Support NeoGAF

[speculawyer]

Have you read my post containing the definitions? Respond on that please. How is weak atheism, atheism?

"Rejects Theism" = Disbelief in existence of deity != belief in nonexistence.

 

[speculawyer]

Refusing to believe something = not believing.

Yes . . YES! Not believing! Exactly!

But that is not the same as believing in the nonexistence of God. It just means not beleiving in some superstitious stuff.

 

[msv]

"Rejects Theism" = Disbelief in existence of deity != belief in nonexistence.

What? Is this the twilight zone?

non-belief in existence of deity = belief in non-existence of deity

 

[msv]

Yes . . YES! Not believing! Exactly!

But that is not the same as believing in the nonexistence of God. It just means not beleiving in some superstitious stuff.

You're confused.

 

[speculawyer]

non-belief in existence of deity = belief in non-existence of deity

No . . . those are not the same. That is what you seem to be missing.

Belief in non-existence would mean believing in something you don't really know.

Not believing in someone's myth (as Christians do for Muslims) is just not making the 'leap of faith' that some people do to believe in something that was never proven.

 

[Azih]

non-belief in existence of deity = belief in non-existence of deity

Not if you've taken a first year course on logic in University.

 

[msv]

Explain

This is more of an issue with linguistics btw. What I'm trying to point out in essence is that weak atheism includes the option of believing in the existence of a god. How is that possible when atheistic? The definition obviously excludes it.

All you're saying by being a weak atheist is that you're ignorant about every and all deities.

 

[Azih]

"I reject religion" is a statement that does not make any claim

"There is no god" is a statement that DOES make a claim

 

[SatelliteOfLove]

Sure is.

Not for his benefit, (islam in a thread subject: Azih flailing wildly to win via semantics proving himself right at...something), but to reiterate my statement: Turkey's not sliding into theocracy. The crucible of the Ottoman Empire's crumbling, the Armenian genocide, etc, made Ataturk's draconian modernization efforts a working system for a new Turkey. The dropping of this infringement is a good thing in a country that has many more pressing problems still festering before it grows again.

 

[msv]

"I reject theism" is a statement that does not make any claim

"There is no god" is a statement that DOES make a claim

I reject theism = I refuse to believe in the existence of deities
If you were to believe in a deity, no matter what deity, you wouldn't reject theism.
So I refuse to believe in the existence of deities = I refuse to believe in the existence of any and all deities

The only way for that to NOT make a claim is to be ignorant about any and all deities. If you knew about them you would be making a claim "i do not believe in this deity" which is essentialy the same as saying "this deity does not exist" unless you feel yourself to be ignorant about the matter.

 

[Azih]

Azih flailing wildly to win via semantics proving himself right at...something

Dude if you've got an issue with what I'm saying then come right out and say what it is. Bringing up the specter of a 'islamo-fascist state system' on this news is pretty paranoid.

 

[Azih]

"I refuse to believe in the existence of any and all deities" does not imply "there are no deities"

 

[msv]

"I refuse to believe in the existence of any and all deities" does not imply "there are no deities"

It does not imply? It doesn't?

im·ply /ɪmˈplaɪ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-plahy] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -plied, -ply·ing. 1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated: His words implied a lack of faith.

"I refuse to believe in the existence of any and all deities" does not imply "I think deities do not exist"? To me this is exactly the same. If it isn't, the entire term atheism is useless in this discussion because it includes people not believing in deities out of ignorance.

 

[msv]

Strong Atheism requires holding a statement that cannot be proven to be true. Weak Atheism does not.

The x-men don't exist. This claim cannot be proven.

 

[Azih]

It does not imply? It doesn't?

There are two definitions of imply. The vague english one. And the precise one used in logic.

im·ply (ĭm-plī') pronunciation
tr.v., -plied, -ply·ing, -plies.

1. To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death

"I refuse to believe in the existence of any and all deities" does not involve by logical necessity "I think deities do not exist"

And yes the same goes for invisible Pink Unicorns. I personally refuse to believe there are invisible Pink Unicorns but I also do not make the statement "Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist" because I have no way of going about disproving their existence.

 

[Atrus]

Giving assent to a restriction of freedom, does not make it any less of one. Especially when it's the only game in town. Suing or not suing has no bearing on this whatsoever.

