1. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138257 by Nefrubyr on March 4, 2008 at 5:31 am

Dammit, I spent so long carefully crafting a response to Steve that the site logged me out and threw away my comment :-/ Must... think... faster....

Briefly, then: I don't consider myself antitheistic, although I'm not sure what that entails exactly. I'm concerned with what's true, not what ought to be or what sounds and feels good. I would prefer that the world is such that I am not the plaything of an almighty sex-and-death-obsessed creator, but if the evidence turns up that way I'll try not to fall into denial.

I define "god" basically by plagiarising TGD: an intelligence that deliberately designed and created the universe. I omit the word "supernatural" because I don't see that it carries any meaning. If something interacts with our universe in any way, it is natural (though not necessarily material) - it exists. If something does not interact with our universe, it cannot be said to exist in any meaningful way. No matter how much we can discover and deduce about the universe, we can always make up some stories about what there is outside of it. And I think, Steve, we are in agreement that there is no point sitting on the fence about such stories. Barring some incredible coincidence, they are almost certainly not true.

I haven't read Stenger's book but I think I would very much like to.

2. Fleas on the Horizon: In Defense of God

Comment #138160 by Nefrubyr on March 4, 2008 at 2:30 am

Inclusive publisher O Books offers God Without God: Western Spirituality Without the Wrathful King (June) by former Church of England priest Michael Hampson, arguing that "the God the atheist denies is not the God that people of true faith affirm," according to the book's description.

Note to all Christian apologists everywhere: atheism is not a cult set up to deny your god. There is no "God the atheist denies". We deny all gods. We deny the gods we make up, the god you make up, the gods the Hindus make up, the gods the pagans make up, the gods the Greeks and Romans made up and the gods that a cult that won't start for another hundred years will make up. They're all made up, we recognise this obvious fact, and that is why we're called "atheists". There's no point trying to define your way out of it with wordplay, warm fuzzies and true Scotsmen.

3. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115400 by Nefrubyr on January 24, 2008 at 6:45 am

115. Comment #115340 by Steve Zara

But it seems to be just a bit like discussing literature without having read at least a little shakespeare.

Well there you go, I've at least read a little Dawkins... and Dennett, and Collins, and McGrath (and I certainly formed some opinions about the last two).

I may have reacted incorrectly to Richard Morgan's comment - if, by "post comments here" he meant this particular thread, then I agree that it's somewhat lax for anyone who hasn't read Darwin to leap to his defence on the assumption that he wasn't a racist, although I recall various statements elsewhere (that I haven't verified) that he wasn't.

But I did read "here" as referring to this website more generally, and as such I wanted to push away the "atheists' bible" notion and indicate that I see OTOOS not as an anti-religious book, but a biology book (and an out-of-date one at that). I agree that the religious teachings that it (and its successors) contradicts are very relevant in the present day. I certainly don't wish to come across as anti-intellectual for not reading an important book, but the fact that out of millions of books I haven't read (and never will) I feel the need to defend not reading this one just shows religion's deep influence, as I am drawn unavoidably into its (not science's) evolution versus creation argument.

Peacebeuponme, I share your concern about appearing dismissive. It's hard to call something an outdated textbook while according the appropriate respect. While I appreciate the pioneering work Darwin did, I have no burning desire to read about it in his book (as I stated earlier, I have no particular interest in biology beyond what I learned in school) and I slightly resent that I may be pushed into reading it at some point if only to maintain an advantage over someone willing to lie about its contents.

I did consider buying The Selfish Gene in a bookshop earlier this week, but I stopped to wonder whether I was really interested in learning more about genetics, or whether I was just being a Richard Dawkins fan. I decided to finish the book I'm reading now before considering it again.

4. The real danger in Darwin is not evolution, but racism

Comment #115324 by Nefrubyr on January 24, 2008 at 2:41 am

82. Comment #115279 by Richard Morgan on January 23, 2008 at 10:44 pm

But I must confess that I was a little surprised to learn that people who post comments here have NOT read Darwin's original writings.

