Archive for November, 2007

Suspend your belief a while…

Published
by
qmonkey
on November 30, 2007
.

…what have you got to lose?

Jesus on the crossTake a walk with me for a moment - I’m not asking you to change your views, just to let your mind wander into hypotheses for a while. The Roman occupation was a difficult time and Jews were very open-minded about messiahs and were actively looking and praying for him. There were a number of messiah claims and rumors of messiahs at that time.

Jesus had, of course, come as a Jewish messiah. He was Jewish, and he was the man prophesied in Isaiah (or so you claim). He was there as the fulfillment of the Old Testament prophecies - he had come to redeem the children of Israel, god’s chosen people. Yet the overwhelming majority of good, god-fearing, open-minded, ‘messiah wanting’ Jews decided, based on the evidence, that Jesus wasn’t the one. So much so that Paul and the other apostles decided that god was telling them to go preach to the gentiles. A cynical man would say that they came to that conclusion because the Jews were having none of the ‘messiah’ talk - so therefore god was ‘guiding them’ to try somewhere else (in the same way god guided me not to go out with Kate Moss).

How did the Jews come to this conclusion? They used the tools given to them by god (you’d say), their rationale and their reasoning. For them there was not enough evidence, even in the days, months and years after the event so intelligent, god-fearing, praying Jews came to the conclusion that Jesus was not the messiah. He was just another one of the ‘maybe he could be’. What would be the point of Jesus not leaving convincing evidence that he was truly the messiah?

Now think about what you’re asking of someone today in the early 2000’s. You’re asking us to examine the same evidence which did not convince the people who WANTED to be convinced, who waved him in to Jerusalem with palm leaves, and you’re asking us to examine this evidence through the distortions of time, translation and probable well intentioned re-remembering to fit the mission.

Now continue on this walk with me, and really ask yourself what it was which first made you move from a position of never hearing the name Jesus to deciding that the evidence was good enough to come to an earth shattering conclusion that he was the son of god. Think about the times in your life since when you’ve felt that god was speaking to you, guiding you, when you’ve felt “god’s hand” on a situation. Ask yourself whether there is an iota of a chance that in actual fact there is no father-figure god watching over you - or if there is - there isn’t enough evidence for it. Believing things on insufficant evidence is what leads to David Koresh, Scientology, Reiki, Astrology and the rest.

I submit that you must at least acknowledge that even if the resurrection did actually happen, it’s REASONABLE to come to the conclusion that it did not, and consider the implications of that. The implications for you will be too much for you to accept - but I humbly submit that as a thinking man you must give the notion some room, and that the notion can never be given room while you continue with the faith affirming rituals of the church and the logic-loop of praying to the god you only know through Jesus for wisdom to understand if/why Jesus is his son.

- Question Monkey

Since you asked…

Published
by
No More Mr. Nice Guy!
on November 30, 2007
.
Hemant posted this list of questions some time ago, but I only came across it today. Here are my answers, short and sweet as I could make them.
  • Why do you not believe in God?

    • I see no reason to believe that any god or gods exist. The universe appears to get on fine without them.

  • Where do your morals come from?

    • I have a conscience, and empathy for my fellow creatures.

  • What is the meaning of life?

    • There's no such thing as "the" meaning of life. It's up to each person to make their life meaningful.

  • Is atheism a religion?

    • No, just like health isn't a disease.

  • If you don't pray, what do you do during troubling times?

    • I look for help and support from friends and loved ones, and from my own inner strength.

  • Should atheists be trying to convince others to stop believing in God?

    • That's not even possible. You can convert someone to a religion by giving them a package deal of beliefs, telling them what to think and feel in any situation, and meeting their emotional needs. For some people, it's very attractive to surrender their capacity for independent thinking and buy into a religion. But people only become atheists when they think for themselves and dare to question the beliefs they've been raised with. You can't force another person to do that. You can only support someone who is already on the road to atheism.

  • Weren't some of the worst atrocities in the 20th century committed by atheists?

    • No. Hitler was a devout Christian. Stalin may have been an atheist but he didn't slaughter millions of peasants single-handed - he relied on an army, most of whom would have been religious and used to the Russian tradition of autocratic despots who were both religious and political leaders. Besides, Stalin had people killed because he was a megalomaniac who wanted to crush all opposition to his rule. Atheism probably had nothing to do with it.

  • How could billions of people be wrong when it comes to belief in God?

    • Everyone used to think the Earth was flat.

  • Why does the universe exist?

    • There is no "why". Why does a mountain or a tree exist? It just does.

  • How did life originate?

    • That is an open question in science. We may never know, but science will eventually come up with one or more possible answers, without having to fall back on the supernatural.

  • Is all religion harmful?

    • At best, religion is extraneous. You can be a moral person without it. In fact, a morality that is based on rationality and empathy with one's fellow creatures is always better than a morality based on dogma and superstition. To avoid being harmful, religion must abandon its irrational baggage and water itself down to the point of irrelevancy.

  • What's so bad about religious moderates?

    • They are covering and making excuses for violent fanatics instead of standing up to them.

  • Is there anything redeeming about religion?

    • Religion provides a sense of community for many people, and motivates some people to do good works. But there is no saving grace religion has, that an atheist couldn't have.

  • What if you're wrong about God (and He does exist)?

    • If there is a god, I would hope that he (if male) would respect me for using my brain instead of blindly believing what other people, who don't know any better than me, ordered me to believe. And if he is the psychotic monster of the Old Testament, fuck him. He doesn't deserve any decent person's respect.

  • Shouldn't all religious beliefs be respected?

    • No! I respect people's right to have beliefs. I don't have to respect the beliefs themselves.

  • Are atheists smarter than theists?

    • Not necessarily. People have an amazing ability to compartmentalize their brains. Very smart people can believe very dumb stuff. But in my experience, atheists are more independent minded and more likely to question received wisdom.

  • How do you deal with the historical Jesus if you don't believe in his divinity?

    • I'm not even convinced there was a historical Jesus. Most likely he was a conflation of several figures, real and/or legendary. Like Thomas Jefferson, I believe it's possible to read the gospels for moral teachings without having to accept the supernatural claptrap.

  • Would the world be better off without any religion?

    • Yes, provided people think about how to relate to others, and make an effort to be decent human beings.

  • What happens when we die?

    • Life goes on without us. If we live on, it is only in the memory of others.



(Comment on this post)

Suicide response from Andrew

Published
by
Atheist in a mini van.
on November 30, 2007
.
Back in the suicide thread, someone named Andrew popped up and said that Aaron's death wasn't attributable to the military. Now, today, he's written another comment and said the following. Because I want him, and everyone else, to read what I have to say in response to his comment, it's getting it's own post.


