Comments by Quetzalcoatl

1951. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241251 by Quetzalcoatl on September 2, 2008 at 3:48 am

Diacanu-

I'm disappointed that you've succumbed to peer pressure and switched your avatar back. At least with my potential change (see my blog) I'm putting it to the vote and will abide by it!

Steve-

No, I'm afraid I don't quite understand your position. :)

1952. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241230 by Quetzalcoatl on September 2, 2008 at 2:48 am

Having read the Telegraph article, it seems that she was mainly talking about politicians who have constituencies with high Muslim populations.

1953. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241201 by Quetzalcoatl on September 2, 2008 at 1:52 am

Yep. Must be because poor Robertson is being unfairly victimised

Yeah, that must be it. How dare RD.net make it harder for him to quotemine? The nerve.

1954. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241196 by Quetzalcoatl on September 2, 2008 at 1:43 am

Has anyone else noticed that this thread shows up on the "Last 20" comments, but not the "Last 100" comments page? Weird.

1955. 'Rare' mammoth skull discovered

Comment #241192 by Quetzalcoatl on September 2, 2008 at 1:40 am

EarthChild-

Satan doesn't get enough credit for the work he puts in. If you think burying a mammoth is hard, imagine the trouble he has with tyrannosaurs.

1956. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #241186 by Quetzalcoatl on September 2, 2008 at 1:31 am

Helenlibra-

I demand you apologise for demeaning Winnie the Pooh by comparing him to Wooter! :)

PS- welcome to the "commenters club".

1957. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241183 by Quetzalcoatl on September 2, 2008 at 1:27 am

"Socially and economically marginalized society is always frustrated," Baloch told Dawn News television Monday.

And "frustrated" people often go and kill members of their own family, don't they?

1958. Pakistan investigates 'honor killings' of 5 women

Comment #241178 by Quetzalcoatl on September 2, 2008 at 1:24 am

Absolutely disgusting.

prompting a lawmaker from Baluchistan province to claim that "only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."

"These are centuries-old traditions and I will continue to defend them," Israr Ullah Zehri, who represents the province where the women died, told the chamber on Saturday.

What an absolute fucktard. This is the kind of guy who would happily butcher his own sister in the name of "honour".

1959. The atheist delusion

Comment #241172 by Quetzalcoatl on September 2, 2008 at 12:50 am

Brian English-

What's happened to Philosophical Neuron?

1960. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241018 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 2:45 pm

David A Robertson-

as he cites Phelps as in TGD as an example of whats wrong with religion.

He cites Phelps as an example of what is wrong with fundamentalist, absolutist religious attitudes to homosexuality. Nowhere does he say that Phelps represents believers in general.

Because we will all just know the one truth - there will be no need for debate. Am I allowed to mention the word fundamentalist in this context?

No, because it's still inappropriate.

But for people who anticipate the day when there will be no debate (after the children have all been brain washed into the atheist truth) I guess that does not matter too much.

That wasn't what was meant, and you know it. Why pretend otherwise?

1961. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240906 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 9:16 am

Donald-

I agree, but my point was that self-interest isn't the only factor.

1962. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240893 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 8:54 am

Going off on a tangent to what Sargeist and Donald said:

It may be true that ethics may have started out as "just the art of what you can get away with". But obviously it transcends that, given that we are often in situations where we could get away with doing something wrong but still choose not to.

1963. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240878 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 8:14 am

Sargeist-

I was being tongue-in-cheek (I know, it's a shock).

Consistency is important, but it can't be the most important thing for the simple reason that we aren't consistent a lot of the time (ie murder is wrong, EXCEPT for such and such a time).

1964. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240869 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 7:53 am

Steve Zara-

Consistency is not just a vague feeling, it is the basis of a fair society.

That sounds like a very absolutist statement there, Steve. :)

(FK impression)

1965. Nurses Told to Turn Muslims' Beds to Mecca

Comment #240868 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 7:51 am

Philip-

He's being silly- read his other comments.

