301. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59300 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 6:29 pm

Beth,

The shepherd is the individual, not the sheep. A 'right' only has sense when speaking of contracts.

To be fair, I understand that this minion-making may be needed in the USA with its near theocracy. However, in Europe it is near pointless. But identifying with a group is still a sign of weakness.

Regarding the actual logo – it's awful! It is simply the first capitalised letter of the 'ZAPFINO' font (is it not copyrighted?). At least get a designer to come up with something interesting. Plus it is too similar to the Anarchist symbol.

302. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59293 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 6:09 pm

rmercad2,

I'm just saying that there are more important things to get emotional about than the Union Jack representing the English language.

English does come from England (the main country within Britain), and the Union Jack is more commonly known than England's St George's Cross, so it seems the logical indicator.

If you're offended by that I suggest you are a bit soft.

303. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59283 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Nails,

You only need to show affiliation when you feel threatened. Grouping yourself shows you have no inner strength but only strength in numbers. That's why Christianity appeals to the weak-minded.

With a symbol, and a prophet (RD, like JC), and a 'church' (group), you are now playing into the hands of theists who say that "atheism is a religion."

Individualism, not conformity, is courage.

304. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #59267 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 4:19 pm

Erik,

What you (as most people) fail to distinguish is the difference between descriptive and prescriptive morals.

You can describe why people are 'moral' (evolution, social conditioning, etc) - but from that you cannot prescribe what people ought to do.

You can describe why people are aggressive (evolution, social conditioning again) - does that mean aggression ought to be prescribed?

To moralise is to demand that people behave as you would like. It is a subconscious power tactic.

Erik, you are socially conditioned to believe in the particular morals of today's western culture. Step outside and take a historical look.

Look up the 'is-ought fallacy'.

305. OUT Campaign Launched, 'Scarlet Letter' Shirts Now Available!

Comment #59263 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 3:35 pm

Sad, herd-like behaviour. Very much like Christianity.

306. Resisting peer pressure: new findings shed light on adolescent decision-making

Comment #59218 by Henri Bergson on July 28, 2007 at 11:14 am

What an amazing discovery, who would have thought it: that will power has something to do with the brain!

I always thought that will power came from the big toe on the left foot, now it's proven that it comes from brain connections.

307. Don't eat at the Outback Steakhouse on Route 3...

Comment #58942 by Henri Bergson on July 26, 2007 at 6:05 pm

Commit it to the flames!

308. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58842 by Henri Bergson on July 26, 2007 at 11:22 am

Bonzai,

Freud focused on Christianity & Judaism, but he was critical of all religion - including Buddhism (usually left alone by liberal atheists).

I would hardly consider Islam 'macho', rather 'hysterical' (have you read Winston Churchill's Times' article on islam?).

309. The hitch in Hitchens' thinking

Comment #58835 by Henri Bergson on July 26, 2007 at 11:04 am

Pathetic defence.

I think Hedges himself should read that 'Freud for Dummies' book. For Freud, God was easily explainable as the creation of a father figure for the mentally weak (see 'The Future of an Illusion' or 'Civilisation and its Discontents' for examples).

Christianity was especially attacked by Freud as being a religion for the sick, the oppressed, those who could not find happiness in achievement as they couldn't fulfill their desires - so they said that desires were wrong (sinful)! (Heard about the fox-and-his-missing-tail tale?!)

Most people don't have much time for Freud these days, but his criticisms of religion are still spot on, if a little obvious.

----

Apparently any noun can be verbed.

310. How could God allow 26 pilgrims to die in a crash?

Comment #58832 by Henri Bergson on July 26, 2007 at 10:46 am

Atheism overrides theodicy.

311. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58829 by Henri Bergson on July 26, 2007 at 9:52 am

Stag,

Well said. I think this is something most so-called atheists find hard to accept. Prescriptive values cannot be derived from facts.

312. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Edd Doerr

Comment #58506 by Henri Bergson on July 25, 2007 at 4:17 am

It is strange that people can call themselves Christians when they do not believe in, say, the Resurrection.

I remember that there was a British bishop who made headlines a few years ago professing the same thing.

Ultimately the reason is probably that religion is a group-binder (subconsciously) disguised as a belief system. Thus the chronological change in a religion's tenets (e.g. Catholic limbo). Falsities in belief often empower a group; truth is not always useful, knowledge is not always power it seems. (If all Catholic clergy admitted they were completely wrong, they would lose all their respect and power.)

Religion is a power structure.

-----


Richard,

Interesting point about the need for a moderator. I suspect the reasoning is that it makes the discussion easier to follow for a lot of listeners – albeit by stifling the depth of the conversation. Alas a lowest-common-denominator issue.

By the way, did you get a chance to read 'Matter & Memory' (1911) by Henri Bergson?

313. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #58146 by Henri Bergson on July 23, 2007 at 4:51 pm

PeterK,

KKK are Christians and skinheads are also idiots - so that sounds like your gang.

Stop writing to me now - you are of limited intellect.

314. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #58090 by Henri Bergson on July 23, 2007 at 11:08 am

On a secondary note,

When Ali says there is no islamophobia, she probably alludes to the fact that in order to pursue islamic influence, islam must create a fantasy enemy in order to seem as if they are defending themselves - when, in fact, they are offending.

This is a common tactic throughout history. The Germans made enemies of the Jews in order to extend power. Scientologists, psychiatrists. Evangelists, Darwinists. It is largely subconscious.

Islam must exaggerate or create an enemy in order to expand. In many ways, it IS this invention (just read the ludicrous koran with its constant attacks on non-believers, 'kaffir').

315. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #58083 by Henri Bergson on July 23, 2007 at 10:57 am

PeterK,

Yours is what is known as an 'ad hominem' fallacy: you appeal to emotion rather than to reason.

My point is simple - it analyses a definition.

If you think being logical is being 'KKK' or 'skinhead', it says a lot about you.

316. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #58046 by Henri Bergson on July 23, 2007 at 6:08 am

Simple point:
"phobia" means irrational hatred or fear.
"Islamophobia" can therefore exist if it is based on irrational hatred or fear.

BUT, one can hate and fear Islam RATIONALLY. This fear or hatred is not irrational and therefore not "Islamophobia".

317. Response to the God Delusion

Comment #57982 by Henri Bergson on July 22, 2007 at 6:39 pm

"I am ... appalled by football hooliganism, but it doesn't make me doubt the existence of David Beckham."

- The 'analogy' being that Dawkins is appalled by religious terrorism and therefore doubts the existence of God.

- What a stupid, false analogy. This is not why Dawkins, or any thinking person, doubts God's existence. Therefore the 'analogy' is fake, but prima facie sounds solid as hooliganism doesn't disprove Beckham.

If you're going to use logic, make sure it's logical.

Megatron must be stopped, no matter the cost.

318. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57373 by Henri Bergson on July 19, 2007 at 3:44 am

Corylus,

Making a derogatory joke about someone to make your argument seem better is a real pre-pubescent power tactic. It is not an argument.

As I pointed out, when destroying your previous suggestion, you do not understand Nietzsche - so let's begin there before you moralise.

I have used many thinkers' ideas in my posts - I do not set limitations.

319. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57367 by Henri Bergson on July 19, 2007 at 3:16 am

Corylus,

Interesting supposition that hits one major flaw: Nietzsche was pro-Islam (read 'the Anti-Christ')

320. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57364 by Henri Bergson on July 19, 2007 at 3:12 am

Thor (the true God!),

Thanks for your enquiry. Again it is a sad state of affairs that people suggest I must be a Christian (in disguise) because I do not share their clichéd, common views. I am the 'free thinker' here. If someone thinks I'm a theist it indicates their narrow-mindedness.

I consider 'human rights' a legacy of western Christianity (as the Persians do) and, as such like Christianity, a tool for power (just as our excuse was that we were 'civilising' the Africans, and 'Christianising' the south Americans: power words). This is nothing new: check out Foucault's discussion with Chomsky about the same points regarding 'justice' (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hbUYsQR3Mes). 'Democracy' is another such word.

All so-called moral concepts boil down to power. To moralise is to judge. Humans are deluded animals generally, tricked by language.

I do not call myself a nihilist, Fascist, hedonist, communist, futurist, or any such name as it would immediately tie me down to a defined position.

But perhaps I am not a nihilist at least as I believe in honesty. But of course the will to truth is a form of the will to power - knowledge is power.

Even those opposed to the recent war are trying to gain power (a 'one-up') by moralising down to those in favour - we all play the same game.

Morality, like religion, is a power structure.

321. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57271 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 5:57 pm

Hitchens was once very 'left-wing' then realised the hypocrisy in it and changed (another example of your shallow observations).

I think you lack intellect and so will not debate with you further. I hope you take that as a compliment.

Please invest in a dictionary.

322. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57268 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 5:40 pm

Yes rtambree,

You are paranoid. Do you really think I'm a creationist in disguise?

I realise my views are uncommon today in the US, but that doesn't mean they're wrong. I have strived to justify everything.

It seems to be a strange thing that in the US, being an atheist means being 'left-wing'. That is why you find my views (and Hitchens' I presume) so unbelievable.
In Europe being an atheist is apolitical.

Strange lot, you Americans.

323. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57265 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 5:33 pm

Is that an argument?

324. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57255 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 5:03 pm

ungodlytheist,

I'm glad that I can be classified according to your 'baddy'/'goody' world perspective. This is how Bush sees the world as well.

