51. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185498 by keith on May 28, 2008 at 12:33 am

Al,

That is interesting. I assume the statistics that show banning guns increases gun crime, won't mean much to you?

Washington D.C. banned hand guns and violent crime sky rocketed. The places in the US with the lowest rates of violent crime are the ones that make it easiest to carry fire arms.

I'm not really sure what you mean when you suggest that those statistics won't mean anything to me. If you mean, "You probably don't know about these figures" then you're right. However, if you mean that I wouldn't be prepared to accept them regardless of whether they were true or not, then the answer is that I'm happy to go wherever the evidence leads. It interested me a lot that gun crime went up when Washington D.C. tried to restrict guns. Were there any explanations for this?

Actually, my main point was more about the difference between gun crime in the US and gun crime in Britain, where guns aren't allowed. It goes without saying that gun crime in the UK is a tiny fraction (though growing) of what it is in America. Your stats regarding Washington almost seemed to suggest that violent crime would go down if we introduced guns into the UK. This isn't what you are saying...is it?

52. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185246 by keith on May 27, 2008 at 8:58 am

Al,

My neighbour here in Japan is an American and he also defends gun possession. I can understand his reasoning (he says it's all to do with the history of the US and private citizens not wanting to delegate all their powers to the state - my neighbour seems to relish the idea of one day having a shoot-out with a police force that has come to wrongfully arrest him) but my own point is that if you have a disagreement with a violent person in England you are likely to end up with a broken nose. In America you are likely to end up dead.

I have a feeling that this is going to derail the thread so I'll stop now.

53. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185237 by keith on May 27, 2008 at 8:37 am

Al,

The analogy of Islam to guns is that in the hands of a sensible owner, neither are really that dangerous, while in the hands of nutters both are deadly.

People like Alister McGrath seem to feel that this human element in some way exculpates religion from any blame when violence is done in its name. My own view is that the role of religion here is roughly analogous to that of guns in gun crime. That was my only point.

Incidentally, the whole point of an analogy is to bring together two things that vary considerably at the surface level at some less obvious level. Analogies between two similar things would be both pointless and boring. For that reason I don't feel that your objection that guns don't whisper 'kill Jews' is a valid one. Equally, Islam isn't made out of metal and doesn't fit into a holster yet this in no way excludes the possibility of finding similarities at some more abstract level.

54. Town moves against Islamic school

Comment #185212 by keith on May 27, 2008 at 7:56 am

The idea that it's people rather than Islam that is violent sounds very much like Charlton Heston's claim that it's people who kill, not guns.

Of course, in an trivial way this is true: when people are taken out of the equation, neither Islam nor guns are violent. It's only when the two things are put together that the explosions start.

55. What is science for?

Comment #184780 by keith on May 26, 2008 at 6:50 am

ASM,

Re your comment #184457I, I much preferred this post to any of your previous ones. I could see exactly what you were getting at, despite the fact that I disagreed with most of it.

Seems to me pretty obvious that your important implication was not simply "if conspirators make bad fakes, then conspirators must be an inept lot," but rather along the lines of "if conspirators make bad fakes (and thus are an inept lot), then the conspiracy should be falling apart quicker than a cheap suit"

This, I think, is a pretty fair assessment of what I was saying. However, the essential part that you've missed out is that I, of course, don't actually believe that there is a conspiracy or any conspirators. I was indeed intimating that if there were a conspiracy then such a rotten fake, if representative of the whole 'movement' of conspirators, should mean that it should fall apart. However, since I don't believe in a conspiracy in the first place then the question of ineptitude doesn't come into it. I was really just drawing conclusions from Blake's standpoint i.e. that there is a conspiracy. However, I'm willing to concede your point that Blake probably never even thought that one totally inept conspirator means that the whole conspiracy must be totally inept.

And, of course, the point I was making through the example (rather than "conclusion," as you called it)...

Sorry, you're wrong. Your example of religiosity was something I had said, not something you said. Your following commentary on this example of my religiosity consisted of the conclusions you drew from that example.

Concerning your global comment, note that you were concentrating on the "blatantly faked poster"

The truth is that I didn't read the rest of his post. I couldn't bear to. I was just skimming and the bit about the faked poster caught my eye.

...and trying to make the (in Blake's own words) "blatantly faked poster" look like maybe not such an intended fake after all, but "perhaps, instead, [...] a deliberate montage that everyone understood to be a montage," without considering that that was precisely what Blake was telling you

No, this is not what Blake was telling me. A fake and a montage that isn't meant to fool anyone are not one and the same. The extent to which it can be called a fake must be related to how well it can trick someone into believing its authenticity, and according to Blake it couldn't have fooled anyone. For this reason I suggested that since it couldn't pass muster as a good fake, perhaps it wasn't a fake at all. I was just suggesting other possibilities to the mystery of why the fake was so unconvincing. The answer must be either that the fake was not as bad as Blake said it was, or that it wasn't meant to be a fake at all, or that these particular 'conspirators' who made the fake were totally inept. Take your choice.

please try to imagine your reaction to a poster showing, through a deliberate montage, a small Jewish child dressed in winter clothing laughing at piles of naked dead bodies, say, in an Ukrainian exhibition of the great famine of 1932-33.

Would you still be using the words "deliberate montage that everyone understood to be a montage" in an exculpating sense?

If I were the kind of person who likes to score points by pretending to be outraged then I'm sure I could get some mileage out of your tacit suggestion that I'm guilty of racism. You seem to be under the impression that for some reason I favour Jewish people over other races/nations. If I were Jewish, had been to Israel, had Jewish friends or had some other reason for being partisan then I might agree with you. However, I'm not and I haven't.

