2051. God rest you merry atheist

Comment #99934 by Bonzai on December 17, 2007 at 10:32 pm

Remember that the Christians stole midwinter's celebration from many other tribes. Holly, mistletoe, yule log - all pre-Christian.

Speaking of winter celebrations I wonder what it would feel like to have Christmas in the summer like the Australians.

2052. Dawkins: I'm a cultural Christian

Comment #99732 by Bonzai on December 17, 2007 at 12:47 pm

Just what the hell is the minister of community cohesion??!!

2053. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #99210 by Bonzai on December 15, 2007 at 11:51 pm

Guy shot his friend in an argument about James Brown's height.

http://www.courttv.com/people/2007/0111/james_brown_ap.html

2054. Happy Newton Day!

Comment #99202 by Bonzai on December 15, 2007 at 10:07 pm

Cartomancer,

He was bitter, malicious, obsessive, neurotic, stubborn, unpleasant and nasty, and yet he knew few equals in his intellect and none among his contemporaries.

My undergraduate physics prof put it more succinctly: "Newton was a great mind, but also a big ass hole."

2055. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #99147 by Bonzai on December 15, 2007 at 6:21 pm

cartomancer

Why is Mr. York's interpretation of christianity phony and yours isn't?

I don't see what York's alleged Christian faith,--the article didn't say who was the creationist,--has to do with the killing. Maybe you have some insider information that we don't have, but based on the article and the verdict it seems clear that it was a case of a passionate argument getting out of hand, helped on by a bit of drugs and booze. It could have been an argument over a soccer match. Religion has nothing to do with it.

2056. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98602 by Bonzai on December 13, 2007 at 11:33 pm

However there is such a wide variety in what people believe and how they behave, even within a single religious group, that it's impossible to make anything stick. They can simply claim whoever behaved badly/believes something silly isn't a 'real christian', a 'real muslim', and so on.

Why are they obliged to "make things stick" for you? Religious people do not believe for the purpose of debating atheists.

If you think religion is just about the texts obviously you don't know anything about religion except maybe U.S. styled Christian fundamentalism,--and their "text" is a translation.

Almost all real religions are not just about the texts.

Yes, they cherry pick and it has always been the case. No, they don't cherry pick arbitrarily, at least not for the established religions. There are complicated systems of mental gymnastics to do it, some parts can even pass for genuine scholarship. Go ask a Catholic priest about exegesis.

2057. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98597 by Bonzai on December 13, 2007 at 11:18 pm

That, to me, is a big problem. I know a lot of people here feel the way that TGA does about Islam. I just would like people to realize, as Sam Harris says, not all religions are equal.

I don't think you have really listened to TGA, you were hearing what you thought he said, not what he actually said. It might be because he called himself a liberal and you have a preconceived notion about what it might mean.It wasn't really a debate between adversaries. They actually agreed on most things.

I don't get the impression that TGA was apologizing for Islam, or saying that Islam is just like other religions. What he was saying is that it is politically ineffective to tar all Muslims with the same brush, and he is ok with replacing the current form of Islam with a more benign forms of gobbledygook.

His difference with AHA is mainly over how to engage the Muslims. TGA thinks the change would come from within, through the moderate and liberals. AHA was more for a shock therapy. TGA offered a pragmatic pov, while AHA's position is a moral one, the idea is that Muslims should be treated as individuals and engaged as such, rather than a collective. I think both approaches are valid and they can compliment each other.

2058. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #98587 by Bonzai on December 13, 2007 at 10:50 pm

Good to know that some people are still passionate about ideas.

2059. Here's an improvement on democracy

Comment #98584 by Bonzai on December 13, 2007 at 10:38 pm

Is he proposing secular dictatorships?

If all you have got are self serving secular dictators who are brutal and corrupt, the people would naturally associate secularism with oppression. That actually drives them towards traditional religiosity. Remember the Shah of Iran anyone?

The article is written under the premise that the U.S. has been in the business of exporting democracy, talking about self delusion! The fact is that U.S. has been undermining genuine democracy throughout the developing world to serve its own agendas. Democracy doesn't just mean having sham elections among a few business men working for American interests.