1966. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240864 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 7:39 am

Sargeist-

But, going back to my "it's easy" musings - maybe it is all easy? Almost everyone prefers things to be one way rather than another, and so that makes it right. We have an in-built "conscience" through our evolved empathy, and this might be good enough.

Indeed. The role of evolution in shaping the way we think about things needs to be pushed more, I think. The fact that so many different cultures have come up with similar concepts of right and wrong is potent evidence for common evolutionary altruism.

1967. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240848 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 7:06 am

Sargeist-

But part of me really does think that our knee-jerk reactions could be a good basis for a system of ethics.

I've often thought that everybody thinks like this, believer or not. That's why some believers will interpret the Bible as saying homosexuality is abhorrent- it's as much their own personal distaste for it than anything else.

The danger is in assuming that our knee-jerk reactions are always the right ones.

1968. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240843 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 6:53 am

Sargeist-

It's stories like those that demonstrate the lunacy of absolutism for all to see. As I remember there were plenty of people who argued in favour of the child being carried to term: "rights of the child" trumping the mother's. I can't remember how the story turned out, though.

1969. Theocratic Sect Prays for Real Armageddon

Comment #240841 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 6:49 am

The charismatics may be getting people in their churches, but that's only because they do a good job of hiding the fact that they have nothing new to offer, and all the problems bedevilling the Anglicans are still there for the charismatics, just below the surface.

1970. Cosmic crash unmasks dark matter

Comment #240788 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 3:31 am

Decius-

How could they determine this?

Here is some more detail. By pinpointing the dark matter's location they were able to calculate the speed it must have been travelling at to reach that point, and therefore deduce that it had not been slowed down by the collision.

1971. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #240778 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 3:11 am

Tyler Durden-

It's a radio interview.

You really have to look hard.

1972. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240758 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 2:31 am

8teist-

With one or two honourable exceptions, they are all very much the same over there, to the extent of making the same errors and ad-hom accusations.

1973. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240749 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 2:19 am

Roger Stanyard-

No point is too cheap or too erroneous that he won't attempt to score it.

1974. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240724 by Quetzalcoatl on September 1, 2008 at 1:06 am

David A Robertson-

Don't you enjoy the fact that you can freely post on this site and be as sarcastic as you like without being blocked or moderated for being off-topic? Isn't it liberating? If only people had the opportunity to make similar comments on your site- how strange that we cannot.

1975. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240461 by Quetzalcoatl on August 31, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Paula-

I thought there was just going to be a reprint of the old one- but a second?

1976. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240433 by Quetzalcoatl on August 31, 2008 at 1:26 pm

Diacanu-

New avatar works!

1977. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240397 by Quetzalcoatl on August 31, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Diacanu-

I demand that you ban yourself for your persistent demands to ban Fanusi! Go stand in the corner!

1978. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240244 by Quetzalcoatl on August 31, 2008 at 6:18 am

One thing that does bother me about Fanusi's use of "objective" and "absolute" to describe morality is that, even though he doesn't use them in the same sense as religious believers, the fact is that the terms have essentially been co-opted by believers. Even if I agreed with Fanusi, (which I don't), constantly explaining the distinction between how religious believers define the terms and how we do would be time-consuming and ultimately unproductive. Much better, I think, to do away with the terms altogether.

1979. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239901 by Quetzalcoatl on August 30, 2008 at 2:26 pm

I think there is a misunderstanding here. Fanusi uses the words "absolute" and "objective" morality in a way different from what theists do

In that case I retract my comment.

1980. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239893 by Quetzalcoatl on August 30, 2008 at 2:16 pm

Fanusi Khiyal-

when someone says that there are no moral absolutes, they are rejecting morality as such

I'm currently having a debate with a Christian fundamentalist over on David Robertson's site. That statement reminds me a lot of what he says.

1981. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239865 by Quetzalcoatl on August 30, 2008 at 1:28 pm

Nope, it was Nairb's fault.

