1. Evangelical Christians sign up to a 'Church within a Church'

Comment #203541 by brainsys on July 3, 2008 at 5:50 am

Evangelical Bishop rubbishes GAFCOM!

BBC Radio 4 today World at One featued the Bishop of Durham's outspoken attack on the 280. He pointed out that most evangelical Bishops in the CoE didn't go and didn't support it.

He made two other significant points:

He is never going to sign up to 14 points or anybody else's definition of doctrine (do most clergy cross their fingers when reciting the 39 articles?).

GAFCOM is only united over the US Anglican problem. That problem doesn't exist elsewhere. They don't think the same on other issues (bells & smells for instance). It is an unholy aliance and it is going to rip itself apart.

I think there was a subtext that a nice white middle class bishop is not going to take orders from the colonised & missionised native masses. No imperialism in reverse please. We're British!

What's encouraging is, and what atheists should applaud(?), is his demand for freedom to think what you want and no one else's right to say without question it be right or wrong.

But then I'm a heretic here as I was always of the idea that trying to convert Christians, Muslims & Jews to non-belief was too hard a job. Whereas liberalising it and mitigating 'authority' (be it holy book or holy man) was the way forward. Slide effortlessly into a secular world. In other words the CoE is our stalking horse ... its been going in this direction for the last 200 years. Its important GAFCOM doesn't reverse the direction.

2. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202204 by brainsys on July 1, 2008 at 3:29 am

AFAIR Osama BL had something of a reputation as a road builder ...

3. Jesus and Mo on Militant Atheists

Comment #202162 by brainsys on July 1, 2008 at 1:35 am

Hi VE - still here. Still reading. Don't see much point engaging further with our favourite friend. His belief(!) that one can win hearts and minds by abuse and misrepresentation is quite touching. I am really so sorry to be an ongoing disappointment to him.

Would I regain a little credibility by advocating posting Jesus and Mo cartoons at every frontier control and refusing entry to any without a smile on their face ... ;-)

4. Who Was More Important: Lincoln or Darwin?

Comment #201811 by brainsys on June 30, 2008 at 9:37 am

Which is the more important: Newsweek or Nature?
They are (gosh) coincidently both printed on paper and have websites.

In defence of Newsweek - it makes better bog roll.

5. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #191182 by brainsys on June 10, 2008 at 10:33 am

Fanusi wrote:

"I was referring to the Muslim doctors who were convinced to take up the banner of Jihad by their co-religionists. These were as integrated and as middle-class as you can get, and that offered no protection from it. "

Really? Checking out the doctor that indisputably took part in the attack - I wouldn't recognise this guy as integrated middle class. Quite the opposite. Warning bells were ringing before he hit the bollards.

Of course I'm relying on Wikipedia which can mislead. Perhaps you have some nice photos of him integrating at Henley or Glyndebourne. Nope? Well perhaps integrating during his training in war torn Baghdad? Hmmmm are you sure you really understand British society?

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

6. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188336 by brainsys on June 4, 2008 at 1:02 am

Have you read the Expelled blog here:
http://barbadosfreepress.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/expelled-ben-steins-new-movie-asks-some-dangerous-questions/

'Scientists' clear, concise and always ultra-polite rebuttal and clarifications of muddled ideas are a masterpiece in dealing with Ben Stein inspired thought (thoughtlessness?).

I'm guessing 'Scientist' must be a reader here. Please take a bow ...

7. Ben Stein 1, Yoko Ono 0 in 'Expelled' copyright spat

Comment #188166 by brainsys on June 3, 2008 at 9:44 am

Agree with you Tack about not paying on principle. Does anyone have any news of friendly prolyetising Christians offering free showings in London?

After all if it had real good evidence I could be convinced.

8. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #188070 by brainsys on June 3, 2008 at 7:39 am

Al-Rawindi,

Am I bored, have I said I was bored? Or do you just make things up?

Nope I shall decline your offer as I declined F's. Make of it what you will.

9. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #188049 by brainsys on June 3, 2008 at 7:18 am

Al-rawindi wrote: "you have not posted anything of value or substance. If you want to have a "fruitful" debate bring something to the table"

If on pushing the "other comments by brainsys" that is your conclusion then there really is nothing else to say is there?

It appears your also appear to want to play the man rather than the ball. Sorry, not with me.

10. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #188022 by brainsys on June 3, 2008 at 6:56 am

Al-rawandi

I have no interest in criticising Fanusi or you.

I come here to learn and debate atheistic issues. A contrived ad hominen attack in response doesn't really take anybody anywhere. Its hard to respond without doing the same and the main point is lost. And I can get better down the pub.

We surely have rather more interesting and important stuff to do then taking cheap shots at each other. That's I hope not an unreasonable view that you can accept even if you do not agree.

So I'll go find some more fruitful threads.

11. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #188001 by brainsys on June 3, 2008 at 6:23 am

Fanusi wrote: "Or just possibly try to answer my points? Or even give an example to support what you claim my distortions are?"

No distortions, just invention. The questioning points you made were in response to your own points not mine. Hence any answer should come from you. If you disagree and as you know my views better than me - you are still in the best position to respond.

Hope my logic is not as bad as my grammar. The imperative farewell was traditional and intended. I'm sorry you failed to grasp the meaning.

Toodaloo again - really, really for the last time, unless that (conditional) fiver appears :)

12. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #187979 by brainsys on June 3, 2008 at 5:22 am

Fanusi said: "if it ain't paranoia if they really are out to get you"

Oh yep good to see you have a lighter side. But frankly I made a mistake in posting that reply.

I should have learnt from the last time that you will say I said things I did not and give me beliefs I do not hold. This time you added a little frisson by insisting you had not written something you did.

