No, "we atheists" are not all the same - but we agree on one thing: there is no mystical invisible 'God', any more than there is a tooth fairy.

Just as you might say "we Christians", while acknowledging that there is a rather large difference between Ian Paisley, the Pope and Dolly Parton.

Why would you presume that I might say 'we christians' But of course you're presuming that I am one.

See, that's the problem with 'you atheists' (you've given me that licence) - you just can't comprehend that which transgresses your own dogma as much as any other evangelist...

I'm a deist more than anything, but don't let that bother you too much. Yet.

Arnaud, clearly there are strong and weak atheists. An agnostic is not sure, they don't know. An atheist is weak or strong depending on where they place the burden of proof. If I say that there positively is no God then I am a strong atheist. If I say there is no evidence for God and so for the time being we have to assume that there is no God, I am clearly not an agnostic, but then I am not a strong atheist either. If not as a weak atheist how would you describe that position?

Not that I would say such things. It is not that the Invisible Pink Unicorn (peace upon Her Holy Hooves) would make me burn in Hell forever but it might hurt Her feelings and make Her cry. Wouldn't want to do that.

Benjamin, your pink unicorn (or Russell's Teapot or the Flying Spaghetti Monster...) rather makes my point for me. "There is a god" and "There is no god" are not logical equivalents. The burden of proof resides with the theists who are making a positive statement.

That's why Fruity is wrong with his strong atheists "who positively believe there is no god; and "weak atheists" who neither positively believe in a god's existence or non-existence." Atheism is not a positive belief and this sentence makes no sense. Atheists don't "believe that's there is no god" because that would be a positive statement, a belief. Atheists don't believe in (the unproven positive statement of) God's existence.

Let me re-phrase that another way: an atheist, presented with a definitive proof of god's existence, if s/he is to be logical, would have no choice but to believe. It wouldn't matter if s/he was a strong or weak atheist. We all (atheists) don't believe in god, pending proof to the contrary. We are all weak atheists (or insane).

Hell, even Dawkins (nobody's idea of a retiring atheist) said that he was only 95% sure of the non-existence of god.

Sorry if I go on a bit but this really get my goat (as I think the expression is) because this false distinction is usually used as a premise to the "atheists are people of faith too" argument and then there is no rescuing the conversation.

Faceless - "we atheists" - atheists simply dismiss religious hogwash because the religious and the spiritual are unable to provide any shred of evidence to back up their fantastic claims. This is a very simple and very reasonable premise that atheists accept. Not sure what your difficulty with this is though.

faceless: "See, that's the problem with 'you atheists' (you've given me that licence) - you just can't comprehend that which transgresses your own dogma as much as any other evangelist..."

You mean, if us atheists demand proof of god, then we are dogmatic? That somehow rationality and irrationality have now become equivalent? If I ask for proof, then what is it exactly that I am "transgressing"?

You are a deist? You mean you believe in gibberish with absolutely no evidence - carrying a closed mind? Not something to be proud of, I would say.

Invisible Pink Unicorn... Sorry, will try to remember in the future!

It's all right Benjamin, it's a well known fact that nobody has ever convinced anybody of anything in the comment thread of a blog. Must be something to do with the format. As for Galloway, you seem to expect too much of him when you assume a limited imagination. IMO Galloway is a good illustration of a strong atheist (hum! If such a thing could exist obviously...): he doesn't believe in anything but is ready to jump on any horse that looks likely to carry him that little bit further.

Mostafa, the problem in arguing with deists is that they won't accept the need for proof and with good reason. I mean, not only would they need to prove the existence of god, they would also need to prove he is the particular god they worship, and not the one the other sect across the road insist we need to kneel to. Oh and yes! After that they would have to convince us to somehow manage to love the unsavoury character...

'The only place militant atheists have tried to silence religion is in the Soviet Union'
I think you will find it was a few more countries than that, Johann!
Why do you feel the need to be so rude and contemptuous? Many religious people are not fundamentalists, stupid, or homophobic. So why go on about 'tooth fairies'? It suggests you are not a very tolerant person yourself.