2060. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98437 by Bonzai on December 13, 2007 at 3:35 pm

You are not addressing my point that it is rather pointless to make a poster out of one special case without any assumption that it generalizes, or is typical in some sense.

Apparently you have not read the whole post. Obviously you are tired.

Cheers and no hard feelings. :)

2061. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98424 by Bonzai on December 13, 2007 at 3:19 pm

That is not the point being argued. It really isn't.

It does not matter if 99,999 out of 100,000 people in a religion are mild and gentle, if that religion can be used by that 1 person to justify flying planes into buildings.

I am sorry, this is a very lawyerly way of arguing.

Ok, if all you're talking about is a special case without making any implicit assumption of how typical it is, why bother talking about it at all?

You are shifting back and forth, at one moment you talk in generality, then when confronted you say, "no, I am only talking about this one case." What can we learn from one special event if it doesn't to some extent generalize? Should someone make a poster of some crazy scientist (say a Nazi doctor) who murders and tortures people to study them with the caption "imagine no science"? In this one case the scientist might very well be motivated by trying to find out about the truth.

It is not that I am twisting your words. Not being able to argue face to face, it is unavoidable that we make assumptions based on what can be reasonably inferred from the words on the screen. I am not making unreasonable inferences based on what you said.

It does not matter if 99,999 out of 100,000 people in a religion are mild and gentle

As a scientist you certainly know that this is not the meaning of religiosity being a poor predictor of terrorism.

2062. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #98364 by Bonzai on December 13, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Steve,

I really don't understand how you could have read that into what I posted. I have been saying the exact opposite of that at every stage. OF COURSE it is complicated! I have been saying that all along. All I am trying to say is that religion is a key factor, a major factor, in my view the one that makes the difference. I am not saying only religion matters!

Ok, I might have misrepresented you, but not on your key points. You did acknowledge the complexity of the situation, but then you go on arguing as if you haven't made those points. It is as though you were just making them as an obligatory disclaimer to get yourself covered so that you can complain that people misrepresent you when they debate you on your substantial points.

Indeed if, as you acknowledged, that there might be 100 different factors involved in suicide attacks and you agreed that religion itself might just be a proxy for other things,--I use the word in the precise sense of social science,--it would seem absurd for you to argue that it is a "key factor" and to argue, further that a 9/11 styled attack is very unlikely without religion.

Just how do you decide that?

Have you done a regression analysis to see how well is religion a predictor for terrorism? I bet you haven't and neither has gr8hand who has the gall to accuse others of being illogical while his has produced no argument at all other than what amount to a repeated mantra that "religion = evil".

Well, Atran did the analysis and found that in the middle east, religion is a poor predictor for terrorism (listen to Beyond belief 2007). Now I haven't read his paper so it might be possible that he made a mistake. But the fact that he has actually formulated the question as a scientific testable hypothesis and carried out the test should at least entitle his claim to be taken seriously. You are arguing as if no data has been collected.

P.S. I also produced a link to a discussion based on a MIT study in answering walk's question. It seem nobody bothers to read it.

2063. Here's an improvement on democracy

Comment #98299 by Bonzai on December 13, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Goldy,

I am married to a Chinese woman and so have a large in-law family there. I go quite often. I too wouldn't like to live there, but for totally different reasons

Of course you wouldn't. Nobody likes to live with the in laws. :)

2064. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97834 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 5:30 pm

Firstly, who says that it is the suicide bombers arranging things? It could well be (and almost certainly is) higher up people in an organisation who make the plans, and use religion to corrupt and manipulate others to follow those plans.

I didn't say the whole plan was hatched by the bombers themselves, I always said that complex motives and considerations by different players have to be considered, without those there would be no plot. It is you who insists that only religion is the biggest item because the bombers themselves say so, as if they lived in the vacuum.

I think you are the one setting up a strawman.

econdly, we know full well that people can compartmentalise. There are many examples of madmen who have rationally planned crimes fuelled by their madness.

And how does that contradict what I said? It seems it is you who try to deny the complexity in what actually goes on in the minds of the plotters by saying that it is religion and that is it. Religion has to go through the filter of psychology, why do you think that compartmentalization and post hoc rationalization didn't happen when they interpreted what the religion told them?

