1. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204163 by Nova on July 4, 2008 at 9:04 am

j.mills:

Incidentally, Nova, many British Muslims were born here - probably most by now. They're as entitled as any other citizen to seek a change in the law, and since they generally AREN'T seeking that and represent only about 4% of the UK population anyway, it's not going to happen. Islam may present stuff to worry about, but this isn't it.

I understand some were born here, but in comparison to the native legal system and culture what they want enforced is still very young in this country, I wasn't so much referring to the people as the system they bring which is relatively new. Though it isn't true most Muslims were born here, only some were, quite a lot have come through immigration and if we keep going as we are then much more are to come that way - the number of British born Muslims is actually going down fast. In response to your reassurance they can't succeed because they comprise such a small amount of the population: 1. They have the support of many liberals on a campaign for they ideology of multiculturalism - I am usually a Guardian/Independent reader but it is true you generally have to pick up the usually odious Telegraph/Daily Mail to get the stories of Muslim Mischief. 2. They are very organized and within there communities there is no democracy so they can easily organize there point of view. As Richard Dawkins has pointed out so called "community leaders" speak on there behalf, he rhetorically asked who elected them.

2. Group Asks for Divine Intervention to Ease Oil Prices

Comment #204133 by Nova on July 4, 2008 at 8:14 am

Rocky Twyman:

We need the Saudis to release at least 1.2 [million] barrels of oil per day for about the next six months

Then perhaps you should be praying to Mecca.

3. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204129 by Nova on July 4, 2008 at 8:06 am

NO! This logic is upside down. If you don't like our countrie's laws then go away - we didn't force you to come here.

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

Comment #203129 by Nova on July 2, 2008 at 11:46 am

Paula Kirby

Until now the Anglican church (in the UK, at least) has been relatively harmless, precisely BECAUSE it has been so wishy-washy. But that could change if it starts getting religion ...

Though actually if the CofE did get more active and evangelical I think that would probably work to our benefit in the end. The CofE has only been able to keep its tentacles in our government and schools precisely because it was discreet. The majority of British people are nonreligious so if the CofE makes too much noise there will be an outcry against it.

5. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202606 by Nova on July 1, 2008 at 4:43 pm

I can't believe I'm going to be the first at expressing outrage at people actually suggesting Social Darwinism and Eugenics here. These concepts aren't the freedom to let evolution work naturally, normal modern human civilization pretty much stops evolution from doing that (but evolution working naturally is a brutal process we should stop anyway). It is actively implementing accelerated evolution. At its least bad, if you can't afford food or medical care, you starve and fester and people are somehow cataloged or pigeonholed based on their how genetically 'pure' they are and that determines much of how well off they'll be in life (if the Social Darwinists and Eugenicists think I'm attacking a straw man here, please say what you mean by Social Darwinism and Eugenics), at its worst people deemed genetically defective are sterilized.

Even if there was a way of objectively creating better humans (there isn't) imagine the suffering a program like this would cause often to people who need help the most. If it were possible to objectively improve the human race through evolution (it isn't) the improvements could only be tiny in comparison to the massive suffering they cause getting there. Finally, it fundamentally undermines democracy, the people determining who is more genetically 'pure' get huge unbalancing power since peoples status determines there control and there status would depend on there genetic 'pureness' as determined by a certain group of people. Some will of course complain that it could be a completely uncontrolled process wherein societies failures simply aren't helped, well that creates a similar antidemocratic effect - those that aren't successful never get the chance to be, without the basic amenities that are supplied to all equally they would never get the chance - it would perpetuate the current elite indefinitely. We are very close to being able to directly alter genes anyway to get rid of nasty genetic diseases.

I'm amazed people can be so heartless to condemn masses of needy people to a deprived life with the justification that a great new humanity is just around the corner, how can humanity be great with the wails of depravity of its 'impure' ancestors behind it?

6. It can be right to discriminate against the religious

Comment #202333 by Nova on July 1, 2008 at 10:14 am

In the instance where the BBC sent out nearly identical job applications the discrimination may have not been very racial or racial at all. It may have been cultural which can hinder working ability. It seems many liberals are too quick to label something as racial discrimination yet we see in settings where a racial minority is within the majority culture discrimination almost never occurs and the racial difference is ignored. The difference in race may inflame cultural differences, but I think in many instances of 'racial' discrimination it is really cultural. For example if that experiment was repeated and some of the applicants had Polish looking names and the others had Anglo-Saxon names as in the original experiment I bet you would see the same discrimination even though the Polish racial majority is white like the British one because the discrimination is based mainly on culture and not race.

7. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #201665 by Nova on June 30, 2008 at 2:43 am

dudenextdoor,

I absolutely agree, I think Dawkins is dispelling the strange notion that some religious people have that God is a simple, single phenomenon they're arguing for.

8. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201453 by Nova on June 29, 2008 at 4:55 pm

John C Wright:

If the modern scientific account of how planets form and life begins were correct, we have every reason to believe the night sky would be ringing with the radio signals of hundreds and thousands and millions of technologically advanced civilisations. So far, we have heard not one peep.

Bullshit. They would be far too far apart. It's amazing this person actually misses such a basic scientific point about vast space distances, the speed of light and the strength of signals.

He's also an idiot because he thinks that science fiction writers are seeding their stories with religion whereas all that is happening is he is reading religion into the stories!

9. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #201091 by Nova on June 29, 2008 at 2:27 am

Steve Zara:

That isn't the point. Once the assumptions are agreed, then real proofs are possible. This is quite unlike science, where one can never know if one has finally reached the truth.

Oh yes absolutely, but I mean that technically one can never be 100% sure of anything 'definite proof' - even those proofs.

10. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200705 by Nova on June 28, 2008 at 6:22 am

Steve Zara:

There are definite proofs of logical and mathematical statements.

Even these eventually rely on some assumptions.

11. Common New Atheist Fallacies

Comment #200689 by Nova on June 28, 2008 at 5:33 am

dudenextdoor:

It's not a definite proof there is no god

However the idea of "definite proof" for anything is an illusion. That's why we say 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and there is certainly proof beyond reasonable doubt that gods do not exist.

Dawkins The Ultimate Boeing 747 (the 6 point argument Greg Koukl refers to) is more than just the fact that the designer is unnecessary or that it creates an infinite regression - it points out god doesn't exist beyond reasonable doubt because her/his/its complexity makes her/him/it too improbable.

The Argument from Control/Measurement Mechanisms

Another argument I thought up is that nothing could ever be omnipotent or omniscient because in order to know about or control something you need something else to use to do this - you can't control or measure something with nothing (how would you distinguish when you control/know about it and when you don't?). Of course once you have established a mechanism to control/measure something that in turn has to be controlled and measured to be omnipotent and omniscient so you create a new mechanism and then that needs to be measured and so on in an infinite regress. Thus, philosophically nothing can ever be omnipotent and omniscient. People will says this is too materialist/reductionist but this is not a rebuttal - the control/measurement mechanism could be a nonphysical ghost or a psychic mind ray and the argument still applies!

12. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #199947 by Nova on June 26, 2008 at 2:26 pm

al-rawandi:

The Founding Fathers are smarter than any politician alive today, there is no doubt.

I care to understand the intent of a law, why it was written, the circumstances, the intent, etc... It is the biggest bunch of nonsense to talk about the "intent" of the framers, as the Constitution was a compromise of ideologies, not a direct and purposeful enterprise of singular ideology.

I think it is important to look at the prescient statements made by the founding fathers, my favorite is George Washington's "Passionate Attachment" speech. He had accurately predicted one of the most detrimental twists of policy to ever strike the United States, the Israel Lobby and the subservience of our foreign policy.

Furthermore, you should understand the debate that went into the creation of the Constitution. I think it more important for people to see what the Revolution was about, what the founding of America was about, and to choose to either re-affirm this or reject this. For me, I would like to re-affirm a commitment to personal liberty. It is always up for debate and the Constitution can be amended.

So it isn't so much a cult of hero worship but, at least for me, rather about certain convictions that are so relevant today, especially when you have fascists posing as men of the "people" lurking at every turn.

I am fine with admiring them which seems to be what your about, but they have become a political tool by which what they have said can win debates without justification, they have become mythical, and you like many Americans have to fallen victim to this. You couldn't possibly know that "The Founding Fathers are smarter than any politician alive today, there is no doubt." by what evidence, what measure of intelligence, wheres your survey of all founding fathers vs. all current politicians. This is the irrational devotion of the weaker kind comparable to religion, the patriotic override of rationality. You have no doubt "there is no doubt", but no evidence to support your statement (you would need many varieties of intelligence tests on many representative sample of founding fathers and current politicians, if you have that I will back down): you have faith.

Some people seem to think that what the founding fathers said was absolutely amazingly advanced, to you I say read other enlightenment writers, and take note it's mostly the prominent founding fathers you are referring to - the whole sample will be less flashy. There is wisdom and progression ahead of it's time in what some of the more prominent founding fathers said but nothing that hasn't been said many times since. It mostly strikes people as amazing because it seems ahead of it's time which gives the founding fathers alone the image of progressiveness, when really it is the whole enlightenment that is fueling that progressiveness in only the prominent founding fathers. As for George Washington's "Passionate Attachment" speech, he talked about how close reliance can become a liability, it may give the illusion of a super prediction of the Israel issue, but it's a common sentiment among many that have been said and taking into account that the US has been engaged in world affairs so much from the Spanish-American War onwards, it's likely that some common sentiments will match up with some predicaments out of chance, this is one.

13. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #199925 by Nova on June 26, 2008 at 2:00 pm

Lucas:

Nova - Who do you work for? In what delusional reality do you live in that pharmaceutical companies DON'T profit from deception and bribery? Generally, I'm very happy with all the wonderful drugs there are, but there are indeed quite a few that are harmful or useless or worse, and sold to over-medicated rubes who look for all their answers in pill form.

All companies occasionally go beneath the law, but mainstream drugs are regulated by the government and so always work to some degree. You must be ignorant of this process or your mind is twisted somehow to think the shadow lurkers somehow change this, then change everything else to hide the change (the conspiracy theorists personal reality loop). Even if you believe the latter, you are a moderate crazy conspiracy theorist and not as high as Szkeptik who thinks whole illnesses are invented and that goes completely unnoticed by the entire medical profession so nobody (except strangely her/him) knows about it (another conspiracy theorists personal reality loop). If you believe the former, you still a bit nutty to believe mainstream drug companies are pumping out useless mainstream drugs and there are no protests, if you believe that you must have a pretty low opinion of the scientific community. Especially the Who do you work for? bit (if that wasn't intended as a bad pun) is classic conspiracy theorist if you just add the shifty eyes and dimly lit room with newspapers pasted onto the walls - and then you call me the one living in a "delusional reality".