Which makes objective discussion a little difficult. Too difficult for me.

Toodaloo Dinesh AICMFP

13. Mark Steyn vs. the 'Sock Puppets'

Comment #187918 by brainsys on June 3, 2008 at 3:44 am

Fanusi wrote: "Okay, then let me make my case simply: it doesn't exist, by definition. A law - any law, whether it's a just or an unjust law - is only a law if it can be enforced."

What definition would that be?

Does it mean the kids on the estate down the road are not breaking the law because our local constabulary cannot (or choose not to) enforce the law on that estate.

Does it mean the US alleged flouting of international law at Guantanomo Bay is of no consequence because no one has the power or will to put Bush in an international court to test it?

In fact it does have consequences. The belief by most that the US has brazenly breached the Geneva Convention has lost it much goodwill in the world community. It, in practice, has removed the moral superiority arguement over its enemies that you Fanusi assert is incontrevertible. Not much use if the jury is not with you.

Of course you can take the Rumsfeld view that what other people think is of no consequence. Sadly it took a few hundred thousand lives to suggest he was wrong.

Frankly your hate filled paranoia makes you no better in my eyes than those you target. Dunno if that means you want to save me despite myself or nuke me along with half the world. Your choice.

14. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187916 by brainsys on June 3, 2008 at 3:15 am

To give some research backing to Cartomancer's note that atheism is no problem to political leadership (and possibly an advantage) look no further than YouGov's recent survey where 74% would be delighted or would not mind an atheist being the UK PM. Contrast that with just 34% as the comparative number for the US President.

In fact in the US atheists are about as desireable as Muslims. However a Muslim would do no better in the UK with well over 50% who would be sorry or even angry!

Page 22 of this YouGov pdf document: http://tinyurl.com/6468k4

The three preceding pages have some rather intersting UK/US comparisons on religion. I wasn't surprised by the high US christian belief. I was shocked by the extreme way most believe it. Absoluteley incredible for a nation that put a man on the moon. Or perhaps things have gone seriously downhill in the last 40 years.

15. When two worlds collide: threat of class warfare over faith-based schooling

Comment #187613 by brainsys on June 2, 2008 at 11:24 am

I was once a governor of a CoE Primary School. Like many it was a historical legacy of a desire to educate local children when there were few alternatives. It still had the best reputation for education.

It did have a few crosses scattered around and the hymns were delivered with a little more gusto then the other local primaries. But the driving force was a christian desire to do good for others. If that made christianity or just the CoE look good to kids and parents and encourage them to join up - well that was a benefit. Actually most kids appeared to come out more secular than those from the secular schools. And the 'christian' teachers mostly realised that. Their view was mostly just trying to do good was its own reward.

I tell that story to differentiate christian based schools that deliver education from those who are determined to deliver christianity (or any other religion) to kids as a prime aim.

The latter we don't want. But is the route of abolition feasible atm in the UK or Australia? Would we not get further by allowing them to continue but insist what was delivered was education first. That a bit of Religious Education is permissable but Religious Instruction is not.

Put diplomatically it could put some Catholic and Islam based schools on the spot. In this case having problems with two particular faiths might make it easier than with just one. We are not being 'anti-christian or anti-islam'. Just their right to remove the kids right to a secular education. If they want to add their magic bits out of hours that's their business.

Not perfect but 20 years ago I thought this country was eliminating religion by secularising it rather than abolishing it. Surely a safer way to go? The last few years have seen a sad reversal. We need to decide gain whether abolition or secularisation of religious schools is the best hope in trying to regain a more rational and less divided society.

16. The Challenge of the New Creationism

Comment #187500 by brainsys on June 2, 2008 at 9:01 am

Struggle through it if you can (I just had to keep reloading and guessing how far I had got).

The killer is in the finale. After giving all that info for rubbishing creationism he does a wonderful about turn. He uses a graph of acceptance of evolution v acceptance of religion (negative correlation of course) with the US in 33 out of 34th place.

Jerry argues that trying to push the US vertically up the scale (educating religionists about science) is what his community has done for 20 years with no discernable result and probably no hope.

Instead he proposes moving the US along the graph to a more non-religious country and hence a more rational country. Its not the Alabama fundies you need to to change but the less but still religious man in a NY suit. He spells that out as what Dawkins in Hitchens are trying to do in a way I found clearer than the dynamic duo do themselves.

A very brave man. A very inspiring if daunting conclusion!

17. We happy hooligans

Comment #185908 by brainsys on May 29, 2008 at 3:45 am

SteveN says:

"PZ accuses the theologians of 'perpetuating lies', which they surely do irrespective of whether they believe them or not. I see no problem with that."
Neither do I. But how is that relevant when the quote in question was:

"It's time we saw through the con game of these lying leeches ... "

18. We happy hooligans

Comment #185904 by brainsys on May 29, 2008 at 3:16 am

I am with the blogger in his criticism of PZ's abuse of leading theologian/churchman as 'liars'.

Some maybe. Others not if by lying you seek deliberately to misinform people.

Today (BBC Radio 4 this am) reminded us about cognitive dissonance, the theory that our brains are heavily programmed into seeing a world that supports our beliefs and having remarkable powers to reject what independent observers would see as strong objective evidence to the contrary. The report rather aptly spelt out evolutionary advantages to this condition!

To an independent observer Tony Blair appeared to lie to the House of Parliament over Iraq. Hansard is there to prove it if you search out the quotes.

But Tony will not accept he lied. I'm inclined to believe he believes that truthfully. Maybe its no coincidence that he is extremely religious too.

Now I can cope with honest liars. They at least accept the same reality as me even if they won't admit it. Its the people who able to deny truth truthfully that are really scary. And calling them liars (when they think they are not) just cements antagonism.

