1. The New Atheist Movement

Comment #123537 by AJ Rae on February 7, 2008 at 10:19 am

Why would someone be embarrassed about not knowing anything about "the study of God"? What kind of atheist calls it a "field"?

2. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #101081 by AJ Rae on December 19, 2007 at 7:24 pm

but no-one seemed to really take it too seriously

No need for the God Delusion then! Mission accomplished.

You believe it all or you opt out and believe none of it.

That maps on to reality incredibly badly. The vast majority of people are religious moderates who don't believe it all, many don't even know all the doctrines, especially the Catholics. How many people mistake the Immaculate Conception for the Virgin Birth?

Atheists can't imagine exposing their children to religious ideas in case they believe them for another example

You haven't been reading the comments or writings of Atheists. Many think that exposing religious ideas to children is a must, all of the "Four Horsemen" have stated as such. Education, telling children about the ideas, comparative religion, is not the same as what they do in Church and in some Catholic schools.

Apart from the cultural benefits of understanding religious traditions

You do not need to be raised Catholic for that, you don't have to go to church for that, you don't have to tell your kids, or get other people to tell your kids, things to believe without evidence.

In fact, I expect that the best inoculation against silly ideas is to be exposed to many of them early and often.

So the worse thing to do is to "raise them Catholic". Tell them about what Catholics believe, and many other religions, you don't need to indoctrinate them. If indoctrination didn't work against kids then religion wouldn't last very long.

3. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100939 by AJ Rae on December 19, 2007 at 5:09 pm

Is it not possible to respect someone without respecting their beliefs?

Did he say that he wants his children to believe ridiculous things? Or did you make that bit up?

He singles out people who have "religious faith", and says he has "enormous" respect for them, and then he says he is "commited to bringing my children up as Catholics".

What has that got to do with respect for people in general? Since when does committing yourself to raising children "up as Catholics", not include the range of silly beliefs linked to Catholicism? If Catholicism isn't primarily those beliefs then what is it and how is it different from other flavours of Christianity?

Lets discuss the things he actually said, not what you would have liked him to have said.

4. Clegg 'does not believe in God'

Comment #100933 by AJ Rae on December 19, 2007 at 4:56 pm

So the new Lib Dem leader says he has commited himself to making his children believe in things without evidence, handing them over to organisations that indoctrinate.

Why not raise them in a secular way, and let them decide whether they believe in all that horrible nonsense? Sins of contraception, homosexuality, right to die, "adultery", salvation from sin, original sin, hell, heaven, souls of embryos (abortion, stem cells, cloning), and all that highly damaging rot.

I have enormous respect for people who have religious faith...

...believing in ridiculous things without, and sometimes despite, evidence is very admirable.

...I'm married to a Catholic...

...who has decided that my children need to believe ridiculous things without or despite evidence...

...and am committed to bringing my children up as Catholics...

...because I see no problem with indoctrinating children to believe ridiculous things despite of evidence.

5. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94766 by AJ Rae on December 6, 2007 at 1:41 pm

3legcat,

kroto was ranting sweeping statements about tempelton,

He wasn't ranting under the common definition of ranting. Shermer was ranting, it was obvious.

That's exactly what Shermer got completely wrong, it wasn't a sweeping statement. There were various examples of Templeton acting in a less than honest way. Shermer's only counter to the actual argument was "they weren't claiming to do science then" which is complete nonsense.

and shermer gave a valid well publicized counter example

A counter example to a point Kroto didn't make. He fully accepted that example, but Shermer decided that he had won the argument that never was.

this is how science/ valid debate is done, yes?

Shouting someone down and purposely interrupting them?

6. Beyond Belief 07: Enlightenment 2.0

Comment #94322 by AJ Rae on December 5, 2007 at 9:37 am

Shermer started shouting at Harold Kroto I thought unjustifiably, against a point he never tried to make and fully accepted. Then Shermer makes the dubious comment about how the Templeton foundation took its science hat off for the advert and the essay, which is absurd. I could only describe it as hysterical, bullying, and disingenuous.

7. Interview with Christopher Hitchens

Comment #93661 by AJ Rae on December 3, 2007 at 9:13 pm

It troubles me that they must treat common sense views as novel, shocking, or the most rude thing they've ever heard. Accept when it involves someone else's beliefs, then they readily agree, applaud even.

8. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92955 by AJ Rae on December 1, 2007 at 8:19 pm

I think classifying D'Souza as unintelligent is a mistake. He's obviously incredibly intelligent! He's simply applied that incredible intellect to a mistaken premise. Shermer's book, "Why People Believe Weird Things" has a chapter on this sort of behavior. Dinesh illustrates the point perfectly. Dinesh is a master at intelligently defending conclusions that he has accepted for stupid reasons. That is one of the very reasons I find him so entertaining, in a masochistic sort of way.

It's not just the premise Pin Cushion, I find his arguments to be incredibly unintelligent. Maybe he has adopted these stupidly as well, and when not talking about God he doesn't sound like an idiot.

9. Daniel Dennett Debates Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #92872 by AJ Rae on December 1, 2007 at 4:08 pm

"In the name of atheism", Dinesh D'Souza is a complete dick. He is using a different definition of atheism on purpose to argue against points made by Dennett, Dawkins, and others. Atheism as a lack of belief in God never motivated anyone to kill, because killing people or not killing people doesn't logically follow from a lack of belief in something.

At best one could say that a belief in God is necessary to stop the inherent nature of humans to kill one another. I would accept an argument with it as its premise to be logically consistant. I wouldn't accept the premise though.

10. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #81242 by AJ Rae on October 24, 2007 at 1:22 pm

D'Souza sounds a bit too similar to the character in a certain comedy sketch (thanks to Hemant friendlyatheist.com). Of course, like the comedy sketch, everything D'Souza says is complete bullshit and irrational nonsense. It's painful to listen to him talk about "rationality", it's cringe worthy.

Rationality? Christian! Sagan? He's as Christian as they come! Dawkins? Softly spoken, talks at length about the wonders of nature, obviously an Anglican Bishop!

11. Debate between Michael Shermer and Dinesh D'Souza

Comment #80439 by AJ Rae on October 21, 2007 at 8:54 pm

That's a lot of nonsense from D'Souza. Give him credit, he actually makes points, unlike some faithheads, however ridiculous they are. When pressed he gives the justification that it's a "matter of faith", and he can't "use reason to persuade someone else".

Is he seriously going to try to argue that a lack of belief is motivation for secular ideologies? Like Marxism, Capitalism, etc... I lack a belief in tooth fairies that has motivated my economic ideology.

Newton wasted much of his life predicting the second coming and whether unicorns are white or silver*. That completely vindicates theology, because Newton was a scientist too? Hold up, Newton dedicated a lot of time on alchemy, and his work on calculus, light, and gravity doesn't vindicate alchemy, even if it led to assumptions that helped him think differently about apples.

Some people believed things through faith that correlate with science, that doesn't support the faith claims. If people believe the Earth is round because God likes round things, and created it that way, it's still irrational. It's like saying you have to believe in invisible flying pixies to use and have confidence in the science about gravity. How many pixies does it take for Jupiter and Mars to move around the Sun?

a) 3
b) 616
c) 42

I would say that he can't use reason to persuade someone else about any of his points in the debate. So he resorts to whatever the hell that was.

*Possibly true about the second coming, most probably not about the unicorns

12. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #69664 by AJ Rae on September 12, 2007 at 5:12 am

er..never considered that or heard it before?

Because it doesn't make any sense, I've looked and couldn't find any philosopher who takes such a position.

but suffice to say you could seem to support wholesale mass murder of newborns and infants.

That's not true, but you're not interested in that, are you?

I think not, nor I suspect, do you in fact.

I suspect that you don't know what it means to be moral, and need to look it up. Unless you consider everyone without your faulty ethics to be without morals.

13. Interview with BHA President Polly Toynbee

Comment #68040 by AJ Rae on September 5, 2007 at 7:33 pm

Very good, very good, not shrill at all. May I ask what drugs Magnus Linklater is taking, and where I can get some?

14. Christopher Hitchens on BookTV

Comment #67532 by AJ Rae on September 3, 2007 at 6:03 pm

Not so much on religion, lots on Hitchens, some on Iraq.

He confirms his views on abortion quite early on in the interview. He seems to be basing his anti-abortion views on the argument from potential. He says an embryo is a "unborn child" as the reason for his view. It's a very weak argument, with the obvious mistake of giving a potential-X the value of X.

