351. Catholic maternity wards 'face closure' if abortion law passes

Comment #254386 by Sciros on September 25, 2008 at 3:49 pm

I subscribe to the Carroll Burnett school of thought, (I paraphrase) "Until a man can shove a basketball through his mouth he's not allowed an opinion on the relative pain level of child birth."

From what I've been told, a bullet to the stomach is comparable in terms of pain level to "all-natural" childbirth.

But that's, um, why there are anesthetics involved? Plus there are many c-section births and there the woman is also obviously anesthesized.

If I were a pregnant woman (I'm not; I'm a dude) the pain of the birth wouldn't be all that high on my list of concerns to be honest. There are enough other things to worry about.

352. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253556 by Sciros on September 24, 2008 at 2:44 pm

Nah, I just need to practice in order to keep my "asshole skills" sharp. You never know when they'll come in handy.

I can agree that I'm being too hostile in my responses. I even started off that way in this case, which I admit is a bad idea because it puts folks on the defensive.

353. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253444 by Sciros on September 24, 2008 at 12:42 pm

Fanusi, PM for you.

354. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253431 by Sciros on September 24, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Nairb, the evidence has always been there. Your coming in and asking, inappropriately, for statistical analyses, for answers to questions that were answered in previous posts, and posting the same incorrect nonsense over and over, is disingenuous and imbecilic.

You've been provided with evidence from the get-go, before you even bothered to post your first cretinous demand for statistically significant amounts of synagogue burnings. You wrote it off as "anecdotes" like an idiot, not knowing what you're talking about, and proceded to demand "real" evidence. If you think that you've finally gotten enough evidence from me to shut you up and stop posting a bunch of nothing, it's only because we've finally hit on an example of what you consider non-anecdotal -- a chance occurence given your difficulty with understanding these key terms.

As I said before, you have used 3 or 4 different arguments to avoid giving evidence.

Again, you lie. I have called you on this twice already and you continue, though no longer to my astonishment. The evidence has been presented more than once; the "arguments" have been in support of it qualifying as evidence -- arguments you failed to come up with anything close to a rebuttal for. I have repeatedly challenged you to back up your argument for what you've been presented not being evidence (to back up our claims), and you've continued to ignore that challenge. As I also repeatedly predicted, since it's been clear you have nothing to say.

Then you criticize me for not reading the "evidence" you provided after that.

Of course I criticize you for it. You deserve a great deal of criticism for it, considering the only thing you've said in this whole discussion is that you don't see any evidence!

Now, I've dealt with your smug stupidity more than enough at this point so I hope that you're either content to shut up, or you're a true cretin on par with the wilfully ignorant creationists we see here all too often.

In closing, I would like to emphasize a certain choice quote of yours, for it shines a very bright light at the utter ignorance you're coming from here.

Islam as a belief may well be correlated with crime or crimes against jews. I dont know.

355. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253387 by Sciros on September 24, 2008 at 11:43 am

Nairb, you continue to embarrass yourself. Once again, I advise you to either stop posting or post something that isn't content-free.

I gave you no less than four (maybe five) links in the previous post to satisfy your demand for evidence. Though, it seems very clear that you have no idea what the word even means (in fact, you've shown to not undestand the meaning of more than a few key words already -- words you use frequently in your content-free posts here). So, even if you were to have bothered to look at those links, I wouldn't be surprised to see you continue to drone on about not seeing what you call "evidence." And if you did follow those links, then you've got even bigger issues to deal with when it comes to intellect and integrity. For now, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Disregarding the content of my response and then wasting 20 lines on a strawman fallacy in reply to me is pathetic. You don't make even the slightest bit of effort to say anything at all. I submit, once again, that it is because you have nothing to say. You're starting to sound like creationists who come here and say there's no evidence for evolution.

356. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253221 by Sciros on September 24, 2008 at 7:51 am

America fought against and helped to crush Nazism in Europe and Imperialist Japanese under a Democratic president.

The Democrats were a different party then, so this doesn't mean anything to be honest. Democrats were also the party against civil rights back then, go figure.

357. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253212 by Sciros on September 24, 2008 at 7:44 am

Anything else, Sciros?
can you read this from up there on your self indulging pedistal?

It's "pedestal," and and yes I can. No, nothing else mitch_486. You've done little more than make a grand ass of yourself by misstating someone's position. Considering not more than 10 comments above yours was a post by Fanusi responding to the lie that he "lumps all Muslims together," challenging that lie, I am frankly surprised you posted what you did unless it was just really poor sarcasm.