I am not so surprised - I haven't read them myself, nor have I read The Selfish Gene. Why would I? I have no particular interest in biology. I frequent this website to read about issues of (non-)religion, secularism and freethought versus dogma. I am interested in defending the general methods and findings of science, not because I'm a dedicated Darwinist (or Newtonist or Einsteinist), but because I happen to think that those findings, including evolution, are largely correct, based on the evidence gathered. While I appreciate the great contributions made by these and many other scientists, when impartially studying the facts of their theories the people behind them become irrelevant.

I may get around to reading the above mentioned books someday, and I'm sure they will be most interesting, but that can be said of thousands of books in as many subject areas. I'm not going to give special attention to Darwin's work in biology just because one particular cult makes claims that contradict his theories, or because some members of that cult then assert that this conflicting book must be my "Bible".

Edit: CJ22, great minds think alike. I picked Newtonism and Einsteinism as examples before your post appeared.

5. Honour Killings

Comment #113755 by Nefrubyr on January 20, 2008 at 12:49 pm

... a UNICEF Photo of the year shows, a bridegroom, 40, with his 11-year old bride in Afghanistan.

Was his name Mohammed, by any chance?

Muslim women feel torn between two cultures, thanks to the British education system with non-Muslim monolingual teachers.

Is Muslim a language now? Shame on the British government for providing English-speaking teachers! The nerve of it!

Infact, bilingualism is an asset and not a problem as perceived by the British education system.

This must be a new development, as I was taught two foreign languages at school in the 1990s.

I was amazed, when scrolling back up to find these quotes, how short this piece is. I hadn't realised on my first reading how much inanity had been compressed into so little space. I applaud the writer's conciseness, but nothing else.

6. Ethical storm as scientist becomes first man to clone HIMSELF

Comment #113545 by Nefrubyr on January 20, 2008 at 1:30 am

But critics fear the technology could be exploited by mavericks to clone babies and accused the scientists of reducing the miracle of human life to a factory of spare parts.

Translation: destroying the illusion of the miracle of human life by demonstrating that it can be reproduced by a factory of spare parts.

Can't have people finding out they're not specially created, can we?

7. Blind Faiths

Comment #108584 by Nefrubyr on January 7, 2008 at 9:34 am

A bit got chopped off the end of paragraph 10:

"While we in America are drugging our alpha boys with Ritalin," Harris writes, "the Muslims are doing everything in their power to encourage their alpha boys to be tough, aggressive and ruthless."

8. Three wise men just legend: archbishop

Comment #101410 by Nefrubyr on December 20, 2007 at 10:22 am

But Dr Williams said almost everyone agreed on two things - that Jesus's mother was named Mary and his father Joseph.

Funny, I thought Jesus's father was named Yahweh (or Jealous, if you want to take Exodus 34:14 literally). But then the word "father" is rather heavily overloaded in this particular religion.

9. Do the laws of God trump those of man?

Comment #99546 by Nefrubyr on December 17, 2007 at 3:12 am

19. Comment #99490 by robotaholic

Why can the name Muhammad belong to ugly, fat, smelly, uneducated, racist people but not to a cute clean fuzzy teadybear?

I think it's got something to do with the accurate depiction of the prophet.

10. Ayaan Hirsi Ali versus Timothy Garton Ash

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.

11. U.S. Congress Recognizing the importance of Christmas and the Christian faith

Comment #98081 by Nefrubyr on December 13, 2007 at 3:48 am

5. Comment #97935 by Mewtwo_X

I'd ask when resolutions for any of the other organized religions and their established religions were going to come out, but we already know the answer to that one...

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-635
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hr110-747

12. Mitt Romney's Faith In America address (as prepared for delivery)

Comment #94958 by Nefrubyr on December 7, 2007 at 3:50 am

Americans acknowledge that liberty is a gift of God, not an indulgence of government. No people in the history of the world have sacrificed as much for liberty.

I think Mitt's idea of what constitutes a gift is very much different from mine.

Overall, a pretty mixed speech. He says a lot of the right things regarding separation of church and state and freedom of religion, but stops short of the much-needed acknowledgement that those traits he ascribes as common to all faiths are in fact common to all humanity (except for belief in gods, of course, the absence of which he fails to acknowledge at all).

13. Sudan demo over jailed UK teacher

Comment #92628 by Nefrubyr on December 1, 2007 at 2:02 am

21. Comment #92480 by Bonzai

You know how this is going to be spun by some conspiracy junkies among Muslims in the West?

