151. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90555 by Jack Rawlinson on November 25, 2007 at 1:51 pm

steve99 writes:

Do you know any detail of Davies' thoughts and how they fit with the mutable law ideas of John Wheeler?

Yes. Please don't assume I'm being knee-jerk in my dismissiveness.

152. Taking Science on Faith

Comment #90473 by Jack Rawlinson on November 25, 2007 at 8:52 am

Argh, not Davies again. I don't need to read more than the title to know what this piece will say.

153. The absurd world of Martin Amis

Comment #90472 by Jack Rawlinson on November 25, 2007 at 8:47 am

Peacebeuponme: yeah, it's that Chris Morris and I was saddened by this incoherent rant too. I commented on the Guardian page to that effect (my handle is "Jackanapes" there). Depressing.

154. Holy communion

Comment #90250 by Jack Rawlinson on November 23, 2007 at 7:18 pm

The only problem I have with that cartoon is the sandals. Why are the armies of atheism wearing sandals? Rowson (who I generally love, by the way) seems to be implying we're all sort of beardy/sandal-wearing liberals or something. Outrageous!

Seriously: I think, as others here have observed, there may be a bit of a UK/US disconnect going on here. Brits are used to this sort of cartoon lampooning style and we have a long tradition of it. It's a tradition I enjoy, even if I'm on the receiving end of it. That's probably because we all like being beaten, too. :-)

155. Romney's Mormonism is fair game

Comment #89420 by Jack Rawlinson on November 20, 2007 at 4:24 pm

I swear Hitch is best when he's had a few. Thankfully, that's often. :-)

156. Judgement Day: Intelligent Design on Trial

Comment #88558 by Jack Rawlinson on November 17, 2007 at 7:08 pm

Just watched this. What a joy to see those mendacious, devious creeps take such a solid kicking. But the warning at the end is important: there are lots of them out there and they won't go away. So it's vital we stay prepared and ready to take on whatever variation of their pet superstition they come crawling back with next time. This is a war that will last until the innate spiritual cowardice of the religiously-inclined dies out. And that will take a long, long time. Warn your children.

157. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88343 by Jack Rawlinson on November 16, 2007 at 5:20 am

"clearthinker"? Comedy gold.

And no, I'm not going to waste any time actually responding to your witless post.

158. 'Expelled' Movie: The Extended Trailer

Comment #88274 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2007 at 4:57 pm

Stein? You're an actor, right?

Show us the science or shut up, you self-aggrandizing gobshite tit.

159. Secular Fundamentalists: There is no such thing...and the AAI conference doesn't make atheism a movement, either.

Comment #88255 by Jack Rawlinson on November 15, 2007 at 3:43 pm

See, one of the reasons I was so irritated by Sam Harris's speech was I just knew it would get used like this. Ah well, I don't want to re-hash that argument again.

Good summation and dispatching of the latest round of bullshit from one of the desperate defenders of the faith.

160. Response to Dinesh D'Souza op-ed

Comment #86152 by Jack Rawlinson on November 8, 2007 at 12:25 pm

I am becoming increasingly irked by a certain group of tiresome, snotty contributors here who cannot restrain themselves from criticising every damned thing the RRS does and from sneering at every damned thing they write. This was NOT a badly written piece at all. Janus et al: yes, you don't like the RRS's style. We get it already. Plenty of other people do. And even more, like me, appreciate it even if it does not match our own. Can you please lay the hell off for a while and comment on the content of what they say rather than the way they say it? Or preferably, find the restraint to keep your snide remarks to yourself for once and maybe direct your energies to the rather more challenging task of posting or doing something constructive of your own for the cause?

Kelly, Sapient et al: don't let these pompous nose-wrinklers bug you, and if I were you I wouldn't even waste your time responding to them at any length. That time would be far better spent keeping up the good work.