I have given you equally simple examples that you have ignored time and again.

To wit:
A University that bans head scarves
A University that forces head scarves

Now in both cases there is always a 'choice' of not getting a post secondary education if you don't accept those rules. But what the hell kind of a choice is that?

Who gives a shit what you quantify that choice to be? People make decisions all of the time over a number of quantifications. Some can't afford between University and their standard of living and they make a choice not to go. That does not mean their rights have been violated because Universities have tuition fees.

In the scenario of a uniform the University is NOT banning head scarves. Can you not see the difference between mandating uniforms and selectively banning attire? Two different concepts that manage to achieve the same goal through different means. When the secular government bans attire they are creating a selective bias against a particular group of people, when the university mandates a uniform dress code, it is equitable to all parties that attend.

It's a very simple concept and I hope you comprehend it. Furthermore, your ideas of freedoms have shown to make little sense when applied to the real world. As I've said over and over again, an assent to participate in an institution is not a violation of your rights and freedoms. You have given no support on your end for this demonstrably wrong position and you act as if the institution itself has no rights of its own.

 

[Atrus]

I must reply to this (before reading the entire thread) since a good chunk of my friends are Malaysian: while the country is Muslim by law, the people themselves are very ambivalent about it. The country is going through a lot of growing pains because of Westernization (ie. Sharia and apotasy), but I can tell you upfront that it is more or less secular -- or at least a relatively tolerant Muslim country.

A big reason is because Malaysia is home to a lot of ethnic groups -- especially ethnic Chinese. While everyone is born Muslim in Malaysia, not everyone practices.

I'd say it's a moderate country, perhaps left of just about all other Islamic countries due to the large numbers of ethnic groups and the concept of Islam Hadihari. However, the country has since grown more and more conservative thanks to increasing relations with other Islamic nations like Iran.

I was born and grew up there and I'm half ethnic Malay so I've got firsthand experience with the subject matter.

 

[Chairman Yang]

I wouldn't agree with that. The Abbasid dynasty was progressive and tolerant by a standard that holds up well decently against everything but late 20th Century Western society. The Golden Age of Baghdad was pretty astounding.

And man, when exactly were the Chinese tolerant?

Was life under the Abbasids really that great (I'm actually asking, that's not a rhetorical question)? I know non-Muslims were still second-class citizens, with special legal status, and the occasional crackdown on their places of worship. I know women weren't exactly liberated. I know Persian Muslims weren't exactly equals.

Contrast that with China, where Buddhist, Taoists, Jews, Christians, and Muslims all lived more or less free within the Confucianist framework of society. They didn't have special taxes or lower status (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong). Same with Hindu India, although of course there was the problem of casteism there. These things changed a few hundred years later, but by then the Muslim world had degraded as well.

In technological development, I think most scholars would agree that China and India were ahead of the Muslim world. I know the Abbasids transmitted and expanded on old Greek/Latin works, and I know they diffused knowledge from the East, but I haven't seen evidence that they were ever ahead. Again, feel free to correct me on this.

Europe consisted of xenophobic and arrogant colonial powers until after the World Wars. Islam regressed quite a lot after the Abbasids.

Agreed, but Europe had been making steady progress since, what, the 1400s at least? Even if the Golden Age of the Abbasids was alive until then, they wouldn't have compared favourably after the Renaissance.

 

[speculawyer]

I reject theism = I refuse to believe in the existence of deities

Refuse is not a good word. 'not believe' is better.

If some white-haired apparition were to show up and start performing miracles, then a (weak) atheist would believe. But if some guy ranting on the street says 'repent because this 2000+ year old book says so', they'll continue to not believe. The person just does not believe in something w/o evidence.

 

[msv]

There are two definitions of imply. The vague english one. And the precise one used in logic.

im·ply (ĭm-plī') pronunciation
tr.v., -plied, -ply·ing, -plies.

1. To involve by logical necessity; entail: Life implies growth and death

"I refuse to believe in the existence of any and all deities" does not involve by logical necessity "I think deities do not exist"

And yes the same goes for invisible Pink Unicorns. I personally refuse to believe there are invisible Pink Unicorns but I also do not make the statement "Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist" because I have no way of going about disproving their existence.

We're not talking in logical terminology, we're talking in english. Where did you get your definition from?

