Atheism

just wondering

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 02:25:32 GMT

What are the most convincing and reasonable arguments you've come across positing the likelihood of god/definite existence of god? Have all of them been logically refuted (by Dawkins, other prominent scientists/theologians, your own reasoning, etc)? I just want to make myself familiar with the other side of the pond, if you will. I am pretty damn set in my belief that god is indeed a construct of humanity and nothing more. Every argument to the contrary I have seen thus far seems fallacious and falls apart under examination, but if there are any decent arguments from the opposition, I want to hear them and their responses.

OotS...on atheism?

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:07:21 GMT

The Order of the Stick is an extremely popular, extremely well-written webcomic parody of Dungeons and Dragons that has been going strong for years. In today's strip, Roy (recently resurrected leader of the adventuring party) and his girlfriend Celia (a creature from the elemental plane of air) have just reunited after Roy was raised from the dead.

The webcomic takes a very interesting turn into what I think it an important discussion of real-world religion and morality, and I thought it might be interesting to the folk here.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html

The key theory, which I've often said myself, is that if people didn't believe in an afterlife there would be far less violence.

The logic of creationism

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:28:51 GMT

I've been going back-and-forth with some creationist on his blog and am having trouble coming up with a good response to a recurring theme in his arguments. He keeps saying things like this :

Even evolutionists rely on a belief in intelligent design without even realizing it. If the universe truly came about without any intelligent design, there would be no reason whatsoever to expect natural laws to exist or behave in consistent patters; there would not even be a foundation for logic. (Emphasis his)

and

If the universe is the result of random, unguided, spontaneous events, there is no rational foundation at all to assume there would be any consistent, rational laws of nature. God is a God of order, logic, consistency and truth, so logic and consistency make sense in a created universe. However, there is no foundation to expect logic, order or consistency in a random, spontaneous universe.

I don't really know what to say to this, other than it is nothing more than an unfounded assumption he is makes to support his worldview. Any thoughts? It seems like something that philosophers of science—or philosophers in general—have probably addressed. I realize that this guy's not going to be swayed by arguments, and that he's just regurgitating the same BS that the ID-creationism crowd drones on about in order to avoid discussing the evidence. At this point I'm more interested in the exercise than anything else.

Russell's Teapot is Not a Good Illustration

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 13:13:59 GMT

("Russell's teapot" is a counter-argument to "you can't prove God doesn't exist". Bertrand Russell wrote that you can't prove that there's not a teapot in space orbiting around the sun either, but that's no reason to believe it.)

I think that Russell's teapot is a counterproductive illustration because it could be disproved. It gives the impression that with sufficient time, resources and technology perhaps one could build a working "God detector" which would show the existence of a deity with a confident BLIP!

So, disproving Russell's teapot is not an accurate parallel to disproving the existence of God.

The trick of the "can't prove God doesn't exist" argument is that it is disguised nonsense. Although it appears to use words which we all understand, any discussion will quickly show that it relies on irrational and/or changing definitions of "proof", "God" and "exist". Likewise, you can't clumble that schlurk doesn't zorf.

I Don't Believe in Spooks

Tue, 14 Jul 2009 17:32:21 GMT

Last night my best friend was telling me about an episode of the show "Ghost Hunters" she'd seen that convinced her that ghosts exist. She found a link on Youtube to an excerpt of the episode in question that takes place at the Stanley Hotel (inspiration for The Shining), and we watched it together. In the episode, the "Ghost Hunters" used a K-II meter (an EMF scanner) to ask a supposed entity a series of yes or no questions. The device supposedly responds to changes in the electro-magnetic field. It doesn't respond to sound, and the Ghost hunters' hands were visible throughout the exchange.

After the meter blinks on and off in response to a series of questions, my friend, an avowed atheist, proclaims that for her, this is proof positive of the existence of ghosts. I remain skeptical. Just because some device that I don't understand blinks on and off doesn't, to me, point to a supernatural explanation. For all I know it was controlled by remote, or on a timer, or any number of other rational explanations.

