401. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98155 by PJG on December 13, 2007 at 6:44 am

29. Comment #98105 by Nefrubyr on December 13, 2007 at 4:41 am

24. Comment #98085 by MilitantAgnostic

PJG, the wisdom of the Koran that you cite refers only to unbelievers, not apostates.

Surely apostates are unbelievers - unless the term "unbeliever" is reserved for those who never believed.

402. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98102 by PJG on December 13, 2007 at 4:37 am

Thanks Rtambree.

Oh dear... if any nut reads that, does it mean censoring it on the website will have been a waste of time?

403. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98092 by PJG on December 13, 2007 at 4:22 am

Sorry MilitantAtheist, you are right.

404. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98072 by PJG on December 13, 2007 at 3:33 am

Are there any good lip-readers amongst us who could translate the TGA censored bit? :)

405. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #98011 by PJG on December 13, 2007 at 1:42 am

Why was the word "paedophile" censored the first time AHA used it but not the second time? I can only think it is because the first time she "accused" Mohammad of being a paedophile and the second she just said he was one by today's standards. Strange.

406. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

Comment #97984 by PJG on December 13, 2007 at 12:34 am

Yes IPV4

"Remember the Lord inspired the angels (with the message):
'I am with you: give firmness to the believers: I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: Smite ye above their necks [behead them] and smite all their fingertips off them.'"
(Koran 8:12)

407. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97438 by PJG on December 12, 2007 at 4:54 am

Incredulous

Agree with you. I think it is completely hilarious - ribs, talking snakes, humans not on Earth for five minutes before they've damned all humankind for all eternity - but it is so easy to get believers tied up in knots, often using their own book. It doesn't change their beliefs (which in itself is unbelievable) but it can be quite entertaining, if you have a spare half hour!

408. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97406 by PJG on December 12, 2007 at 3:17 am

One of the Jehovah's Witnesses that visited me yesterday....

"If evolution were true, we would have evolved an eye in the back of our head and an extra pair of arms ... because we really could do with them"!!!!

I am kicking myself... I was just so gobsmacked by that one that I didn't ask her why God hadn't given her the required eye or arms... Damn, damn and double damn!

409. Secret Swami - About Sai Baba

Comment #97386 by PJG on December 12, 2007 at 2:17 am

Does Sai Baba claim to see women/girls as equal to men/boys and, if so, do young girls ever get private audiences with him?

If not, why not?

If no girls have made allegations of sexual abuse, doesn't it make the ones made, all by boys, more likely to be true (if it is about attention seeking, girls would be making accusations too)

410. The empty myths peddled by evangelists of unbelief

Comment #97081 by PJG on December 11, 2007 at 11:23 am

dr12

What I get from the Genesis story is "Knowledge and reason = bad. Stay stupid."

411. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #97071 by PJG on December 11, 2007 at 11:07 am

gr8hands

Well done!

412. Atheists' sign sparks controversy

Comment #96944 by PJG on December 11, 2007 at 6:20 am

You should see the leaflet that came through our door from the local church. It is a helpful and jolly "Christmas message" entitled "The Colours of Christmas" which makes various comments, quoting the Bible of course, warning of the dire consequences of non-belief in Jesus and ends up - the final comment - ".... whoever does not believe stands condemned already... John 3:18"

As you may imagine, I am not quaking in my boots. However, I do wonder what a Christian's reaction would be if I popped a leaflet through their letter box which condemned their beliefs in a similar vein ... I would probably end up in court for "inciting hatred" or some such nonsense.

413. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96933 by PJG on December 11, 2007 at 5:56 am

.
.
Just an aside....

I was just reading comments on here when the doorbell rang.

It was a couple of Jehovah's Witnesses - clearly a case of God moving in a mysterious way!

I would just like to say that, after a lifetime of non-belief, I have decided there MUST be a God... how could I otherwise explain the sport I have just had for the past hour? I'll admit to having a quiet day and so the time to indulge myself in mindless (and boy do I mean MINDLESS) entertainment. Such fun... and free too!

I think the younger one might read "Misquoting Jesus" but then again, maybe not. The older one... IQ approximately 7... says OT no longer relevant as Jesus says there are only two commandments "Love they neighbour" and "do unto others...." PJG points out Matthew 5 18-19, young one takes out Bible, looks it up.... changes subject.