My metaphor, which went :whoosh: over your head, was false to make a point. I was attacking a position that you do not hold, to insinuate that you were doing the same.

358. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253209 by Sciros on September 24, 2008 at 7:39 am

Hahah, Quetz ^_^ I actually appreciated that post as it set me up for my grand entrance!

And now that I'm here... I may on a whim point out some stuff from these last two pages that triggered my BS-meter a few times. If they get brought up again.

359. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253198 by Sciros on September 24, 2008 at 7:33 am

I am so tired of hearing Fanusi lump all muslims together. I'm offended.

Yeah me too. I'm also tired of you, mitch_486, eating cats. Seriously, I like cats. Stop it already. :rolleyes:

360. When Atheists Attack

Comment #253195 by Sciros on September 24, 2008 at 7:31 am

Quetz, I hadn't posted yet. Now you hear rumble. :-P

361. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252758 by Sciros on September 23, 2008 at 3:08 pm

Like now, hahah! It's like midnight there right now isn't it? ^_^

362. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252752 by Sciros on September 23, 2008 at 3:01 pm

forfend, umbrage -- you use a lot of obscure and "high-level vocabulary" Fanusi, hehe. Though you spell "lose" with two o's sometimes which is not good... But anyway I just wanted to say I find it pretty cool since I get to look words up.

363. Cathedral seminar to equip clerics to deal with Dawkins

Comment #252725 by Sciros on September 23, 2008 at 2:41 pm

When I read "equip" I thought it'd be with holy water, crosses, crossbows, and other stuff like that.

364. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252721 by Sciros on September 23, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Well, homophobia (technically a fear I guess) manifests itself as a repulsiveness... acrophobia wouldn't of course.

They're definitely different things. You could say one has a rational basis... but once it's a phobia it's no longer rational. (Being afraid of falling off a cliff while standing at its edge isn't really acrophobia. Being afraid of falling off a cliff despite there being a sturdy plexiglass wall along its edge -- that's acrophobia.) I do think that this point I'm making is neither here nor there, though. I'm just saying.

365. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252702 by Sciros on September 23, 2008 at 2:21 pm

root2squared, the definition of a phobia includes the idea that the fear is irrational.

What if you have a fear of falling off a cliff right into a dude's butt? That's like Steve's and AtheistJon's nightmares all in one!

366. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252675 by Sciros on September 23, 2008 at 1:54 pm

Fanusi was trying to rile me with his lunatic ideas that prominent gay men will be killed in public places in the UK unless we support his facistic strategies.

I think you might be giving Elton John's music a bit too much credit there. Who says they won't string him up for that Princess Di tribute song?

367. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252648 by Sciros on September 23, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Nairb:
So, you're back?

The Claim was "Islam is a threat" - the citing "synagogues are burnt in France"
I asked for Evidence of the link - "Have you data that it points to muslims and not NeoNazis?"

You respond by saying that scientific evidence was not possible

Good grief stop lying! Seriously. It's pathetic. I responded by pointing you to a link that Fanusi posted immediately prior to my reply. It was a link to here, a NY Times story that talked about a recent burning. Unless you have evidence of this being extremely poor reporting, it appears to be a given that the crime was perpetrated by Muslims.

I did say that scientific evidence in this case is not an appropriate demand. The only objective analysis that could make any sense here would be a statistical one, and I've already stated in very clear terms how such an analysis is inappropriate as well. If you would like to make a case for it being appropriate, you are welcome to do so. I've challenged you to do it several times already.

If you only care about numbers, and don't think a value judgment when talking about violent crime is appropriate, here is something from 2 years ago for you to chew on. Then here is something from 2004. And then here is a compendium of more recent findings.

By the way, you STILL haven't looked up the word "anecdote" because I see you're still using it. How about you use the word "booger" instead just so lurkers aren't confused and think you know what you're talking about.

Then you imply that multiple anecdotes is significant evidence

Multiple incidents (i.e. boogers) of Muslims committing crimes against Jews points to a problem with Islam in the country which the incidents occur in. That is my claim. If you want to refute it, you'll need to say more than "that's not scientific."

Then when none of the above works

Due to your lack of comphrehension or outright refusal to read anything I write.

you say "I would like to see what evidence you have to support these alternate hypotheses"

If you think the claim Fanusi and I made is unreasonable, if you think that the incidents are not borne of a problem Muslims have with Jews, then I would like to see you propose an alternative hypothesis. And since you're dwelling on the scientific nature of evidence supporting any claim, I expect you to come up with some.