15. In God we doubt

Comment #67374 by AJ Rae on September 3, 2007 at 6:36 am

There's so many inaccurate claims about The God Delusion and Atheists in general, I can't take him seriously. Many people have claimed to read the book, but make completely false assertions about its content. He invited religious leaders to talk to him, but didn't want to talk to any Atheists.

Apart from the nonsense, his argument consists of the premises that religion isn't harmful, and that religion doesn't claim to be rational or truthful. If that was the case, I wouldn't much care about religion outside of philosophical debates, and then, it wouldn't be too important.

Anyone claiming that fundamentalists are interpreting a holy script wrong, reading the wrong one, or following the wrong prophet, is a believer. So for an Agnostic to quote someone using this argument in support of his case doesn't make much sense. There's no rational basis for interpreting the scripture correctly, which scriptures are correct, or which prophet was really talking to God. That's without suggesting that perhaps no scripture or prophet is the right one.

Then we have "God is love", "love can't be explained by science". Scientists must be wasting their time on the subject then? No, obviously not, it's likely Humphrys hasn't spoken to or read anything on the subject. This is not where religion or faith operates, they're beliefs, love is not a belief, it's emotion or ambigiously "feeling". Just because it isn't supernatural and can be explained through evolution or chemistry doesn't mean it's fiction, it doesn't mean people don't fall in love. Humphrys has it all backwards.

16. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #67173 by AJ Rae on September 2, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Rae - if it comes to my life or my son's, I know which I'd choose to save. After all, I've had a chance to live a little, he hasn't even had that yet.

You have an interest in your son living, what about someone else's son? You mention yourself, but what about another person, are you willing to kill them for an infant? Sure, if you want, sacrifice your own life, to save your own child. I can understand that, it's your choice, and it's your child.

I don't think it's fair to call me morally bankrupt, I think you're in error, but I'm not calling you morally bankrupt. Does anyone "deserve" a chance to live because they have the potential to live? I don't think so, but I've never heard that argument, so I'll think more about the consequences.

17. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66866 by AJ Rae on August 31, 2007 at 9:56 pm

In that situation you are perfectly clear - the potential person is condemned!

In that, hopefully rare, situation yes. The same with five person vs one person I'm afraid. Sadly, mothers have had to smother their infants to save their lives and others, in wars, genocides, etc...

But, no, I see what you mean. My concern is not over bad treatment as such but rather the attitude that one might have in a real-life situation toward a real-life (non-person) baby, because we now know that even if we have the impression that we are not expressing certain feelings and attitudes, in fact we are doing so all the time, and pre-verbal stage infants are capable of picking them up (parental conflicts, for example) with all the present and future consequences that one could imagine.

I don't see why you would assume that it would be different. One aspect of personhood, ability to reason, is something parents know about, for protection, so they don't hurt themselves.

18. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66859 by AJ Rae on August 31, 2007 at 9:06 pm

But before getting over-emotional about this issue (I'm talking about myself here) may I just ask Russell Blackford et al at what point an "infant" becomes a person?

It is claimed by experts that on average infants don't show signs of levels of consciousness above other species until 18 months. For this topic, I think it's safe to assume embryos are not at that level of consciousness. As a response to the equivication between human embryos and human beings (persons).

Suffering is the concern. I do not agree that ability to suffer is the grounds for equal consideration. We know other species suffer differently than us. The concept of consciousness is important to suffering, a painless death to something that doesn't reason, would not suffer, where a reasoning person would (think mock executions). Personhood is essential to understanding suffering, suffering is a rational basis to debate a right to life. If given a choice between the death of a person and an infant (potential person), in a fire, morally surely you have to save the person based on ability to suffer. This is relevant to the discussion, for a situation where an abortion would save a mother.

Just because an infant isn't a person, doesn't mean that suddenly we're going to treat an infant badly or kill them. That's like Theists saying Atheists have no morals, and the response is usually justifiably emotional. It certainly doesn't logically follow that non-persons should die. Infants can suffer, so consideration has to be given to them. How would treating a non-person as a person be good? Acknowledging the state of an infant would only strengthen ability to raise that infant.

