251. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92904 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Vinelectric,

Bear in mind writing/upload delay! My comment does not follow logically from Zamboro because he posted it while I was trying to write a response to Fanusi.

Thanks for your long post but I'm not going to let you get away with it that easily. You should really become a politician! I know you weren't referring to Zamboro's post which is why I specifically stated that your comment didn't refer to his quote. It is also why I highlighted your words that were relevant. So, let me first quote Zamboro (again) and then you afterwards:

Zamboro quoting Sura (9:11-12)
"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them".

Vinelectric:
Technically speaking that verse [this doesn't refer to the above quote] or indeed any other verse doesn't say anything about killing apostates.

Until you admit that this verse does indeed advocate the killing of apostates, I'm afraid I'm not going to let this go, even if you do insist on replying with long posts that talk about context etc. etc. The reason I'm not willing to let this drop is not because I disagree with you and Bonzai (though I do), but because I think both of you have argued using slippery tactics e.g. labelling the other side 'Muslim Fundamentalists' and not properly answering questions.

252. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92899 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 5:24 pm

Bonzai ,

Okay, now I really am confused. I thought it was your English that wasn't so good but it seems that you really meant what you said i.e. that Janus et al are arguing as Muslim Fundis, not like Muslim Fundis. That is, they are arguing from the position of a Muslim Fundamentalist and defending the views of a Muslim Fundamentalist.

Now, I've just re-read the thread and I'm at a loss as to how you have come to this conclusion. To me they seem to be arguing as atheists, from an atheist viewpoint. What on Earth do you mean that they are arguing as Muslim Fundis? In what way are they "putting on a Wahabi hat"?

Could it simply be that some of the problems that atheists have with moderate Islam are the same problems that Muslim Fundis have with moderate Islam and you have chosen to label Janus, Fanusi and Zamobori as Muslim Fundamentalists because it suits your argument, such as it is, to do so?

If two opposing sides find the middle ground between themselves untenable, this could either mean that both sides are too radical or that the moderate postion genuinely is internally contradictory. However, in neither of these cases is it true to say that Janus et al are arguing as Muslim Fundamentalists. I think this was just your way of negating their arguments.

p.s. If you have time, please respond to my comment 251 to you on the 'Green-eyed monster' thread.

253. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92883 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 4:39 pm

BMMcArdle,

Keith,
From your last post?
Also known as preaching to the choir, for lack of a better analogy.

What is also known as preaching to the choir? Your previous post was this:

You get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.
If you wouldn't say something to someone's face, how does writing it to someone else give it any value?

To which I responded with this:

You're assuming that because you wouldn't say something to someone's face that it can't have any value. Where did you get this idea?

To which you responded with the post about preaching to the choir. You've lost me. Or were you responding to some other post I had made? If so, which?

254. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92878 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 4:29 pm

Phil Rimmer,

I think it is the moral smugness that makes me want to be rude as much as the forays over Jefferson's Wall.

You know, despite all the talk of the danger of religion, of which I am also convinced, I sometimes suspect that it is precisely the repulsive smugness of the faithful that drives both Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris as much as the threat that it poses. I think their pointing out of the dangers of religion is just as much a justification for their annoyance as a motivating force in itself.

The nearest RD comes to suggesting that this might be true is when the argument about how much of a danger religion really is and whether it does, in its more radical forms, lead to violence has gone on interminably. He then asks, "But is any of it true? It's the truth that I'm interested in". I think what gets him going is that awful trinity of religion: the threat that it poses, its ignorance and disrespect for the truth, and its smugness in its own ignorance.

255. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92870 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 4:02 pm

Steve99,

I think your example of Richard Dawkins talking politely to the Bishop of Oxford was not a great one. I think many of us more strident arguers have already agreed that on a one-to-one, face to face basis, we should be more polite than, say, in an essay or a video clip. Although not as rude as Pat Condell, I think RD very slightly tones down his rhetoric so as not to intimidate the person he's debating and to ensure that the debate doesn't escalate into a slanging match. I don't believe he has a one-size-fits-all approach to tackling religious views. For example, I think he'd be more wary about using the word 'faith-head' in the presence of a faith-head. However, you're right in suggesting that RD is more polite than Pat Condell.

I suspect you weren't referring to my post when you talked about it being pretty much impossible to know the context of Pat's video because he's not well-known. The only context I would see as being necessary to know is that this is a video clip and not one man going after another during a face to face exchange.

256. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92673 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 7:06 am

BMMcArdle,

You're assuming that because you wouldn't say something to someone's face that it can't have any value. Where did you get this idea?

257. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92661 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 4:48 am

I can't help thinking that Pat and Steve are talking about different situations and as Steve pointed out, it's more than possible that Pat would be polite to Phil Rimmer's mate. However, I don't think this means that Pat is affecting a belligerent tone for comedic effect. I think the apparent contradiction lies in who he is addressing and where he is doing it.

On a one-to-one basis, with a real-life Catholic in front of me, I hope I would behave myself, keep my snide remarks to myself and try not to make anybody (including myself) look foolish. However, on an atheist website or on a youtube video there should really be no way for anyone to take the mockery and ridicule personally. Okay, Pat is mocking opinions that a lot of people hold dear, but there is nothing personal in this attack, any more than the chant, "You're shit, and you know you are" shouted by thousands of football supporters towards the rival team every weekend should be taken personally by one, overly-sensitive Aston Villa fan. No one has singled out this fan for individual abuse and neither has Pat: his attacks are on ideas, pure and simple.

I have to say that whenever we have these discussions about just how rude you should be and whether or not it is counter-productive to be so, I'm a little exasperated at what occasionally comes across, at worst, as a kind of sniffy self-righteousness and at best an aunty-ish fastidiousness. I have the impression that in some people's eyes, irritation and annoyance are emotions to be used tactically or not at all. The idea that someone might have an overwhelming desire to get something off their chest and that the impersonal arena of a website might be the ideal place to do so seems completely foreign to some kindly souls. Sometimes I'm really left wondering: Whatever happened to real people with real emotions?

Fine, on a personal level don't embarrass others. That's just cruel. But in the impersonal medium of the internet, while referring to a set of ideas that are subscribed to by millions, you should be able to let loose a little.