I originally wrote a long reply to your post, but found myself being more and
more aggressive in response to your aggressiveness.

What aggressiveness? Are you serious, man? I went back and read my response to you and there's absolutely no aggressiveness in my response. You made some very, very broad assumptions about how wonderful the military was at providing care based on your experience and then you proceeded to "blame the victim", Aaron, for losing hope in the system. The only thing I was "aggressive" about was correcting your wrongful assumptions. You trivialized the experiences of Aaron in some kind of machismo fueled, battle of the better wills. And, for the timing of our loss, that was disgusting.

I thought better of it and threw it out the window.When I read your
original post and saw a tragic suicide being blamed on the military (albeit
implied blame), I felt compelled to respond.
As were many people, but you, Andrew, chosen to take a different path (as described above).

There were holes in your logic which I tried to politely push my fingers through
in defense of my employer.

Why are you trying to defend your employer. Because, if you really want to get down to brass tacks,...every American on this blog is your employer. We pay your salary. You're supposed to be working for us, not some tyrant in the White House (although, I realize that the Commander in Chief feels you are under his direct and personal employ).

I realize that this was a mistake. I should have just left it alone. But my
reasoning was that this is an Atheist blog, PM talks about reason and logic all
the time, can’t she detach herself from this issue too.?

You may be right on this one, very fine point. I did lose objectivity. But, it's a little hard to keep objectivity when you're mourning a loss. Sorry - I don't "detach" well from people whom I've loved and loss for at least a month or so. I realize that, in your career, detachment is quite necessary.

The blame-game has already been played out in your mind on this one, and there
is no changing that.

Oh, for crying out loud. This isn't a game - blame or otherwise. This has always been a request to look at what's happening to our returned soldiers and ask if we were doing a good job.

I think this guy could have gotten help in one way or another, and it’s a shame
that he didn’t.

Yeah. Like all the vet affairs people we tried to contact for him, and he tried to contact himself, who blew him off. He didn't get help when he looked for it.

Aaron may have been truly unable to help himself, and for implying blame on his
part, I am sorry.

No, you're not. Because, you're still doing it. If you were truly sorry, you wouldn't have made the asinine claim above this one (in spite of the evidence you've been given). Generally, people suffering from severe PTSD and having gone through some of the issues Aaron had gone through are unable to help themselves 100%. That's why they NEED. HELP. Can you be objective enough to admit that your "employer" may have dropped the ball on Aaron....and thousands of other men and women? If you can't, then YOU are the one who is locked into a position, not I.

But that doesn’t make the military the de facto guilty party. Mental illness is
a complicated and inherently unstable issue.

Again....read above.

As for your behavior… I am not a troll. I have read and contributed to your blog
comments for a while now (even in Iraq).

Really. So, why was your account just created and made non-public only recently?

So please, don’t treat me like one your creationuts. I was just trying to defend
what I saw as unwarranted, anti-military views in your discussion, and the tone
and rudeness of your response was utterly uncalled for.

Are you kidding me? Unwarranted? Hmmmm. Let's see, shall we? Aaron entered the military and served for many, many years with a great disposition, commitment, and attitude. Then he's sent to Iraq. Where, as his job required, he saw the WORST of the WORST devastation to everyone in his care. The first time he got help in Iraq, he was told that it was "just a little stress and anxiety" and that he should "suck it up." During his second tour, an event happened that completely annihilated hope for more than one man or one woman in his unit. Then, he comes home and is abandoned by his former employer. That treatment, in your estimation, is not worthy of a criticism?

Anti-military? BULL SHIT, SIR! Complete and utter bullshit. And, you know it! How does, "Gee...I really wish the government would get their shit together and protect our troops properly!" anti-military? You throw that term around because it's a buzzword and it allows you to position those who don't agree with this war as unpatriotic. That's crap. You're smarter than that, I hope. Just because someone doesn't agree with the powers-that-be, or criticizes an agency for not doing a better job, doesn't make them anti-military.

Tone and rudeness? Pot. Kettle. Black.

It is not fun being on the opposite side of the ring from you, PM. I can now
honestly tell you that you come across as emotional to this side of the ring and
your arguments are then easily dismissed (subconsciously) on those grounds.

Wow. You're really good at this blame the victim, no accountability for your words thing, are you not? Do they teach self-righteous, smugness in bootcamp or is this an elective pursuit for you? You remind me of someone else I know. Maybe you're related? You haven't been able to dismiss my arguments with ease OR difficulty. You've only made appeals to your own authority and experience and labeled everyone else with a brush of "anti-military". That's not a debate. And, you're damn right there's emotion in this issue. What part of losing men and women to fight a war is unemotional? What part of soldiers killing themselves when they get home is unemotional? What part of people coming back without body parts is unemotional? Frankly, if we're supposed to take emotion out of this equation, then I'm amazed that we'd be able to call ourselves human.

Maybe that is why you have such problems with trolls. They are looking for a
fight, and you give them one… you also play into atheist stereotypes in the
process.

And, here we go again...there's no such thing as an atheist stereotype. But, if being intelligent, thoughtful, unwilling to take the b/s of people who try to use lame rationale and logic, and caring for our troops is an "atheist stereotype", then I'm sure a lot of us would be flattered. And, whoa on the irony... you came to MY blog and made inflammatory statements about MY cousin, but *I* am the one looking for a fight???? Yeah. Right. You've just broken the irony meter.

Sense in a mire of senselessness

Published
by
Psychodiva
on November 30, 2007
.
Perusing the blogs and newsfeedsagain I have actually found some sensible writings - :

It's that time of year again when people start arguing about what to call Christmas and whether a nativity scene will upset anybody - here is a bit of sense about this

And then there is a very good article about free speech by Peter Hitchens

And a balanced article about secular society and living with each other in happy debate can be found here

sometimes even with all the stupidness in the Sudan and the thought of a mega-Mosque being built in London there is still some sense.

Is better really better?

Published
by
Stupac2
on November 30, 2007
.
From Cognitive Daily comes the most scientific study of MP3 sample size and quality I've ever seen, titled Few listeners can distinguish between "average" and "best" MP3 samples.

Of course, most people would come to that conclusion anyway, I've found in my experience that people who claim to be able to do this are entirely full of crap. It's one of those effects where they think higher bitrate is better even if it's actually not, so they "hear" differences that aren't there. It's the same thing that happens with food and wine, perception and expectations alter subjective experience.