They will say that it is a well orchestrated event by U.K intelligence. They either paid her to name the bear Mo or they hired some proxy to file the complaint against her, knowing that it would create a situation like this so that they use it to smear Islam and Muslims. I heard this kind of insanity after the cartoon incident.

They'll only be repeating what the conspiracy junkies in Sudan have said:

But Sudan's top clerics have called for the full measure of the law to be used against Mrs Gibbons and labelled her actions part of a Western plot against Islam.

"What has happened was not haphazard or carried out of ignorance, but rather a calculated action and another ring in the circles of plotting against Islam," the Sudanese Assembly of the Ulemas said in a statement.

The semi-official clerics body is considered relatively moderate and is believed to have the ear of the Sudanese government.

(From the BBC)

I'm sure that pointing out how it's the muslims who are making themselves look bad by their actions would be completely lost on these people. They discredit themselves far more thoroughly than any western plot could manage.

In honour of their desire to live in the past (they're very keen on honour, y'know), I have decided in future to refer to members of this cult as "mahometans".

25. Comment #92507 by Kell

I agree with those posters above who suspect that this demonstration of self-righteous outrage was organised; that was my reaction when I read the article. Hitchens has also voiced this conclusion in past interviews.

Yes, it surely was organised. That in no way excuses the morons who chose to take part.

Is anyone organising a protest outside the Sudanese embassy in London?

Big T: Islam is not a race. Being anti-Muslim is not racist. Maybe you are a racist, but you haven't established that with your post ;)

14. Believe it or not, courtesy counts

Comment #84037 by Nefrubyr on November 1, 2007 at 3:46 am

This strikes me as machoism pretending to be scholarly integrity. Why can't atheists see sacred texts as sacred to believers and behave respectfully when not provoked? It is simply not true, in a normal, etiquette-infused vision of life, that we think truth must be stated at every time and in every context. We lie to people in small ways every day to make interactions gentler and less tense, and to be kind to others. Why shouldn't a similar gentleness and desire to avoid hurtful comments inform atheists when they write about books that many hold sacred?

[Emphasis mine]
This paragraph answers its own question, by identifying the exact circumstances in which harsh criticism is appropriate. I spend upwards of 95% of my life being quietly respectful toward others, not raising controversial issues, avoiding hurtful comments, not provoking or being provoked. "When [we] write about books that many hold sacred" is exactly the time to drop the etiquette and gentleness and give our honest opinions of scriptures. I can critically evaluate the bible or I can be gently respectful of those who believe in it, but the nature of its content means I cannot do both at the same time.

15. Tests of faith over 'The Golden Compass'

Comment #83428 by Nefrubyr on October 30, 2007 at 2:42 am

From the Snopes link:

Bill Donohue, president of The Catholic League, has condemned The Golden Compass as a "pernicious" effort to indoctrinate children into anti-Christian beliefs....

Bill: it's fiction. Nobody's being indoctrinated. It might cause people to think (and reading the comments here, it has done so), but no one is presenting it as factual, unlike some works of fantasy I could mention.

It's often struck me how some people not only resist criticism of their beliefs in the real world, but can't accept that fictional settings need not match their worldview. I have to wonder whether some of these people have a concept of fiction at all.

16. War in Heaven: Hitchens Meets D'Souza on Home Turf

Comment #81055 by Nefrubyr on October 24, 2007 at 1:37 am

Last night at the Society for Ethical Culture, the big question was: whose body count is bigger? Atheism's or Christianity's?

"Atheism, not religion, is responsible for the mass murders of history," he declared triumphantly. "I think Hitchens by the end of the day should be chanting 'Thank God for Christianity.'"

Ah, the Christians' beloved false dichotomy, pretending that Christianity is the only non-atheist option. If you're going to choose your religion by body count, may I recommend Scientology, Wicca or Pastafarianism?

17. Cheney and Obama: It's Not Genetic

Comment #80762 by Nefrubyr on October 23, 2007 at 2:12 am

What an utterly pointless article. So Obama is one of thousands of people who can claim to be an umpteenth cousin of Bush? I wonder who else they'll find in the entire government.

So Obama is related to Cheney and Bush? Who cares? Monarchists? It's about each person's views and policies, not his coat of arms.

