The sensitivity of crybaby Muslims

Posted on January 1, 2010 by Michael

A Somali man was shot after trying to murder a Dutch cartoonist.

A Somali man believed to have ties to terrorist groups was shot as he allegedly tried to enter the home of Danish political cartoonist Kurt Westergaard — known for his controversial depictions of the Muslim prophet Mohammad — on Friday, police said.

The man was only shot in the leg and hand and will survive, but it’s unlikely that his injuries have caused him more harm than the cartoon. Not real harm, of course. He’s just another crybaby Muslim who is demanding undue deference for his insane beliefs. He has no basis, no evidence, no good logic, no method by which to come to any sort of intellectual satisfaction for anything he seems to think (as is the case with Christians, Buddhists, Scientologists…), so he lashes out when anyone dares to confront his ideas. As is the case with those who crafted the Irish blasphemy law, he cannot handle any sort of religious criticism. He hates the idea of individual liberties and free speech. He’s a selfish, small man. The worst of it is that he’s just the cry – the whine – for religious respect embodied.

The biggest irony of this all is that Westergaard was actually criticizing people for exploiting Muhammad in order to legitimize terrorism.

Filed under: News, Religions | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

The Irish Blasphemy Law

Posted on January 1, 2010 by Michael

An Irish law against blasphemy goes into effect today.

It defines blasphemy as “publishing or uttering matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters sacred by any religion, thereby intentionally causing outrage among a substantial number of adherents of that religion, with some defences permitted”.

It’s clearly absurd. Ireland is seeking to protect (bad) ideas and no individuals. It’s obvious that those who crafted this piece of abhorrent tyranny have no concept of personal liberty.

Fortunately, Atheist Ireland has published 25 blasphemous quotes. It seems they do have a good idea of what it means to have any liberty at all. Here are some of the better quotes.

I’ve been reading about reincarnation, and the Buddhists say we come back as animals and they refer to them as lesser beings. Well, animals aren’t lesser beings, they’re just like us. So I say fuck the Buddhists. ~Bjork

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. ~Richard Dawkins

(If defamation of religion was illegal) it would be a crime for me to say that the notion of transubstantiation is so ridiculous that even a small child should be able to see the insanity and utter physical impossibility of a piece of bread and some wine somehow taking on corporeal form. It would be a crime for me to say that Islam is a backward desert superstition that has no place in modern, enlightened Europe and it would be a crime to point out that Jewish settlers in Israel who believe they have a God given right to take the land are, frankly, mad. All the above assertions will, no doubt, offend someone or other. ~Ian O’Doherty

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, News, Religions | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a comment »

Fla. man lies, claims religious discrimination

Posted on October 28, 2009 by Michael

Okay, maybe the article doesn’t say “lie”, but that’s what he did.

A former cashier for The Home Depot who has been wearing a “One nation under God” button on his work apron for more than a year has been fired, he says because of the religious reference. The company claims that expressing such personal beliefs is simply not allowed.

It’s a private company. I agree that it should allow individuality (though it won’t because it’s just another big box store that treats its employees like numbers), but that doesn’t mean it must allow anything. It has the right to deny anyone the privilege of wearing a button, just as it can deny them the right to wear tank tops or jeans. God Button Home Depot

“This associate chose to wear a button that expressed his religious beliefs. The issue is not whether or not we agree with the message on the button,” Craig Fishel said. “That’s not our place to say, which is exactly why we have a blanket policy, which is long-standing and well-communicated to our associates, that only company-provided pins and badges can be worn on our aprons.”

This guy is planning on suing over this. He doesn’t have a shot. The company’s policy is not something newly created and applied just for him. He should have known about it. The fact that he didn’t isn’t a big deal, but he was eventually told about it by management. He was given fair warning before being fired. For him to say he was discriminated against because of religion is a lie.

This is just yet another example of the religious demanding respect for their beliefs. Ignoring for a moment that faith is not a virtue, this man has no right to tell Home Depot or anyone else that he can wear what he wants on the job. Imagine if he actually won his case. He would de facto have the right to sue any individuals who told him he couldn’t enter their homes while wearing a particular pin or other religious paraphernalia. It’s absurd.

Filed under: News, Religions | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

Religions would squirm

Posted on October 18, 2009 by Michael

Recent evidence suggests Europa has enough oxygen for life.

