Monthly Archive for January, 2008

Conversational cruelty

The United Kingdom attempts to enter the 19th century:

The Government recently indicated it is willing to amend the Criminal Justice Bill to abolish the offences of blasphemy and blasphemous libel.
And the Archbishop of Canterbury is comfortable enough defending his religion not oppose such a move:

Dr Rowan Williams… said the current blasphemy law was “unworkable” and he had no objection to its repeal.
Or is he? Dr Williams?
The legal provision should keep before our eyes the general risks of debasing public controversy by thoughtless and, even if unintentionally, cruel styles of speaking and acting.
Obviously cruel acts should be outlawed but ‘cruel styles of speaking’? What does that even mean? FM breakfast radio?

Why are so many religious people so insecure that they need the law to protect them from arguments against their belief systems?


You never hear atheists lobbying for laws to prevent criticism of, or cruelty towards, non-belief. Perhaps we have enough confidence in our position. It is the most logical after all.


(Via Butterflies and Wheels.)

Yay Humans

Yay Humans

Who Took the Mary Out of Christmas?

House MD is officially the most ballsy show on television! (Sorry Boston Legal)

Any writer willing to have a character who is a donkey show prostitute play Mary in a nativity act is good in my books. If you haven't seen the latest episode, (oddly, this season's Xmas tribute) grab it!

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Who Took the Mary Out of Christmas?

House MD is officially the most ballsy show on television! (Sorry Boston Legal)

Any writer willing to have a character who is a donkey show prostitute play Mary in a nativity act is good in my books. If you haven't seen the latest episode, (oddly, this season's Xmas tribute) grab it!

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Not My Space

So, it seems like MySpace has again deleted the big atheism and agnosticism group from it's interwebs. Back when I actually had a MySpace account, and used it, I was a part of that very group, so I feel I have a duty to pass on a little advice to those who are touched by this group's pleas and problems:

Switch to Facebook!

There, you can join all sorts of enlightened groups of similar minded individuals like "Fuck Religion" and, "Fuck Islam". MySpace might pander to those who feel that they ought to accommodate only the happiest, most pious thoughts, but on Facebook you're free to exercise your right to be as intolerant as you like. I'm happy to say that there is some mighty fine intolerance in some of the Facebook groups, and while "intolerance" always seems to come across as a dirty word, remember: Anti-Theists are being intolerant of dumb ideas and beliefs that are chosen (believe it or not), and are not hating on those who are literally unable to change their position (see: racism and other true forms of bigotry).

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Not My Space

So, it seems like MySpace has again deleted the big atheism and agnosticism group from it's interwebs. Back when I actually had a MySpace account, and used it, I was a part of that very group, so I feel I have a duty to pass on a little advice to those who are touched by this group's pleas and problems:

Switch to Facebook!

There, you can join all sorts of enlightened groups of similar minded individuals like "Fuck Religion" and, "Fuck Islam". MySpace might pander to those who feel that they ought to accommodate only the happiest, most pious thoughts, but on Facebook you're free to exercise your right to be as intolerant as you like. I'm happy to say that there is some mighty fine intolerance in some of the Facebook groups, and while "intolerance" always seems to come across as a dirty word, remember: Anti-Theists are being intolerant of dumb ideas and beliefs that are chosen (believe it or not), and are not hating on those who are literally unable to change their position (see: racism and other true forms of bigotry).

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock

Does the decline in religiosity lead to a decline in civic values?

The good news:

Nearly a third of Australian teenagers have no religious beliefs, new research has shown.
The bad news according to The Age: it’s because they are all narcissistic, tight-arse, loners or they soon will be due to their lack of religious faith:
God on the nose with the 'Me' generation.
The research on which said newspaper article is based was carried out by Dr. Michael Mason and Assoc. Prof. Ruth Webber (both from the Australian Catholic University), Dr. Andrew Singleton (from Monash University).

They argue, according to The Age, that:

those with serious spiritual and religious beliefs were likely to be more involved in their communities and donate money … and be more concerned about their society than their non-religious counterparts.
Webber claims that the apparent disparity between secular and religious teenagers is worrying:
If you are secular and there is no other way that you can get an entry into those values, then that's some kind of concern to society as a whole.
I quote the newspaper report because the conference paper and/or journal article is not yet available. I have emailed the authors requesting it.

