251. Kamikaze bacteria illustrate evolution of co-operation

Comment #235713 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 23, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Cartomancer

I think Joe just needs the love of a good man.

"78. Comment #235668 by Fanusi Khiyal on August 23, 2008 at 11:28 am
Sure: The genetic similarity between all organisms. Now piss off."

This, and the previous comments on this thread, is where I sincerely agree with Fanusi, I'm eager to hear his arguments and I'm so pleased to be in agreement.

252. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235675 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 23, 2008 at 11:31 am

By the way, I honestly cannot compete. I admit I'm not clued up as I need to be here.

253. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235674 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 23, 2008 at 11:30 am

bingo

254. Channel 4 announces return of Undercover Mosque

Comment #235670 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 23, 2008 at 11:29 am

I've got a good bet with a friend I can guess a couple of the commenters in the next 50 posts.

Heh, it's an area for concern, and I'm still trying to educate myself in this area.

255. A flea we missed?

Comment #235203 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 22, 2008 at 2:30 pm

David Robertson

There is something endearing about the way you try to read so many posts and try to give some sort of response. I'm not going to give you credit for complete honesty, but perhaps it is unavoidable that you will ignore some statements and home-in on others - at the very least you are subconsciously doing this for your own benefit. I have some appreciation that this must consume a significant chunk of your own time.

To the point. I think a large part of the debate has been the fact that without scientific method it is too easy to pull the wool over people's eyes. Religion is not believed because it is not scientifically proven (and the historical evidence for events is poor too - we have biased human story-tellers that you yourself concede when 2 tell the same story they tell it differently - and so any genuine historian would not accept your religious sources as a reliable, unbiased version of events). So a scientist has to wonder what your evidence is for believing in your flavour of god. I still don't know what your evidence is, but I get the impression that the Bible, several other good figures who have believed / been guided by the Bible, and some general good fortune at times of crisis are your evidence for belief. You may say that it is more than that, but you are yet to tell me what the "more" is. So I'm left with my assumptions. Yours just isn't enough scientific evidence to prove that you have found something true. So many here call your faith "blind faith". You dispute it, but you haven't told us how it is otherwise.

Then you tell us that we cannot disprove (100%) your "truth". That is why I, and others, mention the variety of faiths. What if your current faith is the "good counterfeit"? What if god is testing you and waiting for you to seek desperately for your own damascus moment? If you look harder you may find that there is a pure form of Islam that is more worthy (or some such faith). It's because there is no way to tell which faith is "truth" that I am able to state that yours is no more valid than a few of the others.

This is where you can come in and state "I cannot and would not attempt to convert you - that's Gods job". That's pretty weird because now I'm left thinking - maybe it's not my fault that I am so blind to the true faith. It's god's job to convince me, but maybe I'm surplus to requirements, so he's not going to bother giving me the convincing evidence that you have.

I conclude that you only have evidence that satisfies you. Such evidence is blind. You have blind faith.

256. Religion out of medicine, a new message for Ontario doctors

Comment #234922 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 22, 2008 at 8:32 am

187. Comment #234921 by Nairb on August 22, 2008 at 8:26 am

I have to say I am a bit astonished about the discussion on this. I really am at a bit of a loss to understand where this is coming from.

I don't find the discussion at all surprising. We want doctors to put aside their own moral judgements and yet there may be many people that might feel extremely uncomfortable performing medicine that seems wrong. FGM has already been mentioned. How about aborting a phoetus not because the parent doesn't want a child, but because they desperately want a child and their own culture means they want a boy and not the "wretched" female inside of them? How about an operation to remove a perfectly good limb because the patient feels that the limb is in some way not their limb and it is causing them extreme mental anguish? How about unneccessary cosmetic surgery that ultimately carries a risk of killing the patient.

There are a lot of difficult decisions to make involving medicine, and if I were a doctor I'd hate to have all scenarios forced on me, and where my conscience counts for nothing.

257. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234907 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 22, 2008 at 7:09 am

I was once corrected on this site for commenting on how I didn't (initially) trust the stance taken by Dawkins. I've never tried to argue that Dawkins was incorrect, but he is certainly assertive and this can be taken as slightly aggressive. Even when speaking the Queen's English with an Oxford plum in your mouth it is possible to be aggressive.

