Comments by SilentMike

Comment #100028 by SilentMike on December 18, 2007 at 5:20 am

I have no Christmas in my past (Cultural jew you see) so there's no Chrismas trees and mangers for me.

As for my jewish traditions I pick and choose. I do some of the nice fun stuff and avoid the parts that are uncomfortable (You want catch me fasting on the day of atonement I assure you). But lately I've been changing my ways on another facet of tradition. I've become very aware of these little "dishonesties" of praising God in ceremony and song. Havn't stopped all together (some of these are quite criptic in their outdated hebrew anyway) but I have been trying to tone them down, and gradually phase them out of my personal traditions. I've also beenb trying to make small meaningless changes in my meaningless traditions, just to make them different from those of the orthodox jews that have to do it "just right" and according to Halacha. I'm not saying that the other way (singing the carols as they are etc.) is wrong, just saying what my way is. To keep the magic feeling while gradually getting rid of the magic dust.

I won't join in with the rest in attacking this article. There are some weak points in it (OK OK it's rather mediocre writing. But lets not obsess on that), but I think the writer found a good point with the question of coltural hertige versus disbelief in the colture's religion and drove it home, jabbing Professor Dawkins a little bit in the process. I think we should be able to take this kind of half critisism in stride (And Dawkins certainly can). It's no big deal. It's not really insulting.

152. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #99737 by SilentMike on December 17, 2007 at 1:09 pm

I had no idea that "the war on christmas" was going international...

Who care about your silly tree and your silly decorations? Not me I assure you; as long as they're in your living room, leaving your floor -as opposed to, for example, my floor in my house- a mess when the holiday's over, that is.

Now where are my colored candles?

153. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98834 by SilentMike on December 14, 2007 at 2:37 pm

I also think that Muhammad was a BLEEEEEEEEEEEEP.

(Censorship. What's next? A digitally added Hijab? For goodness sake!)

154. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #98668 by SilentMike on December 14, 2007 at 2:30 am

Three years? Three EFing years? Hell, why not just let him serve his sentence doing community service at a science class (there's a community service that'll never end).

The guy destroyed a life. He needs more than a short holiday. I am willing to accept a plee of insanity though. In this case we can trash the jail sentence and treat his creationism using the tools of modern psychiatry. With heavy medication and some electro-shock therapy I believe he can be cured of his debilitating dangerous delusion.

155. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #98152 by SilentMike on December 13, 2007 at 6:35 am

41. Comment #98145 by Dr Benway

The same problem exists for the bible, which also contains a set of laws and punshment for breaking them that would be considered unacceptable in any modern society. The idea is that people need to ignore what the book says. Moderates do ignore their holy books while pretending they're not ignoring them. In this way practically all christians are moderate (even the gay bashers usually ignore the parts about slavery, so they have their limits too). Moderates are still a problem because they're living a lie and may slip back into barbarism.

I think it is clear though that most muslims still have a rather long way to go in reforming their religion to catch up to liberal christians (corrected from: "muslims". Oops. S.M.) and jews.

156. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #98127 by SilentMike on December 13, 2007 at 5:57 am

35. Comment #97843 by kraut

Your run off the mill neocon, nothing to get exited about.

I have to say that I don't like the way the word "neocon" is used around here in order to dismiss people. The guy can be wrong on some things (like banning the Koran), and right on others (like identifying Islam as a serious threat). Nobody's suggesting we campaign for the guy (Most of us don't live in the Netherlands anyway). But he may be worth a listen anyway.

157. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #97738 by SilentMike on December 12, 2007 at 3:06 pm

24. Comment #97676 by briancoughlanworldcitizen

Thank you. We aim to please.

I think most of us here know what basically has to be done. It's getting the attention and having the most impact without hurting ourselves (In case of some muslims, in a very real sense) that is the problem. Forums and youtube are all a lot of fun, but how do we get the media working for us and giving us more exposure?

158. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #97667 by SilentMike on December 12, 2007 at 1:52 pm

14. Comment #97625 by Fanusi Khiyal

Banning the Koran is of course a nonesensical idea.

Not necessarily, and certainly not 'of course'. Wilders makes the point that books like 'Mein Kampf' are banned Holland, except as reference books, so why not the Koran?

In Germany and Austria there are harsh laws for advocating Nazism or Fascism - why not the same thing for advocating Shariah?