Oh, the joy!

414. An Open Letter to Richard Dawkins

Comment #96828 by PJG on December 11, 2007 at 1:46 am

Here's my proposal, Richard. Now that you rightly have earned yourself the title of leader of the neo-atheist, secular activists, I think you would do a great service to humanity to reject, as John Paul II did for Christians, the evil actions of a tiny percentage of atheists who have, in your opinion, acted in a way that poorly represents your belief system, in particular your common denial of the existence of God.

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

Comment #96137 by PJG on December 10, 2007 at 3:43 am

Hungarianelephant : If I may be so vulgar as to quote a former girlfriend:

"People say how great an Irish Catholic education is. It's rubbish. I was 17 before anyone told me I had a clitoris."

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

Comment #96107 by PJG on December 10, 2007 at 2:29 am

Of course it is child abuse, we just need a test case. One of you circumcised chaps needs to sue your parents and church for actual bodily harm and child abuse(physical and sexual)- or whatever the equivalent is in your part of the world.

So far a suggesting that the clitoris has no anatomical and functional importance, I suggest that most women would disagree rather vehemently and, personally, given the choice, I would rather lose an arm or leg!

417. Former Evangelical Minister Has a New Message: Jesus Hearts Darwin

Comment #94895 by PJG on December 7, 2007 at 1:10 am

Maybe he watched this and had a change of heart...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaEj3g5GOYA

Enjoy!

418. Sherri Shepherd needs to go away now

Comment #94870 by PJG on December 6, 2007 at 11:07 pm

Almost as scary as her ignorance is that she has a CHILD!

Actually, no, that is MORE scary than her ignorance.

419. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #94311 by PJG on December 5, 2007 at 8:57 am

Yes Infinity, I agree with you.

This article says more about RD than anything else and whereas I could say he pretty much "speaks for me" on religion and evolution, he certainly doesn't with regard to this article.

That is ok, I don't expect to agree with everything anyone says. Sam Harris is brilliant, but I don't go for the meditation stuff (I think life is wonderful and awesome enough on a day to day basis without needing to go into a cave to "find myself") and I think Christopher Hitchens can be gratuitously rude. I still think they are saying many things that need to be said.

We need to remember that and acknowledge that the only thing that atheists have in common is their non-belief in God.

Sadly, it is a common cry of theists that atheism leads to a lack of morality and, as a "spokesman for atheists", I think RD has done us a disservice here.

420. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #94250 by PJG on December 5, 2007 at 5:12 am

No stupidpuppy.

There are lots of opinions here because atheists can have varying views on everything and anything. The only thing they concur on is the non-belief in God. It is good to discuss things and some non-believers are clear-thinking, some are not, just as with theists.

There are plenty of opinions here which state that sex outside marriage is not ok. Also, it depends what is meant by "outside marriage". i.e. do we mean premarital or only extra-marital sex?

I think for a lot of people here, because atheists do not see "sin" in sex, what consenting adults do with their genitals in private, either alone or with anyone else, is no-one else's business.

If, however, someone who has been promised fidelity (either through marriage or some other "agreement") is being deceived, hurt, humiliated or if children are being involved... then it is not ok because it ceases to be an act that is exclusive to, and only affects, those taking part in the sex act.

This all puts me in mind of a friend who divorced her unfaithful husband. The husband, who had not wanted his affair to break up the marriage, asked if they could still be friends. My friend's reply was rather clear, "You have lied to me, cheated on me, humiliated me and hurt me more than anyone else in my life. Why on earth would I want you as a friend?"

421. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #94184 by PJG on December 5, 2007 at 1:25 am

Maybe what is missing here is a distinction between sexual intimacy and emotional intimacy.

If there is only sexual intimacy, then, it would seem to me, fidelity and loyalty are unimportant (even if a couple chooses to co-habit for financial or other reasons). Personally, I think it is probably detrimental to any children involved as they do seem to thrive on stability.

On the other hand, if we are talking about emotional intimacy, then additional sexual partners can threaten the feeling of unity within the couple. Once that happens, one person is going to feel "left out" and vulnerable and complete honesty and openness is more difficult, if not impossible.

422. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93747 by PJG on December 4, 2007 at 5:31 am

As a gay man, I feel so sorry for straight people, the way they tear themselves to pieces when they discover their partner has had some extra sex.

423. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #93732 by PJG on December 4, 2007 at 3:49 am

Pretty much agree with etny on this one - all comments.

I think it is a great shame that RD wrote this article. He would have been criticised for one so open to misinterpretation had it been a scientific paper. The fact that he needed to post a "clarification" on this thread would suggest that it is not up to his usual standard. For some people to suggest that he is "joking" insults either RD's integrity or that of his readers, or both. If he wants to write a "spoof" article, let him, but he has clearly trodden on some raw nerves here and doing that, for fun, should be beneath him.

I find it interesting that he thinks that the religious views of politicians should be open to scrutiny but the "extramarital" sexual behaviour should not. Is the suggestion here that Catholic priests who have affairs with married parishioners (of either sex) should be protected because "sex is private"? Is David Blunkett's fathering of a child by another man's wife to be accepted even though, as British Home Secretary, he was calling for the populace to return to "family values"... unless he wants to state that his idea of family values is one that, I suspect, would be outside the general population's understanding.

Regarding the "if you loved me, you wouldn't mind" attitude that RD seems to envy. I know a few couples who run their lives on this premise. A small sample, I'll admit, but without exception, the couples consist of one very selfish and controlling individual while the "understanding" one is made unbelievably miserable

424. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #92306 by PJG on November 30, 2007 at 9:03 am

Maybe the "green-eyed monster" has Darwinian benefit (enabling "families" to support each other etc).

Surely morality has to be gauged on the injury (physical or psychological) caused. The Golden Rule is a good one, certainly if everyone stuck to that one, and that one alone, the world would be a better place. No moral being with self respect and empathy should need God, or any other external motivation, to "do as you would be done by".

Personally, I don't think there is anything immoral about having multiple sexual partners PROVIDING NO-ONE IS HURT OR DECEIVED. Sadly, normally, someone is - sometimes it is children who are never told the truth about their "Daddy" or Daddy is never told the truth about his "children" or maybe just "the other woman" who believes they are valued for more than "just sex".

The article is about marriage... if marriage is based on honesty and friendship, there is no room for a third (or fourth or fifth) party. There is nothing about my life from which my husband is excluded. It would sully the relationship if there were a part of either of our lives which we considered private from each other. We share our hopes, dreams, pleasures and pains and, if necessary, we can "circle the wagons" knowing that we have each other's support. If there are things we "can't talk about" - even if it is the sexual antics of our lovers, which would breach THEIR privacy - there is something "less than" in our relationship.

It saddens me that RD has written this article. He seems to envy those who are prepared to risk hurting people they are supposed to love. The argument "if you loved me, you wouldn't mind me enjoying myself" seems a very selfish one, and that sort of selfishness, to me, is immoral.

425. 2006 Charles Simonyi Lecture: 'Can the Internet Save The Enlightenment?'

Comment #91450 by PJG on November 28, 2007 at 10:33 am

Re Comment 91071

Can't agree with you here.

To me, there is something incredibly significant thing about this lecture. This is the fact that yet another scientist is concerned enough about religion, and where it seems to be taking us, to leave his lab to give a talk, not about his work, but about his fears regarding faith.

When scientific knowledge and research is where it is and yet we are still seeing court cases like the one in Dover and when research is being carried out on sentient beings but, for entirely theological reasons, is being blocked on a few human cells in a petri dish, there is something far, far wrong.

We NEED good people, scientists, or at least the scientifically sophisticated like David Attenborough (lovely man!!) to stand up and put forward lucid arguments against faith, even if it does mean saying the same thing over and over.

We'll never change the minds of some religious people but if anyone is wavering, confused, going through a "crisis of faith", then maybe we can get through... slowly, slowly, catchy common ancestor!

426. Mitt the Mormon

Comment #91293 by PJG on November 28, 2007 at 1:37 am

34. Comment #91241 by rar on November 27, 2007 at 6:21 pm

This article is hypocritical to me. Hitchens, Bill Maher, and a variety of other prominent atheists lament the fact religion is tied into politics and strongly discourage America's tendency to vote for Protestant candidates.

427. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89245 by PJG on November 20, 2007 at 5:16 am

I have read a number of the comments here but not all of them so I want to apologise if this has already been said….

Aren't we missing the point here - along with the most wonderful opportunity to expose theological hypocrisy?

