I came, I hovered, I rejected.

That’s according to an article from fundietastic outlet CBN.com, anyway, who are obviously up in arms about “easter” being taken away from Jesus, who is of course the origin of the egg/confection combination, probably by having left them behind in his tomb as incontrovertible yet tasty proof of his having being there.  Or something.

And—obviously—she’s not a maths teacher, otherwise she’d know that they’re spring ovoids not spheres. The silly ninny.

Note to self: buy chocolate.

Theroux has once before courted Phelps et al. In 2007 he presented the documentary The Most Hated Family In America which was most likely the first time that many in the UK had been exposed to the biblical wingnuttery of the Westboro Baptist Church (who easily manage to put the biblically-inspired antics of our home-grown fundie cause célèbre, Stephen “Birdshit” Green, in the shade) and it made for television that was tragic, hilarious and not a little frightening.

Before airing, this new documentary was primed in an article by Theroux, who explained:

Normally I don’t do follow-ups. But I’d made an exception in this case because of an e-mail I’d received from one of the fire-breathing young zealots I’d interviewed on my first trip, announcing she’d left the church. She cited our conversations as one of the influences.

She had now changed her life, found a boyfriend and had zero contact with anyone still inside the church, including her family. A little research revealed that several others I’d met on my first visit were also now apostates. This included Steve’s own daughter, Lauren.

Intriguing.

Of course, the WBC thrives on publicity, no matter what the content of that publicity says. Criticism and opprobrium are—to them—seen as validation and vindication (as a prototypical example of an extreme christian persecution complex) that they must be doing it right. Theroux continues:

Some have asked why the Phelpses allowed us back in having seen the first film. They were in their own weird way fans, seeing our original effort as (I think) basically fair – and more importantly regarding it as part of their destiny to have their message widely heard and then rejected.

The Phelpses picketed the funeral of Albert Snyder’s son and he is battling them in court
For the broad mass of humanity to go to hell, they must have first been exposed to the gospel and failed to heed it. Our programme had been seen by millions around the world. In my own way, I had a part in the divine plan. And so I’d made my way back to Zion, as they like to call their block of houses on a suburban street in Topeka, for a week-long stay.

I didn’t see the show (and—let’s be frank—it is a show) as it was being transmitted as I was too busy arguing in the pub (vodka + foreign policy and ethics + a philosopher + an evolutionary psychologist = interesting conversations) but it’s available on the BBC’s iPlayer (available until Sunday 10th April 2011) so I’ll be watching it at some point today.

For those of you outside the UK, some enterprising soul has liberated it from the pearly clutches of Auntie Beeb and put it up onto a public video site, details of which you will find at Unreasonable Faith.

Enjoy.

Infallible: the fragrance for men who never need to admin they're wrong

How on earth did I miss this?

Source: Newsthump

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of diatribes against “New Atheism” in the various print and Internet media. For the past few years, I’ve rallied against this epithet, mostly because in those articles I saw nothing that reflected myself nor my peers: I saw only caricatures and straw-men.

The complaint nominally centres about the fact that “New Atheism” isn’t as ‘serious’ as the classical atheism of our forebears: Locke, Hume, and the others that broke through the ‘sacred circle’ necessarily took religion as seriously as the theists themselves.

But after reading Christopher Hitchens’ recent article on Slate, Free Exercise of Religion? No, Thanks., I’ve come to realise something: those that make such complaints are not now primarily concerned that we don’t take their claims seriously, it’s that we’re no longer even pretending to take their claims seriously.

Of course, they say that we’re being “unsophisticated” about their particular claims, but how seriously can we take them before we simply have to give up trying to pretend to understand that, somehow, 1+1+1=1 or that flying horses were less rare 1,400 years ago than they are nowadays, and compare it to listening to the one-sided conversation of a young child having a tea-party with their imaginary friend?

We’ve noticed that engaging with them and treating their ideas as if they were worthy of serious contemplation simply bolstered their position, it gave them a level of credibility they didn’t deserve. So those within the “new atheism” have moved beyond discussing the topic on their terms, and using their language to do.

We’ve become “outspoken” and “disrespectful”, we censure them for their false and supercilious claims to be the arbiters of “morality”, pour boiling scorn on their supernaturalistic yarns, laugh at the farcical pomp of their rituals, while at the same time calling their leaders bigots and liars when indeed they are. We use our influence in our societies and communities to reject or—even better—reverse their pretensions to control how we steer our lives and superintend our bodies, and generally treating them like the spoilt children they ape.

We no longer show them the deference they assume is due their insubstantial ideologies, we’re no longer afraid, and that terrifies them. The worst thing for them is not being conspired against, persecution is sustenance; it’s being made irrelevant.  If they want their ideas to have respect, they can earn it just like everyone else.

So: fuck yes, I’m a “new atheist”.

But I’m still not going to capitalise it.

The Daily Mail: Children as young as four to be educated in atheism

Yes, they said “in”… [sigh]

Anyway, it is The Daily Mail, so we can safely assume it’s probably a lie from the get-go, but let’s just actually see if that’s the case:

School pupils aged just four are to be taught atheism in a move schools hope will equip them to be ‘citizens of the world’.

Education bosses in Blackburn with Darwen, Lancashire, have radically restructured the RE [religious education] syllabus to accommodate non-religious beliefs.

Youngsters will continue to learn about the six major faiths – Christianity, Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Judaism and Sikhism – but they will also be taught humanism, the belief that there is no God or Gods, and that moral values are founded on human nature and experience.

Ah, so it’s not atheism, it’s humanism then, that well-known non-religion that has the belief that there is no God or Gods [sic].

Teaching four-year-olds about religion is good, but about people not having any religion: shocking! Someone call The Daily Ma— oh you almost had me there…  And, unlike the religions mentioned, they won’t be taught about humanism, they will be taught it: as if it’s fact, as if some people really have no religion.  They will have it forced down their sweet little throats, whether they like it or not, gawd bless ‘em and their cotton-polyester blend socks.

So, why is this being introduced?

The new syllabus was drawn up after reviewing the 2001 census results, which revealed that, although the borough has representatives from all of the six major faiths, there were more than 10,000 people who stated they did not follow a religion.

At its launch Dot Thomson, Blackburn with Darwen school improvement officer, said: ‘I would not describe the syllabus as radical but it is disassociated from what went before in Blackburn with Darwen.

‘This is the first time we have given respect for non-religious life stances.

‘It is an important area. We expect this year’s census to show the diverse faiths and beliefs in the area and we need to reflect this when teaching RE in schools.’

An actual use for census data?  I guess the British Humanist Association’s census campaign was onto the right track, after all. And, by given respect for, they of course mean “even mentioned”. But still, it only took ten years.  It seems that things are looking up for us UK atheists/yoomanists!

The local spokesbeards have to have their tuppence-worth of lip-flap—it wouldn’t be a real Mail article without it. First up is local-muslim-godbotherer-in-chief Salim Mulla:

We believe it is important to have faith values whether that is Christian, Islamic or any other religion …

The values are very, very important. I don’t think the non God aspect should be introduced into the curriculum.

I don’t think it is right. People are born into faiths and are brought up in that faith and that’s how it should stay.

The non-faith beliefs send a wrong message to the children and confuse them.

Well, of course he does, it’s his bloody job to get people to cower on rugs to his god.  Local christian-flavoured godbotherer Kevin Logan was a little more welcoming:

It is quite a change but it is completely right to recognise atheism and humanism.

They are religions like any others. It is just that people worship man instead of a god.

I am certainly not worried about Christianity. It can stand against any belief and come out in a good light.

More religionists, like millions—if not billions of their co-theistic brethren, that just don’t have a clue.

Hope springs, etc.

However (and I’m admitting to utter astonishment here) for all the bigotry, stupidity and fabrications that The Daily Mail usually embodies and espouses, the fact-box on that page, “What is humanism?”, is probably the most accurate thing I have (or will) ever read there. I have no doubt they stole it from somewhere else, but I suppose that almost counts as research, right?

Still, it’s not the worst Mail article ever, but then it’d need to be pretty damned awful to compete in that particular race.

Oh, and I while I’m on the subject, I must take time to pimp istyosti, which is essential if you don’t want to give the Mail and others of that ilk any added value by linking to them. There’s a damned fine Google Chrome extension, but it can be used without it too by copying and pasting a link into the box on the istyosti home page. Sod them and their ad revenues.