I wouldn't ban 'Mein Kampf'. Speaking as a person who is 100% doomed for annihilation from the Nazi point of view, I just don't see the point. I do see the point of not allowing private racist organization to make money off it, but not of supressing it completely. I want people to be exposed to the past. Though I see why in Germany and its neighboring countries they may want to limit that book's distrebution.

As for Shariah, it isn't the Koran that's your problem. There are many books (worthless pieces of shit) being published now promoting Shariah law. If you have to ban something ban that krap, not a classical book that's a part of human history (plus one would have to wonder why you're not banning the bible). Banning the Koran is going too far. Even leaving the freedom of speach matter out of this (and it's hard to dismiss because banning books is a major step on the way to facism), this is a declaration of war on all muslims. We need to target the crackpots and give the others an out. When they're liberalized then we'll hit them with "your religion's a piece of krap" again and again till they give.

159. Controversial Anti-Muslim Dutch Film Adds to Already Simmering Tensions

Comment #97605 by SilentMike on December 12, 2007 at 12:17 pm

2. Comment #97565 by alexmzk

i don't really know what he's hoping to achieve with this. at most we'll get all the Sudan-style nutters venting their rage and attacking embassies (again) and the "moderate" Muslims in the Netherlands (probably everywhere else too) will just be very offended indeed.

Banning the Koran is of course a nonesensical idea. But pressing the muslims isn't. Perhaps the "moderate" muslims require some offending. Maybe that's the kind of pressure that will make them reform and become truely moderate instead of just "moderate". Maybe that's what will get them to fight back against the fanatics.

When you can't convince people to do the right thing, you might want to try and shame them into it.

160. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97153 by SilentMike on December 11, 2007 at 2:08 pm

So the worst thing that christians can think of to say about atheists critical of religion is that they're like christians?

Yes, this is false. But aside from that you have to apreciate the irony.

161. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96899 by SilentMike on December 11, 2007 at 4:14 am

What a narrow minded piece of drivel. Just because the pope is obsessed with apologies we have to be as well? We have a better system for diowning evil people: We refuse to be like them. The catholic church under the leadership of the current pope, on the other hand, continues following the old catholic tradition of meddling where they don't belong and causing suffering all over the world. The catholic church is an institution that is, and has been for millennia in the business of spreading unhappiness and guilt, and therefore is resposible for it's own actions. Atheism is the simply opinion that there is no God, and atheist cannot be expected to take responsibility for the actions of others.

That being said, I am of course willing to disown the ideologies of fasism and Communism and the acts perpetrated by the people who believed in/led those belief systems. Not as an atheist but as a human being. I deffinately deplore the evil done as a result of human ignorance and irrationality, be they the result of any idiology, religious or otherwise.

162. Biologist fired for beliefs, suit says

Comment #95936 by SilentMike on December 9, 2007 at 1:52 pm

I'd like to show my support for Nathaniel Abraham's brave position.

As a cumputer scientist in the making I truely hope that the fact that I do not believe in computability and computational complexity won't get in the way of my academic career. My best friend is a physicist that doesn't believe in relativity, and his wife is a chemist that doesn't believe in chemical elements. I haven't discussed this with them but I'm sure they would support Nathaniel Abraham's stance as well.

163. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95242 by SilentMike on December 7, 2007 at 5:01 pm

54. Comment #95237 by DavidJGrossman

How does a lunatic of that level get this far in a presidential campaign? There should be rules to weed out nutjobs like this before they ever get to run.

It's not just one lunatic. They're all like that in his party. And if they're not like that then they're pretending to be because they're campaign advisors tell them that this is the way to get votes.

And the other party, don't get me started... Is there not a single candidate that will stand for atheist and their rights as american citizens and human beings? No. Hillary Clinton is too busy professing her faith, Obama and Edewards are suspiciously silent.

Yuck!

164. Secret Swami - About Sai Baba

Comment #95235 by SilentMike on December 7, 2007 at 4:35 pm

We keep shooting them down, and new ones just keep popping up. This cycle will never end.

This is enough to make one feel very tired.

165. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #95216 by SilentMike on December 7, 2007 at 3:35 pm

The good bits about the speech:

1) He said that no religious authority will come before his duty a president.

2) He's speech was supportive of showing tolerance towards other religions.

The bad bits:

Everything else. The man is a religious conservative, no way around it. I don't think his presidency will destroy the US constitution, but it won't help. He's tolerance seems mostly limited to other religious people. His understanding is that God, in the non-denominational sense, should maintain a presence in the public sphere.

