651. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156760 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 8:28 am

181. Comment #156746 by yussel123 on April 8, 2008 at 8:17 am

Are you suggesting that drug use is NOT harmful and that it is not motivated by a desire to escape reality? What other explanation would you give for the fact that people intentionally alter their minds and suffer irreparable harm ?

Hang on before you lose the run of this.

I didn't mention drug use, or assert that it isn't harmful. And I particularly didn't talk about the motivation for drug use. "Escaping reality" is one possibility, but it's not self-evident. It could also be the search for other states of mind which are also "real". The most common narcotics are popular because they produce feelings - usually more intense - similar to those generated during sex. I've yet to hear anyone suggesting that there's something "unreal" about the post-orgasmic state, except possibly in a poetic sense.

But that's something of a side issue. You're suggesting that there is a motivation, and that it is generated by conditioning as a child. It's up to you to prove that. It's not up to me to disprove it.

[Edited for grammar]

652. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156739 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 8:09 am

172. Comment #156733 by yussel123 on April 8, 2008 at 8:04 am

My evidence is the state of the world. My evidence is the number of people who run to psycho-therapy because they can't deal with the real world on it's own terms. My evidence is alcoholism, drug use, just to name a few things.

No, it doesn't work like that. You have to produce a convincing empirical link between the movies, sports and fairy tales, and the harm you suggest they cause. Furthermore, you would have to show that there was at least as close a correlation and at least as much harm as with the teaching of religion.

"Isn't the world terrible" is not evidence.

653. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156729 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 7:56 am

169. Comment #156726 by yussel123 on April 8, 2008 at 7:45 am

So your point is that all fantasies are damaging, regardless of whether they are presented as fantasies or not? Evidence?

And btw, I was the first to mention 1 Corinthians on this thread. The allusion in #156702 is a breach of my copyright and I will sue your ass over any repeated infringement. Possibly.

654. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156716 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 7:26 am

al-rawandi - I am on record as saying substantially the same thing. But if the government has to interfere - and let's face it, there is no subject in which the government doesn't think it has to interfere - then it would be nice for it at least not to be divisive.

655. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156707 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 7:07 am

Well ok, Steve, perhaps I shouldn't presume to speak for you. Personally I don't find it satisfying that your marriage is not regarded as being the same as mine - or indeed as a "marriage" at all. But if you don't care, I'll take down the barricades.

And I'll be happy to call you Lady Steve if you so choose.

656. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156697 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 6:56 am

I go out to a meeting after making a rude comment about Tony Blair, and by the time I come back it has mutated into a discussion about the merits of the Scottish Raj Labour government ...

I'm not going to get into that, because I never come out of it happy. But just to pick up on the gay rights bit, I don't think I would be too proud of Labour's record here.

The law on the age of consent makes no sense, and hasn't for a very long time. What was needed was root and branch reform. But Blair backed away from that, and with much trumpeting about "equality" produced a dog's dinner of a bill, the only clear part of which was the reduction of the age of consent for homosexual men. Oh, and the previous government was already committed to that, following the Sutherland decision in the ECHR.

It's a pretty limited form of equality, since it's still perfectly legal for a 30 year old woman to have sex with a 15 year old boy, or for two 13 year old girls to have sex with each other. (Now I'm not saying I disapprove, mind. Personally I'd award the MBE to the former. But I digress.)

In order to get this through, Blair invoked the Parliament Act. This was constitutional vandalism. If you complained, you were a homophobe, and possibly a Nazi. As were the Lords, some of whom were raising perfectly sensible points. Not a great start.

For the record, the age of consent was lowered from 21 to 18 during the previous government. An amendment was tabled by Edwina Currie (for it is she) to reduce it to 16. It didn't get through that time. The Thatcher government also decriminalised man-on-man action in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

With due respect to those who are in them, civil partnerships are a fudge too, and characteristic of Blair's way of doing things. That is to say, you make it look nice, without actually getting to the substance of the issue. A sort-of marriage does not constitute equality. Before the legislation was introduced, one William Hague, then Leader of HM Loyal Opposition, indicated that he would support full-status gay marriage. At this point, Blair could have taken this as tacit support for a proper and meaningful recognition of gay rights, and drawn up a bill which would bring it into law. But he does not do this. Instead we get a "compromise" which doesn't really please anyone.

Cynical, moi?

657. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156622 by hungarianelephant on April 8, 2008 at 4:18 am

87. Comment #156604 by irate_atheist on April 8, 2008 at 2:54 am

A caring, intelligent, thoughtful man. But then again, so seemed Blair.

I beg to differ. Tony Blair was a fake from day one, and would say absolutely anything to get himself elected. And if we had any doubt on the subject, his performance at Diana's funeral, where he read 1 Corinthians as if it had just come to him in the form of profound revelation, should have put the matter to rest. His only redeeming merit seemed to be that he was not from the same party as Neil Hamilton. Though given his cronies' subsequent performance, even that was questionable.

The Lying For Jesus stuff was just a nice optional extra.

