1. These dim-wits believe in anything but God

Comment #181441 by SilentMike on May 17, 2008 at 8:33 am

Are they seriously suggesting that the only pupils for whom religious education should be compulsory, against their will, are the immature, thick and ignorant?

Sounds like about the right fit.

And they seem to take no account of the danger of extremists at the margins of religion - better, apparently, to ignore than to understand how they pervert the precepts of the faiths they claim to represent.

But reading the books always seems to indicate that the fundamentalists are correct (or at least closer to the original). Doesn't it?

2. Richard Dawkins Responds to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #181370 by SilentMike on May 17, 2008 at 3:58 am

Are we still on this for crying out loud?

Maybe Professor Dawkins should consider removing Nazi references from his arsenal. They really are more trouble than they are worth.

EDIT: Why are the top 13 replies all in italics still? Josh are you there? I think the problem starts in the article itelf.

3. Group finds Starbucks logo too hot to handle

Comment #180901 by SilentMike on May 16, 2008 at 3:47 am

"has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute,"

I'm pretty sure those aren't her legs. Legs don't bend that way, plus they tend to end with feet.

4. UC Berkeley is going to court over Evolution website

Comment #180697 by SilentMike on May 15, 2008 at 3:09 pm

Well. Goes without saying that it's all very silly. But I had to say something so I said it anyway.

Just mentioning facts (some sets of religious beliefs are compatible with science and some aren't) can not be against the first amendment. Next saying that Orthodox Jews can't eat pork will be illegal because it'll deter people who like it from joining.

5. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180600 by SilentMike on May 15, 2008 at 9:44 am

Artful_Dodger

I think I understand what your getting at. I won't get in to all your other discussions and try and refer to your original point. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe what you meant was that since nature doesn't care and individual humans do care, there must be something non-natural in humans from which the caring comes. Hence dualism.

Lets talk about two people: Jo and Ann, OK? I want to tell you something about these two people:

"Jo loves Ann"

This is believable enough. Some people do love other people. We also know one other thing. Jo's a person. In other words:

"Jo is part of Humanity"

So does "Humanity loves Ann" follow? Well in reality no. Love doesn't quite work like that does it? Jo may love Ann, and several other people may feel the same way about her. Humanity, however, doesn't share that emotion.

I think you know what I'm getting at but I'm not done. Still one hole to fill before I reach the point.

Is it OK to say something like "Humanity loves" or "Humanity cares" at all? Well that depends on your definition of relations such as "loves" or "cares". You can say that "loves" only applies to individual people. On the other hand you can say that "loves" can be applied to Humanity by defining it (for example) in the following way: "Humanity loves X" if most members of the Humanity set love X, In which case you can say that "Humanity loves" since most living human beings love someone. However what we've done here is, we've redefined the "loves" relation to apply to Humanity. Clearly "Humanity loves" in a way different than that in which "Jo loves". We've used the same token, "loves" for two different relations.

The logic is kind of informal but I hope you can follow my intention.

OK lets wrap this up. Lets assume Materialism and see if there's a contradiction:

"Jo is made of Matter"

So. Is "Matter loves Ann" true? Is "Matter loves"? Is "Matter cares"? No on all counts. This does not imply a spirit of caring outside of matter and does not create a contradiction. Humanity does not care in the way Jo cares, and neither does Matter (Or Nature or however you choose to call it).

To put in a single sentence: Nature contains caring beings though it itself does not care, nor has the capacity to care, as a whole.

6. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #180487 by SilentMike on May 15, 2008 at 5:07 am

PT: What do you make of the existence of a book like this right now?

RD: Nothing very profound. What I make of it is that Michael Behe decided to write it.

Well. Now we know why Dawkins always says he can't identify trends. Who knew what would follow that damned book?

7. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #180359 by SilentMike on May 14, 2008 at 4:43 pm

Well I already read it once. Besides, I can't read while doing other stuff on the computer. I'm in need of new MP3s (one can only listen to "the selfish gene turns 30" so many times...)