I think I understand the mistrust for Dawkins when they read him for the first time. I have some sympathy with what they "feel" about what they are hearing. However, whatever you feel, even if Dawkins had come out and said, "I hate them F-in Christians and I'm going to tell you why", it doesn't mean he hasn't got a perfectly good point.

But what I've seen recently is quite a patient, careful, listening, debating person. Perhaps I'll just label him a passive aggressive from now on ;-)

258. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234798 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 22, 2008 at 3:24 am

Sargeist. Yes, there is an obsession with hairy parts. I'm thinking of founding a faith that is a mixture between Buddhism and Brazilian

I think some faiths do try to encapsulate the "lets be tolerant and good to one another", but you cannot pin down a set of such rules without ending up contradicting yourself or no longer coping with the specific problem areas 1000 years later. Unless their god is going to come down every 500 years and hand out a set of revisions then it's all pointless. Still, David Robertson might tell us about the revisions he received directly from god last week, in the form of prophecy (magic).

259. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234791 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 22, 2008 at 3:09 am

Sargeist

Yes they were all male. But David cannot simply say that their faith is racist, if anti-racism is encapsulated in it's basic statements. It would be like saying that the bible promotes slavery ... er ... ????

Oh, let's just leave it.

260. The rise of Miliband brings at last the prospect of an atheist prime minister

Comment #234782 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 22, 2008 at 2:52 am

Dear other-culture-intolerant, Sikh-hating bigot.
I mean, Dear David Robertson

I would like to point out that a fundamental belief of Sikh people is: "People of all races, religions and genders are equal in the eyes of God. That includes full equality of men and women"
How can the genuine faith of God be found when you won't open your heart and mind to the full wonder of this faith? You're just not trying hard enough.

Anyway, on to atheism and leadership. You know very well that Stalin's actions were not motivated by lack of god. You may point out that huge attrocities carried out by people of faith were actually not asked for by god, but by deluded people who used their religion to further their own unreligious, ambitious desires. But the fact remained - they used religion to assist them. It is religion that motivates so many to be carried on that wave of destruction. You'll point out that, in amongst all the terrible things that have happened in the last 2000 years, there has been a gleaming pin of perfection. Well, it's a well-hidden pin and it doesn't seem right that it is so very difficult to find something so righteous and true. There are no defined tests that can be used to test how true to god your faith is, but you have found it and expect others should see it, even though there is no way to see it other than looking "inside". Every person that looks inside sees something different. You can only pray for the ones that haven't found your truth. They just haven't earnt it yet baby.

Well, open your heart and mind to the reasoned arguments that have been put to you. Come on Davey. Give it a try.
"I do believe. I do believe. I do believe. Oh, no, wait, there is nothing to believe. No supreme being to tell me what is right and wrong. We're all doomed. Wait, let's try again. I will try to understand. I will try to understand. Ok, it's my choice. To kill or not to kil?. And this time no-one can blame it on god."

My morality is not shaped directly by god or Stalin.

261. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234253 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 21, 2008 at 3:31 am

Laurie

I have to agree. It actually was one of my better ones. And getting out of my system was such a pleasure

262. Q&A with Richard Dawkins after lecture at UC Berkeley

Comment #234248 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 21, 2008 at 3:24 am

isthatclear

I've got nothing to say. I've got nothing to say. I've got nothing to say. I've got nothing to say. I've got nothing to say.
Random
Carpenter
Tables
Books and letters
Piranha
Random
I've got nothing to say. I've got nothing to say. I've got nothing to say. I've got nothing to say. I've got nothing to say.
Here I am
I'm here too
Look-a-me
There goes my gun
I've got nothing to say. I've got nothing to say. I've got nothing to say. I've got nothing to say. I've got nothing to say.

263. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233844 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 20, 2008 at 1:10 pm

Anyway, I'm waiting for Tyler Durden and J Mac to go to the same party. That's the one I want to go to and enjoy

264. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233804 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 20, 2008 at 12:23 pm

I have to agree with Bonzai

Although modern science underpins much of modern medicine, a lot of medicine is not rigorous science at all. You're local doctor is still going to take a stab at what your problem is and suggest you take "3 of these". I'm more than happy to take the advice of the doctor because his guess is almost certain to be better than mine, but it's not all scientific.

265. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233753 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 20, 2008 at 11:29 am

39. Comment #233537 by padster1976 on August 20, 2008 at 2:55 am

People seem to need something that adds to a seemingly dull life. The duller the life, the greater the need for 'mystery'.
I thought there was a world 'beyond our senses' - infra-red, radio galaxies and atoms for starters

I agree with you that people do seek some mystery, and this partly explains why they cling to religions, but it shouldn't be so. There's plenty of beauty and unsolved problems around that we could entertain ourselves with. And there is "no" magical-mystery in electromagnetic radiation beyond the human visible range, just as there is no mystery in dogs hearing higher pitches than we can hear. Extremely small matter is pretty mysterious, but it does not put it beyond scientific thought.

266. Sincerity no substitute for evidence

Comment #233739 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 20, 2008 at 11:13 am

"46. Comment #233546 by Brian English on August 20, 2008 at 3:15 am"

Brian, Hungarianelephant

In case no-one else has answered the question, I first heard about the bogus patients at psychiatric institutions in a very interesting / disturbing BBC documentary called "The Trap: What Happened to Our Dream of Freedom". Very "Darwinian" in the human interpretation of insisting on dicking over the other guy before he gets you. Worth a watch, but you can read the summary on Wikipedia

[EDIT - Damn! I now see MagratG got their before me 56. Comment #233592 by MagratGarlick on August 20, 2008 at 4:40 am]

267. A flea we missed?

Comment #233599 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 20, 2008 at 5:01 am

David A Robertson

"If this really is the best that this clearthinking oasis can come up with then it is little wonder that the New Atheists are losing the intellectual war. As regards the Sikhs you are wrong. For a couple of years I had a Sikh who had become a Christian minister working with me. He told me a great deal about Sikhism - including the racism and many of the other doctrines"

Excellent response. Just what I was looking for. This is easy indeed. I met a guy who was Christian once. He's now an atheist after realisng how anti-intellectual and homophobic christianity is. He still likes the story of an idealised jesus-bloke, but he couldn't understand how people could believe in the power of prayer and all the other "magic" they believed in. He couldn't understand how they were supposed to thank god for good things happening, but were not supposed to see the injustice of the cruel things that had happened to good friends.

Based on what my friend has told me (and what I've experienced myself) I can now announce that I have conclusive proof that christianity is "wrong". You haven't really helped to save me, have you David?

You just aren't trying hard enough!

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

Comment #233196 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 19, 2008 at 9:31 am

Bugaboo

Ahh, yes. I had read that one.

When people mention Postmodernism it always reminds me of a friend that would mock a wishy-washy psychology teacher by saying, "There's nowt wrong wi-bein' wrong"

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

Comment #233181 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 19, 2008 at 9:00 am

Bugaboo

Relativism? Not sure I understand your point. Thatcher was always going on about more choice, but all I see is more shit to chose. I'm afraid I did watch Big Brother, but if there were better programmes to watch then I probably would have watched them (or recorded them whilst the family watched BB).

Many people have a different view on what is "quality" but there definitely is only so much quality out there. If there were only 3 or 4 channels then we'd have mostly quality squashed in to these few channels. And I'd have a good chance of discussing a science programme with someone at work.

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

Comment #233167 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 19, 2008 at 8:21 am

482. Comment #233141 by bugaboo on August 19, 2008 at 7:15 am

"i couldnt help wondering the effect it would have if there were only three channels of TV in the UK"

What an excellent point. The way TV worked in the past was better. The next day at school most of us kids would be able to discuss the same programs we had all seen. There was something communal about it. Years later many of us would all be able to discuss Dennis Potter's "Singing Detective", and the like.

Now it is difficult to meet people who have seen the same programs. *sigh* Modern life is rubbish.

271. Daniel Dennett's Darwinian Mind: An Interview with a 'Dangerous' Man

Comment #233151 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 19, 2008 at 7:28 am

27. Comment #233137 by popecorkyxxiv on August 19, 2008 at 7:09 am

Now that's the kind of god we should be talking about.

