51. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91333 by brainsys on November 28, 2007 at 4:18 am

Philip said "with idiots like Bunglawala around obfuscating to his heart's desire I can't see things improving."

I dunno how many poiliticians/leaders you have got drunk with but you do usually find a mixture of some who believe passionately in something despite the evidence and those that say - "Yep, you are right but I daren't say so in public".

So I never know whether stuff that spews out of the MCB is what they believe or what they say they believe in order to keep their position (either for greed or to do good despite it).

Which is why its important to create an atmosphere which doesn't force participants to defend otherwise impossible or deeply dividing positions. That's ruining our politics. It can do worse in a religious context.

If I criticise Fanusi for Islam bashing it isn't a defence of Islam. We are mostly here because we see religion as an irrational way of seeing the world which will end in tears. Islam might be on the front foot in demonstrating this in action. But pointing this out again and again gets us nowhere.

Frankly at the moment we can't crack the soft left of the christian world so what hope have we with Islam? Paradoxically it may be Christian leaders who can get traction with the mullahs as that recent initiative suggested. But I note that idea was widely ridiculed here.

52. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91326 by brainsys on November 28, 2007 at 3:51 am

Fanusi says "The polls we have show that the average man in the Mosque has a fifty-fifty chance of being a supporter of Shariah law."

And rising? That's just the point. 50% presumably didn't believe in Shariah Law or found a way to accommodate it within a secular community. Just as most christians vow three impossible things in the creed yet have no problem ignoring it when 'off-campus'. Duality in religious/secular life is not a problem for most of the people most of the time. How else can a female catholic take the pill? And they do.

Fanusi asks what societies have Muslims lived comfortably alongside other faith and none. Well the ones I lived in until comparatively recently. It is just this fast radicalisation that is the threat here and abroad. Muslim girls who wore jeans, drank and enjoyed the usual pleasures went in six months through head scarves to the full works. This was not a change in Islam. It was a change in how Islam was perceived.

"Islam is a system of government" - A damned poor one compared to the RC Church whose leader ruled absolutly in Europe for centuries as the sole mediator between God & King. What caliphate can compare? This was eventually unsustainable. Desire for divorces was one of the more trivial ways this control was overthrown by Kings who then became God's representative for their people. And so people overthrew their divine Kings - or constitutionalised them (cf leaving their genitals intact).

Our Queen is Defender of the (Christian) Faith, Head of the established Church of England. Annoying I know but no real threat to my freedom of thought or action - unlike my secular government!

I never quite understand whether Fanusi thinks Islam can be removed from the planet, muslims can be forcibly converted or presumably exterminated. I wouldn't rate this as doable as the odd Vice President didn't say. Just as exterminating all non-muslims is extremely iffy.

Real hope, I suggest, is that Islam can sort itself in rather fewer centuries then it took the christian world. The question here is whether our actions are helping or hindering reform from within Islam.

Getting the Sudan government to realise that this episode is damned stupid is a good start. Mumblings from their ambassador (normally a very reactionary guy) suggest a little bit of reality is there. Its that dodgy thing of getting the Sudan government to act but giving them a bit of wiggle room to preserve a bit of misguided dignity.

Its perhaps a western thing that we are currently paying more attention to this event (a sincere woman detained for a few days) more than the Sudan's Government's murderous activities in Darfur. That's probably as much human territorial greed as it is religious.

53. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91295 by brainsys on November 28, 2007 at 1:55 am

I worry about how we react to the incidents. My reaction to these events is the usual incredulousness.

But more important, surely, is the reaction of the ordinary 'man in the mosque'. How does he (and it is a he) feel about it when he worships within a secular society like the UK?

Some will share our view, some will, as always follow the religious right. But what of those in the middle? We have to remember that people are human as well as religious. Attack them, their society or whatever and the natural knee jerk reaction comes into play. The Daily Mail/Fanusi approach plays straight into the hands of people determined to show their religion/life is under real threat in a way that leaves them little choice.

The alternative. Well I think I can already hear Fanusi accusing me of appeasement. And it real question. How does one say this behaviour is unacceptable - that any imposition of any God's law on those they do not freely subscribe is not tenable here and should not be tenable there. How do we give space to the muslim in the mosque to consider these conflicts and try and find a way to accommodate his faith with a secular society.

I know its dangerous to say that has been achieved with most Christians and some other faiths. Some people say Islam is different. Well all faiths are different but one can say that many Muslims were able to live comfortably withiu other societies for many years.

In the UK the increase in fundamentalist/jihad belief has risen dramatically in recent years. It isn't because Islam has changed (it is not supposed to) it is a combination of changes - some in our society and some to do with control of theirs. This gives me hope that it can be reversed .

Is this to be a fight for hearts and minds or for bodies? Have we all really given up hope?

54. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #91062 by brainsys on November 27, 2007 at 6:08 am

"after receiving reports that men had started gathering outside the police station where she was being held"

Yep. Most cameramen are ... men. But where are the photographs?

55. Tony Blair: Mention God and you're a 'nutter'

Comment #90650 by brainsys on November 26, 2007 at 3:05 am

Another Bishop disapointed by Blair being a closet nutter:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7112256.stm

The Bishop of Rochester is a notorious evangelical (boycotting the Lambeth Conference over the gay Bishop issue) and was their champion for Archbishop of Canterbury but lost out to the more moderate and liberal Rowan Williams.

The Bish is regarded as the leader of the Nazgul. A collection of fellow evangelical Bishops includes the Wingnut of Carlisle - the Rt Revd Graham Dow. Dow when not relating the local flooding to the Book of Revelations is into exorcism and extremely strange ideas on anuses, Scotsman, miners and wearing black. You really could not make this up. Check out this report by the Grauniad Religious Correspondent. This also alleges Graham Dow was implicit in preparing Tony Blair for Confirmation when Tone was at Oxford. It will make you laugh or cry or both:
http://newhumanist.org.uk/1630 (4th para).