8. Is Science Killing the Soul?

Comment #180339 by SilentMike on May 14, 2008 at 4:03 pm

I actually read that thing a while ago, but if it exists in audio that would be just perfect.

9. God seekers go public

Comment #179395 by SilentMike on May 13, 2008 at 7:55 am

This will never be over. You have to figure with all that money and public support they'll eventually win and achieve their goal of dragging the US back into the dark ages.

Wouldn't that be a lot of fun?

10. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178734 by SilentMike on May 12, 2008 at 1:24 am

windweaver

You're certainly not the only one I was referring to. Let me clarify. I am no supporter of Netanyahu, and I think that Avigdor Liberman is a very dangerous man. As I said I am aware of the fact that racism is a problem in israel (as it was and is in many other countries). My problem with your collection of quotes grousely misrepresents Israel (and I'm sorry but some of them are quite out of context). Pehaps you are more aware of the comexity of the cituation but many of the readers are not.

My concern here about what Boteach is doing is quite simple: He's intentionally trying to tie the "Richard Dawkins incident" to anti-Israeli sentiment in Britain and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The two are clearly not connected.

11. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178080 by SilentMike on May 10, 2008 at 12:52 pm

158. Comment #177777 by MaxD

Windweaver,
Do you think it is appropriate to use a mass of quotes that seem to have been uttered more than twenty years ago? Only about 22% of the quotes you have are likely to have been made in the last twenty years. I see Ehud Barack makes several appearences, as does Sharon, and Olmert. Were these made in the same setting? The same day?

You are more correct than you know. I tried my hardest not to get into this debate again since I know the atmosphere here is pretty hostile, but here I go again. I'm sad to report that there are a few people here who are first and foremost anti-Israeli and will leap on every opportunity to go on an "Israel is evil" tirade (and in this case they are playing into Boteach's hands by making his point that Dawkins' remarks had something to do with anti-Israeli sentiment in British academia, which they didn't).

I happen to live in Israel and I can say with confidence that though there is racism here (which I find to be reprehensible) it is no where near the level that is alluded to by the quotes. I'm too young to remember some of them, and I didn't read all the biographies, but I can attest that the recent ones are definitely out of context. I would not in my wildest nightmares ever vote for Netanyahu, but I can assure you that if elected, he has no intention of executing a mass expulsion plan of Palestinian civilians. He didn't do anything like that, last time he was prime minister, and he won't do it if he is elected again, regardless of how you interpret something he said in 1989 at a lecture (and he probably meant an expulsion of no more than several hundred terror activist then too). Please also note that none of the (supposedly vile racist) former prime-ministers of this country ever tried to expel or exterminate the Palestinian population. This is bollocks.

The quotes are a disgrace. They are cherry picked to try and present a reality that is very different than the public persona (in Israel itself) of the people that supposedly said those things. Please note that even if the quote is correct the "explanation" of the quote may be false, as in the case of the Haim Ramon quote supposedly "justifying" Israel's policy of targeting children. There is no such policy, and there never was.

The real problem here is that Boteach, who is a an ignorant demagogue, manages to score points again by appealing to the anti-Israel sentiment, and getting the pro-Israel (or even less anti-Israel) people to gather against "Rude atheist Richard Dawkins and his antisemitic cronies" (regardless of whether they are in fact anti-Semites or just misinformed).

12. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #178072 by SilentMike on May 10, 2008 at 12:22 pm

153. Comment #177763 by DalaiDrivel

I hope you'll excuse me but I will most certainly not "give it a rest". I have the same right to voice my opinion that you do and I intend to utilize it.

Richard Dawkins also has a right to speak his mind, and nobody is disputing that. I just happen to think he misspoke. He had every right to say what he said, but shouldn't have said it. It was a smear by association, it was in bad taste, it was a strategic blunder, and Dawkins should have known better than to say it.

There is no reason to say that Boteach shrieks "like Hitler". It's enough to say that he shrieks. Associating him to Hitler has the odor of the "Stalin was also an atheist" nonsense. The problem with Hitler was not that he shrieked, but rather what he was shrieking, and what he subsequently did. I am no mind reader. I don't know what Dawkins meant the effect of that phrase to be on readers. But I know the result was an unpleasant association that was far from justified in my opinion (and as you can see I'm hardly alone in this even here on RD.net).

