251. More reviews of 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #224937 by Dr Doctor on August 6, 2008 at 3:38 am

More shrill attempts at dead agenting. Let them play on till their tune bores.

252. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224867 by Dr Doctor on August 6, 2008 at 12:26 am

Well if my relation is any standard by which to judge, most theists of the "creationist" (and no she exhibits further strangeness here - she accepts that the universe is well over a billion years ago but subscribes to "God created every living thing") run from having their entrenched thoughts challenged by evidence.

"You won't convince me".

I'm suspicious that she ever read the God Delusion, however, she has now shifted to the position that "God started life, and oversees evolution" which, I suppose, is an improvement.

253. On TV: The Genius of Charles Darwin: Presented by Richard Dawkins

Comment #224619 by Dr Doctor on August 5, 2008 at 8:29 am

I've not got any time to post much at the moment.

But I want say this was thoroughly enjoyable and the sight of fossils being found inside rocks on the beach and the lucid explanations shook the faith of an "intelligent design" theist relative who was watching with us.

(Astonishing that she never was convinced by my fossil collection or explanations, nor the copy of the God Delusion that I bought her.)

Disturbing was that an otherwise intelligent boy with clear potential was evidently frightened by the implications of evolution and turned his back on it.

Thank you Channel 4 and Dr Dawkins (and thank you Sky for not policing your footprint properly).

254. Breeding for God

Comment #222890 by Dr Doctor on August 1, 2008 at 4:33 am

I'm well aware that moral considerations are not playing any part in this bit of theatre you are putting on.
Actually, they do. You see, to me, morality is something real. It's about dealing with reality. Finding real, actual ways to preserve liberty and civilization, to find a way for human beings to live on this earth.

You aren't dealing with reality, you are dealing with your own strawman argument all the time. You aren't even dealing with the reality of the legal problems I pointed out to you.

"What you, on the other hand, call your morality is just mouthing empty formulas, high-minded sentiments that do nothing and pave the way for disaster, while patting yourself on the back."

Just because you say this, does not make it true.

My morality is based on reason and rationality as well as cultural influences. I don't believe I have ever patted myself on my back, but I'm sure you know better than I. ;-)


"As regards your question about EU Muslims, yes, their immigration would need to be stopped."

Even if the UK said "no more migration from the middle east", all a prospective immigrant would have to do would be to migrate to an EU country, get citizenship there and come into the UK completely lawfully.

The legal framework for the UK has recently changed, it is illegal for the UK to prevent the free migration of EU citizens.

So even if the UK did pull up the drawbridge, and risk all that entails, you play right into the hands of the point raised before about how do you tell what is a Muslim, and what is not? Hmm?

Or are we back in Vietnam, unable to tell VC from non VC?

"No solution is perfect, but it's better than none at all. Whereas you seem to be fine with seeing Europe become Eurabia, and all the horrors that would entail. Anything as long as your self-love isn't damaged. What a high-standard of morality!"

Yet more baseless assertions. If I don't get browbeaten by page after page of insults, what makes you think I'll be browbeaten by you trying to do unto me what Steve Zara was doing unto you?

255. Breeding for God

Comment #222878 by Dr Doctor on August 1, 2008 at 3:31 am

Despite my moral distaste for your ideas Fanusi, they are not exactly practical either.

You can get one thing straight: Your moral distaste means nothing to me,

I'm well aware that moral considerations are not playing any part in this bit of theatre you are putting on.

"If you think your distaste is more important than the survival of civilization, that's for your conscience to deal with, not mine."

I dispute the assertion. From my perspective you have frightened yourself with a bogeyman, and seem to think that you can declare that anyone who doesn't agree with you is just "wrong". You show signs of religious behaviour.

When you are ready, how about a comment on practicalities, which was the thrust of my post:

"You'd have to end immigration for non EU citizens, and then EU citizens too. In fact, in Britain, the law would require changing at an EU level since the legal framework changes last year."

When you are ready. Or are we in magic wand territory?

You can't discriminate or restrict people based on what is in their heads, but you can throw them in jail if they break the law.

There is a reason why I'd never trust a biometrics based security system.

