Comments by Aragon

Comment #92792 by Aragon on December 1, 2007 at 1:32 pm

This is outrageous! How can we organise to help the publisher and shame the government!

Indeed. Lets elevate and increase the pressure on Turkish Government. Big guns like Dawkins, Hitchens etc. can help. Pressure through EU can be very effective on Turkey.

(I first read the news in a Turkish atheist site. Our comrades over there are pretty upset too, they want to read the book, and they need our help!)

2. What's the evolutionary advantage of offering your place to an old woman on a bus?

Comment #85096 by Aragon on November 5, 2007 at 1:09 am

simple. when we get old we would like to be treated as such. by setting an example, we teach youngsters to do the same for us and for their own good later.

3. Pascal's Wager

Comment #82823 by Aragon on October 28, 2007 at 12:13 am

5. Comment #81409 by LordSummerisle on October 24, 2007 at 5:10 pm

Spot on!

4. Why do we ignore the plight of ex-Muslims?

Comment #82622 by Aragon on October 27, 2007 at 2:43 am

Fantastic article. I agree. Intolerance shouldn't be tolerated. Having said that, you must give an option to moderate Muslims who want to flee, and that could be supporting reform in Islam locally and globally, as opposed to intimidating or forcing them to become atheists or join other religions. Reform in Islam is the only way to beat Islamic Fundamentalism/Fascism on its own ground.

5. You can't be moral without God!

Comment #82336 by Aragon on October 26, 2007 at 5:13 am

morality evolves through natural selection therefore it is relative to the environment and historical conditions it evolved. therefore morality can exist without an absolute reference such as god.

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

Comment #82333 by Aragon on October 26, 2007 at 5:03 am

this chair stands on its legs and it is brown!

7. Interview with Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #80789 by Aragon on October 23, 2007 at 3:45 am

Nighttripper wrote:

Changes must come from the inside.

Couldn't agree more. There is only one word that the Islamic fundamentalists are scared of and that word is "Reform". Neocons like Hitchens and Hirsi Ali do not believe reform in Islam is possible. They believe pressing the "red button" is the only viable strategy. Well I've got news for them. This is exactly what fundamentalists are waiting for, i.e. West dropping their "cool" and raging a "hard lined" war against not just fundamentalist minority but more moderate majority as well. Such a move would be disastrous, it would eliminate any hope of reform in Islam, because it would push millions of frustrated moderate Muslims into the lines of fundamentalists. West should promote/support reform in Islam and engage long-term collaboration in that direction.

8. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77349 by Aragon on October 9, 2007 at 5:38 am

I am with IPV4 and bartvdo on this. Unfortunately like IPV4 I have mixed feelings for Hitchens. I am a huge fan of his book "God is not great", but I can't understand his support of Iraq War, it just turns my stomach upside down. It seems to me that he is overwhelmed by Islamic Terrorism and its dangers confronting the Western World more than anything else almost to the extent of being a paranoid. My impression is that he is following an unnecessarily hard-lined and simple-minded approach against Terrorism (like Bush), i.e. get them and smoke them out from their caves, but I wish life would have been that simple (and by now it was proven not so). Nobody argues the contrary, i.e. Islamic Terrorism should be confronted relentlessly, but this shouldn't be done in amateur disarray. We need a "Smarter" War on Terror. More emphasis on global intelligence, more emphasis or willingness to understand Middle Eastern politics, more emphasis on supporting and getting into dialogue with moderate Islamic or secular states and their people, more emphasis on winning local and moderate Muslim populations rather than alienating them, in other words much smarter long term local and global politics is needed. I also agree with Dutch friends, it seems to me his Srebrenica example is out of context and an example of opportunistic journalism to stir the issue. I sympathise with Hirsi Ali and I am with her in our common struggle against religious oppression, what I brave woman she is. I am also prepared to donate money from my pocket for her protection when or if she visits Australia, I also apologise for the inconvenience of criticising Hitchens here, but I had to let it out, sorry.

9. Logical Path from Religious Beliefs to Evil Deeds

Comment #76437 by Aragon on October 5, 2007 at 9:55 pm

I can't see a direct parallel between Atheism and "good deeds". I think there is an indirect subtle link though. I believe individuals with religious belief have more tendency to see themselves as "subjecs", rather than "individuals", therefore it seems more probable to me that they will have more tendency to let themselves part of a totalitarian regime. I believe that the success of Stalin's terrible regime establishing itself was not because Russian people at the time were genuinely educated and converted Atheists but because they didn't see a problem of copying their "subject" role from Russian Orthodox Church into Atheism. The "Subject" (or sense of belonging) meme is a very strong one indeed.