So we are talking about human psychology here, not some immutable belief "out there " that you can just get rid of. The mind will manufacture a belief system to rationalize and justify actions that are deemed necessary.

I gotta go, it has been good debate. :)

2065. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97811 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Yes, they certainly are. No need for parachutes on planes, and no need for return tickets.

You seem to have missed the second part of my paragraph.

OK , let me try be more clear.

So there is a rational justification for suicide attack, namely, it is more effective. So people can rationally decide to carry out suicide attacks because of logistical considerations.

You just contradict your own point that it takes irrational belief to carry out such attacks.

EDIT

No, it isn't. Not if you are a warrior going into battle against the infidels. This is viewed as Martyrdom, and is encouraged in the Hadith.

Yes, if you die in a battle in the hands of the infidels, suicide bombers die by their own hands and the death is premeditated.

2066. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97806 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 5:02 pm

t doesn't matter what you believe, or what I believe, or what most Islamic scholars believe, or what just about anyone believes. What matters is what the suicide bombers believe.

So we agree that this is a very fringe belief even within Islam how does the poster in any way "provoke thought" about religion in general?

2067. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97802 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 4:52 pm

You need only ask the UK police and security services, who dealt with such situations when the IRA was active. Tracing someone who takes precautions to ensure their own safety is much, much easier than tracing suicide bombers.

So what is your argument now?

If it is that suicide attacks are more effective in terms of logistics, this is a rational calculation and can be justified without invoking the afterlife. People has sacrificed their lives for causes without expecting rewards in heaven (Not just suicide bombing per se, but martyrdom in revolutions or resistance movements throughout history)

Finally, even if there is an afterlife it doesn't follow that suicide bombers will be rewarded. Most mainstream Islamic scholars don't consider suicide bombing martyrdom in the sense of Islam, because the martyre is not supposed to deliberately get himself killed to get on an express to heaven. Only a minority believe that suicide bombing is halal. In Islam suicide is a major sin and the punishment is the reenactment of the death through eternity. That doesn't sound like great incentive for suicide bombing, but the determined would find a way to spin around it, just like many here accuse the moderates of.

So I don't think your case is really that strong even in the context of Islam.

2068. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97795 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 4:32 pm

No, I think the suicide part is a key thing to consider. It is something that religion can encourage through a belief in an afterlife.

How about someone who doesn't believe in the afterlife ignites a bomb in a crowded place with remote control?

It may be more rational, but how is that more moral and how does the world become safer as a result?

2069. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97789 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 4:22 pm

Surely you can see that? And if you can, then you have to conclude that there would be, at least to some degree, fewer suicide bombers without the involvement of religion?

Ok, we agree that there are many causes for terrorism, and in particular suicide terrorism, and religion is but one enabling cause among many, and it is likely that it is not the underlying cause at all. So in what sense can you still insisting on saying religion is the motivation and put it in a special category?

Edit BTW, I think a point needed to be made, even though it may be kind of trivial,--it should be though it doesn't appear to be so here.

The great evil of suicide bombings is that they target civilians, not because the perpetrators blow themselves up. I don't see any moral superiority in shooting a missile into a crowd from a safe distance instead if the purpose is still to target civilians. Many people seem to be missing the point by focusing on the suicide part.

2070. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97786 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 4:18 pm

If someone is there with the matches of religion, they can strike at any time (indeed, they are encouraged to do so). If they are up there with the flints, you at least have breathing space to negotiate.

Why are you so determined in ignoring the gun powder? You need to get rid of the gun powder.

All else, the flint, the glass, the matches, are incidental.

But for some reason, you keep missing my point. Religion provides a motivation like nothing else. It is not incidental.

I didn't miss your point. I just disagree. In addition to my link Goldy provided several examples where people were motivated to perform the ultimate sacrifice where religion and after life didn't come into play.

2071. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97778 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 4:07 pm

Steve,


Martyrdom is not a uniquely religious concept. There were many examples of people undertaking missions for causes and that they knew they wouldn't come out alive, even though that didn't always involve strapping a bomb to oneself. The after life doesn't have to be part of the deal to get people to give up this one.