256. Breeding for God

Comment #222867 by Dr Doctor on August 1, 2008 at 2:51 am

You'd have to end immigration for non EU citizens, and then EU citizens too. In fact, in Britain, the law would require changing at an EU level since the legal framework changes last year.

Despite my moral distaste for your ideas Fanusi, they are not exactly practical either.

You can't discriminate or restrict people based on what is in their heads, but you can throw them in jail if they break the law.

257. Breeding for God

Comment #222848 by Dr Doctor on August 1, 2008 at 2:05 am

QED.

I knew it would be only a matter of time.

258. Richard Dawkins interviewed about 'The Genius of Charles Darwin'

Comment #222816 by Dr Doctor on August 1, 2008 at 12:07 am

Proselytize the thoughts of Darwin?

Proselytize!!

What an appalling introduction. Time to complain to the BBC.

--------------------------------------
pros·e·ly·tize Pronunciation (prs-l-tz)
v. pros·e·ly·tized, pros·e·ly·tiz·ing, pros·e·ly·tiz·es
v.intr.
1. To induce someone to convert to one's own religious faith.
2. To induce someone to join one's own political party or to espouse one's doctrine.

To convert (a person) from one belief, doctrine, cause, or faith to another.

---------------------------
"You can hang up fossil dinosaurs infront of my face, talk about how the light from stars of the distant galaxies takes billions of years to reach us, display the evidence of rock formation and demonstrate the process of evolution over geological time. But, I will not believe it because it isn't written about in my book of make believe and I believe the world is only a few thousand years old!"

We had someone like him at school, roughly translated his nicknames were: "Thicko", "Twat", "Freak" and "Tosspot"

Which just goes to show, even kids get it right sometimes.

I presume he isn't going to learn how to use a Playstation 3, wear clothes, learn mathematics, french or draw pictures after all - they aren't in his holy book either.

259. Breeding for God

Comment #222815 by Dr Doctor on August 1, 2008 at 12:00 am

". I will not see the greatest civilization in history fall to Islamic darkness"

What Britain?

I suppose I would miss marmite.

260. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222808 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 11:48 pm

So again we reduce religion to social work?

261. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222798 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 11:29 pm

"Fine, but you might have noticed that many other people out there are indeed religious, & would certainly feel impoverished if you took their religious sensibilities away from them. "

Don't you think then that the religious might feel entrenched and paranoid if they felt that science was trying to supplant this undefinable part of religion?

I don't know what a religious experience is. I presume it is something akin to awe and wonder? If so, I've had plenty of those when studying mathematics, the first time I looked through a decent aperture telescope and the first time I went sailing. These are all real world examples.

The mantra "make science your religion" is divisive, and deliberately so and is the reason the religious paint the "Atheist" and "Scientific" machinations in that way.

"But there's no reason why this should be the case. Outgrowing "the God delusion" means creating religious movements that better serve humanity, not dispensing with religion & replacing it with nothing (or something inappropriate like science). "

If we accept this for the sake of argument, what are we deliberately not going to replace? What is this "extra bit" that we mess with at our peril?

262. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222784 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 10:53 pm

"That's the point - religion provides outlets for needs (or at least, desires) that science & rational philosphy can't
provide, because they are intellectually disciplined ways of thinking that don't seek to engage all aspects of cognition (such as emotion, sensuality, artistic imagination & creativity etc)."

Really? And I thought just genuine human love, imagination and art would satisfy that need and does already. When I paint, write or create products and ideas for products there is no religion involved? I love my wife, my friends and most of my relations. I love the animals in my care and show a degree of love for all things. None of this comes from religion or requires it as I have never been religious.

"Religious feeling allows for a more "holistic" engagement with the world, & other souls within that world,"

That is too vague for me to understand.

"That certainly doesn't mean that it requires delusion, any more than other non-scientific modes of cognition need to be defined by the presence of delusion (unless we're talking about actual mental illnesses etc)"

It does if it is demonstrably untrue.

But I think the main problem with religion is the mechanism more than the content. Make assertion, if you disagree with it you are a heretic, if you investigate the foundation of the assertion you are showing insufficient faith.