14. Stephen Hawking: ministers' £80m error puts science at risk

Comment #199917 by Nova on June 26, 2008 at 1:47 pm

mordacious1:

How many U.S. scientists in the UK? Sure seems a lot of them at american universities with british accents.

Or maybe you are just bumping into them a lot or imagining them: completely anecdotal!

mordacious1:

We do support stem cell research in CA.

As for CA, well you are recanting on your previous comment: "The U.S. will take all the scientists the UK has to offer." means all the US. In addition, CA is massively restricted in it's application of stem cell research because it cannot do it on federal government property even within it's own borders - that means most universities. In the article on this site that described CA's endorsement of stem cell research, it mentioned the restriction of CA not being able to use government property forces it to waste money on new facilities when perfectly fine ones are already available. There was a power cut and one of these facilities lost years of research: if they had done it in a university the backup generator would have spared it.

In conclusion, one state has a bound and expensive attempt at stem cell research endorsement, while the rest of the country is stagnant. The whole of the UK endorses stem cell research entirely.

15. Only a Theory

Comment #199906 by Nova on June 26, 2008 at 1:38 pm

phil rimmer:

I actually believe direct assaults on faith using reason are misguided, given that faith per se is unreasonable. Break the habit of acting on faith though (and replace it with the habit of acting on evidence so that full cooperation within society is possible) and its importance in the mind will wither...

My point is that any plan, including this one, requires organization to work. That's why Sam's approach wouldn't work.

16. 16% of US science teachers are creationists

Comment #199871 by Nova on June 26, 2008 at 12:54 pm

Christopher Davis

Nova,
I'd be willing to bet that people who tabulated the survey results based their percentages on the 939 responses, not the 2000 inquiries.

That's my point.

17. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #199855 by Nova on June 26, 2008 at 12:33 pm

AllanW:

And do you include the foetus in this 'knows about it' category? At what stage?

I said in my original post on this article that we need to discover that as accurately as possible and then use a low estimate to stay on the safe side.

Mitchell Gilks:

Nova, I also very much base my decision on on such matters on suffering, but yours seems knee-jerk and short sighted. How exactly are you reasoning that no matter the situation, the moment the fetus is capable of feeling pain the decision that would offset the most over all suffering is to allow the fetus to survive?

You may have more than suffering as a reason for this, but if you chock it up to purely suffering, then I don't see how such a position is even remotely tenable.

Stopping the contribution to happiness a whole life makes almost always outweighs the inconvenience on the mother and her surroundings. In the extremely rare cases it doesn't, it's a slippery slope argument - we shouldn't kill any sentient human life because that could be a slippery slope to kill more. Slippery slopes are the only way utilitarianism can encompass some absolutist tenets.

Mitchell Gilks:

If I didn't know any better, I'd assume you have feelings of the "sancty of life" and the "inherent value to human life" which are not rationally defendable positions.

Well then I guess it's good you know better ;)

Ty_Webb:

I don't think that decision has anything to do with society and it makes a whole lot of sense for the parents and their doctor to make this decision.

It's ridiculous to put into the hands of three people a decision which could end sentience. They will virtually always be completely unqualified to make the judgment.

18. God hates Mars

Comment #199388 by Nova on June 25, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Rob Hood:

research cancer (ethically, of course)

Because, of course, researching treatment for cancer is known to be an activity often practiced by villains...

19. Should We Rid The Mind of God? A Debate

Comment #199367 by Nova on June 25, 2008 at 3:31 pm

It was exactly what I expected. McGrath played the liberal/moderate Christian well. Obscuring the debate very often with irrelevant qualms so he could fake sophistry and sneak his points in without evidence. Atkins shredded all his nonsense but he just kicked up more dust with his irrelevant babble. The 'why question' trick is a classic and commonly used example of this. Another example of his obscuration was his pathetic talk about his feelings and him bringing up what other people have said when he could have just explained the point himself. I must admit I expected to see at least an attempted application of at least one of the tired and useless proofs of god but I think, consciously or subconsciously, McGrath knows they would be obliterated instantly and that obscuring what we know by rambling about the limits of science is perfect cover to insert his emotions as if they are actual evidence and is the only strategy left in a sophisticated debate.

I'm glad to say it still failed though, though no where near as much as it should have. I can quantify this objectively though not conclusively. The audience always gave a courtesy applause at the end of a long speech that either Atkins or McGrath made. Occasionally they gave a bonus if Atkins or McGrath made what they felt was a particularly poignant point. I counted about three or four for Atkins but only one for McGrath. The audience was in Atkins favour. Particularly interesting was that Atkins said he would probably lose the audience when he explained what he was going to explain and then he explained how so called 'why questions' weren't real questions - and he got an applause.

20. Should Strident British Atheist Richard Dawkins Dictate Education Policy to US States? Barbara Forrest Apparently Thinks So

Comment #197311 by Nova on June 21, 2008 at 5:24 pm

Antangil:

My US History is a bit hazy... but wasn't Louisiana purchased from the French by Jefferson? By my recollections, Louisiana was _never_ a British colony...

