51. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194330 by AllanW on June 16, 2008 at 3:51 pm

'Night 'night all. Please keep marking RTG as the troll he is and when I return in the morning I hope he will have been consigned to the alternate comment thread or removed completely.

52. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194295 by AllanW on June 16, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Oh man :)

Can you say 'TROLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLL'?

53. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194278 by AllanW on June 16, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Comment #194277 by ReceivedTheGift on June 16, 2008 at 3:10 pm

All together now, one, two, three 'Troll'!

54. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194262 by AllanW on June 16, 2008 at 2:55 pm

Frank and Gail Zappa at the Hospital Reception desk filling-out forms before the birth of their first child.

'Religion?'

'Music'.

55. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194248 by AllanW on June 16, 2008 at 2:50 pm

Comment #194235 by bugaboo on June 16, 2008 at 2:45 pm

'Allan dont you think that prebiased deceivment is a "thing fish" expression?'

Absolutely! Stupidity; the most plentiful element in the universe.

'PS must learn how to create an avatar!!'

Click 'Forum' at the top of the page then go to 'User control panel' and select the 'Profile' tab from the screen that appears. Select the 'Edit avatar' tab on the side and away you go :)

56. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194219 by AllanW on June 16, 2008 at 2:35 pm

OT;

Isn't it strange how someones avatar sets a mood? I always look at Podaar's with a smile at the happy couple, a smirk at al Rawandi in his 'Top Gun' pose, a grin at Cartomancer's camp magician pose etc

I react more to the avatars of people rather than writing or clever stuff (I do, however, always smile at the 'God programme loading' avatar :)).

Any other thoughts now that RTG is a non-event?

57. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #194212 by AllanW on June 16, 2008 at 2:30 pm

Comment #194206 by ReceivedTheGift on June 16, 2008 at 2:27 pm

Yep, time to start flagging as troll.

58. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193998 by AllanW on June 16, 2008 at 9:13 am

Comment #193978 by ketch22 on June 16, 2008 at 9:01 am
'My journey is a joke to you?'

The phrasing, the petulance, the wounded ego and the 'journey' word are all symptoms. Yes ketch22, they are a joke to us here because they are just manifestations of brain chemical activity. Nothing more. Your brain chemical activity has no relevance outside your head. Bring something other than the deluded ramblings of your mind here and we'll happily listen and talk. The rest is just a joke played on you by your own mind.

59. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193870 by AllanW on June 16, 2008 at 7:15 am

Comment #193856 by ketch22 on June 16, 2008 at 6:35 am
'I am sure the majority of you have rebuttals to all of my statements, but I have heard them before and they will continue until the veil has been lifted. '

I doubt it; you have now confirmed past any doubt the truth that we all hoped would not be the case. Goodbye. Until the veil is lifted from your eyes and you see the world as it is again rather than through your God-goggles.

60. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #193399 by AllanW on June 15, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Comment #193393 by Standing on June 15, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Standing; is yours a driveby misunderstanding or do you plan to back this mistake up with further dialogue? If the former, bye. If the latter we'd appreciate a little further from you to help us understand whether you are deliberately and wilfully ignorant of Dawkins' point or just vainly trying to warp the actual quote into an argument.

61. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #193286 by AllanW on June 15, 2008 at 7:55 am

Comment #193284 by ketch22 on June 15, 2008 at 7:48 am
'if we are who you say we are in the evolutionary chain, how can we trust our determinations on where we come from.'

Yeah, ok. So you 'trust' the experience you had ('when a person, such as I, has had an experience with God,') as some sort of truth but don't trust the work of thousands of scientists and millions of hours of experiments that slot into observable, replicable theories that explain reality?

This kind of self-referential arse-gravy describes precisely why ridicule of fundamentalist ideas is the only way to point out ignorance and make any headway.

62. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #193269 by AllanW on June 15, 2008 at 5:44 am

Comment #193263 by ChristiansTogether on June 15, 2008 at 5:01 am
'Thus far (as I'm sure any objective reader would agree) all that my bona fide request has brought (with possibly one exception from someone who is "miles away from Scotland") are body-swerves, side-tracking, objections, spurious alternatives etc. etc.'

Ah, diddums; did nobody leap to satisfy your every whim? Never mind.

I think any objective reader will note the blustering protestations of injury, the sly and deliberately obfuscatory words along with the hand-waving arguments and correctly conclude that your interest in this debate is as far removed from establishing a fair and even-handed platform as it's possible to conceive of.

