351. Beware the Believers

Comment #151589 by AllanW on March 29, 2008 at 3:09 am

I think there are enough pro-science lyrics in it to think it rests on 'our' side. Plus the visuals are quite ironic in many cases. I can understand a little confusion but I put that down to muddled and mangled use of the language (which I believe is normal for this kind of music). On the whole it's entertaining IMO.

I think I'll have a hard time getting the image of Eugenie Scott rubbing her bikini-clad (and plainly male) body out of my head ...

352. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #151279 by AllanW on March 28, 2008 at 11:33 am

'Correct me if I'm wrong, but so does evolution? But it's not a mystery because it just hasn't been discovered yet.'

You are wrong; you mean that you just haven't discovered it yet. Read a book.

353. Is Infant Male Circumcision An Abuse Of The Rights Of The Child?

Comment #150518 by AllanW on March 27, 2008 at 3:55 am

'we need hard facts'

I have the matter in hand ...

I'll get my coat :)

354. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149811 by AllanW on March 26, 2008 at 8:49 am

Wow. Sickened by the story and by the links above; a truly disturbed woman.

355. Fleabytes

Comment #149181 by AllanW on March 25, 2008 at 8:30 am

mikejswalker; thanks for the reply. Apologies for the delay in responding, I've been in meetings.

I agree that civility costs nothing and, to some people, says more about the speaker than the receiver.

Yet I cannot agree with your metaphor nor with the parallels you seek to draw with other conflicts. Maybe it's the word conflict that I used that misleads here.

The religion versus rationality issue is not parallel to any of the geographic conflicts you mention; there are no geographical boundaries, there are no defined battle-lines drawn (whether literal or metaphorical), there are no clear economic or political goals that are the measure of the end-point or winning conditions. They do not compare. So using such metaphors or parallels does not help to choose tactics or support criticisms of certain behaviour.

This conflict is not capable of being sorted out by sober, serious and unswearing people over a table in Stormont, Yalta or Versailles. It's a different animal. If I tried to think of a parallel it would be something like gay rights or slavery; a movement that has moral dimensions but no geography; a movement that is not time-specific or related to particular incidents that sparked it but to a state of mind; an idea whose time is coming and which has implications that will play out not exclusively in regions or sub-sets of society but in all.

Here's the test; solve this issue by naming and getting together the leaders of both sides and getting them to agree to a set of discussion protocols and negotiation groundrules. Hell, they're even trying to get somewhere like this over Palestine! Best of luck.

My guess is it cannot even be conceived of let alone attempted. It's a different animal. In my opinion it needs a whole range of tactics, routes, methods, people, messages applied over a great deal of time. It needs to generate and develop a widespread, broad 'church', directional not specific groundswell of support before it can start to apply pressure in specific places for specific actions; That's when the spokespeople need to be taken seriously.

356. Fleabytes

Comment #149056 by AllanW on March 25, 2008 at 4:03 am

clodhopper; it's probably not your understanding but my eloquence that is deficient here :)

The emphasis I was trying to put on this aspect of our ongoing debate was the scale and range of interractions that occur every day. Thinking about the conflict between religion and rationality/secularism in terms of this site, some of the poeple here and the threads that we have is a very limited perspective in my opinion. As such I think it's a waste of time and energy to define tactics, impossible to construct models of cause and effect for different circumstances to achieve particular goals or outcomes.

This is a mass-medium; further, it is a user-defined medium. Access to the content here can cover the full range of visits from occasional to frequent to constant. Participation from never to constant. Each post and every thread (I'm sure Josh and his team have some statictics here) will, I expect, be read by many more people than post. Why do people think it's possible to engineer or manage peoples' perceptions of the posts?

Add to this picture that the people who do reach this site have a choice of millions of other sites to visit; add to this that they view or hear other channels of mass-media; add to this the complexity of their personality and upbringings, education and mood at this moment and you have a picture of massive complexity for any message to pitch into. Just what elements of this are controllable or, I would argue, should be controlled?

