Comments by Peacebeuponme

Comment #242607 by Peacebeuponme on September 4, 2008 at 6:58 am

chewedbarber

We will not stop until Israel is pushed into the sea. It may not happen today, or tomorrow, or even in my lifetime, but it will happen. Every Jew will be pushed into the sea. Israel will be destroyed. It is the will of Allah.

Yes, and when Al is in the mood he has plenty of youtube links and quotes of Jewish barbarism against arabs.

I'm not here to defend muslims at all in all of this. I'm aware of how disgusting anti-jewish racism is standard humour in the national press, and the general sentiment as you highlight.

My only orignal point was that its a bit rich of Israel to complain about nuclear weapons when they are underhand about theirs.

If the jews weren't so stupid as to want to live in a hostile place just because of a magic book, then things would not be so bad for them. That does not in any way excuse the awful muslim bigotry against them.

302. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242602 by Peacebeuponme on September 4, 2008 at 6:45 am

When was Palestine a country? When did Jordan become a country? Syria?

You misunderstand. I just meant that arabs don't think it was ok to create Israel as though no one was using the land anyway.

If either Israel or Iran had to have nukes who would you prefer?

Israel of course. That doesn't mean that I think they can talk morally about Iran's programme.

As I said, at the very least they should not be allowed to get away with not declaring them.

303. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242600 by Peacebeuponme on September 4, 2008 at 6:34 am

Fanusi

Okay, Peace seems to be incapable of studying an argument in any kind of depth.

Abuse from someone who does not know any of way of behaving than hysterically does not bother me.

I really don't want Iran to get nukes. I understand that Islam is pernicious in the way it seeks to expand. I understand that putting the two together is a bad idea. I further understand that Israel's weapons are not the threat to the world that Iran's would be...at the moment.

However, any nation's first goal is to protect itself. Iran could quite easily say that it wants nuclear weapons to protect itself from a hostile US who has termed it part of the axis of evil. Your and Al's argument for allowing Israel such weapons seems analogous.

304. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242595 by Peacebeuponme on September 4, 2008 at 6:26 am

It was created in a land that was not otherwise a country.

It would seem that there are more than a few arabs who don't think like that?

305. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242593 by Peacebeuponme on September 4, 2008 at 6:22 am

They have determined to stop anyone from ever harming a Jew again... and I admire that determination, and I don't have a problem with Israel arming itself... to the teeth.

You don't think Muslims think like that?

306. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242587 by Peacebeuponme on September 4, 2008 at 6:10 am

Fanusi

However, until Israel publically declare their own nuclear weapons that they shouldn't have, they can shut the fuck up about Iran's capability.
Peace, Israel: Tiny, flourishing democracy surrounded by a sea of enemies.

Iran:a theocratic dictatorship run by messianic fanatics.

Israel's nukes: a deterrent against the repeated attempts by the Muslim nations to finish Hitler's job.

Iran's nukes: the means to finish Hitler's job.

See the minor difference here?

Yes, of course, your allies need for wholly justifiable reasons. But when in comes to those you oppose...

I don't want Iran to have weapons, but why should Israel be allowed to keep them without declaring? They don't need them anyway - the US has about 9,000 warheads, which I'm sure it would threaten if Israel were under attack.

Lets not forget Israel is only where it is by Jewish choice. They wanted to create a racist state in a region they consider promised to them by a mythical being, so good luck to them. They're the ones who built settlements in Arab areas which need defending.

307. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242576 by Peacebeuponme on September 4, 2008 at 5:50 am

If this doesn't bother you, perhaps the fact that Israel will be compelled to act. How long should Israel tolerate a Iranian nuclear program when Friday sermons in Iran entail chanting marg bar Isra'il (death to Israel)?

I don't think we should tolerate it, certainly.

However, until Israel publically declare their own nuclear weapons that they shouldn't have, they can shut the fuck up about Iran's capability.

308. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #242535 by Peacebeuponme on September 4, 2008 at 3:07 am

I said I thought that McCain was the more believable on the one issue that to me trumps all others: Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Yes. I believe he sang Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran, to the tune of "Barbera Ann".

Potential leader of the world's only superpower, people.

309. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241914 by Peacebeuponme on September 3, 2008 at 7:55 am

This is one of the best Steve Martin scenes though:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuJ3bN20dBE

310. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241911 by Peacebeuponme on September 3, 2008 at 7:51 am

Funniest films ever?
Planes, Trains and Automobiles. Steve Martin and John Candy.

Very good, but I prefered Steve Martin in Dirty Rotten Scoundrels.

Candy was great in Uncle Buck as well.

Funniests films for me though (not wanting to mention Spinal Tap and open Richards' debate again) are:

National Lampoon's Vacation, and
National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation.

Chevvy Chase was awesome. Will Ferrell seems to have learned everything from him.

311. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241041 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 4:05 pm

Keith

I have sat stony-faced through Shakespeare comedies, surrounded by people who found 400-year-old puns hilarious. I simply couldn't believe that they found them funny. Surely they must merely have been showing the rest of the audience that they had understood the pun?

I have witnessed this phenomenon. I expect you will find most of those people have seen whichever play about 50 times as well. They know exactly what's coming.

I liked Eddie Izzard's stand up "The Definite Article". However, once you have watched the DVD a couple of times and can remember the jokes, what is there to laugh at?

The thing is, when I was at The Globe witnessing the man next to me guffawing obnoxoiusly, I did not feel the urge to join in. I just thought "cunt".

I do think that you and Richard are being slightly pessimistic and overly cynical though. People, especially young people, want to fit in, but I don't think the urge to be seen to laugh is as widespread as you think. Really shit stuff does finally get noticed.

312. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241040 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 4:00 pm

J Mac

I think it is disgraceful and cowardly to measure religion by its worst adherents rather than giving it the benefit of the doubt to analyze what it should be while simultaneously only measuring atheism by what it should be and ignoring its worst adherents

I'd sort of given up reading everything you had written because of the confrontational style you chose, but I've just looked back on this comment.

There is something to be said for this attitude, in a certain sense. Bonzai makes a great point about Fred Phelps, someone who I wish wasn't discussed here or on TV, and have said so in the past. He is not representative of religion, which we all agree has lead some people to do good things.

However, I really don't think posters here concentrate on the worst of religion. Even the mildest religion commits some of the most heinous crimes, teaching children nonsense being one of them. Advocating wholly fanciful positions in the face of strong evidence to the contrary is dangerous in of itself. That's before we even go the the Bishops Bench, charity status, sexism, persecution of gays and worse.

The main problem with your sentence though is the false dichotomy. Atheism and Theism are opposed, whereas religion is just an application of any form of theism. Because of the nature of atheism, there is no comparative phenomenen to religion based on atheism, which goes back to the point I was making.

Theists really are in a bind on this one. It may look unfair that I can blame Osama directly on religion and even theism, but I can confidently say that Stalin is not atheism's fault, but that's just the way it is.

313. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241033 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 3:17 pm

Steve

Have you actually read the thread - the arguments about foreground and background? The comparison of atheism with bare theism? Do you really have any idea what we are talking about here?

Of course he has read the thread. He was looking for quotes to cut and paste into a post out of context, so that he can write "Thank you for confirming the fundamentalist nature of you Dawkins-followers.

Whether he understands the point I don't know.

The football team I support, Cardiff City, has had something of a reputation for unsavoury fans (needless to say I am not one of them). Is Cardiff City to blame for them? Certainly fans could say they beat up Swansea fans because of Cardiff City, because they support Cardiff. But this is not the fault of football, or Cardiff is it? These fans are acting on their own.

We can view atheism in much the same way. An atheist may burn a church because he hates theists, because he is an atheist. Atheism cannot be blamed, only the person can.

However, what if Cardiff actually encouraged fans to fight Swansea fans? Put out calls to arms in their match programmes, or hand some undergound code of battle? In this case Cardiff can be directly implicated and steps should be taken to remove them from the league system.

This is exactly analogous to all of the major religions.

314. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #241023 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 2:54 pm

David Robertson

the point is to demonstrate to younger people, and to influence future education to move away from religion etc. so that in the future there wont be a debate, hopefully.
Because we will all just know the one truth - there will be no need for debate. Am I allowed to mention the word fundamentalist in this context?

