1. Report: Troubling texts at Va. Islamic school

Comment #192113 by Sean on June 12, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Will the statement department also be speaking to schools that teach from the Bible? I'm fairly certain that a book that proscribes death for non-believers, homosexuals and people who work on the wrong day of the week should also be receiving the same treatment.

2. Here's an improvement on democracy

Comment #98715 by Sean on December 14, 2007 at 5:40 am

Best way I can see to spread secularism is to stop state funding of religious organisations. Let them pay for their own proselytising, and maybe they'll have less money to spend on spreading their message around the world. Don't donate to charities run by religious organisations, particularly those involved overseas. There are plenty of secular alternatives.

Charitable status should be removed from any organisation that proslytises while conducting their work, or treats people different based on religious beliefs.

Even though the west is generally a decent example of secularism, we still export far too much religion to the world.

3. Jail for creationist row killer

Comment #98709 by Sean on December 14, 2007 at 5:27 am

I'm with limey on this one. Pure sensationism, and nothing to do with creationism. See the following comment from the court report that was posted.

"As I have mentioned, the taxi's video recorder was operating and recorded a conversation between Mr Corner and the offender in which the latter expressed in sharp language his resentment of Ms Brown and Mr Boa, which focused on what he thought was their cadging of his alcohol and cannabis."

Now, had this been a case of Dawkins getting in to a fist fight with Duane Gish, then yes, it belongs here. Two drunks having an unfortunate confrontation is irrelevent.

4. Boy dies of leukemia after refusing treatment for religious reasons

Comment #93049 by Sean on December 2, 2007 at 3:57 am

Russell, I agree medical treatment shouldn't be forced on people who are demonstrably thinking rationally. However, this kid was not. The only reason the judge allowed this, is because the kid's delusion is a fairly popular one.

I suspect that the verdict would have been different if the kid had claimed that the goblins at the bottom of his garden warned him against blood transfusions.

5. Fear of Barbara Forrest

Comment #93039 by Sean on December 2, 2007 at 3:41 am

Have we seen a statement from the TEA regarding their stance on the theory of gravity, or are they remaining neutral on that as well?

6. Papal encyclical attacks atheism, lauds hope

Comment #93037 by Sean on December 2, 2007 at 3:31 am

I guess I don't quite understand why hope is so important -- to me, results are more important, and what use is hope if you use it as an excuse to not be constructive?

7. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #90317 by Sean on November 24, 2007 at 9:23 am

I would dearly love to see the police explain the context in which those comments are harmless.

"Hypothetically speaking, and of course in no way implying that we should hit women, by the age of 10, it becomes an obligation on us to force her [young girls] to wear hijab, and if she doesn't wear hijab, we hit her."

"Whoever changes his religion from Al Islam to anything else – kill him in the Islamic state. But of course we don't believe in this, we believe that all Muslims have the right to change to another religion."

The only way I can put those comments in to a decent context is through total contradiction.

Unless they can show something along those lines, someone needs to be losing their job over this crude manipulation of the media.

8. Religious scholars mull Flying Spaghetti Monster

Comment #90315 by Sean on November 24, 2007 at 9:14 am

From what I've seen, the militant atheist label is based on they way you conduct yourself. It breaks down in to a few different levels.

1) Mention Jesus at any opportunity, particularly when explaining why you think someone is wrong or deserving of death. This is a good Christian.

1) Go to church at Christmas and send the kids to a christian school, but don't really pay much attention otherwise. Basically, you'd renounce all that nonsense in exchange for a new car. This makes you a fairly average Christian.

2) Keep your atheistic beliefs to yourself and keep quiet. From the Christian point of view, you're a follower of Jesus who just needs a little help.

3) Asking awkward questions about Jesus, or telling people that you're an atheist. This is the militant atheist, like spending their evenings making pipe bombs. You're heading to hell.

9. The infinite wisdom of Richard Dawkins

Comment #52163 by Sean on June 26, 2007 at 11:42 am

Paul, you run in to some serious problems though.

