Why Dont You Blog?

First off, Parabiodox has responded to my “Do Christians Have a Sense of Humour” post and it seems the answer is “yes, just a bad one .” When I asked “Do Christians have a sense of humour? … or was he just all cut up over the death of Jerry Fallwell…“” the response was:

No. It means I can go back to watching Teletubbies again with a clear conscience.

Can’t say fairer than that, can I?

On a more serious note, following up on the sad story of the crazy “honour” killing, there is a post on anthropology.net which examines some of the issues from an anthropological view point (Heather, Take note). For the stronger viewer, the video footage is available from that site, although I have not watched it my self and can not comment. As an aside, if you had asked me a few years ago I would have been stunned to even think of considering Anthropology (or any social science) as a science, but I am learning to change my ways.

[tags]Yazidi, Murder, Death, Kill, Religious Intolerance, Christianity, Humour, Evil, Barbaric, Parabiodox, Society, Philosophy, Culture, Insane, Cruel, Anthropology[/tags]

Well it seems Toutatis does indeed work in mysterious ways. After reading, and responding to a post which chastised this blog and Atheists in general, for concentrating on attacking Christianity, I stumbled upon an article in the Daily Mail which managed to shock even my jaded mindset.

On the off chance some of you are faint hearted, I should warn you the original article has a some pictures which could be construed as quite shocking although given the subject matter they could be worse. If you visit the Mail article please be aware of this and don’t come crying to me afterwards.

The Daily Mail carries an item about a 17 year old girl who was beaten to death (in Northern Iraq) by her family, while “hundreds” [according to the Mail] of onlookers cheered and shouted support of the murderers. In typical Daily Mail writing style the article begins:

Two online blogs have attracted my attention, and while there is only a tenuous link between them they are both based on articles of faith. One is slightly better than the other, but that is to be expected.

As mentioned previously, The BBC has a programme targeting Scientology and this has resulted in considerable online debates. One of the sites mentioning it (ReligionNewsBlog) seems more like an aggregator than a blog but it does have this transcript:

JOHN SWEENEY: So, would you say it’s a cult?

TOMMY DAVIS: …no right to whatsoever to say what and what isn’t a religion. The Constitution of the United States of America guarantees one’s right to practice and believe freely in this country. And the definition of religion is very clear, and it’s not defined by John Sweeney. And for you to repeatedly refer to my faith in those terms is so derogatory, so offensive and so bigoted. And the reason you keep repeating it is because you wanted to get a reaction like you’re getting right now. Well buddy, you got it. Right here, right now, I’m angry, real angry.

If you watch the video of this Tommy Davis comes across as a worrying person. If that is him “real angry” then he is a sociopath. There is no overt sign of aggression. No change to his tone of voice. He sounds like a nutcase who would kill you over a packet of crisps… I would be interested to learn what this “clear” definition of religion he talks about is. The blog also has some more, entertaining articles:

Well, from the department of the ineducable idiocy, I have found a blog which I don’t for one second think is a legit creationist / theist blog. I refuse to accept that anyone can be as stupid as this person, yet still be able to breathe unaided. Seriously. Still, it has given me a chance to rant about a few topics which have been annoying me lately.

The blog in question is called “Atheist Stooges” and, from that name alone, you just know it is going to be full of juicy idiocy. In this instance, the idiocy is so bizare I can only assume (hope?) that this is a wind up. Can people honestly hold to ideas like this and still function in society?

The blog has an article called “Enter the excavation” which really does hit a new nadir of nonsense. The basic crux of what is a long, wordy and badly written, post is that because you can not pin down a point in time which some human invented Atheism it must be sent by demons. What wonderful logic. There are so many fallacies in the post it would take months to unravel them all. This tends to happen when you take a false premise and try to make conclusions based on it though.

The opening paragraph sets the tone:

Do you know that if you make an endeavor to find out when and by whom atheism was authored you will not be able to find such information from any source? Not even the most “educated” atheists – particularly those associated with the most elite universities throughout the world can truthfully inform you when and by whom atheism originated. They can enlighten you as to who were its main perpetuators in different cultures; but they cannot identify its founder and when it actually originated.

Following on from the previous post, where it seemed the Archbishop of York was a strong contender for Idiot of the Year award, I have stumbled upon a post by Dinesh D’Souza (via Nullifidian’s blog once more) and Oh My Thor, if we don’t have an even stronger contender. Two wingnuts in one weekend. Loki must be having a field day!