But again, since in reality you have NOTHING, nothing at all to present in contradiction, the best you can do is whine about "anecdotes" which is akin to a strawman fallacy given your choice of the word. You have nothing of substance to actually add to the discussion! It's sad to see you even continue to post.

You seem to not consider incidents such as this evidence for a problem with Islam in France. You disregard them as "anecdotes." Well, then, what would constitute evidence for the problem, if not those incidents? For the last fucking time, if you have a statistical approach here that you think is appropriate, I encourage you to submit it. For now all I see from you is a bunch of handwaving. I doubt whether you have any grasp of the concept of evidence at all, and you've done nothing but confirm that doubt. Stop embarrassing yourself and post something that isn't content-free.

368. 'All Terrorists are Darwinists': An Interview with Harun Yahya

Comment #252622 by Sciros on September 23, 2008 at 12:34 pm

Hahahahah hilarious. This guy is to creationists what that "lawyer" Jack Thompson was to the anti-video game "think of the children" crowd. Keep him around as long as possible lest his "fame" be stolen by someone less crazy.

369. It's Time for Science and Reason

Comment #252556 by Sciros on September 23, 2008 at 10:36 am

If you don't speak your audiences language, you may as well close your mouth. Science does this all the time. Using their terms to talk to people who don't know their definitions.

selfish gene
theory of evolution

bad language all around for the audience. It's setting yourself up to fail. Fact of Evolution is all that should be said, or better yet, just evolution. Drop the word theory, it's stupid.

I completely agree. Especially when it comes to words like "theory" which have different senses -- one in a scientific context and one outside it. People who aren't well versed in science will only understand it as one of those sense -- the one outside it.

370. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252287 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Islam as a belief may well be correlated with crime or crimes against jews. I dont know. But before I would claim it in public I would find some strong data to support it.

Amazing.

371. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252281 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 6:46 pm

Nairb, a degree in math means you're definitely qualified to call yourself a mathematician ^_^. Though we're not discussing mathematics per se so it's not really a relevant qualification...

And Nairb I am angry because of your approach to the issue!! It's one thing to say that the incidents Fanusi pointed to are incorrectly reported and provide good evidence for that claim, or to provide some evidence that contradicts Fanusi's conclusion. It's another entirely to demand a scientific analysis of events for which such a thing is inappropriate in every sense of the word (and, not having bothered to conduct one yourself, claim that you've made any headway in your own arguments).

372. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252274 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 6:31 pm

Nairb you still have nothing. If you are a mathematician, as Hawt4Dawk thinks, then you need to learn something about when it makes sense to apply your knowledge and when it doesn't. I'm not going to pull punches because being a mathematician doesn't mean you're a statistician, and certainly it doesn't mean you have a grasp of when statistics can be applied.

You are changing the subject to 9/11 to try to defend your point.

And you have nothing to refute my point with so you leave it at that. As expected.

Your arguments for not providing evidence dont stand up.

Stark disingenuity. Fanusi provided the evidence. You failed to make a convincing case to dismiss it. Incorrect attempts to apply a statistical analysis don't cut it.

If you think providing anecdotes is enough then we could natter on all night.

Look up the meaning of "anecdote." Then look up the meaning of "anecdotal evidence." You'll notice firstly that "anecdote" isn't the word you're looking for. And you'll notice secondly that you need to explain what definition of "anecdotal evidence" you're using in this discussion and how the evidence provided you fits that definition. (It won't; well-documented events that can essentially be taken as fact do not fit any common definition of "anecdotal evidence.")

Finally, to actually make a point, you'll need to explain what sort of statistical analysis such events even warrant. If you maintain that no analysis can be done, then are we to assume that no matter how many such incidents occur they should be dismissed as non-evidence? (This is a great spot to put an appeal to emotion and actually describe some of the other well-documented incidents of crimes perpetrated by Muslims against Jews in France, but hey all we care about are numbers, right? What's a statistically insignificant torture or two to you and me?)

I have asked for evidence of a claim about a population. I have calmly told you why.

You've had the evidence to examine for some time now. Instead of investigating it you dismissed it on no grounds whatsoever. False grounds are no grounds.

You have huffed and puffed and talked around the subjects while trying to be insulting.

Frankly I find your smug and nonsensical approach to the issues to be insulting. Now actually provide something substantive or concede that you can at best post content-free drivel about statistics that you've not made a case for even using.

373. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252254 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Hahah I like the avatar. It's true, attacking one doesn't mean defending the other. Most folks here aren't exactly pleased with the choices. Those that live in states where a particular party is very likely to win can use their votes to give 3rd party candidates some support. Those that live in swing states (like me, woohoo) can't quite do that responsibly, I think. My vote can actually count. So, I have to choose between the two. Which sucks.

374. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252250 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 5:25 pm

PS Its a bit rich to ask me to provide evidence against a claim for which anecdotes are used as support.

Pathetic. You have nothing to show for yourself when opposing the claim so you say the evidence for the claim is unscientific and/or insufficient ("anecdotal") without investigating that evidence and therefore without making a case for why this evidence can be dismissed in the first place. Will you dismiss the events of 9/11/2001 as "anecdotal" and not count them towards the body of evidence for Islam being a religion that breeds violence? Certainly less than a statistically significant number of self-identified Muslims of the US population was involved.

It seems to me that you have nothing to actually make a case with on your side so you say "bah, the evidence for my opposition's side is anecdotal and therefore doesn't count." Since you seem to think you know something about statistical analysis, how many more crimes against Jews by Muslims would you say are needed before those crimes are no longer "anecdotal" and actually qualify as significant evidence? Where will you draw the line and say "ok, a statistically significant number of people have died so now we can discuss policy that will prevent a statistically significant number of such crimes"?

You're coming from nowhere with your arguments here, and I submit that you're going nowhere as well.

Proposals without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

So the evidence in question is not evidence now? You've done no investigation of the presented evidence, you've made no attempt to present alternative explanations for the events submitted as evidence. You've made a dismissal on no grounds whatsoever! Pathetic denial, pure and simple. That is what I see here. You are saying that Muslims burning synagogues is not evidence of Islam being a problem. I would like to see your alternate hypotheses for why Muslims are burning synagogues. I would like to see what evidence you have to support these alternate hypotheses.

Right now you have nothing. Zero.

375. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252230 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 4:25 pm

Sciros, I looked up some of Fanusi's stats. They seemed a bit suspect to me. I did ask if asking 500 people or so could be used to describe about 2 million people. I can't recall an answer (this was for the 40% of Muslims in the UK wanting shariah). Can those numbers be held as meaningful?
Just asking - I'm not too hot on statistics. I did provide the actual study way back when in the relevant thread (hahaha! Me, relevant? That's a laugh...)

Sample size of 500 for a population of 2000000... at 95% confidence you can say that the 40% figure is accurate within 4.3%.

This assumes the sample is truly random.

You don't need a big sample size to make decent predictions. It's counter-intuitive I suppose.

376. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252206 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 3:30 pm

Nairb, you're the one hiding behind the term "scientific" seeing as you're dwelling on the uscientific nature of the evidence that has been presented to you by calling it anecdotal.

Fanusi has given you numbers and sources for them. If you would kindly bother to do any homework yourself and provide an analysis of those numbers/sources (though at the moment I doubt your ability to do so) and then discuss whether or not those numbers are sound enough to suggest government policy one way or another, then maybe this would go somewhere. Mind you, the discussion would still be subjective, based on personal values, our very unscientific law, etc.

I'm not talking about test-tube experiments. I'm talking about statistical analysis of numbers such as the percentage of a population that claims to be Muslim, the percentage of people convicted for a hate crime that claim to be Muslim, etc.

Anyway the entire point is you're off-base on this. Fanusi isn't out to demonstrate a confidence level of 95% that a randomly selected Muslim is 80% likely, plus/minus 3%, to commit a hate crime against Jews, based on the population samples in a study. (I'd like to see what evidence you have to refute the claims Fanusi DID make, by the way. We're not talking about invisible pink unicorns, after all.) The claim is that there is evidence to suggest that the Islamic populations of some European countries are posing problems for other populations. You can debate the scientific nature of the evidence all you want, but it's evidence regardless.

By the way, anecdotal evidence stops being anecdotal when there's enough of it to formulate a model and make useful predictions. If we discarded all "anecdotal" evidence off hand rather than accumulate it, there would never be enough to formulate models in the first place. So, to dismiss evidence on the grounds of it being "anecdotal" is at times very misguided, I would say.

It obviously isnt.

Yes, yes it is. It's exactly like that. And in fact it'd be interesting to see you explain how it isn't. Subjectivity will ultimately be a factor in the policy and whether the evidence is worth going on. Do you think there are universal laws for what statistical analyses to run and what thresholds are "correct" to shoot for? Obviously not.

377. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252184 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 3:04 pm

I really wish the [troll] moderation wasn't just for decoration.

378. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252141 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 2:37 pm

Hahah Diacanu. I'm so glad we have proper presidential term limits in the US.

379. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252134 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 2:35 pm

Fanusi asks for support to deport citizens. He continuously makes sweeping statements about muslims.
I ask for scientific evidence for his arguments.
I would do the same if he constantly referred like this to americans, jews or russians.

If that bothers you. If that makes you angry. If you find that morally reprehensible then too bad for you.

No Nairb, it doesn't make me angry. It cracks me up. Your asking for "scientific evidence" is so off-base it's hilarious. You can ask for (subjectively) reputable sources, you can ask for concrete numbers, but the issue is not one you can approach with what is generally considered "the scientific method."

This is like asking for scientific evidence that LeBron James is a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant. You can compare some numbers, but unless you subjectively decide which ones matter more, you're nowhere.

So yes it basically is evident that you haven't a clue what the nature of the issue even is. Good thing that while you continue your "scientific" approach (I suspect it will be flawed given how you've already tried to apply statistical analysis here) people will be busy actually tackling the problem.

380. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252071 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Mark, but then many engage in the discussion at length. To single out one person and say "stop taking us off topic" is dodgy. Takes two to tango... and at least two to argue about Islam. So at least a few other people, myself included, are guilty.

381. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252067 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 1:39 pm

Fanusi, regarding Iran and McCain/Palin and all that -- if I were you I would be just as concerned about McCain/Palin's stance on conflicts involving Russia. They are FAR too eager. And Russia is NOT your friend when it comes to Israel's welfare.

While Democrats in the US have actually had a history of making Israel's situation worse rather than better in recent years, in this case I think things may end up different.

Although! As far as I know Russia would prefer Obama in power rather than McCain... or last I looked into it, anyway. It's hard to say what their motives are specifically, but they've always been profiteers when it comes to armed conflicts, and have taken every opportunity to undermine US foreign policy while they're at it.

382. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252060 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 1:32 pm

Decius that's fair enough. Will you say the same to SarahPalin regarding the "kiss my fat ass" posts? Or are they "on topic"?

RD.net's discussions are not heavily moderated at all, and some self-moderation may well be in order. But I wonder, why not ask myself and Fanusi... and like 5 other people to do this? Why just the one who you seem to disagree with most? ... I realize this is mostly flamebait on my part but we should at least not be assholes with a sweet tongue to each other. It's insulting!!

383. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252057 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 1:27 pm

Nairb, get your head out of your ass and realize that you cannot apply statistical analysis methods to everything and expect it to make any sense.

Please provide Scientific evidence (I like where you're going with the capitalization; it makes it more pompous) for why terrorists attacks are a problem at all! And I want capital-S Scientific data. I want to see what confidence levels you're using to drive your sample size, I want it all.

At some point you might realize that what you failed to learn properly in first-year stats isn't going to make all your decisions for you.

384. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252047 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Have you data and statistics that the number of fires in synagogues are statistically significant? Have you data that it points to muslims and not NeoNazis? And that if they do that it actually is the muslim attribute of those people that was the motivation.

Have you balanced that against the intercommunity relations amongst those groups?

Do you realise that there are millions of muslims living next to almost a million of jews in Paris.

No you obviously dont.

Unscientific.

I rarely pay attention to who posts what, so I have no idea if you're usually guilty of such unbelievable self-masturbatory rubbish, but this is one of the worst posts I've seen on the topic, ever.

"The number of fires in synagogues is statistically significant"? Pardon my words, but are you fucking kidding me? I will bet that I'm more qualified to discuss statistics than you could hope to be, and that you haven't a fucking clue how to apply them. "Is the number of buildings that have been brought down by terrorist attacks in NYC statistically significant?" Do you know what the point of a statistical analysis even is? What can "yes" or "no" mean in this case?

These are rhetorical questions.

Have you data that it points to muslims and not NeoNazis?

Yes. Read the articles on the topic. Fanusi linked to one by the NY Times for you to ignore and ask stupid questions instead.

And that if they do that it actually is the muslim attribute of those people that was the motivation.

See above.

Have you balanced that against the intercommunity relations amongst those groups?