161. Are the 'New Atheists' avoiding the 'real arguments'?

Comment #83927 by Jack Rawlinson on October 31, 2007 at 5:00 pm

Williams? PWN3D!

162. AAI 07

Comment #82753 by Jack Rawlinson on October 27, 2007 at 1:20 pm

I agree that when we're promoting atheism, left/right political alignment is irrelevant. There isn't the slightest reason why you can't be an atheist and a liberal, conservative, socialist, libertarian or anarchist. Like other Brits on this board though (and like Chapman) I find myself utterly baffled by the number of Americans who seem to recoil from the word "socialism" with.. well, the same sort of instinctive (and to my mind, equally ill-considered), knee-jerk revulsion that certain other people recoil from the word "atheism".

The quantity of thoughtless selfishness contained in an appalling, uncivilised statement like, "Pay your own damned way. If you can't afford it - you can't have it." leaves me breathless. Quite apart from the jaw-dropping callousness of such remarks, does this person seriously imagine that every single thing he has access to and enjoys in his life are entirely funded by himself alone?

It's like a total blind spot with some Americans: this utter inability to imagine a single circumstance in which a perfectly decent person might fall into a position where they simply cannot afford health care - especially at the astronomical cost it comes in America. One can only surmise such people are either heartless, ignorant or severely lacking in life experience. Horrible.

163. AAI 07

Comment #82574 by Jack Rawlinson on October 26, 2007 at 7:06 pm

I loved Chapman's talk. And I loved the way he hit the bar afterwards and stayed until they threw us out. True Brit!

164. What's Good About Religion?

Comment #82554 by Jack Rawlinson on October 26, 2007 at 5:19 pm

Oh, and I'd add that I particularly appreciate Condell's willingness to go after Islam. That's something I do share with him. We're often accused of only "picking on" Christianity because it's safe. Not Condell. He goes right for the arse-waving Mohammedan morons too. I think that's necessary. When people try to intimidate you into silence, shout louder.

165. What's Good About Religion?

Comment #82551 by Jack Rawlinson on October 26, 2007 at 5:15 pm

I like Condell a lot. I have a few minor quibbles with what he says but they're nothing compared to how much I support and agree with his general approach. Kinda like the RRS: they don't always take the same line of attack I would, but I'm canny enough to realise that's probably a good thing. Condell, like the RRS, will reach people my tactics might miss. And vice versa. I like the fact that we atheists are coming at the enemy from all sorts of different angles.

166. Don't write off religion - it can be the key to a stable family

Comment #82549 by Jack Rawlinson on October 26, 2007 at 5:06 pm

Ah, the "This is not my god" line coupled with the "They're fundamentalists" bullshit.

How very tiresome.

167. '55 'Origin of Life' Paper Is Retracted

Comment #82340 by Jack Rawlinson on October 26, 2007 at 5:25 am

It takes a big person - or a good scientist - to admit they were wrong. Respect to Dr. J.

This is one of many reasons why science is better than religion for getting at truth: if a scientific idea doesn't stand up, it falls. Sooner or later. And then we know more than we used to.

168. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #82106 by Jack Rawlinson on October 25, 2007 at 5:15 pm

Ophelia, you made a typo which is actually a great rebuttal to the "You can't say God doesn't exist if you don't know theology" line.

You said:

"You can't just say God exists without dealing with all those sophisticated arguments, you know."

And that's the rebuttal. If we can't say God *doesn't* exist without knowing the complex theological arguments in his favour, how come believers can say God *does* exist without being subject to the same restriction?

169. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #82103 by Jack Rawlinson on October 25, 2007 at 5:12 pm

"I don't believe in fairies but I don't go writing a book about it!"

Of course you don't. Because not many people believe in fairies, and those who do don't tend to go around oppressing women and homosexuals, trying to impose their beliefs on others, trying to infiltrate school lessons and considering that their belief should be especially favoured and protected by law. Etcetera.

D'Souza's arguments are those of an absolute goddamned simpleton.