So my question to you guys is this: Are being an atheist, and beliving in ghosts mutually exclusive? For me, if a ghost is a spirit of a deceased person, and I don't believe in souls or spirits, I can't believe in ghosts. But for my friend it is possible to not believe in god, but to believe in the supernatural. This confounds me.

Here's a link to the excerpt if you feel like wasting some time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yR1UWmpr_jA

A short conversation....

Mon, 13 Jul 2009 20:29:52 GMT

Edited somewhat in the interests of brevity:

Theist: You don't believe in anything! Without morality or purpose or hope, what stops you from just killing yourself?

Me: You're the one who expects to go to heaven! What keeps YOU from killing YOUR self?

Theist: Suicide is a sin. If I die with an unforgiven Sin, I got to hell!

Me: Can't Jesus forgive all sins?

Theist: Not suicide! When you commit the sin, you die! There's no chance to repent.

Me: So? Just jump from a tall building.... and repent on the way down!

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 17:31:04 GMT

I'd like to start a thread about ideas for responding to religious remarks while still being positive and inoffensive. Putting people on the spot usually just makes them shut down and go on the defensive. I like to make my friends think, and remind them that not everybody they may know or like shares their beliefs, but I see no benefit in insulting them or attempting to make them feel bad about themselves. Sometimes this calls for a little wit and imagination. Bearing in mind that one catches more flies with honey than with vinegar, can you think of situations or scenarios where this would apply?

Here is the "incident" that prompted this idea, a Facebook update by an old classmate of mine:

John> Time for worship and praise.

· Comment ·

Mark> likes this.

Deb> at 10:13am July 12

Well, I don't worship you, but I hold you in high esteem. You are a terrific guy, John and you have a great sense of humor.
(How was that?)

John> at 11:36am July 12

That's funny. Very creative.

Blasphemy a crime in Ireland (from ladyboyjesus.com/)

Sun, 12 Jul 2009 02:49:43 GMT

Oh cock, just read the damn thing here. I tried to post it but it barfed html at me.

[Edit] Here's another article.

Strobel truly a former atheist?

Sat, 11 Jul 2009 00:43:05 GMT

Does anybody know if it's possible to find documented evidence on whether Lee Strobel was ever truly an atheist? I thought I recall seeing something somewhere where someone had found evidence that he had been a church goer for most of his life except for a gap in his teens, but I'm having trouble tracking that down?

I love Something Positive

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 19:09:59 GMT

Islam Contra World, or: World Contra Islam. Also culture vrs. race?

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 17:02:37 GMT

Egyptians cry racism in woman's slaying in Germany (thnx madfilkentist)

CAIRO (AP) — Thousands of Egyptian mourners marched behind the coffin of the "martyr of the head scarf" on Monday — a pregnant Muslim woman who was stabbed to death in a German courtroom as her young son watched.

Many in her homeland were outraged by the attack and saw the low key response in Germany as an example of racism and anti-Muslim sentiment.
...
Christian Avenarius, the prosecutor in Dresden where the incident took place, described the killer as driven by a deep hatred of Muslims. "It was very clearly a xenophobic attack of a fanatical lone wolf."

He added that the attacker was a Russian of German descent who had immigrated to Germany in 2003 and had expressed his contempt for Muslims at the start of the trial.

China Riots: West Descends Into Mob Violence Between Han Chinese, Muslim Uighurs

URUMQI, China — The government imposed a curfew Tuesday night in this regional capital of western China after mobs of Han Chinese with meat cleavers and clubs roamed the streets looking for Muslim Uighurs who had earlier beaten up people in the country's worst ethnic violence in decades.

Rioting in the Xinjiang region broke out Sunday and killed at least 156 people. Tuesday's new violence came despite swarms of paramilitary and riot police enforcing a dragnet that state media said led to the arrest of more than 1,400 people in the often tense region.
...
On Tuesday, some among the Han Chinese mob retreating from the tear gas were met by Urumqi's Communist Party leader Li Zhi, who climbed atop a police vehicle and started chanting with the crowd. Li pumped his fists, beat his chest, and urged the crowd to strike down Kadeer, the 62-year-old Uighur leader.