So they don't share many genes after all? If anyone thinks common genes would make them in any way similar, I suggest they find out about two brothers named "Hitchens".

That may be why many people cannot trace their family tree very far back: perhaps intuitively, they realize they don't share much, genetically speaking, with those distant forebears.

Oh, I hadn't realised that people intuitively let genetic similarity influence their genealogical research. There was me thinking that several hundred year old birth certificates were hard to find. I hadn't realised that people took their family trees so personally.

18. Egypt's fight against female circumcision clashes with tradition

Comment #80497 by Nefrubyr on October 22, 2007 at 1:55 am

"What if the husband rejects my daughter on their wedding night because she hasn't been circumcised," asks one worried mother.

Then he's a backwards arsehole who supports the sexual abuse of children that results in permanent damage and he deserves to die a virgin. Your daughter deserves better.

Perhaps this would also be a suitable time to point out the benefits of sex before marriage.

19. God's honest truth?

Comment #79922 by Nefrubyr on October 19, 2007 at 4:28 am

Bonzai: a point had been raised about people having the right to raise their children as they see fit. Martin S responded by pointing out that people should also have the right not to have been brainwashed during their childhood. You stuffed some words into his mouth about breaking up families and parenting tests and then claimed he sounded like a totalitarian.

I don't claim to have the answers that the Swedish government doesn't. I was just pointing out your gratuitous ventriloquism.

20. God's honest truth?

Comment #79825 by Nefrubyr on October 18, 2007 at 4:18 pm

34. Comment #79799 by Bonzai (responding to comment 30 by Martin S)

What is your proposal then? Confiscate the child from his parents just because they try to pass on their values and traditions and send the child to a foster home?

It is possible to respond to a violation of someone's rights with something other than the most extreme penalty imaginable.

Why stop at religion? There are other forms of irrationalities as well? Do parents have to pass a rationality test before they are allowed to raise children?

You sound like a totalitarian.

No, the straw man constructed from your rhetorical questions sounds like a totalitarian. Martin S simply believes that lies and prejudices shouldn't be installed into credulous children.

21. Keeping the faith at school

Comment #73225 by Nefrubyr on September 24, 2007 at 1:56 pm

I thought the "PRAISE GOD" on the wall in the photo was disturbing enough, but the article just gets more sickening. Picking out one quote at random:

But he says what he likes about being at school with fellow Christians is "if you feel down, anyone will help you. And you can trust your friends to keep a secret."

So, do they teach that non-Christians are unhelpful and can't keep secrets, or does he just assume that because he so rarely interacts with them?

I just can't bring myself to think of this isolationist cult workshop as a school.

22. 1996 Richard Dimbleby Lecture

Comment #73059 by Nefrubyr on September 24, 2007 at 2:40 am

3. Comment #72996 by Stuart Paul Wood

(On Heaven and Earth)

Yes I heard but I also heard that there is going to be something else on (religion) to replace it, again on sundays.

The Heaven and Earth slot has been filled with The Big Questions, an audience debate in the Kilroy or Esther style, mostly about moral and ethical questions nearly always in the form of "Does God want us to ...?" There's usually a token atheist or two on the panel or in the audience. Yesterday's token atheist was simultaneously the token lesbian. There's also a Heaven and Earth style celebrity interview; yesterday it was with John Humphrys, the non-militant atheist.

23. Against the grain: There are questions that science cannot answer

Comment #71950 by Nefrubyr on September 20, 2007 at 1:35 am

We raise all sorts of questions beyond the material world. Then it's understanding we're after rather than information. These are not questions like "is there a box on the table?" but questions of inner life, that can't be settled in the lab.

So she's defending philosophy now? Fine, I don't recall anyone attacking it. But I think she was trying to distract readers from the fact that "was the universe created by an intelligent designer?" is very much in the same category of questions as "is there a box on the table?"

24. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71742 by Nefrubyr on September 19, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Atheism, from what I can tell claims that there is NO GOD. Am I wrong about that?

You might like to add "almost certainly" in the appropriate place. No rational person claims absolute knowledge that there are no gods, but because it's such a ludicrous, implausible and quite obviously man-made concept, coupled with the complete lack of verifiable evidence, the atheist thinks there are as many gods as there are tooth fairies at the bottom of the garden.

