2651. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240155 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:50 am

Comment #240153 by Fanusi Khiyal



You will note that the question I asked was carefully worded:

"Are you saying that there are moral "truths" that will be found by any sentient creature, like mathematical truths?"

You then replied:

I'd say like scientific truths, but yes.

So, therefore it is not like a mathematical or scientific truth, as those can be discovered by any sentient creature.

Now, is it not so that a non-racist society has more freedom, more happiness and more equality than a racist one? Is it, or is it not, so?

Asking me questions isn't a proof.

2652. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240149 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:36 am

Comment #240144 by Fanusi Khiyal

Apart from MPhil's detailed response, I think I can show with a quite simple example why you are wrong.

Murdering children is wrong. That seems to be universal for any sentient creature. But there are creatures with nasty habits. Some toads turn canibal and adults and older tadpoles eat the younger tadpoles and eggs. It is a good way to survive, as the younger tadpoles are vegetarian, and provide good protein for the older ones. This works if enough survive.

It is quite easy to imagine an intelligent creature that lived in such a style. Then, not just killing, but eating offspring would be considered decent and moral - indeed, the species would not survive without it.

What look like absolute and objective morality can turn out to be nothing of the sort.

Similarly, non-racism is better than racism. That's provably so.

Prove it then :)

2653. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #240143 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:21 am

Fanusi-

That's the great thing about humanity. In the same way that we don't need to rediscover each scientific truth, but can draw on the work of those greater than ourselves, we don't need to uncover each moral truth again, but can draw on the discoveries of those who came before us.

I'm confused. Are you saying that there are moral "truths" that will be found by any sentient creature, like mathematical truths?

2654. Genesis and the origin of the Origin of the species

Comment #240140 by Steve Zara on August 31, 2008 at 1:09 am

Comment #239928 by dochmbi

As you wish..

That, it should be said, is quite untrue. What it dealt a death blow to was one very poor argument for the existence of God, namely the argument from design.

Actually, this was never a good argument. It has been shown to be ineffective long before, including by Hume who pointed out that we see apparent design in Nature all the time that we know had no designer, such as the structure of crystals.

In fact none of the most important truths can be proved: that right is sovereign over might, that it is better to be loved than feared, that every human being however poor or powerless is worthy of respect, that peace is nobler than war, forgiveness greater than revenge, and hope a higher virtue than resignation to blind fate. Lives have been lived and civilisations built in defiance of these truths, yet they remain true.

No. If these things can't be proven, one is not in a position to say they are true.

What might a religious believer say to Darwin's heirs? The following thoughts are purely hypothetical, but he or she might say, first, that Darwin helped us to understand the "how" of God's "Let there be". The Creator created not just life but life that is in itself creative.

Darwin showed that there was no need for any "let there be". Evolution can work with no intervention.

That may be the meaning of the otherwise untranslatable phrase in Genesis ii, 3, that on the seventh day God rested "from all His work that God had created la'asot", which means literally "to do, act, make". Jewish commentators understood this to mean that God implanted creativity into nature. God creates something from nothing. Nature creates something from something. Darwin brought new depth to this idea.

No. Darwin showed it was not necessary, that there was no intention or creativity present at all.

The believer might continue that Darwin helped us to understand one of the key ideas of the Bible: the kinship between humans and animals. The first humans were forbidden to kill animals for food. The covenant with Noah after the flood was made also, as Genesis ix states five times, "with every living creature". The Bible forbids cruelty to animals. This is the polar opposite of the view of Descartes, that animals lack souls and therefore can be used as we will.

This is confusing. What is the message supposed to be? That animals have souls? How can there be talk of the flood, even metaphorically, in a piece about Darwin and evolution?

The believer might go on to say, as does Matt Ridley in his book Genome, that we now know, having deciphered the genetic code, that all life in its seemingly endless variety has a single source. In his words: "There was only one creation, one single event when life was born." The miracle of monotheism is that unity up there creates diversity down here.

The last sentense is just gibberish. How is "unity" supposed to "create diversity"?

The believer might wonder, as does Lord Rees, president of the Royal Society, in his Just Six Numbers, at the extraordinary precision of the six mathematical constants that determine the shape of the Universe, such that if even one were fractionally different neither we nor the Universe would exist.