"Those Muslims killed so many of our people. We just can't let that happen," said one man in the crowd, surnamed Liu. He carried a long wooden stick and said the Han Chinese were forced to take up arms.

'Why I based superheroes on Islam'

The creator of a bestselling comic designed to show the world the tolerant and peaceful face of Islam has written an open letter to his young sons explaining how the project grew out of 9/11.

In the letter, written for the BBC News website, Kuwaiti psychologist Dr Naif al-Mutawa, says his superheroes - inspired by the Koran and known as THE 99 - were designed to "take back Islam" from militants who had taken it hostage.

Burqa losing favour as Afghan women opt for chador

HERAT, Afghanistan (Reuters) - Nehmatullah Yusefy's burqa sales have dropped 50 percent since the Taliban were toppled in 2001 and he says he will soon need to start stocking other styles of Islamic dress to make up for lost profits.
...
"I think, God willing, the sales of burqas will decrease, then I will sell chador namaz and even maybe mantau chalvar," Yusefy said, standing behind the counter of his small outlet on a strip of burqa shops in the main market of Herat city.

Hmmm. The conflation of a race and the cultural artifact of religion continues apace.

Pope Benedict and the Religious Left

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 16:29:04 GMT

If you start up a business, large or small, so that you can be better off, that makes you a sinner in the eyes of Pope Benedict. His new encyclical, Caritas in veritate, denounces profit "without the common good as its ultimate end." He's on good Christian ground; Jesus talked about how hard it is for a rich man to get into heaven, and he advised people to give away all they had. But his idea of the "common good" doesn't have much to do with economic well-being; he writes against "abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase the country's international competitiveness."

To accomplish all this, he calls for "a true world political authority" and supports "justice through redistribution."

He doesn't ask why people would risk what they have and put in long hours if their profits are just going to be redistributed for the common good. He doesn't explain what kind of "justice" takes from those who produce and gives it to those who don't.

But he's the Pope, so he's just telling us what God said.

Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Atheist child

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 14:43:02 GMT

So I've been thinking about this topic for quite a while now, and I still can't find an answer. What do atheists do with their children? is it okay to raise a child to scrutinize all religions?

I consider myself a moderate antitheist. Basically, all religion is dumb, but you can believe what you like- should I pass this sort of 'bigotry' over to my child? (Not that I'm getting one any time soon; but anyway, irrelevant.) Honestly, I probably will end up passing over my beliefs to a T; I can't bare the thought that a spawn of mine would go around claiming that he has a *puke* personal god or something wretched like that.

I can't help but think that that thought is a little specious, though. I have a huge beef with parents labeling a child 'Christian' or 'Muslim' before the kid has enough little grey cells to even comprehend what that would mean. I want to see parents do the hippie thing and let the child choose for themselves, but that isn't always easy if you're trying to stay unobjectionable with the sorts of beliefs I've got. Claiming a child is 'Christian' or 'Muslim' sounds awful, and in a way, so does claiming that a kid is Atheist before he figured it out for himself.

Is anyone else as bothered about this as I am?

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 08:14:54 GMT

The rival to the Bible

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?

The world's oldest surviving Bible is in bits.

For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.

Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation. FIND OUT MORE
Roger Bolton presents the Oldest Bible on Radio 4 on Monday, 6 October, at 1100 BST

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

The fact this book has survived at all is a miracle. Before its discovery in the early 19th Century by the Indiana Jones of his day, it remained hidden in St Catherine's Monastery since at least the 4th Century.
The monastery at the base of Mt Sinai

It survived because the desert air is ideal for preservation and because the monastery, on a Christian island in a Muslim sea, remained untouched, its walls unconquered.

Today, 30 mainly Greek Orthodox monks, dedicated to prayer, worship there, helped as in ages past by the Muslim Bedouin. For this place is holy to three great religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam; a land where you can still see the Burning Bush where God spoke to Moses.

The monastery itself has the greatest library of early manuscripts outside the Vatican - some 33,000, and a collection of icons second to none.

