Comments by Bonzai

1. Richard Dawkins on The Big Questions - 28th Dec 2008

Comment #313084 by Bonzai on January 5, 2009 at 9:07 pm

Titania

Great post!

Comment #310738 by Bonzai on January 1, 2009 at 9:36 pm

jgirolamo

that is a little off to take out of context the verse because you lose the meaning.

That is the whole point, isn't it? The Bible doesn't come with an instruction manual of how to read it. It is full of odd digressions and contradictions so that you can read it in many ways, you must resort to information external to the book to determine the "proper" context, so in the end 10 readers may come up with 11 interpretations because one guy changes his mind.

As an "inspired text" it is as good as nothing, I wonder why God bothered at all.

There is an old Native Candaian (American?) story that goes like this. Once upon the time a hungry traveler arrived in a village. He figured he would be turned away if he just knocked at doors to beg for food. So he instead went about gathering stones. The curious villagers asked him what he was doing. He replied that he was making stone soup, which is really delicious but he needed a pot. So they gave him a pot. He put the stones in the pot, filled it up with water and started boiling it. He told the curious onlookers that he had a good reciple, but he would need different ingredients to make the soup more delicious. So anxious to find out what might turn up, the villagers went home and got the incredients. They brought bones, meat and vegetables and the travelers threw them all in the pot and cooked with the stones. In the end of course the "stone soup" turned into a delicious broth which he shared with all villagers.

I think in their most benign intepretations, religious texts are a bit like the stones in the pot. It is only a means to bring people together and fire up their expectations and imaginations. The active ingredients are from us. The same end can be achieved through other poetic texts, say Homer's epics, Tolstoy's or Shakespeare's works.

However, in reality, religion as a social institution is rarely benign. Unlike the wise traveler and the generous villagers chances are someone almost invariably contribute some poison to the pot and serve up some deadly kool Aid instead of the delicious and wholesome soup in the story.

3. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #310730 by Bonzai on January 1, 2009 at 9:00 pm

Laurie

Nice! I remember when the science students at my uni had to do a course in philosophy of science, which I was attending at the time. Quite a few of them were terrorised by it - they were freaked out that the epistemology of scientific method could be at all questioned.

I thought it was rather trivial. It was a bird course taken by science students to raise their GPA. The only challenge was essay writing, which we didn't do much. But it had nothing to do with the content of the course.

4. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310334 by Bonzai on January 1, 2009 at 9:18 am

h4d

Also, data on married couples seems to indicate that they are much healthier, happier and better off economically than even cohabiting couples.

Assuming the finding is factually true, is the difference in children well being the result of parents' maritial status or simply correlate to it?

For examples, people who choose to married may have higher income, or, in our culture, the decision to marry may indicate more commitment to their partners thus resulting in more stable families, etc.

In other words, statistical models may suffer from selection biases. Are they being addressed in those studies?

Moreover, there is a possibility, at least in some communities, that children from non married parents may suffer social discriminations, so the fact they may be less healthy may indicate that they are victimized by prejudice rather than a problem on the part of the parents. This is certainly an important factor in evaluating the well being of children with same sex parents.

As a result of the push for "no-fault" divorces in the idealistic attempt to liberate people from bad marriages -- without giving much thought at all to the impact on children -- people who have studied the impact of divorce on children are feeling much more cautious about changing the marriage institution's already-weakened position in society.

I am interested in how such studies are carried out. You cannot simply compare children of divorced parents to children from intact families.

Clearly there are reasons why people would choose to divorce and these reasons would impact on the children negatively whether the parents actually divorce.

To isolate divorce as a factor to study you have to compare children whose parents have divorced to those who are from dysfunctional marriage whose parents would have divorced.

5. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310328 by Bonzai on January 1, 2009 at 9:05 am

Steve

There is another matter, which is that the roles that men and women play in traditional marriages may not apply in gay marriages. The idea of the father regulating emotion, for example.

Good point. I am always wondering what is really the issue here, the genders of the parents or the gender roles they play in raising children.

While I admit that I have not read much of the literature I have an impression that those people who argue that in some way hetereosexual couples are uniquely qualified to raise children are actually arguing for a kind of traditional gender roles. I wonder what would they say about the parental suitability of young heterosexual couples who don't adhere to such roles. The problem of the social science is that there are such wide latitude in interpreting the data and formulating the questions and it is so difficult in disentangling the relevant factors that findings can be spun in many ways.