1) Homosexuality is condemned as an abomination. It's only right that Christians share the view of their God.

2) You're falling back on the old idea of design since the universe is too complicated. You can't introduce God as a solution without considering where he came from since he must be even more complicated than the universe.

3) If we assume an intelligent agent, how do you know anything about it? It's no more likely to be the Christian god than any other. Looking at how inhospitable majority of the universe is, he certainly doesn't see us as being particularly important. We are a mouse living in a giant blender. Sure, it's amazing we're here but why surround us with whirring blades that can destroy us at any time?

10. Sen. Clinton: Faith got me through marital strife

Comment #48542 by Sean on June 8, 2007 at 10:23 am

I'm wondering when we'll see the following debates among the presidential hopefuls.

1) Aliens. Are they grey or green?
2) Santa. Pure white outfit or red and white?
3) Voices in your head. Am I to blame when they compell me to kill?
4) Who's going to be Canada's next top model?
5) Galactic Lord Xenu. Criminal monster or misunderstood inter-galactic uber-fiend?

Philip1978, I know what you mean regarding the UK election. I've no idea who to vote for and it's not getting any easier to decide when all of the big players in British politics are racing to claim Jesus as their personal best friend.

11. Pedal power takes Islamic shape in Iran

Comment #42862 by Sean on May 20, 2007 at 2:57 am

I believe the bike will be tandem. The man will sit on the front and do the steering while the woman, in her hermetically sealed bubble, will do the peddling. The Koran quite clearly states that this is the only acceptable way.

I have to go now, the picture at the top of the article has left me dangerously aroused - I can barely walk.

12. UK Christians 'suffer for faith'

Comment #30633 by Sean on April 9, 2007 at 4:51 am

"The poll of 604 people describing themselves as Christian, for the Heaven and Earth show, also found 25% felt discriminated against at work."

Or in other words, "I tell people that God's son came to visit us 2000 years ago and we all go to heaven to live with God and the angels, everyone in the office laughs at me."

13. Faith

Comment #23106 by Sean on February 26, 2007 at 11:24 am

stereoroid wrote:

"Since when is a school a public place? The students are in the care of the school, and have responsibilities and restrictions they don't have on the street or at home. Still, I think France did go a bit far, and has put unnecessary stress on kids who don't need it. The real issue in my opinion is what they are being taught, at home and at school, not some external symbols."

The problem here is that the symbols serve two purposes.

1) They are divisive. Imagine the school class with the atheists. the Christians and the Sikhs. Children do not need this lesson in how to separate themselves from others at such an early age.

2) They are offensive. All three major religions have persecuted in the past and present. Also, the texts they revere contain much hatred. Imagine the gay kid who's sitting there surrounded by symbols of the religion that brands him an abomination to be slain.

Christians can claim that theirs is a religion of love but this is contrary to the nature of the god they worship and his holy texts. If I wore a KKK-style bedsheet to school while claiming that the KKK is about love, would it be any less hurtful to the black kid sitting at the back?

14. Faith

Comment #23056 by Sean on February 26, 2007 at 4:28 am

I doubt that stpetes will be able to backup this claim about Stalin and his crack suicide squad of atheists.

Even so, the term atheist is given too much meaning. Religious people (and sometimes atheists) seem to believe that atheism is one giant movement, comparable to Christianity, but this simply isn't true.

Atheists are quite diverse since atheism is just one small part of who they are. Even if Stalin were an atheist (albeit one who came from a very religious family and was educated in a seminary) then this means nothing. If he used atheism as a rallying call then that still proves nothing since there is no central atheist doctrine, no single set of rules we follow.

15. She told them the boy was dead

Comment #19347 by Sean on January 26, 2007 at 10:52 am

I think the media has a lot to answer for. The popular media has no interest in tackling bogus claims. I recall The Sun during the golden years for Uri Geller. More than once, they would fill pages with junk and a photo of his eyes. The idea was that readers should look in to his eyes at a set time to fix broken clocks and bring about world peace. It's easier and more profitable to just go along with these fads.

