sprinkle

When Men Become Primates
" It does however have a much longer history than you allow"actually all the examples you list are what i would consider to be recent history, and all occurred AFTER significant (largely detrimental)interference from external western powers. If you mean terrorism as a general phenomenon then I agree it stretches way back (Guy Falkes being an obvious [but still relatively recent]example)" these attacks were completely unjust."Dispossessed and aggrieved people often react brutally. However I agree this cannot justify those actions, though it does explain them. "We've have strayed far from the topic, haven't we?"Fair point. We have rather.To say that Iraq would not have been invaded if it were not for 9/11 is clearly a view that neither of us can ultimately prove or disprove, however there were certainly hawkish elements within the US government pushing for a more aggressive middle east policy even prior to the attacks on the world trade center.And the fact remains that the death toll on 9/11 is vastly smaller than that in either Iraq or Afghanistan.(Note I am not saying that jihadists would not happily kill as many westerners as they could given the capacity to do so. In fact that"s kind of the point, for all the bluster about the threat international terrorists they don"t have anything approaching the power to do anything of the sort. Communist states by contrast [the other threat the Rabbi mentioned] WERE and to a diminishing extent still are hugely powerful entities)Additionally you could argue that the attack on 9/11 would not have happened if it were not for western interference in the middle east. The chain of causality stretches back.posted 01/19/2008 at 17:19:32
"Israel is historically a Jewish homeland "The notion that you can grab someone else"s land because apparently some of your ancestors ruled there two thousand years ago is not very convincing. My ancestry is part Irish and part Germanic (as far as i am aware) but i do not think this gives me a birthright to go and grab a chunk of those lands for myself at the expense of the people ACTUALLY LIVING THERE."You cannot realistically expect Israeli Jews to include Muslims into their culture if it means their own destruction."Jews lived far more peacefully in Palestine prior to the creation of Israel than they did in Europe. Your comment about the appalling treatment of Jews in Europe is one point i certainly agree with. But (and i realise this sounds horribly cliché) two wrongs don't make a right.As a side note that i do not think that horrible old America is to blame for everything, i am British and i am perfectly aware that it was my country (not yours )that gave European Jews the green light to settle in Palestine against the wishes of the local population.posted 01/19/2008 at 16:48:58
Supporting a nation of primarily EUROPEAN jews (Zionism was entirely the creation of EUROPEAN Jews) who carved out a homeland in what was clearly predominantly another peoples land, and against the clear wishes of the majority of people living there may well "serve your (not our i can assure you) interests" but that does not make it any less dubious. To say that Israel is a democracy amounts to little more than "the ends justify the means"."not everything that happens there (or elsewhere) is a reaction to US policy"Of course all regions have internal as well as external influences, however you seem to be missing the point.If it were not for the very real resentment felt by people throughout the middle east against the consequences of recent western (by no means just American) interference then do you really think the likes of Bin Laden would have any substantial support. I rather doubt it.posted 01/19/2008 at 14:34:40
"Unfortunately, it's fashionable to blame every bad thing that happens around the planet on the US"I don"t recall blaming EVERYTHING bad that happens on the US. You do like making assumptions, such as your assumption that I have benefited from the US revolution, which was also wrong (I am not from the US)."conflicts between various Muslim groups have long histories"Internal strife has a long history In most organised religions (Just look at all the nasty things differing Christian groups have done to each other). Modern Jihadism however arose predominantly as a response to recent political developments."We are seeing the coincidence of very old animosities."No not really, almost all Islamic terrorism is a reaction against (relatively) recent external secular interference. If it were not for Zionism, and the general appallingly exploitative short sighted treatment of middle eastern territories after the collapse of the Ottoman Empire then their is little rational reason to believe that modern Jihadism would have arisen.posted 01/19/2008 at 14:25:30
You appear to have no understanding of consequence.The consequence of international terrorism is thousands of innocents dead.The consequence of the invasion of Iraq is HUNDEREDS of thousands dead.And i repeat regardless of means the dead are just as dead, and the deathtoll of the secular invasion of Iraq is vastly bloodier than anything that Islamic Jihadists could have instigated."I do not accept that Iraqi deaths are "ultimately" tied to the invasion."Then you may want to look at the figures for the number of Iraqis suffering violent deaths both before and after the invasion."Islamic terrorism has been plenty bloody for a very long time and grows increasingly violent"Again you display your ignorance. Islamic Jihadism is a relatively recent phenomenon, and has arisen almost entirely as a response to secular interference in the middle east (Note This does NOT mean I consider it justified, but it does mean that unlike you I have some idea of where it came from and why).posted 01/19/2008 at 10:09:43
