101. How multiculturalism is betraying women

Comment #36840 by stereoroid on May 2, 2007 at 1:35 pm

poseidon: "I think the judge was taking the piss, you know? you've made your bed now lie in it, kind of thing."

If so, it just shows the judge was clueless - and a FEMALE judge, who (you might imagine) should have an awareness of the rights of woman. The Muslim woman did not "make her bed" - she was born in to a culture that treats women as second-class citizens at all levels, starting with education. And this is what she gets for moving to a supposedly enlightened Western society?

102. The God Delusion

Comment #36468 by stereoroid on May 1, 2007 at 8:46 am

I've read bits of Rand, can't say I've bought much of it, but I do find some of the "Randroid" accusations here a bit OTT. Was Rand even mentioned in the review?

Shuggy says:
' "Philosophy" is Objectivist code for "Objectivism". '
Where do you get that from? Assuming that the author is a Randroid who sees Objectivism as the only possible Philosophy, refusing to acknowledge any others?

' "Collectivism" is Objectivist code for "making any concession to the existence of other people." '
Cobblers. The word you're thinking of is "Solipsism". What I have heard Objectivists incl. Rand moan about is the way responsibilities are FORCED on others against their will. Nothing against voluntarily accepting an obligation by choice e.g. to family, or paying fair taxes.

' "Mystics" is Objectivist code for - anyone who disagrees with a word of Objectivism? '
I don't see any evidence of that. - just "tarring with the same brush".

I know there are Randroids out there, but do we know the author of this review is one?

Rand is long dead, and IMHO it's safe to "cherry-pick" the bits of her work that make sense to you, and toss out the overly dramatic bits. It helps to remember she was a Hollywood screenwriter, and books like "The Fountainhead" were written with the screen in mind, with turgid dialogue and overcooked theatrics...

103. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #33838 by stereoroid on April 22, 2007 at 4:55 am

We may have a 5th Musketeer on our hands: Matthew Parris, in today's Sunday Times: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris//article1685452.ece

The comments are the usual blend of positivity and inanity.

104. Flea Circus!

Comment #33133 by stereoroid on April 19, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Yes - the Norway church arson attacks were the work of the Neo-Heathen (or Neo-Pagan) groups there, who take their inspiration from Norse mythology and fascism.

When I searched for "church arson", guess where Google sent me? http://www.churcharson.com/ , where I found out more than I wanted to know. There's nothing rational or enlightened in there. The "solution" page is particularly vile, and is explicitly anti-Humanism too.

So: atheist attacks on churches in Norway? No, the arsonists were neo-Pagans who worship Odin. Atheist motivation behind the Virginia Tech attacks? Not according to the murderer himself. Any more straw men to clutch at today?

105. Flea Circus!

Comment #33119 by stereoroid on April 19, 2007 at 9:24 am

weefree wrote:
"Two days ago in Virginia. The student concerned yelled out his hatred of rich people and religion as he killed. Which is not to say that all atheists are responsible any more than you would simplistically blame religion when some religious nutters do bad things?!"

Are you REALLY trying to use Monday's events to advance your anti-atheist agenda? Shame on you, and Dinesh D'Souza, and Ken Ham, for spouting such self-serving hate-speech.

Some twits are even blaming "Science" in general: see the Scientific American website for some examples and a response. See also the responses by PZ Myers and Mike Dunford

D'Souza: http://newsbloggers.aol.com/2007/04/18/where-is-atheism-when-bad-things-happen/
Ham: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2007/04/16/how-could-loving-god
Scientific American: http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=the_idiocy_of_blaming_science_for_the_vi
Dunford: http://scienceblogs.com/authority/2007/04/stupidity_human_nature_and_ord.php

I had to wince at the idea of Dawkins being asked to speak at Virginia Tech. Why would he? He's not a religious leader, a person to look to in times of distress. This "cult of personality" is just what he find distasteful.

Dawkins' field is evolutionary biology, which looks at populations over long timescales, not at individuals and their actions at a point in time. Is he supposed to posit an evolutionary explanation for Cho's actions? Even if he could, how would that comfort those who lost friends and family?

Better to say nothing on a topic one is not an expert in (such as the motivation for mass murder), and assume a respectful silence, than display self-aggrandizement in the service of an agenda, as Robertson et al feel obliged to do.

106. Nisbet and Mooney in the WaPo: snake oil for the snake oil salesmen

Comment #31939 by stereoroid on April 15, 2007 at 1:54 am

I fail to see how RD could make his explanations of evolution any simpler without compromising the facts of the matter. If there really are people who are incapable of grasping evolution, bringing them up to speed is a matter for elementary science education, in my opinion.

You can teach any kid anything, but what the WaPo commentators seem to have missed is: if you don't know why you hold a position, it becomes just another irrational belief. They make it sound as if having people "believe" in evolution would be a victory, and all we have to do is explain it better. Sadly if such a "belief" is not founded on solid scientific principles - principles that reveal an open-ended universe of knowledge - such a victory would be hollow.

107. For God's Sake

Comment #31602 by stereoroid on April 13, 2007 at 12:53 pm

I know the print versions of NYT editorials require subscription, but if you listen to podcasts they're freely available. The RSS URL you put in to your "podcatcher" software (like Juice Receiver or the web-based podnova.com) is:
http://www.nytimes.com/services/xml/rss/nyt/podcasts/krugman.xml for Krugman's column.

Replace "krugman" with the names of other columnists for their podcast columns: friedman, dowd, brooks, kristof & rich are the others I listen to. (Hope I haven't given the game away..!)