56. Ofcom backs Channel 4 over mosque probe

Comment #89916 by brainsys on November 22, 2007 at 6:01 am

The Ofcomm decision, in full, makes for interesting reading here: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/tv/obb/prog_cb/obb97/issue97.pdf
(starting page 9)

57. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89854 by brainsys on November 22, 2007 at 1:22 am

I agree with a previous poster that this has been one of the most unedifying threads to date. I have argued earlier in the thread about the utility value of this particular cause in helping preserve life. That's why my money goes elsewhere.

What is upsetting me about this thread is that some here define utility as to whether you may get protection dependent on your political viewpoint. Good if you are a liberal bad if you are a neoconservative.

As much as I hate what the neconservatives have done to this planet in the last decade, the fact that you would discriminate against them in allocating protection fills me with despair. If protecting freedom is important - we can best show it by protecting those we disagree with. Remember Voltaire ...

58. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89539 by brainsys on November 21, 2007 at 3:19 am

MMURRAY - you misread my response. Her assasination would have a great impact on the cause of freedom. Theo's execution elevated the cause. If you want to elevate the cause above all other then her assassination is a good if sick thing. So you don't give $10.

That is not the reason I am not giving $10. As before we have one life at risk with some defence and millions with none. I don't find that a hard choice. I like to think it is a ethical choice.

59. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89530 by brainsys on November 21, 2007 at 2:44 am

Michael wrote: "But I think her being killed by a Jihadist will be devasting to the cause of freedom in a way that the 20 or 30 deaths that happened since I started typing this have not been."

I suggest the facts prove otherwise. She was quite unknown outside Holland before Theo's execution. Dead (wo)mens books/films seem to have so much power. Sadly martyrs are good news for almost any cause.

Indeed it is tempting to pay the $10 to avoid this painful elevation of our cause.

Frankly I'm shocked that you think the possible loss of this one person more important than 20 or 30 unknowns. She has some money and many influential friends to enable her to hide from the assassins. Not complete protection but a darned lot more than the several (hundred?) thousand who can't run from the killers in Darfur.

But there again aren't we both letting our emotions perhaps overpower what should be a clear thinking oasis?

60. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89517 by brainsys on November 21, 2007 at 1:40 am

I have to say that I feel very uncomfortable about this appeal and the opprobium heaped upon those who dissent. We must not let this become a religious war.

I think most of us, on reflection, have to admit that giving charitably is largely driven on emotional grounds. Charities know this and have to push our emotional buttons if they are to succeed in doing good. Inevitably Sam is doing the same. And succeeding with a high proportion of posters here.

I see attempts at rationalisations. I too have rationalisations the other way. Primarily that giving is to both improve and save innocent lives. In crude body count terms $10/month given to Oxfam is going to save/enhance many lives. Diverting to this cause may possibly save a life but certainly cost many more.

The arguement that this life is worth more than an anonymous life saved on a continent far away I find sick. However, the one thing I value more than life is truth. The memory of book burnings particulary hits my buttons. Authors are in a special position here. I'm right behind Salman in defending his work. I guess, as a UK taxpayer I'm probably funding part of his protection, However brave as Salman is - he is no braver and no more at risk than my parents generation who mostly could not write great books but could go out on the battlefield to defeat the book burners.

Yep - the sharp minds here can see my arguements are at most very mushy. But they too should carefully examine their own. Be sure the driving force is not akin to those CO2 hogs who spend a few quid offsetting instead of themselves getting into the action. Otherwise you are just paying for someone else to dodge your bullet.

61. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88331 by brainsys on November 16, 2007 at 3:40 am

Brian,

you are quite right in your forceful expression of contempt for the film. However, perhaps we should play these nutters at their own game. Every University Science department (and other clear thinkers?) should put their hands in the pocket and put on free public showings of this film followed by a discussion.

Putting a few extra bob into the hands of these charlatans might grate but they already have enough. Surely what we need to do the opposite of what they accuse us of - which is to put *their* claims under the shining light of widespread exposure and, if you think you are good enough, convince all but the diehards that the evidence points to the corruption of the accusers rather than the accused.

62. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88324 by brainsys on November 16, 2007 at 1:47 am

Comment #88315 by logos_tech
"What's needed is a film, possibly Expelled 2, showing how Holocaust Deniers are denied tenure, jobs and what not"

I don't follow your arguement. We have one as President of the United States and another as the President of Turkey. I guess that is what happens to people entrenched in a non-evidence based belief system.

63. Same Flea, Different Name?

Comment #85833 by brainsys on November 7, 2007 at 9:45 am

"... reducing morality to the individual's subjective likes and dislikes"

Frightening to think this Catholic can't trust his own morality but has to rely on someone else's to avoid doing evil.

I guess that's the case for promoting christianity to the morally inept. As long as they stick to the nicer bits of the bible ... but then catholicsm doesn't have the greatest track record on morality or of not scaring the children with tales of hideous punishment for what other parts of christendom think quite normal.

64. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #79348 by brainsys on October 17, 2007 at 2:46 am

Rayy asks:

"I like your inversion of God made in mans image. What is that image like, is it male/female, does it have arms and legs, does it have sex? You say God then Physics. How has Physics replaced God? Does Atheism place limits on what science may question and explain? Does Atheism limit the imagination?"

That's the point - there is not a single image. It changes by the person and in time. Taking the Christian God as that is the one most familiar to me.