Your repetitive claim to honesty strikes a chord of 'methinks he doth protest too much'. As for the use of 'spurious' in your last post, I don't think it means what you think it means.

Just because you are steering clear of a written argument (I wonder why?) in favour of a populist platform (and no doubt stuffing the 'congregation' that appears for the putative debate) does not mean that the option bears no relevance to the points that might be contended. Unless, of course, your objective here is some manufactured PR coup; do you work for the New Labour party in any capacity or have you just read all the books on how to spin?

Bottom-line? ChristiansTogether is vainly attempting to hand-wave away centuries of collective experience for the population by insisting on the objectivity, honesty and prejudice and preconception-free nature of his debate. I'm sure no-one is the least bit fooled by this stance.

63. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #192514 by AllanW on June 13, 2008 at 8:50 am

Comment #192497 by keith on June 13, 2008 at 8:04 am
'I expected you to write back and tell me to mind my own fucking business. You must be a nice bloke.'

Why would I ever do that? You made a point, I read it, thought about it and your were right. I'm happy to accept criticism and agree or disagree with it.

'Since then I've learned that Zappa was very intelligent and a good musician and basically a one-off, all of which makes me want to like his music...but I can't.'

This is not the right forum for a detailed exchange of views on Frank Zappa but he was indeed very intelligent, he was indeed a virtuoso musician and he was indeed a unique individual. I use his picture for many reasons but mainly as a reminder to myself that being an individual who constantly challenges himself and strives for improvement and excellence is a worthy life.

Whether you like his music or not is a matter of taste but you can't deny the attraction of someone who spent vast amounts of money and time promoting youth participation in the democratic process in the States who also was appointed to a special role by President Vaclav Havel of the newly created Czech Republic but who is chiefly known for his sneering and sceptical music, now can you?

64. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #192484 by AllanW on June 13, 2008 at 6:59 am

Comment #192481 by keith on June 13, 2008 at 6:47 am

'Allan,

I usually like your comments but don't you think this sounds a bit pompous? '

You're right, it does. I happily retract it :)
Make your own minds up and do your own research :)

How could I disagree with anyone represented by an image of Reggie Perrin?

65. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192477 by AllanW on June 13, 2008 at 6:30 am

Epinephrine on June 13, 2008 at 5:45 am
'Disagree. The BCHRT way is wrong, I suspect that the Canadian way will find that Macleans was in the right.'

The consensus seems to be that the decision is a foregone conclusion given their record; you may be wrong here.

In which case, 'The "Canadian way" is just fine, and is very similar to the "American way"' would seem to be incorrect as well.

I'm not having a 'go' at Canada here apart from this ridiculous, divisive, undemocratic and fascist BCHRT. The rest of the laws seem similar to the UK and elsewhere.

66. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192475 by AllanW on June 13, 2008 at 6:22 am

Comment #192469 by Steve Zara on June 13, 2008 at 5:56 am

'That would be fun, but I would suggest the topic of debate be carefully chosen. May I suggest:

"Considering Miracles: Cheques and Balances" '

Oh man! Another coffee meets screen episode! Thanks Steve :)

67. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192464 by AllanW on June 13, 2008 at 5:31 am

Comment #192462 by SilentMike on June 13, 2008 at 5:21 am

'The canadian approach is wrong and driven by an irrational fear of words.'

Entirely agree :)

68. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #192460 by AllanW on June 13, 2008 at 5:17 am

I applaud and underline the points made by Paula and Steve with regard to the request made by ChristiansTogether. Have a theological or philosphical debate if you wish but a science versus creationism debate is a non sequitur.

69. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192458 by AllanW on June 13, 2008 at 5:13 am

SilentMike;
'As for resposibility you are correct. However, the rational human being works on knowledge that is available to him (or her). If I just read a best selling book that says all black people are lazy and incompetent, and I believe it in good faith (which granted, would make me a racist), how likely am I to hire a black person? Now if it can be demonstrated that whoever wrote the book knew he was lying and hurting people's income, why wouldn't he be required to pay every cent he made off that book to the people that he damaged? '

That's the essence of the problem, I agree with you. But I would rather take the approach of education, personal responsibility and broad, open debate to help the idiot racists who refuse to hire black people and prosecute their asses for doing so when it can be demonstrated rather than make a scapegoat of the idiot who wrote a racist book. By pointing out that the book's views are racist you do enough of a job. There are adequate laws in place to press for any and all of these outcomes as they exist which is why the Canadian hate tribunals etc are not only obscene but unnecessary.