Sometimes hype is just hype, which is a great thing to understand.

Toy Story in Sudan

Published
by
Heather
on November 30, 2007
.

Chad/Darfur/Sudan. Scene of an ongoing and pretty incomprehensible disaster. In June, Save the Children reported that

Over 70 children under the age of five die every day in Darfur

(It’s a fair bet that about 30 of them are probably named Mohammed, of course.)

As Alun pointed out in a comment here, we should maybe start looking at what lies behind the ludicrous Sudanese Toy Story?

I’d like to put all the blame for this on religion, but, I’m something of a materialist and religion is so often just the gloss on real-world struggles over power and wealth.

The UN has reached agreement on sending in a peace-keeping force, according to Associated Press.

U.N. peacekeeping chief Jean-Marie Guehenno warned the Security Council on Tuesday that the Sudanese government is putting up numerous obstacles to the deployment of the so-called “hybrid” force that could destroy the effectiveness of the joint AU-U.N. mission.

Reuters reports that the Sudanese are blaming the UN for the delays. Maybe I am biased but I tend to see the UN point of view as likely to be more accurate. According to Jean-Marie Guehenno, head of the U.N. peacekeeping force, Khartoum is putting conditions which would render the UN force unable to achieve anything.

International experts estimate some 200,000 have died and 2.5 million been driven from their homes in almost five years.
The International Criminal Court has issued arrest warrants for a junior government minister and a militia leader accused of colluding in war crimes (More from Reuters)

Spanish Inquisitor made some excellent points about the disaster that is the Congo and got some great thought-provoking comments, including ones from the Exterminator, XanderG , Philly Chief and John Evolutionary Middleman the other day.

Although they were discussing the Congo, the issues they talked about apply to the man-made disasters that are increasingly consuming the African continent.

Most of the commenters (being Americans) felt that the USA should do something, although the Iraq debacle didn’t seem like a great model. PhillyChief said, somewhat ironically, “Too bad there’s no oil in Africa.” Tim Little pointed out that there is plenty of oil in Africa in general and a lot of mineral wealth in the Congo.

I have referred to this debate because it expresses where many of us are in relation to the horrors of the world. If we live in the rich countries, we don’t know enough about what is happening elsewhere. These are places we only hear about in terms of war, genocide or political turmoil.

A comment posted here on T_W’s first teddy bear post said:

This is appaling - if she is not freed today I will definately boycot anything Sudanese.

However, I doubt you can find anything Sudanese to boycott. These countries liek Sudan and the Congo are on the very edge of disintegration. And the people are turning on each other, as any people tend to do in the face of social disaster. The insane Islamic stuff is just a part of this process of disintegration.

So given the futility of applying more normal means (like boycotts and tough words at the embassy) of expressing international outrage over the situation in Darfur, all that’s left is the UN.

My feeling here is that the hapless British teacher has been used in the most cynical manner to stir up nationalist outrage, by reference to religion. Governments in Muslim countries are well aware of the ideological power of an appeal to Islam, which provides an opportunity to gather international support in the name of an (imagined) attack on the Prophet.

To misquote Dr Johnson, religion, combined with patriotism, is the last refuge of the scoundrel.

However, the technique is likely to backfire drastically. The rich countries have already gone so far down the road of an inability to distinguish Islam from rabid fundamentalism that most Western populations are starting to assume that any appearance of possible Middle-Eastern descent (as in the case of Jean-Charles de Mendes) implies that an individual is a terrorist.
People in the UK have responded to the Toy Story case with unbelieving shock and anger.

As an irrelevant aside, the suggestion that she was being culturally insensitive and should have known better is utterly mistaken. She was teaching in a Christian school, ffs. Any muslim parents who sent their kids there would have had to accept that they were getting taught by non-muslims. She was clearly English, so she brought her own culture and customs. that is part of the experience of immigrants across the whole world. It’s pretty clear - except to the neo-fascists who use anti-immigration as a rallying cry to bigots - that we all have much to learn (accept/reject) from other people’s backgrounds.

In any case, I can imagine few Muslim families in the UK would stop their children calling their soft toys whatever they chose. Suddenly, not calling your toys after muslim religious figures has become an article of Islamic faith. Have the five pillars of Islamnow become six?

Wikipedia says

The Five Pillars of Islam (Arabic: أركان الإسلام) is the term given to the five duties incumbent on every Muslim. These duties are Shahadah (profession of faith), Salah (ritual prayer), Zakah (alms tax), Sawm (fasting during Ramadan), and Hajj (pilgrimage to Mecca)

If I were to add “non-blasphemous naming of soft toys” to the wiki entry, I suspect I’d have a fatwah on my ass before I’d left the page.

Share This

Pope makes feeble, flailing attack on atheism

Published
by
Martin Wagner
on November 30, 2007
.
Pope Ratzo today issued an encyclical — a scholarly sounding term evidently used at the Vatican as a synonym for "overlong, ill-founded rant" — in which he purports to respond to the "new atheism" by drawing an oddly-reasoned equivalency between atheism and Marxism, and shoring up the theistic position with such empty, Hallmark-card platitudes as "Let us put it very simply: man needs God,

Poll Shows Americans Have More Faith In Fairy Tales Than Science = Satan- YES Darwin - NO

Published
by
Joe Brummer
on November 30, 2007
.

A poll released today shows that 62% of Americans believe in Satan and Hell, while only 42% believe in Evolution. This is sad that our schools have failed so many when it comes to understanding “natural selection” otherwise known as Evolution.

It appears this poll also looked at the different religions to see what else they believe and found that “Born-again Christians are more likely to believe in the traditional elements of Christianity than are Catholics or Protestants. For example, 95 percent believe in miracles, compared to 87 percent and 89 percent among Catholics and Protestants.”

This stuff blows my mind. I am fascinated by what it is people believe despite the evidence. The evidence of evolution is everywhere. If evolution is wrong, then all science is wrong and that is crazy talk. Why on earth is this Country teaching our youth that the known facts are not true? We have got to fix this!

Thanks, Bible!

Published
by
Anti-Rev. J. Reed Braden
on November 30, 2007
.


I had a good break. Proper post coming tomorrow sometime.


-----
Unorthodox Atheism is a daily blog written by Reed Braden, an Atheist, from Bible Belt, America. You may contact him at kingreedbraden@gmail.com or on AIM at ReedBraden.