The OT bloke (yes there is a definite gender tendency) was a strong leader/commander. One can wonder if this is a projection of a warrior king's ego. The message fed to his followers (yes male again) to fire them up to defeat the enemy or plough the field. An important part of the Jewish nation's identity which seperated it from its enemies/competitors. Here we have a fundamental paradox of a God that is universal and one that is also a Jewish war god urging them to go kill his other creations. That takes some pretty sophisticated theology to try and resolve.

Whereas today's God of the Church of England does not like to go to war, indeed is very embarrassed when it appears necessary (I refer you to the Archbish's Falkland Memorial sermon). 'She' doesn't quite sound right so God has become somewhat shadowy and androgenous. Gone is the while haired/bearded guy of those great rennaisance paintings. Indeed God is rarely physically imaged these days. He/she/it has become a quiet force. Felt but not seen by the faithful.

Why? Well the biblical universe as believed 500 years ago doesn't stand up today in mainstream christianity. Its too easy to make the creationists look silly. So has God been remodelled to fit around the bits science has yet to crack - the mind (soul), before the big bang, purpose of life (if any)?

I could go on but you get the drift.

Re God & Physics (or Science generally). I was just implying that when we didn't know why or how something worked. God was a good explanation. Science has now supplemented a fair proportion of that and is hungry for more. It puts God on the backfoot. As I see it the mainstream churches over here have given up and accepted science for what it is. Theologians and the ArchBish have moved to arguing the pitch that there are places science can never go (the Why? question) and God is a good solution. RD disagrees.

I'm agnostic in wondering whether there are limits to the scientific method. That there could be a paradigm shift into a new way of understanding reality (sort of a mega version of how Eistein Physics replaced Newtonian). But I reject God on the basis that he has been projected into this vacant area rather than discovered with something rather new and remarkable that works.

So most of us share that mystery looking up into the stars. Atheists are simply those that keep it a mystery for the time being ;-)

But there are no limits to what we can discover apart from our three score years & ten limitation. As atheism and afterlife appear incompatible then this is a real barrier we can only penetrate by passing our knowledge and quest for truth onto our kids.

Hence the outrage here when creationists and allied causes try to subvert the educational process to project their solution despite the evidence or lack of any. In doing so they deny the scientific process and hence the creation of what we may see as our best albeit incomplete understanding of our surroundings. That's a 'back to the caves' mentaility. Or am I being unfair to cavemen and cavewomen?

65. John Templeton's Universe

Comment #79062 by brainsys on October 16, 2007 at 2:40 am

Wacky right wing undermining of science and truth has arrived in the UK too.

Like that court case against Gore's Inconvenient Truth. A contest of scientific inference brought by a lorry driver. Makes you proud that Britain has some of the world's finest climatologists driving trucks dunnit?

A short perusal of the WHOIS and a few Googles reveals a familiar web fit for a PhD in conspiracy theory. Exxon/Cato Institute of course by way of the Scientific Alliance (though apparently somewhat short of actual scientists) and a barmy Scottish quarryman who has a problem with tax and thinks the Army might be best people to run our public services. Too right for our right wing hence his creation of The New Party. Surely no intended connection with Oswald Moseley (Britain's very poor pre-war imitation of Herr Hitler).

The underlying theme is although these things are easily traceable no acknowledgement ever appears on their websites. Which is a little surprising when they take scientists, teachers and the occasional politician to task for allegedly not being open, honest and truthful.

I wish we could laugh it off. But the BBC report on the Inconvenient Truth court case featured Scientific Alliance Director Martin Livermore who did the usual rubbishing bit on behalf of his concerned but unnamed scientists without mentioning he was funded by the same Quarryman who funds the accusing Lorry Driver's campaigns.

Shame on the BBC for not checking this out.

If you think that attack on Gore was nasty, take a look at what they did to the British Cement Association ;-)

66. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78948 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Comment #78945 by Rayy on October 15, 2007 at 1:43 pm

"Where does our sense of beauty come from? Something that never ceases to fill me with a sense of awe and wonder is how a collection of molecules (you and I), can become aware and experience life in all its wonder; we seem to be more than the sum of our parts? How does the Atheist answer these questions?"

In as many ways as there are atheists methinks since by definition there is no party line.

For this one is that I assume God is made in man's image. The awe and wonder is crying for explanation and we have a mind that creates explanatory systems. First God, then Physics. Same creator, hence some confusion which is which (see Einstein).

Anyway welcome. You are swimming is strange waters. Deists are as much a mystery to atheists as atheist are to deists. Beware those that claim to know the mind of the other!

67. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78939 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 1:22 pm

D'Arcy wrote:

"Does Williams believe in Christianity as millions in the world know it or doesn't he?"

Yes. He represents a fair proportion of the Church of England. His language may be more sophisticated, his theology more nuanced - but then he is a clever lad and this is his full time job, not a Sunday excursion. They both know something is there but have a bit of a problem putting their finger on just what. But then how much should they worry about it when the Church and their job is to think of others, fix the roof and sell the jam.

They perceive themselves as doing no harm and probably some good. They see their mushy church as 'nearer God/better taste' then these strange fundies (oh and the Christian Union happy clappers).

They are not suprisingly bemused when RD firmly places them in the same camp as the American Evangelicals. After all the definition of the CoE was that it wasn't Roman Catholic (though some still act as if it was).

They really don't know how to respond. After all RD is a nice clever fellow too. Gets on well with the old Bishop of Oxford. Would make a wonderful vicar if he would only, like most anglican vicars, waffle a bit when it comes to the belief thing.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>
PS Highly paid, palace et al. Not really. Dunno what his motor is these days but I remember seeing a previous archbish in a chauffeur driven Morris 1000. For those in distant lands or of a juvenile disposition it is equivelent to the smallest compact Nissan Micra or sub VW Golf with the handling removed.

68. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78931 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Oh dear Fanusi. Still ascribing me statements and beliefs I never made or held. Refusing to apologise for errors. Why do I bother to try and hold a dialogue with you?

Well the last time then ...

No I never would balance slaughter with slaughter. Well apart from saying 50 million dead is less worse than 5 billion. Lets get back to the fundamental question. Lets suppose you are right. Muslim murderers outnumber Christian murderers as if that matters to this question. How do we treat Muslim non-murderers? I presume you agree there are some?

Announcing that Islam is pathologically evil is not going to be win many friends and influence people is it? We are all normally defensive of our (non)religion/culture/football team. How is your verbal aggression going to sound to a Sufi whose Islam is rather more mystical than most? Saying it is incompatible when hundreds of millions who have lived for many years in at least co-existance with other faiths would lose you credibility.

When all else fails your enemy's enemy is your friend. In WW2 that included Uncle Joe. Lethal but useful. AFAIK these Imams have not killed anybody. They may feel as alienated from the west as they are from terrorists. We can help adjust that. Except Fanusi I suspect you want to do it in the opposite direction to me.

So I say talk. Find any common ground and build on it. What say you?

69. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78884 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 8:58 am

Fanusi asked:
"How many cases have their been of Christian parents killing their children for abandoning the faith?"

Many. About half a mile from me is one christian child who was killed for being taken over by demons. See our local website: http://sydenham.org.uk/kindoki.html

I find it sick that you should think the evil of one side cannot be matched by the other. Hence I won't continue to answer your prejudicial questions. Or I'll start writing about my experiences of Northern Ireland which shows just what one Christian can do to another in the name of his Church.

But you are right to suggest that in Western Europe/USA seems we are currently more at risk from Muslim extremism. I think if you lived in, say, Gaza you would see another religion as an even greater threat.

To move onto what we should do about the Imam Olive Branch - let me digress to your quote about stopping Hitler crossing the Rhine. I agree. Hitler could probably have been deposed and there might not have been WW2. France, UK funked it. Why? Well Churchill was still a voice in the wilderness, the danger of national socialism was not generally understood in the countries that had fought and lost millions of men to in the fight to end all wars. There was no appetite.

When the danger was realised France & UK were in no position to fight. It became a stuggle to re-arm and buy time. That was 1938 which you implicitly acknowledge by backtracking to the 1936 opportunity. Of course if we backtrack to 1919 we can say the real opportunity was lost in the Treaty of Versailles. The vindictiveness particulary of the French on the German people over reparations was one of the driving forces of moderate Germans into the hands of Hitler's extremists.

I do not excuse moderate Germans from what they did. But we don't want to witness again the capture of the mainstream by the meglomaniacs. The Muslim mainstream by the mad Mullahs.

Treating them all as mad people when many are clearly not is not a very good idea. Most of them are very much like the rest of us. They have funny dietary habits, have inconvenient holidays and an architecture not to my taste. But then they say the same to me. People tend not to kill people they talk to. Its when we stop talking things get out of control. So will talking to the Imams do any good?

Dunno. But there is only one way to find out ...

>>>>>>>>>>>>
Sorry, on re-reading the quoted report the child did not die. I don't think that makes it less horrific example of what happens when religion meets ignorance ...

70. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78869 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 6:35 am

Thanks Windweaver - I enjoyed that.

Talking of religious broadcasting probably the most admired output of the BBC Religious Department is Radio 4's 'The Moral Maze'.

This is chaired by atheist ex-foreign affairs reporter Michael Buerk. Michael wrote that when he was invited he was reluctant and made clear his position - they responded that this was good news. As they had to cater for all religions this would show no favouritism! Then after the consumption of vast quantities of rather good wine over a splendid meal (clearly Anglicans were present) Micheal thinks he gave in and took the job. Yep religionists know all about temptation ...

It is a good programme. It does ably demonstrate Hitch's view that you don't have to be religious to not only have but develop moral consciousness.

On the otherhand most of us have day jobs while many clerics have time to ponder moral paradoxes and the like. So, as long as they, (unlike the Pope and Bishop of Carlisle), don't let let ideology creep in - they are a valuable resource to us all.

Whereas can you imagine Uncle Rupert appearing in the Moral Maze alongside Britain's most articulate and iconoclastic gay person? I think he would be a little lost ;-)

71. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78853 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 4:58 am

81. Comment #78703 by Fanusi Khiyal on October 14, 2007 at 11:32 am

"I am absolutely furious about the fact that it appears inevitable that, instead of spending my life pursuing the science I love, I will spend it fighting the murderous evil of Islam."

My problem with you Fanusi is that you are not applying your scientific skills to look at things openly, question yourself and test facts. The result appears to be a similar fanaticsm to that you oppose. Your history is by any independent account is terribly distorted, your perception of others (like me) is just plain wrong and the consequences of anybody following your ideas are catastrophic.

I guess by now I have lost you. But look again at what you have written.

"Don't try and co-exist with soviet communism"

Ahem, every US President came to the conclusion that the alternative was MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). 50 million dead might be bad but 5 billion is badder ... the west did prevail ... but then we need to sort out a strategy for Putin's Russia and the People's Republic of China. Bombing them both to extinction is a tad extreme don't you think? Co-existance until we figure out a better idea seems more attractive?

"You don't negotiate with evil, period. Look up Neville Chamberlain. Look where that has gotten us"

Yep - arguably the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. There is only one moral justification for going to war against evil. To win. That was less likely in 1938 than 1939. Remember we (and the French) still declared war before we were attacked. It still turned out to be too soon. France was defeated and we only just hung on by the skin of our teeth. That was until the very same Soviet state you would not talk to became our ally and the US were bombed into it by the Japanese.

