351. Fleabytes

Comment #144074 by mixmastergaz on March 15, 2008 at 3:09 am

Clearthinker's gone awfully quiet hasn't he?

His last post was pages ago!

Do you think he might have called it a day?

Admittedly my last post was pages ago as well but I've been waiting for his reply...

352. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143671 by mixmastergaz on March 14, 2008 at 9:46 am

Sounds to me like Mr Hedges has been reading Zygmunt Bauman. Bauman's a sociologist who's argued that too much reason and rationality was the root cause of the Holocaust (I'm paraphrasing him but, unbelievably, that's his argument!) For Bauman as for Hedges, up is down and black is white. Parodying Bauman's argument only slightly it goes something like this:

- The Nazis conducted their 'final solution' in a very organised and efficient way.

- Organistaion and efficiency are products of the Enlightenment.

- Therefore we should identify the Enlightenment's privileging of reason/rationality (for Bauman these words are synonymous) as the driving force behind the Holocaust.

It's not exactly a water-tight argument, but it proved very popular with left-oriented theists here in the UK. There was something of a Kerfuffle when it emerged recently that Bauman had been a stasi informer during the war years. Many sociologists were wringing their hands and falling over themselves to try and re-habilitate Bauman, so attached as they were to his thesis.

All of which reminds me of a joke graffitied on the toilet-paper dispenser when I was at Uni:

"Sociology degrees dispensed with here."

(With apologies to sociologists with their heads screwed on; there are a few of them.)

353. Ban anti-Catholic books in schools, says bishop

Comment #143518 by mixmastergaz on March 14, 2008 at 7:19 am

Does anyone know which particular books the Bishop had in mind? I'm guessing Phillip Pullman would be on his 'ban list' but it's not as if there are likely to be shelves full of books that are critical of the Catholic Church to be found in the average school library. Comparing criticism of the church with the indescribable horrors of the Holocaust displays a disturbingly slender grasp on reality. Not only is this offensive to Judaism (Catholics offending Jews; not exactly a first is it?), but also to Catholics of good character (who will have to answer for this idiot) and an affront to common sense. As objectionable as most of us probably find his views to be, I notice that no one is seeking to censor him. If only he could find within himself the capacity to reciprocate. That seems unlikely; I doubt whether he could find his own arse with both hands.

354. Fleabytes

Comment #143440 by mixmastergaz on March 14, 2008 at 5:46 am

Clearthinker:

Consider the condition of a child born today in the UK compared with, say, a century ago (we're both UK residents I think). She would likely be born in a much better equipped hospital that was free of charge at the point of delivery, and the care she and her mother would receive would be far superior to that of counterpart a century earlier. She would be able to attend school later on; again this would be free at the point of delivery. If she was born into modest circumstances she'd be entitled to free school meals and other forms of financial support and her schooling would be a vast improvement on that enjoyed by her century-earlier counterpart, who would by no means even be guaranteed an education at all (or if she did, a much shorter and far more restricted one) and would not receive the sort of financial help outlined above. When she left school she'd have far more opportunities open to her than she would a century earlier. Shortly after this time she'd be entitled to vote, a right denied of course to her counterpart. When she came to have children herself, these too would be much more likely to survive child-birth, as would the mother. There are plenty more examples of progress I could refer to (I'm sure you could think of plenty of others as well, if you really thought about it). So again I put it to you, can you honestly deny that there hasn't been progress during this time period? One hundred years is the blink of an eye in geological time yet we've made so much progress (I don't know if you believe that the Earth is as old as the evidence points towards).

I've read most of the Bible too (I skipped a bit in Chronicles; do you blame me?) and I'm a theology graduate. I don't find the answer that you've read the Bible to be compelling evidence that it's not just the fireside tall tales of ancient, semi literate desert shepherds. If an omniscient being really had a hand in its authorship, then why does he have such poor grammar?

355. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143235 by mixmastergaz on March 13, 2008 at 5:37 pm

al rawandi:

Of course I'm not calling it Holocaust 2.0! I'm just surprised at how unafraid of delibrately 'pushing buttons' and openly revealing his prejudices the Bishop is in these comments. Thanks for telling me Britain is different from Germany in the 1930s! Although I live in Britain, I hadn't noticed that! :)

356. Bishop accuses gays of 'conspiracy' against the Catholic Church

Comment #143080 by mixmastergaz on March 13, 2008 at 12:21 pm

A Catholic bishop has the nerve openly to speak of a "conspiracy" in the same breath as the Holocaust. There's a disturbing familiarity about this. Pardon my ignorance if this isn't exactly on-the-nail but wasn't it this sort of paranoid talk about conspiracies which led, in part, to the Holocaust? Ok, the paranoia this time is centred on a different "minority", but ultimately little appears to have changed. This coming shortly after we hear of Pope Nazi's restoration of the prayers for the conversion of the Jews in the Good Friday liturgy makes me think there's a conspiracy of fascists in the upper echelons of the Catholic Church! Perhaps paranoia is infectious, but I can't help thinking that by praying for the Jews on Good Friday the Pope is hoping to revive the ancient, racist slur of deicide. Afterall, this prayer could be uttered on any day of the year. To choose to pray on Good Friday will, I fear, inevitably remind Catholics of the supposed culpability of Judaism in the matter of the crucifixion. I can't bring myself to believe that the choice of Good Friday as the most appropriate time for Catholics to offer up this particular prayer is coincidental, anymore than I can bring myself to believe that this absurd, strutting Bishop isn't anything other than a crude, mean-spirited homophobe of the very worst sort.

357. Fleabytes

Comment #142997 by mixmastergaz on March 13, 2008 at 10:26 am

Clearthinker:

Just out of interest, can you explain what would constitute evidence for you that there has been a progression in human morality? When I think of the casually racist and homophobic views of my granparent's generation I can't help but feel that we've moved forward on these issues (I don't say that we've overcome them of course). Would, say, statistical evidence of a fall in hate-crimes be admissable evidence? If not then why not? Forgive me, but your argument on this point sounds more like one of convenience than of conviction. And I'm struck by your insistence on empirical evidence on this issue, (which would seem to me to be merely a matter of common sense) but your apparent ambivalence to it on the issue of the reliability of scripture. How can you be sure that scripture isn't just an account of the half-remembered fireside tall tales of ancient, semi-literate desert shepherds?

358. The ethics of mixing science and religion

Comment #142700 by mixmastergaz on March 13, 2008 at 3:20 am

I agree with Steve's reservations. We're indirectly selling them scientific credibility, or at least the appearance of scientific credibility, but this can't really be bought. They're trying to have their cake and eat it and we're holding the plate for them if we co-operate.

What scientific contributions did Mother Teresa make? The fact that she was the first recipient of this award undermines its scientific integrity surely?

359. Beauty ad banned after Christian outcry

Comment #142690 by mixmastergaz on March 13, 2008 at 2:57 am

I can see why an 'old school' feminist might take exception to this advert (although I think there would be many more ads out there that she would find much more offensive) and I can see why some Christians might also be offended by it. But why is it that everyone seems to think they have the right to insist upon living in a world where nothing ever offends them? I remember hearing Terry Gilliam speak on this topic once. He said something along the lines of "offensive is good; it's where the real stuff happens" (Mr Gilliam is rather fond of the word 'stuff'). This is obviously a rhetorical question but...Is the offence taken at this advert proportionate? I mean, surely there are more serious things to get worked up about. No one is inciting harm or prejudice in the ad. No one would be stupid enough (I hope) to think that any self-respecting woman would really act in such a stupid way as depicted here. If you think it's stupid or offensive you've got many outlets in which to express these views, but we don't really need protecting from this sort of crap. We can just say, "Well, that's a load of crap" and leave it at that. Maybe those 23 complainers ought to focus their attention on something that actually matters. This is just so trivial. If you're offended by this then I wonder how you manage to get by in the world at all. And you've no right to insist that the rest of us need to be wrapped up in cotton wool in order that you can avoid having your over-sensitive feelings hurt. I've heard of the 'tyranny of the majority'; this the pettiness of an insignificant minority.

