Mad_Michael

Some issues are reasonably clear cut, or should be. I see no reason for muddled complexity where the difference is between animalistic killers and a civilized, Western nation.The issue is really quite simple, despite the efforts of certain self-hating Westerners to make it complex, incomprehensible and insoluble. Coren has this right. According to Michael Coren, Christian white males are always the poor innocent victims of evil homosexual agendas, politically correct feminists and/or the fanaticism of violent Islamic terrorists. Poor Christain white males are just trying to save the world for themselves and no one has the guts to thank them for it. Luckily we have Michael Coren to do that for us. Like I said, a lame-ass version of Rush Limbaugh. At least Limbaugh has a sense of humour (not to mention drug problems and issues involving young prostitutes).

And this is the part I had to cut off to get the quote-codes to work. I've never encountered this before on any other forum software... You know you have called religion evil and God evil and Christianity evil in various intemperate posts over the years, usually in the form of rhetorical flourished rather than statements of attack. And even if you want to mince/dance words, you know how many 'militant atheists' have done so in public discussion forums such as this one. These types are a dime-a-dozen (the fundamentalists seem a bit more rare on the net). You are making a rational liberal argument to someone who has stated that their most profound belief in life is in a religion that holds rationalism and liberalism as irrelevant. See my point? That's like pissin' in the wind. I'm not critiquing Dawkins and/or Harris here. Btw, the Roman Catholic Church officially holds the Bible as to be understood 'allegorically', not 'literally'. The Roman Catholic Chuch is by far the largest 'faction' of Christians on the planet. Thus, your narrow critique of a particular group of politically active rightwing Protestant fundamentalists is not applicable to the majority of Christians. The views of the Protestant fundamentalists are categorically only a small minority amongst all Christians. And the difference between "door-to-door' and 'post-to-post' is? Yes. As did I. And what you said contradicted what I already said, so I said, en garde! and here we are! This thread isn't specifically about some books in any question. It is about how some atheists seem to act just like the fundamentalists that they presume to disagree with.

I respectfully submit that those who ordered the Inquisition, didn't give a crap about what any 'religious moderate' thought of anything. Bloody moderates are lucky the weren't the star attraction at an auto de la fete. Religious fanatics/fundamentalists don't care what other people think - that is why we call them 'fanatics'. No harranguing from religious moderates is going to move them. As I noted previously, most religious fanatics/fundamentalists are a reaction against religious moderates, not against seculars. No, but I think I read that story differently than you did. What I saw there was (at that historical timeframe) the inclucated ethnic hatred of Jews is generally stronger than revulsion at the violences committed in the name of one's own religion. The girl was schooled well by here exclusionary social group. No, they were acting like sociologically well trained ethnic jew haters. Yes. Forced conversions of Jews is no longer considered polite in Europe. It took Hitler's murdering millions of them to do it, but it appears that the tide has turned now against Jew-hating for fun and profit. No, no, no! You are acting exactly like those you presume to attack! Counting up converts is the road to bloodshed. Just two posts ago you agreed that religious proletyzing was obnoxious. Now you praise the success of atheist proletyzing? That's my point. Proletyzing sucks even if your side is the correct one! Moderates don't spread the word. That is activism and is not moderate by definition. And why are you trying to 'blame the victim' here? Are not religious moderates themselves not victims (i.e. they suffer) from the intemperate actions of the fanatically fundamentalist types? You have tried to paint these 'moderate victims' as the very perpetrators of the act, and I think that is just plain absurd. Yes, these moderates may in some cases inadvertently 'enable' or tacitly 'encourage' through their silence, but that is hardly a major moral crime by our modern standards, nor is it an uncommon one. We all do it every day - my unwillingness to get myself arrested fighting against global warming makes me complicite in supporting pollution-causing global warming? I don't think so - or rather, the relative or comparable level of my complicity is rather low, given so many others (i.e. the corporations) who are actually doing the pollution deed itself, not just 'tacitly approving' it. Had David Koresh ever previously suggested in any substantive way that he was planning a mass suicide operation, he would possibly have been locked up long before so doing. 'Wearing it on your sleeve' is much different than actually running the government according to the associated 'rules' that go with the symbol in the sleeve. And we don't object to a political candidate wearing their 'Irish' or 'Scottish' or 'Newfie' or 'Prairie' heritage on their sleeves, now do we? And how come the wearing the symbol of a sports team on your sleeve (literally) doesn't similarly disturb you? Btw, G.W. Bush is the first to publicly assert that a given Government policy was adopted because "God told him to do it". This is strikingly unusual in western public discourse going back centuries. The sure as heck go nuts when Robertson/Falwell/Dobson does (or 'did' in the case of Falwell). Yeah, that's about how it actually works. And don't look at me - I didn't make up the rule. That's easy. Weakness. Religion cannot withstand critical rational analysis. It isn't meant to and it can't. Religion isn't liberalism. Religion doesn't function according to the rule that open debate and critical analysis of all the pertinent facts is most likely to produce the best result. You can't fault religion for not wanting to play by liberalism's rules. Sorry to do it to ya, but 'please cite' a source or reference some data. There is no way you can justify this statement. Yes, Nixon and Reagan brought the 'religious right' to Washington during the 1970's and 80's. So what? They are citizens and they are entitled to express their democratic opinions and votes. That's because they are playing the game of politics. In pure religious terms, you are not attacking them as such and they have no right to take offense in such a context. But in political terms, you are and they do. Thus, the game is made clear. They are conventional political actors and can and ought to be addressed accordingly. If you encourage/permit them to do so, they surely will use it as such. Indeed, I suspect it is a rather childisly effective weapon. Thus, my argument with you. ***NOTE: Andrew - I seem to have found the issue - there appears to be an actual limit to the number of quotes permitted in a post. I tried reposting my composed post to a new post and checked the preview. My quote-codes were perfect but I stripped them down to nothing, each on their own line. Still wouldn't work. So then I deleted the last quote/paragraph and previewed. And did it again and again until it worked perfectly. Not one of my codes was flawed from the beginning.