Troy Conrad - Funny Man

Published
by
JCE
on November 30, 2007
.
*** Troy Conrad is a former bible-selling, bible-thumping, hard-core christian guy who has turned his knowledge into a comedy act. Here is a little background on him: “I had doors slammed in my face,” the Phoenix native recalls. “I had people who yelled at me. I collapsed on some guy’s yard, and he was poking me with a rake to wake me up.” Though he has since checked his Bible at the door,...

Visit my website for the rest of the story...

Kill the Infidel Schoolteacher!

Published
by
Andrew
on November 30, 2007
.

WTF, Islam?

I really can’t even comment on most of this, except to say that some of these quotes are comedy gold.

Thousands of Sudanese, many armed with clubs and knives, rallied Friday in a central square and demanded the execution of a British teacher convicted of insulting Islam for allowing her students to name a teddy bear “Muhammad.”

Get this: They were marching in a place called - I am not making this up - Martyrs Square.

“Imprisoning this lady does not satisfy the thirst of Muslims in Sudan. But we welcome imprisonment and expulsion,” the cleric, Abdul-Jalil Nazeer al-Karouri, a well-known hard-liner, told worshippers.

“This an arrogant woman who came to our country, cashing her salary in dollars, teaching our children hatred of our Prophet Muhammad,” he said.

The good news is that prominent Western Muslims are denouncing their Sudanese brethren. Let’s hope this trend of intolerance toward stupidity can continue.

Sometimes I have to wonder if The Onion runs the Muslim world, I really do.

Friday’s Favorite French Things

Published
by
Stew
on November 30, 2007
.


It’s booze again. “Sarlanoix” - a walnut aperatif from the Perigord (Sarlat in the Dordogne to be precise). It is delicious and a bottle never lasts long in our house. It is 16% alcohol by volume and drunk chilled.
The reverse translates:
In 1860 Emile Lapouge founded the Perigord Distillery. Legend has it the Emile Lapouge invented Sarlanoix in hommage to the women who shelled the walnuts. In the evening, close to the fire the gatering would start and under the dry blows of the mallet the nut shells would crack open liberating the kernels of the king of Perigord fruits. So that this image would stay forever in memories he created a recipe starting with a brew of walnuts by mashing the kernels and the skin of green walnuts in alcohol. Since then the Sarlanoix has become the legendary drink of the Perigord. Drink very chilled.

While trying to translate the word “ènoiseuses” (the women who shell the walnuts) I found this lovely picture:

8th Grader kills himself for God

Published
by
rivalarrival
on November 30, 2007
.

A 14-year-old boy, Dennis Lindberg, killed himself under the instructions of a sadistic cult. This action was blessed by Skagit County (Washington) Superior Court Judge, John Meyer, who prohibited the State of Washington from interfering in the youth’s suicide pact.

Unfortunately, no criminal action will be brought against either the “Cult” or Judge Meyer, because the “Cult” is the Jehovah’s Witnesses, and the method of suicide the youth chose was to refuse treatment that would have given him a 70% chance of survival.

TJM author Luci recently wrote about another senseless death associated with Jehovah’s Witness prohibition on accepting blood transfusions.

Basically, JWs are prohibited from consuming the blood of an animal. “Church” leaders decided that hospital patients can be fed intravenously, a blood transfusion is food.

What?

TJM reader Jerry Jones (his link) commented:

Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that when human blood is transfused into their body’s circulatory system that the transfused human blood remains to be human blood and continues to function as human blood. Jehovah’s Witnesses refuse to acknowledge that if blood is eaten, then the ingested blood enters the body’s digestive system, where the blood would be treated by the body exactly the same as it would treat a hotdog, a potato chip, or any other food item.

Before you start thinking that I’m singling out JW’s, remember that MANY religions/dogmatic beliefs require the individual to harm himself/herself in the name of worship and/or conformity. Judaism (and others) requires the partial amputation of male genitalia. Sects of Islam require adherents to flog and/or lacerate themselves as a part of their worship. (Check out “Ashoura”) Female Genital Mutilation is still widely practiced in several locations around the world. Foot Binding, an old Chinese custom, has crippled millions of women.

Dogmatism turns otherwise rational people into lemmings. Religion is the single largest source of Dogmatism. Religion is also the most “Protected” in its application. Without Religion to back up this boy’s decision, his parents would have been brought up on child endangerment charges, he would be declared a ward of the court, and his doctors would be ordered to begin treatment.

Read more:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/11/religion_kills.php
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/11/29/jehovahs.witness.ap/index.html

Related Posts
  • Islam Idiocy (Moronic Mohammedans)
    Now that we've hit Jehovah's Witnesses over the headHere, Here and Here, it's time for someone else ...
  • Another lawsuit
    I was on AOL today and there was an article about some poor little 8th grader who, along with her gr...

Teddy-bear row protestors demand death

Published
by
evanescent
on November 30, 2007
.

“Weapon-wielding mobs of Sudanese protesters have demanded the execution of British teacher Gillian Gibbons.

Thousands joined together on the streets of Khartoum, some with knives and sticks, shouting for a harsher sentence for the mother-of-two jailed for 15 days on Thursday.

Mrs Gibbons, 54, was found guilty of insulting Islam and escaped a punishment of 40 lashes. But her sentence was seen as lenient by Sudan’s hardline Muslim clerics.” - http://news.uk.msn.com/Article.aspx?cp-documentid=6859416

 

Insulting Islam?   Interesting.  People all over the world have expressed outrage, rightly so, about finding somebody guilty of offending an entire religion and blaspheming by naming a teddy bear “Mohamed”.  “It is outrageous!” they claim, that naming a teddy can be an insult to Islam.  They’re right, but haven’t the governments and courts and everyone else forgotten something else:

Who cares?  Yes, who cares if the teddy is or isn’t an insult to Islam, or blasphemy to “god”, the Easter bunny, or anything else?  It doesn’t matter if this women DID insult Islam or not.

Blasphemy is not a crime.  If I want to say that Islam is an evil plagiarisation of the ramblings of ignorant primitive Jews, and not worth the paper it was written, that’s my right.  The right to freedom of speech is a corollary of the right of free expression; man must express himself in order to flourish and enjoy life.  Therefore this is a corollary of the right to exist.  Those who deny the right to free speech of ANY and EVERY subject are denying individual rights, the only real rights that exist.  Those who wantonly violate the rights of others without cause have forfeited their own, and deserve no respect or rights themselves.

Even if blasphemy was a crime, are we to believe that god isn’t old enough and tough to take care of himself?  What’s that expression: “sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never harm me”.  Well, I assume god doesn’t have bones, so I imagine names will hurt him even less.  Of course if god was just the invention of primitive power-hungry bigoted men passed on by authority and force over centuries, we might expect HUMANS to get on the defensive when their boogie-man in the sky was insulted.