Is that the sort of castigation you were looking for, or do you prefer something a little more Mosleyite?

658. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156258 by hungarianelephant on April 7, 2008 at 7:45 am

20. Comment #156253 by RobDinsmore on April 7, 2008 at 7:40 am

The problem comes from the fact that these children will cry "offense" because the teacher refuses to acknowledge their erroneous beliefs. Another problem is that even if they are taught evolution they are still so strongly biased against it. You can't show someone the stars if they refuse to look up.

No, those are perceived problems with certain religious parents. Children are told they are wrong about all kinds of stuff and they seem to come through unscathed. Let's not create a bogeyman when there are already enough problems to deal with.

Edit:

23. Comment #156257 by CambrianExplosion on April 7, 2008 at 7:44 am

that may be true but isn't part of the problem how the attitude toward what parents wish to teach their children - such as YEC - is softening? Rather than a firm "no, that's wrong," we now must mollycoddle those with beliefs counter to the available evidence. IIRC, was there not recent legislation that would allow a student to receive a passing grade as long as his incorrect answers were justified by a religious tradition? I.e., you could write "6000" for your answer on the Earth's age as long as you also write "* I am a Christian."

The combination of increasing magical thinking, as well as our liberalization and gone-too-far multiculturalism, have in a way formed a crucible.

Even assuming all this is true - and we're building on sand here - all that demonstrates is that there is a problem in the school and with the philosophy of schooling. It doesn't make for a problem for the school.

659. Richard Dawkins: 'Growth in creationist beliefs a problem for schools'

Comment #156245 by hungarianelephant on April 7, 2008 at 7:25 am

Er ... what Richard said doesn't appear to have anything to do with the title or opening paragraph of this article.

He was asked about a problem, and he gave an example of feedback that was being received from schools. What he didn't say was that this was a problem for the school. And it isn't necessarily. Children come to school with all sorts of erroneous beliefs, and it's sorta kinda the job of the school to teach the kids how they have it wrong.

660. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155215 by hungarianelephant on April 4, 2008 at 8:38 am

52. Comment #155211 by Artful_Dodger on April 4, 2008 at 8:34 am

But not all knowledge, like it or not, is in fact contained within the realm that is scientifically observable.

What realms are not scientifically observable, and what knowledge do they contain?

[Edit: Quetz of course gets there first, as one would expect from a genuine deity. Where the hell is Yahweh when posts need answering?]

661. Dawkins warns of human extinction

Comment #155207 by hungarianelephant on April 4, 2008 at 8:29 am

26. Comment #155183 by jiujitstheist on April 4, 2008 at 8:16 am

As much as I hate to agree with Artful_Dodger he does make a valid point. I'm an atheist. I think Dawkins is a great man. It's great to have someone of his stature smacking the fundies upside the head. However, there is, at times, too much boot licking going on in the threads. Dawkins more than anyone would want more objectiveness by some on the board.

Well, er, not on this thread, at any rate. The first thing nice thing said about RD here is in comment 20 by Incredulous:

I think everyone on here thinks that Richard is simply a good bloke; and we like good blokes who talk about things we can trust. You're right, he isn't god which is precisely why I appreciate what he does and says.

He's a tried and trusted exponent of that thing we should all aspire to - reasoning with evidence.

Doesn't sound a lot like bootlicking to me.

The second compliment is yours.

We've seen this tactic from Artful before. It was nonsensical then, too. And only slightly less boring than Pascal's Wager.

662. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #154953 by hungarianelephant on April 4, 2008 at 3:02 am

Hello brother john. Haven't seen you here for a while.

It just leaves me with a question: How on earth does a decent human being cope with with the depravity or idiocy humans are capable of?"

Personally, I find ignoring it and pretending it isn't there quite effective. But you've probably seen more of it than us, or at least heard it in the confessional. What do you do?

663. Fleabytes

Comment #153978 by hungarianelephant on April 2, 2008 at 10:05 am

mixmastergaz

Whatever happened to Diesel Park West?

Oh. I am a humble man thankful for my rights and inheritance due
How about you?
And I wan't to stay in sight of things that I believe in
And I know to be true, the sweet sweet truth
I wouldn't question letters of authority,
Yeah I keep the bedroom cold to save energy, 'cos it's good for me

And as long as there's something for me
And long as the world swings my way I don't have any complaints
Oh I believe all the myths on Sunday

Yeah. I am as white as snow, 'cept for when I sit out in the sun
The hot sun, then I look so different
Just like I've become an African
I'm always showing clearly my morality
Yeah. I rule by consent of the majority ain't it good to see

And as long as there's something for me
And long as the world swings my way I don't have any complaints
Oh I believe all the myths on Sunday

Yes sir it's a wonderful life making these decisions
Just for you, no-one but you

And as long as there's something for me
As long as the world swings my way
I don't have any complaints
And I believe all the myths on Sunday

664. My quest to get de-baptised

Comment #153973 by hungarianelephant on April 2, 2008 at 9:58 am

roakes - In the 2001 English / Welsh census, 390,127 people put down their religion as "Jedi". The NSO refused to recognise it as a religion, but then published the stats anyway.
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/census2001/profiles/rank/jedi.asp

Had it been counted, it would have been the fourth largest, behind Christianity, Islam and Hinduism, but ahead of Buddhism, Sikhism and Judaisim. 4 million people refused to answer the question and 7.7 million said "no religion".