This is a joke, right? Cause I'm laughing. The "intercommunity relations amongst" Jews and Muslims? Really? Like, really?? Yes, let's "balance that" against these "intercommunity relations." Hey what do you know? It seems to fucking support Fanusi's case. Hmmmm...

Do you realise that there are millions of muslims living next to almost a million of jews in Paris.

Really? I thought it was like 3 Jews and 4 Muslims. I mean that's the only way conflict could ever arise, is if they were all lonely and had no community support for anything they wanted to do.

EDIT (Re: your following post) -- I said "many" which does not translate to "statistically significant." However, you will need to make a (subjective) case for what statistical thresholds are reasonable to worry about in this case. You privilege statistical analysis without having a clue about its implications. Without a case for what statistical thresholds you put in place to direct policy (this will be subjective, by the way, and not "scientific" at all), a statistical analysis is pointless.

385. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252035 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 1:03 pm

Followup...

It seems the claims in question are true, although there is some denial from some police about warning Jews in Berlin not to wear distinguishing attire. Regardless, there does seem to be strong suggestion that Jews are less safe in many European countries today than they were, say, five years ago. Many Jews feel this way, and I think it would take some hardcore convincing to blow it off as paranoia.

So, given that, Fanusi's claim that Islam's negative influence is growing appears to indeed be true. These days, anti-Semitism stems in large part from Islam and so that's not an unreasonable conclusion to come to even without evidence, though there is some.

If you think that Fanusi did not make a strong enough case for Islam being harmful even when observed to be in "moderate" form, that he did not make a strong enough case for the "spread of Islam" (as opposed to just "outspokenly militant Islam") being an issue to address, then I would like to see specific criticisms of that case. I have not seem them yet. I will assume therefore that most agree that Islam's spread is an issue that needs addressing.

So, given that, what are we to do?

Let's focus on that (perhaps in another thread, as requested... although the other comments here right now are mostly people making fun of Palin and Obama...). I think it would be more interesting than... whatever this has turned into.

Fanusi, thank you for the link. I knew you'd have one available ^_^

386. When Atheists Attack

Comment #252020 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 12:48 pm

But it can be handy to have examples of inept, unscientific, non-evidence-based argument at hand just to remind us what extremes it leads to.

Oh this is rich. Then show me the scientific evidence that provides counterexamples to Fanusi's words.

If you want to make a case that contradicts his claims, by all means make one. Just quoting something and saying it's "inept" without making the slightest effort to convincingly discredit anything makes you seem like a pretty lazy guy who shuts his ears and screams "lalala I don't hear you!" I'm not even saying a case to contradict some of Fanusi's proposals can't be made -- I think it can; I don't know if it will be strong enough but it may be.

The thing is, some claims are clearly false. Will you affirm that you think the claim of "synagogues being burned in Fance, and Jews being warned not to advertise their religion in Berlin" is clearly false? If you don't (I for one don't see it as clearly false, and if I wanted to address its veracity I would actually do some research myself), then why act as if the case is closed?

387. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251993 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 12:14 pm

Oh yes rather than take the effort to make a case for your proposals, let's turn informative discussion into a moderation war. Good thinking!

See, some disagreements are irreconcileable, and engaging in them leads to no new revelations. And some people seem to approach all disagreements with this attitude. I for one don't think we have such a disagreement on our hands. Not really. Only if you act like we do will that be the case.

388. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251988 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 12:09 pm

I don't think posting general "anti-Fanusi" comments makes sense -- the ones that are like "hey most people don't agree with him, etc." There is something to be said for raising awareness about the threat that Islam, one of the most irrational and harmful religions with us today, poses. Fanusi has presented it in very stark terms, and though what he advocates as a response to the spread of Islam may be against the nature of many people here, to dismiss him outright is to downplay the threat, especially to lurking visitors.

I do want to say that we should refrain from turning anti-Islam policy into "general anti-religion policy" when it doesn't make sense. Islam has very specific practices that are in stark contrast with the way of life that many of us know. Other religions do not share these practices. So if you want to promote awareness of Islam, and acceptance of policy against it, you need to highlight those practices!

This is similar to the problem of saying "drugs and alcohol" or "drugs, alcohol, and tobacco." You think it makes alcohol sound bad (let's say you're anti-alcohol or something and want it to sound bad). Well sure, it does to some people. But to many it also makes drugs sound not as bad. A teen will drink a beer and say "hey, this isn't the horror it sounded like" and guess what, the teen that's been fed the whole 'trinity of badness' that is drugs alcohol tobacco will subsequently treat those substances which really ARE dangerous as less so. Equivocation, implied or even unintended, is a double-edged sword.

389. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251976 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 11:57 am

But to pick one religion, which has hundreds of millions of followers, and assume that simply because someone identifies as a member of that religion they are intending such acts is absurd.

I would think it's less an issue of thinking *this particular person will commit an act of violence* and more of an issue of *this person is more likely to lend support to militant Islamists than we deem desirable.*

Countries have ALWAYS taken in the people they want, and refused entry to those they don't want. It's never a "well, giving a visa to this person can't hurt..." and more of a "giving a visa to this person is good for the UK/US/etc." THAT is immigration policy.

Most muslims in the UK live peaceful law-abiding lives. We should not assume by default that others aren't the same.

Indeed you shouldn't! Not when the welfare of your society is on the line. If this was a question of inviting someone into your World of Warcraft raiding party, that's one thing. But when you got high stakes, you need to do your homework. That's what immigration/naturalization departments are for. That's what the US Department of Homeland Security is [theoretically] for, in part (at least after swallowing up INS -- Immigration and Naturalization Services). I'm sure the UK has something analogous to that which has equivalent responsibilities.

So in short, you shouldn't assume they're terrorists. But you shouldn't assume they're going to vote against putting an extremist Islamic school in your district, either. The wrong assumptions can be dangerous. And by the way, for any country, it's better for non-residents to pay for a wrong assumption than it is for residents. So giving immigrants "the benefit of the doubt" is a generally bad policy if that doubt is judged significant enough.

Immigration policy should of course be reasonable, and ultimately empirical in nature (case-by-case), but it needs to place the welfare of a country's residents above the welfare of "potential" residents if it intends to be responsible to the country it's made for.

There are even (although small in number) people who are Muslim who support gay and lesbian people of that faith. Are we going to prevent them from entering the country simply because of the "Muslim" label?

No. But I can see how that label could warrant a more thorough check than some other labels when it comes to letting people into a country.

390. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251957 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 11:35 am

Any decisive and far-reaching policy intended to curb the spread of Islam will almost HAVE to be preceded by attempts at awareness in order to make the policy acceptable to any portion of the populace.

Many people don't realize there's even a potential problem, and certainly "radical" public policy will serve to frighten and agitate them. These people will be easy to bring to the opposition's support.

So a delicate, peaceful anti-Islam policy will, I think, need to precede anything truly serious.

Steve, immigration control violates human rights? I wonder what rights those are. A country can decline asylum on grounds of an emigrant being 3 inches too short if it wants. That decision may betray a lack of concern for human rights if the emigrants seeks to flee a country that violates them, but the decision is in no way a violation of human rights itself. Maybe I misunderstood what you meant, but I do stress that immigration control per se in no way violates human rights.

Portable brain scanners hehehe come on now, that's a whole other issue that's neither here nor there. They're not a problem because they work. They're a problem because they can't.

391. When Atheists Attack

Comment #251944 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 11:19 am

I think Fanusi will agree that they are "radical," but anything that's truly decisive on a large scale is radical almost by definition these days.

Advocating something that's highly unusual can't be a bad thing per se. It can only be a bad thing on other grounds.

392. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251924 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 10:47 am

There is going to be less support for being a fool if you aren't told that being a fool has the support of a creator and will give you entry into paradise.

No that's just less support for one of the symptoms of being a fool. Seriously, most people are stupid. If they don't buy into religion, they'll buy into Communism or some nonexistent version of the free market or all sorts of rubbish, some of which is in practicality as damaging to their society as much of modern-day religion.

To wit, people who are too irresponsible and stupid to understand the relevant issues of the US's upcoming election and vote based on what turns out to be total nonsense will effectively do more harm on a societal level (the US President is the single most powerful man on Earth) than most Christian denominations have done in a while. It's fun to go nuts about 'prayer in schools' in some backward hick town in the deep South, but if that's not small potatoes I don't know what is. Blowing it out of proportion does no-one any good.

The point is, society has a lot of ills, and if you really want to be responsible about fixing them, you need to have your priorities straight. Some of society's ills are religious in nature -- almost everything about Islam, or at least what sets Islam apart from other modern-day religions, for instance -- and they are so great that they should be near the top of the list. But many are NOT. Say what you will about "indoctrination of children" on principle, but in reality much of it is a bunch of handwaving over what ultimately has little effect. Religious trappings abound in many otherwise secular schools, ceremonies, etc. throughout the world, but what ultimately matters -- living a long, fulfilling life where you are free to take in as much of the world as you care to -- is subverted much more severely by a host of other things.