70. Saving Us from Darwin

Comment #192450 by AllanW on June 13, 2008 at 5:00 am

I'm normally in the forefront of people criticising the standards of journalism about science so I'm very pleased to recommend this article to everyone. Well written, balanced, informed and informative, it represents all that a great overview of an issue should be. Bravo Mr Crews.

71. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192447 by AllanW on June 13, 2008 at 4:48 am

SilentMike; thanks for the considered words. I agree with you that this area is difficult but, to my ears, you undermined your premise by saying things like 'like in a libel case'; these laws already exist, no others are required. Only actions should be assessed not words.

As for the assassination example, I'll try to pull it apart for you. Asking someone to kill another is only words. The killer can be subject to the law as it is an action undertaken for which the individual or individuals should be accountable. But if there is a cash or other kind of payment for the service, the payers action of payment opens them up to the same legislative options and proscription. The key point is not when the words were uttered ('Take this guy out for me') but when they were manifest in payment (an action).

Don't get me wrong here, I'm not a legal expert and am not telling you what current law enforcement actually is but rather I'm articulating what principles should underly the law.

Individual responsibility for ones own actions not the effects they have on others is the principle position that the thread I mentioned before did nothing to shake me from.

72. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192445 by AllanW on June 13, 2008 at 4:36 am

Thanks for the posts you have made on this Barry; detailed and apposite. But I'll believe this ('That is what UK law tries to do. Furthermore, recent experience suggests that extremist Muslims are the ones most likely to fall foul of the latter.') when the first prosecution is delivered, mate :)

73. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192437 by AllanW on June 13, 2008 at 4:04 am

SilentMike.

I understand the motivation for your proposal but it has been shown by experience that this kind of thinking produces laws that have the opposite effect. They are not only unworkable (just how do you prove intent to be hurtful? How is 'hurtful' interpreted by anyone other than the victim? How do you prove 'full knowledge'? etc) but have so many holes in them that unscrupulous people use them to stifle speech and writing. Just read about the use that some people are putting the UK laws to in the publishing industry to stifle comment they don't like. It opens the can of worms that is political correctness gone mad.

The only defense against hate speech is to point out it's fallacies, incorrectness in fact and its objective. Nothing more need be done.

74. Unlike Others, U.S. Defends Freedom to Offend in Speech

Comment #192421 by AllanW on June 13, 2008 at 3:26 am

Free speech issues again. I back the US laws and constitution against any others in the world. The current Canadian obsession with 'hate' tribunals is obnoxious, corrosive and, I hope, ultimately self-defeating. The UK has regressed significantly in recent years with no likelihood that I can see for the situation to improve cf the use in publishing of UK Libel laws to stifle books published and written elsewhere.

More detailed thoughts on the restrictions that should be placed upon free speech were dealt with in detail on this thread; Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok.

Basically I agree with many others here that the laws that exist in other areas (employment, contract etc) are adequate to protect citizens and corparate bodies from the demonstrable effects of actions but spoken or written words should be completely free. It's only when someone or other body takes an action that it might be actionable (see what I did there?).

75. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191900 by AllanW on June 12, 2008 at 4:40 am

Comment #191896 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 4:25 am

'I enjoyed that rant, though.' So did I :) but there again I like the 'Rotten boroughs' section in Private Eye.

'What is clear is that you can achieve some kinds of significant change by a few well directed measures. The Atlee government created a welfare state which proved impossible to shift. The Thatcher government sold council houses and took power away from the unions, and no one even talks about reversing this any more.'

Precisely the things I was thinking about.

'Whether the Reason Party would make a lasting difference to the way things are discussed is debatable. But I'd think it's worth a try.'

I agree and one of the ways of differenciating the Reason Party from the others is the way I would see them handling the press. I won't say too much more as I'm in danger of giving out all of the cool, innovative and thoughtful (LOL) themes in the book and some bugger like Ben Elton with an established publishing reputation who writes in smooth, anodyne, mass-market ways will nick the ideas and add to the list of titles in his thought-provoking canon (like 'Popcorn' and 'Chart throb').

76. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191886 by AllanW on June 12, 2008 at 3:54 am

Comment #191880 by hungarianelephant on June 12, 2008 at 3:42 am

'though I suspect it wouldn't be elected for a second term.'