The global ocean on Jupiter’s moon Europa contains about twice the liquid water of all the Earth’s oceans combined. New research suggests that there may be plenty of oxygen available in that ocean to support life, a hundred times more oxygen than previously estimated.

The research says various openings in the top of Europa’s massive oceans could provide a pathway for oxidizers to deliver an oxygen content which could quickly exceed that of Earth’s oceans.

All this makes me wonder. What would the religions of the world do? What would they do if life was found elsewhere? I know many would adapt their teachings pretty quickly; they would ignore that a central part of their beliefs is that humans are special (the arrogance!). It may take a period of adjustment, but none of them would let go of what they’ve always believed. They’d just pretend like their holy book was ballparking its claims and move on (just like they do when they claim “days” really means “millions of years”). But what about the other guys? The creationists and likewise country bumpkins? While they tend to be some of the most dishonest people around, I do think they would maintain their point of view. Whereas most of religion would shift uncomfortably for a period, the more literal-minded mooks would squirm. They’d deny facts, twist evidence, make false associations and accusations. I guess I’m basically saying they’d continue exactly what they do now.

Filed under: Astronomy/Cosmology/Physics, Creationism, Religions, Science | Tagged: , , , , , | 1 Comment »

Conservapædia’s new project and theology

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Michael

Conservapædia has a new project.

So what to do? When your claim of godly authority rests on your interpretation of God’s holy word, but God’s holy words contradict your desired ends, you’re in a bit of a pickle. There is a solution, though: rewrite the Bible and change the liberal bits! For this reason some of the deranged editors at Conservapædia have launched The Conservative Bible Project, which will purge the wimpy stuff and return it to it’s authentic roots, as a book that could have been written by a dumb-as-a-stick American Republican NRA member who wants to kill communists and A-rabs.

Of course, such a project has been met with much criticism. But, as always, rather than defend themselves, the people at Conservapædia just whine and point at some red herring they find objectionable.

A year ago Time magazine’s David Van Biema wrote up a short, favorable take on the so-called Green Bible, an edition based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) that placed “green references” in “a pleasant shade of forest green, much as red-letter editions of the Bible encrimson the words of Jesus.” But wait, there’s more, The Green Bible also includes “supplementary writings” several of which “cite the Genesis verse in which God gives humanity ‘dominion’ over the earth” and “Others [which] assert that eco-neglect violates Jesus’ call to care for the least among us: it is the poor who inhabit the floodplains.”

Even though The Green Bible is risible both from a commercial standpoint as a marketing ploy and theologically as a bastardization of the real heart of Christian doctrine, neither charge was entertained as a valid criticism by the Time staffer. Van Biema even hinted that evangelicals, 54 percent of whom “agreed that ‘stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost'” might embrace the translation despite strong reservations from conservative theologians.

Unfortunately for Conservapædia and the author of this criticism, Ken Shepherd, there is no way to internally resolve any theological conflict within any holy text that isn’t trivial. The only method for fixing the guessmanship in these books is to turn to external source, the primary of which is science.

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

Conservapædia's new project and theology

Posted on October 6, 2009 by Michael

Conservapædia has a new project.

So what to do? When your claim of godly authority rests on your interpretation of God’s holy word, but God’s holy words contradict your desired ends, you’re in a bit of a pickle. There is a solution, though: rewrite the Bible and change the liberal bits! For this reason some of the deranged editors at Conservapædia have launched The Conservative Bible Project, which will purge the wimpy stuff and return it to it’s authentic roots, as a book that could have been written by a dumb-as-a-stick American Republican NRA member who wants to kill communists and A-rabs.

Of course, such a project has been met with much criticism. But, as always, rather than defend themselves, the people at Conservapædia just whine and point at some red herring they find objectionable.

A year ago Time magazine’s David Van Biema wrote up a short, favorable take on the so-called Green Bible, an edition based on the New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) that placed “green references” in “a pleasant shade of forest green, much as red-letter editions of the Bible encrimson the words of Jesus.” But wait, there’s more, The Green Bible also includes “supplementary writings” several of which “cite the Genesis verse in which God gives humanity ‘dominion’ over the earth” and “Others [which] assert that eco-neglect violates Jesus’ call to care for the least among us: it is the poor who inhabit the floodplains.”