Imply can be used in different meanings. You open up all the more improbable meanings of the words used in the definitions to construe your argument that weak atheism is in fact still atheism even if it were only in the slightest of meaning.

One way or the other, the argument of "weak atheism" holds no ground. To say you do not believe in a deity is in my opinion the same as saying a deity does not exist, this is also how it is understood in English as far as I know.

Someone who says he does not believe in the existence of a deity, do you think he thinks a deity does not exist? How can he not believe in the existence of a deity, but at the same time think one exists? Again to my knowledge, the difference is in effect non-existant. It may be construed in some outlandish way for "weak atheism" to fall under the definition of atheism, but by doing so you screw up the entire meaning/use of the word atheism.

And yes the same goes for invisible Pink Unicorns. I personally refuse to believe there are invisible Pink Unicorns but I also do not make the statement "Invisible Pink Unicorns do not exist" because I have no way of going about disproving their existence.

If someone said "Pink unicorns EXIST!" and you would be forced to reply - would it matter to you if you said "I don't believe pink unicorns exist" or "Pink unicorns don't exist"? The meaning is in effect the same. Yes, ignorance can be an exception as you say > Hmm, I don't believe pink unicorns exist, do they?, but it is more than obvious this is not what is meant by atheism.

 

[msv]

Refuse is not a good word. 'not believe' is better.

If some white-haired apparition were to show up and start performing miracles, then a (weak) atheist would believe. But if some guy ranting on the street says 'repent because this 2000+ year old book says so', they'll continue to not believe. The person just does not believe in something w/o evidence.

People decide what they believe, not their categorizations. One can be atheist or strong atheist one minute, a believer the next an agnost the next and so on.

 

[Azih]

Can you not see the difference between mandating uniforms and selectively banning attire?

*sigh* that's a question I haven't even addressed. Mandating Uniforms at a University level is a ridiculous notion to my Canadian sensibilities and would be considered more draconian than selective banning just due to how bizzare it would seem. I have no idea whether Turks are more like Canadians or more like Malaysians in this regard.

Just letting people wear what they wish and not stressing about it, is by far a better option and places the least amount of restrictions on individuals.

Yang:

The Abbasids were really quite impressive. Probably had to do with how heavily influenced and controlled the empire was by Persian bureaucrats.

Nevertheless:
http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/HistTopics/Arabic_mathematics.html
http://www.freearabvoice.org/acPhysics_1.html

They did very well in terms of being a center for knowledge. And a lot of that happened due to Baghdad being very cosmopolitan and being a center for commerce and trade.

Seeing as Women in the West didn't get to own property until the late nineteenth century the Islamic empires were centuries ahead of the West in that regard.

 

[msv]

Just letting people wear what they wish and not stressing about it, is by far a better option and places the least amount of restrictions on individuals.

I agree. To exempt only religion when a dress-code is in place is also bad though.

 

[The Stealth Fox]

You should PM Primordial about history specifics, Yang. He has formal education in these areas and is probably more qualified to speak than all of us in this thread combined.

 

[Azih]

We're not talking in logical terminology, we're talking in english. Where did you get your definition from?

answers.com which agrees with my University logic courses. I am speaking in logical terminology here.
A implies B != B implies A kinda stuff.

Weak Atheism and Strong Atheism are well settled concepts and useful ones.

If someone said "Pink unicorns EXIST!" and you would be forced to reply - would it matter to you if you said "I don't believe pink unicorns exist" or "Pink unicorns don't exist"?

Yes it would. Because if I said "Pink Unicorns don't exist" and someone said "Prove it" I would have to say "I can't" and then they would say "But you made a pretty definite statement there smartypants, you didn't have any proof?" and I would go "er hm."

That whole embarassing episode wouldn't happen at all if I said "I don't believe pink unicorns exist as there is no evidence of them". Then they would go "Prove it", and I'd be all like "Prove what, dumbass?"

 

[Atrus]

*sigh* that's a question I haven't even addressed. Mandating Uniforms at a University level is a ridiculous notion to my Canadian sensibilities and would be considered more draconian than selective banning just due to how bizzare it would seem. I have no idea whether Turks are more like Canadians or more like Malaysians in this regard.

Just letting people wear what they wish and not stressing about it, is by far a better option and places the least amount of restrictions on individuals.

