51. Cult leader Pyotr Kuznetsov tries suicide after realising he was wrong about doomsday

Comment #154906 by Ian on April 4, 2008 at 12:25 am

I think it's funny and tragic.

The imagery is funny, as is the folly, but no one who has ever dealt with, or suffered a mental illness could fail to sympathise with Poytr. He has suffered a disillusionment of earth shattering proportions, but at least he got the message when the cave started collapsing.

His followers however, cling to their delusion because their vanity won't let them admit they were wrong. So here we have in microcosm what the religious do every day: charmless, narrow-minded clinging on to falsfied doctrine.

'Don't challenge our beliefs!' 'Don't shatter our illusion!' or as it really should be said: 'Let us be a bigot on this one, okay?'

52. Sean Carroll on the Today Program

Comment #154230 by Ian on April 3, 2008 at 12:13 am

Too Short!

I prefer Sean B Carroll, but then that's just my biophilia coming out. Both Seans are a credit to their name.

I read Carroll's earlier book Endless Forms, Most Beautiful and it's one of the best books on biology I've ever read; right up there with Richard and Mark Ridley.

53. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153064 by Ian on April 1, 2008 at 1:56 am

We, boys and girls, have been outflanked, so this should be taken as a warning of an ongoing process. We've been naive to fight this war on only one front.

Our representatives seem not to deem the rights of individual people as important enough to protect. Where were the US and Australian representatives? Where were the passionate defenses of principle of the freedom of expression?

It's time to realise that allowing corruption doesn't just allow parasites to weigh us down, but it creates a weak spot through which our enimies can attack.

Modern politics has become bean counting - merely a matter of running an economy - and it should come as no surprise that people fixated on money should be for sale and willing to bargin something of which they see no value for themselves.

It's time to get political, before the religious outlaw honesty.

54. Expelled Overview

Comment #149575 by Ian on March 26, 2008 at 12:21 am

Thanks for this, Josh.

Apart from PZ's initial post, this is the best article I've read on this debacle.

It seems to me that this movie will entrench views on both sides and that any non-IDer will be pushed further away. It may well be counter productive.

55. Seven new deadly sins: are you guilty?

Comment #141431 by Ian on March 10, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Cartomancer, I got level 1:

"You encounter a seven-walled castle, and within those walls you find rolling fresh meadows illuminated by the light of reason, whereabout many shades dwell. These are the virtuous pagans, the great philosophers and authors, unbaptised children, and others unfit to enter the kingdom of heaven. You share company with Caesar, Homer, Virgil, Socrates, and Aristotle. There is no punishment here, and the atmosphere is peaceful, yet sad."

I'll soon jolly the place up, locked away forever with Socrates and no friggin god to worry about is my idea of heaven.

...Thinking a little more on this, I reckon heaven is the zeroth level of hell. The place where they put all the sycophants: there to encounter an ego even bigger than their own.

Oops! I think I just got bumped down a level! ;-)

56. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #133257 by Ian on February 26, 2008 at 1:40 am

Thanks everyone for your lists, I've really enjoyed reading them.

The Black Cloud is rightly considered a classic of science fiction. It's not very well written, but one of the strengths of SF is that it can accomodate all sorts of writers.

My favourite fiction:
1. Lord of Darkness by Robert Silverberg - loosely based on a true story about an englishman who lives among cannibals. It's sounds similar to The Red Strangers, in that Silverberg tells the rationale for cannibalism so well you start to sympathise with the natives. Then he pulls the plug and you are shocked by your feelings.

2. Dying Inside by Robert Silverberg - This is SF, about a man who is loosing his ability to read minds and how his ability acts to isolate him. There is a section where in his youth, our hero rides the mind of a bee, a fish and his copulating sister.

3. The Empire of Fear by Brian Stableford - an alternative history, in which there are biologically plausible vampires (a big claim here :-) who use their immortality to rule Europe. The story is about a scientist who travels to Africa to discover the secret of the vampires.

4. The Fountains of Youth by Brian Stableford - Mortimer Gray is a historian born into a world where he is among the first generation of people to be born imortal - or more exactly [i]e[i]mortal. Growing up with people who he knows are going to die, he becomes fascinated with the idea of death and how it affected how people lived.