On a side note, this is exactly why, in principle and practice, democracy doesn’t work.  The very fact that a majority of people in a country can declare blasphemy a crime is to sacrifice the rights of free speech of one or any number of people to the majority; it is to say that a minority does not deserve to exist, except for the whim of the majority.  Not only are individual rights non-negotiable, this kind of social / ethical collectivism can only lead to moral subjectivism.  And if we’re reduced to moral subjectivism, no one has any right telling anyone what is right, wrong, or “offensive” or not.  Not even the deranged religious fanatics who want an innocent woman to die for “offending” them.

Soft toy militia

Published
by
Psychodiva
on November 30, 2007
.
I have a teddy bear upstairs - he used to be called Fred- (very original I know) now he shall be called Mohammed. I have an old penguin toy, he shall also be named Mohammed,an old doll I have had since I was a child- called Margaret until today- shall now also be called Mohammed.

There- are you insulted yet?

I reserve the right to insult any and all religions, especially the ones that are pathetic and immature enough to want to murder a woman for nothing more than naming an inanimate object Mohammed. I reserve the right to make fun of any and all religions and belief systems, including my own.

If I have insulted you then never mind- you will get over it, I didn't hit you or hurt you - it will pass. Growing up is such a hard thing to do isn't it?

The Only Miracle Jesus Performed

Published
by
[ Matt ]
on November 30, 2007
.
The bible it littered with instances of jesus breaking the laws of physics, chemistry and biology for his own gains. The bible called them miracles. These ranged from organising dinner parties - Wine and fish sandwich anyone? - To curing people with terrible diseases.

As an atheist i am sceptical of whether jesus actually performed these miracles (also of whether he existed at all) because they seem to have been engineered to give the story "credibility". Think about it. What would the bible be without the miracles? it would be just a book of rules and advice that appear to be from someone of little importance, Which would make it the equivalent of a Dr Phil self help book for bronze age man. Do some tricks though and we have their son of god on our hands.

While we are on the subject of miracles, one miracle does interest me and id like someone to explain how it could be possible. How could a man born in the west bank of Palestine turn out to be a white guy with blue eyes? To me that really is miraculous. We all know from the news that people from that area have fairly dark skin and almost exclusively have dark brown eyes. But jesus turned out looking like the all American poster boy. very strange.

It's almost as if the image of jesus has been engineered, Along with his "miracles", To get certain people, i.e westerners, Able to accept (be tricked in to believing) he is the lord.

Mad, Mad, Mad Sudan

Published
by
TW
on November 30, 2007
.

As if the previous farce over a teacher being jailed for 15 days and deported because she committed that most heinous of crimes - she allowed her class to name a teddy bear Mohammed - wasn’t stupid enough (Previous post and Nullifidian’s comments), we find out more today.

The BBC have reported:

Crowds of people have marched in the Sudanese capital Khartoum to call for a tougher sentence for a UK teacher jailed for insulting religion.

It is put slightly stronger on AFP:

KHARTOUM (AFP) — Thousands of angry Sudanese, some brandishing swords, marched Friday through the centre of Khartoum calling for the execution of a British woman teacher as she began a brief jail term for insulting Islam.

“Those who insult the Prophet of Islam should be punished with bullets,” a sea of white-clad demonstrators shouted after Gillian Gibbons, 54, was jailed for 15 days on charges stemming from naming a teddy bear Mohammed.

What absolute, stark-staring, raving, madness. As if the people of Sudan have nothing better to be outraged about than this trivial nonsense. More importantly, it drives home the problem of allowing religious beliefs to dominate rational thinking. The whole concept of actually shooting someone for this idiocy is truly mind boggling.

It strikes me that this is nothing but the effects of rabble rousing being carried out by those who are looking to accelerate the inevitable class between Islam and the “Christian” West. I can not for one second think that these people would really have been insensed by such nonsense without prompting - and Friday is the big prayer day… I suspect that some of the more fundie clerics have stirred their masses up and unleashed them. It is worrying that this effect is so pronounced and obvious. From AFP:

Sheikh Hussein Mubarak told thousands of faithful gathered for the Muslim day of prayer that the court’s “verdict was lenient out of fear of criticism from human rights organisations, America and the West.”

…

Earlier, Sheikh Mubarak railed at what he said was an attempt “to transform Sudan from an Islamic state into a Christian state,” adding that the British teacher had come to Sudan “as part of that design.”

“Why did this teacher come to Sudan? She surely didn’t need to emigrate from her country for the money? So she came for another reason…” he told the faithful at Al-Safa mosque in the city’s eastern Jarif district.

See, Hovind et al are not alone. Islam has more than its fair share of evil, lying, self serving, manipulative scum bags. AFP continues: (emphasis mine)

He [Sheikh Mubarak] denounced “those who try to defend democracy and human rights and insult the Prophet,” adding that he did not think the teacher would even serve out the 15-day sentence.

At the central Martyr’s Mosque, another imam, Sheikh Abdul Jalil Karuri, said Gibbons “did it with the intention of insulting Islam.”

The crowd responded with cries of “The army of Islam will prevail.”

Like I said yesterday, the real crime isn’t so much naming a toy Mohammed (although now I will name every inanimate object I come across after prominent Islamic figures), as it was allowing the class to participate in a democratic action. What an evil woman this teacher was…

Well it seems like we get another wonderful example from the religion of peace. All I can say is they are all mad. I am, however, a bit surprised by how tame a lot of the political / international reaction has been. I have even read US based blogs talking about how it was the teacher’s responsibility to have learned all about the culture before she went there. I found that quite ironic.

Share This

More Americans Believe In Hell Than Evolution

Published
by
[ Matt ]
on November 30, 2007
.
More Americans believe in a literal hell and the devil than Darwin's theory of evolution, according to a new Harris poll released on Thursday.

It is the latest survey to highlight America's deep level of religiosity, a cultural trait that sets it apart from much of the developed world.

It also helps explain many of its political battles which Europeans find bewildering, such as efforts to have "Intelligent Design" theory -- which holds life is too complex to have evolved by chance -- taught in schools alongside evolution.

The poll of 2,455 U.S. adults from Nov 7 to 13 found that 82 percent of those surveyed believed in God, a figure unchanged since the question was asked in 2005.

It further found that 79 percent believed in miracles, 75 percent in heaven, while 72 percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent.

reuters

Pet Peeve of the Day - November 30, 2007

Published
by
Tommy
on November 30, 2007
.
It has been a while since I've had something to bitch about. Until today, that is.