258. Why debate dogma?

Comment #92658 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 4:05 am

Smithyboy,

Indeed I suspect ridicule might make 'strong-minded' types like me just dig in deeper.

Do you think there are people who would describe themselves as 'weak-minded'?

259. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92653 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 3:42 am

you must question most closely YOURSELF.

The problem is that when I do this I find myself disappearing up my own backside and I come over all dizzy (as you would). Either this, or I have the sensation of being one of those russian dolls.

Oh, where is that ultimate platform from whence to view objectively mine own prejudices? Like the hide-behind, it always seems to be somewhere my eyes won't reach.

260. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92644 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 2:58 am

Bonzai,

It seems that a lot of our sexual morality is socially constructed. The way we organize family and raise children is not universal. If monogamy is a social fiction then jealousy may not be biological after all so it may be easier to "rise above it" that one may think.

It's possible that monogamy isn't universal, though I suspect that it is the norm in many societies. However, even if we allow, for the sake of argument, that monogamy isn't universal, this in no way suggests that jealousy isn't. Jealousy clearly is universal since we find it in all societies, regardless of what Margaret Mead would have us believe. This is surely a sign that it is indeed biological in origin and thus extremely difficult to rise above.

I have no idea what you mean when you say that 'monogamy is a social fiction'. Monogamy is just a way of structuring society, it can't be either a fiction or non-fiction. This is like saying that the structure of government is a political fiction or that the favoured 4-4-2 formation of a football team is a sporting fiction. What could this possibly mean?

261. Debate: Ayaan Hirsi Ali vs Ed Husain

Comment #92635 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 2:24 am

Bonzai ,

Yeah, my question is why do they want an "open debate" in which they basically argue as Muslim fundis

Please tell me in what way this comment is different from the religious apologists who claim that Richard Dawkins argues like a Fundamentalist?

RD argues the atheist viewpoint consistently and for this he is called a Fundamentalist. Janus, Fanusi and Zamboro argue the atheist viewpoint consistently and you say they are arguing "as [I think you mean 'like'] Muslim Fundis". Where is the difference between what I consider to be a false accusation of RDs standpoint by religious apologists and what you are doing here? Or do you agree with RDs critics that he is indeed a Fundamentalist?

Vinelectric ,

Zamboro posted the following quote:

"They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them".

In your post immediately after this, you wrote (my italics):

Technically speaking that verse [this doesn't refer to the above quote] or indeed any other verse doesn't say anything about killing apostates.

To my mind this verse does indeed say something about killing apostates. Please put my mind at rest and tell me it doesn't.

262. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92616 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 12:38 am

Shrunk,

Thanks for putting me right on the Swedish film. Although I couldn't remember the title and I got the country of origin wrong, as well as the name of the group of film directors (that this particular director didn't really belong to anyway!), you somehow recognised the film so I must have got the story of the deceived man more or less right. Thank god for small mercies!

And yes, I think 'Together' was the title.

263. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92611 by keith on December 1, 2007 at 12:00 am

Beth,

I thought what you were saying was that the state should have no say in what is a legal marriage and what is not. My argument was that this is fine, just so long as you don't expect the state to step in if the legal/illegal marriage breaks down. I think it's right that if the state is expected to sort out divorce claims and enforce the judgement in the case of two divorcing homosexuals, the state should also be the arbiter of whether the marriage was legal in the first place.

You say that marriage is a union of two families. Yes, in the best of cases, it is. I don't know what the situation is in America but in England the family nowadays has virtually no say in who their son or daughter marries. It is the couple themselves that decide. You seem to be describing a situation that hasn't existed for a few generations, at least not in England.

One possible problem with leaving families to resolve marriage issues is that it can become quite dangerous. If you have a family that resembles the Sopranos then you're laughing. If, on the other hand, you marry into the Sopranos family and later want out, you could have a few problems sorting out the mess just backed up by your aging dad and your deaf old aunt.

This, of course, is why we have a police force and a justice system in the first place: to stop people taking the law into their own hands and starting feuds that run for generations and involve ever more people.

If I have misunderstood you on this then I apologise, but if that really is the case, then I see it not so much as what you termed, 'a leap of faith' and more as simply a mistake.

264. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92311 by keith on November 30, 2007 at 9:05 am

Beth,

Most of the atheists I have met are supportive of 'legalising' same sex marriages (as if the State has the right to determine such things).

I feel that if the state is called upon to sort out the mess of a broken relationship, then it is right that it is the arbiter of what is and what isn't legal. Of course, if you're willing to forgo asking for the help of the state when things break down, then I agree with you; it's none of the state's goddamn business.

Surely if the legality of a marriage is purely a personal thing, then when things go wrong there can be no real help from outside for an aggrieved party. For example, rather than being classed as a 'home-maker', a man can simply claim that his girlfriend, who laughingly likes to call herself his 'wife' (ha-ha!), just moved into his house for a while but after doing her this favour, he has no intention of handing over his house or any cash when things go wrong. Surely the woman's status in such a situation is all-important to a decision of what, if anything, she should receive.

Marriage, like most things the religious wingnuts touch, has been distorted into something perverse – and usually it is women who suffer.

I suspect that a woman would find herself in an even more vulnerable situation if it weren't for the institution of marriage. At least there is no way of a man having his evil way with her and then leaving her holding the baby. Even if you have laws whereby the biological father has to pay for his child (which we do), the woman still has to rely far more on trust than on recourse to the law when she lives in a marriageless society. Surely as long as she can escape from a bad marriage, she is better off with this institution than without it?

265. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92287 by keith on November 30, 2007 at 8:29 am

While acknowledging that in all times and places until the historical era human groups believed in the supernatural, I postulate that over the generations these inhabitants of your superstition-free world would, by dint of possessing abstract language, self-consciousness, and an innate need to explain the world, formulate supernatural beliefs.

You're talking as though the possession of language, self-consciousness and an innate need to explain the world are sufficient to bring forth superstitious beliefs. However, we atheists have all those things and don't believe in the supernatural. Also, when stating that these superstitiously-inclined people will need to explain the world, you're talking as though there wouldn't already be an explanation in place, as though some vacuum would need to be filled. However, that isn't the case. There is already another explanation around and that explanation just needs to be better advertised and people just have to get used to it. After that, there will be no vacuum left to fill.