This wonder is useful, but does not lead to a creator.

The believer might mention other mysteries, such as how did life evolve from non-life?

The life/non-life division is not reasonable. There is no vital essence.

How did sentience emerge?

Evolution.

How was the uniquely human capacity for self-consciousness born?

This is just nonsense. Self-awareness has been seen in other animals, including whales, apes, elephants - even magpies. Perhaps this is a reference to self-consciousness as in shyness or paranoia?

How did life evolve at such speed that even Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, was forced to suggest that it came from Mars?

What a strange statement. Is this possibly trying to hint at some form of creationism for the origin of life?

And the ultimate ontological question: why is there something rather than nothing?

How does this lead to "God"?

We might refer to the arguments that persuaded the philosopher Antony Flew, late in life, to abandon his atheism.

Considering Flew's condition, that is rather tasteless.

She might cite the curious paradox, noted by Richard Dawkins, that selfish genes get together and produce selfless people.

It isn't a paradox at all, it is all quite clearly explained in The Selfish Gene.

We might wonder at the fact that Homo sapiens is the only known life form in the Universe capable of asking "Why?"

I am not sure how this relates to anything. What are we suppsed to wonder at? That we ask questions? Or that we don't know of any other life-forms that do?

And we might add, in the spirit of Godel's Theorem, that there are truths within the system that cannot be proved within the system.

Aaah! I see what is going on here. It is trying to weasel out of having to provide evidence for religious claims. This isn't going to work. Godel showed that there were truths that were unprovable, but he did not say that you could know when you had found them, or that you could just declare something true without proof. That is very sloppy thinking.

We would then say: None of these is a proof.

I would certainly agree with this.

Each, rather, is a source of wonder. The Psalm does not say, "The heavens prove the existence of God". It says, "The heavens declare the glory of God". Darwin helped us to understand how the many emerged from one. The more we know about the intricacy and improbability of life, the more reason we have to wonder and give thanks.

Because we wonder at the universe we should give thanks to an invisible being? That is terrible logic, and completely misses the whole point of Darwin's work.

This is a pretty awful piece of writing, combining apparent ignorance and distortion, and shows what religious leaders have been reduced to.

2655. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239853 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 12:51 pm

Comment #239851 by Nairb

I consider this yet more evidence to support labelling Fanusi a fundamentalist:

a repeated denial of evidence and facts.

2656. A flea we missed?

Comment #239848 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 12:35 pm

Comment #239843 by J Mac

The vast majority of theists are ignorant.

There is no shame in ignorance. There is no doubt that the world looks designed, just as to the naive observer, the world looks flat.

My problem with David Robertson is he has no such excuse. The explanation for design has been shown to him. The reasons why the universe appears fine-tuned have been shown to him. And yet, he persists in his belief, or at least the appearance of belief. Knowing the reasons for the appearance of design and fine tuning, he continues to preach that these are evidence for theism.

2657. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239808 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 11:08 am

Comment #239806 by Bonzai

Yes, I agree. I was a disappointed that the definition did not mention evidence.

2658. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239803 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 11:01 am

Comment #239794 by hawt4dawk

I disliked Steve calling you a fundamentalist and I dislike you calling Steve whiny.

I have great respect for your thoughtful posts, but I would like to take issue with you here.

First, I would like to say I have no objection to being called whiny. A criticism of tone is not any argument about the points being raised, so I ignore it.

The use of "fundamentalist" was after much thought. I did not use it lightly. However, time and again over the months I have seen people present counter-evidence to Fanusi's claims and he has not shifted position at all.

I quote from Wikipedia:

The term fundamentalist has since been generalized to mean strong adherence to any set of beliefs in the face of criticism or unpopularity

Even though wikipedia does say that it usually does have religious connotations, I don't see how this isn't accurate.

Steve.

2659. A flea we missed?

Comment #239799 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 10:54 am

Comment #239797 by MPhil

You are, of course, right. "Informed" is the key idea.

2660. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239793 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 10:44 am

Comment #239789 by Bonzai

I see what you mean - that is interesting.