I don't understand what you think treatment of a non-person entails. I fail to see how this would change the care a parent gives to a child as usual. But surely a parent needs to understand that an infant isn't, for instance, self-aware like adults are.

Most secular ethical philosphers I have come across have had similar views on abortion and personhood. I recommend Peter Singer (influenced by Bentham) and Colin McGinn.

19. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66852 by AJ Rae on August 31, 2007 at 7:25 pm

Thank you Russell Blackford and Dr Benway for your sensible comments. I got worried for a second, surely we can't have this level of debate on Dawkins's site.

20. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66839 by AJ Rae on August 31, 2007 at 6:19 pm

Ideas on infanticide "hilarious"? If you are seriously suggesting that there is the slightest hint of hilarity in this subject, then I suggest you continue your psychotherapy, and meanwhile, stay away from children.

Are you a bit slow?

From your remarks, it is not clear what level of consciousness you, personally enjoy. And since you are capable of saying things like :" I'd like to see you credibly argue that an infant is a person," I hope you have no plans for having children, because I think that statistically, most children start off as infants.

I didn't think you were going to explain your irrational and ignorant statement. You have accused me of wanting to harm children though. Thank you, for your idiotic comments, and complete irrelevance.

21. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66832 by AJ Rae on August 31, 2007 at 5:39 pm

Alas, Russell, with one small sentence you have lost all credibility.

That's hilarious, it's you that have lost credibility on the subject. You're seriously saying a infant is a person, with the same level of consciousness we enjoy? I'd like to see you credibly argue that. That's what we're talking about when we talk about personhood. If it isn't, then personhood is also something that has to be attributed to other species. Unless you're a speciesist, which has its own problems in terms coherence.

22. Teresa, Bright and Dark

Comment #66748 by AJ Rae on August 31, 2007 at 7:57 am

@82abhilash

Everyone seems to be taken up on by Hitchen's abortion stance. Well here is his argument against it, 'Hitchen's opposes abortion on materialistic grounds: human life has to begin at some point, and there is no non-arbitrary way to determine that it begins at a point after conception but before birth.' It seems pragmatic to me. It is very difficult to determine which point we are talking of a fetus and which point it becomes a baby. Is a viable fetus a baby?

Materialistic grounds? a) What is "human-life"? b) What are you talking about when you say it "begins"? c) What are the properties of a baby that gives it a "right to life"?

It usually ends up at a) I don't know, b) I don't know, and c) I don't know. It's an argument where none of the terms are defined.

@BigJohn

Of course Hitch is against abortion. Any logical, thinking person must be against abortion. It requires a strong dose of liberal dogma to find abortion acceptable. There are few legitimate reasons to kill a human being. Most are decided by society as a whole. Abortion is not. I can agree with abortion as a reason to kill a human only after long discussion and debate in reasonable, non-dogmatic terms.

The problem is, you're neither, so you're not a in position to determine logical or thinking people. The equivocation of terms isn't about babies Maynard, it's the "human being" part, obviously. I'm guessing you're not going to expand your argument, because it's only going to get more irrational. It's funny you should mention liberal dogma, because rational philosophers of ethics in support of abortion are attacked by liberals on political grounds, and the right on religious grounds.

23. Christopher Hitchens and Bill Donohue on Mother Teresa

Comment #66502 by AJ Rae on August 30, 2007 at 6:33 am

a) Is Hitchens a dogmatic Atheist? Does he claim to know that God doesn't exist and no evidence would change his mind?
b) Is the 1999 movie "Dogma" about Atheism or Catholicism?

24. Atheists and believers have got religion wrong

Comment #63623 by AJ Rae on August 15, 2007 at 5:48 am

The Mark Steel Lectures are brilliant. I think he's creating a strawman here. He seems to come from a position of ignorance, and have a sentimentality towards religion, much like David Baddiel.

Richard Dawkins does mention in his book he realises, giving Northern Ireland as an example, that other factors are involved. He also strongly states that religion isn't the only problem in the world. He doesn't think people are stupid, just ignorant, or mistaken, a delusion that can affect the most intelligent.

Mark Steel, like a lot of the Left, only focus on circumstance. Football fanaticism is a very good example of how irrationalism can turn nasty. In Football, the stakes aren't high, in the god game, they're high. Yet people have died from being a fan of the wrong football team.