Not surprisingly, it is now a World Heritage Site and has been called a veritable Ark, bringing spiritual treasures safely through the turbulent centuries. In many people's eyes the greatest treasure is the Codex, written around the time of the first Christian Emperor Constantine.

When the different parts are digitally united next year in a £1m project, anyone will be able to compare and contrast the Codex and the modern Bible.

Firstly, the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.

One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.

Had this remained in subsequent versions, "the suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse", says the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman.
The suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse had the Epistle of Barnabas remained

And although many of the other alterations and differences are minor, these may take some explaining for those who believe every word comes from God.

Faced with differing texts, which is the truly authentic one?

Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.

"When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer 'which Bible?'"

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - omit some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume.

Many Christians have long accepted that, while the Bible is the authoritative word of God, it is not inerrant. Human hands always make mistakes.

"It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.

---

Comments are encouraging... although this one made me go "hmmm" a bit:

"This is an interesting article, but I would object to the BBC's use of the term "fundamentalists" when you write of people who "believe every word of the Bible is true" in this article. As a person who is a Christian and believes the message of the Bible I am of course both open and interested to read this article, but I am deeply unhappy that such a term has been used due to its modern day pejorative nature. There are plenty of other terms that the BBC could use for this type of people which avoid the pejorative connotations of 'fundamentalist'. How about - evangelical Christians/Christians with a traditional understanding of the authority of Scripture?"
Bible Believing Christian, Cambridge, UK

I wish I believed that this would change anything.

The Harry Potter movies will never be the same again....

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 23:45:16 GMT

Okay, some of you may have seen the recent Pharyngula post about Daniel Radcliffe (Harry Potter) revealing himself to be both an atheist and a Richard Dawkins fan. What you might not have seen was the following comment in response to this news:

"Meh. He just likes Dawkins because he wants to nail Hermione"

This comment is accompanied by a link to the following image (it's perfectly suitable for work btw):

http://9gag.com/photo/5885_full.jpg

http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/6443/1227635635559wl2.jpg

I love John Safran...

Sun, 05 Jul 2009 13:15:30 GMT

Atheist "Float" Booed at my 4th of July Parade

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 20:04:15 GMT

I play in a community band in a suburb of Chicago. This morning our group played in the parade. After we were finished, I watched the rest of the parade and I spotted this atheist "float"!!! It got booed. I don't know who "Rob Sherman" is. At first I thought well maybe this guy is a d-bag and that's why they are booing but then I overheard a guy say "Ugh, atheists" as he shook his head.

Here's my footage:

More from Mitchell & Webb

Sat, 04 Jul 2009 12:57:55 GMT

Homeopathy -- The series

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 20:13:26 GMT

Saw this on Bad Astronomy:

Turkish Game Show Tries to Convert Atheists

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 12:58:00 GMT

The game show is called 'Penitents Compete'. A Muslim imam, a Greek Orthodox priest, a rabbi, and a Buddhist monk try to convert 10 atheists on each show.

http://www.newser.com/story/63439/turkish-game-show-tries-to-convert-atheists.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/02/turkey-penitents-compete-gameshow

The inclusion of Buddhism doesn't make sense though, because Buddhism is not a theism-based religion like the 3 Abrahamic religions are. If they wanted to use a non-Abrahamic monotheist, they could have used a representative from one of the 3 major monotheist Hindu sects (Vaishnavism, Shaivism, Shaktism), or from Zoroastrianism.

It's official. Pat Condell is a racist.

Thu, 02 Jul 2009 19:11:56 GMT

I really wondered whether to post this here. This is something I wrote yesterday in my own personal LJ. I know that Pat Condell is very popular amongst many atheists on the internet and I'm fairly sure he has a few fans here. However, having thought it over for a bit it seems to me that fans who are willing to defend Pat's recent comments have some explaining to do, so where better to do it than in the comments here?

