1. Sir John M. Templeton, Philanthropist, Dies at 95

Comment #206759 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 6:48 pm

Comment #206755 by Brian English

No, that makes perfect sense. You can criticize their actions if you disagreed with them, but don't make it personal. There is a line between honesty and gloating bad taste, I think.

2. Sir John M. Templeton, Philanthropist, Dies at 95

Comment #206753 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 6:29 pm

mordacious1 wrote:

One cannot RIP. One rots, or goes up in a puff of smoke....whatever. To say RIP implies that one may not RIP, and what does that mean?

Well, I was speaking metaphorically, the way an atheist might say "(God) Bless you" out of habit to somebody sneezing, or the way I keep saying "in sha' Allah" when mentioning a future event (despite my best attempts to stop!).

I don't want to sound like a self-righteous prig (too late!), but I've never liked rejoicing at somebody's death, even if he/she honestly deserved it and the world is better off without him/her. I was downright nauseated at a lot of the remarks made after Jerry Falwell's death, for instance, even if I didn't think much of the guy. Even in the case of Saddam Hussein -- who deserved it more than almost anybody -- I was still uneasy at the celebration.

That said, I can understand why people might have not-so-nice thoughts about people who have died, and I don't really want to be the kind of person who whines at everybody else to shut up because it offends my sensibilities. Speaking of which...

Tyler Durden wrote:

To paraphrase Hitch:

"You should speak only good of the dead. Sir John Templeton is dead. Good."

I can hear Hitch saying now, "Pardon me for saying so, but fuck your oh-so-tender sensibilities." And he'd be perfectly entitled to say so! ;-)

Anyway, even "P Zed" didn't speak ill of the dead...though he did remark that Templeton's son is apparently more into evangelical Christianity (ugh).

3. Sir John M. Templeton, Philanthropist, Dies at 95

Comment #206349 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 9:46 am

I know that Dawkins and many other scientists strongly disapproved, to put it mildly, of Templeton's aims and the works of his foundation (like the Templeton Prize and the Templeton-Cambridge Journalism Fellowships in Science and Religion, to take two examples), but I don't think it's appropriate to "dump" on the dead (your mileage may vary). So RIP Sir John.

4. Degrees of religion

Comment #206214 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 7:14 am

Damien Trotter wrote:

Before I became diabetic, one meal a day - at night - was my modus operandi for years. It's easy.

Well, it's easy once you're used to it (which would take me a few days). Doing without food all day wasn't THAT hard. But what really made it difficult for me was the "no liquids" -- in a desert, with 95-degree temperatures (fortunately, Ramadan is only now starting to shift over to summertime...). Yikes!

5. Degrees of religion

Comment #206040 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 3:37 am

Damien Trotter wrote:

Nope, she only 'fasts' during the daylight hours of Ramadan. A quite pathetic badge of honour to be parading around.

Yeah, well, don't denigrate it until you've actually done (or attempted) it! It's not very easy, especially the "no liquids" bit! ;-)

I have to say I kind of identify with the author; I might have written something similar not so long ago.

mixmastergaz wrote:

What I find frustrating about this article is the lack of intellectual integrity. The author seems to know perfectly well that her faith is untenable, that she is leading a double life and is guilty of self-confessed hypocrisy. Yet she insists that she must tolerate this in herself and in others, indeed she prescribes this as some sort of panacea for the world's problems.

A better description of my state of mind at the time could not have been written, with special emphasis on the bolded part!

Still, I wouldn't be too hard on her. Giving up one's faith can be a very difficult and scary thing, especially in an Islamic context.

6. Conversation between Richard Dawkins and John Lennox

Comment #206020 by Layla Nasreddin on July 8, 2008 at 3:13 am

I have to say that my favorite bit was at the end, where the announcer mentions that the Christian Fixed Point Foundation is a tax-deductible organization.

Minor point: if Genesis was written by a scribe during the Babylonian exile, it wouldn't have been written circa 800 BCE (as Dawkins suggests at one point) but more like 550 BCE, which is when most modern scholars say it probably began to be written, or rather put together. (See, the more biblical scholarship you know, the more effectively you can demolish Judeo-Christian claims based on the Bible!)

Lennox goes on about how the creation account in Genesis is so much different than ancient myths; I guess he hasn't read about the much-documented and extensive similarities between Genesis and the Enuma elish, the Babylonian creation epic. It's just been "de-paganized" for a monotheistic audience. And if he wants to use Genesis to back up an ex nihilo view of creation, as he seems to suggest by mentioning the Big Bang, he'll have to explain the "waters" in Genesis 1:2 ("and the spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters") before creation even started, the primeval waters being another element taken from Babylonian creation mythology.

I could go on in this vein, but why?

7. Teaching Evolution in Mexico: Preaching to the Choir

Comment #205725 by Layla Nasreddin on July 7, 2008 at 6:18 pm

decius wrote:

I can tell you, though, that catholic bigotry is second to none, even if they emphasise the new over the old testament.

I can't disagree, really -- well, except for Islamic bigotry; I've suspected for a long time that Islam stole shamelessly from the established churches, Catholic and Orthodox, of the time...

I found the article interesting because I live right next to Mexico and there's a lot of "bleed-over" in terms of culture, with a very, very pronounced Latin Catholic flavor.

It seems that, even if you're raised (or "indoctrinated") Catholic, you don't really get the full "impact" of Catholicism unless you're living in a Catholic country. The influence of the Church in such a country is almost stifling, even in a secularized nation like France, which I've seen firsthand! (Not to say that Catholicism isn't guilt-inducing or stultifying or flat-out abusive to anybody who happens to have been brought up in it, just that it seems the impact is much worse if the entire cultural milieu is also Catholic.)