"Many of Iraqi deaths in the fighting are the result of terrorism. Huge numbers of Iraqi deaths are the result inter-Arab terrorism. "All the deaths are ULTIMATELY a result of the invasion.Also whatever the means the dead are just as dead. The mathematics is anything but meaningless.Wearing a nice uniform and acting under the instruction of a nice secular counrty do not excuse one from bearing the responsibility of the consequences of your actions.And the consequences of the invasion of Iraq are far more bloody than anything any Islamic terrorist could have achieved. posted 01/18/2008 at 03:44:24
"Both Hitchens theory and book are seriously flawed"Agreed."Communism and terrorism remain the greatest threats to human liberty. "Communism yes, terrorism no. The number of people actually killed by terrorism is MINUTE compared to the number who have been killed or dispossessed by other more accepted ideologies.Terrorism is an easy (and for some convenient) boogie man, but its bark is far worse than its bite.Measure the number of deaths due to ALL recent acts of terrorism against the numbers who have died during the invasion of Iraq alone, and they will be dwarfed. posted 01/17/2008 at 17:40:12
Memo to Fred Thompson: America Has an Empire
But did EITHER the Spanish or the US ask the native population how they felt about it. posted 01/08/2008 at 15:44:34
"The USA rules the USA and nothing else."When it gained its independence the US was a collection of colonies hugging the east coast of the continent.Look at it now and you can't help but notice it has grown quite a bit larger.The additional lands were largely taken forcibly against the wishes of the existing populations.The only term to describe this is EMPIRE BUILDING.posted 01/08/2008 at 15:42:27
Jonah Goldberg: The Toughest Whore in Opposite Town
I was simply referring to the hypocrisy of slave owners fighting a war for freedom, and the right to continue to annex native lands.Your diversary comments do nothing to discount those two simple facts.BOTH those points stand.I did not state that the two factors were necessarily entwined(though many of the US founding fathers clearly had an interest in both).posted 01/06/2008 at 14:07:03
According to a review of his book on amazon he is also a partial holocaust denier, in that he denies the mass killing of homosexuals took place. posted 01/05/2008 at 10:05:29
"but instead would have scribed fawning articles for the English King against those who favored and fought to be free."Would that be the freedom loving slave owners who couldn't wait to start anexing more native land? posted 01/05/2008 at 10:02:23
Europeans Ask: What Happened to Hillary in Iowa
Since European nations are hardly homogenous in terms of their politics perhaps "Italians ask what happened to Hillary" would have been a better title.As for why people would wish to avoid Hillary, I can only say that when this European sees her selling herself to the American electorate the two words that immediately spring to mind are "Amoral Opportunist".posted 01/04/2008 at 15:17:41
A European View on Obama, Clinton, Giuliani et al
"Did not they give us Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin?" Yes we did. About 50 years ago."Kosovo and the Balkans? Just a little warm up friends."Really , then I"m sure you can name another region in Europe that is suitably unstable, and likely to erupt into violence.A few internal problems aside (the basque for instance) Europe is probably more stable now than it has been at any other time in recorded history."The snootery of modern day Europe is unfounded and has certainly been fertilized (pun intended) by the American left."Why. Because us poor dumb Europeans are incapable of drawing our own conclusions.posted 01/03/2008 at 08:24:17
Broke Britain: Millions Face Struggle To Stay Afloat
I am still living in the UK.I live in Hove (Its next to Brighton, on the south coast). posted 01/02/2008 at 09:13:17
The pounds has indeed been falling aginst the Euro, however it has made substantial gains against the dollar over the last year.Some analysts feel the pounds needs to drop in value in order to keep British prices competative for exports. posted 01/02/2008 at 06:49:25
Then explain why some countries is Scandinavia charge even higher taxes, but provide first rate public services.These countries have amongst the highest GDP per capitta in the world(some higher than the US and Britain).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_capita posted 01/02/2008 at 06:41:32
As a Brit I have to say that we have only got ourselves to blame for this mess.To many people are tempted to bye up the latest "shiny thing" in the shop window regardless of whether they have any viable means of actually paying for it in the long run.And the saddest thing is that a lot of the "shiny crud" people bye they don"t really need and just ends up dumped in the attic after a few weeks.posted 01/02/2008 at 06:35:50
Giuliani Staffer on Muslims: "Chase Them Back to their Caves"
And how successful have good Christians been is scaling back the efforts of the Christian Zionists and others pushing for endless war in the middle east.Such people have left a lot more corpses in their wake than any Islamic jihadists ever could.Or is that ok because it was done by CONVENTIONAL MEANS.posted 12/31/2007 at 15:40:06
Bill Kristol To Become New York Times Columnist In 2008
What has Rumsfelds incompetence got to do with Kristol COMPLETELY misreading the situation in the middle east and getting pretty much ALL (not just some) of his predictions utterly wrong.This visionary has the vision of a blind man.posted 12/30/2007 at 11:04:53
Will Smith, Hitler and the Holocaust's Unanswerable Question