360. Fleabytes

Comment #142317 by mixmastergaz on March 12, 2008 at 9:55 am

Thoughtsoncommontoad:

Thanks for the recommendation! I've just read the fascinating introduction to this book online. Looks like this will be another one to add to the growing pile of books for me to read over the Easter holidays. I especially liked the bit about headphones. It reminded me of the first time I listened to "Darkside of the Moon" through my parent's headphones as a child. A life-changing experience!

361. A God blog

Comment #142297 by mixmastergaz on March 12, 2008 at 9:19 am

Replying to Matt (post No. 5)

I wouldn't say the Telegraph is Britain's most conservative newspaper (although it depends how you define 'conservative'). I usually read the dear old Torygraph on Fridays (generally I take the Indie or the Grauniad) and find it to be a much less conservative read than either the fucking Daily Mail or the unconscionable Daily Express (which I would never actually buy you understand, but I'll flick through abandoned copies of either on the train in a spirit of 'know thine enemy'). The Telegraph compares pretty favourably with the Mail and Express. Actually, parts of 'Mein Kampf' compare pretty favourably with the fucking Daily Mail (there, I've said it again; now I feel a bit better) or the hateful Express, but you take my meaning...

362. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #140317 by mixmastergaz on March 7, 2008 at 6:14 am

This is quick (and vaguely relevant) complaint from the UK.

Richard recently gave a lecture here in Liverpool but there was no mention of it on this site. I was particularly annoyed to have missed the opportunity to attend the lecture as I'm a teacher of 'Religious Studies' and both I and my students were very much looking forward to it. However we only learned of Richard's visit about two weeks before the lecture was scheduled to take place, by which time all the available tickets had been taken, despite moving the lecture to a larger venue. Of course, if the details had been included here, as Richard's American lectures are, then I'd have known almost immediately.

Please could you also include details of Richard's public appearances outside the US in future?

363. Lords Approve Abolition Of Blasphemy

Comment #140309 by mixmastergaz on March 7, 2008 at 5:58 am

Replying to Max D (post 56):

The Lords are a bit like the Jedi council, only they don't enjoy the same amount of respect or have as much integrity.

The Jedi robes are much cooler too...

364. How to abandon your God

Comment #139552 by mixmastergaz on March 6, 2008 at 4:31 am

Rod asks "where did the lapsed Catholics go?" (apart from purgatory and hell obviously! I'm paraphrasing you Rod; hope you don't mind). Well, I'm a very lapsed Catholic and I ended up lurking here. From my experiences when I was still a practising Catholic here in the UK I'd say that many stay within the fold and just don't talk about the fact that they have serious disagreements with the Church authorities. None of the Catholics I used to know from church (and still know) were at all persuaded by half of the things they were expected to believe in. Just by looking at how the numbers of kids in catholic families has dropped we can see that the ban on contraception isn't being taken seriously. I'm also pleased to report that there were openly gay couples in church, and none of the rest of the faithful seemed to have a problem with that. In fact one couple were widely respected in the parish, and would go on pilgrimage to Lourdes each year with the local group, caring for elderly fellow parishioners. I'm sure for many people, leaving isn't an option simply because of the purely social aspects of attending church. What do others think?

365. Richard Dawkins on five of his favorite books

Comment #134630 by mixmastergaz on February 28, 2008 at 3:59 am

Since everyone else is throwing in their two-pen'orth here are my top five fiction titles:

1.) Hitchhiker's Guide Trilogy (in 5 parts) by Douglas Adams (he it was who introduced me to Richard's non-fiction, thank you Douglas)
2.) His Dark Materials Trilogy by Phillip Pullman
3.) Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie
4.) The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco
5.) The Hound of the Baskervilles by Arthur Conan Doyle

366. Add another flea to the list...

Comment #133327 by mixmastergaz on February 26, 2008 at 4:26 am

Just a quick thought but if the arguments of Dawkins, Hitchens and others were really as weak and insubstantial as the fleas assert than why do they need to be refuted repeatedly and repetitively?
I've now read two flea books, the McGraths' and Cornwell's. They both make a lot of hay about the style, tone and stridency of Richard's views in TGD. But their responses don't actually read like calm and measured appraisals. In fact they're vitriolic propagandists when compared with Richard's precise and elegant prose.
They're also both rather insubstantial responses and leave many of Richard's strongest arguments un-challenged. I believe Christ referred to this sort of selective editing as straining out gnats and ignoring camels. Perhaps it's naive of me to even hope for consistency from these intemperate ranters.