170. The New Atheists on Organized Freethought

Comment #82088 by Jack Rawlinson on October 25, 2007 at 4:53 pm

The RRS-bashing has been done elsewhere, yes? Can we refrain from wrecking this thread with it too, please?

171. A Rational Universe Implies a Creator, Science points towards Theism

Comment #81364 by Jack Rawlinson on October 24, 2007 at 4:16 pm

"...a Universe that follows "laws" implies a "law giver", and our ability to comprehend those laws is further evidence of the divine purpose of the Universe."

This old chestnut is a classic example of the fallacy of equivocation, in which different meanings of the same word are conflated in order to confuse. The word in this case is "law". The equivocation should be blown apart as follows:

The first use of "laws" in this statement refers to the concept of observed regularities. The second use refers to the concept of authoritative command or rules. Two different meanings of the word "law" are being fallaciously conflated, therefore the argument is invalid.

172. A new website addition: Debate Points

Comment #81268 by Jack Rawlinson on October 24, 2007 at 2:10 pm

Well, there are the common big ones like the many varieties of argument from design, first cause etc.

There's also the problem of evil - something I've debated at some depth.

"Atheism is a religion and you're as bad as the fundamentalists"

"That's not my God you're criticising"

"Why do you care about something you claim not to believe in?"

173. Catholic condom ban helping AIDS spread in Latam: U.N.

Comment #80954 by Jack Rawlinson on October 23, 2007 at 4:51 pm

In other news... banging your head repeatedly against a wall hurts. Pictures at 11.

174. Prejudicial concerns

Comment #80953 by Jack Rawlinson on October 23, 2007 at 4:48 pm

The more Grayling I read, the more I like him.

175. Eddie Tabash at AAI 07

Comment #80952 by Jack Rawlinson on October 23, 2007 at 4:41 pm

ChrisMcL, your obvious trolling is tiresome. Your avatar would also be better if it wasn't a cartoon.

I attended Tabash's speech and I found it compelling and disturbing.

176. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80704 by Jack Rawlinson on October 22, 2007 at 5:27 pm

To all those British out there who disagree on principle with Richard getting knighted but supports his work, please sign the petition anyway.

Sorry: no, I won't. Absolutely not. I am an anti-monarchist. I will not support a vile, exploitative institution founded on hereditary privilege and oppression; nor will I support the distribution of stale breadcrumbs from its big, fat table which it attempts to dignify with the term "honours".

I suspect you need to actually live under a monarchy to understand this. And if you happen to be American, look to your history and feel shame for trying to support or justify the trappings of the very system your country quite rightly rejected at its founding.

177. Make Richard Dawkins a Knight

Comment #80397 by Jack Rawlinson on October 21, 2007 at 4:10 pm

Nah. I don't believe in that nonsense either.

178. Help Counter the New Atheist Crusade to 'Evangelize' America!

Comment #79575 by Jack Rawlinson on October 17, 2007 at 7:45 pm

Dear Coral Ridge Ministries,

I am proud to be a scary evangelical atheist. I know where you live and I am coming for your children. MUAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

179. Debate between Christopher Hitchens and Alister McGrath

Comment #79283 by Jack Rawlinson on October 16, 2007 at 5:36 pm

Of course, this was ridicule of ideas, not people.

Of course, no good reason whatsoever why it shouldn't apply to people too, if they promulgate ridiculous ideas.

180. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78908 by Jack Rawlinson on October 15, 2007 at 10:51 am

I have never heard of Deschner nor Bruno

I guess "philos" isn't short for "philosophy", eh?

We're not going to "move on", philos, until the religious manage that feat too. I suggest you stop wasting your time trolling this site.

181. Richard Dawkins receives the Deschner Prize

Comment #78759 by Jack Rawlinson on October 14, 2007 at 6:33 pm

Damn, that was good.

182. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78672 by Jack Rawlinson on October 14, 2007 at 8:24 am

Wow Jack, you sound a little angry..