I reiterate; it is a lack of perspective that leads to this view; this is not a polite debating club or a refined gentlemans club it is worldwide mass media. You would expect to see as wide a range of views, tones and language as you would in the population of the world. That's not controllable in any singular degree; but can be seen in aggregate.

357. Fleabytes

Comment #149042 by AllanW on March 25, 2008 at 3:10 am

mikejswalker
While attempting to keep these remarks impersonal (please take them as such) I think you have too limited a perspective. This issue is related to the one on another thread (on which I saw you supported Spinoza) in that you both seem to want all protagonists in the engagement between religion and rationality/secularism to abide by polite debating rules. To conduct themselves with straightforward analyses of the opponents positions, debate the issues not the personality involved and to conduct this exercise in the rarefied atmosphere of cultured, academic sterility. Your argument is that this would protect the 'movement' from any criticisms ('tactics too heavy handed, too smarmy, too loud, ridiculing') and avoid any undecideds being repulsed by the obnoxious manner displayed. It would also placate the feelings of unease you and others are starting to feel about the tone used by some participants.

I repeat; in my view this misses the scale and nature of the conflict that is going on. That approach may be appropriate perhaps in the UK or in polite circles; in academia or when presenting in court; when making lobbying presentations to Government committees or having a calm discussion with friends and relatives over a pleasant meal. But I would argue that this represents the tiniest fraction of the possible conflict points where these issues affect people all over the world in their daily lives.

The issue we are dealing with and participating in manifests itself in a whole myriad, a full spectrum of circumstances; from the ones described above to ones where daily life for un-outed atheists is a repressive hell dealing with family and work colleagues; where children are home-schooled by ignorant, delusional parents; where religious missionaries actively prevent the use of contraception that could prove vital in preventing the spread of AIDS in Africa; where Christian ministries collect money daily to fund the Discovery Institute or Benny Hinns next limo. To fret over how politely some people express themselves on this site is to obsess over one small aspect of the set of occasions when religion comes up against rationality.

We are dealing with issues that have a global reach and affect all people; as such the range of possible actions, tones, responses and outcomes is a whole distribution-curve of possibilities. Sorry to burst your bubble but every day there are religious people getting annoyed at what they perceive to be those uppity atheists; every day there are uncommitted people having one side or the other of the debate reinforced or turned-off for them in a hundred different ways; every day, atheists are expressing themselves poorly in a discussion on a website. And these interactions are miniscule in comparison to the scale of such interactions going on all the time; the crucial measure is not the individual interaction (outcome or effect) but the aggregate. The image in my mind is of the molecules in a glass of water; some are not really moving, some are frenetic. Some clash into other molecules some float in blissful isolation. What matters are the conditions of the glassful as a whole.

So, yes, I understand your points and yes I see that sometimes the effects you describe may occur. But I think that a change of tactic in some circumstances is not only overdue but necessary to achieve a change that has not happened in many parts of the world which remain mired in irrationality.

358. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #149022 by AllanW on March 25, 2008 at 1:29 am

TonyA; many thanks for those links. The write-up makes a great read and certainly conveys the excitement that the author felt. Thanks.

359. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #149018 by AllanW on March 25, 2008 at 1:11 am

'I just personally would prefer that people who want to engage with THEISTS about THEIR beliefs wouldn't straw-man the arguments.'

Entirely agree.

Nancy; thanks for a number of points well made especially comment #148985.

360. Fleabytes

Comment #148911 by AllanW on March 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm

'Don't you get that?'. To be honest, no. You have still failed to justify your original comment viz 'But we are slowly cultivating a label that is being questioned by all concerned.'

What label? What questions? Exactly who are 'all concerned'? Or are you merely projecting your own anxieties upon a wider public? We have all been guilty of that on occasions (lol).

361. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148906 by AllanW on March 24, 2008 at 2:37 pm

What was the extremity of my initial position?

'The New Atheism is a wholly plebeian movement... to the chagrin of most intellectuals.'

What have I backtracked on?