The reason that I'm making this point is that it seems unduly defeatist to imagine that a large percentage of 'supers' will always be with us so it doesn't really matter what we do. I don't think that's the case. However, you may have a point in suggesting that superstitious thinking comes easier than evidence-based thinking to some of us and so will thus take hold in the brain more readily, in the same way that a chimp can quickly learn to fear snakes but can't really learn to fear flowers.

Even so, I think the reason for the latter is obvious whereas the evolutionary advantages of seeing the world in a skewed way are less clear and are perhaps, for this reason, less ineradicable.

266. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92279 by keith on November 30, 2007 at 7:51 am

notsobad,

Okay. You think that we should not give free rein to our feelings of jealousy, right? It's good if we control ourselves. And I think you would say that jealousy is a natural emotion? So what would you like to call this phenomenon that shouldn't be called 'rising above nature'? Rising above human nature? And at what stage does the fucked up bit that makes us worse than animals come in? Is that before or after the rising?

267. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92278 by keith on November 30, 2007 at 7:39 am

Dr Mango,

supernatural beliefs, like monogamy, are evolved.

This may be half-true, but why is the ratio of religious believers in Europe today smaller than just a couple of hundred years ago? Have our genes evolved in that time? Does the fact that I'm an atheist and my friend a Baptist have everything to do with genes and nothing to do with the enironment we both grew up in?

According to Steven Pinker, if you blindfold a kitten at a critical stage in its development, it will never develop sight (even when you take the blindfold off, of course!). This suggests that although the ability to see may be genetically determined, it still needs the right environment to manifest itself. How about if we were to create a world in which superstition wasn't taught or discussed? If those that were genetically predisposed to a belief in the supernatural weren't exposed to any supernatural beliefs, would they still believe in the supernatural?

Just a side issue: Without wanting to sound too much of a sycophant, couldn't you find your way to adding some kind of epithet, like Prof., or Dr., or even Mr. to your rather blunt 'Dawkins'? I don't think I could address even someone I despised by their bare surname alone.

268. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92270 by keith on November 30, 2007 at 7:13 am

notsobad,

Damned if I can make sense of that: We should rise above nature but we shouldn't call it doing that because it gives us airs that we are better than animals when in reality we are the most fucked up species yet still we should rise above our brute selves and distance ourselves from our animal nature though we are actually worse than animals and what's more we think we're better etc. etc.

269. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92252 by keith on November 30, 2007 at 6:23 am

I remember watching a Danish film a few years ago by one of the DOGMA directors. I think I can just about remember it without making too much up.

A group of about ten Danish adults are living in a 1960s. A few of them are couples. Soon, a new, good-looking young man comes along and one of the already paired-off women takes a liking to him and starts having sex with him. Because all the members of the commune are above the idea of possessing each other, the jilted male can't really complain, though clearly he's seething. Yet to even utter a word of complaint, he would be betraying the whole ethos of the commune and the standards he lives by. Rather than be a hypocrite, he bites the bullet and simply looks on as is girlfriend is taken away from him.

There is a scene which is half-comedy, half heart-breaking, as he lies on his bed and listens to his girlfriend making wild and noisy sex in the adjoining bedroom. Even though he's not the nicest of men, it's impossible not to sympathise with him.

Some may say that had the affair been better carried on out of earshot, things would have been alright. However, this really would only have made things slightly better for the man since his imagination, if it was anything like most people's, would have been pretty good at filling in the gaps left by a lack of sensory input.

In the end, the jilted boyfriend explodes in a sudden rage as the pressure of trying to suppress his natural jealousy with his desire to rise above his petty sexual possessiveness becomes too much for him. And after his outburst, I actually like him more, rather than less. He seems more 'himself', not just playing the role he should play.

This does not mean that I believe we should give free rein to the expression of every emotion. If we are going to live with others then we have to shape our behaviour. I just think it's impossible to suppress the emotion itself. And all 'suppression' here really means is trying to pretend that you don't feel something that you do. I mean, in all honesty, who would not feel the keen sting of rejection on finding that their partner prefers the company of another person, even if only for a few hours and 'if only' for a certain very intimate act?

So, although I think it's genuinely noble to suppress the desire to push your unfaithful girlfriend under the next on-coming bus, stopping the green-eyed monster is tantamount to ceasing to love her, at least in a way that's different from loving your granny. To not feel sexual jealousy is possible only to the degree that you really don't mind the idea of your other half fornicating with someone else.

So, my personal experience doesn't back up Arcturus's quote, lovely though it sounds, that real love leaves no room for jealousy. And the idea that you should actually feel pleased for your partner - she's happily shagging the neighbour so if she's happy, I'm happy - is just absurd.

Apart from all this, I'm not really sure that I'd even want to live without jealousy, hate, and various other so-called 'negative emotions'. The idea of forcing myself into a Jesus-shaped emotional straight jacket doesn't appeal to me at all, even if I do promise to behave nicely if I'm cuckolded.

270. How condescension benefits terrorism

Comment #91356 by keith on November 28, 2007 at 6:13 am

Xenocratic says that the fact that the British government has plans to send public money to radical Islamist groups in the Middle East, "Reminds one of the US government's ongoing support for Saudi Arabia, the most extreme Islamic regime in the world, or Israel's creation of Hamas to divide the Palestinians. Not to mention the US arming, funding and training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, which would later enable the Saudi multi-billionaire Osama Bin Laden to assemble a crackpot team of suicidal maniacs to fly planes into the World Trade Centre Towers".

However, I think it would be true to say that England losing 2 - 3 to Croatia, the fact that Maddie still hasn't been found, the recent rise of the yen in the money markets and the slow but indisputable decline of the British sitcom all remind him of the US government's ongoing support for Saudi Arabia, the most extreme Islamic regime in the world, or Israel's creation of Hamas to divide the Palestinians. Not to mention the US arming, funding and training the Mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, which would later enable the Saudi multi-billionaire Osama Bin Laden to assemble a crackpot team of suicidal maniacs to fly planes into the World Trade Centre Towers...