We should try not to make people comfortable at the expense of the truth, but I would like to point out that the truth in this case just did not demand a Hitler reference. It was superfluous. Richard Dawkins could have made his valid points quite well without that reference. In fact he would have done a better job making them had he refrained from the reference.

I agree with you. People are trying to make dent's in Dawkins' armor. That's why I think Dawkins should refrain from supplying them with class A ammo, and have no doubt that this is what that unfortunate saying was; great ammo for Boteach to dent his Opponent's armor. As I said neither you nor I know what Dawkins meant, and it doesn't change the fact that what he said was in bad taste and had a bad public effect. If he meant to smear by association it means that he said, perhaps in anger, something that was unfair and indecent. If he didn't mean to smear by association then he simply made a mistake. This however doesn't change the fact that he shouldn't have said it. And as I said in the beginning of my post, I will most certainly not give it a rest. It was a stupid thing to say (though it's probably not something that Hitler would have said).

13. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177701 by SilentMike on May 9, 2008 at 2:08 pm

140. Comment #177686 by DalaiDrivel

Damn the fact that it makes people squeamish. It makes people squeamish to say God doesn't exist, and that they aren't going to paradise, unless the long odds are in their favour.

That's not the same thing. We offend people because we have to (we can't voice our opinion that God does not exist without people getting offended) and not because we want to. We're not being offensive because we're mean (at least I'm not) but because there's no choice if we want to make our point. There are plenty of ways to say that Mr. Boteach is needlessly loud without resorting to Hitler. And those ways would be more effective too. Richard Dawkins gave Boteach a present by comparing his speaking style to Hitler's. Now Boteach gets to look all assaulted and offended for no reason and Dawkins looks like the fool.

And personally I think that it's wrong to do this also because it's smearing someone by association. You shouldn't pull out Hitler because of something trivial like that.

14. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177668 by SilentMike on May 9, 2008 at 1:02 pm

I think that Richard Dawkins should not have used Hitler's name.

I think that Mr. Boteach is a man with a decent sense of humor who is ignorant about science, and that he tends to raise his voice when he's making non-points.

I think that the controversies about Israel's policies and the attempts to initiate an academic boycott because of them are irrelevant to this discussion, and I'm sorry to see that some people here have fallen into Mr. Boteach's trap by making irrelevant political statements regarding Israeli policy. There are differences of opinion among rationalists on this subject (Oh boy are there some differences of opinion!) but Dawkins never even mentioned it in his reply to Boteach. This is nothing more than a red herring.

I agree with the contents of Ian's letter. I think it is, in general, reasoned and to the point.

15. My Response to Rabbi Shmuley Boteach

Comment #177443 by SilentMike on May 9, 2008 at 5:28 am

You shouldn't compare a Jew to Hitler like that. You shouldn't do this because -if for no other reason- you lose points and the discussion becomes all about "that".

I of course know that Prof. Dawkins didn't mean anything like what Mr. Boteach accuses him of, but mentioning Hitler's name at the end of an otherwise reasoned argument is akin to shooting oneself in the foot. Yes, he only meant that Boteach and Hitler are both very loud, but you just can't use Hitler like that, as if he were some neutral historical reference to a loud demagogue. Hitler and the Nazis are the personification of human evil to every civilized human being (and even more so for Jewish people). It's an unconventional verbal weapon and is not to be employed without careful consideration.

For whatever reason (anger, distraction etc.) Richard Dawkins chose to use a Hitler reference carelessly. He made a mistake, and Rabbi Boteach cashed in on it. He was right in clarifying it, and I would suggest that he refrain from Hitler comparisons on such mundain matters.

16. Citing Faith, Bush Defends War Actions

Comment #177110 by SilentMike on May 8, 2008 at 3:23 pm

"The decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision early in my presidency,"

Even if it were a good decision (and Saddam was a despot with quite a lot of blood on his hands), could the objective not have been achieved in a less inept and costly fashion? How this man can say these things and expect to get away with it is beyond me.