The Louisiana Purchase included the current state of Louisiana but was much bigger than that. It comprises around 23% of current US territory.

The idea that the US was a British colony is wrong in 2 ways. Firstly, 13 colonies seceded, it would be correct to say Virginia, Delaware or New Jersey were colonies of the Kingdom of Great Britain (not the current state of the British nation and the one commonly associated with the British Empire as explained in my second point) but the US was formed by former colonies after they seceded. Secondly, when we think of a British colony we think of one of the current state of Britain, all the traditional British colonies where British colonies in this way: Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and India however the thirteen states that seceded and then became the US were only colonies of the Kingdom of Great Britain, not the United Kingdom, it was a different State. The United Kingdom was formed on the first day of the 19th century.

21. Is the Universe Actually Made of Math?

Comment #196329 by Nova on June 19, 2008 at 4:46 pm

Adam Frank:

In his theory, the mathematical universe hypothesis

A hypothesis is speculation a theory is supported, get it right.

I didn't think this was controversial at all. It's not a new "hypothesis". Nothing has ever been presented which can't be represented at its most fundamental level as mathematics. More than that, nothing can even be proposed that can't be at its most fundamental level cut down to mathematics. The moment you think about any quality it has to be quantified. You could say some things are just 'smaller' and some just 'bigger' but then there might also be 'medium' things and you might as well just use '1', '2' and '3'.

22. Oystein Elgaroy - the Christian defender who became an Atheist

Comment #195055 by Nova on June 17, 2008 at 3:53 pm

Atheism sure is smashing ahead, while we get well known Christian personalities like this guy and Dan Barker, all the Christians have are people who sorta kinda didn't believe in God so they were atheists - well maybe agnostics or deists - well they didn't really think about it... but then they found Christ and were saved! The conversion examples they give are pathetic.

MarcLindenberg:

Man, McGrath's book was terrible... I read it expecting maybe some good arguments, but man it sucked.

That's the only way to put it. It sucked.

Really? You actually read it? The whole book?! Then your more resilient than me. I think just flicking through it singed my retinas and I've barely looked at it since.

23. Vatican bans Dan Brown film Angels & Demons from Rome churches

Comment #194935 by Nova on June 17, 2008 at 12:35 pm

I'm surprised the Times (admittedly specifically the journalist Richard Owen who wrote the article, but they have editors to check for individual bias) got so blatantly biased towards the end over such a trivial issue. Authors always make factual mistakes in their books and if you are out to find them of course you can collect a fair amount. That is true of any author who writes about real places, real organizations and real events.

24. Gay brains structured like those of the opposite sex

Comment #194903 by Nova on June 17, 2008 at 11:37 am

I'm interested to know how this relates to so called butch gays and fem gays and also lipstick lesbians and butch lesbians. Is it that the lipstick lesbians and butch gays have brain structures more similar to the brain structures of the straight version of the sex of their genitals?

On another note

Cartomancer, in your first post you said your identical twin brother is straight, normally identical twins that grow up together (and more remarkably, even those that don't) have very similar personalities, so this would be a big divergence from that and would point to a non-genetic origin of sexual orientation, though I guess that would be consistent with what the article says about the differences being forged in the womb or early infancy.

25. Only a Theory

Comment #193493 by Nova on June 15, 2008 at 5:35 pm

phil rimmer:

I've found Ken Miller very useful indeed. I see it as all part of Sam Harris's "going under the radar" strategy. We need to do it more. I often concede a deist God, for instance, just to get in close.

The problem I have with it is it fails to recognize that religion is not random falsehood which manifests in many areas which individuals or small groups can eliminate, it's a large scale phenomenon of poor thinking. There needs to be organization to stop it as a phenomenon - ironically my point is that we need THE END OF FAITH but as such a widespread phenomenon Sam's approach would be the worst way to try to make our way to what his book's title proclaims precisely because it would destroy the we altogether.

Without an organized rationalism movement there is no consensus or resource to research what has been reached through critical thinking and what has been accepted on tradition, if we did what Sam did and just disorganized and eliminated irrationality where we saw it we would quickly lose form and merge with everyone else with their own agendas, it would be impossible to tell who was a rationalist and who wasn't and this would be fine if there was only random falsehood around and almost everyone was trying to eliminate it, but the fact is is that there is organized falsehood and it is being actively propagated and adapts to methods to eliminate it, so we need organization to identify its status and coordinate moves against it.

LaTomate:

Ken Miller is a deist

No he isn't this is wishful thinking, that would be a colossal dissent from Catholicism. He may dissent with great difficulty from some of the Vatican's decrees but no Catholic can go completely against them because then by definition they are no longer Catholic. We must be aware he is only with us on one front because Catholicism is evil.

AoClay:

I hope he's a deist that just wants to go under the radar or something, but that's probably condescending

He could equally be an atheist under the radar and it is not at all condescending to wish someone was not infected with evil. Unfortunately, because I agree he's smart and a powerful advocate for evolution, it is wishful thinking as I said earlier.

26. Stephen Hawking: ministers' £80m error puts science at risk

Comment #193461 by Nova on June 15, 2008 at 4:22 pm

mordacious1:

The U.S. will take all the scientists the UK has to offer. You can keep the cretinist "scientists".

This is an odd statement to make since your losing scientists to us and other countries that aren't so infected with religion that they don't allow stem cell research on government property.