Now, although Catholics are the largest single religious group in the United States, that doesn't change the fact that it's 75% not Catholic, it was founded by (at least nominal) Protestants operating within a Protestant frame of reference regarding religion, etc. If you're a Catholic in the UK, your religion is tempered by the fact that the country is (at least nominally) overwhelmingly Protestant and has a Protestant state church. Compare the UK to Ireland (well, less so now, but the Church is still very powerful there even if fewer people believe in it).

By contrast, Mexico is a very Catholic country, even atheists can't entirely escape the influence of the church (they're "Catholic atheists" after all that indoctrination and cultural influence), and all that sort of thing. It's worth noting that the most extreme anti-clerical movements seem to start up in Catholic (or Orthodox) countries, though hardly surprising!

About Dawkins's comment -- it was such a throw-away comment I'll probably not find it again unless I happen to stumble over it. One little aside: Dawkins says in Root of All Evil? concerning the Assumption of Mary: "Of course there is no evidence for this. Even the Bible says nothing about how Mary died." So? In the Catholic Church, the Bible is very much secondary (or even tertiary) to the Sacred Tradition and Infallible Papal Authority, don't you know? Obviously that's the kind of objection a Protestant (or ex-Protestant) would make! ;-)

8. Teaching Evolution in Mexico: Preaching to the Choir

Comment #205574 by Layla Nasreddin on July 7, 2008 at 1:13 pm

Hmm. I'm reminded of a throwaway remark Dawkins made once (can't quite remember where), "Catholics don't know the Bible." Which is not wrong, really, though there are always exceptions. I have heard it said that the Catholic Church claims to be based on "the Bible and Tradition" -- much like how Islam is supposed to be based on the Qur'an and sunnah (tradition). In both cases, it's the latter that provides most of the actual rules. The Catholic de-emphasis on the Bible can be an advantage -- less fundie literalism, though of course this means that most believers haven't the slightest idea of what's actually in their holy book!

9. Harper says new mosque shows 'the true and benevolent face of Islam'

Comment #205218 by Layla Nasreddin on July 6, 2008 at 9:01 pm

The mosque is called 'Baitun Nur' which means "peace and blessings of Allah be upon him."

Uh, no. It means "House of Light." *cries*

I have some sympathy for the Ahmadiyya because they're treated like absolute heathens by other Muslims; still, that doesn't mean I think their beliefs are any more "reasonable" than other Muslims'.

10. Decades Later, Still Asking: Would I Pull That Switch?

Comment #204747 by Layla Nasreddin on July 5, 2008 at 4:51 pm

"Please continue."
"The experiment requires you to continue."
"It is absolutely essential that you continue."
"You have no other choice but to continue."

I recall reading about this experiment when I was about 15 or 16, and it really made an impression on me. I thought, well, I'd LIKE to think I wouldn't continue, but in truth I'd probably be far too much of a cowardly wimp and would follow their instructions (above). Which depressed the hell out of me, I can tell you that! :-(

On the other hand, thinking about it now, I might (or might not) have just pulled some manipulative stunt like bursting into tears or running around screaming, anything to get away, as opposed to simply refusing to do it. Of course, all of this would be a moot point since I already know what the experiment is (and so wouldn't be much of a subject), but still.

11. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204167 by Layla Nasreddin on July 4, 2008 at 9:11 am

Oh, and one more point: shari'ah law as defined by WHOM? Saudi clerics? Pakistani mullahs? Iraqi ayatollahs? Liberal reformers? Shari'ah law isn't just one, immutable "thing," contrary to what a lot of people (including Muslim clerics) think. You have to decide what kind of law, and the interpretation of that law varies -- just read the numerous contradictory fatwas from muftis on any number of subjects! And who decides? Probably the (unelected) male leaders of the community...

12. Sharia law 'could have UK role'

Comment #204149 by Layla Nasreddin on July 4, 2008 at 8:38 am

It's that supposedly "voluntary" bit that concerns me. What's to prevent the cleric to declare that any women who fail to submit to shari'ah arbitration are "not good Muslims" or something? Imagine the pressure from families and the community to conform!

Oh, and "Inayat Bunglawala from the Muslim Council of Britain told BBC News that sharia law applied only to civil matters". ONLY civil matters...I believe a lot of Muslim women might take exception! There's a reason why some of the biggest opponents of shari'ah tribunals (which would "only" affect "civil matters") in Canada were Muslim women!

13. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #202115 by Layla Nasreddin on June 30, 2008 at 10:27 pm

Want to know what the religious think?

Everybody's a f**king victim, no? (Pardon the language.) I see this all the time. "Waaah, they're picking on me! They have NO RESPECT for me or my beliefs!" "I am victim, hear me bleat!" It's SO boring.

I recall an article about the infamous Abdul Rahman apostasy case in Afghanistan and the whole "death to apostates" rule. There was a long response from a Muslim convert woman (not me!) about how we should look at hard it was to be a convert to Islam in the West, where people look at you funny and give you a hard time, especially if you're a woman wearing the hijab. "Waaah, I'm a victim! Feel sorry for me!" Fortunately, nobody was buying it, and even I wanted to barf; there's a big difference between being ostracized by your family (bad enough, granted) and being put under SENTENCE OF DEATH by the authorities for changing your religion. Too many of these people have no concept whatsoever of true suffering and repression.

If you read a lot of religious blog or sites, you won't have to scroll far before seeing endless comments about how "hard" it is to be religious today (yes, in America), how the mean secularist bullies won't just leave them alone and insist on shoving their unbelief in their faces, and all this crap. Yes, I know it can be difficult to live up to your faith these days, I admit it. I want to "understand," really I do, but you can only take so much of this whingeing before rolling your eyes and saying, "Get over it! This whining is undignified and pathetic, and makes you look like a five-year-old! The fact that the US government is not going to pay for vouchers for your parochial school or enact your religion's moral precepts into law does NOT mean that 'true Christians' such as yourself are destined to be forced back into the catacombs before long!"