That war was either a very bad idea to begin with, or it was a good idea that was botched beyond belief. Either way on mister Bush falls the blame.

17. Trouble ahead for science

Comment #177085 by SilentMike on May 8, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Ken is the man. I'm glad he's on our side in this. I'm not even going to talk about his strange hobbies. That's beside the point.

18. Gene map proves platypus is part bird, mammal and reptile

Comment #177056 by SilentMike on May 8, 2008 at 1:59 pm

What an asinine confusing headline. Creationists will have a field day with this. Similarity in the genetic mechanism that determines sex does not a proof of "part birdness" make. It doesn't mean that the platypus is a bird, just that the sex chromosomes of mammals as they are now evolved in our ancestors after they broke off from the ancestors of the platypus.

Stupid popular press. Leave it to them to take some minor thing, misrepresent it, and blow it way out of proportion.

Here's the Nature headline: Monotreme's genome shares features with mammals, birds and reptiles.

Now isn't that a lot better?

19. The detail in the Devil

Comment #176126 by SilentMike on May 6, 2008 at 4:15 pm

Well. I wanted to say something but everything's already been said, so I guess I'll just post a collection of some of the other posters' best thoughts on the subject:

Stupid, batshit crazy, Research in NOVEL form, waste of research money, unfortunately there's no shortage of morons in this world, "AAAHHHHHHHHHHH..... The Stupid! It BURNS!!!", trying for the 'prick-of-the-month' award, Further evidence that "theology" is not a proper academic subject at all

Man! This is actually harder to do than writing my own stuff. Never again.

20. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #175997 by SilentMike on May 6, 2008 at 10:34 am

16. Comment #175959 by Spinoza

That isn't accurate. You see a lot of the priests didn't pick on prepubescent boys, but rather on teenagers. This isn't pedophilia per-se. These are homosexual people who's sexuality has been repressed to the degree of them becoming criminals. They didn't have any problem giving up women (and men aren't allowed anyway) so they became priests. But they had sexual urges, and the alter boys were there so...

Basically if you don't allow someone's to sexuality to develope there's gonna be trouble. The world is full of people who's view of sex has been seriously messed up.

21. Is Liberal Catholicism Dead?

Comment #175931 by SilentMike on May 6, 2008 at 8:54 am

In It's good to know that catholicism will always be there, providing us with an endless stream of examples for the evils and the follies of both blind faith at it's stupidest, and orgenaized religion at its most corrupt state.

22. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #175428 by SilentMike on May 5, 2008 at 11:53 am

Way to go Sam.

The scilence has got to end on this. Islam really needs to take some blows that will force it to change. We're all at risk here.

23. A New Jack Chick Tract: Moving On Up!

Comment #174825 by SilentMike on May 3, 2008 at 3:43 pm

That thing is just dumb beyond words. Who in their right mind would fall for that? Hell! Who in their wrong mind would fall for that? There is no "there" there if you know what I mean.

Seriously. If I were a christian with half a brain (and there are some of those around) I would sue those people for libel and defemation of character. It makes Christianity look even dumber and more insane than it actually is. I would not have thought it possible before I first encountered these thigs. But there you go.

24. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173879 by SilentMike on May 1, 2008 at 10:12 am

88. Comment #173742 by quill

Lets see now: Jews, Homosexuals, Roma, Crippled, Socialists...

Excuse me. Hitler tried to exterminate atheists as a group? that's news to me. I wonder why Dawkins at al never mention that in debates. Evidence please.

The fact the Hitler had a plan to destroy what he saw as "The jewish race" does not negate the fact that he had others on his hit list.

25. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #173634 by SilentMike on May 1, 2008 at 2:35 am

Does anyone know if the ADL has ever defended atheists under attack?

I'm not aware of any such occurrence. I think the ADL is mainly concerned with Jewish matters. There are other "ADLs" representing other minorities. I am not aware of any statement for or against atheists by the ADL. My guess is that as a Jewish organization they stand in the liberal mainstream.