Even though The Green Bible is risible both from a commercial standpoint as a marketing ploy and theologically as a bastardization of the real heart of Christian doctrine, neither charge was entertained as a valid criticism by the Time staffer. Van Biema even hinted that evangelicals, 54 percent of whom “agreed that ‘stricter environmental laws and regulations are worth the cost'” might embrace the translation despite strong reservations from conservative theologians.

Unfortunately for Conservapædia and the author of this criticism, Ken Shepherd, there is no way to internally resolve any theological conflict within any holy text that isn’t trivial. The only method for fixing the guessmanship in these books is to turn to external source, the primary of which is science.

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a comment »

What defines religion?

Posted on September 29, 2009 by Michael

Type “Atheism is” in Google search and the first thing you get is the suggestion “Atheism is a religion”. This is a common idea among those who have no operational (or theoretical) definition of religion. But how can it be a religion?

One of the other suggestions you’ll get is “Atheism is a religion like not collecting stamps is a hobby”. This sums up the validity of this ‘atheism is a religion’ argument. But let’s actually define religion, shall we?

Some key characteristics must be present for something to really be a religion. There must be some form of doctrine and dogma, even if this only references spoken word. There is usually a human-image god, but not always. Above all, there is a centralized belief system. This means that people interpret that doctrine and dogma through a narrow window. There is no outside consideration. Religion is insulation from the outside world (at least until facts and evidence become overwhelming). If any doctrine is to be true, it must comport to a centralizing belief system.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism clearly fall under the definition of religion. They are systems of belief which hold certain things to be absolutely true. In this case, it’s that there is a God. What comes from this is a supporting system.

But how does atheism fall under this definition? There is a common belief – there are no gods – but it is not centralizing principle. Take baseball as an example. Almost everyone attending a game at Fenway is a baseball (and hopefully Red Sox) fan. This is a common belief – baseball is enjoyable and worth paying to see. But does it centralize anything? In the strictest sense of the word, it physically centralizes people because they must go to a particular venue, but it does not centralize any belief system. How could it? What follows from a belief that baseball is fun to watch in person? Nothing which isn’t trivial.

And so what is it that follows from atheism? In essence, it is an absence of belief. Beyond this commonality, there is nothing which holds atheists together. This is one reason they have very little political power or clout. As PZ pointed out in his talk at Bates, there are more non-believers than there are Jews. The critical difference is that Jews have a centralized belief system. Atheists do not have such a definition. Many atheists believe religion is bad, but that is not true of all – and there is nothing which dictates via atheism that it is actually bad. These arguments lie outside atheism (though they may be a contributing factor to one becoming an atheist).

If atheism can be defined as a religion, then it follows that deism and agnosticism can be defined the same. Why not? The only criteria presented for defining atheism as a religion is that it makes a claim about gods. “God is hands-off” and “maybe” both make claims – one speaks of the nature of a creator, one implies possibility – so why not define these as religion? Well, the answer is obvious. If atheism can be defined as religion, then the person with an actual religion has a rhetorical tool. It can be claimed that the fight is religion vs religion and that one must be right. This conveniently side-steps addressing the issue that all religion is wrong (if everything is religion and we agree that something must be true, then not everything can be false). It also places the negative connotations earned by religion into the lap of atheism. I actually like this effect since it tacitly acknowledges that religion is negative, but it fails to follow from any working definition of religion.

Filed under: Atheism/Humanism, Religions | Tagged: , , , , | 2 Comments »

My recent Thomas Jefferson kick…

Posted on September 23, 2009 by Michael

…continues.

“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

This must apply to same-sex marriage. What arguments have been presented which counter this principle? The answer is none. The desire to institute (or rather, continue) intolerance into the law books has no good basis. No case has been made clear. No case can be made. This puts one group firmly in the category of bigots. Worse yet, the other group is categorized as the oppressed.

Filed under: Politics and Social, Religions | Tagged: , | Leave a comment »

Steven Anderson, the mainstream, and closets

Posted on September 15, 2009 by Michael

Steven Anderson is a complete and utter nut job. He also holds beliefs which are largely in line with mainstream Christianity (especially the Christianity prevalent in Maine): he hates da gays, Obama, and common sense. He’s most recently known for praying that Obama would die of brain cancer. This isn’t much different from Limbaugh hoping for Obama’s failure. They both want disaster for the country if it proves their ideology. The only distinction to be made is that Anderson wants Obama to die naturally sooner than Limbaugh. They still both think the president will be judged by some tiny-minded, local god and sent to hell for not loving giant corporations and the wealthy.