Probably because I am, Keith. Angry and impatient with this endless line of goddamned religious fools spouting their empty mantras and barfing their infantile religious pablum all over my computer screen, my newspapers, and my whole world. Not one of these whiners will find the courage to stand up and define exactly what they believe in, yet they mewl and whinny interminably about how misunderstood they are, how wrong and facile our criticisms of what many of them certainly seem to believe are... I'm sick of the whole revolting, spineless pack of them and I'm not going to pretend otherwise.

Ah, the day of rest. Always such a balm to the troubled soul. :-)

183. Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams criticizes popular atheist writers

Comment #78605 by Jack Rawlinson on October 13, 2007 at 6:51 pm

"Don't distract us from the real arguments by assuming that religion is an eccentric survival strategy or irrational form of explanation,"

Okay, now you're going to explain what the "real arguments" are, and how your religion is not an "irrational form of explanation", right, Williams? Can't wait.

*Wind howls across a dustblown prairie*

"When believers pick up Richard Dawkins or Christopher Hitchens, we may feel as we turn the pages: 'This is not it. Whatever the religion being attacked here, it's not actually what I believe in,'"

Okay, now you're going to explain what "it" is; what you actually believe in, right, Williams?

*A distant bell tolls mournfully*

"He urged atheist writers to better understand religion."

Okay, and now you're going to explain it better to us, so that we may better understand, right, Williams?

*Tumbleweed rolls*

You've got nothing, Williams. You, Eagleton, the whole pathetic lot of you. You whine and whine that your beliefs are misunderstood and misrepresented but never - NOT ONCE - do any of you take the time to explain carefully and precisely what they are. Because you've got nothing. You know damned well that the second you tried to do that we'd tear whatever it is you defined right down along with the invisible sky pixie God, the Judeo-Christian Old testament God, Allah, Ganesh and the rest. The truth is you either look silly by explaining your belief or you look silly by refusing to explain your belief; by falling back on the obvious cowardly device of grandly declaring that your god is, and must remain, beyond clear apprehension.

Williams, you and your ilk are contemptible spiritual weaklings. Go pray to your shapeshifting fuzzy cloud of a deity, you silly old fool. Come back if you ever manage to find the guts to define your god and hold it up for examination.

184. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77218 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 7:38 pm

Hmm. I just noticed the quotes around 'atheists' in the title of this piece.

Damn, it really looks like Harris is ashamed of the word, doesn't it?

185. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77217 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 7:35 pm

philos: you want to actually criticise some of PZ's points, rather than just insulting him? Or would that not meet your idea of "gentlemanly discourse"?

If you're going to troll, smarten your bloody ideas up a bit, eh?

186. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77202 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 6:25 pm

By the way, PZ's reply (linked by Janus, above) is great, as always.

I'm embarrassed for Harris, I truly am.

187. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77198 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 6:16 pm

PaulEmecz: we had several decades of atheists taking exactly the position you, and Sam, seem to think so highly of. If the typical religious believer was as coolly rational as you and Sam, you'd have a point. But they're not. They're irrational and needy, and they have an agenda to push. And what happened over the last few decades, as we coolly rational atheists sat on our hands and oh-so-casually had the arguments as and when they arose, being careful not to tread on toes or do anything as vulgar, darling, as forming a group?

That's right. Religion made a comeback in the west. ID got itself into schools. The number of "faith schools" in Britain soared, and continues to soar. Stem cell research is vetoed on purely religious grounds. American women's abortion rights hang by a thread - the life of an 87-year old Supreme Court judge. 42% of Americans believe in the literal truth of Genesis. And so on: you know the stats.

Wake up. This is a culture war. This is no longer merely personal: it is political too. Harris, and you, are depressingly out of touch with the reality of the current religious threat. No matter how much it goes against our grain as intelligent, independent thinkers, we need to GET ORGANISED. Because we've seen what happens when we blithely assume that isn't necessary. Do it for your children, if not for yourself.