The ADL did good on this though, and more power to them. Catching such gross misappropriations of the holocaust is exactly their job. Telling people that religion is daft, that's our job.

26. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173323 by SilentMike on April 30, 2008 at 3:56 pm

Well that was fun.

It'd be nice to get some new questions though.

27. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #172111 by SilentMike on April 29, 2008 at 8:42 am

And perhaps that's because the personal Richard Dawkins is a lot more open to contrary evidence, and much more nuanced in his thinking, than the literary one.

Funny thing about books. they don't correct themselves or answer questions. Not quite sure exactly why that is...

28. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #168335 by SilentMike on April 25, 2008 at 3:27 am

22. Comment #168156 by Matt7895

Remember the 'debate' between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza? D'Souza literally screamed his way through, all the way.

I happen to think that Dennett handled himself very well on that debate. Much better than Hitchens in fact. I think it was very clear to anyone with half a brain who has about 50 IQ points on whom in that debate. Dennett just destroyed D'Souza with quiet confident rationality. It sounded much better than D'Souza v Hitchens where both sides just gave their usual speil and you only knew that D'Souza was talking out of his behind if you were already well informed about the subject when you got there.

29. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #168154 by SilentMike on April 24, 2008 at 4:00 pm

Just wondering. Will an audio/video version of that debate with Robert Winston we keep hearing about be made available any time soon? I really like the way Dennett very politely pulverizes his opponent in debates.

30. Sex for diploma offer caught on tape

Comment #164166 by SilentMike on April 19, 2008 at 4:51 pm

That's just lovely.

31. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149189 by SilentMike on March 25, 2008 at 8:42 am

I have to say something about Dr. Blackmore. A lot of people here have expressed their positive impression of her. I've just finished listening to her opening statement and she's quite annoying. I mean a lot of what she says is interesting and/or true, but she says it all like she's very very excited and pumped up with caffeine or something. I have to say that I find this very irritating and personally I am not impressed with her style thus far. It's not just that she sounds silly. I don't like the feeling I get that she's trying to pull one over me with this perpetually excited tone. Whenever someone talks to me (or at me) like that I begin to suspect foul play. From he opening statement it seems that the woman lacks nuance.

32. I suppose it's due ('Expelled' review)

Comment #147935 by SilentMike on March 21, 2008 at 4:07 pm

OK. The movie is stupid and we've all had a good laugh, but one question remains. Will it be effective?

33. EXPELLED!

Comment #147631 by SilentMike on March 21, 2008 at 3:08 am

Well that's funny for at least 3 different reasons.

34. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #146852 by SilentMike on March 19, 2008 at 1:43 pm

90. Comment #145522 by LeeC

I've been saying this for a while now. Lets stop giving that clown the time of day. He isn't even selling that many books as far as I can tell. He wrote his book after Dawkins and Hitchens and his still trailing them (TGD softcover, GING and TPA) on amamzon.com. He doesn't even seriously exist in the uk site and I bet his hardly getting translated. Just ignore this nodody I say.

35. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145315 by SilentMike on March 17, 2008 at 1:26 pm

I'll sue you guys. Don't think I won't. You're causing extreem emotional distress here.

On a different note, Is Christianity really doing well anywhere in the world like that article says? It's going down in the US and in europe, Islam is kicking it's ass in the middle east and africa, so where is it going well for Christianity?

"God is back. … Christianity is winning and secularism is losing. … God is the future and atheism is on its way out." Atheists may be selling books, but they're not making converts. Christianity is, especially in places and congregations that take Scripture seriouslyâ€"and joyously."

Are we sharing the same planet with these people?

36. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145301 by SilentMike on March 17, 2008 at 1:13 pm

67. Comment #145297 by Fiesoduck

I see the name Dinesh D'Souza and a lot of words. Is it worth reading?

NO!


al-rawandi

Please stop that. You'll give everybody here nightmares.

37. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145292 by SilentMike on March 17, 2008 at 1:08 pm

Her I never cared about. She's a total media whore who never bothers with making any sense. She just tries to get attention to herself by saying outrageous stuff.

Two people I don't care about had sex, and that piece of information still manages to gross me out. Interesting...