And oh, happy new year to you and h4d.

6. For Good Self-Control, Try Getting Religious About It

Comment #310068 by Bonzai on January 1, 2009 at 12:31 am

So it is established,--though hardly new,-- religious people are more likely to be boring conformists who readily submit to authority and follow rules. Why is this a good thing though?

7. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310045 by Bonzai on December 31, 2008 at 9:44 pm

Happy new year everyone! We are one year older and have more wrinkeles and failure in our lives. Woo hoo !! :)

8. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #310043 by Bonzai on December 31, 2008 at 9:41 pm

If Bernstein is truely neutral on gay rights he wouldn't be spending so much time trying to argue for removing it from "the cause". If I feel disinterest about a certain topic, I would simply not comment on it instead of passionately trying to argue for a contrarian position.

It is also clear from his language and tone that he is not "neutral" on homosexuality. I am sure I am not the only one to find them rather negative, at times deliberately offensive.

So have some balls Bernstein, stop hiding behind the smokescreen of neutrality and tell us what you really think.

9. God: Philosophers Weigh In

Comment #309641 by Bonzai on December 31, 2008 at 11:30 am

Cartomancer

Most people who download files illegally would, if pressed, admit that what they are doing is wrong. They keep doing it anyway, for whatever reason, but they will not try to justify themselves by saying "hey, it's perfectly ok, stop telling me it's wrong". They would probably also admit to being hypocrites.

Really? Let me try. Suppose I buy a book and give it to you after I read it, when you finish you lend it to steve etc so that none of you have to buy the book to read it, is this wrong?

If I buy a movie DVD and invite all my friends to watch it for free, is that wrong?

Now mind you, second hand book stores and CD stores are perfectly legal even though the operators make a profit out of copyright material while on the other hand, most people who share files online don't make any money out of it.

Sorry for the digression, I of course agree with you completely on Bernstein.

10. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #309318 by Bonzai on December 31, 2008 at 1:44 am

skb

You are angry at God

Not really, there is no God.

Just angry at the zombies whose idea of living a good life is to take orders from a psychotic imaginary sky daddy.

The worst part is that these zombies think that they are in a position to lecture others on topics ranging from the origin of the univese to the morality of homosexuality based on 10th rate mythologies invented by a not very bright bronze aged tribe. Now that gets me angry.

11. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #309300 by Bonzai on December 31, 2008 at 12:59 am

skb

It is my opinion that gayness is just an immmoral act that doesn't deserve justification, it's not the opinion that I gained from my parents or any other man on earth. It's a fact that I hold as a christian having read in the Bible about unsupport for homosexual sin.

Any more immoral than working on the Sabbath or eating pork, or wearing cloths of mixed fabric?

Where in the Bible does it talk about "morality"?

Prescribing a set of dos and don'ts more or less arbitrarily because "God says so" without any justification or explanation is not "morality". Genuine morality has to involve reflection and asking why. You can train a dog to do tricks by the Biblical method of the carrot and the stick, this is no morality.

12. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #309286 by Bonzai on December 31, 2008 at 12:35 am

I know a woman who hates sex of any kind. She says God is a pervert because he made us in such a way that we can only procreate by doing the gross act of urinating in each other, possibly because God likes to watch. This is as valid as the homophobes' objection to gay sex.

13. Dawkins Delusion (3rd article, Same Stupid Title)

Comment #309284 by Bonzai on December 31, 2008 at 12:31 am

Cartomancer

710. Comment #308370

Bravo, bravo!

14. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #308395 by Bonzai on December 30, 2008 at 12:21 am

skb

You asked me to cite a verse from Bible that suggests that God judges people's hearts..

If God judges people's hearts, he would know that those believe because of Pascal's wager are crass opportunists. If he can't see that he is a moron, if he can see that, yet dispite that rewards people whose principles are for sale simply because they made the right bet, he doesn't really care what is in your heart, he just wants you to acknowledge he is the boss, it is nothing but a power trip.

