Comments on: gloss

By: Hobbes

Hobbes — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 23:14:10 +0000

An example of Yahweh’s love for all is the Book of Joshua (Godly ethic cleansing).

By: Intelligent Designer

Intelligent Designer — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:03:16 +0000

“You won’t escape the fact that most europeans, who convert to Islam are… women.”

This is not fact, yet. Even the Christian Science Monitor says the research that that conclusion is based on is ‘patchy’ and appears to have come from the French security forces (Renseignements Généraux), already criticised by the Monde Diplomatique and the Canard Enchaîné for their exaggerated assessment of French Islamicism, if Wikipedia is to be believed.

I’m not sure where you get your information about women electing left wing governments in Europe, either, and your argument about supporting immigration from Muslim countries and thereby doing harm to European women through rape and harassment from Muslims is fallacious: It is not immigration from Muslim countries specifically that is supported, just freedom to travel from any one country to another and settle (subject to quotas and other provisos). Muslims are no more likely to ‘rape and harass’ Europeans than anyone else is: you are (perhaps deliberately) confusing illegal immigration, with its links to marginalisation and crime, with mandated immigration, which bears no such evidence of anti-social behaviour.

The general tone of your posts is misogynistic and offensive. I suspect you bat for the Eurabian conspiracy theorists, or some other right-wing nut-jobs, yes?

By: Ohekatos

Ohekatos — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:21:09 +0000

Well, I lean towards giving those right, who say that that (first of all) Islam is women-hostile and women-subduing (you get this impression by reading the Quran). But on the other side you won’t escape the fact that most europeans, who convert to Islam are (guess!) women. Also, the left-wing parties of Europe, who support immigration from muslim countries and thereby doing harm to european women through rape and harasment from muslims, have mostly female electors.

So my questions to the feminists and perhaps your gender in general are; how would a woman explain, that those europeans (~women), who should really fight islam, are those most likely to support islam (women becomming the first victims, should islam take Europe)? Do women secretly like to be subdued by the man, in spite of what most of them say and the history of suffragation? What else could explain these facts, that those europeans, who fight the islamization and hereby the loss of womens rights are, almost without exception, men?

By: mateo-argentino

mateo-argentino — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 03:39:26 +0000

hehe, the bible sure hates women…Paul hated pretty much everyone who wasn’t as perfect as he was…which is pretty funny if you consider this:

http://jesusandmo.net/2006/01/02/lobe/

By: Stephen Turner

Stephen Turner — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:34:15 +0000

Is there any chance you could make a pie out of Tony Blair? Pretty indigestible I would have thought, but at least he would be useful.

By: Stephen Turner

Stephen Turner — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 19:30:11 +0000

Indeed, I read that in the UK a couple of years ago a wanted terrorism suspect got out through an airport dressed in his sister’s niqab.

By: andrea

andrea — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 11:30:24 +0000

to which the only sensible reply is – I don’t think I have a pie dish big enough to fit all of you in. Which bits shall I use?

By: DonR

DonR — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 07:24:14 +0000

Yeh, I know what you mean. I use ‘confidence’ in place of ‘faith’ when espousing evidence-based support for something.

Confidence suggests I’m comfortable with my position and can support it as required. Faith simply says I’m going to support a point of view despite my own doubts about its feasibility.

By: Daoloth

Daoloth — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:16:43 +0000

Hmm. I guess if someone asks me my position on some obscure element of string theory I am likely to go “huh? don’t know what that refers to”, because I likely dont. But I have some idea what people mean by God, even if I think that the idea is ultimately an incoherent or even logically inconsitent one.
At the very least I am interested, even if just anthropologically, in what people think they believe in. It would be easy if only the “retarded, deluded or demented” believed in God but in reality there are some very smart people who have some sort of super-natural belief.
I seem to remember hearing that over 90% of the planet identified as theistic so if I am a student of human psychology I would be remiss not to try to get to the root of that.

By: JohnnieCanuck

JohnnieCanuck — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 05:43:54 +0000

I can follow some of your argument about the label ‘atheism’, but I am not convinced of your conclusions.

A supernatural explanation for the existence of the world has been a part of almost every society we have records for. It appears to be the default condition for Homo sapiens (communism ignored for brevity). That theism is not logical and ideally should not exist may be so, but ‘should not’ isn’t ‘does not’. In practise, atheism does follow from theism and there may never be a day when theism ceases to exist.

I identify as an atheist. It is definitely a loaded word and comes with a lot of baggage. Some would like it to mean devil worshipper or hedonist or sociopath. Others claim that it can only be used by someone who knows no gods can exist, which is not logically possible to conclude. My position is pretty much as Richard Dawkins has put it.

I always have to wonder about non-believers who seek to avoid the atheist label for themselves. The religious have long tried to make it such a hateful term that no-one would want to accept it. Now, agnostic, there’s a word I would argue is redundant and really just a euphemism when analysed.

Finally, it has to be said, “Atheism is a religion in the same way as baldness is a hair colour.”