251. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239402 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:21 pm

I've just had a great few minutes chortling over "Wiquran" and "granny frenzy" while trying to get my not-really-Muslim-at-all gf to laugh.

Oh well. Back to the old drawing board.

New slogan for Decius' plan:

"From Wicked-pedo to Wikipedia"

252. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239397 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:18 pm

decius:

Hairy imams!

I'm cured!

253. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239390 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:10 pm

Rachel,

I thought that, too, when I was in there once. Turned out I'd wandered down the Mexican food aisle.

254. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239388 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:07 pm

Diacanu,

You are right! They were completely out when I got to the shop.

Thank goodness you and I are talking about the important things in this thread. I must go now, though, to whack Quetz with the world's densest smallest violin...

255. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239379 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:02 pm

\begin{run off to "Goodle" John Constantine}
...
ooh! Keanu Reeves!

I am more partial to Christian Bale and Robert Downey Jr. Not that I am aware of their preferences.

It is "simpler" being homo- or hetero- because the fact that I am about 80-20 or 90-10 F-M preferenced means that, in some sense, I am straight, but just mildly kinked at times.

Anyway: David Bowie, Alan Cumming, Bai Ling, Drew Barrymore, Hans Christian Andersen, and many others in the very handy Wikipedia "List of bisexual people". Though there seem to be far more women than men in the list.

EDIT: Egads! This thread is rapidly moving quickly much faster now.

256. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239363 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:51 pm

CFL (et al)

And we poor minoritised bisexuals are left in the gutter, to turn to dust, our sexual habits regarded with suspicion by the gays and the straights. Oh woe is me, for what role models do I have?

[/drama]

257. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239360 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:50 pm

Rachel,

Gotta be careful with arguing about such "cut and dried" issues like the atomic bomb! ;)

258. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239344 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:35 pm

I was pretty sure (as sure as I can be in this maelstrom of recrimination) that Fanusi was advocating punishment of those actively speaking out in favour of violent jihad.

This is why I am confused. We have laws covering hate speech, and incitement to violence. I am not sure what the "extra" bit is, other than that people seem to be saying that individuals should be rounded up and shoved out of the country by force. It has been suggested that Fanusi and TWP were even proposing deportation without trial, but I can't believe that.

It looks to me, from my admittedly weary viewpoint, as though this has all got so worked up that everything has become clouded.

Oh well.

259. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239339 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:24 pm

179. Comment #239334 by al-rawandi

al,

That's the bit I am a bit lost with, too. To be frank, though, this has gone on for so long that I am entirely lost. I am in favour of deporting foreign citizens who commit crime - after they have served their sentence here (just to ensure they get one), but if someone is a citizen of the country in which they committed the crime, well there is nowhere to "send them back to". But I also gathered that there was a suggestion that people who were not "originally" citiens of a country could be deported to the country of which they used to be citizens. But this only works if that person has multiple citizenships. Many countries do not permit you to be a citizen of them and another state. So, the X-ish person gains Y-ish citizenship and has to stop being X-ish (officially). Hence, country X would say "not our problem any more".

All this stuff about one commenter offending another has got me sidetracked, whereas it would be nice to just get a straightforward explanation of what is supposed to happen in the "tricky" circumstances.

Even the response: "we stick them on a raft and let the stateless bastards float around the Atlantic" is at least a response.

260. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239333 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:18 pm

I hope that, in time, when enough people refer to their "civil partner" as, appropriately, husband or wife, then we can all just call a civil partnership "marriage", and I for one will be much happier :)

261. No atheist burials in Co Donegal

Comment #239170 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 7:34 am

Unused graveyard?

I have an unused graveyard in my bathroom at home.

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

Comment #239128 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 5:53 am

Did anyone say: "Civilisation shall not achieve perfection until the last stone from the last church has fallen on the last priest", or were they misquoting Diderot?

263. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239101 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 3:55 am

Historical contingency is an interesting thing.