27. Trailer for Religulous

Comment #190803 by Nova on June 9, 2008 at 3:23 pm

Szkeptik:

Maher isn't against modern medicine. He's against the tens of thousands of marketed medications that are made by companies for income alone and the illnesses they are made to cure are often just made up.

In your attempt to defend him you just tarnished Maher even more! The view you just expressed, whether Maher holds it or not, is crazy, making medicines is very hard and there is often a fine line between a medicine and a poison so drug companies are regulated and your idea their medicines don't work because they're just for profit is absurd because of this.

Then somehow you believe that these companies have silenced or brainwashed the entire medical profession to get illnesses they made up to go unchallenged. You rank very high on the wacky conspiracy theorist meter.

28. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190706 by Nova on June 9, 2008 at 12:25 pm

FightingFalcon:

Perhaps it's because your country was founded upon such "stupid" principles that you can't look to it for inspiration.

The American Experiment was such a unique and far-sighted achievement that we Americans constantly look at our beginnings to see what type of model country we should be. America hasn't seen a group of such highly gifted and intelligent men as our Founding Fathers since 1789. It's only natural to look to them for inspiration given our current crop of "leaders"...

Yes, they were special (though not that special!, I'd challenge you to prove, other than with patriotic hubris, the statement "America hasn't seen a group of such highly gifted and intelligent men as our Founding Fathers since 1789") but shouldn't ideas be evaluated on there merits and not on what people years ago thought of them? Their world was so far from ours that surely it's silly to use their world view today simply because it was their world view. Though the Founding Fathers were special, it was only for their time and in our time their views aren't radical. I think it's fine to be in patriotic awe (within reason) but what reason is there to think their views are so important in shaping an America more than 200 years after they signed the Declaration of Independence?

Why is it important if America was established as a nation of Christianity? (Again, displaying the Founding Fathers as having had a unified idea of what America was going to be is very misleading, there were many Christian Founding Fathers, its silly to think that some of them didn't want it to be a Christian nation, at the same time, some obviously wanted it to be a nation of reason) It's silly to just defer all decisions on a nations policy to what it was founded on, if it was proven that America really was a Christian nation (just a thought experiment) would you really just accept that and say "OK! Fine, you win, establish a theocracy!".

It's nice to see them as heroes which they were and it's OK to believe in what they say BUT not just because they said it, which is what happens now.

Steven Mading:

On the debate about why people in the US care what the "founding fathers" said - Do you think it's relevant know the difference between what's legal today and what's illegal today? I think it is. So do the courts and the lawmakers, obviously. Well, to know what's legal and illegal you have to know what the constitution means, which DOES mean delving into the minds of the historical figures that put it together and voted on it.

A coherent legal code shouldn't require the reader to know the personal opinions of the people who wrote it.

29. John McCain: America a Christian nation, needs Christian president

Comment #190409 by Nova on June 9, 2008 at 3:44 am

I think it's silly Americans care so much about the views of the founders of there nation. My nation, the UK, was formed by a stupid union based on stupid monarchy in trying to reconcile the monarchs territories into one state, a completely stupid premise for founding a nation, but I think it's important what the UK's like now and I think Americans should stop worrying themselves about what the founding fathers thought, except in a purely historical sense and not in a political sense like it is often used. Rather than asking "what did the founding fathers create this nation to be like?" (as if they all agreed on that!) you should ask "what do we want the US to be like now".

30. Couple charged in Norway over genital mutilation of daughters

Comment #190405 by Nova on June 9, 2008 at 3:04 am

Goldy:

I think this has been beaten to death now. No, it is not a race, but what is your mental image of a Muslim? I dare say it is nothing like the face you see in the mirror every morning...

Yes, but the fact Islam has no face means there cannot be racism to Islam. It would have to be perhaps Arab racism or something (though only 20% of Muslims are Arabs). I think attributing any racist aspect to hate of Islam is a ridiculous lie, spread by the 'liberals' talked about earlier. There are all kinds of minority races in Europe, do people really believe that for no apparent reason it is only the ones that are Muslim that have a persecutions complex? Pretty big coincidence.

Culture and religion are attached to race, obscuring true racism. Often people just don't like a certain culture which is attached to a race and then it is instantly labeled (again by the 'liberals' mentioned earlier) racism. This is why multiculturalism is a sham, culture is unity, nothing else unifies society, there can be unique subsets of culture, but ultimately there must be connection.

31. The day of judgment

Comment #189584 by Nova on June 6, 2008 at 2:56 pm

the United States, responsible for more than four-fifths of the world's scientific research

I don't believe that, firstly, it would be very hard to prove objectively and secondly a statement sounding as absurd as that would need very heavy evidence. The EU has an economy larger than the US economy in GDP (nominal) according the World Bank (for 2006) and the International Monetary Fund (for 2007) (the CIA says the US is bigger in that measure for 2007, funny the odd one out is the US own secret service) and all three organizations say the EU economy is bigger than the US economy in GDP (PPP) (World Bank for 2006, the other 2 for 2007), so even if for some strange reason every other country in the world was only putting a tiny fraction of their economy toward scientific research they would still muster more than a fifth.

32. Darwin still causing waves after 150 years

Comment #188830 by Nova on June 4, 2008 at 5:49 pm

EvidenceOnly:

They believe that they are made by God in his/her/its image but refuse to make use of this God-given ability to think critically.

