561. Breeding for God

Comment #222895 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 4:50 am

Comment #222887 by keith

I have no problem with reasonable immigration controls.

I have no problem with sending people who come here and try to cause problems back to their country of origin (as long as they are in no danger there).

But expulsion de-humanises because it is irreversible, and says that certain people are unable to have their mind or behaviour changed. It gives them (and us) no hope for their future.

No doubt all of this does have 'overtones', as someone on this thread vaguely put it. Precisely what these overtones might have been he didn't say. He clearly thought that it was enough to simply say the word to conjure up pictures of Nuremberg Rallies on the one hand, contrasted with his own liberal credentials on the other.

It was me. Let me be specific. I was being vague to see if I could draw out the implications of what expulsion meant from Fanusi.

This reminds me of the Bosnian situation. It is a form of "cultural cleansing", in which no debate is allowed. Express the wrong idea, no matter how mildly and you lose your citizenship and human rights.

Still, as Fanusi in this case rightly said, sometimes you have to choose between the lesser of two evils and you really can't afford to be too fastidious when the democracy of a whole continent is at stake.

If we reach a point at which natives of a country are dragged from their homes and sent off to foreign lands, simply because of what they propose, then Western democracy is already dead, and we will be the ones who will have destroyed it.

562. Breeding for God

Comment #222881 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 3:45 am

Comment #222880 by Fanusi Khiyal

*laughs* You mean, if there were no countries on earth in which Shariah supporters were welcome? In that case I'd have no problem with them staying.

No. Suppose there were no "Islamic" countries willing to accept anyone from the UK of any nature.

What would you do then?

I want to know if you - and others - grant me the same courtesy, or if you think my views are ruled out no matter what the evidence.

For the fourth time, YES.

(But I suspect this will be described as "evasion")

563. Breeding for God

Comment #222877 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 3:27 am

Comment #222876 by Fanusi Khiyal

Such as what exactly? Which clear facts? You said why you found expulsion troubling - I responded. Is there something I've missed? If so, what?

You responded with this:

If you have selected this opposition to expulsion as an absolute that can't be question, then there's no basis. No matter what facts or consequences there might be, no matter what data I may bring, you'll evade them to fit reality to this absolute.

That is just a rant.

Could I get some answers to these questions? If not, why?

You have had answers. I'll try again.

I do not accept the foundations for your motivations as being accurate. Those foundations have been discussed again and again by (amongst others) Gregg and Al.

I'm lying about my motives. No answer.

I can't read minds. I don't know if you are lying or not. I think you are dangerously mistaken.

I have a question for you.

Suppose there were no countries that would accept these people you wish to expel - what would you do with them then?

564. Breeding for God

Comment #222874 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 3:11 am

Comment #222873 by Fanusi Khiyal

I am afraid I see no point in further discussion. Whenever anyone challenges you with clear facts and arguments, you accuse them of both being absolutist and evasive.

I have explained in simple language why I find both the death penalty and expulsion deeply problematic.

I find your obsession with expulsion deeply troubling. I believe I would actually fight to prevent the kind of society that would be necessary to impose your solutions from coming into being.

What you are doing, even if unintentionally, is scare-mongering people into turning western democracies towards civil wars - where citizens battle against other citizens about who has the dictatorship of ideas.

565. Breeding for God

Comment #222871 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 2:55 am

Comment #222862 by Fanusi Khiyal

Now: can you understand that basis? If you can, then there's rational grounds for argumentation.

I am afraid that isn't part of the rules of discussion. You don't get to define what can and can't be discussed rationally.

Just as an aside, leaving expelling Shariah supporters to one side for a moment

I'm afraid I can't. It is deeply troubling. Let me try and explain why.

Expulsion is irreversible. It treats people as disposable and irredeemable. I dislike it for the same reason I am against the death penalty. It allows for no mistakes, and no changes of mind. It dehumanises.

566. Breeding for God

Comment #222856 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 2:25 am

Comment #222851 by Fanusi Khiyal

Al has given you nothing but straight answers in the clearest possible language.

I suggest you read again what he has written, and answer his important questions.

567. Breeding for God

Comment #222853 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 2:24 am

Fanusi-

If I mispelled your name I apologise. There was no intention to do so, and nothing should be implied by it.

Why not? The liberal, pluralist democracy works only as long as everyone subscribes to certain basic ground rules. Those who don't, threaten the rights of all in it. I have drawn a number of parallels that you don't even try to address.