Just so you know.

665. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153972 by hungarianelephant on April 2, 2008 at 9:48 am

Mein Kampf was serialised and sold to the British public during WW2. This was a bold statement: here is what the enemy is saying; we are not afraid for you to read it; see for yourself whether this war is justified. With a side order of - they burn books, while we believe in freedom.

I have long thought that the US and British governments should publish the collected works of Osama Bin Laden. Hell, for that matter, the approval rating for Iraq would go up 10 points if Saddam Hussein's Greatest Hits were on general release.

666. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153768 by hungarianelephant on April 2, 2008 at 3:06 am

One area of apparent common ground in this thread is that there are shades of Muslim opinion and action, and that it's not sensible or correct to treat all Muslims as some sort of cohesive entity.

So here's a question: why do we allow our government to do this? (This is primarily addressed to the UK.)

The govt insists on dealing with "representatives" of the Muslim "community" and such groups. This more or less guarantess (a) that Muslims will be treated as separate and somehow not part of mainstream society, (b) that they will be regarded as having some uniform view of the world, and most worrying (c) that you will have given the colour of leadership, and the influence that goes with it, to people with more "orthodox" - we might call them fundamentalist - views.

The silence from the moderate Muslims that the govt keeps banging on about has been deafening these last 6 years or so - the piece quoted by Brian is very much the exception. It's tempting to take this as assent to the views of the fundies. But it isn't. Certainly, there's a significant minority of Muslims who hold views we should be worried about. So far as we can discren from opinion polls, the majority don't. Generally, we seem to see the same sort of pick-and-mix of views that you get among Catholics. Most, I suspect, just want to get on with their ordinary lives.

Heading off to mosques, negotiating with these self-styled "community leaders" and blathering on about Islam being a religion of peace isn't helping the situation, IMO. We need to stop treating Muslims like a group of children. They don't need special favours or protection against having their feelings hurt by cartoons. They just need to be left alone, granted the equal protection of the same law the rest of us have, and treated as being capable of living up to the expectations it sets.

Is that so unreasonable?

667. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153283 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 10:49 am

359. Comment #153269 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2008 at 10:29 am

There are real problems, real challenges why must you exaggerate?

Partly for fun, partly for dramatic effect.

But mostly because this is very serious. The jihadists want to extend the Dar-al-Islam to the entire world. And they don't want it in the sort of nice-to-have way that you and I would like to see world peace. In order to get it, they're actually prepared to kill you, me, themselves, and most likely thousands of reasonable people who have the misfortune to live in Muslim countries along the way.

The fact that I'm not currently faced with the choice of submit, pay or die doesn't really diminish that, does it?

668. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153267 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 10:23 am

356. Comment #153265 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on April 1, 2008 at 10:18 am

Any lunatic can make any claim or observation they choose. I'm not compelled to believe their delusions, and neither are you.

That's true. You can also choose to pay the jizya, or let them kill you.

669. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153266 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 10:21 am

al-rawandi - I was having a bit of fun with you, now that you've come over to the dark side. I didn't for a minute think you could endorse Fanusi's plan.

Funny thing is, it doesn't seem all that radical to me. It doesn't involve any more foreign adventures - it's largely about "us" rather than "them".

On immigration, it's possible to support the essence (trying to stop more people with the same ideology from turning up) without going quite as far as a total ban on immigration. I don't think it's fully understood in the US just what the nature of the problem here is. In Southern Europe, Muslim immigrants are principally North African economic migrants. There are a significant number who seem to have little grasp of basic civics, but my impression is that the overwhelming majority are just trying to make a go of a semi-westernised life.

Britain also has economic migrants, but there are also a significant number of people who are brought in to deepen the connections with Pakistan. Brides are routinely imported from some god-awful backwater because British Muslim girls keep getting uppity: y'know the kind of thing - wanting to get a job, dress Western, have a boyfriend. And don't even get me started on the imams.

This is done with the express purpose of trying to prevent integration and assimilation, and I don't see why we should continue to stand for it. We have enough trouble with Pakistan as it is, without bringing it here.

670. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153262 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 10:03 am

148. Comment #153246 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 1, 2008 at 9:30 am

This story has barely touched the mainstream press. A google news search shows Canada, of course naturally, is the most active

That may be more of a comment on the perceived relevance of the UN than on apathy about human rights generally.

671. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153257 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 9:50 am

al-rawandi - OK, so now what? How much of this would you endorse?

672. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153244 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 9:25 am

346. Comment #153239 by al-rawandi on April 1, 2008 at 9:15 am

I think it will be more clear the next time a toddler is splattered on a wall in the underground from a suicide bomb.