Since they also believe that everything exists for a purpose, they should accept that their critical thinking has a purpose as well.

Don't you know? Thinking critically isn't God given it's the work of the devil - why do you think the tree Eve took the fruit from was called the Tree of Knowledge?

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

Comment #188396 by Nova on June 4, 2008 at 3:33 am

Timothy B. Lee:

(The film greatly exaggerates the persecution of intelligent design advocates)

It would have been better not to express an opinion at all on the validity of Expelled's persecution claims than to express this one. It seems anti-Expelled but the trouble is that it agrees that there was some persecution because in order for something to be exaggerated that thing has to exist in the first place, even if in small amounts. There was no persecution of IDiots. It was all faked. That's one of the travesties.

34. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #188385 by Nova on June 4, 2008 at 3:12 am

NakedCelt:

I mean there are no such people. I mean there is no conspiracy and no infestation. I mean the fact is that the general climate of opinion is more liberal than your own, and the tone of BBC reports simply reflects that. Build a bridge and get over it.

There is no 'general climate' - views organize into groups and there is a liberal group. You obviously didn't read my last post properly because I said "I'm not referring to some kind of organized campaign that has specific motives" so it's simply misrepresentation for you to say "there is no conspiracy" to me as if I think there is but that doesn't mean groups of people don't group together and dominate certain parts of culture and media. You can see from the BBC's style it is infested. "general climate of opinion is more liberal than your own" its the distortion of facts and the misrepresentation of event I can't stand, liberalism as an ideology has good points but I think it gets corrupted often. "Build a bridge and get over it" is simply a crude ad hominem which you just made up. I am just sad to see society being tricked. I have nothing to get over you made that up.

35. Character Attacks: How to Properly Apply the Ad Hominem

Comment #188276 by Nova on June 3, 2008 at 3:52 pm

Nice to know that in 208 years of US history political views and language haven't changed that much.

Unfortunately, they have gone backward. Nowadays it is inconceivable that a non-religious person could become president (deism is the only kind of non-religious theism (the motto of the World Union of Deists is "God Gave Us Reason, Not Religion") and was virtually the only kind before Darwin, for obvious reasons).

36. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #187407 by Nova on June 2, 2008 at 5:34 am

AllanW:

Oh dear, Nova.

Your whole rant is predicated upon the word 'suffer'; please define it.

I assumed that would be self evident - basically someone suffers if something he/she doesn't want to happen happens and he/she knows about it.

37. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #187403 by Nova on June 2, 2008 at 5:24 am

NakedCelt:

So? It's still wrong.

What do you mean it's wrong? Thats the people the term has come to represent.

NakedCelt:

Given how very vague you've been about who these people actually are, that's an amazingly specific statement to make about their motives and beliefs. I note again the word "infested".

I'm not referring to some kind of organized campaign that has specific motives, just a subculture that generally holds the same views and imposes them and, yes, infests the BBC.

38. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #187054 by Nova on June 1, 2008 at 8:27 am

NakedCelt, I was simply using liberal to represent what it typically refers to today in Britain, I didn't lump them together they are lumped together in normal discourse.

NakedCelt:

I am speaking from my first-hand knowledge of New Zealand and Australian discourse. I'm telling you, this is how racists talk in this part of the world. Note, for instance, that the woman quoted said "We are Aussies, OK", not "We are Christians, OK" or "We are secularists, OK".

So you are subjectively judging they are racist by the way they talk yet you cannot quote them saying anything actually objectively racist. I agree that perhaps some of them are racists, but no racist points were brought up so this is still not a racist issue, the BBC is infested with liberals who slipped that in to heighten the profile of Muslims due to a very misguided distortion of multiculturalism.

I mean liberals like Madeline Bunting who despite calling RDs The Root of All Evil? unworthy of a great scientist still looked ridiculous in a debate with him when she claimed to be Catholic yet when Dawkins asked her if Jesus had a biological father or not - a simple question - she actually refused to answer it saying it wasn't that simple, these kinds of people are often called liberals and this is the mindset I am referring to.

People who will distort and obscure the truth to any length in order to let any oddity be accepted in society to the extent that whether a particular historical figure had a biological father becomes a paradox of the universe. There 'anything goes' and 'odd viewpoints enrich us' philosophy is nice in principle but is taken to ridiculous extremes.

39. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #186869 by Nova on May 31, 2008 at 2:08 pm

NakedCelt the only part of your post that actually had anything to do with race was "Can I just say this without being racist or political?" which was someone renouncing that it was racist! You too are seeing a racist issue where there is none. You also ask me to look up the word liberal, telling me what it means which shows you have not looked at my post closely because I say at the beginning I use the term very loosely.

40. Religion is a product of evolution, software suggests

Comment #186571 by Nova on May 30, 2008 at 4:49 pm

religion only takes hold if non-believers help believers out â€" perhaps because they are impressed by their devotion

Many agnostics cede ridiculously to religion in the name of 'respect'.

41. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #186570 by Nova on May 30, 2008 at 4:39 pm

Note: I use 'liberal' and 'liberals' very loosely but this term is generally used to refer to the group I'm referring to.