Then you punish and imprison them.

That is why I insist on a straight answer to my question. If you can't even concede that there might be a rational basis for my views, no matter what the evidence, then you are naturally going to retreat into fog and evasion, into smears and slurs. Sorry, doesn't work with me.

I can't see any rational basis for your views on how to solve the problem. That does not mean I am resorting to evasion. I am trying to understand why you can't see the deep ethical problems with expulsion of native citizens.

You can't get away from the fact that expulsion of cultural groups (or even subsets of such groups) has overtones.

568. Breeding for God

Comment #222849 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 2:10 am

Just had a thought... suppose Pakistan, Saudi or Iran don't want these people? I guess there is space in Antarctica, at least before all the ice melts.

569. Breeding for God

Comment #222846 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 2:02 am

Fanuzi-

You may have noticed that I don't tolerate wriggling.

Have you answered Al's questions yet?

First of all, there is the matter of practicality. If we were to incarcerate groups like Hizb ut-Tahrir, they'd radicalize and convert their fellows.

And they would not be radicalised overseas?

You can have Shariah or you can have the benefits of the West, but not both.

You have no rights to impose such a choice. What you are proposing is deeply unethical. That people aren't aloud to propose ideas in the country of their birth.

If people are citizens and are born here and they pay taxes, then they are entitled to the benefits. It is as simple as that.

Incidentally, what did you think I was implying when I talked about motivations for expelling people?

570. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222838 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 1:39 am

Old Sarum-

Religions, no matter how anaemic, have a general problem, which is that they encourage unhelpful ideas.

When you get down to basics, they all say:

1. I have special magic powers that allow me to sense reality in a way that those boring scientists never can.
2. I have a special status, as the universe knows about me.

Something that is important for the future of humanity is a considerable increase in humility, of realising that no person or group is privileged and that we need to talk about issues using reason and evidence. Religion works against that.

571. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222835 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 1:31 am

Comment #222821 by epeeist

I'll definitely go with eliminative materialism.

572. Breeding for God

Comment #222831 by Steve Zara on August 1, 2008 at 1:23 am

Fanusi-

Take another look at the documentary 'Beneath the Veil'. That's my motivation. I will not see the greatest civilization in history fall to Islamic darkness. I won't see everything I love and hold dear destroyed. I'm willing to fight for that, and I am willing to die for that. That's my motivation, and if you have trouble understanding it, that is not my problem.

No, sorry, not good enough. This is a non sequitur.

You still have not given even the slightest reason why expulsion out of the UK is preferable to imprisonment.

So please answer my question - why do you need these people physically removed from the borders of the UK, as against physically removed from society (such as by imprisonment?)

573. Breeding for God

Comment #222641 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 4:29 pm

Comment #222629 by decius

I am not sure you are right. I think there is a tendency to be soft on minorities of any nature, not just religious.

574. Breeding for God

Comment #222631 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 4:19 pm

Also off topic - the first direct evidence of hydrocarbon lakes has been seen on Titan.

575. Breeding for God

Comment #222624 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 4:08 pm

Comment #222623 by decius

I agree that the lack of political will is a major problem.

576. Breeding for God

Comment #222619 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 3:44 pm

h4d-

If there are people who threaten society, there are civilized ways to deal with them. Use the democratic process to make such threats illegal, then use the courts to sentence such people and apply the appropriate measures, such as fines or imprisonment.

What I find bizarre and troubling is Fanuzi's obsession with removing UK citizens of their citizenship and expelling them. This is not about immigrants or visitors. This is supposed to apply to people who have had family here for generations. I find this idea utterly revolting.

I just can't understand this. There are perfectly reasonable ways to deal with people who have performed criminal acts.

I really don't like to think of possible motivations for wanting such people expelled.

577. Breeding for God

Comment #222578 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Comment #222565 by Fanusi Khiyal

I don't think you are understanding what I am saying. It doesn't matter if what you suggest happens in a mass roundup or slowly. What matters is the general principle that citizens should not be thrown out of their own country.

578. Breeding for God

Comment #222555 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 2:26 pm

Comment #222546 by Fanusi Khiyal

Yes, Europe as a civilization based on ethical principles would certainly be destroyed if it followed your ideas.