The Long Island Rail Road station at Hicksville has long had a pigeon problem. Scores of them roost on wires, pipes, lamps, and just about any nook and cranny they can find. And the reason that is a problem is because the pigeons are pooping all over the place. Heedless commuters walking to and fro underneath the elevated track are unwitting targets for pigeon droppings that might fall on them. In some areas where the pigeons cluster, the droppings are literally piling up on the pavement below them. Not only is it disgusting, it is also a potential health hazard.

Admittedly, the train station is a convenient place for the pigeons to find shelter. But that is not the only thing that draws them there, as I discovered. Another reason why the train station serves as a magnet for the pigeons is because there are nitwits on the train platform who feel compelled to feed them!

This morning, because of where I parked, I ascended to the platform on the far west side. As I was walking eastward, I came close to a man who appeared to be in his late fifties or early sixties at the edge of the platform by one of the rest areas. He had a box of crackers in one hand and was crumbling them with the other before tossing them onto the platform. I asked him, "What are you doing?", even though I already knew. He answered that he was feeding the pigeons, to which I shot back, "Don't you know they're shitting all over the place here?" He said, "Yeah." So I asked, "Then why the hell are you feeding them?" I didn't stop to hear his answer, all I heard was some inaudible mumbling.

He was not the first person I encountered feeding pigeons on the train station platform. Earlier in the year I challenged another person about it. What is the matter with these people? I guess they feel they are doing a kind deed and it makes them feel better about themselves. I see it all the time when I take my children to Mill Pond in Bellmore, where you get well meaning but not terribly bright people feeding bagels and crackers to the ducks and geese.

Whether these people realize it or not, crackers, bagels and bread are not part of the natural diet of these animals. It's like going to a Third World country and tossing candy bars to crowds of impoverished and hungry children and then patting yourself on the back for being such a generous person, when what they really need is a balanced and healthy diet.

So here's to the idiot at the train station today feeding crackers to the pigeons. You are my pet peeve of the day. I hope one of them shits on your jacket!

Islam, Religion Of Peace Says, Shut Up And Die

Published
by
BGH
on November 30, 2007
.
~ Democracy and tolerance are off limits in Islamic nations, even in small doses, Sudan protesters make call to execute teacher. This story has been developing over the last week and now is in high gear as sentencing happened yesterday in her court case. We continue to hear of Islam's claims of peacefulness, while it is evident that Muslims are only peaceful if you kowtow to their same petty...

Visit my website for the rest of the story...

The Good, the Bad, the Panty Flinging

Published
by
themaiden
on November 30, 2007
.

Panty flinging has always seemed like a power enhancer to me. It kinda ramps my up, really, when girls throw their fundies at me. Of course, I’m not superstitious junta leader.

Women in several countries have begun sending their panties to Myanmar embassies in a culturally insulting gesture of protest against the recent brutal crackdown there, a campaign supporter said Friday.

“It’s an extremely strong message in Burmese and in all Southeast Asian culture,” said Liz Hilton, who supports an activist group that launched the “Panties for Peace” drive earlier this week.

The group, Lanna Action for Burma, says the country’s superstitious generals, especially junta leader Gen. Than Shwe, also believe that contact with women’s underwear saps them of power.

Myanmar (Burma) embassies receiving “Panties for Peace”

Interesting ploy. Questionably efficacious in a strictly mechanical way, to say the least, but as psychological warfare maybe it will work.

To spin off onto something related but different, I can’t get over the fear of female underwear. I mean, this is 2007. How long is the species going to be stupid? How long will the lunacy last? Praying to the storm clouds may have made sense enough 6,000 years ago, but now? I don’t think so. The generals have power enough to take and, so far, control a government and they are scared of knickers? They are afraid of pieces of cloth that may or may not have touched female naughty bits? This is magic. The generals are afraid of magic! Amazing! But no surprise.

But, hey, if you have a panty or two throw it at ‘em. I’m okay with using self-imposed stupidity against someone.

Just call it Christmas

Published
by
Paul Sims
on November 30, 2007
.
When our editor emailed New Humanist contributor Michael Bywater to invite him for a "Winterval" drink the other week, he triggered a fantastic rant on the absurdity of referring to the period as anything other than "Christmas".

With the onset of December we've published this on our website as part of our new web-only content, as it really did deserve a wider audience. Have a read and let us know what you think. What do you think of alternative names like "Winterval", and how should us heathens refer to Christmas? Leave your suggestions by commenting on this blog post. Should we even observe or celebrate it? Does anyone really care?

Also, make sure you let us know what you think by voting in the poll at the top right of this page.

Badass Bible Verses

Published
by
Kilgore Trout
on November 30, 2007
.
The 9 Most Badass Bible Verses. Pretty much says it all right? seriously theres no point trying to sumarize this just go enjoy. Actually I changed my mind there is one part that should be noted. On the third page theres a bit about a dispute over who's god was better. So the two groups each made an animal sacrifice, when only one teams god was able to set it on fire they were declared the winners, and the other team of several hundred was slaughtered. I'd be happy to set this challenge up again, well the animal sacrifice would need to be done as humanely as possible and the meat eaten after if it wasn't burned by god. If god can set the corpse on fire then I've been wrong, if he can't then religion is wrong. This challenge has been done before according to their book, so why not do it again as proof? Do they not believe that god can still conjure fire?

OH and the picture that says, "Kids: Don't fuck with god, or bears will eat you" is good too.

Hat Tip to PZ.

Eight Examples of The Christian Mind

Published
by
vjack
on November 30, 2007
.
What does the public think about atheists and what we believe? Negative attitudes toward atheists have been well-documented, but if they are to change, we must reveal the ignorance beneath them. Case in point is this article by Rev. Steve Cornell in The Morning Call. In his attempt to provide 8 reasons he is not an atheist, he instead serves up priceless examples of the Christian mind you are sure to enjoy.