It won't. Seriously. We've had 9/11, Madrid, Bali, 7/7, a drumbeat of news about Muslims blowing themselves and everyone else up, and none of it has made a damn of difference to most people.

I honestly believe that most people will only "get it" when a major city they know is destroyed, or when they are personally, directly and (this is the most important bit) economically affected.

The Irish didn't lift a finger to deal with Slab Murphy's Armagh gun-running operation, until he brought a diseased cow in the other direction and thus threatened the farming industry. I am not making this up.

[This is a comment about the British public generally and not Steve specifically. It seems to me that Steve is one of the few people who has actually considered the facts and come to a different conclusion.]

673. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153229 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 8:47 am

339. Comment #153214 by al-rawandi on April 1, 2008 at 8:08 am
Nooo, not sedition laws. We just spent 400 years trying to get rid of the things. They are far and away the best tool a government can use to suppress free speech and entrench its position.

Violence and incitement to violence are plenty to be getting on with.

674. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153226 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 8:37 am

126. Comment #153203 by Peacebeuponme on April 1, 2008 at 7:41 am

You don't get in the EU for instance, unless you pass a few tests.

That's true.

But it might have more credibility if it didn't keep rigging the tests to achieve the desired results.

The EU's tests for the start of the euro were even more fun than its membership tests. With two years to go, the only country which passed them was one which didn't intend to adopt the currency anyway. A year later, it had increased to three. But by the deadline, waddayano, everyone had passed. Partly because they changed all the rules, but mostly because a blind eye was turned when countries produced their accounts Enron-style.

Let's not go there with our UN replacement.

675. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153202 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 7:40 am

Monosilabbiq - I'd be interested to know what the megalomaniacal wankers running the UK don't consider hate speech or terrorist activity. Barney the Dinosaur singing "Caring Is Sharing" seems reasonably safe ground, but beyond that I'm a bit reluctant to open my mouth back home.

Given that shouting the word "rubbish" at Jack Straw can get you arrested and held without charge under the Terrorism Act, it doesn't seem in much of a position to lecture the rest of the world on free speech and liberty of the individual.

676. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153177 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 7:07 am

110. Comment #153174 by jshuey on April 1, 2008 at 7:02 am

The UN outlived its usefullness decades ago. What is needed is a new, expanded Western Community, made up of democratic nations willing and able to speak for and defend the rights of their peoples rather than abandon them at the first appearance of a mob.

So we're ruling out Britain, right?

677. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153164 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 6:39 am

90. Comment #153134 by Edanator on April 1, 2008 at 5:23 am

I don't know much about SA, but judging from RSF their press is very free and they definitely stand out in this crowd of mostly dictatorships and pseudo-democracies. Mauritius and Mali are two other countries that seem odd here, given their relatively free press. Therefore I ask again:

Why is South Africa, Mali and Mauritius voting in favor of this amendment? (Mali has a 90% muslim population, though, which may explain their support.)

There's a tendency in the West to think that when apartheid ended, South Africa became a land flowing with milk and honey, full of shiny happy rainbow people holding hands.

The reality is rather different. Mandela managed to prevent a civil war - and it is for this that he is feted in his own country, not for beating the evil whites - but that's about it. The new people running the country had never been in government and hadn't a clue how to do it. They made a mess of the economy, lost control of law and order and allowed a bunch of kleptocrats into positions of influence. There are members of the government who are quite clearly mad.

The murder rate is higher than Iraq's. Rape is commonplace. It's been 14 years and millions of people are still living in shacks. I have personally been on the receiving end of an attempted robbery - in broad daylight, in the middle of the Cape Town CBD, by a 12 year old girl - and know dozens of people who can recount similar stories.

I believe SA has the second highest rate of HIV in the world, after Swaziland, though those statistics may be a little out of date. Its health minister recommends herbal remedies, and refuses to speak against the common myth that you can cure yourself of it by having sex with a virgin (which in practice means raping a teenager). Its mining activities have fallen away in a time of commodity boom, and unemployment is rife. To the extent that the government has a plan to deal with the economic situation, it seems to involve people in the townships selling Coca-Cola to each other.

Notionally a democracy, one party dominates politics. The press is free for now, but I would bet on that situation worsening over the next 20 years.

Remember that the biggest hot button of all in SA is racial discrimination, and that the folks back home are more concerned about where their next sheep's head is coming from than world human rights, and it begins to make sense why they voted that way.

Mali and Mauritius - pass.

[Edit - Just seen Fanusi's post. Sorry to be repetitive.]

678. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153157 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 6:23 am

89. Comment #153133 by mmurray on April 1, 2008 at 5:20 am

I agree the UN should have an army. Ultimately someone is going to have to police nuclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction.

Why? So far, it's managed to allow Pakistan, India and North Korea to get hold of nukes, done 9/10 of bugger all about Saddam's constant flouting of resolutions, and pontificated a bit about Iran. Is this really better than having no one doing it?

But at present you have to work really hard to get agreement amongst UN members to send actual fighting forces.

And why is that?

I don't see how you could even begin to do that without the UN ?

