401. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57705 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 4:24 pm

92. Comment #57702 by Yorker

>I've never seen bullet or bomb resistance demonstrated

Watch The Matrix. You will believe Neo is The One.

402. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57698 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 3:47 pm

32. Comment #57697 by Bonzai

Some more...

3). Without a state religion, individuals had to build churches under their own effort.

4). Poor education. High schools are little more than child-minding centres. Combined with poor media, the critical thinking faculties aren't particular well honed.

5). Communism and the Cold War: Soviets = Enemy = Atheism.

6). Just like the flag, pushing religion is an artificial way to unify the country, while in reality, the gap between rich and poor grows larger. Don't worry Poor, your reward will be in the next life (just like virgins are dangled in front of young Muslim men with less access to women).

403. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57692 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 3:06 pm

27. Comment #57689 by Fedler

Good post - thanks for the info.

There is something creepy about swearing the tell the truth on a largely fictional ancient book full of contradictions, fabrications, supernatural events, and laws condoning genocide, rape, slavery, and eternal torture.

404. Beyond Belief: Atheism (with AC Grayling)

Comment #57690 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 3:02 pm

26. Comment #57470 by ross

>I hadn't realized that Collins was that daft.
Once again, the argument that there are many intelligent people who believe and so maybe there's something to it, falls flat.

Yes, it is amazing that some poorly educated toilet cleaner in Sydney's suburbs can be an atheist and have clearer thinking than a world-leading geneticist who went to all the top universities.

405. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57685 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 2:48 pm

25. Comment #57683 by VinceMcD

It's ironic - the normal usage of the phrase "Support our Troops" is to keep them over there as they die by the dozen each month. 30,000 of them are now wounded or dead. Some support.

It's amazing how phrases can be used to mean the exact opposite. Very Orwellian. Anti-American is another one, as in, you're anti-American if you criticise a health system where 15,000+ uninsured people die unnecessarily each year, when the real meaning is actually pro-American.

406. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57681 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Similarities between religion and nationalism...

1. Most people just adopt whatever the existing belief-system they're born into.

2. People unquestioningly believe their God is the one true God just like they believe their country is the best, without any evidence, and often against plenty of counter-evidence.

3. People who criticise the God or the country are traitors and are thought less of.

4. The intangible notions of God and Nationhood are abstract concepts worth killing for.

5. Politicians who appeal to God and Patriotism increase their voting appeal.

6. There are thousands of Gods/religions: they can't all be true. There are over 180 nations: they can't all be the best.

407. Touch Me Feel Me Science

Comment #57676 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 2:13 pm

That's right, for many people it's Carl Sagan's Cosmos, or a well written popular science book such as Hawking, Dawkins, Diamond, or Pinker.

Many science museums (e.g. LA, Berkeley, and Canberra) resemble kindergartens. Others such as Boston and London's museum of science try to cater to all age groups and have specific adult-only events in the evening, such as the DANA centre.

408. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57672 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 2:07 pm

There's a fair case to be made that the religion of nationalism is just as virulent in the USA as Christianity.

Nationalism is just another unnecessary and arbitrary in/out group division that's caused a lot of violence.

There's no reason why the expanding circle from family - tribe - city - nation can't continue to encompass all of humanity, just like we can hopefully one day shed our superstitious beliefs.

409. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57671 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Thanks for the video of the glass shattering, dgr8test97.

First of all, it's not a pin, it's a large thick metal needle. Secondly, he's standing very close to the glass, and we didn't see how thick the glass was.

Sorry, but it's underwhelming.

Any young fit atheist with no bullshit "qi" could do any of these feats with a bit of practice. Western magicians regularly do similar things.

I realise you're not claiming anything supernatural about it, but I don't think there's anything "Buddhist" about it either.

410. Must the US president believe in God?

Comment #57644 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 11:56 am

It's not just the USA. Has Britain ever had an openly atheist Prime Minister?

In Australia, Bob Hawke (Labor) admitted to being an agnostic. Before and after there were only religious Prime Ministers.

In New Zealand, the current Prime Minister Helen Clarke is an open agnostic/atheist.