PZ IMHO does us no favour by this abuse. He may entertain us but just makes it harder in trying to get these (often good in every other way) people to begin to recognise that what appears to be true should always be questioned.

19. Lab agrees to test Shroud of Turin for new theory

Comment #183238 by brainsys on May 21, 2008 at 3:05 pm

I went to have a look at the shroud a few years ago when I was in Turin. I was most surprised that there is all this discussion about age. I'm not sure it is even worth worrying about. Why?

Well if you look at the shroud - you see the image of a face. Very much as you would see in an engraving - ie a 2D representation of a 3D object. But if this indeed was caused by the cloth being in contact with a real head then the image would be real in 3D but appear distorted when rolled out in 2D (the size of the nose would be a giveaway - small width when seen head on - but much bigger when the sides are included).

So its a fake or our Lord had a very queerly shaped head. Strange it was not mentioned in the gospels ...

20. Archbishop's 8 March centennial message: Let Sharia Law govern women's lives, Amen!

Comment #128911 by brainsys on February 18, 2008 at 9:40 am

I am surprised by the generally warm welcome to this article on a website dedicated to clear thinking.

The author appears to deliberately confuse religion and race. Indeed I found her racist remarks really objectionable. I was surprised that as an Iranian she was all too aware of the differences in Muslim world of different cultures and ethnicity.

Also - while I was surprised at Rowan's speech - I am also surprised at the superficiality of the response. Not a lot of real understanding of why and what he was seeking to achieve. It was brave, it may be foolish, but with the high stakes involved in engaging with Muslims who are themselves under attack from the Jihadists - risks have to be taken.

One has to be realistic. Religion (and racism) may have got us into this mess. But the world is not going to be sorted this decade by a near universal conversion to atheism. Religion has, however much we wish it wasn't, to help get us out of this mess.

This means us (western) secular folks finding some discourse with (western) religious leaders who can find some discourse within (middle eastern) religions.

Or maybe you really do prefer Fanusi's approach of 'Nuke the lot'.

21. Blind Faiths

Comment #109110 by brainsys on January 8, 2008 at 11:05 am

Comment #108675 by jeepyjay "The 9/11 terrorists had a state (they were Saudi Arabians), it was not oppressive to them, they were not victims of imperialism, they were not nationalists, their people were not suffering, they were not poor, they were well educated, they were not in despair. Much the same can be said of the 7/7 bombers in London. They were comfortably off young men. Only religion is left in your list."

Nope. One common feature between your two groups is their alienation from their birth nation. If it was just religion - why didn't their parents who were poorer/more oppressed feel the same way/take action?

The causes/results of their alienation are not doubt complex and not well understood by experts, let alone themselves. But I would have thought it more likely that religion (in this case Islam) became an exagerated feature of their need for identity.

Most here see religion & God as a man-made tradition. Because religion is a mish-mash of received opinion its re-interpretation really depends on what man wants to get out of it. Sometimes nasty aided by ignorant, disturbed or plain bad priests. Sometimes the opposite. We do seem to be helping to create a world which encourages the former.

Just like Christianity drives some to loving pacifism and others to killing thousands of innocent men, women & children. That's why we know religion ain't the consistent word of an ominopent guy in the sky.

22. 'Boycott Worked': Compass Flops - Opening Weekend $26 Million; Narnia $63 Million

Comment #96892 by brainsys on December 11, 2007 at 4:07 am

Is it going to flop? Well yes if you read the UK reviews. Mostly bad. The reason - too much flash CGI and not enough substance. In other words the novel had been watered down so much and little added beyond FX to replace it.

UK religious folk wisely kept mum on the subject hence robbing the film makers of the controversy option.

Now a full blooded adaption may have done somewhat better. Will Hollywood take the hint?

23. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #96249 by brainsys on December 10, 2007 at 8:28 am

Jupiter5 wrote: "You are projecting what you wanted to hear".

I projected what I did hear and what I did read. Not complete I admit but not what I was expecting to hear and read - hence my remark. Unlike you, I do not rely on telepathy.

I agree with you that the sudden and unexpected 'moderation' of these people was forced on them having to choose between a rock and a hard place. They are political. They know their position is at risk from hardliners who can usually so easily undermine their support on the street. It was the isolation of these hardliners on the Teddy issue that allowed one, at least, to come out plainly against 'stoning for adultery' as un-Koranic.

A small step? Yep, But do we want them to step back? In the end are we going to have to come to an accommodation with most Muslims in our community? If that means still living in a tolerant community that means driving a hefty wedge between most Muslims and the hardliners.

That tiny step shows how big the problem really is. There is no point in getting rosy spectacled about this. Winning hearts and minds is the hardest battle there is. And it isn't a soft liberal thing. You have to be focussed and and absolutely clear as to what the other side's beliefs and options are. There is, as you demonstrate, too much dodgy mind reading going on.

It is just that some here, and is Ayaan one of them, that do not see an opportunity to grab non-extreme Muslims and present choices that move them towards a more moderate/tolerant stance?

Or do you think the stance of anti-Muslim hardliners is likely to be more successful? And what does their track record look like right now?

24. Islam's Silent Moderates

Comment #96176 by brainsys on December 10, 2007 at 5:49 am

I fear Ayaan Hirsi Ali does not look too far for non-extreme Muslims.

The Sudan Teddy certainly flushed out a lot in the UK. Members of the MCB who usually equivocate on most dodgy stuff from the Koran came out to a man (no ladies of course) against the exploitation of Islam by the Sudanese Government. Probably because that Government were really persuing other agendas but found it politic to exploit local religious feelings. Something not unique to the Sudan.