Sorry Johann, but this is really scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Why are 'left wing' and 'athiest' synonyms? Why is opposing the evil of abortion theocratic?

I don't know how you passed philosophy when you have no ability to decenter, but you are turning into AC Grayling, a philosopher who can only feel happy by calling people 'imbecilic' if they disagree with you.

This kind of hate speech has appeared on Harrys Place calling for your slaughter.

So far unopposed. A bunch of hypocritical cretins seem to have no problem with the words of "Mike".

http://hurryupharry.bloghouse.net/archives/2007/12/08/zionist_conspiracies_at_your_fingertips.php

The folks at Harrys Place have since removed the comments and also my own complaint about them calling for your slaughter. They had been up there for hours, however, and this cosmetic removal of them only came about after I put a complaint in.

I think these comments must still exist somewhere and the fact that regular posters had seemingly allowed them to go unchallenged is a good enough reason for you to take this further.

Excellent points about Watson, Gregor, but Hari's silence isn't surprising: he has an irrational faith of his own and is far more superstitious and bigoted than most of the believers he condemns. Remember that homophobes are really repressed homosexuals, which means that theophobes are really repressed theists. Dawkins is Pope of the repressed religion in which Hari is a cardinal.

Mostafa - I'm no theologist, but there are religious people who believe that god refers to an omnipotent, omni-present, unknowable, unobservable deity. I'm not really sure what you are getting at when you say it's "meaningless", sorry.

Arnaud - I'm sorry if my distinction between weak atheism and strong athiesm wasn't quite accurate and muddied things a bit - Benjamin Kirby put it better than I did. There are some self-described atheists who say a god doesn't exist, and there are others who say there is no reason to believe in a god's existence. The latter seems to me to be a scientifically sound position, the former does not. You said: "Atheists do not believe in the existence of god. That is the very definition of the word. If you cannot make your mind up about god's existence or non-existence, you are an agnostic." What I was trying to say was that people who have no opinion on whether or not a god exists - "neither positively believe nor positively disbelieve" - still "do not believe in the existence of a god", and so may describe themselves as weak atheists. The reason I made the point in the first place was because I have seen the terms "agnostic" and "weak atheist" used in different ways, and so I there might be self-described atheists who thought Johann's statement did not apply to them.

Well, I have encountered people with "strong atheist" views, but I take your point that they are used by some theists to mischaracterise reasonable scientific views. My problem was the Johann's comment was on the strong side, saying that "we atheists" "agree that there is no mystical invisible god" rather than that "there is no evidence for a mystical invisible god and thus no reason to believe in one". I think virtually all atheists agree with the latter, but I think quite a lot wouldn't necessarily agree with the positive assertion of the former.

Amaud: Barrowboy - so, by your "reasoning", gay people who protest against homophobia are actually only repressed homophobes?
---

Not my reasoning: Hari's own. Homophobes, he proclaims, are repressed homosexuals, secretly attracted to what they rail against. Which means his militant atheism must be proof of his secret attraction to theism.

---
Gregor, Watson was wrong. It also happens to Nobel prizes, you know. That's why nobody was defending him but the incurable racists...
---

Yes, those incurable racists who put people from other races above themselves in IQ: if blacks come below whites, East Asians come above. They're obviously not rigging their pseudo-science properly. You, just as obviously, know nothing on the topic, but when did knowledge ever matter to someone who has anti-racist dogma on his side?

Your point is exactly right, cath.

Indeed, Hari starts with a most bizarre thesis – 'Galloway drifting towards religious fundamentalism' – which he subsequently fails woefully to substantiate.

He throws in Galloway's opposition to “abortion rights”, as though that helps qualify Galloway as a 'religious fundamentalist'. (Actually, Galloway's position on abortion is more subtle than that with which Hari wants to characterise him.)

