This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

Comments by I'm_not

Go to: Church accused of 'scaremongering'

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 37 by I'm_not

Oh who gives a flying fuck about what the C of E thinks about this or anything else for that matter?

Wed, 13 Jun 2012 00:01:59 UTC | #947135

Go to: Am I over-reacting?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 31 by I'm_not

No you fucking aren't. Go nuclear.

Fri, 11 May 2012 15:59:56 UTC | #941039

Go to: Crows know familiar human voices

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 1 by I'm_not

I know a crow I call George. We have a relationship of sorts but he seems to be in charge of it.

Fri, 11 May 2012 15:56:08 UTC | #941038

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 216 by I'm_not

Comment 215 by Ignorant Amos :

Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

Is it legitimate to take up this issue? Most certainly.

Is it petty to take up the issue? A matter of opinion.

Does it matter what the religion is being espoused? Nope.

Does it matter how long it's been there? Not a jot.

Should we squeeze a pimple to create a huge, disfiguring sore?

Fri, 04 May 2012 15:49:54 UTC | #939688

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 213 by I'm_not

Comment 212 by Marcus Small :

I remember once listening to the Dubliners just before they sang 'The Seven Drunken Nights.

"We were advised against singing this next song in case someone was offended, that person hasn't turned up, so here goes....."

All of this smacks of a kinda of secular blasphemy. Blasphemy laws in the ancient past were nothing like they are today. In the past they served to prevent people breaking taboos which might cause them to incur wrath of God or the Gods. They were intended to protect the would be blasphemer, lest they broke the taboo and the suffered. They were never intended to protect the God/s, they could/ can look after themselves.

Blasphemy laws seem now to be designed to protect the delicate sensibilities of believers. To which my response is, harden up, get a life. Do we really want the right not to be offended.

I don't about you, but it looks to me that FFRF is going round looking for things to be offended by.

Well many a day I've travelled,a hundred miles or more but a cross just being a memorial sure I never saw before....

Fri, 04 May 2012 14:40:33 UTC | #939672

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 211 by I'm_not

Comment 210 by Ignorant Amos :

Comment 207 by I'm_not

This is similar to my argument above ^^ about taking their symbols off them exactly the way they did with pagan symbols. But that isn't what happened with the cross though is it? It was not a previous symbol of beielf.

While you're googling memorials Amos find me an old cathedral NOT loaded with pagan symbols.

I'm not sure what, if anything, that has to do with this situation and your previous assertion that most memorials in the U.K. are adorned with religious imagery.

I think they've shot themselves in the foot, the very prevalence of the cross has rendered it at best banal and possibly a coloquial sign for death or memorial as has been suggested.

That could be argued in court. The problem I have, is that the other side are not defending the cross as such. They are defending the action of the FFRF as an attack on their religion, so that point has become moot. If it was a case of the cross being banal, a coloquial sign for death or memorial, surely replacing it with a non-denominational and neutral symbol would be the favoured position for all involved, given that the thing is falling down anyway?

Now that thought is a true victory isn't it?

Do you think so?

Who cares what the other side are arguing? Take it. Take the symbol of the cross and equate it only with memorial, the way way they took the green man or the christmas tree or the symbols of Eostre. Use their methods against them.

Fri, 04 May 2012 14:24:11 UTC | #939668

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 209 by I'm_not

Comment 208 by Ignorant Amos :

Comment 204 by I'm_not

No my friend, there isn't but maybe there is for common sense and picking your battles sensibly?

Common sense is overrated by all accounts...according to LK and RD anyway. As for picking your battles sensibly... that has already been well addressed in numerous posts, mostly by our U.S. brethren, who are the folk at the sharp end of this debacle and who are having their rights trampled on.

A debacle of their own making, sound and fury amounting to at best nothing (yes, the removal of a 91 year old cross from a car park in Rhode Island does amount to about nothing in my book) and at worst falling into the worst of the opponents propaganda IMHO.