Most countries cling to their noble mythologies above all else, and the realisation that the US (and most other nations in the Americas for that matter) was founded on another peoples land and largely built up on the back of slave labour does not play very well into that noble mythology. posted 12/27/2007 at 21:10:38
Benazir Bhutto Assassinated: Scotland Yard To Help Investigation
Pakistan isn't in the middle east. posted 12/27/2007 at 09:26:00
Exclusive -- Bill Clinton: We Need To Stay in Iraq to Protect the Kurds From The Turks
Some interesting points, however I have a few quibbles.Firstly at what point have the Greeks ever been an INDIGINOUS population in Anatiolia, and secondly you are entirely incorrect when you say that the allies betrayed the Kurds.The reason the treaty that would have given the Kurds independence ( the Treaty of Sevres) was abandoned was because the Turkish population largely rejected the treaty and forcibly ejected the allied powers ( the Turkish war of independence), thus forcing the allies to concede to a new treaty more favourable to the Turkish revolutionaries. The republic of Turkey officially came into being a few months later.This was hardly something that the allies wanted (and had actively fought to prevent), so cannot be considered a betrayal.posted 12/27/2007 at 11:54:38
Turkish Jets Launch More Strikes Into Northern Iraq
It is very difficult to see an end to the Kurdish situation, where you have a large indigenous population within a region that is divided amongst a number of nation states who do not believe it is in their interests to grant that Kurdish population self rule.There is no indication that either Kurdish independence advocates or the policies of the states they live in are going to change anytime soon.posted 12/26/2007 at 12:21:30
Turkey Claims More Than 200 Kurdish Rebel Targets Hit
There are a great number of peoples in the world unfortunately who would like a homeland that they in many cases will probably never get.Many lost their homes as a result of colonialism (the Australian Aborigines, the Palestinians, the many indigenous peoples of the Americas) whilst others lost them in local tribal conflicts.Tribalism and identity have always been closely linked throughout human history, for better or for worse.posted 12/26/2007 at 12:28:09
The problem with the Kurds and Turkey has existed for a long time.The Kurds very nearly got a homeland after the Ottoman empire was defeated , but then the Turks won their independence war and hopes for an independent Kurdistan were shattered.The Kurds continue to live as minorities in larger nation states, though some true form of independence clearly remains the dream for many.I am not sure that this is a realistic dream, but if anywhere then northern Iraq is probably their best bet as they already have some measure of self-rule there.posted 12/25/2007 at 17:52:11
Report: Iran Would Suffer Up to 20 Million Casualties in Nuclear War With Israel
I would have thought the fact that i consider those actions brutal would make it clear that i do not consider such acts OK.It seams that you are now having to attribute words to me that I have not written in order to respond to my arguments.Why is that exactly??posted 12/25/2007 at 15:20:22
Your language was very, "suggestive" of theirs.It most certainly is not.That is purely an assumption on your part., and a false one at that.My point was that ancestral claims can"t justify wantonly unjust acts in the present.posted 12/25/2007 at 15:15:18
But it was nevertheless, part of the Jewish heritage and indeed, part of their prayers, for nearly 2000 years.Ancient ethnic history can never justify deliberate ethnic cleansing and the brutal subjugation of an indigenous population. Never.If others were permitted the same leniency based upon their ancestors heritage them the world would be awash with blood.posted 12/25/2007 at 15:09:09
the Balkan states killed hundreds of thousands, right at the heart of the "civilized world". Nothing happened.Um actually yes it did. NATO directly intervened to bring an end to the fighting.Although as far as Sudan is concerned you have a point.posted 12/25/2007 at 14:01:08
This does not address the fact that however brutal, this was a RESPONCE to EUROPEAN Zionist colonialism, and that indiginous Jews had been living in the region (many in fact considerd themselves Arab Jews) amoungst Arabs for hundreds of years.Whatever the inns and outs are one simple fact remains.No Zionism. No problem.posted 12/25/2007 at 13:49:46
Modern Jews like virtually all modern populations are not descended from any single source (which i would have thought was pretty obvious). And even if they were, so what.My ancestry (as far as i know, or frankly care) is part Germanic and part Irish, but I don"t feel that gives me any right to claim those lands for my own.posted 12/25/2007 at 13:34:50
If you knew ANYTHING about the history of Jewish nationalism you would know that Zionism as a political ideology was born in the European political climate around the same time as many other forms of European nationalism (some others of which the world could also have done wiothout). It was created by EUROPEAN Jews in order to address the problems that EUROPEAN Jews were facing in Europe.The majority of Jews did NOT initially support it (and were thus quite happy to spend "next year" wherever they were already).posted 12/25/2007 at 13:28:37