Let's apply this thinking to another area. Do you think children should be educated about drugs, or educated away from drugs?

315. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240999 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Bonzai

I am thinking of Escher's background-foreground pictures. Well sometimes a background is just a background.

That is a wonderful way of looking at it.

316. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240998 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 11:58 am

Twice now my internet connection has dropped as I started to write…

I've just been on a train journey, so couldn't post, and see that the flurry of posts started by my (seemingly) minor point has continued. I'm glad to see most observers saw what I was getting at, and noticed that hostility was coming toward me without merit rather than from me.

Just to recap, as there are people (including J Mac) who seem confused over what we are arguing about. J Mac said this:

If we get rid of religion atheists will still find other banal ideas to fight about. Just browse through the other threads here, I'm involved in several such arguments.

If that was the same episode I'd say they did make one valid point against atheism.

To which I made the point

Not at all. That atheists may believe and act on other nonsense says nothing about atheism.

From thence the invective flew.

Others have said enough about atheism in the intervening posts, so I don't want to say anything more about that. J Mac and other bedroom soldiers who call us all cowards and fly off the handle whenever they are challenged on anything do really need to look at their actions though, it comes across pretty pathetically.

J Mac

Now your missing the starting point of the discussion. It came out of an episode of South Park where various atheist factions DID start a war in the name of atheism. Of course it was satire and not factual. But to say that they have no grounds to make a satire warning of possible futures is crazy.

I know this wasn't a comment directly to me, but it might go someway to explaining the origins of our argument. I don't actually disagree with this. I never did. All I said was that atheism cannot be responsible for the actions of atheists.

317. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240943 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 10:23 am

J Mac

Holy shit, this whole time I thought it meant I didn't believe in any deities or supernatural powers.

It does. That's what I am basing my point on. What are you arguing about?

Turns out it means I'm an arrogant prick.

Yes, I am terribly arrogant. You ridiculous person.

318. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240935 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 10:13 am

J Mac

your own rule

Its not our own rule. It's the definition of atheism. Of course any position is open to criticism, but we at least have to agree on the definition of terms, otherwise we cannot discourse at all.

I am open to being proven wrong, anyone who is not is as dogmatic as any theist.

Agreed and I am to. You show me the accepted definition of atheism, and if its materially different to mine I will concede. You will also have to show me the proscribed set of behaviours governing atheism that are required to be an atheist.

319. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240930 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 10:02 am

J Mac

Peace your a coward.

Throwing insults like this about is not going to help your argument.

You DEFINE atheism as something that cannot be criticized.

I define it pretty much as most people do. How would you define it?

You use atheism as more of a crutch than the religious use god.

Spare me the psych profile rubbish, or at least point to a post of mine that supports such an analysis.

If you cannot meet critique with logic

That's what I have been doing, calmly, while you have been throwing insults and poorly considered invective about.

I have nothing more to say to you.

That's probably wise, since you are not doing a very good job of things at the moment.

320. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240920 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 9:41 am

J Mac

I never claimed that that said anything about Atheism as a doctrine

But you did. You said

If that was the same episode I'd say they did make one valid point against atheism.

That was the only part of your post I was talkng about. I had no issue with anything you have said about what atheists might do.

Grow a spine and don't live in fear of a moron's criticism. Personally I have nothing to hide.

Seriously, calm yourself down. I'm pretty tired of keyboard warriors and their inability to hold it together and talk like adults for more than 5 posts.

I don't really care for Robertson's criticism, but if giving him bait can be avoided, which also avoids posters repeating old discussions, then I'm all for it.

321. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240916 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 9:32 am

J Mac

I edited and expanded my post #240913

Fuck that, I will not defend your ideology with lies. Stop making a religion out of atheism.

I really do not know where that came from. I've done nothing of the sort. And please explain how my posts amount to 'ideology'?

322. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240913 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 9:26 am

J Mac

Well by that logic no point could ever be made against atheism.

Yes. Exactly. By the same logic you can still make points against theism though.

Geesh, don't read so much into it.