I'm not sure about Canada, but most European leaders are more religious than the average of their population. This is the "belief in belief" - i.e. non-believers voting for believers.

Either that, or theists work harder at getting into power than atheists (who are phlegmatic 'cats') and the faithheads are more willing to play the political game.

The only recent US presidential candidate I can think of who is irreligious is Ralph Nader and less than three men and a dog voted for him.

411. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57635 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 11:26 am

Breaking glass with pins - I'd like to see that. Any videos of it? It'd be a good party trick.

I'm with Yorker - highly sceptical without ruling it out completely. I'd just like to examine the evidence. James Randi might be getting on a bit in trying to replicate that one.

412. Believing the Unbelievable: The Clash Between Faith and Reason in the Modern World

Comment #57631 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 11:00 am

92. Comment #57628 by MrEmpirical

>Why do so many people focus on body-counts?

Because (1) killing people is a big deal to most people, and (2) it's a good objective empircal quantitive way to compare dangers / threats, etc.

> Sure, body-counts are very important, but intentions are also important when it comes to questions of morality.

Yes, intent is important, but it's not 50/50. There might be some deranged mentally ill lunatic in a padded cell that wants to destroy the entire universe, but that's not as dangerous as someone who is a serial killer who has begun killing white teenage kills in Kansas.

Actions speak louder than words.

>Jihadists kill those who do not believe in Islam, in order to reach paradise.

There's been a lot of Islam on Islam violence (Sunni v Shiite) and there's been Islam on occupier violence (Iraq & West Bank), but Islam on Atheist violence has been less of an issue. I guess examining the motivations of failed suicide bombers is critical - is it US military bases in the holy land? Infidel for infidel's sake as per dogma? Solidarity with Palestine? General feeling of persecution? Brain-washing by clerics? Sexual frustration in a polygamous society? (some evolutionary psychology article suggested this, etc). These are empircal questions we can examine - as you say, intentions are important.

If Jihadists kill infidels just because they are infidels, then this form of violence should be evenly distributed throughout the Islamic world, but it's not. Most Islamic violence at present is in Iraq, Israel, Lebanon, Dafur and northern Nigeria. Other Islamic countries are relatively benign. There must be some other reason that accounts for the variation in Islamic violence throughout the Islamic world. Why are some areas more concentrated than other areas?

>The actions of the West have often been equally evil (e.g. greed-driven military interventions),
but not in those cases in which the intentions have been ethical.

What ethical intentions did you have in mind?

>The 'Great Satan' has been in possession of nukes for decades, and so far we have managed to avoid destroying ourselves.

Just. Luckily Hiroshima and Nagasaki have been the only exceptions, and October 1962 was oh-so-close. The threat of nuclear annihiliation isn't as imminent as it was in the 60s-80s, but it's still there in the stockpiles of USA & Russia.

>But what if such weapons fall into the hands of those who share the mindset of a jihadist; those who do not fear mutual destruction?

Indeed. That's why non-profileration is so important and states that break or have broken the non-profileration treaties (Iran, Pakistan, India, Israel, North Korea) should be forced to comply and disarm and not be armed further.

I find it horrendeous that the five largest arms exporters of the world are the five permanent members of the UN Security Council. Here in the UK, a lot of weapons are sold to Saudi Arabia with corrupt kickbacks from defense contractors to the sheiks who place the contracts. These defense contractors in turn lobby western political parties and donate campaign contributions, which is a form of legalised corruption of democracy. The USA also sends a lot of weapons to Israel, Pakistan, Turkey and there's a Russian - China - Iran connection. The UN Security Council is doing the exact opposite of what it should be.

Pouring weapons into the Middle East where three Abrahamic faiths intersect is just a recipe for disaster.

413. New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

Comment #57619 by Rtambree on July 20, 2007 at 9:23 am

Does this mean we can all apply for a Kenyan passport because we can prove our ancestry?

414. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57537 by Rtambree on July 19, 2007 at 5:01 pm

64. Comment #57524 by Wrought

>I can't wait to read his next book:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Non-Believer-Non-believer/dp/0306816083/ref=sr_1_1/026-2588664-1840456

Alister McGrath must be hard at work finishing off his response, 'The Portable Atheist Delusion', or P.A.D. for short.