That isn't morality sunshine, that's how the world works.So once again you freely admit that morality can be discarded when it does not suit your purpose.Let me ask you this- suppose that the invading Arab states had won in 1948. Do you think, they would have permitted Jews to live in the region?Prior to Zionist Colonialism ethnic Jews WERE living in the region.As for kicking out ethnic Jews following the creation of Israel I agree this was an unjust response, particularly as the Jews they kicked out were indigenous populations who had no responsibility for the misery that Zionism had introduced to the region.And Zionist Colonialism actually started BEFORE the second world war (the process had even begun before the fall of the Ottoman empire). Perhaps it is YOU who needs to learn a little about history.The Mufti was a (admittedly brutal) response to that.But was I am happy to condemn the response I am not willing to conveniently forget that it was a RESPONSE.And there are no shortage of Zionist who were happy to conspire with the Nazis when they thought it would serve their purpose.http://www.amazon.co.uk/51-Documents-Zionist-Collaboration-Nazis/dp/1569802351posted 12/25/2007 at 13:13:30
Explain what exactly.That Zionism was an entirely EUROPEAN creation.That modern European Jews had no right to create a homeland in a place where the vast majority of people ACTUALLY LIVING THERE did not want it.That the excuse for Ethnically cleansing a people from their lands because apparently some of your ancestors lived there thousands of years ago is utterly feeble.posted 12/25/2007 at 13:02:24
You see, the previous lawful owners lost a war to them. That's what happens, people win wars, people loose wars...So your morality sinks to the level of might is right. That"s about as low as you can get.As far as the inhabitants of America also being unjustly robbed of their lands.I COULDN'T AGREE MORE.And as far as the dubiousness of certain local leaders is concerned, you may want to look into who has been happily bankrolling many of these regimes.I do not believe that the legacy of European colonialism (and as I have stated Zionism was entirely a EUROPEAN creation) can be reversed, but I do believe there is a moral obligation to acknowledge the misery and injustice that it has caused to many indigenous populations.posted 12/25/2007 at 12:47:28
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that how the Jews got pushed out of Israel in the first place ?If we are to allow people to commit wantonly unjust acts because of a 2000 year old grudge them there are very few places on earth whose populations are identical to how they were 2000 years ago.Besides Zionism was the creation of European Jews who have as much European ancestry as they do ancient Jewish ancestry.posted 12/25/2007 at 12:40:35
Attacked by the people whose land was STOLEN to create Israel in the first place.No nation has a right to come into being against the clear wishes of the majority of people already living there.That is plainly and simply immoral, and 60 years of misery has been the consequence of this immoral act.posted 12/25/2007 at 10:57:38
Putin of the Year! Time Picks Someone Who Isn't Al Gore
I can't say personally that i have any respect for any of them.Although Putin is probably the most intelligent and productive of them (though clearly at a cost).posted 12/19/2007 at 14:14:00
Rupert Everett: Hollywood Is Like Al-Qaeda
Its a shame that Everett feels the need to resort to petty personal attacks on his fellow actors, because some of his more general comments such as the double standards between older male and female performers are actually pretty accurate. posted 12/18/2007 at 13:46:20
Lieberman's New Kiss of Death
We can only hope. posted 12/18/2007 at 08:34:16
Atheism as a Stealth Religion
"which "religion" is responsible for all the millions of dead Russians and Chinese peasants from 1920-1978, filling its followers' heads with unscientific nonsense and driving them to zealous pursuit of invisible enemies? Why, that would be atheism."Um no, actually that would be Communism.Important distinction:Communism (like many political ideologies) is dogmatic.Atheism (in and of itself) is not, although many atheist do certainly follow dogmatic non-religious belief systems.posted 12/15/2007 at 07:20:40
"atheism is a belief system -- i.e., a belief in "no god". Further, a "belief" is "cognitive content held to be true" (Encarta) or "a feeling that something exists or is true, especially one without proof" (Oxford again). Sounds like a religion to me."I don't happen to believe in Umchakawakayoobsits the twenty foot tall talking potato that orbits Saturn eating silkworms and shitting breeze blocks.However i have to admit that as i have never actually been to Saturn and don't have a powerful enough telescope to actually see it in sufficient detail i don't actually KNOW that Umchakawakayoobsits does not exist.I merely believe it.Does this make me religious?posted 12/15/2007 at 07:13:29
Best-Selling Author Pratchett Has Early-Onset Alzheimer's
My personal favorite is "Small Gods", and "Good Omens" that he wrote with Neil Gaiman is also excelent.Terry Gillian was thinking of making it into a film for a while.But as you said, its all good stuff. posted 12/13/2007 at 12:21:17
Christ Endorses Christmas
Of course there is.If not then where do all the eggs come from? posted 12/18/2007 at 08:43:49
"Unlike The Messiah's ongoing agreement with the holiday Easter -- which he is contractually obligated to share with a large, egg producing rodent"At the risk of sounding phenominally anal , rabbits (as i assume this is a reference to the easter bunny) are not in fact rodents. They were originally classified as Rodentia but are now a part of the order Lagomorpha.p.s great article.posted 12/11/2007 at 07:23:09
The NIE Iran Report and Alan Dershowitz
"Calling anyone names, such as nutcakes, or calling people irrational is unjewish and is gentile labelthrowing."That is probably one of the most revolting and elitist things I have read in a long time.Lets reverse it and see how you feel about it"Calling anyone names, such as nutcakes, or calling people irrational is ungentile and is jewish labelthrowing."How does it sound now.(Please note that I find BOTH versions equally prejudiced)posted 12/08/2007 at 12:09:40
Did Israel Know About Iran Report Before Bush?