2072. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97768 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 3:58 pm

Amazing! What do you feel was their motivation? It's truly hard for me to imagine (spoiled American). Sacrifice for family? For country?

I think people do that when they think their collective survival is under threat. This is just a speculation.

Edit

Martyrdom is not a uniquely religious concept. There were many examples of people undertake missions that they knew they wouldn't come out alive, even though that don't always involve strapping a bomb to oneself.

2073. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97765 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 3:54 pm

Steve,

Because when there is a kid up there with matches, and with rocks, you get rid of the matches first. Religion is the matches, rocks is politics.

Without the rock, it can be a piece of glass and the sun. The means of ignition is incidental. The politics is the gun powder, you need to get rid of the gun powder.

In the same way, religion is incidental here. If not Islam, it would be other religions, if there is no religion it would be other ideologies such as nationalism, when there is nothing people will invent whatever belief system they need. That has been proven in history.

2074. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97757 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 3:32 pm

Walk,

However, and this goes back to the sign, do you think these educated guys would have suicided if they were atheists?

Probably. The Viet Cong has launched suicide attacks against U.S. troops in the 1960's. They were as atheist as you can get. Half of the human bombs in the Lebanese war were from secular organizations. (see link below)

On the other hand, the Quran does have strong injunctions against suicide. "Jihad" doesn't mean killing yourself. So in what way are these terrorists inspired by religion when what they did was against the religion? This is a very good example of cherry picking based on their own agendas.

Here is an interesting link.
http://www.alternet.org/audits/35815/?page=1

2075. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97733 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 2:58 pm

steve,

Right, so we have a poster saying (summarising yours and Riley's) posts:

"Imagine no testicles, and no planes"

Exactly our point, this would be just as ridiculous as the poster in question.

Fine, but doesn't this make my point in an even stronger way? It is not just Islam that could have been used as a motivation for the attack, but the pagan gods as well.

No, it doesn't. This shows that religion is at best just a pretext, a flag to rally the troops, so to speak.

If the underlying causes are not religious, they could have rallied around other ideologies. There is no shortage of revolutionary ideologies from post Enlightenment Europe.

It is interesting to follow the rise of political Islam. While much criticism can be launched against the backward religion that is Islam. The kind of Islam that enables Bin Laden and his followers is a recent development. After WWII, secularism swept most of the ME. Pan Arabism, not Islam, was the rising force in the region. Secular regimes informed by a mixture of Fascism, populism and socialism steam rolled Islam under their feet. Islam only became a political force in the last twenty or thirty years after Pan Arabism has failed to deliver.

Instead of trying to locate its roots in the Quran, a much more germane explanation for the rise of political Islam is that it fills the vacuum left by Pan Arabism, which has been defeated and discredited. Another enabling factor for Jihadism is Washington's patronage, a lot of the terrorism infrastructures stretching from Saudi Arabia to Pakistan to Afghanistan were set up with the help of the U.S. to fight the Soviet Union.

I am curious about your position.

Unlike some others here, you view is more nuanced. You acknowledge religion might only be an enabling cause, so we agree that there is much more beneath the religious facade.

So then why are you so fixated on the enabling cause? It is like someone living atop a huge gun powder keg thinking that he would be safe if he gets rid of all the matches. Well some kid with two rocks who rubs them together hard enough or a magnifying glass would blow you up til kingdom comes.

As long as those underlying causes for radicalization remain untackled, even without religion they will invent it if needed. That was the case in Chinese peasant rebellions. Without any respectable theology or revolutionary ideology to latch onto, they made up religious cults as they went along.

think you are missing the power of religious belief.

I don't think I am. But I think it is dangerously naive to reduce international politics to religion.

It is like some radical feminists who argue that testosterone is the root cause for war, peace will reign only if the world is run by women. This way of thinking is naive because it ignores the complex institutional and economical reasons behind conflicts and tries to explain a complex situation with a superficial single cause. I think it is the same mistake that many people are making here.