I entirely agree. One of the major themes of my draft is that it would prod so many sacred cows that it would face enormous opposition. Yet I agree with your comment that 'even one term might be enough to get rid of some of the accrued excrement in the way our soceity is run.'. And that is the real point; demonstrating that it is possible to govern in a different manner would have long-term implications as well as the actual changes made that would have ramifications well past the term of office.

So would one term in government really be any different from the vacillation between monolithic, doctrinaire Tory and New Labour hegemonies that we in this country have seen for the last twenty years?

77. Discussion between Richard Dawkins and Paula Kirby

Comment #191873 by AllanW on June 12, 2008 at 3:25 am

Thanks for the post Richard.

I know it's frivolous but I have to ask; is there a 'Richard's Top 10 Recommended Sewing Machines' list going to pop-up when I go to Amazon now? Or when I buy a book an add-on list will pop-up with 'Richard also bought this washing machine and exercise bike'?

78. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #191854 by AllanW on June 12, 2008 at 2:07 am

Comment #191851 by Steve Zara on June 12, 2008 at 1:55 am

'Oh dear. Not much logic here.'

Exactly. I didn't have much time to respond to Robertson's latest couple of excretions and I'll probably follow Vaal's advice that it's not worth doing anyway yet his response is demonstrably inane as you point out.

Isn't it interesting that his first post on this thread was couched in terms of a 'miracle' (see 'I gave one example of an answered prayer - which involved me needing a specific sum of money to help a bunch of children go on an outing.' in Comment #190347 by clearthinker on June 8, 2008 at 11:08 pm) which he now backs clearly away from in his latest post. And then claims bitter persecution when people call into question his repeated mendacious lies.

Typical Robertson.

79. New British Petition: Stop the Nightmares

Comment #191848 by AllanW on June 12, 2008 at 1:50 am

Goddamnit, Phil Rimmer! Have you been reading my mind while I'm sleep? Almost all of your excellent points are exactly the ones that have been rattling around in my head for awhile.

The only difference being that the political party should be called 'Reason' in my opinion. I've already got the outline for a novel written about how the party is formed in preparation for the elections in 2010, sweeps to power through a combination of clear expertise in many fields and voter disgust at the current parties then goes on to deliver policy direction and execution that in five years transforms UK society.

You'll be glad to hear that in the book, RD is approached and becomes one of the first high-profile members of the party and is given a substantial role when the party is elected to government.

80. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191631 by AllanW on June 11, 2008 at 10:34 am

Comment #191627 by hungarianelephant on June 11, 2008 at 10:30 am

'Thanks AllanW. I thought that story was in TGD and was about a scientist, who at the end of it decides to reject the evidence instead of the bible. I don't quite remember though.'

You may be right, it could have been about Ken Miller; I guess I'll have to reread TGD to find it :)

81. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191616 by AllanW on June 11, 2008 at 10:16 am

Damn good job hungarianelephant! Bravo!

Reminds me of the anecdote about (I think) Paine (or was it Jefferson?) who cut the parts of his Bible out that he could not agree with and was left with confetti :)

It just goes to show that this guys drivel is, at root, nonsense and demonstrably so. I'd be interested to see or hear what Laurie Fisher's class reduced the article down to in the same way :)

82. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #191449 by AllanW on June 11, 2008 at 1:50 am

I too got the cut-n-paste one-size-fits-all response from this know-nothing YEC. Having read it all plus the posts here I conclude that he is the personal embodiment of 'the argument from personal incredulity' as well as being incredibly blinkered.

Take this test;

Read each section of his original article or subsequent postings and mark them with;

1. 'the argument from personal incredulity'. Hint; when he uses words like 'illogical' and 'impossible' he is being incredulous.

2. Hand wave and ignore specific points.

3. Blinkered and self-deluded. Look for signs like 'I've studied your side', ''Isms' where none exist' and just plain examples of ignoring scientific facts that have been demonstrated for decades.

Once done, see how much of his posts are not marked; for me it seems he makes no points whatsoever that are substantive or have not been refuted many times before. Leaving the question 'Why?. Why is this guy demonstrating his ignorance so widely? Why does he cling so desperately to his god-shaped comfort blanket? Why will nothing anyone else says make a dent in his armour of righteousness?

Answers on a postcard, please.

83. Louisiana's latest creationism bill moves to House floor

Comment #191166 by AllanW on June 10, 2008 at 10:07 am

Comment #191156 by Shmeezers on June 10, 2008 at 9:52 am
'But scientism should be honest enough to understand this. It is a faith system, like any other.'

