2351. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162388 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 8:36 pm

JEDDAH, 17 April 2008 â€" Officials at the Jeddah General Court confirmed yesterday that they are dealing with the case of a Turkish barber who is allegedly facing the death penalty after being tried for swearing at God.

Huh.. he faces the death penalty for not telling God to fuck off 5 times a day?

What kind of atheist tyranny is that..

2352. Teacher Expelled Over Religion

Comment #162386 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 8:32 pm

Goldy

Kardashovel does go on about time travel. Maybe the Disco Institute knows something the rest of us don't.

Huh..The Disco institute? Did Kardashovel time travel back to the 1970's?

2353. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #162385 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 8:25 pm

'"Most parents send their children to our schools because of the Christian values that our schools espouse, because our schools stand for biblical values,"'

So I wonder if boys without dates would be allowed, they are probably masturbating...

2354. School bars same-sex partners at formals

Comment #162384 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 8:22 pm

MarieCooper

I don't think young people should be of one sexuality or another.

Totally agree. They should experiment more.If you don't try how do you know you don't like it?

I am all for making decisions based on empirical data.

2355. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162344 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 5:04 pm

Cos we're insane too. :-)

Signed:the rabbit.

2356. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162342 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 5:01 pm

I don't think RM is pulling a double agent. If he is just playing Robertson why did he come back to post those trollish posts under the name D-I-Ogenes? I am very sure that was him.

But let's say I am wrong, I would still question the sanity of someone who would go through such an elaborate plot in order to "infiltrate" Robertson's Church, can anyone be actually that bored?! It is just the internet for fudge's sake.

2357. Evolution fray attracts top scientist

Comment #162257 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Oh, no, not again. The man needs to get laid.

2358. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162253 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Mind you they had it easy compared with the denizens of Cockermouth.

And I am a denizen of Pottymouth. Actually, I mean Styrer. :)

2359. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #162251 by Bonzai on April 16, 2008 at 12:43 pm

But he [Richard Morgan]vomits that anywhere that he is not invited to vomit it then ...

Yeah, that is his problem. He is needy.

Everything was so personal, he wanted to spill his heart out, he longed for that warm, fluffy feeling of a "community" on the internet where people interact only on a very superficial level most of the time and ideas are more interesting than personality, So he is disillusioned and makes an about face.

I have no problem that he changed his mind, for whatever reason, but it is petty to have to spew his venom here under other names (I am convinced that D-I-Ogenesis was him) and kissing up to DR in such a nauseating manner, soon he will be writing music to praise Jesus and Robertson. Religious or not, the man should have more self respect.

2360. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161920 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:35 pm

Time machines bring a whole new element to the concept of planning, Bonzai.

Are you drunk already? :)

Well in case you are not, I am off to make some diner (it is almost midnight here). Take care.

2361. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161915 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:31 pm

We need to be humble about our knowledge of the universe, and we need to understand that it is incomplete, but what I objected to is any implication that our knowledge was somehow relative to us. This seemed very much like a post-modern attitude.

I think you are talking pass each other. I don't think he is saying anything "Post Modern". To say that our knowledge is a property of us doesn't deny an objective reality, just like saying a map is not the landscape doesn't deny the existence of the landscape, nor does it imply that the map is a purely cultural construct.

I think you actually agree.

2362. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161907 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:25 pm

Oh yes. Jesus is central to my understanding of the afterlife, as well as this one.

Did you also say you believe in reincarnation?

2363. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161905 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:23 pm

Whose "Plan"?

If it is a "developing" God, a God in training like an exploring child, how can it have a "plan"?

2364. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161898 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:20 pm

Ok,

Just to clarify so that we won't misunderstand each other, you are some kind of mystic, am I right? Did you say you are a Christian?

2365. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161889 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:13 pm

But you didn't answer how your idea of God conveys anything more substantial than my "mystical" metaphor.

2366. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161878 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:05 pm

You are beginning to grok what I am saying... but more like a God in development.