In short. I was not surprised, pleasently or otherwise. I would not want him in office, but it's no worse than I expected.

166. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #94792 by SilentMike on December 6, 2007 at 3:01 pm

50. Comment #94754 by MelM

Makes me wonder about what she thinks of the "Earth going around the Sun" idea.

Well that's simple. If the earth moves, why don't we feel it? If it did we would, Ergo it doesn't. QED.

I think that's pretty much her view on that (Except she'd probably use less latin).

167. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94787 by SilentMike on December 6, 2007 at 2:32 pm

61. Comment #94667 by MarcCountry

The idea, that so many here have pointed to, that D'Souza would take something like a "Bad Faith" award as a badge of honour is PROOF that he is the most deserving of a bad faith award. His bad faith is irreducible.

You miss the idea. This "award" is supposed to have a good effect for us. A worm like D'Souza will turn gettting this to his favor (both finantially because he'll sell more books, and in the public sphere). Giving it to a serious religios authority may not hurt them much, but at least it's an attack that will effect some people if it ever makes any media outlet. D'Souza will take this attack and, in a brilliant Judo move, flip it and make it work in his favor.

This voting for D'Souza is empty venting. It's no good. What's required in D'Souza's case is that he be ignored. He's a nobody. Ratzinger and the bishops, on the other hand, are not going anywhere.

168. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #94654 by SilentMike on December 6, 2007 at 7:04 am

25. Comment #94620 by Bueller_007

Cospiracy theorists aren't (necessarily) stupid. They're just plain crazy. Or, if you want, you could use less offensive terms and call them irrational/uninformed.

169. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94595 by SilentMike on December 6, 2007 at 3:12 am

The vote for D'Souza is a mistake. This is the result of anger and will do no good. He'll just wear it as a badge of honor. There's no point slinging mud at someone who willingly swims in feces. You need to aim high, not low.

170. Bad Faith Awards: Vote for the winner now

Comment #94551 by SilentMike on December 6, 2007 at 1:25 am

Joe Ratzinger (AKA the pope) is my man. You have to choose a "respectable" religious figure for something like this, and drag their name through the mud (it would be advisable to try and get the choice to the public media, get that name good and dirty). No point in choosing someone like D`Souza, who has no good name. The little worm would enjoy it. Of the important religious figures around Ratzinger is clearly the most vile and heads the most sinister organization.

And yeah, where are the muslims?

171. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #94545 by SilentMike on December 6, 2007 at 1:10 am

5. Comment #94537 by AllanW

I knew that stupidity was common. I just didn't know that it could be that, well, stupid.

Seriously. I've met some pretty dim lights in my lifetime and I've heard that americans are ignorant. But not to know what your own religion teaches on the "there were always christians" level... That's above and beyond the call of stupid. If there are a lot of people who are stupid at that level we're in serious trouble.

172. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #94535 by SilentMike on December 6, 2007 at 12:17 am

Wow!

Well cleary her purpose on this show is to make the other 3 hosts look really smart.

This is beyond ignorance. If you don't even know the most basic facts about the history of your own religion and culture you're stupid. This lady's an actress and I can't see how she manages to remember her lines. Oh wait:

http://richarddawkins.net/article,1949,Chimps-beat-humans-in-memory-test,BBC

I wonder just how many people are actually that dense.

173. Bah, Hanukkah

Comment #94201 by SilentMike on December 5, 2007 at 2:33 am

Just once in over 2000 years we manage to win something and that bastard has to ruin it. Damn you Hitchens!

But seriously, I wouldn't oversell the humanitarianism and secularism of the hellenists. Part of the colture they brought was their pagan religion (which was every bit as stupid as ancient judaism) and they helped the jewish rebellion gain momentum by commiting the odd massacre from time to time (They made us learn that crap in History).

Funny thing is the Hasmoneans that ruled Judea after the rebellion actually did come to accept many greek infuences (Though they kept Judaism as the formal religion).

And besides the food is really good, so no way I'm giving this holiday up.

174. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93552 by SilentMike on December 3, 2007 at 1:09 pm

69. Comment #93549 by faouloki

Yes. That is exactly the point. All the "new atheists" (can't bring myself to type this without the quotation marks) are saying is that we have a right to voice are opinion and not be told or made to shut up (as atheists have in the past). The response for this, coming from fellow atheists and secularists, is really just "Shut up!" using a lot of big words , often with an insult or two attached to it. No, we most certainly will not shut up. If wishy washy pseudo-secularists and pseudo-religios people can peddle their meaningless drivel, and religios fundamentalists can make their ludicrous assertions about how they think the world is and/or should be, then we get to have a say too.