And, while I’m in a pimping mood, why not check out the Planet Humanism blog aggregator (joining info). :-)

Protected by the blood of Jesus

Somehow I reckon a sturdy locked door, a fairly modern CCTV system or possibly a rottweiler would be a better ‘protection’ system.  Or perhaps just some menacing-looking pensioner armed with nothing but the pictured hatstand and a lusty grin.

And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.

— Revelation 12:11 (KJV)

Yeah, I have no idea what it’s supposed to mean either.  Something about suicidally hitting someone with a dead sheep?

Intriguing.

So I read it. And I found it fairly interesting, humorous and irreverent (… you must remember that atheists are just like you and me, except that they eat small children for breakfast. (Kidding, kidding. They prefer them for lunch.)) although there’s the obvious I-used-to-be-an-atheist-but-Jesus-is-my-homeboy sort of stuff, which just washed right over me.

It wasn’t until I got to the third point, the negated claim [t]hey [atheists] are well-versed in Catholic doctrine that I took exception.

And no, it’s not because I know a lot about catholic doctrine; I don’t. No, it was the conclusion of the point that surprised—and somewhat irked—me.

I find that when misconceptions like this [irrelevant—to an atheist like me—minutiae about their dogma] are cleared up, my atheist friends are pleasantly surprised at how fair and reasonable Catholic doctrine is.

Really?

Really?

[This is my incredulous face, right here—use your imagination.]

Catholic doctrinal attitudes to family planning are “fair and reasonable”? Catholic doctrinal attitudes towards homosexuals are “fair and reasonable”? Catholic doctrinal attitudes to justice for sexually and physically abused children are “fair and reasonable”? Catholic doctrinal attitudes to women and their reproductive health are “fair and reasonable”?

I can tell the difference between those ordinary folk that call themselves “catholics”, and the dogma that comes from the ostentatious-but-comically-behatted-and-befrocked sexless talking-heads in their gold-bedecked palaces in Rome. The former may indeed be—for the most part—reasonable people, but the bigoted, supercilious pontificating of their ‘bishops’ and ‘popes’ are anything but “fair and reasonable”.

No atheist I know—and I know a lot of ‘em—think catholic doctrine comes anywhere even close to this.

And you were doing quite well up until that point.

Jennifer Fulwiler, you’ve got to try harder.

Now there’s something called “Quantum Jumping“. (The Google search link is there because I refuse to give wingnuts ad revenue directly).

“What’s Quantum Jumping?”, I hear you ask. Thankfully, they’ve kindly explained it for us (for certain definitions of the word “explain”)…:

Quantum Jumping is the process of jumping into parallel dimensions, and gaining creativity, knowledge, wisdom, skills and inspiration from alternate versions of yourself.

This happens through a phenomenon known as “thought transference.” You see, although the solidity of our world seems indisputable, Quantum Theory suggests that our physical reality is nothing but a very elaborate mirage. A super-hologram of information and energy. A Matrix.

The chair you’re sitting on, your computer, your house, your car, everything that exists around you, is an illusion.

So then how do we see, touch, feel, and smell the things that surround us if none of it really exists?

The answer is that all physical matter is the result of particles vibrating at a certain frequency. A frequency that if you alter, change or amplify in any way, you change your physical and current reality.

We all know from physics class that if you increase the vibrational frequency of water particles through heat energy, you create steam and if you slow them down by removing heat energy, you create ice. And just like heat, our thoughts too are energy.

Emphasis as original.

This astounding knowledge can be yours, for the low-low price of the surrender of your faculties to vacuous crap. Oh, and most likely a lifetime of spam in your inbox.

Don’t forget to thank my other selves in those parallel universes. If they’re anything like me, at least one of them is bound to like a decent cup of coffee.

This episode of Channel 4′s Dispatches deals with autocratic christian fundamentalist fanatics campaigning against the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Bill (amongst other things) in the UK in 2008. ((They failed. The Bill received Royal Assent in November 2008.))

Unfortunately, as with a many a YouTube video, it’s annoyingly chunked into ~10′ segments so I’ve embedded the first part here and provided links to the other three.

Caution: it contains scenes of extreme bigotry, YECism, child indoctrination and all-round asshattery.  Oh, and everybody’s The Daily Mail‘s favourite rent-a-christofascist-twat, Stephen ‘Birdshit’ Green.  You have been warned.

Channel 4′s Dispatches: In God’s Name (part 1/4)

• Dispatches: In God’s Name (part 2/4)
• Dispatches: In God’s Name (part 3/4)
• Dispatches: In God’s Name (part 4/4)

An entire hour with Ray Comfort.   I thought it was going to be a lot of fun.  It wasn’t.

It was painful. Pitifully so.

As much as hosts Matt (Dillahunty) and Russell (Glasser) tried to explain to him where he was mistaken, illogical or just downright wrong, the entire episode has left me feeling not insignificantly stupider than I was at the start.

Or perhaps I’m just tired, seeing as it’s almost midnight here in the UK.

Either way, I expected it to be funny, charming, tragic and not a little stupid, but there was too much stupid for even me to want to ever have to willing wade through again.

Sorry, guys, but if you do another show like that then I think I’ll have to give that one a miss.

I was reading an article over at The Christian Post, “Growing Intolerance for Christianity in U.S.“, which contains an interview with a certain Brannon Howse (never heard of him but then I don’t run in fundie circles), who is absolutely convinced that not only are christians persecuted in the USA, so much so that if they’re not being persecuted, then they’re Doing It Wrong (with appropriate support by cherry-picking from his scripture to impress those already convinced, of course).

In one question, Howse was asked by The Christian Post‘s interviewer:

Are you saying everyday Christians, students, business people, and homemakers as well as clergy should be expecting bias, intolerance or hostility in all areas of life including civil government, education, economics, public policy, and family?

His reply is, in my opinion, a wonderful example of the paranoia and persecution complex that’s almost ever-present in christianity:

Actually, if an individual who claims to be a Christian is not experiencing intolerance or persecution – being called names, belittled, marginalized, or characterized because you stand for sound theology – you should examine yourself to make sure you are a Christian. [sic]

We are then presented with a link to a video, “10 hallmarks of a Christian“. It’s presented by Howse in TediousVapidVision, just in case you needed to be forewarned.

If you can’t be bothered watching the entire extremely tedious 21’24″ (I barely managed it) here are the ten hallmarks of being a True Christian™ in summary:

1. admit that you’re scum, awful scum, as scummy as the scummiest thing you can think of, but worse
2. keep your god’s commandments more than you break them
3. don’t hate, but spread love, forgiveness and compassion (unless one is gay, I expect)
4. don’t love evil worldly thingies, here be dragons Satan!
5. make the claim Jesus is his own dad, no matter how daft it sounds
6. hope Jesus comes home soon, but don’t you dare worry if you’ve not done the things you wanted to
7. preach at other christians, and non christians too, and
8. make sure other True Christians™ see you doing it, and seeing you do it a lot
9. don’t do yoga, don’t do magic, don’t think anything of other religions—they’re worse than you, you scum
10. ignore everyone else, put your fingers in your ears and go “La-la-la-la! Can’t hear you! Persecution! Persecution!”

So, there you have it. If you’re not doing any of them then you’re not a True Christian™. Apparently.

Hmmm…

From here.

If you’ve not seen it, also check out the excellent Qualia-Soup video on openmindedness (also at the above).

1. Yes, I’m ever hopeful…

Anyway, there’s this one guy who calls himself “Health Ranger” (I have no idea what that’s supposed to mean, but I’m guessing that it’s related to some Americanism I’m ignorant of) who has popped up in quite a few Twitter conversations recently, so I thought I’d take a look at his spiel.

He doesn’t like sceptics. Oh no. Not one jot.

Well, it seems that he doesn’t: he calls them “skeptics” (the quotes appear to be part of the word itself), but he doesn’t actually seem to know any. Not a one. At least nothing like any sceptic (or skeptic) that I know.

Apparently, as a sceptic (or a “skeptic”), I believe:

• ALL vaccines are safe and effective
• there is NO LIMIT to the number of vaccines a person can be safely given
• people of all ages can be safely given an unlimited number of drugs all at the same time
• that the human body has no ability to defend itself against invading microorganism [sic]
• that pregnancy is a disease
• that DEAD foods have exactly the same nutritional properties as LIVING foods
• that water has no role in human health other than basic hydration
• that all the phytochemicals and nutrients found in ALL plants are inert, having absolutely no benefit whatsoever for human health

as well as some other crazy shit.