188. Response to My Fellow 'Atheists'

Comment #77192 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 6:02 pm

Frankly, this is a pathetic "defence" of an untenable position. Harris's "Bush press conference" example is pure fallacious hokum. No sane, intelligent atheist would take the absurd line Harris portrays in his second example. Being unafraid of the term "atheist" does not mean we start salting every argument we make with phrases like "As an atheist I believe", neither do we necessarily couch our arguments in terms of what is and isn't good for "millions of atheists in this country." This is pure straw man building by Harris.

It is extremely disappointing to see Harris reduced to the sort of desperate fallaciousness we are more accustomed to dealing with in our arguments with theists in order to defend his regrettable AAI speech. Sam, you screwed up. Please don't embarrass yourself any further. Because you're one of the good guys and we could use you wholeheartedly on our side instead of indulging in these unhelpful and ill-considered headwanks.

189. The Price of Freedom

Comment #77190 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 5:48 pm

One of the highlights of the AAI convention was seeing the warmth with which Hirsi Ali was greeted. Hitch said something like, "There isn't anyone here who wouldn't stand between you and someone who meant you harm" and I actually think that was probably true, or very nearly so. Even though it was a risk making such an open public appearance, there could hardly have been a safer crowd to do it in front of. Which was nice.

The Dutch government should be talking with the US to work out the logistics of this situation. But my god, they should not be withdrawing Hirsi Ali's protection until a satisfactory alternative arrangement has been organised.

190. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #77030 by Jack Rawlinson on October 8, 2007 at 8:45 am

keith: I guess I want to believe Sam's being disingenuous because I have a lot of respect for him, and it would grieve me to think he was seriously advancing such weak arguments and seriously failing to see the obvious rebuttals which have been raised here and elsewhere.

As an atheist I should beware of wishful thinking, I know. So should he. :-)

191. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76915 by Jack Rawlinson on October 7, 2007 at 5:55 pm

Here's a comment from a Christian friend of mine who read Sam's speech:
-------------------------------------
What does Mr. Harris expect you to call yourself?

THEIST: Do you believe in God?

HARRIS: No, I don't.

T: Ah, so you're an atheist!

H: No no, I'm not an "atheist" because I don't like that term.

T: But... you just said you didn't believe in God, so...

And so on. Does he not release how much time and effort it would take to intentionally spread a new term for atheism? And for what benefit? None whatsoever. Whatever new term or label he would try to push would attract the same abuse from the same people.

It reminds me of segment I heard once on a pop culture radio show. It was about a particular business that had a variety of fantasy theme rooms, complete with costumes and equipment. You and you partner(s) would pay your money, do your thing, and get a video tape of the festivities. The funny thing was, the owner of the business refused to use or accept the term "pornography"; he insisted he was in the "private movie" business. When the interviewer pinned him down by asking what the difference was, the man could only stammer, "The difference is, uh... I call it a 'private movie'."

That guy was ashamed of being a pornographer, so he made up a different name for his business. Is Harris ashamed of being an atheist? Because that's what it sounds like.

----------------------------------------

Sam, when even a Christian sees through your argument, it's time to drop it. I realise you were trying to be Mr. Disingenuous-Devil's-Advocate here, and I appreciated the value of stirring the pot, but seriously man: let it go. It doesn't work. Even the enemy see through it.

192. In honour of Dan Dennett

Comment #76863 by Jack Rawlinson on October 7, 2007 at 1:54 pm

It's nice to see these AAI speeches gradually making it to the web. Not as nice as it was to be there, of course. :-)

I enjoyed Dan's speech too, although it started slowly and featured quite a lot of material from "Breaking the Spell", I found I was becoming more and more engrossed without really noticing it was happening. That's a sign of a capable public speaker.