What is available online, however, is the survey questionnaire (pdf) used in the research. The questions asked cast doubt on the validity of the findings as presented by The Age and the concerns of Webber.


The two questions on volunteer work specifically exclude gaining information on the “organisation or cause” to which teenagers donate their time. Similarly the three questions on donating money ask nothing of the charity, cause or organisation which is benefiting from the respondents’ generosity.


These two omissions are disappointing and somewhat surprising. It may be that much of the time and money religious teenagers are donating is going towards their own church. If this is the case there is little correlation between religious faith and generosity as such. Rather these donations can be better classed as a hobby.


If, in fact, as the researchers and the newspaper article seem to imply, religious faith is correlated to generous actions which benefit wider society then there is cause for concern. As religiosity declines, such a correlation would mean that donations of time and money will also decline.


Yet is religious faith really the important variable here? It’s much more likely that participation in church life gives teenagers more opportunities to donate time and money. It forces them, as such, into situations where collective action is more likely.


If this research proves trustworthy, and the inevitable decline in religiosity leads to a decrease in teenagers donating time and money, it may be up to the secular community (if there is such a thing), among others, to foster spaces in which young people can come together and become more involved in the wider community.

Does the decline in religiosity lead to a decline in civic values?

The good news:

Nearly a third of Australian teenagers have no religious beliefs, new research has shown.
The bad news according to The Age: it’s because they are all narcissistic, tight-arse, loners or they soon will be due to their lack of religious faith:
God on the nose with the 'Me' generation.
The research on which said newspaper article is based was carried out by Dr. Michael Mason and Assoc. Prof. Ruth Webber (both from the Australian Catholic University), Dr. Andrew Singleton (from Monash University).

They argue, according to The Age, that:

those with serious spiritual and religious beliefs were likely to be more involved in their communities and donate money … and be more concerned about their society than their non-religious counterparts.
Webber claims that the apparent disparity between secular and religious teenagers is worrying:
If you are secular and there is no other way that you can get an entry into those values, then that's some kind of concern to society as a whole.
I quote the newspaper report because the conference paper and/or journal article is not yet available. I have emailed the authors requesting it.

What is available online, however, is the survey questionnaire (pdf) used in the research. The questions asked cast doubt on the validity of the findings as presented by The Age and the concerns of Webber.


The two questions on volunteer work specifically exclude gaining information on the “organisation or cause” to which teenagers donate their time. Similarly the three questions on donating money ask nothing of the charity, cause or organisation which is benefiting from the respondents’ generosity.


These two omissions are disappointing and somewhat surprising. It may be that much of the time and money religious teenagers are donating is going towards their own church. If this is the case there is little correlation between religious faith and generosity as such. Rather these donations can be better classed as a hobby.


If, in fact, as the researchers and the newspaper article seem to imply, religious faith is correlated to generous actions which benefit wider society then there is cause for concern. As religiosity declines, such a correlation would mean that donations of time and money will also decline.


Yet is religious faith really the important variable here? It’s much more likely that participation in church life gives teenagers more opportunities to donate time and money. It forces them, as such, into situations where collective action is more likely.


If this research proves trustworthy, and the inevitable decline in religiosity leads to a decrease in teenagers donating time and money, it may be up to the secular community (if there is such a thing), among others, to foster spaces in which young people can come together and become more involved in the wider community.

Satan probably tore up the streets made of gold. It was tacky anyway.

Okay, I never got anything but a shocked look from Christians as a child, but maybe someone can disprove me now.

You know how God doesn't show himself anymore? Uh... I was scared as a kid because I thought it was entirely possible that Satan finally took control of humanity and threw God in to Hell. How do you know you aren't all worshiping Satan? It would sure explain the absence of God all this time. I guess at any rate you want to worship whoever is in control of heaven so you can get your virgins and shit. What's God able to provide you with in hell? Uh-oh.

Now you still have the option to stop all this make-believe and join us over here in reality... Or you can take your chances with evil heaven.

Satan probably tore up the streets made of gold. It was tacky anyway.