It's the massive infestation of liberals in the BBC which makes it keep using the absolutely infuriating lie of 'race' in this article. WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH RACE? Nothing. It has just become the common defense of Muslim defending liberals who support a crazy distorted multiculturalism whatever the cost (democracy, freedom of speech) to equate any dispute involving Muslims with a racial issue. Its an amazing travesty that issues which are purely religious can have 'race' slapped onto them to make it sound higher profile.

Whenever you criticize Islam your called a racist, its the sheer unthinking state of the people who use the term that astonishes me and the power of the freedom hating liberals who manipulate it to their advantage - they even popped xenophobia in there once to raise the profile to something it has nothing to do with even more. It greatly infuriates me that the liberal media has transformed Islam into a nationality and a race to inflate its profile when it is criticized and they just get away with it and no one notices.

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

Comment #183713 by Nova on May 22, 2008 at 3:08 pm

This article shows how ridiculous the claims of the Shroud of Turing are.

The amazing thing about the whole incidence for me is how religion makes an obvious forgery into a 'controversy' - if this were not religious everyone would have denounced it as the obvious forgery it was straight after it was analyzed and this is yet more evidence of the need to eradicate religion.

43. MPs reject calls to cut abortion limit

Comment #183698 by Nova on May 22, 2008 at 2:21 pm

Dawn Primarolo, the health minister said:

The upper limit was set by parliament in 1990 at 24 weeks because scientific evidence at the time was that the threshold of viability had increased.

It has always been linked to the potential viability of the foetus outside of the womb. That was the case in 1967. It was the case in 1990 and certainly the case now.

I'm pro-choice but this is a terrible way to base when abortions can happen - people who use it show themselves to be shallow thinkers. What bearing does it have on the basis of morality whether it can survive outside the womb or not? We're trying to stop suffering, well whether it can survive outside the womb is physiological and has nothing to do with whether it can suffer.

We need to discover as accurately as we can when it developers the ability to suffer and once it has developed that ability abortion should be illegal, before that it should be absolutely fine with not consultation or reason because nothing suffers, it is especially silly and telling of the shallow thinking of those who made the law that there are so many requirements for abortion, if the fetus can't suffer, why not it be an easy decision? If it can, it should be illegal, there is no basis to have some sort of middle ground where its hard to get an abortion but possible because something can't half suffer.

Christine McCafferty, the Labour MP for Calder Valley said:

Abortion should be a private decision between the patient and her doctor, just like any other medical treatment.

Why is it so difficult for societies, even one like ours, to give the power to decide to those who carry the consequences?

I only use pro-choice because it is what the pro-abortion block uses. It has nothing to do with choice, and my views on abortion don't need to employ a ridiculous freewheeling amount of choice given to the parents. In particular:

to give the power to decide to those who carry the consequences?

This is bogus because if parents abort a fetus capable of suffering then they aren't the only ones who carry the consequences.

It should all revolve around when it can suffer, better to pick out and eliminate the bogus pro-choice idea that the basis of the legal abortion limit should be based around if the fetus can survive outside the womb and the pro-choice argument from womens freedom and then to use the valid utilitarian argument that abortion should be fine and easy when the fetus can't suffer and that it should be illegal beyond that (as far as we can know when it gains the ability to suffer - in the case of uncertainty we should always go below the lowest estimate to stay on the safe side).

44. In God's Name

Comment #183655 by Nova on May 22, 2008 at 12:26 pm

AdrianB:

The possibility that these people are seeking political power needs to be as scary to the moderate theists as it is to us

Moderate theists are very inactive about all these issues. Moderate theists are always the first to yell "thats not my religion!" when we criticize religion but the last to tell the actual fundamental theists that what they are doing is wrong, it is always the atheists in the front line fighting the fundamentalists.

The reason is that, deep down, they know they wouldn't have a leg to stand on - they have seen the passages in their holy books the fundamentalists use to justify their beliefs. They know that their beliefs are based equally on faith as the fundamentalists and that it would undermine their enterprise to criticize fundamentalists. You'll never see a moderate/liberal theist preaching that fundamentalism is wrong from the pulpit. This is why all religion needs to be eradicated.

45. 16% of US science teachers are creationists

Comment #183595 by Nova on May 22, 2008 at 10:19 am

Bob Holmes:

The researchers polled a random sample of nearly 2000 high-school science teachers across the US in 2007. Of the 939 who responded

Not technically a fair survey. It could be biased by the fact that people of a certain view respond more often - so, for example, it might be that only 8% of biology teachers would turn out to be YECs if the other roughly 1000 that didn't respond all accepted evolution, it could be that YEC biology teachers jump at the chance to slap their wacky beliefs onto a poll but that many of the evolution accepting ones think of it with more apathy and can't be bothered to respond.

A situation like this could easily be happening and the fact that about half amount of those polled didn't respond would have definitely biased the results in some way.

46. Non-religious summer camps develop niche

Comment #183079 by Nova on May 21, 2008 at 11:02 am

DjSouthPaw:

i do indeed think God's existence is equal in probability to fairies ( less then 1% chance )

but i will not go so far as to say that it fits in to the same technical agnosticism i apply when i think my dinner table is made of wood, and that it's solid.. thats taking it to far in my opinion

Why is the knowledge that your table is made of wood more certain than that god doesn't exist? It would be a complicated situation for somehow your dinner table not to be made of wood when it looks like it is but by using incredible odds you could think of one. God is a very complicated idea but by using incredible odds you could think of a way god exists.