5. Small Gods by Terry Pratchett - It's very hard to choose which of his many novels to include. Ostensibly a comedy fantasy, this one examines people's relationships to their deities. In this, gods derive their power from the belief of the faithful. The mighty and terrible god Om decides to manifest Himself on the disc, but instead of appearing as a mighty bull, he can only sum up the power to manifest himself as a tortoise, because people no longer believe in him as much as they fear his church.

Non-fiction:
1. The Selfish Gene - One day, as a spotty youth, I was walking along, mulling over who evolution is for. I concluded that it must be for the genes, because they are the only entity which survives and there I became stuck. Then, some weeks later I was browsing in a bookstore in Croydon, when I came across this. It could have been written for me and I still remember the shop assistant asking me if I was okay, I was shaking so much when I reached the till.

2. On the Origin of Species by Charles Darwin - You really need to read the man himself to appreciate how brilliant he was. Darwin combined a talent for detailed observation with something which seems to be rare: the ability to think in terms of processes. He understood life in terms of movement.

3. The Republic by Plato - This may be over 2000 years old, but people were just as much people then as they are now, so this is just as relevent as it ever was. To Plato and Socrates I owe release from religious chains I hadn't even realised were there. They shifted my view of goodness from conforming to a set of standards to trying to encourage behaviour which had certain qualities. Thanks to Plato virtue and innocence are no longer synonyms either. This is how books change lives.

4. Freedon and Organisation 1814 to 1914 by Bertrand Russell - This is another book which shifted my perspective, this time politically. I now view the political tensions as not between right and left, but as between personal freedom and the need for organisation or social cohesion - both legitimate claims upon people as social animals. Russell always brings great depth of knowledge to his arguements which is enriching in itself.

5. Huxley by Adrian Desmond - Like Darwin, which he wrote with James Moore, this not only tells the life story of its subject, but takes you into world he inhabited; deepening your understanding of the man and the time. Although known as Darwin's Bulldog, Huxley's main contribution to science was to transform it from a hobby into a profession. All scientists and through them, us, owe a debt to Huxleys tenacity, but also his vision. As well as a demon debater, Huxley was also a faithful and devoted family man.

57. The argument from oranges

Comment #128448 by Ian on February 17, 2008 at 3:05 am

I think the best response to this was given by the adjudicator: "Thank you very much..." with a nice strong undertone of '...for wasting our time'.

There is nothing to fear in this old fool.

58. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126302 by Ian on February 13, 2008 at 12:22 am

What's the matter AGN, did the chance to be first to comment go to your head? Go outside for a few minutes and take some deep breaths. Let some oxygen into your brain and think a little more carefully.

Call it revenge or retaliation, torture is still barbaric. By calling for it, you are becoming just like the people you despise. After all, they think they are retaliating for crimes committed against Islam and moslems. If people cannot stand above splenetic reactionary impulses, how can the sickening cycle of adolescent vindictiveness stop?

Both you and Moslem terrorists need to grow up a bit.

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

Comment #121147 by Ian on February 3, 2008 at 2:40 am

Whilst I'd like to add my compliments to those already given to Dr Myers, I'd like to make a suggested debating tactic for the future.

For instance, Given such well documented examples as whales, basilosaurus is clearly a whale, yet significally different from any living specimen. The largest living carnivorous cetacean being only two-thirds the size; so not only do we have intermediates, but offshoots as well.

Similarly, not only do we have homo habilis as part of our ancestral line, we have h.neaderthalis as an offshoot that left no descendants today.

60. A Letter From Hell

Comment #115912 by Ian on January 25, 2008 at 3:08 am

What a cynical peice of manipulation!

You know, this is only going to work on the sensitive ones who already have enough to deal with, given the general low-grade scumminess of everyday life. Upon those who are already bullied and isolated, and will ensure their isolation becomes deeper as they are transformed into fully fledged god-botherers.

Poor schmucks.

61. Honour Killings

Comment #113968 by Ian on January 21, 2008 at 5:24 am

Ian, sadly, I realize it was not the Onion.
Steve

And I accept - indeed share - your incredulity. I googled the man's name, hoping to find The Onion's website. At least then, I would only have had to deal with an issue of taste.

Ian

62. Honour Killings

Comment #113688 by Ian on January 20, 2008 at 10:38 am

The hypocrisy of the Western society is clearly seen whereas an Australian Judge failed to jail nine males who admitted gang-raping a 10-year old aborigine girl in 2005, saying the victim probably agreed to have sex with them and a UNICEF Photo of the year shows, a bridegroom, 40, with his 11-year old bride in Afghanistan. In my opinion, a UNICEF photo of the year must show a nine year British girl having a baby...