Based on Biblical descriptions I certainly cannot see why God is qualified to judge us in the first place. This so called "God" is jealous, petty, cruel, treacherous, easily given in to anger and temper tantrums, he demands "faith" from us yet appears to have little in us, he is vain and craves worship above all else. In other words, he is the embodiment some of the worst human flaws but magnifies them by a factor of infinity. It is fortunate that we don't all behave like him. The very few psychopaths who do, like Stalin and Hitler, are enough to cause enough demages. But being humans, their evils are only infinitesimal comparing to their role model in the sky.

If God created us and we are bad because of our nature, certainly it is his own responsibility. Why do we need his "forgiveness" while our flaws are the results of his shoddy workmanship and lack of foresight? He is the perfect role model for people in positions of power who evade responsibility by passing the buck. Some perfect being, that.

Finally, how is it possible for a perfect being to create a product so flawed and bad like humans (according to the Bible)? So much for your claim of "coherence".

15. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305618 by Bonzai on December 23, 2008 at 10:42 am

Mitchell

Also, what do you mean by "naturalism"?

It is not clear to me, as I said in 4036.

I think I understand it to mean mindless physical objects forces and phenomena. Whether everything can be rendered intelligible, or affects, and is affected by other things I don't know. It could be that I don't know enough about physics to know this has to be true -- but I think that it merely just must be assumed.

I see what you are getting at. But agency does exist, as we are a part of nature. So while I agree with you we don't need agency to describe the world at a fundamental level and including agency adds nothing to it, I wouldn't say that agency is "unnatural". This is probably just sematics.

I don't know whether it is even meaningful to talk about the "ultimate" reality. I am not interested in such questions. However, we can talk about useful ways in understanding the world. A useful approach is one that allows us to give a consistent description of diverse phenomena which can be checked against data, explains detail mechanism, makes predictions and generalizes etc. By that criterion DG's theistic baggage is completely useless and ill defined (what is "perfect" anyway?) It is like some one insisting aether exists because to him it makes better sense to think of light as stress on material medium rather than something that can exist in a vaccum without a substrate. It is ad hoc and adds nothing to our understanding, it is useless. The only difference is with aether you can at least come up with some kind of convoluted theory,--Lorentz worked out the formulae for time dilation and space contraction in a aether framework before Einstein did away with it altogether in special relativity,-- with "God did it" you don't even get an ugly theory.

I wish you a merry Christmas and hope that the snow storm is not too bad. I am so lucky that I am now in Hong Kong. :) The temperature outside is 13 degrees C and all the dogs in the street are wearing sweaters, they call that a cold front. Go figure. :)

16. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305607 by Bonzai on December 23, 2008 at 9:56 am

Mphil

Once again your long post is just a lot of hot air with no substance.

Your "reasonable" definition of philosophy clearly is not shared by all philosophers. For example the "Post modernists" who are quite prominantly featured among tenured faculties in philosophy departments. What you described is only one school of philosophy.

Now how is it possible to find such completely incompatible understanding of what the discipline is, what should be its methodology and even whether it should have a methodology among respected (according to practitioners and peer reviewed publications) professionals? Can you give an example of a genuine science such as physics, chemistry or biology where such widespread disagreement is the norm? Where taste plays such a prominant role in dictating academic fashion, not just in terms of the subject of investigation, but the very nature of the discipline itself?

Why should I, as an outsider, take your opinion of what philosophy is , rather than the opinions of people such as Nietzsche, Derrida, Feyerabend or Focault instead?

But even if I grant you your definition of philosophy. I have yet to see in what way you shed lights on those problems you attempt to investigate or illuminate. Strip away the polysyllable big words you have nothing.

I asked you what is "real", you never gave me a satisfactory answer,--that has temporal and spatial existence is not satisfactory as I have argued before, as space and time themselves would not be "real" with that definition. Failing even to answer such a basic question, all your pompous pontifications fall apart

You accuse me of "Platonism". Well (mis)labeling a view is not a refutation. Maybe in your discipline it is, but not in mine. I don't know what "Platonism" means, but I raise some questions about the universal nature of mathematical relationship, as well as bringing up the fact that at the fundamental level, mathematical constructions and physics appear to be blurred. You have no answer to that, but only try to once again defining the question away by setting up arbitrary categories of "reality",--and in the process reveal your woeful ignorance of mathematcs and physics beyond a caricature. This is exactly the kind of desperate attempt to fitting the world into philosophical dogma that I am against.