For example: consider, if you will, Jeri Ryan, the very attractive actress who is perhaps best known for portraying the ex-Borg Seven of Nine in Star Trek: Voyager. She was married to Jack Ryan, who was later to run for the Senate as Republican candidate. They divorced over, it appears, Jeri and Jack's incompatibility over the desire to perform sexual acts at adult clubs. As a result, Jack Ryan pulled out of the campaign for the Senate, leaving the Democratic candidate without his expected opponent. That Democratic candidate was Barack Obama.

So, I like to think that if Jeri Ryan had been more into kinky sex games, Obama would possibly not now be so close to the Presidency.

Funny how things turn out.

And now, back to your usual programming...

264. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239091 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 3:33 am

Isn't "alternative history" as a means of making decisions a little dangerous because of the problem of hindsight? It can be interesting to think, "ooh, what if Dunkirk had gone differently" but we only say now, as another example, that bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki were "good" because of the effect that we know they had. If things had turned out differently, we'd have a load of other people saying: "well, any fool could have seen that it was a bad idea". If we knew at time t0 what would happen under different options, then everything would be so much better. But the world most often doesn't behave that way.

265. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239087 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 3:21 am

Telic,

I agree, if only because I know how the press can distort things, without even meaning to.

But it is explicitly stated that it has been confirmed that there was a complaint, and that:

A spokesman for Northampton Borough Council said the sign was covered up due to the original complaint and also because of its poor syntax.

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

Comment #239082 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 3:11 am

Crusade:

1) Take crucifix
2) Mix with carbonated water
3) Serve with pieces of spiritually alive, metaphorical, symbolic flesh
4) And a slice of lemon.

267. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239077 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:54 am

Fanusi,

I read the long posts on the RD.net forum about Saudi Arabia, by the doctor who was working over there for some time. They brought me close to tears but mostly to the brink of apoplexy because of the dreadful things that go on over there. I don't even think that my normal flirtations with moral relativism come into play - the things that go on over there are an affront to fundamental human-natured decency towards others. My mind boggled so many times I thought I was going to lose it. What can we do? Are the general public over there happy to go along with such a dreadful "society"? If we could empower women, would they want to see an end to what most of us regard as their mistreatment?

The reason I ask these questions is that there is a danger that we will say: "Well, they are only allowing themselves to be treated that way because they are unable to fight back." And then, if we give them the means to fight back, but they continue to live like that we would say "They have been brainwashed into accepting it."

Much as I do feel that Saudi Arabia is run like a mad-house, I cannot but help thinking that I would be, effectively, saying: "You cannot be making an informed choice, because you are not making my preferred choice." And, my comments about fundamental decency notwithstanding, I cannot see how to get around what I see as a logical problem there.

Perhaps I am unduly worrying: people do want to be happy, and this is no doubt why the "Western" capitalist society is so attractive to people.

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

Comment #239074 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 2:47 am

Quetz,

If I go around being quite vocal about why religion is false and why a non-belief in god is the only sensible approach, given the lack of any real evidence to back up the god hypothesis, can this not be regarded as a crusade for atheism?

269. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239063 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:37 am

Not being a US citizen, and seeing all this from the cross-Atlantic POV, I only know what the news media tell me, and what I have been bothered to watch. It looks like just a, as usual, Democrat vs Republican contest. And given that I think John McCain would be a disaster (though I do like his oven chips), I have to therefore assume I would be happier with Obama.

Watching Obama on TV recently, I found myself wondering why he hasn't used "08ama" as his election logo. Would be quite clever, I think.

Anyway, in the USA, surely everyone running for office is going to seem at least slightly religious. Anyway, he may just be the best of a bad lot. I was hoping that Hilary would've made it, actually. She's quite hot. Kind of.

270. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239058 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:23 am

92. Comment #239053 by Chris_The_Positivist

Who is totting up evil?

271. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239055 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:05 am

Wrysmile,

Yes, sadly it is in the UK. If Francis Crick were alive today he'd be turning in his grave,

272. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239054 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 1:05 am

51. Comment #238914 by skip:

I've had a look at the pictures - pretty nice. However, I am pretty sure that "ancestory" is not the correct spelling (or, a variant spelling) of "ancestry". Those naughty museum display designers!

273. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239050 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 12:44 am

Raiko,

Is it telling, or not, that we're not told what the offensive wording supposedly is/was?

each small change enabling a species to [adapt to] the rigours of it's (sic) environment

274. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239048 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 12:41 am

Fanusi,

The fact is, and regardless of whether or not you agree with the whole axis of evil thing (I have my own reservations), the governments of Ba'athist Iraq, Iran, and North Korea are pure evil.

275. Museum in censorship row over Darwin sign

Comment #239044 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 12:36 am

I am deeply offended, nay, shuddering with appalled obsessiveness at the apostrophe debacle, but also at the fact that none of you (no, none of you) seem to have noticed "Chronocle".

I've just been looking at the original article, and one of the comments has pointed out that Francis Crick was born in Northampton (well, in a village on the edge of Northampton).

276. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #239041 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 12:19 am

Well, I'd probably go on a date with many of you. Or, just a meeting. Or, maybe wave at you from across the street, or from the back of the cinema. In the dark. When you weren't in your seat yet.

;)

277. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #239039 by Sargeist on August 29, 2008 at 12:14 am

I suppose that, ultimately, anything that can be "answered" is a scientific question. Science is just a "way of finding out" that places more emphasis on evidence-gathering than personal opinion. Isn't it?

So, in principle, we could learn enough about brain structure and chemistry to find out what it is about the neuronal configurations that change when we are shown certain art, and then link these changes to the parts of the brain that represent "pleasure".

278. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238672 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 1:07 pm

Al,

Generally scholar use qiyas (Syllogism) to arrive at the conclusion that any intoxicant is forbidden.

279. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238669 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 1:05 pm

_{I rather enjoy Tera's posts...}

280. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238666 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 1:01 pm

Al,

One of the "best" things about a really old book full of rigid rules is that if it says "wine" then, hey presto! it only means wine! So, cocaine, beer, poppers (quite handy with those young boys) and any number of other things might well be perfectly allowable.

Not sure why smoking is permitted. Surely the addiction and total mental derangement that results from being a slave to nicotine must count as being ever so slightly not-in-the-right-mind?

(EDIT: I should clarify that the "mental derangement" part was not saying that smokers are mentally deranged (though I think their actions are ill-advised). I was commenting more on the desperation that some people will exhibit when craving for a cigarette. Just wanted to clear that up!)

281. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238662 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 12:58 pm

The thing I can't understand about the wine and the virgins etc is that: a) the wine is supposed to be fabulous but not intoxicate you. Now, I don't know about you lot, but I don't really drink wine for the taste alone. Without the warm fuzzy feelings and the relaxing effects of the alcohol, what is the point? b) What is it with these virgins who one deflowers only for them to become virgins again? So, they're not *real* humans? Only simulacra provided for the male appetite for abuse and rape? Very very odd, the whole damn thing.

And what do the women get? Eh, eh? Bloody Islam.

EDIT: Just noticed Al talk about this while I was typing my comment!

282. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238657 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 12:55 pm

Bonzai,

I've mentioned in some other thread how my gf got sent to the principal at her Islamic school for asking the obvious questions during Islamic Studies class. If we have no physical desires, then what are the virgins for? Why don't the women get anything? Why is it only for the men? etc

As with most religion, children can see through the attempts at making things sound consistent. Though, to be charitable, they would probably also think that quantum mechanics sounded like bollocks.

283. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #238631 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 12:31 pm

Al,

It looked very much in your last post like sex with males is fine so long as they are not adults.

This is rather more absurd than I had come to expect of even Islamic religion.

284. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238499 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 8:56 am

Smith,

I did find this: http://www.metanexus.net/Magazine/ArticleDetail/tabid/68/id/3047/Default.aspx

285. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #238496 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 8:52 am

Much as I hate to conclude this, it might be "best" in some places to play the "look, religion is about why and science is about how" card for a while until people get more and more comfortable and accepting of the science that currently seems to be causing problems. One of those "needs must" type of things.