Dear Mr Ahmad,

A short lesson in sex. Human females cannot become pregnant until they have their first period, a time called menarche. The average onset of menarche varies between populations from 12 and a half to 18 years of age, with the low recorded among poor afro-americans. It is therefore IMPOSSIBLE for UNICEF or anyone else to show a picture of a nine-year old girl of any cultural background giving birth.

You are an ignorant, loathsome, bigotted fool and I'm afraid Steveroot, quite real.

63. New Findings Confirm Darwin's Theory: Evolution Not Random

Comment #113391 by Ian on January 19, 2008 at 1:36 pm

Part of me feels that these people have just charged an open door.

Whatsmore, I think things are confused by using the random/determined distinction. Saying evolution is determined implies predetermined.

I prefer the terminology which says natural selection tracks the environment, thus avoiding any confusion determined and guided. This way it is clear that evolution is not random or guided.

Am I the only person to be picky this way?

64. George Scales, War Hero and Generous Friend of RDFRS

Comment #111517 by Ian on January 14, 2008 at 10:28 pm

Dear George,

Your courage, generosity, intelligence and tenacity are an example to us all.

Thank you for supporting RDFRS and get well soon! We need everyone who can cause dissonance to our religious cousins. ;-)

Deepest Regards,
(-: Ian :-)

65. Submission, 'Part 1'

Comment #105315 by Ian on December 31, 2007 at 8:42 am

I hope those of you who are saying you left a comment are joking.

The petition is to have the images removed, so you shouldn't be signing it if you want freedom of expression.

66. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #104914 by Ian on December 30, 2007 at 12:19 am

But, I'll grant you that there are some good shows on BBC like 'Hardtalk' and the 'Have Your Say' show.

Of course you have a right to your opinion, but I view such things as cynical populist theatre (ie:fiction).

I yearn for the days of The Heart of the Matter by Joan Bakewell and Weekend World with Brian Walden. Two programmes which actually analysed ethical and politial issues.

67. Top Ten Stories of 2007

Comment #103782 by Ian on December 26, 2007 at 8:53 pm

I can't help but agree with Duff on this one. Is that really all they can come up with?

Perhaps we should do a list of our own. Any suggestions?

68. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103112 by Ian on December 24, 2007 at 10:13 am

Corylus, seconded.

69. 2 fleas for the Christmas week

Comment #103097 by Ian on December 24, 2007 at 9:52 am

Step 6: Some of the critiques of Dawkins et al are very intelligent people who have read his work.

Thusfar, I can only comment on Alistair McGrath, but if he is representative, this statement is clearly false.

McGrath is an intellectual also-ran.

70. Priest who committed suicide for rebirth cremated

Comment #103073 by Ian on December 24, 2007 at 9:31 am

He's getting a job in horticulture...

...pushing up daisies.

Seriously though, poor mum and dad.

71. 'Christian God is not to blame'

Comment #102668 by Ian on December 23, 2007 at 11:36 am

God has been attacked angrily here and there...

No dear archbishop, believers have been criticised. Critique is not a form of attack, but an important part of dialogue you can use to improve yourself.

Try to get it right, you'll never be vituous if you can't be truthful.

72. For the Love of Christ

Comment #101857 by Ian on December 21, 2007 at 3:15 am

A distant memory and a search engine provides the antidote to this 'bright young thing'.

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

73. 2007, a bad year for God squadders

Comment #101845 by Ian on December 21, 2007 at 2:51 am

That God would choose to come among us in such a way is so strange, so inexplicable, so unbelievable, it compels us to believe.

I believe in the return of Mithrandir, who will lead us into battle against the evils of laise-fair capitalism. The Ainulindale is far more beautiful than Genesis.

Since we have to believe complete bollocks, we might as well exercise some taste doing so.

74. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101134 by Ian on December 20, 2007 at 1:20 am

Kevlaw:

I think the hard-line view taken by many atheists contributes to that perception.

Thanks for saying this. For some reason the phrase hard-line atheist did not occur to me, but it will allow me to disassociate myself from people who seem to think children are just lumps of clay, which keep any shape pressed into them.

Children do think for themselves, all you have to do is use reason and leave it to them.

75. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100775 by Ian on December 19, 2007 at 10:14 am

In fairness, he doesn't have sole choice in how is children are raised - or would you prefer to unravel women's liberation?

Also, I want people to grow out of religion, not to try to ban it.

76. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100763 by Ian on December 19, 2007 at 9:52 am

As a long-time Liberal Democrat and atheist, I'd like to say that this is music to my ears. He even mentions Mill in his campain liturature.

This is the beginning of something good here in the UK!

77. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100071 by Ian on December 18, 2007 at 7:43 am

Thanks Ian G.

Wires officially uncrossed, thank the Lord.

78. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100063 by Ian on December 18, 2007 at 7:28 am

Ian G:

Maybe we should all lighten up.

What? When I just posted:

While shepherds washed their socks by night,
while watching BBC,
The angel of the Lord came down,
and switched to ITV.

How do I get any lighter, helium? ;-)

79. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100061 by Ian on December 18, 2007 at 7:22 am

Richard Morgan:

At what point does "harmless" become "harmful"?

When it becomes sincere.

80. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #100056 by Ian on December 18, 2007 at 6:57 am

I rather like Vivaldi's Lauda Jerusalem. It's a fantastic tune and fascinating how you can say so much in latin with so few words.

On the other hand...

While shepherds washed their socks by night,
while watching BBC,
The angel of the Lord came down,
and switched to ITV.


Lighten up Libby & Co. Christians forced all this on us, so we'll do with it as we wish.

81. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #97926 by Ian on December 12, 2007 at 8:51 pm

My sympathies to our US cousins at this, the next stage in the usurpation of power and corruption of democratic principles.

It cold be worse, at least you're not one of the ones they're pandering to.

82. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97417 by Ian on December 12, 2007 at 3:52 am

It may be that religion is involved with 'honour killings', but it isn't necessarily the cause. It's a social/cultural thing, isn't it?

Fair point.

I'd like to liken it to chinese foot binding, another cultural practice in which women were harmed that continued into the 20th century.

When Christian misionaries encountered the practice, to their credit, they joined several chinese groups in campaigning for its abolition.

Islam's failure in this is that it sets extreme standards of conformity without moderating its response. As a consequence, it is more barbaric than what it opposes.

The same is true for circumcision. There is no requirement in Islam for women to be circumcised, so moslems turn around and say: nothing to do with us.

Negligence in the face of cruelty is not exactly a high moral standard and from people who claim that you're not moral if you are not one of them, it's not very impressive.

83. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97385 by Ian on December 12, 2007 at 2:09 am

I have to admit that as I read Morris' open letter with its repetition of lies, I felt disheartened.

Now I feel angry.

That the religious are so insane they can murder their own children and call it honour.

That the most important thing they can think of saying to this is: It's not us!

Get back in your box, Fr Morris. I'd rather stop HIV than prey over the aftermath.

84. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97005 by Ian on December 11, 2007 at 8:57 am

Dear Richard,

Ignore this guy. By repeating the lie that Hitler was an atheist he destroyed his credibility, don't give him any of yours.

Regards,

(-: Ian :-)

85. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96258 by Ian on December 10, 2007 at 8:43 am

I think this just shows how intolerant 'moderate' Christians really are; that they feel any expression of contrary opinion is an attack.

They need to ask themselves exactly how this sign infringes their own right to free expression?

Since it does no such thing - they have been permitted to place a nativity scene in the same place - there is no attack and so this feeling of persecution is unjustified.

Christians, you owe freedom of speech to all your fellow citizens, because vetoing for some destroys it totally.

86. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #96207 by Ian on December 10, 2007 at 6:56 am

TSkidC, interest in the penis is quite healthy. There are times after all, when it constitues a consideral portion of male cognitive activity - and times when it constitues none of course.

There is a cloud - probably number 9 - where people are able to explore their and each others' bodies without the baggage of either religious indoctrination or childish salaciousness. Where adults can share pleasure with all the knowledge they need to protect themselves and their futurity. Where sex simply isn't the problem it used to be.

Without consent, circumcision is common assault and we clearly have some way to go before we protect children from this crime - from either physical abuse or religious doctrine.

I thought the hippocratic oath said do no harm?

BTW, I know it is not going to be popular in Rd.net here but "memes" is not even a scientific concept. It is only a notch better than magic spells and the holy spirit.

[SARCASM CALIBRATION]
Aren't scientists lucky in having so many people to tell them what does and does not constitute science? From religious leaders to people who once saw a copy of The Selfish Gene, people feel free to weald a stamp of approval; free of outmoded and colonialist notions of competence and responsibility.