I think my point about intractability is still relevant.

2661. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239782 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 10:34 am

Comment #239780 by Bonzai

Sorry, not sure what you mean.

2662. A flea we missed?

Comment #239781 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 10:34 am

Comment #239778 by decius

We ought to set up "Fallacy Bingo".

2663. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239777 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 10:31 am

Comment #239775 by Bonzai

They were political settlements of problems based on irrationality (such as racism).

My point was that supposedly intractable situations can resolve if you push the case for reason. Pushing that case politically is a good strategy.

2664. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239771 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 10:21 am

Fair enough.. however how does one deal with individuals who do not share your ideals and don't recognize the fact that with human rights, come human responsibilities. Surely that is often ignored elephant in the room. One is trying to fight ignorance with reason, which is akin to using a peashooter to go up against a colt .45

One might think so, but there are good indications that reason can win out. Northern Ireland and South Africa are examples. There were supposedly intractable points of view based on ignorance and faith. And yet, look what happened.

If one does not recognize the rights of others to exist, does that individual not also forfeit his own rights to exist? It cannot be a one way street.

It has to be, otherwise we corrupt ourselves to the level of that individual.

Many of these unsavory characters advocating violence hide behind what they perceive as our own weaknesses and tolerance and take full advantage of the situation.

Advocating violence is, I believe, a crime.

So now we have come full circle : Find an alternative to Saudi Oil so that the ability to fund their backward version of Islam outside their country becomes more difficult.

That is a very sensible idea.

2665. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239764 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 10:10 am

Comment #239762 by Fanusi Khiyal

This is why I call moral relativists like you the welfare queens of morality.

Hey! MPhil said "girlfriend". If you are going to call anyone a queen around here, it had better be me.

2666. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239757 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 10:07 am

Comment #239752 by Fanusi Khiyal

If you want to be consistent with your claim to be a rationalist, you have to deal with MPhil's 4-step argument. Simply being upset about the consequences of not being able to deal with argument is not any kind of refutation. Being shocked at the consequences of an argument is not any kind of proof of its lack of correctness.

There ain't no Santa Claus, and there ain't no absolute morality. Sorry, but that is the way it is :)

I think the problem here is that you have set up a false dichotomy between absolute morality and total relativism. Things aren't that simple.

2667. A flea we missed?

Comment #239743 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 9:43 am

DR-

The fact that no-one has been able to answer this but simply retreats into the name calling of 'you homophobic bigot', speaks volumes.

It was answered. In detail. It is about harm and consent. Sex with children and with animals cannot involve consent.

Steve - I believe that every human being is wicked (including myself). We are a mixture of good and bad. What we do with our sexuality is an expression of that - not the cause of it.

David - do you believe that homosexuals of whatever gender can engage in physical love within a committed relationship and that that is fine morally?

2668. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239724 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 8:53 am

Comment #239713 by kaiserkriss

To paraphrase, While Steve argues for the implementation of existing laws, and Fanusi is asking for more government powers, from whatI have surmised, you both agree the current status quo is unacceptable. Existing laws are NOT being implemented as they should be which if anything is the real problem.

My disagreement is far more profound than that. I believe very strongly that we have to fight the battle against unreason without disrupting democracy and human rights. If we do disrupt them, it is an admission of the weakness of our case, and would do great harm even through that.

For me, this isn't about using existing or extra laws. It is about respect for democracy and human rights.

2669. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239722 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 8:48 am

Comment #239698 by Fanusi Khiyal

With respect, that's just theory. In Germany, as I said, neo-nazism and fascism are illegal. It hasn't caused a total degeneration. And I really am tired of repeating that.

And I am getting tired of repeating that it is not an experiment I wish to try.

2670. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239686 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 7:51 am

Comment #239684 by MPhil

I would be depressed - if I didn't find it so ridiculous

I have got to that stage too.

2671. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239683 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 7:45 am

Comment #239681 by Vaal

I would prefer those who would like us to live in an Islamic theocracy, and hate our society so much, to freely leave and go and live in an Islamic theocracy. I am quite happy to financially assist them for their move, as it is a lot cheaper than having to incarcerate them in the future, should their hatred turn into violence.