I have no idea what a living food is. Is that like oats that are still attached to the ground? A chicken kiev that’s still running around? A surprisingly perky salmon fillet?

Oh, yeah. In the grand tradition of those that Make Shit Up™ he completely fails to provide any actual quotes or references. Just saying…

I guess I’m not a “skeptic” then. Well, thank fuck for that: they sound as batshit insane as the Health Ranger!

Cell theory? Maybe it’s germ theory. Have a problem with atomic theory? Plate tectonics? Electromagnetic theory? Quantum theory?

Or perhaps it’s just the study of the subject that’s flawed. I guess you must know better, seeing as you are able to, all-at-once, reject the scientific findings in the related fields of bacteriology, phycology, mycology, climatology, pathology, palaeolimnology, bionomics, virology, paleo-osteology, microclimatology, immunogenetics, immunology, organic chemistry, lithology, chemistry, oncology, geogeny, osteology, enzymology, lepidopterology, vermeology, geophysics, pharmacology, ethnogeny, epidemiology, thremmatology, hematology, olfactology, vulcanology, oology, palaeobiology, piscatology, phytology, larithmics, palaeoclimatology, zoology, oceanography, zoophytology, endocrinology, zoogeography, embryology, geochemistry, geochronology, genetics, geology, biology, anatomy, threpsology, palaeoanthropology, photobiology, parasitology, loimology, biochemistry, paleobotany, synecology, ecology, glaciology, odontology, ethnobiology, cytology, palaeontology, ethology, physiology, palaeopedology, insectology, paleoclimatology, karyology, theriogenology, toxicology, entomology, micropalaeontology, gerontology, histology, entozoology, nosology, botany, ichthyology, kinesiology, immunopathology, cetology, sexology, zoopathology, tocology, morphology, geogony, mastology, limnobiology, gastroenterology, crystallography, petrology and ornithology.

To name but a few.

But, come on, you refuse to accept evolution, therefore you’re obviously the expert. I, for one, am tired of listening to “fairy tales for grown-ups”, so I’d love to know exactly how is all of this so utterly and completely wrong.

Please tell us!

Or, maybe, there’s just one real “-ology” in your eyes.

God Sues Researchers for DNA Piracy
Patent Office Discovers 17-Billion-Year-Old Filing in Archives

It’s kind of amusing, but not a patch on the quality exhibited by the likes of The Onion. I’ll give them a B+ for effort, though.

This one, by the same author, isn’t so clever… Are strawmen funny?

Forget Ripley’s Believe It Or Not; instead we now have Mohammed’s Believe It Or Else! (PDF)

Here’s a sample of the insanity…

/hattip to Mark D in a comment over at Unreasonable Faith.

The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.

So, a bit of a git, then.

However, it struck me that these very same qualities often apply to a certain number of fundamentalist christians—presumably trying to be more like their god²—and the first and most prominent example of which that sprang to my mind was Fred Phelps of Westboro Baptist Church/”God Hates <topic>” fame.

What a card that chap is. His god is almost certainly the same god that Dawkins mentions; the far more relaxed New Testament redeemer god, Jesus—traditionally the primary god of christianity—doesn’t appear to get much of a look-in in Phelps’ theology.

I began to wonder how like their gods these sorts of people are, how many of these qualities might actually apply to Phelps, and others of that ilk, were one to substitute his name into the above.

[Fred Phelps] is arguably the most unpleasant character in [christendom]: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, [spectacularly] homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.³

It appears that pretty much the only descriptions that don’t apply to Phelps are those that would entail him having to personally perform or order the killing of one or more other people. Perhaps with an infestation of bees. As this sort of thing is generally frowned upon in most cultures (yes, including the bee thing)—occasionally for dogmatic religious reasons but more often than not for purely secular, sensible and justifiable ones—this is hardly surprising; one can lose their liberty to travel the world being a controversial bigot if one is convicted, by a very human court of law, for such actions and end up gaoled.

I did struggle somewhat over the ‘sadomasochist’ item, but I realised that, as well as enjoying inflicting misery on others, the proclaimed beliefs of Phelps’ bizarre little cult do appear to indicate he’d be happy with whatever judgement his god handed out to him, even if that meant the ‘hell’ he so often condemns (thankfully completely ineffectively) others to.

According to mainstream christian tradition, the Old Testament god chilled out quite a bit when he raped got laid and impregnated some poor girl with himself-as-Jesus. Unfortunately the same can’t be said of Phelps, who seems to have tenaciously remained determinedly repugnant despite having sired a whole bunch of offspring, presumably in the traditional manner. And with a relatively ready, knowing and willing partner too.

Perhaps he needs to get some a little more often, although I can easily imagine a chap of Phelps’ age and predisposition having erectile (amongst other) issues.

I wonder how often Yahweh gets a bit of action these days. It’s not something one hears about.

How much does your favourite religious crackpot resemble their god(s) in word and deed?

1. at least the Israelite-loving Yahweh one that christians keep harping on about. I’ll ignore El, Hadad, Moloch, Asherah and the rest of them for now and take them at their harebrained monopolytheistic word.
2. or perhaps simply because they’re hate-filled asshats.
3. All of these qualities can, and have been, attributed to (and substantiated if not freely admitted by) Phelps and his clan elsewhere. I’ll leave this as an exercise for the reader’s edification. Hint: the Wikipedia link previously is a good starting point.

/hattip to Barrie John in a comment over at The Freethinker.

From Pictures for Sad Children.

If you haven’t, I can only presume that the rock you live under is tremendously comfortable and has all of the mod-cons like air-conditioned gravel, and hot and cold running mud.

Anyway, it’s fucking awesome, and you should go and listen to it (see above).

Or, if you like, you can see Minchin do (what appears to be) the impossible and make something so fucking awesome even more, erm, fucking awesome-er by rerecording it, adding some tremendous motion graphics, atmospherics and otherwise carving out an edifice from an extremely large block of pure crystalline marble WIN.

Here’s the preview (on YouTube):

It’s not released in full yet, so keep an eye out over at stormmovie.net.

/hattip to the ever brilliant toomanytribbles

From comicblasphemy.com (NSFW, more often than not).

As you may (or may not) have noticed, I’ve managed to fix the blog. Which took about 30 minutes, thanks to a completely useless error message and a borked WordPress upgrade. I still don’t know what was wrong, but I’ll leave that for another day.

Bah.

Anyway, seeing as I now have a bit more (read ‘some’) free time that I can devote to blogging, expect to see a few more updates from me in the near future. But not today, as I’ve got to get my shit together for a gig in Glasgow tomorrow, followed by a weekend of heavy drinking and even heavier socialising. Well, someone’s got to do it!

A short episode that I’d like to make mention of, though. Last week I went to see Ariane Sherine give a talk about the Atheist Bus campaign and her new book, The Atheist’s Guide to Christmas, hosted by the Humanist Society of The University of Edinburgh.

It was amusing, insightful, and well worth the £1 attendance fee. It was also highly notable for the fact that I unexpectedly (and happilly) met with an old friend that I’ve not seen for nigh on 13 years. This was of course followed by a visit to a local pub for some more catching up, and the inevitable Facebook friendification.

Sherine also signed copies of her new book, one of which I bought with rather amusing consequences: when asked to make it out to “null”, she misheard me and thought I said “Noel”, which is suspiciously close to “Noël”… :-)

Hahaha! Joyeux Noël indeed!

Hope to see some more of you around the ‘sphere, if not in the pub!

a) actually be being persecuted; and
b) right.

Comfort apparently accepted, and Thunderf00t and Comfort met up to discuss things.

The results can be seen on YouTube.

I’ve not seen the videos yet, so can’t offer any opinion on them. However, knowing Comfort’s style of FAIL argumentation and quality of “evidence”, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Thunderf00t kick Comforts arse. Intellectually speaking.

What is the better vessel? Noah’s ark or the Millennium Falcon?

Well, Noah’s ark is real, and the Millennium Falcon is… is fake.

ROFLcopter is, by far, a better vessel than Noah’s boat: at least it can fly.

As one interviewee describes the actions of these godbots:

People will go to any lengths for comedy, I guess.

Somehow, I don’t think these asshats are doing it for comedy, but then again, that’s the essence of a Poe, right?