My turn to have insoluable quote-code problems!

One's existence as a 'self' is a manner of thought. Descartes' supposition is predicated upon 'action' in the mind is proof to the self of the self's existence (even if it is only in thought form). But Descartes' supposition makes no claim about physical existence. That can be delusional and/or illusional (cf. Locke, solepscism or Bishop Berkeley).

I believe that particular 'right' actually belongs to the men of Somalia, not the women of Somalia. ....Yeah you would think that.....but 100% of the time the operation is done by women and it is the women who pressure the mother to make the child under go the clitorectomy. Men for the most part live in ignorance of the womens genitals and only know what they have been told, that a woman without the cicumsision will be morally corrupt and prone to hysteria.....so it isn't so much as the men forcing the operation.....women collude 100% .....anyone want to jump at the root of the word "hysteria"? Let's ban the practice in Somalia and see who screams loudest. I'll bet its the men. That the men can demonstrate high level control over their women is not proof that the women are independent or seeking their own interest. If prisoners in a penitentary work making licence plates, does that mean that they chose this labour? That this labour is a perfect expression of their personhood? Does it prove that making licence plates is popular with convicted felons? This analogy is not meant to say that women in Somalia are exactly like prisoners, but I respectfully submit, women in Somalia don't have much that we would consider as 'rights'. Indeed, many of the supervisors of slave labour in the Confederate South were slaves as well. If a black slave orders around another black slave, does this mean that blacks supported slavery?

Really? The sight of so many people whining about their right to beat their own children disgusts me. If fantasies of violence are your thing, that's your business, not mine.

Colourful. But my point was that the votes Harper needs for a majority are most easily found lying around Ontario. Harper refuses to try to pick up these votes and prefers to try to fishing in Quebec amongst Quebec Nationalists. Mulroney, Harper is not and we are still paying the price of Mulroney's games. But who cares about national unity if you can squeeze an extra few votes eh? Its an ugly strategy that sells Canada down the river. You can't make deals with separatists! Mulroney pandered to the Quebec Nationalists and we ended up with the BQ. Wonderful. What's Harper's floundering around going to leave us with?

I believe that particular 'right' actually belongs to the men of Somalia, not the women of Somalia.

And The Kapitan typed this with a straight face, all huffing and puffing (and clutching his pearls) in all seriousness - apparently oblivious to the hypocrisy and/or blatant lie he was spewing. No, The Kapitan obviously never judges people - except those people (mostly homos of course) whose behaviour The Kapitan judges negatively. They are either 'not people' or just don't count and its not a judgement at all, because The Kapitan has said he doesn't judge others and The Kapitan knows what he says and says what he knows, so that's that!