Ok! My David Robertson lurking alert signal is just permanently on, that's all. I don't want him to have additional quotes to cut and paste out of context.

It says nothing about "atheism" because your making a negative definition out of atheism just like theists do with the "not my god" excuse.

No, no, not at all. I really don't like all this 'negative definition' red herring. Atheism is a simple concept: the absence of belief in any god. How any atheist acts says nothing about the truth or falsity of this position. Moreover, since atheism has no guiding principles for how one should act, any actions performed by an atheist cannot be because of atheism. You see the difference with theism and its holy book of proscribed behaviours?

323. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240907 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 9:18 am

J Mac

If that was the same episode I'd say they did make one valid point against atheism.

Not at all. That atheists may believe and act on other nonsense says nothing about atheism.

324. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240886 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 8:29 am

Sargeist

Even fairness is an awkward one, I think, and just comes down to having to agree on what "fair" means. Maybe I am arguing in circles, I don't know. What I am trying to say is that you and I would have to agree on what "fair society" means, and then agree that we want it.

I think "fair" has a pretty objective meaning. I agree there could be problems talking about "fair society" though.

325. Secularists have a right to maintain their ethos

Comment #240863 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 7:31 am

Sargeist

I like to think that our ethics are, sort of, entirely obvious and easy.

Agreed.

326. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240837 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 6:42 am

Logicel

Peacebeuponme, I also manage to eat everyday though there are people starving to death. Sue me.

Maybe I attached more meaning to your comment than was originally there. I wasn't suggesting you should not be happy while others are suffering.

Its just that often times when people say "Oh, I have fun with life" and suchlike, they are also inferring that others should not be miserable all the time. That there's no place for sad faces etc.

You know, like those idiots who say when you are walking down the street "Cheer up. It may never happen."?

327. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240815 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 5:05 am

Steve Zara

I am not keen on the interviews, as it seems to sometimes be an attempt to be funny through watching an embarassed interviewee stumble.

You wouldn't like things like this then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZAnj1pEcuw

Some of the finest TV comedy ever made as I see it.

328. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240812 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 4:56 am

Logicel

I regard life as one lark from beginning to end, marked with long periods of noir humor.

Much like Elizabeth Fritzl.

Though perhaps her periods of noir humour where somewhat more extended.

329. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240809 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 4:45 am

Fanusi

Because of our evolved emotional response, and because any act performed by you that harms another should, as far as possible, be contrary to the law of the land.
But we have a number of evolved emotional responses, and many of them are very nasty. In fact, if you look at the sum total of human history, for the most part we've been stuck in hideous tribal war. That's the natural, evolutionary state of our species. Some of us have, at an unbelievable cost, managed to escape that state. I simply don't think that our residual instincts are, on their own, enough to have got us this far. It was our reason that did that. Nor do I see any reason why we should heed our evolutionary impulses - especially considering how nasty some of them are.

You've picked that sentence out, but ignored the main thrust of my point. I never said we should always trust our instincts. I said it is fortuitous that we have altristic emotions, as this makes society possible.

When we define 'good' and 'bad' we do it in such ways that help society, or increase happiness and the like, and not by appealing to some cosmic absolute.

what is the implication? That without faith, there is no reason to prefer freedom to slavery, happiness to suffering?

Of course not. There are plenty of reasons to prefer freedom to slavery. Society benefits from laws that protect individuals equally.

330. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240794 by Peacebeuponme on September 1, 2008 at 3:54 am

managementboy

I find the Colbert "character" in this episode only amusing (not hilarious), but that is probably because I am an atheist. I actually have to force myself to chuckle at the jokes, but that is just fair, as Colbert just shows us our own weaknesses (seems to be how jokes work).

That seems to be exactly what Richard was getting at, and complaining about.

331. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240600 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Diacanu

Carlos Mencia

Saw a clip on this guy on a trip to the US a couple of years ago.

If I'm thinking of the right person, he's a nasty, abhorrent individual. Appealing to base insticts, and really not funny.

332. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240586 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 3:59 pm

Diacanu

I don't follow anything slavishly.

I don't think I do either. I just appreciate South Park more than you it seems.

Such is life.

333. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240583 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 3:57 pm

the great teapot

That fortunately means 63 million britons have their heads screwed on.

The population was less than 59 million in 2001, and would have been even less in 1997. It is only around 61 million now.

So, are there another 6 million or so folk across the globe who gain the title of honourary head-screwed-on Britons?

334. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240569 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 3:35 pm

Fanusi

If there is no absolute morality by which my behaviour can be condemned, why do you try to do so?

You are too bright to make statements like this, please.

I'm not even going to try to expand on what MPhil has been saying, he is far more intelligent and well versed on the subject than me (being that I know next to fuck all about the things he discusses). However, isn't the non-existence of objective morals just an obvious truth?

I can't understand all the fuss about this issue. How can things be somehow cosmically right or wrong?

I don't want to be hurt by someone else, and understand that others feel the same. Therefore, if we are to live together harmoniously and to maximise group benefits or happiness, we need to come up with a set of subjective rules about what is right or wrong.

Where is the problem?

Luckily, most of us have evolved emotional responses which make us want to not hurt, and in fact assist, others. This makes adherence to the rules somewhat possible.

If there is no standard agaisnt which I can be measured and found lacking, why do you insist on finding me so?

Because of our evolved emotional response, and because any act performed by you that harms another should, as far as possible, be contrary to the law of the land.

Stop sounding like a christian, please.

335. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240552 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 3:19 pm

the teapot

Anyway, back to father ted.
I hope there is canned laughter, or I won't know when to laugh.

Dougall, come on, one more time! These are small, those are faar away.

336. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240549 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 3:15 pm

Dhamma

It's probably a simple biological effect where we want to laugh "with" the studio audience, to be socially accepted. TV is after all something very new for us cavemen.

Girls learn at a very young age (like around 4) to laugh more if they are watching something with a boy that he finds funny.

Prof. Robert Winston did a great experiment a while back.

337. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240543 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 3:12 pm

Apathy Personified

Also, why the 'Lost in Translation' hate? It's a great film, one of the best in the last few years.

Didn't do it for me. I brought it up because its one of those rare ones where you are not allowed to dissent, much like the dead parrot sketch.

The underground band of naysayers after the film came out were much like the people who were not woefully distraught when the original posh spice, "Lady" Diana died: we did not speak out in public for fear of retribution.

338. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240539 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 3:08 pm

the great teapot

the other replies ......

No soap, radio.

339. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240527 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Richard Dawkins

Of course, if somebody finds something genuinely funny and I don't, that's totally fine. Tastes differ. I think the Dead Parrot sketch is hilarious. You think South Park is hilarious. No problems. All I was cautioning against was the tendency to PRETEND to find something funny just because it is expected of us, perhaps because we are so anxious to let others know we've seen the joke. Really, it's OK to find something unfunny, even if it is supposed to be funny. And it's OK to have different tastes in what is funny.
Richard

I don't think any of us could disagree with that. I think the main thrust of your argument is valid, definitely.

I would respectfully say that your post #240434 could have been better worded (?) It looked like you were declaring South Park idiotic and unfunny, but no mind. It's probably a genarational thing as well.

It's a pity in my humble opinion though. A lot of people think South Park is just fart jokes, but there's a lot more to it than that. Tackling Global Warming via a group of headlice is another great example.

This is all moving off-topic now, but I felt the need to sing the programme's praises.

340. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240517 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Dhamma

It's two hours of aesthetic orgasm.

Sorry, the first two minutes consisting of a shot of Scarlett Johansen's arse might have been, but the rest was...well...arse.

341. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240514 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 2:42 pm

NMcC

If you could isolate the exact 'thing' that is universally funny,

I suppose that depends on whether you believe in objective humour...

I can hear the theists now.

"How can you judge anything to be funny or not funny unless there is a God-given objective standard for humour?"

342. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240511 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 2:38 pm

Dhamma

Some people like Britney Spears too. I can't see how one can have such bad taste,

Two words:

School.

Uniform.

343. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240502 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 2:29 pm

Diacanu

Hey, as long as I never find Dat Phan or the like funny, I figure I'm in good shape.

As long as you don't include Andrew Dice Clay in any of your favourites lists, you are ok with me.

344. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240500 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 2:27 pm

the great teapot

Now the dead parrot sketch and the goons that's unfunny shit.

The dead parrot sketch is akin to the film Lost in Translation. They are the emperor's new clothes.

Both were a waste of my sight and hearing.

Monty Python at least redeem themselves with many, many brilliant sketches, not to mention the films.

345. God Only SEEMS Nonexistent!

Comment #240488 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 2:15 pm

Coulda done without seeing the harlequin baby pic though.

346. Better Know a Lobby - Atheism

Comment #240472 by Peacebeuponme on August 31, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Richard Dawkins

Like South Park. Not witty, not clever, but you know it is SUPPOSED to be funny, so you'd better say how hilarious it is or you won't be cool?

Actually South Park can be very clever. Many episodes have contained some quite brilliant pieces of social commentary or media attacks.

The episode which uses an elementary school head boy election as a commentary on the last US election, which also puts Rosie O'Donnell in her place, springs immediately to mind.

I suspect you haven't been able to get past the purile elements, which I also find clever in their own way.

But then I see nothing funny in Pat Condell's youtube videos, unlike you, so I guess we all have our own preferred style of humour.

I think Steven Colbert can sometimes be funny. Just not on this occasion.

I agree with this though.

I felt it strongly over that childish film clip called 'Beware the Believers' or some such name. Lots of people chimed in with words like 'hilarious', simply because it seemed to be EXPECTED of them. It's SUPPOSED to be funny, so surely it must BE funny! I just think we should be more critical. Some things that are supposed to be funny fail in their ambition.

And this.

347. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239665 by Peacebeuponme on August 30, 2008 at 6:43 am

Now, my point about exile, was that we should simply declare that citizenship carries a price with it, and that price is subscribing to the values and morals of the nation in question. Those that don't agree with them, should leave. Period.

I'm sorry, no. Who decides these values?

I live in the country in to which I was born. Why do I have to live by another's values? My values are part of the values of my country.

The only thing I have to abide by is the law of the land, as enacted by democratically elected government. Otherwise I face prison, as do every other citizen or immigrant.

348. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239458 by Peacebeuponme on August 29, 2008 at 4:12 pm

Keith (before a lot of...well...Fanusi noise)

I think elections would be much fairer and more fun if we never actually saw the candidates, rather like an examiner marking a test paper. Each candidate would just have a number rather than a name next to a list of policies he/she supported. This way the winning candidate would be elected on his/her ideas, rather than on colour/sex/height/age/looks/teeth etc.

I can understand wanting to remove "image" from the crieria on which one is elected, but this idea seems deeply flawed to me.

I'd want to hear any person I'd elect to get and idea of his or her character. Getting a sense of how they would react in a difficult situation is important. I'd want to make sure they had enough, for want of a better word, mettle. A person can have agreeable political ideals but be a terrible leader, a wet weekend (I happen to think my political outlook is quite unparalled, but have trouble leading a group of mates on a pub crawl!)

In these days of advisors and spin, it may be hard to penetrate beneath the image to assess this, but it would be far harder with your novel approach!

That said, how much does image really affect things? Today were have Boris and Dave doing well seemingly because of the image they have created. You have to wonder how the hell John Major or Ken Livinstone ever got a vote in this environment, but people just voted red or blue becuase that's what they do.

349. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239453 by Peacebeuponme on August 29, 2008 at 3:53 pm

If Steve can explain that by "classic sign" he referred to something other than what he was quoting, then we can go from there.

Bloody hell Sciros, you really are fighting a battle far out of sight of the war here.

Steve made a somewhat flippant remark about Fanusi disappearing. That is a classic sign of a fundamentalist - I've witnessed several theists do it here.

Steve has already concluded that Fanusi was dogmatic based on earlier posts.

This really isn't something that needs a back-and-forth.

350. No atheist burials in Co Donegal

Comment #239429 by Peacebeuponme on August 29, 2008 at 2:43 pm

usheen

Alas, I've decided to be cremated in Glasnevin in Dublin.

What happens to your carcass after you die really has nothing to do with you.

Living people should decide what is best for them and not necessarily pay any regard for your personal wishes.