I have no discussion with you, just disgust. You believe in what you're supposed to believe, not what reason leads to - in this sense you are just as ridiculous as the religious... You are religious.

You constantly criticise intolerant 'fascist' ideas, whilst this is your own intolerance. This contradiction shows your lack of deep thought.

325. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57207 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 2:38 pm

ungodlytheist,

You seem very worried about people not hating war in principle. All great liberal philosophers have endorsed the positive aspects of war, not just fascists. You should read more - let me help: For example, the liberal utilitarian, John Stuart Mill:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A war to protect other human beings against tyrannical injustice; a war to give victory to their own ideas of right and good, and which is their own war, carried on for an honest purpose by their own free choice - is often the means of their regeneration." -- John Stuart Mill, The Contest in America

---

"War has the deep meaning that by it the ethical health of the nations is preserved and their finite aims uprooted. And as the winds which sweep over the ocean prevent the decay that would result from its perpetual calm, so war protects the people from the corruption which an everlasting peace would bring upon it." -- George Hegel, The Philosophy of Law

326. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57131 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 10:45 am

ungodlytheist,

Please read my comments, I have justified everything I wrote.

Your logic is childlike: it implies that if you are not in the military you must be against war! So much for the political profession! Do you see this? Really, do you see this?

Think before you write.

327. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57121 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 10:14 am

ungodlytheist,

Your point is? There is no argument at all in any of the waffle you wrote.

You are a good example of a brain-washed westerner.

328. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57098 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 9:32 am

Rtambree,

I don't classify myself into any such school of thought - too limiting. I hope you don't either.

You may as well say 'God exists' is self-evident! What a terrible argument! Even your second proposition, "happiness is better than sadness" is not self-evident: sadness can make one stronger, sadness can be better than happiness for a dictator, etc.

I cannot believe you base your faith in human rights on such a flimsy foundation. It's simply a modern power word.

What is a 'right'? The word only makes sense with regard to contracts: e.g. 'If you sell me the land, I will give you the right to walk in it thereafter.' It is an agreement. If I disagree, it won't be a right.

With human rights, the word 'right' is used metaphorically. It refers to no REAL THING (whereas a literal right refers to a piece of paper/contract). If I disagree with a human right it should therefore not be a right. But it is imposed as if it is universal. Rubbish!

Like I said, it is used today to justify overpowering other nations. It is, essentially, propaganda. And you fell for it. It is based on Christianity.

Singer is a fool - it says a lot about American academia.

The ambassador to Iran made a statement in the 1980s, in the UN, that 'human rights' was a western, Christian legacy; and therefore not applicable to the middle east. Rightly so. It is a western weapon (a very clever one disguised as a moral!)

329. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57090 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 9:10 am

Rtambree,

One further point, Why are you so bad at jokes & sarcasm?

330. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57088 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 9:07 am

Rtambree,

So, you are beginning to feel the dark side? Feel the force...

I pretty much agree with your second-to-last, more thoughtful, post. Of course an expensive war is a last resort.

By the way, 'human rights' is also a faith. No proof. It's a term used to impose power over other countries who do not share your ideology.
It is just the same as 'civilised' (a word used to justify overpowering Africa by the colonialists), or 'Christian' (used by the Catholics to overpower South America).

All ideologies, including your own, are power structures (even subconsciously).

Just because a word(s) exists doesn't mean that it necessarily refers to a real thing (e.g. 'God', 'human rights').

331. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57082 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 8:52 am

Jiten,

Note the word, 'contained' there.

Now, your suggestions rather than petit criticisms...

332. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57081 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 8:51 am

Sharon,

It's not 'my' war! Interesting hypothetical question.

In most countries this happens: drafting is compulsory. So am I against that? No, because otherwise not enough people would join and so leave the country defenceless and internationally inoperative.

333. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57077 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 8:47 am

Jiten,

I offered my list of suggestions on the previous page. What have you offered?

If Iran admitted that they were about to create nuclear weapons, would you be against stopping them by force?

Let's be realistic here.

334. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57075 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 8:45 am

Rtambree,

I would gladly join a war effort, would you?

I doubt it. Now who's the coward here?

335. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57073 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 8:42 am

Rtambree,

I used the present-, not the past-, participle ('being').

You agree on national strategies for the eradication of islam, but not on international ones. Why not? Has your mind really been brainwashed by the liberal class? (a class which is losing its purpose) Are you a victim of society not able to form your own thoughts but having to rely on old clichés ('war is bad')?

In other words, you're not being scientific.

336. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57068 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 8:32 am

Jiten,

You apologists have no idea, no grip on reality, you only think about initial consequences.

When you lose an argument you try to hide the fact by making a derogatory joke to show that you are 'above' and so able to mock another 'below'. Simple psychology that no intelligent person will fall for.

337. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57063 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 8:24 am

Rtambree,

The evidence is there - I have lived there, have you? Here are some views - listen to the Swedes (not journalist):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byQD8VPhvdM

Don't talk about lacking evidence when you have no idea.

Sweden, the beautiful country, is being destroyed by islam because of apologists like you.

338. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57062 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 8:20 am

J,

Forceful rhetoric, like comedy, is required. Your softly-softly approach just encourages fundamentalism (muslims can push their faith when they hear no serious opposition).

In this sense, your talk is more 'scary' (as you say).

Like Dawkins says about religion generally, the soft, liberal polite approach does not work.

339. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57053 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 8:07 am

J,

Pacifism does not work against an inherently hostile , aggressive creed. Scandinavia is beginning to pay the price for this oversight.

Of course violence breeds violence; but pacifism breeds submission. Sometimes violence is the only way.

340. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57048 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 8:03 am

Rtambree,

So you are not a completely immune to reason - good.

Agreed that all religious institutions should not be state funded.

Interesting comment you make: "What about allegiance to International Human Rights, Free Speech, Liberty, Freedom, etc?"
- Most of these are sentimentalist secular Christian ideologies (you are not quite a true atheist!)

341. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57036 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 7:43 am

Here are a few suggestions:

- Ban islamic schools (unlike the British government who use taxes to pay for them).
- Before that ensure that evolution is taught at these schools (I had a student from such a school unaware of what evolution even meant).

- Ban the veil (as in Belgium and Italy).

- Immigrants to swear allegiance first and foremost to the country in which they are about to settle. (country before religion).

- Religion to be taught comparatively and critically (as most other subjects in school). (In Britain school children are simply taught to 'respect' each religion and not to question their premises - this is extreme political ideology in schools).

- In fact, 'Religious Education' should include prominent critics down the ages like Seneca, Hume, Voltaire, Marx, Freud, Nietzsche, Foucault, Russell.

- English to be taught immediately to all immigrants.

- No state funding (i.e. taxes) should pay for mosques (like the proposed £75m 'mega-Mosque' in London).

- Any part of the Koran deemed illegal (e.g. stoning adulterers) should be made explicit in any teaching of the Koran.

- Any islamic nation deemed a potential threat should be 'contained'.

- Mock islam in comedy and in print (e.g. Danish cartoons).

- Many other things that don't spring to mind...

Many things could be done if the governments of Europe were not so cowardly and ideological.

342. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57029 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 7:26 am

You are apologists - as such you are the ones totally deluded...

Who's saying that 'islam is bad' is news? Not me. The question is, What is the solution? Force or reticence? The latter's just adding fuel to the fire, the former is effective.

343. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57024 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 7:16 am

Jiten,

You make my point: Christianity should have been crushed at its inception, not left to poison half the world. (At least the Romans tried to crush it until they gave in....)

Now when islam is growing we should stop it as soon as possible. Not procrastinate like others here wish.

344. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57023 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 7:11 am

Rtambree,

'Right' and 'Left' are redundant terms in politics today.

If Iraq weren't invaded it'd ultimately be more of a threat. So invasion worked very well, in that respect.

Maybe you should suggest that we become more friendly and smiley to muslims, and eventually they'll realise how irrational they are? Or maybe we should drop them cuddly teddy bears instead of bombs?

We waged war on the Nazis, not vice versa. You are like those old liberal Nazi apologists who thought we should ally ourselves with the Führer.

You live in a fantasy world.

345. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57017 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 6:59 am

As I write this, something happens:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6904622.stm

346. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57016 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 6:52 am

Rtambree,

The only way to reduce the threat of militant islam is invasion of islamic countries or forced integration of muslims.

Thirty-odd years ago the Danes thought that it would be fine and dandy to let a load of muslim immigrants enter their country as, they believed, they would soon integrate after they saw the great life the natives were having. -- They were ignorant about the tenets of Islam: it is a political ideology as well as a religion.

Islam must be destroyed.

Taking your kind of soft approach is useless and dangerous.

347. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57007 by Henri Bergson on July 18, 2007 at 6:26 am

'Islamophobia' seems to suggest that being anti-islam is irrational ('phobia' = irrational dislike/fear), but most people against the religion are so due to rationality.

Thus 'islamophobia' is a muslim or liberal propaganda word with no real meaning.

348. Fears Grow Over 'Mega Mosque'

Comment #56600 by Henri Bergson on July 16, 2007 at 2:02 pm

This mosque must be prevented.

349. American Taliban on the warpath against evolution

Comment #56548 by Henri Bergson on July 16, 2007 at 10:15 am

Ranjani,

So what? Everyone knows that US military personnel are wimps.

I once read they had 'compassion training' exercises whilst the Brits were having night-vision targeting training.

350. American Taliban on the warpath against evolution

Comment #56527 by Henri Bergson on July 16, 2007 at 5:47 am

child.