We are constantly told by the "moderate" Muslims that their religion is a peaceful one, that the extremists don't believe what "normal" Muslim's believe and that far from wishing to repress women, they respect them - and THAT is why they don't want them to be seen as sexual objects and want them to cover up etc. (yeah, right!!)

Rather than, or as well as, asking for money from atheists (whether true atheists or just those who are atheists with regard to Allah!) to protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali, could there not be a concerted effort to, very publicly, request that the "moderate" Islamic faithful donate to protect this woman from the dangerous fringe of their religion?

It would be a win-win situation - either the Islamic faith would show that it really did want to separate itself from the fanatics and they would raise money for Ayaan Hirsi Ali's protection (and also send out a strong message to the fundamentalists) or it would refuse to donate and therefore show itself to condone the outrageous behaviour of its violent faith.

I have a great deal of respect for Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins et al and maybe their high profiles could be used to ask the Islamic faith to step up to the plate and put its money where its (supposedly moderate and peace-loving) mouth is.

428. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #83536 by PJG on October 30, 2007 at 10:49 am

Moral Development

Amoral - don't know that it is wrong to do immoral act

Expedient - Only feel bad if caught (people who WOULD act immorally if God wasn't going to catch them would, presumably, fall into this category)

Conformist - Don't act immorally in order to conform with group - or act immorally if that conforms with group (like kids who "get in with a bad crowd") This would appear to apply to those who act morally because their church says so and so are very rigid in their adherence and don't make their own judgments according to the situation.

Irrational altruistic - Don't act immorally because they would feel bad about themselves if they did. Not a bad way to be as it does result in fairly moral behaviour that can be adjusted to the situation.

Rational altruistic - don't behave immorally because not only would they feel bad about themselves if they did, but IT WOULD NOT BE NICE FOR THE OTHER PERSON INVOLVED.

The only way to be truly moral (Rational altruistic) is to have a sense of integrity and empathy. Anyone who ONLY behaves in a moral way because they will be punished (by God?) if they act immorally or rewarded if they act morally is not really being moral - it is an entirely selfish act.

429. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc. were atheists, and they were terrible! Answer that!

Comment #83193 by PJG on October 29, 2007 at 8:30 am

Of all those we know about, one thing that correlates very, very highly for dictators and mass murderers, regardless of their faith or lack of it (with the apparent exception of Pol Pot, which I will come back to) is that they were brutalised as children.

Very often this took place within devout households (often Catholic, and we all know what a Catholic upbringing can do to a person don't we folks! Let's face it, if you are going to burn in Hell for fondling your genitals when you are 13 and nothing WORSE is going to happen following a bit of mass murder, in a disturbed mind... you may as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb!)

It is interesting that Pol Pot is said to have had an "idyllic" Buddhist childhood. Many abused (and sexual abuse often remains totally hidden, particularly in past times, certain cultures and especially of boys) people idealise their childhoods and the fact that Pol Pot's brother did not know he was his brother until well into adulthood would suggest a certain...er... "chaotic" homelife!

One reason that rarely comes up during the ... yawn... talk of the body count, is that the methods of mass extermination were available in the 20th century that weren't available to the Inquisition et al (weapons, chemicals etc.,). This was a sign of the times, not a sign that "atheist dictators" were prepared to use them when people of faith were not.

430. Sam Harris at AAI 07

Comment #83144 by PJG on October 29, 2007 at 4:21 am

I agree with Sam Harris and think one way of putting a stop to at least some of the "great atheist dictator" arguments would be to drop the term "atheist" from any of our discourse. Personally, I don't like "brights" (sorry Professor Dawkins) as I think it appears antagonistic.

I have always avoided the term "atheist" and think "humanist" is a better term... I have never had anyone tell me, "well of course, Stalin was a humanist"!

The thing that I have pointed out (in the dictator argument), which may be of use to some of you out there, is that, with the apparent exception of Pol Pot (and who knows what happened to him during his supposedly "idyllic" Buddhist childhood?!) the thing that correlates, pretty much 1:1 in the background of dictators, regardless of faith or lack of it, is that they were brutalised as children.

431. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81880 by PJG on October 25, 2007 at 10:39 am

"I don't believe in unicorns but I haven't written any books on the subject. I don't spend a lot of time denouncing unicorns, I live my life as if unicorns did not exist" as a criticism of the interest in the subject of religion by atheist authors, is just mind-bogglingly stupid.