Bosnia, Sierra Leone, Cote d'Ivoire, Iraq ...

If you mean "do that with the air of legitimacy and without the UN", then you may be right. But I'm not sure I wouldn't have preferred an "illegitimate" ad hoc coalition to go and sort things out in Darfur. As it is, we seem to be intent on sitting around passing resolutions until everyone is dead and the problem is moot.

679. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153129 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 5:13 am

81. Comment #153114 by Steve Zara on April 1, 2008 at 4:07 am

So you don't support the World Heath Organisation or UNICEF, or the International Court of Justice, or the UN Peace-Keeping forces?

There have been major failures, but I don't think it is reasonable to describe those activities as a "joke".

Nor would I, but only because I don't see the funny side.

So far as I can see, the UN manages to make a dog's breakfast of everything it does. Even things that are supposed to be non-controversial, like providing water supply systems to parts of the world that don't have them. It is well known by the people who supply these things that they should double their normal price and then add a little bit more on. Some is siphoned off in bribes to local officials, sometimes the UN people take a bit more (though that's usually restricted to programs like Oil For Fraud Food), and the rest goes in increased profit margin for the first-world supplier. Because that will address global poverty.

As for the UN peacekeeping forces, they sound like a great idea until the shooting starts. If you want something done, better to send in actual fighters. That we should have learnt in Bosnia, Sierra Leone, and for those who think Israel's response to Hizbollah rockets was "disproportionate", Lebanon.

I'm not suggesting that this is a situation beyond reform, but as things stand I don't really see how the world would be worse off without the UN.

680. Vote on freedom of expression marks the end of Universal Human Rights

Comment #153083 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:38 am

65. Comment #153036 by Edanator on March 31, 2008 at 11:12 pm

I'm also disappointed to see South Africa voting in favor. Anyone has a clue why they voted as they did?

Is that a serious question?

681. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153080 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:30 am

By the way, ladies and gentlemen, Bonzai and I will be taking your silence as assent to the policy that we shoot Islamic terrorists with bullets coated in pigs' blood, and if they succeed in blowing themselves up, cut off the family jewels and feed them to the swine.

682. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153078 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:27 am

Who said this?

The evidence overwhelmingly shows America and Israel killing the weaker men, women and children in the Muslim world and elsewhere. A few examples of this are seen in the recent Qana massacre in Lebanon, and the death of more than 600,000 Iraqi children because of the shortage of food and medicine which resulted from the boycotts and sanctions against the Muslim Iraqi people, also their withholding of arms from the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina leaving them prey to the Christian Serbians who massacred and raped in a manner not seen in contemporary history.

If you answered "Osama Bin Laden", award yourself a gold star, or crescent if you prefer.

What's interesting about this is how an act of post-colonial non-intervention got into a list of colonial interventions.

It might lead one to the suspicion that the supposed "foreign policy" justification for terrorism is spurious, and done for the benefit of western liberals. Further suspicion might be drawn from the fact that al-Qaeda's propaganda links the 7/7 bombings to British participation in Iraq, but that the actual bombers curiously failed to mention it in their suicide videos.

Putting together a laundry list of grievances, real or imagined, is a time-honoured terrorist tradition. It has almost nothing to do with the war aims and much to do with garnering support, fundraising and negotiating with the enemy. ETA and the IRA used exactly the same tactics. Even around the table, they (the IRA) managed to spin the whole thing out for 10 years, while carrying on smuggling, money laundering, extortion, gun-running, kidnapping, robbery and intimidation. It's hard to deal peacefully with an organisation that insists on addressing everything, from the shooting of civilians on Bloody Sunday to rain at a Gaelic football match, before giving up a single bullet.

No, I am not comparing al-Qaeda to the IRA, who at least believed that life was better than death. But surely there are some lessons to be learned.

683. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153073 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:07 am

Well maybe it is incredibly stupid. It would be nice to know why, though.

684. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #153070 by hungarianelephant on April 1, 2008 at 2:03 am

269. Comment #152879 by Bonzai on March 31, 2008 at 5:01 pm

What if they get killed with bullets coated with pig blood. Do they still go to heaven?

I've asked a similar question before and never got a straight answer. My suggestion was that the bodies of the 7/7 bombers be fed to pigs; or perhaps just their tallywhackers. Then let them take their chances with their theology.

No one has yet explained to me why this is a bad idea.

685. Anti-Quran Film Fitna Pulled From Web Due to 'Threats'

Comment #152664 by hungarianelephant on March 31, 2008 at 10:06 am

155. Comment #152654 by Fanusi Khiyal on March 31, 2008 at 9:54 am

You still haven't answered how you can defend against barbarism without such a visceral solidarity.

I'd like to think that you can get the reasonable people onside and marginalise the nutjobs, then deal with what you hope will be a small number effectively.

I'd like to think this, but at the moment I don't see it being done. In fact, British government policy at least seems to be to try to get the nutjobs inside the tent in the fond hope that they will behave more reasonably. This is known as the Surrey Bowls Club Gambit - once you get the troublemaker on the committee, he might stop making such a terrible fuss and we can all get back to our tea and cucumber sandwiches.