On the other hand, whether I'm the naive victim of some insidious pro-Jewish bent by the media that is as all-encompassing as it is invisible, I really couldn't say. And neither can you. What for you is a clear Jewish media bias remains for me just one more instance of a deluded Emperor putting on his new clothes.

56. What is science for?

Comment #184435 by keith on May 25, 2008 at 7:52 am

ASM,

You see, this is my main quibble with your posts. I mentioned before that you sometimes seem to have trouble keeping up with the arguments. So, just let me spell it out for you:

Blake: At Dachau their was a picture that was a "blatantly obvious fake that *anyone* would recognize as such."

Keith: If this is true then "Holocaust conspirators must be pretty inept if their fakes are as bad as you say they are."

Now, from the above exchange you derive the following:

ASM: Here is the example [that the Holocaust is a religion based on no empirical facts]. Trying to argue the truth of the facts without regard for the facts themselves, simply out of one's perceived "ability or inepcy of the conspirators," is not a rational attitude.

Now how, precisely, did you get from my comment that the Holocaust conspirators must be an inept lot if they make such bad fakes (Blake's claim) to your conclusion? Actually, the paragraph with your conclusion is a complete trainwreck and having some of it in quotation marks when you weren't actually quoting didn't help. I hope I would never invent a word like 'inepcy'. Even so, let me see if I can disentangle that mess for you:

1. Believing in the Holocaust is a religion.
2. What I said is a perfect example of this religion.
3. I argue the facts without regard to the facts.
4. I believe that the Holocaust conspirators are inept and this is not rational.

Is this it? I'm still not certain that I've got at what you wanted to say. With sentences like "one's perceived "ability or inepcy of the conspirators", I'm sure you can see why I might be a bit confused.

In conclusion I'm still trying to decide which is more horrible, that last paragraph of yours or the poor logic caught up in it.

57. What is science for?

Comment #184409 by keith on May 25, 2008 at 3:33 am

Alan Baylis,

Blake: I don't know what "Blood Libel" means and I'm not interested in looking it up.

Alan: I'm not surprised some of them pretend not to know of this particular bit of anti Semitic barbarism, for it shows their mindset up pretty well.

I disagree with you on this one. For me, Blake's claim has a ring of authenticity to it. I'm more than prepared to believe that he really doesn't know what 'blood libel' is. Firstly, ignorance is not generally something you parade in front of others, unless of course it's feigned ignorance of a crime you personally were part of, which isn't the case here.

The other reason I wouldn't be surprised if he genuinely doesn't know what 'blood libel' is is I suspect there might be quite a lot that Blake doesn't know.

Blake: I'm...not even technically a holocaust denier

Surely he denies the Holocaust. In what sense is he not 'technically' a holocaust denier?

58. What is science for?

Comment #184377 by keith on May 24, 2008 at 10:35 pm

Blake,

I went to Dachau in 1982 and outside of Dachau was a poster of a small German child (probably between 5 and 8 I'd say) dressed in winter clothing laughing at piles of naked dead bodies. A quick look at it shocks you. But I inspected it further and noticed that the laughing child was pasted into the picture - in other words it was a fake. Not only was it a fake but it was a blatantly obvious fake that *anyone* would recognize as such on close inspection.

Let me put my cards on the table and tell you straight up that I'm not completely sure that I actually believe this story. However, even if it's true I'm sure you'll admit that there's something odd about it.

When people who deny that Apollo 11 actually landed on the moon they say things like, "Yeah, so who was doing the filming while Armstrong was moaning about the size of the step? The camera was outside the module", and "The light source was coming from the wrong direction for that season/time of day." etc. etc.

When I hear this I really have no answer because I don't know enough about where you can put cameras on lunar modules and how the sun's rays hit the moon. Even so, the thought that always goes through my mind is, "Surely there must have been someone at NASA who had thought about this and told the technicians to put the camera back into the Eagle and to move the studio lights round to the other side where the sun should be.

As you can imagine, the same thought went through my head when I read your description of the "blatantly obvious fake that *anyone* would recognize as such." After all, you'd have to say that Holocaust conspitators must be pretty inept if their fakes are as bad as you say they are.

Apart from this, surely there comes a moment when a fake is so bad that it can no longer be defined as such. My point is, maybe what you were looking at wasn't a fake at all? Perhaps, instead, it was a deliberate montage that everyone understood to be a montage? That is, everyone except you. After all, why is it that after millions of people have visited Dachau no one else but you has ever mentioned this 'fake'? In short, maybe you were that weird bloke - there is one present at all events - who doesn't quite understand what's going on, like the guy in the Prado who objects to Guernica, not because he thinks the painting is shit, but because horses don't really have three eyes so it can't be true.

Admittedly, a concentration camp is not an art gallery and great care should be taken with artistic license. Even so, if this picture did turn out to be precisely what you say it was, a fake, or even if it was just 'trying to make a point' in a very heavy-handed way, all this would mean was that the curator had made a bad error of judgement. What it would not signify is that millions of Jews hadn't, in fact, died in concentration camps.

You know, I must admit to sometimes having moments when I stop dead in my tracks and think to myself, "Is it just me? Have I got things round the wrong way?" And sometimes it transpires that that is exactly what has happened and it really is just me. Do you never have these moments? I suspect not.

p.s. Guernica is a painting.

59. What is science for?

Comment #183326 by keith on May 21, 2008 at 10:00 pm

About the only thing you can say in ASM's defense is that he makes more sense than Clearmind and has learned to speak better English. The fact that he seems to misunderstand fairly basic points is a minor quibble next to Clearmind's nonsense. Can anyone actually interpret his last post?