25. Christopher Hitchens and David Allen White discuss the impact of Christianity on Western Civilization

Comment #63057 by AJ Rae on August 13, 2007 at 3:27 am

White is so ignorant about science and computing, it's not funny. It's disappointing Hitchens doesn't have better answers to the stupidity. Computer models are flawed because a computer model was flawed? Mysterious peas, hilarious, can we get some logic in the house?

How can they even ask whether artists and authors can be inspired without religion? It's blatently obvious they can. Whether they like it or not, is only evidence of their tastes.

26. Why Richard Dawkins is right on alternative medicine - but not when it comes to religion

Comment #62578 by AJ Rae on August 10, 2007 at 7:14 am

I don't think that the majority of the church only concerns itself with moral issues.

There's a difference between ethics and religion's "moral codes". Religion says "Magic Man says you must..." or "you'll be tortured for eternity if you don't...", which I believe was blown out of the water by Descartes as an argument for what is moral. Consider the difference between that and say, Utilitarianism.

If the Golden Rule, was the only thing important in Christianity, there would be no need for a Bible, no need for a church.

27. Electrons to Enlightenment 4: Debating Darwin

Comment #61541 by AJ Rae on August 5, 2007 at 4:46 pm

Don't bother, it's a bunch of faithheads talking nonsense, trying to fit square pegs into round wholes so they can conform to their fairytales.

28. CNN Debate on Koran in Toilet

Comment #60235 by AJ Rae on August 1, 2007 at 11:04 am

Are motives themselves crimes now? Wouldn't that be classified a "thought crime"?

29. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #53054 by AJ Rae on June 29, 2007 at 6:03 am

I don't believe that successful mating technique can be a substitute for survivability itself. If the traits sacrifice viability for this effect, fewer of them would reach the stage of mating to begin with, and natural selection would make irrelevant the characteristics of sexual selection.

If the pressure to mate is greater than the pressure to evade a predator, then natural selection would not make it irrelevant. As with the guppy pool example in the video.

30. Lecture on Sex Ratio Theory and Sexual Selection

Comment #52946 by AJ Rae on June 28, 2007 at 4:19 pm

You said that the females' taste in males would itself be subject to natural selection. Doesn't it follow from this that if the particular attributes being used to affect mating success were NOT indicative of anything useful, that the offspring of those females would be less viable, and that the gene pool would eventually eliminate any unnecessary tastes from females during mating?

Having attributes that positively affect mating success would be very useful. The offspring might be less viable in terms of survival, but in terms of passing on their genes, they might be much fitter. This is my interpretation of the video.

31. Hitchens and Prager Debate

Comment #46182 by AJ Rae on May 30, 2007 at 1:36 pm

"Worth" of an unborn "child". Secularism got that wrong? Secularism produces the most idiots? Pitty a rational Atheist wasn't there to object to the babbling that was coming from that fool.

32. Dawkins at the Hay Festival

Comment #46161 by AJ Rae on May 30, 2007 at 12:21 pm

Some people say they believe in "God", but it's hard to say they do if you ask them to explain what they mean. If you believe you talk to God, it's a delusion. Deists do not have a delusion, they're simply wrong, and some bishops are certainly not willing to commit to Theism when asked, it resembles either Pantheism or Deism. As an analogy, you can't say they believe they're Napolean, but some religious people definitely do, like certain terrorists.

33. Al Gore on Reason

Comment #44992 by AJ Rae on May 25, 2007 at 6:24 pm

God intervenes through random mutations

They wouldn't be random mutations. It wouldn't be evolution, it would be design.

I think evolution rules out a certain kind of god. A god that made us, or any other organism that evolved.

A god could have created an enviroment to promote certain traits, that would not be counter to evolution, but those traits could still not ever materialize.

34. Atheist banned from committee on religious education

Comment #27398 by AJ Rae on March 24, 2007 at 11:40 am

I'm as atheist as the rest of you (if there are degrees of atheism....!) but it does seem rather strange that Andrew Edmondson should wish to participate on a committee that discusses how religion is taught in schools. It's rather like a teetotaller wishing to have a say on how wines and spirits are sold, or a vegetarian sitting on the Butchers' Committee.

I suppose that if he were admitted, his opinion on how religion should be taught to children would be limited to one word : "Not."