/hattip: Religious People Are Funny

Researchers at the University of East Anglia and a hospital in Norwich, eastern England are trying to find out whether chocolate can cut the risk of heart disease and need 40 women to step forward and help.

Most of the women will have to eat two bars of “super-strength chocolate specially formulated by Belgian chocolatiers” daily for one year and undergo several tests to measure how healthy their hearts are.

And to top this off as probably the best-science-experiment-in-the-world-ever, don’t worry if you end up in the control group:

The others will have to eat regular chocolate as a placebo.

Remember, though, you’re not supposed to enjoy yourself: this is for science!

There is a bit of a rubbish condition for eligibility, though…

One possible catch, for chocolate fans spotting an opportunity: volunteers for the research should be menopausal but aged under 75 and have type two diabetes.

Bugger.

/hattip @OzAtheist

The article opens:

The open Bible is part of the Made in God’s Image exhibition at the Gallery of Modern Art (Goma) in Glasgow.

Its inclusion was the idea of a local church which hoped gallery visitors would suggest ways in which the Bible could be “reclaimed as a sacred text”.

A sign next to a container of pens says: “If you feel you have been excluded from the Bible, please write your way back into it.”

My emphasis.

Of course, the church in question (Metropolitan Community Church) didn’t actually like it when some people, invited to do so, went ahead and did so. Especially when those suggestions didn’t involve things church might have preferred, like leaving it well alone and saying that it’s just perfect as it is.

For some reason, it never seemed to occur to the church that asking anybody, especially Glaswegians, to offer their opinions on anything isn’t necessarily a good idea if you can’t stand alternate opinions, swearing, lack of undue respect, thinking and all the other things that people who run churches seemingly abhor.

I call this what it is: Big. Fat. Religious. FAIL.

The Bible has already been adorned with comments, according to The Times, including “**** [fuck?] the Bible” and “This is all sexist pish, so disregard it all.”

A contributor wrote on the first page of Genesis: “I am Bi, Female & Proud. I want no god who is disappointed in this.”

Good for her.

Oh, and no mention of any affecting something specifically christian would be complete without some senior god-bothering muppet expressing fatwa envy. They don’t disappoint:

The Church of Scotland said it condemned any sacrilegious act, while a spokesman for the Catholic Church said: “One wonders whether the organisers would have been quite as willing to have the Koran defaced.”

Perhaps the organisers wouldn’t, but some of us ungodly types wouldn’t mind.

I’ve not read any version of a bible in a while, but litigious queer-bashing wingnut Minichiello Williams doesn’t seem to have, either. Her memory is even worse than mine:

Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “We have got to a point where we call the desecration of the Bible modern art. The Bible stands for everything this art does not: for creation, beauty, hope and regeneration.”

If I recall, it also stands for cruelty and genocide, slavery, misogyny, intolerance, immorality and other, more general, bronze age magical stupidity. I seem to remember at least that much and, even if I didn’t, it’s not very difficult to find.

There’s also another exhibit on show, although this one I find a little more peculiar (or “arty pish” in the local vernacular):

Another exhibit consist of a video that shows a young woman ripping pages out of the Bible and stuffing them in her underwear and in her mouth.

Um, yes. Quite.

I may have to take a trip into Glasgow this weekend. If nothing else, I can get a chicken katsu curry from Wagamama while I’m there.

/hattip: Graphjam and littlewoodenman

“A different way of knowing” what, precisely?

What does their “way of knowing” say about those materialistic things in the universe, like the speed of light? How about electron spin? The mass of Jupiter? Integral mathematics? The calorific value of set honey? The resonant frequency of quartz? The conductivity of copper? Allele frequencies in populations? The decay rate of ²³⁸U? Mass/energy conversion rates? Transistor energy barriers? Molar masses? The structure of DNA or diamond or dopamine?

How about something closer to home?

What’s the ideal sonic profile of a church for organ music? The aesthetics of a stained-glass window? The most comfortable shape for a pew? The ideal colour for priestly robes? The ideal number of choristers to sing a reasonably rousing rendition of Handel’s Messiah?

How about something a bit more metaphysical?

Why (according to them) is it wrong to kill or steal? Why shouldn’t homosexuals share a loving relationship? Why should sex be reserved for marriage, and marriage alone (which is of course only ever between one man and one woman)? Why are condoms “evil”? Why is ever-so-tasty bacon not allowed? Why are their favourite ancient stories considered as fact and all others of that ilk are just (and “obviously”) myth, or simply false? How does the doctrine of a “trinity” make any sense when, in every single other case that humanity has ever considered, 1+1+1=3?

Why is their particular interpretation of their scripture “better” or “more correct” than that of any of their heterosectarian neighbours? Why should they enjoy special privileges, often enshrined in statutes, that the rest of us cannot? Why are their opinions considered beyond criticism? What gives them the idea that they are entitled to judge the rest of us by their standards, especially when they often cannot live up to them themselves? What should we believe is true, without any evidence whatsoever, and why should we believe them over their competitors in the marketplace of ideas and opinions?

How can we use this different way of knowing? What is the process for acquiring new knowledge? How can we check that our results are correct? How can we test our newly acquired knowledge against alternate scenarios? What could falsify whatever we think we’ve gained from our different way of knowing, if we’re somehow completely on the wrong track? To what other domains can we apply this different way of knowing?

What things do they know—and how do they know them—that the rest of us cannot, and that isn’t simply an appeal to ancient manuscripts, traditions, personal experiences, authorities, popularity, flattery, fear or emotion, red herrings or hasty generalisations, or guilt by association, or cherry picking, or biased samples, or trying to shift the burden of proof, or straw men, or slippery slopes, or equivalent to just making-shit-up to suit their own preconceptions, preferences or prejudices?

Answers on a postcard (or perhaps just in the comments).

Daniel Florien of the Unreasonable Faith blog recently ran a competition to win a copy of Robert Wright’s new book The Evolution of God, and I won!

Considering that one of the conditions of the competition was to pray to Mithra that I would win, I did so. However, not really knowing how to pray, mine went something like this:

Hi Mithra. I don’t know if you can hear me down here, but I’d be grateful if you somehow managed to wrangle it so that I could win Daniel’s competition for The Evolution of God. Thanks.

Well, it appears that my simplistic appeal for Mithra to rearrange the necessary matter and circumstance in the universe to ensure my winning was, in fact, successful. W00t!

Therefore it must be the case that Mithra exists (there may be other gods, but he’s my favourite now), as there’s no possible way that I could have won if I hadn’t petitioned Him. Nope, not a hope in hell. Filling out the form to enter the competition was just a formality.

So, cheers Mithra for doing whatever gods do to allow people to win competitions. Oh, and thanks also to Daniel for running the competition and Wright for donating the books as prizes.

Of course, this now means that I really should update my book list soon. Bugger.

Thanks again Daniel. And Mithra, obviously.

As a follow up to that, it turns out that the Cornell University’s Messenger Lecture Series are now (allegedly) available on the Microsoft Research web site under something called Project Tuva.

I say “allegedly” because I’ve repeatedly failed to access that web site all day¹. Which is a bit crap for one of the richest corporations (and individuals) on the planet.

Oh, well—perhaps tomorrow…

/hattip to The Perplexed Observer

1. Perhaps it’s because I generally use a Mac or Linux and haven’t touched Windowsboxen in absolutely ages, but YMMV

What’s their beef? Well, it’s because a ferry company, to comply with European equality legislation is running ferries between Stornoway on the isle of Lewis and Ullapool on the (Scottish) UK mainland.

On a Sunday!

Shock! Horror!

Yes, that’s right: there are a bunch of fundies on an obscure (but pretty) little Scottish island in the Atlantic that think having a boat moving on Sunday will damn their eternal souls to ultimate doom. DOOM!

From the BBC:

The controversial first scheduled Sunday ferry sailing from Stornoway on Lewis to mainland Scotland has gone ahead as planned.

There has been strong opposition on the island, where the Sabbath day has traditionally been strictly observed.

A small group of protesters prayed and sang a psalm as cars boarded the boat, but several hundred people clapped.

Supporters said it would boost the economy of the Hebridean island and offer local people freedom to travel.

Of course, this is just another example of a bunch of narrow-minded religionists wanting special privilege to force others to follow their self-imposed rules under an appeal to “tradition”.

The BBC continues:

As cars lined up in the ferry terminal car park, protesters gathered in silence behind a banner.

It read: “Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy”.