"Then came the cartoon riots. And I realised, 'They're already here". So, I started learing about Islam. I learned about fourteen hundred years of war and oppression and atrocity"

Yep, Muslims really are the new kids on the block! I think the Christians are closing in on 2,000 and Old Testament Jews a while longer (and still at it!)

Remember the Danish cartoons were only a fanatical problem for about nine imams who, having failed to inflame the muslims of Denmark, proceeded to spread an exagerated and misleading version of events to people who acted first and didn't have time to think second (some of those that did regretted their first reaction).

What that boils down to is nobody can deny that militant Islam is a powder keg. You appear to want to dump all of Islam into their arms. Not a good idea if you checkout the figures and the oilfields. Oh and Putin has a good deal of the remainder.

Islam is a broad church ;-)

The Muslim community in the US don't seem to be too much of a problem. The Muslim community in the UK (as in Denmark) was not a terrorist problem. The growing problem here is amongst second/third generation Muslim immigrants who see it as a re-assertion of their cultural identity. There is a vacant space and religion loves to fill a vaccuum. I would argue that which religion is co-incidental. At other times and in other places it has been filled and fired hatred just as effectively by the other major religions.

Frankly I don't pretend to have answers. I have, in life, been better at spotting those who have the wrong answers. I think you are one of them.

In the end you have to either defeat your enemy, get a shared view or co-exist. Start with the last. Try very hard with the middle. And if there is no alternative and you can win (which is not easy as Iraq and Viet Nam should have reminded you) then maybe the latter. But the cost will always be terrible.

I don't think we have gone passed the point of no-return. Most people on both sides aren't convinced yet either. So I'm saddened at the blanket attacks on Muslims here.

Doesn't make me an apologist for Islam (or for Nazism in 1938). The best chance of defeating militant Islam may come from the rest of Islam. As I said earlier - why deliberately pi** them off?

72. Fox News Attacks 'Godless' Free Thought Radio

Comment #78832 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 3:23 am

Wow - Fair & balanced is having a fundamentalist christian as religion correspondent? Is the Fox chief crime reporter a psychotic murderer on death row? Personally I think we have more to fear from Murdoch control and manipulation of the media than any religious leader. Remember that James Bond movie inspired by him? About time for a remake:

'The Fox Delusion'

73. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78818 by brainsys on October 15, 2007 at 2:23 am

One of my ambitions in life is to share a railway compartment with Rowan Williams. On arrival he would still be Archbishop and I an atheist. He would probably be no wiser, I hope I would. Because, forget all the waffle in the speech - the fundamental statement was

"For believers God is real and existed before the universe did".

The great mystery in my life is how a highly educated and widely read (and rather nice) intellectual can unconditionally accept this on what must be charitably described as 'dodgy evidence'.

I don't know. I don't think RD really knows. Indeed does any atheist really understand this?

Until we do then any meaningful dialogue between atheists and deists is between people from different planets with no common language. The John Humphrey interviews, the Jonathan Miller interviews and many others have all come to a point where the religionist has said things to which we can all agree. The they make, in our eyes, this great imaginative leap into God belief. A belief they feel comfortable with.

No interviewer has ever dug his heels at this point and probed this step which is beyond my understanding. A problem is, of course, because we, as atheists, may have never made this step we possibly are always incapable of really understanding it. BTW understanding has nothing to do with acceptance.

So that long train journey would be an opportunity for one of religion's finest to try and get that across to a welcoming mind.

If he fails then all he can take away is that God has created people designed to be not capable of believing in him. Not even capable of even conceiving the concept of belief. Beyond redemption and possibly damned. No better than the beasts in the field. That's very queer.

74. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78206 by brainsys on October 12, 2007 at 6:16 am

Comment #78193 by Matt7895 on October 12, 2007 at 5:22 am
"Speaking for my Christian friends here, it's a bit hard to make peace with Muslims when they keep killing innocent people."

True. One has to start somewhere. How about trying to make peace with the majority of Muslims who don't kill innocent people?

Or is really pi**ing them off a better idea? Does this make Brian right about the cheesemakers?

75. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78179 by brainsys on October 12, 2007 at 3:59 am

Fanusi Khiyal wrote:

"And why is it that there is always some atheist trying to justify what Islam is doing by whinging about Christianity? Witness brainsys for example."

Fanusi - you are dammed lucky I can't afford a libel lawyer >:-(

I have never justified Islam. I never could. Please retract that evil lie. I say evil because I have to assume that your problem is the comparison of Islam with (your?) Christianity.

Or is it you don't think it right to talk and co-exist with your enemies? Soviet communism was also an enemy. Was talking to Gorbachev the wrong thing too? Does that imply Reagan, Thatcher et al were justifying communism?

Please justify yourself or have the decency to withdraw your remarks.

76. Muslims tell Christians: 'Make peace with us or survival of world is at stake'

Comment #78155 by brainsys on October 12, 2007 at 2:41 am

Boy oh boy the postings here will certainly feed Muslim paranoia.

The nasty bits of the Koran have always been there. Its what has happened politically that has elevated them from relative obscurity to the war cries of modern day Jihad.

Are they much worse than Christian backed 'surges'?

Frankly we are all going to have to accept co-existance as a first step in the retreat from confrontation and intolerence. Co-existance is not about accepting the other view. It is agreeing to disagree.

We should be support them - but perhaps support them in an unexpected way - by challenging any pretence that anybody (other than Prince Charles) can discover a "one God fits all" way of morphing diverse religions together - and presumably leaving atheists out in the cold.

No Muslims are Muslims (well Sunnis, Shias, Wannabbees ..) Christians are Christians (well Catholics, Episcopalians, Baptists & Oral Roberts) and atheists are conservatives, liberals, nationalists, anarchists ... people.