Ah! The old 'Just because I have no evidence for my sky-daddy belief doesn't mean you can't take it seriously' complaint. You missed the (sniffle) off your post, by the way. And the complete ignorance of what the basis of the scientific method is.

Notice the sleazy corruption in using words like 'scientism' thus attempting to equate in the minds of the gullible a rigorous method for rational investigation and analysis with a belief system reliant on lack of evidence.

Notice also the nineteenth century mentality of automatically associating a person with the ideas; 'Darwinian evolution' as if to say that you can discredit the man then the ideas become unacceptable. An obvious relic of a religious mentality where the message is so much a function of the person that it becomes an unconscious projection upon all ideas.

Schmeezers, you slime, crawl back under your rock FFS.

84. Logical Proof of the Existence of a Divine Creator, Why Atheism is Not Logically Sound

Comment #190548 by AllanW on June 9, 2008 at 8:48 am

Oh man; so many words that can be reduced down to 'the argument from personal incredulity'.

85. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190469 by AllanW on June 9, 2008 at 6:57 am

Hehehehehee

Let me get this straight;

In Robertson's 'Parable of the Cheque drawn Knowingly without Sufficient Funds' the explanation is that it was a miracle?

Seriously?

Either Robertson believes that the funds appeared by supernatural agency or that the funds appeared by some naturalistic explanation. If the former (which would be consistent with his Creationism and other theistic beliefs) then he is at least consistent if deluded. If the latter then his representation to us of the event is a vile piece of self-serving and hypocritical dissembling.

I'm genuinely interested in hearing from him which option it is.

86. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190462 by AllanW on June 9, 2008 at 6:46 am

Comment #190460 by mark65 on June 9, 2008 at 6:37 am

'you will know when islam has integrated into western society when you see the first lesbian imam.'

I love this comment and think it should be used by all critics of religion as widely and often as possible.

Bravo!

87. Holiday in Hellmouth

Comment #190009 by AllanW on June 8, 2008 at 6:30 am

Comment #190008 by rod-the-farmer on June 8, 2008 at 6:22 am

'What's with all the comments about ClearThinker and bad cheques ? Did I miss a post somewhere ?'

Ask scottishgeologist, he has the detail. In fact I think he posted some of the detail on a thread on here a while back. Search his posts to find the detail.

88. Postmodernism Disrobed

Comment #189998 by AllanW on June 8, 2008 at 5:39 am

ape-woman; I agree with the section in 'The march of unreason' by Dick Taverne with regard to postmodernism, relativism and the corruption of language.

'Heidegger's obscurity was no exception. The American philosopher John Searle relates of Derrida;

Michel Foucault once characterized Derrida's prose style to me as 'obscurantisme terroriste'. The text is written so obscurely that you can't figure out exactly what the thesis is (hence obscurantisme) and then when one criticizes this, the author says, 'Vous m'avez mal compris. Vous etes idiote.' (Hence terroriste).

It is tempting to draw the conclusion that the writings of postmodernists are incomprehensible because they have nothing intelligible to say.'

89. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189986 by AllanW on June 8, 2008 at 4:19 am

Thanks PZ for clarifying why the article is as it is. But, man, if that is the writing of someone on our side I have a new appreciation for the task facing American agnostics and atheists.

90. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189982 by AllanW on June 8, 2008 at 4:02 am

epeeist was right; expect to see some of the more thoughtless comments on this thread used by the duplicitous liar Robertson in other fora.

By the way, Robertson, passed any dud cheques lately?

And just so that I don't get accused of dealing solely in ad homs (you as a proven liar and dissembler deserve nothing else from this site) I'll address the few substantive points you made in your rambling, breast-beating, sighing and oh so pained post.

Clearthinker; 'If the only atheist belief is that there as no gods and that there are no atheist beliefs/creed/philosophy " as I am continually told " then it is very different from homosexuality.'

I'll leave others to speak from their own perspective but are you seriously doubting that there is no atheist creed? Time and time again it has been demonstrated (repeatedly on this thread even) that people who have no belief in gods hold widely divergent views on other matters. Are you then really saying that all homosexuals think alike about all things? I think you are and thereby reveal your complete misunderstanding about the diversity of human experience. I'll let Steve Zara or Cartomancer eviscerate your plainly homophobic views that homosexuals think, act and speak with one voice.