60. What is science for?

Comment #182967 by keith on May 21, 2008 at 6:57 am

ASM,

Because your posts are quite long, I can only claim to have read one or two without skipping bits. To do you justice perhaps I should really read all your posts but equally, is it really not possible to keep their size down a bit? After all, some of us have jobs to go to.

Anyway, despite having read only a couple of your posts in their entirety, I want to voice one or two things that occurred to me:

1. I get the impression you think that anyone who believes that the Holocaust happened is laughably gullible. Now, whether you are right or wrong, you must admit that your viewpoint is highly unusual and just as Copernicus, Darwin and Einstein didn't achieve a sea-change in public opinion by first claiming that anyone who disagreed with their ideas must be a complete idiot, I can't help thinking that it might make more sense to at least acknowledge that there might be another side to this argument. It would do your cause - and you really do seem to see it as a cause - no harm at all.

2. The fact that there might never have been a lampshade made out of human skin does not in itself prove that the Holocaust didn't happen. If this was a valid way of assessing evidence, all that would be needed to dismiss the Holocaust would be first for the Nazi's to murder 6 million Jews then to let it be known that they had in fact killed 60 million Jews. Since there weren't that many Jews in Europe to begin with then the claim could instantly be dismissed. And this in turn would weirdly suggest to a certain crazed kind of mind that in actual fact, maybe not even a single Jew had been murdered. Bizarrly, it would then be in the interest of the Nazi's, rather than the Jews, to exaggerate the number of dead.

3. Although you completely discard the claim that 6 million Jews were killed in the Holocaust as ridiculous, you do seem willing to concede that some lower figure might be plausible. Would you be willing accept the lowest figure I saw you quote of 300,000 murdered Jews? This, of course, is twenty times less than the generally accepted figure and although it really does matter how many people actually died, I'm not sure that even the most callous person would call 300,000 dead 'a hoax'. There surely comes a point when the number of dead ceases to have an affect on how we view a crime. Is 300,000 really so much less serious than 6 million?

4.

Said Elli:

ASM: how did all those Jewish people die, then?


That's an easy one, o Elli of the beauteous avatar, daughter of Jewish Israelis, who has interviewed numerous "Holocaust" survivors: most of them didn't die, hosanna and hallelujah!

I don't know if Elli had been particularly nasty to you, but this kind of taunting is just vile. Could you not have just answered the question and left the spitefulness to one side?

5. The thing that made me decide that it perhaps wasn't necessary to read all your posts was one particular exchange you had with Styrer. It seemed to me that he made a couple of points that you simply didn't understand. I couldn't decide if you were being purposefully obtuse so as to annoy him or whether you simply couldn't understand a really easy point. Neither conclusion showed you in a very good light, but I finally came to the conclusion that you really were perhaps a bit slow. And then of course it's no wonder that Styrer lost it a bit. If I had found myself arguing with someone who was both none too quick on the uptake and rather supercilious to boot, and then to add insult to injury, several members appeared from nowhere to seemingly weigh in on your side, perhaps just in the name of being open-minded, I think I too might have given vent to a few choice words.

61. What is science for?

Comment #182810 by keith on May 21, 2008 at 2:07 am

Peace,

I wonder if there are any experienced historians here who could refute some of the details of his posts?

I suspect that if ASM were even remotely influenced by evidence then he wouldn't hold the position he now holds.

Offering up a refutal would be as much use as attempting to show a Christian why a belief in God makes no logical sense. This is because some people are simply not swayed by such things as logic or evidence.

62. The Dissent Of Darwin - The World Of Richard Dawkins

Comment #181767 by keith on May 18, 2008 at 7:40 am

I have just read Michael's post above and although my question has nothing to do with testicles, it is vaguely related to that theme, at least in my twisted mind. And the question is this: Why, when I desperately need a piss, do my teeth start itching?

Where's Doc Benway when you need her? Or do we have a dentist in the house?

63. Texas Megachurch Minister Busted in Internet Sex Sting

Comment #181691 by keith on May 18, 2008 at 12:42 am

Closing down the church because one of its ministers got caught doing something illegal would be like closing down the post office because one of its postmen stashed all the mail in his wardrobe instead of delivering it.

[Edit] We will need better reasons than that to close down churches, unless, of course, so many 'postmen' get caught hording letters in wardrobes that the public finally loses confidence and takes its business elsewhere.

64. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #181681 by keith on May 17, 2008 at 11:16 pm

LGS,

Keith, Keith, Keith,
What possessed you to make an ass of yourself?

Hmm, good question. Sheer perversity? Lack of concentration? Lobotomy?

Keith, Keith, Keith,
What possessed you to make an ass of yourself? I am fluent in three languages: Greek (my mother tongue), French, and English. I am presently trying to learn Spanish. I just recently started and I'm loving it. Like Greek, it is very agreeable to the ear. So DO forgive the misspelling.

Did I really make an ass of myself? If so, then that's fine with me if I get to chuckle over your Spanish. Still, in my defense, if you are only just starting to learn Spanish and can't spell it yet, why not stick to the three langauges you do master? It's not as if no hay problema can't be rendered into English or that something will be lost in translation. Apart from this, it's more than possible that someone here, maybe me, simply doesn't know what it means. The only possible reason that I can see for you using Spanish at all was to show off, and since you made a mistake in doing so, I think you were fair game for a bit of leg-pulling.

On a more upbeat note, I have to say that if English isn't your first language then your writing, and presumably speaking, of English is really impressive. Well Done. And since English was third on your list, is your French as good as your English? If so, again, well done.

How many languages do you speak, Keith? lol

Ah, now you've spoiled it. Surely if I made an ass of myself by suggesting that you didn't speak a second language, your use of 'lol' can only mean that you are making precisely the same mistake. How can you know how many languages I speak? The fact that I corrected your Spanish might suggest to you that I at least speak it to schoolboy-level.