When confronted with examples such as Margret Thatcher, the radical feminists would say she is a man in skirt,--or she has balls,-- as if by making the silly insinuation that she is a transvestite they can maintain their ideology in the face of contradicting evidence. In an exactly identical fashion, when faced with a Muslim (or a Jew or Christian for that matter) who condemns violence, some atheists would simply write him off as not a real Muslim (or whatever).

2076. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97641 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 1:13 pm

Steve,

The poster describes imagination and theology. So of course it is about motivation.

I know that. But we are debating exactly whether the poster is appropriate. It seems odd that you would use the poster's premise as a rebuttal while we are exactly debating the soundness of the reasoning behind it.

I actually haven't expressed an opinion on whether the world would be a better place without religion. I think this is a hypothetical and not a very realistic one. I think the world would definitely be better without certain ideologies, whether religious or not.

Extreme ideologies strive under the harsh conditions of oppressions, poverty and alienation. We will go a long way if we actually eliminate some of the these conditions rather than putting up a poster with a badly off the mark reference whose intention is clearly to offend and accuse rather than to "provoke thought", as you say.

Mind you, I don't mind being offensive, but I think there has to be a larger point if they insist that the purpose is to provoke thought, not just being offensive for offensive sake. I fail to see any larger point beyond a crude caricature.

2077. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97627 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 12:46 pm

steve,

Fine, but doesn't this make my point in an even stronger way? It is not just Islam that could have been used as a motivation for the attack, but the pagan gods as well

See my reply to gr8hands above.

2078. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97623 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 12:42 pm

gr8hands,

That means he could have used other cover than Islam.

That means he was probably not motivated by any specific doctrine. Islam happens to be convenient. So without any religion he might have use Lenin or George Washington.

I think you are too intelligent to miss my point (and Atran's)

2079. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97614 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 12:32 pm

Steve,

We aren't talking about things that where used in the process of making attacks, we are talking about why people did things.

Now you are trying to rig the game in your favor by only talking about things from an angle you think you have an upper hand. :-)

If I were the intended victim, I would feel a lot more secure if I know that you don't have the means to attack me even though you have the intention to, rather than knowing that you have the capacity to kill me a hundred times over even though you don't feel like doing it at the moment. Isn't that what the psychology of pre-emption is all about?

There is not much doubt, no matter how anyone tries to argue out of it, that Islamic doctrines were a significant motivation for the attack on the twin towers.

Ok, I would agree that certain interpretation of Islam was an enabling factor, I think we all agree. But how does it generalize to all religions? Moreover, those people were likely drawn to a certain strain of Islam because of their experience, which was political. American policy in the region is like recruitment ads for radical Islam. Religion doesn't have an existence independent of society, history and politics. Only the believers think that their religion has an ahistorical, eternal existence. I am surprised so many atheists subscribe to it.

There is a good chance that without that motivation, the attack would not have happened.

You are quite wrong in this. In the 2007 beyond belief conference Scott Atran quoted Bin Laden in saying that even without Islam, the pagan gods would have commanded them to drive out the Americans. So it was politics, the specific doctrines probably played a much lesser role than you think.

2080. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97600 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 12:09 pm

D.

Backwards ignorance is best for humanity.
Let's all turn off our computers, and shovel camel shit.

This is not my opinion of course, but it is an example to show the absurdity of single out one cause for a complex situation and attempt to universalize. You shouldn't push the analogy beyond its intended purpose.

P.S. I can also mirror your rhetorics and say without religion that would have been no civilization, no JS Bach, no beautiful cathedral, no literature etc.

2081. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97592 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 12:02 pm

Merry Christmas to you flying goose. Screw the holiday season bs. :-)

2082. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97588 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 12:00 pm

D,

You're right, without science, no bomb, and then the Normandy style invasion of Japan but on a bigger nastier scale that would have killed at least a million, and a shitload of our grandfathers wouldn't exist, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

But how do you invade Japan Normandy style without science? Without science there would be no WWII. Only local skirmishes.

Without science the terrorists also wouldn't be able to fly two planes into the towers. Aviation technology is science.

Try again. :)

2083. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97582 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 11:56 am

The poster is about ideas; about ways of thinking about reality and truth; about who you get moral guidance from.