For those who don't recognise the name, Pat Condell is the "comedian" often found advertised on Richard Dawkins' website. I've actually known people to be surprised to hear that he isn't a celebrity here in Britain. His only claim to fame is his youtube videos which he's now actually begun releasing on DVD. He's gained a following amongst atheists who fancy a laugh at the expense of uptight religious fanatics. Unfortunately he's not anything like in the same league as John Safran or as subtle (yes, I'm serious). It was part of his initial appeal that he pulls no punches in his rants, however more recently his rants have sounded more and more like the typical right-wing closet-racist mentality in the UK.

The latest video from Pat Condell makes use of typical Daily Mail prejudice. The topic? Not only that we should ban the burkha, but that women are doing an injustice to women's rights by failing to decry a woman's right to wear it. Pat Condell takes up the mantle of liberator of women both now and in the ever-precious future through his insistence that we demand that it be illegal to wear it.

Perhaps the oddest thing about Pat's video is his claim that the problem is women deciding to disguise themselves. If we were sure that women only ever wore the burkha through their own free will rather than being pressured into doing so by oppressive patriarchy then I don't quite see how it would be a problem (and I certainly cannot see how it would be the women's fault). As for the idea that is mentioned later that the burkha should not be allowed to be worn in banks, I've never heard anything so ridiculous. As Pat is keen to remind us, wearing the burkha is like wearing "a mobile tent". Now imagine a bank robber trying to make a getaway carrying their bag of swag while wearing it. They'd be lucky not to fall straight onto their (covered) face.

Worrying too is Pat's use of emphasis for effect. It often seems quite hostile, but more importantly it can give a very dodgy (and supposedly unintentional) meaning to his words:

Well this week there’s been quite a lot of talk about the burkha or the nikab or whatever you want to call it. I’m talking about the neurotic need that some women have to walk around everywhere in disguise.

"Some women" eh? So much for the feminist champion Pat claims to be later on in the video. If the whole point of this rant is to victimise some women suffering from neuroses, it doesn't fit with the supposedly noble cause Pat claims to be calling for by the end.

Apparently, according to Pat, a more healthy society where everyone is honest would not require this ban because everybody's reaction to unfamiliar styles of dress would be ridicule and condescension. Sadly, what he is describing is not far from the actual situation and it's only thanks to those of us with simple human decency that it isn't even more of an issue for Muslims in Britain.

If we were a more honest society, and therefore a more healthy society, there’d be no need to ban this ridiculous outfit because it would already have been ridiculed out of existence.

Honest and healthy? More like bigoted and unpleasant.

Pat's first major argument appears to be that there is nothing in the Qu'ran which demands that women dress in this fashion, covering their face. That might be worth mentioning, certainly, but religions aren't simply based around scripture. In fact I'm pretty certain that EVERY religious tradition bases itself around more than scripture. Within the Christian tradition we would have to do away with rosaries, monasteries, bishops, crosses worn round the neck, holy water, and even arguably the doctrine of the trinity if Christians are only allowed to follow teachings found within their holy book. It takes a certain type of protestant Christianity to insist that scripture is the only thing which dictates religious tradition and I'm pretty sure their hypocritical in the process. Within Islam it is quite a conservative belief that religious tradition should be based not only on the teachings of the Qu'ran, but also on the actions and sayings of the prophet found in the hadiths and on top of that rules which are derived from these.

What would have been more helpful would have been an argument that the Qu'ran actively contradicts this passage (and I have certainly known Muslims claim that women are not supposed to have their faces covered according to Islamic teaching). However, this would involve putting in a good word for moderate Muslims which Pat wants to decry as 'enablers' (as we'll see in a moment).

In reply to the claim that the burkha is done to demonstrate modesty (rather like the kachhas in Sikhism), Pat's response, fairly reasonably, is that wearing "a mobile tent" is going way beyond modesty. Unfortunately that's where the reasonableness ends. The next stage of Pat's rant is to claim that all women who wear the burkha are ungrateful immigrants who hate British culture and should go back home.

Modest people don’t draw attention to themselves by dressing up in a mobile tent just to rub it in the face of a culture they despise, but for some reason insist on living in.