There is absolutely zero evidence that the USS Liberty was spying on Israel.The rest of your answer consists of vague insinuations, and unquantifiable suspicions.Try again.posted 12/09/2007 at 08:25:21
Can you give ANY specific example where it has.Or for that matter has even been reasonably suspected of doing so. posted 12/07/2007 at 19:03:52
Ime no fan of Zionism , but lets have less of the "the Jews" crap.Many of the most prominent critics of Israeli actions have been Jewish.Do we really need to be heading down the collective blame path. I can't imagine it leading to anywhere that i would want to visit.posted 12/07/2007 at 18:54:58
Bah, Hitchens
Wrong again.Gallstone wrote."Please be specific. WHICH people, what damaging behavior?"By challenging others to provide ANY evidence of a non-religious people who have exhibited damaging behaviour he is clearly infering that ALL such ills can be put down to religion.I responded to this inference and also provided a couple of specific examples (as per requested).It isn't really all that hard to follow, and i hope that this has clarified things for you. posted 12/09/2007 at 08:36:46
No it isn't.Gallstone asked for specifics for non-religious people who had exhidited damaging behaviour, and I provided some examples (Stalin and Moa).As for not addressing YOUR statement, i wasn't replying to your post , i was replying to gallstones.posted 12/06/2007 at 08:54:09
In fact follow the ridiculous notion of ancestral claims to its logical conclusion and the entire human race should move back to Africa. posted 12/05/2007 at 18:13:49
Here is a link to 51 examples http://www.wrmea.com/archives/Sept_2004/0409086.htmlAlso the notion that EUROPEAN Jews had the right to ethnically cleanse Palestine in order to create a homeland because apparently their ancestors owned it a few thousand years ago is beyond feeble.If we followed the notion that peoples are allowed to destroy and displace existing populations on the basis of ancient historic claims then.The English could cleanse Germany on the grounds that they are of largely Anglo-Saxon heritage.The native peoples of the Americas ,Australia and New Zealand could purge those lands of anyone of European origin (all these peoples were robbed of their land FAR more recently than the Jews left Palestine).The list goes on.And you appear to be a bit MIXED UP about what constitutes an Arab.Many Arabs have little genetic Arabian heritage, and many (in fact most) of those living outside of Arabia are far more closely related to the pre-conquest populations of those areas than they are to the Arabian Arabs.Just as many European Jews (and Zionism was entirely the creation of EUROPEAN Jews) are of predominantly European heritage.posted 12/05/2007 at 18:11:16
Arabs co-operated because Jews were already colonising Palestine and had been doing so since the Ottoman empire (although in far smaller numbers than during and after the war).This doesn't justify the collaboration but it DOES explain it.Also several Zionist leaders are knows to have collaborated with the nazis as well.Enough said indeed.posted 12/05/2007 at 03:39:00
Ime an Agnostic, but even i would have to admit that not all the ills im the world have come from religion (though many certainly have).As for specifics pretty much any totalitarian communist leader would fit the bill (Stalin Mao).posted 12/05/2007 at 03:09:37
"The Golden Compass" Faces Religious Uproar
I would just like to point at that there were originally a number of other remarks between my comments (though these have subsequently been removed).Therefore regardless of how it may seem i have not been talking to myself....have i Sprinkle.No Sprinkle you havn't.Thanks you Sprinkle. posted 12/09/2007 at 08:47:04
As for the lack of Atheist (and Agnostics such as myself) in the world, are you aware that there were virtually no Atheists at all 300 years ago (Deism was about as far as peaple were generally willing to go).Now there are millions, and the numbers are increasing in most Western (and some non-western) countries. posted 12/04/2007 at 14:29:16
It doesn't help in the slightest.If something cannot be quantified or tested in any reliable manner then all you are left with is wishful thinking.However long such thinking survives will not effect what is one iota.For hundereds of thoasands of years our ancestors were not aware that the sun was a massive fire ball of Hydrogen and Helium.They came up with myriad explanations for what they thought it may be.Those speculations however did nothing to change the composition of the sun, nor would they ever do so no matter how long people chose to cling to such beliefs.Belief does not define reality, no matter how much people may wish it did, and for however long they hold such desires.Indeed the universe does not require us to understand it at all in order to keep functioning perfectly well. posted 12/04/2007 at 14:24:31
You STILL haven"t read what i actually said.I will repeat it."As to why (or how) there is such a thing as the universe(or possibly multiverse) , who knows. But I can't say that any specific religious text I have read has anything particularly productive to add to that discussion."I am not entirely closed to the possibility that existence (at least in such limited terms as we can comprehend it) is a consequence of intent (although that does leed to the who created the creator problem).However I do not believe that any of the (man made) religions we have on Earth are even remotely close to explaining the true nature of the universe (if indeed it even has one).posted 12/03/2007 at 13:38:03