End of rant...sorry.

14. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #202101 by Layla Nasreddin on June 30, 2008 at 9:13 pm

I'm under the impression that the present "boom" in faith schools is the fault of Mr Tony Blair, who did so much to encourage them (using tax money, of course).

The idea of public (i.e. secular state) schools having an "act of collective worship" and that RE (religious education) is a REQUIRED subject is so totally foreign to me! Here in America, the only references to religion in the curriculum that I can remember were a few glancing references in history -- oops, "social studies" -- texts, which were quickly passed over without too much comment. (Admittedly, the schools I had the misfortune to attend were utter failures when it came to actually educating students in anything but sports, maybe, but never mind.) We don't want offend anybody, you know, or be seen as "promoting" a religion by spending extended amounts of time on it!

15. Help protest against misguided report on UK faith schools

Comment #202090 by Layla Nasreddin on June 30, 2008 at 8:58 pm

Why do you Brits put up with this "faith schools" garbage, anyway? (Not that we Americans are any better, though at least we don't have tax-funded parochial schools--if you want your kid to go to one, you can damn well pay for it yourself!)

16. CFI-UN Hamid Karzai Letter

Comment #202088 by Layla Nasreddin on June 30, 2008 at 8:51 pm

Sigh...I imagine if I were still a believer I'd want to dash off a letter to somebody about how "this is not real Islam" and "these people are defaming Islam" and even maybe "Islam is the victim here!" Well, no, I take that back...I would never have written the latter, because as far as I was always concerned, a religion can never be a "victim"!

I really don't know what anybody could do. Perhaps, as in the infamous Abdul Rahman case, the international pressure might just turn out to be too much and somebody will find a loophole, or allow him to leave the country, or something. On the other hand, no doubt it's the memory of the international condemnation that led that cleric to say "the government should enforce the decision before it [comes] under more pressure from foreigners." Ugh! Keep the heat on, I guess... :-(

17. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #201653 by Layla Nasreddin on June 30, 2008 at 2:04 am

HourglassMemory wrote:

I'm sorry, but am I the only one who laughed to tears when the bit from the series came up, where he reads the messages?

Well, the audience was having a good laugh (and so was I), so I guess the answer to that question is NO!

I bet Richard is too intelligent to let these messages affect him anyway.

I'm afraid that intelligence has nothing to do with whether things like that affect you! A lot of very intelligent people, along with artists, are in fact quite sensitive and sometimes do not take ridicule or pointed criticism very well. (Yes, I've been reading psychology articles...)

But showing just how ridiculous and laughable this kind of hate mail is by the mere act of letting others see/hear it would be one way to diffuse any tension. Laughter is, after all, the best medicine! (Not that I have any idea how such things might affect Dawkins or not, I hasten to add!)

18. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201508 by Layla Nasreddin on June 29, 2008 at 6:50 pm

I did some searching and realized it was the short story "The Man" by Ray Bradbury. Kind of a stupid story, really, with far too much half-assed theological baggage, but I guess it made enough of an impression on me to remember it!

19. Aliens need Christ's redemption, too

Comment #201364 by Layla Nasreddin on June 29, 2008 at 3:45 pm

I recall reading a sci-fi story once where humans were visiting some alien planet and came across some of the inhabitants talking about this miracle worker they'd met. I think you were supposed to infer that this was, in fact, Jesus Christ, sent to the inhabitants of this particular planet in a form they could identify with.

It was a while ago, though, and I can't remember anything else about it, just that it kinda-sorta made sense if you accepted the Christian viewpoint of "intelligent beings needing to be saved." Obviously, aliens wouldn't really be able to identify with a human Jesus, so why wouldn't an all-powerful trinitarian deity send his son to alien worlds in alien form? (Note that I said "if" you accepted the Christian worldview...) Has anybody else heard of that story?

20. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #201337 by Layla Nasreddin on June 29, 2008 at 3:27 pm

mordacious1 wrote:

So, protestants don't believe in the immaculate conception? Didn't know that. How could jesus be the son of god then?

Ugh, what does it mean that even I know what the Immaculate Conception means, when even some teachers in Catholic schools don't?!? (Christopher Hitchens loves to taunt his Catholic opponents with the fact that he, the hardcore atheist, knows what this is and they don't!)

Immaculate Conception = infallible Catholic doctrine promulgated in 1854 that Mary was conceived without sin BUT by natural, human means (i.e., by sexual intercourse)

Conception of Jesus without a human father = The doctrine of the Virgin Birth (Muslims believe this too, but hold that Jesus was emphatically NOT the Son of God, merely a prophet)

21. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #201177 by Layla Nasreddin on June 29, 2008 at 11:11 am

Fine, I'll shut up, then! This stuff is all grossly off-topic, anyway.

22. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #201174 by Layla Nasreddin on June 29, 2008 at 10:50 am

Memorizing in a language you don't understand makes less sense to me unless you are going to use it to helo you learn the language. I remember asking one of my great aunts who was ultra orthodox and didn't understand Hebrew how she could pray without understanding what she was saying. I don't remember her answer so I'm assuming it was gibberish.

Well, I myself memorized a bunch of stuff in Arabic, since, as you probably know, all Muslims are supposed to do the five daily prayers in Arabic. What I did was write the stuff down on a card and kept reciting it five times a day until it finally became burned onto my brain. At first I didn't understand a word, and didn't really have the opportunity to take an Arabic class (though I wanted to), but after spending a LOT of time listening to/reciting the Qur'an in Arabic (with the translation on the other page), I learned quite a bit by osmosis so it was no longer merely meaningless words. And what do you know--I found out just how close it is to Hebrew! The problem is, that's pretty much where my pitiful knowledge of Arabic ends--the Qur'an and other religious formulae, alas. I was always intending to take a class--someday, but now that's considerably less likely.

23. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #201141 by Layla Nasreddin on June 29, 2008 at 6:42 am

Goldy wrote:

In my case, nothing more prosaic than the o being next to the i on my keyboard. I'd change it, but then a whole heap of things would not make sense :-)

Oh, I know...just trying to figure out some pseudo-reason for it. :-P Besides, "bog no-no" (God no-no) sounds like some childish Russian/English chant...

Layla, memorising by rote is useful sometimes. I still do my multiplication tables that way :-) As for memorising the Koran in Arabic, I guess that's right up there with memorising the Rig Veda in Sanskrit. Keeps a language alive...sort of...in aspic, I guess. Useful to historians. It may also help in memory - I believe the memory is like the rest of the body - needs exercise.

Perhaps...but why, in this day and age, is it important to commit a 604-page book to memory when you can't understand a word of it? That's something I never really understood, although granted I'm from a Western culture and not an Islamic one that places great store by it. If your education consists of having this book beaten into you (often literally), along with the mullahs preaching non-stop hate in your own language, as in a lot of Pakistani madrasas...what, exactly, is the point? Many Muslims believe that a hafiz (person who has memorized the Qur'an) will get a super-special reward in jannah (paradise)...however, one of the preconditions is that you do it "solely for the sake of Allah," not to show off or for material gain. But, I always thought, human motivations are complex, so how could you even be sure that your own motives are pure?

Back to the subject...I suspect we're all just living in, or maybe we ARE, our own virtual reality programs...or Holodeck programs. Dawkins talks about this concept at length in chapter 11 of Unweaving the Rainbow, "Reweaving the World". A glitch in the software or hardware can have very far-reaching effects--think of all those who have "seen" or "heard" God, angels, Mary, saints, aliens, ghosts, etc., and went on to spawn religions or cults!

24. Evangelical grunts

Comment #201042 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 9:02 pm

"Sky Pilot, how high can you fly/You'll never reach the sky"

What, you don't know that song ("Sky Pilot" by the Animals), about a chaplain blessing soldiers before sending them off to war? I think it fits perfectly...and I got it stuck in my head while reading this article.

Regarding the Qur'an, it's usually in a rather distinctive-looking cover; it doesn't look like just any book, so I'd be suspicious of the claim that he "didn't know" what it was. But I don't know enough to make any judgement.

25. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #201039 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 8:53 pm

Epinephrine wrote:

There's a big difference between maintaining positive aspects of heritage (assuming such exist) and the broad statement that because something is thousands of years old it has value.

Well, of course! To take an example, FGM is thousands of years old, and I hope that's not considered a tradition that must be "respected" simply because it's "old". On the other hand, I don't think one should paint with too broad a brush. It could be argued that the religious emphasis on minute study of the Talmud led to great value being placed on learning, not just religious but secular, among Jews...a value which has led to Jews becoming far less religious as they became more educated. I think these things should be judged by their effects, not necessarily simply by their "religious" origin.

Admittedly, I have no idea what possible alternate use memorizing the Qur'an as a child in a language one can't even understand could have, but in theory some social demand could come up for a huge capacity for rote memorization--though with cheap books, mass literacy, and information technology, that seems profoundly unlikely. (If you want to see something truly scary, look at Youtube videos of tiny children reciting lengthy extracts from the Qur'an--from memory.)

Goldy wrote:

OK, so it was because my atheist Chinese wife told me to as being an unmarried couple with child is a bog no-no in China.

TeraBrat wrote:

Is there a difference between a bog no-no and a swamp no-no in China?

All I can think of is that bog is the Russian for "god"!

Border Collie wrote:

If a Jewish person marries a Muslim person of the opposite sex and they have children the children will be human.

I certainly hope so! :-P

26. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200969 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 4:36 pm

OK, this thread is starting to annoy me. There is nothing wrong with wanting to maintain the positive aspects of one's heritage, even if it originates in religion.

Hell, even Christopher Hitchens, who has mentioned that the events that the Jewish holiday of Hanukkah commemorates was one of the great tragedies of history ("If the Jews had not made the crucial mistake of rejecting Hellenism and philosophy and submitting themselves, or being reconquered, by the Maccabean ultra-Orthodox, everything would have been better and we'd never have had to endure Christianity and Islam"), has gone so far as to have Seder dinners for his daughter so that she'll become more acquainted with her heritage (his mother is part Jewish). "And I even insist, though my wife [who is Jewish] isn't that thrilled, on having for our daughter a little version of the Seder" (both quotes from this interview.) Admittedly, Christopher is very much his own man, to say the least, but even Richard (am I allowed to call him that?) has mentioned how much he values the Christian heritage of Western culture (as discussed here, for example).

None of this means that any of these religions has any truth value whatsoever, just that they, in the form of their influence on many different cultures, have produced more than sheer rubbish over the ages. You just have to look hard to try and uncover the good bits that show such an influence, such as accomplishments in the arts, altruistic values, a sense of community, and so on (all of which doubtless also had a non-religious impetus) amid the dreck.

Admittedly, in all of this I just might be completely off my rocker (and probably am -- note title of article, "Your Brain Lies To You").

27. Dawkins on Darwin

Comment #200954 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 3:29 pm

It's a three-part film called Dawkins on Darwin, which will be broadcast by Channel 4 later in the year - starting in mid-August, I think.

Any chance we in the colonies (US, Canada, Australia, NZ) will get to see that? Or will we just have to wait for it to show up on Youtube? (And how about an un-bleeped version of that "hate e-mail" segment shown in one of the clips? I think that would be absolutely hilarious...)

Great performance, by the way (I got to see it before it went down).

28. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200892 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 12:07 pm

TeraBrat wrote:

This is why I have a hard time seeing Judaism lumped in with the fanatical, missionary Christianty and Islam.