Fri, 04 May 2012 14:09:17 UTC | #939661

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 207 by I'm_not

Comment 206 by Ignorant Amos :

Comment 197 by VrijVlinder

In American and in Mexico a cross means someone died. It is the international symbol of death.

I'm not sure if there is such a thing? The cross might represent death in some cultural societies, but that's because the symbol has been hijacked from the Roman Torture and Execution device. It might even be a misinterpretation of a different word altogether, which wouldn't surprise me in the least.

The word cross comes ultimately from Latin crux, a Roman torture device used for crucifixion, via Old Irish cros. The word was introduced to English in the 10th century as the term for the instrument of the torturous execution of Jesus as described in the New Testament, gradually replacing the earlier word rood.

But it has just been used too much and has become more of a blight issue than a religious issue, the way I see it is quite ugly and does not represent , at least for me , what the war was about.

Imagine if the Romans used the guillotine, or the noose, or the gas chamber? Lovely.

This is similar to my argument above ^^^ about taking their symbols off them exactly the way they did with pagan symbols. While you're googling memorials Amos find me an old cathedral NOT loaded with pagan symbols. I think they've shot themselves in the foot, the very prevalence of the cross has rendered it at best banal and possibly a coloquial sign for death or memorial as has been suggested. Now that thought is a true victory isn't it?

Fri, 04 May 2012 13:35:33 UTC | #939652

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 205 by I'm_not

Comment 200 by veggiemanuk :

Comment 199 by I'm_not :

Comment 196 by AtheistEgbert :

Justice isn't about making people happy, it's about protecting people from harm.

People are failing to see who the real victims are here. The Christians who use their privilege to erect illegal religious monuments are not the victims, they're the people breaking the law.

I agree with what you say in the tense you say it - the present tense. If this was being proposed now I would certainly be against it. However, this happened in the past tense, a long time past.

Like I said above, time does not matter here nor anywhere where the law existed before the incident. In the case of paedophile priests the church uses the passage of time as some sort of defence and suggests that we leave it alone. We here do not accept it, why is it different now?

I replied to you earlier and have removed my reply because i misrepresented your argument. I apologise.

Fri, 04 May 2012 13:09:53 UTC | #939636

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 204 by I'm_not

Comment 203 by Ignorant Amos :

Comment 199 by I'm_not

However, this happened in the past tense, a long time past.

Is there a statute of limitations on the disregarding of, and the contempt shown, for the U.S. constitution I wonder?

No my friend, there isn't but maybe there is for common sense and picking your battles sensibly?

Fri, 04 May 2012 13:08:16 UTC | #939635

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 201 by I'm_not

Comment Removed by Author

Fri, 04 May 2012 12:40:49 UTC | #939629

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 199 by I'm_not

Comment 196 by AtheistEgbert :

Justice isn't about making people happy, it's about protecting people from harm.

People are failing to see who the real victims are here. The Christians who use their privilege to erect illegal religious monuments are not the victims, they're the people breaking the law.

I agree with what you say in the tense you say it - the present tense. If this was being proposed now I would certainly be against it.

However, this happened in the past tense, a long time past.

Fri, 04 May 2012 10:21:47 UTC | #939607

Go to: One in seven thinks end of world is coming

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 32 by I'm_not

Comment 9 by Zeuglodon :

Comment 7 by QuestioningKat

I understand that the Mayans are laughing at us.

They're not the only ones. I'm ROTFL here. You honestly couldn't make this kind of absurdity up if you tried. The Monty Python crew must have made a sketch about doomsayers somewhere...

Will Peter Cook do?

Fri, 04 May 2012 07:09:30 UTC | #939571

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 195 by I'm_not

Comment 181 by Schrodinger's Cat :

Comment 91 by xmaseveeve

I hate the cross. It should go. Maybe this letter was intended as a ridiculous starting point for mediation, with a view to a compromise of removing the cross (which is quite right) but if people seriously want to move a small monument of historical value, for no good reason, then it is too silly. So, Schrodinger's Cat is the voice of reason on this thread.