The Jewish calendar is a religious construct whose start date is set to coincide with the religious date of creation (i.e it is a reference date).There is no evidence whatsoever that Jews were actually using this calendar 6000 years ago (or anywhere close to that long ago).As for the remains of temples, or records of specific individuals ,so what.There is FAR better evidence of Egyptian temples and historic individuals than there is for ancient Jewish ones.Does this in any way validate the ancient Egyptian faith. Of course not. Why would it.As for surviving for a long time. Again so what. Longevity does not mean credibility.posted 12/03/2007 at 13:25:30
Another (potentially)false assumption(you really need to try harder).The idea of the laws of the universe being written (therefore implying the need for a writer) is entirely an assumption on your part.If you had bothered to actually read (and moreso understand if that is within your capacity) my post you will see that I clearly stated that the underlying reason for existence is NOT something for which I claim to have an answer.However GIVEN THAT the universe exists (as it DEMONSTRABLY does) its inherent properties are such that the development of planets stars and ultimately life are entirely explainable without the need for some sky god to directly set them in motion.And the fact that a trillion to one chance may well come true with a trillion chances does not require any "magic, although it does require a rudimentary understanding of probabilitiesposted 12/02/2007 at 20:07:37
Your estimate of 5000 years is WAY off the mark.Christianity has been around for barely two thousand yeas. Islam even less.At most Judaism is about 3500 years old (though it is probably FAR less, certainly in any recognisable form).The religion of the ancient Egyptians continued for 3000 years, largely consistently.That didn't make it correct and it died out anyway.The religious beliefs of the indigenous people of the Americas may well have lasted for far longer (due to their relative isolation).They still died out though.Longevity is no guarantee of authenticity, it never has been no matter how much people may WANT it to be true.That desire for validity may however cause them to continue to believe regardless, which of course is entirely their choice.posted 12/02/2007 at 19:51:33
The ancient Egyptians were (most of the time) polytheistic, and i don't think there are any atrocities in their past that are any worse that what has been done in the name of Judaism, Christianity or Islam.Are Hindus any more violant than jews, christians or muslims. posted 12/02/2007 at 13:59:41
Another false conclusion.Just because something is popular or "widely studied" that doesn't automatically validate it either.posted 12/02/2007 at 13:48:16
"Where are the large scale protests" I wasn't implying that i expected there would be protests.I was simply stating that i am genuinely curious as to how other Catholic parts of the world woulod recieve the film."What kind of Catholics do you have in the U.S?"Don't ask me . Ime not from there.posted 12/02/2007 at 08:55:26
If there are a trillion planets in the universe and a trillion to one chance of life evolving on one then no miracle is required.In any case your assertion that the world created itself is confused.No one is claiming there was an act of creation (which implies the existence of a creator).The world formed and developed in accordance with the measurable properties of the universe, inasmuch as they are currently known.Therefore given that the universe exists and functions in accordance with these measurable properties (its contents, and the physical laws that govern how they interact), then no godly interference is required to explain the development of life (although a great deal of time is needed for it to develop).As to why(or how) there is such a thing as the universe(or possibly multiverse) , who knows. But I can't say that any specific religious text I have read has anything particularly productive to add to that discussion.posted 12/02/2007 at 07:24:06
The Lord of the rings and war and peace are both extremely widely printed texts.That doesn't in any way help validate them as being true. posted 12/02/2007 at 07:11:17
Even if it is a bad adaptation.You would watch it repeatedly purely because it annoys religious people.Why?posted 12/02/2007 at 06:49:33
I must admit that i am somewhat curious as to how the film will be recieved in more Catholiic parts of the world, such as South America and parts of central and eastern Europe.Will therealso be large scale protests or will they just largely ignore it. posted 12/02/2007 at 06:45:10
You make some interesting points about the links between Zoroastrianism and Judaism/Christianity.An addition would be the wise men (there may or may not have been three of them) who are generally considered to have been Zoroastrian magi.However Zoroastrianism is not the only religion that is thought to have had an influence on the Abrahamic faiths.Many bible stories have a striking similarity to Mesopotamian myths, for instance there is a great flood in the Uruk epic Gilgamesh.And also the first Monotheistic(or monotheistic-ish) religion is often credited as Atenism, the religion of the heretic Egyptian king Akhenaten,The 'Great Hymn to the Aten' bears an uncanny similarity to psalm 104 for instance, and the proximity of Egypt to Caanan has led some historians (and also Siegmund Freud) to speculate that Atenism may have had an influence on early Judaism.posted 12/02/2007 at 06:12:02