I have to admit I have very mixed feelings about Ayaan. She has suffered terribly at the hands of fanatics. The problem is that this often leads understandably to the feelings that these fanatics should be countered at all costs. The costs sometimes include allowing prejudice rather than cool reflective analysis to creep into the perception of the enemy. Which can include people who were not your enemy - till you made them so.

The issue in the UK is that exporting Muslims to a remote part of the universe is not going to happen. Converting many to secularism is about as remote. It is truly a battle for their hearts and minds. The teddy episode showed that in the UK that is far from a lost cause.

25. This Friday: Debate between Dan Dennett and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #91790 by brainsys on November 29, 2007 at 9:56 am

If only Godwin's Law applied to religious debates.
Perhaps someone could persuade the Vatican to issue a papal bull on the matter. It would be to their advantage ;-)

26. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #91738 by brainsys on November 29, 2007 at 5:41 am

Incredulouss said "I fear an opportunity is being lost by the 'moderate' muslim population everywhere to come out and say not in our name"

Not this morning on the Today programme. Not only did the representative (of the MCB?) denounce it but when pressed by John Humphreys on stoning - he didn't equivocate. Indeed he did a remarkable academic leap that any theologian would be proud of to distance unfortunate religious statements from civilised practice today.

It even surprised John Humphreys - and the other guy in the discussion. So ironically this event might in the end be useful in getting Muslims in the UK to think about how extreme interpretations of their faith might force them to moderate their own interpretations if they wish to be accommodated within a plurialistic community.

On the other hand I can still smell simple power politics in Sudan (read oil/china/darfur) either exploiting Islam or v.v. I don't think anyone outside of the Sudan really knows.

Broadcast is here (I can't play RAM so I hope its all right).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/today/listenagain/ram/today4_muhammad_20071129.ram

27. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91627 by brainsys on November 28, 2007 at 5:48 pm

Fanusi wrote "There is a division between church and state that is implied in the sentence "Render unto Caesar...". It is that wierd twist of luck that we owe our secularism to."

Render unto Cesar was the words of a lone preacher in an occupied territory finding a clever way of saving his own neck under hostile questioning (if we believe the biblical account). Suggesting that this was how the average medieval monarch regarded his 'state' (a word quite foreign to most of them) is rather an idiosynchratic view of history.

All in all your reading of history does appear as self serving as many preachers reading of the bible (and presumably mullahs reading of the Koran). Your views don't seem to reflect the complexity of reality. On this Sudan issue the old hands admit they really don't understand the power plays being played out over this woman. It seems strange an unemployed student can see things so much more clearly...

Take care.

28. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91359 by brainsys on November 28, 2007 at 6:27 am

Philip. Interesting to read of your High Wycombe experience. My daughter went to school with the shoe bomber in Greenwich. Also a west indian convert. But I don't think it unfair to say he makes a sad hero for the jihadists and poor hate figure for the forces of good. He was a loser who was always going to get conned by someone. Thankfully too incompetent to succeed.

Re Sharia courts in the UK? Did you hear the Radio 4 play about a fictional example? Brilliantly showing that the political consequences quite dwarfed the religious content. Sitting up special religious courts. Absolutely not. Even if it was voluntary. Social pressures can negate that by pressuring 'muslim in name only' to submit or 'come out'.

Re Fanusi. I suppose my issue is precisely that with friendship. For me it transcends religious affiliation. I have real difficulty with Christian & Muslim fundamentalists but others I find much nicer and more rational than some atheists. Fanusi gives me the impression of seeing people as Muslim first and human second. That the best are tarred with the sins of the worst. Perhaps I am over reacting. I really don't want to make an enemy of anyone. Well - I've yet to meet Dinesh ;-)

29. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91333 by brainsys on November 28, 2007 at 4:18 am

Philip said "with idiots like Bunglawala around obfuscating to his heart's desire I can't see things improving."

I dunno how many poiliticians/leaders you have got drunk with but you do usually find a mixture of some who believe passionately in something despite the evidence and those that say - "Yep, you are right but I daren't say so in public".

So I never know whether stuff that spews out of the MCB is what they believe or what they say they believe in order to keep their position (either for greed or to do good despite it).

Which is why its important to create an atmosphere which doesn't force participants to defend otherwise impossible or deeply dividing positions. That's ruining our politics. It can do worse in a religious context.

If I criticise Fanusi for Islam bashing it isn't a defence of Islam. We are mostly here because we see religion as an irrational way of seeing the world which will end in tears. Islam might be on the front foot in demonstrating this in action. But pointing this out again and again gets us nowhere.

Frankly at the moment we can't crack the soft left of the christian world so what hope have we with Islam? Paradoxically it may be Christian leaders who can get traction with the mullahs as that recent initiative suggested. But I note that idea was widely ridiculed here.

30. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91326 by brainsys on November 28, 2007 at 3:51 am

Fanusi says "The polls we have show that the average man in the Mosque has a fifty-fifty chance of being a supporter of Shariah law."

And rising? That's just the point. 50% presumably didn't believe in Shariah Law or found a way to accommodate it within a secular community. Just as most christians vow three impossible things in the creed yet have no problem ignoring it when 'off-campus'. Duality in religious/secular life is not a problem for most of the people most of the time. How else can a female catholic take the pill? And they do.

Fanusi asks what societies have Muslims lived comfortably alongside other faith and none. Well the ones I lived in until comparatively recently. It is just this fast radicalisation that is the threat here and abroad. Muslim girls who wore jeans, drank and enjoyed the usual pleasures went in six months through head scarves to the full works. This was not a change in Islam. It was a change in how Islam was perceived.