Clearthinker; 'I totally agree. I have often tried to promote reason and find that it is often met with abuse, ridicule and bold unevidenced statements of faith.'

Oh hahahaha. This stands on it's own as an indictment of your nonsense. You admitted to being a Creationist lately which is the very essence of unreason.

Clearthinker; 'Actually good legal systems are based on law and justice. The British and American legal systems are based upon Christian principles of law and justice.'

You idiot. A more nonsensical statement is hard to find. 'Good' legal systems? As in ones you like? What about the legal systems of other countries, hmm? And the concepts of law and justice are Christian now are they? Despite the obvious fact that laws and justice have existed for millennia before Christ or his apologists. Get a grip.

Back to my main point; passed any dud cheques lately?

91. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189877 by AllanW on June 7, 2008 at 12:21 pm

'Who sells those little smoking jackets for the marmosets, though? Probably only available in the UK. *grumbles* '

Oh dear, Sharon. I'm sorry to disabuse you; the UK now operates within a vast global economy. Gone are the days when we could dictate things in this way. No, things have changed, I'm sorry to say. Of course, the BEST smoking jackets for marmosets come from Savile Row but it's entirely possible to get good copies made for a fraction of the price in Shanghai. The patent-infringers in Hong Kong knock out very acceptable jackets in good styles and the chinese can copy both of those for a fraction of the cost. I've heard that some Italian houses have been making jackets for some years now but seem to be concentrating on something they call 'fashion'; an innovation I'm sure will die a quick death. And the Americans have their own, idiosyncratic market whereby jackets have quelle horreur! sequins upon them!. The less said about them the better, I think.

And don't get me started on the market problems of waistcoats for squirrels ...

92. Storm erupts over 'virginity' divorce

Comment #189712 by AllanW on June 7, 2008 at 3:17 am

Comment #189709 by Appleby on June 7, 2008 at 3:04 am

'I'm quite done here.'

Promise?

93. A word for nonbelievers

Comment #189700 by AllanW on June 7, 2008 at 2:40 am

Tumara Baap;
'This is a real problem ... I don't understand why atheists are so splintered.'

I'll take that one as it touched upon the normal dreck that clearthinker/David Robertson keeps dredging up.

Atheism or agnosticism is a position about one aspect of our lives and no other. We are united in our lack of belief. Yet apart from that and depending upon how much that lack of belief dominates your life compared to work issues, family issues, health, politics, local government and neighbour issues, atheists and agnostics exemplify the full spectrum of positions and beliefs on these other issues.

To be clear, there are fascist through to Marxist atheists, healthy through to unhealthy atheists, socially adjusted through to non-socially adjusted atheists, working through to non-working atheists etc

While we take the same position as regards belief in gods that does not mean we think alike on all the other issues. There may be some tendency to be socially tolerant of minorities but I can think of many counter examples, there may be a tendency to be left-leaning politically but I can think of many counter-examples etc

It's why atheism is NOT a belief system; we exhibit a vast range of beliefs and positions apart from religious within the set of atheists or agnostics.

As for Robertson, passed any dud cheques lately?

94. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189413 by AllanW on June 6, 2008 at 8:24 am

'Further aside: are there any Bristols / New Bristols in the US? '

Yes to both; Pamela Anderson.

I'll get me coat ...

95. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #189360 by AllanW on June 6, 2008 at 6:00 am

qster;

Thanks for the elegant writing. Shame it's in such a venal and unworthy cause.

The essence of your view is here;

qster; 'Much of the argument here are conducted from a this limited perspective, try looking at the world from a different perspective, perhaps not as a discrete human - i cant give an example because its really for the individual to understand when he is ready. '

Subjective, untestable, individual, anecdotal, unverifiable. That about sums it up. It's part of the 'unknowable supernatural world'. Yeh, right.

Nobody has a problem with a 'personal god'. It's untestable. As long as it stays there nobody else on the planet gives a fuck. But when you extend that concept one inch towards 'So you must accept it as well' or 'But he does affect other things now' (grants prayer/wishes, affects any aspect of the cosmos) you take your idea into the real world where it can be tested and verified.

Why don't you accept this view?

96. Blogger spreads the gospel of science

Comment #189321 by AllanW on June 6, 2008 at 2:58 am

Am I alone in thinking this article in both style and substance is poorly written? I'm sure Tom Paulson has had some journalistic training and has acquired some experience or he wouldn't be published in the newspaper but from the start this article reads like the English homework assignment of an average eleven-year-old schoolboy.