I'd see myself as a pragmatist first and atheist second. We should not be doing things, or taking any actions, simply because we can do them.......but instead following what I would see as a policy of 'least harm'. By that I mean, will our actions and policies generally make people happier or unhappier. After all, that is all that really matters. The universe is not going to be handing out 'Most dedicated atheist ' medals any time soon......or indeed ever.

Exactly that. I would add to that the mockery we, rightly, heap upon theists of all stripes who bleat about being oppressed and their sensibilities being offended over some peritinent criticism or, more commonly, some overblown, imagined slight, how we laugh, how strong is their belief if they can't even take a cartoon or whatever? Don't you think they are saying exactly the same about this?

Thu, 03 May 2012 23:23:12 UTC | #939470

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 194 by I'm_not

Comment 159 by Ignorant Amos :

Comment 156 by I'm_not

Here in the UK every village, every square, practically every place of learning built before the 60's and many built afterwards has a memorial, most of them containing religious imagery.

Really? Most of them? Images for war memorials in London. That's not my experience.

The large memorials in central London by internationally famous artists hardly reflect the memorials on the High Streets and in the town squares across the rest of the country Amos.

Thu, 03 May 2012 23:13:38 UTC | #939463

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 158 by I'm_not

Comment 157 by AtheistEgbert :

Comment 156 by I'm_not :

Here in the UK every village, every square, practically every place of learning built before the 60's and many built afterwards has a memorial, most of them containing religious imagery. Most local councils will, at Xmas, erect lights, trees, nativity scenes and goodwill messages, often wishing us a Happy Eid, Hanukkah and Christmas in twinkly lights all at tax payers expense and yet we are a far more secular country than the US.

I wonder if, far from religions invading public spaces the opposite has happened and the (largely secular) public have simply usurped the religious symbols for their own ends, robbing them of most, if not all, of their religious meaning in the process.

I'd be furious if someone tried to alter any of the war memorials that dot my part of London. The iconography doesn't offend me, in fact I barely see is religious and suspect that is true of many of my countrymen.

This says nothing about the situation in the US, I admit.

But the UK is not a secular nation, hence no law is broken. But it is still unjustified in forcing religion on people. We've been programmed to be obedient subjects, and that is exactly how we've turned out.

I don't think it's worked though. I literally don't know anyone who goes to church or espouses anything more than the vaguest deism. If their goal was to program us they've failed by any reasonable measure

It is only a thought but if you look at the imagery that christianity stole from paganism, isn't it wholly possible that non-believers can, and perhaps have in the UK, steal their iconography off them? Santa Claus would be an example. Who thinks of him as being a saint in anything but name nowadays?

The Union Flag had three crosses embedded in it but which of us sees it as religious?

Has the ubiquity of the cross in fairly secular settings rendered it all but impotent as a religious symbol? I think it's at least worth considering.

Tue, 01 May 2012 18:36:39 UTC | #938759

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 156 by I'm_not

Here in the UK every village, every square, practically every place of learning built before the 60's and many built afterwards has a memorial, most of them containing religious imagery. Most local councils will, at Xmas, erect lights, trees, nativity scenes and goodwill messages, often wishing us a Happy Eid, Hanukkah and Christmas in twinkly lights all at tax payers expense and yet we are a far more secular country than the US.

I wonder if, far from religions invading public spaces the opposite has happened and the (largely secular) public have simply usurped the religious symbols for their own ends, robbing them of most, if not all, of their religious meaning in the process.

I'd be furious if someone tried to alter any of the war memorials that dot my part of London. The iconography doesn't offend me, in fact I barely see is religious and suspect that is true of many of my countrymen.

This says nothing about the situation in the US, I admit.

Tue, 01 May 2012 17:59:45 UTC | #938749

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 154 by I'm_not

Comment 48 by AtheistEgbert :

Once again religious privilege has infected the mind not only of theists but fellow atheists and self-declared secularists. No one is asking for the elimination of works of art or the destruction of property; what is being asked of is the removal of special religious privileges.