"Islam is a system of government" - A damned poor one compared to the RC Church whose leader ruled absolutly in Europe for centuries as the sole mediator between God & King. What caliphate can compare? This was eventually unsustainable. Desire for divorces was one of the more trivial ways this control was overthrown by Kings who then became God's representative for their people. And so people overthrew their divine Kings - or constitutionalised them (cf leaving their genitals intact).

Our Queen is Defender of the (Christian) Faith, Head of the established Church of England. Annoying I know but no real threat to my freedom of thought or action - unlike my secular government!

I never quite understand whether Fanusi thinks Islam can be removed from the planet, muslims can be forcibly converted or presumably exterminated. I wouldn't rate this as doable as the odd Vice President didn't say. Just as exterminating all non-muslims is extremely iffy.

Real hope, I suggest, is that Islam can sort itself in rather fewer centuries then it took the christian world. The question here is whether our actions are helping or hindering reform from within Islam.

Getting the Sudan government to realise that this episode is damned stupid is a good start. Mumblings from their ambassador (normally a very reactionary guy) suggest a little bit of reality is there. Its that dodgy thing of getting the Sudan government to act but giving them a bit of wiggle room to preserve a bit of misguided dignity.

Its perhaps a western thing that we are currently paying more attention to this event (a sincere woman detained for a few days) more than the Sudan's Government's murderous activities in Darfur. That's probably as much human territorial greed as it is religious.

31. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91295 by brainsys on November 28, 2007 at 1:55 am

I worry about how we react to the incidents. My reaction to these events is the usual incredulousness.

But more important, surely, is the reaction of the ordinary 'man in the mosque'. How does he (and it is a he) feel about it when he worships within a secular society like the UK?

Some will share our view, some will, as always follow the religious right. But what of those in the middle? We have to remember that people are human as well as religious. Attack them, their society or whatever and the natural knee jerk reaction comes into play. The Daily Mail/Fanusi approach plays straight into the hands of people determined to show their religion/life is under real threat in a way that leaves them little choice.

The alternative. Well I think I can already hear Fanusi accusing me of appeasement. And it real question. How does one say this behaviour is unacceptable - that any imposition of any God's law on those they do not freely subscribe is not tenable here and should not be tenable there. How do we give space to the muslim in the mosque to consider these conflicts and try and find a way to accommodate his faith with a secular society.

I know its dangerous to say that has been achieved with most Christians and some other faiths. Some people say Islam is different. Well all faiths are different but one can say that many Muslims were able to live comfortably withiu other societies for many years.

In the UK the increase in fundamentalist/jihad belief has risen dramatically in recent years. It isn't because Islam has changed (it is not supposed to) it is a combination of changes - some in our society and some to do with control of theirs. This gives me hope that it can be reversed .

Is this to be a fight for hearts and minds or for bodies? Have we all really given up hope?

32. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #91062 by brainsys on November 27, 2007 at 6:08 am

"after receiving reports that men had started gathering outside the police station where she was being held"

Yep. Most cameramen are ... men. But where are the photographs?

33. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90650 by brainsys on November 26, 2007 at 3:05 am

Another Bishop disapointed by Blair being a closet nutter:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7112256.stm

The Bishop of Rochester is a notorious evangelical (boycotting the Lambeth Conference over the gay Bishop issue) and was their champion for Archbishop of Canterbury but lost out to the more moderate and liberal Rowan Williams.

The Bish is regarded as the leader of the Nazgul. A collection of fellow evangelical Bishops includes the Wingnut of Carlisle - the Rt Revd Graham Dow. Dow when not relating the local flooding to the Book of Revelations is into exorcism and extremely strange ideas on anuses, Scotsman, miners and wearing black. You really could not make this up. Check out this report by the Grauniad Religious Correspondent. This also alleges Graham Dow was implicit in preparing Tony Blair for Confirmation when Tone was at Oxford. It will make you laugh or cry or both:
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1630 (4th para).

34. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89916 by brainsys on November 22, 2007 at 6:01 am

The Ofcomm decision, in full, makes for interesting reading here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb97/issue97.pdf
(starting page 9)

35. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89854 by brainsys on November 22, 2007 at 1:22 am

I agree with a previous poster that this has been one of the most unedifying threads to date. I have argued earlier in the thread about the utility value of this particular cause in helping preserve life. That's why my money goes elsewhere.

What is upsetting me about this thread is that some here define utility as to whether you may get protection dependent on your political viewpoint. Good if you are a liberal bad if you are a neoconservative.

As much as I hate what the neconservatives have done to this planet in the last decade, the fact that you would discriminate against them in allocating protection fills me with despair. If protecting freedom is important - we can best show it by protecting those we disagree with. Remember Voltaire ...

36. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89539 by brainsys on November 21, 2007 at 3:19 am

MMURRAY - you misread my response. Her assasination would have a great impact on the cause of freedom. Theo's execution elevated the cause. If you want to elevate the cause above all other then her assassination is a good if sick thing. So you don't give $10.

That is not the reason I am not giving $10. As before we have one life at risk with some defence and millions with none. I don't find that a hard choice. I like to think it is a ethical choice.

37. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89530 by brainsys on November 21, 2007 at 2:44 am

Michael wrote: "But I think her being killed by a Jihadist will be devasting to the cause of freedom in a way that the 20 or 30 deaths that happened since I started typing this have not been."

I suggest the facts prove otherwise. She was quite unknown outside Holland before Theo's execution. Dead (wo)mens books/films seem to have so much power. Sadly martyrs are good news for almost any cause.

Indeed it is tempting to pay the $10 to avoid this painful elevation of our cause.

Frankly I'm shocked that you think the possible loss of this one person more important than 20 or 30 unknowns. She has some money and many influential friends to enable her to hide from the assassins. Not complete protection but a darned lot more than the several (hundred?) thousand who can't run from the killers in Darfur.