This is not what his analogy was about. He addressed the tendency to generalize, the tendency to look for a single cause in complex events and attempt to universalize. I think you are taking his analogy at the wrong level by understanding it too literally.

2084. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97580 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 11:48 am

How about a banner showing the mushroom cloud of the atomic bomb dropped on Japan with the caption "Imagine without science".

Without science, the atomic attack would definitely not have happened. The link is much stronger than that of religion and the twin tower attack.

2085. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97574 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 11:31 am

Steve,

Secondly, there is little or no evidence that motivation for their killing is their opinion on masculinity.... "I am male, therefore I should kill".

Not because of their opinions on masculinity, but because of their masculinity, I mean hormones, aggressive tendencies etc.

This is the opinion of some radical feminists. I don't agree with that opinion. Riley's point is that there are people who do make that kind of arguments and there is a symmetry to the blanket claim that religion is responsible for terrorism (as the sign clearly tries to convey)

I think the comparison is quite valid.

2086. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97560 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 11:00 am

Sharon,

The National Post is not a rag because it is rightwing, it is a rag because of the dishonest way it pushes its agendas and its frequent resort to sensationalism

An example of dishonest journalism is its use of misleading headlines that don't reflect the actual story in order to create impressions.

To give an idea of what I am talking about, you may find a story in the National Post with heading "Canadians want major overhaul to health care according to poll". When you read the story the poll in question actually indicated the vast majority or respondents were satisfied with public health insurance and they wanted changes only in some relatively minor details. For those who don't live in Canada, the Post has been a consistent advocate for privatized health care.

A journalism professor actually did a study on manipulative headlines and found the Post to be most guilty among all major Canadian papers, and by a big margin.

If you agree that Sun Chain papers are rags there is really no reason to think that the Post is any different. It just has a more glossy lay out. It is staffed by mostly people whom Black has recruited from the Toronto Sun.

I brought up Black because the Post was founded on his vision and it hasn't changed after being bought by the Asper. I mentioned Black's jail sentence in passing because it was only announced yesterday, it is hard to talk about Black without mentioning it.

2087. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97552 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 10:37 am

266. Comment #97509 by Riley

Terrorist attacks are neither a universal part of religion, nor are they limited to religion. By a long shot on both accounts. Clearly, obviously, another factor is necessary. It feels good to blame it on religion, but it isn't true, it's too simplistic.

It's self-indulgent and presumptuous to claim that the United States and other Western powers would not have suffered an attack emanating from the Middle East at some point given the history of our involvement in the region: fomenting war, propping-up dictators, privatizing oil reserves, and the countless other types of treacherous meddling we've engaged in for over a century. How convenient it is now to dismissively say: "oh, this attack is just mostly about religion - without religion we would never have been attacked". What a wonderful dreamworld you're imagining.

And what should this have to do with atheism? If atheism is simply a non-belief, why are atheists asserting this "world without religion" utopian belief under the banner of atheism? Do we know for a fact that the world we imagine without Janism in it, would be a better world? That's quite an assumption.

I totally agree, well said.

2088. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97546 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 10:25 am

Sharon,

The National Post is a rag, only with a better lay out than the Sun chain papers. Many of it editors, writers and columnists used to work for the Toronto Sun. The National Post was founded by Conrad Black ostensibly as a voice of the Right (Black is go to spend the next 6 and a half years in a U.S. jail for fraud, the sentence came just yesterday) The paper was bought by the Aspers some years ago, but its style and content remains the same.

2089. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97411 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 3:31 am

Bonzai - 'simplistic'? Really? So this murder is more complicated than Andysin conveys? How so, may I ask?

I mentioned some possibilities in #21.

2090. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97402 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 3:05 am

Steve,

I think both you and krisking can be right.

I agree that we should take the terrorists' words that they were motivated by religion, we have no reason to doubt their sincerity. However, apart from the theological drivels Bin Laden also made very specific political demands. Primarily the U.S. should leave the ME.

Radicalization doesn't happen in a vacuum. A strong case can be made that politics is an important factor that pushes many people in the ME to embrace a militant form of Islam.

2091. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97381 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 1:59 am

Comment #97372 by andysin

Looks like you have stumbled upon the HQ of the PC brigade.