If not anything else, Harper is proving that it is to Quebec that he looks to pickup votes. More telling still is the message 'between the lines' that Harper has all but given up trying to gain any votes in Ontario. Pity, it would be nice if Harper read the writing on the wall and embraced social liberalism rather than endlessly fishing around to find enough votes to support his minority viewpoint. No matter how hard you search for social conservative voters, there just aren't enough of them out there. If Harper disavows the gay-bashing & immigrant-bashing rhetoric of his own party, he'd have a majority tomorrow. But he just can't bring himself to do that... preferring to continue the ephemeral search for the phantom 'social conservative' voters hiding in Quebec that are going to be his saviour!

Tutor, is an aging line of jet trainers....... Tudor, is an extinct line of kings...... I've been known to mis-spell Plantagenet too! But technically speaking, the Tudor line isn't entirely extinct - that claim is properly carried by the Stuart line that was deposed and replaced with William and Mary. I do believe there is some descendent of 'Bonnie Prince Charlie' kicking around (who represents the Tudor claim) who is the 'official pretender' to the British crown. For anyone who reads my posts, I never use any spellcheckers at all. To err is human.

By running with this RNC talking point, you lose all credibility from my perspective. Indeed.

I'd say a Fall election is extremely unlikely as Ontario will be at the polls in October.

Why not? They already impinge upon how you spend you money, give you permission to get married, drive a car, sell a car, buy a car, they control your healthcare, they control your pension plan, they control the medicines that you may buy... As for childcare, they manage and oversee daycare centres, they regulate who may legally touch your child, and who may not, they legally determine who has legal authority over your child if you are incapacitated, they also have the power to regulate what medicines and/or substances you may administer to your child. Gosh, I can't imagine where the Government gets off thinking they have any actual power over you or your child...

Curiously enough, your posts remind me of the expression, 'that dog don't hunt'.

Can you really say that you exist is an objective statement compared to everything else? Where and how do you draw that line? I'm not sure I understand the focus of your question. Cognito ergo cognito sum is the ONLY objective statement that any human being can make. It is the ONLY statement that contains actual 'true knowledge'. Every other statement any human can make, necessarily, is based upon sensory perceptions (which can be delusional or illusional). One cannot ultimately trust the senses absolutely, and thus, nothing beyond one's own awareness of selfdom, is truly known.

Let me guess... you watched Tutor on HBO and now you are an expert on 16th century British marriage customs and legal constitutionalism? You are wildly wrong about marriages in 16th century England by the way, where it was EXTREMELY common for members of the aristocracy to have more than one marriage due to high rates of unexpected death. But don't let that get in the way of your righteous rant.

Michael Coren has the same amount of credibility on this issue as Rush Limbaugh. Just another loud mouthed ideologue that the mass media loves to celebrates. Coren can be reasonably interesting - unless the topic involves homos, arabs, liberals, religion or terrorists. Then he gets all delusional and rabid (much like Rush or O'Reilly for that matter).

Credit for composition goes to Eric Idle of Monty Python's Flying Circus.

Gosh no! I am generally familiar with the 'intellectual content' of all the Abrahamic religions and their variants. I'm sometimes envious of the passion of religious faith that some experience.