In the above link is a list of 10 Anderson quotes. This one especially stood out to me.

“Because of years and years of looking at and touching scores of women inappropriately, the male gynecologist no doubt has a seared conscience and a perverted mind… Any doctor that looks upon and touches a woman’s private parts in his office “hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.” Sir, if you let your wife go to a male gynecologist, you need to get right with God.”

This pretty solidly represents the sexually immature views wrought by Christianity. From Ashcroft wanting to cover the breast of Lady Justice to morons pushing for abstinence-only sex education, Christians have a twisted view of sexuality. Their religion really harms their perspective. It’s unfortunate so many of them can never be healthy adults in regards to sex.

But the silliness of Christians doesn’t end with sexuality.

“If music without drums, syncopation, or a rock beat is acceptable music, then “Yesterday” by the Beatles would be suitable for a Christian. This song has no drums, syncopation, or rock n roll beat – so what’s wrong with it? It doesn’t talk about drugs, illicit behavior, or violence – so what’s wrong with it? What’s wrong with it is the source. It was written by God-hating communist devils. Rock n roll music was pioneered by ungodly sinners like Little Richard, a sodomite filthy animal, and Ray Charles, a heroin addict. The source of rock n roll music is ungodly.”

This is basically a version of the abusive ad hominen attack. It is not valid. Ignoring the inaccurate attacks on The Beatles, music is wide open for interpretation by the listener. What’s more, individual songs reflect different ideas. It is plain stupid to dismiss an entire group’s work on the basis of what some of their art says – or what they say outside their art.

And of course, Christians’ opinions on other media is horribly skewed.

“God, please just help it to be real to us. Help us to realize that David Letterman and Jay Leno just aren’t that funny. The sitcoms and the TV shows and the movies just aren’t that cool. The rock music just isn’t that great anymore when we realize that there is a far greater purpose for our lives; to win souls to Jesus Christ.”

Okay, I have to give Anderson a little leeway. Letterman and Leno aren’t that funny. But I have no idea why he’s so deluded as to think that there’s hardly anything redeemable about television or even movies. Oh, hang on. It’s the Jesus thing again. That ugly little cretin that lacks in any real beauty at all.

Anderson does finally say something that sounds sensible. Unfortunately, he would never know where the sense was.

“And this is what thought entered mind. I thought to myself… I looked over at the closet and I thought to myself, “What if I were locked in that closet for 100 years, nothing to do, nothing to see, the closet is dark.” … And then I thought, “What if you never get out of that closet.” That would be awful, wouldn’t it, just locked in a closet forever and you knew you were never going to get out.”

Yes, wouldn’t be awful if a person was locked in a closet, all alone, even alienated. And wouldn’t it be worse if a bunch of immoral bigots forced a group of people in their own, little closets.

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , , | Leave a comment »

Attending an anti-porn event

Posted on September 14, 2009 by Michael

Jen over at Blag Hag recently attended an anti-porn event held by some Christian groups. Her post is fairly long, but it’s well worth reading. Here’s one of the parts that I’m really glad she said.

And with the people who did have bad experiences with porn, those were all caused BECAUSE OF THEIR RELIGION. People feel guilty/scared and hide porn from loved ones, and it ruins their marriage because of bad communication. People feel guilty for being sexual beings or need to turn to porn for their sexual curiosity. You know where this guilt comes from? RELIGION. If conservative Christians didn’t beat over your head that sex was so evil to begin with, people wouldn’t be having these problems. We’d have comprehensive sex education and open dialog about human sexuality so little kids wouldn’t have to turn to the internet for information. We wouldn’t feel guilty for engaging in normal sexual activity. We’d be able to talk about sex with our loved ones before marrying them and finding out they have incompatible viewpoints.

The Christian view on sexuality has long been one of immaturity. It’s all shame, guilt, and denial. Hell, I’m surprised snake oil salesman Andreas Moritz isn’t out and about claiming that Christianity causes cancer. Actually, scratch that. It’d be hard for him to sucker people make money in his line of work if he attacked a religion in that way, so I guess I’m not surprised at all.

Filed under: Religions | Tagged: , , | 1 Comment »

« Previous Page — Next Page »