I really enjoyed reading this article because the teacher was trying very hard in difficult circumstances. By contrast, in my school and college I was only ever in classes where we all wanted to learn, and no one would ever have dreamed of bringing up the "well, my mum says..." kind of excuse as a way of trying to derail a teacher.

286. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #238422 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 6:14 am

Peace,

In true McGrath mode I can honestly say "I used to be a Christian, and now I am an atheist."

Of course, I was only 13 when I stopped going to church, but I *must* have been a Christian, right?

I often wonder about where my rampant atheism came from. I have tried tracing back my memories of being outspokenly non-believing, but get a bit lost back around A-levels. I don't want to say that it was down to the Selfish Gene, because that sounds clichéd, but it might well have been.

287. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #238416 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 5:58 am

Peace,

That is quite funny, and a good example of how the religious can still continue to justify anything they want within the apparent requirements of their god.

The good thing about Jonathan Edwards is that he came to his senses about god-belief:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/more_sport/athletics/article1991114.ece

288. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #238407 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 5:40 am

Vaal,

I can see an argument that god gave us hair and foreskins so that he could demand that we cover/remove them, thereby seeing how much we like him.

My problem with these rules about hair and food and other things like that is that people almost inevitably end up focusing only on those rules, to the neglect of the "be nice to people" parts of religion. Easy to cover your head, hard to be nice.

This explains why I see so many women walking around town wearing a headscarf, but also wearing a tight pair of jeans or trousers that makes them look like they've become possessed by the phantom head and bum swapper. This hair covering thing doesn't seem to be all that important, if I can see that you're practically cut in half by the crotch of your jeans, and I can see the imprint of your frilly bra.

\begin{cold shower}

289. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #238403 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 5:30 am

I shall probably find the time at some point to do a little reading about the turban (although I do have much more interesting things to read!) but I wouldn't be at all surprised if it was another example of those "god is all-powerful, but just like us, really" moments. Like how god needed sacrifices, even though he doesn't need to eat.

Didn't Christopher Hitchens mention something in his book about nuns having to cover themselves with a sheet during their ablutions, even though god would have to have been able to look through the ceiling of the room in order to find out they were bathing in the first place?

290. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #238391 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 4:26 am

Peace,

A whip with 5 sharp knives attached. Something that surely should be illegal under the Offensive Weapons Act anyway.

291. Why Dawkins is right and his critics are wrong

Comment #238370 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 3:47 am

Peace,

My favourite parts of that article:

In this country the laws are very different from those in Pakistan. If you want children to perform this act, then take them to Pakistan.

But he admitted many men who become very emotional during the ceremony still beat themselves and if children wanted to take part too they were not stopped.

He said: "How can you stop a child who wants to do this for his faith? We cannot discourage or stop them.

292. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #238317 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 1:41 am

I, too, recently managed to watch the Darwin programme. I enjoyed it very much and, because I had read so many negative comments about it before watching it, I was constantly surprised by how totally unfounded those criticisms were. For example, at no point whatsoever did Richard even mention god during the conversations in the classroom or on the beach. Not once, not even slightly. The best bit of the beach footage was, for me, the boy's response to the "shrewlike" ancestors: "It's like it's a dream, but it's real." Yes, yes, yes, this is what science is about! Fabulous stuff, wonderful things to learn, the fact that the things one learns can be backed up with evidence and reasoning. Wonderful.

I do, though, have one personal criticism of the first episode: the bit at the end with the children on the beach individually saying whether they believed in evolution really should have been left out. I don't see that it was very useful, and it just made me cringe. I know that it was probably there to show how people's minds can be closed to things but, really, if their education about evolution etc has been so bad up to that point, then it wouldn't be reasonable to expect them all to suddenly go along with it. Just my thoughts, anyway.

I was even surprised by the content of the second episode on "social Darwinism". I was quite worried that it would be filled with hand-wringing stuff that wasn't really relevant, but it was really very good. Lots of interesting things about why it is that supposedly Darwinian approaches to various parts of our lives do not and cannot work.