Okay, I never got anything but a shocked look from Christians as a child, but maybe someone can disprove me now.

You know how God doesn't show himself anymore? Uh... I was scared as a kid because I thought it was entirely possible that Satan finally took control of humanity and threw God in to Hell. How do you know you aren't all worshiping Satan? It would sure explain the absence of God all this time. I guess at any rate you want to worship whoever is in control of heaven so you can get your virgins and shit. What's God able to provide you with in hell? Uh-oh.

Now you still have the option to stop all this make-believe and join us over here in reality... Or you can take your chances with evil heaven.

Rape victims require additional punishment

Should a rape victim who takes the morning-after pill be punished for murder?

In an illustrative and disturbing example of how religious belief can lead to immorality, some Christians say yes.

Craig S and Tony J believe that rape victims who conceive must be forced through 9 months of pregnancy and forced to give birth to their attacker's child.

The reasons for such an immoral position: Chris and Tony believe in the existence of souls.

According to most Christians, at the moment conception takes place, god inserts the zygote with a unique soul. And it is the soul that has the real value.

As a result, preventing the fertilised egg from implanting in the wall of uterus, which emergency contraception sometimes does, is the moral equivalent of killing a young child, or a human of any age for that matter.

Instead of basing our moral reasoning on the facts, for example the pain and suffering caused by forcing a rape victim to give birth, the completely unfounded belief in souls forces Christians to place great value on a zygote.

The "interests" of a couple of cells, impossible to see with the human eye, devoid of the ability to think, dream, suffer or experience happiness wins out over a rape victim.

And should said victim try to prevent the implantation? Chris:
I (and some of the other commentators) actually think a fetus is an actual person, and killing it is an actual murder... If 15+ years is what you would get for killing a 1 day old baby (I'm not sure it is), then yes - 15+ years would be appropriate for perpetrating an abortion.

Rape victims require additional punishment

Should a rape victim who takes the morning-after pill be punished for murder?

In an illustrative and disturbing example of how religious belief can lead to immorality, some Christians say yes.

Craig S and Tony J believe that rape victims who conceive must be forced through 9 months of pregnancy and forced to give birth to their attacker's child.

The reasons for such an immoral position: Chris and Tony believe in the existence of souls.

According to most Christians, at the moment conception takes place, god inserts the zygote with a unique soul. And it is the soul that has the real value.

As a result, preventing the fertilised egg from implanting in the wall of uterus, which emergency contraception sometimes does, is the moral equivalent of killing a young child, or a human of any age for that matter.

Instead of basing our moral reasoning on the facts, for example the pain and suffering caused by forcing a rape victim to give birth, the completely unfounded belief in souls forces Christians to place great value on a zygote.

The "interests" of a couple of cells, impossible to see with the human eye, devoid of the ability to think, dream, suffer or experience happiness wins out over a rape victim.

And should said victim try to prevent the implantation? Chris:
I (and some of the other commentators) actually think a fetus is an actual person, and killing it is an actual murder... If 15+ years is what you would get for killing a 1 day old baby (I'm not sure it is), then yes - 15+ years would be appropriate for perpetrating an abortion.

Interlude: Thirty-four Thousand Feet Above Sea Level


The early morning sunlight, the severely angular light, makes of the web of thread-like gossamer rivers below silvery veins, as if the earth were one colossal chunk of ore.

This place is something to return to, secretly and alone, to plunder with one's hands or with one's heart.


Interlude: Thirty-four Thousand Feet Above Sea Level


The early morning sunlight, the severely angular light, makes of the web of thread-like gossamer rivers below silvery veins, as if the earth were one colossal chunk of ore.

This place is something to return to, secretly and alone, to plunder with one's hands or with one's heart.


I Want You


So, hold on...Israel wants the Beatles to come and play there...but banned them back in their heyday?

How do you even justify banning the Beatles in the first place? Seriously, they were for peace, against communism, loving, cute, and pretty wholesome...Imagine if someone threw Exodus or Twisted Sister on the radio there...

Maybe it was Lennon's whole: imagine the world without religion bit that got to them. It's good to know the Israelis have thick skins...oh wait...

- Zennalathas
Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.

Blogged with Flock