I completely agree and going forward the removal of special religious privelages is exactly what should happen.

Tue, 01 May 2012 16:54:23 UTC | #938729

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 153 by I'm_not

Comment 7 by 78rpm :

Petty? You said "petty?" Hell no! First of all, FFRF is supported by donations, and that is what pays their staff lawyers. No lawyers' pockets are lined by these complaints and suits. Damages requested are token, not the kinds of damage amounts infamous in the US for suits over somebody's hot spilled coffee. Anyway, the real plaintiff is the First Amendment, which plainly forbids this kind of religious overbearing. Fighting to maintain separation of state and church as clearly spelled out in the First Amendment is quite the opposite of petty; it is a necessary undertaking, the distorted view from the other side of the pond by Commenter No. 4 notwithstanding. I fully support the much-needed work FFRF does, and that is why I am a member.

The FFRF does sterling work, I completely agree. I think it is wrong in this case though.

Tue, 01 May 2012 16:48:43 UTC | #938728

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 6 by I'm_not

Comment 5 by Jumped Up Chimpanzee :

Is it any more petty to demand the removal of religious symbols or rituals from public life than to demand that they stay?

Following the recent British court ruling against holding prayers in council meetings, I watched a TV debate where a pro-religious journalist moaned that it was "just so petty" to object to the holding of these prayers. She obviously completely failed to see the hypocrisy of her argument. If it was such an innocuous matter, why did she care so much about it that she made the extraordinary effort to attend a TV debate on the issue.

Either these matters are important, or they are not. But religionists want to play it both ways, to suit their own ends.

I'd say of equal pettiness personally.

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:44:22 UTC | #937825

Go to: Rhode Island cross controversy - legitimate or petty?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 4 by I'm_not

If you give them an inch they take a mile I suppose but America does sure look strange from this side of the pond and from my point of view on this issue. Both sides look weird and make me very uncomfortable. It feels that some organisations and individuals on both sides of the arguement thrive on it while lining lawyers pockets with public money that could be put to far better use for what exactly?

I think it makes atheists look pathetic.

Fri, 27 Apr 2012 21:32:20 UTC | #937822

Go to: Any other former Muslims out there?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by I'm_not

Comment 10 by yuriicide :

That's excellent! Thank you.

Comment 1 by chunkimunki :

Hey. I'm not an ex-muslim myself, but I understand the risk you're taking, given your location. It occurred to me that you're going to need some support. Found this for you. Good luck!

http://atheistuniverse.net/group/middleeasternatheists

I think we should be thanking you. Welcome, your contribution will be most welcome.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 15:54:57 UTC | #937022

Go to: Any other former Muslims out there?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 5 by I'm_not

Posted a link to this post on the facebook page of Kacem El Ghazzali. You may want to look him up. I saw Maryam Namazie mentioned above, she's one of my heroes!

Good luck my friend, you are not alone.

Tue, 24 Apr 2012 02:46:54 UTC | #936891

Go to: Unbelief in the pews

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 57 by I'm_not

Comment 1 by Sean_W :

Hi Mike,

Does social convention trump dogma as a primary reason for church attendance?

I've never understood church attendance unless you're a real believer -in something. If it's not all that goes with Christianity then it's belief in belief.

----//----

BTW, as a pastor you obviously spoke with other pastors from other congregations, and probably a variety of other religious leaders as well: did you guys ever talk about the absurdity of having churches on every corner of the city? Is that something people in the industry acknowledge? I mean if it's a community of believers then surely the people attending church at 3522 Holy Ln could stand to worship with the believers attending service at 3523 Holy Ln -surely.

Simon Amstell the wonderful, nervy, self-obsessed stand-up comedian notes "ONLY HALF OF YOU ARE HERE BECAUSE YOU LIKE ME! The other half have just been dragged along...."