They sang Psalm 46 – God is our refuge and our strength – and prayed for the nation to “turn its back from sin and wickedness”.

A number of women wiped away tears as they prayed for a return to the Lord’s commandments.

Wiped away tears? Because a ferry is sailing on a Sunday? I can’t even begin to consider comprehending the “logic” that must be floating around in the heads of these people. Truly, it boggles my mind.

Indeed, they also try to make a secular appeal (sadly again to tradition) as a purely religious one would rightly be laughed out of Caledonian MacBrayne’s boardroom. Again the BBC:

A leaflet handed out by a group of local churches said that the peace and tranquillity of the islands was enjoyed by residents and visitors alike.

It said: “By and large we like it like this.

“We are not oppressed by a quiet Sunday.”

It wished tourists who came to Lewis by ferry a “happy and blessed trip to the islands”.

Yes, these tourists will of course be welcomed when they go to the island to do the touristy things that tourists do. Just not on a Sunday. Because being a tourist (or a resident that has things to do on a Sunday) is obviously going to interfere with the tranquility of the island.

[facepalm]

I’ve been to a couple of the islands of the west coast of Scotland, and seen this sort of thing first-hand. Most businesses and shops are completely shut, except the larger supermarket chains which often have very restricted opening hours (12pm-4pm/5pm is not uncommon), and the booze aisles are usually shuttered all day even though Scottish law allows the offsale of alcohol after 12pm.

There are always two things open on a Sunday regardless: churches and pubs. The Scottish islands have historically have had a higher per-capita incidence of both religiosity and alcohol/drug abuse than the general Scottish population. I’ve sometimes wondered if this anachronistic attitude to Sunday working has anything to do with it.

I’m not sure what the relevant European equality legislation is, so can’t comment on that. As far as I’m concerned, the ferry company should be free to run ferries any day of the week that they choose and people are willing to pay for, irrespective of the whims of a few religionistas and their chosen dogma.

Here’s some advice for these morons: if you want to keep Sunday “holy” then just stay off the damned ferry on a Sunday. Actually, shouldn’t you still be on your knees in church or something, keeping Sunday “holy” all day? Just keeping it “holy” only in the morning seems just a tad convenient…

BBC: Sunday ferry makes first sailing

*sigh*

The Telegraph has an article describing how the BBC Trust, the governing body of the corporation that decides the rules and procedures to be followed by the BBC, is deliberating whether to include non-religious voices in the segment.

From the article at The Telegraph:

Mark Damazer, the channel’s controller, has said that the slot on the flagship programme could “take in a wider range of voices”.

Secularists claim the item discriminates against non-believers and have complained to the Trust, the governing arm of the corporation, which will deliver its response in the Autumn.

Mr Damazer said: “There may well be quite a strong argument for including secularists and humanists” but, he added, “it’s absolutely not a cut and dried issue”.

Responding to listener complaints on Radio 4′s Feedback programme, he said: “You should know that the BBC Trust … is currently considering this question and they will come to some kind of conclusion later on this year.”

The two minute slot should give a voice to a wide range of religions and a voices to those from around the UK rather than “metropolitan figures sitting in a studio in Broadcasting House or the news centre in west London”, he said.

“It is I think satisfyingly diverse [but] that does not mean that it should never change its remit or the criteria for selection and I think it is worth looking at,” he added.

Of course, it’s the usual suspects that want to exclude non-believers from voicing opinions on moral and ethical concerns.

However, faith leaders have criticised the move saying that in an increasingly secular climate, it was “vitally important” that religion retains its voice.

Steve Clifford, General Director of the Evangelical Alliance said: “The Today programme has no problem running slots for business and sport, so why shouldn’t it have a slot dedicated to religion? It strikes me that the secularists predominate in the other 2 hours and 55 [sic - TftD is 2'45"] minutes, so is it really asking too much for religion to just have a small chunk of dedicated time?”

What Clifford is doing here is conflating ‘secular’ with “excluding religion” rather than “not biased in favour of religion”.

The “other” 2 hours and 55 57.25 minutes actually doesn’t exclude dealing with topics related to religion (it often does – e.g. ) but Clifford wants to play the persecution card to gain sympathy for those of his cadre, or at least calibre.

What this actually means is that, in context, the time available for purely secular voices is 2 hours and 57.25 minutes: the time available for religious voices is 3 hours.

While that 2’45″ per (week)day may seem like a small amount, it does add up. But it’s the primary function of TftD that is in question, and that function is to present opinion on whatever the moral or ethical dilemma de jour is.

However, this is only ever religious opinion. Because, as we are so often told, only the religious can hold valid opinions on morality and ethics.

If I were to be charitable, this could probably be considered a case of innocently ignorant anti-non-theist bigotry. But I can’t be, because time and time and time again, non-religious voices have been deliberately excluded from TftD.

And I believe we will again. Sorry, but I don’t have enough faith in the upper echelons of the BBC to be fair and equitable to all, and not just those who claim to know things that they do not know.

I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong though.

Meanwhile, if you want to find out what TftD bobbleheads are actually saying (without all the mumbo jumbo) you can find fairly accurate translations for us unsaved heathens at Platitude of the Day.

For an example of the “wisdom” of the religious when considering moral or ethical issues, see this TftD from yesterday’s Today programme when Alan Billings held court:

Christians are taught by St Paul to rejoice with those who rejoice and weep with those who weep. Over these last few days, you would need a heart of flint not to have wept with the relatives of those waiting at RAF Lyneham to receive the bodies of their loved ones repatriated from Afghanistan.

I have been especially moved by the sadness of the parents. In the most intense way we see in them what the vocation of parenthood entails. You bring children into the world. You love and protect them. You are proud of their achievements and distressed at their setbacks. You learn about what we might call the burden of love: how vulnerable you are to what happens to them. Then your vocation changes gear. Your eighteen year lease is up, and you watch them grow up and grow away. They make their own way in the world, and you must watch now from a distance.

Down the centuries parents have often been drawn to Mary, the mother of Jesus, since her life exemplifies this pattern. She gives birth to her son. She raises him. But then, in his relatively short adult life, her vocation is one of watching – with growing anxiety. Finally she receives his body at the foot of the cross.

Some years ago I remember visiting an exhibition at the National Gallery called Seeing Salvation. The Director had brought together a wonderful collection of Christian art and artefacts from the earliest centuries to the present. I recall seeing a woman standing in front of a pieta – an image of Mary holding in her lap the dead body of her son, cradling him as she had once cradled his living body as a small child. The woman stood before the pieta, crying quietly. Was she religious? Or was she a mother who had also known in its sharpest form the burden of love?

But should the human cost of the Afghan conflict, made so visible in the raw emotions of the relatives, be made so public? During the Vietnam War, the American government sought to prevent photographs of the returning flag-draped coffins from appearing in newspapers and on television. One can understand why. All modern wars are fought in the head as much as on the battlefield and this, it was felt, would be bad for morale and so an aid to the enemy. The Taleban also understands the power of images, using them whenever they can to undermine our resolve.

Even so, we should not seek to hide the cost of this conflict. Preventing Taleban control of Afghanistan and ridding the country of the terrorist training camps that threatened us, may have made the war a sad necessity and the lesser of evils. But, the sorrow of the relatives serves to remind us that war remains an evil nonetheless.

For those of us who don’t wear JesusGogglesâ„¢, this is what he said filtered into the language of the non-theologically biased:

War is a messy business. No, honestly it is! People get killed. When we see the grieving families of dead service personnel, we immediately think of Mary, the mother of the visible bit of the Invisible Magic Friend. Even at a time when we should pause to salute the bravery of those who have given their lives, or deplore the waste of those who have died so young, or question the wisdom of a protracted campaign in a region that is notoriously difficult to control, the important thing is to be distracted by religion, the right religion, my religion. And there’s been some fantastic paintings of Mary.

As a Reverend Canon Doctor and an Anglican Priest, let me just assure you that it’s all in a good cause. That Taliban lot are a bunch of religious nutters. They think their Invisible Magic Friend has told them how to live their lives and because their Invisible Magic Friend is all good, all knowing and all powerful, everyone has to live their lives the way they tell them to. I mean, you can’t get much more loopy than that, can you? That’s what happens when people with dangerous delusions are given exclusive privileges and legitimised by the state. It’s not even the right religion. My Invisible Magic Friend assures me that their Invisible Magic Friend is just a figment of their imagination and they should stop paying any attention to him.