But there again aren't we both letting our emotions perhaps overpower what should be a clear thinking oasis?

38. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89517 by brainsys on November 21, 2007 at 1:40 am

I have to say that I feel very uncomfortable about this appeal and the opprobium heaped upon those who dissent. We must not let this become a religious war.

I think most of us, on reflection, have to admit that giving charitably is largely driven on emotional grounds. Charities know this and have to push our emotional buttons if they are to succeed in doing good. Inevitably Sam is doing the same. And succeeding with a high proportion of posters here.

I see attempts at rationalisations. I too have rationalisations the other way. Primarily that giving is to both improve and save innocent lives. In crude body count terms $10/month given to Oxfam is going to save/enhance many lives. Diverting to this cause may possibly save a life but certainly cost many more.

The arguement that this life is worth more than an anonymous life saved on a continent far away I find sick. However, the one thing I value more than life is truth. The memory of book burnings particulary hits my buttons. Authors are in a special position here. I'm right behind Salman in defending his work. I guess, as a UK taxpayer I'm probably funding part of his protection, However brave as Salman is - he is no braver and no more at risk than my parents generation who mostly could not write great books but could go out on the battlefield to defeat the book burners.

Yep - the sharp minds here can see my arguements are at most very mushy. But they too should carefully examine their own. Be sure the driving force is not akin to those CO2 hogs who spend a few quid offsetting instead of themselves getting into the action. Otherwise you are just paying for someone else to dodge your bullet.

39. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88331 by brainsys on November 16, 2007 at 3:40 am

Brian,

you are quite right in your forceful expression of contempt for the film. However, perhaps we should play these nutters at their own game. Every University Science department (and other clear thinkers?) should put their hands in the pocket and put on free public showings of this film followed by a discussion.

Putting a few extra bob into the hands of these charlatans might grate but they already have enough. Surely what we need to do the opposite of what they accuse us of - which is to put *their* claims under the shining light of widespread exposure and, if you think you are good enough, convince all but the diehards that the evidence points to the corruption of the accusers rather than the accused.

40. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88324 by brainsys on November 16, 2007 at 1:47 am

Comment #88315 by logos_tech
"What's needed is a film, possibly Expelled 2, showing how Holocaust Deniers are denied tenure, jobs and what not"

I don't follow your arguement. We have one as President of the United States and another as the President of Turkey. I guess that is what happens to people entrenched in a non-evidence based belief system.

41. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #85833 by brainsys on November 7, 2007 at 9:45 am

"... reducing morality to the individual's subjective likes and dislikes"

Frightening to think this Catholic can't trust his own morality but has to rely on someone else's to avoid doing evil.

I guess that's the case for promoting christianity to the morally inept. As long as they stick to the nicer bits of the bible ... but then catholicsm doesn't have the greatest track record on morality or of not scaring the children with tales of hideous punishment for what other parts of christendom think quite normal.

42. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79348 by brainsys on October 17, 2007 at 2:46 am

Rayy asks:

"I like your inversion of God made in mans image. What is that image like, is it male/female, does it have arms and legs, does it have sex? You say God then Physics. How has Physics replaced God? Does Atheism place limits on what science may question and explain? Does Atheism limit the imagination?"

That's the point - there is not a single image. It changes by the person and in time. Taking the Christian God as that is the one most familiar to me.

The OT bloke (yes there is a definite gender tendency) was a strong leader/commander. One can wonder if this is a projection of a warrior king's ego. The message fed to his followers (yes male again) to fire them up to defeat the enemy or plough the field. An important part of the Jewish nation's identity which seperated it from its enemies/competitors. Here we have a fundamental paradox of a God that is universal and one that is also a Jewish war god urging them to go kill his other creations. That takes some pretty sophisticated theology to try and resolve.

Whereas today's God of the Church of England does not like to go to war, indeed is very embarrassed when it appears necessary (I refer you to the Archbish's Falkland Memorial sermon). 'She' doesn't quite sound right so God has become somewhat shadowy and androgenous. Gone is the while haired/bearded guy of those great rennaisance paintings. Indeed God is rarely physically imaged these days. He/she/it has become a quiet force. Felt but not seen by the faithful.

Why? Well the biblical universe as believed 500 years ago doesn't stand up today in mainstream christianity. Its too easy to make the creationists look silly. So has God been remodelled to fit around the bits science has yet to crack - the mind (soul), before the big bang, purpose of life (if any)?

I could go on but you get the drift.

Re God & Physics (or Science generally). I was just implying that when we didn't know why or how something worked. God was a good explanation. Science has now supplemented a fair proportion of that and is hungry for more. It puts God on the backfoot. As I see it the mainstream churches over here have given up and accepted science for what it is. Theologians and the ArchBish have moved to arguing the pitch that there are places science can never go (the Why? question) and God is a good solution. RD disagrees.

I'm agnostic in wondering whether there are limits to the scientific method. That there could be a paradigm shift into a new way of understanding reality (sort of a mega version of how Eistein Physics replaced Newtonian). But I reject God on the basis that he has been projected into this vacant area rather than discovered with something rather new and remarkable that works.

So most of us share that mystery looking up into the stars. Atheists are simply those that keep it a mystery for the time being ;-)

But there are no limits to what we can discover apart from our three score years & ten limitation. As atheism and afterlife appear incompatible then this is a real barrier we can only penetrate by passing our knowledge and quest for truth onto our kids.

Hence the outrage here when creationists and allied causes try to subvert the educational process to project their solution despite the evidence or lack of any. In doing so they deny the scientific process and hence the creation of what we may see as our best albeit incomplete understanding of our surroundings. That's a 'back to the caves' mentaility. Or am I being unfair to cavemen and cavewomen?