Isn't life wonderful?
[/SARCASM CALIBRATION]

Just to remind, science is primarily the study of nature and takes place on the borderlands of uncertainty, so most scientific concepts are speculative. Science isn't an approval scheme for ideas, merely the most reliable way of establishing whether an idea corresponds to the actuality.

While certainly speculative, memetics is proper science in that it is a theory which explains phenomena and can generate testable hypotheses. It is perfectly accceptable to speculate using a memetic model, as long as it is remembered that it is speculation.

87. Of Dickens and Darwin

Comment #96156 by Ian on December 10, 2007 at 4:50 am

And there was I thinking it was going to be about Darwin and Dickens - they joined the Athenium club on the same day, you know.

I've often wondered what the two men would have said to each other if they'd met. Now, there's an interesting topic for an article. This one is just dull.

88. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94737 by Ian on December 6, 2007 at 11:30 am

Chimoio on the grounds that he's lying about medical science, but will turn to it when his health fails.

This is bad faith squared.

89. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94504 by Ian on December 5, 2007 at 8:43 pm

How about the people who did the hatchet job on Anthony Flew?

90. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92769 by Ian on December 1, 2007 at 12:31 pm

And what on earth is the reason to think going backwards is progress? Oh, oh! The answer is: when you think with your butt...

I don't want to go backwards, but forwards. It is a plain fact (to me, at least) that most of the improvements in this world have been the result of secular movements, often with opposition from the religious.

It's very easy for me to agree with a sentiment without the slightest implication that the person - in this case pope Benedict - has the wisdom to bring it about.

I find it sobering that ethically, we have no better overall understanding that the ancient philosophers and doing so little as to bring people to this point is extremely difficult.

Ethically, the average human is still a flat-earther and the tragedy of this is that they would be far better off if they allowed this growth.

91. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92693 by Ian on December 1, 2007 at 8:34 am

If technical progress is not matched by corresponding progress in man's ethical formation, in man's inner growth, then it is not progress at all, but a threat for man and for the world

I actually agree with this, but what on earth make this incompetant old brown shirt think he has any grasp on ethics?

92. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91744 by Ian on November 29, 2007 at 6:00 am

Rightly, how, exactly? Because a couple of jackasses who happen to be atheists said some nasty things about Ayaan Hirsi Ali?

Wed, that isn't how I remember it. We schismed, the full big-ender little-ender spat derided by Swift. That's religious behaviour from people who say they are rationaists guided by facts.

In other words, an experiment was run to find out what we're made of and the results seem to show thinly adulterated pillock. So, if Sam, Richard, Josh or even Ayaan make a snide comment about us, we should take it as a correction and try not to be a pillock again. Learning is rational.

As for your claim that most people here have or will be contributing, I'm afraid that is as poorly substanciated as your claim that the spat was unrepresentative. I've seen no poll or results so far and to me, that is not encouraging.

If we atheists are have anything other than a guerilla existence in the world, then we are going to have to be able to act in concert sometimes. After all, we expect our ideas to cohere so why can't we?

It is a rare opportunity which allows you to stand up to life's bullies without being open to accusations of being aggresive.

Wouldn't it be great if we could have banged a drum about how we all rallied to the cause? Such a demonstration of integrity would have done so much to improve our standing and earn some much deserved respect.

93. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91339 by Ian on November 28, 2007 at 5:02 am

Although I've read posts here about Sam Harris' comment being directed at theists, I think it being double edged is the kindest we can hope for - and quite rightly.

When the appeal was first made, Sam must have thought that he and Ayaan had done enough to establish their reputations for it to work on its own. In suporting it, Josh invested his reputation as well. You'd think that would be enough to cover it, but it seems not - at least not without controversey.

Perhaps Sam was naive in forgetting how difficult herding cats is; if so, then I share his flaw. However, given the situation, no one can blame Sam if he's feeling a little cheesed off with us at the moment and humour can be used to cover all sorts of sour feeling.

As for humour and 'lighening up', can I remind you that there is a woman's life at stake? Not just any woman, but a woman who had the courage to place herself in danger to help others and to warn people of the danger of extremist Islam?

I love humour where it's appropriate, where it isn't used to block someone's opinion and where it isn't used to isolate someone in their misery; for humour has a very nasty face sometimes.

I will be happier when I feel this issue has been sorted out and I know Ayaan is safe, because if we cannot protect her, we cannot protect ourselves.

94. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #90837 by Ian on November 26, 2007 at 1:36 pm

"Rick," Harris jokes, "may yet convince me that Christians are more moral and socially engaged than atheists."

It would be food for thought, wouldn't it? If, for all its flaws, religion could act more effectively for the common good. It would be quite a blow against personal freedom.

She's working on a new book, "Shortcut to Enlightenment," in which the Prophet Muhammad comes back to tour New York City and debate modern (although dead) philosophers John Stuart Mill and Friedrich von Hayek.

This sounds interesting, Mill is a bit of a hero of mine - we both hated Theaetatus. :D

95. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #90141 by Ian on November 23, 2007 at 6:38 am

This is my last comment on this thread. I have just worked my sixth consecutive twelve hour night shift and have just a day and a half off before before another 72 hour cycle begins. I am too tired and have too little time to waste any more.

Thanks for your comments Goatboy, though one correction: We are all important, even those who've used a thread labelled URGENT APPEAL to 'extract the urine'.

One day I may suffer an aneurysm and large parts of my brain will die of oxygen starvation. Perhaps then I will be as intelligent as these wonderful people.

I dignified someone's 'hunch' that testosterone was involved only to dispense with it. Since it has reared its ugly head again, I will have one last try: This site is dedicated to rationality and since rational ideas have to be judged by the same standard: I'll have to stoop.

The arguement is: Ayan is female, I am male. I argue in her favour, so my interest is sexual.

Okay, how about this:

Ayan is female, you are male. You argue against her, so you must be a misoginist.

The evidence for this 'hunch' is just as good, so if am to labour under yours, then you should own up to this.

Hang on, Ayan is black and you are white, therefore, you are a racist!

This game is easy.

Personally, I don't think you should cast aspertions on someone's motivations without the slightest evidence.

Someone asked why wear a poppy. Most will do so to show support, to say you those who have suffered: you are not alone.

If you cannot beleive people can act out of sympathy, then you are trapped in cynyicim - a position as irrational as any doctrine.

Enjoy your ashes.

96. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89926 by Ian on November 22, 2007 at 7:00 am

CJ22:

"When I try to discover what are the original sources of my opinions, both pactical and theoretical, I find that most of them spring ultimately from admiration for two qualities - kindly feeling and veracity." - Bertrand Russell in The Faith of a Rationalist.

Self-righteous moral bullying? That's strong, so strong you'd think people were trying to force people to give, but there has never been any attempt to force a contribution.

If you don't want to contribute, don't. You don't have to explain yourself or blame those who ask. You can just pass over the issue, there doesn't have to be a fuss, but there is one.

The people who try to block compassion are not being rational, not in relation to how they feel and if ever I thought scepticism blocked compassion, I'd become a mystic.

97. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89919 by Ian on November 22, 2007 at 6:15 am

Keith,

I work in the security industry. Not only do I expect there to be cheats, I make my living off them. I can also tell you that they just have to tell me how clever they are, even when they've been caught. Some of them are so blind, they don't recognise me when I'm not in uniform, even when I speak to them.

Every day I have to listen to doublespeak that fools pour out to cover their own internal conflicts - caused by the lie that being a thief makes them so much cleverer than people who work for a living. It sounds good on The Bill, but in life it's pathetic.

I can't give you any figures, but by my experience, over half of shoplifters are women. Certianly, my female colleagues have plenty to do.

By the way, a drink driver is a criminal, but more importantly, both are fools in the Platonic sense. So yes, I was being even handed.

People who criticise Plato for naivity forget that he saw Socrates taken to court on trumped up charges and executed; murdered for speaking freely. Recognise this theme?

My colleagues think I'm strange, reading all this philosophy. They don't understand why I'm not earning much more than I do, but the answer is in the Apology and I have given it to them to read. They can't see it.

Take it from me, those old Greeks were on to something.

98. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89848 by Ian on November 22, 2007 at 12:16 am

Keith:

Rules? Where there is civilisation, there is no need for rules. As I said before: civilisation is shared.

You'll have to spell this out for me. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that when something is shared, there is no need for rules. Is this correct? How do you come to this conclusion?

Hi Keith,

Thank you for your question.

My position is complex because I am talking about sharing several different things at the same time: fellow feeling, understanding and any knowledge or resource involved in the interaction.

To most people, rules are not a restriction, because they want to live peacefully on what they earn. They feel rules are needed to help control other people who would steal or take stupid risks like drink driving or some other nuisance action. Mostly, these people are right.