Is the title meant to be ironic? If not, then Mr Paulson starts his piece off with the old canard that 'Atheism is as much a belief as religion'. Certainly some of the comments attached to the original article reflect this tunnel vision and complete misunderstanding so others have made the same connection. Is this evidence of Mr Paulson's personal sympathies or just sloppy journalism? If the title was meant to be ironic then the author seriously misjudges the breadth and scale of his readership as the effect is predicated upon the reader knowing what his normal authorship voice is.

In his attempt to reach the publishing nirvana of 'balanced reporting' Mr Paulson performs heroic contortions. This makes for a most stuttering and disjointed flow to the article, as he has to stop his narrative three or four times in as many paragraphs to insert the balancing blocks. This is a shame (although all too commonplace) as with just a little thought I'm sure he could have produced a piece that flowed more naturally and still covered his ass with the legal department.

I ask you, how stilted, manufactured and contrived is the section beginning with 'Speaking to a large crowd' and ending with the quote from West? After one sentence Paulson feels compelled to insert a lengthy chunk explaining (in a balanced, non-litigious way of course) what the Discovery institute is. Returning to a quote from Professor Myers the piece breaks off yet again after one sentence ("As a result") to not only insert an instant rebuttal from John West but a further two paragraphs containing not only a bald assertion but a detailed sales aid for the latest research snatched straight from a Discovery Institute press release.

I'm sorry Mr Paulson but your prejudice is showing here; in aiming for a balanced piece you misjudged and it reads as if the Discovery Institute wrote it for you. Come on Mr Paulson if you can't have some respect for your trade skills you'll never be promoted to write in the minors. If you continue to demonstrate this standard of disdain for your readers you'll never have any.

97. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189053 by AllanW on June 5, 2008 at 9:40 am

Comment #189051 by hungarianelephant on June 5, 2008 at 9:34 am

'Still, we wouldn't take the government, voted for by only around a quarter of British adults, as "unrepresentative".'

Well you might not but I sure do. And the comparison is not entirely fair IMO; it's impossible for 65m people to be completely represented in the composition of any government structure (I'd still argue that the methods we currently employ guarantee that it is not but don't get me onto Proportional Representation :)).

It's far more possible to adequately represent the more homogeneous, faith-based (they read the same book right?) views where they differ from the rest of society. And don't forget that the pressure group or lobby only needs to represent the differences from the currently accepted norms rather than the whole of the viewpoint; governments need to reflect all the views across all issues.

98. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189049 by AllanW on June 5, 2008 at 9:30 am

Thanks Fanusi, I'll read the links (but it won't be today :)).

99. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189047 by AllanW on June 5, 2008 at 9:28 am

Yes hungarianelephant.

The Wiki entry is a decent start-point, particularly the section at the bottom with criticisms.

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

This site can be useful;

http://mcbwatch.blogspot.com/

And this is one of a number of alternatives to the MCB that may develop into something the government can point to that confronts the MCB;

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

In addition, some of the actions and statements of the MCB's prominent members including the articles regularly written by the risible Vice Chair of the media committee Inayat Bunglawala do them no favours. Just look up his past articles on the Guardian website and the deluge of comments they attract :)

100. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #189035 by AllanW on June 5, 2008 at 9:00 am

Al, it's a plausible scenario and one that I'd have put a lot more weight behind even as short a time as a few months ago but my reading of the UK scene (I don't read Le Monde frequently enough to comment on french society) is that a tide of opinion has turned. The government has finally woken up to the undoubted fact that the MCB is very unrepresentative of Muslim opinion in this country and as a result they have begun to examine grass-roots conditions in Muslim areas of the country with particular emphasis upon illegal activities like female circumcision, under-age and arranged marriages and honour killings.

This move combined with such high profile incidents as the Channel 4 documentary saga (where the West Midlands police and Crown Prosecution Service made a monstrous mistake) and the latest reports of two Christian Evangelicals being told by the local police to leave the Alum Rock Rd area of Birmingham or risk being injured by the residents or arrested for hate crimes (I'm serious!) has begun to create a move whereby local and central authorities are beginning to develop links with moderate Muslim bodies. This can only be good.

I fully accept that things could go the other way in short order but I'm slightly more optimistic now than I've been for many years that integration into mainstream society and acceptance of the rule of law will be the eventual winner.