Even so, our mistakes are of a completely different order. If my mistake was comparable to someone not looking where they were going and accidentally stepping in a pile of dogshit, then yours is comparable to someone who watches another person accidentally tread in a pile of dogshit, only to then walk deliberately across the road so as to step in the same pile of shit! Things don't come much more asinine than that, irrespective of the number of languages you speak.

65. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #181333 by keith on May 17, 2008 at 12:55 am

The part of Fitna that has stayed with me over the days since I watched it was the part where the western man (Daniel Pearlman?) was going to be beheaded. They didn't show the beheading and it was not even necessary, just hearing that awful moan that mixed pain with absolute despair was enough. Christ, the poor man. Poor everybody who dies like that. At that moment, I would have given almost anything not to die in that way: consented never to see family and friends again, lived in complete isolation, done back-breaking work for the rest of my life, pretty much anything short of torture, simply for the privilege of being allowed to stay alive and conscious.

If ever I start to feel sorry for myself that my life isn't perfect, or take for granted the fact that I live in a relatively civilised time and place, please remind me of that nightmarish moment in this video.

66. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #181269 by keith on May 16, 2008 at 8:12 pm

Quetz,

David Robertson once made a crack about having to leave a thread to go visit the parents of a baby who had just died. A terrible time, he said, "for those of us who believe that we are more than throwaway survival machines". More polite? Hardly.

I have to say that I was surprised that so many of us (I seem to remember Paula getting quite irate) were so up in arms about this comment. The 'offense' generated reminded me of the offense that is so easily taken by religious groups these days. Whatever happened to a shrug of the shoulders and a simple, "What a twat"? I wondered at the time if his comment wasn't being used as an opportunity for us to score points through a jacked-up moral outrage.

It put me in mind of the time that Glenn Hoddle, the former England football coach and Jehovah's Witness, was forced to stand down because of an interview in which he said that disabled people are disabled because of sins committed in a previous life.

Yes, this is stupid stuff and perhaps offensive to those who don't immediately discount it as the ramblings of a religious moron. Even so, all that had really happened was that Hoddle had taken (or maybe the interviewer had pushed) his Jehovah's Witness' beliefs to their logical conclusion. Had Hoddle never been asked about this issue, he could have remained in his job, despite everyone knowing that Jehovah's Witnesses believe in this kind of karma.

If such beliefs are anathema to polite company, then perhaps all Jehovah's Witnesses should be banned from holding any kind of public office. And why stop at Jehovah's Witnesses? Virtually all other religions have similarly unpleasant views about some group or other.

My point is that the fact that David Robertson believes that atheists see humans ultimately as survival machines and not infused with an immortal soul really shouldn't come as news to us. It is perhaps just part and parcel of what being a Christian means, though it isn't often stated so blatantly.

Of course, Robertson is wrong; we don't believe that humans are just disposable machines. Even so, I kind of liked the way he came right out and said what other Christains might believe but keep quiet about. Much more annoying to me than Robertson's directness is the slipperiness of many Christians who will never be pinned down on their beliefs and simply refuse to recognise the moral nastiness of the corner they find themselves fighting once logic has driven them there. Robertson, at least, doesn't resort to those tactics, though his failings are major in almost every other department.

This, I think, was more or less the conclusion that Paula came to in her analysis of the four books reviewed and was the reason she preferred David Robertson's book to all the others.

Perhaps people will tell me that Robertson, with that sentence about 'throwaway survival machines', was trying to use the death of a friend's child to gain a moral advantage over us, but I really didn't see it that way. It was just more of the same 'Christianity is great, atheism is bleak' nonsense.

p.s. After writing that part about Glenn Hoddle a little voice in my head whispered that Richard Dawkins might have written about this very subject in A Devil's Chaplain. Or maybe it was Francis Wheen? Or maybe neither of them? Anyway, if I'm stealing anyone's ideas, I apologise. With time I find it ever more difficult to differentiate between my own thoughts and those of other people, things that have really happened to me and things that someone has told me about. Soon I'll be claiming to have fought on the beaches of Normandy or to have met Napoleon.

67. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #181248 by keith on May 16, 2008 at 6:38 pm

Al,

Very good post. I have to confess to not knowing enough about the situation in the Middle East to have provided Lastgreekstanding with a convincing rebuttal (though I was convinced that such existed), which was why my points to him were phrased mostly as questions and conditionals rather than bald statements.

Had LGS come forward with apparently solid evidence that just as much violence is committed by non-Muslim Arabs as Muslims, then I would have been willing, albeit a little suspiciously, to go along with that. As things turned out, you saved me having to put on hold my original conviction that Sam Harris's analysis was probably correct.

Thanks.

Max,

I suspect there is nothing George Bush would like more than to pull out of Iraq. Surely the only reason he doesn't do so is the knowledge that in the current situation a blood bath would surely ensue. How LGS thinks there would be no more killing were American troups to leave is beyond me. Who does he think is doing most of the killing in Iraq? The American troups? Does he believe that Sunni and Shi'ite would immediately embrace each other in brotherly love once the US left?

[Edit] On a much more serious note, doesn't he know that 'no hai problema' is spelt 'no hay problema'? Why is it that people who don't speak a second language are usually the ones who insist on doing so?

68. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180986 by keith on May 16, 2008 at 8:41 am

Quetz,

Thanks a lot for sending me RM's conversion story. I was curious to know about it, and now I do. As with most things in life, the reality was less interesting than the expectation. In the end it was all just more of the same Richard Morgan.