Your point that I am not qualified to talk about philosophy because I am not a trained philosopher is somewhat rich, since your very field,--"philosophy of mathematics and science",-- is a parasitic discipline based on commentaries on subjects which
you learn only through nth handed journalistic accounts.

17. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305579 by Bonzai on December 23, 2008 at 8:31 am

Mitchell 4045

I don't have ontological considerations. I am only saying that because I disagree with Mphil that "naturalism" has to incoporate the scientific paradign of seeking rules for processes and mechanisms. I think these are somewhat seperate.

18. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305573 by Bonzai on December 23, 2008 at 8:12 am

"Naturalism" as a purely ontological position doesn't necessitate the description of mechanism and process. It is a like "materialism", it is just an assertion about the "substance" of the world.

It is conceivable that "nature" or "matter" just is and cannot be described and doesn't follow any rule.

Thus,"naturalism" and "supernaturalism", "materialism" and "idealism", --in their "pure", "ontological" forms,-- are exactly equivalent and equally irrelevant.

"Methodological naturalism", on the other hand, is a set of operational assumptions (with added epistemological content)which have concrete consequences.

19. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305568 by Bonzai on December 23, 2008 at 8:01 am

Cartomancer

Looks like I missed the Queen's Christmas Message on this thread earlier.

Did Steve have a Christmas message?

Sorry Steve, just kidding. I am only a princess. :)

20. Richard Dawkins explains his 'Scarlet A' lapel pin - The Out Campaign

Comment #305560 by Bonzai on December 23, 2008 at 7:50 am

cartomancer

Well, not hate Americans so much as find their general culture somewhat overbearing, crass and distasteful. Perhaps I get the wrong impression from all the tourists.

I spoke to some Canucks teaching ESL in Korea. Apparently Aussies, rather than Americans, by far have the worst reputation for being pushy and overbearing in South Korea. I must say I was rather surprised. Maybe our Aussie brigade here would have something to say about that. :)

21. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #305556 by Bonzai on December 23, 2008 at 7:45 am

I am not sure if I am thinking along the same line as Steve, but I too find labels such as "naturalism" really don't have a lot of meaning.

For the concept of "naturalism" to be useful, one needs to be able to say what is not naturalism. But what is "supernaturalism" really? I haven't seen a satisfactory definition. In the same way in order to carry on a discussion on materialism, dualism and idealism one needs to know what is matter and what isn't. Again there doesn't seem to be any satisfactory way to make this precise.

Therefore, it is rather useless to engage in this kind of discussion ala DG. It is all a verbal smokescreen which doesn't advance our knowledge by one iota.

I come to the conclusion that various grand sounding "-isms" are just convoluted attempts to define the problems away. In science one always have fairly concrete problems to chew on. This keep the scientists feet on the ground, so to speak. It is by working out the details, by answering specific questions that we make progress. Only someone who spends too much time on philosophy would take DG's kind of non argument seriously.

22. Saudi court tells girl aged EIGHT she cannot divorce husband who is 50 years her senior

Comment #305494 by Bonzai on December 23, 2008 at 5:03 am

On a different note.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/557645

Questioning of Prophet's existence stirs outcry
Email story
Print
Choose text size
Report typo or correction

Muslim academic says research leads him to believe Muhammad is a mythical figure
Dec 23, 2008 04:30 AM
Be the first to comment on this article...
Tom Harpur
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

A noted Muslim scholar has provoked a huge controversy in Europe by openly questioning the existence of the Prophet Muhammad.

The Islamist at the centre of the storm in Germany over whether Muhammad ever existed as an historical figure says he is simply following the conclusions of many years of rigorous research.

Muhammad Sven Kalisch, 42, the chair of Islamic Studies at the University of Muenster and whose duties include training teachers for the rising number of Muslim students in German high schools, has created a furor by stating that in all probability Muhammad was a mythical creation.

He told the Star in a recent phone interview that his research leads him to believe that the three great monotheistic religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam have mythical origins.

German police worried about a possible violent backlash have told the professor to move his offices to more secure premises. But Kalisch says there have been no specific threats and he is far from being "in hiding" as some bloggers and other rumour-mongers have claimed.

However, the Central Council of Muslims in Germany to which the four largest organizations of the country's 3 million-strong Muslim community belong, has stopped its co-operation with the university's Centre for Religious Studies over the professor's stand.