Also, the structure you set up for your mass deportations would be something truly dangerous. Do you honestly think such organisations would stop at just Sharia? It is desperately naive to think it would not hunt around for other objectionables to deal with... gypsies, HIV people...

579. Breeding for God

Comment #222538 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Fanusi-

I repeat: If the alternative is the destruction of Europe, do you support the expulsion of Shariah supporters? Yes or no?

If you insist on a repeat answer - No.

If we resort to expulsion of native citizens for points of view, then Europe is already destroyed.

580. Vicar supports Life of Brian ban

Comment #222523 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 1:49 pm

Comment #222488 by irate_atheist

That is a piece by someone called Butt, reporting on a man from the Vatican who presumably has never "known" a woman, talking to a group of men in dresses, all packed together in a small room ("more than 150 bishops squeezing into a room designed to hold 50 people"), and he was condemning homosexuality

You gotta laugh... the whole thing is priceless.

581. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222484 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Is it so dangerous to believe that there is a bit more to the world than meets the scientific eye, that behind the blackboard filled with equations there is a rational, creative and even caring mind breathing fire into those equations?

Yes, I say it is dangerous. It is hugely arrogant to think that the human mind should be able to understand the fundamental reality of the universe based on our current limited knowledge. It is also a very bad idea for anyone to claim they know the "mind of the creator" (as indicated by the words "rational, creative and even caring"). This is more that just wishful thinking, it can lead to delusions of ever-deeper understanding of this supposed mind, and the dangerous idea that one can know what the creator wants.

582. Breeding for God

Comment #222475 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Comment #222462 by al-rawandi

I know very little about Islam, but I do know that "Sharia Law" is not one clear thing that can be used to classify people who propose it. That is one reason why I find Fanusi's ideas not just frightening, but hopelessly simplistic.

583. Breeding for God

Comment #222408 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Comment #222401 by Fanusi Khiyal

Though I don't know by what conceivable standard you get the moral high ground there.

Given what you have been suggesting, I am afraid that isn't surprising.

This is the way terrible conflicts have started - spread wildly exaggerated fears about a group within society, and work everyone else up until they consider members of that group to be non-citizens, sub-humans, and not deserving of basic rights. Such people should be expelled, or put into camps.

The recent arrest of Karadzic should remind us of how easily such conflicts can arise, and what they can lead to.

584. Breeding for God

Comment #222376 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 10:38 am

Comment #222372 by Fanusi Khiyal

I'll add a no as well. I agree totally with Al's Comment #222369

585. Breeding for God

Comment #222360 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 9:18 am

Comment #222358 by al-rawandi

A libertarian could never support such sweeping government powers, especially over native born citizens.

You are asking for a police state, which is preceisely what we should avoid. Punish actions, not thoughts.

Not just a libertarian!

586. Breeding for God

Comment #222326 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 7:09 am

Comment #222325 by Bonzai

I do agree with your posts here.

587. Breeding for God

Comment #222313 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 6:11 am

Comment #222310 by al-rawandi

And the term "rebellion" suggests they are rebelling against the "true" form of Islam. I say it is actually reversed.

Not in this case. It is rebellion against mainstream society. Identifying as fundamentalist can be a good way of doing that.

588. Breeding for God

Comment #222287 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 5:01 am

Comment #222286 by Serdan

Fair enough.

I also happen to think that the lack of acceptance of evolution in muslim communities is a major problem.

589. Breeding for God

Comment #222285 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 4:52 am

Comment #222278 by Serdan

I have yet to MEET a muslim who would accept the theory of evolution. This does NOT mean that such muslims do not exist. It ONLY means that the number of muslims who will accept evolution is disproportionally small compared to non-muslims where I live, implying a problem with the beliefs of these muslims, since being muslim is the only thing they have in common.

Better?

Not really. It still has the implication that who you personally meet is some kind of useful statistical sample of general views.

This may be the case, or it may not. I have no idea. Do you?

I am not saying you are wrong, just that you aren't providing, as far as I can tell, a good justification for showing that you are right.

590. Breeding for God

Comment #222282 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 4:50 am

Comment #222279 by Bonzai

Well, not really, but you don't want to open the door to any religious court, not even a tiny crack.

I totally agree.

My point is that there are people who really do only want to open the door a tiny crack. It's just plain wrong to claim that such people also want beheading and stoning.

Not all people who "support Sharia" are after the same thing, by any standards, so to use this as some kind of clear indication of who is a fundamentalist is wrong.