Actually, as an alternative, if they just recorded Platitude for the Day and broadcast that just after the existing TftD, I’d be content with that.

Well, not really, but I don’t often get Ray ‘Tampon-Case’ Comfort style/quality email trying to get me to think that I’m scum and need a zombie to apologise to for it.

If you’re interested, the email I got is below the fold, but this was my rather brief response:

Sorry, but nothing here cuts it. Here’s a list you can use to help you in your attempt to make me believe you.

http://www.nullifidian.net/2007/10/01/go-on-then-convince-me-of-your-religion/

I’m still going to mark this mail as spam though, hilarious as it is.

Thanks for the chuckle.

null

The email I received (emphasis as original) is below. However, I’ve removed the To and CC fields as these poor people have already been subjected to this nonsense, but I have no qualms about spam enabling fundies. Hey, they emailed me.

From Mel Chizedek <mel_kizadeck@bellsouth.net>.

Hello,

Thank you for not deleting this email right away. While you and I may not know each other, what I want to tell you is important enough for me to want to contact you. But don’t worry, I obtained your email address off of the internet [sic] and will not contact you again unless you reply.

I assure you that this is not a solicitation or a scam of any kind. I do not want to sell you anything or sign you up for anything. My hope is that you will continue to read the email. My hope is that, in the end, you will see this letter as so much more than “spam.”

The reason for the email is so that you can hear about the good news of the Gospel. Now, you might be saying to yourself, “I already know Jesus Christ and am sure of my salvation”. I THOUGHT I WAS SURE TOO. It can’t hurt to examine your faith and see where you stand. The cost of being wrong is too great.

The Bible says in Hebrews 9:27 that “it’s appointed for every man once to die, and then judgment.” What that means is that everyone dies once and is then judged before Almighty God. So, if you are standing before God on Judgment [sic] Day, are you going to heaven or hell? Have you been a good person? You might think so but, unfortunately though, we aren’t going to be judged by any human standard of goodness. There is only one standard by which we can all be judged and that standard is God’s Law, also known as the Ten Commandments. The Bible says in Romans 2:15 that God “has written the law upon the heart of every man in the form of our conscience” so that when we die and face him, we will have no excuse.

So let’s go through them real quick. Have you ever broken the 9th commandment by lying? Of course you have. A person who does that is called a liar. Have you ever broken the 8th commandment and stolen anything (regardless of value)? A person who does that is called a thief. Let’s look at the 7th commandment against adultery: Jesus says that whoever looks upon another person with lust has committed adultery in their heart. Have you ever looked with lust? Yes. What about the 6th commandment against murder? Jesus also says that whoever hates a person, without cause, has committed murder in his heart. Have you ever hated anyone? If you’re like most people, at this point you are a lying, thieving, murdering adulterer at heart standing before a just and holy God.

At this point, you might be saying to yourself, I don’t believe in God, Heaven, or Hell. I say that it doesn’t matter what you believe. Let’s say that someone held you up at gunpoint, would you laugh at him and say “I don’t believe in guns!”? Of course not! That’s because your disbelief doesn’t negate reality and believe me, GOD IS REAL. Or are you willing to bet your eternal life on it?

Or, you might be saying to yourself, “I don’t believe that God would judge us so harshly. My god is a god of love and forgiveness and would never send anyone to Hell”. You are right. Your god would not send anyone to Hell because he doesn’t exist! What you’ve just done is broken the 2nd commandment against idolatry. When you create a god in your mind to suit yourself, you are turning your back on the real God. Have you ever broken the 3rd commandment by using our Creator’s name in vain as a four-letter cuss word? That’s called blasphemy and is very serious in God’s eyes.

So, if you are still reading this then you’ve probably said, “That’s impossible! No one can live up to the standard of the Ten Commandments.” You are right. No one can. Man is not perfect. We were born into sin and have a sinful nature. God is so holy and so perfect that his standard is unattainable to mortal men. You might say, but that’s not fair! What about forgiveness? God is supposed to forgive us of our sins. What about all of the good things that I’ve done in my life?

Well, let’s look at an example. What if you were in a courtroom standing before a judge and you had just been convicted of murder. You did it. You’re guilty and all that’s left is for the judge to render his sentence: $500,000 or death. You can’t just say to the judge “Your honor. I just wanted to say that you are a good man and that I know you will forgive me of my crime. Besides, what about all the other good things I’ve done in my life?” What’s the judge going to say? If he is a good judge then he’s going to send you to the electric chair. He might want to be merciful, but he can’t just set you free, the law demands a penalty. Since God is a good judge and because he is so good and so holy, he has no choice but to send you to Hell. The law demands a penalty and the Bible says in Romans 6:23 that “the wages of sin is DEATH”.

But, here’s where your story takes a turn for the good. You are about to be lead away in shackles when all of a sudden, someone comes into the courtroom and pays your $500,000 fine. The judge then sees that the requirement of the law has been fulfilled. And since you’ve met the requirements, you are now free to go! That’s what Jesus Christ did for all of us when he died on the cross 2000 years ago. Jesus Christ came to earth, God in human form, born of a virgin, lived a perfect and blameless life, was crucified on the cross, and then rose from the dead three days later as a payment for our sins. All we have to do is accept the payment and we are free from eternal damnation!

How do we accept the payment? All that is required from us is to ask God for forgiveness, repent (turn away) from our sins, and then trust in the Lord Jesus Christ with all of our hearts (Romans 10:9). When we do that, Jesus Christ washes away all of our sins and we can now stand before God blameless on Judgment Day. Then read your Bible and obey it, join a local church and be baptized. God will make you into a new person with new wants and desires. He doesn’t want to send you to Hell, He loves you. You’ve probably heard John 3:16 “For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believes in Him, will not perish but have eternal life.”

Well, that’s it. Thank you for reading all the way through. I thank you for your time and my prayer is that you will consider all that you’ve read and seek Jesus Christ for eternal life today. Don’t wait for tomorrow because we never know when we will be taken from this earth and now that you’ve read this email you are without excuse when you stand before God.

To Him be the glory,
Mel Kizadeck

www.needgod.com

http://tinyurl.com/newfaith

P.S. If you’re already saved by faith in Christ, would you please forward this email along to others in your address book? Who knows? You might just help bring a friend to Christ.

LOL!

The mail is not usually something that I get particularly excited about, but today was a little different.

Through the magic of a subscription to New Humanist magazine, I’ve finally managed to get my grubby mitts on the first batch of Christina Martin‘s awesome God Trumps to add to my collection of weird and wonderful sets of playing cards.

The first twelve cards (and the case) are included with the current July/August 2009 issue of New Humanist, and the remaining twelve should be enclosed with the September/October issue.

Smashing. Now, if I can just find someone to play with…

Can you spot the mystery guest?

Jesus vs Death

Yes, it’s our old friend Dr Evil The Grim Reaper!

El Grimo Reapero

Tell him “hi” from me, next time you see him. Unless I see him first, of course!

/hattip: Outside The Interzone

Gates has apparently recently purchased the rights to a collection of lectures by physicist, author, skirt-chaser and bongo player Richard Feynman, and will be making them freely available to the public.

From Symmetry Breaking magazine:

Bill Gates recently bought the rights to a series of lectures by legendary Caltech physicist Richard Feynman. The former Microsoft head’s purchase shows that the cultural and scientific legacy of Feynman remains strong even 21 years after his death.

The lectures, given in 1964 as part of Cornell University’s Messenger Lecture Series, were filmed by the BBC, who had retained the rights since. Gates purchased the lectures for an undisclosed amount.

But what would the former Microsoft head want with the copyright to lectures by the revered physicist? In a recent interview with the CERN Bulletin, Gates said that his only plan is to make the footage freely available to the public.

The videos themselves don’t yet appear to be online, but I’m sure that’s one of the places they’ll first appear.

/hattip Atheist Media

6 DECEMBER, i CHARLES I. Memorandum of the presentment for recusancy and of the insolence of one Richard Beake of Kentish-towne who (on being duly and lawfully summoned by John Corey, one of the bailiffs of the Sheriff of Middlesex, to appeare at this session at Hickes Hall) answered to the same John Corey “that he cared not a f for the Justices, and that he had not been at church for tenn yeares, nor wold goe to churche for all the Justices could doe, adding further, Lett the Justices kisse his A” S. P. Reg.

Richard Beake of Kentish-towne is now a hero of mine.