1. 'the writers that have raised the public consciousness about religion/god-belief hold vastly more well-thought out positions on all counts than is apparent from the meat of their pop-books (some might say "pot-boilers")' vs 'I like pop-science books.. I never said anything about them... I was talking about potboilers in particular, with the caveat that the intention of the authors may or may not have actually been to write a potboiler... and it may or may not be the case that one or more the the popular atheism books is such.'
2. 'I didn't say intellectuals are saddened by it... I said the pop-culture "movement" "The New Atheism" causes them chagrin, which is to say, embarrassment/annoyance', 'I often have to explain to fellow academics' vs 'I was using "intellectual" and "academic" in the weakest sense possible...'
3. 'It often looks, quite clearly, like the followers are ignoring the most important things their "leaders" are saying... not least of all on THIS website, and on PZ's, and among people I have met at "atheist" meet-ups on university campuses...' vs 'I do read PZ Myers site, SteveZara, but I think that is wholly separate from what I was criticizing'
4. 'It's not SNOBBY or ELITIST to want people to THINK before they speak, or to be AWARE of what it is they disbelieve in or are speaking out against.' and 'but it's more that I'd prefer it if they thought before they spoke, or paid more attention to details' vs 'I wasn't making any normative claims about what you should or shouldn't read or know...'


Why is that amusing?

My sense of humour is tickled when I see pomposity deflate (also when I see pomposity and arrogance displayed with such lack of self awareness).

362. Fleabytes

Comment #148879 by AllanW on March 24, 2008 at 12:46 pm

Re; comment #148856 mikejswalker
'Just a thought.'

Yeeeees but only just. 'But we are slowly cultivating a label that is being questioned by all concerned.'. Who are these 'all concerned'? When were you appointed their spokeman? Why do you believe this perception is 'cultivated'? Why on earth do you think your petty brain-fart is worth reading?

The Enlightenment occurred more than two centuries ago and in vast areas of the earth religion still dominates societal structures and mores. The 'softly softly be nice and they'll come around' approach has been tried for all of this time. I for one agree with others that a more robust approach on occasions may be worth a try.

363. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148875 by AllanW on March 24, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Good point and good post, Szymanowski. Hume reaches false conclusions as a result of his misunderstanding of Dawkins et al and his bias with regard to Marxism.

It's amusing to see Spinoza backtracking from the extremity of his initial position as well.

Mitchell Gilks made a point in the salient area; the arrogance to set yourself apart from the masses can go hand-in-hand with a justification (benevolent surely?) to replace religious authority with an equal tyranny.

364. Biology prof expelled from screening of 'Expelled'

Comment #148658 by AllanW on March 23, 2008 at 2:34 pm

A really useful and interesting eye witness account, Beth. Thanks a lot.

365. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148641 by AllanW on March 23, 2008 at 1:47 pm

Ah! Sorry, Spinoza, my bad. Please forget I asked the questions; I thought you were a regular person not the elitist intellectual snob you appear to be in your last comment.

Please, return to your ivory tower and forget I ever mentioned anything. Thanks.

366. It looks like Man crucified

Comment #148631 by AllanW on March 23, 2008 at 12:44 pm

Re comment #148314 Spinoza.

'The New Atheism is a wholly plebeian movement... to the chagrin of most intellectuals.'

I'm interested; can you expand on this, please? How do you arrive at the notion that it is a 'wholly plebeian movement'? Why are most intellectuals, in your opinion, saddened by this (if this is the case)?

I'm not seeking a fight here just an interesting exchange of points of view or data. I think there is by now the evidence of the beginnings of a movement that could be labelled 'New Atheism' and I'm fascinated by the potential. However I'm equally sceptical of its possible longevity, direction and development.

367. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #148482 by AllanW on March 23, 2008 at 7:17 am

Re comment #148470

You are wrong; the study plainly cannot support any conclusion other than 'cannot be used to support either side.'

You are wrong; most atheists (with an ounce of understanding of the scientific method) do not perceive it as posing a threat to their ideology; there is no ideology to threaten.

You are wrong; atheists are criticizing the study because it is a flimsy piece of work, not because of its conclusion or what it examines.