Unless you get co-existance - it just becomes a war of attrition rather than ideas. A very weak position for atheists. Be pragmatic. Jaw-Jaw is always better than War-War. It is not appeasement. Quite the opposite.

Or are we going to be fundamental in not accepting other people's right to religion? Don't we all have a right to be wrong? Its just how do we turn the conflict into one of ideas rather than weapons?

77. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77726 by brainsys on October 10, 2007 at 10:11 am

briancoughlanworldcitizen

I agree freedom of speech should be a bedrock. An absolute bedrock.

The lives of those defending it is another matter. My father/grandfather voluntarily put themselves in the way of harm to protect it. They expected their government to do their best at protecting them. But they did not all expect to survive. Fortuneately in my family only a leg was lost for freedom.

Surely that is the point. If you are going to stand between an assassin and Hirsi or Rushdie you are willing to die (even if you fervently hope you won't) for freedom - for others in this real world. Ultra altruism as RD may say. That includes Muslims & Christian's freedom to say that most awful things about each other and us.

That's why I think Hirsi & Rushdie do not have an absolute right to protection. Perhaps religionists may come to notice how this humanist sacrifice is so different to doing it for a deity.

78. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77721 by brainsys on October 10, 2007 at 9:48 am

USA Limey

Oh dear - we are agreeing again ;-)

At least on guilt by association. I too get emotional when folks attack Hitch's take on religion based Hitch's view on Iraq.

The only common element should be Hitch's rather eclectic mix of smooth politeness intermingled with superb abrasiveness that make him a joy to read no matter what the subject.

Like us all he can be right on one thing and IMHO wrong on Hirsi. Come on Hitch is quite often wrong on religion too. Its just his opponents are usually wronger that makes their demolition so enjoyable.

79. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77716 by brainsys on October 10, 2007 at 9:11 am

USA Limey

I did read Pantore's post. I assumed English was not his/her's first language from the rather clumsy way things were expressed.

Pantore's view on the AEI (when you rip out the emotional text) is an honest view shared by lots of honest people. Some of whom think they are friends of America (or at least of many Americans).

The fact that Hirsi is rooting politically for something glorious or inglorious is not relevant to the protection a person should expect from the law and law enforcement. We agree on that? So proving AEI is one or the other is not an issue and hence I would have thought JP's take on US foreign policy.

Rushdie is a case in point here. He was threatened for what he wrote. We all stand behind him on that (OK braver folks than me may stand in front). However for a government to underwrite 100% for all time absolute protection on an individual is something they just cannot do. There are other people dying for the want of a share in that resource.

So how do you decide between Rushdie and another great causes? Not a choice I would like to meet. But it has to be done and a politician has to take the rap.

Compromises are made on the level of protection (should you have more bodyguards, thicker armour plate, less travel ..). In the case of Rushdie compromises were made on the source of funds. The UK government paid some, Rushdie made up the difference. I guess both would want the balance changed. Its a difficult subject.

In this case we appear to be in transit from a point where the Dutch government should and did provide a high level of security to a position where others (including the US government?) should take over.

Are we not confusing issues of timing with issues of principle?

80. Ayaan Hirsi Ali: abandoned to fanatics

Comment #77704 by brainsys on October 10, 2007 at 8:27 am

USA Limey,

Your outburst is sad. Yes Pilger is a critic of US administration's foreign policy. Isn't nearly everyone these days? That doesn't make him anti-american. Is the fearless hunt for truth un-american?

The US was (rightly) critical of UK imperialism. Does that make them anti-British?

Freedom is about taking criticism and finding truth - no matter how uncomfortable. Calling award winning investigative journalists 'agitators' is in itself an attack on freedom IMHO.

Yes I'm sure JP has, like us all, made some bad judgement calls. I once thought Mugabe was a good guy. But your outburst is no better than the religious fundies who seek to blacken the name and reputations of people they disagree with and by implication those news media that have checked, doublechecked and published JP's stuff.

You know - the marxist Daily & Sunday Telegraph, the anarchist Reuter's agency and the insurgent ITV ...

I'm afraid I'm finding most of the discussion in these Hirsi threads simplistic, unbalanced and riding on emotion rather than sorting through the complex web of fact and issues involved.

You know, a bit like a religious crusade.

81. Norway flourishes as secular nation

Comment #77011 by brainsys on October 8, 2007 at 7:00 am

So who created all those fjords ;-)

82. A New Debate

Comment #75589 by brainsys on October 3, 2007 at 5:07 am

What a terrible suggestion!

The issue is that politicians take decisions on our behalf. We hope they take it on the best possible advice. When the advice is confused they still need to take a decision (unlike most scientists!) and sell it to the general public.

Suppose RD was allowed to run for President. His knowledge in even his specialist subject is not complete and would benefit from input from others in the field. Outside his area it would be positively dangerous for him to assume specific knowledge.

No - we don't need politicians who know science. We want politicians who can work with science. Winston Churchill was an example of a very poor scholar with little academic knowledge outside English & History whose enthusistic and carefully judged use of science and mathematics during WW2 may have made the difference. Contrast that with Hitler. He treated both scientists and generals with disdain. He didn't listen, he knew better. He lost.

No - better a quiz on science (or anything else) where the politician has zero prior knowledge. Lock them in a room with a selection of acedemics who disagree. Then get them to come out and explain to the lay public the issues in this subject area and how they would decide which way to go.

That would be very instructive for the voter!

83. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75575 by brainsys on October 3, 2007 at 3:37 am

Great article.