I wish Randi luck with their new offensive. I really hope to visit this site and see a news article describing the arrest of Syvlia Browne and Montel Williams. The two of them are absolute scum of the earth. She for fraud and doing serious emotional damage to people and he for supporting her scams.

16. She told them the boy was dead

Comment #19341 by Sean on January 26, 2007 at 10:07 am

Randi's linking to the following site.

http://www.smugbaldy.com/?p=48

It's a summing up of her predications for 2006. Based on this, she managed to achieve 3.3% accuracy in her predictions. Either she's a very bad psychic or a fraud.

17. A Culture of Faith, Devoted Yet Complex

Comment #19207 by Sean on January 25, 2007 at 3:11 pm

"It wasn't just a matter of Haggard "being wrong" about evolution. He was claiming knowledge of something that he obviously knows nothing about, and then disseminating that misinformation to his flock. That IS arrogance."

Indeed, this is why it's understandable for an expert to become annoyed when someone else claims to have all the answer yet hasn't spent a single hour reading or speaking to a good biologist who could set him straight.

I'm pretty good when it comes to Macs and I get annoyed when I encounter comments like "There are no games for Macs" or "They're really expensive".

The mass-indoctrination of people is in a totally different league though - hence the justified frustration when someone brings up the random chance and "my kids aren't monkeys" arguments.

18. Intelligent design to feature in school RE lessons

Comment #18878 by Sean on January 23, 2007 at 11:39 am

It would be excellent if R.E could simply be changed to 'philosophy'. If all religious/philosophical ideas could be presented equally then it would be genuinally valuable. Children need to learn about these ideas so they understand how to refute them.

I agree with earlier posts though. The subject of religion is very open to bias so some teachers are going to explain ID with passion while giving a bland explanation of evolution.

I wonder if creationists will argue strongly for "ID/creationism is only a theory, not a fact. It is a controversial idea that is being strongly debated by the theological community and widely viewed by the scientific community as being a fairy tale" stickers on ID books?

19. Top court refuses to hear whether religion can be a murder defence

Comment #11883 by Sean on December 8, 2006 at 2:40 am

Considering that self-control is emphasised quite strongly in Islam, it's difficult to see how he could use Islam as an excuse.

I don't see how any reasonable person could emphathise with Humaid's actions. They are contradictory (remember that he himself had an affair), barbaric and arrogant. Sounds like religion to me.

20. The end of one law for all?

Comment #11875 by Sean on December 8, 2006 at 1:53 am

Forty-Two wrote:

"Furthermore, a non- citizen should not be allowed to enter or remain in the US if that person is known to believe that US laws should not be obeyed if they contradict Sharia law."

Christians and Jews who follow the words of their holy books would also be be refused entry. Their god has given them plenty of rules that would be contrary to US law. Killing a man for collecting sticks on the sabbath is one example that comes to mind.

Arbitration is a valuable service that saves money and can be less stressful than delving in to the legal system. Arbitration with a religious bent is not such a good idea though. I suspect that there will be peer pressure to 'be a good Muslim' and use this shariah 'court' rather than the proper authorities.

I do wonder what such a court is doing dealing with a stabbing case. I hope that charges were not dropped simply because the attacker agreed to abide by the decision of the sky-god court.

21. Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

Comment #8660 by Sean on November 21, 2006 at 11:26 pm

I am sick and tired of people claiming that Hitler was an Atheist. He wasn't. And even if he was, if it wasn't for the religious faith of the German people, he wouldn't have been able to do what he did. and unlike the author of the article, i can cite some evidence.