Even the brouhaha surrounding The Golden Compass and the latest eviction from the Big Brother house remind him of the US government's ongoing support for Saudi Arabia, the most extreme Islamic regime in the world, or Israel's creation of Hamas to divide the Palestinians. Not to mention...[exit, riding hobby horse off into the distance]

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

Comment #91332 by keith on November 28, 2007 at 4:17 am

peacebeuponme,

"The shit in the books has got to go".

Wise words indeed from Doc Benway, though perhaps she was quoting Keats. Or maybe Goethe?

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

Comment #91267 by keith on November 27, 2007 at 9:22 pm

Peacebeuponme,

The matter was completely resolved in my mind until I read your last sentence:

Your Manchester Utd fan may wear a cross, but in this instance his violence is not religious. When he moves on to throw stones at the house of a doctor who performs an abortion, his violence is religious. Crucially, the second violent act could never be performed by an atheist.

Oh, no. Surely, I thought to myself, by the same reasoning, when an atheist puts a brick through his neighbour's window this is not an atheistic crime, but when he puts a brick through the stained-glass window of the local church this then becomes an atheistic crime. This second act couldn't (or rather wouldn't) have been performed by a Christian, or at least, a Christian is as unlikely to do it as an atheist is to murder an abortion clinic doctor. This was really where I was stuck before.

I think Dr. Benway's question, "When is an ideology itself causative?" is useful, though I don't understand why the ideology needs to be written down to be authoritative. I'm sure there are plenty of folk religions around today that are just as ridiculous as Christianity and maybe just as harmful to the handful of people who practise them but that do not have an authoritative written text.

I now believe that the religious violence of the major religions is caused on the one hand by the believers' (usually correct) reading of their sacred texts that seem to condone and even demand violence against others and on the other a fairly standard in-group / out-group violence as can be witnessed between Man. Utd. fans / Liverpool fans, Mods / Rockers, Believers / non-believers, Stamp collectors / non-stamp collectors...Okay, sometimes it doesn't work, but probably only because stamp collectors are so hopelessly outnumbered in this stamp-collectingly indifferent world that who, in all seriousness, are they going to threaten?

Anyway, my imaginary act of putting a stone through the church window is just an example of your bogstandard, common-or-garden in-group / outgroup violence. Issue resolved? (I have a feeling you will say, "Fucking hell, it was resolved ages ago, before you started on this wild-goose chase".)

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

Comment #91105 by keith on November 27, 2007 at 8:32 am

Peacebeuponme,

I like your answer. Maybe I was being led up the garden path by those religious believers who claim that their religions don't mandate violence: Islam is a religion of peace; Jesus was meek and mild. Of course, these peaceful believers are probably wrong about their sacred texts, but the fact that they believe that these books don't mandate violence seems to me to be not completely beside the point. After all, it is their understanding of the texts that really counts. But, of course, there must be those who feel that the bible and the koran do in fact give them license to, and even demand that they do violence to those who don't adhere to their faith.

Perhaps the important difference between my hypothetical violence and that of some religious people is that they believe, rightly or wrongly, that their religion mandates violence. My violence is mandated by nothing at all. So if a religious person punches me, not because of anything he believes about his religion, but simply because I don't belong to his religious group, this wouldn't be a religious crime, right? This would just be the same as a Manchester United fan punching a Liverpool fan. There's nothing in The Football Fan's Handbook of Etiquette that prescribes this behaviour.

All of this is what everyone has been saying all along. Okay, now I feel like I can shut up about the whole thing and sleep soundly tonight...Zzzzz.

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

Comment #91097 by keith on November 27, 2007 at 7:44 am

Dr. Benway,

You've put to bed for good any equivocation I once felt about the idea that we can tell someone's sex from their writing style. You can't - or at least, I can't.

Please, put me out of my misery. Once again. If the Chinese authorities suppress Budddist monks or I get so angry at the stupity of religion that I snap and punch the local vicar in the face, why aren't these atheistic crimes?

Until now one or two posters have told me that anyone can be intolerant but my atheist views don't condone or lead to my actions. I agree with the part about atheism not condoning the punch but disagree that my atheist views are irrelevant to the action. If we put this action down to personal intolerance, why can't we do the same for religious violence?

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

Comment #91043 by keith on November 27, 2007 at 4:53 am

BorisCvek,

Boris: For example, Roman Catholicism (thanks to Aquinas) is closely linked with metaphysics (contrary of the calvinism which depends on "sola scriptura").

When you say that Roman Catholicism is closely linked to metaphysics, this is true only in the rather trivial sense that a dog is similar to an elephant. Both are animals. However, it would be much more accurate to say that a dog is similar to a wolf, and by the same token, it would be truer to say that Roman Catholicism is more closely linked to spoon-bending than to metaphysics.

Boris: Of course, you can even say that poets do silly thing or that everything what resembles, in your view, teenagers thinking is wrong and stupid. But I think human life and human culture is pretty more deep.

No, I don't think anything that poets do is silly, apart from the silly things. The same goes for teenagers and they are excused from all manner of ludicrous behaviour due to all the hormones coursing through their veins.

I do hope you aren't trying to set up a facile dichotomy between the creative, deep, sensual, romantic world of the religious and the stark, flat, grey, utilitarian, unimaginative world of non-believers, simply because the latter refuse to give free rein to wishful thinking. Believe it or not, even we atheists can appreciate poetry and art and music, even if you suspect that we need to find direct uses for everything. In fact, I bet I can match you pound for pound on the degree of just how deep we think human culture is and believe me, it doesn't get any deeper simply because you believe there's someone up there who made us. How could it?

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

Comment #90975 by keith on November 26, 2007 at 9:25 pm

BorisCvek,

the Christian dogma was introduced under political pressure (of Emperors) in 4th century... so about 300 years Christians live without dogma.

I'm afraid you've lost me. I was talking about the dogmatism of religious belief today i.e. belief without evidence in some authoritive text, not how Christian dogma was introduced. Or are you saying that some people today simply hit on the belief of god with all the Christian trappings thrown in, all independently of the bible?

The dogmas of ortodox church are mysteries and not knowledge

I'm not sure if you're suggesting that there is some kind of religious belief that is knowledge and not a mystery. Or do you mean biblical history?

Of course, I understand that scepticism is so important... but scepticism is too little to live a human life.