108. Even non-believers must recognise the moral necessity of Christianity

Comment #30704 by stereoroid on April 9, 2007 at 12:10 pm

"In order to deny the existence of God, it is only necessary to accept one proposition. Believers have to try to understand what they believe. After two Christian millennia and many libraries of theology, that task seems harder than ever."
"Atheists can revel in unholy simplicity."

By Jove, I think he gets it. I prefer to call it an "unblessed silence", but that's close enough. Yes, theology is hard to understand, because theologists have found it necessary to construct a colossal Byzantine edifice around their faiths just to make them look recognisably human to the "man in the street".

Now the curtain is being pulled back, and no-one is working the controls. Which leads me to three important questions:
1) Yes?
2) And?
3) So?

109. Prophets of the new atheism

Comment #30435 by stereoroid on April 8, 2007 at 3:40 am

Whenever I see someone applying religious terminology to atheists - "prophets of the new atheism" in this case - I'm finding it really hard to read any further, and not turn the page. Every time it's as if they're the first person to think of that, and are saying "oh, look how clever I am".

110. Was there ever dog that praised his fleas?

Comment #24076 by stereoroid on March 4, 2007 at 4:26 pm

Well, the Robertson book is not on my reading list; I don't even need to look inside. The grammar mistake in the title is enough reason for a pedant such as me to ignore it. 8)

111. The Silence That Kills

Comment #23833 by stereoroid on March 3, 2007 at 5:06 am

Re comment #11: that's it, then? Friedman takes one position you don't agree with, and you dismiss him when he gets something right on a different topic? And no-one learns from their mistakes?

The US and UK people were sold a "pig in a poke" with regard to the Iraq "War" justification: the idea that the UN would approve of and regulate any action, and they would go in with sole the aim of finding WMDs. Neither of those principles were followed.

Friedman, with his White House contacts, did not focus so much on WMDs, but on "regime change" in the region. Read his full explanation, here.

What Friedman, (& Bush, Rumsfeld, Cheney & co.) did not understand was how much of a blowhard Saddam Hussein was, and just how far he would go to save face. His opposition to UN inspections for WMD was pure bravado; he cared more about his standing in the region, and less about the consequences of his arrogance for his country. UN inspectors, given full access, would have diminished his status; just by being there, and also by showing that Saddam had no WMDs.

It's only in retrospect that we look at Saddam as a "stabilising force". I also think the whole thing was bloody stupid, but I wasn't drinking the Kool-Aid either. This new article focuses on the people in the region - which Friedman et al should have done from day one.

112. Faith

Comment #23066 by stereoroid on February 26, 2007 at 5:02 am

' "conspicuous religious symbols" could not be worn in public places, such as schools...'

Since when is a school a public place? The students are in the care of the school, and have responsibilities and restrictions they don't have on the street or at home. Still, I think France did go a bit far, and has put unnecessary stress on kids who don't need it. The real issue in my opinion is what they are being taught, at home and at school, not some external symbols.

Prof. Dawkins should have known that nasty comment about that stewardess would be used against him at some point, it doesn't serve to make our position friendly and "normal". 8(

113. Ruth Kelly, her hard-line church and a devout PM wrestling with his conscience

Comment #19104 by stereoroid on January 25, 2007 at 1:39 am

Here's what someone on b3ta.com, the infamous image 'shopping forum, had to say about this debate..
http://www.b3ta.com/board/6775921

(safe for work, as are the comments. At time of posting, that is.)

114. If they preach the cause of the poor, they're my people

Comment #15886 by stereoroid on January 3, 2007 at 1:54 pm

The Lebanon comment is telling... I'm hardly keen on anyone getting bombed, but has this "loonie leftie" forgotten the missiles dropping on Israeli towns, and the abduction of Israeli soldiers, before Israel struck back? Surrounded on all sides, threatened with extinction by Iran, what the heck were they supposed to do?

115. William Crawley, BBC Belfast, names Richard Dawkins as Person of the Year 2006

Comment #15742 by stereoroid on January 2, 2007 at 12:05 pm

Any readers of the BBC NI article who see this are going to comment "these irony-deficient atheists just don't get it". Crawley seems to be grudgingly reporting the results of a poll he doesn't agree with. Some of the comments echo Iain Paisley's Calvinistic "Thou Shalt Not" attitude in parts - as if words uttered in lugubrious tones are more convincing than the same words spoken normally. Hardly complimentary.

116. Christmas Present to Defenders of Darwinism

Comment #13308 by stereoroid on December 16, 2006 at 11:43 pm

I'm not quite getting this. Those are, as far as I can tell, real quotes from Judge Jones' judgement document. They sound as correct here as they do in the document - putting the kibosh on "Intelligent Design". The graphics and funny voice don't detract from their validity. Confused and confusing.

117. In case you didn't know I'm a fool, here's an article to prove it.

Comment #13065 by stereoroid on December 15, 2006 at 8:36 am

If this "Doctor" had bothered to do his homework, he would know that Hitler was Catholic, and Friedrich Nietzsche's citation by the Nazis was fully attributable to the way his sister Elisabeth, a Nazi sympathizer, misrepresented his work to them after his death. Never mind that the Communist Party in Soviet Russia was a Religion in all but name.

The paper is not long for Ireland anyway, it appears: link.

118. The God Delusion in Private Eye

Comment #11729 by stereoroid on December 6, 2006 at 11:28 pm

I think #1 and #9 are jabs at the New Scientist book "Does Anything Eat Wasps?", a book where they try to answer weird science questions from readers. Questions like "Could you live on beer alone?" or "Why is snot green?"

A bit sad to see "Climbing Mount Execrable" isn't on the list either. Or "Litter to a Schizoid Nation". 8)