Toga! Toga! Toga!
(Sorry - flippant)

272. A flea we missed?

Comment #233144 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 19, 2008 at 7:17 am

Quetz. No that can't be right, but I think it says something about the Pope of Rome being the anti-Christ

273. A flea we missed?

Comment #233136 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 19, 2008 at 7:09 am

David A Robertson

Many here ask very difficult, precises questions that surely push you in to a corner better than I can. But I have to repeat my point. The reason you cannot see the worth in Sikhism, unlike many people originating from India, is because you are simply not trying hard enough.

I have to ask, "Why can't I see the validity in Christianity? Why must I forever be uncomfortable in accepting it as anything other than a myth, even though I have been surrounded by it all my life and have given it serious attention at various times throughout my life? Why can't I see it your way?" I'm sure you'll tell me I "just haven't earned it yet baby"

I don't think it's my fault, but I will surely go to hell. Unless, of course, you can help to save me, Dear David.

Whilst I await your help, I'll send the Sikhs round (No! It's not a death threat!)

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

Comment #233063 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 19, 2008 at 4:46 am

Vaal

There is something more honest about fundamentalism, but we all know that there is something more nasty about it. Archbishop of Canterbury is walking a fine line and ultimately accepting a poetic stance, but I feel sorry for him almost as much as Dawkins does.

Moderate CofE can seem quite pleasant. As a grouping of people working together to do something good, it even sounds positive, but they simply cannot lose supernaturalism because then they lose god. But other than that, I'd be happy to see such groupings helping each other and urging each other on to better things. If prayer helps, fine, but the Daniel Dennett article (other thread - An Interview with a Dangerous Man) makes it clear that god can be so useful that he doesn't even have to exist.

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

Comment #233059 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 19, 2008 at 4:36 am

Really enjoyed the series. I'm sure the creationists would have liked to have seen Richard producing more proof in the program, but there's plenty of proof around and it can be found easily, except it cannot be seen by those that have to see a bat evolve in to a horse in front of their own eyes. There's none so blind as them that won't see.

Especially liked it where Richard read those "good wishes" emails from people who didn't like their religion being undermined. It's almost worth sending death-threat emails to him if you knew the most ludicrous were going to make him laugh.

276. A flea we missed?

Comment #232425 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 18, 2008 at 5:26 am

Robertson

So many other religions, heh? The vicar at a church near me struggles to explain suffering, but not you heh?

The reason there are so many religions, and demoninations, so I'm told, is that when you have something as good as religion, then of course others are going to want to counterfeit it. Well if that is the case, there are plenty of really good counterfeits looking just as good/bad as yours. And what does your god do to help them find the right one? He allows them to pray. They are all praying to their god. They are all so convinced theirs is right. They are all quite sure that they are being thoughtful and seeking evidence. If your god existed ... he just aint being helpful.

But as I said before. When you're not sure about some detail - you'll just keep praying. And when you don't find the "truth" of other believers, they will just say that you were not trying hard enough.

277. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #232330 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 18, 2008 at 12:19 am

isthatclear

Your point was that it's all random. My point was, "it's not all random". You've been told plenty of times. Now what are the chances you're going to listen? What are the chances you're going to engage in sensible debates put to you by many here? What are the chances that you're going to say, "Ok, I accept, natural selection as a 'shaping force' in evolution does not give rise to random changes"

I pity you I and I especially pity your children and those around you. You are in my thoughts. I shall keep you in my thoughts daily. But if something like lion comes and rips your tiny head off because you refused to run because you were surrounded by the force-field of "your" god ... well, that's just tough. At least you won't burn in hell for eternity. Evolution seems like a bastard, but at least it doesn't do that. Now go away.

278. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231999 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 17, 2008 at 12:00 pm

isthatclear

You know the answer. You've been told enough times but you refuse to listen and understand.

It is "luck" in the sense of rolling a thousand dice is all about luck, but if you only keep the 166 dice that were the "6"s rolled, then that's not random chance. It's keeping the ones that were lucky enough to be "best". Now I could decide to keep those best 6-es, but in the natural world it is the competing animals that ensure the not-so-best are not kept.