"The author": I can't comment about "Darwin's Dangerous Idea" as I haven't read it yet, but I think you grossly overstate the case regarding Dennett "taking over" Dawkins' ideas. Lots of people share the ideas of other scientists and thinkers. It isn't uncommon, you know. Memetics is a useful concept, so people use it. Newton's laws are useful too, and lots of people use them. We don't say they've taken them over though, do we?

"Breaking the Spell" was interesting and thought-provoking, and I particularly appreciated the fact that it came at belief from a different angle to the frontal assaults of Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens. If I wanted to be criticial of it at all I'd say there was a slight tendency to meander and repeat, but that would be nitpicking.

193. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76261 by Jack Rawlinson on October 5, 2007 at 9:11 am

You know folks, I've been thinking about this a lot since last weekend and the more I think, the more convinced I am Sam's dead wrong. None of the arguments in support of him here have persuaded me in the slightest, although I certainly think the argument's worth having.

Something struck me: when Sam worries about the negative, lazy, fallacious stereotyping of "atheist" (immoral, selfish, arrogant, 'Stalin was an atheist' etc) it reminds me a little of something else. It reminds me of the way the believers whine and fret when we atheists use the "Invisible Sky Pixie" type of mockery of their god. "That's not my god!", they squeal! "You're misrepresenting what I believe in!"

But they don't react to this by deciding they should ditch the term "god", do they? They don't suggest that maybe they should use "deity" or "divinity" or "cosmic essence" in order to deflect our attacks, do they? They have more confidence than that, I think. They value the word too highly to weakly retreat under attack and drop it. And I'm pretty sure even they have the basic common sense to understand it wouldn't work - at least to any significant degree. We'd still go after their cosmic essences, wouldn't we? We'd still say their cosmic essences sounded pretty much like invisible sky pixies if they truly did sound that way. Just as surely, once a believer heard that we didn't believe in any god, they'd have us pegged. And the same old crap would come out again.

But aside from that, the point is we should stand up for what we are and not let the inevitable attacks make us take the utterly craven step of dropping a word that most accurately describes the one thing we have in common: non-belief in gods. It's cowardly and it would not work.

Think about this: any description or label of a group, organisation, philosophy, religion, etc attracts bogus and fallacious attacks. It attracts more the more powerful it is. Think of the lazy stereotypes and plain false attacks which the following labels are regularly subjected to:

Liberal
Conservative
Communist
Feminist
Socialist
Gay


It would be easy to extend that list a very long way, right? Should liberals start desperately seeking another name every time Mallard Fillmore portrays them as spineless, moral-shifting, hypocritical, academics? Should feminists ditch their name because so many idiots maintain the "You must be a fat ugly lesbian" bullshit?

No, and resoundingly so. It's a question of pride as much as the other points I've argued. Gay pride. Black power. Solidarity. Come on. Let's take control of the word and take some bloody pride in it. And let's not drop it and run every time some idiot fails to understand it. Let's educate them instead. Because you can be damned sure if we do drop the name, it will be perceived by the enemy as exactly what it is: weakness under attack. And weakness of that sort is not good strategy for reducing the intensity of attacks.

194. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76017 by Jack Rawlinson on October 4, 2007 at 11:14 am

Rieux: I replied to you on the Forum too, but I was pretty baffled by your post at that point. Having thought about it some more... I hope you're not accusing me of plagiarism, are you? Because I used Google, just as you did? And because it returned similar results? Surely you can't be doing that?

And for the record, I hadn't even read your post when I wrote this.

195. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #76003 by Jack Rawlinson on October 4, 2007 at 9:24 am

You should have resisted. This is a cheap and facile trick which is so badly done it's an embarrassment, Jack!

Cuh! Well, I amused myself, at least. :-)

196. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75964 by Jack Rawlinson on October 4, 2007 at 6:44 am

I couldn't resist a little satire, folks... I posted this on the forum but I thought I'd stick it here too.