Every child is taught religion, and many Atheists want children, even their own, to be taught religion. So Atheists should have a say in how religion is taught, that's education. Many Atheists don't want indoctrination and preaching of the wonders of irrational faith, something children shouldn't have to be subjected to.

35. Richard Dawkins and the dangerous delusion of religion

Comment #25807 by AJ Rae on March 15, 2007 at 8:31 am

I don't know but i'll bet it never gets anywhere near the problems that the communists caused us.

Not as much as "the capitalists" have caused us. Not fair? Then perhaps get a clue about what communism is, and define who you mean by "the communists".

36. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #23265 by AJ Rae on February 27, 2007 at 9:03 am

Rather than just addressing my arguments

What arguments?

There's science on the "climate change will be moderate" side too.

Where are the peer-reviewed papers? There are none. There is no science on that "side".

One website on the skeptical side is Friends of Science: http://www.friendsofscience.org/ While it is a minority viewpoint, there is indeed science that points away from global warming catastrophism.

Have they published any papers on climate change?

Well, maybe I'm missing something, but doesn't a call to make Israel vanish from the page of time sound pretty bad?

If you're fond of the state of Israel's government. He mentioned Baathist Iraq and the Soviet Union as other states that have vanished. The point is, wiped from the map means destroyed, i.e. scorched earth, nuclear war, and that's how most people understood it. That's not what he said.

37. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #23148 by AJ Rae on February 26, 2007 at 2:16 pm

"Al-Jazeera is an Arabic channel, Al-Jazeera English is an English channel."

so aljazeera english has nothing to do with aljazeera? sounds likely.

so aljazeera's staff has no word in the translations given by aljazeera english? even after such a tremendous and widely disputed mistake they say nothing? sounds likely.

or maybe they just don't speak persian (after all aljazeera is an arabic tv). sounds likely.

What are you on?

38. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #23108 by AJ Rae on February 26, 2007 at 11:46 am

AJ Rae, does the BBC do the translating for Al-Jazeera, as well? Because the quote from #16 clearly shows that Al-Jazeera itself uses the wording of "wipe Israel off the map" to translate what Ahmadinnerjacket said. That's a hell of a coincidence if the translation is so bad. Unless of course Al-Jazeera copies the BBC for its translations. Which I guess is possible...

Al-Jazeera is an Arabic channel, Al-Jazeera English is an English channel. Most of the Western news including Al-Jazeera English used that phrase. BBC World has translators in many different languages, they're known for it, there are a lot of news agencies like Reuters and the Associate Press that sell news on. I find it very doubtful Al-Jazeera English has its own translators.

We were fighting the Nazis when we were developing them. They were trying to develop them, too. Were the Allies supposed to lie down and accept defeat should the Nazis develop them first?

Iran has its own interests, and threats, they're not the only state trying to develop nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons weren't used against the Nazis. How naive does someone have to be to suggest America wouldn't have developed nuclear weapons if no one else was going to?

This assumes that everyone, even conservatives, agrees on what's true, and that they only pretend to disagree on global warming so they can satisfy their evil intentions. This is a serious blind spot for those on the left: the assumption that the truth is obvious and the only reason people disagree with the left is a refusal to see. As long as liberals honestly believe this, they will never understand conservatives.

I don't even try to tell atheists what to think, I thought this site was populated by atheists grounded in rationalism. You're evidence this is not the case.

The truth is obvious and backed by peer-reviewed science, and the top scientists, including Richard Dawkins. That's the truth, if someone has any better science I welcome them to publish it and enlighten me.

I don't believe these people are "conservatives" first, their motives aren't grounded in conservatism. Conservative parties can be rational too.

39. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #23079 by AJ Rae on February 26, 2007 at 6:52 am

That's an English phrase, he didn't say anything about maps. You might want it to be what he said, the media and Israel definitely wanted it to be what he said. To say that he said something equivalent to genocide or "scorched earth" is complete nonsense.

When Bush said he was going to remove the Baath party from Iraq, people didn't say he was going to use nuclear weapons to do so.

Iran doesn't even have nuclear weapons yet, and even if they did, so does Israel, and in the eventuality of a nuclear exchange, Iran is going to be completely destroyed aswell.