Letting people wear what they want is obviously the best option, however the case in point for this thread is that the headscarf is being infused with more than a clothing context to the point where people cannot attend classes for the lack of it.

This is unacceptable, and the Universities should not endorse the behavior behind this mindset by succumbing to it. However, since specifically banning headscarves represents an undue selective bias, uniform dress code is the other more actionable position.

The issue here is more than just a headscarf, it's an issue of religious sentimentality over-stepping its bounds.

 

[Azih]

uniform dress code is the other more actionable position.

And what if the imposition of a uniform dress code led to someone saying "I can't wear my tank top/favourite hoodie to class anymore? I'm not going!" As I said the idea of a uniform at a University level is just beyond bizzare where I am and who is to say what sentimentality is acceptable or not? (I got that hoodie as a gift from my dying mother. I always wear it!!).

 

[SRG01]

Okay, since I have a background in both heavy science and religious studies, I'll give a counter arguement.

The main basis for atheism -- to deny the existence of God or Gods -- is based on the lack of empirical knowledge or basis of one.

If we were to look at it scientifically, then the only possible conclusion is that the existence of God is ultimately untestable. Not that God or anything beyond does not exist. Untestable, at least by mortal and/or physical standards. It is impossible to confirm or falsify because no test* can be made.

However -- and this is where most (neo-)atheists or their pundits such as Hitchens get confused -- a lack of testability does not automatically imply a falsification. It merely demonstrates a limit of testability/science or a limit to which we can empirically access this area. This concept is easily extendable to early quantum physics, cellular biology, or even recently the testability of time itself.

If you believe in atheism on the basis of belief, then yes I'm willing to accept that. But, if you believe in atheism and use "science" to support your claim, then your claims have a logical flaw as science can only answer things that are verifiable and testable; anything else is outside its scope.



* Note: There is actually one thing that is somewhat testable, which is human experience. However -- and this is getting into metaphysics -- the nature of God/etc is ultimately transcendent, so how can transcendence be tested from the physical world?

 

[SRG01]

The issue here is more than just a headscarf, it's an issue of religious sentimentality over-stepping its bounds.

Wait, what the hell? Are you seriously suggesting that strict censure of attire is better than religious freedom and personal choice?

For a country that is supposedly secular, banning religious expression seems more oppressive than anything else.

 

[msv]

answers.com which agrees with my University logic courses. I am speaking in logical terminology here.
A implies B != B implies A kinda stuff.

Then announce that you're talking in logical terminology, otherwise I will assume you're not talking in logical terminology. I wasn't talking in logical terminology so your point here is moot. More concerning, it's not useful, we're talking english here so we're using the most common usage of the word imply, which would be (according to a friend of mine, I'm not english, but he's a linguist so I trust his opinion)

 1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated

So you're wrong in this matter. It's also illogical to try and put this entire discussion into logical terminology, since we wouldn't get anywhere.

Yes it would. Because if I said "Pink Unicorns don't exist" and someone said "Prove it" I would have to say "I can't" and then they would say "But you made a pretty definite statement there smartypants, you didn't have any proof?" and I would go "er hm."

That whole embarassing episode wouldn't happen at all if I said "I don't believe pink unicorns exist as there is no evidence of them". Then they would go "Prove it", and I'd be all like "Prove what, dumbass?"

To quote a friend of mine

I am of the opinion that if youre not convinced that what you're saying (on whatever topic) is the right position, you're a moron.

 

[SRG01]

Then announce that you're talking in logical terminology, otherwise I will assume you're not talking in logical terminology. I wasn't talking in logical terminology so your point here is moot. More concerning, it's not useful, we're talking english here so we're using the most common usage of the word imply, which would be (according to a friend of mine, I'm not english, but he's a linguist so I trust his opinion)

 1. to indicate or suggest without being explicitly stated

So you're wrong in this matter. It's also illogical to try and put this entire discussion into logical terminology, since we wouldn't get anywhere.



To quote a friend of mine

Wow, the tone of your posts is pretty disgusting.

But therein lies the problem with your arguement: the limits of verification goes either way. While some statements (ie. Pink Unicorns) can be verified depending on truthhoods and falsehoods, not all things can. Especially if such a statement was made over a millenia or two ago by someone's own personal experience.