Let's go through these one-by-one.
1. An atheist assigns himself to life without ultimate purpose.
While Cornell acknowledges that we "enjoy smaller meanings of life," he insists that we "cannot allow for ultimate meaning." Evidently, he would dismiss a desire to leave the world a better place than one found it as "ultimate" enough. But he also thinks atheists have a void where "ultimate meaning" should be. "If the atheist is honest, he will admit to feeling that there is something more to existence, something bigger." Really? And how exactly does he know this? I'm not sure I've ever met an atheist who felt any sort of void in regards to meaning. Many of us recognize ultimate meaning as a trap without real value. We perceive reality for what it is and not through the lens of wish fulfillment. Talk about ultimate meaning!
2. The atheist must suppress the demands of logic.
Yeah, I figured you'd like that one - the person who believes all sorts of things on faith alone criticizing us as insufficiently logical! What Cornell is actually saying here is even funnier - he's claiming that we are illogical in our rejection of intelligent design. Apparently he thinks that basing one's beliefs on reason and the best available evidence requires a suppression of logic. According to Cornell, our "bias against God" does not allow us to accept the "truth" of intelligent design. I guess we are supposed to ignore the evidence for evolution and the lack of evidence for creationism.
3. The atheist has to believe in miracles without believing in God.
Cornell refers to a "law that nature seems to obey" as being that "whatever begins to exist is caused to exist." This is simply the tired old first cause argument. He doesn't seem to understand that this only produces endless question-begging, for what caused his god? More entertaining, he claims that "the atheist knows that the universe began to exist..." Actually, several atheists believe that the universe may have always existed.
4. An atheist must suppress all notions of morality.
You knew this one was coming, as it is a Christian favorite. Atheists cannot be moral because god is required for morality. This claim has been so thoroughly debunked that it needs no further discussion except to note that Cornell goes far beyond what even most Christian extremists would claim. He denies atheists any moral sense whatsoever, saying that we are "not able to declare any quality to be morally superior to another." Does he not realize that the Golden Rule predates his bible or the alleged existence of his Jesus by a considerable margin? He should read this carefully before writing any more on this subject.
5. The atheist must conclude that evil is an illusion.
This is simply a variant of #4. Since Cornell has apparently never heard of secular humanism, he clings to the erroneous notion that we have no standard of right and wrong. Again, this pervasive misconception has been so thoroughly destroyed that it is difficult to imagine any educated person continuing to spout such nonsense.
6. The atheist must also live with the arrogance of his position.
This is the common misconception that atheism requires absolute certainty that no god(s) exist. Because atheism is nothing more than the lack of acceptance of the theistic belief claim, this point is exposed as yet another misunderstanding. Once again, atheism does not mean the conviction that god(s) does not exist.
7. The atheist must also deny the validity of historical proof.
Believe it or not, Cornell actually wants to talk about "the standard rules for testing the truth claims." Of course, he wants to do so only on very limited terms. His claim that there is evidence of Jesus' resurrection shows just how far off base his understanding of logic and reason are, not to mention accepted methods of validating various forms of evidence. There is no reliable evidence for the resurrection of anyone, and there are compelling reasons to question whether Jesus ever lived in the first place.
8. Finally, the atheist must admit that human beings are not importantly different from other animals.
This one sticks in my craw for a couple reasons. First, humans are animals. Of course, we are different in many important ways, but we are fundamentally animals. Second, this is the section where Cornell makes the classic Christian mistake of completely misunderstanding evolution. He claims that we think "we are simply the result of blind chance operating on the primordial ooze," but this is not even close to what evolutionary theory asserts. Evidently Cornell needs to learn what evolution says before attacking it.

Cornell saves the best for last in that his conclusion contains one of the most glaring errors I think I have seen a Christian commit in a long time:
The atheist's problem with belief in God is not the absence of evidence but the suppression of it.
Actually, the problem with theism most atheists have is twofold: (1) it is irrational because it posits a logically incoherent entity and because there is no evidence whatsoever for its veracity, and (2) it is harmful to modern civilization. It isn't about suppressing anything; it is about recognizing that faith is not an acceptable way to verify truth claims or acquire knowledge.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Pope Benedict Attacks Atheism

Published
by
Ian
on November 30, 2007
.

Yup, Atheist Crusades, Atheist Inquisition, Atheist Witch Trials, Atheist Suicide Bombers.. man, us atheists are responsible for the worst atrocities known to man.

Papal encyclical attacks atheism, promises hope

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict, in a new encyclical released on Friday, said atheism was responsible for some of the “greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice” in history.

The 75-page “Spe Salvi”, which takes its Latin title from a quote by St Paul (in hope we were saved), is an appeal to a pessimistic world to find strength in Christian hope.

In the second encyclical of his papacy, Benedict urges Christians to put their hope for the future in God and not in technology, wealth or political ideologies which can often be deluding.

Atheism could be regarded by some as a “type of moralism”, particularly in the 19th and 20th centuries, to protest against the injustices of the world and world history, he said.

Reciting arguments made by atheists, he said: “A world marked by so much injustice, innocent suffering, and cynicism of power cannot be the work of a good God. A God with responsibility for such a world would not be a just God, much less a good God.”

History has proven wrong ideologies such as Marxism which say humans had to establish social justice because God did not exist, the Pope wrote.

“It is no accident that this idea has led to the greatest forms of cruelty and violations of justice,” the Pope said. Such a concept was grounded in “intrinsic falsity”.

Marxism, the Pope wrote, had left behind “a trail of appalling destruction” because it failed to realize that man could not be “merely the product of economic conditions”.

Answer to the simple question

Published
by
Kilgore Trout
on November 30, 2007
.
When we ask for advice, we are usually looking for an accomplice.
- Marquis de la Grange

The reality is I found a lady that seems interesting, worth giving a chance for sure. So all I really wanted was confirmation that I wouldn't be seen as a dirty old man if I tried to date someone 5 years younger than myself. Yes she is 20. Everyone was trying to be more helpful and give legit dating advice and all I wanted to know was if her Father was going to kill me for being 5 years older than his baby. This is important for some very important reasons that I'm not going to discus here, at least not yet. So you guys were all very helpful and I truly appreciate the help, but you're not as good of accomplices as I had hoped for, luckily my sister said to go for it and she trumps all of you, sorry blood is thinker than binary.

Now I’m Not Sure I Want to Live Here

Published
by
Lord J-Bar
on November 30, 2007
.
I'm currently moving to my new place of residence in El Paso, Texas. It seemed all nice and good until I stumbled across the disturbing news that the director of science curriculum for the Texas Education Agency, Chris Comer, has been forced to resign because she forwarded an email annoucing a speech by Barbara Forrest, who is a philosopher of science and traces ID's connections to creationism.

Why was it so terrible to announce a speech by a reknowned scientist? Because a Baby Jesus lover who is offended by reality is the Chair of the State Board of Education. Dr. Don McLeroy is a well known advocate of Creationism and ID, and in September he put in place a policy where the TEA must remain neutral on evolution and ID. Obviously part of the new effort to quietly diminish evolution since creationists have been unable to force it out overtly.