A spokesperson for the council, Ali Kizilkaya, has said if the Prophet Muhammad didn't exist then the Qur'an doesn't exist.

"This would mean that we would have to abolish the religion altogether," Kizilkaya said. "We are convinced the Prophet did indeed exist and that the Qur'an is the word of God."

Michael Marx, a Qur'an specialist at the Berlin-Brandenburg Academy of Sciences, has warned his colleagues that Kalisch's views will "make it difficult" for German scholars to work in Muslim lands.

The traditional view of Muhammad is that he was born in Mecca in Arabia, about AD 570 and died in Medina around AD 632. The Qur'an, Islam's holy book, is composed of revelations believed to have been given to him by God through the archangel Gabriel. There are about one billion Muslims in the world today.

"My position with regard to the historical existence of Muhammad is that I believe neither his existence nor his non-existence can be proven," Kalisch said in a statement. "I, however, lean toward the non-existence."

He told the Star he holds the same position regarding Abraham, Moses and the other Jewish patriarchs, as well as Jesus Christ.

There have been threats, campaigns for his dismissal from his post, and dozens of media interviews, commentaries and editorials. According to Der Spiegel magazine, a group of more than 30 German academics have signed a petition supporting Kalisch's right to scholarly freedom of expression.

Kalisch studied and practised law before returning to college to take a Ph.D. in religious studies. He speaks fluent English, Turkish and Arabic as well as German.

He was born in Hamburg of a German father and a mother of Mongolian descent. They were nominal Protestants and when he began early in his teens to follow up on the Asian line of his heritage he decided to learn Turkish.

That led directly to an exposure to Islamic teaching and at 15 he decided to convert. "I was attracted by the emphasis on one God instead of a trinity," he says. "It seemed in many ways a very rational religion."

But, he differed from typical religious converts to a new faith in that he never stopped questioning. "Religion should never contradict reason," he says. "I could never accept any doctrine or belief that goes against my rational mind."

Kalisch said he realized early in 2001 that when the same scientific methods are applied to investigate Muslim claims of historicity as are used on Jewish and Christian origins, similar problems arise at once. He found that traditional theological positions soon collapse once hard evidence is sought. He discovered there is as much "myth-making" in Islam as in Judaism and Christianity. And so his current process of "rethinking Islam" was begun.

Asked whether he thought his public airings of his findings will destroy peoples' faith, he said: "It will destroy a literalist faith, a faith no longer reliable because of reason. But, the God I believe in is not a god of literalists. He is the Ultimate One. God doesn't write books. All the various sacred books are the product of human minds and experiences. They can be helpful but they must be interpreted for today."

Kalisch maintains non-Muslim scholars who agree with his hypothesis but keep silent out of "respect" for Muslims are in fact treating them as though they can't handle the truth.

"That's not respect, it's putting Muslims on the same level as small children who can't think and decide for themselves and whose illusions of Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny one doesn't want to destroy."

This story has been reported on RD.net months ago, but this update on today's paper seem to report the professor's stance in more detail.

23. Most 'do not believe in nativity'

Comment #304438 by Bonzai on December 21, 2008 at 1:26 am

The science of virgin birth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1KjUvNZXg8

24. Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?

Comment #304434 by Bonzai on December 21, 2008 at 1:15 am

Brian

I actually have considerable respect for ancient philosophers such as the Greeks. They were original and they tried their best to understand the world with only a few tools they had. Moreover, there were no strict seperation of science and philosophy back then. I save my contempt mainly for modern, academic philosophers who do sort of a fake "science"(like metaphysics, ontology, that sorts of things). I have no problem, however, with philosophers whose main interests are in what can be roughly called "the human condition", for example, moral philosophers.

25. Most 'do not believe in nativity'

Comment #304409 by Bonzai on December 20, 2008 at 11:21 pm

Hey Tiania,

I have been busy for a while. Now I am vacationing in Asia. I try to stay away from the internet. I think now I am in a time zone closer to the crazy Aussies. Maybe will check out this place when they start partying.

I am avoiding DG's tripes. I don't want to waste time replying to them and be drawn into a long, never ending back and forth as a result. I have better things to do.