No. Even if a billion Muslims believe the Koran is the infallible and true word of the creator of the universe, the Islamic suicide bomber is still a monster. Just like when half a billion Christians believing the Bible is the infallible and true word of the creator of the universe, the Inquisition was still barbaric and monsterous. The actions of fanatics have always been with us and likely will remain with us. They are always reactionaries responding to a perceived threat to thier faith. Thus, increasing the threat level against them specifically is probably not a good tactic, let alone, strategy. Exactly. And why do they believe what they believe. If the there were no moderates, they would not have been exposed to the 'truth' of the book. There would be no fundamentalists. You appear to misunderstand my point. I am suggesting that fundamentalist have advanced by actually 'doing' their religion - building churchs and bringing in large crowds and large donations. That is evidence of actual activity or growth, not just lots of words flying around. Indeed, in both Christianity and Islam, the religious 'fundamentalists' appear to be a reaction against religious moderates. My point is that the majority of such 'outspokenness' is unnecessary and probably counter-productive (more often than not, it just feeds the flames of that which it presumes to 'out-speak'). As noted above, the religious fundamentalists are reactionaries. No. Faith is personal and subjective. Religion is is that which is on the attack looking for souls to convert. Religion has always been part of the public discourse. Faith remains personal and subjective. Ergo, attacking faith misses the real target and only inflames the reactionaries. There is no specific burden or duty upon any atheists. It is their subjective will and personal choice. It is nobody's business, save their own. It is nice that you might want to set a moral example by your own exemplary behaviour, that is very human of you. No objections to that. The point I'm making is that in this particular issue, confrontationism is quite counterproductive. Now playing for sport is a game I understand, but not if it is ultimately counter-productive to a cause one holds dear. Actually, they arroused themselves in an attempt to regain all the political power they formerly (and informally) possessed in the 1950's and lost in the 1960's and early 1970's with the various revolutions in civil rights (women, blacks and sex were all freed). They are reactionaries. Indeed. I'm not unsympathetic to your cause, though I'm not an adherent either. Suffice it to say that study of Sun Tzu teaches how to go about fighting battles in a way designed to actually win something worth winning, not necessarily by using violence, but to use patience, wit and planning to draw your opponent to the time and place of your choosing. Yes, human passion is a good thing. Here is a decent example - it is religion and the public face of religious doctrine that is, and ought to be, open to scrutiny. Critiquing a creation science museum does not attack faith per se. Please feel free. Calling faith in God evil, is evil. This attacks a person's subjective faith directly. This is where I draw the line between 'critique of religion' and 'attacking faith'. There is a difference and 'fundamentalist' atheists are the ones who do the latter. It is rude and unacceptable in civil society. I don't care if the 'religious fundamentalists' do it too. It doesn't hurt atheists to be told we will 'burn in hell'. It does hurt religious believers to be told that their God is evil. If atheists and humanists have superior ethics, show them. Religion is based on faith entirely. Columbus 'discovering' the new world is a 'falsifiable' statement of rational fact (that has indeed been rationally falsified). They are categorically different. That's good for you. And when a fundamentalist attacks you for having no basis for your morality, I welcome you to reply with your sharp-edged arguments. But far too often, I see the 'fanatical' atheist type looking around for a target to use their 'sharp-edged' arguments upon and that is not right. The difference is defence and offence. There is no need to take the battle to the 'religious fundamentalists' since they are just reactionaries, any attack upon them serves as fuel for the fire. Feel free to defend your views from their attacks, but you should have no need to sink your atheist dignity to kick a party when they are down - even if they are trying to stand up again. The secular humanists have shown they can win the battle vs religious/theocratic rule already and have done so emphatically. No fear for their ability to do it again. And no kicking a religion when it is down. That's unsporting.

Mmm... radical epistemology! One of my favs! It is a statement that accurately represents the logical foundation of my own awareness of my own existence. It is the only thing that any given human being can ever truly and actually know with absolute certainty. Thus, the sum totality of all absolute human knowledge actually can be written on the back of pack of matches. That is rather tricky question since Descartes didn't demonstrate that he actually understood the full ramifications of his argument at the time. Descartes was attempting to demonstrate that belief in God was a 100% fully rational enterprise. As such, this famous supposition forms only an initial premise to a larger argument to which, 'belief in God is rational' is the conclusion. Descartes, along with many of the most respected philosophers of his day and age, thought he had done so. The fact that Descartes' principle of 'radical doubt' and his supposition of 'cognito ergo sum' are now taken as representative of the foundational theories of atheism or agnosticsim is deeply ironic and probably has Descartes himself rolling in his grave in frustration (if you would permit that absurd analogy). Indeed, Pope John Paul II (one of the greatest Popes of all time) named Descartes as the 'intellectual grandfather of atheism' despite the fact that Descartes, throughout his lifetime was a devout Christian and strong believer in God. So, to answer the second half first, I strongly disagree with the point that Descartes himself made, but that is because I'm aware of the whole of it, not just one sentence taken out of context. As for the first half of your question, it is as I stated above. 'I think, therefore I am' is the only thing that any given human being can ever truly and actually know with absolute certainty. After that, everything is subjective and fraught with uncertainty (and potentially delusional).

I'll take that as the end of our discussion.

Excellent point. Hitler & official Nazis perceived and persecuted the Jews as an ethnicity, not a religion.