There seems to have been a tradition for (some) Enlightenment thinkers to dump on the Jews as much as previous (and not-so-previous) generations dumped on them for being "Christ-killers" and all that crap. Voltaire, for example, was infamous for making the worst kind of bigoted remarks about Jews. In theory, since he hated the Catholic Church so much ("Ecrasez l'infame!") he should have defended the rights of those it persecuted, such as the Jews...right? Absolutely not!

I have my own pet theory -- Jews might have been seen as the "originator" of the hated Christianity, or of monotheism in general, and since they were still around as a small, powerless group, why not pick on them? It's far easier than realizing that it's your own ancestors who are to blame for adopting Christianity!

29. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200867 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 11:09 am

TeraBrat wrote:

Why not both?

Well, very liberal-minded Jews might go for that, but NOT Muslims, I'm afraid! Islam claims to "supercede" the old, "corrupted" Jewish and Christian "revelations," so it would be pretty illogical to claim to be both Muslim and something else...unless you're taking neither religion very seriously.

The difference is that you can be a Jewish atheist or agnostic or whatever. I still consider myself Jewish. It's much more than just the religion. One of the wierdest things about Judaism is that you don't really have to believe in god. All you have to do is follow the rules.

Yeah, I know...I did a long study of Judaism before deciding to convert to Islam (more proof, as if more were needed, that I'm hopelessly confused). Islam is similar, in that there are a lot of rules to follow, but the difference is that you HAVE to believe while you're doing them! There IS a sense of belonging to a "people," or rather a "nation," the ummah (and so even Muslims who have ceased believing in the religion will still be upset over, say, the Palestinians or treatment of Muslims in the West), but it isn't anywhere near as strong as the Jewish "peoplehood" concept.

I wouldn't mind being a "Jewish agnostic/atheist", by the way, but I'm not so I have to settle with being a Muslim agnostic (recall what I said about not wanting to be wrong)!

30. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200844 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 10:14 am

TeraBrat wrote:

I recall an incident with Obamas pastor. So why is he Muslim?

The "claim," such as it is, is that, since his father (whom he barely saw) was born Muslim, then Barack is, too (per the Islamic rule stating that children of a Muslim father are considered to belong to his religion). There is no evidence that he was ever raised Muslim in any way, shape, or form.

Incidentally...what happens when a Jewish woman marries a Muslim man, what are their children supposed to be? Recall that in Judaism, the children are considered to be Jewish if their mother is Jewish! (I have no doubt that Dawkins would register his disapproval of both these rules labelling children with the religion of at least one of their parents in the harshest possible terms!)

Steve Zara wrote:

Don't worry. The default rationalist's position should be "maybe I'm wrong". This is why we have certain standards of evidence, and procedures for judging hypotheses like Ockham's Razor. Supernaturalist religion fails those tests as something we should even start to consider reasonable.

Yeah, well, how do we actually know that? How do we "know" that our concepts of logic and reason actually correspond with what's out there in the real world, or should I say "real world"? How do we know we're not just all fooling ourselves that we're logical, reasonable people? (Said tongue in cheek!) The problem is, that way lies madness...

31. Your Brain Lies to You

Comment #200777 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 8:23 am

Why is it that I read this article and think, well, maybe I'm wrong and there really IS something to religion! I'm so afraid of being wrong that I won't commit to any particular position, argh.

32. Non-voters: It's all in God's hands

Comment #200743 by Layla Nasreddin on June 28, 2008 at 7:29 am

Christopher Davis wrote:

I read a story yesterday that I believe was reposted from the NY Times that said the Muslim community was pissed at Obama. It seems that they feel he is trying to distance himself from all things Muslim.

They're still upset because of that incident last week (I think) where two hijab-wearing Muslim women were not allowed to sit behind Obama at a rally (for which he apologized). The stark truth is that American Muslims just aren't a big enough voting bloc (yet) for presidential candidates to really concentrate on or "pander" to, except perhaps in Michigan.

As for Muslims voting...I say sure, let them vote. Take their ballot, look them in the eye, smile, rip the ballot in half and say "Inshallah!"
(You can do the same for any evangelical Christian, but you have to add "...and the creek don't rise.")

Now THAT is not nice. How would you like some Christianist twit to do the same to your ballot (if you're American)? :-/

mordacious1 wrote:

I would think that a lot of muslim women do not vote, or maybe are not allowed to, by the men in their families, which if true would reduce the muslim vote by up to 50%. Although in the U.S. it is probably not that high, but could be a factor.

My first instinct, which could of course be wrong, is to say that the idea that (American) Muslim women are essentially slaves to their husbands, is grossly exaggerated. You might be surprised how many of them are very strong-willed, tough women! On the other hand, more conservative women are more likely to stay home, more from cultural habit than because their husbands explicitly tell them not to go out...and the most conservative are probably the least likely to vote and to consider it a sin to vote, as this suggests that man is responsible for making laws, not God (as their interpretation of Islam teaches), or else think that it is wrong to participate in the kafir American system. In this case, I won't argue with them!

That said, I think it has more to do with the fact that so many American Muslims are fairly recent immigrants and often tend to be a bit insular, preferring to hang around their own ethnic grouping rather than get involved with the wider American society (especially if they think of themselves as living in America only on a temporary basis, until they can retire and move back to the "home" country). Naturally that would have a downward trend on voting rates!

33. Non-voters: It's all in God's hands

Comment #200556 by Layla Nasreddin on June 27, 2008 at 10:06 pm

Sciros wrote:

Interestingly, the opposite of what college graduates tend to be. The more educated a person, the more likely he/she is to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative.

I can attest to "the more education, the more socially liberal" trend, though I have to say I'm not sure about the "fiscally conservative" bit. Is this somehow also related to the well-known finding that the higher educational level a person has achieved, the more likely he/she is to be secular/nonreligious? Gee, I wonder! (Although...I managed the task of being 100% for gay rights while being an observant Muslim; I guess it CAN be done!)