Fix that mechanism and religion would dissapear.

263. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222782 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 10:47 pm

"A far more sensible (& fairer) strategy would be to allow (& encourage) religion itself to evolve into forms more compatible with science & rational philosophy. "

Given religions frequently contain assertions that conflict with scientific knowledge in their scripture, you are saying that we must encourage them to drop their assertions and remove them from their scripture so that future adherents don't fall into the trap of taking that seriously. How would this work?

A lot of religions act as a massive anchor holding people back to ancient explanations of how things work.

It isn't as if atheists and deists haven't gone after these assertions in the past.

264. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222778 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 10:32 pm

How can it "substitute" for religion?

Surely the anti-religion campaigners are suggesting that religion is a dangerous delusion.

What "need" does religion satisfy that science or rational philosophy substitute?

I don't understand.

265. What's wrong with science as religion

Comment #222771 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 10:11 pm

Anyone else get the impression that these writers that call science or atheism a religion are confusing religion with a position on something?

266. Write to UCF

Comment #222339 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 7:38 am

nalfeshnee

That is why the charge is about misrepresentation as a university official and not about religion:

"Collard learned that he has been charged with misconduct, disruptive conduct and giving false identification, the exact same charges as Webster. "

(If the reporting is correct, that is).

267. Write to UCF

Comment #222337 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 7:29 am

Yes, finally got that response a minute ago. What an absolutely pathetic policy. I'm glad I said what I did in my email about it.

I hope they treat those two students fairly, if not I will write off some of my companies' tax off against some charitable donations to RDF out of sheer annoyance.

268. Breeding for God

Comment #222323 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 6:52 am

Al,

To which the inescapable conclusion is, if you are correct, we are witnessing the build up to the next world war.

269. Breeding for God

Comment #222321 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 6:46 am

OK I accept that is a problematic analysis Bonzai, but I do like this simplicity of this explanation by Al:

"Muslims feel that Allah should speed them to victory, yet they get their asses handed to them over and over. They ask why, anyone would, it is confusing and life shaking. The answer many have come up with is that they need to be more like the 7th Century model. Allah must favor their enemies because Muslims lack piety. It isn't modernization and western values they feel they need, but increasingly austere Islamic ones.

It is completely counter-intuitive for a rationalist, but it makes perfect sense for a Muslims. Piety is the answer... so said Sayyid Qutb."

"

So is politics a motivating reason for their radicalism or is it just an after the fact rationalization? If you listen to the confessions of Muslim terrorists on trial many of whom don't even seem to have a fricking clue about the geopolitical background of the ME except for some vague feeling of Muslim solidarity. Is that a strong enough "nationalistic" reason to motivate someone to actually commit great violence at great risk? I have doubt about it."

It might be a rationalisation after the fact, I admit that.

Solidarity could be a key, I used to hang around with self declared Marxists at University who could not and would not discuss the worlds problems in a rational sense when it came to a Communist involvement. Communism was always the victim, and they were invariably angry about it, no matter what it was.

Now that is from personal experience and therefore has limited value in a discussion. Accepted. However, I think there are parallels: This is the excuse they used to vent spleen and act outside the bounds of acceptable behaviour, rather than the reason.

I think religion is more of an excuse than a reason (as my discussion with Decius on another news article will show), but it does seem to have a spreading effect.

Politics as an excusing force, maybe religion is too.

270. Breeding for God

Comment #222316 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 6:19 am

Al,

I was hoping you'd pick up on this. I put it in there for you.

I'd expected a strong rebuttal, but it seems you agree, they are humiliated and they have humiliated themselves. But they have also been humiliated by others - and continually.

Whether the humiliation is right or wrong does not really matter, what matters is that it gives a cause to identify with.

Do you think that plays a part, or not at all?

Edit: (rant to self) For [bleep] sake, put the ? in the right place!

271. Breeding for God

Comment #222312 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 6:03 am

;)

Dare I suggest that attitudes have been hardened by the foreign policy issues? From a distance, to a young person who identifies themselves as "Muslim" the Middle East conflict, the ongoing humiliation of Islamic nations might easily cause an upsurge of patriotic zeal.