26. Is Yahweh a Moral Monster?

Comment #304404 by Bonzai on December 20, 2008 at 11:11 pm

If someone insists that Greek mythologies are more than just a collection of good stories, but they are somehow divine and supernatural in origin, most people would think that this person is insane and should be laughed at. Yet people who take Biblical stories seriously somehow deserve respect.

27. Most 'do not believe in nativity'

Comment #304399 by Bonzai on December 20, 2008 at 11:03 pm

Jesus??!! I always thought that Christmas is about Santa and shopping. Who is Jesus?

28. Religious Ed. rebellion

Comment #304396 by Bonzai on December 20, 2008 at 11:00 pm

Is this motivated by religion or culture?

Catholicism in Quebec has a cultural significance to it, I have the feeling that this may be more than just mumbo jumbos concerning Jesus and rituals. It may be that some people feel that the new religious study course is an attempt to undermine Quebec culture in favour of multi-culturalism which treats all beliefs on equal footing.

Based on my understanding from Ontario Quebec has a different philosophy to immigration than English Canada. There is a stronger emphasis for immigrants to conform to the ways of the host society in Quebec.

29. Many Americans Say Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life

Comment #304383 by Bonzai on December 20, 2008 at 9:51 pm

Maybe they mean other faiths can lead to an eternal life of torture in a very hot place?

30. Obama Chooses Divisive Inaugural Pastor

Comment #304058 by Bonzai on December 20, 2008 at 8:21 am

Jaredk

I agree! Give the man time.

31. Many Americans Say Other Faiths Can Lead to Eternal Life

Comment #304046 by Bonzai on December 20, 2008 at 7:47 am

beanson

I too respect fundies more than moderates- not, of course, for their moral superiority but for their rational superiority.

Sorry, I agree with the first post that said this is an idiotic meme. More rational? It has to be a very strange definition of rationality, more consistently insane, perhaps, but that is nothing to be respected.

I talk to moderates as well as fundamentalists. I certainly don't get the impression that fundamentalists are more "honest", quite the oppoiste, they seem to be deeply hypocritical people who are overcompensating,--outward peity may be positively correlated with the intensity of cognitive dissonance experienced within. By comparison the moderates seem to be much more at ease with their beliefs.

Since the non fundamentalists don't subscribe to the premise that the Bible is meant to be understood literally there is nothing "dishonest" in trying to interprete it based on experience not found in the book. In their belief systems the book is only an aid. This is no less consistent a position than the literalists' in principle. In practice, it is more consistent because even so called fundamentalists pick and choose and interprete, only they are not explicit about it, for one thing, nowhere in the book does it say that one has to be a literalist, that is an interpretation in itself. Also, it is laughably naive to think that it is even possible to be a "Biblcal literalist" by reading only modern translations in isolation from the historical context in which the original texts were written.

A knowledgeable moderate Christian can very convincingly demolish the common varieties of Biblical fundamentalism and be actually intellectually more honest than his fundamentalist adversaries.

32. Britain is 'unfriendly' for religious people

Comment #298331 by Bonzai on December 7, 2008 at 10:03 am

Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor claims that the rise of secularism has led to a liberal society, hostile to Christian morals and values, in which religious belief is viewed as "a private eccentricity" and the voice of faith groups is marginalised.

Religion as private eccentricity.Isn't that the way it should be? The Cardinal seems to be saying that religious people should have some natural right to impose their views on society at large. What a f*cktard.

33. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #294030 by Bonzai on November 30, 2008 at 2:13 pm

A maverick means a bisexual person.

34. Terrorism That's Personal

Comment #294008 by Bonzai on November 30, 2008 at 1:43 pm

saadiamalik

There is an equally cruel form of terrorism, where you come from: objectifying women. Hats off

Are you saying treating women like property, livestocks and baby making machines as they do in the Muslim countries is not "objectifying" women? "Equally cruel" as what? Give me a break. Your excuse is pathetic.

35. Children of God?

Comment #293687 by Bonzai on November 29, 2008 at 6:58 pm

Don,

I misread him. He said "Supreme being", not supernatural being. I deleted my post.