TeraBrat wrote:

I let you do the rest of the research for me. ;-)

Dang it! You ARE a brat! (Just kidding...I think!) :-P

34. Non-voters: It's all in God's hands

Comment #200550 by Layla Nasreddin on June 27, 2008 at 9:25 pm

TeraBrat wrote:

I really hope the Muslims believe they don't need to vote.

:-/ *sighs* Man, you guys need to start doing research... Per this 2006 Pew study of Muslim-Americans (pdf format), they register to vote less often than the average, and are somewhat less likely to vote.

Interestingly, the major American Muslim groups such as CAIR and MPAC endorsed Bush in the 2000 election! It's difficult to remember so far back, but at the time he claimed he was going to do away with racial profiling and "secret" evidence. Also, it was thought that perhaps Republicans might be more sensitive to the plight of the Palestinians than the Democrats, who were (still are) seen as being "too pro-Israel." In addition, Muslims tend to be "social conservatives" on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, "family values," vouchers for religious schools, and that kind of thing. (According to the Pew study I mentioned above, 61% said homosexuality should be "discouraged by society," while only 38% of the general population said the same thing--51% of Americans thought it should be "accepted by society". This is really an interesting study, I think! :-P)

Now today, as you might suspect, American Muslims are MUCH more likely to be Democrats because of the Iraq war and the Patriot Act and all that kind of thing. But they're still, by and large, quite socially conservative--and don't take very well to anti-religious rhetoric, as you might guess. (72% said religion was "very important" to them, and the younger they were, the more religious they tended to be.) In this respect, they're somewhat like a large proportion of the rapidly growing body of Hispanic voters, who might be quite liberal on "economic" issues but conservative on "social" issues. Which makes me think that we may start seeing more "socially conservative" Democrats in the future in order to appeal to such groups...we'll see.

35. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200103 by Layla Nasreddin on June 26, 2008 at 10:25 pm

Brian English wrote:

The real question Layla, is what part do you take in the Tagliatelli schism?

I have never seen this being myself, but I have studied long treatises arguing his/her/its (let's just say "his" for simplicity) absolutely unitary nature. Those heretics who claim that he is composed of not one but three different pastas -- how ridiculous! How can Perfection be anything other than One? This is why FSM himself sent down a book proclaiming his absolute oneness. "Say, He is FSM, the One, the Absolute! He begets not, nor is he begotten! And there is nothing like unto him!" Which has led to the writing of many lengthy works of theology about whether FSM's "pasta nature" is like or unlike our regular, earthly pasta. It seems to be an ineffable, non-material pasta, or else the concept of "pasta" is being used as a metaphor, since FSM's true being and nature cannot be comprehended by puny human minds.

(OK, OK, I can't keep it up! :-P)

36. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200099 by Layla Nasreddin on June 26, 2008 at 10:06 pm

Brian English wrote:

Anyway, do people in other parts of the English speaking world use nous to mean 'smarts' or 'astuteness'?

Some do. The word is also used in philosophy, and there's also the word noetic. Armed with just this information, and the knowledge that the prefix a- means 'without' or 'not', it's not hard to figure out the meaning -- mindless!

Also, I've got a better name for the FSM -- the Flying Spagoni Monster (from spagone, pl. spagoni, augmentative of spago, suggesting largeness). I mean, a gigantic, all-powerful pasta being is going to be composed of pretty enormous, uh, elements! ;-)

37. Stop distorting young minds!

Comment #200094 by Layla Nasreddin on June 26, 2008 at 9:13 pm

18. Comment #199979 by Jiten on June 26, 2008 at 3:13 pm

For example what do you call a single strand of spaghetti?

A spaghetto? Diminutive of spago (plural spaghi), Italian for "cord" or "string." "The Flying Spaghetti Monster, due to the massive size of his/her/its noodly appendages, should really be called the Flying Spaghi Monster!" Well, maybe that wouldn't go over very well...

Anyway, back on topic. I was looking at the comments for this article on the Comment is Free site...damn. Well, no, a lot of them are positive, but a lot of them give that word anousic new meaning--and yes, I figured out that word in the first two lines (see, knowing your Greek roots helps!). It reminded me of that old joke where you go on at length about the dangers of that terrible, poisonous substance known as dihydrogen oxide, and then ask your listener to sign a petition calling for a ban on it.

38. Mormons urged to back ban on same-sex marriage

Comment #199071 by Layla Nasreddin on June 25, 2008 at 6:56 am

Oh, but we should respect their Christian culture and not force our own "elite" culture on them! (Takeoff from the last story about the Saudi cleric saying it's OK to marry a one-year-old...) Honestly, is this really a convincing argument to anybody at all? Isn't it really obvious that this kind of argument is just a cover for the worst kind of bigotry, sexism, homophobia, religious obscurantism and all kinds of other crap (in either this case or the Saudi one)?

OK, I'll stop now...

39. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198950 by Layla Nasreddin on June 24, 2008 at 9:04 pm

(Sorry for the continuation of my rant...)

The other part that bothers me is the utter mendacity of so many using this "cultural relativist" approach. Yes, we should all study and try to understand other cultures, but to understand is NOT to excuse; far from it.

For instance, I've had the displeasure of reading arguments against gay marriage that went something like this: those wanting such marriages to be recognized by the state are intolerantly "imposing" their (elite, liberal, whatever) views on an unwilling populace; better they should respect the preferences of 75% (or whatever figure they come up with) of the local population and not legalize it. Respect our differences of opinion on the subject and don't shove it down our throats!