Sorry to mix nationalism with religion here for a moment, but if there were continual wars being fought between French and British interests in a far flung field perhaps there would be greater incidence of "rebellion" amongst the existent population and the 2nd generation Brits?

272. Breeding for God

Comment #222308 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 5:56 am

"Their children appear to have radicalized as a way to rebel against their parents.

That is why I think that arm chair jihadism may be a manifestation of youthful rebellion and a response to an identity crisis.


As I said before, the fact that most Muslim radicals are young men under 35 is an important piece of demographic information that has been overlooked. "

This is also quite true. I observe that second generation Brits out here can speak French perfectly and most observe French customs and hold French opinions about the place of politicians in society.

But some do go back to Britain, professing to hate all French things.

I wonder if they will return when they grow up at the age of 35.

Sorry to snip so much, I just didn't want to quote the entire post over again.

273. Breeding for God

Comment #222302 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 5:45 am

#219

As a woolly liberal bowing down to extremist views I sit corrected.

274. Breeding for God

Comment #222300 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 5:36 am

"Finally, you cannot extrapolate from statistics on first or second generation immigrants, since they are the people who experience the greatest culture shock (including the shock of a foreign language) so presumably they will have the highest percentage of fundamentalists."

Your point about culture shock is on the nail. It is said around here that when the British come to live here they suffer culture shock and get fundamentalist about marmite on toast, cricket and Birds Custard.

275. Breeding for God

Comment #222260 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 4:01 am

For a bolt of lightning I presume.

A quick review of Old Sarums' posts reveals an accurate summary of the fallacies and the counter argument.

I will get onto our government and ask them to build a line right around Paris so the Eurostar can be used to ship the undesirables who refuse to bow down to this new law straight down to the Orient without passing Go shall I?

Mad.

276. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222249 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 3:36 am

"Yes we do. I can detail it, if you want me to."

Well if you wouldn't mind, but I'm quite happy next time I'm near an English library to get my mits on Decline and Fall, I was intending to anyway after reading that Waughs' novel was inspired by that as a teaching text. I have a love of all things ancient Greek, so I hopefully will take to it like a duck to water.

"Not that I didn't already provide strong references for comparing attitudes toward homosexuality in the ancient world and later in christian Europe, but I am glad to expand on it, if needed."

Yes indeed, but again it doesn't prove the point that religion is the cause of homophobia, just that there is a link between Christianity, Judaism, Islam and homophobia.

"Nevertheless, he began criminalising sexual promiscuity and other "unpious practises" , IMMEDIATELY AFTER his conversion. Read for yourself the description of the ensuing persecutions."

How depressing. That is the strongest reference you have provided so far. A little bit like Henry V turning from your typical prince to your typical religious bigot.

"I almost entirely agree, there. Still, prejudices are cultural, and if the idiot grew up in hotbed of religious intolerance dominating his culture, you can predict with certainty which prejudices will affect him."

Another strong argument that I have to concede.

"I share your passion for a good argument, and it certainly is a pleasure having it with you. "

Ditto, and thank you. My opinion has just been swayed by your argument from "it is all the followers' fault" to "it is far more complex than that and there is something about the prudish mores of Christianity (and Puritanism) that is a problem.".

I wonder if it has to do with going from multiple Gods who had more arguments, dust ups and bad behaviour than your average net forum to one god, and the requirements that "one god" places on "perfection". If indeed it does.

(edit) Perhaps Christianity is so successful because it plays to peoples' prejudices (like a demagogue does) and legitimises them.

________
Many is not the same as "most".

277. Breeding for God

Comment #222233 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 2:42 am

#159

"True, but the Ayatollah is in a position of considerable power and influence. In our countries, fanatics like the Phelps can't even exercise power over Louis Theroux. "

Exactly, when the religious gain power and attempt to rule on the basis of irrational precepts, that is when the trouble begins. To argue is a sin, to criticise is to be ostracised (or killed).

Religion is just another path to tyranny. That is why the best answer is to keep policing that line (or building up that wall).

Still, you'll never get an irrational person to admit they are being irrational. But at least, if it is about politics, you are permitted to say "bullshit!" without facing serious consequences.

278. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222232 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 2:37 am

"Medieval Europe was for its greater part christianised by the sword of Charlesmagne, hardly a free choice of conversion, yet homophobia appears only afterwards."

Do we know that for a fact? I am reminded of Crime figures vs Recorded Crime. Again, we come to cause, is religion just the excuse or the cause?

"Then what are we doing here, fighting against religion? By your reasoning religion could be regarded as exempt from blame in all cases."

Because it is being used as an excuse. Take away the excuses through force of logic and you reach the inner person. If the inner person is still an irrational, deluded, homophobic "idiot" ( ;-) ), then they are going to have to think a bit for themselves and not prop their own prejudices up on the crutch of an established religion.

Lets beg another question which has bearing.

How many "religious homophobes" have smiled politely and said "My religion requires it of me, I'm not sure I agree but there you go, please go get cured."?

I suspect if you weren't truly a homophobe with an excuse (even self hating homosexuals like Haggard), you would just not mention it, nor protest against homosexual marriages.

We know that religion is man made, that means the homophobia is too.

I'd just remove the way these people legitimise their bigotry and their refusal to persuade, compromise or use evidence in any meaningful way.

Thats why I am here, plus I like a good argument.

Edit - The Scottish Play, just a joke, "lead on MacDuff" often used as a "go on then, I'll follow."
________
Many is not the same as "most".

279. Breeding for God

Comment #222225 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 2:14 am

"Is it a generalisation to assume that muslims actually believe what they claim to believe?"

It can be easily demonstrated:

There is a reason why all these religions have what they call "fundamentalists" and "extremists" and even "reform groups" (well, I was thinking of the Judaism there, but someone who gives a flying one will no doubt point out whether there is an equivalent Islamic one). I watched a debate at the height of the 2003 buildup between a "moderate" Muslim and an extremist. The "moderate" was saying that terrorism has no place in Islam, and the extremist was quoting passages from the Qu'ran and shrieking that the "moderate" was not a proper Muslim.

Sweet.

That is because beauty, like truth, is in the eye of the believer. Adherents choose (for want of a better word) to follow an interpretation, and they cherry pick. Some of them pick every cherry in the field, including the bits that contradict every other cherry.

I suspect it is also the reason why religious "moderates" fear the fundamentalists, as deep down they know they aren't really following the scripture at all...

A lot of believers seem deeply confused to me, they trot out these scriptural assertions and then fail to follow them knowingly.

Then you have the othordox Jews in North London building an enclave in the streets to allow them to avoid the laws of the Sabbath.

It is amazing how much people will bend their own dogma to fit their situation.

280. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222224 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 2:07 am

"Forgive the lack of clarity, I am at work and I will post shoddily for a while, if at all."

I have the same problem.

"What I meant is that a religion whose tenets include homophobia can historically be shown as the reason for a particular culture to succumb to intolerance toward gay people."

That sounds again like religion being used as the excuse rather than religion causing the homophobia.

"Find me an instance of widespread homophobia in places where no religion demands it from its followers, and I will reconsider."

Well I shouldn't have to do that, I'm sure by force of argument alone (if that doesn't work insults and flames are something I'm told work well) I can convince you.

"We all know that religions are man-made, so this begs the question."

It also answers it.

"Please, Doc, provide a link to MacDuff, I never heard of him."


The Scottish Play. Lead on MacDuff.

(I'm an idiot, Scottish is Mac and Irish is Mc - or something).

281. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222214 by Dr Doctor on July 31, 2008 at 1:15 am

"Religion clearly is the cause of homophobia, and this is very easy to demonstrate."

Demonstrate on MacDuff.

"Careful with hasty generalisations: homophobia does not equal demagoguery, although it spreads through it."

I would never claim it does equal it.


"Religion clearly is the cause of homophobia, and this is very easy to demonstrate."

"Look no further than the greco-roman world, or modern cultures (like Thai) uncontaminated by the abrahamic religions. You shall find that not only was/is homosexuality accepted, but even encouraged to stunning degrees, both in real life and in literature."

Error. Error. Does not compute. I said religion, I didn't say Abrahmic religions. Are you saying there was no religion in the ancient world? If so, how can religion be the cause of it rather than the excuse?