Hari is either ignorant of the fall-out between Respect and the SWP, or he is a brazen liar. It has nothing to do with Galloway's affinity (alleged by Hari, in his desperation to make the case) for religious fundamentalism. A large contingent within Respect, which happens to include Galloway, resent the SWP's attempts at hijacking this very successful movement for its own purpose of spouting puritanical hard-left ideology, which, Galloway correctly asserts, will only alienate many ordinary people who are sympathetic towards Respect's anti-war, anti-capitalist, pro-green messages.

Hari's quote from Galloway's radio show actually suggests that Galloway's faith stems from mature reflection – Galloway finds the wonders of nature too incredible to be purely accident and not the result of some intelligent design. One may or may not feel the same way as Galloway about that. Hari clearly does not; but, displaying the very imbecility that he ascribes to Galloway, Hari leaps crazily from Galloway's reasonable position to the conclusion that Galloway is therefore as religiously mad as Bush and the Ayatollahs (even if that were true, Hari's piece is an embarrassingly pathetic attempt to make the case).

And what an incredibly stupid question to end on (from someone who is accusing others of imbecility!): “Is there anyone left who still thinks George Galloway is a left-wing politician?”

Well, anyone who is not an imbecile (and who bothers to check their facts about Galloway rather than indulge in nonsensical smears against him) knows that Galloway is incontrovertibly left-wing: he is constantly spouting anti-war, anti-capitalist, pro-unions, pro-green arguments.

Indeed, Galloway's 'left-wing' credentials are far superior to those of Hari, who offered 'the same imbecile ignorance as George Bush' by arguing to support bombing and invasion of Iraq. If Hari (and Oona King) had some integrity, he would devote the bulk of his time to identifying and writing about those most culpable for this massive war-crime, because he, after all, bears some of the responsibility. Instead he tries to smear someone, genuinely of the Left, who was absolutely right about Iraq. Instead he (and Oona King) choose to campaign on some other disaster (The Congo) for which he bears zero responsibility

Hari has a problem with Galloway; he is repulsed by the man; and he hates that so many people actually seem to think the man honourable.

Sorry Angela but exactly how did Motorolla get guns to the Congom, force them into the hands of innocent Africans and make them shoot each other? Responsible in exactly what sense? In the sense that there is some distant but vague connection between the people who made my Mobile phone and some nasty people in Africa who, in their hurry to hack each other to bits, are busy aquiring weapons by whatever means necessary including sell raw materials to middle men?

Fruity: 'I'm no theologist'
No, you are no theologian.

Gregor says "I can't help but notice that liberal humanists (which I think is a more accurate term than 'militant athiests') do not refer to peer reviewed literature or competing statistics, but just say that intelligence testing is a flawed science."

Do some reading! There are dozens of academic books by liberal humanists (with yes references!) that show precisely how IQ tests are horeshit. It's really not hard to find them...

Here we are: "the religious nature of liberal humanists". Sorry cannot see it! Do "liberal humanists" fall on their knees every evening (or morning or 5 times a day or whatever) to pray to a liberal humanist deity? Do they believe they'll go to liberal humanist heaven once they die? Do they have a liberal humanist Holy Book which everybody must respect? Do they congregate in churches or temples to sing the praise of their liberal humanist deity?

Like f... they do!

It seems to be very difficult for people who spent their life on their knees to realize that some of us have been standing all along...

And yes, I was wondering when John Gray would make his apparition in this thread. I could smell his nefarious influence a few posts back.

Now think about this, Gregor: a few years ago, you would have described Watson (as the discoverer of DNA and an "evolutionist") as one of these icons of humanism we supposedly revere and kneel toward. Now you accuse of dogmatism because we don't stick with him through whatever stupidity he utters?