Plato - and I assume Socrates - argued that most evil in the world was not the result of malevolence, but error. This is easy to see in the case of the drink/driver, who over estimates his competence behind the wheel, but for a theif the arguement is a little more nuanced.

Plato would argue that the theif may regard herself as clever in being able to meet her short term needs with little effort and only a small risk, but on a deeper level, she would recognise that her relationship to others was fundamentally parasitic. This knowledge would always be a source of conflict which would force our thief to live in denial and sap her self esteem.

Again, according to Plato, the truely wise person would be good because they actually understand that it is the best way to live, both for itself and its rewards.

Going further, is the role of compassion - the appreciation that people feel in similar ways to yourself. You know that you would not like someone to steal something of yours and so by telling you that another person would feel the same if you stole something from them, compassion stops you being a thief.

Extending compassion further, you know that if your were in trouble, you would want someone to help, so if you see someone else in trouble, compassion should make you want to lend a hand

What I want to know is what is it which not only blocks natural compassion in a person, but what makes that person try to block it in others. To the point that it blinds them to the hypocracy of saying the appeal should not have been made (thus denying free speech) and yet complaining when someone else (not me) tells them to shut up.

Given that this thread is labeled URGENT APPEAL and concerns someone's personal safety, I simply cannot understand such self indulgence; it beggars belief.

What Richard, Sam and of course Ayan feel about this I shudder to imagine. These people, who have put themselves - literally - in the firing line and taken so much - metaphorical - flack so we can express ourselves in the face of religious bigotry have been met with such self-indulgence the one time they actually ask us for something. It makes me sick with shame.

And what happens next time there's a need, if we can't even get it together for Ayan? I would ask whether someone's murder would wake you all up, but several people have already been killed by religious intolerance.

I repeat: civilisation is shared, so compassion is not an option, but a requirement and the best investment you can make in the future.

99. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89605 by Ian on November 21, 2007 at 8:31 am

Those people who said that the appeal should not have been made are not respecting the right they are using and that is hypocrisy.

Sound's awfully like the moderate muslim response to the cartoons mate - free speech with limits. Just try to throw in a bit of guilt via respect and responsibility and get everyone to play nicely by your rules.

Thank you for your comment and you're right, I do sound like those muslims.

The difference is that muslims are arguing for legislation to restrict free expression; something I will never do. No one needs for Mohammed to be beyond critique, so their arguement is spurious.

Naive freedom is impossible, because rights conflict, so there has to be a process of negotiation to reolve those conflicts.

The best way to preserve the maximum freedoms for us all is for people to cultivate the greatest awareness of each other's needs and freely allow for them. This minimises conflict, which is wasteful and so maximises the resources available to be shared. As Richard Dawkins has argued: civilisation is a non-zero sum game.

Regarding guilt, this is only felt by people who recognise they have done something wrong, it cannot be imposed.

Rules? Where there is civilisation, there is no need for rules.

As I said before: civilisation is shared.

100. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89579 by Ian on November 21, 2007 at 7:00 am

After reading what Ian wrote I feel I need to quote SilentMike's sentiments further up this comments thread, which I fully agree with:

"None of you are Bill O'reilly so for the love of -WHATEVER- please stop telling people who don't agree with you to shut up."

With respect, I've told no one to shut up. What I asked was why they felt the need to comment.

A right to free speech does not imply a duty to comment on every issue and neither does it confer a right not to be offended. Also the right to free speech does not confer the wisdom to know when it is better to be silent.

Those people who said that the appeal should not have been made are not respecting the right they are using and that is hypocrisy.

Saying that people are being bad in making them feel guilty is pure self-indulgence. No one has the right never to feel bad, so like the rest of the human race, you should mature enough to deal with it.

So again, why comment? Really, what is going through your minds? How far do your concerns stretch? Do you understand that rights come with responsibilities, because they are shared?

It seems to me that everyone I meet wants to be an alpha, when they would be happier if they would set their sights lower: on being a citizen, which has the virtue of being acheivable.

When you write, ask yourself this: what are my concerns?

If they go no further than the keyboard, then you are little more than an isolated baboon, without the understanding of how to be happy. If your concerns transcend the keyboard, go through the screen and merge with ours in cyberspace, then you are properly human - because you are part of a community.

Ayan Hirsi Ali shares our concern for freedom. She is part of our family and that is why people have argued so passionately in her favour.

There, now you know.