Or perhaps he writes these books easily. With a clever piece of computer programming, I'm sure one could come up with an algorithm that will generate "McGrath-ese", just like the Postmodern generator...

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo

415. Ten Politically Incorrect Truths About Human Nature

Comment #57533 by Rtambree on July 19, 2007 at 4:48 pm

The latest pop evolutionary psychology in today's news...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/when-you-weigh-it-up-it-can-be-smart-to-be-dumb/2007/07/19/1184559954112.html

416. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57479 by Rtambree on July 19, 2007 at 1:23 pm

12. Comment #57477 by D'Arcy

>Slippery character this God

Basically, it's an ongoing effort to redefine God to keep Him one step ahead of science. The more we've understood since the Enlightenment (Copernicus, Darwin, Hubble, etc) the less the Bible seems plausible, so the faithheads always have to keep their God unfalsifiable.

417. New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

Comment #57476 by Rtambree on July 19, 2007 at 1:15 pm

Christians: Science proves Genesis is right. There was an Adam.

418. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57474 by Rtambree on July 19, 2007 at 1:06 pm

dgr8test97

No argument from me - I mostly agree with your points about Buddhism and Hitchens. The only difference would be I heavily discount the notion that there's anything "practical" to be extracted from religion, even a relatively benign one like Buddhism. By all means study them from an external position: what's going on neurologically, how did they develop anthropologically, etc, but the internal doctrine and rituals are just mumbo-jumbo. Like many people, I was puzzled initially by Harris' soft-approach to Buddhism. In my view, The End of Faith, would have been a better book had all superstitions been examined with equal vigour, but it's a minor quibble.

419. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57471 by Rtambree on July 19, 2007 at 12:54 pm

Ali did make a critical remark of the USA and that was the point about the spineless Democrats letting themselves be walked all over in the 2000 election. A good point too.

420. Town Hall Seattle: God Is Not Great

Comment #57464 by Rtambree on July 19, 2007 at 12:35 pm

50. Comment #57436 by dgr8test97

Some interesting points, especially about Japan and Jefferson, that will no doubt get a response here.

Yes, Buddhism is better than any of the Abrahamic faiths, and the world would be better off if all the religious were Buddhists, but it's a round-about way to get humanity out of its superstitous infancy. Why do you need it at all? If some people can't let go of religion cold-turkey and need to pass through Buddhist "de-tox" phase, fair enough I suppose. Whatever works.

421. Phony Piety on the Far Right

Comment #57460 by Rtambree on July 19, 2007 at 12:20 pm

>The conservatives are right, they ARE more closely following the religion than the liberals

Given the contradictory cherry-picking that's possible with the Bible, anyone who genuinely followed ALL of it would become a bipolar schizophrenic with multiple personality disorder.

I think the point is that the conservative politicians claim they're following the nice things from the new testament (love thy neighbour, help the poor, turn the other cheek, do unto others, etc) while actually implementing policies that are the exact opposite.

Which raises the question - do they actually believe it, or is it just PR?

I ask myself this all the time when I hear idiots like Falwell or even Alister McGrath: self-delusional or fraudulent?

This probably could only be resolved with a hidden microphone or camera.

422. All the mistakes of the godly are merely metaphor

Comment #57449 by Rtambree on July 19, 2007 at 11:32 am

People today versus great thinkers of the past:

Yes, in a sense, just everyday normal people today know more about the world and have a more humane ethical sense that the greatest scientists and philosophers of the past.

But it's not really comparing apples with apples. Whatever brilliant discovery or idea thinkers of the past came up with, they derived themselves, whereas we've had it handed to us on a platter.

How would Newton fare in our time, or how would Edward Witten fare back in the 17th century? Impossible to say.

It also makes one spectulate about what great ethical developments in the future will occur, that when they look back on our time in 2007, they'll ask the same questions: "how could they not realise that??" Some possible candidates: gay marriage, public nudity, global egalitarianism relative to today, 20 hour or less working weeks, longevity research, internet-based democratic voting on regular issues, a working global government and a transcendence of nationalism, vegetarianism, legality of any adult sexual relations e.g. incest, polygamy, etc, decriminalisation of drug addiction, incentives for genetic screening of inheritable diseases, etc.