You plainly do care about this study and have attempted to twist its meaning and importance beyond any reasonable meaning. Nice try but no banana.

368. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #148415 by AllanW on March 23, 2008 at 3:21 am

Ufcarazy; you quoted an extended section of this meta-analysis. Which part of 'Thus, at this junction in time, the results might be considered inconclusive.' do you find difficult to understand?

I'm beginning to think that, contrary to your inflaming comments before, that it is you and the other god-botherers who wilfully deny evidence and practice a blinkered attitude to results rather than rational analysis.

We would all delight in receiving valid results that showed something in favour of intercessory prayer as it would throw a startling new light on this universes empirical laws; how interesting that would be! Yet none has been found so far, grasp at straws, fabricate and dissemble as some religiously motivated people may.

369. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #148241 by AllanW on March 22, 2008 at 12:40 pm

Ok ufcarazy, I'll follow the evidence;

From the report itself; 'Is it effective enough to meet the standards of the American Psychological Association's Division 12 for empirically validated interventions? No.'

Case closed. As epeeist said, not statistically significant.

Next?

Got anything else to back up your ridiculous claims, predictions and prejudiced viewpoints?

370. Does God answer prayer? ASU research says 'yes'

Comment #148186 by AllanW on March 22, 2008 at 9:17 am

Ufcarazy;
You may find what you want, it doesn't alter the facts. All atheists do not ignore confirming studies. If it feeds your fantasy to believe that they do, go right on ahead in believing that.

You may equally be confidant of your prediction that atheists will label as bad science any further findings but be prepared to have your prediction made to look as silly as your comments are. Ideology indeed! What ignorant and duplicitous arse-gravy you speak.

Plainly you know nothing of the scientific method but see if you can do anything other than provide assinine, snide remarks.

We're all waiting agog with anticipation.

371. 12 Year Old Girl Prodigy Paints Pictures of God

Comment #147930 by AllanW on March 21, 2008 at 3:49 pm

Thanks for the information, Zorro. Tell me a little more detail from your research about this phenomenon;

What aspects of the commentary poems show you that they are insightful?
How have you verified that she and she alone creates the paintings?
Can you give some examples of her writings on the 'inherent meanings and symbolism' of the paintings?
Which examples of paintings show in your opinion that she has an amazing imagination?
How exactly does the existence of child prodigies 'shove' whatever 'mystery' you are alluding to into anyones face?
Why have you concluded that everyone on this site 'does not like' what you have seen and posted about?

I'd appreciate your thoughts and look forward to your reply.

372. Fleabytes

Comment #147903 by AllanW on March 21, 2008 at 2:40 pm

clearthinker; try to live up to your name. In your last message are you referring to me or to AlanF who did indeed have a long pop at you?

373. Fleabytes

Comment #147841 by AllanW on March 21, 2008 at 12:10 pm

Good grief!

Pathfinder, Robertson, clearmind and now Artful_Dodger. It's Good Friday you lot, don't you have other things to be doing? It's like a gathering of the clueless.

Sod off and genuflect on your holy day.

374. Fleabytes

Comment #147769 by AllanW on March 21, 2008 at 8:14 am

Yep; I've about reached the stage of marking as 'troll' the posts of PlagioClase. Gets his ass handed to him on a plate across a couple of threads so moves to others to continue to ignore points made to him in favour of asking inane questions and concentrating on ephemera in cryptic and meaningless ways.

375. Fleabytes

Comment #147755 by AllanW on March 21, 2008 at 7:45 am

Goodness gracious! Someone somewhere claims that to attain high office they had to suppress their principles and convictions but now out of office can proclaim them in public.

Ho hum. Join the queue.

And this helps your claims and assertions, how?

As for the snide comments about Dawkins; I'm sure he doesn't give a flying fuck what deluded religious nutters pray for on his behalf. Give it a rest, mate.

376. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147738 by AllanW on March 21, 2008 at 7:07 am

Hmmm. "If you are interested in exploring evidence the book is worth a read." Is this the one written by the lying religious hucksters who then got Flew in his dotage to put his name to?