I picked up on Sam's racist analogy. In the UK the opposition to racism labelled themselves anti-racists. Successfully bring into law the requirements that I label myself 'black', 'white', 'afro-caribean' but never 'N'. Given that race is a human construct built in the face of factual understanding - we have done what the racists failed to do - that is set up institutional boundaries to define race.

And the trouble with atheism - is that intrinsically it accepts the concept of God only to knock it down again.

As soon as you start on the track of defining what deism is - you are in trouble. Sam's point that people who profess themselves to be Christian, Muslim or whatever cover a wide spectrum. Those that see it in an Einstein type way or an amorphous hyper-abstract fashion of some theologists are, I agree with Sam, not the problem.

Success, if there is to be one, is to infiltrate rationality into religious people's lives. Some, very few I think, will have Damascian conversions to 'atheism'. More will accommodate reality with religiousity. Never underestimate the brain's ingenuity of maintaining two seperate and opposing philosophies and even making sense of it.

The key is when that conflict becomes really important and that conflict has to be resolved, which choice will they make?

I always return to the CoE. An institution that until certain sub-saharan bishops put a spoke in the works - was heading towards almost complete secularism, but with nice bells, hymns & vicars. The shock about Islam in the UK is the realisation that it isn't like the CoE with minarets but has a jihaddist and other divisions more in common medieval and later christainity. Something that has taken us several hundred years to partly but not completely sort.

We will never destroy jihadism by opposing it in absolute terms. Indeed all we do is feed its paranoia.

No, effective opposition to jihadism is going to start in the Muslim universities and other organisations. Maybe even in the caves of Tora Bora. Thinking about their own religion and how it adapts to realities they can accept. A gradual process. At no time having to take the decision to leave Islam.

A slow walk towards greater rationality can be good for Muslims. Getting them to take their religion along with it may be preferable to asking them to junk what is not only a religion, but is also part of their cultural understanding. Just as many of us self proclaimed atheists are still culturally 'Christians' if you scratch a little.

84. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74920 by brainsys on October 1, 2007 at 6:12 am

Russell wrote

"The point is that there has been a taboo, until recently, on pointing out the evils that they tend to perpetrate if given power. And when you look at specifically religious morality - as opposed to moral ideas that can also be embraced from a secular viewpoint - it's usually something unpleasant."

I'm looking at this from an English perspective. I never saw this taboo if you apply it to the fundie religionists. They were always ridiculed by the atheist, agnostic & mainstream churches alike.

RD sought to put the mainstream up there with the fundies. That has problems for those who share Radio 4's view of UK life. Religion was given a special protected status as long as they didn't rock the boat too far - on the air and in government. This was not too much of a problem when we thought churches were fading in numbers and in doctrinal faith. RD was seen by many as attacking a loved old, but slightly batty, aunt. Not done in polite company!

We were also approaching the position where you could be an anglican but not a christian (a description I used of myself!).

That has now changed I think. We have the Muslim resurgence/insurgence. They, quite rightly, demand the same special considerations of the CoE & RC. But not to fade away with them. We also have the Nigerian influence on the UK/USA churches (with supine reactions from our ArchBish).

So instead of letting religion quietly and affectionaly fade away into the the local hatch/match/despatch agency - we now have a confused and competitive religionists looking back to refind their core values. Not good news!

IMHO this makes acceptance or co-existence with the mainstream churches less comfortable.

This is why I'm in the process of moving from gently helping religion into the nearest hospice - to putting them into the nearest courthouse. To ridicule their statements of fact that lack or defy evidence. To remove special access to the levers of power.

Its just that I'm not including Burmese Monks in this crusade. If they achieve power and start imposing their beliefs - then I'll be behind the folks at the barricades (H&S regs insists this should be some distance:)

I'm not a true Dawkinite yet. But you can pray for that ;-)

85. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74895 by brainsys on October 1, 2007 at 3:13 am

Yes Russell you are right. Christianity et al have done some terrible things. That remark "belief in a deity can make good men bad" is well proven.

But it is not exclusively a one way road. Perhaps the most important and successfully transition from "an evil state" to the civilised world (well almost) is South Africa. It was very lucky that some rather remarkable people came together at the right time to enable a transition few thought possible without the most terrible bloodbath and expulsion of the previous ruling class.

Desmond Tutu's Commission for Truth and Reconciliation was an important part of that. That sprang from a particular strand of christian thinking. You would be right to say that it is one that any atheist could share and should share. We criticise christians for being selective about what they choose from the bible. As atheists why can't we too be selective? The Sermon on the Mount is a great stream of morality. One that is IMHO helpful for every Christain, Communists, Atheist ...

The fact that, wrongly, a religious position (bishop) gives organisation, respect and status did mean in this case lives were saved, possibly a whole nation. I'm prepared to put aside my atheism to back people like Tutu and his people at that time and place. I would willingly have helped him use the special place of the church in that society to effect the change that was so vital.

It is a pragmatic choice. It doesn't stop me from being as beastly as I can to certain other African bishops who both destroy the lives of their own people and have a malevolent effect on people in the UK & USA. That's why I support the Monks and why I feel alienated by a certain 'fundie' view here that because they are a religious group we should be more circumspect.

While I have a horrid feeling the Burmese monks may not succeed in liberating the Burmese people from the mad generals this time - I don't see any other Burmese organisation likely to overpower them. And I think I might just prefer to live under a benign monkery than a mad generalship.

86. Religion as a Force for Good

Comment #74879 by brainsys on October 1, 2007 at 1:36 am

Comment #74648 by Ohnhai on September 29, 2007 at 8:01 pm

"As usual the good that is supposedly done by those of religion could just as easily be done by those of another faith or - more importantly - by someone of no faith. Oppressed people will eventually rise up. The tide of history show us this."

Yes - but history also shows that successful resistance to state repression usually requires organisation. That implies an organisation. Any organisation that is a threat to the state is going to be taken out by the state.