Now, if you want references on Watson on the web here are a few (you would have found them if you could have been bothered and weren't to make a gratuitous assertion):

A (forceful but argumented) refutation of Watson:
http://gregladen.com/wordpress/?p=1535

Why the Bell Curve is bunk:
http://scienceblogs.com/mikethemadbiologist/2007/12/the_bell_curve_great_minds_thi.php

How intelligent people say stupid things:
http://scienceblogs.com/islandofdoubt/2007/10/the_inevitability_of_stupidity.php

(I really recommend scienceblogs by the way, not to Gregor, he's obviously beyond help but to anybody with a genuine interest in sciences)

Rippon - Angela already answered your point about Galloway's creationism:

"You also say there's no evidence Galloway is a creationist by just picking out one sentence, the one about his baby. You ignore the next part: "I’m not really prepared to believe that from the bottom-dwelling slugs of the pond came the voice of Pavarotti. I’m not really prepared to believe that Albert Einstein and a spider are really the same thing, that they just took a different evolutionary path."

That is explicit creationism. He is saying species were created separately, and do no belong to part of the same evolutionary origins. "

As for character assassination what is you own entire post but such a c.a. of Hari? At least Johann made is mea culpa about Iraq and it is unlikely that he supported the war out of self interest. What about such an apology from George "I salute your strength and indefatigably" Galloway?

Or how about an apology to his constituents of BG&B for his piss-poor attendance record?

See:
http://tinyurl.com/2oavms

Has voted in 12% of all votes in Parliament...

Arnaud (and Angela),

If Galloway says,

"I’m not really prepared to believe that from the bottom-dwelling slugs of the pond came the voice of Pavarotti. I’m not really prepared to believe that Albert Einstein and a spider are really the same thing, that they just took a different evolutionary path."

then what's wrong with that?

It's not unreasonable for Galloway, or anyone, to feel that way if they choose.

The problem with Hari is that, in pursuing his shallow transparent desperate agenda against Galloway, he argues:
Galloway said that stuff (about Einstein and spiders), so now I can label him 'creationist'. Bush is also creationist, and Bush is an imbecile, and the Ayatollahs are also imbeciles. Therefore I can now characterise Galloway as being an imbecile too, out of the same mould as Bush and the Ayatollahs.

Galloway may or may not be an imbecile. My point is that this crass, failed attempt at a logical argument does Hari no credit, which is a shame considering how high the quality of his pieces usually is. This is my point: When it comes to Galloway, the quality of Hari's argument and analysis goes to pot.

I never commented on whether or not Galloway is a 'creationist'. The question is not worthy of consideration; my point is that, despite that, Hari chooses to raise the question anyway and decide against Galloway because that suits Hari's agenda of disparaging Galloway on any grounds he can dredge-up.

Hari, and many others (e.g. you, Arnaud) have already flogged for its worth (not actually worth very much) the tired old 'courage, indefatigability' quote. Now, Galloway says that that praise was about the Iraqi people and not Saddam (who he regards as a mass-murdering criminal), but you're welcome to argue the toss about whether Galloway is being disingenuous in that. Again, though, it's not a question worthy of consideration in the light of the massive crimes others – e.g. Blair and his cronies – have incontrovertibly committed, initially supported by Hari before his generous “mea culpa”. Moreover, it's not relevant anyway because Hari does not actually raise that old chestnut himself (on this occasion – he has in the past, like all clichéd Galloway-bashers).

Interestingly, on a recent Question Time, Francis Maude did raise that old chestnut and the silent response from the audience illustrated how disinterested people are in the spurious charge that Galloway was a supporter of Saddam. (Even if the charge were valid, it bears no relation to the current debate about who is culpable for the holocaust-proportions disaster of today's Iraq.) By contrast, audiences are far from silent when Galloway makes the charge of Blair being a lackey of American power and a war criminal.

Yes, Arnaud, you can raise the question of Galloway's attendance and voting record in parliament if you like. (Galloway does actually deal with this question – along the lines, I think, that it is more worthwhile for him to reach people directly because parliament is so disconnected from the people; whether he deals with it to your satisfaction is a separate question.) Again, though, it's not a question Hari raised so, again, it's not really relevant to discussion of Hari's article. Indeed, like I said previously, no one in this forum (except me) is really talking much, or at all, about the quality/validity of Hari's article, or even about the subject of Hari's article – Galloway.