The problems that we face which are secular in nature actually far outnumber (in terms of separate issues) those which are non-secular. And they are rivaled by only a few of those non-secular issues, the spread of Islam being one.

I think it's dangerous and misguided to keep on dismissing talking about a specific high-priority religious issue as just "one of many problems that we have to tackle all at once" because you are advocating 1) biting off way more than you can chew (let's be realistic after all) and 2) effectively prioritizing many non-secular issues that really shouldn't be prioritized over many secular ones.

Religion is more a proliferator of ignorance than a symptom because it is taught to impressionable children as fact, in a way that post-modernism or Marxism aren't.

You replaced the word 'stupidity' with 'ignorance.' Ignorance can be remedied. Stupidity cannot. That was my point. It's a very important distinction to keep in mind.

393. Religion and Child Abuse

Comment #251916 by Sciros on September 22, 2008 at 10:28 am

I second much of what Jesus86 says. You don't need to be religious to be a fool. There are many, many nonreligious fools, assholes, and cretins out there. Too many to count.

If you turn a religious nation into an atheist nation, the amount of idiots in it will not decrease. Idiots are more prone to accepting religion, but just because they don't doesn't mean they're not stupid.

It really should be clear to many people here that even some who are outspoken atheists on this site don't really know their arse from a hole in the ground.

Religion is as much a symptom of stupidity as it is its proliferator, if not more so. I'd wager that attacking religion in general rather than focusing on its worst guises (while they exist in force) will be more difficult and less effective than some would think.

394. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #250372 by Sciros on September 19, 2008 at 2:58 pm

WTF that's a loaded question that contradicts reality. Kind of like asking "how tall were the people that hunted dinosaurs 70 million years ago?"

well you dont need to be big! to defeat someone or something! beside, how do you know people were hunted dinosaurs?

I SURRENDER!!

395. Creationist Britain (would you Adam and Eve it?)

Comment #250328 by Sciros on September 19, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Yep. Eternal damnation or a lump of coal. I'd go with the coal.

HOLY SHIT! I just had an idea almost as good as my nuclear-power-plus-radioactive-spiders-to-make-Spidermen-to-defeat-Islam idea!

If EVERYONE is naughty (heh heh) then Santa will give us like 7 billion lumps of coal a year. That's not bad to supplement otherwise finite energy resources. With cleaner and cleaner coal power, we'll be doing a lot of good by being "bad". Winnar!

Oh, and YARRR!!

396. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249904 by Sciros on September 18, 2008 at 4:35 pm

80% of all tornadoes occur in the US. Therefore tornadoes are mostly a failure of capitalism.

I don't think I'm even trying to make a point with that one.

397. It's All In The Hips: Early Whales Used Well Developed Back Legs For Swimming, Fossils Show

Comment #249903 by Sciros on September 18, 2008 at 4:30 pm

Ever seen a hippopotamus?

The transitional form between a stripper pole and the average San Antonio resident.

398. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #249821 by Sciros on September 18, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Titania, I don't know. I think there are too few radioactive spiders around. We should create more using nuclear waste. Actually this brings into the discussion my proposal for our energy needs -- shit-tons of nuclear plants. Like, 2 new ones per state so we have good energy distribution and don't need to use black magic. We'll use the radioactive waste to create radioactive spiders. And we'll use those to make an army of Spidermen, which we'll unleash on the Islamic world. The wise cracks and web slinging will put all militant Muslims out of commission in a matter of hours. Can't suicide bomb someone with Spider-sense, mofuckah!

399. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #249812 by Sciros on September 18, 2008 at 2:40 pm

Where we disagree is what should be done and when.

Invest in radioactive spiders now. Those Muslims won't know what hit 'em when an army of Spidermen swings in. We'll teach them a lesson they'll never remember!

Anyone disagree?

400. Royal Society's Michael Reiss resigns over creationism row

Comment #249567 by Sciros on September 18, 2008 at 9:46 am

WTF I just read that whole post and it was pretty interesting. Man, why would anyone read YOUR post? There's nothing there at all!

Anyway now's a good time to buy a house, so yay.

The question - as some RS members stated - is not whether he should go but why he was there in the first place.

Yeah no kidding. Religion is anti-science basically by definition if you think about it. Why someone who has a strong commitment to anti-science should hold a senior scientist position is a mystery to me.