Or even dating advice. Or human nature.

 

[Azih]

Then announce that you're talking in logical terminology.

I just did. Imply has multiple meanings in English and I was using the strict logical meaning. Now that this misunderstanding is cleared up, do you wish to continue the discussion in strict logical terms, cuz if you insist on using the vague, imprecise definition of imply that inevitably muddles into semantic quibbles then I'm not interested.

To quote a friend of mine

Way to avoid the point. Which is that there is no obligation to make a counter claim when refuting someone else's claim.

I am of the opinion that if youre not convinced that what you're saying (on whatever topic) is the right position, you're a moron.

Why you gotta make it personal? I have plenty of problems with that quote, but the one that is most relevant is that when I say

"I don't believe pink unicorns exist as there is no evidence of them".

I am absolutely convinced that that is the right position. So Aaron's point there doesn't even apply.

 

[msv]

Wow, the tone of your posts is pretty disgusting.

Disgusting? Now there's an exaggeration. Now why would it be disgusting? Because you don't believe what i believe? He's taking the discussion and wiping his ass with it, it's going nowhere if he keeps abusing alternate definitions.

But therein lies the problem with your arguement: the limits of verification goes either way. While some statements (ie. Pink Unicorns) can be verified depending on truthhoods and falsehoods, not all things can. Especially if such a statement was made over a millenia or two ago by someone's own personal experience.

Or even dating advice. Or human nature.

Who says it can't? Your point here is vague, could you elaborate? Supernatural occurences such as deities can be verified if they have any influence on our universe. If they don't have any influence, it's useless to even consider.

 

[SRG01]

Disgusting? Now there's an exaggeration. Now why would it be disgusting? Because you don't believe what i believe? He's taking the discussion and wiping his ass with it, it's going nowhere if he keeps abusing alternate definitions.

That. If you're interested in having a rational discussion, you'll lay off.

Who says it can't? Your point here is vague, could you elaborate? Supernatural occurences such as deities can be verified if they have any influence on our universe. If they don't have any influence, it's useless to even consider.

But not inherently falsifiable.

 

[Azih]

Disgusting? Now there's an exaggeration. Now why would it be disgusting? Because you don't believe what i believe? He's taking the discussion and wiping his ass with it, it's going nowhere if he keeps abusing alternate definitions.

Abusing? English words have multiple meanings, I was using a stricter version of imply than you were. First you call me a moron (by Proxy no less) and then you state that I was abusing alternate definitions (and used a scatological insult while doing so)? I've been completely consistent in how I used the word imply. And since I used the damn term *first* I've got freaking dibs.

Not cool dude, Not cool.

 

[Atrus]

Wait, what the hell? Are you seriously suggesting that strict censure of attire is better than religious freedom and personal choice?

For a country that is supposedly secular, banning religious expression seems more oppressive than anything else.

Equitable religious freedom is unsustainable. Due to the large variation in practices and customs you will eventually be forced to oppress the rights of some minority. In light of this, a lower tolerance level must be used so that they all achieve the same level of equality. 'None at all' is of course the best at ensuring the most equal standard across all religious practices.

 

[Azih]

Equitable religious freedom is unsustainable.

Canada is doing pretty well, Muslim girls wear hijabs during soccer and Sikh guys wear ceremonial kirpans to school and wear beard nets when boxing. A little bit of mutual understanding, compromise and things get on pretty harmoniously. It takes work and communication. But everything does yeah?

 

[msv]

I just did. Imply has multiple meanings in English and I was using the strict logical meaning. Now that this misunderstanding is cleared up, do you wish to continue the discussion in strict logical terms, cuz if you insist on using the vague, imprecise definition of imply that inevitably muddles into semantic quibbles then I'm not interested.

...
Have you any idea of what logical terminology is? You just typed english sentences that do not even look like logical terminology. You could never keep up a discussion by using logical terminology, what kind of weird ass request is that?

Way to avoid the point. Which is that there is no obligation to make a counter claim when refuting someone else's claim.

What I am saying is that if you STATE i don't believe x exists it is in effect the same as STATING x does not exist. This according to the english language. Just because I just an "=" doesn't make it logical terminology.

Why you gotta make it personal?

Whats personal? It was a generalised statement.