423. Phony Piety on the Far Right

Comment #57435 by Rtambree on July 19, 2007 at 10:19 am

There was a quote on Slate a while ago in an article about poverty...

"Liberals don't believe in Jesus but follow him
Conservatives believe in Jesus but don't follow him"

424. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57264 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 5:32 pm

I think it was Bonzai that once warned that this site has a few "mock atheists" on it i.e. Christians posing as caricatures of extreme atheists, posting outrageous propositions (kill 'em all) so that they can elicit agreement from the genuine atheists. The Christian can then show these responses from Richarddawkins.Net to their congregations in church and claim "look at those atheists. They haven't changed since Hitler, Stalin, Mao, etc".

I know it sounds a little paranoid, and it may be wrong, but after reading some of the more, let's say, 'colourful' responses on this thread, it seems plausible... more plausible than rational, scientifically literate, enlightened thinkers that also possess a perverse psychopathic bloodlust.

So accordingly I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

btw, John Stuart Mill might have been a revered thinker for his time, but the zeitgeist changes, and now a lot of his writing makes him come across as a raving lunatic. He was an apologist for British imperialism in India (which killed millions), racism, classism, and preserving the repressive undemocratic status quo of the time. Claim him as one of yours at your peril. The further you go back in time, the more the "great thinkers" supported all sorts of atrocities and injustices: slavery, misogyny, racism, monarchy, etc.

Just like any schoolkid today knows more about science than Newton did (even Einstein), our moral sense is more advanced today than the greatest "libertarians" and philosophers of the past.

425. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57126 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 10:27 am

141. Comment #57123 by hungarianelephant

>it emboldens them to carry on with the slaughter.

I'm glad you're so close to the extremists that you know they're emboldened when someone disagrees with you.

>I keep reading that "the US is responsible for" some obscene number of deaths in Iraq. Er, what?

Exactly right. American weapons don't kill. Only Muslims kill.

This astonishing one-sidedness is infantile. BOTH sides kill. Why is that so hard to comprehend?
Let's examine the statistics - 3600 American deaths and 26,000 wounded. Anyone know how many Iraqis killed by Americans? 10,000? 20,000? In any case, it's a lot more. And even if it was exactly one-for-one, the fact that it was USA that invaded Iraq and blood spilt on Iraqi soil and not the other way around should give you pause.

But no, now's it's Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence you're concerned about. I'm sure the Muslims are grateful for your concern about their welfare. And are you another one of these right-wing nutjobs like Henri et al, that advocates killing Muslims first before they have a chance to kill each other? Or is it just when they kill westerners that it's a problem?

426. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57125 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 10:23 am

No, I agreed with you i.e. it could get a lot uglier, as your post suggests.

427. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57118 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 10:03 am

136. Comment #57113 by Fanusi Khiyal

>It is a law that Cassandras must talk to the wind

You mean like Saddam's 45 minutes strike capability?

>According to him, I'm "making sure" that things will get as terrible as I can glimpse in my worst nightmares. So, apparently, I _want_ to see an international nuclear war and global genocide. At least that is implied in this statement.

I said no such thing! You're getting all worked up.

>What rational reasons can you give me that that nightmare isn't possible?

Anything's possible. An asteroid could fall out of the sky and land on your head in the next hour.
But here's a good little rule for humanity to live by.. "Advocates for violence bear the burden of its justification. The onus of proof is on them. And the greater the violence, the greater the evidence required. The Nazis invaded Europe. Plenty of evidence. No argument about the violent retaliation.

But "what if a suitcase" doesn't quite cut it.

This gets back to the philosophical "can't prove a negative" as in... I can't prove to you that a teapot or a suitcase bomb DOESN'T exist.

428. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57116 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 10:01 am

133. Comment #57109 by Lagomort

>This is what the world should fear, and the world should do everything to stop this, because most of the Middle-East will be bombed flat if they even sneeze wrong after such an event,

So what are you suggesting? To paraphrase... people in the Middle East must be punished now because the USA will not be able to control itself in disproportionate retaliation?

Surely all parties are responsible for their actions, including depraved Islam and especially the enlightened west.

Yeah, "what if" a suitcase bomb...

Do we really want to endorse carte blanche military action based on a "what if"? Where does it end? What if some Timothy McVeigh lunatic bombs another government building and the USA goes nuts and blames Al Qaeda?

Evidence, just like Saddam's WMDs... evidence.

Why not address the unlying causes of radical Islam? This seems to be a more sound approach. Yes, it's more work, and will take longer, and might cost more, but is ultimately more in line with an Enlightenment scientific values.

429. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57110 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 9:50 am

131. Comment #57106 by Fanusi Khiyal

>But there is a chance that things will get alot uglier. ALOT uglier. Don't forget that

Yes, you're making sure of that. Ugly is an apt word.

430. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57107 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 9:46 am

126. Comment #57099 by Fanusi Khiyal

>Really? How were those living standards improved? Through technology. On what is technology based? On science. What does science demand? Free thought.

Yes, I agree. I said exactly the same thing in my post.

>And the Enlightenment thinkers launched a full-scale attack on religion

"attack" in a verbal sense, not violence. Enlightenment thinkers didn't literally destroy religious institutions (perhaps the Jacobians in France after 1789 were the exception).

The subduing for religion in the west from Renaissance to Enlightenment to modern times was done through understanding. The British realised they didn't want to be keep repeating the horror of the Protestant - Catholic wars throughout the 16th and 17th centuries- hence the 39 articles, etc.

Knowledge of extinctions in the fossil record caused thinkers to doubt Creationism well before Darwin came along. He was the nail in the coffin. But it wasn't an "attack" by scientists in the physical sense. How about "intellectual assault"?

431. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57100 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 9:35 am

124. Comment #57096 by ungodlystheist

"When Ayaan is relating one of the reasons she likes America (you can come here without a penny in your pocket, and if you work hard...) and Avi retorts with: "Is there a school where they teach you these American cliches?"

http://www.aei.org/scholars/scholarID.117,filter.all/scholar.asp

http://www.aei.org/about/filter.all/default.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Enterprise_Institute

"AEI has emerged as one of the leading architects of the second Bush administration's public policy"

This in no way detracts from her correct and accurate condemnation of Islam and there should be more of it on mainstream outlets, but it may explain her idealistic view of the American Dream that some people here have taken exception to.

432. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57094 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 9:18 am

119. Comment #57090 by Henri Bergson

>One further point, Why are you so bad at jokes & sarcasm?

I'm still learning from the subtle, sophisticated, nuanced, multi-dimensional master of scintillating repartee that is you.

433. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57091 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 9:14 am

No proof about human rights?

No, it's not a scientific proposition, just a "self-evident" moral proposition such as "happiness is better than sadness". Once would assume it doesn't need any further justification. It's axiomatic.

Are you challenging human rights from a Peter Singer perspective i.e. other sentient species (chimps, whales, etc) should be also afforded protection for farming, hunting, experimentation, etc.

That's a good topic for discussion. Lots of juicy arguments for and against, and I am open to persuasion either way.

If not, what's your beef with human rights? You'll have to elaborate more as to which perspective you're coming from? Nihilism? Existentialism? Utilitarianism?

434. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57085 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 9:00 am

108. Comment #57075 by Henri Bergson

>I would gladly join a war effort

That's great, because you can take your pick of theatre. What's stopping you? Uncle Sam wants you! Off you go. We can't wait to hear about your successes. Bring me back some of the Dome of the Rock when you prima cord it, and some pieces of the Wailing Wall.

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/bush_bravely_leads_3rd_infantry

435. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57083 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 8:55 am

106. Comment #57073 by Henri Bergson on July 18,

>You agree on national strategies for the eradication of islam, but not on international ones. Why not?

I do endorse both national and international strategies for reducing religious extremism.