36. Children of God?

Comment #293679 by Bonzai on November 29, 2008 at 6:35 pm

Why is belief in supernatural beings so common? Because of the design of human minds. Human minds, under normal developmental conditions, have a strong receptivity to belief in gods, in the afterlife, in moral absolutes, and in other ideas commonly associated with 'religion' … In a real sense, religiousness is the natural state of affairs. Unbelief is relatively unusual and unnatural.

We naturally fall for simple optical illusions 100% of the time (far more widespread than belief in God and afterlife), but they are still illusions.

37. Vatican thanks Muslims for returning God to Europe

Comment #293410 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 9:37 pm

And it is supposed to be a good thing for the Catholics? Funny they would rather circle the wagon with Islam in favour of ANY God instead of accepting a secularized Europe. Let the Church does the "inter faith dialogue" in Saudi Arabia.

38. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293391 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 9:08 pm

Diancu

No, perfect would be Richard Morgan playing at the wedding.

No, perfect would be a foursome with atheistJon and Serden. But wait, Serden is probably a paedophile and finds the other three too old for his taste.

39. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293380 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 9:01 pm

2660. Comment #293373 by Wosret

Mitchell

He took offence because I said I skipped his posts before. Remember that one time he said you were boring and you complained that no one spoke out for you? I said I didn't know that because I skipped his posts, expecting they were only colourful swearing. So he has been on my case ever since.

40. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293369 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 8:48 pm

I missed Bernstein's confession. See Styrer I did read your posts.

41. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293366 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 8:45 pm

Sharon

Anne Mclellan, and some other guy, David Kilgour.

I remember. Mclellan always won by only a few hundred votes and was called "landslide Annie" and Kilgour is a religious freak. The Libearal party is a big tent, it has its fringe and rightwing. Kilgour is a nutjob, then there are also rightwing, pro deep integration (with the U.S) Liberals like John Manely, who isn't a lot better than Harper.

42. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293354 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 8:33 pm

We have Leonard Cohen :)

43. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293350 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 8:28 pm

Alberta seems to be politically very homogenous. They have elected all conservatives except a NDP in one riding. I think previously all ridings went conservatives too. Even the BQ doesn't have that kind of support in Quebec.

44. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293347 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 8:22 pm

Sharon

Martin was unlucky, but brilliant

Nah. He is no leader, he has no character and he is too much of a Bay street man to my liking.

Can we have another Trudeau, please?

I think they really hate Trudeau out West (basically Alberta)

45. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293342 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 8:14 pm

Sharon

I don't mind Rae, he is a smart guy. They blame him for two things basically 1) running up a big deficit during a recession which he didn't create and 2) making unionized civil servants to take unpaid day offs (the infamous "Rae days")

I think he should be vindicated for 1) by now when all countries around the world (except for us!) go on massive spendings to cushion the economical downturn. The only problem was the provincial government couldn't spend enough to have a big effect, but enough to make the books look really bad.

As for 2), IMO he has shown leadership and genuine compassion. Instead of just laying off people left and right like the Conservatives, he asked the workers to share their jobs. The unions hated him for that and they campaigned against him in the election that followed and got the Conservatives elected. When the Conservatives were in power, the first thing they did was to bust the unions, closed down government departments and fired the workers. Served them right.

I don't know much about Ignetieff, seems to be a big intellectual.

Actually though, I think Dion is being treated rather unfairly, he is honest and has vision and ideas. That is what voters say they want in politicians but they crucified him instead. But oh well, in politics a lot is about image, too bad he is finished.

46. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293331 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 7:25 pm

Jim Flaherty is either stupid, or insane or criminal. His way to address the economical crunch is to cut billions from programs, taking more money out of the economy and sell off government assets at bargain price to avoid a deficit. It is like what he did in Ontario in the 1990's all over again.

EDIT: They keep telling us Rae is unelectable because he ruined Ontario's economy (which was not true) but somehow they think the Harris gang is ok!

47. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293320 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 7:00 pm

I think Batman just got killed off.

48. The Religious Support Behind Proposition 8

Comment #293318 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 6:56 pm

Frankus,

Can't wait for the Conservatives to be toppled by a coalition government.

49. Why we believe in gods

Comment #293316 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 6:55 pm

The "beautiful harmony cooperation between animals and plants and human beings or cows" involved " beef". What a joker you're wooter. Bahahahaa!

50. Does Religion Make You Nice?

Comment #293123 by Bonzai on November 28, 2008 at 1:49 pm