I'd have to say (if I were his psychoanalyst), that the reason science wasn't enough for him is that his ego is simply too big. An ant can fascinate the mind of an E.O. Wilson but the whole of the world, plus the universe thrown in, can never really satisfy a mind so absorbed with its own importance.

By suddenly giving himself to the immensity of God, RM no doubt feels relief at no longer having to schlepp his ego around with him all day, every day. However, my prediction is that this will last only until his ego reasserts itself and normal service is resumed i.e. life will once again become a mildly dissatisfying affair wherein RM never quite gets the praise and attention he feels he deserves, neither from the atheists nor from his new-found religious friends. Only by regular conversions and other such contrived drama can he hope to keep an external interest in himself alive.

69. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180578 by keith on May 15, 2008 at 8:33 am

Quetz,

Two questions:

1. Is the conversion story unintentionally funny?
2. Does it go on interminably?

If the answer is 'yes' to the first question or 'no' to the second, can you send me a copy?

70. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180575 by keith on May 15, 2008 at 8:26 am

You're so right - with hindsight it is pretty glaring, isn't it?
But even with your perception, you had the wisdom to say nothing, because you knew that at the time I would have denied it violently.

He's got the magnanimity of the Enlightened One, he's even got the resonance of speech down pat, and that after just a matter of weeks! The boy's got flair for this line of work.

However, he still has to pass the acid test, namely, does he have the trance-like, self-satisfied smirk on his mug that is so essential to the recent convert? Only a photo will prove it either way. Richard, please do the honours. Provide us with both a pre- and post-conversion photo of yourself so that we might compare the precise increase in selfless love for mankind that you have suddenly acquired.

71. The Neural Buddhists

Comment #180553 by keith on May 15, 2008 at 7:42 am

RM,

Just a question. Would you have converted if some of us had been nicer to you on this website? Did some of us drive you into the gentle hands of people who won't take issue with your posts - in fact, won't take issue with anything you say, provided you believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ? The reason I mention it is that a couple of months ago Veronique - remember her? - seemed to hint at such a thing.

I can see why someone feeling a bit lost might find unconditional acceptance emotionally appealing, but I'm damned if I can see where the intellectual interest in such a course lies. Still, perhaps that was not a priority.

72. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180531 by keith on May 15, 2008 at 7:05 am

To paraphrase Nabokov, Clearmind makes The Artful_Dodger look like a Hegel and Mind Rebel a Schlegel.

73. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180369 by keith on May 14, 2008 at 5:00 pm

Al,

I was, of course, suggesting that it might be the case that Muslims commit more acts of violence than other religious (or non-religious) groups in the Middle East, not that other groups don't commit any violence. It's a question of degree.

I'm happy to admit that there are so many factors involved in the violence in the Middle East that simply looking at which groups commit more acts of violence can be misleading (though it's not necessarily so). However, bearing this in mind, even if we were to try Lastgreekstanding's experiment of withdrawing all troups, paying reparations etc., this will tell us just as much or as little as my proposed test. If violence continues mainly among the Muslims, this will still be put down to the fact that they are the majority group. And if the violence in the Middle East suddenly stops as a result of western countries ceasing all political and economic 'interference', will this mean that Islam is not an inherently more violent religion than say, the Church of England? I would say not.

74. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180119 by keith on May 14, 2008 at 8:35 am

Lastgreekstanding,

All that would be required to empirically test it is America's (along with
its proteges: Britain and Israel) cooperation. This would include the following acts by America:

-cessation of military activities in Iraq and Afghanistan; i.e., no more killings!

Now, if I understand this correctly you are saying that if the Yanks and the Brits pull out of Iraq and Afghanistan then there will be no more killings, is that right? I can't see any other way of reading it. Please let me know, on re-reading what you have written, if this is still your seriously considered opinion.

75. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #180110 by keith on May 14, 2008 at 8:21 am

Lastgreekstanding,

So, the gist of Harris's piece is that Islam is the problem. It is an inherently violent religion, more so than the other monotheistic fables: If these "brownies' in the Middle East were not Muslim then there would not
be these "spontaneous combustion" episodes of violent demonstrations and martydom.

I'm assuming that it is you rather than Sam that has used the racist word 'brownies'. Why would you want to do that? If Sam wouldn't use such a word, why would you try to put it in his mouth?

I'd have to say that such tactics automatically suggest that the rest of your post will be at best tendentious and at worst downright lying. You're shooting yourself in the foot by stooping so low. However, if Sam really did call them 'brownies', I apologize to you.

OK, I propose we test Harris's hypothesis...If I am wrong,
I''ll apology to Sam Harris.

It's very valiant of you to put your good name on the line for a test that can't be carried out. However, there is actually a much easier way of testing Sam's hypothesis - i.e. that Islam is inherently more violent than other religions - than the one you are unrealistically suggesting. Even better, we can do the test from our armchairs without any wild speculation. If we look at how the non-Muslim Arabs behave, who are subject to the same prevations you have gone on about at such length, then if Sam is right, we should expect to see more violence from the Muslim Arabs than, say, Christian Arabs.

I don't know if there is any evidence that this is the case or evidence to the contrary but perhaps you do. I'll trust you to impartially relay the undoctored facts to us when you have looked them up. How's that? And if you do find that the figures point to Muslims in the Middle East being more violent, I'm sure you won't waste any time in sending the promised apology to Sam.

76. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178909 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 8:10 am

Artful,

By the way, typos seem to me to put paid to the brain/mind identification. A thought is not one and the same thing as the physical / material represetation of it. Hence, when we make spelling mistakes or typos the "word" or "thought" that we intended may be different from its actual, black and white (or whatever) representation of it. The message is independent of the medium. Do you see my point?

Yes. You made a mistake. All you are saying is that tripping down stairs is not the same thing as thinking about going down them successfully.