Israelis And Palestinians Agree To Re-Launch Negotiation Talks For First Time In 7 Years
The war was HOW it was stolen.posted 11/28/2007 at 16:50:00
Archbishop Of Canterbury: 'US Is Worse Than The British Empire At Its Peak'
As for 'saving our ass' in world war 2 , the Russians actually did FAR more to defeat Nazi Germany than all the other allies combined. (when the British and Americans were advancing into Normandy 80 percent of the German army were fighting on the Eastern front)Though i for one am glad that we did not feel indebted to that Communist fuckwit Stalin for it.In any case i suspect you have been watching far to many Hollywood movies.posted 11/25/2007 at 19:23:01
'I sure appreciate the fact that Dr. Williams can openly criticise American imperialism, even if it is to make Britons feel better.'In what way is this going to make us Brits feel better.Our beloved leader (by which i mean that worthless toss pot Blair) committed us all in to this disaster.Which means that we are as responsible as you are for the disastrous consequences.And in his defence the Archbishop DID object to the war from the start.posted 11/25/2007 at 19:07:12
Killed as i recall by the colonists. posted 11/25/2007 at 19:01:40
The Glorious American revolutionaries strung up priests in trees as a message to any doubters.Neutrality is not an option.Most of the Noble revolutionary leaders were slave owners, and almost all approved of further expansion into native territory.The majority of the actual INDIGINOUS population sided with the "Nasty evil (tweak moustache menacingly) British".And with good reason.Perhapd YOU need to read some history.And please not that history and mythology (all that noble revolutionaries crap you have been feeding yourselves for the last 240 odd years) are NOT the same thing.posted 11/25/2007 at 18:57:15
This is NOT the first time he has criticised the war. posted 11/25/2007 at 18:50:08
The US instigated the war of 1812 (albeit arguably under provocation) and then attacked Canada and failed utterly to achieve ANY of its pre-war objectives.The US was partially successful in resisting the British counter offensive.It defended Baltamore and New Orleans but was defeated in Washington and Maine (the ONLY large tract of land successfully captured and held during the war was Maine captured by the British).The US then claimed a great victory.Quite why remains somewhat baffling to any impartial observer.posted 11/25/2007 at 18:39:36
Far more Brits are moving away from organised religion altogether than are moving to Islam.If there is a threat to Christian Britain then it comes from Atheism and Agnosticism, NOT Islam.posted 11/25/2007 at 18:32:45
Ha ha.As a Brit i can assure you that the VAST MAJORITY of newspapers here have a strong conservative bias (half of them are owned by Rupert Murdoch).The TV news however is somewhat less biased.posted 11/25/2007 at 18:22:49
A lot of pretty revolting things have been done in the name of Religion , but to say that ALL religious people are either ignorant superstitious assholes or closeted fascistic control freaks. I don"t recall Buddha running around consolidating his power base. and what about 'turn the other cheek' or 'do unto others as you would have them do to you'.I am not personally a practising religious person (i am a hard leaning agnostic), but i can nonetheless admire SOME religious ideals.posted 11/25/2007 at 18:07:56
The British took control of Palestin after the defeat of the Ottaoman empire (fairly late in the British Empire).They didn't particullaly want it (there sure as hell wasn't any profit to be made) and ended up acepting the principle of creating a Jewish homeland within it (aftere huge pressure from the US and despite the fact that this was against the clear wishes of the vast majority of people actually living there).When things turned nast the British effectively decided it wasn't worth the bother and left.The mass starvation of ther Irish came about due to the potato blight which the British were cerainly not responsible for creating.Irish resentment of Britain during this period is due to the Irish belief that the British did not do enopugh to help Ireland after the blight struck. On this count they have a very good case.Whilst the British certainly commited some pretty brutal acts against the (Catholic)Irish, at no point was their ever any attempt to 'wipe them out'.posted 11/25/2007 at 18:00:51
Mr Queen (Prince Phillip - who whatever you think of him is always good for a laugh - albeit frequently laughing at the unbelievable things he says) is of largely Greek ancestry. posted 11/25/2007 at 17:51:02
Some of us who really DID read histoey are aware that the government in mainland Britain was constantly making efforts to rain in the abuses that the colonists visited upon the native populations.The British empire was a bloated often insensitive ,and inherently aragont entity, but the worst atrocities that were visited upon the lands it colonised were invariably commited by the dear old colonists themselves.You may want to ask yourself why the majority of natives during the US war of independance and the 1812 war fought on the British side.It WASN'T because the 'poor dumb savages' didn't understand what was at stake.In fact it was because they DID. posted 11/25/2007 at 17:18:04
Dickipedia: The Pilgrims
Don't you feel that maybe (just maybe) your taking this all just a little too seriously.posted 11/24/2007 at 06:30:43
Dear Mr. Dershowitz...