I am against that. We should not export tyranny to other countries. We should not make things worse for those who are unhappy in the theocracy by sending over more supporters of that regime.

2672. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239682 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 7:42 am

Comment #239672 by Fanusi Khiyal

Fine. So if we take a democratic decision to say that those who want to replace our way of life with Shariah should leave, no problem, yes?

As I have explained countless times, you seriously don't want to do that.

You can't pass laws against those who want to replace our way of life with a different one. You could wake up one day and find that the definition of "way of life" has been changed, and if you want to change that, you get kicked out.

Suppose we did live under a legal system that included some aspects of Shariah. Would you not want to be allowed to campaign to change that?

The problem is that the "protection of our way of life" Act that you helped introduce now stops you from doing that.

2673. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239679 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 7:33 am

Comment #239672 by Fanusi Khiyal

The values I am referring to are the adherence to individual liberty and responsibility, equality of the sexes and so on that have taken a very long time to achieve.

"Responsibility". That could be interpreted in so many ways. Is it my "responsibility" not to be a practicing homosexual? Millions of people believe it is. This could also be an argument against the state providing any services, such as medicine or education.

The fact that we are having a debate about the meanings of these terms shows that there is no consensus about what they mean. Therefore, it would be impossible to frame a law around them.

This illustrates that there are not just ethical issues about legislating against people having religious and political beliefs - there are major practical ones too.

2674. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239664 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 6:39 am

Comment #239656 by Fanusi Khiyal

Steve, mind if I take this in reverse order?

Not at all.

but it would give us more time,

I just don't see that at all. I think it would be like prodding a hornet's nest. As soon as you started this, there would be riots.

Now, my point about exile, was that we should simply declare that citizenship carries a price with it, and that price is subscribing to the values and morals of the nation in question. Those that don't agree with them, should leave. Period.

That is not going to work. Give a government the power to declare that those who don't subscribe to the values and morals should leave, and you leave yourself open to being kicked out yourself if you don't happen to like the changing moral zeitgeist.

I can easily imagine a right-wing goverment kicking out gay rights activists.

I strongly believe that your solution here is far too dangerous, as it hands deeply worrying powers to governments.

Even amongst the Muslims, they can't be more effective than when they preach with impunity right in the centre of our major cities. That is seen as a sign of weakness, and that is not an impression we should give.

I agree. So, we publicise what they preach, so that the majority can see the full meaning of what they are saying, and show the appropriate response. If they preach murder, there are laws to prosecute them. If they continue to preach in prison, put them into solitary.

2675. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239657 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 6:28 am

Vaal-

I got this from Wikipedia:

Treason is-

* "when a man doth compass or imagine the death of our lord the King, or of our lady his Queen or of their eldest son and heir";
* "if a man do violate the King's companion, or the King's eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King's eldest son and heir";[2]
* "if a man do levy war against our lord the King in his realm, or be adherent to the King's enemies in his realm, giving to them aid and comfort in the realm, or elsewhere"; and
* "if a man slea the chancellor, treasurer, or the King's justices of the one bench or the other, justices in eyre, or justices of assise, and all other justices assigned to hear and determine, being in their places, doing their offices".

Current maximum penalty - life inprisonment.

Not sure I approve - if you imagine the death of Prince Charles, you can get jailed. (I am sure "imagine" means something different when first written, and in the original French).

It is a bit sad to see that younger daughters of kings aren't protected.

2676. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239653 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 6:19 am

Comment #239650 by Vaal

I have no problem whatsoever with a citizen being stripped of his citizenship and exiled if he is an enemy of everything that the country stands for and has no qualms about committing mass murder, with no regard of any body's human rights.

My view is that if it is one of our citizens, it is our responsibility to deal with him. It is our mess, we should clear it up. We have prisons, with solitary confinement if necessary.

What does worry me is that the fanatics actually want to use democracy to create a theocracy, which they tried to do in Algeria. Not a problem now, but it may be a serious problem for our grandchildren. I hope I am wrong.

I agree. I like the idea of constitutions, where changes can only be made by overwhelming majority. I think that would provide some protection.