Now let's accept for the moment (to be as charitable as possible) that women who wear the burkha are disturbed by the commercialised and material world and wear this style of dress to withdraw. How is that different from the attitude of nuns? But then again, maybe Pat is an equal-opportunity bigot. Perhaps he would tell nuns to go to the Vatican if they aren't entirely happy with modern culture.

Quite apart from the obvious security threat posed by the burkha which we don’t like to talk about out of respect for their religion even though their religion is our biggest security threat. Sorry to all you peaceful Muslims but we all know that is the unfortunate truth, at least right now.

What the heck? I can't be the only person wondering how Pat's thought processes are working at this stage. He fully admits that there are Muslims for whom his argument is unreasonable and that there are enough of them to make them worth addressing. Yet for some reason his complete recognition that what he is posing is an unfair stereotype doesn't stop him from carrying on with it unashamedly.

Islam is responsible for the terrorist threat in the same way that Christianity is responsible for the death of Dr. Tiller. Yes, there's a link. No one is doubting that. But it's not a simple 1:1 relationship. Religions have a huge degree of internal diversity and even overlap with one another. Terms like "Christianity" and "Islam" bracket together similar kinds of religious devotion, however their expression will depend greatly on the culture and location in which you find them. Daniel Maguire is a Roman Catholic Christian and he strongly believes in his faith and the tradition of his Church. Nevertheless, he isn't going to condemn a man for performing abortions. Similarly just because someone follows the religion of Islam doesn't mean they're in favour of the burkah either. People's views about religion will differ. Nevertheless, plenty of people actually are talking about the burkha being a security threat. It's mentioned all over the place. What we could do with is a little more respect for the women who are actually wearing the damn thing and Pat does not feel inclined to contribute to this since it would conflict with the "healthy and honest" world he wants us to live in.

Pat has the audacity to claim that women who wear the burkha are condoning the oppression it is often used to achieve. That they are enablers. But what is Pat enabling? It wasn't so long ago that there was a big hoo hah over politician Jack Straw insisting that women uncover their faces when they speak to him. It was rightly pointed out in Straw's defence that he was not insisting that women do away with the burkha or nikab, but rather that within certain scenarios it might be necessary to remove it for pragmatic reasons. He certainly wasn't insisting that we forcibly unveil Muslim women, but unfortunately that was the sentiment that developed. This, it seems to me, is where the other side of the coin really comes into play. If you ban the burkha isn't this just another example of women having their rights limited by a patriarchal over-zealous authority? In the end shouldn't this be about choice. In Iran they have seen both sides of this coin, going from being forcibly unveiled to forcibly veiled and the debate today in Iran is much over personal freedom than this nonsensical issue in France of whether the burkha should be banned or not. (And let's not forget that in France there is a lot of racial tension in regards to those with Algerian roots which might influence the debate there.)

Pat also asks why feminists aren't talking about this. Clearly he hasn't bothered to look. Feminists are talking about this all over the place. Some will agree, some will disagree and most will recognise that the debate is far more complicated than he is making it out to be. In any case, Pat's criticism isn't really over silence but inaction. If we don't agree with Pat and actively campaign for the burkha to be banned we are morally culpable. It's at this point where my conspiracy theory alert starts ringing:

Any western woman who makes allowances for, or who accommodates the misogyny of Islam in her life is a fool to herself and a traitor to her daughters who will have to live with the consequences in a society where they feel less value, less safe and have fewer rights than they do now.

ZOMG THE MUSLIMS ARE TAKING OVER!

Seriously, allowing women the right to wear the burkha is not wearing down women's rights. We are still going to strongly criticise people being forced to wear clothing against their will and the chances of the burkha causing bad effects for anyone outside the religion of Islam is around about nil. There is an issue of the burkha being forced on Muslim women against their will and there is an issue of the burkha as a negative result of indoctrination. Nevertheless, to insist that this will have consequences for the daughters of 'western women' is pure shock tactics. This whole idea that Islamic ideas are going to take over the country and undermine our liberties is nonsense. The labour government is in a much better position to do that than any Muslim....