A fair point, but just the once would have been OK. posted 11/18/2007 at 13:49:37
As for your first comment, that's the point that you're missing.Have you actually read my points.My FIRST POINT simply highlights the shear idiocy of you attempting to compare a surgeon cutting (implying that cutting isn"t necessarily always bad) someone to the possibility that maybe torture isn"t always bad either. It was and remains a wholly idiotic and fatuous false analogy.It seems pretty clear to me that you haven't read Alan's suggestionHow would you know seeing as I have not commented directly on what Dershowitz said.I merely criticised your wholly facile false analogy and made a broad statement as to how torturers the world over invariably believe the people they are torturing deserve it.But if the intentions are RIGHT, if that terrible person's human rights are being violated to PROTECT THE HUMAN RIGHTS OF OTHERS.Again who gets to define when the intentions are right. A Palestinian or Basque separatist or IRA bomber may feel that their intentions are wholly right as they are acting on behalf of a brutalised defenceless people facing ongoing persecution, that is they are acting to help secure the long term HUMAN RIGHTS OF THEIR FELLOW CITIZENS against their oppressor.That may not be your (or mine for that matter) view, but that"s the whole point.Once you can justify committing any barbaric act on the grounds that it is in THE best interests (by which you invariably actually mean YOUR best interests), then why cant everyone else do the same.posted 11/18/2007 at 13:47:13
So let me ask you. It's wrong to cut people, right?This argument is beyond idiotic.Cutting someone to help save their life(or cure them of some disease) is clearly in the best interests of that individual, and is presumabely being done with their full consent.The same thing hardly applies to torture.unbridled, unregulated torture against people who don't deserve it is wrong and illegal.Really, and who exactly gets to determine who deserves it. I have no doubt that most torturers believe the people they are torturing deserve it.posted 11/18/2007 at 06:39:30
Alan Dershowitz Supports Torture
Alan Dershowitz supports torture.More breaking news just in: apparently the pope is a catholic. posted 11/17/2007 at 15:53:30
Alan Dershowitz: Was He Against Nazi Practices Before He Was for Them?
But no-one, NO-ONE - not even Stalin, who tried really hard - can remotely compare with the murderous barbarism of the Nazis.Really, then i guess you have never heard of the Monguls (Hulagus sacking of Baghdad alone may have killed as many as a million peaple, and at a time when the population of the world was VASTLY smaller than it is today), or the Huns, or even the good old Crusaders for that matter.The sad fact is that history is replete with thugs who would have no problem slaughtering their enemys to the last man , woman and child.All of whom would have been only to happy to exploit the industrialised methods of slaughter that were available to the Nazis.Of corse the Holocaust was obsene, but it was NOT unique (how many millions died as a result of European colonialism in the Americas for example - and why no Holocaust memorials to that?).To delude ourselves into thinking so, is to delude ourselves into thinking that such a thing could not happen again. posted 11/12/2007 at 15:15:27
US Sanctions Against Iran Mark Return To Unilateralism
Closely related to Kurdish. posted 10/26/2007 at 09:19:04
A little unfair on gypsys don't you think. posted 10/26/2007 at 09:06:50
Turkey Approves Sending Troops Into Iraq
"Turkey is a government that does not respect Human Rights and decency, they tried to wipe a civilization off the planet in their past."No they didn't. There was no such country as Turkey at the time of the Armenian Killings. posted 10/17/2007 at 17:11:47
"Isn't it sad for poor little Turkey they can't be the Ethnic Cleansers that they were once were." Actually Turkey didn't even exist at the time of the Armenian ethnic cleansing.posted 10/17/2007 at 17:09:54
5 Myths About "Sick Old Europe"
Iâ????m not 'cherry picking' anything.I have simply listed the top 20 countries by GDP per capita.The fact that 6 out of all EU countries are above the US clearly shows that the rest are not.You should also take into account however that some of the eastern European countries are post-communist states whose economies are very much on the rise.Does this mean that the EU GDP will rise to the level of the US, probably not(at least in the foreseeable future), but it will rise.posted 10/12/2007 at 21:44:23
The data is the 2006 listing for the IMF (International Monetary Fund) posted 10/12/2007 at 21:37:08
I live in England, and I can tell you that the trains here are anything but awesome.posted 10/12/2007 at 20:59:16
Just to add to the debate, below are the top 20 countries in GDP per capita (in dollars).14 are European.2 are North American.2 are from the Middle East1 is from East Asia 1 is from Oceana1 Luxembourg 87,955 2005 2 Norway 72,306 2005 3 Qatar 62,914 2005 4 Iceland 54,858 2005 5 Ireland 52,440 2005 6 Switzerland 51,771 2006 7 Denmark 50,965 2005 8 United States 44,190 2006 9 Sweden 42,383 2006 10 Netherlands 40,571 2006 11 Finland 40,197 2005 12 United Kingdom 39,213 2005 13 Austria 38,961 2006 14 Canada 38,951 2006 15 Belgium 37,214 2006 16 Australia 36,553 2004 17 France 35,404 2006 18 Germany 35,204 2006 19 Japan 34,188 2005 20 United Arab Emirates 33,397 2003 posted 10/12/2007 at 09:53:40
Ann Coulter Thinks That Jews Need to be Perfected by Becoming Christians
Perhaps her Bible had a spelling mistake.Thou shalt Loathe thy neighbour. posted 10/10/2007 at 21:53:55
Ann Coulter was actually saying that all Americans would be better off as christians, not just Jews.To some extent the interviewer was trying to specifically turn this into an anti-semitism issue, when in fact its clear that Coulter seams to have an equal contempt for all non-Christians.