I have plenty of problems with that quote, but the one that is most relevant is that when I say

"I don't believe pink unicorns exist as there is no evidence of them".

I am absolutely convinced that that is the right position. So Aaron's point there doesn't even apply.

That would be a correct wording, as would be many others, like "I believe in the non-existance of pink unicorns" or "Pink unicorns don't exist" in less formal writing.

 

[SRG01]

Equitable religious freedom is unsustainable. Due to the large variation in practices and customs you will eventually be forced to oppress the rights of some minority. In light of this, a lower tolerance level must be used so that they all achieve the same level of equality. 'None at all' is of course the best at ensuring the most equal standard across all religious practices.

I think this is where we have a difference of opinion. I come from Canada, which is heavily multicultural, and anyone is allowed to express their religious faith -- short of hurting another person, of course.

 

[msv]

That. If you're interested in having a rational discussion, you'll lay off.

I'm saying that because it's not. Lighten up.

But not inherently falsifiable.

Not falsifiable at all, thats exactly what's useless about it. It's not even a deity anyway if it doesn't have influence over our universe.

 

[Azih]

What I am saying is that if you STATE i don't believe x exists it is in effect the same as STATING x does not exist.

And that is where you are wrong. It does not.

 

[msv]

Abusing? English words have multiple meanings, I was using a stricter version of imply than you were.

No you were not, you were talking about imply used in logic terminology - which is not the same "version" a.k.a. definition as the commonly used one. It's a different definition.

First you call me a moron (by Proxy no less) and then you state that I was abusing alternate definitions (and used a scatological insult while doing so)? I've been completely consistent in how I used the word imply. And since I used the damn term *first* I've got freaking dibs.

Not cool dude, Not cool.

You are saying one doesn't imply the other, for that you used a term from the logical terminology. So in logical terms one doesn't imply the other. I wasn't talking in logical terms. The statement I made wasn't made in logical terms, making your argument moot, that's what I've been saying..........

I just quoted what he said from IM btw, so it's not formal talk, maybe I should've reworded it, but it's not directed at you and not meant in a serious manner (the insult).

 

[msv]

And that is where you are wrong. It does not.

Then we disagree, to me there is no meaningful difference between the two statements(if you are assertive in your statement that is).

You can't prove to me a rock is going to fall downwards if I let it slip out of my hand. Would it matter to you if you said "This rock is going to fall downwards", or would you say "I believe that this rock will fall downwards, since it happened many times before"?

edit: I'm off to bed, it's way too late, sun is coming up already *yawn*. Gnight n thanks for the discussion :up:

 

[Atrus]

I think this is where we have a difference of opinion. I come from Canada, which is heavily multicultural, and anyone is allowed to express their religious faith -- short of hurting another person, of course.

I live in Calgary,AB FYI.

You'll find that multiculturalism only works to a limited extent before integration is required. Otherwise you'll have importation of violence from abroad, an ethnic divide from cultural enclaves, and ethnic gang warfare.

Canada already has various ethnic gangs that differ based on region, given how huge the country is. South Korean, Vietnamese, Lebanese, Indian or Indo-Canadian (whatever that Bindy Johal organization was composed of), are just some of the ones that are around in Western Canada.

Then there are the stories like Jassi Sidhu which highlight the failures of integration in Canada facilitating murder based on cultural 'values' that weren't exterminated (such as not killing your own children for family pride).

Now of course someone reading this will think it's worse than it is, but it's certainly a problem that will get worse the more it's left to fester.

 

[Chrono]

Why would anybody in their right mind let a piece of cloth keep them from pursuing a higher education?

Idiots, that's who.

I knew someone would retort with that, and my answer to it is what if the woman feels uncomfortable without a hijab? How exactly is a hijab hurting anyone or what values is it destroying?

It's not hurting anybody but the idiot that won't get an education because of a piece of cloth.

athiests have never done ANY of these things, people

Not under instructions from a holy text they base their lives on, no.

 

[Chrono]

http://www.freearabvoice.org/acPhysics_1.html

*looks at site's front page*

That site you linked to is one of the most racist and hateful ones I've seen in quite a while.

They even consider saddam a martyr and have an entry to commemorate the first year of his martyrdom or whatever. :lol

Edit: oh wow, this is from 2003:

http://www.freearabvoice.org/readerscorner/Warning.htm

:lol