To be honest I find your post there a bit simplistic and somewhat premature, as we don't know what has actually transpired at this point. But I find the reflexive responses telling, with gems like "Islam is a religion that embraces women's equality, fosters peace, and has at the core a belief in democratic institutions."

While I think we shouldn't assume Islam is the culprit before any investigation, these deluded cultural leftists are determined to exonerate it no matter what evidence may turn up.

They are correct that Islam doesn't approve of honour killing, but not for the reason they think,-- that "Islam is a religion that embraces women's equality, fosters peace, and has at the core a belief in democratic institutions."

According to Sharia punishment has to be carried out by the proper authority. If your daughter renounces Islam and elopes with a boy it would be wrong for you to kill her not because she doesn't deserve to be killed according to Islam, but because you would have usurped the authority of the Sharia court by taking matters into your own hands. She should be executed under the order of a Sharia judge.

P.S. Is rabble.ca Judy Rebeck's outfit?

2092. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #97355 by Bonzai on December 12, 2007 at 12:09 am

When someone told me Hitler was a athiest, I asked her why he hated the Jews. Oddly, that shut her up - the hatred was religious in origin and she couldn't counter that...

Well I heard a theory that he was once rejected by a classy Jewish lady, and subsequently caught syphilis from a Jewish prostitute.

P.S. I don't claim this is from reliable historical sources.

2093. Girl, 16, dies after hijab dispute with father

Comment #97328 by Bonzai on December 11, 2007 at 10:19 pm

It is bad enough to get into a big argument over something so trivial,let alone getting into physical violence, but there is nothing in the article that says the father intended to strangle the daughter, it could very well be a scuffle that has gotten out of hand.

Another thing to consider is that religion may be just a proxy for other conflicts that have been simmering beneath. For example the father's perception of threat to his authority. The hijab might have been just the last straw(ethnic and religious identities are almost inseparable for many people)

Many men emigrated from very conservative, patriarchal societies suffer a profound cultural shock. They see woman better educated, making more money than themselves, they may have female bosses, their wives are working and making their own money and no longer have to be meek and submissive. The only women they still have absolute control over are their daughters. When even the daughters say no, their world finally falls apart.

2094. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #97256 by Bonzai on December 11, 2007 at 8:19 pm

Goldy

Given Mao rather liked Qin Shi Huang, one wonders if maybe he was into ancestor worship?

Actually Mao was rather like Hóng Xiùquán.

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

I also find some similarities with the Hongwu Emperor.

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

Wonder what Mrs. Goldy thinks of my nominations.

I think you mentioned that Mrs. Goldy has a rather favorable view on Mao. Well, I wouldn't want to live through the cultural revolution, but I certainly wouldn't put him in the same league with Stalin, Hitler or even Pol Pot. I know of very few Chinese people who actually think that way even among those who don't particularly like the Communists (My mom dislikes the CCP very much but she went ballistic one time when she read in the paper that some people in the West compared Mao with Hitler)

To evaluate Mao properly one needs to know the historical context. I think he was a great Emperor and a visionary; he was also ruthless but he wasn't a pathological sadist like Stalin. Mao was no worse than the people he defeated, he was just a better strategist. IMO among the rulers in recent Chinese history he was very far from being the worst. You may want to look up the death tolls in typical civil wars and other disasters in recent Chinese history to put things in perspective. It was indeed quite tragic for China that life had been so cheap in recent history that a few hundred thousands deaths here and there were almost unremarkable for the rulers and the people alike.

P.S. You may know that Mao's got most of his inspirations from Chinese classics. He once admitted that he actually hadn't read any writing of Marx except for an old translation of "The Communist Manifesto" in the 1920's.

2095. Functional Neuroimaging of Belief, Disbelief, and Uncertainty

Comment #97238 by Bonzai on December 11, 2007 at 7:44 pm

I know this will come across as almost sacrilege. :-)Sagan never did anything for me. I much prefer the intimate, reflective style of the late Heinz Pagels who wrote on the same subjects of physics and astronomy.

2096. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97222 by Bonzai on December 11, 2007 at 7:10 pm

Goldy,

Guess, like gods, prayers are known to those that pray for what they are and that might differ to what the bystander understands them to be.