The Problem With Independence

(with apologies - but not too many - to Sam Harris)

Given the stupidity and suffering that still thrives under the mantle of dependence of all kinds, declaring oneself an "independent" would seem the only appropriate response. And it is the stance that many of us have proudly and publicly adopted. Tonight, I'd like to try to make the case, that our use of this label is a mistake—and a mistake of some consequence.

My concern with the use of the term "in-dependent" is both philosophical and strategic. I think that "independent" is a term that we do not need, in the same way that we don't need a word for someone who rejects astrology. We simply do not call people "non-astrologers." All we need are words like "reason" and "evidence" and "common sense" and "bullshit" to put astrologers in their place, and so it could be with dependence.

If the comparison with astrology seems too facile, consider the problem of racism. Racism was about as intractable a social problem as we have ever had. So, we can now ask, how have people of good will and common sense gone about combating racism? How many people have had to identify themselves as "non-racists" to participate in this process? Is (or was) there a "non-racist alliance" somewhere for me to join? Of course not. Well, apart from such organisations as Anti-Racist Action, The Anti-Nazi League, Anti-Racist Alliance, Anti-Fascist Action, The Metro Coalition for a Non-Racist Society, Campaign Against Racism and Fascism, National Assembly Against Racism, Anti-Racism Coalition....err, well... yes, perhaps the astrology thing wasn't so facile after all.

In accepting a label, particularly the label of "Independent" it seems to me that we are consenting to be viewed as a cranky sub-culture, such as those seeming cranks who, say, founded America. We are consenting to be viewed as a marginal interest group. I am saying that as a matter of philosophy I... I mean, we... are guilty of confusion, and as a matter of strategy, we have walked into a trap. It is a trap that has been, in many cases, deliberately set for us. And we have jumped into it with both feet.

I think this whole conversation about the conflict between subservience and liberty, and heteronomy and autonomy, has been, and will continue to be, successfully marginalized under the banner of independence.

So, let me make my somewhat seditious proposal explicit: We should not call ourselves "independents." We should not call ourselves "individualists." We should not call ourselves "free men" or "anti-dependents," "freedom lovers" or "democrats". We should not call ourselves anything. We should go under the radar—for the rest of our lives. And while there, we should be decent, responsible people who destroy autocratic ideas wherever we find them. Because, you know... that's always worked so well against past dictatorships.

197. Hirsi Ali Returns to the Netherlands after Losing Body Guards

Comment #75811 by Jack Rawlinson on October 3, 2007 at 5:59 pm

I hope you can still bring yourselves to acknowledge that there are worse things in this world to be than a neo-con.

Certainly. There must be at least a couple. :-)

And I cut Hirsi Ali some slack because of her background. I can see how tempting that particular extreme must have looked under the circumstances.

198. Hirsi Ali Returns to the Netherlands after Losing Body Guards

Comment #75786 by Jack Rawlinson on October 3, 2007 at 4:11 pm

It wasn't her talk that impressed me, it was how she handled the questions afterwards.

I respect the hell out of her stance against Islam. Not so keen on her rather neo-con political tendencies.

199. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75653 by Jack Rawlinson on October 3, 2007 at 8:10 am

NormanDoering writes: "...it [the word 'atheist'] focuses attention on the least consequential part of the atheist arguments -- whether there is or isn't a god."

Firstly, I'm staggered to think you regard that as the least consequential part of it. It's the central part from which all else flows!

Secondly, it is the one thing that all of us can agree on: that we disbelieve in deities. As this thread (and the AAI convention) amply demonstrates, once we start discussing things other than our shared lack of belief, we're all over the map! So it makes total sense to unite behind that one central thing which definitely does unite us.

200. The Problem with Atheism

Comment #75615 by Jack Rawlinson on October 3, 2007 at 6:23 am

Richard... I suspect your grand-daughter might be rather appalled to be paired off with a 48-year old man, but I appreciate the thought. :-)