Whilst many atheists have likened the belief in God to a belief in unicorns, it is unusual to hear a Christian do so!!!! Heh heh!

Seriously though, Mr. D'Souza may be prompted to write a book about belief in unicorns if he felt that belief was threatening to our world. Either he was not able to grasp that point or deliberately glossed over it. His reference to the number executed in the SALEM Witch Trials was equally misleading and that, I do suspect, was deliberate.

432. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79649 by PJG on October 18, 2007 at 4:21 am

Blueway (comment 79570) I think many non-believers "care" because we have to share our planet with people who may destroy it, and who certainly make it a more risky and more unpleasant place to live. If we are able to convince them to give up this nonsense and live moral lives based on reason, we would wipe out religious war/terrorism, hang-ups and condemnation of consenting adults over what they do in private, indoctrination of children, genital mutilation, subjugation of women and over-population (often connected), etc. People would still, sadly, do horrible things but at least we would have got rid of one reason for them to do so.

I was interested that someone else here expressed doubt as to AM's previous "atheism". I watched his debate with Dawkins and now this one and I felt that he didn't seem to "think" like someone who had been an atheist. Maybe this doesn't make sense, but he so often says, "That is an interesting point" and then ignores it to go off on some tangent or other. I have never met an atheist who thinks in such an incoherent way. Also, he keeps going on about it so much that "the lady doth protest too much methinks"! It does, however, give him, supposedly, a different perspective than the usual theists. His comment about water and champagne however, puts me in mind of a G.B.Shaw quotation: "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

Finally, so pleased Hitchens picked up on the "he knows what it is like to lose a son" that AM said in the discussion with RD. How did God "lose" a son... well, maybe he misplaced him for three days but other than that...?

433. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #75566 by PJG on October 3, 2007 at 2:47 am

Going back to the early comments about sex toys being banned in Alabama... before this comes to court, they may like to ponder on this...

whilst working in A & E (ER to the Americans), my friend had to extract a statuette of the Virgin Mary from an elderly lady... she had apparently fallen on it whilst dusting in the nude. Clearly, religious statuettes should be banned, if not in the same way as sex toys, certainly as part of a Health and Safety initiative!

434. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75560 by PJG on October 3, 2007 at 2:12 am

Sam Harris, as always, discusses important topics intelligently and articulately. It's true that the term "atheist" is not a good one and I generally say "I have no religion" as I find the term "atheist" makes people think I am as dogmatic about my belief that there isn't a God as they are about their belief that there is… and there often isn't the time/opportunity to expand (give me evidence/good reason and I'll change my mind). I also agree with Sam that a good course of action is to live lives with integrity and "be decent, responsible people who destroy bad ideas wherever we find them". The problem, as I see it, is that we don't have time!

History shows us that those taking up arms do so against those who don't agree with their view of the world "If you aren't with us you are against us". There is one group which normally come off very badly in religious conflicts, it is a group that is seen to be without moral guidance, they are fornicators, murderers of babies, blasphemers and generally not worthy of breathing the good air that God has provided... it is us.

Sam Harris and the others are "worried" about the behaviour that is being driven by ridiculous beliefs. The only thing we can do is talk reasonably to the moderates … there are plenty…. and many have clearly never read the bible, still less any criticisms of it. On more than one occasion, the "novice" Jehovah's Witness of a couple that have come to my door, has started asking questions of the "elder" whilst discussing their beliefs and, on one memorable occasion, two Mormon lads came to try to convert me and, at the end of our very pleasant chat, I asked them if they could understand how insane it all seemed to someone who did not believe… the younger one said, "Yes… yes, I can" and he clearly could! My sorrow is that he would almost certainly be completely back in the fold within an hour of returning home, but maybe, just maybe, he has started to think and question.

It is possible to get people to think… give them information that makes them see that they SHOULD question their beliefs.

My concern… and why I think we DO need to organise ourselves, is that discussion of this type is, for the most part, taboo. Getting a handful of Jehovah's Witnesses and a Mormon to question what they have been taught when they come to my door in order to convert me, will not change the world. The Archbishop of Canterbury stating that as atheism cannot be taught (!!!) it has no place in schools should be challenged… simply showing Sam Harris's Aspen lecture to every schoolchild would be a start.