367. Fleabytes

Comment #130308 by mixmastergaz on February 20, 2008 at 9:08 am

Wow, Paula! Sterling work. I wondered why you'd been absent from these threads for so long. I can see you've been busy. I did add a brief review of the McGraths' book a little while ago and was considering trying to jump on the flea 'gravy train' with a book refuting their arguments myself, but I think you'd be better placed to do this. How about it? If you've had enough of wrestling with wilful self-deceivers you can hardly be blamed, but I for one think you should consider it. If I'm repeating something others have already suggested I apologise (slightly). This is a very long thread and I've not had the time to read all the posts (in fact I've not quite finished reading your original refutations!). Anyway, bravo!

Ps I hadn't even realised that 'wee flea' was Robertson! Doh!

368. Council pays psychic for exorcism

Comment #126758 by mixmastergaz on February 14, 2008 at 7:12 am

I'm curious to learn how news of this reached the BBC. Was it an affronted rationalist working at the council? Or did the person 'suffering' from the alleged paranormal activity contact the media. There's an obvious inference if it's the latter...

369. Murder plot against Danish cartoonist

Comment #126734 by mixmastergaz on February 14, 2008 at 4:31 am

I agree with Philip (and Aayan Hirsi Ali). Where are the moderate Islamic voices condemning this murderous intolerance? Of course, it's a rhetorical question. A more pertinent one might be 'Why are there so few Muslims who are prepared to speak out against this madness?'

I attribute this, at least partly, to the totalitarian nature of Islam. Yasmin Alibhai Brown's article on the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury's recent remarks about sharia law noted that this gives the message to Non-Muslims that Muslims want 'exceptionalism'. But surely Islam is an 'exception'. A majority of the adherents of no other world faith would dare to call for the killing of cartoonists in 2008. Islam is the exception to this particular general rule (and many others). It is not racist or Islamophobic to notice this and remark upon it. The cowardly concessions to Islam made by certain elements of our media platforms only serve to compound this problem. If Islam is treated as an exception then Muslims may come to regard themselves as exceptional.

370. Conservative Rabbis to Vote on Resolution Criticizing Pope's Revision of Prayer

Comment #126703 by mixmastergaz on February 14, 2008 at 2:21 am

It does strike me as odd, as an earlier poster commented (sort of), that the Pope wants to single out the Jews for special prayers. That these prayers are to be offered on (so called) Good Friday also seems to me to be significant. Could it be that the Pope wants to revive the vile, despicable and nonsensical charge of 'deicide' by reminding the faithful how needy these Jews are of prayer given the enormity of their 'crime', the commemoration of which coincides with the one day in the Catholic calendar when these prayers are thought to be most appropriate?

371. Blasphemy

Comment #123041 by mixmastergaz on February 6, 2008 at 11:51 am

Can I be tedious and briefly off-topic on a point of grammar/punctuation? You're too kind.

I appreciate the need for capitalisation when talking of 'Christians', or 'Muslims' or what have you. And I'm aware of the convention of only capitalising these words in phrases like 'non-Christian' or 'non-Muslim'. But I think it would convey a more honest respect for the latter examples if we were to break with convention and capitalised thus:
Non-Christian
Non-Muslim etc.

Am I joking?
You decide.

372. Blasphemy

Comment #122887 by mixmastergaz on February 6, 2008 at 8:56 am

Correction, it's a letter not an article.