But just because I say "English taxes should not fund English faith schools" doesn't mean I want to bomb and invade every Muslim country. One doesn't automatically follow from the other.

Withdrawal of support for Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, and international condemnation for human rights abuses and aggression no matter where they are and who perpetrates them, and bringing the perpetrators to justice in an international human rights and war crimes court.

Bronze age Abrahamic faiths that revere ancient scriptures have no place in countries with nuclear, biological and chemical weapons. Either get rid of the weapons (Disarmanent treaties, weapons inspectors), or the faiths (science funding, not religious funding), and preferably get rid of both.

Use violence if necessary, but as a LAST resort, and employ a scientific evidence-based approach, adopting the strategies of the countries that have been most successful in reducing their religiosity.

436. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57071 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 8:37 am

Jiten and _J_

As I've said before, I've got no problems with Henri's warmongering, so long as he (and people like him) are the first across the border invading other countries. They can invade all the countries they want. The only objections I have are in sending OTHER people to fulfil your bloodlust for you (such as 30,000+ dead and wounded Coalition soldiers) in Iraq.

Advocating violence without willing to join in yourself is cowardly.

437. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57067 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 8:28 am

98. Comment #57063 by Henri Bergson

>Sweden... is being destroyed by islam because of apologists like you.

Simmer down and take some valium. Destroyed? Are you a Murdoch journalist? Apologists? I've only spent the last 50+ posts condemning Islam and now I'm an apologist for it?

438. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57064 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 8:25 am

95. Comment #57059 by USA_Limey

>All swept away with the same treatment we gave the Germans.

That's great - a time when nation-building was something the Americans could do. Now they can't secure the road to Baghdad airport. In Australia, there's an expression... "so incompetent, they couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery".

So you'll join me then in condemning these counter-productive right-wing policies that have led to increased radical Islam? Why was western policy in Germany/Japan a success whereas now it's a disaster and making things worse?

439. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57061 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 8:18 am

92. Comment #57053 by Henri Bergson

>Scandinavia is beginning to pay the price for this oversight.

Is it? Where's the evidence? Any planes being flown into Norwegian buildings? Any Swedish soldiers or civilians blown up?

I feel more sorry for the 26,000+ American troops who are wounded, often horrifically maimed. You don't hear much about them - only the 3,500+ dead (to say nothing of the Iraqi & Afghan casualities). They're the ones paying the price for misguided policies.

440. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57050 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 8:05 am

>We employed horrific violence on the scale of mass firebombings, invasion, terrible marginalisation and impoverishment of Nazi Germany.

Now Germany is a peacful, prosperous and democratic nation. And all in ONE generation.

I'm not sure you can compare Iraq/West Bank with Nazi Germany who invaded most of Europe, but nevertheless, I'll humour you...

Heard of the Marshall Plan? Where did the aid to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq go? Germany already had a tradition of democracy before the Nazis.
Denazification of the political system: it was easier to disentangle Nazism from German people and German life, than it is for separate Islam from the Middle East. Where is the equivalent de-Islamification program from the western powers? Western powers have SUPPORTED radical Islamic movements and undermined secular movements over the last 40 years. The Allies granted Germany autonomy fairly quickly, but the West Bank occupation is in it's 41st year.

And so on - lots of differences, but if there's any evidence that a top-down program of forced "de-religionification" can work, please show me the evidence. It does sound like the Inquisition though e.g. "recant now"... and so becoming the thing you're protesting against.

441. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57043 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 7:55 am

82. Comment #57036 by Henri Bergson

>Ban islamic schools (unlike the British government who use taxes to pay for them).

That's the first sensible thing you've said. Yes, I agree, and would include all faith schools, regardless of the faith.

>Before that ensure that evolution is taught at these schools (I had a student from such a school unaware of what evolution even meant).

Agreed again! I strongly believe in improving science literacy.

>Ban the veil (as in Belgium and Italy).

And France too: all religious iconography: crosses, skullcaps, burqas, maybe even those stupid chastity rings, etc.

>Immigrants to swear allegiance first and foremost to the country in which they are about to settle. (country before religion).