Then it is not a God.

How is it different from saying, like I sometimes do, in an effort to sound mystical, that God is the cosmos. The cosmos is conscious because we are and we are a part of it, and when we explore the universe and try to figure out the laws of nature, it is God reflecting on himself, and that God is learning and maturing as we become more civilized and sophisticated?

Do you have any children, Bonzai?

No, I am gay, used to be considered abomination by God fearing people and should be put to death, I guess I am yet another failure for the trainee God.

2367. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161863 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 7:51 pm

Karda

I did not suggest that randomness implies purpose. I am saying that it is not logical to suggest that randomness implies lack of purpose. Get it straight.

If that is the case it would be a very clumsy, wasteful and incompetent God who uses trial and error to achieve his purpose, failing most of the time and having to start over from time to time as evidented by mass extinctions.

A God in training?

2368. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161842 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 7:22 pm

The "disposable" attitude to PCs is a sheer waste of money.

Not to mention creating toxic wastes and taking up landfill sites. Recycling and making new computers all cost energy and it comes from burning fossil fuels and funny the guy who isspamming every thread with peak oil apocalypse.

Computers are "obsoleted" so quickly not because of "Moore's law",--which he invokes like some kind of magical incantation, it is because of profit margin and capitalist logic. More waste means more jobs, more sales of newer models, more profit and higher GDP (and higher environmental cost which is swept under the rug)

2369. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161790 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 5:10 pm

epeeist

The OP isn't quite as eloquent as Tolstoy, but has very much the same opinion.

Yeah, I remember reading Tolstoy, he argued basically everyone sucked, including Beethoven, all French writers and himself. I love the Russians, always so passionate.

2370. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161782 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:48 pm

So bringingithome4u concedes that ID is theistic, so it doesn't belong in science, whether science alone is sufficient "to build human intellect"is a separate issue (obviously the answer is no, "human intellect" would also include art and literature)

Since ID is not science, it doesn't belong in science classroom and scientific research.

Case closed.

I have no problem with teaching ID in creative writing or religious study classes, or in philosophy courses examining pseudo sciences.

2371. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161775 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:36 pm

"I have many opinions, strong opinions, but I don't always agree with them."

George Herbert Walker Bush aka Bush I

Worshiping oneself is not as easy as you think.

2372. Religious education as a part of literary culture

Comment #161774 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:32 pm

This is a bizarre statement.

Not the only one for sure, based on what I read from him.

2373. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161768 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:24 pm

Clydey

You clearly have something against him. I have no objection to dissenting voices. I simply prefer that they make an effort to back up their argument.

Who says I wanted to make an argument?

Maybe I was just being in my catty self and wanted to provoke some people?

How do you figure that I have something against Dawkins? Are you saying "you are either with us or against us"? I always prefer to be a loner.

I only offer my observations, he does strike me as taking himself too seriously at times and that is not cool IMO, but it doesn't mean that I disagree with most of his message and don't like his books,

Assumptions, assumptions, you made too many assumptions my friend :)

2374. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161750 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 3:48 pm

Who says it is objective?

But it is good to be the lone dissenter.

EDIT: Besides, I only hero worship dead people who didn't and obviously can't lead any movement and didn't want to be hero worshiped. Hence there is no danger of turning people into gurus.

2375. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161746 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 3:36 pm

You hero worship Feynman yet you constantly,tiresomly rebuke us for being Dawkins fans.You are obviously a very intelligent guy yet don't you see the hipocracy in this?Looks like what's good for the goose is good for the gander too.

Yeah, I know, but at least I have better taste. :)

2376. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161640 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 1:15 pm

I am not big on Radiohead either.

2377. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161596 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Is that a Church project to unleash a bunch of faithfuls here?

It must be written outside some Church, "Post on Rd.net to earn bonus points for heaven!"