In a post titled “Unbelief as a Form of Payback” Dinesh D’Souza rants on about Atheism (as he has done a few times previously, see Nullifidians blog for more links) and how it basically has nothing to offer the bereaved after an incident like the Virginia Tech shooting. He writes:

It seems we have a strong contender for the Department of the Stupid’s annual award for gross stupidity. (Thanks to Nullifidian for the heads up on this)

It seems the esteemed John Sentamu, Archbishop of York, has some completely off the rails ideas about what makes a “believer.” This is excerpt of interest:

Twenty-seven years ago I was chaplain to a young offenders remand centre, Latchmere House. Every inmate was asked to declare his religious affiliation, and four young men were registered as having no religion. One Sunday, all the inmates were offered the chance to go to worship. The four young men with no religion declined the offer, while their fellow inmates on the A wing took up the offer. The prison officer, not wanting the four men to remain locked up in their cells, asked them to clean the toilets on the wing. The following Sunday, our four non-religious young men took up the offer to go to worship. The prison officer was puzzled why they had opted in this week. “Why are you going to chapel?” he asked. The four replied, “Sir, we didn’t like the ‘No Religion’ place of worship”. Crudely as they put it, those four young men were saying in their naivety that we are all essentially religious. The question is not whether we worship, but rather one of who or what do we worship.

Blimey. What in Toutatis’ name was going through his mind when he first made this “conclusion” let alone repeated it? I am almost lost for words at the crass idiocy it demonstrates.

“Crudely as they put it” the four young men were saying that we humans all essentially avoid punishments. If I was given the choice between sitting in a church for a few hours or scrubbing the toilets, I am pretty sure I would be happy to pretend that the invisible sky elf existed. I suspect any sane person would be.

For the truly “devout” (note comment about sane people in previous paragraph) this may seem strange, as people with faith in whatever incarnation of the flying spaghetti monster appeals to them are notoriously stubborn. They will suffer all manner of injustices because of their loose grip on reality, and I suspect if given the choice of sit in a Mosque or scrub toilets the Archbishop of York would take the loo every time. This does not make it a rational choice and here Atheists really do have an advantage.

It really is mind boggling that the Archbishop of York could honestly come to the conclusion that because these four convicts chose to sit through a sermon rather than scrub ****, it means we are all basically theists. It is also interesting to note that the implication of what Sentamu Ebor says is that the vast majority of prisoners are Christians… So much for religion being the source of morality…

Following a somewhat off the rails comment made on a previous post by someone calling themselves “Atheists Don’t Get It,” Nullifidian made an excellent response. As lots of people miss the comments here, and the original post was quite old, I felt it would be worthwhile repeating Null’s comment – especially as he has cited the original sufficiently for anyone to work out the nonsense Atheists Don’t Get It was spouting. You can read a related, equally good, post on Null’s blog where he talks about the crazy website which this lunatic is trying to promote.

Nullifidian’s comment reads as follows:

I said previously that I was going to come back to the debate about the Call to Prayer a Mosque in Michigan is trying to get played over loudspeakers. It has taken a few days but I am not going to let it lie…

Now, I am not an apologist for Islam or anything and I certainly do think the religion is the source of more dangerous crackpots than Christianity (albeit less entertaining ones). All imaginary friends are just as insane, and those who “devoutly” follow the teachings of their interstellar teapot deserve maximum ridicule. It is, therefore, with a heavy heart that in this instance I feel I may side with the Islamic nutcases. (Hopefully not..)

In a nutshell, a Bangladeshi Mosque has applied for permission to play the call to prayer over loudspeakers five times a day. Now, I would object to this. Why on Earth should I have to listen to some one else’s devotional wailings. This is not me being “anti-Islam.” I am not demanding they listen to Richard Dawkins five times a day… The people who run the Mosque are the ones wanting their beliefs to be forced upon others. It should also be noted that there are other Mosques in the area who haven’t asked for the call to be broadcast.

So far, I am very against the plans of this Mosque. Urban areas already have enough of a noise problem and adding to it (although I like the call to prayer) is a “BAD THING™.”

Now, reading through the article on CBSNews makes me change my opinions a little. We get some comments from the Mosque:

“It takes only one minute — what is it, five times a day? Five minutes only — that’s all we are asking for,” Masud Khan told CBS News Correspondent Lee Cowan.

If only it were that simple. Just because the inconvenience is minimal does not make it “right.” If it is such a small thing, why do they want it? Can’t they telephone the faithful and tell them the prayer is on? Broadcast it over the Internet? Anything. Five one minute interruptions add up to more “annoyance” than a five minute interruption.

Next there came a bit I cant help but agree with:

Muslims figured it was no different than Christians ringing church bells which incidentally ring just across the street from the mosque five times a day, reports Cowan.

Actually, I agree. Cant have one rule for one and one rule for another can we?