I'm afraid you have to speak just for yourself on this point rather than extrapolating from you own personal experience to that of the whole human race. Some of us manage to get by quite happily without a belief in the supernatural. I actually find inventing imaginary gods more rather than less depressing.

And I think that biblical experience is not a church doctrine, but to be open to a relationship with the God.

If I understand you correctly, you're saying that biblical experience opens one up to a relationship with god. Is this in the same way that my experience of reading Wuthering Heights opens me up to a relationship with Heathcliff? What can you possibly mean by 'relationship' in this case? I have to say that calling this a relationship is rather like the teenage fan who idolises some actor but never gets so much as a single note back in return. It's embarrassing, but forgivable because teenagers do silly things. What makes matters worse in your case is that you are an adult and it's more than possible that the object of your idolatry doesn't even exist.

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

Comment #90722 by keith on November 26, 2007 at 7:59 am

BorisCvek,

I suspect that all religions fall the wrong side of your dogmatic ideology/common sense divide. What could be more dogmatic than claiming that there is no evidence that could possibly disturb one's faith?

Sam Harris has made the point that our war is really against all dogmas, but show me a religious believer that isn't dogmatic. If you find one, I suspect they will be undogmatic to the precise degree that they're unreligious.

You are possibly right when you say that religion isn't bad in itself, though you might find yourself having to explain away quite a lot of passages from the bible and the koran. Remember, the reason that some religious people look so tame in this day and age is that their religion has had its teeth pulled by centuries of secularism. The docility of modern-day Christians isn't some positive trait to be chalked up to Christianity. We have secularism to thank for that.

Like the belief in fairies, a belief in religion, though stupid, isn't exactly 'bad'. However, it can be dangerous. When beliefs no longer bear any relation to the real world and when you are happy to believe what you are told on faith, then you're an accident waiting to happen. What kind of audience do you think a would-be dictator would prefer, a credulous or sceptical one? For this reason the faithful owe it to all of us to grow up, and the sooner the better.

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

Comment #89980 by keith on November 22, 2007 at 9:36 am

Thank you Nighttripper and BaronOchs for the info.

The avatar is Leonard Rossiter. I think this is him as Reggie Perrin. He also played Rigsby in Rising Damp.

Why the name 'BaronOchs'?

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

Comment #89956 by keith on November 22, 2007 at 8:24 am

Nighttripper,

How do you link to other articles without having the actual link written in full?

280. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #89938 by keith on November 22, 2007 at 7:52 am

Tanglewood,

Very good.

281. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #89935 by keith on November 22, 2007 at 7:41 am

Jasminerose,

I just registered to this forum just so I can make this comment.

Welcome, newcomer.

What does it matter how we got here...

Well, actually, some of us are quite interested in precisely that question...

Lets make the best of it.

I'll drink to that, sister.

After I deleted the religion program from my head I discovered I had alot of free space..have not filled it with anything else yet..I like the free space..its like spring cleaning..does anybody get what I am saying?

Er,...no, not really. What's it like having an empty head? Anyway, don't worry. We'll soon find something to fill it with. Now, where did I put that funny foam...?

282. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89927 by keith on November 22, 2007 at 7:17 am

People who criticise Plato for naivity forget that he saw Socrates taken to court on trumped up charges and executed; murdered for speaking freely. Recognise this theme?

Errr...give me a moment...Peter Pumpkinhead? Giordano Bruno? Jesus Christ? Hmm, I'm not sure I'd exactly call Socrates' murder part of a 'theme'.

Sorry Ian, you've lost me as to why watching another person being taken to court and then executed would make someone's philosophy less naive. You can watch as much brutality as you like but your philosophy can still be rubbish. Ask one of the men involved in the mass slaughters in Rwanda to philosophise and I'm sure you won't get anything resembling Schopenhauer. The fact is, 'naive' is almost exactly what it will be.

By the way, I wouldn't dare to comment on any of the Greeks because I haven't read any of them. However, I'm sure that they still have a lot to say that's still of relevance. And they make really good yoghurt.

283. For the glory of God

Comment #89913 by keith on November 22, 2007 at 5:51 am

We have to be careful, and we can't be careless.

Wow, now that really is careful.

284. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89894 by keith on November 22, 2007 at 4:40 am

Ian,

Your whole argument is based on the premise that all men are naturally good, and if this were the case, you'd be right, there would be no need for laws. However, the picture that you paint is of how man ought to be, not how he is. We have rules in our civilisation to punish cheats. Disincentives to behaving badly seems to be a necessity. With no rules at all, civilisation would simply break down because there would be no real reason for someone not to try to buck the system since if he (or she) were caught, what would he (or she) care? Why do you think we have a police force? Just to unnecessarily annoy a few people who would otherwise be ideal citizens if left alone and to get more taxes out of the population? I think the truth is that some criminals might not be as tortured by guilty consciences as you imagine.

Yes, some evil in the world is due to error and some isn't. You suggest that there is a self-correcting mechanism for those who quite consciously commit a crime: their conscience troubles them so much that they start to feel bad and nobody likes to live this way. If they were really wise, according to Plato, they would live morally and feel better inside. So, there shouldn't, by rights, be any crime, should there? But there is. Why is this?

Even if your conjecture about consciences is true, I doubt that the 19 hijackers felt any pangs of conscience as they flew the planes into the Twin Towers. Some people just have a different idea of what morality is, which is why we need rules, to agree upon and standardise what we consider to be moral behaviour. However, even if the hijackers did actually feel bad as they hit the buildings, how does this obviate the need for rules? (Not that rules helped in this case, anyway).

You talk about the role of compassion and I think everybody would agree with you that it is key to living with other people. But compassion isn't, of course, an all or nothing emotion: we feel it sometimes but not always, we feel it for some people but not for others. Some people maybe never feel it at all while others feel it for an insect. The fact that it varies so much from person to person may suggest that it isn't the human universal you think it is. It's potential might very well be universal, but then again so is the urge to kill and maim and rape etc. etc. At the very least, compassion has to be encouraged or even taught to bring it out in people. Once again, if all people were compassionate there might be no need for rules. But they're not. So there is.