1982. A flea we missed?

Comment #239802 by Quetzalcoatl on August 30, 2008 at 11:01 am

If only they could see that our fundamentalist certainties were right then there would be no problem.

I wonder how many times attempts to link "atheism" and "fundamentalism" have to be refuted before he gets the message.

1983. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239411 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 2:25 pm

Sargeist-

Don't forget, by that point the imams will have been replaced by the hair-free imam-bots.

1984. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239403 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Decius-

Excellent.

I also suggest changing the meaning of "jihad" to "bake cookies".

1985. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239389 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Rachel Holmes-

Pussy on shelves? Woah! Now there's a mental image of Sainsbury's I never thought I'd have.

I'm actually going to Sainsbury's tomorrow- I'll be paying close attention to the shelves now. :)

1986. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239377 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Ah, the guy with the incredibly appropriate user name returns.

1987. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239371 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 1:56 pm

Sargeist-

What a moving post. If only I could find my violin.

1988. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239350 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 1:42 pm

Fortunately, gay kids today have Lindsay Lohan

I wasn't aware Lindsay Lohan qualified as a role model for anything positive.

1989. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239327 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Roger has mentioned that Northampton is one of the victims of concerted attacks by religious fundamentalists and has been for some time. The local area is most certainly not the only one. It seems to me that making some dent in this encroachment by the religites needs a committed and concerted push by those espousing secularism.

This is in the next county to me. I now can't help but wonder what pressures the fundamentalists might be bringing to bear within MY local area to which I am oblivious.

1990. It's no wonder evangelical atheists need to shout so loud

Comment #239165 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 7:26 am

John Desclin-

makes absolutely no sense to me: this a perfect and typical example of politicians' nonsensical oxymorons which they so frequently resort to in their rhetorics (better labelled under the name of psittacism) so that they convinced themselves that it sounds great!

Evangelical atheist is a phrase that seems to be increasing in popularity- I've been called it once or twice. I can only assume people don't realise what a ridiculous statement it is.

1991. No atheist burials in Co Donegal

Comment #239164 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 7:24 am

This is quite funny, in a dark way.

1992. Richard Dawkins on Talkback Radio

Comment #239116 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 5:00 am

Philip-

Look at it this way: rank the number of mistakes you've made ever versus the number of mistakes isthatclear makes in every single one of his comments. No contest!

1993. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #239079 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 2:58 am

Sargeist-

Perhaps. I don't think the word "crusade" is appropriate though, it has too many religious overtones.

1994. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #239072 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 2:35 am

There's no such thing as a "crusade for atheism".

1995. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239065 by Quetzalcoatl on August 29, 2008 at 1:43 am

'He used the same layers of fossils that had supported the Genesis view of evolution to show the slow changes that are taking place over the millennia of earth history, each small change enabling a species to the rigours of it's (sic) environment �" the struggle for survival through natural selection leading to the survival of the fittest

Wow, this is really offensive. Good job it was covered up. Can't have those sensitive fundamentalists being exposed to upsetting ideas that contradict the mish-mash of sky-fairy ramblings that form their sacred texts, after all. They show respect for the views of atheists, so we should do the same.

Fucktards.

1996. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238772 by Quetzalcoatl on August 28, 2008 at 2:57 pm

thewhitepearl-

Well I guess you're right. Generic sex bots will prob offer 2 for 1 deals all year round.

Course it won't be the same

Hmm. Good point.

hawt4dawk-

If a guy can order an inanimate doll as a companion, he'll probably end up fighting with it anyway "don't look at me like that", "I'm always the one putting all the effort in" etc etc.

1997. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238763 by Quetzalcoatl on August 28, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Just like the upside we previously discussed about sexbots-you could "order" them to your preference and "program" them. And around christmas get a 2 for 1 deal. Score!

Only around Christmas? Could be a better deal, I think.

1998. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238759 by Quetzalcoatl on August 28, 2008 at 2:39 pm

Al-Rawandi-

Missed that, sorry!

thewhitepearl-