Paleontology and Creationism Meet but Don’t Mesh

Wed, 01 Jul 2009 08:06:17 GMT

This week's Science Times features an interesting story:

The worlds of academic paleontology and creationism rarely collide, but the former paid a visit to the latter last Wednesday. The University of Cincinnati was hosting the North American Paleontological Convention, where scientists presented their latest research at the frontiers of the ancient past. In a break from the lectures, about 70 of the attendees boarded school buses for a field trip to the Creation Museum, on the other side of the Ohio River… Many of the paleontologists thought the museum misrepresented and ridiculed them and their work and unfairly blamed them for the ills of society.

The article opens with some remarksfrom Dr. Tamaki Sato, a Japanese paleontologist. This reminds me of an experience I had a couple of years go. It was a day of two before my first exam in biology and I was standing outside my instructor's office, waiting to ask a couple of questions. There was a Japanese exchange student in there asking for some clarification about the ID-evolution "debate," something that she was completely unfamiliar with. It was not a formal part of our evolution and biodiversity unit, but we did touch on it in lecture, and it was interesting to see the reaction from someone who didn't have the same cultural context. A Swedish scientist echoes a similar sentiment: “…we have little of that kind of thing in Sweden.” It certainly highlighted the fact that this is a purely social controversy with zero scientific basis.

but the Bible told us to!

Tue, 30 Jun 2009 20:05:56 GMT

"Many states have exemptions for these parents that absolve them of their sins because they once read a book that said thinking really hard in an upward direction would cure their children’s ailments."

I don't see skepchick links here often (if at all), but I adore Rebecca Watson and this article is fantastic, if for no other reason than it contains the phrase "kick Jesus in the sack"
Don’t Abuse Your Kids, Unless . . .

Atheist Sites

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:12:01 GMT

Hey everyone, I have a new site that I just posted last night called Atheist Sites. If you have not gathered from the name it a site with links related to the topic of atheism. If you have a chance go check it out and give me your feedback. Let me know if something is not working, any suggestions you may have and of course sites you want to see added.

Basically the idea started out as a means to organize all my bookmarks related to atheism and to update the links page for truth-saves.com. But I have decided to make it a full website of its own that will hopefully make it easier to find sites they love along with new ones they have not heard of before. I also added google maps api to map out sites related to local meet up groups or college groups. I want to do something special and interactive for the youtube sites but I'm still just toying around with that in my head.

Catholic Insight.

Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:50:03 GMT

Atheism: a threat to civilization

It starts out strong:

Atheism’s common form in Canada is secularism. As we have pointed out many times in the past, modern secularism is not neutral; on the contrary, it is aggressively anti-Christian. While they use the term humanism, there is nothing “humanistic” about atheism. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao Zhe Dong prove that. Atheism is destructive of the human person, as well as of society at large.

And just gets better and better:

“But the ideology of the "death of God" is more a threat to man, as the Second Vatican Council indicates ‘For without the Creator the creature would disappear...when God is forgotten the creature itself grows unintelligible.’

Yeah, the whole extended John Paul 2nd part is like whu...? Questioning the existence of God is the heart of the 'Anti-World'? Uh...? Referring to men [or 'man'] as 'the creature'?...Yeah.

And although attacking spelling is generally weak, I love this:

Today the Christian belief in God is under tremendous attack. It began in the 1960’s with the overthrow of the age–old condom nation [sic] of contraceptives, divorce, abortion, and homosexual activism (1967-1969).

Try condemnation. You'd think he'd know the correct spelling for what is certainly a favourite activity.

AS for their complaints about the Atheist Movement Atheists:

Some people take the current atheist propaganda campaign lightly. Others, wisely, do not.
... “Their goal is to divorce political questions like abortion from moral claims and religion; to control school curricula so that a secular ideology can be promoted; and to portray Christianity not only as wrong but evil.”

I must admit, I'm not a great big fan of Atheist Movement Atheists either, but please, you big baby, they're engaged in ideological warfare with you and yours and they want to win. Why wouldn't they try to begin their revaluation of values by demeaning the dominant set? There is no other way to go about it.