373. Blasphemy

Comment #122877 by mixmastergaz on February 6, 2008 at 8:45 am

Styrer: I've read your posts with interest. I concede that you make some persuasive points about Dennett's double-speak. However, I think we disagree by degrees. I think you're overstating the case a little. This article is clearly not written to an intended audience of Muslims. I'm not aware of the typical editorial content of the Boston Globe but I'm assuming it to be a left-of-centre oriented journal. If that's the case then it's conceivable that Dennett is addressing himself to those liberals who are somewhat reluctant to lift the bull's tail and look the facts of Islam in the face. I accept that Dennett has softened his usual line on Islam here, but I also think it's reasonable to address different audiences in different contexts in different ways. This is a brief article in a newspaper, not an academic contribution to a scholarly journal. Dennett's comments in 'Breaking the Spell' (which seemed to me to be the most painstakingly-careful-not-to-cause-too-much-offence book by a 'Horseman') are, in the main, generalised and not written with the consideration of how the remarks might contribute to the perilous circumstances of a journalist fearing for his life. This does make a difference to how we conduct the argument in public. I'm also unclear from your posts so far as to how you think we might best proceed in order to secure a happy outcome in this particular case. Do you propose intellectual honesty at all times in all cases, or would you concede that pragmatism might also have its uses?

Best,
Gaz

374. Putting Candidates' Religion to the Test

Comment #121754 by mixmastergaz on February 4, 2008 at 4:42 am

The questions certainly rasied a smile. I'm a UK resident so it's interesting to contrast the political situation here with that on the otherside of the Atlantic. The leader of the Liberal Democrats over here (the third party generally enjoying up to about 30% of the support of the electorate) declared his atheism almost as soon as he became leader. The interview was quite funny. It was a straight "Do you believe...?" and Clegg just said "Er...no", sounding pretty decisive despite the pause. Of course the Lib Dems have never been in power but it's encouraging to hear the leader of a political party being unafraid to express this view simply. If only this were the case in your own otherwise magnificent United States, if it's not too rude of me to say so.

375. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #121747 by mixmastergaz on February 4, 2008 at 4:22 am

Agn: I saw it on the BBC news website on Saturady morning. I can see others have provided links reporting the same developments. Being something of an internet luddite I'm not sure how to provide a link to this page. Having looked at the links provided by others here I concur that maybe this doesn't amount to as much as the Beeb's article on Saturday morning suggested. Perhaps the theo-fascists are hoping if they make a few gestures we'll forget about it and focus our attention elsewhere. Therefore I'd argue it's vital we don't ease up the pressure. Consquently, and I suppose hypocritically given my earlier posts, I've signed the Indy's petition and I've written to my MP, but I'm not looking for a medal or anything :)

376. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #120580 by mixmastergaz on February 2, 2008 at 3:53 am

agn: Fair enough, I take that back. I was playing deconstructionist games with a, and he or she with me, much to my chagrin.

In reference to point 3 of your post ("...will in all likelihood become...guilty of the cold deliberate murder of Mr Pervez") let's not give up all hope of a positive outcome. The Afghan senate has now withdrawn its support of the death penalty in this case and people in Kabul are demonstrating on behalf of the accused. Things seem to be moving in the right direction.

377. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #120556 by mixmastergaz on February 2, 2008 at 1:14 am

I was encouraged to hear that the Afghan senate has withdrawn its support for the death sentence and has stated that it recognises Mr Kambakhsh's legal rights following pressure from the UN. I was even more encouraged to learn that 200 people demonstrated their support for Mr Kambakhsh in Kabul. Although these are simply steps in the right direction and Mr Kambakhsh is not yet 'out of the woods', I concede that I may have spoken too hastily, cynically and pessimistically about the potential for a diplomatic solution to this case. I hope so.

378. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #120027 by mixmastergaz on February 1, 2008 at 6:55 am

A: Ok, in flat contradiction of my decision to shut up here's another reply without apology. I can't be bothered clarifying the stuff about "having a life outside this site" anymore than I can bring myself to believe that you aren't deliberately spinning my words to suit your 'argument' (which was why, in my last post, I parodied your 'style' of cherry-picking certain words and phrases rather than addressing the main points).



Fine, let's get back to censorship. You don't refute my charges of incitement to hatred and violence. These strike me as rather good reasons to censor something. Can you explain why you think that they aren't? (A facile way to answer this would be to turn the question around and back at me; e.g. 'Why do you think that they are?' You show me yours and I'll show you mine.)