This one reviewed here? http://richardcarrier.blogspot.com/2007/11/antony-flew-bogus-book.html

377. The Secular Conscience

Comment #147722 by AllanW on March 21, 2008 at 6:45 am

"I can think of two prominent ex-atheists who say it was the evidence that impacted their thinking."

How many times do you need to have it shoved in your face? Appeals from personal experience are NOT evidence! Sheesh, the stupid, it burns!

The evidence of their beliefs is no evidence for the supernatural. The fact that they have taken an irrational jump does not support your case.

And McGrath and Flew? Really? I hear the sound of barrels being scraped.

378. EXPELLED!

Comment #147699 by AllanW on March 21, 2008 at 6:19 am

"Can you believe this Kevin Miller?"

No; he's a standard-issue liar for Jeebus.

Did you mean 'Can you believe the fact that he does what he does'?

Yes; he's a standard-issue liar for Jeebus.

379. Fleabytes

Comment #147673 by AllanW on March 21, 2008 at 5:35 am

"6360 - Allan - Thanks for the info. It was a fascinating article. Very helpful. And makes me praise God all the more for what he has made."

"As I said I am always willing to be enlightened and I freely admit my ignorance in this area - which is why I am asking the question. But I am just as puzzledd that whilst several of you have asserted with the full force of the religious believer that of course you can get life from non-life - none of you have given a reason, or been able to explain how."

Compare and contrast these two comments from the same post by Robertson.

380. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #147340 by AllanW on March 20, 2008 at 7:31 am

Any news on how the Columbia, NYU and Austin gigs went yet?

381. Fleabytes

Comment #147261 by AllanW on March 20, 2008 at 4:54 am

Robertson; or how about the implications of this? (taken at random from todays reading matter).

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/20/science/space/20planetw.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

Do you see how the impetus for expanding our knowledge (incomplete as yet) tends to diminish the role for mysticism?

Welcome to the Enlightenment.

382. Fleabytes

Comment #147237 by AllanW on March 20, 2008 at 4:09 am

Robertson; Zara has given you some reading material. You may wish to look at these simple ideas as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RNA_world_hypothesis

As for 'life from non-life' in general it happens all the time; see references on any form of reproduction. Also study, again as Steve says, any molecular biological processes. No life in each molecule, is there?

Welcome to the Enlightenment (see what I did there?).

383. Fleabytes

Comment #147216 by AllanW on March 20, 2008 at 3:27 am

'You do not get life from non-life. Not one of the New Atheist writers even attempts to answer the question - how do you get life from non-life?'

For someone who considers themselves well-read in the works of the enemy I'm staggered that you still cling to this trope. All you reveal is your profound ignorance of the work Dawkins and a host of others have been engaged in for many decades.

384. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #147181 by AllanW on March 20, 2008 at 2:18 am

Yay! A response; the goading worked.

Content of post-secular Ph.Ds post;

Para 1; Falsity in the first sentence. Analysis of the thread so far leading to the astonishing observation (unsubstantiated) that many of the comments "smack of a cult-like following"; projection, much? Finally, a faux-civilised dig at me.

Para 2; Reference to reasonable, polite posts pointing out his mistaken impression which leave no mark at all but "make things worse, much worse"; oh calamity! The sky is falling!

Para 3; Deliberate falsity (So now the claim ...") by suggesting the position has changed when in reality it represents a shift or switch of his own position having been caught out in a gross misunderstanding. Draws false conclusion from the quotation and takes it out of context (quote-mining, anyone?) then returns to his original idea (it's comforting when you get back to your original prejudice, isn't it?) that Dawkins and all of his slavish cult-followers are child-abusers for allowing these indoctrinations by religious parents to occur. Plainly a false dichotomy ensues; if you're not child-abusers you should condemn Dawkins' remarks (so carefully skewed earlier). He then insists (despite reality) that he is not inflaming the discussion, the cult of Dawkins and Dawkins himself is. Breathtaking example of the religious mind gleefully clutching to its security blanket (I'm the nice guy, everyone else is a sinner).