The third part was especially good. The sight of Richard saying *bleep* was rather amusing for me, because of the incongruity. Some people have said that they have thought this bit went on for too long, but to me it didn't seem to. He only read out a few. And the face on the Concerned Woman of America when Richard talked about jaw bones of lizards becoming ear bones of mammals was amazing. The proof of this bone-migration is amazing, and the woman's expression was fabulous. Of course, if there was only one camera present then the expression may not have matched up with the things Richard was saying - but this is what the uncut interviews are for!

All in all, I was very pleased, and I was rather boggled by how I could not see any of the causes for criticism that those reviewers had seen.

293. Atheism could be science's contribution to religion

Comment #238313 by Sargeist on August 28, 2008 at 1:28 am

I think Raiko and Mitchell are different people, who both happen to appreciate lady love.

In reality, the only contribution that science can make to the ideas of religion is atheism.

294. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237402 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 12:30 pm

Cheers, Smith. Most of the time I post too quickly on this site :) The only things I feel particularly strongly about are physics and, er, well, ok just physics. Because I know something about it. Everything else is just sort of vague opinion.

I have to run off now, but I shall peruse the comments after a nice dose of Miss Marple.

295. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #237398 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 12:23 pm

Comment #237393 by thewhitepearl

cute

296. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237394 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 12:20 pm

\begin{offtopic}
Yeah, this comments thing is a bit odd. For me, after I have submitted a comment it appears at the bottom of my screen so that I can update and modify it, and it also appears on the main body of the screen. But if, as often happens, it gets posted onto the next page of comments, I have to do a full "no cache" refresh with Ctrl F5 to get the next page's link to appear. And I have to do this, too, just to get another fresh text box to appear so that I can post again.
\end{offtopic}

297. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237390 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 12:16 pm

Smith,

Sorry, one more comment. I've re-read your comment 80 a few times, just to be sure I've got what you were saying, and I do think you have a point. Which is rather annoying. But in that case, if Myers knows that David Campbell is a theist, why would the answer be described as chicken-hearted in the first place? How can an answer be cowardly or scaredey-cat-like without being attributed some of the emotions of the person whose answer it was?

298. A Teacher on the Front Line as Faith and Science Clash

Comment #237383 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Hi Smith.

I always seem to wade in with my big size 12s where I shouldn't, but I did wade in so...

If someone, let's say it's me, says something that is stupid, and I am told: "That answer was stupid", well you have taken the approach that I was advised in one of my awful "Managing Expectations" courses at work: attack the ideas and not the person. If someone feels very strongly about something then, as we see daily with the religious, attacking the idea is tantamount to attacking the person. Which is not to say that one should not attack the ideas (or the person) but I really do think that there is no real distinction between using an emotion-laden word or phrase to describe a person's idea, and being essentially saying the same about the person.

I don't feel very strongly about my idea, to be honest. I happen to think it is right, at the moment.

My comment was originally intended more as a comment on the way that I also really do think that hairs are being split quite regularly on many posts on this site. Many of us (including me) find it very annoying when someone, e.g. quotes person X as saying that god is blue and how absurd this is, only to be told that person X said god was red, so you haven't refuted his argument at all. This sort of thing goes on quite often, I feel.

299. Plan to exhume cardinal is 'homophobic'

Comment #237374 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 12:01 pm

IANAA (I am not an anthropologist) but the discomfort that I think almost everyone would feel towards the deliberate dismemberment of a corpse for fun or to make a point is, I think, a good reason for its being regarded as unethical. I know that this is appealing to the "icks" factor, but there is a strong contribution of ick in our ethics. It's all very debatable, of course, and I am not entirely sure of my own (shifting) position on this, but I don't think we should discount deep-seated feelings on what is right and wrong entirely when it comes to morals.

Of course, making the distinction between "heart" and "head" for a moment, when I think about it in what I suppose is the rational way, I cannot really see what is wrong with playing football with a corpse's head, for example, if the person has been long long long dead and, as someone mentioned earlier, there is no one alive today who has the slightest memory of him/her.

300. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #237365 by Sargeist on August 26, 2008 at 11:47 am

IQ tests are regarded by the clever as accurate, the mediocre as depressing, and by the stupid as false.