Now, I think you could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps the people making such a "relativistic" argument in fact don't believe in it at all, that they're just using anything that comes to hand in their efforts to oppose gay marriage. Looking at what they say to each other, it is clear that (usually) they think that homosexuality is absolutely wrong and, further, should not be tolerated. What's wrong with this picture?

Similarly, a Saudi spokesman trying to justify female apartheid and third-class-status in KSA might lean on the old "it's our culture! you have no right to judge!" claim...but you could be forgiven for doubting that he really believes this if he then goes on to make statements about how Islam encapsulates the "perfect" way of life, about how the West is hopelessly decadent and doomed to fail (so much for not judging other cultures!), and goes on to make other absolute claims about the truth and perfection of Islam and the Qur'an.

The "argument" is just far too easy to abuse, and too many people fall for it, I think. (End of rant...)

40. Saudi Marriage Officiant : 'It Is Allowed To Marry A Girl At The Age Of One'.

Comment #198917 by Layla Nasreddin on June 24, 2008 at 6:14 pm

"Oh, that isn't 'real' Islam! Saudi Arabia distorts Islam!" I can hear the objections already!

What drives ME up the wall is the position that feminist and human rights criticism of Muslim countries is invariably nothing more than "cultural imperialism." Even liberal and/or feminist Muslims working to change things will be accused of this (sometimes by Western white males, oddly enough). Because, you know, cultural imperialism and hatred of Muslims and Islam are the only reasons why people might find a story such as this one so disgusting...not!

Well...I can say that I certainly hope the "liberal-minded, tolerant" people holding this view also oppose efforts by Western NGOs to liberalize laws against abortion and contraception in Latin America, on the grounds that such things run afoul of their Latin Catholic "culture." I hope you can see the problem there -- it just assumes that everybody in the culture simply assents to all the traditions and the authority of the (male) religious leaders, as if there is no dissent about what the "culture" and "religion" are! "Oh, you're a Mexican Catholic...sorry, we can't give you contraception, since you're under the Pope's authority!" "You're a Muslim woman in Iran; you must obey the mullahs and not travel without male permission because it's your 'culture'."

It's easy to hold extreme cultural relativist views when you're a well-off Western liberal; none of the unpleasantness actually affects you, and you can feel all warm and virtuous inside for being so "tolerant" and "understanding" of "the Other"--and, I guess, those who are unhappy with their own culture can go pound sand. Why is it assumed that just because somebody happens to have been born into a particular culture and/or religion, that they're "bound" by it and just have to put up with it?

(Pardon the rant; I have issues with this way of thinking, as you may have gathered!)

41. The Flea Delusion

Comment #198344 by Layla Nasreddin on June 23, 2008 at 3:36 pm

esuther wrote:

I wonder how many copies of Richard's book have been sold worldwide, that is, in all its translations. I ask because I have given two copies of it in French to friends (just doing my part here) and I know it is available in other European languages too.

Hey, I bought one in French, too, just to see how it's been translated. Anyway, the figure usually cited is "a million and a half in English alone," and it's been translated into 31 languages, though I don't know what the total figure for all languages is.

I'm not feeling very clever at the moment...I turned the book over and right there on the top it says "Plus de deux millions d'exemplaires vendus dans le monde" (More than two million sold worldwide). Meaning, there must be at least half-a-million sold of other languages.

(Incidentally, why did it take so long for it to come out in French? The one I have states it was published in March 2008, when the original English edition came out in September 2006.)

cartromancer wrote:

Both forms are grammatically valid in modern English usage so it doesn't really matter which to choose on that score, as long as you are consistent. Essentially the possessive apostrophe replaces the "e" of the "es" genitive suffix from old and middle English, where the correct form would have been Dawkinses. The choice between Dawkins' and Dawkins's is thus the difference between using the apostrophe to replace just the "e" or the whole "es".

Well, that's something I've wondered myself. In the old reliable Strunk & White Elements of Style, sort of a "bible" of English usage to generations of American students, Rule #1 states: "Form the possessive singular of nouns with 's. Follow this rule whatever the final consonant. Exceptions are the possessives of ancient proper names in -es and -is, the possessive Jesus', and such forms as for conscience' sake, for righteousness' sake." However, as I said, that's an American book; I don't know what the Brits are "supposed to do".

42. Sarcasm Seen as Evolutionary Survival Skill

Comment #198292 by Layla Nasreddin on June 23, 2008 at 1:57 pm

NO! You think?

It's certainly a requirement for survival on the Internet, at any rate...

43. The Flea Delusion

Comment #198217 by Layla Nasreddin on June 23, 2008 at 11:40 am

esuther wrote:

I wonder how many copies of Richard's book have been sold worldwide, that is, in all its translations. I ask because I have given two copies of it in French to friends (just doing my part here) and I know it is available in other European languages too.

Hey, I bought one in French, too, just to see how it's been translated. Anyway, the figure usually cited is "a million and a half in English alone," and it's been translated into 31 languages, though I don't know what the total figure for all languages is.

Incidentally, I have to say that the famous bit at the beginning of Chapter 2 just does not read nearly as well in the French translation as in the English original (though it might be nice to hear Dawkins reading it, anyway).

For purposes of comparison:

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

On peut dire que, de toutes les oeuvres de fiction, le Dieu de la Bible est le personnage le plus déplaisant: jaloux, et fier de l'être, il est impitoyable, injuste et tracassier dans son obsession de tout régenter; adepte du nettoyage ethnique, c'est un revanchard assoiffé de sang; tyran lunatique et malveillant, ce misogyne homophobe, raciste, pestilentiel, mégalomane et sadomasochiste pratique l'infanticide, le génocide et le «filicide».

See, it just totally breaks up the whole flow of that sentence...

Also, that quote a bit further down the page, "God, isn't God a shit!" becomes "Bon Dieu, ce Dieu, quelle merde!" And the translated hate mail at the beginning of Chapter 6 is a hoot!