And so, as you have been told before, natural selection is not complete random movement in any direction. Your poor students!

279. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #231987 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 17, 2008 at 11:45 am

Evil is "not" such a useful word. When someone mugs you are they evil? If they pull a gun to mug you are they evil? If they shoot? If they kill? If they pull the gun on a child or a cripple?

If you knew the mugger's background would it alter your decision on whether they are evil or not? If they are desperately hungry? If "their" child will be killed if they don't do it? If they have had their own world pulled apart lately and it's pushed them over the edge?

I'm not appologising for the man who mugs a child-cripple, shoots, and then kills the child in the process. But calling them evil doesn't describe what is happening. Religious people might rely on such words to describe the people or the process, but it doesn't help here. All you can do is hate and condemn such acts and try to prevent them. Perhaps later someone might study and understand why this happend and be able to take measures now to reduce probability of future acts.

What is despicable is when people try to explain the reasons for the oppressive, selfish acts so that people feel they should be allowed to do something similarly despicable in the future. Religion is so unhelpful here. Religion allows people to carry on with the most repulsive actions. Whether it's muslims and child rape, or Jehovah's Witesses denying their children life-saving operations because a blood-transfusion would be required. It's despicable, it should be condemned and it should be stopped. If people want to explain their reasons for such actions then everyone should insist on a non-religious explanation. There might actually be some merit in someone actually fighting back against unjust surroundings. But no-one will be able to hear their real reasons if it's all shrouded in god!

280. A flea we missed?

Comment #231810 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 17, 2008 at 6:16 am

Cartomancer

"Isaac Newton" !!!

Bloody hell. Scientists are shit ;-)

281. A flea we missed?

Comment #231807 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 17, 2008 at 6:06 am

Polydactyl

I suspect that are many atheist posters on this site that have some friendliness towards christianity. Possibly because their culture brought them up with this in their background - although this can also cause many to be fiercely angry with the effects they have seen.

I think Dawkins has called himself a cultural christian, and mentions Atheists for Christ, as a pleasant slogan for people who like the better parts of the myth.

DR and other christians have a problem though. To keep their faith alive they know they have to keep god "alive", and to keep god as a real entity they have to have supernatural elements. In christian circles this is increasingly in the form of charismatic gifts. But anyway, they have to have "magic" (even though they refuse to call it magic). If god doesn't interract with the universe and with people then there is no christian god. So how does god interact? He acts kindly to us. That means helping us in a crisis, or alternatively not helping us in a crisis to help us become stronger. Quite simply - this stifles rational thinking.

DR knows that he cannot explain why god is neccessary and he knows that he cannot explain suffering. He is clinging to something that cannot be explained and yet still insisting that christians are intelligent and require proof. But then, when he cannot understand something about his god he simply says, "I do believe, I do believe". And by promising to keep trying, he hopes god will reveal some truth. Of course, when he fails, and when he falls, other chrsitians will just explain that DR didn't try hard enough, but at least "they" are on the right track!

Un-be-Fusion-lievable!

282. Imagine No Religion

Comment #231538 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 16, 2008 at 2:05 pm

Oh well, admin have backed down. They removed their offensive post (tee-hee)

283. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #231527 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 16, 2008 at 1:43 pm

Fanusi

I can see that you have been busy lately. You're normally a big contributor to the site, but you were silent for over 24 hours, so I assume that work commitments had shot up for you. It's interesting to hear another viewpoint, and as you point out you are considerably more knowledgeable about Islam that I am. I will never know the religious texts as well as you and I will never have the experiences that you have had. However, I think it is sometimes possible for those more fully immersed in the problem to push for stronger action than is required.

I think it was AGN that said that all the problems in India were caused by the Muslims. This is just too simple for me to believe. That would be like me pointing out that all the problems in Ireland were caused by the Catholics, or for an Irish person to state that "the troubles" today are all simply due to the English attitude during the Potato Famine. Many of the problems we see tiday are due to history and politics. And I believe that what we see today is the political response of Islam to the mistakes that have been made. Some would point out that it is the British that are to blame for conflicts in India and the problems in Pakistan.