Fri, 20 Apr 2012 23:36:00 UTC | #936138

Go to: Petition: no jail time for birth control

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 26 by I'm_not

Comment 12 by Isaiah40 :

Why is it obvious to the atheist that the morning after pill is right - or that rape is wrong for that matter?

Try reading your namesake, Isiah 13:16 and asking yourself the same question. I can't speak for all atheists, obviously, but I certainly feel on far more solid ethical ground than you who not only subscribes to but derives his username from that pile of violent, misogynistic garbage.

Fri, 13 Apr 2012 15:29:57 UTC | #934431

Go to: Apathetic Atheists: A Forgotten Resource?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 12 by I'm_not

Reason is not the same as secularism is not the same as atheism.

I am a secularist and an atheist and believe I have arrived at this viewpoint through reason and I'm sure that's true of many people who post here but the arrogance of using these terms interchangeably, the arrogance of calling something "The Reason Rally" is frankly beyond my ken and strikes me as very unreasonable and worst still unreasoned.

I don't come here to be challenged, I come here to have my prejudices confirmed and that is an indictment of both myself and here. The same is true of the other websites I suspect most of us drudgingly click through.

There isn't any free thinking going on because there is hardly any thinking at all going on as far as I can see. We take so many things as read and don't, perhaps can't, debate in a truly open and rational way because the viewpoints available to us are so narrow. This is rationalism as a middle-aged, middle class, white, educated, male game and nothing more, with a few exceptions.

I know this site is inevitably going to have that bias because of its host and I mean no insult to Professor Dawkins or the mods by saying that and I know, for example, Freethought blogs worries about its diversity and has some truly wonderful contributors who fall out of that sphere but if "we" (I don't feel like a we and don't understand why others do) can't even persuade others exactly like us, never mind the myriad of diverse individuals who could enliven and enrich our lives and our thoughts and discussions to join us then maybe we have nothing to say of any interest?

Life is short and filled with stuff as the song goes. Maybe this is the wrong stuff, just as much as so much other stuff is.

Let your friends alone. I'm sure they're doing fine.

Thu, 29 Mar 2012 14:24:24 UTC | #931166

Go to: Why Reason Rally?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 30 by I'm_not

Comment 24 by mmurray :

Comment 22 by I'm_not :

I am holding a reason rally of one.

Not a circle jerk of one ?

Would anyone here care to argue that numbers matter more than my reasoning?

You are creating a straw man. Nobody is arguing that "argumentum ad populum" should replace reason.

Michael

OK, I had a vote for the single circle jerk and I won :)

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 11:46:06 UTC | #930140

Go to: Why Reason Rally?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 27 by I'm_not

Comment 24 by mmurray :

Comment 22 by I'm_not :

I am holding a reason rally of one.

Not a circle jerk of one ?

Would anyone here care to argue that numbers matter more than my reasoning?

You are creating a straw man. Nobody is arguing that "argumentum ad populum" should replace reason.

Michael

Aren't they? They have in this very thread and surely by definition that is what a rally is all about? I'd love to see what FTB is crowing by the end of it.

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:17:28 UTC | #930123

Go to: Why Reason Rally?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 25 by I'm_not

Comment 23 by mmurray :

Comment 20 by I'm_not :

This isn't an atheist rally, there are people addressing it, at least by video feed, of a religious persuasion but that isn't the problem. By definition reason works through logical arguement, not through numbers. I don't care how many attend, no one should care how many attend, reason doesn't work that way.

An atheist rally - fine, I'll be there. A socialist rally - fine, I'll be there. A reason rally? it's almost an oxymoron

Is anyone saying that rallies are how reason works ? This is a rally to promote the use of reason. In the US it seems desperately overdue.

Michael

Let's see shall we? How much reason can occur from this thing?

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:04:22 UTC | #930119

Go to: Why Reason Rally?

I'm_not's Avatar Jump to comment 22 by I'm_not

I am holding a reason rally of one. Would anyone here care to argue that numbers matter more than my reasoning?

Sat, 24 Mar 2012 09:00:56 UTC | #930116