Now, what was the offending email that cost Comer her job? Here's a copy of it (from The Austringer):

***

To: Glenn Branch
From: Glenn Branch
Subject: Barbara Forrest in Austin 11/2
Cc:
Bcc: [redacted]
Attached:

Dear Austin-area friends of NCSE,

I thought that you might like to know that Barbara Forrest will be speaking
on “Inside Creationism’s Trojan Horse” in Austin on November 2, 2007. Her
talk, sponsored by the Center for Inquiry Austin, begins at 7:00 p.m. in
the Monarch Event Center, Suite 3100, 6406 North IH-35 in Austin. The cost
is $6; free to friends of the Center.

In her talk, Forrest will provide a detailed report on her expert testimony
in the Kitzmiller v. Dover School Board trial as well as an overview of the
history of the “intelligent design” movement. Forrest is a Professor of
Philosophy in the Department of History and Political Science at
Southeastern Louisiana University; she is also a member of NCSE’s board of
directors.

For further details, visit:
http://www.centerforinquiry.net/austin/events/barbara_forrest_inside_creationisms_trojan_horse_lecture/
Sincerely,

Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
http://www.ncseweb.org

Not in Our Classrooms: Why Intelligent Design Is Wrong for Our Schools
http://www.ncseweb.org/nioc

Eugenie C. Scott’s Evolution vs. Creationism
http://www.ncseweb.org/evc

NCSE’s work is supported by its members. Join today!
http://www.ncseweb.org/membership.asp

***


Hmm...I don't know if that warrants a firing. Tell me if I'm wrong.

I wonder if Ben Stein's new movie, Expelled, will talk about his. After all, this woman actually lost her job, unlike the Creationist hacks featured in the movie who simply couldn't get their papers published because they didn't have anything scientific in them. But I doubt it. Ben Stein is blinded by religion too, and the fact that supporters of evolution are having it worse wouldn't work to well in Stein's tale of Intelligent Design persecution.

What's worse is the TEA's proposed facilitator. (Sounds almost like a comic book villian, doesn't it...The Facilitator)

The State Board of Education (SBOE) has a proposal before it to hire a "facilitator" or "standards writing consultant" to write the standards document after workgroup members consisting of master teachers and university professors have initially written the initial standards document and after additional university professor experts review that standards document. One wonders why the initial writing and review are necessary when the facilitator will have complete freedom to write whatever he or she wants at the conclusion of the process.


One does wonder. Perhaps it's a way to put something in place that none of those experts would approve of? What's the point of even having all those experts? You might as well fire all of them too and just have a Bible to consult instead. After all, it has all the knowledge one really needs, right?

Anyway, we'll see what happens, but I certainly plan of living far from here before I have any kids.

For more information, read this report on the firing and information on the facilitator, both from the Texas Citizens for Science.

“The universe exists” as evidence for God

Published
by
Pedro Timóteo
on November 30, 2007
.

It is quite common for theists, when asked to provide some evidence for their belief in God, to reply, "why, the fact that we are here, that the universe exists, is more than enough evidence!".

I don’t know if most theists have really thought about what they mean when they say that. Think about it: when they say that the universe’s existence is evidence for a god, the implication is that, without a god, there could be no universe.

But now I ask the obvious, but not often asked question: why does the universe require a god to exist? The answer, I believe, is that you don’t know any other way, can’t conceive of any other possibility. You don’t understand how the universe could exist, except by divine creation. But isn’t that just the God of the Gaps fallacy, all over again? You don’t know, so it must have been God? Much like diseases were thought to be caused by demons before we knew about germs?

Sure, science can’t yet explain the origins on the universe; we have only hypotheses, such as the Big Bang, which are currently imperfect and incomplete. But science evolves, and we can today explain many things that were "obviously" supernatural centuries ago. Why not the origin of the universe, a few decades, or even centuries, from now? It’s possible.

You may now reply: "ah, but God could have created the universe with its natural laws, so that everything occurs naturally, but God did provide the original intent, the original authorship. In other words, God created a completely natural, self-sustaining universe."

But… then, why is God needed at all? If a universe can "happen" naturally without a god, then we must at least concede that this one could have, and the "evidence for God" thing goes out of the window.

Or consider another approach. Let’s assume you’re a theist and you believe that this universe was created by God. Fine. Now imagine, please, how a universe would be like without God, a universe which "happened" naturally in every respect, which doesn’t have any kind of conscious being at its origin.

Imagine that universe. A universe where there is no heaven, no hell, and no supreme being taking care of us. Where everything happens according to natural laws, and nothing more. A universe where no miracles happen, at all. Where prayer doesn’t work, doesn’t make impossible things happen, and doesn’t even affect probabilities of possible things. An incredibly complex universe, at the same time harsh and uncaring, and beautiful, but one which science increasingly understands, and can be used to grasp patterns and predict behaviors.

Now… how could you distinguish that universe from ours? Could you, at all? Doesn’t our universe, at least from appearance, fit that description to a T?

Copyright © 2007 Way of the Mind

Shoot UK teacher, say protesters

Published
by
Ian
on November 30, 2007
.

What’s wrong with religion? Here’s a prime example. A teacher somehow manages to insult their non-existent god by naming a stuffed animal the same name as their god in a class full of small children; instead of letting their almighty god take care of her blasphemy, they call for blood saying she should be killed.

Shoot UK teacher, say protesters

Thousands of people have marched in the Sudanese capital Khartoum to call for UK teacher Gillian Gibbons to be shot.

Mrs Gibbons, 54, from Liverpool, was jailed by a court on Thursday after children in her class named a teddy bear Muhammad.

She was sentenced to 15 days for insulting religion, and she will then be deported.

The marchers took to the streets after Friday prayers to denounce the leniency of the sentence.

The protesters gathered in Martyrs Square, outside the presidential palace in the capital, many of them carrying knives and sticks.

Marchers chanted “Shame, shame on the UK”, “No tolerance - execution” and “Kill her, kill her by firing squad”.

Hundreds of riot police were deployed but they did not break up the demonstration.

Boy dies aftter refusing treatment on religious grounds

Published
by
Bjorn
on November 30, 2007
.
You can read the article here. Basically, the story is that a 14 year old denied a blood transfusion which had the possibility of extending his life. The boy was a Jehovah's Witness, and according to their faith, a blood transfusion would make on unworthy, or unclean to enter the Kingdom of God. Thinking universally, I don't know if the state should step in in every case to choose to extend life, however, these kind of deaths seem senseless. The question would then become where to draw the line. We will force blood transfusions, but not continue life support if the patie