The unique feature of a 'religious' organisation is the one that RD so laments - it is rather successful at putting itself above criticism and normal proceses of law etc.

Usually this is a pain, which is why we want to abolish it. But just occasionally it can work to society's benefit. The Burmese Monks are a tricky lot for the state to deal with. Their special place in Burmese society and, lets be honest, the image of bare headed, gentle men in robes being beaten make makes far more effective TV than jean claden hoodies throwing stones at troops. That's maybe the major reason Burma is at the top of the news agenda and fodder for every foriegn minister's righteous indignation.

So, as atheists, should we not take a time-out and cheer for those brave monks, and have a go at the media and our politicians when they try and forget them and move on?

87. A Table for One

Comment #71210 by brainsys on September 18, 2007 at 3:42 am

Yep - I agree the use of MT's doubts and dodgy dealings with money is no reason to completely destroy the woman's reputation. Its the catholics with no doubts that really scare me.

I think we are tending to confuse religious denomination with faith. The pope with his personal hotline to God is against contraception. Most catholic women appear to listen, check out the alternatives and then ignore it.

Churches are great as buildings, great music, clever and insightful clergy, a place to meet good and friendly people and have a few moments of reflection on a Sunday. Mumbling silly words - or even great ones (how can any atheist still not be moved with a rousing rendition of 'Jerusalem'?) is better than a Supermarket visit or even watching the Colbert Show.

No the problem is when these people start believing what they mumble. I think many atheists lack the imagination to realise how duplicitous many of us are. Mumbling and belief are not the same thing.

Getting the mumblers to leave and make space for the fundies might not be a good move ...

An ex-mumbler

88. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70907 by brainsys on September 17, 2007 at 8:04 am

Northern Bright (sorry about still not being able to quote).

Thank you for quoting RD's statement on Theology. I think that is spot on. But it jarred with his accusation 'so-called theology' (I paraphrase). Pejorative accusations are just too common (in all meanings of the word) amongst RD's critics for RD to appear to join them in retaliation.

Your point, I think, is that Cornwell's theology is garbage. I agree since it lacks reflection and self imposed critical analysis. It would methinks then just fall apart on the rock of reason.

Rubbishing that is fine. But Theology is too important to be left to the theologians - well the current lot who are just using the subject to justify their belief system. A well trained Zeusist should be able to take them apart just as a retiring geneticist might do ;-)

All I am suggesting is that we need to recapture the study of religion from the religionists. epeeist's view that should just be a subdivision of Social Anthropology doesn't take into effect the current structure of our University departments.

89. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70891 by brainsys on September 17, 2007 at 7:22 am

Jonathan Dore wrote

"biblical scholarship -- a historical, archaeological, and literary critical endeavour -- is not theology"

Agreed and I didn't intend to imply that. I was seperating out the subject matter from the associated beliefs. Theology surely includes Thor, Zeus as well as Jesus. The most important 'reality' of all to specific groups in specific times. Whether RD's genetic prediliction to religion hypothesis equally explains these differing manifestations I do not know. that is surely why Theology is an interesting subject. And an important subject if one takes the current killing power of the Abrahamic faiths into account.

As I said - a far too important subject to be left solely to their adherents.

90. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70887 by brainsys on September 17, 2007 at 6:59 am

epeeist - sorry I haven't got into how to quote yet but I find your post confused.

Why do I capitalise Bible - why do you capitalise Illiad? Because they are names of books and that is good English grammar. Something i don't always achieve ;-)

Those you quoted are indeed great books but don't have the scope of a thousand years of continual recording/updating/pruning which in itself tells as much as the original subject matter. Subjectively the KJV is as great a work of literacy in the English language you will find anywhere and surely the most beautiful work produced by a committee. Well the US constitution runs it close but is surely too short to be really up there as a work of art.

Returning to your main point about Gods not being real. I would suggest an urgent visit to the British Museum & National Gallery or your local equivelent. Gods are very real in their physical reality - either directly as in a figure or in iconic form. They are in even greater reality in the minds of too many men. That they are myths is perhaps only evident to us unbelievers.

Similary the words on my five pound note "The Governor of the Bank of England promises to pay the bearer on demand ... " is a similar myth but is part of the basis of the subject of Economics. I capitalise that too - since sadly this is an important subject to understand, name universities after and take very seriously - proven by governments who failed to!

Recapture theology on a fact based basis. Evolve the name as Alchemy became Chemistry if it helps ...

91. Do you have to read up on leprechology before disbelieving in them?

Comment #70875 by brainsys on September 17, 2007 at 6:12 am

I have to say I am a little uncomfortable with Richard's letter with numerous pejorative undertones. The statement "It assumes that there is a serious subject called Theology" appears to be designed to deliberately irritate Stanford/Cornwell than to make Atheism look like an attractive, open and inquisitive approach to life.

Theology is the study of Gods and they are as real contributors to our culture as their inventors. The Bible is possibly our greatest, if flawed, ancient historical document. Biblical scholarship doesn't imply belief in God or Jesus. Indeed scholarship may well, as in Robin Lane Fox's excellent 'Unauthorised Version' give stregnth to the atheist view.

The problem is letting Theology become owned by solely Christian Theologians. The study of why people believe in God, how they believe and the consequences is increasingly important.

RD in TGD gave some tentative hypotheses in this direction. But that is all they were. Rather than attacking Theology I would hope RD who is, dare I say, becoming a little past the prime as a discovering student of the biological sciences is instead approaching his prime at applying his skills as a new theologian putting some meat behind those ideas.

Until we more fully understand the religious hold on the minds of otherwise sensible and intelligent people - we are not very well equipped to offer a cure!