591. Breeding for God

Comment #222277 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 4:37 am

Comment #222270 by Peacebeuponme

What does that sound like?

1984. Thoughtcrime.

592. Breeding for God

Comment #222275 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 4:34 am

Comment #222273 by Serdan

I have yet to meet a muslim who would accept the theory of evolution.

Allow me to introduce you to the journalist Yasmine Alibhai-Brown:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,1682,Why-are-we-Muslims-so-self-destructive,Yasmin-Alibhai-Brown-Independent

"The best of past Muslim civilisations nurtured enquiry, debate, love, desire, words, music, dance, art, philosophy, science and beauty."

See what I mean about generalisations?

593. Breeding for God

Comment #222274 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 4:29 am

Comment #222271 by Fanusi Khiyal

Steve get off your camps fetish, I've answered that point.

You haven't. Please explain how you would deport hundreds of thousands?

But I'd like to home in on a point: the idea that fundie Christians are equivalent to fundie Muslims. This is nonsense.

I was not saying that. What I am trying to point out is that people saying they want legal systems based on religious principles does not mean they are mad fundamentalists, as it is all a matter of degree.

Sharia is already used in some financial circles in the City of London. Presumably those businessmen are also raging for the beheading of gays and the stoning of women?

594. Breeding for God

Comment #222266 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 4:07 am

Comment #222263 by Laurie Fraser

There are Christians who want to have laws based on religious principles (on matters such as same-sex rights and abortion). I guess they should go into the transportation camps too...

595. Breeding for God

Comment #222262 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 4:03 am

Comment #222259 by Fanusi Khiyal

In the first instance, those laws aren't doing much to protect those apostates being victimized.

Then that is a problem with policing, and should be dealt with.

In the second place, how will you enforce them when Britain is ten, twenty, thirty percent Muslim?

The same way as with any other law.

If you then find a group or a Mosque that supports Shariah, they forfeit their citizenship - permanently - and are deported.

Unacceptable. Citizenship can be contingent for immigrants, but not for those who are native.

Also, you can't on the one hand claim that a vast number of muslims support sharia law, and then on the other hand say that you would not need camps and a huge infrastructure to deport them. Otherwise, your solution would take centuries.

You have to accept the implications of what you are saying.

596. Breeding for God

Comment #222257 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 3:47 am

Comment #222251 by Fanusi Khiya

Would you prefer to live in a country where apostates are regularly murdered? Where adulterers are stoned to death or shot in stadiums? Where nine-year old girls are routinely sold into marriage and raped? Were continual war and stagnation are the norm? Where slavery is instituted? Because that is the alternative.

Comment #222256 by Bonzai

The temptation of sliding into hysterical fear mongering must be resisted,

Absolutely.
Nonsense. We have things called laws that protect people against such things.

Honestly Fanusi - if you are seriously suggesting we send in the thugs to drag hundreds of thousands of people out of their homes and into camps where they will have to wait until sufficient boats and planes can be arranged to transport them overseas, then you are part of the problem - you are an extremist.

597. Breeding for God

Comment #222247 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 3:28 am

Comment #222246 by Fanusi Khiyal

No, it is not thuggish.

It certainly is. I would not want to live in a country that went back to the use of transportation.

Countries like Saudi Arabia are saturated in this stuff anyway.

So we add to it?

Odd that, I thought we wanted to change the situation in Saudi, not make it worse?

598. Breeding for God

Comment #222241 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 3:18 am

Comment #222239 by Fanusi Khiyal

Why the hell should we defend thugs and savages?

I am not in any way defending thugs and savages. The only point I am making is that I absolutely refuse to resort to thuggery and savagery.

If there is a problem with certain people and their views, then that has to be dealt with here in the UK.

Kicking out people who were born in the UK is thuggish, and actually will make the problem worse, as it does nothing to change minds.

We want to deal with the problem, not export it.

599. Breeding for God

Comment #222240 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 3:14 am

Comment #222237 by Peacebeuponme

From the vicar:

If someone was going to make fun of my wife in a film then I would oppose that... making fun of Jesus Christ, whom I love more than my wife, in a film is going to offend me

Surely grounds for divorce there?

600. Breeding for God

Comment #222231 by Steve Zara on July 31, 2008 at 2:35 am

Comment #222226 by Fanusi Khiyal