Let's move on to your next carefully selected quotation. The "common cause" I refer to is the presumed desire on behalf of both of us to see the unfortunate journalist in question acquitted and unharmed. I would argue that remarks like agn's do not help the situation but put fuel on the flames. I speak for myself on this matter as on any other. Perhaps I am mistaken in assuming we'd both like to see a positive outcome to this particular case, but if I'm not then we do indeed have a "common cause". I "provide no back up" about action rather than words being counter-productive simply because I wasn't talking about that. That's another scenario you're trying to bring in to muddy the issue (again).



The "totally different scenario" strikes me as very different because you imagine yourself as a witness to the event, which would allow for direct intervention, even a knee jerk response. This is not a useful comparison for the obvious reason that neither of us is a direct witness to the sorry situation in Afghanistan.



You're (not "your") free to feel honoured (not "honored") about being publicly patronised for all I care ('patronise' means 'to talk down to' [joke]). If you feel my pedantry about your spelling is uncalled for, given that this is a message board and you think fast so you type fast (or whatever), then perhaps you might consider that cherry-picking parts of another post in order to misrepresent them is hardly an approach to debating that smacks of integrity. Neither is it particularly persuasive. I do this to demonstrate that it is unfair and lacking in intellectual honesty. Your characterisation of my argument as "sixth form" therefore sounds like Humpty Dumpty calling somebody else cracked. Two can play at that game, as I believe I've just demonstrated, but it gets us absolutely nowhere. I'm starting to think that you aren't as interested in a real discussion as you are in trying to score facile, semantic points. Our 'discussion' is beginning to remind me of the 'argument sketch' in Monty Python. It also strikes me as inconsistent on your part to criticise me for "sixth form" arguments whilst leaping to the defence of agn's infantile (and now absent) remarks. (By the way, am I alone in thinking it quite funny that agn indirectly and apparently unknowingly compared his or herself to a Nazi war criminal when accusing the site moderators of the "Nuremberg fallacy"? That is the natural inference of that remark.)



You're welcome to the gift of the last word since I've just hypocritically taken it back. And my hypocrisy in replying again does at least dismiss your charge of false humility. Perhaps I'll leave it to you after this. Oh and "evil old me" are your words not mine; you're distorting the issue once more and (deliberately?) misrepresenting my argument. I referred to the point that some people cannot be reasoned with because I was (jokingly) aiming that remark at you. I'm not sure if you realised that or if I am joking anymore. Most of this exchange is quite pointless, which is why I can't believe I'm letting myself be dragged back into it again. I guess I'm a crankier fool than I realised.

379. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #119275 by mixmastergaz on January 31, 2008 at 12:49 pm

A (in response to post 58), Sorry about the long delay in replying but I do have a life outside this site. We could endlessly bore each other to death about "censorship" for a very long time indeed. Since the remarks in question have now been removed let's move on.

"Irrational" because it's counter-productive. It doesn't help our common cause; it hinders it.

"Knee jerk": You partially concede my point here and then try to argue against it by bringing in a totally different scenario. It's not comparable so it adds nothing. You then reiterate the point we've both already agreed upon about the Indy petition

"Blood lust" is a rhetorical turn-of-phrase not to be taken literally and you well know it.

But you don't refute "incitement to hatred" or "incitement to violence". I'm reminded of Hitchens' bemusement at an opponent who argued that at least his lot weren't as bad as the fascists. Straining out gnats and ignoring camels.

Look, the only real point I'm trying to make is that the manner in which we express ourselves does make a difference. You say you don't "conduct yourself to appear in any particular way to any particular group" yet you've certainly toned down the rhetoric in your successive posts here, so I don't believe you.

Still, at least you get to play the role of victim and martyr whilst implying that those who disagree with you are on this are as bad as Christians who want to censor 'The Life of Brian'. Physician, heal thyself. I can hardly believe I've let myself get dragged into all this and I imagine that there are some users of this site who actually want to get back on topic so I'm going to shut up now and happily give you the last word. I agree with whoever else it was who pointed out that there are some people who you just can't reason with.

380. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #118995 by mixmastergaz on January 31, 2008 at 8:57 am

I agree that these are difficult questions although some contributors to this thread seem not to agree. I have a hard time wishing someone dead because it's so damned final and I'd rather convince someone than destroy them. Additionally, I find it hard to think well of someone who does wish others harm without embarrassment. I'm sure that some will never be convinced, but I don't relish their destruction. At best I can think of it as a necessary evil.

381. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #118970 by mixmastergaz on January 31, 2008 at 8:21 am

Fanusi, the opponents I had in mind in the quotation you single out are those who seek to characterise atheists as fundamentalists. If I'm reading you correctly, you've taken me to mean the Taliban. Do I think we can defeat the Taliban and their ilk without the use of force? Of course I don't. Can we express this reasonable point of view without seeming to relish in their destruction as agn does (and incidentally forsaking the very same civilised values we both want to support and cherish)? Of course we can. Agn expresses his or her opinion with a certainty that I do not share. Additionally, I'm going to balk at talk of "cleansing vermin" (to paraphrase only slightly) when it is applied to human beings regardless of what they may have done. Dehumanising an enemy is also something that may be learned from the history that you assert I am ignorant of. Is this sort of talk likely to win many converts in a war of ideas? I sincerely hope not.

I accept that there are those with whom we simply cannot reason. I do not accept that we need to express our views in the same manner as they express theirs. To do so makes us sound like fundamentalists and gives ordinary, non-fundamentalist theists the excuse to dismiss us as 'atheist fundamentalists', a phrase I believed to be an oxymoron until I read agn's contribution.

A, I didn't seek to censor you, only agn. I also accept that you made no threats so apologies for that. I've explained my thinking on this in my reply to Fanusi above. You may consider it naïve but I consider it to be tactically prudent. Surely our opposition can be expressed without resorting to self-defeating, irrational knee-jerk blood lust like that in agn's post. Your attempt to assume the moral high ground by not resorting to censorship against me is misplaced. Perhaps we would 'draw the line' at different points but I'm guessing that, although you may cherish freedom of speech as I do, you will admit that there are limits to it, such as incitement to hatred or incitement to violence. Perhaps you don't discern these things in agn's post, but that's how it reads to me and no doubt there are those who would want to find things like this here on this site in order to undermine us. Guilty by association is a poor argument, but many people find it persuasive. If that were not true, we would not endlessly find ourselves answering the old Hitler/ Stalin point.

382. Sentenced to death: Afghan who dared to read about women's rights

Comment #118845 by mixmastergaz on January 31, 2008 at 4:20 am

Wrestle ye not with monsters...
I agree that agn's comments have no place in a civilised debate and ought to be removed. We give our opponents a very big stick with which to beat us if we are seen to be endorsing the very same tactics that we seek to condemn. I've grown tired of defending myself and others against the ridiculous charge of 'fundamentalism'. In the case of agn however this is an accurate description. Our opponents can now accurately state that there are currently multiple postings on this website that advocate violence, even if three of them are identical. The views expressed are disgusting and they don't strike me as representative of the average contributor to this website. But our critics won't hesitate to make hay out of these comments. The continued appearance of this garbage is a spectacular own-goal.

A, I'm sure that Karzai is not particularly threatened by a petition in the Indy. But I doubt that he'll lose much sleep over agn's empty threats either. And the fact that I find your views abhorrent does not imply that I don't care about the plight of women (or journalists) in Afghanistan.

383. Happy Birthday Josh Timonen!

Comment #118798 by mixmastergaz on January 31, 2008 at 2:04 am

Happy Birthday Josh and congratulations on such a successful website. On a personal note I might just add that I appreciate your patience with my repeated requests for new passwords!

384. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112810 by mixmastergaz on January 18, 2008 at 6:01 am

I've just watched a trailer for this film and would like to correct my previous post. It doesn't appear to be a fictitious account but rather a melodramatic and partial documentary. The trailer reminded me of a Michael Moore film, which is not a recommendation in my book. I must have been confusing it with something else. Does anyone know what other film I might have been thinking of?