The small hole in this policy is that government is not the Surrey Bowls Club, jihadists are not dissident members and there's more at stake than the fixture list and the cleaning contract.

If I were a jihadist, I would be most encouraged by the political progress to date, and draw further lesseons from the capitulation to the IRA. And while I would be disappointed that my brothers seemed to be much better at killing each other than killing infidels, I would recognise that it is ultimately irrelevant as long as you win on politics.

686. My quest to get de-baptised

Comment #152449 by hungarianelephant on March 31, 2008 at 4:01 am

AFAIK, it is correct that the CofE is obliged to maintain a record of baptisms and therefore can't delete records.

On top of that, there's a decision in Ireland that the (Catholic) church can't be told to delete the record anyway, since it's "essential to the administration of church affairs". In that case the church did offer to add a note that the person no longer wished to be associated with the church. Just rechecked and it is now on www.dataprotection.ie with the snappy title "Case Study 8".

This was probably because of a Spanish case where the court actually ordered the church to add such a note. Sorry, can't find that reference.

Data protection law is pretty much the same througout the EU and you'd expect similar results. So if you really care about this stuff, you should probably write to the church you were baptised in and ask them to update their records.

Bizarrely, the CofE isn't considered a government body under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. So if you want to get information it holds about you, you'll have to pay your £10 under the Data Protection Act.

LeeC's approach sounds more fun, as long as you're confident that there's no male pattern baldness in your family. So I'm screwed.

Edit: Hey, Josh, we might all be a bit backwards over here, but don't you know that RD is British AND still used pounds sterling? How's about a little htmlentities() for us limeys?

687. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #151133 by hungarianelephant on March 28, 2008 at 7:34 am

229. Comment #151122 by Bonzai on March 28, 2008 at 7:20 am

I wouldn't call the Catholic Church moderate. But do you think that anxiety over one's sexuality is experienced only by religious people?

No, but it institutionalises it and makes it much harder to break.

Similarly I don't believe that stupid tribal disputes are only conducted by religious people. The problems in Northern Ireland were, at their core, territorial rather than philosophical. But "Protestant" and "Catholic" became particularly useful crutches for continuing the battle long after the original protagonists were dead. Strip out religion and you're left with groups of people who have more in common with each other than their neighbours - a situation that's hardly favourable to maintaining strict political divisions like British / Irish or Nationalist / Unionist. It's the shoe-horned religious identity that has the survival power.

Fundamentalism and moderation might be red herrings in that particular problem.

688. Fleabytes

Comment #151043 by hungarianelephant on March 28, 2008 at 4:15 am

Isn't anyone going to put in a vote for Czech beers? Velkopopovický Kozel is quite splendid, and has the further merit of being easier to pronounce after the fourth one.

And Tyler, you're crazy. Guinness doesn't hold a candle to Porterhouse Oyster Stout. Not even in Mulligans. So there.

689. Fleabytes

Comment #150728 by hungarianelephant on March 27, 2008 at 10:26 am

Where is Paula while such important topics are being discussed on her thread?

Still shopping for her 3000 post frock?

690. Fleabytes

Comment #149968 by hungarianelephant on March 26, 2008 at 11:17 am

clodhopper - I'm confused. Isn't that what the Pope is for?

691. Fleabytes

Comment #149963 by hungarianelephant on March 26, 2008 at 11:13 am

6977. Comment #149933 by mlearnedfriend on March 26, 2008 at 10:40 am

In this case the rules are common sensical. If it purports to be history then treat it as history, allegory - then allegory, Poetical then poetical. Oh, and if you are confused LOOK AT THE CONTEXT - as in Luke 10.

So, it's not just a set of made up rules according to how I feel - it's what 'homiletical' rules are suitable for the genre.

OK, thanks mlf, that's a start.

Now, how do you decide what bits of the bible purport to be what?

And then when you have decided, how can you be sure that your interpretative rules lead to a clear result? That would be a remarkable achievement, given that there is barely a legal statute on the books which has not suffered from interpretation problems. And that's when the rules of interpretation are clear and fixed, the authors have approved it word for word and it's in the original language.

692. Fleabytes

Comment #149778 by hungarianelephant on March 26, 2008 at 8:16 am

6946. Comment #149764 by mlearnedfriend on March 26, 2008 at 8:06 am

not me that determines what is a 'metaphor' - rules of interpretation and context says that.

What rules are those? My bible seems to have been printed without the Definitions and Interpretation section. Can you send me a copy of yours, please?

693. Police: Girl Dies After Parents Pray for Healing Instead of Seeking Medical Help

Comment #149739 by hungarianelephant on March 26, 2008 at 7:39 am

5. Comment #149729 by Spinoza on March 26, 2008 at 7:33 am

Lucas, I understand the sentiment, but ignorance, delusion, and stupidity are not fairly punishable by death.

Apparently they are in this case. It's just that the death is not of the ignorant, delusional and stupid.

694. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149735 by hungarianelephant on March 26, 2008 at 7:36 am

Dr Benway - And that's why I said "to the extent that it can be said to have a purpose".

In the human example, the agent is the DNA. What it has always done is to make copies of itself. And if some copies are imperfect, and as a result better at making copies of themselves, those copies will tend to predominate. No intent, of course. It just is.

As conscious beings, we can consciously invent purposes for ourselves. What wooter seems unable to grasp is the notion that there might be properties which aren't consciously invented, but just are. I was hoping to apply a little shock-treatment rather than dancing around this issue. It's probably not productive, but a good deal more fun than what I'm supposed to be doing right now.

695. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149692 by hungarianelephant on March 26, 2008 at 6:07 am

326. Comment #149658 by emptybrain on March 26, 2008 at 4:21 am

751 words, most of them English. And it's still incomprehensible.

Still, there seem to be a few questions here, so here's some answers.

What is the purpose of the earth's revolving around the sun and itself?
None.

What's the purpose of oxygen, carbon dioxide, trees, sunlight,
None to the first two and the last. The purpose of trees, to the extent that they can be said to have a purpose, is to make more copies of trees.

What is the purpose of chickens, sheep, cows, bees,?
To the extent that they can be said to have a purpose, to make more copies of chickens, sheep, cows and bees. The purpose of the comma is to delimit items in a list, except in a wooter list where it serves no obvious purpose.

Now before we go on, it would be nice if there would be some indication that you've at least tried to understand these answers. Over to you.

696. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149198 by hungarianelephant on March 25, 2008 at 8:58 am

45. Comment #149170 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 8:13 am

So what if most Christians are ignorant? It doesn't mean they are somehow more "honest" or "authentic" then the few that we happen to engage.

I don't think anyone is arguing that. Although I would say that labels like "honest" / "dishonest" / "authentic" / "fake" are simply not meaningful when applied to many people who call themselves Christians. They imply a degree of thought which simply isn't there.

Didn't Jesus say that most people will seek but wouldn't find and that the truth path is narrow? :)

So it is written. Not sure I trust the chain of authority, though.

If someone comes up and claims to be a Christian, I think a basic courtesy of discourse would be to let him tell you what he actually believes and take it from there, rather assuming what he must believe, or worse, to tell him what he should believe when his views don't fit our expectations and reflexively making accusation of dishonesty.

There's surely a difference between "assuming what he must believe" and "telling him what he should believe"? If I describe myself as a libertarian, you'd generally take it as read that I espouse certain views on certain political subjects. If it turns out that I think that house arrest without charge is a good idea, or that unearned income should be taxed at 99%, then you would be entitled to draw some provisional conclusions about my honesty. And you would certainly be entitled to question whether I was really a libertarian. What you couldn't do is tell me that as a libertarian I am not allowed to believe these things. I think we are agreed thus far.

"Christian" generally implies certain beliefs. They were codified 1700 years ago in the various creeds, and while there have always been some different flavours, it was understood what the core was.

Now if people want to describe themselves as Christian while disclaiming the virgin birth, as the Archbishop of Canterbury has now said they can, then I don't really see a problem with that, other than that it is probably a ruse to hold onto a childhood security blanket while pretending to be a thinking adult. But what they have to understand is that in doing so, they are stripping the term of meaning. If people want to say that they are Christians because they follow the "essential message of Christ", whatever the blue bejesus that means, fine. But they cannot then claim refuge in numbers amongst mainstream Christians who do believe in what they understand of the creed.

And what they really can't do is claim to be Catholic, or some other particular organised part of a religion, while taking no responsibility for what that organisation gets up to. The Catholic church still has a lot of clout in some countries. It presumes to lecture us on morality, with the weight of its considerable membership said to stand behind it. If the members don't believe in what it says, and continue to treat it as a Sunday social club without speaking out, then they're hypocrites.

Now if they feel free enough to believe in a mismash of things like picking from an all you can eat buffet I would think that they wouldn't align themselves automatically with Churches.

Except they do, don't they? Here in Ireland, even in the dark days, paganism was never fully suppressed. Devout believers also believe in the banshee, fairy trees and astrology. We even have psychics on the radio.

697. Fleabytes

Comment #149169 by hungarianelephant on March 25, 2008 at 8:11 am

6886. Comment #149070 by mikejswalker on March 25, 2008 at 4:35 am

The irish question was at least given a chance to be resolved by a rule that said the epithets should stop.

That's an interesting view. Assembly members at Stormont are actually compelled to describe themselves as "unionist" or "nationalist" - to segregate themselves from the outset. This is apparently done to promote cohesion.

I won't say any more about Northern Ireland because I don't understand it. Not even a little bit. And I strongly suspect that those who say they do haven't studied it closely enough, rather like quantum mechanics.

(Sorry, this post reads as a nit-pick, which it is. Your overall point is well made. Though as Dr B says, there has to be at least some level of agreement on the conduct of discourse. There may be something in the Middle East. I don't see it in Kashmir yet.)