2378. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161588 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 12:32 pm

Logicel

However, despite that Feynman is my God, I think that Dawkins, with his built-in moderator and his acknowledging that the host has the power to set the debate back on track if its gets derailed, is spot on in his 'pioneering' effort to forge an alternative to the traditional debate set-up.

I agree with that. But the cool thing about Richard F is that he didn't even care for petty debates, he was above it all.He was no leader of any "movement", he just did his own thing and was always original.

Instead of telling you how beautiful science is with poetic, flowery language like Sagan or Richard D,--which is nice too,--he would just roll up his sleeves and say.. ok.. let me show you something really neat.. It is that kind of unpretentiousness, spontaneity and innocence that makes him really cool IMO.

Richard D strikes me as too contrived and seems to always caring too much about his ego, the debate thing was obviously something that weighed on him after many debates he had with religious people, he has complained about it before. While I agree with his point completely, it is still a little tedious to have to bring it up whenever an opportunity arises.

2379. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161575 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Diacanu

Yes, yes, alright already, you say shit like this almost every time a video like this comes up.

Thank you. I always like to be a little different. It would be boring if everyone just cheers and says job well done, yet another triumph for Richard, don't you think?

Don't click on them anymore, they just make your black oily blood boil.

Not really. They actually sedated me.. I needed something more exciting and less predictable...

Play outside.
Chase a rainbow..and try to get its Skittles

Well it was 2 am.

2380. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161542 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 11:45 am

Was it epeeist who suggested yesterday that maybe something is afoot,-- like a new flea book is about to be out,--whenever this site is suddenly experiencing a peak of drive by trolls? He might be onto something.

2381. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161367 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:09 am

I have a problem with the poverty of the place making such an occupation almost necessary. I have a problem with the preasure, and the lack of other options. I have a problem with the patron's of ones family coaching, and driving young girls into such a occupation, which therefore is not their own decision

Well you nail it. I was going to write something like that but I need some time to organize my thinking properly.

I don't want to sound like I am agreeing with Henri, which I am not, But I think it is naive to think that choices and morality is context independent. Is it a lot more immoral to sell your daughter into prostitution than to arrange her to marry for wealth, or let her work in a sweatshop making cheap stuffs for the West?

I think in a way we do tend to see things through our own circumstances without realizing it. What happens is of course evil, but is it more evil than other things they have to endure because of
their circumstances?

2382. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161361 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 8:00 am

I don't know what you mean by divulging information that you didn't know before. Don't they believe the Devil can do that too? How do you know the voice is not from the Devil?

2383. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161357 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 7:53 am

Henri is by no means a philosopher

I think he did say he is a philosophy professor, so in a professional sense at least, he is a philosopher.

2384. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161353 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 7:43 am

Karda

I heard the voice twice, and the last time was two years ago. I have never heard voices before that, or since. If the voice had told me to do anything that was immoral or life-altering, I would be a lot more concerned about myself.

I think this is the approach of the "moderates". "Moderate" may be an inappropriate word because it seems to carry a connotation of a lack of faith. I use this to simply refer to the method of believing, not the intensity of belief.

I have no problem with people who believe in this way as they all seem to be rational enough on worldly matters. I don't think that you would just go out to murder your first born because "the voice" tells you to since by your admission. you have other means to decide whether to listen to the voice or not. So it is not my intention to "deconvert" you, what you believe in privately is your business.

But intellectually it does raise some questions. Since ultimately, you rely on criteria which are not so different from the non believers to make your final judgment, why listen to the voice at all?

Secondly and more importantly, if God were to make himself known to you through this way of whispering in your ears, he must indeed tell you to do things which you, based on your own judgments would not otherwise have done, and convince you of things, which based on your everyday good sense, would find ridiculous. Otherwise "the voice" can simply be written of as rationalization of what one already knows and believes in, nothing new is revealed. So, by actually filtering the voice through your own intellect, moral and common sense, would that defeat the whole purpose for the voice?

2385. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161331 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 7:16 am

Tyler

And why would the alleged "creator of the known universe" care about the mundane details of your business???