385. Ben Stein Bribing Schools to See His Anti-Evolution Movie 'Expelled'

Comment #112806 by mixmastergaz on January 18, 2008 at 5:45 am

It's suggestive that no one is being bribed to read a book. Instead the easy option of watching a piece of propaganda is taken. I'd already heard about this film before I came across the article here. As I understand it, though I haven't seen it I should stress, this is a fictional (naturally!) account of a 'scientist' who is expelled from the respectablility of mainstream science because of his obstinate refusal to lift the bull's tail and look the facts in the face. The movie apparently doesn't spend too much time dealing with the details of the creation/evolution argument. Instead it attempts to elicit feelings of sympathy for the poor I.D.ers who are so cruelly dismissed by real scientists. So it's an ad hominem rather than a direct attempt to persuade people of the veracity of I.D.
Presumably this is because there are no rational arguments to support I.D. But hey, forget appealing to minds and tug on people's heart-strings instead.
Pathetic in the truest sense of the word.

386. Borders Tags Atheist Book with 'O Come All Ye Faithless' Cards

Comment #100606 by mixmastergaz on December 19, 2007 at 1:26 am

Maybe we should email Borders to let them know not all their customers are offended. Vocal minorities try to exert disproportionate influence by organising their adherents to protest. We can counter that by expressing our approval.

387. 'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' available now on DVD

Comment #71942 by mixmastergaz on September 20, 2007 at 1:18 am

I'm delighted to see that this excellent polemical documentary has been made available on DVD. Although I did see the programmes when first broadcast, I did not think to set the VCR. Sometime after broadcast it became clear that I would have opportunity to teach advanced level religious studies and these programmes will be an excellent teaching resource. I can't wait to see the, doubtless, strong reactions from my students. Nice to note that the profits are going to the R. D. Foundation.

388. The Fleas Are Multiplying!

Comment #69654 by mixmastergaz on September 12, 2007 at 4:00 am

This thread has become very long and seems to be drifting off-topic quite a bit. Consequently I've only read a fraction of the posts here so I apologise if I'm inadvertently repeating something that's already been posted.

I read the McGraths' book last weekend and thought I'd share my thoughts on some of it. The McGraths make a great deal of Dawkin's supposed "superficial engagement" with scripture. They point out (correctly) that he mistakenly attributes the 'Letter to the Hebrews' to Paul, although most biblical scholars now admit that the authorship is uncertain. A quick check of my copy of the 'Common Bible' (a multi-denominational English translation extensively used by English-speaking theology students) confirms that it does indeed omit any mention of the author of the letter. However, there is a tradition that attributes this text, which appears immediately after the Pauline literature in the New Testament, to Paul. Dawkins' minor slip up here is therefore excusable and the McGraths' complaints seem to me to be rather pedantic and over stated. I might add to this that they make no attempt to dispute the substance of Dawkins' exegesis of the text; they just try to score facile points.

The footnote to this part of 'the Dawkins Delusion' is of particular interest. It asserts that "Dawkins…fails to understand the genre of apocalyptic" writing, referring specifically to the oft quoted 144,000 'sealed'. At this point the McGraths' misrepresentation of Dawkins slides into 'wilful mendacity'. Having already excoriated Dawkins for putting the italics in the wrong place in an earlier passage from scripture (I'm not making this up; check the text!) they erroneously accuse him of suggesting that the Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of this part of scripture is normative for all Christianity, when he clearly says nothing of the sort (in fact the text is completely unambiguous on this point and specifically refers to the Jehovah's witnesses). Additionally, the relevant part of TGD to which the McGraths are referring is a paraphrasing of the work of John Hartung, though you would not know this from reading the McGraths' dishonest account. The best is saved until last. The McGraths state that Dawkins' (actually Hartung's) exegesis here is faulty and offer their own (unsupported) interpretation. It deserves to be quoted in full as it is most revealing:-

"The 144,000 are probably Christian ascetic 'warriors' who are using pacifist means and spiritual warfare to resist secular atheist powers and cosmic evil powers."

Well, that certainly clears it all up nicely doesn't it? I particularly like the (mis)use of "probably" when it is very far from probable indeed. Perhaps I'm being unfair but it seems to me as if the McGraths are just giving total free reign to their weirdly fantastical imaginations at this point. I mean really! Re-read the quotation above and see if you can find anything in it that doesn't sound as if it belongs in a children's fantasy novel. My partner summed it up nicely when I laughingly read this aloud to her; she said "They're just making shit up."