It seems to me that we are talking about two different worlds: you are talking about how you think the world should be, a vision which all of us share and say three cheers and hurrah to, while I'm talking about how the world really is. You seem to subscribe to the idea of the noble savage who only acts immorally if unnaturally diverted from his (or her) true course. I adhere more to the idea that if a person remains uneducated and unschooled in how to behave to others, he (or she) will probably show very little compassion. This, basically, is the thrust of the novel, Lord of the Flies, and I think William Golding got it about right in his depiction of a group of children who have been washed up in a place where there are no rules. Therefore, anything goes. The key to civilisation is rules, regardless of whether civilisation is shared or not. (By definiton it has to be shared. Whose ever heard of a civilisation of one?).

I repeat: civilisation is shared, so compassion is not an option, but a requirement and the best investment you can make in the future.

Amen, to that, brother. However, I only subscribe to the very last part. We have a civilisation already and there is some degree of compassion in some people and very little in others, so clearly 100% compassion isn't a requirement for civilisation. Perhaps just a little is enough. In fact, the amount we show already must be enough since civilisation exists.

Actually, I notice only now that 'rules' have disappeared from your equation, which was really the thing I was questioning in the first place, not compassion. Still, let's press on.

Plato would argue that the theif may regard herself as clever in being able to meet her short term needs with little effort and only a small risk, but on a deeper level, she would recognise that her relationship to others was fundamentally parasitic. This knowledge would always be a source of conflict which would force our thief to live in denial and sap her self esteem.

You made me laugh here. This is very even-handed of you to have the agent of a crime as a woman. Yes, women can be criminals too. However, for all the times we write 'he' without thinking, what made you choose precisely this moment to use she, especially when most criminals are men? Will you, in your next post say, "The rapist was apprehended when she..."?

285. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89612 by keith on November 21, 2007 at 8:48 am

Ian,

Rules? Where there is civilisation, there is no need for rules. As I said before: civilisation is shared.

You'll have to spell this out for me. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that when something is shared, there is no need for rules. Is this correct? How do you come to this conclusion?

286. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89600 by keith on November 21, 2007 at 8:08 am

Peacebeuponme,

I had precisely the same reaction to post 228 as you. I couldn't really make sense of it. It was as though someone had cut out odd sentences from Jack Straw's comments on the Danish cartoons and stuck them together again in random order. Then the bit about keyboards and baboons came and I was really lost.

287. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #89576 by keith on November 21, 2007 at 6:52 am

right now I'm looking into the possibility of a federalised UK

Jesus Christ, Matt! You're not planning some kind of coup d'etat, are you? Or are you in consultation with some people in the cabinet? Does Gordon Brown know about this?

288. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89571 by keith on November 21, 2007 at 6:31 am

Goatboy,

Thanks for the reply. No, I can't remember the name of that film either. Actually, as I recall it wasn't that good. However, as Reggie Perrin and Rigsby he was phenomenal.

Keith

289. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89570 by keith on November 21, 2007 at 6:29 am

Veronique,

We are being assailed by fundamentalists/totalitarians of all stripes. I hate it. I don't want to spend time arguing. I want to learn in a wonderful atmosphere of acceptance and gentle riposte.

Veronique, please, give it a rest. This from the person whose idea of a gentle riposte was to call someone who disagreed with her a 'c**t' and told him to 'go fuck yourself, you dickhead'. And this, not because he had insulted you, because you didn't like his views. However, you have certainly won SilentMike over.

If you can't bring yourself to skip over the comments you don't like and they cause you too much anguish, then maybe it is best that you say farewell. By the way, you wouldn't be trying to make anyone feel guilty for driving you away, would you? It's just that it was beginning to sound a little like that.

Incidentally, who are these 'fundamentalists and totalitarians' you see invading this site? People who criticise the idea of a welfare state perhaps? People who hesitated in giving to AHA? Or simply anyone who doesn't agree with you?

Yeah, it's a pity that Yorker and Richard Morgan have gone. If you remember Yorker left because he found a position somewhere (a position without internet access?). I miss his bragging, macho ways. And I suspect that Richard left because people kept inconveniently drawing attention to the self-absorbedness of his posts. No wonder it wasn't 'his cuppa'. Shame they've gone...

Anyway! Enough of the nostalia! We'll just have to make do without them. And Diacanu too, by the sound of it.

Still, life goes on.

290. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #89563 by keith on November 21, 2007 at 5:34 am

Matt,

Do you think that Prince William is still going to be playing rugby and keeping his nose out of religion and politics when he is 50 years old? If so, how can you tell? Possibly the only reason he doesn't comment on them now is because it would look odd for an adolescent to start pontificating about such things.

If I remember rightly, Princess Diana only became 'the People's Princess' after she died. Before that she was glamourised by some and ridiculed by others. It was, of course, Tony Blair who gave her this title after her death, but him saying this doesn't make it so. You repeating it so baldly like that makes it sound like some objective fact, something like pi = 3.14159, Pluto has just one moon and Lady Diana Spencer was the People's Princess.

Apart from this, 'People' is a very big word. She certainly wasn't my princess, and it sounds like she wasn't a lot of other people's princess either. However, if you mean that she was popular with a lot of old people and readers of 'Hello' magazine, then I'll agree with you. And if you mean that she did some good charity work then I'll also agree with you. However, so does my mum's friend, Mavis, but this doesn't make her the People's Anything.

All of this is really beside the point. The whole idea of royal families is that they come from pure blood lines and are somehow superior to the rest of us. This fiction was maintained for centuries but it has now come to look silly and something of an anachronism, rather like blood-letting.

Yes, we could get lucky and William could turn out to be okay and not want to meddle too much in state affairs and stick to his rugby. However, before then we have his father and god knows what he'll want to do when he suceeds to the thrown.

Wouldn't you be happier actually choosing a representative for our country rather than having one foisted upon us, regardless of whether he is a genius, a mediocrity or a blithering idiot? I know I would.

291. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #89548 by keith on November 21, 2007 at 4:22 am

To any American here criticising our system of constitutional monarchy: It is none of your business.

I must say this was the first post to make me laugh out loud. Even so, I'm not sure that I'd be able to keep myself from commenting on things that happen in America.

I have lived under a monarchy for a lot of my life and although I would prefer to have a republic, I can't say I share Jack Rawlinson's experience of it being so awful. It's just a little annoying in the moments you are forced to think about it, like when you read about batty Prince Charles and how much money the royals cost to maintain and how much money they make, on top of their salaries, from their extensive lands.