The real power behind religious fanaticism is their ability to convert "individuals" into "subjects". The difference between an "individual" and a "subject" is that the former reasons, questions and argues, the latter doesn't, they simply subject themselves.

Religions' "fear factor" provides a perfect catalyst for turning individuals into subjects. The "sane and decent" becomes a "monster" but continues to see himself as "sane and decent" in the context of their religion. The scary thing is they don't feel fear because they are unaware of the fact that it was their ultimate fear from the authority (god, prophet etc) actually made them "fearless" killing machines. They think fear has no place in their believing, but in fact their religion simply shifted the focus of their fear from its biological origins (death) into irrational ones (god).

10. A New Debate

Comment #76422 by Aragon on October 5, 2007 at 7:46 pm

Although I am not a US citizen I think it is universally important to support Matthew's idea no matter how slim the chances are. We should relentlessly and actively push ideas, boundaries, campaigns in the name of science and reason. Believe me the people we are dealing with have the capacity to erase history if we sit and watch and give them the opportunity to do so.

11. Hirsi Ali Returns to the Netherlands after Losing Body Guards

Comment #76418 by Aragon on October 5, 2007 at 7:14 pm

I agree. We should protect lives of courageous individuals like Ms. Ali at all cost. Her contribution to Reason is invaluable.

12. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76414 by Aragon on October 5, 2007 at 6:52 pm

I have huge problems with *not* being even-handed in our treatment of religions. In this respect I strongly disagree with Sam.

The three most popular monotheistic religions of today, namely Judaism, Christianity and Islam were one way or another derived from a single source of brutality (i.e. the Old Testament), history tells us all religions have had violent periods. Only half a century ago the Catholic Church rubbed its shoulders with Nazism. In the heart of Europe not long ago Serbs, Croats, Albanians and Bosnians cut each others' throat in the name of religion.

Just because we have fundamentalist Islam backed terrorism sitting on the centre stage today doesn't mean that the other two (Christianity and Judaism) completed their violent periods and evolved into an eternally peaceful future. All religions have the potential to copy bad behaviour (memes) from eachother.

One lunatic in central Bagdad is blowing himself off in the midst of innocent civilians, the other one in mid-America is brain-washing kids that "there are no dinosaurs". To me one is physical violence, the other one is moral violence in the name of religion. Why do you think we should favour the latter?

Atheists have the responsibility to treat all religions the same. We can not take part in religious polarisations, nor we can afford to sacrifice our identity. I don't think the term 'Atheist' infers negativity or absence of identity. On the contrary it is our best bet to represent our commonality. The term Atheist evolved just like other words, it is not something we invented. Also it projects our position strongly without imposing any danger of being ambiguous. We are atheists because we believe religions are false and poisonous for humanity.

13. God-Fearing People: Why are we so scared of offending Muslims?

Comment #60126 by Aragon on August 1, 2007 at 4:30 am

I don't think today's Islamic radicalism trends can be understood without putting into perspective of historical events that have been taking place in the Middle East during past two decades. I think taking a stand against radicalism on a solely religious and philosophical ground is not sufficient and will take us nowhere. The fact of the matter is, prior to and during the collapse of Communism, United States supported radical Islam in the Middle East to break Soviet Union and Ba'ath party dominance -interestingly US is still -secretly- supporting a pro-Islamic government in Turkey-. Eventually Soviets and Soviet backed Afghan Communism collapsed and this created an enormous power vacuum in the Middle East and in Afghanistan. Radical Islam essentially took advantage of that vacuum. What is also ignored through the Western media is the very ambitious Sunni Arab Nationalism -Osama being its icon- behind radical Islam -which is often in fight against Shiits-. Unlike other religions, Islam provides a strong political and economic framework for theocratic dictatorship to flourish (see Iran and former Talaban regime). The bottom line is there are historical errors on the part of Western policies and there are fine power balances in the Middle East -I am not even getting into Palestine issue to retain our focus here-. These people want -or want to ignite- radical political climate change, essentially they want to control their future and resources (especially oil). You cannot argue radicalism solely from the point of absurdities of religions. You have to ask yourself why radical Islam has been on the rise in the last two decades.