I think so. That's why I think in having discussions or debates with theists it is best to let them tell you what they actually believe without assuming what they believe, or worse, telling them what they should believe based on the way we interpret their holy books.

Scott Atran made an excellent point in criticizing Dawkins. He argued, with rich empirical and quantitative data as it is his style, that religion is not a "mime", because it is not transmitted with high fidelity like genes. He argued that the transmission of religion is highly distorted. Religion is open ended, fluid and the way it is interpreted is mediated through psychology, politics, history and culture. It is not a stable entity that passes around and replicates like genes.

2097. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97212 by Bonzai on December 11, 2007 at 6:16 pm

Sorry for coming in late here but I have to ask - what is the point of praying if not to ask for something?

Probably to serve a similar function to chanting in Buddhism, or as a way to express strong emotions such as reverence or lamentation; or just to get things off your chest like lonely people calling phone in shows to tell their problems, not really expecting any solution might come of it.

There are many possible reasons why people pray.

The idea of prayer as a way to beg for special favor seems to be a very Christian concept.I am not sure that is the way Jews and Muslims think about it, they seem to pray from standard scripts.

A lesson from the book of Job is that don't waste your breath if you try to get God to do things for you through small talks and pleadings, it won't work as God has his own agenda. The Jews seem to have a tragic theology and their God is an aloof deity. In contrast, the Christians, especially the born again variety, are taught to think of Jesus as a buddy.

Not even all Christians pray for special interventions. Terry Waits, the Anglican negotiator who was held hostage by the Iranians told a radio interviewer that he was ashamed for praying for God to get him out in the beginning of his captivity. He said that it was tempting God and it was arrogant to expect God to change his plan just for Terry. Once he realized that he resisted the urge for the rest of his time in captivity. He did pray, but not to ask God to bail him out.

American evangelical Christianity is a very shallow religion and like American pop culture it is very sugar coated,--for those who has a "personal relationship" with Jesus,-- and it appeals to a very infantile sensibility. It is inaccurate to think that it represents the typical religious world view across history and cultures. We shouldn't generalize and think that all religious people pray for the same purpose.

2098. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97049 by Bonzai on December 11, 2007 at 10:43 am

It depends, Bonzai. It's certainly cheaper to destroy New York (floods, asteroids, giant reptiles, giant gorillas, etc) on your computer than to film it for real.

Of course I don't mean really destroying a city. Before computer animation they built a small replica of the city and used real actors and a lot of extras like in the old King Kong movie and other classic disaster flicks, I was told that it was actually cheaper to use a real set.

2099. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #97037 by Bonzai on December 11, 2007 at 10:15 am

Rtambree,

the co-stars were stupid CG talking animals and most of it was just one big exercise in compositing.

I once talked to an animation artist who worked for Disney. Apparently a lot more painstaking work is required to create realistic looking computer animations than we think. It takes hours and hours to create only one scene. He told me actually it is a good deal more expensive, not cheaper to use computer graphics than to use real actors and real landscape.

2100. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #96475 by Bonzai on December 10, 2007 at 3:26 pm

Why do we assume that Inayat Bunglawala and the MCB represent moderate Muslims?

I know a few moderate muslims, they have jobs and families , they have quite mainstream opinions on a variety of issues. They are just as outraged and perplexed by the teddy bear incident in Sudan and the disgusting treatment of the rape victim in Saudi Arabia like we are. But they are not activists, they don't organize protests and go on TV debates. No one interview them on national media.

They may go on a march or lend their signatures to support a cause if someone has set up the venues, but otherwise they have more mundane, every day concerns. Their lives revolve around work, friends, family, relationship and recreational activities rather than international conflicts and theological debates in remote places such as the Middle East.

In other words they are like most of us.

Some may go to the Mosques, many don't and most are not involved in any Mosque politics or activities other than yard sales or social events. In other words, they are like our run of mill, wishy washy Christians.

The professional "moderates" are largely people with organizations and clouts, they have agendas, whether it is religious, identity politics or personal ambitions. They are not very good representations of everyday Muslims.