Even so, I suspect nobody really gives them much thought which can't be such a bad thing since rulers are rather like football referees: you don't notice the good ones. It's only the bad ones that stand out.

I don't know why we can't have a system like Germany. They have a president who is non-partisan, elected and is wheeled out for official ceremonies. He is usually well-respected, dignified, intelligent and with a lot of experience of politics. By the way, how come America doesn't have a representative figure? (Or maybe it's none of my business...)

Anyway, I'm with JanChan on this. At least give Prof. Dawkins a chance to either accept the knighthood or turn it down as he chooses. I don't feel that signing a petition to nominate him for a knighthood will keep the monarchy standing for a second longer than it otherwise would. And after all the consciousness raising and grueling book tours, after the radio and TV chat shows and the endless debates with Christians of various degrees of deludedness, none of which can have been all that pleasant, especially since he has stated that he really isn't wild about confrontation); after this (and so much more?), all for the sole purpose of giving atheism a higher profile, couldn't we try to give him some easier work? Something that would get atheism into the news but that he could do kneeling down and which wouldn't require getting into an argument?

292. Getting Overheated

Comment #89532 by keith on November 21, 2007 at 2:57 am

Crazy old man,

Very interesting argument. Before I read what you had to say I didn't believe the problem could be seen in more than way.

The only part that I disagreed with was your assertion that "the role of the individual may seldom exceed one of moral vanity in defense of a pet cause". I actually think there would be a lot of people, myself included, who would be more than happy to ditch our pet cause at the drop of a hat if it were proven that it did no good. I think you're overestimating the prevalence of vanity and underestimating that of responsibilty and duty. Everybody I know views recycling as slightly burdensome though necessary rather than an opportunity to boost one's self-esteem.

293. Getting Overheated

Comment #89528 by keith on November 21, 2007 at 2:34 am

Ty-Webb,

Your comment sounds like it might be interesting - if I could understand it. I've been over it several times and still can't make head nor tail of it. Could you spell it out for me (using short words in short sentences)?

294. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89461 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 8:40 pm

Goatboy,

As far as I can tell, what your last long post was saying was this:

1. Donating (or not) to AHA's protection is an ethical matter. (We all agree).

2. If you don't donate you are as hypocritical as Ted Haggard and like a bloke who won't stand his round in the pub. (This bypasses all the reasons given by the people who don't want to donate, some of which were reasonable enough).

3. We shouldn't criticise AHA for wanting to work in America because some musician called Lester Butler and another, different man called Stevie Ray Vaughan went there too and we wouldn't think of criticising them for doing so. There are important parallels to be drawn here because both men ended up dead and this could happen to AHA.

Is this, in a nutshell, it?

295. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89441 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Nighttripper,

Since no one else has answered your question then I will. No, I personally don't think you went too far in your posts. Perhaps in the first couple you could have been a bit more polite but I can see nothing really wrong with what you said.

The truth is that I can see both sides. I can see Josh's point of view. To him we must appear like the People's Liberation Front of Judea in The Life of Brian. We talk a lot about our principles and how we're going to try to combat religious bigotry but when the times comes to act, to save our 'Brian' from crucifiction - we talk some more. For someone very engaged in the whole organisational process it must have seemed as though he was working for a load of wind-bags. I also think he was right in fearing that dissenting voices would put others off from donating. One poster said as much i.e. that he had been ready to donate but after reading the thread he was going to think about it some more. Josh's point was simply that those who were raising doubts were not only disappointing those who would protect AHA with more than just money, it was also lowering the amount of money actually raised by planting the seeds of doubt in the otherwise committed.

However, I can see your point of view and have some sympathy with it. This was indeed a discussion board and since you didn't insult anyone, you should be allowed to post your views.

Also as you pointed out, everyone has a limited amount of money they can give to good causes and I can well understand why giving to the poor in the third world might come higher in your priorities than paying for one person's protection, especially when there are wealthy organisations around her that perhaps might be picking up the tab. I think you should be allowed to say such things.

I do though think you were wrong on one or two things. You say that AHA isn't helping to bridge the gap between west and east. I assume with this you mean the non-Islamic world and the Islamic world. The only way that we could get closer to them at the moment is by giving in to their sexism, their bigotry, their racism, their over-sensitivity and basically their non-stop moaning about their grievances. If you think that east meeting west means that the west must compromise on any of these these points then I think you're wrong. In the same way that taking a head-on stand against Hitler was the only way that Nazism was going to be defeated, soft-talking and appeasing the Islamists will only get us into a bigger hole than we are already in. However, maybe this is not what you meant when you said that she isn't helping to close the gap between east and west.

I can see that you're viewing things in terms of the value of a life and I agree with you that one life shouldn't really be worth more than any others. We could perhaps save a thousand people with the money we raise for AHA's protection. However, let me tell you how my own thought process ran. Whenever I used to watch cowboy films as a boy I was always amazed at the stupidity of the red Indians who always insisted on sending their chief into battle on the first horse in the line, always leading the charge. Of course, the moment the chief was killed by the American soldiers, all the fighting suddenly stopped because the rest of the Indians had lost the will to fight on without their figurehead. I always wondered why the chief didn't hang back a little so as to prolong the fighting and give his tribe more of a chance of winning. (Of course, the real reason was that long fight scenes were not only a bit boring but also costly in terms of injured horses and stuntmen's salaries and the director had to get through the story in 90 minutes!)

I think AHA is, or at least could be, such a figurehead and this prioritizing of a woman who might just be able to change the lives of hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of women in the Muslim world for the better, may in the end be worth more than a thousand lives in Africa, as hard-hearted as this may sound. Of course, if anyone can give to both causes, so much the better.

Like you, I would be disappointed if I thought I was subsidzing a luxurious lifestyle of rich dinners at expensive restaurants and chauffeur-driven Mercedes Benz cars (though presumably her car will have to be both bullet-proof and chauffeur-driven and perhaps a VW Polo won't be up to the job). I think you just have to trust Sam Harris et al that this won't be the case. (Incidentally, who protects him?). However, I don't expect her to hide away in some damp hole surviving on bread and cheese all day. For a public figure she will need more than one posh frock. As far as I'm concerned, that she is alive and living a modest lifestyle would be fine.