The response today should be to assert western values in the west and to not tolerate any of that backward shit in our own back-yard. But "Consistent, continual, harsh criticism" might not work. I don't think it will, because simply constantly telling them they are simply wrong will back them into an angry corner and these religios/political leaders will take their people with them in to their area of hurt.

Political problems like this need careful political measures. I don't have the answers. You might, but you're going to have to point out one or 2 of your best sources for me to read and be convinced.

284. Imagine No Religion

Comment #231513 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 16, 2008 at 1:16 pm

Bloody hell! Even admin are kicking off now. They can be so argumentative at times.

285. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #231509 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 16, 2008 at 1:13 pm

You said that Islamic verses were consistent. You were making the point that this made Islam special, and therefore it couldn't be debated. You then said that later verses were different to earlier verses and it had become customary to accept that the latter verses were correct.

Please deal with the above point before you move on to my next statement.

I really do think that Salman Rushdie, in the Satanic Verses was trying to appeal to some Muslims that Mohammed was able try and bend and then see the error and correct things. It was a good effort from Rushdie. He tried and he failed, but at least he tried, "goddammit"!

286. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #231500 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 16, 2008 at 1:01 pm

So you accept you were inconsistent then?

287. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #231482 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 16, 2008 at 12:36 pm

Fanusi

I said:
"You then follow this by a comment that latter verses override earlier verses. This tells me their are inconsistincies in their verses and there are inconsistencies in what you say"

You said:
"How, exactly? I have said that the Qur'an is mostly self-consistent, and that those inconsistencies that do exist have long since been resolved"

Well, you said it earlier in this thread:
"There are very, very few cherries. And those that do exist are cancelled by the doctrine of naskh in which the later verses (always more psychotic) cancel out the earlier ones"
And this is a doctrine that allows Muslims to deal with contradictory material!

To some extent I think you are saying something that I am saying. When you are saying Islam is a "Total System", first and foremost a political one, then that, in my mind, is the problem. It's political. That's the problem with religion in general. It gets used politically, and that makes something that's dangerous even more dangerous!

I'm still waiting for the anti-Fanusi to arrive on this site. The one that points out the Jewish conspiracy. You do know that the Jews are the chosen race don't you? They, and only they, are God's chosen people. You are not special like them. They've already leveraged a homeland. What's next on their agenda?

Before anyone gets me wrong, I like/hate Jewish faith just as much as any other religion.

288. The rebellion of the child-brides

Comment #231461 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 16, 2008 at 12:00 pm

Fanusi

You're right on one thing - I've understood nothing you have said.

But you have missed my point. You put Islam in a special corner and say that it's different to Judaism and Christianity because it's book is nice and concisely self-consistent. And so, you would have me believe that because of this I could never have a discussion with a Muslim and try to get them to find some moment of doubt, or area for moderation. You then follow this by a comment that latter verses override earlier verses. This tells me their are inconsistincies in their verses and there are inconsistencies in what you say.

289. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231449 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 16, 2008 at 11:47 am

I never said it was.

290. We need to stop being such cowards about Islam

Comment #231355 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 16, 2008 at 6:59 am

Nairb

Your comment "Please note that the europeans actually working and living next to or with large numbers of muslims are rarely worried and have a far far more nuanced view then scare stories like above."
seems a bit sweeping.

I've heard that disenfranchised white, working-class people are bothered by the presence of Pakistani people and others (Polish immigrants cause concern for them too). The Bradford riots may suggest that your view is not completely correct.

Finally, the name Mohammed (in all it's variations) is now the most common name for a boy in Britain. Surely my sweeping statements suggest that some people would have good reason to oppose yours?

Personally, I still don't think the Americans or Europeans should over-react to a muslim presence. Multiculturalism may not have worked, but there must be better methods assist integration with western culture and enforce western laws.

291. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231266 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 16, 2008 at 4:22 am

Laurie

I don't think that you are sycophantic. The reason for visiting the site is to see the disagreements and hear peoples own thoughts and ideas. I don't take offense at Dawkins tone, I was just agreeing that some people (maybe Do-rant?) may read parts of the book and and be taken aback by the style. Nothing wrong with an agnostic wanting to say that he "thinks" Dawkins is a bully who doesn't listen to any other arguments. I don't have this opinion myself, but I'm content enough to hear what Do-rant has to say on what he has found out about the "evil", "nasty" Dawkins.

292. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231261 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 16, 2008 at 4:07 am

226. Comment #231087 by chewedbarber on August 15, 2008 at 6:03 pm

This clearly demonstrates the point of what Diacanu said in post 185.

No it doesn't!

Just because Diacanu says things with conviction, doesn't make him right. Thankfully, Diacanu's normally ready to argue his point. And I think that your point and the point of others is that some people use the "tone" of Dawkins as a reason to feel offended, or even to dismiss him because such tones should not be involved in polite, reasonable arguments. Many religious people, and even some atheists, are trying to insist that all such arguments should be approached with gentle caution. I "do not".

All I was saying was that I read the book and knew very little about Dawkins. As he quoted his friends and tore in to people who were not his friends it was difficult for me to say, "Yeah, I know where this man's coming from. All his points are valid. I won't question his motives." I'm afraid I thought, "This subject is interesting, but maybe this guy is a twat? Maybe he and his friends just think they have all the arguments sewn up. Maybe they're sucking each other's dicks and they've not really spoke to other people and listened to a different viewpoint?". Well those were some of the thoughts going through my head. But I read all of the book and by the end I my oppinions were swayed by the convincing and entertaining thoughts of Dawkins.

I feel that you and Diacanu are telling me that I should read such books without any criticism. Well, I'm sorry to say. The next time I read a new book by a new author (new to me) with some assertive ideas about a sensitive issue (we can all agree that before now, rightly or wrongly, religion had been treated as a delicate subject), I'm going to say to myself, "Who is this twat? Who exactly does he think he is!".

If you don't agree with this then I'm quite sure that you're the type of sycophant that Do-rant take's issue with.

293. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231079 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 5:45 pm

TWP

There was me foolishly "respecting" his agnosticism, and he didn't even have the good grace to respect the bat. Disgusting behaviour

Oh well, I've got to sleep. Good night all.

294. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231075 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 5:40 pm

Bit disappointed with Do-rant too. I thought he might have engaged properly in at least one of the questions / discussions.

295. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231030 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 2:48 pm

I never said I was offended. I wasn't even offended by your oversized starfish comment on the other thread. I thought your initial comment was very amusing (infantile, but that's my level of humour) ... but only after I'd looked up the word.

296. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231022 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 2:39 pm

No friends that I would talk about religion with. I used to steer well clear. RD has helped to embolden me.

297. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231015 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 2:32 pm

Ha ha! No, not too strident. He just seemed to talk about himself and all of his mates. I'd not read an RD book before and I wasn't sure about his background or the need to talk about how Douglas Adams and he were up each others arses. The whole area was kind-of new to me. Perhaps if I read it again I'd realise exactly why he was quoting this person and that person in that way. But otherwise, it's possible that RD isn't quite as good a writer as he thinks he is (or not so good in setting the tone for a new reader of such books)

298. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #231007 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 2:25 pm

I saw TGD in the local bookshop, started reading the first few pages and was instantly very interested that an educated author of science books generally having an argument against religion and talking about children not knowing they didn't have to believe this stuff.

But when I bought the book, there was a tone of language that I didn't like. There was something self-promoting and smug in the tone. Maybe RD isn't self-promoting and smug, but I kept sensing the tone anyway.

After I'd read the book and considered what other people were doing in religion I came to realise, more and more, how worrying religion is.

299. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230990 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 1:59 pm

Ah, I can see the responses flooding in now. The usual one is "The onus of proof of god is on you".

Anyway, what makes agnosticism a useful stance for you. What purpose can it hold. What can you do with agnosticism? Does it allow you to keep hold of a chance of getting a favour from the "big man"? (or woman - Monty Python had to creep back in)

300. Enemies of Reason: Available now on DVD!

Comment #230982 by ColdFusionLazarus on August 15, 2008 at 1:48 pm

I think RD's just a biologist. He's pretty assertive in what he says, but I can't say that neccessarily makes him a bigot