I’ve also learned a new word: recusancy. It means “fuck you, churchy”.

They wrote:

This study convinces me even more that New Atheism has all the qualifications of a being its own religion. It seems to be becoming more organized and the tenets of its “faith” more scripted or set in place, with even four? main “bishops”; ie. Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.

Reading Dawkin’s quote and your description of his love for and faith in the great Cosmos, I’m struck with how “worshipful” his devotion is to the Universe.

You wrote, “He approaches science poetically, demonstrating that it can enrich our lives and aid us in a search for meaning and purpose. “The world and the universe is an extremely beautiful place, and the more we understand about it the more beautiful does it appear,” Dawkins explains.
It is this belief in the power of science to open our eyes to the awe-inspiring splendor and mystery of the Cosmos and its contents that drives Dawkins’ passion for evolutionary biology and his criticism of religion.”

To me this is just one religion criticizing the others. “Nothing is new under the sun.”

In my opinion, the intolerance of the new atheist is only a result of his/her commitment to their own set of beliefs and their worship of what is seen rather than what is unseen. The resentment to Christianity, in particular, definitely stems from the spiritual side of things, even from those who deny its existence. Have you ever met a religion which doesn’t resent Christianity?

I felt a need to respond, so I wrote:

Whatever “New Atheism” is (and it’s patently obvious that this isn’t a label that atheists apply to themselves except in the context of rebuttals to arguments like this), a “religion” it certainly isn’t.

Organised? If by that you mean that there are discussion fora, community web sites, (arguably) sceptical conferences, then yes. If you mean that we all gather in a bunch of rooms every so-often and pat ourselves on the back, you’re onto a wrong ‘un.

Tenets? What on earth is a tenet of atheism (or “New Atheism”, whatever)? Even the most elastic definition I could find (dictionary.com) defines a ‘tenet’ as “any opinion, principle, doctrine, dogma, etc., esp. one held as true by members of a profession, group, or movement.”

The closest tenet of so-called “New Atheism” then could be the collective position (as per the original definition of “atheism”, rather than the populist strawman definition) that we don’t believe in gods. Any gods. All gods. Not just the christian gods.

Bishops? Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens, Grayling? Really? They hold services every now and then and tell us exactly what to think based on their pontifications of our holy books? Oops, we don’t have any.

Faith? What faith? Atheism is a respondent position, not an accusatory one. It’s a position based on the question “do you believe in the existence of any gods?” and if the answer is anything other than “yes”, then one is, by definition, an atheist.

Worship? An appreciation of the fact that we’re alive in the here and now and can look at the universe with a sense of wonder and try to figure it how it works? Please.

You’ve also completely ignored to tell us what the rest of our supposed religion’s trappings are. So, please tell us what our “holy book” is, what our “rituals” and “traditions” are, where our “churches” are, what our “dogmas” are, who our “popes” and “saints” are, how we “pray” and what we “pray” for.

I’m surprised you didn’t go the whole hog and call us “militant” while you’re at it. By ‘militant’ you would of course means “doesn’t shut up when told to”, rather than the usual definition of militant meaning going out with a gun and shooting someone, or carrying a belt of plastique into a crowded market place. You know, the usual use of the word ‘militant’, it’s even one you can find on Fox News! But then conflation and equivocation is a traditional refuge of the unreasonable mind.

It’s typical of people like you to call atheism a “religion” and then deride it. Just in case you don’t get it, this fails for at least two reasons:

1) it’s a strawman argument and anyone with even an ounce of common sense can see through it; and
2) by calling it a religion and then decrying it as such lends absolutely no credibility to any religion, especially that of the arguer.

There are other reasons, but I’m not entirely convinced that you’d understand why your accusation fails for the two reasons above, and frankly it’d be a waste of time.

“New Atheism” is nothing if not responding to the unjustified demand of “you can’t criticise religion (especially mine!)” with the flat answer of “yes, I can, why can’t I?”.

Atheists, “New” or otherwise, can hold any number of positions including an appreciation, an indifference or a hostility to classic organised religions, including (but certainly not exclusively) christianity.

[Comment broken here due to length.]

To claim that we resent christianity en masse is to a) completely fail to understand the basic position of an atheist (see above fro hints); b) play the “persecution” card (don’t worry, we know it’s in the christian scripture, so we expect it) and c) demonstrate that you appear to think that everyone who is an atheist used to be a christian (but obviously not a True Christianâ„¢) which is not only untrue but absurd and only serves to show a startlingly narrow experience and mindset.

Your basic argument (and pay attention because there’s a big point here, but I’ll write slowly so that you can keep up) seems to come down to “New Atheism has all the qualifications of a being its own religion … [because] [h]ave you ever met a religion which doesn’t resent Christianity”.

Completely risible.

And I laugh at you (no, not because you’re a christian before you decide to replay the same persecution card) but because you can’t seem to reason your way out of a wet paper sack, even with the aid of a chain-saw and an angry claustrophobic ferret.

I can’t help feeling that it’s like smacking a 4 year old for something it doesn’t understand it’s done wrong.

Gay marriage debate chart

/hattip: The Good Atheist & @almightygod.

Just FYI:

/hattip: @bengoldacre

The BBC supports Islam and attacks Christianity, according to Don Maclean, the former Radio 2 religious programme presenter.

Maclean, who hosted Good Morning Sunday for 16 years, claimed that the corporation is biased against Christianity and had embarked on a movement to “secularise the country”.

Translation:

Bwaaaah boo hoo boo hoo! Nobody loves Jesus’n'Mary’n'Mo — oops, not Mo — anymore but me! Waaaah boo hoo hoo! Sob sob! etc.

If you can be arsed, the rest of it’s over there, but I wouldn’t bother if I were you.

Actually, I shouldn’t have bothered with this post. Pah, too late now—might as well press “publish”.

P.S. Why was “git” not in my computer’s dictionary? Had to remedy that pronto! Oh, look, there was a good outcome of posting this tosh.

On today’s Sunday Sequence, the CEO of Creation Ministries UK responded to claims by one of the world’s leading authorities on evolution that he was duped into appearing in an anti-Darwinian film.

Professor Peter Bowler, the author of a biography of Charles Darwin and many other books on the history of evolution, said he was interviewed for the The Voyage That Shook The World without realising that the film was being made by a Creationist [sic] group.

Professor Bowler, who has spent most of his academic career at Queen’s University, Belfast, researching Darwinism, says he is unhappy to be appearing in what he regards as an “anti-Darwinian” film which offers an historically distorted portrait of Darwin. He claims that the film’s narrative implies that Darwin’s theory led him towards racism, whereas recent historical work by James Moore and Adrian Desmond shows that Darwin’s scientific work was partly motivated by the naturalist’s passionate opposition to racism.

Professor Bowler says he, along with his colleagues Sandra Herbert and Janet Browne, only discovered that they had inadvertently contributed to a Creationist [sic] film a month before the film’s release. Peter Bowler also raised concerns about how the editing of his own interview could leave viewers with a false impression of his own perspective on Darwin.

Phil Bell, CEO of Creation Ministries UK, acknoweged that his organisation established a “front company” called Fathom Media, because they were concerned that experts such as Peter Bowler would not agree to take part in the film if they realised it was an “overtly Creationist [sic]” production. “At the end of the day,” he said, “[when] people see ‘Creationist’ [sic], instantly the shutters go up and that would have shut us off from talking to the sort of experts, such as Professor Bowler, that we wanted to get to.”

My emphasis.

One of the commentators, korotiotio, makes this point:

The producers intention for this documentary was to create a film that would be attractive to secular broadcasters and NOT an “anti-Darwin creationist polemic”, thus the production company Fathom Media was set-up to produce and market the film. Which by the way, is standard practice in television land.

While this is true, the admission from the producers as to their reasons for setting up a “front” is in spite of the fact that it’s standard practice, not germane to it.

Crawley filed this under “religion” and “ethics”. Obviously he’s using the “ethics” category as a shorthand for “gross violations of ethics”.

Read the full text of Crawley’s post over at the BBC: “Creationists defend Darwin film”

/hattip: RD.net

NEVER!

So she wrote it up.

I didn’t follow her point (if there was one) mainly because she was describing herself as an Atheist who followed the quasi-religious doctrine of Atheism, whatever that is. Is this where the “New” comes in in “New Atheists”? I’m still to understand what that means too.