If the Christians get away with noise pollution (and I suspect the bell ringing will last longer than a minute a time), why cant the Muslims? Why cant every one else? Do Rastafarians get to play loud music five times a day?

The good old Christian Tolerance kicks in eventually:

Joanne Golen, a lifelong Hamtramck resident, said she finds the content of the call to prayer offensive. “It says Allah is the one and only God. I am Christian. My God is Jesus Christ. That is my only objection — that I have to listen to a God other than the one I believe in praised five times a day,” said Golen, 68.

Really? It is nice of Ms Golen to solve that theological argument – however I am not convinced that saying “My God is Jesus Christ” is really a legitimate phrase. While it could be argued that the holy trinity means Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are one and the same, this is different. Still, the devout don’t need to know their religion in depth – they have FAITH.

Caroline Zarski, 81, said allowing the call would put Islam above other religions.

Really? Why? Are church bells banned? Aha, I hear you say:

Opponents take issue with that comparison, saying that church bells today are used to mark the time of day and have no religious significance. If the bells are the issue, then turn them off, they say.

Ok. Turn them off then. If they are stopped there are no grounds for the Muslims to get the call to prayer. If the bells continue, I can’t see what logical grounds can deny the Call to Prayer.

It seems that no matter how hard I try (or dont try as the case may actually be), I cant avoid the madness that permates the Internet and specifically the Blogosphere. Just to get a bit of perspective, there are millions of websites, millions of blogs written by sane, “normal” people. They just aren’t as much fun…

The serendipitous wonder which has been following my bored searches on Technorati brought me to a blog by one “joannafrancis.” This really was a descent into the world of madness.

The internet has always been a hotbed for “conspiracy” lunatics of all branding, and among the big three Abrahamic religions, Jews often get a rough end of the conspriacy deal (people even try to claim General Relativity is a Jewish conspriacy), so lots of this blog is no real surprise. What is shocking, especially for a blog from what appears to be a devout Catholic(religion of compassion?) is the sheer vitriol and hatred which oozes from pretty much every word on every post.

Just to be open, the reason I think she is a Catholic is she makes the following statement: (read original)

And yet, what Catholics should realize, whether Novus Ordo, SSPX, or sedevacantist, is that these Jews from the SPLC are attacking not only our religion, but all of our ancestors as well.

As an atheist, I find it quite entertaining how much she rants about even the slightest hint of Jewishness in people (for instance, apparently Courtney Love is a Jew, based on an oblique entry in NNDB)

The post which really made me chuckle (on the assumption she reall is alone with these ideas) was made on 10 Nov 06, titled “Israeli Snipers Killing U.S. Troops?” in which she postulates the idea that Mossad or another Israeli organsiation is responsible for killing Americans in Iraq to drag the war out. It is a great post. It has every single one of the crackpot conspiracy nut hall marks in. It could be used as a teaching tool to help spot nutters.

She has some “proof” that the Israelis are involved, for example:

At the very beginning of this video clip, you see a rifle with a video camera attached to it. This weapon is made by the Rafael company, an Israeli arms manufacturer, that also makes IEDs.

So at the very least we know she has no idea at all what an IED actually is. If they were manufactured, they would not be “improvised” would they? Manufactured IEDs are called bombs and mines etc. After some nonsense about rifle mounted cameras being another sign of the Jews, she somes out with:

Mossad is a master at false flag operations, e.g., Oklahoma City, the attack on the USS Cole in Yemen, the bombing of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, the July 7, 2005 London bombings, the 9-11 attacks in New York, the assassination of the Prime Minister in Beirut, the stoking of Muslim riots in France last year, the bombing of the Hassan al-Askari Mosque in Samarra, Iraq, etc.

Wow. Mossad took out the World Trade Center and the London Underground. Amazing. I bet they even killed Jean Charles Menendes and just blamed it on the Metropolitan Police. I mean, he was a catholic as well wasn’t he?

The post carries on along these lines – even going as far as to say the Mossad Liaison was in charge of US troops at the time of a bombing in Fallujah. The rest of the posts on her site follow this thread. One of the other themes seems to be blaming Jews for American abortions – it all being part of a Jewish plot to kill more and more Americans.

Madness does not do her justice.

It seems that people who are guided by their belief in an imaginary being often get confused over what Atheism means. Atheism is not not “just another form of belief” and it is not a religion. Remember, Dawkins, Harris, Myers (et al) are not the Prophets of Atheism. They are not Ministers of Atheism.

People who follow a religion, and let it guide their lives sometimes have difficulty coming to terms with the concept, but part of being an Atheist is making up your own mind. There is no doctrinal book which says what all Atheists must believe, or how they should behave. Atheism allows the human to make their own choices. While this should be common sense, it seems some people really can not grasp it (for example Debbie Schlussel is convinced all Atheists are Muslims or brainwashed).