I have asked that question too, but not to Karda.

Religion for some people is a way to visualize one's relationship with what is larger than the self and humanity.

Science is one way, but it is too grand and impersonal, the self melts into nothing.

The cosmos has to be cut down to size to accommodate the ego, hence this anthropomorphic invention called "God". In the abstract God is so grand that it is bigger than the cosmos revealed by science, but in practice it is just small enough to whisper to the ears of those who are too afraid to live without imposed structures, too lost in a world where one has to invent his own meanings and values.

This way believers can have their cake and eat it too. A God that looks big, but actually small enough to care about them,

For me it is atrocious to project our ape-ness in the form of a personal God onto the impersonal universe, blemishing its beauty, It is aesthetic homicide.

2386. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161326 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 7:05 am

PBUM

I don't know, I think scooternyc deserves a unit for himself. While henri is a (philosopher) prick, scooternyc is an arse hole so the units are not really convertible.

To the family readership of rd.net. I am NOT talking sex, OK?!

2387. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161300 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 6:23 am

if ignorance is bliss then your life must be like a non-stop orgasm.

I have to say that is really good!

2388. For sale: 13-year-old virgin

Comment #161275 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 5:16 am

Did Henri Bergson study philosophy because he is a prick, or did he become a prick for studying philosophy? Or is it just coincidental that he happens to be a philosopher and a prick?

The philosopher-prick is a deadly combination.

2389. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #161272 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 5:02 am

Quine

did something bad happen to you as a child at the hands of a philosopher, perhaps a Jesuit?

No, just that my ex is a philosopher.. I am kidding. I just can't stand pretentious verbosity.

Thanks for the book recommendation though I think a good book is a good book, not because it was written by philosophers. As you said it yourself, there is no big word and verbal diarrheas, that means it doesn't require any skill unique to the philosopher so it could have been written by an intelligent non philosopher. BTW, I do think philosophers are generally smart people.

2390. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161266 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:48 am

So Artful are you a cosmologist or something? If not I wonder what qualification do you have to talk about how God being external to the universe and interacting with it and so on with such confidence.

How do you know?

You can't even find that stuffs in the bible.

2391. Richard Dawkins and Lawrence Krauss

Comment #161262 by Bonzai on April 15, 2008 at 4:41 am

I watched two of these videos and was bored out of my skull by the mutual admiration and pomposity.

In my boredom I clicked around youtube and found Feynman's old interview with the BBC. I haven't watched them for a long time. I decided to watch them again for old time's sake.

Wow! Feynman still rules even though he is long dead. He was sooo cool !

Feynman was passionate, completely unpretentious and had such interesting, original things to say.The contrast with these Dawkins-Krauss videos was like day and night.

I am ashamed to admit that I was in a roboholic hero worship mode instantly.I was born too late.

2392. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160773 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 11:33 am

epeeist

,.. enough about the philosophy of science to know that Intelligent Design isn't science (though you would want a professional philosopher like MPhil, Quine or Spinoza if you want more depth).

No you don't. "Professional" philosophers have a tendency to be tricked by their own words. You don't need to know the big words to make a sound argument. Kant said such and such, according to so and so doctrine blah blah are basically invoking authorities to cover the lack of argument,--though often done just as a way to show off, in that case they are unnecessary distractions.

2393. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160755 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 11:17 am

So let's say ID is given equal time. What do they have to teach other than saying Darwinism is wrong?

Naysaying is not much of a scientific program, is it? Show us some positive content man. Tell us something about how the intelligent designer accomplished his task.

2394. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160753 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 11:13 am

Steve,

Why don't you address Chomsky's substantial points?

Most people who do journalistic work and political analysis outside the scholarly circle don't have any
footnote, peroid. Chomsky doesn't consider his political work "scholarly".

With due respect, I think you are digressing into something rather secondary.