(Yes, I am a pathetic loser with no life, why do you ask?)

44. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197654 by Layla Nasreddin on June 22, 2008 at 12:37 pm

I don't doubt that the whole "Delusion" motif is just a cash-in. Basically, it looks like a typical pop-psych book, wrapped in a parody of the "delusion" books.

One thing that keeps popping up from the anti-atheists is that atheists are "humourless", that they take things far too literally and "can't take a joke." Well, OK, it's good to laugh at yourself sometimes -- though it would help if the jokes were actually, you know, funny.

Many people on this site think "Dick to the Dawk to the PhD" is the very acme of wit.

Aw, come on! It's funny precisely because it is so ridiculous--or, rather, ridiculously stupid (although it could just be that it's my sense of humour that's off-kilter). Then again, would I laugh at a parody of myself which portrayed me as an Atheist Slut in a Burqa (or something equally stupid)? Well...I hope so! No use getting upset over something so ridiculous...

45. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197618 by Layla Nasreddin on June 22, 2008 at 11:35 am

Hmm. On the site, it says, "Sydney psychotherapist Tao De Haas has written The Delusion Delusion in response to The God Delusion, by the world renowned Oxford professor and scientist Richard Dawkins and The Dawkins Delusion? by Alister McGrath. Rather than debating who is or isn't deluded, The Delusion Delusion answers both. De Haas says that it is not essential to have read Dawkins' or McGrath's book in order to understand The Delusion Delusion."

The back says, "Are you deluded? The answer is probably 'yes'. Recognising your delusions as just that will give you a renewed sense of perspective and freedom. If you think you're not deluded, then read on..."

The parody "endorsements" that follow kind of give the game away. For example: "This book will definitely not be seen or mentioned on the Oprah Winfrey show. -- Winprah Onfrey; "I'm confused -- but I like it. -- John Smith, not an author but wants to write a book one day.

I say part parody, part serious.
(This space unintentionally left blank.)

46. The Flea Delusion

Comment #197577 by Layla Nasreddin on June 22, 2008 at 10:45 am

There was another "flea" I saw a while back; I sent it in but it isn't up there. It's called Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God. I mean, not that anybody here would want to READ such a thing, but just to keep the list current, you know? The fact that it comes with recommendations from Antony Flew and Michael Behe...well, that speaks for itself.

I suppose it's only a matter of time before we see The Dawkins Delusion Delusion Delusion...I'm already getting dizzy!

47. 'I despise Islamism': Ian McEwan faces backlash over press interview

Comment #197503 by Layla Nasreddin on June 22, 2008 at 9:10 am

"Oh, that's not 'true' Islam! 'True' Islam is wonderful and peaceful and tolerant!"
"Then why are there all these lunatics saying otherwise? Why are so many of them mullahs, imams, and ayatollahs, people who have dedicated their lives to studying Islam and the Qur'an?"
"Because that's not the 'real' Islam!"
"How do you know?"
"How dare you make such Orientalist, Islamophobic accusations against my faith! How dare you try to judge Islam by Western standards--that's typical European imperialism! You're not Muslim, you don't understand!"

Of course, that was a gross oversimplification, but the same "defenses" always seem to come up!

I'm waiting for the Northern Irish to unite with the Irish Republic sooner or later

I don't know...I believe there are more than a few Northern Irish who think that would be a very bad thing indeed!

Happy Birthday!

48. Darwinists for Jesus

Comment #195824 by Layla Nasreddin on June 18, 2008 at 9:56 pm

Related: I almost fell off my chair reading this quote from a 2004 National Geographic interview with Dawkins about The Ancestor's Tale -- I kept looking at the title to make sure this was really him!

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/11/1115_041115_dawkins_darwin_2.html

Dawkins admits to feeling frustrated that so many Americans appear to reject Darwin's theory of evolution in favor of the creationist concept that God created humans in their present form.

He said, "I know perfectly well that these people are not stupid but ignorant. Ignorance is no crime and it is easily cured by education. What annoys me is the religious groups who actively work to prevent scientific education. And it doesn't just annoy me. It annoys respectable theologians who worry that creationism besmirches the reputation of true religion."

"Respectable" and "theologians" in the same sentence, along with the notion of "the reputation of 'true religion'"? Then again, this IS National Geographic, who are all about "understanding and respect for other peoples' cultures and religions"!

49. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193465 by Layla Nasreddin on June 15, 2008 at 4:30 pm

CreationWiki is back up. If I didn't know better, I'd swear the whole thing was a massive joke, but of course it isn't. Which just proves the point that, really, you can never stop defending against this kind of misbegotten tripe, no matter how self-evidently ridiculous and unbelievable it seems to you, personally.

50. Behe's Empty Box

Comment #193322 by Layla Nasreddin on June 15, 2008 at 10:15 am

Enlightenme.. wrote

^^I went with my brother and a friend in May 2000, and May 2001, I might just scan one of my view from the top photos to make another avatar (yours could do with a bit of photoshopping for exposure balancing, Layla)

Do you know how much balancing I did to get it as "good" as it is? It was an awful picture (exposure-wise) to begin with, alas...

rod-the-farmer wrote:

I tried the creationwiki web site, and it is down

Ha...maybe I crashed it (or something)! It was certainly there last night...and Behe was listed under "Creationists" and "Creation Scientists," which sort of gives the lie to his claim that he IS NOT a creationist!

beeline wrote:

Am I the only one who noticed what an INCREDIBLY GREAT COLLECTION OF LINKS and INFORMATION there is on that page by John Catalano.

I noticed! Especially entertaining was that 1985 smackdown of Rose, Kamin and Lewontin's book Not In Our Genes. Thank you to John Catalano, wherever you are!

Edit: Speaking of withering reviews, there's also Dawkins's devastating review of Behe's latest book The Edge of Evolution. Ouch...