38. New Atheists Are Not Great

Comment #145282 by SilentMike on March 17, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Are we still obsessing about that clown? Who cares about his illiterate little pamphlet, his ranting and his shameless out of context quote-mining?

My position on the topic of Dinesh D`Souza is that I really don't care about his crap anymore. I've listened to what he had to say, my intelligence was sufficiently insulted and my time sufficiently wasted, and now I'm done. I really don't think that guy deserves any more of our time or attention. Ignoring him is the way to go. Attack books that people actually read and hold dear (like the Bible) and not flea books that ride on Richard Dawkins' coat tails.

39. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143877 by SilentMike on March 14, 2008 at 2:33 pm

69. Comment #143815 by al-rawandi

Are you seriously condoning the murder of school children just because they happen to be studying in a religious establishment? This requires no response.

I would like nothing more than to get Shas out of the Knesset. They are a threat to my very freedom. However, this cannot at this moment be accomplished. And it isn't like there aren't unpleasant people in the Parliaments of other democracies. Another group of people I'd like out is the fundamentalist Muslim MKs.

1) I object to religious education. However I must state that your depiction is not representative. Jewish Schools don't come close to the Sharia schools in craziness.
2) Non-Jews can and have become citizens in the past. It is tougher though. This however does not refer to the attitude towards citizens which is what is required to make a convincing case for "apartheid". I find the exemption of the Ultra-Orthodox from service revolting (Arabs are also exempt for different historical reasons). This perversion is a result of the Ultra-Orthodox's political power. This is again the problem of religion mixing with politics. As I said luckily the lunatics are not running the asylum here, YET. But with the help they get from fair balanced people such as yourself I'm sure it's just a matter of time. The roads on the west bank where only Israeli citizen may pass (regardless of religion BTW) actually came after the peace treaty with the PLO was signed and are there because the regular roads became to unsafe for Jews since the PA didn't feel like acting against people who thought killing Jews was a good way to pass the time. Isn't it funny how every story has two sides?
3) I'm sorry but it's not a joke to me. I live here you see, and so does my family. The Zionist national movement that founded this country was a secular movement that founded a country for the persecuted Jews in their historical homeland and it managed to draft a pretty good document in that declaration. Again, the de-facto aid you supply the fanatics on both sides with your view is perplexing.
4) I'm guessing you mean the Irgun logo:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/he/e/ea/Irgun.svg
Your description of this was misleading. It comes nowhere near the Nile, and I doubt it even touches the Euphrates. It's simply a map of mandatory Palestine before the British divided it in two and gave the east bank to one of their Arab allies. In any case this is hardly a claim to the land of Jordan but rather a historical relic. The Likud voted in the Knesset for the peace treaty with the Kingdom of Jordan. In any case this has nothing to do with any Godly promise, unless you count the English government as a Deity. Furthermore I assure you that the Idea of an Israel from the Nile to the Euphrates is virtually non-existant in the Israeli political map.

Nice selective presenting of historical facts (And BTW, I happen to know that the claims about Deir Yassin are highly disputed). I seem to remember learning about massacres of Jews by Arabs in 1920, 1921, 1929, 1936, and 1937-1939. And these are just some of the important events. Recreational Jew killing was taking place all the time. And you know where this little conversation just got us? Absolutely nowhere. I can prove to you 10 times over how right I am since the murderous violence on the Arab side is quite rich and has always received full support from the leadership but that would be futile. You can either bicker endlessly, or you can try and work to solve the problem. I actually live here so I want to solve the problem.

A person who climbs on to a bus full of civilians and blows themselves up has committed murder, even if his people have been oppressed.

European antisemitism did not start with Hitler, and it's roots are in European Christianity. Lets not ignore over a thousand years of church led fun. Modern racist antisemitism rose during the 19th century from those roots. The Nazi party was made primarily of people raised as catholics who never denounced God or their Catholicism. So it's hardly unconnected to Christianity. There were no Jews in the Wehrmacht though some part Jews were conscripted. I wouldn't say they exactly had fun there, though I fail to see the relevance of this.

let's not go to the "Jews have thrived on this persecution" way. Though I may agree that the funds were not handled perfectly this is an internal matter.