You made the very specific charge of "omission", give us an example. You conceded that you can't find anything factually incorrect in his work, but you then went on to say you don't like his slant, again can you be more specific about it? As far as I can tell his "slant" is basically that the same standard should apply to us and our official enemies and that we are primarily responsible for our own action,--see my first post on the Chomsky in this thread,-- sounds reasonable enough.

2395. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160737 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 10:37 am

Palestinians were treated very badly in Jordan and Lebanon as well. In Lebanon they are still festering in refugee camps though peope mostly only hear about the West Bank. I think the Arab countries also exploit the Palestinian situation as a way to score points against Israel. It is a very cynical game on all sides, with the Palestinian trapped.

2396. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160726 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 10:23 am

Al,

Further, my point is that, there is a claim, to an inhabited land, based on a religious, 2,500 year old real estate contract. Why not give the Jews a piece of Germany? Europe would be a far less hostile neighborhood for the Jews... No?

Well I think that is the crux of the matter.

When indigenous people discriminate based on ethnicity, as in the cases of "old" countries such as China and Japan, it is somewhat acceptable and is not considered intrinsically racist,--or if it is, it is excusable. The problem is that European Jews are not "indigenous" to the ME, as are the whites in South Africa.

But the situation is trickier because the Palestinians, while always there, they didn't have a national claim until recently.

"The land without people" is a throughly discredited lie though you still can see it being tossed about in North America by the right. However, until the end of WWI the Palestinians were Ottomann subjects and apparently never had their own country.

The Zionist began mass migration to Palestine in the mid 19th century and buying land from absentee Ottomann landlords. In a legal sense they did have certain rights to the land apart from their Biblical claims.

The Zionist movement in the 19-20th century was mostly secular Nationalism, the Bible bit was thrown in as an after thought because Theodore Herzl needed to persuade the conservative Eastern European Jews to support the project.

In the early 20th century Zionism was in a collision course with the new, rising Arab nationalism among the Palestinians. Both versions of Nationalism were ethnically based and exclusive and you have the unavoidable clash.

I think what is often missed in these debates is that it is not about Jews and Arabs as individuals, but which group is entitled to the claim of nationhood,--so it is not about whether the Jews have a problem with Arabs living in their mist and vice versa, you and ofir both say there is no problem . This kind of nationalism is "racist" from the get go on both sides, as it is the standard in ME politics.

I think the only way out of this is a genuine and fair two state solution,--not the crap that is offered to the Palestinian in Oslo and beyond,--I just don't see a single bi-national state feasible for either side especially for the Jews who are losing demographically due to low birth rate.

2397. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160692 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 9:36 am

True. Are those racist?

They are, but that is considered acceptable internationally. No one would call China or Japan inherently racist states because of that.

In most parts of the world, until very recently, the notion of "nationhood" has been based on ethnicity. The multi-ethnic nationality is primarily the result of mass migration,--the immigrant experience.

Now of course historically multi-ethnic states and empires were common, but with rare exceptions individuals were usually identified as members of tribes rather than citizens in a universal sense.

What is ironic in this discussion is that the whole conflict is based on ancestral rights to the land and roots, yet the idea of multi-ethnic nationality itself is the product of migration.

2398. Hitchens vs. Hitchens

Comment #160681 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 9:20 am

OK. So, now, do you consider a citizenship requirement based on ethnicity acceptable?

Actually citizenships for many countries are based on ethnicity. China for example.

2399. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160653 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 8:57 am

Karda,

If it is a source of conflict, then discuss and justify based on laws, conventions, and ethics...

In that case why not go to law, conventions and ethics etc directly and cut out the middle man of inner voice?

2400. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #160642 by Bonzai on April 14, 2008 at 8:51 am

A better question might be what happens when our still, small, inner voices tell us to kill someone.

Like Abraham hearing his instruction to slay Issac. It is supposed to be a virtue to follow the order and "trust God". If he failed to obey, that would be his fault because he didn't have enough faith. That is what I gathered from Karda's reply.