"Christ Stands never otherwise than erect, never otherwise than upright[…] eyes flashing in the midst of the creeping Jewish rabble[…] and the words fall like lashes of the whip: 'Your father is the devil'(John 8:44)."
-Dietrich Eckart (1868-1923

Here is a quote from Dietrich Eckart, one of the leaders behind the development of the nazi ideology. Does this sound atheistic to you?

"I not attack the Jews, but only that light-minded Judaism that is without feat of heaven, that pursues material gain and practices deceit"
-Alfred Stocker

Founded the Christian Social movement in Austria. Hitler said that if he were a German, stocker would go down as one of the greatest Germans. Notice how he is attacking the jews because he believes they are to concerned with secular issues.

"Be socialists of action! There is too little of that. Be true Christians!"
-Joseph Goebbels(23)

"The war we are fighting until victory or the bitter end is in its deepest sense a war between Christ and Marx. Christ: the principle of love. Marx: the principle of hate."
- Joseph Goebbels

These are fairly self evident.

here is the kicker:
"The folkish minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomation, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's words be desecrated,"
-Adolf Hitler, Page 562 out of Mein Kampf.

The author probably gets his ideas about Hitler from a book called Hitler's Table Talk, which has largely been discredited.

22. The sexiest man living!

Comment #7191 by Sean on November 17, 2006 at 3:22 pm

That was... well, interesting. To each his/her own, i suppose.

23. Atheists should be louder and prouder

Comment #4399 by Sean on November 3, 2006 at 5:20 pm

@Paul

I'm going to attempt to answer at least one of your questions: "Is atheism 'exclusive' or 'elitist' by its very nature?"

Yes and no.

On the one hand, the most prominent proponents of atheism in the world are by and large highly intelligent people, often scientists. In addition, scientists, mathematicians, and philosophers have an extraordinary tendency to explain their beliefs/theories using formalized modes of rational argumentation. They do this because once a person knows these modes, they are the most efficient means of expressing an idea concisely, while simultaneously demonstrating the logic that leads to their conclusion (I'm doing it now). Unfortunately, people who have not learned these modes tend to interpret this style of communication as condescending, elitist lecturing. It also should be mentioned that many highly-intelligent, well-educated individuals are likely to value their own level of education and intelligence highly, and therefore to apply that rubric of judgement to others--much as a fitness guru, who has spent years perfecting his/her body, is likely to look down upon an overweight couch-potato, or a life-long military man may regard those who never served as undisciplined and weak. After all, if I spent 12 years at college in order to "better myself," doesn't that make me better? It's sad, but too often true.

On the other hand, atheism doesn't require you to know the math. As a species, we are nowhere near understanding the complexity of the universe in which we find ourselves. Compared to what we may know a mere hundred years from now, the world's best minds know barely more than the guy who made my salad this afternoon (who was barely out of high school, not stupid, before I get accused of elitism).

Simply stated, atheism is the belief that the universe can, and in fact does, exist according to purely natural laws, and does not require the intervention of an eternal, omnipotent being in order to patch the holes in our understanding. Just because we don't understand those laws in their entirety (and probably never will), it does not follow that a supreme being must be pulling all the strings. Furthermore, given our understanding of the size of the universe, it is roughly beyond the realm of probability that such a god, if he/she/it did exist, could give a running rut whether we believed in him/her/it (unless, of course, this god created MILLIONS of worlds with life much like ours, and is watching over ALL of us; now we're reaching, see?). Occam's Razor dictates that, all things being equal, the simplest plausible explanation is most likely correct. Based upon what little we know of the universe, God has ceased to be plausible.

Now then, as demonstrated, belief that the universe proceeds according to purely natural laws in no way requires that I possess perfect understanding of those laws. All it requires is a committment to a rational approach. In this way, atheism is not elitist at all. Certainly, it requires certain things from those who accept it, but anyone is welcome to believe that god is ultimately unnecessary.