175. Atheism's Wrong Turn

Comment #93542 by SilentMike on December 3, 2007 at 12:32 pm

I don't have the energy to even attempt to compete with some of the well thought out and well formulated long responses on this thread. I'll just say this:

The writer makes a serious accusation. He compares the "new atheists" to some of the least pleasant people in history, calling them illiberal and much worse. He abysmally fails in demonstrating that this is so (unless there is actually something wrong, from a liberal standpoint, with wishing that Christianity would die out, or with considering the possibility of passing some laws restricting the ability of religious nutters to do us all in). In fact pretty much all that the "new atheists" say and do puts them squarly in the enlightenment camp mentioned in the article, as all they do -and this is what won them the snazy title from the press- is critisize the things about religion that they think are dangerous, and honestly state their opinion on the question of god's existence, and the reasons why they think it's true. Their carefulness about calling for the use of the most severe coercive measures even in those instances where they see religion as damaging children is a testament to their liberal tendencies. Because he fails in making his case his accusation can be seen as no more than a slur, and I think he owes the four writers which he slandered an apology.

176. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #93414 by SilentMike on December 3, 2007 at 5:43 am

D'Souza is full of Sh*t this is known.

Dennett on the other hand, is calm, rational, exact and as usual unbelievably intelligent. This is quite amazing. In his calm way, Dennett demolishes D'Souza in the way Hitchens failed to do. The UHs and UHMs don't come into it, Dennett is simply much too smart to be fooled by D'Souza (and he is much much smarter then D'Souza) and on every point of D'Souza he picks he politely (well mostly politely) rips him apart.

177. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92447 by SilentMike on November 30, 2007 at 2:15 pm

The vatican's way too big to be a bug, much less a flee. It is some kind of blood sucker though.

178. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #92413 by SilentMike on November 30, 2007 at 1:00 pm

The vatican as an establishment is probably responsible for more evil or suffering throughout history than any other institution. The inquisition, the crusades, persecutions, fighting againstscientific inquiry, Fighting against the proliferation of contraceptives. That's a very big glass house fore a stone thrower to live in.

179. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91955 by SilentMike on November 29, 2007 at 3:59 pm

69. Comment #91948 by Beth

What seems truly immoral is to pretend that atheists are somehow supposed to meet religious standards of morality.

To paraphrase on an overused quote: A proposition isn't necessarily false or deplorable just because it is held by a theist.

I don't hold to the "sin" nonesense and I believe you'll find it difficult to find people who do in here. I don't have a problem with open marriages, threesomes, foursomes or free for all sex if that's how people want to live (and I'll be accepting PMs about that last one from attractive young girls about to visit Israel on vacation BTW).

What I'm saying, and I believe I'm not alone in this, is that it is still wrong to sleep around once one has chosen to commit oneself to an exclusive relationship. That's all. And I will maintain that this is wrong, even if this puts me on the same side of the line with some theists.

180. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91941 by SilentMike on November 29, 2007 at 3:29 pm

57. Comment #91929 by Nietzschesbulldog

Well things do change of course. But why cheat and lie and play the field while still married? Be a man (or woman) and tell the other person that the love is gone and you should try and end it nicely. If you want to know what harmful this kind of "free" behaviour can be, just look one reply below yours.

Of course, if two (or more) people want to rise above jealousy and have a more open kind of relationship, more power to them. But to commit to a person and then just welch on it, wounding the other side deeply... That's cold.

60. Comment #91935 by Russell Blackford

Jealousy aside Russell, Don't you think that once someone makes a promise they should try and keep it, especially knowing the wounding effect it would have on the other side? I mean lets be honest. That's how the world works. If you're a human heterosexual who doesn't want to live alone chances are You're going to end up with a mate that expects you to be "faithful". Is it then OK for you (or me, or anyone) to sneak around (and you have to be sneaky or she'll be hurt) because "that's a silly idea to begin with"? If You make a deal, you ought to stick to it.

181. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91932 by SilentMike on November 29, 2007 at 3:12 pm

13. Comment #91863 by dgr8test97

I agree. I think that Professor Dawkins went a step too far. I'm not married to the idea of monogamy. I have no problem with alternative lifestyles (open marriages etc.), but if you make a promise you need to stick to it. I actually think "cheating" is spot on. It's neither too mild nor too severe. These people made a promise, signed a contract of sorts, and now they're trying to cheat. I have long objected to the word used in my own country -which is the hebrew word for betrayal- because I believe it is too harsh. But "cheating" right on the money.