I agree with you, Arnaud, that Hari did not support the war out of self-interest. No, he supported the war out of his imbecility (the mud he tries, but fails, to stick on Galloway). Millions of people, including some with much higher profiles and reputations than Galloway, made exactly the same arguments as Galloway against the war, but Hari took the side of the imbeciles like Bush. It is irrelevant that Hari may not have agreed with Bush's motives; Bush's invasion was the only one on offer; it's not as if Hari could have supported a more 'honourable' invasion; in fact, any invasion, whether led by an imbecile or a genius, would have been illegal.

Here's the really interesting question: Why is Hari even bothering to disparage Galloway? What's the point? Galloway is, after all, pretty much a political non-entity – the one and only MP of his party (Respect), and it doesn't look like they're going to be achieving any more MPs given their internal problems (for which the SWP are responsible).

I think the answer is because Galloway's high-profile (e.g. record-breaking radio show audience figures, Big Brother fame) and the attention, respect and support he receives really grates on Hari. It infuriates him that so many people don't 'recognise' Galloway as the 'crook' Hari believes him to be. It is reminiscent of Christopher Hitchens' obsession with Galloway. Perhaps it bothers both of them that such a 'crass' figure as Galloway so successfully holds his own against all his detractors, or worse, comprehensively trounces their arguments.

They should lighten up and see the funny side: that Galloway uses such 'inappropriate' language and imagery, e.g. “Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!” (challenging radio listeners), 'short-sword gladiator in a den of enemies' (when parrying with parliamentarians who were calling for his suspension). Even some Galloway critics (who completely disagree with him politically) recognise what an important, stimulating, colourful contribution he makes to a political culture which is full of bland, effete, whipped, establishment cronies.

Suggestion to Johann:
Your article was stimulated by what you heard on Galloway's radio show. So why not phone-in to give him a good dressing-down? – take up the gauntlet, “Come and have a go if you think you're hard enough!” – instead of writing a sneaky little article behind his back.

Rippon, GG has a perfect right to reject evolution if he likes, but it is not unreasonable to draw conclusions from his views. GG has been riding two horses for some time - he has a strong constitutency in the Socialist camp and he has another one in the Muslim communities of Britain. So it is not unreasonable to ask which horse he is really riding.

It is not a problem for JH to point out that when GG rejects evolution, he rejects evolution. It follows that he is likely to be a creationist. What is wrong with this? Creationism is a belief held by a lot of people we might ungenerously call imbeciles. Is it unreasonable to suggest that if GG holds a belief held mainly by imbeciles he might be down that end of the Bell Curve himself? More to the point, the issue is not one of imbecility, but of left wing politics. Creationism is hard to reconcile with left wing politics, or even to some extent humane politics in general. So I don't think JH is talking anout imbecility, but rather the nature of GG's politics.

It is not arguing the toss to point out that not only did GG praise Saddam but he has been shifty about it ever since. It goes to the heart of the problems with the man. It is the central issue here. It is entirely worthy of consideration.

It is not a fact to claim that the invasion, whether led by an imbecile or a genius, was illegal. It might have been foolish but it was and is legal.

I love the fact that you think that JH is jealous of the attention GG is getting. JH writes for the Indie. Sorry but what radio station does GG appear on again? What are his ratings? I for one would love to see JH dress up in a cat suit, but somehow I don't think he hasn't because he wasn't offered the chance. Which branch of Respect are you with may I ask? It is foolish to bleat about GG"s catch cry when JH obviously does think he is hard enough, has had a go and now you (and I assume GG behind you) are crying foul. Suck it up.

Oh, God. I normally read the Guardian posts. What are you guys on????

Hi Benjamin Kirby,

You're effectively saying (in your first para) that it is incompatible for GG to have both socialist supporters and Muslim supporters. Well, that's nonsense. Moreover, if it weren't nonsense, then the same could be said of many politicians across the spectrum; so once again, the focus on GG, a very minor politician, is silly (but perhaps revealing).