698. Sue Blackmore debates Alister McGrath

Comment #149160 by hungarianelephant on March 25, 2008 at 7:50 am

25. Comment #149080 by Bonzai on March 25, 2008 at 5:08 am & ensuing discussion

Ancient Middle Eastern languages were not direct and literal like English, they used a lot allusions and metaphores in a way that were weaved into normal speech seamlessly. It is not like in contemporary English where you can tell relatively easily which is which. Aside from the fact that English is a relatively straight forward language, the ease in parsing is partly due to an unspoken shared cultural references. To decipher what Biblical passages meant to the contemporary audience would involve a lot of linguistic and anthropological forensic work, which is the subject of Biblical scholarship.

I am not saying all moderate believers study Biblical scholarship but to say that the only consistent way to believe is to take the whole book word for word in translation is simply naive.

Wrt most of Christianity, I would say that this is rather beside the point.

Most Christians I know have only the vaguest notion of what it is they are supposed to believe in. Generally they don't get to the end of the Apostles' Creed before their faith disappears into a general mish-mash of angels, ghosts, karma and pagan hangovers. It's considered an extraordinary achievement to have actually read the bible. Indeed, before Vatican II in 1967, Catholics were told they weren't allowed to see it in their own language. I'm sure many of us here realised we were atheists when we started asking straightforward questions about our faith, and not getting any straightforward answers.

Given that these selfsame people align themselves unashamedly to churches which hold recognisably fundamentalist positions, I think we are entitled to call them for hypocrisy, if nothing else.

699. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #149064 by hungarianelephant on March 25, 2008 at 4:30 am

And these "atheist presuppositions" are what, exactly?

700. Two More Fleas

Comment #147654 by hungarianelephant on March 21, 2008 at 4:39 am

499. Comment #147587 by emptyhead on March 20, 2008 at 11:54 pm

Next is Hungryelephant

We've discussed this. It's Reverend Hungarian Elephant to you.

They brought you here because you keep screaming in science club like "The human eye, even a perfect one, does not function better than a half-decent camera."

Actually I said that once. If I wanted to scream, I would type in block capitals, thusly:

But dear this is really elementary biology, human eye is the best camera. You can check google and any other web pages HOW OUR EYES WORK PERFETCLY. If you want me to go in detail, I can, but it is quite obvious. Even that guy, he is my patient too, yeah DARWIN, EVEN HE CANNOT MAKE UP A STORY ABOUT EYES AND HE ADMITS THAT EYES ARE PERFECT.

Wooter, what biology book are you reading? Would it be the one where a human is created out of another human's rib, just before she is condemned to difficult childbirth due to disobedience rather than having a mal-designed pelvis? Cos that one's a bit out of date now. We've moved on somewhat since then.

I've given you the data comparing a human eye to a camera. You could check it with some very simple research. But instead you are reduced to shouting about "how our eyes work perfetcly" (sic). Go on then. Find me the data which shows that human eyes work better than modern cameras in respect of any accepted measurement of optics: resolution; aperture; sensitivity; dynamic range; and capture interval. Then take it to Canon or Nikon, and make yourself some serious money.

Now, Darwin. Here is what Darwin actually said:

When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory.

I'd agree with you that this is not "making up a story" about eyes. But not for the reasons you think.

He did use the word "perfect"; of course this was before we had well developed lens technology. If you read carefully, you'll see that he didn't use the word "human". That's because, even then, it was known that human eyes are actually not very good compared to some other birds and animals. An eagle's vision is four times sharper than a human's. Which means that, at best, the human eye is 25% perfect.

Here's a question for you. Why would God give us eyes which were only 25% perfect?

Okay let me give an example: Your eyes and the best came on the earth walk in an exhibition center which has got many people, food service, sample shows, etc a very alive. You have got the whole day. This is a competition. Your eyes and the best camera will take the pictures of everything, people, food, shows etc you eye on. Time and speed of taking pictures are deadly important. At the end of 24 hours, the judge will check your memory and the best camera
The result is obvious right! No camera can compete with the speed of eyes that take the pictures through a blink with the fastest zoom in and at the same time sending them to memory.

That's just wishful thinking. The eyes might give you different kinds of impressions, but eye witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. If 20 people did this, you would get 20 different accounts. You would fall back on the camera's record, because it is accurate. That is why video evidence is so important in courts of law.

You goy it, now. The more you mention about eyes, the more people will believ that eyes are INCONVINCIBLE.

Wooter, if you want to shout, it would have more effect if you shouted an actual word.

You are a pathetic specimen. I have met border collies who are less impervious to facts. I have encountered granite boulders less stubborn. There are kudu on the Botswanan plains who would be ashamed to construct analogies as poor as yours. The daffodils in my garden would write more convincing dialogue, given access to a computer. There are washing machines which have a better understanding of the difference between reproductive and non-reproductive organisms than you. You have been here for months without writing anything even slightly sensible, or convincing anyone of anything other than your own stupidity. Why are you doing this? Would you not be more useful praying to your god in a church somewhere?