This of course does not justify the "sin" nonesense. There is nothing wrong in such a consetual sexual act, except the fact that it's a lie and a breach of one's word. Personally I think that, evolution or no evolution, a man should make an effort to be in control of his penis (and similarly a woman should take resposibilty for her own sexual conduct).

182. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91703 by SilentMike on November 29, 2007 at 2:26 am

These debates are rubbish. You put some ignorant mouthpiece like D'Souza up on the podium and he sucks the fun right out of it. I've heard enogh from that clown. Give me a lecture with a powerpoint presentation any day.

183. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91690 by SilentMike on November 29, 2007 at 1:36 am

Why talk to this swamp creature? Why boost the sales of his ridiculous book? We're making him people. If the "new atheists" didn't debate that thing no one would care about him.

184. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91456 by SilentMike on November 28, 2007 at 11:05 am

What embarrasses me to no end is the fact that the book has been translated into Turkish before it's translated into hebrew and destributed in Israel. Bloody Turkish! Man that hurts.

Plus we have an "offending religious feelings" law I'd really like to see put to the test.

[shakes his head and mumbles] "bloody god damn turkish"

185. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91162 by SilentMike on November 27, 2007 at 12:52 pm

Also SilentMike I think movies do matter, especially when they are token cases of the freedom of speech.

Absolutely. This is a freedom of speach matter. I was mocking the catholics that get their panties in a bunch because of a movie. And to add to the absurdity they claim that the worst thing about this moive is that the problematic parts have been watered down to the point that the movie isn't even offensive at all, but that all just part of the atheist plot to make parents buy the books for their children as Christmas presents (And oh, by the way, we've compiled a 22 page booklet on the matter which we're selling for 5$). There's no winning with these people.

186. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91159 by SilentMike on November 27, 2007 at 12:38 pm

Have you seen Bill Donohue's video about TGC on the catholic league website? Check it out:

What an idiot: "Don't see the movie because it's not at all offensive"

187. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91136 by SilentMike on November 27, 2007 at 11:43 am

One phrase comes to mine when reading this article (and the previous articles about this movie):

"Get a life"

Seriously, it's just a movie, get a life.

188. Sunday School for Atheists

Comment #90663 by SilentMike on November 26, 2007 at 4:05 am

I personally think anything that stops the US from spiralling towards the dark ages is good.

If non-believers need places where their children can meet others like them then it's good that those places are there.

And "Bishop". Yeah that is indeed funny. Just another one of life's little larks.

189. Study: Babies can tell helpful, hurtful playmates

Comment #90104 by SilentMike on November 23, 2007 at 1:15 am

Hate to be the party pooper but how sure are that this was properly controlled? It could be one of those social science "experiments" where the over eager researcher sort of gives the answer away non-verbally. Maybe the babies felt that they were expected to choose a certain shape.

190. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89601 by SilentMike on November 21, 2007 at 8:11 am

228. Comment #89579 by Ian

Ian you have every right to rebuke these people who don't want to give. You have the right of free speech and you can try and guilt them into giving money. But I have a right to criticise you for doing it because I don't approve of your strategy (and so on to infinity).

I don't approve of this guilt strategy. I'm also lazy so I'll just quote myself on this:

I don't like this strategy of pressuring and guilting people into giving.

I sent my contribution but I'm not going to sit on my high hourse and judge people for choosing not to do so. It's their business. This strategy of guilting and silencing people isn't how we should do things. This is one of the things I dislike the most about organised religion: The manipulative overuse of guilt to get people to do what you want.

191. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89593 by SilentMike on November 21, 2007 at 7:32 am

Why don't you ask the admin for a reprieve?

192. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89589 by SilentMike on November 21, 2007 at 7:21 am

40. Comment #89580 by GSP

That being said I am also forced to reckon with the fact that Ali has played a major role in creating the mess in the Middle East.

What?!? What major role? What the hell is wrong with you? We in the middle east are perfectly capable of slaughtering each other without Hirsi Ali's help.

This hatred of Hirsi Ali is completely insane. Even if the neocons have caused this mess (and it is unfair to ignore the fact that the lion share of the blame should go to muslims) it is hardly due to Hirsi Ali. All Hirsi Ali did was tell the truth about the way women are treated in the islamic world, and if that helped the neocon cause at the time then that's too bad but it's still the truth, and it should have beed exposed.