However, since we can't calculate the probabilities I don't see how you can put the idea that your dinner table is made of wood as more certain than that god doesn't exist. What if the trees that were used to make that table where the result of loads of sudden mutations in an explosion of improbability and this caused them to be made of a substance which looks and feels like wood but in some other ways isn't wood. What I wonder is how you can says that this improbability is less likely than the equally complex amount of parameters that need to be fulfilled to create god, he is smarter than humans and has loads of amazing abilities, so it would be way less likely than a human body assembling by chance.

Even if you maintain that we can be more certain of a table being wood than god not existing, surely both are sufficiently incredibly improbably enough that we can treat them as facts? If god is taken as too likely so that we can't treat his nonexistence as a fact then there are a multitude of other ridiculous things that we cannot say don't exist. I wouldn't advocate teaching atheism as a fact without any explanation like a dogma but teaching it as a fact and showing the reasons why.

47. Non-religious summer camps develop niche

Comment #182570 by Nova on May 20, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Epinephrine:

Atheism/agnosticism. This is a bit of a line-drawing fallacy, unless you feel that atheists are those who claim with certainty that there is no god, in which case anyone with a rational approach is at most agnostic. You can't rationally claim that there is no god, so you are either an extreme agnostic or irrational. The label "atheist" is of little use if you only use it to denote certainty in the non-existence of deities. If instead you use it to define those people who don't believe in a god, then it does come down to a question of belief. I don't believe in a god, but I can't be certain of the non-existence of god, so I am both atheist and extremely agnostic.

So in practise we are all agnostics but there is a difference between practising agnostics give a sizable chunk to the 'god exists' idea, they do give more credance to gods existence than fairies, we are atheists because we equate gods existence to fairies - that is the practical line and there are many people on both sides to show it is not simply a "line-drawing fallacy".

DjSouthPaw:

well Nova, it's about being technically agnostic. the likely-hood of God being reduced to that of russel's teapot or fairies

technical agnosticism to avoid being hypocritical when calling theists deluded for claiming certainties about god and god,s will

that doesn't make you Agnostic on the fence sitting

Epinephrine:

Right - so you teach facts, you teach reasoning, and when (inevitably) they ask for your opinion, you explain what your opinion is, and why you hold it. If your 5 year old is like mine, she'll ask something like, "but you can't be sure, can you?" And I said, "no, I can't be sure."

And that's your choice - you either explain your reasons and opinion, and allow her to make her own, or you choose to present opinion as fact, something I can't agree with. Obviously, we continued to discuss it, and I imagine it'll come up again.

Technically we can't be sure of anything. There is a tiny chance that everything are senses are telling us is wrong. Does this mean we shouldn't teach anything? No because the chance is too tiny. What if there was a majority belief that a monster would appear on earth tomorrow if we don't sacrifice half the worlds food every day? We can't prove this monster doesn't exist but this doesn't mean we shouldn't teach people it doesn't and the same goes for god. If people had a widespread belief in fairies, then would it really be right to feel squeamish in pointing out the fallacies just because we can't prove they don't exist?

Unless, of course, you give far more chance to god than fairies or destructive monsters that can appear out of nowhere, in which case you are a practical agnostic. We are all technically agnostics - its just some are practically atheists, seeing god as no more likely as fairies. I think opinion is something you are unsure of but still have conviction in - the existence of god is so unlikely that to treat it as opinion that he doesn't exist is absurd. I would obviously always protect the rights of theists to hold their beliefs as I would protect the right of flat earth believers to hold their beliefs though. I just think that as evolution and round earth should be taught as fact so should atheism.

48. Non-religious summer camps develop niche

Comment #182539 by Nova on May 20, 2008 at 11:50 am

Epinephrine:

What I won't do is teach her that there is no god.

I only teach her truths, not what I believe.

Yes, I have heard many atheists espouse this view but I don't understand it. There is no reason not to teach what the facts tell us and surely you are an atheist because you observe the facts pointing towards atheism, then, in what way, is teaching atheism different to teaching anything else? Unless your belief in atheism is not fact based - the only other alternative I can think of is faith. Surely, if you are not sure enough of atheism to teach it that makes you an agnostic.

49. Geeks and Guinness: the formula for sexy science

Comment #182523 by Nova on May 20, 2008 at 10:39 am

Lucy McDonald:

physics A-level has dropped by more than a third from 43,416 in 1991 to 28,119

I'm annoyed by this piece of reporting because it is nearly useless without accompanying information on the state of biology and chemistry - it could be that many who would have taken physics have instead taken chemistry and that science as a whole hasn't suffered as much, or maybe only physics is suffering and the rest of science isn't - maybe not but we can't know without the full facts.

50. Richard Dawkins Interview on TVOntario

Comment #181891 by Nova on May 18, 2008 at 3:47 pm

BW022:

Canada would appear as progressive on non-belief as most European countries. Certainly ahead of Ireland, Spain, Italy, etc. Likely something close to Britian, France, etc.

Statistically it is in between America and Britain/France - as Richard said in this interview.

phil rimmer:

Sabastien and BW are right about Canada. It is a glorious piece of Europe set in fabulous American countryside. My first visit there last December was a delight. Cultured, intelligent, quietly self-confident, they took to my unarguable talents straight away. Such good taste!

Well historically this lines up - it was a British possession until 1931 so it would have more British and thus European aspects to it.