25. VOTE on the 'Faith smackdown': Richard Dawkins vs Francis Collins

Comment #71729 by Nefrubyr on September 19, 2007 at 2:45 pm

The first round was a bit difficult, because they both made quite reasonable statements. However, Collins forfeited the round by attacking a straw man, while Dawkins made a salient point.

26. The Nonbelievers

Comment #71202 by Nefrubyr on September 18, 2007 at 3:13 am

He envisions common songs, rites for weddings and funerals, and common spaces that might substitute for churches. "We have this critical mass of people that need more," he says, adding that nonbelievers need to build humanism so that it's thought of as beautiful and inspiring. "You should be able to get out and say, "I did humanism."

This reminds me of the "folk religions" described by Dennett in Breaking the Spell. If this atheistic ritual practice were to take off, I fully expect it to evolve some doctrines and a god over the next few thousand years.

I regard setups like this as religious Quorn. Allow me to explain: I've observed that there are two broad categories of vegetarian food; imitation meat, and vegetables. Imitation meat is for those conscientious objectors who have given up meat but still crave a nice greasy beefburger or a fried breakfast once in a while. Meat is such a central part of their diet, they need a direct substitute. Hence we have Quorn, textured vegetable proteins and other unpleasant brown creations.

On the other hand, there is food simply made out of vegetables, tasting like vegetables do. For example, a burger made with peas, beans, carrots, peppers - not trying to be meat-like at all, for people who simply do not require meat.

Humanism, particularly the slightly cultish humanism described in this article, is the religious equivalent of Quorn - something for people who feel the need for religion in their lives, often having given up the "real thing", but who do not accept the supernatural element. Let the religious-minded have their Quorn, but let no one forget that those without any religiosity also exist, filling their secular lives completely without any church-shaped gaps.

27. Creationism raised as Ont. election issue

Comment #68647 by Nefrubyr on September 8, 2007 at 2:20 am

21. Comment #68508 by Spinoza

Who used the word "tenant"?

Actually it was spelled "tennant". But I'm sure the current star of Doctor Who has even less to do with this discussion.

28. Bible Belter

Comment #68194 by Nefrubyr on September 6, 2007 at 10:22 am

I'm fascinated to see the analysis here regarding Hitchens' use of "mammal" to describe religious leaders. I thought he was simply poking fun at those who willingly describe themselves as "primates".

29. Orthodox Call on Sinners To Give Chickens a Fairer Shake

Comment #66936 by Nefrubyr on September 1, 2007 at 3:31 am

The animal is then supposed to be slaughtered immediately after the ritual and donated to a poor family.

Mmmmm... sinlicious....

Seriously, I haven't seen anything this funny since I learned about eruvin. Although the woman on Enemies of Reason telling Dawkins what "we" now know about Atlantean DNA came close.

30. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64643 by Nefrubyr on August 21, 2007 at 5:35 am

39. Comment #64618 by ?

I understand what your're saying. I didn't mean to imply anything like that. I just meant on a practical level, I wouldn't want her growing up taking a bunch of crap for an idenetity imposed on her by the parents' decision.

I do agree with you, on a practical level. But I do tend to harp on about how things should be, in an ideal world...

31. Sikh girl will convert for a place at Catholic school

Comment #64602 by Nefrubyr on August 21, 2007 at 1:46 am

35. Comment #64577 by ?

I just hope her new "Catholic" status doesn't earn her a stigma withing the Sikh community (which she will probably have to deal with her whole life in one way or another).

I don't see that as a great disaster. Who needs a community that would stigmatise them based on the actions of their parents? Should she care about the "Sikh community" just because she was "born Sikh"?

What I'm saying is, assuming this girl should have any ties with the Sikh community isn't so different from assuming she's a Sikh in the first place. Let her find her own community which will not judge her for a meaningless religious declaration by someone else.

Come to think of it, sending her to a school with no other (children labelled) Sikhs is an excellent first step.

32. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63459 by Nefrubyr on August 14, 2007 at 12:19 pm

11. Comment #63423 by Machinus

This is nonsense. Computer simulations of life aren't alive, and we are certainly that.

And you know that with certainty, do you? Do you have a definition of life that we should all know? Is there some special life-endowing property of organic compounds that can't be simulated?