Yeah I know I said we should stop talking about this, but I couldn't help it. Besides, it's OK to talk about Hirsi Ali. I just hope this topic doesn't become too common.

193. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89561 by SilentMike on November 21, 2007 at 5:30 am

I have a modest suggestion. We've had a conversation/debate. Everybody got a say, and everybody made their decision. Lets stop talking about this. Surely there are other matters besides miss Hirsi-Ali. No one should "shut up" but it may be time to consider donating what we can (or not) moving on.

And again, thank you Sam Harris.

194. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89510 by SilentMike on November 21, 2007 at 1:30 am

204. Comment #89491 by Veronique

Veronique. I don't know you because I'm relatively new here (and because I don't like people) but I generally don't think it's healthy to back out because of some wierdoes (wirdoes like me or of any other kind). This site is a great resource and there are many fasinating and intelligent people here. I remember when I started considering posting here (I was a silent reader for a very long time before I began posting) one of the things going through my mind was "It's going to difficult for me to shine in here", and it is. It's bloody near impossible to make a positive impression. This place is full of very bright critical thinkers that are used to being the smartest guy (or gal) in the room. This is why I personally find writing here is both frustrating and invigorating. You shouldn't let some rude people you out of the room, because if you leave this playe you'll leave the next one too. Every productive organism gets its parasites.

Again, I don't really know you but I'm interested maximizing the number of non-crazy people here. So if you do stop posting, I implore you to stay around for the articles. Maybe they will compel you to post again.

195. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89487 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Thank you Sam Harris for this explanation, which proves once again that there is a difference between rationalists and the religious. We asked for answers and we go them.

PeterK:

I just spent the last thread protecting people with dissenting views, I'm not going to tell you to shut up or to exclaim "Shame on you". Just as well as I don't think you have any shame or indeed that you will shut up. I will however tell you that your words in here and in the previous thread are mean and your claims seem unfounded.

17. Comment #89485 by Fanusi Khiyal

Again with this? If the guy says he can't afford it he can't afford it. Please don't try and shame him into paying. I don't want my proud money to sit with shamed money. I'm funny that way.

196. Are Scientists Playing God? It Depends on Your Religion

Comment #89401 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 2:45 pm

Oh how the wheel of history turns.

Look like now it's the white guy's turn to be the primitive. Thank you president Dumdum.

197. The Scientists Speak

Comment #89394 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 2:04 pm

This is one of those cases where one needs to consider all available evidence -about the changing climate and about human nature- and reach a logical conclusion about how one must handle this very serious crisis.

I'm going to see about buying some land in Greenland. That baby's going to be big on the realestate market in a few years.

198. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89327 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 10:06 am

Being quoted in this way is very flattering to me because it means my transition into the english speaking (or rather: english typing) internet was successful.

Just to streangthen my point. Some of the people who did not pay may be disgusting, but it's not because they don't pay, but rather because they went a too far with their personal attacks on Hirsi Ali. It's fine to disagree in a civil fashion, and I'm more than willing to listen to other views. The way I see it you have to actually say or do something sickening or disgusting to deserve those adjectives. Choosing not to give money simpley does not qualify. It isn't even a moral wrong in my view. This is a matter of personal conscience.

199. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89285 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 7:27 am

I don't think the US has less fundamentalist muslims then The Netherlands does.

You would be mistaken. At least if we're talking percentages of the total population. There are a lot more muslims in western europe then in the US.

Also, she is better known in Holland. She was a member of parliment there and has gathered many enemies. There are muslim crackpots in the US too of course, but they don't feel as free to operate as they do in europe, and they havn't launched the same inflametory campain against her and apostates like her. What she truely has to fear in the US is people who have heard of her from people in the Netherlands.

(If I'm wrong I invite you to correct me, but this is the situation as I understood it)

200. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89274 by SilentMike on November 20, 2007 at 6:35 am

167. Comment #89272 by Nighttripper

Oh please. The threat to Hirsi Ali's life came due to her activities in the Netherlands as a Dutch citizen and member of parliment. So now after she moved to the US for her own safty it's not their responsibility anymore? Bollocks!

And before I here the inevitable "well if she's safe what's the money for": "Safer" does not mean safe.

That aside it may be in order for the US goernment to pick up the tab after admonishing the Dutch government for their negligence in doing the right thing and protecting a persicuted Dutch citizen.

It is, however, not going to happen as far as I can tell.