I do strongly feel we need to defeat extremism using the tools of democracy. We have to show that democracy and human rights are powerful, not weak. We have to show that reason is strong, and not something that needs to cower under the threat of religion.

2677. Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Comment #239648 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 6:00 am

Comment #239640 by Kamus

Nevermind the fact that 97% of these greenhouse gases come from nature right?

Even if this were true, you think that upsetting the balance of gases by 3% is a good idea?

Comment #239641 by decius

That is very interesting. I have not been following them to that degree.

2678. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239646 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 5:55 am

Comment #239642 by Fanusi Khiyal

I was pointing out that it's insane to think, as Steve does that the current hate speech laws are fine and sufficient and will keep the Islamic tide at bay for all time.

I am prepared to accept that this may not be the case. I accept that many of your solutions are well-founded and would contribute to a safer world. I just have a serious problem with suggestions of prosecution for having beliefs, and deportation of citizens.

What you have not demonstrated is that these solutions - where you cross the line into disrupting human rights and democracy - are even going to be effective, or even actually possible to implement. For one thing, exiling of citizens is a form of martyrdom. It could actually promote the very ideas you attempt to suppress. Implicit in exiling is that the ideas are so powerful and important that we can't deal with them on our own soil. I have no doubt that many would find that very encouraging. You would be dealing with a hydra - the more heads you cut off, the more will grow.

What we have to do is fight ideas with ideas. We have to convincingly win the battle for reason. Your extreme solutions don't even allow for the fight - all they actually say is "shut up and go away". That seems to me like an admission of defeat, and I have no doubt that it will be seen as that by Jihadists.

2679. Ayaan Hirsi Ali & The Big Ideas Forum

Comment #239637 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 5:28 am

Comment #239634 by Kamus

I suggest you watch the Penn & Teller bullshit episode on global warming, just so you see how many of these "green thinking" attitudes have very flawed reasoning behind them.

I trust Penn and Teller on the science of global warming as much as I would trust Richard Dawkins to be a skilled conjourer. (On the other hand, he may have not widely known talents)

2680. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239613 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 3:36 am

"far-right". Exile has been an accepted punishment with all different types of government, good and evil, throughout history.

That is a very poor argument. Just because some policy has been acceptable in the past does not make it ethical now. Slavery is a good example.

When the mullahs take over, I can grow my beard out, get a few wives, and keep my head down. You, on the other hand, will have it a bit rougher.

Your scare tactics won't work with me. It is not "Fanusi or the Mullahs". It sounds remarkably like "have faith in me or go to hell", and I gave up that nonsense years ago. You aren't going to scare me into approving of your expulsion fetish.

You haven't even tried to address those, nor will you now.

Why should I? I agree with many of those ideas. What is the point of addressing stuff I agree with?

"Descent into barbarism" - ah, yes, the descent that involves securing Western civilization, helping to end the practice of slavery, offering refuge to persecuted minorities, building an international coalition against the Jihad. Very barbaric.

No. I never said ALL your solutions were barbaric. What are barbaric, in my view, are the prosecution of people for ideas, and the exiling of native citizens.

2681. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239610 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 3:11 am

Fanusi-

The way I have repeated the point about why the expulsion of certain individuals doesn't mean collapse into facism eleven times now, and you've never once responded?

Wrong. I have clearly pointed out many times precisely why expulsion of individuals is unethical in principle, and why expulsion for beliefs is an extremely dangerous step for a state to be allowed to take.

I find it rather strange that someone who is so libertarian is willing to hand over such frightening and undemocratic powers to the state.

Your position here is also wildly inconsistent in another way. You claim that some beliefs are so dangerous that people should be expelled for having them. This suggests to you that people can't be trusted even to listen to what others have to say - they are so weak-willed that just hearing ideas can convert average people into Jihadists. And yet, as soon as someone gets into a position of authority, you say they suddenly become trustworthy enough to apply an "expulsion for beliefs" policy in just the way you want it.

As Al pointed out, such powers should never be given to the state.

As opposed to you continually - well, I repeat myself.

I do beleive that this is what's called 'projection'. Heal thyself!