I think you'll have to concede that this is not the most profound thought you've ever given utterance to. Or perhaps it is?

77. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178904 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 8:07 am

What don't you get about the analogy?

This is a joke, right?

78. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178895 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 7:55 am

Artful,

riandouglas: Artful, how does something non-physical/immaterial [sic] interact with the physical/material? Wouldn't such interaction be subject to scientific inquiry? Why has no such interaction been observed?

Artful: This is a very good question riandouglas. This is one of the areas that I feel I need to explore a bit more.

Hmm, 'need to explore'. Does it need to be explored in the same way that the Shroud of Turin needs to be explored? That is, since nobody has come up with the desired results, just evidence to the contrary, it will be considered a work forever in progress rather than a lost cause?

Oh, the twisting and turning!

79. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178884 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 7:35 am

Colwyn,

I would call the old 'religions' that you mentioned 'mythologies' and the danger of any of these being resurrected is probably smaller than that of someone founding a brand new religion.

As for my use of "illness", I'm strictly speaking metaphorically. I don't think it's an ACTUAL disease caused by anything physical. Apologies for the confusion. I merely use it as an illustration.

Colwyn, I know you were speaking metaphorically and that you don't believe religion is an actual physical illness. Please, credit me with a little intelligence.

80. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178877 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 7:25 am

esuther,

Okay, Turkey shouldn't be described as a Muslim country but you seem to be objecting to the term per se, regardless of the country it is applied to. How about Saudi Arabia? (Of course, the population of a country doesn't have to be 100% homogenous for a label to make sense or have descriptive value).

81. I Am Evolution

Comment #178872 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 7:16 am

Of course I believe molecules.

I don't know if it's just a stylistic thing, but something near my ear shuddered when I read the above sentence. Surely something, like the word 'exist', should come after 'molecules'? As it stands, it sounds like molecules actually talk to us.

(I have just had a nauseating premonition that someone is going to write, "Well, you know Keith, in a metaphorical way, molecules really do talk to us." Please don't be that person).

82. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178863 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 7:00 am

Peace,

I liked your response, especially the bit about the distinction between the the cultural and the religious Muslim. That made sense to me.

I wasn't so wild about the analogy to Jews, since being a Muslim is surely a purely religious label, whereas being Jewish is notoriously hard to pin down, and 'race' is certainly one of the essential ingredients.

Colwyn,

Your post was also helpful though I'm still thinking about this comment:

If there were no Muslims, but Islam still existed...

This idea, that religion is like a disease in a petri dish, something that can lay dormant until let loose on an unsuspecting public, was precisely what I was taking issue with and what prompted me to comment in the first place. Can you have a religion without people? However, you have at least started me thinking about the possibilty.

83. I Am Evolution

Comment #178852 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 6:36 am

I like Proust's comment about the medical profession, which went something like, "You'd be a fool to believe in doctors - and you'd be an even bigger fool not to."

84. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178841 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 6:26 am

Evening, Peace,

I see a slight inconsistency between the first two statements and the second, but please correct me.

I suspect if you look at that sentence long enough you'll be able to correct it yourself.

85. On Fitna, the Movie

Comment #178838 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 6:19 am

I've got to admit that I'm a bit confused about this idea that the problem is with Islam, not with Muslims. This surely is like saying that Christianity rather than Christians, Fascism rather than Fascists, is the problem. Yet this makes no sense to me. If there were no Muslims then Islam wouldn't be a problem, in fact, it would even exist. After all, surely it is only the fact that there are Muslims that Islam is alive. If there were no Muslims, all that would be left would be memories of a now defunct religion plus the Koran, and the Koran on its own is not a religion. It's a book.

Please help me make some sense of this because I've heard it so often, even on this site, that I suspect I must be missing something.

86. Evolution: What is 'Natural'?

Comment #178830 by keith on May 12, 2008 at 5:44 am

Artful-Dodger,

No one has come up with anything like a credible account of how reason and morality can be shown to have a natualistic origin.

I have no idea if you are willing to accept the idea that evolution can explain why some people have blue eyes and others brown. Eye colour is, of course, something purely physical so if you are an enlightened believer, you might just be willing to concede evolution this much.

Possibly you only baulk at the idea that evolution can code for emotion or behaviour. However, if you look at maternal love, you'll agree that this love is not something physical like eye colour, but an emotion that leads to nurturing behaviour. Perhaps you'll want to argue that this love is not genetically but culturally transmitted. However, you will then have to explain why all other mammal mothers (plus other animals that nurture their young) demonstrate the same behaviour.

And if you are willing to entertain the idea that maternal love can be coded for genetically, why not other kinds of love, including moral behaviour and moral emotions? It's hardly a giant leap of imagination once you have found that genetically encoded love is possible. Try reading The Origins of Virtue by Matt Ridley for ideas about how and why this might have come about. There are various possibilities and each one of them is more likely and has more explanatory power than, 'God did it', which, you must admit, is a simple statement of opinion rather than an explanation.

Of course, you might want to argue that God put this maternal love, not only in humans, but in all his creatures. Even so, you'd then be admitting that there really is no great divide between humans and animals after all, and this surely is precisely where you wanted to end up in the first place.

In the worst case scenario, maybe you are not even prepared to accept that eye colour is genetically passed on rather than chosen by God, in which case I can only suggest that you start to read a little more widely.

87. Research Volunteers Needed

Comment #178275 by keith on May 11, 2008 at 4:15 am

Telic,

"Good people can still suffer bad luck."

I believe this was a trick question designed to confuse my scientific brain, and which almost made me click strongly agree ;p

Don't understand. Please explain.

88. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178235 by keith on May 11, 2008 at 1:36 am

Ed-words,

I suspect you're right. Sarcasm would have been a better word. Ever since Alanis Morrisette wrote 'Ironic' and it was pointed out that almost none of the situations she was describing were ironic, I've avoided using it for fear of misusing it. But I have to confess that I thought 'irony' was a blanket term that could include, among other things, sarcasm. I didn't know it was only used for situations. Now I do. Thanks.

89. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178032 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 10:07 am

Ed-words,

Yes, in England it would be rare too. I was joking. Maybe it is true after all that British people use irony more often than other nations.

90. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #178027 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 9:41 am

Clearmind,

Before I read your first post, when the only thing I knew about you was the name you had chosen, I knew that you must either be a witty chap with a talent for self irony or just a bit of a twat.

Calling yourself 'Clearmind' is a bit like having 'I'm great' tattooed on your forehead. Either it is meant as a self-effacing joke or, horror of horrors, the person actually believes that they are great/have a clear mind.

I don't want to jump to conclusions but I can't help thinking that you belong to the second category i.e. bit of a twat.

91. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #178018 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 9:01 am

Fides,

Paula: Why was the Cardinal's lecture given such prominent billing on a national news programme AT ALL?

Fides: Clearly an admission that the Cardinal's response to Richard Dawkins et al should not be given a public forum. As I've said before, what is really being said is, I disagree with what you say, AND your right to say it.This has more than a hint of the totalitarian about it. text

I couldn't agree with you more. In many ways atheists are becoming like Stalin and Hitler. Atheists are often called to give expert opinion on the morality of stem cell research, abortion, and almost any other ethical matter you care to name, despite the fact that atheists have no special expertise in those fields.

And then of course you have the special TV programs for atheists, those programs, usually on a Sunday, where in the morning they talk in bland voices about nothing while wearing a smug, self-satisfied look, and in the evening they chant 'God is dead' for half an hour. If only the BBC would give the faithful that much TV time.

And as if that wasn't enough, they now want to demote the views of a real life cardinal from a prominent position on a national news program to that of well, a less prominent one that one might give to the views of just an ordinary person with no special knowledge AT ALL.

You are right. This does indeed smack of totalitarianism. The faithful are much put upon these days. Let's hope that The Lord comes to your rescue before the atheists start organising rallies and burning your holy books.

92. Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks

Comment #177995 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 7:29 am

Michael,

I think restricting voting to people who aren't stupid is a dangerous path to take. This is how it used to be. First only aristocracy had any kind of vote, then only gentlemen and then only men.

One of the dangers of going down the testing line is that if you don't want some group (eg black people) to vote you just have to deprive them of enough education that they fail the general knowledge test. Then you aren't being racist just sensible.

Hmm, the problem with this argument is that it could be used for practically any situation you care to name. Screening for defects in unborn babies? This could lead future governments to declare certain skin colours to be defects and to insist on abortion. Weapons checks at football matches? This could lead to security guards planting knives on people whose hairstyles they don't like.

I know, both of these scenarios are ridiculous but to my mind no more so than depriving black people, or any other group, of an education so that they slip into the 'stupid group' and are denied the vote.

If there were no drawbacks to your argument then I would agree with you. After all, why tempt unscrupulous politicians unnecessarily? And as you said, maybe we "should just educate people and put up with a bit of `noise' from the less well-educated."

The problem is that that 'noise' could well have been the difference between having Bush instead of Al Gore as president of America, something that has had repercussions for the whole world. Perhaps noise isn't as innocuous as it at first sounds. (Of course, here I'm assuming that more stupid people voted for Bush than Gore, which might not be the case).

Either way, in my opinion some people are so stupid that it is actually in their own interest, not to mention the interest of the rest of society, that someone else makes certain decisions for them. And of course, we already do this. This is why children can't vote. If lack of knowledge or simple stupidity shouldn't be a bar from voting, then any child old enough to make a cross on a piece of paper and tall enough to reach the ballot box on tiptoes should be allowed to vote too. Anything else would be discrimination. And for that reason I'd like to hear a few voices raised in support of discrimination.

Apart from all this, although I'm aware that my views are very subject to where I find myself in history, I can't help thinking that there is a very real difference between discriminating on the grounds of sex or how rich you are on the one hand, and your ability to make a sensible decision on the other. But hey, maybe I'm just stuck in my early 2000s way of thinking. And why not? How else am I supposed to think?

93. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177982 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 5:59 am

Quetz,

I suppose it doesn't really matter that all riverrun's posts have disappeared since posterity was never going to pore over this thread. Even so, there is the feeling of it all having been a waste of time, almost as though we just imagined there being someone there to argue against; like pushing against a wall until it finally gives way to reveal that behind it lay - nothing.

94. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177923 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 12:44 am

riverrun,

I genuinely have no idea what you're talking about in your above post. I think what you're attempting to do is to deflect sensible criticism by exaggerating it ten-fold under the guise of 'humour'. Is that it? I can honestly say that I didn't chuckle once. In fact, I found the whole thing depressingly silly.

On top of this, none of these exaggerated criticisms were made by me. Maybe you're mistaking me for another of the posters you're debating. I'm the one who queried a quote of Chomsky's that you posted several days ago. Had I known that you were going to go all round the houses and then still not answer the query, I promise I wouldn't have asked in the first place.

Incidentally, what happened to 'the missing post', the one that you posted then quickly deleted? You didn't even mention it in your last post? Why was that?

95. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177907 by keith on May 10, 2008 at 12:05 am

riverrun,

Where has your last post gone that accused me of all sorts of things? It seems to have mysteriously disappeared.

96. Richard Dawkins interviewed by John Humphrys on Cardinal Murphy O'Connor

Comment #177902 by keith on May 9, 2008 at 11:36 pm

Well, it seems Richard Dawkins set the interviewer firmly on his petard.