Wouldn't it be more logical to say that if there was no mass homophobia, then an homophobic man added homophobic passages into a popular religion, does that make religion the cause?

I think not.

(edit: Mc to Mac)

282. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #222203 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 10:26 pm

"How fucking stupid is that? Why can't others see this?"

What is worse is that some would emulate the stupidity even without a God figure.

Demagoguery is rampant in the West, even by people who believe they can think their way out of a paper bag.

So my question is, is religion the excuse or the cause?

If the cause, why do so many non religious succumb to this mentality?

283. To beat extremism we must dissolve religious groups

Comment #221816 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 7:07 am

Layla

It is politician speak for "we haven't got a clue, so sort the problem out amongst yourselves."

284. Breeding for God

Comment #221762 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 4:53 am

"What have Muslims contributed en-masse to human civilization in (say) the last 5 centuries? "

What do you mean "contributed en-masse"? Do you mean a sum total of contributions, or something that Muslims have contributed as a joint effort?

285. Breeding for God

Comment #221756 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 4:32 am

The key is in the definition of the word alien:

1. Owing political allegiance to another country or government; foreign: alien residents.
2. Belonging to, characteristic of, or constituting another and very different place, society, or person; strange. See Synonyms at foreign.
3. Dissimilar, inconsistent, or opposed, as in nature: emotions alien to her temperament.


n.

1. An unnaturalized foreign resident of a country. Also called noncitizen.
2. A person from another and very different family, people, or place.
3. A person who is not included in a group; an outsider.
4. A creature from outer space: a story about an invasion of aliens.
5. Ecology An organism, especially a plant or animal, that occurs in or is naturalized in a region to which it is not native.

So no, xenophobia seems reasonably apt.

I think Philip has it right, you might want to do something about something but why sacrifice your own moral code to do it. If you would sacrifice your ethics for that group, why not any group?

If Islam is an idea, defeat the parts of the idea that are "wrong". If Islam is a set of attributes foreign to oneself, then the idea will never be defeated because the problem is inside yourself.

Ethnic/cultural cleansing, no matter how you want to repackage and no matter who is doing it is abhorrent.

286. Breeding for God

Comment #221751 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 4:22 am

Yeah, I knew what you meant. If you are naturalised in a country no matter if you migrated or were born here then you aren't "foreign" and people really need to get over themselves.

What exactly do these knee-jerk xenophobes want, ethnic cleansing to "undo" the "damage"?

Win the battle of hearts and minds, and the rest will follow. Preach ignorance, intolerance and dissemble on grounds of "it is a religion not a race" and you won't win anything. Break down the barriers to compartmentalisation (and the resulting sectarianism) and you might get the end result you want.

I cringe every time I hear someone say "it was a nice neighbourhood until they all moved in.".

287. Council ban on atheist websites

Comment #221748 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 4:19 am

"In other words, the article is pure crap, and the National Secular Society is either ignorant of Bluecoat software, spoiling for a fight, or both. In any case, their allegations are essentially baseless, and the city of Birmingham could quite easily win any lawsuit."

I'm sorry, this is incorrect. Read on...

"If not, the city still has an "out" in that the software itself isn't set up to acknowledge diversity of belief."

Accepting the default configuration would be the point that would get argued in court, and it is doubtful that they would win a lawsuit. The appropriate response is to hold their hands up to a mistake (default configuration) and fix it in a way that is not discriminatory.

288. Breeding for God

Comment #221744 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 4:14 am

Philip1978

"But I am in whole hearted agreement with Steve in that I am not willing to sacrifice our culture by turning into a thug about this."

Precisely.

"I don't want my foreign friends, of whom I have the deepest respect for despite our differences over religion, to feel like they don't belong here. Like me, they were born and raised here, pay their taxes and live normal lives."

Then they aren't foreign.

"I hate religious extremism, I deplore it - I would have the IDEA of it slowly wiped out by logic and reason so that religion was still free to practise but it had no direct influence on education and politics."

Exactly, it comes down to "you can't suppress ideas but you can police actions" every time.