Nationalism can be just another religion. People are HUMAN before country and before religion. What about allegiance to International Human Rights, Free Speech, Liberty, Freedom, etc?

- Religion to be taught comparatively and critically (as most other subjects in school).

Agreed. In history class or civics or history of intellectual ideas, etc.

>English to be taught immediately to all immigrants.

That's another issue, but fair enough. Civics too.

- No state funding (i.e. taxes) should pay for mosques (like the proposed £75m 'mega-Mosque' in London).

Once again, yes I agree, but it would have to be no state funding for any religious institution. I don't want my taxes paying for churches, temples, mosques, synagogues, etc.

>Any part of the Koran deemed illegal (i.e. stoning adulterers) should be made explicit in any teaching of the Koran.

Not sure what you mean here? Leviticus too?

I'll leave it there for the time being - good to see there's so much common ground. :)

442. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57034 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 7:39 am

>Christianity was a life-hating horror for over a millenium. Then the Renaissance and the Enlightenment brought it to its knees. And they didn't do that by being nice

What's this supposed to mean? Have you read any Enlighenment history?

Do you think Englightenment thinkers such as Hume, d'Holbach, Diderot, Voltaire, Darwin, Huxley etc smashed the churches? No, people lost their religiosity themselves, spontaneously, as living standards and knowledge about how the world worked improved. It wasn't a top-down use of force, but a bottom-up loss of faith through rational discourse. Fundamentalists became moderates. Moderates became deists or agnostics. Agnostics became atheists and it's been improving ever since.

No one was ever forced to be an atheist.

Some of your right-wingers are just as blood-thirsty for violence as the muslim clerics. You say you hate Islam, but you're playing right into their hands by increasing their recruiting potential.

443. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57033 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 7:34 am

>What is the solution? Force or reticence? The latter's just adding fuel to the fire, the former is effective.

Force is effective against religion? Sure, whatever, but in the real world, the facts are against you.

The most effective proven way to reduce religiosity is to improve scientifc literacy, standard of livings and economic security.

The most effective proven way to INCREASE radical fundamentalism is to employ violence against them, impoverish them, invade them, marginalise them. It makes it so much easier for the clerics and mullahs to say "Come to me, downtrodden, I have all the answers..."

444. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57030 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 7:27 am

>I have a hard time understanding people who still seem to think it is reasonable to compare the US and Islamic nations.

You obviously haven't read any of the previous 70-odd posts. Yes, Islam is bad. Yes, Islam is worse. Hitler is bad. Women make the best mothers. The sky is blue. The grass is green.

But NOW what? That's it? Islam is bad, and end of discussion? The issue is, what do we do about it?

445. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57025 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 7:17 am

Is that you Rummy? I've heard you've got some time on your hands since you lost that Secretary of Defense position. So which country should we invade next? Pakistan or Iran? North Korea or Syria? Or all of them at once? Wouldn't it just be easier to nuke the lot of them? 100 megaton strike on Mecca right at the peak of the Hajj? Now that's Shock and Awe.

If we kill all the Muslims, then they can't stone their women.

446. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57022 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 7:10 am

Western ally...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights_in_Saudi_Arabia

447. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57019 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 7:01 am

65. Comment #57016 by Henri Bergson

>The only way to reduce the threat of militant islam is invasion of islamic countries or forced integration of muslims.

Yeah, Iraq and the West Bank are much less religious now that they have been invaded. That's worked real well. Off you go then. Any more brilliant suggestions from the right?

448. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #57015 by Rtambree on July 18, 2007 at 6:35 am

Of course Islam is worse. Of course we'd all rather live in USA than Iran. That's a no brainer. Who on this site has suggested anything else?

If "Islam is bad" is all the "right" want to keep hearing over and over from every interviewer and interviewee, then that is going to lead to a stagnant debate. It's like saying "Hitler was bad" over and over again. OK, tell us something we don't know.

The point is what do you do about it? Persue the same old Middle East foreign policies that seem to be facilitating a resurgence of Islam? Nuke them all?

Let's look at some evidence - you know... scientific rationalism. Which countries in the world are the LEAST religious and how did they get there? By bombing? By pursuing right-wing policies of extreme differences in rich and poor, underfunding science, education, health and completely privitising the media so there's only junk on our screens?