You don't help your case by attempting to counter what many regular posters and readers here have seen for themselves - that I have had my mind changed by discussion here. I have changed my mind on the acceptability of the term "supernatural", on physical dualism, and by Al on Iraqi sanctions. You don't help your case by trying to deny what is clearly shown in the record of this site.

Your fundamentalism is clear. You turn up at discussions with fixed ideas (people should be prosecuted for beliefs, and expulsion of natives is acceptable), and just will not budge, even thought it is repeatedly explained how deeply wrong they are, especially for someone who claims to love and support rights and democracy.

The situation here is obvious. You wish to work yourself and others up into a panic about Islam so that your far-right solutions can be put in place, solutions that not even the repulsive BNP will touch.

Sorry, but it isn't going to work. Decent into barbarism is not acceptable to very many of us here, and I am glad that this has been clearly demonstrated by so many thoughtful posts from others.

You have lost that argument. You are welcome to try and continue to point out the dangers that you see in Islam, but whenever you promote fascistic (yes, I have checked the definition) policies, you will be countered passionately and vigorously.

2682. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239593 by Steve Zara on August 30, 2008 at 1:28 am

Comment #239590 by Sargeist

I agree completely. The amount of support the BNP are getting is worrying.

2683. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239571 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 11:55 pm

Comment #239438 by Nairb

Useful post. It is worth noting that even the BNP won't resport to throwing out citizens.

2684. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239557 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 11:27 pm

Comment #239523 by Titania

Steve, I assume you were referring to my comment

Not really. I was just referring to Vaal's original post.

Sciros

if a person tries to remark about another one being a fundamentalist, it helps not to do it in a stupid and immature fashion.

Flippamt, perhaps, but "stupid and immature"? There have been enough crass insults being thrown around here. I expect insults like that from Fanusi, but I would have expected better from others.

Regarding "fundamentalist": Although the term almost always applies to religions view, there are fundamentalisms which are not religious. It is marked by adherence to a doctrine, and having set views which will not be shifted even in the face of evidence.

2685. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239447 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 3:28 pm

Comment #239439 by Sciros

I have been following Fanusi for some time. My "fundamentalist" label is not applied causally. It is based upon the following observations of Fanusi's statements:

1. Those who agree with me see the truth. They are wise and intelligent. Those who don't are intellectually flawed. His changed views of MPhil clearly illustrate that.

2. The Reset Button. I coined this term regarding the religious last year. It describes someone who is presented with evidence, but then, later, forgets that this evidence has been presented. Fanusi has been presented with evidence that, in France, muslims do moderate their views and fit in with society, but then he claims that France is the first place to be doomed by the Islamic threat.

This fits with 3:

3. Apologetics. I have a belief, I will select evidence to fit that belief, and select more evidence to back that belief if previous evidence is shown to be wrong.

I have learned to trust Al-Rawandi's views, and I respect him, as he responds to evidence and respects evidence. Al is not a fundamentalist. If he presented the same viewpoint as Fanusi, and suggested the same solutions, I may listen. But I am afraid that Fanusi has made himself look like a fundamentalist fanatic.

2686. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239424 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 2:36 pm

Comment #239419 by Sciros

That's a joke, right?

No. I think Fanusi is a fundamentalist. I don't think that any evidence would stop him thinking that the Muslim threat will destroy us all.

2687. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239418 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 2:33 pm

Comment #239415 by Cartomancer

There was an article in todays Evening Standard about Josh Hartnett, and reading it, I thought of you.

2688. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239414 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Comment #239404 by Fanusi Khiyal

If you did not care what I thought, you would not mention me. Others have dealt with your arguments more than adequately. You still await a response from MPhil, which I have no doubt will trash your arguments (as they have done mine).

Comment #239410 by Diacanu

Oh, wow, he's pulling a Robertson!

A classic sign of a fundamentalist.

2689. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239399 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 2:19 pm

Comment #239397 by Sargeist

Erm... *blush* I am not.

2690. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239381 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 2:04 pm

Comment #239378 by Diacanu

I am sure people like Fanusi would say "this is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" as they insert the "are you a Shariah supporter" brain probles.

2691. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239375 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Comment #239365 by Fanusi Khiyal

Now how would that work?