43. John Templeton's Universe

Comment #79062 by brainsys on October 16, 2007 at 2:40 am

Wacky right wing undermining of science and truth has arrived in the UK too.

Like that court case against Gore's Inconvenient Truth. A contest of scientific inference brought by a lorry driver. Makes you proud that Britain has some of the world's finest climatologists driving trucks dunnit?

A short perusal of the WHOIS and a few Googles reveals a familiar web fit for a PhD in conspiracy theory. Exxon/Cato Institute of course by way of the Scientific Alliance (though apparently somewhat short of actual scientists) and a barmy Scottish quarryman who has a problem with tax and thinks the Army might be best people to run our public services. Too right for our right wing hence his creation of The New Party. Surely no intended connection with Oswald Moseley (Britain's very poor pre-war imitation of Herr Hitler).

The underlying theme is although these things are easily traceable no acknowledgement ever appears on their websites. Which is a little surprising when they take scientists, teachers and the occasional politician to task for allegedly not being open, honest and truthful.

I wish we could laugh it off. But the BBC report on the Inconvenient Truth court case featured Scientific Alliance Director Martin Livermore who did the usual rubbishing bit on behalf of his concerned but unnamed scientists without mentioning he was funded by the same Quarryman who funds the accusing Lorry Driver's campaigns.

Shame on the BBC for not checking this out.

If you think that attack on Gore was nasty, take a look at what they did to the British Cement Association ;-)

44. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78948 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Comment #78945 by Rayy on October 15, 2007 at 1:43 pm

"Where does our sense of beauty come from? Something that never ceases to fill me with a sense of awe and wonder is how a collection of molecules (you and I), can become aware and experience life in all its wonder; we seem to be more than the sum of our parts? How does the Atheist answer these questions?"

In as many ways as there are atheists methinks since by definition there is no party line.

For this one is that I assume God is made in man's image. The awe and wonder is crying for explanation and we have a mind that creates explanatory systems. First God, then Physics. Same creator, hence some confusion which is which (see Einstein).

Anyway welcome. You are swimming is strange waters. Deists are as much a mystery to atheists as atheist are to deists. Beware those that claim to know the mind of the other!

45. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78939 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 1:22 pm

D'Arcy wrote:

"Does Williams believe in Christianity as millions in the world know it or doesn't he?"

Yes. He represents a fair proportion of the Church of England. His language may be more sophisticated, his theology more nuanced - but then he is a clever lad and this is his full time job, not a Sunday excursion. They both know something is there but have a bit of a problem putting their finger on just what. But then how much should they worry about it when the Church and their job is to think of others, fix the roof and sell the jam.

They perceive themselves as doing no harm and probably some good. They see their mushy church as 'nearer God/better taste' then these strange fundies (oh and the Christian Union happy clappers).

They are not suprisingly bemused when RD firmly places them in the same camp as the American Evangelicals. After all the definition of the CoE was that it wasn't Roman Catholic (though some still act as if it was).

They really don't know how to respond. After all RD is a nice clever fellow too. Gets on well with the old Bishop of Oxford. Would make a wonderful vicar if he would only, like most anglican vicars, waffle a bit when it comes to the belief thing.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PS Highly paid, palace et al. Not really. Dunno what his motor is these days but I remember seeing a previous archbish in a chauffeur driven Morris 1000. For those in distant lands or of a juvenile disposition it is equivelent to the smallest compact Nissan Micra or sub VW Golf with the handling removed.

46. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78931 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Oh dear Fanusi. Still ascribing me statements and beliefs I never made or held. Refusing to apologise for errors. Why do I bother to try and hold a dialogue with you?

Well the last time then ...

No I never would balance slaughter with slaughter. Well apart from saying 50 million dead is less worse than 5 billion. Lets get back to the fundamental question. Lets suppose you are right. Muslim murderers outnumber Christian murderers as if that matters to this question. How do we treat Muslim non-murderers? I presume you agree there are some?

Announcing that Islam is pathologically evil is not going to be win many friends and influence people is it? We are all normally defensive of our (non)religion/culture/football team. How is your verbal aggression going to sound to a Sufi whose Islam is rather more mystical than most? Saying it is incompatible when hundreds of millions who have lived for many years in at least co-existance with other faiths would lose you credibility.

When all else fails your enemy's enemy is your friend. In WW2 that included Uncle Joe. Lethal but useful. AFAIK these Imams have not killed anybody. They may feel as alienated from the west as they are from terrorists. We can help adjust that. Except Fanusi I suspect you want to do it in the opposite direction to me.

So I say talk. Find any common ground and build on it. What say you?

47. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78884 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 8:58 am

Fanusi asked:
"How many cases have their been of Christian parents killing their children for abandoning the faith?"

Many. About half a mile from me is one christian child who was killed for being taken over by demons. See our local website: http://sydenham.org.uk/kindoki.html

I find it sick that you should think the evil of one side cannot be matched by the other. Hence I won't continue to answer your prejudicial questions. Or I'll start writing about my experiences of Northern Ireland which shows just what one Christian can do to another in the name of his Church.

But you are right to suggest that in Western Europe/USA seems we are currently more at risk from Muslim extremism. I think if you lived in, say, Gaza you would see another religion as an even greater threat.

To move onto what we should do about the Imam Olive Branch - let me digress to your quote about stopping Hitler crossing the Rhine. I agree. Hitler could probably have been deposed and there might not have been WW2. France, UK funked it. Why? Well Churchill was still a voice in the wilderness, the danger of national socialism was not generally understood in the countries that had fought and lost millions of men to in the fight to end all wars. There was no appetite.