Computers couldn't reproduce the detail that exists in reality anyway.

Ours couldn't. Maybe our simulation masters have much better computers, in some unimaginably larger world.

Anyway, Nick Bostrom's page is located here: http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
The concept of substrate independence is probably the most interesting thing I got out of it.

33. Our Lives, Controlled From Some Guy's Couch

Comment #63345 by Nefrubyr on August 14, 2007 at 2:01 am

If simulations stop once the simulated inhabitants understand what's going on, then I really shouldn't be spreading Dr. Bostrom's ideas. But if you're still around to read this, I guess the Prime Designer is reasonably tolerant, or maybe curious to see how we react once we start figuring out the situation.

Or maybe we're not the point of the simulation. Maybe our architect (who gets conflated with the Prime Designer in the article) is interested in studying black holes and hasn't even noticed the emergent life on the insignificant planet?

I read about this theory a couple of months ago and the thing that bugged me about it then was the significance that it puts on computers, as if they're some fundamental force in the universe. What I mean is, a hundred years ago there were no computers and nobody had a concept of computer simulations. In a hundred years' time, we may have invented some new unthinkable device which even better explains the existence of our universe. My gut tells me that this theory will pass out of fashion as the novelty of computing wears off.

Of course, my gut gets a lot of things wrong. But I'm still filing this under "interesting but completely untestable explanations of existence."

34. Leading Article: Divine inspiration

Comment #61624 by Nefrubyr on August 6, 2007 at 3:13 am

This article is rather premature in concluding large amounts of atheism in parliament. I would think that many of these MPs are religious people who want to see the view of "the other side", as any good MP should.

The free copies they got from the pledge no doubt helped up the numbers as well.

35. The fundamentalist delusion

Comment #56326 by Nefrubyr on July 15, 2007 at 3:43 am

Two points in this article stood out to me:

Alister McGrath in The Dawkins Delusion says increasing atheist stridency stems partly from fear that atheism is failing, and that The God Delusion is more designed to reassure atheists whose faith is faltering than to engage fairly or rigorously with believers.

I think we should call this the "McGrath Delusion" - the idea that atheism is simply a rebellion against a particular religion, usually his, and that an atheist's faltering faith will inevitably lead him back to the god he is determined not to believe in.

Utter nonsense. I'm as likely to start believing in one god as any other, they're all the same to me. I read McGrath's "The Twilight of Atheism" and the entire book is founded on this misguided assumption that atheism is some sort of movement to destroy the church which will eventually go out of fashion.

Second:

He quotes a leaked email from leading atheist philosopher Michael Ruse last year to Daniel Dennett, author of another anti-religious diatribe, calling Dennett and Dawkins "absolute disasters" in the fight against intelligent design.

"What we need is not knee-jerk atheism but serious grappling with the issues — neither of you are willing to study Christianity seriously and engage with the ideas ..."

And there I was thinking that intelligent design had nothing to do with Christianity, but was a competing scientific theory with its own merits. Did somebody just claim that the two are somehow connected?

36. Borehamwood eruv granted planning permission

Comment #56213 by Nefrubyr on July 14, 2007 at 2:02 pm

This is fairly harmless, and we should look on the bright side. Dogs will now have 76 more places to urinate.

37. Police plea on genital mutilation

Comment #55564 by Nefrubyr on July 11, 2007 at 2:32 pm

24. Comment #55505 by Bonzai on July 11, 2007 at 10:36 am

I concurred with a poster on another thread who said that every time the topic of FGM comes up you can expect some men showing up to hijack the thread to talk about their dicks.

Yep, and it's going to happen as long as there are people who think that mutilation of boys is fine and dandy.

"This is child abuse. It is not an attack on anyone's culture, it is an attack on anyone who commits this horrendous abuse of children."

I agree entirely with this statement with regard to all genital mutilation. It sickens me that anyone can think it should only apply to FGM. I am appalled at the idea that one can collect a reward for bringing a mutilator to justice while the NHS is offering a similar "service" to the unprotected half of the population.

Consider this sentence from the article:

A new law was introduced in 2003, which not only repeated 1985 legislation banning the procedure, but also criminalised those who took a child outside the country for mutilation to be performed.