It's absolute stupidity, if you read the media they're constantly using hyperbole and deliberately misinterpretations, and so are politicians. I thought Atheists would be a little more sensible about this sort of thing.

Juan Cole translates his statement as:

The Imam said that this regime occupying Jerusalem (een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods) must [vanish from] the page of time (bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad).

http://www.juancole.com/2006/05/hitchens-hacker-and-hitchens.html (scroll down)

Jonathan Steele asked some people who actually speak farsi:

Finally we come to the BBC monitoring service which every day puts out hundreds of highly respected English translations of broadcasts from all round the globe to their subscribers - mainly governments, intelligence services, thinktanks and other specialists. I approached them this week about the controversy and a spokesperson for the monitoring service's marketing unit, who did not want his name used, told me their original version of the Ahmadinejad quote was "eliminated from the map of the world".

As a result of my inquiry and the controversy generated, they had gone back to the native Farsi-speakers who had translated the speech from a voice recording made available by Iranian TV on October 29 2005. Here is what the spokesman told me about the "off the map" section: "The monitor has checked again. It's a difficult expression to translate. They're under time pressure to produce a translation quickly and they were searching for the right phrase. With more time to reflect they would say the translation should be "eliminated from the page of history".

Finally, I approached Iradj Bagherzade, the Iranian-born founder and chairman of the renowned publishing house, IB Tauris. He thought hard about the word "roozgar". "History" was not the right word, he said, but he could not decide between several better alternatives "this day and age", "these times", "our times", "time".

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/jonathan_steele/2006/06/post_155.html

The actual speech:
http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinejad/speeches/1384/aban-84/840804sahyonizm.htm

40. Ayaan Hirsi Ali on Islam

Comment #23036 by AJ Rae on February 26, 2007 at 1:30 am

Here we go again. In the name of Islam, Ahmadinejad of Iran wants to "wipe Isreal off the map," thus starting Armageddon and hastening the coming of the ninth Imam. And AEI is more evil than that. More evil than nuclear war. Because they publish the wrong ideas.

The wrong ideas like the lie that Ahmadinejad said he wants to "wipe Israel off the map"? Nuclear war? As if America can be defended in this regard, first to develop them, first and only to use them, and has the most of them?

The American Enterprise Institute pay scientists and others to lie about science. People on this site should know more than many that wrong ideas can do a lot of damage. Not trying to limit the effects of Global Warming because you're afraid of losing money is pretty evil. I would predict that Global Warming will do more damage than Iran having nuclear weapons, especially with limited yield weapons and no ICBM.

41. Atheists come in last

Comment #22834 by AJ Rae on February 23, 2007 at 2:00 pm

A possible interpretation of this poll is that atheists, being open-minded and inclusive...

If I thought someone would use their religion or faith delusions to make decisions I wouldn't even contemplate on voting for them. Of course, no sane politician would ever say they get guidance from God. If a politician went to church regularly I wouldn't vote for them.

42. Panel discussion on atheism where no atheists are included

Comment #21325 by AJ Rae on February 8, 2007 at 5:13 pm

Hunter,

What does an atheist believe? Nothing.

"Believe" as in non evidence based faith, that's correct. Is that meant to be a snipe? I think that's one of the biggest attributes a person can have.

I personally think that they should never have taken prayer out of schools. I would rather there be some morality in schools.

So Hunter is saying without her beliefs she would kill her neighbour, or something comparable. I'm not surprised.

You can't pick an atheist out of a crowd.

She's asking for prayer and the pledge of allegiance in schools, but for atheists do not take part. Think about a boss wanting his employees to pray or read the bible with him, it's going to be quite obvious who's an atheist.

Schlussel,

This is a Christian country.

OK, no Jewish holidays for you... include Jesus in the pledge of allegiance, and on your money.

Look where there are more atheists and where they've lost God, where the church is not that strong. Europe is becoming Islamist.

Becoming Islamist? It couldn't possibly because of the location of Europe and the middle-east, historical connections like Britain ruling over Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Palestine, or France, Lebanon, Syria, Nigeria, Algeria, Senegal.

It's fast falling and intolerance is increasing.

Banning gay marriage in the constitution intolerant?