Para 4; Faux concern. 'This issue is serious'; we know. Repetition of the false dichotomy from the previous paragraph. (Catechism; if you repeat it enough times does it become true?).

Para 5; Moves on to other comments including ad-homs on philosophical and religious ignorance, falsehoods and intolerance for free-thought exhibited by the cult. Suddenly ThoughtsCommonToad has a worldview that is a manifesto for the cult. There follows a huge a scary leap of logic and sanity to ; "Anyone who doesn't teach their children that the scientific method is infallible, is absolute Truth, and is the only method of evaluating truth claims known to humanity is guilty of a crime and should be removed from society with the full force of the law." Wow. Concludes with another extremely paranoiac remark that he fears the government is not far away from snatching his children away from this multiple Ph.D home. Disturbing indeed if the maniacs who think religious exposure is child abuse did indeed control the government.

Para 6; Snide swipe at MaxD.

Meat; in the subsequent post MaxD calmly asks for clarification on a few of the more wildly generalised observations post-secular Ph.D made. He further puts context and clarity onto the remarks being analysed that indicate post-secular Ph.Ds misunderstanding. I'm hoping it was a misunderstanding.

ThoughtsCommonToad does a clear point-by-point analysis clarifying and reiterating points which are convincing to me and would give pause for thought to an open-minded person.

So damn! Nothing left for me to chew on. But a few observations;

- If you allowed our goading to colour your response then that's understandable but take this chance to look a little more coolly at the points made. Maybe your heart-rate was a little elevated as you wrote the message in your sons bed.
- Your tone of petty, frightened, blustering, middle-class, persecuted religious martyr is not attractive; remember, when you reveal your deepest insecurities some nasty people may use them against you.
- And when caught out in a lie or are exposed in deceptive or faulty argumentative positions keep getting more extreme and angry; it's one of the best ways we Dawkins cultists have to identify the seriously deluded.

385. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #146716 by AllanW on March 19, 2008 at 9:57 am

'We'd best expect a response from our learned friend who no doubt will face responses to his critique head on. Wouldn't you agree?'

I certainly would, Mr Galactor. However I have a musing: what is the polite period of time on an internet site such as this to expect a response? I most definitely do not want to appear impolite or hasty in using the word rate_atheist uses so frequently and appropriately with respect to post-secular Ph.D.

386. God's cure for gays lost in sin

Comment #146598 by AllanW on March 19, 2008 at 8:06 am

I take it back, Pathfinder is not someone we know posing as a religious bigot. Pathfinder is just another homophobic liar for christ.

Shame, I was looking forward to the unveiling. As it is we will just have to put up with the noxious views as any attempt at reasonable debate (as we all know from previous demonstrations) will only result in the verbal equivalent of banging our heads on a brick wall.

387. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145719 by AllanW on March 18, 2008 at 3:29 am

'Divine Guydunce' THAT is inspired, my friend. ROFLMAO.

388. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #145674 by AllanW on March 18, 2008 at 1:27 am

Pathfinder writes in a way and with content that is clearly a satire on creationist thought processes; no-one could be that stupid and not realise it by now.

As for the topic, I've been saying for awhile that the creationist menace is clear and pushy. Get involved with the work on this site to highlight their talks, contact your MP to look into the faith academies and schools that currently peddle this nonsense, visit the site maintained by Roger Stanyard (not seen him on here for awhile?) and read up on how much of a problem they still pose to science teaching in this country and then do it all again until they are neutered.

389. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #145040 by AllanW on March 17, 2008 at 7:51 am

Ah! Another one-off driveby trolling. This time by the religiot calling themself Post-secular Ph.D.

Sooooooo many prejudices and mistakes and straw-men in your post it's not worth picking it apart.

Waffle, waffle, generalise, 'look -at-me', project, waffle, demonise, project some more, waffle, offense-taken etc

We don't want your ignorant, bloated, self-obsessed opinions; bring some meat with evidence to back it up or bow out.