More accurately, it should read:

A new law was introduced in 2003, which not only repeated 1985 legislation banning the procedure, but also criminalised those who took a girl outside the country for mutilation to be performed. Boys can still be mutilated legally at home and abroad.

38. Won't anyone stand up for God?

Comment #54563 by Nefrubyr on July 7, 2007 at 7:32 pm

I can't let this bit of nonsense pass without comment:

Dawkins calls non-thinking faith 'evil' but current cosmologists are required to believe that the universe must be full of Dark Matter which they can neither see nor measure. What an act of faith that requires!

That is no act of faith. This author writes as if it's some initiation rite! If cosmologists believe there is "dark matter" in the universe, it's because the universe is behaving as if it has twenty times more mass than it appears to have. It would take a great deal of faith to believe that current theories just carry on working under such a contradiction. It takes intellectual honesty to accept the evidence and get to work on explaining the phenomenon.

In a similar vein, I recently read a book on quantum physics and am currently reading Einstein's work on relativity. If I had faith in my own intuition and early education, I would reject these weird theories and insist on living in a Newtonian world where all metres are the same length, no matter how fast they're travelling. But I have the honesty to accept the evidence for these theories. It's strange that there's a speed limit on the universe, but the evidence indicates that there truly is. It's beyond my comprehension how a single photon can pass through two separate slits at the same time, but that is what appears to happen. This is exactly the opposite of faith. It's accepting evidence and updating what you know.

These cosmologists accused of having faith are in fact following the scientific ideal of putting evidence ahead of their own preconceptions.

39. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #53042 by Nefrubyr on June 29, 2007 at 4:28 am

56. Comment #53024 by Vaal on June 29, 2007 at 3:17 am

I wonder, how the religites argument that we are "special", because we have greater consciousness than any other species, would react if we came into contact with a species from another star, say maybe a billion years ahead of us, and whose consciousness would be comparable to us comparing ourselves to a lemur. Would they have greater "souls" and would we be relegated to dumb "animals" or sub-species?

I think the "soul" crowd would come out ahead of the "continuum" crowd on that one. As long as having a soul is a yes/no proposition, humans have them and that's all that matters. However, if all animals have some degree of consciousness and we were to meet aliens far in advance of ourselves, we really would appear to them as lemurs or cows appear to us. We had better hope that such extraterrestrials also have animal rights policies far in advance of our own.

Regarding people of faith/faithheads/religites etc., in the right context I favour the term "cultists".

40. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52867 by Nefrubyr on June 28, 2007 at 9:53 am

bamboospitfire - quite possibly. I just can't stop myself tearing apart a bad argument.

41. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52827 by Nefrubyr on June 28, 2007 at 6:33 am

17. Comment #52710 by Gordon Brown on June 27, 2007 at 10:03 pm

Santa Claus delivers toys to millions of households within a span of a few hours. For one to be able to deliver toys to millions of households within just hours requires enormous logistical ability. To have logistical ability requires the ability to think. Accordingly, Santa Claus is a thinking thing. Therefore, Santa Claus exists.

It's "I think, therefore I am", not "That which appears to think therefore must be". It just means that while you might be an illusion, I am definitely here thinking. It's solipsism in one snappy statement.

Also, "to have logistical ability requires the ability to think" is pretty dubious. My cardiovascular system shows great logistical ability when it delivers just the right amount of oxygen-loaded blood to where it's needed, but I'd never credit it with thinking. It's just what it does. The appearance of logistical skill doesn't imply a thinking director any more than the appearance of complex design requires a designer.

42. Science of the Soul? 'I Think, Therefore I Am' Is Losing Force

Comment #52819 by Nefrubyr on June 28, 2007 at 6:14 am

24. Comment #52744 by PaulEmecz on June 28, 2007 at 1:32 am

I'm not happy with 'some vestige' when we're talking about consciousness. Come on – you're conscious. Could you imagine having merely 'some vestige of consciousness'?

Have you never been staggeringly drunk? Or even half awake? I know I've been in states I wouldn't describe as fully conscious, when I couldn't string two thoughts together. I imagine being a dog or a chimp must be something like that - able to experience feelings and needs, but not so intelligent as to make much sense of them.

That said, I also object to the word "vestige" but only because of the connotation that it's a leftover of something no longer useful. What we're discussing is really an underdeveloped consciousness.