On a more personal level, I think there would have been deep disappointment on the part of people working close to AHA, someone like Christopher Hitchens, who claimed at the AAI conference that "there isn't a person in this room who wouldn't stand between you and any harm that might come to you" (paraphrase), if we not only failed to protect her with our own lives, but even failed to protect her with $10. The whole movement might deflate a little if Hitchens and friends suddenly felt that they were at the vanguard of a movement consisting solely of the terminally uncommitted. In the same way that I don't like to disappoint friends, I also don't want to let down a group of people that, while not being friends, are people that I think about during my waking hours, almost to the extent of feeling like they are acquaintances. They sort of inhabit my imagination's 'virtual group of friends'. For this reason alone I would be willing to donate something and dare I say it, even keep quiet about any qualms I personally might have for fear of putting others off donating something.

296. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89308 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 9:19 am

NJS,

I consider prejudice on nationality to be racism - I don't care about colour/ethnicity.

That may be so, but you can't simply insist on words meaning what you personally want them to mean.

The dictionary definition of race is: a human population considered distinct based on physical characteristics.

I'm not sure that the West Midlands police could physically distinguish the six arrested Irishmen from their British brothers.

297. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89304 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 9:01 am

Arogop,

Seeing this is a "science" site I will share with you that I for one do get a "strong sexual reaction" from seeing grace, dignity, intelligence and a few other things.

Why would you only share this with me on a science website? For research purposes, perhaps?

I'm sorry arogop but I simply don't believe your claim of sexual arousal when you find yourself in the company of disembodied virtues, though I'm willing to entertain the idea that I am just an unreconstructed male hopelessly out of touch with his more sensitive side in this modern age.

You seem to be suggesting that these characteristics bring forth in you a strong sexual reaction, regardless of who the possessor of these virtues is.

My own contention is that they only become sexually arousing when they issue from someone who we find, well, potentially sexually arousing. Did Bertrand Russell have grace and dignity? Some might say so. Did you find him sexually arousing?

298. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89295 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 8:16 am

Ian,

I'm quite happy to admit my strong initial sexual reaction to seeing Ayan through You Tube. I defy any male to see such an exemplar of grace and dignity, and not feel a frisson of excitement.

I would have to doubt that most men get a "strong sexual reaction" simply due to a woman's 'grace and dignity'. It's a nice idea and you're clearly a modern man, but what grace and dignity usually bring forth, at least in me, are first and foremost feelings of respect and admiration. After all, a man can also possess grace and dignity but these don't generally bring on a "strong sexual reaction" in other men. My gran also had both grace and dignity.

Perhaps, in truth, it is these virtues in tandem with some necessary physical attributes that give rise to this 'frisson of excitement'?

299. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89292 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 7:47 am

Jayday,

I really don't mean this disparagingly but I think that anyone who can't afford a one-off payment of $25, even though they'd like to give something, shouldn't feel bad about giving nothing and perhaps really shouldn't give anything.

I think donations are only expected from those who feel they can afford it, not from those for whom $25 represents the difference between eating something genuinely edible and eating, say, gruel.

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

Comment #89280 by keith on November 20, 2007 at 7:04 am

It seems to me that the problem isn't to rebut the argument that atheism makes people commit murders. One can do this simply by pointing to all the religious people in history who have also murdered. We can then argue forever over numbers of murdered alongside the relative ratios of believers and atheists there have ever been in the world and whether or not someone was indeed religious and how many murders we can attribute to him etc. etc. This approach seems a bit of a fool's game and is almost bound to end in stalemate, which is pretty much all that was required from the title of this thread.

However, I think that some religious people, including Alister McGrath, wouldn't actually claim that atheists are more murderously inclined than believers, or that it is their atheistic beliefs cause them to commit murders. What he and some others would dispute is the claim made by Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris and others that having religion makes you more likely to commit murder. McGrath would claim that humans are a murderous species and of the people who give way to these inclinations, some will be religious and others won't. However, trying to find the root cause of crimes in either religion or atheism is like Richard Dawkins' analogy of looking for the cause of Hitler's, Stalin's and Saddam's crimes in the fact that they all had moustaches (something of a crime in itself, if only one of taste). McGrath would (like to) say that whether these men were religious or atheistic is entirely beside the point.

However, some atheists, including me, like to contend that Jihadis, for example, are indeed motivated to kill by their religious beliefs. This, of course, is a much stronger assertion than simply stating that atheists are no more criminally inclined than faithheads; it is saying that we are in general less prone to murder since our lack of beliefs can't really constitute a motivating force to kill.

There are various problems that need to be dealt with before we can answer the question of whether or not it's possible to murder because of atheism:

1. Is atheism really just a lack of beliefs or is it a proper belief system? (I love the argument that atheism is to belief systems what not-stamp collecting is to hobbies. However, is this true?)

2. If it is a belief system, could it incite the fanatical atheist to murder? (before you object to the epithet 'fanatical', I think I would label myself as such). And even if atheism is not a belief system, could somebody still be motivated to kill because of it? (Think of Chinese authorities and Buddhist monks).

3. Does a belief in God really encourage some people to act more ethically than they otherwise would, as some believers like to claim, thus making the religious a less criminal group or at least cancelling out the murderous lunatic jihadi fringe? (Although figures seem to suggest that the religious are at least as criminal as the non-religious, the fact that they tend to come from the uneducated poor, a class that commits more crime than other classes for obvious reasons, might explain why there are so many religious people in prisons. Some may even suggest that the number of poor, uneducated people in prisons would be larger still if it weren't for the beneficial influence of religion).

I have no real answers to these questions but something does worry me, namely that the Chinese repression of Buddhist monks and perhaps other kinds of religious persecution in other parts of the world could be construed as a crime motivated by atheism. And if someone counters by saying that the Chinese authorities are really just politically motivated and their oppression of the monks has nothing to do with atheism, I don't see why the religious can't use the same argument in regard to jihadism being a political phenomenon, as Scott Atran and Chris Hedges have actually done.

Please, if you think someone has already addressed these questions just point me to the relevant posting (or article) and I'll shut up straight away.