Sure, if you pick and choose it's pretty disgusting. I doubt there are many states in existence today that can't be trashed even worse with a selective picking of facts and claims (The US for one. Running a slaver nation on land robbed from native nation after commiting a near complete genocide of those people. Nice). I know I live in a democracy struggling with many difficulties in a rough part of the world. I know that Arabs here, with all their just complaints, have more individual rights and freedoms than in any Arab country. I know that Jews here are safe from persecution. I'm not content with the situation as it is, but I'm not willing to throw it all out with the trash. I have to say again that your one-sided approach is unhelpful. This is exactly what I was refering to as what needs to change in the secular left.

40. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143804 by SilentMike on March 14, 2008 at 12:42 pm

al-rawandi

1) As appealing as that idea sounds we don't do that kind of thing to people.
2) You are mistaken. There is no official racist apartheid in Israel. Unlike the situation that existed in south Africa there is no formal racist government policy. There is however racial tension and racism between two ethnic groups.
3) Israel's declaration of Independence insures equality for all, regardless of religion, race or sex. It isn't upheld to my satisfaction but that's what the document says.
4) I am not aware of the existence of such a map. In any case, this is not Likud policy, and even if it were, Likud is an opposition party in Israel, and unlike Palestinian opposition parties, does not hold its own private militia. And I do believe in a democracy people have a right to hold whatever maps they want. I assure you that in Israeli geography classes the maps represent the reality on the ground, which is more than can be said for our neighbors.

I'm afraid you may be somewhat uninformed (or maybe very partially informed) about the situation here.

No occupation, no matter how cruel (and as occupations go, this one's rather mild actually) justifies the intentional targeting of civilians "in Allah's name". What more Palestinian violence seems to get worse every time Israel retreats. This sends the wrong message, and is a sign of psychotic blinding hatred from the other side rather than rational opposition to foreign occupiers. I think the occupation should end but you can't sell that idea if every retreat and every concession results in worsening violence, and the spokespersons for the other side keep promising to throw us all into the sea.

The occupation is a result of a series of altercations. We can go back about hundred years into the past and argue about who started what, and my side actually has a pretty good case to make, but it would get us no closer to a solution. The solution is the formation of a Palestinian state in the territories occupied in 1967, but there are people, on both sides, being obstructive, and the craziness on one side feeds the craziness on the other (and religion plays a big part in the craziness on both sides). The problem with Gaza is that at this moment the lunatics there seem to be running the asylum, And the problem with the Palestinians in my opinion is that they've psyched themselves up to a point where they think that they can get more then is reasonable and possible for Israel to agree to. My side is far from perfect too. What it comes down to is that there's a conflict here that needs to be resolved, and if the continued targeting of Israeli civilians (Which is wrong, regardless of the circumstances) stops, and the Palestinians decide that they want a peaceful resolution more than they want to get every last grain of sand they think belongs to them then that would greatly help things along. Of course it would also help if the religious nuts from both sides suddenly disappeared.

hmmmmm... No. Still Christianity, which by the way is also responsible for the fact that Jews actually have been victimized quite a lot throughout history.

41. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143742 by SilentMike on March 14, 2008 at 10:45 am

al-rawandi

I'm not forgetting for a moment. You have no idea what orthodox jews are up to over here (just wait till those guys get control of israel's nukes. That'll be a lot of fun). I just want to live in a nice modern, secular, liberal democracy, and I don't mind sharing it with fellow citizens of arab descent. Nor will I mind if Palestine becomes a free nation in its own right. I just want them to stop trying to kill me first.

And, I'm not forgeting judaism's worst offence either. The creation of a small sect of lunatics called Christianity that took the world by storm.

42. I don't believe in atheists

Comment #143726 by SilentMike on March 14, 2008 at 10:23 am

What an utter waste of my time. I can't take this "everyone who disagrees with me is like The Fascists" nonsense anymore. How about making a lucid point once in a while instead of slinging mud around.