When the danger was realised France & UK were in no position to fight. It became a stuggle to re-arm and buy time. That was 1938 which you implicitly acknowledge by backtracking to the 1936 opportunity. Of course if we backtrack to 1919 we can say the real opportunity was lost in the Treaty of Versailles. The vindictiveness particulary of the French on the German people over reparations was one of the driving forces of moderate Germans into the hands of Hitler's extremists.

I do not excuse moderate Germans from what they did. But we don't want to witness again the capture of the mainstream by the meglomaniacs. The Muslim mainstream by the mad Mullahs.

Treating them all as mad people when many are clearly not is not a very good idea. Most of them are very much like the rest of us. They have funny dietary habits, have inconvenient holidays and an architecture not to my taste. But then they say the same to me. People tend not to kill people they talk to. Its when we stop talking things get out of control. So will talking to the Imams do any good?

Dunno. But there is only one way to find out ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, on re-reading the quoted report the child did not die. I don't think that makes it less horrific example of what happens when religion meets ignorance ...

48. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78869 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 6:35 am

Thanks Windweaver - I enjoyed that.

Talking of religious broadcasting probably the most admired output of the BBC Religious Department is Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze'.

This is chaired by atheist ex-foreign affairs reporter Michael Buerk. Michael wrote that when he was invited he was reluctant and made clear his position - they responded that this was good news. As they had to cater for all religions this would show no favouritism! Then after the consumption of vast quantities of rather good wine over a splendid meal (clearly Anglicans were present) Micheal thinks he gave in and took the job. Yep religionists know all about temptation ...

It is a good programme. It does ably demonstrate Hitch's view that you don't have to be religious to not only have but develop moral consciousness.

On the otherhand most of us have day jobs while many clerics have time to ponder moral paradoxes and the like. So, as long as they, (unlike the Pope and Bishop of Carlisle), don't let let ideology creep in - they are a valuable resource to us all.

Whereas can you imagine Uncle Rupert appearing in the Moral Maze alongside Britain's most articulate and iconoclastic gay person? I think he would be a little lost ;-)

49. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78853 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 4:58 am

81. Comment #78703 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 14, 2007 at 11:32 am

"I am absolutely furious about the fact that it appears inevitable that, instead of spending my life pursuing the science I love, I will spend it fighting the murderous evil of Islam."

My problem with you Fanusi is that you are not applying your scientific skills to look at things openly, question yourself and test facts. The result appears to be a similar fanaticsm to that you oppose. Your history is by any independent account is terribly distorted, your perception of others (like me) is just plain wrong and the consequences of anybody following your ideas are catastrophic.

I guess by now I have lost you. But look again at what you have written.

"Don't try and co-exist with soviet communism"

Ahem, every US President came to the conclusion that the alternative was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). 50 million dead might be bad but 5 billion is badder ... the west did prevail ... but then we need to sort out a strategy for Putin's Russia and the People's Republic of China. Bombing them both to extinction is a tad extreme don't you think? Co-existance until we figure out a better idea seems more attractive?

"You don't negotiate with evil, period. Look up Neville Chamberlain. Look where that has gotten us"

Yep - arguably the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. There is only one moral justification for going to war against evil. To win. That was less likely in 1938 than 1939. Remember we (and the French) still declared war before we were attacked. It still turned out to be too soon. France was defeated and we only just hung on by the skin of our teeth. That was until the very same Soviet state you would not talk to became our ally and the US were bombed into it by the Japanese.

"Then came the cartoon riots. And I realised, 'They're already here". So, I started learing about Islam. I learned about fourteen hundred years of war and oppression and atrocity"

Yep, Muslims really are the new kids on the block! I think the Christians are closing in on 2,000 and Old Testament Jews a while longer (and still at it!)

Remember the Danish cartoons were only a fanatical problem for about nine imams who, having failed to inflame the muslims of Denmark, proceeded to spread an exagerated and misleading version of events to people who acted first and didn't have time to think second (some of those that did regretted their first reaction).

What that boils down to is nobody can deny that militant Islam is a powder keg. You appear to want to dump all of Islam into their arms. Not a good idea if you checkout the figures and the oilfields. Oh and Putin has a good deal of the remainder.

Islam is a broad church ;-)

The Muslim community in the US don't seem to be too much of a problem. The Muslim community in the UK (as in Denmark) was not a terrorist problem. The growing problem here is amongst second/third generation Muslim immigrants who see it as a re-assertion of their cultural identity. There is a vacant space and religion loves to fill a vaccuum. I would argue that which religion is co-incidental. At other times and in other places it has been filled and fired hatred just as effectively by the other major religions.

Frankly I don't pretend to have answers. I have, in life, been better at spotting those who have the wrong answers. I think you are one of them.

In the end you have to either defeat your enemy, get a shared view or co-exist. Start with the last. Try very hard with the middle. And if there is no alternative and you can win (which is not easy as Iraq and Viet Nam should have reminded you) then maybe the latter. But the cost will always be terrible.

I don't think we have gone passed the point of no-return. Most people on both sides aren't convinced yet either. So I'm saddened at the blanket attacks on Muslims here.

Doesn't make me an apologist for Islam (or for Nazism in 1938). The best chance of defeating militant Islam may come from the rest of Islam. As I said earlier - why deliberately pi** them off?

50. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78832 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 3:23 am

Wow - Fair & balanced is having a fundamentalist christian as religion correspondent? Is the Fox chief crime reporter a psychotic murderer on death row? Personally I think we have more to fear from Murdoch control and manipulation of the media than any religious leader. Remember that James Bond movie inspired by him? About time for a remake:

'The Fox Delusion'