It is not just the offensive and idiotic theists who make these mistakes as well. Otherwise normal, decent followers of various religions can, sometimes, get confused over the matter. Take this example:

At the end of the day, we all have faith in something. Even an atheist has a kind of faith; faith in the absence of any god. (The Sleepless Nights Reading File)

Now, sorry to say, but no. Not all Atheists have faith in the absence of any God (see above for why I do not speak for any Atheists other than myself though). My understanding of the word “faith” is it means a belief in something without any evidence. A quick visit to Google and I can’t find any better definition.

Given this, I feel fully confident when I say I do not have faith in the absence of any god.

I have mentioned in the past the problem of debating matters of faith with theists, and this is a good example. I can think of nothing that I “believe” which can not be falsified. Every concept and I idea I hold, I can think of a way in which it could be proven wrong and I would (reluctantly maybe) have to rethink. I suspect the majority of theists are similar to Andrew Sullivan, in that when it comes to their religious faith, not only will they hold it without any supporting evidence, they will hold it in the face of contradictory evidence.

Maybe this is why some people think of religion as a mental illness. If I went about my daily business, believing (for example) that Cars could talk to you and gave you guidance as to how to live your life, I wouldn’t spend long before I started sleeping in a padded cell. Is it a double standard that we allow people to make the same apparently insane commentary simply because they can claim their “religion” has lasted for a few centuries?

imaginaryfriends,
originally uploaded by DiscoWeasel.

Well, some people may well be. Personally, given the comments about Atheism I have been reading today, I am not sure I care.

Is it acceptable for “theists” to complain about Godless Atheists but unacceptable for a godless atheist to mock the theist?

Personally I think not.

Take this picture any way you want

Or is that just insane? There is an excellent post on Effect Measure today which chronicles some of the nutcases who can get on TV as long as they are praising their Lord.

All the good, pertinent points have already been made over there, and it is late here so I wont write too much.The post begins with a bit of background when a family complained about too much prayer in their children’s school (what ever happened to separation of Church and State in the US?):

This week [Austin Cline] discusses a Paula Zahn show on CNN that begins with a brief vignette about couple in a small town in Mississippi who complained to their son’s public elementary school principal about time spent in bible study and prayer. Yes, his public elementary school. For their trouble they became outcasts. No one would speak to them or let their children play with their children. When it was later revealed they were atheists, the father’s boss got calls complaining he had brought an atheist to town. People drove parked in front of their house and stared at them as if they were animals in a zoo. They left town.

This on its own is shocking enough, but the rest of the transcript takes it to a new level. I can’t do it enough justice here, pop over to Effect Measure and see it for yourself. The panelists are barely coherent in their urge to insult and denigrate Atheists. So much for Christian compassion – they would rather you worshipped Zeus than no God at all. The comment “I’m Jewish, but I recognize we’re a Christian country and freedom of religion doesn’t mean freedom from religion” really made me laugh. What idiocy.

Makes you wonder, when the Land of the Free shows the same religious tolerance as a fundamentalist Islamic dictatorship…..

As I said before, Christianity is a hard target to avoid when it comes the black humour provided by intolerant, bigoted religious crackpots. This time I may have been able to hit two religions with one post though. (The pictures are nothing to do with the text they are just here to make the blog look pretty )

Part of the problem seems to stem from Religions, being inherently “faith” based (surely by definition) superstition cults, trying to bring themselves into the modern, post-Renaissance era of logic and reasoned thought.

It seems barely a day can pass without coming across more examples of religious hatred, intolerance and the mockery that the “faithful” make of their own gospels.

Now, I have been asked a few times recently why Christianity bears the brunt of my attacks here, rather than the other two crackpot, abrahamic religions. This is especially relevant as most of my vitrol towards religion is based on its refusal to accept science and its abhorrent intollerance. On the face of it, Christianity is “more” tolerant than Islam or Judaism, so why do I attack Christianity the most?

First off, I am sorry. I had hoped that I would be able to avoid blogging on either Dawkins or religious nutcases again today. I have failed.

By chance, I found a link saying Richard Dawkins was BBC Man of the Year 2006, which I found very odd as I hadn’t noticed it anywhere else (and a general search of Google or the BBC does not provide this either). This seems to be an American Buddhist related website which found a link to a blog written by William Crawley, who works with BBC Northern Ireland and had put together his own list of “Person of the Year.” The Integral Options website seems somewhat scathing of Dawkins but nothing off the rails or anything and about 50% of the population don’t like him anyway.