Regarding 'creationism', perhaps the fault here is mine, in that, I concede, I don't actually know the proper definition of the label (that Hari desperately needs to make stick on GG for his argument to make any sense). But I think it is correct to say that 'creationists' oppose the teaching of evolution in schools and GG doesn't share that view, so, presumably, he can't qualify for the label.

“Creationism is hard to reconcile with left wing politics” you say. So what? Everyone's politics contains tensions, difficult to reconcile. Indeed, that is very much what the art of politics is about. So the significant question is: Why, of all people, are the tensions within GG's politics particularly worthy of scrutiny?

Hari's focus on GG is because he entertains the fantasy that GG scores highly in the hypocrisy stakes.

GG hasn't been “shifty” about the 'support' for Saddam that you allege of him. GG has said very clearly that that praise was for the Iraqi people, not Saddam. Now, it's perfectly understandable that people might reject that statement of GG; but then you should say you reject it (as a lie, perhaps), not that it is “shifty” – the statement itself cannot be any clearer.

The 'heart of the problems with an insignificant politician' are patently not worthy of consideration. The heart of the problems with, say, Gordon Brown, a politician with infinitely more power and influence than GG, patently are worthy of consideration.

We have two competing, but simple, propositions: The bombing and invasion were legal or illegal. Well, my understanding is that the majority opinion from legal experts comes down on the side of 'illegal'. Furthermore, it is reported that there was illegal use of weapons against civilians, e.g. white phosphorous (for burning people from the skin inwards), cluster bombs (for leaving dormant ordnance which explosively amputates civilians who mistakenly step in the wrong places). So yes, Benjamin, the invasion certainly was “foolish”; but, given the horror of the results, your casual choice of that mild adjective (out of the plethora of accurate, damning ones available) illustrates the callous detachment of the terms in which you choose to discuss the invasion.

I said that GG's high profile, and the support he receives (at the expense of Oona King, for example), grates on Hari. You have translated that into my asserting that Hari is “jealous” of GG. Well, that's a completely different proposition, and it's a shame that you mis-characterised it like that. Hari has no reason to be “jealous” of anyone in the world of political discourse; he has an excellent career in the field. Indeed, I rate Hari's contributions very highly (his review of Nick Cohen's recent book, to name just one example off the top of my head). I'm merely asserting that the quality of Hari's work plummets when he gets onto the subject of GG (the reasons for which I have speculated on in my previous posts).

I'm not “crying foul”; I'm merely asserting that Hari has written a crass attack on GG (in stark contrast to his numerous high-quality pieces). I fully support Hari's right to write crap. 'Crying foul' would mean my calling on Hari to retract and apologise. I don't call for that (though I do think, for the sake of integrity, Hari should have checked some facts before going to print). I like good ding-dongs in politics. I would like to hear Hari, and other high-profile detractors of GG, to phone-in to GG's show because that would make it even more interesting. Then GG would have to respond to Hari (indeed, GG himself also likes a good ol' ding-dong – he often boasts that he prioritises critical callers). However, GG is unlikely to respond to Hari as the situation is because it's unlikely that GG gets round to reading all his critics all the time.

You asked about GG's show. The station is called 'talkSport'. You can go to GG's website and/or the talkSport website (both easy to find via Google) to find the details (e.g. days, times) of his shows. GG has said that, over the Xmas-New Year period, he will be doing even more shows than usual (standing in for other presenters, I think). Hari is obviously drawn to the show, so you might be too. (There is one major downside to it, which is that, being commercial radio, the flow is somewhat broken with interminable adverts.)

Angela, I'm sorry I can't answer your question: I don't fully know what 'creationism' is and exactly how it can be decided who qualifies as belonging to the camp. I don't know everyone on the Left, and I've never really discussed 'creationism' with anyone (whether on the Left or not), so I don't know who “supports” it. Actually, as I've said above, GG cannot be said to 'support creationism' (surely), because he doesn't oppose the teaching of evolution in schools.

My essential point is that Hari's desire to label GG as a 'creationist' is a fatuous exercise.