Smith had weak arguments, but he's the sports presenter. Doesn't believe in polls, good to be sceptical, but perhaps he should seek out the information or independent polls, instead of being "willing to believe" in something.

43. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20332 by AJ Rae on February 1, 2007 at 10:21 pm

I contacted the website and told them it wasn't rendering in Opera, next day the site goes down, then when it's back up it's working in Opera. That's pretty cool.

44. Evolution Debate - Pigliucci vs Hovind

Comment #20330 by AJ Rae on February 1, 2007 at 10:17 pm

It's a gigantic waste of time spending any time on Hovind. The premise that God exists is a false one. The Bible can't prove itself to be true.

The argument about time is new, I bet it's interesting to psychologists. You don't have to understand spacetime to understand that small effects over a small time, at the same rate of increase, will be large effects over a large time. There's plenty of scientific evidence for increase in diversity, and relationships between species. I bet other creationists don't like it, because even if we accept the premise that God exists to be true, it's still complete nonsense.

Pigliucci obviously couldn't get his head around someone believing the Earth is 10,000 years old. If you believe that, then dogs turning into plants, hills into mountains, can be done in an instant. Ribs into women, light from galaxies millions of years ago taking less than 10,000 years to get to Earth, wood into snakes, women into stone, virgin births, zombies, walking on H2O.

45. Blashpemy Challenge Interview

Comment #20011 by AJ Rae on January 31, 2007 at 4:12 am

Ridiculing superstition is a good tool in defeating it. No religion deserves any special case protection against criticism.

I don't quite understand the logic behind this "challenge", but then I have never believed in God, gods, or santa claus. I guess for people who were Christians, this might help them come to terms with nonbelief. Like Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes sinning, and fearing hell, but gradually not.

Since it's getting media attention and angering the religious, it can't be bad.

46. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18996 by AJ Rae on January 24, 2007 at 8:19 am

You should study the economy and history of Latin America countries. Chile is (currently) the envy of L.A. but everybody wants to flee from Cuba.

That wasn't my point. As you have mentioned, Cubans probably have other reasons for wanting to flee, and of course they're fleeing to the US, not Chile.

The Human Development Index of Chile is high despite the relatively low GDP per capita, in international standards.

That's false, compared to the world Chile's GDP per capita is higher than the majority in terms of population and states. Perhaps by "international standards" you meant the US and Europe.

47. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18658 by AJ Rae on January 22, 2007 at 8:44 am

I think your data is skewed. Chile is close to Argentina in Human Development Index (UN 2006) and is steadily going up.

The Human Development Index of Chile is heavily dependant on GDP. The other factors don't even beat Cuba. In my opinion GDP, especially when the vast majority is going to a small percentage of people, does not help the overall population as much as you imply it does.

48. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18546 by AJ Rae on January 21, 2007 at 4:51 pm

Chomsky is brilliant, I haven't heard his opinions on faith or science before, it's spot on like his opinions on politics.

Many Chileans will easily concede that although Pinochet was a dictator, he corrected the course of Chile so people can enjoy the benefits today.

I seriously doubt that, with cuts to healthcare, and other social services, and a decline of income for the lower classes wages. The top 20% recieving 85% of the GDP growth. Foreign debt rising by 300%. The course Pinochet took would not be considered positive to many.

Today, very few Chileans enjoy that highest per capita income, because the distribution of wealth is behind all but Brazil in South America. Chile has voted in a Socialist, and it's no wonder.

49. Wash. school board restricts Gore's global-warming film

Comment #17697 by AJ Rae on January 15, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Authorities jump right on the teaching of science in science classes, but it takes a never ending battle for religion to not be taught in science classes.

50. Readers Write: Atheist Sam Harris on Torture and Faith

Comment #17088 by AJ Rae on January 10, 2007 at 4:57 pm

As I suggested earlier, Harris's perspective on the morality of torture is interpreted from false conclusions, based on the premise that he thinks collateral damage is moral when he does not. I tend to agree to a certain extent. I disagree with him on the effectiveness of torture, which I believe he implies that it is effective.

If torture worked, and we knew that someone had infomation that would save a child for instance, I would have no objections to the abstraction of that infomation even if it meant the death of the person tortured.

Torture doesn't work, people will admit to anything, and give false infomation under torture. It's hardly ever the case where you know that someone has certain infomation to abstract.