So, in order to understand what she was saying, I translated it into words I could understand, seeing if it would make more sense to me and if I would see myself and other atheists/secularists reflected in the mirror of her concern:

Confessions of a Lapsed [Person Who Doesn't Believe In Gods]

Do you believe in God? Really? And you’re willing to admit it in public?

Oops. Sorry, for a moment I slipped back into the arrogant [Lack Of Belief In Gods] of my youth.

Before my parents had children, they decided to raise their kids in a secular home. We had gifts at Christmas time and chocolate covered matzoh during Passover, but there was no religion and certainly no God.

When I was in grade school, God was just a kind of nondescript character who popped up in Little House on the Prairie books from time to time. He seemed like a decent enough fellow, but was more or less a bit player who didn’t have much to say.

After my grandfather died when I was seven, his Baptist minister lifted me up in his arms and told me, “It’s all right, Grandpa’s with God now.” At that moment, I could feel my dress was hiked up in the back and all I could think about was pulling it back down. But later, I asked around and discovered that God was our Heavenly father, whatever that was supposed to mean.

I figured, who better to ask about my Heavenly father than my earthly father, but when I did he laughed.

He wasn’t amused in a “kids say the darnedest things” kind of way. He was laughing derisively at the idea that my mother’s family believed in God. And thus began my introduction to [A Lack Of Belief In Gods].

There are people who call themselves [a person who doesn't believe in gods] who are simply nonbelievers, and then there are the big “A” [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] for whom [Lack Of Belief In Gods] is almost a religion. This quasi-religious doctrine isn’t neutral on the existence of other religions; rather, [A Lack Of Belief In Gods] is a virulently anti-theistic creed characterized by sneering contempt for religion and a profoundly dogmatic bigotry toward people of faith.

Want to know how [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] see the rest of us?

I grew up learning from my father that [A Lack Of Belief In Gods] is rational, and therefore, religious belief is irrational; [A Lack Of Belief In Gods] is defined by logic, religious faith by fantasy; and science is real while religion is make believe. Faith, I was taught, requires a willful stifling of reason.

The Torah, the Gospels, the Qur’an? All woefully inaccurate, laughably inconsistent fictions used to encourage belief in an illusion for the purpose of social control.

My curiosity in religion surfaced again in seventh grade when several of my friends were planning Bat Mitzvahs. Surely my friends weren’t ignorant enough to actually believe in God, were they? The answer was no. For most of these reform Jews, this celebration marked the official end to the tedium of Hebrew school. Most of their families were Ethical Culturists with a recreational interest in preserving their Jewish cultural identity. In other words, they too were [People Who Don't Believe In Gods].

By the time I reached high school, having had little contact with religion, I was convinced that people of faith were credulous and unenlightened. They gravitated toward soothing tales of God and afterlife to help them deal with their own mortality. At best, I considered belief in God an anachronism, a quaint vestige of days gone by, on par with superstitions about wicked thoughts causing birth defects.

At my extremely liberal college, I was exposed to even more militant [Lack Of Belief In Gods]. It was there that I learned the mere whiff of religiosity is worthy of denigration. Many of the people I met approached religion with something between disdain and loathing, and considered all religious belief a form of fanaticism. Christians in particular were characterized as knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing fundies (and that was in polite company.)

Fortunately my mother taught me enough manners that I kept my bias to myself.

In this new environment, my [Lack Of Belief In Gods] was more than evidence of good reasoning, it was a socially desirable badge of intellectual superiority. Make no mistake: [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] think they’re smarter than you. [A Lack Of Belief In Gods] isn’t simple skepticism. It is a certainty that believers are wrong, and by extension, intellectually inferior. Religion, especially Judeo-Christian religion, is nothing more than a crutch for dupes.

But [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] aren’t content to leave religion as a mere object of ridicule. They want it cleansed from public life. And enlightened as they are, they’ve come up with quite the pretense for justifying the righteousness of their bigotry: they are defending the vision of our founding fathers from a dominionist conspiracy to establish Christianity as the state religion.

You see, for liberal [People Who Don't Believe In Gods], the only thing worse than religion is the Religious Right, a term they use to encompass all Christian conservatives. And what better way to siphon fuel from the Religious Right than to convince Americans that the government is perpetually on the verge of becoming a theocracy?

And so, they accuse local governments of trampling the Constitution in the name of God and they find subliminal Christian iconography in political ads. They wring new meanings from Thomas Jefferson’s notion of separation between church and state, and condemn our country’s motto and the status of Christmas as a national holiday. But above all, [People Who Don't Believe In Gods] stoke fear among religious and nonreligious alike that conservatives view government as a tool to force religion down your throat.

Pope-slandering buffoon Bill Maher, something of a patron saint among [People Who Don't Believe In Gods], has called religion “the ultimate hustle.” Last fall, Maher’s fellow liberal Chris Matthews, a self-described Catholic, roundly criticized Alaska Governor Sarah Palin for talking about prayer in a “secular environment” and complained that she made the Republican Party look more like a church tent than a big tent. In March, Matthews complained, “Why does everything sound like the ‘700 Club’ with this Party now?” Such examples of anti-religious bias can be found every day on cable news, network television, and in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post.

As my politics strayed right of center after college, I realized I wanted no part of that Maher/Matthews worldview based in elitism and the ridicule of others. I made the transition from [A Person Who Doesn't Believe In Gods] to [a person who doesn't believe in gods] to agnostic, and have since discovered why it is often said that religion is experiential.

There was a time when I would have preferred any manner of torture to admitting the possibility of a higher power. These days, I’m proud to say I lost my faith in the [Person Who Doesn't Believe In Gods] creed.

Nope, still not getting it. Perhaps if I translated “secular” and “liberal” and “elitism” and “thinking” and “having a fucking clue” from their right-wing “meanings” I might have had more success.

Perhaps next time.

/hattip to The Barefoot Bum.

Simon over at Adventures in nonsense has been busying himself recently:

For some time, chiropractic has managed to get away with being the acceptable face of alternative medicine. With some evidence to show that it helps with lower back pain, and many chiropractors only using the therapy for this purpose, it was seen by many as a legitimate therapy and largely escaped criticism from sceptics.

That all changed when the BCA decided to sue Simon Singh for libel. In a fine example of the Streisand effect, all the energy usually reserved for criticising homeopaths and reiki healers was redirected straight at those chiropractors making wild and outlandish claims to treat colic, asthma and a host of other problems unrelated to the spine.

With the BCA attempting to stifle debate over the bogus claims pointed out by Simon Singh, I was determined to do something.

Golly gosh, what did he do? What did he do?

[Don't you just love cliff-hangers?]

I don’t want to give the game away here, so pop on over and read what Simon and his chums have been up to from the man himself.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to withdraw support for Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm, and education focused, yet ardently creationist establishment.

Noah’s Ark Zoo Farm (NAZF) is a zoo just outside Bristol that markets itself to schools and is heavily focused on child education.

However, instead of teaching well-established science, it promotes creationism.

The literature displayed at the zoo is hostile to Darwin and his theories and attempts to debunk techniques such as radio carbon dating and interpretation of the fossil record.

Much of this literature – which is presented as fact – contradicts science on the national curriculum, thereby actively damaging a child’s education. This can be evidenced on their website; however, this is much diluted compared the ardent creationist material on display at the zoo.

NAZF also uses the VisitBritian logo to market the zoo.

The stated aim of VisitBritain (Britain’s national tourism agency) is to market Britain worldwide and to develop England’s visitor economy.

By promoting the NAZF, with its creationist agenda and harmful educational materials, VisitBritian is damaging the reputation of the United Kingdom.

I’m a little of two minds over this. On one hand, I feel people should be able to believe any bat-shit insane proposition they like. On the other, the fact that the wingnuts behind this zoo are making inroads into schools (what the fuck does RE [religious "education" - a [s]tatutory subject with non-statutory programme of study] have to do with biology?) is not on for precisely the reasons that creationism isn’t already taught in science lessons: it’s not science.

As these two concerns are not necessarily mutually exclusive, the only reason that I’m signing this petition is for the second reason, and not the first.

I just wanted to make that clear.

I also think that the fourth paragraph (the one starting The literature displayed at the zoo…) is both superfluous and frames the petition badly. I do understand and appreciate why it’s there, although I wish it weren’t and think the petition would be better off for it.

Note: The petition is scheduled to close on the 26th June 2009 (six days [ha!] from the date of this post) so please sign it, and repost as far and wide as you can.