Since the west has no much influence in the Middle East (invasions, occupations, bombings, sanctions, Saudi Arabia, weapons exports, military bases, etc) then it is legitimate to examine western policy to see if it could be improved in reducing the threat of militant Islam. In this way, the left is actually MORE anti-Islam than the right.

Just repeating "Islam is bad" all the time like a moronic drone doesn't make things any better. What's the next stage?

449. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56910 by Rtambree on July 17, 2007 at 7:56 pm

37. Comment #56906 by The Greatest Atheist

>leftists are equally wrong in being so politically correct that they allow thugs and religious extremists safe haven

Who are these mysterious leftists that give Islam safe haven? Name some names please.

Condemning BOTH counter-productive western policies AND Islam is not giving Islam safe haven.

Why support right-wing policies that directly and indirectly help militant Islam's recruiting power? The brutal human rights abuses carried on in Saudi Arabia are at least as barbaric (e.g. stoning) as in Iran, if not more so. Who's really giving Islam "safe haven"?

The point is that western governments don't really care about rampant Islam. Resources and bases are more important than supporting secular movements in Middle East.

If the west was genuinely serious about militant Islam, it would implement policies that support secular movements throughout the Middle East, rather than undermining them.

The reality has been that these secular movements also threaten to nationalise resources directing profits to their own population. It's been more important for the west to have stable despotic west-friendly dictators (who may or may not be religious) than it is to have progressive secular left wing governments.

Unfortunately, religious extremism and the welfare and security of their own populations are not big concerns to the west. Intelligence agencies correctly predicted that an Iraq invasion was going to INCREASE terror. The White House ignored their own analysts.

So by criticising western policy that aids Islam, the left is also undermining Islam, the opposite of providing "safe haven".

Yes, Islam is incompatible with liberal / social democracries, which are the best form of government yet devised and with plenty of great empirical evidence in Norway, Sweden, etc with the world's highest standard of livings and the world's lowest religiosity. The facts are on the left's side.

It'll be sad if the new atheism movement aligns itself with a binary O'Reilly-view of the world.

>>Human rights are much more important than any kind of cultural diversity

yes, I fully agree, but nobody on this site said anything to the contrary. You're shadow boxing a straw man.

Bronze-age faiths, all of them, have no place in 21st society. Science should be promoted, and unfortunately once again, it's been a right-wing position to undermine science (ID education, ignoring scientific advisors, politicising science funding, and numerous other abuses).

The right have got a lot more to answer for in aiding religion, than the left has.

450. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #56892 by Rtambree on July 17, 2007 at 5:23 pm

20. Comment #56866 by Summer Seale

>BTW, I know I flame leftism a lot on these boards but I seriously have a problem with it right now. I'll be up front about it. However, like any good Atheist, if somebody can show me the movement is coming to its senses and rejects any support of Islamicists in any way whatsoever, then I will reconsider my position

I think you'll find it's been the RIGHT wing position to support many religion regimes: Saudi Arabia's House of Saud, supplying both sides of the Iran-Iraqi war, getting involved with the set up of Al Qaeda and Hamas in their inception, and numerous other violent policies that radicalise militant Islam directly or indirectly throughout the Middle East. Hezbollah, the Shi'ites, Hamas, etc are now stonger than ever due to all the COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE polices from right-wing governments.

It's the left that stands for secularism, science, negotiation not aggression, egalitarianism not elitism, and raising living standards for all people which is the most effective way reduce religiosity by giving people economic security (e.g. Scandinavia). For example, it's a left-wing position to criticise America's diplomatic and military support of the repressive theocratic House of Saud with all their abuses of women, dissidents, etc.

So don't go blaming the left for Islam. It's the right that's been in power during the last few decades when militant Islam has been on the rise. Bombing the Middle East only makes Islam worse.

If you read the comments here from the lefties, they condemn ALL religion, just like Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens who spend large tracts of their books attacking all three Abrahamic faiths.

Continuously singling out Islam as the only one to be afraid of sounds like a Fox News parody.