...and if I had been born in Gaza, especially given the horrific Israeli assault at the moment in Gaza, and had stood by for 60 years while the outside world ignored the injustices committed against the Palestinian people, who knows how I'd react?

Oh no he didn't. Those guys are shooting rockets at us and we're to blame that they're crazy? Shut up! Just shut up!

Look at the power ratios. If the Israelis and the Americans had in them just 10% of the barbarism that the Palestinians have been showing for the last 60 years there would be no Palestinian people and Iraq would be known as "that big hole in the ground". You don't have to agree with every military step taken (and I don't) but not to see that there's something seriously wrong with how these people think about things (yeah yeah I know. That's "racist") is just being blind. Well you know what, I'm happy to see that there's a trend towards a more balanced approach among American secularists, where the west and Israel aren't always wrong by definition and you can look at things on a case by case basis.

This guy ticks me off.

43. Hebrew University researcher: Moses was tripping at Mount Sinai

Comment #138466 by SilentMike on March 4, 2008 at 11:57 am

Probably not Moses since he didn't exist, but maybe other people in the region from whom these stories came.

44. The coming religious peace

Comment #132285 by SilentMike on February 24, 2008 at 2:51 pm

73. Comment #132276 by Goldy

I hope you're right. I just don't think that we can afford to put all of our eggs in that basket. Att the very least we should try and push back the crazies to give the moderate people the time they need (plus it may show that crazyness ain't working).

45. The coming religious peace

Comment #132258 by SilentMike on February 24, 2008 at 2:18 pm

70. Comment #132200 by Goldy

That's nice, or at the very least better than the crazy people who want to kill everybody. Problem is as I said I can't count on "Allah is love" winning over "Allah is deadly intolarance". And even if it does, the more of us don't believe in any kind of Allah, the better.

46. The coming religious peace

Comment #132196 by SilentMike on February 24, 2008 at 12:47 pm

Very interesting, but as for the future I'm afraid this degree of optimism may not be what's called for.

The data can be read like this, and the Mr. Wolfe may be correct, but it also a darker side. It is true that over time societies have secularised but I wouldn't count any chickens before they're hatched. The pious are making an effort to lay their children hard-boiled in the mind.

Religion is adaptive. Alan Wolfe sees this as a blessing because it means that religion can evolve into a benign entity in a tolerant affluent secular environment. But religion may also develop a coting to protect itself and it's crazy intolerant bigoted ideas from rational thinking and common civility. Indeed, what will be of secularism and progress if the second trend overpowers the first? What will happen to the positive trend of secularisation if the dominionists manage to get enough influence to start rolling back social progress in the US? What happens if the moderating Muslims in Europe get drowned out by fundamentalists who want Sharia law?

To put it simply, we can't know which trend will win. The match may be quite close. In any case we can't afford complacence in the matter. The solution is, as always, to behave as if our actions will be the thing that makes the difference, and support laws and public attitudes that will slow down the growth of religious fundamentalism. And of course, getting as many people as possible away from these silly belief systems is our best bet. The more rationalists there are, the more pressure there is on the faithful not to push public discourse beyond the limits of credulity, since we simply won't have it.

47. The Lava Lizard's Tale

Comment #131347 by SilentMike on February 22, 2008 at 9:47 am

I just can't wait. I want the next two tales.

48. Whale Evolution

Comment #131346 by SilentMike on February 22, 2008 at 9:46 am

That was swell. Please keep giving us this stuff.

49. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128539 by SilentMike on February 17, 2008 at 10:43 am

Agreed. AI is not even close to emulating complex intelligent behaviour. I think we are in agreement about the other stuff as well.

50. Machines 'to match man by 2029'

Comment #128536 by SilentMike on February 17, 2008 at 10:25 am

13. Comment #128530 by Mitchell Gilks

Hardware isn't actually the problem. As you yourself mentioned Moore's law will inevitability solve that sooner or later. I don't get your point on improvising and things of that sort. Are you under the impression that human ingenuity is some sort of "magic" that computers can't, in principle, pull off?

I see no reason to believe that you and I are anything more than computers with some nifty software and hardware.