Yes, and he hoist him firmly in his place, too.

97. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #177890 by keith on May 9, 2008 at 10:48 pm

AlexanderHeritage,

By managed you presumably refer to our ugly, short-lived, highly restricted, cult-obsessed, violence-based, pathetic and pitiable ancestors, living when people survived about 25 years (if they survived childhood) and spent 7 days a week at back breaking labour?

Not sure about the "7 days a week at back breaking labour". If our hunter-gather ancestors were anything like our hunter-gathers brothers of today, they probably spent lots of time sitting around on their arses chewing the fat.

Are you really only 20? I could barely spell at 20, let alone put sensible sentences together.

98. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177871 by keith on May 9, 2008 at 9:33 pm

Riverrun,

I know Wheen personally, and have gotten drunk with him a few times in London and Belfast.

Does this mean that you just happened to be in the same pub as he was when he was getting drunk or that you are drinking buddies? Basically, if Francis Wheen bumped into you tomorrow, would he know your name?

The reason I'm here is to engage in debate, learn, and argue points about a wide variety of issues.

And what would you say you have learnt? I can't say I've seen much learning going on, though I have seen plenty of digging in of heels, entrenchment and blocking of ears. This is learning in the same way that a missile attack and subsequent retaliation are 'exchanges of ideas'.

One argument I have made is that there is an American Jewish scholar called Noam Chomsky who writes books, and is intensely vilified by people who have not read them. Which implies the attacks cannot be about what he has actually written.

Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Ever read the bible in its entirety? If not, any criticisms you have of Hitler and Jesus cannot be about what they actually wrote and said respectively. Or let me guess. You really have gone to the trouble of reading Mein Kampf and you really have got drunk with Jesus a few times in Galilee and Nazareth. With your also being on writing terms with Noam and drinking with Francis Wheen, I'm starting to see a theme developing here.

My own exposure to Chomsky is limited to a few on-line pieces, the (very long) transcript of a talk he gave at some American university, his exchange with Hitchens over his comments on 9/11 plus some random comments (not second or third hand) that it's impossible to avoid if you are connected to the internet. Chomsky's words are, like 'love' in the Wet Wet Wet song (actually, The Troggs did the original version), all around us, and not just in the corrupted, hand-me-down form.

Now, I know you will say that this is not enough to judge Chomsky by. Somehow we always feel that anything less than what we personally have read is not enough. But would you say that you can get a general feel for the man from such glimpses? In short, do we really have to read Mein Kampf in order to do justice to Hitler's ideas?

[Ed. The author of this comment wishes to reassure some sensitive readers that he is in no way suggesting that there are any similarities whatsoever between Adolf Hitler and Noam Chomsky. Or Jesus Christ. Thank you.]

99. Anti-Evolution Film Misappropriates the Holocaust

Comment #177587 by keith on May 9, 2008 at 10:36 am

Windweaver,

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence...

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence wouldn't write 'anyone with a modicum of intelligence' because it is tantamount to saying, 'you're a great big, fat, ugly pig'. That is, it does nothing to refute an argument. For someone who is so averse to ad hominems you don't seem to mind using them yourself.

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence would know that when I accuse Al-Rawandi of losing credibility on this thread I am merely offering my own opinion.

Yes, and when I write that everyone hates you and they all wish you'd stop commenting, I am merely offering my own opinion, right?

Who,in the real world, goes around saying "you've lost credibility with me" when they're commenting in general on a political slanging match.

Nobody. A person in the real world would say, 'I disagree with you', whether they were commenting on a political slanging match or a tennis match. They wouldn't say anything about 'losing credibility' because this would sound like they were talking for other people and we wouldn't want that, would we?

And I'll continue to pull up anyone who calls Chomsky a "nit-wit", "idiot" etc. Just because Al admits that Chomsky can be brilliant at times doesn't excuse his appalling ad-hominem attacks on the man.

Yes, well, whether calling Chomsky a 'nit-wit' constitutes an "appalling ad-hominem" is a matter of opinion. For those of a very delicate nature, I suppose it might.

And I've another bone to pick with you Keith. You've done the same thing you did back in 2007 on the Chomsky thread-entered this debate with the sole aim of vilifying and discrediting a man whose work you admit you haven't even read.

Actually, that's not stricly true. If you look back you'll see that what I was objecting to was not his body of work, which I'm more than happy to admit that I'm not familiar with, but instead a few sentences he sent to riverrun who then posted them to this site. They made no sense to me then and still don't. That's why I commented on them. For what reason do I have to read all Chomsky's works to be able to comment on the two or three sentences of his that I really have read?

bla bla sole aim of vilifying and discrediting a man whose work you admit you haven't even read. Here's what you said at the time:
"And of course you're right, I have read almost nothing by Chomsky. Why would I? How many times do you have to tread in dogshit before you know you don't like it?"

Well, thank goodness. For one moment I thought you were going to dredge up a quote that I was reluctant to stand by.

Actually, I'm quite impressed that you went to the trouble of delving back into the archives of 2007 for that gem. I'm sure I wouldn't have bothered.

I leave it to readers of this thread to draw their own conclusions about you and your contributions to this debate.

Quite right too. After all, heaven forbid that you should try to influence them, eh?

100. The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing

Comment #176830 by keith on May 8, 2008 at 6:12 am

j.mills,

Finished it last week, great stuff. Oddly organised, with the first half top-heavy with biology and the second with the 'hard' sciences, but endlessly engaging and a good 'climax'.

I probably won't get round to reading it so come on, spoil it for me; what happens in the end? (Look away those of you who don't want to know).