24. Lunging, Flailing, Mispunching

Comment #2944 by Sean on October 24, 2006 at 9:18 pm

First let me state that I myself am an agnostic and am much more inclined to Dawkins' perspective than Eagleton's. I believe in reason rather than miracles. But reason requires that we subject everything, whether we agree or disagree with it, to at least a moderate level of critical scrutiny, atheism and our belief in reason among them.

The sheer ignorance of those who have launched ad hominem attacks upon an author with whom they are utterly unfamiliar in these comments is apalling. You should be ashamed of yourselves for not taking the time to at least google the phrase, "Terry Eagleton," before asseting that, for instance, "perhaps Prof Terry Eagleton would love to be in the limelight for his academic work but he isn't" (#2313). He is, Topmum, and has been for decades.

But the real violence that the commenters have done is to the realm of ideas. The blithe, a priori assumptions of many here, such as Josh Timonen ("He says this as if there was anything actually to be learned from theology, as if there was some database of knowledge that theologians kept separately to themselves.--#2283), belie a fundamental ignorance of the vitally important role that theology has played in the development of logic and reason in the history of thought. From Aristotle to Descartes, Aquinas to Kant, the theological mindset has actually been a tremendous influence in the development of reason and science; in a profound sense, your very belief in science, which animates Brian Coughlan's statement that, "Either god is empirically observable or he isn't. And I think we can agree that he isn't. Thus "study" of god is a pointless waste of everyones time, and worse, a cover for religious extremism" (#2295), is something you owe to theology. This is something too many of you are evidently unaware. (An aside: what does Mr. Coughlan have to say about string theory? That is certainly not "empirically observable." So is it not science? And what might he say to Mike Torr (#2333) regarding the "bold thinking" of the 'multiple universe' solution?)

There is also a distressing lack of understanding of the assumptions upon which science is based. Has none of these individuals ever questioned their own epistemology? Has none ever questioned the veracity of their own senses? I say this not to denigrate the scientific method, which is far and away the best means we have of knowing anything at all, but rather to illustrate the point that even our reliance upon reason is based in a certain set of assumptions. Assumptions, you might be interested to know, which were bequeathed to us in large part by men of faith. Greywizard is almost singular here in his evident knowledge of this most basic problem.

Finally (although there are many more points I could make), it is rather sad to see how far many of you have strayed, in the making of your arguments, from the very reason which you claim to espouse. Take Jason Gersh (#2291), who asks, 'Would Eagleton prefer that Dawkins be an “irrationalist”?' I can't answer that for you, Mr. Gersh, but I suspect he'd prefer his critics avoid the false dichotomy, especially when critiquing the validity of his own argument from authority. Or take Mr. Coughlan again, this time employing the straw man fallacy (#2288): "Imagine if people insisted we worship Santa Claus or Luke Skywalker." Well, Mr. Caoughlan, imagine if scientists claimed that everything was "bunk" until it could be proven? Oh wait, that is what you are saying. Any scientists out there want to agree with that one? The distinction between poppycock and the unexplained seems to be lost on you. Imagine a pre-Newtonian thinker actually claiming that things falling reliably toward the earth was "bunk" simply because gravitation had not yet come along to explain it! And then there's the oft-repeated complaint that the claims of religion can't be proven, or at least aren't in Eagleton's review. Do you not understand that this was not Eagleton's point? Do you fail to grasp that no one has ever claimed to prove the existence of god in the space alotted a reviewer in the London Review of Books? No theologian has ever made an airtight case for the existence of god, but neither has any atheist been able to prove that the big bang, for instance, happened as a result of purely natural, explainable causes. Aristotle reasoned his way back to a prime mover; are the atheists on this board unwilling to acknowledge the possibility even of that?

I don't defend Eagleton's arguments in toto--he makes too many blithe assumptions and the tone of his invective is far too sharp to be taken without a generous helping of salt--but I don't discount them simply because I don't agree with them. You may have many good reasons to disagree with his review, but any reasons you have to dismiss it without further question are the result of your own ignorance. I should hope that your self-styled commitment to reason would encourage you to remedy that.