"I am not going to give up being as civil as I can to those who deserve it."

Second round of applause of the day. Well said.

289. Breeding for God

Comment #221669 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 1:40 am

"That's one of the worrying things about this site. An obvious xenophobe can rant against millions upon millions of ordinary, civilised human beings (which is what the great majority of muslims actually are, let's try to remember :)), can demand they be banned from an entering a continent because they follow this particular religion, & be turfed out of these countries where they may have lived all their lives if they support ideas with which he disagrees - & there's "nothing extreme" about such a position."

::applause::

"I'm just glad there are still many tolerant, broad-minded & politically moderate atheists in the world outside these online ghettos of "clear thinking"."

There are plenty inside the online ghettos too, but you will notice that violence of opinion tends to go hand in hand with violence of debating "skill". There is only so much dealing with thinly veiled xenophobia and racism you can do without getting sick of it.

290. Religions thrived to protect against disease

Comment #221644 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 12:18 am

"Dr,nothing can compete against the mighty Coro.St,Home and Away and Neighbours.......by the way whats an opinion? ;0"

Ha! I hear some people even send condolence cards, hate mail etc to some of the actors because their grasp of reality is so poor and they don't get it isn't reality TV. Frightening.

291. Atheism FLEAmix

Comment #221639 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 12:10 am

Its the Itchy and Scratchy show!

292. PZ Myers Desecrates a Eucharist

Comment #221638 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 12:07 am

Once you pop, you just can't stop.

293. Religions thrived to protect against disease

Comment #221637 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 12:06 am

The press are deliberately throwing fuel on the fire here, there is nothing they like better than a bun-fight.

I think this is a good thing, as it will mean that soap-opera viewers will tune in eventually and form opinions.

294. Council ban on atheist websites

Comment #221633 by Dr Doctor on July 30, 2008 at 12:01 am

I'm sorry but cock-up does not wash. The responsibility is down to the line management of those who selected the software in the first place.

1. Why choose that software.
2. Was an informed decision made, if not, why wasn't the right information put in front of the decision makers.
3. Why choose to stick with the default configuration.

So "cock up" gets nobody off the hook. If one of my employees used company funds (or even freeware) to install something like this that made a partisan (read:non company policy/law) choice about blocking then they would be shown the door or at least limit their career. The manager who was legally responsible for that department would be in serious doodoo also.

That goes for anyone blocking access to Christian over Islam or Christian over Atheist sites. You either block adhering to the company policy, or the law, or everything or nothing.

Ignorance is no excuse, and I suspect someone, somewhere deliberately did this thinking no one would notice or that everyone would share their views.

295. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220753 by Dr Doctor on July 29, 2008 at 2:02 am

Quetzalcoatl, you are going straight to Hull for that one!

296. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220747 by Dr Doctor on July 29, 2008 at 1:50 am

Heinz tomato ketchup, the only blood of Christ worth daubing your crackers into.

(Failing that, a salsa dip)

297. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220743 by Dr Doctor on July 29, 2008 at 1:45 am

I found the cracker/Jesus thing tasteless.

298. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220734 by Dr Doctor on July 29, 2008 at 1:35 am

You probably still can under XP and Vista if you write a kernel service or a device driver. I've certainly had a few BSODs on my Vaio when writing "cool things".

I much prefer Debian/Ubuntu, but its the drivers see...

Hmm. Religion according to Windows 98, where do we go when we have BSODded? Do we CTRL-ALT-DEL or do we hang there until the power fails?

If there is a CTRL-ALT-DEL this implies there is a prime mover in all things.

This would, of course, make Bill Gates god, or more accurately Tim Paterson.

For Windows CE (Catholic Edition) BSODomy is not permitted, but goes on anyway. You are not allowed to install virus protection.

299. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220731 by Dr Doctor on July 29, 2008 at 1:31 am

There has to be a quip in there about BSOD.

300. Catholics To Pope: Lift Birth Control Ban

Comment #220721 by Dr Doctor on July 29, 2008 at 1:21 am

I think there must be a low level swizzling prayer system where you think the prayer is going to a name but it is really going to an actual address somewhere outside of the universe, address 0x000000.