390. In Britain, creationist theory is evolving

Comment #144935 by AllanW on March 17, 2008 at 4:16 am

She Who Must Be Obeyed

391. Richard Dawkins on The Alan Colmes Show

Comment #143870 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 2:23 pm

Yep, enjoyed that. Colmes was a good host (not too intrusive and not ignorantly provocative) so it went well.

The callers were hilarious; creationist got smacked down (bullshit! Spoken by Dawkins! lol), religiot got told he is only Christian because he was born in the US (basically) and the snobby jewish lady left in a huff! Classic!

Well done Richard.

392. Richard Dawkins' US Tour begins this week

Comment #143697 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 10:01 am

clearmind; answer the questions you have been asked.

No evasion from you; how old do YOU think the earth is?

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

Comment #143551 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 7:46 am

Oh shit! I just had twenty-seven people in this office asking if I'm ok.

prettygoodformonkeys; your avatar caused me to cry with laughing. Thanks.

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

Comment #143339 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 2:50 am

'he is probably going to make himself look a total ass. '

Exactly. he already has. I agree with the comments made above by Ygern, Philip etc.

You may be reacting 'towards anyone in authority' but there is the root of my point; by allowing him to make these comments (and how would you stop him?) he undermines himself and his office. He advances the cause of reason by illustrating just how divorced from the reality of popular notions he and his office and religion are.

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

Comment #143328 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 2:32 am

As always, Russell makes my case better than I can.

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

Comment #143327 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 2:31 am

Steve Z; 'I would ...' snip

And this is where we disagree :). But only about effects and tactics. Read the item again; included in it are a bunch or reactions against the Bishops' words. Many of the individuals reading the paper or on the net will also see these plus other comments (such as on sites like this). What possible benefit would attempting a prosecution under hate-speech laws provide compared to the coverage already given? For me there are too many downsides rather than potential wins in using this unwieldy weapon of legislation. It makes the prosecutors look like censoring, mean-minded, prissy, over-zealous, thin-skinned single issue zealots.

'I also think it is appropriate to act against hate speech .....' snip
I do too but not to launch woolly legal procedures. Use the same or better information routes; use the words they have uttered to destroy them; demonstrate the depth of support you have compared to them etc etc

I hope you know by now that my comments refer only to the tactics we are discussing, not the underlying issue where, of course, my sympathies and support are all in one direction :)

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

Comment #143312 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 1:33 am

Agreed Russell; they do seem to be more strident and revealing in their intemperance.

Yet jaf I would never reach for the hate-speech legislation; firstly it would deter a few of them from making their comments in public (and revealing their biases and prejudices is very healthy for the cause of reason) and secondly the hate-speech legislation is two-faced and could be used, by a venal and monomaniacal government against you in the future.

Remove these unworkable pieces of legislation. Words cannot hurt. They support a victim mentality that enables professional offense-takers to hide their alarmingly irrational views with the support of the state and justice system.

398. Full house captivated by atheist Dawkins' take on religion

Comment #143311 by AllanW on March 14, 2008 at 1:27 am

Hehehe; a driveby trolling from dad4justice.

Unless you care to backup any of the words in your post? Demented? Smelly old hogwash?

Thought not.

There's a parallel here with various causes or ideologies; the members of a particular cause should be aware that they represent the cause to some small degree to the rest of the population who are not as au fait with the issues but can be persuaded.

Myself, I'm sympathetic to the cause of fathers4justice as my brother-in-law got shafted by the family justice system. Yet when I come across the noxious arse-gravy spouted by dad4justice on this forum it makes me think he may just have been unlucky and the system that prevents marginalised mind-sets such as those posted in the previous message from infecting children is not to be meddled with.

399. Fleabytes

Comment #142903 by AllanW on March 13, 2008 at 7:27 am

Wooooo Hooooo! 5k

What do you all want to talk about now? :)

400. Two More Fleas

Comment #142896 by AllanW on March 13, 2008 at 7:24 am

Re; comment #142890 clearmind/wooter

No more questions; answer the ones you were asked by Jon_sociologist and epeeist.