Brain probes. We introduce the appropriate sensors into their limbic (emotional) systems, so that when we ask them "Do you support Shariah?" we rate a certain meter reading on those sensors as sufficient to condemn that person to jail, or expulsion, or whatever.

The problem is that the use of those sensors is now enshrined in law. A future government can brain-probe us for our support for gay rights, or for being democrats.

Welcome to Big Brother.

2692. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239364 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 1:52 pm

Comment #239350 by Quetzalcoatl

She represents that you can be famous, lesbian, and have a career...

Oh, OK, I see what you mean.

Apparently, she is still a "role model", although I am not sure for what role. Whatever she is ridiculed for, it isn't her lesbianism.

2693. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239346 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Comment #239340 by ColdFusionLazarus

but 3 hours ago I'd decided you were hetero

Heh. I am so NOT hetero! Even when I was young and thought I was hetero, I was still into knitting, and show-tunes, and I had a crush on James Darren. However, my gay "role models" where John Inman and Larry Grayson, so I thought "no way!"

Fortunately, gay kids today have Lindsay Lohan and John Barrowman....

2694. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239330 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 1:15 pm

Comment #239328 by ColdFusionLazarus

I am gay, but it is more convenient to say "mother-in-law" than "mother of my civil partner"!

Everyone calls Jon my "husband", so I adopt the same language.

2695. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239325 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Comment #239319 by Fanusi Khiyal

wants me to answer all his questions?

Sorry, but my name isn't Rachel. I am gay, but I don't do drag, and sock-puppet.

Strike two.

Please answer the question.

2696. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239322 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 1:06 pm

Comment #239317 by ColdFusionLazarus

You have changed my mind. I was offended because he was posting about a friend. I will let the friend deal with the post, as I have no doubt he will do with great skill.

2697. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239316 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 12:59 pm

Comment #239315 by Fanusi Khiyal

You're very loud speaking against me. Against the Jihadis? Not so much.

I condemn the Jihadis. I speak loud against you, because you are posting here on a site that is supposed to be about clear thinking and reason, and you are demonstrating very little of either.

I now invoke Dr Benway's "three strikes" rule to be used against fundamentalists.

Strike one.

Answer the question....

Comment #239264 by Rachel Holmes

2698. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239314 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Comment #239306 by ColdFusionLazarus

The problem with Fanusi's position is his inconsistency. He was (justifiably) ranking MPhil as a clear thinker with the ability to express himself clearly. Fanusi was trying to upset me by saying that MPhil was a clearer thinker than me. That didn't work, as I knew that already.

Now, if someone I rank as clear thinker with better intellectual resources than me disagrees with me on a subject, I look at their views, and I can change my mind. MPhil has shown me that many of my opinions have been wrong. We have had debates, and I have conceded that he is right.

Now look at Fanusi. MPhil disagrees with him, and suddenly MPhil is small, and posts "fatuous, simpering assertions".

That shows a frightening lack of humility. It makes me wonder just how I should rank Fanusi in terms of fundamentalism above txpiper, perhaps even wooter.

2699. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239305 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 12:33 pm

Comment #239303 by Fanusi Khiyal

You don't know what it means to love something so much that it's worth fighting for, worth dying for.

How dare you. I love our western democracies, and our human rights. Our passion for reason. Our tolerance for the view of others.

I am arguing with you because I don't want others to think that the general sense of the site is that such freedoms can be abandoned because some right-wing fundamentalist gets hysterical about Muslims. Even if you were right in every way, I will do anything to prevent our civilization swallowing your suicide pill as some kind of defense.

2700. Atheists: The Last Political Outcasts

Comment #239302 by Steve Zara on August 29, 2008 at 12:27 pm

Comment #239298 by Fanusi Khiyal

I'm a Westerner who loves this civilization

I don't believe you. What you are doing, in effect, is holding a knife to the throat of our civilization and saying to those whose views you disagree with "stop what you are doing, or democracy gets it".

Sorry to have to resort to the kind of responses normally reserved for religious fundamentalists.

No, actually, I am not sorry at all. Let me rephrase that.

This is the response that is reserved for fundamentalists:

Answer the question....

Comment #239264 by Rachel Holmes